The Genesis of Goethe’s last Novel: Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre (1821)

Renata Schellenberg

 

Most critical studies of the Wanderjahre focus on the 1829 version of the work. The original 1821 version is often overlooked, or even neglected, by scholars, who deem the second, later edition a more “complete” publication.[i] Their predilection can be partially explained in terms of the lack of accessibility of the original manuscript. Due to the widespread acceptance of the 1829 version of the work, it became the version that was subsequently republished. The 1821 Wanderjahre only reappeared in 1921, on the centenary of its initial publication. The problem with accessibility has been alleviated in recent years, with two separate editions of Goethe’s collected works including both versions of the Wanderjahre as part of their corpus.[ii] Unfortunately, as of yet, this has not yielded a renewed interest in the 1821 version, with most recent studies still focusing on the 1829 version as the only legitimate story of the Wanderjahre. A brief consideration of the circumstances, style and content of the initial 1821 version of the novel is necessary, however, for it provides an introductory prelude to its later counterpart, offering unique insight into the motivation and modus of thought underlying the conception of the work as a whole.

As early as 1796 Goethe recorded his intention to continue the story of Wilhelm Meister beyond the initial stage of the character’s apprenticeship. In a letter to Schiller he wrote:

Bey jenem wird die Hauptfrage seyn: wo sich die Lehrjahre schließen, die eigentlich gegeben werden sollen, und in wie fern man Absicht hat, künftig die Figuren etwa noch einaml auftreten zu lassen. Ihr heutiger Brief deutet mir eigentlich auf eine Fortsetzung des Werks, wozu ich wohl Idee und Lust habe…(FA 10: 777)[iii]

The idea of writing a sequel to his novel Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre reappears at various points throughout the next few years in his correspondence with friends and colleagues, with further clues that the conceptualization of the narrative is somehow underway.[iv] However, it is only in 1807 that one finds concrete and authoritative evidence that the act of writing is actually taking place. In his journal Goethe wrote: “Morgens um ½ 7 Uhr angefangen, von Wilhelms Meisters Wanderjahre das erste Capitel zu dictieren” (FA 10: 783). The prolonged launch of the course of the Wilhelm Meister narrative is only the initial delay in the complicated story of its development and delivery, which spanned another 14 years of events until the novel was finally published in its original form in 1821.

      Concurrent with the early work on the Wanderjahre, Goethe was also developing a plan for a separate cyclical novel. Referring to the structure of what would ultimately become Unterhaltungen deutscher Ausgewanderten, he wrote: “Ich liebe mir sehr Parallelgeschichten. Eine deutet auf die andere hin und erklärt ihren Sinn besser als viele trockene Worte” (FA 10: 778). In addition to this other project, Goethe also began to write a separate series of novellas for the Wanderjahre. The purpose of these narrative insertions within the main narrative seemed, however, either undetermined or uncertain, for one of the novellas that came out of this cycle was Die Wahlverwandschaften, which was later published as an autonomous novel in its own right in 1809. The writing of the Wanderjahre novellas is furthermore interesting because it revealed a strange preoccupation on the author’s part as to how the finished stories should be presented, published and read. Thus rather than publishing them together as the cohesive unit they were intended to be, Goethe published the novellas intermittently throughout 1808-09, as if he were consciously reluctant to release them to the open scrutiny of his reading public.

      The fragmentary publication of the novellas in Cotta’s Taschenbuch für Damen raises some interesting questions. Was Goethe hesitant to disclose that he was writing another Wilhelm Meister novel? Or was he being secretive in order to devise a proper strategy for the delivery of his new project? Details surrounding the publication of the novellas only serve to heighten one’s curiosity concerning these matters. The initial Wanderjahre novella to be published by Goethe in the Damenkalender was Die pilgernde Törin, a story that in the 1821 version of the novel occupies belated prominence, appearing only in the sixteenth chapter of the work. The story was not the first novella to be completed by Goethe in his cycle; three other novellas had been previously written.[v] Wolfgang Bunzel argues that by choosing Die pilgernde Törin for publication first, Goethe was procrastinating with a clear announcement of his intention to write the Lehrjahre sequel, and wanted his reading public to think that the novella was an autonomous publication. According to Bunzel, Goethe consciously picked Die pilgernde Törin because it was a translation from the French manuscript entitled La folle en pélérinage, the authorship of which he could point to and disassociate himself from in case of negative reception. As Bunzel maintains, neither his publisher Cotta, nor the reading public knew that Goethe was in fact writing the novella for the Wanderjahre (192). His intentions were only revealed after the story was both published and favourably received, whereupon the author allowed a formal statement to be made about his work in progress.

      In 1809 four more novellas appeared in the Damenkalender, complete with title page and explicit indication that more of the novel was to come. Bunzel cites the original caption of the second chapter published in the journal in which Goethe wrote: “Hier folgt im Original ein Brief an Natalien, wodurch die Wanderjahre eingeleitet und an die Lehrjahre angeknüpft werden” (195). Goethe’s intention to awake interest and curiosity in his work was coupled with the confidence that he was making speedy progress with the completion of the novel. Thus in 1809 he wrote to Cotta:

Da ich Ihnen zusagte, abermals etwas in den DamenCalendar zu schicken, so dachte ich abermals ein Stück von Wilhlem Meisters Wanderjahren zu senden. Da ich aber, indem ich die Vorarbeiten wieder durchsehe und angreife, die Möglichkeit fühle, wo nicht zu Ostern, doch zu Michaelis, wenigstens den ersten Band dieses Bändchens herauszugeben; so werden Sie verzeihen, wenn meine Theilnahme dießmal nur in wenigem besteht. (FA 10: 785)

However, rather than completing the novel within the framework indicated, his work on the manuscript stalled, which delayed publication until 1821. No formal statement was issued as to why this might have occurred. Goethe wrote to Cotta in 1810 stating that he was he was revaluating his approach to the text, saying: “An den Wanderjahren wird gearbeitet. Ob aber ein Theil fertig wird, weiß ich kaum zu sagen. Es ist mir das Werk unter der Arbeit lieber geworden, und ich sehe erst jetzt wieviel sich für dasselbe und durch dasselbe thun läßt” (FA 10: 786) Instead of completing the novel at this time, Goethe engaged in other projects, continuing to write and publish other manuscripts throughout the decade. He never fully returned to the Wanderjahre with the same degree of enthusiasm, or sense of completion, even at the date of its publication in 1821.

In the years between 1810 and 1821 Goethe focused on other literary endeavours. Most notably, he wrote his autobiography Dichtung und Wahrheit (1811-22), while also completing less comprehensive works such as Italienische Reise (1816), and West-östlicher Divan (1819). In 1816 he began publishing a six volume cultural compendium Über Kunst und Altertum, the publication of which would steadily continue until his death in 1832. Two seminal scientific works were published at this time as well: the Farbenlehre (1810) and the first volume of his Hefte zur Morphologie (1817-1823). The Colour Theory was particularly problematic for Goethe, because it elicited a decidedly negative response from the scientific community, who objected en masse to both his treatment of light, and of Sir Isaac Newton. Goethe seemed surprisingly unconcerned with the controversy that took place, and appeared to have detached himself from further work on the Farbenlehre, by choosing to immerse himself in other projects instead. He documented his activities at the time in the following manner:

Als, im Mai des Jahres 1810, der Druck meiner Farbenlehre geendigt war, reiste ich nach Karlsbad, mit dem festen Vorsatz: diesen Betrachtungen, in so fern es möglich wäre, sobald nicht weiter nachzuhangen. Ich wandte Sinn und Gedanken gegen biographische Erinnerungen, rekapitulierte mein eigenes Leben so wie das Leben eingreifender Freunde. Hackerts Biographie ward vorgesucht und, weil ich einmal ins Erzählen gekommen war, mehrere kleine Novellen, Geschichten, Romane, wie man sie niedergeschrieben, deren Stoff mir längst schon erfreulich gewesen, die ich oft genug in guter Gesellschaft erzählt, und, nach endlicher Behandlung, unter dem Titel: Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre zu sammeln und zu vereinigen gedachte. (FA 25.1: 757)

However, following this statement, he also compiled a list of names and publications belonging to people who opposed his colour theory, and whom he himself categorized as his Widersacher, demonstrating that, despite appearances, he was not entirely indifferent to the critical climate surrounding his work on the Colour Theory.

It is difficult to estimate the degree to which the negative reception of the Farbenlehre actually distracted Goethe from his progress on the Wanderjahre. His scientific pursuits were of ongoing importance for him, and he often specified their value within the larger corpus of his work. He viewed his scientific writings as a necessary accompaniment to his more celebrated literary endeavours, and held certain expectations for these texts as a whole. He believed that they accurately portrayed aspects of his thought processes that could not be revealed in his fictional work alone. In the introduction to Hefte zur Morphologie he wrote: “Man sehe daher den Inhalt dieser Blätter, wenn man sie auch jetzt für überflüssig halten sollte, geschichtlich an, da sie denn als Zeugnise einer stillen, beharrlichen Tätigkeit gelten mögen” (FA 24: 405). Following the negative reception of the Colour Theory, Goethe began to receive unsolicited support from certain scientists, who recognized the merit of his approach. A physicist, Johann Thomas Seebeck, became a close collaborator at this time, for example. Seebeck was a prominent scientist in his own right, accredited with the discovery of entoptic colours in 1813, for which he received recognition from the Institut de France in 1815. He drew parallels between his findings and those documented in the Farbenlehre, becoming the first contemporary scientist to give the work any type of credence. Goethe maintained contact with Seebeck after 1813, while conducting a series of his own experiments on entoptic colours, demonstrating that he was still involved and very much interested in the field of chromatic studies.

He viewed the discovery of entoptic colours as a natural progression in tune with his own study of physical colours, and included Seebeck’s study in the first volume of Zur Naturwissenschaft überhaupt in 1817. He then engaged in a thorough investigation of the scientist’s experiments himself. In 1820 he published the results of his findings as a separate text entitled Entoptische Farben, which he considered an additional segment to his original Farbenlehre. His renewed interest and activity in the field of colour theory resulted in a more complete publication entitled Chromatik in 1822, in which he categorized and compiled work done by him in the field since 1810. The manuscript also listed advances made by the scientific establishment that were not included in his original study, and it was here that he made honourable mention of Etienne Malus’ discovery (one of his listed adversaries!) of the Polarisation of Light, which he ignored in his earlier synopsis. Chromatik is deemed the official supplement to the Farbenlehre since it follows the exact sequence and organization of the original text, replacing thus the anticipated third volume of the work.[vi]

Seebeck’s discovery of entoptic colours and his subsequent collaboration on the publication of the manuscript in 1817, reinforced Goethe’s belief in the validity of his own colour theory. In the introduction to Chromatik he self-confidently wrote:

Nach abgeschlossenem entoptischen Vortrag, dessen Bearbeitung uns mehrere Jahre beschäftigt, nach dem frischen Beweis, daß an unsere Farbenlehre sich jede neu entdeckte Erscheinung freundlich anschließt, ins Ganze fügt und keiner besondern theoretischen Erklärung bedarf, finden wir die Sache geraten, manches Einzelne was sich bisher gesammelt hier gleichfalls darzulegen und in jene Einheit zu verschlingen. Den Hauptsinn unseres ganzen Vorhabens wiederholen wir daher, weil das meiste was bis jetzt über Farbe öffentlich gesagt worden, auf das deutlichste zeigt, daß man meine Bemühungen entweder nicht kennt oder nicht verstehen will. (FA 25.1: 739)

Chromatik integrated a number of positive critical responses from Goethe’s contemporaries as part of its text, as further evidence of the strength of his chromatic studies. In 1819 he received additional support for his theory from physiologist Johannes Purkinje, whose essay “Das Sehen in subjektiver Hinsicht” agreed with statements made in the Farbenlehre regarding physiological colours. Despite the seemingly supportive climate, and the author’s growing assurance as to the correctness of his views, Goethe still seemed puzzled and concerned with the initial failure of the work in 1810. His preoccupation with this matter is evident in the manner in which he kept track of the scientists who rejected his works, but it is also became a documented topic of discussion in his many private conversations with friends and colleagues.

      Following the publication of the Farbenlehre, Goethe discussed the organization of the text on various occasions, because he was trying to assess whether there were any inherent flaws in the original presentation of the work. In Chromatik he documented a conversation he had had with Friedrich Siegmund Voigt, a professor of Botany in Jena at the time, in which his colleague criticized him for the manner in which he had published his original Colour Theory. Voigt claimed that when Goethe published the Beiträge zur Optik (1791-92), he misstated his intentions, inviting subsequent criticism by misleading others into believing that he was interested primarily in optics and not in colours alone. Voigt also felt that more emphasis should have been given to the direction of the Beiträge text, namely that it was primarily intended as a forerunner to a larger colour theory that was in progress. Goethe noted his comments, apparently with acceptance:

Es scheint mir dieser Fall merkwürdig genug, um aufmerksam zu machen, wie eine falsche Behandlung bei Einleitung eines wichtigsten Gegenstandes das Geschäft so viel Jahre erschweren, wo nicht gar dessen Ausführung völlig hindern könne, eben wie durch eine verfehlte Rechtsform die triftigste Rechtssache verloren werden kann. Ich mußte lange leben, um zu sehen daß jener Fehler sich nach und nach durch die Zeit verbessere. (FA 25.1: 760)  

The relevance of this incident is twofold for Wanderjahre scholarship. To those familiar with the circumstances surrounding its publication, it is ominous in a sense, for it foreshadows the predicament in which the 1821 version found itself. The novel was published alongside a false version bearing the same title, which marred the reception of the work and confused the reading public. At another level, Goethe’s sudden awareness of the many aspects of the reception and organization of a text can be also interpreted as translating into a heightened sense of caution when faced with the publication of his own text, which, in turn, may explain the belated appearance of the Wanderjahre in 1821.

      Evidence that Goethe may have adopted a more contemplative stance towards his own work after 1810 is prominent in correspondence regarding the 1821 version of the Wanderjahre. In contrast to the playful attitude he assumed towards its publication a decade earlier in Cottas Damenkalender, and the seeming ease with which he produced the cycle of novellas for his readers, Goethe approached the finished novel in a more serious manner. Prior to publication he wrote to his friend Carl Friedrich Zelter about it:

Hier kommen also die Wanderjahre angezogen, ich hoffe, sie sollen bei näherer Betrachtung gewinnen; denn ich kann mich rühmen, daß keine Zeile drinnen steht, die nicht gefühlt oder gedacht wäre. Der echte Leser wird das alles schon wieder heraus fühlen und denken. (FA 9.2: 213)

The Wanderjahre, however, was not the only literary concern he had at this time, and he openly revealed that he was thinking of other projects as well. Thus, in the same letter to Zelter he conveyed his excitement regarding the belated, but positive, response the Farbenlehre was currently receiving:

Von Professor Hegel, der meiner Farbenlehre günstig, mir geistreiche Worte meldet, habe so eben einen Schüler, Doktor Henning, gesprochen, welcher gleichfalls für diese Lehre entzündet, manches Gute wirken wird; es wäre wunderlich genug, wenn ich noch in dieser Provinz triumphierte. (FA 9.2: 213)

Inserted as a footnote to the main content of the letter, this comment would appear to suggest that Goethe did not anticipate the failure of the Wanderjahre, and that unlike his Colour Theory, he thought the novel would be a success. Ironically, his assurance might have derived from precisely the experience of the publication of the Farbenlehre. By 1821 the novellas that comprise the narrative core of the Wanderjahre had also been in circulation for ten years, and therefore he might well have thought that the reading public had developed sufficient sophistication to embrace them in their new setting.  

What is further noteworthy in this letter is the way in which these two very distinct works appear as an intertwined entity in Goethe’s mind. Larissa Kritschil wrote a study concerning the author’s mode of thought in his later years, and claims that a heuristic, combinatory tendency was detectable in all his endeavours after 1800. In her view, it was customary for him to mix and combine seemingly disparate elements, because he developed a balanced, but permeable regard for the significance of these things. She defines his outlook at this time as that of “Ganzheitspostulat” in which, through the polar treatment of opposites, various elements are brought together, resulting in the “…Zusammenspiel von Geist und Auge, Ideellem und Wirklichem, Einbildungskraft und Natur, Poesie und Wissenschaft, Individuum und Außeneinflüssen” (217). The key to reading these later texts, with their incongruent accumulation of material, lies, in her view, in a focused but flexible approach that is willing to recognize, but also accommodate the inherent complexity of the manuscript. The focus of Kritschil’s monograph is the enhanced role the reader’s imaginative capacity plays in the whole process of reading and accessing Goethe’s works.

Imagination is variably defined as either Einbildungskraft or Anschauung in Goethe’s own words. The importance of this faculty for his scientific work was paramount, as he articulated to Friedrich von Müller in 1824:

Im Grunde ist ohne diese hohe Gabe ein wirklicher großer Naturforscher gar nicht zu denken. Und zwar meine ich nicht eine Einbildungskraft, die ins Vage geht und sich Dinge imaginiert, die nicht existieren; sondern ich meine eine solche, die den wirklichen Boden der Erde nicht verläßt und mit dem Maßstabe des Wirklichen und Erkannten zu geahndeten, vermuteten Dingen schreitet. (FA 10.2: 235)

Imaginative insight allowed a different, more dynamic understanding of his work. It freed his scientific discoveries from rational scrutiny and a Newtonian subjugation to formulaic explanation. The advantages of this type of approach, however, did not appear to be limited to science alone. In 1821 Goethe engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding the nature of imagination with his friend Carl Ludwig von Knebel, arguing its importance in the realm of literature. Their correspondence was centred on the latter’s translation of Lucretius, which Goethe saw as proceeding in a certain way. He insisted that Knebel must adapt his approach to the writings of the Roman poet, in order to deliver an appropriate translation capable of reflecting its true meaning. Arguing against a literal translation, he encouraged Knebel to take on a different view of the text and to consider it as something more vibrant than was readily apparent on the page. He stated: “Zur Anschauung gesellt sich die Einbildungskraft, diese ist zuerst nachbildend, die Gegenstände nur wiederholend. Sodann ist sie produktiv, indem sie das Angefaßte belebt, entwickelt, erweitert, verwandelt” (FA 9.2: 152). This discussion and course of thought overlaps with the completion of the Wanderjahre, both of which are documented on the same day in his journal in February of 1821 (FA 9.2: 150).

Preceding the publication of the Wanderjahre, it appears as if Goethe was encouraging and anticipating the same type of approach to his own literary work. His correspondence from this period contains many entries in which he alerts both his friends and critics to a certain manner in which they should read the narrative. He was conscious that it was a difficult novel to read, and aware that this could be an obstacle to its accessibility and success, he directed his readers towards a closer, more concentrated approach. He appealed to them to look beyond the unorthodox structure of the work, and to read the text as an intentionally disparate, but not incoherent piece of literature: “…Zusammenhang, Ziel und Zweck liegt innerhalb des Büchleins selbst; ist es nicht aus Einem Stück, so ist es doch aus Einem Sinn, und dies war eben die Aufgabe…” (FA 10: 853). Goethe’s aposematic comments concerning the work never received the hearing they deserved as they were eclipsed by larger events taking place, for concurrent to the publication of his version of the Wanderjahre, another novel with the same title appeared, creating unanticipated competition within an already limited readership.

The appearance of the “false” Wanderjahre was a professional embarrassment for Goethe. It was published anonymously in early May 1821, ahead of the release of the authentic manuscript, coinciding with the annual Easter Fair in Leipzig where it received ample exposure. Initially, the public believed it was Goethe’s work, a fact made worse when they responded favourably to its storyline. The confusion surrounding authorship of the two novels was settled only a few weeks later when the authentic Wanderjahre was published, but by this point damage to the author’s reputation and standing had already been done. The publication of the “false” Wanderjahre, and the discussion that consequently ensued, gave occasion to an overall review of Goethe’s status as the nation’s leading writer and poet, opening up a venue for criticism and rebuke. The situation was aggravated by the serialized nature of the false narrative, which continued to be published under the Wilhelm Meister title in five separate instalments until 1828.

In 1822, upon publication of the second instalment Wilhelm Meisters Tagebuch, the author of the manuscript was revealed to be Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Pustkuchen, a minister with no previous publishing background. It is still unclear how he was able to gain access to the details of the narrative, and/or whether he simply abused Goethe’s announcement of the Wanderjahre from a decade earlier. It is known, however, that there were technical problems with the printing of the authentic manuscript, and had this not happened, the novel would have appeared at its anticipated deadline in the early months of 1821, and thus not coincided with the false version. Pustkuchen’s motivation for writing a separate version of the Wanderjahre has not been precisely defined. In retrospect, his actions can be interpreted either as an extreme manifestation of enthusiasm for the Lehrjahre narrative, which he saw as proceeding in a certain way, or as a sign of deep-rooted criticism for Goethe as its author, whom he deemed inadequate to finish the story of Wilhelm Meister in proper fashion.

In his analysis of the situation, Thomas Wolf ascribes a less generous impulse as underlying Pustkuchen’s endeavour. He describes the revolutionary nature of the changing literary scene in Germany in the early 1800’s, as well as the distinctly anti-Goethe mood shared by publishers such as Gottfried Basse, who oversaw the publication of the “false” Wanderjahre. Wolf argues that in view of these circumstances, and the anonymous manner in which Pustkuchen’s novel was initially published, the manuscript cannot be read as a persiflage, satire or even as a direct pasquille of the original narrative. Instead, he claims that the “false” Wanderjahre was conceived as a deliberate and direct Schmähschrift against the author, which aimed at discrediting him at a professional level (149). Pustkuchen’s perspective on the Wilhelm Meister character and on the novel as a whole diverged sharply with Goethe’s own intentions concerning the same, and he altered the direction of the narrative to suit his purpose. He shaped the character of Wilhelm Meister according to the aesthetic and pedagogical goals he envisioned and thus, in the final instalment of his Wanderjahre Wilhelm Meister becomes a court poet who continues along the predetermined path set by earlier events of the Lehrjahre. The “real” Wilhelm Meister, on the other hand, had a decidedly different fate, which while less predictable, was more in tune with the thoughts and feelings of the late Goethe.

The impact of Pustkuchen’s Wanderjahre on the author and his decision to write the second part of his own version is also not clear. Wolf attempts to portray Goethe’s reaction to, what can be rightfully interpreted as, the theft of his narrative, by assembling the recollections of those close to him at the time, and rendering their impressions as to his state of mind. He cites a letter written by Johann Friedrich Rochlitz in 1822, in which the following observation was made:

Er [Goethe] ist zu stolz, mit Irgendjemand zu sprechen oder Irgenjemand bestimmt darüber zu schreiben. Aber der Kampf mit sich selbst, um überall persönlich wie schriftlich wie vorher zu erscheinen, obgleich er innerlich äußerst bewegt ist – mehr als er sein sollte und sein würde, wäre er nicht ein Siebziger – hilft ihm aufzureiben, hat ihn fast von Jedermann zurückgescheut, sehr verdüstert und ihm wahrscheinlich den Rest seiner Tage verekelt. (292)

Goethe never addressed Pustkuchen directly about the legitimacy of his work, leaving many to wonder how he truly felt about the entire affair. His only response to this uncomfortable situation is contained in the form of two small poems, which were never intended for publication. “Goethe und Pustkuchen” was published anonymously in 1823 in Berliner Nachrichten, with only a close circle of friends knowing its true source. “Gegen Pustkuchen” was published prior to publication of the second version of the Wanderjahre in Zeitung für die elegante Welt in 1828.[vii]

Goethe’s restrained demeanour vis-à-vis the Pustkuchen-situation contrasts sharply with the reaction given to those critics who published positive reviews of the authentic version of the Wanderjahre. He carefully noted who these allies were, and how they focused solely on his novel in their reading, and thanked them openly for their effort. Writer Karl August Varnhagen von Ense was singled out in this regard when Goethe wrote a glowing commentary of his support and understanding in the Geneigte Teilnahme an den Wanderjahren in 1822. Although he withheld any immediate response, there is evidence that shows that he paid attention to the negative criticism surrounding the novel as well. Thus when critic Adolph Müllner published a comparative study of the two versions of Wanderjahre in the Literaturblatt in 1822, claiming that Pustkuchen’s version was the better text, Goethe retaliated years later by including Müllner as implicit material for his Zahmen Xenien in 1827.

Work on the anticipated second part of the Wanderjahre stalled. Similar as to his behaviour a decade earlier, Goethe immersed himself in the writing of other texts and the consideration of other projects. Among his scientific pursuits at this time, are the publication of the second volume of Hefte zur Morphologie between 1823-24, and that of his meteorological studies in 1825. He was also engrossed in the Farbenlehre again, after it experienced an unexpected revival in popularity and demand. Following Seebeck’s discovery of entoptic colours in 1813, there was growing interest in his Colour Theory. In 1821 Leopold Dorotheus Henning, a professor of Philosophy at the University of Berlin, approached him for permission to incorporate the Farbenlehre as part of his lectures. Purkinje also personally visited the author in Weimar in 1822 to discuss questions concerning physiological colours. Judging by the comments made in his correspondence and journal entries, Goethe was flattered by the interest shown, interpreting it as a belated acknowledgment of the validity of his theory. The field of optic and chromatic studies was also undergoing a change. In 1827, the Saint Petersburg Academy of Science reopened the question concerning the nature of light, offering a prize to the scientist capable of explaining its contradictory undulant and corpuscular quality. Goethe interpreted the competition as the end of Newton’s unquestioned rule in the arena of optics and colours, which in his mind, also finally refuted the absolute authority of his theory on the refraction of light.

These developments coincided with the continuous and serialized publication of the “false” Wanderjahre by Pustkuchen. Goethe’s own intention to continue his story of Wilhelm Meister were announced in an circuitous way only in 1826, by stating that he was attempting to restructure the novel as a whole. Wolf cites the announcement made in Anzeige von Goethes sämtlichen Werken, in which the author claimed:

Die wunderlichen Schicksale, welche dies Büchlein bei seinem ersten Auftreten erfahren mußte, gaben dem Verfasser guten Humor und Lust genug, dieser Produktion neue, doppelte Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken. Es unterhielt ihn, das Werklein von Grund aus aufzulösen und wieder neu aufzubauen, so daß nun in einem ganz Anderen dasselbe wieder erscheinen wird. (304)

The 1829 version of the Wanderjahre was consequently not conceived as a continuation of the original manuscript, but as an entirely new project. It overlaps with the 1821 novel in its title, basic cast of characters and its use of the cyclical novellas. The additions made to the later version were subtle but also significant, and they changed the intention of the original work. The 1829 Wanderjahre is thus read as a distinct literary endeavour from its 1821 counterpart. Critics agree that Pustkuchen’s influence on the changes in the 1829 narrative can be interpreted at best as incidental, for in the end the “false” version had little actual bearing on the formation of the second version of the work (Wolf 305). Nevertheless, it is important to note that Goethe waited until 1828 - the year that the run of the “false” Wanderjahre ended - to announce that he had continued writing his own version of the story. 

 

Notes

Works Cited

 

Bunzel, Wolfgang. Poetik und Publikation: Goethes Veröffentlichungen in Musenalmanachen und literarischen Taschenbüchern: mit einer Bibliographie der Erst- und autorisierten Folgedrucke literarischer Texte Goethes in Almanach (1773-1832). Weimar: Böhlau, 1997.

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. Sämtliche Werke: Briefe, Tagebücher und Gespräche. Ed. Hendrik Birus et al. 40 vols. to date. Frankfurt/Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1985 -.

Kritschil, Larissa. Zwischen „schöpferischer Kraft und selbstgeschaffnem Wahn“: Die Imagination in Goethes Romanen. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1999.

Wolf, Thomas. Pustkuchen und Goethe: Die Streitschrift als produktives Verwirrspiel. Tübingen: Niemayer, 1999.