Abstract: This article provides an overview of the starkly divided responses of German intellectuals to Napoleon and contrasts Goethe's and Caroline de la Motte Fouqué's representations of the French emperor, arguing that Goethe’s perception of the foreign ruler is linked to his notion of genius. Goethe saw in Napoleon the embodiment of strong leadership and considered him capable of containing violence and anarchy. While Goethe's response is marked by his cosmopolitan attitude, de la Motte Fouqué's attitude toward Napoleon is characterized by pronounced nationalism and violent hatred of the French. Her novel Edmund's Wege und Irrwege champions warfare as a means of personal catharsis and national rejuvenation.

Keywords: Napoleon, Caroline de la Motte Fouqué, warfare, nationalism

WE HAVE COME TO THINK OF our current moment as one of singular polarization. And yet, if we survey the political climate of early nineteenth-century Europe in general and the responses of German writers and thinkers to the momentous changes embodied by Napoleon in particular, we encounter an ideological landscape that is marked by stark contrasts and fierce opinions. These conflicting attitudes were rooted not only in Napoleon's personality (in what Byron called Napoleon's “antithetically mixed” spirit) and in the ideological and temperamental dispositions of his contemporaries, but also in the nature and impact of Napoleon's rule and policies in Germany.

In order to illuminate the division engendered by Napoleon, this article contrasts Goethe's response to the French emperor with that of Caroline de la Motte Fouqué. Much previous research on Goethe and Napoleon has focused on their personal encounter and on the import of Napoleon's comments on Werther. In contrast, I am interested in the larger significance of the figure of Napoleon for Goethe's thinking. I link Goethe's perception of Napoleon to his notion of genius, arguing that Goethe admired the Corsican’s Faustian energy and saw in him an exemplary incarnation of a “Tatmensch.” But his response to the French emperor was also informed by his conviction that only strong centralized leadership grounded in military success can contain violence and guarantee order and stability.