UC Davis

This dissertation examines the formation of German national identity around 1800 by analyzing how intellectuals— Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805), and Heinrich von Kleist (1777-1811)—conceptualized nationalism and patriotism in response to Enlightenment thought, the Napoleonic Wars, and the political realities and constraints of the German speaking Kleinstaaterei. Drawing on cultural, linguistic, and literary frameworks, as well as depictions of war, revolution, and resistance, this project situates these authors within broader debates on the moral and political dimensions of nationalism. Engaging theories from scholars such as Bendict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm, Ernst Gellner, Nenand Miscevic, and Igor Primoratz, I highlight the dual potential of nationalism and patriotism as both emancipatory forces grounded in egalitarian ideals and as exclusionary, violent movements tied to colonial and imperial practices. This analysis underscores how German literary productions contributed to the “imagined community” of a nation-in-formation, while also revealing the enduring tension between inclusive and chauvinistic visions of belonging.This dissertation also traces the function and conception of nationalism as far back as the 10th to 15th centuries, following arguments advanced by Caspar Hirschi and Herfried Münkler. Their work informs my discussion of the relationship between nation-building and the patriotic or nationalistic practices of reimagining and remythologizing the past. Such myth-making frequently draws on one of the earliest extant texts concerning the origins of the Germanic peoples: Tacitus’ Germania (98 CE). I argue that the representations of “Germanness” in Germania, and their reception by German humanists, decisively shaped the trajectory of German national ideation into the 18th and 19th centuries—most notably in Kleist’s remythologization of the Arminius saga. Chapter one examines Johann Gottfried Herder’s and Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s divergent conceptions of the German nation. While both emphasize a cultural and linguistic revival as central to German identity, Herder grounds his vision in a theory of language, history, and Humanität—a progressive concept of humanity—, advocating for a liberal and egalitarian nationalism that resists colonialism, slavery, and authoritarian overreach. He conceives of the nation as a cultural and linguistic community whose intrinsic value lies in its capacity to foster human freedom and diversity. Fichte, by contrast, although similarly invested in revitalizing German culture, articulates in his Reden an die deutsche Nation (1808) in a more ethnically defined and politically reactive nationalism, shaped by the French occupation. His thought oscillates between exclusionary, ethnic criteria and occasional gestures toward a more inclusive, liberal nationalism, rendering his position markedly inconsistent. Chapter two explores Friedrich Schiller’s conception of the nation through the lens of his aesthetic philosophy and moderate patriotism. Seeking to reconcile Enlightenment rationality with emotional expression, Schiller advances the idea of an aesthetic education capable of transforming society into a Menschenrepublik. Written in the wake of the French Revolution, his Aesthetic Letters (1795) and later dramas—including Wilhelm Tell (1804)—articulate a vision of republican community rooted in beauty, freedom, and resistance to tyranny. Schiller’s synthesis of aesthetics and politics thus contributes to an egalitarian, democratic notion of the German nation, aligning with what Herder termed a “purified patriotism.” Chapter three investigates Heinrich von Kleist’s paradoxical nationalism, which combines fervent calls for resistance with a subversive critique of violent patriotism. In works such as Die Hermannsschlacht (1808), Germania an ihre Kinder (1809), and the Katechismus der Deutschen (1809), Kleist remythologizes the Arminius saga to frame anti-Napoleonic resistance, yet his depictions of excess, brutality, and moral compromise undermine the very nationalist fervor they appear to promote. Unlike Fichte, Kleist defines the nation through sovereignty and emancipation rather than ethnicity, aligning with liberal arguments for remedial rights against oppression. At the same time, his portrayal of Hermann reveals the destructive extremes of chauvinistic nationalism, exposing the dangers of rebellion corrupted by violence and excess. Kleist’s vision of the German nation thus oscillates between advocacy for liberation and a nihilistic warning about the perils of resistance and wanton patriotic fervor.