Graf von Loeben and the Legend of Lorelei From "Modern Philology" vol. 13 (1915) — A Closer Reading

Loeben's Place in Literary History

Porterfield categorizes Loeben among the Afterromantiker who, through imitative and formless works, brought real romanticism into disrepute. He cites six of twenty major literary histories that mention Loeben only as a member of the Dresden pseudo-romanticists or as a footnote to other poets. Yet Loeben was prolific, writing across all genres, with his novel Guido (under the pseudonym 'Isidorus Orientalis') intended as a continuation of Brentano's Godwi. The essay notes that Loeben's running was 'interesting' but never victorious—a judgment supported by the lack of any single work still read for its own sake.

Poetic Style and Influences

Porterfield provides concrete evidence of Loeben's derivative style. His poem 'Der Abend' recalls Hölderlin's 'Die Nacht'; 'Tag und Nacht' echoes Novalis's Hymnen an die Nacht; and his sonnets on artists like Correggio and Ruisdael mimic W. Schlegel's poems on other poets. The essay quotes a triolett as a type of Loeben's 'prettiness,' with its repetitive structure and delicate imagery. Porterfield also notes Loeben's idiosyncratic spellings—'Nez,' 'zwey,' 'Saffo'—and cites Heinrich Welti's severe criticism that only 'the mere form of form' is noteworthy in Loeben's sonnets.

The Lorelei Connection and Critical Reception

The essay's core argument is that Loeben's sole claim to remembrance is his link to the Lorelei legend. Porterfield contrasts Loeben's version with later, more famous treatments, noting that Loeben's poem uses the line 'Lieb Knabe, sieh' nicht hinauf' (later altered to 'Schau', Schiffer, schau' nicht hinauf' in reprints). He also discusses the lack of action in Loeben's story, quoting the hero Otto who says he has had few 'fates' but experienced much—a passage Porterfield uses to illustrate the static, introspective quality of Loeben's narrative. The essay concludes with references to Wilhelm Kosch's corrective article arguing that Loeben's influence on Eichendorff has been vastly overestimated.

Porterfield's study is valuable not for rehabilitating Loeben's reputation but for documenting how a once-popular poet became a footnote—and how the Lorelei legend crystallized through multiple hands. Readers interested in the mechanics of literary canon formation, or in the specific textual variants of the Lorelei story, will find this essay a precise, evidence-based case study. The excerpts, however, do not include the full text of Loeben's poems or the complete Lorelei narrative, so Porterfield's judgments must be weighed against the primary sources he cites.

The essay on Loeben reminds me how some voices whisper while others shout, their quiet beauty waiting patiently in the stacks. It possesses a gentle modesty uncommon among poets. That same unassuming charm I find again in Fables in Rhyme for Little Folks From the French of La Fontaine — Reading Companion. A tender kinship exists there, old friends sharing a glance across the shelf, content in their unobtrusive grace.