theology.  This spirit had received its political direction principally through the genius of the Baron von Stein, the Prussian statesman, whose aim was the restoration of German national unity.  He believed that the political unity of Germany must rest on the soundness of the common people, rather than on the pretensions of the aristocracy whose corruption he held responsible for the decadence of the nation.  Following the example of Frederick the Great, he tried to foster the simple virtues of the common man.  He was, however, opposed to radicalism, seeing permanent progress only in order, self-discipline, and moderation.  His leading idea, which was shared by such men as Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Niebuhr, and others, was that the principal task of the time was to arouse the whole nation to independent political thinking and activity, in order to develop self-confidence, courage, and devotion to a great unselfish ideal.  These ideas became a national ideal, an active passion, under the pressure and stress of the Napoleonic usurpation and in the heat and fervor of war and victory.

[Illustration:  C.T.  LESSING KARL LERRECHT IMMERMANN]

It was unavoidable that this spirit produced among the younger men, and especially among the university students, traditionally unaccustomed to patience with restraints, many excesses, absurdities and follies.  An extreme and tyrannical nativism, a tasteless archaism in dress, manner, and speech, an intolerant and aggressive democratic propaganda offended and bullied the more conservative.  This spirit spread particularly through the agencies of the student fraternities called “Burschenschaften,” and the athletic associations, the “Turners,” advocated and fostered by Jahn.

Immermann became the mouthpiece of the conservatives among the students, and he went so far as to publish some pamphlets denouncing specific acts of violence of the leading radical fraternity, the “Teutonia.”  When the university authorities, who to a considerable extent sympathized with the radicals, neglected to act, Immermann addressed a complaint to the King.  This move resulted in the dissolution of the accused fraternity and in governmental hostility to all fraternities, and brought the hatred and contempt of the radicals on Immermann.

Immermann acted undoubtedly from sincere motives, yet deserved much of the condemnation he suffered.  He had not sufficient vision to penetrate through the objectionable and tasteless externalities of the liberal movement—­with which he was unfairly preoccupied even at the time of Die Epigonen, a score of years later—­to the greater and enduring core of the aspirations of the modern age.  The petty things were too near to his eye and obscured the greater things which were further removed.  He thought he upheld a higher principle of morality by applying the principles of von Stein to a new situation; but be failed to see the new, larger morality imbedded in much confusion.  History has reversed his judgment.