 In his late essay Abriß von den Europäischen Verhältnissen der Deutschen Literatur (1825), written for an English audience, he repeats an idea he had also defended in his Lectures on Dramatic Art, namely that German literature was young because of the historical evolution of the German language, and not because of its qualities (LDA: 421, SW: VIII, 207). Schlegel fervently defended German authors (such as Klopstock, Lessing, Winkelmann, Wieland, Goethe, or Herder) as well as German philosophers, from the English accusations of being abstract and obscure (SW: VIII, 212). He also claimed that Germans were the most cosmopolitan and intellectual leaders of European culture, and that Germany had reached its maturity, its autonomy, and hence its freedom (SW: VIII, 214). This is why, for Schlegel, Germany had a central role in the development of European culture: in the recuperation of the Roman and Greek cultures, which were the very foundations of Europe. The evidence of this ‘superiority’ would lie in the development of natural sciences, philosophy, and the critical interpretation of classical texts (SW: VII, 214–217). In short, A.W. Schlegel’s concern became more and more a problem of national identity (Schmelling 1994: 35–36). But, at the same time, these assertions must be seen against the background of his statements from earlier texts, such as the Wettstreit der Sprachen (The Contest of Languages) from 1798, in which Schlegel develops his idea of a “cosmopolitan literature” (Albrecht 2005: 307) and seems to criticize and make fun of all forms of nationalism. As Andrea Albrecht argues, Schlegel’s engagement with translations, investigation, and dissemination of European and non-European literature, must be seen as a sign and proof of his cosmopolitanism. In the third part of his Berlin lectures from 1803, Schlegel expresses his desire that all different nationalities be united. But, again, this desire to transcend national boarders seems to go hand in hand with the necessity of establishing Germany as the new “center for the human spirit” (quoted in Albrecht 2005: 308, my translation), the rationale behind this being, that “universality, cosmopolitanism, is the real German characteristic” (VLK: III, 36). Undoubtedly, Schlegel’s cosmopolitanism is uncannily mixed up with a strange form of blind, romantic nationalism.