In spite of the fact that Schiller was a professional historian, and a dramatist of the first rank, the omens for the achievement of an historical drama that conveys an historical experience are not particularly favourable. As a realist, he does not truly progress, in his presentation of history, beyond the attitudes and methods of the Aufklärung; as a poetic and dramatic idealist, he has a tendency to go beyond historical reality altogether and to make the “actual” events “symbolic.” In one case only, that of Wallenstein, we shall argue that a special combination of circumstances nudged him in the direction of a drama that articulates an historical community between past and present. However, for all their very considerable dramatic merits and conscientious concern for what Korff calls the “stoffliche Oberfläche” of history, Don Carlos, Maria Stuart, Die Jungfrau von Orleans, and Wilhelm Tell show that this was not a true conversion. It is true that Schiller's fervent idealism and love of freedom provided openings that the nationalism of the nineteenth century was able to exploit. However, no matter how severe the battering that the “alte Form,” the Holy Roman Empire, was taking during the Wars of the French Revolution, and no matter how uncertain the future, neither Wallenstein nor the Ästhetische Briefe give convincing evidence of a desire on Schiller's part to revolutionize it. He was a German, but not of the kind celebrated by the historian and publicist Heinrich Class (“Einhart,” “Daniel Frymann”), paladin of “Deutschtum,” pupil of Treitschke and admirer of Gobineau and Lagarde, and President of the Pan-German League.