IF, IN HIS LETTERS to women, Hardenberg began to express his innermost thoughts, then could it be the case that he sought to give the female subjects of his literary works the space and ability to express themselves? If so, is there at the theoretical level a particular model of communication that serves as a template for this ideal of poetic discourse? As we have seen from our discussion of existing scholarship on gender in Novalis, it is not merely Hardenberg's allegedly reductive presentation of women as lifeless ideals that has earned him criticism. Also counting against him, it has been contended, is the fact that in his prose fiction he does not allow his female characters to communicate on matters of importance or show genuine creativity. One way in which critics have lent weight to these arguments is by claiming that from its theoretical inception Hardenberg's system is inherently oppressive of women and oppressive of the subject's “other” in general. There is a case to be made in this area, as Hardenberg places a good deal of emphasis on the individual, both as the forum and the driving mechanism for his poetic project. The individual's practice of Poësie could be viewed as an unavoidably egocentric endeavor, as the individual (subject) appears locked into an insurmountably dualistic relationship with its object(s). So while the individual may manipulate the world around him, that “other” remains a passive bystander and may not actively respond with its own agency.