RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH

RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH

BY ALAN MARSHALL

With the birth of German Naturalism the early 1880’s witnessed a literary revolution which was to shock many contemporaries and bring about a fundamental shift in the development of German literature. Criticism of the movement in its own lifetime was adverse and this persisted well into this century. It is only in recent years that we have seen a less prejudiced appraisal of Naturalism and a clear endeavour to reassess its merits from a more objective and informed stand- point. No attempt has been made here to comment on all the literature on the period, but it is hoped that the following will give some indication of the new approaches made by recent critics, and of how they have come to terms with the complexity of the period.

Perhaps the most significant tendency in the past decade has been to make the texts more accessible by anthologies and reprints. Most of the major theoretical and programmatic articles written by Naturalists are now much more readily available, as are many dramatic, prose and lyric works which had been almost forgotten.

Alongside new Reclam editions of individual works of the period, I there are more comprehensive anthologies of short prose and one-act plays. The volume Prosa des Natura/ismus2 gives a representative selection of the shorter forms of prose writing favoured around 1890 in works ranging from Kretzer and Hauptmann to peripheral figures such as Wedekind and Bahr, and in his introduction Gerhard Schulz attempts to put the works into perspective by relating them to Naturalist theory. Einakter des Natura/z”mus3 also shows the preference for the sketch and the ‘slice of life’. Certainly the one-act play is an important aspect of Naturalist drama whch has often been overlooked. Wolfgang Rothe gives detailed biographical information on the authors, some of whom, it must be admitted, are hardly representative of Naturalism: apart from several almost forgotten figures of the time, such as Hirschfeld and Hartleben, there are authors with only tenuous links to Naturalism, like Rilke and Ernst.

The move towards anthologies of Naturalist drama began in 1962,4 but it was not until the 1970’s that this developed into a signifcant contribution to Naturalist research. Wolfgang Rothe’s Deutsches Theater des Naturalismus, I while including previously inaccessible dramas by Hirschfeld (Die Miitter) and Hartleben (Hanna Jagert), provides a printing of Die Weber alongside Holz and Schlaf’s Die Famifie Seficke and Halbe’s Freie Liebe. Although in many respects an exemplary Naturalist drama, Hauptmann’s Die Weber could perhaps have been omitted in favour of a lesser-known work, possibly the same author’s Das Friedensfest, an equally con- vincing representative of the period. In his introduction Rothe discusses the clash of theory and practice in Naturalism and analyses its contemporary reception, while Sigfrid Hoefert’s appendix deals with the theatrical developments of the time, stressing the contribution of Otto Brahm.

Ursula Munchow’s interest in the development of workers’ theatre has led to

RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH 277

her publishing two anthologies: Aus den Anfangen der sozialistischen Dramati@ includes Rosenow’s Kater Lampe; and Friihes Deutsches Arbeitertheater, ’ while passing over the discussion surrounding the ‘Volksbuhnen’ , provides more documentation to the same comedy as well as extracts from another Rosenow drama, Die im Schatten leben. More comprehensive is Munchow’s two-volume Naturalismus, comprising dramatic, prose and lyric texts from 1882 to 1899. Here Munchow also reprints Die Weber (this time the dialect version), but includes in addition a much wider range of lesser-known dramatists such as Hartleben and Rosenow, as well as representative prose and verse works by Holz, Conradi, Kretzer, Henckell and many others. Miinchow adds a useful short survey of the important periodicals, literary manifestoes and societies of the time.

In 1977 Reclam added to their excellent documentation of the period with the anthology Naturalismus, 9 an attempt at a comprehensive, if in parts necessarily brief, outline of the movement, with texts ranging through contemporary society, literary life and theory to drama, prose and poetry. Problems of space result in drama being represented solely by Hauptmann (again, Die Weber) and, more unusually, Panizza, and in the social background perhaps receiving insufficient emphasis.

After Erich Ruprecht’s Literaniche Manifete des Naturdismus in 1962 it was some time before further theoretical writings were made available in new, edited form,’” but more reprints and anthologies in this sphere appeared in the 1970’s.

An invaluable aid to research has been the reprinting of the two major Naturalist periodicals, Die Gesellschaft and Freie Biihne, as well as of other much more obscure journals such as Leo Berg’s Der Zuschauer.” However, gaps are still evident in this field, a notable example being Das Magazin fur Literatur. In the years 1886 to 1893 it was closely allied to the Naturalist movement, largely due to a number of sympathetic editors such as Karl Bleibtreu and to being published by Wilhelm Friedrich. It may be that because of its leanings towards a movement discredited by the establishment, libraries ceased their subscriptions until the trend was reversed, but the consequence is that volumes from this period are only accessible in the university libraries of Freiburg and Marburg. A reprint would be highly desirable.

Important individual documents of the age to have been reprinted include Karl Bleibtreu’s Revolution der Literatur, with an analysis of Bleibtreu’s position in the Naturalist movement. Although Bleibtreu was extremely self-centred, the militancy and vitality of this manifesto and its resulting scandalous success combined to make it a significant contribution to early Naturalist writings. Wilhelm Bolsche’s materialistic and scientific approach to literature, Die natur- wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen der Po.esie, l 3 is a more restrained work, and is edited together with contemporary reaction and a very comprehensive bibliography of Bolsche’s works. Martin Machatzke’s edition of Hauptmann’s diaries 1897-98 has a misleading title: Gerhart HauFtmann. Italienische Reise 1897. Tage- buchaufieichnungen. ’* Much more than a documentation of his trip to Italy, it is an important personal account of a sigdicant transitional period in Hauptmann’s creative life, his turning from social involvement to individual problems and aesthetic questions. Machatzke supplies very detailed notes and a contribution

278 RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH ~

on ‘Dichtung und Dichter an der Wende des 19. Jahrhunderts’, underlining the basic trend towards a withdrawn individualism.

Among the more general anthologies, two stand out from the others: the Reclam Theo$e des Natural‘i~mus‘~ and Gotthart Wunberg’s two volume Dus junge Wien. Osterreichische Literatur und Kunst&ntik 1887-1902. l6 The Reclam volume concentrates exclusively on German Naturalists, and while it often reproduces texts printed in other anthologies, the wealth of material provided is unparalleled as a general and well-documented guide to the characteristic features of Naturalism, ranging through politics and wider social questions to literary theory and criticism, and showing that the Naturalists were not simply concerned with literature but were much more involved with the whole spectrum of society. The 77 texts also reveal the lack of unity in the Naturalists’ views and preoccupations. Wunberg attempts in his introduction to show the specifically Austrian position at the time as being somewhat independent of the German Naturalist movement. Of over 500 texts, more than half are unabbreviated and many are by Hermann Bahr, the dominant literary figure of the time in Vienna, although a wide range of authors and literary critics is represented, extending well beyond Naturalism. Trends towards Naturalism in Vienna form an often-overlooked aspect of the period, and in this connection can be mentioned the publication of Bahr’s Bnefwechsel‘ mit seinem Vater” which reveals much about his early enthusiasm for Naturalism and also shows that he shared a common Naturalistic trait, that of over-estimating himself and his work.

Of other anthologies, the Literansche Manifeste der Jahrhundertwende’* exceeds the bounds of Naturalism, while Wunberg’s Die literaniche Moderne, l 9

although attempting specifically to analyse one aspect, the then prevalent concept of ‘die Moderne’, has now been largely superseded by more comprehensive anthologies which have reproduced many of the same texts in a less abbreviated form. Wunberg’s collection shows the complexity of attitudes to ‘die Moderne’, but fails to clarify its meaning completely.

The many anthologies and reprints have done much to satisfy the need among researchers for Contemporary material, though there has been some duplication of both theory and drama, with many of the more tmly representative yet less accessible dramas being overlooked. The results of this fuller provision of material are easy to see. Occasioned largely by an increasing interest in the late nineteenth century and in literary reception, anthologies and reprints have themselves facilitated and encouraged a more detailed and precise examination of the Naturalist movement in its many facets. There is some validity in the criticism that edited volumes of documentary material with their long and detailed commentaries are tending to replace general works on the period, though these have not died out and have been supplemented by works with a well-founded approach to specific aspects of the period, making fuller use of contemporary viewpoints.

A number of recent surveys have attempted to form a broad picture of the movement as a whole, notably those by Roy Cowen, John Osborne and Gunther Mahal.

Cowen’s Kommentar zu einer EpocheZ0 consists of a general introduction and


analyses of representative works by Hauptmann, Hob, Schlaf, Kretzer, Halbe, Sudermann and Polenz, as well as an extensive bibliography and a chronological table. In attempting to give a general account of the aspects and trends of Naturalism in a hundred pages Cowen rarely digs below the surface to reach the essence of ‘den ganzen Komplex der politischen, philosophischen, wissenschaftlichen und okonomischen Entwicklungen’ which combined in the growth of the movement (p. 10). He rightly points out ‘dass es fast so viele Naturalismen gibt wie Naturalisten’ (p. 9), but in many respects he fails to demonstrate this. There is too much concentration on the scientific and philosophical background, and on literary forerunners abroad, to the detriment especially of the political and social background, and of the early social involvement of the Naturalists.

Osborne’s study of The Naturalist Drama in Germa%y2‘ includes a general assessment of the period. It considers the literature of the time ‘in relation to its social and political background’ (p. vii) and then progresses in the second part to deal with the Naturalistic dramas of Gerhart Hauptmann. The political attitudes of the Naturalists receive much attention, although Osborne emphasizes that theirs was an insecure and artificial alliance with the Social Democrats, which crumbled after the lifting of the ‘Sozialistengesetz’. He shows that an individualistic withdrawal from society was a much stronger Naturalist trait than social involvement, and that this individualism is rarely more apparent than in their theoretical writings. Osborne traces the development of theory from the conservatism of the Harts to the theatrical innovations of Otto Brahm, concentrating primarily on the theories of Arno Holz, and remarks that the lack of conformity seen in Naturalist theories was reproduced in practice. Throughout, Osborne stresses the inherent conservatism, traditionalism and middle-class nationalism of the German Naturalists. Gerhart Hauptmann is at the centre of the discussion of drama, reflecting his prominence and the fact that few other dramas have sur- vived the test of time, although some attempt is made to relate dramas of lesser- known figures such as Halbe, Hirschfeld and Hauptmann’s brother Carl to those of the movement’s most successful dramatist. Perhaps, given the central position attributed to Holz and Hauptmann in the two main sections, more attention could have been devoted to the relationship between Hauptmann’s dramas and Holz’ theories.

A more recent and more comprehensive survey, complete with extensive bibliography, is Mahal’s Natzlralihzm. 22 He attempts to establish ‘Leitbegriffe und Zentralprobleme’ (p. lo), to achieve ‘moglichst klare Zuordnungen . . . , besonders in der Weise, dass deutlich gemacht wird, was die Naturalisten wie und wann von welcher Position iibernehmen konnten’ (p. 13). To this end Mahal rejects a chronological reconstruction of the period as inadequate and instead turns to an analysis of the many concepts associated with Naturalism. He underlines the vagueness of the concept ‘Naturalismus’ itself, divides the era into two distinct phases, ‘Friihnaturalismus’ up to 1889 and ‘Hochnaturalismus’ sub- sequently, and focuses on the various groups of the period. Mahal refers to the ‘soziales Gastspiel’ (p. 144) of the Naturalists, a short period when they flirted with socialism and social problems, and stresses that any social commitment was always only one part of Naturalism, and that there was an increasing move towards

280 RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH ~~

individualism in the 1890’s. Mahal sees the view that the Naturalists reneged on their social responsibilities, prevalent among some critics past and present, as false: an aloof individualism was ever-present and became a prime factor in developments beyond Naturalism. Mahal’s discussion of the reception of Naturalism is dominated by the negative response of the establishment and the middle classes, and he tries to ascertain why this attitude has persisted through the twentieth century. His individual analyses are restricted to very early Naturalist lyric works, Hauptmann’s Das Friedensfest and Die papierne Passion by Holt and Schlaf, with the objective of extracting representative features to illuminate aspects of the preceding discussion. In all, Mahal discusses many of the points elaborated upon by other recent works dedicated to more specific aspects of the period, and the result is a very comprehensive analysis of the movement, equalled but rarely bettered by longer works devoted to particular facets.

A useful concise introduction to the Naturalist movement on an international scale is provided by the slim volume NaturaL~srn*~ by Lilian Furst and Peter Skrine. It is a clear guide to the factors which led to Naturalism, particularly in France and Germany, and to its theoretical and literary development, with the conclusions that Naturalism was always an extreme movement and that there was a constant divergence of theory and practice, but that important foundations were laid for twentieth century literature.

Among shorter studies a prominent point of discussion has been consideration of the Naturalist movement as part of the succession of short-lived literary styles at the turn of the century, in an attempt to assess both the concept of Naturalism itself and its relationship to succeeding and contemporaneous movements. There has been general agreement on the complexity of the literary scene in Germany at the end of the nineteenth century, but some divergence in the analysis of the role of Naturalism in the period. Helmut Koopmann2* sees Naturalism as having provided the impulse for the many movements which followed, because all were in some way a reaction against Naturalism, while Wolfdietrich R a ~ c h ~ ~ maintains that the Naturalists ‘zeitlich und sachlich nicht leicht abzugrenzen sind von den Schriftstellern, die man anders etikettiert’ (p. 32), pointing out that the term ‘fin de si2cle’ was prevalent among Naturalists (he cites Bahr, Holz and Zola) before it was applied to subsequent movements. Helmut Kreuzer finds the whole period ‘Eine Epoche des Ubergangs’ , 26 with parallels and interrelated movements, laying the foundations of twentieth-century literature. While Kreuzer elsewhere defends the term ‘die Moderne’ as a fitting description of the period, encompassing the many styles, because it ‘wurde in der neuen Epoche gepragt, entspricht ihrem Selbstverstandnis, ist international anwendbar und nicht auf die literarischen Kunste beschrankt’,27 Jost Hermand28 dismisses it as a concept ‘das bereits so abgegriffen ist, dass es uberhaupt keine innere Verpflichtung mehr enthalt’ (p. 17), though he can find no adequate replacement. Hermand agrees with Koopmann (above) that Naturalism provoked the rise of many contrary styles, but while Koopmann’s is a negative attitude towards Naturalism, seeing its only achievement in that it was overcome, Hermand defends Naturalism as the only movement of the time to relate to real problems rather than become submerged in aestheticism and formalism, a move he terms ‘Der Aufbruch in die falsche

RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH 28 1

Moderne’. The discussion thus remains inconclusive as to the real merits of Naturalism, and critics seem only to agree on the transient nature of the movement, a point which many Naturalists themselves readily conceded.

One aspect on which the critics have concurred for many years is the Naturalists’ initial involvement with the socialist movement and their subsequent retreat from society. Indeed, the debate about the ideological attitude of the Naturalists is as old as the movement itself. Although a more objective and impartial approach to this question might be expected as time progresses, it must be said that there still remains the temptation among some critics to see the Naturalists’ move away from socialism as a desertion of their true ideals in favour of egotistic pursuits, a tendency which Mahal (above) rejects, and which the collection edited by Helmut Scheuer, Naturdirmus. Burgerl’iche Dichtung und sozdes Engagement, 29 devoted to ‘eine sozialhistorische und sotiologische Einordnung’ of Naturalism (p. lo), largely succeeds in avoiding. Scheuer’s own contribution, ‘Zwischen Sotialismus und Individualismus: Zwischen Marx und Nietzsche’ ,3O deals with the move away from socialism to individualism as the Naturalists became disillusioned with the SPD. He points out that the party failed to recognize the Naturalists’ basic dilemma: the clash of their own origins and their sense of social injustice. Dietger Pforte’s ‘Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie und die Namralisten’3’ comes to the conclusion that the Naturalists were unwilling to subordinate their art to party politics and that theit pessimistic view of reality as unchangeable was irreconcilable with socialist ideas, two points which were made during the movement’s lifetime by both sides. Pforte does illuminate the effects of the social democrats’ discussion of Naturalism on the emergence of a materialistic view of art and of Socialist Realism. Dieter Bansch is more specific in attempting to analyse the relationship between ‘Naturalismus und Frauenbewegung’ , 3 2 but scarcely more conclusive. He shows how they became increasingly distanced from each other, but there is little attention paid to Naturalist women writers and their attitudes. Concentrating on Hauptmann as an example of Naturalist ‘Dramaturgie der Parteilosigkeit’ , Klaus Miiller-Salget33 puts forward the view that socio-critical elements in his dramas were gradually eliminated and replaced by criticism of the church and aesthetics, though it is difficult to divorce the former from a general criticism of society. He sees Hauptmann’s dramas as an example of ‘Mitleids-Sozialismus’ (a term frequently used to characterize Naturalists) rather than a campaign for the proletariat.

Other works which deal with the specific relationship between the Naturalists and the socialists include those by Manfred Brauneck, Helmut SFherer and Georg Fiilberth. Brauneck’s comprehensive title, Literatur und Offentl‘ichkezt zm ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert, j4 conceals the fact that the essence of his study is the reception of Hauptmann’s Die Veber. This central example is used as a case study to examine differing contemporary attitudes to Naturalism, highlighting the contradiction between the artistic aims of the Naturalists and the politically- orientated reception of the movement. Brauneck looks at the social democrats’ lengthy discussion of Naturalism and the Naturalists’ own less involved approach to social questions. All of this radiates outwards from the concrete example of Die Weber, an approach which brings more positive and worthwhile results than

~- _ _ _ _ _

282 RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH

the vague theorizing which often accompanies recent studies of literary reception. Although it needs to be constantly pointed out that Die Weber was itself an exception within Naturalism, Brauneck’s book maintains a sound approach not only to the question of reception but also to the Naturalist movement and its at times confusing relationship with socialism.

The title of Scherer’s book, meanwhile, is a precise description of its contents: Biirgerlicb-oppositionelle Literaten und sozialdemokratische Arbeiterbewegung nach 1890. Die ‘Fnednchshagener’ und ihr Einfruss auf die sozialdemokratische Kulturpolitik. 3I Forgoing any detailed discussion of specifically literary problems, Scherer deals with the attempts of the ‘Friedrichshagener’ to influence social democratic cultural policy stemming from socialist moves to educate the working classes and the establishment of the ‘Volksbuhnen’ by the ‘Friedrichshagener’ . This is a comprehensive study of the ‘Volksbuhnen’ and of the arguments behind the scenes, showing the conflict over the concept and function of the ‘Volksbuhnen’, which resulted from the ideological differences between the ‘Friedrichshagener’ and the SPD and which led to divisions within the ‘Volksbuhnen’ movement. Scherer’s study has a broader basis than simply the ‘Volksbuhnen’, but two other books can be mentioned in this immediate context, both dealing with the history of the ‘Volksbuhne’ . While Cecil Davies’ Theatre for the People36 concentrates on the movement’s traditional aspects and on its educative effect on the public, Heinrich Braulich’ s Die Volksbiihne. Theater und Politik der deutschen Volks- biihnenbewegung3’ has a more pronounced political approach but also contains more documentary evidence. Fiilberth also discusses the controversies surrounding the ‘Volksbuhnen’ within the realms of his study of social democratic attitudes to literature before 19 14. While Scherer concentrates on the ‘Friedrichshagener’ , Fiilberth’s emphasis in Proletansche Partei und burgerliche Literatu9 is on the social democratic literary critics, and he goes beyond Naturalism to discuss the whole question of social democratic cultural policies, and the debates about the function of literature within the SPD and within society. An important point raised by Fulberth is that the SPD showed that while it was politically revolutionary it remained bound to tradition in the cultural sphere and was unable to accept many of the Naturalists’ radical innovations.

A much broader approach to the question of social involvement in literature of the time is undertaken by Karin Gafert in her two-volume study of Die soziale Frage in Literatur und Kunst des 19. Juhrhunderts. j9 A volume of poetic and pictorial examples from the period accompanies a wealth of material in the first volume, covering the economic and political background and the social function of literature and art. Gafert focuses, again, on Die Weber in her discussion of social literature.

Edward McInnes also adopts a broader basis for his examination of German Social Drama 1840-1900, 40 progressing from Hebbel through to Naturalism. He stresses that this is not an attempt to show a continuing trend but rather to high- light the fragmented course of social drama. Moving away from the view of social drama as positivist and determinist, McInnes develops a less rigid concept: in the section on Naturalism he concentrates on the contradictions between socio-critical involvement and the authors’ own imagination, between the potentially revol-


utionary nature of the movement and the innate conservatism of its exponents. He underlines the importance of the poetic element in Naturalist plays, primarily by Hauptmann and Halbe, and seeks to refute the idea of Naturalism as a movement with a scientific and deterministic view of life: there are more general human problems independent of the age behind the social questions raised. While this is true, perhaps more weight could have been given to the Naturalists’ own rejection of social involvement in the 1890’s, away from social dramas to what McInnes with some justification calls ‘Domestic Tragedies’.

One work dealing exclusively with Gerhart Hauptmann approaches the relationship between the socialists and the Naturalists in a completely different way: Hans von Brescius’ ‘politisch-biographische S t ~ d i e ’ ~ l examines the author’s own views on the matter, although as only a small part of a survey of Haupunann’s political stance throughout his life, which centres on the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. Brescius introduces a wealth of previously unpublished material and moulds it into a political biography, with the conclusion that Hauptmann’s political awareness weakened as he grew older, though the reservation must be expressed that the majority of the evidence serves only to show Hauptmann’s fundamentally spontaneous and emotional reactions to events, rather than any profound political beliefs.

The Naturalists’ gradual move away from social involvement was in part a result of their growing awareness of Nietzsche’s philosophical ideas. Some documentation of the Naturalist reception of Nietzsche can be found in the recent Nietzsche and die deatsche Literatur,42 although an analysis of the significant impact of Nietzsche on the Naturalists is unfortunately absent from the second volume, a collection of articles relating Nietzsche to literary figures and movements from the late nineteenth century onwards.

At the same time as the renewed discussion of the Naturalists’ social involvement and of their increasing isolation and withdrawal, the past decade has also seen a growth of interest in the interrelationships of literary figures at the end of the last century, and in their attitudes towards other authors, especially their contemporaries abroad. This trend has shed light on a complex aspect of Naturalism and helped strengthen an already established impression that the Naturalists were a disparate group of individuals to whom personal considerations were of prime importance.

Katharina Gunther’s study of Literankche Grappenbildang im Berliner Nataralzsmw43 is an attempt to examine an interesting but neglected aspect of the period: the causes and effects of the many societies and personal circles which pervaded the literary scene at the time. She begins with the first groups formed around the Harts and progresses through ‘Durch’ and the theatre associations to the ‘Friedrichshagener Kreis’ , giving most emphasis to the ‘Volksbuhnen’ movement as belonging ‘zum bedeutendsten, was der Naturalismus ins Leben gerufen hat’ (p. 121). Although Gunther introduces much new material in the course of her survey, a close inspection reveals certain misquotations and incorrect details which tend to distract from the value of her work as a whole. The appendix includes an interesting if somewhat confusing series of tables in an attempt to clarify the position of many of the literary figures in relation to the groups and each other, though, again, the data are at times incomplete.

2 84 RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH

Meanwhile, Helmut Scheuer’s biography of Arno Holz, himself a subject of increased interest (see below), is in fact far more: Arno Holz im literaniden Leben des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts (188.3-1896)44 is an in-depth analysis of the complex interrelationships among the young aspiring authors in Berlin, and includes a wealth of documentary material, much of which is previously unpublished. It is an attempt to redress the balance after successive critics have judged Arno Holz as a minor figure in the shadow of Gerhart Hauptmann. Scheuer’s stance as an impartial biographer is successful: he shows the limits of Holz’ claims that he was misjudged and overlooked but also their partial justification, especially with regard to the early work with Schlaf, to which he rightly attaches greater signficance than is the rule in writings on the period. Holz’ works are not dealt with as isolated literary phenomena but within the context of his life and society in general. The comparison with the success of Hauptmann, and the resulting tensions between the two, is highly illuminating, and Scheuer builds up a fascinating, informative and very readable picture of ‘literary life’ in Berlin at the time.

The latest contribution to this aspect, Heinz Linduschka’s Die Auflassung vom Dichterberuf im deutschen Naturalismus, *3 involves extensive analysis of the theories, literary works, autobiographies, letters and other unpublished material of a large group of writers associated with the Naturalist movement. Minor reservations could perhaps be lodged regarding hls choice of ‘Naturalists’: although he starts with a wide definition, embracing over thirty authors, the inclusion of certain figures (e.g. Wildenbruch) at the expense of others (notably Leo Berg, a founder of ‘Durch’ and a vociferous theorist) is a little surprising. An analysis of so many writers’ attitudes necessarily involves studying their relationships with each other, not only as can be indirectly gathered from their views on literature but also on a more personal basis, and although Linduschka does attempt this, this section remains largely an appraisal of Conradi’s popularity, Bleibtreu’s un- popularity and the general rivalry between Berlin and Munich, while attitudes towards the three authors Linduschka singles out at the end for special consideration as ‘2entralfiguren’-Conradi, Hauptmann and Holz-are passed over briefly. Lmduschka rightly emphasizes the importance of the political and social conditions of the time for the rise of Naturalism. He outlines at some length the degree of financial dependence felt by the Naturalists and seeks to correct the widely held belief that they were impoverished writers living in atrocious conditions. The main body of the work intends to provide a comprehensive picture of the Naturalists’ views on writing, its forms and aims, on the state and society and on their own position in society and in the movement, and the main conclusion is that Naturalism was by no means a unified movement with common aims as suggested by many works on the period. This is seen to be largely because of the varying degrees of emphasis given to different aspects of the movement by its representatives, but also because many of the Naturalists held themselves in such high regard that tensions were bound to develop within the movement. In all, this study provides a valuable and detailed insight into many aspects of Naturalism as seen through Naturalist eyes, and is an important contribution to an understanding of the theories of Naturalism, the individuals who formed a part of it, and the movement as a whole.


Another study of literary relationships involving the Naturalist movement, although in a different sphere than the above works, is Warren Maurer’s examination of The Naturalist Image of German Literature. He uses this approach as a way of evaluating the critics themselves more than the objects of their criticisms. This is especially valid for the Naturalists, who were prolific writers and who often used discussions of other authors or periods to put forward a ‘thinly disguised justification of their own aims and goals’ (p. 10). Maurer is therefore seeking to view Naturalism from a new perspective and to establish how far Naturalism itself can be termed part of any literary tradition. In his search for material, Maurer relies rather heavily on writings in Die Gesellschaft, Freie Biihne and the Harts’ Kn2ische Wafengange, and his analysis of the opinions expressed remains distinctly secondary to the opinions themselves. However, this is new ground for a comprehensive survey and sheds interesting light particularly on the Naturalists’ praise of Lessing, the young Goethe, Schiller, and lunges Deutschland, and on their rejection of more recent attempts at realism, as well as showing signs of the inherent disunity within the movement, even in this sphere.

There have been a number of investigations of relationships involving particular individuals within the movement, although these have concentrated almost exclusively on Gerhart Ha~p tmann .~ ’ The general question of Hauptmann’s relationship to those around him, particularly in Berlin, is the subject of Rolf Goette’s Von ‘Sonnenauhang ’ his ‘Sonnenuntergang I . Hauptmanns Berliner Beziehungen, 48 which is obviously aimed more at general public interest than at literary research: as the author himself says, it is not intended as yet another attempt at a biography of Hauptmann. Goetze shows the close links which existed between Berlin and the life and works of Hauptmann, devoting approximately one-third of his book to the period prior to 1900 and including extracts from unpublished letters. Although basically chronological, the text would be enriched by an index of names.

Two shorter contributions concerned with the significance for Hauptmann of Erkner, where he lived from 1885 to 1889, have come from Bernd Riihle and Wolfgang Paul. In a concise but well-documented account of ‘Der junge Gerhart Hauptmann und seine Beziehungen zur literarischen Welt seiner Zeit’ 49 Riihle concludes that ‘das Erlebnis det Erknerteit fbr Hauptmann so gravierend [blieb] , dass es immer and immer wieder in seinem dichterischen Werk wie in seinen brieflichen Ausserungen auftaucht’ (p. 442). He further discusses the increasing associations with other young authors and the growth of relations with Fontane based on his early dramas. Paul on the other hand indulges in a more personal .account of ‘Erkner und Gerhart Hauptmann15” based on the ‘Hauptmann- Gedenkstiitte’ in Erkner, and includes quotations from Hauptmann’s autobiography to stress the influence of the surroundings and the people on Hauptmann’s work. Brief mention can be made at this point of an impending publication: an edition of Walter Requardt’s dissertation written in 195 1 on ‘Erkner im Leben und Werk Gerhart Hauptmanns’ as well as of an article in a relatively obscure journal on ‘Gerhart Hauptmann und Wilhelm Bolsche in ihren Anfangen’ by Hans Urner, )2

which also deals with the period 1885-89 in Erkner. The interrelationship of Hauptmann and Russia has been a continued subject of


interest, the major contributions being by Albert Kipa and Sigfrid Hoefert. Kipa analyses the reception of Gerhart Hauptmann in Russia, 1889.191 713 and discusses the German author’s influence on Russian literature, concluding that Hauptmann’s success can be traced to his work being considered representative of the intellectual climate of the age. Hoefert’s collection deals with the inverse of this: Russische Literatur in Deutschland Texte zur Rezeption von den 80er Jahren bis zur Jahrhundertwende. >* He shows the impact of Russian literature on the German Naturalist movement, with Tolstoy as the central figure.

One final study should be mentioned in the context of interrelationships: Jean Jofen’s work on Gerhart Hauptmann and his brother Carl, Das letzte Geheimnis. However, although this relationship is worthy of examination, especially as Carl strove for so long to escape from the shadow of his more successful younger bother and to refute claims that he was following in his artistic path, this study is far too psychological. Jofen places a Freudian interpretation on Gerhart Hauptmann’s work, and maintains it is almost exclusively autobiographical. A surprising point about this study of personal relationships is that Jofen fails to make reference to the many letters in German archives.

Of remaining studies of the leading figure in German Naturalism, reference must be made to Sigfrid Hoefert’s exhaustive study of the state of research into Hauptmann. 56 It is clear and concise, with full bibliographical details arranged according to chronological and thematic guidelines, followed by a brief analysis of important areas yet to be examined, notably the cataloguing of Hauptmann’s ‘Nachlass’, the motif of ‘Entsagung’ , and the reception of Hauptmann’s work in Germany.

While much of the work on Hauptmann tends to be within the realms of more comprehensive studies of Naturalism and has thus been covered elsewhere in this survey, there has been a resurgence of interest in Arno Holz. Robert Burns, in his ‘Arno Holz and Modern German Literature’,” sees the reasons for this revival as lying in an increasing awareness of Holz’ influence on aspects of modern German literature, although he points out that critics have concentrated on Holz’ later poetry in this respect. Burns, on the other hand, attempts to define the contemporary significance of Holz’ earlier work and to trace the trends leading from Naturalism. While Burns notes a large degree of subjectivity in certain of the ‘Papa Hamlet-Skizzen’, Klaus Scherpe stresses in his article ‘Der Fall Arno Holz”* that Holz was indebted to positivism and viewed art as a scientific exercise. He sees Holz’ concept of Naturalism as an objective ‘Verwissenschaftlichung der Kunst- produktion’ @. 157). In his Dilemma eines burgerlichen Dichterlebens, >9 Gerhard Schulz examines a facet of Holz’ life also pointed to by Scherpe: the contradiction between Holz’ middle-class conformism and his revolutionary literary ideas. He maintains that Holz undergoes ‘keine eigentliche Entwicklung’ in his literary career (p. 17), and throws new light on the ‘Sekundenstil’, seeing it as an attempt to express the many decisive factors in man’s fragmentary existence. However, Schulz does tend to over-emphasize psychological aspects, such as the effects of childhood experiences, and his conclusions about the importance of Holz’ work today are unclear. Heinz-Georg Brands’ Theorie und Stil des sogenannten ‘Konsequenten Naturalismus ’ von Arno Holz und Johannes Schlaf: Kntische


Analyse der Forschungsergebnisse und Versuch ezner Neubestimmung60 is worthwhile only in its discussion of the views of Emrich (in the 1960’s) and Scherpe (above), but Brands’ own subsequent conclusions are limited and consist largely of agreeing with many points already raised, as well as an attempt to relate more closely Holz’ theory to his practice.

This lengthy discussion of Holz has been accompanied by some attention being paid to narrative and lyric works, the areas of Holz’ major successes, although the main focus of research is still the dramatic mode. Roy PascalG1 has pointed to the use of ‘the free indirect style’ as an important feature of Holz’ early ‘Skizzen’, while Mary Stewart has directed attention at the otherwise neglected area of ‘German Naturalism and the Novel’. 62 She sees the Naturalists’ failure in this sphere as the result of an inability to define the author-reader relationship, the consequent overt interpretation of events by the author, and a superficial realism.

Although Metzler have published a volume on Naturalist poetry,63 it has provoked little response. A rare example of work on this aspect is Giinther Mahal’s study of the Moderne Dichter- Charaktere in the collection Naturdi’mus. 64 He shows how tame the early lyric ‘revolution’ really was, with social problems only touched on in a way designed to arouse sympathy, and with the form remaining conventional.

In conclusion, it could be said that the more recent works have shown a widening of the area of interest in Naturalism, especially as occasioned by the anthologies. Significant developments have been made, particularly with regard to a reassess- ment of the importance of the Naturalists’ stress on their own artistic individuality and the subsequent conclusions, both express and implicit, that Naturalism was more a disparate and diffuse grouping of individual authors rather than a united literary movement. While most of the recent work on Naturalism has come from Germany, there has been an encouraging increase in the part played by English scholars, most notably the contributions of Osborne and McInnes towards a new evaluation of the extent of Naturalist social involvement.

NOTES

The most recent have included Halbe’s Der Strom (1978) and Kretzer’sMeister Timpe (1976)

G. Schulz (ed.), Prosades Naturdismus, Stuttgart 1973.

W. Rothe (ed.), Einakerder Naturalitmus, Stuttgart 1973.

A Miiller, H. Schlien (eds.), Dramen der NaturaLirmus, Emsdetten 1962

W. Rothe (ed.), Deutscbes Tbeaterdes Nbturdismus, Munich 1972

U. Miinchow (ed.), Aus den Anfdngen dersozidistischen Dramatik, 3 vols., Berlin 1972.

U. Miinchow, F. Knilli (eds.), Fsiibes deutscbes Arbeitertheater 1847.1918, Munich 1970

U. Miinchow (ed.), Naturdismus. Dramen, Lyrik, Prosa, 2 vols., Berlin/ Weimar 1970.

W. Schrniihling (ed.), Naturdissmus (Die deutsche Literatur 12), Stuttgxt 1977.

*

’


’’ G. Wunberg (ed.), Hermann Bahr. Zur Ubenuindung des Naturalismus. Theoretische Schnjien 1887-1904, StuttgartiBerlin 1968. M. Boulby (ed.), H. & J . Hart. Kritiscbe Waffengange, New Yorki London 1969.

I ’ Reprinted Nendeln 1970ff.

J . J. Braakenburg (ed.), KarlBleibtreu. Revolution derLiteratur, Tiibingen 1973

J. J. Braakenburg (ed.), Wilhelm Bolsche. Die natunuissenschaflichen Gnmdlagen der Poesie. l 3

Prolegomena einer realistischen Asthetik, Tiibingenl Munich 1976.

M. Machatzke (ed.), Gerhart Hauptmann. Italienische Rezse 1897. Tagebuchaufzeichnungen, Berlin 1976.

T. Meyer (ed.). Theorie des Naturalismus, Stuttgart 1973

G. Wunberg (ed.), Das junge Wien. Osterreichische Literatur-und Kunstkriti& 1887-1902, l6

2 vols., Tiibingen 1976.

l7 A. Schmidt (ed.), Hermann Bahr. Briefwechselmit seinem Vater, Vienna 1971

E. Ruprecht, D. Bansch (eds.). Literarirche Manifeste derJahrhundertwende 1890-1910, Stuttgart 1970.

l9

u m die Jahrhundertwende, Frankfurt a.M. 1971.

2a

2 1

2 2

2 3

24

Zu LiteraturundKunst derJahrhundertwende, eds. R. Bauer et al.. Frankfurt 1977.

2 5

26

ed. H.K., Wiesbaden 1976, pp. 1-32.

27

(here p. 18).

G. Wunberg (ed.), Die literankche Moderne. Do&umente zum Selbstverstandnis der Literatur

R. C. Cowen, Der Naturalismus. Kommentarzu einerEpoche, Munich 1973

J . Osborne, The Naturalirt Drama in Germany, Manchester 1971

G. Mahal, Naturalismus, Munich 1915

L. Furst, P. Skrine, Naturalism, London 1971

H . Koopmann, ‘Entgrenzung: Zu einem literarischen Phanomen urn 1900.’ In: Fin de si2cle:

W. Rasch, ‘Fin de siecle als Ende und Neubeginn’ In: Fin de riecle (see n. 24).

H. Kreuzer, ‘Eine Epoche des Ubergangs (1870-1918)’. In: Jahrhundertende--J11hrhunde~wende,

H. Kreuzer, ‘Zur Periodisierung der “modernen” deutschen Literatur’, Basis, 2 (1971). 7-32

J. Hermand, ‘Der Aufbruch in die falsche Moderne’ and ‘Der verdrangte Naturalismus’, in J.H.. Der Schein des schonen Lebens. Studien zurJahrhundercwende, Frankfurt a.M. 1972.

29

Berlin 1974.

30

Naturalismus (n. 29), pp. 150-174.

3 1

pp. 175-205.

H. Scheuer (ed.), Naturalismus. Burgerliche Dichtung und sozdes Engagement, Stuttgartl

H. Scheuer, ‘Zwischen Sozialismus und Individualismus: Zwischen Marx und Nietzsche.’ In:

D. Pforte, ‘Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie und die Naturalisten.’ In: Naturafismus (n. 29),


j2 D. Bansch, 'Naturalismus und Frauenbewegung.' In: Naturalismus (n. 29), pp. 122-149.

33 K. Muller-Salget, 'Drarnaturgie der Parteilosigkeit. Zurn Naturalismus Gerhart Hauptrnanns.' In: Naturalismus (n. 29), pp. 48-67.

34

Rezeption des naturalistischen Theaters in Deutschland, Smttgart 1974.

35 H. Scherer, Biirgerlich-oppositionelle Literaten und sozialdemokratische Arbeiterbewegung nach 1890. Die 'Friednchsbagener' und ihr Einjluss auf die sozialdemokratirche Kulturpolitik, Stuttgan 1974.

36

j7

Berlin 1976.

38

39

2 vols.

40

4 ' H. von Brescius, Gerhart Hauptmann. Zeitgeschehen und Bewusstsein in unbekannten Selbstzeugnirsen. Eine politisch-biographische Studie, Bonn 1976.

*' 43

44

Eine biographische Studie, Munich 1971.

41

a.M. 1979.

46

47

Hebbel', Hebbeldb. (1970). 98-107.

And: M. Hellge, Der Verleger Wilhelm Friednch und ah Magazin f i r dre Literatur des In-und Auslandes: Ein Beitrag zur Literatur-und Verlagsgeschichte des fnrhen Naturalismus in Deutschland, Frankfurt a.M. 1976.

48

Berlin 1971.

49 B. Ruhle. 'Der junge Gerhart Hauptrnann und seine Beziehungen zur literarischen Welt seiner Zeit'. Fontane-Blatter, 3 (1975). 438-453.

I0

I'

1980 (?).

M . Brauneck, Literatur und Ofleentlichkeit im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert. Studien zur

C. W. Davies, Theatreforthe People. The Story ofthe Volhbiihne, Manchester 1977

H . Braulich, Die Volksbiihne: Theater und Politik in der deutschen Volksbiihnenbewegung,

G. Fulberth, Proletansche Partei und biirgerliche Literatur, BerlinlNeuweid 1972.

K. Gafert, Die soziale Frage in Literatur und Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts, KronberglTs. 1974.

E . McInnes, German SocialDrama 1840-1900: From Hebbelto Hauptmann, Stuttgart 1976.

B. Hillebrand (ed.). Nietzsche unddie deutsche Literatur, 2 vols., Tubingen/Munich 1978.

K. Gunther, Literansche Gruppenbildung im Berliner Naturalismus, Bonn 1972.

H . Scheuer, Arno Holz im literarischen Leben des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts (1883-1896).

H. Linduschka, Die Auffassung vom Dichterbemf im deutschen Naturalismus, BernlFrankfurt

W. R. Maurer, The Naturalist Image of German Literature, Munich 1972.

But note: S. Hoefen, 'Zur Nachwirkung Hebbels in der namralistischen Ara: Max Halbe und

R. Goetze, Von 'Sonnenaufgang ' bis 'Sonnenuntergang '. Hauptmanns Berliner Beziehungen,

W. Paul, 'Erknerund Gerhart Hauptrnann.' Neue Deutsche Hejie, 139 (1973)- 197-204

M. Machatzke (ed.), W. Requardt: Erkner im Leben und Werk Gerhart Hauptmanns, Berlin


”

furBerlin-Brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte, 45 (1970), 150-176.

’* ’* bis zurJabrhundeGwende, Tiibingen 1974.

”

Hauptmann, Bern 1972.

H. Urner, ‘Gerhart Hauptmann und Wilhelm Bolsche in ihren Anfangen (188>-89).’Jabrbucb

A. A. Kipa. GerbartHaupptmann in Russia, 1889-1917, Hamburg 1974

S. Hoefert (ed.). Russische Literatur in Deutschland Texte zur Rezeption von den 80erJahren

J. Jofen, Das letzte Geheimnis. Eine psychologische Studie uber die Briider Gerhart und Carl

S. Hoefert, Gerhart Hauptmann, Stuttgart 1974.

” R. A. Burns, ‘Arno Holz and Modern German Literature’, Ph.D. Diss., Warwick 1978.

” K. R. Scherpe, ‘Der Fall Arno Holz. Zur sozialen und ideologischen Motivation der naturalistischen Literaturrevolu tion. ’ In: Positionen der literakchen lntekikenz zwiscben biirgerlicher Reaktion und Impendismus, eds., G. Mattenklott, K.R.S., KronberglTs. 1973, pp. 121-178.

”) G. Schulz, Arno Holz. Dilemma eines burgerlichen Dichterlebens, Munich 1974.

6o H.-G. Brands. Theone und Stil des sogenannten ‘Konsequenten Naturalismus’ von Arno Holz undJohannes Schlaf: Kntische Analyse der Forschungsergebnisse und Versuch einer Neubestimmung, Bonn 1978.

61

Uberlieferung. Festschnj?for C. P. Magill, eds. H. Siefken, A. Robinson, Cardiff 1974, pp. 151-165.

62

‘Max Kretzer: Some Aspects of his Realism.’ GLL, 32 (1978/9), 10-18.

63

64

Einordnung der Anthologie Moderne Dichter-Charaktere. ’ In: Naturalismus (see n. 29), pp. 11-47.

R. Pascal, ‘Arno Holz’ ‘Der erste Schultag’. The Prose Style of Naturalism.’ In: Erfahrung und

M. E. Stewart, ‘German Naturalism and the Novel.’ MLR, 71 (1976), 846-856. See also: M.E.S.,

J. Schutte, Lynx des deutschen Naturalismus (188fj-1893), Stuttgart 1976.

G. Mahal, ‘Wirklich eine Revolution der Lyrik? Uberlegungen zur literargeschichtlichen

Documents

RECENT TRENDS IN NATURALIST RESEARCH