93. Reply

in response to the article: My “imagined” revolution, by Arno Holz

Every psychologist knows the type of person who is only capable of understanding his own laboriously constructed train of thought; and who is absolutely obtuse to everything that someone else says from his point of view. Arno Holz is a good example of this type. He also has a characteristic mental trait of these people. They start to swear when they hear something that contradicts their assertions. They cannot remain in a factual discussion because they are simply unable to understand the other person.

I only mention these misunderstandings because of the nature of Arno Holz's mind. The tone in which these remarks appear would also make it understandable if I refrained from replying to each one.

I see that in order to be understood by Mr. Holz's way of thinking, I would have had to be much more detailed. Holz has no idea of the sense in which I use the word “primal lyricism”. Well, I use it in the same sense in which Goethe used the words “primal plant” and “primal animal”. Everything I said about Holz in the essay “On the Modern Soul” proves that - though only, it seems, for differently organized thought processes than those of Mr. Holz. “Urlyrik” is for me the essence of lyric poetry, the sum of everything that is common to all types of lyric poetry, regardless of the forms in which they appear. This essence will be common to all future lyric poetry with all past. Goethe says that there must be an Urpflanze, because otherwise how would one recognize that this or that is a plant.

He also says that from the idea of this original plant, one can imagine as many plant forms as one likes, all of which have the potential to live. The very first plant form that ever appeared in reality is also a special form of this original plant, a real realization. It was the same with the earliest lyrical productions. They are related to what I have called “original lyric poetry” like an outer appearance to an inner essence. This primal lyricism was never really there, but is extracted from real forms by our knowledge, just as Goethe extracted the idea of the primal plant from real plant forms. Someone can stand on the ground of a different world view from the one I stand on. Then he can dispute the justification for establishing such a concept of “primal lyricism” as I do. But Holz thinks that when I speak of primal lyricism, I am thinking of the initial stages of lyric production. If I did that, then my remarks would be downright nonsensical. And Holz is polemicizing against nonsense that I did not say, but that only haunts his head as a distorted image of my assertions. The basis of lyricism is the content of feeling and imagination and the rhythmic forms inherent in it. This basis is what constitutes the idea of “primal lyricism” in my sense. What comes in addition is the particular form in detail. Since nothing real corresponds completely to the idea on which it is based, no real lyricism will correspond to the idea of “primal lyricism”. An external rhythm will be added to the immanent rhythm. If in the Korriborrilieder and other chronologically first lyrical productions the outer form hardly allows the idea of lyric poetry to be recognized, if there, because of the outer rhythm, downright nonsense comes to light, then that corresponds completely to another fact: also the chronologically first animal and plant forms correspond in their sensory reality only little to what one can call in the sense of Goethe the Urtier or Urpflanze. Mr. Wood, you have not understood what I mean by primal poetry. I understand that, because I have known for a long time that when it is not a matter of concrete things but of abstract things, most people cannot tell a button from a lamppost. I was talking about a lamppost; you thought it was a button.

But what I would not have expected of you, you have done. Certainly not intentionally. But perhaps because you did not see my thoughts above the ghost image that has taken root in your head from my remarks. You falsify my sentences in order to refute me. I said: “Poetry will certainly discard the forms it has used up to now and will reveal itself in new forms at a higher level of development. But it cannot become primal poetry in the course of its development.” Why? In my opinion, it cannot, because primal poetry is the essence of poetry that runs through all individual poetic forms. Look at my sentence carefully. It says that. But you quote: “But it cannot become the original lyric again in the course of development.” That is nonsense from my point of view. I cannot say “again”, which you attribute to me, because “original lyric” has never existed. I have not said it either. So you have falsified my sentence.

But you don't care about understanding me at all. Otherwise you wouldn't lump together what I have carefully separated: your lyrical production and your theoretical explanations about poetry.

But to do that, you falsify again. You claim that I said: “The critic has only to understand the ‘author’, but not to patronize him.” Where did I say that? Please read: “If a ‘poet’ stops at this original form of lyric poetry, that is his business. The critic has only to understand him, but not to patronize him.” Mr. Holz, you are also an author in your theoretical book, Revolution der Lyrik. But you are not a poet in it. I have polemicized against the “author” of a theoretical book; I have tried to understand the “poet”. Whether I have succeeded in doing so in your sense is a matter for itself.

But what are you doing with my sentences! You say that I claimed that you wanted to define the “original form” of lyric poetry. Not a word of that is true either. I said, in essence, that what you give as a definition of new lyric poetry is, in my opinion, the “original form” of lyric poetry.

Whether you reject my judgment of your poetry or not is of no interest to me. Nor do I care whether you claim that I understand the biogenetic law or not. What interests me is your admission that you do not fully understand the metaphor of “midwives of criticism”. Since you do not understand this, it is understandable to me why you do not understand my other sentences either.

But now I'm done. Not just for this time. Anyone who polemicizes like you can continue to enrich my collection of psychological curiosities. I will not engage with you further. You can claim that I am the worst idiot in Europe for all I care.

A few words

[on the article “Schluss” (Conclusion)] by Mr. Arno Holz I have only a few words to say. You do not force me to be untrue to my words: “I will not argue with you any further,” which I addressed to Mr. Holz in my reply to his attack in No. 9 of the “Magazin”. However, as editor, I must first apologize to the readers of the magazine for including Holz's comments. I believe that people of this ilk should not be given the right to complain that they are being cut off. As we all know, children always want to have the last word. What would be the point of all the arguing! Mr. Holz lacks the necessary education to engage in a serious discussion of these matters. One can be an excellent poet and yet be too uneducated to have an opinion on certain things, for example, the relationship between Haeckel's and Goethe's world view. However, since Mr. Holz is so sure of victory, I must state a few “facts” here:

Mr. Holz, who in his first article distorted the wording of my assertions in the most arbitrary manner, and who tries to conceal this distortion by comparing it with the harmless reversal of the words “work” and “rhythm” in Bücher's book, now claims that I subsequently claimed, in order to justify myself, that my remarks were meant in the Goethean sense. This is a slander that Mr. Holz is most likely committing unwittingly. I have always used the words “original form”, “primordial animal” and so on in a series of works, for example in my book “Goethe's Weltanschauung”, which was published in 1897, in the sense in which I use them in the article about Mr. Arno Holz. In the latter book, I have clearly expressed how the actual (temporal) first form relates to the ideal original form. I am therefore quite indifferent to what Holz says about these things, of which he understands nothing. However, it must be firmly established that this gentleman will use any means to defend his elementary statements, which I have not even disputed, but only returned to their true meaning, against things that do not enter his head. If I wanted to accuse someone of claiming such nonsense as Mr. Holz does, I would first feel obliged to familiarize myself with the views of the person in question, especially if he has been expressing these views in a series of writings for the past fifteen years. Mr. Holz slanders in the blue. This is the escalation in the nature of his polemic: first forgery, then slander. If all this were not based on an almost touching ignorance, one would be tempted to call it frivolous. I would be ashamed to have forfeited the right to frivolity through ignorance in such a way of fighting.