# 2. The Main Currents in German Literature from the Revolutionary Period (1848) to the Present

#### 1. The Literary revolution around the middle of the nineteenth century

On December 8, I began the cycle of lectures on "The main currents in German literature from the revolutionary period (1848) to the present", which the board of the "Freie Literarische Gesellschaft" commissioned me to give.

I do not want to turn the "Freie Literarische Gesellschaft" into a university college, but I would like to find a middle way in these lectures between the light tone of French conferences and that of university lectures, which follow the strict course of scientific methodology. Nor do I wish to offer the members of the Society a purely historical approach. Anyone who, like myself, wants to contribute to the development of the new world view that has become possible for us through the revolutionization of intellectual life in this century, prefers to look to the future rather than the past, and is only capable of describing the past insofar as it contains the seeds for the present and the future.

I have said of our present sensations that they are so fundamentally different from the sensations of the most eminent spirits of the first half of the century that we have the feeling that the writings of these spirits are written in an idiom foreign to us. A radical transformation of the world view has taken place in our century, as radical as few in world history have been. If we want to describe this transformation in a few words, we must say that man has gone from being a humble, weak being who wants to be dependent on higher powers to a proud, self-confident being who wants to be the master of his own destiny, who does not want to be ruled but wants to rule himself. Man has learned to draw his best strength not from powers beyond, but from the reality to which he himself belongs. The best minds in the first half of the century were far removed from this view of life. They were still dominated by the old world of imagination, by the old religious views. In their emotional world, they could not get away from the otherworldly God who controls the destinies of mankind. They longed for new ways of life, for new forms of state and society; but their longing was a dull, vague one, because it did not emerge from the driving force of a new world view. Political revolutions can only take place on a large scale if they are linked to a revolution of the entire spiritual life. Christianity brought about such a great, comprehensive revolution. The political revolutions of recent times have not achieved their goal because they lacked the driving force, the revolutionization of the world view. Men like Jahn, Börne, Sallet, Herwegh, Anastasius Grün, Dingelstedt, Freiligrath, Moritz Hartmann, Prutz knew that the old world of ideas had become worn out, overripe, rotten; but they were not able to put a new world of ideas in the place of the old one. They became revolutionaries, not because a new world of ideas lived within them, which they wanted to realize, but because they were dissatisfied with the existing, embittered by the present.

But the world of imagination and the old form of government belonged together. This truth was expressed by *Hegel* when he was given a professorship in Berlin. Hegel was the most unproductive mind imaginable. He was incapable of giving birth to a new idea from his imagination. But he was one of the most rational people who ever lived. He therefore penetrated the old world of ideas down to its last nooks and crannies. And he found this world of ideas realized in the Prussian state. That is why he could say: everything real is reasonable. Hegel pronounced the last word of the old world view. It was not possible to revolutionize with this view. This required a new world of ideas. The first herald of such a world was *Ludwig Feuerbach*. He taught people that all higher powers are idols which man has created in his own breast and which he has transferred out of his own soul into the world in order to worship them as entities acting above him. Feuerbach made man the master of himself. This was the beginning of a completely new world of ideas. The old world of ideas had become an idol, a ghost, a spectre by which man allowed himself to be enslaved. *Max Stirner* said this in the clearest words that have ever been spoken. Away with all idols was his slogan. And there was nothing left behind but the "I", enslaved by nothing, free and unchained, who stakes his cause on nothing. We, in the second half of the nineteenth century, are working to find the universe in this nothingness. The old ideals lie destroyed at our feet; they are nothing to us, a yawning chasm. The poets, the artists, the naturalists, the thinkers in the second half of the century are endeavoring to fill this nothingness with life again. *Darwin* and *Haeckel* brought a new world view, new religious ideas.

Through Feuerbach, minds have been revolutionized, prepared to understand Darwin and Haeckel. This transformation of the world view is the great revolution of the nineteenth century. Compared with it, the political revolution of 1848 is only an outward sign, a symbol. The spiritual revolution is still going on today. It will be the victorious one.

I was delighted that so many members and guests of the "Freie Literarische Gesellschaft" attended this first of my lectures.

#### 2. From Heinrich Laube to Paul Heyse

*Heinrich Laube* is to me the type of man of letters who looks at things with a cold gaze that goes little into the depths of the human soul. In his youth, the fire of the revolutionary lived in him, which led him to glorify the Polish uprising. Gradually, the sobriety in his nature overgrew; he became a self-confident man, who approached things with the feeling that he knew how to handle them at the right end. He is the best director of the century because he has a clear eye for the harmony into which the outside of things must be brought if they are to be effective. He is the man of scenic aesthetics. And he is also a scenery artist as a playwright and as a novelist. One misses the soul in his characters, the historical ideas in the events he depicts. *Gutzkow* is different. He is the most important of the spirits who worked around the middle of the century. If Laube can be described as a social anatomist, Gutzkow is the philosophical observer of his time. His "Ritter vom Geiste" (1850-51) appears as a comprehensive, profound document of this period. Gutzkow presents all the typical figures of society at the time, all the social currents, in order to paint an all-round, perfect picture of his present. The spirit of the time is no less vivid in his novel "The Wizard of Rome" (1858-61). Gutzkow unites the light and dark sides of Catholicism, the sympathetic and unsympathetic characters it produces, into a cultural portrait of the highest value. *Gustav Freytag* does not seem as important to me as to many others. I see the spirit of journalism in all his creations. Freytag endows his creations with all the inaccuracies, obliquities and half-measures with which the editorialist characterizes people and conditions. In this art of characterization, the contemporary catchphrase applies more than the unclouded view into the ramifications and the fullness of reality. The "journalists" are not true characters, but half-true figures, as they live in the minds of the daily writers. This Bolz, as Freytag describes him, is not to be found in reality; but journalism has to invent him in order to express the thoughts of the time.

The figures of Laube, Gutzkow and Freytag no longer have much to say to us contemporary people. Forces have revealed themselves to us in the life of the human soul and in history of which the spirits around the middle of the century still knew nothing. The sense in which this assertion is to be understood will be shown in my next lectures.

#### 3. Spiritual life in Germany before the Franco-Prussian War

The fifties and sixties of this century show a number of parallel currents. One-sided directions of intellectual life went side by side. Only in our time has a confluence of these individual currents taken place. *Herman Grimm* is a personality in whose intellectual physiognomy one of these currents came to the fore. It is the purely aesthetic world view that he professes. For him, the world is not governed by "eternal, iron laws", by the laws of nature. For him, it is a work of art created by a divine artist, revealing infinite beauty. Alongside this purely aesthetic view of the world, the one based on a broader spiritual foundation, founded by *David Friedrich Strauß*, is asserting itself. For Strauß, the personality of the Son of God has evaporated into the divine idea, which cannot be realized in a single human individual (Jesus), but only in the whole of humanity. God cannot gain earthly existence in a human being, but only in the life of the human race.

The third worldview, the one that held the most promise for the future, was introduced by *Charles Darwin's* "Origin of Species" (1859). Through him and his student *Ernst Haeckel*, the worship of nature took the place of the worship of God. There was now no spirit apart from that which nature is capable of producing from itself. Only through it can man come so far as to draw ethical satisfaction from nature itself, which was previously only possible through the prospect of an afterlife. Now his joys spring from this earth.

The artistic document of these world views is *Paul Heyse's* "Children of the World". What matters is not what is told in this novel. What matters is that the world views of the fifties and sixties have taken on an artistic form in it.

The audience that found satisfaction in this novel was one that needed a new world view, a new way of thinking and feeling, but that had no need for a reorganization of social conditions, of the social order.

*Friedrich Spielhagen* met the needs of readers who longed for new forms of life. He made the social ideas and trends of his time the subject of his novels.

#### 4. The literary struggles in the new empire

In the 1970s in Germany, art, philosophy and science are not matters that are at the center of life. Minds are preoccupied by the desire to make themselves as comfortable as possible in the new empire. Politics occupies far more interest than artistic tendencies. The latter are merely a luxury, an addition to life to which people turn during breaks. Poets who sing about things that have nothing to do with the seriousness of life find a large audience. *Redwitz*, *Roquette*, *Rodenberg*, *Bodenstedt*, *Geibel* are very much to the taste of the time. One must forget one's higher spiritual interests if one wants to take unalloyed pleasure in these poets. The eternal sadness of the forest, the cuteness of the little birds, the dreamy devotion to the sweet aspects of nature are not for people for whom art is the highest thing in life.

The further development of the human spirit suffers from the tenacity of human nature. The time of which I speak was not yet so far advanced as to permeate the whole man with that mode of feeling and conception which dominates the scientific view of the world. The old idealism, which seeks to understand the world one-sidedly from the spiritual, still prevails. It could not yet be understood that the spirit is born out of nature, out of immediate reality. Full proof of this is the appearance of *Robert Hamerling*. He is the type of an artist in an overripe age. He has absorbed the ideas of the occidental world in their entirety. But he is unable to bring the artistic form he gives his works into full harmony with his ideas. The sensual, lush images, the colorful depictions that he gives seem only outwardly grafted onto his ideas. If Hamerling were really a modern spirit, the spiritual content would not have to stand beside and above the reality he describes, but would have to ooze out of it. *Sacher-Masoch* is the most vivid example of how little the emergence of the spiritual from the sensual-natural could be understood at that time. This poet burrows into the sensual with a subtle way of understanding. He knows all the secrets of the carnal-natural. But his descriptions remain entirely in the realm of raw, naked sensuality. The spiritual appears next to it as an illusion, a bubble of foam which the sensual produces to deceive man. Hamerling is half Christian, half pagan; Sacher-Masoch is the reverse Christian, who practises a religious cult with the carnal. As certain as Sacher-Masoch's art represents a one-sidedness, his works are certainly documents of the seventies, the time that did not have the strength to rise above one-sidedness.

In Hamerling and Sacher-Masoch lives something that is not exhausted in the merely artistic. For them, poetry is a link within human activity, a means of living out the whole human being, who is more than just an artist. Opposite them are those who cultivate a late art that does not flow directly from human nature, but which has arisen through the transformation and further development of earlier art forms. I count among them: *Hermann Lingg*, *Josef Victor Scheffel*, *Adalbert Stifter*, *Theodor Storm*, *Gottfried Keller*, *Conrad Ferdinand Meyer*, *Theodor Fontane*.

The basic character of the artistic sensibility of the seventies is most clearly evident in drama. While *Brachvogel* still saw the task of drama in a genuinely German way in the shaping of human characters, the most popular playwright of the time became a mere experimenter of dramatic form. And a truly great man like *Ludwig Anzengruber* remains unnoticed. Under *Paul Lindau's* leadership, drama ceased to serve a higher spiritual need; it became a gimmick with the forms of dallying stage poetry borrowed from the French.

Such was the intellectual atmosphere of the time in which the young German Empire was being formed. A thorough dissatisfaction among the young minds is therefore only too understandable. *Michael Georg Conrad*, *Max Kretzer*, *Karl Bleibtreu*, *Konrad Alberti* became the spokesmen for the dissatisfied. They wanted to put a young, promising art in the place of the old-fashioned, outdated one. It doesn't matter what the young revolutionaries achieved. They all failed to deliver what they promised. What matters is that they gave expression to a basic sentiment that was only too justified among the young generation of the seventies.

#### 5. The significance of Ibsen and Nietzsche for modern intellectual life

In the fifth of my lectures I tried to describe the significance of *Ibsen* and *Nietzsche* for modern intellectual life. Ibsen himself lived through the battles that took place between the spirits in the second half of this century. He was not so happy to be able to devote himself entirely to a one-sided current of thought and to fight everything else from one point of view, like Schopenhauer, Max Stirner, Lassalle, David Friedrich Strauss. His soul is a battlefield on which the spiritual battle types all appear and wrestle with each other without one of them being victorious. His spiritual work is a discussion of many individuals who dwell within him.

Two main currents run through the second half of our century. The first is a radical longing for freedom. We want to be independent of all divine providence, independent of all tradition, of inherited and inherited elements of life, independent of the influence of social and state organization. We want to be masters of our own destiny.

This longing is countered by the belief, flowing from modern natural science, that we are completely woven into the fabric of a rigid necessity. We are descendants of the most highly developed mammals. What they accomplish is an effect of their organization. And what we humans do, think and feel is also a result of our natural constitution. It is conceivable that natural science will come so far as to be able to prove exactly how the parts of our brain must be organized and move when we have a certain idea, a certain sensation or expression of will. How we are organized is how we must behave. How can we still speak of freedom in the face of this knowledge?

I believe that natural science can give us the awareness of freedom in a more beautiful form than human beings have ever had. Laws are at work in our souls which are just as natural as those which drive the heavenly bodies around the sun. But these laws represent something that is higher than all the rest of nature. This something is present nowhere else but in human beings. What flows from this something is what makes man free. He rises above the rigid necessity of inorganic and organic lawfulness, obeys and follows only himself. The Christian view, on the other hand, is that divine providence rules in this area, which man has for himself over and above nature.

Henrik Ibsen was unable to find a balance between the belief in the rigid necessity of nature and the urge for freedom. His dramas show that he wavers back and forth between these two extreme beliefs. Sometimes he lets his characters struggle for freedom, sometimes he lets them be members of an iron necessity.

It was Friedrich Nietzsche who first taught the emancipation of man from the rest of nature. Man should not follow any supernatural or mere natural laws. He should not be a plaything of divine providence and not a member of natural necessity. He should be the meaning of the earth, that is, the being that lives itself out in full independence. It should develop of its own accord and not be subject to any laws. This is Nietzsche's ethics. This is the basis of his idea of a "revaluation of all values". Until now, people have favoured those who best follow the laws that they believe to be divine or natural. An image of perfection has been held up to man. The person who only wanted to live out of himself, who did not strive for this image, was seen as a troublemaker of the general order. That should change. The type that strives for all the strength, power and beauty that are not predetermined, but lie within itself, should be able to develop freely. Man, who lives only according to the law, should be a bridge between the animal and the superman, who creates the law himself.

All belief in the hereafter will be overcome when man will have learned to build his existence on himself.

I would also like to describe Zola as a personality who works in the sense of Nietzsche's world view. In Zola's opinion, the work of art should not represent something higher, something divine in relation to immediate reality, no, the artist should represent this reality as he sees it through his temperament. In this way, he feels himself to be the creator and the one who enjoys him to be the sense of the earth. Both remain within the real, but they depict it in such a way that through their representation they awaken the consciousness that man is a natural being like all other natural things, but a higher one, which is able to give things a free form of its own accord.

#### 6. The influence of the world view of an age on the technique of poetry

*Schiller's* dramatic technique is only possible with a poet who believes in a moral world order. In Schiller's sense, the dramatic hero must be brought to the tragic catastrophe through guilt. The catastrophe must appear as a punishment. We, with our purely scientific view of the world, find it absurd if the catastrophe in the drama is linked to guilt. What happens in the human world has for us the same character of moral-free necessity as the rolling of a billiard ball that is hit by another. Such a necessity also satisfies us in drama alone. Following on from this, I developed the connection between the scientific direction of the eighties and the poetic naturalism of the time. The young poets of that time wanted to depict the facts just as externally as the naturalists observed them. They were attached to the outside, which often lies before the senses; the deeper connections in nature and human life, which only reveal themselves to the mind, were not taken into account by either the researchers or the artists at the time. Today we are striving towards a different view of the world and of life. The poet will not link the facts of the world as they appear in the light of a moral or other divine world order, but neither will he link them as they present themselves to mere external, sensory observation. He will assert the right of his personality. *His* temperament, *his* imagination will move him to see things in a different context than observation shows him. He will express *himself* through the things he depicts. Therefore, all aesthetics will dissolve into psychology. The only reason for the way a poet creates will be the peculiarity of his personality. I would like to call the criticism that must necessarily develop from this view individualistic, in contrast to the surviving criticism that applies objective standards. This time I am only giving this brief account of my lecture because I would like to discuss the matter in more detail in this space next time.

#### 7. The spiritual life of the present

We live in a time in which the revolutionization of the spirits through the world view gained on the basis of natural science exerts its convincing effect on all people who take a remarkable part in spiritual life. But for many, this effect is only on the mind. These many see man as the creature they must regard him as when they draw the necessary conclusions from Darwin's world-changing ideas. But the hearts of these spirits, their sensibilities, are not as advanced as their minds. They think in scientific terms and feel in Christian terms. This causes in them that terribly painful mood of the soul which must arise when one says to oneself that what is valuable is the world beyond, the world of pure ideals and heavenly goods, and when one realizes at the same time that this world is an empty fantasy, an insubstantial dream. One spirit in whom this painful mood has found a grandiose poetic expression is *Marie Eugenie delle Grazie*. In her admirable poem "Robespierre", she gave words to this pain. To her, the earth is the ruthless all-mother, who uselessly and pointlessly creates new beings and destroys them again just to serve her greed, and who from time to time also creates prophets - Socrates, Christ, Robespierre - who dream of ideals in order to deceive people for a short time about the nothingness of existence. Without these idealistic dreamers, they would prefer annihilation to existence. Through the idealists, people are repeatedly stimulated to a new lust for life, but at the same time deprived of real knowledge.

The dichotomy between head and heart, between feeling and understanding is the content of most contemporary poetry. *Arno Holz*, *Julius Hart* are the singers of this dichotomy. But we also have poets who can draw from the new world view the courage to face life and the joy of existence that flows from it for those who truly recognize it. We do not need a view of the hereafter to get over the tribulations of this world. This was expressed in poignant poems above all by *Hermann Conradi*, who unfortunately died so young. It also resonates in some of *Wilhelm Jordan's* poetry and that of many others.

But we also have a poet to whom the modern way of feeling is as if innate, who has not forced his way into it through struggle and pain, who is naively modern: *Otto Erich Hartleben*. The others first have to come to terms with Christianity in order to feel modern; he originally feels modern. I like every note in his poetry because I have to feel everything the way he does.

I have now explained in this lecture what *Wilhelm Jensen*, *Wilhelm Raabe*, *Richard Dehmel*, *Detlev von Liliencron* mean within the modern world; I have characterized contemporary drama ( *Max Halbe*, *Ernst von Wolzogen*, *Hermann Sudermann*, *Gerhart Hauptmann*, *Otto Erich Hartleben*). In a short paper I cannot reproduce the content of the lecture, into which I have squeezed everything I have to say about my contemporaries.

In these lectures I have endeavored to give a picture of the revolutionization of minds in the second half of this century. We are currently celebrating the anniversary of the revolution. But more important to us than the political revolution is the purely spiritual revolution of our world view. We are entering the new century with significantly different feelings than those of our ancestors who were brought up in Christianity. We have truly become "new people", but we, who also profess the new worldview with our hearts, are a small congregation. We want to be fighters for our gospel, so that in the coming century a new generation may arise that knows how to live, satisfied, cheerful and proud, without Christianity, without a view of the hereafter.