Hugo von Hofmannsthal and the Poetry of Crisis

Introduction: Hofmannsthal, the enfant terrible of Vienna

Hugo von Hofmannsthal is perhaps the greatest claimant to the title of the German enfant terrible, placing him alongside Mikhail Lermontov in Russia and, most famously of all, Arthur Rimbaud in France in the German canon. Like those two poets Hofmannsthal displayed precocious talents at a young age – in his case he frequented a literary salon from the age of about fifteen with his father accompanying him since he was too young to go alone. And like Rimbaud, Hofmannsthal also ceased writing poetry suddenly to concentrate on other parts of his life. The reason usually identified by the critics is that he lost his belief in language as a tool to convey thought and the reality he saw around him. This crisis is memorably expressed in his fictional “Lord Chandos Letter” to Francis Bacon, in which the former man (a surrogate for Hofmannsthal) explains how language has failed him.

Hugo von Hofmannsthal shown in a photograph
Hugo von Hofmannsthal (1874-1929). Don’t let his dates fool you – he wrote almost all of his poetry before the turn of the century, before settling down into gloom and reactionary politics.

I am no Hofmannsthal expert, but I have read through his small poetic corpus a few times and want to share two aspects of his poetry that make him an interesting poet to me. Though the crisis that ultimately turns him away from poetry appears to be a linguistic one, I think there are more tensions lying under the surface of his perfectly tuned poesy than just ones of language. As ever, unmarked translations are mine.

Language Dies with a Whimper

By the time Hofmannsthal in 1902 actually penned his imaginary letter complaining of his inability to write it was long since he had written anything substantial. In my copy of his poems there are collected those poems he did not see worth publishing in his 1922 Gedichte. Some of these aren’t very good, but interestingly enough as 1895/6 – the apogee of his talents – passed he began to write several little couplets, which are scarcely poems at all. Instead, they seem a halfway point between the faith in language expressed poems like “A Dream of Great Magic” and the collapse of that faith expressed in the “Lord Chandos Letter”. At only two lines long, they seem positively Beckettian in attitude – the attempt to salvage some kind of meaning from the gigantic void that language’s failure has left. Some of them are, though bitter, thought-provoking and beautiful. Hopefully my translations are too!

Names

“Visp’s the name of a frothing brook; another name is Goethe. 
There came the name from the thing; but here the bearer created its clang.”

This poem is written by a poet who is very aware of words and their effects; but not only that these effects exist but how they have the capacity to be created and remade by a sufficiently talented person, like a Goethe.

Words

“There are some words that hit like hammers. But others
You swallow like hooks and swim on and do not yet know it.”

I love this one. It captures one of those inarticulable feelings you get when you read something truly superb. You know that the best works and their words will stay with you, but Hofmannsthal puts his finger on an image for how they do it. “Words”, here, is more specifically phrases, but I think that’s clear enough from the context and of little importance anyway. That title sounds better to my ear than “phrases” would.

The Art of the Storyteller

“Do you wish to depict the murder? Well show me the hound in the yard: /
Now show me at the same time in the eye of the dog the shadows of the killing.”

I think in this one the scepticism about language’s ability to reflect reality is clearly manifest. It was even clearer when I accidentally misread “murder” for “world” in the German because I wasn’t being careful. Nonetheless, Hofmannsthal is challenging our ability to depict the world in any meaningful way. Meaning here is removed by the successive impulse to get into smaller and smaller parts of reality – first the dog, then his eye, and then the shadows of the killing itself. It becomes too much, too detailed. We’re overloaded with information we cannot possibly manage to represent, and so representation itself becomes suspect. While the modernist fiction writers tried to go further and further into the subconscious, Hofmannsthal is expressing a feeling of futility in such an idea. It will never not fail at showing everything we are. This is the poem of one who will shortly give up on poetry.

Hofmannsthal’s Poetical (and Political) Guilt and Doubt

Late in life Hofmannsthal, the Austrian aristocrat, became a great reactionary. The loss the empire over which he and his fellow Viennese had ruled through military failure in the First World War was too much to bear for a soul like his, one already inclined by birth towards that which is conservative and noble in temperament. But we ought to give him his due – he was young once. And in his poems, there is more a tension between an artistic temperament that seeks to live creating art-for-art’s-sake, channelling a certain strand of Nietzsche, and an awareness of the responsibilities that he has for his people as a result of his position in society. A sense of his duty as a human being fighting against his sense of his duty as an artist. I think it is this tension that produces one of his most well-known poems, “Manche Freilich…”/”Some, of course…”:

Some, of course…

Some, of course, will have to die below,
Where the heavy rudders of the ship are striving;
Others live at the helm above,
And know the birds’ flights and the stars’ lands.

Some have to lie down with heavy limbs
Among the roots of tortured lives;
Others find they've seats arranged
Up by the Sibyls and the queens,
And there they sit as if at home,
With easy bodies and easy hands.


But a shadow falls up from that life
Into the other life above,
And the easy are bound to the heavy
Just as they’re bound to earth and air:

I can’t remove forgotten tragedies
That plagued past peoples from my eyes;
Nor keep my frightened soul safe from
The silent fall of far-off stars.

Many fates are woven beside my own
And through them all a presence plays;
And my part is more than just this life’s
Slightest flame or slender lyre. 

A German version of the poem can be found here

Analysis: a political poem?

I’m not entirely sure what this poem means, but I’ve learned it and had it going around in my head for a few months, so I’ve at the very least been thinking about it. The sticking point, critically speaking, is in the first line: “Some, of course, will have to die below”/”Manche freilich müssen drunten sterben”. It’s hard to know what tone this is written in. It seems at first to indicate a resigned attitude towards equality and social progress and, if not an endorsement of existing hierarchies, then at the very least a suggestion that the hierarchies ought not to be tampered with. But it could be read as anything from complete support to a more insidious, ironic tone. I, at least, can’t read it without hearing irony. The description of the ship is designed to show inequality, without being so political as to start demanding solutions.

A picture of Ludwig Wittgenstein
Ludwig Wittgenstein was born at almost the same time as Hofmannsthal, and into even more luxury. But unlike Hofmannsthal, whose “Some, of course” shows hesitation before action, Wittgenstein’s life contains many heroic attempts to connect with his fellow men and women.

Instead, the focus seems to be on the existence of inequality and the need, not for solutions so much as for understanding and a sense of personal responsibility. Hofmannsthal here is trying to feel what anybody in his position as an aristocrat, and indeed anybody in a position of relative wealth, can easily forget to feel – a sense of awareness of, and compassion and responsibility towards those who luck and other circumstances have not left as well-off as they have themselves. It is easy enough, I know from experience, to ignore the plight of others as being almost unreal, to dismiss the homeless as somehow deserving of their fate, and criminals as being exclusively bad people. Of course, there are bad people among the criminals, just as there are dangerous people among the homeless, but that cannot be justification to look away and hide from the obligation to pay attention.

Interconnectedness as solution

Hofmannsthal is keenly aware that he does not need to take any part in society whatsoever, except, if he wants, as an artist. A life of aesthetic and creative pleasure lies open to him in a way that it is for almost nobody else. He can, in the language of the poem, look at the birds and the stars, and sit and feast well into the early morning. But this life becomes, in contemplation of the reality facing him as a conscientious human being, inadequate – “my part is more than just this life’s slightest flame or slender lyre” – the lines reject making that life of luxuriant aestheticism the entirety of his world. Not only do the fruits of that life seem to be unworthy, Hofmannsthal also appears to feel a kind of guilt from it, suggested by “I can’t remove forgotten tragedies / That plagued past peoples from my eyes”.

He begins to see being fully aware of “the presence” / “Dasein” that runs through all things as the goal of his life. With that there comes a view of the world that sees all life as valuable for being a reflection of this central idea of its very existence. It’s not a religious idea per se, so much as the idea of our interconnectedness made clearer. Instead of seeing himself as isolated from other people because of his social status, Hofmannsthal here reworks his understanding of his position to allow himself the ability to feel keenly the value of other people, even as he doesn’t let it become a political statement. He disestablishes the hierarchies of his mind, instead of concerning himself with destroying the hierarchies of the world. In essence, he adds compassion to his conservatism. It is, I think, a somewhat heroic gesture.

Conclusion – Reasons to read Hofmannsthal

Hofmannsthal is a pretty cool poet. What I like the most about his poetry is how little there is of it, and how good what there is is. No matter how productively-minded you may be, there’s enough time to go back and reread things, and think about what they have to say. The German is attractive to the ear, and the topics that he deals with are usually interesting enough. That sounds like a lukewarm recommendation, and perhaps it is, but I think it’s difficult to capture a sense of beauty when you recommend something anyway. His poetry is beautiful and filled with pleasant turns and wondrous images. He is neither a great thinker nor a great soul in his poetry, but for a young man who stopped writing his poems only a year or two older than I am now, it’s amazing what he did achieve. Check him out.

For more German poetry, I’ve translated some pieces by Theodor Storm here.

The Largely-Forgotten Tragedy of Fontane’s Effi Briest

Introduction – Germany’s contribution to the European realist novel

There are no two ways about it – Effi Briest is a sad and depressing book, and a deeply tragic one too. It tells the story of the marriage of a young girl to a much older man, and that marriage’s inevitable break down. I heard about it, as I imagine a few others may have done, because Samuel Beckett really liked it, and though I don’t like Beckett’s writing much his praise was enough to put Fontane’s novel on my radar. Beckett said of it: “I read it for the fourth time the other day with the same old tears in the same old places”, and while I can’t imagine reading it four times I do think I’ll come back to it one day, and maybe even be moved once more. It is, all in all, an excellent book.

A painting of Theodor Fontane, author of Effi Briest
Theodor Fontane (1819-1898) is the most well-known representative of German bourgeois realism. He turned to novel writing late in his life, using works like Effi Briest and Frau Jenny Treibel with their female leads to criticise the social structure and ideals of the newly unified German Reich.

But that’s where its problems begin. Effi Briest is a good book: it is meticulously well put together, pleasantly short for a 19th century realist novel, and has interesting characters whose fates are easy enough to be interested in. But it was published 1895, a few scant years after Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, a book which it has a lot in common with, and a book which is Great where Effi Briest is only good. I know the Germanists have tried to make Effi stand among Anna and Flaubert’s Madame Bovary as one of the best realist novels of the 19th Century, but I can’t help but feel the comparison just leaves Effi looking silly, a little girl next to these older and more experienced women.

The Daughter of the Air – Effi Briest at home

“Poor Effi”, as the narrator on rare occasions breaks their neutral facade to call her, is seventeen at the story’s beginning, though there’s very little indicate that. The girl is introduced more as a cheeky child than as an almost-adult, with she and her mother doing some handiwork together. Effi soon leaves to be with her friends, though, where they make a mess eating berries and sitting on the swing at Effi’s house. The swing is one of the recurrent leitmotifs of the story, one of those objects connecting Effi and a certain vision of her world. She is given the epithet “Daughter of the air” at one point, and it well describes the carefree attitude that she has at the novel’s outset.

But there are storm clouds ahead, even if Effi can’t see them. While they eat their berries she tells her friends about the guest to the family’s house, Baron Geert von Innstettin, who once was madly in love with Effi’s mother but was unable to marry her due to lack of funds, and who perhaps – we assume – still has some passion left over. He proposes to Effi as soon as she has finished with her friends, in spite of only having had a glimpse of her up till then, and with no small amount of pressure from her parents Effi agrees to let herself be married off.

Very little of this is described, which I suppose is one of my main gripes with Fontane. The wedding is not described, the first real meeting between Effi and Innstetten isn’t described, and the honeymoon trip to Italy is equally sparsely illustrated. You might say that this is impressive stylistic economy – Fontane knows what he doesn’t need to show. Furthermore, it surely adds a sense of mystery to the novel, making us ask ourselves what might have happened and look for clues in the rest of the narrative. Up to a point I’d agree with both of these views. But only up to a point. For I suspect that Fontane’s economy is due to a lack of funds too – I can’t help but feel he just doesn’t have the talent or confidence to attempt certain scenes, such as going inside Effi’s head while she’s giving birth.

Kessin and its ghouls

After some shopping in Berlin, Effi is whisked away to the fictional town of Kessin, out on the Baltic Sea, where Innstettin has his home. It is a quiet, isolated town with an oppressive atmosphere that leaves Effi longing for her own home. One of the best scenes in this section of the novel is one where Effi sees the train heading West and cries – it is excellent precisely because the connection between home and trains is one we have to make for ourselves. Throughout the novel trains are constantly mentioned – they always point to another life that seems to be running away from us.

A picture of the Baltic Sea
The Baltic Sea. In Effi Briest the town of Kessin becomes a hugely oppressive place for young Effi, who finds its populace close-minded and hostile, and the sea equally cold.

Even with Innstettin, who Effi does love, or thinks she does, there is difficulty. He goes away regularly for work, leaving her all alone. The townsfolk, bar one, are no company, and the house may have a ghost in the attic who prevents Effi from sleeping well. Another brilliant moment that reveals just how isolated Effi is is when she confesses to the maid about how she didn’t sleep well the first time the ghost appears. This information, given privately, is then immediately passed on to Innstettin by his servant – it shows where the real power in the house lies, and how Effi is completely without anyone to trust.

“An Affair” of sorts

Eventually an old friend of Innstettin’s comes to town to occupy one of the various beaurocratic posts created by the new German Reich. He is, like Effi’s husband, in his forties, but Major Crampas is also a far more youthful man than Innstettin is. Innstettin is a man who is absolutely blinded by various conceptions of duty, order, and what is proper – his career is everything to him, and even though he cares for Effi it’s hard to see much passion in his interaction with her.

Meanwhile, Crampas knows poetry, and dazzles Effi by introducing her to Heine’s works. Even though he has a wife, that doesn’t stop him from seducing her. The consummation of their affair takes place in a carriage, deep in the woods late one night on the way back from a dinner – a thoroughly Romantic location. It lies at the centre of the novel in terms both of structure, and in terms of pages.

But after it, there’s almost no hint that the affair took place. Effi meets him a few more times, and we forget about him. It may be that I didn’t understand the nuances of the German I read the novel in, but that really did seem to be all there was to it. There aren’t any more chapters devoted to him. He just fades out. Effi, for her part, doesn’t really seem to be all that into the affair. Like a leaf floating the air, she just seems content to be blown around by his passions.

Growing up and its Consequences

With the prospect of an imminent promotion Innstettin decides, much to Effi’s relief, to move to Berlin with her. She goes ahead to choose a flat, but deciding she doesn’t want to see Crampas again, she feigns illness until Innstettin himself comes out, a few weeks later, having finished up at home in Kessin. Her illness is a key incident because it shows how Effi has gone from being a carefree dreamer to having something akin to a cunning nature of her own. From being a child who it is easy to like, I found myself turning a little bit against her.

But time passes, and everybody gets on with life. Effi’s daughter, Annie, grows up a little, and Effi herself reaches about twenty-five years old before anything else happens. It is then, quite by chance, that Innstettin discovers Crampas’s old love letters to Effi. Even though the whole thing lies deep in the past he decides that his honour still demands he duel with Crampas, so he arrives in Kessin and kills him in single combat in another sparsely described scene – “The shots came; Crampas fell”. Crampas tries to say something, but dies before he can have any last words. Innstettin goes home, having already sent Effi away, and gets on with his life. Fontane’s realist style does well to take any kind of magic away from the conflict.

The Ending of the Story

Effi can’t go home – her parents forbid it – but she does get a little money from them and rents a small flat, also in Berlin. She has few visitors, except for one of Innstettin’s servants whom she had been responsible for hiring, and who now decides to carry on serving her. Only twice does she see her own child, but the second time, in a meeting organised with Innstettin’s blessing, Annie is completely monotonous and shows no signs of affection towards her mother. Effi sends her away after only a few minutes, and cries. But her inner turmoil is avoided by Fontane – another moment where he seems to have lacked the confidence to go inside her head.

Eventually though, Effi gets to go home after her parents take pity on her. She has some happy moments, then dies of a chill. It is a frustrating ending because there really is no reason for her to die. Both Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary had relatively good reasons to justify their tragic fates. But with Effi, I can’t help but feel like Fontane was just shrugging his shoulders and saying “well, I have to finish the novel somehow”. I also am not sure I am a fan of the implications of the end, which seem to suggest that death is inevitable for adulterers. It’s strange to me because Fontane is generally a champion of progressive social changes in the novel. It’s like he can’t bring himself to have an ending that fully goes against convention.

A photo of a girl on a swing.
A little girl on a swing. If only Effi had chosen to stay on her swing instead of marrying at such a young age her life would not have ended in misery and tragedy. But as with both Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary social pressures proved greater than Effi’s own resistance. We can only hope that in our own day the situation is no longer so.

The one thing I did like about the ending, though, was the glimpse we get of Innstettin. He now has served a short stint in prison for the duel and is back at work, having also had the promotion he wanted. But all his love for his job has vanished. He is tormented by the feeling that all of his career ambition is actually meaningless, that the duel was a mistake too. I didn’t want to see him have a gruesome comeuppance, but I was glad to see him face the consequences of his own actions. In much the same way Effi’s parents express the beginnings of doubts concerning the whole marriage, once she is back at home and dying. Even though Fontane isn’t willing to keep Effi alive, I suppose he does make the most of her death.

Conclusion

I suppose I can recommend Effi Briest, but only with reservations. If you are going to dip into Fontane, it seems to be an excellent place to start – but given how few of his works are translated, there’s not much choice to begin with. He called Effi his “first real success”, and it is a success. But as much as we often like to read good books, variety also seems to be pretty important in considering what to give our time to. And unfortunately there is another novel which involves trains, adultery, parents and children, and the battle of the individual against social pressures – another novel which is, I think, far better than Effi Briest. That’s the unavoidable problem here. If it weren’t for the book being useful for my German exams next year, I’d be feeling a little disappointed that I hadn’t just read Anna Karenina another time through.

Am I completely wrong here? Have you read Effi Briest and did you enjoy it? Comment below!

Picture of the Baltic Sea by Mantas Volungevicius [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)] is used without changes.

Conrad Meyer’s The Marriage of the Monk and the Challenge to Truth

I confess I only read The Marriage of the Monk (“Die Hochzeit des Mönchs”) because it was mentioned a few times in the general criticism on German novellas in the 19th century I’d been reading and it sounded like it would be a good fit for my exams at the end of next year. But, all things considered, there’ve been worse reasons I’ve read books. And worse books I’ve read for better reasons. For it actually turns out that The Marriage of the Monk was actually worth reading to begin with, even in the original German as I did. I thought I’d share a few of its interesting features here, since it’s impossible to find a translation online and hard enough in the real world too, and they aren’t worth being lost along with the novella.

A photo of Conrad Meyer
Conrad Meyer (1825 – 1898) is chiefly known outside of the German-speaking lands for nothing, because hardly any translations of his works exist. But The Marriage of the Monk is one of his many well-crafted little historical stories

The Frame Narrative

The story is made up of a frame narrative, the outer layer of which takes place in Verona, where a group of friends are gathered round the fire and telling stories. Their head is Cangrande della Scala, an Italian nobleman best known now for his patronage of the poet, Dante. He summons Dante from the back of the room and asks him to tell the group a story, and the story of The Marriage of the Monk is his choice. How does a monk get married? The title already contains the central tension – a monk is someone who has renounced worldly passions including love and marriage, so it is only by breaking one’s vows of chastity that such a man can return to the world. Dante details the consequences of this.

A painting of Dante, the story's primary narrator
Dante Alighieri, world famous poet. By choosing him as a narrator Meyer already raises questions about what kinds of “truth” he as a writer can represent.

The Marriage of the Monk – Plot Summary

Dante’s tale begins with the sinking of marriage boat as it goes along a river in Padua. The husband and almost every male in his family is on board, in the chaos they all perish. Diana, the wife, is rescued by the monk, Astorre, who appears from one bank of the river just as from the other there comes the famed tyrant, Ezzelino III da Romano. It turns out that the monk is the last male heir of the groom’s family, and the old patriarch, on his deathbed, begs the monk to renounce his vows and return to the world, so that his accumulated worldly wealth will not be wasted. A Papal letter grants permission to return only if Astorre agrees to by his own free will, but he is against it. Only with pressure from the old man does he eventually relent and agree to marry his brother’s widow.

Obviously, love in those days counted for very little. A date is set for the exchange of rings, and the marriage itself. Astorre meets old friends and finds himself more than a little out of his depth in the world of cutthroat tyrants and backstabbing. But he successfully goes and buys a ring for his future wife, only to realise that he doesn’t know her finger size, so he gets two gold rings instead of the one. As he walks home he drops one of these rings, and this finds its way into the hands of a young girl, Antiope, who he had once met at the beheading of her father. Her mother, driven mad by the incident, declares that the monk must wish to marry her daughter, and decides that they must go to his parties to see him.

This happens, and a fight takes place between the three women of the story. As Astorre walks the young girl home, however, it becomes clear that he loves her instead of his betrothed. His friends are against it, especially since the widow’s brother is one of them. But eventually the widow relents, agreeing to give return the old ring to Antiope so that the monk no longer has any divided loyalties. But there is a condition. At the fancy dress party taking place that evening Antiope must come to the widow, Diana, herself and take the ring off, humiliating herself in front of high society. When she comes, however, Diana (who is dressed as her divine namesake) takes an arrow and kills Antiope. The monk, arriving too late to save her, tries to get revenge but is cut down. They die in each other’s arms.

That’s the plot, so now for the cool things about how The Marriage of the Monk is made.

Interpretation: Playing with Truth

Storytelling

Even if you didn’t get that Cangrande was a real figure, it’s hard not to have heard of Dante. Meyer uses real figures in all of his novellas, but we should immediately ask ourselves the question – Why? It is easy enough to answer why Ezzelino is included: he is a splash of local colour, tying the story down to a concrete place and time and thus adding to the verisimilitude of it just as namedropping a few landmarks helps in modern historical novels. But why use Dante and Cangrande?

I think, at least in part, it has to do with a sceptical attitude towards truth that runs through the whole of the story. When I imagine Dante, it’s as a grand poet, dressed in his magnificent red robes, as in the portrait. By having him be a slightly scrawny figure, uncomfortable in the world, Meyer undermines our idea of Dante, leaving our footing uncertain. The same is true of his story – this is a simple tale, hardly comparable in scale or scope to the Divine Comedy. As Dante himself says, “I am developing this story from an inscription on a tombstone”. Is this what Dante would tell? I think we are supposed to be left dissatisfied and questioning.

A woodcut of Ezzelino III da Romano, one of the novella's characters
Ezzelino III da Romano, another one of the historical figures used by Meyer. Is he just a splash of colour or does his inclusion mean something more?

More importantly, there is the question of how Dante would tell a story. I don’t mean in tercets. The Marriage of the Monk does some other cool things that challenge our usual idea of stories and storytelling. For one, Dante often admits that he doesn’t know something or a concrete detail. He challenges his own authority as the teller by drawing the reader’s attention to the fact that his story is only one of many possible interpretations of the event. There are also regular interruptions from other characters in the frame narrative, either to challenge something that Dante said, or even just so that people can shuffle about by the fire. The cumulative effect, though, is to make us aware both that this is really just a story, and that it is being told in a way that is far from any Truth.

There are other contributing factors to this critique of truth. For one, Dante takes the names of the characters around the fire for the characters within the story. Naturally, Ezzelino retains his name, but there is a Germano in both the frame narrative of The Marriage of the Monk and in its main story. The same is true of the women. Though Dante freely admits “I leave your innermost feelings untouched, since I can’t see into them”, the use of names still strikes us as strange. It means that the characters within the story are obviously not entirely the people they are supposed to be, because when we imagine people their names are a big part of their identity. Once again, we’re only getting a half-truth as a story.

Dante also leaves out the moral at the end of the story, a key element of fireside tales. After finishing he just stands up and leaves. This is particularly jarring because he is otherwise a very chatty storyteller, regularly listening to the interruptions and giving his opinion on them. The ending, then, comes as a shock and leaves us alone to decide for ourselves why it is that the monk is punished. Is it just because he removed his cowl? Or because he went against society by abandoning the woman he was supposed to marry?

Authority and Truth, inside and outside of the narrative

This critique of truth, indicated by the various formal features of the narrative, now lets us look at the story in a new light as we try to answer the question of Astorre’s fate. The consciousness of authority’s weak support base in truth is now revealed. In part the story does this by regular use of doublings. To the sinking boat come from one side the monk, representing a pure and Christian world view, and from the other Ezzelino, representing a worldly and scheming world view. There are two women. Antiope is pure and loved while Diana is the daughter of a rich man and so has more worldly value. The two rings bought by Astorre convey a sense of his divided loyalty to both the world and the divine.

When Dante describes Antiope finding the ring, he draws attention to his own sceptical storytelling by asking the listeners why they would believe in the fantastic overturning of the boat, but would not believe that from Antiope’s perspective she was perfectly correct in taking the gold ring as a sign that Astorre loved her and wished to be married. Dante shows that the worldview where we build stories around coincidences often leads us down paths that can be fatal, as in Antiope and Astorre’s case. He seems to suggest that is dangerous to believe too much.

Conclusion

What then kills Astorre? I think it is his divided loyalty between too many different truths. He cannot decide whether to commit to love, or whether to commit to worldly power and his duty as a nobleman. As one of his friends says before the monk dies, “Go back to your cloister, Astorre – you never should have left it”. The man is right – by leaving his cloister Astorre has to make a choice about what truth he believes in, while so long as he stays inside he is safe with only his duty to God. The Marriage of the Monk thus becomes a cautionary tale about the danger of naivety in a world where truth no longer matters. In our own modern world, where considerable scepticism is necessary to survive the modern news landscape, it remains surprisingly relevant in its message. If you can read German, give it a go.