Tag: Conservative writing

Harsh Reality? Love and Class in Theodor Fontane’s On Tangled Paths

On Tangled Paths (Irrungen Wirrungen) is the fourth novel of the German author Theodor Fontane that I have read, and the third on this blog after No Way Back and Effi Briest. It is a love story, but an incredibly prosaic one. Its focus is the relationship of Lene, the adopted daughter of a washerwoman, and Botho, a young aristocrat and officer. The relationship is doomed from the start – Botho cannot possibly marry her. The great question is whether the characters will accept that and let what they have become a pleasant memory, or whether they will try to hold onto the past and potentially destroy their own futures. As with his other novels, Fontane writes simply, carefully, and intelligently about the social problems of the late 19th century. An old man when he published the novel in 1888, he treats his subject with corresponding warmth and wisdom.

Setting the Scene in On Tangled Paths

We begin with a house. Fontane demands a little initial patience – each one of his stories begins with a slow camera shot, drawing ever closer to a front door. The house in question is the one where Frau Nimptsch and Lene, her adopted daughter, live. From the beginning there is a note of plaintive nostalgia – Fontane mentions that the house is no longer there. We take this to mean that it has been consumed by the urban sprawl that transformed Berlin in the closing decades of the 19th century from a comparative backwater to a metropolis as great as any then in Europe. We are witnessing in this building something temporary as the relationships of the novel, but still we are asked to sit by, to watch, to find its beauty.

A painting showing a thriving Berlin scene
In the background of On Tangled Paths we have a sense of the churning development of the newly founded German Empire. Many of the locations featured in the novel had already been destroyed and replaced by new buildings to house the city’s ballooning population by the time Fontane published it. Painting by Adolph von Menzel

Alongside Frau Nimptsch is an old couple, the Dörrs. They grow a little produce that they sell at market. These four characters form the working class of the novel, an untraditional family of sorts. They bicker, they argue, but there is a tenderness and warmth here. We are introduced to Lene and her relationship through conversation between the two older women. Frau Dörr, whose husband married her in part because he considered her more attractive for once having had a relationship with someone from the higher classes, takes a somewhat cynical view of things – that one must remain detached. “When they start gettin’ ideas, that’s when things turn bad.” Love is not something that triumphs over all else, but one factor among many in determining what makes best sense.

Lene and her Love

Lene is perhaps my favourite heroine of Fontane’s. Though she is young, she evades many of the clichés authors, especially male authors, usually attach to their female creations. And indeed, perhaps that’s what I like about Fontane – for all his mundanity in style, his content is quietly revolutionary. I was genuinely surprised when I understood that On Tangled Paths was going to have such a focus on the lower classes. It was so natural, but at the same time unusual for a work of the 19th century. Though Lene is in love with Botho, her aristocrat, she also is intelligent enough to know that their time is limited. At one moment she’s putting a strawberry in her mouth for him to eat; in another, she’s admitting she knows this cannot last.

“Believe me, having you here now, having this time with you, that’s my happiness. I don’t worry about what the future holds. One day I’ll find you’ve flown away…”

Maybe words like these are dishonest. Maybe Lene uses them to try to convince herself to let him go. But they still speak to a deep self-knowledge and reflection, a kind of strength of character.

We meet Lene already into the relationship with Botho. They met after a boating trip went wrong and Botho intervened to save her party. That is in Easter, and before the end of the Summer things are finished between them. Time is short, and they aim to spend it well. One day, they go alone on a trip to an inn out in the countryside for a few days of peace and quiet. The whole experience is fragile, but beautiful for that very fragility. “Neither of them said anything. They mused on their happiness and wondered how much longer it would last.”

Botho…

Botho is less interesting than Lene, but then again, I’ve met far more of his kind in literature than I’ve met of hers. Botho is the kind of person I’d dismiss as a fool, no doubt because I see myself in him. He is terribly weak-willed, completely prey to external circumstances – his reputation, his family, and money. He is, at least at first, unable to do either what is necessary and part with Lene, or else to do battle against necessity and find a way for them to be together forever. Anything that suggests commitment he shies away from.

But at the same time, he is interesting more for what he and his role says about class in the early German Empire. Fontane is, after all, writing a book that is keenly attuned to slight and not-so-slight social differences. From the moment we meet him we’re aware that he’s not like the others: “He was visibly on the merry side, having come straight from imbibing a May punch, the object of a wager at his club”. He has been at the club, a place inaccessible to the women both on account of their gender and their class. He is jolly, but there is a hint of mockery about his joviality. When he declares that every station in life has its dignity, even that of a washerwoman, it’s hard to tell whether he really means it, or indeed anything he says.

…And his World

Fontane shows us Botho among Lene’s people, and then among his own. The change is immediately apparent. No longer is he Botho, but “Baron Botho von Rienäcker”. He lives in an apartment, with servants, with art on the walls and a bird in a cage for entertainment – the little hobbies of a certain social stratum. When he meets his friends they adopt masks in the form of names taken from books – Lene can read, but she hasn’t the cultural knowledge that is second nature to Botho’s coterie. He dines out with them, and we have a sense of further insurmountable linguistic barriers. Metaphors are invariably hunting related, or else concern the military – they are all officers. Botho’s enjoyment of Lene is tolerated, but not any suggestion that he would take it further. He is allowed entertainment, but not to go against his duty. He is trapped, but not like her.

A painting showing a restaurant scene of the sort Lene wouldn't have access too with her income and class
Max Liebermann, Restaurant Terrace in Nienstedten, 1902. Nienstedten is in Hamburg, but I like the painting. Food and drink is a part of Fontane’s repertoire of social commentary in On Tangled Paths. The Dörrs grow their own food, while Botho simply orders it. When he dines with Lene he gets filling meals of fish, but with Käthe he is forced into eating sweets – one woman provides what is nutritious, the other what is only on fulfilling on the surface.

But we should not judge him too harshly. He cannot truly know her life, just as she cannot truly know his. Each station has its sufferings, and while one certainly has it worse, we can only compare what we know. For Lene, the relationship is her life. “Lord, it’s such a pleasure just to have something going on. It’s often so lonely out here.” Her simple words speak to a deeper gulf. He can always find another Lene, but she can never find another Botho. Once, she describes seeing him in town among his people, riding. She cannot approach – her position is one of a spectator, doomed never to interact with him in the public space. She does not have the systematic advantage that is his by birth.

Two Perfect Matches?

Suddenly the relationship ends. Botho’s expenses have consistently eclipsed his spending, and his mother puts her foot down in a letter. Botho breaks with Lene, marries his rich cousin, and time skips forward two and a half years. Käthe, his wife, is a disappointment. Lene’s desire to learn is beautifully shown in a scene where she inspects a painting whose inscription is in English. She can mouth the letters with passionate interest, but their meaning is inevitably hidden from her. Käthe just doesn’t care. She epitomizes everything that Botho dislikes about his class – she is frivolous, full of empty words and phrases, and childish. Part of this is yet again a language problem – Botho wants authenticity; instead, he gets “chic, tournure, savoir-faire” – all French and fashionable words. He compares Käthe’s soulless letters from her time at a resort town to Lene’s misspelt but heartfelt ones.

And yet in On Tangled Paths there is no going back.

Meanwhile, Lene suffers into a new life of her own. She and Frau Nimptsch move out of their old home. In their new lodgings a religious man, Gideon Franke, falls in love with her. It is not the best match in the world, but Franke is hardworking, industrious – a new and modern man, through and through. He brings to Lene’s life much-needed stability, saving her from what no doubt would otherwise have been frightening poverty. Given a woman’s lot in the era, we should probably be as grateful as she is.

Pessimism or Realism? – the Morals of On Tangled Paths

Botho eventually comes to terms with his situation. In this lies the pessimistic, or perhaps realistic, side of On Tangled Paths and Fontane in general – no rash actions come in to save the day. But then again, no rash actions come in to spoil it. He doesn’t try to meet her again; in fact, he burns their love letters to better forget her. Lene, whose parentage is unknown, doesn’t turn out to be of royal blood. She doesn’t turn out to be anybody but herself. Botho, for his part, decides to find the good in his wife. It is not a wholly successful endeavour, but these things take a lifetime, and for Fontane it is enough to show the beginning of the process.

A photo of Theodor Fontane, author of On Tangled Paths, in his later years
Theodor Fontane. He started writing fiction when he was 57, and his works reflect that. There is a wisdom in On Tangled Paths and elsewhere, which though at times can strike one as pessimistic, nonetheless comes from a lifetime’s experience.

One day a colleague from the military meets him, Rexin, and asks his advice. He wants to know what to do about his own mistress: he hopes to marry her, or else escape Berlin altogether. He longs for “honesty, love and freedom” and hopes Botho will back him up. But Botho does not. He says that it is better to stop now, before the memories get too strong. No middle path is acceptable in the world they live in, and in the end staying within society’s bounds will always be the thing to do. It’s a surprisingly conservative message. But then, perhaps it’s the right one. The social bonds are simply too tight for anything beyond them to be worthwhile. There is no great love against the odds here, but we must remember that there is no great tragedy here either.

Perhaps “A silly young wife” really “is better than none at all”, as Botho concludes.

Conclusion

On Tangled Paths celebrates a pragmatic approach to life. Lene and Botho may not elsewhere reach the heights of bliss that they had had together, but they also remain alive and happy (enough) when the novel draws to a close. In the 19th century novel this is already a great achievement. The message that love does not, or oughtn’t, conquer all may strike us as pessimistic or overly conservative, but I find it hard to argue with here. Lene perhaps is perhaps right in her parting words to Botho: “If you’ve had a beautiful dream you should thank God for it and not complain when the dream ends and reality returns.” Better to have a beautiful dream than see life become a nightmare.

I have come to love Fontane. His novels are short, but they each display a great deal of variety in their subject matter, and they are all extremely well-written. However boring they may appear, they are all worthy of close and repeated reading. The only shame is that with On Tangled Paths I have now reached the end of Fontane’s novels easily available in English translation. There exist versions of both Jenny Treibel, and of The Stechlin, but they are hard to find. I may be forced, alas, to read him in the original again, as I did Effi. Luckily, Fontane’s worth it. Wish me luck!

Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism: Mental Health in a Mental World

I recently read Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, a delightful book on the problems facing almost everybody alive in late capitalist society – which is to say, pretty much anyone reading this.

We have come a long way as a people. Free market capitalism has lifted great numbers out of poverty, given homes to them, placed food on their tables, and led to countless new inventions. It’s hard to argue with that. But something in the past fifty-or-so years has gone very wrong. Today, nations continue getting richer, our phones continue getting faster, our supermarkets continue getting even better stocked… and yet it appears that we have lost something of value that the data can’t or won’t acknowledge. People are getting unhappier – there is a worsening crisis in mental health, the planet’s ecosystems are collapsing before our eyes, innovation is slowing down, income inequality is getting worse, and extremism is on the rise in our politics. It’s hard to argue with that, too.

A photo of Mark Fisher, author of Capitalist Realism
Mark Fisher (1968-2017) was a cultural theorist and a pretty cool guy. Capitalist Realism is probably his most famous work, but he is also important in modern British music criticism. Photo by MACBA and used under CC BY-SA 2.0

Capitalist Realism tries to explain what’s gone so wrong. It’s a compelling, frightening, and valuable book. Here I’d like to cover a few of its very many exciting ideas, and then discuss the value of Fisher’s critique for people who are not on the radical left like he was. For it turns out that the very power of this book lies in the way it answers questions faced by people all over the political spectrum.

What is Capitalist Realism?

As I study Russian, my first port of call is almost always going to be Dostoevsky. His books are full of passionate characters who are constantly espousing theories for new forms of governance, people filled with a great and infectious optimism for the future of the world. Dostoevsky himself was a dreadful reactionary, but his characters weren’t always. In the 1860s Russia was filled with hope – serfdom had been abolished, and the new Tsar seemed like a reformer. People debated the direction reforms should take, but nobody doubted that positive change was coming.

Things are different now. Early on in Capitalist Realism Fisher writes that “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism”, a quote that comes from either Slavoj Zizek or Fredric Jameson. That is the essence of the problem – we cannot imagine, or even hope to imagine, a way out. Fisher’s own definition for capitalist realism is this: “the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it”. Since the collapse of the USSR it has seemed that there’s no other system quite so resilient as capitalism. But accepting this doesn’t exactly bring us happiness.

Fisher charts this loss of imagination using examples from popular culture. He compares the utopian aspirations of rock with the grittiness and self-styled “realism” of modern hip-hop. He contrasts the movie Heat, where criminals don’t form attachments to anything because they are always on the move, with earlier gangster movies where there was an emphasis on loyalty and honour. And what he finds is that the closer we approach to the present day the less hope and non-monetary values there is to be found.

Values in a World of Capital

“Everything has a price”, and indeed it’s true for everything from harvested organs to works of art. But the problem is that’s not necessarily a good thing. To give something a price is to take away everything about it which is priceless. The mysterious quality of historical or artistic artefacts is lost, in what Fisher calls the “desacralization of culture”, the second you say how much it’s worth. It allows you to make comparisons between things that shouldn’t be compared – a work of art and a loaf of bread, for example. But the very moment something has a price that price then blocks out those other values which cannot be so easily named. And over time those values are lost.

If you think of art, or a watch, or a car, as an investment, then you’re already thinking about things in a way that’s conditioned by capitalism. In much the same way, if you think about Christmas as a time for getting cool presents, then the original message of that time has been lost or at the very least partially displaced too. I’m not saying that Christmas ought to be the Christian holiday it once was – rather, it’s a good example of how capitalism can destroy the traditional aspects of tradition and leave only a commercialised shell in its wake. In the UK we now “celebrate” Black Friday – a whole tradition was created for consumerism where there was just a calendar day before.

Fault Lines: Not So Real

Capitalism works so long as people buy into it, mentally and literally. Boom and bust cycles are all dependent on people investing themselves psychologically into speculation, and without these cycles, capitalism falls apart. Capitalism portrays itself – that is, businesses and politicians supportive of the status quo portray it – as hyperrational, hyper logical, the best option. Fisher writes that the only way to challenge capitalism is to reveal that this portrayal is a fabrication, and bear that knowledge in your own mind and spread it into the minds of others, too. Where are these fault lines in the system? Fisher singles out a few.

The first of these is the environment, and the effect on it of climate change. The fact that our ecosystems are collapsing because of capital’s pursuit of unlimited growth has already provided many people with an impetus to abandon faith in capitalism. Science, which is so valued in capitalism’s self-theorizing, is suddenly ignored and denied when it paints a terrifying view of the future. The consequences of climate change are not yet sufficiently visible, in the West at least, to cause mass clamour for alternatives to untrammelled free market growth, but they will be in due course. Millions of climate refugees, increased storms and extreme weather, and rising sea levels, will all be visible challenges faced by the West and capital in the coming decades.

Next, there is the matter of bureaucracy. Fisher points out that what we have seen, in spite of notions of “innovation” and “efficiency”, is that capitalism now demands reams of paperwork. Much of it, however, seems pointless. Endless targets, self-inspections, call centres – these aren’t efficient at all. Capitalism appears to be deteriorating from its initial agility. Fisher also talks about culture in connection with this. He approvingly refers to Jameson again, who thought that in the later stages of capitalism all culture will be pastiche or revivalism. That is, innovation will end. To me, at least, it does seem that culture is stagnant right now, with postmodernity being a dead-end but nothing else being created as an alternative. Fisher points out that by contrast, in the Soviet Union, cinematic innovation was far greater than it was elsewhere. Consider Tarkovsky and Vertov, among others. However, this is hard to quantify.

The third point is mental health. There are no two ways about it: people in the West are getting sadder and sadder. It’s all well and good to excuse this by saying that rising numbers of sufferers are due to changing methods of diagnosis or increased openness or by blaming social media. All of these things play a part. Fisher doesn’t deny that chemical imbalances can make us depressed. But he notes that capitalism encourages us to seek solutions and causes within ourselves – whether in the brain, or in our family, or in our upbringing – instead of in the system. “Unhealthy” mental health can be seen in the brain, but that doesn’t mean that its first cause was in the brain, or that the solution is necessarily in the brain. I know that when I’m depressed the best antidepressant is company – the complete opposite of capitalism’s relentless atomization of us.

A picture of the cover of Capitalist Realism, showing skyscrapers and a red background for text.
It’s red! There are skyscrapers! It’s enough to make any big-C conservative shudder… (fair use)

When you consider all the things that late-stage capitalism does to humanity, it’s hard not to see a lot of truth in Capitalist Realism’s suggestions. Nature is being destroyed, values that are not economic are devalued, family is broken up due to demands that both parents work to make ends meet, we lack the free time to make friends and spend time with them, and when we see people our views are distorted by increasingly unrealistic portrayals of life seen through social media, and politically we feel powerless too. And the worst thing is, we can’t imagine another system. We feel absolutely trapped and hopeless.

A Conservative View on Capitalist Realism

I have a habit of arranging all of the books that I’m taking with me on holiday in various shapes and piles, and rather unfortunately Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? was lying in pride of place just as my mother entered to see how my packing was going for my latest trip to Russia. She took one uncomfortably long look at the book, said nothing, and promptly left. Unfortunately, it seems like I’ll have to be defending myself against accusations of being a socialist anti-monarchist traitor for the next few months again, just when I thought I’d managed to escape the worst of it…

All this is frustrating, because Capitalist Realism, for all its radicalism and its angry red cover, is not a book that “conservatives” should reject out of hand. Capitalism ought to be seen as a monster by those on the right just as much as it is for those on the left. I’d like to explain why that is the case, and in doing so hopefully redeem myself partially from the disappointment of my family. Though truth be told, the views that follow are not entirely my own.

First, I should just qualify what I mean by “conservative”. It does not mean the Republican Party in the US and nor does it mean The Conservative and Unionist Party in the UK, at least as these parties currently are. Rather, to my mind, it means a set of values and attitudes. It means a preference for slow change over rapid change, for local communities over global connections, for modesty in matters of sex and relationships when in the public view, for tradition and (sometimes) religion in public affairs and in culture, for a sense of honour and duty, for conservation of history and nature and the good aspects of the past, for the tight-knit family, and for respect. Conservatism in this sense is an intellectual tradition with such notable supporters as Edmund Burke.

A Painting of Edmund Burke,
Edmund Burke, a founding figure of modern British Conservatism and a believer in those old-fashioned things we call values. It is only recently that conservatism seems to have lost its way and become more about attacking its opposition than promoting its own values and positive vision of the world.

Many of these values are easy to get behind, and some are easy to disagree with. But I think that all of these values when present in another human being are deserving of respect, in the same way that many “liberal” values are also worthy of admiration. The problem is that these values are strangely absent from modern conservative parties. Yes, they pay lip service to them at election time, but “conservatism” for them seems much more an economic policy of low taxation and regulation, rather than a social one. And the problem with all this is that, for the reasons Fisher describes in Capitalist Realism, the values imposed by economic conservatism are incompatible with the values of social conservatism as I’ve defined it.

Capitalism doesn’t encourage loyalty because it demands businesses and individuals make money over cultivating dedication and honour and duty. It doesn’t encourage respect for nature or history or art or tradition because all that gets in the way of making profits. It doesn’t encourage our participation in local communities because it is focused on our atomization and individual consumption. It doesn’t even, really, encourage conservative politics, because the capitalist system demands anything be blamed instead of the system itself, and so parties on the right end up adopting elements closer to fascism in order to remain electable, such as demonizing unproductive groups as the source of people’s discontent.

Taken this way, people throughout the political spectrum ought to find good reasons to be disappointed with the state of the world right now, and both would benefit from reading Capitalist Realism. People all over the political spectrum have a lot of positive values to offer the world, but the problem is that capitalism, instead of encouraging those values so that together left and right can build a brighter future, instead turns left and right against each other, forcing them into increasingly unsavoury political positions with little chance of compromise or peaceful resolution. “The system works, don’t change it”, is a traditional conservative rallying cry. But Capitalist Realism provides us with enough evidence to show that’s not the case. And though they would not approve of rapid change, I’d hope conservatives wouldn’t be against slow, steady, and sensible change towards a world that actually values their values.

Conclusion

I really can’t recommend this book enough. It’s only eighty pages, and it’s pretty cheap too. Fisher is an excellent diagnostician of our present woes, and he even puts forward some decent suggestions as to how to move forward going into the future. Capitalist Realism isn’t perfect – it has a few problems typical of this kind of book. For example, his suggestions about how to fight back against capitalism were a little undeveloped, and his comments on the 1985 miners’ strike in the UK are somewhat contradictory in light of what he writes about climate change. But that’s doesn’t matter too much. The book gets the job done. To understand the nature of our predicament is already the first step out of it. And whether you’re on the left or on the right, you should have reason to be disappointed with the current state of our overcapitalised world.

Mark Fisher died in 2017, a victim of the system he had spent his life analysing. I may not have agreed with everything he wrote in Capitalist Realism, but it’s hard not to think of him as, in his own way, a heroic figure…

So go off and try imagining something other than capitalism for yourself! If you do manage to think up a solution to our problems, why not leave a comment with your answer?

For a recent film that showcases a few ideas featured in Capitalist Realism, have a look at my analysis of Joker. For more theory complaining about the state of the world, check out my piece on Adorno and our relationship with the past.

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.