Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T00:11:50.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Inception of Hofmannsthal's Der Schwierige: Early Plans and their Significance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Roger C. Norton
Roger C. Norton*
Affiliation:
Cedar Crest College Allentown, Penn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Like Hofmannsthal's youthful works, which were first regarded as typically beautiful but unsubstantial products of Neo-Romanticism, only to be later widely extolled for their depth of significance, Der Schwierige has been the object of an evolving critical evaluation. This comedy, published in 1920 and first performed in 1921, has often been pictured as a basically precious comedy of manners anachronistically glorifying the Austrian aristocracy after its demise in 1918. Such an interpretation seems at least partially supported by Hofmannsthal's own words: “Vielleicht hätte ich die Gesellschaft, die es [Der Schwierige] darstellt, die österreichische aristokratische Gesellschaft, nie mit so viel Liebe in ihrem charme und ihrer Qualität darstellen können als in dem historischen Augenblick wo sie, die bis vor kurzem eine Gegebenheit, ja eine Macht war, sich leise und geisterhaft ins Nichts auflöst, wie ein übriggebliebenes Nebelwölkchen am Morgen.” Yet, at another time, he suggests a more profound aim when he says in a letter to Wildgans: “Sie werden finden, daß ich darin das eigentlich Seelenhafte, das persönlich Metaphysische . . . versteckt habe unter der Ironie der Gestaltung . . . und doch ist dieser individuell-metaphysische Kern sehr stark.” In recent years increased attention has been given to the critical exploration of this serious core, which reveals Der Schwierige in its essence as a universally valid character study in the high-comedy tradition of Minna von Barnhelm and Weh dem, der lügt rather than in any sense either an anachronism or a period piece. The discovery in Hofmannsthal's Nachlaß of a number of early plans and sketches promises to extend still further our understanding of Der Schwierige. This material, previously unpublished for the most part, makes it possible to clarify both the author's basic intentions and his application of them to the finished work.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , March 1964 , pp. 97 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Briefe an R. A. Schroder, Schnitzler und S. Fischer,” NR, lxv (1954), 395.

2 Briefwechsel Hofmannsthal-Wildgans, ed. Joseph von Bradish (Zürich, 1935), p. 52. Also published in PMLA, xlix (1934), 931–953.

3 Franz Mennemeier has noted the divergent interpretations of Ver Schwierige: “Er [Der Schwierige] verkörpert nicht nur Glanz und Elend österreichischen Wesens und die Kultur einer längst entschwundenen gesellschaftlichen Schicht. In dem Fall hätte das Stück bloß historisches Interesse für uns. Die unwandelbare Aktualität der Gestalt des Schwierigen liegt in der Tatsache begründet, daß Hofmannsthal hier eine grundsätzliche Problematik menschlichen Daseins beschworen und durch die künstlerische ‘Gestalt’ ‘erledigt’ hat.” “Hofmannsthal: Der Schwierige,” in Das deutsche Drama vom Barock bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Benno von Wiese (Düsseldorf, 1960), ii, 246.

For discussion of the “anachronism” of Der Schwierige from the standpoint, in the first case, of a character comedy and, in the second, of a play of social criticism, see Grete Schaeder, Hugo von Hofmannsthal I: Die Gestalten (Berlin, 1933), p. 134; and Martin Stern, “In illo tempore: Über Notizen und Varianten zu Hofmannsthals Lustspiel ‘Der Schwierige’,” Wirkendes Wort, viii (1957-58), 115–119.

The universality of the thought content and character portrayal of Der Schwierige has been particularly stressed by, among others: Emil Staiger, “Hugo von Hofmannsthal: ‘Der Schwierige’,” in Meisterwerke deutscher Sprache aus dem 19. Jahrhundert (Zürich, 1948), pp. 225–259; Hilde Cohn, “Die beiden Schwierigen im deutschen Lustspiel: Lessing, Minna von Barnhelm—Hofmannsthal, Der Schwierige,” Monatshefte xliv (1952), 257–269; and Wilhelm Emrich, “Hofmannsthals Lustspiel ‘Der Schwierige’,” Wirkendes Wort, vi (1955-56), 17–25.

4 “Briefe an Freunde,” NR, xli (1930), 518. In letters concerning his literary projects in 1908, a very productive year for his later dramas, Hofmannsthal frequently mentions working on two comedies identifiable as Silvia im ‘Stern‘ and Florindo (Cristinas Heimreise). See Briefe, 1900–1909 (Vienna, 1937), pp. 328, 334, 336, 361; and Hugo von Hofmannsthal—Eberhard von Bodenhausen: Briefe der Freundschaft (Berlin, 1953), p. 105. The “noch etwas Drittes,” of which he speaks to Bodenhausen (p. 105), could be a reference to Der Schwierige in its earliest form, but this is by no means certain, since he was working on several other projects in the same year.

5 There is a much greater similarity between Waste itself and Der Schwierige. See my “Hugo von Hofmannsthal's Der Schwierige and Granville-Barker's Waste,” CL, xiv (1962), 272–279, which explores the possibility of a relationship suggested by Josef Redlich in Schicksalsjahre Österreichs 1908–1919: Das politische Tagebuch Josef Redlichs (Graz, 1953), ii, 229.

For Hofmannsthal's first mention of Waste and for part of the notes on “Der Verschwender,” see Gesammelte Werke, ed. Herbert Steiner, Aufzeichnungen (Frankfurt a. M., 1959), pp. 159–160.

6 Access to Hofmannsthal's papers was kindly granted by Herbert Steiner and the Houghton Library, Harvard University. Minor changes have been made in orthography and punctuation. All italics are Hofmannsthal's.

7 Gesammelte Werke, ed. Steiner, Lustspiele, ii (Stockholm, 1948), 264; hereafter cited as L, ii. See also pp. 270, 427, 440, 447, 448, 453.

8 The notes are numbered to facilitate reference. Notes 1 through 6 are either definitely dated 1910 or probably come from that year; Notes 7 through 9 cannot be dated with any certainty.

9 Martin Stern mentions still another title: “Das Nadelöhr” (“Hofmannsthals verbergendes Enthüllen: Seine Schaffensweise in den vier Fassungen der Florindo/Cristina-Komödie,” DVLG, xxxiii, 1959, 41).

10 San Faustino was later called Stanislas and Stani.

11 Note 1 has been quoted to this point by Stern, “In illo tempore,” p. 119. Stern confines his discussion of the notes for Der Schwierige largely to the figures of the secretary and the servants in their relationship with Hans Karl, emphasizing the play's treatment of social problems. For other notes, see Stern, Hugo von Hofmannsthal: Silvia im ‘Stern‘ (Bern, Stuttgart, 1959), pp. 146, 165, 169, 190; and Michael Hamburger, “Hofmannsthals Bibliothek,” Euphorion, lv (1961), 71–76. Hamburger's contributions are marginal notations found in two volumes of Kierkegaard's works from Hofmannsthal's personal library.

12 Note 2 was published in my “Hofmannsthal's ‘Magische Werkstätte’: Unpublished Notebooks from the Harvard Collection,” GR, xxxvi (1961), 62.

13 This note has the marginal notations “Mit Stani” (opposite “Er verschmäht es,” etc.) and “Mit der Schwester I 3” (opposite “Bezüglich seiner Ehe,” etc.). The last sentence is quoted by Stern, Silvia im ‘Stern’, p. 165.

14 Crossed out from “Helene verrät sich” to this point.

15 The second paragraph is crossed out to this point.

16 Note 5, written on the back of a letter from Arthur Kahane to Hofmannsthal dated 29 Nov. 1910, was published in my “Hofmannsthal's ‘Magische Werkstätte’,” pp. 61–62.

17 Quoted to this point by Stern, Silvia im ‘Stern‘, p. 146.

18 Stani speaks, in the final version, of Neuhoff's “ölige Suada” (L, ii, 315).

19 In the completed play Neuhoff says to Professor Brücke: “Geist und diese Menschen! Das Leben—und diese Menschen! Alle diese Menschen, die Ihnen hier begegnen, existieren ja in Wirklichkeit gar nicht mehr” (L, ii, 355).

20 The concept “draußen,” appearing in Notes 1 and 9, followed in the latter case by “unter der Mannschaft,” might well involve a recollection of Hofmannsthal's own earlier experiences during field-maneuvers with his cavalry regiment. In any event, this early material confirms the often noted parallel between the author's personal crisis reflected in the Chandos letter and Hans Karl's re-orientation.

21 See L, ii, 398 concerning Hans Karl's “cure.”

22 See Emrich, p. 19 ff.; Mennemeier, p. 249; and Curt Hohoff, “Hofmannsthals Lustspiele,” Akzente, ii (1955), 371, 377.

23 Quoted by Stern, Silvia im ‘Stern’, p. 190.

24 Hans Karl's problem of choosing a “right” course of action is highlighted by the following words from a note for Der Schwierige dated 19 June 1910, cited by Stern, Silvia im ‘Stern’, p. 169: “Das Prüfende ist ja, daß oft das Richtige nicht als ein Schweres gegenüber steht, sondern als ein auch zu Wählendes beiseite, und die scheinbare Leichtigkeit, es zu wählen oder zu verschmähen, die Seele betrügt.”

25 Note 5, with its dialogue between “die Andere” and Helene, possibly represents a transitional stage of character conception.

26 See Briefwechsel Hofmannsthal—Wildgans, p. 52. For further discussion of the problem of language in reference to Der Schwierige, see Richard Brinkmann, “Hofmannsthal und die Sprache,” DVLG, xxxv (1961), 86 ff., 95.

27 Hofmannsthal's reawakened interest in the subject matter of Der Schwierige seems to be signaled in a letter to Strauss on 16 Sept. (presumably 1916): “Ich kann an eine neue Arbeit für Sie erst gehen, sobald eine meiner eigenen Komödien, deren Pläne mich seit ‘Christina’ und ‘Rosenkavalier’ unablässig beschäftigten, heraus und aufs Theater gekommen ist. In diesem Sommer ist meine Hoffnung nicht in Erfüllung gegangen.” Richard Strauß—Hugo von Hofmannsthal: Briefwechsel, ed. Franz and Alice Strauss (Zürich, 1952), p. 350.

28 The year itself is omitted from the MS, but other sources indicate clearly that it was 1917; on 15 Nov. 1917 Hofmannsthal wrote to Redlich that two acts of his new Austrian comedy (identifiable from the context as Der Schwierige) were finished (Redlich, ii, 241) and to Bahr on 15 June 1918 that Der Schwierige was finished the previous summer (actually not until autumn) “bis auf Kleinigkeiten im letzten Akt” (“Briefe an Freunde,” p. 518). For further information on his work in 1917, see Redlich, p. 229; Strauß-Hofmannsthal: Briefwechsel, pp. 381–382, 384, 386; and Hugo von Hofmannsthal—Rudolf Borchardt: Briefwechsel, ed. Marie Luise Borchardt and Herbert Steiner (Frankfurt a. M., 1954), p. 155.

29 The first private letter from Antoinette to Hans Karl dates from June 1915 (L, ii, 286), and Stani states that the friendship began two years ago (p. 293), which would make the time of the play's action presumably the summer or fall of 1917. See also pp. 274, 369.

30 See Briefwechsel Hofmannsthal—Wildgans, p. 50.

31 See Strauß—Hofmannsthal: Briefwechsel, p. 434; and “Briefe an R. A. Schröder, Schnitzler und S. Fischer,” p. 395. The year is not given in the latter case, but the fact that it was 1919 is confirmed by Hofmannsthal's inclusion of a copy of Die Frau ohne Schatten, finished and published in 1919.

32 For factual and background information concerning the publication and first performances of Der Schwierige, see Karl Jacoby, Hugo von Hofmannsthal: Bibliographie (Berlin, 1936), p. 33; Briefwechsel Hofmannsthal—Wildgans, pp. 50–51; Hofmannsthal—Borchardt: Briefwechsel, pp. 155, 159, 163. Note, however, Jacoby's erroneous statement that the play was written in 1920.