Leo Lowenthal 1932

On Sociology of
Literature
Source: Literature and Mass Culture. Communication in Society,
Volume 1. Leo Lowenthal, published by Transcation Books, 1!"#
Transcribed: $ndy Blunden.
I
%istory o& literature is in a uni'ue way sub(ect to the di&&iculties which
arise with e)ery historical e&&ort. *ot only is it implicated in all theoretical
discussions concernin+ the conceptual meanin+ and material structure o&
history, but, in addition, its ob(ect o& study &alls into the realm o&
numerous scienti&ic disciplines. ,)er and beyond the techni'ues in)ol)ed
in the critical analysis o& sources, numerous disciplines step &orward with
a )ariety o& claims, amon+ them philosophy, aesthetics, psycholo+y,
peda+o+y, philolo+y and e)en statistics. -hen we turn to day.to.day
practice, howe)er, we &ind that literary studies ha)e become scienti&ic
(etsam. /)erybody, &rom the 0nai)e reader1 to the presumably le+itimate
teacher with special e2pertise, is prepared to launch interpretations o&
literary te2ts in the most arbitrary and capricious ways. 3nowled+e o& a
lan+ua+e combined with the con)iction that an ade'uate technical
terminolo+y can be dispensed with, are considered su&&icient prere'uisites
to en+a+e in such )entures. ,n the other hand, academics ha)e thus &ar
not de)eloped methods o& research and analysis which would do (ustice to
the comple2ity o& their ob(ect o& study. This is not a wholesale indictment
1
o& e)ery sin+le speciali4ed work# rather, what 5 am concerned with here
are the pre)ailin+ principles underlyin+ today6s study o& literary history
and literary criticism.
Virtually all o& the scholars who contributed to the collection o& essays
Die Philosophie der Literaturwissenschaft 7The 8hilosophy o& Literary
Studies9 are in a+reement that a 0scienti&ic1 approach to the history o&
literature would lead nowhere. *ot only do they belie)e : and ri+htly so
: that each literary work contains some nonrational elements, they also
consider any rational approach inade'uate with re+ard to the )ery nature
o& the ob(ect under in)esti+ation. Conse'uently, the study o& literature as it
was &ounded in the nineteenth century is condemned and re(ected as
0historical pra+matism,1 as 0historici4in+ psycholo+ism,1 and as
0positi)istic method.1 Certainly, %ermann %ettner6s or -ilhelm Scherer6s
works lack absolute )alidity# indeed, they would ne)er ha)e claimed it.
But all attempts to deal with literature which pro&ess to a scholarly
character ha)e to draw critically on the scienti&ic methods o& the
nineteenth century.
5solation and simpli&ication o& a literary historical ob(ect is admittedly
achie)ed in an e2ceedin+ly sublime process. $uthor and work become
abstracted &rom the matri2 o& historical circumstances, and molded into a
kind o& predictable coalescence &rom which the di)erse mani&old o& details
and dimensions has been drained. Throu+h this rei&ication they ac'uire a
di+nity and worthiness which no other cultural phenomenon can boast. 05n
the history o& literature acts and actors are ;+i)ens,6 whereas in world
history we are presented with more or less &alsi&ied accounts o& mostly
shady dealin+s by rarely identi&iable dealers.1 True di+nity is reser)ed
only &or such historical phenomena which are a mani&estation o& the mind,
or may be percei)ed at least as e2istin+ in a uni'ue domain. o& course,
only when an ob(ect o& in)esti+ation is not considered part o& inner and
outer nature and its )ariable conditions, but instead has to be ontolo+ically
<
concei)ed as a creation o& a hi+her kind, do positi)istic methods pro)e
&undamentally insu&&icient. -ith the con&idence o& a philosophical
instinct, the concept o& structure introduced by =ilthey, which was based
on historical conte2tuality, is abandoned and replaced by the concept o&
the or+anic 0that clearly, unambi+uously and decisi)ely characteri4es the
spiritual as the indi)iduali4ation in history determined by unity o&
meanin+.>6 $mbi+uous terms such as 0work ... .. &orm,1 0content,1
proclaim a metaphysically +rounded unity o& author and work,
transcendin+ and ne+atin+ all di)ersity. This radical estran+ement &rom
historical reality &inds its purest e2pressions in concepts such as
0classicism1 and 0romanticism1 which are not only rele+ated to history,
but also metaphysically trans&i+ured. 0Like the superordinate concept o&
eternity, both the concept o& per&ection and o& in&inity are deri)ed &rom
historical and psycholo+ical e2perience as well as &rom philosophical
knowled+e.1
This ri+id and in itsel& irrational stance on the part o& those representin+
literary scholarship today presumes its le+itimation in the &act that the
0methods o& the natural sciences1 analy4e their ob(ect into bits and pieces,
and when attemptin+ to de&ine its ;,?)ital poetic soul,1 these methods
cannot help but miss entirely its 0secret.>6 The si+ni&icance o& these
statements is hard to +rasp. @or nobody has e)er demonstrated why, and to
what e2tent, an ob(ect would be harmed or distorted by a rational
approach. $ny study o& a phenomenon can be mind&ul o& its wholeness, its
0Aestalt,1 while bein+ conscious o& a selecti)e methodolo+y. $dmittedly,
such an analysis will only yield the elements o& a mosaic whose sum
ne)er represents the whole. But where on earth does scienti&ic analysis
e2haust itsel& in nothin+ but a summation o& &ractured partsB $nd are the
methods o& the natural sciences e2clusi)ely atomistic in natureB Certainly
not, and neither do methods o& literary analysis ha)e to be, i& they are
inappropriate to a speci&ic task. ,n their (ourney into the )a+aries o&
C
metaphysics, the literary scholars also appropriated the concept o& law.
%owe)er, rather than to identi&y law with order and re+ularity which can
be submitted to scrutiny and obser)ation, the concept, &rom the start, is
burdened with a troublesome new and )a+ue meanin+. 5nstead o& the
search &or re+ularity there appears a 0unity o& meanin+,1 and the 0artistic
personality1 and the 0poetic work1 are identi&ied, amon+ others, as the
ma(or problems o& literary studies, problems which seem to be resol)ed
be&ore they ha)e been in)esti+ated. Det, personality and work belon+ to
those conceptual constructs which thwart any theoretical e&&ort precisely
because they are opa'ue and &inite.
5n as much as these &ashionable literary scholars point to the pit&alls
in)ol)ed in seekin+ to understand the relationship o& author and work
throu+h, &or instance, mere philolo+ical data analysis, 5 ha)e no 'uarrel
with this antipositi)istic attitude. But precisely when it comes to an
e)aluation o& a work o& art and its 'ualitati)e aspects, an understandin+ o&
its intrinsic merit and its authenticity : 'uestions so much at the center o&
the concerns o& these scholars : their methods re)eal their utter
inade'uacy. The 'uestion o& whether and to what e2tent the literary artist
consciously applies con)entions o& &orm, can only be e2plored by rational
means. But the metaphysical mysti&ication so pre)alent in contemporary
literary studies impedes any sober re&lection and scholarship. 5ts tasks are
not only historical in nature# 5 would like to re&er to =ilthey6s concept o&
Verstehen 7understandin+9 and its particular emphasis on the relationship
between the author and his work. $dmittedly, the demysti&ication o&
in)esti+ati)e approaches to literature cannot be achie)ed by means o& a
&ormal poetics alone. -hat is needed abo)e all is a psycholo+y o& art, i.e.
a study o& the psycholo+ical interaction between artist, artistic creation
and reception. -hat is not needed, howe)er, is a psycholo+y that places
the 0+reat work o& art1 in a mystical relationship 0with the people,1 and
"
that &inds the 0personal bio+raphy o& the author . . . interestin+ and
necessary, but unessential with re+ard to the act o& artistic creation.1
II
5n contrast to the )a+ue declamatory statements so characteristic o&
Eun+ian psycholo+y, the classical @reudian model o& psychoanalysis has
already made important theoretical contributions to a psycholo+y o& art.
Some o& its proponents ha)e discussed central 'uestions o& literature,
particularly those dealin+ with the psychic conditions under which +reat
works o& art ori+inate, speci&ically the ori+ins and structure o& artistic
ima+ination, and last not least, the 'uestion o& the relationship between
the artistic work and its reception which so &ar has been i+nored or at least
insu&&iciently e2plored. $dmittedly, some o& these psychoanalytic
propositions are not yet polished and re&ined enou+h and remain
somewhat schematic. But to re(ect the assistance o& scienti&ic psycholo+y
in the study o& art and literature does not pro)ide protection &rom 0a
barbarian assault o& con'uerers,1 as one contemporary literary mandarin
put it, but rather is a 0barbarian1 ar+ument itsel&F
Coupled with the condemnation o& 0historici4in+ psycholo+ism,1 which
cannot e2plore the secret o& the 0authentic poetic soul,1 is the repudiation
o& accepted historical methodolo+y and particularly o& any theory o&
historical causality, in short, what in modern literary scholarship is
anathemati4ed as 0positi)istic materialism.1 But as in the case o&
psycholo+y, the trend setters take liberties: modern literary scholarship has
no 'ualms and e)en consistently makes use o& +rand historical cate+ories
such as 0&olk, society, humanity1 or the 0pluralistic, aspirin+1 and the
0spirituali4in+, articulatin+ e2perience.1 There is mention o& ,,associations
o& essence and &ate,1 o& 0per&ection and in&inity1 as 0conceptual basis1 o&
0historical e2perience1#1 while the phraseolo+y o& the 0a+e o& %omer,
8ericles, $u+ustus, =ante, Aoethe1 is acceptable, any historically and
G
sociolo+ically oriented theoretical approach will meet with scorn and
contempt when it attempts to understand literature as a social phenomenon
in combination with the positi)istic and materialistic methods which
e)ol)ed out o& the historical scholarship o& the nineteenth century. The
bluntly stated ob(ecti)e is 0the abandonment o& the descripti)e )anta+e
point o& positi)ism and the return to a commitment to the metaphysical
character o& the Geisteswissenschaften 7humanities9.1 -e shall see that
such 0abandonment1 is demanded with e)en +reater determination once
the theory o& historical materialism replaces traditional historical
description. /)en the boundary between scholarship and dema+o+ery is
obscured when the anti.historical trans&i+uration o& a work o& art has to be
maintained: 0%istorical pra+matism may perhaps conclude that syphilis
led to the disappearance o& Minnesan+ and its poly+amous con)ention, or
that the currency re&orm o& 1<C +a)e rise to /2pressionism. ... The
essence o& Minnesan+ and /2pressionism remains una&&ected by such
&indin+s. The 'uestion here is not why is it but what is itB The ;why6
would simply lead to an in&inite re+ress: -hy at the end o& the Middle
$+es was lues spread, why at the be+innin+ o& 1<" was the Reichsmark
introduced, and so on until the e++ o& Leda.1 This kind o& rhetoric makes a
caricature o& any le+itimate scholarly in'uiry. By no means do causal
'uestions re'uire in&inite re+ress# clearly stated they can be precisely
answered, e)en i& new 'uestions mi+ht be posed by this answer. $n
in)esti+ation o& the reasons &or Aoethe6s mo)e to -eimar does not re'uire
an in)esti+ation o& the history o& urban de)elopment in AermanyF
Considerin+ the current situation o& literary scholarship as sketched in
the precedin+ outline, its precarious relationship to psycholo+y, history,
and social science, the arbitrariness in the selection o& its cate+ories, the
arti&icial isolation and scienti&ic alienation o& its ob(ect, one mi+ht a+ree
with a modern literary historian who, dissatis&ied with the
0rnetaphysicali4ation1 that has in)aded his discipline, calls &or the return
H
to strict scienti&ic standards, a passionate de)otion to material, a deep
concern &or pure knowled+e# in short, a new 0appreciation o& knowled+e
and learnin+.1 5& @ran4 Schult4, howe)er, simultaneously re(ects any
o)erarchin+ theory,1 he does not ha)e the coura+e o& his own con)ictions.
5n &act, it is possible to concei)e o& a theoretical approach to literature
which remains &aith&ul to 0knowled+e and learnin+1 and interprets literary
works historically and sociolo+ically, a)oidin+ the pit&alls o& both either
descripti)e positi)ism or mere metaphysical speculation.
III
Such concern with the historical and sociolo+ical dimensions o& literature
re'uires a theory o& history and society. This is not to say that one is
limited to )a+ue theori4in+ about the relationships between literature and
society in +eneral, nor that it is necessary to speak in +eneralities about
social conditions which are re'uired &or the emer+ence o& literature.
Iather, the historical e2planation o& literature has to address the e2tent to
which particular social structures &ind e2pression in indi)idual literary
works and what &unction these works per&orm in society. Man is in)ol)ed
in speci&ic relations o& production throu+hout his history. These relations
present themsel)es socially as classes in stru++le with each other, and the
de)elopment o& their relationship &orms the real basis &or the )arious
cultural spheres. The speci&ic structure o& production, i.e. the economy, is
the independent e2planatory )ariable not only &or the le+al &orms o&
property and or+ani4ation o& state and +o)ernment but, at the same time,
&or the shape and 'uality o& human li&e in each historical epoch. 5t is
illusionary to assume an autonomy o& the social superstructure, and this is
not altered throu+h the use o& a scienti&ic terminolo+y claimin+ such
autonomy. $s lon+ as literary history is e2clusi)ely concei)ed as
Geistesgeschichte, it will remain powerless to make co+ent statements,
e)en thou+h in practice the talent and sensibilities o& a literary historian
may ha)e produced somethin+ o& interest. $ +enuine, e2planatory history
J
o& literature must proceed on materialistic principles. That is to say, it
must in)esti+ate the economic structures as they present themsel)es in
literature, as well as the impact which the materialistically interpreted
work o& art has in the economically determined society.
Such a demand alon+ with the social theory which it presupposes, has a
do+matic rin+ unless it speci&ies its problematic. This has been achie)ed
to a lar+e e2tent in the &ields o& economics and political history, but e)en
in the area o& literary studies &led+lin+ attempts ha)e been made. -orthy
o& mention are @ran4 Mehrin+6s essays on literary history which,
sometimes usin+ a simpli&ied and popular, sometimes a narrowly de&ined
political approach, ha)e &or the &irst time attempted to apply the theory o&
historical materialism to literature. But as in the case o& the
a&orementioned psycholo+ical studies, the work o& Mehrin+ and other
scholars o& his persuasion has either been i+nored or e)en ridiculed by
literary historians. $ sociolo+ist o& culture recently re&erred to 0such a
conceptual &ramework not only as unsociolo+ical or incompatible with
scienti&ic sociolo+y,1 but also comparable to 0a parasitic plant1 that
0draws o&& the healthy sap o& a tree.1
The materialistic e2planation o& history cannot a&&ord to proceed in the
simpli&yin+ and isolatin+ manner so characteristic &or the academic
establishment o& literary history, interpretation, and criticism. Contrary to
common assertions, this theory neither postulates that culture in its
entirety can be e2plained in terms o& economic relations, nor that speci&ic
cultural or psycholo+ical phenomena are nothin+ but re&lections o& the
social substructure. Iather, a materialistic theory places its emphasis on
mediation: the mediatin+ processes between a mode o& production and the
modes o& cultural li&e includin+ literature. 8sycholo+y must be considered
as one o& the principal mediatin+ processes, particularly in the &ield o&
literary studies, since it describes the psychic processes by means o&
which the cultural &unctions o& a work o& art reproduce the structures o&
!
the societal base. 5n as much as the basis o& each society in history can be
seen as the relationship between rulin+ and ruled classes and is, in &act, a
metabolic process between society and nature, literature.like all other
cultural phenomena : will make this relationship transparent. @or that
reason the concept o& ideolo+y will be decisi)e &or the social e2planation
o& all phenomena o& the superstructure &rom le+al institutions to the arts.
5deolo+y is &alse consciousness o& social contradictions and attempts to
replace them with the illusions o& social harmony. 5ndeed, literary studies
are lar+ely an in)esti+ation o& ideolo+ies.
The o&ten.)oiced criticism that the theory o& historical materialism
lacks methodolo+ical re&inement and possesses a crude conceptual
apparatus can easily be countered: the proponents o& this theory ha)e
ne)er a)oided the discussion o& its &laws. 5ts &indin+s and results ha)e
always been open to the scrutiny o& other scholars, as well as to possible
theoretical chan+es prompted by new e2periences in social reality.
%istorical materialism has certainly not taken re&u+e in 'uasi.ontolo+ical
ima+ery which, seducti)e and enchantin+ as it mi+ht be, connotes a
spurious philosophy o& knowled+e. $s lon+ as a theory does not consider
itsel& &inite but rather continuously sustained and possibly altered by new
and di&&erent e2periences the &re'uent accusation that historical
materialism ultimately contains an element o& &aith seems o& little
conse'uence.
IV
The &ollowin+ e2amples are intended to illustrate the application o&
historical materialism to literary studies and will address 'uestions o&
&orm, moti&, and content.
Be+innin+ with the issue o& form 5 should like to consider the problem
o& the encyclopedic no)el as it e2ists in Bal4ac6s Comdie umaine or in

Kola6s Les Rougon!"ac#uart. Both seek to represent, throu+h their all.

encompassin+ narrati)es, the society o& their time in its entirety with all its
li)in+ and dead in)entory, occupations, and &orms o& state, passions, and
domestic &urnishin+s. Their aim appears anchored in the bour+eois.
rationalist belie& that, in principle, it is possible to possess the world
throu+h thou+ht and to dominate it throu+h intellectual appropriation. 5n
the case o& Ba54ac, this rationalism is mediated by his adherence to a
mercantilist model o& the economy which supposedly allows +o)ernment
to re+ulate society in an orderly &ashion : a Bal4ac anachronism rooted
in his peculiar psycholo+ical in&atuation with the ancien regime. 5n the
case o& Kola, howe)er, one &aces a critical orientation toward the capitalist
mode o& production and the hope o& remedyin+ its de&iciencies throu+h a
critical analysis o& the society it conditions. The breadth o& each o& these
cyclic no)els re)eals (ust as much about the author and his place in a class
society as it does about the theoretical and moral position he adopts
toward the social structure o& his time.
Social meanin+s present themsel)es in more speci&ic issues as well. The
same literary &orm, &or instance, can ha)e a completely di&&erent social
meanin+ in di&&erent conte2ts. ,ne e2ample would be the emphasis on
dialo+ue and the resultin+ limitation o& the narrati)e )oice or
commentati)e inserts in the te2t. The works o& Aut4kow and Spielha+en
and the impressionist writers are paradi+matic &or this style. Aut4kow was
probably the &irst to introduce into Aerman literature the modern
bour+eois dialo+ue. The history o& the dialo+ue in narrati)e te2ts is that o&
a de)elopment &rom a tradition o& sti&& con)entions to the spontaneous,
open con)ersational techni'ue o& the present. The dialo+ue is in reality the
criterion o& the )aryin+ de+rees o& psycholo+ical astuteness which the
&reely competin+ members o& capitalist society, at least in its liberal
epoch, are able to demonstrate. Those who are more adroit and possess
superior insi+ht into the response mechanisms o& their interlocutors also
1L
ha)e superior chances o& economic success, so lon+ as the situation is not
controlled by crude power relations which would make any discussion
impossible in the &irst place. The &unction o& the con)ersational &orm in
the literature o& the $unges Deutschland 7Doun+ Aermany: the liberal
intelli+entsia o& the 1!CLs and 1!"Ls9, which was almost entirely
obli)ious o& its social conte2t, is only indirectly identi&iable, and in
Spielha+en appears burdened by a kind o& theory. The epic narrati)e insert
has been reduced to a minimum, creatin+ the impression that the author6s
arran+ement o& e)ents has been dictated by the demands o& reality, i.e. the
)erbali4ed interactions o& the no)el6s characters, and that he has
drastically reduced authorial inter&erence throu+h actions, e)ents, and
incidents as well as their authorial interpretation. Be+innin+ with the later
@ontane and Sudermann up until $rthur Schnit4ler6s last no)ellas, the
impressionist no)ella makes e2tensi)e use o& the uncommented dialo+ue.
But this 0renunciation o& the pri)ile+es o& the interpretin+ and
supplementin+ narrator1 has one meanin+ and &unction in Spielha+en and
another in the Aerman impressionists.
Spielha+en6s techni'ue is based on the con)iction that throu+h the
con)ersations o& people social reality becomes transparent to the re&lecti)e
reader who then will disco)er their underlyin+ theory about human and
societal relations. $ bour+eois idealist, Spielha+en belie)es in the power
o& the ob(ecti)e mind which materiali4es in the articulated thou+hts o&
men so that the &ree e2chan+e o& dialo+ue can lea)e no doubt as to the
substanti)e con)ictions o& the author. 5n contrast, the ascetic absence o&
commentary characteristic &or the impressionists, is an e2pression o& the
sel&.criticism liberal bour+eois society pronounced on itsel& since the
be+innin+ o& the twentieth century. The inability to &ormulate a theory o&
society, the increasin+ insecurity, i& not helplessness, o& the Aerman
middle class, resulted in &act in a mentality o& relati)ism, a loss o&
con&idence in the sub(ecti)e mind which belie)ed in the possibility o&
11
uni)ersally applicable knowled+e. -hile Aut4kow6s +ropin+ increments
in dialo+ue re&lect the economic +ropin+s o& a liberal bour+eoisie in
Aermany in the &irst sta+es o& upward mobility and while the no)ellistic
techni'ue o& Spielha+en celebrates its social )ictory, the impressionist
style re&lects its crisis: it either hides this crisis with an ideolo+ical &ilm or
admits to it throu+h pointless con)ersations which lead nowhere.
,ther class relationships re)eal themsel)es when one compares the
techni'ue o& the narrati)e &rame in the no)ellas o& Theodor Storm and C.
@. Meyer. This literary de)ice &ul&ills radically opposed &unctions in the
work o& these authors. Storm assumes a posture o& resi+nation, o&
renunciatory retrospection. %e is the weary, petty bour+eois pensioner
whose world has collapsed, a world in which he could hope to en+a+e in
a&&airs o& social importance. Time has run out# the only sustenance the
present still o&&ers are 0&ramed,1 ideali4ed remembrances o& the past.
Memory is capable o& reco)erin+ only those &ra+ments o& the past that do
not immediately bear on the +loomy present and there&ore do not ha)e to
be repressed. 5n the case o& Meyer, on the other hand, the narrati)e &rames
o& his no)ellas 'uite literally ser)e as the ma+ni&icent &rames o& a +lorious
paintin+, and as such &unction as indicators o& the worthiness o& the ima+e
they enclose and are meant to separate the uni'ue, which is all that
matters, &rom the indi&&erent di)ersity o& appearances. The same stylistic
de)ice which in Storm6s world symboli4es the modest, the small and the
wanin+, is used by Meyer as the symbol o& )ital reality. -hile the petty
bour+eois soul o& Storm 'uietly mourns, Meyer thrusts his characters into
a world that corresponds to the &eudal daydreams o& the Aerman upper
classes in the 1!JLs.
$s a &inal e2ample o& the sociolo+ical implications in problems o& &orm,
5 shall brie&ly consider the use o& pictorial ima+ery. @or Lessin+ the
aesthetician, the pictorial has no place in literary arts. @or Meyer it is a
&a)orite artistic de)ice. The pro+ress o& humanity in historical time, the
1<
de)elopment o& mankind are the important issues &or Lessin+, who was a
&irm belie)er in the &uture. %e was an early champion o& a risin+
bour+eois society which saw in the tensions and resolutions o& a drama the
paradi+m &or the con&licts and possible resolutions in society. Meyer is the
heir to this dramatic tradition, but the sur)i)in+ )ictors are now limited to
the members o& the upper class. -here Lessin+ is a dramatist, Meyer has
become a sculptor. -here the &ormer animates, the latter in &act halts the
motion o& pro+ress. 5& &or Lessin+ art e2presses a uni)ersalist morality
bindin+ &or all men, a morality which transcends indi)idual
idiosyncracies, it is &or Meyer the e2traordinary and the uni'ue in selected
indi)iduals that &inds e2pression in art. Ma+ni&icently &ramed, the in&inite
di)ersity o& reality is condensed into the +reat moments o& +reat
indi)iduals and eternali4ed as in a paintin+, transcendin+ time and place.
This ideolo+ical position mirrors precisely the sel&.ima+e o& the dominant
strata o& the bour+eoisie in the last third o& the nineteenth century, &or
which the social world is but an opportunity &or the de)elopment o& the
+reat personality, in short, the social elite. 5ts members stand aloo& &rom
tri)ial e)eryday cares and li)e surrounded by si+ni&icant people, +reat
ideals and important a&&airs which all re&lect and con&irm their uni'ueness.
$ motif that likewise ser)es to +lori&y economic power positions is the
moti& o& boredom in the no)els o& Stendhal. Boredom is as &atal as death
&or 0the happy &ew1 who alone are entitled to read his books and &or
whom alone he chooses to write. These happy &ew, &ar remo)ed &rom the
conse'uences o& an economically limited e2istence, are entitled to pursue
their happiness accordin+ to their own autonomous morality. Eust as
Stendhal is the supreme no)elist o& the bour+eois aristocracy in the a+e o&
*apoleon, so Austa) @reyta+ sin+s the praise o& the Aerman mid.
nineteenth century bour+eoisie which he trans&i+ures by denyin+ any
knowled+e o& its contradictions that are e)ident in the di)ision,
or+ani4ation and remuneration o& labor. 5n as much as @reyta+ applies an
1C
undi&&erentiated concept o& 0work1 to the e'ually undi&&erentiated concept
o& 0the people,1 7two concepts Stendhal would ha)e ne)er used9 he
success&ully o)erlooked, in a literal sense, the anta+onistic social order
with its competin+ and &eudin+ classes. 5deolo+y comes to the &ore at the
)ery be+innin+ o& his ma(or work %oll und a&en 7=ebit and Credit9
which has as its motto the words o& Eulian Schmidt: 0The no)el ou+ht to
look &or the Aerman people where they are at their )irtuous best, that is, at
work.1
5 should like to touch upon the death moti& as it is struck repeatedly in
MMrike6s "aler 'olten 78ainter *olten9 and Meyer6s $urg $enatsch.
MMrike6s world is that o& the (iedermeier o& the honest man, the not yet
politically emancipated bour+eois in the period o& the Vormar), 5.e. in the
period between the Vienna Con+ress and the, in &act, aborti)e re)olutions
o& 1!"!.". 5n his no)els, the death moti& may be interpreted as a
harbin+er o& the political de&eat o& the bour+eoisie in his +eneration. The
moti&s o& transience, &ate, and death ser)e as ideolo+ical metaphors &or the
political impotence o& the middle class in his time o& which he himsel&
was a prototype. By contrast, in the stories o& Meyer, death takes on the
aspect o& a hi+hly intensi&ied moment in the &ullness o& li&e. -hen
Lucretia kills Eur+ Eenatsch this deed marks also the be+innin+ o& her own
physical destruction. -hat is in &act a )iolent double murder is presented
as the e2pression o& heroic li&estyles. ,nly Eur+ and Lucretia are worthy
o& one another, they represent a rare and per&ect balance o& character and
&ate# only by )irtue o& this sin+ular con+ruity do these two ha)e the ri+ht
to eliminate each other. The solidarity o& the international rulin+ minority
pro)es itsel& unto death.
@inally, turnin+ to content, 5 once more re&er to @reyta+ and Meyer.
Both wrote historical no)els and short stories. @reyta+6s collected works
mi+ht be called the te2tbook o& the con&ormist middle class, e2hortin+ the
)irtues and perils o& its members. The study o& history is not seen as an
1"
occasion &or intellectual en(oyment &or its own sake, but &or its peda+o+ic
)alues. /ither &or the purpose o& warnin+ or emulation, it contains the
history o& indi)iduals and +roups intended to teach &uture +enerations
lessons o& social competence which mi+ht help them a)oid the dubious
&ate o& the aristocracy or the sordid &ate o& the lower classes. 5& this stance
toward history is a mani&estation o& the sel&.ima+e o& a bour+eoisie
stru++lin+ &or its e2istence with tenacious dili+ence, then, by contrast,
Meyer6s selecti)e approach to history may be dubbed a 0historicism o& the
upper bour+eoisie.1 -hen history is constituted randomly &rom dis(oint
e)ents, the abundance o& historical phenomena is &orced into a dim
twili+ht and the chain o& diachronic e2periences itsel& has no si+ni&icance
at all. There is no continuum o& e)ents o& any interpretable character, be it
causal, theolo+ical or otherwise teleolo+ical in nature. 8olitical, economic
cultural chan+es carry no wei+ht and the &low o& history is in itsel&
without importance. The historian turns spectator takin+ pleasure in
obser)in+ the sin+ular like a ma+ni&icent drama. Thus the cate+ory o& play
penetrates real history as much as historical research to the e2tent that
history6s di)ersity and comple2ity is reduced to a puppet theater o& heroes
whose li)es and acti)ities are reconstituted &or the play&ul en(oyment o&
the spectator.interpreter. $n upper.class bour+eois likes his &a)orite
historian to be an aesthete.
$nother e2ample &or the e2ploration o& content is the 'uestion o&
politics. 5n Aott&ried 3eller we &ind an almost bold disre+ard &or economic
realities, but considerable emphasis is placed on the political sphere,
whether in occasional caricaturi4ation o& armchair politics or in the
in&ormed and competent con)ersations o& the bur+her in the *ahnlein der
sie&en +ufrechten 7The Se)en Npri+ht9 on topics o& +eneral import. To
identi&y politics as the supreme, i& not e2clusi)e arena &or the
con&rontation and &inal settlement o& public a&&airs, is characteristic &or
social +roups which, on the one hand, e2perience themsel)es as
1G
economically secure, but whose social mobility, on the other hand, is
limited. $ll throu+h the nineteenth century the middle class is inclined to
look at politics as a resource &or arbitration between competin+ +roups
and indi)iduals, as, literally, a 0middle>.way. This notion o& the middle
station, incidentally, was already &er)ently +lori&ied in the &ictional and
pamphlet literature read by the /n+lish middle class in the ei+hteenth
century. 5n the case o& Stendhal, politics does not &unction as an
ideolo+ical de)ice, rather, consciously or not, he acts as spokesman &or the
upper class o& his time who considered political dealin+s part o& economic
transactions and con&licts, and +o)ernments nothin+ more than business
partners o& bi+ business itsel&.
5t has always been o& +reat interest to me why a task as important as the
study o& the reception o& literature amon+ )arious social +roups has been
so utterly ne+lected e)en thou+h a )ast pool o& research material is
a)ailable in (ournals and newspapers, in letters and memoirs. $
materialistic history o& literature, unhampered by the an2ious protection o&
the literary arts by its sel&.styled +uardians and without &ear o& +ettin+
stranded in a 'ua+mire o& routine philolo+y or mindless data collection, is
well prepared to tackle this task.
1H