10.3726/82044_133 Verisimilitude by Way of Vernacular Language and Dialect in German Literature Since the Middle of the 18th Century By Peter Pabisch, Albuquerque New insights into German literary studies, Germanistik, necessitate bringing to the fore rather old matters at times, such as the use of dialect in all the genres. Amazingly the study of dialect literature or the inclusion of dialect phrases into otherwise Standard German texts appears to be rather sparse, so that the term as here suggested – ‘versimilitude’ – can hardly be detected in literary encyclope- dias even though its importance should be obvious. The following brief dis- course will shed some light on this phenomenon, with the implication that this deficiency in literary German research is in the process of being reversed by some experts in the field. The use of everyday colloquial speech, actually written in German litera- ture, remains rare to this day, even though powerful dialect movements and waves counteracted this ruling trend vehemently at times, such as the dialect wave following H. C. Artmann’s book of Viennese dialect poetry med ana schwoazzn dintn (with black ink, 1958). The linguistic discourse analyzing philological, historical, social, psychological, even political reasons for this phenomenon stretches over miles of book pages and treatises. In a nutshell though, the usage of standard language alone versus its interception with or also the sole application of dialects or vernaculars refers back to Schiller’s and Goethe’s aesthetic theories of beauty of the language in their classical period around the year 1800, whereby they manifested that the purity of the standard language was capable of reflecting the ugliest, most violent situations. Thereby they strictly opted against the use of dialect, claiming that the beauty of the German standard language could and should portray even the most hideous immoral and criminal acts. Only their contemporary Johann Gottfried Herder supported dialect ar- rangements to be used in literary texts, as primarily alluded to in his widely recognized essay “Vom Ursprung der Sprache” (About the origin of language, 1771/72). Thus an early to middle 19th century dialect wave, represented by such authors as the North Germans Fritz Reuter and Klaus Groth, or the Alemannic-Swiss Johann Peter Hebel, next to an impressive number of lesser, i. e. only regionally known authors, demonstrated the feasibility of this usage. These authors were followed by naturalists in literature, such as Gerhart and Carl Hauptmann, Arno Holz and Johannes Schlaf, Ludwig Anzengruber or the 133 Tyrolian expressionist Karl Schoenherr, as well as by a series of neo-romantic writers from Karl Stieler to Peter Rosegger, all developments around the end of the 19th , beginning of the 20th century, leading into modern eras such as those of dadaism and surrealism on the one hand or Neue Sachlichkeit on the other, as Karl Kraus’ monster drama – “written for a Martian theater” – Die letzten Tage der Menschheit (The Last Days of Mankind) specifies during and shortly after World War I, namely written from 1914/15 to 1921. For Goethe, who did accept dialect as a form of the spoken word, and for Schiller their phase of Storm and Stress indicated a wilder use of the language as symbolized by the infamous quotation of Goetz – das ‘Goetz-Zitat’, or certain expressions in Schiller’s Die Raeuber against the tyrants of the era: “Franz heißt die Kanaille!” Yet even these curses were to be uttered in standard German. Goethe did write one dialect poem – albeit in Swiss German – from his journey to Switzerland in his early Storm and Stress years. A young maiden admires the scenery with its mountains and birds, and she is waiting for Hansel, her lover. The first stanza thereof – “Schweizerlied” Uf ’m Bergli / Bin I gesässe, / Ha de Vögle / Zugeschaut; / Hänt gesunge, / Hänt gesprunge, / Hänts Nästli / Gebaut. There are three more stanzas; yet that is it, as far as the total, otherwise Standard German work of Goethe indicates. He did not despise dialect as a form of expression orally, the Germans also refer to dialect as ‘Mundart’, though he gave up vulgar and vernacular language in literature during his Italian journey, during which he transcribed some of his early plays from prose to verse form, thereby clearly distancing his aesthetic production from every- day albeit Standard German language. And so it remained the norm for generations, in fact even today the view on how to present literature remains divided between two extreme camps. Already the realists, such as Theodor Storm and more so Jeremias Gotthelf, did feel uneasy in having the uneducated peasant speak the same language as the doctor or lawyer. Whereas Theodor Storm used only a few examples, Jeremias Gotthelf from Bern, Switzerland, wrote 1845: “I never want to write in dialect, and nobody will notice dialect on my first twenty pages, yet afterwards I am forced into it, whether I want to or not.” One feels the almost apologetic tone in this author’s justification for having broken a strict aesthetic law. In retrospect though, we have to welcome his bravery, because even though Standard German has prevailed, many writers of today feel the limitations when avoid- ing everyday language in their literary texts. Earlier in the year 2013 the famous Austrian author Josef Haslinger, who was voted into the presidency of the German PEN Center in May of that year, told me during his visit in Albuquerque in March, that he has decided to use dialect in certain direct 134 discourse passages of his recent and upcoming novels – despite the protest of his publishers. Why his publishers would protest the application of dialect remains arbitrary, because most dialect writers do not use diacritic signs anymore, but stay within the letters of the alphabet, writing their passages somewhat phonemically and graphemically. And who are they to dictate the modes of writing? Well, their power in providing the economic support for all publications suffices as the main reason. Yet, a renowned author as Josef Haslinger can insist on his demands nonetheless. Other literatures have an easier time in accepting dialect or vernacular language. We may take the writing of the British author D. H. Lawrence and his novels such as Lady Chatterly’s Lover, or Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, or Robert Burns’ Songs, or Lord Tennyson’s poetry which he partly wrote in Lincolnshire dialect. In German tradition, even until after World War II, dialect plays were banned from national German theater and moved into people’s theaters, in Vienna for example the “Volkstheater”. Since the social changes after 1945 there has been a reformed attitude. Although the situation appears far from solved a gradual acceptance of non standard utterances in literature can be observed, so that a cultural transition of these “lower” realms of language has taken place over the last decades. Not all writers go along, but the formation of parties, to use the democratic term from politics, has emerged, a situation to be described more closely in this subsequent, however brief discourse. To summarize and reiterate the need for verisimilitude in literary lan- guage according to such authors as Gerhart Hauptmann, e. g. in his early play Die Weber: Even though school education has existed in Central Europe, especially in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria at least for elementary school years throughout the 19th century, Standard German was not spoken by the people in everyday life. Therefore Hauptmann and others felt that the utter- ances of corresponding figures in drama ought to be presented in Mundart, thus in dialect. Already Thomas Mann in his early novel Buddenbrooks applies some dialect where needed, as he felt. For example, the famous scene of ‘revolution’ in the first part of the novel (Vierter Teil, Drittes Kapitel) has old Konsul Buddenbrooks argue with Carl Smolt, one of his revolting employees, because the workers have gone on strike for better working conditions. An excerpt of this dialogue in Luebeck Platt sounds as follows: “Nu red mal, Corl Smolt! Nu is’ Tied! Ji heww hier den leewen langen Namiddag bröllt …” “Je, Herr Kunsel …”, brachte Corl Smolt kauend hervor. “Dat’s nu so’n Saak … öäwer. Dat is nu so wied … Wi maaken nu Revolutschon.” “Wat’s dat för Undög, Smolt!” 135 “Je, Herr Kunsel, dat seggen Sei woll, öäwer dat is nu so wied … wi sünd nu nich mihr taufreeden mit de Saak … Wi verlangen nu ne anner Ordnung, un dat is ja ook gor nich mihr, daß dat wat is …” “Hür mal, Corl Smolt, un ihr annern Lüd! Wer nu’n verstännigen Kierl is, der geht naa Hus un schert sich nich mihr um Revolution und stört hier nich de Ordnung.” This brief sample shows clearly that dialect expresses serious matters, as here the working conditions of the deprived class of harbor employees who would like to see things changed. Yet also for peers of the upper class Thomas Mann provides the example. Herr Permaneder from Munich who later becomes part of the family, explains to the Konsul’s son an economic situation (Sechster Teil, 1. Kapitel, p. 331) in Bavarian dialect from Munich: Übrigens … I will nixen g’sagt ham, Herr Nachbohr! Dös is fei a nett’s G’schäfterl! Mer machen a Geld mit der Aktien-Brauerei, wovon der Niederpaur Direktor is, wissen S’. Dös is a ganz a kloane G’sellschaft g’wesen, aber mer ham eahna an Kredit geben und a bares Göld … zu vier Prozent, auf Hypothek … damit s’ eahnere Gebäud’ ham vergreßern können … Und jetzt mochen s’ a G’schäft, und mer ham an Umsatz und a Jahreseinnahm’ – dös haut scho’! Thomas Mann, although born and raised in Luebeck, lived in Munich a few years and learned the local vernacular very well obviously.