• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1964 The Alienation Motif in Nineteenth-Century Continental Drama. Lynn Frederick Kluth Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Kluth, Lynn Frederick, "The Alienation Motif in Nineteenth-Century Continental Drama." (1964). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 946. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/946 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been 64—13,259 microfilmed exactly as received KLUTH, Lynn Frederick, 1925— THE ALIENATION MOTIF IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY CONTINENTAL DRAMA. Louisiana State University, Ph.D., 1964 Speech—Theater University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by LYNN FREDERICK KIUTH 1965 THE ALIENATION MOTIF IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY CONTINENTAL DRAMA A Dissertation Subsiltted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In The Department of Speech by Lynn Frederick Kluth b.A., Ohio University, 1949 M.a ., Western Reserve University, 1950 May, 1964 acknowledgment The writer shall always be grateful to Dr. Claude L. Shaver for his encouragement and guidance, to Sylvia Kluth for her editorial and secretarial assistance, and to Ella Mae Bonnell for her efforts In preparing the final manuscript. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................ ii ABSTRACT ............................................... iv PREFACE ................................................. vii I Alienation: Its Nature and Background .............. 1 II The Beginnings: 1800 - 1840 30 III The Middle Years: 1840 - 1885 ..................... 89 IV Fin de slecle: 1885 - 1905 155 V Review and Conclusions .............................. 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................. 247 VITA ..................................................... 258 111 ABSTRACT During the nineteenth century In Europe, there appeared on the theatrical scene a type of serious drama embodying the conviction that man had become divorced from a belief in certain value concepts which traditionally had served to help make human existence a purposeful and dignifying thing. That particular dramatic type, since It Is un­ relentingly concerned with an estrangement between man and belief In such higher significances as God, country, family, and work, can be best labeled "the drama of alienation." This study Investigates the alienation drama, defining its specific nature and tracing Its develop­ ment at the hands of the playwrights chiefly responsible for its ex­ istence In nineteenth-century Europe. The bulk of the study Is given over to discussing In detail the lives, attitudes, and work of nine dramatists. These nine are divided into groups of three, each group representing a particular period. The first group, active during the period 1800 to 1840, consists of Heinrich von Klelst (Penthesllea)« Franz Grlllparzer (Medea), and Georg Buchner (Danton*s Death and Wovzeck). The second group, working In the period 1840 to 1885, accounts for Friedrich Hebbel (Marla Magdalena?. Emile Zola (Theresa Raguln), and Henrik Ibsen (Ghosts and The Wild Duck). The last group is composed of writers of the final period, 1885 to 1905, and Includes August Strindberg (Miss Julie). Gerhart Hauptmann Iv (Drayman Henschel), and Anton Chekhov (The Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard). The emphasis throughout the sections which deal with these men and their contributions to the alienation drama is one which Indicates that these writers were keenly aware of the philosophical, political, sociological, and economical conditions of their age and how these helped to bring about and reinforce man's sense of alienation. The study concludes that while the drama of alienation does not qualify for consideration as tragedy in the classic sense--it does not admit to belief In the existence of an efficacious higher significance pattern as a basis for human action--it is Indeed a serious play pos­ sessing wider philosophical scope than the standard thesis drama. Further, the study points out that a true alienation drama expresses the following philosophical convictions: (1) traditional moralistic and rationalistic value concepts are worthless to man, (2) In the final analysis, human existence Is probably absurd and without meaning, (3) the earthly environment Is hostile toward man as anything but an animal, and (4) 6ince the idea of man's spiritual betterment is a philosophical sham. It is foolish for man to take the view that he should work In terms of such a goal. Finally, the study makes the observation that whereas a majority of those who wrote alienation dramas simply described the agonies of the alienated state, the more affirmative members of the group did their best to point out that man could accept his alienation from old- line higher significances and still lead the good life by regarding v himself as a creature good and powerful enough to be his own higher, If not highest, significance. vi PREFACE There Is considerable disagreement in present critical circles as to the nature and worth of m o d e m serious drama. The more roman­ tically inclined critics praise the efforts of our modern playwrights, saying that their plays Illuminate well the nature of the problems faced by modern man.* Other critics, however, take a more orthodox stand, re­ marking that modern serious drama reveals nothing but the worst excesses 2 of completely debased romanticism. Let us elaborate a bit on this second point of view. The more traditional approach in matters of dramatic criticism Is heavily Influenced by what is contained in Aristotle's Poetics. The critic who Is inclined to feel that Aristotle has the last word on the subject of what makes drama worthy feels that modern serious drams is much like Leacock's horseman who managed to gallop off in sixteen dif- ferent directions at once. Such a critic complains that the serious drama of our times has lost touch with reality and artistic standard,^ '■Roderick Robertson, "A Theatre for the Absurd: The Passionate Equation, " Drama Survey. II (June, 1962), 42. 2John Gassner, "Theory and Practice for the Playwright," First Stage. I (Spring, 1962), 3. 3John Mason Brown, D r m t l i Personae (New York: The Viking Press, 1963), p. 536. ^Francis Fergusson, "After Paranoia, What Next?" Tulane Review, VII (Summer, 1963), 22-23. vii He feels that modern theater la running wild* He la of the mind that the theater Is no longer exalting man.^ He says that serious drama has degenerated into a tedious parade of psychological case histories which leave the spectator suffused with a sense of futility.^ All this is a heavy charge, and--depending upon the position assumed--not without foundation. Let us grant that modern drama Is vastly different from that written in the days of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. For the Greek dramatist's tightly constructed plots, logically developed characters, and clear elucidations of certain "laws," the stodern playwright substitutes rambling and convoluted plots, completely de­ personalised characters, and a frank reluctance to admit to the validity of any "law." All this does take one far afield from Aris­ totle, but there Is reason to suppose that Aristotle himself would not be as upset by the modern departures as some would believe him to be. In his commentary on Aristotle's Poetics.^ F. L. Lucas asks us to remember that Aristotle would probably be more than a little dis­ turbed If he knew that two thousand years after the writing of the Poetics men were still trying to fit plays to its cloth. Lucas re­ minds us that Poetics represents nothing more than Aristotle's usual ^Joseph Wood Krutch, "Modernism" In Modern Drama (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1953), pp. 130-131. ^Mordecai Gorelik, "The Theatre of Sad Amusement," Drama Survey. II (October, 1962), 175. ^F. L. Lucas, Tragedy. Revised Edition (New York: Collier Books, 1962), pp. 16-17. vlll Incisive, scientific observations about a particular artistic phenom­ enon, and that the Greek philosopher was not attempting to legislate Q for future ages. It is Lucas' feeling that Aristotle would ask us to work In terms of our own time, just as he worked In terms of his. This study proposes to accept that thought. In truth. It seems foolish to condemn the drama of a particular day because It Is not like the drama of a previous day. Each day, each age, brings on something new. The "new" thing Is on the scene, and it must be accounted for in terms of the circumstances and con­ ditions which brought it Into being. To pretend that the new does not exist, or to make the dogmatic assertion that it could not possi­ bly contain anything "good" smacks of petulance. To refuse to entertain the possibility that the new might possess something of value is to as­ sume an attitude leading one Into arbitrary and damaging reactionism. Modern drama is here and It Is different. But let us see what it is before we pass judgment on it. This study Is concerned with the nature of a particular type of m o d e m drama. It seeks to Indicate that much of modern drasia is what It Is simply because of what Its times are. It takes the stand that if many of the plays of the modern period appear to be confusing. It is because all that has gone Into the making of the sx>dern period Is conducive to the creation of confusion. It Is of the mind that If many t of the pi Ays of the m o d e m period depict man as lost, discouraged with 8lbld., p. 7.

Load more

  275

Copy Link