The Censorship of Literary Naturalism, 1885-1895: Prussia and Saxony
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Grand Valley State University ScholarWorks@GVSU Peer Reviewed Articles History Department 2014 The Censorship of Literary Naturalism, 1885-1895: Prussia and Saxony Gary D. Stark University of Texas at Arlington Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/hst_articles Part of the History Commons ScholarWorks Citation Stark, Gary D., "The Censorship of Literary Naturalism, 1885-1895: Prussia and Saxony" (2014). Peer Reviewed Articles. 19. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/hst_articles/19 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History Department at ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Peer Reviewed Articles by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SYMPOSIUM: THE CENSORSHIP OF LITERARY NATURALISM The of Censorship Literary Naturalism, 1885-1895: Prussia and Saxony GARY D. STARK has been written in recent years about the emergence of modernist culture in^w de siecle Europe and the resistance MUCH it met from cultural traditionalists. The earliest clashes be? tween traditionalism and modernism usually occurred in the legal arena, where police censors sought to uphold traditional norms against the modernist onslaught. How successful was the state in combatting emer? gent modernist cultural movements? Arno Mayer, in a recent analysis ofthe persistence ofthe old regime in Europe before 1914, maintains that: "In the long run, the victory of the modernists may have been inevitable. In the short run, however, the modernists were effectively bridled and isolated, if need be with legal and administrative controls."1 In Germany, the first stirrings of modern literature?if perhaps not yet of full modernism?began with the naturalists, also called the "real- ists," the "youngest Germans," or simply "the Moderns."2 Naturalists Research for this essay was made possible by generous grants from the National En? dowment for the Humanities, the German Academic Exchange Service, and the Uni? versity of Texas at Arlington Organized Research Fund. A preliminary draft was pre? sented at the Western Association for German Studies Conference, October 1983. i. Arno J. Mayer, The Persistenceof the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War (New York, 1981), 190. 2. Some literary scholars consider naturalism to be the beginning of literary modern? ism, while others see it as pre- or only quasi-modernist; still others interpret modernism as a conscious rejection of naturalism. Those who stress the many modernist features of naturalism include: Helmut Kreuzer, "Zur Periodisierung der 'modernen' deutschen These articlesare revisedversions of paperspresented at a session ofthe WesternAssociation for GermanStudies (now the GermanStudies Association) in Madison, Wisconsin,in October1983. 326 This content downloaded from 148.61.109.103 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:04:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Gary D. Stark 327 clashed several times with the state between the mid-i88os and the mid- 1890s. Yet the power of the censors and their adverse impact upon naturalism is often overestimated. In Prussia, the largest ofthe German states and the most important center ofthe naturalist movement, and in neighboring Saxony, center ofthe German book trade, censorship did literary naturalism little harm and perhaps considerable good. Mayer notwithstanding, the legal and administrative controls applied by Prus? sian and Saxon censors could neither bridle nor isolate the new literary current. On the contrary, censorship actually helped create new forums of expression for the naturalist movement, helped coalesce naturalist authors, and helped popularize their works. Since drama was the preferred, and most successful medium of nat? uralist literature, let us begin there. Although conditions varied accord? ing to locality, in most Prussian cities and in Leipzig and Dresden, the two largest Saxon centers, all public theaters were subject to police censorship. Theater directors had to obtain prior approval for each dra? matic work they intended to produce, and approval was denied if po? lice believed the work would endanger public peace or security or would threaten the existing moral or political order. Any ban, however, could be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court {Oberverwal- tungsgericht). Between 1885 and 1895, local censors in Prussia and Saxony banned a total of nine naturalist dramas from their cities' public stages. Some of these titles were banned in one city only, while others were banned by authorities in several different localities. (See Table 1.) None of these bans seriously inhibited the development of naturalist drama in Ger? many, nor did the bans prevent the public from seeing such drama per? formed. There were three reasons for this. First, although local authori? ties could prohibit the staging ofa work, the published text always re? mained readily available to interested readers. Second, many of these bans were issued not in the crucial theatrical centers such as Berlin or Literatur," BASIS: Jahrbuchfiir deutsche Gegenwartsliteratur2 (1971): 18-19; Gunther Mahal, Naturalismus (Munich, 1975), 11; Roy C. Cowen, Der Naturalismus: Kommentar zu einer Epoche (Munich, 1981), 11; Albert Soergel and Curt Hohoff, Dichtung undDichter der Zeit: Vom Naturalismus bis zur Gegenwart (Dusseldorf, 1961), vol. 1; and Hans Schwerte, "Deutsche Literatur im wilhelminischen Zeitalter," WirkendesWort 14 (1964): 254-70. Those who take a more skeptical view of the relation between naturalism and modernism include: Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane, "The Name and Nature of Modernism," in Modernism1890-1930 (New York, 1976), 19-55; and Jost Hermand, Der Schein des schonen Lebens: Studien zur Jahrhundertwende(Frankfurt, 1972). This content downloaded from 148.61.109.103 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:04:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Os ^ Os oo ^ oo <4J J3 Ji JO <h-i id o u < cq ? w EH ^ ^ a d *3 *^5 St Q t3 * ^ o .? d ^ 33 =3 ^?Tf ?S "o 8 00 H *X $ X j O* u-' ni This content downloaded from 148.61.109.103 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:04:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions <H~I O o o Os o d oo Os Os a oo oo tH Os Os d oo oo 2 2 d 13 **d 13 t3 ?2 ^ <U H <U g d ..._ fr p 13 8 d ;d Q d i3 el -3 5.-0 <2 -d ^3 ?* ti fr ^d 5U ^ *i3.2 *dd \a .d *-o 5 i-Q 5 w H -g ?a ofj d rt ? rt . ^h .52 h3 .?? ff3tu vm "lid 4) ^d o 0> o S o 8 S 53 a o P-. 5^ ^ * Oh H PQ d ? o -d ?43 1 h3 1 d +->u *-? H3 9 1 ? m 4> M O m ,13 ^ H m .S-xs >-\ ? ?M M 8 6 8 S 81 H 1 1-4 1-4 O o O Ph Ph U u u This content downloaded from 148.61.109.103 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:04:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 330 Censorship in Prussia and Saxony Leipzig, but in small provincial communities. Hermann Sudermann's Die Ehre and Ludwig Fulda's Das verlorene Paradies were prohibited in towns like Erfurt and Kassel, for example, but both enjoyed successful runs on the Berlin public stage.3 Finally, when police in Berlin or Leip? zig did proscribe a naturalist drama, the courts almost invariably over- turned the action, usually within six months to a year. Judges reversed the Berlin bans of Sudermann's Sodoms Ende, Hartleben's Hannajagert, Hauptmann's Die Weber, and Held's Ein Fest auf der Bastille, while a Leipzig court overturned the police's ban there of Tolstoy's Macht der Finstemis.4 The only naturalist drama successfully banished from Berlin's public theaters was the now forgotten Heilige Ehe, a plea for free love by the minor Friedrichshagen authors Felix Hollander and Hans Land.5 Had the Residenz Theater bothered to appeal it, this ban too would probably have been overturned. True, Berlin authorities were able to prevent any public performance of Ibsen's Gespenster until 1894,6 and they kept Macht der Finstemis off the public stage there until 1900. Yet during that time, large Berlin 3. Heinrich H. Houben, VerboteneLiteratur von der klassischenZeit bis zur Gegenwart: Ein kritische-historischesLexikon iiber verbotene Biicher, Zeitschriften und Theaterstucke, Schriftstellerund Verleger,2 vols. (Berlin, 1924), 1:203, 581; Joachim Wilcke, DasLessing- theater in Berlin unter Oskar Blumenthal (1888-1893): Eine Untersuchungmit besonderer Berucksichtigungder zeitgenossischenTheaterkritik (Inaugural diss., Berlin, 1958), 59. 4. On SodomsEndesee: Wilcke, Lessingtheater,59-63; and Oskar Blumenthal, Verbotene Stiicke (Berlin, 1900), 16-31. On HannaJaqertsQe:Houben, VerboteneLiteratur, 2:255-59; Wilcke, Lessingtheater,63-68; Blumenthal, VerboteneStiicke, 36-42; Richard Grelling, Streifziige: GesammelteAufsdtze (Berlin, 1894), 227-52; "Kunst und Polizei," Das Maga? zin fur Literatur61, no. 50 (Dec. 10, 1892): 816-17; and Landesarchiv Berlin [hereafter cited as: LA Berlin], Pr. Br. Rep. 30 C/a?TheaterZ. On Die Webersee: Houben, Verbo? tene Literatur, 1:337-54; Grelling, Streifziige, 253-63; Manfred Brauneck, Literatur und Offentlichkeitim ausgehenden19. Jahrhundert: Studien zurRezeption des naturalistischenThea? ters in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1974), 51-62; Hans Schwab-Felisch, GerhartHauptmann: Die Weber (Frankfurt, 1959), 243-54; and Staatsarchiv Potsdam [hereafter cited as: StA Potsdam], Pr. Br. Rep. 30 Berlin C, Tit. 74, Th. 304. On Ein Fest auf derBastille see: LA Berlin, Rep. 30 C/a; and StA Potsdam Rep. 30 Berlin C, Tit. 74, Th 594. On Macht der Finstemis see: LA Berlin, Rep. 30 C/a; VossischeZeitung, Apr. 19,1901; and E. Pechstedt, "L. N. Tolstojs Drama 'Macht der Finstemis' und die deutsche Theaterzensur," Zeit? schriftfur Slawistik 13 (1968): 558-64. 5. Zentrales StaatsarchivMerseburg [hereafter cited as: ZSta Merseburg], Rep. 77, Tit. 1000, Nr. 4, Bd. 2; LA Berlin, Rep. 30 C/a, Nr. H460. 6. LA Berlin, Rep.