Authors' Responses to Censorship in Imperial Germany, 1885-1914 Gary D

Grand Valley State University ScholarWorks@GVSU

Peer Reviewed Articles History Department

10-1989 Trials and Tribulations: Authors' Responses to Censorship in Imperial Germany, 1885-1914 Gary D. Stark Grand Valley State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/hst_articles Part of the History Commons

Recommended Citation Stark, Gary D., "Trials and Tribulations: Authors' Responses to Censorship in Imperial Germany, 1885-1914" (1989). Peer Reviewed Articles. 9. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/hst_articles/9

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]. Trials and Tribulations:Authors' Responsesto Censorshipin Imperial Germany,1885-1914

GaryD. Stark Universityof Texas, Arlington

In Thomas Mann's famous short story of 1903 about the artist's problematicrelation to bourgeoissociety, the aspiringyoung writerTonio Krfiger,after an absenceof thirteenyears, returns to his hometownfor a brief visit. Therehe is confrontedby a policemanwho, suspectingKifiger to be a swindlerwanted by the law, questionshim abouthis identityand occupation. Kr6ger,although recognizing that this guardianof civic orderis withinhis rights,is neverthelessreluctant to reveal who he is. Unable to providethe requisiteidentity papers, he finallyshows the policemanproof- sheets of a story of his that is aboutto be published.The officeris not entirelyconvinced the young writeris not the wantedcriminal, but in the end he lets the matterdrop and allows Kr6igerto leave the country.This unsettlingconfrontation with a representativeof the Germanstate drives home to Krogerhis socialisolation, his uneasyexistence between two seeminglyincompatible worlds: that of his bohemianartist friends, who regard him as a bourgeois,and that of thebourgeois, who try to arresthim. It also reinforceshis long-standingaversion to his hometownand his eagernessto returnsoon to hisself-imposed exile in themore hospitablesouth. Tonio Kr6ger'ssituation is symbolicof that of manyfin de sikcle Germanwriters. As numerousscholars have noted,many late nineteenthand early twentiethcentury German literati shared three distinct but interrelated characteristics:an acute self-consciousness; a sense of alienationfrom bourgeois society;and an "unpolitical"withdrawal from the pressingsocial andpolitical problems of the day. During the nineteenthcentury, but especially since Nietzsche,German writers became increasingly conscious of theirexistence as ,a distinct,semi-independent social groupand were increasinglypreoccupied with questionsabout the role of artin the modernworld, the uniquenature of

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 448 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

theartistic calling, the artist's position and function in bourgeoissociety, and the artist'sresponsibilities to Geist.At thesame time, their intense concern with (and at times glorificationof) the artist'sspecial calling createdin manyGerman writersa growing sense of separatenessfrom the rest of society. Authors, particularlyin thefin de sk'cleera, frequentlyfelt isolatedand alienatedfrom ""normal"life; because of theirunique artistic temperaments and their special, "higher"calling, many of them felt like outsiderswho did not belong to bourgeoissociety. Frequently, this sense of social isolationresulted also in a consciouswithdrawal from the real world,especially the worldof powerand politics.Perceiving the inner world of Geistrather than the external world as the authenticone, andregarding active involvement in socialor politicalissues as incompatiblewith or even harmfulto their"higher" artistic calling, German writersgenerally scorned political engagement. Many escaped from what they perceivedas oppressivesocial or politicalconditions by retreatinginto the "6unpolitical"9realm of thespirit. But this unpolitical disdain for issues of power and politicshad seriouspolitical consequences. Their "inner emigration" led manyinto resignationabout the existenceof socialevil andpolitical injustice; the resultwas widespread political fatalism concerning the possibility of socio- politicalchange or silentacceptance of the statusquo.' As thestory of TonioKroger illustrates, external challenges, especially fromauthority, can play a significantrole in the process by whichindividuals or groupsclarify their self-image,define their social role, and choose their politicalresponses, for such challenges often stimulate self-reflection. Hermann Hesse,a contemporaryof ThomasMann, reached much the sameconclusion: reflectingon the writer'scalling shortlybefore the First WorldWar, Hesse observedthat "the Literati, exactly like everyphysician orjudge or civil servant, are instructedand enlightened (aufgekliirt) about the essenceand character of theirvocation through the kindsof demandsthat others make on them."2 Among the many externalchallenges faced by fin de skw'cleGerman writers,one of the mostpervasive and potentially serious to theircareers was that of censorship.German writers in the imperialera had to contendwith a moreextensive, and less tolerantsystem of censorshipthan their counterparts in France or Britain.Although the ImperialPress Law of 1874 guaranteed freedomof the pressin Germanyand abolished preventive or priorcensorship (i.e.,the needto obtainofficial approval before a workcould be published),the ImperialCriminal Code still permitted local prosecutors to confiscate,and with court approvalto destroy,any printedmatter that violatedthe laws against obscenity,blasphemy, or k1semajestM. Under certain conditions, authorities couldalso prosecute the author of suchworks; if convicted,the defendant could be finedup to 1,000 marksor imprisonedfor upto five years.In contrastto the press,the publicstage in Germanywas still subjectto priorcensorship in the imperialera, for in most Germancities theaterdirectors had to obtainprior

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 449

police approvalfor each dramathat was to be performedpublicly. Police had the right to ban any dramathey believed would endangerpublic peace or securityor wouldthreaten the existingmoral or politicalorder. While it is true thatFrance, Great Britain, and other nations also had laws prohibiting obscene orblasphemous publications, the laws in Germanywere generally applied more stringently(e.g. authors,not merely publishersor booksellers,could be prosecuted),and the Germanpenalties tended to be more severe.As for the public stage, France abolishedits system of theatercensorship in 1905-06, althoughBritain, like Germany,required that all new stageplays be submitted for prior state approval.B3ritish theater censorship, however, was far more lenient than its German counterpart:during the decade 1891-1900, for example,only twenty-two plays were banned in all of Britain,while during that same period,157 workswere bannedin the city of Berlinalone!3 Censorship, in short,posed a far more significantand frequentthreat to writersin late nineteenthcentury Germany than it did to writersin eitherFrance or Britain. Whileit is truethat, in the end,the successof Germancensors in suppressing certaintypes of artisticproducts fell far shortof theirintentionS,4 this seldom deterredthem from trying, and it didlittle to diminishthe anger,frustration, and sometimespsychological trauma involved for the authorswho ranafoul of the censors. Censorshipis, in thebroadest sense, an attemptby society(through its authorizedagents, the governingauthorities) to controlartists by definingthe limitsof artisticactivity and by isolatingor punishingartists who violatethose boundaries.It thereforereveals a good deal aboutwhat a societyconsiders the properrole of art and artiststo be. For artists,in turn,the experienceof being censoredcan significantlyaffect their self-image, their vocational identity, their perceptionof theirplace within society, and their level of politicalconsciousness andengagement. This essay will examine how the experience of beingcensored affectedthe views of severalGerman authors of the imperialera concerning theircalling as writersand their relation to Germansociety and/or the imperial authorities. Between1 885 andthe First World War, approximately twenty German authorsof seriousliterary works, including such figuresas ConradAlberti, HermannBahr, Hugo Ball, Klabund, and Ludwig Thoma, were prosecuted for what they had written.Of these, roughlyone-fourth were acquitted,another one-fourthwere fined, and the rest were imprisonedfor anywherefrom two weeks to one year.Scores of otherauthors - some of themmajor figures such as GerhartHauptmann, Paul Heyse, ArthurSchnitzler, and Carl Sternheim, some relativelyobscure and now forgotten- saw at least one of theirworks temporarilyor permanentlyconfiscated, or hadthe public performance of one or more of their dramasprohibited by the police. Many of the authorswho experiencedcensorship, especially those for whom censorshipmeant merely

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 450 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

the banningof one of theirdramas from the publicstage, have left littleor no indicationof how that encounteraffected them and their attitudestoward Germansociety. But for others, especially those who wereactually prosecuted, the experiencewas a significantone that they discussedin printor in private diaries and correspondence.We know little about how the former group respondedto censorship,but we do knowsomething about how thelatter group did, and it is on this groupthat my studywill necessarilyconcentrate. While it comes as no surprisethat the experienceof censorship generally aggravatedthese authors'sense of estrangementfrom German society,the extentof theiralienation, the formit took,and the conclusionsthey drewfrom it variedgreatly. I have identifiedthree distinct types of alienation exhibitedby censored authorsin imperial Germany:"radical alienation," "6ambivalentalienation,"1 1 and whatI shall call for lack of a betterterm, "internalizedalienation.""5 Radically alienated authors, because of theantipathy they perceivedin Germanytoward their own work and towardwriters in general,completely severed their ties with Germansociety to preservetheir artisticintegrity. Authors who internalizedtheir alienation,despite certain resentmentsthey may have harbored toward the imperial order, never abandoned their hope of becoming reconciledwith their society, even if this meant sacrificingsome artisticautonomy or even renouncingtheir own work.The ambivalentlyalienated seemed torn between these two poles.

The best example of an authorimpelled into radicalalienation by censorshipwas OskarPanizza (1 853-192 1).In the 1890s,six differentstories, dramas,or satiricalwritings of Panizza'swere confiscated by police;for one of theseworks,DasLiebeskonzil(l 894), Panizza was convicted for blasphemy and served1 yearin a Bavarianprison.6 Panizza, one of theearliest, most active, and mosteccentric members of MfichaelGeorg Conrad's circle of Munichnaturalists, the Gesellschaftfiirmodernes Leben, believed adamantly in the inner-directed artist'sabsolute autonomyfrom externalconstraints. His experiencewith censorshipand his incarcerationhelped transform him from a criticto a hostile enemyof Germansociety. Prior to his confrontationwith the state, Panizza had arguedthat artistictalent and genius bordered closely on whatsociety labeled "abnormal"" or "insane."To Panizza,all creativethought was the resultof an individual's unique,mysterious demonic illusions.Artists must follow their own inner daemon,regardless of the consequences;they must never compromisetheir convictions,even whenthese appeared to conflictwith external "reality."' Even thoughthey mightbe labeledabnormal or even regardedas insaneby others, artistsmust always place theirdeepest inner convictions - their"holy spirit"'

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 451

- above society'sarbitrary and relativenorms. To Panizza,true artists were thusmartyrs; they were inevitably condemned and persecuted by society,which insistedon imposingon themits own meaninglessstandards.' After his 1895 trial and conviction,Panizza proclaimed even more passionatelythe eternal irreconcilabilityof artists and society. He spoke satirically- althoughwith profound earnestness - of the"poet's divine right" (Gontesgnadentumdes Dichters).8Poets were endowed with a specialinspiration andability to expresstheir insights, he believed;this gift was bestowedonly on artists,and it bothenabled and compelled them to followtheir inspirations and convictionsregardless of all socialconsiderations or legal constraints. According to Panizza,the burdenartists bore was a heavyone, and theirspecial calling entailedsuffering and constant struggle; they were answerable only to a higher authorityand could not be absolvedfrom their duties by any man, state, prosecutor,parliament, or nation.Society, however, refused to recognizethe poet'scalling; and becausepoets, in turn,refused to acceptsociety's arbitrary norms,society tried to stiflepoets and prevent them from expressing their inner, divinely-inspiredconvictions. If poets insistedon followingtheir convictions, societyeither imprisoned them, forced them into exile, or declaredthem insane. But those whom society regardsas insane are toleratedand left alone. To Panizza,then, the insane asylum was perhapsthe only feasible alternative open to the artist within society. Althoughbeing declaredinsane meant social isolation,it meantalso complete spiritual freedom. Panizza satirically suggested that until society was readyto recognizetheir right of self-expressionand to heed their truths, artists should petition parliamentfor the freedom and protectionoffered by legal insanity.In anotherwork, he advisedthe guardians of the stateto declareall freethinkerscriminal psychotics and to confinethem to a hugeasylum (he suggestedthe Pfalz); this, he reasoned,would both protect them from futuresocial persecutionand at the same time permitsociety to preserveits preciousnorms.9 Panizza'simprisonment irrevocably estranged him fromthe German socialand political order and radicalized his political outlook. He emergedfrom prisona deeplyembittered enemy of hisnative land and immediately repudiated it in the most decisiveand vehementmanner possible.' Whilein prison, Panizza reflected on Germansociety's brutal treatment of writersand voiced his angerin causticsatirical works. In Ein Jahr Gefdngn is, his jailhousediary, he spokeof a "landof the non-promulgationof thoughts" (Gedankennichtverlautbarung)in Northern Europe where the climate was so frigidthat most inhabitants had learned to breatheonly through their noses. For those who exhaledthrough their mouth found that theirbreath immediately froze into a solid icicle protrudingfrom theirlips. Police would then quickly appear,grab hold of thefrozen objects, and drag the unfortunates before a court, wherethey were sentencedto up to 8 yearsin prison,depending on the length

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 452 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

of theicy evidence.Thus the natives were extremely careful not to breathetheir thoughtsout through their mouths, where these could be heard,seen, and seized by the police- indeed,they had learned that even talking about breathing was dangerous.'0In anotherof his prisonworks, Panizza referred to the "burying- alive" (Lebendigbegraben)of poets, writers,journalists, and artists in late nineteenthcentury Germany and lamented that no voicescried out in protest.'1I Duringhis incarceration,Panizza also reflectedmore deeply about Germany'ssocial and political system and drew radical conclusions. In the early 1890s, he had brieflytried to help forman alliancebetween Munich's avant- gardenaturalist writers and the city's Social Democraticworking class. 12 In prison,Panizza came into closercontact with membersof the proletariatand criminalunderclass, and his feelings towardthem became more ambivalent. Onethe one hand,he developeda grudgingadmiration of theSocial Democratic movementfor its idealism,but on the other,he was repelledby whathe saw of this uneducatedLumpenproletariat. In his prisonwritings, he levelleda strong critiqueagainst the entire Bavariancriminal justice system, and radically reinterpretedthe relation between the individual and the state.Panizza became convincedthat the greatquestions of thefuture would be the statusof workers, the problemof individualliberation, and the destructionof old authorities, especiallythe monarchy.He embraceda vague anarchismand developeda deep interestin and admirationfor earlierpolitical martyrs like KarlSand.'13 As a resultof the punishmentimposed on him by society,it became clearto Panizzathat life for him as a writerin Germanywas impossible.At his trial,he hadalready explained to thecourt why he publishedhis DasLiebeskonzil in Switzerland:"Every German author, at one time or another,has something on his heartthat he can'thave printed in Germany,and then he goes abroad."'4 Whileinjail, he wrotethat flight abroad was one of thethree fates open to a free- thinkerwho wanted to express himself in Germany(the other two being imprisonmentand insanity).'5 Fearing the socialisolation he wouldencounter uponhis release from prison - societywould scorn him as a criminal,and even his embarrassedfriends would avoid contact with him - he decidedhe must "leavethe land of asphaltbefore it burnsthe soles of my shoes."'6"I always sa Iw,"), he laternoted, "that those who expressednew ideashad to flee, andlater, even if onlythrough their writings, they were brought back. That suits me perfectly."I'7 So upon his release from prisonin 1896, Panizza renouncedhis Bavanian citizenshipand resettledfirst in Zurich,then in Paris. Oncesafely beyond the German border, Panizza poured out his hatred for the socialclimate and political system of his homeland.In his collectionof vitriolicanti-German poems Parisjana (1 899), composedduring his Paris exile, he denouncedGermans as a backward,arrogant, smug, and hopelessly servile peoplewhile praising France as Germany'sfree, rational, enlightened antithesis.'8 Germans'spieJ3bfirgerlich intolerance and their hostilityto artistsand other

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 453

intellectualscame underparticular attack. In Panizza'seyes, Germanywas "a land of barbarians"populated by "a pack of horses"interested only in their potatosacksand who soughtat everyturn to "stranglethe muses."In Germany, he charged,"one's Best, what one callsSoul," is treateden canaille. "Don't throw pearls to these sows,! no verses to these barbarians"he warned.'9The anti- monarchical,anarchist leanings Panizza had developed in prisonnow emerged with full revolutionaryforce in thesepoems. He denouncedall bailiffs,police, executioners,and other guardians of publicorder and called upon the German peopleto riseup against their tyrannical rulers - especiallyWilhelm II, whom he called a "maddog" and "thepublic enemy of mankindand culture."2 The publicationof Panizza'svitriolic Parisjana prompted the German authoritiesnot only to confiscatethe workfor slanderingthe Kaiser,but also to issue anotherwarrant for Panizza'sarrest. To force the exile to return,they also seized all his financialassets in Germany,which he had been using to supporthimself. Panizza'slatest confrontationwith the state isolated and alienatedhim still further,this time fromhis family,which repudiated him as an embarrassmentand sought to havehim declared mentally incompetent. This final break with his family so psychicallyshattered Panizza he considered sui'cide;thereafter he bitterlyblamed the Munich police and Bavarian government for splittingapart his family and destroyinghis ties with them.2' Brokenand financiallydestitute, he returnedto Bavariain 1900, was immediatelyplaced underpsychiatric observation, and at the strongurgings of his family, was declared mentally incompetent.2 A few years later he was committed permanentlyto an asylum,where he spentthe final sixteenyears of his life totallyinsulated from the societyhe despised.Of the threefates he once said were open to a writerin Germany- imprisonment,exile, insanity - Panizza had experiencedthem all. No other censoredauthor became so totally isolated and radically alienatedfrom German society as didPanizza. Only the young Berlin naturalist HermannConradi (1 862-1890), whowas indicted for obscenity and blasphemy in 1889 over his novel Adam Mensch,merits comparison.2 Like Panizza, Conradibelieved the artistand bourgeois society were natural enemies. Before his clashwith the censor,Conradi had preached that if thecreative impulse was not to be thwartedand weakened, artists must be allowed to follow the spontaneousimpulses of theirsouls, even if theseconflicted with the rulesand normssociety had laid downfor the preservationof socialorder. Any potential socialharm that might result from the artist'scomplete freedom would be more than offset, Conradibelieved, by the rich artisticcreations that wouldensue. Conradibelieved that to producepure, natural and original art, creative artists must insulatethemselves from the influencesof bourgeoissociety, avoiding normalbourgeois occupations so as not to fall underthe influenceof those socialinstitutions and traditions that were products of "theherd instincts of the

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 454 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

masses."214After he was indicted, Conradi'sdisdainful scorn toward the guardiansof the bourgeoisorder only deepened.He regardedthe authorities' actionsas "sillyand childish" and he adopteda stand-point"rooted firmly in the a priorisovereignty of art."25The young writer considered his novel "a first-rate psychological-artistic-culturaldocument, even if 10,000 old or 'young' embalmed herrings... biteout theirmoral teeth on it."126Even though he facedup to three yearsin prisonif convicted,Conradi professed not the slightestconcern over what"old fogeys" like the stateprosecutor thought of him or his work,and he refused"to dance to the whimsof those gentlemen."At his preliminarycourt hearing,he laterboasted, he had behavedwith "unbelievableself-assurance, superiority,and casualsovereignty."27 Conradidied in the midstof his obscenitytrial, thus cutting short any furtherdevelopment of his nascentradical alienation. Had he lived,he would almostcertainly have been convicted and sentenced to severalmonths in prison. Thereseems every reason to believethat such a fate wouldhave only deepened his hostilityto bourgeoissociety and alienatedhim furtherfrom it.

III

A secondgroup of authorsexperienced what I callambivalent alienation as a result of undergoingcensorship. Like Panizza, they saw in the very institutionof censorshipproof of Germansociety's lack of respectfor the value of literatureand its disdainfor writers, and they were tempted to emigrate,like he had,to less hostilesettings abroad. Yet in the end,the forcesbinding these writersto theirnative society proved stronger than the forces repellingthem fromit. Moreimportantly, ambivalently alienated authors exhibited an unusually defensive reaction to the experienceof censorship.Their clash with the authoritiesshook their self-confidence or producedin thema crisisof identity, whichin turnled to a criticalnew self-awareness.Of coursethey never admitted the censor's charges against their work were justified. But while publicly proclaimingtheir innocence and defending their work, privately they expressed misgivings about their previousassumptions and values, they reproached themselvesfor their literary excesses, and they resolved to redirecttheir literary efforts. The two best examples of ambivalentalienation among censored authorsare Frank Wedekind (1 864-1918) andRichard Dehmel (1 863-1920). AfterWedekind had servedseven months in prisonfor h?sema]jestg in 1899,2 been twiceindicted but acquitted for obscenityin 1904-06,29adse several of his dramas confiscatedor banned from the public stage,30 he publishedtwo essayson censorshipin whichhe assertedthat literary censorship in Germanywas a productof thatsociety's lack of respectfor the artsand of the Germanbureaucracy's disdain for authors.Indeed, Wedekind claimed not

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 455

to knowwhich was worse:bourgeois society's general disinterest in literarylife andits blindacquiescence to policeharassment of writers,or the fact thatonly the police took art seriously in Germany,in the sense that they vastly overestimatedits power to corruptsociety.3' "Afterall is said and done," Wedekindcomplained, "to the Germanauthorities, a Germanwriter is merely a dumbchild. .. .*"32 The banningof workslike his Die Biichseder Pandora and Totentanz,while comparable works by Englishor Russianauthors were passed, had made Wedekindrealize "what a singularlythankless honor it is to be a German[writer] in Germany."33 In the midstof his firstserious encounter with the censor,Wedekind emigratedbriefly, but ultimately found it an unsatisfactorysolution. Facing up to a year'simprisonment for lose ma]jestg in 1898, Wedekindfirst fled to Zurich, thento Paris,where he spenttime with his exiled friend Oskar Panizza. But after eight monthsin exile,Wedekind decided to "makemy peace withthe German Reich"and returnedto face his punishment.34"I have almostlearned to love Germany,"he wrotea friendshortly before he repatriatedfrom PariS.35 Besidesleading him to workthrough some of his ambivalentfeelings towardGermany, Wedekind's brushes with censorship also prompteda series of criticalself-reassessments. After he was indictedfor losema]jestg, Wedekind foundit painfulto admitthat he hadwritten the satiricalpoem in questionnot out of politicalconviction, but for simplematerial gain. One reasonhe fled to Switzerlandafter his indictment,he tolda friend,was to avoidhaving to testify that in composingthe poem, he had ignoredhis own convictionsand moral beliefs.To haveadmitted that in a publicforum, he confessed,"would have been a disgracefulhumiliation for me."36 A few yearslater, when a Berlincourt ruled the firstedition of hisDie Baichse der Pandora obscene and ordered it destroyed, Wedekindrewrote portions of the dramaand publisheda new edition.In the new preface, he acknowledgedthat the trial over the earlier version had produceda farcloser assessment of the play'sethical and artistic qualities than it would otherwisehave received.Removing all those passagesto which the courthad objected, Wedekind confessed, had actually improved the drama both ethicallyand artistically.3 But even the revisedversion of Die Biichseder Pandora was banned fromthe public stage. To answerthose who condemnedhis workbecause of its supposedlack of "ethicalsincerity," Wedekind composed an autobiographical one-act play entitledDie Zensur.Through the characterof Buridan(who is a transparentself-portrait of himself),Wedekindjustified his'art and appealed for the releaseof Die Bdichseder Pandora. At the same time,however, there is in DieZensur a rathersympathetic portrayal of thecensor's viewpoint, represented by the churchmanPrantl. Through Prantl, Wedekind appears in Die Zensurto be reproachinghimself for three serious artistic and ethical shortcomings: First, thathis artcontains an elementof emotionalexhibitionism; like othermodern

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 456 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

artists,he displaysto all the world(and in returnfor money!)all his darkest personalsecrets and those inner emotionalstruggles that are best worked throughin privacy.Second, that he lacksconcern for the ethicalconsequences of his artand its effectupon people's lives. Third, that in his portrayalsof human pain,misfortune, and despair, he displays a certainSchadenfreude, and encourages it in others.Buridan/Wedekind, the censorin the play charges,lacks empathy and any sense of brotherlylove for his destitutecharacters. After the writer Buridanhas proclaimedhis basichuman goodness, the censorPrantl tells him:

Your'human goodness' would never stop your Reason from writing a theaterpiece aboutsome unfortunate creature you havejust trampled intothe ground. That is themost grotesque aspect of your performances: everythingis the most living reality.Instead of plays, you create casualties.If a mandies by you,then it'sjust a humanlife gone;no trace of any spiritualparticipation. And wheneverpossible, you even boast of theseabominations. Annihilated human lives are the milestonesof your life's path.. .. One sits beforeyour art like imperialRome sat before the gladiator'sbattles and the persecutionof the Christians. Baitingwild beastsof preyare the summitsof whatyou call art.38

Since Buridan/Wedekindmakes no effort to refutethese chargesraised by Prantl,readers are left with the impression that Wedekind implicitly recognized at least some validityin the accusationsof his criticsand censors. RichardDehmel, another ambivalently alienated author, was twice indictedfor obscenity and blasphemy, but acquitted both timeS.39 Because of a legal technicality,he narrowlymissed being indicteda thirdtime, and would have almost certainlybeen convictedon that occasion;as a result of that incident, a court ruled that a collection of his poems was obscene and blasphemous,and orderedit destroyed.40 Afterhis secondcensorship trial in 1900, Dehmelcomplained bitterly thatthe writer'spath in Germanywas strewnwith more thorns than roses and he too toyedwith the idea of leaving.Yet aftera brieftrip abroad, he admitted his "stupidGerman heart" got thebetter of his "clever,cosmopolitan head" and he returnedeagerly to his homeland.Although still complainingabout having to live withunpleasant state prosecutors as fellow citizens,he rationalizedthat the situationelsewhere was probablyno better.' As a result of his indictment,Dehmel too searchedhis soul and admittedhis legal problemsmight be partlydeserved. While quickly brushing asidethe prosecutor'scharges of obsceneintent, in his Tagebuchand in private correspondenceDehmel admittedthat as an artist,he had let the uncreative "spiritof mereopposition (blofien Widerspruches) against our times" speak too often and too loudlyin his work,4 and he reproachedhimself for "partially

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 457

disfiguring"his artwith a faddish"truth-braggadocio" (Wahrheitsrenommage) thatwas actuallyless concernedwith the truththan with boasting about one's interestingexperiences. "So now it seemsto me a half-deservedpunishment of fate that last week the Munichprosecutor confiscated my second book,"he wrotea friend;"I feel, throughthis indictment,... pushedonto the samebench with people who are alien and repulsiveto my entire being. That is my penance."143 IV

The third and most curious form of estrangementdisplayed by censored German authorsis internalizedalienation. Unlike the radically alienatedwriters who acceptedor even embracedtheir social alienation as the only path by which they could remainfaithful to theircalling, authors who internalizedtheir alienationwere so profoundlydistressed by theirisolation fromsociety that they longed for reconciliation with the censor and reintegration into society. To overcome their alienation,these authorsinternalized the censor's values. Like the ambivalently alienated, they were willing to acknowledgesome culpabilitywhen confronted by the censor,although their self-criticismswere even moresweeping. Moreover,Just as TonioKff3ger had agreed- up to a point- withthe policeman'sright to carryout his civic duty by interrogatinghim, the authors who internalized their alienation agreed - up to a point - with the censor's right to censor art. Althoughthey might vehementlyobject to the censor'sjudgment of theirown work, they acknowledged society's ultimateright to define the boundariesfor artisticlife. The three authorswho best exemplifyinternalized alienation are Ernst von Wildenbruch (1845-1909), Paul Ernst (1866-1933), and HermannSudermann (1857- 1928). Ernstvon Wildenbruch,himself an illegitimatescion of the Prussian royalfamily, was originallymuch enamored of the Hohenzollernsand the new Reich.To help legitimate the imperial order and deepen nationalist consciousness, he embarkedon a cycle of dramasglorifying the Hohenzollerns'historic rise to Germansupremacy. When, for sensitivediplomatic reasons, Bismarck in 1889 convincedthe Kaiserto ban Der Generalfeldoberst,the second work in the cycle,44 Wildenbruchwas outraged.He calledthe Kaiser'sdecision "a terrible blow"that "interrupted my life's work and condemned it to death."His personal relationwith Wilhelm HI and Bismarcksoured considerably after this episode, and he freely expressedhis resentmentstoward the monarchand his royal cabinet.Wildenbruch soon abandoned his plans for the rest of theHohenzollern dramaticcycle, and turnedhis handinstead to naturalisticsocial dramaS.45 Despitehis own unhappyexperience with it, however,Wildenbruch continuedto acceptartistic censorship as a legitimatesocial institution. In 1900,

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 458 GERMANSTUDEES REVIEW

aftera seconddrama of hishad been banned,4 he explicitlyreaffirmed the need for some formof statecensorship over "immoral" or otherwiseharmful art- as long as writersand other literary experts were consulted before the decisions weremade. "Is theater censorship even necessaryand advisable in the present circumstances,"Wildenbruch asked?

This questionI answer loudly and decisively with 'Yes.' I do so, althoughI myselfhave experienced the bitter sorrow that results when a workis banned- whenin one blowthe hard work of a yearor more is destroyed.Drama, and through it, the theater,is a power,and it lies in the natureof thingsthat the state cannotleave uncontrolledany powerthat operates within the state'ssphere.4

Paul Ernstwas anothercensored author whose experienceleft him estrangedfrom the imperialorder, at least initially.After he was fined 100 marksin 189 1 forpublishing an allegedlyimmoral short story about the horrors of mdemrbanlife48 tiyon,lf-leaning naturalisticjournalist became enragedover the hypocrisyof a societythat prevented artists from portraying the scandaloussocial problems everyone knew existed. He also interpretedthe judgmentagainst him as proofof Germany'sblatant system of classjustice,for thepresiding judge had told him that if his storyhad appeared in a middle-class ratherthan a working-classpublication, it would not have been considered objectionable.49But Ernst quickly internalized the censor'sreprimand, to a far greaterextent than the ambivalentlyalienated Wedekind or Dehmelhad done. He claimsin his memoirsthat partly as a resultof his obscenityconviction, he was overcomeby sucha powerfulfeeling of socialloneliness (Einsamkeit) that he completelyreappraised his moraland political beliefs, which had always run counterto prevailingvalues. Did he alone,he wondered,really see the truth while everyoneelse wallowedin error?Was he alonemoral and correct,and the restof societyimmoral and misguided? Perhaps, Ernst concluded, it was he whowas mi'staken. He reproached himself for his youthful intellectual arrogance, abandonedboth his naturalisticliterary efforts and his left-wing political journalism,and returned home to his parents.In subsequentyears, his politics and his art becameincreasingly conservative.50 Similarly,the naturalistHermann Sudermann, after two of his dramas hadbeen banned from public performance in the 1890s,5' voicedhis resentments overthe indignitieswriters must suffer in Germansociety. In 1900 Sudermann helpedfound and lead the Goethebund,a broad-basedorganization of artists and academicsorganized to defendintellectual freedom against a proposed new law,the "LexHeinze," that was to crackdown on "obscene"materials and "immoral"art. In his firstspeech to the organization,Sudermann complained that Germanwriters and intellectualswere tiredof being treatedlike unruly

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 459

".4stepchildrenof the nation"who werearbitrarily disciplined and shoved hither andyon by the nation's political leadership. Considering their cultural importance, Sudermanncontinued, German society had not grantedwriters, artists, and academicsthe respectand influencethey deserved.5 But like Ernst,Sudermann also engaged in a novel form of self reproach.In his Goethebundspeech, he told the assembledartists and writers thatthey themselveswere largelyresponsible for theirlamentable position vis a~vis the conservativepolitical forces seeking to censorand silence them. Their own disagreementsand lack of unity had hitherto condemned German intellectualsto politicalimpotence, he charged.Worse yet, too manyartists had been caughtup in a hyperaesthetic,insular (wehf'remde) arrogance; they had turnedtheir backs on the greatissues of the times and had cut themselvesoff fromthe wider populace. As a result,the artistic and intellectual community had not only underestimatedthe powerand irreconcilable hatred of its reactionary opponents,but some membershad flirted and even cooperated with literature's most bitterenemieS.53 (This last charge,as we shall see, was soon levelled againstSudermann himself.) Was Sudermann in thisspeech perhaps projecting or transferringonto writers in generalsome of theself-criticism and vague sense of culpabilitythat individualauthors. like Wedekind,Dehmel and Ernst experiencedafter being challengedby the censor?And ratherthan blaming writer'ssocial isolationon externalhostile forces such as the censor,as the radicallyand ambivalentlyalienated authors had done, was not Sudermann implyingthat some of the hostilitydirected toward German writers was the resultof theirown self-imposedisolation? This was the same conclusionthat Paul Ernsthad reachedon a morepersonal level. And like Wildenbruch,Sudermann too was eager for a censorshipin which writersand artistswere activelyinvolved. After the publiccontroversy over the proposedLex Heinze had abated,Sudermann wrote directlyto the Berlin Police Presidentto offer the Goethebund'sassistance in helpingthe police withtheir difficult duty of removingraw, offensive pictures and printed materialfrom the display windows of bookand art stores without offending the sensibilitiesof the aesthetically-educatedcitizenry. It was in the i'nterestboth of the authoritiesand of those sensitiveto good art, Sudermannargued, to insulatethe publicfrom contact with all excessesand nuisances. In lightof the difficultyof decidingwhat shouldbe allowed and what was objectionable, Sudermann,on behalfof theGoethebund, offered to assistand advise the police on difficult borderlinecases. In the long term, Sudermannsuggested the establishmentof a boardof artists,literary experts, and book and art dealers that wouldadvise the police on questionsof censorship.5When news of Sudermann's offer becamepublic, critics denounced him and the Goethebund.Sudermann and his followersdid not really oppose the state drawingup a blacklistof banned,unacceptable art, his criticscharged - they merelywanted to help decidewhich works should be on theliSt.55

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 460 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

In his famous 1910 essay "Geistund Tat,"Thomas Mann'solder brotherHeinrich compared the political consciousnessand engagementof Frenchmen of lettersto thatof Germanwriters. Whereas French literati from Rousseauto Zolahave traditionally been bitter enemies of thepowers-that-be, he argued,German intellectuals have generallymeekly acceptedoppressive authorityand have frequently openly embraced it. "In Germany,.... the abolition of unjustpower has foundno support.[Here] one thinksmore extensively than anywhereelse, one thinks to the very end of pure reason, one thinks to Nothingness:meanwhile, it is God'sgrace and the fist thatrules the country." Althougha writer,by his verynature, should be a bitterenemy of dumb,blind power,"it is preciselythe literaryman [in Germany]who has workedfor the prettificationof the unspiritual,for the sophisticalexoneration of the unjust,for hisenemy-to-the death: Power." What might account for this strange perversion of the author'scalling, the elderMann asked? Germany's errant literati have many excuses,he answered,but "aboveall they have one in the enormous distancethat has arisenand thatnow separates....German intellectuals from the people."Mann chastised the Germanintelligentsia for doing nothingto reducetheir social isolation:

The timehas come,and honor demands, that now, finally, finally, they fulfillthe demandsof the Geistin this country,too, thatthey become agitatorsand ally themselves with the people against Power .... He who exercisesmight and authority must be ourenemy. An intellectualwho sides with the rulingcaste commitstreason against the Geist."6

The cases of Panizza, Conradi,Wedekind, Dehmel, Wildenbruch, Ernst,and Sudermann discussed above illustratejust how close andenormously complexwas the relationship,pointed out by bothThomas and Heinrich Mann, betweenGerman writers' social isolation, their sense of the artist'scalling, and theirstrange, even perverse response to oppressivepower. And they make clear as welljust how unwillingor unablepre-war German authors, even thosewho hadpersonally been affected by oppressivestate power, were to heedHeinrich Mann's call for a socially-integratedand politically engaged German intelligentsia. As a result of their encounterswith censorship,these authorsall experiencedsome degree of estrangementfrom imperial Germany, and all had to confrontthe problem of the writer'ssocial isolation. The radicallyalienated authorsblamed their isolation on a hostilesociety and/or state that forced artists intothe role of outcastor outlaw.Because they were convinced it ostracizedand

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 461

victimizedartists like themselves,these authors decisively repudiated German society.The ambivalentlyalienated authors also rebukedtheir nation forits belittlementand maltreatmentof artists;at the same time, however, they believedthat their conflicts with the censorcould be partlytraced to theirown shortcomingsas writers,to the maladroitway they sometimesexercised their craft. The social or political criticismthey voiced was thus temperedand supplementedby a Selbstkritik.Authors who internalizedtheir alienation were moreself-critical still, going so faras to implythat writers' isolation in Germany mightbe as muchself-imposed as it was a resultof some nationalantipathy towardart. Far from lamenting their social and political isolation, radically alienatedauthors seemed almost to exultin it. Forthey concluded that modern writerscould fulfill their mission only by withdrawingfrom bourgeois society, by remainingabsolutely free from the dictatesand constraintsit continually soughtto impose.To them,artistic integrity was possibleonly outsidesociety. Ambivalentlyalienated authors, although feeling that the society and/orthe stateof imperialGermany thwarted artists from freely and fully exercising their craft,were at the sametime unwilling either to severcompletely their social ties or to sacrificetheir artistic independence to society'sdictates. They were thus torn between the seeminglyirreconcilable demands of artisticintegrity and social integration.Like Tonio Kr6ger,they acceptedwith resignationtheir isolationas thefate of thewriter in the modernworld. Authors who internalized theiralienation wished to overcometheir social isolationand believedit was possible to reconcilethe artist'scalling with society'snorms. If artistswere integratedinto the structuresof power,if artistsbecame "insiders" who helped the statedefine and enforce the sociallyacceptable limits of artisticactivity - i.e., if they assistedthe authoritiesin censorship- thenthe artificialconflict between art and society would be resolved.For these authors,then, artistic integritywas possiblewithin German society. If we examine how these alienated authorschose to respondto oppressivesocial or politicalconditions, we discoverthat none translated their senseof alienationinto the kind of effectivepolitical action that Heinrich Mann advocated.The radicallyalienated chose eithercomplete withdrawal (Panizza firstopted for actualemigration abroad, but eventuallyreturned to whatmust be calledan extremeform of "inneremigration," insanity) or, in Conradi'scase, what can perhapsbe characterizedas a form of passive resistance.The ambivalentlyalienated Wedekind and Dehmel, by contrast, flirted with emigrationbut then lapsed into a resignedacceptance of their situationin Germany;moreover, the self-doubtsaroused in themby the censorsundercut theirself-confidence and caused them grudgingly to admitthat the authorities might have been partiallyright. Finally, in internalizingtheir alienation, Wildenbruch,Ernst, and Sudermann ultimately submitted or acquiescedto the

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 462 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

censor'spower, and two of themeven believedthat artists should collaborate with the censoringauthorities (something which, by the way, ThomasMann himselfdid by servingbriefly on theMunich police's Zensurbeirat).17 Collectively, then,these censoredauthors chose a wide rangeof responsesto power,from willing collaborationto outrightexit, but none chose anythinglike active rebellionagainst authority; none became,as H. Mannurged, "agitators allied with the people againstPower" (although Panizza came the closest).Indeed, except for Sudermann,whose involvementwith the Goethebundwas short- lived, none of these authorsbecame politicallyactive as a result of their censorshipexperience, and those, like Panizzaor Conradi,who weredriven to the most radicaljudgements about the powers-that-be,did littleor nothingto translatetheir words into co'ncreteactions. HeinrichMann's hope was thatGerman writers would abandon their social isolation and become politically engaged. The experiencesof the censoredauthors reveal just howfew pre-warwriters were able or willingto do so. For those censored authorswho were most eager to overcome their alienation(Wildenbruch, Ernst, Sudermann) were also the ones who were most willingto side with the "enemy"and committreason against the Geist,while those who were the most bitter,uncompromising enemies of unjustpower (Panizzaand Conradi) were the ones who seemedalmost to revelin theirsocial isolationand who regardedthe masseswith a certainelitist disdain. Only after the-war andthe collapseof the imperialorder did a new generationof writers beginto heedMann's call to throwoff theiralienation and become actively and responsiblyinvolved in social and politicalissues.

I do not wish to suggestthat only authorswho actuallyexperienced censorshipin pre-warGermany wrestled with problems of alienationor drew these conclusionsabout society andpower. Other individual expeniences and psychologicalfactors clearly played a rolein theseauthors' alienation, and one can pointto manyother German authors who werenot censoredbut who also exhibitedthe same kinds of alienationas thecensored authors discussed above. Buteven with some of thenon-censored authors, censorship played a significant role in their alienation.For example,the novelist and joumnalistBernhard Kellermann,addressing his fellowartists in 1919 onlyweeks after the collapse of the Kaiserreich,reminded them thatone of the reasonswriters like he had withheldtheir support (Zuneigung) from the imperial system was because it had deniedwriters and poets one of theirmost fundamental rights, freedom. "The capitalistic,imperialistic Germany that just collapsed,with its officialsand its police,was unableto awakenany love in the heartof the writer,"Kellermann declared.

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 463

Un-spiritual,sterile, reactionary, intolerant, arrogant, and 'infallible,' it contradicted,in all its features,the essentialnatu're of the writer... .Increasingly,and ever more fatefully,the writerbecame alienated from [that] state. . . . In no countrywas literatureand everything spiritualmore disdained than in thejust-collapsed German authoritarian state.... Forliterature and writers, this old statedid nothing! Less than nothing!Far fromifulfilling their demands for freedom,. ., it offered/ unfreedom. The writerwrote with a shackledhand. Brochures, novellas, novels,were abruptlybanned, the performanceof dramasforbidden. Whoeveroverstepped the 'permissibledegree' of criticismwent to prison.... [The old order]drove any writerwho did not shareits Weltanschauungout of the publicforum.5

Free now after centuriesof being beatendown, Kellermann called upon his fellow writersto supportthe new Germanrepublic as long as it grantedwriters completefreedom of expression;henceforth "our conscience and self-criticism shallbe our only censors." ImperialGermany's pervasive censorship system may thus help explain why questionsabout the writer'scalling and his/her troubled relationship with bourgeoissociety and with the powers-that-beloomed so large therebefore 1918 - and after.Writers who personallyran afoul of the censorswere often forcedto confrontthese questions more personally, more directly, and perhaps earlier than non-censoredwriters. Yet some non-censoredauthors, like Kellermann(and Thomas Mann?), also came to recognizethat conflicts with state authority,especially in the form of censorship,created a huge distance betweenmany writersand imperialGermany. Because of that distance,few Germanliterati mourned the sudden collapse and disappearance of theimperial orderin 1918.

'Onthe self-consciousness,social isolation, and political withdrawal of Germanwriters and intellectuals,especially during the imperialera, see HansReiss, TheWriter's Task fromNietzschetoBrecht(Totowa, N.J.: Rowman andLittlefield, 1978); H.W. Rosenhaupt, Derdeutsche Dichter um die Jahrhundertwende und seine Abgel6stheit von der Gesellschaft (Berne& Leipzig:P. Haupt,1939); Robert Mfinder, Kultur und Literatur in Deutschland und Frankreich(Frankfurt: In'sel Verlag, 1962), 5-43; Fritz Stern, "The Political Consequencesof the UnpoliticalGerman," in his Failureof Illiberalism.Essays on the PoliticalCultureofModemn Germany (Chicago &London: Univ. of ChicagoPress, 1975), 3-25; Roy Pascal,From Naturalism to E-xpressionism.German Literature and Society 1880-1918 (London:Weidenfeld and Nicloson, 1973), 277-314; GordonA. Craig,

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 464 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

Germany1866-1945 (N.Y.:Oxford Univ. Press',1978), 213-23; R. HintonThomas, "'Germanand EnglishIntellectuals - Contrastsand Comparisons,"in Upheavaland Continuity.A Centuryof GermanHistory, ed. E. J. Feuchtwanger(Pittsburgh: Univ. of PittsburghPress, 1 974), 83-1I00; Paul Kluckhohn, Dichterberuf und biirgerlicheExistenz (Tilbingen& Stuttgart:R. Wunderlich,1949); RobertAnchor, Germany Confronts ModernizationGerman Culture and Society,1 790-1890 (Lexington,Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1972), 124-26, 144-45; RichardHamann and Jost Hermand,Epochen deutscherKultur von 1870 bis zurGegen wart, 5 vols. (Frankfurt:Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.1977), 2:55-64, 3:108-35;and ArnoldHauser, Soziologie der Kunst (Munich: C.H.Beck, 1978), 26 1-329. 2HermannHesse, "Der Beruf des Schriftstellers,"Wissen und Leben (1 910): 48. 3FrankFowell and Frank Palmer, Censorship in England(N.Y.: F. Palmer,1913), 353; Polizeiprdisidiumin Berlin,Dritter Verwaltungsbericht des Kdniglich.Polizeiprdsidiums von Berlinfir dieJahre 1891-1900 (Berlin,1902), 373-74. 4See,for example,Gary Stark, "The Censorship of LiteraryNaturalism, 1855-1895: Prussiaand Saxony," Central European History, 18, no. 3/4 (Sept./Dec.1985): 326-43; andGary Stark, "La police berlinoise et la FreieVolksbiihne: Une e'ude de l'inte'gration socialiste,"Revue d'Histoire du Thz'atre,38, no, 1 (Jan./Mar.1986): 7-19. 5Throughoutthis essay, I use the term "alienation"primarily in its traditional,pre- Marxiansense to mean"a withdrawal of support,""a turning away from," "the process of becomingindifferent or hostileto," and "a separationthat results in indifferenceor hostility."Since the publication of Marx'searly "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts" around1930, the term"alienation" has of courseacquired powerful new connotations. Thismore recent, Marxian concept of alienationis notapplicable to mostof theauthors discussedin thisarticle, and I do notmean to implythat they were alienated in a Marxian sense. Still,in a curioussort of way, some of the authorswho experiencewhat I call "ambivalentalienation" and "internalizedalienation" do seem to exhibitsome of the featuresof alienationas Marxconceived it: e.g. theirown workbecomes something of an alien objectto them. 6Panizza'sshort story "Das Verbrechen in Tavistock-Square"(189 1) was confiscatedin Munichin September1891 for obscenity,but was releasedby the courtin December. Die unbefleckteEmpftingnis der Papste(1893) a satiricalanti-Catholic tract, was confiscatedin Stuttgartin May 189 3 andsubsequently banned from the Reich; a similar work,Der teutsche Michel und den rimische Papst (1 894), was likewiseconfiscated and bannedin 1895. Hissatirical drama Das Liebeskonzil(1 894) was confiscatedin Munich in January1895; Panizzawas indictedfor blasphemy,convicted in April 1895, and sentencedto 1 yearin prison.After his release and resettlement abroad, his A bschied von MiinchensEin Handschlag (1 897), a bitterdenunciation of Munichand its authorities, was confiscatedthere for kse majest~and a warrantwas issuedfor Panizza'sarrest. A secondanti-German work, Parisjanas Deutsche Verse(I 1899) was also confiscated forlk6e majestgin January1900, anda secondwarrant was issuedfor the author'sarrest. When Panizzareturned to Munichand was declaredmentally incompetent, the chargeswere dropped.On Panizza's life andliterary works, see PeterD. G.Brown, Oskar Panizza. His Life and Works,American University Studies, Series I: GermanicLanguages and Literatures,vol. 27 (N.Y.,Frankfurt, Berne: Peter Lang, 1983), and MichaelBauer, OskarPanizza. Ein literarischesPortrdt (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1984). PeterJelavich's Munichand TheatricalModernism. Politics, Playwrifing, and Performance,1890-1914

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 465

(Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1985), 54-74, and his "TheCensorship of LiteraryNaturalism, 1890-1895: Bavaria," Central European History, 18, nr. 3/4 (Sept.! Dec. 1985):344-59 also containexcellent accounts and analyses of Panizza'sconflicts with the Bavarianauthorities. 7OskarPanizza, Genie und Wahnsinn (Munich: M. Poessl, 189 1); and Oskar Panizza, Der Illusionismusund die Rettungder Persdrn1ichkeit:- Skizze einer Weltanschauung (Leipzig: WilhelmFriedrich, 1 895). See alsothe discussions in Brown,Panizza. Life and Work2 3, 39-41; andBauer, Panizza, 10, 39-51, 132, 168, 193-94. 8"Vorrede" to Das Liebeskonzil,3d ed. (Zurich:J. Schabelitz,1897), quotedin Ludwig Leiss,Kunst im Konflikt. Kunst und Kiinstler im Widerstreitmit der 'Obrigkeit'(Berlin:De Gruyter,1971), 139. 9Dialogim GeisteHuttens (written during Panizza's imprisonment, 1895-96; published in 1897), quotedin OskarPanizza, Das Liebeskonziland andereSchriften, ed. and introductionby HansPrescher (Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1964), 196;and Oskar Panizza,Psichopatia Crim inalis (Zurich: J. Schabelitz,1898). Also WalterR6sler, "Ein BiBchenGeftingnis und ein biBchenIrrenhaus. Der Fall Oskar Panizza," Sinn und Form, 32, H.4 (Jul/Aug1980): 840-55. '0Panizza,Ein Jahr Gefdngnis. Mein Tagebuch aus Amberg, quoted in Prescher,Liebeskonzil und andereSchriften, 1 72-73. This diary,composed 1895-96, was neverpublished duringPanizza's lifetime. I"Panizza,Dialog im GeisteHuttens, in Prescher,Liebeskonzil und andere Schriften, 197. 12Jelavich, Munich and TheatricalModernism, 4 1. 13Brown, Panizza. Life and Works.47-5 1; Bauer,Panizza, 189-90. '4OskarPanizza, Meine Vetieidigung im Sachen "Das Liebeskonzil "(Zurich: J. Schabelitz, 1895), 26. '5Panizza, Dialog im GeisteHuttens, in Prescher,Liebeskonzil und andere Schriften, 196. 16Panizza to MaxHalbe, 15 July1896, in StadtbibliothekMunich, Halbe Archiy; see also Brown,.Panizza. Life and Works,50- 51 andPrescher, Liebeskonzil und andere Schniften, 166-67. "7Entryin Panizza'snotebook, quoted in Bauer,Panizza, 194. '8Oskar Panizza, Parisjana. Deutsche Verse aus Paris(Zurich: J. Schabelitz,1899). See also Brown,Panizza. Litfe and Works,1 00-0 1. 19Panizza,Parisiana, nr. 1; andBrown, Panizza. Life and Works,57-59, 97-105. 20Bauer,Panizza, 196, 220; Brown,Panizza. Life and Works,97-105. 2'Bauer, Panizza,36-37. 22Bauer, Panizza, 211-16, and Brown,Panizza. Life and Works,58. 23Adam Mensch (1889), was confiscatedby Leipzig authoritiesin July 1889, and Conradiwas indictedfor obscenity and blasphemy. Conradi died in March1890 before his case went to trial. In June 1890, the court ruled the novel was obscene and blasphemousand ordered it destroyed.On the so-called"Leipzig Realist Trial," where Conradiand two otherauthors, Conrad Alberti and WilhelmWalloth, were charged with obscenityand/or blasphemy, see: ConradAlberti, "Der Realismus vor Gericht. Nach dem stenographischenBericht iiber die Verhandlungenam 23., 26., und27. Juni 1890 vor derStrafkammer I des K6niglichenLandesgerichts zu Leipziggegen Conrad Alberti,Hermann Conradi, Willi Walloth und deren Verleger," Die Gesellschaft,6 (Aug. 1890): 1141-232;Heinrich Houben, Verbotene Literatur von der klassischen Zeit bis zur

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 466 GERMANSTUDIES REVICEW

Gegenwart:-Ein Kritisch-historuschesLexikon iiber verbotene Ba7cher, Zeitschriften und Theaterstaicke,Schriftsteller und Verkeger, 2 vols. (Hildesheim: G. Gims,1965), 1:10-13, 106; and GerhardSchulz, "Naturalismus und Zensur,"in Naturalismus.:B&rgerliche Dichtungu nd soziakesEngagement, ed. HelmutScheuer (Stuttgart: W. Kohihammer, 1974), 96-102. 24Hermann Conradi, "Gedanken ilber Kunst, KOinstler, Kdinstlertum," sections iv-vi, in: HermannConradis Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Paul Ssymankand G. W. Peters,3 vols. (Munich:Georg Mulller, 1911-12), 1:240-41. 25Paul Ssymank, "Leben Hermann Conradis," in: Ssymank & Peters, Conradis Gesammelte Schriften,1 :ccx, ccxvii. 26Letter of 3 December1889, quiotedin Ssymank,"Leben Conradis," 1:ccxvii. 21 Ssymank,"Leben Conradis," 1:ccxvi-ccxvii. 28Wedekind's "Im heiligen Land," a satiricalpoem that appeared in the October1898 issue of Simnplicissimnus,was immediately confiscated in Leipzigfor Msemajesti and a warrantwas issuedfor Wedekind'sarrest. Wedekind fled firstto Switzerland,then to France, but returnedto Germanyin June 1899 and was sentencedto 7 months imprisonment. 29Hisdrama Die Biic/zseder Pandora (1 904) was confiscatedin Berlinin July1904 and Wedekindwas indictedfor obscenity.Although he was eventuallyacquitted, a court ruledthe work obscenein January1906 and orderedall printedcopies destroyed.In February1906, Munichauthorities confiscated Wedekind's drama Totentanz (1 905) andindicted him for obscenity, but charges were later dropped and the text was released. 30Numerouscities banned public performances of hisfamous Frdhlingserwachen (189 1) until 1906 on groundsof obscenity;in Munich,Lulu (1903) was bannedfrom 1913- 1918, and Simpson,oder Scham und Eifersucht (1914) from 1914-1918 for the same reason;Die Biichseder Pandora, Totentanz, and Schloji Wetterstein (19 10) werebanned fromthe public stages of manyGerman cities until 1918, again for obscenity; and public performancesof Wedekind'sCaha (1 908) werebriefly banned in Munichbecause the play allegedlylibelled a livingperson. 3'FrankWedekind, "Torquemada. Zur Psychologic der Zensur," (originally published in BerlinerTageblatt, 17 March 1912), in FrankWedekind, Gesammelte Werke, 9 vols. (Munich:Georg Muiller, 1924), 9:393; and "Vofredezu 'Oaha',"Gesammelte Werke, 9:449-451. 32Wedekind, "Vorrede," Gesammelte Werke, 9:45 1. 33Wedekind,"Vorrede," Gesammelte Werke, 9:450. 34Wedekind to B. Heine, 12 March1899, in FrankWedekind, Gesammelte Briefe, ed. FritzStrich, 2 vols. (Munich:Georg Muiller, 1924), 1:338. 35Wedekind to R.Weinh6ppel, 22 March1899, in Wedekind,Gesammelte Briefe, 1:342. 36Wedekind to B. Heine,12 November1899, in Wedekind,Gesammelte Briefe, 1:316. 37Wedekind,"Vorwort" to Die Biichseder Pandora, in Wedekind,Gesammelte Werke (Munich:Georg Miiller, 1909), 3:101; Wedekind'scomments on the 3d editionof Die Bllchseder Pandora, as quotedin ArturKutscher, Frank Wedekind Sein Leben und sein Werke,3 vols.(Munich: Georg MiUller, 1922-23), 1:392;and Wedekind to L. Jessner,30 September19 10, in Wedekind,Gesammelte Briefe, 2:248. 38Wedekind,Die Zensur.Theodiziee in dreiSzenen (1 907), in FrankWedekind, Werke in dreiBdnden, ed. ManfredHahn (Berlin & Weimar:Aufbau Verlag, 1969): 1:59-89. Quotationis fromscene 2. See also AlanBest, "The Censor Censored: An Approachto FrankWedekind's 'Die Zensur',"German Life & Letters,26, nr.4 (July1973): 278-87.

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GaryD. Stark 467

39Dehmel'scollection of poems Aber die Liebe(1893) was confiscatedby Munich authoritiesin December1893; Dehmel was indictedfor obscenityand blasphemy, but acquittedin May 1894. In June 1899, the thirdedition of Aberdie Liebewas again confiscated,and Dehmelwas indictedfor obscenity.He was acquittedin 1900. 40Weib und Welt(1 896) wasconfiscated in Berlinin 1897 for obscenityand blasphemy; because the statuteof limitationshad expired,however, Dehmel was immunefrom prosecution.Nevertheless, in August1897 the courtruled the workwas obsceneand blasphemous,and ordered all copiesdestroyed. 4'Dehmelto C. Dehmel,9 June1900, andDehmel to D. von Liliencron,9 July 1900, in RichardDehmel, Ausgewdhlte Briefe aus den Jahren1893-1 902 (Berlin:S. Fischer, 1922), 352, 354. 42Gustav Kirstein, Walter Tiemann, E.R. Weiss, eds., Richard Dehmels Tagebuch 1893- 1894 (Leipzig:Dehmel-Gesellschaft, 1921), 78. 43Dehmel to H. Thoma,17 December1893, in Dehmel,Ausgewdhlte Briefe, 142. '"DerGeneralfeldoberst(1 889), setduring the Thirty Years War, was banned from Berlin theatersin October1889 on the groundsthat it mightoffend Germany's ally Austria- Hungary. 45BertholdLitzmann, Ernst von Wildenbruch~Zweiter Band: 1885-1909 (Berlin:G. Grote,1916), 70- 80,105; and H-elene Bettelheim-Gabillon, "Wildenbruch und Grillparzer im Spiegelder Zensur,"Osterreichisehe Rundschau, 53, nr.5 (1917): 229-30. See also Kathy Harms,"Writer by ImperialDecree: Ernst von Wildenbruch,"in Imperial Germany,ed. VolkerDiirr, Kathy Harms, Peter Hayes (Madison, Wisc.: University of WisconsinPress, 1985), 134-48, esp. 143-44. 46Munichpolice orderedcuts and revisions in his Die Tochter des Erasmnus (1899) before they wouldallow it to be performedpublicly, on the groundsthat the play contained historicalinaccuracies. 47"Theater und Zensur. Emn Mahnwort" (1 900), in Ernstvon Wildenbruch,Gesammelte Werke,ed. BertholdLitzmann (Berlin: G. Grote,1924), 16:183. 4'Ernst's"Zum ersten Mal," which appearedin the social-democraticBerliner Voiks- Tribune,in 189 1, was confiscatedby theBerlin police. Ernst was indictedfor obscenity, convicted,and fined 100 marks. 49Paul Ernst,Jiinglingsjahre (Munich: Georg Miiller, 1931), 226; and his article in Berliner Voiks- Tribune 5, nr.17 (189 1), reprintedin KarlKutzbach, "Paul Ernst, Friihste dichterischeArbeiten," Der Willezur Form, 7 (October1961): 268. 50Ernst,Jiinglingsjahre, 227-28. 5'Berlin police bannedSudermann's Sodoms Ende (1890) frompublic performance in October1890 on groundsof obscenity;a courtlifted the ban the same month, but on the conditionthat certain passages be cut beforethe workwas performed.Morituri (1896) was bannedin Karlsruhein January1897 for defamingthe military. 52Hermann Sudermann, Drei Reden, gehalten von Hermann Sudermann (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1900),29. Onthe "Lex Heinze" and the artistic world's response to it,see RobinLenman, "Art,Society, and the Law in WilhelmineGermany: The Lex Heinze,"Oxford German Studies,8 (1973-74): 84-113. 5'Sudermann,Drei Reden, speech of 25 March1900, and as reportedin VorwcYts,27 March1900.

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 468 GERMANSTUDIES REVIEW

54Undated letter [mid-summer,1900] to Berlin Police President,in: Deutsches Literaturarchiv,Marbach am Neckar,Cotta Archiv, Nachl. Sud., V 30 Bl. 74. See also Lenman,"Art, Society, and the Law,"110O; and Miinchener Post, 5 July 1900. 555ee for exampleLeo Berg,Gesfesselte Kunst (Berlin: H. Walther,1901), 11-12. 56HeinrichMann, "Geist und Tat" (written 19 10, publishedin Pan in January191 1), in Essays(Berlin, 1960), 7-14. 57Herbert Lehnert and WulfSegebrecht, "Thomas Mann im MiinchenerZensurbeirat (1912/1913). EinBeitrag zum Verhdiltnis Thomas Mann zu Frank Wedekind,"Jahrbuch derdeutschen Schillergesellschaft, 7 (1963): 190-200. 58Bernhard Kellermann, "Der Schriftstellerund die deutscheRepublik," in: An alle Kiinstler!(Berlin: W. Simon G.m.b.H.,1919), as reprintedin WeimarerRepublik ManifesteundDokumente zurdeutschen Literatur 19 18-1933, ed. Anton Kaes (Stuttgart: J.B.Metzler, 1983), 30-3 1.

This content downloaded from 148.61.109.54 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:51:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions