ZAA 2017; 65(1): 3–18
Hans-Joachim Hahn* Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Shakespeare Criticism
DOI 10.1515/zaa-2017-0002
Abstract: Vischer’s Shakespeare studies not only provide valuable insights into the bard’s plays, they also advance the type of positivist approach later practised by Bradley and others. This study focuses on Hamlet, the play most prominent in nineteenth-century German Shakespeare criticism. Two aspects are of particu- lar interest: (1) Vischer’s nationalist approach, placing Shakespeare solely into a Northern European, Germanic environment. (2) Vischer’s primary concern with character studies. By removing Hamlet from the idealised pedestal on which the Romantics had placed him, Hamlet is no longer seen as the philosopher prince, tormented by moral scruples, but as caught in a net of adverse circumstances which he has to overcome in order to fulfil his father’s command. Vischer thereby liberates Shakespeare criticism from the constraints of domestic tragedy and its bourgeois morality.
1 Vischer and his Time, the Shakespeare Lectures
This paper discusses the six volumes of Shakespeare criticism by the literary critic, philosopher and novelist Friedrich Theodor Vischer (1807–1887), firstly with general reference to the earlier appreciation of Shakespeare in Germany, but especially with regard to Goethe’s and Tieck’s interpretations of some of Shakespeare’s tragedies. Vischer completed his studies in theology at Tübingen University, where Hegel and Schelling had been his predecessors and where he forged a friendly relationship with David Friedrich Strauß, author of Das Leben Jesu and with the poets Eduard Mörike and Ludwig Uhland, who shared his scep- ticism towards a conservative orthodoxy in theological and political matters. Vischer is mainly associated with the school of Young Hegelians who, critical of their teacher, developed a new philosophy, which, while politically ‘left,’ also rejected the idealistic foundation of the Romantic period and favoured a greater emphasis on an empirical and anthropological approach, ‘outside of metaphysics’
*Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Hahn, Department of English and Modern Languages, Oxford Brookes University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tonge Building, Gipsy Lane, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK, e-mail: [email protected] 4 Hans-Joachim Hahn
(Vischer 1873, 111–112). During his long and distinguished, but always controver- sial university career as a teacher of Aesthetics and Literary Studies, Vischer’s interest in Shakespeare played a vital part. His deep love for Shakespeare began in 1832 during his stay in Göttingen, where he became acquainted with the new publication of Shakespeare’s collected plays in the Schlegel-Tieck transla- tion,1 having previously read Hamlet in the prose translation of Christian Martin Wieland (1733–1813). Vischer’s studies on Shakespeare could draw on the work of important schol- ars a generation earlier, when Wieland, Lessing, Herder and the young Goethe celebrated Shakespeare’s genius against rationalist rules and introduced a new form of writing, emancipated from the strict conventions of French theatre. They expressed their admiration for Shakespeare, but produced little scholarly research. Goethe’s 1771 speech “Zum Shakespears Tag” celebrated the English bard for opening to him a “Wunderland” (“a miraculous world”) which lifted him high above the constraints of time and place. He admired Shakespeare’s natural portrayal of character, exclaiming “Natur! Natur! nichts so Natur als Shakespeares Menschen!” (“All is nature, nothing is more natural than Shakespeare’s men and women”) (Goethe 1993, vol. 18, 11) Vischer’s own first encounter with the bard provoked a similar reaction: “Ich fing an zu lesen, und eine neue Welt ging mir auf, ich sah staunend in dies feuerrote, von milchweißen Strahlen himmlischen Aethers durchschossene Nordlicht” (“I began to read and a new world opened itself up before me, full of surprises. I saw a fiery red Northern light, shot through with the silvery beams of an ethereal heaven”) (Vischer 1905, IX). Shakespeare became his favourite writer, his “Liebling” (“great love”) (Vischer 1905, IX) who occupied a central role in all his work. His six volumes of Shakespeare lectures, delivered over several decades, attracted large audiences. Shakespeare figured prominently in his ‘Habilitationsschrift’ Über das Erhabene und Komische (1837), in his Aesthetic oder die Wissenschaft vom Schönen (1846–1857) as well as in his novel Auch Einer (1879) and a number of important essays. We have reliable evidence of Vischer’s lectures, which were recreated from a number of notes by his students and from some early manuscripts, assembled by his son Robert; they provide a comprehensive study of Shakespeare’s work and contain detailed analysis of all of Shakespeare’s tragedies and histories, but do not include the comedies or The Merchant of Venice. Their value for us today lies not so much in new insights or a particularly controversial interpreta- tion of Shakespeare’s plays, but in their hermeneutics, displaying not only an
1 August Wilhelm Schlegel translated 17 plays (1797–1810), among them Hamlet (1808). Doro- thea Tieck and Wolf Heinrich Graf von Baudissin completed the project between 1825 and 1833. Schlegel based his Hamlet translation both on the Folio and the Quarto edition. Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Shakespeare Criticism 5 astonishing breadth of knowledge, but also a refreshing common sense approach to many problematic aspects which his contemporaries often failed to emphasise (see Schröder 1900, 299–300). Vischer excelled in combining a close reading of the text, accompanied by an in-depth commentary and an examination of exist- ing translations. His study of Shakespearian characters meets a trend which once again seems popular among today’s Shakespeare critics, having previously been rejected by critics from the schools of New Criticism and from representa- tives of post-structural studies. Today’s thinking suggests that “characterization is central to Shakespeare’s art and his politics” while a “reduction of character to the effects of what are claimed to be larger and more stable entities – such as dra- matic genres, texts, or social structures – has come to seem dated over the past twenty years” (Yachnin and Slights 2009, 2–3). Vischer’s detailed account of eighteenth and nineteenth-century German Shakespeare criticism must be seen in the context of his nationalist, anti-French sentiments. In the introduction to his Shakespeare lectures he hails the Day of Sedan2 as a “Weltgericht” (“Judgement Day”) (Vischer 1905, 71), where a century- long injustice, suffered by Germany, had ended and “[die] gehäufte Schuld Frank- reichs” (“France’s accumulated guilt”) (Vischer 1905, 474) would be paid back. Germany would finally take its rightful place among Europe’s nations. According to him, neither France nor any other Romance nation can appreciate Shakespeare, whose real home is “das stamm- und geistesverwandte Deutschland” (“Germany, related by race and spirit”) (Vischer 1905, 190). Hamlet and Ophelia, Juliet and Desdemona, together with other young heroic figures in Shakespeare’s plays, are considered as true figures of “der deutschen Geistesart” (“German cast of mind”) (Vischer 1860, 137). Such remarks are typical for the cultural imperialism that gained ground after 1848; they led to a misunderstanding of Shakespeare lasting well into the twentieth century (cf. Muschg 1964). Vischer traces the German love of Shakespeare back to the Baroque period, with references to Andreas Gryphius who introduced the clown on to the German stage – very much in opposition to Francophile critics. He rightly associated Shakespeare with the rise of German literature during the 1750s. Lessing figures prominently in Vischer’s account, especially his controversy with Johann Chris- toph Gottsched who maintained his adherence to the French school. Wieland occupies a transitional position; still wedded to a French enlightened elegance and its “eudämonistische Halbmoral” (“eudemonic pseudo-morality”), he could not fathom Shakespeare’s “knorrige Kraft” (“robust strength”) (Vischer 1905, 193).
2 A reference to the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), when French forces were defeated. 6 Hans-Joachim Hahn
The young Goethe and his Strasbourg circle are given a prominent position. Herder, Goethe and Jakob Reinhold Michael Lenz are seen as chief promoters of Shakespeare during this time, though Vischer’s polemics against the classical Goethe already begin to shine through, as when Herder is quoted as the defender of Shakespeare’s Nordic English nature against ancient Greek idealism (Vischer 1905, 199). Schiller is discussed as another enthusiastic Shakespeare admirer; while his early plays breathe the bard’s tragic fire and boundless enthusiasm, they suffer from an at times exaggerated and absurd manner (Vischer 1905, 201). Vischer views the romantic period as the first genuinely learned approach to Shakespeare and the Elizabethan stage. August Wilhelm Schlegel occupies the most prominent position in Vischer’s review. He celebrates his translation of Shakespeare into blank verse as “eine erquickende Wohltat” (“a refreshing benefit”) (Vischer 1905, 202) for the German people which turned the bard into ‘one of us.’ Nevertheless, Vischer felt the need to replace the occasional word or phrase in the light of more recent research or to avoid certain “Sprachhärten” (“harsh language”) (Vischer 1905, 203). He also criticises Schlegel’s ellipses since they are more appropriate for Romance verse. Vischer appreciates Tieck’s general understanding of Shakespeare and the Elizabethan stage, but his translation fares less well. Vischer objects to his exaggerated use of fantastic phrases and neither Tieck, nor his daughter Dorothea or Graf Baudissin could match Schlegel’s subtlety in language. Among later ‘post-Schlegelian’ Shakespeare translations Vischer discusses one under the editorship of Hermann Ulrici, his Tübingen col- league, a more scholarly one by Friedrich Bodenstedt and Nicolaus Delius as well as those by Ludwig Seeger, Wilhelm Jordan and others. He also mentions Ernst Theodor Echtermeyer, Ludwig Henschel and Karl Simrock for their work on source material and Ulrici, for his general Shakespeare studies, while critical of some of his ill-considered religious comments. He dismisses Gustav Rümelin’s ‘materialistic’ interpretation, which fails to appreciate Shakespeare’s composi- tional genius and acclaims Georg Gottfried Gervinus as a first class historian, despite an occasional weakness in aesthetic appreciation. Other critics, such as Nikolaus Delius, Friedrich Alexander Kreyßig and C.C. Hense are referred to, but only with reference to individual plays or thematic aspects. The scope of this article does not allow for a more extensive survey of Vis- cher’s comments on the state of Shakespeare studies in his time. Given his patri- otic outlook, it is not surprising that he treats French Shakespeare studies rather harshly; they fail to appreciate the blank verse and the profound naturalness of Shakespeare’s heroes, since they have not liberated themselves from Voltaire’s neo-classical rationalism. Vischer’s attitude to British Shakespeare criticism is more varied: he deplores some of its moral superficiality (Vischer 1905, 181) which was imported from France and is critical of the impact which French Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Shakespeare Criticism 7 classicism had on English literature. Happily, the generally refreshing natural Anglo-Saxon spirit eventually rejected the French yoke in favour of its own popular style (Vischer 1905, 104). In addition, the impact of novel approaches to Shakespeare by Goethe, Schlegel and Tieck further promoted a new appreciation of Shakespeare in his homeland. While earlier British Shakespeare criticism was of a predominantly factual nature, the German influence enabled a more pro- found aesthetic appreciation. British studies on English history, on the Elizabe- than stage and on editorial matters were, however, greatly appreciated.
2 Vischer’s Philosophy in Relation to his Appreciation of Shakespeare
In order to understand Vischer’s fascination with Shakespeare and his conse- quent criticism of German neo-classicism, a few general observations on his philosophy will be helpful. As a philosopher, Vischer can be placed among the Young Hegelians: Like Hegel, he believed in a dialectic discourse which relates the subjectively conceived idea to an objectively experienced phenomenon; unlike Hegel, however, Vischer places this phenomenon in the real world as part of our own living experience. The subjective idea can no longer be placed “in einen leeren Raum” (“into an empty room”), it must be firmly grounded in our social and political reality, protected by the “Damm der Objectivität” (“buttress of objectivity”) (Vischer 1873, 8). His aesthetics therefore should be understood as a dialectic process between the ‘real,’ sensuous world of objects and a subjective, transitory appreciation of these objects (Vischer 1873, 224).3 Vischer’s emphasis on the sensuous world from which we draw our comprehension of beauty pro- foundly influenced his interest in Shakespearean characters and his contention that they are portrayed as true to life. Indeed, he suggests that Shakespeare in his presentation of Macbeth and Richard III had explored the profundity of wick- edness well before Kant, Hegel and Schelling had formulated such a concept in their philosophies. In contrast to the reality of objects that surround us, beauty is an ultimately unfathomable, mysterious phenomenon, entirely dependent on the “Gunst des Zufalls” (“gift of coincidence”) (Vischer 1923, vii) and therefore not subject to intellectual reflection. His “Kritik meiner Ästhetik” develops the concept of beauty initially with reference to “Phantasie” (“imagination”), but soon delves into anthropology, psychology and history (Vischer 1873, 22). It is this
3 For further study cf. Richter (2011, 261–275). 8 Hans-Joachim Hahn essential preoccupation with real life, this constant reference to objects, which leads Vischer to criticise the Romantics. He believes that their definition of beauty lacks substance, fails to tie the artist “an das Wesen der Dinge” (“to the essence of real matter”) (Vischer 1873, 9). Vischer rejects an independent, ‘free-standing’ (Vischer 1873, 95) form of natural beauty that is not directly related to life, since beauty must gain its impetus from its objective, real surroundings, must always be anthropocentrically related to our humanity. Vischer had this general prin- ciple printed in bold letters, “Das Schöne ist das in sich gespiegelte, im Spiegel verklärte Leben” (“Beauty is that which is reflected in itself, mirrored in a trans- figured life”) (Vischer 1873, 107), a formula that relates beauty clearly to life as we experience it. The creative genius therefore must always aim for the core of exist- ence; must gain inspiration from the world in which he/she lives. As far as literature is concerned, the work must embrace all aspects that are part of man’s ‘appearance,’ our human experiences and our history, as per- ceived aesthetically, “die gesammte Welt” (“world in its totality”) (Vischer 1873, 22). Literature must form a synthesis of “Lebensgehalt und Auffassung dessel- ben durch den als Phantasie thätigen Geist” (Vischer 1873, 84) (“the concept of life and its realisation through the imagination of our active spirit”). Such human experience must be at the centre of all literary creativity, the creative process must proceed from the particular to the universal (cf. Glockner 1931, 82). Vischer frequently refers to Shakespeare in order to illustrate a philosophi- cal issue. His profound and intensely practical understanding of the Elizabe- than stage made him a forerunner of Historicism, distancing him from Hegel’s subjective, idealist philosophy.4 Based on a philosophy which puts objective matter above subjective ideas, Vischer’s interpretation of Shakespeare moves into a new direction, as will become apparent in our discussion of his interpre- tation of Hamlet.
3 Vischer’s Critique of Nineteenth-Century German Shakespeare Studies
Vischer’s philosophy of beauty features prominently in his criticism of Goethe and to a lesser extent of Schiller. By understanding his opposition to German neo- classicism we gain a deeper and more accurate comprehension of his own reading of Shakespeare. Vischer acknowledges that Goethe could not have written his
4 On Hegel’s appreciation of Shakespeare cf. Paulin (2003, 399–407) and Bradley (1991, 5–39). Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Shakespeare Criticism 9 early plays without a deep knowledge of Shakespeare and that the bard liberated the young Goethe from the fetters of French classicism. Yet he criticises Goethe for failing to see how Shakespeare preserved the dignity of his heroes by curbing their passion at moments of great drama. He implies that Goethe ultimately failed to understand Shakespeare’s “derbe Naturzeichnung” (“natural earthiness”) (Vischer 1905, 201), confusing it with the ‘raw’ presentation of man ruled by passion alone. Since Vischer believes that literature must draw its strength from historical facts and ‘real life situations’ rather than from abstract speculation, he criticises Goethe for giving insufficient credence to the great historic potential that radiates from Shakespearean plays. Vischer concludes that Shakespeare’s universe differed from Goethe’s Mediterranean neo-classical world of “Trauben- süße und Traubenweichheit” (“sweetness and softness of grapes”) (Vischer 1905, ix), which was incompatible with the bard’s weather-beaten Northern masculin- ity (Vischer 1905, 199). Such references to geographical factors are reminiscent of Josef Nadler’s more extreme phylogenetic approach to literature a generation later. Shakespeare’s blending of comical with tragic elements and the violence displayed in his tragedies had no place in Goethe’s world. Goethe’s apparent aversion to dark northern tragedy was, Vischer maintained, the main reason why the older Goethe shied away from tragic conflict in favour of the more harmoni- ous epic genre. Goethe, convinced of the universal superiority of the humanist message of Greek classicism, could not grasp Shakespeare’s brutal fiery passion. This emerges particularly in Goethe’s characterisation of Hamlet in his Wilhelm Meister as “zart und edel entsprossen” (“sensitive and of noble origin”) (Goethe 1993, vol. 9, 579). Vischer is disapproving of such a portrayal of Hamlet’s majes- tic nature, combining goodness and decency, for Goethe hallmarks of Hamlet’s nobility (Vischer 1905, 240). By placing Hamlet on such a pedestal, Goethe seem- ingly fails to do sufficient justice to the other characters in the play. Schiller, on the other hand, was considered by Vischer as a more ‘masculine’ dramatist who did not shy away from history’s harsh tragedies, although his “Idealstre- ben” (“idealism”) (Vischer 1905, 58) prevented him from embracing the ultimate realism of history. Vischer’s essay “Shakespeare in seinem Verhältnis zur deutschen Poesie, insbesondere zur politischen” discusses these issues in a more fundamen- tal manner. The reference to politics in the essay title is significant, reflecting Vischer’s general view that literature must be based on history and on political reality. While Shakespeare’s plays portray a vivid and accurate picture of their heroes’ world, Goethe chose their emotional “Seelenkämpfe” (“inner turmoil”) (Vischer 1860, 4) rather than historical accuracy. Vischer’s opposition to the idealistic smoothness of character presenta- tion is further evidenced in his references to painting. He equates Shakespeare 10 Hans-Joachim Hahn with Rembrandt rather than with Raphael (Vischer 1905, 45).5 Shakespeare, like Rembrandt, offers a mirror of true and undiluted reality, not an idealised world in which virtue is always victorious. Vischer held the view that the essence of every tragic element arises from the hero’s intention to forge his own life-path, while oblivious of what might befall him in the future. His heroes experience a world completely at the mercy of “die Kreuzungen des Zufalls” (“the cross roads of coincidence”) (Vischer 1905, 71), they cannot take refuge in transcendental justice. Shakespeare’s pre-modern world is akin to heroic northern tales such as the Amlet Saga or the Nibelungenlied,6 where fate manifests itself, punishing personal guilt with elemental force, leaving no room for individual action or the kind of ultimate reconciliation, which we find within the framework of domestic tragedy, where virtue is always rewarded. Vischer’s great merit lies in his attempt to liberate Shakespeare criticism from the restrictions of eighteenth-century domestic tragedy and its idealistic concept of the genius, reined in by intellectual oversensitivity and governed by a narrowly defined bourgeois ethos, where lan- guage and style are contained within this bourgeois order. Vischer’s understanding of Shakespeare’s language, however, is still subject to a puritanical morality, typical for the Victorians in Britain and their contempo- raries in Germany. While true to his belief in historical accuracy, Vischer defends Shakespeare’s style as typical of a society consisting of a mixture of “Volksro- heit und aristokratischer Kultur” (“popular coarseness and aristocratic culture”) (Vischer 1905, 35). He accepts that this style mirrors the barbarity and brutality of its time, which is often lightened by humour, wit and irony, but his moral res- ervations and his sense of decency are offended when boorish wit and ‘earthi- ness’ get out of hand. He is critical of passages containing “Obszön-Häßliches, sexuelle[n] Witz, Zweideutigkeit, die oft genug gröbliche Eindeutigkeit ist” (“the obscene and ugly, sexual jokes, an ambiguity which frequently amounts to the grossly explicit”) (Vischer 1905, 34). In Hamlet’s speech to Ophelia, Act Three, Scene two (Shakespeare 1951, 1049), Vischer condemns the worst obscenities, complaining about these “lascive Zweideutigkeiten; leider Gottes” (“lascivious ambiguities, God help us”) (Vischer 1905, 357) which he cannot bring himself to repeat. He attempts to excuse such expressions as Shakespeare’s concession to the custom of his time (cf. Habicht 2011, 134). In another such instance Vischer accuses Shakespeare of having chosen a repugnant metaphor which radiates the utmost triviality (Vischer 1905, 435) when Hamlet, holding Yorick’s skull,
5 This observation could be a disguised comment on Tieck who felt that a genius like Raphael was equal to Shakespeare. 6 Detailed references to the “Amletsaga” and to Saxus Grammaticus in Vischer 1905, 231–240, to the Nibelungenlied in Vischer 1860, 23; 44. Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Shakespeare Criticism 11 comments on the futility of life, where the greatest hero could become in death nothing more than the dust which seals up a beer barrel (Shakespeare 1951, 1066). He also criticises Shakespeare’s use of euphuisms: in some instances he explains them as Shakespearean satire, in others he interprets such conceits as a misuse of dramatic language, referring to them as Shakespearean “Sonnenflecken” (“sun spots”) (Vischer 1905, 39).7 Vischer’s Shakespeare criticism can be compared with the slightly later, much acclaimed study by A.C. Bradley. Apart from biographical similarities, both critics supplemented their literary criticism with philosophical studies, both were acknowledged experts in the history of aesthetics and both can be seen as steeped in the philosophical school of historicism, though this discipline was more prominent in Germany than in Britain. In addition, Bradley as well as Vischer conceived their critical studies initially as university lectures and some of their observations therefore lack sufficient detachment from their subject matter. This is particularly the case with Vischer, whose Shakespeare Studies were pub- lished posthumously. Both critics concentrate on the play as a reading experi- ence, both focus on character study and both see these characters in a ‘realistic’ manner, failing to appreciate them as dramatic personae. While meticulous in their attention to textual matters, Vischer’s lectures, introduced by a reading of each scene, tend to give greater emphasis to the text than does Bradley’s interpre- tation. This method anticipates the close reading associated with the New Criti- cism of the 1950s. However, since basic critical concepts such as the intentional and the affective fallacy (cf. Wimsatt and Beardsley 1967, 3–39) had not yet been developed, Vischer’s method frequently becomes too personal, even whimsical. His desire to examine “was denn eigentlich Shakspeares Meinung war” (“what was Shakespeare’s true opinion”) (Vischer 1860, xii) would have been unaccepta- ble to the school of New Criticism. A further aspect of Vischer’s Shakespeare criti- cism can be traced to the positivist philosophy of his time; Vischer was inclined to reduce most of his observations to factual matters or to history.
4 Vischer’s Interpretation of Hamlet
Vischer’s interpretation of Hamlet must be seen both in the context of the politi- cal developments after 1870 and in connection with the context of his philosophi- cal work and its repercussions on literary criticism in the late nineteenth century.
7 Bradley (1991, 145) shares Vischer’s criticism and believes them to be symptomatic of the ear- lier Shakespeare. 12 Hans-Joachim Hahn
Rejecting the basic tenets of traditional Shakespeare criticism which continued well into the twentieth century and which painted Hamlet as a profound and self-possessed youth, Vischer conceives of the Danish prince as a figure of the northern Renaissance. Confronted with this new age, such a character would have developed an acute sensitivity, stimulating his imagination and creating an atmosphere of “Verwilderung” (“reverting to a primitive state”) (Vischer 1905, 50). This portrayal of Hamlet reflects Vischer’s own views on objects and coinci- dence (“Zufall”). Shakespeare, he believes, is the first author who recognised the immanence of fate: “In Hamlet ergibt sich das Schicksal ohne alles Zuthun von außen, ohne alles Eingreifen einer jenseitigen Obmacht, ganz von selbst aus dem eigenen Handeln des Menschen” (“In Hamlet fate occurs as a completely external force, with no metaphysical input, independent of any human action“) (Vischer 1905, 71). Vischer’s character study of Hamlet is rather complex, undergoing several changes, especially where Hamlet’s hesitation and reflective inaction are con- cerned. Vischer seems to fluctuate between his criticism of Goethe’s Hamlet interpretation and that of several Young-Germany critics, who saw Hamlet as a negative character, lacking in resolution (cf. Habicht 2011, 127). Goethe viewed Hamlet as a modern character who cannot cope with the great mission he is charged with (Goethe 1993, vol. 9, 609). Vischer, however, seeks to turn Hamlet into an energetic, active hero (Vischer 1860, 75), less concerned with the moral- ity of his action, but preoccupied with the success of his task.8 Having liberated Hamlet from exclusively moral calamities, the famous Hamlet monologue (Act III, Scene 1) (Shakespeare 1951, 1047) loses its central position in the play. Vischer’s interpretation also differs from that of the pre-1848 revolutionary, Young-Germany writers, who saw the Hamlet figure as a reflection of Germany’s unhappy political position. Ferdinand Freiligrath’s poem Hamlet (Freiligrath 1905, 93–95) equates the political Germany with Hamlet: Hamlet’s ghost stands for Germany’s “begrabne Freiheit” (“buried freedom”) and Hamlet is seen as the pro- verbial ditherer, a paradigm of the German bourgeois: “Er sinnt und träumt und weiß nicht Rat” (“He thinks and dreams and lacks good advice”). For Freiligrath and his generation Hamlet was a victim, overwhelmed by obstacles. While the Young-Germany generation used Hamlet merely in analogy to the political situa- tion in Germany, deploring the country’s lack of national unity, Vischer rejected this negative view in favour of a more nationalist attitude, which was reinforced
8 It would seem that Vischer was not aware that Goethe’s Hamlet characterisation in Wilhelm Meister did not attempt a critical assessment of the prince, but wanted to transpose the Hamlet figure onto his protagonist, who plays the role of the Danish prince on stage, but hesitates to take up his expected position in life. Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Shakespeare Criticism 13 after the defeat of France in 1871. He sees Hamlet “in allem Banne seiner Zerris- senheit groß, ächt, edel, er brennt von einer tiefen, wahren Gluth” (“under the spell of his inner turmoil as being great, true, noble, burning with a deep and true fervour”) (Vischer 1860, XXI). This Hamlet does not hesitate out of a feeling of self-doubt, but because the most propitious opportunity for the punishment of his uncle’s crime has not yet presented itself. At a first glance Vischer seems to be in line with contemporary critics, for whom the ‘to be or not to be’ (Shakespeare 1951, 1047) monologue is of overriding importance. On closer analysis, however, he relates the character of Hamlet much more to the historical and social condi- tions of Shakespeare’s time, true to Vischer’s conviction that individuals have little power over their own destiny and that they are victims of outside forces. Hamlet’s non-action, Vischer believes, is forced upon him by adverse circum- stances. Related to this ‘objective impediment’9 is the hectic and violent action of most other characters in the play. Vischer sees Hamlet’s inaction in contrast to the agitated and selfish action of the play’s other characters. He believes that in view of the general confusion and uncertainty of Hamlet’s mission, chiefly brought about by his ambivalent reaction to the ghost, Hamlet’s reflective, hesi- tant reaction is plausible. Until the play within the play, Vischer suggests that Hamlet cannot be certain of his uncle’s murderous deed and, given the enormity of his father’s command, he has to substitute personal revenge by a public act of judgement. Vischer also relates Hamlet’s inaction to Shakespeare’s age, where religious and political upheaval was rife and suggests that Shakespeare might have seen himself reflected in Hamlet (Vischer 1905, 157).10 This identification of Hamlet with the playwright should not be viewed as a naive equation of Hamlet with a real character, but reflects Vischer’s theory that individuals are subject to outside circumstance and coincidence, in this instance brought about by the political conditions which Shakespeare himself experienced. Vischer believed that Shakespeare tried to illustrate the tragic conflict between action and non- action by viewing Hamlet and Horatio as jointly representing this dilemma (Vischer 1905). Hamlet’s inaction is not borne out of the mind of a constantly reflective ditherer, he finds himself instead in a “Hexenkreis” (“bewitched circle”) (Vischer 1905, 398); he is intent on revenging his father’s murder free of personal motives. Once the play which he has staged has given him proof of his uncle’s guilt, the search for the right moment can begin. Once again Vischer seeks to
9 Cf. Vischer’s concept of “Die Tücke des Objekts” (Vischer 1914, 20–27) which reverses the early nineteenth-century subjectivity and transfers action onto objects, which in turn decisively influ- ence the subject’s action. 10 Such an explanation of Hamlet’s dilemma anticipates Bradley interpretation a few decades later (Bradley 1991, 140). 14 Hans-Joachim Hahn minimise the reflective, almost self-centred Hamlet which critics of the Romantic Age had emphasised, and instead seeks to paint Hamlet as tragically determined by outside forces. Several incidents constrain him: he cannot perform the execu- tion when he finds the king praying alone, for such action would amount to a sacrilegious and cowardly deed, nor does he wish to conduct the punishment before being sent to England, as he expects to gain further proof of his uncle’s crime from Claudius’ conspiracy with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Since he cannot break this vicious circle, the claim of retardation in his behaviour must be seen in a new light. Vischer sought to clarify Hamlet’s dilemma between reflection and action in an essay in the Shakespeare Jahrbuch. His criticism of interpretations by con- temporaries is rather polemical, possibly symptomatic of his own uncertainty. Vischer’s understanding of Hamlet seems to have changed, appearing much closer to the Romantics whom he had previously questioned. He now characterises the Hamlet figure as a complex character who suffers from “einem Überschusse des Denkens” (“a surfeit of thought”) (Vischer 1867, 141) yet still seeks to distinguish between an untimely and a meaningful, justifiable action. Such distinction leads to hesitation, not caused by weakness or indecision, but by “thinking too pre- cisely on the event” (Shakespeare 1951, 1059; Vischer 1867, 141). In his Jahrbuch essay Vischer refers to a weakness in his earlier studies, believing that he had not dwelt sufficiently on Hamlet’s passion: Traumatised by his mother’s remar- riage, Hamlet now castigates the whole of mankind, an indication for Vischer that Hamlet’s passion has turned into unfeeling hardness, further strengthened by the certain knowledge of his father’s murder. Such repulsion in turn paraly- ses his will and displays the type of “Weltschmerz” (“world-weariness”) (Vischer 1867, 144), which is symptomatic of reflective minds. Vischer seems to attempt a compromise between his earlier interpretation, which saw Hamlet as conditioned by external circumstance, and an appreciation of the earlier, Romantic view of a melancholic Hamlet, who is, nevertheless, equipped with the self-awareness of a highly ethical person. This awareness leads to feelings of guilt, thereby turning him into a “Reflexionsmenschen” (“man of reflection”) (Vischer 1867, 145). His mental turmoil forces him to consider ever newer and more effective plans of action, hesitating while also actively thinking ahead. Vischer conceives here of Hamlet as a complex character, with good and evil qualities, comparing him to a volcano which implodes, while the outward eruptions produce wit and an occa- sionally violent, destructive blow (Vischer 1860, 90). He dwells on Hamlet’s hard- ness, on his cruel actions following the stabbing of Polonius and on the manner in which he delivers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths. Vischer’s observations on Hamlet necessitate a brief discussion of other characters in the play. Defending Ophelia as a pure and innocent maiden, he is Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Shakespeare Criticism 15 furious with Tieck’s and (later) Rümelin’s characterisation of Ophelia as “wol- lüstig” (“voluptuous”) (Vischer 1905, 205). This reaction strikes one as odd, contradicting his observations on Hamlet whom he has just removed from the pedestal of a flawless hero. However, Vischer’s view of Ophelia has much in common with the female heroines in many German domestic tragedies from Lessing’s Emilia Galotti to Goethe’s Gretchen; it seems that Vischer has not com- pletely liberated himself from a literary convention which in other instances he has refuted. In the preface to Kritische Gänge he pleads with Shakespeare readers, suggesting that they deliver an open judgement “ob ich denn ganz allein stehe in meiner Liebe zu der im süßen Nebel reiner, unschuldvoller Innigkeit schwimmenden Seele dieses armen Kindes” (“whether I stand alone in my love for the sweet child, engulfed in the mist of her pure, innocent floundering soul”) (Vischer 1860, 94). It seems that Vischer has fallen in love with Ophelia. He con- demns others for having “versündigt” (“sinned”) (Vischer 1860, xvii) against the Ophelia character and applauds an Englishman who challenged a critic to a duel with pistols for having described Ophelia as a ‘light woman,’ adding “Recht. Der hat meinen Geschmack” (“rightly so, he shares my feelings”) (Vischer 1914, 474). He rages against Goethe, Tieck, Gervinus and others for describing Ophelia as a sensuous character who has offered up her virginity to Hamlet and who allege that her apparent modesty belies “liebevolle Begierde” (“loving carnal desire”) (Vischer 1860, 95).11 He criticises Shakespeare for letting Laertes respond to his sister’s drowning with absurd conceits and condemns Hamlet’s lewd jokes in Ophelia’s presence as a rather ugly addition which we have to suffer together with other coarseness in the play. For Vischer, Ophelia is “ein stilles Veilchen, ein inniges, bescheidenes deutsches [!] Mädchen, ganz reine nordische weib- liche Natur” (“a quiet violet, an intense, modest German maiden, of a pure Northern, feminine nature”) (Vischer 1860, 98), unable to express her deepest emotions. Since Bradley’s characterisation of Ophelia strikes a similar note, one might conclude that both follow the spirit of the domestic tragedy which tends to idealise female characters. Bradley even comments that despite the many reproaches made against her, “not a thought of resentment should ever cross her mind” (Bradley 1991, 157). This defence of Ophelia is taken up by some modern critics who describe her in similar terms. Amelia Worsley has recently discussed Ophelia’s loneli- ness in the context of religious devotion and Elizabethan courtly behaviour in respect to the Hamlet figure (Worseley 2015, 521–551). It seems that the dispute over Ophelia’s sexuality is ongoing (cf. Showalter 1985 and Grimmet 2005, 31–39), though an interpretation based on structuralism might suggest that
11 Goethe describes Ophelia as having ‘Lüsternheit in ihrer Seele’ (Goethe, 1993, vol. 9, 619). 16 Hans-Joachim Hahn
Ophelia is portrayed in such a manner as to correspond directly to Hamlet. Both characters’ loneliness and isolation could be seen as codes, binding them to one another. The ghost of Hamlet’s father has also led to some controversy. Vischer recognises the importance of the ghost scenes, particularly their exposi- tional function which bestows on the whole plot a dark, uncanny atmosphere (Vischer 1905, 247). It seems that Vischer interprets the ghost scenes as an important influence on Hamlet’s behaviour, thereby indicating that his hesita- tion is not an innate character fault. The horrific impact caused by these scenes will charge Hamlet to undertake his momentous responsibility. By making use of contemporary superstition, Shakespeare causes Hamlet to question this undertaking; indecision arises from the possibility that the apparition might have been a vision from hell. Bradley reaches a similar conclusion, suggesting that Hamlet’s “faith in the identity and truthfulness of the Ghost” (Bradley 1991, 129) is the prerequisite for his complex reaction, but also his inaction. It is astonishing, however, that Vischer does not criticise Goethe’s Hamlet inter- pretation in Wilhelm Meister, who turned the metaphysical component into a theatrical trick by assigning the ghost figure to the ‘Turmgesellschaft’ (a kind of Masonic lodge). Our concluding assessment of Vischer’s Shakespeare studies suggests that he displayed a thorough and wide-ranging knowledge of Shakespeare and the critical Shakespeare literature, not only in Germany, but also across Europe and the US. His jingoistic and at times even racist remarks are unacceptable to today’s reader, but are only too representative of the intellectual climate in the second half of the nineteenth century. Vischer’s often polemical remarks about the older Goethe, about much of Tieck’s work and about the Romantics in general should, however, not be dismissed as typical of a somewhat cho leric character; the genuine contribution of Vischer’s Shakespeare criticism lies in his attempt to liberate Shakespeare from the restrictions of domestic tragedy and from an idealised concept of the genius, hemmed in by intellec- tual oversensitivity and a narrowly defined bourgeois ethics. It is difficult to assess to what extent Vischer’s Young-Hegelian philosophy contributed to his understanding of Shakespeare’s work; his emphasis on circumstances beyond Hamlet’s control as well as the frequent occurrence of unforeseen coincidence have shifted his interpretation closer to the period of realism. Given Vischer’s lifelong passion for Shakespeare, it might be just as likely that his particular understanding of the bard’s work assisted his philosophy. If the latter were the case, this would add an ironic aspect to Vischer’s whole work in so far as he himself would have become a victim of the “Tücke des Objects” (“cussedness of objects”) (Vischer 1914, 20). Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Shakespeare Criticism 17
Works Cited
Bradley, Andrew Cecil (1991 [1904]). “Hamlet.” John Bayley, ed. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. London: Penguin, 127–166. Freiligrath, Ferdinand (1905 [1844]). “Hamlet.” Eduard Schmidt-Weißenfels, ed. Werke in neun Bänden. 2 vols. Berlin, Leipzig: Knaur Nachf., 93–95. Glockner, Hermann (1931). Friedrich Theodor Vischer und das neunzehnte Jahrhundert. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang (1993). Sämtliche Werke, Briefe, Tagebücher und Gespräche. 40 vols. Ed. H. Birus et al. Frankfurt/M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag. Grimmet, Roxanne (2005). “By Heaven and Hell: Re-evaluating Representations of Women and the Angel/Whore Dichotomy in Renaissance Revenge Tragedy.” Journal of International Women’s Studies 6.3, 31–39. Habicht, Werner (2011). “Friedrich Theodor Vischer und die deutsche Shakespeare- Rezeption im 19. Jahrhundert.” Barbara Potthast and Alexander Reck, eds. Friedrich Theodor Vischer, Leben – Werk – Wirkung. Heidelberg: Winter, 119–136. Muschg, Walter (1964). “Deutschland ist Hamlet.” Part 1 and 2. Zeit Online 17 and 18.
Vischer, Friedrich Theodor (1967 [1837]). Über das Erhabene und Komische und andere Texte zur Ästhetik. Ed. Willi Oelmüller. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp. Wimsatt, W.K. Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley (1967 [1954]). The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington Kentucky, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 3–39. Worseley, Amelia (2015). “Ophelia’s Loneliness.” Journal of English Literary History 82.2, 521–551. Yachnin, Paul and Jessica Slights (2009). Shakespeare and Character: Theory, History Performance and Theatrical Persons. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.