Durham E-Theses The major literary polemicso Karl Kraus Carr, Gilbert J. How to cite: Carr, Gilbert J. (1972) The major literary polemicso Karl Kraus, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7938/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk ABSTRACT This study of the most important of Kraus1s polemics against literary contemporaries centres on the relation of language and character. Any attempt simply to extract his opinions or to measure his verdicts against accepted critical opinion has been eschewed, as a misinterpretation of Kraus's whole purpose. Since his polemics were two- pronged attacks - on style and character - his conceptions of language and personality are outlined, and also related to his demand that the polemicist should embody artistic values. As a background to his demand for unity of man and work, the construction of his persona and the dualism in his thought and its implications for his critical procedure are discussed. His polemics are assessed in relation to his success b^th in exposing opponents and in personally exemplifying i.. J artistic ethic. His case against Hermann Bahr is amplified by independent evidence that suggests a closer connection between style and behaviour than is evident from Kraus's own polemics. In treating of the relation between ethics and style in the polemic against Maximilian Harden, the unity in Kraus's approach is contrasted to Harden's dualism. Kraus's twenty-year feud with Alfred Kerr is traced in detail, their different tactics are analysed, and the discrepancy between moral victory and practical success is noted. Apart from the personal and publicistic aspects of the polemic against Franz Werfel, the crucial questions it raises as to the validity of Kraus's linguistic formula are discussed. This was relevant to polemical demands, but rather rigid as particularly the Werfel case shows; Kraus did not investigate all significant manifestations of character in style. Against Stefan George he failed to exemplify his ideal of unity, in that his individual criticisms of George's translations of Shakespeare's Sonnets are valid but his own versions fall short of the perfection required to vindicate his polemical position. THE MAJOR LITERARY POLEMICS 0 F KARL KRAUS by GILBERT J. CARR Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Durham University 1972 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. CONTENTS Abbreviations and typographical conventions Page i Acknowledgements iv Chapter Ones LANGUAGE AND PERSONALITY..... 1 ( 1 Satire and polemic: artist and moralist - 4 Language and character - 6 Man and work - 9 Polemic as art - 10 The histrionic model - 13 Private life and public persona - 18 Language and originality - 25 Dualism and inconsistency - 30 Practical justification) Chapter Two: HERMANN BAHR. 33 I "Decadence" and Naturalism 33 ( 33 "Uberwindung des Naturalismus" - 36 Kraus and Naturalism - 37 The polemics of 1892/93 - 42 "Decadence" and "Jung-Wien") II Criticism, Style and Character 48 ( 48 Style: theory - 52 Style and satire - 57 Style and criticism - 63 Subjectivity and opportunism) III The Polemic of 1900/01: The Theatre Critic. 67 ( 67 Aims and misunderstanding - 69 Holzer and the Volkstheater - 72 The trial and the retrospective analysis - 77 Literary evidence - 86 Aftermath and recurrence) Chapter Three: MAXIMILIAN HARDEN . 90 I The Press and Corruption 90 CONTENTS ( 90 Harden and Kraus: early relations - 92 The press and corruption - 97 Sexual morality) II Harden's Campaign against Eulenburg............ 100 ( 100 Political background - 103 Polemics and trials - 107 Harden's arguments and Kraus's analysis) III Style and Character..... 117 ( 117 Harden's style - 123 Information - 129 Personality and criticism) IV Kraus' s Polemics 135 ( 135 Unity - 139 Fact and fiction - 145 Biographical facts and personal motives) V Aftermath. 151 Chapter Four: ALFRED KERR. 154 I Criticism and Style. 154 ( 154 Early relations - 155 The critic and his approach - 157 Impressionism - 159 Phonetic stylization) II "Pan" and the Polemics of 1911 .. 163 ( 16 3 "Pan" and Jagow - 165 Press controversy and polemics - 168 Kraus's arguments - 174 Retaliation - 180 Violence) III Kerr's War Poems ...... .. 183 ( 183 Pacifism or dualism? - 186 Kraus and Gottlieb - 189 Paris - 191 Style and content as proof of authorship) CONTENTS IV Legal and Polemical Tactics 195 ( 195 Libel suits - 197 Insults or slander? - 199 Satire within the polemic - 200 Defeatism and denunciation - 202 Quotation and selection - 205 Plagiarism - 207 Copyright - 211 Publicity and reticence) ( 214 Theatre reviews - 218 The trial-©220 The last word) Chapter Five: FRANZ WERFEL........................ 222 I Content and Course of the Polemics.. 222 ( 222 Youthful "hysteria" and editorial reaction - 226 "Elysisches" - 229 "dorten" - 232 Language - 235 Self, psychology and subjectivity - 239 Kraus's answer and "Spiegelmensch" - 244 Aftermath) II The Ethical Question 246 ( 246 Admiration and love - 248 "Scheinmenschen- tum" - 253 The jargon of publicity - 258 Man and work) III The Poetry 261 ( 261 Kraus's criticism - 263 Form and content - 271 Kraus's changed attitude and the language thesis) IV Language and Tradition..................... 276 ( 276 Kraus's positive values - 279 "Spiegelmensch": CONTENTS a synopsis - 280 Language and parody - 283 "Magic" and dramatic change) Chapter Six: STEFAN GEORGE 289 I Background and Motivation 289 ( 289 Preliminary - 290 Exemplary figures - 293 Public recognition) II Kraus's Literary Criticism............ 298 ( 298 Knowledge of George's work - 299 Rhyme - 302 View of George's originality - 307 The approach to Shakespeare - 309 "Nachdichtung") III The Rival Poets as Translators 313 ( 313 Polemic and content - 316 Detailed analysis: CXVI - 324 Departure from the original - 327 Sense, syntax and unity) ICOr\C 111 S 10I"1 oooooooooooooo*oooooooo«oooooo«ooo 333 ^^^DTES QeoveoeoooaooDOOoooAoaoeaoeapBOOoeoooooaoooeo 336 (336 to Preface - 338 to Ch.One - 347 to Ch.Two - 358 to Ch.Three - 374 to Ch.Four - 390 to Ch.Five - 403 to *Ch.Six) BIBLIOGRAPHY 412 -i- ABBREVIATIONS AND TYPOGRAPHICAL CONVENTIONS The following abbreviations are used in the text: F. = Die Fackel, edited by Karl Kraus (Vienna, 1899-1936). Each issue has its separate pagination, e.g. F.2,6 means Die Fackel,No.2, page 6, Mid-April 1899; F.2,6-18 means Die Fackel,No.2, pages 6 to 18. Double or multiple issues, e.g. Nos. 697/705,October 1925, are referred to by their first number only, e.g. F.697. The recent edition of Kraus's works by Heinrich Fischer is referred to as follows: DW = vol.1, Die Dritte Walpurgisnacht (Munich, 1952). Spr = vol.2,Die Sprache (Munich,1954; 4th.ed.1962). BWG = vol.3,Beim Wort genommen (Munich,1955; 2nd.ed.1965). WF = vol.4, Widerschein der Fackel (Munich,1956; 2nd.ed.). LTM = vol.5,Die letzten Tage der Menschheit (Munich,1957). LL = vol.6,Literatur und Luge (Munich,1958). WiV = vol.7,Worte in Versen (Munich,1959). UWM = vol.8,Untergang der Welt durch schwarze Magie (Munich,1960). UWz = vol.9,Unsterblicher Witz (Munich,1961). VH = vol.10, Mit vorzuglicher Hochachtung (Munich,1962). SK = vol.11, Sittlichkeit und Kriminalitat (Munich/Vienna, n.d./l9637)• CM = vol.12, Die chinesische Mauer (Munich/Vienna,196 4). Wg = vol.13, Weltgericht (Munich/Vienna,n.d./1965/). Dr = vol.14, Dramen (Munich/Vienna,1967). -11- Th is edition is used wherever possible; works not in it are quoted as from Die Fackel. To facilitate placing within the chronological context, Die Fackel is sometimes referred to in addition to this edition. Any other works consulted are indicated in the Notes, numbered references to which are given in the text, chapter by chapter. It is regretted that for technical reasons the "scharfes s" has had to be replacedby a double s. In view of Kraus's meticulous approach to the written word, in all other instances the spelling of quotations from his early works, his manuscripts and the works of others has not been standardized, except in accordance with the edition consulted. The transition to the standard modern orthography took place in Die Fackel during 1902, but discrepancies remained for some time. For the purposes of differentiation, quotations from Kraus, if isolated from the text, are reproduced without quotation marks. All other quotations, including quotations from Kraus in the body of the text, are enclosed in quotation marks. Where others' work was quoted or glossed by Kraus, the reference to Die Fackel or Kraus's works is enclosed in square brackets. Thus the poem by Kerr quoted in Literatur und Luge is on /LL 214/, while Kraus's comment on it is on (LL 214). Underlining in quotations usually corresponds to spaced type in the original. Where Kraus applied spaced type satirically or critically in quoting, or where the underlining is my own, this is stated in the text or in the relevant footnote. Parentheses or pauses intrinsic to the original of a quoted text are preserved, as ( ) and ... respectively. Paraphrase added to complete the sense of an excerpt is enclosed in / _/.