Herbert Herzmann (review)

Abstract

MLR, 96. , 200I Tradition undSubversion: Das Volksstiick unddasepische Theater.By HERBERT HERZMANN. (Stauffenburg Colloquium, 41) Ttbingen: Stauffenburg. I997. 214 pp. DM 38. Herbert Herzmann argues that the modern 'Volkssttick',especially in its Austrian manifestation, representsfundamental theatricalimpulses of a kind driven underground , to the detriment of German theatre, at the time of the Aufklirung.The banishment of Hanswurst in the I730S meant the banishment of irrational and especiallysensualforces associatedwith the brutishside of human nature, and with them a 'carnival'spirit fundamental to human nature, without which the theatre cannot survive(p. 203). The exception from which Herzmann launches his argument is Die Zauberflote, a 'multi-media' extravaganza which advanced Aufklirungideas but ran counter to eighteenth-century aesthetic norms; subsequent Viennese popular theatre, at first alone and later together with Bichner, continued to attack the aesthetics and the pathos of German idealism and its epigones. Brecht, in common with Baroque theatre and the drama of the Viennese commercial stage (which he acknowledged too rarely as a precursor),sought to restore physicality, 'die sinnliche Darstellung des zu Erkennenden' (p. 62). Modern 'Volksstuck'authors are less indebted to Brecht than to Viennese popular comedy of the earlynineteenth century and later to Horvath: Brecht's ideological optimism leads to a 'neo-classical' invocation of restored harmony, 'als ob es Raimund und Nestroy [a problematic pairing in this context] nie gegeben hatte' (p. 138). Contemporary Austrian theatre, like that of the popular stage and of Nestroy in particular, is basically epic theatre in that it conducts an intensive dialogue with events outside the theatre (p. Io6); Jelinek, Turrini, and Mitterer (the work of the latter deriving from the 'Bauernschwank') undermine inheritedformsby subvertingtheirconventional intention. As a plea for 'reintegration'of the Volksstiick traditioninto the canon of German theatre, the book sets out to appeal not merely to specialists,and is vigorouslyand accessibly written. At the scholarly level it is less convincing. On the one hand, critical scepticism towards the kind of literarytheatre that marksGerman comedy off from that of other European countries is so far from novel that the case hardly needs to be made again: it is strikingthat the names of C. P. Magill and Rudolf Munz do not appear in the footnotes or the Bibliography. On the other hand, Herzmann skatesover the difficultiesin defining a coherent 'Volksstuick' tradition; and much of the argumentis supportedby referencesto secondaryliteraturerather than by analysis of primary texts. The range of examples of the older Viennese traditionis limited:it is not sufficientto treatNestroy on the basisof two plays, even important ones. It is not true that Nestroy abandoned Zaubercompletely after Lumpacivagabundus (p. 134);a sweepingly generalized reference to 'den souveranen Sprachwitz Nestroyscher Figuren' (p. i68) does not hold for all Nestroy's figures; and a section entitled 'Freiheitbei Nestroy' omits any consideration of Freiheit in Krdhwinkel. There are also strikinggaps in the bibliographyof secondary materialrelied on: notably, nothing at allis cited fromJestroyana, the mainjournal of Nestroy research, and the discussion of the notion of 'liberty'and of Nestroy's language would have benefitedfrom considerationofHinrich C. Seeba's article'Die Spracheder Freiheit in Krahwinkel' (Austriaca, ed. by Richard Brinkmann and others (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1975)) and PeterPtitz's'Zwei Krahwinkeliaden 1802/1844' (Diedeutsche Komodie, ed. by WalterHinck (Dusseldorf:Bagel, I977)). Readable and stimulating though the book is, it suffers from critical imprecision in various ways, as four examples may serve to illustrate:a reference to 'den Theatern der eigentlichen 28i Stadt, dem Hoftheater (Burgtheater),der Hofoper usw'. (p. I16), implying by the 'usw.' that in the early nineteenth century there were theatres in the city centre other than the two court theatres;the incongruity and irrelevance of a statement about Nestroy, 'Seine Aper9us sind witziger als Schillerslangatmige Reflexionen' (p. 137);the assumptionthat Horvath can be seen as the heir of nineteenth-century Viennese popular comedy, without any indication that the point has been a matter of critical debate (pp.I39, 142); or the suggestion that the audience may identify with a Nestroy character(p. I65). Significantly,the workson comic theorylisteddo not even include Elder Olson's classic The Theoryof Comedy (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1968). In sum, an enjoyably readable polemic, but one to be readwith caution. UNIVERSITY OFEXETER W. E...