Hugo von Hofmannsthal. « Notices pour un Xenodoxus » (1920-1925). Du néobaroque à la crise de la modernité

Abstract

Hugo von Hofmannsthal expressed his wish to adapt the neo-Latin Tragicomedy Cenodoxus (1602-1609) by the Jesuit playwright Jacob Bidermann on the very day his new version of the morality play Jedermann (Everyman) was staged, on 26 August 1920. Hofmannsthal did not use the original Latin version, but the German translation (1635) by Joachim Meichel. From early on, Hofmannsthal set his work in the vicinity of 16th-century historical/literary figures, in particular Agrippa and Faust. However, his reading of the Judgment play of Radstadt, of Styrian origin, inspired him to give the Christian tragedy an optimistic ending, in the tradition of the late-medieval miracle plays.Josef Nadler’s theses on Catholic Baroque literature in Southern Germany and Austria had a great impact on Hofmannsthal’s choice of subject. However, he intended to tackle once again, and in a novel way, the crisis that his country and the European continent as a whole were going through in the wake of the First World War. In his play, Hofmannsthal makes withering comments about the harmful impact of technological development on the moral values of the community, hence his warnings against interventions on the human body. The distinction, which in his view is absolute, between true and false science, is based on E. Hello’s philosophical and theological views and on H. G. Wells’ Science Fiction Novel The Island of Dr. Moreau, which reflects the entanglement of man and animal. Thus, Hofmannsthal expresses his anguish at the sight of a world spiralling “out of joint”. The reason why his dramatic sketch remained unfinished lies first and foremost in the almost unlimited number of gathered Notes. But even more crucial was Hofmannsthal’s renunciation to produce a relatively clear plot line at an early stage of the work, because of his use of the Benjaminian melancholy. The “laziness of the heart”, consubstantial with acedia, is indeed contrary to the vital impulse that pushes the protagonist to act without any rest. It is the diametrically opposite of Benjamin’s postulate of the sovereign as a character unfit for action.