Richard Schaukal in Netzwerken und Feldern der literarischen Moderne by Cornelius Mitterer

Abstract

Reviews 216 linked this meaningfully with an examination of the three versions of Trakl’s poem on Novalis, and this second one in particular. This would have opened up possibilities for a more in-depth exploration of Trakl’s unique contribution to Neo-Romantic trends at the time, an overdue corrective of the all-too Expressionism-oriented interpretations of this enigmatic poet. Rüdiger Görner Queen Mary University of London Richard Schaukal in Netzwerken und Feldern der literarischen Moderne. By Cornelius Mitterer. Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte der Literatur, 149. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. 302 pp. £91.00. ISBN 978 3 11 061801 3. Richard Schaukal (1874–1942) is today mainly perceived as belonging to the Austrian Modernism of the 1890s and beyond. Although he is, in some aspects of his oeuvre, ‘wesensverwandt’ (p. 216) with protagonists of Young Vienna, he remained on the fringes of the movement socially and otherwise. Schaukal’s desire to distinguish himself is tangible throughout his correspondence; his public persona, carefully nurtured, was one of aristocratic exclusivity, in line with his most notorious literary creation, the ‘dandy and dilettante’ Andreas von Balthesser (1907). Stylistically, the use of Impressionist devices, short prose formats, translations and Nachdichtungen of Verlaine and other influential French poets, as well as his frequent opinionated use of the essay, identify Schaukal as very much part of the fabric of Austrian letters: his transition into the post-war world included a marked turn towards political conservatism. In spite of his aloofness and posturing, the realities of the literary marketplace and his own desire for recognition necessitated a wide range of contacts with colleagues and mediators. Mainly deploying network theory and a sociological toolkit derived from Pierre Bourdieu, Mitterer charts Schaukal’s attempts at accumulating social, cultural and symbolic capital, as well as his strategies for employing this capital to advance his status and manipulate the perception of him in his chosen field. Schaukal’s capital was at its height around 1900 — when his translations, poetry and prose collections were well received throughout German-speaking central Europe — only to wane shortly before the war. Mitterer draws on a broad concept of habitus to explain the ambivalent position of his subject and the often restrained reaction of contemporaries to this self-styled dandy with his precious sense of self-worth. In Schaukal’s interaction with some of the major literary figures of his time, blatant attempts at ingratiation and exploitation of a correspondent’s influence, an arrogant insistence on his own integrity and independence, and a proclivity to unmotivated offence coexist in very close proximity. This explains why most of his networking efforts were short-lived, contradictory (flattery in private, harsh criticism in public — or vice versa), asymmetrical and ultimately ineffective. The main corpus that Mitterer draws on is Schaukal’s correspondence. Three hundred of the nine hundred correspondents in his estate belong to the world of Reviews 217 literature in the widest sense, including not only fellow writers, but also editors, translators, illustrators and publishers, all potential arbiters of literary success. The list of only the most prominent names that Mitterer features reads like a Who’s Who of German letters of the time. It includes proponents of vastly different literary and ideological persuasions, generations, nationalities and social backgrounds — from Arthur Schnitzler to Richard Kralik, Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach to Hermann Hesse. Other correspondents include Hermann Bahr, Franz Blei, Max Brod and further members of the Prague scene; Arno Holz, Adolf Loos, Thomas and Heinrich Mann, Rilke, Ferdinand von Saar, Hugo Salus, Heinrich Vogeler, Herwarth Walden, Stefan Zweig. Only a fraction of this material has been published before. Its richness allows Mitterer to reconstruct Schaukal’s efforts to seek opportunities in various political and artistic milieus. He established himself with some success in Munich modernist circles, but had less success with the George circle (not for lack of trying). Schaukal’s relationship to the narrower circles of Viennese modernism was fraught with conflict and unease: he professed kinship with Karl Kraus as another incorruptible mind, yet could not rise above his own increasingly explicit antisemitic inclinations. Many of these contradictions are convincingly explained by Mitterer as anachronisms, the results of incompatibilities (for example...