The Art of Comedy and Social Critique in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Charlotte Birch-Pfeiffer (1800-1868) by Rinske van Stipriaan Pritchett

Abstract

MLR, I02. I, 2007 27I conformism but with rebellious ideas 'well-packaged' (p. I8 I) for theircaptive audi ences. MELLEN UNIVERSITY, IOWA BRIAN KEITH-SMITH The Art of Comedy and Social Critique inNineteenth-Century Germany: Charlotte Birch-Pfeiffer (i8oo-i868). By RINSKE VAN STIPRIAAN PRITCHETT. (North American Studies inNineteenth-Century German Literature, 35) Oxford and Bern: Peter Lang. 2005. 240 pp. $52.95. ISBN 978-3-039Io-292-I. Rinske van Stipriaan Pritchett's study is motivated by a desire to rediscover Charlotte Birch-Pfeiffer as a versatile author and precursor ofmodern (including cinematic) dra matic developments, disproving traditionalists who have regarded her as trivial and negligible. Aside from a very brief introduction and conclusion, the book features short chapters on theory and methodology, socio-historical contexts, text selection criteria, and a long chapter each on Birch-Pfeiffer's reception (pp. I7-74) and her comedies (pp. 99-205). The book also includes two appendices, a facsimile and tran scription of one ofBirch-Pfeiffer's letters,and a listof the seventeen texts analysed. While repeatedly stating Birch-Pfeiffer's versatility and innovativeness, Pritchett gives those very qualities short shriftby limiting textual analysis to a single, albeit lengthy,chapter.The extensive reception history is marred bymisreadings ofprevious scholarship; themain chapter on Birch-Pfeiffer's dramas incorporates little scholar ship on nineteenth-century drama and virtually no scholarship on women's drama. (The seminal books on women playwrights byDagmar von Hoff (Deutsche Dramati kerinnen um i8oo (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, I989)) and Karin Wurst (Frauen undDrama imachtzehntenj7ahrhundert (Cologne: Bohlau, I99I)) do not even appear in the bibliography; my own Ein Blick hinter die Kulissen (Stuttgart:Metzler, I992) is cited with faultybibliographic data.) What fewmethodological statements there are remain imprecise. It isunclear, forexample, how we are tounderstand the 'socio economic/interactive feministperspective' (p. i6) thatsupposedly informs this study: 'feminist' in what way? 'Interactive'with what? One of the most unfortunate aspects of theauthor's literature review isher tendency to reduce very complex theories, 'Femi nist' or otherwise, to their most rudimentary aspects. Thus she rejects SigridWeigel's theory of the 'double-voiced discourse' (originally 'der schielende Blick'), claiming that it is reductive of allwomen and Birch-Pfeiffer inparticular because Birch-Pfeiffer created 'active and assertive heroines in her comedies' and 'herself displayed these qualities' (p. 79). Regardless of whether this is a misconstruction or a misunder standing, the statement invents contradictions where thereare none, making Weigel's theory appear simultaneously more binary and less sophisticated than itactually is. Pritchett's readings ofBirch-Pfeiffer's plays are limited to an additive (rather than analytical) description of plots, motifs, and characters, with occasional side glances at socio-historical events or Birch-Pfeiffer's biography. Birch-Pfeiffer's status as an original butmisunderstoodplaywright isclaimed by pointingto, interalia, her experi mentation with new forms,plots, and techniques; her assertivewomen characters; her refusal touse thedeus exmachina; her attention to socio-historical changes and prob lems; her incorporation ofmixed genres; and her use of outdoor settings. Because each of these items is documented in various plays, meaning that Birch-Pfeiffer's work is fragmented to support these points, itwill be difficult for readers unfamiliar with Birch-Pfeiffer's work to forman impression of even a single one of her dramas. Equally troubling is thatPritchett's account, despite its lip-service to the inclusion of socio-historical background, leaves intact the critical context inwhich Birch-Pfeif fer has always been read as a 'trivial' author. Pritchett's unsupported distinction 272 Reviews between 'good' and 'bad' literature and her unreflective faith in the rectitude of the canon as we know itare one indication: she claims to concentrate on Birch-Pfeiffer's 'bestplays' (p. 29, emphasis in original) without telling readers why she considers these plays superior to others; her final sentence in the conclusion claims forBirch Pfeiffer's 'best' plays 'a place in the canon next toNestroy' (p. 2I2). This judge ment of Birch-Pfeiffer as an author-innovative, but within the confines of canonical conventionality-seems timid even as an answer toher detractors, and theopportunity to question the larger canonical context thathas trivialized Birch-Pfeiffer and many other authors has clearly been wasted. Pritchett's laudatio ofBirch-Pfeiffer reads like part...