Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:33:42.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arthur Schnitzler's Typology: An Excursion into Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Herbert Lederer
Herbert Lederer*
Affiliation:
Queens College, Flushing 67, N.Y
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Arthur Schnitzler's non-fictional works have been sorely neglected in critical literature, even by those writers who have attempted to evaluate his “Weltanschauung.” His essays and aphorisms have thus on the whole remained almost completely unknown, although a few are readily accessible. One of these works, Über Krieg und Frieden, was published posthumously in 1939 and contains excerpts from Schnitzler's diaries during the years 1915–19. Another is the Buck der Sprücke und Bedenken, a collection of aphorisms published in 1927. Individual sections are not dated and, from the evidence of unpublished material in Schnitzler's “NachlaC,” may be assumed to span his entire creative life. Some of the ideas are fragmentary, often the result of momentary moods, and there are internal contradictions. Schnitzler himself was aware of this, and in the foreword he expressly warned that “dieses Buch will keine Système, keine Weltanschauungen, keine Erledi-gungen bringen,” and added: “Keineswegs hat dieses Buch den Ehrgeiz, für sich allein zu bestehen.” Nonetheless, certain thoughts occur with astonishing regularity—certain “ideas and questions” about “fate and free will,” about “responsibility and conscience,” about “relationships and loneliness,” to quote some of the chapter headings.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 78 , Issue 4-Part1 , September 1963 , pp. 394 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 über Krieg und Frieden, Series “Ausblicke” (Stockholm, 1939).

2 Buch der Sprücke und Bedenken: Aphorismen und Fragmente (Vienna, 1927); hereafter referred to as Sprüche.

3 Ibid, p. 10 (not numbered).

4 Ibid.

5 Richard Plaut, Arthur Schnitzler als Erzähler (Basel, 1935), p. 80.

6 Josef Körner, Arthur Schnitzlers Gestallen und Problème (Zurich/Leipzig/Vienna, 1921), p. 225. Nor did Körner change his mind in his later article “Arthur Schnitzlers Spätwerk”: “Seit deutsche Dichtung sich wiederum mit wirklich philosophischem Gehalt erfüllt, erscheint Schnitzlers Werk, das metaphysische und ethische Probleme häherer Ordnung kaum kennt, eher oberflächlich und seicht” (Preußische Jahrbücher, ccviii, 1927, 127). Schnitzler, who was used to statements such as these, resented them particularly from a man like Körner, whom he respected as a critic, and he defended himself against the charge in a long letter of 11 August 1927.

7 “Arthur Schnitzler,” New Republic, lxix (1931), p. 22.

8 Der Geist im Wort und der Geist in der Tat: Vorläufige Bemerkungen zu zwei Diagrammen (Berlin, 1927); hereafter referred to as Geist. Despite the word “preliminary” in the subtitle, there was to the best of my knowledge no further expansion or elucidation of these ideas.

9 Ibid, p. 5 (not numbered) [italics Schnitzler's]. It cannot be determined with certainty (short of consulting the author's diaries, presently not accessible) whether Schnitzler had such a system in his mind since his youth and wrote his works to illustrate his theory, or whether the system came about later in his life as a result of rich experience with the diversity of human types in his life and in his work. I am inclined towards the latter view, especially since interest in typology and characterology flourished in Germany in the late twenties. This seems to be borne out by some remarks of Schnitzler's which will be quoted later. At any rate, we shall have occasion to document parallel ideas in theory and in the fictional works.

10 Schnitzler Archives, UCLA, file 14, “Zu den Diagram-men,” 1927. This collection, which contains microfilms of many manuscripts from Schnitzler's literary remains, will hereafter be referred to as Nachlaß. Most items are not dated.

11 Ibid.

12 R. Allen, “Ein philosophischer Versuch Schnitzlers,” Wiener medizinische Wochenschrijt, (1927), pp. 1020–21.

13 “Arthur Schnitzler als Charakterologe,” Die Lileratur, xxiv (1926–27), 455–457.

14 Nachlaß, file 2, “Sprüche in Versen. Zum größtenTeil unveröffentlicht. Gedichte in eigener Sache.”

15 Geist, p. 5 (not numbered).

16 The names of Mach and Schnitzler have rarely been linked specifically in critical literature. To be sure, the influence of the physicist Ernst Mach and his extreme positivistic philosophy on the entire impressionistic movement has been recognized. But it was Karl Kraus who, although in an offhand manner, first saw the connection with Schnitzler. In an article “Schnitzlerfeier” he wrote: “Begegnen wir nicht gleich an der ersten Gabelung seines Entwicklungsganges der unbewufiten Anwendung der Mach'schen Ichlehre, die in der Zergliederung des Ichbewußtseins gipfelt?” (Literalur und Lüge, Vienna, 1929, p. 185). More recently, Herbert Foltinek has again indicated a possible relationship between Mach and Schnitzler in his introduction to Große Szene in the Stiasny pocketbook edition, xxxv (Graz, Vienna, 1959). Whether Schnitzler specifically knew Mach's works and consciously applied these theories in his own works cannot be determined and is, in fact, doubtful considering Schnitzler's frequently expressed distrust of all philosophical systems; nevertheless, the parallels, some of which will be pointed out in this article, are considerable. Certainly, in any case, Karl Kraus was right in assigning primary importance to the problem of the annihilation of the ego.

17 It must be pointed out here explicitly that no attempt will be made in this discussion to examine these diagrams with respect to their completeness, accuracy, consistency, or reliability. It is not the purpose of this article to determine whether Schnitzler's characterology possesses ultimate truth and whether the manifoldness of human characters can actually be reduced to twenty-two basic types. It is merely our purpose here to establish that Schnitzler did create such a system, to ask ourselves what it consists of, what it reveals of Schnitzler's philosophy of life, and in what respect the ideas expressed here are identical with or similar to themes and concepts in his other works. All designations of individual types in the diagrams have purposely been left in the original German, since attempts at translation into English are often extremely unsatisfactory. For example, it is impossible to find an English equivalent for the word “Pfaffe,” with all the derogatory connotations which since the days of Luther have become a standard part of the German language. Another contrast inadequately expressed in English is that between “Dichter” and “Literat,” which must be understood in the light of the contempt which Schnitzler had for all hack writers.

A number of types have dual or even triple titles. Thus, historian and journalist are also called “Geschichtsschreiber” and “Tagschreiber,” respectively. “Heilkiinstler” and “Alchimist” are alternate names for “Naturforscher” and “Quacksalber.” The “Feldherr” is also called “Führer” or “Organisator,” the bridgebuilder is also an architect or a mathematician, the tyrant a dictator. Only the primary names have been shown in the diagrams here.

18 See, for example, Richard Specht, Arthur Schnitzler: Der Dichter uni sein Werk (Berlin, 1922), p. 64: “Sicher ist eines: In Schnitzlers Dichtung fehlt das Kosmische und das Religiöse vollkommen. In ihr sind keine Ausblicke ins Ewige.” In a dissertation under the direction of Professor Walzel, Heinz Kley stated: “[Schnitzlers Werk] ist ohne das Wort Gottes.” Bewegtheit und Dampfung bei Arthur Schnitzler (Trier, 1931), p. IS.

19 “Leben und Nachklang, Werk und Widerhall,” p. 91. The typewritten manuscript of this autobiography of Schnitzler's early years was made available to me through the generosity of Arthur Schnitzler's son and literary executor, Heinrich Schnitzler; hereafter referred to as “Leben.”

20 Gesammelte Werke von Arthur Schnitzler in zwei Abteilungen (Berlin, 1922); T heater sliicke, iii, 267. All references to this edition will be made either to T (Theaterstücke) or E (Erzahlende Schriften), followed by volume and page numbers.

21 “Bemerkungen,” Österreichische Dichtergabe (Vienna, 1928), p. 45.

22 “Arthur Schnitzler Philosophe,” Revue d'Allemagne, vi (1932), 429–430.

23 Germany's Stepchildren (Philadelphia, 1914), p. 132.

24 “Bemerkungen,” loc. cit., p. 43 [italics Schnitzler's].

25 Die kleine Komödie. Sammlung unveröffentlichter Erzählungen ans der Frühzeil (Berlin, 1932), p. 141.

26 Berlin, 1931, p. 172.

27 See my article, “Arthur Schnitzler: A Chronicle of Loneliness,” GQ, xxx (1957), 85.

28 Nachlaß, file Kk, Correspondence Schnitzler-Hofmannsthal.

29 Kurt Bergel: Gear g Brandes und Arthur Schnitzler: Ein Briefwechsel (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1956), pp. 194–195.

30 “Erinnerungen an Arthur Schnitzler,” Die neue Rundschau, xliii (1932), p. 11.

31 The last two, by name and description, are somewhat reminiscent of Schnitzler's father.

32 Nachlaß, file 29: “In eigener Sache.”

33 T, iii, 196. To be sure, these words are highly ironic—Georg Merklin is not a true artist and condemns himself by his own description.

34 Nachlaß, file 38: “Roman. 1930/31,” p. 88.

35 T, ii, 418. The true artist, on the other hand, finds his inspiration in the world around him and the form in himself.

36 Nachlaß, file 134: “Paralipomena zum Weg ins Freie.”

37 “Der letzte Brief eines Literaten. Aus den Papieren eines Arztes,” Die neue Rundschau, xliii (1932), 37. See also Nachlaß, file 191: “Der Literat (Pläne—1910/12),” p. 12. The words in which the protagonist, who remains nameless throughout the work, is judged and condemned, are spoken by a physician, whose name, Dr. Vollbringer, may well be symbolic.

38 Nachlaß, file 67: “Aegidius. Eine Tragödie,” p. 66.

39 Traum und Schicksal: Sieben Novellen (Berlin, 1931), p. 89.

40 Nachlaß, file 5: “Aphoristisches.”

41 It is perhaps significant that Schnitzler's fiancée, who died in 1899 after a prolonged illness, was Marie Reinhardt.

42 Nachlaß, file9: “Aphorismen” (ca. 1930).

43 Reigen. Zekn Dialogs (Vienna/Leipzig, 1903), pp. 214–215.

44 For a discussion of this drama and other early works, see my article “Arthur Schnitzler before Analol,” GR, xxxvi (1961), 269–281.

45 Nachlaß, file 67, “Aegidius,” pp. 133–134.

46 Geist, p. 16. In the original, the entire sentence except for the two occurrences of the word “aber” is spaced for emphasis.

47 “Arthur Schnitzler: Gedenkrede,” Die neue Rundschau, xliii (1932), pp. 3–4. For a full treatment of this problem, see my article, “Arthur Schnitzler: A Chronicle of Loneliness,” GQ, xxx (1957), 82–94.

48 E, iii, 245. See also an undated aphcrism, Nachlaß, file 8: “Nur unter deinesgleichen hast du das Recht, dich einsam zu fühlen.”

49 Nachlaß, file Gg, letter to Hermann Bahr, 22 February 1904.

50 Lucka, op. cit., p. 456.

51 “Gedanken über Kunst. Aus dem Nachlaß,” Die neue Rundschau, xlvii (1932), 38. The change from “like a God” to “as a God” is particularly significant in view of the fact that Schnitzler, like many Austrians, had a tendency to get his “wie” and “als” mixed up and often had to make corrections in his manuscripts. This makes it all the more obvious here that he was conscious of the important shift in meaning.

52 “Der letzte Brief eines Literaten,” loc. cit., p. 37.