¹ Robert B. Nance, Friedrich Hebbel's criticism of dramatic authors and their works, typewritten MS (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1943), pp. 145-156.

² Ibid., p. iii. Cf. also Staley, Ruth, “Hebbel as a critic of 19th century German Literature,” Summaries of doctoral dissertations, University of Wisconsin, iii, 340-343.

³ Op. cit., p. 151. Nance points out that Hebbel's literary criticism was mainly subjective and greatly influenced by momentary moods where Grillparzer was concerned and that he changed his opinions so often that it is difficult to deduce just what his real judgment was.

⁴ In a letter to Louis Gurlitt (Dec. 12, 1845) Hebbel reports on his progress in Vienna and says in part: “… die ersten hiesigen Autoren, Grillparzer, Castelli, Halm (Baron von Münch-Bellinghausen), behandelten mich nicht bloss als einen Ebenbürtigen, was bei den Menschen schon viel sagen will, sondern als einen Höheren.” Grillparzer Gespräche und Charakteristiken seiner Persönlichkeit, ed. by A. Sauer, Schriften des Lit. Vereins in Wien. (Wien, 1904 ff.), xx, 220.

⁵ Friedrich Hebbel, Sämtliche Werke, Historisch-Kritische Ausgabe, ed. by R. M. Werner (Berlin, 1901 ff.), Briefe, iii, 284 f. The following diary entry of November 1846 is also interesting in this connection: “Für gewisse Leute ist die Zensur das grösste Glück. Sie können behaupten, dass nur diese alles Shakespearsche, Schillersche an ihren Gedanken abschneidet.” Op. cit., Tagebücher, iii, 120.

⁶ Ibid., p. 285.

⁷ Ibid., p. 286, also p. 297. It is quite possible that Grillparzer sent Hebbel off to see Halm and Zedlittz just to get rid of him. Grillparzer himself admitted that he had a tendency to follow the path of least resistance in most matters. Cf. Grillparzer, Franz, Sämtliche Werke, Historisch-Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. by A. Sauer (Wien, 1909 ff.), Tgb., ii, 11, p. 235. Cf. also Paul Bornstein, Friedrich Hebbels Persönlichkeit (Berlin, 1924), 2 vols., i, 522.

⁸ Tgb., iii, p. 151. Cf. also L. A. Frankl, Zur Biographie Fr. Hebbels (Wien, Pest, Leipzig, 1884), p. 6.

⁹ Bornstein, op. cit., i, 191. Cf. also Emil Kuh, Biographie Friedrich Hebbels (Wien und Leipzig, 1907), 2d ed., 2 vols., ii, 176 f.

¹⁰ Hebbel, Tgb., iii, 150. Cf. Briefe, iii, 337 ff., letter to Bamberg, June 27, 1846.

¹¹ Bornstein, i, 202. In a letter to Gurlitt (Feb. 25, 1846) Hebbel told him that the first 14 days in Vienna were like being on a desert, but that he now was the lion of the city. He was referred to in the press as “der grosse Dichter” and he personally asked the censor, Deinhardstein, to change it to “bedeutend” whenever the word great appeared. Briefe, iii, 304 f.

¹² Briefe, iii, 290. Letter of November 29, 1845.

¹³ Ibid., 290. Hebbel tells Elise that he is anxious to write down this praise of Ottokar before he finishes reading it, because he might feel later that he could not praise the part, if he could not praise the whole.

¹⁴ Ibid., 290.

¹⁵ Josef Pollhammer, “Aus den Erinnerungen des Dichters Josef Pollhammer,” Jahrbuch der Grillparzer Gesellschaft (Wien, 1891 ff.), xxviii, 101.

¹⁶ Ibid., 101. Cf. also Grillparzer's remarks in 1866 to Auguste, Littrow-Bischoff, Aus dem persönlichen Verkehr mit Franz Grillparzer (Wien, 1873), p. 95.

¹⁷ Bornstein, op. cit., ii, 232.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 232.

¹⁹ Otto Prechtler, a second rate playwright, was the center of the literary and social whirl of Vienna in the ‘forties to ‘sixties. He was a very devoted admirer of Grillparzer's and regarded him as his guide and mentor, even to the extent of modeling his career after Grülparzer's. He was Grillparzer's successor when the latter retired from his position as director of the Archives. Prechtler seems to have been a very weak, impressionable person, with very little pride. His innumerable letters and poems to Grillparzer, starting in 1831 and extending over a period of more than forty years, are fawning and almost pathological in their self-abasement. Cf. Grillparzer, Sämtliche Werke und Dokumente iii, 2, 130, 135, 140, 142, 203, and passim. Cf. also ibid., 81, 99, 176, 187, 188, 202, 203, 227, 248, 273, 315 for poems. Cf. also ibid., iii, 4, 46, 97, 137, 274; and iii, 5, 21, 24, 36, 65, 129, 138 and passim. When Hebbel came to Vienna Prechtler took him under his wing and later claimed that he introduced him to Grillparzer, which seems not to have been the case. He was the chief source of gossip from one to the other. As Adam Müller-Guttenbrunn, who associated with Prechtler in the latter's old age, puts it, Prechtler, an equally good friend to Hebbel, Grillparzer and Laube never grew tired of reminiscing about them. “… er war allen dreien gut Freund und vermittelte zum Teil den Verkehr zwischen denselben, denn Grillparzer mochte Hebbel nicht recht, und Hebbel mochte Laube nicht—und da gab es denn oft ganz reizende kleine Züge von einem oder dem anderen zu berichten.” Gespräche, xx, 286. Cf. also Adam Müller-Guttenbrunn, Im Jahrhundert Grillparzers, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1895), pp. 57 ff. For Prechtler's correspondence with Hebbel cf. Felix Bamberg, Hebbels Briefwechsel (Berlin, 1892), n, 564 f. Hebbel did not rate the dramatic ability of Prechtler very highly, but valued him as a friend so much that he even tolerated the latter's derogatory criticism of Hebbel's works, which appeared in the press and was identical with the views of Grillparzer and Laube, both of whom he was less willing to forgive. For details cf. Edmund Diebold, Friedrich Hebbel und die Zeitgenössische Beurteilung seines Schaffens (Berlin und Leipzig, 1928), pp. 225-228.

²⁰ Gespräche, vi, 362. For a slightly modified version of the same story cf. Eduard Kulke, Erinnerungen an Friedrich Hebbel (Wien, 1878), p. 11.

²¹ Tgb., iv, 202. Kulke, op. cit., p. 11 gives one year later as the time for the second remark attributed by Prechtler to Grillparzer.

²² Adolf Foglar, Grillparzers Ansichten über Literatur, Bühne und Leben (Stuttgart, 1891), p. 35, also p. 23 re Grillparzer's objection to the use of prose by good dramatists. For a similar opinion of Grillparzer on Judith, cf. L. A. Frankl, Zur Biographie Franz Grillparzers (Wien, Pest, Leipzig, 1884), p. 34.

²³ Heinrich Laube, Ausgewählte Werke, 10 vols., ed. by H. H. Houben (Leipzig, n.d.) ix, 389 f. Cf. also Frankl, Grillparzer, p. 33.

In 1835 Grillparzer analyzed the characteristics of Genie and Talent in his Aesthetische Studien and pointed out that the difference between the two is qualitative, and that Talent is more difficult of attainment. There are very many geniuses in modern Germany, but few talents. “Gott, gib uns für jedes Dutzend unserer Genies nur ein Talent, und wir sind geborgen,” he prayed (emphasis Grillparzer's), Werke, xv, 49. Hebbel, on the other hand, had a different definition of the two words. In characterizing his friend and disciple Emil Kuh in whose writing career Hebbel was disappointed, he said of Kuh that, while he had much talent, he had little genius. (Diebold, op. cit., p. 249.)

²⁴ Frankl, Grillparzer, p. 33.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 34. When Adalbert Stifter was asked in August 1847, to write an article on Hebbel for the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote the editor as follows: “Was Hebbel anlangt, den Sie anregen, so kann ich gerade über diesen Dichter nicht leicht einen Aufsatz geben, weil ich ihm zu wehe tun müsste; denn nach meiner Individualität und nach meinen Kunststudien muss ich ihn in dem, was er bisher geleistet, völlig verwerfen und geradezu hässlich nennen (emphasis Stifter's), was, wenn die Kunst das Schöne darstellen soll, gerade das allerärgste ist, was einem Künstler widerfahren kann.” He then goes on to attack Hebbel and his conception of art and to state that he is surprised that Hebbel is called a Dichter and a great one at that. What makes Stifter's opinion important is that he states that these views are the views of all his literary friends, particularly Grillparzer (emphasis mine). Stifter concludes his diatribe by lavishing high praise on Grillparzer! Gespräche, vi, 401 ff., also reprinted in part in Bomstein, i, 217.

²⁶ Franz Grillparzer, Sämtliche Werke, Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe im Auftrage der Bundeshauptstadt Wien, ed. by August Sauer (Wien, 1909 ff.), ii, 10, p. 212.

²⁷ Kuh, ii, 398. Gyges was completed on November 14, 1854 and printed in December 1855 under the dateline of 1856.

²⁸ Franz Grillparzer, Sämtliche Werke, 20 vols., ed. by A. Sauer (Stuttgart, 1893), xii, 175 and 211.

²⁹ Pollhammer, op. cit., p. 103. March 26, 1863.

³⁰ Wilhelm von Wartenegg, Erinnerungen an Franz Grillparzer (Wien, 1901), p. 37.

³¹ Ibid., p. 57. November 15, 1861.

³² Gespräche, xii, 266. Cf. also ibid., 274, and Jahrbuch der Grillparzer Gesellschaft, v, 332.

³³ Frankl, Grillprazer, p. 33; Laube, op. cit., ix, 389. This is particularly true of Frankl who frequently fails to indicate the source or the circumstances under which a statement has been made and thus creates the impression that it was made to him, when actually he got it from letters, diaries or indirect sources.

³⁴ L. A. Frankl, Erinnerungen, Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen, ed. by Stefan Hock (Prag, 1910), vol. 29, 245. Cf. also Gespräche, iii, 115.

³⁵ Werke, 1893 ed., iii, 177.

³⁶ Ibid., 166.

³⁷ Werke, xi, 265-270.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 302 ff.

³⁹ Briefe, iv, p. 182. Richard M. Werner, in Hebbel, ein Lebensbild (Berlin, 1913), p. 333, writes regarding the fiasco of Der Rubin thus: “… nur wenige plädierten auf mildernde Umstände, während nach Hebbels Behauptung ‘Alles was, selbst Etwas ist, von Grillparzer an’ das Stück in Schutz genommen haben soll.” sic!

⁴⁰ Tgb., iii, p. 204.

⁴¹ Hebbel-Dokumente, Unveröffentlichtes aus dem Nachlass, ed. by Rudolf Kardel (Heide, 1931), p. 40.

⁴² Tgb., iv, 229. November 19, 1862. This comment is repeated by Hebbel in Werke, v, 309 f. under plans and sketches made during his Vienna period. He also has the following entry there: “Esther. Unbekannt als Jüdin am Königlichen Hofe. Peripetie.

Herr, ich bin zum Tode verurteilt und flehe um mein Leben.

Ahasverus—Du? Ich lasse eine neue Krone für Dich machen.

Esther—Ich bin vom Volk der Juden und diess Volk soll ausgerottet werden.“

⁴³ Bornstein, ii, 222.

⁴⁴ Tgb. 2, 10, p. 144.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 226 f. Cf. also 230 and 231.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 285, and 2, 12, p. 49, also 2, 11, p. 67.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 2, 12, p. 49.

⁴⁸ Selbstbiographie, ix, 128 (1893 ed.).). Immediately following these words, Grillparzer noted that Saphir was a protege of Hegel. Hebbel considered Saphir un homme de plus bon coeur and a genius. Briefe v, 227. Grillparzer, on the other hand, hated Saphir as he hated no other critic of his time. It was Saphir who was largely responsible for the fiasco of Weh Dem, der lügt, and who caused Grillparzer many unpleasant moments. For details of the Saphir-Grillparzer relationship cf. (Dorothy Lasher-Schlitt) Grillparzer's Attitude toward the Jews (New York, 1936), pp. 38-45.

⁴⁹ Tgb., 2, 11, p. 132. Cf. also ibid., pp. 92, 120, 130, 234, 248 and passim.

⁵⁰ Foglar, op. cit., pp. 42, and 44.

⁵¹ Tgb., 2, 11, p. 132. This diary entry, written at the beginning of 1847 reads: “Eine Schweinerei nach Hegelschen Prinzipien (emphasis Grillparzer's). Er wollte sich die Befriedigung seiner selbst verschaffen und versuchte daher als Begierde sie aufzuheben. Sie aber war noch einfache Negazion und hielt die Röcke über dem Knie zusammen. Endlich aber erkannte sie in seinem Ansich ihr eigenes Fürsich, negirte ihre Negazion und hob sich selbst auf. Nun reflektirten sie sich in einander und giengen in die Einfachheit der Gattung über. Die Verdoppelung aber trat erst neun Monate später ein.”

⁵² Gespräche, xii, 50. This entry is not complete in Bauernfeld's diary which is reprinted in the Jahrbuch der Grillparzer Gesellschaft, vi, 90, because it is an edited version done by Bauernfeld in later years. The Gespräche diary is the one found in Bauernfeld's Nachlass.

⁵³ Jahrbuch, vi, 110.

⁵⁴ Auguste Littrow-Bischoff, Aus dem persönlichen Verkehr mit Franz Grillparzer (Wien, 1873), p. 145.

⁵⁵ Tgb., 2, 10, p. 230.

⁵⁶ Littrow-Bischoff, op. cit., p. 148. In discussing Hebbel's conception of beauty, Littrowr-Bischoff remarked that it was similar to that of a Negro who considers the black of his face the right color and who resents the fact that the white skin is taken as a criterion of beauty. Grillparzer thought that that was an apt comparison, adding that Hebbel regarded the white people, i.e., those who are normal, simple and natural and who should furnish the characters for literature, as pale and dull. Ibid., p. 149. Since this comparison is not Grillparzer's, his agreement with it may well have been caused by his tendency to avoid a prolonged discussion.

⁵⁷ Littrow-Bischoff, op. cit., p. 148.

⁵⁸ Wartenegg, op. cit., p. 39. Cf. also pp. 39 and 40.

⁵⁹ Littrow-Bischoff, op. cit., p. 149.

⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 91 also Gespräche, xv, 38.

⁶¹ Laube, Werke, ix, 389. Hebbel is seen as a typical Nordic and his lot as that of the Aryan in an article by Wilhelm Erbt, “Friedrich Hebbel, ein nordischer Mensch,” Rasse, Monatschrift der Nordischen Bewegung (Leipzig und Berlin, 1934), 1ter Jhrg., pp. 176-184.

⁶² Adam Müller-Guttenbrunn, Im Jahrhundert Grillparzers, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1895), p. 65. Cf. also Bornstein, i, 228.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 66. According to Müller-Guttenbrunn, Prechtler brought Hebbel to Grillparzer's house in 1845, a statement not supported by any other source and, therefore, to be considered most questionable. The indirect quotation which he gives of Grillparzer's opinion of Hebbel, as expressed to Prechtler after he asked Grillparzer what he thought of Hebbel, is consistent with similar opinions quoted elsewhere in this article and undoubtedly reflects Grillparzer's views.

⁶⁴ Gespräche, xv, 110.

⁶⁵ Bornstein, i, 267 f.

⁶⁶ Briefe, iii, 296, also 167 f. For an amusing incident connected with Hebbel's oratory, cf. Bornstein, i, 230 and 237. Also, Müller-Guttenbrun, op. cit., pp. 48 ff.

⁶⁷ Müller-Guttenbrunn, op. cit., p. 67. Cf. Kulke, p. 59. Gespräche, xii, 282 quotes Grillparzer as saying that he was uncomfortable in Hebbel's presence because he is too clever. He can suddenly ask “Was ist Gott?” He, Hebbel knows the answer, but Grillparzer, said, that he did not, and therefore, he could not talk with him. Frankl, Grillparzer, quotes the comment about Hebbel's knowing what God is under “Religiöse Anschauung,” p. 41. (sic!)

⁶⁸ Bornstein, i, 290, letter of Karl Werner, April 10, 1851, also p. 297. For an attempt at explaining psychoanalytically the personality of Hebbel cf. J. Sadger, Friedrich Hebbel, ein psychoanalytischer Versuch, Schriften zur angewandten Seelenkunde, Heft 18. (Leipzig und Wien, 1920), 374 pp.

⁶⁹ Gespräche, vi, 330.

⁷⁰ Bornstein, i, 209.

⁷¹ Kuh, ii, 198. Grillparzer agreed with Hebbel's opinion of Engländer's ability. Cf. Lasher-Schlitt, op. cit., p. 46, also Tgb. ii, 11, p. 139.

⁷² Bornstein, i, 453. For Weilen's relation to Grillparzer cf. Lasher-Schlitt, op. cit., pp. 31 ff.

⁷³ Hebbel-Dokumente, p. 70.

⁷⁴ Hebbel, Briefe, v, 316, letter to Detlefs June 29, 1856.

⁷⁵ Ibid., v, 75 f. letter to Pichler, November 12, 1852.

⁷⁶ Foglar, op. cit., p. 1.

⁷⁷ Pollhammer, op. cit., pp. 93 f. Kuh, ii, 221. Kuh once said to Grillparzer that a very great poet (meaning obviously Hebbel) had once remarked that the old Grillparzer had arranged his life very comfortably, by treating mediocrity with consideration and having a word of recognition for that which is bearable. To this Grillparzer replied roguishly that if he did not call somebody a jackass, that person claimed that he praised him. There is no doubt that Grillparzer knew that Hebbel was meant by the great artist.

⁷⁸ Kuh, ii, 185. Cf. also Gespräche, vi, 24.

⁷⁹ Bornstein, ii, 233.

⁸⁰ For the circumstances surrounding the writing of this poem, cf. Pollhammer, op. cit., 89, also Gespräche, vi, 26-28, for the role played by the publisher, Ignaz Klang, in circulating the poem.

⁸¹ Otto Zausmer, “Beiträge zur politischen Lyrik Grillparzers,—Jhrb. der G. G., xxxii, 47. Cf. also Gespräche, vi, 32.

⁸² Gespräche, vi, 111. When Grillparzer applied for a pension, in 1856, he did not fail to mention in his petition that he wrote a poem in praise of Radetzky which helped army morale at a time when most other writers were on the side of the opposition to the government. Ibid., 110f.

⁸³ Werke, x, 98. Issue of July 9, 1848.

⁸⁴ Ibid., 101 and 138. Issues of July 19 and November 23, 1848.

⁸⁵ Kuh, ii, 238. Cf. also Bauernfeld Tgb., Jhrb. der G. G., v, 142 ff.

⁸⁶ Gespräche, xx, 245 f. Hebbel repeats the story of his sabotage of the Almanach in a letter to Strodtmann, Briefe, vii, 123.

⁸⁷ Bornstein, n, 233 f. Hebbel is quoted as saying in this connection: “Bauernfeld gilt ja aber als ein Erzliberaler; er ist ein gut kaiser-königlicher Demagoge, der ein loses Maul hat.”

⁸⁸ Ibid., 342.

⁸⁹ For details cf. Bornstein ii, 164 ff. and Anmerkung, 467 f. The album to the K. K. Gendarmerie contained the poem “Willkommen,” Werke, ii, 112.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 468. Bornstein does not comment at all on the Pichler version which he regards as referring to a different album, cf. ibid., 515 (emphasis mine). For poem cf. Werke, vi, 412.

⁹¹ Kulke, op. cit., p. 81. Kuh, ii, 354 states that whenever Hebbel and Bauernfeld were together there was always an atmosphere of animosity which was due in part, according to Kuh, to the latter's friendship with Laube.

⁹² Gespräche, xx, 252.

⁹³ Kulke, op. cit., p. 85.

⁹⁴ Bornstein, ii, Anmerkung, p. 471. Cf. also ibid., 154 for Richard Wagner's reaction to this card which Hebbel left at his house after visiting him and not finding him at home.

⁹⁵ For Grillparzer's reaction to this, cf. Zausmer, op. cit., p. 49.

⁹⁶ Bornstein, ii, 234.

⁹⁷ Ibid., 441.

⁹⁸ Gespräche, vi, 82. For Hebbel's notes on the stories submitted, cf. Werke, xi, 409-423. For his reference to seeing Grillparzer in connection with this contest, cf. Briefe, iv, 332, letter to Karl von Holtei, December 7, 1851. It is interesting to note that Bornstein (ii, 442) doubts that Hebbel had talked to Grillparzer about going to see Pillersdorff in 1848, (as reported by Waldmüller, footnote 85 of this article) simply on the strength of the fact that he was not known to have visited Grillparzer except once. He did come in contact with him on numerous occasions, the above being merely one of them. For examples, in the “Silbernes Kaffeehaus,” the headquarters of the Wiener Kreis, Grillparzer frequently spent many hours and saw Hebbel there. Frankl and Grillparzer left the cafe together one day and saw Hebbel on the street absorbed in thought as always. They did not greet him, lest he say to them: “Wie können Sie mich grüssen? Sehen Sie denn nicht, dass ich dichte?” Eugen Wolbe, Ludwig August Frankl (Frankfurt a.M., 1910), pp. 59 f.

⁹⁹ Laube, Werke, v, 52.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., 51 f.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., ix, 385 and Kuh, ii, 381.

¹⁰² Ibid., v, 50.

¹⁰³ Ibid., 51.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., 52.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., 53. Hebbel was also coupled in Vienna with Grabbe in a very vicious attack on him by Backmayr who ascribed an anonymous review of one of his works to Hebbel. For details cf. Bornstein, i, 298 and Anmerkung, 574 f., also Jhrb. der G. G., xviii, 279 ff.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., 54.

¹⁰⁷ Laube, Werke, ix, 385.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., v, 53; ibid., ix, 386f.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., ix, 387. For Grillparzer's opinion cf. “Aus dem Tagebuche der Freiin von Knorr, Mitgeteilt von Fritz Lemmermayer. Jhrb. der G. G., v, 332. Frau von Knorr associated with Grillparzer from 1860 until his death and kept a diary which is reprinted in Gespräche, xii, 274 ff. and does notcontain the reference to Mutter und Kind, but Lemmermayer claims that Knorr kept her diary in various notebooks and wrote down everything that Grillparzer said to her and that he, Lemmermayer, later arranged and edited these notes. Much, however, in his version comes from other sources and is not credited at all.

For further details on the Hebbel-Laube feud cf. Nance, op. cit., pp. 183-192.

¹¹⁰ Laube, Werke, ix, 385; also Bauernfeld, Tgb., Jhrb. der G. G., vi, 96.

¹¹¹ Ibid., ix, 392. Cf. also Hebbel, Werke, xii, 221.

¹¹² Ibid., 393, cf. also ibid., vii, 26.

¹¹³ Ibid., ix, 395.

¹¹⁴ Ibid., vii, 27.

¹¹⁵ Pollhammer, op. cit., p. 88 says that Grillparzer regarded Laube very highly and that he was the only one who could get Grillparzer to part with some of his buried treasures. Littrow-Bischoff, op. cit., p. 96, also states that Grillparzer felt that it was due to Laube that he was not forgotten.

¹¹⁶ Bornstein, i, 407 f. Hebbel's Genoveva was produced by Laube on January 20, 1854 under the title of Magellone.

¹¹⁷ Ibid., ii, 232.

¹¹⁸ Bornstein, ii, 233. Bornstein believes that Hebbel frequently put words into Grillparzer's mouth, ii, 442. For Hebbel's tendency in that direction, as well as for a comparison between him and Grillparzer, cf. Theodor Poppe, “Friedrich Hebbel und sein Drama,” Beiträge zur Poetik. (Berlin, 1900), pp. 3 ff.

¹¹⁹ Tgb., iv, 269 f.

¹²⁰ It is quite possible that up to that time Laube had not read anything by Grillparzer, if we are to accept Bauernfeld's words to that effect. Gespräche, i, 288, also ibid., xii, Anmerkung, p. 296.

¹²¹ Gespräche, vi, 88.

¹²² Tgb., iv, 271.

¹²³ Gespräche, vi. Cf. also ibid., 40.

¹²⁴ Otto Prechtler seems to have had a hand in getting Laube to produce Traum ein Leben. In a letter dated October 30, 1850, he tells Laube that if he wants to make Grillparzer very happy, he should tell him that he is going to stage his Traum ein Leben. He, Prechtler, can tell him sub rosa “… dass unserem vortrefflichen Grillparzer an der Aufführung dieses seines Werkes am meisten liegt …” Grillparzer had spoken to him ten times about it and if one knows Grillparzer, that means a lot, he added. Gespräche, vi, 62.

¹²⁵ Kuh, ii, 453. Kuh broke with Hebbel in 1860 and became reconciled with him when he was on his deathbed in 1863. During the break with Hebbel, Kuh became friendly with Grillparzer. For details on the Kuh-Hebbel friendship cf. Kuh, ii, 449 ff. and Paul Bornstein, “Friedrich Hebbel und Emil Kuh,” Der Morgen, liter Jhrg., Mai 1935, Nummer 2, pp. 74-80, also Kulke, op. cit., pp. 16 and 18. For Kuh's relationship to Grillparzer, cf. Lasher-Schlitt, op. cit., pp. 37 f.

¹²⁶ Ibid., 480.

¹²⁷ Bornstein, ii, 231.

¹²⁸ Ibid., Anmerkung, p. 441.

¹²⁹ Frankl, Hebbel, p. 49, says that Hebbel learned in later years to be more careful and diplomatic in criticizing others, because he realized that his manner antagonized too many people needlessly and made him the subject of much malicious gossip.

¹³⁰ Kuh, ii, 483. Frankl tells of an incident which on the face of it indicates a change in Hebbel's treatment of aspiring, but mediocre talents. A young man came to Frankl and wanted to dedicate an epic poem to him, telling him that Hebbel had praised it, but refused to accept the dedication, because he had recently been so honored. Frankl found the poem very bad and asked Hebbel how he could have praised it. Hebbel replied that it all depended on the criteria one used. Many poems in print are no better he said, adding: “Man darf jungen Leuten nicht direkt Talent absprechen, man muss sie in grossen Zügen magnetisieren.” Frankl, Hebbel, pp. 49 f., also Bornstein, ii, 235. Rather than a change in Hebbel, it suggests a subtle rebuke of Grillparzer's method with young writers. Hebbel knew that Frankl saw a great deal of Grillparzer and possibly hoped that this would reach him. For details on Frankl and Grillparzer, cf. Lasher-Schlitt, op. cit., pp. 26-29.

¹³¹ Kuh, ii, 484.

¹³² Ibid., 484.

¹³³ Nance, op. cit., p. 110.

¹³⁴ Kuh, ii, 453.

¹³⁵ Ibid., 447.

¹³⁶ Ibid., 447 f.

¹³⁷ Werke, Briefe, v, 149. Letter to S. Engländer, March 20, 1854.

¹³⁸ Müller- Guttenbrunn, op. cit., pp. 73 ff. For Laube toast cf. Gespräche, xii, 162 ff.

¹³⁹ Werke, Briefe, vi, 285.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid., 284, also Kuh, ii, 174ff.

¹⁴¹ Kuh, ii, 380. According to Kuh, Hebbel did not quite believe this love of Laube's for Grillparzer because he remembered that Laube had called him a cadaver. Ibid. . 380, also 371 ff.

¹⁴² Emil Kuh, Zwei Dichter Oesterreichs (Pest, 1872), p. 165.

¹⁴³ Ibid., p. 220.

¹⁴⁴ Kuh, Hebbel, ii, 194.

¹⁴⁵ Kuh, ii, 327. When Hebbel was persuaded to edit Ernst von Feuchtersleben's Nachlass, he felt that the biographical and personal aspects of his life should be left to the “ehrwürdige” Grillparzer, who knew Feuchtersleben better. (Hebbel, Werke, xii, 54.) According to Kuh, this work brought Hebbel little recognition and only incurred the displeasure of the poet's widow. (Ibid., 359.) In this connection Grillparzer told Frankl that the widow was angry with him because he did not consider her husband a great genius, just as she was angry with Hebbel because he said that only scoundrels were modest, when Feuchtersleben's modesty was mentioned. (Bornstein, i, 387.)

¹⁴⁶ Kulke, op. cit., p. 58. Hebbel referred to Grillparzer in this conversation as an immortal.

¹⁴⁷ Kuh, ii, 459. Kuh calls Hebbel a “Menschenfresser” and a “Gehirnraubtier,” ibid., 487 and 488, also 449 ff.

¹⁴⁸ Klara Schumann, the widow of the composer tells for instance, that she enjoyed being at the Rettich home where she sat next to Grillparzer and felt very comfortable and at ease in the presence of this simple, charming man, but was paralyzed by Hebbel's stiff coolness when she sat opposite him. Bornstein, i, 418. These visits took place in 1856. Cf. also ibid., n, 130, for Heyse's reaction to Grillparzer and Hebbel.

¹⁴⁹ Frankl, Hebbel, pp. 13 f.

¹⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 30.

¹⁵¹ Bornstein, ii, 222.

¹⁵² Tgb., iv, 8 f., entry of July 8, 1854.

¹⁵³ Frankl, Hebbel, p. 6, cf. also Hebbel, Briefe, v, 75. Letter to Pichler, Nov. 12, 1853, and Tgb. iv, 192, entry of May, 1861.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 6.

¹⁵⁵ Bornstein, i, 256. According to Karl Werner, Hebbel did not mind not having his works appreciated because he shared that lot with Grillparzer, but he was very happy to hear a good opinion of his dramas, particularly if it came from somebody who had a reputation in literature. Ibid., 258.

¹⁵⁶ Tgb., 2, 10, p. 141. For details on Grillparzer and Heine, cf. Lasher-Schlitt, op. cit., pp. 51-57.