The Rudolf Steiner Archive

I

Dear reader, I cannot find the words to describe to you the impression that the poems that came to me today have made on me. Listen to the poet himself:

Year after year...
In the park
I tease the young girls,
who no longer blush, no longer smile.
Don't make a bad face!
They just keep quiet, look past me.

Cross their arms.
The distant sound of
chattering happiness.

Here,
where my sweetheart fell into my arms,
loud

Love sobbed
the red mouth of a flower is silent,
it was quiet around me.
My mother's coffin collapses under the earth!

And if you still haven't had enough, dear reader, I'll give you a second sample:

This morning I sang three love songs
over the melting snow
into the soft air.

At noon I was so hungry;
my dreams almost fell into my peas.
I stuffed.

Now the moon is shining.

From my heart
three hundred cats are screaming.

But now I won't bring you another sample. I love you too much, dear reader. But I had to tell you about the latest volume of poetry, “Neues Leben” by Georg Stolzenberg, which has just been published in Berlin by Johann Sassenbach. If you think it is intended to compete with the “Kladderadatsch”, which contains many a cheerful stylistic experiment in its “Correspondence of the Editorial Office”, you are mistaken. It is really and truly serious “modern poetry”, and the booklet is dedicated to no less a person than Mr. Stolzenberg's “friend” Arno Holz.

Mr. Georg Stolzenberg has truly discovered the new lyricism with his singing. On May 7, 1898, he announced this in the “Zukunft”, which is so suitable for “self-advertisements”. He says that he has been searching for many years to be able to put his feelings into the appropriate form. “Then I read some of the newest poems by Arno Holz. As soon as I grasped their essence, it was clear to me what had held back the development of a truly contemporary art of verse for so long: the thick tangle of words that even those of our poets who have long since been beyond criticism had to stuff by the cartload into their verse buildings so that there were no too large cracks, the compulsion to twist the reluctant thread of thought through the rhyme ear each time, the necessity to constantly make the word dance. With the technique created by Arno Holz, in which, as he himself puts it, ultimate simplicity is the highest law and [possible] naturalness seems to be the most intense form of art, lyric poetry is beginning anew, as it were.” And now enough. Stolzenberg's prose is worthy of his ‘poetry.’

II

Poetry is now blossoming in new ways. The editors of this journal have not yet reformed their tastes enough to be able to pass judgment on this latest artistic direction. Therefore, without passing judgment, they present readers with a few samples of these latest achievements. However, it should be noted that these lyrical creations are meant to be taken seriously by their creators.

The master, Arno Holz, leads the way. In his latest collection, “Phantasus” (Berlin, Sassenbach. Second issue 1899) contains:

I ride my winged steed
I whip my winged steed.
through!

Beyond shattered planetary systems, beyond glaciated
primeval suns, behind deserts of night and nothingness
shimmering new worlds grow - trillions of crocus flowers!

Now the students: Georg Stolzenberg, “Neues Leben” (Second Issue. Berlin 1899):

Spring wind
touches the skirts.
All the girls are beautiful.
They buy little bunches of violets
and laugh for no reason.
I
twirl my beautifully curled
Maikaterbart! [ruffled]

*

Robert Hess writes in his “Fables” (Berlin 1899):

The evening sky is shining metallic.
Under dark branches
a shepherd is blowing.
The goats are still gambolling.
mosquitoes dance.
A sheep looks at the setting sun.
Yuck!

Rolf Wolfgang Martens “Befreite Flügel” (Berlin 1899) contains:

In water boots,
with rolled-up sleeves,
he roams the primeval forests.
His gaze
measures the giant trees.
On the summit of Gaurisankar
he proudly builds himself a castle.
There he carouses with Ramses, Timur and Alexander the Great. I approach
I approach him and show him a colorful, shimmering
Indignant [meadow flowers]
he throws me down the stairs!

The stormy national struggles within Austria have meant that today, more than even a short time ago, the complicated cultural conditions of this state are also being examined outside its borders. However, the ideas that have been formed by the increased attention paid to the thoughts and feelings of the Austrian peoples are still very deficient. A large part of the German Reich knows nothing about these thoughts and feelings. I would like to point out one thing. The struggle that the Germans are waging for their nationality has produced a German national battle poetry that is hardly ever spoken of outside of Austria. The poetic fighters of the present include: Aurelius Polzer - who publishes his poems under the pseudonym Erich Fels -, Adolf Harpf - under the name Adolf Hagen -, Keim, Naaff and many others. The artistic value of the poems created in this area is, however, not very high. Nevertheless, the whole movement deserves attention. For it sings of how a large and important part of the Austrian Germans think and feel. There is a lot of character, strength and heart in the songs of these German poets of Austria. We would like to draw your attention to a work by one of these poets. Adolf Hagen has just published a booklet entitled “Über deutschvolkliches Sagen und Singen” (Leipzig 1898). He describes the nature of the German national soul from the point of view of the German-nationalist Austrian. The booklet is a good way to learn many things about Austria that are difficult to find out about in Germany in any other way.

The memorial service for Theodor Fontane, which was organized by the Berlin association “Freie Bühne” on October 16 [1898], included an interesting commemorative speech by Otto Brahms, director of the Deutsches Theater. Brahm was one of the first to put his critical talent at the service of the new literary movements that were emerging in Germany in the 1880s, and Theodor Fontane, although he was already one of the “old guard” at the time, warmly welcomed the “young” and showed them an understanding as if he had become young again with them. The critic Brahm had personal connections with Theodor Fontane, and in his speech he was able to share memories and passages from letters that shed a beautiful light on the poet's personality. After the establishment of the “Freie Bühne”, Fontane immediately pointed out Gerhart Hauptmann as the artist of the future and followed every further step of the same with heartfelt interest. He expressed this interest in his letters in a way that testifies to the high artistic sense as well as the fine humor of the poet. Fontane found significant and also witty words for what Sudermann, Georg Hirschfeld and other younger poets have achieved. Otto Brahm shed light on the relationship between the “Poet of the Mark” and the “Nordic liberator” Henrik Ibsen in a somewhat dry but nonetheless subtle manner. He showed how close the two poets were to each other in their understanding of human relationships and mental processes, and how they touched on social criticism in their works. Otto Brahm has excellently brought out the artistic and human physiognomy of Fontane. He counts the poet among the naturalists because he never believed in a legislative aesthetic in his whole life, but left himself to the free rule of his nature. Nobody can be more convinced than Fontane was that the ethical and artistic standards of people are constantly changing. He never asked how a work of art related to general rules, but always based his judgment on the individual impression it made on him. Even when the “young” behaved somewhat boisterously, Fontane did not confront them with the aesthetic rules in a blustering manner, as other “old” people did. He understood them even in their excesses, for he knew that many futile attempts must be made if something fruitful and future-proof is to develop in the end. For him, even the rejection of the younger generation by his contemporaries was incomprehensible. He could not really understand why the old trees did not want to tolerate the young offspring that had grown from the seeds they themselves had ripened.

The latest issue of the Viennese weekly Die Zeit contains a report that deserves to be read by as many people as possible. The poet Wilhelm Schäfer published a novella entitled “The Murderer” in this weekly several months ago. He describes the events leading up to a murder and the subsequent fate of the murderer. What does the public prosecutor do? The poet himself writes about it: “I based my story on an actual murder that took place in my home country a few decades ago and that caused great excitement among us children. The murdered man was found exactly as I described it: naked and without a head. In this story, the public prosecutor has found a series of events that, strangely enough, correspond exactly to what the investigation has only recently brought to light, and what no one except the investigator could have known, but which I invented in order to draw the refined reflection of my murderer. In this way, I have fallen under suspicion of complicity as a brash fabulator. And so much so that the day before yesterday I was interrogated in the matter of the “murder in the Aaperwald”."

The Vienna Academy of Sciences has not only awarded Gerhart Hauptmann the Grillparzer Prize for his “Fuhrmann Henschel” as befits its status. It has also done him a special honor beyond that. Prof. Süß, the president of the academy, who is at the forefront of contemporary scientific thought, gave a speech on the great poet of scientific thought. It is a spiritual event of the highest order that an academy shows such understanding for one of the most progressive artists. If only that were a good sign!

Dr. Benno Diederich, the author of the biography of Zola in the Leipzig Biographical People's Books, has now published two essays in the Virchow Collection, which previously contained nothing about the famous Frenchman. They formed a lecture that Diederich gave at the Hamburg Literary Society, and are being made available in this form to the widest possible audience, and will certainly find a grateful readership at a time when the name Zola is on everyone's lips. In the first part, they provide an overview of the great novelistic work of the Rougon-Macquarts, which vividly orientates Zola's readers about the context of the individual novels. In the second part, they describe a characteristic side of the poet's writing style, which, explained by a variety of examples, provides an interesting contribution to the understanding of his art. In line with the tendency of Virchow's collection, the author has avoided all abstract, literary theorizing; he does not assume any knowledge and introduces his readers to the great series of novels in a completely unbiased way; he also deals with the difficult the difficult subject of the theory of environment, he treats it in such a way that the reader, without being held up by academic undergrowth, can follow a clear path step by step and orient himself on the numerous examples. All in all, a booklet that many will read with interest.

Under this title, Gusti Reichel has published a small work of art, which, although it occupies only a modest place within modern art, touches the reader pleasantly precisely because of its modesty and naivety, and can count on quiet understanding, especially from women. The small work consists of ten drawings, each of which is accompanied by an aphorism, united in a tastefully designed folder. The image and text are the property of the artist. The sheets are photolithographed from the originals and, with all their individual characteristics, have a very friendly effect. Six sheets offer motifs from the Black Forest, the remaining motifs from the Mark. The most beautiful sheets include “View from the Georgenturm in Calw”, “Mountain Ruin Liebenzell”, “Gable, Market Fountain and Forest Motif” and “Ruin of the Hirsau Monastery”. The whole thing has something special and can be recommended to quiet women's souls.

in response to the article: My “imagined” revolution, by Arno Holz

Every psychologist knows the type of person who is only capable of understanding his own laboriously constructed train of thought; and who is absolutely obtuse to everything that someone else says from his point of view. Arno Holz is a good example of this type. He also has a characteristic mental trait of these people. They start to swear when they hear something that contradicts their assertions. They cannot remain in a factual discussion because they are simply unable to understand the other person.

I only mention these misunderstandings because of the nature of Arno Holz's mind. The tone in which these remarks appear would also make it understandable if I refrained from replying to each one.

I see that in order to be understood by Mr. Holz's way of thinking, I would have had to be much more detailed. Holz has no idea of the sense in which I use the word “primal lyricism”. Well, I use it in the same sense in which Goethe used the words “primal plant” and “primal animal”. Everything I said about Holz in the essay “On the Modern Soul” proves that - though only, it seems, for differently organized thought processes than those of Mr. Holz. “Urlyrik” is for me the essence of lyric poetry, the sum of everything that is common to all types of lyric poetry, regardless of the forms in which they appear. This essence will be common to all future lyric poetry with all past. Goethe says that there must be an Urpflanze, because otherwise how would one recognize that this or that is a plant.

He also says that from the idea of this original plant, one can imagine as many plant forms as one likes, all of which have the potential to live. The very first plant form that ever appeared in reality is also a special form of this original plant, a real realization. It was the same with the earliest lyrical productions. They are related to what I have called “original lyric poetry” like an outer appearance to an inner essence. This primal lyricism was never really there, but is extracted from real forms by our knowledge, just as Goethe extracted the idea of the primal plant from real plant forms. Someone can stand on the ground of a different world view from the one I stand on. Then he can dispute the justification for establishing such a concept of “primal lyricism” as I do. But Holz thinks that when I speak of primal lyricism, I am thinking of the initial stages of lyric production. If I did that, then my remarks would be downright nonsensical. And Holz is polemicizing against nonsense that I did not say, but that only haunts his head as a distorted image of my assertions. The basis of lyricism is the content of feeling and imagination and the rhythmic forms inherent in it. This basis is what constitutes the idea of “primal lyricism” in my sense. What comes in addition is the particular form in detail. Since nothing real corresponds completely to the idea on which it is based, no real lyricism will correspond to the idea of “primal lyricism”. An external rhythm will be added to the immanent rhythm. If in the Korriborrilieder and other chronologically first lyrical productions the outer form hardly allows the idea of lyric poetry to be recognized, if there, because of the outer rhythm, downright nonsense comes to light, then that corresponds completely to another fact: also the chronologically first animal and plant forms correspond in their sensory reality only little to what one can call in the sense of Goethe the Urtier or Urpflanze. Mr. Wood, you have not understood what I mean by primal poetry. I understand that, because I have known for a long time that when it is not a matter of concrete things but of abstract things, most people cannot tell a button from a lamppost. I was talking about a lamppost; you thought it was a button.

But what I would not have expected of you, you have done. Certainly not intentionally. But perhaps because you did not see my thoughts above the ghost image that has taken root in your head from my remarks. You falsify my sentences in order to refute me. I said: “Poetry will certainly discard the forms it has used up to now and will reveal itself in new forms at a higher level of development. But it cannot become primal poetry in the course of its development.” Why? In my opinion, it cannot, because primal poetry is the essence of poetry that runs through all individual poetic forms. Look at my sentence carefully. It says that. But you quote: “But it cannot become the original lyric again in the course of development.” That is nonsense from my point of view. I cannot say “again”, which you attribute to me, because “original lyric” has never existed. I have not said it either. So you have falsified my sentence.

But you don't care about understanding me at all. Otherwise you wouldn't lump together what I have carefully separated: your lyrical production and your theoretical explanations about poetry.

But to do that, you falsify again. You claim that I said: “The critic has only to understand the ‘author’, but not to patronize him.” Where did I say that? Please read: “If a ‘poet’ stops at this original form of lyric poetry, that is his business. The critic has only to understand him, but not to patronize him.” Mr. Holz, you are also an author in your theoretical book, Revolution der Lyrik. But you are not a poet in it. I have polemicized against the “author” of a theoretical book; I have tried to understand the “poet”. Whether I have succeeded in doing so in your sense is a matter for itself.

But what are you doing with my sentences! You say that I claimed that you wanted to define the “original form” of lyric poetry. Not a word of that is true either. I said, in essence, that what you give as a definition of new lyric poetry is, in my opinion, the “original form” of lyric poetry.

Whether you reject my judgment of your poetry or not is of no interest to me. Nor do I care whether you claim that I understand the biogenetic law or not. What interests me is your admission that you do not fully understand the metaphor of “midwives of criticism”. Since you do not understand this, it is understandable to me why you do not understand my other sentences either.

But now I'm done. Not just for this time. Anyone who polemicizes like you can continue to enrich my collection of psychological curiosities. I will not engage with you further. You can claim that I am the worst idiot in Europe for all I care.

A few words

[on the article “Schluss” (Conclusion)] by Mr. Arno Holz I have only a few words to say. You do not force me to be untrue to my words: “I will not argue with you any further,” which I addressed to Mr. Holz in my reply to his attack in No. 9 of the “Magazin”. However, as editor, I must first apologize to the readers of the magazine for including Holz's comments. I believe that people of this ilk should not be given the right to complain that they are being cut off. As we all know, children always want to have the last word. What would be the point of all the arguing! Mr. Holz lacks the necessary education to engage in a serious discussion of these matters. One can be an excellent poet and yet be too uneducated to have an opinion on certain things, for example, the relationship between Haeckel's and Goethe's world view. However, since Mr. Holz is so sure of victory, I must state a few “facts” here:

Mr. Holz, who in his first article distorted the wording of my assertions in the most arbitrary manner, and who tries to conceal this distortion by comparing it with the harmless reversal of the words “work” and “rhythm” in Bücher's book, now claims that I subsequently claimed, in order to justify myself, that my remarks were meant in the Goethean sense. This is a slander that Mr. Holz is most likely committing unwittingly. I have always used the words “original form”, “primordial animal” and so on in a series of works, for example in my book “Goethe's Weltanschauung”, which was published in 1897, in the sense in which I use them in the article about Mr. Arno Holz. In the latter book, I have clearly expressed how the actual (temporal) first form relates to the ideal original form. I am therefore quite indifferent to what Holz says about these things, of which he understands nothing. However, it must be firmly established that this gentleman will use any means to defend his elementary statements, which I have not even disputed, but only returned to their true meaning, against things that do not enter his head. If I wanted to accuse someone of claiming such nonsense as Mr. Holz does, I would first feel obliged to familiarize myself with the views of the person in question, especially if he has been expressing these views in a series of writings for the past fifteen years. Mr. Holz slanders in the blue. This is the escalation in the nature of his polemic: first forgery, then slander. If all this were not based on an almost touching ignorance, one would be tempted to call it frivolous. I would be ashamed to have forfeited the right to frivolity through ignorance in such a way of fighting.

“Genius and Philistine” by Hermann Türck

I had not originally intended to respond to Hermann Türck's “reply”. I know how difficult it is to dissuade someone from their pet ideas in such cases, which they have - as is undoubtedly the case with Türck - acquired through years of diligent research. I would also avoid these few words if, to my sincere regret, Türck had not taken a very peculiar path in his polemic. At the end of my remarks on the “genius” (Magazin No. 20, p. 516), I indicated the easiest way in which I could be misunderstood and therefore apparently refuted. I do not quite understand why Hermann Türck is taking the easy way out that I myself have pointed out. No, words are not important to me; but they are to Hermann Türck. He wants to save the words that he has used to characterize the genius in his book. The genius is supposed to be characterized by selfless action, in contrast to the philistine, who acts selfishly. But I have now shown that the supposed selflessness of the genius is nothing but egoism, which is only directed at other things than the egoism of the everyday person. Hermann Türck thinks he can agree with this: if I distinguish between egoism a (in the philistine) and egoism b (in the genius). He calls only the egoism b selflessness. But I do not distinguish between egoism a and egoism b. Rather, the egoism of the genius is exactly the same as that of the everyday person. When the king of Persia offers Alexander half of his kingdom and he is not satisfied with it, while Parmenion would be, then Alexander is undoubtedly the more brilliant, but Parmenion is undoubtedly the more selfless. But that only proves that the degree of egoism or selflessness has nothing to do with genius. But Alexander has a greater intellectual power of procreation, a greater productivity of action than Parmenion. This power of procreation wants to be discharged. Therefore he chooses the greater, which gives his power of procreation more opportunity for activity. But in terms of the degree of egoism, he is no different from the Philistine, of whom, as is well known, the saying also says: if you give him an inch, he will take a yard. I knew a person who was the most selfless person imaginable. He was not absorbed in caring for his own self, but completely absorbed in altruistic work for others. However, this person, who was selfless in the most eminent sense, had nothing at all that was ingenious. He was an excellent – nanny. No, if you want to explain genius, egoism and altruism are of no concern to you; it is only the procreative power of man. This, and not selflessness, is highly developed in people of genius. I was right to use the example of Darwinism as a reinterpretation of the story of creation. For there are people who would prefer to speak like this: It pleased the Almighty to create man from ape-like mammals in the struggle for existence. If a Haeckelian now comes along and says: not the Almighty, but causal necessity created man, then Türck, if he were to speak in the same style as he fights me, could reply: What you call causal necessity is just another almighty creator. I have nothing against your distinguishing between Creator a (wise, almighty God) and Creator b (causal necessity). Now, I think that Hermann Türck should not have voluntarily fallen into the trap of the “play on words” that I set up at the end of my essay.

The third lecture evening took place on Wednesday, February 12, [1902] at the [Berlin] literary art salon, Lutherstraße. Dr. Rudolf Steiner gave a lecture that was characterized by its brevity and spirit, and he succeeded in awakening a lively interest in the great sufferer Multatuli in his listeners. Multatuli's works, which can only be understood by those who know the torments suffered by a man of action who is condemned to inactivity, belong to those great poet-prophets and warners whose voice should and will be heard. Miss Marie Holgers, the excellent artist, read some of Multatuli's poems and prose sketches, which inspired the audience with their moving content, which deals with the mismanagement in the Dutch colonies, as well as with the masterful way in which they were read. Afterwards, Dr. Poritzki, Fens Stammer Hetland and Spohr read further samples from Multatuli's works, which all met with great interest and lively applause. It was certainly a very rewarding task to bring this great man and poet closer to his fellow countrymen. May Multatuli, the great martyr of a great and holy cause, find friends and admirers! Our time needs such voices in the struggle.