Friendship-rivalry between G. Hauptmann and T. Mann in creativity and correspondence

Voronovsky Aleksander Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0009-0009-2119-8486 Postgraduate student; Faculty of Philology; Lomonosov Moscow State University 105523, Russia, Moscow, Shchelkovskoe highway, 82 k.1 voronovsky2112@yandex.ru

Reznik Liudmila Viktorovna ORCID: 0009-0008-6395-3374 Postgraduate student; Department of the History of Foreign Literature; Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory, 1 lyudmilareznik1996@gmail.com

The story of a complex relationship (friendship-rivalry) between two German writers, Gerhart Hauptmann (1852-1946) and Thomas Mann (Thomas Mann, 1875-1955), throughout their long literary life, was reflected both in their artistic work and in their correspondence. The first meeting between Mann, who was 28 years old, and Hauptmann, who was 13 years older, took place in 1903. their common publisher, S. Fischer. At that time, Hauptmann was undoubtedly number one in Fischer's publishing house, and Mann, who had previously published Buddenbrooks (1901), was impressed by the acquaintance. In a letter to the publisher, he elevated the meeting with Hauptmann to the rank of "the first magnitude", looking at the older contemporary as a mentor: "In a memorable hour, he called me his brother. I, like Grillparzer in Goethe [...], saw him more as a father" ^{[1, p. 368]}. In a letter to his brother Heinrich, Mann even calls Hauptmann his "ideal": "I had no idea that his personality had such charm as it actually has. [...] One could become like this if one did not have a "flaw", [as Ibsen says] ..." ^{[2, p. 30]}.

Mann has repeatedly compared his works with the creations of his older comrade. Notable is his only attempt to write a dramatic work in an attempt to master the genre to which Hauptmann owed his literary success. However, Mann's play Fiorenza (1906), set in the Renaissance, was unsuccessful. The failure of the drama, which was created with great enthusiasm, was experienced — both then and much later — by the young ambitious author as a tragedy (especially since in 1912 Hauptmann was awarded the Nobel Prize for outstanding work in the field of dramatic art).

Since then, Mann, who focused exclusively on prose, has been closely following how periodically the themes of his work converged with Hauptmann's. Thus, in 1918, Mann called Hauptmann's novella "The Heretic from Soana" (Der Ketzer von Soana, 1918) one of the best works of German literature and noted the close connection of the work of an older contemporary with his novella "Death in Venice" (Tod in Venedig, 1912). In both works, the central place is occupied by the theme of the artist's awakening, the search for an impulse of inner inspiration, in one way or another connected with the Dionysian principle. In Mann, Gustav von Aschenbach, during his illness, has a dream about the Dionysian procession, culminating in phallic worship. For Aschenbach, sleep begins with longing and ends with lust. The motif of a ritual procession of men and women marching in an atmosphere of erotic longing also appears in Hauptmann's novella. The result of the spiritual initiation of the main character to the Dionysian rite is the expansion of his cognitive abilities: his heart beats in time with the pulse of nature, and he becomes a participant in the universal creative process. But at the same time, Mann also pointed out differences with Houtmann in choosing a creative method. In the essay "Spirit and Art" (Geist und Kunst, 1908), the writer separated his work from the "German poetic" (das Deutsch-Poetische) style of Hauptmann: the latter's art, according to Mann, was mimetic, had no analytical basis, while the writer attributed himself to the "European intellectual" (das Europ?isch-Intellektuelle) traditions.

In 1922, Thomas Mann was invited to deliver a speech on the occasion of Hauptmann's 60th birthday, the celebration of which was to become a national event. Accepting the invitation, Mann sat down to write an article, which, as the work dragged on, increasingly lost the features of a congratulatory speech and turned into a manifesto. In Mann's landmark speech "On the German Republic" (Von deutscher Republik, 1922), Hauptmann is revered by him as "the king of the Republic" and "the conscience of the nation." However, in his speech, Mann only briefly focused on the hero of the day, then changing the subject. The author of "Reflections of the Apolitical", who was still considered a monarchist, used this opportunity to sensationalize the recognition of German democracy. The performance, which was interrupted more than once by both applause and disapproving hum and stomp of the audience, ended with the words "Long live the Republic!" and became a sensation, as a result of which the press talked a lot about Thomas Mann and little about the hero of the day himself.

The publication of the novel became a serious test for the friendly relations and creative contacts of the two authors and a stage in their further creative separation Manna's "Magic Mountain" (Der Zauberberg, 1924). Hauptmann immediately recognized himself with displeasure in the grotesque image of Peter Peperkorn's minger. Of course, the obvious similarity was not a coincidence: in October 1923, on vacation in Bolzano and on Hiddensee in July 1924, the Mann and Hauptmann families stayed in the same hotel and spent time together. It is known that Mann read out certain excerpts from The Magic Mountain to Hauptmann and he spoke positively about the novel. But in Hauptmann's copy of the novel, a series of admiring marginalia in the chapter "Minger Peperkorn" is interrupted by the entry: "And this idiotic pig must have some resemblance to my insignificant person!" ^{[3, p. 263]}

The draft of Hauptmann's letter dated January 4, 1925 to S. Fischer states: "My colleague won my real sympathy, and this was expressed, in particular, in the fact that I recommended him in Stockholm for the Nobel Prize" ^{[4, p. 256]}. In the same letter, Hauptmann dwells in detail on the similarity he noticed and outraged him: "[...] Peperkorn points to my person and is a fact of humiliation. I even want to believe in Freudian complexes. In short: a Dutchman, a drunkard, a poisoner, a suicide, an intellectual wreck, [... infected with bags of gold and [malaria], Thomas Mann puts on my clothes. This Golem leaves sentences unfinished, which is sometimes my bad habit. Like me, he often repeats the words “done" and “absolutely.” I'm sixty years old, and so is he. Like Peperkorn, I wear woolen shirts, a frock coat and a vest buttoned up to the throat. [...] Thomas Mann once [...] called me the “uncrowned king of the republic,” and I became the coffee king. And when Peperkorn shows the "captain's freckled hand", it should be borne in mind that in German "captain" sounds like Hauptmann" ^{[5, p. 268]}. The image of Minger Peperkorn is both a caricature and a tribute. As L. I. Malchukov notes, this image manifested Mann's perception of an older contemporary in the context of Nietzschean anti-intellectualism, an irrational poetic element ^{[6, p. 130]}. He sees Hauptmann, first of all, in the prism of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, who put the irrational above the Socratic culture of thought: “For only an artistic, and not an analytical word, can be adequately interpreted about the irrational-poetic" ^{[7, p. 497]}.

An important aspect of Peperkorn's image is his similarity to Goethe, whose characteristics — "Olympianism", "godlike" — are projected by Mann onto Peperkorn in the text of The Magic Mountain. Hauptmann and Mann both claimed to be the "new Goethe" and were rivals in this regard. Undoubtedly, Hofmannsthal, Hesse, and Carossa were also followers of Goethe, each in their own way. But no one's "Goethe's imitatio" bothered Mann as much as the imitation of Hauptmann, who liked to be photographed in such a way that his external resemblance to Goethe was unmistakable, and who, with the help of this similarity, claimed to be a national poet. In any case, since his 50th birthday, Hauptmann really played the role of a national poet, which reached its apogee by 1932, when celebrations were held in Germany on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Goethe's death and the celebration of the 70th anniversary of Hauptmann. Thomas Mann looked deeper: he saw that Hauptmann's work also tends to be considered an imitation of Goethe. Goethe's novel The Years of Wilhelm Meister's Teaching had a significant influence on Hauptmann's novel about the theater "In the Whirlwind of Vocation". Another example of Hauptmann's appeal to Goethe's legacy is the "Fairy Tale" (Das M?rchen, 1941), conceived as a continuation of Goethe's philosophical novel of the same name, included in "Conversations of German Refugees" (Unterhaltungen deutscher Ausgewanderten, 1795). In addition, Hauptmann pays tribute to Goethe once again in his latest short story "Mignon" (Mignon, 1947). Hardly anyone noticed this affinity with Goethe established in Hauptmann's work earlier than Thomas Mann, who, in turn, built his own series of parallels: "Tonio Kroeger" — Werther, "Confessions of the adventurer Felix Krul" — "Poetry and Truth", "Magic Mountain" — Wilhelm Meister, etc.

The gap that followed the publication of The Magic Mountain was overcome by the efforts of Mann, who addressed Hauptmann with a penitential letter in which he called himself a "sinned child" ^{[5, p. 207]}. According to G. Wisling, one should not lose sight of the "Oedipal" pattern of Thomas Mann's relationship with Hauptmann: "A classic case: first admiration for the king or father, then envy is mixed with it, rivalry, hatred arises and, finally, everything ends in murder" ^{[8, p. 247]}. Hauptmann himself mentions "Freudian complexes" in a letter to Fischer, and Peperkorn's death in the novel resembles a mythological ritual of "killing an aged tsar" ^{[9, p. 312]}. Thomas Mann attempted to overcome the "fear of influence" by contrasting himself, a writer-critic, with the "plastic" poet Hauptmann. Mann understood that their talents were fundamentally different and liked to quote words from the Gospel, which Hauptmann once addressed to him: "There are many rooms in our Father's house" ^{[10, p. 337]}. But the eternal presence of Another person next to him hurt Mann's ego: "The discovery that you are not alone in this world is always especially insulting. Goethe once asked unequivocally: “Is it possible to live if others live?"^{[11, p. 543]} — he once wrote to Agnes Mayer, commenting on the "Bead Game" he received from Hesse.

In 1929, it was Hauptmann who nominated Thomas Mann for the Nobel Prize. The usual struggle arose in such cases: a group of university professors and the Literary World magazine came out in support of Arno Holtz's candidacy. On this occasion, Thomas Mann wrote to Hauptmann on October 15, 1929: "Since we are talking about awards: what do you say about the widespread news that, thanks to the propaganda of a clique of professors [...], Arno Holtz should receive the Nobel Prize? Let me speak frankly with you [...]: I would consider such an award absurd and scandalous, and I am convinced that the whole of Europe would grab its head in complete disbelief. Rest assured, I'm talking to the point.: I have something to live with, and I would, for example, heartily reward our smart and outstanding Ricarda Huh. But Holtz?! This would be a real nuisance, and something really needs to be done about it" ^{[8, p. 262]}. Hauptmann listened, because back in 1922 he opposed the nomination of Holtz, and took action, as Mann later wrote that he owed much of the award of the Nobel Prize in 1929 to him. Mann reported on a telephone conversation with Hauptmann, during which the latter assured the future Nobel laureate that in a decisive conversation with Professor Beck of the Swedish Academy he predetermined Mann's triumph ^{[8, pp. 262-263]}.

On November 12, 1929, Thomas Mann received a telegram from Stockholm about his victory. The next day, in an interview with the newspaper Vossische Zeitung, he said that he really needed to ask himself about the legitimacy of such a choice of the Academy: "There are a number of outstanding poets in Germany who, at least as well as he, deserved the Nobel Prize [...]. Wasn't Arno Holtz entitled to this the award?" ^{[5, p. 231]} Hauptmann was outraged and began writing to Mann, in which he stated his confusion about the laureate's recent statements and his regret at his victory. According to an older contemporary, Mann's doubts about the fairness of the Academy's choice border on nothing more than "the most serious public lie based on low hypocrisy and the pursuit of profit..." ^{[5, p. 230]}. Mann tried to justify himself by saying that his words were inaccurately reproduced by a journalist. In his diary, Hauptmann left an entry: "A case of blatant, shameless, public lies: Thomas Mann" ^{[8, p. 263]}.

In 1933, the break in contacts between the writers occurred not for personal, but for political reasons. The seizure of power by the National Socialists required both of them to express a clear position. Thomas Mann did not return from a foreign tour after a few weeks, Hauptmann stayed in Germany. Mann first expressed the understanding that the elderly poet did not want to leave his homeland. However, on May 9, 1933, after reading the newspaper, he contemptuously remarked: "He [Hauptmann] hung a swastika on his house on Labor Day." Thomas Mann bitterly adds how much he regrets contributing to Hauptmann's fame with his previous birthday performances. In his diary, he wrote: "Hauptmann [stayed], even this follower of the Republic, a friend of Ebert and Rathenau, who was elevated and made great by the Jews. [...] I hate this puppet, [...] majestically rejecting martyrdom, which I am not capable of either, but to which my spiritual dignity inevitably calls" ^{[8, p. 264]}.

In 1935, on the day of Thomas Mann's 60th birthday, Hauptmann made an attempt to resume communication by choosing a poem from his rich creative heritage. Having provided him with a dedication to "the great artist Thomas Mann", Hauptmann sent the text to the hero of the day in Switzerland. P. Sprengel in the study "The poet stood on a high bank. Gerhard Hauptmann in the era of National Socialism"interprets the poem in a political way as a personal manifesto, characterizing this work as "an expression of the poet's superiority over his enemies" ^{[11, p. 90]}. In the poem, the poet who left the fuss stays on a high seashore, while unworthy of his ideological and political squabbles boil below. At the same time, in this image one can see Thomas Mann's appeal to join an "apolitical" position and Hauptmann's justification of his position after 1933. There is also a direct allusion to Mann's work in this work: in the second part, Hauptmann creates an image of the sea, referring to the maritime symbolism of Mann's prose (see Tonio Kroeger, Death in Venice). Mann was interested in this aspect of his work, and he was annoyed when critics accused him of a lack of depiction of nature. However, Mann did not react in any way to the dedication poem received from Hauptmann, did not even leave a single diary entry about him and did not communicate with Hauptmann until his death.

In the diary of Thomas Mann's wife, Katya Mann, there is a record of an almost accidental meeting between the two writers on March 22, 1937 in Zurich: "In the London House store [... my husband was trying on a suit on the top floor when a salesman came up to him and asked, “Do you know who's downstairs? Mr. Gerhart Hauptmann. Would you like to see him?” My husband said, “Oh, we should probably wait another time.” To which the seller replied: "That's exactly what Hauptmann said" [13, p. 48]. Nevertheless, in 1946, the news of Hauptmann's death — on June 6, Mann's birthday — did not leave him indifferent. "[...] The source of my grief was the feeling that, despite all the differences in our characters and no matter how our paths of life diverged during the events, we were still onceit's almost like friends" ^{[10, pp. 339-340]} — he wrote in 1949 in The Novel of One Novel, where he reflected in detail his view on the history of his relationship with Hauptmann.

In 1952, at the request of Hauptmann's widow, Margaret Mann, delivered a speech dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the deceased. The writer appreciated the greatness of Hauptmann's work and personality, omitting the history of their political differences, noting only that "once, even in an unauthorized way," he had already honored Hauptmann's memory "more permanently" in his novel. And this "most penetrating look into the depths of the human personality", which, according to Mann, he has ever succeeded in, "will tell future generations more about this man, about his mournful solemnity, than all the critical monographs about him" ^{[7, p. 499]}.

Thus, the complex dynamics of the relationship between the two writers is not only reflected in their correspondence and in their artistic work, but also largely reflects the experience of creative self-reflection of each. The initial mutual respect between them after the publication of Mann's novel The Magic Mountain was replaced by misunderstanding and rivalry for the role of Germany's national poet, the "new Goethe". The result of the subsequent reconciliation and renewal of ties was Hauptmann's nomination of Mann for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1929. However, the political differences caused by the rise to power in Germany of the National Socialists led to the final rupture of contacts between the writers. Hauptmann's death in 1946 put an end to the rivalry and forced Mann to rethink his attitude towards his older comrade, which was reflected in a speech on the occasion of Hauptmann's 90th birthday and in a memoir about him, set out in the "Novel of a Novel".