Discussions on the social role of political lyrics and "tendentious" poetry in German literary criticism of the Pre-Mart era

Subbotin Vladislav Igorevich Postgraduate student; Faculty of History; Moscow State University 111397, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Novogireevskaya str., 44/28 vladislavsubbotin98@yandex.ru

Introductory remarks: a problematic field of discussion

The thirties and forties of the 19th century were accompanied by a consistent increase in the political activity of the German public. The heightened attention to socio-political issues was associated with two challenges facing the German states. The first was of a national nature and was associated with the actualization of the issue of the unity of Germans and their integration into a single civil community. The second one was of a political and legal nature, concerned with the problem of democratizing the political system of the German states. A conceptual understanding of the process of politicization of the public sphere and various fields of art found a place in the space of German literary criticism, which by that time was beginning to comprehend itself as an important institution of public opinion ^[18].

The appeal of a significant part of the authors to political topics was regularly met with sharp opposition from the authorities, who fought against biased literature by increasing censorship, bans on printing the works of individual authors and entire literary associations.  The works of G. Heine, A. Hoffmann von Fallersleben, F. Freiligrath, F. Dingelstedt and others were regularly not allowed to be published. By the decision of the Frankfurt Bundestag in December 1835, the works of authors classified as members of the literary movement “Young Germany” were banned. Among them were such writers as G. Laube, K. Gutskov, T. Mundt, L. Vinbarg. The Bundestag resolution cited moral and ethical arguments in favor of banning works in which censors found “audacious attacks on the Christian religion, discrediting existing social relations, and destroying decency and morality” ^{[6, S. 398]}.

Nevertheless, the debate on the role of the political in fiction and in poetry, in particular, continued to be actively conducted. And it had deep cultural foundations. The younger generation of writers of the 1830s and 1840s. it threw a lot of effort into a “divorce” from the previous artistic tradition. The main themes of many works were a critical rethinking of the role of the central figure of German literature at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries, J.V. von Goethe and his creative legacy, as well as a reassessment of the artistic attitudes of romantic art. Examples of rejection of the former artistic principles of Romanticism are found in a series of articles by A. Ruge and T. Echtermeyer, publishers of the Galesian Yearbooks magazine, which were published under the general title “Protestantism and Romanticism” (1838-1840s) ^[4].

However, a distinctive feature of many representatives of German literary theory was the weakness of the positive program, criticizing romanticism and politically indifferent creativity, they rarely offered a convincing aesthetic alternative ^[35]. Perhaps the only clearly formulated slogan for a long time remained the need to turn to modernity, to a reliable depiction of reality and the development of socially important topics ^{[19, P. 152]}. The consistent assertion of the realistic principle and social orientation is found in the artistic work and journalism of G. Buechner, in the prose of K.L. Immerman, V. Alexis, dramaturgy of K.D. Grabbe and K. Gutskova.

For the German-speaking public, the death of J. V. von Goethe on March 22, 1832, became a symbolic caesura. His departure was perceived as the decline of an entire artistic and even broader cultural era, which G. Heine called the “artistic or classical period” ^[13]. Along with other authors, G. Heine stated that the present time requires the artist to apply new principles to the form and content of his works ^{[13, S. 153]}. Under the concept of the “artistic period”, G. Heine combined the poetic works of classicism and romanticism ^{[19, P. 153]}. Both of these artistic directions, as he himself believed, paid insufficient attention to the events of modernity, and eventually lost their authority in the eyes of their readers, because they were insincere in their attitude to reality. Their influence on the audience and rhetorical power were barely noticeable. It can be said that G. Heine is characterized by a specific kind of artistic progressivism, when he argues that modern poetry must "correspond to its time" and must contribute to the "struggle for progress", adding that "the aristocratic period of literature [...] is coming to an end [...], and the democratic "period" begins ^{[12, S. 70]}.

Thus, a discussion is unfolding in literary and critical circles, which, although it initially concerned issues of an aesthetic nature, has acquired important social significance. This topic is actively being developed in German historiography ^{[10,11, 18, 29, 31]}, Some aspects of it are also covered in domestic works, mainly of the Soviet period, which, meanwhile, are mainly considered within the framework of more general topics ^[33,35].

 The central question of the discussion that unfolded in the 1830s and 1840s was to what extent poetry is capable and should generally respond to the trends of the time, address modernity, can it solve primarily socio-political problems, while remaining a work of art and preserving its aesthetic value?

This problem was divided into three circles of topics:

1) The first one concerned the issue of legitimizing political poetry as an independent genre of lyrics;

2) The second one included reflections on the need to address socio-political issues and the functional significance of political poetry;

3) The third was related to the understanding of the problem of the openly declared partisanship of the author and the phenomenon of the so-called “tendentious poetry” ^{[29, S. 125]}.

The essence of the issue related to the first set of problems was successfully formulated by the literary critic and poet R.E. Prutz: “It is well known that we Germans consider poetry and politics as decisive and completely irreconcilable opposites, and therefore political poetry is usually considered by us to be a thing that is either impossible, or does not exist, or as an unacceptable thing, a thing that should not exist“ ^{[28, S. 253]}. In modern times, the autonomy of a work of art, jealously guarded by classical authors, is being destroyed, poetry begins to serve rhetorical tasks, turning into a tool of communication aimed at persuasion.  Simply put, it is precisely pragmatic goals that deprive poems of the status of “real poetry” in the eyes of many authors ^{[28, S. 253]}.

The contradiction that has arisen between the spheres of aesthetic and rhetorical is precisely what R. Prutz is trying to solve, setting out to give political poetry a solid legitimate status. He introduces a historical dimension into the conversation about political poetry, proving the importance of political poetry as a phenomenon of the modern era. R.E. Prutz elegantly solves the difficult relationship between rhetoric and aesthetics by proving the commitment of political poetry to the principles of a special kind of aesthetics — the so-called “aesthetics of influence” ^{[28, S. 259]}.

Disputes about partisanship in literature and "tendentious" poetry

In the 1830s, the concepts of "tendency" and "tendentious poetry" appeared in use among the literary community, which became disparaging labels for fashionable works that had a distinct socio-political orientation and, as a rule, were composed by young writers "for the spite of the day" ^[35].

On the one hand, the arguments against tendentious authors lay in the same plane of aesthetic and rhetorical disputes as the discourse on political poetry in general. Even such an openly engaged author as G. Gerweg in 1839, in his essay on modern literature, admits that the beauty of a work of art “is often sacrificed to tendentiousness” ^{[16, S. 296]}.

Among the authors who recognized the legitimacy and even the social significance of political poetry, a dispute developed about the "permissible" and "unacceptable", "useful" and "harmful" forms of it. In particular, the publicist F. T. Visher tried to distinguish between aesthetically and rhetorically oriented political poetry. As he believes, “real political poetry” is distinguished by an interest in the issues of the past of the people, reflections on the very idea of the state and the nation, “tendentious poetry”, on the contrary, refers to the mode of momentary everyday life and is a response to current events ^{[32, S.25]}.

Reflections on the “literature of tendency” also occupied G. Heine. In the poem “Tendency” he makes fun of the authors of this kind of poetry: "Sound the trumpet, thunder, destroy the infection, // Until the last enemy escapes; // Only in this find your vocation, / / But keep the poet's talent / / And speak perhaps in general phrases! "^{[13, S. 330-331.]} Heine's claim had a dual nature: firstly, it concerned the formal side - the aesthetic qualities of this kind of poetry, and secondly, its content and pragmatic significance. Behind most of the poems, he discovers only empty, meaningless and fruitless phrases that are unable to motivate the reader to act.

Another publicist is Y. Frauenschaft proceeded from another point of view, he believed that the poet's partisanship deprives him of objectivity, since it severs the connection with eternal values. As an example, he cites the eternally relevant works of Homer, the poet of the "undifferentiated world", who saw the significance of every thing, whereas "modern poetry for the sake of time can be enthusiastically perceived today, but will not have value for posterity" ^{[8, S. 169-173.]}. 

L. Berne enters into a correspondence dispute with a similar view with his chiseled slogan: "You cannot demand from a writer that, without hatred and love, rising above all the clouds of selfishness, he hears a thunderstorm beneath him" ^[33]. L. Berne is quite frank in his unpretentiousness for objectivity.  Sincerity is perhaps the only quality that, according to Berne, should certainly be demanded from the author ^[33].

A well-known literary dispute on the basis of political poetry and literary journalism broke out between L. Berne and the famous critic and literary historian V. Menzel, author of “German Literature” in 1828 and editor of the magazine “Literaturblat”.

At the turn of the 1820s and 30s, Menzel was known as a representative of the moderate liberal camp. In his history of German literature, the following judgments can be found: "The Liberal Party is the party that defines the political character of modern times, while the so-called servile party still operates mainly in the spirit of the Middle Ages [...] All literature is a triumph of liberalism, for its enemies even have to fence with its weapons" ^[14].

A number of contemporaries and researchers noted the surface of his liberalism and a natural turn to conservative views in the mid-1830s. It was his critical attacks on the authors of “Young Germany” that were widely known, largely due to them the ban of works by authors close to the movement followed. And when L. Berne began to publish the magazine "La Balance" and critically respond to Menzel's new line of thought and creative activity, which was accompanied by nationalist attacks against his opponents. His article "The Gallophobia of M. Menzel" is especially notable. The latter took its contents as a personal insult. Berne was particularly fiercely attacked in the article "Berne and German patriotism", published in Literaturblat in 1836 ^[23], in which he accuses Berne of national betrayal. L. Berne, in turn, responds to the accusations with the famous article "Menzel the Frenchman", which, in addition to its polemical purpose, with a special She clearly outlined his cosmopolitan ideals.

L. Berne asks the question: “Is the egoism of the state not the same vice as the egoism of an individual? Does justice cease to be a virtue, as soon as it is applied to a foreign people?” ^{[33, C. 57]}.   

It can be seen that the authors differed not only in their assessments of the role of political subjects in literature, but rather, the social state in the German states. The central point of the dispute is the reflection of both authors on the nature of patriotism.  Their clash already looks like an ideological one in the truest sense, it is a discussion of nationally charged patriotism and democratically oriented cosmopolitanism.

The dispute about the “partisanship” of poetry also took the form of a direct poetic polemic. Perhaps the most widespread response was received by a kind of “duel in verse” by F. Freiligrata with G. Gerweg. In the replicated final lines of the poem, F. Freiligrata "From Spain" (1842) an apologetic tone is heard for referring to a political topic: "The poet is on a tower higher // than the tower of the party stands" ^{[9, S.13]}. G. Gerweg responded with the poem "The Party" (1842), justifying the need for political engagement of art: "Oh, the party! For us, you are the mother of all achievements! / We wish you to lead us to victories / You make words stronger and more perfect, / Transforming them into great deeds!" ^{[17, S. 31]}.

The dispute excited the German public extraordinarily and did not end with a simple exchange of "poetic blows" — a correspondence ensues between Freiligrath and Gerveg. F. Freiligrath in one of his letters succinctly explained his position, which would have pleased the supporters of the "classical school": "Poetry just has to adhere to the eternal, imperishable" ^[1], He accused Gerweg of outright subjectivism. In turn, Gerweg retorted by pointing out that his poems should not be understood as subjective judgments, on the contrary, they should be seen as the poet's response to the objective state of things. Despite the high degree of discussion, the dispute was at first quite moderate and even friendly in nature. G. Gerweg admitted: "If the two of us could follow the same path and be bound by the bonds of the same faith, how wonderful it would be, how desirable for me!" ^[1].

The problem of the dispute was compounded by the deceptive clarity of the subject of the controversy. The fact is that the concept of “party” in German did not mean a political association and association, but a more or less definite line of thought. The following definition of a party could be found in the dictionary of I.G. Kampe: “A community of people who share the same views, principles, and beliefs.” The author of the dictionary cited the learned Latin word "faction" and the religiously colored concept of "sect" as synonyms for "party" ^{[3, S. 587]}. The word “party” itself, apparently, had a distinctly negative connotation, and besides, it was a rather vague concept. As T. Schieder writes in his research, before the revolution of 1848, “parties were more or less mental formations, dialectical moments in the process of intellectual history, but not real political groups” ^{[30, S. 117]}.

Even F.K. Dahlman's “Politics”, perhaps the most important work of German liberalism, does well without resorting to party terminology ^{[29, S. 149]}. The political discourse of the liberal democratic public was dominated by the principle of "universality", metaphors not of separation, but of integration, which sometimes acquired an archaic and enlightenment cosmopolitan character. Thus, L. Otto wrote in a poem dedicated to A. Meisner that it is necessary to “bring happiness to all mankind”, and not to the parties ^{[29, S. 151]}.

Here the problem in the interpretation of concepts reveals itself. For a long time it was believed that G. Gerweg aimed his demand at creating a new type of party. But, apparently, he could hardly mean partisanship in the modern sense of the word, but rather, he was talking about the inadmissibility of political poetry, devoid of any character and an absolutely indifferent position in relation to the socio-political problems of Germany ^{[29, S. 148]}. A gradual change in the meaning and usage of the word “party” can be seen in the dictionary of the Brothers Grimm. There, the party has a more clearly articulated meaning. As one of the main meanings of the parties, the following can be found: “The totality of like-minded people and the direction they represent in religious, political, social or scientific issues, unlike other like-minded people and in the fight against them.” It is important to note that in this definition there is a clearly expressed activity component and the idea of competition.

However, a third party intervened in the dispute between Freiligrath and Herweg. Another prominent lyricist of that era, E. Geibel, joined the poetic and epistolary discussion. He took the side of F. Freiligrata, claiming to be objective and impartial, declared that he "serves only the truth." E. Geibel takes the dispute from the aesthetic plane into the space of actual politics, accusing G. Gerweg of political radicalism: “Do you know / That your songs call for rebellion? / That everyone is in their heart / They will be interpreted in the worst light ^[1].

F. Freiligrath, in the poem "The Letter", supported the position of E. Geibel and emphasized the imprudence of his opponent. Recognizing his noble desire for freedom, he simultaneously condemned his methods, which, in his opinion, threaten to harm the common German cause only:

You are followed like clumsy reapers

A barely audible rustle;

It shoots a shiver

On the young tree of freedom!

Trembling of buds and shoots,

Who happily decorated it!

Which, unfortunately, blows

You almost broke everything ^[1].

Both Geibel and Freiligrath urge G. Gerweg to moderation, emphasizing that his poems do not contribute to the multiplication of freedom, but become an obstacle to the cause for which he undertook to fight.  Although it is indicative of the fact that Freiligrath would later switch to the side of G. Herweg and turn into one of the most prominent political poets of the era. He could have been prompted to do this by a personal meeting with the Prussian king Frederick William IV and the subsequent disappointment in the aspirations of the Prussian authorities, as well as personal observations of the growing political reaction in Germany, as well as discussions that he had with his colleagues in the craft. It is known that he was in close contact with A. Hoffmann von Fallersleben ^[1]. In the preface to the collection “The Symbol of Faith” (1844), he writes: "The worst that they (his critics – V.S. note) can accuse me of may be limited to the fact that I nevertheless descended from the high watchtower to the battlements of the party" ^[1].

Another author close to "Young Germany", K. Gutskov, already in the post-revolutionary period, will say in one of his articles that "tendentious poetry should rightfully be considered the poetry of the nineteenth century" ^{[29, S. 154.]}. K. Gutskov believes that poetry consciously or not served non-aesthetic purposes throughout its history: “She (politics-V.S.'s note) uses poetic forms only when the imagination turns itself into an ally of some thought more or less related to the situation of humanity” ^{[29, S. 154]}.

Conclusion

As can be seen, a notable phenomenon of the era of the 1830s-1840s, which preceded the new wave of European revolutions, is the establishment of new principles in the evaluation of literary works affecting socio-political issues.

Firstly, there is a final affirmation of the principle of historicism. The appeal to political and social subjects is regarded by authoritative authors as a natural consequence of the development of German society and a response to the challenges facing it.

Secondly, political poetry is legitimized on a theoretical level, but the contradiction between politics and aesthetics, which is painful for many writers, is not completely removed.

Thirdly, literary discussions are gradually moving out of the artistic and aesthetic sphere into the sphere of practical politics. The merit of poetry and literary criticism was the education among the readership of the habit of discussing socially important topics, and the preparation of a space for public discussion about freedom and unity of the nation.

Among the prominent writers who have addressed political lyrics, two positions can be distinguished:

1) Recognition of the priority of the political objectives of an artistic work over aesthetic ones, or at least agreement on their parity (these are the authors of distinctly left-liberal views, G. Gerweg, F. Freiligrath).

2) The denial of any possibility of the priority of political content over the aesthetic objectives of lyrics, but not the denial of an independent status to engaged lyrics (A similar ambiguous position was held, for example, by G. Heine).

In turn, direct political polemic begins to penetrate into literary and critical disputes: moderate reformist views collide with radical democratic and revolutionary ones, national patriotic rhetoric enters into a dispute with cosmopolitan.

A tentative, but probably not entirely stable consensus is emerging among the liberal and democratically minded German literary community. His seemingly overly abstract, but determinedly important principle is perhaps best described by L. Berne's phrase from the epistolary collection Letters from Paris (1830-1833): "He who reveres art as a deity sins against art itself" ^{[38, p. 67]}. How successfully it will be implemented in practice will soon be shown by the experience of political lyrics already in the revolutionary years 1848-1849.