—41
box 39/1
and wild places.“ Pippa is, as it were,
an earth bubble, who dances at the bidding
of Huhn, the artificer, even as the glass
bubbles dance under the hands of the
blower. Gersuind, the scourge (Geisel) of
the Emperor Charlemagne, is of witch-like
primeval charm. These two, with Rauten¬
delein, are forms of the same essential
impression of life that Hauptmann delights
to depict.
Though his work has been so far tinged
with melancholy, it is not of the Byronie
type. He loves his kind, and in the vears
of creation that remain his versatile genius
mnay perhaps be occupied with brighter
themnes, and may ultimately produce some
such gift of serene beauty as" The
Tempest. He has found able exponents
for his work on the stage, a proof that actors
at least accept him as the possessor of a
they may, as they say,“create. Want of
space forbids more than the briefest men &□
tion of the peasant pieces,“ Fuhrmann
Rose Berndt, and the
Henschel,
popular“ Hannele,? of which an English 7.2
4
versien has been given in London, or of the
two painter-plays, Michael Kramer“ and Ko
* College Crampton.“ Suflice it that his
present high reputation is firmly founded
on achievement and not likely to be
permanently shaken.
Schnitzler.
Arthur Schnitzler, born just six months
carlier than Hauptmann, belongs to Ger¬
man literature, but is of Austrian Jewish
origin, and first caught the public ear by an
experiment of the most opposite kind from
Hauptmann’s social drama. The witty
dialogues in which“ Anatol’ figures are
known tc tho British public through the
stage and printed versions of Mr Granville
Barker. This Viennese Don Juan (if he
even deserves the comparative dignity of
such a title) struck a note which has been
constantly repeated in Schnitzler’s work.
and the merits and limitations of his pre¬
sentment are at once clearly scen. It is
not the modern way to represent man as
master of his fate, and in that respect both
our dramatists are children of the age. But.
whereas Hauptmann’s characters succumb
for the most part to oppression from wita
out, Schnitzler’s fascmating youths, for
fascinating they remain, are infected with
an incurable weakness of spirit. Anatol
may regret the entanglements of his
varions amours, but he has no senst
of sin or of duty.
In Schnitzler'
remarkabiv fine novel,
* Der Weg ins
Freie“ (1908), Georg von Wergenthin,
though deeper, is almost as irrespon
sible as Anatol. Fatalism, a delicate per¬
ception of character, and a fine sympath,
are this author's most notable qualities.
Love and death are his topies, the lover¬
being for the most part, according to the
French tradition, married persons, whose
entanglements and recouplings seem almost
incredible to a healthy taste. His latest
plav, Das weite Land,'’ might be de¬
seribed as a study in conjugal infidelitt.
But, incidentally, he touches in a back¬
ground of all sorts and conditions of men
Thus, in“ Freiwild“ (1896), whose subjeet
is the duel problem, a complete impression
is given of the oflicer class (Offizierstand.
Das Märchen!' treats various views
female honour upon a background of musice
and artistic seciety. In Der grün
Kakadu (1899), a gem in one act, th.#
most perfect fruit of Schnitzler’s genius (s¬
far), lurid rumblings of the French Revoln
tion are heard in the distance, while a fan¬
tastic group of witty personages seintillate
in the foreground. In this wonderful little
play the dream-like unreality of life, in con¬
trast to the inevitable changesthat the sum¬
mons to the unknown beyond brings to each
man, is touched with an cmphasis that is
found again and again in Schnitzler. His
melancholy is of a gentle, almost scholarly,
kind. If we pitv the creatures of Haupt¬
mann, those of Schnitzler inspire us with
poignant affection.
Therein, perhaps, lies the respective
appeal made to us by these two dramatists,
whom we, like their countrymen, may well.
delight to honour.
box 39/1
and wild places.“ Pippa is, as it were,
an earth bubble, who dances at the bidding
of Huhn, the artificer, even as the glass
bubbles dance under the hands of the
blower. Gersuind, the scourge (Geisel) of
the Emperor Charlemagne, is of witch-like
primeval charm. These two, with Rauten¬
delein, are forms of the same essential
impression of life that Hauptmann delights
to depict.
Though his work has been so far tinged
with melancholy, it is not of the Byronie
type. He loves his kind, and in the vears
of creation that remain his versatile genius
mnay perhaps be occupied with brighter
themnes, and may ultimately produce some
such gift of serene beauty as" The
Tempest. He has found able exponents
for his work on the stage, a proof that actors
at least accept him as the possessor of a
they may, as they say,“create. Want of
space forbids more than the briefest men &□
tion of the peasant pieces,“ Fuhrmann
Rose Berndt, and the
Henschel,
popular“ Hannele,? of which an English 7.2
4
versien has been given in London, or of the
two painter-plays, Michael Kramer“ and Ko
* College Crampton.“ Suflice it that his
present high reputation is firmly founded
on achievement and not likely to be
permanently shaken.
Schnitzler.
Arthur Schnitzler, born just six months
carlier than Hauptmann, belongs to Ger¬
man literature, but is of Austrian Jewish
origin, and first caught the public ear by an
experiment of the most opposite kind from
Hauptmann’s social drama. The witty
dialogues in which“ Anatol’ figures are
known tc tho British public through the
stage and printed versions of Mr Granville
Barker. This Viennese Don Juan (if he
even deserves the comparative dignity of
such a title) struck a note which has been
constantly repeated in Schnitzler’s work.
and the merits and limitations of his pre¬
sentment are at once clearly scen. It is
not the modern way to represent man as
master of his fate, and in that respect both
our dramatists are children of the age. But.
whereas Hauptmann’s characters succumb
for the most part to oppression from wita
out, Schnitzler’s fascmating youths, for
fascinating they remain, are infected with
an incurable weakness of spirit. Anatol
may regret the entanglements of his
varions amours, but he has no senst
of sin or of duty.
In Schnitzler'
remarkabiv fine novel,
* Der Weg ins
Freie“ (1908), Georg von Wergenthin,
though deeper, is almost as irrespon
sible as Anatol. Fatalism, a delicate per¬
ception of character, and a fine sympath,
are this author's most notable qualities.
Love and death are his topies, the lover¬
being for the most part, according to the
French tradition, married persons, whose
entanglements and recouplings seem almost
incredible to a healthy taste. His latest
plav, Das weite Land,'’ might be de¬
seribed as a study in conjugal infidelitt.
But, incidentally, he touches in a back¬
ground of all sorts and conditions of men
Thus, in“ Freiwild“ (1896), whose subjeet
is the duel problem, a complete impression
is given of the oflicer class (Offizierstand.
Das Märchen!' treats various views
female honour upon a background of musice
and artistic seciety. In Der grün
Kakadu (1899), a gem in one act, th.#
most perfect fruit of Schnitzler’s genius (s¬
far), lurid rumblings of the French Revoln
tion are heard in the distance, while a fan¬
tastic group of witty personages seintillate
in the foreground. In this wonderful little
play the dream-like unreality of life, in con¬
trast to the inevitable changesthat the sum¬
mons to the unknown beyond brings to each
man, is touched with an cmphasis that is
found again and again in Schnitzler. His
melancholy is of a gentle, almost scholarly,
kind. If we pitv the creatures of Haupt¬
mann, those of Schnitzler inspire us with
poignant affection.
Therein, perhaps, lies the respective
appeal made to us by these two dramatists,
whom we, like their countrymen, may well.
delight to honour.