Buechner and the bible: function, configuration, and development of biblical quotations in the works of Georg Buechner

Georg Büchner's oeuvre contains an extraordinary number of biblical quotations. Although previous research has traced the origins of various quotations and analyzed the contextualization of select quotations, a comprehensive investigation of the author's employment of biblical quotations is still lacking. In this study biblical quotations throughout Büchner's oeuvre are identified chronologically, classified according to their function (support or introduce an argument, aesthetically enhance the text, or function as self-referential elements) and type (direct, modified, indirect quotation or allusion), and examined in the context of each individual work. As became evident in the earlier stages of research for this study, the utilization of biblical quotations in Der Hessische Landbote, the author's first text and an unintentional collaboration with Friedrich Ludwig Weidig, follows a distinct pattern. First, biblical allusions demonstrate the people's socioeconomic division, then they create both a Christ- and an Anti-Christ figure, and finally, they advocate political change in form of a violent revolution. As this study from there on demonstrates, each of Büchner's subsequent texts utilizes a variation of this general pattern of biblical quotation employment modified to fit its genre, its aesthetics, and its particular strategy. Consequently, the divisions of mankind demonstrated may be - depending upon the text - political, psychological or even physical, there may be a Christ-figure, an Anti-Christ figure or both, and the resulting call for change may be political, social, or economic. It is shown that this tripartite pattern of biblical quotation employment evolved considerably throughout Büchner's oeuvre, mirroring the author's own evolving reception of the contemporary debate between an emerging materialist philosophy and the prevailing idealist discourse in philosophy and in science. This broader study of biblical quotations - demonstrating the repeated division of mankind, the introduction of a Christ-figure, and the call for social change - reveals both the author's consistent adherence to a pattern - despite diverse genres and themes - and his ability to utilize the Bible's versatility to fit each particular genre and theme.

BÜCHNER AND THE BIBLE: FUNCTION, CONFIGURATION, AND DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS IN THE WORKS OF GEORG BÜCHNER Trina Kae Young A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Languages and Literature The University of Utah May 2011 Copyright © Trina Kae Young 2011 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Trina Kae Young has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Gerhard Knapp , Chair 11/30/10 Date Approved Joseph Metz , Member 11/30/10 Date Approved Maria Dobozy , Member 11/30/10 Date Approved Randall O. Stewart , Member 11/30/10 Date Approved Michelle S. James , Member 11/30/10 Date Approved and by the Department of Fernando Rubio Languages and Literature and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. , Chair of ABSTRACT Georg Büchner's oeuvre contains an extraordinary number of biblical quotations. Although previous research has traced the origins of various quotations and analyzed the contextualization of select quotations, a comprehensive investigation of the author’s employment of biblical quotations is still lacking. In this study biblical quotations throughout Büchner's oeuvre are identified chronologically, classified according to their function (support or introduce an argument, aesthetically enhance the text, or function as self-referential elements) and type (direct, modified, indirect quotation or allusion), and examined in the context of each individual work. As became evident in the earlier stages of research for this study, the utilization of biblical quotations in Der Hessische Landbote, the author's first text and an unintentional collaboration with Friedrich Ludwig Weidig, follows a distinct pattern. First, biblical allusions demonstrate the people’s socioeconomic division, then they create both a Christ- and an Anti-Christ figure, and finally, they advocate political change in form of a violent revolution. As this study from there on demonstrates, each of Büchner's subsequent texts utilizes a variation of this general pattern of biblical quotation employment modified to fit its genre, its aesthetics, and its particular strategy. Consequently, the divisions of mankind demonstrated may be – depending upon the text – political, psychological or even physical, there may be a Christ-figure, an Anti-Christ figure or both, and the resulting call for change may be political, social, or economic. It is shown that this tripartite pattern of biblical quotation employment evolved considerably throughout Büchner’s oeuvre, mirroring the author’s own evolving reception of the contemporary debate between an emerging materialist philosophy and the prevailing idealist discourse in philosophy and in science. This broader study of biblical quotations – demonstrating the repeated division of mankind, the introduction of a Christ-figure, and the call for social change – reveals both the author's consistent adherence to a pattern – despite diverse genres and themes – and his ability to utilize the Bible's versatility to fit each particular genre and theme. iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …....................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... viii Chapters: INTRODUCTION …............................................................................................ 1 1 DER HESSISCHE LANDBOTE: AM ANFANG: A TEMPLATE FOR BÜCHNER'S BIBLICAL QUOTATION EMPLOYMENT ….................. 17 2 DANTONS TOD: ES MUß JA ÄRGERNIS KOMMEN …........................... 65 3 LENZ: STEHE AUF UND WANDLE .......................................................... 108 4 LEONCE UND LENA: O ZUFALL! O VORSEHUNG! ............................. 135 5 WOYZECK: DU BIST GESCHAFFE STAUB, SAND, DRECK …............ 163 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 197 WORKS CONSULTED …............................................................................................ 207 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS I Poschmann, Henri. Georg Büchner: Sämtliche Werke in zwei Bänden. Band I. Frankfurt a.M.: Insel Taschenbuch, 2002. II Poschmann, Henri. Georg Büchner: Sämtliche Werke in zwei Bänden. Band II. Frankfurt a.M.: Insel Taschenbuch, 2002. Bark Bark, Joachim. “Bibelsprache in Büchners Dramen: Stellenkommentar und interpretatorische Hinweise.” In Zweites Internationales Georg Büchner Symposium 1987 Referate. Ed. Burghard Dedner und Günter Oesterle. Frankfurt/M: Hain, 1990. 476-505. Borgards Borgards, Roland; Harald Neumeyer (eds.). Büchner Handbuch. Leben – Werk – Wirkung. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 2009. Dedner Dedner, Burghard. Erläuterungen und Dokumente Georg Büchner Woyzeck. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun., 2007. DT Dantons Tod Funk Funk, Gerald. Erläuterungen und Dokumente Georg Büchner Dantons Tod. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 2002. Glück Glück, Alfons. “Woyzeck: Ein Mensch als Objekt.” In Interpretationen: Georg Büchner: Dantons Tod, Lenz, Leonce und Lena, Woyzeck. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 2007. 179-216. Hinderer Hinderer, Walter. “Lenz: »Sein Dasein war ihm eine notwendige Last«”. In Interpretationen: Georg Büchner: Dantons Tod, Lenz, Leonce und Lena, Woyzeck. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 2007. 63-112. HL Der Hessische Landbote Knapp Knapp, Gerhard P. Georg Büchner 3. Auflage. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag, 2000. LL Leonce und Lena Niehoff Niehoff, Reiner. Die Herrschaft des Textes: Zitattechnik als Sprachkritik in Georg Büchners Drama "Danton's Tod" unter Berücksichtigung der "Letzten Tage der Menschheit" von Karl Kraus. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991. Reddick Reddick, John. Georg Büchner: The Shattered Whole. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Schaub Schaub, Gerhard. Georg Büchner Friedrich Ludwig Weidig: Der Hessische Landbote Studienausgabe. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 1996. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Without Professor Gerhard Knapp's patience, my husband Jeff's faith, Nils, Nina and Sophie's nearly perfect behavior or my parents' and in-laws' encouragement there would be no completed text. Thank you for believing in me. INTRODUCTION The Yale Book of Quotations, Barlett’s Familiar Quotations, and Best Quotations for all Occasions are three of countless collections of quotations compiled for popular audiences.1 Frequently presented with little or no context, these quotations often embody witty or wise aphorisms intended to connote little more than the words that create them. Although most are familiar with or can quote John F. Kennedy’s famous words “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” few could contextualize the phrase in its original address – and for many there is no reason to do so. In literary analysis, however, a quotation’s understanding and interpretation often depends upon its contextualization both in its original and in its new text. When appropriately integrated, these quotations and allusions, like other literary elements, form an alliance between text and recipient,2 the strength of which is dependent upon recognition, understanding, and acceptance of the quotations. “To be or not to be,” “A rose by any other name”: Clearly recognizable quotations have found their way into our contemporary collective consciousness and have been integrated into texts, from a cell-phone advertisement to an airline seating-selection system.3 Emails are often signed with a favorite quotation to provide insight into their senders’ intelligence, humor, or opinions. These quotations intend to induce a sense of 1 The list continues: Robin. Hyman’s 1965 The Quotation Dictionary; Everett McKinley Dirksen’s 1971 Quotation Finder; The 2005 Chambers Dictionary of Quotations. Reader’s Digest even includes a “Quotable Quotes” section in each month’s edition. 2 Milton and Bacon, as examples, are described as using “their styles, their rhetorical devices, their quotations” to “ win over their audience to willing alliance with them” (Kellett 58). 3 Garber points out advertisers’ witty modifications of Shakespeare, including “to beep or not to beep” and “2B or not 2B” (204). 2 common ground – a social “club” per se,4 but more often only produce an apparent feeling of community as many can identify the aforementioned quotations as Shakespearean, but few would recognize the play from which they originate, and even fewer their speaker or contextualization. Whether actual or apparent, this common ground creates “sympathy between [the author] and the reader” (Kellett 19). Recognition allows the recipient to boast that he or she understands the quotation as a fragment displaced from another text5 and consequently a reader gains pleasure from and is sympathetic to a text that offers such recognizable quotations6 – something pop culture has recognized. From films such as Ernst Lubitsch’s 1943 To Be or Not to Be and Baz Luhrmann’s 2001 montage hit Moulin Rouge! to songs like The Byrds’ 1965 Turn! Turn! Turn!, quotations saturate film and music. Familiar quotations are employed because they are “almost immediately enjoyed by the multitude” (Ibid. 18) and once fashioned, this bond between text and reader encourages continued reading, listening, or viewing. A contextualized quotation must not merely be recognized, though; it must also be understood. In Claude Debussy’s Golliwog’s Cakewalk, the composer plays an offshoot of Richard Wagner, but as Ann McKinley explains, the musical quotation is funny only “provided the listener gets the joke.”7 George Bernard Shaw’s quotation “Lack of money is the root of all evil” from the end of Man and Superman changes only three letters from its source, but the ironic phrase creates a political message out of a biblical (or moral) 4 Garber describes it as “[…] a code of belonging. Literary men recognize one another by the classical tags that ornament their language” (15). 5 A quotation is a “breech” into a new and a “trace” of an existing text (Still 11). 6 As Kellett explains, “much of the pleasure derived by the reader from a quotation or allusion is that of recognition […]” (17). 7 Ann McKinkely. “Debussy and American Minstrelsy.” The Black Perspective in Music 14.3 (Autumn 1986): 249-258. 3 one.8 Both examples’ wit relies on the recipient’s understanding of the source and original contextualization.9 However, recognition of a quotation is not solely the recipient’s responsibility: Authors must create identifiable allusions. In Patrick Süskind’s 1985 novel, Das Parfum, the author’s description, “Und der Große Grenouille sah, daß es gut war, sehr, sehr gut” (162), recognizably alludes to the biblical creation account and associates the protagonist with the Old Testament God through a combination of word choice, word order, and grammar.10 A sentence such as “Grenouille sah seine großen guten Werke” would not be considered a biblical citation, although it is composed of a comparable lexicon (groß, gut, sah). Closer still is the allusion “Und der Große Grenouille sah es war gut,” but even this grammatical structure (i.e., the lack of a subordinating conjunction) fails to mirror the original source as closely as Süskind’s. The incorporation of an appropriate combination of lexicon and grammar aids in the citation’s recognition. And recognition is crucial for an accurate transfer of ideas, emotions, and thoughts,11 rather than mere words. The description of Grenouille does not only express the character’s pride in personal accomplishments, but, when associated with the biblical root, gives the character an omnipotent (godlike) quality, which permeates the remainder of Das Parfum. Authors 8 Especially considering the author’s socialist views, his biblical allusion is a political cry for class equality (in other words, if all had money, there would be no evil). 9 cf.. “Den Sachverhalt, von dem sie spricht, muß sie bekannt und begreiflich machen” (Klotz 98). 10 See 1 Mose 1.4: “Und Gott sah, daß das Licht gut war.” 11 “[…] das Zitat vergegenwärtigt einen andernorts existierenden, sinnhaften Zusammenhang, einen ‘Gedanken’; es führt diesen Gedanken als Autorität, als ‘Zeugen’ ein; und es läßt ihn in seiner bereits vorhandenen sprachlichen Gestalt auftreten. Das Besondere an dieser letzten Implikation, die die erste mitumfaßt, besteht darin, daß die einmal gewählten Worte unverändert übernommen werden; daß die sprachliche Gestalt mit dem Gedanken zusammengedacht und in dieser Verbindung zu bedenken ist. Sofern ich zitiere, habe ich es also – auch das scheint banal – nicht nur mit einem bestimmten Inhalt, sondern auch mit einem bestimmten Ausdruck zu tun” (Niehoff 22). 4 must not only phrase, but also choose and place their allusions properly. While obscure or excessive quotations frustrate, confuse, or are simply overlooked, appropriate quotations help create a “seamless” – or smooth – text (Still 10), which more clearly expresses difficult ideas. An example appears in Schiller’s Maria Stuart. Maria quotes the Bible to justify her use of Melvil, the housemaster, as a source of spiritual comfort before her execution: Hier ist kein Priester, keine Kirche, kein Hochwürdiges – Doch der Erlöser spricht: »Wo zwei versammelt sind in meinem Namen, Da bin ich gegenwärtig unter ihnen.« Was weiht den Priester ein zum Mund des Herrn? Das reine Herz, der unbefleckte Wandel. - So seid Ihr mir, auch ungeweiht, ein Priester, Ein Bote Gottes, der mir Frieden bringt. (3633-3640) Christ’s quotation12 is “seamlessly” incorporated because Maria introduces the quotation (with an observation that there is no priest or church for last confessions) and then expounds upon the quote by questioning the qualifications of a representative of God. The quotation fits the text and the argument, as justification of Maria’s unconventional last confessions. Thus far, I have only employed examples of quotations intended to strengthen the author/reader alliance through enhanced audience enjoyment. Historically more common was the adoption of quotation as “a subterfuge” (Kellett 44), or the perception of a certain text’s authority as means to gain an end. Martin Luther incorporated biblical quotations as an authority and last word: “damit wir nicht mit Worten […] fechten […]” (21). Rather than as a battle field, the use of quotations as an authority employs the text as a 12 See Matthäus 18.20: “Denn wo zwei oder drei versammelt sind in meinem Namen, da bin ich mitten unter ihnen.” 5 negotiation table to further develop the alliance between text and reader. When author and recipient share confidence in a similar source, its citations increase the readers’ faith in the new text. The quotations both shelter the author from lone responsibility for the text’s content and validate their own argument. In order to identify John the Baptist, for example, St. Matthew quotes Isaiah’s description of a future prophet.13 Matthew incorporates the words of an earlier prophet (Isaiah) as authority; the citation, when trusted, authenticates his testament of and the actual identity of John the Baptist. The use of quotation as authority further strengthens the reader/text alliance because both employ dependency: the reader on the text, and the text on the quotation’s source. If, for example, I read Martin Luther as an authority – depending upon and expounding his works – I can relate to the text as it depends upon and expounds biblical teachings. Whether for reader enjoyment or as an authority, authors utilize different types of quotations. These types are categorized according to how strongly quotations resemble their original, i.e., overt to covert. Because they exactly replicate the source (verbatim), direct quotations are most easily identifiable and present a strong, clear textual signal for the reader. These direct quotations are often set apart by quotation marks and even referenced. In order to support his argument in favor of self-reliance, for example, Martin Luther directly quotes the apostle Paul: “Dann Sankt Paul sagt: ‘Wer nicht arbeitet, soll auch nicht essen’” (Luther 80). The direct quotation is especially practical when incorporated as an authority because both an unmistakable reference to the source as verification and a statement of agreement or disagreement with the textual argument 13 Matthäus 3.3 directly quotes Jesaja 40.3: “Und er ist der, von dem der Prophet Jesaja gesagt hat und gesprochen: »Es ist eine Stimme eines Predigers in der Wüste: Bereitet dem Herrn den Weg und machete richtig seine Steige!«” 6 are necessary. The direct quotations, although unchanged, can be innovatively contextualized. At the conclusion of Günter Kunert’s parabolic twist on the story of Job, Hiob gut bügerlich, the author employs a quotation from the account’s biblical source as authentication: “Ist’s nicht also? Wohlan, wer will mich lügen strafen und bewähren, daß meine Rede nichts sei?” (Billen 210).14 Although employed to authenticate the accounts preceding it, both in the original tale and the parable the lines follow significantly different accounts. Modified quotations still clearly direct the reader to their source but change – sometimes only slightly – the quotation’s original meaning. Such quotations are often employed when the new text intends to challenge the source’s argument. As a result, modified quotations are often humorous and may even tantalize the reader as the aforementioned example from Das Parfum demonstrates: Instead of God seeing that His works are good, Grenouille does. The argument ensues that Grenouille is comparable (or at least feels as though he is comparable) with God. In Das Parfum the modified quotation also serves as a decisive moment in the plot: Instead of feeling and working under others, Grenouille uses his uncanny ability to control others. Indeed, his feeling of omnipotence continues until his self-induced murder. Brecht presents another example in his poem Ballade von den Abenteuern. His question “Warum seid ihr nicht im Schoß eurer Mütter geblieben […]?” is a modified quotation of Job’s exclamation “Warum hast du mich aus Mutterleib kommen lassen?”15 In the case of Brecht’s poem, it was 14 Compare with Hiob 24.25: “Ist’s nicht also? Wohlan, wer will mich Lügen strafen und bewähren, daß meine Rede nichts sei?” 15 See Hiob 10.18: “Warum hast du mich aus Mutterleib kommen lassen? Ach, daß ich wäre umgekommen und mich nie ein Auge gesehen hätte!” 7 necessary to modify the quotation merely to fit the subject. Indirect quotations resemble the original slightly less than modified quotations. They are greatly modified, – perhaps truncated and border on allusions – but are also still recognizable as adaptations from other sources. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, indirectly quotes Christ’s “Sermon on the Mount” in his parable Vom Biß der Natter, as Zarathustra, a Christ figure, shares lessons with his “Jüngern” (Billen 70). The lessons differ morally from those of Christ, but are arranged similarly: So ihr aber einen Feind habt, so vergeltet ihm nicht Böses mit Gutem: denn das würde beschämen. Sondern beweist, daß er euch etwas Gutes angetan hat. Und lieber zürnt noch, als daß ihr beschämt! Und wenn euch geflucht wird, so gefällt es mir nicht, daß ihr dann segnen wollt. Lieber ein wenig mitfluchen! (Billen 70)16 This indirect quotation imitates Christ’s style enough to identify the biblical source, but fails to mirror the lexicon and grammar as closely as a modified quotation. Finally, allusions are the most covert of references. As fractions of quotations, pastiches, or montages they only point towards a “hidden” text. In Goethe’s Faust I, the protagonist deems himself “Ich Ebenbild der Gottheit” (line 516, p.17). Not a direct, indirect or modified quotation, the reference only alludes to man’s creation in the likeness of God.17 Daja, the Christian nanny in G. E. Lessing’s Nathan der Weise, also alludes to the Bible to characterize herself. When her hopes for the young Recha’s future are not reciprocated by the Jewish Nathan, she relies on faith with the exclamation: “Des 16 cf.. Matthäus 5 (specifically verses 22, 44). See 1 Mose 1.27: “Und Gott schuf den Menschen ihm zum Bilde, zum Bilde Gottes schuf er ihn; und schuf sie einen Mann und ein Weib.” 17 8 Himmels Wege sind des Himmels Wege,” an allusion to Isaiah.18 Entire texts may be considered allusions as well. Gottfried Keller’s Romeo und Julia auf dem Dorfe alludes to the Shakespearean play. The original text, however, remains “hidden” because the reader must search for similarities as character names, familial situations, and plot differ. Allusions enhance a text through this playful approach to references. When properly implemented and understood, quotations often introduce, support, or embellish the text’s argument. In Goethe’s Faust I, Marthe is devastated after learning of her husband’s death and requests a second witness to Mephistopheles’s testimony. The devil responds with the modified biblical quotation, “Ja, gute Frau, durch zweier Zeugen Mund / Wird allerwegs die Wahrheit kund” (87).19 Mephistopheles’s deception comes two fold. First, the character lacks a second witness, but uses language that allows Marthe to presume another is self-evident. Second, the devil employs the Bible (i.e., his rival’s Holy Book) as a testament of his honesty, which supports the textual argument that Mephistopheles is dishonest – and will readily abuse anything (even Marthe’s trust in the Bible, the Bible itself, death and mourning) to further his cause. Another example is found in Elfriede Jelinek’s 1984 play, Krankheit oder Moderne Frauen. Emily reveals herself as a vampire by displaying her teeth and directly quoting “Ich bin der Anfang und das Ende” (196). Both the biblical God and vampires are regarded as immortal: Emily uses the same phrase to declare her immortality as God does to declare His.20 She then continues with the modified quotation “Von dem ich esse, der wird ewig leben” (Ibid.), 18 cf.. Jesaja 55.8-9: “Denn meine Gedanken sind nicht eure Gedanken, und eure Wege sind nicht meine Wege, spricht der Herr; sondern soviel der Himmel höher ist denn die Erde, so sind auch meine Wege höher denn eure Wege und meine Gedanken denn eure Gedanken.” 19 See 5 Mose 17.6 and 19.15, Matthäus 18.16, and 2 Korinther 13.1. 20 See Offenbarung 1.8, 21.6, and 22.13. 9 which illuminates the difference between God and vampires, for Christ sacrificed himself for the eternal life of others,21 whereas Emily devours others to induce their immortality. The quotations thus present a subtle argument that Christ gave of Himself, while Emily gratifies herself. Some quotations and allusions relate to no particular argument and serve merely to enhance the text. In Jakob Wassermann’s 1923 novella, Das Gold von Caxamalca, Atahuallpa’s preparation for execution is described by the hour – an allusion to Christ’s crucifixion. Besides their similar martyrdom, however, Atahuallpa is not apotheosized as a Christ-figure, nor does the allusion refer to a particular textual argument. The reference does however beautify and clarify the text by subtly reminding the reader of another sympathetic character and unwarranted execution. Jelinek also enhances Krankheit oder Moderne Frauen through quotation. As Heidkliff examines Carmilla after the delivery of her sixth child, the doctor decides to look for “noch etwas Interessantes” and claims “Wer suchet der findet” (217).22 This direct biblical quotation does not support an argument, but adds aesthetically to the text. Finally, quotations may be self-referential. As self-referential, words have meaning, but are also incorporated to describe themselves.23 The adjective “big” describes size, but “big” can also be employed as a noun referring to itself – i.e., “Big is a one-syllable word.” This auto-reflexivity applies to quotation as well. Certain quotations refer to previous passages in the text (through intratextuality) or refer to other literary 21 See Johannes 6.54: “Wer mein Fleisch isset und trinket mein Blut, der hat das ewige Leben, und ich werde ihn am Jüngsten Tage auferwecken.” 22 cf. Matthäus 7.7-8. 23 “Die Sprache erweist in der Zitation ihre reflexive Fähigkeit, die sie von anderen Signalsystemen unterscheidet; das Wort referiert sich selbst” (Niehoff 23). 10 works (through intertextuality). Although all quotations can be deemed a form of intertextuality, self-referential intertextual quotations explain, examine, or describe a quotation from another text. Instead of being integrated into the text, the text builds around them. Martin Luther’s Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen. for example, employs a quotation not to contextualize it, but to examine its lexicon. Doch habe ich wiederum nicht allzu frei die Buchstaben lassen fahren, sondern mit großer Sorgfalt samt meinen Gehilfen darauf gesehen, so daß, wo es etwa drauf ankam, da hab ich’s nach den Buchstaben behalten und bin nicht so frei davon abgewichen; wie Johannes 6 (27), wo Christus spricht: “Diesen hat Gott der Vater versiegelt.” Da wäre wohl besser Deutsch gewesen: Diesen hat Gott der Vater gezeichnet, oder, diesen meinet Gott der Vater. (163-164) The quotation’s contextualization in this case does not play a role, but the quotation itself is studied. Reasons for employing quotation, different types of quotations, and textual uses for quotation all lead to authors’ unique incorporation of quotations. Like Goethe and Schiller, some authors “hide”24 the original by modifying it to fit the rhythm and style of their texts. Other authors, like Jelinek, quote unusual sources such as Der Spiegel or Joseph Goebbels. Georg Büchner did neither. The author chose well-known quotations and made them easily recognizable. Instead of using historical and literary sources as building blocks to create a new primary text, Büchner’s texts are secondary in nature, expanding and explaining their sources.25 The author thus treats the original texts as 24 “Der Rhythmus erst läßt den Quellentext, nach den formalen Verarbeitungen, ganz unsichtbar werden […]” and “Der außer- und innerdramatische Kontext verdeckt die wörtlich angeführte Quelle” (Niehoff 1516). 25 “Büchners Exzerpte werden von den Hörern als wörtliche Übernahmen historischer Reden erkannt. Damit ist die Bedingung des Zitats erfüllt: seinen Bezug aufs Zitierte sichtbar zu machen. Das Zitat weist aus dem dramatischen Immanenzzusammenhang hinaus auf vorgegebene Texte. Das Drama ist nicht ‘primär’ und ‘ursprünglich’, sondern sekundär und verweisend” (Niehoff 4). 11 authorities,26 but still encourages a reevaluation of their contemporary connotation through careful contextualization. An example of this is found in Woyzeck. Marie’s reference to two scriptural passages simultaneously presents an easily identifiable reference, while questioning the Bible’s supposition that repentance is quick, easy, and possible. blättert in der Bibel: Und es ist kein Betrug in seinem Munde gefunden[…] Herrgott. Herrgott! Sieh mich nicht an. Blättert weiter:[…] aber die Pharisäer brachten ein Weib zu ihm, im Ehebruche begriffen und stelleten sie in’s Mittel dar. – Jesus aber sprach: so verdamme ich dich auch nicht. Geh hin und sündige hinfort nicht mehr. Schlägt die Hände zusammen. Herrgott! Herrgott! Ich kann nicht. Herrgott gib mir nur soviel, daß ich beten kann. (I, 166, 26-33) MARIE The character’s inability to repent complicates the otherwise simple biblical command “sündige hinfort nicht mehr.” With Marie’s exclamation “Ich kann nicht,” the reference argues that biblical commandments may be, in reality, impossible to obey – much like the modern idiom that it is “easier said than done.” It is also brought to the reader’s attention that we never do discover what becomes of the biblical adulteress: Maybe she cannot forsake her sin either. Marie thus serves as the continuation and modernization of the biblical story. Of course, Büchner carefully creates exactly that argument. In order to do so, as Kellett explains, the quotation must “stop at the right point” (24). Had Büchner ended with Christ’s words “so verdamme ich dich auch nicht,” another argument (i.e., a personal justification of Marie’s infidelity) would ensue. As the previous example demonstrates, Büchner’s quotations are often recognizable, but their contextualizations are often not predictable. In fact, Büchner’s 26 Niehoff explains that the sources are “übermächtig”; Büchner himself “sich unterlegen” (Ibid., 20). 12 unconventional contextualization of the quotations contributes to their identifiability. In Der Hessiche Landbote an allusion to the Creation shocks readers, as it questions the Bible’s credibility (II, 53), and in Lenz an allusion to Christ’s healing power questions the protagonist’s sanity (I, 241-242). The texts encourage questions such as: How does the Creation account (or the Bible) affect our society? How should it? What had God intended? Biblically it appears understood that Christ can raise people from the dead; in Lenz it is not surprising that the character’s efforts fail. Why is one considered insane, the other divine? Büchner’s biblical references are memorable because they are employed in unorthodox ways.27 Many authors attempt to “catch” their readers and draw them in to continue reading or agree with the arguments made. Klotz even describes this method using the term “angeln.”28 When fishing, one uses bait appealing to particular fish in order to lure them, hook them, and eventually consume them. Instead of trapping the reader, however, with the first lines of Der Hessische Landbote, among other allusions, Büchner “frees” (“öffnet”) readers – as if leading a fish to open waters – and encourages them to explore both the original source and the author’s argument. Niehoff contends Büchner did not actually want to portray history as it “[sich] wirklich begeben”, but rather that the “Intention des Autors sei es vielmehr, die Zitate in ein eigendefiniertes Kunstwerk umzuarbeiten” (9). However, I contend that Büchner (mis)used quotations in his text to encourage his reader’s review of the original source in order to accurately portray history. 27 “Wahrnehmbar werden die zitierten Worte bei Büchner aber nicht, weil sie nur auf sich selbst referieren; spürbar werden sie, weil sie als mißbrauchte und verletzte kritisch vergegenwärtigt werden” (Niehoff 24). 28 “Mehrere Kunstgriffe bezeugen das taktische Geschick, nach den Lesern zu angeln. ‘Es sieht so aus, als würde die Bibel Lügen gestrafft’: das kommt als keine Behauptung daher, es öffnet vielmehr einen Deutungs- und Überprüfungsspielraum” (Klotz 95). 13 An accurate depiction of history includes questioning the proper portrayal of history’s complexity. Therefore, just as Marie’s character gives the reader greater insight into the possible emotions and complications surrounding the biblical adulteress’s story, Büchner’s other quotations question our understanding of biblical and historical accounts. One way Büchner accomplishes this is by placing quotations in a new context surrounded by seemingly unrelated information. It was, for example, common to incorporate biblical quotations into political pamphlets. The pairing of biblical quotations and contemporary financial statistics, like that found in Der Hessische Landbote, was, however, novel (Niehoff 24). Büchner’s quotations are aesthetically positioned and modernized to invoke contemplation of contemporary issues.29 In reference to Büchner’s use of quotation, Niehoff claims that “Kaum ein Problem der Büchnerischen Dramatik wird so häufig dokumentiert und so selten zur Frage ausgearbeitet” (10). This holds especially true in the case of biblical quotations. Although there have been several commentaries explaining quotations’ origins30 or demonstrating select biblical quotations’ contextualization,31 there lacks a comprehensive investigation of Büchner’s contextualization of biblical quotations. This is likely due to the initial uncertainty scholars faced as to what extent Büchner employed biblical quotations and allusions. Because the young author worked with the evangelical theologian Friedrich Ludwig Weidig on Der Hessische Landbote, and because his 29 “Reiz des Zitats in einer eigenartigen Spannung zwischen Assimilation und Dissimilation” in which a quotation “verbindet sich eng mit seiner neuen Umgebung, aber zugleich hebt es sich von ihr ab” (Meyer 12). 30 See Poschmann’s Stellenkommentar. 31 See Bark, Joachim.“Bibelsprache in Büchners Dramen: Stellenkommentar und interpretatorische Hinweise.” Sonderausdruck aus Zweites Internationales Georg Büchner Symposium 1987 Referate. Ed. Burghard Dedner und Günter Oesterle. Frankfurt/M: Hain, 1990. 14 religious affiliations are still unknown, scholars debated for some time whether Büchner contributed at all to those allusions found in the pamphlet (Schaub 190-1). Contemporary research, however, argues Büchner employed biblical quotations “bis in die letzte Ausarbeitung von Woyzeck,” and that the author had “permanente Bereitschaft, sie für eigene Aussageabsicht strategisch einzusetzen” (II: 838).32 My research will provide greater insight into Büchner’s employment of the Bible throughout his oeuvre. Well into the nineteenth century, as Klotz explains, the Bible served as an authority of unimaginable magnitude.33 In addition, the Bible, like Der Hessische Landbote, “spricht überwiegend von und zu arbeitender Landbevölkerung” (Klotz 102). The incorporation of such a familiar text, which used language as it was understood by the working classes, allowed for complex, but comprehensible imagery, which could “mit wenigen Strichen […] den jeweiligen Kontext aufsprengen und im Gedächtnis der angesprochenen Bauern haften bleiben.” (Knapp 80) These biblical references, like parables, are often multifaceted images, which allow for multiple concurrent interpretations. Büchner’s reference to Ezekiel 37 in Der Hessische Landbote, for example, describes the reconstitution of a body (II, 65). The reference can be interpreted either as a call for the people to unite against the government or for the political unification of Germany. Individual biblical terms also face differing interpretations depending on context. A serpent, for example, in different contexts, represents both the 32 Adam Koch, a member of the Darmstadt Gesellschaft der Menschenrechte, claimed Büchner deemed religion the motivating factor that woud lead to revolution (Wagner 213-4). 33 “Für Büchners fromme Bauern erwächst der Bibel Autorität aus mehreren Momenten. 1. In der Bibel verlautbart sich Gott als höchste und letzte Instanz in allen Dingen. 2. Die Obrigkeit, die in Gottes Namen und in seiner Gnade zu walten erklärt, verweist auf die Bibel, wenn sie unbedingten Gehorsam und pünktliches Verrichten auf allen verfügten Gebieten einfordert. 3. Im besonderen Sinn von Ausschließlichkeit gereicht die Bibel den Bauern zum Buch der Bücher, weil ihnen andere Bücher unzugänglich sind. Solches Monopol der ‘Schrift’ […] verleiht ihr zusätzliche Autorität” (Klotz 102). 15 fall of man34 and man’s salvation.35 Büchner depended upon both the familiarity and complexity of biblical accounts. Although there were several reasons for Büchner to incorporate biblical quotations, the references served two central purposes, namely to encourage political change and to re-examine established religious traditions.36 I consider these purposes interconnected. Büchner incorporates almost blasphemously reconstructed biblical allusions37 in order to encourage political and social change.38 And these allusions encourage unorthodox interpretations of the Bible and an evaluation of contemporary political, social, and religious practices.39 In so doing, each of Büchner’s works (Der Hessische Landbote, Dantons Tod, Leonce und Lena, Lenz, Woyzeck) follow the same pattern. First, biblical allusions demonstrate the people’s separation.40 Whether the poor are represented by animals and the rich by people as in Der Hessische Landbote, or whether the poor obey and the rich command as in Woyzeck, people in Büchner’s works are clearly divided at the beginning of each text. Second, each work includes a Christ- or an Anti-Christ figure, be it Lena comparing her suffering to Christ’s (I, 109-110) or Lenz 34 See 1 Mose 3.1-15. See 4 Mose 21.9: “Da machte Mose eine eherne Schlange und richtete sie auf zum Zeichen; und wenn jemanden eine Schlange biß, so sah er die eherne Schlange an und blieb leben.” 36 “[…] er nutzte sie für außerbiblische Zwecke politischer, ästhetischer und psychologischer Art, und er nutzte sie, mit gegenkirchlichem, aber eigenständig religiösem Impetus, um sie neu und authentisch deutbar zu machen” (Bark 478). 37 “Angriff auf die biblisch gegründeten Normen und Morale durch eine parodistische oder blasphemische Verkehrung des Sinns” (Ibid. 504). 38 A report from the Darmstädter Sektion der »Gesellschaft der Menschenrechte« states that “die aus ihr hervorgegangenen Flugschriften müßten ihre Überzeugungsgründe aus der Religion des Volks hernehmen, in den einfachen Bildern und Wendungen des neuen Testaments müsse man die heiligen Rechte der Menschen erklären” (Schaub 125). 39 “Büchner löst das Material aus seiner religiösen – im anderen Falle ästhetischen – Einbindung heraus, um es in politisches Bewußtsein zu transferieren” (II, 843). 40 Most separation is economical as Knapp explains: “Praktisch alle Sprachbilder Büchners gelten dem Kontrast der Armen und der Reichen […]” (80). 35 16 attempting to heal as Christ (I, 241-242). The incorporation of those Christ figures in each of Büchner’s revolutionary texts employs Christ’s role as a revolutionary. Finally, each work expresses change (be it political, social, or economical) as necessary. Der Hessische Landbote demands governmental change, whereas Woyzeck encourages a change in our comprehension of the rationale behind criminal actions. I contend that the utilization of biblical quotations in Der Hessische Landbote instigates this pattern, which is then followed in Büchner’s subsequent works. In this study I will chronologically identify biblical quotations and their origins, classify them according to their function (support or introduce an argument, aesthetically enhance the text, or as self referential) and type (direct, modified, indirect, allusion), and examine their contextualization. I expect to find most quotations supporting the aforementioned pattern, each adapted according to genre. Because each of Büchner’s texts is unconventionally unique (i.e., a political pamphlet, a drama of revolution, a narrative, a comedy, a social drama) and several are fragments, I also expect those biblical allusions to be uniquely contextualized. CHAPTER 1 DER HESSISCHE LANDBOTE: AM ANFANG: A TEMPLATE FOR BÜCHNER'S BIBLICAL QUOTATION EMPLOYMENT In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries throughout the Western world change was abundant and rebellion widespread. America was unprepared to submit to the tightening demands of distant England, the French could not bear the economic oppression of the monarchy, literacy was on the rise, and with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, dependence on land, although still incredibly important, was decreasing, while production and transportation speed was increasing. Combine these factors with the Enlightenment ideal of individual thought, and the development of the political pamphlets was expected. Because these concise texts’ objectives are often clear and their audience (either those exploiting or the exploited) and voice (the often anonymous authors) easily recognizable, the genre initially seems uncomplicated. The pamphlets, however, perform a complex tight-rope act as they attempt to balance criticism (what was wrong with the prevailing conditions) and encouragement (what could be changed) in arguments their audience could both understand and believe. How did the authors achieve this balance? Not surprisingly, the inclusion and exclusion of certain types of language played an important role in both the pamphlet’s comprehensibility and believability. Arguments were made understandable by avoiding 18 academic jargon unfamiliar to the anticipated audience and believable by utilizing familiar language. A prime example is Thomas Paine’s 1776 Common Sense, which refrains from both philosophical references and the use of Latin but readily employs the Bible. Paine was certainly not alone. Biblical quotations and allusions were employed in numerous political pamphlets.41 The authors were surely aware of two things, first, that the Bible was most likely the only text commonly known by the majority of potential readers,42 and second, that religious zeal was possibly the only force more powerful than the government. Although still only loosely united as thirty-nine city-states, thirty-five of which were controlled by princes, the German Confederation was no exception and political pamphlets in the states encouraged both a free and fully united nation.43 Among these pamphlets is Georg Büchner’s first work, an unintentional collaboration with Friedrich Ludwig Weidig44 entitled Der Hessische Landbote (hereafter HL). From an altered creation account extracted from Genesis to allusions to the devil found in the Book of Revelation, Büchner and Weidig, like so many of their contemporaries, utilized biblical quotations. Even part of HL’s title could be considered a biblical allusion.45 Drawn from 41 An example and probable source for Der Hessische Landbote is Wilhelm Schulz’s Frag- und Antwortbüchlein über Allerlei, was im deutschen Vaterlande besonders Noth thut. Für den deutschen Bürgers- und Bauersmann (Schaub 77). 42 “Für sie [die hessische Landbevölkerung] ist die Bibel und die sonntägliche Predigt das einzige vertraute literarische Begriffssystem” (Knapp 73). 43 Ludwig Börne’s Briefe aus Paris is another example. 44 For more information on the genesis of HL see Schaub 181. 45 The title “Der Hessische Landbote: Erste Botschaft” entails a modified quotation of the familiar biblical phrase “gute Botschaft.” Even more common is the biblical utilization of “Botschaft,” which implies an important message for a particular people from a specific and distant authority. Of course, due to the inevitable consequences of acknowledging authorship of such a controversial political pamphlet, HL’s authors (i.e., the authority) remains anonymous to the reader, but this first biblical quotation opens the text with an authoritative tone and implies the pamphlet entails a consequential message. The adjective “erste”, in place of “gute,” also suggests additional messages will follow, i.e. these pages are merely the first in a series. All three aspects of this quotation (i.e., its authoritative tone, the indication that an important 19 both the Old and New Testaments, the quotations ultimately serve the pamphlet’s primary objective, i.e., to promote political change by means of a violent revolution. The majority of these quotations and allusions do so by creating a pattern; they first illustrate unjust class separation, then create an Anti-Christ figure of the ruling classes, and ultimately advocate for and justify the revolution as a holy war – even comparable to the Armageddon. This chronological examination will focus on the demonstration of the aforementioned pattern – such factors will be considered as the quotations’ contextualizations and origins as well as their function (to support or introduce an argument, aesthetically enhance the text, or as self-referential) and type (direct, modified, indirect, allusion). Because of the specific direction of this study, several topics which became more apparent throughout this investigation will remain unexamined. The quotations, for example, are generally arranged in the same sequential order as they are in the Bible, beginning in the first book of Moses and ending in the book of Revelations. How does this order contribute to the text? How do Old or New Testament quotations function differently in the text? In another study the biblical contextualizations of quotations could also be further investigated. Quotations relating to the Hessian rural population, for example, could be more closely compared to their sources to determine how HL associates its working poor with the Isralites, i.e., God’s chosen people. Although the text is a collaboration of Büchner and Weidig,46 I will not speculate message is included, and the claim that more information will follow) entice the pamphlet’s audience to continue reading. 46 For more information about Weidig and Büchner’s specific roles in writing HL see Knapp 67-77 (Entstehung und Voraussetzungen) or Schaub 194-200 (Zu den Anteilen Büchners und Weidigs am Text der Juli-Fassung). 20 on the quotations’ authorship, but will follow Knapp and read HL as “einen Text und eine Wirkungseinheit.” (Knapp 72) The ramifications of authorship did, however, play a role in the decision to analyze the July edition of the pamphlet as opposed to the November edition. The earlier pamphlet, although also revised, reworked, and changed by Weidig, is closer to Büchner’s original and thus more appropriate for an investigation of this author’s oeuvre.47 Sections of this earlier version are included with biblical quotations and allusions as marked. direct quotation modified quotation indirect quotation allusion Der Hessische Landbote. Erste Botschaft.48 Friede den Hütten! Krieg den Palästen! Im Jahr 1834 siehet es aus, als würde die Bibel Lügen gestraft.49 Es sieht aus, als hätte Gott die Bauern und Handwerker am 5ten Tage, und die Fürsten und Vornehmen am 6ten gemacht, und als hätte der Herr zu diesen gesagt:50 Herrschet über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht,51 und hätte die Bauern und Bürger zum Gewürm gezählt. Das Leben der Vornehmen ist ein langer 47 The July edition is considered a “Verändernde, nicht autorisierte Bearbeitung durch Friedrich Ludwig Weidig”, while the November edition is “Ein zweiter, abermals redigierter und nicht von Büchner autorisierter Druck” (Knapp 67). The alterations made between the first and second editions created differences “die Büchner nie hätte überbrücken können” (Ibid., 78). 48 Can be referenced to “gute Botshaft” (see 2 Sam 18.27, 1 Könige 1.42, and 2 Könige 7.9) or, more specifically, “frohe Botschaft.” The two words do not arise together in the Luther Bible, but the latter phrase has come to connote the gospel found in the New Testament (Schaub 45). 49 “Wie in anderen Flugschriften wird hier der schlechte Status quo durch Verweis auf die biblische Schöpfungsgeschichte naturrechtlich kritisiert” (Schaub 48). 50 According to the biblical creation account, many animals were created on the sixth day but still before man. See 1 Mose 1.24-31: “Und Gott sprach: Die Erde bringe hervor lebendige Tiere, ein jegliches nach seiner Art: Vieh, Gewürm und Tiere auf Erden, ein jegliches nach seiner Art. Und es geschah also. […] 26. Und Gott sprach: Lasset uns Menschen machen, ein Bild, das uns gleich sei [...]. 31. [...] Da ward aus Abend und Morgen der sechste Tag.” 51 See 1 Mose 1.28: “[...] herrschet über die Fische im Meer und über die Vögel unter dem Himmel und über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht.” 21 Sonntag, 52 sie wohnen in schönen Häusern, sie tragen zierliche Kleider, sie haben feiste Gesichter53 und reden eine eigne Sprache;54 das Volk aber liegt vor ihnen wie Dünger auf dem Acker. Der Bauer geht hinter dem Pflug, der Vornehme aber geht hinter ihm und dem Pflug und treibt ihn mit den Ochsen am Pflug, er nimmt das Korn55 und läßt ihm die Stoppeln. Das Leben des Bauern ist ein langer Werktag; Fremde verzehren seine Äcker vor seinen Augen,56 sein Leib ist eine Schwiele, sein Schweiß ist das Salz auf dem Tische des Vornehmen . (II, 5354, 20-6)57 In order to encourage something as precarious and monumental as a violent revolution, a political pamphlet has to demonstrate its necessity. HL’s sarcastic opening phrase “Im Jahr 1834 siehet es aus, als würde die Bibel Lügen gestraft” intends not to question the Bible, but rather to invite a reevaluation of contemporary conditions and an investigation of whether God approves of those conditions. Immediately thereafter and with the aid of the biblical creation account, HL illustrates unambiguous discrepancies between the two major socioeconomic classes, i.e., the ruling class and the agrarian working poor. Of course, class division must have come as no surprise to the contemporary reader. What the pamphlet builds upon, however, is its suggestion that these discrepanies are neither divinely ordained nor instituted. Instead of mankind being created on the same day, as in the biblical account, HL’s indirect 52 See 2 Mose 31.15: “Sechs Tage soll man arbeiten; aber am siebenten Tag ist Sabbat, die heilige Ruhe des Herrn. Wer eine Arbeit tut am Sabbattag, soll des Todes sterben.” 53 See Hiob 15.27: “Er brüstet sich wie ein fetter Wanst und macht sich feist und dick.” 54 Possibly an allusion to several biblical references to the unity of language or the intimidation involved in unknown language. cf. 1 Mose 11.1: “Es hatte aber alle Welt einerlei Zunge und Sprache” and Jeremia 5.15: “Siehe, ich will über euch vom Hause Israel, spricht der Herr ein Volk von ferne bringen […], dessen Sprache du nicht verstehst […]” 55 See Amos 5.11: “Darum, weil ihr die Armen unterdrückt und nehmt das Korn mit großen Lasten von ihnen […]” As Schaub further explains “das Verb >nehmen< bedeutet hier noch im älteren, unabgeblaßten Sinn: gewaltsam nehmen, rauben, beanspruchen” (49). 56 See Jesaja 1.7: “[...] Fremde verzehren eure Äcker vor euren Augen [...]” 57 See 1 Mose 3.19: “Im Schweiße deines Angesichts sollst du dein Brot essen [...]” 22 quotation (“Es sieht aus, als hätte Gott […]”) claims the poor seem to have been created on the fifth day, i.e., a day earlier. The slight change categorizes them with or even as animals. Thus the commandment which follows (“Herrschet über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht.”) remains true to its source, with only slight modifications to preserve space, but alludes to the rural population’s animal-like servitude. These quotations, already in HL’s first paragraph, introduce a daring and, at a time when aristocratic rulers claimed divine appointment, dangerous argument, i.e., that biblically all men were created equal. Instead of sustaining this argument with reasons for or in support of human equality, however, HL continues to vividly demonstrate the inequality of the Hessian class division. Already separated into a ruling body and animal-like subjects, the next division portrayed in HL is that of their respective relationships to work. The ruling classes’ lives are deemed “ein langer Sonntag” while the poor’s “ein langer Werktag,” the people’s sweat is “das Salz auf dem Tische des Vornehmen,” while the ruling classes have “feiste Gesichter.” Although the use of any lexicon found in the Bible cannot be classified a biblical allusion, each of the aforementioned descriptions seem to have biblical roots. The latter is a subtle allusion to the commandment given to Adam as he left the Garden of Eden: namely that “Im Schweiße deines Angesichts sollst du dein Brot essen” while in the book of Job the godless are described as “feist und dick.” References to “Sonntag” and “Werktag” allude to the later commandment that on the Sabbath “da sollst du kein Werk tun […]” (2 Mose 20: 10). Indeed, because one class always works and the other never does, both fail to observe the biblical commandments regulating 23 labor. The ruling classes do not sweat for their own bread (“der Vornehme [...] nimmt das Korn” and “Fremde verzehren seine [des Bauern] Aecker”), while the poor are not allowed to observe the Sabbath. Therewith HL not only divides the classes, but accuses (and will repeatedly sustain the accusation) that both are at least partially accountable for the prevailing inequitable conditions. Still a closer look reveals that each of these HL allusions which refers to the ruling classes has a biblical source with reference to either enemies of the biblical God (godless, heathens, etc.) or to a disobedient Israel. Thus the allusions’ intertextuality becomes more apparent as the ruling classes are subtly categorized with the wicked. Although most examples of class division in HL relate to labor (who works, who rules, who enjoys the benefits of work, who does not), interwoven into the argument is a subtle reference to the classes’ differing language (“[die Vornehmen] reden eine eigne Sprache”), which reappears later in the text: “Dafür habt ihr einen Wust von Gesetzen, […], meist geschrieben in einer fremden Sprache.” (I, 55, 16-19).58 In HL these can barely be categorized as insignificant biblical allusions,59 but should be mentioned as language will play a greater role in the demonstration of class division in Büchner’s subsequent works. Im Großherzogtum Hessen sind 718,373 Einwohner, die geben an den Staat jährlich an 6,363,364 Gulden, als 1) Direkte Steuern 2,128,131 fl. 2) Indirekte Steuern 2,478,264 fl. 3) Domänen 1,547,394 fl. 4) Regalien 46,938 fl. 58 Büchner himself found philosophical language, common to the upper classes, “artifical” and “odious” (Reddick 30). 59 God confused the language of the people of Babel to divide them and employed a foreign people and language as a warning to Israel (1 Mose 11 and Jeremia 5.15, respectively). 24 5) Geldstrafen 6) Verschiedene Quellen 98,511 fl. 64,198 fl. _____________ 6,363,363 fl. Dies Geld ist der Blutzehnte,60 der von dem Leib des Volkes genommen wird. An 700,000 Menschen schwitzen, stöhnen und hungern dafür. Im Namen des Staates61 wird es erpreßt, die Presser berufen sich auf die Regierung und die Regierung sagt, das sei nötig die Ordnung im Staat zu erhalten. Was ist denn nun das für gewaltiges Ding: der Staat? [...] (II, 54, 7-21) Arguments in this section are presented as truths in the present tense (i.e., “Im Großherzogtum Hessen sind […]”, “Dies Geld ist […]”) in place of the sarcastic skepticism of the first paragraph (associated with the subjunctive verb tense “würde” and the phrase “Im Jahr 1834 siehet es aus, als […]”). With the socioeconomic division established, HL employs this tone and presents exact tax sums to initiate its demonstration of this prevailing class separation as exploitation, a terrible injustice, rather than the ruling classes’ God-given privilege. In a visualization of that exploitation the ruling classes are introduced as an AntiChrist figure in the subsequent biblical allusion “Blutzehnte, der von dem Leib des Volkes genommen wird.” “Blut”, a biblical symbol for life,62 implies that the tithe paid 60 cf.. 3 Mose 27.30 and 32: “Alle Zehnten im Lande von Samen des Landes und von Früchten der Bäume sind des Herrn und sollen dem Herrn heilig sein. [...] 32. Und alle Zehnten von Rindern und Schafen, von allem, was unter dem Hirtenstabe geht, das ist ein heiliger Zehnt dem Herrn.” 61 See Apostelgeschichte 2.38: “[...] lasse sich ein jeglicher taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi [...],” 4.10: “in dem Namen Jesu Christi von Nazareth [...] steht dieser allhier vor euch gesund,” 15.26: “welche Menschen ihre Seele dargegeben haben für den Namen unsers Herrn Jesu Christi,” 16.18: “[...] Paulus [...] sprach [...] ich gebiete dir in dem Namen Jesu Christi, daß du von ihr ausfahrest. Und er fuhr aus zu derselben Stunde,” Epheser 5.20: “und saget Dank allezeit für alles Gott und dem Vater in dem Namen unsers Herrn Jesu Christi,” 2. Thessalonicher 3.6: “Wir gebieten euch aber, liebe Brüder, in dem Namen unsers Herrn Jesu Christi [...]” 62 See 1 Mose 9.4: “Allein esset das Fleisch nicht, das noch lebt in seinem Blut,” 3 Mose 17.11: “Denn des Leibes Leben ist im Blut, und ich habe es euch auf den Altar gegeben, daß eure Seelen damit versöhnt werden. Denn das Blut ist die Versöhnung, weil das Leben in ihm ist,” 5 Mose 12.23: “Allein merke, daß du das Blut nicht essest, denn das Blut ist die Seele; darum sollst du die Seele nicht mit dem Fleisch essen,” 25 by the rural population is not merely financial; whether by means of physical exploitation, lack of sustenance, or political oppression, their very lives are sacrificed. And, more importantly, they are sacrificed only for the ruling classes’ excessive financial gain (“Dies Geld ist der Blutzehnte”). The second part of the compound word, i.e., “tithe,” solidifies the word’s biblical origin. The term implies a voluntary, often monetary, religious offering and has its etymology in Genesis when Abram willingly donates one tenth to Melchisedek,63 a priest, and concurrently refuses to accept the spoils of a battle. When the biblical reference is juxtaposed with the HL term “Blutzehnte,” which is “von dem Leib des Volkes genommen,” the two terms have seemingly opposite connotations. Indeed, with the biblical term HL continues its creation of a dichotomy of good and evil. Just as HL’s compound word, “Blutzehnte,” connotes the opposite of the word’s biblical counterpart, the recipients of that “Blutzehnte” are coupled with the opposites of Christ or God, i.e., a devil or an Anti-Christ. A similar contrast is found in the subsequent modified quotation: “Im Namen des Staates wird es erpreßt,” the pamphlet’s first New Testament quotation. In the book of Acts, stories describe biblical disciples employing the “Name of Christ” as a source of power. Peter heals a crippled man in Christ’s name.64 Paul uses the name of Christ to Sprüche 28.17: “Ein Mensch, der am Blut einer Seele schuldig ist, der wird flüchtig sein bis zur Grube, und niemand halte ihn auf,” Apostelgeschichte 22.20: “und da das Blut Stephanus, deines Zeugen, vergossen ward, stand ich auch dabei und hatte wohlgefallen an seinem Tode und verwahrte denen die Kleider, die ihn töteten.” 63 See 1 Mose 14.20: “[…] Und demselben gab Abram den Zehnten von allem.” 64 See Apostelgeschichte 3.6-8: “Petrus aber sprach: Silber und Gold habe ich nicht; was ich aber habe, das gebe ich dir: im Namen Jesu Christi von Nazareth stehe auf und wandle! 7. Und griff ihn bei der rechten Hand und richtete ihn auf. Alsobald standen seine Schenkel und Knöchel fest; 8. sprang auf, konnte gehen und stehen und ging mit ihnen in den Tempel, wandelte und sprang und lobte Gott.” 26 cast out an evil spirit.65 In each example, Christ’s name is used to benefit the physically and mentally ill.66 In contrast, the ruling classes employ the name of the “Staat” to oppress the poor and overworked. In place of the divine power of the name of Christ, however, HL contends there is no actual power or authority inherent in the government by wittingly exposing the incomprehensible hierarchical line of its supposed authority: “Im Namen des Staates wird es erpreßt, die Presser berufen sich auf die Regierung und die Regierung sagt, das sei nötig die Ordnung im Staat zu erhalten.” This audacious accusation suggests that the government’s only power lies in deception. Deceived by this fictitious authority, the rural population fails to recognize its own exploitation and therefore does nothing to change it. The ruling classes are similarly deceived into believing they have power. Thus the rhetorical question: “Was ist denn nun das für ein gewaltiges Ding: der Staat?” (II, 54, 20) encourages the recognition of the entire system, i.e., the Hessian government, its affiliates, and their responsibilities, as based on deception. Wer sind denn die, welche diese Ordnung gemacht haben, und die wachen, diese Ordnung zu erhalten? Das ist die Großherzogliche Regierung. Die Regierung wird gebildet von dem Großherzog und seinen obersten Beamten. Die andern Beamten sind Männer, die von der Regierung berufen werden, um jene Ordnung in Kraft zu erhalten. Ihre Anzahl ist Legion:67 Staatsräte und Regierungsräte, Landräte und Kreisräte, Geistliche Räte und Schulräte, Finanzräte und Forsträte u.s.w. mit allem ihrem Heer von 65 See Apostelgeschichte 16.18: “Solches tat sie manchen Tag. Paulus aber tat das wehe, und er wandte sich um und sprach zu dem Geiste: Ich gebiete dir in dem Namen Jesu Christi, daß du von ihr ausfahrest. Und er fuhr aus zu derselben Stunde.” 66 Belief in his name even provides life. See Johannes 20.31: “Diese aber sind geschrieben, daß ihr glaubet, Jesus sei Christus, der Sohn Gottes, und daß ihr durch den Glauben das Leben habet in seinem Namen.” 67 See Markus 5:9: “Und er [Jesus] fragte ihn [den Teufel]: Wie heißest du? Und er anwortete und sprach: Legion heiße ich; denn wir sind unser viele.” This reference interestingly associates the Vornehmen with the devil, but also describes them as numerous. 27 Sekretären u.s.w. Das Volk ist ihre Herde, sie sind seine Hirten, Melker und Schinder; 68 sie haben die Häute der Bauern an,69 der Raub der Armen ist in ihrem Hause;70 die Tränen der Witwen und Waisen71 sind das Schmalz auf ihren Gesichtern; sie herrschen frei und ermahnen das Volk zur Knechtschaft. Ihnen gebt ihr 6,000,000 fl. Abgaben; sie haben dafür die Mühe, euch zu regieren; d.h. sich von euch füttern zu lassen und euch eure Menschen- und Bürgerrechte zu rauben. Sehet, was die Ernte eures Schweißes ist. (II, 54-55, 33-14) 72 The aforementioned dichotomy (good and evil) is more clearly defined in this section as it answers another rhetorical question: who creates and sustains the prevailing conditions (“diese Ordnung”)? Before specifically naming several government titles, HL suggests with an indirect biblical quotation that there are numerous conspirators (“Ihre Anzahl ist Legion”). The intertextual connection is too fitting: Not only does this allusion associate the ruling classes with devils, but just as the biblical legion of devils caused abnormal and self-destructive behavior in the person they occupied,73 the allusion indirectly maintains that the government employees destroy their respective communities. Although the succession of nouns “Hirten, Melker und Schinder” will be more thoroughly examined later in the chapter, the reference to “Hirten” should be touched upon here as well. While Christ refers to himself as “der gute Hirte”, who “läßt sein Leben für die Schafe,” (Johannes 10.12)74 the ruling classes, also described as “Hirten,” 68 See Johannes 10.12: “Ich bin der gute Hirte. Der gute Hirte läßt sein Leben für die Schafe,” Jeremia 23.1: “Weh euch Hirten, die ihr die Herde meiner Weide umbringet und zerstreuet,” and Hesekiel 34.2: “[…] Weh den Hirten Israels, die sich selbst weiden! Sollen nicht die Hirten die Herde weiden?” (Schaub 50). 69 See Micha 3.2: “[...] ihr schindet ihnen die Haut ab und das Fleisch von den Gebeinen.” 70 See Jesaja 3.14: “[...] und der Raub von den Armen ist in eurem Hause.” 71 See Jakobus 1.27: “Ein reiner und unbefleckter Gottesdienst vor Gott dem Vater ist der: die Waisen und Witwen in ihrer Trübsal besuchen [...]” 72 See footnote 17. 73 See Markus 5.3-5. 74 See also Psalm 23.1, Jesaja 40.11, Jeremia 31.10, 1 Petrus 2.25, and Hebräer 13.20. 28 do the exact opposite: i.e., they exploit for self-indulgence. Biblically speaking, shepherds were to feed75 and protect76 their flocks, the negligence of which was severely punishable.77 Thus HL also warns that the oppressors will be held responsible for their failure to respect and uphold the leadership positions they are granted. Both the brief allusion to widows and orphans (“die Tränen der Wittwen und Waisen”) and the modified quotation “der Raub der Armen ist in ihrem Hause” emphasize that even the weakest are victims of this exploitation. The seemingly unrelated biblical references all point to the same conclusion: The people’s exploitation is appalling because (like a shepherd destroying his herd) it is carried out by civil servants supposedly in office for the people’s benefit. Für das Ministerium des Innern und der Gerechtigkeitspflege werden bezahlt 1,110,607 Gulden. Dafür habt ihr einen Wust von Gesetzen, zusammengehäuft aus willkührlichen Verordnungen aller Jahrhunderte, meist geschrieben in einer fremden Sprache.78 Der Unsinn aller vorigen Geschlechter hat sich darin auf Euch vererbt,79 der Druck, unter dem sie erlagen, sich auf euch fortgewälzt. […] Ihr dürft euern Nachbarn verklagen, der euch eine Kartoffel stiehlt; aber klagt einmal über den Diebstahl, der von Staatswegen unter dem Namen von Abgabe und Steuern 75 See Hesekiel 34.2: “Weh den Hirten Israels, die sich selbst weiden! Sollen nicht die Hirten die Herde weiden?” 76 See Hesekiel 34.5: “Und meine Schafe sind zerstreut, als die keinen Hirten haben, und allen wilden Tieren zur Speise geworden und gar zerstreut.” 77 See Sacharja 11.17: “O unnütze Hirten, die die Herde verlassen! Das Schwert komme auf ihren Arm und auf ihr rechtes Auge! Ihr Arm müsse verdorren und ihr rechtes Auge dunkel werden!” 78 See footnote 14. 79 See 5 Mose 29.21, 23-25: “So werden dann sagen die Nachkommen eurer Kinder, die nach euch aufkommen werden, […] wenn sie die Plagen dieses Landes sehen und die Krankheiten, womit sie der Herr beladen hat. […] 23. so werden alle Völker sagen: Warum hat der Herr diesem Lande also getan? Was ist das für ein so großer, grimmiger Zorn? 24. So wird man sagen: Darum, daß sie den Bund des Herrn, des Gottes ihrer Väter, verlassen haben, [...] 25. und sind hingegangen und haben andern Göttern gedient [...]” and Josua 15.20: “Dies ist das Erbteil des Stammes der Kinder Juda nach ihren Geschlechtern.” 29 jeden Tag an eurem Eigentum begangen wird, damit eine Legion80 unnützer Beamten sich von eurem Schweiße mästen:81 klagt einmal, daß ihr der Willkür einiger Fettwänste82 überlassen seid und daß diese Willkühr Gesetz heißt, klagt, daß ihr die Ackergäule des Staates seid, klagt über eure verlorne Menschenrechte: Wo sind Gerichtshöfe, die eure Klage annehmen, wo die Richter, die rechtsprächen? […] Und will endlich ein Richter oder ein andrer Beamte von den Wenigen, welchen das Recht und das gemeine Wohl lieber ist, als ihr Bauch83 und der Mammon84, ein Volksrat und kein Volksschinder sein, so wird er von den obersten Räten des Fürsten selber geschunden. (II, 55-56, 15-22) Prior to this passage, taxes were listed according to their collection method (direct, indirect, fines, etc.), throughout the remainder of HL the same tax amounts are categorized with respect to their recipients (“das Ministerium der Finanzen,” “das Militär,” “die Landstände,” etc.). In this section, the sum allotted the department of justice (“das Ministerium des Innern und der Gerechtigkeitspflege”) is employed to introduce the argument that the respective socioeconomic classes are governed by different laws. While the ruling classes are named “Fettwänste” governed by their “Bauch” and “Mammon,” the rural population, HL contends, succumbs to countless obsolete laws inherited from the “Unsinn aller vorigen Geschlechter.” In the former accusation each descriptive word (“Fettwänste,” “Bauch,” and “Mammon”) is a biblical 80 See footnote 27. See footnote 17. 82 See Hiob 15.27: “Er brüstet sich wie ein fetter Wanst […]” and Psalm 73.7: “Ihre Person brüstet sich wie ein fetter Wanst […]” (Schaub 51). 83 See Römer 16.18: “Denn solche dienen nicht dem Herrn Jesus Christus, sondern ihrem Bauche […]” and Philipper 3.19: “welcher Ende ist die Verdammnis, welchen der Bauch ihr Gott ist […]” 84 “Das alte, aus dem Griechischen abgeleitete Wort für Reichtum und Geld ist in der Lutherbibel in dieser Form unübersetzt erhalten geblieben und wurde seitdem volkstümlich verächtlich gebraucht für viel (errafftes) Geld” (II, 866). .cf.. Matthäus 6.24 und Lukas 16.13: “Niemand kann zwei Herren dienen: [...] Ihr könnt nicht Gott dienen und dem Mammon.” 81 30 allusion, each refers to physical appetites, and each, particularly “Fettwänste,” implies immoral or excessive self-indulgence. The reference to mammon is clearly an allusion to the Gospel of Luke, which teaches that one cannot serve both God and “Mammon” (Lukas 16.13). While the ruling classes are juxtaposed opposite God and Christ, having chosen mammon, the rural population is depicted as inheritors, less responsible for its conditions. Still the inference that earlier generations created existing laws is not an excuse for the contemporary conditions, but instead is employed as rationale for a revolution; HL contends the current generation can choose not to carry the burdens their predessors bequeathed. Für das Ministerium der Finanzen 1,551,502 fl. Damit werden die Finanzräte, Obereinnehmer, Steuerboten, die Untererheber besoldet. Dafür wird der Ertrag eurer Äcker berechnet und eure Köpfe gezählt. Der Boden unter euren Füßen, der Bissen zwischen euren Zähnen ist besteuert. Dafür sitzen die Herren in Fräcken beisammen und das Volk steht nackt und gebückt vor ihnen, sie legen die Hände an85 seine Lenden und Schultern86 und rechnen aus, wie viel es noch tragen kann, und wenn sie barmherzig sind, so geschieht es nur, wie man ein Vieh schont, das man nicht so sehr angreifen will. […] In Deutschland stehet es jetzt, wie der Prophet Micha schreibt, Kap. 7., V. 3 und 4: „Die Gewaltigen raten nach ihrem Mutwillen, Schaden zu tun, und drehen es, wie sie es wollen. Der Beste unter ihnen ist wie ein Dorn, und der Redlichste wie eine Hecke.“ Ihr müßt die Dörner und Hecken teuer bezahlen; denn ihr müßt ferner für das großherzogliche Haus und den Hofstaat 827,772 Gulden bezahlen. (II, 56-57, 23-35) 85 See Psalm 55.21: “Sie legen ihre Hände an seine Friedsamen und entheiligen seinen Bund” and Lukas 21.12: “Aber vor diesem allem werden sie die Hände an euch legen und euch verfolgen […]” 86 See Richter 15.8: “und schlug sie hart, an Schultern und Lenden. [...]” and Hesekiel 24.4: “tue die Stücke zusammen darein, [...], die Lenden und Schultern [...]” 31 With the tax amount allotted the minister of finance (“Ministerium der Finanzen”), HL introduces the argument that the ruling classes regard members of the rural population as mere commodities. The primary concern of the rural population’s animal-like87 inspection described in this section is an estimate of their physical capability (“sie […] rechnen aus, wie viel es noch tragen kann.”). Two indirect biblical quotations (“sie legen die Hände an” and “seine Lenden und Schultern”) readily condemn this mechanistic view of individuals.88 The original contextualizations of the quotations describe the desecration of a covenant (Psalm 55.21) or the destruction of a people (Lukas 21.12, Richter 15.8, and Hesekiel 24.4) – their integration in HL implies the rural population’s desecration. Combined as in HL, the two quotations also suggest inappropriate and unwelcomed fondling, the defilement of one’s genitalia. The pamphlet’s argument then shifts from the violation of individuals to the desecration of the German Confederation. In its original biblical contextualization the first direct quotation found in HL (“Die Gewaltigen raten nach […]”) foretells the corruption of future rulers. It is thus appropriately placed in HL as a description of contemporary leaders (“In Deutschland stehet es jetzt, wie der Prophet Micha schreibt”) 87 As previously described, the working classes are regarded as animals, specifically domestic beasts of burden; referred to as “Ackergäulen und Pflugstieren” (II, 54, 30-31) and the “Ackergäule des Staates,” (II, 56, 13) they are put into “Herde” (II, 55, 6) and later in the pamphlet told “Ihr müsset [...] tragen, was sie euch aufbürden” (II, 65, 23-25). In this section the descriptions: “eure Köpfe [werden] gezählt,” “nackt und gebückt” and “wie man ein Vieh schont” connect the working classes with livestock. 88 “Why is he [Büchner] so completely opposed to the mechanistic view of living things? Precisely because, in systematically functionalizing every element in the living process, it denies the individual any own, intrinsic worth, and reduces him atomistically to the status of a cog-wheel existing solely to be of use to the mechanism as a whole, and to serve a purpose that lies beyond itself: the mechanist school, Büchner declares, ‘findet die Lösung des Räthsels in dem Zweck, der Wirkung, in dem Nutzen der Verrichtung eines Organs. Sie kennt das Individuum nur als etwas, das einen Zweck außer sich erreichen soll.’ ” (Reddick 42). 32 and most effective when duly interpreted as a confirmation of biblical accuracy and a fulfilled prophesy. Die Anstalten, die Leute, von denen ich bis jetzt gesprochen, sind nur Werkzeuge,89 sind nur Diener. Sie tun nichts in ihrem Namen,unter der Ernennung zu ihrem Amt, steht ein L. das bedeutet Ludwig von Gottes Gnaden und sie sprechen mit Ehrfurcht: „im Namen des Großherzogs.“ Dies ist ihr Feldgeschrei90, wenn sie euer Gerät versteigern, euer Vieh wegtreiben ,91 euch in den Kerker werfen.92 Im Namen des Großherzogs sagen sie, und der Mensch, den sie so nennen, heißt: unverletzlich, heilig, souverain, königliche Hoheit.93 Aber tretet zu dem Menschenkinde94 und blickt durch seinen Fürstenmantel. Es ißt, wenn es hungert, und schläft wenn sein Auge dunkel wird. Sehet, es kroch so nackt und weich in die Welt, wie ihr und wird so hart und steif hinausgetragen, wie ihr, und doch hat es seinen Fuß auf <eurem> Nacken95, hat 700,000 Menschen an seinem Pflug, hat Minister die verantwortlich sind, für das, was <es> tut, Gewalt über Eigentum durch die Steuern, die es ausschreibt, über euer Leben, durch die Gesetze, die es macht, es hat adliche Herrn und Damen um sich, die man Hofstaat heißt, und seine göttliche Gewalt vererbt sich auf seine Kinder mit Weibern, welche aus eben so übermenschlichen Geschlechtern sind. (II, 57-58, 36-19) 89 Possibly an allusion to Apostelgeschichte 9.15: “Der Herr sprach zu ihm: Gehe hin; denn dieser ist mir ein auserwähltes Rüstzeug [...]” 90 See Josua 6.5: “Und wenn man das Halljahrshorn bläst und es lange tönt, daß ihr die Posaune hört, so soll das ganze Volk ein großes Feldgeschrei machen […]” and 1 Thessalonicher 4.16: “Denn er selbst, der Herr, wird mit einem Feldgeschrei […] herniederkommen […]” 91 See Jeremia 49.29: “Man wird ihnen ihre Hütten und Herden nehmen; ihr Gezelt, alle Geräte und Kamele werden sie wegführen […]” 92 See Jeremia 37.15-18: “Und die Fürsten wurden zornig über Jeremia […] und warfen ihn ins Gefängnis […] 16. Also ging Jeremia in die Grube und den Kerker und lag lange Zeit daselbst. 17. Und Zedekia, der König, sandte hin und ließ ihn holen und fragte ihn heimlich in seinem Haus und sprach: Ist auch ein Wort vom Herrn vorhanden? Jeremia sprach: Ja; denn du wirst dem König zu Babel in die Hände gegeben werden. 18. Und Jeremia sprach zum König Zedekia: Was habe ich wider dich, wider deine Knechte und wider dies Volk gesündigt, daß sie mich in den Kerker geworfen haben?” (II, 896) 93 See Jesaja 9.5: “[…] und er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Kraft, Held, Ewig-Vater, Friedefürst”and Artikel 4 Abs. 2 der Verfassungsurkunde für das Großherzogtum Hessen vom 17. Dezember 1820. 94 This is a common biblical term. See 1. Mose 11.5, 4. Mose 23.19, Hiob 25.6, and Psalm 107.8, 15, 21, 31. 95 See Hiob 1.21: “und sprach: Ich bin nackt von meiner Mutter Leibe gekommen, nackt werde ich wieder dahinfahren […]” 33 The government officials previously listed in HL (“Staatsräte und Regierungsräte, Landräte und Kreisräte […]”) are metaphorically described in this section as mere “Werkzeuge” who “tun nichts in ihrem Namen.” They work under the command of Großherzog Ludwig II,96 one of the few individual accomplices identified in HL97 and employ his name as a battle cry (“Feldgeschrei”) against the rural population to eventually imprison them (“euch in den Kerker werfen”). Both biblical allusions (“Feldgeschrei” and “euch in den Kerker werfen”) introduce a violent, warlike quality to the ruling classes’ behavior. More important, though, the repeated reference “im Namen des Großherzogs” emphasizes the Großherzog’s tremendous power. The remainder of this section contrasts the leader’s seeming omnipotence with that of Christ. Although free from political title, Jesus is biblically deemed the son of God98 and revealed as the ultimate divine authority on Earth,99 while the Großherzog, although granted immense political power and haughty titles, is argued to be worthy of neither. Adjectives depicting the Großherzog in HL (“unverletzlich, heilig, souverän, königliche Hoheit”) allude to the similiarly listed decriptions of Christ, i.e., “Wunderbar, Rat, Kraft, Held, Ewigvater, Friedefürst” (Jesaja 9.5). Christ was deemed the ruler of a government, 96 His official title was “Ludwig von Gottes Gnaden Großherzog von Hessen und bei Rhein” (Schaub 5354). 97 The Großherzog was singled out due to his failure to uphold the conservative constitution granted in 1820 (Reeve 6) as well as for particular restrictions put on the press in 1833/34 (Knapp 21). 98 Christ is repeatedly named the “son of God” throughout the Bible. One outstanding example, though, is when his enemies make the claim in Matthäus 27.54: “Aber der Hauptmann und die bei ihm waren und bewahrten Jesum, da sie sahen das Erdbeben und was da geschah, erschraken sie sehr und sprachen: Wahrlich, dieser ist Gottes Sohn gewesen!” 99 See Lukas 4.36: “Und es kam eine Furcht über sie alle, und sie redeten miteinander und sprachen: Was ist das für ein Ding? Er gebietet mit Macht und Gewalt den unsaubern Geistern, und sie fahren aus.” Christ is described as having power and as being capable to pass that power on to others: “Er forderte aber die Zwölf zusammen und gab ihnen Gewalt und Macht über alle Teufel und daß sie Seuchen heilen konnten” (Lukas 9.1). 34 mockingly named a King (Markus 15.32). The Großherzog, according to the Napoleonic decree, is named “königliche Hoheit” (Poschmann 868). The difference between the two figures, to which HL repeatedly alludes, is that one has God-given authority while the other only inauthentic “göttliche Gewalt.” The passage directly succeeding this description is thus devoted to the “Entmystifizierung der königlichen Hoheit als sterbliches Menschenkind” (Knapp 82). The noun “Menschenkind”100 distances the Großherzog from his title “von Gottes Gnaden.” Biblical references to “Menschenkinder” are abundant and almost exclusively contextualized as a comparison between God and man (also called “Menschenkind”).101 Although the Großherzog seems to share powers, titles, and even apparent authority with Christ, with this allusion HL reminds the reader that the former is nonetheless merely human. He “kroch so nackt und weich in die Welt” and “wird so hart und steif hinausgetragen” as any other individual and should be treated accordingly. This seemingly basic argument is crucial to HL; should the Großherzog be rendered accountable and ultimately dethroned, the prevailing oligarchical political system would collapse. It further demonstrates how HL’s Christ-figure becomes more specific throughout the text; initially representing an entire class, the metaphor now represents an individual. 100 Not to be mistaken for the noun “Menschensohn,” biblically another name for Christ. See 4 Mose 23.19: “Gott ist nicht ein Mensch, daß er lüge, noch ein Menschenkind, daß ihn etwas gereue,” Hiob 25.5-6: “Siehe, auch der Mond scheint nicht helle, und die Sterne sind nicht rein vor seinen Augen: 6. wie viel weniger ein Mensch, die Made, und ein Menschenkind,” Psalms 11.4: “Der Herr ist in seinem heiligen Tempel, des Herrn Stuhl ist im Himmel; seine Augen sehen darauf, seine Augenlider prüfen die Menschenkinder,” and 14.2: “Der Herr schaut vom Himmel auf der Menschen Kinder, daß er sehe, ob jemand klug sei und nach Gott frage.” 101 35 Wehe über euch102 Götzendiener!103 – Ihr seid wie die Heiden, die das Krokodill anbeten, von dem sie zerrissen werden. Ihr setzt ihm eine Krone auf, aber es ist eine Dornenkrone,104 die ihr euch selbst in den Kopf drückt; ihr gebt ihm ein Szepter in die Hand, aber es ist eine Rute, womit ihr gezüchtigt werdet;105 ihr setzt ihn auf euern Thron, aber es ist ein Marterstuhl für euch und eure Kinder. Der Fürst ist der Kopf des Blutigels,106 der über euch hinkriecht, die Minister sind seine Zähne und die Beamten sein Schwanz. Die hungrigen Mägen aller vornehmen Herren, denen er die hohen Stellen verteilt, sind Schröpfköpfe, die er dem Lande setzt. Das L. was unter seinen Verordnungen steht, ist das Mahlzeichen des Tieres,107 das die Götzendiener unserer Zeit anbeten. Der Fürstenmantel ist der Teppich, auf dem sich die Herren und Damen vom Adel und Hofe in ihrer Geilheit übereinander wälzen - mit Orden und Bändern decken sie ihre Geschwüre und mit kostbaren Gewändern bekleiden sie ihre aussätzigen Leiber. (II, 58, 20-37) By worshiping an Anti-Christ, i.e., the Großherzog, HL contends the rural population is in part responsible for its exploitation and guilty of blasphemy. This passage's sermon-like tone incorporates symbols associated with Christ’s physical sacrifice, believed to enable eternal life, to represent bondage and death. Before His crucifixion, Christ was mocked with the adornments of royalty: 102 This is another common biblical phrase. See Jeremia 23.1, Hesekiel 13.18, Matthäus 23.13-29, Lukas 6.24-26, and 11.42-52. 103 Appears only once in the Luther Bible (sometimes replaced with “Abgöttische”). See Epheser 5.5: “Denn das sollt ihr wissen, daß kein Hurer oder Unreiner oder Geiziger, welcher ist ein Götzendiener, Erbe hat in dem Reich Christi und Gottes” (Schaub 56). 104 See Matthäus 27.29: “und flochten eine Dornenkrone und setzten sie auf sein Haupt,” Markus 15.15-19, and Johannes 19.2-5. 105 See Sprüche 22.15: “Torheit steckt dem Knaben im Herzen; aber die Rute der Zucht wird sie fern von ihm treiben.” 106 See Jesaja 9.14: “Die alten und vornehmen Leute sind der Kopf; die Propheten aber, so falsch lehren, sind der Schwanz.” 107 See especially Offenbarung 16.2: “[…] und es ward eine böse und arge Drüse an den Menschen, die das Malzeichen des Tiers hatten und die sein Bild anbeteten” and Offenbarung 19.20: “[…] die das Malzeichen des Tiers nahmen und die das Bild des Tiers anbeteten […]” See additionally Offenbarung 13.16: “[…] sich ein Malzeichen geben an ihre rechte Hand oder an ihre Stirn,” 14.9, 11: “[…] So jemand das Tier anbetet und sein Bild und nimmt das Malzeichen an seine Stirn oder an seine Hand […] 11. […] und so jemand hat das Malzeichen seines Namens angenommen” (Schaub 57) as well as Johannes 12 (II, 896). 36 [...] und flochten eine Dornenkrone und setzten sie auf sein Haupt und ein Rohr in seine rechte Hand und beugten die Kniee vor ihm und verspotteten ihn und sprachen: Gegrüßet seist du, der Juden König! (Matthäus 27.29) Typically a symbol of supremacy, in both passages the crown’s significance is metamorphosed by its material. A crown of thorns, in place of adorned metals, is painful and humiliating; rather than a symbol of authority, it mocks its bearer. Both passages also refer to a long thin object (a reed, a scepter, a rod). Christ is given a reed, the Großherzog a scepter. As a symbol of royalty, the reed further mocks Christ, while the Großherzog’s scepter, later metaphorically described as a rod, becomes a weapon used against the rural population. The biblical figures are clear: Roman soldiers mock Christ. In HL, however, the people crown themselves with thorns as they crown their leader. The Großherzog is given a scepter by the people (“ihr gebt ihm ein Scepter in die Hand”) as opposed to “by the grace of God” as his title would suggest. By respecting the leader’s supposed sovereignty, HL contends that the rural population creates a false Christ108 and grants him the authority to abuse them. Thus the people mock and sacrifice themselves. In this section the intricate balance of the political pamphlet becomes apparent: The people are first reprimanded and then must be motivated to act. All accusations against the rural population are thus abruptly suspended and the government’s abusive behavior is revealed in the section’s subsequent graphic allegory. Considered “einer der eindrucksvollen Bildtexte” (Knapp 81), the allegory portrays this abusive behavior as an organized effort of the ruling body. Beginning with a biblical allusion (“Der Fürst ist der Kopf des Blutigels”), the allegory metaphorically depicts the government as a leech 108 See Matthäus 24.5: “Denn es werden viele kommen unter meinem Namen […] und werden viele verführen.” See also Markus 13:6 and Lukas 21.8. 37 creeping over its victim, each part of the leech’s body as a government position (“[…] die Minister sind seine Zähne und die Beamten sein Schwanz”). The Bible similarly employs a body to represent the church of Christ.109 Both metaphors demonstrate an institution (nonphysical body) with a physical body. Both describe their ruler as the head; the “Fürst” is the head of the governmental body just as Christ is the ecclesiastical head. Both imply the cooperation of multiple individuals. HL’s allegory, however, also implies collective responsibility, i.e., all members of the ruling classes are accountable for the rural populace’s exploitation. Later in HL this same image of collaboration represented by a body will be invoked to unify the rural population as well. An incredible source of revolutionary motivation is the prospect of success. The modified quotation: “das Mahlzeichen des Tieres” is a direct reference to the sign of the Anti-Christ, who will be defeated by Christ during the Armageddon (Poschmann 896). More than merely the creation of yet another Anti-Christ figure of Ludwig II, this quotation serves as motivation for a revolution. If the rural population can perceive its rulers as that evil army commanded by Satan, they can also interpret their revolutionary action as a righteous holy battle which will end successfully. Die Töchter des Volks sind ihre Mägde und Huren,110 die Söhne des Volks ihre Laquaien und Soldaten. Geht einmal nach Darmstadt und seht, wie die Herren sich für euer Geld dort lustig machen, und erzählt dann euren hungernden Weibern und Kindern, daß ihr Brot an fremden Bäuchen 109 See Kolosser 1.18: “Und er ist das Haupt des Leibes, nämlich der Gemeinde; er, welcher ist der Anfang und der Erstgeborne von den Toten [...]” 110 See Jeremia 6.26: “O Tochter meines Volks, zieh Säcke an und lege dich in die Asche,” 8.22: “[…] Warum ist denn die Tochter meines Volks nicht geheilt?” 14.17: “[…] Meine Augen fließen von Tränen Tag und Nacht und hören nicht auf; denn die Jungfrau, die Tochter meines Volks, ist greulich zerplagt und jämmerlich geschlagen.” Compare also with 5 Mose 23.18: “Es soll keine Hure sein unter den Töchtern Israels und kein Hurer unter den Söhnen Israels.” 38 herrlich angeschlagen sei,111 erzählt ihnen von den schönen Kleidern, die in ihrem Schweiß gefärbt, und von den zierlichen Bändern, die aus den Schwielen ihrer Hände geschnitten sind, erzählt von den stattlichen Häusern, die aus den Knochen des Volks gebaut sind; und dann kriecht in eure rauchigen Hütten und bückt euch auf euren steinichten Äckern, damit eure Kinder auch einmal hingehen können, wenn ein Erbprinz mit einer Erbprinzessin für einen andern Erbprinzen Rat schaffen112 will, und durch die geöffneten Glastüren das Tischtuch sehen, wovon die Herren speisen und die Lampen riechen, aus denen man mit dem Fett der Bauern illuminiert. (II, 5859, 37-16) In place of the previous accusatory and sermon-like tone, this section addresses the rural population pedagogically, encouraging the people to observe how their taxes are employed and their families physically abused (“Geht einmal nach Darmstadt und seht […]”). Whereas the young men were utilized as soldiers, the modified biblical quotation “Die Töchter des Volks sind ihre Mägde und Huren” accurately describes how the common women were treated – as servants often sexually abused and then discarded – and implies the despair (Jeremia 8.22; 14.17) and sorrow (Jeremia 6.26) of the traditionally more protected (physically weaker, emotionally delicate) dependents. In addition to this deliberate abuse, the rural populace’s hunger is juxtaposed with the bread the ruling classes enjoy (“erzählt dann euren hungernden Weibern und Kindern, daß ihr Brot an fremden Bäuchen herrlich angeschlagen sei”). Bread is a multifaceted biblical symbol. It represents work (1 Mose 3.19) and can be a sign of both hospitality (2 Samuel 9.7) and hostility (1 Könige 22.27; 2 Chronik 18.26; Nehemia 13.2). Bread is also a metaphor for physical and spiritual nourishment (5 Mose 8.3; Amos 8: 11; Matthäus 111 Throughout the Bible bread repeatedly represents physical sustenance aquired through work. See footnote 17. 112 See Richter 20.7: “Siehe, da seid ihr Kinder Israel alle; schafft euch Rat und tut hiezu!” 39 16.12). In HL bread serves as a metaphor for taxation. The involuntary imbalanced partition of wealth leads to hunger and hostility for some, idleness and gluttony for others. Das alles duldet ihr, weil euch Schurken sagen: „diese Regierung sei von Gott.“113 Diese Regierung ist nicht von Gott, sondern vom Vater der Lügen.114 Diese deutschen Fürsten sind keine rechtmäßige Obrigkeit, sondern die rechtmäßige Obrigkeit, den deutschen Kaiser, der vormals vom Volke frei gewählt wurde, haben sie seit Jahrhunderten verachtet und endlich gar verraten. Aus Verrat und Meineid, und nicht aus der Wahl des Volkes ist die Gewalt der deutschen Fürsten hervorgegangen, und darum ist ihr Wesen und Tun von Gott verflucht;115 ihre Weisheit ist Trug, ihre Gerechtigkeit ist Schinderei. Sie zertreten das Land116 und zerschlagen die Person des Elenden. (II, 59, 16-28)117 It is easy to succumb to this extreme oppression, HL contends, not because the rural population is overpowered but because they subscribe to the established belief that the government is divinely instituted. Thus to justify a revolution, the pamphlet must not only dethrone the grand duke, but demonstrate that the entire government is based on principles of mortals. What could better testify than the Bible? With a biblical allusion, HL claims that the government is not of God, but of the devil (“Vater der Lügen”) and its dealings are cursed by God (“nicht aus der Wahl des Volkes ist die Gewalt […] darum ist 113 See Römer 13.1: “Jedermann sei untertan der Obrigkeit, die Gewalt über ihn hat. Denn es ist keine Obrigkeit ohne von Gott; wo aber Obrigkeit ist, die ist von Gott verordnet.” As Schaub explains “Mit dieser vielzitierten und umstrittenen Paulus-Stelle setzt sich Weidig noch an drei weiteren Textstellen des HL auseinander (vgl. 22,23-25; 30,1-9). Zur Bedeutung dieser Auseinandersetzung als Bindung für einen Persuasionserfolg der Flugschrift vgl. Schaub, 1976, S.57-59, und vor allem Noellner, S. 326f” (59). 114 See Johannes 8.44: “Ihr seid von dem Vater, dem Teufel, und nach eures Vaters Lust wollt ihr tun [...] denn er ist ein Lügner und ein Vater derselben.” 115 See Hesekiel 20.43: “Daselbst werdet ihr gedenken an euer Wesen und an all euer Tun, darin ihr verunreinigt seid […]” 36.19: “Und ich […] richtete sich nach ihrem Wesen und Tun,” Jeremia 18.11: “[...] darum kehre sich ein jeglicher von seinem bösen Wesen und bessert euer Wesen und Tun.” 116 See Habakuk 3.12: “Du zertratest das Land im Zorn [...]” 117 See Jesaja 3.15: “Warum zertretet ihr mein Volk und zerschlaget die Person der Elenden? [...]” 40 ihr Wesen und Tun von Gott verflucht”). Although HL generally contextualizes its biblical quotations in arguments which are introduced or supported in the Bible, there is no biblical support that the lack of elections is justification for God’s curse. Instead the quotation’s utilization seems typical of Büchner’s later texts. HL employs the Bible as a source text and then, by means of a seamless montage, situates it in the text to specify what exactly justifies God’s curse. Its contextualization also modernizes the quotation; in 1834 the possibility of elections was certainly more actual than in biblical times. The final two modified quotations (“Sie zertreten das Land” and “zerschlagen die Person des Elenden”) simultaneously illustrate the curse the people have brought upon themselves and support the previously introduced argument that the ruling class domination has a violent nature. Ihr lästert Gott, wenn ihr einen dieser Fürsten einen Gesalbten des Herrn118 nennt, das heißt: Gott habe die Teufel gesalbt und zu Fürsten über die deutsche Erde gesetzt. Deutschland, unser liebes Vaterland, haben diese Fürsten zerrissen, den Kaiser, den unsere freien Voreltern wählten, haben diese Fürsten verraten und nun fordern diese Verräter und Menschenquäler Treue von euch! – Doch das Reich der Finsternis neiget sich zum Ende.119 Über ein Kleines und Deutschland, 120 das jetzt die Fürsten schinden, wird als ein Freistaat mit einer vom Volk gewählten Obrigkeit wieder auferstehn. Die heilige Schrift sagt: Gebet dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist.121 Was ist aber dieser Fürsten, der Verräter? – Das Teil von Judas! (II, 59-60, 28-3)122 118 See 1 Samuel 24.7: “[...] Das lasse der Herr ferne von mir sein, daß ich das tun sollte und meine Hand legen an meinen Herrn, den Gesalbten des Herrn; denn er ist der Gesalbte des Herrn” (Schaub 59). 119 See Offenbarung 16.10: “[…] und sein Reich ward verfinstert […]” 120 See Johannes 16.16: “Über ein kleines, so werdet ihr mich nicht sehen; und aber über ein kleines, so werdet ihr mich sehen, denn ich gehe zum Vater” (Schaub 59-60). 121 See Matthäus 22.21: “[…] So gebet dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist, und Gott, was Gottes ist!” See also Markus 12.17. 122 Attributed to Weidig (Schaub 58), this passage alludes to Judas Iscariot. See Johannes 12.4: “Da sprach seiner Jünger einer, Judas, Simons Sohn, Ischariot, der ihn hernach verriet:” “Den Fürsten gebührt nach der 41 Just as the ruling classes were argued incapable of serving both God and their own appetites, the rural population, HL contends, cannot simultaneously obey God and the established Hessian government. The pamphlet does not argue that it is impossible to respect both country and faith, but rather that the Hessian government fails to operate as a government. Of course, the rural populace must first recognize whom they serve – something HL claims they fail to consider. The accusatory tone of this section’s first biblical reference, the slightly modified quotation “einen Gesalbten des Herrn,” reminds the rural population of their responsibility to recognize divine representatives and the severity of failing to do so (“Ihr lästert Gott”). Although also often a reference to Christ (I, 495),123 the phrase applies to anyone chosen by God for a particular task and originates in the biblical story of the prophet Samuel, whose mother, even before his birth, consecrated him to God. After later being personally appointed by God,124 all of Israel recognized, “daß Samuel ein treuer Prophet des Herrn war” (1 Samuel 3.20). A prophet’s public recognition does not influence his calling, but does qualify the people over whom the prophet presides. By succumbing to the Hessian rulers, or false prophets, HL contends, the people are guilty of blasphemy. Still the question remains: Why does HL consider submission to government rulers blasphemous? Beginning with the direct quotation “Gebet dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist,” HL does not dispute the biblical teaching that church and government can coexist, but instead questions the ruling body’s status. Rather than as political leaders, HL metaphorically Argumentation des HL dasselbe »Teil«, d.h. derselbe »Lohn«, wie dem Verräter Judas. Gemeint sind jedoch nicht etwa die dreißig Silberlinge, sonder vielmehr der Strick, mit dem sich Judas erhängte” (Schaub 60). 123 In this case “Gesalbten” does not refer to Christ because the contextualized phrase implies one of many (“einen Gesalbten” as opposed to “der Gesalbte”). 124 See 1 Samuel 3. 42 represents the rulers as an unfaithful disciple of Christ, i.e., Judas Iscariot (“Das Teil von Judas!”), a disciple whose betrayal eventually led to Christ’s crucifixion. Judas Iscariot, one of twelve in Christ’s inner circle, willingly and mockingly identified Christ to his enemies with a kiss. Characteristics of the biblical figure can be applied to the Hessian government. Instead of working with religion as the biblical contextualization sugguests, government officials work in opposition to it, but, like Judas Iscariot, they deceitfully pretend to partner with religion, deeming themselves “von Gottes Gnaden” (Schaub 5354). Hence, HL contends, the Hessian leaders derserve the same reward as the biblical disciple, i.e., death. Sandwiched between this section’s accusations are two biblical allusions (“Doch das Reich der Finsternis neiget sich zum Ende […]” and “Über ein Kleines und Deutschland […] wird als ein Freistaat […]”), which serve to give the people confidence in a revolution’s success by proclaiming the imminent demise of the Hessian government and the resulting resurrection of the overworked poor. Für die Landstände 16,000 Gulden. Im Jahr 1789 war das Volk in Frankreich müde, länger die Schindmähre seines Königs zu sein. Es erhob sich und berief Männer, denen es vertraute, und die Männer traten zusammen und sagten, ein König sei ein Mensch wie ein anderer auch, er sei nur der erste Diener im Staat,125 er müsse sich vor dem Volk verantworten und wenn er sein Amt schlecht verwalte, könne er zur Strafe gezogen werden. […] Der König schwur dieser Verfassung treu zu sein, er wurde aber meineidig an dem Volke und das Volk richtete ihn, wie es einem Verräter geziemt. Dann schafften die Franzosen die erbliche Königswürde ab und wählten frei eine neue 125 See Matthäus 23.11: “Der Größte unter euch soll euer Diener sein.” 43 Obrigkeit, wozu jedes Volk nach der Vernunft und der heiligen Schrift das Recht hat. Die Männer, die über die Vollziehung der Gesetze wachen sollten, wurden von der Versammlung der Volksvertreter ernannt, sie bildeten die neue Obrigkeit. So waren Regierung und Gesetzgeber vom Volk gewählt und Frankreich war ein Freistaat. Die übrigen Könige aber entsetzten sich vor der Gewalt des französischen Volkes […]. Da ergrimmte das Volk und erhob sich in seiner Kraft.126 Es erdrückte die Verräter und zerschmetterte die Söldner der Könige. Die junge Freiheit wuchs im Blut der Tyrannen127 und vor ihrer Stimme bebten die Throne und jauchzten die Völker. (II, 60-61, 47)128 HL utilizes the French Revolution of 1789 to exemplify its proposed insurrection. After recognizing and becoming weary of their own exploitation, the French finally acknowledged the king as “ein Mensch wie ein anderer auch […]” and concluded that “er müsse sich vor dem Volk verantworten […].” This radically new perception is compounded with the insinuation that a king should serve his people, not be served by them. His description as “der erste Diener im Staat” alludes to Christ’s proclamation that “Der Größte unter euch soll euer Diener sein.” This fascinating allusion questions whether the king is in fact the “greatest,” and demands that he prove it, not through wealth or power, but through service and humility. Should the king be unworthy of his position, the subsequent passage and supposed biblical reference (“nach […] der heiligen Schrift das Recht hat”) contends he may be replaced by the people. To which scripture/s, however, the allusion refers remains unknown. The only relevant connection I find is the incorporation of the word “wählen”, which denotes man’s agency, an idea prevalent 126 See Psalm 21.14: “Herr, erhebe dich in deiner Kraft […]” See Johannes 6.54: “Wer mein Fleisch isset und trinket mein Blut, der hat das ewige Leben […]” 128 See Psalm 67.5: “Die Völker freuen sich und jauchzen,” 89.16: “Wohl dem Volk, das jauchzen kann! […]” and 1. Samuel 10.24: “[…] Da jauchzte alles Volk [...]” 127 44 throughout the Bible.129 As previously demonstrated, the ruling classes maintain their lifestyle through exploitation, exploitation so extreme it is indirectly equated with murder.130 The unwarranted violence against the rural population is succeeded in this section by a description of justified violence. The declaration “Die junge Freiheit wuchs im Blut der Tyrannen” justifies violence for the cause of freedom, and implies an ultimatum, i.e., execute the ruling classes - or the ruling classes will continue executing. This allusion directly refers to the guillotined French authorities (including all aristocrats, individuals such as Governor Marquis Bernard de Launay, and even King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette) and insinuates that their executions were necessary to enable the people’s freedom. It is important, however, to include this phrase as a biblical allusion as it could also allude to Christ. According to the Bible, Christ’s blood enables eternal life and the remission of sins; according to HL the tyrants’ blood would enable freedom. Aber die Franzosen verkauften selbst ihre junge Freiheit für den Ruhm, den ihnen Napoleon darbot, und erhoben ihn auf den Kaiserthron. – Da ließ der Allmächtige das Heer des Kaisers in Rußland erfrieren und züchtigte Frankreich durch die Knute der Kosacken und gab den Franzosen die dickwanstigen Bourbonen wieder zu Königen, damit Frankreich sich bekehre vom Götzendienst der erblichen Königsherrschaft und dem Gotte diene, der die Menschen frei und gleich geschaffen.131 […] und band sich in dem Heuchler Louis Philipp eine neue 129 See especially Josua 24.15: “Gefällt es euch aber nicht, daß ihr dem Herrn dienet, so erwählet euch heute, wem ihr dienen wollt: den Göttern, denen eure Väter gedient haben jenseits des Stroms, oder den Göttern der Amoriter, in deren Lande ihr wohnet. Ich aber und mein Haus wollen dem Herrn dienen.” 130 The ruling classes suck the life out of the working classes through taxation when “sie Bürger und Bauern peinigten und ihr Blut aussaugten” (II, 64, 12-13). The ruling classes depend upon the working classes and are “nur stark […] durch das Blut, das sie […] aussaugen” (II, 65, 32). 131 Intratextual allusion to the biblical creation account, which describes that mankind was created on one day and intends to support the argument that all humans were created equal. 45 [Z]uchtrute132 auf. In Deutschland und ganz Europa aber war große Freude als der zehnte Karl vom Thron gestürzt ward, und die unterdrückten deutschen Länder richteten sich zum Kampf für die Freiheit. Da ratschlagten die Fürsten, wie sie dem Grimm des Volkes133 entgehen sollten und die listigen unter ihnen sagten: Laßt uns einen Teil unserer Gewalt abgeben, daß wir das Übrige behalten. Und sie traten vor das Volk und sprachen: Wir wollen euch die Freiheit schenken um die ihr kämpfen wollt. – Und zitternd vor Furcht134 warfen sie einige Brocken hin und sprachen von ihrer Gnade. Das Volk traute ihnen leider und legte sich zur Ruhe. – Und so ward Deutschland betrogen wie Frankreich. (II, 61, 7-33) Despite employing it as an example, HL fears and consequently discourages an exact replication of the French Revolution. The text’s historical recount of the Napoleonic era and the subsequent return of leaders from the Houses of Bourbon and Orléans greatly contrasts the ideals of the revolution with reality. In fact, HL describes the return of the French monarchy as a return of exploitation. The latter King, Louis Philippe, is labeled both a hypocrite (“Heuchler”) – because he initially demonstrated liberal ideals only to later rule as a conservative monarch – and a new “[Z]uchtrute,” an intratextual allusion to the earlier passage describing the Hessian grand duke: “ihr gebt ihm ein Szepter in die Hand, aber es ist eine Rute, womit ihr gezüchtigt werdet.” The French revolution failed, HL contends, because the people were easily appeased by insignificant changes (the title “King of the French” was instituted in place of the title 132 See footnote 65 as well as Jesaja 9.3: “Denn du hast das Joch ihrer Last und die Rute ihrer Schulter und den Stecken ihres Treibers zerbrochen wie zur Zeit Midians” (Schaub 64). 133 “Grimm” appears over 50 times biblically in reference to the wrath of God (Schaub 64), but here demonstrates the power of a unified people. See 4 Mose 32.14, 1 Chronik 13.10, 2 Chronik 34.21 and 36.16, and Jesaja 13.13. 134 See Hiob 4.14: “da kam mich Furcht und Zittern an, und alle meine Gebeine erschraken,” Palsm 55.6: “Furcht und Zittern ist mich angekommen [...],” 1. Korinther 2.3: “Und ich war bei euch mit Schwachheit und mit Furcht und mit großem Zittern,” 2. Korinther 7.15: “[…] wie ihr ihn mit Furcht und Zittern habt aufgenommen,” and Epheser 6.5: “Ihr Knechte, seid gehorsam euren leiblichen Herren mit Furcht und Zittern […]” 46 “King of France” to give an impression of the people’s involvement) and the revolution of 1830, HL maintains, faced a similar fate. Initially prepared to battle against the ruling classes, the German populace was easily pacified by a few amendments (“einige Brocken”) and so deceived (“so ward Deutschland betrogen wie Frankreich”). Although quickly placated, the rural population’s anger, in this section referred to as the “Grimm des Volkes,” cannot be overlooked. Thus far the Anti- / Christ figures in HL have been composed solely of members of the ruling classes. This modified quotation, in reference to the biblical phrase “Grimm des Herrn,” introduces the poor as Christ figures as well. Associating their anger with that of God, the phrase ultimately alludes to the people’s potential power, demonstrated also in their rulers’ fear (“zitternd vor Furcht”). Denn was sind die Verfassungen in Deutschland? Nichts als leeres Stroh, woraus die Fürsten die Körner für sich herausgeklopft haben. Was sind unsere Landtage? Nichts als langsame Fuhrwerke, die man einmal oder zweimal wohl der Raubgier der Fürsten und ihrer Minister in den Weg schieben, woraus man aber nimmermehr eine feste Burg135 für deutsche Freiheit bauen kann. Was sind unsere Wahlgesetze? Nichts als Verletzungen der Bürger- und Menschenrechte der meisten Deutschen. Denkt an das Wahlgesetz im Großherzogtum, wornach keiner gewählt werden kann, der nicht hoch begütert ist, wie rechtschaffen und gutgesinnt er auch sei, wohl aber der Grolmann, der euch um die zwei Millionen bestehlen wollte. Denkt an die Verfassung des Großherzogtums. – Nach den Artikeln derselben ist der Großherzog unverletzlich, heilig und unverantwortlich. (II, 61-62, 34-12) 135 This allusion is in reference to Martin Luther's hymn “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott”, which is based on Psalm 46. 47 HL continues with the suggestion that the elements supposedly in place to secure the people’s freedom have proven nothing more than unjust elections and a disregarded constitution. An article regarding the grand duke serves as an example. The adjectives describing him, slightly changed from “unverletzlich, heilig, souverain, königliche Hoheit” (II, 58, 7) to “unverletzlich, heilig und unverantwortlich,” are now prefaced with the noteworthy phrase “Nach den Artikeln derselben ist […]” (II, 62, 10-11), the inclusion of which questions the validity of the succeeding adjectives. “According to” often denotes reference to an authority: “[…] according to the Oxford dictionary,” “[…] according to the President.” In this case, however, the phrase undermines both the prevailing constitution and the grand duke’s position. It contends that possibly only “Nach den Artikeln” (and not according to any actual authority) does the grand duke deserve such a description. Thus HL further justifies a violent revolution. Because even the constitution includes unrealistic and unequal regulations governing the people, pacific methods to introduce freedom have historically failed and the development of a foundation upon which to build freedom (“eine feste Burg”) is deemed impossible under the prevailing government. [...] Das ganze deutsche Volk muß sich die Freiheit erringen. Und diese Zeit, geliebte Mitbürger, ist nicht ferne.136 – Der Herr hat das schöne deutsche Land, das viele Jahrhunderte das herrlichste Reich der Erde war, in die Hände der fremden und einheimischen Schinder gegeben, weil das Herz des deutschen Volkes von der Freiheit und Gleichheit seiner Voreltern und von der Furcht des 136 See Hesekiel 12.23: “Darum sprich zu ihnen: So spricht der Herr […]: Die Zeit ist nahe und alles, was geweissagt ist,” Offenbarung 1.3: “[…]; denn die Zeit ist nahe,” and 22.10: “[…] denn die Zeit ist nahe!” 48 Herrn137 abgefallen war,138 weil ihr dem Götzendienste der vielen Herrlein Kleinherzoge und Däumlings-Könige euch ergeben hattet. Der Herr, der den Stecken des fremden Treibers Napoleon zerbrochen hat,139 wird auch die Götzenbilder unserer einheimischen Tyrannen zerbrechen140 durch die Hände des Volks. Wohl glänzen diese Götzenbilder von Gold und Edelsteinen,141 von Orden und Ehrenzeichen, aber in ihrem Innern stirbt der Wurm nicht142 und ihre Füße sind von Lehm. (II, 63, 3-18)143 The etymology of “prophet” (meaning “to speak before”) provides insight into the function of those given the title, i.e., to foretell future events. Numerous biblical accounts tell of prophets who foresee happenings from the fall of Jerusalem to the second coming of Christ. In this passage, HL emulates both the biblical prophets’ function and their jargon. Like its sources, the modified quotation beginning this section (“Und diese Zeit, geliebte Mitbürger, ist nicht fern”) alludes to the imminent fulfillment of revelation and introduces the argument that the German people will unite to fight for freedom; it serves as both a warning (to the oppressors) and encouragement (for the oppressed). The prophesy will be fulfilled, HL further contends, because God permitted the 137 Common biblical phrase – associated with “Ehrfurcht” fear of God (Schaub 67). See Jeremia 5.23: “Aber dies Volk hat ein abtrünniges, ungehorsames Herz; sie bleiben abtrünnig und gehen immerfort weg,” Matthäus 13.15: “Denn dieses Volkes Herz ist verstockt […] auf daß sie nicht […] mit dem Herzen verstehen und sich bekehren, daß ich ihnen hülfe,” 15.8: “Dies Volk naht sich zu mir mit seinem Munde und ehrt mich mit seinen Lippen, aber ihr Herz ist fern von mir,” and Apostelgeschichte 28.27: “das Herz dieses Volks ist verstockt […] auf daß sie nicht […] verständig werden im Herzen […]” 139 See Jesaja 9.3: “Denn du hast das Joch ihrer Last und die Rute ihrer Schulter und den Stecken ihres Treibers zerbrochen […]” 140 See 2 Mose 23.24: “so sollst du ihre Götter nicht anbeten noch ihnen dienen und nicht tun, wie sie tun, sondern du sollst ihre Götzen umreißen und zerbrechen,” 34.13: “sondern ihre Altäre sollst du umstürzen und ihre Götzen zerbrechen […]” and Micha 1.7: “Alle ihre Götzen sollen zerbrochen […] werden […]” 141 See Daniel 2.32: “Des Bildes Haupt war von feinem Golde, seine Brust und Arme waren von Silber, sein Bauch und seine Lenden waren von Erz.” 142 See Jesaja 66.24: “[…] denn ihr Wurm wird nicht sterben […] und werden allem Fleisch ein Greuel sein” and Markus 9.44: “da ihr Wurm nicht stribt und ihr Feuer nicht verlöscht.” 143 See Daniel 2.33: “seine Schenkel waren Eisen, seine Füße waren eines Teils Eisen und eines Teils Ton.” 138 49 contemporary conditions’ development and will likewise intervene to reverse them (“Der Herr hat das schöne deutsche Land [...] in die Hände der fremden und einheimischen Schinder gegeben. [...] Der Herr […] wird auch die Götzenbilder unserer einheimischen Tyrannen zerbrechen […]”). Divine intervention, however, does not automatically reflect God’s desires; instead, the pamphlet argues, it directly reflects the people’s righteousness. The subsequent biblical allusion (“weil das Herz des deutschen Volkes […] abgefallen war”) suggests that God permitted the exploitation of earlier generations because their hearts apostatized. Descriptions of the obdurate hearts of particular people are found in both Testaments as the Bible emphasizes that God judges desire and commitment, not merely actions.144 Although the HL passage specifically describes the earlier generations’ lack of commitment to freedem and its consequential loss thereof, it also indirectly invites the contemporary rural population to assess their own desires. To achieve and maintain freedom and equality, HL suggests, a people must truly value them. The allusion additionally accuses earlier generations of not fearing God. Contextualized biblically, however, the “fear of God” is not a fear per se, but the beginning of knowledge or awareness.145 Should they fear God, the pamphlet subtly demonstrates, the people would know that it is unnecessary to fear the ruling classes and would recognize them as nothing more than graven images, reminiscent of the familiar medieval allegorical figure of Frau Welt, visibly appealing but without substance and rotten within (“Wohl glänzen diese Götzenbilder von Gold und Edelsteinen […] aber in ihrem Innern stirbt der Wurm nicht”). Amongst this montage of quotations, HL presents the crucial argument, which – 144 See especially Matthäus 15.8. See Sprüche 1.7: “Des Herrn Furcht ist Anfang der Erkenntnis.” See also Sprüche 2.5 and 9.10 as well as Jesaja 11.2 and 33.6. 145 50 like a fugue – will be revisited throughout the pamphlet, that this imminent divine intervention will be carried out by the people (“[…] durch die Hände des Volks”) as God employs them as instruments to overturn the government. Gott wird euch Kraft geben146 ihre Füße zu zerschmeißen,147 sobald ihr euch bekehret von dem Irrtum eures Wandels148 und die Wahrheit erkennet149: „ daß nur Ein Gott ist und keine Götter neben ihm,150 die sich Hoheiten und Allerhöchste,151 heilig und unverantwortlich152 nennen lassen, daß Gott alle Menschen frei und gleich in ihren Rechten schuf und daß keine Obrigkeit von Gott zum Segen verordnet ist, als die, welche auf das Vertrauen des Volkes sich gründet und vom Volke ausdrücklich oder stillschweigend erwählt ist; daß dagegen die Obrigkeit, die Gewalt, aber kein Recht über ein Volk hat, nur also von Gott ist, wie der Teufel auch von Gott ist,153 und daß der Gehorsam gegen eine solche Teufels-Obrigkeit nur so lange gilt, bis ihre Teufelsgewalt gebrochen werden kann; – daß der Gott, der ein Volk durch Eine Sprache zu Einem Leibe vereinigte,154 die Gewaltigen die es zerfleischen und vierteilen, oder gar in dreißig Stücke zerreißen, als Volksmörder und Tyrannen hier zeitlich und dort ewiglich strafen wird, denn die Schrift 146 See Psalm 29.11: “Der Herr wird seinem Volke Kraft geben […]” and 68.36: “Gott […] wird dem Volk Macht und Kraft geben [...]” 147 The first biblical incorporation of “zer” is in a dialoge between God and Satan implying that Satan will eventually be destroyed. See 1 Mose 3.15: “Und ich will Feindschaft setzen zwischen dir und dem Weibe und zwischen deinem Samen und ihrem Samen. Derselbe soll dir den Kopf zertreten, und du wirst ihn in die Ferse stechen.” The prefix “zer” in HL is an emphasizer which implies the impossibility of the ruling classes’ retaliation. See also Psalm 68.22: “Ja, Gott wird den Kopf seiner Feinde zerschmettern […]” 110.6: “[…] er wird zerschmettern das Haupt über große Lande.” 148 See Jakobus 5.19-20: “Liebe Brüder, so jemand unter euch irren würde von der Wahrheit, und jemand bekehrte ihn, 20. der soll wissen, daß wer den Sünder bekehrt hat von dem Irrtum seines Weges, der hat einer Seele vom Tode geholfen [...]” 149 See Johannes 8.32: “und werdet die Wahrheit erkennen, und die Wahrheit wird euch frei machen,” 1 Timotheus 4.3: “[...] zu nehmen mit Danksagung, den Gläubigen und denen, die die Wahrheit erkennen,” 2 Timotheus 2.25: “und mit Sanftmut strafe die Widerspenstigen, ob ihnen Gott dermaleinst Buße gebe, die Wahrheit zu erkennen.” 150 See 2 Mose 20.3: “Du sollst keine anderen Götter neben mir haben.” 151 “Allerhöchste” is another name for God. See Psalm 47.3 and 57.3 as well as Markus 5.7 and Lukas 8.28. 152 Refers again to the adjectives describing the Großherzog. 153 See 1 Mose 3.1: “Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem Felde, die Gott der Herr gemacht hatte [...]” 154 See 1. Korinther 12.13: “Denn wir sind durch einen Geist alle zu einem Leibe getauft [...]” 51 sagt: was Gott vereinigt hat, soll der Mensch nicht trennen;155 und daß der Allmächtige, der aus der Einöde ein Paradies schaffen kann,156 auch ein Land des Jammers und des Elends157 wieder in ein Paradies umschaffen kann, wie unser teuerwertes Deutschland war, bis seine Fürsten es zerfleischten und schunden.” (II, 63-64, 18-4) As the conclusion of HL approaches, the employment of biblical quotations becomes more frequent and the modifications made to those quotations less extreme. The reason for this, aside from authorship, points to the pamphlet’s aim. At a time when Young Germany was questioning any and all authority, HL clarifies that its intentions are purely political as it ostensibly subscribes to the prevailing divine authority and attests to His omnipotence. A mosaic of biblical allusions and quotations in this section support the previously introduced argument: should the people repent (“sobald ihr euch bekehret […]”), God will provide the necessary physical strength to ensure a successful revolution (“euch Kraft geben […]”). Why is this particular leitmotif so popular in HL? Its importance is twofold: it places responsibility on the rural population to change their conditions, and argues that God is in their favor. The pamphlet’s political interests, of course, reach far beyond the Hessian population to include a petition for the unification of Germany, something God apparently also favors. He united the people (“[…] Gott, der ein Volk durch eine Sprache zu einem Leibe vereinigte”) and will punish those “Volksmörder und Tyrannen” who are 155 See Matthäus 19.6: “[...] Was nun Gott zusammengefügt hat, das soll der Mensch nicht scheiden.” See 1 Mose 1.2: “Und die Erde war wüst und leer […],” Jesaja 35.1: “Aber die Wüste und Einöde wird lustig sein, und das dürre Land wird fröhlich stehen und wird blühen wie die Lilien,” and Hesekiel 36.35: “[…] Dies Land war verheert, und jetzt ist's wie der Garten Eden; und diese Städte waren zerstört, öde und zerrissen, und stehen nun fest gebaut.” 157 Psalm 10.14: “Du siehest ja, denn du schauest das Elend und den Jammer [...]” and 25.18: “Siehe an meinen Jammer und mein Elend und vergib mir alle meine Sünden!” 156 52 perpetuating the individual principalities both “hier zeitlich” und “dort ewiglich.” With the modified biblical quotation intended to support the claim (“was Gott vereinigt hat, soll der Mensch nicht trennen”), HL generalizes the original biblical argument – exclusively in reference to the relationship between husband and wife – to contend that man should not divide anything which was divinely united. In a broader sense, the HL contextualization encourages the unorthodox application of biblical teachings to modern situations. Weil das deutsche Reich morsch und faul war, und die Deutschen von Gott und von der Freiheit abgefallen waren, hat Gott das Reich zu Trümmern gehen lassen, um es zu einem Freistaat zu verjüngen. Er hat eine Zeitlang „den Satans-Engeln158 Gewalt gegeben, daß sie Deutschland mit Fäusten schlügen, er hat den Gewaltigen und Fürsten, die in der Finsternis herrschen, den bösen Geistern unter dem Himmel (Ephes. 6),159 Gewalt gegeben, daß sie Bürger und Bauern peinigten und ihr Blut aussaugten und ihren Mutwillen trieben mit Allen, die Recht und Freiheit mehr lieben als Unrecht und Knechtschaft.“ – – Aber ihr Maas ist voll! (II, 64, 5-15) The graphic descriptions of Germany’s dire condition as, among other things, “ein Land des Jammers und des Elends” are followed by the promise of its impermanence. HL prophesies early in the text that “das Reich der Finsternis neigt sich zu Ende” (II, 59, 34-35)160 and then – in this passage – again claims that God granted Satan’s angels power for “eine Zeitlang.” These temporal references culminate in the section’s final 158 See 2 Korinther 12.7 “[...] ist mir gegeben ein Pfahl ins Fleisch, nämlich des Satans Engel, der mich mit Fäusten schlage, auf daß ich mich nicht überhebe” (Schaub 70). 159 See Epheser 6.12: “Denn wir haben nicht mit Fleisch und Blut zu kämpfen, sondern mit Fürsten und Gewaltigen, nämlich mit den Herren der Welt, die in der Finsternis dieser Welt herrschen, mit den bösen Geistern unter dem Himmel.” 160 Biblical references to Satan’s time on Earth as “darkness” are also found in Apostelgeschichte 26.18, Epheser 6.12, and Kolosser 1.13. 53 exclamation in favor of evil’s immediate obliteration “Aber ihr Maß ist voll!” Instead of modernizing or creating new contextualizations for the quotations, an examination of similar biblical accounts only supports HL’s argument. Biblically speaking, the devil is also allotted only a specific time on earth (Offenbarung 12.12) and Christ himself explains to the chief priests “[…] aber dies ist eure Stunde und die Macht der Finsternis.” (Lukas 22.53) Additionally both the Bible (Offenbarung 12.9) and HL (“Er hat eine Zeitlang den Satans-Engeln Gewalt gegeben”) describe agents of evil in the passive, rather than active, voice implying their lack of agency and emphasizing God’s ultimate control. Sehet an das von Gott gezeichnete Scheusal, den König Ludwig von Baiern, den Gotteslästerer, der redliche Männer vor seinem Bilde niederzuknien zwingt, und die, welche die Wahrheit bezeugen, durch meineidige Richter zum Kerker verurteilen läßt; das Schwein,161 das sich in allen Lasterpfützen von Italien wälzte, den Wolf,162 der sich für seinen Baals-Hofstaat163 für immer jährlich fünf Millionen durch meineidige Landstände verwilligen läßt, und fragt dann: „Ist das eine Obrigkeit von Gott zum Segen verordnet?“ Ha! du wärst Obrigkeit von Gott? Gott spendet Segen aus; Du raubst du schindest, kerkerst ein, Du nicht von Gott, Tyrann! (II, 64, 16-28) HL repeatedly utilizes animal metaphors to divide the socioeconomic classes: the 161 See 3 Mose 11.7: “Und ein Schwein spaltet wohl die Klauen, aber es wiederkäut nicht; darum soll’s euch unrein sein” and 5 Mose 14.8 “das Schwein, ob es wohl die Klauen spaltet, so wiederkäut es doch nicht: es soll euch unrein sein. Ihr Fleisch sollt ihr nicht essen, und ihr Aas sollt ihr nicht anrühen.” Indeed, as Schaub describes, “Wegen seiner angeblichen Unreinlichkeit (vgl. 2 Petrus 2.22) ist das Schwein ein Bild der groben Sinnlichkeit” (70). 162 “Bereits in der Bibel”, Schaub explains, “werden die Fürsten gelegentlich mit Wölfen verglichen” (70). See Hesekiel 22.27: “Ihre Fürsten sind darin wie die reißenden Wölfe, Blut zu vergießen und Seelen umzubringen um ihres Geizes willen” and Matthäus 7.15: “Sehet euch vor vor den falschen Propheten, die in Schafskleidern zu euch kommen, inwendig aber sind sie reißende Wölfe.” 163 See 1 Könige 19.18: “Und ich will lassen übrigbleiben siebentausend in Israel; alle Kniee, die sich nicht gebeugt haben vor Baal, und allen Mund, der ihn nicht geküßt hat.” 54 hard-working poor are described as cattle (II, 53-4, 30-2) or herds (II, 55, 6) belonging to the ruling classes, who are subsequently deemed “Hirten, Melker und Schinder” (II, 55, 6-7). Though they are purportedly a protector, this lexical progression describing the ruling classes also illustrates the transformation of what the government should be to what the government is. Thereafter the political situation is repeatedly deemed a “Schinderei” (II, 57, 16 [Gerechtigkeit]; II, 59, 26-27; II, 65, 19). Should an honest judge be employed, he will be “selber geschunden” (II, 56, 22). Germany is the land, “das jetzt die Fürsten schinden” (II, 59, 36) given to “einheimlichen Schinder” by God because of the people’s unrighteousness (II, 63, 8). The land was a paradise “bis seine Fürsten es zerfleischten und schunden” (II, 64, 3-4). At the end of this section Gottfried August Bürger’s poem is even modified to include the lines “du schindest, kerkerst ein,” which are directed at government authorities (Schaub 71). In France the people are said to have become “müde, länger die Schindmähre des Königs zu sein” (II, 60, 5-6). Even the laws, HL contends, support this process: Diese Gerechtigkeit ist nur ein Mittel, euch in Ordnung zu halten, damit man euch bequemer schinde. (II, 55, 24-26) Just as livestock are unknowingly led to a slaughterhouse, the rural population fails to recognize the exploitation permeating their lives. On cursory examination this animal metaphor may be considered little more than a continuation of HL’s initial reference to the biblical creation account. There is, however, a metaphorical description of the Israelite ruling classes in the Bible, which describes the exploitation of their subjects as “skinning” as well: 55 Und ich sprach: Höret doch, ihr Häupter im Hause Jakob und ihr Fürsten im Hause Israel! Ihr solltet’s billig sein, die das Recht wüßten. 2 Aber ihr hasset das Gute und liebet das Arge; ihr schindet ihnen die Haut ab und das Fleisch von den Gebeinen 3 und fresset das Fleisch meines Volks; und wenn ihr ihnen die Haut abgezogen habt, zerbrecht ihr ihnen auch die Gebeine und zerlegt’s wie einen Topf und wie Fleisch in einen Kessel. (Micha 3.1-4) This graphic scriptural passage demonstrates the predatory and destructive nature of the ruling classes, while the use of “fresset” reinforces the animal connection. Consequently the animal metaphors throughout HL are examples of both intratextuality (Each refers to the HL’s initial argument that the people are treated as God intended animals to be) and intertextuality (to the Bible). The animal metaphor reappears in this section as the Bavarian King Ludwig I164 is portrayed first as a swine and then as a wolf. Introducing him as both a monster (“Scheusal”) and a blasphemer (“Gotteslästerer”), HL condemns King Ludwig I for his Italian rendezvous and his use of seemingly pretentious and futile punishment which forced individuals, such as the Würzburg mayor Wilhelm Joseph Behr, to bow to his image for absolution (Schaub 70). These attacks are compounded by the pamphlet’s employment of animal metaphors to describe the King. The swine, a biblically unclean beast, was worthless to the Israelites; its consumption was forbidden and even touching it resulted in the perpetrator’s own uncleanliness.165 So useless too, HL implies, was King Ludwig and his Italian rendezvous (“das Schwein, das sich in allen Lasterpfützen von 164 Not to be mistaken for the Grand Duke Ludwig referred to earlier in the text. See 3. Mose 5.2: “Oder wenn jemand etwas Unreines anrührt, es sei ein Aas eines unreinen Tiers oder Viehs oder Gewürms, und wüßte es nicht, der ist unrein und hat sich verschuldet.” 165 56 Italien wälzte”). His predatory utilization of funds for his own household provides a basis for the second metaphor (“den Wolf, der sich für seinen Baals-Hofstaat für immer jährlich fünf Millionen durch meineidige Landstände verwilligen läßt […]”). Just like King Ludwig, the ruling classes, described as “das Krokodil” (II, 58, 21) or “der Kopf des Blutegels” (II, 58, 27) who desire to “Blut aussaugen” (II, 65, 32), rely upon the rural population to maintain their lifestyles – like predators upon prey. The reference to King Ludwig’s residence as “Baals-Hofstaat” associates the king with the biblical character Baal, who, in each passage with reference to him, serves as competition for God; the people worship either one or the other. In addition to suggesting that King Ludwig works in opposition to God, HL also alludes to the results of such a choice. Those who chose Baal were eventually destroyed (1 Könige 19.18). Ich sage euch: sein und seiner Mitfürsten Maß ist voll. Gott, der Deutschland um seiner Sünden willen geschlagen hat durch diese Fürsten, wird es wieder heilen.166 „Er wird die Hecken und die Dörner niederreißen und auf einem Haufen verbrennen.“ Jesaias 27,4.167 So wenig der Höcker noch wächset, womit Gott diesen König Ludwig gezeichnet hat, so wenig werden die Schandtaten dieser Fürsten noch wachsen können. Ihr Maß ist voll. Der Herr wird ihre Zwingburgen zerschmeißen und in Deutschland wird dann Leben und Kraft, der Segen der Freiheit wieder erblühen. Zu einem großen Leichenfelde haben die Fürsten die deutsche Erde gemacht, wie Ezechiel168 im 37. Kapitel beschreibt: „Der Herr führte mich auf ein weites Feld, das voller Gebeine lag, und siehe, 166 3 Mose 26.24: “so will ich euch auch entgegen wandeln und will euch noch siebenmal mehr schlagen um eurer Sünden willen,” 5 Mose 32.39: “Sehet ihr nun, daß ich's allein bin und ist kein Gott neben mir! Ich kann töten und lebendig machen, ich kann schlagen und kann heilen, und ist niemand, der aus meiner Hand errette,” and Hosea 6.1: “Kommt, wir wollen wieder zum Herrn [...] denn er hat uns geschlagen, er wird uns auch verbinden.” 167 See Jesaja 27.4: “Gott zürnt nicht mit mir. Ach, daß ich möchte mit den Hecken und Dornen kriegen! So wollte ich unter sie fallen und sie auf einen Haufen anstecken.” 168 The Vulgate form of Ezekiel (Schaub 72). 57 sie waren sehr verdorrt.“169 Aber wie lautet des Herrn Wort zu den verdorrten Gebeinen: „Siehe, ich will euch Adern geben und Fleisch lassen über euch wachsen, und euch mit Haut überziehen, und will euch Odem geben, daß ihr wieder lebendig werdet, und sollt erfahren, daß Ich der Herr bin.“170 Und des Herrn Wort wird auch an Deutschland sich wahrhaftig beweisen, wie der Prophet spricht: „Siehe, es rauschte und regte sich und die Gebeine kamen wieder zusammen, ein jegliches zu seinem Gebein.171 – Da kam Odem in sie und sie wurden wieder lebendig und richteten sich wieder auf ihre Füße, und ihrer war ein sehr groß Heer.“ (II, 64-65, 29-16)172 As previously pointed out, direct and only slightly modified biblical quotations become increasingly frequent towards the conclusion of HL (previous to this section, there is only one cited direct quotation). In this passage, a montage of quotations attests to God’s omnipotence and omnipresence. After repeated descriptions of Germany’s desolation and the horrendous exploitation of the Hessian population, this passage applies Ezekiel’s vivid description of Israel’s resurrection to Germany, contending God will heal the rural population and unify the German principalities. God’s omnipresence is evident in the suggestion that both the working and ruling classes are His instruments; the former to ameliorate (“Der Herr, […], wird auch die Götzenbilder unserer einheimischen Tyrannen zerbrechen durch die Hände des Volks.”), the latter to punish (“Gott, der Deutschland um seiner Sünden willen geschlagen hat durch diese Fürsten”). This serves, however, as no justification for misbehavior. Although both classes ultimately serve 169 Again this is not a direct quotation, but a modified one. See Hesekiel 37.1-2: “Und des Herrn Hand kam über mich, und er führte mich hinaus im Geist des Herrn und stellte mich auf ein weites Feld, das voller Totengebeine lag. 2. Und er führte mich allenthalben dadurch. Und siehe, des Gebeins lag sehr viel auf dem Feld; und siehe, sie waren sehr verdorrt.” 170 This is a direct quotation. See Hesekiel 37.6. 171 This is a modified quotation. cf.. Hesekiel 37.7: “[…] siehe, da rauschte es, als ich weissagte, und siehe es regte sich, und die Gebeine kamen wieder zusammen, ein jegliches zu seinem Gebein.” 172 This is a direct quotation. See Hesekiel 37.10. 58 divine purposes, HL contends, neither serves God. Class separation is reintroduced with the description of invasive and fruitless plants found in the subsequent modified quotation (“Er wird die Hecken und Dörner niederreißen”). It suggests a hierarchical separation between that which is productive and unproductive; the latter of which should be destroyed (“auf einem Haufen verbrennen”).173 Members of the ruling classes, whose lives are described as “ein langer Sonntag,” not only fail to produce, but hinder others by depleting necessary resources. Wie der Prophet schreibet, so stand es bisher in Deutschland: eure Gebeine sind verdorrt,174 denn die Ordnung, in der ihr lebt, ist eitel Schinderei. […] So weit ein Tyrann blicket – und Deutschland hat deren wohl dreißig – verdorret Land und Volk. Aber wie der Prophet schreibet, so wird es bald stehen in Deutschland: der Tag der Auferstehung wird nicht säumen .175 In dem Leichenfelde wird sichs regen und wird rauschen und der Neubelebten wird ein großes Heer sein.176 Hebt die Augen auf177 und zählt das Häuflein eurer Presser, die nur stark sind durch das Blut, das sie euch aussaugen und durch eure Arme, die ihr ihnen willenlos leihet. Ihrer sind vielleicht 10,000 im Großherzogtum und Eurer sind es 700,000 und also verhält sich die Zahl des Volkes zu seinen Pressern auch im übrigen Deutschland. (II, 65, 17-36) 173 This alludes to multiple biblical references to fire as punishment (both immediate and posthumous). See, among others, 1 Mose 19.24: “Da ließ der Herr Schwefel und Feuer regnen von dem Herrn vom Himmel herab auf Sodom und Gomorra,” 5 Mose 32.22: “Denn ein Feuer ist angegangen durch meinen Zorn und wird brennen bis in die unterste Hölle […],” and Josua 7.15: “Und welcher gefunden wird im Bann, den soll man mit Feuer verbrennen mit allem, was er hat, darum daß er den Bund des Herrn übertreten und eine Torheit in Israel begangen hat.” 174 See Hesekiel 37.11: “Und er sprach zu mir: Du Menschenkind, diese Gebeine sind das ganze Haus Israel. Siehe, jetzt sprechen sie: Unsre Gebeine sind verdorrt […]” 175 This is in reference to Hesekiel 37, especially Hesekiel 37.14: “Und ich will meinen Geist in euch geben, daß ihr wieder leben sollt, und will euch in euer Land setzen […]” 176 See Hesekiel 37.7: “[…] siehe, da rauschte es […] und siehe, es regte sich […]” and Hesekiel 37.10: “[…] Und ihrer war ein sehr großes Heer.” 177 This is a common biblical phrase. See Jesaja 51.6, Jeremia 13.20, and Johannes 4.35. 59 HL repeatedly alludes to the ruling classes’ idle and invasive natures. The modified quotation “Hebt die Augen auf” seems to imply dependence on God (i.e. look to the Heavens for life), but in biblical contexts, the phrase more closely connotes careful observation. Isaiah commands the people to observe the grandiosity of the heavens and earth, but then explains that it will all be destroyed (51.6), Jeremiah asks the people to lift their eyes to see how their flocks have been taken (13.20), and John tells the people to lift up their eyes to see that the harvest is ripe. (Johannes 4.35) Just as the Bible, HL employs “Hebt die Augen auf” to encourage the Hessian populace to recognize their obvious mistreatment (“eure Gebeine sind verdorrt, denn die Ordnung, in der ihr lebt, ist eitel Schinderei.”) as well as their own combined strength (“Ihrer sind vielleicht 10,000 im Großherzogtum und Eurer sind es 700,000 […]”). Wohl drohen sie mit dem Rüstzeug und den Reisigen der Könige, aber ich sage euch178: Wer das Schwert erhebt gegen das Volk, der wird durch das Schwert des Volkes umkommen.179 Deutschland ist jetzt ein Leichenfeld, bald wird es ein Paradies sein. Das deutsche Volk ist Ein Leib ihr seid ein Glied dieses Leibes.180 Es ist einerlei, wo die Scheinleiche zu zucken anfängt. Wann der Herr euch seine Zeichen gibt181 durch die Männer, durch welche er die Völker aus der Dienstbarkeit182 zur Freiheit führt, dann erhebet euch und der ganze Leib wird mit euch aufstehen. 178 See Matthäus 8.11: “Aber ich sage euch [...],” Markus 9.13: “Aber ich sage euch [...],” Lukas 6.27: “Aber ich sage euch [...],” and Johannes 16.7: “Aber ich sage euch die Wahrheit [...]” There are also several similar phrases such as “ich aber sage euch [...],” “denn ich sage euch [...]”, and “wahrlich ich sage euch [...]” 179 See Matthäus 26.52: “Da sprach Jesus zu ihm: […] wer das Schwert nimmt, der soll durchs Schwert umkommen.” 180 See 1 Korinther 12.12: “Denn gleichwie ein Leib ist, und hat doch viele Glieder, alle Glieder aber des Leibes, wiewohl ihrer viel sind, doch ein Leib sind: also auch Christus.” 181 See Jesaja 7.14: “Darum so wird euch der Herr selbst ein Zeichen geben […]” 182 See Jesaja 40.2: “[…] ihre Dienstbarkeit ein Ende hat, denn ihre Missetat ist vergeben […]” and Nehemia 9.17: “[…] sie wurden halsstarrig und warfen ein Haupt auf, daß sie sich zurückwendeten zu ihrer Dienstbarkeit in ihrer Ungeduld [...]” 60 Ihr bücktet euch lange Jahre in den Dornäckern der Knechtschaft,183 dann schwitzt ihr einen Sommer im Weinberge der Freiheit, und werdet frei sein bis ins tausendste Glied.184 Ihr wühltet ein langes Leben die Erde auf, dann wühlt ihr euren Tyrannen ein Grab. Ihr bautet die Zwingburgen, dann stürzt ihr sie, und bauet der Freiheit Haus. Dann könnt ihr eure Kinder frei taufen185 mit dem Wasser des Lebens.186 Und bis der Herr euch ruft durch seine Boten und Zeichen, wachet und rüstet euch im Geiste und betet ihr selbst187 und lehrt eure Kinder beten: „Herr, zerbrich den Stecken unserer Treiber188 und laß dein Reich zu uns kommen,189 das Reich der Gerechtigkeit. Amen.“ (II, 65-66, 36-21)190 Biblically the phrase “aber ich sage euch” was incorporated before an important declaration or in order to contradict previous beliefs. The most outstanding example is found in the Sermon on the Mount as Christ corrects the habits and beliefs of his audience by explaining the difference between what “Ihr gehört habt” and what “Ich aber sage euch.” HL employs the ornamental direct quotation to introduce the same sermonlike tone to the ensuing justification of revolutionary violence. As the subsequent 183 See 1 Mose 3.18: “Dornen und Disteln soll er dir tragen, und sollst das Kraut aud dem Felde essen” and Jesaja 32.13: “Denn es werden auf dem Acker meines Volkes Dornen und Hecken wachsen [...]” 184 See 2 Mose 34.7: “der da bewahret Gnade in tausend Glieder und vergibt Missetat, Übertretung und Sünde [...]” 185 See Römer 6.4: “So sind wir ja mit ihm begraben durch die Taufe in den Tod, auf daß, gleichwie Christus ist auferweckt von den Toden durch die Herrlichkeit des Vaters, also sollen auch wir in einem neuen Leben wandeln.” 186 Offenbarung 22.17: “[…] Und wen dürstet, der komme; und wer da will, der nehme das Wasser des Lebens umsonst,” 22.1: “Und er zeigte mir einen lautern Strom des lebendigen Wassers, […] der ging aus von dem Stuhl Gottes und des Lammes,” and Johannes 4.14: “wer aber von dem Wasser trinken wird, das ich ihm gebe, den wird ewiglich nicht dürsten; sondern das Wasser […] wird in ihm ein Brunnen des Wassers werden, das in das ewige Leben quillt.” 187 See Matthäus 26.41: “Wachet und betet, daß ihr nicht in Anfechtung fallet! Der Geist ist willig; aber das Fleisch ist schwach.” See also Markus 14.38 and Jesaja 8.9 (Schaub 75). 188 See Jesaja 9.3: “Denn du hast das Joch ihrer Last und die Rute ihrer Schulter und den Stekken ihres Treibers zerbrochen wie zur Zeit Midians.” 189 See Matthäus 6.10: “Dein Reich komme [...]” 190 See Römer 14.17: “Denn das Reich Gottes ist nicht Essen und Trinken, sondern Gerechtigkeit und Friede und Freude in dem heiligen Geiste.” For more concerning HL’s employment of “Reich Gottes” (II, 871). 61 modified quotation explains, whoever lifts a sword against the people will die by the sword of the people (“Wer das Schwert erhebt gegen das Volk, der wird durch das Schwert des Volkes umkommen”). HL had already concluded that political change would require violence as even elections were considered a futile alternative (II, 62, 5-8), but with this biblical citation the pamphlet identifies those against whom violence is justified, i.e., the violent. Subsequent biblical references to the rural population’s years in “Dienstbarkeit” and the “Dornäckern der Knechtschaft” also serve as justification and motivation when followed by a depiction of what could result, i.e., “einen Sommer im Weinberge der Freiheit” and freedom “bis ins tausendste Glied.” Freedom is depicted as a new life for the overworked poor and their descendants (“Dann könnt ihr eure Kinder frei taufen mit dem Wasser des Lebens”). Baptism, a biblical symbol of death and resurrection, represents a new life through reconciliation with Christ and unification in His church.191 In accordance with previous HL arguments the rural population is guilty of blasphemy and thus the reconciliation represented by baptism would be necessary. The reference to baptism in HL also subtly alludes to the leitmotif of resurrection introduced earlier in the pamphlet. The revolution would serve as a baptism per se, after which Germany would resurrect from its lifeless and divided state. The phrase also refers to the modified biblical quotation “Wasser des Lebens.” Biblically the “water of life” represents eternal life,192 given freely by Christ to the 191 See Epheser 4.5: “ein Herr, ein Glaube, eine Taufe.” See Johannes 4.14: “wer aber von dem Wasser trinken wird, das ich ihm gebe, den wird ewiglich nicht dürsten; sondern das Wasser, das ich ihm geben werde, das wird in ihm ein Brunnen des Wassers werden, das in das ewige Leben quillt.” 192 62 thirsty.193 Upon drinking, the scriptures contend, one never thirsts again. Similarly, water serves in HL as a metaphor for freedom. In order to achieve it, the Hessian people must thirst for it as they do for life and recognize its universal availability as well as the enduring satisfaction it provides. In this journey from servitude to freedom, the Hessian rural population is subtly compared with the Israelites as they are led from Egyptian captivity to the Promised Land.194 Allusions to a potential paradisical state aesthetically frame HL with the biblical creation account. Beginning with reference to an early commandment given Adam and Eve while in Eden (“Herrschet […] über alles Getier”), the pamphlet concludes with an allusion to the biblical counsel given Adam as he left the garden after his disobedience and subsequent fall (“Dornen und Disteln soll er dir tragen”). Instead of being sent out of Eden, however, the rural population are in effect invited to return to the garden, i.e., a utopian “Reich der Gerechtigkeit” similar to that described at the end of Leonce und Lena. As HL also generally employs biblical quotations chronologically, this is also an allusion to the Millenium, the thousand years during which Satan is bound.195 Although a violent revolution is HL’s aim, the later modified quotation “[…] wachet und rüstet euch im Geiste” contradicts its biblical source (“[…] Der Geist ist willig; aber das Fleisch ist schwach”) by recommending the people prepare themselves 193 See Offenbarung 21.6 “Ich bin das A und das O, der Anfang und das Ende. Ich will dem Durstigen geben von dem Brunnen des lebendigen Wassers umsonst” and Offenbarung 22.17: “Und der Geist und die Braut sprechen: Komm! Und wer es hört, der spreche: Komm! Und wen dürstet, der komme; und wer da will, der nehme das Wasser des Lebens umsonst.” 194 “Wann der Herr euch seine Zeichen gibt durch die Männer, durch welche er die Völker aus der Dienstbarkeit zur Freiheit führt” (II, 66, 5-7). God employs “Männer,” i.e., revolutionary leaders or Moses, to be his messangers and ultimately lead “die Völker”, i.e., the working classes or the Israelites, “aus der Dienstbarkeit,” i.e., of the Egyptian pharaoh or the Hessian government. 195 See Offenbarung 20.2-7. 63 spiritually rather than physically. The pamphlet’s subtext implies that spiritual preparation, as previously suggested, includes the ability to recognize divine messengers. With the subsequent claim that God employs “Boten und Zeichen” to call His people, HL is skillfully and subtly self-referential (Hessischer Landbote). References to – and in the form of – a prayer (“Dein Reich komme”) as well as the pamphlet’s last word (identical to that of prayers, sermons, as well as the Bible) further claim the divine foundation of the pamphlet’s message. The prayer-like form and the call for spiritual preparation is a reconciliation of the pamphlet’s radical ideas with its very religious audience. Instead of requesting its readers to accept its argument, HL only directly asks that the rural population examine the contemporary conditions, prepare spiritually and pray. According to an 1842 article regarding the Darmstadt section of the “Gesellschaft der Menschenrechte,” Büchner claimed that political pamphlets should demonstrate “in den einfachen Bildern und Wendungen des neuen Testaments […] die heiligen Rechte der Menschen” (Schaub 125). Although HL can hardly be called “einfach,” the pamphlet does employ both Testaments to illustrate and advocate inherent human rights. It does so by repeatedly juxtaposing select biblical teachings with reality: the rural population is – but should not be – treated as animals; the ruling classes are – but should not be – worshiped. Together the arguments encourage change – not merely in the government, but in individual thought - as they illustrate the discrepancy of what the Bible teaches and how their community functions. Through the pamphlet Büchner discovers the Bible’s versatility and his own ingenious ability to illustrate multifaceted perspectives of the same body. Not only is the 64 Hessian government portrayed, as Reeve eloquently describes, “as links in a chain strong enough to support the interests of the moneyed class and heavy enough to enslave the peasants” (18) but the same biblical metaphors (animals, Christ figures, a body) are employed in HL to encourage (whether to revolt or repent) the rural population and to condemn the ruling classes. It is only subtle differences that distinguish one as a predator and the other as prey. Thus the biblical quotations provide a flexible springboard for HL’s authors, and also, as mentioned in the introduction, a recognizable text and understandable imagery for its audience. HL’s intricate but structured employment of biblical quotations serves as a blueprint for Büchner’s subsequent writings, i.e., Dantons Tod, Leonce und Lena, Lenz, and Woyzeck. In each text, biblical quotations support illustrations of (often material) societal discrepancies (Knapp 80-81), create a Christ figure, and encourage revolutionary action, whether political or social, to eliminate those discrepancies. Although I have attempted to make this pattern of biblical use in HL as clear as possible, the benefits of a chronological examination are challenged by the text’s difficulty. HL’s arguments and leitmotifs are woven through the text like a fugue. CHAPTER 2 DANTONS TOD: ES MUß JA ÄRGERNIS KOMMEN Although Büchner did not assume Der Hessische Landbote would actually begin a revolution, the young author must have been greatly disappointed to discover that the majority of pamphlets distributed were turned over to authorities unread (II, 844). His own potential imprisonment and news of his close friends’ arrests on account of HL were certainly even more disturbing. Despite these emotions and the immediate dangers surrounding him, Büchner did not abandon his revolutionary ideals, but instead chose to reiterate them in his second text Dantons Tod (hereafter DT). The drama expresses many of the fears Büchner was experiencing, but also, as Knapp explains, serves as a dramatic companion to Der Hessische Landbote as “both stress the necessity of revolutionary change by force, both reflect on the potential power of the masses, and both grapple with the ethical justification of violence.”196 Like the political pamphlet, DT employs the French Revolution of 1789 as an example, focusing on the last days of Georges Jacques Danton (26 October 1759 – 5 April 1794) and his relationship with the subsequent political leader Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre (6 May 1758 – 28 July 1794). 196 Knapp, Gerhard P."Dantons Tod: Ein Drama [Danton's Death: A Drama]". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10375, accessed 23 August 2008.]. 66 One can only wonder what encouraged Büchner to try his hand at a drama. It may have been his disillusionment with the unread HL and must have been in part due to his love of Goethe and Shakespeare197 and his seemingly unrelenting ability to render the ordinary in atypical perspectives – a challenge a new genre could offer. Speculation aside, however, the different genres of the author’s first two works create quite diverse texts. The political pamphlet is to be read, albeit oft aloud, and addresses its audience directly, while the drama is performed, demonstrating its arguments through characters’ dialogues and actions as well as scene and prop changes. The pamphlet is concise, the drama often not so. And while the political pamphlet frequently addresses the common people, the drama engages theatergoers, at the time exclusively the wealthy and educated. Although I analyze DT’s biblical quotations in much the same fashion as those from HL, i.e., chronologically and categorized according to type and function, it is also necessary to address these inherent differences in genres. Each quotation’s speaker and addressee is considered, prior or future dialogues may be introduced as clarification, and characters’ relationships are often examined. Also because the text is significantly longer, I only include short sections central to the contextualization of quotations. As in HL, biblical quotations in DT reveal unacceptable socioeconomic divisions, create Christ figures, and justify revolutionary violence. The Bible, however, is no longer employed as an authoritative voice as it was in the political pamphlet. Instead, its quotations, like other quotations in DT, are more often “critically contextualized”198 even 197 Büchner shares: “Mit einem Wort, ich halte viel auf Goethe und Shakspeare, aber sehr wenig auf Schiller” (II, 411, 16-17). 198 Knapp, Gerhard P. "Dantons Tod: Ein Drama [Danton's Death: A Drama]". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10375, accessed 11 March 2009.]. 67 to the point of blasphemy. The creation of Christ figures becomes a complex demonstration – not of good and evil as in HL – but of differing perspectives. Socioeconomic discrepancies are marked not merely by hunger and exploitation, but also by the lack of sexual freedom and fulfillment. And the call for change is not the clear voice of a political pamphlet inciting the working poor to take action, but rather an invitation to reflect on the complexity of politics and the power of rhetoric. According to Bark (481), a first possible biblical reference – found early in DT’s first scene – questions the purpose of suffering.199 Danton explains to his wife Julie: Die Leute sagen im Grab sei Ruhe und Grab und Ruhe seien eins. Wenn das ist, lieg’ ich in deinem Schoß schon unter der Erde. (I, 13, 30-32) Although, as Bark suggests, the segment clearly relates the peace of the grave with that of the womb, in the continuation of the passage Danton clarifies his relationship to Julie as sexual rather than parental. The suffering alluded to, if any, is unfulfilled sexual desire: Du süßes Grab, deine Lippen sind Totenglocken, deine Stimme ist mein Grabgeläute, deine Brust mein Grabhügel und dein Herz mein Sarg. (I, 13-14, 32-3)200 The sexual innuendos permeating the first scene climax in this encounter as Danton employs this more obvious indirect biblical quotation to describe his lover in the tone of 199 “Die Anlehnung an Bibelsprache ist unsicher, immerhin wird sprichwörtliche Rede vorausgesetzt. Der Gedanke bei Hiob 10,18 f., am besten wäre es, nicht geboren zu sein, »so wäre ich wie die, die nie gewesen sind, vom Mutterleib weg zum Grabe gebracht« (vgl. auch 17,14), ist Resümee einer erneuten Befragung Gottes nach dem Sinn von Leiden. Dieser Kontext und die Wortwahl weisen voraus auf die Rede vom Tod, der die Geburt »äfft« (IV,3), und auch die Antwort Philippeaus auf Dantons Verlangen nach Ruhe in III,7 gehört hierher. Die Funktion der Anspielung ist eine Vertiefung der Rede Dantons von Müdigkeit angesichts des geschichtlichen Kreislaufs und überdies eine sprachliche Verflechtung mit der Erkenntnis in II,4, daß Tod und Grab allein ihn von seiner schuldhaften Geschichte retten können” (Bark 481). 200 See Hoheslied 4.3-5: “Deine Lippen sind wie eine scharlachfarbene Schnur, und deine Rede lieblich. Deine Wangen sind wie der Ritz am Granatapfel zwischen deinen Zöpfen. 4. Dein Hals ist wie der Turm Davids, mit Brustwehr gebaut, daran tausend Schilde hangen und allerlei Waffen der Starken. 5. Deine zwei Brüste sind wie zwei junge Rehzwillinge, die unter den Rosen weiden.” 68 the “Song of Solomon” and with images of the grave. Sexuality, however, has long been coupled with death – in French sexual orgasm is even deemed to be “La petite mort” – and Büchner does not focus in DT on their age-old relationship, but rather expounds upon the supposed peace (“Ruhe”) accompanying each. What exactly Danton means by “peace,” however, does not become apparent until near the drama’s conclusion. In a conversation with Philippeau, Danton explains that peace is found in “nothingness”: PHILIPPEAU Was willst du denn? DANTON Ruhe. PHILIPPEAU Die ist in Gott. DANTON Im Nichts. (I, 72, 20-23)201 In other words, Danton, with this biblical allusion, disregards Christ’s reassuring expression “Den Frieden lasse ich euch […]” and instead argues that peace is not in or from God, but rather exists in “nothingness.” This “nothingness,” or nonexistence, is exactly what Danton initially desires. Haunted by his past,202 he hopes for death’s supposed ability to obliterate memories203 because he recognizes, as Bark explains, “daß Tod und Grab allein ihn von seiner schuldhaften Geschichte retten können” (481). Danton is able to hope for and flirt with death as long as it remains at a distance: “Ich kokettiere mit dem Tod, es ist ganz angenehm so aus der Entfernung mit dem Lorgnon mit ihm zu liebäugeln” (I, 47, 20-21). Its previously anticipated peace, however, flees once death is imminent. Shortly before his execution, Danton finds death much less 201 See Johannes 14.27: “Den Frieden lasse ich euch, meinen Frieden gebe ich euch […]” See also Bark 491. 202 “meinen Feind d.h. mein Gedächtnis” (I, 47, 13-4). 203 “Man hat mir von einer Krankheit erzählt, die einem das Gedächtnis verlieren mache. Der Tod soll etwas davon haben. Dann kommt mir manchmal die Hoffnung, daß er vielleicht noch kräftiger wirke und einem Alles verlieren mache. […] Der Ort soll sicher sein, ja für mein Gedächtnis, aber nicht für mich, mir gibt das Grab mehr Sicherheit, es schafft mir wenigstens Vergessen! Es tötet mein Gedächtnis […]” (I, 47, 817). 69 inviting: Da ist keine Hoffnung im Tod, er ist nur eine einfachere, das Leben eine verwickeltere, organisiertere Fäulnis, das ist der ganze Unterschied! (I, 73, 5-7) In contrast, Danton’s encounter with Marion demonstrates that sexual intercourse does offer a kind of peace, but it is “only a temporary release from reality into illusion” (Reeve 57). The couple’s retreat from reality is abruptly disturbed by Lacroix’s unexpected entrance; after which Marion explains to Danton that “Deine Lippen sind kalt geworden, deine Worte haben deine Küsse erstickt” (I, 32, 8-9). An interruption destroys Danton’s illusion – with its associated peace – and reintroduces reality. In the first above cited quotations, however, Danton is not involved in a superficial sexual encounter,204 but in a conversation with Julie, his wife. Although she is first presented with reference to her sexual magnetism ([…] deine Brust mein Grabhügel […]), it is Julie’s words, and the couple’s private conversation after Danton awakens from a terrible nightmare, which calm her husband and encourage the sincere affirmation: “Jetzt bin ich ruhig” (I, 49, 38). Julie’s companionship comforts Danton in death as well. Although he occasionally demonstrates consternation at his impending death, his fear of dying alone, i.e., without Julie, is stronger than his fear of death itself. In her absence he cries out: “O Julie! Wenn ich allein ginge! Wenn sie mich einsam ließe! […] jedes meiner Atome könnte nur Ruhe finden bei ihr” (I, 73, 11-15). Julie is physically distant, but metaphysically close. She correctly senses her husband’s need and sends him a lock of hair knowing that he will understand its meaning: “Da, bring ihm das und sag’ ihm er 204 We can assume Danton’s encounter with Marion is purely sexual by both her explanation that all men flow into one (I, 27, 27-28) as well as Danton’s request that she could use her lips for something better than conversation (I, 26, 33). 70 würde nicht allein gehn. Er versteht mich schon […]” (I, 77, 7-8). Unlike the fleeting peace associated with superficial sexual encounters, Julie’s love provides Danton the lasting peace he initially expected to encounter in death. Thus the first biblical allusion in DT is not a reference to a mother’s womb or to human suffering (“Die Leute sagen […]”), but rather an eloquent physical portrayal of the emotional comforts of love (“Du süßes Grab […]”). DT demonstrates, however, that most citizens in 1794 France – ultimately implying the nineteenth-century Hessian population as well – could not concern themselves with the transcending power of romantic love when they could scarcely feed their families. Just as the socioeconomic classes in HL are distinguished by their disparate relationships to basic physical needs, – the ruling classes are “Fettwänste” (II, 56, 11) with “feiste Gesichter” (II, 53, 28-9) while the poor have “hungernde [n] Weiber [n] und Kinder [n]” (II, 59, 4) – DT demonstrates that the distinction between socioeconomic classes and, interestingly, also between Robespierre's and Danton’s political views205 is their relationship to and understanding of certain fundamental desires. In his brief discourse on humanity, Camille argues that mankind universally engages in “Schlafen, Verdaun, Kinder machen […]” (I, 84, 30); all other activities, the character continues, are “nur Variationen aus verschiedenen Tonarten über das nämliche Thema” (I, 84, 31-32). Camille’s rather cynical representation of humanity lists three 205 Robespierre preaches virtue and sacrifice, while Danton favors pleasure and enjoyement: “In Abwehr von robespierristischen Leitbegriffen wie >>Tugend<< und >>Seelengröße<< (46,33-47,10) treten die Dantonisten für das >>Wohlbefinden<< und den >>eigentümlichen Genuß<< (7,14-28) sowie für Lehrsätze einer epikuräisch-materialistischen Ethik ein (26,13-19) und erklären, >>das Volk ist materiell elend<< (23,16f.), während Robespierre >>Tugend<< und >>Größe<< des Volkes hervorhebt (12,33-13,7 und 17,30-34)” (Funk 19). 71 basic physical functions commonly alluded to in Büchner’s works in association with the term “nature.”206 In DT references to “nature” are plentiful. For example, Hérault claims “Jeder muß sich geltend machen und seine Natur durchsetzen können” (I, 15, 18-19)207 while in his confrontation with Robespierre, Danton explains “Jeder handelt seiner Natur gemäß d.h. er tut, was ihm wohl tut” (I, 33, 35-36).208 Marion even questions whether people can act against their natures: “Meine Natur war einmal so, wer kann darüber hinaus?” (I, 27, 28-29). The query serves equally as a rhetorical question directed at Danton and as a serious inquiry directed at a society which allowed the weathly to fulfill their natural inclinations, but expected the poor to refrain. DT ultimately employs biblical quotations in connection with the natural functions introduced by Camille to demonstrate class division, but argues that this division is artificial and consequently also unjustified. Although their ideas concerning the accepted fulfillment of human nature differ, both political parties recognize this unnatural division. Hérault claims that every individual is entitled to enjoy his or her natural inclinations: “Jeder muß sich geltend machen und seine Natur durchsetzen können. Er mag nun vernünftig oder unvernünftig, gebildet oder ungebildet, gut oder böse sein, das geht den Staat nichts an” (I, 15, 18-21), while St. Just explains that socioeconomic discrepancies are unjust because they are manmade: 206 See especially Woyzeck. In reference to the creation of his illegitimate child, for example, Woyzeck explains: “[…] es kommt einem nur so die Natur […]” (I, 156, 14). Again when caught relieving himself against a wall, Woyzeck defends himself with the phrase “Aber Herr Doktor, wenn einem die Natur kommt” (I, 157, 14-15). 207 See Römer 2.14: “Denn wenn Heiden, die das Gesetz nicht haben, doch von Natur tun des Gesetzes Werk, sind dieselben, dieweil sie das Gesetz nicht haben, sich selbst Gesetz.” 208 cf.. Danton’s earlier remark that “Es gibt nur Epikureer und zwar grobe und feine, Christus war der feinste” (I, 33, 32). 72 Wir schließen schnell und einfach: da Alle unter gleichen Verhältnissen geschaffen werden, so sind Alle gleich, die Unterschiede abgerechnet, welche die Natur selbst gemacht hat. Es darf daher jeder Vorzüge und darf daher Keiner Vorrechte haben, weder ein Einzelner, noch eine geringere oder größere Klasse von Individuen. (I, 54-55, 36-4)209 St Just’s comments mirror HL’s opening argument, i.e., that all humans are created equal; the only legitimate differences being those nature created. The use of “nature” in this passage certainly does not entail merely the three aforementioned bodily functions, but introduces “nature” as a force outside of society. It is nature which, according to Lacroix, distributed beauty in pieces among different women (I, 26, 24-26) and only nature should be permitted to create differences in mankind. DT thus repeatedly reveals mankind’s artificial divisions while demonstrating their illegitimacy. One of the most outstanding of these artifical divisions in DT is found through its depiction of female characters. Historically and biblically women have often been classified in sexual dichotomies – as either a moral virgin or an immoral temptress, i.e., a prostitute. Although Büchner employs this dichotomy in his drama,210 the two are less frequently juxtaposed and more commonly interwoven in the same figure.211 In the drama’s second scene, Simon introduces a woman, whom the audience discovers later to be his wife, first as a prostitute with the biblical allusion “[…] du wurmstichischer 209 Hérault makes another similar statement earlier in the text: “Jeder muß in seiner Art genießen können, jedoch so, daß Keiner auf Unkosten eines Andern genießen oder ihn in seinem eigentümlichen Genuß stören darf” (15, 24-26). 210 Direct references to prostitution in DT are especially noticeable: “du Hurenbett” (I, 17, 15), “die arme Hure” (I, 18, 24-25), “daß diese Hure” (I, 21, 24), “Unsere Huren” (I, 39, 12), and “Hure” (I, 83, 19). 211 One example is Camille’s exclamation: “Wir werden den Leuten, welche über die nackten Schultern der allerliebsten Sünderin Frankreich den Nonnenschleier werfen wollen, auf die Finger schlagen” (I, 15, 3335). Appropriate punishment for deception – creating virtue where it does not exist - is the central argument underlying this image of a sinner disguised as a nun. This is also a possible, although weak, biblical allusion. In Lukas 7.37-39 a “Sünderin” lovingly anoints Jesus’ feet with oil and washes them with her tears. 73 Sündenapfel” (I, 17, 6)212 and immediately thereafter, after being separated from her by a crowd, identifies his daughter as a virgin with the cry: “Wo ist die Jungfrau?” (I, 17, 19)213 The first term refers to Eve’s role in Adam’s fall; after eating fruit from the tree of good and evil offered him by his wife,214 Adam is subsequently cast out of the Garden of Eden. Its contextualization in DT, however, alludes to the biblical consequence of enjoying that fruit, i.e., that he would surely die.215 Simon is obviously not referring to the metaphoric orgasmic “death” described previously, but to the possible venereal diseases acquired from prostitutes, who have historically been outcast as physically and morally dangerous to a community. When Simon attempts to rebuke their daughter for her prostitution, however, his wife deems him a traitor: “Du Judas”216 and explains their financial dependency on prostitution: “hättest du nur ein Paar Hosen hinaufzuziehen, wenn die jungen Herren die Hosen nicht bei ihr herunterließen?” (18, 13-15). The allusion to Judas Iscariot, also employed in HL,217 reflects Simon’s misunderstanding and betrayal of those closest to him. More important, however, the reference additionally alludes to the prostitute’s innocence. Just as the people misjudged Jesus, Simon misjudges his daughter. She does not want to prostitute herself and as her mother recognizes, it is – whether physically or emotionally – painful: “tut’s ihr auch weh dabei, 212 See 1 Mose 2-3, especially 1 Mose 3.6: “[…] und sie nahm von der Frucht und aß und gab ihrem Mann auch davon, und er aß.” 213 The term “Jungfrau” takes on many biblical connotations, i.e., virgin, young woman, and metaphorically as “Tochter Zion” (Jesaiah 37.22), the city of Jerusalem. It is also a general term referring to Mary, the mother of Christ. 214 Although Satan does not offer Eve specifically an apple, an apple is a common substitution or representation for the fruit of the tree of good and evil (Bark 481). 215 See 1 Mose 2.17: “aber von dem Baum der Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen sollst du nicht essen; denn welches Tages du davon issest, wirst du des Todes sterben.” 216 See Matthäus 26.14-15 “Da ging hin der Zwölf einer, mit Namen Judas Ischariot, zu den Hohenpriestern 15. und sprach: Was wollt ihr mir geben? Ich will ihn euch verraten. […]” See also Markus 14:10 and 43, Lukas 22.3 and 47-48, and Johannes 18.2-5. 217 “Was ist aber dieser Fürsten, der Verräter? – Das Teil von Judas!” (II, 60, 3). 74 he?” (I, 18, 20). An anonymous citizen shares the enlightening perspective that it is not the prostitute who is in need of reprimand, but those who patronize her: Ja ein Messer, aber nicht für die arme Hure, was tat sie? Nichts! Ihr Hunger hurt und bettelt. Ein Messer für die Leute, die das Fleisch unserer Weiber und Töchter kaufen! Weh über die, so mit den Töchtern des Volkes huren. (I, 18, 24-28)218 The nameless citizen speaks prophetically219 and, as Bark explains, responds to Danton’s later question and modified biblical quotation: “Was ist das, was in uns hurt, lügt, stiehlt und mordet?” (I, 49, 32) (482).220 Morality, the passage argues, does not necessarily reflect an individual’s nature, but rather his or her economic situation (Reeve 55). In Büchner’s later play, Woyzeck contends morality requires money,221 but in DT immorality requires it as well; it is the wealthy who can afford to visit the brothels and to intoxicate themselves. As Lacroix explains: es [das Volk] genießt nicht, weil ihm die Arbeit die Genußorgane stumpf macht, es besäuft sich nicht, weil es kein Geld hat und es geht nicht in’s Bordell, weil es nach Käs und Hering aus dem Hals stinkt und die Mädel davor einen Ekel haben. (I, 31, 26-30) The rich can eat, have sex, and rest, while the poor cannot. The nameless citizen further describes: Ihr habt Kollern im Leib und sie haben Magendrücken, ihr habt Löcher in den Jacken und sie haben warme Röcke, ihr 218 See Jeremia 6.26: “O Tochter meines Volks, [...],” 8.22: “[...] Warum ist denn die Tochter meines Volks nicht geheilt?” and 14.17: “[...] Meine Augen fließen von Tränen Tag und Nacht und hören nicht auf; denn die Jungfrau, die Tochter meines Volks, ist greulich zerplagt und jämmerlich geschlagen.” Compare with 5 Mose 23.18: “Es soll keine Hure sein unter den Töchtern Israels und kein Hurer unter den Söhnen Israels.” 219 “Weh euch” is a commonly employed biblical phrase. See Jeremia 23.1, Hesekiel 13.18, Matthäus 23.13-29, and Lukas 6.24-26 and 11.42-52. The phrase is also found in HL (II, 58, 20). 220 See Hosea 4.2: “sondern Gotteslästern, Lügen, Morden, Stehlen und Ehebrechen […]” (Bark 489). 221 “Es muß was Schöns sein um die Tugend, Herr Hauptmann. Aber ich bin ein armer Kerl” (I, 156, 1718). 75 habt Schwielen in den Fäusten und sie haben Samthände. Ergo ihr arbeitet und sie tun nichts, ergo ihr habt’s erworben und sie haben’s gestohlen […]. (I, 18, 28-32) Thus, sharp contrasts demonstrate the classes’ separation; empty versus full stomachs, worn, torn jackets as opposed to velvet (gloved) hands, work and idleness, earning and stealing. In DT additional references to the separation and identification of socioeconomic classes by their attire are plentiful222 as are references to life for the poor as little more than work.223 We are reminded of HL’s descriptions of the ruling classes who live “in schönen Häusern” and wear “zierliche Kleider” (II, 53, 27-28) as well as the pamphlet’s contrast of the ruling classes and working poor’s lives as respectively a “langer Sonntag” (II, 53, 27) and a “langer Werktag” (II, 54, 4). The juxtaposition “ergo ihr habt’s erworben und sie haben’s gestohlen” is, however, the most outstanding comparison because it implies that each preceding contrast also entails a “good” and a “bad” and therewith argues that morality should not merely be based on unambiguous laws, but also upon obvious class inconsistencies. Stealing is clearly wrong, but wearing fine apparel, the text argues, should also be classified as immoral when others wear rags. Thus as DT demonstrates class discrepancies, the play also challenges the audience’s previously established stereotypes. While the ladies in fine apparel are assumed to be sinners, the prostitutes, described in the citizen’s biblical allusion as “Töchter des Volkes,” are here associated with the daughters of God’s chosen people.224 222 “Totgeschlagen, wer kein Loch im Rock hat!” (I, 19, 10 & I, 20, 11), “Die Leute, die seidne Kleider tragen, die in Kutschen fahren, die in den Logen im Theater sitzen und nach dem Diktionär der Akademie sprechen […]” (I, 22, 4-7). 223 “Unser Leben ist der Mord durch Arbeit” (I, 19, 31), “wir genießen und das Volk […] genießt nicht” (I, 31, 25-26). 224 The metaphor is also employed in reference to the daughters of the working poor in HL: “Die Töchter des Volks sind ihre Mägde und Huren” (II, 58-59, 37-1). 76 Upon Robespierre’s arrival, however, the scene’s focus changes to the politician’s role as several citizens complain that previous executions have been insufficient and failed to improve their standard of living. In order to silence the crowd and allow the politician to explain, a woman cries: Hört den Messias, der gesandt ist zu wählen und zu richten;225 er wird die Bösen mit der Schärfe des Schwertes schlagen. (I, 20, 22-24)226 Whether prophetically or sarcastically, the speaker unmistakably refers to Robespierre as a form of savior with the title “Messias,”227 but immediately distinguishes him from Jesus with the subsequent phrase “der gesandt ist zu wählen und zu richten.” Unlike Christ, who specifies his role is not to judge but to save, Robespierre is directly characterized as a judge.228 The two possible biblical sources for the quotation’s end (“mit der Schärfe des Schwertes”) reinforce both the character’s role as a judge and a savior. The Old Testament passage recounts Israel slaying those Canaanites who bring up arms against them. Applied to DT, the contextualization suggests that Robespierre will destroy those who could thwart his political campaigns. The New Testament account, on the other hand, foretells signs relating to the second coming of Christ; the application of which to 225 See Johannes 12.47: “[...] denn ich bin nicht gekommen, daß ich die Welt richte, sondern daß ich die Welt selig mache.” 226 Most likely in reference to Lukas 21.24: “und sie werden fallen durch des Schwertes Schärfe und gefangen geführt werden unter alle Völker; und Jerusalem wird zertreten werden von den Heiden, bis daß der Heiden Zeit erfüllt wird.” It has also been claimed, though, that its source is 4 Mose 21.24: “Israel aber schlug ihn mit der Schärfe des Schwerts und nahm sein Land […]” (Bark 482). 227 “Aus hebr. Maschiach, griech. Christos (»der Gesalbte«); im antiken Judentum Bezeichnung des Königs, später vorbehalten für einen erwarteten Nachkommen aus dem Stamme Davids, der ausersehen sein sollte, das Volk aus seinen Drangsalen zu erlösen und das Messianische Reich der Gerechtigkeit zu errichten. Vom Urchristentum her kommt die Rolle des Messias zuletzt Jesus von Nazareth zu. Ihre gotteslästerliche Übertragung auf Robespierre durch gläubig ergebene Anhänger erhebt den Revolutionsführer unversehens zu einem quasi religiösen Hoffnungsträger” (I, 495). 228 His judgement is not influenced by personal affections, as Paris explains: “er würde alles opfern, sich, seinen Bruder, seine Freunde” (I, 30, 31-32). Paris’s remark expresses Robespierre’s strict adherence to his role as judge and foreshadows the fate of Camille, a Dantonist and Robespierre’s childhood friend. 77 DT reinforces Roberspierre’s role as a Christ figure. Both sources thus contribute to the quotation’s contextualization in DT as Robespierre is introduced as the people’s savior – through both word and sword – which “stimmt überein mit dem geläufigen altjüdischen Messiasbild” (Bark 482). Robespierre responds positively to and encourages his classification as “the Messiah of the new political religion” (Richards 48) because he feels personally compelled and able to purge France of its immorality. In the same scene, he askes the masses to join the Jacobins with the promise: “Wir werden ein Blutgericht über unsere Feinde halten” (20, 35-36).229 This biblical allusion refers to the Mosaic Law saturating the Old Testament, which classifies several sins deserving capital punishment.230 Robespierre employs the term “Blutgericht” to simultaneously endorse his role as a judge and to appeal to the masses’ religious zeal, their carnal desire for blood (“Blut”) and their appeal for ostensible justice (“Gericht”). Just before the promise, Robespierre mockingly empathizes with and flatters his audience: Armes, tugendhaftes Volk!231 Du tust deine Pflicht, du opferst deine Feinde. Volk du bist groß. Du offenbarst dich unter Blitzstrahlen und Donnerschlägen.232 (I, 20, 26-28) Robespierre flatters the people by complimenting their righteous obedience (“Du tust deine Pflicht […]”) and by associating them with God in this biblical allusion; they, like 229 See 1 Mose 42.22: “[...] Versündigt euch nicht an dem Knaben, und ihr wolltet nicht hören? Nun wird sein Blut gefordert,” 2 Sam. 4.11: “Und diese gottlosen Leute haben einen gerechten Mann in seinem Hause auf seinem Lager erwürgt. Ja, sollte ich das Blut nicht fordern von euren Händen und euch von der Erde tun?” and Hesekiel 38.22: “Und ich will ihn richten mit Pestilenz und Blut [...]” 230 See especially 2 Mose 21.12-29. 231 See Sprüche 28.15: “Ein Gottloser, der über ein armes Volk regiert, das ist wie ein brüllender Löwe und ein gieriger Bär.” 232 “Vgl. das 2. Buch Mose: »Mose stieg vom Berge zum Volk herab und heiligte sie« (19.14). Unter “Donnern und Blitzen“ (19.16) spricht dann Gott selbst zum Volk und verkündet ihm seine Gebote. “Und das Volk wurde Zeuge von dem Donner und Blitz […]“ (20.18)” (Poschmann I, 496). 78 God, are described as revealing themselves in lightning and thunder. The politican’s initial manner of addressing his audience (“Armes, tugendhaftes Volk!”), however, suggests that the sensitive and flattering words serve only as mockery. When compared with its possible biblical source (“Ein Gottloser, der über ein armes Volk regiert, ist wie ein brüllender Löwe und ein gieriger Bär”), the address also subtly implies the violent nature of the supposedly virtuous Jacobin government. As Bark explains, Robespierre’s speech thus becomes a demonstration not of the working poor’s power but of the speaker’s: Indem er Identität von sich und Volk suggeriert (pflichtgemäßes Opfern der Feinde), stellt sich Robespierre an die Spitze der Empörung. Sprachlich ist schon hier seine Usurpation der Gestalt des leidenden Gottesknechts in jener pervertierten Form vorbereitet, derzufolge das Opfer des eigenen Leibes auf den Volkskörper übertragen wird. (Bark 482) Robespierre’s character is defined and complemented by biblical allusions more than any other revolutionary figure in DT because they subtly and fittingly emphasize his own understanding of himself as exemplary of a universally applicable moral law (Poschmann I, 495). The scene (I, 2) began with Simon and his wife’s argument concerning prostitution and is then framed with the couple’s reconciliation at its conclusion. When Simon’s wife attempts to physically support her obviously drunk husband,233 he indirectly excuses himself for his earlier behavior with the statement: “Ach meine Baucis, du 233 After Simon states that he has no breath to utter his wife’s name, an anonymous citizen replies: “Das ist gut sonst würde der Name nach Schnaps riechen” (I, 17, 23-24). 79 sammelst Kohlen auf mein Haupt” (I, 21, 4).234 The witty allusion to the Greek mythological figure Baucis could be interpreted sarcastically, considering Baucis and Philemon’s proverbially loving and enduring relationship, but instead the reference’s contextualization, especially in consideration of the previous claim that the prostitute is often innocent, alludes both to the couple’s inherent morality in a corrupt society (Baucis and Philemon were the only people hospitable to the visiting gods) and to their surprising commitment to each other despite their difficult financial situation (Baucis and Philemon were also poor). The passage’s later accusation (“du sammelst Kohlen auf mein Haupt”) is a sightly modified biblical quotation from a letter to the Romans in which Paul explains that when we do our enemies good, not evil, we condemn them (Römer 12.1220).235 In that she aids her husband despite his prior aggression and violence towards her, Simon jokes that she does just that. I doubt Simon’s wife intends to condemn him, however; instead, his comment is a reaction to her kindness – equally a compliment for her commitment and a recognition of his own ill behavior. In the subsequent scene (I, 3), the drama leaves the street and enters the Jacobin club in the middle of a discussion of the recent executions. References to blood are employed in DT as they were in HL – as a metaphor for life. Consequently, the shedding of blood represents death, and the requirement for blood implies capital punishment. When a life, especially a prophet’s, is prematurely taken, however, blood is also biblically 234 See Römer 12.20: “So nun deinen Feind hungert, so speise ihn; dürstet ihn, so tränke ihn. Wenn du das tust, so wirst du feurige Kohlen auf sein Haupt sammeln.” 235 “Mit Simons Adaption hält Büchner diesen zur Allerweltsweisheit abgesunkenen Motivkomplex unterschwellig für die folgenden Schuldgedanken Dantons und Robespierres präsent; in II,4 wird Danton die Feindesliebe ausdrücklich erwähnen” (Bark 483). 80 described as a witness against the perpetrator.236 In DT Legendre adopts this latter meaning when he employs the modified biblical quotation: “Das Blut dieser Heiligen komme über sie” (I, 22, 14).237 Intended as a general warning to those instigating the recent executions, the “biblisch weit verbreitet[e]” phrase compares the drama’s insurgents to the Jews who demanded Christ’s crucifixion (Bark 483). When juxtaposed with Mercier’s later personification of blood to describe Danton’s inescapable past,238 however, the passage also clearly foreshadows Robespierre’s imminent fate by subtly relating the character’s present decisions to his opponent’s past. Whether by means of the revolution’s changing tides or the individual's own conscience, the guillotined eventually take revenge on their executioners. The quotation foretells Robespierre’s eventual demise, but more generally serves as an expression of warning against those who misuse power. Yet Robespierre fails to regard his own decisions as an abuse of power and instead justifies his utilization of violence by condemning his opponent as immoral: “Das Laster ist das Kainszeichen des Aristokratismus” (I, 24, 15).239 After Abel’s offering was accepted by the Lord and his own was rejected, Cain, Adam and Eve’s other son, murdered his brother Abel. As punishment Cain was cursed with a physical mark. 236 See particularly Matthäus 23.35: “auf daß über euch komme all das gerechte Blut, das vergossen ist auf Erden […]” 237 This is a common biblical warning and curse. Most closely related is Matthäus 27.25: “Da antwortete das ganze Volk und sprach: Sein Blut komme über uns und über unsre Kinder!” See also Josua 2.19: “Und wer zur Tür deines Hauses herausgeht, des Blut sei auf seinem Haupt, und wir unschuldig; aber aller, die in deinem Hause sind, so eine Hand an sie gelegt wird, so soll ihr Blut auf unserm Haupt sein,” 2 Samuel 1.16: “[...] Dein Blut sei über deinen Kopf; denn dein Mund hat wider dich selbst geredet und gesprochen: Ich habe den Gesalbten des Herrn getötet,” and, as Bark suggests, Matthäus 23.34 and Offenbarung 17.6 (483). 238 “Das Blut der zwei und zwanzig ersäuft dich” (I, 60, 5-6). 239 See 1 Mose 4.15: “Aber der Herr sprach zu ihm: Nein; sondern wer Kain totschlägt, das soll siebenfältig gerächt werden. Und der Herr machte ein Zeichen an Kain, daß ihn niemand erschlüge, wer ihn fände.” 81 Robespierre’s allusion makes an appropriate comparison. Like Cain, the Dantonists executed their (political) opposition – and indirectly continue to murder the people by allowing them to hunger. And like Cain, the Dantonists exhibit a visually recognizable sign as a result, i.e., physical and material indulgences “auf Kosten des Volkes” (Bark 484). Later in the text, however, Danton refers to the same biblical account as he indentifies his prosecutors as “Kainsbrüder” (I, 84, 3). The ambiguity of this second biblical allusion’s contextualization, as Bark explains, allows it to refer to “Mord am Bruder, am Tyrannen, am unmenschlichen System mittels der Revolution u.ä.” (492).240 By allowing both Danton and Robespierre to refer to each other with reference to the same biblical figure, the drama again subtly connects the two figures. They are not incredible individuals, but merely victims of a specific time and circumstance, which necessitated action – Robespierre must make the same decisions determining life and death as Danton made before the drama’s beginning, and is thus destined to imitate his death after the drama’s conclusion. Despite their political differences, Robespierre and Danton are both representatives of the ruling classes and are consequently contrasted with the working poor. As in HL, in DT the former eventually create Christ-figures, while the latter are demonstrated with reference to either entering or exiting a paradisiacal Garden. Marion subsequently alludes to the commandment given Adam and Eve upon leaving the garden: 240 See 1 Mose 4.8: “Da redete Kain mit seinem Bruder Abel. Und es begab sich, da sie auf dem Felde waren, erhob sich Kain wider seinen Bruder Abel und schlug ihn tot.” Poschmann further explains: “Diesen Satz fügte Büchner an der Stelle in der Handschrift ein, nachdem er ursprünglich im Begriff gewesen war, ihn erst am Schluß des Absatzes niederzuschreiben (s.24,16), dort aber nach »Kainszeichen« abbrach. – Die moralische Fundierung des politischen Feindbildes durchzieht die ganze Rede Robespierres. Das »Laster« erscheint darin gleichgesetzt mit dem »Verbrechen« und charakteristisch für die »Feinde der Freiheit«” (502). 82 Die andern Leute haben Sonn- und Werktage, sie arbeiten 6 Tage und beten am 7ten […] Ich kenne keinen Absatz, keine Veränderung. (I, 28, 9-10)241 Marion’s biblical allusion to the separation of the Sabbath from other days – and her lack of a distinction between the two – demonstrates her unchanging life. The audience is left to wonder, however, whether she enjoys unending “Sundays” because she readily follows her nature despite social taboos surrounding prostitution, or unending “workdays” because prostitution is her livelihood. In Danton’s description of Adelaide’s apparent but unexpected modesty, DT employs another allusion to the Garden of Eden to depict contemporary promiscuity: Ihr Gesicht sieht aus wie ein Feigenblatt, das sie sich vor den ganzen Leib hält. So ein Feigenbaum an einer so gangbaren Straße gibt einen erquicklichen Schatten. (I, 29, 21-24)242 Although this passage’s first sentence obviously alludes to Adam and Eve’s attempts to conceal their nakedness with fig leaves after eating fruit from the tree of good and evil, its contextualization in DT is multifaceted. It seems that Adelaide, like Adam and Eve,243 recognizes her transgression. After addressing Adam and Eve’s disobedience, God casts the couple out of the paradisiacal Garden of Eden and into a world of pain and work.244 Adelaide, however, already finds herself in this toilsome world and thus, instead of entering and becoming part of the world surrounding her as the biblical couple did, she tries to separate herself from it. She is aware of her immoral occupation and employs her 241 2. Mose 31.15: “Sechs Tage soll man arbeiten; aber am siebenten Tag ist Sabbat, die heilige Ruhe des Herrn. Wer eine Arbeit tut am Sabbattag, soll des Todes sterben.” 242 See 1 Mose 3.7: “Da wurden ihrer beider Augen aufgetan, und sie wurden gewahr, daß sie nackt waren, und flochten Feigenblätter zusammen und machten sich Schürze.” 243 The couple was commanded not to eat of that particular fruit (1 Mose 2.16-17). 244 See 1 Mose 3.16 & 19. 83 face in an attempt to mask it. With the subsequent line’s reference to fig trees, however, Danton teases her efforts. Although there are multiple New Testament parables with reference to fig trees,245 Danton’s message is simpler and seemingly unrelated: the innocence of her face only provides more refreshment for those who travel her “so gangbare[n] Straße,” i.e., the vagina of a prostitute. This biblical allusion is thus chiefly ornamental, but the passage does demonstrate Danton’s vulgar humor and extravagant indulgences – an attribute Robespierre uses against him. Up to this point the drama’s two main figures, Danton and Robespierre, have not yet met. Earlier scenes, especially Robespierre’s public address and Danton’s subsequent interaction with prostitutes, introduce the rivals and their political views in order to increase the dramatic tension of this scene (I, 6), the characters’ only direct confrontation. The interaction, Robespierre makes immediately clear, is not a negotiation; in fact, the dialogue introduces the character’s justification for violence against even neutral parties: Ich sage dir, wer [mir] in den Arm fällt, wenn ich das Schwert ziehe, ist mein Feind, seine Absicht tut nichts zur Sache; wer mich verhindert mich zu verteidigen, tötet mich so gut, als wenn er mich angriffe. (I, 32, 22-25)246 In this opening phrase to Danton, Robespierre adopts Christ’s suggestion that neutrality is not an option. Despite the similarities it shares with its biblical source, however, the indirect quotation, just as the earlier reference to Robespierre as a Messiah, ultimately differentiates the politician from the biblical Jesus. The former expresses his willingness 245 See the parable of the whithered fig tree (Matthäus 21.18-22), the parable of the barren fig tree (Lukas 13.6-9), and the parable of the budding fig tree (Markus 13.28-29). 246 See Matthäus 12.30 und Lukas 11.23: “Wer nicht mit mir ist, der ist wider mich; wer nicht mit mir sammelt, der zersteut.” See also passages which demonstrate the opposite: Markus 9.40 and Lukas 9.50. 84 to employ violence to protect himself. Christ, on the other hand, heals one of the very soldiers who came to arrest him.247 The conversation continues as each character shares his political and personal views, but ultimately no progress is made; they not only come to no compromises or understanding, but Danton even attacks Robespierre’s supposedly moral lifestyle claiming he maintains it only to feel superior to others (I, 33, 6-10). After Danton’s departure Robespierre rephrases and reiterates his belief: Wer in einer Masse, die vorwärts drängt, stehen bleibt, leistet so Widerstand als trät’ er ihr entgegen; er wird zertreten. (I, 34, 29-31) With this passage, the revolutionary again denounces neutrality, rationalizes violence, and avoids his own condemnation by blaming his opponents for their demise. Even should the imminent executions be immoral, the revolutionary goes on to justify, his thoughts of them have already condemned him: Warum kann ich den Gedanken nicht los werden? […] Die Sünde ist im Gedanken. Ob der Gedanke Tat wird, ob ihn der Körper nachspielt, das ist Zufall. (I, 35, 4 & 22-3)248 With roots in several biblical passages, this allusion gives insight into Robespierre’s convictions – as Bark explains “die Bibelanspielung taugt in ihrem entstellten Sinn zur Charakterisierung seines Denkens” (484) – and ultimately solidifies his resolution to execute Danton. 247 See Lukas 22.49-51. See 1 Chronik 28.9: “[…] Denn der Herr sucht alle Herzen und versteht aller Gedanken Dichten […],” Hesekiel 11.5: “[…] So sagt der Herr: Ihr habt also geredet, ihr vom Hause Israel; und eures Geistes Gedanken kenne ich wohl,” Matthäus 5.28: “Ich aber sage euch: Wer ein Weib ansieht, ihrer zu begehren, der hat schon mit ihr die Ehe gebrochen in seinem Herzen,” and 15.19: “Denn aus dem Herzen kommen arge Gedanken: Mord, Ehebruch, Hurerei, Dieberei, falsch Zeugnis, Lästerung.” 248 85 Robespierre’s monologue is interrupted by the entrance of his collaborator, St. Just, who invites him to read a recent newspaper passage in which the revolutionary is more explicitly and caustically compared with Christ: Dieser Blutmessias249 Robesp<ierre> auf seinem Kalvarienberge250 zwischen den beiden Schächern Couthon und Collot,251 auf dem er opfert und nicht geopfert wird.252 Die Guillotinenbetschwestern stehen wie Maria und Magdalena unten.253 St. Just liegt ihm wie Johannes am Herzen254 und macht den Konvent mit den apokalyptischen Offenbarungen des Meisters bekannt, er trägt seinen Kopf wie eine Monstranz. (I, 36, 27-34) Utilizing the biblical account of Christ’s crucifixion as a cast, Camille illustrates the political organization of the increasingly powerful Robespierre in a montage of biblical allusions. In place of this “Messias,” the historically accurate title granted Robespierre255 and employed previously in the drama, Büchner permits Camille to deem him a “Blutmessias.” Like Christ, Robespierre is placed on a mount named “skulls.” Interpreted literally, however, the location’s name also implies that the politician is 249 See Johannes 1.41: “[...] Wir haben den Messias gefunden (welches ist verdolmetscht: der Gesalbte). 42. und führte ihn zu Jesu [...]” and 4.25: “Spricht das Weib zu ihm: Ich weiß, daß der Messias kommt, der da Christus heißt [...]” 250 See Lukas 23.33: “Und als sie kamen an die Stätte, die da heißt Schädelstätte, kreuzigten sie ihn […]” 251 See Matthäus 27.38: “Und da wurden zwei Mörder mit ihm gekreuzigt, einer zur Rechten und einer zur Linken.” 252 See Hebräer 7.27: “[...] denn das hat er [Jesus] getan einmal, da er sich selbst opferte.” 253 See Matthäus 27.55-56: “Und es waren viele Weiber da, die von ferne zusahen, die da Jesu waren nachgefolgt aus Galiläa und hatten ihm gedient; 56. unter welchen war Maria Magdalena und Maria, die Mutter des Jakobus und Joses, und die Mutter der Kinder des Zebedäus.” See also Markus 15.40 and Johannes 19.25. 254 See Johannes 13.23: “Es war aber einer unter seinen Jüngern, der zu Tische saß an der Brust Jesu, welchen Jesus liebhatte” and 21.20: “Petrus aber wandte sich um und sah den Jünger folgen, welchen Jesus lieb hatte, der auch an seiner Brust beim Abendessen gelegen war und gesagt hatte: Herr, wer ist's, der dich verrät?” 255 “Burghard Dedner faßt das bisherige Resultat der Recherchen nach der Quellengrundlage zutreffend zusammen: »Büchner konnte die <…> Kennzeichnung Robespierres als Messias aus <…> Passagen seiner historiographischen Quellen übernehmen. Das Wort <Blutmessias> scheint er dagegen selbst geprägt zu haben« (Legitimationen des Schreckens, S. 380)” (Poschmann 520). 86 physically on a mountain of skulls.256 Like Christ, Robespierre is between two criminals, Georges Couthon and Jean Marie Collot d'Herbois.257 Unlike Christ, however, those criminals are also Robespierre’s collaborators. Some of the most faithful followers of Christ were women, among them Mary and Mary Magdalena – both of whom remained with Jesus until well after his crucifixion.258 Those “Guillotinenbetschwestern,” who stand like “Maria und Magdalena,” are faithful to the guillotine regardless of who is executed. Büchner’s utilization of the ostensibly feminine and disparaging word “Betschwestern” (reminding the reader of “Schwester”) parallels the reference to the two women, Mary and Magdalena, but there is, of course, no support that the passage considers all bigots female. To complete the Christ image, St. Just is referred to as John the Beloved, an obvious allusion to Robespierre’s devotion to his counselor; the reference also subtly supports the widely accepted speculation that the apostle John wrote the biblical book Revelation by asserting that St. Just “macht den Konvent mit den apokalyptischen Offenbarungen des Meisters bekannt […]” (I, 36, 32-33). Above all Camille’s commentary reiterates Robespierre’s willingness to employ violence and opens the door for the character’s consideration, and ultimate rejection, of Christ’s atonement (Bark 485). Following St. Just’s departure, Robespierre’s soliloquy begins anew as he ponders the accuracy of the newspaper depiction: 256 “Von lat. calvaria »Schädel« - in der Bibel die Schädelstätte von Golgatha, wo Christus gekreuzigt wurde. Der Kalvarienberg ist vielfach vergegenwärtigt in der christlichen Darstellung der Kreuzigungsszene mit den Schächern zu beiden Seiten und Maria Magdalena sowie anderen vor dem Gekreuzigten. Dieser Szene, einem Hauptmotiv der bildenden Kunst des Mittelalters, ist das blasphemisch entworfene Gruppenbild der Revolutionsheiligen (s. 36, 27-34) nachgestellt” (I, 520-521). 257 Two followers of Robespierre. Couthon was guillotined with Robespierre, while Collot eventually turned against Robespierre. 258 See Matthäus 27.55-61. 87 Ja wohl, Blutmessias, der opfert und nicht geopfert wird. – Er hat sie mit seinem Blut erlöst259 und ich erlöse sie mit ihrem eignen. Er hat sie sündigen gemacht und ich nehme die Sünde auf mich. Er hatte die Wollust des Schmerzes und ich habe die Qual des Henkers. Wer hat sich mehr verleugnet, Ich oder er? (I, 37, 25-30) Robespierre candidly and irreverently compares himself to Christ, his sacrifices to those of Jesus. The politician argues that Christ created sinners (i.e., murderers) by permitting his own crucifixion whereas he takes the sin upon himself by executing others. Robespierre’s final conclusion, i.e., that it is more painful to allocate others’ suffering than to suffer, demonstrates his confidence that he not only equals, but is superior to Christ. Just two lines later, the character completely rejects the Christian belief of a common and allencompassing atonement: Was sehen wir nur immer nach dem Einen? Wahrlich260 des Menschensohn261 wird in uns Allen gekreuzigt, wir ringen Alle im Gethsemanegarten262 im blutigen Schweiß,263 aber es erlöst Keiner den Andern mit seinen Wunden. (I, 37, 3235) The question beginning this passage, an allusion to Albert Knapp’s 1823 song “Eines wünsch ich mir vor allem andern” (Bark 487), devalues the sacrifice of Christ and instead 259 See Offenbarung 5.9: “[...] Du [Jesus] bist würdig, zu nehmen das Buch und aufzutun seine Siegel; denn du bist erwürget und hast uns Gott erkauft mit deinem Blut aus allerlei Geschlecht und Zunge und Volk und Heiden.” 260 “Robespierre ist nur konsequent in der sprachlichen wie gestischen Usurpation (»Wahrlich«) beider Christustitel für sich und jeden Revoluntionär, der handelt und Leiden anderer in Kauf auf sich nimmt” (Bark 486). 261 “Menschensohn” is a common biblical term for Christ. 262 See Matthäus 26.36 and Markus 14.32: “Da kam Jesus mit ihnen zu einem Hofe, der hieß Gethsemane, und sprach zu seinen Jüngern: Setzet euch hier, bis daß ich dorthin gehe und bete.” 263 See Lukas 22.44 “Und es kam, daß er mit dem Tode rang und betete heftiger. Es ward aber sein Schweiß wie Blutstropfen, die fielen auf die Erde.” 88 emphasizes each individual’s personal penitence, their own “Gethsemane.”264 Thus Robespierre justifies the imminent executions as a replacement for Christ’s atonement; in place of Jesus’ suffering for the sins of others, individuals suffer for themselves. In Büchner’s later drama, Lena also questions: “[…] ist es denn wahr, daß wir uns selbst erlösen müssen mit unserem Schmerz?” (I, 110, 2-3) The character’s monologue not only demonstrates how Robespierre justifies Camille’s death sentence, but also how he begins to recognize its consequences: Mein Camille! – Sie gehen Alle von mir265 – es ist Alles wüst und leer266 – ich bin allein. (I, 37, 35-37)267 While both Camille and Danton are accompanied even in death by their loved ones, Robespierre faces absolute loneliness as a result of his own decisions. His apparent morality has kept him from romantic intimacy and he will soon execute his childhood friend. Camille abandoned Robespierre politically with his demeaning but accurate newspaper description and will consequently be physically distanced through the guillotine. This mosaic of biblical allusions compares Robespierre’s forthcoming isolation to the isolation Christ faced during the atonement and crucifixion; Jesus was first abandoned by his disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane and then by God while on 264 “Ort der Gefangennahme und Todesangst von Jesus Christus am Fuße des Ölbergs bei Jerusalem” (I, 524). 265 See Matthäus 26.56: “Aber das ist alles geschehen, daß erfüllet würden die Schriften der Propheten. Da verließen ihn alle Jünger und flohen,” Markus 14.50: “Und die Jünger verließen ihn alle und flohen,” and Matthäus 27.46: “Und um die neunte Stunde schrie Jesus laut und sprach: Eli, Eli, lama asabthani? das ist: Mein Gott, mein Gott, warum hast du mich verlassen?” 266 See 1 Mose 1.2: “Und die Erde war wüst und leer, und es war finster auf der Tiefe; und der Geist Gottes schwebte auf dem Wasser.” 267 See 1 Mose 2.18: “Und Gott der Herr sprach: Es ist nicht gut, daß der Mensch allein sei; ich will ihm eine Gehilfin machen, die um ihn sei” and Matthäus 14.23: “Und da er das Volk von sich gelassen hatte, stieg er auf einen Berg allein, daß er betete. Und am Abend war er allein daselbst.” 89 the cross. As Bark explains, descriptions of loneliness are prevalent earlier in the Bible as well: […] gerade die Verlassenheit von Gott und Menschen, für die die nächtliche Szene im Gethsemanegarten steht, erhält bei Büchner eine weitere Steigerung durch die Anspielung auf den Bericht vom Zustand der Erde vor der Schöpfung. (Bark 487) The phrase is even more striking with consideration of God’s comment after the creation of Adam, but before the creation of Eve, that it is not good for man to be alone (1 Mose 2.18). Robespierre’s lack of companionship – both politically and physically – will leave him completely desolate, in a pre-paradisiacal state of loneliness. Although unrelated to the biblical quotations of DT, it is important to mention that Robespierre’s repeated justification for violence is starkly contrasted in the subsequent scene (II, 1) by Danton’s confession: “ich will lieber guillotiniert werden, als guillotinieren lassen” (I, 39, 23-24). The second act returns to the streets demonstrating humorous encounters between the differing socioeconomic classes and surprising new perspectives. As two gentlemen, for example, question a healthy beggar why he does not work, the beggar flatly rejects the need for luxury and conveys his interpretation of work as merely a form of torture: “Ihr habt Euch gequält um einen Genuß zu haben, denn so ein Rock ist ein Genuß, ein Lumpen tut’s auch” (I, 42, 18-19). The same two gentlemen, understood to be members of the upper classes, comment on the play Le Tour de Babel, revu episodique en un acte, and consequently introduce the fine arts as another means to distinguish the classes:268 268 “Büchners spöttische Attacken auf das Theaterwesen (vgl. auch die folgende Szene II 3) gehen an der historischen Realität vorbei. Sie zielen offenbar anachronistisch auf Herausforderungen zeitgenössischer Verhältnisse der 1830er Jahre ab. Die Angaben des zweiten Herrn dagegen (»Gewirr«, »leicht und kühn«, 90 Haben Sie das neue Stück gesehen? Ein babylonischer Turm! Ein Gewirr von Gewölben, Treppchen, Gängen und das Alles so leicht und kühn in die Luft gesprengt. Man schwindelt bei jedem Tritt. Ein bizarrer Kopf. (I, 44, 5-9)269 This anachronistic reference - the play was not written until 1834 - describes the gaudiness of the particular performance and, more important, criticizes fine art in general. In fact, the biblical account to which the play’s title refers provides insight into Büchner’s understanding of the contemporary theater. Biblically speaking, the Tower of Babel was a people’s flawed attempt to reach Heaven. Like the tower, Büchner argues with this allusion, fine art is man’s equally flawed attempt to be godlike. Instead of portraying actual perfection, i.e., the world God created, the artists vainly attempt to recreate and improve it. In Büchner’s later narrative, Lenz chimes in claiming: “Dieser Idealismus ist die schmählichste Verachtung der menschlichen Natur” (I, 234, 13-15). Just as HL argues that the people’s admiration of the Großherzog is idolatry, DT contends that the love of idealistic art in place of humanity is blasphemy – as Camille recognizes: “Sie vergessen ihren Herrgott über seinen schlechten Kopisten” (I, 45, 5-6).270 The upper classes willingly worship this false god as they rush to the theater and ignore the street »schwindelt«, »bizarr«) verweisen auf Stilzüge und Wirkungsmomente des modernen romantischen Dramas, das sich mit den Stücken Victor Hugos gerade erst in den 1830er Jahren gegen die traditionelle Vorherrschaft des Klassizismus auf dem französischen Theater durchgesetzt hatte. – Ein zeitgenössisches Werk, das als Modell für das von dem theaterbegeisterten Herrn gepriesene »neue Stück« in Frage kommt, weist Wender nach. Danach handelt es sich um ein spektakuläres Gemeinschaftswerk von dreißig romantischen Autoren, das Ende Juni 1834 in Paris aufgeführt wurde, mit dem Titel Der Turm von Babel (Le Tour de Babel, revue episodique en un acte), ein der Kritik zufolge monströses Produkt des romantischen Avantgardismus, der gern mit grellen Effekten operierte (Herbert Wender, Anspielungen, S. 233)” (I, 533). 269 See Offenbarung 14.8: “Und ein anderer Engel folgte nach, der sprach: Sie ist gefallen, sie ist gefallen, Babylon, die große Stadt; denn sie hat mit dem Wein ihrer Hurerei getränkt alle Heiden.” See also Offenbarung 16.9 and 18.2. 270 There are multiple biblical references to not forgetting God. See especially 5 Mose 8.11: “So hüte dich nun, daß du des Herrn, deines Gottes, nicht vergessest, damit daß du seine Gebote und seine Gesetze und Rechte, die ich dir heute gebiete, nicht hältst.” 91 crowds. In doing so, the gap separating the socioeconomic classes is magnified as the upper classes remain oblivious to the poor’s reality. While one of the aforementioned gentlemen expresses gratitude and relief for aid in avoiding a puddle: “Ich danke Ihnen. Kaum kam ich vorbei, das konnte gefährlich werden!” (I, 44, 12-13), the working class women and children “schreien nach Brot” (I, 20, 9-10). In contrast to the external struggles faced by supporting characters, the main figures grapple internally; Robespierre wrestles to justify the approaching executions, while Danton battles to overcome his guilty conscience. The latter even contemplates, but ultimately rejects, death as an escape: Dann lief ich wie ein Christ um meinen Feind d.h. mein Gedächtnis zu retten. Der Ort soll sicher sein, ja für mein Gedächtnis, aber nicht für mich, mir gibt das Grab mehr Sicherheit, es schafft mir wenigstens Vergessen! Es tötet mein Gedächtnis. Dort aber lebt mein Gedächtnis und tötet mich. Ich oder es? Die Antwort ist leicht. (I, 47, 13-4)271 (See Bark 487) The New Testament teaches “Liebet eure Feinde” and “tut wohl denen, die euch hassen” (Matthäus 5.44); with this allusion Danton directly applies this commandment to his own memories. Although he considers fleeing France to free him from his past, we know by the stage directions (Er erhebt sich und kehrt um) that Danton decides against escape and thus in favor of the preservation of his memories.272 Danton, as Bark explains, resorts to the Christian principle of charity to justify the preservation of his own life: “Danton bezichtigt sich des christlichen Ethos der Feindesliebe, weil er handelt, als ob er sein 271 See Matthäus 5.44: “Ich aber sage euch: Liebet eure Feinde; segnet, die euch fluchen; tut wohl denen, die euch hassen; bittet für die, so euch beleidigen und verfolgen.” See also Lukas 6.27 and 35. 272 Had Danton intended to die, he would have remained in the field: “Ich mag nicht weiter. Ich mag in dieser Stille mit dem Geplauder meiner Tritte und dem Keuchen meines Atems nicht Lärmen machen” (I, 47, 5-7). 92 Schuldbewußtsein nicht radikal zur Ruhe bringen wollte” (487). Because he returns to civilization, his past will eventually destroy him – his guilty conscience slows his defense, while his prior political popularity makes him a prime target for Robespierre. The subsequent scene (II, 5) demonstrates Danton’s fixation on his past as he justifies to Julie the revolution’s travesties and its resulting executions: “Das war Notwehr, wir mußten. Der Mann am Kreuz hat sich’s bequem gemacht” (I, 49, 27).273 With this allusion, Danton joins Robespierre in arguing that the atonement is incomplete; Robespierre, as previously demonstrated, rejects Christ’s ability to suffer for others (I, 37, 25-37), and here Danton criticizes Christ’s lack of intervention to reduce man’s suffering. Both characters attempt to correct the flaws they perceive in Christian doctrine and both subsequently become Christ figures as they endeavor to replace the biblical Savior.274 As Anz explains: Die Christusimitation, die in allen poetischen Werken Büchners durchscheint, bedeutet damit eine Christusnegation, von der her alle soteriologischen Deutungen ausgeschlossen werden. (165) Whether Büchner intended to demonstrate his personal beliefs with such imitations of Christ and negations of the atonement is open to speculation and is not the concern of my investigation. The existence of a Christ figure in each of his texts demonstrates more specifically the author’s awareness of the revolutionary power of the Christian icon and 273 See also Bark 487-489. “Büchners folgenschwerer Eingriff in seine historischen Vorlagen macht Danton und Robespierre, in je unterschiedlicher Weise, zu Advokaten gegen das Geschichts (-Heils-) Denken und die Dogmatik der Kirchen; sie zersetzen beide mittels des Bibelzitats, und in dieser Rolle sind die beiden Sprachrohre Büchners. […] Somit ist das typologische Deutungsschema für die Dantonfigur geradezu vorgegeben; den Bruch in der Typologie muß der Zuschauer als blasphemisch empfinden, doch bekommt er mit ihm die Möglichkeit, aus der Alternative zu entkommen: entweder Teilnahme an heutigen Bestrebungen der gewaltsamen Veränderung unterm Drohwort des Wehe! oder christlicher Verzicht im Namen einer Nachfolge ins Leiden” (Bark 489). 274 93 the artistic versatility of his biblical account. It also reveals an ongoing dialogue of the texts with the prevalent Christian discourse of the time which, in turn, ties in with Büchner’s intensive philosophical studies of Descartes and Spinoza. Soon thereafter Danton employs a direct quotation from Christ to accept responsibility for and justify his past: “es muß ja Ärgernis kommen, doch weh dem, durch welchen Ärgernis kommt” (I, 49, 27-29).275 In these short lines, the character alludes to the severity of the contemporary conditions – the political situation in France had to be reformed – but also recognizes that those pioneering change would ultimately be held responsible for its unforeseeable and inescapable imperfections. This quotation is certainly also an autobiographical reference to the failed efforts of the HL pamphlet and the fate of those involved: Daß Büchner hier seine eigene Betroffenheit ausdrückt, geht daraus hervor, daß den Kern dieser Replik Dantons ein Selbstzitat mit demselben Bibelspruch aus dem vielzitierten Brief an Wilhelmine Jaeglé bildet. »Das muß ist eins von den Verdammungsworten, womit der Mensch getauft worden. Der Ausspruch: es muß ja Ärgernis kommen, aber wehe dem, durch den es kommt, - ist schauderhaft. Was ist das, was in uns lügt, mordet, stiehlt?« (Poschmann 542) The passage in DT, just as in Büchner’s letter to Wilhelmine Jaeglé, continues with the slightly modified biblical quotation: “Was ist das, was in uns hurt, lügt, stiehlt und mordet?” (I, 49, 32-3)276 The question was, of course, answered previously in the text: unfulfilled or unrealistically restricted natural tendencies introduce malefactions (I, 18, 25). The protagonist of Büchner’s later drama Woyzeck exemplifies this concept as all 275 See Matthäus 18.7: “Weh der Welt der Ärgernisse halben! Es muß ja Ärgernis kommen; doch weh dem Menschen, durch welchen Ärgernis kommt!” 276 See Hosea 4.2: “sondern Gotteslästern, Lügen, Morden, Stehlen und Ehebrechen hat überhandgenommen, und eine Blutschuld kommt nach der andern.” 94 three aforementioned physical needs are neglected (he is malnourished, fatigued, and has lost his sexual partner to another suitor); consequently he murders his lover. The quotation’s biblical context expresses the culpability associated with those offenses, i.e., capital punishment (“[…] und eine Blutschuld kommt nach der andern.”), but fails to take into account the perpetrator’s circumstances or motives. Historically mankind, Büchner’s dramas argue, does the same. J.C. Woyzeck, the historical figure who served as a source for Büchner’s Woyzeck, was publically decapitated277 and Danton – regardless of whether the executions of the September Massacre were warranted – carries the responsibility for their instigation – just as Robespierre eventually will for Danton’s execution after the drama’s conclusion. The subtle “stilistische und sinngemäße” biblical quotation, Bark explains, demonstrates the comprehensive biblical knowledge of both Büchner and his anticipated audience (489). Robespierre and Danton are in direct competition with one another. It is Robespierre’s belief in his own messianic role that allows him to disapprovingly allude to the people’s admiration for Danton as idolatry: “Nein, wir wollen keine Privilegien, wir wollen keine Götzen!” (52, 31-32)278 Robespierre goes on to claim that his rival fears the “Licht der Wahrheit” (I, 53, 30),279 an allusion to the understanding revealed through righteousness. The accusation is reiterated with St. Just’s later comparison of the French to the Israelites leaving Egypt. Just as Moses returned from Mount Sinai to find the 277 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Woyzeck". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10376, accessed 12 May 2009.] 278 There are over two hundred references to “Götzen” in the Bible. Overwhelmingly they teach to avoid the worship of idols and false gods. 279 See Johannes 3.21: “Wer aber die Wahrheit tut, der kommt an das Licht, daß seine Werke offenbar werden; denn sie sind in Gott getan.” See additional references to light as truth in DT. A prisoner tells Camille, for example: “Nun Generalprokurator der Laterne, deine Verbesserung des Straßenbeleuchtung hat in Frankreich nicht heller gemacht” (I, 60, 9-11). 95 Israelites worshipping a golden calf,280 a substitute for God, for Robespierre Danton is merely an ersatz deity. And just as Moses purged the people of their older generation before entering the Promised Land, St. Just argues, France must be purged of anyone hindering the revolution: Moses führte sein Volk durch das rote Meer und in die Wüste bis die alte verdorbne Generation sich aufgerieben hatte, eh’ er den neuen Staat gründete. Gesetzgeber! Wir haben weder das rote Meer noch die Wüste aber wir haben den Krieg und die Guillotine. (I, 55, 17-21)281 Thus like Moses leading the Israelites, both the HL pamphlet (II, 66, 10-12 & 20-21) and the revolutionaries of DT guarantee the populace a Promised Land per se at the conclusion of a successful revolution.282 Naturally Robespierre’s metaphorical description of Danton differs significantly from Danton’s own. Instead of viewing himself as a false god or idol, Danton uses language which is often associated with saints, martyrs, and even sacrificial offerings to describe himself. Early in the text the character already speaks of himself and is referred to by Lacroix as a “tote[r] Heilige[r]” (I, 38, 28), but towards the drama’s conclusion and 280 See 2 Moses 32.7-8. See Hebräer 11.29: “Durch den Glauben gingen sie durchs Rote Meer wie durch trockenes Land; was die Ägypter auch versuchten und ersoffen.” 282 “Dieses Bild benutzte August Stöber, als er, wie auch Ehrenfried Stöber, der Vater von Büchners Straßburger Freunden Adolph und August, 1830 in begeisterten Worten die französische Juli-Revolution und den »Bürgerkönig« Louis-Philippe begrüßte: »<…> wie einst die Söhne Israels das Joch der Aegypter <…> seyd ihr <geliebte Franzosen> durch ein rothes Meer gewandert, dessen Wellen aber Blut waren – die Revolution; wie sie, habt Ihr eine lange dürre Wüste durchzogen, die Regierungsjahre der Bourbonen. Juble nun, Volk des Herrn! Du hast den letzten Berg überstiegen; vor deinen Blicken liegt das gelobte Land der Freiheit, im heitern Sonnenschein; in deiner Stiftshütte ruht die heilige Bundeslade, deine Charte, in Deinem Allerheiligsten waltet ein gottgefälliger Hohepriester.« (»Kurze Geschichte der neuesten Französischen Revolution <…> 1830«, zitiert nach: Jan-Christoph Hauschild, (Un)bekannte Stammbuchverse Georg Büchners. Weitere biographische Misszellen aus dem Nachlaß der Gebrüder Stoeber, in GBJb I [1981], S.239.) Man kann davon ausgehen, daß Büchner diesen Text kannte, der den aktuellen Kontext belegt, in dem seine Verwendung des alttestamentarischen Bildes steht” (I, 548). 281 96 as Danton’s execution approaches, the allusions become more frequent. As Danton reflects on his trial, for example, he alludes to his role as a scapegoat: Sie haben die Hände an mein ganzes Leben gelegt, so mag es sich denn aufrichten und ihnen entgegentreten, unter dem Gewichte jeder meiner Handlungen werde ich sie begraben. (I, 63, 35-38) Although the laying on of hands is a common Christian practice referred to throughout both Testaments for, among other things, healing, conferring of the Holy Ghost, and the bestowing of the priesthood, this allusion more likely refers to the also common biblical ritual of the laying of hands on animals.283 The most outstanding biblical account tells of a goat, which receives by the laying on of hands the sins of the Israelites and is subsequently driven into the wilderness to perish.284 In the biblical passage, the scapegoat serves as a symbol for Christ, who later took upon himself the world’s sins. In DT, Danton becomes Robespierre’s scapegoat to explain the meager conditions of the working poor and, at least briefly, to appease the crowds. In this way, Danton also becomes a Christ figure; just as Pontius Pilate used Christ to appease a crowd of Jews,285 Robespierre attempts to appease the Parisian masses with Danton’s execution. And just as the Jewish crowd was convinced by higher authorities to demand Jesus’ cruxifition,286 so is the Parisian populace quickly swayed from Danton to Robespierre’s side.287 The practice of the laying on of hands was also biblically employed to annoint a sacrificial beast after its selection but before the offering. In consideration of this 283 One example is found in 3 Mose 2.2: “Und soll seine Hand auf desselben Haupt legen […]” See 3 Mose 16.20-22. 285 See Matthäus 27.21-22. 286 See Matthäus 27.20: “Aber die Hohenpriester und die Ältesten überredeten das Volk, daß sie um Barabbas bitten sollten und Jesum umbrächten.” 287 See Act III, Scene 10. 284 97 contextualization, Danton’s comment (“Sie haben die Hände an mein ganzes Leben gelegt”) also refers to his trial, which – after Robespierre decided to execute Danton – was no longer a trial per se, but merely a ritual before his execution. The image of Danton as a sacrificial offering acts as an allusion to the character’s perfection as biblically only flawless beasts were sacrificed.288 Danton is, of course, not a perfect person, but simply the perfect sacrifice. Laflotte’s later reference to the guillotine as an “Altar” (I, 65, 34) simultaneously supports this image – sacrificial offerings were preformed on an altar289 – and the image of the close relationship between death and sexuality – marriages are also performed at the altar.290 Danton, however, refuses to accept his trial as a mere ritual. Requesting the right to face his accusers with the cry: “Meine Ankläger mögen erscheinen” (I, 64, 13),291 Danton resembles the anonymous biblical woman caught in adultery and brought before Christ. According to the Law of Moses, she should have been stoned. Before implementing the punishment, however, the scribes and pharisees inquire of Christ what should be done. Jesus’ answer does not dismiss the Law of Moses nor forgive the sinner, but merely asks the accuser “ohne Sünde” to throw the first stone (Johannes 8.7). One by one the scribes and pharisees depart. Danton’s cry intends to remind his own accusers that they too have transgressed, but, unlike the biblical figures, Danton’s accusers do not dismiss themselves. The allusion thus accentuates Robespierre’s personal conviction of 288 See 3 Mose 22.20: “Alles, was einen Fehl hat, sollt ihr nicht opfern; denn es wird von euch nicht angenehm sein.” 289 See 1 Mose 8.20: “ Noah aber baute dem Herrn einen Altar und nahm von allerlei reinem Vieh und von allerlei reinem Geflügel und opferte Brandopfer auf dem Altar.” 290 Although not recorded biblically, marriage at an altar was at the author’s time and is still common. 291 See Johannes 8.10: “Jesus aber richtete sich auf; und da er niemand sah denn das Weib, sprach er zu ihr: Weib, wo sind sie, deine Verkläger? Hat dich niemand verdammt?” 98 his role as judge. In another last-minute attempt to regain support, Danton describes the Reign of Terror’s corruption to the revolutionary tribunal: Ihr wollt Brot und sie werfen euch Köpfe hin. Ihr durstet und sie machen euch das Blut von den Stufen der Guillotine lecken. (I, 75, 7)292 In the source for this modified biblical quotation, Christ asks who would deny their children the sustenance they request. Who would give a stone when a child asks for bread? In DT, the passage intends to remind the people of their actual needs. The working poor request something quite basic, i.e., the ability to properly feed their familes, but instead are merely presented the heads of those supposedly responsible for their conditions. Notwithstanding the truth of his argument, the constantly changing popular favor has shifted to Robespierre, and Danton’s attempts to save himself remain in vain. Büchner wrote DT some time between October 1834 and February 1835 (II, 447); thus the drama was begun just months after HL’s completion and subsequent betrayal and finished just prior to Büchner’s flight into exile. The potential consequences of an arrest must have laid heavy on the young author’s mind (Funk 14-15). As a result. DT’s conclusion is a realistic and comprehensive portrayal of the way several figures reflect on death and the various emotions surrounding its approach. The succession of biblical quotations associated with these reflections begins with Camille’s continuation of the 292 See Mattäus 7.9: “Welcher ist unter euch Menschen, so ihn sein Sohn bittet ums Brot, der ihm einen Stein biete?” and Lukas 11.11-13: “Wo bittet unter euch ein Sohn den Vater ums Brot, der ihm einen Stein dafür beite? und, so er um einen Fisch bittet, der ihm eine Schlange für den Fisch biete? 12. oder, so er um ein Ei bittet, der ihm einen Skorpion dafür biete? 13. So denn ihr, die ihr arg seid, könnet euren Kindern gute Gaben geben, wie viel mehr wird der Vater im Himmel den heiligen Geist geben denen, die ihn bitten!” 99 already established relationship between death and sexual intercourse as he personifies death as an approaching bridegroom. The marriage is finalized “wie das Amen gesagt […] wird” (I, 71, 31) and death enters the bed “langsam […] mit seinen kalten Gliedern” (I, 71, 32-33). The “Amen” can simultaneously allude to the blessing of marriage, the official religious entrance into a sexual relationship, and the last rites, which precede death. This allusion introduces the difference between the process of dying, illustrated in this passage metaphorically as a sexual encounter, and the state of being dead. Camille dreads dying, while Danton fears the nothingness he expects to become: Und wenn ich ganz zerfiele, mich ganz auflöste – ich wäre eine Handvoll gemarterten Staubes […] Ich kann nicht sterben, nein, ich kann nicht sterben. Wir müssen schreien, sie müssen mir jeden Lebenstropfen aus den Gliedern reißen. (I, 73, 13-18)293 With this allusion, Danton combines the biblical teaching of the death and suffering of Christ (Jesaja 53), the ultimate martyr, with the belief that man is mere dust (Prediger 3.20). This “neu und ungewöhnlich” combination (Bark 491) questions both the reality of eternal life and the value of martyrdom. A martyr theoretically serves as a witness, often to a particular religion or principle; when followed by the word “dust,” however, that connotation is lost. Easily strewn in the wind, dust evokes an image not of a martyr’s testimony but of its eventual nonexistence. Danton continues describing his cynical understanding of death as he relates it to birth: Der Tod äfft die Geburt, beim Sterben sind wir so hülflos und nackt, wie neugeborne Kinder. (I, 79, 37-8)294 293 Hiob 17.16: “Hinunter zu den Toten wird es fahren und wird mit mir in dem Staub liegen” and Prediger 3.20: “Es fährt alles an einen Ort; es ist alles von Staub gemacht und wird wieder zu Staub.” See also 1 Mose 3.19: “[…] Denn du bist Erde und sollst zu Erde werden.” 100 Although Danton, like the biblical character Job, is abruptly stripped of his extravagant lifestyle and suddenly conscious of the reality that all humans enter and leave the world with nothing, this indirect quotation emphasizes the two figures’ differing perspectives. Both describe their nakedness at birth and death, but Danton’s addition of the adjective “hülflos” demonstrates his feeling of a lack of control. While Job accepts and praises God for man’s inevitable fate, Danton deems it “elend” (I, 79, 36). Certain and immediate death causes the character to reject life as anything more than a means to death: “Freilich, wir bekommen das Leichentuch zur Windel” (I, 80, 1).295 In addition to wrestling with the concept of death, several characters also grapple with their conscience as their executions approach. Camille attempts to absolve himself of guilt by using language adopted from Pontius Pilate: “wir waschen unsere Hände – Es ist besser so” (I, 83, 12).296 Just as the biblical character demonstrated his desire to be free from responsibility for the death of Christ, Camille attempts to free himself from the guilt he feels for his inability to heal his partner, Lucile, who lost her sanity as a result of his arrest and sentence. The slightly modified biblical quotation alludes to the similarities between the two characters as both face what they are ultimately directly (Jesus’ death) or indirectly (Lucile’s insanity) responsible for, but would not have chosen. Unlike Pontius Pilate, however, Camille stops short and fails to complete his thoughts, which serves as 294 See Hiob 1.21: “und sprach: Ich bin nackt von meiner Mutter Leibe gekommen, nackt werde ich wieder dahinfahren. Der Herr hat’s gegeben, der hat’s genommen; der Name des Herrn sei gelobt!” 295 More reflective of Job’s later perspectives found in Hiob 3.11-13: “Warum bin ich nicht gestorben von Mutterleib an? Warum bin ich nicht verschieden, da ich aus dem Leibe kam? 12. Warum hat man mich auf den Schoß gesetzt? Warum bin ich mit Brüsten gesäugt? 13. So läge ich doch nun und wäre still, schliefe und hätte Ruhe […]” 296 See Matthäus 27.24: “Pilatus […] nahm er […] Wasser und wusch die Hände vor dem Volk und sprach: ich bin unschuldig an dem Blut dieses Gerechten; sehet ihr zu!” 101 an indication of an increasing awareness of his guilt as well as a desire to suppress it (Poschmann 576). Lucile’s onset of madness certainly also envokes Camille’s “höchst blasphemisch” (Bark 492) conclusion that the mentally ill are happiest: Der glücklichste Mensch war der, welcher sich einbilden konnte, daß er Gott Vater, Sohn und Heiliger Geist sei. (I, 83, 28-29) It is easy to be happy, the character argues, when separated from the realities of morality and imperfection. The allusion mocks the trinity by indirectly associating its members with insanity; Camille also unknowingly mocks both Robespierre and Danton, who privately compared themselves to Christ. By allowing his characters to question essential aspects of Chrisitanity, Büchner not only creates a more realistic monologue, but candidly presents theological questions without personal claim to providing answers. As Bark explains, the blasphemous biblical reference is also justified by – and even appropriate in – the character’s extreme circumstance: Das Nebeneinander von hochpathetischer und geistreicher Rede gerade in diesen Szenen macht deutlich, wie angemessen angesichts der Todesthematik blasphemischer und parodistischer Gebrauch von Bibelsprache Büchner erschien. (491) Blasphemy and humor mask the characters’ fear of death. They numb and pacify themselves by distancing themselves emotionally and psychologically from their situation. The group’s incoherent conversation and lack of genuine communication, however, demonstrates that each character remains besieged with his own thoughts. Immediately after Camille’s reference to the trinity, Lacroix expresses his 102 disbelief of the situation with the cry: “Die Esel werden schreien, es lebe die Republik, wenn wir vorbeilaufen” (I, 83, 30). Through Lacroix, Büchner wittingly and comically combines two very different biblical accounts. In the Old Testament, in order to reprimand an ass’s owner for his cruel abuse, God allows the animal to speak and question its ill treatment.297 In the New Testament rocks proclaim (“schreien”) the truth (Lukas 19.40); Lacroix thus indirectly expresses not only that he finds the impending executions unjust, but that they are unjust – even animals recognize it. Lacroix’s sentiment - his universal proclamation of injustice – is, however, not reciprocated, but merely disregarded as Danton questions “Was liegt daran? Die Sündflut der Revolution mag unsere Leichen absetzen wo sie will […]” (I, 83, 32-33). Just as Robespierre employed France’s lack of a red sea to justify the executions, Danton employs a biblical reference to the annihilating flood of Noah’s generation to describe the revolution. Both biblical accounts refer to the obliteration of a particular people, the Egyptian soldiers and the “wicked” of Noah’s generation, respectively. Similarly, the revolution eliminates specific political groups, first the monarchs, then the aristocracy and now the early revolutionaries. Several supporting figures in DT also employ biblical references to annihilation. When Hérault describes France’s political situation, he expresses the need for faster executions with the comment: “Ja, wenn sich gerade ein Simson für unsere Kinnbacken findet” (I, 84, 1-2).298 And as Camille approaches the guillotine, he employs a passage in regard to the end of the world to reprimand the 297 See 4 Mose 22.28: “Da tat der Herr der Eselin den Mund auf, und sie sprach […]” See Richter 15.15: “Und er fand einen frischen Eselkinnbacken; da reckte er seine Hand aus und nahm ihn und schlug damit tausend Mann.” 298 103 heckling peasants: “Ihr werdet noch schreien, ihr Berge fallet auf uns!” (I, 87, 18-9)299 The frequent biblical accounts of mass destruction give the drama an apocalyptic tone,300 a tone which portrays – on a much larger scale – the approaching conclusion of each prisoners’ life. And each figure deals with death differently. Camille is convinced that the accusers will recognize their fault – so strongly in fact that they will ask God to be destroyed (Bark 492), while Philippeau alludes to his adherence to the admonition found in the Lord’s prayer as he focuses on his own forgiveness with the statement: “ich vergebe euch” (I, 88, 6) (Bark 493). Although the prisoners’ final discussions include multiple biblical references and theological questions, the drama, as Bark also suggests, ends on a political – not a spiritual – note (493-494). In the final scene Lucile examines the guillotine as she ponders Camille’s execution and recites the “Erntelied” from Des Knaben Wunderhorn: Es ist ein Schnitter, der heißt Tod, Hat Gewalt vom höchsten Gott. (I, 89, 32-33) Although her citation attributes the power of life and death to God, Lucile’s words demonstrate otherwise; with the cry “Es lebe der König” (I, 90, 9) the character employs the political system in order to commit suicide. Lucile, one of the play’s least political figures,301 exemplifies the anarchy of the drama’s portrayal of the French Revolution in which, as Lyon explains, “[…] individuals employ revolutionary rhetoric for its own sake; rather than enacting the goals of the Revolution, they enact only violence” (104- 299 See Hosea 10.8: “[…] Und sie werden sagen: Ihr Berge, bedecket uns! und: Ihr Hügel, fallet über uns!” Büchner utilizes these anachronistic references – both the past account of Simon and prophecies of the future are portrayed in the present (Bark 492) – to magnify the revolution’s violent chaos. 301 When asked whether she understands Camille’s political monologue, she simply replies: “Nein wahrhaftig nicht” (I, 45, 27). 300 104 105). Because it permits unwarranted violence, the revolution not only fails to progress, but when an innocent woman is guillotined in its name, its very ideals are mocked as the power over life and death becomes a matter of linguistics rather than political ideals: Since violence, particularly violence perpetrated in the name of a ruling ideology, appears here [in DT] almost exclusively in language, the play highlights the violent potential of language as well as the significant function which language plays within larger ideological and symbolic structures. (Lyon 99) Thus DT’s conclusion encourages a reinvestigation of political language and the power it arbitrarily possesses. It is not surprising that DT ends with a reference to God, but without a religious context. Although biblical quotations are – as demonstrated in this study – intricately interwoven into the drama, the arguments they introduce and support are seldom religious. Instead, the drama’s biblical quotations, just as those in HL, demonstrate prevailing human divisions – primarily socioeconomic – and challenge the integrity of those divisions and the resulting discrepancies in quality of life. When juxtaposed with those of the political pamphlet, however, the arguments in DT are infinitely more complex. Mankind’s separation, for example, is not limited to the division between the working and ruling classes as it was in HL. Couples are separated into man and woman (demonstrated by Danton and Julie, Camille and Lucile, and Simon and his wife), the politicians are separated into the Dantonists and the radical Jacobins, even the individual, as Danton explains, is “aus zwei Hälften” (I, 38, 13).302 Despite these multiple multifaceted divisions, Büchner does still accentuate the Darwin-like separation of 302 Camille specifies those divisions: “wir Alle sind Schurken und Engel, Dummköpfe und Genies und zwar das Alles in einem […]” (I, 84, 26-27). 105 mankind found in HL; as Danton points out: “wir oder sie, der Stärkere stößt den Schwächeren hinunter…” (I, 49, 20-21). This hierarchical division – who will rule and who will be ruled – is a revisitation of HL’s initial argument303 and is often metaphorically demonstrated with animal imagery in both texts. The Dantonist Hérault, for example, proclaims the radical Jacobin’s desire for control with reference to animallike behavor: “St. Just säh’ es nicht ungern, wenn wir wieder auf allen Vieren kröchen […]” (I, 15, 2-3). And later in the drama, an anonymous citizen describes the ruling classes as predators who suck the blood from their prey: “Sie haben kein Blut in den Adern, als was sie uns ausgesaugt haben” (I, 18, 36-37). As Billaud, a radical Jacobin, describes: “Das Volk hat einen Instinkt sich treten zu lassen […]” (I, 67, 24) and Robespierre similarly deems Danton’s followers to be mere “tierähnliche[n] Untertanen” (I, 23, 34). Both HL and DT demonstrate that the working poor, as long as they retain their animal-like compliant behavior, are also in part responsible for their abuse. As another anonymous citizen in DT admits, the people demand executions but allow the ruling classes to decide who will be executed: Sie haben uns gesagt: schlagt die Aristokraten tot, das sind Wölfe! Wir haben die Aristokraten an die Laternen gehängt. Sie haben gesagt das Veto frißt euer Brot, wir haben das Veto totgeschlagen. (I, 18-9, 37-3)304 Rather than eradicating social inequality,305 by listening to the ruling classes’ suggestions 303 “Es sieht aus, als hätte Gott die Bauern und Handwerker am 5ten Tage, und die Fürsten und Vornehmen am 6ten gemacht, und als hätte der Herr zu diesen gesagt: Herrschet über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht, und hätte die Bauern und Bürger zum Gewürm gezählt” (II, 53, 22-26). 304 See Hesekiel 22.27: “Ihre Fürsten sind darin wie die reißenden Wölfe, Blut zu vergießen und Seelen umzubringen um ihres Geizes willen” and Matthäus 7.15: “Sehet euch vor vor den falschen Propheten, die in Schafskleidern zu euch kommen, inwendig aber sind sie reißende Wölfe.” 305 No improvement is made in their living conditions: “Aber sie haben die Toten ausgezogen und wir laufen wie zuvor auf nakten Beinen und frieren” (I, 19, 5-7). 106 the people merely eliminate competition for the contending political party, pacify themselves for a time,306 and ultimately become predators.307 The drama thus argues that socioeconomic division is wrong, but also that the working poor must be politically informed and actively involved in order to properly direct its eradication. The drama does not, however, candidly invite the poor to revolt against the ruling classes as HL did – Büchner was certainly aware of and sensitive to DT’s primary audience, i.e., the wealthy. As an alternative, the text presents a rationale which concludes that economic equality would benefit even the wealthy. By demonstrating obvious class discrepancies in the ability to enjoy natural inclinations and by contending that unfulfilled natural tendencies induce crime, the drama introduces – by implication – economic equality as a means to reduce crime. In addition, the drama challenges established class stereotypes, e.g., the prostitute is not necessarily immoral, but merely hungry, while those who patronize her are at fault. The upper classes are thus admonished to reconsider the financial obligations which must derive from their wealth. In addition to socioeconomic divisions, the drama also invites a reconsideration of political differences. Although Robespierre and Danton are portrayed as political rivals, the drama fails to favor one or the other. Neither is a traditional protagonist, neither an antagonist. Both doubt themselves, but both also make logical arguments in favor of their political positions. And most important to this study, both reject and attempt to replace the atonement. As Christ-figures the two characters do not merely demonstrate 306 “Das Volk ist ein Minotaurus, der wöchentlich seine Leichen haben muß, wenn er sie nicht auffressen soll” (I, 26, 17-19). 307 “Wir wollen sie [unsere Kinder] mit Aristokratenfleisch füttern” (I, 20, 10), “wie lange soll die Menschheit im ewigen Hunger ihre eignen Glieder fressen? oder, wie lange sollen wir Schiffbrüchige auf einem Wrack in unlöschbarem Durst einander das Blut aus den Adern saugen” (I, 39, 32-36). 107 good and evil – as in HL – but merely opposing political perspectives. Because the people are shown as being easily persuaded from supporting Danton to guillotining him, political hierarchies, especially those failing to improve the populace’s standard of living, are argued to be little more than superfluous power structures. The pattern of biblical quotation employment introduced into Büchner’s oeuvre by HL is thus continued in DT. The drama’s biblical quotations illustrate and support intricately demonstrated socioeconomic discrepancies and political differences – the latter through the utilization of Christ-figures – in order to challenge their legitimacy, and ultimately to encourage their eradication. CHAPTER 3 LENZ: STEHE AUF UND WANDLE In early April 1835, after being greatly impressed with Dantons Tod, Karl Gutzkow encouraged the young Georg Büchner to postpone any translating projects and instead focus on the creation of original texts (II, 401, 3-4). Büchner must have informed his friend and mentor of his third project, Lenz, soon thereafter, as Gutzkow wrote him the following month that Dantons Tod was being printed and “Ihre Novelle Lenz” would also eventually be in print (I, 798). Although the narrative remained unfinished at Büchner’s death, Gutzkow kept his word and Lenz was published posthumously in 1839 as a series in issues of the literary journal Telegraph für Deutschland (Poschmann 791). Gutzkow’s recommendation was undoubtedly well received as the narrative not only adds another literary genre to an oeuvre already consisting of two very different texts – a political pamphlet (Der Hessische Landbote) and a drama (Dantons Tod) – but also introduces a new social commentary. Instead of continuing the discussion of socioeconomic classes presented in both HL and DT,308 Lenz focuses on a different categorization of mankind, i.e., the misunderstanding, marginalization, and eventual exclusion of the mentally ill.309 Based on author Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz’ (1751308 The topic is, of course, revisited in both Büchner’s subsequent dramas, Leonce und Lena and Woyzeck. As Hinderer explains, Lenz clearly describes the symptoms of what will later be identified as schizophrenia (82-3, 90) to demonstrate individual as opposed to collective suffering: “Im Vordergrund des Fragments steht die Leid- und Schmerzerfahrung der Hauptfigur und die damit verbundene Kritik an der menschlichen Existenz, an der Welt, der Gesellschaft, der Religion und an Gott” (91). 309 109 1792) stay with pastor Johann Friedrich Oberlin from January 20th to February 8th 1778, the narrative recounts Lenz’ gradual mental deterioration in three distinct stages:310 “1. partial stabilization and social integration; 2. re-occurrence of mental disturbances and deterioration of social contact; 3. loss of identity and full onset of psychosis.”311 This gradual and unambiguous “Bewußtseinprozeß” (Poschmann 813) is expressed in a fascinating amalgamation of the third person semiomniscient voice and the free indirect discourse – the combination of which expresses the protagonist’s thoughts and emotions without the possible bias or authoritative voice a first-person narrative would introduce. Coupled with the narrative’s measured structure, this intimate style invites the reader to become “an involved participant” 312 in Lenz’ separation from and his marginalization by society. This mutual experience of character and reader, in turn, encourages the reader to reassess the validity of society’s prevailing beliefs surrounding mental illnesses – specifically the idea that they were directly induced by sin or lack of religious faith – and modify the conventional social response to mental illness accordingly. 313 One might assume a story about a young man’s stay at a pastor’s home would inspire the inclusion of more biblical references than a revolutionary pamphlet. 310 The Lenz narrative has been separated – often into three sections – in multiple ways, including into “eine >>Art Prolog (Wanderung durchs Gebirge), >>den Hauptteil<< (Aufenthalt in Waldbach und dessen Umgebung …)<< und >>eine Art Epilog<< (Wagenfahrt ins Rheintal), um dann den Hauptteil noch in drei weitere Erzählabschnitte zu gliedern: >>Im ersten lebt Lenz mit Oberlin in Waldbach, im zweiten ohne ihn, im dritten neben ihm. Und am Anfang jeden Abschnitts steht eine Ankunft: Lenz – Kaufmann – Oberlin<<” (See Hinderer 73-74). 311 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Lenz". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10378, accessed 25 June 2009.]. 312 Ibid. 313 “The narrative is first and foremost a radical revision of Oberlin's account. According to theological and medical opinion of his time, the pastor saw mental illness as the result of the patient's deviation from Christian social norms (his erratic life and the immoral influence of modern literature), even as divine punishment for his disobedience to his father and other sinful conduct.” Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Lenz". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10378, accessed 21 August 2009.]. 110 Surprisingly, however, Büchner not only employs such citations less liberally in Lenz than in his two previous works, but the majority of quotations utilized are allusions or vague images. Yet, despite their smattering and indistinctness, biblical quotations and their impact on the text in Lenz cannot be ignored. As in HL and DT, they follow the general template introduced in this study – i.e., they first illustrate unjustifiable human division, then create a Christ- or Anti-Christ-figure, and eventually advocate political or social change. Interestingly, the tripartite pattern of biblical quotation employment in Lenz also corresponds directly with the narrative’s aforementioned analysis of the process of the protagonist’s mental deterioration. Consequently, quotations revealing Lenz’ separation from society are included in the narrative’s section demonstrating his partial stabilization and social integration, quotations creating Christ and Anti-Christ figures are predominantly found in the section portraying the recurrence of mental disturbances and deterioration of social contact, and biblical quotations encouraging social change are primarily found in the final section, i.e., Lenz’ loss of identity and the full onset of psychosis. On another, more subtextual level, the biblical allusions are part of the text’s critical strategy: they provide the foundation of Büchner’s critique of organized religion at the time and its misguided approach to mental illness as exemplified by Oberlin. This chapter, like the previous chapters, presents the narrative’s biblical allusions and images chronologically, categorizes them accordingly314 and demonstrates their biblical source, original contextualization when pertinent, and new contextualization, especially noting how they support the text’s radical critique of an oppressive social 314 Biblical citations are categorized as direct quotations, modified quotations, indirect quotations or allusions. 111 hierarchy overtly supported by organized religion. Although Büchner’s narrative was based on the historical author J.M.R. Lenz and is claimed to be – at least in part – also autobiographical by some critics (Hinderer 83-91), I will address neither the text’s historical accuracy nor the work’s presumable autobiographical characteristics,315 but rather focus on the narrative’s protagonist as an individual character.316 The demonstration of Lenz’ temporary stabilization at the Oberlin home, is, naturally, dependent upon a convincing depiction of a preexisting condition – and therewith an initial distinction from mentally healthy members of society. This separation is first introduced superficially as Lenz is physically alone when entering the Ban de la Roche, the county of Oberlin’s parish. Descriptions of the character’s thoughts and actions through free indirect discourse, however, undoubtedly reveal his psychological disconnectedness from society as well. Although Lenz’ mental illness is not given an official diagnosis by the narrative,317 within a short time his emotions span an abnormally wide range – from “gleichgültig” (I, 225, 9) to a painful “Lust” (I, 226, 8), – his discomfort lies not in any reasonably explained circumstance, but in the conclusion that he cannot walk on his head, (I, 225, 11-12) and his understanding of space and time is frustrated as he fails to comprehend why it takes him a significant time to travel a considerable distance (I, 225, 17-21). While the narrative strategies draw the reader into 315 As Knapp explains “Büchner identifiziert sich nicht mit Lenz (und er sollte auch nicht mit ihm identifiziert werden)” (131). 316 In this text the historical person is identified as J.M.R. Lenz and the character as merely Lenz. 317 Poschmann explains how the lack of a precise diagnostic term for Lenz’ condition also furthers the aforementioned mutual experience shared by character and reader: “Indem der Erzähler also durchaus kein Aufhebens von der >Verrücktheit< des Mitgeteilten macht – was aber dem Leser um so auffälliger sein muß –, stellt er sich seiner Figur nicht fremd gegenüber. Vielmehr geht er, in der Haltung eines Vertrauten, mit ihr mit. Dem Leser dagegen wird an dieser Stelle eine blindlings folgende Identifizierung erschwert, so daß er sich zu einem bewußten Aufnahmeverhalten veranlaßt fühlen muß” (I, 818). 112 Lenz’ personality and allow the audience to experience his condition first hand, these early descriptions of Lenz’ distinctive thoughts and emotions discourage identification with him and instead demonstrate his disconnectedness from reality. Amid this manifestation of Lenz’ condition, the text introduces its novel portrayal of mental illness not as a “state” per se but as a process and a constant – and in Lenz’ case eventually futile – struggle to escape insanity. The narrative’s first personification of insanity as a pursuer is, however, rather vague and certainly not threatening: [...] und die Wolken wie wilde wiehernde Rosse heransprengten,318 und der Sonnenschein dazwischen durchging und kam und sein blitzendes Schwert319 an den Schneeflächen zog, so daß ein helles, blendendes Licht über die Gipfel in die Täler schnitt.” (I, 225, 26-29) This subtle allusion to the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is pieced into a mosaic description of an approaching storm which puts Lenz into a painful but temporary state of desire. The passage correctly associates the biblical New Testament account, most often connoting the end of the world, with insanity, a possible end to normal (functional) life. More specifically, however, the allusion points to the second apocalyptic rider. Just as the second horseman violently tears peace from the Earth, insanity eventually robs Lenz of his own internal peace. And as the second rider represents war, so its contextualization in the narrative alludes to Lenz’ internal battle with his illness. The apocalyptic allusion is repeated shortly thereafter when Lenz’ pursuer is directly identified as ‘insanity’: 318 Offenbarung 6.4: “Und es ging heraus ein anderes Pferd, das war rot. Und dem, der daraufsaß, ward gegeben, den Frieden zu nehmen von der Erde und daß sie sich untereinander erwürgten; und ihm ward ein großes Schwert gegeben.” 319 See 5 Mose 32.41: “Wenn ich den Blitz meines Schwerts wetzen werde und meine Hand zur Strafe greifen wird, so will ich mich wieder rächen an meinen Feinden und denen, die mich hassen, vergelten.” 113 Es war als ginge ihm was nach, und als müsse ihn was Entsetzliches erreichen, etwas das Menschen nicht ertragen können, als jage der Wahnsinn auf Rossen hinter ihm. (I, 226, 29-31) Lenz portrays mental illness in general as a foreign, external body rather than a personal, internal attribute. This distinction – particularly at the narrative’s commencement – both aids in the development of Lenz as a sympathetic character and – on a broader scale – favors an adjustment in society’s perception of the mentally ill. The narrative additionally demonstrates that symptoms of mental illness are often connected to – and possibly induced by – external sources. Not only has a direct relationship between Lenz’ mental state and the weather already been introduced ([...] und die Wolken wie wilde wiehernde Rosse [...]), but the character’s wellbeing is also almost consistently associated – if only metaphorically at times – with the quantity of light in his surroundings. While light provides Lenz relief: “er sah Lichter, es wurde ihm leichter,” (I, 226, 32) “[…] das wenige, durch die Nacht zerstreute Licht […] machte ihm besser […]” (I, 229, 27-29), darkness repeatedly induces the character’s attacks: “[…] das Licht war erloschen, die Finsternis verschlang Alles; eine unnennbare Angst erfaßte ihn […] Alles finster” (I, 227, 33-36), “Wolken zogen rasch über den Mond; bald Alles im Finstern […] In seiner Brust war ein Triumph-Gesang der Hölle” (I, 242, 6-10). Although this connection seems to evade the other characters’ conscious perceptions, Lenz is fully aware of and even frustrated by it. He fears the approaching nightfall: “Aber nur so lange das Licht im Tale lag, war es ihm erträglich; gegen Abend befiel ihn eine sonderbare Angst, er hätte der Sonne nachlaufen mögen” (I, 229, 12-14) and even attempts to employ light to eradicate negative feelings: “Je leerer, je kälter, je sterbender 114 er sich innerlich fühlte, desto mehr drängte es in ihn, eine Glut in sich zu wecken” (I, 241, 8-10). The symbolic connotation of light and darkness to represent the dichotomy of good (health) and evil (illness), unquestionably deeply embedded in Büchner’s contemporary society,320 has biblical roots. The literal and figurative division of light and darkness presents itself early and remains constant throughout the Bible: Its formation is the second act of the creation (1 Mose 1.3) and it serves thereafter as a common representation of good and evil.321 Christ even proclaims “Ich bin das Licht der Welt” (Johannes 8.12) and a new star appeared at his birth (Matthäus 2.2), while his death was recognized by darkness (Matthäus 27.45). Although references to light and darkness in Lenz do not quote specific biblical passages, they most certainly imply these biblical connotations. Consequently, Lenz’ search for light is – at the very least – his attempt to be accepted by his contemporaries, to be what his society – restricted and controlled by organized religion – would identify as good. Thus when insanity attacks in his first evening at the Oberlin home, Lenz unsurprisingly – but also unsuccessfully – employs traditional religious rituals for relief. Upon arriving at the pastor’s residence, Lenz feels almost instantly “zu Haus,” (I, 227, 20). He smiles, converses with the Oberlin family, and is calm. Once the character retreats to the solitary room offered him in the neighboring school house, however, he struggles to preserve the fading pleasure of the evening, but is quickly overcome by 320 Oberlin even refers to J.M.R. Lenz’ improvement in terms of “light” as well in a letter from April 1778: “Er schien auf dem Wege der Besserung, aber mit dem neuen Licht kam abermal seine Krankheit” (Poschmann 805). 321 See especially Hiob 30.26: “Ich wartete auf des Guten, und es kommt das Böse; ich hoffte aufs Licht, und es kommt Finsternis.” 115 darkness (“aber umsonst, Alles finster, nichts” [I, 227, 36-37]). Helpless, the character feels he must turn to prayer for refuge (“es war als müsse er immer »Vater unser« sagen” [I, 228, 1-2]).322 Lenz’ utilization of the Lord’s Prayer is not, however, a cognizant effort, but rather – as the text later describes – a “dunkler Instinkt […] sich zu retten” (I, 228, 3). The character’s instinctive employment of a biblical prayer during an attack of paranoia demonstrates that he automatically – seemingly unconsciously – resorts to his society’s conventional beliefs for aid. Additionally Lenz’ choice of words – a quotation of the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer – alludes to Christianity’s stringent guidelines as the oft memorized passage is Christ’s exact illustration of how one should pray (Matthäus 6.9). But the structured Christian prayer fails him; he needs more than the prescribed religious remedies offer. Indeed, Lenz only regains sanity after cutting himself with his nails and jumping into a trough. However, Lenz’ reference to “Vater unser” has “nicht nur einen religiösen, sondern auch einen persönlichen, weltlichen Bezug” (Poschmann 821). After abandoning his religious studies, J.M.R. Lenz had a difficult relationship with his own father and consequently became “für immer der verlorene Sohn” (Ibid. 857); Büchner’s character is introduced similarly as a “lost” figure in search of something, but, as Hinderer explains, “er kennt das Ziel der Suche nicht” (94).323 The character’s prayer thus reflects not only his pious upbringing, but also his – possibly subconscious – longing for paternal and 322 See Matthäus 6.9-13: “Darum sollt ihr also beten: Unser Vater in dem Himmel! Dein Name werde geheiligt. 10. Dein Reich komme. Dein Wille geschehe auf Erden wie im Himmel. 11. Unser täglich Brot gib uns heute. 12. Und vergib uns unsere Schulden, wie wir unsern Schuldigern vergeben. 13. Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung, sondern erlöse uns von dem Übel. Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit. Amen.” 323 As the narrative’s beginning also describes: “er suchte nach etwas, wie nach verlornen Träumen, aber er fand nichts” (I, 225, 15-17). 116 divine understanding and guidance. Ignorant of Lenz’ illness, Oberlin initially provides the impartial understanding and paternal support Lenz unknowingly seeks (Ibid. 822). The pastor listens to him, runs to help upon hearing him in the aforementioned fountain. Consequently, Lenz immediately adopts Oberlin as a mentor and fixates on emulating his “Ruhe, Einheit mit sich selbst und seiner Umwelt, [und] gesellschaftliche Zugehörigkeit” (Ibid. 101). In doing so, Lenz discovers a purpose; he integrates himself into Oberlin’s society and his mental state stabilizes: Doch jemehr er sich in das Leben hineinlebte, ward er ruhiger, er unterstützte Oberlin, zeichnete, las die Bibel; alte vergangne Hoffnungen gingen in ihm auf […] (I, 229, 32-35) And the relationship is – at least initially – mutually beneficial; Oberlin finds conversations with Lenz “sehr angenehm” (I, 229, 10-11), and the visitor’s childlike face brings him “große Freude” (I, 229, 12). As a result, the pastor willingly grants permission when Lenz asks to give a Sunday sermon in Oberlin’s parish and Lenz is, in turn, overjoyed to temporarily assume his mentor’s role. With the approaching sermon to prepare, the narrative’s second phase – Lenz’ stabilization and social integration climaxes as even the effects of darkness – although never entirely dissipated – weaken and “seine Nächte wurden ruhig” (I, 230, 34-35). When the prescribed Sunday finally arrives, the beautiful spring morning reflects Lenz’ calm demeanor, he preaches and finds deep comfort as he comforts others (“es war ihm ein Trost, wenn er über einige müdgeweinte Augen Schlaf, und gequälten Herzen Ruhe bringen […] konnte” [I, 231, 117 21-23]). This intense emotional experience, however, leads to an “erotic hallucination”324 when the character finds himself alone again. He cries, his body shakes, and “er konnte kein Ende finden der Wohllust” (I, 232, 2). Still Lenz is able to stabilize himself (“endlich dämmerte es in ihm” [I, 232, 2-3]) – and is even apparently more confident after the experience as he openly discusses supernatural experiences with Oberlin the following morning. This stability is most certainly possible – at least in part – because the Oberlin household is unaware of Lenz’ past. He is cared for, listened to, and given responsibilities – “er gehörte zu ihnen” (I, 233, 28-29). Society’s acceptance, the text illustrates early, ameliorates the severity of mental illness. The subsequent arrival of Kaufmann, a mutual friend of Oberlin and Lenz who is conscious of the latter’s preexisting condition, thus tests the character’s stability. Although Lenz remains composed – even confident – throughout the evening of Kaufmann’s arrival, Lenz’ arguments during their discussion – the much-discussed Kunstgespräch – indicate that the visitor’s presence does reintroduce feelings of exclusion, misunderstanding, and judgment. Indeed, Lenz addresses his past through the Kunstgespräch as he both solicits universal human acceptance – independent of beauty or capability – and denounces the traditional restrictions of organized religion. Just as Büchner explained to his parents that a dramatist’s responsibility is to accurately recreate – not rewrite – history,325 so is the author’s voice heard as Lenz explains that the function of art is to reproduce – not modify or idealize – nature: 324 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Lenz". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10378, accessed 21 August 2009.]. 325 See Büchner’s letter to his parents from July 28, 1835: “Seine [des dramatische Dichters] höchste Aufgabe ist, der Geschichte, wie sie sich wirklich begeben, so nahe als möglich zu kommen” (II, 410, 1416). 118 Der Dichter und Bildende ist mir der Liebste, der mir die Natur am Wirklichsten gibt, so daß ich über seinem Gebild fühle. (I, 235, 16-18) The character then continues by describing idealist art as “die schmählichste Verachtung der menschlichen Natur” (I, 234, 14-15).326 However, Lenz fails to explain what exactly encompasses this nature to which he repeatedly refers. Indeed one must turn to several references to nature in Lenz found before this Kunstgespräch in order to fully understand Lenz’ argument. In an intimate conversation at the height of their relationship, Oberlin shares several of his own supernatural encounters and explains how the scriptures were revealed to him: “Wie den Leuten die Natur so nah trat, alles in himmlischen Mysterien; aber nicht gewaltsam majestätisch, sondern noch vertraut!” (I, 230, 6-9). Superficially, it may seem remarkable that scripture passages show people whom “die Natur so nah trat […] in himmlischen Mysterien” as the Bible teaches “Der natürliche Mensch aber vernimmt nichts vom Geist Gottes” (1 Korinther 2.14). However, Büchner repeatedly employs two distinct connotations for human nature, i.e., either as a compilation of basic physical needs or as a force impervious to society.327 The passage from Corinthians undoubtedly refers to the former, while Lenz refers to the latter. The differences created by nature – or a force impervious to society – should be enjoyed, embraced, and understood. In a subsequent conversation with Oberlin, – but still before Kaufmann’s 326 The theatergoers in DT are similarly criticized because they willingly “[…] vergessen ihren Herrgott über seinen schlechten Kopisten” (I, 45, 5-6) as they attend the theaters but ignore the street beggars. 327 These two meanings of nature are especially apparent in DT. Camille introduces natural – physical – functions, i.e., “Schlafen, Verdaun, Kinder machen […]” I, 84, 30), while Hérault claims “Jeder muß sich geltend machen und seine Natur durchsetzen können” (I, 15, 19-20) The use of “nature” in the latter passage certainly does not entail merely the three aforementioned bodily functions, but introduces “nature” as a force outside of society. It is nature which, according to Lacroix, distributed beauty in pieces among different women (I, 26, 24-26) and only nature – not society – should be permitted to create differences in mankind (see chapter 2, above p. 6-7). 119 arrival – Lenz explains that mankind’s often voluntary separation from this latter connotation of nature dulls the senses which allow him or her to understand the fullness of nature: Die einfachste, reinste Natur hinge am nächsten mit der elementarischen zusammen, je feiner der Mensch geistig fühlt und lebt, um so abgestumpfter würde dieser elementarische Sinn; (I, 232, 31-34) 328 In his Kunstgespräch, Lenz encourages a return to this “elementarische Sinn.” Instead of only celebrating seemingly ideal human attributes – often introduced and imposed merely by societal trends – mankind’s unique natures should be celebrated both in art and in reality. Lenz then gives two examples of art that do celebrate mankind’s nature. The first is a representation of the conversation between Christ and two disciples who unknowingly traveled with Jesus after his resurrection.329 In reference to the biblical text upon which the painting was based, Lenz explains “Wenn man so liest, wie die Jünger hinausgingen, es liegt gleich die ganze Natur in den Paar Worten” (I, 235, 24-26). Whereas idealist art claims to have created something superior to mankind, – an unreal and lifeless demonstration of man in a flawless state – this particular image, Lenz contends, accentuates the beauty of the instant when the disciples recognize Christ – the beauty of life, relationships, and progression (“[…] da kommt ein Unbekannter zu ihnen, sie sprechen, er bricht das Brot, da erkennen sie ihn, in einfach-menschlicher Art” [I, 235, 28-30]). Additionally, Lenz is impressed by a portrait of a woman who – for some 328 Hans Mayer explains the opposition of “Harmonie der Nature” and the “Unordnung des gesellschaftlichen Seins” presented in Lenz (270-306). 329 See Lukas 24.13-31. 120 unknown reason – could not attend church and thus “verrichtet die Andacht zu Haus” (I, 236, 2-3) and “liest den Text nach” (I, 236, 7). With it the character subtly discounts the need for organized religion as spirituality in the portrait is not limited to the structured worship by a minister in a chapel, but is instead a personal and intimate experience at home. Consequently, Lenz challenges the need for organized religion without disregarding – and, in fact, by employing – the Bible. More importantly, however, with the Kunstgespräch Lenz separates himself from Oberlin. The pastor, a benign Pietist, ultimately upholds the prevailing patriarchal system and does not accommodate deviations from his society’s norm. Like idealist art, this established society – specifically its organized religion – fails to accurately represent mankind and instead only accepts those who embody its own artificial standards. Lenz, on the contrary, is a natural deviation from that norm and – despite all attempts to integrate himself – ultimately remains so. Much like DT’s prostitute Marion, who simultaneously recognizes society’s disapproval of her330 and her inability to change,331 Lenz is acutely aware of his contemporaries’ dissatisfaction with him. Thus when he describes the need for humanity to love its members unconditionally, he is soliciting his own acceptance: Man muß die Menschheit lieben, um in das eigentümliche Wesen jedes einzudringen, es darf einem keiner zu gering, keiner zu häßlich sein, erst dann kann man sie verstehen […] (I, 235, 3-6)332 330 Marion admits “Meine Mutter ist vor Gram gestorben, die Leute weisen mit Fingern auf mich” (I, 28, 15-16). 331 The prostitute questions whether one can escape one’s nature: “Meine Natur war einmal so, wer kann da drüber hinaus?” (I, 27, 28-29). 332 See Johannes 13.34: “Ein neu Gebot gebe ich euch, daß ihr euch untereinander liebet, wie ich euch geliebt habe, auf daß auch ihr einander liebhabet.” 121 Although this passage’s allusion to a particular biblical verse is not clear, its proposition is significant for this study as it mirrors the ideals of unconditional love introduced and preached by Jesus in the New Testament. With these suggestions, as Knapp explains, Lenz “far transcends his discourse on art: as art is a reflection of society, he also envisions a humane and beneficial society without deformative hierarchies and repressive systems.”333 Thus the narrative indirectly contends that by introducing and sustaining the belief that mental illness is punishment for sin, Lenz’ contemporary society openly represses and wrongfully condemns those who suffer from it. And as Oberlin’s awareness of Lenz’ illness heightens, he increasingly becomes a proponent of that society. Despite Lenz’ composure throughout the evening’s discussion, this Kunstgespräch – coupled with Kaufmann’s arrival and Oberlin’s resulting departure – marks the onset of the narrative’s second stage, the recurrence of Lenz’ mental disturbances and the deterioration of his social contact. Kaufmann unknowingly and most likely unintentionally plays a major role in Lenz’ regression. Not only does Kaufmann bring a message from Lenz’ father requesting that he return home – a suggestion Lenz finds detrimental to his progress and passionately rejects, but he also unknowingly robs Lenz of his new paternal figure when Oberlin accepts an invitation to accompany the visitor to Switzerland. The resulting physical separation of Lenz and Oberlin “symbolisiert die jetzt zunehmende innere Entfernung der beiden” (Knapp 145). Lenz seems acutely aware of the imminent consequences of Oberlin’s absence even 333 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Lenz". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10378, accessed 25 June 2009.]. 122 before the pastor departs and decides to accompany him for a distance (“Es war Lenzen unheimlich, jetzt allein im Hause zu bleiben […] er beschloß Oberlin zu begleiten, in’s Gebirg” [I, 237, 13-15]). After finally parting from the pastor and finding lodging with the inhabitants of a country cabin, Lenz listens to an anonymous old man’s personal experience: Er erzählte, wie er eine Stimme im Gebirge gehört, und dann über den Tälern ein Wetterleuchten gesehen habe, auch habe es ihn angefaßt und er habe damit gerungen wie Jakob. Er warf sich nieder und betete leise mit Inbrunst […] Dann gab er sich zu Ruhe. (I, 238, 9-15) In addition to serving as confirmation of Oberlin’s earlier tales of supernatural encounters,334 the old man’s allusion to the biblical Jacob, who, according to the scriptural passage, wins a wrestling match against God and is subsequently blessed,335 indicates that he has adopted a religious understanding of his experience. In fact, the biblical reference has little other significance than to demonstrate – together with other similar accounts – that even the purportedly sound characters in Lenz apply religious meaning to their experiences. Oberlin serves as a prime example of this when he explains color tables to Lenz employing the twelve apostles as representatives of different colors (I, 233, 14).336 These recurring first-hand accounts mislead Lenz and encourage him to similarly test religiously based supernatural powers – if those around him successfully employ them why should he not? 334 “[…] Oberlin sprach noch von den Leuten im Gebirge, von Mädchen, die das Wasser und Metall unter der Erde fühlten, von Männern, die auf manchen Berghöhen angefaßt würden und mit einem Geiste rängen […]” (I, 232, 22-25). 335 See 1 Mose 32: 25-31. 336 Oberlin’s tactic is certainly adopted from the similar metaphors found in The Revelation, which compares twelve city wall foundations to the apostles (Offenbarung 21.14-20). 123 Thus, upon his return to the Oberlin home, and without the pastor present, Lenz entirely succumbs to his illness. Instead of avoiding and concealing his past, – as he had upon his arrival (I, 227, 8-11) – the character confronts even his most difficult memory: his romantic interest in Frederike Brion (“Beste Madame Oberlin, können Sie mir nicht sagen, was das Frauenzimmer macht, dessen Schicksal mir so zentnerschwer auf dem Herzen liegt?” [I, 240, 12-15]).337 Although Oberlin’s wife – who appears only sporadically in the text – listens to Lenz, she can offer neither information nor lasting comfort (“sie wußte wenig zu antworten, doch tat es ihm wohl” [I, 241, 5-6]). Ultimately Lenz again turns to his religious upbringing for comfort. Instead of merely repeating the Lord’s Prayer, however, the character emulates Christ’s own actions in his final attempt to reconcile himself with his society and its God. Overcome by feelings of emptiness, he begs God to use him as a sign. He fasts, covers his face with ashes, dresses in a sack338 – mimicking the Old Testament practice of producing visible humility and repentance339 – and makes his way to the home of a recently deceased young girl. Upon seeing the child, Lenz again prays for God to show a sign through him. Imitating both Christ’s words and actions, he grabs her hands and charges: “Stehe auf und wandle” (I, 242, 3).340 But, as the 337 Although this is clearly a reference to Frederike Brion, her name is only mentioned once in the narrative (I, 244, 8). 338 See Esther 4.1-3: “Da Mardochai erfuhr alles, was geschehen war, zerriß er seine Kleider und legte einen Sack an und Asche und ging hinaus mitten in die Stadt und schrie laut kläglich. […] 3. Und in allen Ländern, an welchen Ort des Königs Wort und Gebot gelangte, war ein großes Klagen unter den Juden, und viele fasteten, weinten, trugen Leid und lagen in Säcken und Asche.”; Hiob 42.6: “Darum spreche ich mich schuldig und tue Buße in Staub und Asche.” and Daniel 9.3: “Und ich kehrte mich zu Gott dem Herrn, zu beten und zu flehen mit Fasten und im Sack und in der Asche.” 339 Although certain denominations still utilize similar practices today, the text makes it clear that this demonstration of religious conviction was uncommon in Oberlin’s society. Upon seeing Lenz covered in ash Oberlin’s wife “erschrak” (I, 241, 21). Later, in Fouday, the narrative explains that “Die Leute im Tale waren ihn schon gewohnt” (I, 241, 23-24). 340 See Matthäus 9.5-6: “Welches ist leichter: zu sagen: Dir sind deine Sünden vergeben, oder zu sagen: Stehe auf und wandle? 6. Auf daß ihr aber wisset, daß des Menschen Sohn Macht habe, auf Erden die Sünden zu vergeben […]: Stehe auf, hebe dein Bett auf und gehe heim!” Matthäus 9.24-25: “sprach er zu 124 narrative so beautifully describes, “die Wände hallten ihm nüchtern den Ton nach, daß es zu spotten schien, und die Leiche blieb kalt” (I, 242, 3-5). With this attempt to resurrect a child, Lenz emulates one of Christ’s most prized acts. The character, as Poschmann explains, calls upon a power allotted only to God: Indem Lenz in einem wahrhaften Kraftakt die Wiederbelebung des toten Mädchens zu erzwingen versucht und sich dabei ausdrücklich der von Jesus benutzten Ansprechformen bedient, greift er (als Theologe wissentlich) die absolute Freiheit Gottes an und usurpiert die Rolle des omnipotenten Erlösers. (I, 855) Poschmann goes on to clarify that – because everyone is promised a resurrection at the end of the apocalypse – even Christ only very occasionally restored people to life as evidence of His power and as a sign of the reality of the later resurrection (855). With his attempt to emulate this sacred act, Lenz – just as DT’s Danton and Robespierre did – rejects the Christian understanding of Christ’s supremacy. Each of Büchner’s three figures, however, adopts a different modification of Christ’s function. Whereas Robespierre forces individuals to atone for their own transgressions341 and Danton suggests all mankind are epicurean and should find pleasure wherever possible,342 Lenz focuses on eliminating suffering: aber ich, wär’ ich allmächtig, sehen Sie, wenn ich so wäre, und ich könnte das Leiden nicht ertragen, ich würde retten, retten […] (I, 248-249, 37-2) ihnen: Weichet! denn das Mägdlein ist nicht tot, sondern es schläft. Und sie verlachten ihn. 25. Als aber das Volk hinausgetrieben war, ging er hinein und ergriff es bei der Hand; da stand das Mägdlein auf.” 341 Robespierre describes himself in a monologue: “Blutmessias, der opfert und nicht geopfert wird. – Er hat sie mit seinem Blut erlöst und ich erlöse sie mit ihrem eignen. Er hat sie sündigen gemacht und ich nehme die Sünde auf mich. Er hatte die Wohllust des Schmerzes und ich habe die Qual des Henkers. Wer hat sich mehr verleugnet, Ich oder er?” (I, 37, 25-30). 342 As Danton explains “Es gibt nur Epikureer und zwar grobe und feine, Christus war der feinste” (I, 33,32) and continues “Jeder handelt seiner Natur gemäß d.h. er tut, was ihm wohl tut” (I, 33, 35-36). 125 Lenz’ blasphemous confession that he could not bear to allow others to suffer were he omnipotent accuses any possible Supreme Being of cruelly witnessing affliction without intervening and reveals therewith the character’s rejection of the prevailing Christian belief in suffering as a form of purification (Hinderer 78). Additionally, on a subtextual level, Lenz’ sympathetic cry for an end to pain demonstrates that empathy – lacking in the contemporary religious and medical discourses surrounding mental illness – develops from parallel experiences. Those who do not suffer – like Oberlin – can easily justify its necessity as a form of divine punishment and become insensitive to those who experience it,343 while those who do suffer – as Lenz does – would alleviate it. Consequently crushed by his inability to emulate Christ, Lenz initially blames – even curses – God for his failure: In seiner Brust war ein Triumph-Gesang der Hölle.344 Der Wind klang wie ein Titanenlied, es war ihm, als könne er eine ungeheure Faust hinauf in den Himmel ballen und Gott herbei reißen und zwischen seinen Wolken schleifen; als könnte er die Welt mit den Zähnen zermalmen und sie dem Schöpfer in’s Gesicht speien; er schwur, er lästerte. (I, 242, 9-15) However, this anger gradually transforms to indifference and Lenz ultimately interprets his unsuccessful attempt to raise the dead child as evidence that there is no God (“Lenz mußte laut lachen, und mit dem Lachen griff der Atheismus in ihn […]” [I, 242, 19-20]). Lenz’ Imitatio dei and his resulting conversion to atheism serve respectively as the climax of the narrative’s brief second stage and the introduction to its third, i.e., Lenz’ loss of 343 Lenz even confronts Oberlin claiming the pastor does not understand and rejecting his council with the interjection: “ja wenn ich so glücklich wäre, wie Sie […]” (I, 244, 25-26). 344 Although not a clear biblical allusion, the description answers Paul’s question “Der Tod ist verschlungen in den Sieg. Tod, wo ist dein Stachel? Hölle, wo ist dein Sieg?” (1 Korinther 15.55). 126 identity and the full onset of psychosis. Upon accepting atheism, indifference quickly engulfs Lenz. And with the subsequent increasing onset of psychosis, the character moves from being an active subject to a passive state of being. He can no longer recall what caused his fervent emotions just moments earlier (I, 242, 21-25) and – as daylight no longer protects him from schizophrenic attacks – he faces approaching darkness apathetically (I, 248, 12-14). The only fear remaining seems merely a remnant of his “strenge religiöse Erziehung” (I, 803) as Lenz contemplates his possibly unforgivable transgression: Dann steigerte sich seine Angst, die Sünde und der heilige Geist345 stand vor ihm. (I, 242, 29-31)346 With this allusion to the Bible’s only unforgivable sin, – blasphemy against the Holy Spirit – Lenz transfers the cold and strict paternal nature, demonstrated by his father and soon also by Oberlin, to God, concluding with confidence – despite his recent adoption of atheism – that he is damned. Indeed the character feels not only lost to God, but that he is God’s adversary, “der Satan” (I, 248, 16).347 In this fragile state Lenz is met by Oberlin’s unexpected early return. Obviously unaware of the recurrence and intensification of Lenz’ illness in his absence, but now certainly aware of his preexisting condition,348 the pastor admonishes Lenz to “Ehre Vater 345 Changed in several editions to “die Sünde wider den heiligen Geist” (Poschmann 856). See Matthäus 12.32: “Und wer etwas redet wider des Menschen Sohn, dem wird es vergeben; aber wer etwas redet wider den heiligen Geist, dem wird’s nicht vergeben, weder in dieser noch in jener Welt.” 347 See Matthäus 4.10: “Da sprach Jesus zu ihm: Hebe dich weg von mir, Satan! denn es steht geschrieben: >>Du sollst anbeten Gott, deinen Herrn, und ihm allein dienen.<<” 348 “Oberlin hatte seinen Plan, bis Zürich zu reisen, um Lavater zu besuchen, aufgegeben und war umgekehrt, als er von Schlosser in Emmendingen Aufklärung über den gefährdeten Geisteszustand von J.M.R. Lenz erhalten hatte” (I, 856). 346 127 und Mutter” (I, 243, 3)349 and return home. Oberlin’s impersonal employment of religious authority – indeed a direct quotation from the biblical God – to rid himself of the responsibility for Lenz mocks the simplicity of biblical teachings and implies their exploitation as part of the contemporary domination discourse. Although one is explicitly commanded to obey one’s parents, the adherence to that commandment is more complicated, often quite difficult, and at times ridiculous. Oberlin, however, fails to tailor his recommendation to Lenz’ abnormal situation or to recognize the probable implications for Lenz should he be obedient – his certain mental regression and his further subjugation to paternal dictates – but instead employs the biblical commandment as an easy and instant solution for his own inability or unwillingness to deal with Lenz. Oberlin’s lack of empathy is even more striking when it is juxtaposed with Lenz’ unwavering confidence in the pastor. After interpreting his own inability to resurrect a child as a personal dismissal from apostolic work, Lenz transfers the role of Christ-figure to Oberlin. Tearfully, he tells the pastor: “Nur in Ihnen ist der Weg zu Gott” (I, 243, 7).350 With this biblical quotation – a modified citation of Christ’s own self-identification – Lenz subtly invites Oberlin to become his personal Savior. Immediately thereafter, however, when the character attempts to employ the pastor as such confessing: “Ich bin abgefallen,351 verdammt in Ewigkeit, ich bin der ewige Jude,” (I, 243, 8-9)352 Oberlin discards the confession without further inquiry and offers another impersonal biblical 349 See 2 Mose 20.12: “Du sollst deinen Vater und deine Mutter ehren, auf daß du lange lebest in dem Lande, das dir der Herr, dein Gott, gibt.” 350 See Johannes 14.6: “Jesus spricht zu ihm: Ich bin der Weg und die Wahrheit und das Leben; niemand kommt zum Vater denn durch mich.” 351 See Psalm 53.4: “Aber sie sind alle abgefallen und allesamt untüchtig; da ist keiner, der Gutes tue, auch nicht einer.” 352 The reference to “der ewige Jude” is not biblical rather it refers to the saga of a shoemaker who is dammed to wander until judgment for not allowing Christ to rest in his home (I, 857). 128 solution (I, 243, 9-11). It quickly becomes clear that Lenz’ source of comfort – an impartial and empathetic Oberlin353 – never returns from Switzerland. In fact, until his departure from the Ban de la Roche, Lenz is increasingly misunderstood and rejected by the pastor. Frustration caused by Oberlin’s uninterested responses, in turn, pushes Lenz to more extreme pursuits of acceptance. His subsequent attempt at penitence, for example, is also a clear supplication for paternal support: Den Nachmittag kam er wieder, auf der linken Schulter hatte er ein Stück Pelz354 und in der Hand ein Bündel Gerten, die man Oberlin nebst einem Briefe für Lenz mitgegeben hatte. Er reichte Oberlin die Gerten mit dem Begehren, er sollte ihn damit schlagen. Oberlin nahm die Gerten aus seiner Hand, drückte ihm einige Küsse auf den Mund und sagte: dies wären die Streiche, die er ihm zu geben hätte, er möchte ruhig sein, seine Sache mit Gott allein ausmachen, alle möglichen Schläge würden keine einzige seiner Sünden tilgen; dafür hätte Jesus gesorgt,355 zu dem möchte er sich wenden. Er ging. (I, 243-4, 30-3) Lenz adopts the tactics of his similarly named biblical counterpart, Jacob, who cunningly seized the birthrights of his older brother. Goat skins on Jacob’s hands and neck made his blind father believe that he was blessing his firstborn – and hairier – son, Esau. The biblical allusion in Lenz, as Poschmann explains, is the character’s subtle plea “gleichsam als Sohn, bleiben zu dürfen” (I, 860). Oberlin, however, fails to recognize or acknowledge the connection. Instead, the pastor only superficially addresses – and 353 The description of Oberlin’s feelings for Lenz upon Kaufmann’s arrival but before discovering his illness describe his unconditional love: “Oberlin wußte von Allem nichts; er hatte ihn aufgenommen, gepflegt; er sah es als eine Schickung Gottes, der den Unglücklichen ihm zugesandt hätte, er liebte ihn herzlich” (I, 233, 24-27). 354 See 1 Mose 27.1-29. 355 See Jesaja 53.5: “Aber er ist um unsrer Missetat willen verwundet und um unsrer Sünde willen zerschlagen. Die Strafe liegt auf ihm, auf daß wir Frieden hätten, und durch seine Wunden sind wir geheilt.” Matthäus 1.21: “Und sie wird einen Sohn gebären, des Namen sollst du Jesus heißen; denn er wird sein Volk selig machen von ihren Sünden.” 129 denies – Lenz’ request. Without further inquiry, he shares the basic principles of the Christian atonement – something Lenz certainly already knows. In fact, this doctrine – what Oberlin deems truth, understandable, and achievable – has already been tried and dismissed by his guest. Because Oberlin fails to reacquaint himself with Lenz,356 his rote Christian answers fall flat. As Poschmann explains: Oberlins Antwort auf die stumme Bitte von Lenz ist vordergründig […] christlich, versöhnlich; in Wahrheit hartherzig, abweisend. (I, 860) With these recurring unsympathetic encounters, Büchner subtly demonstrates how one can be ostensibly compassionate, while in fact merely justifying the execution of one’s own agenda.357 Hereafter Lenz’ regression is constant as “alles was er an Ruhe aus der Nähe Oberlins und aus der Stille des Tals geschöpft hatte, war weg” (I, 246, 32-33) and “die Zufälle des Nachts steigerten sich auf’s Schrecklichste” (I, 247, 35-36). His actions are unpredictable and unexplainable; he fights with the family’s cat, attempts suicide, and claims to be a murderer. Ultimately, his father’s wish is granted and the text concludes as Lenz sits in a carriage on his way home. The narrative’s final lines are devastating. Although Lenz outwardly conforms to society by concealing his mental state, he continues to suffer internally: Er schien ganz vernünftig, sprach mit den Leuten; er tat Alles wie es die Andern taten, es war aber eine entsetzliche 356 The pastor’s failure to reacquaint himself with Lenz is subtly contrasted with the previously introduced intimate reconnection of Christ and his disciples on the road to Emmaus illustrated in the painting described by Lenz in the Kunstgespräch. 357 “Ähnlich wie das Gutachten von Clarus im Falle von Woyzeck, deutet Büchner das Material, der Absicht der überlieferungsmächtigen Zeugen entgegen, um. Oberlins Bericht dient der Selbstrechtfertigung” (I, 815). 130 Leere in ihm, er fühlte keine Angst mehr, kein Verlangen; sein Dasein war ihm eine notwendige Last. - - So lebte er hin. (I, 250, 30-34) As a parody of a fairy tale’s topical last line, the simple conclusion “So lebte er hin” carries the narrative into the present and therewith contends that others – like Lenz – still suffer unnecessarily. Indeed the narrative’s close implies not merely the continuation of suffering, but also that – for the formulaic, self-interested and perfunctory religious society the text criticizes – the unwillingness to worry about the mentally ill is a blissfully ignorant “happily ever after” as it entails a superficial interpretation of an interventionist god who absolves them of responsibility to do so. Dismissal of the mentally ill can easily be justified when the pathology is believed to result from sinfulness. This is, of course, biblically problematic. When the apostles question whether a blind man’s own sins or those of his parents caused his lack of vision, Jesus corrects his disciples explaining it was neither, but rather a means to demonstrate God’s ability to heal (Johannes 9.1-3). Thus there is, according to the narrative, a tension between fundamental biblical precepts and the practices of contemporary organized religion. The text employs this individual case, i.e., the pathography of Lenz and Oberlin’s consequential gradual dismissal of him, as an example of society’s general rejection of the mentally ill. Thus although mental illness may be inherent in one’s nature, its severity can – at least in part – be determined by society. As Knapp describes: The text implies that not only the mental illness is responsible for Lenz' destruction, but also a network of social and societal systems potentially deformative in themselves and devastating to the ill and the endangered.358 358 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Lenz". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10378, accessed 25 June 2009.]. 131 One aspect of these deformative societies, the text maintains, is their unreasonable and uncompassionate judgment; Oberlin’s society encourages the character’s belief in the supernatural, then seemingly chooses which accounts of paranormal experiences to hail as miraculous and which to disregard. For example, Oberlin does not question Lenz when he claims he saw a vision of his mother in the night, but instead supports its probability by relating several supernatural experiences of his own (I, 232, 18-25). Shortly thereafter Lenz begins to read ever more in the Bible, especially Apocalypse (I, 233, 15-18), “was die Krankheitssymptome verstärkt” (Hinderer 102). And later, after the anonymous old man shares his experience of wrestling with God on a hilltop, Lenz even more severely regresses, recalling his love for Frederike (I, 240, 12-15) and attempting to resurrect a young child (1, 242, 1-5). Lenz, as Poschmann explains, merely attempts to perform acts similar to those performed – or at least testified of – by his equals: Es wird fortgesetzt und gipfelt in der Erbauung von Lenz darüber, daß er >den Leuten< ihr vertrautes Ineinserleben von Natur und >himmlischen Mysterien< jetzt nachzuempfinden vermag. (I, 823-4) Despite his efforts to understand and employ the supernatural surrounding him, Lenz repeatedly fails to do so in a manner acceptable by his society. Oberlin is respected for his spirituality,359 but Lenz is cut short when he begins to share his beliefs.360 The anonymous old man is admired for wrestling with lightning on a mountaintop,361 but it is 359 His popularity is described as follows: “[…] man drängte sich um Oberlin, er wies zurecht, gab Rat, tröstete; überall zutrauensvolle Blicke, Gebet” (I, 228, 34-36). 360 While conversing with Oberlin, Lenz begins to share his theories on the harmonic relationship of all organisms, but “Oberlin brach es ab, es führte ihn zu weit von seiner einfachen Art ab” (I, 233, 10-11). 361 He is described as “im Rufe eines Heiligen, er sehe das Wasser unter der Erde und könne Geiste beschwören, und man wallfahre zu ihm” (I, 239, 12-14). 132 unacceptable that Lenz wrestles with insanity. Lenz’ attempt to resurrect the girl even indirectly criticizes Christianity as Christ’s successful acts are deemed miracles, while those who attempt to emulate him are discarded; the perfect – like idealist art – is praised, while the real – and realist – manifestations of human nature are disdained. Thus society unknowingly encourages Lenz’ behavior, but rejects him when his mental illness gives him the inability to discern between legend and reality. The narrative could, King contends, be read as Büchner’s illumination of a “mad” society (Hinderer 81) – many of Büchner’s contemporaries did employ mentally ill characters as representations of “einer irren oder irremachenden Epoche” (Poschmann 814). Still, Büchner’s narrative is less a demonstration of the culture’s illness and more a condemnation of its inability to properly understand and to compassionately deal with the mentally ill. The blame for mental illness, Lenz contends, is commonly placed by society upon the victim. But just as DT relieves the prostitutes of responsibility for their immoral occupation and instead accuses their clientele,362 Lenz – and later Woyzeck – acquits its protagonist of complete responsibility for his actions as well. Because Lenz’ illness is portrayed as a result of nature and the aggravating effects induced by a patriarchal, normative, uncompassionate society, Büchner “removes the stigma of sinfulness from [Lenz’] fictional character.”363 Although the character is not intended to be identified with,364 descriptions of Lenz’ thoughts and emotions through free indirect discourse invite 362 “Ja ein Messer, aber nicht für die arme Hure, was tat sie? Nichts! Ihr Hunger hurt und bettelt. Ein Messer für die Leute, die das Fleisch unserer Weiber und Töchter kaufen! Weh über die, so mit den Töchtern des Volkes huren” (I, 18, 24-28). 363 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Lenz". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10378, accessed 30 June 2009.]. 364 As Poschmann clearly states “Bei aller nachweislichen Affinität und spürbaren Sympathie wäre es ein Mißverstandnis, Lenz als eine Identifikationsfigur Büchners aufzufassen” (I, 812). 133 the reader to observe first-hand the various factors365 that induce Lenz’ attacks and consequently to arrive at an unbiased – but not strictly scientific – diagnosis.366 Although Büchner’s employment of sources for Lenz – primarily Oberlin’s written account of J.M.R. Lenz’ visit - mirrors that of DT (Knapp 130), the author’s compassionate portrayal of the relentless struggles of the mentally ill sets itself apart from his previous texts in both style and subject. Whereas DT’s multiple characters and HL’s amalgamation of two authors’ voices – Georg Büchner and Friedrich Ludwig Weidig – create a mosaic of speakers and voices in each text, Lenz retains a single narrative perspective which belongs primarily to its protagonist.367 While HL and DT address specific audiences, i.e., the Hessian rural population and the theater-attending upper classes respectively, Lenz’ intended audience – even the fragment’s exact genre – remains uncertain. Both HL and DT demonstrate the follies of politics, – the former directly exposes prevailing repression and socio-economic inequities, the latter demonstrates through dialogue previous disappointments – while Lenz tells an almost parabolic story encouraging better individual and common understanding of mental illness. In addition, the symbolic and aesthetic descriptions of landscapes and weather in Lenz are not found in any of Büchner’s other texts. 365 “Wenn Büchner das Leiden Lenz’ ins Zentrum des Erzählvorgangs rückt, macht er es zugleich zum Maßstab für die Beurteilung der Instanzen, die diesem Leiden gegenüber versagen: der zeitgemäßen Auffassung psychischer Krankheit, der sozialen Umwelt, die sein Leiden verschärft, indem sie ihn ausstößt (Weimar/Goethe) oder vereinnahmen will (der Vater/Kaufmann) und derjenigen, die, im hilflosen Versuch zu helfen, ihn schließlich der Krankheit vollends ausliefert (Oberlins Haushalt)” (Knapp 141). 366 “Allerdings hat die Untersuchung der Ästhetik des Texts den Befund erbracht, daß es Büchner gerade nicht um eine distanzierte, wissenschaftlich objektivierte Pathographie geht, allein schon deshalb, weil er die Prämissen der Schulwissenschaft seiner Zeit in ihrer Gesamheit nicht teilt, die, grob gesprochen, geistige Krankheit zur moralischen Frage machen und dem Kranken vielfach die Verantwortung für sein Kranksein zuschieben” (Ibid. 142). 367 “Büchner verwendet keinen inneren Monolog, aber seine Erzähltechnik tendiert bereits zu modernen Formen des stream of consciousness. Die subjective Erfahrung übertönt beständig die auktoriale Erzählstimme” (Ibid. 138). 134 Although, as this study demonstrates, Büchner still maintains his previously established pattern by separating Lenz from the other characters, introducing Christfigures, and encouraging change, this pattern is meticulously interwoven with all aspects of the narrative. Descriptions of cloud formation create apocalyptic horses, anonymous characters relate tales of their miraculous experiences and compare themselves to biblical figures, and Oberlin directly quotes the Bible on multiple accounts. Additionally, the quotations are shorter and most often limited to vague allusions – the significance of their connotations easily overlooked by the inattentive reader. The provocation for change, although a call for society’s alteration, is also a personal invitation to no longer allow others to suffer as Lenz does and a critique of prevailing medical and religious practices. Each of these modifications demonstrates Büchner’s ever increasing focus on the individual, especially the underprivileged, and each sets the stage for Büchner’s final work, Woyzeck. CHAPTER 4 LEONCE UND LENA: O ZUFALL! O VORSEHUNG! Georg Büchner’s fourth work, the play Leonce und Lena (hereafter LL), was intended for a competition launched by the Stuttgart publishing house Cotta. Entries were to be one- to two- act comedies written in prose or verse and the prize was a substantial three hundred Gulden (I, 600-601). Although Büchner was certainly not an author readily willing to yield to prescribed guidelines – especially knowing the text would be censored368 and its author recognized369 – the combination of a literary challenge and the author’s rather desperate financial situation proved tempting enough to motivate Büchner to write a submission. Unfortunately we can only speculate what the author’s original entry entailed as it – returned unopened after its delinquent arrival for the contest – ultimately disappeared.370 Even so the competition’s specific requirements and exact deadline provided direction and motivation for the text we have today. The subsequently modified three-act play remains Büchner’s only comedy and interestingly also his only piece lacking an historical source (Knapp 155). Whereas Büchner’s other 368 “Das Projekt war: nicht nur die politische Zensur zu unterlaufen, sondern dem ästhetischen Erwartungshorizont des Gremiums zumindest scheinbar entgegenzukommen” (Knapp 158). 369 Büchner made it clear his name should be withheld from DT: “[…] und mein Name steht darauf, was ich ausdrücklich verboten hatte; er steht außerdem nicht auf dem Titel meines Manuscripts” (II, 409-410, 332). 370 “Wir wissen nicht, wie die Wettbewerbsfassung aussah, die Büchner an das konservative Cottasche Verlagshaus einsandte. Es versteht sich, daß er ein enormes Maß an literarischer Camouflage betreiben mußte, um überhaupt eine Chance bei der Preisvergabe zu haben” (Knapp 158). 136 literary works (Dantons Tod, Lenz, and Woyzeck) create social commentaries by utilizing historical accounts easily recognizable to his contemporary audience and demonstrating the discrepancies of the documentation – and consequently understanding – of those accounts and what may have actually occurred,371 LL employs fictitious characters and settings to satirically depict the contemporary political system. Interestingly – because of this distinction – Büchner’s oeuvre as a whole creates a dismal, but realistic portrayal of his society’s history of self-centeredness, injustice, and intolerance while deeming any contemporary efforts to progress beyond those qualities as little more than a joke.372 LL is, however, much more than a political satire. With its exaggeratedly stereotypical romantic plot and characters exhibiting overtly clichéd emotions, the play also becomes Büchner’s “parody of a literary form he considers defunct.”373 Indeed, Knapp even contends that the comedy’s “unique combination of literary parody and political satire” introduces a new genre.374 A chief characteristic of LL – demonstrating, among other things, romanticism’s lack of authenticity – is the text’s excessive number of “teils auffällige[r], teils verstecke[r]” (I, 604) quotations. Indeed, LL is compiled almost entirely of extractions from existing texts. Because the play lacks an historical basis, however, its incredible number of quotations stems from literary rather than historical 371 When warning his parents of the potentially offensive content of Dantons Tod, Büchner explains that “der dramatische Dichter ist in meinen Augen nichts, als ein Geschichtschreiber […] Seine höchste Aufgabe ist, der Geschichte, wie sie sich wirklich begeben, so nahe als möglich zu kommen” (II, 410, 816). Society, the playwright repeatedly demonstrates, unfairly judges its individuals. As a result, Büchner’s Lenz attempts to counteract Oberlin’s accounts while Büchner’s Woyzeck offsets Clarus’ assessments. 372 As Büchner writes to his parents in December 1832: “Für eine politische Abhandlung habe ich keine Zeit mehr, es wäre auch nicht der Mühe wert, das Ganze ist doch nur eine Komödie. Der König und die Kammern regieren, und das Volk klatscht und bezahlt” (II, 365, 16-19). 373 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Leonce und Lena". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10377, accessed 11 August 2009.]. 374 Ibid. 137 sources (I, 609). Nevertheless the exact sources for the quotations are frequently difficult to identify because there are often multiple possibilities. Several passages originating in the Bible, for example, are also found in Brentano's Ponce de Leon (1804), which – along with Mussets Fantasio (1833) and Shakespeare’s As You Like It – serves as a primary source for the comedy (Knapp 156). Because the precise sources for the quotations are often hard – if not impossible – to identify, their analysis, as Poschmann explains, also becomes more difficult: Die Zitate selbst, aus denen der Text zu einem guten Teil zusammengesetzt ist, sind oft ebenso schwer auf eine einzige Quelle wie auf ihren Sinn in dem neu hergestellten Zusammenhang hin festzulegen. (I, 612) This ambiguity was undoubtedly deliberate. In an attempt to subtly communicate his political, social, and literary views without being silenced by censorship and while appealing to the competition judges, Büchner meticulously arranged recognizable – even blatantly clichéd – quotations because they were more likely to be overlooked or disregarded. As a result, a close reading of LL is required to fully appreciate the author’s calculated utilization of quotations and an analysis of them must often be based – at least in part – on a modicum of speculation. Not surprisingly, Büchner utilizes this intricate patchwork of quotations to create in LL the same three-part development found in his previous texts by first demonstrating an unjust human division, then creating a Christ-figure, and ultimately encouraging social and political change. Interestingly, just as Büchner’s narrative Lenz depicts three phases in its protagonist’s mental deterioration that correspond respectively to each part in this 138 progression,375 so is LL divided into three acts that roughly complement the aforementioned tripartite development. Thus, LL’s exposition demonstrates the people’s unjust class division, its continued development introduces a Christ-figure, and the marriage scene invites social and political change. On a subtextual level, each part of this development comically mocks Germany’s prevailing classes – the rich and the noble – for their false sense of authority and magnification of trivial problems, and the working poor for their blind obedience to that supposed authority. This study’s primary focus is the function of biblical quotations throughout this progression. Thus should some of the quotations examined also be found in the comedy’s other literary sources, attention will remain on their analysis with relation to their biblical contextualization. Even though biblical quotations in LL support the same tripartite development found in each of Büchner’s previous works, they are not interwoven throughout the comedy like they are in earlier texts. In fact, biblical references do not emerge until the last scene of the comedy’s first act. As a result, no biblical allusions or quotations introduce or directly support the demonstration of class division in LL. Even so, this first phase cannot be overlooked. Indeed, Büchner’s utilization of biblical references becomes increasingly dependent upon an understanding of the author’s previous texts. Just as DT can be deemed a dramatic companion to Der Hessische Landbote (HL),376 LL 375 Biblical quotations in Lenz follow the general template introduced in this study – i.e. they first illustrate unjustifiable human division, then create a Christ- or Anti-Christ-figure, and eventually advocate political or social change. This tripartite pattern of biblical quotation employment corresponds roughly with the narrative’s analyzed process of mental deterioration – “1. partial stabilization and social integration; 2. reoccurrence of mental disturbances and deterioration of social contact; 3. loss of identity and full onset of psychosis” Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Lenz". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10378, accessed 25 June 2009.]. 376 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Dantons Tod: Ein Drama [Danton's Death: A Drama]". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10375, accessed 23 August 2008.]. 139 serves as its comedic counterpart. The comedy’s arguments, as Knapp describes, cannot be fully understood without a familiarity with the political pamphlet as “Erst vor diesem [HL] Projektionshintergrund wird der Kunstcharakter des Lustspiels als schneidend dissonante Provokation überhaupt verständlich” (159). Socioeconomic class division in LL is thus established by Büchner’s intentional allusion to the separation of mankind initially introduced and supported by biblical passages in HL. Consequently, in addition to the biblical quotations found in LL, allusions to Büchner’s earlier text become a significant part of this chapter’s study of the comedy’s indirect biblical references. Indeed, the first scene of LL undoubtedly reminds the reader of the political pamphlet’s similar opening as both clearly but satirically introduce class division; HL describes each class’s distinct relationship to work and the resulting disparity in living conditions (“Das Leben der Vornehmen ist ein langer Sonntag […] Das Leben des Bauern ist ein langer Werktag” [II, 53-54, 26-4])377 and LL demonstrates it. Whereas HL argues that members of the ruling classes unjustly exploit the working poor,378 LL showcases the ruling classes’ luxurious but idle lifestyle. The crown prince Leonce, the play’s protagonist, for example, finds himself at work doing nothing significant: Ich habe alle Hände voll zu tun. Ich weiß mir vor Arbeit nicht zu helfen. Sehen Sie, erst habe ich auf den Stein hier dreihundert fünf und sechzig Mal hintereinander zu spucken. (I, 95, 9-12) 377 This is an allusion to the commandment found in 2. Mose 31.15: “Sechs Tage soll man arbeiten; aber am siebenten Tag ist Sabbat, die heilige Ruhe des Herrn. Wer eine Arbeit tut am Sabbattag, soll des Todes sterben.” as well as the commandment that man should work for his own subsistence. See 1. Mose 3.19: “Im Schweiße deines Angesichts sollst du dein Brot essen [...]” 378 See HL’s satirical biblical reference: “Im Jahr 1834 siehet es aus, als würde die Bibel Lügen gestraft. Es sieht aus, als hätte Gott die Bauern und Handwerker am 5ten Tage, und die Fürsten und Vornehmen am 6ten gemacht, und als hätte der Herr zu diesen gesagt: Herrschet über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht, und hätte die Bauern und Bürger zum Gewürm gezählt” (II, 53, 21-26). 140 He later confesses to Rosetta, his girlfriend: “ich habe die entsetzliche Arbeit… […] Nichts zu tun […]” (I, 101, 1-3). The comedy derides both the nobility’s actual duties – considered “ludicrous and obsolete”379 – and their false perceptions of those duties and themselves as vitally important. Valerio, Leonce’s closest companion, mocks politicians in a similar manner when he freely confesses that idleness is his talent despite – or possibly due to – his aspirations to become a minister in his friend’s kingdom: Herr, ich habe die große Beschäftigung, müßig zu gehen, ich habe eine ungemeine Fertigkeit im Nichtstun, ich besitze eine ungeheure Ausdauer in der Faulheit. Keine Schwiele schändet meine Hände, der Boden hat noch keinen Tropfen von meiner Stirne getrunken, ich bin noch Jungfrau in der Arbeit […] (I, 98, 9-14) Valerio emulates the ruling body’s idleness. However, he also recognizes that the culture to which he aspires is abnormal as he wittingly and metaphorically compares the castle to a “Narrenhaus” (Knapp 163). There, he explains, one receives “gute Suppe, gutes Fleisch, gutes Brot, ein gutes Bett und das Haar umsonst geschoren” (I, 97-98, 36-1) whereas with a sound mind the most he could do is “einen Kirschbaum verdingen […]” (I, 98, 3-4). Later in the text, he even compliments Leonce with the applause: “Eure Hoheit scheint mir wirklich auf dem besten Weg, ein wahrhaftiger Narr zu werden” (I, 104, 3-4). The quick-witted Valerio sees through this backward society – representative of contemporary Germany – which rewards the lazy and crazy,380 while allowing the hard-working masses to suffer. Despite his accurate perception, however, the figure 379 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Leonce und Lena". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10377, accessed 14 January 2009.]. 380 Of course, Büchner’s employment of insanity to categorize the ruling bodies in LL is significantly different from his use of mental illness in Lenz. The former refers to the elective idiotic lifestyle of members of the ruling classes, while the latter is a natural – and actual – illness. 141 repeatedly argues in favor of this idleness throughout the comedy. In the second act’s first scene, Valerio deems work useless; instead of squandering life on it, he suggests enjoying oneself before death: Sehen Sie Prinz, ich werde philosophisch, ein Bild des menschlichen Lebens. Ich schleppe diesen Pack mit wunden Füßen durch Frost und Sonnenbrand, weil ich Abends ein reines Hemd anziehen will, und wenn endlich der Abend kommt, so ist meine Stirne gefurcht, meine Wange hohl, mein Auge dunkel und ich habe gerade noch Zeit, mein Hemd anzuziehen, als Totenhemd. Hätte ich nun nicht gescheiter getan, ich hätte mein Bündel vom Stecken gehoben und es in der ersten besten Kneipe verkauft, und hätte mich dafür betrunken und im Schatten geschlafen, bis es Abend geworden wäre, und hätte nicht geschwitzt und mir keine Leichdörner gelaufen? (I, 112, 21-36) Valerio’s case for idle self-gratification vaguely resembles Danton’s argument that “Jeder […] tut, was ihm wohl tut” (I, 33, 35-36). However unlike Danton’s claim, Valerio’s logic cannot be universally applicable. Theoretically, the play’s protagonist could be correct; e.g., it is possible – although unlikely – that the poor somehow find pleasure in their exploitation or the prostitutes find pleasure in their occupation. However, the specificity of Valerio’s argument, based solely on his desire to be idle, demonstrates either the character’s egocentric aspiration to benefit from another’s labors or his ignorance in the implicit assumption that a society could function should no one work. Additionally, with his proposal to abandon any laborious activity, Valerio greatly distorts the biblical teachings to which he alludes. As Bark explains: Valerio spricht so viele >Dialekte<, […] daß die Allusion auf das geläufige alttestamentliche Wissen von der Mühlsal und Flüchtigkeit des Lebens (Psalm 90) und von der Vergänglichkeit des Menschen (Prediger 3) wenig mehr ist als abgesunkenes Bibelgut. (Bark 495) 142 Indeed, Valerio then continues his monologue by manipulating additional biblical teachings as he suggests to the prince that “Aus lauter Schamhaftigkeit wollen wir jetzt auch den inneren Menschen bekleiden und Rock und Hosen inwendig anziehen” (I, 112, 34-36).381 Instead of becoming a new person, as the Bible advises, Valerio would disguise his inner self. Much as Adam and Eve were ashamed and found fig leaves to cover their physical bodies,382 the figure suggests disguising his own shamefully selfish desires and intents. Consequently, in addition to portraying the ruling classes’ idleness as described in HL, LL – through Valerio’s subtle rejection of biblical teachings – also mirrors the political pamphlet’s opening case, which proposes that the ruling bodies’ idleness demonstrates their failure to adhere to biblical doctrine.383 Interestingly, the play handles the working poor in much the same vein as Büchner’s absolutist regime did. Although widespread suffering among the poor was certainly understood,384 the abolition of that suffering is never addressed. As Dedner describes, the poor remain “am Rande des thematischen Zusammenhangs” (128). In fact, the text unmistakably argues that the ruling body is so preoccupied with its own trivial affairs that it fails to attend to the very people it is designed to govern. In the first act’s second scene, for example, King Peter, Leonce’s father and ruler of the Kingdom Popo, 381 As Bark explains that the text’s allusions “die kardinale Lehre vom inwendig erneuerten Menschen (Epheser 4.22) und den neuen Kleidern der Demut, Sanftmut, Geduld etc. (Kolosser 3.12) total unernst anwenden” (Bark 495). 382 See 1 Mose 3.7 “Da wurden ihrer beider Augen aufgetan, und sie wurden gewahr, daß sie nackt waren, und flochten Feigenblätter zusammen und machten sich Schürze.” 383 In order to encourage something as risky and important as a violent revolution, HL attempted to demonstrate its necessity. The pamphlet’s sarcastic opening phrase “Im Jahr 1834 siehet es aus, als würde die Bibel Lügen gestraft” intends not to question the Bible, but rather to invite a reevaluation of contemporary conditions and an investigation whether the biblical God would approve of those conditions. 384 “Der spontane Ausbruch der »Volksliebe« wird mit Zwangsmitteln inszeniert, im »Triumphzug« dokumentiert sich Herrschaft, in der Biederkeit der Versammelten ihr Elend” (Dedner 131). 143 must manufacture ways to remind himself of his subjects. Even then, however, he forgets what he is trying to remember. After repeatedly asking his attendants why he knotted his handkerchief, the king suddenly realizes: “Ja, das ist’s, das ist’s. – [ich wollte mich an mein Volk erinnern!]” (I, 99, 25-26). Indeed much of the comedy’s humor mocks the lack of responsibility among the ruling classes and its paradoxical – even ridiculous – understanding of work. In Leonce’s opening statement, for example, he momentarily appears to regret that he has no occupation, when he questions: “Bin ich ein Müßiggänger? Habe ich keine Beschäftigung?” (I, 95, 27-28) After a pause, the character continues “Ja, es ist traurig […]” (I, 95, 28-29). Of course, the Hofmeister – along with the audience – assumes Leonce is answering his own rhetorical question. However, when the prince completes his thoughts – which had quickly taken an unexpected new direction – he explains that his aforementioned melancholy results from the course of cloud movement. The wealthy, the play mockingly exhibits, have no real concerns and consequently produce their own. Even more important, the text implies that the wealthy are oblivious to their own idleness. Although Leonce questions whether he has an occupation, he does not find an answer to his inquiry important enough to rouse further investigation; indeed, his mind remains free to ponder insignificant things. Still, the comedy does ultimately answer the prince’s question. Besides spitting uninterruptedly on a stone (I, 95, 9-12), the figure has no job. In fact, the only other pastime Leonce deems laborious, the maintenance of a romantic relationship with Rosetta, he quickly abandons. The poor girl is crushed by her lover’s unexpected confession: 144 LEONCE: Ach, Rosetta, ich habe die entsetzliche Arbeit… ROSETTA: Nun? LEONCE: Nichts zu tun… ROSETTA: Als zu lieben? LEONCE: Freilich Arbeit! (I, 101, 1-5) Rosetta is too intelligent and too emotionally attached; consequently a relationship with her requires effort. The prince admits “Du bist ein kluges Mädchen, und ich halte viel auf deinen Scharfsinn” (I, 101, 9-10), but later confesses that intelligence is not an attribute of his ideal woman; “Sie ist,” Leonce tells Valerio “unendlich schön und unendlich geistlos. […] Es ist ein köstlicher Kontrast: diese himmlisch stupiden Augen, dieser göttlich einfältige Mund […]” (I, 112, 10-14). Leonce clearly serves as a representation of contemporary nobility; he avoids labor, prefers to surround himself with ignorance, and remains emotionally unattached even to those closest to him. After ending his relationship with Rosetta, Leonce is notified that his father betrothed him to the Princess Lena from the Kingdom Pipi and that upon marriage the prince will succeed his father on the throne. Valerio, present throughout the announcement, jumps at the thought, explaining: Nun, Sie sollen König werden. Das ist eine lustige Sache. Man kann den ganzen Tag spazieren fahren und den Leuten die Hüte verderben durch’s viele Abziehen, man kann aus ordentlichen Menschen ordentliche Soldaten ausschneiden […] (I, 107, 27-31) Valerio’s excited description of the life of nobility embodies what HL encourages its audience to witness, i.e., the ruling classes’ dangerous combination of immense power, ignorance, and contempt for the general populace: Geht einmal nach Darmstadt und seht, wie die Herren sich für euer Geld dort lustig machen […] erzählt von den 145 stattlichen Häusern, die aus den Knochen des Volks gebaut sind […] (II, 59, 2-10) The exploitation of the working poor introduced in HL is satirically and hyperbolically demonstrated in the comedy’s first three scenes. And although Leonce’s decision to avoid the anticipated wedding, and therewith risk never adopting the role of king, initially seems to set him apart from his predecessors, his grounds for doing so are neither morally nor politically based.385 Indeed, neither the ruling classes’ disdain for their subjects nor their irresponsibility in relation to their civil duties concerns the comedy’s royal characters, both serve instead as a foundation upon which to demonstrate the permanence of contemporary class division at the comedy’s conclusion despite variations in individual leaders. “Denn sogar ein gewandelter Prinz Leonce,” as Knapp describes “[…] wird immer noch ein absolutistischer König Leonce sein” (171). The first act’s final scene then introduces princess Lena, the woman who quickly becomes Leonce’s romantic interest and – unknown to the prince – also the arranged fiancée from whom he is fleeing. Similarly devastated to be promised to a partner she has never met, Lena expresses her unhappiness to her governess questioning: “Aber warum schlägt man einen Nagel durch zwei Hände, die sich nicht suchten?” (I, 109, 1819).386 With this allusion, the princess – rather exaggeratedly – compares her pain to that experienced by Christ during his crucifixion (I, 632). Lena’s governess then further 385 Leonce’s only concern is that his unknown bride will not embody his prescribed ideals. As Leonce explains in the first scene of the second act: “Ich habe das Ideal eines Frauenzimmers in mir und muß es suchen” (I, 112, 9-10). 386 There is no biblical description of nails in Christ’s hands during his cruxifiction. Only after Christ’s resurrection does John allude to the stigmata as he records Thomas’ doubts: “Da sagten die andern Jünger zu ihm: Wir haben den Herrn gesehen. Er aber sprach zu ihnen: Es sei denn, daß ich in seinen Händen sehe die Nägelmale und lege meinen Finger in die Nägelmale und lege meine Hand an seine Seite, will ich's glauben” (Johannes 20.25). 146 develops the princess’ role as a sacrificial offering with her sympathetic reply: “Lieber Engel, du bist doch ein wahres Opferlamm” (I, 109, 34-35).387 To which the princess only agrees: “Ja wohl – und der Priester hebt schon das Messer” (I, 110, 1). Both women clearly refer to the Law of Moses, which introduced and implemented animal sacrifice early in the Old Testament. These sacrifices, offered for customary worship and for penitence, are then retrospectively classified as symbolic of Christ's atonement when both Christ and his followers in the New Testament refer to the former as the “sacrificial lamb of God.” As Bark explains: Die Bedeutsamkeit des Lammes im altisraelitischen Opferkult ist im A.T. häufig bezeugt, dabei wird hervorgehoben, daß es rein und ohne Makel sein muß (3 Mose 22, 17); über den Vergleich des leidenden Gottesknechts mit diesem Opferlamm (Jesaja 53, 7) gelangt die Vorstellung zu ihrem prominenten Platz im N.T. Johannes 1,29 berichtet von der Designation Jesu als Lamm Gottes, »das der Welt Sünde trägt«; die Offenbarung bringt die Lamm-Vorstellung 34mal. (Bark 494) Bark correctly identifies and interprets the governess’ employment of “Opferlamm” as both a reference to the Old Testament law and to Christ in the New Testament. He fails, however, to include Lena’s first allusion to the crucifixion (“Aber warum schlägt man […]”) in his investigation of biblical quotations. With this allusion, Lena introduces herself as a Christ-like figure and presents the opportunity for her governess to further develop that image. Thus when the latter subsequently deems the princess an “Opferlamm,” she accurately connects Lena’s allusion to Christ with the ancient ritual of animal sacrifice. On a subtextual level, this brief interaction demonstrates how Lena 387 See Johannes 1.29: “Des andern Tages sieht Johannes Jesum zu ihm kommen und spricht: Siehe, das ist Gottes Lamm, welches der Welt Sünde trägt!” 147 focuses primarily on the intensity of her own misery and consequently identifies herself with Christ, whose crucifixion is the ultimate Christian embodiment of suffering, while the governess alludes to the universality of suffering and consequently merely categorizes Lena with other victims in the long history of sacrifice. Lena seems to recognize her governess’ inference to universal – or at least common – suffering. Instead of referring again to her own circumstance, the princess employs the first person plural form (“wir”) and therewith generalizes her emotions: Mein Gott, mein Gott,388 ist es denn wahr, daß wir uns selbst erlösen müssen mit unserem Schmerz? (I, 110, 2-3)389 Although the girl’s perception of pain is absurdly distorted – even comedic – when compared with the conditions experienced by the majority of humanity, pain itself is universally understandable and her question is universally applicable. In addition to generalizing her feelings, Lena’s inquiry rejects the prevailing Christian belief in Christ’s role as a universal Redeemer. What is the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice, if each individual must endure similar afflictions? Indeed, the princess continues utilizing allusions to the crucifixion to describe the general state of the world as a mere demonstration of widespread misery: Ist es denn wahr, die Welt sei ein gekreuzigter Heiland, die Sonne seine Dornenkrone390 und die Sterne die Nägel und Speere in seinen Füßen und Lenden? (I, 110, 3-6) The symbols so readily recognized by Christianity (a crown of thorns, nails, and a spear) 388 See Matthäus 27.46: “Und um die neunte Stunde schrie Jesus laut und sprach: Eli, Eli, lama asabthani? das ist: Mein Gott, mein Gott, warum hast du mich verlassen?” 389 As Bark explains, “Der übliche Hinweis auf Dantons Tod I,6 ist natürlich richtig” (494). 390 See Matthäus 27.29: “und flochten eine Dornenkrone und setzten sie auf sein Haupt […].” See also Markus 15.15-19 and Johannes 19.2-5. 148 are transformed from representations of Christ’s suffering for humanity – an apparent act of charity resulting in man’s salvation – to representations of the suffering of humanity. While this compilation of metaphors is certainly nothing novel for Büchner – the author utilizes similar imagery in HL391 – the metaphors’ implication in the text differs significantly from Büchner’s previous text. The political pamphlet attempts to demonstrate the very real, unjust, unnecessary, and at times self-inflected torture of the working poor. The princess’ inquiry, on the other hand, only briefly questions the universality of suffering. Just as Leonce fails to sincerely reflect on his earlier selfexamining question (“Bin ich ein Müßiggänger? Habe ich keine Beschäftigung?” [I, 95, 27-28]), so is Lena’s contemplation of suffering also little more than a passing thought; her misery quickly withers when the condition creating her affliction – her betrothal to an unknown fiancé – resolves itself. Indeed, Lena’s agony only results from her fear that her imminent arranged marriage will obliterate any possibility to fulfill her longing to fall in love. Thus amid Lena’s hyperbolic expression of personal suffering, she also poetically confesses envying the flowers’ apparent freedom: Die Blumen öffnen und schließen, wie sie wollen, ihre Kelche der Morgensonne und dem Abendwind. Ist denn die Tochter eines Königs weniger, als eine Blume? (I, 109, 30-33)392 391 “Ihr setzt ihm eine Krone auf, aber es ist eine Dornenkrone, die ihr euch selbst in den Kopf drückt; ihr gebt ihm ein Szepter in die Hand, aber es ist eine Rute, womit ihr gezüchtigt werdet; ihr setzt ihn auf euern Thron, aber es ist ein Marterstrahl für euch und eure Kinder” (II, 58, 22-26). 392 See Lukas 12.27-28: “Nehmet wahr der Lilien auf dem Felde, wie sie wachsen: sie arbeiten nicht, auch spinnen sie nicht. Ich sage euch aber, daß auch Salomo in aller seiner Herrlichkeit nicht ist bekleidet gewesen wie deren eines. 28. So denn das Gras, das heute auf dem Felde steht und morgen in den Ofen geworfen wird, Gott also kleidet, wie viel mehr wird er euch kleiden, ihr Kleingläubigen!” 149 With this biblical allusion, the princess unintentionally and even unknowingly paints an accurate imagine of herself and her role in society. The belief that flowers open and close “wie sie wollen” is, of course, erroneous. Indeed, plants are almost entirely controlled by and dependent upon their environment; they are completely immobile, the habits of the insects that pollinate them determine when and whether their petals “öffnen und schließen” and rain gives or withholds their water supply. As the passage’s probable biblical source also clarifies, they “arbeiten nicht, auch spinnen sie nicht” (Lukas 12.27). Thus the princess, like a flower, is a mere decoration expected to be beautiful but to do – indeed even to choose – nothing. And Leonce confirms this role. When Valerio asks whether the prince knows his lover’s name, the latter snaps “Dummkopf! Frag’ die Nelke und die Tauperle nach ihrem Namen” (I, 120, 18-19). The prince’s abrupt reaction insinuates that Valerio somehow errs by making such an inquiry, therewith demonstrating that the passive role of a princess is seemingly universally understood. And, at least in the comedy, it is. Upon meeting Leonce, Lena quickly and willingly adopts the prescribed role of a silent queen in a patriarchal society. After the second act, she utters only seven words. Indeed Lena’s introductory scene is not – as it initially appears – a cry for both emancipation and the end to universal suffering, but rather merely Lena’s elaborate expression of dismay at possibly missing out on romance. In the first act, Lena’s function as a Christ-like figure is limited to her and her governess’ utilization of allusions to Christ’s crucifixion. Considering herself a sacrificial offering, her wedding dress becomes burial attire and she wishes “der Rasen wüchse so über mich […]” (I, 109, 8). Upon encountering Leonce in the second act, however, 150 Lena’s function as a Christ-like figure becomes increasingly complex. Indeed following their first – incredibly brief – encounter, the prince declares: “Sie ruht auf mir wie der Geist, da er über den Wassern schwebte, eh’ das Licht ward” (I, 116, 28-29).393 In this biblical allusion, Leonce compares the princess to God394 and therewith separates her from his previous lover. While Rosetta bored the prince, Lena creates something new in or of him as he shortly thereafter declares: “[…] welch’ Werden in mir” (I, 116, 30). The mockery of romantic love becomes apparent as the play develops and clearly demonstrates Leonce’s illusion. Although the prince feels different, Lena fails to change him in any way. Indeed, she merely becomes the vehicle which returns him to the palace he initially attempted to escape. Upon speaking to Lena a second time, Leonce further complicates the princess’s role as a Christ-like figure commanding: “Steh’ auf395 in deinem weißen Kleid396 und wandle hinter der Leiche durch die Nacht” (I, 118, 10-11). The prince’s passage begins with a direct quotation from Christ – most likely from the account of the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Bark 496) – and could consequently be mistaken as a transfer of the previously established role of Christ-like figure from Lena to Leonce as the prince – not the princess – quotes Jesus. However, a closer investigation indicates that the quotation 393 1 Mose 1.2 “Und die Erde war wüst und leer, und es war finster auf der Tiefe; und der Geist Gottes schwebte auf dem Wasser.” 394 As Bark suggests, Leonce alludes to the creation account, which specifically describes the actions of “der Geist Gottes” (496). Although Leonce apparently refers to God (the father), the allusion can still be categorized as part of Lena’s function as a Christ-like figure as Christ was also active during the creation (Hebräer 1.2). Indeed, in this study it would be futile to attempt to differentiate between the divine father (God) and his son (Jesus Christ) as even biblically the distinction between father and son is vague, if present (Johannes 1.1-14). Büchner also was certainly acquainted with both the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds, in which both the Father and the Son are referred to as “God.” 395 See Markus 5.41: “und ergriff das Kind bei der Hand und sprach zu ihr: Talitha kumi! das ist verdolmetscht: Mägdlein, ich sage dir, stehe auf!” 396 See Lukas 9.29: “Und da er betete, ward die Gestalt seines Angesichts anders, und sein Kleid ward weiß und glänzte.” 151 only reconfirms Lena’s role as such. Instead of referring solely to the biblical account of Jairus’ daughter, Leonce continues with an allusion to Christ’s later transfiguration (“in deinem weißen Kleide”) (I, 645). With consideration of this more complete contextualization, it appears that the first quotation (“Steh auf”) is less likely in reference to Christ resurrecting and more likely in reference to Christ’s resurrection. Consequently Leonce’s reference utilizes allusions to Christ’s resurrection and his transfiguration – both acts of supernatural physical transformation – in a brief but hyperbolic declaration of romantic attraction. The princess, who symbolically suffered and died at the end of the first act, is commanded to come back to life upon meeting her lover in the second. This prefigures her role in the royal household and seals her fate as an object of male dominance and desire. These allusions to Christ’s crucifixion, transfiguration, and resurrection form Lena’s character into an embodiment of “life and death simultaneously” (Musolf, 223). And this characterization, in turn, provides a foundation for her romantic relationship with Leonce. The prince can quickly fall in love with Lena as he too embodies the same paradox; as Musolf explains, “death and the vitality and passion of life […] coexist within Leonce […] producing, however, no disparity, no antithetical conflict” (223). Indeed, the prince, fully in line with Büchner’s parody of Romantic Todessehnsucht (longing for death), makes multiple references to death’s allure. He tells Rosetta that a dying love is more beautiful than a developing one (I, 102, 9-10) and in a later conversation with Valerio, he describes his ideal woman as both “wie ein neugebornes Kind” (I, 112, 12) and “ein köstlicher Kontrast […] dieser geistige Tod in diesem 152 geistigen Leib” (I, 112, 12-15). Still, the figure’s attempted suicide at the end of the second act most clearly demonstrates the coexistence of these two paradoxical states. When Lena abruptly abandons him, Leonce is left “in den Gefühlsüberschwang Werthers” (I, 647) and prepares to drown himself. The prince, however, does not necessarily want to die. He merely attempts to act in accordance with the Romantic cliché he embodies (“Mein ganzes Sein ist in dem einen Augenblick” [I, 118, 25-26]); suicide appears the appropriate expression of Leonce’s sentiment and the weather is “vortrefflich” (I, 119, 16); as a result, the figure prepares to jump into a river. Because the prince values life and death equally and merely attempts to perform a prescribed ideal behavior befitting his present circumstance, his attempted suicide becomes the climactic demonstration of both Leonce’s internal paradox and the comedy’s critique of romanticism. This critique, in turn, introduces a foundation for the final stage in the comedy’s tripartite pattern of biblical quotation employment, i.e., an appeal for social change. Although LL condemns literary romanticism’s predictability, its exaggerated expressions of romantic love, and its clear endorsement of the prevailing aristocratic supremacy, the play utilizes the genre to contrast the extreme and unrealistic emotions of its aristocratic figures with LL’s less flamboyant, but very sincere demonstration of love of the common man. Indeed, LL explicitly encourages – even hails – the development of a greater capacity to love. After deciding to marry Lena but still unaware she is the princess to whom he is betrothed, Leonce defends his decision to Valerio in the third act’s first scene with the explanation: 153 Weißt du auch, Valerio, daß selbst der Geringste unter den Menschen so groß ist, daß das Leben noch viel zu kurz ist, um ihn lieben zu können?397 Und dann kann ich doch einer gewissen Art von Leuten, die sich einbilden, daß nichts so schön und heilig sei, daß sie es nicht noch schöner und heiliger machen müßten, die Freude lassen.” (I, 120, 6-8) With this passage, Leonce subtly alludes to Jesus’ admonition to his disciples to treat every individual, even – or especially – the commoner, as they would treat the Savior himself. Although the prince greatly manipulates the original meaning of Christ’s statement when he applies this biblical clarification of brotherly love to his romantic interest in Lena (Bark 496), the character’s argument remains universally applicable. Each individual, the prince contends, is so grand that life is too short to really know – and consequently really love – him or her. Mirroring Lenz’ Kunstgespräch, in which Lenz explains that “Man muß die Menschheit lieben […] es darf einem keiner zu gering, keiner zu häßlich sein […]” (I, 235, 3-5), Leonce’s claim implies that every human is worthy of admiration – a truly revolutionary idea for his time. And just as Lenz condemns any attempts to better God’s creations (“Der liebe Gott hat die Welt wohl gemacht wie sie sein soll, und wir können wohl nicht was Besseres klecksen […]” [I, 234, 1-3]), so does Leonce continue his case by expressing disapproval of those who “sich einbilden, daß nichts so schön und heilig sei, daß sie es nicht noch schöner und heiliger machen müßten […]”(I, 120, 9-11). The figure insinuates therewith that every individual is not merely admirable but even somehow divine and any manipulation of him or her irreligious. Clearly Leonce’s arguments far transcend his intellect; they – like those of Lenz’ Kunstgespräch – belong more to Büchner than to his character (I, 650). 397 See Matthäus 25.40: “Und der König wird antworten und sagen zu ihnen: Wahrlich, ich sage euch: Was ihr getan habt einem unter diesen meinen geringsten Brüdern, das habt ihr mir getan.” 154 Indeed, the prince’s case for marriage is – in reality – an introduction to the author’s developing appeal for human equality. Valerio, however, returns the scene to its comedic reality when he – like a good politician – takes advantage of this love-stricken prince – promising Leonce the opportunity to marry Lena, but requiring a position as minister in the prince’s future kingdom in return. LL’s third act demonstrates not only Büchner’s subtle advocacy for the peasants, but also his disappointment in them. The oppressed and exploited class’s only appearance in the comedy – incredibly brief and not until the final act’s penultimate scene – portrays a crowd involuntarily enduring heat, hunger, and exhaustion while awaiting the royal wedding party King Peter had planned for the betrothed prince and princess. Interestingly, what the people experience – although still essential to Büchner’s argument – is secondary to how they are regarded in the play. The people have no voice; their views are neither asked for nor voluntarily aired. In fact, when concern is expressed for their physical well-being, the Landrat asks the Schulmeister, who in turn answers: “Sie halten sich so gut in ihren Leiden […]” (I, 121, 7). Members of the ruling classes, the text implies, do not regard the working poor as individuals; viewed as one mass, the crowd has seemingly no needs or wants that cannot be visually identified by a third party. Additionally, with his reply, the Schulmeister insinuates that the working poor’s suffering is understood, even expected. The scene then continues as both authority figures, in turn, give the crowd specific but menial commands, including a comedic demonstration of the mass’s newly acquired ability to repeat “Vivat”. While the ruling classes disregard the actual and individual needs of the working poor and – as Leonce’s father King Peter 155 demonstrated early in the comedy – and even occasionally forget their subjects entirely, the people do nothing but obey their oppressors. This depiction of a pathetic, compliant,398 even obtuse socioeconomic class was certainly in part a result of HL’s failure as an incendiary instrument. Büchner must have interpreted the voluntary surrender of the majority of political pamphlets (II, 844) as the people’s passive acceptance of their submissive roles. LL, like HL, attempts to reveal how the people inhibit themselves from enjoying luxuries monopolized by the ruling classes and royalty. Additionally, despite King Peter and the crown Prince Leonce’s stupidly innocent, inanely playful, and ignorant personalities, LL, like HL, demonstrates that violence is the ultimate means of class control. After reminding the crowd of the behavior expected of them throughout the wedding party, the Schulmeister warns: “[…] zeigt die gehörige Rührung, oder es werden rührende Mittel gebraucht werden” (I, 121, 28-30). The class division introduced early in the comedy through portrayals of the ruling body’s avoidance of labor is complemented late in the play with this demonstration of the violent exploitation and visible suffering of those who do work. In the play’s final scene, the wedding party is still obediently waiting when King Peter discovers that both the bride and the bridegroom are missing. Upset that his nuptial arrangements are compromised and confused about how to approach the situation, the king entertains ideas – even from the recently arrived Valerio, an unfamiliar figure unwilling or possibly unable to identify himself.399 Valerio’s plan to resolve the situation 398 In LL, even the nobility wonder why their subjects are so submissive as Leonce asks his Hofmeister: “Mensch, warum widersprechen Sie mir nicht?” (I, 96, 6). 399 When King Peter asks who he is, Valerio simply responds, “Weiß ich’s?” While taking off one mask after another he questions, “Bin ich das? oder das? oder das?” (I, 125, 11-12). 156 is simple – a proxy marriage. Individuals, the figure contends, are little more than “Kunst und Mechanismus” (I, 125, 37); indeed, it matters little who marries, but only that a wedding takes place. Utilizing the masked prince and princess as physical proxies for their true selves, Valerio recounts a typical upper-class romance concluding with the assertion – a biblical allusion – that “Beide haben schon mehrmals geflüstert: Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung […] es fehlt nur noch das winzige Wörtchen: Amen” (I, 126, 24-26).400 King Peter then willingly agrees to complete the story and marry the surrogate couple. Interestingly, whereas Leonce defended his proposed marriage to whom he believed was a commoner with the explanation that each individual is an exceptional and admirable creation, Valerio successfully argues at the end of the same act that people are merely interchangeable machines or automata. Despite their seemingly contradictory views, however, both arguments are credible in the comedy because Leonce and Valerio specifically refer to different socioeconomic classes: the former describes the working poor, while the latter refers to the nobility. Thus, LL simultaneously hails the individuality and value of the working poor, while discounting members of the ruling body entirely. Valerio’s above mentioned direct biblical quotation mocks royal unions in general – the individuals involved are interchangeable and their relationships merely superficially constructed for the dynasty’s prescribed prolongation – but also unmistakably connects the play’s protagonists with the contemporary German nobility: Die im 18. Jahrhundert zur Leerformel abgenutzten christlichen Grundwerte schmückten auch allenthalben in schönen Buchstaben die Dekorationen und 400 See 1 Korinther 13.13: “Nun aber bleibt Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe, diese drei; aber die Liebe ist die größte unter ihnen.” 157 Huldigungsgeschenke zur bayrisch-hessischen Fürstenhochzeit 1833/34. (I, 662) The quotation contrasts, as Bark also explains, the contemporary church’s teachings of faith, love, and hope within an established society and monarchy lacking all three (Bark 497). Love – referred to in the original scripture in comparison with faith and hope as “die größte unter ihnen” – is manipulated by Büchner’s contemporary nobility – demonstrated by King Peter – to fit its own agenda. In fact, much of Büchner’s comedy alludes to the kingdom’s voluntary surrender to its monarch’s requests. Even time, it seems, is controlled by the sovereign. Earlier in the text, for example, Leonce describes “[…] und jeder Tropfen Blut mißt seine Zeit, und unser Leben ist ein schleichend Fieber” (I, 116, 10-12).401 This allusion’s source, Bark explains, refers to the nonexistence of time in a culture which merely repeats itself: Die berühmte Passage […] handelt davon, daß Zeit nicht neutral ist, sondern vor dem Schöpfergott einen bestimmten Inhalt und Sinn hat. Da man vom religiösen Zusammenhang absehen muß – alles Menschenleben ist mühselig, vergänglich, und nichtig, es sei denn, es steht unter der Furcht Jahwes – , bleibt eine sentimentale Schwermut angesichts entleerter Zeit, die sich in Wiederholung erschöpft. (Bark 495-496) Contextualized in the comedy, however, Leonce’s allusion does not refer to God’s timeline, but instead subtly points to the aristocracy’s power – even over time. King Peter planned a wedding on a particular day, his subjects obediently attend, and his son falls in love with the appropriate woman just in time to make that wedding a reality. And when Leonce becomes King, he forbids all calendars and commands “daß es keinen Winter 401 See Prediger 3.1: “Ein jegliches hat seine Zeit, und alles Vornehmen unter dem Himmel hat seine Stunde.” 158 mehr gibt” (I, 129, 4). In consideration of the passage’s biblical connotation, – specifically Bark’s observation that “Zeit nicht neutral ist” and that “[der] Schöpfergott einen bestimmten Inhalt und Sinn hat” – the comedy additionally insinuates that the nobility’s agenda directly conflicts with divine plans. Leonce and Lena’s subsequent wedding, the comedy’s archetypal “happy ending,” clarifies and reinforces the play’s subtle argument for social and political change by contrasting the royal couple with Adam and Eve. Like HL, which claims that “Im Jahre 1834 siehet es aus, als würde die Bibel Lügen gestraft,” so does LL employ the Bible – or more specifically the biblical first couple – as the standard by which the contemporary nobility – represented by Leonce and Lena – should be judged. Allusions to the connection between Adam and Eve and the comedy’s protagonists, of course, begin much earlier in the text. Lena is first introduced in a garden (I, 109), later describes leaving the castle as leaving a garden (“[…] als wir aus dem Garten gingen” [I, 113, 10-11]), and even admits that her education was received: “[…] hinter der Mauer unseres Gartens” (I, 113, 16). With Eve-like inquisitiveness402 she expresses the desire to discover the external world first hand (“O sie ist schön und so weit […] Ich möchte immer so fort gehen, Tag und Nacht” [I, 113, 20-21]). Despite her verbal ambitions, however, Lena feels uncomfortable upon finding herself in an unfamiliar environment – even in her private room at a guesthouse – and almost immediately returns to a garden sanctuary admitting to her governess: “Ich will hinunter in den Garten” (I, 117, 13). Initially the princess’s attachment to flowers and fresh air seems innocent enough. By finding 402 Eve was tempted into eating fruit from the tree of knowledge with the promise that it would make her wise like God (1 Mose 3.1-6). 159 comfort in these gardens, however, Lena not only avoids the common world while outside the palace, but she also successfully avoided – and upon her return will continue to avoid – the politics within the palace. Like the princess, Leonce’s character is also introduced in a garden and – although the prince does not speak as candidly about his fondness of flora as his future bride – Leonce is often situated inside or at the edge of a garden throughout the comedy.403 When the prince begins his escape with Valerio from his impending arranged marriage, however, the two figures are positioned in a field (I, 111, 8). Like Adam,404 Leonce leaves his sheltered garden – a beautiful and leisurely locale often tended by a hired hand – and enters the laborious agricultural world where his subjects painstakingly plant and harvest both their own and his sustenance. Unlike Adam, however, Leonce has the ability to return. The comedy’s final scene builds upon these allusions to Adam and Eve by making overt references to the royal couple’s ultimate return to a supposedly paradisiacal state. In his wedding speech, Valerio explains “so wären dann das Männlein und Fräulein erschaffen, und alle Tiere im Paradies stehen um sie” (I, 127, 20-22).405 To this modified biblical quotation, Leonce sheepishly – but fittingly – admits after recognizing that he married Lena, “Ei Lena, ich glaube, das war die Flucht in das Paradies” (I, 127, 32-33).406 403 Indeed, Leonce is found near or in a garden in every scene, excluding only: Act I scene 3 (in conversation with Rosetta), Act II scene 1 (Freies Feld), Act III scene 1 (unidentified setting), and Act III scene 3 (Wedding scene). 404 See 1 Mose 3.18-19: “Dornen und Disteln soll er dir tragen, und sollst das Kraut auf dem Felde essen. 19. Im Schweiße deines Angesichts sollst du dein Brot essen bis daß du wieder zu Erde werdest […]” 405 See 1 Mose 1.27: “Und Gott schuf den Menschen ihm zum Bilde, zum Bilde Gottes schuf er ihn; und schuf sie einen Mann und ein Weib.” 406 After eating fruit from the tree of good and evil, Adam and Eve were cursed and cast out of the Garden of Eden. See 1 Mose 3.16-17. 160 Indeed, rather than being deceived into a dismissal out of the Garden of Eden as the biblical couple was, Leonce and Lena are tricked back into their prescribed and protected spheres. Each attests to his and her innocence in the matter claiming “Ich bin betrogen” (I, 127, 34-35).407 Each is, however, delighted with the result. Relieved, Lena exclaims “O Zufall!” while Leonce cries “O Vorsehung!” (I, 127, 36-37). Considering the comedy’s unconventional number of puns (Poschmann 627), both outbursts can be classified as allusions to the biblical creation account as well, specifically to the Fall of Man (“der Fall”) and the subsequent reconciliation (“Versöhnung”), respectively. Leonce and Lena consequently reenact a perverted version of Christianity’s understanding of mankind’s eternal journey. Indeed, rather than entering a heaven as described biblically – where the poor and humble find refuge408 – the couple merely regresses to a palace of idiocy and insanity, completely void of responsibility and consequence. Leonce, now king, views his duties as little more than personal entertainment.409 And while Lena remains silent, Valerio willingly and eagerly adopts a God-like role in the new monarchy with the command: […] daß jeder, der sich rühmt, sein Brot im Schweiße seines Angesichts zu essen, für verrückt und der menschlichen Gesellschaft gefährlich erklärt wird; dann legen wir uns in den Schatten und bitten Gott um Makkaroni, Melonen und Feigen, um musikalische Kehlen, klassische Leiber und eine komm<o>de Religion! (I, 129, 11-17)410 407 See 1 Mose 3.13: “Da sprach Gott der Herr zum Weibe: Warum hast du das getan? Das Weib sprach: Die Schlange betrog mich also, daß ich aß.” 408 See multiple biblical references, particularly Matthäus 5. 409 He even speaks of his subjects as toys and casually asks his wife: “Nun Lena, siehst du jetzt, wie wir die Taschen voll haben, voll Puppen und Spielzeug?” (I, 128, 27-28). 410 See 1 Mose 3. 19: “Im Schweiße deines Angesichts sollst du dein Brot essen, bis daß du wieder zu Erde werdest, davon du genommen bist. Denn du bist Erde und sollst zu Erde werden.” 161 By utilizing a modified quotation to outlaw physical labor, Valerio’s citation directly conflicts with its own biblical source (“Im Schweiße deines Angesichts sollst du dein Brot essen […]”). The figure condemns anyone obeying the early biblical admonition and consequently specifically those upholding the traditional Calvinistic belief in work ethic (Bark 497). On a subtextual level, Valerio’s charge insinuates that the ruling bodies greatly manipulate scripture to both accommodate their personal agendas and justify their lifestyles. Of course, the decree was, as Knapp explains, already in effect: […] Büchner at the end indulges King Leonce and minister Valerio in a vision of perpetual sunshine and blissful sloth: work is to be outlawed, luxury the order of every day. The sad irony of this sybaritic nirvana is that it already exists, but only for the élite, and that it is purchased by the backbreaking labor of the masses in Germany.411 Like HL, LL utilizes the Christian belief in a utopian paradise to demonstrate the prevailing discrepancy between the experiences of the working poor and those of the ruling classes. Whereas the political pamphlet invites the working poor to pursue a revolution to free themselves from their oppressors and to create a paradise for themselves and their posterity,412 LL demonstrates the paradisaical state already enjoyed by the ruling classes at the expense of their subjects. The comedy is – sadly – an accurate portrayal of Germany’s prevailing society and at its conclusion “Das System bleibt erhalten” (Knapp 171). As a result LL’s charge for social change is a clear demonstration of this absurd system’s inevitable perpetuation should nothing change. Biblical quotations play an interesting and multifaceted role in Büchner’s comedy. 411 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Leonce und Lena". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10377, accessed 19 November 2009.]. 412 “Deutschland ist jetzt ein Leichenfeld, bald wird es ein Paradies sein” (II, 66, 2-3). 162 Although they are often readily identifiable – even thrust to the forefront of dialogues – the quotations and allusions adopt different connotations depending on their precise contextualization. Indeed, when contextualized in the context of the entire play, the quotations frequently imply meanings quite different from what may be deduced from an individual scene. Lena’s circumstances as they are compared with Christ’s crucifixion, for example, take on a serious – even dire – tone when read alone. In context of the entire comedy, however, her exaggerated emotions are absurd. Büchner’s clever employment of biblical quotations – indeed of a parody in general – was intended to dodge censorship and demands that the text be interpreted as one entity. Indeed, unlike Büchner’s later tragedy Woyzeck, in which each scene demonstrates a similar – albeit novel – perspective of the protagonist’s recurring and unyielding suffering, LL’s individual scenes’ actual connotation and its subtle dismissal of the prevailing social hierarchy can only be fully understood in the context of the entire comedy – arguably in the context of Büchner’s entire oeuvre. CHAPTER 5 WOYZECK: DU BIST GESCHAFFE STAUB, SAND, DRECK Büchner’s final text, Woyzeck, has presented a challenge for scholarly classification. Depending upon the focus of interpretation, the piece has been deemed both a tragedy and a social tragedy.413 Most recently, however, Woyzeck has been described as a “social drama” because, as Borgards explains, the text’s protagonist – although individualized to become sympathetic to the audience – is portrayed as a representative of his class rather than an individual: Der Einzelne tritt […] nicht als Individuum auf, sondern vertritt diejenigen, die in gleichen Verhältnissen leben […] Nicht der singuläre Einzelne, das Original steht im Zentrum des Geschehens, sondern der Typus oder Stellvertreter, der die Verhältnisse kenntlich macht. (121) Indeed, Borgards elucidation is compelling. Woyzeck’s protagonist was not based upon one single historical individual. Instead, Büchner drew the material for his drama from three similar historic accounts of fatal stabbings – each perpetrator was a poverty-stricken male, each struggled with mental illness, and each had (or was expecting) a child with his female victim.414 The text’s “kunstwidrige” (I, 705) sources create a rather 413 “Aufgrund der offensichtlichen Finalität des Dramas, die darauf hinausläuft, Woyzeck als Opfer zu konturieren, ordnen es Glück (1990b) und Knapp (2000, 207) der Gattung der Tragödie zu. Aufgrund der gesellschaftlichen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse, in denen Woyzecks Existenz steht, spezifizieren Poschmann (DKV I, 739) und Glück (1986a 175) die Tragödie als eine »soziale Tragödie« […]” (Borgards, 104). 414 For a more detailed analysis of the probable and possible sources for Woyzeck, i.e., Johann Christian Woyzeck, Daniel Schmolling, and Johann Dieß, see Knapp 176-184. 164 unconventional protagonist415 and a novel glimpse into the life of the working poor. Woyzeck, the play sets out to demonstrate, is trapped in a vicious cycle. His lack of social status and education leaves him only meager – often humiliating – employment opportunities with scanty pay; he is a common soldier, cuts hair, and even offers himself as an experimental subject. His low wages, in turn, force him to continually work in order to provide the mere essentials for his common-law wife and illegitimate son. Consequently, however, he is left without time to fulfill their – or his own – emotional needs. When his partner, Marie, understandably finds affection elsewhere, the already inundated figure snaps and murders his lover. Woyzeck – clearly a social commentary – criticizes the traditional belief that “mangelnde Anpassung an das gesellschaftliche Regelsystem und eigene Verschuldung zur Straftat führen” (Knapp 179). Büchner’s tragedy replaces this prevailing Kantian ethic with an historically sound demonstration of how individuals’ lives – especially the underprivileged – can be dictated and destroyed by their circumstances. Indeed, the text specifically demonstrates how established social hierarchies – found both in contemporary education and the military alike – oppress and exploit those most vulnerable. Woyzeck, even more clearly than Marie, becomes the drama’s victim. As Glück explains, the text deals with “eine Konzeption, die schrittweise ausgearbeitet wurde in Richtung auf eine zunehmende Vertiefung der sozialen Ableitung der Reaktionen und Beweggründe oder »Schübe« der Opfer” (182). This process, Glück further describes, is “kein bloßes ästhetisches Postulat, sondern soziale Wirklichkeit” (Ibid. 182). Indeed, Büchner’s tragedy indirectly contends that the parallel circumstances shared by its three apparent historical models – not their individual choices – provoked 415 “Eine solche Figur war bis dahin (1837) noch nicht in einer Tragödie aufgetreten” (Glück 184). 165 their analogous crimes and ultimately also led to their own demise. Büchner frees Woyzeck from full responsibility for his crime; the figure is, as Knapp explains, already in the first draft “nicht zurechnungsfähig im Moment des Mords” (198). This portrayal of Woyzeck’s protagonist as – at least to some degree – mentally ill criticizes the judgment of the established medical community and, more specifically, J.C.A. Clarus’ examination of the historical J.C. Woyzeck; the former twice pronounced the latter mentally competent (Knapp 179) and as a result J.C. Woyzeck was publicly executed in Leipzig in 1824 (I, 706). The oppressive society which helped create the criminal, the text implies, also easily, but wrongfully, justifies his termination. Büchner’s demonstration of a horribly unjust but pervasive social hierarchy complements his previous works. Whereas Der Hessische Landbote describes the exploitation of the working poor,416 Woyzeck vividly portrays the physical, emotional and even psychological consequences associated with that exploitation. As Glück describes: Ziel ist es, die Ursachen solcher Leiden, solcher mitleiderregender Zustände zu erkennen, der empörenden Wirklichkeit auf den Grund zu kommen, so daß die Wirklichkeit von Begriffen wie »Ausbeutung« und »Unterdrückung« mit Händen greifbar wird: im dramatischen Medium auf einer noch weit höheren Stufe der Konkretion als im Hessischen Landboten, wo sie die Instrumente der Analyse sind. (214) In addition to demonstrating the current exploitation of the working poor, both texts unambiguously contend that the circumstances and choices of one generation directly affect the next. Indeed, HL’s final argument in favor of a revolution certainly has more potency when juxtaposed with the possible alternative demonstrated in Woyzeck. 416 “Das Leben des Bauern ist ein langer Werktag; Fremde verzehren seine Äcker vor seinen Augen, sein Leib ist eine Schwiele, sein Schweiß ist das Salz auf dem Tische des Vornehmen” (II, 54, 3-6). 166 Whereas the political pamphlet ends with a promise of an improved lifestyle for future generations (“Dann könnt ihr eure Kinder frei taufen mit dem Wasser des Lebens” [II, 66, 15-16]), the tragedy’s conclusion sadly exposes the inevitable perpetuation of poverty – and its associated misery – for Christian, Woyzeck and Marie’s orphaned child, who is left with little hope for social acceptance, let alone advancement. The Anti-Märchen der Großmutter in scene 23 (I, 14) encapsulates this bleak future. In place of hope – found in the traditional fairy tale ending’s “happily ever after” – this anti-fairy tale rejects pain and affliction as a means to an auspicious end; the “arm Kind” is in the same lonely situation at the end of the account as at the beginning. “Arm” must be read as both an economic indicator and as an expression of compassion. For many, the tale argues, there is no end to – nor purpose for – suffering. Indeed, Woyzeck repeatedly denounces transcendental redemption for the poor. In scene 22 (III, 17) Woyzeck reads a slightly modified quotation of the hymn “Eines Krancken” (I, 773) found in his mother’s bible.417 While the original lyrics focus on the temporality of pain and suffering (“Leiden ist jetzt mein Gewinst”), Büchner’s alteration (“Leiden sei all mein Gewinst […] Herr, wie dein Leib war rot und wund, / so laß mein Herz sein aller Stund.” [I, 167, 22]) claims both will continue indefinitely. Woyzeck not only anticipates misery for himself and his socioeconomic equals throughout this life, but even foresees its continuation into the next. In conversation with the Hauptmann in scene 9 (III, 5), he explains “Unseins ist 417 The same modified hymn is also found in Büchner’s Lenz narrative. As in Woyzeck, the altered text in Lenz is also provided by a source other than the protagonist– it is sung by church members in the latter and cited from Woyzeck’s mother’s bible in the former. The text’s alterations and sources imply that both protagonists are forced to bear suffering out of their control. As Poschmann explains “Der engere Kontext der Leidens-Verse schließt aus, daß es sich um eine Option des Sprechers handeln könnte […]” (774). 167 doch einmal unselig in der und der andern Welt,418 ich glaub’ wenn wir in Himmel kämen, so müßten wir donnern helfen” (I, 155-6, 37-2). A far cry from the traditional Christian assertion that suffering is a means to spiritual purification, the tragedy’s demonstration of the hopelessness of the contemporary poor favors atheism. Indeed, this allusion to atheism becomes increasingly clear when it is read side-by-side with Büchner’s first drama. In DT, Payne’s eloquent disquisition rests on the fact that in a world where pain and suffering are pervasive, there is no case for the existence of God (I, 56-57, 10-28). Although Büchner’s personal religious inclinations remain unknown, his texts – especially HL and Woyzeck – emphasize the importance of the improvement of the working poor’s mortal life rather than the dependence upon and belief in a better existence in the hereafter. While the tragedy’s argument resembles that of the author’s political pamphlet, its protagonist resembles Büchner’s Lenz character. Both Lenz and Woyzeck suffer from mental illnesses unrecognized – or merely unaccepted – by their society. And both texts demonstrate their respective figures’ process of deterioration: while Lenz declines to a state of indifference,419 Woyzeck transforms from “a sensitive human being into a deranged killer.”420 Throughout these respective developments, both texts introduce novel perspectives which invite the reader to empathize with their protagonists; Lenz introduces a reduction of narrative distance421 while Woyzeck utilizes the viewpoint of a 418 A possible – purely aesthetic – biblical allusion; see Matthäus 12.32: “[…] aber wer etwas redet wider den heiligen Geist, dem wird’s nicht vergeben, weder in dieser noch in jener Welt.” 419 At the narrative’s conclusion he feels nothing: “er fühlte keine Angst mehr, kein Verlangen; sein Dasein war ihm eine notwendige Last” (I, 250, 32-34). 420 Knapp, Gerhard P.. "Woyzeck". The Literary Encyclopedia. 14 March 2003. [http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=10376, accessed 1 January 2010.]. 421 As Borgards explains: “Innovativ ist Büchners Erzählweise also vor allem hinsichtlich der narratologischen Kategorie des Modus des Erzählens, d.h. bei den Fragen nach der Distanz […] und der 168 member of the working poor. 422 The tragedy’s utilization of clearly recognizable quotations and allusions from the author’s earlier texts additionally connects Woyzeck to Büchner’s other pieces. As usual, intertextuality is a hallmark of Büchner’s aesthetic production. While watching Marie and the drum major dance in scene 15 (III, 11), for example, Woyzeck observes that Marie cheats “am hellen Tag, tut’s einem auf den Händen, wie die Mücken” (I, 163, 32-33), a comment that clearly mirrors Lacroix’s in Dantons Tod that “die Mücken treiben’s ihnen sonst auf den Händen […]” (I, 29, 2-3). Most outstanding, however, is Woyzeck’s relationship to Büchner’s penultimate piece, the comedy Leonce und Lena, which serves as a foil to the tragedy. While the comedy demonstrates the lifestyles of those who exploit, the tragedy, Knapp observes, reveals the forgotten reality of the overworked poor: Die Komödie eines verkommenen parasitären Systems und seiner ästhetisch-philosophischen Legitimation bildet das Komplement zur Tragödie aus dem Leben der Armut und der Unterdrückung. (177) Together LL and Woyzeck demonstrate the immense discrepancy between each socioeconomic class’s relationship to work and their resulting quality of life (Ibid. 177). As Woyzeck shares much with Büchner’s earlier works, it is not surprising that the tripartite development of biblical quotation employment found in Büchner’s other works and examined in previous chapters of this study, i.e., the demonstration of an unwarranted division of mankind, then the presentation of a Christ-figure or an Anti-Christ-figure, and Fokalisierung […] Büchner erzählt von Lenz, er erzählt aber nicht eigens, dass er von Lenz erzählt. So verringert sich die narrative Distanz und entsteht der Eindruck eines unmittelbaren Erzählens” (60-61). 422 “Durch den Blick in die Existenz des Paupers gewinnt der Zuschauer Einblick in ein System, das ihm irgendwie bekannt vorkommt. Diese Optik ist der diametrale Gegensatz zur Identifikation mit »Helden«, dem Blick nach oben, der uns in Selbstvergessenheit einübt” (Glück 215). 169 finally a call for social or political change, is also apparent in the Woyzeck tragedy. An accurate analysis of the tragedy’s three-part development is, however, not viable as the play remained incomplete and untitled423 at the author’s death. Even the exact sequence of the resulting four drafts’ individual scenes has been debated as only traces of the text’s creation process are found in “einigen wenigen Zeugnissen” (I, 706). The text’s incompleteness together with the uncertainty of its intended final sequence provides multiple possible directions for the examination of its biblical quotations. One could examine how Büchner inserts or eliminates biblical quotations throughout the four existing drafts or observe how the employment of biblical quotations develops throughout different arrangements of the tragedy. However, to remain within the realm of this study, i.e., the analysis of biblical quotation employment throughout Büchner’s oeuvre, I will not examine the differences in individual drafts nor question, propose or support any particular chronological order for the manuscripts of the tragedy or its biblical references. Consequently, I restrict my examination of Woyzeck to Poschmann’s Kombinierte Werkfassung (KW).424 Although this chapter is organized in generally the same chronological sequence as Poschmann’s arrangement, the quotations’ chronological order is not a particular focus. Indeed, as Woyzeck’s individual scenes can nearly stand alone, any sequential assessment is unnecessary for my purposes. The examination of earlier drafts – unless the study’s focus were Büchner’s creative process – is equally unnecessary as Poschmann’s KW contains all but one of the biblical quotations 423 The title “Wozzeck” was provided – clearly the result of a misreading – by Karl Emil Franzos, who wrote the foreword to the drama’s first publication (Knapp 176). 424 “Mit ihren 31 Szeneneinheiten enthält die neuerschlossene Werkfassung einen maximalen Textbestand, da sie prinzipiell, außer dem, was von Büchner eindeutig als wieder verworfen gekennzeichnet oder durch Neugestaltung unzweifelhaft überholt ist, kein gestaltetes Material ausschließt […]” (I, 676). 170 found in the drafts.425 The first biblical quotations in Woyzeck appear in the drama’s first scene (III, 1), indeed even in the text’s first lines. In an open field outside of the city, Woyzeck and his comrade Andres are cutting sticks when the former begins to hallucinate: Ja Andres; den Streif da über das Gras hin, da rollt Abends der Kopf, es hob ihn einmal einer auf, er meint es wär’ ein Igel. Drei Tag und drei Nächt und er lag auf den Hobelspänen […] (I, 147, 4-7) Woyzeck’s mention of the “mystische Drei” (I, 743) - with obvious allusion to the Christian trinity – is the first of several biblical quotations employed by the protagonist during his psychotic episodes. Attributing the proceedings in his visions to the Freemasons, Woyzeck then continues his incoherent warning with a montage including an allusion to New Testament descriptions of the end of the world and a reference to the Old Testament account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Ein Feuer fährt um den Himmel und ein Getös herunter wie Posaunen.426 Wie’s heraufzieht! Fort. Sieh nicht hinter dich.427 (I, 147, 22-24)428 Poschmann’s KW begins with one of Woyzeck’s mental aberrations.429 Filled with 425 The direct biblical quotation of the commandment “Du sollst nicht tödten” is found only in one draft (I,12). The quote, as Bark explains, “steht für Woyzecks Gewissenskonflikt, den Büchner derart zugespitzt in der >vorläufigen Reinschrift< nicht mehr ausführte” (502). The decision not to carry the quotation into later drafts is an indication of Büchner’s attempt to create a clearly mentally ill protagonist who remains certain – at least until the act is complete – that what he is doing is justified and correct. 426 See Offenbarung 8.2, 5: “Und ich sah die sieben Engel, die da stehen vor Gott, und ihnen wurden sieben Posaunen gegeben […] 5. Und der Engel nahm das Rauchfaß und füllte es mit Feuer vom Altar und schüttete es auf die Erde […]” 427 See 1 Mose 19.24, 26: “Da ließ der Herr Schwefel und Feuer regnen von dem Herrn vom Himmel herab auf Sodom und Gomorra […] 26. Und sein Weib sah hinter sich und ward zur Salzsäule.” 428 Another similar biblical quotation is also found in scene 11 (III, 8) “Wenn die Sonn in Mittag steht und es ist als ging die Welt im Feuer auf hat schon eine fürchterliche Stimme zu mir gered!” (I, 158, 12-14). 429 “Die herrschende Religion ist im Woyzeck eine Hauptquelle der Desorientierung der Beherrschten, was am stärksten hervorgehoben ist durch die Texttatsache, daß diese Religion der Hauptinhalt seiner Wahnbildung ist […]” (Glück 198). 171 biblical references, the hallucination alludes to the figure’s ambiguous and fearful relationship to religion and, at the same time, his superstition. From his reference to three days and three nights – which (in addition to alluding to the trinity) also reflects the time Jesus spent in the tomb between his crucifixion and resurrection430 – to his allusions to the past destruction of two cities and the impending end of the world, Woyzeck’s understanding of God is centered on the Supreme Being’s annihilating power. The protagonist, the text demonstrates, knows no warm or tender deity. Arriving at Marie’s residence in the second scene (III, 2), Woyzeck demonstrates his sustained conviction in his prior hallucinations as he recaptures the incident: Marie, es war wieder was, viel, steht nicht gschrieben: und sieh da ging ein Rauch vom Land, wie der Rauch vom Ofen?431 (I, 149, 7-9) The figure again refers to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, this time directly quoting the biblical description. Woyzeck’s utilization of the interrogative form demonstrates his attempt to understand what he is experiencing; his application of a biblical verse to do so reveals his own – or perhaps his contemporary society’s – dependence upon the Bible for understanding both the empirical world and the supernatural realm.. Woyzeck’s abnormal psychological state at the beginning of KW immediately distinguishes him from the text’s other characters. This psychological division is, however, only one of several divisions of humankind presented in the drama. In fact, Woyzeck’s characters are clearly divided into socioeconomic classes even before the 430 See Matthäus 12.40: “Denn gleichwie Jona war drei Tage und drei Nächte in des Walfisches Bauch, also wird des Menschen Sohn drei Tage und drei Nächte mitten in der Erde sein.” 431 See 1. Mose 19.28: “[…] und siehe, da ging ein Rauch auf vom Lande wie ein Rauch vom Ofen.” 172 drama’s beginning.432 While commoners are named (Woyzeck, Marie, Margreth, and Andres), figures of higher social status are recognized by their respective titles – titles which serve to publicize their superiority (Hauptmann, Doktor, Professor, Tambourmajor, Unteroffizier). Additionally, figures are grouped together – often a main character and a supporting character – to represent a particular social rank: Marie and her neighbor Margreth; Woyzeck and Andres; the drum major and the Unteroffizier; the doctor, the professor, and the Hauptmann. Consequently, encounters between the figures demonstrate the disparity between how each interacts with his or her socially appointed equal as opposed to a supposed superior or inferior; the Hauptmann, for example, accepts the doctor’s confusing hypothetical situations as truth without further inquiry, 433 but immediately and suspiciously questions Woyzeck’s theories – surprised and confused when his inferior makes a valid argument.434 Additionally, the drama’s two rivals for Marie’s affection are clearly divided and fittingly characterized through the utilization of animal metaphors. In scene 2 (III, 2), 432 Although most characters are firmly positioned in their particular social rank, Marie demonstrates both the desire and ability (or ultimately the inability) to advance her social status. The figure, initially situated with Woyzeck, interprets the slightly higher ranked drum major’s sexual advancements as a personal opportunity and consequently becomes increasingly aware of the gap between what she has with Woyzeck and what she could have with the drum major. In scene 5 (I, 1) she takes note of the latter’s watch (I, 151, 26-29), in scene 6 (I, 6) she conscientiously considers Woyzeck’s compulsory compliance, and in scene 8 (III, 4) she admires the earrings the drum major gave her (I, 153-154). With her new admirer, Marie is excited and even proud (“Ich bin stolz vor allen Weibern” [I, 156, 29]) to climb – albeit tentatively – the social ladder. Woyzeck, on the other hand, initially seems aware of but uninterested in the social dynamics surrounding him; he is extremely obedient and works incessantly to provide for Marie and their son. Instead of attempting to advance – as Marie attempted – Woyzeck unsuccessfully attempts to merely maintain his mental, physical and economic being. 433 In scene 12 (III, 9), after the doctor lists the Hauptmann’s possible medical problems, the latter nervously replies, “Herr Doktor erschrecken Sie mich nicht, es sind schon Leute am Schreck gestorben, am bloßen hellen Schreck” (I, 159, 25-27). 434 In response to Woyzeck’s insightful biblical reference to God’s love of all children in defense of his illegitimate child in scene 9 (III, 5), the Hauptmann can only respond, “Was sagt Er da? Was ist das für ’ne kuriose Antwort? Er macht mich ganz konfus mit Seiner Antwort” (I, 155, 31-32). 173 just before Woyzeck’s arrival, Marie employs a biblical allusion to describe the drum major, her new romantic interest, as a majestic beast: “Er steht auf seinen Füßen wie ein Löw” (I, 148, 8)435 and later – in scene 10 (III, 6) – she employs the same allusion again observing “Über die Brust wie ein Stier und ein Bart wie ein Löw […]” (I, 156, 28). Her haughty descriptions, together with his own self-aggrandizing and provoking proclamation in scene 19 (III, 14): “Ich bin ein Mann! schlägt sich auf die Brust ein Mann sag’ ich. Wer will was?” (I, 165, 23), depict the animal-like, self-serving and predatory nature of the drum major’s personality – and sexuality. Indeed, animal metaphors in Woyzeck repeatedly refer to sexuality. Described by Woyzeck in scene 16 (III, 12) as a “Zickwolfin” (I, 164, 21) and by the drum major in scene 10 (III, 6) as a “Wildes Tier” (I, 157, 2), both of Marie’s partners employ animal metaphors to allude to the woman’s sexual potency and aggressiveness, but neither creates a positive impression of her. Marie, the text implies, exploits her sexuality to manipulate others. Woyzeck’s sexuality, on the other hand, is not addressed through animal metaphors – indeed, it is not addressed in the text at all – because, as Knapp describes, the figure “hat keine Zeit für ein Privatleben” (191). Repeatedly labeled a dog,436 animal metaphors aimed at the protagonist instead point to his subservient nature. And conscious of his own lowly circumstances and certainly aware his son will follow suit, Woyzeck, in turn, calls Christian an “arme[r] Wurm […]” (I, 155, 28) in scene 9 (III, 5) – the intertextual reference to HL’s argument that the working poor are “zum Gewürm gezählt” (II, 53, 26) 435 See Psalm 17.12: “gleichwie ein Löwe, der des Raubs begehrt.” Woyzeck is called a dog by the doctor in scene 11 (III, 8) for urinating on the street “wie ein Hund” (I, 157, 11) and again in scene 20 (III, 15) by a salesman from whom Woyzeck buys his murder weapon (I, 166, 22-23). 436 174 cannot be denied. Indeed, Woyzeck’s utilization of animal metaphors, like the arguments found in LL, become clearer with an understanding of Büchner’s earlier political pamphlet.437 In HL, the young author and his collaborator, Friedrich Ludwig Weidig, argued that the Hessian working poor were treated as animals – apparently created prior to the ruling classes in the biblical account.438 The political pamphlet then further demonstrates class division by again employing animals metaphorically; the ruling classes are portrayed as predators439 and the working poor as beasts of burden.440 In Woyzeck there is a comparable utilization of animal metaphors. While the drum major is described as a lion, Woyzeck is – in addition to specifically being called a dog – indirectly compared to a horse. In scene 5 (I, 2) an anonymous barker (der Ausrufer) describes his apparently extraordinary horse as “ei tierische Mensch und doch ei Vieh” (I, 151, 15). This description of a human-beast hybrid is, of course, intended for Woyzeck as well. Just as the animal struggles linguistically – it can, the barker explains, “sich nur nit ausdrücke, nur nit expliziern, ist ein verwandl<t>er Mensch!” (I, 151, 23-24) – so is Woyzeck hindered by language. His limited vocabulary and common dialect make it difficult for him to express himself. When speaking with the doctor in scene 11 (III, 8), for example, he stumbles over an 437 As Knapp describes, the comedy’s arguments can only be fully understood with a familiarity with Büchner’s political pamphlet as “Erst vor diesem [HL] Projektionshintergrund wird der Kunstcharakter des Lustspiels als schneidend dissonante Provokation überhaupt verständlich” (159). 438 As HL argues “Es sieht aus, als hätte Gott die Bauern und Handwerker am 5ten Tage, und die Fürsten und Vornehmen am 6ten gemacht, und als hätte der Herr zu diesen gesagt: Herrschet über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht […]” (II, 53, 22-25). 439 “Ihr seid wie die Heiden, das das Krokodill anbeten, von dem sie zerrissen werden” (II, 58, 20-21). 440 “Der Bauer geht hinter dem Pflug, der Vornehme aber geht hinter ihm und dem Pflug und treibt ihn mit den Ochsen am Pflug […]” (II, 53-54, 30-2) and again later in the pamphlet: “Dafür sitzen die Herren in Fräcken beisammen und das Volk steht nackt und gebückt vor ihnen, sie legen die Hände an seine Lenden und Schultern und rechnen aus, wie viel es noch tragen kann, und wenn sie barmherzig sind, so geschieht es nur, wie man ein Vieh schont, das man nicht so sehr angreifen will” (II, 56, 28-33). 175 explanation, admitting: “das ist so was, wie soll ich doch sagen, z.B. -” (I, 158, 9). Additionally, because the ruling classes, as HL also contends,441 employ a language foreign to the working poor, the protagonist fails to fully understand the conversations taking place around him (Knapp 195). Indeed, the doctor utilizes precise medical terms unfamiliar to Woyzeck442 and the Hauptmann specifically misleads the exhausted figure.443 Void of linguistic control, Woyzeck becomes predisposed to speak programmatically, as Glück explains: Das Stereotype »Ja wohl«, dieses Hauptwort der Subordination, schleicht sich in H4, 17 (LB 17) noch in ein Gespräch der Kameraden ein, anzeigend, wie die psychische Mechanisierung über den Bezirk hierarchisch organisierter Beziehungen hinaus in die persönliche Beziehung der Leidensgenossen eindringt und die Kommunikation deformiert. (193) Woyzeck is so immersed in his work, he no longer separates himself from it – so immersed in his social degradation that he adopts a relegated role even in his personal affairs. While language empowers the doctor and the Hauptmann, Woyzeck’s linguistic deficiency exposes – even compounds – his powerlessness. In addition, Woyzeck, like the horse, is forced to perform publicly. In fact, a particularly striking example is found in scene 7 (IV, 1) when the protagonist is commanded to wiggle his ears while being observed and palpated by numerous students (I, 153, 4-10). The doctor, overseeing the examination, calls Woyzeck “Bestie” (I, 153, 441 “Das Leben der Vornehmen ist ein langer Sonntag, sie wohnen in schönen Häusern, sie tragen zierliche Kleider, sie haben feiste Gesichter und reden eine eigne Sprache” (II, 53, 26-29) and “Dafür habt ihr einen Wust von Gesetzen, […], meist geschrieben in einer fremden Sprache” (II, 55, 16-19). 442 When Woyzeck begins hallucinating in scene 11 (III, 8), the doctor describes his state as “die schönste aberratio mentalis partialis, zweite Species, sehr schön ausgeprägt” (I, 158, 20-21), a description not only void of empathy, but also completely incomprehensible to Woyzeck. 443 In scene 9 (III, 5) The Hauptmann declares that the wind is coming from the “Süd-Nord” (I, 155, 17), setting Woyzeck up for failure with his programmed response “Ja wohl, Herr Hauptmann” (I, 155, 18). 176 9) and explains that his actions demonstrate man’s “Übergang zum Esel” (I, 153, 10-11). Just as Büchner’s political pamphlet describes, 444 so does Woyzeck demonstrate that the working poor are reduced to livestock and commodities or – in the doctor and professor’s fields – objects to be examined. In the same scene, the professor demonstrates the relationship between subject and object by tossing a cat from a rooftop to watch it land on its feet. The brief demonstration, Glück points out, serves as “die Verklärung der Individualität zur Freiheit” and is undoubtedly in response to the ideas of Kant and Schelling (199).445 The tragedy subtly implies that Woyzeck’s impending crime, like the animal’s instinctive response, is not determined by his own will, but by his natural inclinations and the actions of his superiors. A brief look ahead to scene 12 (III, 9) demonstrates that Woyzeck, although equated with several animals, is, in fact, treated worse than one. In conversation with the doctor, the Hauptmann readily demonstrates sympathy for a horse, explaining “Herr Doktor, die Pferde machen mir ganz Angst; wenn ich denke, daß die armen Bestien zu Fuß gehn müssen” (I, 159, 3-5), but coolly and cruelly employs Woyzeck to distract from his own insecurities. Until Woyzeck’s arrival the Hauptmann and doctor are caught in a stand-off. Both are of comparable social standing; both adopt a noticeable selfimportance – something the professor even appropriately describes in himself as a “Selbstaffirmation des Göttlichen” (I, 152, 10) – and both consider themselves greater 444 “Der Bauer geht hinter dem Pflug, der Vornehme aber geht hinter ihm und dem Pflug und treibt ihn mit den Ochsen am Pflug […]” (II, 53-54, 30-2). 445 Büchner even employs the doctor in Woyzeck to mock the belief in total self control. His question in scene 11 (III, 8) (“Hab’ ich nicht nachgewiesen, daß der musculus constrictor vesicae dem Willen unterworfen ist?” [I, 157, 17-18]) is more complex than it appears. Of course, a human being can generally control his or her bladder, but at some point control of the primitive functions is lost. 177 than the majority of their contemporaries (I, 753-754). Each, consequently, intimidates the other, but neither feels control over – nor comfort throughout – their encounter. They begin to part and – quite insincerely – wish the other well just as Woyzeck quickly and haphazardly passes by. The unfortunate figure is detected by the Hauptmann and immediately called to a halt. Obediently Woyzeck pauses – no doubt wasting valuable time – and listens as his lover’s infidelity is publicly disclosed. Woyzeck’s time, energy, and even his self-respect had clearly been exploited for years, but the degradation of his love for Marie is too much for him. His simple plea for a straightforward affirmation is heart wrenching: “Herr Hauptmann, ich bin ein armer Teufel, - und hab sonst nichts – auf de Welt. Herr Hauptmann, wenn Sie Spaß machen -” (I, 160, 23-25). Oddly, the same Hauptmann who empathizes with an overworked horse sadistically and fittingly – his approach resembles military warfare tactics – utilizes Woyzeck’s only remaining weakness to reaffirm his own social authority. Woyzeck is, however, not the tragedy’s only figure portrayed as a beast of burden. In scene 3 (II, 3) the barker employs livestock to create an outstanding and intricate animal allegory as he gradually identifies and differentiates society’s members. Tastefully excusing those in attendance, he declares – employing an animal metaphor – that people are by and large obtuse: Alles Erziehung, haben eine viehische Vernunft, oder vielmehr eine ganze vernünftige Viehigkeit, ist kei viehdummes Individuum wie viel Person, das verehrliche Publikum abgerechnet. (I, 149-150, 35-3) This witty play on words undoubtedly builds upon HL’s aforementioned employment of livestock as representative of the working poor. By creating one body (“viehdummes 178 Individuum”) of a larger group of people (“viel Person”), the barker subtly argues that there is nothing more simple-minded than a mass of people. Büchner's voice is certainly heard in the barker’s assertion. Although a passionate human rights advocate, the author must have been disappointed in humanity as a whole when the majority of the HL pamphlets his friends dispersed were voluntarily surrendered (II, 844). In scene 3 (I, 1) the barker then divides this general description into two specific categories: those God created and those society formed: Sehn Sie die Kreatur, wie sie Gott gemacht, nix, gar nix. Sehen Sie jetzt die Kunst, geht aufrecht, hat Rock und Hosen, hat ein Säbel! (I, 150, 6-8) This differentiation – between society’s manipulation of individuals and individuals as God created them – resonates throughout Büchner’s texts. Lenz explains in his Kunstgespräch that “Der liebe Gott hat die Welt wohl gemacht wie sie sein soll, und wir können wohl nicht was Besseres klecksen […]” (I, 234, 1-3) and in LL, Leonce declares his disapproval of those who “sich einbilden, daß nichts so schön und heilig sei, daß sie es nicht noch schöner und heiliger machen müßten […]” (I, 120, 9-11). The barker sarcastically describes God’s imperfect creations as “nix, gar nix”, while hailing the upper classes’ lifestyle and demeanors. Of course, his social commentary – still valid today – encapsulates the contemporary society’s erroneous appreciation and glorification of its own conceptions together with its harmful dismissal of actual human value. The barker insinuates that Woyzeck is not valued because he fails to afford the luxuries necessary for society’s approval. Finally, the barker distinguishes between the poor soldier – deemed the “unterst 179 Stuf von menschliche Geschlecht” (I, 150, 11-12) – and members of supposedly higher status. The educated, the barker explains in scene 5 (I, 2), resemble jockeys who merely learn to control the more powerful beast upon which they depend: Meine Herrn dies Tier, was Sie da sehn, Schwanz am Leib, auf sei 4 Hufe ist Mitglied von alle gelehrte Sozietät, ist Professor an unsre Universität wo die Studente bei ihm reiten und schlage lernen. (I, 151, 5-8) The barker utilizes his horse as a multifaceted symbol representative of the hierarchy sustained by higher education. Initially the animal, as the barker explicitly states, symbolizes a university professor – undoubtedly a general attack on professors. At the sentence’s conclusion, however, the horse’s significance takes on another meaning. From the professor, the students learn “reiten und schlage.”446 Rather than learning to ride, i.e., exploit, a professor, the horse comes to represent the society controlled by the educated. The barker consequently argues that the university is managed by self-serving instructors who merely demonstrate how to retain control of the masses. Finally, at the conclusion of scene 5 (I, 1), the barker summarizes his beliefs with a slightly modified biblical quotation bluntly questioning mankind’s inviolability: Das hat geheiße Mensch sei natürlich, du bist geschaffe Staub, Sand, Dreck. Willst du mehr sein als Staub, Sand, Dreck? (I, 151, 19-21) This slightly tailored quotation transforms a candidly realistic observation of mankind into a clearly negative one. The original biblical connotation alludes to man’s 446 The “schlage” is a barb to the schlagenden Verbindungen (dueling fraternities) then prevalent at universities, outlawed only after 1945, in which the bullies from rich families gathered, drank to excess and staged mock duels with sabers, carefully hitting each other’s cheeks to give and receive the scars which distinguished them as “academics” and “braves”. Büchner must have rightly despised this group. 180 mortality,447 or as Bark describes “Leben als Staub und [die] Nichtigkeit des Menschen” (502). Büchner’s addition of “Dreck” to the list of substances from which man was created, however, affords the passage a strikingly negative connotation. From oppression to adultery and murder, mankind’s – moral rather than physical – “Dreck” saturates the play. Presented as a rhetorical question (“Willst du mehr sein als Staub, Sand, Dreck?”), the passage encourages its audience to question whether they resemble the characters presented in Woyzeck. Indeed, directly thereafter in scene 7 (IV, 1)448 the professor offers himself as a representative of the prevailing immorality with the proclamation: “Meine Herrn, ich bin auf dem Dach, wie David, als er die Bethseba sah” (I, 152, 4-5).449 While Bark merely interprets this allusion as evidence that biblical knowledge is “Allgemeinbesitz” (503), Poschmann explains how the simile – although spoken by the professor – ultimately refers to the drum major: “Wie der Trambourmajor Marie, so sah und nahm sich König David die Frau von Uria und schickte diesen in den Tod” (753). The comparison is certainly compelling – both Uria and Woyzeck are victims of another man’s interest in their partner. Both King David and the drum major take advantage of their – the latter only slightly – superior social positions. However, in addition to indirectly referring to the drum major, the professor’s allusion also fittingly characterizes himself and his social class in general. The professor associates himself with the biblical nobility because he feels he shares the same entitlements King David enjoyed, that he stands physically and 447 See especially Prediger 3.20: “[…] es ist alles von Staub gemacht und wird wieder zu Staub.” Scene 6 has a mere 16 words. 449 See 2 Samuel 11.2: “Und es begab sich, daß David um den Abend aufstand von seinem Lager und ging auf dem Dach des Königshauses und sah vom Dach ein Weib sich waschen; und das Weib war sehr schöner Gestalt.” 448 181 intellectually above his contemporaries. The figure then continues, explaining that he – unlike King David – sees nothing but the ladies’ laundry hanging to dry. Had he glimpsed something desirable, however, the text insinuates, he would, like King David, have readily taken possession of it. Woyzeck demonstrates how the elite maintain this absolute control over the working poor by utilizing each other’s supposed authority as authentication of the social structure they sustain. As evidence against Woyzeck’s extramarital relationship and illegitimate child, for example, the Hauptmann quotes a preacher in scene 9 (III, 5): “wie unser hochehrwürdiger Herr Garnisonsprediger sagt, ohne den Segen der Kirche, es ist nicht von mir” (I, 155, 24-26). By citing another supposed authority figure, the Hauptmann both demonstrates his trust in the established social hierarchy and evades the necessity to share – indeed, even to have – a personal opinion on the subject. Unlike Woyzeck, the Hauptmann’s perception of religion – and life – comes neither from the Bible nor from personal experience, but from society’s prescribed religious authority. Additionally, the quoted military preacher – like the tragedy’s other authority figures – is identified only by his title. Much like the nobles of Büchner’s comedy, who are – Valerio sarcastically argues – little more than interchangeable cardboard cut-outs,450 the lack of personalized identification of members of the ruling classes in Woyzeck demonstrates that they are equally interchangeable; the doctor represents any doctor, the Hauptmann any military captain. Indeed, aside from Marie and Woyzeck, the other figures, Knapp explains, “sind typisiert und vorwiegend Träger bestimmter Funktionen im Drama” (182). 450 “Diese Personen sind so vollkommen gearbeitet, daß man sie von anderen Menschen gar nicht unterscheiden könnte, wenn man nicht wüßte, daß sie bloßer Pappdeckel sind; man könnte sie eigentlich zu Mitgliedern der menschlichen Gesellschaft machen” (I, 126, 4-8). 182 On a subtextual level, these characters’ lack of individuality critiques mankind’s traditional self-identification. The very titles and degrees often employed to distinguish a person are regarded in Woyzeck as a means to categorize him or her as an ordinary, interchangeable member of a particular group. In stark contrast to Büchner’s comedy, which highlights the ruling classes’ carefree and work-free lifestyle, Woyzeck exposes the laborious life of those exploited. Work, although certainly present in other literary pieces, is most often found only on the plot’s margins: Arbeit als brutales Faktum im Zentrum einer Tragödie hat es vor Büchner, soviel ich weiß, noch nicht gegeben. Ich rede von entfremdeter Arbeit, Maloche, nicht von einer Arbeit wie >Odysseus baut sich ein Floß< oder den >Arbeiten< des Herakles oder mythischer Schmiede wie Hephaistos. Das brutale Faktum Arbeit kommt überhaupt in der hohen Literatur kaum vor, und wenn, dann am Rand, sozusagen in Horizontnähe; gewöhnlich wird vorausgesetzt, sie sei – von anderen - abgemacht. (Glück 191) Woyzeck, however, “rückt das Thema der Arbeit in den Brennpunkt des Dramas” (Knapp 178). The relationship between poverty and work, as Armstrong explains, becomes the tragedy’s central theme: Die Verbindung von Armut und ständiger, lebensbeherrschender Arbeit ist von zentraler Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Woyzeck, denn es ist genau diese Verbindung […] die den Ton des ganzen Stückes bestimmt. (75) Woyzeck works incessantly, but his efforts produce no improvement in his living conditions; after nearly fifteen years of work, a single undershirt, a small crucifix and an image of a saint are all Woyzeck owns. “Ein armseligeres Testament” Glück explains 183 “wird man in der gesamten Literatur nicht auffinden” (187). His constant lack of money and the consequential perpetual need to work separate what Woyzeck is from what he would like to be. He would, the figure explains to the captain also in scene 9 (III, 5), have been moral – would have had his son in wedlock – had he had the financial ability to do so: “[…] aber wenn ich ein Herr wär […] ich wollte schon tugendhaft sein” (I, 156, 14-17). Just like the prostitutes in DT whose hunger “hurt und bettelt” (I, 18, 25), so do Woyzeck’s actions – determined by financial necessity – differ from his desires. The text implies that poverty forces individuals to act against their true desires. The text additionally illustrates that often the exploitive poorly-compensated labor preformed out of desperation actually leads to greater enslavement. Woyzeck, for example, receives payment for eating nothing but peas for three months. Financially – although certainly not physically – beneficial to the protagonist, the attempt to replace “das Fleisch […] durch das billige Surrogat Hülsenfrüchte” (Glück 196) in military meals – if successful – would only permanently worsen his own and his peers’ condition. Additionally, in scene 1 (II, 1) Andres and Woyzeck “schneiden Stöcke” (I, 147, 2) and therewith provide the means by which they and their comrades may be punished.451 Indeed, the two figures’ task supports HL’s argument that the working poor provide the very armaments with which they are controlled: “ […] ihr gebt ihm ein Szepter in die Hand, aber es ist eine Rute, womit ihr gezüchtigt werdet” (II, 58, 23-25) 451 “Nach dem hessischen Militär-Strafgesetzbuch wurden gemeine Soldaten, die nicht degradiert werden konnten, da es keinen niedrigeren Dienstgrad gab, im Bestrafungsfall statt dessen »unter den Stock versetzt«” (I, 742). 184 What the political pamphlet attempts to override – and Woyzeck magnificently demonstrates – is the difficulty for the working poor to free themselves from this abusive cycle. The need for basic provisions forces them to sacrifice their morals, to accept jobs otherwise unappealing – even degrading – and – out of fear of losing what little security they have – to avoid confrontation with their superiors. The tragedy’s repeated contrasts between rich and poor intend to simultaneously demonstrate the importance of money for those who do not have it – as Woyzeck explains in scene 9 (III, 5): “wir arme Leut […] Wer kein Geld hat.” (I, 155, 34-35) – and the worthlessness of excess for those who do – declared in scene 15 (III, 11): (“[…] Alles Irdische ist eitel, selbst das Geld geht in Verwesung über” [I, 164, 12-13]).452 Büchner’s utilization of a biblical allusion to declare the insignificance and impermanence of wealth seems especially pertinent as the contemporary ruling classes also employed God’s will as justification for their privileged circumstances.453 Woyzeck’s multiple divisions of mankind – the rich and the poor, the idle and the working, the predators and prey – set the stage for the tragedy’s call for social change. In scene 15 (III, 11) an anonymous manual worker sarcastically but correctly elucidates that the working poor only exist to sustain the upper classes: Aber wahrlich ich sage euch,454 von was hätte der 452 See Jakobus 5.2-3: “Euer Reichtum ist verfault, eure Kleider sind mottenfräßig geworden. 3. Euer Gold und Silber ist verrostet, und sein Rost wird euch zum Zeugnis sein und wird euer Fleisch fressen wie ein Feuer […]” (Poschmann 766). 453 Ludiwg’s official title was “Ludwig von Gottes Gnaden Großherzog von Hessen und bei Rhein” (Schaub 53-54). Even at the time of this writing, several monarchs, like the Queen of England, claim their status to be granted “by the grace of God.” 454 See Lukas 4.24: “Er sprach aber: Wahrlich ich sage euch: Kein Prophet ist angenehm in seinem Vaterlande;” There are also several similar phrases found in the Bible such as Matthäus 8.11: “Aber ich sage euch [...]”; Markus 9.13: “Aber ich sage euch [...]”; Lukas 6.27: “Aber ich sage euch [...]”; Johannes 16.7: “Aber ich sage euch die Wahrheit [...]” 185 Landmann, der Weißbinder, der Schuster, der Arzt leben sollen, wenn Gott den Menschen nicht gschaffen hätte? (I, 164, 5-7) 455 The figure employs prophetic language to imply that each ruling class member depends upon individuals like Woyzeck for his own survival. Without a subject, the doctor would be unable to complete his experiments. Without common soldiers, the captain would have no one to command. Even the court clerk’s function is – almost enjoyably – fulfilled upon encountering in scene 31 (I, 21) Woyzeck’s “guter […], ächter […] schön Mord” (I, 173, 10-11). Without the commoner, the text implies, the ruling classes would have nothing to do; they would be in a bored and idle state similar to that of LL’s prince Leonce. Before succeeding his father, the prince has no actual responsibilities or concerns; he consequently fills his time with irrelevant activities – such as spitting on a stone and throwing sand in the air (I, 95, 10-21) – and becomes melancholic as a result of cloud movement (I, 96, 2-4). The captain in Woyzeck suffers from a similar excess of time and lack of responsibilities. While Woyzeck rushes from one job to the next to provide for his family in scene 9 (III, 5), the captain is uncertain how to spend a possible ten extra minutes (I, 154, 26-29). And while Woyzeck faces exhaustion, malnutrition, and the discovery of his lover’s infidelity, a mere millwheel makes the captain melancholic (I, 155, 7). In LL’s first scene, Leonce cites the common idiom: “Müßiggang is aller Laster Anfang” (I, 96, 15). Both Büchner’s comedy and his social drama demonstrate what vices commonly ensue when power and idleness are compounded. While the doctor in Woyzeck delights in Woyzeck’s obvious financial 455 This allusion refers to the biblical commandment for man to rule over the beast together with HL’s primary argument that the working poor are treated as beasts. See 1. Mose 1.28: “[...] herrschet über die Fische im Meer und über die Vögel unter dem Himmel und über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht.” 186 dependence – employing him for sadistic, scientifically insignificant studies456 – the prince in LL similarly views his subjects as objects; mere “Puppen und Spielzeug” (I, 128, 28). The aforementioned prophetic declaration from an anonymous manual worker in Woyzeck speaks both to the ruling classes and the working poor; both are encouraged to reconsider their societal roles and the associated responsibilities. The purpose of life for the working poor, the speaker implies, is not merely to sustain the upper classes and the power enjoyed by the ruling classes – whether political, religious, academic, economic or even military – should not justify oppression. The remainder of the biblical quotations in Woyzeck demonstrates the effects of these extensive unjust divisions on the poor – and serves as a warning of what will continue should conditions not improve. In scene 21 (III, 16) we find Marie alone pondering her infidelity. Instead of placing her under interrogation, however, the tragedy empathizes with the woman. She is extremely poor, has a child to raise, and faces an increasingly distant and disturbed common-law husband. Once involved with the drum major, she sees no escape from a relationship – no matter how superficial and impermanent – which brings her some happiness. Remorseful, Marie haphazardly flips through the Bible reading: “Und ist kein Betrug in seinem Munde erfunden […]” (I, 166, 26-27).457 As Marie clearly misleads Woyzeck on multiple occasions to conceal her infidelity,458 she must feel personally addressed – and a deepening guilt – with the biblical reference to deception. She pages further; however, each passage she happens upon more 456 The study involving Woyzeck’s diet of mere peas is, as Glück explains, economically – not scientifically – motivated (196). 457 See 1 Peter 2.22: “welcher keine Sünde getan hat, ist auch kein Betrug in seinem Munde erfunden.” 458 She is deceitful both when questioned about her new earrings in scene 8 (III,4) (I, 154, 4-11) and again in scene 13 (III,7) when questioned about who was in her room (I, 161-162, 34-5). 187 specifically applies to her situation. She next reads about – and obviously identifies with – an adulteress who is brought before Christ for judgment.459 Alone with the woman – after each accuser recognizes his own transgressions and voluntarily departs – Christ also declines judgment, but commands her to discontinue her extramarital relationship. Upon reading Christ’s admonition, Marie is overwhelmed, clasps her hands together and exclaims she is unable to obey: Jesus aber sprach: so verdamme ich dich auch nicht. Geh hin und sündige hinfort nicht mehr.460 Schlägt die Hände zusammen. Herrgott! Herrgott! Ich kann nicht […]” (I, 166, 30-32). The figure’s adamant response is vital to her development as a realistic example of the range of emotions surrounding mankind’s realization of his or her own imperfections: Selbsterkenntnis, Reue, Vergebungsbegehren, Hilferuf – alle diese Haltungen und Signale der größtmöglichen Beunruhigung, des Schmerzes und des Leidens an der eigenen Unvollkommenheit bekommen durch die bibelsprachliche Grundierung eine Würde, die die Figur Marie exemplarisch werden läßt, ohne daß Stilisierung oder Entkörperlichung einträte. Von imitatio Christi keine Spur – gerade deren Unmöglichkeit ist ja Büchners Anklage! (Bark 501) Unlike Christ, who readily complied with God’s command,461 Marie candidly admits her unwillingness. Büchner’s Lenz similarly attempted to reject biblical counsel given him (“Ehre Vater und Mutter” [I, 243, 3]),462 but was ultimately forced – by Oberlin – to obey 459 See Johannes 8.3-11. Direct quotation. See Johannes 8.11. 461 See Markus 14.36: “und sprach: Abba, mein Vater, es ist dir alles möglich; überhebe mich dieses Kelchs; doch nicht, was ich will, sondern was du willst!” 462 See 2 Mose 20.12: “Du sollst deinen Vater und deine Mutter ehren, auf daß du lange lebst in dem Lande, das dir der Herr, dein Gott, gibt.” 460 188 his father’s command.463 Both texts demonstrate that obedience to divine commandments may, in reality, be more difficult than biblically portrayed. Marie recomposes herself and reads once more. An obviously penitent sinner graciously anoints Jesus’ feet.464 Overwhelmed, Marie exclaims “Alles tot! Heiland, Heiland ich möchte dir die Füße salben” (I, 167, 12-13). Marie wants to demonstrate, through acts of love, sorrow for her transgression; however, unlike the biblical adulteress, she fails to find a savior upon whom she can act. The text contrasts therewith the apparent ease of obedience in the presence of Christ with the difficulty of his physical absence. More important, though, Marie’s struggle introduces the conflict between the physical and spiritual realms – and the resulting victory of materialism over idealism. The character’s inability to atone in good faith and thus to end her extramarital affair ultimately deprives her of divine forgiveness and complicates the otherwise simple biblical charge by introducing a more intimate and complete portrayal of the sinner. In the biblical account there is neither a record of the conditions which induced the adulteress to transgress nor an account of whether she successfully abstained in the future. Marie cannot repent – although she would like to. Her words echo Woyzeck’s earlier response to the Hauptmann in scene 9 (III, 5): “[…] aber wenn ich ein Herr wär […] ich wollt schon tugendhaft sein” (I, 156, 14-17). Neither Woyzeck nor Marie has complete control of his or her actions; both are restricted by their socioeconomic circumstances and both are subjected to their basic physical needs.465 Indeed, Danton’s reflection in Büchner’s earlier drama directly 463 An important difference is that Marie voluntarily reads the Bible while Lenz receives biblical counsel from an outside source. 464 See Lukas 7.37-49 465 In addition to references to Marie’s sexuality, in scene 11 (III, 8) Woyzeck cannot wait to urinate and releaves himself on a wall. 189 corresponds to Marie and Woyzeck’s circumstances: “Was ist das, was in uns hurt, lügt, stiehlt und mordet? Puppen sind wir von unbekannten Gewalten am Draht gezogen; nichts, nichts wir selbst!” (I, 49, 32) Woyzeck demonstrates that neither Woyzeck nor Marie can live morally and – even more significant – neither is able to practice contrition. Consequently – as repentance is a prerequisite for redemption in Christianity – they are also unable to be redeemed. As a result, Marie’s brief scene candidly questions a basic Christian belief, i.e., the validity of universal redemption regardless of socioeconomic status; specifically Christ’s promise that “Selig seid ihr Armen; denn das Reich Gottes ist euer” (Lukas 6.20). Because Christ was a central figure in the universal consciousness of his contemporaries – the “übermächtige[n] Leitfigur in der Bildungswelt des Volkes” (Poschmann 772), it is natural that Büchner repeatedly employed the biblical figure throughout his oeuvre. In HL, the working poor’s exploitation is symbolized by his crucifixion.466 Both protagonists in DT justify their actions with relation to Christ’s atonement.467 Lenz unsuccessfully attempts to emulate Christ’s works.468 And Lena compares her suffering to that of the biblical savior’s crucifixion.469 Unlike Büchner’s other works, however, the tragedy’s protagonist not only fails to emulate – or even 466 “Ihr setzt ihm eine Krone auf, aber es ist eine Dornenkrone, die ihr euch selbst in den Kopf drückt […]” (II, 58, 22-23). 467 As Robespierre describes “Er hat sie mit seinem Blut erlöst und ich erlöse sie mit ihrem eignen. Er hat sie sündigen gemacht und ich nehme die Sünde auf mich. Er hatte die Wollust des Schmerzes und ich habe die Qual des Henkers. Wer hat sich mehr verleugnet, Ich oder er?” (I, 37, 26-30) Danton also disputes the biblical figure’s strategies: “Das war Notwehr, wir mußten. Der Mann am Kreuze hat sich’s bequem gemacht” (I, 49, 26-27). 468 Imitating Christ’s words and actions, Lenz takes a dead girls’ hands and charges: “Stehe auf und wandle” (I, 242, 3). 469 Through Lena’s suffering, the princess questions “Ist es denn wahr, die Welt sei ein gekreuzigter Heiland, die Sonne seine Dornenkrone und die Sterne die Nägel und Speere in seinen Füßen und Lenden?” (I, 110, 3-6). 190 attempt to emulate – the kind and compassionate New Testament Christ, but also fails to recognize any sympathetic supreme being. Several references are made throughout the text to the belief that things happen according to “God’s will.”470 But because Woyzeck’s experiences are so wretched, he can only imagine such a god. Indeed, the figure only knows, as Borgards explains, a punitive god “zu dem er sich selbst in der Mordtat stilisiert.” (110) Although Woyzeck references the loving New Testament Christ to encourage acceptance of his illegitimate son,471 he ultimately resorts to the Old Testament law to dictate his actions. According to Mosaic Law, for example, adultery warranted capital punishment.472 Woyzeck – once certain of Marie’s infidelity – considers himself responsible for her punishment. Like Robespierre in Dantons Tod,473 Woyzeck adopts the role of moral judge and carries out the appropriate sentence. Additionally just as several of Büchner’s protagonists reject the Christian belief in Christ’s universal atonement,474 so does Woyzeck. By being subjected to – and consequently adopting – the harsher Old Testament laws (which focus on restitution rather than forgiveness), Woyzeck rejects the 470 After receiving payment from Woyzeck in scene 8 (III, 4), Marie replies “Gott vergelt’s Franz” (I, 154, 18). When describing possible physical ailments facing the Hauptmann, the doctor explains in scene 12 (III, 9) “[…] und wenn Gott will” (I, 159, 22). Finally in scene 15 (III, 11), Woyzeck – similar to Lucile in DT (I, 88, 21-34) – questions how life continues and God does not intervene when he loses his lover: “Warum blast Gott nicht <die> Sonn aus” (I, 163, 29-30). 471 Woyzeck defends his illegitimate son with the argument: “Herr Hauptmann, der liebe Gott wird den armen Wurm nicht drum ansehn, ob das Amen drüber gesagt ist, eh’ er gemacht wurde. Der Herr sprach: Lasset die Kindlein zu mir kommen” (I, 155, 27-30). 472 See 3 Mose 20.10: “Wer die Ehe bricht mit jemandes Weib, der soll des Todes sterben, beide, Ehebrecher und Ehebrecherin.” 473 Robespierre is directly characterized as a judge from a woman who cries out “Hört den Messias, der gesandt ist zu wählen und zu richten; er wird die Bösen mit der Schärfe des Schwertes schlagen” (I, 20, 2224). 474 Robespierre argues that Christ unjustly created sinners (i.e., murderers) by permitting his own crucifixion whereas he takes the sin upon himself by executing others (I, 37, 25-30), while Danton criticizes Christ’s lack of intervention to reduce man’s suffering (I, 49, 27). Lenz’ blasphemous confession that he could not bear to allow others to suffer were he is omnipotent (I, 248-249, 37-2) criticizes any possible Supreme Being of cruelly witnessing affliction without intervening. Lena’s inquiry (“Mein Gott, mein Gott, ist es denn wahr, daß wir uns selbst erlösen müssen mit unserem Schmerz?” [I, 110, 2-3]) rejects the prevailing Christian belief in Christ’s role as a universal Redeemer. 191 coming of Jesus Christ, who, according to Christian belief, fulfilled – and thus superseded the practice of – the existing Mosaic law.475 Indeed, the Woyzeck tragedy subtly argues – just as HL – that the entire contemporary society fails to uphold the Christian doctrines it claims to embrace. No supporting figures show Woyzeck the brotherly kindness encouraged throughout the New Testament476 and although the text remains incomplete, one can assume, Glück contends, that society will show Woyzeck neither understanding nor forgiveness for Marie’s murder: Es ist abzusehen, was folgen wird: der Mörder wird wenig später festgenommen und – wie in der Quelle, dem Bericht über den 1824 in Leipzig geköpften Mörder Woyzeck – hingerichtet werden. (185) Whether or not Büchner intended to complete his tragedy with Woyzeck’s execution, the text does imply the figure’s acceptance that Marie’s murder will result – whether through execution or imprisonment – in his own demise as well.477 As a result, Woyzeck’s imminent sacrifice is directly related to another’s sin – and possibly to the belief in the absolution of that sin. As Christ willingly died for mankind’s transgressions, so does Woyzeck sacrifice himself in addition to Marie. More important, however, the text demonstrates the stark contrast between what Christ and Woyzeck represent; the former is an idealized, but physically absent individual; the latter an example of an omnipresent, but neglected group. While Christ’s 475 Matthäus 5.17: “Ihr sollt nicht wähnen, daß ich gekommen bin, das Gesetz oder die Propheten aufzulösen; ich bin nicht gekommen, aufzulösen, sondern zu erfüllen.” 476 See especially Römer 12.10,17: “Die brüderliche Liebe untereinander sei herzlich. Einer komme dem andern mit Ehrerbietung zuvor. 17. […] Vergeltet niemand Böses mit Bösem. […]” 477 In scene 22 (III, 17) Woyzeck gives up on life; as Poschmann explains, “Woyzeck hat mit dem Leben abgeschlossen; er gibt seine Habseligkeiten weg, hinterläßt seine persönlichen Daten und bezieht das einen gewaltsamen Tod ausdrückende Bild von den Hobelspänen, auf die einer seinen Kopf legen muß, vom Anfang jetzt in Gewißheit auf sich” (I, 772). 192 death and resulting resurrection intend to bring hope and life, Woyzeck’s life only emphasizes death’s permanence. Overworked, the figure is emotionally and mentally expired long before his probable physical death – even in the first scene (III, 1) Woyzeck describes the world as “Still, Alles still, als wäre die Welt tot” (I, 147, 26). Indeed, from Marie’s outcry in scene 21 (III, 16) “Alles tot!” (I, 167, 12) to the grandmother’s analogous anti-fairy tale in scene 23 (I, 14) which ends with the same phrase, the tragedy repeatedly points towards death and misery. Even when Woyzeck refers to the afterlife, he can only imagine it as a continuation of what he already experiences: Die religiösen Trostversprechungen wiederum greifen bei den Figuren nicht […] Woyzeck kann sich kein anderes Jenseits vorstellen als das einer fortgesetzten Ausbeutung seiner Arbeitskraft. (Borgards, 110) The tragedy subtly replaces the Christian promise of a better existence in the afterlife with the demonstration that a belief in that promise’s fulfillment cannot materialize without some evidence in mortality. Previous attempts to designate Woyzeck as a Christ-figure, Borgards explains, have rightfully fallen flat (110). Indeed, Woyzeck is not a Christ-figure, but rather an Anti-Christ figure – in place of Christ’s promise of hope and life, the figure demonstrates the misery and hopelessness of the overworked poor. Whereas Christ proclaims that his kingdom is not of this world,478 Woyzeck illustrates the inability to see beyond this life. And whereas Christ grants the biblical adulteress life, Woyzeck murders Marie. Additionally, as Woyzeck gives away his two symbols of Christianity in scene 22 (III, 17) (a crucifix and an image of a saint), the figure symbolically demonstrates his rejection of 478 See Johannes 18.36: “Jesus antwortete: Mein Reich ist nicht von dieser Welt. Wäre mein Reich von dieser Welt, meine Diener würden kämpfen […].” 193 the teachings they represent. Indeed, heaven is, Woyzeck explains to the Hauptmann in scene 12 (II, 7), only another possible location to end his life: Sehn Sie so ein schön festen grauen Himmel, man könnte Lust bekomm, ein Kloben hineinzuschlage und sich daran zu hänge. (I, 161, 3-5) Just as Büchner’s Lenz, who comes to perceive god as an enemy and heaven a suitable recipient of his wrath,479 so does Woyzeck fail to find heaven – or the belief in a hereafter – comforting. The common intent of religion, to bring faith and hope, is not achieved. As Poschmann explains: Unbestreitbar erscheint […], daß Büchner das erwartungstragende Muster der religiösen >Überrolle< als nicht funktionierend darstellt. (I, 773) Interestingly, the tragedy demonstrates that religion does not fail because of its teachings, but rather because society remains unable to adopt – nor appropriately adapt – those teachings. Personally attacked in a conversation with the Hauptmann in scene 9 (III, 5), Woyzeck defends his illegitimate child explaining “Herr Hauptmann, der liebe Gott wird den armen Wurm nicht drum ansehn, ob das Amen drüber gesagt ist, eh’ er gemacht wurde. Der Herr sprach: Lasset die Kindlein zu mir kommen” (I, 155, 27-30).480 Woyzeck’s argument – concluding with a direct biblical quotation – demonstrates his knowledge of the Bible as well as his distinction between the stringent guidelines of his society – demonstrated by the “erbarmungslosen Garnisonsprediger” (Bark 499) – and 479 After Lenz fails to emulate Christ and cannot raise a child from the dead, the figure rebels against the supreme being: “[…] es war ihm, als könne er eine ungeheure Faust hinauf in den Himmel ballen und Gott herbei reißen und zwischen seinen Wolken schleifen; als könnte er die Welt mit den Zähnen zermalmen und sie dem Schöpfer in’s Gesicht speien”.(I, 242, 11-15). 480 See Matthäus 19.1-14, specifically verse 14: “Aber Jesus sprach: Lasset die Kindlein und wehret ihnen nicht, zu mir zu kommen; denn solcher ist das Himmelreich.” 194 the compassionate biblical teaching. Society, even religion, the figure argues, does not reflect divinity. Indeed, the text exposes the repeatedly ignored and undoubtedly excessive physical and mental burdens of the working poor together with the unreasonable expectation that they carry those burdens while adhering to the same socially established moral standards of those economically advantaged. Rather than being universal, moral standards and precepts, the tragedy argues, are directly related to one’s economic situation: Das Drama “Woyzeck” lässt deutlich werden, dass moralische Forderungen an ökonomische Bedingungen gebunden sind, dass das bürgerliche Tugendkonzept die Grenze zur pauperisierten Unterschicht abriegelt, also als gesellschaftliche Exklusionsstrategie fungiert, und dass das aufklärerische Mitleidsethos dem ästhetischen Selbstgenuss des Bürgers dient. (Borgards 119) This prevailing system – with its resulting unbearable strain on the poor – drives Woyzeck to murder Marie. Indeed, Büchner’s protagonist merely represents the longignored poor and the law which governs their actions: […] weil der Fall Woyzeck kein Einzelfall sondern ein Massenschicksal ist; an ihm wird das Gesetz erkennbar, das nicht nur Woyzeck regiert. (Glück 215) Woyzeck illustrates that the established social system is corrupt; in contrast, a benevolent society adapts to the needs of its individuals; particularly when individuals are – financially or psychologically – unable to conform to societal norms . When discovered with blood on his garments and hands, Woyzeck exclaims: “Bin ich Mörder? Was gafft ihr! Guckt euch selbst an” (I, 171, 23-24). Society, the figure intimates, is responsible for Marie’s murder. In fact, Woyzeck’s attempt to rid himself of the blame for Marie’s death 195 is not unlike the biblical Pilate, who – at least symbolically – washed himself of the blame for Christ’s crucifixion.481 The biblical crowd, however, willingly accepts responsibility exclaiming in Matthäus 27.25: “[…] Sein Blut komme über uns und über unsre Kinder”, while Woyzeck’s society – at least according to the author’s sources – will ultimately hold the individual responsible. Woyzeck – like each of Büchner’s texts – adds a unique dimension to the young author’s oeuvre. Whereas HL directly calls for a revolution and LL displays aristocratic lifestyle as parasitic and artificial, Woyzeck demonstrates the poverty and devastation of the poor. Whereas Lenz demonstrates the personal misery of mental illness, Woyzeck exposes the social consequences of allowing mental illness to remain unnoticed, even exploited – perhaps even for instilling mental illness in an endangered and fragile person. Although both Woyzeck and Dantons Tod end with death, the former is a political execution, while the latter results from an act of desperation. Additionally, Büchner’s earlier works – Lenz aside – demonstrate socioeconomic division through the physical separation of members of different social classes; in both DT and LL there are only few and brief interactions between the classes and the HL pamphlet merely describes – rather than demonstrates – class disparity. Woyzeck, however, displays class division and the resulting disparity in quality of life through strikingly vivid confrontations between the main character and his superiors. Because the tragedy remains incomplete, it is uncertain what role biblical quotations would have played in the text’s final version. Nevertheless the surviving four 481 See Matthäus 27.24: “Da aber Pilatus sah, daß er nichts schaffte, sondern daß ein viel größer Getümmel ward, nahm er Wasser und wusch die Hände vor dem Volk und sprach: Ich bin unschuldig an dem Blut dieses Gerechten; sehet ihr zu!” 196 drafts provide a convincing insight into the text’s probable direction. Like each of Büchner’s previous works, biblical quotations in Woyzeck follow the tripartite pattern introduced in HL, i.e., they reveal mankind’s unjust divisions, create an Anti-Christ figure and call for social change. Much like LL, however, the tragedy’s appeal for social change is indirect and lies primarily in a demonstration of what will repeatedly transpire – i.e. the creation, exploitation and consequent destruction of mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausted characters like Woyzeck – should conditions for the working poor not improve. CONCLUSION As became evident in the earlier stages of research for this study, Georg Büchner’s first work, Der Hessische Landbote, an unintentional collaboration with Friedrich Ludwig Weidig, clearly establishes a pattern of biblical quotation employment which is, with some modifications, subsequently maintained in the remainder of the young author's oeuvre. In an attempt to agitate the working poor to instigate a violent political revolution, HL utilizes biblical references – direct, indirect, and modified quotations as well as allusions – to demonstrate an unjust division of mankind, to introduce a Christ-figure, and ultimately to encourage social change. Prevailing conditions, HL sarcastically explains, reveal the Bible's inaccuracy; the Hessian ruling classes – not mankind in general – were apparently commanded: “Herrschet über alles Getier” (II, 53, 24-25),482 while the working poor were “zum Gewürm gezählt” (II, 53, 26). The pamphlet demonstrates that while the ruling classes abuse power, ignore biblical admonitions, and ultimately act as an Anti-Christ-figure (“Das L. was unter seinen Verordnungen steht, ist das Malzeichen des Tieres” [II, 58, 31-32])483 the working poor voluntarily – but needlessly – endure suffering metaphorically compared to the crucifixion (“Ihr setzt ihm eine Krone auf, aber es ist eine Dornenkrone, die ihr euch selbst in den Kopf drückt” [II, 58, 22-23]).484 The text contrasts the biblical creation 482 See 1 Mose 1:27-28: “Und Gott schuf den Menschen ihm zum Bilde, zum Bilde Gottes schuf er ihn; und schuf sie einen Mann und ein Weib. 28. Und Gott segnete sie und sprach zu ihnen: […] herrschet über die Fische im Meer und über die Vögel unter dem Himmel und über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht.” 483 See Offenbarung 16.2: “[…] und es ward eine böse und arge Drüse an den Menschen, die das Malzeichen des Tiers hatten und die sein Bild anbeteten.” 484 See Matthäus 27.29: “und flochten eine Dornenkrone und setzten sie auf sein Haupt [...]” 198 account with contemporary Hessian reality and molds its respective socioeconomic classes into a Christ- and an Anti-Christ figure to contend that a political revolution is not only necessary but would be supported by divine intervention (“Gott wird euch Kraft geben ihre Füße zu zerschmeißen” [II, 63, 18-19]). As this study from there on demonstrates, each of Büchner's subsequent texts utilizes a variation of this general pattern of biblical quotation employment modified to fit its genre, its aesthetics, and its particular strategy. For example, while HL creates a dichotomy by juxtaposing the oppressive ruling classes with the exploited working poor, the drama Dantons Tod, Büchner's second work, fails to create a clear moral or political hierarchy of the multiple socio-political divisions it demonstrates.485 Indeed, although political rivals, the protagonists Danton and Robespierre are quite comparable characters; both even stylize themselves into Christ-figures as they offer a substitute for the Savior’s atonement in order to justify their political actions.486 And the narrative Lenz, Büchner's third work, offers neither socioeconomic nor political divisions, but rather reveals one individual's psychological separation from society.487 Unable to 485 Figures are divided according to their gender, socioeconomic class, or political orientation; female figures are often further categorized as either a “Jungfrau” (I, 17, 19) (The term “Jungfrau” takes on multiple biblical connotations, i.e., virgin, young woman, and metaphorically as “Tochter Zion” [Jesaiah 37.22], the city Jerusalem. It is also a general term referring to Mary, the mother of Christ.) or a “arme Hure” (I, 18, 24) - even individuals are, as Danton claims, “aus zwei Hälften” (I, 38, 13). And, as Borgards explains, “Trotz erhaltener brieflicher Äußerungen Büchners zum Stück […] gibt es keinen Konsens darüber, welche Position im Drama die des Autors ist” (19). 486 While Robespierre rejects the belief that one can suffer in place of another, (“Ja wohl, Blutmessias, der opfert und nicht geopfert wird. - Er hat sie mit seinem Blut erlöst und ich erlöse sie mit ihrem eignen. Er hat sie sündigen gemacht und ich nehme die Sünde auf mich […] Wer hat sich mehr verleugnet, Ich oder er?” [I, 37, 25-30]), Danton feels he must act because God failed to intervene (“Das war Notwehr, wir mußten. Der Mann am Kreuze hat sich’s bequem gemacht” [I, 49, 26-27]). 487 Subtle biblical allusions demonstrate how Lenz, in his mental illness, feels chased by wild apocalyptic horses (“Es war […] als jage der Wahnsinn auf Rossen hinter ihm” [I, 226, 29-31]), becomes unbearably fearful of nightfall, (“[...] das Licht war erloschen, die Finsternis verschlang Alles, eine unnennbare Angst erfaßte ihn” [I, 227, 33-35]) and unsuccessfully turns to religion for support (“es war als müsse er immer »Vater unser« sagen” [I, 228, 1-2]). 199 integrate into his new community despite his desperate efforts, Lenz is ultimately admonished by Oberlin to honor his father’s demand (“Ehre Vater und Mutter”[I, 243, 3])488 and return home to Livonia. The pastor’s insensitive employment of biblical authority to encourage action unquestionably dangerous to the protagonist's mental health invites the audience to reconsider the common practice of the universal application of biblical commandments. Consequently, biblical quotations, yet esteemed and employed as truth in HL, are critically examined and challenged in terms of their validity in Lenz. In Büchner’s final two works, the author returns to the discussion of socioeconomic divisions introduced in HL, but he then creates innovative Christ-figures to illustrate those divisions. The comedy Leonce und Lena introduces the author's only female Christ-figure as it mockingly animates the idle and carefree lives of the ruling classes criticized in HL.489 Princess Lena, devastated at her arranged betrothal to a man she has never met, questions “Aber warum schlägt man einen Nagel durch zwei Hände, die sich nicht suchten?” (I, 109, 18-19).490 So distraught, the princess momentarily appears empathetic to the universal suffering of mankind.491 However, both her dismay and her seemingly compassionate inquiry are, like the kingdom's subjects, quickly 488 See 2 Mose 20.12: “Du sollst deinen Vater und deine Mutter ehren, auf daß du lange lebest in dem Lande, das dir der Herr, dein Gott, gibt.” 489 Prince Leonce describes “ich habe die entsetzliche Arbeit … […] Nichts zu tun” (I, 101, 1-3) and Valerio, the prince's closest companion, confesses “ich bin noch Jungfrau in der Arbeit […]” (I, 98, 14). Similar confessions throughout the comedy contradict the early biblical command that “Sechs Tage soll man arbeiten [...]” (2 Mose 21.15) and resonate HL's demonstration of the extreme and unjust division between those who work and those who rule. 490 See Johannes 20.25: “Da sagten die andern Jünger zu ihm: Wir haben den Herrn gesehen. Er aber sprach zu ihnen: Es sei denn, daß ich in seinen Händen sehe die Nägelmale und lege meinen Finger in die Nägelmale und lege meine Hand an seine Seite, will ich's glauben.” 491 She further questions: “Ist es denn wahr, die Welt sei ein gekreuzigter Heiland, die Sonne seine Dornenkrone und die Sterne die Nägel und Speere in seinen Füßen und Lenden?” (I, 110, 3-6). 200 forgotten.492 Indeed, when she willingly accepts the role of silent queen at the comedy's conclusion, she embodies the text's ironic statement as exemplified by the comedy's plot – and metaphorically also by the nobility's political inaction – that nothing will change in reality. Then, in stark contrast to the comedy, Büchner's ultimate piece, Woyzeck, focuses on a single – extremely poor and mentally fragile – figure. Because Woyzeck has never received forgiveness or compassion, he cannot project such qualities upon himself or upon a god.493 As a result, the figure does not attempt to understand or emulate Christ as Büchner's previous characters, but rather becomes an Anti-Christ-figure as he ultimately resorts to the pre-Christian Mosaic law and murders Marie for her infidelity.494 The text demonstrates that hope in the Christian belief in a better hereafter depends greatly upon mortal conditions and, in turn, also rejects the utilization of belief in an afterlife as an excuse to abuse – or to suffer abuse – in this life. Although certainly present in each of Büchner's works, it became evident during this investigation that the author's tripartite pattern of biblical quotation employment evolved considerably throughout his oeuvre. Indeed, the purpose of Büchner’s yet hopeful political pamphlet, i.e., the agitation of the working poor, determines the function of the text’s numerous biblical quotations.495 Consequently, rather than questioning the 492 King Peter, Leonce’s father and ruler of the Kingdom Popo, repeatedly attempts to remember his subjects. After asking his attendants why he knotted his handkerchief, the king suddenly realizes: “Ja, das ist’s, das ist’s. – [ich wollte mich an mein Volk erinnern!]” (I, 99, 25-26). 493 Woyzeck can foresee the afterlife as nothing but a continuation of the exploitation he already experiences: “unseins ist doch einmal unselig in der und der andern Welt, ich glaub' wenn wir in Himmel kämen, so müßten wir donnern helfen” (I, 155-6, 37-2). 494 Rather than asking the adulteress to “Geh hin und sündige hinfort nicht mehr” (Johannes 8.11) as Christ did, Woyzeck adheres to the Mosaic law which commanded “Wer die Ehe bricht […] der soll des Todes sterben” (3 Mose 20.10). 495 The pamphlet even concludes with an utopian vision of life after a revolution, a short description including numerous biblical references: ”Dann könnt ihr eure Kinder frei taufen mit dem Wasser des Lebens. Und bis der Herr euch ruft durch seine Boten und Zeichen, wachet und rüstet euch im Geiste und 201 truth or value of religion as Büchner’s later texts do, HL persuasively employs the Bible as an authoritative support for its political strategy and agitation. DT, on the other hand, challenges the very Christian beliefs upon which HL’s arguments are based. Indeed, the drama introduces highly complex, multifaceted references which present alternatives to Christ’s atonement496 and ultimately form a never-resolved dialectic questioning the existence of God.497 Still, the text in its entirety favors neither atheism nor theism, as the dramatic form allows Büchner to grant his characters several unique – and often conflicting – voices. As a result, in place of HL’s clear dependence upon biblical authority, DT encourages the reconsideration of common beliefs. Temporarily abandoning any overt political issues, Lenz then demonstrates its protagonist’s unsuccessful attempts to find peace either in the traditional religious beliefs instilled in him498 or in the similarly rooted suggestions presented him by Oberlin.499 Biblical quotations reveal that religion, at least in its representative in the form of the Pietist Oberlin, repeatedly fails Lenz. But – unlike DT – Lenz does not present an unresolved dialogue. Instead, the narrative candidly critiques the prevailing social and religious normative systems, subtly counseling against the common religious and moral betet ihr selbst und lehrt eure Kinder beten: „Herr, zerbrich den Stecken unserer Treiber und laß dein Reich zu uns kommen, das Reich der Gerechtigkeit. Amen” (II, 66, 15-21). 496 While Robespierre replaces Christ’s universal sacrifice with the sacrifice of individuals: “Blutmessias, der opfert und nicht geopfert wird. – Er hat sie mit seinem Blut erlöst und ich erlöse sie mit ihrem eignen. Er hat sie sündigen gemacht und ich nehme die Sünde auf mich. Er hatte die Wohllust des Schmerzes und ich habe die Qual des Henkers. Wer hat sich mehr verleugnet, Ich oder er?” (I, 37, 25-30), Danton justifies his own political action by criticizing Christ’s unwillingness to interfere and reduce suffering: “Das war Notwehr, wir mußten. Der Mann am Kreuz hat sich’s bequem gemacht” (I, 49, 27). 497 After making a compelling argument against the existence of God, Payne confidently concludes: “Gott kann also die Welt nicht geschaffen haben” (I, 56, 23-24). 498 Helpless, the character feels he must turn to prayer for refuge: “es war als müsse er immer »Vater unser« sagen” (I, 228, 1-2). 499 The pastor repeatedly employs direct biblical quotations and standard Christian beliefs when counseling Lenz to “Ehre Vater und Mutter” (I, 243, 3) or “sich [an Jesus] wenden” (I, 243, 9-11). 202 pressures exerted upon endangered individuals to conform to a stringent prescribed social and moral code. Biblical quotations in Büchner’s penultimate piece, LL, also attack the prevailing societal structure as they satirically demonstrate the ruling classes' possible misunderstanding, but definite manipulation of faith in order to justify and perpetuate their idle lifestyles. Indeed, the comedy reveals the superficiality of the ruling classes’ lives and the banality of their trials. Although certainly sheltered from any actual physical pain, Lena casually compares her suffering to the crucifixion. The princess’s inquisitive outcry: “Mein Gott, mein Gott, ist es denn wahr, daß wir uns selbst erlösen müssen mit unserem Schmerz?” [I, 110, 2-3] – even if it were intended as a serious question for the audience – is certainly not to be taken seriously in the context of the play. And Valerio's declaration at the comedy's conclusion: “legen wir uns in den Schatten und bitten Gott um Makkaroni, Melonen und Feigen” (I, 129, 11-15) mocks the ruling classes' traditional belief that their exploitative lifestyles are divinely sanctioned. Finally, biblical quotations in Woyzeck, demonstrate the other side of exploitation, specifically how the prevailing social organizations further enslave the working poor. In the social drama, just as in HL, there lies an abyss between biblical truth and the pervasive socioeconomic malaise. Unlike HL, however, Woyzeck does not encourage political action of the working poor, but rather demonstrates their inability to act. Despite biblical admonition, Marie is unable to abandon her adulterous relationship (I, 166, 32). And despite his desire, Woyzeck cannot afford to adhere to society’s moral standards (I, 156, 12-18). Woyzeck demonstrates that the prevailing social structure – specifically its 203 oppressive hierarchy – takes advantage of vulnerable individuals by severely restricting their alternatives and ultimately also their ability to retaliate against their exploiters. Woyzeck is so overworked that he cannot maintain basic relationships – let alone consider or pursue his own or his class's advancement. Consequently, Büchner’s final text demonstrates why his first – the political pamphlet aimed at agitating the Hessian working poor – was destined to failure. Not surprisingly, the development of Büchner’s biblical quotation employment mirrors the author’s own evolving reception of the contemporary debate between an emerging materialist philosophy and the prevailing idealist discourse in philosophy and in science. There seem, however, to coexist two ideal-inspired discourses throughout Büchner's works. The first relates to idealist or classicist aesthetics, which Büchner passionately denounces through his Lenz character: “Dieser Idealismus ist die schmählichste Verachtung der menschlichen Natur,” (I, 234, 13-15)500 to German idealist philosophy,501 and, in turn, to idealism’s political manifestation in the form of absolutism and aristocracy – as Büchner writes his family in February of 1834: “Der Aristocratismus ist die schändlichste Verachtung des heiligen Geistes im Menschen […]” (II, 379).502 The idealism he rejects manifests itself as a convention that supplies and sustains society’s superficial and often trendy or exclusive ideals.503 However, another ideal-inspired complex can be discerned in the texts: a constant discourse which propounds Büchner’s 500 Also cf. his letter to his parents dated July 28, 1835 (II, 410). Kant and Hegel are particularly satirized in LL and obvious targets of his critique in Woyzeck. 502 It should be noted that in this letter Büchner invokes the Holy Spirit, part of the divine trinity who is ever-present in humans, and that contempt of the Holy Spirit is a cardinal sin in contemporary theology. 503 As Camille in DT describes “Nimmt Einer ein Gefühlchen, eine Sentenz, einen Begriff und zieht ihm Rock und Hosen an, macht ihm Hände und Füße, färbt ihm das Gesicht und läßt das Ding sich 3 Akte hindurch herumquälen, bis es sich zuletzt verheiratet oder tot schießt – ein Ideal!” (I, 44, 27-32). 501 204 own ideal conceptions, i.e., the equality of humans (just as “nature” or God created him or her)504 and their right to respect, compensation, and accommodation. Büchner consistently challenges the pervasive contemporary artistic and political notions of idealism throughout his oeuvre, demonstrating – especially through the figures of Lenz and Woyzeck – the perspectives of endangered, fragile or exploited individuals.505 After HL, however, both forms of idealism are repeatedly challenged in Büchner's texts by the emerging materialist Weltbild the author received from his philosophical and scientific studies. As the revolutionary hopes expounded in Der Hessische Landbote fade into Woyzeck's realistic depiction of the constraints of poverty, Büchner never abandons his ideals, but rather demonstrates in his texts – already in DT – the limits of human agency. Danton, obviously at one point confident enough to lead a major political revolution, vividly relives his loss of control in a dream: Unter mir keuchte die Erdkugel in ihrem Schwung, ich hatte sie wie ein wildes Roß gepackt, mit riesigen Gliedern wühlt' ich in ihrer Mähne und preßt' ich ihre Rippen, das Haupt abwärts gebückt, die Haare flatternd über dem Abgrund. So ward ich geschleift. (I, 49, 2-6) Rather than riding the horse symbolizing the earth in his dream, Danton is dragged by it. The world, the figure concludes, is in motion; its citizens at its mercy. Büchner's oeuvre, however, argues that an individual's existence is not merely determined by his or her environment, but also by the individual's nature. Lenz cannot escape his mental illness, 504 An example is Woyzeck’s simple but moving and irrefutable defense of his son in scene 9 (III, 5): “Herr Hauptmann, der liebe Gott wird den armen Wurm nicht drum ansehn, ob das Amen drüber gesagt ist, eh’ er gemacht wurde. Der Herr sprach: Lasset die Kindlein zu mir kommen” (I, 155, 27-30). 505 Society’s – specifically the ruling classes’ – general misunderstanding of the agency of minorities or poor is demonstrated in both Lenz (I, 244, 24-27) and Woyzeck (I, 156, 13-17). 205 but must adapt to it. Leonce and Lena, despite their initial attempt to escape from aristocratic responsibilities, ultimately return at the comedy's conclusion to the very political marriage they initially avoided. And while explaining to Woyzeck the importance of virtue, the Hauptmann admits to lustfully watching women out of his window. Even the tragedy's doctor, a figure overtaken with an obsession for self-control, becomes angry when Woyzeck urinates on the street and must remind himself in scene 11 (III, 8) that “Ärger ist ungesund, ist unwissenschaftlich” (I, 157, 34-35). Woyzeck's act of murder, Borgards explains, is determined – at least in part – by his nature: Woyzeck erlebt sich nicht als von Gott verstoßen, nicht als Opfer der Gesellschaft, er erlebt sich als Natur oder doch zumindest als derart von der eigenen Natur dominiert, dass es für ihn kein Korrektiv für sein Verhalten zu geben scheint. (159) With the Woyzeck tragedy Büchner demonstrates the naturalist view that the protagonist cannot be different than he is. Thus throughout his oeuvre Büchner progressively moves away from HL, a text that encourages the working poor to overcome their material impoverishment and embrace revolutionary ideals, and ultimately approaches Woyzeck, which alternatively encourages society to understand, forgive, and even accept its protagonist’s inability to recognize anything beyond his nature – as human nature is determined by material conditions. Although biblical quotations in Büchner's individual texts have been previously identified and analyzed within their specific, individual context, to this point no general investigation of the intertextual contextualization of biblical quotations throughout the author's oeuvre has been presented. This broader study of biblical quotations – 206 demonstrating the repeated division of mankind, the introduction of a Christ-figure, and the call for social change – reveals both the author's consistent adherence to a pattern – despite diverse genres and themes – and his ability to utilize the Bible's versatility to fit each genre and theme. Consequently, this investigation suggests several new avenues for additional research. Although the biblical source for each quotation is documented here, it would be productive to closely examine which books in the Old or New Testament Büchner quoted most frequently, and the reasons for his particular selection. This study focuses primarily on the contextualization of the quotations in their new texts, consequently a broader examination of the quotations' biblical source contextualizations and their relations to Büchner's texts is still lacking. Additionally, the quotations in HL are generally arranged in the same sequential order as they are in the Bible, beginning in the first book of Moses and ending in the book of Revelations. The order of biblical quotations – both in individual texts and in Büchner's entire oeuvre – should be further investigated. And finally, several of Büchner’s texts include a progression into or out of a paradisiacal garden,506 often a metaphorical journey mirroring the Christian belief of the fall and redemption of mankind. This is an intriguing motif deserving of further investigation. 506 For example, HL promises the working poor a return to paradise: “Deutschland ist jetzt ein Leichenfeld, bald wird es ein Paradies sein” (II, 66, 2-3), while Leonce and Lena leave their paradisaical gardens and enter the world, only to return to their palaces. WORKS CONSULTED Anz, Heinrich. “Leiden sey all mein Gewinnst – Zur Aufnahme und Kritik christlicher Leidenstheologie bei Georg Büchner.” Georg Büchner Jahrbuch 1. 1981. 160175. Armstrong, William Bruce. “>Arbeit< und >Muße< in den Werken Georg Büchners.” Text + Kritik Zeitschrift für Literatur Sonderband: Georg Büchner III. Edited by Heinz Ludwig Arnold. München: Richard Boorberg Verlag GmbH & Co KG, 1981. 63-98. Bark, Joachim. “Bibelsprache in Büchners Dramen: Stellenkommentar und interpretatorische Hinweise.” In Zweites Internationales Georg Büchner Symposium 1987 Referate. Edited by Burghard Dedner und Günter Oesterle. Frankfurt a.M.: Hain, 1990. 467-505. Billen, Josef. Deutsche Parabeln. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 1982. Borgards, Roland and Harald Neumeyer (eds.). Büchner Handbuch. Leben – Werk – Wirkung. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 2009. Dedner, Burghard. Erläuterungen und Dokumente Georg Büchner Woyzeck. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun., 2007. Die Bibel oder Die Ganze Heilige Schrift Des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers. Köln: Naumann & Göbel Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986. Funk, Gerald. Erläuterungen und Dokumente Georg Büchner Dantons Tod. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 2002. Garber, Marjorie. Quotation Marks. London: Routledge, 2002. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. Faust I. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 2000. Glück, Alfons. “Woyzeck: Ein Mensch als Objekt.” In Interpretationen: Georg Büchner: Dantons Tod, Lenz, Leonce und Lena, Woyzeck. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 2007. 179-216. Gray, Richard T.. “The Dialectic of Enlightenment in Büchner’s Woyzeck.” German Quaterly 61.1 (Winter 1988): 78-96. 208 Grimm, Reinhold. Love, Lust, and Rebellion: New Approaches to Georg Büchner. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Hausschild, Jan-Christoph. Georg Büchner: Studien und neue Quellen zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung. Königstein/Ts: Athenäum Verlag GmbH, 1985. Hinderer, Walter. “Lenz: »Sein Dasein war ihm eine notwendige Last«.” In Interpretationen: Georg Büchner: Dantons Tod, Lenz, Leonce und Lena, Woyzeck. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 2007. 63-112. Kellett, E.E. Literary Quotation and Allusion. Dallas: Kennikat Press, 1969. King, Janet K. “Lenz viewed sane.” The Germanic Review 49 (1974): 146-153. Klotz, Volker. Dramaturgie des Publikums. München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1976. Knapp, Gerhard P. "Dantons Tod: Ein Drama". The Literary Encyclopedia. (August 2008): http://litencyc.com/php/sworks.phprec=true&UID=10375. Knapp, Gerhard P. Georg Büchner 3. Auflage. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag, 2000. Kobel, Erwin. Georg Büchner: Das dichterische Werk. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1974. Lamennais, Félicité Robert de: Words of a Believer. (Paroles d'un croyant) New York: Charles de Behr Publisher, 1834. Luther, Martin. An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation; Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen; Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 1999. Lyon, John B. “The Inevitability of Rhetorical Violence: Georg Büchner's ‘Danton's Death’.” Modern Language Studies 26. 2/3 (Spring - Summer, 1996): 99-110. Mayer, Hans. Georg Büchner und seine Zeit. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1972. Niehoff, Reiner. Die Herrschaft des Textes: Zitattechnik als Sprachkritik in Georg Büchners Drama "Danton's Tod" unter Berücksichtigung der "Letzten Tage der Menschheit" von Karl Kraus. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991. Paine, Thomas. Collected Writings: Rights of Man, Age of Reason. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc., 1984. 209 Poschmann, Henri. Georg Büchner: Sämtliche Werke in zwei Bänden. Frankfurt a.M.: Insel Taschenbuch, 2002. Poschmann, Henri. Georg Büchner: Dichtung der Revolution und Revolution der Dichtung. Berlin: Aufbau, 1983. Reddick, John. Georg Büchner: The Shattered Whole. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Reeve, William C. Georg Büchner. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1979. Richards, David G. Georg Büchner and the Birth of the Modern Drama. Albany: State University Press, 1977. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. (Le contrat social, Pensées) Ed Lester G. Crocker. New York: Pocket Books, 1967. Schaub, Gerhard. Georg Büchner Friedrich Ludwig Weidig: Der Hessische Landbote Studienausgabe. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 1996. Schiller, Friedrich. Maria Stuart. Stuttgart: Phillip Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 1995. Still, Judith and Michael Worton. Intertextuality: theories and practices. New York: Martin’s Press, 1990. Süskind, Patrick. Das Parfum. Zürich: Diogenes Verlag AG, 1998. Tannenbaum, Leslie. Biblical Tradition in Blake's Early Prophecies: The Great Code. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982. Wagner, Wendy. Georg Büchners Religionsunterricht, 1821-1831. Studies in Modern German Literature 93. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2000. Waragai, Ikumi. Analogien zur Bibel im Werk Büchners. Marburg: Phillips Universität, 2000. Weidig, Friedrich Ludwig. Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Hans-Joachim Müller. Darmstadt: Gesellschaft Hessischer Literaturfreunde, 1987.