Heinrich Mann: The development of the 'sociocritical' novel to a 'political' novel in the early work

In the beginning of the 20th century numerous changes in the social, economic and political level flow together. In the ambivalent spirit of end time and break-up different trends of literature are unfolded. For the young Heinrich Mann these processes continue in his early work as a writer and qualify for interpretation and the hope to overcome the Fin de siécle trend. The selected novels of this work „Im Schlaraffenland – Ein Roman unter feinen Leuten” (1900), „Professor Unrat oder Das Ende eines Tyrannen” (1904) and „Die Kleine Stadt“ (1909) represent the development of this intention. At first they appear as a satirical criticism of the society and later in the second half of the decade as a draft for a democratic society. In the following the former novels „Im Schlaraffenland” and „Professor Unrat” are mentioned without subheading. This work shall point out the very development phase of Heinrich Mann between 1900 and 1909 until the beginning of his political writing.

As a result of biographical and literary effects he takes up a special position and shows a change in his early work. His critical and satirical examination of the society associated with a special style of speech open out in a preachy democratic ideal of the society after the turning year 1905. On the one hand these positions make the career of the man of letters difficult in the German nationalistic empire. On the other hand they make him to become a precursor of a vanguard readership.

Before the philosophical influence of Friedrich Nietzsche and the literary effect of predominantly French origin on Heinrich Mann will be dwelled on, this work will give a short overview of the literary understanding. After this the three mentioned novels will be discussed in the chapters 2., 3. and 4. and will be correlated. It will become apparent that there is a strong breach of Heinrich Mann in his satires and his democratic utopia. After the year 1905 Heinrich Mann changes his mind back to the time of reconnaissance, Jean Jacques Rousseau’s ideal of the society and the trilogy imagination of liberty, equality and brotherliness of the French revolution of 1789. His guiding themes of power and spirit, the dualism of the society and the individual and the problems of the artist are therefore at the figure of change in the first decade of the 20th century.

Chapter 3.3, Reading of the novel and Heinrich Mann’s development in his second satirical social criticism:

With this chapter I want to demonstrate that Heinrich Mann with the novel „Professor Unrat” has wrote a key novel of his early work. The subject matter of power – spirit comes to its highlight and in comparison to „Im Schlaraffenland” it gives a forecast to the literary change of Mann.

With the second social criticism of Heinrich Mann the gradually turning away of his early work begins. This is more conspicuously signalised through the essay by Flaubert of 1905. The years in which he looks after an artistic aesthetics with the trilogy of goddesses are from 1904 – 1909 according to this at the indication of reformation. According to Epple the connecting factors to Heinrich Mann’s first Wilhelminian novel „Im Schlaraffenland” are the „ … Darstellung exzentrischer Figuren, das Stilmittel der Karikierung, die Gesellschaftskritik und die Themen Liebe und Macht.” Finally with this novel the change of Heinrich Mann begins of a „ … ästhetisch motivierten zu einer politisch moralischen Kritik der Verhältnisse.” Contrary to a preachy Aestheticism problem the novel „Professor Unrat” means different reading and the stabilisation of his position as a social critical author. Besides the aspect to be a school satire the novel contains the motives of love and power as well as the dialectic between tyranny and anarchy. Heinrich Mann’s autobiographical motivation in the characters of the students Lohmann and professor Unrat certainly were additional reason for a satirical over-subscription of the Wilhelminian school system.

In the following I will firstly look at the aspect of the school satire. After Heinrich Mann chose the power of money as a main focus in „Im Schlaraffenland” he now changes to another milieu and thematises in the school system a second pillar of the Wilhelminian empire. Unrat has internalised the nationalistic conservative basics of the state Kirche, Säbel and Gehorsam and tries to transfer his moral concepts to the students and the small-towner. In the text inside the empire the so important fleet building will be caricatured on the stage of the Blauen Engel. Furthermore the artist and worker milieu in the audience are characterised contrary to the students and the notabilities of the town. Jürgen Zeck explains that besides the aspect of a „vaterländischen Begeisterung”, which is performed on stage through the artist couple Kiepert and the parody of Rosa Fröhlich is to be found in the „kulturkritischen Betrachtung der Schule ein Grund … für die … Geistlosigkeit der Masse”. For Zeck the lessons are in no way educational. In fact the antagonist Lohmann is described as an autodidact. Here the satire of Heinrich Mann applies because the existing power – spirit conflict between Lohmann and Unrat also represents the social criticism of Mann in this novel. In addition Zeck sees in the character of Unrat a specific importance in the artistic and cultural meaning as it makes the political way of thinking to a ,subject of criticism of time’ in a contrary sense. The conservative way of thinking of Heinrich Mann of the prior years is now reversed in satirical social criticism in „Professor Unrat”.

Besides the criticism on the Wilhelminian school system there is a second reading in the topic of the love between Unrat and Rosa Fröhlich. Here the recipient undergoes a partly exhilarating love story if he puts the tyrannic schoolteacher under the influence of such a contrary character as the autochthonal already dingy artist Rosa Fröhlich. Raat who is familiar to see himself as a tyrant and garbage becomes himself a subject of the dancer in his provincial world of subjects. Even in the dialogues between the two the satire of Heinrich Mann has a great attraction and shows the ridiculousness of the protagonist: „Wir sind von unserem Gegenstand abgekommen. Sie müssen die Wahrheit preisgeben über den Schüler Lohmann. Ihr Leugnen kann seine Sache nur verschlimmern.“ „Fangen Sie wieder davon an? Das muß’n sanfter Wahn von Ihnen sein.“ „Ich bin der Lehrer! Dieser Schüler ist ein so beschaffener, dass er die höchsten Strafen verdient. Seien Sie eingedenk Ihrer Pflicht, damit kein Verbrecher der Gerechtigkeit entkomme!“ Liebes Gottchen! Sie wollen gewiß Wurst machen aus dem Menschen!“ So the spread of issues of love is opposed as an antipole to the subject matter of power about the schoolteacher Raat and therefore prevents a unidimensional reading of the school satire. Also the development of Raat in the relationship to Rosa Fröhlich is totally different to the one concerning his person in the whole novel. The apparently powerful but in realty ridiculous tyrant Unrat comes across as unsteady and awkward around the dancer. At last the proclaimed love of both starts the totally reversal of the described circumstances of the small town in the first part of the novel.

This results in the third aspect of dialectic between tyranny and anarchy. For this purpose I want to quote the study of Ralf Siebert which makes detailed representations about this aspect. Siebert gives reasons for the opposed aspects of tyranny and anarchy with the literary intention of Heinrich Mann. In his study Siebert focussed on the combinations of individual psychological and social psychological development in the novel. Basically this problem spreads over both parts of the novel. The first part gives attention to the individual psychological characterisation of the protagonist while in the second part the anarchist reveals out of the tyrant and has a social psychological effect on the society. Tyrannic structures of Unrat which are backed up with a legitimation of the Wilhelminian state come along with psychological deformation. Unrat feels traced while hounding his students. His tyrannic imperiousness conformed to an inner blackout which is several times followed by the „Tyrannenwut” in the novel. Repression of appetences, revenge and scenarios of jealousy reflect an additional psychological motivation in his relationship (respectively ,disproportion’) to the students and Rosa Fröhlich. Thereby his ideas of power are undermined by so far repressed hormic sensuality. Siebert describes these „innenperspektivische Erkundung der Wahrnehmungsweise, der Handlungsmotive und des Verhaltens der Zentralfigur Raat” as a „rezeptionsleitende Zeichenebene“ and points out these reception steering signals as a chief difference to Mann’s first satirical novel „Im Schlaraffenland“. The feelings of revenge and hate of Unrat are increased into fanatic tendencies when the change of an individual psychological perception to a social psychological perception takes place in the second part. The civil world of the provincial small town becomes reversed to anarchy under the involvement of the notabilities. Siebert thereupon recognises the preachy satirist:

„[Indem er die] Zentralgestalt allmählich zum Kämpfer gegen eine sittlich verdorbene, nunmehr fassadenhaft moralische bürgerliche Stadtgesellschaft werden lässt, spielt er mit den Neigungen des Lesers, sich … mit dem Standpunkt des Satirikers zu identifizieren und sich die Perspektive des Moralisten zu eigen zu machen.” The reader is included that way „wenn er Genugtuung an dem unmoralischen Tun Raats entwickelt, das gerechtfertigt erscheint, solange es den ebenfalls Unmoralischen, … ausschweifenden Bürger, dessen … Doppelmoral trifft.” Seen in a literature historical and contemporary way Heinrich Mann here attends to the motives of citizens and society. With his satirical form of expression he therewith creates a distant perspective of the real current affairs in the literature of the modern spirit. Incidentally Sieberts study understands the social criticism more differentiated by means of the character Unrat:

„Angesichts der Erkenntnis, dass die Figur des Professors Raats in ihrer Konzeption auf einen idealtypischen und darüber hinaus von vornherein wertenden Konstrukt des persönlichkeitsschwachen autoritären Bildungsbürger basiert, welchem in der empirischen Realität des wilhelminischen Machtstaates kein „in voller begrifflicher Reinheit“ gegebenes Element entspricht… .“ At last the anarchistic movement is initiated by Unrats former student Lohmann who brings the civil immorality to an end. A subject matter of spirit which can be found in his person and Rosa Fröhlich is placed beyond the all-dominant power of Unrat. Mann criticises the double moral standards of the citizens and compromises their seduction. Elke Emrich explains that in the interpretation of the novel the „Macht des Lehrers eine Funktion als Vorausdeutung auf die spezifische Macht des Anarchisten hat, nämlich: die bürgerliche Gesellschaft zu dekuvrieren, sich über sich selbst zu belehren”.

En route for her the role of Rosa Fröhlich is another interesting aspect. For Unrat she is the instrument to fool his students and in his role as an anarchistic misanthropist in the second part she becomes an „Instrument seiner Rache …; ihr Selbstwertgefühl [wird] ins Ungemessene [ge]steigert”, so that she influences the aesthetics and ethics of the provincial citizens.

For the development process in the literature of Heinrich Mann the novel „Professor Unrat” is the beginning of a phase of change from 1905 which is continued in the „Kleinen Stadt” and „Der Untertan”. A change can be found in the argumentation of Hanno König in Dittberners study of Heinrich Mann. He states that with the turning away of a preachy Aestheticism in the „Satiriker [Heinrich Mann] den beginnenden Moralisten, und also in der Satire den Ansatz zu moralistischer Kritik” can be found. The change of a critical involvement of the „wirklichkeitsfernen Ästheten” to a solidified „sozialkritischen Realisten” is also described in the dissertation of Wilfried F. Schoeller. For him definitely a development of Heinrich Mann can be seen therein that in „der doppelten Negation der Satire auf die kleinstädtischen – bürgerlichen Verhältnisse und dem Vexierbild [also Karikatur] des Menschenfeindes … ein Gewinn … an positiven sozialen Bewusstsein” accrues. Thereby he sees the open social criticism at the power in the example of the „tyrannischen Schullehrers mit dem Vexierbild eines dämonischen Menschenfeindes [miteinander] verknüpft”.

Another important aspect for the background of the change is Mann’s discussion about the existence of artists between 1903 and 1908. This main focus is documented by the article of Peter Fock „Der Roman „Professor Unrat” und Heinrich Manns Kritik des Ästhetizismus”. In the early work the artist item of Heinrich Mann follows Flaubert and Nietzsche. For Fock there is „[a]uch im Roman „Professor Unrat … der Einfluss seiner frühen Vorbilder noch zu spüren.” Therefore in his opinion it is incorrect to interpret only on sociocritical points of view and to bear in mind the problem of the existence of artists. Also Elke Emrich confirms the great influence of Friedrich Nietzsche on this novel. As somebody who is controlled by the will for power Unrat appears her as somebody who could have read Nietzsche. „Sein Kastendenken und sein Relativieren von Werten” give reason to that. Furthermore in „Unrats anarchistischen Rachgier … [die in Nietzsches] Streitschrift „Zur Genealogie der Moral“ entwickelte Psychologie des Ressentiments“ can be assumed. Finally in the filtered meaning of the artist Fröhlich for Unrats plans of revenge at the civic society she is a „konkrete, satirische Umsetzung von Nietzsches Kunst- und Lebensphilosophie in ein philisterhaft – kleinbürgerliches Milieu der wilhelminischen Wirklichkeit der Jahrhundertwende zu erkennen”. Also Peter Fock sees „den Altphilologen Raat von Nietzsches Kritik an der Wissenschaft in „Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie“ supported.

After all in the years 1904/1905 Heinrich Mann stands in a period of change to an author who reviews his developed perspectives in his early work and attaches importance to a social humanistically and politically position in the following years.