Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • (Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Ber PDF

    Uploaded by

    Elizabeth Marie
    17 views111 pages

    Original Title

    [Theodor_Adorno,_Walter_Benjamin,_Ernst_Bloch,_Ber(BookZa.org).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views111 pages

    (Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Ber PDF

    Uploaded by

    Elizabeth Marie

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 111
    ‘er since Baumgarten nd Wincelmana, Germany bas been the asc and of aesthese thought n Earope. In the 2th cena, Maram elf as epeied the rule, No other county has produced staiion of majo aesthetic debut ‘onpare with that which anfoléed in German calre fom ehe shires to the fies Thee text ofthese eres Mars controversies ver iterate and rae ‘nom, fr the Bt ime anywhere ouside Germeny, assembled in coberent ade. Tey do not fons a convenon collection of separate document but a comtinuous debate Dereon thei dramas esse. In ele before thew, Boch and Lokes poemicized against each other over the nature of expresniom ‘Breche atacled Takes for tey formalise. Benjanin puted ever dass and modem works far with Brecht. Adorn cried Benjani’ bereneuis, ‘nd challenged Beect'sposcr and Lukde' politics The rate exchange Thich resulted have 2 variety and elogeeace without tal. Fredric Jamey, Profesor of French a Yale University and authir of Marvin aed For and The Praoe Hous of Language, sma up thse paradoxical les for art and rin today, jaan ay of theoretical concision.Aeetirand Pale wl rove 3 peo reference and 2 soure of illumination to students oferatreshrouphout ‘he English-speaking work Ernst Bloch | Aesthetics and Politics Georg Lukacs Bertolt Brecht Walter Benjamin Theodor Adorno Afterword by Fredric Jameson Verso | transtation Editor: Ronald Taylor Era Bloch DicumingFaprnion’ Se pblihe in De Wit 8, then ‘nbeaer Zon Fron Bf, Sabra Veg: Gor ale Reson n ‘Mesa’ rt pte not 198, ten Pre es Rss Nee 197, tir; Baal Br tere Aint Geary La rt ached ‘Scena Ra end Lars Prank 8, Sen Bec, 1, Ah ‘ocr soudh Suey Vern: Wale Bei "Conerstens nih ech, [edn erate Brac, Fer ie, (Stanp Vere wean Et pulsed ic Water Bean, Cnderosan Bree, Lan 197 © NL, “Thenor Adare, Later Water Bejema pus a he Wa Boon Franke 199, (Saheim Vete, od Water Bejan Reny, plas in ‘rip, Prnkar 1885 Sura —thee ans bo pled in New ft Revie, Setar Oso: 191, New Le Review, Teor Adorn Resonson {dr Dut and Engage pine No cr ate If ed Fears {Set ana 0, Sunianp Veg, Fred ames Recties Cnc ONLa WR, Aas nd Poe pb 1977 id Ves eon St pbk 1580 Vor Bains, 7 Caine Ser. Lon WL Prine and td i Gr Benn by ‘ose Lio Lid, Wasa SH 8601 7223 (pre ISBN S308 38 can) Contents Presentation I Emst Bloch Georg Lukics Presentation IT Bertolt Brecht Walter Benjamin Presentation II Theodor Adorno Walter Benjamin Presentation IV Theodor Adorno ‘Theodor Adorno Fredric Jameson Index Discussing Expressionism Realism in the Balance Against Georg Lukics Conversations with Brecht Letters to Walter Benjamin Reply Reconciliation under Duress. ‘Commitment Reflections in Conclusion 100 110 134/ 12 151 17 196 ae Publisher's Note ‘The teuts assembled in thie volume have been selected forthe coherence oftheir imer-reationships. Brief presentations are designed to provide ‘the Anglo-Saxon reader with biographical nd cultural background to the successive exchanges contained in them. They were prepared by Rodney Livingstone, Perry Anderson and Francis Mulhern. The tans Jators of the texts ~ Anja Bostock, Stuare Hood, Rodney Livingstone, Francis McDonagh and Harry Zohn ~ are credited atthe end of them, Ronald Taylor edited the translations fr the volume. Fredric Jameson's essay forms a contemporary conclusion NLB Presentation I “The conflict between Ernst Bloch and Georg Lukics over expressionism in 1938 forms one of the most revealing episodes in modem German lecers. Its resonance isin part due to the criss-crossing of intellectual ‘evolution and political destiny beeween its two protagonists. The main outline ofthe career of Lukics are now well-known inthe Anglo-Saxon world; those of his intimate fiend and exact contemporary Bloch les so. ‘Born in Ludwigshafen in the Rhineland in 1885, the son of a railway oficial, Bloch was educated in Bavaria at Wurzburg and Munich. He s00n displayed polymathic gifts, studying philosophy, physics and musi He frst met Lulkis when in his early twenties, a «soirée of Georg ‘Simme’s in Berlin, and later during a vist to Budapest. However, i ‘was in the period of their common residence in Heidelberg, from 1912 to 1914, thatthe two men were drawn together into an intense philoso- ‘phical partnership, Paradoxically, in view of their later development, it was Bloch who essentially influenced Lukics towards serious study of Hegel, while it was Lukes who directed Bloch towards Christian mysticism, especially the work of Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky! Rusia fon the eve of the revolution held a magnetic interest for the tro men, together with others in Max Weber's cicle at Heidelberg at the time ‘The onset ofthe First World War matked their Gist divergence: Lukics answered the call-up in Hungary tothe incomprehension of Bloch whose ‘much more radical rejection of the war took him to Switzerland and a form of revolutionary defeatism. However, even four yeas later, Lukics vail suggesting to Bloch that they collaborate together onan Aesthetic, with Bloch contributing to it on music. Bloch’s first major work, Der Gest der Utopic (1918), a wild synthesis of religio-apocalyptc and proto- Socialist ideas, contained ardent eibutes to his fiend "See Mishel Lie, Poor Une Sol de Its Rca, Pais 172, pp. 22-30, fr Bc erly renip with Lak 9 10 After the war, Lukics joined the Hungarian Communist Paty, fought for the Commune, ad then worked in exile asa party organizer and ‘Marrs theorist within the Third International throughout the twenties. ‘Bloch, by contrast, dit not join the KPD in Germany, remaining a Iheterodox sympathizer rather chan enlisted militant ~ herald of a revo- Tutionary romanticism that he was never to disvow. Bloch, too, wis much closer to experimental and esoteric literary circles in Weimar ‘Germany The philosophical trajectory ofthe rvo men now increasingly separated, a6 Lukios etalted the realism of the later Hegel and Bloch Alefended the irtationalist reaction of Schopenhauer to it. The Nasi ‘seizure of power drove them from Germany. Bloch went to Prague, Lukes to Moscow. ‘Tir responses tothe vitory of fascism soon proved to be sharply contrastec in emphasis. Bloc’s book Erischaft dieser Zet, published in exile in 1534, took the form ofa kaleidoscopic set of apho~ ristie reflections and evocation from the quotidian and culeural life of Germany in the twenties. Tt sought to understand the elements of genuine ‘protest ~ however iational their guise ~ inthe revolt of the German, petey-bourgeoisie thar had been captured by fascism, To extricate these ‘nd to win the pauperized petty-bourgeois masses over to the working lass was, he argued, as important a task forthe revolution in Germany 15 the conquest of the prasantry had been in Russia. Lukics, onthe other hand, had from 1931 onwards ~ at a time of extreme Third Period sectarianism inthe Comintern ~ been developing literary positions that antieipsted the culeural policies of the Popular Frone period. Their main watchwords were to be: reverence for the classical heritage of the Enlightenment, rejecticn of any iertionalistcontaminatons oft, assimi= lation of modernist tends in literature to wrationalism, identification of irrationalism with fasciam. After the installation of the Nazi dictatorship, Luke's frat major esay was a scathing requisitory of Expressionism 4 phenomenon within German calture, published in the journal TInierationale Literatur in January 1934 in ity be angel tnt Wilelmine Germany, increasingly + socery of parasitic retiers, hd been dominated by philosophies (Neo-Kantianism, ‘Machisr, Vitalism) tht conjured aay the connections between ideology and economics oF poltics, preventing any perception or critique of imperialist society asa whole. Expressionism had beena literary election * He was fr eamp Send Banari, wha he ewe po enisy ‘Lacy hn theater ws ng uneyoud fr View. In th ste tei, Bld ‘Sd Beja ok marci ep cnersnoaing he npresone ote epti— ‘pled mina of te tie Presentation! 11 of that obfuscation, Its ‘ereative method? was a search for essences pursued through stlization and abstraction. While the Expressonists professed to attain the kernel of reality, they merely gave vent to theie ‘own pasions, ina subjectivism that verge on the solipssi, since words were used not referentilly but only ‘expresively’. Politically, the Expressonists had opposed the War; while in other respects ther con- fusions were a kind of cultural analogue of the political ideology of the Independent Socialists (USPD). The Expressionists voiced a general hostility to the bourgeois, bur they were unable to locate bourgeois vices {in any particular class. Thus they could discem capitalist symptoms in workers, and could postulate an ‘eternal conflict, beyond mere class seruggle, berween bourgeois and non-bourgeois. The latter wore seen san elite that should rue the nation, an illusion tha eventually led to fascim, 1 was these antithetical interventions by Bloch and Lukes, imme- ictely after the vitory of Nazism, that form the background to the exchange below. In 1935 the Comintern switched tothe Popular Front strategy. In July, the International Writers Congress forthe Defence of Caleure in Paris approved a decision to create a German literary journal ines, asa forum for ant-fascist writers and critics. The cree formal ctitors were intended to reflect a representative spectrum of opinion: Bertok Brecht, a Marxist without oficial party afillacon, Wii Bredel ofthe KPD, and Leon Feuchewanger,a bourgeais admirer of the USSR. ‘The journal was published from Moscow and since none of these writers vas onthe spot for long, their concibution and influence varied notably Feachewanger showed the greatest enthusiasm, while Brecht recnained luke-warm, cnfining hs own contributions largely to poems and extracts ftom his plays After staying in Moscow for si months, Bredl let for the Spanish Civil War. Effective control was thus exercised by Fritz Erpenbeck, a journalist and actor who had been active in Piseator's ‘theatre. His views tallied in all essentials with those of Lukic. ‘Once controversial, Lukdes's views had meanwhile been steadily srining in influence and in 1937, some two years after the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern, « coordinated assault on German. Expressionism was launched in Das Wor. Tbe signal fort was given by Allred Kurella~a disciple of Lukics who was later to rise to prominence in the DDR ~ with a violent attack on the heritage of Expressionism, ‘manifestly inspired by Lukice’s long esay three yeas before. Kurel’s Aticle provoked flood of replies only some of which could be published ‘Among those to appear were contributions by former Expressionist 2 like Wangenhima, Leschnitaer and mos importancy, Herwarth Walden = who, as the editor of Der Sturm (1910-32) had played Key role in publicizing the works a the Expressionist, as well as those of foreign Schools like Cubism. Osher essays were writen by associates of Brecht Tike Johannes Eisler, aad a numberof other defenders of modernism, inchiding Bela Balazs. The most trenchant rejoinder, however, came from Bloch Dismissing Kurela, be now directly engaged with Lulkies as the source of the current polemics agains. Expressionism. He was his essay which brought Luks himself into the fray, with a lengthy reply. Why did Expressionism excite so intense 2 debate in the German ‘migration? Exprescioriem as 2 movement had fourishet from about 1906 to the early twenties, Te had been composed of a series of small sroups complesly inter-related and extending over the visual arts, music Sand literature. Die Brite and Der Blase Reiter were essentially pre-war phenomena, though ofa numberof their artists survived into the thirties ‘Most ofthe leading poas, however, had died during or even before the war (Heym, Stadler, Tal, Stamm), or had tured away from Expres- Slonisin (Werfl, Benn, Déblin). Is last major achievernents were the retrospective anthology of poems, MenscHicisdimmerang (1920) and the plays of Toller and Kaiser. If the normal definitions are slightly ‘extended, Expressionisn may ay claim to Karl Kraus’s The Last Days (of Mankind and the ely works of Bevtok Brecht. A numberof factors Aetermined the demise of the movement. Among them was the War, ‘which the Expresioniss had at frst prophesied and then opposed, and ‘whose end rendered them superfluous. A profound disillusionment fol- Towed when their League of Nations dream of a new mankind was, ‘exploded. Expressionism was als upstaged by more ‘radicaP movements like Dada and Surrelisn, while in Germany the anti-revoluionary mood and cynical realism’ of Neo-Objectivity (Neue Sachlchée) made their idealism look naively theatrical, Finally, the Nazi take-over drove the survivors into silence, eile ot imprisonment. Yet, although it had petered out in such falar, Expressionism hall mesiorably aid indis= tably represented the fist German version of modern art. The arguments beoreen Blich and Lukics and their respective allies over its fate were thus exteatally a contest over the historical meaning of ‘modernism in gencral. Bloch’s plea for Expressionism started with an effective counterattack aguinst Lukics's remoteness from the actual productions of the movement, especially in the fel of painting, were the ‘mest durable achievements of Expressionism (Marc had long been Presentation 13 ‘ximited by Bloch)? and the most persistent weakness of Lukicsian {esthetics coincided. Bloch went on to reaffirm the legitimacy of Express Slonism, ideologically 8 4 protest against the imperialist war and Sristcally a6 a response to the crises of a wansitioal epoch, when the ‘ulural universe ofthe bourgeoisie was disintegrating, whe that ofthe revolutionary proletariat was sill inchoate. Finally, Bloch sought to cquit Expressioniam of the recurrent charges of elitism and cultural iis, By stressing its latent humanism and the interest shown by its txponents in popula, traditional forms of art and decoration. Lukics ‘remained unmoved. In answer to Bloch’ rellecions en the fragmentary ‘Garacter of contemporary socal experience he inssed that capitalism, formed a unitary whole and most visibly a precisely those moments of crisis that prompted Bloch to speak of fragmentation. The characteristic subjectivsm of Expressionist rz was a denial of this cardinal truth and 1 repudiation of the objective of all valid are, te faithful reflection of the rea, Furthermore, he argued, ‘popularity’ in at implied much more than the idiosyneracc enthusiasms of the Expressonists. Authenticaly popular art was distinguished by its afrmation ofthe most progresive tperience of the mation, and by its close ties with realism, anaesthetic form that was truly accesible to ‘the people’ Few will dissent from Bloch’s comments on his adversay’s critical methods. Lukics's normal procedure was to construct an ideal type of that he tok to be the ideological substrate ofthe works in question; these were then judged collectively, in the light of his own politico ideological postions. The resuls of this were often grave conflations and reduetions, and sometimes, when he did venture toanalyseindividual works, sheer blindness ~ as Adorno, unconstrained by felings of friend Ship as Bloch may well have been, later showed. This diflerence of ‘rocedure was not simply technical, For Lukics literary history com- posed an ordered and univocal past whose meaning and value were fixed by the wider history that determined it; the tradition handed down tothe present by the progressive epochs of the past was set af compelling horms, 8 mortmain that literary legates must honour om pain of disin= hettance, For Bloch, on the other hand, this history was the Erbe, a reservoir in which nothing was ever simply or definitively ‘past, essa 2 Bloch snr tent tht dco nets fe he Aline Ree ‘cio of 116 Lila ho oped tn sel the ops of mee Seed eps “4 system of precepts than asum of possiblities. Thus, no work was simply replaceable by another, by virtue of its ideological exchange-value, oF wholly to be discounted because ofits divergence fram this or that aesthetic anon. The appropriate focus of a criticism so motivated was the individual arc-vork, the nocorious blind spot of Lukécsian criticism. At the same time, however, it should be said that Lukies's procedure was also part ofthe greater coherence and ambition of his work, which produced, at no other ecntemporancous ges did, the elements of 2 Systematic history of prase marative and a sustained account of the relations between ideolory and literary form ~ his Historical Nove, ‘written around the same time asthe rejoinder to Bloch, i perhaps the strongest example ‘The pivotal issue ofthe exchange ~ the relationship between Expres~ sionist art and social reality ~ is not easily arbitrated. Bloch’s defence of Expressionism avoided dect confrontation withthe aesthetic premaisses of Lukies's atack. Circumventing his opponent’s assumption that the proper function of art was to portray objective realty, in organic and concrete works from whieh all heterogeneous material, and especially conceptual statement, was excluded, Bloch chose instead to insist on the historical authenticity of the experience that underlay Expression. 1k was ths left open to Laks simply to remind him thatthe subjective impression of fragmentation was theoretically groundless, and « con- clude that Expressionism, a8 an ar that typically misrepresented the zeal nature ofthe social whole, was invalid, The elect of Bloch démarche was to distract Lukdcss attention, and his own, from one of the most crucial issues in the exchange between them. Driven by the ‘impres= Sonistie’ character of Bloch’s defence to emphasize the unity of the social whole, Lukics tld o register its essential point: that this unity ‘was ireducbly contradicary. In this was, en opportunity to debate the problems of the artistic presentation of contradiction ~ the absent nntext of Bloch’s remarks on montage, anda stubborn crux in Lake's ealietacehetcr ~ war mse “The explici politio-cultural context ofthe exchange was the Popular Front. I¢ may be sad, indeed, that i epresented one ofthe high points of populae-feoncsecultwaldcbate in that period. But it should also be noted that both essays are weakest at precisely that point. If Lukes vas right to point out that Bloch’s catalogue of Expressonisn’s popular interests and debts was quite arbitrary, and that modernism in general was objectively elitist and thus estranged from ‘the peopl’ in every ractcal sense it seems no less clea that his own invocations of rational Presentation 15 popular traditions, especially those of Germany, wereat best strained and it worst vapid. The problems of defining a ‘popular literary practice ‘rete not necessarily entirely intractable, asthe example af Brecht was to show. However, ral jadgment ofthe rival theses of Bloch and Lukics in the matter should probably be referred to a wider enquiry into the cultural and pobitial nits of pope frontiam itself Tn that perspective, the roles of the two men in the period would probably be reveled in yet another light. For, despite the lamentable conclusion of Lukics's {sty — 50 far below the level of his main argument, and so symptomatic tf the administrative tone of oficial culture within the Comintern during the Popular Front ~ it would be a mistake to assume that Bloch was freer than Lukics from the worst deformation ofthe time. In fact, it was Bloch in Czechoslovakia who volunteered fulsome afdavis for the Moscow trials, complete with the official tales of Nazi-Japanese plots ‘nthe Bolshevik Party, atthe very same time that he was resisting the Campaign against Expressionism? while Lukics in the USSR, un- deceived, avoided the subject wherever he could ~ compromising himself far less eerously. The real history of the epoch affords no comfort to facile retrospective alignments, in either aesthetics or polit. “For inesring stay this e Praca Fn, “The Weed Mand and she Bnd of Anco, Seor 8,1 (Spang 17 pH 3. “Senin ial, be este‘ er Prec ad Bachan Seuswe wea Yom Hud Rataspte Pole fie asd ae DEI, Frohne 72, Ernst Bloch Discussing Expressionism {cs excellent that people should be starting to argue abou this again [Not go long ago such a thing seemed unthinkable; the Blue Rider! vas dead, Now we hear voi invoking its memory once mare, and not only with reverence. Its almost more importane tha there are people who ean fet 20 worked up over # movement long since past, as if i stil existed and were standing in thei way, Expressionism assuredly doesnot belong. to the presen; yet can i be that sill shows signs of life? Ziegler has represental it as at most a haunting memory in the minds ‘of afew elderly people? Such people were once flushed withthe zal of ‘youth; now they declare thir allegiance tothe classical heritage, but sill tule from the after-effects of their earlier beliefs, Bean a partcularly striking exponent of Expressionism ~ ended up in Fascism. Ziegler ‘observes his evolution and concludes: ‘Such a development was inevit- able, The other Expressonists were simply too illogical to arrive atthe ‘ame goal Today we ea clearly see what sort ofa phenomenon Expres- sionismn was and where t lads, i followed to its logical end; i leads to Fascism.” ‘The irritation recenty provoked by the Expressioniss is thus not simply private; it algo has a culeural-polisial aspect, an antePascise ‘mension, The Dazm of Mantind’ turned out to be one of the pro- \ Dera te foci Michi 11, wth ond inane ef Geran Espreont pining eB re Ioan membre tte Wasy Kandy, "rms Mar opt Apa Macks, "Borman the acum of Aled Karel whose are ‘Nan i ie ibe suena brn pied i Da ar 85, v9 mld eel ty Kut Bs od pin! io 12, wa he at ‘neta anthology of Eres yc por, cating ape of the werk of Tra, Beam Wed, Behe, ance he Hes an Stuer The Demmrag nthe le "pu sping enn tb gt othe hams mo thu ed in he Wer ‘Warn he bith os new, ndenpeve ann 6 Bloch against Lakes 17 conditions of Hitler. Unfortunately for Zicpler, just afew weeks before fis research into the antecedents of Fascism was published, Hitler Completely filed to recognize them in his Munich speech and at the ‘xhibtionthee.* Indeed, seldom has the absurdity of false deduction, { huried negative judgement been so swifly and so strikingly demon strated. "But was the absurdity demonstrated absolutely, in such away to persuade ws today? To concur with Hitler in is denunciation of Expres- Bonism must have been a shock co Ziegler, for such a coincidence of ‘ews would be lethal to any man. Yet the charltan in Munich might ‘ave ha his reasons (though whetit shard to see) fr covering the tacks, ‘of Fascism, So if we are get tothe heart of the matter, we should not focus on Ziegler’s chronological misfortune, or even on his artic itself but instead direct our attention to the prelude tothe whole discussion ted by Leschniteer in his earlier contribution to the discussion of Expressionist Iyie. We refer to Lulies's essay The Greamess and the Destine of Expresioniom, published four years ago in Internationale Literatr, Yes that essay which Fucnishes the conceptual framework for the latest funeral oration on Expressionism, In what follows we shall concentrate our attention an it, since Lukes supplies the intellectual foundations of both Ziegle’s and Leschnitzer's contributions. In his conclusions, Lulkies was indeed significantly more circumspect than they; e insisted char the coniious tendencies of Expressionism were ‘not Fascist, and that in the final analysis, Expressionism ‘could only ‘became « minor component of the Fascist “synthesis”. Buc in his summing-up be also observed that “the Fiscss were not without justfation in discerning in Expressionism a heritage they could use Goebbels had found the ‘seeds of some sound ideas here, for ‘as the Iierary mode corresponding to flly-developed imperialism (), Expres sionism is grounded in an irationalit mythology. Its creative style tends cowards that of an emotive, shetorial, vacuous manifesto, a Aeclamatory pusudeactiviem What the Rxperedianicte intended vas undoubtedly the very epposte of aravstc. But sine they were ‘unable to free themselves inellectally from an imperialist parasitism, and since they colluded in the ideological decay of the imperialist, bourgeoisie without offering either criticism or resistance, acting indeed Je 1997, the Negi an Ebon of Dgeerte At in Masih in wich ‘ey moter we, sel tm he mates f Geren rie n985 Corb dw apres the sed some sod Mes, {oe here eamething Espen sox he nl as 8 ‘on oceasion as its vanguard, their creative method could without distor ‘thon be prested into theservice of tha synthesis of decadence and atavis ‘which isthe demagogy of Fascism’. It can immediately be seen that view that Expressionism and Fastsm are cast in the same mould ha its ukimate source here, The antithesis of Expressionism versus ~ ld tus say ~ the Clasical Heritage, just a rigid in Luks as in Ziegler. However in Luks it acquires a conceptual foundation and i not just 4 matter of purple-patch journalism, However, objectively the antithesis isnot so readily demonstrable, [Anyone who actually boks at Lukdes's esay (a procedure highly to be recommended: the orignal i always the most instructive), will notice st the very outset that nowhere there any mention of a single Expres ‘sioist painter. Mare, Kle, Kokoschka, Nolde, Kandinsty, Grose, Dix, Chagall simply do not figure a ll ~to say nothing of musial parallel, such a5 the contempecry works of Schinberg. This is all the more surprising in chat the fnks between painting and literature at chat time} ‘were extremely close, andthe paintings of Expressionism wer far moce characteristic of the movement than its Fiterature. Reference to th painters, moreover, would have had the additional advantage of making Kt harder to dismiss Expressionism so categorically, fer some of their pictures have lasting importance and greatness. But even the literary ‘works have not receiv the attention they merit, ether qualitatively o ‘quantitatively ~ thet cites being content t make do with a very limited and highly untypica “clection’. Trl, Heym and Else Lasker Scher ate tally absent; Werfe’s carly work is only mentioned ‘heeause he wrotea few pacifist verses; the same is true of Ehrenstein and} “Hasenclever, The eae) and often important poems of Johannes Becher merely atract the conment that the author ‘gradually succeeded in| discarding’ the Expresionst manner, while quotations from poeasters like Ludwig Rubiner sbound, again only forthe purpose of reinforcing the charge of abstract pacifism. Significantly, a quotation from René Schichele & abo introddced in this context, even though Schickele was never an Expressionist but just an abstract pacifist (ike many worthy ‘men and poets, Hermann Hesse and Stefan Zweig among them). ‘What material docs Luikécs then use to expound his view of the _Expressionsts? He taes prefaces or postscrpts to anthologies, into-

    You might also like