Heinrich MannCritiques

ausführliche Anmerkungen: Henri Quatre Colloquium bei Buchmerkur
[https://henriquatrecolloquium.wordpress.com/eine-seite/die-jugend-des-koenigs-henri-quatre/]

ausführliche Anmerkungen: Henri Quatre Colloquium bei Buchmerkur
[https://henriquatrecolloquium.wordpress.com/eine-seite/die-vollendung-des-koenigs-henri-quatre/]

Leraar Raat, Unrat voor de leerlingen en de mensen in de stad, aan het gymnasium is nogal tiranniek aangelegd. Speciaal op drie leerlingen heeft hij het voorzien, die volgens hem tegen hem samenspannen. Hij zal er wel voor zorgen dat die leerlingen nooit verder kunnen studeren, zodat ze niet verder in het leven zullen komen. Hij betrapt één van hen op een gedicht waarbij sprake is van een Künstlerin Frölich. Hij gaat naar haar op zoek en hij vindt haar in het café De Blauwe Engel. Prompt ontwikkelt Unrat zich tot beschermheer van Künstlerin Frölich. Hij gaat daarbij heel ver, vindt dat ze altijd het beste verdient en steekt zich in de schulden en al. Uiteindelijk loopt het natuurlijk verkeerd af... Zoals met alle tirannen (?)...

In Manns Heimatstadt Lübeck, deren Einwohner wahrscheinlich als Vorbilder für den Roman herhalten mussten, wurde das Buch möglichst totgeschwiegen und, wenn das nicht half, negativ kritisiert. Es herrschte faktisch ein Verbot des Buches. Durch die zahlreichen Übersetzungen und durch die Verfilmung als Der blaue Engel mit Marlene Dietrich erlangte das Buch Weltruhm. Manche sahen im Professor Unrat eine Karikatur des deutschen Bildungsbürgers der Wilhelminischen Epoche. Es zeigte, welche Höhe die Doppelmoral des Bürgertums erreichen kann, wenn es sich von Sekundärtugenden bestimmen lässt, und ist ein Dokument für die Mentalität in Deutschland vor den Weltkriegen.

Der 57-jährige Gymnasiallehrer Raat lebt allein und zurückgezogen. Er ist verwitwet und hat sich von seinem Sohn losgesagt, weil dieser viermal durchs Examen gefallen ist und sich mit verschiedenen unverheirateten Frauenzimmern in der Öffentlichkeit sehen lässt. Als Professor ist er allerdings eine Legende. Aus beinahe jeder Familie des Ortes war der eine oder andere Sprössling einst Schüler des strengen Professors. Der Spitzname „Unrat“, mit dem er hinter seinem Rücken gerufen wird, hat mittlerweile Tradition im Ort. Jeder ruft ihn so und bringt ihm damit eine gewisse ironische Wertschätzung entgegen, die Raat allerdings nicht erkennt. Für ihn ist die Verunglimpfung seines Namens ein Angriff auf seine Person und ein Zeichen von Respektlosigkeit. Der Schulalltag ist für ihn ein täglicher Kampf, seine Schüler sind seine Feinde, die es mit allen Mitteln zu bekämpfen gilt. So stellt er ihnen Aufgaben, die sie nicht lösen können, um sie daraufhin zu bestrafen.

Im 17-jährigen Sohn des Konsuls Lohmann hat Unrat in der Schule einen besonderen Gegenspieler: er ist intelligent, durch Strafen nicht zu treffen und weiß genau, wie er den Professor in Rage bringen kann. Als Raat ihn wegen der Verwendung des Spitznamens „Unrat“ in ein finsteres Garderobenzimmer, das „Kabuff“, verwiesen hat, liest er im Aufsatzheft des Schülers ein Gedicht mit dem Titel „Huldigung an die hehre Künstlerin Fräulein Rosa Fröhlich“.

Um Lohmann endlich zu Fall zu bringen, macht sich Raat auf die Suche nach diesem „Fräulein Rosa Fröhlich“. Er findet heraus, dass sie als „Barfußtänzerin“ in dem Vergnügungslokal „Der blaue Engel“ auftritt. Sich selbst einredend, dass es ihm nur um das Wohl seiner Schüler ginge, betritt er die Wirtschaft. Dort widerfährt ihm jedoch ein Missgeschick nach dem anderen, bis seine Schüler auf ihn aufmerksam werden. Als er durch eine Tür flieht, steht er plötzlich vor Rosa Fröhlich. Obwohl er sie anherrscht, sie solle aufhören, seine Schüler zu verführen, und die Stadt verlassen, nimmt sie ihn vor ihren Kollegen in Schutz und bietet ihm Wein an. Die von seinen Schülern umworbene „Künstlerin“ verfehlt auch beim Professor nicht ihre Wirkung.

Am nächsten Morgen herrscht in der Schule ein gespannter Waffenstillstand: Raat befürchtet, dass seine Schüler ihn in der Klasse lächerlich gemacht haben – die Schüler befürchten, zum Direktor zitiert zu werden. Nach Schulschluss will Raat unbedingt vor seinen Schülern bei Rosa Fröhlich sein. Er kann es nicht ertragen, dass sein Schüler Lohmann sie aufsucht. Rosa umgarnt den Professor und erklärt später, sie habe die Blumen von den Schülern weggeworfen, und lässt sich von ihm beim Umkleiden helfen. Raat gerät immer mehr in ihren Bann. Er erfüllt ihr alle Wünsche, teure Speisen im Restaurant, neue Kleider, ein möbliertes Appartement, er sortiert ihr sogar die Wäsche. Sie „steht jetzt unter seinem Schutz“. So sorgt er nicht nur dafür, dass seine Schüler ihr nicht zu nahe kommen, er hält auch andere Verehrer von ihr fern und wirft etwa einen Schiffskapitän hinaus, der sie in der Künstlergarderobe besuchen will.

Immer weniger kümmert es Raat, was die Leute über ihn denken. Weder seine Wirtschafterin, die sich über Rosas Besuche beschwert, noch eine Rüge seines Schuldirektors vermögen ihn zu beeindrucken. Er geht sogar so weit, öffentlich Rosas Ehre zu verteidigen, als sie beschuldigt wird, zusammen mit seinen Schülern ein Hünengrab verwüstet zu haben. Erst als Rosa zugeben muss, bei der wüsten Feier am Hünengrab teilgenommen zu haben, zieht er sich am Boden zerstört zurück. Er wird aus dem Schuldienst entlassen.

Als der Pastor gegen Rosa argumentiert, verteidigt Raat sie und fasst den Vorsatz, sie zu heiraten, wovon er auch nicht ablässt, als er erfährt, dass Rosa eine Tochter hat. Nach der Hochzeit verbringt das Ehepaar einige Zeit in einem Seebad. Dort fällt auf, dass andere Herren die Aufmerksamkeit der verheirateten Rosa gewinnen wollen.

Nach zwei Jahren Ehe mit Rosa ist Raat finanziell ruiniert. Eine Freundin Rosas gibt ihm den Rat, Griechisch zu unterrichten. Der Sprachunterricht entwickelt sich bald zu allabendlichen Trinkgelagen, bei denen weite Teile der Stadt erscheinen. Diese Feiern nutzt Unrat, um sich an seinen ehemaligen Schülern und an den Oberen der Stadt zu rächen.

Am Ende tritt Lohmann erneut in Raats Leben. Rosa trifft den ehemaligen Schüler in der Stadt und lädt ihn in ihre Wohnung ein. Dort bietet Lohmann an, all ihre Schulden zu bezahlen, und legt die aufgeklappte Brieftasche auf den Tisch. Als Rosa auch noch sein altes Gedicht aus dem Schulaufsatz singt, stürzt der eifersüchtige Raat aus dem Nebenzimmer und versucht, ihr die Kehle zuzudrücken. Dann greift er nach Lohmanns Brieftasche und stürzt hinaus. Kurz darauf wird das Ehepaar Raat verhaftet. Die ehrbaren Bürger, die noch vor kurzem gern in sein Haus kamen, haben für den Professor jetzt nur noch Hohn und Spott übrig. (Wikipedia)

Ambientada en una ciudad del norte de Alemania a principios del siglo XX, narra las peripecias de un profesor de instituto obsesionado con el orden moral y la disciplina. En su empeño de erigirse en guardián de la moral, el profesor cometerá, sin embargo, un pequeño desliz que cambiará para siempre su vida y la de toda la ciudad.

En el país de Jauja describe con agudeza corrosiva la escena cultural del Berlín finisecular mediante la narración del ascenso y la caída de Andreas Zumsee, un escritor provinciano, que logra introducirse en los altos círculos berlineses, publicar, volverse arrogante, para finalmente precipitarse hacia el abismo social.

A small Italian town is thrown into chaos by the arrival of an opera company to perform a new work by a local composer, the first theatrical performance in the town in thirty-eight and three-quarter years. The presence of the singers leads to a flare-up of the smouldering conflict between the liberal faction of professionals and veterans of Garibaldi's campaigns, headed by Advocate Belotti, and the conservative, clerical faction of small traders, headed by the irascible and combative priest Don Taddeo. But it also exposes a bewildering number of personal lusts, greeds, jealousies and revenge-struggles within the community.

Mann explicitly structures the book like an opera, with big opening and closing choruses as the singers arrive on the mail-coach and leave again, a spectacular sustained centre-piece taking us through the chaos both front-of-house and backstage during the tumultuous premiere of The poor Tonietta, and then two more scenes with the entire cast onstage: a Meistersinger-style riot in the main square and the night-time burning-down of Café Progress, which transforms seamlessly to Don Taddeo's big scene during mass in the cathedral. In between there are any number of romantic trysts in gardens and dark alleys, interspersed with jolly café conversation scenes.

There is a ludicrously oversized cast of named characters for a book of this length (around 400 pages), and Mann has fun "burying" characters who will later become important, slipping them in to play insignificant roles in the crowded ensemble scenes. Another very important part of his technique is to present a lot of crucial plot information to us only as gossip, so that we are never entirely sure who is sleeping with whom. But neither are any of the characters in the book, and a lot of actions people take turn out to have been based on false information.

Fun in detail, a lively evocation of Italian small-town life, but maybe a bit frustrating when you try to make something out of it as a complete novel.

review of
Heinrich Mann's Little Superman
by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - January 9, 2012

I learned about this author in the course of research for my movie Robopaths. I learned that his bks were burned by the nazis so I decided to read something by him & to check out any movies that might've been based on any bks by him. This lead me to taking Little Superman out from the library as well as the movie The Kaiser's Lackey as well as to my buying a used copy of the novel Man of Straw. &, Lo & Behold!, they're all the same thing!

As Andrew Donson, Assistant Professor of History and German & Scandinavian Studies @ the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explains in the "Interpreting The Kaiser's Lackey" extra on the movie's DVD version:

"The English title of this film is not a literal translation of the German one, Der Untertan, which is a difficult word to translate. It literally means "The Subject", as in "The Subject of the King" - but in current & turn-of-the-century discourse, the "untertan" has also an authoritarian connotation. Various translators have rendered the title as: "The Patrioteer", "Little Superman", "Man of Straw", & "The Loyal Subject". An awkward, but perhaps more accurate translation of the title would be "The Servile Chauvinist Underling". The title of this film, the same title as Heinrich Mann's 1914 novel on which it's based, captures the main theme. Diederich [the story's central character] is on the one hand a tyrant who lords over other untertanen. On the other hand, he often finds himself in situations where he is the untertan, where others exercise their will over him. The essence and the humor of the film is that Diederich is happy in both situations. The narrative of the film shows how the institutions that shape Diederich's life, family, school, university, brotherhood, army, workplace, and government produce and regulate this authoritarian mentality."

[As a sidenote for bibliophiles, the Penguin edition (1984) that I have, Man of Straw gives no credit to a translator & yet it appears to be the exact same translation as the library edition that I read, Little Superman, published by Creative Age Press, Inc (1947). I suspect some shenanigans & intrigue in the omission of the translator's name in the Penguin edition, so I include it here: Ernest Boyd.]

As soon as I started reading this bk, I found the central character insufferable. He embodies everything that I detest: hypocrisy, social climbing, spinelessness, abusiveness, fraudulence, etc.. He is, indeed, a "Servile Chauvinist Underling", as Donson puts it. I was about 1/3rd of the way thru the bk when I watched the movie & learned that this was meant to be satire. I suppose it 'shd've' been obvious to me that it was intended to be satire all along but it seemed entirely too realistic to really be caricature. &, as the back-cover of Man of Straw states: "Heinrich Mann (brother of Thomas) was imprisoned for his radical and outspoken views, and spent a long exile from the country at which he aimed his bitter satire." - & that's no laughing matter.

Mann was condemned in Nazi Germany for writing Un-German works or some such but I don't think that the hypocrisy & opportunistic cowardice that he so thoroughly portrays is intrinsically German. It may've reached a particular nationalistic fervor in Germany but it was hardly confined to there. In fact, Mann's parody of upper middle class Germany isn't so far off from the lower middle class Baltimore that I grew up in. I'm reminded of a photographer that I once knew. He incessantly ridiculed me for valuing anything other than money. However, once he started realizing that my willful rejection of the 'values' that he represented was earning me some respect from others, he tried to sleaze up to me by asking me to pose for him as a photographer's model. I refused.

Mann's novel is such a thorough look at the completely unscrupulous machinations of his main character that I can only conclude that Mann, himself, must've been surrounded by such contemptible behavior. Diederich is constantly betraying & groveling, ass-kissing & terrorizing - wchever seems 'appropriate' to his 'social position' in relation to who he's dealing w/. & Mann depicts this utterly brilliantly. Diederich is constantly engaged in some sort of fraudulent dealings that he trembles at the thought of getting caught out at & blusteringly camouflages under cover of patriotic bullshit. The library copy that I read has one section underlined in ink that expresses Diederich's philosophy, in the mouth of one of his cronies, quite nicely:

""Democracy is the philosophy of the half-educated," said the apothecary. "It has been defeated by science." Some one shouted: "Hear! Hear!" It was the druggist who wished to associate with him. "There will always be masters and men," asserted Gottlieb Hornung, "for it is the same in nature. It is the one great truth, for each of us must have a superior to fear, and an inferior to frighten. What would become of us otherwise? If every nonentity believes that he is somebody, and that we are all equal! Unhappy the nation whose traditional and honorable social forms are broken up by the solvent of democracy, and which allows the disintegrating standpoint of personality to get the upper hand!"

Two pages later, the same underliner highlighted part of this passage:

"Diederich raised himself on his toes, "Gentlemen," he shouted, carried away on the tide of national emotion, "the Emperor William Monument shall be a mark of reverence for the noble grandfather whom we all, I think I may say, worship almost as a saint, and also a pledge to the noble nephew, our magnificent young Emperor, that we shall ever remain as we are, pure, liberty-loving, truthful, brave, and true!"

The underliner (not the untertan) emphasizes Diederich's claim of being "pure, liberty-loving, truthful, brave, and true!" w/ an exclamation mark next to it presumably b/c these are all qualities wch Diederich is completely lacking in. Earlier, I mention "Diederich's philosophy" - but that's misleading. In order to have a philosophy, one probably has to have a mind capable of formulating a justified position to adhere to. Diederich lacks even that - he simply takes the most cowardly & dishonest path of least resistance & changes his political allegiances to kowtow to whoever he's most afraid of at the time.

In the East German film version, a scene that exemplifies the preposterous bravuro posturing that Diederich & his kind rely on for image-building & bullying is the duel. The scene is also in the bk but I found it more compelling in the movie. It's common for men in Diederich's class to initiate duels w/ each other in order to simulate bravery. Under the most ridiculous pretexts ('Sir! You were looking at me!' - that sort of thing), men challenge each other as if their honor can bear no insult. But, as w/ cowards & bullies the world over, it's all just pretense. They know they're not taking any risks whatsoever. As w/ generals who send soldiers to the slaughter, it's the soldiers who get senselessly killed, while the generals, safe elsewhere, get the medals & other social rewards.

These duels consist of nothing more than 2 men heavily padded & w/ one arm behind their back fighting w/ swords until one of them scratches the other on the face. Even their eyes are heavily protected w/ goggles. As soon as Diederich is scratched on the cheek, he gets his scar that 'proves' his bravery - even though there's no risk of serious injury. Diederich then uses the scar as a badge of 'honor'. It's all completely ridiculous.

After Diederich unsuccessfully & humiliatingly attempts to get Lieutenant von Brietzen to not leave Diederich's 'dishonored' sister in the lurch, he's walking on the streets. "Suddenly he noticed that the gardens were still full of perfume and twittering beneath the spring skies, and it became clear to him that Nature itself, whether she smiled or snarled, was powerless before Authority, the authority above us, which is quite impregnable. It was easy to threaten revolution, but what about the Emperor William Monument? Wulckow and Gausenfeld? Whoever trampled others from under foot must be prepared to be walked on, that was the iron law of might. After his attack of resistance, Diederich again felt the secret thrill of the man who is trampled upon. . . . A cab came along from behind, Herr van Brietzen and his trunk. Before he knew what he was doing Diederich faced about, ready to salute."

In one of the very rare moments where Diederich somewhat introspectively criticizes the worldview that he otherwise takes for granted, Diederich sees his now 'dishonored' sister, Emma, in a new light: "The lieutenant, who had caused all this, lost notably in comparison - and so did the Power, in whose name he had triumphed. Diederich discovered that Power could sometimes present a common and vulgar appearance. Power and everything that went with it, success, honour, loyalty. he looked at Emma and was forced to question the value of what he had attained or was still striving for: Guste and her money, the monument, the favour of the authorities, Gausenfeld, distinctions and high office." Indeed. Alas, this critical introspection doesn't last long.

I noted earlier that these characteristics were hardly confined to Germans. As Diederich bullies 'his' employees he tells them: ""But I forbid socialistic agitation! In the future you can vote as I tell you, or leave!" Diederich also said that he was determined to curb irreligion. He would note every Sunday who went to church and who did not. "So long as the world is unredeemed from sin, there will be war and hatred, envy and discord. Therefore, there must be one master!" This reminds me of Henry Ford.

There's an excellent documentary about Ford called "Demon Rum" in wch some important points about the ironies of Ford's 'moralism' are highlighted - particularly the way in wch his 'moralism' helped create a subculture of thugs that he then used to suppress unions. In the Wikipedia bio of Ford ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford ) we find this:

"The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what might today be called "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing.""

The Wikipedia entry qualifies this by saying that "Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects." Be that as it may, Ford's resemblance to Diederich is clear. Making it even clearer is that Ford was an anti-Semite who rc'vd the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi Germany.

& despite Der Untertan's having been written in 1914 about 19th century Germany, it's very prescient about Nazi Germany. In his speeches, Hitler emphasized the unity of classes - this despite his refinement of one of the most hierarchical structures the world has ever seen - w/ himself, of course, as the supreme world dictator, the LEADER (der Führer). ""Only His Majesty," Diederich answered. "He aroused the citizen from his slumbers, his lofty example has made us what we are." As he said this he struck himself on the chest. "His personality, his unique, incomparable personality, is so powerful that we can all creep up by it, like the clinging ivy!" he shouted, although this was not in the draft he had written. "In whatever His Majesty the Emperor decides for the good of the German people, we will joyfully cooperate without distinction of creed and class.[..]"" Diederich's oratorical shouting is highly reminiscent of Hitler's.

Diederich is also reminiscent of the nazi SS officer responsible for transporting Jews to the death camps. On the subject of Eichmann, Hannah Arendt writes in her bk Eichmann in Jersulalem - A Report on the Banality of Evil [see my review of that here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13367624-eichmann-in-jerusalem ] that:

"What he fervently believed in up to the end was success, the chief standard of "good society" as he knew it. Typical was his last word on the subject of Hitler - whom he and his comrade Sassen had agreed to "shirr out" of their story; Hitler, he said, "may have been wrong all down the line, but one thing is beyond dispute: the man was able to work his way up from lance corporal in the German Army to Führer of a people of almost eighty million. . . . His success alone proved to me that I should subordinate myself to this man." His conscience was indeed set at rest when he saw the zeal and eagerness with which "good society" everywhere reacted as he did. He did not need to "close his ears to the voice of conscience," as the judgment had it, not because he had none, but because his conscience spoke with a "respectable voice," with the voice of respectable society around him."

& just as the nazis partially justified their genocide against the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, & Political Opponents as a cleansing of the "Volk" (the body of the Germany people) so, too, is Diederich's behavior summed up nicely in this domestic scene:

"As Diederich lived in fear of his master, so Guste had to live in the fear of hers. When they entered a room she knew that the right of precedence properly belonged to her husband. The children, in turn, had to treat her with respect, and Männe, the dachshund, had to obey every one. At meals, therefore, the children and the dog had to keep quiet. Guste's duty was to discern from the wrinkles upon her husband's brow whether it was advisable to leave him undisturbed, or to drive away his cares with chatter. Certain dishes were prepared only for the master of the house, and when he was in a good humour Diederich would throw a piece across the table and, laughing heartily, would watch to see who caught it, Gretchen, Guste or the dog. His siesta was often troubled by gastronomical disturbances and Guste's duty then commanded her to put warm poultices on his stomach. Groaning and terribly frightened he used to say that he would make his will and appoint a trustee. Guste would not be allowed to touch a penny. "I have worked for my sons, not in order that you may amuse yourself after I am gone!" Guste objected that her own fortune was the foundation of everything, but it availed her nothing. . . . Of course, when Guste had a cold, she did not expect that Diederich, in his turn, would nurse her. Then she had to keep as far away from him as possible, for Diederich was determined not to have any germs near him. He would not go into the factory unless he had antiseptic tablets in his mouth, and one night there was a great disturbance because the cook had come down with influenza, and had a fever temperature. "Out of the house with the beastly thing at once!" Diederich commanded, and when she had gone he wandered about the house for a long time spraying it with disinfecting fluids."

Yes, as many of us are taught, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" - but what about those of us who are atheists?

review of
Heinrich Mann's Young Henry of Navarre
by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - February 1, 2016
full review: "Moderation, By Any Means Necessary?": https://www.goodreads.com/story/show/415192-moderation-by-any-means-necessary

THIS REVIEW ISN'T LONG ENUF BUT THERE IS A LONGER VERSION AT THE ABOVE URL.

Heinrich Mann became propelled into my top 10 of novelists thanks to my reading his Der Untertan 4 yrs ago. As I wrote in my review of it (in English translation as Little Superman):

"As soon as I started reading this bk, I found the central character insufferable. He embodies everything that I detest: hypocrisy, social climbing, spinelessness, abusiveness, fraudulence, etc.. He is, indeed, a "Servile Chauvinist Underling", as Donson puts it. I was about 1/3rd of the way thru the bk when I watched the movie & learned that this was meant to be satire. I suppose it 'shd've' been obvious to me that it was intended to be satire all along but it seemed entirely too realistic to really be caricature. &, as the back-cover of Man of Straw states: "Heinrich Mann (brother of Thomas) was imprisoned for his radical and outspoken views, and spent a long exile from the country at which he aimed his bitter satire." - & that's no laughing matter.

"Mann was condemned in Nazi Germany for writing Un-German works or some such but I don't think that the hypocrisy & opportunistic cowardice that he so thoroughly portrays is intrinsically German. It may've reached a particular nationalistic fervor in Germany but it was hardly confined to there. In fact, Mann's parody of upper middle class Germany isn't so far off from the lower middle class Baltimore that I grew up in." - http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/442159.Man_of_Straw

Ever since I read Der Untertan I've been wanting to read more by H Mann but I wanted to get his bks used from a store rather than order them online. Come what may, so to speak. NOW, I've finally read the 1st of 2 inter-related novels, Young Henry of Navarre, originally published in 1935, 21 yrs after Der Untertan. Is it an astonishing improvement? Has Mann matured remarkably by this? Maybe yes, maybe no, he's certainly changed his tact(ics).

Young Henry of Navarre is an historical novel set in 16th century France, the politics of it are certainly vivid but applying them to that dangerous time of 1935 might've been a little 'abstract' for readers contemporaneous w/ its release. The novel is about the gradual rise to power of King Henry of Navarre during wars between Catholics & Protestants. Here's some relevant background:

"During the 16th century, a revolution began in Christianity. A German monk named Martin Luther became increasingly unhappy with corruption in the Catholic Church. Luther started a movement among Christians who believed authority should not belong to clergy, but to the laypeople and their study of the Bible. Followers of the Reformation were known as Protestants."

[..]

"The Catholic League was a national group that intended to stamp out the spread of Protestantism in France. The group was led by the Duke of Guise who also had intentions of taking over the French throne. Under Guise's leadership, the League intended to replace King Henry III, the king of France, who was a Protestant.

"War broke out between the Catholic League and the Huguenots in 1562 and continued until 1598. Political unrest between the Huguenots and the powerful Guise family led to the death of many Huguenots, marking the beginning of the Wars of Religion. In 1562, the Huguenots were defeated by Guise in the first battle of the war. Guise was killed in this battle. A treaty was negotiated by Catherine de Medici that allowed Huguenot nobles to worship freely, but peasants could only worship in one town within each district.

"During the wars, Catherine de Medici was the Queen mother and held power during the reign of her sons Francois II, Charles IX and Henry III. The Huguenots were worried Catherine was planning a campaign against them with the Spaniards and attempted to capture King Charles IX. They failed, and though another attempt at peace was made, neither side trusted each other. The Huguenots faced a defeat in 1569, but began to gain ground with some Protestant nobles in France." - http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-french-wars-of-religion-catholics-vs-the-hug...

As if that 36 yr period of conflict between the 2 sects weren't enuf, after tis end only 20 yrs elapsed until the similar "Thirty Years War" (1618 to 1648):

"The spark that set off the Thirty Years War came in 1618, when the Archbishop of Prague ordered a Protestant church destroyed. The Protestants rose up in revolt, but within two years the rebellion was stamped out by the Habsburg general, Count of Tilly. After Bohemia was defeated the Protestant king of Denmark invaded the empire but was defeated by the famous general Albrecht von Wallenstein. In 1630 Sweden entered the war. Gustavus Adolphus, the King of Sweden, (the Lion of the North) whose dream was to make the Baltic a 'Swedish Lake', was the champion of the Protestants. In two battles he defeated and then killed Tilly. Gustavus Adolphus was killed in his decisive victory over Wallenstein at Luetzen (1632), and Wallenstein himself was murdered by a suspicious emperor in 1634.

"After 1635 the war lost its religious character and became purely political. Cardinal Richelieu, who was the real ruler of France, determined to arrest the growth of Habsburg power b"[y] "interfering on the side of the Protestants. The French won a long series of victories, which gave new hope to the Protestants in Germany. But by that time Germany was devastated and its economy in ruins. The war ended in stalemate and diplomats gathered to patch up affairs in the Peace of Westpahlia (1648).

"The Thirty Years War persuaded everybody that neither the Protestants nor the Catholics could be completely victorious and dreams of an empire, united under a Catholic Church had to be abandoned." - http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/civil_n2/histscript6_n2/thirty1.html

"Thou Shalt Not Kill", remember guys? (Or shd I say "Guise"?) That's 66 yrs out of 86 yrs of war between the Protestants & the Catholics. How fucking stupid can these religious nuts get? Will the 20th & 21st centuries go down as the 100 Yrs War or some such as the Christians & Moslems slaughter each other (& all of the rest of us unfortunates caught in their crossfire) ad nauseum? Let's see how the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it:

"The Thirty Years War (1618-48), though pre-eminently a German war, was also of great importance for the history of the whole of Europe, not only because nearly all the countries of Western Europe took part in it, but also on account of its connection with the other great European wars of the same era and on account of its final results.

"The fundamental cause was the internal decay of the empire from 1555, as evidenced by the weakness of the imperial power, by the gross lack of patriotism manifested by the estates of the empire, and by the paralysis of the imperial authority and its agencies among the Protestant estates of Southwestern Germany, which had been in a state of discontent since 1555. Consequently the whole of Germany was in a continual state of unrest. The decay of the empire encouraged the other nations of Western Europe to infringe upon its territory." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14648b.htm

"The fundamental cause was the internal decay of the empire from 1555, as evidenced by the weakness of the imperial power, by the gross lack of patriotism manifested by the estates of the empire, and by the paralysis of the imperial authority": Right, a bigger police state is always the answer (NOT). Why, the fundamental cause cd never be that people covet that imperial power, that religious leaders covet that imperial power & that sd religious leaders don't give a flying shit who they annihilate in pursuit of sd power. But I get ahead of the story. Forget I sd anything.

Young Henry of Navarre: "In the meantime the kingdom had for many years been riven everywhere between Catholics and Protestants." [..] "fire and slaughter ranged over the countryside in the name of the two hostile creeds. The difference of creed was regarded in deep earnest, and it made utter enemies of men whom nothing else divided. Certain words, especially the word "Mass," had so terrible an effect that brother was no longer understood of brother, and became of alien blood. It seemed natural to call in the aid of the Swiss and Germans. Let them be of the right faith, and, according as they went to Mass or not, they were better than a Frenchman who thought otherwise and were given leave to burn and pillage with the rest." (p 6)

I'm reminded of The Devils of Loudon, Aldous Huxley's 1952 novel about the politics of the purported demonic possession in Loudon in . There was a predecessor to Huxley's bk: "The Devils of Loudun by Edmund Goldsmid [1887]" wch is available online ( http://sacred-texts.com/evil/dol/ ) & described there thusly:

"This is an account of the possesion of the nuns of Loudun. In 1634 the Ursuline nuns of Loudon were allegedly possessed by demons. This is one of the largest cases of mass possession in history. Father Urbain Grandier, a local priest, was interrogated under torture, convicted of being responsible for the possessions (as well as sorcery), and subsequently burned at the stake. This is a 19th century translation of the primary account of the episode, originally written in French by Des Niau in 1634."

Apparently, there's not much questioning in that acct of the mechanics of what was called "one of the largest cases of mass possession in history". Possession by what? By a mythical creature dubbed "the devil" or by sexual frustration imposed by religious control freaks?

Following Huxley's novel was John Whiting's 1960 play, The Devils, Krzysztof Penderecki's 1969 opera The Devils of Loudon, & Ken Russell's highly dramatic 1971 movie, The Devils. This latter, in particular, added fuel to my personal fire that humans are squirming to get out of unnatural restrictions, that attempts to exercise mass control thru ideologies, religious & political, result in horrors of eruption when natural forces once again escape the nets of narrow-mindedness in explosions much more destructive than the pleasures suppressed.

Huxley's 1931 novel Brave New World was lumped together for me w/ George Orwell's 1948 1984 as a bk warning of the dangers of totalitarianism, of a dystopic near-future (or present) in wch mass control destroys the individual power of free thinking. But listening to a recording of Huxley reading on the radio from Brave New World impressed upon me that Huxley's take on such matters was as fearful of drugs & promiscuous sex as it was of oppressive government. On the Panarchy site ( http://www.panarchy.org/huxley/devils.html ) The Devils of Loudon's Appendix is presented & prefaced by Panarchy's editor(s) thusly:

"In this short text, Aldous Huxley puts forward the hypothesis that the evils we ascribe to religious intolerance and obscurantism are instead a product of human nature under specific circumstances, namely the existence of a totalitarian manipulative power. That is why, totalitarian political ideologies built on anti-religious bases can easily replicate the worst aspects of monopolistic religion. As a matter of fact, with the introduction of religious tolerance, those intolerant aspects of religious practice have been put almost to rest. As stated by Huxley, elsewhere in the book : “In the course of the last six or seven generations, the power of religious organizations to do evil has, throughout the Western world, considerably declined.” At the same time, “[f]rom about 1700 to the present day all persecutions in the West have been secular and, one might say, humanistic. For us, Radical Evil has ceased to be something metaphysical and has become political or economic.” For this reason we can add that those who still fight religion as the root of every evil are totally missing the target either deliberately or by reason of crass ignorance."

Huxley's claim that "“[f]rom about 1700 to the present day all persecutions in the West have been secular" is astounding if one were to consider that the Inquisition, alone, lasted into the 19th century. However, Huxley is far, FAR from an idiot & he makes his case articulately. His appendix begins:

"Without an understanding of man's deep-seated urge to self-transcendence, of his very natural reluctance to take the hard, ascending way, and his search for some bogus liberation either below or to one side of his personality, we cannot hope to make sense of our own particular period of history or indeed of history in general, of life as it was lived in the past and as it is lived today. For this reason I propose to discuss some of the more common Grace-substitutes, into which and by means of which then and women have tried to escape from the tormenting consciousness of being merely themselves."

[..]

"In modern times beer and the other toxic short cuts to self-transcendence are no longer officially worshipped as gods. Theory has undergone a change, but not practice; for in practice millions upon millions of civilized" [m]"en and women continue to pay their devotions, not to the liberating and transfiguring Spirit, but to alcohol, to hashish, to opium and its derivatives, to the barbiturates, and the other synthetic additions to the age-old catalogue of poisons capable of causing self-transcendence. In every case, of course, what seems a god is actually a devil, what seems a liberation is in fact an enslavement. The self-transcendence is invariably downward into the less than human, the lower than personal."

[..]

"Assemble a mob of men and women previously conditioned by a daily reading of newspapers; treat them to amplified band music, bright lights, and the oratory of a demagogue who (as demagogues always are) is simultaneously the exploiter and the victim of herd-intoxication, and in next to no time you can reduce them to a state of almost mindless subhumanity. Never before have so few been in a position to make fools, maniacs or criminals of so many."

Huxley's point is well-taken but I think that people's ways & means to "self-transcendence" isn't inevitably as "invariably downward" as Huxley claims. Disinhibition can be a tool for getting outside of other types of destructive habits such as shyness. That sd, Huxley's demagogues who are "simultaneously the exploiter and the victim of herd-intoxication" cd practically be synonymous w/ Mann's Untertan - thusly almost bringing us full-circle in an elliptical kinda way.

Mann's novel differs from the history briefly outlined thru the quotes above. EG: study.com claims that "Under Guise's leadership, the League intended to replace King Henry III, the king of France, who was a Protestant" has Henry III a protestant while Mann has him a Catholic. Mann's take on it is perhaps more complicated, w/ people changing religious affiliation according to the dictates of political expediency. Mann's bk is a novel, it gets into detail that can't possibly be historically verified including this personal scene between the child Henri of Navarre & his protestant mother:

""The King in Paris is friends with the King of Spain," his mother explained. "He lets the Spaniards invade us."

""So will not I!" cried Henri. "Spain is my enemy and always will be! Because I love you," he said impetuously, and kissed Jeanne. Tears trickled from her eyes into her half-bared bosom, which her little son caressed while he tried to comfort her. "Does my father just do what the King of France tells him? I won't," he assured her in a coaxing tone, feeling that this was what she liked to hear." - p 8

Since I loved Der Untertan as an astute observation of human nature I tend to provisionally accept Mann's fictionalized characterizations of these historical figures as being at least based in Mann's attempts to be fair & accurate w/in the novelistic restrictions/expansions. Nonetheless, I didn't read this falling for the delusion that I was reading an actual historical acct. People who read any history wd be well-advised to read w/ a similar grain-of-salt.

Gesellschaftssatire über das rücksichtslose Emporkommen eines Fabrikanten in einer Kleinstadt im wilhelminischen Kaiserreich. Mit Diederich Heßling porträtiert Heinrich Mann den klassischen Typus des opportunistischen Karrieristen ("nach oben buckeln, nach unten treten") mit stramm nationaler Gesinnung, der dem Nationalsozialismus den Weg bereitete. Genial und beängstigend!
Kongeniale Lesung des großen Schauspielers Hans Korte, der virtuos zwischen hämischer Bösartigkeit und winselnder Feigheit wechselt und den satirischen Ton der Geschichte punktgenau trifft. Eine der besten Lesungen, die ich bislang gehört habe!½

Professor Unrat (der blev filmatiseret som Den blå engel, og som også er udgivet under det navn) udkom i 1905 og skabte hurtig skandale. Det kan man i første omgang undre sig over – hvor samfundsundergravende er det egentlig af en autoritær tysklærer forelsker sig i en varietésangerinde? – men efterhånden som professoren synker ned i dyndet bliver det stadigt tydeligere, at han også er et symptom på det borgerlige samfunds hykleri.

Men først til handlingen. Professor Raat har i tredive år undervist på det lokale gymnasium. Hvis han engang har rummet et gran af pædagogisk idealisme, er den for længst forsvundet. Nu tvinger han bare eleverne til at oversætte græsk og latin og til at skrive en uendelig række af tyske stile, typisk på baggrund af Jeanne D’Arc eller en anden Schiller-klassiker. Raat er almindeligt foragtet, ikke bare af sine nuværende elever, men også af de mange elever, der nu har forladt skolen og fylder godt op i byens borgerskab.

Selvfølgelig elsker eleverne at gøre grin med ham. Og selvfølgelig bliver Raat hurtigt til Unrat (skarn). Faktisk er Raats eneste fornøjelse at afsløre sine elever i det, og når det lykkes, bruger han uden videre sin magt til at få dem smidt ud af skolen, og hvis han kunne stille dem andre hindringer i vejen, ville han gøre det.

Raat er kort sagt en tyran, der fastholder meningsløse traditioner, bare fordi de er traditioner, og insisterer på sin autoritet, bare fordi han kan. Flid og talent kan være udmærket, men i sidste ende ønsker han kun lydighed. Alligevel kunne ingen drømme om at anfægte hans undervisning, eller hans smålige hævntogter. Han er en autoritetsperson, slut, færdig.

Under en time får han tre ærkefjender: Den knap så kloge adelige von Ertzum, den frække Kieselack og den intelligente Lohman. Særligt den sidste bliver en besættelse for Raat, der opdager nogle af hans digte. De handler tilsyneladende om ”kunstnerinden Rosa Frühling”. Raat bliver beslutter sig for at undersøge, hvad det handler om (den del er måske ikke så overbevisende), men det er ikke på teatret, at hun udfolder sine talenter. Ved et tilfælde stikker han hovedet indenfor hos Den Blå Engel, et værtshus nede ved havnen, og der finder han ikke bare sangerinden men også sine tre elever.

Dem fortrænger han hurtigt fra garderoben, hvor de ellers holder til hver aften – men hvordan sikrer han sig, at det ikke sker igen? Det kan han kun gøre ved at tage deres plads, så inden længe indfinder han sig i knejpen hver aften og bliver mere og mere fascineret af Rosas elegance. Om dagen fører han kold krig med de tre elever og de med ham: Han kan ikke afsløre dem uden at indrømme sit besøg på Den blå Engel. Og de kan ikke afsløre ham uden samtidig at fortælle, at de kommer der.

Men selvfølgelig går det ikke godt. Det er kun et spørgsmål om tid, før Raats nye interesser bliver et rygte i lærerkollegiet, hvor ambitiøse unge kolleger gerne underminerer ham, og samtidig bliver hans interesse for Rosa til en besættelse. Han vil give hende alt og beskytte hende fra alt, og udvikler en næsten nihilistisk holdning til resten af sin tilværelse. Man kan måske sige, at han for længst har mistet interesse og ansvarsfølelse for sit liv og sine elever – nu kommer det bare til udtryk.

Til sidst bliver det for meget. Raat bliver fyret, indleder en tilværelse som levemand med Rosa og – da pengene slipper op, og det gør de jo hurtigt, når en lærerformue skal holde en forfængelig kvinde med tøj og champagne – forvandler de hans villa til en drikfældig spillebule. Det kan spidsborgerne længe se gennem fingrene med, for det er selvfølgelig dem, der kryber frem fra skjulet efter mørkets frembrud og udlever de samme hemmelige længsler, som Raat er bukket under for. Jo, man forstår godt, hvorfor romanen ikke vakte begejstring i kejserriget.

Raat er fascinerende. Et lille menneske, der er blevet udstyret med alt for meget magt, og egentlig ikke har anden glæde end at udøve den over andre. Det gælder også Rosa Frühling, som han ikke bare vil beskytte men også udvikler ejerfornemmelser for. Historien om Raat er også fortællingen om romanen. Et skarpt portræt af et borgerligt samfund, der ikke var så dydigt, som det yndede at fremstille sig, og et studie i den autoritære personlighed, som desværre komme til at fylde alt for meget i moderne historie.

This review refers to the 2vol. 1956 edition of the Aufbau Verlag, Berlin.

Heinrich Mann’s monumental two-part novel - it is a misconception to designate each as a ‘member of a series’: it is one work! - were first published by the Querido Verlag in Amsterdam, the first part, Die Jugend des Königs Henri Quatre, in 1935, Die Vollendung des Königs Henri Quatre, in 1938 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mann,_Heinrich_Henri_Quatre.jpg). The publishing house was founded in 1933 and published German language authors who had to emigrate and whose books, like those of Heinrich Mann, were burned by the Nazis.

Alfred Kantorowicz writes in the Nachwort that the first idea to write about ‘the good king Henri’ as he is still remembered, came to Heinrich Mann in 1925 when visiting the palace of Pau where Henri of Navarre, the later Henri IV of France was born in 1553 and where he grew up. Kantorowicz got to know personally Heinrich Mann in exile in France and his Nachwort is informative.

One needs to remember that this is a novel, not a biography; the author will have taken ‘poetic license’ but, I trust, not knowingly falsified events and characters. The novel is a character study above all. H.M. describes the development of Henry’s mind and thinking that is formed by the events, his rationality - in that Henry IV is, as is Montaigne whom he meets, a forerunner of the enlightenment - in his will to overcome the religious antagonisms, fanaticism and cold-blooded slaughters. The novel fascinates by the psychology of the complex and in their contradictions very human personalities of the king, his loves, his friends and adversaries, by the political intrigues, the religious wars … It is one of the great novels of the 20th century. Why is it then that it is lacking in popularity among readers (at least among the predominately english-language LT contributors)? Too demanding?

Oder sind es diese pessimistischen Sätzen über die menschliche Natur, die H.M. Montaigne zuschreibt, aber direkt auf das, während der Entstehung des Romans tobende, 1000jährige Reich anspielen? : „Geblendete, die nur toben und nichts erkennen: so stellt in der Regel das Geschlecht der Menschen sich dar.“ (I-470) und später: „…, da ein Volk erst nach Abschaffung des Denkens wirklich total werden kann.“ (I-645) Und Guise als Hitler: „Wer nicht dem Führer blinden Gehorsam schwor, war verloren. …“ (I-581); „‘Heil’ brüllt sein mörderischer Geheimbund, den er total und eins mit dem Land will.“ (I-583)

Über Kunst: Alexander Farnese, Herzog von Parma, Feldherr: - ein Künstler: „ihn drängt es, seine Kunst zu üben … mit seiner großen Theatermaschine … ein Kunstwerk der Strategie.“ (II-80)

Über das Kunstwerk: “So ging es nicht zu. Ist aber die Wahrheit.“ (II-523) Mit diesem Satz scheint H.M. auch seinen Roman zu kommentieren.

Und rückblickend auf sein Leben: „Man schämt sich während eines längeren Lebens vieler Handlungen …“ (II-565); Erstaunen über ein verfehltes Leben: Henri Valois: „‘War alles nur Irrtum ….’ (I-598)

Und endlich: „Die Partei, deren ganzen Bestand der Haß der Völker und Menschen ausmacht, ist überall, wird überall und immer sein.“ (II-849) Wie wahr! (I-19)

One of the most fascinating and historically accurate works of fiction that I have read. My only complaint is that there is not an emotional layer; it's hard to connect with Henry. I cheered him on in battle and would liked to have felt his grief over the death of his mother; but the author did not permit this.

If you've seen the film, you'll know Professor Unrat as a story about an authoritarian middle-aged schoolmaster who makes a fool of himself by falling in love (or rather - four-link in luff-again...) with a music hall singer. It turns out that there's a lot more to it than that. After twenty-six years in a small, provincial town indoctrinating middle-class boys with the authoritarian values of Wilhelm II's Prussia, the lonely, widowed Dr Raat has lost all sense of proportion. For him, the struggle to maintain his authority and fight against the hated nickname "Unrat" (=rubbish) has become a life-and-death matter. Everyone in town is either a current or former pupil or one of their family members, and he imagines that all of them are fuming over the unconcluded schoolroom battles of twenty years ago as much as he is. It never occurs to him that they might now think of the punishments and humiliations he inflicted with affectionate nostalgia...

What happens when Unrat visits the Blaue Engel and meets the singer Rosa Fröhlich is thus not just about sex: more importantly for Unrat, it's the first time in decades that he's talked to someone who is completely outside the closed world of the small town and the school. It gives him the liberating opportunity to realise sides of himself that have been locked up by the overriding concern for authority and appearances, and it lets him see that behind all that repressive force there is a huge anger at the community he's been living in for so long, and a corresponding desire for revenge. Rosa turns out to be the instrument he can use to strike back at them, to reveal the hypocrisy and double standards in the respectable pillars of the local establishment and to use it to push them over. Unfortunately, he is also in love with her, and he finds himself torn between his desire for absolute possession and his strategic need to use her as a disturbing influence. The book moves slightly oddly from vicious classroom satire via backstage realism into Balzac-style black revenge, but then at the last minute seems to escape back to a slightly unconvinced moralism. Very strange, but interesting.

You can't help feeling a little sorry for Lübeck's 500-year-old grammar school, the Katharineum, which managed to appear (unnamed, but quite recognisable) in the worst possible light in two of the best-known German novels of the 20th century before we were even halfway through that century's first decade. Apart from being the school where Unrat taught, it's of course also the one where Hanno Buddenbrook spends what might well have been the worst schoolday in literary history. But I suppose that's the risk any school runs with famous pupils.

The book was used as the basis for the film Der blaue Engel by Josef von Sternberg in 1930. The film is supposed to be a classic of German cinema, but it doesn't have all that much to do with the book, and is only really interesting (unless you're a big fan of early talkies) because of Marlene Dietrich's brilliant performance and a couple of memorable songs. Emil Jannings is wooden and unconvincing as Unrat, and the three schoolboys have obviously been kept back for 15 to 20 years, rather than the one or two called for in the book.½

The main person was not very likable and you were rooting for his downfall. And his lady just wanted to use him for the money and status.
Everybody is just obsessed.

Tolles Buch

Hier hat Heinrich Mann das Psychogramm eines herzlich unsympathischen Menschen geschaffen. Mann schildert seinen Protagonisten, den wilhelminischen Zeitgenossen Diederich Häßling, als grotesk abstoßenden Typen. Diederich ist der Sohn eines Industriellen: Der Vater ist Inhaber einer Papier-Manufaktur. Die Erziehung durch den Vater ist extrem streng, von der Mutter dagegen wird Diederich verwöhnt. Kommt uns diese unheilvolle Konstellation nicht irgendwie bekannt vor? Schon von Kindheit an zeigt sich bei Diederich ein krass opportunistischer Wesenszug, der sich während seines gesamten Werdegangs fortsetzt. Egal, ob in der Schule, beim Militär, in der Studentenverbindung, im Studium, als Fabrik-Direktor oder als Stadtverordneter, immer handelt Diederich nach der bekannten Radfahrer-Devise „nach oben buckeln, nach unten treten“. Jeder in seinem näheren Umfeld hat darunter zu leiden, ob es sich nun um seine politischen Gegner handelt, um seine Jugendliebe, seine Angestellten oder seine Familienmitglieder: Diederich unterdrückt jeden, dem er sich überlegen fühlt. Sämtliche Personen, die ihm begegnen, werden eiskalt nach ihrem Nutzwert beurteilt und dementsprechend behandelt. Hoch über all dem steht für Diederich jedoch der Kaiser, den er über alles verehrt und als Inbegriff der Macht maßlos bewundert. Am Ende der Erzählung lässt Heinrich Mann den Diederich Häßling in seiner wahren Gestalt auftreten, dem Teufel gleich. Sogar der Himmel scheint sich über Diederich zu empören und lässt einen gigantischen Wolkenbruch über dem Nichtswürdigen niedergehen, was diesen aber nicht weiter berührt: Der Untertan bleibt seinem Kaiser, und vor allem sich selbst, treu.

Die Charakterzeichnung dieses Scheusals durch Heinrich Mann ist trotz, oder gerade wegen der Satire, einfach beklemmend, wenn man sich vor Augen hält, dass Menschen vom Schlage eines Diederich Häßling kein Einzelfall sind. Auch wenn wir die Monarchie mit all ihren Auswüchsen und Unmenschlichkeiten hinter uns gelassen haben, so dass zumindest das durch Diederich verkörperte, absurde Obrigkeitsdenken in dieser extremen Form nicht mehr vorkommt, ist der Opportunismus nicht ausgestorben. Heinrich Manns Roman ist ein entlarvendes Sittengemälde der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft vom Ende des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, in der jeder auf seinen eigenen Vorteil bedacht war. Man kann nicht umhin, mit der heutigen Gesellschaft zu vergleichen.

Der Staat der Obrigkeit und der Untertan (– Untertan: der nach oben kriecht und nach unten ausschlägt):
Ironisch bis hin zur Farce. Wer das wilhelminische Kaiserreich verstehen möchte und wie es zum 1. Weltkrieg kam und wie der Boden, aus dem später der Faschismus sproß, bereitet war, hier ist es beschrieben. Mehr über diesen Roman hier. (VI-12)½

A book not only about exactly traced historical events, but as well about beauty, unashamed sexuality, and friendship. First and foremost a declaration of love to France and French hedonism.

Mit "Professor Unrat" hat Heinrich Mann eine beklemmende Charakterstudie über einen ungemein tyrannischen Gymnasiallehrer geschaffen. Schauplatz der Erzählung ist eine provinzielle Hafenstadt im wilhelminischen Deutschland. In dieser Kleinstadt ist leicht Heinrich Manns Heimatstadt Lübeck wiederzuerkennen.

Professor Raat, besagter Tyrann, arbeitet bereits seit 26 Jahren am hiesigen Gymnasium. Der vereinsamte Mann unterrichtet seine Schüler mit äußerster Härte und Ungerechtigkeit. Menschenfeindlich, wie er ist, liegt ihm daran, seine Schüler völlig zu unterdrücken, wenn nicht gar zu vernichten. Sie danken es ihm mit größtmöglicher Feindseligkeit. Der Schüler Lohmann ist der einzige, der so souverän ist, die Unterjochung durch den Tyrannen wirkungslos von sich abprallen zu lassen und sogar Mitgefühl für ihn aufzubringen. Professor Raat wird allseits mit dem Spottnamen Unrat tituliert.

Unrat findet heraus, dass der Schüler Lohmann abends Vorstellungen der Sängerin Rosa Fröhlich besucht, und macht diese ausfindig. Er hofft, auf diese Weise eine Möglichkeit zu finden, Lohmann zu vernichten, da er an eine Affäre der beiden glaubt. Die drittklassige Sängerin zieht den Professor sofort in ihren Bann; er verfällt ihr. Sie heiraten und geraten bald in finanzielle Schwierigkeiten, da die Sängerin einen aufwändigen Lebensstil pflegt und Unrat vom Dienst suspendiert wird. Schließlich eröffnen sie, um sich finanziell zu sanieren, eine Art "Spielhölle", die eifrig besucht wird. Unrat befriedigt damit gleichzeitig seinen Drang, die Honoratioren der Kleinstadt, die ihn aus der Gemeinschaft ausgeschlossen haben, zu ruinieren. Letztlich besiegelt er damit aber seinen und Rosas Untergang.

"Professor Unrat" ist satirisch, aber von so bitterböser Art, dass dem Leser das Lachen im Halse stecken bleibt. Keiner der Beteiligten kommt ungeschoren davon, angefangen bei der kleinstädtischen Bevölkerung: Deren Doppelmoral tritt ungeschönt zu Tage. Auf der einen Seite verurteilen sie den Professor wegen seiner Beziehung zu einer Halbweltdame, andererseits frönen sie selbst Lastern aller Art. Der Professor selbst wirkt in seiner maßlosen Menschenfeindlichkeit geradezu grotesk. Obwohl er als Lehrer die preußischen Tugenden unnachgiebig vertritt, schlägt er letztendlich ins Gegenteil um und lebt Hass und Zerstörungswut hemmungslos aus. Wodurch Unrat so geworden ist, wird leider nicht erklärt, obwohl gerade dies hochinteressant wäre. Der Charakter Unrats scheint bizarr überzeichnet; viele Beispiele aus der Geschichte zeigen allerdings, dass Psychopathen seines Schlages keineswegs selten sind.

Die Darstellung der Gestalt Rosa Fröhlich - und anderer Frauenfiguren des Romans - wirft kein günstigeres Licht auf den weiblichen Teil der Gesellschaft. Von äußerst mäßiger künstlerischer Begabung, versteht es Rosa, ausnahmslos alle Männer zu manipulieren und für ihre Zwecke auszunutzen. Bezeichnenderweise wird sie im ganzen Buch konsequent mit "Künstlerin Fröhlich" tituliert, natürlich in ironischer Absicht. Einzig der hochintelligente Schüler Lohmann wirkt anständig und verkörpert höhere Ideale. Er allein lässt sich auch nicht von der Sängerin manipulieren. Man könnte ihn als Alter Ego des jungen Heinrich Mann interpretieren.

"Professor Unrat" fesselt durch die Klarheit der Sprache und den expressionistischen Stil, der zum Teil, vor allem bei Beschreibungen der "Künstlerin Fröhlich", den Eindruck eines Gemäldes vermittelt. Die bedrückende Thematik, bei der es letztendlich um Macht und Manipulation geht, ist auch heute noch aktuell. Ein zeitloses Buch.

Der Untertan
OA 1916 (Privatdruck; Vorabdruck in Zeit im Bild 1914)Form Roman Epoche Moderne
Der Untertan von Heinrich Mann gilt als die schärfste Satire auf die machtverherrlichende, nationalistische Gesellschaft unter der Regierung von Kaiser Wilhelm II. (1859–1941).
Entstehung: Erste Notizen gehen bis auf 1906 zurück. Die kontinuierliche Arbeit am Roman fällt in die Zeit 1911/12–14. Abgeschlossen war er bereits Anfang Juli 1914, zwei Monate vor dem Beginn des Ersten Weltkriegs. Ein Vorabdruck in der Illustrierten Zeit im Bild (ab 1. Januar 1914) musste vorzeitig abgebrochen werden, da, wie der Herausgeber an Mann schrieb, »im gegenwärtigen Moment nicht in satirischer Form an den deutschen Verhältnissen Kritik geübt werden könne«. 1916 erschien Der Untertan als Privatdruck; erst unmittelbar nach Kriegsende wurde der Roman veröffentlicht.
Inhalt: In sechs Großkapiteln wird die Aufstiegsgeschichte des Kleinstadtpotentaten Diederich Heßling erzählt, der um 1870 geboren wird: ein symbolträchtiges Datum, das den Protagonisten als Repräsentanten der spätgründerzeitlichen Epoche erscheinen lässt. Im Zentrum der Lebensgeschichte Heßlings stehen die Jahre 1890–97. Diederich erfährt seine frühe Prägung als empfindsames Kind eines Kleinunternehmers, das in seiner Individualität gebrochen wird durch die als schrankenlos erfahrene Macht des Vaters und anderer »furchtbarer Gewalten« vom »lieben Gott« bis zum Schullehrer, denen das Kind Gehorsam leisten muss. Der Heranwachsende entwickelt gegenüber Machtpersonen autoritäre Unterwürfigkeit, gegenüber Schwächeren hält er sich aggressiv schadlos – der Untertan als sadomasochistischer Sozialtyp wird erzogen, nicht geboren. Mit seinem Studium der Chemie in der Reichshauptstadt Berlin vollendet sich das Untertanen-Profil Diederichs: Er wird Mitglied der Studentenverbindung der »Neuteutonen«, die ihn lehrt, sein Individual-Ich an das »große Ganze« von Wissenschaft, Korporation, Militär, Bürokratie, deutschnationaler Partei, Staatskirche und Monarchie abzutreten. Als glühender Monarchist kehrt Heßling aus Berlin in seine Heimatstadt Netzig zurück. Die Geschäftsübernahme der kleinen Papierfabrik seines verstorbenen Vaters gestaltet sich als bewusste Imitation des Regierungsantritts von Kaiser Wil- helm II. Es gelingt Heßling, durch Anpassung an den nationalen Zeitgeist, durch Intrigen, Denunziation und Betrug nicht nur seine Konkurrenten auszuschalten und die Papierfabrik hochzubringen, sondern auch politisch und ökonomisch die Macht in Netzig an sich zu reißen. Er wird Großaktionär einer Papier-Aktiengesellschaft und deren Generaldirektor, er schafft es, durch Manipulationen die Aktienmehrheit an sich zu bringen und seine eigene Fabrik ertragreich zu verkaufen, er kontrolliert die städtische Presse sowie die lokale Verwaltung und er wird so zur politisch einflussreichsten Person von Netzig. Sein sozialer Aufstieg vollendet sich auf der familialen Ebene. Er heiratet gezielt die begüterte Guste Daimchen und hat mit ihr drei Kinder, deren weitere Lebensgeschichte unschwer zu prognostizieren ist – der Weg des Untertanen wiederholt sich.
Aufbau: Der negativen »Bildungs«- und Aufstiegsgeschichte des Deutschnationalen Heßling entspricht eine Abstiegsgeschichte – der Niedergang und die gesellschaftlich-ökonomische Deklassierung der durch die Tradition des bürgerlichen Liberalismus geprägten Honoratiorenfamilie Buck. Deren Seniorchef verkörpert als überlebender ›Achtundvierziger‹ die politische Vorstellungswelt des revolutionären Bürgertums, während für seinen Sohn Wolfgang das altliberale Ethos der Volkssouveränität und der Sorge um das öffentliche Wohl nur noch Rhetorik darstellt. Als Gegenspieler Heßlings verachtet Wolfgang Buck eine Bourgeoisie, die ihre freiheitlichen Ursprünge verraten hat und reagiert darauf aber als Ästhet und Intellektueller. Er ›durchschaut‹, wo der stramm-nationale Bourgeois-Bürger Diederich »blitzend, gesträubt und blond gedunsen« agiert.
Der Roman arrangiert in analytischer Absicht Wirklichkeitsmaterial zu satirischen Wirklichkeitsbildern. Dabei geht es nicht um einen naturalistischen Abbildrealismus, sondern um eine Typisierung von Mentalitaten und sozialen Mechanismen, welche die Realität zur Kenntlichkeit entstellen.
Wirkung: Der Roman wurde ein überwältigender Erfolg. Bis heute ist die Kritik an diesem satirischen »Bürgerspiegel« von konservativer Seite nicht abgerissen. Unter der Regie von Wolfgang Staudte wurde Der Untertan 1951 verfilmt. R. W.½

První vydání v roce 1904. To mnohé vysvětluje, ale neospravedlňuje.
Relativně tuctový romantický příběh: on ji chce, ona jeho ne, někdo z nich asi bude muset umřít. Specifika: on je z bohaté měšťanské rodiny, o své materiální zajištění se nestará a vlastně je mu dost jedno, za co a proč utrácí. Koketuje s nihilismem a socialismem, touží po opravdové lásce. Zde první čtenářské zakopnutí: chce být silným skrze lásku ženy (dichotomie „silný - slabý“ je v textu velmi, velmi nadužívána, třeba je to zprostředkovaný vliv Nietzscheho filozofie, nicméně autorem nezpracovaný, jen dost povrchní). Ona je herečka, která to s divadlem myslí neuvěřitelně vážně, pro lásku k umění se stylizuje (možná transformuje) v chladnou, prakticky bezcitnou postavu, neschopnou milovat.
Nepřesný pocit divadelní hry jsem měla v průběhu celého textu; not my cup of coffee, přeromantizované, přestylizované, heroické, patetické, vznešené. Ale stále neodbytný pocit, že se vše děje téměř výhradně na povrchu. Prohřešky proti formě, kdy je myšlení postavy zprostředkováno a popsáno stejně, jako by mluvila nahlas - s ohledem na širší literární kontext pochopitelné, nicméně to jen dál přispívá k zastarávání textu.
Proč by se to mělo dnes číst? Snad jako instrument, katalyzátor napětí, jinak zde nic moc neshledávám. Posledních 100 stran - Claudovo pobývání v Itálii - naprosto otřesné.
Autor se občas pokouší upozornit na dvojznačnost motivů, více či méně hystericky předkládá jednak předpokládanou interpretaci jevu hloupoučkými maloměšťáky a zvlášť pak pohled některé z postav, která pronikla pod buržoazní morálku a vidí (Claude, Ute, Franchiniová, občas i další), ale není to přesvědčivé. Není to ani důležité, protože text je bez pravdivostního obsahu, všechno je blábolení na stejné úrovni.

I read this book after watching the 1994 film La Reine Margot, about Henri IV of France and his queen. I remember when the movie got an Oscar for best costumes, which I totally agreed with. I am not one to care very much about costumes, but the costumes and the cinematography were like nothing I had ever seen before. It was great to see decadent monarchical families from earlier centuries when they did not have to deal with the same proprieties and concerns about political correctness that we do today. I guess if you were a king or a queen, you did not have to worry about being in the newspapers the same way you do now. I guess you could always have your priest or your confessor on your case if you did something wrong. That is one part of the movie that I enjoyed the most.
However, I should be concentrating her on the book. As I was mentioning, I was first inspired to seek out Heinrich Mann and any of his books, by association with his brother Thomas, and books by him that I had been reading. After watching the movie described above, I realized that there was a link to the same subject, and I did a special order of this book, and the subsequent volume, from one of my local bookstores, because the library did not have it at that time. Someday, I would like to read this book in the original language. But it is about 15 years ago now, so I do not remember the style too well. I was shocked by the brutality of the killing on the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre, but why should I be, because there are things going on today that are just as brutal. Things never change.

I liked it so much because the Untertan reminded me of somebody I knew...½

one of the most important political novels in German lamnguage. Excellent book, hiohly recommended