Johann Balthasar Schupp and the Baroque Satire in Germany 9780231884945

Citation preview

Johann Balthasar Schupp and the Baroque Satire in Germany

N U M B E R T W E N T Y - T W O OF THE COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY

GERMANIC

STUDIES

EDITED BY C A R L F . BAYERSCHMIDT a n d H E N R Y C . H A T F I E L D N E W SERIES

Johann Balthasar Schupp and the Baroque Satire in Germany

HILDEGARDE E. WICHERT

KING'S CROWN PRESS Columbia University, New York !952

Copyright 1952 by HILDEGARDE E . W I C H E R T

KINGS

CROWN

PRESS

is a subsidiary imprint of Columbia University Press established for the purpose of making certain scholarly material available at minimum cost. Toward that end, the publishers have adopted every reasonable economy except such as would interfere with a legible format. T h e work is presented substantially as submitted by the author, without the usual editorial and typographical attention of Columbia University Press.

Published in Great Britain, Canada, and India by Geoffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press London, Toronto, and Bombay MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

T O T H E MEMORY OF HEDWIG AND AUGUST WICHERT

PREFACE

T

H E COLLECTION of material for the following study of the Baroque satire and especially for the portion dealing with Johann Balthasar Schupp has presented a number of difficulties. Though most of the major satirical works of the age are available in reprint, there are serious gaps even here, notably in Moscherosch's Gesichte and in the case of Weise's Hauptverderber. The works of Riemer and Beer, though less important from a literary standpoint, cannot be overlooked by the student of satire, and these, too, are available only in rare original editions. Even greater problems arise in the study of Schupp. With the exception of a few works, a large part of the secondary material on him is scattered throughout certain periodicals frequently little known in this country. Schupp's own works, too, are not easily obtainable. Only a few reprints, most desirable because of annotative material and legibility, have been made. Complete editions, even rarer, were not accessible to me except through interlibrary loan and in microfilm, neither of which lend themselves conveniently to the frequent rereading which my study required. It is obvious, therefore, that the mere collection of material before actual reading and writing could begin, demanded the assistance of various libraries whose staffs place their energies so generously at the disposal of those engaged in research. In this connection I should first like to express my gratitude to Miss Jean Macalister, of the Columbia University Libraries, for her indefatigable efforts in tracing works and articles. I am also deeply indebted to the libraries of Yale, Princeton, and New York Universities for permitting me to consult original works of Schupp, Beer, and Riemer. Finally, I wish to thank the staff of the library of Brooklyn College for making available to me its interlibrary loan and microfilm-ordering services, as well as its microfilm reader. I do not wish to create the impression, as the foregoing perhaps does, that the writing of this book was to me no more than an onerous process of gathering and evaluating material. Such difficulties as I encountered were more than outweighed by the keen enjoyment which my study has afforded me. It is an enjoyment which was due in no small part to the fact that I was privileged to work under the guidance of Professor Robert Herndon Fife, of Columbia University. T h e vast

viii

PREFACE

breadth of his knowledge, the ability to guide without limiting freedom of individual thought and expression, his keen sense of humor, his profound human wisdom—these are qualities which have made the contact with Professor Fife a deeply gratifying and enriching experience. I wish also to express my gratitude to Professors Carl F. Bayerschmidt, Henry C. Hatfield, and Jack M. Stein, of Columbia University, for their gracious helpfulness. HILDEGARD*: E . W I C H E R T

Brooklyn, N. Y. February, 1952

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: PART

ONE:

T H E

SEVENTEENTH I. II.

SCHUPP AS A L I T E R A R Y FIGURE FORM

OF

THE

SATIRE

1 IN

T H E

CENTURY

STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF THE CONTEMPORARY SATIRE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPP'S SATIRICAL F O R M

9 20

III.

VARIETIES OF S T Y L E IN THE BAROQUE SATIRE

35

IV.

SCHUPP AS A S T Y L I S T

48

PART

TWO:

THE

REFLECTION

OF

CONTEMPORARY

CULTURE V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. PART XI.

T H E STATE AND SOCIETY

60

SCHUPP'S T R E A T M E N T OF THE STATE AND SOCIETY

76

PUBLIC MORALITY

90

SCHUPP AND CONTEMPORARY MORALS

101

CULTURAL L I F E IN THE SATIRE

108

T H E C U L T U R A L PROBLEM IN SCHUPP

115

THREE:

RELIGION

AND

PHILOSOPHY

RELIGIOUS IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

127

SCHUPP'S APPROACH TO R E A L I T Y

145

XIII.

E T H I C A L IDEALISM AND PSYCHOLOGICAL R E A L I S M

159

XIV.

T H E AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF SCHUPP'S R E A L I S M

182

XII.

CONCLUSION:

T H E GERMAN SATIRE IN THE L I T E R A T U R E OF THE

BAROQUE A G E

189

NOTES

201

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

INDEX

231

Introduction SCHUPP AS A LITERARY FIGURE

T

in Germany is unusually attractive to the student of satire. It was an age which offered a great variety of subjects for the satirist, from the evils attendant upon the Thirty Years' W a r and the autocracy of princes and authorities to the ludicrous social ambitions of striving burgher and awkward villager. At the same time it was also an age of tremendous cultural vitality as man, awakening gradually to a consciousness of inner strength and intellectual freedom from clerical tradition and authority, sought to find a place for himself in finite reality. This vitality, to be sure, activated the satirist in accordance with his special gifts. He did not share in the bolder theories of philosopher and scientist, nor did his modest social position permit him to seek political influence at the court of prince or bishop. And certainly his writings contain none of the grand formulations of stoic constancy and few of the spectacular horrors of the so-called "courtly" novel or drama of his day. Instead, the satirist of the Baroque period expresses the incredible energy of his era by unfolding a mighty panorama of wrongs on every social level and in every trade and occupation, or by sounding the depths of contemporary human personality in order to expose its laughable traits, its weaknesses, and its contradictions. If succeeding decades of the century tended to reduce somewhat the force and scope of his attack upon his times, this did not signify that his vigor was abating. For the satirist did more than reveal in his fashion the intensity of Baroque experience. In his writings there appears from the start another trend of his age, one destined to gain in strength as the century advanced and to become paramount in the following century: the effort to dominate reality not by the dramatic force of the will but by a calmer and more rational approach. H E SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

Wide range of censure, energetic approach to reality, the faint beginnings of eighteenth-century rationalism—all these are present in Johann Balthasar Schupp (1610-1661). Nevertheless, his selection as representative of the satire of his age undoubtedly requires some explanation. Little known save to a limited group of students in seventeenthcentury literature, Schupp can hardly be called an outstanding writer, and may appear scarcely worthy of the position assigned him in the following pages. T h e choice of such a man for this study was by no means

2

SCHUPP AS A LITERARY FIGURE

determined only by the challenge of treating a less-exploited satirist than Logau, Moscherosch, or Weise. It was due, rather, to the conviction, which grew with the progress of my research, that Schupp makes his own, unique contribution to an understanding of the basic character of German satire as a reflection of the ideologies of his age. T h e facts of Schupp's life as they are abundantly revealed in his works and supplemented by letters and official records have been studied extensively by Vogt, Bindewald, Stotzner, and many of the others whose names are listed in our Bibliography. T h e following summary is not intended as an exhaustive account of the life and work of this lively, intrepid, and clear-sighted Lutheran clergyman. It is limited to those aspects of his career and productivity which are essential to an understanding of his contribution to the satire. Life introduced Schupp to some of the most important phases of the world of his day.1 Even as a child he was brought into contact with persons who counted for something in their community. He was the eldest son 2 of an upper middle-class family of Giessen, many of whose members had held public office. His mother was the daughter of a burgomaster, his father a city councilor. The lad himself had wished to become a statesman before he acceded to his father's demand that he study for the ministry. Later, as preacher and doctor of theology, Schupp kept alive his broader interests. Extensive travels throughout Germany and other lands of Europe, as well as study at several universities, rounded out not only the schooling of the theologian but also that of the educator and student of society. During his career as a teacher of rhetoric and history at the University of Marburg (16321646) and as a preacher at the church of the Teutonic Order there, he also developed an insight into political and economic affairs, limited though it was by the lack of any firsthand experience in statecraft. A closer acquaintance with court life came in Braubach, where as court preacher and superintendent (1646-1649) for the Landgrave Johann of Hessen-Braubach he acquired an understanding of the problems confronting the small state, an understanding which served him well when he represented Johann unofficially3 during the peace negotiations in Miinster at the close of the Thirty Years' War. Thus far Schupp's career appears to have been successful. He was even selected by the Swedish Chancellor, Oxenstierna, to preach at Miinster the sermon celebrating the advent of peace. Nevertheless, all this provided him with little security. A financially disadvantageous marriage, 4 the plundering of his effects in Marburg during the war, and indebtedness because of limited state finances and inadequate pay6

.'SCHUPP AS A L I T E R A R Y F I G U R E

3

• drove Schupp to seek a more remunerative position. 6 Such was the i reputation of the m a n that both Augsburg and Hamburg offered him ] posts. Schupp would perhaps have preferred the former, but a previous ] promise and the hope of greater prosperity induced him to accept the Ihead pastorship of the Church of St. Jacob in Hamburg. In spite of the i demands which his work there made upon him he found time to act as . an unofficial agent for the Swedes7 and to write not only on matters pert a i n i n g to his special duties in Hamburg, but also on other interests «close to his heart: the government of the state, the cultivation of the German language, and needed reforms in education. T h e experience of life was supplemented by that of books. T h e expensive and varied field he covered in his reading has been painstaki n g l y explored, 8 but even a layman's perusal of his works reveals un' usual breadth of contact and interest: classical authors, Church Fathers, : authors of the sixteenth century, contemporaries and near contemporaries. Great figures of the classical and modern world such as Socrates, -Lucian, Luther, Erasmus, Reuchlin, More, Bacon, Andreae, Barclay, Boccalini, Comenius, Moscherosch, Rist, Rabelais, Opitz, and countless • others are referred to, or are drawn upon for ideas, anecdotes, and «examples. W i t h learning and experience Schupp combined some of the finest 'qualities of character—dignity, integrity, a sense of the amusing in himself and others, and at the same time a directness of human communi' cation that glows warmly across barriers of time and faded print. It is • comprehensible that such a man called forth sincere admiration as well as envious attack. Even his father expressed dissatisfaction with a son whose upright character stood in the way of the financial success which was of prime importance to the elder Schupp. 9 At the university he •earned the esteem of students and superiors 10 but he was also made to suffer from those who looked with suspicion on every word not in accord with convention. 11 As a court preacher he had the favor of his prince 12 but he also experienced the chicanery of calumniators. 1 3 In Hamburg, as the polemics composed there reveal, his writings and sermons were as popular with friends and followers as they were suspect to certain church authorities, to the envious and the ill-willed, and above all to the sinners whom Schupp attacked with customary fearlessness.** Some of these attacks strike one as strange today, for the perspective of years reveals Schupp as no iconoclastic reformer. He was not even •an unusually imaginative writer whose daring fancies might have shocked the stolid. He was no more than a man of intelligence and honesty who felt impelled to point out what was wrong within the ac-

4

SCHUPP AS A LITERARY FIGURE

cepted moral and social pattern he questioned as little as the majority of his contemporaries. It is all the more understandable, therefore, that these attacks awakened in him moods of bitterness and resignation. But they also aroused Schupp the fighter, who breathed the charged air of controversy with a buoyant awareness of his own power. Yet controversy is not Schupp's characteristic form of self-expression. Beneath his fighting spirit lay the ever-strengthening and deepening force of his sense of mission, and it is this sense that was fundamental to his character. For despite his early opposition to his father concerning his choice of profession, the ministry was Schupp's true vocation. It permitted him to express most completely his own personality, that of the practical man of God who in an age of anxious formality spoke frankly before princes and authorities, before the wealthy, the learned, the established, yet remained fresh, courageous, inwardly certain of the Tightness of his actions even in his moments of despondency. T h e works produced in the course of this full life are not easily divided into simple or mutually exclusive groups. Virtually the same range of subjects appears again and again. T h e most enlightening division, though obviously artificial, is a chronological grouping of the works produced during his teaching days in Marburg, those having their origin in his experiences as court preacher for the Landgrave of Hessen-Braubach, and finally those written while he was head pastor in the Church of St. Jacob in Hamburg. T h e works originating in Marburg, addressed chiefly to the student and professional audience there, are in Latin, the language of learning in Schupp's day. These works, dating roughly from 1638 to 1647, may be divided for convenience into three groups: the laudatory or panegyric works, the satires, and the specificially religious writings. T o the first group belong Hercules Togatus, Panegyricus Memoriae Conradi Dieterici, and the panegyric on Friedrich of Hesse. T h e first of these praises Georg II of Hesse and justifies this ruler's actions during the war; the last two works, portraying, one might say, the ideal educator and the perfect ruler, also include material of value on Schupp's concept of the role of education in the state. T h e satirical group comprises De opinione and De oratore inepto, whose titles are sufficiently explanatory of the content; Somnium cuius occasione, on a limited number of contemporary evils; and De usu et praestantia nihili, covering a wider range of wrongs and follies. Added to these are several so-called "programs" introducing Schupp's orations or those of his students. Most important of these is the program to Proteus, which contains essential elements of Schupp's ideas on education.

SCHUPP AS A L I T E R A R Y

FIGURE

5

T h e two specifically devotional or theological works originating in Marburg are Eusebia, on the relationship of man to God, and Aurora, on the Lutheran faith, both of which also appeared in later editions of Schupp's works in German translation. 15 A last work requiring mention in the Marburg group, the Consecratio Avellini, consists mainly of unimportant poems, but includes an introduction of some interest in which Schupp speaks on literature. 1 6 T h e works elicited by Schupp's experiences as preacher and amateur statesman in Braubach are the Latin De arte ditescendi, written in 1647, and the German Salomo, composed in Hamburg in 1656. Both deal with economic, moral, and cultural problems of the small state, such as that over which Johann of Hessen-Braubach ruled. With some insignificant exceptions, the works having their origin in Schupp's activities in Hamburg are all written in German, not only because Schupp here wished to reach the average man in need of moral guidance, but because he had long been convinced that the vernacular provided an adequate and appropriate medium for all fields. These works, written between 1649 and 1661, concern themselves in the main with moral and practical problems presented by Schupp's pastoral charges, but there are also several important works treating the state, education, and the German language. Finally, the Hamburg period evoked a number of polemics, addressed to the enemies whose vociferous attacks gave Schupp no rest. T h e writings concerning themselves with the special problems of Schupp's parishioners fall naturally into two groups—those which satirize or attack moral wrongs and those which are devotional in nature. T o the former group belong Der Geplagte Hiob, on the lack of Christian patience; Der Bekehrte Ritter Florian, on the plight of the convert to Lutheranism; Der Rachgierige Lucidor, on vengefulness; Gedenk daran, Hamburg, on the desecration of the Sabbath; Corinna, on unchasteness; Sieben böse Geister, on the misbehavior of servants; and Allmosenbüchse, on the lack of charity. Broader in scope than these, but like them concentrating on the sins of Hamburg, is Ninivitischer Buszspiegel, which reviews and censures the transgressions typical of a large city, such as Nineveh or Hamburg. Devotional or homiletic in nature, though not devoid of satiric darts, are Die Krankenwärterin, Golgotha, and Einfältige Erklärung der Litanei. In some measure, Der Freund in der Not may also be placed here since it directs the attention of Schupp's son, on the occasion of his departure for the university, to God as the only true friend. Like these devotional works, the brief Lobwürdiger Low, addressed to a friend on entering on marriage, aims to hold up a model of behavior,

6

SCHUPP AS A LITERARY FIGURE

or to inspire rather than to censure. One might also place here the group of hymns included in Schupp's Lehrreiche Schrißten, though the introductory remarks to these hymns also touch on Schupp's ideas concerning the form and language of contemporary poetry. Between the satiric and the devotional works stands Der Hauptmann zu Capernaum, written to give moral as well as practical advice to those about to enter the army, but enlivened by telling satiric elements. The works of Schupp's Hamburg years treating moral and social problems not directly related to his pastoral duties are the following: Ambrosi Mellilambii Sendschreiben and Ein Holländisch Pratgen, on the current Swedish wars, discussed from the viewpoint of the statesman and the Christian; Teutscher Lehrmeister, on the German language; and Vom Schulwesen, on education. Here Der Freund in der Not may be mentioned again because of important references to the German universities of Schupp's day. Finally, there is among Schupp's works in this period a group of polemics called forth by a number of attacks upon him, notably those by a certain Pastor Müller17 of the neighboring Church of St. Peter in Hamburg, and Senior of the Convent of Ministers in that city.18 This fellow clergyman came to the fore, for personal as well as professional reasons, as the guiding spirit in an investigation of Schupp's orthodoxy, his use of the satiric method in writings and sermons, and his criticism of the universities. Like Schupp's remaining works, the polemics do not always confine themselves to a single topic, but tend to deal blows in several directions. Yet, again for convenience, a certain grouping may be attempted. The second part of Corinna and Relation aus dem Parnasso are in the main a defense of Schupp's satiric method. In Der Deutsche Lucianus, too, though Schupp repeats the criticism of the universities to which his enemies had objected, he defends his style of writing. In Calender he gives his attention chiefly to the attacks on his personal life, while Abgenötigte Ehrenrettung, as the title implies, is in the main a serious refutation of the charge that he made improper statements in his sermons. Erste und Eilfertige Antwort and Eilfertiges Sendschreiben are aimed at two new enemies who, like the others, had taken objection to Schupp's criticism of the universities and to his manner of writing. Der Bücherdieb also directs words of warning at his enemies, but its chief purpose is to censure the piraters of his works. As pointed out above, Schupp has not attracted a wide interest on the part of literary historians. Nevertheless, a man with his personal

SCHUPP AS A L I T E R A R Y F I G U R E

7

qualities and broad range of interest and activity could not be overlooked by students of the seventeenth century. Excellent work has been done on the dating of his writings, 19 on their authenticity, 2 0 and on the variety of sources on which he drew. 21 Much has also been established concerning the details of his life. 22 In addition, there are available good summaries of the character of the man, 2 3 his ideas, 24 and his style and degree of creative ability. 25 In examining these, however, it became evident to me that the basis for a critical evaluation of Schupp as a satirist was lacking, 26 and that his importance in that field could be established only by a systematic comparison with his contemporaries. This comparison, then, became the special subject for my investigation. I was soon aware, however, that the sketchy or even disdainful treatment of seventeenth-century satire in the available reference works 27 could not be used as the basis for an adequate presentation, and that my first step must be to make a somewhat detailed summary of the general trends in the satire of the entire century in order to provide a suitable background for the discussion of Schupp. Accordingly, the following study is divided into parallel chapters dealing with various phases of form, content, and philosophical approach, first as they appear in the works of other outstanding satirists of the age, and then in those of Schupp. Certain weaknesses of this comparative method are obvious enough. T h e formidable technical problem of surveying the vast body of material essential to such a method could be solved only by considering the more readily available works and by making a selection even among these. In Schupp's case, therefore, I limited myself to the works contained in three representative editions of his writings: the Latin Volumen orationum solemnium et panegyricarum of 1659, the German Schritften published in 1663, and the Zugab, presumably published in 1667, and consisting of those German works not included in the Schrifften.28 This selection resulted in the fact that two early Latin works, Aurora and Eusebia, not contained in the Volumen of 1659, were consulted only in the German translations appearing in later, complete editions of Schupp's works. Similarly, the early Latin Consecratio Avellini, not included in the editions used, was taken into consideration only with the help of secondary sources, though its omission is compensated for to some degree by the fact that many of the ideas in its introduction, the most valuable part of the work, as stated above, had found their way into Schupp's Der Teutsche Lehrmeister.29 Another Latin work, Hercules Togatus, though available

8

S C H U P P AS A L I T E R A R Y

FIGURE

in the Volumen, seemed too insignificant for an understanding of Schupp as a satirist to warrant an extension of the already considerable scope of my study. In the case of the other satirists treated in the following pages, the comparative method required even more rigid selection, so that names like Sacer, Abele, Pufendorf, and Thomasius could not be taken into consideration at all, while the remaining satirists could find representation only by means of their better-known writings. T h e need for the omission of much secondary material on these men is too obvious for comment. Even in Schupp's case, where the amount of such material included in my study is incomparably greater, certain matters treated in detail by his critics could barely be touched upon—the large number of sources and models upon which he drew, for example. T h e presentation of Schupp and the contemporary satire in parallel chapters also requires a word of explanation. Obviously, it resulted in a lack of balance between the treatment of Schupp and that of the others. Nevertheless, it appeared to me to be justified because it threw into sharper relief certain characteristic differences, such as Schupp's journalistic directness and the novelistic, dramatic, or verse forms of most of his fellows; his selective treatment of social groups and Moscherosch's or Abraham's panoramic range; his practical but austere morality and Rachel's or Weise's nascent eudaemonism. More than this, the parallel treatment seemed to me essential in calling attention to the character of the seventeenth century as a whole, a century whose remarkable creative vitality expressed itself in such a diversity of fields.

Part One: T h e Form of the Satire in the Seventeenth Century I

STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF THE CONTEMPORARY SATIRE

I

of the structural aspects of seventeenth-century literature in Germany, one thinks first of the stylistic characteristics of what might be called the "formal" Baroque, that is, that portion of the great body of the century's literature represented by the language societies or by writers like Gryphius, Ziegler, Zesen, Anton Ulrich, Lohenstein, and Hofmannswaldau, with their stylized diction and their regard for structural refinements. In contrast to these, the contemporary satire in Germany appears structurally amorphous and limited in stylistic feeling. In large part accurate as this general impression may be, investigation reveals within satire a more clearly developed formal sense than appears at first. This is more apparent in some genres than in others. Narrative and expository prose, which constitute the greater part of the century's satire, more often indulge the older tendency to diffusion; verse, especially under the influence of classical models, early becomes restrained in form and scope; the comedy, following the rules of Opitz to some extent, also reduces its content and strives for something more closely approaching climax. None of the genres overcomes its tolerance of repetition and didactic interpolation entirely, but the trend toward simplification in structure and style gains strength noticeably in the course of the century. N SPEAKING

Whatever the nature of the formal treatment employed in satire, its aim is to supply the reader with a standard of evaluation for the object of censure. T h e satirist achieves this by placing his objects in a perspective which is the opposite of that appearing in tragedy. T h e writer of tragedy unfolds his landscape close before us. His figures are large, and the lines of his perspective diverge as they sweep outward toward these, but large as they are, he awakens in us a sense of kinship with them. T h e satirist puts his objects away from him, pretending not to be concerned with them. His perspective is reversed: small

10

STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF T H E SATIRE

figures people a distant landscape, and with him we look down upon them and their little gestures. If he brings them closer until they appear to tower as in a vision, we still perceive their petty nature clearly. Their very size becomes a measure of their inner worthlessness. T o achieve this characteristic perspective, the satirist is dependent upon various devices of structure and language. His choice of these, which may range in complexity from an elaborate framework strong enough to support an entire work to nothing more than objective statement interspersed with picturesque invective or the revealing antithesis of wit, obviously depends not only on his own temperament and philosophy but on the nature of the age in which he is writing. Thus, the German satirist of the fiery sixteenth century, particularly in its earlier portion, aimed at a single group of objects—the practices and tenets of the church, whether old or new; when man's wickedness or his inadequate institutions were attacked it was chiefly because they were looked upon as products of these practices and tenets. A certain degree of simplicity in form was therefore indicated, especially since attack was often combined with the task of guiding the public to rethink what it had long accepted. T h e latter part of the century, less spirited and without the stimulus of hopeful battle, dealt less and less with specific wrongs such as those satirized by Johann Strieker in his Diidescher Schlommer (1584) or by Fischart in certain of his works, and more with the typical follies and foibles of mankind as they appear in Ringwaldt, Rollenhagen, and in Fischart's Geschichtsklitterung (1575). T h e first half of the seventeenth century, too, though it was impelled by the attrition of a brutal and apparently endless war to give its attention to social and political evils, produced satiric moralists rather than polemicists, men like Moscherosch and Logau who traversed in their works the interminable morass of human sinfulness. T h e satirist of the latter part of the century, more hopeful, walked on firmer ground where man appeared foolish and injudicious rather than sinful, but his range, however restricted in comparison with that of the earlier decades of the century, remained so broad that it still encompassed much of the human scene. It is appropriate, therefore, that the century's most common over-all structural device should be the old "revue," 1 used either alone or in combination with the even more venerable visionary or dream satire. 2 In both, the century's favorite figure is, suitably enough, the wanderer or observer, whose nature has much of the observer in the old vision or revue, but also something of the picaro. 3 T h e observer, if one may sketch his composite portrait as it appears in the century, watches men

S T R U C T U R A L ASPECTS OF T H E SATIRE

11

pass before him in an endless repetition of evil and folly; or he wanders about without hope, noting only the universality of sin. He is sometimes the innocent, credulous of the world and enlightened by an informed guide; he wanders among living men or he is carried by a dream or a vision to the underworld or the past. Everywhere he sees only his own world and its wrongs. The tenacity of this old observer-revue framework is astonishing. Almost no major satiric work of the century is entirely without it. Philander, in Moscherosch's Gesichte (1640-1643), wanders through a world of dream-visions under the guidance of Expertus Robertus. Grimmelshausen's Michel, in Vogelnest I (1672), made invisible by the magic nest, observes men in the real world. Even only partly satiric works like Simplicissimus (1669), Courasche (1670), and Springinsfeld (1670) show in their central figures something of the wanderer-reviewer. Weise himself travels to a mythical realm in a dream in his Hauptverderber (1671). The central figures of his Erznarren (1672), Drei klügste Leute (1675), and Politischer Näscher (1676) see real life pass in review before them as they wander about. Even the imitators, Riemer and Happel, use a combination of the revue and the picaresque novel as a basic form. Beer, though his hero in Sommertäge (1683) does not engage in travels to observe human follies, introduces these in the form of listings from time to time, e.g., in the account of the young painter's pranks or in narrating the habits of the secretary's various masters.4 All the writings of Abraham a Sancta Clara (1685 ff.) are actually revues of a sort, though they lack the framing locale and central figure usually associated with the type. Finally, Schelmuffsky (1696), travesty on the bourgeois social aspirant of Reuter's day, seems to mock the entire category of observers and picaros. The verse satirists, too, though they were restrained by classical models from creating lengthy satiric epics in the style of Ringwaldt and Rollenhagen, do not escape the revue entirely. Lauremberg scans the trades briefly5 in two of his Veer Schertz Gedichte (1652), and Rachel approaches the revue form in his "Gut und Böse," one of the poems in his Satyrische Gedichte (1664). Even Logau's epigrams (1638-1654), free as they are by their nature of the appurtenances of the form, present a similar kaleidoscopic survey of human types and traits. The comedy, finally, farthest removed from the revue pattern as exemplified in a work like Dionys Klein's tragicomedy of a pilgrimage to heaven and hell (1622)6 yields to the old convenient pattern in Weise's Politischer Quacksalber { 1684).t The function of the revue with its observer is obviously to provide a

12

S T R U C T U R A L ASPECTS O F T H E S A T I R E

means for approaching the objects which the satirist has selected for attack. As such, it has an advantage and a disadvantage. It permits the survey of a broad field in a natural manner but it also invites the endless expansion of which the century is fond. Most of the prose writers try to avoid this danger by superimposing on the diffuse form some of the elements of the novel: continuity of action and a central figure whose viewpoint or moral involvement connects him more than casually with what he observes. Moscherosch motivates the first part of his Gesichte better than his model Quevedo, 8 and in the second part he develops more than a semblance of plot, particularly in the first and sixth "Visions." Weise makes an attempt at creating sequence of action in his novels and in Hauptverderber, as does Grimmelshausen in his satiric Vogelnest I and, of course, in his other, basically nonsatiric works. On the whole, these efforts of the satirists to effect continuity were tentative. T h e mass of material was too vast to be disciplined, and the writers too reluctant to abandon universal inclusion for an organized form. A more organic basis for unity was available to the satirist in using his central figure as a station point, to speak in terms of perspective, from which to judge the true proportions of what he observed. T h e nature of this station point could be serious or ironic. In its serious phase it encouraged tiresome expansion because its heavy-handed didacticism invited the collection of ever more examples. T h e satiric literature of the century abounds in instances where the observer is nothing more than a serious commentator and where only the larger device of the dream or journey saves the work from becoming a peripatetic sermon. In its ironic phase the station point has greater cohesive power because it creates a unifying mood. Simplicissimus, the young innocent, forms an excellent contrast to the decadent bestiality of society. Moscherosch's Philander, also something of an innocent, believes in the mourning widow's tears, is taken with the false charms of the lady in Paris, and naively defends his modish attire before the old Germanic heroes. 9 But while Grimmelshausen, the novelist, is more successful in using his hero thus, Philander's function as an ironic station point is not performed consistently. T h e century is loath to yield the didactic approach; and so we find Philander commenting as seriously as Expertus Robertus on hypocrisy, or telling the alchemist in hell in ironic terms about the prevalence of virtue on earth. 1 0 Weise's Florindo is used more consistently as an ironic standard of evaluation. Prone to be deceived by the world's values, he requires the constant enlightenment of his mentor, Gelanor. If the youth has little unifying

S T R U C T U R A L ASPECTS OF T H E SATIRE

13

power, nevertheless, it is because Weise is more interested in Gelanor than in him. Reuter alone of the satirists creates a consistently ironic station point in the person of his Schelmuffsky, completely without moralizing intrusion. It is significant for an understanding of the nature of the century's development that the representative of the station point shows a strong tendency to merge with the author's own personality. The personal "I," given self-assurance in the outspoken blusterings of Luther and the other religious polemicists, and later emphasized by the picaro's unaffected self-revelation, continued a vigorous existence throughout the seventeenth century on the popular level, where it was unhampered by the self-effacing etiquette of courtly literature. This "I," fictional or real, appears in almost all popular satire. Moscherosch's creative instinct is strong enough to break through the complicated structure of the dream-vision and awaken in us the feeling or the illusion that he himself and Philander are identical, above all in the second half of the Gesichte. Grimmelshausen's Courasche, Springinsfeld, and Michel are obviously literary fictions, but the author is more palpably present in parts of Simplicissimus, in Melcher (1667), and particularly in Teutscher Michel (1673), where he discourses on his subject almost in the manner of an informal essayist. Lauremberg, or his crotchety self-projection, enters into his poems, speaks his mind, is amused at himself, and justifies his views. Rachel's personal "I" obtrudes itself constantly: a man to be criticized is "my Fritz," or the reader is reminded that if he gets a wife with all the virtues Rachel has described, he is in better luck than Peter Filtz and the author. 11 Abraham is so dynamically present in his writings that even the modern reader can still feel the actuality of the word spoken by a familiar figure. Logau, even more than Abraham, imbues his epigrams with the warmth of genuine self-revelation. Although Weise, except for an occasional aside, prefers to retire behind a schoolmasterly dignity in his novels, his style reveals something intimate in the introduction to the Hauptverderber (1671). None of these writers is able to go so far as to substitute an obviously personal viewpoint for generally accepted moral standards, but their real or feigned human presence lends to their satire, notwithstanding its battery of structures and devices, something of the naturalness and realism which one misses elsewhere in the century. The satiric observer was used in still another manner for the purpose of creating artistic unity. In contrast to the moral indifference of those he observes, he reveals a double aspect; like them he is deceived by false values, but unlike them he is able to wrestle with proneness to evil.

14

S T R U C T U R A L ASPECTS OF T H E S A T I R E

Moscherosch, particularly in "Soldatenleben," attempts to make his Philander not only the observer but the man of inner strength who recognizes wrong and frees himself of it. In the first part of Vogelnest, Grimmelshausen uses the wonderful nest as a means of revealing the sinful lives of others, but also as a temptation for Michel, its owner, to ape the omnipresence of God. Spiritual growth of a sort also takes place in the merchant in Vogelnest II and Springinsfeld, if one may treat these for a moment with the satiric works. Weise, too, tries to use the development of his Florindo as the centralizing theme of his Erznarren. If he is not successful, it is because Florindo is not so deeply affected by the world about him as are Simplicius and Philander, for Weise himself, like others of his generation, was no longer so constituted as to wince at the sight of human frailty. Yet the relative depth of Florindo's development becomes apparent when one compares him with figures in Riemer's Politischer Maulafje (1673) or Happel's Akademischer Roman (1690). Significantly enough, only the basically nonsatiric Simplicissimus achieves true inner unity through the development of its central figure by conquering the deadly diversity of universal satire and directing the attention, not to a multiplicity of sins, but to man himself. If these attempts at supplying the rambling structure of satire with organic unity are not successful, they remain indications of efforts in the direction of simplification. What stood in the way of success was not so much the lack of formative power or inspiring precedent as the inability of the seventeenth century satirist to limit his scope. He could not select and concentrate because he was guided less by abstract artistic considerations than by a general moral conscience which made him reluctant to treat less than everything. So it is that despite the models for brevity to be found in the verse satire of Lauremberg and Rachel and in the comedy of Gryphius and Weise, the loosely fashioned observer-revue remains the favorite framework wherein a great number of devices could be employed to reach as many culprits as possible. Superficially considered, the outstanding common characteristic of these devices is an uncontrolled eclecticism. Old and new, borrowed and original, real and visionary, serious and ironic, are crowded into the frame of the satire with a fullness and repetitiousness that could satisfy both the century's moral concern and its delight in masses of material and innumerable variations on favorite themes. Closer examination reveals certain distinct lines of development. T h e path of this development is not straight, but a double line of progress is dis-

S T R U C T U R A L ASPECTS OF T H E SATIRE

15

tinguishable—a tendency to transform mechanical devices into living beings, and a trend toward the simplification of both structural apparatus and language. This progress may be noted in the guide or mentor, in the locale, in the figures introduced as satiric media, and in the character of the style which clothes the structural skeleton. T h e guide, a natural heritage from the large body of visionary or dream literature, 12 both pre-satiric and satiric, which influenced the form of the century's prose satire, was capable of certain development. T h e concept of his character could be deepened progressively until he became a mentor in the highest sense, or he could be eliminated and his function taken over by the observer or the author. The first is the line of development represented by Moscherosch and Weise. T h e former transforms Quevedo's allegorical "el Desengaño" 13 into Expertus Robertus, a man of flesh and blood who scolds, preaches, and enlightens volubly in very human fashion. But Expertus Robertus, for all the progress he represents, retains something of the moral inflexibility of the severe judge. This is perhaps the reason that Moscherosch permits the lusty old Germanic hero, Ariovistus, to usurp his role to a large extent in the second half of the Gesichte. It is Weise who in Gelanor realizes the fuller possibilities of the figure. Although he is still the all-wise, Gelanor represents not so much a rigid moral standard as that of wisdom and experience; he teaches both proper ethical behavior and adjustment to the weaknesses of others. Appropriately enough, he conducts his pupil, not in a vision, but through the real world. If he is lacking in human warmth, it is because Weise is not great enough to rid himself of a certain schoolmasterly arrogance which on occasion converts the philosophic observer into the collector of oddities. The line of development as represented by Weise and Moscherosch did not altogether replace the earlier type of guide in satiric literature. He still appears in Weise's Hauptverderber as the mysterious Friend and in Grimmelshausen's Verkehrte Welt (1683) as the "Genius," 14 but in so shadowy a form that it is obvious that the conventional treatment of his figure is going out of use. This is confirmed by the fact that he does not have a role in the works of Lauremberg, Rachel, Abraham, or Reuter. In all but the last of these his function is merged with that of the observer, and both are absorbed by the author himself or by the more or less fictional person speaking for him in his writings. The guide was traditionally associated with a visionary or unreal locale.18 The moral decay in the train of the Thirty Years' War no doubt made this old supermundane framework attractive to a man like

16

STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF THE SATIRE

Moscherosch when he found it in Quevedo, Ringwaldt, and others. T h e very title of his work—Gesichte—indicates the nature of its setting. Except the transitional portions, the visions are set on the road to hell, at the Last Judgment, in hell itself, and later in the castle of the old Germanic heroes. But in the two parts the sense of unreality created by the locale differs noticeably. In the first part the framework is hard to forget. Figures stand out luridly against a harsh background that lacks the alleviating detail of the human scene. While the unreality still obtrudes itself to some extent in the second part, the strongest impression is that of life directly observed and shared. Philander is not in hell listening to reports by devils but in the midst of an animated scene at a castle where people come and go and the old heroes are voluble and frank as they drink, eat, and speak. Or, closer still to reality, Philander lives with a group of marauders and shares their way of life. It is obvious from this development in one work how strong the tendency was in satire to abandon the unreal locale. This becomes more evident as time goes on. Grimmelshausen uses it only in the dream of hell in Verkehrte Welt.16 In his major works it appears episodically: the vision of hell in Book VI of Simplicissimus, the visit to the Mummelsee in Book V, the vision of the world and its actions in Vogelnest II.1" T h e terminating chapter of the first Continuatio, i.e., Book VI, shows an interesting development of the old unreal setting. Fancy has replaced the dream, and the real world as an imaginary but geographically tangible concept has crowded out the old, hackneyed vision of hell. Weise uses the dream in his Hauptverderber, but the scene of his other works is real life, as it is in the works of Happel, Riemer, Rachel, and Lauremberg. Of the major writers only Abraham returns to the supermundane background sporadically. 18 Otherwise, his works are localized in the palpable reality of a large city with its typical figures and activities. T h e revue with its observer, guide, and locale are framing devices for presenting the objects of criticism and placing them in the required perspective. T h e objects may be set into this framework in several ways—by direct, more or less satiric description or denunciation, by personification in abstract types or allegories, and by embodiment in figures with human traits in varying degrees of verisimilitude. T h e general trend in the seventeenth century is in the direction of the last of these, but the preference for direct denunciation without the use of satiric perspective remains strong. T h e latter is most common in the first part of Moscherosch's Gesichte. Philander speaks bitterly of his experience with universal hypocrisy, Robertus inveighs against the

S T R U C T U R A L ASPECTS OF T H E S A T I R E

17

world's fraudulence, the devil preaches nobility of the soul and the imminence of death, and the author injects countless quotations, moral reflections, and angry descriptions which depress the satiric mood to the level of pure didacticism. Figures often crowd past the reader in so dense a stream that they hardly represent more than cursory references to abstract folly. Even in the first part of the Gesichte, to be sure, it is obvious that Moscherosch recognizes the need for enlivening his preaching and scolding by permitting Philander to participate directly in the scene observed. In the second part he counteracts the effects of abstract denunciation even more successfully by reducing the number of quotations and listings and above all by a better motivation for much of the sermonizing. Whereas Expertus Robertus' comments are still introduced somewhat gratuitously, the pungent attack of Ariovistus and the other old heroes upon foreign imitation is motivated well by the fact that a war actually in progress in Ariovistus' day as in that of Moscherosch made all that was foreign in appearance and origin doubly suspect to the Germans. Nevertheless, purely didactic treatment retains its place here as it does to some degree in most of the subsequent satiric works of the century. Rachel, Lauremberg, Logau, and Grimmelshausen invariably surround their human figures with serious comment or instruction. Even Weise, lifelike though his characters are, often creates the impression in Erznarren that the work consists of a series of moral essays based on specific human examples.19 Framed in this abstract treatment of follies are the illustrative figures endowed with varying degrees of animation. Their development, too, follows, on the whole, the course toward the concrete. In the older forms of the satiric or dream-vision the allegorical figure played an important role, 20 and it is still important for Moscherosch in the first part of the Gesichte. Truth and Justice visit the earth, Philander comes upon a Street of Quarrelers and a Street of Gluttons in Paris, Mistress Untrue lives in the land of Venus.21 Grimmelshausen also retains some preference for the allegory, such as the story of Julus in Book VI of Simplicissimus, the famous allegory of the trees in Book I, and the mythological vision of the actions of man in Vogelnest II.2i Weise, like Lauremberg, Rachel, and the entertainers, eschews the allegory except for such rare instances as those in Bäurischer Machiavellus where Rationalis has difficulty in controlling his servant Appetitus, or where Antiquus, the ancient principle of evil, is handed over to Eruditus, Sedulus, and Severus to be reformed.23 Notwithstanding this progress, the use of allegories and abstract figures continues as a

18

S T R U C T U R A L ASPECTS O F T H E S A T I R E

subtendency along with the unreal locale throughout the century and revives in the moral weeklies.24 This subtendency reappears in rich abundance in Abraham a Sancta Clara but in a manner typical of his closeness to the popular mind. He frequently reduces the old allegory to an allegorical pun, which he then assimilates so completely to lively popular language that it is vitalized and individualized: the sign of March is the "Widder," that is, the ram, because one man is characteristically "widder" (against) the other; we are almost all citizens of "Leiden"; husbands who beat their wives read "Puffendorf." 2 5 Allegorical figures also appear, but they too are frequently endowed with such reality that one forgets their bloodless origin: Constantia is "Jungfer Stanzel" and Abraham becomes a matchmaker who invites his congregation to fall in love with her. 26 On the other hand, he also reveals a tendency to convert living figures into allegories as, for example, when a hideous old woman is revealed as "Curiositas." 2 7 By far the more popular medium for presenting sins and evils is the type, used as a representative either of a single vice or foible or of a class or profession. T h e works of every satiric writer of the century abound in examples: drunkard, lecher, stingy father, social aspirant, flatterer, shrew, doctor, peasant, lawyer. Some of these are merely referred to, somewhat in the manner of allegorical figures or familiar types recognizable by the reader without the need of epithet or description. They appear in the forms of listings and reports in Moscherosch's Gesichte, in such heapings of words as Abraham's "Bau-Narrn, Sau-Narrn, Traid-Narrn, Weid-Narrn," 2 8 in Logau's succinct characterizations, and in Rachel's catalogue of female types in the first of his satiric poems. Some are delineated briefly and wittily, like those whom Philander sees arising when the trumpet is blown at the Last Judgment. 2 9 T h e better types are depicted in more detail and frequently with great skill and effectiveness. Striking examples may be cited from the works of all the satirists of the century: Moscherosch's mourning widow, 30 his Frenchman who cannot pronounce German "undrunk," his Laelius; 3 1 or most of Weise's characters in Erznarren, like the overdressed young man, the man who insists upon the observation of all courteous formalities, and the merchant who acts like a prince. 32 Innumerable examples can also be found in Abraham's works, such as the man who tells his wife the thoughts he had during the church service, the toper, the schoolmaster who mistakes for a note the gnat that has alighted on his music. 33 If one were to include such delightful portrayals as those in Weise's or Gryphius' comedies, or the folk who people Lauremberg's poems, the list would become endless.

S T R U C T U R A L ASPECTS OF T H E SATIRE

19

T h e next logical step in this development would have been to round out the portrait of the type until it took on the dimension of life. Something of this may be seen in the detailed and highly individualized portraits of types already mentioned. T o complete the development, however, would have required the abandonment of satire in the strictest sense since the satirist has no business with the human understanding implicit in the well-rounded portrait. Nevertheless, such is the complexity and richness of seventeenth-century satire that a number of portrayals of this sort may be found. They appear either in the form of a fictional representative of the author, such as Gelanor, Simplicius, and Philander, or in the actual or feigned personality of the author as he introduces it directly into his works, as that of Abraham, Logau, or Lauremberg. Or they appear as objective portraits—Thurnmeyer and Ariovistus in the Gesichte of Moscherosch, some of Weise's figures, such as Florindo in Erznarren and the students in Lateiner, Gryphius' Gregor Kornblume, and Reuter's Ehrenfried. Wanderer-revue and vision, allegory and satiric type, individual trait and warm h u m a n personality—each of these plays its role in the structure of satire throughout the century. Schupp too draws readily on them in constructing his satiric works, but assigns to them a place secondary to the form which suits his purpose best.

II CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPP'S SATIRICAL FORM

I

F ONE WISHED to state in simplest terms the difference between Schupp and the satirists discussed in the previous chapter, one might say that while the latter are moralists addressing mankind, Schupp is the preacher, educator, or practical economist addressing a specific group. This difference is the underlying factor in the formal treatment of his satire. Elaborate constructions, continuity of content, or human development are of as little concern to him as stylistic niceties. He seizes readily, to be sure, upon any devices of structure which his sources or his times have to offer but he rarely uses them throughout an entire work. At most, they provide him with a shadowy framework to be filled with a direct presentation in simple language of the problem at hand. So it is that neither the dream, the journey, nor the wanderer and his guide receive the extensive use in his works which they find elsewhere. The wanderer-revue of sinners and fools appears in its pure form only four times in Schupp's writings, and even here its limited field distinguishes it from such works as the Gesichte of Moscherosch or the Erznarren of Weise. His only carefully constructed work in this form is the Somnium cuius occasione, a Latin work of his university period. Schupp dreams that he sees Vanity triumphant, followed by a train of other allegorical figures. Suddenly the torches carried by the accompanying chorus of boys start a fire, and a mysterious man appears with a bucket of water to quench it. At the side of this man Schupp now moves to various places: a city where every vice is rampant; a pleasant path where a great man walks with his head in the clouds, unaware that his wife is deceiving him at home; a monastery in which more money is spent for pleasure than charity; and so on. In each case the guiding figure empties his bucket on the head of the fool burning with the omnipresent vanity. Only a soldier is spared at the author's request, because he has already had fast days enough to atone for an unpardonable crime.1 Finally, even Schupp is subjected to a dousing because he has wasted so many valuable hours on his Cassandra.2 In form this work is a little gem. The number of follies is not too great to strain

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPP S FORM

21

the framework or preclude adequate delineation of individual figures, the presentation is lively, and moralizing intrusions are held to a minimum. Nevertheless, the work has some of the abstract quality of a rhetorical exercise.3 This is due not to the examples chosen for censure, since they unquestionably represent wrongs which Schupp considered fundamental, but rather to the allegorical framework, the straining for the learned and basically, perhaps, to the very neatness of the construction. In De arte, the Latin dream-revue of the Braubach period, Schupp is not the professor of eloquence speaking from the height of the cathedra on the follies of man, but the preacher and amateur statesman of Hessen-Braubach who has seen and experienced the misery and poverty accompanying the Thirty Years' War. Instead of a revue of types related only to the vague concept of universal vanity, therefore, he here fills the frame of the dream primarily with figures connected with the most urgent problem of his little state—the art of becoming wealthy. The work begins realistically and charmingly with a scene at a mineral spring where the author has taken refuge as he mourns his country's misfortune. A group of shepherds and teachers, impoverished and exiled because of the war, joins him. Schupp's words of consolation and his subsequent reflections on the reasons for the prevalence of poverty motivate the main portion of the work. He dreams that Francis Bacon has returned to Europe to enlist laborers and professional men for his ideal state, New Atlantis. This permits the introduction of those who might contribute in some way to the formation of such a state: John Barclay, a nobleman from Venice, a man formerly in charge of a war treasury, a minister, a peasant, a teacher. Numbers of others also appear, each with his practical or moral advice. The group proceeds to a mineral spring where Bacon is presented with a beautiful Venetian glass full of medicinal water, and this leads to a discourse on the state of the natural sciences and the inventions. One last figure is introduced, a boy who has lost his patrimony because of the chicanery of lawyers and idle talkers. Finally, a voice is heard to sing that those who look for wealth are building on ice, and at this moment a crowing cock awakens the author. T h e work does not have the unity which it seems to have in summary. Suggestions are often lengthy and lead to digressions, and moral reflections break into the otherwise simple pattern. Nevertheless, in comparison with the prolixity of Moscherosch's Gesichte, the work has liveliness, comparative brevity, and an unmistakable striving for unity. Schupp does not use the revue again to frame an entire work. In its

22

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF SCHUPP S FOR1M

strictest form it appears only incidentally in the early Latin work IDe opinione and in the German Salomo. In the course of the latter, Chaarlemagne revisits the earth and under Schupp's guidance observes vairious malpractices in church and school. T h e first dream in De opiniome acquaints us with several student types, and later in the work an equallly short dream-visit to the underworld is undertaken by the author to ascertain the meaning of "ratio status." Superficially, these four revues appear to follow the pattern foumd elsewhere in the century. All take place in a dream and all but De ante combine this with a journey. A guiding figure also appears: in Sormniurn the man with the bucket is the author's guide; in De opiniome a monk conducts the author through the underworld; and in Salormo Schupp himself is the guide to Charlemagne. While De arte has mo true guide, Schupp performs something of the role in the introductory portion and Bacon does so in the dream, though neither can be calleed the mentor in the traditional sense. Schupp is the observer in Sotmnium and in the two dreams in De opinione, while Charlemagne is tttie observing wanderer in the dream in Salomo. Much as these revues resemble those of Schupp's contemporaries, they also differ characteristically in that the naive observer appeairs less frequently. Schupp himself plays the role to some extent i n Somnium, but even here he tends to become the informant. In tlhe second dream in De opinione, Schupp is not so much the innocent questioner as the somewhat insistent seeker for information. In the dream in Salomo, Charlemagne is something of the uninformed observer, but he also scolds and admonishes in the manner of the mentor. T h e absence of the naive observer is significant. Schupp is too selfassured to play the part himself, and too impatient with elaborate satiric devices to construct a role of this sort for someone else. As a result, his revues lack the modicum of plot and character development unfolded around such figures as Philander in Moscherosch's Gesichte and Florindo in Weise's Erznarren. In addition to the revues which adhere in some measure to the conventional pattern, Schupp uses single elements of the typical revue. He employs the unreal locale in several German works composed in Hamburg. In Lehrmeister an amusing dream ridicules the poetaster; Calender and the dedication to Eilfertige Antwort also mention dreams briefly. In a few works a supermundane locale appears without a dream: In Relation aus dem. Parnasso, Schupp introduces a homely scene at Apollo's birthday celebration in the course of which he is defended by the divine company against his attacker. T h e parley which

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPPS FORM

23

constitutes the framework of Schulwesen also takes place on Parnassus. Elsewhere, the unreal locale appears sporadically.4 In Corinna, Ninivitischer Buszspiegel, and Allmosenbiichse Schupp uses the Biblical city of Nineveh as a setting, but in each case the reference to Hamburg is not only implied but actually stated. Like the unreal locale, the assemblage of a number of objects for purposes of censure or comment also occurs separately from the revue in certain of Schupp's works. In the Latin Nihili, Schupp lists actions amounting in reality to nothing: human beings return for favors done—nothing; the Pope has many wives but leaves to the clerics —nothing; a certain collector reads in all his books—nothing; the rich curse wealth but give the poor—nothing. In like manner, De opinione consists of examples from a variety of fields selected to show the universality of self-deception: the man who thinks that agreement is the best sign of friendship; the woman who considers her beauty more important than wealth; ministers who believe that good sermons consist of fine rhetoric; teachers who rely upon scholastic pedantries; those who are of the opinion that all wisdom is contained in Latin. One might also include among the "revues" of this type one of the sermons which Schupp quotes in the German Ehrenrettung,6 composed in Hamburg in response to his enemies. Here he employs the idea of the New Year's gift to commend, comfort, or reprove various persons. Schulwesen too might be called a kind of revue: Schupp assembles a group of figures about the throne of Apollo to discuss a remedy for the evil rampant among men. After each is permitted to speak, Schupp introduces certain German educators, himself included, who make their suggestions for improving the schools in order to produce a better youth and ultimately a better world. In addition to these more common framing devices, Schupp also employs one which shows kinship with no other satiric writer save Abraham in his Judas der Erzschelm, that of using a Biblical or lay figure as a point of departure for all manner of reflection or censure. Salomo proceeds from the Biblical account of the great king's reign to a discourse on the intelligent management of a small state; Hiob teaches Christian patience by the example of the old patriarch; Buszspiegel uses the experiences of Jonah to castigate the citizens of Hamburg or of any large city; finally, Lucian's satiric treatment of philosophical systems of his day is cited in the polemic Lucianus as a justification for Schupp's censure of the universities. Related to these are the Hamburg works Corinna and Florian, in which a narrative revolving about the central figure calls contemporary problems to the atten-

24

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPP S FORM

tion of the reader. In none of these works is the central device employed with any subtlety. Only Corinna and Florian show some care in construction. The faint thread of narrative, whose potentialities are hardly recognized in Buszspiegel, is here exploited more fully: Florian recounts the tragic experiences of a convert to Lutheranism, and the first part of Corinna presents as a terrible warning the life and death of the young whore Corinna and of her equally sinful mother. Yet even in these Schupp does not sustain the narrative to the end. Florian's fortunes are forgotten in the terminating dialogue, and Corinna's story is followed by the expository second part. Like the over-all structure, the figures with which Schupp peoples his satire are drawn from many sources and presented without great regard for detail or artistic refinement. Listings of examples, allegorical figures, characters from Greek and Roman mythology, and human examples are taken up as they serve his purpose. It is typical of his sense of realism, however, that mere listings as well as abstract figures play the smaller role. One finds only in Nihili and De opinione and in an occasional listing in the course of a work6 anything remotely resembling the droves of culprits appearing in the first part of Moscherosch's Gesichte. Allegorical figures do not appear with unusual frequency, though they may be found throughout Schupp's works.7 Only in Somnium does he introduce a pageant of such figures to represent human wickedness: Vanity is triumphant, Loquacity calls the people together, the printers serve her; two lean horses, Labor and Faithfulness, follow, mounted by Laziness and Intoxication. Similar detail is to be found only in the fables which Schupp uses from time to time, 8 or in occasional comparisons between the phases of nature and the spiritual or physical life of man.9 In other cases allegorical figures are referred to more briefly: "Reformatio," 10 or the three devils, Mammon, Asmodi, and Lucifer, who represent the three greatest sins of the people of Hamburg; 11 the seven devils who mislead servants;12 Curiositas and Nemo in De arte;13 and similar figures. Cassandra, Fabius Cunctator, and Eckhart 14 are used in a like manner to embody abstract concepts. Related to the allegorical figures are those drawn from mythology. These appear most frequently in Somnium,16 but even in the later German works the former professor of eloquence likes to call upon some of the old gods. Mercury appears in De arte and Calender,16 and Apollo holds court on Parnassus in Relation, in the dream in Lehrmeister, and in Schulwesen. As stated above, by far the greater number of examples used by Schupp are human types. These too are delineated casually as illus-

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF SCHUPP S FORM

25

trations rather than as portraits such as those in which Grimmelshausen, Lauremberg, and Abraham, however great their reformatory zeal, take an aesthetic delight. Yet Schupp's figures are neither dull nor lifeless. He shows an undeniable skill in bringing a character before the reader in a vivid manner, a skill derived from his good memory and his vigorous simplicity and colloquialism in language. On occasion he sets his figures off briefly and strikingly, usually in a mood of angry irony, e.g., the scholarly teacher, who knows nothing of what goes on in his environs but beats his pupils if they have forgotten some minor point concerning Latin metaphors, 17 or the pedant who drinks his way to his master's degree and then proves his learning by preaching a sermon on all the ways in which the Lord's Supper did not originate. 18 These characterizations are neither outstandingly witty nor imaginative. They are effective because they embody a typical ironic contrast presented with the vigorous brevity of a man sincerely concerned with improvement. A number of other types stand out even more clearly than these, not because of any greater detail of portraiture, but because of the effective manner in which they reveal themselves through their own words. Schupp's sense of realism is verbally oriented. Colors, gestures, and precise outlines escape him, but he has a keen perception of the spoken word. As a result, the utterances of his figures, whether they have been adopted from other sources or are persons who came within the range of his own experience, create the impression of something actually heard. 19 Examples of this type of self-revelation are so easy to find in the writings of Schupp that a single one may serve for many. It is a passage selected from Freund in der Not in which Schupp imagines the words spoken by the courtiers of Herod about John the Baptist: B u t when J o h n opened his mouth and told Herod and his whore themselves what they needed to hear, all favor was done with. T h e n J o h n could no longer preach well. T h e n the pages, the lackeys, the boot-greasers probably reformed him and asked each other, when they were in attendance after dinner, what sort of foolish, simple preacher J o h n was. . . . T h e n some courtier probably stated that that fellow, that John, was an oddity. One could see it clearly by his clothing. T h e r e he came along in a dress of camel's hair. OhI How they must have gone over his leather belt inch by inchl Another courtier probably said that the good fellow lacked diplomacy. T h e r e he lay in the desert and stuffed himself with locusts and wild honey. H e did not converse much with people. 2 0

Schupp's success in this type of portraiture is especially marked in his later writings, where one finds such figures as those surrounding Job; the scheming wives of Salomo who flatter the old dotard when

26

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F SCHUPP S F O R M

he totters in with his fiddle;21 Nabal in Allmosenbuchse who will not increase his contribution for the poor, but who threatens to spare no expense in suing the minister Theophilus; 2 2 the whore Corbyle who adorns her speech with pious quotations like any respectable matron. Added to these are the actors in the numerous jokes and anecdotes with which Schupp intersperses his works. In each case the characterization is meager in artistic detail but highly effectual in revealing a weakness or an amusing trait, as the examples in the chapter on Schupp's style may serve to illustrate. Some of Schupp's most memorable figures are those portrayed sympathetically: the Chancellor Anton Wolff, Goclenius, Jonah, Moses, 23 and many others. These cannot be called well-rounded portraits because they too are delineated without plastic detail. Yet one takes their reality for granted without substantiating evidence, simply by virtue of the immediacy and personalness of Schupp's style, as one takes for granted the reality of persons referred to by a good speaker or the writer of a lively editorial. Most delightful of all, though still without much more than verbal reality, are Schupp's half-ironic portraits of himself. Except in the polemics, he introduces these incidentally, as he might in a conversation with friends. He summarizes his pride when he became a master of arts, a father, and finally a successful preacher in Hamburg by stating that if someone had offered him a dollar for a louse on his head he would not have sold it. 2 4 Or he tells of his severe but judiciously secret displeasure toward the Chancellor Anton Wolff, who had inadvertently offended him: 2 5 Schupp walked about mentally exchanging bullets with him, "except that I was not permitted to reveal the fact that His Honor, the Chancellor, was in disfavor with me." Equally lively is his account of his youthful confidence in a fine collection of phrases from classical and contemporary writers, and his subsequent realization that if his maid took it to market in Hamburg no old woman would give her as much as a pear in exchange. 28 Apt though these human examples are, their use, like that of the over-all structure, remains secondary to a direct presentation of subject matter. In contrast even to the tentative trends among contemporary satirists toward artistic discipline, therefore, Schupp must appear a poor creative artist. And so he does to many who have written on him. 27 T h e fairest of them refer to him, not without condescension, as an essayist.28 T h e truth is that Schupp is indeed an essayist, and that his structure and illustrative figures must be evaluated accordingly.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPPS FORM

27

T h e essay or, more properly, essay-discourse or essay-dialogue, as Schupp develops it, had many possible models. Important among them obviously are the writings of Luther 29 with their vigorous directness, Lucian's dialogues,30 Boccalini's parleys,31 and finally the loosely constructed, reiterative pattern of the sermon. But important as these models were, the true basis for Schupp's form lies in his own personality. Reluctance to restrain his spirit; 32 the zeal of a man seriously concerned with improvement; the authoritative self-assurance that comes of experience, ability, and a belief in divine vocation; a warm, sympathetic nature—all these combine to produce a forthright yet human and informal approach for which the essay-dialogue is the natural instrument. Schupp did not attain this form all at once. The works of the university period have the heterogeneousness of a mind searching for a convenient medium of expression. One would hardly recognize the later Schupp in the dignified oratory of the panegyrics or in a carefully fashioned work like Somnium; nor has he found himself in Nihili and De opinione, both of which lack the sustained reference to a pressing matter and personal closeness of an author addressing himself to an individual or a small group. Only De oratore inepto, with its limited subject and the informality of its development, anticipates the Schupp of the Hamburg period. The force that released Schupp's style undoubtedly had its source in his experiences in Braubach and eventually in Hamburg.. Freed of the restrictions set upon his teaching by the prince at Marburg,33 and rid, at least for a time, of critical colleagues,34 he served Johann of HessenBraubach, a ruler who valued him as a preacher as well as a statesmanlike adviser, and who gave him free rein in the expression of his opinions.35 At the same time, Schupp became acquainted at first hand with the moral, economic, and political problems arising from the administration of a state. These elements, combined with his success in Miinster and Hamburg, strengthened his self-confidence and thus permitted him to select from the forms he had used previously the one best suited to his needs and least restrictive of his spirit. It is possible to see the transition from older to later forms in De arte, the work composed in Braubach. T h e elaborate dream-revue which forms the framework is similar to certain careful compositions at the university, but the important role played by Schupp himself in the introductory portion in consoling the destitute and in discoursing on the causes of poverty is reminiscent of the more personal and informal treatment to be found in later writings. In like manner, the digressions in the main portion of De arte, such as Eckhard's advice on human relationship or

28

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF S C H U P P S F O R M

Schupp's own explanation of the means whereby one may recognize qualities of character, 36 also foreshadow the essay-discourse manner of idea development. If one characterizes Schupp's mature works of the Hamburg period as essay-dialogues, one may divide them into four groups: the dialogues and parleys; the polemics; the narratives; and, finally, the sermons and certain other homiletic writings. Of the first and most numerous group, the greatest number are in reality only pseudo-dialogues, since they are addressed in written or, more frequently, in spoken words to someone who, though present, does not participate beyond the initial question which motivated the author's reply. Young Philandersohn is addressed in Salomo in response to his request for advice concerning his service at court; Ambrosi Mellilambii Sendschreiben answers the question of a certain noble gentleman about the war between Sweden and Poland; in Ninivitischer Buszspiegel, Antenor-Schupp speaks to a small group of preachers who are suffering some of the woes of their profession; in Hiob, Schupp describes for the edification of an unhappy man the patient endurance of the patriarch; Sieben böse Geister is a kind of private sermon to a small group of servants; Lucianus is written in answer to a friend's query evoked by the fact that Schupp was called "Lucianischer Speyvogel" by his Hamburg enemies. Krankenwärterin and Golgotha, too, are addressed to specific persons, the former to a woman planning to visit the indigent sick, and the latter to a dying man. Freund and Calender, finally, are letters to Schupp's son. More nearly true dialogues than the above group are Hauptmann zu Capernaum, Lehrmeister, Florian, Lucianus, and the second part of Corinna, since the second figure participates in the discussion more than once, though he still leaves the burden of the conversation to the main speaker. In Hauptmann, Schupp answers questions concerning the soldier's profession; Lehrmeister is presumably a dialogue between Schupp and Johann Rist on the German language; in Florian, two preachers speak of the difficulties encountered by the convert to Lutheranism; the second part of Corinna is a discussion between Schupp and a friend on the right of the former to express himself on the problem of unchasteness in an effectual manner. T h e number of true dialogues is small: Holländisch Pratgen, a Hamburg work dealing with the wars of his day, and Allmosenbüchse, addressed to the stingy rich of Schupp's congregation, are the only ones, though the central figure, TheophilusSchupp in the latter and the minister Janson in the former, do most of the speaking. Schulwesen and Relation, related to these, are parleys on

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPP S FORM

29

Parnassus in which the contributions of the participating figures are fairly uniform in importance. Smaller than this group of dialogues are the polemic writings. Except for Luciantis, referred to above, these do not use the dialogue form, but they compensate for its absence by the fact that the object of attack is addressed directly. The remainder of Schupp's writings—the narrative first portion of Corinna and the small group of homiletic and didactic writings such as Einfältige Erklärung, Gedenk daran, Hamburg, Aurora, and Eusebia— do not employ the dialogue framework, though the impression of the personal nearness of the author and the informality of thought development is similar to that in works like Salomo, Hiob, and Hauptmann. It is obvious even from the foregoing brief survey that the dialogue or pseudo-dialogue provides Schupp with a flimsy framework at best. Indeed, it would hardly be worth mentioning as a structural device were it not for the fact that Schupp uses it as a convenient means for introducing his characteristic manner of idea development. It is because he thinks of his works as essay-dialogues that their binding element is neither formal structure nor continuity of plot and character development but theme and author's personality. Unity of theme may sometimes appear frail if one considers Schupp's proneness to digress. Yet it cannot be denied that most of his works are devoted to a single problem or, at most, a group of related problems: the importance of oratory in De oratore inepto; the difficulties encountered by the convert to Lutheranism in Florian; good government in Salomo; vengefulness in Lucidor; the behavior of servants in Sieben böse Geister; unchasteness in Corinna; educational problems in Schulwesen; and so forth. In this restriction of satiric range Schupp does not, of course, differ radically from certain of his satiric contemporaries. Though the lengthy prose revue remained popular to the end, the trend toward limitation is noticeable from the start, as the example of Lauremberg proves. What is distinctive in the case of Schupp is that the limitation is motivated by special needs of circumscribed groups. Lauremberg's poems, Grimmelshausen's Michel, Weise's Hauptverderb er, and Reuter's Schelmußsky also touch upon no more than a small number of problems, but these are nevertheless typical of the behavior of a larger social stratum. Schupp's works, on the other hand, concern themselves with such subjects as the ruler and his state, the poor, the burgher of Hamburg, the school. This is not to say that Schupp never generalizes certain of these themes; the very act of publication is evidence that he

30

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F SCHUPP S F O R M

does so. But this does not alter the fact that his original focus is far sharper and more restrictive than it is in much of the contemporary satire. T h e unity of subject matter in these works is, as indicated above, not strictly maintained. Tangential lines of thought, favorite problems and reflections, personal intrusions, are inevitably drawn in to blur the original clarity of outline. This is entirely in keeping with the essaydialogue form as Schupp employs it. His own personality must, therefore, be looked upon as a cohesive force equal to that of subject matter. In this he also shows kinship with other satirists. It was stated in the previous chapter that the satiric station point as represented by the observer, guide, or speaker absorbed much of the author's personality and thus introduced a degree of subjectivity into the satire which, even exceeding in some respects that normally characteristic of the genre, forms a marked contrast to the strict objectivity of the novel of Ziegler or Anton Ulrich. In spite of this, the personality which the satirist projected into his central figures was largely a fictional one created rather to serve a satiric function than to reveal something intimate. Even Logau, who portrays himself with the utmost candor, uses his distinctive character with its obviously superior standards in large part as a contrast to the false values of the majority of his contemporaries. Abraham alone speaks in the first person without screen or satiric intent in most instances, but even he does not enter into his works to the extent that Schupp does. One senses the vibrant nature of the fiery preacher of Vienna but one hardly knows him as an individual. Schupp is present in his satire with an immediacy unknown elsewhere. He occasionally uses a transparent pseudonym, 37 but in most cases he gives himself so directly that it is possible to glean from his works almost all the important events of his life: his studies 38 and travels, 39 his unhappy wartime experiences, 40 the pleasures and problems of his post in Braubach, 4 1 his high expectations and subsequent disappointment in Hamburg. 4 2 Equally revealing are his references to his own character, his tastes, and his abilities: his love of children; 4 3 his use of writing as a relaxation; 4 4 his sharpness of tongue; 45 and so on, without end. It is in keeping with this entirely literal presence of Schupp in his writings that the trend of thought in each work unfolds in the associative manner of a man informally addressing an individual or a small group, as the examples in the following paragraphs will illustrate. But in taking cognizance of the inevitable looseness of construction resulting from this one must not overlook the fact that Schupp is too force-

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPPS FORM

31

ful and serious a personality to be satisfied with the merely discursive. His abandonment of the revue in favor of more limited themes, and his resoluteness in selecting for these themes what are to him the most flagrant moral, intellectual, and economic evils of his world, are sufficient indications that he is not completely lacking in formal discipline. A careful analysis of his works certainly brings to light an undeniable logic and cohesiveness, despite the associative approach. The manner in which the thought is developed in Salomo may be seen by taking one example, the building of the king's temple and his house. Mention of this leads Schupp to a criticism of churches in which beauty of construction is more important than the excellence of the sermons; this, in turn, invites practical suggestions for the building of church and school. But these require support, and this reminds Schupp of the German princes and their resemblance to a certain man who, having promised Mercury half of any treasure he might find, fulfills this promise when he finds a heap of almonds by eating the kernels and leaving the shells for the god. Protestant princes especially are censured for their neglect of church and school, and also for the appropriation of secularized cloisters to their own use. T h e building of a house, too, is important, and for this good artists and artisans are needed. Arts and crafts, therefore, should be fostered by the princes; for Schupp believes that a good artisan who beautifies cities with his work is superior to ten learned doctors. The sons of simpler folk, particularly, should be encouraged and financially aided to learn a trade before they undertake their studies, so that they may support themselves instead of asking for alms, as so many of their fellows do. These remind Schupp of a student of the seven liberal arts whose request for money was refused by a shoemaker with the statement that he himself had learned only one art, but that this enabled him to support himself without begging. Schupp adds to this the reflection that if he had a part of his life to live over again, he would learn a trade in addition to his profession so that he could retire from the persecutions of the world and live in peace. Freund in der Not develops with the same combination of logic and informality. The work is in the form of a letter addressed to Schupp's son, Anton Meno, who is about to leave for the university. Since the young man feels himself important because his father has many influential friends, Schupp devotes the greater part of the work to evidence proving that there is no truly reliable human friendship. Many examples from various sources and from Schupp's own life are cited in substantiation of this, and the boy's attention is directed to the lasting

32

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F SCHUPP S F O R M

friendship of God. This then leads Schupp naturally to practical advice for such conduct at the university as will make the boy self-reliant, well educated, and pleasing to God and man. For although Schupp knows the folly of relying too strongly on the friendship of men, he also knows and points out to his son the importance of associating with men of experience, since these, whether they are noblemen or simple folk, can, to Schupp's mind, supplement by their practical wisdom what he has found lacking at the universities with their theorizing. In Hiob and Lucianus, Schupp does not escape the dangers of the associative method as well as he does in Salomo and Freund.46 Hiob is ostensibly a discourse upon the need for patience, but Schupp uses the theme for introducing a diversity of reflections, suggestions, and criticisms: J o b lived in a godless land, but he did not take on the godlessness of those about him; J o b did not divorce his shrewish wife, while today divorces are all too prevalent; and so on. Similarly, the illnesses of J o b prompt Schupp to discourse at length on various diseases. T h e actual subject of the work is never lost sight of entirely, since Schupp always returns to the patriarch as his model of patience, but the digressions are not as well connected with the main theme as they are in Salomo. Lucianus, too, is poorly constructed. T h e purpose of the work is a twofold one—to justify Schupp's statement in Freund that not all wisdom is found at the universities, and to defend his satiric method. T h e connection between the two themes is not clearly established, so that the work actually consists of two distinct parts joined by the statement that when Lucian observed the ridiculous theorizing of the universities of his time he did not respond to them in medieval syllogisms but in the satiric manner of Reuchlin and Erasmus. Schupp attempts to connect the second half with the first by stressing that these two men did not learn their Latin or Hebrew at the university, but this cannot conceal the fact that the work is hastily and desultorily thrown together. Calender, too, suffers from a double purpose. Schupp says in Eilfertige Antwort that he wrote the work in haste in a single evening to show the folly of writing prognosticating calendars, and also to reply to his attackers. 47 There is some attempt at unifying the work in the fact that Schupp presumably addresses it to his son in reply to the latter's statement that he has written a calendar. Schupp then parodies such a calendar and goes on to say that the young man can spend his time more profitably in preparing to become a good preacher or, if he likes, in answering the further attacks of his father's enemies. T h e remainder of the work is thereupon devoted to a reply to the various charges leveled against him.

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F SCHUPP S F O R M

33

Biicherdieb, another of the polemic writings, also shows the marks of hasty composition. Like Lucianus, the work attempts to deal blows in several directions without developing a clearly defined theme early enough. Lehrmeister, one of Schupp's most delightful works, is also somewhat disunified, in this case because of the intrusion of a dream which recounts in considerable, if amusing, detail the events that led to the crowning of a poetaster by Apollo. All of Schupp's other works have basic unity of theme without more than passing disruptions. Even the two parts of Corinna constitute a fundamentally unified work if one considers the special circumstances of its composition. 48 T h e first part, unpublished because it had been rejected by the censors, was pirated and subsequently criticized adversely as supposedly corruptive of youth. This made it imperative for Schupp to publish both the first and the second part himself, and to restate in the latter not only the need for the bold attack on the problem of unchasteness made in the first, but also the defense of his satiric method and specifically of his use of "fables" or examples. In addition, Schupp attempts to link the parts organically both by using the preacher Ehrenhold as the speaker in the second part, and by carrying over some of the narrative of the first portion into the second. Buszspiegelj perhaps the most discursive of his works, shows clear evidence of a striving for unity. On the surface the work is an endless expatiation on the sins and weaknesses of Schupp's congregation in Hamburg. Closer inspection reveals that he has made an attempt to consolidate it in several ways: first, by the fact that Antenor-Schupp is addressing a group of ministers whose problems and sufferings are like those of Jonah; second, in the use of the story of Jonah in Nineveh as a point of departure for calling attention to the typical sins of a large city; finally, in the summaries of the chief sins of his congregation which Schupp introduces on several occasions in a further attempt to draw together the divergent lines inevitable to the structure of a work which was originally probably a sermon cycle. 49 T h e foregoing discussion does not mean to convey the impression that a wonderful unity has suddenly been found in certain of Schupp's works which had thus far escaped his readers. Unity in the logical unfolding of a basic idea until a striking culmination is reached is absent from them. But there is also never such flimsy coherence in these essaydialogues as there is in Nihili or De opinione, where unrelated statements are grouped about a word or a general concept. If Schupp did not always reach the level of Salomo, Freund, Eilfertige Antwort, and Lehrmeister, he also did not always remain on the level of Lucianus

34

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHUPP S FORM

and Biicherdieb. And whatever the structural weaknesses of his works may be, he cannot, to reiterate the point made above, be accused of formlessness. He uses the essay-dialogue too frequently and consciously and unfolds too regular a pattern of approach within it to justify this charge. It is not the only form of which he is capable. The brief, ironic story of Corinna, the narrative portion of Florian, and the many jokes and personal reminiscences woven into his essay-dialogues show that he had some narrative ability. Similarly, Allmosenbuchse as well as Schulwesen and Relation make it clear that he was not incapable of handling lively dialogue. But these depend strongly upon models50 in most cases. They are Schupp's solely because he is successful in adapting his models to his needs. Although the essay-discourse, too, is not devoid of precedent, it is his because he develops it into a form which suits so perfectly his intention as well as his personality.

Ill

VARIETIES OF STYLE IN THE BAROQUE SATIRE

T

HUS FAR the structural apparatus of satire has been under consideration—wanderer-revue, guiding expert, locale, and allegorical or human media. These are only a part of the satiric form. In order to create the impression of pretended or actual detachment essential to satire, the author must also place between himself and his objects certain devices of language and style: irony, exaggeration, picturesque anger.1 In all three, wit with its unexpected but apt juxtapositions is his constant stand-by. T o these devices the seventeenth century added some others later frowned upon in prose satire—heaping of words, rhyme, assonance, and pun. T h e treatment of these constituents follows approximately the development of the structural devices already discussed, a development from a style overladen with elements carrying a heavy emotional charge to one whose simplicity conveys the impression of composure, objectivity, and mild amusement. Moscherosch and Abraham a Sancta Clara, akin in the intensity of their reaction to wrong, also show a similar stylistic hypersensitivity, a need for excessive verbal handling of their objects, expressed in a nervous superabundance of words and in the use of emotionally intensified forms of the common stylistic equipment of the satirist: bitter irony, anger, sharp contrasts, grotesque caricature, puns, heaping of words, biting wit, crudeness, preaching and moralizing. Moscherosch reveals these qualities most strongly in the first half of his Gesichte, but they recur throughout. Serious criticism intrudes constantly on the satiric treatment. This seriousness often rises to angry invective, as in the bitter words of Expertus Robertus 2 and the more picturesque explosions of Ariovistus.3 Mordant irony colors the Gesichte: the devil finds it disgraceful to inhabit the body of so vile a creature as the commissary; the honor of the cavalier consists in being shameless; doctors are placed in hell with murderers.4 The infernal locale of the first part also invites crass ugliness and crudity of treatment: the revolting portrait of the stewardess; that of the beautiful woman with her borrowed charms; the pirater of books whose torture consists in having a fiery book crammed down his throat; the vicious, lying authors of broadsides who are assigned to Lucifer's latrine.® Flashes of sardonic

36

V A R I E T I E S O F S T Y L E IN T H E

SATIRE

wit enliven the work with streaks of ghastly light: when ugly women come to hell thirsting for husbands the devils hide; the huge stones in doctors' rings remind their patients of gravestones; doctors pretend to be oracles but they read only in human excrement. 0 At other times a heavy-handed play on words depresses the mood even further: Philander finds a garden full of clerical labyrinths; 7 or the ducat fee for the lawyer is so named because it is something "quod inducat in tentationem." 8 A mass of quotations also adds to the general heaviness of mood, above all in the first part of the work. T h e colors are less harsh in the second half of the Gesichte. Serious statement and criticism continue, and it is equally wordy, but the sharper contrasts have been softened. Character portrayals like those of Laelius and Mutius Jungfisch 9 are farcical rather than grotesquely hideous, and ugliness and crudity, except for the description of the soldiers' brutality in "Soldatenleben," appear less frequently. T h e drinking scene in the second vision, to be sure, is revolting enough, but its intent is clearly to amuse as well as to instruct, as Moscherosch indicates by his concluding remark, " T h e y snored in four-part harmony." 10 In the second part, too, vulgarity is more often touched with good-natured wit, as in the comment on the folly of wearing a modishly short coat 1 1 if one must respond to the call of nature out of doors in winter, or in the remark made in Philander's hearing by some brazen wench concerning the proof of the old heroes' virility. 12 Bitter irony appears chiefly in the portrayal of the cruelty and godlessness of the soldiers. Floridness of style continues, for example in the passage describing all the kinds of beards, 13 or in the interminable scolding of the old heroes. T h e disturbing wealth of quotations has decreased, however, as have the masses of foreign words and phrases, and the general mood becomes more relaxed. In spite of this development, the final impression of Moscherosch's style remains one of unevenness. T h e serious, the light, the bitter, the woodenly intellectual, and the wittily imaginative somehow remain in unassimilated juxtaposition, though it must be admitted that the mood, seen in perspective, has a certain dark grandeur. As marked an unevenness is characteristic of Abraham, at the other end of the century. He must always be worrying at his object: he attacks it directly and angrily, or drowns it in floods of words, puns, and rhymes; he presents it with ironic simplicity and lets it display its own weakness, or he portrays it crassly and grotesquely and hurls ugly epithets at it; he strikes with an imaginative turn of phrase or with an apt colloquialism, or he misses the mark with the dullest of still-born

VARIETIES OF S T Y L E IN T H E S A T I R E

37

wit; he pulls it into view by some inappropriate sensationalism, and sets it an example or entertains it with stories, jokes, and fables; or he entreats it to mend its ways in the tenderest terms. Instances of this multiplicity of devices may be found so readily in Abraham's works that any portion selected at random might serve to illustrate the character of his style. The fourth chapter of his Judas, for example, using as a point of departure the envious hatred of Judas for the young prince, develops into a powerful sermon against envy. Abraham relates briefly that Judas, the "gallowsbird" who might better have been rocked to sleep by the hangman than by his royal foster mother, murders the newborn prince. The exclamation, "Oh envy, Oh envy," comments upon this act and leads to the following portion. An allegorical dream of court life introduces two animals, fat Envy and emaciated Love, the former of which lists all the false and hypocritical members of a typical court—fiddlers who seek only to "tune" someone, fishermen who deal in "faule Fische," that is, in suspicious actions, "Fechter . . . die da iiber die Schnur hauen . . . Tischler, aber nur solche, die einem pflegen zu verleumbden," and so on interminably. After another allegorical dream, Abraham turns abruptly to a rhymed series of proverbs, each conveying the concept, "Like father, like son." But immediately he cites several examples of the opposite—of virtuous parents who have borne wicked children. This, too, is allegorical in nature, for the parents represent favorable qualities while their children stand for envy. Detailed Biblical examples from the lives of Daniel and Joseph now follow, enlivened by questions, exclamations, another allegory, and a passage in rhyme showing that what is joy to one is a source of chagrin to his envier: "another's hope is the envier's rope, which strangles him; another's fame is the envier's flame, which burns him. . . . 1 4 The story of Joseph and his brothers permits Abraham to recount in repetitious but colloquial language the thoughts which the latter, had they been less jealous, might have had when they heard of Joseph's dream: ". . . Brother Isaschar cannot fail to become Chief Cook; he likes tasty morsels even now; Brother Simeon will surely become Head Chamberlain, for he knows how to deal out compliments. . . . Ah, God grant that our little Joseph becomes a king!" 15 The chapter continues with a further characterization of the envious, an address to envy, another Biblical example, and so on, until it ends with the words: You enviers, you great enviers, you envious dogs, you envious falcons, you envious devils, you envious fellows, you envy-relatives of Judas Iscariot, the archscoundrel. Better yourselves if you do not want thereby to be cast eternally.

38

V A R I E T I E S O F S T Y L E IN T H E

SATIRE

Alas! eternally from God's presence, and be shackled with the chain of eternal damnation where endless howling and gnashing of teeth lengthens painful Eternity, Eternity every moment.18 If Abraham's stylistic excess shows that the older strains still had amazing vitality, especially in the Catholic Baroque of Austria, 17 he represents an even more marked retrogression in the role he assigns to the word. While other satirists gradually confine its use to that of a tool in building a scene or sketching a character, it retains independent value for Abraham in a way which might be characterized as a superimposition of the manner of Fischart en that of Eiblical exegesis. Behind the ordinary denotative value of the word lies, for Abraham, a potential moral symbol to be brought to light by several devices. Most frequent of these is the association of ideas: God made a good piece of pottery of the earth, but Adam let the apple fall through and cracked i t ; 1 8 the barrelmaker who can repair barrels is a blessed symbol of someone who unites spouses after a quarrel, but he can also represent wickedness by drinking all night and turning "Fass" into "Nefass"; 1 9 the broommaker is a reminder of those requiring a broom to sweep clean the conscience. 20 In addition to these, Abraham also uses the association of sound, either in the homonym or in the associated rhyme, assonance, or anagram. He tells us that Glatz is a city in Silesia, but a certain woman who lost her hair as a punishment for her sins had "Glatz," i.e., baldness, on her head. 2 1 Elsewhere, "Acht" is called the best number because it reminds one to be careful, i.e., "acht geben"; 2 2 likewise, "Diener" is reminiscent of " n i e d e r , " 2 3 since the servant is " n i e der, fiir den er sich ausgibt"; or "Esel" suggests "Lese," and "Corpus" "Porcus." 2 4 Evidence of Abraham's basic literary health despite an outdated verbal intoxication lies in the fact that he reveals other traits entirely in keeping with the development in the satire of the later seventeenth century. His floridness and sensationalism stand in direct contrast to the passages in which he uses the simpler irony of genre painting, as in speaking of the old woman who lays plans for catching a certain young man for her protégé. 25 Similarly, despite his devitalization of many passages through excessive symbolism, he is able to convert a Biblical scene into one of homely familiarity without sacrificing the ironic reference to his own times. 26 In contrast to the crass ugliness of epithets and descriptions revealing the horror of the flesh,27 he uses lively colloquialisms and typically Viennese diminutives such as " H à n d l , " "Bruderl," and "Mausl" that give his language charm and intimacy. 2 8 If he must still heap words in anger, he is also able to express the gentlest tenderness. 29

V A R I E T I E S OF STYLE IN T H E SATIRE

39

Logau, too, employs an emotionally intensified style teeming with simile, metaphor, allegory, personification, alliteration, circumlocution, and play on words. Even a cursory reading of his epigrams makes it evident that this abundance of rhetorical figures expresses as grave a concern with evil as that of Moscherosch and Abraham. T h e nature of the epigram itself contributes to the impression of uncompromising severity since the economy typical of the genre permits only a skeletal outline of the satiric object without softening or amusing detail. As a result, the panorama unfolded in the course of Logau's 3,000 or more epigrams lies before the reader with the nakedness of desolation. Yet his style does not give evidence of the hypersensitivity one finds in that of Moscherosch and Abraham. First, it is tempered by the interpolation of much that is pure comment, expression of personal preferences, laudatory opinion of others, and advice on the conduct of a satisfactory way of life. 30 In addition, Logau is frugal in the use of rhetorical devices. Great as the accumulated number of these may be, the individual epigram achieves its effect by a word, a rhyme, a juxtaposition, at most a short series. He contrasts "Stand" and "Verstand," or shows the similarity between "Dorf" and "Dürftigkeit," or "Hofe-Leute" and "hohe Teufel"; 3 1 or he castigates the immorality of his times in the statement that women prefer cavaliers because the latter are intent upon "riding." 32 At another time he asks laconically, "Leser, wie gefall ich dir? Leser wie gefeilst du mir?" or he places "tun," "verstehen," and "glauben" in an ascending series to show the differences between the three major Christian faiths. 33 This terseness is unquestionably attributable in some measure to a lack in Logau himself. Devoid of the verbal inventiveness or the fertile imagination of Abraham, he is forced to rely upon a keen mind to select contrasts, similarities, or unusual meanings. Nevertheless, his style is also the expression of his personality, and it is this above all which tempers his satire. It is the style of the thoughtful observer whose resources of the spirit give him strength and composure even when the objects of his censure touch him most painfully. Individual as Logau's manner is, it also indicates that even among older satirists there was a tendency to place some restraint upon the excessive. Lauremberg shares in this trend, but to a more pronounced degree than the others, despite the fact that he is the oldest of the satirists. H e limits his censure to the follies of fashion in dress, manners, speech, and poetry and he applies to these what is in most instances a single satiric device—the ironic contrast between the object of his attack and the prosaic viewpoint of ordinary life. Girls who follow the new fashion by concealing their breasts are beginning to "pack up

40

V A R I E T I E S OF S T Y L E IN T H E S A T I R E

their wares"; 34 the train of a modish gown is like the large rudder of a small boat; 3 5 the beribboned trouser-flap of men's attire is a feat of engineering to protect an important area with "Gabions and donjons and other needful defense"; 3 6 Matz Pump experiences a definite intestinal reaction to certain figures of speech used by the author. 37 In addition, Lauremberg himself plays the role of the somewhat naive old fellow who does not comprehend all the modish nonsense around him. He erroneously takes a girl with powdered hair for a penitent with ashes on her head, 38 and he likens his own poetry to a fat sow leading piglets through a village street. 39 Both the dialect and the poetic form employed by Lauremberg underscore the satiric contrast between the sensible behavior of the average man and the ludicrous foibles of fashion. He joins doggerel to the Alexandrine and teaches these to speak the colloquial, lusty idiom of the Low-German burgher as proof that is is possible to say what is important without using the restricted form or language of the Opitzian school. It might appear as though Lauremberg's frequent use of figures of speech selected from the lustier phases of the physical were intended as a harsh satire on the earthbound nature of man. This may certainly be said in some cases, as when he ascribes a vile origin to the use of perfume or when he describes at length the lewd goings-on when a brash young man poses as a ladies' maid. 40 But in the greater number of instances the robust provides both a realistic contrast to affectation and snobbery and a source of spicy amusement for Lauremberg himself. If he still belongs recognizably to the older satire of his century despite the impression of reduced moral tension which his style creates, it is because he is as acutely aware of wrong within the more limited precincts he surveys as are Moscherosch and Abraham in a broader field. Like them, nothing escapes his critical eye, and every transgression of divine or human law is in reality classified not as amusing foible but as sin. Nevertheless, the moral severity is not so obtrusive as in these men, and its expression is alleviated by the bubbling playfulness of Lauremberg's imagination and the uncanny aptness of his wit. Like Lauremberg, Grimmelshausen offers proof in his own way that even the severer critics of man and the times were able to restrain their style. In place of the multiplicity of devices employed by Moscherosch, the creator of Simplicissimus uses as his tool a bitter, sardonic wit. T h e wretched house of his foster father is described as if it were a castle, the brutal treatment of his foster father by the soldiers appears amusing to the innocent child, and the lovers' tryst in foul surroundings is explained by young Simplicius in terms of those physical functions with

V A R I E T I E S OF S T Y L E IN T H E S A T I R E

41

which he is familiar. 41 His thieving as a soldier is treated with breezy insouciance, and his enforced marriage is dismissed with a feigned lightness as a new manner of celebrating a wedding. 42 Every situation and every act is steeped in a bath of ironic approval. Crudeness, vulgarity, filth, the natural functions, excessive eating and drinking and their effects, 43 are used to the same end: to portray ironically the climax of all creation, man. Even the constant intrusion of serious preaching does not detract from the uniformity of mood. Like the omnipresent irony, it is used to point to the imminent moral fall of Simplicius. T h e unity of style and mood is equally striking in Courasche. T h e heroine's cynical detachment in her account of the incidents of her life and her casual treatment of vileness and filth are used with excellent, sustained effect to point up her hopeless moral decay. Such uniformity of treatment could, of course, be achieved only by the true novelist; the satirist found it less easily within his reach. Grimmelshausen himself gives evidence of this in the more loosely constructed lesser works of the Simplicissimus cycle, where preaching, satire, and narrative are not blended with the effectiveness of the major novels. Yet works like Vogelnest and Springinsfeld show in their way the stylistic progress being made in the century. Though they are burdened by brutality, foulness, and lurid fancy, they also show an approach to a simpler narrative style that portrays human figures and events more naturally and easily. After the middle of the seventeenth century, stylistic excess in satire is reduced still further. This takes place under the influence of several factors: the establishment of more stable conditions after the Thirty Years' War and the attendant relaxation of the critical approach to reality; then, the further spread among the middle class of a favorable attitude toward the nobility and toward the ethical and cultural standards embodied, wishfully or in reality, by their courts; 44 finally, the qualified acceptance, even by the satirists who at first so vigorously opposed them, of the literary concepts associated with Opitz and his followers. T h e operation of all these factors may be observed if one compares Rachel with Lauremberg. T h e latter enjoys playing the role of the poetic autodidact, proud that content is more important than structure in his poems. Rachel is the conformist, conscious of his classical training and scornful of popular writers who substitute vulgarity for wit. 4S On the other hand, Rachel's language remains simple and unaffected. His style may lack inventiveness, it may appear pedestrian in comparison with the skill and imagination of Lauremberg; and his rigid Alex-

42

V A R I E T I E S O F S T Y L E IN T H E

SATIRE

andrines, hardly able to rise above the level of rhymed prose, may have none of the satiric force of Lauremberg's union of half-breed classicism and dialect. B u t in comparison with that of Moscherosch, Rachel's language is colloquial and fairly even in mood. He addresses the reader directly, lets his figures speak for themselves, and creates the impression of the familiar and the natural by means of such homely terms as " T a s c h e n " for girl, "Cantzler mit der H a u b e n " for wife; 4 6 or by familiar names such as "mein Fritz" or "Lieschen." 47 Serious admonition or a vehement expression of anger ruffle the even flow of his satire, to be sure; nevertheless, his style indicates that restraint is the essential attribute of the dignified moral critic of his day. Gryphius, too, in so far as his comedies permit one to group him with the satirists, is closer to men like Moscherosch and Logau in his sober view of life, but he writes in a manner less burdened by the excessive. It is true that his language is not free of floridness, but this is due rather to the repetition of a few rhetorical elements than to their multiplicity. O n e may say that in Horribilicribrifax and Peter Squentz he employs a stylistic device directly the opposite of that used by Lauremberg: instead of ridiculing the affectations of fashionable language by using the lusty idiom of simple folk, Gryphius makes the speech of the untutored seem laughable by contrasting it with that of the cultured. T h i s ludicrous inappropriateness of language appears in many variations: in the misapplied military terms of the boasters and in their abortive attempt at imitating the poetic circumlocutions of a courtly language; in the pedantic language of the schoolmaster; 4 8 finally, in the coarseness and vulgarity in which the villagers couch the classical and poetic content of their play. 49 Much of this is amusing. Gryphius has a certain gift for burlesque and for succinct, often effectually coarse wit: Daradiridatumtarides pours out his rage in extravagant language, and Harpax, the servant, requests dryly that the soldier do not approach him lest his anger consume him since " I am a bit dry from hunger," or Squentz counters the criticism that his verses have too many feet by remarking that they are better able to move that way. 50 Nevertheless, frequent repetition of these devices depresses the mood and suggests that the author regards his figures with little more than disdain. T h i s impression is heightened by the conspicuousness of the idealistic frame in which the comedies are set. Horribilicribrifax is not a potential candidate for hell, to be sure, as he might have been in Moscherosch's Gesichte, yet the contrast between him and the superior discipline and good taste of the noble personages who surround him imparts to him a harshness of outline which the amusing facets of his character and

V A R I E T I E S O F S T Y L E IN T H E S A T I R E

43

language cannot alleviate. T h e contrast between chief actors and noble framework is less oppressive in Squentz, but here too it serves as a reminder that the smile evoked by the antics of the villagers must not delude the onlooker into a forgetfulness of the serious ethical deficiency being satirized. Dornrose differs to some extent from these two comedies. T h e Silesian dialect, like the extravagant language of the boasters in Horribilicribrijax or the crudeness of the villagers in Squentz, is undoubtedly used with comic intent. Yet its homely idiom makes much appear merely colloquial or earthy that would be vulgar in High German. In addition, not the boastings or rude threats of Matz and Jockel receive the chief attention but Gregor Kornblume with his halting speech and good-natured simplicity. Matz may be able to tell Dornrose easily enough what he wants of her; Gregor can only assure the witch who inquires whether his cow is expecting a calf that he knows nothing of such things, since he is a bachelor. 61 Yet here also the parallel courtly comedy with its elegant language imparts even to the simple speech of the honest, decent young lovers a faint irony which stands in the way of an entirely relaxed style. With certain limitations it may be said that Weise represents the best satiric style of his age in Germany. These limitations are derived from his attitude towards the objects of his satire, or more fairly, from the attitude developed by the contemporary satirists. In the case of Moscherosch, Logau, Lauremberg, and Grimmelshausen, in whose eyes even minor transgressions gave evidence of moral decay, the author or his projection viewed the objects of his censure with grave concern, exasperation, or amusement, but also with the poignant awareness that he in his way shared in their wickedness. Weise, like Gryphius and Rachel, is more self-assured. T h e intensity of moral concern has abated, and correctness and moderation in ethical as well as social behavior have become the fashion. T h e author no longer castigates himself for his typically human sinfulness nor plays the role of the conspicuous individualist. Conscious of the Tightness of his standards, he remains aloof from his objects, and correspondingly the irony with which he treats them takes on a superciliousness it did not have in the works of older contemporaries. This attitude is somewhat less apparent in Gryphius and Rachel than in Weise. In Rachel this is due to his greater degree of moral severity. In Gryphius it is the idealistic frame with its constant reminder that something more than a mere social foible is being committed which mitigates the impression of snobbery or condescension, though these are undoubtedly present.

44

V A R I E T I E S O F S T Y L E IN T H E S A T I R E

In Weise's works, where moral censure is milder and the contrast with strict standards of discipline less obvious, the author's superciliousness appears more clearly and overlays his style with an irony which often stands in the way of the simplicity and lightness of touch typical of Weise's manner at its best. His ironic aloofness appears most strongly in instances such as Tobias, Machiavell, or the Erznarren, where noble or educated onlookers comment on the ludicrous and unreasoning behavior of the fools observed. It appears also in the exaggerated caricature of certain figures, notably the peasants in Catharine or Tobias, whose incredible stupidity obviously has its source not in the author's observation of reality, but in his desire to flatter even the least cultured or intelligent of his onlookers. In spite of these qualifications, Weise's simple and lively style is unquestionably the best among the younger satirists of his century. His basic device for satirization is light caricature enlivened delicately by the irony of self-revelation. In Erznarren, for example, figure after figure appears at an inn or in the course of the travelers' wanderings, and each is portrayed in approximately the same manner: by a somewhat exaggerated but amusing description of his appearance and behavior, frequently accompanied by some little action in which he either reveals himself more fully or is punished in some way for his foolishness. T h e narrative sketch is then given moral weight by the serious discussion or comment of Gelanor and the others. T h e youth who bows so low that he looks as if he were going to lie down or stretch out comfortably; the man with a sword of such formidable proportions that one's head almost falls at one's feet at the sight of it; the woman who derived great pleasure from her mother's funeral because she was permitted to walk ahead of the mayor's wife in the procession52—such examples serve as proof that Weise creates a sprightly prose, not free, to be sure, of his somewhat insistent critical attitude, but unburdened by the multiplicity of stylistic figures weighing heavily on the prose of Moscherosch. Weise is even more successful in his comedies, where the self-portrayal of his characters is only rarely interrupted by the comments of the learned or noble spectators surrounding the action. Bonifatius Lautensack in Tobias, desperately striving to achieve success as a playwright; the pater Juniperus in Machiavell, who eats as "reformed" lampreys the sausages the villagers have given him; the sly pair, Scibilis and Pacifontius, in the same play, with their duel in Latin insults; Substantia and Accusativus, also in Machiavell, who rediscover an old love with the aid of a gift of livestock—these and their counterparts speak in a colloquial, vivid manner that may perhaps tire occasionally because of repetition

V A R I E T I E S O F S T Y L E IN T H E S A T I R E

45

and wordiness, but that permits the figures to unfold their personalities in a fashion credible and amusing to the reader. Irony and caricature are also Riemer's tools, but they are directed at synthetically constructed victims created to flatter the snobbish author and his reader. T h e main ammunition used for attack in his Politischer Maulaffe is filth. Natural functions and revolting habits are recounted with prurient delight, ostensibly to show the weaknesses of the objects of his censure, but actually only for their own sake. Happel in his Akademischer Roman dilutes even these qualities with a boring diffuseness. Satire appears occasionally, but in general he can do no better than to describe in a wooden manner without wit or irony. Poor as Riemer and Happel are stylistically in comparison to Weise, however, they resemble him in showing the gradual development of a simplified style suited to objective narration. This may be said with even more truth of Beer. He is the entertainer like Riemer and Happel, yet he is much superior to them. In Sommertage, his style, to be sure, is weighted by moral reflection, satiric comment, and endless recounting at secondhand. In addition, his moral ambivalence introduces an insincerity or cynicism into his writing which stands in the way of an easy communication between author and reader. Nevertheless, he has advanced far in developing an effortless narrative style and at the same time one sensitive to the moods of nature and the intimate feeling of man. 5 3 T h e entertainers, Beer, Riemer, and Happel, present evidence that satire in the latter part of the seventeenth century gradually becomes adulterated with nonsatiric elements, that is, with the narrative and the adventurous or with a pseudo-satire pretending to censure while it actually has no wish but to entertain. Even Weise deviated from strict satire into the novel of adventure and individual experience in Kliigste Leute and Politischer Nascher. In contrast, Reuter shows in his Schelmuffsky, Ehrliche Frau, and to some degree in Ehrenfried, that the purely satiric is not dead, indeed, that even social satire could be expressed with an intensity which seemed to have abated long since. In spite of this, his treatment, far from imitating the overburdened style of older satirists of his century, represents in some ways the goal toward which the satiric style appeared to be moving. Schelmuffsky is a compact burlesque free of all superfluous material and presented with perfect consistency of ironic mood. T h e hero portrays himself through his own words in a language entirely appropriate to his personality. Coarseness; a limited vocabulary relying on the reiteration of certain terms, such as "der Tebel hoi mer," "Anmuthiger Jiingling," "ein brav

46

V A R I E T I E S O F S T Y L E IN T H E S A T I R E

Kerl"; 5 4 or the repetition of the unsavory account of his birth and the story of the rat, 55 —all are employed with great success throughout the novel in the delineation of the hero, an uncultured social aspirant who is convinced that every word he utters will be received with pleasure and astonishment by the "persons of rank" with whom he associates. Reuter's comedies are weakened stylistically by the author's inclination to present the habits of his characters indirectly, but except for this they are written in a language which matches the novel Schelmuffsky in concision and suitability to the characters. T h e foregoing does not mean to convey the impression that Reuter writes the best satiric style of his century. What he lacks in comparison with Weise or Lauremberg is most obtrusive in Schelmuffsky. Every figure of the work, and indeed the style itself, is nothing but a skeleton. There is none of the sly wit of the former, none of the bubbling playfulness of the latter. One even misses the didactic elements which, burdensome as they were, added universality and philosophic depth to pure satire. In the comedies of Reuter the absence of these qualities is less disturbing than in his novel, since their style is necessarily of more transparent texture. Yet they also suffer from the author's creative limitations. T h e language of Schlampampe, Ehrenfried, and Johannes is amusing not so much because of its satiric aptness as because it was copied from the expressions of contemporary figures known to Reuter's audience: 5 8 Schlampampe's "So wahr ich eine ehrliche Frau bin," Ehrenfried's "Da kômmt der Herzog von Tolle," and Johannes' "Momflere" for "Mon Frère." 6 7 Yet if Reuter has weaknesses which prevent him from achieving an outstanding style, he still indicates the typical development of his age. Ehrenfried, to take the best example, is written in a language which is terse, light in its irony, neither coarse nor excessively correct; in short, one which lends itself to the more realistic portrayal of man and life demanded by the philosophic approach of the satirists belonging to the later decades of the century. T o speak of the goal toward which seventeenth-century satiric form moved does not imply that any deviations from this path are necessarily censurable. On the contrary, the noteworthy characteristic of the style is its amazing variety. Noticeable even in the over-all structure, this variety is particularly apparent in the language, reflecting more intimately as it does the individual personality. Moscherosch—serious, deeply hurt by his experiences in the war, embittered by his insight into the nature of man; Logau—thoughtful, less trustful of man than of God, pained by the specious values of reality, yet somehow secure in his

V A R I E T I E S O F STYLE IN T H E SATIRE

47

spiritual refuge; Lauremberg—witty, conservative, but without losing vital contact with the homely and the sensible; Weise—rational, selfassured, limited in gifts but warm-natured and honest: each of these men, like Grimmelshausen, Rachel, Reuter, Abraham, and to some degree even the imitators, Riemer, Beer, and Happel, satirizes the failings of his times in a style which is unmistakably his own. Schupp has his place in the larger pattern presented by these men but he, like the others, creates out of personality, experiences, and his special goals a style which in its individuality gives further evidence of the artistic variety of his century.

IV SCHUPP AS A STYLIST

T

HE EASY INFORMALITY of structure which makes it possible to speak of Schupp's works as essays or essay-dialogues is also characteristic of the devices of style whereby he creates the satiric mood. Here as in the over-all structure he undergoes a development before he attains the manner characteristic of his mature writings. T h e style of the Latin university works is conventional on the whole, even if he must be commended for his efforts to write a simple, unaffected Latin. Numerous classical references, rhetorical expressions of modesty, well-planned antithetic or parallel periods, comparisons, hyberbole, and a somewhat forced wit stand in the way of the uninhibited rapport with the reader which one finds in his later works. Evidence that he has not yet found himself may also be seen in his doubts concerning the value of the satiric method. One may conjecture several reasons for this. His work at the university brought with it the need to write or deliver much that was entirely serious, such as the panegyrics. In contrast, the satiric orations must have appeared trifling, a mere relaxation or a pleasant sugarcoating for the truth. 1 Further, though Schupp believed in the value of oratory, he was sufficiently aware of its impractical nature to devote himself to adapting it more closely to the needs of actual life; consequently, his lighter orations, serious though their undertone was, undoubtedly appeared to him to be making undue concessions to current weaknesses in the art. Whatever the causes, Schupp was sensitive enough to the criticism of his colleagues to refer to his lighter works as follies of his youth. 2 Like his structure, his style was undoubtedly released by the nature of his work in Braubach and Hamburg. Gone, now, are the fine phrases, the self-conscious rhetorical devices, and, for the most part, the doubts concerning the use of the satiric approach. T h e impact of weighty problems combined with the elements of his character permit him to give rein to a manner of writing geared to the service of immediate need. It is a manner whose growth is long in evidence in his striving for naturalness in his L a t i n and in the unaffected style of his letters, 3 but whose development was only possible when the restrictions and conventions of the university were replaced by the demands of real life.

S C H U P P AS A S T Y L I S T

49

T h e turn to German at this time is of the utmost significance. It has been suggested that Schupp wrote Latin for scholars and German for laymen. 4 In some measure this is correct since even in the Hamburg period the two works dealing with esoteric matters such as Biblical interpretation are in Latin. 5 On the other hand, Salomo and Schulwesen were not addressed to as broad a public as Nihili and De opinione, yet the former two are in German while the latter are in Latin. T h e truth is that Schupp had long been restless under the tyranny of Latin. Abundant evidence of this may be found in his university writings where he defends the use of German® and introduces numerous German words, phrases, and even entire passages.7 T h e change to the vernacular is not merely an expression of language preference, but, like every phase of Schupp's form, a means to a practical end. It provided, to his mind, the most effective medium for reaching the sinner, for conducting intelligent statesmanship, and for implementing a system of education equipped to train young men for life. 8 Stylistically speaking, therefore, German was the language which gave him the greatest freedom of expression at the same time that it permitted him to serve the needs of reality best. T h e style of Schupp's mature works is characterized well by the man himself in Lehrmeister and in the introduction to his hymns, where he speaks of the need for brevity, intelligibility, and a regard not for form but for the expression of thought or feeling. 9 Accordingly, one finds in him little of the stylistic excess of Moscherosch or Abraham, in spite of a related seriousness of view. Heaping of words, puns, rhymes, bitter wit, ugliness, and exaggeration are not common. Puns appear sporadically. T h e use of rhyme or assonance, equally sparse, occurs chiefly in the proverbial or colloquial expressions which Schupp likes to use: "Grumbling and mumbling"; "When age made David falter, he forgot this matter, too, and wrote the Psalter"; "So that Corinna might not be still, since idleness is the root of all ill." 1 0 T h e urge to heap words, especially in anger, is found, though it too is infrequent in comparison with its use by Moscherosch and Abraham. 1 1 Schupp is also reluctant to introduce the crass and the ugly. Obscenity appears only occasionally in his writings. 12 He has none of Grimmelshausen's masochistic need to reveal the earthbound filth of the flesh, and very little of Abraham's scorn for physical man. Schupp, to be sure, does not hesitate to depict the horrors of death 13 or of divine retribution, 1 4 but these are introduced from time to time as a kind of last resort in his appeal to the hardened sinner; they are not, as in Moscherosch, a constant frame of reference for even the lesser transgressions of man. It is characteristic of Schupp's more tempered style,

50

SCHUPP AS A S T Y L I S T

too, that the mention of the ugly is sometimes accompanied by an apology, 15 or softened by a change from anger to gentleness or entreaty. 18 Even the vigorous colloquial invective which he hurls at his attackers is followed in at least one case by an apology to the reader. 17 T h e mere absence of the excessive does not free Schupp's style entirely of the floridness characteristic of his age. A discursiveness which impels him to draw in tangential matters close to his heart, unnecessary detail in certain instances, the introduction of several examples where one might have sufficed, still indicate a degree of tension which expresses itself in the urge to handle again and again the object of his censure. His liberal borrowings from other writers as well as his quotations and references are also products of a need for overstatement. It has been mentioned in previous chapters that Schupp employs freely material not his own. Generally this foreign material is so well assimilated that it does not burden the style excessively. In Relation aus dem Parnasso he retains the general frame and content of his source, but inserts into it in a natural manner the references to himself and his difficulties with his enemies. Other examples of similarly effective adaptations may be found in the dream in Lehrmeister, in Corinna, or in Schuhvesen.ls T h e true quotations, recognizable as such, are more disturbing to the flow of his style, but their number is not excessive. Most common but least obtrusive are the many Biblical references. Like Abraham, Schupp relives the Bible as a sublime but intimately present reality. He cites examples from its pages throughout his works, identifies himself with its figures,19 and uses it as a point of departure for contemporary satire in Salomo, Buszspiegel, Hiob, and elsewhere. Latin quotations, such as those from the Epistolae obscurorum virorum,20 and the many Latin words and phrases found in the greater part of his works are less well assimilated to his style than the Biblical references, but they are not nearly so common as those in the first half of Moscherosch's Visions. Their number, moreover, varies according to the audience Schupp is addressing. They are most common in his polemic works, while his writings for a broader public, and particularly his homiletic and devotional works, are freer of them. 21 Like the more intense stylistic elements discussed thus far, the chief tools of Schupp's satiric manner—forceful expressions of anger, irony, the interpolation of jokes and anecdotes—are not employed with unusual frequency. One may not conclude from this, however, that his satiric style is lacking in liveliness. When Schupp addresses the sinners of Hamburg or his calumniators, or when he aims his blows at the stupidity of the educational practices of his day, his mood rises easily

S C H U P P AS A STYLIST

51

to a hot-headed anger that does not spare its object. This ability to become angry is especially characteristic of Schupp. Anger is a direct emotional reaction to a specific impulse. It is possible to be angry with a man or at a practice, not with mankind. Moscherosch's bitter recriminations, Grimmelshausen's acrid irony, Weise's superior amusement, are directed against a foolish or wicked humanity. They have placed a certain perspective of form and philosophical approach between themselves and their objects, and so dulled the sharpness of personal emotion implicit in anger. Only Abraham becomes vehemently angry with his congregation, but he permits brilliant showmanship to weaken the force of the explosion. Schupp's expression of anger is often so direct that one can barely speak of it as a satiric device. Yet because his is not the rage of the helpless victim but the impatient anger of a man of action who cannot trouble to invent stylistic devices, it has an undeniable liveliness which lifts it above the level of direct attack. At times this liveliness takes the form of a dramatic or even melodramatic ardor, as when he inveighs against the desecraters of the Sabbath or the lazy mothers of Hamburg. 2 2 At other times his anger finds expression in racy colloquialisms, such as those he deals out to his enemies in the polemics: "Stupid ass," "You pious, simple fool," "Scoundrel, gnat-strainer, camel-swallower." 23 On occasion, Schupp's anger even rises to the level of a certain forceful wit. He is no master in this field. He sometimes tries his hand at its lighter forms, unsuccessfully in Nihili, where striving for the clever point smacks of cool rhetoric; more successfully in such instances as the parody of an almanac in the first part of Calender. For the most part he is too deeply engrossed in the problem at hand to cultivate playfulness. In consequence, the wittier expressions of his anger are of the brusker sort that strikes with force rather than sharpness, such as his response to an enemy who had accused him of calling honest men liars, "Why, you gnat-strainer, I don't call you a liar; you lie without my calling for it"; or his retort when Butyrolambius accused him of having lice, that this was a sign that he was a man, since the possession of fleas would make him a false dog like his attacker. 24 Examples such as these, however, are rare—products, usually, of a momentary impulse rather than a conscious striving to clothe his anger in picturesque dress. More conspicuously employed for enlivening his style are the great number of jokes and anecdotes which Schupp uses in his works. He himself states in his introduction to Lucidor26 that writers on rhetoric advise the use of such jokes in order to hold the attention of the reader, but he does not always draw on them only for this reason. Some are

52

SCHUPP AS A S T Y L I S T

merely stylistic tools for relieving seriousness of mood, while others are connected organically with the context as examples of the matter under discussion. In Hiob, for example, 26 Schupp introduces a joke by way of showing a degree of foolishness not characteristic of Job, but the connection is so tenuous that he obviously aims only to enliven the serious discussion: a shepherd, robbed of the money entrusted to him by his fellow townsmen, consoles them with the assurance that although the thieves have the moneybag, he still has the key. On an equally flimsy pretext, Schupp speaks in Holländisch Pratgen of a young clergyman whose attempt to get the attention of his congregation by beginning his sermon with the question, "What shall I preach about?" 2 7 is taken seriously by an old woman who cries out that he should have thought of that beforehand. In like manner, says Janson, it is too late now for Magister Peer to worry whether everyone will be satisfied with his sermons. Most of the jokes introduced by Schupp are more specific illustrative examples. In the dedication to Eilfertige Antwort,2i he tells his patron of the smith who became tired of standing all day and now runs about with a messenger's spear, just as he, Schupp, who had formerly served "in bello grammatico" is now given no rest by his attackers. T h e greatest number of these jokes is used with actual satiric intent. A reproof, for example, of those who are not aware what real trouble means, is contained in two anecdotes in the introductory portion of Hiob.29 One tells of a clergyman who believed that he was being made to suffer inordinately because he burned his finger on roast pheasant; the other reports that a certain countess, upon hearing that some people had starved, declared that she would rather eat zwieback or bread than do any such thing. One of Schupp's most delightful little jokes, recounted to censure mildly those who are excessively fond of fine dress, tells of a certain Low-German burgomaster who wore a modish neckruff of such huge proportions that he was unable to see what his horse was doing when it stopped. He, therefore, solemnly asked his servant, "Supt myn Pert?" and the servant answered with equal solemnity, "Ja, Herr Burgemeister, et supt." 3 0 Jokes or anecdotes suggesting correct behavior are found in smaller numbers. Some of the best are contained in Lehrmeister. In one, for example, Schupp shows the value of terseness of expression by telling of a certain cavalier who, sent to Holland for gunpowder, cuts short the long, polite speeches made in his honor, with the words, "Gentlemen, a little less honor and more powder"; another anecdote of similar nature, and probably true, relates that the Landgrave of Hesse

SCHUPP AS A S T Y L I S T

53

interrupted a lengthy request for money, with a simple question concerning the amount desired.31 An instance of the joke implying more subtle criticism, in this case of rulers who dislike frankness, may be found in the introduction to Salomo, where Schupp jestingly explains the reluctance of Philandersohn's father to advise his son about life at court, by telling of a shepherd who refused to forswear the devil because he did not wish to antagonize a potentate who could so easily harm him. Even more subtle is the criticism in those jokes which suggest a quality without applying it specifically to their object. In Calender,32 in reply to Schmid's accusation that he is not learned, Schupp, after proving by an example that .Schmid's knowledge of Latin leaves much to be desired, adds a joke about the Swedish women who were too stupid to understand that in writing to their husbands in the Swedish army then on German soil, they needed a more exact address than, " T o my dear husband Nils, Nils' son." In like manner, the story of the Swabian with his heart in the seat of his trousers is used in Eilfertige Antwort not only to add strength to the threat of a devastating attack upon Schmid, but also to suggest the stupidity and cowardice of Schmid and the "great" man at whose behest the former was admittedly writing. Schupp's opinion of this great man is also intimated nicely in the joke concerning the Dutchman who asked the king to step back so that he could bow before him.33 Though these jokes and anecdotes are more carefully chosen than might appear at first, they remain for the most part inorganically connected with Schupp's text. Except for those drawn from his own experience, and the number of these is large, they are material obviously derived from other sources and conspicuous as such. In this, Schupp stands below a man like Weise who also adopts much from other sources34 but incorporates it more subtly, as in the instance of the joke dealing with ridiculous fears of possible misfortune. Schupp merely relates it in Lucianus as an example of the philosophical views of the Heracliti, 36 while Weise introduces it in Erznarren in the form of a meeting at an inn between his travelers and a youth who cannot decide upon a profession.36 Extraneous as many of his jokes are, however, Schupp must be credited with more than a little skill in their treatment. His creative sense of humor is not strong, but his appreciative one is of the keenest, and for this reason he is like any man who can tell a good joke: he enjoys it himself and makes it his in the telling by his terseness and feeling for climax. Irony, the other stylistic device which Schupp employs commonly, is

54

SCHUPP AS A S T Y L I S T

assimilated far better to his text than his jokes, though its more elaborate examples are also borrowed. In its treatment he again reveals the characteristic difference between himself and his fellow satirists: it is burdened neither by the sharp contrast and excessive bitterness nor by the caricature or grotesque exaggeration one finds in Moscherosch, Grimmelshausen, and Abraham. Nor is its use, with a few exceptions, as sustained in any one work as it is in Simplicissimus or Courasche. Schupp employs the irony of feigned approval extensively only in Eilfertige Antwort. T h e unifying force of the device may be seen even in summary. It is addressed directly to Schmid, his attacker, in the condescending tone suited to the underling writing at the behest of another and greater man. Schupp pretends to have enjoyed Schmid's work thoroughly, and since the latter, unlike the man for whom he is writing, has had the decency to affix his correct name, Schupp will do him the honor of answering him personally instead of hiring some passing student to do it for him. T h e great man is right, of course, Schupp continues, in using Schmid for his purpose and reserving his own energies for things more suited to his superior abilities, though Schupp cannot help wondering whether every underling will now attack him. Schupp, to be sure, would like to spank Schmid for calling him a sinner, but instead he censures him indirectly in the words of a stupid monk who preached against Erasmus and Reuchlin. Mock-earnest questions now follow as to the identity of the "great" man, so that he may be given due homage. Is he great in quality or quantity? Is he as large as the Canaanites? As Goliath? Is he perhaps "Hans, der Kuhlengraber," the gravedigger? If he is great in quality, how could he have objected to Schupp's statement that not all wisdom is to be found at the universities? After giving further examples to prove his contention concerning the universities of his day, and announcing that his Schulwesen will deal with the subject, Schupp gives his attention once more to Schmid. T h e latter had said that he was on the path to the stars, and Schupp intimates by means of an anecdote that this path may be leading up a ladder to a scaffold. But Schupp assures him that he enjoyed his work so much that he forgot the illness from which he was suffering when he dictated his answer to a student. A group of visiting students made various amusing and ribald suggestions for treating Schmid as he deserves, and these, too, are dutifully reported. T h e work ends with the prediction that Schmid will change his name to Faber, since this would be entirely characteristic of the pedant who, having accomplished some insignificant thing, thinks he has slain a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. But if Schmid will not change

SCHUPP AS A S T Y L I S T

55

his name Schupp will reward him by addressing him as Magister Bernhardus instead of Meister Bernd. The work ends as it began—with a salutation in poor Latin in the manner of the Epistolae obscurorum virorum. A few appropriate jokes are recounted to add to the feigned lightness of mood and to suggest the mental and moral caliber of his attackers. The ironic tone, as the summary shows, is not maintained consistently, but it passes over naturally into a lively anger entirely appropriate to his treatment of the despicable underling. Eilfertige Antwort is Schupp's best polemic work for unity of structure, uniformity of mood, and dynamic momentum. Elsewhere, sustained irony appears only episodically, for example in the directions for composing an oration in Oratore inepto, the presentation of the disadvantages of learning in De arte, or the description of a "well-run" state in Salomo.37 Related to this type of irony is the device of pretended innocence used when Schupp permits someone else to speak for him, as in Relation aus dem Parnasso, where Apollo and the Muses defend him, or in Salomo, where Charlemagne utters criticisms in a sharper tone than Schupp himself cares to employ. It is also used when Schupp pretends to describe evils existing in some remote country or in the past: in Lucianus, where he describes in detail the state of the universities in Lucian's time, or in Corinna, Allmosenbuchse, and Ninivitischer Buszspiegel, where he appears to be speaking of Nineveh. The ironic method whereby the author feigns objectivity by permitting the object of his attack to reveal his own folly is used most commonly by Schupp. It is at its best in the first part of Corinna, an excellent novelette relating the lives of the whore Corbyle and her daughter. The words of the characters are reported directly and with ostensible dispassion in a style exemplary in its simplicity. Unlike Grimmelshausen's Courasche, who knows she is lost, Corbyle never doubts that her way of life is normal nor that she is conducting it according to Christian principles. She persuades Corinna to become a whore by reminding her that it is her filial duty to support her mother; she warns her daughter against the sin of pride when the latter does not wish to become the mistress of a simple man; and both attend church services conscientiously, especially if they can find a preacher who inveighs against the unbelievers. Corbyle bases her confident hope for divine assistance on the perfectly reasonable premise that it is the promised share of a widow such as she is. Indeed, she seeks God's help in her immoral plans for Corinna by sending money to church with the request that a prayer be offered for the success of a matter concerning widows and orphans. Within the story the ironic mood is strained

56

SCHUPP AS A S T Y L I S T

only once, in the disproportionately long sermon preached by Ehrenhold against lazy mothers whose refusal to nurse their infants encourages unchasteness by giving employment to unmarried wet nurses. Except for this, neither undue exaggeration nor moralizing intrusion destroys the illusion of entirely logical behavior which the compact little work creates. Other, more episodically treated examples of ironic self-revelation also appear with some frequency in Schupp's writings: the respected lechers in the introduction to Corinna and in the second half of the work who speak brazenly of their way of life; the unhappy rich man in Hiob; the courtiers of Herod in Freund; the quarreling mistresses of the clergymen in Salomo; and so on. This type of irony is at its most playful in Schupp's jokes. Any of the examples given above might suffice. One might add the story of the simple teacher who cannot learn the name of the father of Noah's children, or that of the lad who struck at his master but judiciously kept his hand in his pocket while doing so, since he knew that if his master had caught him "he would have become raging mad." 38 It must be reiterated that the elements of Schupp's satiric style thus far discussed are not as closely concentrated in his writings as it might appear from their presentation. T h e basic pattern is direct statement relieved only from time to time by obvious satiric devices, and deriving its liveliness chiefly from the fact that the author used the direct address, questions, exclamations, proverbs, and colloquialisms typical of the spoken words. Samples chosen respectively from Salomo, Lucidor, and Eilfertiges Sendschreiben may serve to illustrate this: If I were a politicus and served a great lord I would rather: 1. that no one in the entire country were to engage in commerce if he had not learned a trade in his youth. For luck is round, to one man it runs, the other it shuns. And merchant gains flow like tides high and low. For if, now, a merchant is unsuccessful, so that he becomes bankrupt, he lies and deceives and does nothing else than to deprive other people of their worldly advantage and often himself of the eternal one. For he has learned nothing else with which to support his wife and children. In the second place I would advise that no simple man's son should study at the university if he did not learn a trade at the same time. Formerly, among the old Chaldeans, Egyptians, and other wise peoples no one was allowed to seek a higher education if he was not of royal or other high lineage. Now almost every beggar's son wants to study, and afterwards they guzzle their way through the world and beg at doors. Why do they not go to Holstein? There the nobility complain that in these times of war when recruiting is so intensive, they can get almost no help to thresh their harvest or turn the old grain on the lofts. Such an exercitium corporis would be as useful to them as the advice which the Schola Sahlbaderiana or Saleritana gives

SCHUPP AS A STYLIST

57

to students, saying: Post coenam stabis, aut passus mille meabis. It would seem to me that a piece of bread earned in the sweat of my brow would taste better to me than a piece of bread got through begging. W h e n a persecution comes, so that a schoolmaster or preacher is driven into Exilium, he thinks there is no other means of supporting himself than begging. If he were to help a brewer brew beer or assist a mason, that would weigh on his conscience, that would mean taking his hand from the plow and looking backward. But how did the apostle Paul, the chosen armor of God, the courageous theologus and orator, act in such a case? I have thus far been an especial patron of traveling scholars. But I see that one merely strengthens these lazy scoundrels in their laziness and gives them occasion for other vices. W h e n I first came to this world-famous city and was shown much honor by good people, I once wished them that they might all descend to hell alive. These words were at that time misinterpreted by stupid people who did not consider what I meant and explained at the time. But as truly as the Lord God Sabaoth lives, before whose countenance I stand, I love not only you but all the people of this city, rich and poor; and if it were possible that I might carry you and all the inhabitants of this city on my back to the gate of heaven, to Abraham's bosom, I would do it. But I wish you from the bottom of my heart that you might descend to hell alive today. Do not be angry, dear Lucidor; I wish you again that you might descend to hell in thought and might consider well while you are alive how unspeakably, how unspeakably great the torment of the damned in hell is, and what "eternally" means. If the entire Baltic and Atlantic sea were nothing but ink, if there were a piece of paper or parchment as large as heaven and earth, if there were as many learned men as stars in heaven and if they had as many pens as there are grass and flowers in the fields in summer and leaves on the trees, they could describe in a long time how great is the torment of the damned in hell. Recently Butyrolambius carried his stinking butter to market everywhere and deceived people with it. Shortly afterward Magister Bernhard Schmit opened his jaws at me and thought he wanted to devour me. But hold on, hold on, M. Berndl I must first tell you a story before you devour me. Once a schoolmaster was supposed to explain to his pupils the words in Horace, "Mecaenas atavis edite (sic\) regibus." After he had considered it for a long time and studied it at length, he said: Scribite, pueri, scribite. At, but. Avis, you bird. Me caenas, do you want to devour me? Edite regibus, Eat of the kings. After I thought that M. Bernd would stop snorting a bit I hear the gentleman wants to scare me, too, and refute the Calendar printed in Wolfenbiittel. In addition, an entire university is going to write against me. I assure the gentleman that I fear the one as little as the other. W h e n the courageous hero, Witte Wittens, had to surrender, he would not give to a common soldier the sword with which he had fought so long in knightly fashion for Dutch freedom and welfare, but desired that an officer come and take it from him. Now that many a grammatical musketeer wants to give me a tanning, I would prefer, and it would bring me more honor, that I fight with an entire university than that M. Bernhard Schmit comes marching toward me with his paltry dusack and making an ado like traveling artisans in fencing-school. 39

58

SCHUPP AS A S T Y L I S T

T h e two stylistic constituents, the serious and the buoyant, are not always unified so smoothly as in these examples. Schupp, like his contemporaries, frequently permits satiric and didactic or merely informative elements to remain in unresolved juxtaposition. Corinna's excellent irony is held in suspension while Ehrenhold-Schupp berates lazy mothers at length; the foolish rich man in Hiob, in process of being enlightened concerning the true nature of suffering, is forced to give his attention to Schupp's excursion into the nature and probable age of various diseases; Florian is abandoned entirely to his unhappy fate while Waarmund and his friend discuss in general terms the need for providing a haven for converts to Lutheranism. In a similar manner, the basically excellent satiric device of an implied comparison between Jonah's experiences in Nineveh and those of Schupp in Hamburg is deprived of point by the constant intrusion of extraneous moralizations and reflections. Nevertheless, one must credit Schupp with more than a little feeling for consistency of mood, not only on the basis of such works as Freund in der Not, Salomo, Eilfertige Antwort, and Lehrmeister, but also because he distinguishes between the style he uses in the devotional and homiletic writings addressed to the poor and the sick, and that employed against the children of the world, as he calls them. 40 Works such as Golgotha, Krankenwärterin, and Einfältige Erklärung der Litanei are uniform in their seriousness and simplicity of approach. Golgotha is especially well executed. A slim thread of narrative—a dying man is given consolation and moral strength by means of the prayers written by his pastor in such a way that a child may read them to him—runs naturally through the little work as a motivation for the introduction of the prayers themselves, and creates a solemnity of mood in keeping with their nature. These writings are almost entirely free of satiric intrusions and of any stylistic extravagance. They are related to Schupp's other works in their brevity, their lucidity, and the warm, human nearness of the author. Above all, they are outstanding in the absence of an inordinate stress on the evils of the flesh and the horrors of hell. When Schupp dwells on spiritual matters aside from their application to actual problems, to be sure, he does not always escape so completely the masochistic or erotic sentimentality of contemporary mystics or pietists, 41 as the examples of Aurora and Eusebia attest. But even here, in so far as one may judge by the German translation, passages of somewhat tortured ascetic symbolism alternate with healthier attacks on contemporary problems, or with a spirited presentation of the Lutheran tenets.

S C H U P P AS A S T Y L I S T

59

I t has been easy enough thus far to compare Schupp's form and language with that of other satirists in order to demonstrate that he reveals their general character, yet develops a medium of expression suitable to his own needs. An evaluation of stylistic effectiveness is more difficult. It is not easy to resist the temptation of viewing the writings of the entire century from the standpoint of the present. T o the modern reader, seventeenth-century satire in all its genres lacks in most cases what are to him the essentials of formal dynamics: effective development and climax. T o the seventeenth century, delighting in a teeming vitality, these were not requisites. Its aesthetic pattern, like that of its music, moved in parallels and interweaving polyphonies that spread outward on a broad stream, not merely forward and upward. Such shiftings and developments as occurred had the tendency to simplify and to restrict, to be sure, but they did not usually succeed in changing the fundamental artistic texture. Evaluated against this pattern, the larger structure of Schupp's writings compares favorably with that of the contemporaries under discussion: it sacrifices none of the parallelism and expansibility which the period loved, yet it moves within a more clearly circumscribed area than most of the contemporary prose satire. A comparison of the detail and the style that fills this framework is less favorable to Schupp. He is deficient in plastic human portraiture and above all in the moods which others succeed in creating: the grand bitterness of Moscherosch, the pungent sparkle of Lauremberg, the mild ironic patina of Weise, the extravagance of Abraham. Schupp's treatment is direct, carried by subject matter, rarely lifted above the ground. Its vigor and simplicity undeniably hold the attention despite discursiveness and reiteration, but it remains a style placed in the service of an urgent need—the style, one might say, of the journalist. T h i s distinction of motivation applies not only to Schupp's style, but to content and philosophical approach, as succeeding chapters will show. For while all satire expresses by its very nature a more literal concept of reality than other literary genres, there are elements at work in the seventeenth century which force satire away from the actual and the immediate to the universal, and from the sharply critical to the merely amusing, elements which are much more conspicuously present in the works of men like Moscherosch, Logau, Lauremberg, Weise, and, of course, Grimmelshausen, than they are in Schupp.

Part Two: T h e Reflection of Contemporary Culture V THE STATE AND SOCIETY

T

in seventeenth-century satiric form from the loose and expansible to the restricted, and from the emotionally intensified to the more nearly relaxed, finds its parallel in the content. T h e earlier encompassing view which spans virtually every phase of reality narrows sharply to a range satisfied to scan ethical and social behavior. In like manner, the attacks on mismanagement and injustice, on immorality, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and sinful vanity are gradually set aside for a concern with lesser follies and foibles. T h i s development is not without its significant exceptions, but it may be observed with some degree of clarity in each of the major areas with which the satire of this period deals: the state and society, public and private morality, and a group of problems related to cultural and intellectual life. H E DEVELOPMENT

T h e extensive concern of satire in the earlier part of the century with evils in the state and the social order has two major sources. First, it represents a continuation of the practical moral-didactic treatment of reality in the writings of men like Sachs, Rollenhagen, Ringwaldt, and Fischart. T h a t is, it spins out a thread of the previous century which, strengthened by the popularity of the picaresque novel with its satiric elements, continues its existence alongside more fashionable literary movements unfolding at the courts and elsewhere. In the second place, the interest of the older satirists in real problems is intensified by a war which brought with it evils that could not escape the attention of the critical, and made more irritating the wrongs already in existence. At the same time, the T h i r t y Years' W a r also broadened the view of the satirist in a double respect, thereby again directing his attention to the social community: it produced in him a concept of society not as an agglomeration of individuals leading their independent moral or immoral existences, but as a unit of interdependent forces; and it strengthened his sense of nationalism, not always a healthy sense, perhaps, but a valuable one in so far as it sharpened his awareness of certain elements in his own national culture which were weakened or destroyed by slavish and superficial foreign imitation.

T H E S T A T E A N D SOCIETY

61

Logau has a breadth of view in political and social matters which is not even shared by his close contemporaries among the satirists. From his vantage point as a nobleman and a somewhat unwilling court official 1 he sees as the major weaknesses of his age the selfishness of princes and nobility, the opportunism of the middle class, and the misery of the peasant. T h e princes rob and destroy instead of preserving, 2 the worthless are favored at their courts, 3 and courtly art is the art of all manner of wickedness. 4 Equally censurable, the middle class hates the nobleman because it envies him, and it exploits the peasant by becoming wealthy at his expense. 5 Meantime the peasant, the true producer in the nation and the source of its real wealth, 6 lives in a wretched state and suffers at the hands of all classes.7 T h e composite impression of this wartime society as Logau depicts it is one in which wealth, luxury, and striving for high office are the rule, 8 while poverty, starvation, and suffering are prevalent among the people. 9 Little detail blurs these broad outlines. If Logau directs his attention to individual occupational groups, it is only to select the few who are to his mind outstandingly reprehensible: merchant, doctor, lawyer, and judge. 10 None of these draws his satire as frequently as the soldier, embodiment for him of the cruelty, misery, and immorality of the war. Logau is aware, to be sure, that a man cannot be a good soldier if he is forced into service, 11 and he is not insensitive to the pitiable state of the men discharged at the close of the war. 12 But the behavior of soldiers is such that it arouses the author's anger more than his sympathy: they are evil, debauched, greedy for money; 13 their great acts of courage are acts of destruction and robbery; 14 they were created by the devil to destroy the house of God. 18 Critical as Logau is of the state, he is no brash reformer. He may remind the nobility that they are earth like the rest of mankind, or that nobility should be a quality of character, not a rank acquired through birth, 1 8 but his is the feudal viewpoint of the independent nobleman 1 7 who sees as essential parts of the state only princes, lower nobility, and peasants. 18 Yet if his paternal estate, harsh though the existence it offers, gives Logau a refuge from the evils and trials of court life, 19 he does not withdraw to it as an escape from the service of the state. His sense of duty toward ruler and fellow man is unusually keen. He serves three masters—God, his prince, and his neighbor 20 — and he censures those who love their fatherland only because it benefits them. 21 It is this genuine, selfless patriotism which lends depth to what would otherwise be a narrow nationalism. His animosity toward the French is without bounds. He praises them for their good manners, 22 but he also sees them as the source of vice and immorality:

62

T H E S T A T E AND SOCIETY

France is a paradise where man falls into sin; the Germans go to France to imitate everything, and the French come to Germany to steal everything. 2 3 Intolerant as this view is, it is understandable during a war fought on German soil and spreading deprivation and suffering over the areas it reached, only to lead to a peace in which foreigners appeared to have the advantage. 24 It is to the credit of Logau, moreover, and further evidence of his concern for the national welfare, that his object is not to attack the enemy so much as to preserve or awaken valuable qualities of character in the Germans. He blames the latter for an imitativeness which extends not only to dress but to such wrongs as are to his mind characteristic of the French. 25 Moscherosch resembles Logau in the scope and intensity of his social satire. T h e harsh censure of the nobility, the picture of wartime wretchedness amid striving for wealth and luxury, the malpractices of various occupational groups, the patriotism and nationalism, are all there. Moscherosch thinks bitterly of the court of nobleman or prince as similar to that of hell in everything but the latter's greater justice. 26 T h e nobility deem it a matter of honor to be brazen and wasteful; to cheat and curse; to oppress and rob their subjects. 27 Their officials are so wicked that a devil considers it the deepest insult if he is forced to inhabit the body of a commissary. 28 In short, an ideal court may, to Moscherosch's mind, be found only in the mythical realm of the ancient Germanic heroes with their simplicity, honesty, and swift justice. T h e lower classes, too, are culpable. Moscherosch scans occupation after occupation only to conclude that each plies its trade or profession dishonestly: the soldier with his brutality and impiety, as we see him in "Soldatenleben," the cheating lawyer who even attempts to construe the T e n Commandments in his own favor, the murderous doctor, the innkeeper who "washes" his wine, 29 and so on endlessly throughout the entire social panorama. Notwithstanding the wrongs which Moscherosch observes on every side, he resembles Logau in his acceptance of the form of the state as he finds it: not rebelliousness but respect is due the princes, for their rule is preferable to that of a council of men with their diverse wills.30 In like manner, his censure of his fellows does not stand in the way of a vehement nationalism which, to be sure, grants the existence of favorable qualities in the French, 31 but which descends frequently enough to associating them with all manner of wickedness. 32 Beneath the similarity between Moscherosch and Logau in their view of the contemporary social scene there are several differences significant not only as an indication of the disparity between the two men, but in

T H E S T A T E AND SOCIETY

63

so far as they reveal certain trends among other satirists. Most striking is Moscherosch's clearer eye for detail and shading. He goes farther than Logau in his ability to approach many groups with sympathy as well as censure: the wretchedness but also the faults of the peasant; 33 the suffering of the middle class portrayed in Insomnis, as well as the weaknesses of its many occupational groups; the wrongs which are in part responsible for the misconduct of soldier and lawyer.34 Above all, he exceeds Logau in the countless individual trades and professions which he satirizes in the course of the first part of his Gesichte. In spite of this detail, Moscherosch's concept of the major forces at work in the nation lacks the clarity and perspective of Logau's view. A petty official without the formal authority of the nobleman, victim of the ravages and cruelties of the war, too embittered by suffering and the contemplation of the world's inadequacy to find an inner refuge in wisdom and religious faith, lacking the physical refuge of a paternal estate,35 Moscherosch represents the viewpoint of the man who stands in the midst of his characters, not above them. As a descendant of a noble family, to be sure, he might have been expected to remain in his views somewhat aloof from the burgher, yet he never identifies himself with the upper class. It becomes clear in his Insomnis cura parentum that he sees in the free cities and not at the court of nobleman or prince the physical and religious refuge which he seeks for himself and his family in troubled times. The Gesichte, too, with their sharp criticism of the nobility, show that Moscherosch's somewhat anomalous social position tended to link him with the middle rather than the upper class.36 In consequence, he lacked the perspective which permitted Logau to view the middle class as a single body. He may feel its unity for a moment in contrast to nobleman or peasant, but when he regards it alone he sees nothing but the smaller groupings within it. This view is understandable enough. The typical satirist of the middle class, with whom Moscherosch may here be identified, did not feel a bond with his peers because to him the class consisted of artisans, merchants, professional men, minor officials, and all the other subdivisions; and he thought of himself not as a member of the group as a whole but, somewhat superciliously, of the subgroup to which he belonged. Wartime pressures had evoked in Moscherosch at least some awareness of a contrast between people and prince; later, with the firmer establishment of princely power and the further spread of courtly ideals of behavior into the lower levels, the concept of the middle class as an economic or social unit was to become even more blurred. Indicative also of later trends is the difference between Moscherosch's

64

T H E S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

relationship to the state and that of Logau. Moscherosch does not express his loyalty to his nation, nor even to the smaller state with which he is associated. He does not, like Logau, dedicate himself to the service of prince, God, and fellow. Indeed, in Insomnis cura parentum he looks to the free cities, as we have said, for the protection which he cannot find among the highest heads. In consequence, although his admiration for German achievements and virtues of present and past still indicates some feeling of community between himself and his fellows, he lacks the deeper bond between citizens and society. Yet though Moscherosch shows a narrowing of the broad view of social forces which is characteristic of Logau, the boldness with which he aims his satire at the panorama of state and society is startling in comparison with that of the men who follow him. It might appear, for example, as though Grimmelshausen were an even more trenchant social critic than Moscherosch or Logau. These two have little to match the Hessian satirist's picture of the depravity and shifting inconstancy of the soldier's life portrayed in his novels, or that of the small court with its bestial love of drink, its immorality and heartless chicanery. 37 Nor is either as bold as Grimmelshausen in portraying the wrongs in the social order: the poverty, wretchedness, and crudity of the peasant; 3 8 the injustice of class privilege. 39 Indeed, while Moscherosch and Logau attack the wrongs but never the form of the state, Grimmelshausen, despite avowed political conservatism, 40 envisions a future Germany as an ideal country unified in religion, free of serfdom and slavery, and governed by a council of the wise; or as a religious community devoted to God and man. 41 Notwithstanding the bitterness of Grimmelshausen's censure, it must be borne in mind that the conditions he describes in Simplicissimus and Courasche are those of a war several decades past. It is true that much in these works unquestionably represents an actual problem throughout the century—social injustice, the perennial wrongs committed by various social subgroups, the lack of national and religious unity. Nevertheless, the works of others indicate that these sources of complaint were no longer as keenly irritating as during the Thirty Years' War, and certainly no longer warranted a portrayal in the harsh tones of Grimmelshausen. One might say, of course, that Grimmelshausen, autodidact and petty official, and as such closer to the dissatisfactions and wishes of the common man, could not share the social viewpoint of a man like Weise with his successful career and his close contact with nobleman and wealthy burgher. Proof, however, that Grimmelshausen himself was not primarily concerned with the social

T H E S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

65

wrongs he portrays, may be found easily enough in his works. In his shorter revues, 42 and even in Vogelnest I, he introduces the traditional culprits: crafty beggar, sinful priest, filthy peasant, cheating innkeeper, 43 with their typical transgressions, and not the major questions of state, class, or religion. In Melcher, his central figure is not the brutal soldier of the first book of Simplicissimus, but the disappointed youth who has vainly sought adventure and wealth in military life. In Ratstiibel Plutonis, the author presents his theme not as a satirist alarmed at the prevalence of avarice but as a genial narrator who has his favorite figures discourse on the advantages and disadvantages of wealth. T h e viewpoint in Michel, too, is not that of the ardent nationalist, but that of the sensible man who seeks to foster a love for the German language, or who warns against foreign imitation at a time when a war with France seems probable. T h e use to which Grimmelshausen puts his social satire in Simplicissimus and Courasche also tempers the apparent severity of his criticism. Moscherosch employs plot and character development to motivate and unify the presentation of his panorama of evil. Grimmelshausen depicts social evils because they add verisimilitude and substantiating examples to the human portrait which is his chief concern. T h e life of the soldier in Simplicissimus, Courasche, and Springinsfeld may reflect certain conditions of his time or the immediate past, but it also represents the typical inconstancy of human life. Likewise, the contrast between the purity of young Simplicius and the depravity of the Gubernator's court unquestionably portrays actual immorality, but its chief purpose is to call attention to the tragic spectacle of lost innocence. At the same time, and this is characteristic of the ambiguity of Grimmelshausen, the satiric element contributes spice and adventurousness to the action of his plots. T h e life of the soldier attracts not only the moralist and satirist in Grimmelshausen, but also, perhaps unconsciously, the man who delights vicariously in an ever-changing and thrilling existence free of moral or social restraints. It is noteworthy in this connection that even in a typical revue like Vogelnest I Grimmelshausen draws'attention from the satiric to the character development of the hero and to the exciting implications of the power which his wonderful nest provides. Because of the predominance of the universally human and the novelistic in Grimmelshausen, he cannot actually be classified as a satirist of society. Yet he is not without significance for an understanding of seventeenth-century satire. He shows the kinship between the satiric revue and the novel of adventure or of individual development,

66

T H E S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

a kinship revealed somewhat tentatively in Moscherosch's Gesichte, but one which appears distinctly in the latter part of the century in Weise's NOscher or in the Sommertage of Beer. At the same time, Grimmelshausen shows more clearly than artistically less gifted satirists such as Weise or Rachel that a critical and realistic attitude toward life was an essential part of the literary stream which flowed alongside the idealism of the Baroque. Unlike Grimmelshausen, Lauremberg is heart and soul the satirist, but like him he shows in his way that certain elements, in part undoubtedly inherited from the previous era, mitigated the harshness of social satire even in the first half of the century. T h e elderly poet, heir of the sixteenth century, projects himself in his Scherzgedichte as the conservative burgher defending the good old way of life against the presumption of the present and leaving untouched what is not his province. Neither ruler nor court nor the general welfare plays a role in his poems. T h e authorities are referred to only when the need to obey their laws is mentioned. 44 Sporadic references to poverty are introduced not so much to reveal a social injustice as to point up the prevalence of snobbery, as when he remarks that the poor drown in water and the rich in titles, or when he speaks of the luxuries enjoyed by a lap dog and unknown to the poor. 45 T h e middle class as a whole, or its subgroups such as merchants, tradesmen, and artisans, are the chief targets of his satire, yet he censures them not primarily for wrongs typical of their trades or professions but for the love of dress, titles, and elegant language which has caused them to overstep their divinely instituted limits of class. 48 His intolerance of the French 47 stems in part from the same conservative belief in class bounds, since the imitation of foreign elegance has, to his mind, misled the lower classes into a presumptuous aping of their social superiors. One might conclude that there is either a measure of snobbery in Lauremberg's relegation of the middle class to its proper sphere, or perhaps some of Moscherosch's bitter rejection of every social group. Yet there is neither the one nor the other. Lauremberg attacks what are to him outstanding follies in the behavior of his peers, but at heart he has a healthy confidence in the good sense of artisan, simple burgher, and merchant. He treats the trades with praise 48 as well as blame and he even toys jokingly with the idea of adopting a trade himself, preferably that of the fine tailor who has climbed so high on the point of a needle. 49 More important, he uses simple folk such as Matz Pump or Aalke Quaks as representatives of a sensible viewpoint which finds laughable the affectations of his day. 60 Even the merchant, 51 ignorant

T H E S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

67

as he is of the true nature of poetry, is portrayed as entirely justified in his disdain for the prolific rhymester. In some measure, this confidence in the simple man represents a limitation of Lauremberg's nationalism in comparison with Moscherosch or Logau. His norms of behavior are derived not from his concept of an ideal national character but from the somewhat prosaic qualities of the average man. At other times he gives evidence, half jokingly, to be sure, of a particularism which shows an even more tenuous bond with the nation as a whole. He defends the Low-German speech because it is unchanged, undivided, and clearly intelligible to all but the stupid. 52 It might appear strange that Lauremberg, whose mature years coincide with the Thirty Years' War, was not sufficiently affected by it to acquire the keen awareness of social wrongs or the broader view of state and society which it induced in his contemporaries. But it must be recalled that as a Low German and eventually as a professor at Soró, he was far removed from the worst effects of the war. If the cities with which he was familiar had felt its impact at all, they had overcome it by the time his poems were written. Certainly the prosperity and love of luxury which Lauremberg censures are proof that the burgher he knew was little touched by the hardships endured elsewhere. T h e limited social and political interest reflected by Lauremberg is also characteristic, if for different reasons, of the greater part of the satire after the middle of the century. T h e over-all picture is lost, state and ruler disappear as objects of censure, and the general welfare receives little mention. T h e reasons for this change are not immediately apparent in the satire of the period. Obviously, the cessation of the Thirty Years' War had removed a source of irritability, so that satirists like Reuter, Rachel, and Weise lost the sensitivity to wrong which had been characteristic of Logau and Moscherosch. Nevertheless, serious problems remained: the sorry state of the peasant, the difficulties encountered by artisans in competition with foreign markets, the poverty among the lower classes in the cities, the oppression of high taxes and arbitrariness on the part of nobility and officialdom. T h e reasons why most satirists eventually set aside these problems are probably several in number. 53 First, the autocracy of the territorial princes, long a fact to the average citizen and approved by the Lutheran concept of the relation of church and state, now become complete. This absolutism, whatever its weaknesses, introduced order and some improvement into the affairs of the state by its strong, centralized management and thereby created in at least the more prosperous citizen a sense of

68

T H E STATE AND SOCIETY

security. At the same time, the absolute state also encouraged social acquiescence, and this was further fostered by developments within the middle class. T h e guilds had long ago lost the vitality characteristic of their predecessors in the sixteenth century and had yielded cultural and social precedence to the upper middle class. T h e latter became courtly in their orientation, prosperous, and open to the secularizing influences which weakened the moral severity expressed in the satire of earlier decades of the century. From their ranks came most of the educated men, the teachers, and the important writers. It was the upper middle class who, along with the lesser nobility, supplied the personnel upon whom the absolute state depended for its functioning. Satirists like Weise, Gryphius, Reuter, and Rachel, therefore, cultured men of their class and, in part, at least, successful in their careers, were less inclined to concern themselves with the problems of state and society which continued to beset their age, and directed their efforts toward educating their peers ethically and socially. Accordingly, the subgroups of the middle class are singled out less frequently than previously for the special wrongs committed by them; instead, the class as a whole is ridiculed for its pretense and ambition. T h e middle class was already under attack for these weaknesses in the earlier part of the century, but here the stress was on the love of wealth and luxury of all classes. Later, the impropriety of the burgher's ambitious striving receives the greater attention, while the potentially benign role of wealth and position as such is conceded. T h e social picture as presented by Rachel, therefore, is now the typical one. References to the state or to social or economic conditions are vague. He may speak of an arrogant man who causes wars and makes princes bow before him, or he may mention the power of money in acquiring noble rank or in straightening out crooked things, but neither these nor the reminder that wealth and position are to be used without pride 5 4 can be construed unequivocally as critical of prince or authorities. Rachel's censure of a few occupational groups for their characteristic wrongs is somewhat more direct/' 5 but his chief concern in his satiric poems is with the human average as represented by the middle class as a group. His business with them is that of the guide to morality and good sense who preaches the avoidance of undue ambition 5 6 and advises adherence to the safe mean. 5 7 A similar modest goal is reflected in his treatment of foreign imitation. It is not a national evil for him, but merely another mark of foolish ostentation and striving for position. 5 8 In speaking of language, for example, his stress is on the vanity of the man who adorns his speech with foreign words,

T H E S T A T E AND SOCIETY

69

and not on the use of a foreign tongue as such, since Rachel also ridicules popular poets who lack the knowledge of Latin and Greek essential, to his mind, to the creation of good poetry. 59 T h e social scene in Gryphius' comedies bears close resemblance to that of Rachel. There are, nevertheless, a few distinctive traits which invite comment. Most striking is the role assigned to the nobility. These represent for Gryphius not a class so much as the embodiment of an ideal of ethical or aesthetic behavior measured against which the boasters, the immoral, and the presumptuous who populate his comedies stand out in their full insignificance. A second difference lies in the further restriction of occupational satire. T o be sure, Gryphius presents a greater variety of social types among the leading figures of his comedies: pedantic scholar, soldier, and impoverished noblewoman in Horribilicribrifax; teacher and village artisan in Squentz; peasant and petty judge in Dornrose. But in reality each of these satirizes the same weakness. They may be guilty of boastfulness, cowardice, and language mixture, of venality and crudeness, but their real lack is their ignorance of the restraint essential to model behavior. There is no question that this fundamental ethical fault has a social basis in the ambition and pretentiousness of the man of the middle class. In this, therefore, Gryphius agrees with Rachel in his advocacy of the golden mean of behavior. But he differs from the latter not only in the greater sublimation of the real problem but also, paradoxically, in the limitation which he places upon it. Rachel, for all his pride in his superior education and his "regular" poetry, still is something of the stanch moralist who speaks to his peers in the manner of the sensible preacher. In Gryphius, a faint admixture of superciliousness toward the objects of his censure is unmistakable. A highly cultured man, he invites others like himself to look down upon the crude and the uncouth. Something of this snobbery even enters into Dornrose. T h e play is no glorification of the villager as such, based though it may be on an observation of some such unspoiled virtue. It is an idyll, charming but touched with nostalgia and a faint condescension: nostalgia for something in whose reality the author does not quite believe; and condescension because its rugged simplicity, whatever the virtues it may foster, is beneath the notice of the cultured man. Proof of this attitude lies in the fact that the comedy does not stand alone, for as if to legitimize his treatment of such a content at all, Gryphius has interwoven it with a courtly comedy, Das Verliebte Gespenst. In spite of Gryphius' tendency to social arrogance it would be incorrect to say that social satire obtrudes itself in his works. Great

70

T H E S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

dramatist that he is, he has a perception for the universally human which is not content with the simple stuff of pure satire. Even the comedies have a poignancy derived not from the contemplation of social wrong but from the knowledge that the gap between ideal and real in human behavior cannot be easily bridged. T h e boasters in Horribilicribrifax may be provided with posts and wives at the end of the comedy, but Sophia's love for Cleander has skirted tragedy before it finds its reward. So, too, the tragedies. Though Papinianus may treat of tyranny and Carolus may remind the rebellious that majesty is sacred, their actual theme is the inconstancy of human life. A stronger suggestion of social reality is conveyed by Cardenio with its admission that human passion may be so powerful as to render meaningless the distinctions pf class prescribed by dramatic theorists. But the stress here also is on the moral conflict, not on the social implication. Weise, practical man and realist, is untroubled by the idealism of Gryphius. Yet he is a remarkable figure, one whose willingness to take cognizance of the social, political, and economic character of his age forms a sharp contrast to all the contemporary satirists except Abraham. T o be sure, if one compares his major comedies and novels with the satire of Moscherosch and Logau, his limitations are all too obvious. T h e poor, national prosperity, or just government are scarcely mentioned. T h e higher nobility have retired to the background, from which they emerge only as models of proper behavior or as providential helpers. 60 As realities, they represent an unattainable sphere for admission into which, as he shows in his Politischer Ndscher, only the injudicious strive. Even if Weise refers to plotting or injustice in noble circles, he rarely does so with the forcefulness of the accuser. 61 Instead, he cautiously places the blame on a shadowy spirit named Antiquus, whose influence is felt in every class. 82 When a nobleman is singled out for some wrong, he is only one of the minor nobility toward whom reverence, in that age of progressive centralization of power, was n o longer essential. 63 One may, therefore, summarize Weise's attitude toward the state in his own optimistic statement 84 that the offices are filled, the subjects know their places, and everything will rest on an excellent foundation. Weise's interest in the classes or occupations as social concepts is slight. His fondness for the revue permits him to introduce great numbers of trades and occupations: neglectful preacher, 65 immoral innkeeper, arrogant merchant, dishonest judge, 6 6 plotting village officials; 67 or all the types mentioned in Politischer Quacksalber.68 But except for the concentration in Quacksalber, his examples are scattered among a

T H E S T A T E AND SOCIETY

71

far greater number of moral, ethical, or merely behavioral transgressions. If, however, Weise does not match Moscherosch in the extent to which the latter resolves the middle class into its component parts, he also does not portray the class as a social or political entity, nor does he identify himself with it as a whole. It may be said that he divides it somewhat vaguely into upper and lower middle class, but the distinction is cultural or even ethical rather than social. The former is that part which is amenable to the instruction of a man of good sense like himself, or which already represents the standards he wishes to inculcate; the latter consists of the uncultured, who serve primarily as adverse examples. It cannot be said that this division is rigid. One frequently has the impression in Erznarren that, except for Gelanor, every member of the middle class is a fool. Nor has the division more than a flimsy social or economic basis. The villager or peasant of the century was undoubtedly similar to the crude, quarrelsome fellow he portrays in his comedies, but Weise satirizes him not because he considers these qualities characteristic of his group, but because he wishes to hold up for ridicule such qualities wherever they appear. Proof of this may be found in the fact that he does not always criticize the simple man adversely,69 and conversely, in the fact that he occasionally portrays him in so exaggerated a caricature, as in Catharine, that he cannot possibly have been patterned after a real type. T o summarize, therefore, the middle class, though it is the chief object of Weise's satire, is censured or instructed not because of its characteristic social faults nor even because of its wealth and ambition, but because he wishes to guide its members to a way of life combining ethics, good form, and economic advantages with a judicious acceptance of their place in the social scale.70 Although the emasculated social scene as thus far outlined is the one most nearly characteristic of Weise, there are in his works, as indicated at the outset, surprising indications of a keener eye for real conditions. These appear most numerously in Hauptverderber and the only partly satiric Masaniello. The former reviews the major evils of Weise's day in thorough fashion. The politicos have little regard for orthodox religion and are prone to misuse it for reasons of expediency.71 In government they follow Machiavellian principles, under which the peasant suffers. The general welfare is impaired by a foreign competition harmful to peasant and artisan. At the same time, all the classes are given to wastefulness and foolish ambition: even the lowliest must have their costly festivals, and many an artisan leaves a remunerative position in the city for a poor one in the village because he desires the

72

T H E STATE AND SOCIETY

distinction of belonging to a village council. These follies, reprehensible enough in themselves, must, along with the impiety which Weise also censures in the work, eventually have the effect of destroying the national character and thereby playing into the hands of foreign enemies. T h e content of Masaniello is more limited, but the courtly craftiness it portrays is realistic to the point of cynicism. Motivated by the justifiable dissatisfaction of the people with exorbitant taxes,72 Masaniello has led them in a revolt against the viceroy and the nobility. T h e viceroy and the latter deal with this by false promises and finally by presenting Masaniello with a potion which drives him to madness, in the midst of which he is killed by a nobleman. 73 T h e play concludes with a double moral: that revolt is a folly which must eventually trap itself in its own net, and that the viceroy and the archbishop have shown political wisdom in seeming to yield while they bided their time. Both works suffer patently enough from Weise's characteristic weaknesses. Hauptverderber is vague in its references to politicos and foreign enemies; and, in treating the lower classes, it deteriorates easily into petty faultfinding. Masaniello is weakened by the ambiguity, not to say the dichotomy, of its political philosophy. Weise appears to be sympathetic with the rebels and even adds a sharp word about the eternal misery of the peasant. 74 Yet he portrays all the representatives of the lower classes except Masaniello as vain, brutal, and selfish.75 Similarly, he is obviously critical of the nobility. T h e archbishop in this play admits that the taxes are excessive, and he looks upon the revolt as a divine punishment for injustice. 78 There is also a ring of conviction in Masaniello's words that the people will sacrifice everything for the king, but that they wish to be treated by his ministers like citizens and not like dogs.77 Nor can one dismiss lightly the somewhat cynical justification of government by the nobility contained in the idea that only the nobleman has the physical stamina to bear the arduous demands of his position, 78 and that he has these, so the play seems to imply, not innately or by divine gift but simply by virtue of experience. Yet Weise also has the archbishop suggest79 that the viceroy pacify the people with promises which his successor can later repudiate; and the concluding "moral" treats this and other acts of expediency on the part of the nobility as worthy of emulation. Restricted in horizon as both works are, however, their virtue from the viewpoint of satiric history lies in the fact that they set aside the innocuous criticism typical of the later decades of the century and portray realistically the political and social views of the man of the middle

T H E S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

73

class. Faithful to king or ruling nobleman, critical of the lesser nobility, aware that all was not well in the national economy, yet without sufficient confidence in the lower classes to envision their role in government, he took the course of that very "politic wisdom" which Weise praises at the conclusion of Masaniello, a wisdom, as he says, which grew on the willow and not on the oak. It must be reiterated that Hauptverderber and Masaniello, far from setting the mood for Weise's satire, are only a fractional part of the great body of his other works with their mildly critical, moralizing, or even novelistic character. Still, they add such telling strokes to his delineation of society that by comparison the social satire of Reuter, Riemer, Happel, or Beer can be dispatched in a few sentences. T h e chief object of Reuter's satire is the vain and ambitious bourgeois. Schelmufïsky, the embodiment of vulgarity, cowardice, and boastfulness, who does not tire of recounting the favorable impression he has made in the highest circles; Schlampampe and her daughters, greedy, coarse, avaricious, but desirous of playing the fine ladies—these are attacked with a severity virtually lost to the other satirists of the period. If one adds to these the merciless portrait of the lawyer Injurius in Ehrenfried, one has summed up all there is of genuine social satire in Reuter. Ehrenfried himself, too, might be included, for Reuter here touches upon a serious problem of the day, that of the impecunious nobleman who has become a hanger-on at court. But his treatment of the amusing count lacks zeal. A few sharper blows are struck, as, when Ehrenfried's servant plans to leave him for a master whose pay will be sufficient to obviate the necessity for stealing, or when Ehrenfried's landlady reminds him that even a nobleman must pay his debts. 80 There is indirect censure, too, perhaps, in the fact that the servants, Gretchen and Courage, conduct their affairs more sensibly and morally than the nobleman, Ehrenfried. But on the whole, the portrait of Ehrenfried is a genial one that strives to entertain rather than to criticize. Like Reuter, Happel seems to be sharply critical of a limited area of society. But though he sets out to satirize various student types—the quarrelsome student, the lover, the drinker, the greedy eater, the halflearned student, and the serious one who has fallen upon evil ways— this laudable intention provides only a façade behind which Happel is free to treat his reader to the adventure and vicarious contact with persons of rank in which the man of the middle class undoubtedly took pleasure. T h e quarrelsome student becomes the representative of good sense and German courage, the amorous excursions of Venereus pro-

74

T H E S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

vide the novel with spicy interludes, the voracious eater and the halflearned student supply a vulgar comic relief, and the serious student, finally, is the dullest of the group. Some satire of educational practices undoubtedly enters into the work, but here too Happel vitiates the severity of his censure with typical ambiguity of approach. 81 In contrast to Happel and Reuter, Riemer, in his Politischer Maulaffe, parades a number of stock types before the reader: crude peasant, filthy villager, traveling student, boastful soldier. 82 But these examples are cited not as genuine representatives of typical occupational or class faults, but as sources of facile entertainment and flattery for the reader who, however lowly his station or questionable his ethics, could not possibly reach the level of vileness or stupidity on which most of them exist. Like Happel, therefore, Riemer aims only to entertain. If he seeks to teach anything, it is the manner of insinuating one's self into higher circles by means of the circumspect dishonesty practiced by his Fidelindo in the first part of the novel. T h e "politic" ideal, which in Weise combines discreet acceptance of personal and social limitations with a striving for such wealth and honor as will not jeopardize ethical integrity, here becomes a blatant search for personal advantage. Beer, too, is the entertainer, but the nature of his social satire in is not identical with that of Riemer or Happel. T o be Sommertage sure, the old stereotypes—rude and rebellious peasant, foolish student, avaricious lawyer, worldly priest83—are surveyed rather as a justification for the author's preoccupation with the purely enjoyable than as embodiments of typical wrongs. But he has a distinct social viewpoint nevertheless, for although he treats the authorities with deference, 84 he rejects the life at court and in the cities for that of the independent nobleman safe on a small estate where he is free to enjoy homely pleasures and cultivate his creative inclinations. Unlike most writers of the seventeenth century, who saw man as inescapably linked to the state, Beer here anticipates something of the ideal of the eighteenth century with its concept of man as an individual free to conduct his private life in accord with the dictates of his personality. As in Abraham's treatment of form, so in his attitude toward society, the mettlesome old preacher stands firmly athwart the stream of satiric development. Neither his belief in the divine origin of classes 85 nor his vehement and narrow nationalism 86 mitigates the force of his anger when he attacks the injustice of rulers and their officials: rulers whose fine clothes are stained with the blood of their poor subjects, or officials who enrich themselves.87 In contrast to the nobility, the middle class is not treated as a unit by Abraham. He may attack repeatedly the

T H E S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

75

love of wealth and luxury of his day, 88 but this refers to all classes. Instead, he sees the class as an agglomeration of occupations and professions and he surveys these with an unequaled thoroughness. Not satisfied with the countless individual examples and with brief listings throughout his works, 89 Abraham makes certain in Etwas filr alle to review every possible trade, profession, or office with historical, learned, Biblical, or legendary references, good and weak qualities, symbolic spiritual significance, moral reflections, or even with unrelated wrongs which come to his mind associatively. T o mention only one instance briefly, he speaks of the apothecary who can do all sorts of wonderful things and can press curative juices from flowers and herbs just as one presses everything from the peasant, but who may also be so ignorant that he knows no "Kraut" but sauerkraut. 90 Abraham's severity in comparison with other satirists of his age is easy enough to understand. Monk and preacher, he is concerned primarily with human sinfulness, and the oppression of subjects as well as the dishonest pursuit of a trade is as sinful in his eyes as any other transgression. Yet just because of this moral approach, Abraham's social satire lacks something in comparison with Moscherosch and Logau. It is undertaken not because the wrongs endanger the national well-being, but chiefly as a convenient means for pulling into view still more sins. Etwas fur alle, especially, strikes one not as a social revue but as a catalogue of sins and moral reflections, and a cultural survey of his times. In spite of these undeniable extrasocial elements in his satire, however, the courage with which the monk calls attention to the wrongs in state and society dwarfs the satirists of his age with its refreshing harshness. Schupp's awareness of political and social wrong, like that of Abraham, is keen and his censure uncompromising. But unlike the latter, Schupp directs the major part of his attention to a limited number of areas and treats these thoroughly and constructively.

VI SCHUPP'S TREATMENT OF THE STATE AND SOCIETY

S

be placed easily enough midway in the stream of development outlined in the preceding chapter, since elements both of the earlier and later portion of the seventeenth century are discernible in him, but he brings to this simple chronology an experience and a temperament which make his position unique in many respects. Above all, his practical orientation, already mentioned as a factor in his individual treatment of form, causes him to stress and select in a manner which produces significant deviations from the typical content thus far discussed. Nowhere is Schupp's individuality more noticeable than in dealing with the state. He honors the ruler as divinely appointed, yet he also looks upon him as a man limited by the need for guidance and by the rigid duties of his position. Similarly, the state which the ruler heads represents not only a divinely instituted community united by obedience and the bounds of class, but a well-managed business undertaking in which all classes and occupations are to be given their means of livelihood and their opportunity to contribute to the common good. CHUPP MAY

As might be expected, these ideas underwent some development in the course of Schupp's life. In the university years, the view of the state as a dynamic interplay of forces is not yet dominant; his criticism, though occasionally sharp enough, is conventional, and practical suggestions are few. Dishonest officialdom, doubtful justice, the prevalence in high places of favoritism and disregard for true worth,1 are widely censured in the satirical literature of the century, and their condemnation required no great insight or experience. Something of the later Schupp appears only when he speaks of the importance of school and church, 2 or when, as in the panegyric on Friedrich, Landgrave of Hesse, he thinks of the state as a unit under the leadership of a prince whose character and influence are essential to its well-being. His social and political views receive their fullest development in De arte and Salomo, both written during and after Schupp's service in Hessen-Braubach. In the former work, interestingly enough, neither the actual form of the state nor the person of the ruler appears clearly,

T R E A T M E N T O F S T A T E AND SOCIETY

77

but this is hardly remarkable. Schupp, a stanch believer in divine right, strives for the practical and spiritual improvement of society as it is, and not for a change in its form. His chief concern in De arte, accordingly, is with the means whereby such an improvement may be effected. It is because large-scale planning has been lacking that Germany has become a stepmother to her people.3 Sound financial and business management are essential. Significantly, Schupp has a nobleman from Venice give advice on trade and money, possibly a reminder to the squeamish aristocracy that solvency has been achieved elsewhere by their peers without loss of prestige.4 Trade, business, banking, and the establishment of a system of credit should be encouraged, natural resources exploited, and arts and crafts fostered.5 A peasant and his children are introduced as representatives of the many skills connected with husbandry,6 and it is even suggested that beggars and the poor, in so far as they are able to work, be taught trades and thus made productive members of the community.7 A number of further suggestions are made throughout the work for bettering conditions in the state: improvement of the schools, support of the church, provision of good military leaders and soldiers.8 Nor can such a state exist, Schupp reminds us, if officials are dishonest, if service to the state is poorly rewarded, or if the idle nobility set a bad example for youth.9 Salomo differs from De arte in that the ruler plays a more prominent role. Although the work is ostensibly written for the instruction of a youth planning to serve at court, it is clearly addressed to the ruler himself. Like the Biblical king, prototype of wisdom, the modern ruler must extend his leadership to every phase of the state. First in importance is his superior moral example. Unchasteness and love of luxury are typical of courts, but a king should lead all others in virtue. 10 Further, his management must be circumspect and personal. Like a wise husbandman or merchant he must go through palace and granaries himself, and must limit expenditures to income.11 Indispensable to the good ruler is the guidance he receives, that of councilor, any faithful subject, or especially that of his pastor.12 It is in the somewhat paternal, in most cases kindly, role of the guiding preacher that Schupp addresses the prince in this work and advises him not only on proper respect for God, but on every possible matter that will benefit his government, from the construction of houses to the inadvisability of pacts or marriages between royal persons of different faiths. 13 Except for the more prominent role assigned to the ruler, Schupp's suggestions for the state resemble those in De arte: adjustment of expenses to income, fair treatment of peasant and burgher, recognition

78

T R E A T M E N T OF S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

of the importance of the merchant. 14 T h e intelligent use of natural resources is also suggested once more, 15 and again Schupp returns throughout the work to what he considers the essential basis of an ideal state, the support of school and church. As in De arte, evils associated with the poorly managed state are censured incidentally: political cunning, favoritism, and the miscarriage of justice. 18 No other work is devoted so extensively to the state, but it is characteristic of Schupp that he returns again and again in other works to matters related to the public welfare. In Pratgen and Sendschreiben he even extends his attention to the affairs of a foreign nation, in this case the Swedes and the wars in which they are engaged. With characteristic boldness he exhorts the rulers, in the course of the short work Pratgen, to make peace for the sake of their people, treat foreign subjects justly, avoid pride and impiety, and, finally, to use their energies against the Turk, if they must fight, and not against fellow Christians. In speaking of government, the reference thus far has been to the government of the state. That of the city plays only a small role in the satire of the seventeenth century. It appears in typical form in the comedies of Weise, where the sly stratagems of petty schoolmaster, judge, and official Pickelharing are portrayed as innocuous reflections of the goings-on in the larger world. Schupp, on the other hand, even in Hamburg where his attention as a preacher is trained on moral behavior, always sets his writings against what might be called a background of civic authority. Like the state, therefore, the city is for him a social unit. As in the case of the princes, Schupp expresses and demands respect for the urban authorities, 17 yet feels it his duty to censure them for weaknesses, such as bad moral example, neglect of education, and dishonesty.18 Finally, Schupp is even so bold as to direct a few blows at the authorities of Hamburg for their failure to protect him adequately against calumny and pirating, and for restraining his freedom of expression.19 A presentation of Schupp's concept of the state is not complete without mention of his attitude toward wealth, since the one is intimately bound up with the other. As a preacher and moralist he shares his century's disapproval of the excesses to which riches lead, and he wishes for young Philandersohn, the youth whom he is advising in Salomo, that he might have neither too much money nor too little. 20 Nevertheless, as a practical economist he cannot deny its value. Even in his early works, where he confines himself to desultory attacks on avarice, he calls upon the rich to become patrons of the arts.21 In De arte and Salomo, however, he thinks of wealth as something to be

T R E A T M E N T O F S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

79

achieved for the entire state by central planning. In the former, to be sure, there is still more than a little irony in the title. Schupp's project for a prosperous state is a dream dispelled by the crow of a cock, and the dream itself is framed in a wry praise of poverty at the beginning and in the final reminder that he who builds on wealth builds on ice. But in the main portion of the work, and even more clearly in Salomo, the author shows that he considers material well-being essential to a well-regulated society, and he even wishes jokingly that he might have the power of the alchemists in order to provide for all the poor who knock at his door. 22 In Hamburg, too, where the avarice and selfindulgence of his congregation cause him to place greater stress on the deleterious effects of material prosperity, he continues to show its value for education and the care of the unfortunate. 23 Schupp's approach to the problems of the state is alone an adequate guide in placing him among the satirists of the century, since almost every other subject he treats hinges in some way upon these. His position, as stated at the outset, is an intermediary one. He shares with Moscherosch and Logau the view of the state as a unit but he differs from them in the number of constructive suggestions and in his optimism, an optimism brought home forcibly by a comparison of the bitterness of Moscherosch's "Hofschule" with Schupp's Salomo. His practical sense sets him off also from Grimmelshausen. If in the framework of De arte Schupp shows some inclination to treat the ideal state with the combination of the visionary and the cynical which one finds in the plans of Grimmelshausen's flea-ridden "Jupiter," he overcomes it entirely in Salomo and in other works where he deals hopefully and energetically with the problems of reality as he finds them. His optimism brings him somewhat closer to Weise and Rachel, but he differs from them in that he approaches the problems of society not primarily through the individual, though there is something of this, but through society itself. Whatever the distinctions, Schupp is in agreement with all contemporary satirists in his conservative view of the form of the state. He expresses disapproval of Plato's ideal of a government by wise men, 2 4 and he speaks scornfully of a certain religious fanatic of his day 25 who advocated the abolition of civil and religious authority. If he takes cognizance of the revolutionary events in England it is because, to his mind, they presage the Last Judgment, 2 6 for he believes that even unjust rulers, like foreign oppressors, must be obeyed. 27 Notwithstanding Schupp's conservatism, it is impossible to overlook traces of the changing ideas of his age concerning the relationship of

80

T R E A T M E N T O F S T A T E AND SOCIETY

the citizen to the state. Proud in the belief that it was Luther who freed the princes from Catholic domination and restored their selfrespect, 28 Schupp identifies the preacher with the Biblical prophets appointed by God to guide the kings of the earth. 29 If this represents nothing more startling than the viewpoint of the average clergyman of his period, it is given special meaning by the nature of Schupp's own relationship to the princes. For all his genuine deference, he approaches them everywhere in his works with the self-assurance of the man who is proud of his value for them and conscious of the respect they owe him. Equally significant is his concept of the prince as a superior businessman and of society as a problem in practical management. T h e state represents for him a fascinating intricacy of affairs inviting his skill as merchant's son, educator, and statesman. Wherever he touches it, he transforms it unwittingly from an object of awe into something real, plastic, entirely human. T h i s view is hardly revolutionary. In some respects it even lacks the angry boldness of Moscherosch or Abraham. But it exceeds all the satirists under discussion in its practical and hopeful realism, and it is especially striking in contrast to the hushed or half-cynical attitude of Weise, the idealization of Gryphius, or the judicious silence of Reuter. Schupp's ability to see the state as an organic whole also permits him to approach the classes as units with definable social functions. Only Moscherosch is as outspoken as he in advocating special training for the man who is to assume the leadership of the state, but Schupp goes beyond him in advising such training for younger sons as well, who, cut off from a military career in the war recently ended, and no longer able to enter the cloister, long since secularized in Lutheran territory, must be fitted to serve their prince, their community, or a foreign prince, if they cannot find service at home. 30 Like the nobility, the peasants are looked upon by Schupp as an essential part of society. He expresses the deepest sympathy for their plight during the war, 31 and he stresses the importance to the state of improving their lot: the best "politici" are those who see to it that youth is well educated and the peasants properly treated, 32 for they are the basis of the state and the nurturers of other classes.33 If this concern for the peasant does not distinguish Schupp from certain satirists, he is unique in seeing the peasant, like the simple artisan, as the possessor of a practical knowledge which the theorizing university professor of his day lacks. 34 His respect for the peasants does not preclude censure. 35 On occasion, Schupp even appears to treat him with some degree of middle-class condescension reminiscent of Weise, e.g., in the

T R E A T M E N T O F S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

81

little story of the peasants who demanded that the figure of Neptune and his trident be removed from the roof of a classically minded youth, because they took it to be a derisive representation of one of their number with his pitchfork. 3 6 Any condescension implied in such cases, however, is outweighed by the genial good humor in Schupp's manner of narration, and by the sincere concern for the peasant he expresses elsewhere. Nowhere in Schupp's works, certainly, is the peasant or villager ridiculed in the manner of Gryphius, Weise, or Riemer as the embodiment of crudeness and lack of culture. Other satirists are in agreement with Schupp in their ability to see the peasantry and nobility as units with a clearly circumscribed place in society. Definition of the position or even composition of the middle class offered greater difficulties, as we have already observed. Schupp is endowed with better perspective, derived from his statesman's viewpoint, his pride in the role which his family played in their city, and from the role he himself, a son of the middle class, played at the university and at the court in Braubach. In consequence, he is outstanding among his contemporaries in the clarity with which he sees the class as distinct from others and as having a special function in the state. In contrast to the heterogeneity found elsewhere, Schupp divides it simply into merchant and artisan. Other subgroups which appear especially in the later works are few in number and are treated only because some problem called them to Schupp's attention. Merchants, above all, as we saw in De arte and Salomo, appear to Schupp to have found a sensible method of economic management which might well be taken as a model by the ruling princes. They make cities rich and poor countries fruitful, for their money and trading are essential to general prosperity. Schupp admits that he himself has often learned more from a merchant or simple artisan than from highly educated men, and he advises his son to complete his education by intercourse with such men as well as with princes. 37 In Ehrenrettung he takes an example from the merchant for his style of preaching when he states that a preacher who attacks specific sins of his congregation is like a wise merchant bringing his wares to the best market. 38 In Litanei he speaks of the merchant as a part of the divine order. 39 Even in Buszspiegel, where the crafty businessman of Hamburg is shown little mercy, he says that all trades and skills are needed to compose a city. 40 If Schupp exceeds others in his praise of the merchant, he also censures him more sharply, particularly in writing of Hamburg. Merchants constituted the wealthy portion of the city; they were prosperous,

82

T R E A T M E N T OF S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

untouched by the war, shrewd, worldly, and morally lax. They shared all the godlessness and unchastity prevalent there, as Schupp shows in Corinna and Buszspiegel, but two moral weaknesses were especially characteristic of them. T h e first of these was their preoccupation with business and profit, as he states repeatedly in Buszspiegel. Forgetful of the good of their souls, fraudulent in their business dealings, ready to break the Sabbath for dishonest gain, they offered ample proof for Schupp's contention that there is deceit where there is buying and selling. 41 T h e second major weakness arises from the merchant's cultivation of pleasures of the flesh and a concomitant disregard for the poor and the unfortunate. Allmosenbiichse is a merciless indictment of the rich who spend fortunes on luxuries and expect praise if they donate crumbs to charity. In Hiob, Gedenk daran, Hamburg, and other works Schupp also takes them to task for such wrongs as display of wealth, 42 love of food and drink, 43 and scandalmongering.44 Notwithstanding the apparent revaluation of the merchant during his pastorship in Hamburg, Schupp gives no evidence of having abandoned his confidence in the importance of this calling for society. Salomo, in which the merchant plays a significant economic role in the state, was, after all, written here. As the pastor of the church of St. Jacob, Schupp saw the merchant more exclusively from a moral viewpoint, and this aspect, therefore, rather than the social one demanded his attention. It is interesting that Schupp's attitude toward what is for him the other major representative of the middle class, the artisan, undergoes no such change in focus even in Hamburg. One may assume that Schupp saw more clearly in the busy metropolis of the north the greater possibility for moral living in simple devotion to a trade than in business dealings with their encouragement to dishonesty.48 Throughout his works Schupp treats the artisans with an almost sentimental tenderness. They are like the apostles, who also were simple laborers and craftsmen, and he advises his son to preach in such a way that his congregation may enter the fisherman's heaven of Jacob and John. 4 6 More than this, they contribute to the welfare of the state with their skills,47 and their knowledge of practical matters might well serve as an example for quarreling pedants.48 Finally, Schupp values the trades because he sees in them a means to independence for poor students who must support themselves during their studies,49 and, indeed, even for the professional man. Schupp himself wishes that he had learned a trade in his youth so that he too might engage in it in peace if the world persecuted him. 60 Like other satirists, Schupp also concerns himself with certain sub-

T R E A T M E N T OF S T A T E AND SOCIETY

85

groups in the middle class, but it is characteristic of his practical orientation that the number of these is limited almost from the start. In his earlier writings, to be sure, occupational types appear in larger numbers and chiefly as examples of universal human folly rather than as embodiments of special social or economic problems. In De usu nihili and De opinione Schupp uses the conveniently vague concepts of the titles as centers of attraction about which he gathers numerous culprits from various trades and professions: bibliomaniac, dishonest lawyer, foolish alchemist, lying prognosticator, dissipating student, ignorant doctor, and so on. In Somnium, written somewhat later, the number of occupational types has already been reduced to a few: lawyer, soldier, author, bookdealer, philosopher, councilor. As Schupp's practical experience widens, he gives his attention to those subgroups of the middle class presenting what are to his mind the most urgent problems of his day. In De arte, a transitional work in content as well as form, numbers of such types still file past the reader: soldier, Venetian merchant-nobleman, moneylender, commissary, schoolmaster, and so on; but except for those whom Schupp lists in a German rhyme61 and a few others such as the moneylender and the commissary, they are introduced not as culprits but as candidates for membership in an ideal state, to the establishment of which they will contribute. In Salomo, the stress on the ruler brings with it a further reduction in the occupations represented, and here, as in De arte, the greater number receive mention because of their social or economic importance: artists, artisans, teachers, preachers, merchants. In the later Hamburg writings, the representatives of social subgroups continue to be limited to those whom a special need brings to his attention: the poor, the soldier, servant, lawyer, wet nurse, preacher, teacher. The most important of these are unquestionably the last two, but discussion of them has been reserved for a later section dealing with education and religion. The poor, mentioned rarely by other satirists, constitute for Schupp a major social and moral problem. He devotes his Krankenwarterin, to be sure, to preaching to them patience under their hardships but he also demands that those more fortunately situated give them assistance. Lazarus, a kind of symbolic patron saint of the poor for Schupp, appears in De arte52 to defend them against such accusations as lack of thrift, and in Allmosenbiichse, Lazarus sends a message to the surviving brothers of the rich man to remind them of the fate awaiting those who neglect their indigent brethren.63 On other occasions Schupp is equally critical of the selfish. Today the poor are considered fools, he

84

T R E A T M E N T O F S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

complains," and the gift which the rich give them is: Nihil. 55 Noblemen are censurable for harming the poor when hunting 56 or because they take over secularized cloisters for their own use and thereby heap more forced labor upon the poor, instead of benefiting them. 57 Little of the foregoing would be remarkable as coming from a preacher, were it not that Schupp also considers the poor a problem for the state. Enlightened by what he had seen in Holland, he advocates planned state action to reclaim paupers and make them useful members of society. If they are capable of working, they are to be trained in some craft; 5 8 their financial condition is to be improved by official collections and by granting them cheaper loans; 59 their sons, finally, are to be given stipends by the authorities to study not only for the ministry, though this would follow a tradition, according to Schupp, since most outstanding theologians have come from poor homes, but for their own benefit or that of the city or state government in which they might serve. 60 Servants are also singled out by Schupp, but they are treated in a manner entirely different from the poor. Although complaints about the behavior of servants are undoubtedly perennial, they seem to have increased sufficiently in Schupp's time in Hamburg to demand special attention. 6 1 Reasons are not difficult to conjecture for that city, at least, where the servants, seeing the prosperity and moral laxity of their burgher employers, were easily tempted to emulate their weaknesses, or to become restless, unfaithful, and irresponsible. In Sieben bose Geister Schupp accuses them of laziness, preference for a godless master, constant dissatisfaction with their positions, and other improper behavior. 62 It is interesting that Schupp's approach to this problem, as clearly a social or economic one as any with which he deals, is almost patriarchal. He never goes beyond individual morality in seeking its causes, except to ascribe them to the devil, who, according to him, formerly instigated the peasants to revolt and now induces servants to misbehave. 63 Schupp's attitude is hardly surprising. Never a social rebel, he states in Buszspiegel that the world is so arranged that one person gives services and another pays for them. 64 T h e servant's social duty is done when he has served his master well. His preordained position makes him a sort of child, a member, like the child, of the master's household as in Biblical days. His master, therefore, and not the state is responsible for his moral and physical welfare, 65 and the servant in turn is to be diligent and obedient. If he is not, he breaks the Fourth Commandment. 9 6 In dealing with the soldier, Schupp's typical breadth of social view

T R E A T M E N T OF S T A T E AND SOCIETY

85

reappears. The two favorite types of the century's satire, the brutal, thieving soldier of Logau and Moscherosch, or the ludicrous boaster of Gryphius, never receive prominence in Schupp's works. He takes only passing notice of the latter.87 The former, too, is mentioned infrequently,68 surprisingly, perhaps, since Schupp, like Moscherosch, came into close contact with the Thirty Years' War in Marburg. Yet suffer as he did, he was as a resident of the city evidently better shielded from the soldier at his worst than was Moscherosch. This more favorable experience, combined with Schupp's statesmanlike view, directed his attention to the effects of war, as we see in De arte, rather than the actions of the individual fighter within it. It is not surprising, therefore, that the soldier is approached by Schupp with a degree of understanding. In Somnium he appears as the naive peasant lad, deceived in his hope for plunder.89 Elsewhere he is portrayed as the victim of similar enticements, his plight intensified by inadequate pay.70 His more constructive part in the state as the means to internal and external peace is recognized in De arte.11 In Hauptmann zu Capernaum, Schupp then approaches the soldier both from the viewpoint of the practical economist and that of the minister advising a member of his congregation. The problem on hand is a real one, since wars, persisting throughout the century, continued to attract men to the military profession. Schupp assures the questioner that war is not against God's plan, and that it is possible to be saved in any profession. A man who is not unnecessarily cruel, who is just and honest, may engage in this profession as well as in any other, provided he does not promise himself unusual rewards which he would not find in plying a good trade. There is even a kind of mission in the profession, for the God-fearing officer, like the Captain of Capernaum, can do much for his soldiers by his piety and his moral example. The lawyer, another favorite culprit of the seventeenth-century satirist, is treated by Schupp more nearly in the manner of his period. His evil practices are angrily denounced even in the early writings: dishonesty, reluctance to complete a case, greed for money.72 In De arte, a lad relates that he was cheated of his patrimony by lawyers and other meddlers, and earlier in the same work Schupp expresses the need for honest lawyers in the ideal state of Atlantis.73 In Lucidor, finally, he portrays the lawyer with a severity so unmitigated that he apologizes for his harshness.74 Lacking in all these examples are Schupp's usual search for deeper causes, and the constructiveness with which he customarily views such problems. Only the judge is approached in something of this manner in Buszspiegel,75 when Schupp advises him on the

86

T R E A T M E N T OF S T A T E AND SOCIETY

need to protect the innocent from enforced confessions and undeserved punishment. It is difficult to say what the reasons for these omissions are. In addition to a lack of experience comparable to that which permitted him to speak with authority on the problems of clergyman and teacher, they probably arise from two sources. The first of these is his confidence that good management and supervision on the part of prince or other authorities would eliminate much of the problem. Some corroboration of this may be found both in the Braubach and Hamburg writings. In Salomo Schupp speaks at length on the proper administration of justice as the basis of good government.76 In Ehrenrettung he pretends to give the authorities of Hamburg a symbolic sword of justice with the advice to use it well,77 and in Buszspiegel he attacks the prevalence of favoritism in the appointment of judges.78 The second reason for his less constructive treatment of the lawyer may be sought in his conviction that many individuals, to be sure, but not all the members of the legal profession, are guilty of malpractices.79 Added to this is the fact that Schupp places as much blame on the people for their vengefulness as on the lawyer: in Lucidor the lawyer is only Schupp's secondary target and the vindictiveness of the people of Hamburg his primary one. 80 Schupp devotes far more zeal to another, apparently unimportant, occupational group, that of the wet nurses, because they were so closely associated with what was for him the major problem of the city of Hamburg, its immorality. Wet nurses, indispensable for women who could not nurse their own infants, and called upon frequently by those disinclined to do so, were, according to Schupp, drawn chiefly from among prostitutes or mothers of illegitimate children.81 In Corinna, Schupp-Ehrenhold preaches a vehement sermon against such women and against mothers who encourage and support them by their own laziness. Though the problem is actually a moral one, traceable, according to Schupp, to the devil and to man's evil nature, he has the characteristic perspicacity and boldness to attack the authorities for their share in its prevalence when he accuses them of condoning prostitution so that a supply of wet nurses may be available to the women of the city.82 Printers, too, draw Schupp's fire in Hamburg. Undoubtedly he would not have considered them important enough for mention if special circumstances had not brought them to his attention, since they hardly represented a major problem. Printers awaken his anger chiefly because certain of them pirated his works and thereby consciously or otherwise aided his enemies.83 Equally personal is the chastisement of the bookdealer referred to in Ehrenrettung, who sold certain abusive

T R E A T M E N T O F S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

87

lampoons directed against Schupp. 84 T h e latter unquestionably laid some blame on the authorities for not curtailing activities of this sort, but one misses a concrete proposal for the elimination of the evil. Yet if one takes into account the political condition of German territory at the time and the consequent possibilities for circumventing any local laws, one realizes that any suggestion would have been futile. Schupp's approach to nationalism resembles that of the other satirists in so far as he shares their pride in things German and their scorn for indiscriminate foreign imitation. Censure of foreign imitation appears more frequently in his earlier works. He ironically advises the prospective orator to copy the manners of some Frenchman he has met at the Frankfurt fair, 85 and to mingle a liberal number of foreign words with his German; or he censures the politicians who introduce something only because it is foreign and new. 88 At another time he satirizes the student who has spent his father's money in foreign travel so that he can boast of his knowledge of distant places.87 Even in Braubach and Hamburg, where other matters engage his attention more insistently than foreign imitation, Schupp mentions the ruler who endangers the state by permitting himself to be influenced by French "atheists," or he censures the burghers of Hamburg for their love of strange places and foods.88 Most striking in Schupp is the absence of anything resembling the intense nationalism one finds in Moscherosch, Lauremberg, and Logau. Schupp, to be sure, is as proud as they of German ability and potentiality. T h e Greeks who accomplished little; the Romans with their great deeds, he declares in Lehrmeister, were both well described by the learned; but the Germans and other peoples of the north have done great deeds beyond measure, yet, because few have written of them, it is as if they had not done them at all. 89 In the same work we hear that the German language is the language of heroes, 90 and in De arte he expresses the opinion that German inventions could be as great as those of other countries. 91 This pride, however, does not prevent Schupp from advocating that the Germans follow foreign examples, and here too he differs characteristically from contemporary satirists. Other peoples might well be models for the German economy, like the Dutch, who make rivers navigable 92 and rehabilitate the poor; 93 or the English, whose weavers Bacon is urged to take to New Atlantis; 94 or the Venetians, one of whose noblemen gives valuable advice on business and finance in De arte.96 Foreign countries may also set an example for the Germans in other things. T h e Dutch study "ornaments" as well as useful subjects, Schupp says in his short "program" to Proteus, but the

88

T R E A T M E N T OF S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

Germans, impoverished by the war, care little for the former. T h e French and the Italians, we hear in De opinione and Lehrmeister, cultivate their own tongue, while the Germans cling to Latin. 0 6 In spite of Schupp's advocacy of the German tongue, however, he believes that travel in foreign countries is essential to a good education, provided it is done sensibly, and accordingly he advises his son in Freund. to supplement his education in this way.97 Similarly the study of foreign languages is recommended especially for the pre-university schools, and Schupp even suggests that foreign professors be brought to German universities."8 There are probably a number of reasons for Schupp's milder and in part constructive nationalism. Its diminishing intensity in the course of his works parallels this trend in the century. Furthermore, Schupp did not spend as many mature years in the war period as Moscherosch and Logau, and consequently was not subjected as long to the irritations of temper it caused. Geographic location might also be important. His native Hesse had, after all, been an ally of France, and western Germany as a whole was undoubtedly more accustomed to French influence, particularly in so far as life at the university or in the large cities was concerned. Other reasons may be sought in a combination of Schupp's temperament and the circumstances of his life which early produced in him an insight into broader problems besetting the society he knew. His position at the university directed his attention most sharply to the folly of a blind veneration of antiquity. Later, at the modest and insolvent court of Hessen-Braubach, Schupp was taken up with economic and moral problems of the state as a whole, and in consequence foreign imitation evidently seemed less harmful to him. For these reasons, the continued use of Latin in place of German seems more serious to Schupp than an imitation of the French. This does not mean that Schupp's nationalism required the elimination of the study of Latin entirely. Proud of his own Latin style," he continues to use it throughout his life wherever he finds it suitable or effective. Even in his university works, however, Schupp makes a plea for the extended use of German in the schools. 100 In Lehrmeister, Schupp repeats much of this in vigorous German, with the important addition that the vernacular, especially in simple, direct style, can be effective everywhere: in preaching, at court, and for diplomacy. He demonstrates by actual example that it is possible to be a good statesman despite a poor knowledge of Latin or any foreign language; in like manner he states that a preacher needs the language of the people, not fine Latin phrases.101

T R E A T M E N T O F S T A T E AND S O C I E T Y

89

If Schupp may be said to differ from other satirists of the age in those areas of state and society which he selects for attack and constructive suggestion, he resembles them in the fact that his chief stress in his satire is on public and private morality. Yet here again his standpoint remains that of the practical man occupied with the most pressing needs of a particular group while the satirists treated in the following chapter direct their moral satire toward mankind or toward a larger portion of society.

VII

PUBLIC MORALITY that in all but a few instances the moral and the social satire of the seventeenth century coincide, for the motivation of the latter is actually moral in nature. T h e scope of the former, however, reaches so far beyond that of the social satire that a separate discussion of the two is necessary. T h e development of moral satire follows in essence the same course as that of society. On the whole, the earlier part of the century looks upon man as an abject sinner and the world as hastening to its doom. Later the concept of sinfulness disappears gradually, the number of moral wrongs under attack decreases, and man is more frequently considered unwise or laughable than evil. N E MIGHT SAY

Logau unfolds a somber picture of human wickedness best summarized in his conclusion that mankind is on the pathway to hell. 1 Yet alongside the severe judge there is in Logau also something of the onlooker capable of standing above the disturbing faults of reality without being overwhelmed. So it is that despite his censure of such wrongs as hypocrisy, lust, envy, and gluttony 2 he can also be amused at the stingy man, the little boaster, or the sluggard; 3 or he can reflect upon life and impart advice on its conduct: the value of hope and patience, the danger of rising too high. 4 But although this brighter illumination of certain phases of his moral panorama appears to indicate a kinship between him and such milder judges of man as Rachel and Weise, Logau's view remains at heart a sober one. T h e lightness that he achieved, however, indicates in its way that even the older satirist was not without potentials for a less gloomy view of the moral nature of man. Such potentials, to be sure, are difficult to detect in Moscherosch. His locale and the vision-technique impart something ominous to his scene, so that his figures appear less like living beings than like apparitions prophetic of doom. T h e dense ranks of the culprits as well as the heinous nature of their wrongs bear out the impression of universal evil. W h e n individual types are portrayed in detail they are either wicked 5 or guilty of such ludicrous and unreasonable behavior as he satirizes in his "Venusnarren." It is true that Moscherosch's moral satire is not devoid of lighter traits. Foreign imitation may lead to

PUBLIC M O R A L I T Y

91

every vice, but it only induces Philander to wear modish dress or to sing a French song to his lady; 6 drink may be a sign of heathen rather than Christian behavior, 7 but the antics of the French drinkers in the second part of the Gesichte are amusing as well as repulsive, and the tippling of poor Hans Thurnmeyer, certainly, is treated with genial good humor. 8 Yet these milder elements vanish in the oppressive mass of sinfulness, and Moscherosch remains the uncompromising moral critic who is too embittered by wrong and perversity to cultivate even Logau's limited degree of perspective. T h o u g h Lauremberg is older than Logau and Moscherosch, his incomparably brighter picture of man as a moral being is reflected in the limited number of transgressions he holds up for ridicule: folly in dress, manners, and speech and, incidentally, a few more serious wrongs. It is true that the conservative old poet actually takes no light view of human behavior. Convinced that man is universally sinful, 9 he sees in contemporary fashions, as previous discussions have indicated, not mere human foible, but a pride which seeks to raise the evil flesh above the level assigned to it in the transcendental order. Nevertheless, his satiric range is so narrow and his sparkling wit so infectious that one has difficulty in sharing the dour view with which he interlards his lighter moral satire. After Lauremberg, Logau, and Moscherosch expressly religious morality moves into the background, the number of reprehensible wrongs, already thinned out by Lauremberg, shrinks even further, and the tendency grows to deride above all man's socially unacceptable behavior. It was pointed out in Chapter V that the satire of state and society became noticeably milder under the influence of various factors: the cessation of the war, the firm establishment of absolutism, the social and economic expansion of the upper middle class, and the general secularization of thought. All of these influenced the amelioration of moral satire also, but the last is certainly of the greatest importance. Evidence of this is presented in Weise's Hauptverderber, where the schoolmaster of Zittau shows his alarm over the fact that, along with other causes, contemporary philosophical thought and scientific theory were gradually undermining the devout Lutheranism of the people. It is not surprising, therefore, that a man of learning and culture like Gryphius combines deep piety with Renaissance classicism in such a way as to transform the specifically religious into the ethical even in his tragedies. In his comedies his use of a background of ideal figures, as we have seen, has a sobering effect on his apparently light censure

92

PUBLIC MORALITY

of the unrestrained characters. But although some of the latter are guilty of what might still be considered serious wrongs, such as the unchasteness or the vengefulness of the villagers in Dornrose, one does not have the impression that the author's first concern is with the salvation of the soul. Rather, ethical behavior for Gryphius appears to have a Tightness within itself, almost an aesthetic justification, and it is because his social or moral culprits lack this special aesthetic sense that he ridicules them. Like Gryphius, Rachel no longer portrays a universally wicked world. If he is the more outspoken didacticist who holds up for censure such weaknesses as faithlessness in his satire "Freund," or false piety in his "Gebeth," he dilutes these with minor wrongs like the exasperating qualities of women—laziness, untidiness, and others portrayed in the first poem of his Satyrische Gedichte. All such offenses, light or serious, are illustrated with classical examples or with scenes from daily life, in contrast to Moscherosch's backdrop of perdition. T h e soul and its salvation is only rarely mentioned, 10 and religion, though it still remains the basis of Rachel's morality, has taken on classical dress.11 Grimmelshausen, on the other hand, more primitive in his emotional expression in many ways, and less strongly influenced by the enlightening forces which affected Gryphius, Rachel, and the others, has a sense of man's sinfulness akin to superstition, a sort of dread of retribution in the midst of wickedness. T o be sure, he appears to strive for the role of observer and commentator in such minor works as Ratstiibel Plutonis or Michel, but his novels are based on the assumption that man is thoroughly evil. In Simplicissimus this appears not only in the development of his hero but in the revues of wrongs which surround the central theme like a baleful chorus. In Courasche a like impression of universal evil is created by the downward development of the heroine, and by the world in which she lives, a moral desert in which no decent thing can thrive. Springinsfeld, too, rarely rises above a portrayal of man's heartlessness and the general misery of human life. Even the two parts of Vogelnest, in whose central action the adventure motive competes so strongly with moral intent, still have more than a semblance of moral satire, since the nest is used not only to reveal the secret sin of others, but to lead its owners into temptation. Individual transgressions which Grimmelshausen censures, particularly in Simplicissimus and Courasche, are correspondingly serious in nature: immorality, cruelty, falseness and treachery, impiety, gluttony. Added to these is the satire directed against physical man as such, his natural functions, the proneness to vile disease, the attraction for ver-

PUBLIC MORALITY

93

min, all of which degrade him even when he is not engaged in wrongdoing. 1 2 If these serious charges against man no longer have the impact of those made by Moscherosch and Logau because Grimmelshausen also delights in suspenseful events and insight into the nature of man; and if the religious element, apparently so integral a part of his novels, has begun to sound forced by the very insistence of its emphasis, the author of Simplicissimus shows nevertheless that even at the time when Weise and Rachel satirized little that was more serious than uncouth or injudicious behavior, a large portion of the reading public still demanded of the satirist an attack upon old-fashioned sin. One has the feeling in the case of Weise, in contrast to Grimmelshausen, that sin is no longer mentioned by the cultured man, and religion, except for the defense of Lutheranism in Hauptverderber, has been relegated discreetly to the background. Mistevo's envoys, not devils, disseminate evil, and Antiquus, rather than an infernal emissary, is the ancient source of Machiavellianism. T o be sure, Weise has not abandoned his belief in the existence of sin and damnation, but a certain blithe, perhaps unconscious trust in the kindliness of God enables him to skirt their edges and to concentrate his efforts on the lesser follies of man. T h e world he portrays is still inadequate in many respects, but its inadequacy springs from the absence of judgment on man's part, not from wickedness. Only Hauptverderber, where Weise displays more than a mild annoyance with man's perversities, creates an impression approaching that of general sinfulness. But the pettiness of many of the examples is proof that he is in reality only exasperated by man's unaccountable refusal to use his common sense. Individual weaknesses selected for censure in his works corroborate the impression of milder moral judgment. It is not possible to reproduce even a representative sampling, but taking as an example only Erznarren, one hears of the serious wrongs censured repeatedly by satirists like Logau and Moscherosch, but also of such foibles as indecision, curiosity, and daydreaming. 13 Even the trace of severity appearing in this novel is mitigated in context by the mild irony in the treatment of the examples, by the urbane disquisitions of Gelanor, and above all by Weise's philosophy of life which, as following discussions will show, has found the means for creating a harmonious whole of physical and spiritual happiness. While Weise, in spite of his mildness, bases his satire fundamentally on Christian ethics, Riemer, Happel, and Beer show even more clearly than he the trend toward a reduced moral severity by grafting the ethical artificially on a plot aimed to amuse. W e hear, of course, of

94

PUBLIC MORALITY

stock sins in the works of all three. Riemer's snobbery-attributes them chiefly to the lower classes, where they are observed by the hero as moral curiosities. Happel, on the other hand, frankly enjoys the presumable weaknesses which constitute the exciting or amusing personalities of his central figures. Beer, characteristically different from Riemer and Happel, connects the sins he calls to the reader's attention more organically with the theme of his novel. T h e writer and his friends in Sommertage seek by their agreeable mutual activities and their sporadic pretense at hermithood to escape from an unpleasant world where wrongdoing, plotting, unfaithfulness, and selfishness are the rule. But the entertainment value of the novel predominates so strongly that Beer's reiteration of the world's wickedness strikes one as ill-natured carping rather than a zealous attack of the moral reformer. Unlike these men, Reuter no longer pretends to base his attack upon wrongdoing on religious standards. He satirizes only those who infringe on the rules of conduct characteristic of a reasonable and cultured society. Schlampampe and Schelmuffsky are brash imitators; the lawyer Injurious endangers the welfare of the honest citizen; and Ehrenfried, the genial and entertaining count, is an amusing oddity whose behavior runs counter to accepted courtly behavior and good sense. If by setting aside the religious and even the moral view in treating man's behavior, Reuter consummates the trend of the latter part of the century, Abraham proves that to some observers, at least, man is still essentially sinful and his salvation dubious. T o be sure, his portrait of universal wickedness is not that of Moscherosch. We may hear ominous rumblings from hell, but it no longer supplies the chief setting. We are in the streets of Vienna—close enough to perdition in Abraham's opinion—but the colors of life are warm and rich and they fascinate the monk as much as the reader. Even his captious reiteration of human sinfulness creates the impression not so much of the prevalence of evil as of the irritating effect of evil on Abraham. Qualifications such as these, however, do not detract from the seriousness with which he views man. Indeed, like Grimmelshausen, Abraham is provoked to anger by the very physical nature of man merely because of its propensity to evil, for to his mind the body is nothing but a horrible bag of worms.14 Medieval as this standard is, one is forced to admit that, as in the case of his criticism of society, Abraham's severity gives his moral satire a sweep and a stature which all the petty critics of social foibles and unreasonable follies could not attain. T h e satire directed against the entire area comprising the erotic—

PUBLIC

MORALITY

95

woman, love, the sexual, and marriage—belongs in large part with moral satire and as such requires little further comment. For it is selfevident that the severe critic of man must treat this area harshly as the cause of many serious wrongs such as unchastity, faithlessness, and preoccupation with the inferior flesh, while the milder satirist, though he may continue to censure the follies to which the sexual leads, will be less prone to identify it with inevitable wrongdoing. T h e degree of satiric severity in this case, however, is not always correlative with the severity of moral judgment. Various influences were at work here which produced conflicting attitudes toward the area: the treatment in certain traditional popular tales, the religious viewpoint, the viewpoint of Renaissance or courtly literature. T h e first of these, heritage of the past century and continuing its existence in a substream in the seventeenth century, idealizes only the role of motherhood or connubial fidelity. Beyond this it treats the area as a source of lusty entertainment, though without denying the fact that it is readily associated with wrong. This last is underscored by the religious viewpoint, which adds the conviction that the sexual, like the physical as a whole, is a product of the vile nature of finite man. T o these two sources of influence there is gradually added a courtly-Renaissance element which, admitting the psychological and physical appeal of the sexual, either idealizes the role of love as a source of constancy, heroism, and poignant suffering, or enjoys its spicy obscenity. It would be artificial to attempt to separate these factors in order to show their precise influence on the degree of severity shown by each satirist. They are mentioned merely to account in a general manner for the deviations from the purely moral treatment. Abraham alone is entirely free of the courtly-Renaissance influence. The sexual, like the other elements of the physical, represents for him the base nature of the body. Its epitome for him is woman. He calls her vain and quarrelsome, 16 a paradise of the eyes, a purgatory of the purse, and a hell of the soul. 18 If she is shrewish she represents the most painful of human miseries, for the Trojan horse was filled only with soldiers, but she is filled with devils.17 Even the most promising marriage is a beautiful deception; 18 it is true that Abraham approves of the right kind of marriage, 19 but he also assures us that virginity and widowhood are preferable to wifehood. 20 Moscherosch, Logau, and Grimmelshausen are as severe as Abraham in their censure, but they are not impervious to the psychological or physical appeal of the sexual. T o be sure, Logau appears for the most part to be highly critical of women and dubious of the lasting joys of

96

PUBLIC MORALITY

marriage. He calls women domineering and untrustworthy,21 and he believes that love makes men foolish. 22 Similarly, marriage is as inadequate as love in providing happiness, and virginity represents the highest and most beautiful state of humanity.- 3 On the other hand, Logau is too honest to deny the attraction of the erotic. Women bring pleasure and pain, but he bears the latter willingly for the sake of the sweetness of love, and delights in wine, song, and kisses.24 A third group of epigrams by Logau, more ambiguous in its satiric direction, treats the sexual with the sophisticated lewdness that enjoys witty circumlocutions for physiological actuality: the man who lies still in bed gets horns, Chloris prefers an "ascending" love to a descending one, and a certain girl prefers "roots" to herbs.2Ii These epigrams undoubtedly ridicule the preoccupation with the physical, or perhaps even the physical itself as a somewhat embarrassing but inescapable adjunct of the human entity. But at the same time they also represent what might be called a normal pruriency which, along with the idealization found in the novels of Zesen, Ziegler, or Anton Ulrich, gradually replaces the acrimonious attack of the severer satirist. Moscherosch accords a far slighter role than Logau to the subtle or spicy phases of the erotic and the sexual. T h e first part of the Gesichte is relentless in pointing out the ludicrous or wicked acts associated with the area. Men as well as women are ridiculed, but the latter are his chief targets. Theirs are the worst follies in the land of Venus, and even the devil wants no women in his realm. 28 Yet Moscherosch's harshness is not unrelieved. Philander is attracted by the false charms of the bedizened lady, and he cannot resist stealing a look at the nude virgin offered him for sale in "Venusnarren." 27 A more outspokenly favorable viewpoint makes its appearance in the second part of the Gesichte. T h e mourning widow with her hypocrite's tears may reappear, 28 and the stories recounted in "Weiberlob" are not, on the whole, laudatory of women. But, on the other hand, not everything said of them is derogatory, 29 and Robertus' final judgment is a conciliatory one. 30 Grimmelshausen, though he is younger than Logau and Moscherosch, seems to feel little of the Renaissance influence in treating the erotic. Like Abraham he takes the need for the sexual as an indication of the baseness of man's nature. Love is something unclean, to be consummated by rape, in the filth of the chicken coop, or in the dark boudoirs of the ladies of Paris. 31 Women are unchaste beings, the Leyerin and Courasche are their chief representatives, and the devil assumes the guise of a woman to disrupt the peace of the desert island. Marriage

PUBLIC

MORALITY

97

is at best a delusion: Simplicius' first wife is forced upon him in a ridiculous scene, his second wife is a slut, and Courasche's "marriages" are as shifting and unstable as the war that sweeps her along. His severity, however, need not be taken with full seriousness. Much of the filth in which he steeps the area represents the influence of, and a concession to, popular tradition rather than an unconditionally critical attitude on his part. This is substantiated by those instances in which he attempts to treat love seriously or even gallantly in the manner of the courtly novel, as in Dietwald und Amelinde, and to some extent also in the love of the merchant in Vogelnest II for the beautiful Jewish girl, Esther. On the other hand, the fact cannot be overlooked that Grimmelshausen deals with the whole matter only in extremes of brutal naturalism or sentimental idealization. Lauremberg, like Grimmelshausen, represents an older tradition in his approach to the erotic. Yet he shows in his way how strong the trend toward a milder view had become. T o be sure, when he recounts the shocking actions of a youth who posed as a ladies' maid, or when he calls certain fashions valuable in concealing illegitimate pregnancies, 32 he appears to be no mild critic of physical man. Nor does he respond to the delicate psychological appeal or to the lofty sublimations of the erotic. On the other hand, there is in Lauremberg an older Renaissance element which distinguishes him from his satiric contemporaries, an element clearly reminiscent of Rabelais. Lauremberg's vulgar misconception of the periphrastic niceties of a fashionable poet, his description of the disastrous intestinal effect of a soup concocted in imitation of language admixture, his conjecture that girls expose their bosoms to prove them genuine 33 —all these are not necessarily used to satirize the baseness of man. They simply serve to remind man of the reality he represents, a reality by no means entirely repulsive to Lauremberg. It sets off his wit, supplies him with robust metaphors, and titillates his bubbling sense of the amusing. It is noteworthy also that he does not single out the erotic or the sexual for his satiric purpose, but groups them unaffectedly with the other phases of physiological man. Lauremberg's approach to physical man may appear as nothing more than a residue from a past century, but it is not isolated in his own time. Even the Renaissance-classical idealism of Gryphius relaxes its severity to laugh at the vulgar antics of the villagers, as proof that neither refined aesthetics of behavior nor religious severity could destroy a healthy sense of human ludicrousness in the seventeenth century. In the extent and severity of his satiric treatment of women Rachel

98

PUBLIC

MORALITY

seems more closely related to older writers than does Lauremberg. T h e first satire is devoted almost entirely to adverse criticism, 34 the third portrays the good qualities of wife and mother, and in the fourth he reproves women who set an example of unchasteness for their daughters. Related to Moscherosch and Logau, too, is Rachel's conviction that woman is the inferior of man. 35 Yet his moral indignation is not great and he even makes an effort, though one touched with irony, 38 to treat the sexual and marriage constructively. He finds marriage essential to maturity and the best cure for the dissoluteness that presumably accompanies bachelorhood. 37 In like manner, notwithstanding his censure of women's follies, he portrays in detail the ideal mother 38 and the ideal woman 39 and he points out that even the characteristics ordinarily considered disadvantageous in women, e.g., homeliness, might be conducive to a happy marriage. 40 T h e constructive element, to be sure, rests somewhat uncertainly on what is fundamentally an old-fashioned if tempered satire on women and the sexual. Gryphius, on the other hand, more clearly the representative of the cultured, Renaissance approach, combines the satiric and the ideal in a way of which a simple didacticist like Rachel is incapable. He ridicules the lechery of the villagers in Dornrose, the naive robustness of the artisans in Squentz, and the opportunism of the lovers in Horribilicribrifax, but he also shows that he deems the erotic capable of meeting the highest test of purity on a lofty as well as a lowly level, on that of Sophia in Horribilicribrifax and that of Gregor and his beloved in Dornrose. His object of satirical attack in this field, therefore, is identical with his object in all cases. It is the lack of restraint on the part of those who are uncultured and dishonest, not the response to the physical impulses as such. In Weise, too, one finds the contrast between the ideal love of Bianca and Mako in Catharine and the vulgarity of lovers like Pickelharing and Melane in Triumphirende Keuschheit, but this contrast is neither employed, as it is by Gryphius, for its exalted ethical implications, nor is it indicative, as in Grimmelshausen, of an inability to reconcile spirit and flesh. Weise draws upon a variety of motives, not always for reasons of artistic conviction, but he is at heart the realist who evaluates man honestly and without undue censoriousness. So it is that even on the average level women and marriage are often presented favorably without the latent irony adhering to similar portrayals in his older contemporary Rachel. Bad wives become good in Unvergnugte Seele and Catharine, the students in Lateiner marry the simple village girls they love, and the happiness of the old couple in

PUBLIC MORALITY

99

Unvergnilgte Seele serves as a model for the discontented hero. Weise's Drei kliigste Leute ends in a complete exoneration of the women accused of faithlessness, in distinction from his source, a story related also in Moscherosch's Gesichte,*1 which reaffirms their untrustworthiness. Even Weise's outspoken censure of wrongs related to sex and marriage is not severe. He may speak more sharply in Erznarren of unchasteness, shrewishness, or the laughable habits of lovers, 42 but his satire on the whole is light in touch, especially in the comedies, where stock figures like the domineering wife in Lateiner or the redoubtable mother-in-law in Machiavell are introduced for their perennial comic effect. Reuter goes even farther than Weise in omitting the area under discussion from moral satire. Schlampampe and her daughters are, to be sure, pilloried mercilessly, but only as typical of the striving bourgeois, and not because he finds women prone to folly. If love seems tawdry in Schelmuffsky, the fault lies with Schelmuffsky himself and not with the inadequacy of the erotic. In Ehrenfried, finally, love and the sexual are treated breezily, almost as something natural, with a minimum of prurience and almost without moral evaluation. Only a passing censure of fashionable immorality is contained in Gretchen's warning that she will not permit her Courage to engage in extramarital adventures. 43 T h e treatment of women likewise shows the advance in the century. Gretchen is more sensible than her betrothed, and Lenore manages to win her indigent count as well as a sum of money by the forthright action of which he is incapable. 44 Riemer and Happel pretend once more to be concerned with the frailty of women and the demoralizing effect of the erotic and the sexual, but it is obvious that the old satiric motives are losing their moral force. Riemer points out aberrations of the sexual along with other elements of physical man either to reveal the vulgarity of the lower classes or to tickle the prurient palate. 46 Happel uses it similarly to supply his reader vicariously with lascivious adventure. Like these men, Beer shows that pseudo satire of women, the sexual, and marriage have by the end of the century dropped from the level of serious satire to that of an attractive adjunct to entertainment literature. In his Sommertage his attitude changes with his mood and the supposed inclination of his readers. We see love as beautiful and ugly, women as desirable and disappointing. T h e author and his wife appear ideally happy, yet he becomes enamored of another woman and wishes his wife dead. When fate fulfills his wish, his beloved, now his wife, reveals herself as a worthless baggage. On the whole, however,

100

PUBLIC MORALITY

despite this convenient ambivalence, and despite the superficial monasticism with which the author plays about, women and marriage have clearly become accepted as part of normal life. It was stated above that satire of public and private morality gradually changed in character under the influence of various factors, most important of which undoubtedly was the secularization of religious thought. Schupp, the preacher, is obviously less amenable to this influence, though he shows in his way that it is possible for even the narrowly pious man of his age to find some causes for hopefulness in viewing humanity. T o be sure, as we shall see in speaking of his moral satire, this cheerful aspect tends to disappear amid the severe censure which Schupp directs toward the stubborn sinner. Yet its presence cannot be overlooked.

VIII SCHUPP AND CONTEMPORARY MORALS

T

H E P R O B L E M S of state and society claim Schupp's attention and stimulate his thinking to an extent observed not even among the older satirists with their keen eye for the inadequacies of reality. Yet Schupp remains at heart the severe moralist who views life from a standpoint akin to that of Moscherosch, Logau, and Abraham. In certain of Schupp's earlier works, to be sure, the moral censor appears less clearly, so that these bear a greater superficial resemblance to the satire of Rachel or Weise with its generalized comment on the habits of humanity. Man is as fickle as the dog Vulgus, 1 who follows his master only when he is fed; good princes can hope for little from the opportunistic people; 2 a good world is a paradox3—these find their epitome in Somnium, where Vanity rules and its flame burns on every head, including that of Schupp himself. Specific instances of human folly in an early work like Nihili often appear as remote from reality as his generalizations: sly Menalcas walks slowly in the rain to increase his supply of milk; Dionysius substitutes a cheaper ring for the golden one of Jupiter; Corydon finds nothing more beautiful than his Galathea; the sick man wishes to eat—nihil.11

Schupp's approach to woman, the erotic, and to marriage in the early works is also superficial and even cynical in comparison with his later attitude. Women are ridiculed as unchaste and domineering, 5 and the ideal land is portrayed as one in which they do not know how to rule and are silent. 8 Higher education is not for them: the scholars in Somnium add to their other ludicrous habits that of teaching their wives metaphysics.7 Marriage too is of doubtful benefit, bringing quarrels and unfaithfulness, and the erotic is a fit subject only for jesting. 8 It is true that the commemorative orations of the university period as well as the early devotional works, Aurora and Eusebia, are clearly the work of the preacher, and that Nihili, De opinione, De oratore inepto, and Somnium also attack serious moral transgressions. Nevertheless, the generalizations in the last four of these works create the impression that the world is foolish and unreliable rather than wicked, and that Schupp is the observer and commentator as much as the castigator of specific evils.

102

SCHUPP AND C O N T E M P O R A R Y MORALS

I n De arte and Salomo the place of Christian morality in the wellgoverned state is stressed more consistently. In the former, the unreal framework and the reluctance to take the ruler himself to task still impart a certain obliqueness to the moral phases of the work; in contrast, Salomo, set in reality, attacks vigorously the unchasteness and love of luxury typical of the courts, and the dishonesty and injustice of those in political life. 9 Because of the nature of Schupp's duties in Hamburg, however, his qualities as a moral censor appear most clearly in the works motivated by the problems he encountered there. T h e sins of the city may be summarized as the disparity between profession and practice of religious principles. Schupp complains in Gedenk daran, Hamburg that the people of the city attend church, yet sin on the Sabbath; Lucidor, an apparently devout Christian, is vengeful; Corinna's mother mouths Christian principles as a justification for her unchaste way of life. In addition to such broader indictments, Schupp censures wrongs like pride, 10 love of wealth, 11 lack of charity, 12 impatience in adversity, 13 gluttony, 14 and faithlessness. 15 T h e severity of moral viewpoint indicated by criticisms of this sort— a severity actually characteristic of Schupp throughout his life despite the apparent lightness of moral treatment in portions of his earlier writing—is underscored by the homiletic or devotional works composed in Hamburg: Golgotha, Krankenwarterin, Litanei, and the proverbs and apothegms later collected under the title of Stummer Lehrer.16 It was necessary, in the previous chapter, to separate from the general discussion of moral satire that directed against woman, marriage, and the erotic, since certain extramoral elements entered into its evaluation by most of the satirists. There is no need for such a separation in the later works of Schupp. T h e entire area resolves itself for him into two groups of problems, those of immorality, and those related to the role of woman in the home and in society. With regard to the latter, the most urgent problem for Schupp is the unwillingness of the women of his day to accept the sphere assigned to them by God. It is true that he also finds it necessary to remind husbands of their duties toward their wives, but the greater part of the blame rests with women, in his opinion, for they were made for man 1 7 and are weaker than he in every respect. 18 At best, a wife may keep her husband from spiritual harm, 1 9 but he must remain the master in the home, and Schupp would like to have all husbands castrated who cannot maintain themselves in this divinely ordained position. 20 Yet, unmindful of their proper role, the women of his day seek to dominate their husbands, drive them on to acquire wealth and honor, and are ready to divorce them if their

S C H U P P A N D C O N T E M P O R A R Y MORALS

103

wishes are not fulfilled. 21 If the foregoing statements convey some evidence that the place of woman in society was in process of changing, Schupp takes cognizance of this only in the gloomy reflection that it is dangerous to speak ill of women in his day. 22 T h o u g h a concentration on sin rather than foible places Schupp closer to Moscherosch and Abraham, he differs from them in that certain characteristic elements detract from the impression of unmitigated severity in his satire. First of these is his habit of limiting himself to actualities. T h e primary object of his moral satire, despite occasional generalizations and threats of hell-fire, is not to prove all mankind sinful by assembling droves of candidates for damnation before the reader's eyes, as Moscherosch does, but to deal with the problems presented by his immediate surroundings. T h o u g h his proposals and preachments are generally applicable, one does not forget their specific motivation: if all cities are sinful, 23 it is nevertheless the merchant of H a m b u r g who appears most clearly before our eyes as the culprit. Second is that fact that Schupp considers practical as well as moral matters of importance for the improvement of the world. Even in Hamburg, where he composes the greatest number of his essentially moral works, his interest in public affairs, language, and education remains sufficiently strong to evoke such works as Salomo, Ambrosi Mellilambii Sendschreiben, Pratgen, Lehrmeister, and Schulwesen. Finally, the severity within the individual work is alleviated by all the peripheral thoughts, love of facts, and defense of his own style or viewpoint which Schupp likes to introduce. By way of example, one need only recall what was said previously concerning his associative method of idea development; or one might mention Buszspiegel, where his moral satire occasionally gives way to such matters as the origins of shipping, the use of palm oil, the palms of the world, and the history of the city of Nineveh. 24 I n like manner, his advice concerning the soldier's profession in Hauptmann leads him to reflect on the difficult profession of the clergyman, and this, in turn, impels him to hurl words of defiance at his own enemies. 25 T a k e n by itself, therefore, Schupp's moral satire has the almost medieval quality adhering to Moscherosch's or Abraham's condemnation of the world's wickedness; taken in perspective against these other elements, it obviously concerns itself with only one area, if the most important one, of a world whose foundation ipust still rest on religious morality, but not all of whose problems require the moral approach. T h e resulting impression is that though man is unquestion-

104

SCHUPP AND C O N T E M P O R A R Y

MORALS

ably sinful, reality is not unconditionally incapable of correction nor of providing human happiness. Even Schupp's patriarchal treatment of the area surrounding woman and the erotic is not without its alleviating elements. It is true that in comparison with the younger satirists, except Grimmelshausen and Abraham, his attitude seems old-fashioned enough. His austerity is nowhere more marked than by contrast with the gallant manner in which his son, Jost Burkhard, proves to women in his introduction to the translation of his father's Geistlicher Spaziergang that they are equal, if not superior to men. 2 6 Striking, too, is the fact that except for traces in his earlier works, 27 Schupp accords no recognition to the psychological appeal of the erotic, the existence of which even rigid moralists like Logau and Moscherosch concede. B u t he compensates for this lack in other ways. Above all, Schupp never equates the erotic with the sinful or the unclean. Even in Corinna, unchasteness is not presented as the unavoidable concomitant of the erotic, but rather as the product of certain conditions, particularly in Hamburg, which abet the temptations of the devil and undermine man's weak nature. Perhaps the most important conciliatory element in Schupp's treatment of morality is his attitude toward the child. All the pent-up emotion surrounding the erotic and the marital relationship which the century shunted into a hesitant admission of its psychological appeal, into the gallantly heroic or the poetic, into the laughable and the crude, appears to find release in Schupp in his feeling as a father and a fatherly teacher. Satire grants a larger role to the child in the seventeenth century than do the other literary genres. For a woodenly heroic little son in Gryphius' Aemilius Paulus Papinianus there are Simplicius, Reuter's Dafftle, the children of Moscherosch, and the references to children in the works of Abraham, to say nothing of the progeny of spurious parentage who help populate the novels of Grimmelshausen. Yet by none is the child surrounded with the same warmth, solicitude, and faith in its role in the future as in the works of Schupp. Young Simplicius, charming as his portrait is, was created chiefly to show the contrast between innocence and the sinful world; the child and the fool are so nearly identical that it is difficult to tell when the child ceases to exist and the fool-adult appears. Other children in Grimmelshausen's works are hardly more than the accidental byproducts of chaste or unchaste living, or, as in the case of Simplicius' son, a means to an adventurous episode in Vogelnest I. Moscherosch is too much the moralist and too heavily oppressed by evil to be capable of Schupp's pure joy in the child, or to look beyond the needs of his

S C H U P P AND C O N T E M P O R A R Y MORALS

105

own little brood to the share of youth in creating a better world. Abraham, for all the tenderness with which he speaks of children, ultimately rejects everything but rigorous asceticism, and so denies to the child the very source of its being. Dafftle, finally, that precocious little wretch, a suitable foil for his brother Schelmuffsky, who adds to other unpleasant habits a relationship to his mother of dubious morality, 28 may, by his unwillingness to believe his brother's lies, indicate a certain confidence on Reuter's part in the child's healthy sense of realism, but his portrait hardly creates the impression that it was inspired by a love of the young. Schupp does not approach the child with the unequivocal love of the sentimentalist. He sets high standards and does not hesitate to paint adverse portraits, 29 but these are far outweighed by other expressions of his feelings. His demand that the teacher be a father 3 0 and that he use the verb "amo" as one of his guides in dealing with children, 31 his expression of pleasure in some fine lad, 32 his pride in his own sons, 33 all these are crowned in his statement in Schulwesen34 that the salvation of the world lies in the schools and in the education of the child. One might summarize much of the preceding section by saying that in contrast to others Schupp proceeds from the specific instance rather than the general reflection on humanity or his times. This focusing appears in its most extreme form in his polemics. It will be recalled that his enemies brought a number of charges against him, the purport of which was that he was not fit to be a preacher. T h e chief object of their attack was his satiric manner and the use of jokes and anecdotes in preaching and writing. 35 They based their charges not only on published works but also on the word of spies who attended Schupp's sermons and reported expressions incorrectly or out of context. 38 In addition, they objected to his statement that not all wisdom was found at the university, 37 his indictment of the manner in which church offices were obtained, 3 8 and to his forthright attack on immorality. 39 Not satisfied with these more nearly professional charges, they pointed out or fabricated all manner of irregularity in his private life, as Schupp tells his son in Calender: that he had started a revolt in Hamburg, that he was dunned for debt, that he indulged too freely in wine and pastry, that blood flowed from a barrel of wine opened in his home. Schupp answers these charges both by personal defense and the defense of a larger principle. T h e former suffers from excessive detail in its attempt to disprove even the most trifling bit of scandalmongering. Indeed, were it not for the fact that certain of the charges endangered

106

S C H U P P AND C O N T E M P O R A R Y

MORALS

his reputation and, in so far as they implied the practice of witchcraft, even his life, one might wish that he had ignored them entirely. He explains how it happened that he used certain expressions,40 he reiterates statements and cites additional examples to substantiate his point, 41 or he denies or disproves the calumniations directed against him. 42 It is true that a certain sublimation of the purely personal is suggested in various ways: by his reminders that his attackers are committing serious sin, 43 by his refusal to descend to their level of personal gossip, and finally by his lively style. Nevertheless, his treatment of these charges hardly rises above the level of refutation. T h e defense of a larger principle is more apparent when Schupp stands on his right as a qualified man to speak his mind in the manner he finds suitable. He is not unique in this, for it lies in the nature of satire that the writer must present himself or his projection as a man with a greater clarity of view than others. Logau defies the captious reader, 44 Lauremberg defends himself wittily against the fashionable poets who attack his form, 45 and even Weise directs a cautious blow at those who do not give a man the opportunity to express his dramatic talents. 46 But the defense of the right to individual thought and expression never attains sufficient momentum to become a major subject of satire. Reuter, to be sure, attacks personal enemies to an extent found nowhere else,47 but he does not transcend the incidental. T h e others tend to submerge their individuality in the larger religious, social-ethical, or common sense viewpoint which they represent. There is some indication throughout Schupp's life that he was more clearly aware than most of his right to speak his mind. Much of the enmity he evoked in Marburg, Braubach, and Hamburg is undoubtedly attributable not only to his bolder thought or to his success, but to this self-awareness. In his polemics, one might say, therefore, Schupp settles his account with all those who beset his life: the noble persons who would not listen to their preacher, the sinners who preferred to hear of something else than their iniquity, the invidious who would not tolerate any manner of writing or speaking contrary to custom. 48 In answer to their attacks Schupp proves that both precedent and need justify his use of the satiric style of Reuchlin, Erasmus, Luther, Lucian, and Boccalini, 49 for he is aware that the children of the world, as he calls them, require another approach than the poor and orphaned. 50 T h e whores of Hamburg, as Schupp says in Corinna, the wealthy lechers, the self-willed great, will not listen to the serious preacher; they require the jest, the fable, and the truth told laughingly. 51 As important for the general principle which Schupp defends

S C H U P P AND C O N T E M P O R A R Y M O R A L S

107

is the fact that he sees in his suffering the lot of the typical honest preacher. H e goes beyond the personal, therefore, in defending through his self-assertion the right of every preacher, and, one might even say, of every man to speak as his duty dictates. 62 It must be reiterated that the superabundance of petty denial in his polemics draws attention from the deeper principles involved, so that his defense of freedom of expression cannot take its place beside society or morality as a major satiric subject in his writings. Nevertheless, the polemics and related passages in other works treat so extensively and consciously the right of the qualified man to be heard that they set Schupp apart from all other satirists of his age. Schupp's polemics have been grouped with his moral satire because the primary object of their censure is the unchristian behavior of his enemies. Much in these polemics, however, might also be classified with another major area of his concern, that dealing with certain cultural and intellectual problems of his day. Schupp's boldness in criticizing the universities, his defense of his chosen style of writing, and his attack on the manner in which the honest preacher is treated aroused the ire of his enemies no less than his courageous moral criticism, his personal integrity, and his popularity with his congregation. T h e other satirists of his age, too, as we shall point out in Chapter IX, concerned themselves with problems of education, the church, and so on. But as always, their approach and selection differ in some respects from those of Schupp, since men like Moscherosch and Weise are concerned chiefly with an improvement in the moral and social behavior of the individual and less with institutions or intellectual trends whose bearing on this behavior is only indirect.

IX CULTURAL LIFE IN THE SATIRE

I

to society and the moral or ethical behavior of man, satire in the seventeenth century deals with certain problems relating to literature, education, religion, philosophy, and science. None of these receives anything approaching the consistent and detailed treatment accorded the first two areas. Satire directed against the various subjects connected with literature is perhaps the most common, but its chief object is the fashionable language admixture already discussed in connection with other satiric objects such as the affectations of the ambitious or the uncultured. In some respects, literature as a target of satire is related to nationalism. T h e defenders of the neoclassicism of Opitz as well as those who adhere to older traditions are motivated by pride in German creativity. T h e former strive to raise its level by the use of what are to their minds suitable forms and subject matter, while the traditionalists defend the opinion that the newer literary trends, like all fashionable innovations, detract from native sincerity and directness. N ADDITION

In most cases the protagonists of what might be called the popular forms defend their literary concepts not by satirizing fashionable literature, but by adhering stubbornly to older traditions, or at best by justifying their own manner of writing. Logau's individuality of form expresses rugged nationalism as well as an individual need to evaluate freely without the hindrances imposed by a regard for structural niceties. He respects Opitz, 1 but he expresses the conviction that content is at least as important as form, 2 and that the best German is spoken from the heart. 3 Moscherosch as a writer of prose is not challenged by the rules of Opitz as are Logau and Lauremberg. Except for his harsher censure of vicious, lying authors, and for a few cursory references to poets in hell or to his own poetic efforts, 4 his greatest concern is with language, whether for poetic or ordinary purposes. Whereas Moscherosch and Logau express little or no esteem for fashionable poetry, they do not attack it with the vigor of Lauremberg. He pretends to find its figurative language unintelligible, its fixed number of syllables remind him of vicious dogs tied to chains; and his own irregular lines, on the other hand, are to his mind as natural as a tall

C U L T U R A L L I F E IN T H E S A T I R E

109

man and a short one walking together and helping each other as the weak must the strong. 5 Much of his impatience with fashionable poetry derives from his Low-German particularism, with the result that he appears to identify the modish affectations of the school of Opitz with the peculiar characteristics of High German. On the other hand, he also uses his pungent and racy Low-German idiom as much to underscore the affectations of fashionable poets as to show that he admires its character. Like Lauremberg, Grimmelshausen pretends to care little for the opinion other writers have of him. 6 He ridicules elegant circumlocutions 7 and continues stubbornly to write in his own manner. Yet, in contrast to Lauremberg, he has already made enormous concessions to at least the content and attitudes of high style in his Joseph and Dietwald und Amelinde.s With the universal acceptance of the principles of Opitz later in the century, literary satire directs its attention chiefly to the attainment of stylistic simplicity and good taste. Rachel, like Moscherosch, 9 considers the moral aim of literature the primary one, but he also feels his worth as a representative of the best style sufficiently to permit himself a measured delight in the joys of creativity. 10 As a self-conscious follower of Opitz, he lays down the rules of good poetry in "Der Poet," where he expresses nothing but derision for prolific rhymesters and for the crudity and filth found in popular writers. At the same time he resembles older writers in his demand for simplicity, and for this reason he ridicules language mixture and the exaggerated efforts of the language societies. 11 Like Rachel, Weise and Gryphius are impatient with all language excess, 12 and especially with the laughable efforts of untutored imitators. Accordingly, in Squentz and Tobias the authors take advantage of the excellent comedy situations inevitable in the dramatic efforts of village artisans. But although satire is here undoubtedly concerned with real efforts of this sort, the actual objects of attack in these plays are those who try to do what they are not fitted for. It is clear, therefore, that literary satire, as the century advances, merges more and more with the broad stream of that directed against the uncultured and the undisciplined, whatever their efforts. Like literature, the remaining subjects referred to above—education, religion, philosophy, and the newer scientific discoveries—were limited in their appeal to the average man and hence of only moderate interest to the satirist. Only certain phases reached the general public; others, often the essential ones, were treated sporadically. This is especially true of formal education, whose methods and content, in that period of conflicting theory, could be evaluated only by those with special

no

C U L T U R A L LIFE IN T H E SATIRE

training. T h e phases of education comprehensible to the layman are accordingly treated most frequently, e.g., the rearing of children, the behavior of the pedantic or poorly educated schoolmaster, and the ludicrous display of knowledge. Logau, too, does not enter into the technicalities of the ideal education, but he stands alone in the role he ascribes to wisdom and learning in the life of man. In the midst of wartime demoralization it is his refuge and the hope of the world: learned men have his love, for they atone for the errors of fools; 13 and an education makes a man independent and permits him to help his fellows. 14 Although Moscherosch is in accord with Logau in his demand that schooling prepare for real life, he represents a narrowing of viewpoint. An education is for him the legacy of self-help for the child in a difficult world 15 or the insurance of a well-governed state, 16 but not, as it is for Logau, a haven of the spirit. This is a narrowing, however, which represents a healthy realism impatient with the pedantry, scholasticism, and empty show of learning to be found in much of contemporary education, 17 and as such it is echoed throughout the century. Rachel still shows some feeling for the purely cultural value of education when he advises parents to give their sons classical schooling or when he reminds them that an education is a more important bequest for children than the love of luxury. 18 But he is primarily the practical moralist who stresses the need of a good example for the young in "Kinderzucht," or who lectures students on their foolish behavior. 19 Even narrower in his viewpoint than Moscherosch, Rachel would not presume to depict a scene such as that in Moscherosch's Gesichte,20 in which enraged subjects upbraid the tutor of an evil ruler because they consider the former responsible for their misery. Grimmelshausen is akin to Moscherosch in the boldness which prompts him to suggest that a simple peasant should have the opportunity to study if he has the ability 21 or in his demand that German be given a place in education, 2 2 but he follows the trend of the century in placing his stress on the faulty rearing of children. 23 Even milder in their satire, Gryphius and Weise exploit the figure of the ignorant, presumptuous schoolmaster in Peter Squentz or Tobias not only as a type to be found in the schools but also as a convenient representative of those who exceed their limitations. Weise, however, is too much the educator not to express himself more definitely on contemporary needs in education: intelligent selection of learning methods, elimination of excessive control, good teachers and directors. 24 More than this, he even gives evidence of some of Logau's or Moscherosch's confidence in

C U L T U R A L L I F E IN T H E S A T I R E

111

the function of education in the larger world, however cautiously he expresses himself, when he hands over the ancient spirit of Machiavellianism to Severus, Sedulus, and Eruditus. 25 Proof that educational problems continued to interest the century to some extent may be found in the works of Beer and Happel. Beer, unquestionably the more sincere critic of the two, speaks with some acerbity of a number of matters—pedantic disputations, 26 behavior of students and foolish show of learning, 27 rearing of children, 28 and the advisability of giving financial aid to poor students. 29 Happel apparently goes even farther in devoting to the universities and their students an entire novel whose adventurous core is surrounded by much that undoubtedly represents either information of general interest or justified criticism, 30 but he takes care to dull the edge of his criticism by such means as locating the problem of the sale of academic honors in Padua, or by assuring the reader that rewards at the hands of the ever-just princes are available to every deserving student. 31 In contrast to him, Abraham, while he unquestionably has no sympathy for the bad teacher, 32 shows that the keener interest of the average man lies in general problems like the rearing of children. 33 If the satiric treatment of education is remarkable for the omission of fruitful subjects which its esoteric phases might have supplied, this can be said with even greater truth of religion. Among its many facets, such as the attitude toward other faiths, quarrels among Lutheran dogmatists, the moral behavior of the clergy, the encroachments of the newer science and philosophy upon traditional orthodoxy, only the last two appear extensively in satire. Mention of various religions is most frequent in the satire of the earlier decades of the century, when attention was focused on them in the course of what was ostensibly a religious war. Logau, a profoundly pious man, does not deviate seriously from Lutheranism, as his repeated reference to the importance of faith makes evident, 34 but he avoids an outspoken attack upon Catholicism or Calvinism, 35 and places his stress on the universal disparity between profession of faith and actual practice. 36 Moscherosch, on the other hand, the outspoken religious dogmatist, sets forth for his children in Insomnis cura parentum the reasons why he considers the Lutheran faith the true one. 37 Though he, too, censures wickedness more than deviation from dogma, he does not express as poignantly as Logau the ironic contrast between the dogmatic zeal which led to a religious war and the unchristian behavior of the world. More intolerant and vehement than Logau, he places monks among those who cause trouble at court, and deems a Jew and a commissary equally dishonest. 38

112

C U L T U R A L L I F E IN T H E S A T I R E

After Moscherosch, the attack on other faiths is left chiefly to the pulpit. Among the satirists, only Grimmelshausen, Weise, and Abraham engage in it to any extent. Grimmelshausen treats the subject with the typical mixture of the popular and the serious. In Vogelnest II he uses a Jew as the object of a cruel jest: the merchant employs his magical powers to pose as a divine emissary in order to seduce a beautiful Jewish girl. Yet Grimmelshausen also places in the mouth of a Jew the suggestion that Christians resolve their own religious differences before they undertake to convert others. 39 A similar suggestion is made by his mad Jupiter who promises that when he rules the world wise men will unite all the Christian faiths. 40 It is significant that only Grimmelshausen, the convert to Catholicism, but without the convert's zeal, dares broach the question of syncretism. Weise sees in it and, indeed, in any deviation from Lutheran practice, only a source of national demoralization. T h e first Ambassador of Mistevo in Hauptverderber attempts to weaken the Germans by spreading unorthodox ideas among them, and later in the same work Weise reviews the chief tenets of the Lutheran faith and reaffirms his belief in them. Despite this somewhat ostentatious orthodoxy Weise shows that he is not as unconditionally opposed to syncretism as it might appear. When Mistevo asks him about the other Christian faiths Weise answers that he cannot believe that God has permitted them to share in some of the sacraments, only to damn them. In no other work, however, is he as bold. We hear elsewhere only of those who change their faith for worldly fortune 41 or we are invited to laugh at a Jew or at a Catholic priest as convenient vehicles for comedy. 42 One might expect a sharper attack on other faiths from Abraham; but like all truly popular preachers, he stresses only the real needs of his congregation and touches rarely on those of other faiths. 43 Related to the liberalization of religious thought reflected in cautious references to syncretism are the newer trends in science and philosophy which began to challenge orthodox belief so strongly in the seventeenth century. T h e writers under consideration present evidence enough that they were aware of these trends. Gryphius dedicates a laudatory epigram to Copernicus, 44 and Weise's Gelanor in Erznarren discourses at some length on what is to his mind the significance of the latest scientific or philosophical views.45 One may also deduce from the satire of the age, however, that these ideas were slow in penetrating to popular levels. This was without doubt due chiefly to the opposition of orthodox religion. In addition, the general public and even the man of better education unquestionably found it hard to distinguish between

C U L T U R A L L I F E IN T H E S A T I R E

113

the newer theories of philosophers and scientists and the fantastic claims of the astrologers and other charlatans who swarmed through the seventeenth century in Germany. As a result, the greater number of the satirists, whose chief concern was, after all, moral improvement of man and not the dissemination or contradiction of abstruse concepts, do not consider the newer trends a serious danger to public morality. Only YVeise treats such theories extensively. In his Hauptverderber, Mistevo's first Ambassador, instigator of dangerous thoughts leading to syncretism, has also introduced the demoralizing belief that God's revelation in nature supplants that of religion, and that nature is guided by its own laws, not those of God. In addition, this emissary has encouraged the reading of heathen philosophers in place of the Bible, and he observes with delight that, like the philosophers, the clergy are questioning everything. In other works Weise takes issue with these ideas also, but without placing the same stress on them. In Unvergnugte Seele he demonstrates that it is impossible to control the emotions by means of reason alone, 46 and his Gelanor in Erznarren concludes that all philosophical systems amount to the same thing, and that the theoretic flights of the scientists are less important than the phenomena of reality. 47 Abraham also takes cognizance of the new science, but only to express the opinion that the spheres created by the rosary-maker are more important than those observed by mathematicians, or to remind his readers that an attempt to comprehend difficult matters may lead to heresy. 48 Like the subjects just mentioned, the church and the clergy are satirized sporadically. T h e reasons for this are not immediately clear. T h e behavior of the clergy, the internal quarreling in the Lutheran Church, and the active or passive role it played in the moral education of the people presented inadequacies which the satirists might have exploited profitably. 49 Yet they are loath to do so, either because they believed these problems to have only indirect bearing on the general morality with which they were primarily concerned, or because the Lutherans among them were not inclined to be censorious of what was, after all, a state-appointed clergy. 50 We find, therefore, only desultory references to religious matters. Moscherosch sees a garden of clerical labyrinths in Paris; 51 Logau censures the preacher who accepts a fee for praying; 52 Weise speaks of the dangers of theological quarreling or of ministers of the church who preach laudatory funeral sermons for the wicked; 53 and Reuter ridicules Dafftle's tutor because he eulogizes a worthless creature like Schlampampe. 64 While such references are still motivated by true satiric zeal, Riemer cultivates anticlericalism 55 in an effort to reach the sophisticated reader.

114

C U L T U R A L L I F E IN T H E S A T I R E

Beer likewise takes a fashionably anticlerical attitude, 5 6 yet the fact that he assigns a more favorable role to the hermit than to the priest also reflects a genuine wish for the idyllic personal religion which the life of the hermit provides. Grimmelshausen's satiric earnestness might also be questioned if one considers his characteristically ambiguous fashion of portraying the priest both as a spiritual guide 57 and as a ready victim of fleshly appetites. 5 8 At the same time, he throws into this ambivalence a flash of telling censure: Olivier justifies his own wickedness by the example of the church which buries the wealthy within its walls in a fine grave, and the poor in some remote corner outside. 59 Also indicative of his somewhat individualistic religious viewpoint is the fact that not a clergyman but a hermit is Grimmelshausen's ideal figure in Simplicissimus. T h e most extensive and courageous satiric treatment of the clergy is found in Abraham's works, where he accuses them of foolish affectations in language, of flattery, love of wealth, and general sinfulness. 80 He does not begrudge them praise, nor does he question for a moment the importance of the church in the salvation of man, but his honesty and his zeal for the spiritual betterment of humanity make him painfully aware of the inadequacies of those whom God has appointed to fulfill this lofty office. It was indicated at the close of Chapter V I I I that the treatment by such satirists as Moscherosch, Weise, and Rachel of the cultural and intellectual matters of their day differed in certain ways from that of Schupp. For obviously Schupp, the preacher, educator, and amateur statesman, whose tendency to concern himself with the immediate need and the practical solution has already been observed in his treatment of state, society, and morality, might be expected to regard language, literature, church, and school from a special viewpoint as well.

X THE CULTURAL PROBLEM IN SCHUPP

S

like that of his contemporaries, merges with his desire to improve German as a spoken language and as a form of literary expression. Like Lauremberg and Grimmelshausen he stresses the importance of a German free both of foreign admixture and of the affectations of fashionable writers and language societies.1 He differs somewhat from others, however, in that he comes to his feeling for German idiom more consciously and by way of the previous century. His standards for good German as well as good Latin, his idea of what constitutes acceptable translation, his opposition to the poetry of the Opitz school and the religious poetry which he suggests as a substitute, all show the influence of such men as Erasmus, Reuchlin, and above all of Luther and the German Bible. Just as Reuchlin and Erasmus2 are for Schupp models of good Latin style, so Luther and the Bible represent the best German. Luther is in his opinion the real German Cicero and the Bible is sufficient guide to oratory, since God, who inspired the prophets with His truths, was also a master of expression.3 Like Luther, Schupp stresses the sense rather than the exactness of rendition in translation,4 and, consciously or not, derives from him some of his own vigorous directness. Schupp's ideas on poetry also show his veneration for Luther. He expresses his admiration for Opitz5 but he has nothing save derision for excessive concern with form and ornamentation: Luther paid no attention to syllable lengths in writing songs to relieve his sadness or to refresh his spirit.6 CHUPP'S NATIONALISM,

Although opinions such as these show a kinship between Schupp and earlier satirists, he appears old-fashioned even in comparison with them when he advises young poets to put aside fashionable erotic poetry for hymns, or when he advocates the use of poetry to aid the memory or to facilitate instruction.7 On the other hand, he also gives evidence of a breadth of social view which even older satirists do not share, when he implies that the responsibility for fostering literature and the other arts rests with society. As a professor in Marburg he jokingly accounts for the color of his black academic cloak by saying that he is in mourning because Maecenas is dead.8 In Lehrmeister, he

116

T H E C U L T U R A L P R O B L E M IN SCHUPP

reiterates this complaint against the stingy who refuse to become patrons of the arts and the schools, and relates an anecdote concerning a French poet who, when criticized for writing poetry inferior to that of Ronsard, said that if the latter had had six children, a shrewish wife, a house on the verge of collapse, and more sunlight than bread, he, also, would not have been able to write good verse.9 Virgil, too, Schupp tells us in the same passage, would probably not have been so great a poet had he not been supported by Augustus. Schupp's propensity for reverting to favorite subjects, already mentioned in discussing his style, is nowhere so pronounced as in his treatment of education. De oratore inepto, program to Proteus, De opinione, De usu nihili, the panegyrics on Dietrich and Friedrich, Somnium, De arte, Salomo, and Hiob contain important statements of his ideas. Schulwesen is devoted entirely to them, and Lehrmeister and Freund in der Not, in part. Additional references appear in Lucianus, Ehrenrettung, Corinna, and Eilfertige Antwort. Because of the extent of this interest and the wealth of detail it brings with it, a complete presentation of Schupp's educational ideas would exceed the scope of the present work. Nor would it serve any purpose since his views have already been adequately summarized and related to those of various other educators by Hentschel, Weicker, Lerche, Vogt, and Zschau. For this reason only a brief survey will be made in the following section. Schupp's educational aims, like those of other progressive educators of his time, 10 may be summarized in the words of Comenius quoted by Schupp in Schulwesen: "We do not live, of course, just so that we may study, but we study so that we may live happily and well in the world" 11 ; and later: "What benefit would it be to a man if he had devoured all philosophical wisdom by the spoonful, and did not know how to apply it or to use it properly for the glory of God and the service of his neighbor?" 1 2 It is true that other satirists would not have disagreed with these statements. T h e characteristic element lies, as in most cases, in Schupp's method of attacking the problem. For his fellow satirists the approach to education as to most questions is primarily through the individual, who must be trained to select among the educative forces of school and life in order to achieve moral and physical well-being. For Schupp, education must be valuable both to the individual and to society; and further, society must provide an education which will effect this mutual benefit. If education is to be of value to the individual as well as the community, therefore, the schools must improve content and methods, and the state must be reminded of its role in their support and staffing.

T H E C U L T U R A L P R O B L E M IN S C H U P P

117

T h e individual is not without responsibility, but his efforts are futile if curricula are covered with scholastic dust, as Schupp likes to say,13 if teaching methods are such as to frighten the young and offer no inspiration to the more mature, if teachers are underpaid and selected by favoritism, and the state does not use its resources for a better society. First objects of his attack are content and methods of the schools. T h e greatest lack of the former, to his mind, is its remoteness from real life. Its personification is the scholar who teaches his students how to keep the populace in check or to conduct diets of the realm, but lets his wife wear the breeches, and trembles when he is required to address some petty town official.14 Improvement must start with the schools preparing for the university. They, and not the university, must teach the fundamentals. 1 5 Important on this level are the languages and the subjects that train the memory. 16 T h e arts are not to be neglected, 17 and the interests of the children 1 8 as well as their ability level must be considered. 19 Practical usefulness is especially to be the guide in planning university curricula. Most of Schupp's suggestions for these are grouped about four areas: oratory, the classics, scholastic philosophy and logic, and the sciences. One of his first fields of success at Marburg and one of his earliest loves was oratory. In his Latin works of the university period he imagines himself the spiritual descendant of the Romans, and exhorts youth to enter into a contest in this, their noblest art. 20 Despite this classical pose, Schupp's practical sense is revealed early: the Latin of orators, so often mere phrase, is to be devoted to enhancing other arts. 21 In De oratore inepto he still reveals a youthful tendency to pass lightly over serious problems by showing jokingly how beneficial oratory would be to the market-place doctor who cannot sell his wares, or to a man who wishes to curse bad fortune. 2 2 In De arte, however, oratory is advocated for the preacher, not as a means to converting those of other faiths, but in order to warn sinners and console the wretched. 23 When mention of oratory reappears in Lehrmeister, the shift to German has been completed, and Schupp devotes the work to stressing the value of a natural eloquence springing from ability and the desire to approach problems directly and constructively. Schupp's attitude toward the classics as part of the university curriculum is ambiguous. As a man of learning he expresses his admiration for Cicero, Aristotle, and Homer; 24 as a satirist he follows the example of Lucian in his Lucianus. Especially in his postuniversity days, however, he shows a marked disfavor of the classics. In Lucianus

118

T H E C U L T U R A L P R O B L E M IN SCHUPP

he calls their philosophy pedantic, atheistic, and immoral; 2 5 and in De arte he concludes that their science leads to nothing but quarrels. 26 In short, the wisdom they have to offer may be sought in the Bible, where statesman and orator find all they need. 27 In spite of this ambiguity, there is no real conflict in his view of the classics. He rejects that part which leads to theorizing and the impractical, or which might encourage a deviation from orthodox Lutheranism, but he admires much in classical literature and style, and it is his desire to raise the achievement of the Germans to a comparable level. This qualified acceptance also appears in the place which he assigns to classical works in the schools. T h e great literature of the ancients is not to be omitted, but it is to be taught on a level where the students are mature enough to comprehend it. 2 8 T h e Latin language, dispensable as it is in many ways, is also to be taught, preferably on the pre-university level, as we stated above. Schupp's greatest cause of dissatisfaction with school curricula arises from the continued dominance of scholastic logic and philosophy in the universities. T h e i r disciples are ridiculed throughout his works; e.g., the youth newly returned from the university who can prove that if one has three eggs one has five, and whose father thereupon gives him the two "derived" eggs and eats the three original ones himself; 2 9 or the magister who dictates abstruse metaphysical problems to his princely pupil, but who, when asked what they mean, answers "Sir, those are things which I have from the noble philosopher, Jacob Martin, those are things, I say, which many a magister does not understand." 3 0 Substitutes for this unproductive theorizing are the study and application of the natural sciences. T h e sciences thus far, Schupp tells us in De arte, have consisted of generalizations, and in consequence the awakening of science in Germany is to be wished rather than expected. 31 Physics is especially valuable, yet professors do not know as much about it as a peasant with a knowledge of practical matters, 32 for true scientific knowledge is not to be found at the universities. 33 Mathematics, equally essential, remains theoretical instead of being taught in German in such a way that even artisans may benefit from it. 34 Schupp's untiring stress on the applicability of education to life also appears in his suggestion that travel supplement formal education. Thus he uses the fiction of the journey, so popular in the century's satire, in an entirely literal sense as an actual contact with the world and men of experience, planned not to observe the follies of others, but to supply the knowledge neglected by the universities.35 As much in need of revision as the curriculum, if the schools are to

T H E CULTURAL PROBLEM IN SCHUPP

119

benefit the individual and society, are the methods of teaching, and here again Schupp exceeds other satirists in the extent of his censure and constructive suggestion. Following the trend among progressive educators of his time, he demands that change in method be directed toward making the process of learning a more pleasant and natural one, as, for instance, by creating a friendly atmosphere in the classroom, 36 and by extensive use of mnemonic devices in place of memorization. 37 Most important, German is to be substituted for Latin as the language of learning, since he is convinced that the student can learn to love God or cure the sick in his own language as well as in another. 38 If in outlining details of curriculum and method Schupp exceeds the limits of what others considered suitable material for popular consumption, he returns to their favorite object of satire in his treatment of the teacher. But far from making of him the vehicle for ridiculing petty schemers or the arrogant and uncouth as do Weise and Gryphius, Schupp considers him of the utmost importance to society. He states in Schulwesen: A government is greatly benefited by a good, sensible councilor, but I do not know if it might not find more useful an upright, good,—good, I say,—sensible, learned, and not merely pedantic teacher. For he can educate many chancellors, councilors, doctors, superintendents, and similar distinguished, learned persons. 39

For this reason Schupp is more merciless than others in attacking the weaknesses of the teacher: cruelty,40 ineffectuality in contacts with actual life,41 ignorance, 42 vanity. 43 Particularly in Schupp's later works, however, the portrait of the ideal teacher appears concurrently with the adverse one. The teacher should be wise, kindly, and experienced; 44 not the callow youth fresh from the university, but the father of a family, a man who is pious, studious, thoughtful, and understanding. 45 Like teachers, students are criticized sharply, yet also approached constructively. Their weaknesses are many: they drink, quarrel, are cruel to young people entering the university, 46 then, perhaps, acquire their degrees by means of bribery,47 and eventually consider themselves fit tutors for noblemen or proper educators for children. 48 T o offset these adverse criticisms, helpful suggestions, already included in the foregoing concerning the choice of curriculum and preparation for life, are crystallized in the advice by the young patrician in De arte, and in Schupp's fatherly suggestions to young Philandersohn in Salomo and to his own son in Freund. The person educated to be useful to himself and society is the

120

T H E C U L T U R A L P R O B L E M IN S C H U P P

p r o d u c t of school, teacher, and his own efforts. Yet all these comb i n e d are not sufficient, to Schupp's mind, if state or city overlooks its d u t y in s u p p o r t i n g education or placing the proper value on the t r a i n e d person. M e n t i o n has already been made in a previous chapter of the advice S c h u p p gives the authorities concerning these matters, advice ranging f r o m the provision of special education for noblem e n or artisans 4 9 to leveling a tax for the support of the schools. 50 A great p a r t of the solicitude for education on the part of the authorities must be directed toward the teacher. Instead of the disdain which prompts the "politici" to give teaching positions to those w h o m they can use for n o t h i n g else, 51 Schupp advocates appointments solely on the basis of merit. 5 2 Further, if the right m a n is appointed, he must be p a i d adequately. Schupp deems the appearance of the poor, exiled schoolmasters in the introductory portion of De arte symbolic of the wretched state of all teachers. In Salomo he speaks ironically of an ideal land where, a m o n g other things, teachers are underpaid a n d overworked; a n d in Buszspiegel he repeats that there is no harder work t h a n teaching a n d n o n e worse paid. 5 3 N o t only teachers b u t students must receive support from the state. Even if the schools are improved, there are many students w h o cann o t benefit by t h e m because they are too poor to study, and for these every k i n d of assistance, private a n d public, should be available. Positions are to be f o u n d near the university for them, and they should be encouraged to make themselves independent by learning trades. 3 4 At the same time, wealthy patrons as well as the state should give them financial aid. 5 5 Finally, the state must learn to use the men so trained. 5 " I n proportion to the solicitude Schupp devotes to the problems of f o r m a l education, that given to education by parents is comparatively limited. T h i s does not indicate that he deems their role less valuable t h a n , d o other satirists. Faulty u p b r i n g i n g of children is one of the great sins of the city of H a m b u r g , to his m i n d ; 57 and in Corinna the effect of a bad parental example is depicted in glaring colors. But while Schupp recognizes the role of parents in the development of the child, his strong social consciousness does not allow him to place the chief responsibility in the home when state, city, and schools have so large a share in producing the valuable adult, and are so conspicuously remiss. Schupp's views on religion, like those on education, have been treated so extensively by Vial, Weicker, and others that his place a m o n g contemporary satirists need only be summarized. He resembles them

T H E C U L T U R A L P R O B L E M IN S C H U P P

121

particularly in his aversion to quarreling among Christian sects and i n his stress on practical Christianity. T h e differences stem mainly from his triple viewpoint as educator, minister, and statesman. As a minister he naturally places greater importance upon moral censure and instruction and on the weaknesses of his church in its attitude toward its charges; the viewpoint of the amateur statesman brings with it the belief in the essential role of religion and the preacher in the state; as an educator, finally, he is concerned with the proper training of the clergy. Only Abraham equals Schupp in the severity with which he attacks the weaknesses within his own church: unethical procedures in the selection of preachers, 88 unwillingness to offer material aid to converts, 59 neglect of religious and lay education, 60 dogmatic bickering. 61 Schupp's censure of the church takes on an added incisiveness when he trains his satire on the ministers themselves. Vanity and pedantry are the lesser of their sins. 62 Most serious, if one may judge by the number of references, are the use of bribery and influence to obtain positions, 63 and the reluctance to preach against the worst sins of their congregation, 64 especially if the transgressors are noblemen. Adverse criticism of the minister is tempered, as it is in the case of the teacher, by a sympathy born of painful personal experience, and by a lofty concept of the minister's place in the state. Schupp even shows some understanding for the minister's reluctance to preach frankly against sin. In Corinna, he tells of a court preacher who cannot take his immoral master to task for his sins because conditions in his own family do not permit him to jeopardize his post. 65 Schupp finds this experience so common that he advises the prospective candidate to prepare himself for it in advance. 66 John the Baptist is for him the typical preacher in this respect, and a poignant projection of Schupp himself, 67 and he looks upon his own spiritual and physical suffering as a kind of martyrdom to be borne for purification of the soul. 68 In comparison with his boldness in treating both the weaknesses of the preacher and the suffering to which he is subjected, Schupp's frequent attacks on other religions strike one as a conservative product of his profession. Yet when one considers the extent to which the Lutheran sermon of his period was devoted to polemics against Calvinist and Catholic, 6 9 Schupp's restraint is remarkable. In contrast to current practice, he demands that the minister concentrate on the actual sins of his congregation, and he drives home the point in Corinna, where the whore, so moved by a sermon against unbelievers that she would like to destroy them with her own hands, nevertheless

122

T H E C U L T U R A L PROBLEM IN SCHUPP

continues her way of life as before. Only Schupp's Aurora, translated later under the title of Fruhstunde, consists entirely of a Lutheran refutation of Catholic, Calvinist, and other tenets. In Florian, Schupp presents the arguments used in converting the unfortunate knight, but then goes on to his chief topic, a censure of Lutherans who do nothing for the assistance of converts. In addition to these two works, only Ambrosi Mellilambii Sendschreiben concerns itself with another faith, in this case the activity of the Jesuits in Poland. Other references, scattered desultorily throughout his works, are briefer and not great in number. T h e majority is directed against the beliefs and practices of Catholics, while Calvinists and other religions appear less frequently. T h e purport of these attacks is that only the orthodox Lutheran may hope for salvation. Schupp may admit that some heathen are kinder than Christians, but he believes that they are nevertheless forever damned because they are unbaptized and do not act for the glory of God. 70 Nor would it be sufficient merely to hold any one of the Christian faiths; only the Lutheran faith is acceptable to God. 71 If Schupp deplores the quarrels among Christians, therefore, it is not because he entertains any thoughts of syncretism, but because he believes that all should become Lutherans. Indeed, he is convinced that many would do so if they had the opportunity. 7 2 Schupp's stress on practical Christianity, consequently, springs not from a relaxation of strict orthodoxy, b u t from the conviction that even the possession of what is to him the only true faith does not insure salvation unless it leads to a godly way of life. If Schupp strikes us as out of step with certain other satirists in his rigid Lutheranism, he resembles them more closely in his equally conservative rejection of the newer theories in science and philosophy. T a k e n as a body they appear to him either as fruitless conjecture in an age beset with a thousand problems, or as sinful arrogance which seeks to substitue h u m a n reason for the word of God. It is true that he considers the sciences essential to school and state, but, impelled by his own rational and somewhat unimaginative mentality, and surfeited with the fatuous theorizing characteristic of the universities, he approaches science from the viewpoint of its applicability to real problems. Philosophers should make rivers navigable instead of measuring the stars with Galileo's tube, and kings should devote themselves to ruling well instead of spending their time on poetry and astronomy. 73 Whatever exceeds this practical aim is to his mind merely an expression of man's pride. Those who try to discover where the wind comes from or to predict the end of the world by means of the movements of

T H E C U L T U R A L P R O B L E M IN S C H U P P

123

a comet are overlooking the clear and simple statements concerning these things in the Bible. 7 4 Similarly, those who argue for the Copernican theory so convincingly that Schupp himself would believe them were not the Bible against it, do this, in his opinion, merely to show their cleverness. 75 It cannot be denied, nevertheless, that scientific questions teased Schupp's reason. For, notwithstanding a sturdy Lutheran orthodoxy which brushes aside the incomprehensible in religion with a "Deus dixit" 7 6 or with the conviction that its interpretation is unessential to salvation, 77 he speculates on such problems as the nature of Job's diseases, 78 the possible identity of Ophir with America, 79 the true authorship of a certain psalm ascribed to David; 8 0 or he suggests that Aristotle learned of the immortality of the soul from the Egyptians who in turn obtained their knowledge from the Jews. 81 At other times he mingles the scientific and the religious, as when he expresses the opinion that religious defection may be due to poor health of which the devil has taken advantage. 82 Even more boldly, he at times attributes the incomprehensible in the Bible to figurative expression or to limited human understanding. He interprets the statement that God lowered the heavens as a metonymy for low-hanging clouds, or he says that the devil's ability to perform what appear to be miracles is derived merely from his superior knowledge of physics. 83 These traces of a nascent rationalism in Schupp's works are few and have no parallel in his opinions on the newer philosophy, the entire body of which he groups unselectively under atheism. As early as Somnium he states that atheism rules, while the learned agree and youth grows accustomed to it. 84 Later, he defines the groups most guilty as the great who think there is no God, 85 and the universities, such as those of Münster and Osnabrück, where disputes concerning the immortality of the soul may be heard. 86 It has been indicated at various points in the course of the preceding chapters that whatever the content or degree of severity of satire, whatever its scope or its limitations, one element remains constant throughout the century—the preoccupation with the nature of man. If his institutions were inadequate or his times appeared to mislead him, if his betters set him a wicked example or his education by parent or school was improper, he himself was ultimately at fault because of his sinfulness or his lack of judgment. This human orientation accounts for certain elements conspicuously lacking in the satire of the century as a whole: the search for deeper social or political causes of problems

124

T H E C U L T U R A L P R O B L E M IN SCHUPP

in the affairs of community or nation; more than sporadic suggestions for effecting improvements; attacks upon personal enemies. Most striking of these is the reluctance or the inability on the part of the satirists to seek deeper causes of the deficiencies in larger affairs. T h e form of the state, the origin of princely authority, the nature of law, all scrutinized by contemporary thinkers and their predecessors, and made topical by the startling events in England, are hardly reflected in the German satire. Instead, the traditional and familiar forms are accepted and the ruler and his officials are censured for the special sinfulness accompanying their positions—injustice, love of luxury, and wastefulness—just as innkeepers or soldiers are censured for their special forms of dishonesty or folly. Similarly, occupations appear in most instances only as convenient means for surveying the universal wickedness of human beings or their proneness to unreasonable behavior, and not as parts of the social whole. T h e classes are occasionally treated with a somewhat clearer sense of their social and political position, but even the peasants, though the satirists continue to show an awareness of their persistently unfortunate state, are presented in the comedy as little more than convenient embodiments of the uncultured. Even less clearly social or political in viewpoint is the satire directed against the middle class. Certainly the current concepts in political philosophy had their origin, in part at least, in the changing role of the class, yet we hear chiefly of a love of ostentation and luxury, of ludicrous ambition and other follies and foibles of behavior. Nationalism, too, does not escape moral treatment. One might, for example, suspect little of Louis the Fourteenth's policy of expansion in the seventies from Weise's cautious attack on the moral deterioration of the Germans under the influence of Mistevo's envoys, in his Hauptverderber. T h e other major satiric objects are dealt with in the same way: false piety is censured, but little is said for or against newer philosophical thought; women are ridiculed for what are considered typical characteristics, but the prevalence of divorce and other signs of their changing position barely receive mention; educational trends are left to specialists, and satire is directed against remiss parents, or against pedantic or crafty schoolmasters. Logau, to be sure, says that it is hard to be virtuous in evil times,87 but he says also that not the times are bad, but the manners of men, 88 and this, whatever the changes which satire undergoes in the course of the century, expresses the convictions of its writers. This consistent stress on behavior brings with it also the absence of practical suggestions for improvement. T o be sure, constructiveness is

T H E C U L T U R A L PROBLEM IN SCHUPP

125

not the satirist's province. He has fulfilled his mission when he has revealed the fault. Yet seventeenth-century satire is so strongly mingled with the didactic that one might expect something more than the visionary projections of Grimmelshausen by way of a plan for a better world. Examples enough were at hand, such as More, Bacon, Andreae, to mention only the few that come to mind readily, all familiar to the century, and with techniques for idea presentation which might have appealed to the imitative propensities of the satirists. In addition, there are men like Comenius and others, or Seckendorff, the practical social economist and educator, who invited defense or contradiction. Yet the major stream of satire remains aloof from them, and concentrates on the nature and behavior of mankind, firm, obviously, in the conviction that this alone, and no amount of theorizing or planned reform, could improve the world. A third corollary of the human orientation is the virtual absence of personal attacks or extensive polemics, all the more remarkable in a century in which constant references are made to the prevalence of sycophancy, plotting, and favoritism. T h e satirists' repeated avowal that no actual person is meant in their censure might be summarized in Rachel's typically prosaic line that the poet "Spares, to be sure, all men, but not a single vice." 89 Examples, again, were close enough, above all in the polemics of the preceding century, but one looks in vain for a parallel among the major satirists. Only Reuter dared to break through the cautious tradition with his crude attack on his landlady and the lawyer who prosecuted him. Elsewhere the individual disappears behind the type, and though the attack must have struck home sharply enough, particularly in some passages of Logau, Moscherosch, or Abraham, our attention is always centered on the universality of the specific example. Schupp, like the other satirists of his age, concerns himself primarily with the typical human being, indeed, with man as seen from the viewpoint of religious morality, for it is in the final analysis the wickedness of humanity which in Schupp's opinion causes the evil and misery of his world. Nevertheless, Schupp's incomparably greater stress on the practical and the actual in man's circumstances fills, to some degree, the gaps left in the satire of 'he other writers under discussion It was stated above that this concern with the immediate is at least in part responsible for so much of the polemic writing in Schupp's works. Not only does he take cognizance to an unusual extent of the attacks leveled against him, but he invites attack unwittingly by the self-assurance of a man aware that he has the ability and the vocation

126

T H E CULTURAL PROBLEM IN SCHUPP

to deal effectively with problems in education, state, society, and the moral life of his congregation. For the same reason, Schupp also exceeds his fellow satirists in the number of practical and constructive suggestions accompanying his satire. In De arte and Salomo he undertakes to show how state-wide planning and the careful use of human and natural resources can alleviate the unsatisfactory condition of the war and postwar periods; in Schulwesen he presents the suggestions of various educators, himself included, for improving the schools and, ultimately, for bettering the moral state of the world; and so on. Related to this constructiveness is the fact that he seeks the deeper causes of the evils he satirizes. He does not engage in more social or political theorizing than other satirists, to be sure, but he looks more frequently into the reasons why certain inadequacies exist in state and society as he finds them: he attributes the immorality of Hamburg to special conditions which encourage the evil propensities of man; or he seeks to account for the ineffectuality of teachers and schools by examining curriculum, learning methods, attitude of the state toward education, and other matters. It is this unusual feeling for the actualities of his world, too, which distinguishes Schupp's philosophical and aesthetic approach from that of his fellow satirists.

Part Three: Religion and Philosophy XI RELIGIOUS IDEALS A N D SOCIAL REALITY

T

HUS FAR the characteristic form and content of satire as it appears in the seventeenth century in Germany have been under consideration. The title of this section would seem to imply that satire is here thought of as distinguished from other literary genres by a special philosophy of life as well. Certainly such an interpretation of the term would not be in accord with standard usage.1 The fact that a writer holds up certain shortcomings for reprobation by the various stylistic devices typically employed by the satirist does not necessarily indicate that he is motivated by a pessimistic philosophy of life: Goethe could ridicule Wagner and Marthe yet grant salvation to Faust. In speaking of German satire in the seventeenth century, however, it is not incorrect to treat its critical approach to reality as the product of a special view. For like any serious moralist of that age, the satirist sits in stern judgment on finite reality. The wrongs of his times or of contemporaries are to him not merely products of certain conditions, but evidence of the evil inescapably present in man. The martyrdom of Gryphius' tragic heroes, Simplicius' struggle with his sinfulness, and Moscherosch's bitter indictment of the world's hypocrisy are philosophically of one piece. As the discussions on form and content of the satire have indicated, however, this philosophy of rejection does not remain unchanged throughout the century, nor is it unexceptionally present in any one satirist. A portion of the satire, therefore, might also be classified as humor. One must not think here of humor as Bahnsen defines it,2 not, that is, of the noble brother of tragedy, taking cognizance like the latter of the deepest contradictions between the real and the ideal. Rather, one must think of humor in the accepted sense as the ability to appreciate the ludicrous or the incongruous with a certain degree of sympathy. 3 It is true that not everything in the century which presents itself either as critical satire or as sympathetic humor is deserving of the terms. Much, especially in later decades, is pure snobbery,

128

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL REALITY

a pseudo satire parading as honest censure or good-natured raillery while it seeks only to debase its object or flatter the reader. Nevertheless, this ambiguity too is an indication of a relaxation of severity and in line, therefore, with the general trend in the direction of a more nearly reconciled attitude toward finite reality. It must be pointed out that the achievement of a sympathetic approach to what was formerly an object of censure is not here taken as a goal to be striven for, but merely as an indication that a different concept of man and life has come into being. It is not of necessity a better or more profound concept. For obviously, to treat wrongdoing humorously dulls the fighter's edge and blurs his moral standard. W h a t the more tolerant view gains in insight, it loses in clarity of focus and in dynamic force. T h e use of the terms, therefore, will be a guide to the nature of the change rather than a means to evaluation. In referring in previous chapters to the meliorative development of the satire, reference has been made repeatedly to an older and a younger group, as though the satire of the century actually permitted so facile a division. It is true, to be sure, that the greater number of satirists under discussion fall naturally into two such groups: an older one guided in its censure by the principles of an austere religious idealism, yet at the same time intensely aware of contemporary social wrongs; and a younger one following on the whole the dictates of milder, somewhat vaguely defined Christian ethics, and concerned rather with man as a psychological reality than with the problems of his world. Members of the older group are Moscherosch, Logau, and Lauremberg, born between 1590 and 1604; those of the younger group are Weise, Rachel, Reuter, and the popular entertainers Riemer, Happel, and Beer, born between 1618 and 1665. T h e artificiality of this division is obvious at once. Lauremberg, though he is the oldest of the satirists, lacks the encompassing moral and social view of his closest contemporaries, while Grimmelshausen, far younger than he, must be placed with his group on the basis of his philosophy of life, though he also differs from all the satirists in essential respects. In like manner, Gryphius, clearly a member of the younger group on the basis of chronology as well as the nature of the satiric elements in his comedies, would show greater kinship with Logau, were the philosophical view of his tragedies alone taken into consideration. Abraham, finally, more closely related to the older satirists in the severity of his moral standards, is so nearly contemporaneous with Weise (Weise, 1642-1708; Abraham, 1644-1709) that he invites placement with the younger men because of the revealing contrast he affords to their manner of thinking.

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

129

In spite of these difficulties of classification, the division into an older a n d a younger group has been maintained in discussing the philosophical approach of the seventeenth-century satirists since it is not without value in showing the nature of the larger development in their thinking. Accordingly, the present chapter concerns itself with the view of Moscherosch, Logau, Lauremberg, and Grimmelshausen, and Chapter X I I I treats that of Weise and the others in his group, with Abraham as the grand exception. Logau is essentially the satirist. His bitter censure spares neither his times nor the innate evil in man's being. It is true that he is not the crabbed ascetic who derives no joy from the pleasures of the flesh,4 but in the ultimate analysis he sees the world and God in incessant conflict,5 and only the virgin as the lovely embodiment of that which man was originally meant to be. 8 This profoundly moral approach is underscored by his technique and style, as previous discussions indicated. T h e epigram gives nothing but the bare topography of life. Neither •wit nor enlivening concreteness, such of these as he commands, can conceal the fact that his is a barren landscape peopled with typified names and single qualities, but devoid of a h u m a n figure with even the alleviating detail of a satiric portrait such as one finds in Moscherosch or Abraham. Nevertheless, Logau strikes one frequently as the thoughtful observer of life rather than the harsh critic. He has a self-sufficiency and an inner fortitude which give him a perspective not ordinarily found in the satire of his age. Others pretend to place their objects at a distance in order to show their small regard for them, but they cannot conceal their painful involvement. Logau's is at heart the philosopher's view, reflective, melancholy, but manful in its rejection of a worthless reality for that which has true worth: God, wisdom, creativity, and the simple human joys such as friendship and the land. His love of God is unique among the satirists. God is for him neither the wrathful judge of Moscherosch and Grimmelshausen, nor the shadowy Providence of the later period. Logau loves Him with a profound personal closeness,7 yet with a dignity and restraint that is free of the sentimentality of the mystics. He is a God of stern justice, 8 but also a friend of man. 9 In the same lofty sense death is a refuge for Logau. It represents for him not primarily the wages of sin, but the grant of peace. 10 As unique as Logau's approach to God and death is that to wisdom. It is more than a practical aid in difficult times; it has little in common with the polyhistory cultivated by certain writers of the century. It is a haven of the spirit such as a man of the Renaissance might have

130

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

sought, distinct from religion and the transcendental values, available within this life as joy and a solace, humbling in its vastness but granting a taste of eternity. 11 His attitude toward creativity likewise sets him apart from others. He does not deny that his epigrams are first a means to telling the truth laughingly, 12 but beyond this utilitarian aim poetry is, like wisdom, a piece of eternity within the finite. It brings little bread but it remains true to its writer; it is more enduring than the art of the painter; more gratifying than the favor of men. 13 Logau is characteristically modest in practicing his art. Just as he is humble before wisdom, so he does not rank himself with great poets. 14 He insists that his epigrams are written after his day's work is done, as an exercise and a relaxation for the senses, and with all possible dispatch, so that he may return again to more important duties. 15 Yet it is obvious that his need to write stems from an urge reaching more deeply than intellectual need or desire for reform. He writes as he must, for himself or perhaps a few friends, and in the full awareness that if his poetry is not all good, it is also not entirely bad. 16 For all this self-sufficiency, however, Logau reveals himself to the reader not as the superior mentor but as a warmly human personality who has learned to know himself as well as others. His preferences, his loves, and his artistic individuality are presented not as models but as an expression of his own needs. They may be identical with the highest standards, but one never loses the feeling that they are first of all Logau's own. It would be false to create the impression that Logau achieves a philosopher's perspective only in his self-revelation. T h o u g h his diverse mosaic of public and private wrong shows him as the critic of society, the larger picture as it may be reconstructed from his epigrams gives evidence of a clear-sightedness more typical of the observer than the plaintiff or the victim. Even if he appears to consider virtually every man guilty of some serious wrong—stinginess, selfishness, arrogance, impiety—Logau still retains sufficient objectivity to be moved to advice and comment as well as censure, as we have stated previously. This philosopher's perspective does not signify that Logau has achieved an acceptance of reality or an understanding of the amusing or pitiful contradictoriness of man. It may serve as a bulwark against the pain and ugliness of the real; it cannot reconcile him to it. Nevertheless, his viewpoint is significant for satiric development because it indicates a felt need for release from the oppression of reality, and gives some idea of the paths which this search for release was to take. T h e philosopher's distance of Logau remains unique among German satirists. Others were too much involved or too much the pedagogues to

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

131

achieve it to his degree. But the revelation of the personal, though it is found in no one else in the same form, is present throughout the century as an alleviating element in satire. First, it represents the right to protest which is one of the prerogatives of the satirist. It varies in the degree and nature of its expression; often it does not go beyond a timid revelation of individual viewpoint at a time when sublimation and acceptance are demanded by the mores of society. But it reappears constantly as a reminder that neither overwhelming evil nor rigid conventionalism could repress entirely the independence of spirit gained in Renaissance and Reformation. Further, Logau's "personalness" indicates that a foundation is being laid for an insight into the complexities of the h u m a n spirit. T h e implication of this insight for a kindlier view of life depends, of course, upon the nature of the self-revelation. A m a n in a mood of masochistic self-abnegation may achieve nothing more than another portrayal of human vileness. But if, like Logau, he reveals himself as a man of strength and dignity, humble before the highest values, amused at his own poetic crotchets, yet with a mature consciousness of his worth, 17 one has the beginnings of human understanding. T h o u g h the full development of this represents a potentiality rather than a fact in the seventeenth century, it is none the less indicative of a tendency which strives away from a concern with the countless wrongs of man and society to a comprehension of the essentially h u m a n with its ineluctable strength and weakness. Moscherosch's indictment of man and reality is, like Logau's, basically uncompromising. At least in the first part of the Gesichte the entire world appears to him to be on the path to hell or already within the dread precincts. His severity is mitigated somewhat in the second half of the Gesichte, and particularly in the first three visions. Nevertheless, his view is austere here also. After the lighter "Weiberlob" follows the serious arraignment of the nobility in " T h u r n i r " and the indictment of the soldier in "Soldatenleben." Even lesser wrongs are still harshly censured, and generalizations concerning the wickedness of the world have not ceased. As in Logau, the severity of this view is based on a profoundly moral approach to reality. Every incident in man's life, every success or failure, is significant for the future welfare of his soul, yet man adheres perversely and ludicrously to evil and folly, and Christianity itself has virtually no protectors. 18 Like Logau, Moscherosch does not reject natural man unconditionally. T h e body is not hopelessly vile; the erotic is even looked upon as necessary 19 or appealing, 20 and the physical can be the object of robust but healthy amuse-

132

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS A N D SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

ment. 2 1 But physical m a n is nevertheless relegated to a lower sphere: the n a t u r a l impulses lead to vanity a n d absurdity of behavior; they can never become the objects of understanding, sympathy, or u n i n h i b i t e d enjoyment. 2 2 N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g this basic similarity in approach, Moscherosch differs vastly f r o m L o g a u in the degree of tension aroused in h i m by the wrongs he censures. T h e a u t h o r of the Gesichte probes nervously i n t o every detail of the h u m a n scene. Princes a n d tailors, noblemen a n d innkeepers, musicians a n d ambitious courtiers, hypocritical widows a n d m u r d e r o u s doctors, groups i m p o r t a n t a n d u n i m p o r t a n t , vast or minute, all awaken the a u t h o r ' s w r a t h and all are assigned to hell. N o r can he be satisfied with the simple effectiveness of his larger devices. H e is impelled to underscore by q u o t a t i o n , invective, preaching, explanation, a n d allegory u n t i l one has the impression of a man driven to the brink of despair by the hopeless wickedness a r o u n d him. His very excessiveness, of course, reduces the impact of his bitterness, yet it also gives evidence of a nervous irritability too intense to distinguish between degrees of evil. T h e r e is n o question that his tension is perceptibly relaxed in the later portions of the Gesichte. But the seriousness of many accusations as well as his f r e q u e n t scolding and sermonizing are constant reminders that he can never view life easily. Less obvious t h a n c o n t e n t a n d form in producing a sense of tension, yet unquestionably m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l to it, is the almost complete absence of an area of repose such as Logau has found. Moscherosch is n o t a d r i f t amid u n r e l a t e d a n d unrelatable phenomena; a manliness, firmness, a n d clarity of view are a p p a r e n t enough. But while these provide a standard of measurement, they are not a refuge in the sense that God, learning, or creative work is a refuge for Logau. T o a m a n living the precarious life Moscherosch describes in Insomnis, God's severity must inevitably be m o r e conspicuous than His fatherly kindness, a n d learning can have little attraction beyond its practical end. For the same reason, Moscherosch's professed aim in writing can only be censure a n d attack, a n d never relaxation of the spirit. 2 3 T h e r e is n o d o u b t that h e derives pleasure from creativity, especially in the m o r e i n d e p e n d e n t second p a r t of the Gesichte where he indulges his imagination and his playfulness with greater freedom. T h e contradiction between expressed a n d actual purpose which thereby enters into his writing is typical of all true satire. T h e psychological motivation for any form of creativity is obviously release, whether this is conscious or not. T h e n a t u r e of satire is such, however, that the writer may not a t t a i n the degree of release achieved by other genres, since he is only

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

133

one step removed from the first, one might say, undigested reaction to reality. Anger or annoyance has been controlled sufficiently to permit something more than direct attack; the object is already seen in a certain perspective. But this perspective is not entirely a sublimation; it is a device which permits the satirist both to feign aloofness and to belittle his object. Immediately beneath his pretense, his reaction must remain intense and direct, else he is no longer a satirist in the stricter sense of the word. It is actually more significant, therefore, that Logau could find something approaching the perspective of the creative artist than that Moscherosch could not. It was surely not easy for a deeply religious man to find a refuge in a world which must seem to the more thoughtful and devout to be hastening to damnation in the most literal sense. Yet Moscherosch's satire, too, shows certain alleviating elements. These, present to some degree throughout the satire of the century, as previously stated, and indicative of a growing interest in man, are two: a tendency to see man as a tragicomic mixture of good and evil, and a delight in human portraiture. T h e view of man as a combination of strong and weak qualities appears in the satire of the age either as genuine or fictional self-revelation on the part of a figure speaking in the first person, e.g., Moscherosch's Philander, or it is embodied in an objective figure like his Expertus Robertus. True self-revelation does not play an important role in Moscherosch's writings since he does not give himself as readily as Logau. We see the man himself in Insomnis and in a few instances in the Gesichte where he speaks of his suffering during the war 24 or of his views concerning satire, 25 but the line of vision even here is directed outward. If he tells us that he hates both dourness and flippancy, it is by way of justifying his use of satire instead of direct attack. If he speaks in Insomnis cura parentum of his suffering during the war, it is to impress upon his family the need for following his suggestions in the event of his death. He does not speak of his loves and idiosyncrasies for the mere sake of self-communication. He is clearly more comfortable in the screened or simulated selfrevelation of his pseudo-picaresque hero, Philander. Moscherosch has been identified with Expertus Robertus 2 6 rather than with Philander, but there is no question that he projects himself into the latter as well. If nothing else, he imparts to him some of the contradictoriness which the honest man must discern in his own nature. This is apparent even in Part I, despite the fact that Philander's character here vacillates between that of the unsophisticated observer and that of the informant. But in Part II, Philander's contours are firmer, his psychic identity with

134

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

the author more obvious, and his personality richer. As the author of the first part of the Gesichte and the representative of modern fashions in dress and language, he moves into the center of the action, is misunderstood, upbraided, judged; a plot develops about him, he is forced to flee, is captured by soldiers and made to accompany them on their maraudings. Tempted by their way of life but sobered by imprisonment and illness, he finally returns to the court of the old heroes, promises to mend his ways, and is commended and acquitted. If in the course of this experience he is influenced by Ariovistus and the others, 27 he never abandons his convictions entirely, 28 nor does he lose the ability to recognize amusing qualities even in those whom he admires. T h e old heroes also show that Moscherosch was drawn toward a richer portraiture. They represent the highest standards of honesty, justice, and good sense, yet Moscherosch does not overlook the amusing facets of their contrast to the man of his own times. They have the refreshing but droll virility of the primitive, which serves rather as an indication of how far the present has deviated from it than as a model to be followed. At the same time he gives them human warmth. We see them at close range, dispensing justice, eating, exchanging tales, even—in the case of poor Hans Thurnmeyer—tippling to forget a shrewish wife. Like Philander, they do not come to life entirely; their human traits are merely seen in flashes amid verbosity and sermonizing. But the creative enjoyment Moscherosch derives from their portraiture is unmistakable. Portraits like these eventually played a lesser role in seventeenthcentury satire. T h e inclination from the start was rather to present types representing individual human traits than to delineate the good and evil within a single character. In Moscherosch, too, by far the greater number of figures embody simply one outstanding vice or foible. Yet even here anticipations of the more reconciled attitude of later satire are discernible. It is of importance above all that Moscherosch moves from the abstract to the concrete in the course of the Gesichte. T h e first part still uses extensively the allegorical figure or the type that is hardly more than a bloodless abstraction. T h e second part, richer in humorous as well as more fully developed satiric portraits, approaches the dimensions of life more closely. T h e mourning widow who so soon finds consolation in another love, 29 Laelius with his Latinized German, Mutius Jungfisch who boasts of his knowledge and extensive travels, are not viewed with tolerance, but the detail in their treatment permits the author to dwell on their purely comic aspects: the widow's dialect, Laelius' delight at being able to join his "trumpet of a Hungarian o x "

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

135

in song with the French drinking party, Mutius' boastfulness, which turns into abject fear. 30 It must be reiterated that such playfulness is not the rule. It is overgrown rankly by anger, scolding, moralizing, and countless examples of wickedness. Yet its vigorous sprouting cannot be repressed. Girls who are warned that if they do not cease wearing false wooden bosoms young men will begin to wear wooden trousers, the lawyer at the Last Judgment who returns to his grave as the shortest road to hell, the three who call themselves wretched musicians and reveal themselves to be that in truth, after they have been fed and asked to sing31—these and many others may serve the ostensible purpose of making the truth palatable, but they also show that forces of health and life are crowding forward and striving, if unconsciously, for a reconciliation with reality, even at a time when reality presented its most forbidding aspect. While in Logau and Moscherosch the impression of severity predominates and the mitigating factors must be sought, the lighter elements in Lauremberg's satire obscure his austerity. T h e austerity exists, to be sure. T h e finite is viewed in his poems according to a scale of transcendental values, so that the actual wrongs of which Lauremberg accuses his fellows, as we have said, are sinful adornment of the body and disregard for the divine bounds of class, while generalizations concerning the prevalence of wickedness and repeated passages of scolding and moralizing serve as constant reminders that even trifles are not to be taken lightly. But overgrowing the grim skeleton and drawing attention from its potential ramifications are all the factors of scope and treatment: selection of a limited portion of reality, wit and imagination, healthy lustiness, creative self-awareness, which fill the foreground of his satire. T h e limitation of scope is of the utmost importance. Here is the first expression of the need to break up the huge panoramic review and the first obvious search for a release from the burdensome fullness of temporal wrong. T h e state, the classes, and occupations do not share the blame, as they do in Moscherosch, for a world rotted with evil. They have moved to the background where, despite sporadic mild censure, they constitute a firm structure of what is traditional and right. They do not yet constitute the standard of measurement which an idealized state represents for Gryphius and Anton Ulrich; Lauremberg even implies ominously that their predestined position is endangered by the sinful pride of man. But the reader's sense of balance is only momentarily upset. T h e foreground is taken up soon again by ludicrous foibles entertainingly treated, and the framework of society moves back reas-

136

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS A N D S O C I A L R E A L I T Y

suringly i n t o focus. T o be sure, for a man of L a u r e m b e r g ' s years and conservatism, fashions in dress, manners, and language u n d o u b t e d l y symbolized a general proneness to evil. Yet it is noteworthy that he gives p r o m i n e n c e to just these manifestations of h u m a n wickedness a n d not to other, more serious ones on which he touches only in passing, such as unchasteness, boastfulness and flattery, a n d the b l u r r i n g of moral values. 32 T h e impression of satiric mildness is strengthened by Lauremberg's s t a n d a r d of measurement. H e holds u p the manners of his fellows not against the ideal as f o u n d in Logau, Gryphius, a n d Moscherosch— divine grandeur, noble self-restraint, heroic ruggedness—but against reality as represented either by the simple, conservative m a n of the lower class, or by physical man as such. T h e tashions in dress and language as they a p p e a r to Matz P u m p , the peasant, the merchant, 3 3 or to the a u t h o r himself in the role of the innocent old burgher, may be sinful, b u t they are above all laughable because they are different f r o m that which has been accepted for generations by the ordinary m a n . Even more t h a n simple folk, physical m a n represents the h u m a n average, the n a t u r a l being to whose animal f u n c t i o n s a n d lusty impulses the affectations of the day are so egregiously unsuited. W h e n L a u r e m b e r g speaks of an elegantly dressed young lady who suffers f r o m flatulence, or when he suggests that shoes with their d o u b l e h o r n s symbolize cuckoldry; or when he lists a m o n g the uses of velvet its f u n c t i o n in covering the bellies of b u r g h e r women or providing lodgings for the breasts, he sets u p the robustly n a t u r a l as a station point f r o m which fashionable vanities 3 4 a p p e a r not so much wicked as irresistibly ludicrous. It has already been mentioned that satire contained an element of h u m a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g not f o u n d on the higher literary levels of the Baroque—the recognition of the individual's right to self-expression a n d protest. T o this must be added the admission, however reluctant, of the existence of physical m a n . T h e higher literary levels relegate the c r u d e r manifestations of the physical to the sphere of undisciplined, impassioned characters in the idealizing literature, or to the u n c u l t u r e d in the comedy, a n d retain as acceptable only those elements which evoke a spiritualized and intellectualized response, as in the novels a n d tragedies, or which appeal to sophisticated lewdness, as in the erotic poetry. Satire also judges man's physical being morally or laughs at its obscenity, b u t it does not conceal f r o m itself the fact that this physical being exists a n d must be reckoned with. L a u r e m b e r g , too, has this typical honesty of the satirist, b u t the moral o p p r o b r i u m in his treatm e n t of the physical is sharply reduced in comparison to Grimmels-

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

137

hausen or Abraham. It is present, of course. T h e derogation to man Ls obvious in the contrast between man the animal and man with his fashionable pretensions. But a healthy sensuality carries Lauremberg beyond moral censure to amusement and enjoyment. T h e brighter mood evoked by Lauremberg's satire is undeniably due i n large part to his skill. His economy of expression, the aptness of his comparisons, his feeling for the comic value of homely words and images, the consistency with which he maintains his pose as the slightly naive but stubborn old burgher have no equal in the German satire of his century. It is difficult to say how much of this is the product of native ability and how much expresses a growing tolerance toward the finite. Moscherosch and Abraham, who in their panoramic tendency aire the artistic antipodes of Lauremberg, also show traces of wit, concision, and imaginativeness but they indulge in them rarely in the broad surge and sweep of their bitterness. Lauremberg, on the other hand, shows a similar tendency to abandon satiric point for scolding; but he was, for whatever causes, whether of temperament or the circumstances of life, obviously able to rise sufficiently above an inadequate reality to employ and develop his special gifts. T h i s ability, however, though it presages the later development of satire, has little kinship with the view of life of men like Weise or Reuter. Lauremberg is a moralist at heart; he has nothing of their leisurely didacticism or their concern with social appropriateness. He is allied rather with Logau. He lacks the scope of the latter's view of life and the profoundness of his love for God, but he has, like Logau, found in creative self-expression a source of inner strength. This does not say that he has abandoned the pedagogical aim of satire. He writes first of all to censure abuses: 36 his cultivation of the irregular line of verse, the homely comparison, even the Low-German tongue, are primarily means to revealing the unnatural affectations of fashionable Baroque poetry. But they also constitute a stubborn assertion of his right to creative individuality. 3 6 More than this, his poetry is a release: he writes in his manner because he must have some lighter moments. 37 It will be recalled that Moscherosch justifies his satiric method by the need to coat the bitter pill of truth for others. Lauremberg, like Logau, admittedly coats it for himself as well. Writing is for Lauremberg not only self-expression and a refuge, but a calling in an almost modern sense of the term. All the satirists of the century ridicule the poetaster, and Logau and Rachel, at least, express a professional consciousness. But neither achieves the combination of idealism and sensible realism of Lauremberg in his portrait of the

138

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL REALITY

writer. As a man of integrity he writes as he must; as a man of pride he has his poet reject the pittance of the merchant who disdains his profession; as a man with an artistic contribution to make, he demands the right to both a livelihood and respect. 38 It is more than a jest, therefore, when he complains that he is still searching for the "big book" which tells how a writer may become rich, or when he has the merchant's impertinent maid take the tattered poet for the man who castrates the bulls. 39 And it is a ribald but appropriate act of vengeance on behalf of his profession when the poet suggests that if he had the maids alone he would prove to them what sort of man he is.40 As in Logau's case, Lauremberg's self-awareness as a writer provides not only a relaxation of satiric tension, but a tolerant insight into the complexities of human character. Lauremberg, to be sure, does not project himself as directly as Logau. T h e character he depicts is as much a satiric device as a reflection of his own personality. We may believe him if he speaks of his need to laugh, or even when he jests about his bald pate or his love of titles. 41 But the scholarly professor of mathematics at the University of Soro was hardly the innocent who mistook the meaning of fashionable poetry or who thought that girls with powdered hair were busy housekeepers or penitents. 42 Yet, fictional or real, the character that emerges has the dimensions of a human being. Lauremberg's contradictory traits, the amusing and the serious, good and bad, may be merely indicated, but they relate him to Logau and to Philander as a man seen tolerantly in the midst of the intolerance of satire. Lauremberg's favorable view of himself extends to others also, to the poet, the villagers, even to the merchant. 4 3 And in these also, the combination of the amusing and the serious adds to the general impression of relaxed tension characteristic of Lauremberg, for all his fundamental seriousness. Satire is rational and comprehensible; it deals with values readily defined, in primary colors. As soon as satire is mingled with understanding and sympathy it takes on something unclear, irrational, and its values are in half tones. Something of both exists side by side even in Logau and Moscherosch, and certainly in Lauremberg. There is a blurring of the line of demarcation between the transcendentally valuable and the valueless finite in all the factors reducing the severity of their satire: the escape from a problematic reality into philosophical distance, the revelation of a complex personality, the wit and playfulness with which satiric objects are treated. Genuine reconciliation is merely indicated in these instances because they are only a refuge f r o m the deepest contradictions, not a means to their acceptance.

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

139

Grimmelshausen, too, does not attain a harmony of opposites, but the extent to which he achieves an insight into the ineluctably human is outstanding among the writers of his century. T o be sure, like Moscherosch and Logau he has the need to press the living whole of reality into the rigid framewrok of religious morality: man is sinful, life is inconstant, every element of the finite is a reminder of human vanity and wickedness. But a shift in stress has already made its appearance. One might say that for Logau and Moscherosch and to some degree for Lauremberg, reality consists of a mass of diversified but static phenomena held together by a moral frame. For Grimmelshausen reality has independent dynamic force and religious morality is either a force equal to that of reality, as in Simplicissimus and Courasche, or it is superimposed somewhat unconvincingly upon reality, as in the lesser works of the cycle. In Simplicissimus and Courasche the equal forces of the real and the transcendental become manifest in the compulsive forward motion of the action and the pervasive mood of irony. T h e action, springing from within the central figure, released and channeled by the phenomena of reality, carries him toward life with an irresistible drive. T h e irony, overlaid by the narrator as he views his life in restrospect, reveals the deceptiveness of this drive, but thereby adds to the sense of vertigo it produces. In Courasche the irony is applied with utmost consistency, as Chapter I I I has already set forth. Every event in the life of the heroine is related by her with the unconcerned levity of one who knows that she is spiritually lost—her "marriages," her thieving, her adventurous exploits—until a mood of apprehension is created which weighs the irony upon the action like a prophecy of death. In Simplicissimus is used in like but more varied manner to indicate the author's evaluation of the actions he describes. During the period of Simplicius' innocence, Grimmelshausen employs the misconceptions and moral reflections of the lad as an ironic contrast to the folly of the world: Simplicius believes that dancing is a method for destroying the floor of a building; he cannot tell whether a cavalier with long hair is a man or a woman; the godlessness of those he observes at the court of the Gubernator of Hanau is so incomprehensible to him that he asks a clergyman whether he is among Christians. 44 Later, as Simplicius begins to act in the manner which he had censured previously, the author's ironic treatment is used to emphasize the sinfulness of his hero. At times, Simplicius' wickedness is described breezily, much as that of Courasche. When he plans to rob the priest's well-stocked larder, he says, " I left my heart with the smoked sausages"; 45 when he steals livestock he remarks that

140

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

the hogs followed him "without further argument";' 46 his bastard son is called a "pretty find." 4 7 At other times a less obtrusive irony appears when Simplicius recounts his sinful exploits in lively, apparently selfsatisfied fashion: his experiences with the unchaste ladies of Paris, his ambitious striving as a self-styled officer and nobleman, the deception he practices as a charlatan doctor. 48 Throughout the work serious moral reflection intensifies the irony and serves along with it as a constant reminder that Simplicius' actions are evil and the hopes with which life entices him are vain. Nevertheless, the ultimate impression in Courasche and Simplicissimtis is that life is as attractive as it is sinful and disappointing. So it is that Simplicius can only resolve the conflict between finite and infinite by flight, and he flees, significantly enough, not to an ascetic's cell but to an island richly endowed by nature. Yet here, too, the attraction of the world is so powerful that he must hide from the ship's company, only to yield at last and return in succeeding works of the cycle as a somewhat dour but tough old wanderer. Courasche, too, does not end in death or doom but, in keeping with her irrevocable loss of grace, in a giddy exuberance of wickedness. In the other works of the Simplicissimus cycle religious morality is superimposed on a reality which shows a strong impulse to escape into the amoral realm of the fantastic in both parts of Vogelnest, the harsh and brutal in Springinsfeld, and the lewd in Vogelnest II. But if the action in these works no longer moves with the terrifying momentum of approaching doom, it still carries the reader along compulsively enough, all the more because it is legitimized by a moral superstructure which pacifies his conscience and thus leaves him free to enjoy pure adventure. At times, the attraction of reality seems to awaken an almost Faustian urge in Grimmelshausen's figures, not yet, of course, that of Goethe's Faust, though perhaps the enticement of a full life in both the seventeenth century and the Storm and Stress period indicates that certain phases of their striving are identical because they are eternal. It is rather the desire of the Faust of the older legend to dominate life not by wisdom or moral victory but by power, whether scientific or magic. T h e wonderful nest, the terrible little "spiritus familiaris" of Courasche, the mandrake in Galgenmannlein, the descent into the Mummelsee and its spirit king's magic stone, the pseudo-scientific tricks which Grimmelshausen loves to introduce 49 —these are more than the paraphernalia of popular appeal or a self-educated man's display of knowledge. T h e desire for a conquest of reality is strong in the century, whether it manifests itself on the real level of the political and the scientific, or on the wishful one of literature. Grimmelshausen thrills to the appeal of ad-

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL REALITY

141

venture, of knowledge and science or pseudo science just as the courtly attaché or the princeling must have found vicarious gratification in the mighty affairs of remote states or the grand wickedness of tyrants. It is undoubtedly true that the visit to the Mummelsee as well as the use of the magic nest symbolize Grimmelshausen's belief that man may not rely upon knowledge or power for the attainment of earthly happiness, 50 but the attraction of this power and this knowledge is no less intense because the author believes in its danger to the soul. Even the life on the hermit's island, aside from the spiritual symbolism which scholars impute to it in such generous measure, 51 expresses in its way a desire to conquer reality, a desire, however, which in this case shows a significant shift from the fantastic to the real. Although he is still surrounded by the supernatural, Simplicius' systematic conquest of the difficulties and his achievement of a satisfactory physical life indicate the development of a rational and practical approach to reality in the manner of Schnabel's Insel Felsenburg, even if the fundamentally moral motivation for Simplicius' escape admits only a vestige of the more clearly social and economic concepts of the later work. T h e preoccupation with the dynamics of reality does not deprive Grimmelshausen of a right to the title of satirist. It was certainly his wish to be thought of as such. Many of his lesser works are entirely satiric in varying degrees of severity, 52 and his major works contain extensive satiric elements. But in all the major works with the exception of Vogelnest 1 the satiric adjuncts serve only the secondary function of illustrating the central theme of human frailty and inconstancy. It is possible to say that this theme itself is satiric in intent. But satire is more specific in its nature. It seeks out single traits or abuses, or at most larger but clearly defined patterns of wrong, and presents these against a limiting background in puppet embodiments about whose character there can be little doubt. T h e mingling of light and shade, of voluntarism and inner compulsion in Simplicius and Courasche and even in the merchant, Michel, and Springinsfeld, cannot properly be called satire. They represent human portraiture touched consistently, perhaps, with certain darker hues, and undoubtedly seen from the viewpoint of the man who writes to censure or to educate, but they far exceed the satiric in subtlety and poignancy of insight. It is obvious from the foregoing that Grimmelshausen made enormous strides toward the understanding of humanity prerequisite to a reconciliation with the finite. Moscherosch's inexperienced Philander may be tempted by evil and reclaim his soul after illness and imprisonment, Logau may reveal a personality which has gained maturity

142

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

through suffering, but neither knows anything of the poignant humanness of Grimmelshausen's figures: of the mute suffering of Melcher, the tragic patience of Hertzbruder, the deep sadness of the hermit; or of the devouring urge that drives Simplicius and Courasche back again and again into the gaudy market place of life. Yet even his superior knowledge of man does not permit Grimmelshausen to achieve a complete reconciliation to life or an unequivocal recognition of the inevitable conflict between real and ideal. T w o elements, above all, stand in his way. First, the spiritual and the real are parallel forces, not the essential poles of a unit. Grimmelshausen does not differ from his contemporaries in his awareness of the conflict between finite and infinite. But while satirists like Weise, Reuter, and Rachel, typically more realistic and rationalistic in their approach, gradually seek out an area where this conflict need no longer be their chief concern, the author of Simplicissimus, despite the powerful enticement of reality for him, stanchly continues to present evidence that the real is sinful, even if the impression grows stronger as he dilutes his original Simplicissimus theme that his moralizing is as much a concession to popular mores as to his own religious convictions. There are instances in Simplicissimus and Courasche, to be sure, where his breezy tone makes it appear as if he were treating the human weaknesses of his heroes with amused tolerance. But the comic, far from expressing indulgence, is always placed in the service of the dominant mood of irony, as we stated above. Every witty expression, every amusing incident, is, one might say, a moral reflection on the behavior of his hero, a reminder that the real, however entertaining or fascinating, is not an indispensable adjunct of the spiritual, but something evil to be conquered. A further reason why Grimmelshausen does not achieve tolerance of man is that the life he portrays is not typical life. T h e world of his heroes is not the small town of Lauremberg with its recognizable figures but one of glaring colors; a place of blood, magic, ghosts, hidden treasures; of treachery, rape, false friendship; of suffering and shattered hopes; of bold adventure; in short, a world giving little evidence that Grimmelshausen could have found a satisfying home in mundane reality. His consummate artistry lies in his ability to create the impression that he is, nevertheless, depicting ordinary life, and this unquestionably accounts for the fact that his novels were long considered accurate portrayals of the contemporary scene. 63 He shows the same combination of lurid coloring and apparent realism in his treatment of physical man. Devoid of the healthy sensuality of Lauremberg, and reluctant, except in the unreal atmosphere of his courtly novels or the unhealthy air of

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

143

Vogelnest 11 to admit even the modicum of psychological appeal of the sexual which one finds in Moscherosch, he steeps the body in ugliness. Yet even here Grimmelshausen's artistic touch is so sure that the physical as he presents it appears to be drawn from observation of the average man of his time. It is true that in some shorter works, where the unreal lies rather in the manner of presentation than in the traits or acts observed, Grimmelshausen approaches simple reality more closely. This is because there is no need in these works for ultimate evaluations. It has been suggested by Alewyn in his work on Beer 54 that in the seventeenth century in Germany reality is always seen from the viewpoint of satire. But the converse must also be noted: that only satire could treat the world of reality as such. Once the concern with reality was legitimized, so to speak, by a satirical, that is, by an adversely critical approach, the writer was free to present those phases of life which had no place among the higher values. As soon as he entered the realm of these values, as Grimmelshausen did in Simplicissimus, he left the more comfortable phases of contemporary reality behind. No statement concerning Grimmelshausen's attitude toward life ever seems definitive. A curious ambiguity arising from an inharmonious juxtaposition of moral seriousness and popular appeal always remains to tantalize the critic. Its source probably lies in Grimmelshausen's concession to, and in some degree in his agreement with, the viewpoint of the average man of his period. This viewpoint, in so far as one is able to reconstruct it—and in part it is an eternal and universal one—is one of pragmatic ambivalence, combining an interest in the moralizing and the entertaining, in the spiritual and the fleshly, the edifying and the adventurous, in a comfortable manner without more than passing conflict just as, for example, Grimmelshausen's Ratstiibel Plutonis presents the broadest possible electicism in its discussion of wealth. He concedes to this dual viewpoint most clearly in the lesser works of the Simplicissimus cycle where there is something for everyone. His greatness as a writer is evident in the fact that he could in certain works combine the disparate elements in such a way as to raise them to the level of the major problem with which his century wrestled, that of the reconciliation of the real and the ideal, and find for it a treatment which, though it was in its severe morality old-fashioned in comparison with the Christian-stoic voluntarism of the Baroque of Gryphius or Anton Ulrich, matched it in depth and sincerity, and exceeded it immeasurably in sensitiveness and human insight. Yet even the best works of Grimmelshausen have an undeniable am-

144

R E L I G I O U S IDEALS AND SOCIAL R E A L I T Y

biguity. T h e most ingenious attempts by critics to find in them a lofty spiritual symbolism or a superior aesthetic purpose always stub against the author's healthy delight in the full, adventurous, sinful variety of life; and conversely, the reader who is tempted to enjoy too keenly the sweep of dynamic reality in a work like Simplicissimus is always brought up sharply by a pervasive spirituality. It is, however, this very ambiguity which softens the outlines in Grimmelshausen's works and creates something of the characteristic half tones of tolerance. Just in this lies the continued appeal of Grimmelshausen even today, as it undoubtedly did in a period which was especially drawn to disparate values. In contrast to the author of Simplicissimus, the ethical perspicuity of a man like Gryphius, however uplifting, must have had in his time and still has a more limited attraction. It has been reiterated in the foregoing that Moscherosch, Logau, and Grimmelshausen are unable to fuse the real and the ideal, the physical and the spiritual. T h e opposites remain as unreconciled in Schupp; indeed, they appear to be intensified by the divergent philosophical viewpoints naturally arising from his diverse activities. It is all the more significant, therefore, that he is able, like the men thus far under consideration in this section, to find some elements in reality which permit him to take a hopeful view of man.

XII SCHUPP'S APPROACH T O REALITY

T

o S C H U P P the economist and educator, as we see him in Salomo and De arte, reality is worth every effort and its inconstancy conquerable by intelligent state planning and purposeful training of citizens. T o Schupp the theologian, the inconstancy of life is the inescapable characteristic of reality, willed thus by God as a test of spiritual man. 1 In the same manner, wealth, though it is not to be worshiped,2 is seen realistically by the economist as the means to many good things and to the physical well-being of the community; but the preacher looks upon wealth at the close of De arte as no more reliable than a foundation of ice, a temporary gift of God at best, its absence a trial of patience as he states in Krankenwarterin, and its possession a behest to the rich in Allmosenbüchse to exercise Christian charity. Man's perfectibility is seen from equally divergent viewpoints. T o Schupp the teacher, education is the means to the moral betterment of the world; to the preacher, man is born wicked, the willing dupe of the devil, 3 without hope of salvation save by faith and the grace of God. There is no question that these contradictions exist in Schupp's thinking. They are, after all, only further evidence of the persistent religious austerity of his age. But like other satirists, he diverts a great part of his energy to an area unaffected by them, an area which, characteristically for him, is that of the immediate physical and spiritual need of man, one demanding neither subtle philosophical speculation nor investigation of the remote and the incomprehensible, but practical and effectual action. This pragmatic orientation guides Schupp in all fields of activity. As a political economist his concern is not with the affairs of the empire nor with the theories dealing with the nature and origin of temporal authority. Conditions during the war may have induced him to toy in De arte with a Utopian ideal in the manner of Bacon and Andreae, but he uses their concept of the state as a satiric device rather than a serious model, and concentrates his efforts here and elsewhere upon making the state or city as it happens to be constituted, the most effective instrument for human well-being. Most of his recommendations to this end are limited by the fact that they apply to a small state in which personal management by the ruler is feasible. But within these confines they

146

SCHUPPS APPROACH TO

REALITY

make up in detail what they lack in political and economic profoundness, so that every phase of the state is touched upon, from the private pecuniary resources of the ruler to the rehabilitation of the indigent and the incapacitated. In the field of education, too, Schupp's greatest contribution stems from this practical approach. I n contrast to the scholastic theorizing still prevalent even at the Lutheran universities, 4 Schupp, reverting to the advances made during the Reformation, and following modern educators of his time, directs his efforts toward developing the usefulness of education for life. It would be incorrect to say that Schupp takes no pleasure in knowledge for its own sake. T h o u g h he does not fulfill the promise implied in his early disdain for those who learn for practical purposes only, 6 he has the love of facts characteristic of his century, 6 and he grants that enjoyment alone may properly be the aim of learning for the common man. 7 But pure knowledge is for him always secondary to that which serves the needs of life. T h e r e is no doubt that his educational views are limited and devoid of originality. H e unquestionably overshoots the mark in his advocation of the mnemonic method, 8 and his shortsightedness is especially evident in his disregard for pure scholarship and abstract scientific theory. B u t these weaknesses—and he shares them with many of his time—do not detract from his m a j o r contribution, that of joining forces with those who turned the attention of their contemporaries from "scholastic dust" 9 to the problems of the real world. Schupp's theological and pastoral activity likewise shows the practical constants of his thinking. Devotional works like Litanei, Krankenwarterin, and Golgotha, broad as their applicability may have been, were written to supply the special needs of his own parishioners. Even when he speaks of the sinfulness of man, he centers his attention on the wrongs typical of the circumscribed area with which he is in immediate contact: the court, or the large city, such as Hamburg. T h e specific character of Schupp's moral guidance is underscored by his concern with the physical problems of his spiritual charges. Salomo and De arte provide evidence of the extent to which these occupied him in Braubach. It is natural that the authorities of Hamburg did not encourage the pastor of St. J a c o b to express social and economic ideas as freely as had the Landgrave Johann when Schupp was his court preacher and superintendent of churches. Nevertheless, even in Hamburg he continues to give attention to such matters as education; the effect of health on the spiritual state; provision for, and rehabilitation of, the poor; and the physical plight of converts from Catholicism. Schupp's practical orientation and the constructive planning associ-

SCHUPP S APPROACH T O REALITY

147

ated with it appear to indicate a hopeful approach to reality. If this approach may be said to exist in Schupp, it is certainly not founded on improved conditions in Germany during and after the Thirty Years' W a r but on deeper experiences. Although Schupp did not suffer in the w a r as much as Moscherosch, he was enlightened painfully enough by its ravages and pressures to be drawn to the ideas of Bacon and Andreae by more than theoretical interest. It is true that he found in H a m b u r g well-ordered conditions and a prosperity that had endured through the war. But De arte, written earlier, and Salomo, composed in Hamburg, refer to the unsatisfactory situation in Hesse, which Schupp obviously considers as typical of the other states as well. Moreover, even in Hamb u r g he never gives evidence of sufficient confidence in any existing state to attribute to it the idealism and stability found in Weise's writings or i n Gryphius' comedies. Schupp sees the princes and legal authorities realistically as men of superior experience, perhaps selected by God 1 0 for their positions, but never as glorified models of perfect behavior nor as sole providers of order and security. Reality always retains for Schupp a measure of uncertainty originating in his sober religious viewpoint and in the justifiable misgivings awakened in a man of clear vision by the continued existence of major problems and above all by the persistence of wars. Since Schupp's hopefulness concerning the improvement of man's condition on earth cannot have had its source in a favorable aspect of reality, it would seem to have originated in the belief that m a n by h u m a n means is able, or will be able in the future, to eliminate the most fundamental characteristic of the finite, the inconstancy which distinguishes it from the enduring values of the transcendental. All the writers of the time cite this inconstancy, yet all continue to search for a real source of stability: in the idealization of the state or its leaders, in the attempt to define or solve actual problems, in the stress on moral or rational values within the individual character, even in the recurrent desire to escape into idyllic simplicity. No one of the satirists, however, shows a reliance on the possibility of finding a basis for physical security comparable with that of Schupp. T o conclude from this that Schupp is able to see in reality the permanence of the transcendental, or that he assigns to it a place in the scale of higher values, would be entirely false. I n his effort to divide reality consciously into that phase concerning the salvation of the soul and that conducive to a satisfactory earthly life, Schupp has indubitably advanced beyond Moscherosch and Abraham with their inclination t o see every phenomenon in the somber light of religious morality. But he

148

S C H U P P S A P P R O A C H T O REALITY

cannot go even to the length of Gryphius in Horribilicribrifax or Dornrose in suggesting a connection between social-ethical discipline and earthly happiness, nor has he any of the more pronounced eudaemonism of Weise. He cannot envision reality as the pleasant scene where real and spiritual happiness are within the reach of ethics and good sense. Active as he is on behalf of physical improvement in human conditions, he never denies that the unpredictability of fortune is as much the well-deserved consequence of man's wickedness as of his poor judgment. 1 1 One may say, therefore, that Schupp's approach to the finite represents not a change in its philosophical evaluation but rather a restatement of the viewpoint in the Augsburg Confession, i.e., the belief that reality, though it represents the lesser value in comparison with the transcendental, is not an improper theater for human activity nor unamenable to a limited degree of human free will. Although Schupp's identification with this viewpoint obviously represents a reaffirmation of Lutheran orthodoxy, it is of the greatest import since it arises from the need for an active attack on the inadequacy of reality, in place of speculation, dogmatic bickering, and preoccupation with human sinfulness. He is drawn to such an approach by his admiration for Luther and the other fighters of the earlier Reformation period, but also by all the factors which encouraged realistic thinking in himself and his times: pressing social and political problems, the growing strength and worldly orientation of the middle class, the entire body of secular Renaissance thought with its subtle but persistent influence; then, his own experience, his middle-class antecedents, his successes, and his peculiar sense of mission. Schupp differs from other satirists of his age, therefore, not in a new valuation of reality but in the direction which his sense of realism takes. Yet it cannot be denied that in him as well as in others a revaluation is in process, one expressing itself not so much in a conscious philosophic systematization as in an unmistakably positive attitude toward the finite. Evidence of this attitude in seventeenth-century literature appears in its most dynamic form in the less realistic phases of its works: in the heroic novels and dramas of the Baroque with their urge to dominate life by grand acts of the will 12 and vicarious identification with mighty historical panoramas; or in the novels of Grimmelshausen with their enticing fullness of life. In satire, too close to actualities to overlook the limitations set upon man, this vivid response to life finds expression in an attack on malpractices or in an increasing ability to view certain phases of reality without a critical screen as pleasurable, purely amusing, or ethically valuable.

SCHUPP S APPROACH T O REALITY

149

Schupp, too, does not share the tense, almost ecstatic fascination w i t h which certain representatives of the Baroque approach the finite. H i s realism, like that of his fellow satirists, is of the soberer sort which scales down the emotional, the lyric, or the dramatic elements of life to t h a t which is readily intelligible, pragmatic, or acceptable to traditional religious thinking. Nevertheless, in contrast to Moscherosch and Abraham, with their concept of reality as a static panorama framed in the spiritual, Schupp shares with Ziegler and Anton Ulrich the concept of reality as a living whole. And though he participates in this reality not by wishful identification with grand historical events or mighty acts of heroic discipline, but by practical action and a sense of his own power and mission, he is still drawn to life by a drive as compelling as that which vibrates through Asiatische Banise or Aramena. If it is true that Schupp's concern with the actualities of his day expresses at least a conditional acceptance of the finite, then this must be applied to his attitude toward the h u m a n being as well. For Schupp is not the man to take pleasure in activity merely for the personal or even moral gratification he may derive from it. Much as he relishes playing the role of manager, adviser, and statesman, his deepest solicitude is for man. T h o u g h this appears to be contradicted by his typically orthodox denial of human value 1 3 and by the expressions of discouragement which his unsuccessful efforts for h u m a n moral betterment forced out of him, 14 it manifests itself in several ways. T h e more conspicuous of these, particularly in comparison with Moscherosch, but perhaps the less significant, is his pity and understanding: his warm defense of beggars in De arte, the words of comfort for the sick poor of H a m b u r g in Krankenwarterin, his tender feeling for youth throughout his works, his habit of introducing the victim as well as the culprit, 15 or, finally, his proneness to turn from anger to gentle entreaty in his preaching. 16 T h e impression of a sympathetic attitude toward man is strengthened by the personal nearness of Schupp in his writings. Censure and advice are not pronounced by the aloof judge or theorist, nor by the author concealing his personality behind a fiction, but by a man whose human presence is felt even when his anger is sharpest, indeed, whose very anger implies a warmth of concern not always apparent in other satirists. But sympathy for man is not an unusual quality in the good preacher who must, after all, just because he considers the spirit superior to the flesh, be touched by the pain and suffering the flesh has inherited. Far more important, consequently, is the fact that Schupp goes beyond this essentially pastoral view in endowing m a n with a dignity and a value not directly connected with his moral nature. T h e statesmen and edu-

150

SCHUPP S APPROACH T O REALITY

cators, the capable merchants, artisans and husbandmen, the patriarchs with their wise management, the young in whom he places such high hopes—all are proof that Schupp finds admirable qualities even in finite man. These examples of his belief in human worth, to be sure, because of the severity with which he judges man at other times, are more striking in comparison with Moscherosch or Logau than with younger contemporaries like Weise and Rachel. He is too devout and too deeply sensitive to human perversity to simplify the problem of behavior: not Weise's shadowy Antiquus causes ambition and dishonesty, but the sinful nature of man. At the same time, Schupp is too much the realist to rely on man's reason or his shrewd self-restraint for the achievement of finite well-being. It does not, to his mind, benefit society sufficiently to hold up the poor, underpaid teacher, the peasant, or the beggar as adverse models of ineptitude and lack of self-discipline; not education in acceptable social behavior but planning on the part of the community is needed to eliminate the problem they represent. One might expect, consequently, that the serious moral basis of Schupp's view of man would show greater kinship with that embodied in the heroes of the tragedies and novels of Gryphius and Anton Ulrich. But here, too, his honest insight into man's nature impels him, as it does Grimmelshausen, to stress not the voluntarism of the moral hero but the struggle of the sinner. T o the minister, the poor sufferers of Hamburg, the dissatisfied and selfish rich, indeed, all men regarded from the pastoral viewpoint, whether they are upbraided for their transgressions or admonished to bear the burden of life patiently, are deserving victims of their native iniquity, not heroes crowning their perfection with martyrdom. Nor can Schupp the economist and statesman use the great heroes of the Baroque without reservation as models for his readers. Even the ruler, especially endowed by God though he may be according to Schupp's belief, 17 cannot be relied upon, as he is in a work like Anton Ulrich's Aramena, to produce the welfare of an entire state by the a priori Tightness of his moral and political decisions alone, unaided by the support which Schupp considers essential: divine assistance,18 education, 19 spiritual and practical guidance,20 and the interaction of the classes and occupations which comprise his realm. Schupp differs from younger writers of the century, too, and particularly from those of the upper literary levels, in the fact that their neoclassical aesthetics of human behavior is foreign to him. Banacin in Asiatische Banise and Cleander in Horribilicribrifax are not only lofty examples of moral discipline, but men whose lives constitute beautiful entities whereby the Baroque expresses its wishful ideal of the perfect

SCHUPPS APPROACH T O R E A L I T Y

151

existence, wishful to the prince as well as to the man of the middle class. T h e exalted social position of these men is essential to their aesthetic character: it places them at the very apex of life. If Gryphius' peasant lad, Kornblume, in Dornrose, reaches their level, he does so instinctively, as a child would, in a manner touching and amusing rather than uplifting. Even Gryphius' Cardenio, their equal in his ultimate victory, has kinship with them only because of the force of his moral example; the author himself expresses his doubts concerning Cardenio's higher aesthetic validity.21 T o Schupp, disciple of Luther in his concept of man as in that of reality, man is only pragmatically or spiritually effective; he has no claim to aesthetic glorification. It is true that Schupp, in spite of his healthy ability to bestow epithets or to call sin by its right name, on occasion has greater feeling for the refinements of style and behavior than Luther with his racy bluntness. His defense of rhetoric, his delight in recording speech or actions outstandingly suited to the occasion, his sporadic apologies for crudeness,22 show that the role of the courtly gentleman was not foreign to him. But it is a role practiced rather as an aid to practical effectiveness than for any abstract pleasure in the aesthetics of behavior. The absence of a perception for the finer Renaissance aesthetics is particularly noticeable in Schupp's treatment of physical man. He has, to be sure, advanced beyond the severer satirists in some respects. The desires of the flesh lead neither to hopelessly ridiculous behavior, as in Moscherosch's "Venusnarren," nor are they inevitably connected with filth and ugliness, as in Simplicissimus or Courasche. Although the sexually incontinent at the courts or in the city of Hamburg are examples of the most recalcitrant sinners in his congregation they do not necessarily invite the conclusion that the erotic as such must lead to immorality. But Schupp can neither respond to the lusty robustness of Lauremberg nor to the bitter-sweet appeal of the erotic which even Moscherosch and Logau concede. Above all, the sexual has for Schupp nothing of the spiciness of the Baroque erotic lyric nor of the disciplined sublimation of the courtly novel. Even the naturalness of Weise is beyond him; far from granting love a place beside God in the attainment of human happiness as Weise does in his Unvergniigte Seele, Schupp can only attribute to the erotic at its best such sturdy Christian virtues as chastity or connubial tractability. For the rest, he treats it with dignified silence or channels it into a deep and touching love for youth. Schupp's divergence from other writers of his age and especially from the younger satirists also comes to light in his limited interest in human

152

SCHUPP S APPROACH T O R E A L I T Y

portraiture. He takes only passing pleasure in the detailed satiric sketch which had already begun to alleviate the severity of earlier satire, and he grants little room to the deviation into the essentially comic portrayal of human foible found in Weise's comedies. The human examples in his works are most frequently mentioned incidentally or, if they appear as something more than an allusion, they are, like Salomo and Job, points of departure instead of figures with their own dimensionality. Exceptions are to be found, of course: the satiric sketch of the self-righteous whore, Corbyle, in Corinna; the half-humorous portrayal of the somewhat conceited preacher, Jonah; the many subjects of his jokes and anecdotes. But even here the purpose for which the figure is introduced, whether to point a moral or to relieve tension, is more important than the portrait as such. Yet though Schupp's old-fashioned moral austerity as well as his realistic economic and social view stand in the way of a concept of man akin to that of Weise, Gryphius, or Ziegler, his ability to find some area in which man as a real being may be viewed favorably shows that he follows the general trend of his age toward human tolerance. For Gryphius as we see him in his comedies this area lies in a level of discipline not inaccessible to the average man; for Weise and Reuter it is to be found in the ability of the simple man of the middle class to conduct his life sensibly and pleasurably. Even the lofty novel and drama of the period, though it resembles the severer satirists in the high standards it sets up for human behavior, follows the general trend in ascribing to certain heroic figures the power of resisting evil by a superior act of voluntarism. In contrast, Schupp's search for an area of favorable human evaluation represents a line of development parallel to that of the century's literature rather than identical with it. If one wished to oversimplify this parallelism one might say that in most instances in the satire as in the literature of the higher levels of the Baroque—and to a large extent this may be said even of Moscherosch and Logau, despite their social awareness—the ideal personality is thought of as a private concept, while Schupp thinks of it as a social one. This is an oversimplification because the private spiritual and physical welfare of man play by far the greater part in Schupp's writings. Nevertheless, the role ascribed to the actions of man for the benefit of his fellows is of unique importance in his works. Moscherosch and Gryphius, to be sure, portray their central figures with the aim of reforming man, but the models they hold up for this purpose are men whose efforts have been directed not toward humanity but toward their own spiritual betterment. Even Weise,

SCHUPP S APPROACH T O R E A L I T Y

153

whose thinking is devoted so extensively to the place of man in society, concerns himself primarily with fitting the individual for a proper conduct of his private ethical and physical existence. Schupp, for all his moral approach, never loses sight of the fact that the individual and society constitute interacting forces. The former cannot affect the given social pattern, but as a representative of class, trade, or profession he is an essential part of its structure. It is noteworthy that even many of Schupp's moral heroes—St. John, Luther, Paul, Jonah, Moses—are less interested in their own salvation than in that of others. Job, too, a model of patient suffering held up by Schupp in his Hiob for the edification of those who are restless under misfortune, serves for Schupp himself as a reminder that the hardship which the minister endures makes him the better spiritual guide.24 It was stated above in discussing Grimmelshausen that the critic can never be certain whether he has reached the man himself, so completely does he submerge his individuality in his works. The opposite is true of Schupp. The man is so forcefully present in his writings that he gives immediacy and significance to ideas which are actually no more outstanding than those of any moderately forward-looking thinker of his period. In consequence, the impression of a belief in human worth as conveyed by his works is borne out by nothing so convincingly as by the revelation of Schupp's own personality, that of a man of dignity and courage, justly proud of the ability, experience, and mission which give him the right to speak freely before all those in need of guidance or reproof, whatever their stations. Only a few examples will suffice for the many which could be cited. As an educator, Schupp speaks proudly in Eilfertige Antwort of his academic positions and degrees, and in Ehrenrettung he assures his friend Riese that he could have done for the schools of Augsburg what the educator Sturm did for Strassburg. As a clergyman, he is aware that the preacher is appointed by God to speak fearlessly before rulers, as he tells his young listener in Salomo, and in Corinna he censures mercilessly the noble sinners who refused to listen to his admonitions. Nor is he averse to setting the authorities of Hamburg to rights in Ehrenrettung for their inability or unwillingness to protect him against pirating and calumny. In the same work he defies his enemies once more by defending spiritedly his right to use the style of preaching which he considers effectual. There is nothing supercilious in this self-assurance, for Schupp's relationship to reality is not free of poignancy. Like older satirists, the station point he represents is that of the man who stands alone in contrast to the world he censures. Yet he is not as isolated in this position

154

S C H U P P S APPROACH T O R E A L I T Y

as Moscherosch. If he does not, like Weise and Gryphius, represent ethical standards presumably already accepted by real or idealized leaders of society, he nevertheless bases his opinions on an existing body of lay and spiritual thought derived from authorities as compelling as those advanced by these men, and in most cases far more tangible: Comenius, Ratichius, Bacon, Andreae, Erasmus, Luther, and all the others. In addition, even if Schupp is forced to conclude that his efforts for the moral improvement of man are vain 25 or, as he states in Freund, that there is no true friend but God, he has all the channels of mission, practical activity, and confidence in youth to lift him out of his isolation and carry him back into the stream of humanity. It is clear that his orthodoxy as well as his experience and temperament must stand in the way of a complete release through these channels. But in this very combination of depression and courage, even if it never achieves the character of a true polarity, lies the chief potentiality for a reconciled view of man as conveyed by his self-portrait. T h e importance of real or fictional self-revelation in preparing such a reconciled view has already been mentioned. If the satirist gave himself directly or identified himself wholly or in part with another figure, he imbued the resultant portrait with something of the dimensions of the typical human being, whether this appeared in the combination of good and evil or in the juxtaposition of despair and courage. Philander, Simplicius, and Lauremberg as he appears in his poems grant their human failings freely: proneness to temptation, vanity, credulity, stubbornness; but they balance them against clarity of insight into the nature of evil or folly. Yet the impression of human worth carried by such portraits as Philander and Simplicius is a somewhat dubious one: they reveal the moral frailty of even the good man more clearly than his virtue. Younger satirists were inclined to substitute for gloomy moral introspection a more cheerful trust in the power of reason and good sense. Rachel and Weise convey an impression of human dignity not by the fact that they have favorable qualities in spite of their human weakness, but by the power to cope with their world, to rise above its inadequacies themselves or to awaken in others the ability to do so. This power is not foreign to the older satirists. Mosclierosch's Philander grows in the self-assured manliness with which he regards the world, and Logau has found a secure haven in the philosophical values he cherishes. But neither he nor Philander, and certainly not Simplicius or any of the other heroes of Grimmelshausen, encourages the reader in the belief that man is strong enough to throw himself into the full current of life without tainting his spirit. In the

S C H U P P S A P P R O A C H T O REALITY

155

opinion of Rachel and Weise, on the other hand, man need not be the victim of reality if he learns certain simple lessons not at all beyond his reach. In its implication for human worth, Schupp's self-portrait shows kinship to Philander as well as to Weise. Like the former and Simplicius, he frankly grants his own failings: vanity, irascibility, general h u m a n sinfulness; 26 but he also knows his spiritual and intellectual strength: courage, clear-sightedness, and honesty. But unlike them the impression of strength predominates. This is because Schupp does not enjoy the role either of abject sinner or of oddity. He is too much occupied with the welfare of others to cultivate the moral self-castigation associated with the former, and he is too confident in his ability and his divine calling to require the protection which the latter provides. Even when he responds to the attacks of his enemies in the polemics, he does so angrily, bitterly, at times even querulously, but almost always directly in his own person as a man who knows his rights and his value. Schupp's self-portrait, therefore, carries an impression of human worth not so much because he has strength in the midst of weakness as because he is able to wrestle with the human or physical problems of his world without endangering his spirit. But although there is something reminiscent of satirists like Weise and Rachel in this, Schupp's portrait moves the reader more deeply than any of the figures of these men because Schupp does not underestimate the serious nature of the problems he attacks. He cannot be satisfied with the invocation of reason or the eudaemonistic reward of virtue. Least of all can he find a purely personal escape like that of Beer in his Sommertage. Schupp must always take hold of reality actively, personally, vehemently, in order to force an improvement from it. T h e ability to do this despite his deeper insight and yet retain some hope concerning the outcome, raises him somewhat above the average man, so that the ideal he represents is not as easily accessible as the one which Weise outlines in Kliigste Leute or Erznarren, but it is an entirely human ideal nevertheless. There is no better evidence of this than that Schupp could conduct his life so obviously in accordance with it. Gryphius' Papinianus must die to remain true to himself; his Celinde, like Simplicius, must leave the precincts of ordinary h u m a n life; Logau finds his refuge in a sanctuary of the spirit. But Schupp proves by his own example that a man may strive to be godly and yet remain a valuable citizen of the world. He may not mean to say thereby that man is at heart anything more than a base sinner, but he has clearly shaken off some of the leaden sense of human ineptitude

156

SCHUPP S APPROACH T O R E A L I T Y

which is communicated so strongly by the portrait of Philander in the first part of the Gesichte. T h e courage and dignity of Schupp's personality, as well as his ability to derive a sense of human value from man's practical and social effectiveness, invite a comparison, remote as it may seem, with related ideas finding their dramatic expression in the England of his day. It is true that the relationship between man and the state differs so strikingly in Germany and England in the seventeenth century that far from suggesting comparisons, one is forced to the conclusion that the Germans traditionally lack a political sense. In England the power of the king was limited by Parliament in two revolutions; in Germany acquiescence in the absolute power of the ruler, as well as an ethical and aesthetic glorification of prince and higher nobility, becomes increasingly characteristic of even the once stormy satirists. Nevertheless, there are, despite the existence of entirely different conditions, traces of a mood in Germany which has potentials not unlike those preceding revolutionary events in England. It is a mood most clearly present in Moscherosch's Gesichte, where the author, though never impugning the divine right of the ruler, is so bitter in his censure of the nobility that he is bold enough to call one of the visions of hell in Part I of his Gesichte "HofSchule," that is, a model court. As time went on, the critical attitude was weakened, but it was never lost to satire entirely, as the chapter dealing with the state and society has shown, so that even a mild and "politic" man like Weise could justify princely government on grounds which bordered dangerously on the cynical. In Schupp's woiks, even in those of his earlier period, protest is reduced in intensity in comparison with men like Moscherosch and Logau. Adviser of the state rather than political reformer, his educational aim is to train men to serve the state as it is, not to limit its powers; and the events in England during the Puritan Revolution, far from awakening his admiration, remind him of those described in Revelation as presaging the Last Judgment. 27 Yet the self-assurance and honesty with which he approaches princes and other authorities in moral and practical matters, as well as his view of society as an interaction of all its citizens, show the growth of a concept of the state as something real, human, and amenable to such changes as will improve its effectiveness. More than this, they indicate the development of a new ideal of man as a parallel to, or even an eventual substitute for, the exclusively spiritual ideal, that of a man active among men. Schupp crowns his belief in the value of man with the function he ascribes to education. His confidence in the young and his demand for

SCHUPP S APPROACH T O REALITY

157

good schools, which he expresses throughout his works, find their climax in Schulwesen, where education is brought forward as the only hope for the improvement of humanity after all other suggestions have been dismissed as ineffectual. It is noteworthy especially that Schupp does not look merely to religious or moral education to fulfill this lofty office, important as these are for him. 2 8 Indeed, he even advocates the separation of theology and pedagogy 29 in opposition to the contemporary belief that a man trained to be a preacher is thereby also a good teacher. Schupp is not the only satirist to point out the value of education for life, as previous discussions have indicated. If in contrast to Logau with his love of wisdom Schupp shares with Moscherosch the narrower concept of education as a practical means for providing the good ruler and the self-reliant citizen, he also resembles Weise in envisioning its broader potentialities for the betterment of mankind. In no contemporary satirist, however, is there anything similar to Schupp's sustained interest in the schools or his detailed recommendations for improving their service to the individual and the community. More important, no other satirist expresses with the enthusiasm and fatherly warmth of Schupp his love of youth and his trust in its role for the future of man. In preceding discussions reference has been made to those elements in the satire of older writers like Moscherosch and Logau which indicate future possibilities for finding a reconciliation with the finite: the tolerant view of certain individuals, the dilution of the sharply satiric with the comic, the ability to find an area of refuge amid the oppression of the world's evil. In Schupp, nothing points so clearly to later trends in satire as his belief in the value of education and in the educability of man. Yet it must be stressed that in spite of this belief it is not possible to link Schupp with men like Weise, Rachel, and Reuter. T h e severity of Schupp's religious views does not permit him to receive as readily as they the enlightening influences which helped to shape their incomparably more cheerful philosophy of life. Indeed, it is not even possible to compare Schupp with Gryphius, though a like austerity establishes a kinship between the two men, for Schupp was hardly more amenable to the effect of the Renaissance humanism which left its mark so clearly on the author of Carolus Stuardus, than he was to the rational eudaemonism that appears in Weise. Despite these essential differences between Schupp and the other satirists, it is not inappropriate to point out his similarity to them at this time, for this similarity serves as a further reminder that the century cannot actually be divided as we have done here and elsewhere

158

SCHUPP S APPROACH T O REALITY

into an earlier and a later period. Rather, it is a continuous stream in the course of which there is no sudden change, but only a gradual shifting and brightening. This must be borne in mind, too, in discussing most of the satirists under consideration in the following chapter, since they also, for all their nascent rationalism, are still clearly rooted in earlier satiric trends.

XIII ETHICAL IDEALISM AND PSYCHOLOGICAL REALISM As G E R M A N MASTERS of the satire, Moscherosch, Logau, Grimmelsi i hausen, and, later, Abraham are the giants of their century. Unlike Rachel, Lauremberg, Weise, and the others, they cannot limit or reduce in scale. They are related in some respects to the idealizing novel and drama of the Baroque which, in its own way, shares the inclination to project itself in grand proportions. But in the works of Ziegler, Lohenstein, and Anton Ulrich the huge scale of emotion or action represents only a small, uncomplicated portion of reality magnified to giant size, just as certain Baroque sculptors projected a basically simple typification of man with mighty muscles and dramatic sweep of line. Moscherosch, Logau, Abraham, and Grimmelshausen are giants not because of the heroic stature of their individual figures, but because they strive to encompass the whole panorama of reality or the whole complexity of man. They may divide both into a mosaic of ever more weaknesses, ever more abuses, more laughable traits, b u t the aggregate pattern is gigantic in its teeming fullness and its vibrant intensity. Grimmelshausen's chief figures may exceed those of the true satirists in stature, but they also have none of the psychological transparency of the courtly hero. They are portrayed with all their h u m a n contradictions against a background which tends to select, perhaps, but which in its innumerable variations on the theme of the world's inconstancy presents, like the satire of Moscherosch and Logau, a variety unknown to the more mechanical intricacy of the creations of Gryphius and the others. Gryphius has something of the stature of Moscherosch, Logau, and Grimmelshausen. He is as haunted by evil, as impelled to struggle with the deepest moral problems. But there are apparent in his work an aloofness from the contemporary scene, a concentration on certain phases of behavior, and a clarity of distinction between finite and infinite values, which are the expression of a simplified and more selective approach to reality. This does not mean that Gryphius even as a writer of comedies can be grouped without qualification with Weise, Rachel, and Reuter. T h e literature of the seventeenth century reveals, on the whole, two approaches to reality: the pragmatic and the ideal-

160

IDEALISM AND REALISM

istic or philosophical. T h e latter, embodied in such genres as the novel, drama, and lyric of the higher levels of the Baroque, concerns itself with universal h u m a n values and general reflections upon the meaning of life; the former, appearing in the satire and to some extent in the picaresque novel, also evaluates the eternal and inescapable elements of human morality b u t at the same time occupies itself extensively with social and political questions of its day, or with human behavior as manifested by special groups, classes, or occupations. As the century advanced, this pragmatic strain abandoned some of its social awareness and tended to approach the idealistic or philosophical strain. It is true that satire never lost entirely its contact with actuality. Even its treatment of milder social or ethical problems was directed in large measure toward fitting the middle class for its place in contemporary society, as Weise indicates in the introduction to his Erznarren and in his Politischer Nascher. Nevertheless, the satire of the later decades of the century, as we have seen, was occupied to a greater degree with average human behavior than with questions of state and society. T h e reasons for this change in attitude have already been mentioned at various points in the preceding pages but may be summarized briefly here. Social and political factors such as the firm establishment of princely absolutism, the cultural and economic expansion of the middle class, and the general stabilization of conditions after the close of the Thirty Years' War had created a degree of confidence and security which permitted the younger satirists, as educated and moderately successful members of their class, to view reality more hopefully than had been possible in previous decades. At the same time the gradual liberalization of thought under the influence of such factors as the Renaissance-classical heritage, the conflict of the religions, and the newer theories in philosophy and science also drew the attention from man's wickedness, and directed it to his rational and social behavior. T h e elements outlined here obviously also influenced Gryphius. Above all, it was the Renaissance-classical tradition in the drama, combined with his profound b u t no longer entirely orthodox religiousness, which caused him to set aside the problems of reality as well as the conventional manifestations of human sinfulness, and to treat the grand human passions in the tragedies, and the typical actions of lesser folk in his comedies. Despite this apparent similarity between the comedies of Gryphius' and the works of the younger satirists, however, Gryphius' approach to life cannot, as stated above, be equated with that of men like Weise and Rachel. He is discussed at this point be-

I D E A L I S M AND R E A L I S M

161

cause the views which appear in his comedies give evidence of two elements also apparent in the satire contemporary with and succeeding him: the search for a release from the contemplation of man's wickedness, and sonlething of the pathway which this search followed. Mention has been made repeatedly in the preceding lines of Gryphius as a writer of comedies. It is clearly impossible to present his concept of finite and infinite values without taking both his tragedies and his lighter works into consideration. T h e tragedies, to be sure, seem to relate him to satirists like Moscherosch and Grimmelshausen with their moral austerity and their rejection of the attractions of the finite. Nevertheless, the philosophical approach to reality in a work like Papinianus or Carolus differs in a noteworthy respect from that in the Gesichte or in Simplicissimus. In distinction from their patchwork of a thousand evils, petty and great, Gryphius divides the human world in both tragedies and comedies simply into the disciplined and the undisciplined, into those who have learned or, in the exceptional case of Cardenio, are in process of learning to govern their lower impulses, and those who yield to them with either tragic or laughable results. T h e corollary of this division is obvious: attention is concentrated on an idealized man instead of the wrongs of the world, and man is correspondingly endowed with dignity. It is true that Gryphius does not ascribe the heights of noble behavior to the ordinary man. Except for Cardenio, typical human behavior—if anything at all is typical in Gryphius' stylized tragedy—is represented by the tyrants and the uncontrolled. In comparison with these, Papinianus and the others embody an ideal whose difficulty of attainment is demonstrated by their inability to achieve victory save in death. T h e pessimism which this implies, however, is not unalleviated. First, the tragedies of Gryphius are, in accordance with Opitz and other models, cathartic as much as didactic in purpose. They are intended to awaken in the onlooker patience under his own suffering rather than the desire to emulate the martyrdom of the hero. We writhe in painful self-recognition at the sight of Sirnplicius' weaknesses; the contemplation of Papinianus' grandeur of soul is at once humbling and uplifting. A further mitigating factor lies in the position of Gryphius' hero in the action. Though he does not produce it, he stands at its very center with all the intransigency of the heroic martyr. It must be admitted that the perfection of Papinianus, Carolus, and Catharina imparts to them something static when viewed against the richer creations of Grimmelshausen. Except for Cardenio and Celinde, they lack the dynamics imparted by an inner struggle; they are as statuesque as if their

162

IDEALISM AND REALISM

ethical perfection had been hewn in stone. Nevertheless, to carry out the figure, they have, like the sculpture of the Baroque, dynamics of their own derived from the impression of disciplined strength which they convey unmistakably. 1 Papinianus is neither Hertzbruder, dying of the ministrations of a secret poisoner, nor Simplicius, rising above temptation only by flight. He, Carolus, and Catharina assume their roles with conspicuous fortitude and go to their deaths as embodiments of the conviction that reality with all its uncontrolled forces cannot destroy the ethical core of man at his best. There is in these figures the clear beginning of a revaluation of man. All the cloaking of Christian teleology cannot conceal the fact that the unusual man, at least, appears to have a moral autonomy derived from the force of his ethical will, even if this still parallels that of Providence. 2 For this reason Papinianus, the Roman jurist, can sit comfortably among Gryphius' Christian heroes because he, like them, has within himself the power to adhere to the good. 3 T h e wicked, too, are, perhaps unwittingly, no longer seen entirely from the viewpoint of religious morality. T h e term "sin" in the orthodox sense is hardly applicable to the vast, mad compulsions which direct their behavior. T h e development which will lead eventually to Lohenstein's amoral conflict of passions in Cleopatra and Sophonisbe, and to Hofmannswaldau's moral ambivalence, may not have taken recognizable shape in Gryphius, but it is foreshadowed. Notwithstanding a tendency to evaluate man more favorably, the view in the tragedies remains burdened by the conflict between the real and the transcendental. T h e closer Gryphius moves toward the ideal in his tragic heroes, the more he is compelled to depict a contrasting reality of harsh colors, brutality, and incredible suffering. There is a promise of reconciliation between the two only in Cardenio. But this promise remains the exception. Catharina dies not for earthly but for heavenly love; Carolus, about to depart from life, refuses to read the letter from his son; Papinianus rejects freedom and a crown for martyrdom. Even Cardenio, converted, preaches a constant remembrance of death, and Celinde renounces past pleasures for the life of a nun. T h e view in the comedies is more benign. T o be sure, the background position of the ideal figures in Squentz and Horribilicribrifax and the corresponding dominance over the action by the ludicrous and the uncouth seem only a restatement of the situation in the tragedies. But the position of the former is dictated by artistic expedience, not philosophical conviction. Far from being the victims of the uncultured figures about them, the prince and his court in Squentz or the noble

I D E A L I S M AND R E A L I S M

163

persons in Horribilicribrifax are the puppeteers who watch the antics of lesser creatures until the time has come to step into the scene to impose discipline 4 or to grant suitable rewards. 6 It is they who set the standards of behavior, and not the comic figures. What Gryphius portrays in the comedies is in effect, therefore, a stable society in which the loftiest values are represented by those in political and social control, a society contrasting sharply not only with the unstable world of Moscherosch, Logau, and Grimmelshausen, but apparently also with that in his own tragedies. Yet the comedies and tragedies of Gryphius constitute a philosophical unit. First, despite the reiteration of the inconstancy and speciousness of the finite in the tragedies, two elements, incongruous as their juxtaposition sounds, represent value and permanence throughout his plays: the spirit and the state. This is not to say that Gryphius accepts the temporal administration of the state unconditionally. T h e heroism of Carolus and Catharina, like the omniscient benevolence of the princely figures in the comedies, is at once a tribute to presumptive similar qualities in the existing leaders of the state, and a wishful idealization touched faintly with melancholy irony. Nevertheless, the state in the tragedies as well as the comedies is one of the embodiments of the divine teleology that rules the finite. T h e fate of Papinianus and Catharina impugns tyranny but never the royal office; the usurpers of authority in Carolus must eventually be doomed; the tragic weakness of Leo Armenius is his reluctance to use his rightful power; and Papinianus, victim of royal despotism, refuses a crown not rightfully his though its acceptance might permit him to save the state as well as himself. What is censured chiefly in the tragedies, therefore, is the perversity which prevents man from living peaceably within the divinely instituted pattern. T h e acceptance of the state in the comedies is too evident to require examples. Even the arrogant petty judge in Dornrose must yield eventually to the lord whose kindness he censures. 8 T h e second point of similarity between Gryphius' comedies and tragedies lies in their profound ethical basis. This is not immediately apparent because of the level from which the sample of human behavior is selected for each. In the one, where Gryphius, the devout Christian, views life as such, he looks beyond temporal forms to the sphere of ultimate values in which moral victory means death or renunciation; in the other, where the cultured and reasonable man of the middle class views the social and aesthetic aspects of human actions, moral victory and earthly happiness are not impossible of achievement in the midst of life. In consequence, the boastful soldiers, pedantic

164

IDEALISM AND REALISM

schoolmasters, marriage-hungry women, or the uncouth villagers and the artisans with their primitive conceptions of dramatic are not sinners, not even in the mild sense of Lauremberg's fashionable burghers. Nor do they represent serious wrongs of their day. Unquestionably, types like theirs were common enough. But Gryphius would hardly have selected just them had he been intent upon satirizing great contemporary evils. T h e i r transgressions are in effect those of the uncultivated: poor judgment, inadequate self-discipline, lack of an aesthetic sense. They are, to use again the expression so often repeated, the uncouth, those who seek to ape the accepted form of culture without a true understanding of its ethical or aesthetic subtleties. Correspondingly, far from being candidates for divine retribution, they are graciously rewarded, not, to be sure, in recognition of any merits, but as evidence of the magnanimity of their superiors. Because of the mild nature of the transgressions in the comedies, Gryphius' censure might appear to be motivated by nothing more than social snobbery. It is true that the comic persons in Squentz and Horribilicribrifax are not the familiar neighbors of Hans Sachs, viewed by the genial author at eye level. They are seen in disparaging perspective by a man aware that he represents the viewpoint and correct literary form of those who are cultured and socially acceptable. T h e so-called "politic" attitude with its good and bad qualities as cultivated in the later decades of the seventeenth century in Germany is here clearly in process of development. Yet Gryphius is too serious to concern himself only with the surface phenomena of behavior. T h e comedies, to repeat the point made above, do not actually differ from the tragedies in their view of man. T h e ludicrous ineptitude ridiculed in the former is unethical because it is a product of the same lack of discipline which impels the raging tyrant in the latter to ignore the voice of conscience. T h e venial transgressions of Selene in Horribilicribrifax may appear to be nothing more than laughable examples of the typical human behavior relegated by Opitz to the comedy; but in contrast with the virtue of Sophia, in the same play, her actions are immoral because they are devoid of the selfrestraint which alone makes morality possible. Furthermore, there is in the comedies the same uncompromising cleavage which in the tragedies, except for Cardenio und Celinde, grants no access from the sphere of wrong to that of right. Just as the tragic heroes are perfect in their virtue and the villains chained to their vice, so the crude figures remain laughable and those with clear judgment do not lose their ethical perspicacity. Nowhere does Gryphius move as close as Grimmelshausen to the

IDEALISM AND REALISM

165

warm, contradictory whole of man and life. T h e comedies may have thrown off the bloody symbols of evil and good to which the tragedies are banned, but they, too, hold aloof from the familiar and the purely human. Dornrose would seem to contradict much of what has been said in the foregoing. Here, for once in the comedies, there are ideal figures in the very center of the action, not merely in its frame of reference; figures who, despite their basic virtue, do not represent a rigid standard of perfection. Gregor is honest, decent, yet a little slow-witted and gullible; Dornrose, chaste but somewhat vain. Here, further, are ideal figures, not raised above the average by rank and position, but simple village folk whose self-restraint, far from being achieved by the mighty act of will suited to a higher cultural level, is theirs instinctively. It is as if the author wished to say that even on what was for the period the lowest social level one might still find all degrees of behavior, from the crudeness, dishonesty, and lasciviousness of the other villagers to the natural probity and virtue of Gregor and Dornrose. A kindlier view of life is obviously indicated in Dornrose. Yet even here Gryphius cannot feel comfortable in finite reality. T h e play is not a direct portrayal of life but an idyll which appears to be evaluated from conflicting viewpoints. He seems to use the natural restraint and artless Silesian dialect of Gregor and Dornrose to ridicule the conventions of high society, but he also treats the villagers condescendingly both by interweaving their crude comedy with another, socially more acceptable one, and by making the successful conduct of their lives dependent upon their noble lord. 7 Gryphius clearly shared the contemporary desire to escape into some realm of simple virtue, yet he could not be at ease in the sphere he had selected. It is significant that he did not escape from the conventions of society into the artificiality of the shepherd idyll. Nevertheless, even the homely village scene of Dornrose is artificial. Only Gregor has the reality of the slow, goodnatured peasant lad; the others—the vituperative simpletons and the uncouth lovers—are reminiscent of all the peasant stereotypes which the century loved. Reflections though they might have been of the rude peasant of the time, they indicate little sympathy for average human reality. Nevertheless, in spite of all the qualifications which must be placed upon our conclusion, it is still correct to say that in the comedies Gryphius approaches a reconciliation with reality more closely than in the tragedies because, to repeat the point made above, however high the idealism of the former, they represent an area where the

166

IDEALISM AND REALISM

loftier standards do not mean death or renunciation. A further reason for their greater mildness of viewpoint has already been indicated in discussing Grimmelshausen. There was for most men of Gryphius' day no philosophical solution for transcendental conflict. Real and ideal, spirit and flesh remained irreconcilable until the early Enlightenment brought the release prepared by the entire philosophical trend in France, England, and Germany in the past century. T h e writer of the Baroque who was seriously troubled by these conflicts could only seek an escape either by pretending to deal with them still while his interests actually lay elsewhere, or by relegating them to the limited area of the comic or the lightly satiric, where they were reduced in magnitude until they became innocuous. T h e former course is illustrated not only in the adventurous phases of the novels of Grimmelshausen, but also in Lohenstein's Sophonisbe and Cleopatra. For Gryphius' deeply moral conflict between immutable virtue and inadequate reality, Lohenstein substitutes a more elemental struggle between desire for life and the appeal of life's meretricious rewards. Cleopatra and Sophonisbe are not, like Papinianus, martyrs to integrity in a world which has no regard for spiritual heroism. They share in the passion and opportunism which destroy them. Their renunciation of life, therefore, is not a superior act of moral discipline, but the only avenue of escape from forces with which they can no longer cope. 8 Hofmannswaldau 9 carries this incipient moral ambivalence to its extreme by praising lust as convincingly as virtue. Gryphius is too much the serious moralist to seek release by escaping into the amoral. He takes in his comedies the other course, and finds in their reduced scale and limited sphere some surcease from the contemplation of final values even if the knowledge of deeper, irresolvable conflicts touches them with poignancy still. Rachel is of infinitely smaller stature than Gryphius. What was for the latter self-discipline with all its implications for martyrdom develops in Rachel into a more accessible, if still clearly moral, good sense. A residual austerity in his view of man has already been mentioned. But the urge is unmistakable to move beyond grave faults to those less serious or to a constructive didacticism. He may suggest that the son who follows in the footsteps of his stingy father will jeopardize life and soul, 10 or he may warn that the gods will punish selfish prayer, 11 but he also points out that ambition and greed will lead to a fall, 12 and that the safe mean is the better one. 13 It is clear that Rachel does not feel the need to search for a refuge from an inadequate reality, nor to conquer it by heroic effort as do

IDEALISM AND REALISM

167

Logau or Gryphius. He is aware of certain evils and of the inevitable inconstancy of fortune, 1 4 but he takes state and society for granted as a reliable framework within which the individual is free to strive for such private happiness as is compatible with moderation and morality. T h e similarity to Gryphius is obvious, except that in Rachel there is a tacit acceptance of the existing society in place of the austere idealism upon which a secure world is contingent, even in Gryphius' comedies. Rachel's more relaxed view of reality is also symbolized in his substitution of classical gods for the Christian deity. Even in Gryphius' works, early traces of moral autonomy in the midst of Christian orthodoxy are underscored by the classical trappings of the tragedies. What is bare suggestion in him becomes statement in Rachel. T h e latter moves into the Pantheon, so to speak, where he may be severe if he likes, but with the assistance of gods whose awesomeness is muted to fit the mores of a rational society. T h e portrait of man as it emerges from Rachel's satire is almost realistic. T h e body is not mean; physical impulses, if they are under the control of reason, are, like the change of seasons, part of the processes of nature and necessary to maturity and a normal conduct of life. 15 Similarly, man is neither the absolute master of life nor its victim. He is, one feels, a compound of strength and weakness for Rachel, an object of censure but also of amused observation. T h e toping bachelor, the miser in his monologue, the spurned lover with his modish language mixture, 1 6 may be touched sharply with irony still, but a delight in their mere portrayal is clearly evident. Rachel has obviously laid the foundation for a tolerant view of finite reality. W h a t stands in the way of its attainment is the fact that the sector of life he presents is so limited that it leaves out of account vast portions which might offer resistance to such a view. Rachel himself appears to be aware of this. He seems to impute to man a degree of moral autonomy, yet he denies his perfectibility. 17 In like manner, he manages to fit the erotic into a sensible and attractive way of life, yet he not only expresses half-joking doubts concerning the possibility of a happy marriage, 18 but he assumes an attitude toward women which, especially in the greater part of his first poem, resembles the acrimonious attack of the misogynist. T h e unevenness of mood in his poems also reflects his uncertainty. Ill-natured carping and preaching alternate surprisingly with lighter turns of phrase 19 in a manner more reminiscent of Moscherosch than of a man with the presumable calm and objectivity of Rachel's outlook. T h o u g h inconsistencies such as these exist, they do not, however, conceal the movement toward a more

168

IDEALISM AND REALISM

comfortable relationship toward life. Almost entirely free of the sense of universal perversity and evil, relieved of the painful personal involvement of Philander and Simplicius and even of the unattainable idealism of Gryphius, Rachel rises above his objects with the assured consciousness of excellent judgment and the prerogative of his correct literary form, 20 as proof that the embittered seeker and the angry accuser belong to the past. Weise resembles Rachel in all fundamental respects: in the predominant concern with social and ethical behavior, the stress on the rational, the reduced interest in major contemporary problems. T h e difference between them lies chiefly in Weise's clarification of his philosophical viewpoint and in a resultant softening of contours. T o be sure, he still censures a list of human weaknesses, whose number far exceeds those assembled by Rachel, but he rarely shows a trace of the severity or bitterness with which such surveys were formerly associated. T h e dark sense of original sin that so long haunted satire has been sloughed off, and man, equipped with reason 21 and the ability to choose the good, 22 has the control over the correctness of his behavior in his own hands. Close as Weise comes to ascribing moral autonomy to man, nothing is farther from his professed intent. He defends Lutheranism hotly against the encroachments of the newer philosophy in Hauptverderber and he states expressly in his Unvergniigte Seele23 that reason alone without the love of God cannot bring happiness. His somewhat pedantic orthodoxy is nowhere more evident than when he finds it needful to explain in Machiavell24 that the gods whom he assembles on Parnassus stand for the learned, not for actual heathen deities. In practice, however, this orthodoxy has been converted into a comfortable, rationalistic eudaemonism which permits Weise to grant to the h u m a n being the right to earthly happiness and the ability to achieve it. 25 God remains the greatest good, but other temporal goods may be selected immediately after Him by a man of judgment: "God in your heart, your beloved in your arm; one leads to heaven, and one keeps you warm," 26 thus in Unvergniigte Seele Weise places the finite and the infinite in ingenuous juxtaposition. In Erznarren he presents the scale of greatest goods as God, good health, good name; 27 and in Klugste Leute, finally, he calls that man wisest who can further his fortune, control his emotions, and guard against his enemies. 28 Weise's attitude toward temporal goods is not free of equivocation, but the more cheerful view remains predominant. T h e pleasures of love and marriage may seem doubtful if one considers the number of

I D E A L I S M AND REALISM

169

shirewish wives in his comedies, but even if these were not presented with tolerant amusement, their ranks would still be exceeded by all tbie other instances in which love and marriage are presented as desirealble. T h e value of earthly fortune, too, may be questioned. In Politischer Nascher, Crescentio, for all his "politic" education, is finally olbliged to flee to a better land, 29 and in Unvergniigte Seele Weise would appear to deny the importance of wealth and honor entirely. T h e instance of Crescentio undoubtedly represents a genuine dissatisfaction with the world of his day. But in Unvergniigte Seele, Vertumnus finds happiness not by renouncing temporal goods, as the end of the play appears to indicate, but by learning their relative value in comparison with greater goods such as God, contentment, and conjugal happiness. Once he has recognized the latter he may enjoy the former. An essential corollary of Weise's view of life is his confidence in educaition. Moscherosch and Logau may have seen in education a practical aid or a solace; Rachel may recommend schooling as a better bequest than wealth; Weise actually proposes to free mankind of Machiavellian selfishness with the help of Severus, Sedulus, and Eruditus. 30 Similarly—and there is obviously some correlation between the powers ascribed to formal education and those attributed to satire—all the satirists ostensibly wrote with the aim of improving man, but neither Moscherosch, Logau, nor Grimmelshausen, with their painful awareness of evil, nor Gryphius with his austere idealism, creates the impression that improvement is within easy reach. Only Lauremberg and Rachel, because of the limited range of their satire, permit of some hope of reform, though an undertone of severity in the former and a trace of bitterness in the latter still cast doubt upon the outcome. Weise also creates the impression that the supply of fools is inexhaustible, but he moves well beyond his satiric fellows in abandoning attack for didacticism and education. If further proof of Weise's confidence in the perfectibility of man is required, it lies in the nature of his satiric station point. For Moscherosch, Logau, and Lauremberg, the embodiment of the station point is the odd fellow, the innocent, or the outspoken nonconformist, in short, the man who differs noticeably from others of his time. Consequently, the aim of the satirist, despite his avowed educational intent, is actually to point out the universality of wrongdoing. Later, the individualism of the satirist is submerged. T h e innocent still plays a satiric role but he is not the chief station point. Instead, the author appears in a projection such as Gelanor in Erznarren, or in his own person, as Rachel does, as the representative of standards presumably

170

IDEALISM AND REALISM

accepted by the leaders of a cultured society. Accordingly, the aim of the satirist is now not so much to protest universal wrong in all classes as to educate man to a conformity with standards that are already well established. T h i s development could not, of course, completely suppress the individualism of viewpoint inherent in satire. Bergson speaks of the social nature of laughter, 31 but laughter can be highly unsocial as well. A few individuals with their own ideals can regard society with a degree of alarm or amusement at least equal to that with which society regards them. It is obviously in this sense that Socrates calls himself the gadfly of the state. 32 T h e retention of something of this typical nonconformity is one of the valuable contributions of satire to the seventeenth century. Giinther Miiller speaks of Raroque society as a group of monads without individuality, functioning together according to a preestablished harmony. 33 But though this may apply to a novel like Asiatische Banise, or to the tragedies and comedies of Gryphius, it cannot be said unconditionally of the satire of even such conformists as Rachel and Weise, to say nothing of Abraham. Conspicuous nonconformity, as we have seen, tended to vanish from satire, but the protest against the accepted forms of society remains irrepressible. Even Gryphius permitted his Squentz to remind the king that there were fools at his court, 34 and Weise can on occasion strike out at the chicanery in high places with a vigor that does not conform to the ideal of "politic" suavity which he holds up in most cases.35 T h e philosophy of "politic" behavior itself, though it aims presumably to coordinate the individual with the social whole, has undertones of restiveness or resignation which show the potential strength of nonconformist urges. Yet, though the critical tendencies of certain individuals could not be completely repressed, their gradual alignment with the highest standards of society was based, on the whole, on willing acceptance and on a confidence that at least the more reasonable spirits among their satiric objects could be educated to conform to these standards. T h e philosophy of life attained by Weise obviously represents in many respects the climax of satiric development in the seventeenth century, for it has found a release from the oppressive weight of hopeless sin, of unstable circumstance, and of universal social and political wrong. This could be said of Rachel's view as well, except that he leaves out of account the more difficult questions of man and state. Weise, less the self-conscious heir to the Opitz tradition, is more closely related to Moscherosch than to Rachel in the range of his social and political satire 38 as it appears especially iri Hauptverderber and Ma-

IDEALISM AND REALISM

171

saniello. In the treatment of character, too, such as that of Vertumnus, Catharina, and Masaniello, Weise exceeds Rachel in attempting to gain an insight into the irrational phases of man's being, however superficial his efforts remain. As a result, Weise's cheerful rationalistic eudaemonism carries a conviction and attains a significance not conveyed by Rachel. On the other hand, Weise's greater awareness of unsolved problems also raises a more insistent question concerning the source of an optimism which is able, somehow, to transcend them. It is certainly not to be sought entirely in favorable social or economic conditions, yet it is not thinkable except under such conditions. It is a view offering little protection against adversity, neither that of Moscherosch's militant attack nor that of Gryphius' stoic idealism. It requires the supporting frame of a larger group capable of introducing system and security into the life of man. For Gryphius, whose impressions were formed during the war and as a result of his own adverse fortunes, the good state was still in many ways a wishful ideal. Only his comedies, as we have seen, offer some evidence that the existence of a stable society was being recognized; yet even here its abstract nature is still apparent. For Weise the concept of the state is also to a large extent an ethical one whose standards are embodied in idealized leaders. Unlike Gryphius, however, this idealized state is given substance by realistic observation. When a courtier in Unvergniigte Seele says that the offices are filled, that the people know their places, and that everything will be in perfect order, Weise undoubtedly refers to actual, favorable conditions in his own state of Saxony. 37 If Masaniello indicates that Weise can take a less trustful view, it also shows that he is able to console himself with the thought that even the unjust prince is by training and experience more suited to the arduous task of government than a lowlier man of whatever good intentions. 3 8 There is undoubtedly a degree of cynicism or resignation in this, but it indicates that Weise's sense of security was not unduly shaken by society as he found it. A further factor contributing to Weise's optimistic view of reality is the tangible cultural and economic expansion of at least the upper middle class. Evidence of its economic growth is only secondary in his vorks, but documentation of the increasing cultural significance of the burgher is directly accessible. Education in the formal and practical sense, thought of by Moscherosch as a means to providing a good ruler, or as an aid in adversity, is now an instrument whereby the common man may achieve a sensible and enjoyable way of life. In this sense, vVeise devotes his Erznarren to simpler people, according to his own

172

IDEALISM AND REALISM

introductory statement. There are even signs that the learned, a group cutting across class distinctions, are gradually replacing the nobility as an ideal frame of reference. In Machiavell, the framework is not the court b u t the society of wise men, and in Erznarren the loftiest principles are represented by the educator Gelanor, and not by his noble charge. Finally, Weise's cheerful approach to reality must be attributed to the gradual enlightenment of thought which, as we stated repeatedly in preceding discussions, permitted the satirist to take his attention from the discouraging spectacle of man's sinfulness and to fix it instead to those phases of human behavior which offered promise of improvement. T h e liberalization of religious thought which this enlightenment produced is reflected unmistakably in Weise's Hauptverderber and in his Erznarren. In the former, where Weise defends Lutheran orthodoxy, he also expresses the opinion that God would not have permitted other Christian creeds to share in some of the sacraments if He had intended to assign all their members to damnation in the end. Even more liberal are the ideas of Gelanor in Erznarren. It will be recalled that he settles the philosophical dispute of two students by reminding them that practical application is more important than subtle philosophical or scientific theorizing; that, in his own words, it makes as little difference "whether one lets the earth stand still or move in a circle, provided the phenomena come out in the same way on both sides." Later in the same passage Gelanor concludes that it would be folly for two men to call each other heretics just because one chose to travel to Leipzig by way of Quedlinburg and the other by way of Magdeburg. 89 Strict Lutheranism has here been converted into the practical morality which is an essential part of Weise's rationalistic eudcamonism. In addition to such real bases—and one of them must also be considered his own moderate success—Weise's optimism is unquestionably due to some extent to his modest theoretical gift. It is tempting to speak of reluctance to broach difficult questions rather than inability, and certainly this would be in keeping with the satiric trends of his period. Weise, however, far from setting aside problems, is impelled to seek them out, yet the sterility of his solutions leaves no doubt concerning the direction of his weakness. Evil in the allegorical guise of Antiquus is to be educated by equally frigid abstractions, Appetitus is ordered chained to Rationalis, 40 and even Hauptverderber, with its realistic view of contemporary problems, personifies these as shadowy envoys of a mythical king. In related manner, deeper moral questions, such as those evoked by Catharina and Vertumnus, are solved mechani-

I D E A L I S M AND R E A L I S M

173

cally and perfunctorily. Weise was undoubtedly proud of a treatment of this sort, but the fact that he does not cultivate it more extensively must be taken as an indication that he was either aware of his limitations or instinctively drawn to a more creative medium. Whatever the sources of Weise's optimistic view of reality, it receives its most felicitous and convincing expression in his portrayal of character. Not all his figures are the products of an equally benign view. There are those who embody only single characteristics: boastfulness, stinginess, vanity; those who represent nothing but socially uncouth behavior; others seen favorably as pleasant and sensible, or wise and experienced; and finally, those who represent a human mixture of good and bad traits. Each of these groups embodies some facet of Weise's philosophy of life and some phase of the century's satiric trends toward a more relaxed approach to humanity, but none epitomizes both as completely as the fourth group, and here Weise is at his creative best. T h e first group, undoubtedly the most numerous, represents an advance over similar figures of Moscherosch only because the detail of portraiture is consistently greater, and the touch lighter. T h e second, though it reveals a manifest development toward tolerance in so far as it regards man as a social rather than a moral being, is artistically the weakest. T h e satirical purpose it serves, to be sure, is legitimate. T h e desire to inculcate on man, and especially the man of the middle class, finer manners as well as an understanding and acceptance of his position within the social whole is a natural expression of the view of life of Weise's age. T h e arrogant merchant and the youth fresh from France 4 1 may be devoid of the broader ethical implication which Gryphius' ideal background lends to similar types, but Weise's figures are nevertheless the products of a sincere desire to improve a social weakness. When, however, the peasants in Catharine dress a corpse on the gallows so that it will not offend the bridal party, or when the corpse in the village play in Tobias ends an argument by reversing the stage directions and carrying Tobias on his back, Weise obviously deviates into a pseudo satire dangerously close to that of the imitator, Riemer. In contrast to these, the third group, that of his favorable portraits, is obviously the product of genuine human understanding. Some, like Floretto in Keuschheit or the two young lovers in Catharine, are hardly more than sentimental idealizations copied from conventional "courtly" literature, but fine young fellows like Biribiziribo or the two students in Vom verfolgten Lateiner give evidence of Weise's true delight in observing man. Yet these and others one might add, significant though they are, lack the colorful inconsistency of the well-rounded human

174

IDEALISM AND REALISM

being. Even Gelanor, in Erznarren, notwithstanding the wisdom and tolerance he embodies, is hardly convincing as a man of flesh and blood. T h e height of Weise's own development and that of seventeenthcentury satiric portraiture is to be found in the last group. Here man, even in the reduced scale of satire, reveals himself in something of his natural contradictoriness. There is Bonifacius Lautensack, in Tobias, for example, a fool aware of his limitations, 42 yet too ambitious to yield to his better sense; presumptuous, irascible, not above petty dishonesty, but also endowed with something of Weise's own personality, that of the harassed schoolmaster who tries desperately to achieve a good performance despite those who spoil it for him, unquestionably a sly jibe at Weise's students as well as the fellow teachers and superiors who must have given the little rector difficulty enough in presenting his plays. Or there is Petronilla, in Lateiner, the devoted mother desirous of marrying off her daughter; the domineering wife who uses physical force to subdue her stubborn spouse; the boastful neighbor who immediately after the scene with her husband assures Blandina that he is no trouble at all. There are the village girls in the same play, eager for husbands, naively pleased at the thought of marrying counts who can coin their own money, yet honest, simple, suspicious of the high-flown language of their swains, and unaffected in their pleasure in everyday household matters. T h e number of figures such as these is not great. One might add the delightful servants, Passetemps in Unvergniigte Seele and T i t o in Catharine; or Florindo, in Erznarren, somewhat overwhelmed by the pedagogical use to which he is being put and a little conventional in his proneness to folly, but likable, and probably modeled after some young student who may have given Weise especial pleasure. It is unfair to make it appear as though Weise were at his best only in these fuller characterizations. His comedies particularly, where he cannot, as in his novels, indulge his schoolmasterly need to desicate life by explanations and moralizing, abound in examples of his gift for the comic. By way of example one need only mention the statement of the priest in Machiavell, that he cannot offend the simple villagers by admitting his knowledge of the actual nature of the sausages with which they have bribed him; or Biribiziribo's subsequent reference to these sausages as "reformed Lampreys"; 4 3 or Ephialtes' decision in Keuschheit, when he is given the choice between hanging and consenting to a most undesirable marriage, that it is safe enough to choose the latter, since he can always have himself hanged if he finds the union too trying. 44 These and innumerable other instances lend a sunniness of

I D E A L I S M AND R E A L I S M

175

mood to his writings which neither severity nor residual orthodoxy can dispel. It is customary to characterize Weise as a prosaic forerunner of eighteenth-century rationalism. 45 He is that, of course, but he also has flashes cJf true creativity, of wit, and playfulness. He does not reach these heights consistently, but when he does, his satire takes on the quality which one associates with the term "humor." It does not become a more profound humor only because Weise's concept of man is too shallow, but it offers proof that the satirist has reached a point where he can stand easily and enjoyably in the midst of life. Although all satirists discussed thus far see man through the screen of varying degrees of dogmatic Christian idealism, there was, as we have seen, a gradual substitution of ethical or social idealism for strictly religious values. In Reuter, Riemer, Beer, and Happel the ideal of behavior becomes even more clearly social in character. T h e last three, as if reluctant to admit this, retain some moral trumpery as a concession to popular tradition. Reuter, however, frankly discards all but purely social standards. Schelmuffsky, whether one looks upon him as portraying the ambitious bourgeois or the hero of the decadent novel of adventure, 46 satirizes not immoral actions but the vulgarity, mendaciousness, and egotism which represent the acme of disregard for accepted social norms. At the hands of Grimmelshausen or Abraham a figure like his would have symbolized the ludicrous vileness of the flesh. For Reuter, Schelmuffsky's vulgar lack of physical dignity merely offends the good taste with which the body is treated in the best circles, a good taste which does not exclude sophisticated lewdness47 but which shrinks from the unclean and the ugly. Similarly, the slovenliness of Schlampampe and her daughters is not seen as jeopardizing their souls, but as a ridiculous contrast to their lofty social aspirations. T h e realism of Reuter's view is intensified by the source of his figures. Weise has a gift for creating the impression that his culprits are sketched from life, but many are traditional types 48 on which he draws because they complete the panorama of human behavior. Reuter, little concerned with examples to illustrate the larger theme of human folly or wisdom, seizes upon the types which his surroundings provide and incorporates them into his works in recognizable copies: Johannes, the innkeeper; Injurius, the lawyer; Ehrenfried, the court wag. Even when he adopts a plot from Moliere, as he does in Ehrliche Frau, he adapts it to fit the persons of his unfortunate landlady and her daughters. 49 Reuter's practice of using living models is, of course, dictated to a large extent by his limited imaginative power: he is the parodist rather

176

IDEALISM AND REALISM

than the creative artist. On the other hand, his limitation also indicates a contact with reality so alive that it leads him naturally from observation for satiric purposes in Ehrliche Frau to observation for little more than the joy of human portraiture in Ehrenfried. Except for Injurius, all the characters in this comedy are treated indulgently despite obvious weaknesses: Leonore, the lock of whose honor, as she phrases it, 50 has already been broken by Ehrenfried, but who is eventually aided by a kindly monarch in winning her count; the pilferer Mummelmarten, who defends his thieving so convincingly; the little servant girl, with her sensible advice and her healthy sensuality; Johannes, the innkeeper, whose evaluation of Leonore before her wedding expresses the unaffected sexual amorality of the play: "A good wench, pretty, well-built, and also agreeably plump, God be praised!" 5 1 T h e center of these is Ehrenfried, modeled after an actual court figure,52 improvident, arbitrary, but good-natured and honest, a hedonist who derives an innocent joy from cultivating the amusing and the agreeable without intentional harm to others. Witkowski allowed his enthusiasm to carry him too far when he spoke of Ehrenfried as reaching "into that sphere of universal humor, where deep tragedy merges with the arousers of mad laughter." 6 3 There is a tragicomic element in the contrast between the carefree mood of the play and the inability of Ehrenfried to manage his life sensibly, but his is not a profound portrait. He is not the average human being, but an oddity, viewed with indulgence, to be sure, but not without an undercurrent of the censure which satire at that time continues to direct against the lesser nobility. Reuter does not, therefore, attain a tolerant view of life either in Ehrenfried or elsewhere. He is the realist with keen powers of observation, cognizant of man's fleshly needs, but without a grasp of his profounder psyche. T o speak of "universal humor" in his case is to misunderstand the gradual development of seventeenth-century satire toward an uncomplicated approach to the surface phenomena of life, free of any haunting consciousness of its depths. It is inevitable that this development should lead to the pseudo satire of the popular entertainers Riemer and Happel. T h e former's Politischer Maulaffe puts on a great show of satiric zeal, but his objects are only variants of the old, threadbare types who file past the reader as part of a patchwork of adventure, narrative, opportunistic or sanctimonious advice, filth, all constructed to amuse, gratify the pride, and lull the conscience. Happel's Akademischer Roman represents a higher level than Riemer, since his censure of various abuses in connection with education may be looked upon as motivated by an honest

IDEALISM AND REALISM

177

desire to effect a change for the better. There is an essential difference between these two writers of the fading Baroque era also in that Happel does not preach the brash opportunism of Riemer. But Happel's integrity is suspect for all that. T h e sensationalism with which he portrays what is supposedly typical student life, his unwillingness to search for deeper causes of wrongs, and the entertainment function of figures introduced ostensibly as adverse examples are evidence that his satire, like Riemer's, is of a lower order. Neither writer would be worth considering at all were it not for the fact that the very speciousness of their satiric intent indicates a realism of approach to man and life which, whether cynical, opportunistic, or pedantically pseudomoral, has learned to accept without tension the world as it is. Beer resembles Riemer and Happel in that satire is for him only an adjunct to the aim of entertaining, 64 yet he is of greater importance for the development of satire than they because of the nature of his realism. It is true that he shares something of their opportunism, as one may see in Sommertage, a novel which offers something to every reader: indulgence in fleshly joys and asceticism, satire and adventure, moral advice and unaffected playfulness. But beneath this ambivalence there is a kernel of true realism. On the pragmatic level it reveals itself in an extensive use of personal experiences and observations. 58 Philosophically, it appears above all in the manner in which Beer selects the greatest temporal good. Weise was guided in his selection by an act of reason which revealed to him what was most beneficial to the sensible man. Beer's guide is the natural human desire for self-expression. His highly individualized sources of pleasure as they appear throughout his Sommertage—friendship, nature, music, self-sufficiency, modest food and drink—appeal to the emotional and creative forces of a wellrounded personality, not merely to the intellect. Something of these joys is preserved even in his hero's life as a hermit when he spends his time in the forest reading, painting, playing his musical instruments, bathing, and praying. 50 Beer's treatment of nature and friendship are especially indicative of his closer approach to realism. T h e world of natural phenomena, freed of moral or sentimental pastoral symbolism, comes to life as something individualized, charming, and thrilling. 57 Like nature, friendship is unencumbered by moral screening. T h e relationship of tie friends about whose lives and opinions the novel, Sommertage, centers stands out in unaffected heartiness in the literature of a century vhen references to friendship, at least so far as satire is concerned, usually appear as attacks on human perfidy. They exchange books,

178

IDEALISM AND REALISM

k e e p each other abreast of the events in their lives, engage in discussions; or they join each o t h e r at merry gatherings, play pranks, a n d h e l p each other in difficult situations. Others in the novel may t u r n false, the a u t h o r may feel impelled to comment repeatedly on typical h u m a n wickedness or folly, b u t friendship remains as constant a n d gratifying as the simple country life he loves. T h e indulgence in such real pleasures does not signify that Beer has f o u n d an u n q u a l i f i e d relationship to the real world. T h e joys h e seeks denote not an acceptance of m a n and society b u t a desire for a physical refuge f r o m them. Yet the m a n n e r in which this wish is fulfilled also indicates a growing sense of realism. T h e desire to escape f r o m society is c o m m o n e n o u g h in the seventeenth century, b u t its avenue is moral r a t h e r t h a n social in character. Simplicius finds a haven on the desert island from the wickedness which the world stimulates in him; the lovers in Gryphius' Dornrose, with the instinctive virtue which their little world still permits in some instances, e m b o d y the desire to be free of the need for conscious ethical a n d r a t i o n a l control; the old couple in Weise's Unvergniigte Seele has f o u n d in G o d a n d love the true happiness which V e r t u m n u s has been seeking in vain. Of these, only Grimmelshausen thinks concretely of the details of his refuge on the island, b u t only for an individual a n d in s u r r o u n d ings so exotic that they p e r m i t n o application to c o n t e m p o r a r y realities. Beer also thinks of his ideal life as a moral haven free of the luxury of the city a n d rich in o p p o r t u n i t y for contemplation, b u t it has tangibles as well: the pleasure of living on one's own land, the closeness of all the resources of nature. It is clearly due in some part to this concept of an ideal life t h a t Beer's hero in Sommertage is a landed nobleman, t h r o u g h w h o m the a u t h o r enjoys vicariously the pleasure and security of which his actual life as a m e m b e r of the middle class deprived him. s 8 M u c h of this is obviously an anticipation of the yearnings which p r o d u c e d the Insel Felsenburg in the eighteenth century. Beer's view is more limited t h a n t h a t of Schnabel; it lacks the latter's predemocratic concepts a n d , as in the case of Simplicius, it is an escape only for the i n d i v i d u a l . B u t the traces of social t h i n k i n g are unmistakable. It is evident t h a t Beer's realistic sense of values m u s t lead h i m evenutally to set aside the satiric aim. H e takes great pains in concealing this f r o m himself as well as f r o m his readers. A l t h o u g h he states expressly at the outset that his Sommertage is n o t w r i t t e n to censure or reform, he later defends satire, 59 introduces a great r a n g e of culprits, a n d shows a predilection for preaching and a d m o n i t i o n . His

I D E A L I S M AND R E A L I S M

179

approach to man, too, appears to be that of the satirist. Persons change for the worse, fools are more numerous than attractive figures, and the world seems to him to be deteriorating constantly. 60 Nevertheless, the predominantly nonsatiric elements of the work belie this ostensibly serious intention. 0 1 Even those portions devoted to pure comment show a strong tendency to abandon censure for dispassionate discussion and reflection. T h e conversations of the friends on topics such as the superiority of the country over the city, 62 the advantages of obesity or slenderness, the value of books like the old folk tale Hugo Schapeler,03 are more closely reminiscent of the leisurely exchange of opinion in the manner of the later moral weeklies than of the censure or didacticism of the satirists. Final proof of Beer's advance toward realism is his philosophical ambiguity. Günther Müller speaks of the purposeful combination of phenomena in the Baroque which becomes a sequence of "curious," unrelated facts in Happel's Grösste Denkwürdigkeiten.M A like deterioration is reflected in the Sommerläge of Beer. In Weise, reality is subordinated to a rational system, strong as the tendency of various elements may have been to escape from it. Even Grimmelshausen, for whom reality has powerful, independent dynamics, still manages to establish a parallelism of the real and the transcendental, forced as it appears in his lesser works. Beer's novel drifts pleasantly on the stream of life, weaving of personal experience and fiction, moral conviction and sensual enjoyment, mood and opinion an eclectic pattern such as amorphous reality presents. Much has been made in the foregoing of the development of satire in the direction of realism. But in comparison with Abraham—the variety of his objects, the clarity of his detail, and the depth of his insight into human nature—the realism of the men discussed thus far appears wan and puny. While Weise, Riemer, and Reuter barely reach beyond the untroubled precincts of middle-class vanities or milder universal follies, Abraham scans the whole human panorama with encyclopedic thoroughness. In place of Weise's cheerful confidence in the justice of the ruler or Beer's individual escapism, the monk of Vienna strikes out against the authorities with undisguised harshness. While Weise and Gryphius devote a large part of their satire to a survey of social fools or to a supercilious ridicule of the uncouth villager, Abraham assembles familiar types before the reader: the old matchmaker; the woman tapping a dish carefully before she buys it. 6 5 Or he endows the figures of the Bible with the vividness of neighbors: the brother of the prodigal, who speculates concerning the causes of his

180

IDEALISM AND REALISM

father's festive preparations; Peter, suddenly free of imprisonment and feeling to ascertain if he still has all his clothes; old " G r a n d d a d d y " Noah, peering out to see if the waters have receded. 66 But in spite of the clarity of his perceptions and his unsurpassed graphic powers, Abraham remains a grand anachronism for whom the real is only a symbol of the transcendental. Just as he brings the abstract to life, so he devitalizes reality again by forcing abstract meaning upon it. 67 In the same way every reference to man as a natural being is a reminder of the cleavage between the spiritual and the physical. If for once Abraham speaks of the wonders of the human body, 6 8 he shows in numerous other instances that the body is weak and dirty in its infancy and becomes hideous with age, 6 9 and that by the same token marriage is nothing but a tribulation and virginity the best state. 7 0 Even Abraham's style, already outdated in his period in comparison with the less sensational methods of other satirists, devitalizes his realism. His concrete images and the whole body of story, proverb, and popular expression may be created for the comprehension of the simpler man by a speaker who has not lost his contact with the people, 7 1 but the puns and rhymes, the assonance and heaped-up words, the direct address and invective, also call attention to the fact that Abraham is viewing life not as the realist but as the man whose only concern is the salvation of the soul. It would, of course, be calumny to say that Abraham's only contact with life is through the transcendental. His irrepressible imagination and outstanding sense of the amusing as well as his sincere efforts on behalf of man's temporary and eternal welfare are proof that he has transferred to life and the service of his fellows all the forces which might have atrophied in a frustrated monastic existence. Love of God, release through creativity, joy in pure observation of man's amusing nature, all the things which were a bulwark and a refuge shielding his older contemporaries from the impact of reality, become for Abrah a m pivots which turn his energies back into life: to preach, cajole, admonish, to snatch from evil and rescue for heaven. It is true that even his vigorous and militant approach to life is anachronistic, yet Abraham is actually no more than an extreme reminder of the astonishing variety of which the satire of his time was capable. T h e broader goal is clear, but the means to reach it are many. Man is constantly reexamined and refashioned by the satirists. H e is the tragicomic amalgamation of qualities, the abject sinner, the ludicrous transgressor, the amusing embodiment of crudeness and poor judgment; he is examined with concern, with disdain, and with amused

IDEALISM AND REALISM

181

affection; as the recalcitrant object of moral instruction, and as the idealized mentor or the purely h u m a n actor in a real scene. It is as if the satirists of the century turned their h u m a n object about constantly, looking for his shadows, yet inevitably gaining an awareness of his brighter facets, so that the reality which they had set about to censure gradually surrounded them and enticed them to a more cheerful landscape, while a man like Abraham remains as only a solitary reminder that the shadows have not been conquered.

XIV

T H E AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF SCHUPP'S REALISM

I

in the previous chapter that increasing realism in satire represented a movement toward a reconciliation with man and the finite. If this is true—and it certainly appears so in the development which satire undergoes in the course of the century—then it would seem that Schupp with his practical orientation should have approached this conciliatory realism more closely than others. Realism, however, admits of more than one definition. Satire in the seventeenth century moves in the direction of what might be called a sublimated or literary realism: realism, because its presentation of man or life tends more and more to be based on psychological observation rather than preconceived religious or moral idealism; but literary in so far as reality is sublimated into a portrayal of character or situation which exceeds the empirical in universality or subtlety of selection, and in conscious artistry of treatment. Schupp, too, moves toward an empirical realism free in many respects of religious idealism, but one pragmatic in its direction and virtually unscreened by literary sublimation. T h a t is, except for such portions of his works as deal specifically with his activities as a clergyman, and to some extent it may be said even of these, he treats character or situation from the viewpoint of the related real problems with little regard for their essentially human or psychological aspects or for the refinements of their presentation. T WAS STATED

T h e distinction between sublimated and pragmatic realism cannot, to be sure, be drawn too nicely in the seventeenth century. Moscherosch, Logau, and A b r a h a m have a closer contact than Weise and R a c h e l with the deeper problems presented by their world and by the nature of man, but their approach remains an idealistic one. T h e younger satirists, on the other hand, set aside the idealistic religious approach to a large extent but their realism is limited by superficiality of view and an excessive simplification of the means to human happiness. T h r o u g h o u t there is also a lack of clarity as to the purpose to be achieved by satire. Moscherosch and Logau insist that their primary aim is not literary but didactic, yet it is significant that they do not carry this out by writing serious tracts to achieve their purpose. It is true that, as they state, they use even the limited obliqueness of

S C H U P P S REALISM

183

satire merely as a device for making the unpleasant truth palatable to men who will not hear it unadorned. But though satire exists on the literary periphery by virtue of the fact that it represents only the first level of artistic perspective with regard to the object of its attack, it is to some degree also a subjective method designed not only to degrade this object but to provide a release for the attacker. The urgent need for this release is shown by the intense nature of the satiric devices used by Moscherosch, Grimmelshausen, and others. In addition, the older satirists of the century show a strong tendency to move into even more clearly defined levels of literary sublimation either by their conscious cultivation of form or by an unexpressed but patent delight in narration, pure comedy, or, in rare instances, tolerant portrayal of a complex personality. Younger satirists like Weise and Reuter, more noticeably on the level of literary art in their treatment of reality, cling nevertheless to satire, which binds them to an undigested empiricism, as though they deemed it immoral to yield entirely to the purely creative impulse. So it is that even the entertainers Riemer, Happel, and, on a higher level, Beer, retain satiric elements as a kind of legitimation of their entertainment aim. There is a similar blurring of distinctions and purposes in other fields of writing in the seventeenth century. Theoretic writing is encased in such literary devices as Andreae's Christianopolis or Pufendorf's Monzambano, and even the idealistic Baroque literature, far removed as it is from any implication of the pragmatic, interlards its novels with merely informative material such as the detailed description of Indian customs in Ziegler's Asiatische Banise or the conversation between Markhold and the two sisters in Zesen's Rosemunde on the city of Venice and the history of the Germans.1 In spite of this lack of clarity, a movement in the direction of a sublimated or literary realism cannot be overlooked in the satire during the period of our study. Schupp's pragmatic realism, on the other hand, runs counter to all major satiric trends of the century. He continues to occupy himself with important problems of actuality even though his older contemporary, Lauremberg, had already limited himself to social or individual manifestations of lesser human follies in dress, speech, and poetry. Likewise, Schupp shows little interest in psychological character portrayal or in the comic as such, even in contrast with a man like Moscherosch. He barely takes notice of the major literary forms cultivated in his century. Above all, he gives evidence of his empirical and unsublimated orientation in the manner in which he reveals his own personality. The role which subjective elements played in the satire of the period

184

SCHUPP S REALISM

has been mentioned frequently in previous chapters. Yet figures like Philander, Lauremberg's burgher-innocent, and Simplicius, notwithstanding a degree of psychological and even autobiographical identification with their authors, are fictions to a large extent, created as satiric devices for heightening the ludicrousness of those observed or, in the case of Simplicius, as a means to more penetrating insight into the nature of man. We do not actually meet the true personality of the author in any one of these figures. Only Logau of the older satirists communicates himself directly, but in such a way that his personality is even more than that of Philander or Lauremberg a distinctly literary medium through which empirical reality is imbued with character and perspective. Like Logau, Rachel and Weise abandon the pose of the naive observer or unsocial oddity to a large extent, but neither communicates directly with the reader. Rachel uses the first person in his poems on occasion, but they are hardly personal. H e is the moral adviser, not the man whose first need is to bare his soul or even his thoughts. Weise uses the first person even less than Rachel. T o be sure, occasional references to his profession bring him palpably within the reader's reach, but he prefers in most instances to retire into a projection such as Gelanor, whose personal life and individual reactions fade away before his philosophic reflections on the typical nature of man. Not until Beer does a noticeable degree of autobiographical self-revelation enter into what might still be classified as satire, 2 but he too still blurs true self-communication with adventure, satire, and moral reflection. Schupp resembles Logau and Moscherosch in the intensity of personal reaction to wrong, but he is more like Logau, Rachel, and Weise in eschewing a pose or a fictional role. Yet he is dissimilar to all in the completely literal nature of his self-communication. It is true that he assumes such names as Antenor or Ehrenfried, or that he identifies himself with St. John or Jonah, but the former two are merely transparent journalistic pseudonyms, and the latter are so completely identical with Schupp that they are, in effect, pseudonyms also. For the rest, he gives himself so freely in his own person that his works are a direct autobiographical source to a degree matched by no contemporary satirist. T h e distinction between him and others is nowhere more conspicuous than when he is defending himself against his enemies. Logau, Moscherosch, and Lauremberg also had enemies, but they are able to rise above attacks by generalized ridicule, or to dispose of them briefly. Schupp steps before his attackers personally and refutes them in details drawn from his private life, his thoughts, his beliefs, and his

S C H U P P S REALISM

185

models, much as if he were speaking in self-defense before a tribunal, lit is true that he was attacked in Hamburg in a manner which could Inardly be brushed aside with a passing remark, and this accounts in Large part for the vehemence and directness of the polemics written tJiere. But the fact that Schupp is on occasion able to find a lighter slide in the accusations of his enemies indicates that he was not unable t.o treat them more obliquely if he had chosen to develop the style of hiis Lucianus or his Relation. T h e lack of screening in his self-revelation does not of necessity mean t h a t Schupp was incapable of philosophical abstraction. His Freund above all shows the extent to which he is able to look beyond the incidental to its significance for the relationship of man to man. But his chief purpose in writing is not to set forth reflections of this nature. H e is neither Logau nor Gelanor nor Simplicius; neither philosophic observer nor philosophizing preacher, nor the man descending into t h e labyrinths of the human soul. Painful personal experiences could aidd poignancy to the commonplace expressed in his Freund that there is no lasting friendship save that of God; beyond this, his reflections are satisfied to move in the conventional circle of religious thought. For Schupp is a man of action; he is hampered by any guise or indirection which distracts him from the problem at hand. T h e fact that Schupp's realism remains pragmatic does not indicate that he finds no creative release in writing. It is obvious that he lacks the imaginative gifts of some of the other outstanding satirists of his age, but he has unquestioned ability for writing vigorous and lively expository prose. He may not be able to free himself of the urge to heap examples or to deviate from the main thread of his discussion, weaknesses which contemporary style and especially that of the sermon could only encourage in him. But he also has the finer stylistic perception which enables him to clear away the excessive in structure, the verbosity, and the foreign expressions. Nor is he without a definite if circumscribed talent for creating a lifelike situation or for bringing a character before the eyes of the reader credibly or amusingly. Above all, it must not be overlooked that Schupp himself is aware of the nature of the creative release and seeks it out deliberately: he shows in his statement in Eilfertiges Sendschreiben that he takes a conscious pleasure in the refreshment of the spirit which the composition of his works provides. 3 It is possible to scorn him for the manner in which he phrases this feeling, 4 but it is actually a valid formulation of the satisfaction derived from self-expression through the spoken word, whether this is placed in the service of a journalistic or a more truly

186

SCHUPP S R E A L I S M

creative form. Schupp could obviously not be expected to have a concept of writing as a life-calling in an age in which such a career was only in process of development. It is to his credit, rather, considering contemporary views and inhibitions, that he matches fellow satirists in awareness that creativity can be used not only to educate others but as a release for the writer himself. It is true that Schupp struggles throughout his life with qualms concerning the moral validity of using such means as satire, the anecdote, and the fable in place of a direct, serious treatment of his subject. He abjures them in his early Latin "Program" to Proteus as follies of his youth, 5 and in a later German polemic even calls himself a sinner because of their continued use. 6 But his creative urge is strong enough to overcome his doubts and to impel him to return again to the satiric manner of writing, first because he believes that it can be effectual where other means have failed, as he states in Calender, Lucianus, and elsewhere, 7 and second, because, for all his directness and lack of sublimation, he obviously enjoys writing thus. But if one may find elements which lead Schupp somewhat beyond the pragmatic approach, his spirit nevertheless finds release not so much through the creative act itself as through the awareness of the practical and moral purpose it serves. This is substantiated by his attitude toward the other arts. His Salomo and De arte provide evidence that he takes pleasure in lovely gardens and in the products of the artisan's skill; 8 in singing, painting, and poetry. 9 But he never permits them to draw his attention from the urgent needs of the body and soul of man. Houses, as he says in De arte, should be built to be lived in; paintings are recommended in Salomo to decorate schools and churches instructively; and hymns, as we hear in Lehrmeister, should teach the truths of religion. 10 In a like sense, the burgher of Hamburg who boasts of his fine Diirer is reminded in Allmosenbuchse that he would do better if he made more generous contributions to charity. 11 T h e question of the nature of Schupp's creativity is more important in accounting for his apparently greater realism than for a definition of his philosophical approach. Literary sublimation, to be sure, freed the satirists from the oppression of an amorphous reality and from the sober tones with which religious idealism had imbued it, and correspondingly permitted a more realistic and in some respects more sympathetic portrayal of man. But in a sense it also broke the contact with actuality because it inevitably substituted analysis, perspective, and adjustment for live concern. Consequently, a practical man like Schupp, working pragmatically for the improvement of humanity, may be said to be as close to a reconciliation with the finite as the writer who approaches it with literary perspective.

S C H U P P S REALISM

187

It is obvious that from whatever viewpoint Schupp is regarded, he moves as others do in the general direction of tolerance toward man and the finite. T h e reason he does not attain this is that it was not within easy reach for any man of his period, not even for those who had progressed farther than he in a relaxation of moral or philosophical severity. T h i s is because, whatever advance was made toward a réévaluation of the finite among more enlightened thinkers at German courts and universities, man was not yet generally accepted as a whole being whose necessary elements were both spirit and body. Even man as a rational being, confidence in whose existence and perfectibility increases so strikingly in the later decades of the century, was viewed with misgivings arising partly from a recognition of his limitations, and partly from the traditional distrust of the finite that was a heritage from orthodox religion. T h e difficulty in the way of finding a single basis for the evaluation of real and ideal is apparent even in the thinking of Spinoza and Leibniz. They subsumed all phenomena under a single concept—undivided substance or transcendental activity—but they still found it necessary to incline the balance in favor of intellect and reason, so that the highest principle of the universe became clarity of rational perception rather than a dynamic interplay of the rational and the irrational. For the same reason Scheffler, the younger contemporary of Schupp, never achieved a true pantheism: God is present in living beings, according to his concept, only in so far as they are capable of love and self-abnegation, and not as an inevitable immanence. 1 2 Considering the difficulties of other, more liberal thinkers, therefore, it is to be expected that reality for Schupp, the orthodox theologian, no matter how energetically he devotes himself to improving its aspect, comprises in the last analysis only the narrow area reserved to the free will of man by the Lutheran-Augustinian definition, an area representing the converse of the transcendental, never its equal nor even its essential polar opposite. There are unquestionably times when Schupp transcends his orthodox distrust of the finite in his enthusiasm for education, his need for action, and his defense of individual or human dignity. But at heart he judges reality as strictly from the viewpoint of religious dualism as do Moscherosch, Logau, or Abraham. Despite his confidence in man's moral perfectibility within the frame of earthly existence, and despite the attractions which reality holds for him, the theologian in Schupp can only continue, in Hiob and Gedenk daran, Hamburg, to ascribe man's salvation to faith and divine grace, and not to his inherent potentialities for good. 13 Yet if one concludes that Schupp's position with regard to man is midway in the stream of satiric development, related to later writers by

188

S C H U P P S REALISM

his optimistic activism, but bound to earlier men by his moral severity, this does not signify that his philosophical approach to the finite represents nothing more than a stage to be conquered in satire. First, it must be recalled again that a reconciled view of man shows a development beyond satire only if the tolerance it professes is based on an awareness of the irreconcilable opposites in h u m a n nature; otherwise it deteriorates into the superficially optimistic, the vapid, or the cynical. When one calls to mind what had to be sacrificed in depth of human insight to achieve the approach to life of Weise and Reuter, to say nothing of popular entertainers like Riemer, it is obvious that Schupp, with his ability to find even a limited source of confidence in man despite his awareness of basic human iniquity, is in some respects as far advanced on the path to reconciliation as the younger satirists. Indeed, his very retention of the contradictions relates him to such satiric giants of the century as Moscherosch, Logau, Grimmelshausen, and Abraham, with their greater scope, depth of insight, and intensity of emotional reaction. Schupp, it is true, may no longer be grouped unconditionally with these men; he has more than a small measure of the rationalist's optimism in real matters typical of his younger contemporaries. But in contrast with men like Rachel, Reuter, and Weise, with their safely circumscribed social or ethical view and their trust in reason, Schupp's anger, his tenacious struggle with sin, and the sense of personal worth and divine appointment which embolden him, impart to him a nobility of stature vastly superior to their pedestrian proportions. Further, Schupp's philosophic approach cannot be construed as a mere phase to be overcome by continuing development because his pragmatism in social and moral matters, though it appears to belong to an older satiric phase in his century than the sublimated literary inclinations of later satire, actually represents a vigorous trend which flourishes lustily within and contemporaneously with it. Pufendorf with his ideas on the empire, Leibniz and his social and political suggestions, Seckendorff's educational plans, 14 Spener and Francke with their applied Christianity—these and others are men whom Schupp joins in taking up and spinning out threads leading from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, just as truly as do Weise and the other satirists in their way. For while the general tendency in satire is to recreate and carry into the eighteenth century some of the middle-class literature in process of development in the second half of the sixteenth century, Schupp takes u p the thread represented by Luther and his practical Christianity, a thread the strength of which is attested in the entire moral and educational trend of eighteenth-century rationalism.

Conclusion THE GERMAN SATIRE IN THE LITERATURE OF THE BAROQUE AGE

B

is said on Schupp it is well to look again at the aims which have guided the preceding study and at the conclusions which may be drawn in their light. T h e narrower aim as outlined in the Introduction was to examine the work of Schupp against the background of seventeenth-century satire. T h e most obvious conclusion has been stated too often to require more than a brief recapitulation here. T h e century's satire undergoes a clearly discernible development from an essentially critical approach which is, on the whole, unreconciled with its object to a treatment of reality which, though it does not reach the level of what might be called tolerant humor, is softened by a kindlier attitude. Schupp participates in this general development in his own manner. Placed chronologically midway in the century, he also straddles the earlier and later periods in his philosophical approach: he remains the severe satirist of man and the world, but he finds some source of reconciliation within the finite: first, in his belief that the physical welfare of man, however unimportant in a spiritual sense, remains the proper concern of the Christian; and second, in the conviction that not only religious but practical education has the power to lay in youth the foundation for a better world. E F O R E A FINAL WORD

A further conclusion suggested by the study is that in comparison with other satirists of his age Schupp has minor importance as a literary figure. It is true that much in the contemporary satire also has hardly more than sociological value. But much in it is of distinctly literary caliber. It is beyond question that Schupp too has much to offer that is stirring, interesting, or revealing of the man; but there is nothing in his works having, artistically speaking, more than the mark of a clearly defined personality writing easily and with purposeful intent. Even his polemics, in which he undoubtedly produces his most personal and original contribution to the century's writing, do not rise to the level of the artistic. This does not mean that the study of Schupp is without value for the understanding of literary developments. Just because of his more unjublimated approach to reality he is able to provide the reader with a knowledge of trends and influences in his age which are not as readily discernible in other writers, but which are essential to a comprehension

190

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E BAROQUE AGE

of the vast complexity which one calls the Baroque, both as an artistic entity and as a phase in the cultural processes unfolding in the course of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. T o clarify this special role of Schupp it will be well first to draw certain conclusions regarding the contribution of other contemporary satirists to an understanding of the age. It is not inappropriate to do so at this point, both because such a broader view of the role of satire has already been indicated from time to time, and because this view grows naturally out of the larger aim providing the original motivation for this work, that of a study of the nature of seventeenth-century satire as a whole. Satire may be called essential to an understanding of the seventeenth century because of the directness with which it reflects the actualities of its time and because of the special nature of its literary expression. In speaking of the realism of satire it must be repeated that it too was shut off to some extent from an uninhibited view of reality, first by religious or moral idealism and later by the limitation of its range and the superficiality of its view of man. Nevertheless, the immediacy with which it reflects the real world of its day is striking in comparison with the oblique, philosophical, and idealized reflection of this world in the novel, lyric, and drama of the higher literary levels of the Baroque. Even in the later decades of the century when satire shows a strong urge to follow the lead of Gryphius, Zesen, and the others in giving its attention to ethical and psychological problems rather than those of economy or politics, it never loses its awareness that man must live in a world of actualities. Satire further represents the realistic trends of its century in its concept of the nature of man. Far from idealizing him, it is inclined rather to reject him as a natural or even a rational being; but it is from the start conscious of two elements on which the Baroque of Gryphius or Anton Ulrich places a lesser stress: the combination of dark and light within the individual character, and man's power of spiritual growth. Except for Gryphius' Cardenio, the outstanding heroes of Baroque literature are static in their perfection or their single-mindedness: the Tightness of their decisions is immanent in their being. Only later, in a writer like Lohenstein, 1 does the moral perspicuity become clouded by such realistic motivations as the will to live or the desire to behave according to rank. Simplicius, Michel, Philander, and even Florindo, on the other hand, neither heroes of stoic will nor entirely undisciplined characters, learn what is right through error or suffering, and the victory they win is a precarious one dependent upon unrelenting vigilance. It is true that satire shows something of the uncompromising

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E B A R O Q U E AGE

191

attitude of Gryphius or Ziegler toward its adverse examples of human behavior, but even here there is a growing inclination to regard certain culprits with cynical amusement or with a degree of tolerance. A natural corollary of this concern with realities is the fact that satire grants expression to elements not directly represented on higher literary levels. First of these is the middle class. T h e novel, drama, and lyric of men like Zesen, Gryphius, and Hofmannswaldau, drawing as they do for their limited contact with actuality upon the courtly orientation characteristic of the dominant social pattern of their time, can reflect any stirring of middle-class self-awareness only indirectly. For Gryphius' one Gregor Kornblume—and even he is not a burgher, but a village lad in an idyll—there are all the lesser figures of the comedies who appear, in accordance with the dicta of Opitz, only to be ridiculed; and if Zesen's Rosemunde and Gryphius' Cardenio convey the implication that passions may be sufficiently intense to traverse the boundaries maintained by the literary level to which they belong, they are outnumbered by the stoic heroes and martyrs whose lofty position fits them peculiarly for the ascent to the highest peak of spiritual discipline. Satire, in closer contact with actuality, reflects and in part arises from the life of the middle class more directly. It is true that an essentially middle-class character cannot be ascribed to satire without qualification. Just as the ideals created by men like Gryphius are above all stoic-Christian in nature and as such express ideals of all articulate levels of the age, so satire strives for universal moral values rather than those specifically applicable to a class or an occupational group. Nevertheless, it cannot be questioned that satire grants expression to the middle class to an extent and with an immediacy matched nowhere else. This is evidenced in a number of ways: in the old-fashioned religious orientation so strongly reminiscent of the stanch burgher literature of the preceding century; in the willingness of the satirist to censure even princes and nobility for their wrongdoing; in the desire to educate members of the middle class to take their place in the world as it is socially and politically constituted; and, finally, in the selection of such favorable types from among the members of the class as Lauremberg's merchant, the sensible servants in Reuter's Ehrenfried, and the students in Weise's Lateiner. Significant, too, is a manifest pride in the moral and cultural excellence of certain members of the class as embodied in the satiric station point of which mention has been made repeatedly in preceding chapters: the satirist himself in his role as the observer and critic who, however amusing his nonconformity may appear, contrasts his integrity and judgment with the inadequacies

192

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E B A R O Q U E A G E

of those in his class and in other classes; or, especially in Weise and Rachel, the man whose superior education rather than his social position fits him to be the moral and social mentor of all classes. Like the middle class, the nonconforming individual is represented in satire as nowhere else to the same degree in seventeenth-century literature. He is not necessarily identical with the middle class, as the example of the nobleman Logau proves. But the fact that satire is usually presented as seen through the eyes of a personality whose right to view his times critically derives not from superior rank or station but from moral and intellectual qualifications, is not without significance in establishing some connection between the two. It is in the nature of the century's character that the most voluble expression of this right should come not from the class that dominated society, but from the one which was only beginning to feel its strength and to achieve its cultural maturity. 2 Above all, the fact cannot be argued away that it is not the novel and drama of higher Baroque levels with its courtlyidealistic mores which created the critical observer of society, but satire with its broader social base. Vietor calls the entire age one in which modern subjectivism is developed as man, gradually freed of churchly guardianship, begins to express a confidence in his own judgment in various ways: in the stoic voluntarism of the idealistic Baroque literature, in subjective mysticism, or in the sensualism of the lyric. 3 But one must add to this the fact that the satiric observer and critic also represents a form of subjectivism in the century. This does not signify that independent thought or original experience are being valued as they were in the eighteenth century, or that man in his peculiar individuality is being granted the right to self-expression. In spite of such highly individualized figures as Simplicius, Lauremberg's self-projection as the naive old burgher, and the narrator in Beer's Sommerlage, one may extend to the satire and especially to that of the second half of the century what Giinther Miiller says of the "representative" nature of Baroque man. 4 Nevertheless, satire grants to the individual the right to protest the behavior of society or to be different from its accepted standards to a degree entirely foreign to that of the idealistic novel or drama of the period. It must appear from the foregoing that the value of satire for an understanding of the seventeenth century had been determined according to considerations other than literary. It is true that its artistically unassimilated presentation of life fits it especially well for reflecting the cultural and social history of its age, so that satire must be classified on the one hand with certain writings of Leibniz and Pufendorf, and on

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E B A R O Q U E A G E

193

the other with Thomasius and, eventually, the moral weeklies of the eighteenth century. But the literary contribution of satire remains an important one. While it does not offer anything comparable with the spiritual or formal discipline of Gryphius' Papinianus or Anton Ulrich's Aramena, it shows increasing evidence that it, too, is striving for elements which are the essentials of creative literature: a concern with the typical human being, the elevation of the accidental and the empirical to the level of the philosophic, and the development of an appropriate form. But because satire—in contrast to the deductive approach of higher-level Baroque literature which superimposes ideals somewhat forcibly upon reality—proceeds inductively by searching in life itself for meaning and form, its processes are of necessity slower and less clear. Yet only the mention of Philander, Logau's self-portrait, and Grimmelshausen's Michel in Vogelnest I, to say nothing of Simplicius or of all the lesser satiric or comic characters, is ample reminder that satire, like the picaresque novel as Grimmelshausen employed it, was seeking to achieve something other than the Baroque of Gryphius and the others in human representation: the embodiment of the human paradox with its potentialities for strength and its all-too-human weakness. Giinther Miiller mentions that Weise in his Masaniello and Unvergnugte Seele shows the beginnings of a concept of "immanent tragedy" 6 which is not found in what he classifies as the Baroque, but this must be extended to all of satire as well, from the more complex selfportraits, real or fictional, to the satiric or comic figures who at once exasperate and amuse the reader. T h e philosophy of life which underlies this delineation of human character in the satire is by no means as clear in outline as that of Gryphius and Anton Ulrich. T h e hordes of evildoers in the older satire and the endless supply of the crude and the foolish in later works are evidence that the satirist, however unmistakable his growth in the direction of human understanding, cannot throw off his skepticism. But it is also clear that he is striving for a philosophy of life which takes into account elements not considered elsewhere in his age in the same manner. In the earlier period, and to some extent throughout, he is too serious for the pleasant hedonism of the erotic lyric of his age, too rationalistic for the emotionalism of the mystics; above all, too realistic in outlook for the esoteric idealism of the drama and novel of the Baroque. Rather, he attempts to formulate his own approach to life by seeking 10 bridge the gap between the pessimism inherent in religious idealism jnd the hopefulness of realistic empiricism. In this search, Moscherosch, Logau, Grimmelshausen, and Abraham can only project once

194

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E B A R O Q U E AGE

again the panorama of a sinful world, hardly willing to take cognizance of the vitalism stirring within it, a world perhaps epitomized best by Simplicissimus. Satirists like Weise and Rachel do not succeed any better in the union of the opposites; but they have attained sufficient confidence in life to set aside the somberer moral view and to find a more clearly definable philosophy in a kind of ethical empiricism which accepts man somewhat cautiously, but still grants him certain valuable qualities, not the least of which is his ability to respond to education. It is true that this philosophy is not a profound one. At its worst it deteriorates too easily into a substitution of the material for the spiritual, as the example of Riemer and in some respects also that of Weise shows; and even at its best it remains superficially optimistic. But it offers something which the simple man of the period cannot find in Anton Ulrich or Gryphius: a philosophy within the reach of the average human being, hopeful and generally trustful of man and life. 6 T h e difficulties encountered in finding a form to suit the satirist's view of the finite are apparent in the variety of genres employed: epigram, verse satire, prose novel-revue, comedy, satiric novel, sermon or didactic prose sketch. Some of these lend themselves better to discipline than others, but common to the entire group is an impatience with all forms which stand in the way of an honest and unhampered presentation of reality. T h e rejection of the restrictions imposed by fashionable literature does not mean that they are without influence on satire nor that all form is set aside by the satirists; the time was clearly past for such a violation of style in the interests of moral utilitarianism as one finds in Ringwaldt's Treuer Eckhart of the preceding century. From the start the currently acceptable forms as well as those imposed by the satirist himself are balanced against amorphous freedom. Logau pours his highly individual idiom into the mold of the classical and neo-Latin epigram; Lauremberg achieves a bold combination of Alexandrine, doggerel, and the virile language of the Low-German burgher; Rachel, proud of his classical antecedents, writes regular but colloquial verse; and Weise in his comedies follows the rules of Opitz on the whole in the selection of character and subject matter, but employs greater episodic freedom than strict adherence to classical models might warrant. Even the novel-revue, most popular of the satiric genres and least influenced by the acceptable models of the day, is not without evidence of a striving for formal discipline. On the surface, to be sure, the dissimilarity between the satiric revue and works like Banise or Carolus seems attributable to artlessness or to undue willingness to make con-

GERMAN SATIRE IN T H E BAROQUE AGE

195

cessions to the less critical reader. But although these are undoubtedly contributing causes, the differences arise basically from the special approach for which the satiric novel is seeking expression. Seen thus, it is clear that the loosely constructed novel-revue is best suited to the problems which the satirist had set for himself. A growth in the direction of a pedagogical novel or novel of individual experience is unmistakable, 7 but it cannot be consummated because the satirist cannot abandon scope for concentration on the growth of an individual character, however universal the implications of this growth may be, as long as he feels impelled by serious moral or social problems to censure and educate the many. It is interesting that even Grimmelshausen cannot maintain the level which he attains in his Simplicissimus by what is virtually a prophetic act of his genius. He reverts to the revue again in his lesser works, and even his imitator, Beer, in spite of his vastly increased subjectivity, feels it needful, in Sommertage, to surround what is actually a novel of individual experience with many of the old trappings. A work like Weise's Erznarren, therefore, must be compared with novels like Aramena or Asiatische Banise, not to show the lack of artistic discipline in the satiric or realistic literature of the age, but to bring to light the special literary form which the satirist's approach to reality demanded. Considered from this viewpoint, Erznarren is a work well designed to fill its particular purpose. Its length is not excessive, the educative incidents or personalities have variety and clarity of intent, the central figures show individuality without drawing the reader's attention too strongly from the pedagogical aim of the novel, ample opportunity is supplied for the comment and discussion essential to the plan, and the language is simple and unobtrusive. If this work of Weise nevertheless appears rambling and undisciplined, a comparison with Moscherosch's Gesichte makes it clear what progress has been made in eliminating the excessive, the reiterative, and the unreal. It is obvious, therefore, that satire, whatever phase of the seventeenth century it touches, whether the practical, the journalistic, or the literary, neither follows in the footsteps of the remaining literature of the Baroque nor moves in studied opposition to it. Instead, it seeks to treat in effectual form those problems of the individual character and of society which are not or cannot be reached by the other areas of literary expression, but which are essential of solution. In this the satire not only represents its own age as validly as the higher levels of Baroque literature, but reveals more clearly than these the threads leading from Fischart, Wickram, Sachs, and Ringwaldt of the preced-

196

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E B A R O Q U E AGE

ing century to the moral weeklies, the satire, and, indeed, the whole body of middle-class literature produced in the first half of the eighteenth century. When Schupp is placed against satire thus seen as a phase of the larger cultural pattern of his age, it is immediately clear that his contribution to an understanding of his century lies above all in the fact that he represents the growth of realism in its most pragmatic form. Consequently, Schupp illuminates certain phases in the development of middle-class self-awareness which do not come to light elsewhere in satire with the same clarity. He reflects this self-awareness in both the cultural and the economic role he assigns to the class in the state. T h e latter role is that of the merchant and artisan who provide the state as well as the individual citizen with material well-being and a source of independence. T h e cultural role is especially that of the preacher and educator, both essentially middle-class professions, 8 and both fundamental to the welfare of society. For it is the teacher, as Schupp states in Schulwesen, who trains councilors, prime ministers, and even the ruler himself for their positions, 9 while the preacher, conscience of the state by divine appointment, follows in the footsteps of that same Luther who, according to Schupp's proud assertion in Hauptmann zu Capernaum,10 restored to the princes the autonomy of which the old church had deprived them. Beyond this pride in his double profession, Schupp sees even in the simple man of the middle class a moral and cultural model for society: moral, as the embodiment of the simple follower of Christ, as he says in Calender;n and cultural, in the fact that the artisan, like the peasant, is, according to the statement in Salomo and elsewhere, often the possessor of a skill and a knowledge in which the learned are noticeably deficient. 12 T h e practical nature of Schupp's realism also permits him to express more clearly certain phases of the century's trend toward subjectivism. Neither the conventional self-revelation of the erotic lyric and the nascent novel of individual experience nor the conscious or unconscious religious nonconformism contained in Baroque voluntarism or in the emotionalism of the mystics are typically within Schupp's range of selfexpression. His subjectivism is rational in character. Not mood, emotional reaction, or introspection, but independence of thought, unhesitating attack upon problems, an undisguised, immediate presence in his writings as a man conscious of his worth and his duty—these are the forms in which he gives utterance to his belief in his right to individual viewpoint and individual protest. It is a right expressed by the satirists and by all the other courageous and rational critics of the world of his

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E B A R O Q U E AGE

197

day in varying degrees of intensity in contrast to the "representative" actions and emotions of the heroes of Gryphius and Anton Ulrich, but no other satirist, certainly, expresses it in the frank, self-assured manner of Schupp. T h e form which Schupp's subjectivism takes does not imply a belief in moral autonomy. Yet in the personal assurance of the educated and successful man of the middle class which he reflects it is not possible to overlook some trace of a nascent voluntarism whose direction, to be sure, is not spiritual as in Gryphius but pragmatic, a voluntarism still safely within the bounds of Lutheran free will and expressing itself for the time only in the desire to participate actively in society as it is, but bearing within itself the seeds of future, more outspoken independence of viewpoint. It is significant for an understanding of the century, too, that Schupp's pragmatism also extends to certain phases of his religious activity. He brings to the stoic-Christian philosophy of the courtly novel and to the nascent eudaemonism of Weise the reminder that even within the strictest orthodoxy a path toward a kindlier approach to the finite could be found. It is important to reiterate that his religious views were rigid; that, indeed, they took u p readily such superstitions of his age as the belief in witchcraft, the personal appearance of the devil, and "second sight," as his Ehrenrettung and Buszspiegel attest. 13 But reality had already made such demands upon the attention of his times that even Schupp could no longer devote himself to the frustrating contemplation of h u m a n sinfulness with which so much of the satire of Moscherosch and Logau was laden. Instead, his practical orientation saves him both from the petty quarrels of the theologians and from an exclusive concern with the wickedness of man, and permits him to give his attention to man's physical and moral needs. It would be incorrect to create the impression, as the foregoing perhaps does, that Schupp's main contribution to an insight into his century lies in the contrast which his realism presents to the loftier literature of the Baroque. A certain similarity between his view of the state and that of Anton Ulrich has already been mentioned. In Salomo as well as in the latter's Aramena, if one may for the moment place in juxtaposition two entirely dissimilar works, the state is not, as in Erznarren a framework within which the individual ethical or physical existence is unfolded, but an interaction of human forces according to an encompassing plan. In place of Anton Ulrich's vibrant coincidence of transcendental and individual will Schupp offers only a combination of piety and prosaic social and political management, but his interpre-

198

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E B A R O Q U E AGE

tation of the state as a living unit is no less convincing. T h e role of the individual within this unit consequently also shows some kinship with that of the "courtly" Baroque. For Anton Ulrich the history of states and that of his princely heroes and heroines are identical. 14 Schupp's statesmen, merchants, teachers, artisans, and even his princes do not by their individual lives or decisions create state history; they are only the elements which when placed together compose the whole. But they show none the less clearly that the ideal personality is for Schupp too the one whose activities are linked to the larger affairs of his world. T h e same combination of disparity and similarity appears in comparing the religious ideas of Schupp with those of the idealistic literature of his age. On the surface there is little likeness between Schupp's conventional concept of sin and punishment and Anton Ulrich's glorification of heroic will. But though Schupp is less hopeful of the outcome of spiritual struggle, or at least less inclined to portray it in his writings, he knows as well as the authors of Aramena or Carolus, and better than Weise or Rachel, the cost at which the moral victory is won. In this respect he would not, to be sure, differ from Moscherosh, Logau, or Grimmelshausen were it not that, like Anton Ulrich, his moral seriousness does not preclude an optimism concerning the possibility of achieving a satisfactory reality. T h e foregoing is not based on the assumption that the unsublimated journalistic realism which Schupp represents can in any way be equated with the outstanding literary works of his age. T h e artistic abyss between him and men like Anton Ulrich, Gryphius, Zesen, and Ziegler is too profound for even the most tentative comparison. Yet the formal sense of the age, which soon made obvious demands upon even so unstandardized a body of writing as that of satire, reached Schupp also. He shows none of the Renaissance-classical elements which draw slender threads from the upper levels of the Baroque to Logau, Rachel, or Lauremberg; his style and form derive rather from Luther than from the ornate stylizations of structure and language with which the best writers of his age express the living harmony of reason, will, and emotion. 15 As in content so he is in style the pragmatist who suits his manner of writing to immediate effectiveness. But the fact that he has some stylistic consciousness shows more clearly, perhaps, than does the remainder of satire with its literary adumbrations that the cultured man, however unliterary his aims, could not escape entirely the aesthetic demands of his day. It is idle to go beyond these suggestions of a similarity between Schupp and a writer like Anton Ulrich von Braunschweig. Schupp's

G E R M A N S A T I R E IN T H E BAROQUE AGE

199

significance for his period lies in the special trend he embodies, not in his similarity to, or difference from, contemporary literary forms and contents. T h e problem with which the entire century dealt was, to p u t it in the broadest terms possible, that of finding some basis for a positive valuation of the finite. Gryphius and Anton Ulrich finds this in the confidence that man, or at least his idealization, can weld into harmony the physical and the spiritual, the will and the desire; Weise finds it in that combination of circumspection and ethics which is not beyond the reach of the average man; for Schupp it lies in the area in which man may be socially and spiritually active for his fellows. Schupp's practical viewpoint combined with his stout piety is, therefore, as essential to rounding out the picture of his century's realism as are the special contributions of each of the remaining satirists with whom the previous discussion has concerned itself. Schupp has been placed between Luther and Lessing in style 16 by a partisanship which overlooks the simplification and invigoration of style noticeable everywhere in the seventeenth century, and particularly in the satire. But the comparison is not entirely inappropriate; one may even go beyond it and place him between the two men in his approach to reality. He lacks the genius of both; he is only the follower and supporter, not the originator as Luther is; he has none of Lessing's finer stylistic balance, none of his philosophical insight, nor his literary perception. But he resembles both in the vigor, courage, and honesty of his approach to his world, in the view, in short, that reality is worth the fighter's mettle. He corroborates thereby what the remainder of the satire revealed or indicated: that a complex, varied, and changing but recognizable and continuous stream led from the sixteenth century through the seventeenth and into the eighteenth.

NOTES N O T E S T O INTRODUTION

1. For easily accessible surveys of Schupp's life see Lerche, Euphorion, X V I I I , 581 ff., or Stötzner, introduction to his edition of Schupp's Lehrmeister. X V I , 15. 2. Vogt, Euphorion, 3. Vogt, Archiv für Hessische Geschichte, p. 103. 4. Becker, "Aus Schupps Marburger T a g e n , " p. 185. 5. Ibid., p. 181. See also Nebel, "Briefwechsel," p. 63. 6. Reifferscheid, Quellen, document 540, lines 10 and 14. 7. Ibid., letters 541 and 542; Vogt, Euphorion, X V I , 295. 8. Vogt, Euphorion, X V I , 676 ff.; X V I I , Iff.; 251 ff., 491 ff.; and Zschau, Quellen und Vorbilder. 9. Becker, op. cit., pp. 182 ff. 10. Lerche, op. cit., X V I I I , 587; Bindewald, "Urkundliche Beiträge," pp. 110 f. 11. Schupp, Program to Proteus, pp. 2 and 9 ff.; Nihili, pp. 36 f.; Vogt, "Aus Schupps Marburger Tagen," p. 189; Lühmann, Johann Balthasar Schupp, p. 26. 12. Schupp, Calender, p. 62; Schupp, Relation aus dem Parnasso, p. 19; Nebel, op. cit., pp. 76 and 77. 13. Nebel, op. cit., pp. 54 f. 14. Vogt, Euphorion, X V I , 303 f.; Bischoff, Johann Balthasar Schupp, pp. 26 ff.; Vogt, Archiv für Hessische Geschichte, pp. 145 ff. 15. Vogt, Euphorion, X V I , 240 ff., 279 ff., 293. 16. Stötzner, op. cit., pp. 16 f. 17. Bischoff, op. cit., pp. 26 ff. 18. Stötzner, op. cit., p. 11. 19. Vogt, Euphorion, X V I , 251 ff. See also Lühmann, op. cit., and Stötzner, op. cit. 20. Vogt, ibid., pp. 254 ff.; X V I I , 533 ff.; Lühmann, op. cit., pp. 30 ff. 21. Zschau, op. cit.; Vogt, Euphorion, X V I , 676 ff.; X V I I , 1 ff.; 251 ff. 22. Especially in the publication of letters and documents. See the Bibliography. 23. Vogt, Euphorion. X V I I I , 342 ff.; Lerche, op. cit., pp. 581 ff. 24. Beside the summary by Vogt mentioned above see the following: Baur, Johann Balthasar Schupp als Prediger; Hentschel, Johann Balthasar Schupp, pp. xx ff., and Weicker, " J o h a n n Balthasar Schupp," for Schupp's educational ideas; Klamroth, Beiträge zur Entwicklung der Traumsatire, pp. I l l ff., on Schupp's place in the Latin dream satire; Lühmann, op. cit., especially for Schupp's Latin works; Vial, Johann Balthasar Schuppius als Vorläufer Speners. 25. Style: Hölting, / . B. Schuppius, pp. 10 ff.; Zschau, op. cit., pp. 50 and 61; Lühmann, op. cit., pp. 87 ff.; Bloch, " J o h a n n Balthasar Schuppius," p. 36; Lerche, op. cit., X V I I I , 605 ff.; Bischoff, op. cit., p. 34; Vogt, Hessenland,

202

NOTES:

CHAPTER

p. 122; Weicker, op. cit., pp. 2 ff. Creative ability: Vogt, Euphorion, 482, 484; Bischoff, op. cit., p. 34; Lühmann, op. cit., p. 82; Vogt, p. 60. 26. Hölting, op. cit., pp. 20 ff.; Baur, op. cit., pp. 10 f.; Bloch, op. Rentsch, " Ü b e r J o h a n n Balthasar Schupp," p. 23; Baur, " J o h a n n Schupp," p. 326; Weicker, op. cit., p. 7. 27. Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, pp. 241 and 246 f. 28. Vogt, Euphorion, X V I , 250 f. 29. Stötzner, op. cit., p. 18.

I

X V I I , 14, Hessenland, cit., p. 37; Balthasar

NOTES TO CHAPTER I 1. Becker, Weise, pp. 7 ff. 2. Klamroth, Traumsatire, pp. 1 ff. 3. Becker, op. cit., pp. 35 and 50. 4. Beer, Sommertäge, pp. 434 ff., 542, 577 ff. 5. Schertz Gedichte, pp. 5 ff. and 32 1. 6. Klamroth, op. cit., pp. 99 ff. 7. Fulda, Deutsche National-Litteratur, X X X I X , lix. 8. Klamroth, op. cit., pp. 70 ff. 9. Gesichte, pp. 51, 61, 152 (Deutsche National-Litteratur). 10. Ibid., pp. 7 ff. (D.N.L.), and 202 ff. (1645). 11. Satyrische Gedichte, pp. 33 and 40. 12. Klamroth, op. cit., p. 12. 13. Ibid., p. 53. 14. Ibid., pp. 92 f. 15. Ibid., pp. 1 ff. 16. Becker, op. cit., pp. 30 ff. Note that Traumgesicht von mir und dir, which might be mentioned here, is not by Grimmelshausen, according to Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, p. 213. 17. Pp. 330 ff. 18. Gehab dich wohl, p. 64; Judas, pp. 240 f. 19. See also Becker, op. cit., p. 37. 20. Klamroth, op. cit., p. 36. 21. Gesichte, pp. 23, 33, 81 (D.N.L.). 22. Pp. 330 ff. 23. Bäurischer Machiavellus, pp. 57, 95 f. 24. Klamroth, op. cit., pp. 124 ff. 25. Lauberhütt I, p. 2; ibid., I I I , p. 70; ibid., I, p. 12. 26. Gemisch-Gemasch, pp. 45 f.; Lauberhütt III, p. 27. 27. Gemisch-Gemasch, pp. 45 f. 28. Lauberhütt I, p. 6. 29. Gesichte, pp. 268 ff. (1645). 30. Ibid., pp. 49 ff. and p. 218 (D.N.L.). 31. Ibid., pp. 863; 824 ff. (1645). 32. Erznarren, pp. 31 ff.; 96 ff.; 112 ff. 33. Lauberhütt I, p. 57; Gemisch-Gemasch, p. 38; Gehab dich wohl, p. 56.

NOTES: CHAPTER

II

203

NOTES TO CHAPTER II 1. Volumen, p. 202, "si quis sepulchrum Ignatii perminxisset" (i.e., Ignatius Loyola). 2. A work, which never appeared. Vogt, Euphorion, XVI, 263. 3. "Feci hoc cum nullius boni injuria, sed t a n t u m animo exercendi stylum e t excitandi j u v e n t u t e m . " Program to Proteus, Volumen, pp. 10 f. 4. Sieben böse Geister, p. 351. 5. Pp. 104 ff. 6. Hiob, pp. 169 f.; Lucianus, pp. 7 f.; De opinione, Volumen, pp. 59 ff.; Corinna, p p . 92 f.; Salomo, p. 20; Freund, pp. 19 ff.; De arte, pp. 46, 141; Eilfertige Antwort, pp. 82 f. 7. See also Klamroth, Traumsatire, p. I l l , and Hölting, "J. B. Schuppius," p . 10. 8. De opinione, Volumen, pp. 65 f.; Sieben böse Geister, p. 341; Salomo, p p . 106 f.; Lucidor, pp. 290 ff. 9. Hiob, p. 137; Geistlicher Spaziergang, pp. 64 f., 68, 105 f. 10. De arte, Volumen, p p . 147 ff. 11. I.e., love of wealth, lust, and pride. Ehrenrettung, pp. 82 ff. See also Buszspiegel, p. 6. 12. Sieben böse Geister. T h e s e are not true allegories, however, since S c h u p p probably believed in their physical reality. 13. Curiositas in De arte, p p . 40 f.; Nullus a n d Nemo, ibid., pp. 144 ff.; Die, Due, Fac, Fer, Freund, p. 46 and elsewhere. 14. Cassandra, Fabius Cunctator, and Eckhart, in De arte, pp. 141 ff., 164, a n d 168. 15. Somnium, p. 203, O r p h e u s and Mercury; ibid., p. 204, Vulcan; ibid., p. 205, Pegasus. 16. De arte, p. 13; Calender, p. 62. 17. De oratore inepto, pp. 39 f. 18. Schulwesen, pp. 29 f. 19. See also Vogt, Euphorion, XVIII, 363. 20. Freund, p p . 30 f.: "Allein, da J o h a n n e s sein Maul auftät, u n d H e r o d i u n d seiner H u r e n selbst sagte, was ihnen zu sagen war, da war alle G n a d aus; Da k u n t e J o h a n n e s nicht mehr wol predigen. Da werden die Page, die L a q u a i e n , die Stiefelschmierer J o h a n n e m reformirt, u n d werden, w a n n sie nach der T a f e l aufgewartet, gegen einander gedacht haben, was J o h a n n e s f ü r ein alberner einfältiger Pfaff sey? . . . Da wird etwan ein Hof-Juncker angefangen h a b e n : Der Kärl, der Johannes, sey ein Phantast. M a n sehe es wol a n seinen Kleidungen. Da komme er aufgezogen mit einem Kleid von Cameel H a a r e n . O wie werden sie d e n ledernen Gürtel d u r c h das A B C gezogen h a b e n ! Ein ander Hof-Juncker wird etwan gesagt h a b e n : Der gute M a n n sey kein Politicus. Er h a b da in der W ü s t e n gelegen, u n d h a b Heuschrecken u n d W i l d - H o n i g gefressen. Er h a b nicht viel mit Leuten conversiert." 21. Salomo, p. 125. 22. Allmosenbüchse, p. 25. 24. Freund, pp. 25 ff. pp. 205 ff.; Lucidor, pp. 292 ff. 23. Lehrmeister, pp. 41 ff.; Schulwesen,

p p . 22 f.; Ninivitischer

Buszspiegel,

204

NOTES: CHAPTER

III

25. Lehrmeister, p p . 41 ff. 26. Ibid., p p . 39 f. 27. Bischoff, Johann Balthasar Schupp, p. 34; Vogt, Hessenland, p. 60; Hölting, Programm, p p . 5 a n d 27; Vogt, Euphorion, XVIII, 357; L ü h m a n n , Johann Balthasar Schupp, p. 82. 28. Zschau, Quellen, p. 1. 29. Vogt, Euphorion, X V I I , 474 ff. 30. Vogt, Euphorion, X V I , 691 ff.; Zschau, op. cit., p p . 6 ff. a n d 32. 31. See editorial c o m m e n t in Relation, Lehrmeister, Schulwesen. 32. De opinione, p. 144: " O m n i a , ut r a p t i m a n i m o meo occurrerunt, in chartam conjecti. Q u a d e i n d e corrigere nolui, q u i a ingenium m e u m n o n amat limam." 33. Bindewald, " U r k u n d l i c h e Beiträge," p. 107. 34. Attacks began soon again. See Relation, p. 19, and Nebel, "Briefwechsel," p p . 54 f. 35. Relation, p. 19; Freund, p. 23. 36. De arte, p p . 169 f.; 190. 37. A n t e n o r in Buszspiegel a n d Sieben böse Geister, Ehrenhold in Corinna, Serapion in Golgotha, to n a m e only a few. 38. Salomo, p. 15; Eilfertige Antwort, p. 82; Freund, pp. 25 ff. 39. Ambrosi Mellilambii Sendschreiben, pp. 365 f.; Salomo, pp. 99 f.; Freund, p p . 25 ff. a n d 40 f.; Lehrmeister, p. 38. 40. Ehrenrettung, p. 143. 41. Relation, p. 19; Calender, p. 62; Freund, p. 23. 42. Ehrenrettung, p p . 143 ff.; Buszspiegel, p. 6; Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p p . 204 f.; Freund, p. 27. 43. Freund, p. 26. 44. Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, p. 130. 45. Calender, p. 62; Freund, p. 23; Buszspiegel, p. 169. 46. Here, too, there are digressions: Freund, pp. 36 ff., and Salomo, pp. 46 f. 47. Eilfertige Antwort, p p . 113 f. See also Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, pp. 131 ff. 48. Corinna, p. 6. 49. Baur, Johann Balthasar Schupp als Prediger, p. 39. 50. See footnote 21 of I n t r o d u c t i o n . NOTES TO CHAPTER I I I 1. See also Worcester, The Art of Satire, p. 20. 2. Gesichte, pp. 48, 50, 66, etc. (Deutsche National-Litteratur). 3. Ibid., p p . 130 ff. (D.N.L.). 4. Ibid., p. 12 (D.N.L.); p. 209 (1645); p. 17 (D.N.L.). 5. Ibid., pp. 243 ff. (1645); p p . 60 ff. (D.N.L.); p. 354 (1645); p. 457 (1645). 6. Ibid., p. 26 (D.N.L.); p. 155 (1645); p. 161 (1645). 7. Ibid., p. 39 (D.N.L.). 8. Ibid., p. 217 (1645). 9. Ibid., p p . 824 ff.; 870 ff. (1645). 10. Ibid., p. 859. 11. Ibid., p. 148 (D.N.L.).

NOTES: CHAPTER III

205

12. Ibid., p. 138: "das diese Helden mächtig grosse Lätzen an der Hosen getragen." 14. ". . . Eines andern sein Heyl, ist dem Neydigen sein Sail, so ihn erdrosslet, eines andern sein Guet, ist dem Neydigen ein Gluet, so ihn brennet." 15. ". . . Da kanns dem Bruder Isaschar nicht fählen, dass er nicht Obrister Kuchl-Meister wird, er isset ohne das gar gern gute Bissel; der Bruder Simeon wird ohne Zweiffei Obrister Cammerer werden, d a n n er kan mit den Complementen umbspringen . . . ey, Got geb, dass unser Sepperl ein König wird!" 16. ". . . Ihr Neyder, u n d Neydhard, ihr Neydhund, ihr Neydfalcken, ihr Neydteuffel, ihr Neydbrüder, ihr Neydverwandte des J u d a e Iscarioth, des Ertz-Schelms. Bessert euch, wofern ihr nit wolt mit disem ewig, achl ewig von Gottes Angesicht verworffen, u n d an die Ketten der ewigen Verdamnuss angefässlet werden, allwo unendliches H e u l e n und Zähnklappern das schmertzliche Ewig, Ewig augenblicklich vergrössert." 17. Cysarz, Deutsche Barockdichtung, pp. 209 ff. 18. Lauberhütt I, p. 68. 19. Etwas für alle I, p. 52. 20. Ibid., p. 29. 21. Laxiberhütt II, p. 65. 22. Ibid., p. 46. 23. Ibid., I, p. 78. 24. Etwas für alle I, pp. 67; 89. 25. Lauberhütt I, p. 38. 26. See Judas, p. 25 or p. 44. 27. Gemisch-Gemasch, p. 32; Lauberhütt III, pp. 59 f.; Huy und Pfuy, p. 82; Etwas für alle I, pp. 85 and 89. 28. Lauberhütt I, pp. 8 and 10. 29. Ibid., II, p. 66. 30. Sinngedichte, I. Tausend, 4. H u n d e r t , No. 10; I, 1, 12; I, 5, pp. 98 f.; I, 1, 27; III, 5, 4. 31. Ibid., III, 3, 92; I, 7, 76; II, 3, 22. 32. Ibid., I, 1, 66. 33. Ibid., II, "Zugabe," 3; III, 7, 4. 34. Schertz Gedichte, p. 19, "se begünnen nu all inthopacken ere Ware." 35. Ibid., p. 36. 36. Ibid., p. 31, "Schantzkörve mit donjons, u n d andre nödge Wehr." 37. Ibid., p. 30. 38. Ibid., p. 28. 39. Ibid., p. 62. 40. Ibid., pp. 26; 20 ff. 41. Simplicissimus, pp. 9 ff.; 19; 96 ff. 42. Ibid., p. 276. 43. Ibid., pp. 79 f., 84 f., 218. 44. Steinhausen, Geschichte der deutschen Kultur, p. 479. 45. Satyrische Gedichte, pp. 107 ff. 46. Ibid., pp. 33; 34. 47. Ibid., pp. 33; 80. 48. Horribilicribrifax, pp. 277 f.; 283 f.; 274.

206 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

NOTES: CHAPTER

IV

Squentz, p p . 214, 221, a n d 230. Horribili., p. 284; Squentz, p. 213. Dornrose, p p . 349 f. a n d 356. Erznarren, p p . 34; 98 f.; 196. Sommertäge, p p . 149 a n d 565. Ibid., p p . 149; 160; 173. Ibid., p. 141. Witkowski, " N a c h w o r t , " in Werke, p p . 454 ff. a n d 457 ff. Ehrliche Frau, p. 9; Ehrenfriend, p. 28; ibid., p. 67. NOTES TO CHAPTER I V

1. Program to Proteus, p p . 2 f. a n d 9; De oratore ineplo, p. 54. 2. Program to Proteus, p. 2. 3. See Nebel, "Briefwechsel," letters of Schupp. 4. L ü h m a n n , Johann Balthasar Schupp, p. 87. 5. Ehrenrettung, p p . 45 f.; see also Vogt, Euphorion XVI, 296. 6. De opinione, p p . 53 f. 7. Orat. inepto, p p . 17 a n d 20; De arte, p. 46; De opinione, pp. 21 fi. 8. Lehrmeister, p p . 37 ff. 9. Ibid., pp. 32 f. a n d 43 f.; Morgen• und Abendlieder, p. 935. 10. Sieben böse Geister, p. 356: " K u r r e n u n d M u r r e n " ; Corinna, p. 39: "Da David kam ins Alter vergass er des Dinges auch, u n d machte Psalter"; ibid., p. 46: " D a m i t n u n C o r i n n a d e n Müssiggang, welcher ist aller Laster Anfang, meidete." 11. De arte, p. 61; Ehrenrettung, p. 40; Lucianus, p. 15; De opinione, p. 60; Corinna, p. 93; Morgen- und Abendlieder, p. 935. 12. Somnium p. 202; Orat. inepto, p. 22; Lehrmeister, p. 51. 13. Corinna, p. 61. 14. Salomo, p. 49; Lucidor, p p . 317 ff. a n d 321; Corinna, pp. 15 f.; Allmosenbüchse, p p . 7 f. 15. Hiob, p. 167; Corinna, p. 95; Lucidor, p. 304. 16. Allmosenbüchse, p p . 25 ff.; Sieben böse Geister, pp. 358 f.; Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 213; Geistlicher Spaziergang, p. 86. 17. Calender, p. 69. 18. See editorial c o m m e n t in editions of these works. 19. J o h n the Baptist: Freund, p p . 30 ff.; Lazarus: De arte, pp. 151 ff.; David: Ehrenrettung, p p . 134 f., to n a m e a few. 20. Lucianus, p. 20; Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, p p . 118 f. 21. See also Vial, Schupp als Vorläufer Speners, p. 49. 22. Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 212; Corinna, p p . 32 ff. 23. Ehrenrettung, p. 34: " t u m m e r Esel"; Eilfertige Antwort, p. 86: "ihr frommes, einfältiges Schaaf"; Calender, p. 53: " C u j o n , Mükkenseyger, Cameelverschlucker." 24. Calender, p p . 60; 58. 25. Lucidor, p. 273. 26. Hiob, p. 142. 27. Holländisch Pratgen, p. 383. 28. Eilfertige Antwort, p. 79.

NOTES: CHAPTER IV 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

207

Hiob, p p . 134 f. Salomo, p. 109. Lehrmeister, pp. 43 f. Calender, p. 58. Eilfertige Antwort, pp. 99; 88 f. Becker, Weise, p. 55; Vogt, Euphorion, XVIII, 473 ff. Lucianus, pp. 10 ff. Erznarren, pp. 104 ff. Orat. inepto, pp. 10 ff.; De arte, p. 48; Salomo, pp. 26 f. Lehrmeister, pp. 30; 42. Salomo, pp. 59 f.; Lucidor, p. 317; Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, pp. 117 f.: " W a n n ich ein Politicus were, u n d einem grossen H e r r n diente, wolt ich rathen, 1. dass keiner im gantzen Land solt Kauffmanschafft treiben, er habe d a n n in seiner J u g e n d ein Handwerck gelernt. Dann das Glück ist rund, dem einen lauffts ins Hauss, dem andern drauss. U n d Kauffmansgut ist wie Ebbe u n d Flut. W a n n es n u n einem Kauffman misslingt, dass er Bancorot macht, so leugt er und treugt, und thut nichts anders, als dass er andere Leut u m b das Zeitliche u n d sich offtmals umb das Ewige bringt. Dann er hat sonst nichts anders gelernet, damit er Weib u n d Kinder könne ernehren. Zum andern wolt ich rathen, dass keines gemeinen Mannes Sohn solle studiren, er lerne d a n n ein Handwerck darbey. Vorzeiten dürffte bey den alten Chaldäern, Egyptiern u n d andern weisen Völckern niemand studiren, er sey d a n n auss königlichem oder anderm hohem Geschlecht. Jetzo wil fast eines jeden Bettlers Sohn studiren, u n d hernach sauffen sie durch die Welt und singen f ü r den T h ü r e n . W a r u m b ziehen sie nicht in Holstein, da klagen die Edelleut, dass sie bey diesen Kriegszeiten, da die Werbungen so starck fortgehen, fast keine Leut haben können, die ihnen die Frucht aussdreschen, oder das alte Korn auff den Boden herum wenden: Ein solches exercitium corporis würde ihnen ja so nutz seyn, als der Rath, welchen die Schola Sahlbaderiana, oder Saleritana den Studenten gibt, u n d sagt: Post coenam stabis, aut passus mille meabis. Mich deuchte, ein im Schweiss des Angesichts erworbenes Stück Brodt, würde mir besser schmecken, als ein Stück Bettelbrodt. W a n n eine Verfolgung komt, dass ein Schulmeister oder Priester ins Exilium getrieben wird, so meynt er, es sey kein ander Mittel sich zu ernehren, als betteln. W a n n er solte einem Brauer helffen Bier brauen, oder einem Mauermann Handreichung thun, das hält er vor ein Gewissens-Werck, und meynt, dass heisse die Hand vom Pflug abziehen und zurück sehen. Allein, wie machte es in solchem Fall der Apostel Paulus, der hocherleuchte Mann, der ausserwehlte Rüstzeug Gottes, der tapffer Theologus u n d Orator? Ich bin bisshero ein sonderbarer Patron der Vaganten gewesen. Allein ich sehe, dass man diese faule Schlüngel nur stärcke in ihrer Faullentzerey, und ihnen zu andern Lastern Anlass gebe." "Als ich erstlich in diese weltberühmte Stadt käme, und mir von guten Leuten viel Ehre begegnete, wünschte ich ihnen einsmals, dass sie allesampt möchten lebendig zu der Hölle fahren. Diese Wort sind mir damals von unverständigen Leuten übel aussgedeutet worden, welche

208

NOTES: CHAPTER

V

nicht betrachtet haben, wie ich damals gemeynet u n d erkläret habe. Allein so wahr G o t t der H e r r Zebaoth lebt, f ü r dessen Angesicht ich stehe, so liebe ich nicht allein euch, s o n d e r n auch alle Einwohner dieser Stadt, Reiche u n d Arme, u n d w a n n es müglich wäre, dass ich euch u n d alle E i n w o h n e r dieser Stadt auff m e i n e n R ü c k e n tragen k ö n n t e biss a n die P f o r t e n des Himmels, biss in A b r a h a m s Schos, so wolte ich es t h u n . Ich wünsch Euch aber vom G r u n d meiner Seelen, dass ihr h e u t lebendig möchtet zur H ö l l e n fahren. Z ü r n e t nicht, liebster Lucidor, Ich wünsche euch abermals, dass ihr möchtet zur H ö l l e n f a h r e n mit G e d a n k e n u n d möchtet bey e u r e n Lebzeiten wol betrachten, wie unaussprechlich, wie unausssprechlich gross, die Pein der V e r d a m p t e n in der Hölle sey, u n d was Ewig sey. W a n n das gantze Baltische u n d Oceanische Meer, lauter D i n t e n wäre, w a n n ein P a p p i e r oder P e r g a m e n t wäre so gross als Himmel u n d Erden, w a n n so viel gelehrte L e u t e wären als Sterne am Himmel, u n d h ä t t e n so viel F e d e r n als im Sommer Grass u n d Blumen auff d e m Felde, u n d Blätter auff d e n B ä u m e n sind, so könten sie in langer Zeit beschreiben, wie gross die Pein der V e r d a m p t e n in der Hölle sey." "Jüngst hat Butyrolambius seine Stinckende Butter allenthalben zum Marek getragen, u n d die L e u t d a m i t betrogen. Kurtz hernach hat M. B e r n h a r d Schmit seinen R a c h e n gegen mich auff gesperret u n d vermeinet, er wolle mich fressen. Allein gemach, gemach M. Bernd. Ich muss euch zuvor eine Historiam erzehlen, ehe ihr mich fresset. Es solte einsmals ein Schulmeister seinen Schülern die W o r t im H o r a t i o Mecaenas atavis edite (sie) regibus, expliciren. Als er sich n u n lange bedacht, u n d lang darauff Studiret hatte; sagte er: Scribite, pueri, Scribite. At aber. Avis d u Vogel. Me caenas, wiltu mich Fressen? Edite regibus, Fresset von den Königen. Nach d e m ich vermeinet M. Bernd werde ein wenig a u f f h ö r e n zu schnauben, so höre ich, dass der H e r r mir auch die R ü b e n v e r b r e n n e n , u n d d e n zu W o l f f e n b ü t t e l Getrückten Calender wiederlegen wolle. U b e r das wolle eine gantze Universität wieder mich Schreiben. Ich versichere d e n H e r r n , dass ich mich f ü r einem so wenig fürchte als f ü r d e m a n d e r n . Da der T a p f f e r e H e i d t Witte Wittens sich gefangen geben muste, wolte er seinen Degen d a m i t er so lange f ü r die Holländische Freyheit u n d W o l f a h r t Ritterlich Gefochten hatte, keinem gemeinen Soldaten geben, sondern begehrte dass ein Officirer kommen u n d ihm denselben a b n e h m e n solle. Weil ja itzo so mancher Grammaticalischer M u s q u e t i r e r mir a n das Leder will, so ist m i r lieber u n d h a b e auch m e h r E h r davon, dass ich mit einer gantzen Vornehmen Universität fechte, also dass M. B e r n h a r d Schmitt gegen mich mit seinem kahlen Tesacken auffgezogen kompt, u n d ein auffhebens macht wie die Handwercks Bursch in der Fecht-Schulen." 40. Calender, p. 47; see also Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, 41. L ü h m a n n , op. cit., p. 92; Vial, op. cit., p. 3.

p. 125.

NOTES TO CHAPTER V 1. Sinngedichte, III. T a u s e n d , "Zugabe," 2, No. 56. 2. Ibid., I. T a u s e n d , 8. H u n d e r t , No. 40; II, 2, 63; II, 2, 75; I I I , 2, 8. 3. Ibid., I, 1, 96; I, 8, 33.

NOTES: CHAPTER V

209

4. Ibid., I, 8, 42; II, 1, 23; II, 2, 14; II, 2, 32; II, 2, 79; II, 3, 22. 5. Ibid.,1, 10, 14; I, 2, 19; I, 1, 50. 6. Ibid., I, 2, 19; II, 4, 60; III, 6, 85. 7. Ibid., I, 1, 58; I, 3, 6; I, 3, 18; III, 3, 73. 8. Ibid., I, 2, 91; I, 4, 13; I, 4, 93; II, 3, 73; III, 3, 43; III, 5, 10; III, 5, 11; I I I , 10, 94. 9. Ibid., I, 1, 71; I, 2, 9; I, 2, 69; I, 3, 22; I, 3, 52; II, 1, 58. 10. Ibid., III, 10, 7; I, 2, 62; III, 3, 45; III, 4, 29. 11. Ibid., I, 2, 78. 12. Ibid., II, 9, 69. 13. Ibid.,1, 1, 52; I, 1,61; I, 1,68. 14. Ibid., I, 4, 47; I, 7, 65. 15. Ibid., I, 3, 66. 16. Ibid., I, 2, 100; I, 7, 99; III, 3, 92. 17. Ibid., I, 5, 3; II, 2,91. 18. Ibid., II, 2, 91; II, 6, 44; III, 1, 37. 19. Ibid., II, "Zugabe," 56. 20. Ibid., III, "Zugabe," 2, 129. 21. Ibid., II, 4 , 6 . 22. Ibid., III, 6, 19. 23. Ibid.,1, 2, 61; 1,3, 60. 24. Ibid., II, 2, 87; II, 3, 54; II, 6, 75. 25. Ibid., II, 2, 12; II, "Zugabe," 177; III, 6, 50; III, "Zugabe," 2, 201. 26. Gesichte, p. 16 (D.N.L.). 27. Ibid., p. 209 (1645); pp. 370 and 372 f. (1645); pp. 149 f. (D.N.L.). 28. Ibid., p. 14 (D.N.L.). 29. Ibid., p. 298 (1645); p. 17 (D.N.L.). 30. Ibid., p. 224 (1645); p. 488 (1645). 31. Ibid., p. 131 (D.N.L.). 32. Ibid., pp. 209 f. (1645); pp. 130, 155 ff., 178 (D.N.L.); pp. 859 and 863 ff. (1645). 33. Ibid., pp. 265 and 284 (D.N.L.). 34. Ibid., p. 213 (1645); p. 379 (1645); p. 138 (D.N.L.). 35. Ibid., p. 122 (D.N.L.). See also Insomnis cura parentum. 36. See also Günther Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, pp. 212 ff. 37. Simplicissimus, pp. 87 f.; 96 f.; 160 ff. 38. Ibid., Book I, chapters I, 4, 14, 15. 39. Ibid., Book I, chapters 15, 16, 17, 18. 40. Vogelnest I, p. 162. 41. Simplicissimus, pp. 209 ff. and 440 ff. 42. Becker, Weise, p. 31. See also Ratstübel Plutonis. 43. Vogelnest I, pp. 123; 142; 135; 172 f. 44. Schertz Gedichte, p. 30. 45. Ibid., pp. 48; 7. 46. Ibid., pp. 3, 17, 34,40. 47. Ibid., pp. 26 f., 27, 39. 48. Ibid., p. 9. See also ibid., p. 32. 49. Ibid., pp. 8 ff.

210

NOTES: CHAPTER VI

50. Ibid., pp. 30; 24. 51. Ibid., pp. 55 ff. 52. Ibid., pp. 64 ff. 53. See also Steinhausen, Geschichte der deutschen Kultur, pp. 492 ff. 54. Satyrische Gedichte, pp. 75; 49; 83. 55. Ibid., pp. 71 ff.; 69 ff.; 107 ff. 56. Ibid., p. 65. 57. Ibid., p. 78. 58. Ibid., pp. 65 f. and 116 f. 59. Ibid.,p. 108. 60. Unvergnügte Seele, pp. 197 £. 61. Becker, Weise, p. 53. See also ibid., p. 45. 62. Machiavell, pp. 58 f. and 95 f. See also Tobias, p. 83. 63. Machiavell, pp. 67 ff.; Catharine, p. 122. 64. Unvergnügte Seele, p. 198. 65. Becker, Weise, pp. 38 f. 66. Erznarren, pp. 123 f.; 112 ff.; 153 f. 67. Lateiner and Machiavell, throughout. 68. Fulda, Deutsche National-Litteratur, XXXIX, 59. 69. Unvergnügte Seele, pp. 234 f. and 270 ff. 70. Erznarren, pp. 223 ff.; Politischer Näscher, throughout. 71. The reader's attention is called to the fact that Die drey Haupt-Verderber is an unpaged edition. 72. Masaniello, p. 7. 73. Ibid., pp. 29 and 118 ff. 74. Ibid., p. 62. 75. Ibid., pp. 46 ff.; 57 f.; 116. 76. Ibid., p. 52. 77. Ibid., p. 24. 78. Ibid., p. 104. 79. Ibid., p. 29. 80. Ehrenfried, pp. 105; 121. 81. Akademischer Roman, pp. 127, 209, 354. 82. Politischer Maulaffe, pp. 60 ff.; 74 ff.; 132 ff.; 247 ff. 83. Sommertäge, pp. 48; 290 f.; 527; 620. 84. Ibid., p. 109. 85. Huy und P f u y , pp. 64 f., Etwas für alle I, p. 33; Judas, pp. 6 f. 86. Judas, p. 59. 87. Etwas für alle I, pp. 53; 21. 88. Judas, pp. 15 f. 89. Gehab dich wohl, pp. 18 ff., 3 ff., 25 ff.; Judas, p. 125. 90. Etwas für alle I, pp. 5 ff. NOTES TO CHAPTER V I

1. Nihili, pp. 6 and 29; Somnium, p. 199; De opinione, pp. 87 f., 91, 104, 110 ff., 135. 2. De opinione, pp. 54 ff., 75 ff., 84 ff.; Friedrich, p. 170. 3. De arte, p. 64. 4. De arte, pp. 76 ff. See also Nebel, "Briefwechsel," p. 82.

NOTES: CHAPTER VI

211

5. Thus, De arte, pp. 56, 70 ff., 76 ff. 6. Ibid., pp. 114 ff. 7. Ibid., p. 158. 8. Ibid., p p . 59 f.; 73; 87 ff.; 137 ff. 9. Ibid., pp. 46; 61; 85. 10. Salomo, pp. 61; 54 f.; 97. 11. Ibid., pp. 27 and 32. 12. Ibid., pp. 33 f.; 19; 37. 13. Ibid., pp. 55 f.; 23. 14. Ibid., pp. 26 f.; 39; 29. 15. Ibid., pp. 93 and 120. 16. Ibid., pp. 39; 41; 16. 17. Ehrenrettung, p. 65; Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 210. 18. Corinna, pp. 109 ff.; Buszspiegel, pp. 178 and 285 ff.; Ehrenrettung, pp. 73 ff. 19. Ehrenrettung, pp. 40 and 105; Corinna, pp. 82 f. 20. Salomo, p. 115. 21. Orat. inepto, pp. 33 and 34. 22. Salomo, p. 118. 23. Schulwesen, pp. 101 ff.; Allmosenbüchse, throughout. 24. De opinione, p. 4. 25. Buszspiegel, pp. 246 ff. 26. Lucidor, p. 287. 27. Pratgen, p. 386. See also Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 210 and Buszspiegel, p. 248. 28. Hauptmann, p. 286. 29. Pratgen, pp. 400 f.; Salomo, Chapter I; Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 196. 30. Schulwesen, pp. 19 ff.; Salomo, pp. 81 and 84. 31. De arte, pp. 5 ff. 32. De opinione, p. 127; De arte, p. 59. 33. De arte, pp. 69 and 114 f. See also Salomo, p. 39. 34. Salomo, p. 116. 35. Ibid., p. 7; Geistlicher Spaziergang, p. 109; Sieben böse Geister, p. 331. 36. Corinna, pp. 71 ff.; Orat. inepto, pp. 49 ff. See also Hiob, p. 142. 37. Freund, p. 62. 38. Ehrenrettung, p. 99. 39. Litanei, p. 892. 40. Buszspiegel, p. 25. 41. See also Gedenk daran, Hamburg, pp. 195 and 206. 42. Hiob, pp. 137 ff.; Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 206; Buszspiegel, pp. 187 and 200 f. 43. Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 197; Buszspiegel, pp. 199 and 201. 44. Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 205. 45. See Buszspiegel, p. 63 for an exception to this. 46. Calender, p. 43. 47. See especially De arte and Salomo. 48. Orat. inepto, p. 41. See also Freund, pp. 62 f. and Eilfertige Antwort, p. 93. 49. De arte, p. 52; Salomo, pp. 59 f.

212 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

NOTES: CHAPTER VI Salomo, p. 61. De arte, p. 46. Ibid., p. 151. Allmosenbüchse, pp. 6 ff. and throughout. De opinione, p. 134. Nihili, p. 16. Salomo, p. 42. Florian, pp. 444 f.; Salomo, p. 76. De arte, p. 158; Allmosenbüchse, p. 15; Sieben böse Geister, p. 342. Allmosenbüchse, pp. 30 ff. Buszspiegel, pp. 285 ff.; Salomo, p. 58. Ehrenrettung, p. 42; Sieben böse Geister, p. 335. See also Hiob, p. 155 and Buszspiegel, p. 29. Sieben böse Geister, p. 331. Buszspiegel, p. 25. Sieben böse Geister, pp. 335 and 357. Ibid., p. 348. Freund, p. 46; Nihili, p. 22. Salomo, p. 7; Litanei, p. 898; Freund, p. 37. Somnium, pp. 202 f. De opinione, p. 8; Salomo, p. 8; Freund, pp. 36 ff. De arte, p. 73. Somnium, pp. 200 f.; Nihili, p. 17; Orot, inepto, p. 10. De arte, pp. 206 ff.; 140. Lucidor, p. 304. See also Salomo, pp. 23 f. Buszspiegel, pp. 64 ff. Salomo, pp. 16 ff. and 23 ff.; see also Litanei, p. 904. Ehrenrettung, p. 105. Buszspiegel, pp. 55 ff. Lucidor, pp. 271, 300, 305. Ibid., p. 270. Corinna, p. 115; Litanei, p. 918. Corinna, pp. 99 ff. and 109 ff. Bücherdieb, throughout; Corinna, p. 5; Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, p. 137. Ehrenrettung, pp. 34 ff. Orat. inepto, p. 20. Nihili, p. 17. De opinione, pp. 81 ff. Salomo, p. 40; Buszspiegel, pp. 145 f. Lehrmeister, pp. 59 f. Ibid., p. 32. See also De opinione, p. 95. De arte, p. 202. Ibid., p. 56; Salomo, p. 93. De arte, pp. 158 f.; Allmosenbüchse, p. 15. De arte, p. 124. Ibid., pp. 76 ff. See also Salomo, p. 59. De opinione, p. 95; Lehrmeister, p. 38. Freund, pp. 61 ff. See also De arte, pp. 179 ff.

NOTES:

CHAPTER

VII

98. Eilfertige Antwort, p. 105. 99. Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, p. 117; Lucianus, p. 7. 100. De opinione, p p . 53 and 97; Lehrmeister, pp. 40 ff.; Eilfertige p». 104. 101. Lehrmeister, pp. 37 ff.

213

Antwort,

NOTES TO CHAPTER V I I

1. Sinngedichte, III. Tausend, 2. H u n d e r t , No. 73; III, 6, 63. 2. Ibid., II, 1, 81; I, 1, 81; II, 2, 34; I, 4, 67, to give only a few examples. 3. Ibid., I, 2, 44; II, 7, 75; I, 4, 5. 4. Ibid., I, 2, 66; I, 1, 30. 5. See Gesichte, pp. 155 ff. (1645), or pp. 38 ff. (D.N.L.). 6. Ibid., pp. 120 f.; 206 ff. (D.N.L.). 7. Ibid., p. 859 (1645). 8. Ibid., p. 215 (D.N.L.). 9. Schertz Gedichte, pp. 3, 17 f., 28, 34. 10. Satyrische Gedichte, p. 50. 11. Ibid., fifth satire, "Vom Gebeth," throughout. 12. Thus, Continuatio, pp. 47 ff.; Simplicissimus, p. 218. 13. Erznarren, pp. 104 ff.; 30 ff.; 52 ff. 14. Gemisch-Gemasch, p. 32. See also Etwas für alle I, p. 65, and Lauberhiitt III, pp. 59 ff. 15. Judas, p. 15. 16. Lauberhütt II, pp. 60 f. 17. Ibid., III, p. 71. 18. Judas, p. 12. 19. Lauberhütt II, p. 14. 20. Huy und Pfuy, p. 60. 21. Sinngedichte, I, 6, 70; I, 2, 38. 22. Ibid., III, 1, 80. 23. Ibid., III, 1, 83; II, 3, 58. 24. Ibid., I, 6, 74; I, 2, 25; I, 3, 50. 25. Ibid., I, 2, 71; I, 7, 59; I, 8, 35. 26. Gesichte, p. 26 (D.N.L.). 27. Ibid., pp. 60 ff.; p. 82 (D.N.L.). 28. Ibid., pp. 215 ff. (D.N.L.). 29. Ibid., p. 219 (D.N.L.). See also ibid., pp. 206 ff. and 211 ff. 30. Ibid., pp. 251 f. (D.N.L.). 31. Simplicissimus, pp. 19; 96 f.; 306 ff. 32. Schertz Gedichte, pp. 20 ff.; 36. 33. Ibid., pp. 60 f., 45 f., 20. 34. Note that the ninth and tenth satires have been omitted from consideration since, according to the editor, Karl Drescher, pp. V f., it has been discovered that the former is certainly not the work of Rachel, a n d the latter probably not. 35. Moscherosch, Insomnis cura parentum, p. 67; Logau, Sinngedichte, II, 7, 11; Rachel, Satyrische Gedichte, pp. 38 and 102. 36. Satyrische Gedichte, p. 40.

214 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

NOTES: CHAPTER

VILI

Ibid., pp. 37; 33 f. Ibid., third satire: "Die gewünschte H a u s m u t t e r . " Ibid., p p . 28 f. Ibid., second satire: " D e r vortheilige Mangel." Gesichte, p p . 220 ff. (D.N.L.). Erznarren, pp. 17 f.; 11 f.; 68 ff. Ehrenfried, p. 21. Ibid., pp. 111; 119. Politischer Maulaffe, p p . 285 ff. NOTES TO CHAPTER V I I I

1. Nihili, p. 9. It is interesting that this statement appears again in Freund, p. 12, b u t here touched with the poignancy of personal experience with which this work, is filled. 2. Nihili, pp. 17 f. 3. De opinione, p. 142. 4. Nihili, pp. 22; 10; 5; 21. 5. Somnium, p. 199; De opinione, p. 10. 6. De opinione, p. 60. 7. Somnium, p. 206. 8. Nihili, pp. 13 f. 9. Salomo, pp. 16, 23, 24, 54. 10. Buszspiegel, p. 155. 11. Ibid., p. 6. 12. Allmosenbüchse, throughout. 13. Hiob, throughout. 14. Buszspiegel, pp. 178 a n d 199. 15. Hiob, p. 177. See also Freund, throughout. 16. Der stumme Lehrer und Prediger: a collection of proverbs, quotations, etc., used to decorate the church in H a m b u r g , according to Zugab, p p . 339 ff. See also Vogt, F.uphorion, XVI, 290 f. 17. Lucidor, p. 327. 18. Freund, p p . 56 a n d 57; Corinna, p. 108. 19. Lobwürdiger Low, t h r o u g h o u t . 20. Salomo, pp. 123 a n d 124. 21. Buszspiegel, pp. 80 f.; Calender, p. 44; Hiob, p. 148. 22. Hiob, p. 146. 23. Buszspiegel, p p . 174 ff. 24. Ibid., pp. 31; 42 f.; 156 ff. 25. Hauptmann, p p . 283 f. 26. See Vogt, Euphorion, XVI, 280 ff. for the authorship of the introduction. 27. Nihili, p. 13. 28. Ehrliche Frau, p. 54. 29. Hiob, p. 172; Lucidor, p. 298; Litanei, p. 891. 30. Schulwesen, p. 68. 31. Buszspiegel, p. 289. 32. Salomo, p. 3; De arte, p. 206; Hiob, p p . 149 and 150. 33. Freund, p. 26; Calender, p. 54.

NOTES: CHAPTER

IX

215

34. Schulwesen, p p . 57 ff. 35. Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, p p . 121 ff.; Calender, p p . 47 a n d 59; Ehrenrettung, p. 38; Relation, p p . 26 ff.; Corinna, p p . 66 ff. a n d 94. 36. Calender, pp. 70 ff.; Ehrenrettung, p p . 67 a n d 81 ff. 37. Freund, p p . 59 ff. 38. Ehrenrettung, p p . 73 ff. 39. Corinna, p. 66; Ehrenrettung, p p . 93 ff. a n d 101 ff. 40. Ehrenrettung, p p . 81 ff.; Calender, p. 72, to give only a few of the many examples. 41. Ehrenrettung, p p . 73 ff. 42. Calender, p p . 43, 51, 74; Eilfertige Antwort, p. 84; Ehrenrettung, pp. 50, 53. 43. Ehrenrettung, pp. 121 f.; Calender, p. 76. 44. Sinngedichte, I. T a u s e n d , 1. H u n d e r t , No. 69; I, 2, 50; III, 8, 12. 45. Schertz Gedichte, p p . 61 f. See also Moscherosch, Gesichte, p p . 254 f. (D.N.L.) a n d Grimmelshausen, Vogelnest I, p p . 184 ff. a n d Teutscher Michel, p. 508, for references to the personal enemies of these authors. 46. Tobias, p. 89. 47. Witkowski, Werke, " N a c h w o r t , " p p . 453 ff. a n d 457 ff. 48. Corinna, pp. 85 ff.; 66; 77. 49. Reuchlin and Erasmus: Lucianus, p p . 19 ff. a n d Corinna, p. 83; L u t h e r or the Bible: Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, pp. 122 f. a n d Corinna, p p . 70 f.; Boccalini: Relation, p p . 22 ff. 50. Calender, p. 47. 51. Corinna, p. 75; ibid., p p . 84 a n d 94; Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, pp. 125 a n d 126. 52. Calender, pp. 66 ff.; Ehrenrettung, p p . 98 ff. See also Hauptmann, pp. 283 ff.; Buszspiegel, p. 169. NOTES TO CHAPTER I X 1. Sinngedichte, III. T a u s e n d , 7. H u n d e r t , No. 73. 2. Ibid., I, 5, 70; I, 10, 74; II, 8, 70. 3. Ibid., II, 8, 13. 4. Gesichte, p. 18 (D.N.L.). 5. Schertz Gedichte, p p . 60 ff. 6. Teutscher Michel, p. 508; Vogelnest I, p p . 184 ff. 7. Teutscher Michel, p p . 529 f. 8. Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, p p . 244 ff., points out that the style here is not truly "courtly" either. 9. Gesichte, p. 399 (D.N.L.). 10. Satyrische Gedichte, p. 123. 11. Ibid., p p . 115 ff. a n d 119. 12. Weise: Erznarren, p p . 57 ff., 65 ff., 156 f.; Gryphius: Horribilicribrifax, passim. 13. Sinngedichte, II, 8, 55; II, 9, 31. 14. Ibid., II, 1, 43. 15. Insomnis cura parentum, p p . 36 ff. 16. Gesichte, pp. 545 ff. (1645).

216

NOTES: CHAPTER IX

17. Ibid., pp. 824 ff. and 886 ff. (1645). 18. Satyrische Gedichte, pp. 68 f. 19. Ibid., pp. 69 ff. 20. Gesichte, pp. 545 ff. (1645). 21. Simplicissimus, p. 50. 22. Teutscher Michel, p. 505. 23. Simplicissimus, Book IV, Chapter XVIII ff. 24. Erznarren, pp. 79 ff.; 85 ff.; 87 ff. 25. Machiavell, pp. 95 £. 26. Sommertäge, pp. 447 f. 27. Ibid., pp. 290 f. 28. Ibid., p p . 368 ff., 489 ff., 771. 29. Ibid., pp. 448 f. 30. Akademischer Roman, pp. 352; 136. 31. Ibid., p. 127. 32. Etwas für alle II, p. 82. Note, however, that Ambros Horber in his Echtheitsfragen bei Abraham a Sancta Clara (Weimar: A. Duncker Verl., 1929), p. 93, presents proof that Etwas für alle II and III are not by Abraham, or only partly plagiarized from him. 33. Lauberhütt I, pp. 8 and 44; ibid., II, pp. 20 ff.; Gemisch-Gemasch, pp. 8 f.; Judas, pp. 111 ff. 34. Sinngedichte, I, 4, 83; II, 3, 95. 35. Ibid., II, 3, 63; I, 6, 48; III, 4, 13. 36. Ibid., II, 1, 100. 37. Insomnis cura parentum, pp. 116 ff. 38. Gesichte, p. 478 (1645); pp. 371 ff. (D.N.L.). 39. Vogelnest II, p. 358. 40. Simplicissimus, p. 215. 41. Erznarren, p. 49. 42. Unvergnügte Seele, pp. 145 ff.; Machiavell, pp. 45 ff. 43. Judas, pp. 30 and 302. 44. Gryphius, Deutsche National-Litteratur, XXIX, 393, epigram 23. 45. Erznarren, pp. 162 ff. 46. Unvergnügte Seele, p. 264. 47. Erznarren, pp. 162 £. 48. Etwas für alle I, pp. 32 f.; 123 f. 49. Grünberg, Philipp Jakob Spener, pp. 5 ff. 50. See also ibid., pp. 20 ff. 51. Gesichte, p. 39 (D.N.L.). 52. Sinngedichte, II, 8, 14. 53. Hauptverderber, report of first Ambassador; Erznarren, p. 155. 54. La Maladie et la mort, pp. 143 ff. 55. Politischer Maulaße, pp. 270 and 336 ff. 56. Sommertäge, pp. 182 f., 283, 558, 603 ff., 648 f. 57. Simplicissimus, pp. 309 and 324 f.; Vogelnest II, pp. 348 ff. 58. Vogelnest I, pp. 142 and 176. 59. Simplicissimus, p. 344. 60. Lauberhütt I, pp. 74 ff.; ibid., II, pp. 31 f.; ibid., III, p. 11; Etwas für alle I, pp. 102 ff.; Judas, pp. 82 and 251.

NOTES: CHAPTER

X

217

NOTES TO CHAPTER X 1. De ortore inepto, p. 20; Lehrmeister, p p . 29 ff. 2. Luctanus, p p . 19 ff.; Corinna, p. 83. 3. Lehrmeister, p. 33. 4. De opinione, p. 95; Lehrmeister, p p . 32 f. 5. Stötzner, introduction to his edition of Lehrmeister, p. 17. 6. Morgen- und Abendlieder, p. 935. 7. Lehrmeister, p p . 28 ff.; Morgen- und Abendlieder, p. 936. 8. Orat. inepto, p. 33. 9. Lehrmeister, p. 61. 10. Bischoff, Johann Balthasar Schupp, p p . 47 ff.; Hentschel, " J o h a n n Balt h a s a r Schupp," p p . lxvii ff.; see also Schupp's Schulwesen, pp. 60 ff. 11. Schulwesen, p. 62: " W i r leben ja nicht eben d a r u m b , dass wir studiren, s o n d e r n wir studiren, dass wir glücklich u n d wohl in der Welt leben." 12. Ibid., p. 100: "Was wäre einem Menschen damit gedienet, w a n n er alle Philosophische Weissheit mit Löffeln gefressen hätte, u n d nicht wüste selbige a n z u b r i n g e n , oder recht zugebrauchen zur Ehre Gottes, u n d zu Nutzen seines Nechsten?" 13. Program to Orat. inepto, p. 3. 14. Schulwesen, p p . 100 f. See also Somnium, p. 206. 15. De arte, pp. 98 ff. 16. Eilfertige Antwort, p. 105. See also De arte, p. 104. 17. De arte, p. 73. 18. Ibid., p. 101. 19. Ibid., p. 104. 20. Program to Orat. inepto, pp. 3 a n d 6. 21. Orat. inepto, p p . 10 ff.; Program to Proteus, p. 7. 22. Orat. inepto, p. 23. 23. De arte, p p . 89 ff.; see also Morgen- und Abendlieder, p p . 936 f. 24. Concluding remarks to De felicitate, Volumen, p. 91; Salomo, p. 51; Orat. inepto, pp. 44 f. 25. Lucianus, pp. 8 ff. See also Salomo, pp. 6 and 7. 26. De arte, pp. 196 ff. 27. Salomo, p. 7; Lehrmeister, p. 33. 28. Schulwesen, p. 62. 29. Lucianus, p p . 14 f. 30. Schulwesen, p p . 71 f. 31. De arte, pp. 198 ff. 32. Salomo, p. 116; see also Freund, pp. 62 f. 33. Eilfertige Antwort, pp. 104 f. 34. Ibid. 35. De opinione, p. 39; De arte, p p . 179 ff.; Freund, p p . 59 ff. 36. Salomo, p. 50; Schulwesen, p p . 67 a n d 72. 37. Schulwesen, p p . 86 ff. 38. De opinione, p. 53; Lehrmeister, p. 38. 39. Schulwesen, p. 101: "Es ist einem Regiment a n einem g u t e n verständigen R a t h viel gelegen, aber ich weiss nicht, ob demselben nicht m e h r nützlich sey ein rechtschaffener, guter, ein guter, sage ich, verständiger, gelährter, u n d nicht n u r Schulfüchsischer Schulmeister. D a n n derselbe k a n viel Cantzler,

218

NOTES: CHAPTER X

Räthe, Doctoren, Superintendenten, u n d dergleichen vornehme, gelahrte Leute erziehen." 40. De arte, p. 138; Schulwesen, p. 26; Salomo, p. 50. 41. Somnium, p. 199; De arte, pp. 43 ff.; Schulwesen, p. 100; Lucianus, pp. 8 ff. 42. Lehrmeister, pp. 55 £.; Eilfertige Antwort, pp. 106 f. 43. Freund, pp. 28 f.; Lehrmeister, p. 55. 44. De arte, pp. 101; 137 £. 45. Schulwesen, pp. 67 ff.; Buszspiegel, pp. 289 ff. 46. Freund, pp. 57 ff.; De opinione, pp. 77 ff.; Lehrmeister, p. 55. 47. Lehrmeister, p. 55. See also Salomo, p. 114. 48. Schulwesen, pp. 29; 67 ff. 49. Salomo, pp. 57 f. and 82 ff.. De arte, p. 158; Schulwesen, pp. 21 and 28 ff. 50. Schulwesen, p. 103. 51. De arte, p. 60 f.; Schulwesen, p. 27. 52. Schulwesen, p. 27; Lehrmeister, p. 56; De opinione, pp. 88 ff. 53. Salomo, pp. 26 f.; Buszspiegel, p. 292. 54. Salomo, pp. 79; 59. 55. Orat. inepto, p. 33; Salomo, p. 58. 56. Salomo, p. 115. 57. Buszspiegel, p. 178; Litanei, pp. 890 ff.; Hiob, p. 154. 58. Ehrenrettung, pp. 73 and 76; Buszspiegel, pp. 149 f. and 167. 59. Florian, pp. 443 f.; Calender, pp. 41 f. 60. Gedenk daran, Hamburg, pp. 186 f.; Salomo, p. 76; Litanei, p. 891. 61. Buszspiegel, pp. 252 f. 62. Ehrenrettung, p. 86; Schulwesen, p. 30. 63. Buszspiegel, p. 167; Ehrenrettung, pp. 73 ff. 64. Ehrenrettung, p p . 94 ff. a n d 98 ff.; Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, pp. 122 f.; Salomo, pp. 14 and 26 £. 65. Corinna, pp. 92 f. See also ibid., p. 8; Ehrenrettung, pp. 94 f.; Hauptmann, p. 284. 66. Ehrenrettung, p. 133; Calender, pp. 66 £. 67. Freund, pp. 30 f.; Ehrenrettung, pp. 95 ff. 68. Calender, pp. 66 f.; Hiob, p. 133; Buszspiegel, pp. 156 f. 69. Bischoff, Johann Balthasar Schupp, pp. 144 ff. 70. Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 208; see also Hiob, p. 145. 71. Buszspiegel, pp. 140 f.; Anleitung, throughout; Ambrosi Mellilambii Sendschreiben, pp. 369 £. 72. De arte, p. 88; Florian, p. 443; Calender, pp. 41 f.; Salomo, p. 54. 73. De arte, p. 56; Salomo, p. 45. 74. Buszspiegel, p. 259. 75. Ehrenrettung, p. 84. 76. Ibid., p. 120. 77. Hiob, p. 156. 78. Ibid., pp. 163 ff. 79. Salomo, p. 93. 80. Ehrenrettung, p. 45. 81. Buszspiegel, p. 237; see also Lucidor, pp. 285 £.

NOTES: CHAPTER

XI

219

82. Calender, p. 48. 83. Hiob, p. 156; Salomo, p. 116. 84. Somnium, p. 199. 85. Hiob, p. 145; Lucianus, p. 13; Salomo, p. 40; Corinna, p. 64. 86. Buszspiegel, p. 236; see also Hiob, p. 130 and Salomo, p. 87. 87. Sinngedichte, I. Tausend, 3. Hundert, No. 46; see also II, 5, 81. 88. Ibid., I, 4, 29; I, 10, 76; III, 6, 76. 89. Satyrische Gedichte, p. 123: "Schont aller Menschen zwar, doch keiner Thorheit nicht." NOTES TO CHAPTER X I 1. See "satire," Merriam-Webster, unabridged, 1935. 2. Bahnsen, Das Tragische als Weltgesetz, thus, pp. 98 ff. 3. See "humor," Merriam-Webster, unabridged, 1935. 4. Sinngedichte, I. Tausend, 3. Hundert, No. 41; I, 3, 50; II, 5, 7. 5. Ibid., II, 2, 76; I, 9, 40; I, 9, 47; I, 5, 66. 6. Ibid., II, 3, 58. 7. Ibid., I, 2, 86; I, 3, 2; I, 3, 63 and 64; III, 2, 18. 8. Ibid., III, 2, 24. 9. Ibid., I, 2, 56 and 65; II, 2, 30 and 76. 10. Ibid., I, I, 31; I, 2, 58; I, 5, 100; I, 8, 61. 11. Ibid., II, 3, 84; II, 7, 100; 111,4, 57; III, 7, 88. 12. Ibid., II, 1, 82. 13. Ibid., I, 5, 10; III, 3, 54; I, 10, 30. 14. Ibid., I, 5, 70; II, 7, 28; III, 7, 33. 15. Ibid., III, 8, 59; I, 6, 66; III, "Zugabe," 2, 222. 16. Ibid., I, 5, 70; I, 5, 3; I, 6, 30. See also I, 1, 69 and I, 2, 50. 17. Ibid., II, 7, 28; II, 1, 35. 18. Insomnis cura parentum, p. 24. 19. Gesichte, pp. 894 ff. (1645). 20. Ibid., pp. 206 ff. and 212 f. (D.N.L.). 21. Ibid., pp. 138 and 148 (D.N.L.). 22. Ibid., p. 26; pp. 49 ff. and 60 f.; "Venusnarren" throughout (D.N.L.). 23. Ibid., pp. 315 f. and p. 627 (1645). 24. Ibid., p. 122 (D.N.L.). 25. Ibid.,pp. 613 ff. (1645). 26. Bobertag, Deutsche National-Litteratur, X X X I I , xviii. 27. Gesichte, pp. 177 and 399 (D.N.L.). 28. Ibid., pp. 206 ff. (D.N.L.). 29. She appears in both parts of the Gesichte, i.e., pp. 48 ff. and 215 ff. (D.N.L.). 30. Ibid., pp. 52 ff. (D.N.L.); p. 844 (1645); pp. 870 ff. (1645). 31. Ibid., p. 86 (D.N.L.); p. 277 (1645); pp. 860 f. (1645). 32. Satyrische Gedichte, pp. 20 f.; 52 f.; 42. 33. Schertz Gedichte, pp. 30; 51; 55 ff. 34. Ibid., pp. 7, 32, 35. 35. Ibid., title page. 36. Ibid., pp. 30 and 62.

220

NOTES: C H A P T E R

XII

37. Ibid., p. 69. 38. Ibid., pp. 60; 59; 8. 39. Ibid., pp. 8; 55. 40. Ibid., p. 55. 41. Ibid., pp. 69 ff.; 34; 50. 42. Ibid., pp. 60; 28. 43. Ibid., pp. 58 f. 44. Simplicissimus, pp. 89 f.; 54; 74 f. 45. Ibid., p. 191: "Ich aber liesse mein Hertz bey den Knackwürsten." 46. Ibid., p. 202: "ohne ferneren Wortwechsel." 47. Ibid., p. 404: "wegen des schönen Funds, der mir vor die Thür gelegt." 48. Ibid., pp. 340 ff.; 185 ff.; 313 ff. 49. Springinsfeld, pp. 41 ff.; Continuatio (i.e., Book VI of Simplicissimus), pp. 56 ff. and 74 f. 50. Burkhard, Grimmelshausen, pp. 76 f. and 103 ff. 51. Ibid., p. 96; Ermatinger, Weltdeutung, p. 85. 52. Becker, Weise, pp. 8 ff. and 31. 53. Steinhausen, Geschichte der deutschen Kultur, pp. 471 f. 54. Alewyn, Beer, p. 212. NOTES TO CHAPTER X I I

1. Litanei, p. 914. 2. Salomo, p. 115. 3. Sieben böse Geister, p. 331; Corinna, p. 99. 4. Lucianus, p. 19; Schulwesen, p. 103; Lehrmeister, p. 28. 5. Program to Proteus, p. 6. 6. Buszspiegel, p. 31: origins of shipping; Hiob, pp. 163 ff.: diseases of Hiob. 7. Buszspiegel, p. 286. 8. Bischoff, Johann Balthasar Schupp, pp. 85 f.; Hentschel, "Johann Balthasar Schupp," p. lxxvi. 9. Conrad Dietrich, p. 64. 10. Freund, pp. 59 and 60. 11. Thus, Litanei, p. 914. 12. Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, p. 128. 13. Krankenwärterin, p. 431. 14. Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 214; Litanei, p. 910; Freund, throughout. 15. De arte, pp. 15 ff. and 151 ff.; Salomo, p. 79; Ehrenrettung, pp. 113 f. 16. Sieben böse Geister, pp. 358 f.; Lucidor, pp. 320 f.; Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 213; Calender, p. 69; Buszspiegel, p. 197. 17. Schulwesen, p. 57; Freund, pp. 59 f.; De arte, p. 113. 18. Salomo, p. 18. 19. Schulwesen, p. 21. 20. Salomo, pp. 13 f. and 19; Corinna, pp. 85 ff.; Schulwesen, p. 101. 21. Palm, Deutsche National-Litteratur, XXIX, 114. 22. Lehrmeister, pp. 41 ff.; Lucidor, p. 304. See also Hiob, p. 167. 23. Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, p. 236. 24. Hiob, p. 133.

NOTES: CHAPTER

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

XIII

Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 214. Freund, pp. 25 ff.; Calender, p. 62; Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, Lucidor, p. 287. Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 187. Schulwesen, p. 29.

221

p. 125.

NOTES TO CHAPTER X I I I

1. See also Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, p. 223. 2. Ibid., pp. 233 ff. 3. But note Strutz, Andreas Gryphius, p. 72. 4. Horribilicribrifax, pp. 316 f. 5. Squentz, p. 236; Horribili., pp. 320 ff. 6. Dornrose, pp. 361 f. 7. Ibid. 8. See also Müller, op. cit., p. 241. 9. See ibid., pp. 228 f. for a different view. 10. Satyrische Gedichte, p. 50. 11. Ibid., p. 56. 12. Ibid., p. 68. 13. Ibid., p. 78. 14. Ibid., pp. 78 f. 15. Ibid., p. 37. 16. Ibid., pp. 33; 45; 116 f. 17. Ibid., pp. 80 f. 18. Ibid., p. 40. 19. Ibid., pp. 80 and 84. 20. Ibid., p. 108. 21. Machiavell, pp. 14 f. 22. Erznarren, p. 223. 23. Unvergnügte Seele, pp. 264 and 274. 24. Machiavell, pp. 10 f. 25. Erznarren, pp. 223 ff. 26. Unvergnügte Seele, p. 274: "Gott im Herzen, die Liebste im Arm, / Eins macht selig, das andre macht warm." 27. Erznarren, pp. 224 ff. 28. Fulda, Deutsche National-Litteratur, XXXIX, xvi. 29. Becker, Weise, p. 53. 30. Machiavell, pp. 95 f. 31. Das Lachen, p. 17 (Le Rire, Paris, 1930: p. 8). 32. Plato, Modern Library, Irwin Edman, ed. (New York: Bennett A. Ceti and Donald S. Klopfer, 1928), p. 76. 33. Müller, op. cit., p. 232 and passim. 34. Squentz, p. 216. 35. Erznarren, pp. 84 ff. See also Masaniello and Hauptverderber, passim. 36. See also Fulda, Deutsche National-Litteratur, XXXIX, xiv. 37. See also Steinhausen, Geschichte der deutschen Kultur, pp. 493 f. 38. Masaniello, pp. 144 ff. 39. Erznarren, pp. 162 ff.

222

NOTES:

CHAPTER

XIV

40. Machiavell, p p . 95 f. 41. Erznarren, pp. 112 ff.; 103 £. 42. Tobias, p. 43. 43. Machiavell, pp. 46; 50. 44. Triumphirende Keuschheit, p. 237. 45. Vogt u n d Koch, Geschichte der Deutschen Literatur (Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut A.G., 1934), I, 377; Scherer-Walzel, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur (Berlin: Askanischer Verlag, 1928), p. 283. 46. Witkowski, "Nachwort," Werke, pp. 456 ff. 47. Ehrenfried, p. 23. 48. Becker, Weise, pp. 60 ff. 49. Witkowski, op. cit., pp. 453 ff. 50. Ehrenfried, p. 94. 51. Ibid., p. 127: "Ein wacker Mensch, schöne, wohl gewachsen, und auch fein qvappelich. Gottlob." 52. Witkowski, op. cit., p. 459. 53. Ibid.: ". . . in jene Sphäre des Welthumors . . ., wo tiefe Tragik sich mit den Erregern tollen Gelächters verschlingt." 54. See also Alewyn, Johann Beer, p. 88. 55. Ibid., pp. 116 and 134. 56. Sommertäge, p. 697. 57. See also Alewyn, op. cit., p. 228. 58. Ibid., pp. 191 ff. 59. Sommertäge, p. 111. 60. Ibid., pp. 443 ff. 61. See also Alewyn, op. cit., pp. 139 f. 62. Sommertäge, p. 48. 63. Ibid., p. 788. 64. Müller, op. cit., p. 257. 65. Lauberhütt I, pp. 38; 68. 66. Lauberhütt III, pp. 40 f; ibid., pp. 110 f.; Judas, p. 173. 67. Etwas für alle I, p. 84. 68. Huy und Pfuy, pp. 87 f. 69. Etwas für alle I, p. 5; Lauberhütt I, p. 64. 70. Judas, pp. 11 f.; Huy und Pfuy, pp. 59 f. 71. Bianchi, Studien zur Beurteilung des Abraham a Sancta Clara, throughout. NOTES TO CHAPTER X I V

1. See Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, p. 242, for a different view. 2. Alewyn, Johann Beer, pp. 101; 116; 134. 3. Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, p. 130; Morgen-und Abendlieder, p. 935. 4. See Chapter II, footnote 27. 5. Program to Proteus, pp. 2 f. 6. Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, p. 125; see also ibid., p. 122. 7. Lucianus, pp. 21 and 24; Calender, p. 47; Salomo, p. 128; Lucidor, 272 f. 8. Salomo, pp. 98 ff.; 58. 9. Salomo, p. 58; De arte, pp. 70 ff.; Freund, p. 56; Hiob, pp. 135 ff.

pp.

NOTES:

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

CONCLUSION

223

De arte, p. 183; Salomo, pp. 49 S.; Lehrmeister, p. 29. Allmosenbüchse, pp. 23 f. Cysarz, Deutsche Barockdichtung, p. 259. Gedenk daran, Hamburg, p. 208; Hiob, p. 145. Pahner, Seckendorf}, entire. NOTES TO CONCLUSION

1. Müller, Deutsche Dichtung, pp. 241 and 248 ff. 2. See also Vietor, Das Zeitalter des Barock, p. 101. 3. Ibid., p. 91. 4. Müller, op. cit., pp. 212 and 223. 5. Ibid., p. 241. 6. Note Müller's statement, op. cit., p. 240, that the higher Baroque levels also developed a kind of eudaemonism later in the period. 7. Ibid., pp. 212 and 247, speaks of this regarding the Simplicissimus cycle only. 8. Salomo, p. 14. 9. Schulwesen, p. 101. 10. Hauptmann, p. 286. 11. Calender, p. 43. 12. Salomo, p. 58. 13. Buszspiegel, p. 139; Ehrenrettung, p. 50. 14. Müller, op. cit., pp. 248 ff. 15. Ibid., p. 213, sees in Corinna a formal advance over what he aptly calls the "reihende Art" of Moscherosch. But this is due in Schupp to his model, Lucian, and not to the influence of higher Baroque literary levels. 16. Baur, Johann Balthasar Schupp als Prediger, p. 24; Rentsch, "Über Johann Balthasar Schupp," p. 4; Vogt, Hessenland, p. 122.

BIBLIOGRAPHY J O H A N N BALTHASAR S C H U P P

Abgenötigte Ehrenrettung. Streitschriften, Zweiter Teil, Neudrucke deutscher Litteraturwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts, 225-227, Carl Vogt, ed. H a i l e a . S.: Max Niemeyer, 1911. Allmosenbüchse. Zugab Doct. Joh. Balth. [sie] Schuppii Schrifften. (No date or place of publication.) Anibrosi Mellilambii Sendschreiben. Doct. J o h . Balth. [iic] Schuppii Schrifften. (No date or place of publication.) Anleitung (Frühstunde). Lehrreiche Schrifften. Frankfurt, 1719. Calender. Streitschriften, Erster Teil, Neudrucke, 222-224. 1910. Corinna. Neudrucke, 228-229. 1911. De arte ditescendi. Volumen orationum solemnium et panegyricarum. Frankfurt, 1659. De familia . . . Friederici. Volumen. De opinione. Volumen. De oratore inepto. Volumen. De usu et praestantia nihili. Volumen. Der bekehrte Ritter Florian. Zugab. Der Bücherdieb. Streitschriften, Erster Teil. Neudrucke, 222-224, 1910. Der Deutsche Lucianus. Streitschriften, Zweiter Teil. Der Freund in der Not. Neudrucke, 9, Wilhelm Braune, ed. 1878. Der geplagte Hiob. Schrifften. Der H a u p t m a n n zu Capernaum. Zugab. Der Rachgierige Lucidor. Schrifften. Der Teutsche Lehrmeister. Neudrucke Pädagogischer Schriften, Paul Stötzner, ed. Leipzig 1891. Die Krankenwärterin. Schrifften. Eilfertiges Sendschreiben. Erster Teil, Neudrucke. Einfältige Erklärung der Litanei. Schrifften. Ein Holländisch Pratgen. Schrifften. Erste und Eilfertige Antwort (an Schmid). Erster Teil, Neudrucke. Frühtägiges Selbstgespräch. Schrifften. Gedenk daran, Hamburg. Schrifften. Geistlicher Spaziergang. Zugab. Golgotha. Schrifften. Lobwürdiger Low. Schrifften. Morgen- u n d Abendlieder. Schrifften. Ninivitischer Buszspiegel. Zugab, separate paging. Panegyricus memoriae Conradi Dieterici. Volumen. Program to De oratore inepto. Volumen. Program to Proteus. Volumen. Relation aus dem Parnasso. Streitschriften, Erster Teil.

226

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Salomo. Schrifften. Sieben böse Geister. Schrifften. Somnium cuius occasione. Volumen. Vom Schulwesen. Neudrucke Pädagogischer Schriften.

T H E C O N T E M P O R A R Y SATIRISTS

Abraham a Sancta Clara Etwas für alle I. Auserlesene Werke. Vienna and Leipzig, 1837. Vol. II. Gehab dich Wohl. Werke, Vol. II. Heilsames Gemisch-Gemasch. Werke, Vol. I. Huy und Pfuy der Welt. Werke, Vol. I. Judas der Erzschelm. Werke, Vol. I I . Lauberhütt I, II, III. Werke, Vol. I. Wohlangefüllter Weinkeller. Werke, Vol. I. Beer, Johannes Die kurzweiligen Sommertäge. (No place of publication), 1683. Grimmelshausen, Johann Chr. v Continuatio des abenteuerlichen Simplicissimus. J a n H. Schölte, ed. Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer, 1939. Courasche. J a n H. Schölte, ed. Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer, 1923. Das wunderbarliche Vogelnest. Die Simplicianischen Schriften, Vol. II, Franz Riederer, ed. Neunhof bei Leipzig: F. W. Hendel [1939], Der stolze Melcher. Die Simplicianischen Schriften, Vol. II. Simplicissimi Galgen-Männlein. Die Simplicianischen Schriften, Vol. II. Simplicissimus Teutsch. J a n H. Schölte, ed. Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer, 1928. Springinsfeld. J a n H. Schölte, ed. Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer, 1938. Teutscher Michel. Die Simplicianischen Schriften, Vol. II. Gryphius, Andreas Aemilius Paulus Papinianus. Deutsche Literatur, Willi Flemming ed. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam jun., 1930. Vol. I. Cardenio und Celinde. Deutsche Literatur, Vol. I. Die geliebte Dornrose. Deutsche National-Litteratur, H. Palm, ed. Berlin und Stuttgart: W. Spemann. Vol. X X I X . Herr Peter Squentz. D.N.L., Vol. X X I X . Horribilicribrifax. D.N.L., Vol. X X I X . Happel, Eberhard Werner. Der akademische Roman. R. Schacht, ed. Berlin: K. Curtius [1923]. Lauremberg, Johann Veer Schertz Gedichte. Neudrucke deutscher Litteratur-werke des X V I . und X V I I . Jahrhunderts, 16-17, Wilhelm Braune, ed. Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer, 1879. Logau, Friedrich v. Sinngedichte. Gustav Eitner, ed. Stuttgart 1872. Lohenstein, Daniel Caspar v. Sophonisbe. Deutsche Literatur, Vol. I. Moscherosch, Johann Michael v.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Gesichte Philanders von Sittewald. Deutsche National-Litteratur, Felix Bobertag, ed. Vol. X X X I I . Insomnis cura parentum. Neudrucke, 108-109, Ludwig Pariser, ed. 1893. Visiones de Don De Quevedo. Frankfurt, 1645. Rachel, Joachim Satyrische Gedichte. Neudrucke, 200-202, Karl Drescher, ed. 1903. Reuter, Christian Ehrenfried. Werke, Georg Witkowski, ed. Leipzig: Insel-Verlag, 1916. La Maladie et la mort. Werke. L'honette Femme oder die Ehrliche Frau zu Plissine. Werke. Schelmuffsky. Werke. Riemer, Johannes Der politische Maulaffe. (No date or place of publication.) Weise, Christian Bauern-Komödie von Tobias und der Schwalbe. Bibliothek deutscher Curiosa, Rudolph Genie, ed. Berlin: A Hofmann u. Comp., 1882. Vol. V. Bäurischer Machiavellus. Deutsche National-Litteratur, Ludwig Fulda, ed. Vol. X X X I X . Der grünenden Jugend überflüssige Gedanken. Neudrucke, 242-245, Raphael Bernfeld und Max x. Waldberg, eds. 1914. Die drei ärgsten Erznarren. Neudrucke, 12-14, Wm. Braune, ed. 1878. Die drey Haupt-Verderber in Teutschland. (No place of publication), 1672. Die Triumphirende Keuschheit. Neudrucke, 242-245, Wm. Braune, ed. 1914. Die Unvergnügte Seele. Deutsche Literatur, Fritz Brüggemann, ed. Weimar and Leipzig: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1928. Vol. I. Komödie von der bösen Catharine. Deutsche National-Litteratur, Vol. XXXIX. Masaniello. Neudrucke, 216-218, Robert Petsch, ed. 1907. Schauspiel vom niederländischen Bauer. Deutsche Literatur, Willi Flemming, ed. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam jun., 1931. Vol. IV. Vom verfolgten Lateiner. Deutsche Literatur, Vol. I. Von Verfertigung der Komödien. Deutsche Literatur, Vol. I. SECONDARY M A T E R I A L

Alewyn, Richard. Johann Beer, Studien zum Roman des 17. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Mayer und Müller G. m. b. H., 1932. Bahnsen, Julius. Das Tragische als Weltgesetz und der Humor als aesthetische Gestalt des Metaphysischen. Anselm Ruest, ed. Leipzig: Barth, 1931. Baur, Gustav, A. L. "Johann Balthasar Schupp," Enclycopädie des gesamten Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesens, 2d. ed., Leipzig, 1887. VIII, 304 ff. Johann Balthasar Schupp als Prediger. Leipzig: Alexander Edelmann, 1888.

Becker, Rudolph. Christian Weises Romane und ihre Nachwirkung. Dissertation, Berlin, 1910. Becker, Wilhelm. "Aus Schupps Marburger Tagen," Beiträge zur Hessischen Schul- und Universitätsgeschichte, I, 171 ff. Bergson, Henri. Das Lachen. Translated by Julius Frankenberger and Walter Fränzel Jena: Dietrichs, 1914.

228

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bianchi, Lorenzo. Studien zur Beurteilung des Abraham a Sancta Clara. Heidelberg: Weiss, 1924. Bindewald, Otto. "Urkundliche Beiträge zur Lebensgeschichte J o h a n n Balthasar Schupps," 3. Jahresbericht des Oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins, Giessen, 1882 f. pp. 102 ff. Bischoff, Theodor. J o h a n n Balthasar Schupp, Beiträge zu seiner Würdigung. N ü r n b e r g [1890], Bloch, K. E. " J o h a n n Balthasar Schuppius," Jahresbericht der ElisabethRealschule in Berlin, 1863. Burkhard, Werner. Grimmelshausen, Erlösung u n d barocker Geist. Frankfurt a. M.: M. Diesterweg, 1929. Cysarz, Herbert. Deutsche Barockdichtung. Leipzig: Haessel, 1924. Diehl, Wilhelm. "Neuere Beiträge zur Geschichte von Schupp in Marburg," N.F., V (1907), 247 ff. Archiv für Hessische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, "Zur Lebensgeschichte J o h a n n Balthasar Schupps," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XXIX, 5 (1908), 399 ff. Ermatinger, Emil. Weltdeutung in Grimmelshausens Simplicius Simplicissimus. Leipzig: Teubner, 1925. Gebauer, Curt. "Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des französischen Einflusses auf Deutschland seit dem Dreissigjährigen Krieg: Das Alamodewesen," Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, IX, 4 (1911), 404 ff. Grünberg, Paul. Philipp Jakob Spener. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1893. Guhrauer, Gottschalk. Jakob Jungius und sein Zeitalter. Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1850. pp. 141 ff. ^ Gundolf, Friedrich. Andreas Gryphius. Heidelberg: Weiss, 1927. Halm, Hans. Matthias Abele, Volkstümliche Dichtung im 17. Jahrhundert. Weimar: Duncker, 1912. Hempel, Paul. Die Kunst Friedrich Logaus. Berlin: Mayer und Müller, 1917. Hentschel, Curt. "Johann Balthasar Schupp, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pädagogik des 17. Jahrhunderts," "Programm, Döbeln, 1876. Hölting, Carl. "J. B. Schuppius," Programm der Realschule zu Cassel 1860. Klamroth, Heinz. Beiträge zur Entwicklung der Traumsatire im 17. u n d 18. Jahrhundert. Bonn: Eisele, 1912. Kölmel, August. Johannes Riemer. Mannheim: Haas'sche Buchdruckerei G. m. b. H., 1914. Lerche, Otto, "J. B. Schupp," Euphorion, August Sauer, ed. Leipzig and Vienna: Carl Fromme, 1911. XVIII, 581 ff. Lochner, Rudolf. Grimmelshausen, ein deutscher Mensch im 17. Jahrhundert. Reichenberg i. Böhmen: F. Kraus, 1924. Liihmann, J o h a n n . Johann Balthasar Schupp. Beiträge zur deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, Nr. 4, Marburg: N. G. Elwert'sche Verlagsbuchhundlung, 1907. Merker, Paul. "Das Zeitalter des Humanismus und der Reformation," Aufriss der deutschen Literaturgeschichte, 3d ed., Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1932. Müller, Günther. Deutsche Dichtung von der Renaissance bis zum Ausgang des Barock. Wildpark-Potsdam: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion m. b. H. [1927].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Nebel, Wilhelm. "Briefwechsel Johann Balthasar Schupps mit dem Landgrafen von Hessen zu Braubach," Mitteilungen des Oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins, N. F. Giessen, 1890. I - I I , 49 ff. Pahner, Richard. Veit L. v. SeckendorfF. Dissertation, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1892. Reifferscheid, Alexander. Quellen zur Geschichte des geistigen Lebens in Deutschland während des 17. Jahrhunderts. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger, 1889. (Schupp correspondence scattered passim beginning with Nr. 503.) Rentsch, Johannes. "Über Johann Balthasar Schupp und seine Lehrreichen Schriften," Jahresbericht der Lausitzer Predigegesellschaft. Leipzig, 1885— 1886.

Steinhausen, Georg. Geschichte der deutschen Kultur. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1929. Stötzner, Paul. Beiträge zur Würdigung von Johann Balthasar Schupps Lehrreichen Schriften. Dissertation, Leipzig, 1890. Strutz, Adolf. Andreas Gryphius, die Weltanschauung eines deutschen Barockdichters. Horgen-Zürich/Leipzig: Verlag der Münsterpresse, 1931. Vial, Alexander. Johann Balthasar Schuppius als Vorläufer Speners. Mainz, 1857. Vietor, Karl: "Das Zeitalter des Barock," Aufriss der deutschen Literaturgeschichte. 3d ed., Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1932. Vogt, Carl. "Aus Schupps Marburger Tagen," Beiträge zur Hessischen Schulund Universitätsgeschichte, II, 2 (1910), 113 ff. "Johann Balthasar Schupp," Euphorion, August Sauer, ed. Leipzig and Vienna: Carl Fromme. XVI (1909), 7 ff., 245 ff., 670 ff.; ibid., X V I I (1910), 1 ff., 251 ff., 473 ff., 502 ff.; ibid., XVIII (1911), 41 ff., 321 ff. "Johann Balthasar Schupp," Hessenland 24 (1910), Nr. 5-9. "Neues Material über Johann Balthasar Schupp," Archiv für Hessische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, N. F., X I X , 1 (1935), 99 ff. Walker, Hugh. English Satire and Satirists. London and Toronto: J . M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1925. Weicker, Max. "Johann Balthasar Schupp in seinem Verhältnis zur Pädagogik des 17. Jahrhunderts," Programm von Weissenfeis 1874. Worcester, David. The Art of Satire. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1940. Zschau, Walter W., Quellen und Vorbilder zu den Lehrreichen Schriften Johann Balthasar Schupps. Dissertation, Halle 1906.

INDEX A b r a h a m a Sancta Clara, 8, 16, 18, 35, 3638, 39, 40, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 74-75, 80, 94, 95, 101, 103. 104-105, 111, 112, 113, 125, 128, 129, 136-137, 147, 149, 159, 170, 175, 179-180, 182, 188, 193-194; quoted, 37-38 Works: Etwas für alle, 75; Judas der Erzschclm, 23, 37 Absolutism, 67-68, 91, 160 Advice on conduct of life: Logau, 39, 90, 130; Rachel, 137, 166; Schupp, 27-28; Weise, 137, 169 Aesthetics of behavior, 150-151; Gryphius, 92, 163 Alchemist: Schupp, 83 Alewyn, R i c h a r d , 143 Alexandrine, 40, 41 Allegory (abstract type), 17, 35; A b r a h a m , 18, 180; Grimmelshausen, 17; Logau, 39, 129; Moscherosch, 17, 132, 134; Schupp, 24, 101; Weise, 17 Ambiguity in philosophy of life: Beer, 179; Grimmelshausen, 143-144 Ambition, 1, 68, 108, 124; Gryphius, 69; Lauremberg, 66; Logau, 61; Rachel, 68, 166; R e u t e r , 73, 99, 175; Weise, 7172 Ambivalence, moral: Beer, 177; Hofmannswaldau, 162, 166 America: Schupp, 123 Amoral conflict of passions: Lohenstein, 162, 166 Andreae, Valentin, 3, 125, 145, 147, 154; Christianopolis, 183 Anger: A b r a h a m , 180; Moscherosch, 35, 132; Rachel, 42; Schupp, 49, 50-51; 149 Anton, Ulrich von Braunschweig, 9, 30, 96, 135, 149, 150, 159, 194, 197, 198, 199; Aramena, 149, 150, 193, 195, 197, 198 Apothecary: Abraham, 75 Aristotle: Schupp, 117, 123 Arrogance: Logau, 130 Artisan, 67; Gryphius, 69; 164; Lauremberg, 66; Schupp, 31, 82, 83, 150, 196,

198; Weise, 71 Artist: Schupp, 31, 83 Arts: Schupp, 186 Arts a n d crafts: Schupp, 31, 77 Associative idea development: Schupp, 31-34; 103, 185 Astrologer, 113 "Atheism": Schupp, 87, 123 Augsburg Confession, 148 Austerity, moral, 95, 128, 145, 175, 190, 191; A b r a h a m , 94, 147; Beer, 94; Grimmelshausen, 93, 139, 142, 144, 154, 161; Gryphius, 91-92, 159, 161, 162; Lauremberg, 91, 135, 154; Logau, 90, 129, 139, 144; Moscherosch, 91, 131, 139, 144, 147, 154-155, 161; Rachel, 92, 166; Schupp, 8, 101, 102, 103, 125, 144, 145, 147-148, 149, 150, 152, 155, 188, 198, 199; Weise, 93, 168 A u t h o r as satiric object: Lauremberg, 138; Moscherosch, 108; Schupp, 83 Autonomy, moral: Gryphius, 162, 167; Rachel, 167; Weise, 168 Bacon, Francis, 3, 21, 87, 125, 145, 147, 154 Bahnsen, Julius, 127 Barclay, J o h n , 3, 21 Baroque, 1, 9, 66, 148, 149, 150, 152, 159, 160, 162, 166, 170, 177, 179, 183, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198 Beer, Johannes: Sommertiige, 11, 47, 66, 74, 93-94, 99-100, 128, ¡43, 155, 175, 177-179, 183. 184, 192, 195 Beggar: Grimmelshausen, 65; Schupp, 77, 149, 150 Bergson, H e n r i , 170 Bible, 50, 113, 115, 118, 123, 179 Bibliomaniac: Schupp, 83 Bindewald, Otto, 2 Boastfulness: Gryphius, 69; Lauremberg, 136 Boccalini, T r a j a n o , 3, 27, 106 Bookdealer: Schupp, 83, 86-87 Bribery: Rachel, 68

232 Business management Schupp, 77

INDEX (in

the

state):

Caricature (burlesque): Abraham, 36; Gryphius, 42; Moscherosch, 35; Reuter, 45; Riemer, 45; Weise, 44, 71 Cathartic aim of literature: Gryphius, 161

Chicanery: Beer, 94; Grimmelshausen, 64; Weise, 70 Christian idealism, see Religious idealism Christianity, practical: Abraham, 112; Francke, 188; Logau, 111; Luther, 188; Moscherosch, 111: Schupp, 103, 105, 120-121, 122, 125, 145, 146, 148, 188, 180, 197; Spener, 188 Church, malpractices of: Grimmelshausen, 114; Schupp, 31, 121 State support of: Schupp, 31, 76, 77, 78 Cicero: Schupp, 117 City Government of: 78; Schupp, 78, 86, 87, 120, 145; Weise, 78 Moral problems of: Schupp, 29, 33, 82,102.103 Classical elements in the satire, 194; Lauremberg, 194, 198; Logau, 194, 198; Rachel, 69, 92, 167, 194, 198; Schupp, 24, 48-49; Weise, 168, 194 Clergy, general reference to, 107, 111, 113-114; Abraham, 114; Beer, 74, 114; Grimmelshausen, 65, 114; Logau, 113; Moscherosch, 111, 113; Reuter, 113; Riemer, 113: Schupp, 56, 80, 83, 103, 105, 107, 121, 196; Weise, 70, 113 Training ol: Schupp, 121 Suffering of: Schupp, 28, 33, 52, 121, 153 Colloquialism: Abraham, 36, 38, 180; Gr\phius, 43; Lauremberg, 39-40, 137; Rachel, 42; Schupp, 50, 51; Weise, 44 Comenius, J o h a n n , 3, 116, 125, 154 Constructivesuggestions, 124-125; Schupp, 77-78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 115-120, 125, 145-146 Convert to Lutheranism: Schupp, 28, 29, 58 Copernicus, Nikolaus, 112, 123 Councilor: Schupp, 83 Courts, service at: Schupp, 2 8 Comment on life, man: Beer, 179; Grimmelshausen, 92; Logau, 39, 90, 130; Rachel, 101; Schupp, 101; Weise, 101 Crudeness (vulgarity): Abraham, 36;

Grimmelshausen, 41; Gryphius, 42, 43; Lauremberg, 40; Moscherosch, 35, 36; Reuter, 45-46; Riemer, 45; Schupp, 49-50 Cruelty: Grimmelshausen, 92 Death, release through: Logau, 129 Denunciation (moralizing), 16, 17, 46; Abraham, 180; Beer, 45; 178; Grimmelshausen, 17, 41, 140; Lauremberg, 17, 135; Logau, 17, 39; Moscherosch, 16-17, 35, 36, 132, 134; Rachel, 17, 42; Schupp, 58; Weise, 17, 44 Dialect Low German: Lauremberg, 40, 67, 109, 137,194 Silesian: Gryphius, 43, 165 Dishonesty: Schupp, 82, 101 Divine right: Schupp, 77 D h o r c e : Schupp, 32. 102-103 Doctor: Logau, 61; Moscherosch. 62; Schupp, 83 Doggerel: Lauremberg, 40 Dutch nation: Schupp, 87 Education, 107, 109-110, 111, 124 Aid of state to: Beer, 111; Schupp, 84, 116-117; 120, 126, 150 As means to individual satisfaction: Schupp, 146; Weise, 171-172 As solace: Logau, 110, 129-130; 169 By contact with reality: Schupp, 32, 81, 88, 118 For moral regeneration of man: Schupp, 145, 156-157; 189; Weise, 157, 169 General importance of: Beer, 111; Grimmelshausen, 110; Happel, 111; Logau, 110; Moscherosch, 110; Rachel, 110, 169; Schupp. 29, 31, 84, 103, 114, 116-120, 126, 157, 187, 189; Weise, 110-111, 169 Importance of, for society: Logau, 110, 169; Moscherosch, 80, 110, 157, 169, 171; Schupp, 76, 77, 78, 80, 84, 116, 145, 156-157, 196; Weise, 110-111, 157 Practical applicability of: Logau, 110, 169; Moscherosch, 110, 169, 171; Rachel, 169; Schupp, 82, 116, 117, 146, 189 Use of vernacular in: Grimmelshausen, 110; Schupp, 49, 88, 118, 119 See also Schools and universities

INDEX Eighteenth century, 74, 175, 178, 188, 190, 193, 196 English nation, 156; Schupp, 87 E n l i g h t e n m e n t , 166, 172; Gryphius, 92; Rachel, 92; Weise, 172; see also Secularism Envy: Logau, 90 Epistolae obscurorum virorum: Schupp, 50, 55 Erasmus, Desiderius, 3, 32, 54, 106, 115, 154 Erotic, the, 95, 104, 151, 175; A b r a h a m , 95; Anton Ulrich, 96, 151; Beer, 99; Grimmelshausen, 95, 96-97; Gryphius, 98; Happel, 99; Lauremberg, 97, 131, 142, 151; Logau, 95-96, 129, 151; Moscherosch, 95, 96, 131, 151; Rachel, 97-98, 167; Reuter, 99, 175, 176; Riemer, 99; Schupp, 101, 104, 151; Weise, 98, 151, 168-169; Zesen, 96, 151; Ziegler, 96, 151; see also Marriage; Motherhood; W o m e n Escape from society: see R e f u g e from reality Essay (essay-dialogue, essay-discourse): Schupp, 26-29, 30, 34, 48 Ethics Christian, 128; Weise, 93 Christian-stoic, 191, 197 Social, 160, 175; Gryphius, 148, 152, 163; Rachel, 168; Weise, 168, 173 Eudaemonism, 155; Rachel, 8; Weise, 8, 148, 168, 171, 172, 197 Examples (favorable, sympathetic): Abr a h a m , 50; Moscherosch, 134; Schupp, 23, 26, 50, 149-150, 153 Fables: A b r a h a m , 37; Schupp, 24 Faithlessness: Beer, 94; Grimmelshausen, 92; Rachel, 92; Schupp, 31-32, 101, 102, 154 Faustian urge, 140 Favoritism: Schupp, 76, 78; see also Chicanery Finance: Schupp, 77 Finite reality Desire for dominance of, 140-141, 148; Grimmelshausen, 140-141 Idealistic or philosophical a p p r o a c h to, 159-160 In conflict with the transcendental, 143, 166, 187, 189, 193-194; A b r a h a m , 180, 187, 193-194; Beer, 178-179; Grimmelshausen, 142, 144, 193-194;

233 Gryphius, 162, 163, 164-165; Lauremberg, 135, 139; Logau, 129, 130, 139, 187, 193-194; Moscherosch, 131, 132, 139, 187, 193-194; Rachel, 167; Schupp, 144, 145, 187, 189; Weise 168 Inconstancy of, 147; Grimmelshausen, 139; Gryphius, 163; Rachel, 167; Schupp, 147-148 Pragmatic a p p r o a c h to, 159-160 Traces of reconciliation with, 90, 128, 138, 141, 143, 147, 148, 149, 152, 154, 156, 157, 161, 186, 188, 189, 193, 194, 197, 199 As revealed in a p p r o a c h to life, 148, 193; Anton Ulrich, 149; Beer, 177; Grimmelshausen, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 148, 164; Gryphius, 148, 157, 162, 163, 165-166; Logau, 129131, 154, 157; Moscherosch, 154, 157; Rachel, 142, 154, 157, 167168; Reuter, 142, 157; Schupp, 100, 103-104, 145, 147-149, 155, 157, 187, 197; Weise, 93, 142, 148, 154, 155, 157, 168-172; Ziegler, 149 As revealed in approach to m a n , 138, 143, 147, 188, 191; Anton Ulrich, 199; Beer, 177-178; Grimmelshausen, 65, 93, 139-142, 143, 154, 155; Gryphius, 70, 152, 162165, 199; H a p p e l , 177; Lauremberg, 136-137, 138, 154, 169; Logau, 90, 131, 141-142, 154, 157; Moscherosch, 133-135, 141, 154, 155, 157; Rachel, 154-155, 167, 169, 194; Reuter, 176, 188; Riemer, 177, 188; Schupp, 144, 149-158, 187-188, 189; Weise, 93, 98, 152, 154-155, 168, 169, 173-175, 188, 194, 199; Ziegler, 152 As revealed in self-portrayal: see Self-portrayal; Personality, individual As revealed t h r o u g h style, 138, 157; Beer, 45; Grimmelshausen, 41; H a p p e l , 45; Lauremberg, 40, 46, 135, 137, 157; Logau, 39; Rachel, 42, 43; Reuter, 46; Moscherosch, 134-135, 157; Riemer. 45; Schupp, 149; Weise, 44-45, 175 As seen in increasing realism, 179, 181, 182; Beer, 177-179; Gryphius, 165; H a p p e l , 177; Rachel, 167; Reuter, 175-176; Riemer, 177; Schupp. 186, 188; Weise, 171, 172, 174

234 Fischart, Johann, 10, 38, 60, 195 Flattery: Lauremberg, 136 Floridness of style: Abraham, 35, 36-38, 180; Logau, 39; Moscherosch, 35-36, 44; Schupp, 50, 185 Foible (mild transgression), 60, 179 Curiosity: Weise, 93 Day-dreaming: Weise, 93 Foibles of fashion, manner, speech: Grimmelshausen, 139; Lauremberg, 39, 135, 136, 137, 164; Schupp, 52 Indecision: Weise, 93 Untidiness: Rachel, 92 Foreign affairs: Schupp, 28, 78 Foreign competition: Weise, 71 Foreign enemies: Grimmelshausen, 65; Weise, 72 Foreigners, imitation of, 60; Grimmelshausen, 65; Lauremberg, 91; Logau, 62; Moscherosch, 90-91; Rachel, 68-69; Schupp, 87; Weise, 173 Francke, August Hermann, 188 Free cities: Moscherosch, 63, 64 Free will, 148, 187; Schupp, 187; see also Voluntarism French language, nation: Grimmelshausen, 65; Lauremberg, 66; Logau, 61-62; Moscherosch, 62; Rachel, 68-69; Schupp, 87, 88 Friendship, 177; Beer, 94, 177-178; Logau, 129; Schupp, 31-32, 154 Galileo (Galilei): Schupp, 122 German achievements: Moscherosch, 64; Schupp, 87 Language and literature, 108; Moscherosch, 108; Schupp, 28, 49, 87, 103, 114, 115 Nation: Schupp, 87, 88 Gluttony: Grimmelshausen, 92; Logau, 90; Schupp, 82, 102 God, concept of: Logau, 61, 129; Moscherosch, 132; Rachel, 167; Weise, 168 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang v., 127, 140 Good sense, see Reasonable behavior Greed: Rachel, 166 Grimmelshausen, Johann Chr. v., 13, 40, 47, 51, 54, 64-66, 92-93, 94, 95, 96-97, 104, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 128, 129, 136-137, 139-144, 148, 153, 159, 163, 164, 166, 175, 179, 183, 188, 193-194, 195, 198 Works: Courasche, 11, 41, 54, 55, 64, 65,92,97, 139, 140, 141, 142, 151; Der-

INDEX keusche Joseph, 109, 142; Der stolze Melcher, 13, 65, 142; Dietwald und Amelinde, 97, 109, 142; Galgenmännlein, 140; Ratstübel Plutonis, 65, 92, 143; Simplicianische Schriften, 41, 139, 143; Simplicissimus Teutsch, II, 13, 14, 16, 17, 40, 54, 64. 65, 79, 92, 93, 97, 104, 114, 127, 139140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 151, 154, 155, 161, 162, 168, 178, 184, 185, 190, 192, 193, 195; Springinsfeld, 11, 14, 41, 65 , 92, 140, 141; Teutscher Michel, 13, 29, 65, 92, 190; Verkehrte Welt, 15, 16; Vogelnest I, 11, 12, 14, 41, 65, 92, 104, 140, 141, 193; Vogelnest II, 14, 16, 17, 41, 92, 97, 112, 140, 143 Gryphius, Andreas, 9, 14, 42, 43, 68, 6970, 80, 81, 85, 91-92, 97, 98, 109, 110, 112, 119, 127, 128, 135, 144, 148, 150151, 152, 154, 157, 159, 160-166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173, 179, 190, 191, 194, 197, 198, 199 Works: Aemilius Paulus Papinianus, 70, 104, 155, 161, 162, 163, 166, 193; Cardenio und Celinde, 70, 151, 155, 161, 190, 191; Carolus Stuardus, 70, 157, 161, 162, 163, 194, 198; Catharina von Georgien, 161, 162, 163; Das verliebte Gespenst, 69; Die geliebte Dornrose, 43, 69, 92, 98, 148, 151, 163, 165, 178, 191; Herr Peter Squentz, 42, 43, 69, 98, 109, 110, 162, 164, 170; Horribilicribrifax, 42, 43, 69, 70, 98, 148, 150, 162, 163, 164; Leo Armenius, 163 Guide (mentor), 15, 35; Abraham, 15; Grimmelshausen, 15; Lauremberg, 15; Moscherosch, 11, 15; Rachel, 15; Reuter, 15; Schupp, 22; Weise, 15 Guilds, 68 Happel, Eberhard Werner, Der akademische Roman, 14, 45, 73-74, 93-94, 99, 128, 175, 176-177, 183; Grösste Denkwürdigkeiten, 179 Heaping of words: Abraham, 35, 36, 38, 180; Gryphius, 42, 43; Moscherosch, 35, 36; Schupp, 49, 185 Hentschel, Curt, 116 Hermit: Beer, 114; Grimmelshausen, 114 Hofmannswaldau, Christian Hofmann v., 9, 162, 191 Homer: Schupp, 117 Beer, 179 Hugo Schapeler:

INDEX

235

Humor, 127, 128, 176, 189; Weise, 175; see also Finite reality, traces of reconciliation with Hypocrisy: Logau, 90

Judge: Logau, 61; Schupp, 85, 86; Weise, 70, 78 Justice, administration of: Schupp, 76, 78, 86

Ideal frame, standards: Logau, 136; Gryphius. 42-43, 69, 91, 136; Moscherosch, 136; Weise, 44; see also Society, stable framework of Idealism Christian, 175, 182, 186; Schupp, 182; see also Religious idealism Of "courtly" Baroque, 66, 193; Gryphius, 70, 167, 168, 169, 171 Idealized man: Anton Ulrich, 150; Gryphius, 150 154, 161-163; Weise, 154; Ziegler, 150; see also Society, stable framework of Ideal personality, concept of, 152-153, 198; Schupp, 155-156, 198 Idyll, see Refuge from reality "Immanent tragedy," 193 Immorality (unchasteness), 95; Abraham, 94; Grimmelshausen, 64, 65, 92, 94, 9697; Gryphius, 69, 92, 98; Happel, 99; Lauremberg, 97, 136; Logau, 61, 90; Moscherosch, 96; Rachel, 98; Reuter, 99; Riemer, 99; Schupp, 29, 33, 55-56, 78, 82, 84, 102, 104, 105, 126; Weise, 99 Impatience under misfortune: Schupp, 28, 32, 58, 102 Impiety, 124; Grimmelshausen, 92; Logau, 130, Rachel, 92, 166; Schupp, 32, 82, 102; Weise', 72 Informative intrusions: Schupp, 58, 103; "courtly" Baroque novel, 183 Innkeeper: Grimmelshausen, 65; Moscherosch, 62; Weise, 70 Intellectual freedom, 1; see also Secularism Intoxication: Grimmelshausen,64; Moscherosch, 91; Rachel, 167 Irony: Abraham, 36, 38; Grimmelshausen, 40-41, 139-140, 142; Gryphius, 43; Lauremberg, 39; Moscherosch, 35; Rachel, 43; Reuter, 45, 46; Riemer, 45; Schupp, 50, 53-56, 58; Weise, 43, 44, 93 Italian language, nation: Schupp, 87, 88

Klein, Dionys, 11

Jokes, anecdotes: Abraham, 37, 180; Schupp, 50, 51-53, 55, 105, 106, 152 Journalistic style, writing, 185, 195; Schupp, 8, 59, 198

Land, love of the: Beer, 74, 178; Logau, 129 Language mixture, 108; Gryphius, 69; Rachel, 109, 167; Schupp, 87, 115 Language societies, 9; Rachel, 109; Schupp, 115 Latin language: Rachel, 69 (Latin and Greek); Schupp, 48. 49, 88; see also under Education Lauremberg, Johann, Veer Schertz Gedichte, 11, 14, 29, 39-40, 41-42, 47, 6667, 87, 91, 97, 98, 108-109, 115, 128, 129, 135-138, 139, 142, 154, 159, 183, 184,191,192,194 Lawyer: Beer, 74; Logau, 61; Moscherosch, 62, 63; Reuter, 73; Schupp, 83, 85-86 Laziness: Rachel, 92 Learned, the: Rachel, 192; Weise, 172, lt)2 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm v., 187, 188, 192 Lerche, Otto, 116 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 199 Liberalization of thought, 160; see also Enlightenment; Secularism Limitation (unity) of theme: Grimmelshausen, 29; Lauremberg, 29, 135; Reuter, 29; Schupp, 29, 31, 33-34; Weise. 29 Listing of illustrative figures: Moscherosch, 18; Schupp, 24 Literature As general satiric object, 108, 109, 114 As profession, 186; Lauremberg, 137138; Logau, 137; Rachel, 137 As tool: Lauremberg, 137; Logau, 137; Moscherosch, 109, 132, 137; Rachel, 109; Schupp, 115, 186 Duty of state to foster: Schupp, 115116 Neoclassical forms of, 108-109, 136, 137, 194; Rachel, 69, 168 Release through: Lauremberg, 137138; Logau, 129, 130, 137; Moscherosch. 132. 134; Schupp, 185-186; see also Realism, sublimated

INDEX

236 Literature (Coni.) Traditional forms of, 109, 194; Lauremberg, 108-109, 137; Logau, 108; Moscherosch, 108; Rachel, 109; Schupp, 115 Logau, Friedrich von, 88; Sinngedichte, 2, 10, 11, 39, 46-47, 61-62, 63, 64, 67, 79, 85, 87, 90, 93, 95-96, 101, 104, 108, 110, 111, 113, 124, 125, 128, 129-131, 133, 137, 139, 141-142, 144, 150, 152, 155. 156, 157, 159, 163, 167, 169, 182, 184, 185, 188, 192, 193-194, 197, 198 Lohenstein, Daniel Kaspar von, 9, 159, 190; Cleopatra, 162, 166; Sophonisbe, 162, 166 Lucian: Schupp, 3, 27, 106, 117 Luther. Martin, 3, 13, 27, 80, 106, 115, 148, 151, 153, 154, 188, 196, 198, 199 Lutheran-Augustinian concept of free will, 187, 197 Lutheran concept of church-state relation, 67; Confession, see Religion, confessions of Machiavellianism: Schupp, 78; Weise, 72, 93, 169 Marriage, 95, 104; Abraham, 95; Beer, 99-100, Grimmelshausen, 96-97; Logau, 95-96; Rachel, 97-98, 167; Schupp, 101, 102-103, 151; Weise, 98-99, 168-169 Merchant: Lauremberg, 66-67, 136, 138, 191; Logau, 61; Schupp, 77, 81-82, 83, 150, 196, 198; Weise, 70. 173 Middle class, 63, 67-68, 91, 124, 148, 160, 188, 191, 196, 197; Abraham, 74-75; Beer, 178; Lauremberg, 66, 67, 136, 164; Logau, 61; Moscherosch, 62, 63; Riemer, 179; Reuter, 73, 175, 179; Schupp, 77. 81-83, 84, 87, 196, 197; Weise, 71, 72-73, 171-172, 173, 179 Molière (Jean Baptiste Poquelin), 175 Moneylender: Schupp, 83 Moral weeklies, 18, 179, 193, 196 More, Thomas, 3, 125 Moscherosch, Johann Michael von, 2, 8, 10, 35, 40, 46, 49, 51, 54, 62, 63, 66, 67, 71, 79, 80, 85, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 101, 103, 104, 107, 109, 110, 114, 125, 128, 129, 131-135, 139, 141, 144, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 161, 163, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 182, 183, 184, 188, 193-194, 197, 198

Works: Gesichte, 11,12,13.15,16-17,18, 19, 20. 21. 22, 24, 35-36, 42, 50, 62-64, 66. 79, 91, 96, 99, 110, 113, 127, 131135, 138, 151, 154, 156, 161, 190, 193, 195; Insomnis cura parentum, 63, 64, 104-105, 111, 132, 133 Motherhood, 95; Rachel. 98 Müller, Günther, 170, 179, 192, 193 Nationalism, 60, 108, 124; Abraham, 74; Grimmelshausen, 65; Happel, 73; Lauremberg, 67; Logau, 61-62; Moscherosch, 62; Schupp, 87-88, 115 National unity: Grimmelshausen, 64 National welfare, prosperity, 67; Schupp, 79, 145; Weise, 70, 71 Natural resources: Schupp, 77, 78 Nature: Beer, 177, 178 Nobility, 41, 67, 68, 191; Beer, 74; Grimmelshausen, 64, 65; Gryphius, 69; Happel, 73; Logau, 61; Moscherosch, 62, 63; Reuter, 73, 176; Schupp, 77, 84; Weise, 70, 72 Nonconformist (as representative of middle class), 192; see also Satire and Personality, individual Nonconformity, see Personality, individual Novel (of adventure, of individual growth, experience), 195, 196; Beer, 66; Grimmelshausen, 65-66; Moscherosch, 66; Weise, 66 Novelistic elements in the prose satire Plot, narration, 12, 45, 195; Beer, 9394, 99, 177-179; Grimmelshausen, 12, 65 , 92, 93, 139; Happel, 73, 74, 9394, 99, 177; Moscherosh, 12, 65, 133, 134; Riemer, 74, 93-94, 99, 177; Schupp, 22, 23-24; 34, 185; Weise, 12, 45 Hero, 13, 195; Grimmelshausen, 14, 65, 139; Happel, 14; Moscherosch, 14, 65, 133-134; Riemer, 14; Schupp, 22; Weise, 14 Observer, wanderer (in the satire), 10-11, 35; Grimmelshausen, 11; Moscherosch, 11; Reuter, 11; Schupp, 20-22; Weise. 11

Officialdom, 67, 68, 124; Abraham, 74; Moscherosch, 62; Schupp. 76, 77, 83; Weise, 70 Opitz, Martin, 3, 9, 41, 108, 109, 115,

INDEX 161, 164, 170, 191, 194; followers of, 40, 108, 109, 115 P a n o r a m i c view of reality, 128, 195; A b r a h a m , 8, 159, 179; Grimmelshausen, 159; Logau, 159; Moscherosch, 8, 132, 159; Weise, 170 P a r t i c u l a r i s m : Lauremberg, 67, 109 Peasant, 67, 124; Beer, 74; Grimmelsh a u s e n , 64, 65, 110; Gryphius, 165; L a u r e m b e r g , 136; Logau, 61; Moscherosch, 63; Riemer, 74; Schupp, 77, 8081, 150, 196; Weise, 71, 72, 173 Pedagogical novel, 195 P e d a n t : Gryphius, 69; Schupp, 82 Personal enemies, 125; L a u r e m b e r g , 106, 184; Logau, 106, 184; Moscherosch, 184; R e u t e r , 106, 125; Schupp, 3, 28, 29, 32-33, 51, 52, 53, 54-55, 103, 105107, 125-126, 184-185; Weise, 106 Personality, individual, 152-153 Escape for: Beer, 155 Expression of, 169-170, 183-184, 192; Beer, 177, 184; Logau, 130, 131, 184; Moscherosch, 133, 184; Schupp, 153156, 184-185, 197 Rights of. 131, 136, 196-197; L a u r e m berg, 106, 109, 137-138; Logau, 106; Schupp, 28, 32, 103, 106-107, 125126, 149, 153, 155, 156, 186, 187, 188, 196; Weise, 106 Unsublimated portrayal of, Schupp, 184-185 Philosopher: Schupp, 83 Philosophy, newer (in 16th a n d 17th century), 109, 111, 124, 160, 166; Abrah a m , 113; Schupp, 123; Weise, 91, 112, 113, 168 Physical m a n , 95, 136-137, 190; A b r a h a m , 94, 95, 137, 175, 180; Grimmelshausen, 92-93, 136-137, 142-143, 151, 175; Gryphius, 98; Happel, 99; L a u r e m b e r g , 40, 97, 135, 136-137, 142; Logau, 131; Moscherosch, 131-132, 151; Rachel, 167; Reuter, 175; Riemer, 99; Schupp, 58, 151 Picaresque novel, 11, 60, 160, 175, 193 Picaro, the, 10, 11, 13 Pickelhäring: Weise, 78 Plato: Schupp, 79 Poetaster, 137; Gryphius, 109; L a u r e m berg, 67; Rachel, 69, 109; Schupp, 33; Weise, 109 "Politic" attitude, behavior, 170; Gryph-

237 ius, 164; Riemer. 74; Weise, 73, 169 Polyhistory, 129 Poor, the: Schupp, 28, 29, 77, 82, 83-84, 149 Poverty, 67; Grimmelshausen, 64; Lauremberg, 66; Schupp, 27, 79; Weise, 70 Practical orientation, Schupp, 8, 20, 76, 145-146, 148, 150, 152, 156, 182, 183, 188, 189, 197, 199; see also Realism, pragmatic Pride: Lauremberg, 135; Schupp, 102 Prince, 124, 191; Logau, 61; Moscherosch, 62; Schupp, 76, 80, 86, 147, 149, 150, 198; see also State Printer: Schupp, 86 Prognosticator: Schupp, 32, 83 P u f e n d o r f , Samuel, 188, 192; Monzarnbono, 183 P u n (anagram): A b r a h a m , 36, 38, 180; Logau, 39; Moscherosch, 35, 36; Schupp, 49 Q u e v e d o y Villegas, Francisco Gómez de, 12, 15 Quotations, borrowings: Moscherosch, 36, 132; Schupp, 50 Rabelais, François, 3, 97 Rachel, Joachim, Satyrische Gedichte, 8, 11, 41-43, 47, 66, 67, 69, 79, 90, 93, 9798, 101, 109, 110, 114, 125, 128, 142, 150, 157, 159, 160, 166-168, 169, 170, 171, 182, 184, 192, 194 Ratichius (Ratich), Wolfgang, 154 Rationalism, 1, 158, 188; Weise, 175; see also E n l i g h t e n m e n t Realism, 66, 128, 148-149, 182-196 As indication of reconciliation with finite, see Finite reality Pragmatic, 182-183, 188; Schupp, 182186, 188, 189-190 Sublimated, 182-183, 186, 190; Schupp, 185-186 T r e n d toward, in the Baroque satire, see Satire Reasonable behavior (good sense), 154; Rachel, 68, 93, 154, 155, 166, 167, 168; R e u t e r , 94, 152; Weise, 71, 93, 152, 154, 155, 168 R e f o r m a t i o n , the, 131, 146, 148 R e f u g e (release) from reality, 147, 166; Beer, 178; Grimmelshausen, 178; Gryphius, 69 (idyll), 152, 165, 166;

238

INDEX

R e f u g e (release) from reality (Cont.) Sabbath-breaking: Schupp, 51, 102 L a u r e m b e r g , 138; Logau, 129-130, 132, Sachs, Hans, 60, 164, 195 138; Moscherosch, 138; Rachel, 142; Safe mean: Rachel, 166, 167 R e u t e r , 142, 152; Schupp, 145, 152; Satire, as link between 16th and 18th Weise, 142, 152; Ziegler, 152 centuries, 195-196, 199; general characReligion, 109, 111, 112, 113-114; confester of, 1, 9-10, 35 , 70, 94-95, 106, 124sions, sects, of, 111, 112 125, 127, 132-133, 134, 138, 141, 157Calvinism, 121; Logau, 111; Schupp, 158, 170, 183; general character of, in 122 17th century, 35, 41, 45, 60, 63, 65-66, Catholicism, 121; Grimmelshausen, 67-68, 72-73, 75 . 78, 80. 81, 87, 90, 91, 112; Logau, 111; Schupp, 80, 122; 94, 95 , 96, 99, 100, 104, 106, 108, 109, Weise, 112 111, 112, 115, 123-125, 127-128, 129,130, J u d a i s m : Grimmelshausen, 112; Mo136, 143, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154scherosch, 111; Weise, 112 156, 160, 161, 166, 169-170, 172, 173, Lesser Protestant sects: Schupp, 122 174, 176, 178, 179, 180-181, 182-183, 186, L u t h e r a n i s m , 67, 111, 113, 121; Logau, 187-188, 189, 190-199 111; Moscherosch, 111; Schupp, 114, Place of, in Baroque culture, 190-199 118, 122, 123; Weise, 91, 93, 112, 168, In development of special forms, 190, 172 194-195; in g r a n t i n g expression to I m p o r t a n c e of, to state: Schupp, 76, middle class, 191-192; in granting ex77, 78, 102, 121 pression to non-conformist, 192; in Unity of: Grimmelshausen, 64, 112; h u m a n portrayal, 190-191, 193, 195; Schupp, 122; Weise, 112, 172 in philosophy of life, 193-194; in reReligious idealism, 128, 175, 190 flection of times, 190, 192-193, 195; Religious morality, see Austerity, moral in treating contemporary real probRenaissance, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 108, 129, lems, 190, 195 131, 151, 157, 160, 198 Place of Schupp in, 196-199 R e u c h l i n , Johannes, 3, 32, 54, 106, 115 Satiric portrait, 18-19, 35; A b r a h a m , 18, R e u t e r , Christian, 47, 67, 68, 73, 80, 94, 38, 129, 179-180; Beer, 178; Grimmels99, 125, 128, 137, 142, 152, 157, 159, hausen, 19; Gryphius, 18, 19; Laurem175-176, 179,183, 188 berg, 18, 136; Logau, 18; Moscherosch, Works: Ehrenfried, 45, 46, 73, 94, 99, 18, 19, 36, 90, 129, 134-135; Rachel, 18, 176, 191; La Maladie et la mart, 113; 42, 167; Reuter, 19, 45; Schupp, 24-26. L'honette Femme oder die Ehrliche 56, 151-152, 185; Weise, 18, 19, 44, 99, Frau, 45, 46, 73, 94, 99, 175, 176; 173-174 Schelmuffsky, 11, 29, 45, 46, 73, 94, Saxony: Weise, 171 99, 104-105, 175 Scandalmongering: Schupp, 82 Revue, 10-12, 14, 35, 65-66, 194-195; AbraScheffler, Johannes (Angelus Silesius). h a m , 11, 159; Beer, 11, 195; Grimmels187 hausen, 11, 65, 92, 159, 195; H a p p e l , Schnabel, Gottfried, Insel Felsenburg, 11; Lauremberg, 11; Logau, 11, 159; 141,178 Moscherosch, 11, 159; Rachel, 11; RieSchools and universities mer, 11; Schupp, 20-22, 23, 27, 31; Curricula of: Schupp, 32, 54, 55, 105. Weise, 11, 70 107, 117-119, 126 R h y m e , assonance: Abraham, 36, 38, Arts: Schupp, 117 180; Logau, 39; Schupp, 49 Classical languages, authors: Rachel. Riemer, Johannes, Der politische Maul110; Schupp, 88, 117-118 a f f e , 14, 45, 47, 74, 81, 94, 99, 128, 173, Foreign languages: Schupp, 88, 117 175, 176-177, 179, 183, 188, 194 Oratory: Schupp, 117 Ringwaldt, Bartholomäus, 10, 11,60, 195; Scholastic logic, philosophy, 146; Der treue Eckhart, 194 Schupp, 118, 146 Rist, J o h a n n , 3, 28 Science: Schupp, 80, 82, 118, 122 Rollenhagen, Georg, 10, 11, 60 Subjects training the memory: Ronsard, Pierre de, 116 Schupp, 117

INDEX Methods and practices of: Beer, 111; Happel, 111, 176; Schupp, 117, 118 119, 126, 146; Weise, 110 Schupp, Anton Meno, 31 Schupp, Johann, Balthasar, 19, 47, 75, 100, 114, 144, 189-190, 196-199; character, 3-4, 27, 106-107, 148, 149, 151, 153156; life, 1-4, 27, 30, 88. 105, 148, 184185; literary importance, 189-190, 196199; quoted, 25, 56-57, 119; reading, 3 Works: Lehrreiche Schritten, 7; Volumen orationum, 7, 8; Zugab, 7; Abgenötigte Ehrenrettung, 6, 23, 81, 116, 153, 197; Allmosenbüchse, 5, 23, 28, 34, 55, 82, 83, 145, 186; Ambrosi Mellilambii Sendschreiben, 6, 28, 78, 103; Aurora, 5, 7, 29, 58, 101, 122; Calender, 6, 22, 24, 28, 32, 51, 53, 105, 186, 196; Cassandra, 20; Consecratio Avellini, 5, 7; Corinna, 5, 6, 23-24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 50, 55-56, 58, 82, 86, 102, 104, 116, 120, 121, 152; De arte ditescendi, 5. 21, 22, 24, 27, 55, 76-77, 78, 79,81,83,85,87,102,116,117,118, 120, 126, 145, 146, 147, 149, 186; De familia . . . Friederici, 4, 76, 116; De opinione, 4, 22, 23, 24, 27, 33, 49, 83, 88, 101, 116; De oratore inepto, 4, 27, 29, 55, 101, 116, 117; De usu et praestantia nihili, 4, 23, 24, 27, 33, 49, 51, 83, 101, 116; Der bekehrte Ritter Florian, 5, 23-24, 28, 29, 34. 58, 122; Der Bücherdieb, 6, 33, 34; Der Deutsche Lucianus, 6, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33,53,55,116,117,186; Der Freund in der Not, 5, 6, 25, 31-32, 33, 56, 58, 88, 116, 154, 185; Der geistliche Spaziergang, 104; Der geplagte Hiob, 5, 23, 28, 29, 32, 50, 52, 56, 58, 82, 116, 153, 187; Der Hauptmann zu Capernaum, 6, 28, 29, 85, 196; Der Rachgierige Lucidor, 5, 29, 51, 56, 85, 86, 6, 7, 102; Der Teutsche Lehrmeister, 22, 24. 28, 33, 49, 50. 52, 58, 87, 88, 103, 115-116, 117, 186; Die Krankenwärterin, 5, 28, 58, 83, 102, 145, 149; Eilfertiges Sendschreiben, 6, 56, 185; Einfältige Erklärung der Litanei, 5, 29, 58, 81, 102; Ein Holländisch Pratgen, 6, 28, 52, 78, 103; Erste und Eilfertige Antwort, 6, 22, 32, 33, 52, 53, 54-55, 58, 116, 153; Eusebio, 5, 7, 29, 58, 101; Frühstunde, 122; Gedenk daran, Hamburg, 5, 29, 82, 102, 187;

239 Golgotha, 5, 28, 58, 102; Hercules Togatus, 4, 7; Lobwürdiger Low, 5; Morgenund Abendlieder, 6, 49; Ninivitischer Busupiegel, 5, 23, 24, 28, 33, 50, 55, 81, 82, 84. 85, 86, 103, 120, 152, 197; Panegyricus memoriae Conradi Dieterici, 4, 116; Program to Proteus, 4, 87, 116, 186; Relation aus dem Pamasso, 6, 22, 24, 28, 34, 50, 55; Salomo, 5, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 49, 50, 55, 56, 58, 76, 77-78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 86, 102, 103, 116, 120, 126, 145, 146, 147, 153, 186, 196, 197; Sieben böse Geisler, 5, 28, 29, 84; Somntum cuius occasione, 4, 20, 22, 24, 27, 83, 85, 101, 116; Stummer Lehrer, 102; Vom Schulwesen, 6, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 34, 49, 50, 54, 103, 105, 116, 119, 126, 196 Schupp, Jost Burkhard, 104 Scientific discoveries (of 16th and 17th centuries), 109, 111, 112-113, 160; Abraham, 113; Gryphius, 112; Schupp, 122-123, 146; Weise, 91, 112, 113 Seckendorff, Veit L. v., 125, 188 Secularism, 68, 91 Self-portrayal (fictional or real), 13, 19, 30, 183-184, 191-192; Abraham, 13, 15, 19, 30; Beer, 177, 184; Grimmelshausen, 13, 43, 154, 184; Lauremberg, 13, 15, 19, 40, 43, 138, 154, 184; Logau, 13, 19, 30, 39, 43, 130, 133, 138, 141-142, 154, 184; Moscherosch, 13, 43, 133-134, 141, 154, 155, 184; Rachel, 13, 15, 154, 155, 184; Schupp, 26, 30, 50, 104, 105, 149, 153-156, 183-185; Weise, 13, 43, 154, 155, 184 Servant: Gryphius, 42; Reuter, 191; Schupp, 28, 29, 83. 84 Sinfulness, general, 123, 124, 127, 169; Abraham, 94, 103; Beer, 93-94; Grimmelshausen, 92-93, 139, 142, 169; Gryphius, 159; Happel, 93-94; Lauremberg, 91, 135, 136; Logau, 90, 130, 169; Moscherosch, 90-91, 103, 131, 169; Riemer, 93-94; Schupp, 100, 101, 103, 150; Weise, 93, 168 Sixteenth century, 10, 60, 66, 68, 95, 125, 188, 190, 194, 195-196, 199 Snobbery, social, 127-128; Gryphius, 43, 69, 164, 179; Happel, 99; Lauremberg, 66; Rachel, 43; Riemer, 74, 94, 99, 173; Weise, 43-44, 173, 179

240 Social problems, search for causes of, 123-124; Schupp. 126 Society, 64, 66, 128, 160; Abraham, 74, 75; Beer, 74; Grimmelshausen, 64, 65; Lauremberg, 135; Logau, 61, 62, 129; Moscherosch, 62, 64, 132, 135; Rachel, 68; Schupp, 80, 101, 103, 120; Weise, 70, 72 Stable framework of, 156, 171 Cultured, the: Rachel, 169-170; Weise, 169-170 learned, the: Weise, 172 State, nobility: Anton Ulrich, 135, 150; Gryphius, 147, 154, 163, 171; Lauremberg. 135-136; Rachel, 167; Schupp, 147, 150; Weise, 147, 154, 170, 179 See also State Socrates, 3, 170 Soldier: Grimmelshausen, 64, 65; Gryphius, 42, 69, 163; Logau, 61; Moscherosch, 62, 63; Riemer, 74; Schupp, 28, 83, 84-85, 103 Spener, Philipp, 188 Spinoza, Baruch, 187 State (authorities), 64, 124, 148, 156, 160; Abraham, 74; Anton Ulrich, 135; Beer, 74, 179; Grimmelshausen, 64; Gryphius, 135; Lauremberg, 66, 135; Logau, 61,62,64, 156; Moscherosch, 62, 64, 110, 135, 156; Rachel, 68; Schupp, 29, 55, 76-80, 84, 86, 87, 101, 102, 114, 120, 122, 126, 145-146, 147, 156, 197-198; Weise, 70, 71, 72. 156 Station point (satiric), 12, 153-154, 169170, 191-192; Grimmelshausen, 12; Gryphius, 154; Lauremberg, 136; Moscherosch, 12, 154; Rachel, 192; Reuter, 13; Schupp, 153; Weise, 12, 154, 169-170, 192 Stinginess (selfishness): Beer, 94; Logau, 130; Rachel, 166, 167; Schupp, 28, 83, 102 Stötzner, Paul, 2 Strieker, Johann, 10 Student: Beer, 74, 111; Happel, 73, 111, 177; Rachel, 110; Riemer, 74; Schupp, 82, 83, 119; Weise, 173, 174, 191 Sturm, Johannes, 153 Style, satiric Liveliness of: Schupp, 56 Parallelism and expansibility of: 59 Simplicity of, 109, 199; Abraham, 38; Beer, 45; Grimmelshausen, 41;

INDEX Gryphius, 109; Happel, 45; Lauremberg, 109; Logau, 39; Rachel, 41-42, 109; Reuter, 45; Riemer, 45; Schupp, 48, 49, 52-53, 58, 185, 199; Weise, 44, 109 Unevenness of mood in: Abraham, 3637; Moscherosch, 36; Rachel, 167; Schupp, 58 Subjectivism In the satire, 30, 192; Beer, 195; Schupp, 196-197 In the 17th century, 192, 196 Syncretism, see Religion, unity of Tailor: Lauremberg, 66 Teacher, 68, 110, 124; Gryphius, 69, 110, 164; Schupp, 83, 105, 117, 119, 149, 150, 157, 196, 198; Weise, 78, 110 Temporal goods: Beer, 177; Weise, 168 169 Tenderness: Abraham, 37, 38; Schupp, 50, 149 Thirty Yeara' War, 1, 2, 15, 21, 41, 60, 62, 64, 67, 88, 91, 110, 145, 147, 160, 171 Thomasius, Christian, 193 Uncouth, the, see Uncultured, the Uncultured, the, 91, 108, 109, 136, 150; Gryphius, 42, 69, 81, 92, 98, 109, 161, 162, 164, 179; Reuter, 93, 94, 137; Riemer, 81, 173; Weise, 71, 81, 93, 109, 137, 173, 179 Undisciplined characters, 136; Gryphius, 161, 162 Universities, see Schools and universities Unreal locale of the satire, 10, 15, 35; Abraham, 16; Grimmelshausen, 16, 143; Moscherosch. 11, 16, 35, 90, 131; Schupp, 22-23, 27, 102; Weise, 11, 16 Vengefulness: Gryphius, 92; Schupp, 29. 86, 102

Vial, Alexander, 120 Victor, Karl, 192 Villager, 71; Gryphius. 81, 109, 165; Lauremberg, 138; Riemer, 74, 81; Schupp, 81; Weise, 70, 71, 81, 109, 173, 174; see also Uncultured, the Virgil, 116 Vogt, Carl, 2, 116 Voluntarism, 143, 150, 152, 192, 196; Gryphius, 143, 197; Schupp, 197 War, evils of: Logau, 61; Moscherosch, 62; Schupp, 21

INDEX Wealth, luxury, 68, 124; A b r a h a m , 75; Grimmelshausen, 65; Lauremberg, 66, 67; Moscherosch, 62; Rachel, 68; Schupp, 78-79, 82, 84, 102, 145; Weise, 71 Weicker, Max, 116, 120 Weise, Christian, 2, 8, 14, 43, 47, 51, 66, 67, 68, 70-73, 78, 79. 80, 90, 93, 98-99, 101, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 119, 128, 129, 137, 142, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 168-175, 177, 179, 182, 183, 184, 188, 192, 194, 197, 199 Works: Bauern-Komödie von Tobias, 44. 109, 110, 173, 174; Bäurischer Machiavellus, 17, 44, 99, 150, 168, 169, 172, 174; Der politische Näscher, 11, 45, 66, 70, 160, 169; Der politische Quacksalber, 11, 70; Die drei ärgsten Erznarren, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 44, 71, 93, 99, 112, 113, 155, 160, 168, 169, 172, 174, 184, 185, 190, 195, 197; Die drei klügsten Leute, 11, 45, 99, 155, 168; Die drey Haupt-Verderber, 11,12, 13,15,16,29, 71-73, 91, 93, 112, IIS, 124, 168, 170, 172; Die Triumphirende Keuschheit, 98, 173, 174; Die Unvergnügte Seele, 98, 99, 113, 151, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 178, 193; Komödie von der bösen Catharine, 44, 71, 98, 171, 172, 173, 174; Masaniello, 72-73. 156, 170171, 193; Vom verfolgten Lateiner, 19, 98, 99, 173, 174, 191

241 W e t nuree: Schupp, 56, 83, 86 Wickram, Jörg, 195 W i t : A b r a h a m , 36-37, 137; Grimmelshausen, 40-41, 142; Gryphius, 42; Lauremberg, 40, 91, 135, 137; Logau, 39; Moscherosch, 35, 36, 137; Rachel, 41; Schupp, 48, 51; Weise, 46 Witkowski, Georg, 176 W o m e n , 95, 124; A b r a h a m , 95; Beer, 99100; Grimmelshausen, 96-97; Gryphius, 164; H a p p e l , 99; Logau, 95-96; Moscherosch, 96; Rachel, 92, 97-98. 167; R e u t e r , 99; Riemer, 99; Schupp, 32, 101, 102-103, 104; Weise, 98-99 Youth (child) A t t i t ü d e toward: A b r a h a m , 104, 105; Grimmelshausen, 104-105; Gryphius, 104; Moscherosch, 104-105; R e u t e r , 104, 105; Schupp, 104-105, 149, 150, 157 R e a r i n g of, 110, 124; A b r a h a m , 111; Beer, 111; Grimmelshausen, 110; Rachel, 110; Schupp, 120 Zschau, Walter, 116 Zesen, P h i l i p p von. 9, 96, 190, 191, Die Adriatische Rosemunde, 183, Ziegler u n d Kliphausen, H e i n r i c h selm von, 9, SO, 96, 149, 152, 159, 198; Die Asiatische Banise, 149, 170, 183, 194, 195

198; 191 An191, 150,