A better score at your better fingertips. coreA at your score at your fingertips. . We offer flexible online prep options to help you make the most of your time and achieve your best GRE score.
We offer flexible online prep options to help you make the most Ultimate LiveOnline Courses ns to help youofmake the most your timeyour andprep achieve best GRE Maximize withyour 24 hours of livescore. instruction and focus GRE score. your practice with 184Courses hours of online study tools, including Ultimate LiveOnline 8 full-length tests. We’ll help master the Maximize yourpractice prep with 24 hours of liveyou instruction andcontent focus on the adaptive GRE with Adaptology™, an exclusive teaching of live instruction and focus your practice with 184 hours of online study tools, including thatpractice seamlessly adjusts and homework to your nline study tools, including 8method full-length tests. We’ll classwork help you master the content skill Plus, GRE get personalized practice an testexclusive reviews teaching with your elp you master the content on thelevel. adaptive with Adaptology™, instructor of class—in by phone or via email. ology™, an exclusive teaching method thatoutside seamlessly adjustsperson, classwork and homework to your asswork and skill homework to your level. Plus, get personalized practice test reviews with your Online Private ractice test reviews with your Tutoring instructor outside of class—in person, by phone or via email. for one-on-one GRE prep that targets your weaknesses, son, by phone Looking or via email. reinforces your strengths Online Private Tutoring and builds your confidence? Whatever you need master, we’ll provide completely customized tutoring Looking fortoone-on-one GRE prepathat targets your weaknesses, program, focusing your prep on the your areasconfidence? where you need to improve. p that targets reinforces your weaknesses, your strengths and builds Whatever ds your confidence? Whatever you need to master, we’ll provide a completely customized tutoring Self-Paced Study a completely customized tutoring program, focusing your prep on the areas where you need to improve. at your pace and on your own time with recorded lessons e areas whereWork you need to own improve. Enroll today. score-raising strategies taught by ourStudy GRE experts. You’ll learn exclusive Self-Paced and apply them 8 full-length, adaptive practice Work at your owninpace and on your own time withtests. recorded lessons own time with recorded lessons 800-2Review (800-273-8439) taught by our GRE experts. You’ll learn exclusive score-raising strategies All apply programs are backed byadaptive The Princeton Review guarantee.* arn exclusive and score-raising strategies PrincetonReview.com/GRE them in 8 full-length, practice tests. ptive practice tests. All programs are backed by The Princeton Review guarantee.* Princeton Review guarantee. * ®
our
GRE Online Programs GRE Online Programs Programs
*Visit PrincetonReview.com/guarantee for details. GRE is a registered trademark of the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Princeton Review is not affiliated with Princeton University or ETS.
®
*Visit PrincetonReview.com/guarantee for details. GRE is a registered trademark of the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Princeton Review is not
Princeton or ETS. Testing with Service (ETS). University The Princeton Review is not gademark of the Educationalaffiliated ove.
gies
.*
Enroll today.
800-2Review (800-273-8439) PrincetonReview.com/GRE
PRGE030313680
Enroll to
800-2Re Enroll to Princeto 800-2Rev Princeton
FOR COOP MEMBERS ONLY
% OFF
INSTANTLY
OFF EVERY COOP PURCHASE – EVERYDAY NO MORE WAITING FOR REBATE CHECKS Join or Renew Now
thecoop.com
* Terms & conditions apply. See complete program details.
jointhecoopnow.com
In Coop Stores
Ask an Associate
“Over Here”
WORLD WAR I POSTERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD September 10, 2014 - January 31, 2015
BOSTON ATHENÆUM 101/2 Beacon Street, Boston www.bostonathenaeum.org
Simplicissimus ........................................ The Harvard College Journal of Germanic Studies
Cody Dales Benjamin Lopez Rebecca Grzyb Rick Wolthusen Ernest J. Doherty Lane Erickson Kevin Hong Dilia Zwart Max Zacher *Ailie Kerr *Karl Aspelund *Emerson Kerwin *Nick Mimms *Florian Hase *Leib Celnik *Vince Guo *Nancy O’Neil *Sama Mammadova *Natalia Moreno *William Greenlaw
Editor-in-Chief Art Director German German German & Treasurer General Editor Translator Netherlands Webmaster Scandinavia Scandinavia Scandinavia Scandinavia German German German General Editor General Editor Illustrator Illustrator
*Congratulations to our new members Simplicissimus: The Harvard College Journal of Germanic Studies reviews undergraduate essays, poetry, prose, and art about Germanic topics from Harvard College. Simplicissimus publishes both a print and online edition biannually for review by the greater Germanic community at Harvard and other universities. Simplicissimus will review all submissions anonymously. All submissions and other inquiries may be sent to simplicissimus.submit@gmail.com. Submissions and inquiries may also be mailed to: Simplicissimus: The Harvard College Journal of Germanic Studies, Student Organization Center at Hilles, Box 77, 59 Shepard Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. Additonal information may be found online both at www.hcs.harvard.edu/simplicissimus and also at www.facebook.com/harvardsimpl No part of this journal may be reproduced without the express consent of Simplicissimus. The Harvard name is a trademark of the President and Fellows of Harvard College and is used by permission of Harvard University. Simplicissimus: The Harvard College Journal of Germanic Studies is a registered and official student group at Harvard College. Printed in the Dutch Mediaeval typeface, licensed through Canada Type. Simplicissimus: The Harvard College Journal of Germanic Studies Volume 2, Issue 2 | Boston: Boston Business Printing, December 2014 ISSN 2332-4783 (Print) | ISSN 2332-4791 (Online)
Editor’s Note Dear Reader, My words cannot fully convey my joy and disbelief that this is the fourth time that I have had the pleasure of introducing another issue of Simplicissimus: The Harvard College Journal of Germanic Studies, or what many have lovingly come to call Simpl. It has been an amazing journey now to our fourth issue. We have grown from humble beginnings in the spring of 2013 to having completed now a full second volume. It has been a difficult but amazing experience, and I am so very grateful for those who have helped make Simpl a success. Our first issue ever focused on Germany, and we’ve proudly returned with this issue. Our cover, designed like our first by Benjamin Lopez, acknowledges the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall with the city of Berlin in German colors as graffiti on the Wall. Inside this issue you will find German fiction, poetry, scholarship, and other Germanic-inspired essays, poetry, prose, and art, from the Netherlands to Iceland, done by students at Harvard College. I would like to thank the Harvard Undergraduate Council, the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures, the Office for the Arts, the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, the Harvard Foundation, and our local advertizers for their financial support. I also must thank our subscribers for their continued patronage in making Simplicissimus possible, and you, dear reader, for giving an audience to our passion for the Germanic world. I hope that in the following pages you will discover some of the beauty and some of the gems of Germanic literature and culture, and see the reasons why I and so many others have become enthralled by it. Above all, though, I simply hope that you will take pleasure in reading our hard work. Then, that’s it. My task is done! May I wish the very best of luck to both Rebecca Grzyb, our new Editor-in-Chief, and Karl Aspelund, our new Deputy Editor-in-Chief. You will do great things!
Yours, Cody Dales Editor-in-Chief
Contents Netherlands
German
Scandinavia
8
Early Poems from Couperus “Eros and Psyche” “Pharaoh’s Daughter”
12
“How I See the World” by Multatuli
17
A Vacation: A Man, A Word, A Woman, A Dictionary
20
Hofmannsthal’s “Spring of Life”
Cody Dales
Rick Wolthusen Kevin Hong
22 Simplicissimus Spricht! Fall ‘14 German Poetry Contest “Nightmare” “The Artificial City” “On Sensuality”
Kassi Burnett Chloe Kempken William Peaster Ailie Kerr Jennifer Hu
“The Rhinemaidens” “The Self”
32
Interview with Luis von Ahn
38
Siblings versus Spouses: Allegiances in the Poetic Edda and the Nibelungenlied
Lulu Kirk
45
The Ethics of Fetishism in Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud
Sam Sokolsky-Tifft
52
“The Strongest Man in the World is the Man who Stands Alone” Ibsen’s Navigation of National Authorship in En Folkefiende
60
The Saga of Jørgen the Dog-Days King
Kevin Hong
Michael Feehly
Karl Aspelund
Cover Art: Benjamin Lopez | Illustrations: Benjamin Lopez, Natalia Moreno | Calligraphy: William Greenlaw Interior Design: Benjamin Lopez and Cody Dales | Photos: Sarah Amanullah, TJ Barber
Netherlands
7
Netherlands
Cody Dales
Poetry
Early Poems from Couperus Translations from Orchids: A Bundle of Poetry & Proze (1886) By Louis Couperus, Translated by Cody Dales
Faraoos Dochter
Pharaoh’s Daughter
Een straffe zon, wier stralen ‘t al verzengen; De trans, saffier, de oazis overwelvend; Op tintlend-schellen ether, in ‘t verschiet, Een sfinx, die droomt, twee reuzenpyramiden, Of, roerloos-stil, der palmen waayerkroon... De Nijl, een groenend-gouden sparkelvloed, Waar, sluimerlauw, in nooit gewiegde blaadren De Alabasten lotoskelk geloken ligt... Ginds, loom van wiek, De zware lucht doorzwevend, Een ibis, rank en rozig-blank geveerd... .................. De schaduw zelfs, zij straalt! Een luttele koelte, Waar ‘t daadlenlommer door, De twijgen langs, Het zonnestof verzinkt als gulden regen... Daar mart een badensmatte koningsmaagd, Gesluyerkroond, en ‘t flonkrend geel gewaad Met ethiopiesch esmeraud omgordeld. Haar heffen de ebbenzwarte dienaressen De slank-gesteelde pluimenschermen toe, En turen aêmloos langs heur blonden schouder, Om ‘t weenend kind verwonderd, dat ontwaakt In biezen korf, waar ‘t riet zich over knakte. Dan haar, der glorend-schoone, ontschiet een glans Van moederweelde uit deur amandeloogen, En, tussen leliën nederknielend, lacht Zij ‘t knaapsken toe, dat plots vergeet te weenen, Geheel verblind door ‘t beeld van louter licht...
A punishing sun, whose rays scorch everything; The canal, sapphire, the oasis arching around; In shrilly sparkling ether, in the distance, A sphinx that dreams, two giant pyramids, Or, motionlessly silent, the fan-like crown of a palm… The Nile, a greening-gold sparkle flood, Where, drowsily, in grass that has never swayed, The alabaster lotus flower lies shut… Over yonder, like from a lazy candlewick, The heavy air wafts through, An ibis, slender, with feathers rosy white… .................. The shadow itself, it glows! A cool breeze, And through the date palm’s shadow, Along the branches, The sun-shone dust sinks down like golden rain… There on a bathing rug is the king’s daughter, Crowned in a veil, in a glittering gold garb With Ethiopian emeralds ringed around. The ebony black servants lift up The loosely held feather fan for her, And gaze breathless down her blond shoulder, Astonished around the crying child that awakes In a bulrush basket with reeds snapped over. Then, from her softly glowing beauty, a glance of Her maternal richness slips out of her almond eyes, And, kneeling down between the lilies, she Smiles at the babe that suddenly forgets to cry, Completely blinded by an image of pure light… 8
Pharaoh’s Daughter by Natalia Moreno ‘15 9
Eroos en Psuche Op zilvren sponde ligt in rozen hij gedoken, Het schittrend-schoon gelaat omgloord van gouden glans De lippen tot ambroziesch-zoeten lach ontloken, Door droom bij droom omwiekt in dwarrelzieken dans. En zij, ze naakt... heur vlindervleuglen, nauw ontploken, Weêrtrillen siddrende aan heur sneeuwen schouderpaar Ze naakt, als zweeft zij op der rozen zwoele roken... En bevend beurt ze een lamp, als maneschijn zoo klaar... De stralen, sneller dan heur voet, die aarzelt. stroomen Den goddelijken knaap als zilvren schichten toe... Met rythmiesch wiekgedruisch verzwindt de rei der droomen... Verblindend moog’ zijn blank gelaat haar tegenblinken, Vervoerd hangt zij er over, en bespeurt niet, hoe De geurige oliedrop der lampe dreigt te ontzinken...
Eros and Psyche On a silver bed he lies sunken in roses, The beaming, beautiful face in a golden gleam The lips opened up into an ambrosial sweetness, Enveloped in whirling-sick dance through dream after dream. And she, she nears… her butterfly wings, slowly opening, She trembles, shaking to her shoulders snow white She nears, as if floating on the rosy, warm smoke drifting… And shaking she lifts up a lamp, like clear moonlight… The light, quicker than her foot, that hesitates, streams Like silver lightning to the godlike boy... With wings beating rhythmically to the dance of the dreams… Blindingly his pale face shines against her bright as day, Overwhelmed she hangs above, and cannot see, how The fragrant oil drop of the lamp threatens to slip away…
10
Eros and Psyche by Natalia Moreno ‘15 11
Netherlands
Cody Dales
Poetry
How I See the World Hoe Ik de Wereld Bekijk
By Multatuli, Translated by Cody Dales Het leven is net een gang, Een gang met allemaal deuren, Soms kies je voor een deur, Maar je weet niet wat er gaat gebeuren...
Life is only a journey, A journey that is full of doors, Sometimes you’ll choose a door, But what will come next you will not be sure...
In je leven moet je keuzes maken, Of het de juiste is weet je niet, Soms stap je de verkeerde deur door, Dat doet je dan een hoop verdriet.
In your life you will have to make choices, Whether it is right you will not know, Sometimes you will pick out the wrong door, And then that choice may do you woe.
Na die deur kom je weer op een gang, Zo gaat dat als maar door, Soms breekt de deurklink achter je af, Je kan niet terug, je bent bang...
So you come again to the journey, So it is and has stayed, Sometimes the handle breaks after you, You can’t return, you are afraid...
Hoe kom je op het juiste pad, Welke deur moet je nemen? Ik voel me als een zwart gat, Toch vecht ik door te leven.
How do you come to the right path, What door ought you take? I feel like I were a black void, But I will live and not break.
Ik wil wel terug, Maar het maakt niet uit, Ik kan alleen nog maar vooruit, Tot aan, het einde, Van het gat...
I do want to return, As if that mattered, I can only go forward, Until, the end, Of the void...
12
Open Door by Natalia Moreno ‘15 13
N
etherlander. Hollander. Cloggie. Amsterdammer perhaps. You go by many names, but one thing is certain: you are one of the lucky few to call yourself Dutch. You have been blessed with the stroopwafel, with speculaas, with hagelslag. You know the joy of eating poffertjes. Your coffee is unmatched.You enjoy the finer things in life. You enjoy All Things Dutch.
All Things Dutch is your one stop for anything from Dutch foods, including Indonesian specialties, to fine gifts from Holland. What are you waiting for? Try Dutch today!
www.allthingsdutch.com 10 Pond Street South Weymouth, Ma US 1-800-879-3882 Intl. 781-331-1666
German
16
German
Rick Wolthusen
“But what does any of that have to do with my wife? My wife, a walking dictionary?”
Story
A Vacation A Man, A Word, A Woman, A Dictionary: Response to Edward Hopper’s Hotel by a Railroad Rick Wolthusen Er, Edgar (55), steht am offenen Fenster und raucht, während seine Frau, Maria (53), hinter ihm auf einem Sofa sitzt und ihr Buch liest. Ein Buch, das eigentlich nur Frauen lesen können, denn es geht um Liebe, Glück und Leidenschaft. Ach ja, die Liebe, wie gern würde Edgar dieses Gefühl wieder einmal wahrnehmen. In den Urlaub sind sie gefahren, um sich von der Alltäglichkeit des Lebens zu erholen, ein Urlaub, den sich beide wünschten. Angekommen an ihrem Urlaubsziel, ist alles anders als erhofft. Die Atmosphäre zwischen ihm und ihr stimmt einfach nicht.
He, Edgar (55), stands by the open window and smokes, while his wife, Maria (53), sits behind him on the sofa and reads her book. A book, actually, that only a woman can read because it’s about love, about fortune, and about passion. Ah, yes, love, how very much Edgar would like to perceive that feeling once more. The two of them went on vacation to recover from the banality of life. It was a vacation that they both longed for. When they arrived, everything was different than they had hoped. The vibe between him and her just wasn’t right.
Während sie dort entspannt, zumindest tut sie so, mit ihrem locker luftigen Kleid sitzt und ein Buch liest, steht er in seinem schwarzen Anzug angespannt und aufrecht vor dem offenen Fenster und raucht. Geraucht hat er schon lange nicht mehr, eigentlich hatte er aufgehört, doch nun muss er es einfach tun. Es gibt etwas zwischen beiden, was sich im Laufe
While she sits relaxed, at least that’s what she pretends, with her loose, light dress reading her book, he stands upright and tense in his black suit, smoking in front of the open window. He hadn’t smoked in a long while, actually had quit, but he just had to do it now. There’s something between both of them, something that had changed that intimate
17
der Jahre ihrer trauten Zweisamkeit geändert hat. Er weiß, dass ihn das Rauchen von schlechten Gedanken befreit, doch er weiß nicht so recht, wovon es ihn jetzt befreien sollte. Sie hat ihm wieder einmal ihre Gefühle geschildert, aber er hat sie nicht verstanden, zumindest nicht richtig. Das, denkt er, muss an der Wortwahl seiner Frau liegen. Er fragt sich, was sie nur von ihm wolle. Er konnte ihr bei dem Gespräch oder -besser gesagt- bei ihrem Gespräch nicht folgen.
togetherness in the course of the years. He knows that smoking frees his mind of bad thoughts, but he doesn’t know as well what exactly it ought to free him of now. She had shown him her feelings once again, but he didn’t understand, at least not right. That, he thought, must lie in his wife’s choice of words. He asked himself what exactly she wants from him. He couldn’t follow the conversation or - better said - her conversation.
Ich verstehe sie einfach nicht mehr. Meine Frau ist eben ein überdurchstrukturiertes Individuum, wie es alle Menschen sind, die sich Frauen nennen. Sie macht mich mit ihrem Redeschwall manchmal wahnsinnig. Wie oft musste ich schon an den Satz „Ein Mann, ein Wort, eine Frau, ein Wörterbuch“ denken.
I just don’t understand her anymore. My wife is simply an overly structured individual, like all those people who call themselves women. That flood of words of hers makes me mad. How often I’ve had to think about the old saying “A man, a word, a woman, a dictionary.”
That flood of words of hers makes me mad. How often I’ve had to think about the old saying “A man, a word, a woman, a dictionary.” Aber eigentlich hat sie vorhin gar nicht viel gesagt. Will sie vielleicht nicht mehr mit mir reden?
But, before she actually hasn’t said much at all. Does she not want to talk to me anymore?
Ohne eine vernünftige Kommunikation kann doch eine Beziehung nicht funktionieren, zumindest keine Beziehung auf Dauer und mit Glück durchlebt.
Without reasonable communication a relationship can’t function, at least no relationship for the long haul and satisfied by fortune.
Die Asche der Zigarette fällt auf seine Finger. Er schreit vor Schmerz auf. Noch nicht einmal jetzt hat sie ihn angeschaut. Was also hält mich noch bei ihr? In den Urlaub sind wir gefahren, um unsere Beziehung zu überdenken. Vielleicht sollte ich mich von ihr trennen, um mich zu verändern, vielleicht ein neues Leben anfangen?
The ash of the cigarette falls on his finger. He cries out in pain. Not even once now did she look at him. Why am I still with her? The two of us went on vacation to think about our relationship. Maybe I should separate myself from her, in order to change myself, maybe even to start a new life?
Trennung bedeutet aber, mit einem Verlust zu leben. Doch wovon trennt man sich? Zum Beispiel von Gewohnheiten, Alltäglichkeiten… Oder von der gewohnten Rechtschreibung. Die Deutschen haben es übers Herz bringen müssen, sich von ihrem geliebten Wörterbuch zu trennen, um sich zu verändern und der Zeit anzupassen. Genauer gesagt, von der Auflage und den alten Regeln mussten sie sich trennen.
But separation means to live with a loss. And just what do you even separate yourself from? Maybe from habits, from the ordinary… or from that usual orthography. The Germans had to have the heart to separate themselves from their beloved dictionaries in order to change themselves and to adjust to the time. More precisely, they have to separate themselves from the edition and old rules.
18
Aber was hat das alles mit meiner Frau zu tun? Meine Frau, ein wandelndes Wörterbuch?
But what does any of that have to do with my wife? My wife, a walking dictionary?
Inzwischen ist die Sonne im Untergehen. Die letzten warmen Strahlen streifen sein in Gedanken versunkenes Gesicht. Er raucht immer noch. Plötzlich fällt sein Blick auf ein Buch mit der Aufschrift Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Er schlägt es auf. Es scheint schon lange nicht mehr benutzt worden zu sein, denn ein Staubfilm hat sich darauf gelegt. Er pustet den Staub vorsichtig weg. Eine Zahl fällt ihm auf, es ist die 17. Hinter der 17 steht das Wort „Auflage“.
By now the sun’s going down. The last warm rays streak across his face sunk down in thought. He’s still smoking. Suddenly he notices a book with the title Dictionary of the German Language. He opens it. It seems not to have been used in a long while for it’s covered in a film of dust. He carefully wipes it off. A number catches his attention: 17. Behind the 17 is the word “edition.”
Ein Lächeln überzieht sein Gesicht und er sagt zu seiner Frau Maria: „Liebling, wir sollten diesen schönen Abend genießen.“
A smile draws over his face, and he says to his wife Maria: “Darling, we ought to enjoy this beautiful evening.”
19
German
Kevin Hong
Poetry
Spring of Life Lebensquell
By Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Translated by Kevin Hong Die Frühlingsfluten ziehn durch meinen Geist Verwandte Gärung fühl ich sich ergießen Durch tausend Knospen, die sich heut erschließen, Und neues Leben dampft und quillt und kreist.
The spring’s fast floods pull through my fluted soul: The same frothing that stirs me also rushes Through a thousand buds that thrust open today, And new life steams and wells and moves in circles.
Das ist des ewgen Jugendbrunnens Fließen, Der jedem Jahr die gleiche Fülle weist: In neuer, feuchtverklärter Schönheit gleißt Was er benetzt, und locket zum Genießen:
That is the eternal fountain of youth, how it flows, How year to year the same profusion grows: Glorious, and wet with beauty, it makes glisten What it bedews, and coaxes to enjoyment:
Gedanken, kommt und trinkt euch neues Leben: Du scheue Hoffnung, fastverklungnes Fühlen, Du halbverzagtes, wegemüdes Streben,
Thoughts, come and drink yourselves a new life: You shy hope, who had almost faded away, You half-despairing, way-weary try,
Laßt euch von lichter Lebensflut umspülen, Ihr Träume, Bilder, die ich täglich schaue, Daß euch auf immer dieser Glanz betaue.
Let yourselves flood with light, spill on all sides, You dreams, images, that I see every day, So that you may endlessly anoint this gaze.
20
Fountain of Youth by Natalia Moreno ‘15 21
German
Poetry
Simplicissimus Spricht! The Fall ‘14 German Poetry Contest
This issue, Simplicissimus threw its first ever poetry contest, the Simplicissimus Spricht! Fall ‘14 German poetry contest, to celebrate our return to a Germanthemed issue. Submissions were open to undergraduates from any university, and submissions could either be written in English on a German topic or in German on a topic of the author’s choice, and two groups of winners were chosen from both Harvard College and from outside submissions.
22
1st Place: Kassi Burnett The Ohio State University
Nightmare
Alptraum Es kann nur ein Alptraum sein Nebel und Nacht, Schwarz und Rot Es kann nur ein Alptraum sein Die feurige Macht, wir kennen nur Not
It can be only a nightmare Fog and night, black and red It can be only a nightmare The fiery force, we only know distress
Es schneite Asche, Obwohl die Bäume unbeschädigt waren Keine Kinder haben in diesem Aschedecke gespielt Keine Kinder haben genug Brot gegessen genug Wasser getrunken genug Luft geatmet Genug gelebt
It snowed ash, Though the trees were unscathed No children have played in this ashen blanket No children have eaten enough bread drunk enough water breathed enough air Lived enough
Es kann nur ein Alptraum sein Weil nur ein Monster so viel zerstören könnte Es kann nur ein Alptraum sein Weil nur die Hölle so viele verletzen könnte
It can be only a nightmare Because only a monster could destroy so much It can be only a nightmare Because only hell could harm so many
Es donnerte, obwohl es keinen Sturm gab Keine sterbenden Menschen haben ihren eigenen Waffen Keine sterbenden Menschen haben genug Brot gegessen genug Wasser getrunken genug Luft geatmet Genug gelebt
It thundered, though there was no storm The dying do not have their own weapons The dying have not eaten enough bread drunk enough water breathed enough air Lived enough
Aber es kann kein Alptraum sein Weil ich nicht tief und fest schlafen kann Es kann kein Alptraum sein Weil ich nicht schlafen kann
But it cannot be a nightmare Because I can’t sleep well It cannot be a nightmare Because I cannot sleep.
Es regnet rot, obwohl es keine Wolken gibt Ich spiele nicht in diesen blutgefüllten Pfützen Aber ich werde bald darin schlafen.
It rains red, though there are no clouds I won’t play in these blood-filled puddles But I will soon sleep in them.
Das weiß ich.
That I know.
23
24
25
2nd Place: Chloe Hanley Kempken Syracuse University
Die Künstliche Stadt Die Wolken, sie räkeln sich Unter dem endlos grauen Dach der Beklemmung. Im grell-flackerndem Schimmer, Erstickst du unter dem Schein der menschlichen Dichte. In der überfüllten Leere, Entmachtet von jeglichen Freiräumen, Versinkst du in dem pulsierenden Stadtkern Hoffnungslos in der kalten Enge. Vergewaltigt von Hoffnung und Drang Erwacht dein Puls und drosselt die Begeisterung Die Stadt der ewigen Träume, Ein Überrest an Enttäuschung Die Massen, die Furore, der Dreck Du verlierst kläglich gegen den tosenden Lärm. Leg dich nieder! Unersättliche Erschöpfung
The Artificial City The Clouds, they writhe Under the endlessly grey ceiling of oppression. In the loud-flickering shimmer, You choke under the glow of human density. In the crowded emptiness, Disempowered by any free room, You sink in the pulsating core of the city Hopeless in the cold tightness. Violated by hope and urge Your pulse awakens and the excitement chokes The city of eternal dreams, A leftover of disappointment. The masses, the sensation, the filth, You lose pathetically to the roaring noise. Lay down! Insatiable exhaustion. 26
3rd Place: William Peaster University of West Florida
On Sensuality
Über die Sinnlichkeit
Like the river to oblivion, Lethe, aimless and unmindful to the words I have misplaced upon my return, careless like an unmanned hammock by the sea; perhaps this is not a return but where I’ve crept all along like a body that sneezed out a soul that dreamt of fleeing loudly; maybe this is where I kiss next the one with violent hair, gorgeous babbler of things nonsensically appropriate, so so so she’ll say just know why I call you Sisyphus because you rise and fall like the sun deserving all six of my kisses, and yes in those moments there is tension, like great muscles flexing out of apprehension of something immediate, some Charybdis or Scylla churning out an inviting gesture of the eye, a look that could only mean come and we will meet as lovers upon the plains of oblivion; and I hear her in my mind, the imaginary preaching: I will count the strands of your hair which are the days of your calendar, beautiful boy.
Wie der Fluss des Vergessens, Lethe, Ziellos und wortlos wie Die Worte, die ich so falsch gesagt Bei meiner Rückkehr, sorglos wie eine Leere Hängematte am Meer; Vielleicht ist dies nicht Wiederkehr, doch dort, wo ich schon ewig gekrochen bin Wie ein Körper, der eine Seele Ausgeniest hat, welche von lärmender Flucht träumte. Vielleicht ist dies, wo ich sie zum nächsten mal küsse, Sie, mit dem gewaltvollen Haar, hinreißend Schwätzer von unsinningen Dingen Angebracht, so so so wird sie sagen Wisse, warum ich dich Sysiphus nenne Weil du auf- und untergehst wie die Sonne Verdienst du meine sechs Küsse, und Ja, in diesen Momenten liegt Spannung, wie große Muskeln, Angespannt durch Besorgnis Über etwas Alsbaldiges, irgendeine Charybdis oder Skylla, die Eine einladende Geste des Auges ausstoßen Einen Blick, der nur heißen kann Komm und wir treffen uns als Liebhaber In den Einöden des Vergessens; und Ich höre in meiner Vorstellung die Imaginäre Predigt: Ich will zählen, die Stränge deines Haares, welche die Tage deines Kalenders sind, schöner Knabe.
27
1st Place: Ailie Kerr Harvard College
The Rhinemaidens We have spent long centuries singing, And combing our gilded hair, We are the sunbeams on the water Come and try to catch us there. They tell us we must guard our treasure, Keep it safe and locked within. But we all know your only desire, Is the gold locked in our skin. You stay aloof, you pine and you preach, And you treat us just the same. But what’s a game without the players? What are we without the game? You say our faces, our eyes and song Enchant you beyond all hope. But we are not your hooded hangmen, Just your empty fisher’s rope. You curse our flitting, flirting laughter, Then you beg for us to stay. But we don’t torture, tease or torment. You just don’t know how to play.
28
2nd Place: Jennifer Hu Harvard College
das (-)ich
the (-)self
Es erlöscht das ganze Licht deines einsamen Gesichts. Der Raum wird leer, als ernährt’ er sich von bleicher, ruh’loser Verzicht, lässt im Winkel sitzen dich mit Tropfen, Krümel an dem Tisch
It extinguishes all the light of your lonely face. The room becomes empty, as if it only subsisted on pale, restless abandonment, lets you sit in the corner with drops of water and crumbs on the table
den der Kellner am Morgen wischt, die Gläser auffüllt mit Gedicht, ihnen neuen Besitz verspricht und Teller schützt unverzüglich. Der Hintergrund entfernt sich und du fragst nach dem Sinn dich
that the waiter wipes off in the morning. and fills up the glasses with poetry, promises them new belongings and secures the plates promptly. The background becomes more distant and you ask yourself what the sense of it is,
was nützt die Liebe in Nachricht, wo ich sie mit Wörtern verglich? Wo sie schwebt, Beton bricht, und Fesseln spürt, ganz körperlich? Nun klingt das kleine Wort komisch, dieses kurze verflixte “ich”,
What’s love good for in a message, where I describe it with words? Where she floats, concrete breaks and pulls the fetters, quite physically? Now the little word sounds odd, this short, tricky “I,”
Und immer noch verstehst du nicht, Vorhänge zugezogen dicht, Hörst immer wieder, was sie spricht: “Die Welt wär’ besser ohne mich.”
And you still don’t understand, curtains drawn tight, You hear again and again what she says: “The world would be better off without me”
29
30
31
32
German
Kevin Hong
“The mission of Duolingo is to bring free language education to the world...” Interview
Interview with Luis von Ahn Kevin Hong of humans around the world have in terms of what can be accomplished in collaboration with technology.
Luis von Ahn is an associate professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. Some of his past projects include CAPTCHA, The ESP Game, and GWAP. Luis is the founder of reCAPTCHA, and co-founder and CEO of Duolingo, one of the most innovative language learning programs available today.
Duolingo is definitely my most ambitious project to date - created in partnership with Severin Hacker. The mission of Duolingo is to bring free language education to the world, and now with the creation of the Duolingo Test Center, we want to remove all barriers around learning new languages and improving your life through acquiring that skill.
Kevin: The entire Simplicissimus staff is tremendously grateful for the opportunity to interview you. I hope that I’ve come up with a number of questions that you haven’t answered before. It is a pleasure! Kevin: Some introductory material first. You created Duolingo in an attempt to translate the web into several different languages. Can you describe a couple of the projects that led you to this enormous undertaking? Would you say this is your most ambitious project to date?
Kevin: Can you describe your personal relationship to languages and literature? I ask because your major projects - reCAPTCHA and Duolingo - prioritize the accessibility of the written word. In an era in which the humanities is viewed with considerable skepticism, what do you see as the importance of these projects?
I created CAPTCHA and re-CAPTCHA, which sold to Google. The relationship between these projects made me realize the potential that millions
I come from Guatemala, a very poor country where few people have access to education. I was fortunate enough to learn English from a very 33
young age and know that this has helped my career tremendously and opened doors I’d never have had access to otherwise. As such, I’m compelled to help large portions of the population who don’t have access to good language education break that barrier and obtain better opportunities, for free.
Kevin: A website like Duolingo connects humans in a strange, new way. You’ve compared your projects to the building of the pyramids and other Great Works. But this is fundamentally different: in this case, millions of users achieve an unfathomable amount of work, but they do it with ease, and they remain anonymous. This is a very nebulous question - but do you have any thoughts about greatness achieved unknowingly? How does crowdsourcing change the way we think about achievement, of our own individual ability and effort?
Kevin: Your work also has powerful political implications - namely, the democratization of learning. I’m wondering how your political and academic interests affect your creative process. How do you choose the ideas or challenges you want to fulfill or tackle?
The comparison to the building of the pyramids was more of a rhetorical question - if you can build the pyramids with 100 thousand people, what can you do with 100 million people? I wouldn’t dare compare my work to the building of pyramids.
I’d rather not comment on politics. I choose to work on problems that can solve issues for a very large number of people across the world. Kevin: You have achieved in computer science what most of us hope to achieve in our daily lives - turning mundane tasks into incredibly efficient, powerful, and fun labor. You are the king of killing two birds with one stone. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the relationship between play and work. How does “gamification” change the way we value our time and energy? What’s the future of “gamification”?
With regards to crowdsourcing on Duolingo, the truth is that people creating courses through our Language Incubator collaborate on its creation very much knowingly. They’re empowered by knowing that they’re creating something very big in collaboration with others. The people translating phrases on Duolingo also know they are doing so and can see their achievements and progress as they move forward. I believe in the greatness of humans working together, not in compelling people to produce work ignorantly.
Making things fun and engaging - essentially ‘gamifying them - is a solid strategy for compelling people to spend time on them. Studying is often seen as tedious and laborious, but if you can learn while enjoying your free time simultaneously, then the uptake will be far higher. This is what we’ve seen on Duolingo in terms of adoption and engagement. Many use Duolingo not because they want to learn a language, but because they downloaded it as a new game to play.
Kevin: Is an expansion of Duolingo into nonWestern languages underway? Yes, absolutely. Our focus so far has been in providing free language education to the world, and while we do offer many languages for English speakers, this year we began offering a lot of English courses for non-Western language speakers including Japanese, Chinese, Hindi, Indonesian and Turkish, among others.
Kevin: What motivated your decision to enter academia instead of exercising your entrepreneurial talents full-time? I currently devote 100% of my time to Duolingo and have taken a leave of absence from my job as a professor at Carnegie Mellon. 34
In light of such phenomenal success, Duolingo is expanding its offerings of other languages. With the recent addition of Dutch to the Duolingo language family, Germanic language enthusiasts can now learn German, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish through the program.
35
Luis von Ahn and Severin Hacker Kevin: Can you describe how you and Severin came up with the idea for Duolingo? How do you work together on a daily basis?
Kevin: What were some of the biggest obstacles you had to overcome, on a practical or conceptual level, in the creation of Duolingo?
Severin and I wanted to find a way to provide free language education for the world. The idea of funding Duolingo through translations is similar to some of my other work, including CAPTCHA and reCAPTCHA, which focuses on using work that people are already doing to create great value to society. We work very well together as our personalities and opinions tend to complement each other, generating fruitful discussions and little disagreements.
The biggest obstacle was getting people to believe that what we wanted to do could be done. The idea of funding education through crowdsourced translations seemed unrealistic to most, and everyone assumed we couldn’t succeed in teaching languages since this was not our academic background.
36
37
German
Lulu Kirk
Essay
Siblings versus Spouses Familial, Marital, and Literary Alliegiances in the Poetic Edda and the Nibelungenlied Lulu Kirk revenge, moreover, on her second husband. In short, the German and Norse accounts use the same basic mythological material and narrative framework to reach two entirely opposite narrative outcomes. A close examination of the similarities and differences between the Old Norse and the German versions of the narrative offers insight into a question that has plagued scholars of medieval German literature for generations: Is the Nibelungenlied fundamentally a heroic epic or a chivalric romance? As Edward Haymes summarizes, “Das Nibelungenlied läuft seit dem Beginn der Altgermanistik unter verschiedenen Gattungsbezeichnungen (Volksepos, Heldenepos, Heldenroman, ritterliches Heldenepos, usw.),... die inhärente Gattungsproblematik des Werks zutage treten lassen” (“Chaevalrie und alte maeren” 369).1
In the final scene of the Nibelungenlied - a Middle High German text from the thirteenth century that tells of the princess Kriemhild’s marriage to the warrior-prince Siegfried - Kriemhild avenges her husband’s death by beheading her kinsman and Siegfried’s murderer, Hagen. Interestingly, although “Fragment of a Poem about Sigurd” and “Short Poem about Sigurd” - two poems taken from the Sigurd Cycle in the Old Norse Poetic Edda - relate almost identical accounts of the death of Siegfried’s Scandinavian complement, what happens after the hero’s death differs significantly in the German and Scandinavian narratives. In the Poetic Edda’s “Lay of Atli” and “Greenlandic Poem of Atli,” Gudrun, Kriemhild’s Old Norse counterpart, avenges not Sigurd’s death but rather that of the very brothers who had killed him. She exacts this 38
and the relationships between them and the basic plot is analogous, at least on the surface.  While the Eddic poems that deal with the death of Sigurd show marked similarities to the account in the Nibelungenlied, certain details hint at an underlying prioritization of biological family over marital relations. For example, when Sigurd has just been stabbed and lies dying in his bed,
Although the Nibelungenlied draws thematically from the older heroic sources that engendered the Poetic Edda, a comparison of the two narratives reveals that the German narrative is, at its core, a romance highly critical of the older heroic mode. Both the Nibelungenlied and the Poetic Edda recount almost identical tales about the death of Kriemhild/Gudrun’s first husband. In “Fragment” and “Short Poem,” Sigurd is killed by Gudrun’s youngest brother, Guthorm, at the urging of her older brothers, Gunnar and Hogni, who are in turn carrying out the wishes of Gunnar’s wife, Brynhild. Similarly, in the Nibelungenlied, Siegfried is killed at Brunhild’s insistence, but in this version of the narrative, it is Hagen - Hogni’s narrative equivalent - who actually does the killing. While Hagen is not actually Kriemhild’s brother, he is at least some sort of unspecified kinsman, as evidenced by Kriemhild’s remark to Hagen in Aventiure 15, “du bist mîn mâc, sô bin ich der dîn” [You are my blood relative, as I am yours] (898.1).2 Even the manner of Sigfried’s and Sigurd’s deaths are remarkably similar, as “Fragment” goes out of its way to mention in a brief prose passage that concludes the poem:
[Gudrun] clapped together her hands so loudly That the man of mighty spirit heaved himself up in the bed: ‘Do not weep, Gudrun, so fiercely, Young bride, you have brothers still alive. They have thought up, fatefully and sinisterly, A new plan which they’ve carried out. (Short Poem 25-26)3 Here, Sigurd attempts to comfort his wife by reminding her of her still living brothers. The juxtaposition and alliteration of “bride” and “brothers” (brvþr and broþr) in the same line highlights the interplay between them. Gudrun’s role as wife is subordinate to her role as sister, and Sigurd uses his dying breath to remind her of that fact, even as he blames and condemns her brothers for their actions against him. In a comparable narrative turn, Brynhild - before prophesying the Volsungs’ doom and then killing herself - similarly consoles her husband by reminding him that even the murder of his sister’s husband will not be enough to tear the family apart: “‘You and Gudrun will be reconciled sooner than you think’” (Short Poem 54). The murder of a husband, it seems, is not any cause for lasting anger or retribution in the Poetic Edda, as long as one has blood relatives left alive.
“Do not weep, Gudrun, so fiercely. Young bride, you have brothers still In this poem the death of Sigurd is alive.” related and here it sounds as if they killed him outside. But some say this, that they killed him inside, sleeping in his bed. And the Germans say that they killed him out in the forest. ... But they all say that they treacherously betrayed him and attacked him when he was lying down and unarmed. In this closing passage, the narrator actually references the German version of the myth, and although he points out variations in the location of the murder, he seems to be arguing that such minor details are irrelevant since the murderers acted similarly treacherously and reprehensibly. At this point in the narrative, the Nibelungenlied seems to be little more than a simple retelling of the older legends upon which the Poetic Edda was based: though their names are not the same, the characters in both texts
Indeed, only in “Fragment” does Gudrun express any emotion besides grief for her husband’s murder: Then said Gudrun, Giuki’s daughter: ‘Many abominable words you’ve said; may fiends take Gunnar, murderer of Sigurd! Thoughts bent on wickedness shall be revenged.’ (11)
“Since the beginning of Old German Studies, the Nibelungenlied has run under various genre designations (folk epic, heroic epic, heroic romance, chivalric epic, etc.),... which brings the inherent problem of genre to light.” (The gloss here is my own). 2 All English glosses from the Nibelungenlied are my own and are based on Karl Bartsch’s edition of the text. 3 All quotes from the Poetic Edda are taken from Carolyne Larrington’s 2008 translation. I do not include quotes in the original language, except where pertinent to my argument. 1
39
Although Gudrun’s anger is at least apparent here, her words - and by extension, her rage - are directed at Brynhild. Her comment “may fiends take Gunnar” seems more of a tit-for-tat, “you killed my husband, so I’ll wish yours dead” response than evidence of any true desire on her part to avenge Sigurd’s death. Gudrun’s omission of herself from her curse and her substitution of “fiends” as the ones eager for revenge further distances Gudrun from her words and relegates them from an active threat to simply an angry exclamation. Gudrun’s final line, as credibly directed at Brynhild as at Gunnar, employs passive voice and curiously omits any reference to a specific agent who might actually bring about this revenge. Unlike Gunther in the Nibelungenlied, Gunnar is spared the brunt force of Gudrun’s anger, even though he directly brought about her husband’s death, again demonstrating the Edda’s prioritization of family relationships.
prioritization of family bonds over those of marriage. Indeed, the princess seems to have forgotten not only her brothers’ betrayal of her husband but also her husband himself. Sigurd is not even mentioned in the “Lay of Atli,” and, in the “Greenlandic Lay,” he merits only a brief lament from his former wife: ‘The southern prince died, my luck was speedily destroyed; bitter torment it was for a young girl to be given the name of widow; it seemed anguish for a survivor to come to Atli’s house; I had been married to a hero before - that was a cruel loss. (100) Here, Gudrun seems far more concerned with the social - not the emotional - effect of her husband’s death. With Sigurd’s death, Gudrun’s “luck” - not her happiness - is destroyed, and while she does mention the “bitter torment” and “anguish” of her life postSigurd, these terms of distress are linked to her loss of status as she is relegated from wife to “widow” and finally to remarried woman. Indeed, when Gudrun notes her “cruel loss,” it would seem she is referring not to the loss of her hero-husband but instead to her loss of status as hero’s wife. Gudrun shows even less love for her second husband. After Atli has Gudrun’s brothers killed, her revenge, in both Eddic poems, is extreme: First she kills her children with Atli, then she tricks her husband into eating them, and finally she stabs and kills Atli. In the “Lay of Atli,” she subsequently sets fire to Atli’s great hall, thereby killing all of his remaining kinsmen. Both poems conclude by commending Gudrun and her actions, praising the “bright woman” (Lay 43) for her “heroic” “defiance” (Greenlandic Lay 105). The poems of the Poetic Edda thus firmly support the prioritization of family over marriage.
If the prioritization of blood family over marital ties was hinted at by the Eddic poems of the Sigurd cycle, it is truly obvious in the Edda’s two poems about Atli, Gudrun’s second husband. In the Norse texts, it is Atli who summons his in-laws to his court, and, while he never explicitly expresses a motive for doing so in either Eddic poem,4 he does grouse to the Volsungs, ‘Alliance with splendid men I made - I can’t deny it I got a monstrous wife, I’ve had no benefit from it. We’ve scarcely had any peace since you came among us, you’ve deprived me of kinsmen, swindled me of property, you sent my sister off to hell, that is what matters most to me.’ (Greenlandic Lay 56)  Twice in this list of affronts Atli references his family members - his unspecified kinsmen and his sister5 - and he concludes by saying it is his sister’s death that is most upsetting to him. Vengeance for his relatives is the only reason for inviting them to his house that Atli ever offers.
In contrast, in the Nibelungenlied, the family obligations that motivate the action in the Poetic Edda have been forgotten, and romantic, not familial, love and duty drive the narrative, as is typical in medieval romances. Unlike Sigurd, who visits the Burgundians with no stated purpose in mind, Siegfried is motivated from the beginning by his determination to wed and bed the beautiful Kriemhild:
Gudrun likewise avenges her siblings’ death at the expense of her current husband, evidencing the intense
Although the later Völsungasaga - a late 13th century Icelandic prose retelling of the poems abour Sigurd and Gudrun in the Edda - claims that Atli entertains the Burgundians in an attempt to gain control of the treasure hoard they took from Sigurd, the original poems do not easily support such a reading. Nowhere in the “Lay of Atli” does the Hunnish king articulate such a motivation, although Gunnar and Hogni speculate that it might be the reason for their invitation (11, 26-27). Atli’s men - but not Atli himself - do offer Gunnar the opportunity to “buy his life with gold” (20), but there is no indication that the gold in question is the Rhine-gold and not simply Gunnar’s own kingly wealth. “Greenlandic Lay of Atli,” moreover, completely omits treasure as a potential motivator. Neither the Burgundians nor the Huns mention it at all. 5 In the Norse text, Brynhild is Atli’s sister, and she commits suicide after Siegfried’s death. Here Atli is blaming the Burgundians for their role in her death. In the German tradition, Brunhild and Etzel are not related. Brunhild, moreover, does not kill herself, although she is effectively forgotten as a character after the murder of Siegfried. 4
40
Siegfried the Dragonslayer by Natalia Moreno ‘15 41
her cause, as Jerold Frakes argues in Brides and Doom: Gender, Property, and Power in Medieval German Women’s Epic (76). Failing in this endeavor, she marries a powerful man (Etzel) with many warriors and convinces him to invite her relatives to a feast so that she can kill them. At the feast, Kriemhild not only has her brother executed but also kills her kinsman Hagen herself, using Siegfried’s own sword.9 In sum, in the German tradition, romantic love - not familial fidelity - is the catalyst for action and one’s marital relationship thus trumps any obligation one might have to one’s family of birth.
Im rieten sîne mâge und genuoge sîne man, sît er ûf stæte minne tragen wolde wân, daz er dan eine wurbe diu im möchte zemen. dô sprach der küene Sîvrit sô will ich Kriemhilden nemen, Die scœnen juncfrowen von Burgonden lant Durch ir unmâzen scœne... (48-49)6 Similar to many heroes of medieval romances,7 Siegfried declares his desire for a woman he has neither met nor seen, although he has heard stories of her beauty (“er hôrte sagen mære wie ein scœniu meit wære in Burgonden” (44) [He heard tell of how there was a beautiful maiden in Burgundy]). Although Kriemhild has little say in marrying Siegfried, her love for him is evident in her grief after his death:
The Nibelungenlied’s reworking of older, heroic mythological material to fit both the focus on romantic love and the superficial stylistic devices of courtly romances would suggest that it is closer to a romance than an epic. As Neil Thomas comments, “Whatever its legendary antecedents may have been... in its written form the NL was not to appear until the decade that spawned the first wave of courtly/Arthurian romances on German soil, and the epic abounds in invocations of the life and (especially) material culture of twelfth and early thirteenth century European courts” (301). As a courtly romance, the work abounds with the buzzwords of courtly culture and chivalric romance, frequently noting how edel, minnelich, milte, and kuene (noble, affectionate, generous, and bold) the epic’s characters are. Thomas, however, ultimately concludes that “the NL demonstrates the tragedy of the Burgundians’ attempts to adhere to the mores of a ‘romance’ world within what is still a precourtly political environment” (315). To my view, however, it is just the opposite; the Burgundians’ tragedy hinges on their attempt to adhere to the mores of a heroic world within what has become a courtly environment. The Nibelungenlied demonstrates the tragedy of the Burgundians’ failure to entirely reject their heroic, family- and violence-oriented Weltanschauung and embrace instead the new courtly world and its accompanying values. Unlike in the poems of the Poetic Edda, it is not romantic love - that is, Brynhild’s unrequited love for Sigurd (“Short Poem” 9) - that triggers the narrative conflict in the Nibelungenlied. Instead, it is simply an insult to Brynhild’s honor that her heroic pride cannot suffer (845). And whereas in the Poetic Edda, Brynhild’s rage is enough to bring about Sigurd’s death, in the Nibelungenlied Hagen
“Then bold Siegfried said: In that case I will take Kriemhild, the beautiful maiden from Burgundy because of her immeasurable beauty. Nâch Sîfrides tôde, daz ist alwâr, si wonte in manigem sêre driuzehen jâr, daz si des recken tôdes vergezzen kunde niht. si was im getriuwe, des ir diu meiste menige giht. (1142)8 Siegfried’s death clearly emotionally devastates his wife, and - unlike Gudrun, who seems surprisingly capable of forgetting her husband and forgiving his murderer - Kriemhild is driven from then on by her desire for vengeance. To this end, she generously doles out money and gifts (A1067, B1124, C1141), conceivably in an attempt to find warriors to support
His kinsmen and plenty of his vassals advised him, since his thoughts were constantly on love, that he should woo one who might fit him well. Then bold Siegfried said: In that case I will take Kriemhild, the beautiful maiden from Burgundy, because of her immeasurable beauty. 7 In Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival, Gramoflanz, for instance, declares his love for Itonje, a woman he has never seen and the sister of his mortal enemy Gawan. 8 After Siegfried’s death - this is entirely true - she dwelt in great sorrow for thirteen years, unable to forget the warrior’s death. She was loyal to him, as most everybody agress. 6
42
requires a bit more information - namely, the location of the hero’s weak spot - before he can kill Siegfried. While one might wish to interpret Kriemhild’s revelation of this secret as an instance where romantic love fails the characters - as John Clifton-Everest argues in “The Nibelungenlied: Epic vs. Romance” (167) - it can also be read as an instance where trust in the old heroic mode, which privileged family duty, is destructive. In Aventiure 15, Kriemhild reveals the secret:
as in most romances, it can also be argued that the absence of a Christian moral code in the text is largely responsible for the poem’s ultimate tragedy. Though the characters profess themselves to be Christians and even attend Mass at various points in the text, none of their actions evidence any sense of humility, mercy, or forgiveness, and it is made apparent at various points that such Christian virtues could have precluded the final disaster. Kriemhild, for example, denies the hero Dietrich’s explicit request for mercy for Hagen and Gunther (2364) and kills them anyway. The absence of faith-motivated concerns is perhaps most notable, however, during the initial dispute between Kriemhild and Brunhild, which arises as a question of who has the right to enter the church first for Mass and devolves into a squabble about whether or not Siegfried took
Si sprach “du bist mîn mâc, ich bevilhe dir mit triuwen daz tu mir wol behüetest Si saget im kundiu mære, sô bin ich der dîn. den holden wine mîn, den mînen lieben man.” diu bezzer wæren verlân. (898)10
“You are my blood relative, as I am yours. I commend my sweet beloved to you with loyalty that you might well protect my dear husband.”
Here, Kriemhild’s references her kinship with Hagen and presents their relationship as evidence of the loyalty between them. I translate triuwen here as “loyalty” - suggestive of heroic family-fidelity - but the term was common in chivalric romances, where it had far more complex connotations. According to the Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch of Matthias Lexer, triuwe implied not only sincerity, reliability, and fidelity (aufrichtigkeit, zuverlässigkeit, treue) but also a relationship of moral obligation (sittliche pflichtverhältnis). Kriemhild’s reciprocal statement of kinship and reference to triuwe thus reflects her assumption that her loyalty to Hagen is mutual and that Hagen as her kinsman would be morally obligated to protect her husband. Though such a plea may have saved Siegfried in the heroic world, where family came first, in the new society of chivalry and romance, family obligations have been relegated to a less important concern.
Brunhild’s virginity. The spat is interrupted by the Mass itself, to which Brunhild pays no attention: Swie vil man gote gediende oder iemen dâ gesanc, des dûhte Prünhilde wand ir was vil trüebe des muosen sît engelten diu wîle gar ze lanc: der lîp und ouch der muot. manic helet küen und guot. (844)11
If the tragic ending of the Nibelungenlied and its minimal reference to Christianity do not seem to fit the sin and redemption narrative typical of romance, it is precisely because God is not truly at play in the narrative. Thomas, among others, argues that the fatalistic tone of the text, from which God is largely absent (301), evidences the work’s identification with heroic epics. While it is fair to say that Christianity is not as frequently mentioned in the Nibelungenlied
The narrator informs the reader not only that Brunhild does not appreciate the worship service going on around her but also that the ultimate downfall of the Burgundians is the direct result of her ignoring the Mass and focusing instead on her own personal troubles and
It is interesting to note that - despite W. P. Ker’s assertion that Kriemhild’s “slaughter of her children is unrecorded; there is no motive for it when all her anger is turned against her brothers” (149) - Kriemhild does in two of the three main manuscript traditions intentionally cause her son with Etzel to be killed, even if she does not murder him outright. 10 She said, “You are my blood relative, as I am yours. I commend my sweet beloved to you with loyalty that you might well protect my dear husband.” She told him what she knew, things better left unsaid. 11 No matter how well God was served or what anyone sang there, Brunhild thought it lasted far too long, for she was greatly troubled in body and spirit. Many bold and worthy heros were to pay for that later. 9
43
anger. God is not entirely absent from the text but does seem to be absent from the characters’ hearts and actions, and it is this subtle distinction that allows for - and, arguably, even brings about - tragic ending. The characters’ general disregard for God might thus be interpreted as an implicit critique of the pagan values that predated the narrative, rather than as stylistic evidence that the text is not truly a romance.
the tragic conclusion as a consequence of characters’ failure to act on their professed Christianity - seems to have been largely lost on modern critics and medieval readers alike. In Diu Klage, a subsequently written epilogue to the Nibelungenlied by a different author, Kriemhild, demonized in the Nibelungenlied for her brutal revenge, is said to have garnered a spot in heaven since her extreme loyalty to her husband excuses her otherwise damnable behavior (556-573). This reinterpretation may evidenceß, as Karina Marie Ash argues, a growing trend in “thirteenth-century discourse that encouraged women to seek salvation in their marriages instead of through a religious life of celibacy” (61). While the Klage narrator clearly misses or, at least, ignores the Nibelungenlied’s intended message about the dangers of pre-courtly, preChristian values, Kriemhild’s evolution from demon to saint reveals - as does the comparison between the Poetic Edda and the Nibelungenlied - the constant reworking of mythological and legendary material to fit the ever-shifting needs of the time and genre.
Ultimately, though the Nibelungenlied owes much of its heritage to the older Germanic heroic legends that also inspired the Poetic Edda, the text is actually rather critical of the underlying moral code of the heroic mode. The Nibelungenlied is both stylistically and thematically more similar to the chivalric romances than to a heroic epic in that it is driven by romantic love and demonstrates by example the dangers of pre-courtly society and the value system that comes with it. Interestingly, the text’s subtle argument in favor of Christian values - that is, its presentation of
References Ash, Karina Marie. Conflicting Femininities in Medieval German Literature. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2012. Print. Bartsch, Karl, ed. Der Nibelunge Not. 2nd ed. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1926. Print. Classen, Albrecht, ed. Diu Klage: Mittelhochdeutsch-Neuhochdeutsch: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar Und Anmerkungen. Trans. Albrecht Classen. Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1997. Print. Clifton-Everest, John. “The Nibelungenlied: Epic vs. Romance.” The Epic in History. Ed. Lola Sharon. Davidson, S. N. Mukherjee, and Zdenko Zlatar. Sydney, Australia: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture, 1994. 162-75. Print. Frakes, Jerold C. Brides and Doom: Gender, Property, and Power in Medieval German Women’s Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1994. Print. Haymes, Edward R. “Chaevalrie Und Alte Maeren: Zum Gattungshorizont Des Nibelungenliedes.” Germanisch Romanische Monatsschrift 34 (1984): 369-84. Print. Ker, W. P. Epic and Romance: Essays on Medieval Literature. New York: Dover Publications, 1957. Print. Larrington, Carolyne. The Poetic Edda. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print. Nachträge zum Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch von Mattias Lexer. Wörterbuchnetz. Trier Center for Digital Humanities. Kompetenzzentrum für elektronische Erschließungs- und Publikationsverfahren in den Geisteswissenschaften an der Universität Trier. 2011. Web. Thomas, Neil E. “The Epic in an Age of Romance: Genre and Discursive Context in the Nibelungenlied.” Seminar: A Journal of Germanic Studies 44.3 (2008): 301-17. Print.
44
German
Sam Sokolsky-Tifft
“We must take flight into the misty realm of religion.”
Essay
The Ethics of Fetishism in Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud Sam Sokolsky-Tifft Fetishism inhabits a peculiar place between the religious and the secular: on the one hand, the concept was made popular when Auguste Comte suggested that fetishism was the first and most primitive stage in the evolution of religion, before polytheism and monotheism.1 On the other, Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism and Freud’s account of sexual fetishism are the two most famous examples of secular fetishism. That fetishism has both religious and secular forms seems clear. That the boundaries between religious and secular fetishism, or even the existence of fetishism within a philosophical system, are apparent and easily delineated seems much less so.
to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right) is the “opium of the people” which prevents the proletariat from recognizing the need for radical revolution and universal human emancipation (146). To Freud, fetishism is a purely sexual phenomenon that only veers into the religious in certain circumstances: as he argues in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, fetishism is “habitually present in normal love” when the normal sexual object is replaced by another (related) object (20). It only becomes pathological (and therefore, under Freud’s terms, potentially religious) when the fetish actually takes the place of the normal sexual aim and becomes the sole sexual object.2 To Nietzsche (for whom fetishism is only an oblique concern), the very rationalism Marx and Freud employ is itself pseudo-religious: in Twilight of the Idols, he decries philosophers for “mak[ing] a fetish out of reason,” proposing that one can escape
To Marx, of course, the very concept of secular fetishism is foreign: fetishism is inherently a form of religion, and religion (as he writes in A Contribution
The term itself came from the Portuguese word feitiço, which translates roughly to “witchcraft” or “amulet,” and which the eighteenth-century Portuguese used to describe objects used in religious cults by West African natives (Magic and Fetishism, Alfred C. Haddon 66). 2 How and when a fetishistic object performs this usurpation is, however, to my mind much more difficult to trace than one might think. 1
45
such philosophical-religious-moral systems only through the constant revaluation of all values (479).
sensuous desires,” arguing instead that fetishism is the “religion of sensuous desire” (84-85). Both Marx and his opponent agree that fetishism is religious; they simply (and radically) disagree on the implications of that religiosity. Marx criticizes conventional Christian morality for creating an “illusory happiness in the status quo” on the part of the proletariat that prevents man from experiencing the radical needs that lead him to radical revolution (Critique, 146). Only by abolishing the opiate of religion and the illusory happiness created by conventional Christian morality can man demand real happiness and achieve universal human emancipation. Marx here implicitly employs a distinction between ethical action, which comes from the individual, and moral action, which is imposed on one from the collective, that Nietzsche draws. While conventional Christian morality in fact distracts the proletariat from the chains of oppression that surround them, an expression of the myopic “sigh of the oppressed creature” that does nothing to free man from the chains that bind him, ethical action in Marx, I would argue, is precisely that action which brings about the real and radical emancipation of living individuals. This emancipation can only be achieved by recognizing the radical needs of the proletariat that will lead to the Communist revolution, whose stages involve the eradication of the feudal system through the bourgeois overthrow of the monarchy, and then the proletariat overthrow of the bourgeoisie (145). Marx’s critique of fetishism and religion can therefore be seen as concurrent with his desire for ethical action, which can only be achieved in the absence of fetishism or any other form of religion which thwarts man’s recognition of the need for real action. In Marx’s floral terms, “Criticism [of religion] has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower” (147). Marx is concerned with the ethical action of emancipating real, oppressed human beings, which lies in direct opposition to the opiate-like properties of religion and morality which lead man into fantasy. Fetishism, as a religion of sensuous desire, is for Marx a degree worse than normal religion and Christian morality because it serves as an opiate that elevates the oppressive relations of private property Marx seeks to abolish. As Marx writes in the Communist Manifesto, the “history of society is the history of class struggles” which, with the advent of modern bourgeois society, has been simplified into the
In this essay, I would like to examine the degree to which Marx’s and Freud’s accounts of fetishism, which at first glance seem to represent religious and secular fetishism, respectively, can be seen to merge into one another. More precisely, I would like to examine the implications of their two accounts of fetishism for their ethics, and the ways in which both Marxist and Freudian theory could be said to be fetishistic. I will first use Marx’s account of fetishism in the “Leading Article of the Kölnische Zeitung 179” and the Manifesto of the Communist Party to argue that fetishism, if religious, is inherently in tension with his ethics: action that brings about the radical emancipation of real living individuals. I will then apply Freud’s account of sexual fetishism in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and of religion in The Future of an Illusion to Marx to refine the way in which fetishism (and implicitly, under Marx’s terms, capitalism) is religious: as in Freud, the desire for material objects only verges into the religious and neurotic when those material things become the sole desired object, so that the fetishistic capitalism Marx critiques can be seen to have both religious and nonreligious forms. Finally, I will use Nietzsche’s claim in Twilight of the Idols that philosophers “make a fetish out of reason” to suggest the ways in which Marx’s communism and Freud’s psychoanalytic theory can themselves be seen as forms of religious fetishism (479). In doing so, I will try to address the concern that even Nietzsche’s revaluation of all values, which has a parallel in Freud’s esteem for the selfcorrecting nature of his science, merely depends upon the continual replacement of old fetishes with new ones, itself unable properly to escape from fetishism and therefore religion. Ultimately, I will posit, Freud’s and Nietzsche’s promotion of the revaluation or reinterpretation of values provides room for ethical action in the face of what might be conceived of as their own fetishistic attachments. Why fetishism should for Marx inherently be religious, and how it would thereby oppose a Marxist ethics is not at first glance clear. That it is inherently religious is evident for Marx, and it is precisely this unequivocal account of fetishism’s relation to religion that I would like to muddy. In the “Leading Article,” Marx combats the view of “Herr H.” that religion, “even in its crudest form as childish fetishism,” nevertheless “to some extent raises man above his 46
struggle between two great classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (192). Under Marx’s account, the bourgeoisie, having “resolved personal worth into exchange value,” implement a direct and brutal exploitation of the alienated laborer which can only be resolved through the abolition of private property, a phrase which, Marx claims, sums up Communist theory (204). Thus capitalism, which might intuitively be seen to oppose or transcend traditional Christian morality and serve an almost ethical role (society functioning on individual and self-serving economic interests rather than the inherited and drug-like influence of religion or morality), reinforces the very structures of economic oppression it shrouds. Under the terms of commodity fetishism Marx describes in Das Kapital, the social organization of labor is in capitalism mediated through the buying and selling of commodities, so that the tyrannical human relations of capitalist production (between worker and capitalist, proletariat and bourgeois) become veiled as the innocent market exchange of commodities (159). As Marx explains, We must take flight into the misty realm of religion. There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. (165)
Freud, in contrast, seems to suggest that fetishism, while it opposes conventional Christian models of moral erotic behavior, is neither religious nor antiethical. While religion for Freud is best seen as “the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity” which springs from the Oedipus complex, fetishism for Freud appears either to be an individual neurosis or not to be a neurosis at all (Future of an Illusion, 55).3 As he writes in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, sexual fetishism, the substitution of some inappropriate or innocuous body part or inanimate object for the sexual object, is “habitually present in normal love” - Freud even goes so far as to cite a scene from Goethe, in which Faust calls for the kerchief or garter of Gretchen, to display the romantic ubiquity of fetishism (20). Fetishism only becomes pathological when the fetish “actually takes the place of the normal [sexual] aim... and becomes the sole sexual object” (20). Neither form of fetishism, one might think, could properly be described as a universal obsessional neurosis, so that Freud’s account of fetishism cannot in Freudian terms be religious at all. Freudian fetishism can, however, be applied to that of Marx to refine the way in which capitalism could be said to be religious. In this section I will investigate the way in which (1) Freudian fetishism accommodates a secular version of Marx’s “religion of sensuous desire” and (2) Marxist fetishism suggests a religious and anti-ethical aspect to Freud’s sexual fetishism. If one applies Freudian fetishism directly to commodity fetishism, a revision of Marx’s critique of capitalism arises in which fetishism, and thus capitalism, becomes religious only in the particular instance in which the desire for private property replaces our normal desires in such a way that the fetishized commodity becomes the sole desired object. There are several immediate questions regarding making such a move. First, one might worry that one should not apply an explicitly sexual and areligious account of fetishism to Marx’s religious and political account. This concern is legitimate, but I would argue that only by applying a secular account to Marxist fetishism can one recognize the potential insufficiencies with Marx’s account. Second, one might wonder whether the very nature of fetishism implies that the fetishized commodity becomes the sole desired object. It is this worry that I would like to treat at greater length. For Marx, private property in a capitalist society presumably is the sole desired object: a quite literal replacement
Not only does fetishism, as part of the misty realm of religion, cover up the true economic character of human relations of production (the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeois); it reifies the economic abstraction of value into objects, the products of human labor, which come to dominate us precisely as we come to believe that those commodities have an intrinsic value, in and of themselves. Thus fetishism, the religion of sensuous desire, is under Marx’s terms inherently religious and anti-ethical: it shrouds and reifies the very forces that oppose the emancipation of real, oppressed human beings, advancing a form of religion that the majority of humans do not even regard as religious.
Freud also (famously) says in The Future of an Illusion that religion is an illusion, a claim that has often been misinterpreted and that interestingly echoes the language of Marx’s claim that religion creates an “illusory happiness in the status quo” (Critique, 146). For Freud, what is characteristic of illusions is that they are derived from human wishes and are insusceptible of proof (Future, 39). 3
47
occurs in which the human relations of production are usurped and veiled by the market exchange of commodities, which appear suddenly to have an intrinsic value in and of themselves. Thus commodity fetishism under Marx’s terms would presumably fall under Freud’s pathological form of fetishism, and for Marx such fetishism is not an individual neurosis but one experienced by all of capitalist society: a universal obsessional neurosis. However, the fact that Marxist commodity fetishism can fit Freudian fetishism is not to say that Marx is right in regarding fetishism as straightforwardly religious. Rather, Freud’s theory points to a particular point at which Marx’s critique of capitalism might be flawed: there might be sections of society that relate to commodities in the normal mode of fetishism (in which a desired object is “replaced by another which bears some relation to it” [20]) instead of the pathological mode of fetishism which Marx assumes. Thus whether one agrees with Marx that fetishism (and capitalism) are necessarily religious depends on whether one views the replacement of human social relations with the market exchange of commodities as a neurosis confined to individual Wolf of Wall Street-like cases, or as an obsessional neurosis better seen as universal. Yet this raises the question of at what point Freud’s account of fetishism can itself be seen as religious. While Freud assumes that religion is a universal obsessional neurosis and fetishism is either a particular neurosis or an aspect of normal life, the precise point at which a common neurosis becomes a “universal” one, and the point at which the fetishistic object replaces the normal sexual aim to become the sole sexual object, seem difficult to mark. This is not to raise the empirical question of to what extent religion, sexual fetishism, and commodity fetishism are held in common among humans. In that, Freud is of course right in saying that religion is more ubiquitous than sexual fetishism in its “pathological” form. It is rather to raise the logical - and implicitly ethical - question of whether Freud, because of his medical role as a doctor, implicitly depends on an ethical distinction between “normal” moral cases and “pathological” immoral cases that would shroud any other universal obsessional neurosis from being recognizable as such. The point is one that Nietzsche brings up in “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense”: whether the “true” or the “moral” is anything other than the lies and abnormalities that have been accepted by the herd. Freud’s claim that a certain degree of fetishism is thus habitually present in normal love does not lead
him to brand it a universal obsessional neurosis, but it seems difficult to see why he does not. Instead, Freud distinguishes such normal fetishism from pathological fetishism, which seems to be pathological only insofar as it is not universal. There are two critiques one could offer of Freud here. First, as I have implied, it seems as though there is a moral dimension built in to his terms, so that what is “normal” or ubiquitous is moral, and what is “pathological” or rare is immoral. This is a legitimate criticism, but one that is difficult to weigh: it is hard to say to what degree the moral agenda we read in the distinction between the normal and the abnormal is inherent in Freud’s psychoanalytic thought, or is merely an outgrowth of our modern employment of medical language. The second critique, and one which I would suggest is more damaging to Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, is that there is a logical failure in Freud’s account of cases such as fetishism, by which the (definitionally
“Thus fetishism in both Marx and Freud can be seen to occupy a place between the secular and the religious that problematizes the ethical.” religious) nature of obsessional universal neuroses becomes masked as a “normal” trait, because the universally held is the normal. Such a logical failure would not only prevent Freudian fetishism from being seen as in fact religious; it would undermine what I take to be Freud’s ethics: the ability individually to evaluate and reinterpret scientific cases, making it possible for individuals to lead happy, non-persecuted lives in the face of artificial societal expectations. Thus fetishism in both Marx and Freud can be seen to occupy a place between the secular and the religious that problematizes the ethical. The potential problem with both Marxist fetishism and Freudian sexual fetishism is that each in some way begs the question. Marx assumes (though at least on quasi-legitimate empirical grounds) that fetishism is the religion of 48
sensuous desire because he thinks that man turns commodities into the sole desired object - but it is precisely this vital point (that our social relations are usurped and veiled by the market exchange of commodities that turn commodities into the sole desired object, and not merely replaced in the mode of normal Freudian fetishism), that Marx seems to assert as an empirical fact rather than to prove. Freud, for his part, assumes the pathological to be that which is not present in normal life. In doing so he precludes the possibility of universal obsessional neuroses other than religion being religious. Each of these methodological failures raises a potential problem for their respective ethics. If Marx is wrong in believing that the fetishized commodity necessarily involves a religious relation to the commodity, it seems as though his critique of capitalism and his call for the abolition of private property that would allow the emancipation of real, oppressed human beings might be misplaced - such an ethical emancipation might be achieved through the self-willed economic action of real individuals in a capitalist society as well as through a Communist revolution that abolishes private property. If Freud is wrong in equating the normal with the non-pathological, that would prevent both him and other psychoanalysts from reinterpreting his theory of fetishism so that it appears as an (inherently religious) universal obsessional neurosis; fetishism’s universal nature would shroud its status as pathological. This would directly undermine Freud’s ethics, a science of interpretation under which theory is always open to be reconsidered and reinterpreted in light of a new and unusual scientific case, the individual driving the theory rather than the other way around. It thus seems worryingly possible that Freud and Marx are thrown awry by their own methods, a possibility Nietzsche raises when he claims in Twilight of the Idols that philosophers “make a fetish out of reason” (479). I would like in this final section briefly to treat the possibility that Marx’s communism and Freud’s psychoanalytic theories can themselves be seen as forms of religious fetishism, and to examine the extent to which the revaluation of all values which Nietzsche posits in place of such fetishizing philosophy might better escape the pitfalls of fetishism.
fetish is the desire to overthrow the bourgeoisie by abolishing private property and transcending the system of class struggles created by the economic structures of capitalism. In Freud, one might look to the power of psychoanalysis to treat pathological impulses and allow individuals to lead happy and non-persecuted lives in the face of artificial societal expectations. Neither fetish is problematic per se, but only insofar as it is a philosophy, and therefore a static and fetishized value that cannot by its nature evaluate itself. As Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil,
Nietzsche’s radical claim that such a seemingly innocuous object as reason becomes a fetish suggests that there might in Marx and Freud be values which hold a fetishistic place - values which seem to take the place of all other desired objects and become the sole desired object. In Marx’s case, the most obvious
Such a project suggests the ultimate affirmation of ethics over morality: continuous individual action that resists and reevaluates the conventions of previous accepted moralities. Yet, adopting the essentially Nietzschean line of radical revaluation which I have attempted to follow in this essay, one
What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly is that... They all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through the self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic; while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact. They are all advocates who resent that name - and very far from having the good taste or the courage to mock itself... To recognize untruth as a condition of life - that means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil. (202-3) For Nietzsche, any philosophical system, insofar as it is a static system that is unable to resist and reevaluate the accustomed value feelings of that system, to mock itself, is fetishistic and doomed to the oppressive logical limitations of moral systems (which Nietzsche describes in The Antichrist as “hostile to life” [582]). Instead, Nietzsche posits the revaluation of all values as the only way to escape such static philosophical systems, which are implicitly both fetishistic and religious, and liable to the same critique Nietzsche launches against Christian morality: I call Christianity the one great curse... the one immortal blemish of mankind. And time is calculated from the dies nefastus on which this fatality arose - from the first day of Christianity! Why not rather from its last? From today? Revaluation of all values! (The Antichrist, 656)
49
might view even this project, the revaluation of all values, as, like Freudian and Marxist theory, unable properly to escape from fetishism, and therefore from religion. One might understand Nietzsche’s project as merely dependent upon the continual replacement of old fetishes with new ones: revalued values merely replace the old values to become new fetishized objects which become one’s sole desired object, albeit only until the next revaluation of values. Thus, one might worry that insofar as values must become stagnant and ostensibly all-powerful to become values at all, the revaluation of values is inherently religious and fetishistic. I will end, however, by suggesting that such an interpretation goes too far: that given the presence of both a fetishistic relation to certain values and the continuous revaluation of such values, the ethical act of resisting and reevaluating fetishes comes to supersede the religiosity inherent in fetishizing those values at all. This is to save Freud’s ethics by means of Freud’s argument. In The Future of an Illusion, Freud (in the voice of an imaginary interlocutor) raises the concern that Freud himself has been carried away by an illusion, “pinning his hopes on the delusional possibility that generations which have not experienced the influence of religious doctrines in early childhood will easily attain the desired primacy of the intelligence over the life of the instincts” (65). Freud acknowledges the possibility that his hopes for the efficacy of psychoanalysis in a de-deified world might be delusional, but holds fast to one distinction:
My illusions are not, like religious ones, incapable of correction... If experience should show that we have been mistaken, we will give up our expectations... These discoveries derived from individual psychology may be insufficient, their application to the human race unjustified, and my optimism unfounded... nevertheless, there is something peculiar about this weakness. The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest till it has gained a hearing. Finally, after a countless succession of rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points on which one may be optimistic about the future of mankind. (67) Freud recognizes the inherently religious (and implicitly fetishistic) nature of his own theory, yet believes that the continual reinterpretation of his own illusions will reveal them in their true fetishism. Thus, while Marx’s and Freud’s accounts of fetishism can be seen to blur into each other and obscure the boundary between religious and secular fetishism (their own forms of ostensibly secular fetishism, as Nietzsche makes clear, intelligible as religious fetishism), Freud and Nietzsche provide a means of breaking away from even this fetishism into ethical action: in recognizing the possibility of religious fetishism that inheres in their own work and providing a theoretical method by which one individually reevaluates or reinterprets that very fetishism, Freud and Nietzsche can be seen to offer an ethics that does not oppose fetishism, but rather depends upon it.
References Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion. Trans. James Strachey. New York: Norton, 1975. - Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Trans. James Strachey. New York: Basic, 1975. Haddon, Alfred C. Magic and Fetishism. London: Archibald Constable, 1906. - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. “ER26 Course Texts.” - “Leading Article of the Kölnische Zeitung 179.” “ER26 Course Texts.” - Manifesto of the Communist Party. “ER26 Course Texts.” - Communist Manifesto. “ER26 Course Texts.” Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Das Kapital; a Critique of Political Economy. Chicago: Regnery, 1970. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Trans. Walter Arnold Kaufmann. New York: Modern Library, 1968. - The Portable Nietzsche. New York: Penguin, 1976. - “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense.” “ER26 Course Texts.”
50
Scandinavia
51
Scandinavia | Norwegian
Michael Feehly
“... a National Author who stands ahead of his people and not behind.”
Essay
“The Strongest Man in the World is The Man who Stands Alone” Ibsen’s Navigation of National Authorship in En Folkefiende Michael Feehly Henrik Ibsen wrote En Folkefiende - An Enemy of the People - in the three months between June and September 1882 while in Italy, where he divided his time between Rome and the village of Gossensass in the Tyrol.1 In the early 1880s, Ibsen was an author at the height of his powers and the father of a financially well-established family; he was also a polarizing public figure, living in self-imposed exile from Norway, whose realist plays such as Et Dukkehjem [A Doll’s House, 1879] and Gengangere [Ghosts, 1881] scandalized socially conservative (i.e., Victorian) readers and theater audiences. Ibsen’s straightforward and explicit treatment of divorce, women’s rights, freethinking, half-sibling incest, venereal diseases, and euthanasia had few precursors in literature, and nearly none in theater.2
literature long considered En Folkefiende to be Ibsen’s definitive - and defiant - response to the negative critical reception of, and virulent public reaction against Gengangere.3 The satire in Folkefiende targeted the liberal press, the ‘compact majority’ of the politically moderate and the propertied middle class, the tyranny of the mob majority, and the embedsmenn, bureaucrats and administrators of the conservative upper class of Norwegians who favored continued political union with Sweden. Beyond its immediate occasion, however, Folkefiende served as Ibsen’s response to the question of National Authorship, of being a national writer. Through its style, content, and orthography, Ibsen’s play responded to the main intellectual and cultural concerns of 19th century Norway: the contest between nationalism and pan-Scandinavianism, romantic idealism and
Scholars of Ibsen and the history of Norwegian
Henrik Ibsen, Henrik Ibsens Skrifter: Innledninger og kommentarer (Oslo: H. Aschehoug, 2005), 602-3. Toril Moi, Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 5-7. 3 Halvdan Koht, Life of Ibsen. Translated by Einar and A.E. Santaniello Haugen. (New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1971), 334-337. 1
2
52
estimated illiteracy rate hovered around 60% for all Norwegians.6 In light of such statistics, the challenges faced by publishers, booksellers, and authors were incredible.
naturalistic realism, danskhed og norskhet [Danishness and Norwegianess]. In his creation of Dr. Stockmann, Ibsen generated a composite of his fellow Norwegian writers (and himself) in order to bring onto the stage an incarnation of Ibsen’s vision of an ideal author and citizen. Folkefiende was Ibsen’s attempt to position himself as beyond Norway’s history, as a man not only independent of - but contrary to his times.
When Norway entered into personal union with the Kingdom of Sweden, Norway had greater position visà-vis Sweden because of the 1814 Eidsvoll Constitution (the product of an abortive, post-Napoleonic attempt at independence) which established for Norway greater economic autonomy and a parliament called the Storting that allowed for an increased representation of rural Norwegian counties that were less culturally influenced by Danish, and populated by fewer Danish transplants.7
In the 15th century, Denmark dominated the Scandinavian peninsula through its leadership of the Kalmar Union. In 1523 Sweden, led by Gustav Vasa, broke free from Danish control but Norway did not. Norway ceased to exist as an independent country in the 16th century.4 Denmark dominated the political and cultural development of Norway until 1814, when the
Eidsvoll marked the beginning of a period that Toril Moi, a Norwegian-born professor of Theater Studies, referred to as “partly colonial and partly postcolonial.”8 The seeds of domestic political and economic institutions germinated, and Norway recovered from the state of famine that persisted when the British blockaded the coast of Denmark-Norway. However, cultural institutions structured themselves in manners more reminiscent of direct colonialism - theaters employed Danish actors speaking in Danish in plays written in Denmark;9 Norwegian as a written language was identical to written Danish despite differences of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, and as a spoken language was fractured by dialects and a poor system of roads which made the postal system unreliable.10 Political autonomy and representative government within a dual monarchy were great achievements that opened a public sphere for a Norwegian nation.
“Folkefiende was Ibsen’s attempt to position himself as beyond Norway’s history, as a man not only independent of - but contrary to his times.” aftermath of the Napoleonic wars upended the balance of power in the Baltic - Russia won Finland from Sweden, Sweden won Norway from Denmark.5 The result of Danish rule was an underdeveloped literary culture in Norway. Denmark had printing presses in operation over a century before the first press opened in Norway; Copenhagen itself was the book capital of Norden (lit. “The North” - a term of broader geographic scope than “Scandinavia”, embracing Iceland, Greenland, and Finland). In 1805 Norway could boast but four print-shops in the whole realm; in 1814 only six periodicals served Norwegians, their small number hampering efforts to forge the imagined community of the nation; and even up until 1830, the
Literary production began to recover between 1814 and 1850: the year, coincidentally, when Henrik Ibsen published his first book - a play called Catilina that retold the story of the Catiline conspiracy. Norway was host to 53 printers - 15 in Christiania alone - by the year 1849: an increase of 49 new printing shops in the span of 44 years. In 1848, the number of circulating periodicals reached 40.11 Publishers and booksellers also organized themselves poltically for the first time; with Norway’s ‘unofficial’ culture department - Selskabet for
Per Thomas Andersen, Norsk Litteraturhistorie. (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2012), Introduction; Sima Lieberman, The industrialization of Norway 1800-1920. (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1970), 20-23. 5 Harald Beyer, A History of Norwegian Literature. Translated by Einar Haugen. (New York: New York University Press, 1956), 113-116. 6 Trond Andreassen, Det litterære system i Norge : en litteratursosiologisk innføring. (Oslo: J.W. Cappelen, 1986), 24-28. 7 Brian W. Downs, Ibsen; the intellectual background. (New York: Octagon Books, 1969), 33. 8 Moi, Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism, 37-43. 9 Ann Schmiesing.”The Christiania Theater and Norwegian Nationalism: Bjørnson’s Defense of the 1856 Whistle Concerts in “Pibernes Program”.” 2004. Scandinavian Studies 76 (3): 317-340. 4
53
Norges Vel [The Society for Norway’s Weal] - they lobbied the Storting to enact protectionist policies that culminated in an 1848 measure which guaranteed import duties on all books printed in Denmark, though it excepted those published from other European states.12
og Danmark [tjente] nok til å innta en fri stilling som forfatter.”16 Authors of artistic merit and national consciousness came to the fore beginning in 1829. The poets Henrik Wergeland and Johan Welhaven were the two foremost men of letters in Norway in the generation before Ibsen and his contemporary Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson; the optimistic and nationalistic Wergeland contrasted with the reserved and critically detached Welhaven in much the same way that the ebullient Bjørnson, “the greatest Norwegian,” would come to contrast with Ibsen, “the greatest Norwegian writer.”17 Aside from original poets, the field of Norwegian letters bloomed with the flowers of folklore. Asbjørnson and Moe collected fairytales or folkeeventyr that recorded the speech patterns of rural Norwegians who spoke in dialects nearly untouched by Danish. Stories adapted from Icelandic Sagas or from episodes of Medieval and Viking history furnished rich material for poets and dramatists.18 This corpus of collected folklore inspired early advocates of language reform to make the case for a Norwegian purified from Danish influence. Jonas Anton Hielm’s Almindelig Norsk Maanedsskrift called this form of Norwegian “Landsmaal” or “country/ national language.” In 1848, the philologist Ivar Aasen published his groundbreaking work, Den norske Folkesprogs Grammatik [the Norwegian people’s language grammar book] and was at work on the companion dictionary; Aasen’s systematized landsmaal came to be known as nynorsk (new Norwegian) and was made a co-official written form of Norwegian, along with the Danish-influenced bokmål “book language” written standard in 1885.19
To provide the basis for cultural and nationalist revival, the Norwegian book market needed more than protection: it needed to overcome a tremendous demographic handicap. Beginning in 1843, Norwegians emigrated in massive numbers; the lure of cheap land in America appealed to Norwegian peasants (bønder and husmenn), because a system of inheritance based on primogeniture left many younger siblings without economic prospects. Mass emigration continued until the 1870s: years in which sometimes 10,000 or more Norwegians headed abroad in a single year.13 Christiania - the capital and largest city - was inhabited by 15,000 residents from1820 to 1830; the city did not grow much, and its small population meant a small market for book-buying.14 This demographic situation deepened the Norwegian colonial dependence on Denmark and Danish publishers: protectionism aided the domestic printing industry [boktrykkeriene] but not those authors who needed to have access to an expanded audience to sell their work in sufficient numbers to make their living. Exceptions to this were the embedsmenn (e.g. Wergeland and Welhaven) who relied on their state salary, not their royalties. Søren Gyldendal, founder of Denmark’s largest publishing house, cultivated relations with Norwegian authors; moreover, he was their patron. In his history of the Norwegian book industry, Harald Tverterås wrote that Gyldendal “av og til kunne gi noen dalere som dusør hvis en forfatter var i nød [now and again could give a few (specie) daler as a gratuity if an author were in need].”15 Gyldendal said these gratuities were from “sitt gode hjerte [his own good heart]” but it is more likely he saw them as a small investment toward building a Norwegian catalogue useful for expanding his business northward. Danish publication became the equivalent of ‘seeing one’s name up in lights,’ for “det norske marke alene var ikke stort nok ennå, men for alle de forfattere som fant seg et dansk forlag og ble gitt ut samtidig i Norge
In these currents of national change and cultural revival, Ibsen came of age. Henrik Ibsen was born in Skien in 1829, enjoyed two years of formal education before the fortunes of his family turned for the worse, and was apprenticed to a pharmacist in Grimstad.20 He moved to Christiania (Oslo) to pursue study at the university, but instead published Catilina in 1850 with the help of his friend Ole Schulerud,21 who loaned him the money to pay the printer Steensballe. From Steensballe, Ibsen received between 300-400 copies of the play, of which 250 were put on sale in bookshops in the Capital; not a single copy of Catilina was sold.22
Moi, 40. Andreassen, 24-5. 12 Ibid., 30. 13 Lieberman, 43. 14 Andreassen, 29. 15 Harald Ludvig Tveterås, Den norske bokhandels historie. (Oslo: Norsk bokhandler-medhjelper-forening i kommisjon J. W. Cappelen, 1950), 5-6. 10 11
54
“Public perception of Ibsen at the time of Gengangere and Folkefiende.” Ibsen was not discouraged: he wrote Kjæmpehøjen [The Burial Mound] in the same year. Both plays caught the eye of Ole Bull, a famous violinist who worked to create Det norske Theater [The Norwegian Theater] in Bergen. Bull hired Ibsen as the Theater’s dramatist; for the next five years, Ibsen lived in Bergen, producing and writing plays for the Theater - most with an explicitly nationalistic aesthetic, in accordance with Bull’s agenda.23 While in Bergen, Ibsen enjoyed financial stability but not creative freedom. He returned to Christiania to work at the Christiania Theater - the same theater that Ibsen and Bjørnson protested against in 1851 and 1855, respectively.24 However, the move from Bergen brought disappointments - Ibsen struggled financially to care for his new wife and son, and to pay child support for the illegitimate son he had left behind in Grimstad.25 Ibsen applied for grants from the Storting to collect folk ballads, just as Asbjørnson and Moe had done; he applied for the Storting’s dikterlønn
[poet’s salary] but was refused.26 At this stage in his career, Ibsen endured constrictions upon his authorship. He wrote Catilina based on his studies of Cicero and Sallust while he prepped for university entrance exams; but the classical theme was not well received. He enjoyed stable employment in Bergen writing plays that did not again see performance or publication until the end of his life when all his works were reissued by Gyldendal. Ibsen felt constrained by the small Norwegian audience; he felt cut off from the intellectual and artistic foment of continental Europe. In this dissatisfied state, Ibsen made the choice to travel abroad and through help from the Storting and a subscription raised on his behalf by Bjørnson, Ibsen traveled to Rome.27 Exile was Ibsen’s first step towards his own selfdefinition as an author, and as a National Author. By National Author, I mean to refer to an author who explicitly and self-consciously as having a national
Andreassen, 34. [The Norwegian Market alone was not large enough yet, but for all the authors who found themselves a Danish publisher and were published simultaneously in Norway and Denmark [earned] enough to freely adopt a job as an author.] Translation mine. 17 Downs, 36. 18 Ibid., 37-45. 19 Harald Naess, A History of Norwegian Literature. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993), 99-102. 20 Koht, chapters 3 and 4. 21 Moi, 41-42. 16
55
role. Ibsen’s own definition I take from his 22 June 1851 article in the literary journal Andhrimner: “A National Author is one who finds the best way to embody in his work that keynote which rings out to us from mountain and valley, from meadow and shore, but above all from within our own selves.”28 In order to approach his own self, Ibsen fled from the mountains and shores of Norway.
letter as the digraph “aa” but Folkefiende used å in 1882. Though å and aa were (and are) pronounced identically, the character distinguished the two languages on the page. Insistence upon it use, as seen in Ibsen’s later plays, can be interpreted as an act of national assertion. Notably, in the 1874 revision of Fru Inger fra Østeraad, the title was changed to Fru Inger fra Østråt; pronunciation would be identical but the symbolic value of the corrected spelling must be noted.32 Producing a separate letter for printing purposes must have been costly, but demonstrates the importance of orthography and the strong desire on the part of Gyldendal, Ibsen’s publisher, to enter and dominate the Norwegian market.
Ibsen wrote this definition - Haugen called it his policy - in a review of Jensen’s Huldrens Hjem, a play with a weak plot concealed by folkloric distractions. Jensen took his national duty to be the mere use of folkloric and Norwegian themes; Ibsen had a contrary approach which was to “adopt words from the country dialects if they are understandable and can enhance the aesthetic effect. In this way I contribute to the enrichment and development of our language.”29 Ibsen established in his mind early on that the role of the National Author was concerned with the national language - Ibsen continued to write in Norwegian despite his knowledge of Danish and German, languages which could afford him a larger and more profitable market of readers.
If Ibsen seemed reticent to break completely with Danish orthographic practices, he was not alone. Knud Knudsen led the movement for gradual change from Danish writing to modern bokmål. As opposed to Ivar Aasen, Knudsen desired a preservation of intelligibility between Norwegian and Danish; a slow, graduated process of reform and of Norwegianization of loan words was appealing to most authors of the day, and has its reflection in the current dominance of bokmål in contemporary Norway as the written language used by 20% of the population.33 Among Knudsen’s supporters were Ibsen and Bjørnson.
“Clearly, Ibsen used orthography as a medium of communication as a National It could be debated how Norwegian Author.” Ibsen’s Norwegian truly was: his plays were performed in Copenhagen without the need for translation; a Danish philologist named Karl Larsen studied Ibsen’s Catilina and declared that it contained only two Norwegian expressions; and the Danish critic (and personal friend of Ibsen) Georg Brandes considered Ibsen’s “juvenilia to be pure Danish.”30 However the trend clearly pointed towards greater incorporation of Norwegian words over time: works like Brand and Peer Gynt contained many more Norwegian words; Ibsen’s publisher Frederik Hegel stopped correcting the manuscript of Brand due to its numerous instances of Norwegian orthography.31
En Folkefiende “in word choice, orthography, and grammar [was], like official Norwegian of the time, in line with Danish norms.”34 However, the 2005 companion to Ibsen’s works indicated also that Ibsen employed shortenings of certain verbs to match colloquial speech - “ta’ vs. tage” and “sa’ vs. sagde.”35 Both of these examples were more than just colloquialisms; they have become the grammatically correct, modern Norwegian verb forms for “take” and “said.” Clearly, Ibsen used orthography as a medium of communication as a National Author to ‘contribute to the development of the language.’ Ibsen’s preservation of and cultivation of Norwegian orthography in a
The most common and striking difference between Danish and Norwegian, in their written forms, was the letter å. Peer Gynt, published in 1867, rendered the
Tverterås, 94. Downs, 44. 24 Schmiesing, 319-320. 25 Einar Haugen, Ibsen’s Drama: Author to Audience. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979), 29. 26 Andreasson, 34. 27 Downs, 119. 28 Haugen, 41. 22 23
56
gradual manner connected him to the ideas of Knudsen but also gave him an addition avenue of expression of authorship. Norwegians could choose to write like Knudsen or like Aasen, and by these choices express political sentiments of either pan-Scandinavianism or of an anti-Danish nationalism.
despite his harsh critique. The satire, the condemnation of all political factions, the indefatigable and righteous persona of Dr. Stockmann, and the truth of his cause made the play accessible in ways completely contrary to the shocking Gengangere in which virtually every social taboo was broken. The lightness of the content perhaps was intended to increase sales of the book. Hegel had published 10,000 copies of Gengangere but they could not be sold; the play could not be performed and had its world premiere staging in Chicago in 1882.39 With En Folkefiende, Hegel published 10,000 copies but they would not sell, and 15 years would elapse before a second printing was needed.40
The style and content of En Folkefiende also contributed to the work’s cultivation of Ibsen’s persona as author. In style, the play took up the call of the critic Georg Brandes to create works of literature that “put problems under debate”; Brandes met Ibsen in Dresden in 1871, a year before the lectures in Copenhagen that announced the beginning of realism and the social problem play.36 Ibsen adopted realism with his play Samfundets Støtter [Pillars of Society, 1877] and continued with the style through a cycle of plays that culminated in En Folkefiende. The realist style had gained popularity through Europe and was exemplified in the novel by Emile Zola. Ibsen differed from Zola because, as he put it: “Zola goes down into the sewer to bathe, I to clean it out.” The imagery of the sewer, of corruption, was taken into the heart of En Folkefiende, for it matched with the mood of realism, the purpose of realism, and the content of the play - Ibsen announced that it was Norway that was morally corrupted and needed to reform. Toril Moi explained this as a consequence of National Authorship: the Norwegians “interpret[ed] his plays as comments on local circumstances.”37 Partially this was because at least a portion of the play derived from events that happened in Norway. The Christiania Dampkjøkken [Steam Kitchen] remained in the minds of many due to the events in October 1874 when Harald Thaulow exposed the unsanitary conditions of the kitchen; his attempt to speak at the Kitchen’s directors’ meeting contributed to the style of the play, the use of a public meeting and nefarious parliamentary procedures in Act IV.38
The main point of En Folkefiende again related to Ibsen’s conception of authorship. Taking Kierkegaard’s idea that “the multitude is falsehood,”41 Ibsen put “The majority has might… but it hasn’t right… The minority is always right… I’m plotting revolution against this lie that the majority has a monopoly of the truth.”42 Stockmann echoed Ibsen’s own words in his letters: “I want to stand as an isolated sniper on the outpost working on my own.”43 Here, the concept of the National Author became clearer to Ibsen in that both exile from the nation and exile from society defined the proper position of an author wanting to hold a mirror up to his own people - in order to hold the mirror, one must be behind it, and separate from the crowd.
“... in order to hold the mirror, one must be behind it, and separate from the crowd.”
It might be argued that there is no good reason to consider Stockmann as an avatar of Ibsen’s ideal author but there is convincing evidence based upon the characters Ibsen combined to form Stockmann and the context of his own career at that point. First, Stockmann was a combination of Ibsen, the Norwegian novelist Jonas Lie, and Ibsen’s rival (frenemy) Bjørnson - Lie contributed the brilliance, the abrupt changes of topic in conversation, the kindness of Stockmann amongst his friends before they abandoned him; Bjørnson contributed the boldness, bravery, and recklessness of Stockmann; Ibsen, his
The content of the play - highly political - was calculated by Ibsen to be palatable to audiences
Ibid, 109. Downs, 38. 31 Martin B. Ruud, “The Story of the Publication of Ibsen’s “Brand”.” 1918. Scandinavian Studies and Notes 5 (2):91-95. 32 Naess, 115. 33 Ibid., 99-102. 34 Henrik Ibsens Skrifter Innledninger og kommentarer, 611. 35 Ibid., 642. 29
30
57
ideas.44 Second, Ibsen was writing his memoirs before he began both Gengangere and Folkfiende. Details of setting such as Møllendalen, the polluted marsh, and the stage notes (en kystby i det sydlige Norge – a coastal town in Southern Norway) referred to Skien; the name Stockmann was the name of the street where Ibsen was born in Skien.45
the former play, but really it contains a snake.46 The cartoon depicted Ibsen as an enemy of the people; Ibsen depicted himself as Stockmann, the ‘enemy of the people,’ in order to illustrate the idea of a National Author who stands ahead of his people, and not behind; who contributes to social and linguistic development in pursuit of autonomy, but not at the expense of a cosmopolitan sensibility. Ibsen’s play En Folkefiende navigated the difficult question of authorship by cementing the author’s role as one of a chastiser and not a cheerleader.
The figure above is a cartoon that reflects the public perception of Ibsen at the time of Gengangere and Folkefiende: Ibsen holds a box with the name of
Naess, 122. Moi, 43. 38 Koht, 341. 39 Ibid., 336-7. 40 Tverteras, 208; Henrik Ibsens Skrifter Innledninger og Kommentarer, 605. 41 Koht, 39 42 An Enemy of the People, trans. McFarlane, Act IV: 96-97. 43 Koht, 338. 44 Ibid., 342. 45 Ibid., 340. 46 Bing, 229. 36 37
58
References Adams, Thomas R. and Nicolas Barker. 1993. “A New Model for the Study of the Book.” In A Potencie of Life: Books in society, edited by Nicolas Barker. London: The British Library. Andersen, Per Thomas. 2012. Norsk Litteraturhistorie. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. Andreassen, Trond. 1986. Det litterære system i Norge : en litteratursosiologisk innføring. Oslo]: Landslaget for norskundervisning : J.W. Cappelens. Anstensen, Ansten. 1930. “Notes on the Text of Ibsen’s “Peer Gynt”.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 29 (1):53-73. Beyer, Harald. 1956. A History of Norwegian Literature. Translated by Einar Haugen. New York: New York UP. Bing, Just Johan. 1904. Norsk litteraturhistorie. Kristiania: Nordiske Forlag. Downs, Brian Westerdale. 1952. “Anglo-Norwegian Literary Relations 1867-1900.” The Modern Language Review 47 (4):449-494. Downs, Brian Westerdale. 1969. Ibsen; the intellectual background. New York: Octagon Books. Halvorsen, Jens Braage, and Sten Konow. 1901. Bibliografiske oplysninger til Henrik Ibsens Samlede vaerker. Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendal. Haugen, Einar. 1979. Ibsen’s Drama: Author to Audience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Havnevik, Ivar. 2005. Norske forfattere på norsk forlag : Aschehoug-bøker i tiden rundt 1905. Oslo: Aschehoug. Hegel, Frederik V. and L.C. Nielsen. 1909. Frederik V. Hegel: Breve til ham og fra ham. Edited by L.C. Nielsen. Vol. II, Frederik V. Hegel: Et Mindeskrift. København: Bagges KGL. Hof-Bogtrkkeri. Ibsen, Henrik. 1850. Catilina : drama i tre acter. Christiania: I kommission hos P.F. Steensballe. —. 1866. Brand : et dramatisk digt. 2. opl. ed. Kjøbenhavn :Gyldendal (F. Hegel). —. 1867. Peer Gynt. Et dramatisk digt. Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendal (F. Hegel). —. 1881. Gengangere : et familjedrama i tre akter. København: Gyldendal (F. Hegel & Søn). —. 1882. En folkefiende : skuespil i fem akter. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandles Forlag (F. Hegel & Son). —. 1960. An Enemy of the People. Translated by James Walter McFarlane. Edited by James Walter McFarlane. Vol. VI, The Oxford Ibsen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2005. Henrik Ibsens Skrifter: Innledninger og kommentarer. Oslo: H. Aschehoug. Ibsen, Henrik, Francis ed Bull, Halvdan Koht, and Didrik Arup Seip. 1928. Samlede verker, Hundrearsutgave. Oslo: Gyldendal norsk forlag. Jacobsen, Gunnar. 1983. Norske boktrykkere og trykkerier gjennom fire århundrer, 1640-1940. Oslo: G. Jacobsen. Koht, Halvdan. 1971. Life of Ibsen. Translated by Einar and A.E. Santaniello Haugen. New York: Blom, Inc. Larsen, A., and Johannes Julius Claudi ed Magnusson. 1910. Dansk-norsk-engelsk ordbog. 4. udg. ed. Kjøbenhavn,Kristiania: Gyldendal, Nordisk Forlag. Lieberman, Sima. 1970. The industrialization of Norway 1800-1920, Scandia books. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. McFarlane, James Walter. 1994. The Cambridge companion to Ibsen, Cambridge companions to literature. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge UP. Moi, Toril. 2006. Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism. New York: Oxford UP. Moi, Toril. 2008. “Ibsen in Exile: “Peer Gynt”, or the Difficulty of Becoming a Poet in Norway.” Field Day 4:24-39. Naess, Harald. 1993. A History of Norwegian Literature. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Neserius, Philip George. 1925. “Ibsen’s Political and Social Ideas.” American Political Science Review 19 (1):25-37. Norske, bokhandlerforening. 1981. Bok og samfunn. Oslo: Norske bokhandlerforening. Økland, Einar. 1996. Norske bokomslag : 1880-1980. Norway]: Norske samlaget. Reinart, Otto. 2010. “Ibsen and Mimesis.” Scandinavian Studies 82 (2):213-230. Roshwald, Mordecai. 2004. “The Alienated Moralist in An Enemy of the People.” Modern Age 46 (3):227-233. Ruud, Martin B. 1918. “The Story of the Publication of Ibsen’s “Brand”.” Scandinavian Studies & Notes 5 (2):91-95. Schmiesing, Ann. 2004. “The Christiania Theater and Norwegian Nationalism: Bjørnson’s Defense of the 1856 Whistle Concerts in “Pibernes Program”.” Scandinavian Studies 76 (3):317-340. Shaw, Bernard. 1891. The quintessence of Ibsenism. 1st ed. London: Walter Scott, 24 Warwick Lane. Tveterås, Harald Ludvig. 1950. Den norske bokhandels historie. Oslo: Norsk bokhandler-medhjelper-forening; i kommisjon J. W. Cappelen. 59
Scandinavia | Icelandic
Karl Aspelund
“The first and only coup d’etat in Iceland’s modern history had taken place, and all in the name of the soap industry.” Article
The Saga of Jørgen the Dog-Days King Jörundar Saga Hundadagakonungs Karl Aspelund Í rauninni vita flestir örlítið um Ísland, sérstaklega sögu landsins. Íslendingasögurnar og Snorra-Edda eru jú þekktar, svo kannski eitthvað um nútímann, fiskinn og orkuna og náttúruna, o.s.fr., en annað hefur einnig gerst á landinu bláa í millitíðinni. Til dæmis er sagan af Jörundi Hundadagakonungi, af “íslensku byltingunni” á hundadögunum árið 1809, furðuleg stund í Íslandssögunni og reyndar frekar fyndin fyrir þá, sem þekkja alvarlegri byltingarstundir í öðrum Evrópulöndum. Íslendingar hlæja nú vel af þessu en benda til Jörundar sem aðaldæmi þátttöku þjóðarinnar í lýðræðisbyltingum 18. og 19. aldar. Jæja, þeir geta það.
In reality most people do not know very much about Iceland, especially its history. The sagas and the Edda are known in some circles, and then perhaps something about modern times, like the fish, energy, nature, etc., but other things have happened in that “blue country,” as it is called, in the meantime. For instance, there is the story of Jørgen Jørgensen, the Dog-Days King, of the “Iceland Revolution” in the dog days, the hottest days of the summer, in the year 1809, a fairly ridiculous moment in Iceland’s history and actually rather funny for those who know the more serious revolutions in other European countries. Icelanders laugh at Jørgen but point to him as the key example of the country’s participation in the democratic revolutions of the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries. I suppose they can do that. The story begins with Britain and soap. And thus: A man was called Samuel Phelps. He was an English soap merchant in London at the beginning of the nineteenth century. In 1807 a war broke out
Sagan byrjar með Bretland og sápu. Og svo: Samuel Phelps hét maður. Hann var enskur sápukaupmaður í Lúndunum á byrjun 19. aldar. Árið 1807 braust út stríð milli Danmerkur og Bretlands sem 60
hluti stærri Napóleonsstyrjaldarinnar. Sem betur fer var nóg til af sápu í Bretlandi þrátt fyrir styrjöld, en sama getur ekki verið sagt um fegurða landið til norðan. Ekkert skip hafði farið til Íslands frá stríðsbyrjun. Einokunarverslunin hafði lokið fyrir 30 árum, en Bretar höfðu hertekið öll verslunarskip Íslendinga og Dana í stríðsbyrjun. Auk þess hafði Frederik Christopher Trampe, hann Trampe greifi stiftamtmaður, bannað Íslendingum að versla við bresk kaupmenn, samkvæmt lögum danska ríkisins. Ekkert verslunarskip hafði sótt Íslandi í meira en ár. Neyðarástand rjúk yfir landinu (þó voru Íslendingar frekar vanir því). Það þyrfti að selja vesalingunum vörur, og hvað gátu þeir gefið í staðinn? Hráefni. Til dæmis tólg. Sagt er að Ísland hafi aldrei verið ríkt, en af sauðfé var nóg. Heppilega var fita algeng í öllum skeppnum, og helst kindum, holdgunum íslenskra þjóðaranda. Fátt espaði Samuel Phelps meira en tólg, gullefni sápuiðnarinnar á þessum tíma á þessum slóðum.
between Denmark and Britain as a part of the larger Napoleonic Wars that raged through Europe at the time. Fortunately for Phelps, there was enough soap in Britain despite the war, but the same cannot be said about the (prettier) country to the north. No ship had come to Iceland, at the time a Danish colony, since the beginning of the war. The Danish trade monopoly had ended 30 years earlier, but the British had seized all Icelandic and Danish trading ships when war was declared. Besides, Count Frederik Christopher Trampe, the colonial governor of Iceland, had banned all trade between Icelanders and British merchant, in accordance with Danish law. As a result, no trade ship had come to Iceland in more than a year by the fateful summer of 1809. A desperate situation had gripped the land, though Icelanders were rather used to that. The poor people needed some basic goods, but what could they trade for them? Raw materials, I suppose: take tallow, for instance. For the those ignorant in these things, tallow is beef and mutton fat. It is said that Iceland has never been wealthy, but there was always enough sheep. Luckily, fat could be found in all living beings, especially of the mutton variety, truly the physical incarnation of Iceland’s national soul. Few things excited Samuel Phelps more than tallow, the gold of the soap industry at the time.
“A desperate situation had gripped the land, though Icelanders were rather used to that.” Gladdist hann þá árið 1808 er James Savignac félagi hans mætti með nýjan vin sem hann hafði hitt á veitingahús í borginni. Vinurinn var frekar ungur, dökkhærður og ötull. Svo var hann líka danskur. Skömmu fyrr hafði Daninn þessi hitt íslenskan kaupmann, Bjarna Sívertsen, þar í Lúndunum, sem sagði honum frá verslunarástand heimalands síns og vísaði sérstaklega í heilaga sauðfjártólgina sem landsmenn voru reiðubúnir að selja. Svo vísaði Daninn sjálfur í það sama í samræðu við nýja vin sinn Savignac, og kaupmennirnir fóru allir af stað. Daninn var Jörgen Jörgensen, á góðri íslensku Jörundur Jörundarson, og væntanlegur hundadagakonungur. Þessi sonur hins konunglega úrsmiðs Danmerkur fæddist árið 1780 og ólst upp í Kaupmannahöfn. Hann var snjallur piltur en erfiður, og fór hann á sjó fjórtan ára gamall, siglandi um allan heim á breskum skipum. Tólf árum síðar, þegar Jörundur aftur til heimalands síns snúði, var hann orðinn meira enskur en hvað annað. Einu ári eftir endurkomuna braust út stríðið gegn Bretum, og sem reyndur sæfari var Jörundur, þótt andvígur styrjöldinni, gerður að kapteini á
He was pretty glad, then, when in 1808 his good friend James Savignac came to him with a new acquaintance whom he had met at a restaurant downtown. The acquaintance was rather young, dark-haired, and energetic. Shortly before this Dane had met in London an Icelandic merchant, Bjarni Siversten, who told him about the trade situation of his homeland and noted particularly the opportunities for sheep tallow that his countrymen were more than ready to sell. Then the Dane noted the same thing in a conversation with his new friend Savignac, and the ball started rolling. The Dane was Jørgen Jørgensen and the future DogDays King. This son of the Danish royal watchmaker was born in 1780 and grew up in Copenhagen. He was a clever boy but difficult, and at fourteen years of age he began to sail around the world on a British ship. Twelve years later, when Jørgensen finally returned to his homeland, the man was more English than anything else. The war against the British broke out a year after his return, and as an experienced sailor Jørgensen was made a captain of a Danish ship, despite his opposition to the war. He steered that
61
dönsku skipi. Því stýrði hann í þrjá mánuði árið 1808, þar til að hann var tekinn sem stríðsfangi. Þó var hann enginn alvöru fangi: sem kapteinn gekk hann laus og settist að í Lúndunum, spjallaði við kaupmenn og kom sér upp fín tengsl, þar með við Phelps sápukaupmann. Æstur að eignast tólg sem hann vantaði leigði Phelps skip, af nauðsynjum hlaðið, og sendi til Íslands í byrjun ársins 1809 Savignac ásamt Jörundi sem túlki. Við komu til eyjunnar var þeim synjað verslunarleyfi, en snjallir eru kaupmenn: hertóku þeir skip danska óvinarins sem lá fyrir ströndum og krafðist verslunarsamning. Því miður komu þeir um hávetur, og þyrfti að bíða kauptíðar sumarsins til að selja. Jörundi var sent aftur á meðan Savignac beið með nauðsynjurnar, og kom hann til Lúnduna í apríl. Fljótt ákvað Phelps að stunda aðra ferð, nú með tveimur skipum og verndarbeiðni til breska flotans. Stærra skipið var hlaðið nauðsynjum og hélt Jörundur norður á ný, Phelps með í þetta sinn. En nú var Trampe greifi mættur á svæðinu og endurnýjaði verslunarbannið. Þrátt fyrir að breskt herskip knúði fram nýjan samning rétt fyrir komu Phelps til Íslands, auglýsti Trampe hann aldrei. Í nafni hinnar heilögu tólgar tóku Phelps og félagar stiftamtmanninn fastan sunnudaginn 25. júní 1809.
ship for three months in 1808, until he was captured and taken as a prisoner of war. But he was no real prisoner: as a captain he was allowed to roam free and settled down in London, speaking with merchants and making connections, including with Phelps. Excited to get the tallow he needed, the soap merchant rented a ship, loaded it with necessities to sell the Icelanders, and sent Savignac along with Jørgensen, as a translator, to Iceland in the beginning of 1809. Upon arriving at the island, the crew was denied a trade permit. Merchants are clever when money is involved, and the crew captured a Danish ship that lay on the beach and demanded a trade agreement. Unfortunately, they had arrived in the dead of winter and would have to wait for the summer before selling anything. Jørgensen was sent back to England while Savignac waited with the goods, arriving back in London in April. Phelps quickly decided to organize another trip, this time with two ships and protection from the British Navy. The larger ship was loaded with more goods, and Jørgensen headed north once more, along with Phelps. But now, Count Trampe had arrived at the scene, determined to keep the trading ban in place: despite an agreement made (as promised) under threat by a British battleship shortly before Phelps’ arrival in Iceland, Trampe refused to acknowledge their right to buy the tallow of which they dreamed. In the name of that holy stuff, Phelps and his compatriots took the count hostage on none other than the week’s holiest day: Sunday, July 25, 1809. The first and only coup d’état in Iceland’s modern history had taken place, and all in the name of the soap industry. Few countries can say the same. It was hard to be a merchant in a territory ruled by one’s enemies but even harder in a territory ruled by no one at all, especially when such a strange language is spoken. The new leaders had to protect the interests of the merchants first and foremost - a common strategy in today’s world too. Phelps neither wanted to govern nor could do so, but Jørgensen, who could at least understand the citizens, was more than willing to seize the opportunity. On Monday, June 26, an announcement signed by Jørgensen from Reykjavík was posted across the land, which asked that all Danish officials stay in their homes and that all weapons be given up.
“... Phelps and his compatriots took the count hostage...” Fyrsta og eina valdarán nútímasögu Íslands hafði verið stundað, og allt í nafni sápuiðnar. Fáar þjóðir geta haldið svipað fram. Erfitt var að versla í dönsku landi, en erfiðara væri það í stjórnlausu landi, sérstaklega þegar talað er svona skringilegt mál. Stjórn landsins varð að vernda hagsmuni kaupmannanna fyrst og fremst (algengt er þetta hugtak í landinu til dagsins í dag). Phelps hvorki nennti því að stjórna né gat stjórnað, en Jörundur, sem gat í það minnsta gert sig skiljanlegan við borgara, tók tækifærið fúslega að sér. Á mánudaginn 26. júní var hengd upp auglýsing frá Reykjavík um allt land undirrituð af Jörundi, sem bað öllum dönskum embættismönnum vera stiltir í húsi og að öll vopn verði afhönduð.
62
Fimmtán dögum síðar hófst önnur auglýsing undirrituð af Dananum: Ísland er laust og liðugt frá Danmerkur Ríkisráðum. Og svo var fyrsti af 20 punktum: Vér, Jörgen Jörgensen, höfum tekið að Oss Landsins Stjórn sem þess Forsvarsmaður, þartil að regluleg Landstjórn er ákvörðuð, með Fullmagt að færa Stríð og semja Frið við útlenska Stjórnarherra. “Alls Íslands Verndarinn,” fluttur í stiftamtmannshúsið við Austurstræti 22 eftir að Trampe var settur uppí skip, lagði sig fram við að stjórna landinu í anda bandarísku og frönsku byltinganna, hugtök sem ríktu þá í Evrópu. Einungis Íslendingar mættu halda völd. Skuldir við danska kaupmenn og Danakonung væru afskrifaðar. Kornverð yrði lækkað og sjúkrahús og skóli reist. Allir landsmenn mættu ferðast frjálslega út um land allt, og íbúar eyjunnar ættu að útnefna átta manns til þings í anda Alþingis forna. Allir ættu hlutdeild í stjórn, svo vel fátækir. Landið átti á uppljómun að byggja. Allt í kjölfar krafna sápuiðnarinnar.
Fifteen days later, another announcement from the Dane began, “Iceland is a loose and free from the government of Denmark.” Twenty points followed, making use of the royal “we.” The first read, “We, Jørgen Jørgensen, have taken on the Governance of Our Land as its Representative, until a normal Government is decided with the Power to declare War and make Peace with foreign Officials.” The Protector of All Iceland, residing in the colonial governor’s home at Austurstræti 22 after Trampe had been moved into Phelps’ ship, put himself forward to govern the country in the spirit of the American and French Revolutions, ideas that reigned among many in Europe at the time. Only Icelanders could hold positions of power. Debts to Danish merchants and the Danish King would be written off. The price of cornmeal would be lowered and a hospital and school established. All citizens could travel freely around the country, and the inhabitants of the island were to name eight men to a parliament in the spirit of the ancient Althing of the Vikings. Everyone had a part in the government, even the poorest. The country was to be run on the Enlightenment. And all the result of the demands of the soap industry. A new flag, blue with three dried cods in the upper left-hand corner, waved over the capital at a fort that Phelps had raised on top the battery at Klöpp, today in Reykjavík’s East Side. The merchant’s ship sat in the city’s harbor, ready to fire from its cannons if needed, although it was hard to see that need. But Jørgensen’s subjects did not seem to know what to do about this revolution. They did not name representatives for the parliament-it was then that Jørgensen took on his title-and were thoroughly confused about the announcement of debt relief (The Protector often reiterated that not all debats were written off). Most Icelandic officials ambivalently decided to continue serving the country under Jørgensen. Almost all of Denmark’s ships were in the hands of the British. There were neither protests nor battles. Icelanders could not have cared less. But the Dog-Days King still went overboard, marching around the town in a captain’s uniform with a sword, pistol, and eight bodyguards. The revolution ended after about two months. In August, Alexander Jones, a British captain, sailed into Hafnarfjörður just south of Reykjavík and learned of the coup d’etat organized by soap merchants in the capital. He could barely believe that his own
Nýr fáni, blár með þremur þorskum á, var flaggaður yfir höfuðborginni, í virki sem Phelps reisti á batteríinu niðri á Klöpp, í dag í austurbæ Reykjavíkur. Svo sat vopnaða skipið kaupmannsins í höfninni reiðubúinn að skjóta úr fallbyssum sínum. En þegnar hans virtust ekki meta byltinguna. Þeir völdu ekki fulltrúa til þings—það var þá þegar Jörundur tók mikla titilinn sinn—og urðu ruglaðir um skuldaniðurfellinguna mikla—Verndarinn endurtók oft að ekki væru allar skuldir afskrifaðar. Flestir íslenskir embættismenn ákváðu að þjóna landinu áfram undir Jörundarstjórn. Nær öll skip Danmerkur voru í haldi Bretlands. Ekkert var mótmælt né barist. Íslendingum var sama. En hundadagakonungur fór svolítið yfir um, röltaði um borgina í einkennisbúningi skipherra, með sverð, skammbyssu, og átta lífvarða.
Byltingunni lauk eftir tæpa tvo mánuði. Alexander Jones, kapteinn breska herskips, kom inn til Hafnarfjarðar í ágúst og frétti af valdaráni sápukaupmannsins í Reykjavík. Hann trúði varla að landi hans og Dani hefðu tekið stifamtmann fastan án leyfis breska ríkisins 63
og ákvað að binda enda á þetta furðulega mál. Phelps og Jörundur voru skipaðir að hypja sig. Trampe neitaði að taka við gamla starfið sitt og var staðfestur í því að kæra atburðinn, en Íslendingur varð settur tímabundinn sem stiftamtmaður Danakonungs á Íslandi. Þann 19. ágúst flutti Jörundur sig um borð í skipið hans Jones, og þann 22. undirrituðu nýja stjórnin, Phelps og Jones samkomulag að allir tilskipanir hans Jörundar væru ógiltar. Þremur dögum síðar var haldið af stað til Bretlands, og ævintýrið lokið. Jörundur Jörundarson hafði ríkt í átta vikur á hundadögum.
countrymen alongside a Dane had taken the colonial governor hostage without the permission of the British government and decided to put an end to this ridiculous situation. Phelps and Jørgensen were forced to publically resign. Determined to bring the issue to British court, Trampe refused to take on his old position, so an Icelander was made temporary governor for the Danish King in Iceland. On August 19, Jørgensen took his belongings onto Jones’ ship, and on August 22, Phelps, Jones, and the new government signed an agreement that invalidated all of Jørgensen’s directives. Three days later, the ships embarked for Britain, and the adventure was over. Jørgen Jørgensen had reigned for a total of eight weeks, the height of the dog days.
Enginn vafi liggur að haustið 1809 fundust flestum Íslendingum ævintýri Jörundar vera kjánalegur atburður, sérstaklega eftir að það kom í ljós að bresk yfirvöld höfðu ekkert með honum að gera. Trampe lýsti atburðnum sem blöndu af bjánaskap og vitleysu, vitfirringu og grimmd. “Byltingin” skilaði næstum engum árangri og var svo sem engin bylting, heldur bara misheppnun. Íslendingar höfðu engan áhuga á barráttu gegn Dönum. Magnús Stephensen embættismaður skrifaði til Jones í kjölfari sumarsins 1809 að “enginn góður Íslendingur óskar sér sjálfstæðis.” Eftir að liðið sigldi heim, fór allt í sama horf og fyrir 26. júní. Þó, eftir furðu Jones við komu til Hafnarfjarðar, ákváðu bresk yfirvöld að skila skýra stefnu gagnvart eignum Danmerkur í Norður-Atlantshafi. George 3. Bretakonungur tilkynnti í febrúar 1810 að Ísland, ásamt Grænlandi og Færeyjum, yrði talið hlutlaust í bardögum gegn Frökkum og bandamönnum þeirra og að Bretar mætti stunda frjáls verslun á Íslandi. Þeir buðu nauðsynjar á lægra verð og tryggðu innflutning vara til Íslands meiri að segja á stríðstímum. Átök Jörundar fór ekki Íslendingum alveg til einskis.
There is no doubt that in the fall of 1809 most Icelanders found Jørgensen’s actions to be clownish antics, especially after it was found that British authorities had nothing to do with him. Tramp described the event as “a mixture of folly and nonsense, of madness and cruelty.” The revolution was no revolution but rather only some kind of misfortune. Icelanders had no interest in a fight against their Danish government. Magnús Stephensen, an Icelandic official, wrote to Jones in the wake of the summer of 1809, “Independency cannot be the wish of any good Icelander.” After the crew sailed home, everything became the same as before June 26. However, after Jones’ shock at arriving in Hafnarfjörður, British authorities decided to release a clear policy regarding Danish territories in the North Atlantic. King George III announced in February 1810 that Iceland, along with Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, would be considered neutral in all conflicts against the French and their allies and that Britons were permitted to conduct trade freely in Iceland. These Britons offered goods at lower prices and ensured the import of goods to Iceland even during wartime. Jørgensen’s actions were not completely meaningless for Icelanders.
Hins vegar skilaði viðburðurinn Phelps miklum árangri. Verslunin gekk ljómandi vel eftir valdaránið í júní og tólgarflutningur sápukaupmannsins til Bretlands var mikill um haustið. Phelps hélt áfram verslun á Íslandi og var sennilega feginn að hafa hitt þennan Dana í Lúndunum haustið 1808.
Phelps, on the other hand, gained greatly from the affair. Business went extraordinarily well after the June coup and the amounts of tallow he exported to Britain that autumn would be the envy of any soap merchant. Phelps continued trading in Iceland for many years after and was greatly relieved to have met that Dane in London in the fall of 1808. Things did not go so well for that Dane, however. Trampe succeeded in convincing the court that
Hjá Dananum var ekki jafn gott. Trampe tókst að koma því fram, að Jörundur hefði brotið drengskapaheit
64
sitt sem hélt honum útúr fangelsi með því að fara úr landi. Eftir ársdvöl á fangaskipi var hann látinn laus og dvaldi annað ár í bænum Reading vestur frá Lúndunum. Þegar hann flutti aftur í höfuðborgina lenti hann reglulega í fangelsi en ferðaðist líka viða um Evrópu í þjónustu breska hersins sem túlkur og njósnari. Árið 1820 var hann dæmdur fyrir þjófnað en ári síðar látinn laus til þess að hverfa frá Bretlandi. Það gerði hann ekki og var hann svo dæmdur til dauða. Árið 1825 var hann fluttur á fangelsaskipi til Tasmaníu, þar sem hann starfaði og skrifaði sjálfsævisögu til dauðadags árið 1841, sextugur að aldri. Hann var þekktur á eyjunni fyrir ævintýri hans víðar í heiminum og mikið er enn skrifað um hann á enskri tungu.
Jørgensen had broken the code of honor that had kept him from prison by leaving Britain. After a year on a prison ship, he was set free and lived another year in Reading west of London. He then returned to London, where he was regularly thrown in jail but also traveled widely across Europe in the service of the British military as a translator and spy. In 1820 he was indicted for thievery but a year later let loose with the directive to leave Britain forever. He did not do so and was subsequently delivered a death sentence. That sentence never seemed to have been delivered, for in 1825 he was taken by a prison ship to Tasmania, where he worked and wrote his autobiography until his death in 1841 at the age of 60. He was known on that island for his adventures around the world, and Australian historians still write about him in connection to Tasmania. Jørgensen lived in a quixotic dream. Revolution and an enlightened democracy ended only in soap and annoyed men. But since then, Jørgensen has appeared in poems and musicals, and he is not forgotten in the nation’s memory. It seems that he showed Icelanders, poor and hungry, a lot about themselves, and gave them a purely Icelandic version of what rocked the Western world during those eventful times.
Líkur Don Quixote lifði Jörundur í draumi. Bylting og upplýst lýðveldi var bara sápa og pirraðir menn. En á Íslandi hefur Jörundur birst í ljóðum og söngleik og gleymist hann ekki í minningu þjóðarinnar. Hann sýndi Íslendingum, fátækum og hungruðum, mikið um þá sjálfa, og gaf þeim séríslenska útgáfu af því sem rjúk í Vesturheiminum á þessum viðburðaríkum tíma.
Þeir íslensku segja víst um hann margt af óhroðri miðlungi sönnum, því allt það sem hann gat hafði hann gert til þess að gera þá aftur að mönnum. …Og Íslands klukkur þann dýrðardag til dýrðar Jörundi hringja og lýðurinn uppi á landinu því lærir þá kannski að syngja.
Those Icelanders say a lot about the man, Slander with aspects of truth For everything he did had he done for them, To make them again into men. …And Iceland’s bells, on that glorious day, To glorious Jørgensen ring, And those people up there on that land Might finally learn to sing.
References http://www.visindavefur.is/svar.php?id=66157 http://www.visindavefur.is/svar.php?id=30708 https://visindavefur.hi.is/svar.php?id=3822 http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Christopher_Trampe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B8rgen_J%C3%B8rgensen http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rundur_hundadagakonungur
65