The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-26
THE PLAYS OF SUDERMANN
COMMENT BY WILLIAM ARCHER, OF
LONDON, AND PROF. MEYER.
The German Dramatist's Concern
with Human Problems Not at All
Shared by English PIaywrights.


York last week of The JOY of Living the
American stage knows two of Hermann
Sudermanns plays The other is Mag
da." In the international Monthly for
this quarter of the year is an article on
Sudermann by Richard NJ. Meyer, of the
University of Berlin. William Archer, the
critic and translator of Ibsen. has the fol-
lowing interesting comment on the article
in the London Leader:
If you want to see the English drama
In its true proportions, you cannot do
better than read this thoughtful and dis
eliminating criticism of the leader of the
German stage Not that the English drama
comes at all within Dr. Meyers ken-he
does not so much mention it. The very
fact that il can be so entirely ignored in a
discussion of modern dramatic tendencies
is In itself significant. But what chiefly
strikes one in reading Dr. Meyers article
is the way in which he instinctively and in
evitably brings his criticism to bear in the
first place upon Suderermann's ideas-the
philosophical basis of his works-and only
in the second place and incidentally upon
his technique. To what English dramatist
could like method be applied? The tech
nique of more than one of our dramatists
Is very interesting, and at least as accom-
plished as Sudermann's. Their character
studies, too are often able. But as for
criticising the philosophical or sociological
idea dominant in this or that modern Eng
lish play. one might as well discuss the
Hegeianism of Bradshaw or the influence
of Herbert Spencer on the London Direc-
tory.
If DR.. Meyer writes in English. his COM
mand of the language is wonderful. If,
| on the other hand, his article in trans
lated, 1t is very badly translated. Count
| Trast in die Ehre," for instance, Is de-
scribed as "the absurdly bosom friend of
the scatterbrained Robert Heineke. "Ab-
surdly bosom friend is good. Imperfect
tons of style, however, do not detract from
the value of his article. 1t begins as fol-
| lows:
Hermann Sudermann is, at the present
time. undoubtedly the most widely-known
| of all the living authors of Germany. His
dramas have borne his name into regions
| where the most celebrated of our novelsts
| have not yet penetrated. Abroad
| Sudermann stands as the representative,
| par excellence, of modern German litera-
| ture, and even at home voices are not want
| ing that ascribe 10 him a like significance
| although our critics and our poets, especi-
| ally of the younger generation, accord with
| almost unbroken unanimity, not to him.
| but 10 Gerhart Hauptmann. the palm OF
| literary supremacy. Yet there are with us
| not few critics who deny to Sudermann
| the slightest vestige of claim to impor-
| lance. or who look upon him merely as a
seeker after effects and as panderer to
baser instincts of the public. A closer
| scrutiny of his life and performances will
perhaps make clear the reasons for this
| difference of opinion.
The writer goes on to tell how Sudermann
was the son of a poor Lithuanian inn
keeper Git is odd by the way, that Haupt-
mann's father followed the same calling)
| how in 1877 the young Sudermann came
| from his ancestral heathers" Query: his
| native heath? to Berlin; how he battled
with poverty until. in 1889, the success of
| his first play. ''Die Ehre." made him IA
NOUS how ''Heimat' ("Magda') in 1898
achieved a popularity rivaling that of die
| Ehre,'' and how none of his other eight
| plays has been more than partial sue
| cess" Knowing from other sources, how
| ever that "Johannisfeuer" was performed
| 727 times in the season of it's production
| one cannot but wonder, If this is partial
| success" what DR.. Meyer would reckon as
| triumph.
| / am not going to follow the critic
through his series of appraisements of the
show how in each case he fastens upon
their intellectual rather than their tech
| meal characteristics. In die Ebre'' it ap-
pears Sudermann has learnt in the school
| of Spielhagen the art of importing a trait
of resolute political subjectivity to his char
acters." "Resolute political subjectivity'
may strike the reader as a fearful wild
fowl which one should be chery of acclima-
| tizing in the English theater. 1 don't pro-
fess quite to understand the phrase, but II
| probably means no more than that Suder-
mann has given his characters a political
isolated human beings, but as members OF
the body polite. each representing not, per-
haps, a particular opinion, but a definite
force or tendency in the social conflict OF
| the time. How rare on the English stage
is any attempt to do this. How unheard OF
any success in the attempt One can count
| on the fingers of one hand the characters
| in contemporary drama that have any
recognizable political status such as, rough
| ly speaking, all Sudermann's character.
possess. Again, We are told that "whilt
Johannes depicts the idealistic educator
of the people, the Three Heron-feathers
is concerned with the idealistic education
of self" and yet again, I'm 1S96-9S Suder
mann was more strongly than ever unde
the spell of Nietzsche, whose words some
times fairly reverberate in Johannes
What English playwright ever troubled hi