Gottfried August Bürger: Texts of the Body

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

GottfriedAugustBÃ¼rger: TextsoftheBody ARNDBOHM Ifoneweretemptedtosumupthemostprofounddevelopmentinthe studyofeighteenth-centurytextsofthelasttwentyyears,apossible responsewouldbe"thereturnofthebody."Fromvariousdisciplinesand fordiversereasons,thereisanewawarenessofthefactthathuman existencebeginswithembodimentandthatrelationsÂ—personal,familial, social,economicorpoliticalÂ—beginwithourindividualphysicalbeing.1 Theimportanceattachedtosuchapparentlysimpleinsightswouldhave baffledwesternersfromearliereras,andpuzzlednon-Europeancul- tures.Whyallthefuss?Theanswerresidesinthecomplexintertwining oftheriseofthemiddleclassinEuropewithapuritanizingcampaign aimedatcovering,disciplininganddefiningthebody.Astherecent controversyabouttheexhibitionofRobertMapplethorpe'sphotographs attheCincinnatiContemporaryArtsCenterhasunderscored,therepre- sentationofbodiesinapublicspacecanstillprovokeaconfrontation betweentheinterestsofpoliticsandthoseofaesthetics.2Althoughnot theonlygroundforclashes,theonesinvolvingrepresentationofbodies areespeciallyintense. Onefactorinthisisthatthebodyissoobviouslyinvolvedinquestions ofpublicandprivatemorality.Anothermightbethatsinceeveryonehas abody,allconsiderthemselvescompetenttospeakabouttheissues.But atamorebasiclevel,itisnecessarytorecognizethatattemptstochange 161 162 / BÃ–HM theconditionsforrepresentingbodiesarealwaysconnectedwithand henceapotentialthreattopoliticalrepresentation.Politiciansperceive quitecorrectlyÂ—nolessthanartistsandwritersÂ—thatanychangeinthe possibilitiesunderwhichthehumanbodyisdisplayed,ormakesits presencemanifest,entailstransformationsinsocietyand,furtherdown theroad,inthepoliticalsystem.Itisnotsurprisingthenthattheeigh- teenthcentury,whichwouldconcludewithprofoundchangesinthe Europeanpoliticalsystem,shouldhavebeenrifewithdiscoursesofthe body. ThesituationintheGerman-speakingterritorieswasinsomekey respectsdifferentthanthatinBritainorFrance.3Nowherewasthetri- umphofthemind("Geist")overthebody("KÃ¶rper")moresecurethanin theGermanstateswherethemiddleclasswasabletoassertitselfinboth directions,againstrulersandagainstthepeasants.Abasiccontradiction betweenfreedomandlicenseresultedfromthefactthat,byenforcing disciplinesofthebodyuponrulers,thebourgeoisiewasabletogaina measureofautonomy.Asforthepeasantry,theyweresubjectedto increasingcontroloftheirbodiesÂ—exemplifiedinthetragichistoryof thetreatmentofunwedmothers4undertherubricof"improvement." Theintellectualcomponentsofthebourgeoisprogramweretheelabora- tionofextremephilosophicalidealismand,inthesphereofliterature, theidealofa"classical"normforembodiedbehavior.5Theallianceof idealisticphilosophyandthenormsoftheKlassikhavemadeitespecially difficulttorecoveranybody-relatedthemesforeighteenth-centuryGer- manliteraryhistory.WithoutaSwift,Fielding,RousseauordeSadeas obviousgatewayswherebyitmightberecoveredfordiscourse,German literaryhistorycontinuestooccludethebody.6 OneareawhereaGermandiscourseonrepresentingthebodydid emergewasinaesthetics.AfoundingtextforbotharthistoryandtheGermanKlassik,Winckelmann's"GedankenÃ¼berdieNachahmungder griechischenWerkeinderMalereiundBildhauerkunst"(1756)dealt explicitlywiththeissuesposedbyrepresentationfortheprimGerman bourgeoisie.7AccordingtoWinckelmann,Greeksculpturerevealedideal beautythatcouldonlyhavecomeaboutinanidealpoliticalandsocial order.Thedevelopmentofbeautyanditsreproductioninworksofart requiredpublicspaceswherewell-formedbodiescouldbeopenlydis- played.Artistshadtheopportunitytostudyanatomyliveinthegymna- sium:"DieSchulederKÃ¼nstlerwarindenGymnasien,wodiejungen Leute,welchedieÃ¶ffentlicheSchamhaftigkeitbedeckte,ganznackend ihreLeibesÃ¼bungentrieben."8Thenakedbodieswerebeingpresented, buttheywereinthemselvesalsorepresentationsofthevaluesandideals ofGreeksociety.Thefactthatthebodycouldbeseeninallitscontours GottfriedAugustBÃ¼rger / 163 madetheharmoniousformsoftheartisticrepresentationpossible.Con- versely,hismodernageisunabletorepresentbeautifulbodiesnotjust becauseartistshavenochancetoobservethem,butbecausethesocial conventionsoccludingthebodyhavealreadyproduceddeformationsin individualbodies.Winckelmannobservedthatinmodernarttheartists representedsmallfoldsintheskinandthatthesefoldsdisturbedthe senseofidealform.Butthefoldswerenotinventedbythemodern artists:theywerecopiedfrommodernbodiesmarkedby"magereSpan- nungen"and"vieleeingefalleneHÃ¶hlungen"(71).Implicitthroughout Winckelmann'sdiscussionistheargumentthatthelimitationsuponrep- resentationinhissocietymustresultinflaws. Thetiesbetweensocialorderandtheconditionsforrepresenting bodieswerearticulatedforcefullyinLessing'sLaookon,oderÃœberdie GrenzenderMalereiundPoesie(1766).9NoteworthyisLessing'schoice oftopicinthemidstoftheSevenYears'War:howcanpainberepre- sentedtextuallyandvisually?Hebeginswiththestraightforward reminderthatbodiescanbeinpainandcancommunicatethefactviaa cry:"SchreienistdernatÃ¼rlicheAusdruckdeskÃ¶rperlichenSchmerzes. HomersverwundeteKriegerfallennichtseltenmitGeschreizuBoden."10 Lessingproceedsquicklytothecontrastbetweentheauthenticityofthe classicalrepresentationofpain,onethatacknowledgedthesufferingof evenheroicbodies,withthemodernrepressionencompassingbothtexts andbodies:"IchweiÃŸes,wirfeinernEuropÃ¤ereinerklÃ¼gernNachwelt wissenÃ¼berunsernMundundÃ¼berunsereAugenbesserzuherrschen. HÃ¶flichkeitundAnstandverbietenGeschreiundTrÃ¤nen.DietÃ¤tigeTap- ferkeitdeserstenrauhenWeltaltershatsichbeiunsineineleidende verwandelt."(Laokoon,3:7) Theregimeforthemodernbodyrequiresacontrolofexpressionsof pain,sothatagapopensbetweenwhatthebodyknowsandwhatitmay announcetoothers.Bycontrast,theGreekswereabletoshowboth positiveandnegativeemotions(Laokoon,3:7-8).Focusinguponpain, LessingwentbeyondtheconditionsforrepresentationasWinckelmann hadexpoundedthem,sincebodiesarenotalwaysbeautifulandharmoni- ous.Artmustbeabletorepresentagonyaswell.Inthisregard,theissue ofwhetherLaokoonshouldhavebeensculptednudeisdecidedaccord- ingtowhethertheauthenticityoftheembodiedexperienceisrevealed betterbysodoing.Clothingcouldhavebeendrapedovertheforms,but ataprice:thesecondary,artificialdraperywouldneverbeasbeautifulas thebodyitself(Laokoon,3:35-36).Theequatingofclothingasasocial productandthebodyasadivineworkdisclosealogicthat,iffollowed through,wouldconfirmLessing'ssystematicprivilegingoftherightsof thebodyoverthoseofarbitrarysocialconventions.Theillusionsof 164 / BÃ–HM socialdecorumrepresentedbythegarmentsmustbestrippedawaybythe sculptorinordertoletusseethebodyinpain. Twobriefconcreteexamplesmayconcludethisdigressionbyconfirm- ingthatthequestionsofrepresentationraisedwithWinckelmannand Lessingwereconcerningartistsinarealway.Oneistheso-called"Kos- tÃ¼mstreit,"whichturneduponthepracticalmatterofwhetherstatuesof famouseighteenth-centuryGermansshouldhavethemwearingcontem- poraryorclassicalcostumes."ShouldastatueofFrederickIIofPrussia showhiminmilitaryuniform,stressinghisprowessasamoderngeneral, orshouldhebeinaRomantoga,hintingatthegreatnessoftheRoman Empirereborn?Advocatingthelatterin1776,WilhelmGottliebBecker referredtothemajestyanddignitytoberepresentedbyexposingthe body. Ataboutthesametime,JohannHeinrichFÃ¼sslihadreturnedto Zurichandreceivedacommissiontopaint"TheOathoftheRÃ¼tli" (1779-1781)forthetownhall.12Thecompletedpaintingshowsthreemen takingtheoath,capturingwhatthelateeighteenthcenturyperceivedasa keymomentinthehistoryofSwissrepublicanism.Thefigureswear imaginarycostumes,blendingtoga-likedraperywithpeasantshirtsand breast-plates.Strikingisthecontrasttoanearlierversion,consideredby arthistorianstohavebeenapreliminarystudy.There,allthreefigures arenaked,exceptforcloaksdrapedlooselyovertheirshoulders.Itcould bearguedthattherelationshipbetweenthetwoversionsismerelythe ordinaryonebetweenapreliminarystudyinwhichtheartistwascon- cernedwithestablishingthedetailsofthehumanformsandthefinal painting.Butanotherreadingispossible,totheeffectthatinthe"study" FÃ¼ssliwasinfactmakingavisualallusiontothehistoryofGreekrepub- licanism,inthespiritofWinckelmann.Thenakedmuscularbodiesare caughtinanactthatsymbolizedaresurrectionofpoliticalself- representation,establishingthecontinuityfromGreekdemocracytothe Swissrepublics.Ideally,theirmedievalclothingshouldhavefallenoffin thatmoment.However,itwouldhavebeenabsolutelyimpossiblefor FÃ¼ssli'sbourgeoispatronstoacceptsucharepresentationoftheirhistory andtohangitinthetownhall.Thepublicgazehadtobeshieldedfrom thereminderofthebody'sfundamentalroleinthemakingofhistory. Againstthisbackground,itispossibletoreassessthenegativerecep- tiongrantedawriterlikeGottfriedAugustBÃ¼rger(1747-1794)whose openrelianceuponsensuality,frequentpublicallusionstothewantsand symptomsofthebody,andcarnivalizationofthebodyintextsconstitute anembarrassmenttotheclassicalnormsofGermanliterature.More thanthat,Burger'sremindersthatpoliticsoriginatesinthebodyplace GottfriedAugustBÃ¼rger / 165 himwithinaradicaltraditionneartheGermanJacobinsandlaterwriters suchasGeorgBÃ¼chnerandBertoltBrecht. Ifrememberedatall,BÃ¼rgerismarginalizedeitherastheauthorofthe popularballad"Leonore"13orastheobjectofadevastatingreviewofhis worksbyFriedrichSchillerin1789."4UnlikeJ.M.R.LenzorBÃ¼chner whosesadpersonalliveshaveachievedacertainlegendarystatusand withwhomhehadmuchincommon,Burger'scareerishardlyknown. Hispatheticdeathin1794attheageof47,pleadingwiththeUniversity ofGÃ¶ttingenforsomesmallfinancialassistancetostaveoffhunger, endedalifewhichservesasanexampleoftheharshrealityofliterary professionsintheeighteenthcentury.15ThesurfacereasonsforBurger's obscurityarenothardtofind.First,therewerethenegativepronounce- mentsuponhimmadenotonlybySchiller,butalsobyGoethe,typically thekissofdeathinGermanletters.GoethecoldlydescribedBurger's ultimatefailureastruetotype:"Esisttrauriganzusehen,wieein auÃŸerordentlicherMenschsichgaroftmitsichselbst,seinenUmstÃ¤nden, seinerZeitherumwÃ¼rgt,ohneaufeinenZweigzukommen:Trauriges BeispielBÃ¼rger."16Thentherehasbeenthedifficultiesposedbythelack ofacomprehensiveeditionofBurger'sworks.17Finally,itisonlyrecently thatithasbecometheoreticallypossibletocopewithBurger'swork,for hiswasavoicefrombelow,andGermanliteraryhistorianshavenotbeen keentohearfromtheunderground Ironically,BÃ¼rgerhadverymuchwantedtobeknownasaspokesman forthepeople.Itwasinrelationtothe"Volk"thathehadintroduced himselfinthe1789collectionofhispoems:"IndemSinne,wieichein Volksdichter,oderliebereinpopulÃ¤rerDichterzuseinwÃ¼nsche,ist Homer,wegenderspiegelhellenDurchsichtigkeitundTemperaturseines Gesangstromes,dergrÃ¶ÃŸteVolksdichterallerVÃ¶lkerundZeiten,sindes, mehroderweniger,allegroÃŸenDichter,auchdieunsrigen,undgeradein ihrenallgemeingeliebtestenundunsterblichenVersen,unendlichmehr alsichgewesen."18(Gedichte,1:8-9) Bypositinghimselfasa"popularpoet,"BÃ¼rgerhelpedtoprovokethe negativeresponsefromSchillerwhodisputedthevalidityofBurger's claimtothetitle.BÃ¼rgeradmittedlyhadnothelpedhiscasethroughthe introductiontohiscollection,whichwasintendedassomethingofan advertisement.Hewasquiteawareoftheinfluenceofcriticismandof thesupremacyoftheidealsoftheWeimarClassicists.Hewasalsowell- versedindissembling,afteryearsoftryingtoadapttothepublic demandsofbourgeoisconventionality.Nothingcouldbemoretypicalof thisdissemblingthanthe"confession"inwhichBÃ¼rgerstatedthathewas speakingtoomuchabouthimself:"Esthutmirleid,daÃŸichhiersoviel vonmirselbstredenmuÃŸ,welches,wieichwohlweiÃŸ,nichtfeinlÃ¤ÃŸt.Ich 166 / BÃ–HM binmirindessenbewuÃŸt,daÃŸichvonmirselbstsounbefangenund gleichgÃ¼ltig,alsvoneinemfremdenMannerede."(Gedichte,1:9)Yes, BÃ¼rgerwasspeakingofhimself"asifhewerespeakingofastranger," preciselybecauseintheefforttoestablishhispublicpersona,hecould notrevealmuchaboutBÃ¼rgertheperson. Burger'saestheticwasnotbaseduponthesublime,butuponanaes- theticslocalizedinthelivedbody,whenceitmightmanifestitselfasthe beautiful,theordinary,thegrotesqueoreventheugly.Furthermore,the bodieswhichnowappearedinthetextswerethoseofthe"Volk"as commonpeople,thosewhowereneitheraristocratsnormembersofthe middleclasses,butlivedatthebottomandonthemarginsofeighteenth- centurysociety.Intheextendeddiscussionofthecontributionwhich BÃ¼rgermadetoGermanliteraturebyre-invigoratingtheballadasa genre,thisdimensionhasgenerallybeenoverlooked.Yetitisimportant. Burger'sinsertionoftheembodiedexperienceofmarginalizedmembers ofsocietyrepresentedapoliticsandpoeticsoftransgression.InBÃ¼rgerit ispossibletoobservethedissolutionofthebondbetweenthesubjected bourgeoisbodyandliterarytextualization. ThethreeelementswhichrepeatedlyreturnedBÃ¼rgertothelivedbody asthelocusofproduction,bothoftextsandofhistory,werepoverty, sickness,andsexuality.Therecanbenodoubtthatamanwho,untilhis death,wascontinuallystrugglingtomakeendsmeet,tobeabletobuy foodandkeeparoofoverhishead,wasawareofcorporealexistence mostdirectly.Thebodycouldnotbekeptatadistancebytheorizingor idealizingundersuchdireconditions.Illness,exacerbatedbypoordiet andoverwork,wasalsoaconstantinBurger'slife,ashislettersfre- quentlytestify.Forexample,hewrotetohispublisherDieterichon March5,1781: StelledirdenJammervor!AllevonltenJanuar1748anbegangene SÃ¼ndenmeinesMadensacksbrachenineinemganzinfamenGeschwÃ¼r geradeÃ¼berderPulsadermeinerrechtenHandhervor.Inkurzemwaren meineHandundArmsodick,wiemeinLende,undichkontedieHand nichtsovielrÃ¼hren,umnureinenBuchstabenzumachen.Vorige WochewardieÃ¤rgsteMarterWochemeinesLebens,dasGeschwÃ¼rist endlichaufgegangenundbaldwirdderSchadewiederheilseyn.19 Fromapsychoanalytic/psychosomaticperspective,theimagerywith whichBÃ¼rgerdescribeshisillnessandtherecoveryisrevealing.Likea fleshlytext,onelimbhasswollenwiththememoryofthesinsofthe entirebody,therebyblockinganywriting,anyconfessionalre- textualization.Theopeningoftheboilinturnenableshimtowriteagain, sothatthebodypublishes,asitwere,itsagonizedhistory.Numerous GottfriedAugustBÃ¼rger / 167 equallygraphicpassagesaboutthestateofthephysicalbodycouldbe quotedfromtheletters,indicatingBurger'songoingconcernwithhis physicalbeing.WhatisstrikingisBurger'scontinuedefforttogivevoice tothebody,includinggenitalandscatologicalaspects,inwrittentexts. Thesemi-publicforumofthelettersallowedmorefreedomthanthe publishedliteraryworks,yetBÃ¼rgeralsomadesomeextraordinary effortsattheintegrationofbodyandtext. Inthepoetryintendedforpublication,BÃ¼rgercouldhardlyexpressthe painsandneedsofthebodyexplicitlyordirectly.Thebody'sactual historycouldinmostcasesonlybemadepublicthroughallegoriesand discreteallusions.Intheprocessoftextualizingwhatthebodyknew, BÃ¼rgeroftencouldnotspeakinthefirstperson,forthemarketconsti- tutedbyeighteenth-centurymiddleclassreaderswouldnothavepaidfor thereportsofthelifeofanobody.Justtolerablefortheconventional- izedtastewasapoemsuchas"ZumSpatz,"whichpickeduponthetopos ofthecagedbirdasmetonymfortheconstrainedpoet.Worthnotingin thistextarethecontortedstanceofthespeakerandtheintensityofthe inscribedviolence.Howpowermoveswithsocialrolesisindicatedbythe shiftingvoices.Initially,itisdifficulttodecidewhetherthespeakerisfoe or friend: IchseinDespotundErmeinSklav'! BeiseinemSpatzvolk! Later,thespeakershiftsvantagepointsfromthatofthesparrowtothat oftheruler,underscoringthemomentofpowerintherelationship (Gedichte,1:225).Arehumanityorservilityresponsibleforthebird's freedom?Giventhatthebirdrepresentsthesituationofawriter,when thespeakerisalsoawriter,mattersbecomecomplicated.Thepoemdoes notremainonthelevelofidealizedrelationships,butinsteadfore- groundstheimplicationsofarbitrarydespotismforthewriterasa humanbeing.Theverbalizedthreatdepictstheviolencethatmightbe donetothebodyofthebird,orthespeaker-writer: HÃ¶rernun, WasallmitihmichkÃ¶nntethun. Ihnzupfen,rupfen,halsumdrehnÂ— DawirdnichtHundnochHahnnachkrÃ¤hn, ZerschlagenihnmiteinemHieb, UnddasmitRecht,ErGalgendieb. (Gedichte,1:225) Theseimageshavebeenprojectedbythebodyasitsanxietyaboutthe...