Georg Büchner (1813–1837)

In my earlier Danton review I already praised Georg Büchner’s masterful precocity. Deceased at 24, he still managed to write three and a half masterpieces: Dantons Tod, Leonce und Lena, Woyzeck and the unfinished Lenz. The works are considered landmarks in the history of German literature, early precursors of the Modern European roman. They were praised by Zweig, set to music by Alban Berg and burned on celluloid by no one less than Herzog.

I found an older copy of Lenz on the second-hand show more book market and without hesitation took it home for a quick read. And quick it was! Only 35 pages, but so fast-paced, so modern, so obsessively written that it leaves the reader panting: the story of Jacob Lenz (1751-1792), poet and theater-maker, one of the key representatives of the Sturm und Drang, slipping into insanity.

Poor Lenz, delicate and small, the flipside of the Goethe persona, as good a writer as the famous “Wandrer” was, maybe even better, but lacking the stature, the charisma, the social intelligence and the romantic skills. When Lenz became insufferable and a danger to Goethe’s reputation and position, the Master got rid of him. Lenz was banned from the province after a mysterious incident, an unforgivable “foolishness” that happened on the 26 of November 1776.

Büchner’s novel make us follow the interdicted Lenz; his erratic wandering, his despair, his hopeless seeking of solace, his battling bouts of depression, his final tumble into a terrifying madness from which there is no return…

What a nightmare… show less

As somebody already pointed out, the story of a man driven insane by the insanity of society. While the idea in itself has tons of potential, I thought the execution leaves one rather unsatisfied. The nonlinear, almost sporadic structure is highly unusual, definitely predated, and works all right, even though the individual scenes do need a lot of polishing. I can see quite clearly the need to write several versions, move bits of dialogue and entire scenes about to see what works best where, show more since, after all, the loose structure does allow it. However, I couldn't help but think that if Büchner took the trouble to pen more than one version, perhaps he could have made the extra effort and completed at least one of them to satisfaction. I find it rather a pity he died before finishing it, as I suspect this might have stopped him from developing the piece further.
If I'd been the one writing it, I'd have definitely gone for a scene sequence that would clearly show the progression of Woyzeck's mental instability, and provide a stark contrast between the state of his mind and the interests of the corrupt society he's living in.
Altogether worth one's time, supposing one's patient enough to make sense of the scattered scenes and appreciate the subtle wit of some scenes.
Or maybe Büchner made such a mess of it on purpose - he wanted to inspire people to write fan fiction based on his work. Who knows. After we've covered it in Drama History class, maybe even I'll feel inspired. show less

Nothing impresses me as much as precociousness, and in the list of young geniuses, George Büchner is one of the most impressive. Büchner was only 23 when he died of Typhus on the 19th February 1837. Still, he left a body of work, whose baffling modernity still impresses. “Danton’s death”, “Woyzeck” (of Herzog – Kinski fame) and “Leon and Lena” are all, in their own special way, genuine masterpieces.
Practically unknown in his own century and heavily bowdlerized when show more published, Büchner has been brought to attention to a larger public by the likes of Brecht, Böll and Grass. Today, his reputation is secured.

“Danton’s death” is a play in four acts, written in the early weeks of 1835, its conception separated a mere forty years, one generation so to say, from the occurrences Büchner describes in his book.

The play, which has Paris as a setting, during the brutal days of the French revolution, recounts the 13 days, from 24th March to 5 April 1794, that lead to Georges Danton’s public execution. Thirteen days, is a nice symbolic number, which later historical writers will use again to frame moments of high Political significance.

I never harbored any romantic feelings about the French revolution and its aftermaths. When intellectuals meet the mob, the ugliest things take place. While the intellectuals are ever so surprised that once set in motion, the bloodthirsty mob cannot be stopped or steered, the mob once on the move, soon speeds up its momentum of looting, raping and murdering, venting all the frustrations they have accumulated in their sorry lives.

So, Paris in that “red” year of 1794, is enjoying its “Khmer rouge” moment. The days, Büchner covers in his play, see the ideals of the French revolution turn into the frenzied, genocidal acts of “La Terreur”. Faction after faction is denounced as an enemy of the revolution and their alleged members executed after what is hardly a semblance of jurisdiction. At the moment the play starts, the Girondins have already been taken care of because they were “not revolutionary enough”, and so are the Herbertists, who are accused of being “too revolutionary”. Only Robespierre and Danton are over. Danton is trying to bring the revolution back on track and to return to “normality” in order to start reorganizing the country, but his opponent argues that the country has not been cleaned yet of all anti –revolutionary elements and that Danton is betraying the revolution…

In the chaos of the French revolution it is difficult to keep one’s bearing. Not only because of the nearly 250 years it is separated from us but also because of the political complexity of the different factions. Even the calendar months and days are altered . Who are we to belief? Who are the good guys, who are the bad guys?

Büchner, himself a young political rebel, was fascinated by that carnival of liberty, when liberty was a synonym of lawlessness and chaos, and equality and fraternity just empty slogans. His modernism lays in the fact that, contrary to what was the standard back in the 1840’s, he refused to depict the happenings in a romantic way. No embellishments, just a few raw facts discernable through the interactions of the major players. To make his dialogues as realistic as possible, he literally quotes the conversations, copied from the written testimonials he consults during his extensive research. There is also much lurid talk and sexual innuendos. While it ads to the realism of the play, the reason Büchner inserted it was to distract the critics from his more dangerous political statements. The world had changed since 1789, but many things had not. Büchner risked imprisonment with his book and he did in fact flee Germany to escape the secret police.

This said, while I agree with the modernity of the play, I find it unfitting for such a grand spectacle as the French revolution was. The play misses more juicy verbal interaction and intellectual gusto. I even missed a few famous quotes from Danton. Where for instance is Danton’s famous prediction “Robespierre, you will follow me!”, he shouted, when the tumbrel carrying the condemned, passed the house of his opponent? Büchner even forsakes to mention Danton’s last words. As Danton stepped up the blood soaked planks towards the guillotine, after witnessing the beheading of his three companions, he reminded the executioner to show his head to the crowd: “N’oublie pas de montrer ma tête au people, elle est bonne à voir” (Show my head to the people, it’s well worth seeing”)

I would have preferred a “Sturm und Drang” rendering of this “Sturm und Drang” period. show less

I've only read Woyzeck, which remains one of my favorite plays I've had to study. A man goes insane because all he eats are peas (not really, but I suppose that is one excuse) and submits himself to endless and ridiculous medical studies. The scenes are fragmentary, so we don't know which came first, making for liberal interpretations as different productions mix and match depending on what they choose to emphasize. The German movie with Klaus Kinski is excellent.