Trans Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 16. Nr. Mai 2006

5.2. Innovation and Reproduction in Austrian Literature and Film
Herausgeber | Editor | Éditeur: Donald G. Daviau (University of California/Wien)

Dokumentation | Documentation | Documentation

The Innovation of Modernity in the Western World and Its Reproduction in the Eastern and Southeastern Countries of the Habsburg Monarchy

Donald G. Daviau (University of California/Wien)


The innovation of Modernity in the Western world represents arguably the greatest and most widespread artistic and social advance in human history, expanding exponentially on the ideas first introduced by the Renaissance, 18th-century Enlightenment and the French revolution. Just as Richard Wagner and Max Reinhardt introduced the idea of the total work of art into opera and theater, respectively, the concept of modernity encompasses every aspect of life and the arts, in accord with Nietzsche’s call to his generation for a "revaluation of all values" ("Umwertung aller Werte") and Hermann Bahr's program of modernity ("Die Moderne"), proclaiming that the world needed a new man - today we would say a new human being - one who would again be in tune with the changed and constantly changing world.

This all-embracing movement, which created the ideas by which we still live today, despite the futile claims that postmodernism spelled the end of modernity, did not happen spontaneously. However, unlike the drastic but necessary measures of the French Revolution in 1789, which resorted to extreme violence to overcome the autocratic hegemony of the rigid feudal system with its privileged aristocracy and downtrodden and exploited lower classes, modernity resulted from a steady pressure of writers, artists, scientists, educators and intellectuals in all fields to create so much upward momentum for the freedom and human rights of all people that it finally prevailed without bloodshed against the combined bulwark of backward-looking governments and the Catholic Church, both authorities whose primary aim was to keep the people ignorant so that they could be more easily controlled.

In Western scholarship modernity is usually proclaimed to be a Viennese movement, primarily because of the singular flowering of literature and the arts there at the turn of the century around 1900 and the commanding presence of Hermann Bahr, the primary catalyst and disseminator of the new thinking.(1) However, modernity is in truth a European movement, which, because of the remarkably talented generation of Bahr, Hofmannsthal, Schnitzler, Kraus, Klimt, Olbrich and Mahler, among many others, came to full fruition in the Austrian capital. As I have detailed previously, (2) all of the various new artistic ideas, techniques and trends along with the progressive social thinking that characterizes modernity, which were developed gradually over the course of the 19th century in England, France, Norway, Germany, Spain and Italy, were to be found represented in Vienna in the 1890s. As a microcosm of European thinking and as a center for education, jobs and opportunities for writers, artists and journalists, Vienna became a magnet for energetic, talented people from the Eastern lands and territories and became the major center for the spread of the modernity movement to the countries of Eastern and Southeastern Europe.(3)

The writers, artists, journalists and intellectuals of these Eastern lands, which were all in a state of artistic stultification, bound by their restrictive traditions and techniques, flocked to Vienna to study, to work and above all to become aware of the newest European ideas and trends in literature, the arts and sciences. They, in turn, brought this information to their own homelands either through their publications or by returning to work and teach, and in this way they energized and modernized the arts and actually served to change the society in their own countries, just as modernity had generated the impetus to usher Austria into the 20th century. The influential British historian A. J. P. Taylor noted in his book on The Habsburg Monarchy that this remarkable occurrence was one of the few instances when authors and artists actually influenced the social and political development of their countries. Josef Matl, who has devoted as much research to the topic of modernity in the Eastern countries as anyone I have encountered, summarizes the important influence of Viennese modernity thus:

Bei all den seit der Barockzeit über Jahrhunderte reichenden geistig-künstlerischen Anregungen und Vorbildwirkungen Wiens auf die literarisch-künstlerische Entwicklung der Länder und Völker des Donau- und Alpenraumes sowie Südosteuropas hat keine Epoche so unmittelbar auf die Erneuerung von Literatur und Kunst im gesamt-europäischen Sinne gewirkt wie die Wiener sezessionistische-impressionistische Moderne zu Beginn unseres Jahrhunderts.(4)

A number of these countries belonged to the Habsburg empire, and thus by this integral connection they were naturally oriented to the West rather than to the East. Those Slavic nations not under Habsburg rule simply followed what they saw as successful models in their neighbors and adopted the same thinking and techniques, for the artists in these countries not only learned from Vienna, Munich, Berlin and Paris, they also borrowed the new ideas from each other. Zoran Konstantinovic, who, like Matl, has also contributed importantly to the research on this topic, stresses the need for more investigation of the transnational spread of modernity from one Eastern country to its neighbors rather than only from Vienna and other European cities. He cites as one example Endre Ady, whose influence in Eastern countries was greater than that of Rilke.(5)

Citizens of the Habsburg states benefited from having been required to learn German, which enabled them to move freely to Vienna to study and work, an opportunity they seized in great numbers. For example, by the end of the 19th century, more than half a million Czechs resided in Vienna, which resulted in the Austrian capital becoming the largest Czech city. With the additional immigrants from all of the other Eastern countries, amounting to a population of some 550,000 out of a total of 1.3 million, Vienna became a Slavic city, which is a major reason why the capital developed differently from the rest of the country and why Austria developed differently than Germany. It is also likely the reason why Vienna is Red, meaning politically liberal, while the rest of Austria is Black, that is, conservative. Finally, the heavy Slavic population caused the native Austrians, like Bahr, to assert their identity by referring to themselves as Germans in Austria. Bahr hailed from Linz, but he was always mindful of the fact and made it known to his readers that his forbears came from Silesia.

In this major Slavic migration to Vienna, students came to study and get degrees, authors and journalists came to write for Viennese publications like Bahr’s newspaper Die Zeit and for the Secessionist journal Ver Sacrum, while artists and sculptors took part in the exhibits of the Secession and musicians studied and performed. Many writers and other artists lived and worked in Vienna for years, sometimes for their entire adult life, all the while publicizing their experiences in their home countries. As will be seen, some even founded journals in Vienna, modeled on Bahr's Die Zeit but published in their own national language. Some returned to their own countries, where they could be influential in spreading their new knowledge in literary, art or musical groups and through the theaters, while others in their role as university professors could educate the next generation in terms of the latest thinking in all areas of the arts and life.

Many writers and artists also moved beyond Vienna to explore other centers of modernity such as Paris, Munich and Berlin. In this way modernity was disseminated and reproduced in such Eastern countries as The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia (Dalmatia), Romania, Bulgaria and the Ukraine.(6) Since many of these countries have recently been admitted into the European Union, this topic of the vital role that European modernism and Vienna played in the Western orientation of the Eastern countries and their social and political advancement into the 20th century is more relevant than ever. Remarkably, it is a topic that has been ignored by Western scholars, including those who have written prize-winning books on the Viennese fin de siècle, primarily because of the language barrier, but also because of the widespread Western lack of interest in what were regarded as backward countries. Even Austrians throughout the 19th century had no interest beyond what they could gain from these countries. The government neglected them, and the general prevailing Austrian view was that the orient began on the outskirts of Vienna.

My aim here is to show how European modernity, as it came to full flowering in Vienna in the 1890s (innovation), was disseminated throughout the Eastern and Southeastern countries (reproduction). The reception of this thinking occurred in all the above countries in three phases, although not necessarily in the same time frame: Symbolism in the period from the 1890s to the end of World War I in 1918; Expressionism from 1919 to 1928 and Futurism from 1929-1938. Since my specific goal is to show the central role of Vienna in the dissemination of modernity to the East, I will restrict myself here to the first phase. The second phase was primarily influenced by Berlin Expressionism, and the third phase by a variety of manifestos and movements, including Symbolism, Cubism, Dadaism and Futurism. In the later movements each country, having absorbed and matched on a European-wide basis the cultural accomplishments of modernity, returned to its roots, patriotism was awakened, and those authors who had been writing in German returned to using their own native language. In short, they accomplished on their own volition what the European Union hails as the desirable condition of membership: namely, that each country retain its own language and culture.

The spread of modernity did not follow the same pattern or time schedule in all countries but nevertheless achieved similar results in the overall sense of gaining the same new insights and techniques that sparked radical changes in literature and the other arts, brought a new subjectve, individualistic outlook and lifestyle to the public and caused social and political change. The young generation eagerly embraced the opportunity to break out of their stultified, stagnated national traditions by embracing the new artistic, social and political ideas, as they came to know them. The first phase from 1890 to 1918, which was most directly and heavily influenced by Vienna, concentrated on adjusting to the new emphasis on individual freedom and artistic subjectivity and to implementing the new artistic techniques and forms into their literature, art, sculpture and theater. A new element of subjectivity also necessitated changes in the language to accompany the new literary and artistic practices. Politics remained a dominant aspect in all of the Eastern countries throughout this entire transition, initially in terms of demanding national autonomy and, when that was accomplished in 1918 by the terms of the Versailles Treaty, thanks to the insistence of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, then to develop a new national spirit and image.

Because of this significant political focus, which was not present in Vienna, the Eastern countries never developed into carbon copies of their model, a factor that Bahr always emphasized in his commentaries, as will be seen. They adapted the new European principles in terms of their own language and culture to suit their own social and political conditions and needs. They steadfastly maintained their independence and unique identities and never felt acculturated or assimilated into Europe, even if, like Josef Svatopluk Machar, they lived in Vienna or other European cities for as long as thirty years. The different political situation of the Eastern lands, resulting from their lack of autonomy and self-determination, was also the reason why these countries never embraced the aestheticism found in fin-de-siècle Impressionism and Decadence, which dominated the arts in Vienna in the 1890s.(7) These literary techniques, which primarily involved the lifestyle of the upper classes, had no relevance to achieving their political goals, specifically gaining autonomy from the Habsburg Monarchy, and hence were inimical to them.

By modernity here I mean the progressive movement that Hermann Bahr introduced into Vienna in 1890 with his programmatic essay "Die Moderne," published in the first issue of E.M. Kafka's new literary journal Moderne Dichtung and then as the lead article in the influential volume of essays Die Überwindung des Naturalismus (1891). The goal was a search for truth, the means involved people embracing the Nietzschean "revaluation of all values," overthrowing all outdated ideas, overcoming the hypocrisy endemic in the society through the Lebenslüge and becoming real in the sense of being and staying in harmony with the world around them.

Even earlier than the programmatic essay "Die Moderne" Bahr had begun advocating modernity:

Hier ist der Punkt, wo (unsere) neue Erkenntnistheorie auch alle überlieferte Ethik revolutioniert. Wenn man der Ethik scharf zu Leibe rückt, bleibt nur ein einziges Gebot, das stichhält: das Gebot, wirklich zu sein. ... Wirklich sein heißt also aufs Menschliche angewendet, in seinen Ideen harmonisch sein mit dem transzendentalen Korrelat der Ideen. Alle Ethik läuft danach aus in die Forderung, die gegenwärtige Wahrheit zu erkennen und alles gegenwärtige Unwahre aus dem Bewußtsein zu scheiden. Alle ethische Betätigung wird wissenschaftliche Kritik. Das einzige Gebot, in dem sich alle Ethik zusammengefaßt, lautet: modern zu sein. Aber nicht bloß einmal modern zu sein, sondern immer modern zu bleiben und das heißt, weil die Beschaffenheit jenes Korrelats unabläßig wechselt, zu jeder Zeit revolutionär zu sein.(8)

By stressing the necessity of remaining modern, Bahr shifts from absolute to relative values and from reason to the senses as the prime transmitter of reality to the human being. He rejects the control of the past over the present and emphasizes the continual flux of life, which forces the individual to constantly change in order to maintain harmony with the world. Here Bahr parallels the ideas of the French Impressionist painters and, although unknown to him at the time, the thinking of Ernst Mach in Analyse der Empfindungen (1886). When he did become acquainted with Mach in 1903, Bahr widely publicized his ideas, which served as the scientific proof underlying Impressionism.

Indeed, as early as 1884 Bahr had postulated the idea of the "new man" in his drama Die neuen Menschen, but at that time he concluded that the world was not yet ready for this development. To be modern meant to enjoy individual and artistic freedom as well as the possibility for self-fulfillment, for modernity was a lifestyle as well as a renewal of the arts in terms of artists' subjective creativity. It represented a bold new beginning, marking a complete break with the burdensome heritage of the past to allow the growth of new energy and a new spirit of optimism for creating better people and a better world. Above all, modernity destroyed the lingering feudalistic paternalism and hierarchy by proclaiming that the individual was more important than the state. Those critics who think that the term fin de siècle conveys a negative sense of weariness, lethargy and decline could not be more wrong. Modernity was a youth movement, filled with the ebullience, courage and vigor of a generation released from the straight jacket of the rigidity and weight of the past, as recommended by Goethe's poem, "Amerika, Du hast es besser" (1832). This program emancipated and freed people to develop themselves and their society to shape a more promising future. With all its positive features for a richer, more fulfilling life, it is no surprise that we still adhere to these same ideas today.

Vienna happened to furnish the ideal conditions for this radical new development The sudden aggregation of young talent in every area of the arts together with the particular atmosphere and lifestyle of the imperial city of Vienna, which enjoyed a "golden age of security" (Stefan Zweig), created a unique symbiosis, resulting in a fertile environment that provided an unparalleled opportunity for the arts and sciences to blossom. This unprecedented ambience created a flowering of life and art that rivals the classical Greek and Roman periods and the Weimar era of Goethe around 1800 and represents a remarkable situation such as has never been witnessed anywhere again in the history of the arts or of society. Following the removal of the wall around the inner city to construct the impressive Ringstrasse, aristocrats and wealthy businessmen began to build palaces and luxurious homes in the inner city, which required architects, furniture, paintings and sculptures. The handsome commissions from all of this activity provided the opportunity and financial means to enable the arts to flourish.

The group of Austrian writers and artists who played a leading role in creating this momentous era of such important influence was relatively small: The so-called Jung-Wien writers Leopold von Andrian, Hermann Bahr, Richard Beer-Hofmann, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Arthur Schnitzler and Felix Salten along with their nemesis Karl Kraus, augmented by Peter Altenberg, Stefan Zweig, Rainer Maria Rilke, Robert Musil and Hermann Broch along with a number of writers from Prague: Max Brod, Franz Kafka, Franz Werfel, Ernst Weiss and Joseph Roth. The artists were led by Gustav Klimt, who served as the first president of the Vienna Secession; later came Oskar Kokoschka and Egon Schiele. The preeminent architects were Otto Wagner, Adolf Loos and Joseph Olbrich, who designed the Secession building. Among the musicians were Gustav Mahler, Johann Strauss, Arnold Schönberg, Anton Webern and Alban Berg. In science, Ernst Mach's philosophical ideas served as the logic supporting Impressionism, while Sigmund Freud gradually developed the principles that led to the introduction of psychiatry. In the aggregate these writers, artists and scientists created an intellectual and artistic atmosphere that made Vienna a microcosm of all of the most recent European developments.

Not only did Bahr, Hofmannsthal and Schnitzler travel throughout Europe and the Scandinavian countries, gaining new experiences and ideas, but also it was an essential aspect of the credo of modernity and of the Secession to be open to foreign artists and invite them to Vienna. For example, Ibsen, whom Bahr declared the godfather of modernity, visited Vienna, where he was greatly celebrated. Other important figures, like Rodin and the American Whistler, were welcomed as members of the Secession, where they along with many others, including artists from the Eastern countries, exhibited regularly. Vienna thus acted as a major stimulus for the immigrant artists and writers. Konstantinovic comments on the wide-ranging influence of Viennese modernity in the Eastern countries: "Ganz unmittelbar wirkte sich die Wiener Moderne befruchtend und neue Leitbilder schaffend auf die literarisch-künstlerische und zum Teil auch auf die politisch-ideologische Erneuerungen sowohl bei den Slowaken und Kroaten, bei den Tschechen und Slowaken, bei den Polen, Ukrainern in Galizien also auch bei den Serben aus."(9)

Eastern writers and journalists were also welcomed and found a warm reception from Bahr, who gave young writers like Josef Svlatopluk Machar and Thomas Garrique Masaryk, who later served as the first president of The Czech Republic, among many others, opportunities to publish in his newspaper Die Zeit and thus spread their ideas and make their names known. It was not long before they began to establish their own journals on the model of Die Zeit but in their own language to disseminate the new ideas back home. A number of Eastern students came to Vienna initially to study in particular fields at the university and then discovered an interest in literature or the other arts, not hard to do in a city where all talented young men and women wanted to participate in the arts. Vienna displayed a passion for the theater, and consequently it became a particular ambition of young writers, including the later Zionist leader Theodor Herzl, who began as an author until he was diverted by politics, to write a play for the Burgtheater.

What the Eastern writers and artists learned and experienced in the stimulating atmosphere of Vienna gave them a new outlook, which they disseminated in their home countries through their journals and writings or by returning home and introducing the changes directly, often as teachers. The new ideas touched upon all aspects of the arts, including form and language, and the innovations at home involved a shift from the stagnant traditional art, which was rooted in realism and naturalism, to the new subjective approaches and tendencies of modernity. The motto of the Secession proclaims its credo: "Der Kunst, ihre Zeit, Der Zeit ihre Kunst," and that is exactly the program that the young, talented Eastern writers and artists succeeded in implementing in their homelands. Writing, criticism, essayism, literary history and the theater all underwent a radical transformation in the Eastern countries. The writers and artists not only succeeded in renewing the prevailing traditional art forms, but over time they also raised the quality of their literary works and paintings first to Viennese standards and then to a niveau that brought European acknowledgment and acceptance of their work. Such recognition was completely new to the Eastern countries, for their arts had previously been ignored in Vienna and in the West in general.

The man who pioneered this new Viennese spirit of openness and progress to the East was Hermann Bahr, who became unequivocally the earliest and most ardent Austrian activist publicizing the plight of the Eastern countries: he recommended as early as 1893 that Austria recognize their arts and demanded that the government provide assistance to aid their development. He also urged the Eastern writers and artists to adopt Viennese modernity as found in Vienna, for it would lead them to Europe:

Und es könnte, wenn sie (die jungen Slavischen Schriftsteller) die rechte Gestalt des Österreichischen finden, wie es jetzt ist, mit diesen bunten Spuren aller Völker, mit diesen romanischen, deutschen, slavischen Zeichen, mit dieser biegsamen Versöhnung der fremdesten Kräfte - es könnte geschehen, dass sie, in dieser österreichischen gerade, jene europäische Kunst finden würden, die in allen Nationen heute die neuesten, die feinsten Triebe suchen.(10)

Bahr put into practice his own idea of helping the East learn about modernity; when he founded his newspaper Die Zeit in 1894, he made it a point to invite contributions from Eastern authors and journalists and in some cases to hire them. He encouraged them to write articles to awaken Austrians to the plight of the Eastern countries and to call attention to the neglect of the Austrian government. Bahr became acquainted with Machar, who had lived in Vienna since 1889, and asked him for a contribution for the first issue of Die Zeit: "Ich möchte gleich in den ersten Nummern die slawischen Literaturen kräftig betonen und bitte Sie, darum zu sorgen, daß ich einiges über die böhmische und die südslawische Moderne recht bald, spätestens bis Anfang oder mitte September schon erhalte.(11) Machar, who became a leading Czech activist, invited Frantisek Krejci to write the requested article, and as a result Bahr employed him to continue to write for Die Zeit on contemporary Czech culture and literature until 1897. Machar also solicited articles for Bahr from other Czech writers and critics such as Frantisek Salda, Josef Kaizl and Karel Kramer, among others.

Bahr, the "Austropäer,"(12) served as a catalyst here, just as he was for the entire movement of European modernity, which he began to promote while he was in Paris in 1889. It is not possible to overestimate the important role that Bahr and his newspaper Die Zeit played in the Eastern writers' and journalists' reception of modernity and the ensuing transition of the Eastern countries into the 20th century, which transpired almost on the same timetable as it occurred in Austria. Through Bahr's generosity and spirit of helpfulness,

Die Zeit wurde ... zur bedeutendsten Zeitschriftentribüne einiger führender tschechischer Persönlichkeiten an der Wende des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, in der sie in einer Weltsprache, also mit außergewöhnlicher Wirkung, ihre philosophischen, politischen, ethischen und kulturellen Konzeptionen formulieren und auch verteidigen konnten, was natürlich für die Entwicklung der tschechischen Gesellschaft, Wissenschaft und Kunst eine große Bedeutung hatte.(13)

Eastern journalists and authors could also write for the Österreichische Rundschau and for Ver Sacrum, the prestigious journal of the Secession, of which Bahr was also one of the editors. However,

to spread their program and make their voices heard in their own language, the Croat modernists created their own literary journals in Vienna, Mladost (Youth) in 1898 and Glas in 1899, both modeled on Die Zeit and Ver Sacrum. These journals contain most of the names associated with the creation of modern Croatian literature and art. The writers in each country started a similar journal modeled on Die Zeit. As examples let me mention Moderni revue with Kostka Neumann as the center in Prague, Zycie in Cracow and mlada muza in Lemberg. The Croatians also started a second journal called Croatian Salon in Agram to spread the new ideas they had gained in Vienna. Here Milan Begovic, Vladimir Nazor, Dragutin Dompavic and Dr. Ivo Pilan disseminated the ideas of the Secession. These journals show "wie viel diese jungen Pioniere einer neuen Literatur und Kunstrichtung Hermann Bahr und seiner Zeitschrift Die Zeit, seinen literarischen Konferenzen für junge Dichter, seinem Interesse auch für das literarische Schaffen der Slawen verdankten."(14) Because of its prestige Die Zeit also played a central role in counteracting the negative propaganda and false portrayals of Czech literature and culture in other German-language periodicals.(15)

The Polish journal Zycie, founded in Cracow, was also modeled on Bahr's program and on Die Zeit, even to the subtitle, which emphasizes the interest in literary, scientific and social matters.(16) Stanislaw Przybyszewski became the editor in 1898, and to demonstrate its national political direction, he stopped writing in German and from then on wrote only in his mother tongue. This move to their national language was followed by most of the Eastern writers in all countries in the later phases of the modernity movement, after they had all achieved autonomy in 1918. In every nation writers congregated around a journal, all of which in the early period displayed the influence of Die Zeit and Bahr's program of modernity.

In 1895 a group of students who had been relegated from Agram University came to Vienna, and under the influence of the new European artistic and literary developments they encountered, they abandoned the outmoded traditional naturalistic and classical tendencies as well as the conventional rhetoric and pathos of their national literature and moved all of the arts to a new course of individual expression and absolute freedom of subjective artistic creation. Their program already went beyond Viennese Impressionism, which was generally rejected by most of the Eastern writers because it featured decadence and aestheticism and concerned mostly the upper classes and aesthetes, while they represented the lower classes and a political slant. Thus in the second phase of the movement they gravitated more to the vitalism of Berlin Expressionism (1910-1925) with its call for the emancipation of feeling, as found in such writers as Milan Begovic and Vladimir Vidrics. In this process of renewal, the Eastern writers and artists created a new sense of patriotism and nationalism, which was to grow stronger in the following years in all of the Habsburg lands, until they achieved their goal of autonomy in 1918.

Machar, who had moved to Vienna in 1889 and worked in a bank for 30 years, was the main representative of critical realism, and as a strong polemical writer, he became a leading force in initiating Czech modernity. Together with F.X. Salda, he wrote the manifestos in Cas (Time) in 1903, urging authors to engage in social and political activism. He was also a leading voice in the Czech journal Moderni Revue. Machar embraced the ideas of Viennese modernity and acted even sooner than his model in demanding equality for women in cultural and social life. Machar worked closely with Karl Kramer and Masaryk but surpassed them in calling for political rights for Czechs. Although he spent most of his adult life in Vienna, he never adapted to its lifestyle and regarded it not only as foreign, but also as hostile.(17) His numerous feuilletons and other writings strongly reflect his negative attitude toward the city and the Viennese, despite the career he could make there and the opportunity Bahr gave him to publish his articles. According to Simonek, the reason for his discontent stemmed from the contrast he witnessed between the affluent bourgeois and the impoverished life of the proletariat in the suburbs of Vienna, where friends like the writers Ivan Cankar and Oton Zupancic lived.(18)

While immigrants and visitors from most of the countries liked what they found in Vienna and sang the praises of the city in their homelands, the Czechs, to the contrary, remained extremely critical in their writings. The reason for this negative attitude, despite everything they had gained in the Austrian capital, resulted from the fact that although Czechs constituted a majority in Vienna with a population of about half a million by 1900, they never felt accepted or integrated into the society. They found themselves oppressed, lived in miserable housing conditions and in general found the glamorous metropolis a place of degradation and humiliation. The Czech literature of the period 1897-1910 (the Lueger era) portrays Vienna in a very negative light as a much-hated place.

Machar became one of the leading critics of the city for its treatment of Czechs. In the volume of poetry, TristiumVindobona (1893), he contrasts the two worlds of Vienna, as evidenced in the Prater on Sundays: the aristocrats and upper classes riding in their gilded carriages with lackeys in gold-braided uniforms, while the emaciated figures of the Czech workers peer out at the spectacle from the side alleys. Also he and others complained that in Austrian literature Czechs were only ever portrayed in menial jobs as subservient cooks, maids, servants and grooms. And they were accorded this demeaning attitude and treatment despite the fact that Vienna was the city with the largest Czech population. This hostile attitude toward Vienna prevailed, despite the prominent Prague authors such as Rilke, Brod, Kafka, Werfel and others, who wrote and made their literary careers in German and are in fact considered Austrian writers. This generation really belonged to the second wave of the new avant-garde and was influenced more by Berlin Expressionism than by Vienna. In the case of Brod the avoidance of Vienna resulted from his wish to avoid Karl Kraus, with whom he was involved in a polemic, much to his detriment.(19)

In Slovenia such authors as Cankar, Zupancic and Prijatelj led the way to modernity through their belletristic works as well as their literary criticism, essays and literary history. Eventually they followed the same pattern we have already seen in other countries by expanding their range to include social and political writings. The painters Jakopic and Grohar along with the sculptors Berneke and Plecnik found success in Vienna. They were influenced by Klimt and by the critics Bahr and Muther, and on the basis of their experiences, they all worked to revitalize the traditional arts and raise the artistic niveau to European levels. They achieved this goal as measured by European acknowledgment of Slovenian artistic accomplishments. They could exhibit in Vienna, Paris and London as well as at home, where they served as models of the new techniques they had learned in Vienna. They all indicated that they could only succeed in matching the European standard because they were able to develop and create in Vienna, free of the rigid and confining clique mentality that prevailed at home.

The Slovenian Ivan Prijatelj serves as an example of the pattern that was followed by many of the Eastern writers and artists. He came to Vienna in 1898 to study medicine but shifted to the study of Slavic Literature at the Slavistic Scholarly Center in Vienna. Prijatelj absorbed the various European tendencies and developments and, like a Slovenian Hermann Bahr, made the public aware of such movements as Impressionism and Neo-Romanticism as well as informing his readers about the Vienna Secessionists. He worked at the Court Library and collaborated with Eduard Castle on an edition of Anastasius Grün. Through his work with the prominent literary historian Castle, Prijatelj created the methodology and principles for writing Slovenian literary history as well as for art criticism. After the abolishment of the Monarchy, Prijatelj became a Professor of Slavic Literature at Laibach University.

The Slovenian lyric poet, epic writer, novelist, and journalist Ivan Cankar, generally regarded as the strongest talent of the new Slovenian literature, wrote in Vienna between 1896 and 1907. He was more influenced by German, French and Russian authors than by Austrian writers, primarily because of the difficult circumstances in which he lived during his stay in Vienna. Like many of the Eastern writers, who had to struggle to exist in Vienna and lived in dreary accommodations, Cankar repudiated Viennese Impressionism and aestheticism. Instead he represents the element of social criticism that prevailed among the Eastern writers of all countries, because of the poverty in which they lived in Vienna as well as their lack of acceptance by the Viennese. In his novel Das Haus zurbarmherzigen Mutter, which he wrote in German, Cankar describes his hard life as a proletariat living in the Viennese suburb of Ottakring. This was the kind of social criticism that developed into political activism in the years leading up to 1918.

Another key figure in the transformation of Slovenian literature to modernity is Otto Zupancic, who is ranked next to Cankar as a renewer of Slovenian literature. He came to Vienna in 1896 to study history and geography but turned to literature under the influence of Dehmel, Verhaeren, Whitman and George as well as through his personal association with Cankar. His collection of poems entitled Eroticism contains the artistic program that represents the turning point of Slovenian literature.

For his part, Karl Kraus, who always stressed his Bohemian roots, gave many lectures in such Eastern countries as Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and Slovakia and became an important and influential figure in the modernity movement of the Slavic nations. He frequently elucidated problems of these countries in Die Fackel and, conversely, was often discussed in the press of the countries he visited.(20) Just as he formed the major opposition to the modernity movement in Vienna, attacking and deriding (in error, as we know today) all of the Austrian major writers and artists, Kraus divided the Eastern writers into opposing camps, just as he did the Vienna authors. He particularly traveled often to Prague and attempted to court the writers there but with little success, primarily because of his vitriolic polemics against Brod and Werfel. Kraus's major influence perhaps derived from his teaching Eastern writers the potential of language.

The image of Vienna held by the Poles, was, in sharp contrast to that of the Czechs, predominantly positive. They had less reason to be anti-Habsburg, because they had been granted autonomy in 1867 along with Hungary. They did, after all, save the Viennese from the Turks, and this established a close relationship. Thousands of Polish students in all fields studied in Vienna, and authors and journalists came to work and write there. They also used Vienna as the jumping off point to other centers of modernity in Europe. The difference in the Viennese treatment of the Poles resulted not only from gratitude, but also from their willingness to assimilate. They liked the life in Vienna and stayed, much to the disapproval of the nationalists at home. At the same time, the Viennese loathed the Galician Jews, who refused to assimilate and kept their native dress and customs in Vienna, making them stand out among the population. Even the assimilated and acculturated Jews in Vienna did not welcome them, because they feared that they were contributing to exacerbating the already strongly prevalent anti-Semitism.

The Polish dramatist and narrative writer, Thadäus Rittner, was the son of a university professor and government minister, who worked for many years in Vienna, rising to the important position of Division Head. Young Rittner also achieved a good government career and rose to the position of Sektionsrat. His autobiographical novel, Zimmer des Wartens (1918), has been praised as one of the best works dealing with school life and favorably compared to Hesse's Unterm Rad and Musil's Die Verwirrungen des ZöglingsTörless.(21) In 1921 Rittner portrayed in the novel Miedzy noca I brzaskiem how difficult life was for immigrants who kept their own national identity and refused to assimilate.(22) This problem, which many countries are still witnessing today in the new global community, remains virtually insoluble and continues to cause difficulties both for the immigrants and the host countries.

Bahr not only fostered and defended the Eastern immigrants in Vienna, but with his enormous intellectual curiosity he also traveled to the Eastern countries, to learn about them and their activities at first hand in order to bring this information to his readers in Austria. Dalmatia had long been one of his favorite vacation spots, and he visited regularly, making friends with the writers, artists and theater people there. In his homage to the country in the travelogue Dalamatinische Reise (1909), which Ivan Pederin has praised as " nicht nur den Höhepunkt der österreichischen Literatur über Dalmatien, sondern auch den Punkt, in dem sich das Denken und Streben dieser Literatur verdichtet und läutert."(23) Because of its important role in mediating Dalmatia to the Austrians, Pederin goes so far as to suggest that "In diesem Sinn ist Bahrs Dalmatienbuch vielleicht das bedeutendste Buch der Jahrhundertwende. Nicht nur sein ungeheurer Erfolg bezeugt es, sondern auch sein Erbe. Denn im zweiten Weltkrieg, als die Politik Hitlers bei den westlichen Slaven und namentlich bei den Kroaten neue Staatsgebilde aufbauen wollte, wurde das Buch ins Kroatische übertragen."(24) Pederin is effusive in his praise of Bahr for his efforts to gain more recognition in Austria for Dalmatia, but he details how circumstances mitigated against closer alliance between the two nations, causing Dalmatia to return to its policy of Panslavism.

Among those Bahr singled out for recognition in Dalmatia was the theater director and dramaturge Milan Begovich, who was called the Croatian Hermann Bahr because of his efforts to promote modernity. Baron Berger brought him to the Deutsches Schauspielhaus in Hamburg in 1908 to work as dramaturge and director, and he continued in the same capacity from 1912-1915 at the Neue Wiener Bühne. His plays enjoyed considerable success on German and Austrian stages, and he not only traveled often to Germany, but he also lived for extended periods in Berlin and other cities.(25) Thanks to his good connections to supportive writers like Hermann Bahr, Franz Theodor Czokor and Stefan Zweig, Begovich found no difficulty in publishing his plays and other texts. He became one of the leading representatives of modernity, and Bahr holds him up as an example of how he matches the eagerness to learn of the young Czechs: "Auch wieder ein Beispiel der slawischen Gier, deutschen Geist und Deutsche Kunst und unser ganzes Wesen einzusaugen, die mich an den jungen Tschechen so freut."(26) Begovich’s daughter Bozena studied at the Wiener Akademie fur Musik und darstellende Kunst, and not only became an actress, but also developed into a German poet, influenced by Rilke and Toller. Later, however, she, like the majority of Eastern authors, joined the nationalist trend and became a Croatian poet, writing in her native language.

The prose writer and dramatist Josip Kosor also enjoyed artistic success in the West and became a leading representative of modernity in his native Croatia. He began writings tales set in the patriarchal world of his Dalmatian homeland but changed his subject matter and form, when in 1906 he traveled to Vienna and also to Munich, where he met other Croatian artists like Ivan Mestrovic, Vladimir Becic and Mirko Rochi, who had taken up residence there. He was also a welcome guest in Munich for Przybyszewski, Richard Dehmel and Hugo Ball. Kosor lived variously in Vienna, Munich and Berlin until 1915 and learned German amazingly quickly to the point that he could write in it. The Austrian authors Richard Schaukal, Stefan Zweig and Hermann Bahr were impressed by Kosor's narrative works. Indeed, Zweig noted the dramatic force in these works and advised him to write dramas. The plays resulting from this suggestion, Brand der Leidenschaften (1910) and Versöhnung (1911), found better reception on German and Viennese stages than they did at home. His poems, prose and dramas were published in Viennese and Berlin journals, and he became a well-known author.(27)

The lyric poet, Gustav Krklec, after studying in Vienna, lugged back books by Rilke, Bahr and Altenberg as well as copies of Kraus’s Die Fackel and also Der Sturm, the literature that influenced the generation of Krleza, Cesarec, Simic and Donaldini. By his own admission, Miroslav Krleza’s first legitimization as a poet in the Zagreb circle resulted from Bahr’s circulated comment that he was talented.(28) In this group Krleza played an important role in gaining the acceptance of the program of modernity as well as in rejecting the mythologizing of the Habsburgs. Despite his early appreciation of Bahr's endorsement, he became a Kraus admirer, and, like his model, whom he strove to emulate with his command of language and strong opinions, right or wrong, Krleza became a dominant figure on the Croatian literary scene.(29) Most of his writings fall into the later period after 1918, but in the period under discussion here he did assist in the break of Croatian writers with the past tradition and in introducing Viennese modernity. Like Kraus, Krleza came to adopt a negative stance toward the circumstances around him and devoted much of his writing to dissecting and denouncing the contemporary arts and artists as well as the contemporary social and political happenings around him. He particularly criticized the Austrian cultural heritage in terms of the waltz music, the Makart style and the artificial decorative forms of aestheticism. Also, as might be expected of a Kraus enthusiast, he came to denounce Bahr as the symbol of all that was wrong in Europe. On the positive side lies Krzleva's attraction to Rilke, whom he made into a cultural influence on Croatian life with his essay "Lirika Rainer Rilke" in 1930(30) and through his translations and interpretations.

An important connection for Bahr in Prague resulted from the friendship he formed with Jaroslav Kvapil, dramaturge of the Landestheater, whom he met in 1906 through an introduction of Max Reinhardt.(31) Kvapil had adopted Bahr's program of modernity, and the two men developed a strong lasting friendship that was carried on by correspondence. They formed such a mutual admiration society that they were good-naturedly satirized for it.(32) Kvapil became such an admirer that he did his utmost to boost Bahr's reputation. He not only regularly performed many of Bahr's plays in the Landestheater, but he also used his influence to encourage directors in other theaters to do the same. As a result of this sponsorship, Bahr became the most performed German-speaking author in the Slavic countries by 1910. He became so well known and so highly regarded that his standing in the years 1908-1912 reached cult status.(33) Following Bahr came Schnitzler, Schönherr, Hofmannsthal, Hauptmann, Sudermann and Wedekind. Many Czech critics considered Wien (1907), Bahr's finest work, a judgment that indicates they admired and shared the anti-Habsburg slant of this political polemic. Reciprocally, Bahr praised Kvapil as another example of the eagerness with which the Eastern writers and artists sought European ideas: "Er kommt jeden Augenblick nach Berlin, mit einer wahren Todesangst, nur ja nichts zu versäumen, was draussen vorgeht; alles wollen sie wissen, alles haben, und sie glauben es ihrer Nation schuldig zu sein, ihr alles zu bringen, was sich nur an neuen Gedanken, Wünschen oder Versuchen irgendwo zeigt."(34)

Bahr strongly supported Czech authors and artists by publicizing them in his writings, none more than the symbolic poet Otokar Brezina, whom he promoted continuously in his published diaries and even heralded in England, calling him "the greatest poet of Bohemia and at this moment the most powerful rhapsodic poet alive."(35) In his view, Brezina is a poet of European dimensions, who combines Walt Whitman and Dostoevski, both of whom along with Emil Verhaeren were enormously influential in Europe. Bahr enthusiastically greeted the German translation Winde von Mittage undMitternacht by Emil Saudek and Stefan Zweig in 1922, and in 1923 he expressed the hope that Brezina would win the Nobel prize for literature, for which he had been nominated.(36) By his promotion of Brezina Bahr played a substantial role in spreading awareness of Czech literature and culture throughout Europe.(37)

Bahr also supported Czech culture through direct personal engagement. For example, on 15 May 1908 Bahr writes that he had to travel to Prague to see the modern peasant play Marysa by the Mestik brothers, simply because they were refused permission to bring the production to Vienna. In his customary manner Bahr uses this specific incident to illustrate a larger theme, namely, that this play, which surpasses the limited Naturalism of Anzengruber and of Hauptmann's Fuhrmann Henschel, illustrates how Czech writers adopt European techniques and add their own touch to improve on them. So, too, the director and dramatist Jaroslav Kvapil, whom Bahr called the Bohemian Reinhardt, surpasses his models Reinhardt and Stanislawski. He highly praises Kvapil for his ability to take foreign ideas and develop them further into something of his own original creation.

During this visit Kvapil also introduced him to other writers and artists, like the composer and director Kovarich, a master whom Bahr feels belongs in Berlin. At an art exhibit Bahr met such painters as the Orliks, Uprka and Mikulas Ales. Again Bahr commented that all of the writers and painters demonstrated the capacity to take everything European and develop it into a higher form, calling it a Czech characteristic that enables them to work for the United Europe of the future. Bahr's personal efforts on behalf of the play Marysa resulted in its being performed with success in the Raimund Theater in Vienna on 16 March 1909 in Levetzow's translation. On another occasion Bahr defended the opera singer Destinn, who was being defamed in the German press because she insisted on being identified as a Böhmin.(38)

What made Bahr's involvement in promoting the cause of Dalmatia, Czechoslovakia and other Eastern countries of the Monarchy so important was not only that he was the first to support them actively, but also his early recognition that literature for them was not only a cultural, aesthetic concern, but was in addition significantly a matter of language, that is, it became a political matter of national identity and image. To assist the Slavic writers in publicizing this festering problem of nationalism, Bahr with his European-wide reputation and fearless nature became their spokesman in Vienna. He wanted very much to be helpful, but strangely and unfortunately he viewed the problem of Slavic nationalism differently than it was conceived throughout the various Eastern lands. He thought these countries would be content to achieve autonomy akin to that of Hungary and Galicia, namely, cultural and political independence but remaining loosely attached and loyal to the Habsburg Monarchy, as he described in the provocative essay "Böhmen."(39) However, these nations demanded complete and unconditional independence with no further ties to the loathed Habsburgs. Ultimately, Bahr's false assessment of the political problem resulted in a breach between him and the very people he was striving so hard to assist, resulting in the complete loss of the prominent reputation and standing he had acquired. How he, who was normally so perceptive about social conditions, could have missed this widespread and deep-seated hostility to Austria after working and communicating with so many Slavic writers and artists and after so many visits between 1894 and World War I remains a great mystery. It can only be assumed that it was a case of his wanting to believe his own vision of what should be rather than the reality of what was.

During and after World War I the Slavic lands developed a pronounced radical opposition to the Habsburg rule and to Viennese modernity. The leader of this group of politically engaged writers, Miroslav Krleza, who, as we have seen earlier, was strongly influenced by Karl Kraus. Accordingly, in the same manner as his model, he attacked the Viennese Secession and Herman Bahr as negative influences. Typical of blind Kraus followers even today, Krleza charged Bahr with lack of character and dishonesty and, like Kraus, made him the representative of everything that, in his opinion, was wrong with the whole European intellectual generation.(40) Like Kraus, Krleza is wrong in his judgment, but he is correct in putting Bahr out front, which is where he always was to be found in whatever he undertook.

In Serbia the changes in the literature under the influence of Viennese modernity began in 1901 with the publication of the journal The Serbian Literary Herald. The first phase of this transformation lasted until 1918, as in the other Eastern countries, and also similarly marked the shift from a backward-looking patriarchal and hierarchical society to the new European social ethics: "In place of a backward, rigid and spiritually narrow culture, imbued with a static philosophy of suffering and denial, a new social ethics of dynamic zeal, faith and national optimism was born."(41) The vitality, optimism and the possibilities inherent in modernity for a better future overcame the stagnant tradition and the provincial culture. This did not mean to repudiate old traditions but to integrate the new contemporary thinking that held the promise of greater individual independence of spirit and a richer, fuller life. The great discovery causing a major change was the new credo that the individual was more important than the state. The new subjective artistic techniques brought greater freedom for the self-fulfillment not only of individuals, but also of nations. As a result the poetry gained in artistic expressiveness. In the period before World War I Serbian and Croatian literature exhibited the same characteristics. The literary works of Young Bosnia acted as a link between Serbian and Croatian literature and showed a spirit of rapprochement and intermingling of national cultures. The revolutionaries had similar ideological programs both on the aesthetic and political levels. However, the profusion of European ideas that filtered into Serbia and Croatia created a pluralism of thought, which resulted in several different and sometimes even antagonistic currents, just as had been the case in Vienna.

All of the new trends were present simultaneously: Impressionism, Decadence, Neo-Romanticism, Jugendstil, Symbolism, Expressionism, Dadaism, Fauvism, Cubism and Futurism. As in the other Eastern countries, Viennese modernity served as a liberating force for the Serbian writers and artists, enabling them to break out of the confinement of clinging to the past and freeing their creative talents to utilize the enlivening developments of the Western World. For example, Milan Curcin studied German Literature in Vienna and became a well-known Goethe specialist. In addition, he served as editor and publisher of the journal Nuova Europa, which featured the themes, styles and techniques of European and Anglo-American literature. Others, however, such as Bogdan Popovic, Jovan Ducic, and Milan Rakic undertook their modernization of the literature and arts from their studies in Paris, where they were educated in the democratic traditions of the Enlightenment, liberalism and social awareness. The force of the new ideas did succeed in energizing the country, but it nevertheless remained captive to a dual approach between ethics and aesthetics. These writers educated in Paris had obviously missed Bahr's early resolution to this same dilemma, as shown above. For these Serbs ethics won out, because they, perhaps more than the other countries, were more fervently committed to achieving self-determinism, which they saw as the only true way to transform and modernize their national culture. They chose a radical means to achieve their goal, and even after World War I the struggle continued within the autonomous country to achieve a literature and country with a unified national spirit.

The Bulgarian writers and artists began the transition to modernity in the 1890s. The initial stimulation came from the program of their first literary journal Misul (Thought) (1890-1907), which called for total cultural renewal.(42) The writer Pencho Slavenkov regarded art as the path to a new national religion.(43) The zeal to embrace the new developments was matched by a corresponding total rejection of the past, which was never the case in Vienna, which displays artistic continuity because the modern writers, artists and musicians respected their predecessors even though they differed from them. According to Tonco Zecev, the reason for this sharp break derived from the sense of urgency among the artists to catch up with Europe. In his view, Bulgaria missed the Renaissance and had fallen behind the West. Thus the driving force of the adoption of modernity stemmed not from the positive motivation of the energizing new thinking but rather from backwardness.(44) Most important was the change in the status of the individual. This problem was addressed by the twenty-year-old writer Petko Todorov in Masons (1899), the first drama of Bulgarian modernity. In this exceptional work, which he wrote without knowing either Kierkegaard or Bergson, he created a new interpretation of the Bulgarian National myth, which proclaimed the new philosophy that the individual is more important than the community. The writer Penco Slavejkov became the first Bulgarian poet to achieve a truly European niveau in his works and gain European recognition. Although he touted the importance of Lenau and Hofmannsthal, the Austrian writer that aroused his greatest interest was Arthur Schnitzler, who was the most translated Austrian author into Bulgarian after Stefan Zweig.

It would take a substantial book to do full justice to this topic of the Eastern expansion of modernity. For the present it has been possible only to show the pattern of that development with some examples. More names could be added, but this would not augment my presentation in any significant way. The hope is that this contribution might stimulate greater Western interest in a major topic than has heretofore been demonstrated. The momentousness of this move to modernity may not be as appreciated today as it should be, because all of its tenets are now taken for granted. But in the context of its time modernity represented nothing less than a revolution, no less significant than the French Revolution of 1789, even though it was a quiet Conservative Revolution. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Eastern and Southeastern European countries caught up to Europe and the Western World by embracing modernity. Now with the new global community we are awaiting the same development from the rest of the world, which is still lagging behind. That progressive step will in its time also make a remarkable story.

© Donald G. Daviau (University of California/Wien)


(1) Cf. Hermann Bahr, "The Catalyst of Modernity in the Arts in Austria during the fin de siècle," in: Donald G. Daviau, Understanding Hermann Bahr. St. Ingbert: Roehrig Verlag, 2002, pp. 95-126.

(2) Cf. Donald G. Daviau, "Hermann Bahr, Early Advocate of Culture as a Unifying Force," in the electronic journal Trans, Vol.14.

(3) Cf. Gertraud Marinelli and Nina Pavlova, eds. Wien als Magnet? Schriftsteller aus Ost-, Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa über die Stadt. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996.

(4) Josef Matl, "Wien und die Literatur- und Kunsterneuerung der südslavischen Moderne," in: Die Welt der Slaven, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1964), p. 376.

(5) Zoran Konstantinovic, "Der südosteuropäische Modernismus und seine europäischen Verbindungen," in: Reinhard Lauer, ed. Die Moderne in den Literaturen Südosteuropas. Munich: Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 1991.

(6) Russia, of course, figures prominently in this Eastern transition to modernity, but because it follows a different path and is such a large topic as to be a chapter in itself, I am not including it here.

(7) For an extensive explication of Decadence, which Hermann Bahr and Nietzsche introduced into Austria and Germany, see Donald G. Daviau, "Hermann Bahr and Decadence," in: DGD, Understanding Hermann Bahr. St. Ingbert: Roehrig Universitätsverlag, 2002, pp. 69-94.

(8) Hermann Bahr, "Die Herkunft der Weltanschauungen," in: Zur Kritik der Moderne. Vol. 1, Zürich: J. Schabelitz, 1890, p.16.

(9) Zoran Konstantinovic, "Wiener Moderne und die slawischen Literaturen," in: The Slavic Literaturesand Modernism, A Nobel Symposium, August 5-8, 1985, p. 316.

(10) Moritz Csaky, Hermann Bahrs Tagebücher, Skizzenbücher, Notizheft, Band 3, 1901-1903. Wien: Boehlau Verlag, 1997, p. 413.

(11) Quoted in Manfred Jähnichen, "Hermann Bahr und die Tschechen," in: W. Krauss, et al, eds, Slawisch-Deutsche Wechselbeziehungen in Sprache, Literatur und Kultur. Berlin: Akademia Verlag, 1969, p. 368.

(12) Cf. Donald G. Daviau, "The Austropäer Hermann Bahr as Catalyst and Mediator of Modernity in a European Context," in: DGD, Understanding Hermann Bahr, pp. 469-486.

(13) Edita Maliarova, "Hermann Bahr und Prag," in: Das tschechische Theater, Vol. 1, Prague, 1995, p. 132.

(14) Zoran Konstantinovic, "Wiener Moderne und die slawischen Literaturen," p. 317.

(15) Eduard Castle, "Die neue Generation um Hermann Bahr," in Nagl, Zeidler, Castle, Deutsch-Österreichische Literaturgeschichte, Vol. 4, Wien: Fromm, 1937, p. 1664.

(16) Zoran Konstantinovic, "Die Wiener Moderne im Bewußtsein der slawischer Völker," in: Slavic, Vol. 64, Nos. 1-2 (1995), p. 70.

(17) Cf. Stefan Simonek, "Drei Blicke von Wien: I. Franko - J. S. Machar - I Cankar," in: Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, Vol. 39, 1993, p. 136.

(18) Ibid., p. 131.

(19) Cf. Donald G. Daviau, "Max Brod und Karl Kraus," in: Margarita Pazi, ed. Max Brod 1884-1984. New York: Lang, 1987, pp. 207-232.

(20) Cf. Jaromir Louzil and Zdenek Solle, "Karl Kraus und die Tschechoslovakei," in: Kraus-Hefte, 1980, No. 15, pp. 1-8.

(21) Stefan Simonek, "Drei Blicke von Wien," p.143.

(22) Zoran Konstantinovic, ""Wiener Moderne und die slawischen Literaturen," p.315.

(23) Ivan Pederin, "Österreichs Weg an die Adria. Das Bild Dalmatiens in der Reiseliteratur bis zu Hermann Bahr," in: Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. 20, 1976, p, 43. See also Ute Karlavaris-Bremer, "Dalmatien in der österreichischen Literatur," in: Johann Holzner und Wolfgang Wiesmüller, eds. Jugoslawien ´Österreich. Literarische Nachbarschaft . Innsbruck 1986, pp. 49-54, which contains a discussion of the political aspects of Bahr's Dalmatinische Reise as well as comments on the successful reception of Bahr's novels.

(24) Ivan Pederin, "Österreichs Weg an die Adria," p. 43.

(25) Cf. Reinhard Lauer, "Zur Rezeption serbischer Autoren im deutschen Sprachraum," in: Friedrich Berthold Kaiser und Bernhard Stasiewski, eds. Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Deutscher undSlavischer Literatur. Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 1978, p. 85.

(26) Hermann Bahr, Dalmatinische Reise. Berlin: S. Fischer, 1909, p. 98.

(27) Reinhard Lauer, "Zur Rezeption serbischer und kroatischer Autoren im Deutschen Sprachraum," p. 84.

(28) Zoran Konstantinovic, "Wiener Moderne und die slawischen Literaturen," p. 317.

(29) For further discussion of Krzleza and modernity see Mirjana Stancic, "Miroslav Krzleva und seine österreichischen Zeitgenossen," and Jossip Babic, "Krzleza und das österreichische Kulturerbe," in: Johann Holzner und Wolfgang Wiesmüller, eds. Jugoslawien-Östererreich. LiterarischeNachbarschaft. Innsbruck 1986, pp. 31-38 and 39-47, respectively.

(30) Cf. Szdenko Skreb, "Rilke's Significance in Croatian Life," in: Johann Holzner und Wolfgang Wiemüller, eds. Jugoslawien - Österreich. Literarische Nachbarschaft. Innsbruck 1986, pp. 25-30. See also Ante Stamic, "Die Moderne in Kroatien," in: Reinhard Lauer, ed. Die Moderne in denLiteraturen Südosteuropas. München 1991.

(31) Bahr worked for Reinhardt in Berlin as director and dramaturge from 1906-1908.

(32) Edita Maliarova. "Hermann Bahr und Prag," in: Frantisek Cserny, ed. Das tschechische Theater, Vol. 1 (1996), p. 154

(33) Edita Maliavora, "Hermann Bahr und Prague, p. 140.

(34) Hermann Bahr, Dalmatinische Reise, p. 99.

(35) Hermann Bahr, "Letter from Germany," in: The London Mercury, Vol. III (November-April 1921), p. 206.

(36) Hermann Bahr, Liebe der Lebenden II. Hildesheim, Borgmeyer, 1922, p.298.

(37) Manfred Jähnchen, "Hermann Bahr und die Tschechen," In: W. Kraus, et al, eds. Slawisch-Deutsche Wechselbeziehungen in Sprache, Literatur und Kultur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1969, p. 363.

(38) Hermann Bahr, Tagebuch. Berlin: Paul Cassirer, 1909, p. 172. This diary contains many references to Slavic writers and painters.

(39) Hermann Bahr, "Böhmen," in: Neue Deutsche Rundschau, Vol. 27, No. 1916, pp. 36-49. Reprinted in: Hermann Bahr, Schwarzgelb. Berlin: S. Fischer, 1917, pp. 78-100.

(40) Josef Matl, "Wien und die Literatur- und Kunsterneuerung der südslavischen Moderne," p. 389.

(41) Predrag Palavestra, "The Continuity of Serbian Modernism," in: Slavic Literatures, p. 241.

(42) Tonco Zecev, "Towards the Origins of the Modern Circles and Movements in Bulgarian Literature," in: Slavic Literatures, p. 283.

(43) Ibid., p. 284.

(44) Ibid, p. 281.

5.2. Innovation and Reproduction in Austrian Literature and Film

Sektionsgruppen | Section Groups | Groupes de sections

TRANS       Inhalt | Table of Contents | Contenu  16 Nr.

For quotation purposes:
Donald G. Daviau (Riverside/Wien): The Innovation of Modernity in the Western World and Its Reproduction in the Eastern and Southeastern Countries of the Habsburg Monarchy. In: TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften. No. 16/2005. WWW:

Webmeister: Peter R. Horn     last change: 25.5.2006     INST