Schnitzler, Hofmannsthal and the Austrian Theatre by W. E. Yates (review)

Book Reviews271 structuralist theory can be incorporated with critical theories that seem at odds with the poststructural theory—structuralism and narratology. Though some readers may disagree with several of White's conclusions, after a reading of her analysis of DeLillo's White Noise and Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, the grocery list and restaurant menu will never be thought of in the same way again. DAVID PHILLIPS University ofNevada, Las Vegas W. E. YATES. Schnitzler, Hofmannsthal and the Austrian Theatre. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. 286 p. Yates's study serves a fourfold purpose: it provides the reader with a balanced critical analysis of Schnitzler's and Hofmannsthal's writings for the theatre and the critical reception of their plays; each reflects "the shifting climate of cultural and intellectual life in Austria . . . from the fin de siècle to the brink ofAustro-Fascism" (viii), and it examines the personal relationships between the two writers against the backdrop of the Austrian historical and intellectual ambience of their age. Yates wisely limits his choice of dramas to several key works (Schnitzler's Anatol, Liebelei, Reigen, Das weite Land, Professor Bernhardi and Hofmannsthal's Elektro, Der Rosenkavalier , Der Schwierige, Das Salzburger große Welttheater, Der Unbestechliche ), which engage with the "principal issues of the time: anti-Semitism, double standards in relations between the sexes, and the First World War and its aftermath" (viii). The chapters summarize seriatim the main currents of Viennese intellectual life at the turn of the century, the biography of the two writers, the development of the Viennese theatres, the double standards applied to male and female sexuality in the fin de siècle, reactions to the outbreak of the First World War and its political consequences, and Hofmannsthal's "mythopoeic approach to the problems of his age" (243) in his later dramas and his involvement with the Salzburg festival. The analyses of individual plays are interwoven with these general topics. A penetrating appraisal of the ups and downs in the friendship between the two writers, as "symptomatic of fundamental differences in their whole approach to writing and to the theatre," (226) and an account of their reputations after their deaths, particularly from 1933 to 1945, concludes the study. Throughout, Yates does not lose sight of the practical aspects in their careers as dramatists (i.e., theatres, directors, actors, and staging). He draws on Schnitzler's collection of press cuttings, which add to our understanding of the socio-political atmosphere of the time, and he does not shy away from making judgments which may raise the eyebrows of some Schnitzler or Hofmannsthal partisans. What emerges is a nuanced, convincing argument about the underlying causes for the major affinities and antinomies between the two men as 272Rocky Mountain Review dramatists and personalities caught up in the upheavals of their age. Yates perceives Schnitzler and Hofmannsthal as "complementary opposites" (21) in their dramatic writings. He holds that Schnitzler's plays are "tied to the physical world and the attitudes of turn-of-the-century Vienna," whereas Hofmannsthal strove for "timeless effects" (24). Where Hofmannsthal in his later comedies and libretti reaffirms a "moral order," Schnitzler remained true to his skepticism by refusing to impose such a "moral pattern" on his plays (124-25). Their differing attitudes are summed up in the epithets "sceptical realist," applied to Schnitzler, versus the "myth-making" Hofmannsthal (157). Despite the many virtues of Yates's study, it has shortcomings and contradictions . For example, on page thirty-nine we are told that among Schnitzler's pastimes were "long conversations discussing the artistic and political affairs of the time" (emphasis added), yet earlier we had read that with the exception of Bahr "the 'Jung Wien' writers were largely unpolitical in their interest" (4). Yates contends that "(t)he non-political atmosphere in which the 'Jung Wien' generation had been brought up" made them vulnerable to "sentimental patriotism" at the outbreak of the First World War (157). This suggests that there was something singular about this generation of Viennese writers and ignores the fact that the war was greeted with equal patriotic fervor by almost all writers, young and old, in every European country. Discussing Hofmannsthal's...