Eliminaci´ on intramolecular de hidr´ ogeno

Friedrich Hebbel’s Genoveva was published in 1843, though at the time Schumann read it in 1847, it had not yet been staged.111 It would be hard to find two treatments of a single theme as opposed to each other as Tieck’s and Hebbel’s versions of the legend, which makes it all the more remarkable that Schumann drew from both. While Tieck’s is an epic panorama of medieval imagery, Hebbel’s is a dark psychological drama centered completely on the character of Golo. Even in the setting the two are at odds, as Hebbel commits to no specific time or place for his drama; rather he places it only in “poetischer Zeit,” or “poetic time.” The concept of forbidden love is not a mere narrative conflict for Hebbel, as it is in Müller and Tieck, but rather the backdrop on which the entire moral question of the drama is played out. H. W. Puckett suggests that this theme of Hebbel’s drama might have as much to do with autobiographical elements as literary ones. At the time Hebbel was writing Genoveva in 1840, he was torn between his indebtedness to his friend Elise Lessing and his attraction to the beautiful Emma Schröder. His position, caught between duty and desire, parallels that of Golo, so the scrutiny of Golo’s personality and psychology is only natural.112

111

Jensen, Schumann, 243. The first performance of Hebbel’s Genoveva was in Prague in 1849. See Jean M. Leaver, “The First Performances of Friedrich Hebbel's "Genoveva" and "Nibelungen" Dramas, and Their Connexion with Ernst Raupach's Dramas on the Same Subjects,” The Modern Language Review 55 no. 3 (July, 1960), 393.

112

H. W. Puckett, “The ‘Genoveva’ Theme with Particular Reference to Hebbel’s Treatment,” Modern Philology 13 no. 10 (February 1916): 185–6. Puckett references the comments of editor Richard Specht, who likens the asides and monologues of Golo to entries in Hebbel’s diary.

The most important difference between Hebbel’s drama and Tieck’s, however, is the nature of the guilt that surrounds Golo. Though Müller’s Golo accepts his fate in the end, even acknowledging that he had no control over his actions, he is still the bearer of the guilt and responsibility (along with his mother) for the tragedy that transpires. In Hebbel, Golo is still guilty, but guilty without fault, for Hebbel makes clear that Golo is a victim of his own nature. Puckett puts it most succinctly:

Both Müller and Tieck handled the question in the conventional way. Golo is a sinner; he is tried before the moral law, found guilty, and punished accordingly. Not so with Hebbel. His Golo must face the same moral law, just as the others do. He is also found guilty, but guilty in a very different way: his guilt consists only in that he lives; for since he lives, he is subject to overpowering circumstances. In short, the fault is in the moral law, and not in the individual. Whereas Müller and Tieck must condemn this character, Hebbel justifies him.113

In this, we see Hebbel’s sympathy with the Sturm und Drang, but unlike Müller, Hebbel’s Golo is no Werther. Rather, he is uncompromising and unmitigated; an irresolvable conflict is set up the moment both he and Genoveva are on stage. Hebbel himself made this clear: “Golo liebt ein schönes Weib, das seiner Hut übergeben ward, und er ist kein Werther. Darin liegt sein Unglück, seine Schuld und seine Rechtfertigung.”114 (Golo loves a beautiful woman, who has been handed over to his care, and he is no Werther. Therein lies his misfortune, his guilt and his justification.) Hebbel’s Golo even goes so far as to cast the responsibility of his actions on God Himself. As deep as Hebbel peers into Golo’s psyche, Hebbel’s Golo is not about psychological development. Despite the actions of the play, Golo is unchanged from

113

Ibid., 190.

114

Diary entry of February 2, 1839. Friedrich Hebbel, Tagebücher I, ed. Richard Maria Werner (Berlin: Behr, 1905), 319.

beginning to end: a feature that Schumann extends to all of his characters. The closest Hebbel comes to psychological progression for a character is in Siegfried. In the Nachspiel (written in 1851—a full year after Schumann’s opera had seen its first performances), Genoveva instructs Siegfried on the virtues of forgiveness (directed to Golo) by teaching him the pater noster.

This fact also highlights another important facet of Hebbel’s Genoveva, and that is its religious imagery. Müller did away entirely with religion in Golo und Genoveva, and Tieck’s heavily religious Genoveva was superficial. In Hebbel, however, religion permeates the fabric of the text, so that only Golo is set against it. This is to be expected for Hebbel, in whose prose tragedies biblical themes are a unifying factor.115 Both Golo and Genoveva reference their conflict in terms of Christ’s Crucifixion. In Act III, Genoveva reflects on the Crucifixion as a “Mord an Gott” (murder of God), and Golo independently sees himself as that very thing—a “Gottesmörder,” or God’s murderer. The conflict of Golo versus religion is summed up when Golo advances on Genoveva and defies the Crucifix with which she attempts to shield herself. Schumann did not include such religious or biblical metaphors in his text beyond the superficial ones that were a product of the opera’s medieval setting. What Schumann did borrow, however, was the deeper implication of a multi-layered dramatic concept. In setting Golo apart, Hebbel created a conflict between the individual (Golo) and the whole (the essence of religion), which is represented collectively in all of the other characters. Albeit with a slightly different motivation, Schumann also conflated his characters into one collective representation, though with Schumann, his collective representation also acts on the level of a single psychological entity.

Although Hebbel’s tragedy centers on Golo, he is not the only tragic character. Genoveva’s death before Siegfried can rescue her creates tragic characters of her and Siegfried as well. Siegfried’s loss can even be said to be more poignant than Golo’s, as Siegfried lost what

115

See Mary Garland, Hebbel’s Prose Tragedies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 304–323.

he once had, the love of Genoveva. The nature of Siegfried and Genoveva’s love for each other can be called into question, however, as neither character ever comes close to expressing his or her feelings on the same level as Golo does. For this reason, Hebbel considered Siegfried originally to be the guiltiest character; it was nothing short of base treachery to fail to love the divine Genoveva. When he first conceived of his idea for a new drama on the Genoveva theme, he wrote in his diary:

Der schuldigste ist der Pfalzgraf: warum hat er eine solche Natur, die ihn bis auf den Grund in ihr klares Innere hinabschauen ließ, nicht erkannt? Es ist ungleich sündlicher, das Göttliche in unsrer Nähe nicht zu ahnen, es ohne weiteres für sein schwarzes Gegenteil zu halten, als es in weltmörderischer Raserei zu zerstören, weil wir es nicht besitzen können.116

[The guiltiest is the Count: why didn't he recognize such a nature, which let him look clear to the depths of its inside? It is much more sinful to not appreciate the divine in our presence; to regard it as its black opposite, then to destroy it through world-murderous rage, because we cannot possess it.]

In the final product, however, Siegfried is not given any of the blame, and his guilt, just like that of Golo, is inherent in his being. This is an important parallel to Schumann’s musical treatment, which also absolves any character of personal guilt. What happens is inevitable and determined by fate; no character can be responsible for his actions.