Fading Out: Invisible Women in Marieluise Fleißer's Early Dramas

Susanne Kord

Women in German Yearbook: Feminist Studies in German Literature& Culture, Volume 5, 1989, pp. 57-72 (Article)

Published by University of Nebraska PressDOI: 10.1353/wgy.2012.0000

For additional information about this article

Accessed 17 Nov 2014 06:48 GMT GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wgy/summary/v005/5.kord.html

Fading Out: Invisible Womenin Marieluise Fleißer's Early Dramas*

Susanne Kord

"Ich könnte natürlich immer nur etwas zwischenMännern und Frauen machen."1

Being caught "between men and women" has a double relevance forMarieluise Fleißer's early writing: it is central to her situation as an authorand to the works themselves. In deciding to make writing her career,Fleißer went against her father's wishes and, to some extent, the socialorder. She found support for her plans from literary mentors, notablyFeuchtwanger and Brecht. Their influence on her early writing must notbe underestimated. Fleißer burned her first expressionistic essays inreaction to Feuchtwanger's disapproval, and changed her style (fromexpressionistic to naturalistic) and her name (from Lu to Marieluise)following his advice. Die Dreizehnjährigen, the first story he sanctionedbecause it was written in naturalistic style, was published with his assistancein 1923. The three plays which will be discussed here, Fegefeuer inIngolstadt (1924), Pioniere in Ingolstadt (1929), and Der Tiefseeflsch (1930),show an equally strong influence from her mentors. When Fleißer's firstplay, then titled Die Fußwaschung, was prepared for production at the"Junge Bühne" in Berlin by Moritz Seeler, an unauthorized editorialcollective composed of Seeler, Brecht, and Feuchtwanger not only renamedit Fegefeuer in Ingolstadt, but made other changes in the play itself,confidently assuming the author's consent and merely asking for "nachträg-liche Autorisation."2 Pioniere in Ingolstadt (1929) was produced by Brecht,who also tried to direct the writing of the play, giving Fleißer very definitedirections with regard to the characters and the props it was to contain.What seems important here is that Fleißer's "nachträgliche Autorisation"of liberties taken with her work was assumed and expected, and thatpossible objections from her were never seriously considered.

57

The question as to why Fleißer accepted revisions which usually wentfar beyond suggestions to the author and approached censorship canperhaps be answered by looking at Eva Pfister's analysis of Fleißer'ssituation when she set out from Ingolstadt to Munich and later to Berlin."Der Sündenfall—das Verlassen der bürgerlichen Ordnung—kann nur fürMänner in eine eigene Freiheit führen, für die Frauen jedoch führt er ineine neue Unterordnung."3 Pfister makes two important assumptions here:One is that Fleißer's literary mentors and male companions had also"fallen," in the sense that they had left the social order. The other is thatamong these social misfits, a separate hierarchy was created, for the newsubordination Pfister mentions is clearly that of women to men. WhatFleißer's mentors—Feuchtwanger, Brecht, Draws-Tychsen, her fiancé from1929 to 1932, and, to a certain extent, Jean Genet—represented for herwere "gefallene Engel," men who, like her, were outsiders and whom shetherefore regarded as necessary allies. Rejecting the social order meantindependence for male writers. For the unestablished woman writer,however, this step merely led to a new dependence on these men. Onecould reason that part of Fleißer's unquestioning admiration for Feucht-wanger, Brecht, and Draws-Tychsen was for their strong sense of identitygarnered from their conscious opposition to the social order.4

Fleißer's mentors, as well as the author herself, served as models forfigures in her early plays. Ebba and Gesine are studies of MarieluiseFleißer; Brecht appears as Korl in Pioniere and as Gronoff/Tütü in DerTiefseeflsch, while Draws-Tychsen figures as Elnis/Laurenz in the same play.The autobiographical aspect is the focus of much of the literature onFleißer.5 However, as Susan Cocalis shows in her analysis of Fleißer'splays as examples of mimetic writing, Fleißer's depiction of male-femaleinteraction is not merely a re-writing of personal experience.6 Rather,Fleißer takes her own observation as the basis for a portrayal of female"otherness," both within and outside of the social context. The questionthat will be discussed here is how Fleißer's dependence on her male men-tors finds expression in her early dramas, and how she portrays thissubordination as "natürlich immer nur etwas zwischen Männern undFrauen."

While the three plays in question all profess a certain fascination withsocial misfits, both male and female, Fleißer's portrayal of male outcastsdiffers considerably from that of their female counterparts: it is thedifference between "fallen angels" and those who look to them for support.In an oppressive world, where laws are made and represented by men,Fleißer's women figures sense that they can distance themselves from their

58

society only through complicity with a man. For their allies, the womenfrequently choose men who are also in conflict with their community andwho often assume outsider roles themselves. The women view the man'srebellion both as a justification of their own and as a source of protection:the stronger the man's rejection of social order, the stronger the woman'sfascination with him. The men, however, exhibit their new independencefrom society by subjecting the women to psychological manipulation. Theypass on the contempt they experience to their female allies, "weil derDruck nach unten geht" (1,146). Since women define themselves either interms of the social order, which they have rejected, or in relationship totheir oppressive allies, the consequence for them is literally a loss of self.This is expressed in the plays: women either abandon their male allies andtry to regain admission into society, or they are subsumed by their fellowoutcasts to the point of non-existence. Frequently, the condition of thewomen's existence is expressed in the stage directions: while the dialogueon stage seems to indicate the woman's exit, there are no stage directionsto provide us with any information regarding her presence or absence.This kind of "fading out" occurs frequently in Fleißer's early plays, andstrongly reflects on Fleißer's definition of her own writing as "etwaszwischen Männern und Frauen." Rebellion against the social order doesnot necessarily include a rejection of the socially defined roles of men andwomen. For the male rebels, gender-specific roles provide the oneremaining possibility of rule and superiority; for the female outcasts, theyprovide the only remaining source of protection.

Independence from both society and male allies is not a possibility forany of Fleißer's women figures until her revision of Der Tiefseeflsch in 1972.For this, too, there might be an explanation in Fleißer's own circumstancesat the time of writing. It would seem logical that complete independencedid not seem as feasible a solution to the author in the 1920s and 1930s,when she wrote under Feuchtwanger's, Brecht's, and Draws-Tychsen'stutelage, as it did in the early 70s, when she revised the old plays withoutintervention from the outside.

Fleißer's first play, Fegefeuer in Ingolstadt (1924),7 was based on herstory Die Dreizehnjährigen. The play is Fleißer's first account of "etwaszwischen Männern und Frauen" in the terms described above: ". . . einStück über das Rudelgesetz und über die Ausgestoßenen" (1,438). Theoutcasts from the pack are Roelle and Olga. Roelle, hydrophobic,attention-seeking, and subject to society's contempt, asserts his influence onOlga, who, because of her education and her unwanted pregnancy, is alsoostracized by the community. When Pepe leaves Olga for Hermine, Olga

59

loses all hope for a secure status in society. Here, Roelle sees anopportunity to make Olga dependent: "Ich kann auch einmal eine Machthaben" (Z+T 114). Roelle becomes "der einzige" for Olga (Z+T 118).She defends him in front of Protasius, who appears to her as a representa-tive of the community, and she seems to admire Roelle's position outsideof society, possibly even outside of humanity. "Der Roelle ist doch nichtwie ein Mensch" (Z+T 120). Roelle, however, seeks readmission intosociety, not on the same footing as its other members, but rather as theoutsider "above" the community. By pretending superiority in the form ofreligious enlightenment, he attempts to define himself as a "sanctifiedoutsider," and tries to elevate Olga to the same level: ". . . ich sehe einenSchein hinter ihrem Gesicht" (Z+T 125). Olga, however, does not respondto his religious ravings. Perceiving herself as an outcast, she seeks alliancewith her fellow outsider, whom she is prepared to defend in public but notto love: "ROELLE: Wer oder was bin ich für Sie? . . . OLGA: Das mußIhnen gleich sein" (Z+T 126). For Olga, it is imperative that her fellowoutcast profess himself superior to society, since the alliance with him is allshe has to replace her lost position in the community. Accordingly, sherewards assertive declarations from Roelle with supportive remarks ("MeinRoelle ist unbeirrbar," Z+T 134), but drops him when he professesweakness or admits his fear:

ROELLE: Was wissen denn Sie, um welche weichen und fein-fühligen Glieder es sich bei mir handelt.OLGA: Ach—das hängt mir einmal zum Hals heraus.ROELLE: Jetzt wird es recht. Ich werde totgeschwiegen.OLGA: Mit dem kann ich mich auch nicht ewig abgeben.

(Z+T 136)

When Olga disavows her alliance with Roelle, she has the choice ofeither attempting to return to society or of establishing complete indepen-dence from both society and Roelle. She does not, however, consider thepossibility of independence seriously. She discusses it in terms of escapism("Ich will einfach nach Amerika"), regards complete anonymity as the onlypossible freedom (". . . weil mich da keiner kennt"), and admits that eventhis hypothetical form of escape cannot be accomplished without (male)assistance: "Ich muß bald einmal mit wem auswandern nach Amerika"(Z+T 150). The idea is considered so briefly that Crusius immediatelyrealizes: "Amerika ist nichts. Das war Ihnen auch gar nicht so ernst"(Z+T 150). Olga concludes that she belongs at "home" and is ready toplead with her father for her return (Z+T 151). Since there is no thirdchoice, her break with Roelle, the fellow outcast, necessitates Olga's at-tempt to rejoin society. Consequently, she joins society in its contempt of

60

Roelle. As Roelle did earlier (Z+T 114-5), she asserts her superiorityover him and thus tries to put herself on a level with the rest of society:"Ich bin viel besser" (Z+T 137). Again she alludes to his standing outsideof humanity, this time in a negative sense: "Sie sind kein Mensch" (Z+T137). She realizes, however, that by disavowing her alliance with Roelle,she does not automatically gain readmission into society. This must bebought with repentance, with a confession. "Vater! Ich muß dir was sa-gen: Ich haben ein Kind" (Z+T 142). Olga views the society she tries tore-enter as "eine Welt der Gemeinheit [, in die wir] fallen mit jedem Tag,wie wir in diesen Leib gefallen sind: und wir haben ihn an uns" (Z+T142). But her attempts to escape, whether through Roelle or America, aredoomed. The parallel Olga sees between the concepts of "Welt" and"Leib" implies the impossibility of leaving the one without sacrificing theother: hence her attempt at suicide, from which Roelle "saves" her (Z+T143-4).

Male-female interaction both within and outside of the social order,here personified in Olga and Roelle, is taken up again in Pioniere inIngolstadt in much more general terms. At the beginning of the play, thetheme of "etwas zwischen Männern und Frauen" is discussed betweenAlma and Berta, and, a little later, between Benke and his son Fabian.Both conversations express the characters' desire, almost obsession, to meetsomeone of the opposite sex. While Alma and Berta seem to be subcon-sciously aware of the fact that something beyond this desired relationshipis needed (the mutually protective friendship they vow to each other),Benke instructs his son to adhere to the "male" principle that makes itnecessary for women to bond together to protect themselves against men:"In der Liebe muß der Mann kalt sein, dann wird er recht" (1,191). Itsoon becomes apparent who has the upper hand. Alma's and Berta'seternal friendship comes to an abrupt end when Alma, without a moment'shesitation, leaves Berta for the first man who enters the scene. Berta'ssubsequent encounter with Karl is characterized by an almost immediateanimosity between the man and the woman.

In the interaction between Berta and Karl, a pattern becomesapparent which can also be applied to the relationships between Olga andRoelle or Ebba and Elnis: the man's attempt to compensate for society'soppression of him by in turn oppressing the woman, along with thewoman's attempt to escape the oppressive social order by alliance with a"strong male." The strength of the males manifests itself in theirmistreatment of women and simultaneously indicates the strength of theirdefiance; it reasserts their outsider-status. In different ways, this applies to

61

Roelle and Elnis as well as to Karl. Although Karl is part of the socialhierarchy, he is not a member of the community of Ingolstadt: he despisesthe provinciality of Ingolstadt, the quiet and outwardly peaceful life in thecountry, and the bourgeois ideals embodied in Benke's lifestyle. Bycontrasting the bourgeois ideals of men in the community with his self-image as adventurer, he challenges and ridicules their ideas of masculinity.In this respect, Karl does not fit into provincial Ingolstadt; as in the caseof Elnis and Roelle, that is part of his allure. That a woman can escapean oppressive world only through alliance with a male outsider is a pointcryptically stated by Alma in the first scene, when Berta expresses surpriseat the news of Alma's dismissal from her job: "Da ist mir nicht bang. DerPionier ist im Land" (1,189).

Alma and Berta view the strength of the male outsider in his defi-ance, and accept it as the basis of alliance, even when it is directed againstthem. Alma attempts to evade humiliation by submitting to her pioneer'swishes, even when he states them like commands to a dog: "Hopp!"(1,193). Similarly, Berta denies Karl's contempt for her by idealizing him.She sets him apart from other men: "Dem Gesicht nach kannst du nichtso sein" (1,195). "So" could mean like other men she has encountered,male members of society whose subjugation of her conforms to social rules.Karl, however, is clearly not interested in the relationship Berta has inmind: "Wenn ein Mädel nicht zieht, tu ich nicht lang um" (1,195).

In Karl's reasoning, women are an available commodity, and, there-fore, the "natural" object of man's contempt: "Heute muß ein Mädel sichwas gefallen lassen, weil es wenig Männer gibt. Wir geben an, wie wasgemacht werden muß, Gottseidank!" (1,206). In applying this postulate toBerta, Karl finds sadistic enjoyment in her pain, which signifies his powerover her. "BERTA: Tu tust mir weh. — KARL: Das weiß ich" (1,195).And, "Einen Fetzen muß man aus dir machen" (I,206).8

Women are not only subordinate to men, but also contemptibleprecisely because their subordination is partially of their own doing. AsKarl puts it: "Ihr reizt einen ja selber dazu" (1,205). When Karl whistlesat Berta in the third scene,—his whistling, once again, seems reminiscentof someone calling a dog—Berta follows immediately, the same way Almareacts to her pioneer's "Hopp!" Since female subordination signifies malepower, women become the object of male competition. Karl's success withBerta is punished by the Feldwebel, a procedure which Fabian, insulted byBerta's preference for Karl, witnesses with glee. Social hierarchy is heredefined as the ability to inflict humiliation on someone else. While

62

Fabian's glee is explicable by his humiliating impotence compared to Karl,the Feldwebel uses his position as superior officer to humiliate Karl, whoin turn is compelled to pass on to Berta the humiliation he has experi-enced. He warns and threatens Berta, while simultaneously mysticizing hisown mistreatment of her: ". . . auf mir liegt ein Fluch, daß ich die Frauquäle, die in mich verliebt ist. Verstehst? Die Frau wird von mir gequält"(1,198). His threat announces and condones his abuse of her; his warningserves to relieve him of all responsibility, placing it on her and thusjustifying his own cruelty. As is later the case with Ebba, Berta dutifullyabsolves him of all blame by accepting his contemptuous mistreatment aspart of the role of the suffering "woman in love." "KARL: Tu dich nichtin mich verlieben, sonst mußt du leiden. — BERTA: Ich will leiden" (1,198).

While Karl's abuse of Berta is a demonstration of the strength of theoutsider, it is also an exact analogy to the mistreatment inflicted on her bysociety. Society is represented by her employer Benke and his son Fabian,Karl's male antagonist and competitor for possession of Berta. Benke triesto coax her into sexual submission to Fabian, while demanding her socialsubmission to himself. As in Berta's previous encounter with Karl, she issubjected to the ultimate humiliation: Fabian's sexual advances to her arediscussed in her presence. In this conversation between Fabian andBenke, Berta is presented as an object of purchase. Fabian's failure toimpress her is punished by his father's (i.e., society's) contempt. It is notclear when or whether Berta leaves the scene, or whether she is witness tothe entire conversation. Berta does not comment, she does not leave;rather, she simply fades out of the scene, the same way she fades from themen's attention.

As a member and representative of the community Berta tries toescape, Fabian lacks Karl's allure. However, since Fabian's standing insociety is measured by his capacity to subjugate women, his humiliation islargely due to Berta's preference for Karl. It is thus hardly surprising thatFabian tries to elevate his social standing by imitating his more successfulcompetitor. Like Karl, he tries to force Berta into sexual submission. Inan attempt to deny his reputation as a weakling, he treats Berta withbrutality, the only way acceptable to men and their "women in love." LikeRoelle, Elnis, and Karl, he mysticizes his own brutal streak: his self-portrayal as "Würger der Frauen" is highly reminiscent of Elnis's fit inwhich he acts out the role of a wolf. Fabian wants to be a man and hedesires the woman Berta. But in the distorted world that Olga describesso aptly in Fegefeuer, "Mann" is equivalent to "Schurke," while "Frau"translates into the derogatory "Weib." "FABIAN: Weib, einmal in meinem

63

Leben will ich ein Schurke sein. ... Du bist für mich das Weib. ... ichbin ein Würger der Frauen, ich muß mich gerad halten, daß ich dir nichtstue. Immer, wenn ich eine Frau sehe, muß ich ihr schon was tun" (1,212).Berta reacts to Fabian's brutality in the same way she does to Karl's. Herfear and submission are the accepted proof of femininity, and thus fullyserve to satisfy man's desire to assert himself as "male."

A similar pattern develops in Scene 11, the final encounter betweenBerta and Karl. There are clear indications that Berta is aware of Karl'strue nature ("Du bist ein ganz schlechter Mensch"), as well as of thedanger he presents to her: "Gell, Karl, jetzt muß ich wieder leiden" (1,219).This statement indicates not only her awareness, but also her willingnessto suffer and her acceptance of his "excuse." Like all of their interactions,their sexual encounter represents an act of his contempt and her submis-sion. By telling her to feign pleasure, "wie die anderen auch" (1,220), Karldefines the world as one of lies and platitudes. Again Berta perceives hisworld clearly, but as she herself states, this is a world in which she is un-able to live (1,220). Karl indulges in platitudes in the last scene: "WennMenschen auseinandergehen, dann sagen sie Auf Wiedersehen!" (1,221).Berta is reduced to stating her perceptions and her helplessness: "Ja, aberjetzt geht's fort."—"Abmarschsignal" (1,221). At this point, she fades out ofthe scene: she remains on stage, but is neither heard from nor referred toagain.

In the figurative sense, Berta becomes invisible; in the literal sense,she is considered insignificant to the point where her presence or absencemakes no difference. In part, Berta's "invisibility" on stage can be read asthe alternative to Olga's solution. Olga, who tries to secure some kind ofexistence for herself through her return "home," is represented in the stagedirections. "Olga ab" (Z+T 151). We know where she is going. Berta,however, has lost both Karl, her alternative to society, and the possibilityof re-entering her community, and disappears from the stage. The absenceof stage directions seems to mirror Berta's condition after she has lost anymeans of self-identification.

With regard to women's self-definition, Der Tiefseeflsch (1930)9 is adirect sequel to both earlier plays. It is the most obviously autobiographi-cal play in Marieluise Fleißer's work, a resume of her relationship withDraws-Tychsen and, in retrospect, with Brecht. A few months before shewrote it, Fleißer became engaged to Draws-Tychsen in an attempt toescape Brecht's dominating influence (1,459). Like her female protagonists,she discounted the possibility of independence from both men: ". . . ihre

64

bitterste Wunde ist, daß sie nicht allein sein kann" (Verständigungstexte,TSF 154). In her autobiographical essay "Situationen," she clarifies howDraws-Tychsen and Brecht ("der eine" und "der andere") appear in theplay, referring to herself in the third person:

Sie schreibt eine blödsinnige Arbeit ("Der Tiefseefisch"), hauptsäch-lich Dialog, in der sie beide Männer einander gegenüberstellt, deneinen hebt sie hinauf, den anderen sucht sie zu mindern, ihm wasanzuhängen, damit er kein Abgott mehr in ihr ist. Sie fälscht, siemuß fälschen, damit sie's ertragen kann. Der Mann (Draws-Tychsen)ist dem Lehrer (Brecht) spinnefeind, kann sie aber nichts lehren, ereifert, hält sie völlig von ihm fern, eine Lebensgemeinschaft, in dersie aufgezehrt wird.

(Verständigungstexte, TSF 156-7)

Der Tiefseeflsch describes with meticulous clarity Fleißer's destructiverelationship with Draws-Tychsen, as well as the animosity between hisliterary camp and Brecht's, with her caught in the middle. Like Fleißer in1930, Ebba is a fairly successful writer, who lives with a less-accomplishedwriter and is used by him both for financial support and as a steppingstonefor his own career. She sees her alliance with Elnis as the only means ofescaping the "unbeeinflußte Kontrolle" exerted over her by the "Gruppe28." Elnis presents his exploitation of her as the natural consequence oftheir—or any—relationship and expects her compliance as a proof of themagnitude of her love for him (TSF 14). Not only does he demandunconditional financial and emotional support, he finds it imperative thatshe cease to exist as her own person in order to continue the relationshipwith him. "Du sollst nicht mehr da sein. Aufsaugen will ich dich doch"(TSF 16).

Elnis's commitment to the relationship consists of holding Ebbaresponsible for all obstacles in his life. Like Karl, he is convinced that hiswarning to her relieves him of all responsibility. Like Roelle, he perceiveshimself as enlightened and poetically sensitive to a degree beyond theunderstanding of mere humans, and consequently, as outside of, or rather,above society. As Roelle does, Elnis presents his vulnerability as a directresult of this special position. Ebba exists to compensate for his weakness.Just as he utilizes Ebba to gain the strength he does not possess, hedisassociates himself from his human frailty—or superhuman frailty, in thesense explained above—by describing it/himself in the third person: "Manmuß eben Elnis pflegen. Elnis ist ganz krank nach dir. Elnis ist eben sozart. Elnis ist ganz wund inwendig" (TSF 17). Ebba accepts her role inthe relationship, because she believes in his superiority (TSF 20). Shefeels guilty for opposing him when she does; even her attempts at

65

opposition do not seem to be of her own doing, but rather somethinglearned from him (TSF 27). She accepts Elnis's list of "Ebba soll/Ebbasoll nicht" without comment or complaint, almost as an anticipated answerto her later question: "Was in Gottes Namen will er?" (TSF 31). Shedefends Elnis in public, whereas Elnis does not hesitate to publiclyhumiliate her (TSF 23-4). Ebba has a clear perception of actual eventsand the irrationality of his accusations, and is capable of articulating herperceptions: "Das sind eben die Folgen deiner Heftigkeit. . . . Du drohstschon wieder" (TSF 26-7). In spite of her insight, she attempts to viewElnis through his eyes, those of the "Tiefseefisch" not subject to humanstandards. Thus, his illogical accusations take on a quality which is all themore alluring to her because she does not completely understand it. Shesubjects herself to his tyrannical meticulousness, emotional intimidation,hypochondria, and financial exploitation of her. However, the alliance shehas formed with him in defense against the "Gruppe 28" is maintained. Inreturn for giving herself completely over to him, she receives his writtenguarantee: "Auch wenn ich nicht gut gegen dich bin, werde ich bei dir seinjeden Tag" (TSF 31).

In Act II, the animosity between the two literary camps parallels theconflict between Elnis and Ebba. In the attempt made by the "Gruppe 28"to break up their relationship, Elnis recognizes an intervention from theoutside which jeopardizes her "unbedingte Hingabe an meine Persönlich-keit" (TSF 37). In the ensuing dispute with Wollank, it becomes clear thatEbba sees her relationship with Elnis as the only means of escapingoppression from the group. Although she recognizes the similarity of bothforms of oppression—the "unbedingte Hingabe" Elnis demands is an obviousparallel to the "unbeeinflußte Kontrolle" exerted by the group—, she ismore capable of accepting it from Elnis, because she perceives him as amisunderstood genius: "Ich weiß, es ist was an ihn, wovon wir nichtverstehen, wie groß es ist. Andere werden kommen, die die Lösungfinden, und man wird mit einem Schlag sehen, wer er war" (TSF 42).

In Ebba's experience, Elnis's greatness manifests itself in his mentaldeviance. When she declares him a genius and sets him apart from therest of humanity, she implies that she must be willing to tolerate anydeviant behavior from him as deserved punishment for her guilt. Her guiltconsists of any thought or action which is not an integral part of Elnis, ofher very existence with/next to him (ELNIS: "Du bist schuld, weil du nebenmir bist," TSF 27), as opposed to her non-existence as part of him ("nichtmehr da'Y'aufgesogen"). In these terms, her conversation with Wollankand her silence to Elnis constitute sufficient guilt to merit a threat of

66

separation. When Ebba presumes to defend her behavior, thus to someextent asserting her existence on her own, Elnis flies into a fit which servesto assert his "genius" (i.e., his power over her). During Elnis's seizure, theterms of the relationship are clarified by his complete abandonment ofinhibitions. Elnis, the wolf, physically tries to execute the demands thatElnis, the man, makes on Ebba in "normal" life; his attempt at killing—andeating?—his prey must be seen as an elaboration of his command that shedissolve in him and become part of him.10

In a similar fashion, Ebba reacts to Elnis's fit just as she does to hiscalmer periods. She is aware of and familiar with his reactions. "Immerist er so müd. Immer ist ihm der Kopf so schwer. Immer weiß er nicht,was war. Immer tastet er nach den Augen" (TSF 56). Nonetheless, sheremains both puzzled and fascinated by him: "Was ist das, was du hörstund was ich nicht höre? . . . Wer ist im Zimmer, den ich nicht sehe?. . . Was machen sie mit dir und wer macht das?" (TSF 56-7). In herhorror and helplessness, she once again admits that she fails to understandhim, implying that this failure to understand is part of the fascination thatbinds her to him.

In the scene with Hütchen, Elnis secures Ebba's "unbedingte Hingabe"by defending her in public. He himself states repeatedly that it is meantprimarily for public observation: "Ich habe die Pflicht, über die Ehremeiner Frau nach außen zu wachen. . . . Man soll wissen, daß ich zudieser Frau stand bis zum letzten" (TSF 58-9, emphases added). Thepublic includes Ebba, whose personal concerns are discussed, although shenever comments during the scene. True to the definition of their relation-ship established during Elnis's fit, Elnis absorbs Ebba's concerns along withher personality. Thus, without a word of comment or opposition from her,he can confidently state at the end of the scene: "Meine Frau wird allediese Dinge mitmachen. Dafür ist sie meine Frau. Oder sie wird von mirgehen" (TSF 60). In his unopposed subjugation of her, he defines himselfoutwardly as strong and somehow superior and is perceived by others assuch. Hütchen, representing the public, states, "Sie sind stark. Siegehören auf einen anderen Platz. Sie kämpfen die Tragödie eines Mannes,der auf einen anderen Platz gehört" (TSF 60-1). Hütchen's appraisal issimilar to Ebba's. In it, Elnis personifies the unusual, the genius set apartfrom everyone else. All others, including Ebba, are dirt, but useful dirt."Andere sind Dreck und Dreck muß sein" (TSF 61). Hütchen's statementpresents a view of how human relationships are perceived in general: thetreatment of people as useful dirt is performed expertly by Elnis, noted

67

with admiration by Hütchen, and accepted as a regular practice in the"Gruppe 28."

Hütchen's remark leads directly into a portrait of the group fromwhich Ebba had escaped. Its practices appear more mechanical and lessimpulsive than Elnis's oppression of Ebba, although clearly based on thesame principal. In the characterization of the group, Fleißer generalizesthe terms of the relationship between Ebba and Elnis to the point wherethey become "etwas zwischen Männern und Frauen" in a very generalsense. The rhetoric used in the group has by now become recognizable asone used primarily in male-female interaction: Wollank and Gronoff speakof human raw material that exists only to be used up; Gronoff threatensto "smash existences." Since Fleißer selects men for the role of oppressor(Wollank and Gronoff) and women for the role of oppressed (Orion andthe secretary), it would seem that this form of oppression concernsprimarily women. "Furchtbar sind diese Frauen, die um Sie herumwim-meln und von denen jede in einer anderen Hilfeleistung erstirbt" (TSF 63).Elnis is a desirably ally for the group, not only because of the strategicreasons stated by Gronoff, but also because he adheres to the underlyingprinciples of the "Gruppe 28." This kinship seems implied in Gronoff sgreeting: "Männer werden nie die richtige Einstellung zueinander bekom-men, solange es über den Kopf einer Frau geht" (TSF 66). Gronoffsdescription of the methods used in the group is an exact analysis of therelationship between Ebba and Elnis: Ebba is, in essence, Elnis's "StaffelB." She is a human being who exists only to be consumed, a woman whodies "in einer . . . Hilfeleistung." Regarded as "zur selbständigen Produk-tion unbrauchbar," set up to be used "als Material," "Staffel B arbeitet ausEnthusiasmus freiwillig für Staffel A"—an enthusiasm based on the attrac-tion of Elnis's personality (TSF 67). The last verbal exchange betweenEbba and Elnis is an acknowledgment of this fact:

EBBA: Um dich ist jetzt Bewegung, aber um mich ist Schweigen.ELNIS: Du mußt lernen, ganz in meinen Schatten zu treten. Glaubemir, das ist besser für die Liebe eines Mannes.

(TSF 73)

As Elnis gains in professional standing, Ebba is reduced to the stateof mute dependency on him; she is now the raw material for his use. Herfate is dramatically expressed, as Berta's was earlier, by her quiet fadingout of the scene. Gronoffs addendum to his description of the sy-stem—"Nach einiger Zeit empören sie sich und verlassen uns (TSF 67)—doesnot become a reality for Ebba, but for Wollank the cyclist, whose success-ful defiance can be read as a contrast to Ebba's defenseless submission.

68

Wollank's opposition sets an example for similar insurgency in othercharacters in Fleißer's later writing, namely, Wollank II and Gesine, Ebba'salter ego. Both appear in the revised Der Tiefseefisch (1972), written morethan 40 years after the first version. After Brecht blocked the publicationof Der Tiefseeflsch in 1930, Fleißer did not write another play until KarlStuart in 1937. During the Third Reich, her license to write was limitedto six articles a year. In 1935, she married her former fiancé Bepp Haindl.Her husband's business and his opposition to her writing restricted hertime and opportunity to write even further. What Fleißer did produceduring the years between 1930 and 1958—Karl Stuart, Der starke Stamm,and several stories—she wrote in spite of tremendous emotional, political,and financial obstacles.

During the last seven years of her life, she revised the plays she hadoriginally written under the influence of Brecht and Draws-Tychsen:Pioniere in Ingolstadt (1968), Fegefeuer in Ingolstadt (1971), and DerTiefseeflsch (1972). The revision of Fegefeuer was prompted by HorstLaube and Günther Ballhausen. Fassbinder produced an adaptation ofPioniere in 1971, and once again, the changes were made without theauthor's knowledge. Kroetz publicly demanded an edition of her collectedworks, which appeared a year later.11 While these men—not mentors, but"sons," as Fleißer termed them—were partly responsible for the rediscoveryof the dramatist Marieluise Fleißer, there is no evidence that they had anyinfluence on the revisions themselves, or that they appear as figures in theplays, as Brecht and Draws-Tychsen did.

The revised version of Der Tiefseeflsch (1972) shows a shift inemphasis, compared to the earlier play, which can be attributed to theabsence of outside pressure on the author. Gesine's opposition is a starkcontrast to the loss of identify forced on Olga, Berta, and Ebba, whoreturn "home" or submissively fade from the scene. Susan Cocalisdescribes the difference between Fleißer's early and her later work asfollows: "Im Spätwerk werden die Lücken des Frühwerks geschlossen unddie Befreiungswünsche, die dort indirekt ... im Hintergrund wirkten,werden nunmehr zum Hauptthema autobiographischer Aufzeichnungen."12In the second version of Der Tiefseeflsch, Fleißer made few changes in theactual lines, and none regarding the autobiographical constellation of thecharacters: "Tütü is eine Übertreibung des damaligen, ich wiederhole, desdamaligen Brecht" (Fragmente und Arbeitsnotizen, TSF 144). Gesine is anautobiographical study.13 But while the original version of Der Tiefseefischseems to be a portrait of the antagonism between Brecht and Draws-Tychsen rather than a portrayal of Ebba's situation, the emphasis now

69

shifts to the heroine. The group and the man she lives with are shown asthe circumstances leading to her rebellion. Like Ebba, Gesine finds herselfin a state of forced dependence on men, in which she is exploited from allsides. In contrast to Ebba, who willingly accepts her lot ("Ich will ja garnicht weg," TSF 96), Gesine wishes to escape, but recognizes that she isunable to change her circumstances. "Noch kann ich nicht weg" (1,295).Like Ebba, Gesine is expected to live and write for Laurenz, receiving themere tokens of support he offers to his fellow outcast. This support iswithdrawn as soon as Gesine can no longer supply him with monetarysupport through her writing.

LAURENZ: Ich werde immer der Außenseiter sein, das ist meinGesetz. Ich kann dich nicht mitziehen. Du mußt mir deinGeld schon selber verdienen. . . . Wie, das weiß ich auchnicht. Ich steck nicht in deiner Haut. Ich kann mir nicht

einmal vorstellen, wo deine Möglichkeit liegt.GESINE: Weil es keine gibt, die mich nicht umbringt.LAURENZ: ... Du mußt selber wissen, was du zu tun hast.GESINE: Wenn es hart auf hart geht, ist einer allein.

(1,355)

Gesine here realizes the futility of her former dependence onLaurenz, although it is Laurenz who breaks the alliance rather than she.However, the conclusion Gesine draws appears nowhere in Fleißer's earlydrama: the lost ally-outcast is not replaced with another ally, but with aresolve to the contrary. "Man soll es nicht tun. Ich werde es nie wiedertun. Ich lasse mich nie wieder fressen" (1,356).

Fleißer wrote this at a time when she, like Gesine at the end of theplay, was freed from the literary and personal domination of men, at atime when, perhaps for the first time, she may have believed in thepossibility of independence. Gesine's opposition is shown as a possibilitywhich women in Fleißer's early drama did not have or use; it is notcelebrated as a victory: the play ends there. Fleißer gives no clue as toGesine's future. More important than her future, however, is the existencethat she wins back from Laurenz, an existence that is acknowledged bothverbally and in the stage directions. While Ebba, Gesine's former self,simply fades from the scene, Gesine walks away: "Sie verläßt ihn" (1,355).As they do in the earlier plays, the stage directions serve to expressdramatic action as well as the characters' self-definition. When Gesineleaves both Laurenz and the stage, she defines herself: independent fromhim and visible to us.

70

Notes

* This paper originated as a joint project with Bettina McGimsey for a seminar.I would like to thank her here for the long weekends she put into the project with me,for her many good ideas and relentless enthusiasm, and emphasize that she is the onewho got me "hooked" on Fleißer. I also thank Susan Cocalis for valuable suggestions andstylistic help, and Karin Obermeier for critical proofreading.

Unless otherwise noted, I quote from Fleißer's Gesammelte Werke. Subsequent pagereferences appear immediately following the quotation.

349.1 Quoted from Hans Fröhlich, "Etwas zwischen Männern und Frauen," Materialien:

2 Moritz Seeler, letter to Marieluise Fleißer, 31 March 1926, Materialien: 27-9.

3 Eva Pfister, "Eine Wirklichkeit mußte sie haben: Über den Aufbruch derMarieluise Fleißer," Marieluise Fleißer, ed. Kraft, 9-52; here 42.

4 For a description of Fleißer's ambiguous admiration for male rebels, cf. Giselavon Wysocki.

5 Cf. Michael Töteberg, "Abhängigkeit und Förderung: Marieluise FleißersBeziehungen zu Bertolt Brecht," Text und Kritik: Marieluise Fleißer, ed. Arnold, 74-87;Wend Kässens and Michael Töteberg, Marieluise Fleißer. Cf. also Moray McGowan.

6 Susan Cocalis, "Weib ist Weib."

7 The early version of Fegefeuer in Ingolstadt (1924) was not included in GesammelteWerke, but is available in Zeit und Theater vol. 2. This edition will be referred to as Z+Tin subsequent citations.

8 This is a direct quote from Brecht. Cf. 1,442: "Die Gestalt des Pioniers Korl trägtZüge vom frühen Brecht ('Einen Fetzen muß man aus euch machen.')."

9 Also not included in Gesammelte Werke. The edition used for references to theearly version (1930) is Marieluise Fleißer, Der Tiefseefisch: Texte, Dokumente, Materialien.Citations from the accompanying "Fragmente und Arbeitsnotizen zur Neufassung 1973/74"and "Verständigungstexte: Dokumente zum Entstehungsprozeß des Dramas" are takenfrom the same edition, subsequently identified as TSF.

10 Compare Fleißer's description of Draws-Tychsen in "Verständigungstexte," TSF156: "Es ist bloß sein Vogel, ist halb so wild, er ist kein Tyrann. Er ist zufrieden, wennman ihn fürchtet. Ein bißchen Fürchten muß sein, er ist kein Menschenfresser." Shortlythereafter: "Der Beschützer ist selber ein Wolf. Raubtiere" (160).

11 Günther Rühle, "Die andere Seite von Ingolstadt: Wirkung und Umfang desFleißerschen Werks," Marieluise Fleißer, ed. Kraft, 53-68. Cf. especially 54-59.

12 Susan Cocalis, "Weib ohne Wirklichkeit," 83.

71

1-1

From an unpublished manuscript by Marieluise Fleißer, in Günther Rühle, "Dieandere Seite," 94-5.

Works Cited

Arnold, Heinz Ludwig, ed. Text und Kritik: Marieluise Fleißer. München: Pribil, 1979.

Cocalis, Susan. "Weib ist Weib: Mimetische Darstellung contra emanzipatorische Tendenzin den Dramen Marieluise Fleißers." Die Frau als Heldin und Autorin: Neue kritische

Ansätze zur deutschen Literatur. Ed. Wolfgang Paulsen. Bern and München:Francke, 1979, 201-10.

__________. "Weib ohne Wirklichkeit, Welt ohne Weiblichkeit: Zum Selbst-, Frauen-und Gesellschaftsbild im Frühwerk Marieluise Fleißers." Entwürfe von Frauen in derLiteratur des 20. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Ã-rmela von der Luhe. Berlin: Argument, 1982,64-85.

Fleißer, Marieluise. Fegefeuer in Ingolstadt. Zeit und Theater vol. 2: Von der Republik zurDiktatur (1925-33). Ed. Günther Rühle. Berlin: Propyläen, 1972, 105-53.

__________. Gesammelte Werke. Ed. Günther Rühle. 3 vols. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,1972.

_. Der Tiefseefisch: Texte, Dokumente, Materialien. Ed. Wend Kässens andMichael Töteberg. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1980.

Kässens, Wend and Michael Töteberg. Marieluise Fleißer. München: dtv, 1979.

Kraft, Friedrich, ed. Marieluise Fleißer: Anmerkungen, Texte, Dokumente. Ingolstadt:Donau Kurier, 1981.

McGowan, Moray. Marieluise Fleißer. München: Beck, 1987.

Rühle, Günther, ed. Materialien zum Leben und Schreiben der Marieluise Fleißer.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973.

Wysocki, Gisela von. "Die Magie der Großstadt—Marieluise Fleißer." Die Fröste derFreiheit: Aufbruchsphantasien. Frankfurt: Syndikat, 1980, 9-22.

72