Universiteit van Amsterdam Graduate School of Humanities
MA Literary Studies Literature, Culture and Society
MA Thesis
Supervisor: Dr. Thomas Ernst
Perspectives on the literariness of love letters
Constructions of intimacy in early 20
thcentury literary
and non-literary romantic correspondence
Kathy Zaruba 12428914
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: 20th century amatory correspondence as a genre ... 1
2. What are love letters? Romantic epistolary communication in the context of the 20th century ... 3
2.1. A brief contextualization of the letter as a research object ... 3
2.2. Romantic epistolary communication, or defining the love letter ... 7
2.3. Constructions of intimacy in romantic epistolary correspondence ... 11
2.4. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Proximity and distance through language in epistolary communication ... 13
3. Constructions of intimacy in literary amatory correspondence ... 17
3.1. Franz Kafka’s letters to Felice Bauer ... 20
3.2. Interim conclusion: Methods of establishing intimacy in Franz Kafka’s amatory correspondence with Felice Bauer ... 31
4. An exemplary investigation of common romantic epistolary correspondence of the 20th century ... 33
4.1. Preliminary considerations: Data and methodology ... 34
4.2. An exemplary investigation of non-literary amatory correspondence: Henri Mandel’s letters to Mathilde (Tilly) Hirschfeld ... 37
4.3. Interim conclusion: Affordances of the non-literary romantic correspondence of Henri Mandel and Mathilde Hirschfeld ... 42
5. Conclusion ... 44
6. References ... 47
1. Introduction: 20th century amatory correspondence as a genre
Ever since its rise to prominence in the 18th century, the letter has become a perpetual and
indispensable instrument for communication in societies over time, not least owing to its omnipresence, as well as its potentiality to occur in a versatile range of contexts and to fulfill an array of diverse functions (Barton & Hall 2000: 1). The hybridity and adaptability of the letter as a medium, particularly in combination with its affordance of fusing practical and illocutionary functions with an aesthetic dimension (cf. Asen 2017: 145; Clauss 1993: 12), also account for its ambivalent status in research contexts, where it has been subject to investigations from miscellaneous perspectives and by various disciplines (cf. Bergs 2014: 176; Wyss 2008: 18, 2011: 114, 2014: 205). In this respect, binary conceptions of the letter dominate research methodologies – whilst some scholars advocate for its primary disposition as a literary genre (for instance Robinson 1983; Snyder 1927), others foreground its significance as an invaluable socio-cultural and historically relevant source (cf. Barton & Hall 2000: 1; Bauer & Hämmerle 2017; Runge & Steinbrügge 1991). Such controversies reveal the underlying and incessant tensions between the predominating aspects of aesthetics and historicity inherent to the letter; and Runge and Steinbrügge’s (1991: 7) remark that unilaterally oriented approaches inevitably risk the forging of limited and fragmentary insight furthermore accentuates the interdependence of the two poles. These considerations – viz. the interrelationship between aesthetic and socio-historical dimensions of the letter – are of specific relevance with regards to the subcategory of the love letter, particularly in the context of early 20th century Europe.
The end of the 19th century can be considered as a period of upheaval, both in
media-historical, as well as socio-cultural terms; not only did the letter, as a result of technological advancements, lose its monopoly as a means of distant communication (Wyss 2008: 3, 2011: 87, 2014: 9f.; cf. also Bennholdt-Thomsen 1991: 193; Marxer 2001: 31), but an incipient detachment from the predominating romantic ideal of love towards a more ordinary conception of it in the first two decades of the 20th century (Becker & Reinhardt-Becker 2019: 32; Luhmann 1983) had a major impact on amatory epistolary correspondence. Bauer and Hämmerle (2017: 10) assert in this context that the exchange of love letters became a practice primarily associated with the educated upper middle class, where (pre-marital) romantic correspondence was a conventional and widely practiced method of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships.
Such an ambiguous notion of love letters – as a realm for the construction of amatory feelings and relationships on the one hand, and a functional text type or genre associated with a specific social class at a particular period of time on the other – highlights anew the abovementioned tensions associated with the prevalence of aesthetic or primarily functional aspects of the genre of the (love) letter. More specifically, the frequency of amatory correspondence in this era raises the legitimate question of whether there are distinct factors which distinguish romantic correspondences that are deemed ‘literary’ by the traditional canon from correspondences penned by individuals of the same socio-economic background; or, in other words, whether canonical literary correspondences may be regarded as instances of a broader, yet autonomous and common genre of upper middle class amatory epistolary correspondence.
Given that a major affordance of love letters is, as has been asserted, the construction of amorous partnerships (Bauer 2017; Bauer & Hämmerle 2017; Hämmerle 2017; Verheyen 2017; Wyss 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014b), and that this process is primarily achieved by establishing feelings of emotional closeness and intimacy in the epistolary realm (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017; Marxer 2001; Rebhan-Glück 2017b; Stauf, Simonis & Paulus 2008; Wyss 2000, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014b), as will be argued, the aim of this paper will be to scrutinize and answer the following research question: In how far do differences between literary and non-literary amatory correspondences exist with regards to constructions of intimacy on a linguistic and metalinguistic level? Essentially, the issue will be examined by way of case study analysis on the basis of close readings of the correspondences of Franz Kafka and Felice Bauer on the one hand, and Henri Mandel and Mathilde Hirschfeld,1 an upper middle class couple not associated with the literary realm, on the other. Whilst Kafka’s correspondence with Bauer has been published, the data from Mandel and Hirschfeld’s correspondence stem from the archive Sammlung Frauennachlässe am Institut für Geschichte der Universität Wien.
Considering the complexities of defining the objects analyzed and concepts applied in this paper, a theoretical discussion of the (love) letter as a genre (2.1), its contextualization in the early 20th century (2.2), and its potential or affordance of providing a space for intimacy construction through various methods (2.3 and 2.4) will serve as contextualization for subsequent analyses of primary material (chapters 3 and 4). Finally, the aim of this paper is not to evaluate the correspondences or to make generalizable claims. Instead, the ensuing
1 Both names are pseudonyms and were adopted from previous publications examining the
same correspondence; notably Asen (2017), Bauer and Hämmerle (2017), Semanek (2017) and Verheyen (2017).
analyses hope to offer novel considerations of the love letter in the context of the early 20th century, and to serve as a preliminary contribution to an enhanced understanding of the genre by elucidating its hybrid potential as both literary and functional writing.
2. What are love letters? Romantic epistolary communication in the context of the 20th
century
Common conceptions of love letters generally foreground the assumption that their primary focus and perhaps singularly defining characteristic are exuberant and eloquent declarations of love. Such a notion, however, is both highly restrictive, as well as inaccurate when placed in the realm of academic research. Studies carried out by various disciplines concerned with the (love) letter as an object of investigation have accentuated the vastness and versatility of the genre (cf. for instance Barton & Hall 2000; Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 14; Wyss 2002), and thus the difficulty of localizing and establishing clearly set boundaries of the source material under analysis.
To legitimize the stance that the subgenre of love letters is not intrinsically defined by or constricted to linguistically explicit expressions of affection, the current chapter aims to elucidate the caveats of the misconceptions of (love) letters as a genre. The ensuing discussion ultimately seeks to improve the understanding not only of the source material at hand, but also of romantic communication on a bigger scale.
A brief contextualization of the letter as a research object 2.1.
While the 18th century generally marks the peak of epistolary practice (Marxer 2001: 29), its repercussions and heyday extended well into the long 19th century (Kocka 2002), particularly in the German-speaking world (Höflich & Gebhardt 2005: 9; Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 12). The emergence of other forms of media, from the 19th century telegram, post card and telephone, the 20th century fax machine, and the late 20th century rise of the internet and the digital era, mobile telephony, e-mail, chat and instant messaging (Wyss 2008: 3, 2011: 87, 2014: 9f.; also Bennholdt-Thomsen 1991: 193; Marxer 2001: 31) deprived the letter of its primary monopolistic position. However, in accordance to Riepl’s law of media (1913), it has never been entirely replaced or become extinct, but continues to “be found in [many] domains of life” (Barton & Hall 2000: 1).
Despite, or precisely because of, their omnipresence, letters have constituted an intricate object of investigation, not least owing to their strong dependence on context and
consequential fluidity as a medium. Their “flexibility [as a] mode of communication”, as Barton and Hall (2000: 1) assert, which manifests itself in a tendency to fulfill an array of pragmatic functions and to cross “informal and formal contexts” (Barton & Hall 2000: 1), has resulted in multidisciplinary interest in the letter as an object of analysis. As such, it has been subject to investigation from various angles, including media-historical, communication-theoretical, (socio-)linguistic, as well as socio-psychological ones (Bergs 2014: 176; Wyss 2008: 18, 2011: 114, 2014: 205).
Given the hybridity of the letter as source material, previous research has highlighted its value as a socio-historical document in particular, providing useful insight into the workings of society at specific points in time (cf. Barton & Hall 2000: 1; Runge & Steinbrügge 1991: 7). In this context, Barton and Hall (2000: 9) speak of the process of “[r]econtextualisation”, which appears “when letters are moved into [various] arenas” and are treated as “data for historical and other research”. Cases in point are “[c]ollections of letters […] published as biography, as literature and as entertainment” (Barton & Hall 2000: 9).
Nonetheless, the status of the letter as a yielding object of analysis with the potential to provide rich and versatile insight is not exclusively beneficial. There are a few crucial pitfalls to be taken into consideration. Firstly, whilst the two World Wars spurred a virtual “[e]xplosion” of private epistolary communication (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 12) in the form of field post, permeating all social strata and turning unseasoned writers into habitual ones (cf. Elspaß 2002: 11f.; Rebhan-Glück 2017a: 118; Wyss 2011: 94), and while it has been ascertained that even prior to the wars and the consequently risen popularity of letter writing epistolary practice was by no means restricted to the Bildungsbürgertum, i.e. middle class intellectuals, but commonly practiced by members of the working class as well (cf. Elspaß 2002), the fact that it was nevertheless primarily associated with and regularly practiced by members of higher social classes should not be left disregarded. Thus, even though members of lower social classes did indeed write, letter writing, particularly in the context of establishing romantic relationships, was a habit more strongly anchored in the higher-middle class, as was the related custom of archiving private epistolary correspondences (Asen 2017: 141). Given the constricted access to authentic ego-documents produced by representatives of lower social strata with less advanced levels of education, research in the field of epistolary correspondence has, as a consequence, primarily focused on data closely associated with the educated middle to upper classes, and can be considered biased or limited in this respect.
Whilst analyses of (amatory) letters exchanged in higher social milieus can be, and indeed have been, rewarding (cf. for instance the studies in Bauer & Hämmerle 2017; i.e. Rebhan-Glück 2017a, 2017b; Verheyen 2017; Asen 2017; Hämmerle 2017; but also Bennholdt-Thomsen 1991; Elspaß 2002; Stauf, Simonis & Paulus 2008; Wyss 2000, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014a, 2014b), their findings specifically apply to the social contexts in which they are situated and may not necessarily be pertinent to other social strata and ego-documents. This is an important caveat to consider, particularly in the light of the study at hand, which will similarly restrict its focus to letters exchanged by educated intellectuals and members of the upper middle class, for reasons of comparability to the chosen literary material, i.e. Franz Kafka’s correspondence with Felice Bauer.
Furthermore, the aforementioned prevalence of letter-writing in intellectual circles requires additional critical consideration when regarding the letter in an alternative research context; namely, rather than foregrounding its (primary) function as a fruitful socio-historical document, such research focuses on its role and significance in biographic writing of prominent personalities or as a literary object in its own right, as Barton and Hall (2000: 10) have indicated.
Situating the letter in literary-theoretical discussions, however, has not been unproblematic. For instance, in his discussion of ‘American Literature’ as early as in 1927, Snyder takes a contested stance in this regard, arguing in favor of a broadening of the literary canon to include letters as well. He justifies his proposition by claiming that “[t]he ablest writers […] were [in fact] men whose chief interests were political or economic, not literary” (Snyder 1927: 207), and that “much of our most significant literature is far removed from the realm of purely artistic creation” (Snyder 1927: 208). Similarly, yet motivated by feminist objectives, Robinson (1983: 94) advocates for a reconsideration of the literary canon to include – amongst other non-fictional ego-documents – letters, and particularly those written by women.
While such debates about fundamental reconsiderations of the canon have prevailed to this day, Runge and Steinbrügge (1991: 7) remark that nonetheless, and in spite of recent additions of literary investigations, including publications of letter editions, the letter still occupies a marginal place in literary-theoretical research; its status has not been adequately clarified to date – a crucial observation motivating the epistemological interest of the paper at hand, the aim of which is to clarify whether amatory correspondence of canonical literates may be justified and regarded as (canonical) literary output, or whether it is, rather, to be
conceived of as representative of the common and functional upper middle class practice of engaging in romantic correspondence.
It is interesting to remark in this context that, whilst Robinson (1983: 94), as quoted above, highlights the potentially high literary value of women’s ego-documents and non-fictional writings, and thus argues in favor of their consideration and inclusion into the realm of literature, Runge and Steinbrügge (1991: 9) attribute the inobservance or degradation of the letter in the sphere of literary studies precisely to the fact that letter writing, and hence the letter as a genre, were predominantly associated with the female sphere from the 18th century onwards.2 Whilst a profound gender-based discussion exceeds the scope of this paper,3 the preceding remarks serve to shed light on the problematic and ambiguous place letters occupy within the literary realm and research in general.
Given scholarly attention’s tendency of disregarding letters as a literary genre, academia has been predominantly directed at and restricted to letters written by authors who have been attributed canonical status (cf. Schmidt & Vorderer 1995: 145), resulting in a confined view of the source material due to a strong focus on correspondences produced by (white) male literates. These contextual confinements aggravate the challenges posed by the letter as a research object, and need to be critically acknowledged when analyzing epistolary communication, particularly also in the context of this project, which is similarly limited in this respect.
In addition to the aforementioned caveats, another complexity arises when attempting to situate the letter as a research object, namely in regards to its previously indicated fluidity as a medium (Barton & Hall 2000; Bauer & Hämmerle 2017). As Runge and Steinbrügge (1991: 7) crucially remark, common literary-theoretical attempts to regard and examine the letter as an autonomous piece of artwork are perhaps equally methodically questionable as endeavors to regard them solely in the light of social and economic history.4 For while in the
first case the historical relevance of the texts is neglected, the latter majorly disregards the
2 This view was notably propagated by Christian Fürchtegott Gellert (1988 [1751]), who
identifies women as inherently superior letter writers to men, given their more natural, conversational and thus authentic style; a characteristic of high-quality epistolary practice (cf. Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 12; Rebhan-Glück 2017b: 67; Runge & Steinbrügge 1991: 7; and Höflich & Gebhardt 2005: 9; Koch & Oesterreicher 1997: 593; Wirth 2005: 71).
3 For more detailed examinations and critical discussions of female letter writing cf. the works
collected in Runge and Steinbrügge (1991), as well as more recent debates and analyses in Bauer and Hämmerle (2017).
4 “Als methodisch fragwürdig und wenig weiterführend erscheinen sowohl die
literaturtheoretischen Versuche, Briefe ausgehend vom Begriff des autonomen Kunstwerks zu analysieren, als auch jene Bemühungen, Briefe ausschließlich nach ihrem Verhältnis zur Sozialgeschichte zu befragen.” (Runge & Steinbrügge 1991: 7).
aesthetic dimension (Runge & Steinbrügge 1991: 7).5 Such unilaterally oriented approaches risk discrediting the interdependence of both aspects of letters, as well as their highly contingent nature, leading to fragmentary and inadequate insight. Notwithstanding, all whilst acknowledging that investigations of objects that are as versatile, multifaceted and historically-contingent as the letter are inevitably accompanied by methodological intricacies and limitations, this study seeks to mitigate these implications by acknowledging the abovementioned caveats, whilst examining and contrasting epistolary correspondences which are attributed literary and canonical value, as well as those originating from equivalent socio-economic, yet non-literary realms in the traditional sense.
The preceding discussion aimed at providing some elementary theoretical implications of situating the ample category of the letter in context of academic research, which are crucial to enhance a profound and, likewise, critical understanding of the primary objects under analysis in this study. In light of the research interest of the paper at hand, the ensuing subchapter will narrow down the theoretical focus to specifically scrutinize and define the subgenre of the love letter – or, rather, romantic epistolary communication, as will be argued – both in general terms, as well as in the particular context of the early 20th century, which is the focal point in the framework of this study.
Romantic epistolary communication, or defining the love letter 2.2.
As was initially purported, love letters intuitively and generally tend to be equated with explicit confessions of love and affection addressed at a recipient or potential love interest in written form. Such a delimitating view, however, has been frequently challenged and refuted in scholarly research. For the previously mentioned generic manifoldness of the letter in general extends, to a certain extent, to the subcategory of the love letter as well. In this vein, amatory epistolary communication cannot be restrictively defined by inherent (linguistic) features of the text – a conception which aligns with Runge and Steinbrügge’s (1991: 7) abovementioned argument that such a view would neglect the letters’ position in a broader, socio-historically relevant context, as well as Wyss’ (2002: 63) contention that it is reductionist and plainly lacks empirical support.6 Rather, it is precisely this social and conceptual framework into which the letters are embedded which determines the
5 “Im ersten Fall geht die historische, im zweiten Fall die ästhetische Relevanz der Texte
verloren.” (Runge & Steinbrügge 1991: 7).
6 “Wer nun behauptet, der Liebesbrief sei grundsätzlich nichts anderes als eine schriftliche
Liebeserklärung, […] nimmt damit eine die Verallgemeinerung zwar unterstützende, doch empirisch schwer haltbare Reduktion in Kauf.” (Wyss 2002: 63).
categorization of a certain epistolary correspondence as amatory or romantic (cf. Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 10ff.). In this sense, letters exchanged with a wide range of romantic motives may be regarded as love letters; including highly administrative correspondences concerned with wedding preparations once the official bourgeois courting phase has been passed (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017), farewell-letters or those indicating the end of a relationship (Bennholdt-Thomsen 1991), as well as those asking for another chance (Wyss 2002) or, in the broadest sense, also short handwritten notes left in a shared apartment (Wyss 2002), to name but a few cases in point. Ordinariness and the exchange of seemingly banal information therefore do not oppose the notion of amatory correspondence; rather, the interrelationship of shared ordinariness on the one hand, and literary-aesthetical stylization on the other is considered an inherent and defining aspect of love letters and romantic epistolary communication (Clauss 1993: 12; also Asen 2017: 145; Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 14f.).
Thus, Wyss (2002: 62) maintains that there is no actual, intrinsic or elementary form of the (epistolary) love declaration.7 Rather, a prevalent, mutual and perhaps defining feature of amatory correspondences of various sorts and formats – and throughout various historico-cultural eras – is their function of initiating, framing, maintaining and/or dissolving romantic relationships (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 12), a performative potential of the letters which Wyss (2002: 57, 2008: 15, 2011: 111, 2014b: 202) has summarized as and dubbed Beziehungsarbeit (cf. also Hämmerle 2017: 191) – and which, to a certain extent, is inherently linked to and stimulated by the abovementioned habit of exchanging trivialities (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 15).8 Such an expanded notion of love letters – or amatory epistolary correspondence –, which is not restricted to lexical statements of affection, largely corresponds to Barton and Hall’s remark on a pivotal characteristic of letters, namely that they “have particular illocutionary force: the existence of the letter itself has meaning in addition to the content and, in a reflexive way, reference is often made within the letter to the existence of the letter itself” (Barton & Hall 2000: 6f.). This conception has particular significance in the context of written amatory communication, as it attributes to the love letter a specific form of metalinguistic relevance: “as a whole it signifies – or, more broadly, expresses – the writer’s love” (Wyss 2008: 1); or, as Barthes maintains in A Lover’s Discourse (1977: 157), “[a] single piece of information is varied […]: I am thinking of you”
7 “Eine eigentliche Form der Liebeserklärung ist nicht auszumachen.” (Wyss 2002: 62f.). 8 “Auch geteilte oder kommunizierte Alltäglichkeit und ihre Themen können […] in vielerlei
Form mit dem »Liebesgespräch« verschmelzen, ja mehr noch, darin oft sogar »den Ausgangspunkt und das Erhaltungsprinzip der Liebe« ausmachen.” (Bauer & Hämmerle 14f.).
[original emphasis]. Thus, the very practice of engaging in epistolary correspondence with a beloved one, as well as the materiality of the letters itself (Hämmerle 2017: 175; cf. also Barton & Hall 2000: 8) become equally essential and defining characteristics of romantic epistolary correspondence.
Considering such a broadened conception of the love letter, as opposed to a conventional or more restrictive one, Bauer and Hämmerle (2017) have adverted to the potentially misleading, and thus not entirely appropriate term ‘love letter’ to refer to amatory correspondences. As they furthermore indicate, the term ‘love letter’ (Liebesbrief) has, in the realms of literary, linguistic and cultural studies alike, developed into a genre rather strictly associated with the abovementioned Bildungsbürgertum (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 10),9 given the prevailing custom in these social spheres to engage in betrothal-correspondence (Verlobungskorrespondenz), i.e. epistolary communication initiating, framing and preparing for marriage, which is accordingly generally considered the epitome of the love letter (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 14).10 Thus, to obviate eventual misapprehensions, the more inclusive term Paarkorrespondenzen is introduced, which encompasses a broader spectrum of content-based and stylistic aspects of epistolary writings by romantically involved subjects (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 10).11
While a literal translation of the proposed term would correspond to ‘correspondences by (romantic) couples’, this project will maintain the previously introduced synonymous collocations of amatory or romantic epistolary correspondences, for stylistic reasons. Similarly, although the term ‘love letter’ may at first seem misleading, it will be used with caution in this study. Whilst the aforementioned compound expressions may be more accurate and inclusive, the common usage of the latter militate against a strict boycott of the term. Thus, the concepts of amatory and romantic epistolary communication or correspondence, as well as that of love letters will be used interchangeably throughout.
Lastly, it is crucial to note that the practice of engaging in romantic correspondence, as well as the negotiation and formation of the concept of love within this framework, are linked to and influenced by the culturally predominant conceptions of love of a specific historical era
9 “Dabei ist der erste Begriff ›Liebesbrief‹ jener, der bislang in den Literatur-, Sprach- und
Kulturwissenschaften zu einem eigenen, mehr oder weniger eng definierten und primär dem Bildungsbürgertum zugeordneten Genre erhoben wurde.” (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 10).
10 “Verlobungskorrespondenzen, die gemeinhin als Inbegriff des ›Liebesbriefes‹ gelten und
im Rahmen der bürgerlichen Eheanbahnung bis ins 20. Jahrhundert hinein zur viel praktizierten Konvention gehörten.” (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 14).
11 “Der zweite – Paarkorrespondenzen – ist hingegen weit offener und umfasst eine größere
inhaltliche und stilistische Bandbreite auch des popularen Schreibens zwischen sich liebenden Paaren” (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 10).
or point in time,12 – and are thus historically contingent. In this vein, Barton and Hall (2000: 9) have noted that “[t]he history of letter writing reveals that it is anything but a static process”, and that it is deeply ingrained in the social, political, historical and cultural contexts into which it is situated (cf. Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 15; Bennholdt-Thomsen 1991: 193). With specific reference to the research conducted at present, it is vital to acknowledge that the first two decades of the 20th century can be considered as gradually inaugurating a period of
transition of common ideals and conceptions of love, which is, to a certain extent, reflected in amatory epistolary correspondence of the time.
In the early 1900s, the romantic concept of love, which developed in the late 18th century and dominated Western culture and society throughout the 19th into the 20th (Asen 2017: 331; Becker & Reinhardt-Becker 2019: 19; Giddens 1992: 39; Luhmann 1983; Storey & McDonald 2014: 222), and which promoted an idealized notion of sublime romantic love based on concepts such as individuality, exclusivity, authenticity, deeply affectionate sentiments and devoted companionship (cf. Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 11; Becker & Reinhardt-Becker 2019; Luhmann 1983; Rebhan-Glück 2017b), as well as legitimizing love as the sole reason for the choice of partner (Luhmann 1983: 186), was slowly superseded by a historical period referred to as Neue Sachlichkeit (The New Objectivity, Becker & Reinhardt-Becker 2019). In stark contrast to the emotional exuberance promoted by romantic ideals of love, the Neue Sachlichkeit was marked by an increased degree of sobriety and ordinariness. Coinciding with the first feminist movements, this emerging ideological shift posed challenges to traditionally romantic hegemonic concepts of love and marriage, which were particularly prevalent in the upper middle classes (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 16).13
Such contextual and ideological shifts are certainly manifest in contemporary modes of communication in specific periods of time; indeed, scholars have accordingly noted shifts in the semantics of love (applied in epistolary communication) in the course of time (for instance Semanek 2017; Wyss 2002). As mentioned above, one such manifestation is the increasingly accepted embedding of ordinariness into romantic epistolary correspondences – which, on the contrary, was considered largely incompatible with formerly romantic ideals of
12 Surveys of such altering culturally dominant conceptions of love – in the specific context of
Western culture – can be found in Luhmann’s system-theoretical Liebe als Passion (1983), but also in Becker and Reinhardt-Becker (2019), as well as the studies in Bauer and Hämmerle (2017).
13 “[I]m letzten Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts erfuhr das eben erst hegemonial gewordene
bürgerliche Liebeskonzept erste nachhaltige Erschütterungen durch die Ehekritik der Ersten Frauenbewegung/en” (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 16).
amatory communication (cf. Asen 2017: 144; Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 16).14 This contingency and interrelationship between predominating cultural conceptions of love and their reflection in amatory epistolary writing are crucial factors to be considered in the context of the ensuing analyses of letters, both with regards to content, structure and linguistic properties of the letters, as well as to metalinguistic constructions of love and, as will be elucidated, intimacy.
Constructions of intimacy in romantic epistolary correspondence 2.3.
One of the principal functions of romantic epistolary communication is, as has been asserted above, the constitution, mediation and maintenance of amatory relationships (cf. Bauer 2017: 231; Hämmerle & Bauer 2017; Wyss 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014b); or, as Verheyen (2017: 91) states, the active making and establishment of love (cf. also Hämmerle 2017: 183). In this vein, a recurring term in research literature published on the subject of love letters is that of intimacy – and, accordingly, the contention that an underlying achievement, aim or potential of amatory correspondence is that of creating intimacy (cf. Bauer & Hämmerle 2017; Marxer 2001; Rebhan-Glück 2017b; Stauf, Simonis & Paulus 2008; Wyss 2000, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014b).
Despite the prevalence of the term in literature, however, it should be noted that it is by no means left untainted by ambiguity, as several authors have observed (Marar 2014: 16; Wyss 2014a: 10), and that, furthermore, the understanding “of what is intimate has changed throughout history” (Krotz 2014: 80). While a thorough discussion of the concept of intimacy exceeds the scope of this paper,15 an elementary feature of intimacy is that it is “intrinsically reciprocal” (Miguel 2018: 16); i.e., it is a fundamentally mutual phenomenon, as Marar (2014: 49) asserts: “[I]ntimacy exists between rather than within people; you can experience unrequited love, but you cannot experience unrequited intimacy” [original emphasis]; a comprehension which is also purported by Luhmann (1983: 176).
Such a notion of the mutual, or interactive co-construction of intimacy (Wyss 2014a: 111) closely aligns with the metalinguistic performative potential of amatory correspondence,
14 Another such shift of changed semantics of love reflected in various forms of romantic
communication – which, however, lies beyond the scope of this paper – occurs in the 1960s, both as a result of media-historical and technological advancements and innovations, as well as of socio-cultural and ideological changes of the concepts of romantic love (Bauer 2017; Wyss 2002: 57, 2008: 12).
15 For detailed discussions of the concept cf. for instance Giddens (1992), Marar (2014), or
and can be attributed to the generic format and intrinsic formal elements of the letter in general. For as Barton and Hall (2000: 6) claim,
[a]s a genre, letters have specific forms of deixis, that is ways of referring to the writer and the intended reader and to space and time. The writer is present in the letter, often through the use of the word I and in the signing of the letter. [The reader is] invoked in the salutation and in the use of you. The writer constructs an intended reader in the text. […] Two worlds are invoked: the here and now of the writer and the here and now of the reader. Shared knowledge is referred to, often explicitly.
This summary of some essential characteristics of the letter provided by Barton and Hall (2000: 6) accentuates the inherent mutuality of the letter – for even letters which are eventually never sent off inevitably have an imagined readership in mind. Thus, a certain dialogic essence is immanent in the letter, making it an intrinsically reciprocal medium or phenomenon – not merely with regards to the fact that it is usually composed with a specific motive in mind and thus anticipates a certain reaction (Bennholdt-Thomsen 1991: 193; also Maybin 2000: 170), or to the so called ‘epistolary pact’ (Bauer & Hämmerle 2017: 14; Hämmerle 2017: 188) which assumes a common understanding or unwritten rule that letters received deserve or require adequate written replies; but the reciprocal nature accompanies and is inseparably linked to the writing and reading processes at all times; in this context, Ong (1982: 100) refers to the “writer’s audience” as “always a fiction” – and, vice versa, to the writer as a fiction to the reader; indicating that both writer and reader are imagined entities which are persistently present – in the writing as well as the reading process alike. This mutually constructed realm creates space for intimacy to form, take shape and materialize.
The development of intimacy is thus closely connected to the medium of the (love) letter, which, given its basic structure and affordances, provides an adequate framework for intimacy to form. Yet, this insight fails to sufficiently elucidate the processes detailing how such intimacy is constructed. As the aim of this paper is to investigate potential differences between literary and non-literary amatory correspondences by construing their respective modes of intimacy formation, the ensuing paragraphs seek to provide an understanding of techniques applied in letters which are commonly considered in the production of emotional proximity, a precursor or underlying element of intimacy. The chapter will conclude with a more systematic overview of those strategies which will, in the ensuing chapters, be applied in the analyses of the primary material of this study.
Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Proximity and distance through 2.4.
language in epistolary communication
Although it has been asserted that any examination of the linguistic, i.e. syntactic, lexical and pragmatic properties of letters must be preceded by an acknowledgment of the socio-historical contingency of the letter as a genre and medium of expression, the ensuing preliminary linguistic considerations are general in nature and may be applied to various (communication-historical) contexts. In the framework of this study, they primarily aim to serve as an opportunity to improve the understanding of how (amatory) letters (of the early 20th century) operate to negotiate and establish intimacy, or rather, emotional closeness, on a linguistic level.
“[O]hne Trennung und Absenz gäbe es den Liebesbrief nicht”,16 asserts Marxer (2001: 53) and thus addresses a vital idiosyncrasy and defining feature of the letter; namely that its very existence is intrinsically based on absence and distance (Bazerman 2000: 16; Barton & Hall 2000: 6; Hämmerle 2017: 183; Rebhan-Glück 2017b: 60). This observation inevitably raises a prevailing issue in regards to epistolary communication; which is its paradoxical nature and capability as a medium of establishing (emotional) closeness precisely through distance (cf. Asen 2017: 147; Erbrecht 1991: 147; Fellner 2008: 353; Maybin 2000: 168; Semanek 2017: 294), primarily through verbal performance (“verbale Inszenierung”, Semanek 2017: 294).
Perhaps one of the most influential contributions to the theory of letter-writing, which also proves relevant for the specific context of this study, can be attributed to Christian Fürchtegott Gellert, who as early as in 1751, in his Praktische Abhandlung von dem guten Geschmacke in Briefen (also quoted in footnote1 above) provides some crucial insight into
various aspects of (stylistically) successful epistolary communication. A central and frequently cited remark is that the letter essentially represents or substitutes a conversation, or oral communication (Gellert 1988 [1751]: 111).17 , 18 Yet, as he annotates, the letter is
16 Without separation and absence there would be no such thing as the love letter (Marxer
2001: 53).
17 Höflich and Gebhardt (2005: 9) rather humorously mention in this regard that “you could
consider Gellert a prophet of electronic mail, which is released from all formal constraints and indeed is written much like one speaks”, acknowledging, however, that “Gellert would not necessarily be pleased by this”.
18 It should be noted that, even though Gellert’s (1988 [1751]) assertions are general in nature,
they specifically apply to private epistolary communication and should only with caution be extended to other epistolary genres, such as letters sent in contexts of business.
nonetheless not to be conceived of as unrestrictedly imitating ‘proper’ spoken conversation, functioning rather as a more polished version of oral speech:
Das erste, was uns bey einem Briefe einfällt, ist dieses, daß er die Stelle eines Gesprächs vertritt […], und deswegen muß er sich der Art zu denken und zu reden, die in Gesprächen herrscht, mehr nähern, als einer sorgfältigen und geputzten Schreibart. Er ist eine freye Nachahmung des guten Gesprächs. (Gellert 1988 [1751]: 111).
Therefore, subtly drawing on the notion of the inherently dialogic nature of the letter alluded to above (cf. Maybin 2000: 171), Gellert (1988 [1751]: 111) likens the letter (and its function) to ordinary talk and maintains that its style, despite being framed in a written format or medium, should be oriented towards orality, rather than a thoroughly polished writing style; hence envisioning the letter as a ‘free imitation’ of proper talk. This proclaimed free imitation, to summarize and conclude Gellert’s (1988 [1751]) conception of the letter, is characterized by a more considerate use of language than in casual spoken interaction, without having to renounce naturalness; the power of (esteemed) written epistolary dialogue lies in arranging linguistic features in such a way as to create a certain ‘daintiness’ of expression, which evokes the impression of authentic, yet aesthetic spoken language.19 Gellert’s (1988 [1751]) ideal of the letter thus incorporates a transformation of spoken language into a form of written orality, generating an idiosyncratic mimetic artificial language (“mimetische Kunstsprache”, Wirth 2005: 71f.), which is an essential prerequisite for how intimacy is generated through this particular, authenticity-seeking and oral-linguistically oriented, yet distinctly epistolary writing style.
The ambivalent nature of the language of letters as situated between authentic orality and diligently revised scribality prompts a fusion of temporal and spatial distance with perceived (emotional) closeness of a face-to-face interaction, and therefore accounts for their potential to foster intimacy between participants of the epistolary dialogue. This notion of closeness and distance, which can be conceived of as a continuum regulated by the extent to which the predominating style of the letter approaches an authentic, yet refined sense of
19 “Man bedient sich im Schreiben der Worte, die in der Welt üblich sind. Allein durch die
Art, wie man sie braucht, durch die Stellung und Verbindung, die man ihnen giebt, entzieht man dem Ausdrucke das Gemeine, und giebt ihm eine gewisse Zierlichkeit, die so natürlich läßt, daß jeder glaubt, er würde eben so von der Sache gesprochen haben” (Gellert 1988 [1751]: 113).
orality;20 or, on the opposite, complex and articulate scribality, has been expanded and systematized by Koch and Oesterreicher (1985, 1994).
Koch and Oesterreicher (1985) introduce a system which distinguishes between medial orality and scribality on the one hand, and conceptual orality and scribality on the other. While the medium framing a text is generally dichotomously considered as either graphic or phonic (corresponding to written or spoken), the conception of the same text is – regardless of its medial source – situated along a continuum of perceived orality and perceived scribality as its two poles (Koch & Oesterreicher 1985: 17; Dürscheid 1999: 18). While affinities between medium and conception exist, their relationship is marked by a relative independence; of which the private letter serves as an example: while its medial realization is graphic, or written, its conception, as Gellert (1988 [1751]) maintains, usually approaches that of the opposite oral pole. Koch and Oesterreicher’s (1985) introducing of the terms of closeness and distance (Sprache der Nähe and Sprache der Distanz) to refer to the conceptual poles of language particularly exposes, on a preliminary verbal level, the parallel to the previously discussed concept of intimacy.21
The languages of closeness and distance (Sprache der Nähe and Sprache der Distanz), respectively, are associated with specific situational contexts and conditions of communication (Dürscheid 1999: 18) in which they are framed. Such factors include the degree of familiarity of the participants of a conversation, the number of interactants, their temporal and spatial situation, the extent of publicness or privateness of the communication, as well as socio-cultural aspects such as shared knowledge, norms or the like (Koch & Oesterreicher 1985: 19; Dürscheid 1999: 18).
Conceptual orality, or communicational closeness, is thus typically characterized by a fluid distribution of speaker roles, a direct and interdependent relation of production and reception (i.e. turn-taking), shared situational context – which, in contrast, has to be negotiated and verbalized in conceptual scribality –, immediacy and, consequently, spontaneity and a lower degree of reflection and pre-planning, and higher degrees of affect (Koch & Oesterreicher 1985: 19ff.). By way of contrast, conceptual scribality, or the language of distance, is typified by monologic character, no turn-taking, low degrees of familiarity between the interactants, temporal and spatial distance, situational autonomy, concrete topics,
20 Maybin (2000: 168) summarizes the common conception that oral communication is
principally associated with “closeness, informality and involvement”, as opposed to “the more distant formality of writing”.
21 Wyss (2000: 189) furthermore consolidates this interrelation of closeness and intimacy by
publicness, low degrees of affect and high degrees of planning (Koch & Oesterreicher 1985: 21).
It is crucial to note that these abovementioned properties may occur to varying degrees and in miscellaneous combinations, and are hence conceived of as positioned along a continuum. Texts situated towards the conceptually oral pole of the continuum prompt perceptions of closeness, given their association with immediate personal encounters. Considering that intimacy, as elucidated above, is inherently linked with mutuality, it seems reasonable that communicational contexts suggesting the proximity of the interactants may promote perceptions of closeness; an observation which specifically applies to the (amatory) letter, as it, in the sense of Gellert (1988 [1751]), approximates conceptual orality. Linguistic manifestations of such conceptual closeness may therefore trigger feelings of intimacy, a crucial assertion regarding the understanding of the concept of intimacy as potentially linguistically triggered in this project.
Linguistic realizations fostering conceptual closeness are principally attributed to its spontaneous and processual character and occur in several dimensions. On the level of (morpho-)syntax, Koch and Oesterreicher (1985: 27) cite retroactive additions, anacolutha, occasional mistakes of congruence, holophrastic utterances and a relatively scarce use of hypotaxis (cf. also Beutner 2002: 43; Koch & Oesterreicher 1994: 591), to which Dürscheid (1999: 18) adds short sentence structures and a frequent use of asyndeton. In his exemplary linguistic study of two letters written at the turn of the 20th century, Elspaß (2002: 22) finds evidence for the abovementioned phenomena (specifically for anacolutha and a preferred use of parataxis as opposed to hypotaxis), and furthermore mentions ellipsis and aposiopesis as characteristic features of Sprache der Nähe found in letters.
On the lexical level of conceptually closeness-promoting speech, Koch and Oesterreicher (1985: 27) identify passe-partout words (i.e. words acting as a place-holder, or functioning as a substitute for another, missing word), lexical scarcity, low levels of the type-token ratio; yet lexical richness in the context of expressions of affect (including the use of rhetorical devices such as hyperboles and expletives). Moreover, colloquial expressions and the repetition of words prevail according to Dürscheid (1999: 18). These linguistic features are complemented by Elspaß’s (2002: 20) findings, who furthermore mentions interjections (such as oh or ach) and discourse or modal particles (for instance halt) to typically occur in conceptually oral (but, in case of the letter, medially written) language.
Lastly, the pragmatic dimension of Sprache der Nähe is characterized by phenomena which refer to the dialogic aspect, the contextualization of the situation and the emotionality
of the text. They include hesitation phenomena, correction- and structural-, as well as speaker-listener signals (Koch & Oesterreicher 1985: 27, 1994: 590).
The preceding discussion of the letter as a medium approximating conceptual orality (particularly from the 18th century onwards, Gellert 1988 [1751]; Koch & Oesterreicher 1994:
593), and some linguistic features cited in scholarly literature as associated with this Sprache der Nähe (Koch & Oesterreicher 1985, 1994), or language of closeness, served as a foundation of and will be elaborated throughout the ensuing close analyses to determine how, on a linguistic and subsequently metalinguistic level, senses of closeness and intimacy are established and maintained in literary and common amatory correspondences from the early 20th century alike.
3. Constructions of intimacy in literary amatory correspondence
Canonized literary correspondence is of a certain Janus-faced character and occupies a specifically ambivalent position in the context of the previously elucidated discussion of the letter as a genre and research object. Despite its primary and ostensible association with the private realm, scholars have commented on its significance and crucial potential as a sphere for artistic evolvement and creative unfolding (Stauf, Simonis & Paulus 2008: 17).22 Amatory correspondence in particular, if conceived of as a confidential or intimate conversation (cf. Gellert 1988 [1751]) with a beloved partner, as argued above, may also be the nucleus for literary reflection and provide fundamental space for the negotiation of self-understanding and stylization (Stauf, Simonis & Paulus 2008: 17). In this vein, literary amatory correspondences may indeed be crucially distinct from romantic epistolary communication of laypeople in various respects, and may be considered inherently literary in nature, despite their primarily non-public and non-commercial character.
This observation of the hybridity and stylistic as well as generic ambivalence of literary amatory correspondence certainly applies to Franz Kafka’s correspondence with his long-term romantic epistolary partner and fiancée, Felice Bauer. On the one hand, his repeatedly articulated request to blindly burn and annihilate all the manuscripts and ego-documents left behind (Heller 2009 [1967]: 11), in combination with the fact that he had, at that time of his life, not yet reached the highly renowned status and literary reputation his name retains today (Heller 2009 [1967]: 10), may be considered as indications of the
22 “Die vielfältigen Formen der Liebeskorrespondenz bieten Dichtern und Künstlern (aber
nicht nur diesen allein) einen spezifischen Entfaltungsspielraum für künstlerische Kreativität” (Stauf, Simonis & Paulus 2008: 17).
decidedly private character of these writings, as opposed to published and thus more distinctly literary output. On the other hand, however, Kafka’s highly confident claim made in a letter to Bauer on August 14, 1913 (444),23 purporting that he essentially consists of literature, rather
than aspiring it or merely pursuing ‘literary interest’ (“Ich habe kein literarisches Interesse, sondern bestehe aus Literatur”) suggests that allegedly private writings and decidedly public, in the sense of published, output are inseparably interwoven and can perhaps equally be considered literary, or, more specifically, similarly exhibit literary characteristics.
The ensuing analysis thus aims at reading and investigating Franz Kafka’s correspondence with Felice Bauer to determine how, in this literary, if private context, a romantic relationship was initiated, constructed and perpetually maintained through the epistolary medium. As has been asserted above, a predominant affordance of the letter is that it provides the potential of figuratively and perceptively overcoming or diminishing physical distance by creating closeness through language and thus a shared space of intimacy in the epistolary realm (cf. Bauer & Hämmerle 2017; Marxer 2001; Rebhan-Glück 2017b; Stauf, Simonis & Paulus 2008; Wyss 2000, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014b). Kafka and Bauer’s correspondence, which commenced in September of 1912 and was maintained until October of 1917, represents an adequate source in this respect, given that the intensive epistolary contact was accompanied by relatively few personal encounters, hence indicating that the letters exchanged over the geographical distance of Prague to Berlin functioned as the primary source of communication and thus maintained a fundamental position in the forging of emotional closeness and thus, indeed, a romantic relationship which included the intention of marriage (despite the fact that, ultimately, this intention was never realized).
Given the extensiveness of the material, the ensuing analysis will restrict its scope, however, to letters exchanged from the beginning of the correspondence in September 1912 to September of the following year, 1913, where the couple’s third reunion on a mutual journey was followed by a several weeks’ hiatus of their epistolary correspondence. The most essential factor justifying this incision, however, is that Franz Kafka’s first (epistolary) proposal is dated June 16, 1913 (399),24 which, upon acceptance, indubitably can be considered a critical turning point in any interpersonal relation with regards to feelings of intimacy, and is thus also for this study a pivotal contextual factor. The scope thus
23 All of Franz Kafka’s letters quoted in this study are cited from Heller and Born’s (2009
[1967]) collection of his letters. The indicated page numbers in parentheses refer to this edition.
24 In fact, it took Kafka several days to draft and eventually post this letter. Remarks made in
previous letters indicate that he started devising his written proposal on June 10, the latest (cf. a footnote by Heller & Born 2009 [1967]: 399).
encompasses the first nine months leading up to Kafka’s overcoming to propose, and the three months of the romance following this decisive moment.
Lastly, it is essential to note that Felice Bauer’s letters of the correspondence were not preserved and can thus not be considered in this analysis. Despite the fact that access to Bauer’s letters would, indeed, grant more profound insight into and an enhanced understanding of the amatory relationship with Franz Kafka, at closer examination the gravity of this putatively limitative aspect in the context of the study at hand is somewhat reduced. For firstly, given that the objective of this study is to analyze (canonically) literary epistolary writing, in order to, in a second step, determine potential striking differences, if there are any, to the common and prevalent practice of non-literary romantic epistolary correspondence at that time (i.e. the early 20th century), a restrictive focus on the letters penned by the univocal literary figure, i.e. Franz Kafka, is certainly justified, as they form the primary epistemological interest of the study at hand.
Secondly, a further point of potential criticism with regards to the merely unilaterally available exchange of letters concerns the previously asserted mutuality of intimacy construction (see Marar 2014: 49; Miguel 2018: 16; Wyss 2014a: 111; also Luhmann 1983: 176 cited in chapter 2.2 above) – which might, prima facie, imply that a one-sided correspondence may appear insufficient to make claims or assumptions about the forging of intimacy or, by extension, romantic relationships through epistolary communication. However, this apprehension may be dismissed, or at least mitigated, by another assertion elucidated above – namely the fact that said mutuality is inextricably tied to the entire structure and format of the correspondence, i.e. inevitably inherent to the letter itself (cf. Barton & Hall 2000; Bauer & Hämmerle 2017; Bennholdt-Thomsen 1991; Maybin 2000; Hämmerle 2017; Ong 1982), rather than being constructed, perforce, by the reciprocity of verbal exchange. The generating of intimacy is thus a continuous and perennial companion of the epistolary process and can be ascribed to the inherently and conceptually dialogic, and thus mutual, nature of the letter as a medium as such.
The ensuing analysis thus investigates how Franz Kafka’s letters to Felice Bauer constructed and maintained their romantic relationship on a linguistic as well as conceptual level, by mediating physical distance and emotional closeness through the affordances of language in the epistolary realm.
Franz Kafka’s letters to Felice Bauer 3.1.
Franz Kafka first met Felice Bauer in August 1912 at a social gathering at the parental home of their mutual friend Max Brod in Prague. A month after their initial encounter, on September 20, 1912, Kafka sent his first letter to her, thus initiating an epistolary correspondence which would lay the basis for an intense, five-year, on-and-off romantic relationship, resulting in two engagements (both of which were broken) and a corpus of amatory letters written by Kafka which comprises a monograph of some 750 pages (edited by Heller & Born 2009 [1967]; cf. Canetti 1969).
The very first lines of said letter25 are forthwith indicative of a central recurring theme
in the development of Kafka and Bauer’s relationship, and crucially lay the foundation for the (epistolary) romance which would ensue and which will be the focus of analysis in this present chapter:
Sehr geehrtes Fräulein!
Für den leicht möglichen Fall, daß Sie sich meiner auch im geringsten nicht mehr erinnern könnten, stelle ich mich noch einmal vor: Ich heiße Franz Kafka und bin der Mensch, der Sie zum erstenmal am Abend beim Herrn Direktor Brod in Prag begrüßte, Ihnen dann über den Tisch hin Photographien von einer Thaliareise, eine nach der andern, reichte und der schließlich in dieser Hand, mit der er jetzt die Tasten schlägt, ihre Hand hielt, mit der Sie das Versprechen bekräftigen, im nächsten Jahr eine Palästinareise mit ihm machen zu wollen. (1912-09-20: 43).
Within these 90 words – or one and a half sentences –, and particularly the 68 following the colon which separates the introductory remark from the ensuing description and summoning up of a shared memory, Franz Kafka deftly illustrates and foregrounds the interplay of distance and closeness, on various dimensions, which becomes an inherent element of his incipient romantic correspondence with Felice Bauer. He sets the scene by announcing the de novo introduction of his person – subtly indicating, through the connotations elicited by the word “erinnern” (‘remember’), that the ensuing account is based on a mutually experienced event in the past. The opening lines thus initially create temporal distance, and invite Felice to mentally travel back to the evening she first met Franz (“Ich […] bin der Mensch, der Sie zum erstenmal am Abend beim Herrn Direktor Brod in Prag begrüßte.”). Simultaneously, Kafka initially separates himself from his past-self, by switching, in a relative clause following the mentioning of his name, to the third person to speak of himself (“der Mensch, der Sie zum erstenmal […] begrüßte […]”). These generated temporal and perceptively personal distances, however, seem to function as a prerequisite for the subsequent, mutual construction of
closeness. The linguistically induced and mentally perceived evocation of this shared memory allows Kafka, not only metaphorically, but quite literally, as will become evident, to pick up Bauer’s past-self from that bygone evening, and lead her to the forged mutual presence in the medium of the letter. From recounting how it was him who handed Bauer various photographs to inspect, Kafka proceeds, in his hypo- and paratactically rich sentence – which establishes a continuous, smooth and uninterrupted flow of effects – to focus on his hand. For the hand of Kafka’s past-self becomes not only the same one which is typing the very letter Bauer is presently holding and reading, but also the one Bauer’s past-self held when she made the promise to travel to Palestine with Franz Kafka (“der schließlich in dieser Hand, mit der er jetzt die Tasten schlägt, ihre Hand hielt”). The hand thus comes to function symbolically as a bridge, which, by evoking the figurative image of holding hands in the past generates a sense of personal proximity, and subsequently overcomes the temporal distance by moving this image or symbol from the past to the epistolary presence, where Kafka, or his voice, is present as his epistolary-self and writer, and Bauer as the reader. Hence, in his very first writing to Bauer, Kafka forges by linguistic means (using one sentence which flows and arches, semantically, from the past to the present) a metalinguistic space, materialized in the form of the letter, of a shared presence and, as a consequence, of closeness – thus laying the foundation for emotional closeness, i.e. intimacy, to develop in the further course of events – or correspondence – within this very space.
In the course of his letter, Kafka asserts that he is an unpunctual letter-writer, yet, ‘as a reward’, never expects letters to arrive duly in return,26 and in this vein closes his writing with an implicit request to Bauer to reciprocate the epistolary exchange (phrased as a declarative incorporating a parenthesis27 and thus maintaining polite distance while
simultaneously consolidating Gellert’s norm of a conversational epistolary tone). This initial attempt of contextualizing and forging a mutual epistolary space indubitably proved to be fruitful, as can be claimed in retrospect; for a notable peculiarity of Kafka and Bauer’s romance is that it was inseparably tied to the epistolary medium, and to a prevalent extent sustained and perpetuated by it. Their first, very short personal encounter, following the initial one on August 13, 1912 in Prague, occurred only seven months later, in March 1913. By that time, however, a strong emotional connection and, arguably, feelings of intimacy had already
26 “Ich bin ein unpünktlicher Briefschreiber. [...] Zum Lohn dafür erwarte ich aber auch
niemals, daß Briefe pünktlich kommen;” (1912-09-20: 43).
27 “[G]egen mich als Korrespondenten – und darauf käme es ja vorläufig nur an – dürfte
nichts Entscheidendes von vornherein einzuwenden sein und Sie könnten es wohl mit mir versuchen.” (1912-09-20: 43f.).
formed, as can be deduced from the fact that, as of mid November 1912 – i.e. two months after the outset of the correspondence and before a second meeting in person had ensued – their mutual personal address in the letters changed from the conventionally normative, polite and distanced Sie to the significantly more intimate Du – a development which represents a remarkable breach of common middle class norms of communication, given that it conformed to or could be equated with a promise of marriage (Fellner 2008: 359)28 – which, indeed, had
not yet been articulated at that time:
[D]as Du aber, das steht doch, das bleibt wie Dein Brief da, der sich nicht rührt und von mir küssen und wieder küssen läßt. Was ist für ein Wort! So lückenlos schließt nichts zwei Menschen aneinander, gar wenn sie nichts als Worte haben wie wir zwei. (1912-11-14: 90).
Kafka’s ecstatic reaction to the shift of address from Sie to Du is telling on several levels: On a formal, linguistic level, the use of asyndeton and anaphora (“das steht doch, das bleibt”), repetition (“küssen und wieder küssen”), and a rhetorical question phrased as an exclamation (“Was ist für ein Wort!”) establishes a sense of immediacy and reveals the highly positive and exhilarating emotional impact of the contextual change in their interaction, as well as, hence, Kafka’s enthusiasm about it. In terms of Koch and Oesterreicher’s (1985) argument (see chapter 2.4 above), these linguistic features contribute to the generation of a feeling of closeness by way of approaching the pole of spoken communication; yet, the aspect which promotes this perceived closeness on a fundamental level appears to be the underlying fact that this generated enthusiasm is, through the linguistic means of forging immediacy mentioned above, simultaneously and consequently made accessible to the reader of the letter, i.e. Felice Bauer. Thus, the language used becomes, anew,29 an instrument of creating the potential to share an emotional moment through the mediating source of the letter.
The metalinguistic power of the word Du is furthermore disclosed by its metaphoric function as a bridging device, which hyperbolically – ‘like nothing else’ – is capable of ‘gaplessly’ tying together the people involved (“So lückenlos schließt nichts zwei Menschen aneinander”). Its significance in the specific context of Kafka and Bauer’s relationship, however, becomes apparent in the second half and subordinate clause of the last sentence in the extract above, which implies that the (emotional and relational) impact of the informal second person pronoun Du is substantially enhanced in contexts of human interaction which
28 “Der Wechsel zum Du – zudem erst nach sechswöchiger Korrespondenz – stellt einen
erheblichen Verstoß gegen die Konventionen bürgerlicher Kommunikation dar, es [sic] kommt einem Eheversprechen gleich” (Fellner 2008: 359).
are entirely based on words – i.e. which lack the affordances of personal or face-to-face interactions, most notably that of physical presence, as well as the cues inherently related to it, such as facial expressions, gestures and the like – an observation which particularly pertains to Kafka and Bauer’s situation, as he remarks (“wie wir zwei”). In the absence of other factors which could potentially indicate or establish intimacy, words and language become the most significant carriers of meaning, and the predominant instruments of generating it. Thus, the impact of the pronoun Du in the context of epistolary correspondence as the primary mode of communication is significantly intensified, as becomes apparent in Kafka’s ardent lines cited above.
Thus, Franz Kafka and Felice Bauer’s romance was fundamentally constituted by and maintained through words framed in the medium of the letter, and could hence essentially be considered an epistolary construct. Stauf, Simonis and Paulus (2008: 7) in a similar vein remark that in many cases, love principally develops and emerges from the very process of writing;30 a contention which is certainly applicable to Kafka and Bauer’s specific situation. The abovementioned abstracts provide insight into how language, in the sense of Koch and Oesterreicher (1985), as well as Gellert (1988 [1751]) can establish perceived closeness in various dimensions – primarily by creating a sense of immediacy, which is generally associated with and ascribed to face-to-face interactions, and by exploiting socio-cultural norms in the favor of creating intimacy (i.e. introducing the address of Du despite the lack of any explicitly articulated prospective marital relation).
However, the latter, short extract alludes to yet another, highly significant aspect of the epistolary potential of constructing intimacy; by likening the durability of the shift to the use of the personal Du to that of the materiality of the letter in the form of a simile, and somewhat weak zeugma (“das Du aber, […] das bleibt wie Dein Brief da, der sich nicht rührt und von mir küssen und wieder küssen läßt”), Kafka enunciates perhaps the most crucial element of his correspondence with Bauer, namely the letters themselves. As was asserted by Barton and Hall (2000), for instance (see section 2.2), the letter itself becomes a pivotal carrier of meaning, and as Kafka’s habit of kissing Bauer’s letter implies, it can act – and does, for Kafka – as a surrogate of the beloved person (cf. Erbrecht 1991: 152; Fellner 2008: 375).
A striking observation to be made in this vein is the exceedingly large extent to which the letters become the central topic of the correspondence throughout the years – their presence, belatedness or absence, their form and content, as well as the process of writing
30 Die “untersuchten [Briefwechsel] deuten jedenfalls darauf hin, dass in vielen Fällen die
