Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3840744?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to MLN
Jan Plug
Walsern ist das Wie der Arbeit so wenig Nebensache, daB ihm
alles, was er zu sagen hat, gegen die Bedeutung des Schreibens
v6llig zurucktritt. Man mochte sagen, daB es beim Schreiben
draufgeht. Das will erklirt sein. Und dabei st6Bt man auf
etwas sehr Schweizerisches an diesem Dichter: die Scham.
Von Arnold B6cklin, seinem Sohn Carlo und Gottfried Keller
erzahlt man diese Geschichte: Sie saBen eines Tages wie de
oftern im Wirtshaus. Ihr Stammtisch war durch die wortkarg
verschlossene Art seiner Zechgenossen seit langem beruhm
Auch diesmal saB die Gesellschaft schweigend beisamen. D
bemerkte, nach Ablauf einer langen Zeit, derjunge B6cklin
"HeiB ist's," und nachdem eine Viertelstunde vergangen war
der altere: "Und windstill." Keller seinerseits wartete eine
Weile; dann erhob er sich mit den Worten: "Unter Schwatzern
will ich nicht trinken."'
This paper was written during an idyllic year spent as an Alexander von Humboldt
Research Fellow at the Institut fur Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft
at the Johnann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat. I would like to express my most sincere
gratitude to the Humboldt Foundation for its generous support and to my colleagues
and friends in Frankfurt for intellectual stimulation that was only exceeded by their
hospitality. Gabriela Meyer, Andreas Gelhard, and Edgar Pankow all made me feel
more than welcome in my new home. With Thomas Schestag I hope to have opened an
infinite conversation. My host in Frankfurt, Werner Hamacher, I thank for his many
kindnesses and for his critical example.
Walter Benjamin, "Robert Walser," Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 2.1, ed. Rolf Tiedemann
and Hermann Schweppenhauser (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1991) 325-26.
2 A fuller treatment of this phenomenon would have to take into consideration the
treatment of language and silence in Sein und Zeit, where Heidegger writes, for
example, "Nur im echten Reden ist eigentliches Schweigen moglich. Um schweigen zu
k6nnen, muB das Dasein etwas zu sagen haben, das heiBt uber eine eigentliche und
reiche Erschlossenheit seiner selbst verfiigen" (Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 18th
ed. [Tiibingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2001] 165).
3 Benjamin, "Walser" 324-25. Almost every commentary follows Benjamin's lead in
emphasizing this withdrawal, although this often leads to a mere negation of the claims
of meaning that runs counter to what Benjamin formulates here. Agamben and Sebald
offer exemplary considerations of Walser's meaning; see Giorgio Agamben, "Languag
and History: Linguistic and Historical Categories in Benjamin's Thought," Potentialities:
Collected Essays in Philosophy, trans. and ed. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford
UP, 1999); and W. G. Sebald, Logis in einem Landhaus: Uber Gottfried Keller Johann Peter
Hebel, Robert Walser und andere (Munich: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 2000). Agamben's
elliptical references to Walser are especially provocative. For example, he quote
Walser precisely about what language says: "In a letter to Max Rychner, Walser speak
of this 'fascination of not uttering something absolutely.' 'Figure'-that is, precisely the
term that expresses in Saint Paul's epistles what passes away in the face of the natur
that does not die-is the name Walser gives to the life that is born in this gap" (60)
5Perhaps the most common way in which criticism of Schneewittchen avoids "what" the
play "says" is by resolving its difficulties into the question of meta-fiction or interpreting
the meta-fictional as a relatively unproblematized statement of the tenuousness of
reality. While this is of course one of the crucial features of the dramolette, reading it
in these terms has tended to mean foregoing a thorough reading precisely of how the
meta-fictional allows for a fundamental questioning of consciousness, subjectivity,
survival, madness, sense, forgiveness, and judgment, to name just some of the motifs I
try to raise here. Rather than keep a running count of the points at which my reading
coincides with or differs from these, I will merely refer with this general indication to
the nonetheless fine readings by Hubner, "'Das Marchen ja sagt . . .'-Marchen und
Trivialliteratur im Werk von Robert Walser," Robert Walser und die moderne Poetik, ed.
Dieter Borchmeyer (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1999) 167-86; John Pizer, "The
Disenchantment of Snow White: Robert Walser, Donald Barthelme and the Modern/
Postmodern Anti-Fairy Tale," Canadian Review of Comparative Literature/Revue Canadienne
de Literature Comparee 17.3-4 (September-December 1990): 330-45; and Urs Herzog,
"'goldene, ideale Liigen.' Zum Schneewittchen-Dramolett," Uber Robert Walser 2, ed.
Katharina Kerr (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1978) 239-54.
Of the many Walser critics who cite Benjamin's essay, Siegel is one of the few to
undertake an actual reading of it. She comes to a conclusion similar to mine here,
though through a quite different reading strategy, writing, "Wenn der Inhalt zurucktritt,
ja draufgeht, und die Bedeutung des Schreibens hervortritt, dann ist diese Bedeutung
nicht als inhaltliche Bedeutung zu vergessen, sondern als Entdeutung, die im Vergessen
noch geschieht" (Elke Siegel, Auftrige aus dem Bleistiftgebiet: Zur Dichtung Robert Walsers
[Wfirzburg: Konigshausen und Neumann, 2001] 19).
6 Benjamin, "Walser" 326.
7 Benjamin, "Uber die Sprache uberhaupt und uber die Sprache des Menschen,"
Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 2.1, 144. There has perhaps been no aspect of Benjamin's
work that has received more critical attention than his thinking on language. See for
instance, Carol Jacobs, In the Language of Walter Benjamin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
UP, 1999); Werner Hamacher, "The word Wolke-if it is one," Benjamin's Ground: New
Readings of Walter Benjamin, ed. Rainer NSgele (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1988) 147-76;
Gasche, "Saturnine Vision and the Question of Difference: Reflections on Walter
Benjamin's Theory of Language," Benjamin's Ground, 83-104; Winfried Menninghaus,
Schwellenkunde. Walter Benjamins Passage des Mythos (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp,
1986); and Agamben, "Language and History."
8 It is thus that Walser's language can bypass the presuppositional structure of
language as Heller-Roazen describes it: "Only because they always presuppose the fact
that there is language are statements necessarily incapable of saying the event of
language, of naming the word's power to name; only because language, as a discourse,
always presupposes itself as having taken place can language not say itself' (Daniel
Heller-Roazen, "Introduction"; Giorgio Agamben Potentialities 4).
Konigin:
Sag', bist du krank?
Schneewittchen:
might not be quite what it appears and will at any rate remain
unknowable as such. In each case, the distinction is of course traced
by incompatible accounts of history and thus by language as either
the guarantee of that history and of the ability to distinguish and
choose between these accounts, or as the disfiguring of that history
and the indetermination of every attempt to make distinctions.
Snow White, however, will threaten to disrupt every such understand-
ing of language and the meaning it promises, every understanding of
language as either safeguarding or disfiguring truth and meaning, in
short, every sense of sense and of its distortion in nonsense.
(83)
(85)
Like a single image whose duplicity lies in the fact that it is always
more than double, a storm threatens to distort the very language and
meaning of love. Indeed the difficulty is not merely the most obvious
one of a trans-historical disturbance of what once was, could still be,
and yet no longer is called love ("was liebe hieB ... doch nicht mehr
heiBt"). If love can be placed into question, it is because of a more
fundamental, and fundamentally linguistic, disturbance at play in
every distinction between what love might mean ("was Liebe . ..
heiBen mocht"') and what might be called love ("was Liebe ... heiBen
m6cht'"). The appearance of an identity between language as nam-
ing (heifien) and meaning (heif3en) disguises a difference that alone
makes it possible for meaning to change, for love no longer to mean
what it once meant, and for the prince's love to wander from Snow
White to the queen. If language and meaning were identical, if hei3fen
Prinz:
Schneewittchen:
(90-91)
Perhaps the strange "logic" and language of Sinn can only lead to such
apparent Unsinn. Perhaps the assertion of a radical and constitutive
madness and non-meaning at the very heart of sense and meaning
cannot but lead Snow White to refigure thinking itself and with it the
possibility of an ultimate reconciliation. One can hardly blame the
queen for being rather perplexed at this point. Snow White has
reversed course, asking for forgiveness where she once accused, feeling
where she once thought. What is more, her attempt to reconcile
herself with the queen flies in the face of not only her own memory
and experience of her death and its pains but, as the queen's
confession here would seem to make clear, of historical events.
It is not simply that Snow White has seen the mistake of her
previous suspicion, not that she throws off one now belied truth in
favor of another more certain truth. In fact, the ease with which she
accepts the queen's confession without it forcing her to reconsider
seeking forgiveness from her would seem to suggest that her apparent
change of heart was never really based on any given truth in the first
(94)
Where earlier Snow White asked for the queen's forgiveness, here she
invokes her hatred for precisely the same reason: to remove all
grounds for love, which otherwise would be conditioned, limited,
bordered, and thus not worthy of the name. A love without condition
and grounding "outside" itself does not simply assert itself in the face
of the hatred that bears witness to it as such. It necessarily hates itself
for not loving more ("Liebe haBt / sich selbst, daB sie nicht heft'ger
liebt" [95]), for it is its own infinite task, one that by definition can
never be fulfilled. Yet the impossibility of a love that would fulfill this
infinite task is the necessary precondition for any determinate, particu-
lar act of love in the first place, since only the hatred of itself in its
failure to love more allows love to love in the first place and to
continue loving. It is precisely in not only constituting a simple relation
to another but also, and at the same time, in infinitely striving for itself
that love can love in the first place, that it can relate to another.
Yet it is by no means certain that the queen comes to accept the
thinking of Snow White's feeling. She calls for a reenactment of the
hunter's attempt to kill Snow White, a reenactment, that is, of the
scene of her own guilt, as though to verify the accuracy of Snow
White's, or even of her own, representation. The queen had previ-
ously insisted upon the efficacy of a narrative of the past, upon a
language that could prove one's guilt or innocence. Here, however,
the history is not simply represented, but rather performed in a
present whose difference from that past remains suspended and that
therefore throws its status as such into question. Just as the hunter's
role as hunter fits him like his own clothing ("sie steht ihm an / so
knapp wie seine Jagertracht" [98]), just as the prince only seemingly
simple-mindedly asserts, the entire scene plays its role precisely: it
cannot be distinguished from the past it repeats, with the exception
of course that this scene is witnessed and can be interrupted in the
service of another history.
Schneewittchen:
Yet this is not quite what happens either. This time it is the queen
who intercedes, who stays the hunter's hand declaring that it was all
play, a mere game: "Es istja alles nur ein Spiel" (99). But what? What is
a game? Playing parts in a representation of the past? Or falling out of
those parts to reassume what should be one's "real," present character
only to have this play interrupted in turn and declared a mere game?
While the purpose of the play seems to have been to allow the queen to
verify the past and Snow White's representation of it by having a scene
played out before her to which she was not witness, in effect it also
allows her to take on the role that Snow White had wished she would
assume. Having that scene played out, calling for Snow White's murder
once again, the queen can then show the compassion Snow White
seeks and can spare her life. In other words, the queen is able to
redeem her past in a present that is its repetition and interruption.
What this ultimately entails is a kind of rewriting of that past as it never
was, a re-inscription of the present interruption of the past in the past.
If we, and even Snow White, cannot tell the difference between now
and then, this is just the point. Just when we might believe we ha
arrived at the point of reconciliation, when Snow White has rethought
forgiveness and judgment as a speaking-free from all convention
notions of guilt, and when she has spoken of a groundless love, b
also when we believe we know what these are despite history and th
we in fact know what history was, this scene changes all that. It
intervenes to unsettle the final ground, the historical object (Gegenstand
that as such gives love and forgiveness something against which
stand (Gegen-stand). In a very real sense, then, we are back where w
began. At least this is what the change of scene would seem to indicate
("Garten wie in der ersten Szene" [100]). We can no longer tell precisely
what has and what has not taken place: Snow White has fallen bac
into a distrust from which she is unable to purify herself, as she puts
There have been so many turns, so many inversions (from Snow White
distrusting the queen to forgiving her, from forgiveness to suspicion,
and now . ..) that one has difficulty locating oneself, not to menti
Walser's figures. Nothing, it would seem, is quite what it seems.
[D]ie Mutter ist die Mutter nicht.
Die Welt ist nicht die suife Welt.
Lieb' ist argw6hn'scher, stummer HaB.
Prinz ist ein Jager, Leben Tod.
(103)
will be without forgiveness and everything that goes along with it.
That is, it will have to be formulated in terms other than those that
imply guilt and by extension the power to absolve it, to acquit or
speak free. It will have to be formulated in terms other than even
those that still rule over Snow White's language to this point; or
perhaps better, that very language will have to be radicalized.
Konigin:
Erklaren muB ich dieses Spiel,
sonst nennt sie's roh, die es betrifft.
Sprich du, statt meiner. Sage doch
dem t6richten, traurigen Madchen hier,
wie ich sie hasse, liebe auch.
Zuck' deinen Dolch. Doch, Lieber, nein!
LaB ihn nur in der Scheide ruhn.
What exactly has Snow White said yes to here? Yes, she believes that
the hunter wanted to kill her. But she agrees to believe, it would seem,
because she has grown tired of saying no. Even negation responds to
her in the affirmative. She says, in the end, not so much that she
believes that the hunter wanted to kill her as that she believes him.
More accurately, she says, "say I believe you," although it takes her
while actually to say this, to say "I believe you." What she ultimately
ends up saying yes to, then, is not so much a given representation a
assent itself. Saying "yes" to say "yes," Snow White agrees to be duped;
thus she agrees to the possibility of her own subjugation, nothing
short of ideology.
The hunter seemingly entraps Snow White in her own assent by
asserting that she is not herself when she is suspicious ("Im Argwoh
ist sie nicht sie selbst" [105]), to which Snow White can only respon
by affirming whatever he says. For according to the hunter's uncom
promisingly compromising logic, to be distrustful would be for her to
leave herself and thus would be invalid, while assenting in effect
subjects her to the will and representation of another, but most of a
to the very logic that gives her no other choice. Asked if she believe
the hunter when he says that her suspicions are false, what can she say
other than "yes"?
Saying neither too much nor too little, the hunter has fulfilled th
imperative of a perfectly measured language. He has said just
enough-to be believed. This is the case, however, because Snow
White has agreed to agree to whatever he says regardless of its content
or "truth." The hunter cannot but speak a fully adequate language
one whose meaning is perfectly commensurate with the measure o
language because that meaning has in effect been denied, or better
sublated in absolute belief. Rendered indifferent, meaning loses it
meaning and language becomes adequate, always just enough, inso-
far as what it says is the absolutely believable or nothing at all, which
amounts to the same thing.
The measure of this language does not arise from itself, then, bu
rather is lent to it by another and by another word. Snow White's yes
ensures that whatever-or rather how much-the hunter says mea-
sures up perfectly to what this saying says. The word yes stands a
guarantee of the hunter's account, which means that this account ca
never guarantee its own status as believable and thus in effect remains
inadequate to itself without intervention from some "outside," in th
instance from another language. Yes stands as a guarantee insofar as it
does not bear witness to this or that content, to any given account that
could always be shown to be disproportionate. To the contrary, Snow
White's yes agrees only to say yes to any account whatsoever. As such, i
is the fulfillment of the discourse that would renounce the claims of
One could, of course, always read this scene in terms of Snow White's
fatigue and of her desire finally to be done with equivocation,
ambiguities, and lies, even if this means lending them credence. One
could always read it as an affirmation of the inadequacy of a language
that does not-and perhaps cannot-say what the soul alone can say.
One could read it, finally, as the hunter's last test of Snow White. But
that both are thus subjective states that she dictates. This might wel
be to accept, if not Unsinn, then any Wahnsinn and to pass it off as
truth. But one of the senses of this scene is that it becomes impossible
to distinguish between truth and its distortion, between sense and
nonsense. Better yet, this scene is the dramatization of that earlier
scene in which the Sinn of language depends upon a constitutive
Unsinn. In a very real sense, then, the truth is whatever Snow White
says yes to, and not only because she is a (meta-) fictional figure.
Finally saying yes, she seems to have understood, holds the power of
reconciliation and forgiveness, which doubt will never offer.
The apparent impossibility of deciding when a game or play is
merely that and when it is something else is resolved here only by an
appeal to the soul and its language, as well as to something like
special faculty of reading or hearing that Snow White alone possesses
and that therefore can never be confirmed. We can never know-nor,
perhaps, can Snow White-whether she is simply succumbing to
something like ideology or whether she alone has access to the truth.
It is this radical undecidability that defines the ideological as such,
17 A full consideration of the Mirchen in Walser would have to consider other gen
as well. InJakob von Gunten, to restrict ourselves to his most widely recognized work,
word occurs a number of times and cannot be reduced to a simple idealization.
[Den] kindlichen Adel teilen die Menschen Walsers mit den Marchen-
figuren, die ja auch der Nacht und dem Wahnsinn, dem des Mythos
namlich, enttauchen. Man meint gew6hnlich, es habe sich dies Erwachen
in den positiven Religionen vollzogen. Wenn das der Fall ist, dann
jedenfalls in keiner sehr einfachen und eindeutigen Form. Die hat man in
der groBen profanen Auseinandersetzung mit dem Mythos zu suchen, die
das Marchen darstellt. Natiirlich haben seine Figuren nicht einfach
Ahnlichkeit mit den Walserschen. Sie kampfen noch, sich von dem Leiden
zu befreien. Walser setzt ein, wo die Marchen aufh6ren. "Und wenn sie
nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie heute noch." Walser zeigt, wie sie
leben.18
itself as the truth of the fairy tale, this necessarily means belying t
fairy tale's (historical) pretensions to truth.
Walser's dramolette thus rewrites the traditional tale, ostensi
setting itself in its place. Yet this logic implicates Walser's tale i
own Auseinandersetzung in that the truth that it claims to expose is
truth of the fairy tale's fictionality. Consequently, Snow White hers
is not only the figure of Heilung but the realization or literalization
figure-of Heilung and survival, to be sure, but this would also
for the fairy tale itself. This is even more clearly the case, it is
more literally true, one might say, in Walser's Cinderella, whe
figure named nothing other than Mdrchen appears.
Die Szene muB
nun lebhaft wechseln. Staunen soil
This speech of ending, of the fairy tale going toward its homelan
however, appears more or less at the play's midpoint. What ends,
then, is not so much the literary form as the figure Marchen, who now
disappears from the play, while the "fairy tale" that is Walser's text ha
not yet reached its homeland. However, insofar as Marchen, t
figure in the dramolette, embodies the literary form of the Mirche
this means that the fairy tale disappears and yet continues beyond
disappearance. The fairy tale only approaches its homeland b
continuing on beyond it, beyond its own "end" or destination. In
Benjamin's terms, these tales therefore introduce a difference and
distance that is denied in myth precisely to the extent that they pi
up where the traditional fairy tale leaves off. This is to say that th
come after the fairy tale, as the "consciousness" of its status as suc
but also always as its repetition and re-inscription.21 The fairy t
asserts its difference from myth by asserting its difference from itse
Konigin:
Dann wird er sicher noch dein Schatz.
While the queen attempts to reassure Snow White that she will be
reconciled with the prince, who is quite understandably uncertain,
even skeptical, about what has happened to bring everyone together
and has left the scene, what she actually says would suggest something
rather different. It is no accident that she cannot remember what she
was on the verge of saying. Nor is it by chance that she claims to speak
merely what chance would speak. For she repeats Snow White's
accusation against her (that she seduced the hunter into trying to kill
her) with some precision. Using a structure we know well from
22 "It is precisely at the acme of myth's power over the human creature, that is, at the
moment that it promises redemption, that reason and cunning-Greek empowerments,
par excellence-cut through the mythic legal web, and reassert the innocent creature's
right to reality" (Gasche, "Kafka's Law" 993).
Blanchot and Derrida's reading of it, the play quotes itself and thus
sets itself in motion once again, folding its outer edge back within it
Derrida's description of this structure as a survivre, a living on and
crossing of borderlines, is of course entirely in keeping with Benjamin's
reading of Snow White.23 If, as Benjamin claims, Walser shows how the
characters live on, it is not in a simple linear continuation of the
traditional fairy tale. Picking up where the fairy tale leaves off, a
Benjamin would have it, must now imply the tale's turn back upon
itself.
23 See Jacques Derrida, "Living On: Border Lines," Deconstruction and Criticism, ed
Geoffrey Hartman (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979) 75-176.