Ungewhaelte Verwandtschaften in Die Wahlverwandtschaften Master and Slave in Goethe's Novel

by Norm Friesen

In the discourse of post-structuralist literary criticism, Goethe's Wahlverwandtschaften seems to achieve readability most readily in the form of a tragic narrative which dramatizes how all attempts to attain communicational transparency in human relationships inevitably comes to grief against the impervious opacity of language: Jochen Hörisch, for example, characterizes "Goethe's 1809 erscheinener Roman [als] ein antihermeneutisches Manifest"[1] "...[welches] die [U]nterwerfung ...d[es] Subjekt[s] dem Signifikanten [zeigt]."[2] J. Hillis Miller, using a slightly different vocabulary, argues that Goethe's novel works to "unravel the system...of [ontological] linguistic and philosophical notions of western metaphysics."[3]

In his essay "A `Buchstäbliches' Reading of The Elective Affinities," Miller argues at one point that the four main characters can be understood as being "allegorical" representations of the four terms in the aristotelian metaphorical ratio.[4] Ottilie's singular "silence" and "effacement," he goes on to say, present the effective deletion of one of these four terms, thus providing an crucial absence which opens up the ratio to the possibility of infinite metaphoric displacement and substitution.[5] Hörisch, in his essay "Das Sein der Zeichen und die Zeichen des Seins," represents the actions and exertions of the four main characters as vain attempts to emancipate the subject from the ineluctable "Suprematie des Signifikants,'"[6] and from the absence and death which this supremacy implies. The tragic end experienced by Charlotte, Eduard, and Ottilie is accordingly interpreted by Hörisch as the inevitable "[V]ergehen d[es] Subjekt[s]" in the face of "die Gewalt des Signifikanten zum Tode."[7]

Both Hörisch and Miller see operation of their post-structuralist model of language --of the endless differential displacement of meaning occurring at the site of an irrecoverable absence-- as manifesting itself in the discourse of these three characters. For both critics, the fact that these characters very often articulate and represent this discourse in their statements, notes, and observations about writing and language, implicates them more inextricably in the inexorable operation of the post-structuralist linguistic system.

However, it is important to remember that in the context of Goethe's novel, the discourse of this group of characters is articulated in conjunction with another form of discourse generated by a second set of characters. Speaking now in socio-historical terms, this former set can be said to be constituted exclusively by the landed German aristocracy of the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries; and the latter can be said to be composed by the servants and peasants whose function it is to labor in the service of this former group.

This relationship of mutual dependency existing between master and slave in Goethe's Wahlverwandtschaften will first be briefly analyzed with reference to its Hegel's schematization of this relationship as presented in his Phänomenologie. Through this cursory analysis, and through a shift in the theoretical frame of reference to Jakobson's bi-polar linguistic theory, this paper will go on to develop a more precise description of the discourses specific to both master and slave. In its conclusion, this paper will then briefly allude to a possible application of this description, on the level of its broadest conceptual generality, to the aforementioned deconstructive critical discourse which finds its mechanisms so clearly mirrored in Goethe's novel.

The theoretical framework which will play an instrumental role in structuring this paper's initial analysis of the master-slave relationship is, as indicated above, to be supplied by the Hegelian dialectic of master and slave. It should be noted, however, that this framework will be utilized not simply as it is formulated in Hegel's Phänomenologie des Geistes, but as it is explicated and elaborated in Alexandre Kojève's introductory lectures to this same text. Master and slave are initially described by Hegel as being

Hegel immediately goes on to qualify this description by indicating that the "other being" ("Anderes") for which the slave consciousness exists is constituted not only the master he serves, but also by the "Dingheit" which he transforms through his servile labor.[9] Hegel further explains that in this labor, the desire of the slave is "restrained and checked," and its "evanescences" are "delayed and postponed."[10] Kojève augments Hegel's remarks about the slave by describing the slave's transformative labor as "die Verwandlung der Natur," through which a "technische, vermensch-lichte Welt" is created.[11]

On the other hand, Hegel describes the master by saying that the master-consciousness is mediated through, and thus ultimately dependent on the consciousness of the slave.[12] Because of this dependence, the "Selbständigkeit" of the master-consciousness eventually proves itself to be deceptive, and this consciousness is eventually revealed to be an "unwesentliche Bewußtsein," whose actions are similarly inessential.[13] Hegel also indicates that because the desire of the master is never channeled into labor or focused directly upon "thinghood," it is forever unchecked, and is never postponed in its "evanescences" or expressions.[14] Kojève further develops Hegel's description of the master's consciousness and desire by saying that the actions of the former and the expressions of the latter take place in a world of "statisch gegebene Sein,"[15] --a realm separated from the laborious transformation of the slave, in which any change is aleatory and ephemeral.

The type of "Being" or "beings" which are given to the self which exists outside of the realm of labor and "Dingheit" consist, as Kojève observes, only of the members of his or her family circle.[16] These are thus the only things to which the master can ultimately direct his unchecked, evanescent desire. Kojève also notes that because the members of the master's family are beings which are "statisch gegeben," they become the objects of the master's evanescent desire "nicht auf Grund ihrer Taten" (because they, like himself, do not work or act), but become objects of this desire "nur mit Rücksicht aur die bloße Tatsache [ihres] Seins."[17] The type of relationship which results from this situation, Kojève points out, is one of love: A relationship formed from the arbitrary conferral of an "absoluter Wert" on another.[18]

In now going on to consider how this abstract description of the relationship between master and slave corresponds to the specific events in the novel, it might be best to now concentrate on a specific locus presented in the novel where interrelation and interaction between these two groups of characters repeatedly occurs. Such a point of recurrent intersection is provided in the imagistic space of the "neue Anlage," and the process of its gradual expansion and development. As Richard Faber explains --and as the novel itself indicates-- this neue Anlage is a typical eighteenth century "englischer Park,"[19] which were developed through the labor of the servants and peasantry, and which were created by excluding large tracts of land from the game-hunting and agricultural activities of these lower classes.[20]

Through these processes, this territory, as Richard Farber states, becomes an "Experimentierfield, der auf Vergnügen und Zerstreuung bedachten Menschen, wobei das Willkürliche ihres Unterfangens besonders daraus erhellt, daß...die Laune des Augenblicks über die Umgestaltung der verschiedenen Abschnitte entscheidet."[21] In other words, it forms a site where the inessential consciousness and the evanescent desire of the Eduard, Charlotte, and Otillie --unobstructed from all but the barriers constituted by their family ties-- are free to play themselves out.

It is clear, for example, that all the decisions concerning the development of this territory occur as expressions of their evanescent desire, which are determined solely in reference to their love relationships. Eduard's attempts to supervise and expedite the work on the park are, as he admits to himself, motivated purely by his love for Ottilie and his concern her convenience and pleasure: "[E]s soll schon alles fertig sein, und für wen? Die Wege sollen gebahnt sein, damit Ottilie bequem sie gehen, die Sitze schon an Ort und Stelle, damit Ottilie dort ruhen könne"(91). Much later in the novel, Charlotte justifies her and Ottilie's decision to continue having the park developed in the absence of Eduard and the "Hauptmann" through a process of reasoning which is similarly motivated: "Laß uns freudig und munter in das eingreifen, was die Männer unvollendet gelassen haben; so bereiten wir die schönste Aussicht auf ihre Rückkehr ..."(109).[22] Furthermore, only a few pages later, it is described how Ottilie regards the work being done on the "Lusthaus" only as a "Symptome, ob Eduard wohl bald erwartet werde, oder nicht"(111). And on the same page, it is also described how she views a procession of the uniformed "Bauerknaben," organized to work on the park, simply as "eine Art von Parade, welche die rückkehrenden Hausherrn bald begrüßen sollte" (111).

The desire and the consciousness of the master is thus described as being perpetually involved in various forms of expression and action which occur in complete independence from the concrete natural world around them. As these passages dealing with the neue Anlage clearly illustrate, it is only the static being of the amorous family unit[23] that determines the actions and expressions of this sovereign form of consciousness and desire. Because the master-consciousness is clearly described as being otherwise completely isolated from the reality of other beings and being existing around them, it can be designated as being, in fact, "inessential."

The novel's slave-figures, on the other hand, are required to act in constant obedience to their masters, developing the park or neue Anlage according to their arbitrary directives. In this way, these former characters are perpetually forced to direct their servile forms of consciousness and desire to the task of the transformation the essential, natural materiality represented in this tract of land. However, with only a few exceptions, the slave and his labor are not at all foregrounded in the context of the novel (nor, as indicated earlier, by many of its recent critics).

One of these exceptions can be found in the following description of the estate gardener, where he is lauded as being an "eigensinnig[er] Mann, der sich [nicht] durch andere Liebhaberein und Neigungen sich zerstreuen [läßt]"(181). He is further described as someone of "eine stille Konsequenz," who performs "in jeder Stunde, in jeder Jahreszeit das Gehörige"(181). The desire and consciousness of the slave are thus never to be unfocussed or "Zerstreut," but must instead be consistently controlled and directed at an object, and at the task of its transformation. This fact is also articulated in the mason's speech given at the ceremonious "Grundsteinlegung" for the "Lustgebäude." In this address, this individual explains to his masters that as a mason, he is resolutely devoted to an "ernstes Geschäft"(65), and that this "business" or labor, and the object which it transforms, can never be effaced from his consciousness: Even when the structure is fully "aufgeführt," and its external walls are "mit Zieraten überdeckt," the consciousness of the mason, he emphasizes, is able to see "durch alle Hüllen immer noch hinein," and is able to recognize "noch jene regelmäßigen sorgfältigen Fugen, denen das Ganze sein Dasein und seinen Halt zu danken hat"(66).

This then concludes the cursory treatment of the servile and sovereign forms of consciousness to be given in this paper. Having thus completed this brief description, it is now possible to undertake a more detailed examination of the different discourses generated by master and slave. At the outset of this examination, however, it must be emphasized that when regarded on the discursive level, the master and slave are not to be understood as forming two mutually exclusive categories existing in a binary opposition. Instead, these two terms should be conceived as forming two polar extremes, each of which exist on opposite ends of a discursive "spectrum" which encompasses a range of possible discursive forms. The respective servility or sovereignty of any one discourse would thus be indicated by its relative proximity to either one of these polar extremes. However, because no discourse is ever purely or abstractly servile or sovereign in nature, these polar extremes must be understood as being entirely hypothetical, and as existing outside of the possible range of concrete discursive forms. Furthermore, it is also important to note at this point that the discourses produced by many of the characters in the Wahlverwandt-schaften can be designated as existing in relatively close proximity to either one of these poles. At the same time, however, it is also the case that the discourses of a few of the novel's more major characters must be understood as being localizable somewhere in the middle of the discursive space constituted by this spectrum.

It is the specific contention of this paper that the determinate discursive or linguistic features proper to each aforementioned polar extreme correlate directly to those described in Jakobson's study of language and aphasia. In the essay "Two Aspects of Language and two types of Aphasic Disturbances," Roman Jakobson describes two "polar types of aphasia," and identifies these two forms of this speech disorder as being "contiguity disorder" on the one hand, and "similarity disorder" on the other.[24] Using the terminology of conventional poetics and structuralist linguistics, he goes on to discuss the particular discursive characteristics specific to either linguistic disorder or linguistic pole. He argues that the linguistic operations occurring in the metaphoric trope are paradigmatic for the former "polar discourse," and that those occurring in the trope of metonymy are paradigmatic for the latter. This paper will argue that the first of these poles, commonly designated as the "metaphoric pole," coincides with that point in discursive space where the master discourse --in its hypothetical purity-- is generated. And correspondingly, it will contend that the second of these antipodes, often termed "the metonymic pole," designates that hypothetical point at which the purely "servile" discourse is generated.

This discussion of the sovereign and servile discursive forms will begin by first examining the latter of these two antipodal forms --it will begin, in other words, with the discourse generated by the aphasic suffering from similarity disorder, which obsessively utilizes the metonymic aspect of language. Jakobson summarizes the essential nature of the discourse produced by this type of aphasic by saying that in it, "the context is [always] the indispensable and decisive factor."[25] By this he means that this discourse can be effectively produced only if it is in sustained and immediate relation to its given syntactical and referential context. For example, as Jakobson explains, an individual suffering from aphasia of this type cannot produce "the sentence `it rains'... unless the utterer sees that it is actually raining .... Likewise" Jakobson continues, "the more a word is dependent on the other words of the same sentence and the more it refers to the to the syntactical context, the less it is affected by this speech disorder."[26] It is possible to extend Jakobson's explanation by suggesting that this type of discourse is perpetually dependent on presence, whether that presence be physical presence (the rain, for example), or verbal presence (antecedent statements or utterances).[27]

Jakobson goes on to explain that another manifestation of this linguistic disturbance is represented in a tendency to delete one or more words, and to replace them with a different term. However, all such acts of deletion and replacement, he implies, can be shown to be determined solely by the immediate physical context in which they take place. Furthermore, it can be shown that this process often operates to bring the vocabulary utilized in the discourse into closer relationship with this context.[28] In all of these changes, the aphasic can be shown to be merely replacing one item with another which can be said to be either customarily, and/or spatially or temporally contiguous to the first: A cause can be substituted for an effect, or one term can be supplanted by another which in the given physical or cultural context is immediately proximate to it. Thus, the word "smoke" is used by one aphasic in the place of the phrase "to smoke a pipe;" and "what you do for the dead" is used to designate the color black.[29]

The act of substituting one item by another which either space, causality or custom dictate to be contiguous to the first is in fact designates what occurs in the trope of metonymy: Metonymy is defined as a process in which the "term for one thing is applied to another with which it has become closely associated by experience" (for example, using the word "crown" to refer to the king or queen, or the terms "forty-five sail" to designate forty-five ships).[30] Experience, which is in fact informed by custom, and also by familiar spatial and causal relationships, thus can be said to direct this process of application or substitution. And it is the repeated occurrence of this trope, in its various possible forms, which characterizes metonymic discourse.

Metaphor, on the other hand, refers to the substitution of one term by another which are not related by custom, or spatial or temporal contiguity. Instead, the two terms involved in metaphoric substitution tend to be linked by associations which run counter to experience, and which always unite the two terms involved only according to a particular similarity which exists between them. For example, the familiar metaphoric line "O my love is a red, red rose" coined by Burns implies the existence of a similarity in quality between his loved one and a rose --perhaps a common ethereal beauty and fragility.[31]

The aphasic suffering from the "metaphoric" contiguity disorder will --like the aphasic with similarity disorder-- tend also to exchange one word from another, but in this case, the two words involved will be related by specifiable similarities rather than by any relationship of contiguity or proximity. "The patient" Jakobson explains, "deals with similarities; spyglass for microscope, or fire for gaslight are typical examples" of the type substitutions based on similarity which this type of aphasic will make.[32] Jakobson goes on to say that this discourse, in diametric opposition to the other aphasic discourse, is dependent upon its isolation or independence from any form of contexture in order to achieve articulation: "The less a word depends on...the [syntactic and physical] context," he explains "the stronger its tenacity in the speech of aphasics with a contiguity disorder" will be.[33] It could be further stated that in direct contrariety to the discourse produced by the first form of aphasia, this second type of aphasia produces a discourse which is dependent on absence: The more completely any possible physical or contextual referent can be made absent, the more readily this discursive form can be generated.[34] Also, it is important to note here that whereas the former form of aphasia leaves the structures governing syntactical order intact, in this second form of aphasia, the rules organizing word order tend to be lost, sometimes causing the sentence to "degenerate ...into a mere 'word heap.'"[35]

In order to now apply this description of these two discursive forms to those represented in Die Wahlverwandtschaften, it is useful to first examine a number of events and images in the novel which illustrate the very basic principles regulating the operation of these discourses. One such representation of central importance is to be found in the various images of the "Archiv" or "Sammlung" of documents or artifacts which are in each case carefully organized and "rubriziert" in "Schubladen und Fächern." Such collections are produced by two characters whose discourse will be understood as lying closer to the metonymic or servile pole than to the "sovereign," metaphorical pole --namely by the Hauptmann (in his organization of Eduard's papers) and the "Architekt" (in his own collection of various archeological objects and drawings). The way in which these two characters organize these items is strongly reminiscent of the way in which one female patient suffering from similarity disorder grouped a similarly wide variety of items:

Like this aphasic, the Architect and Hauptmann presumably do not arrange the items of their collections according to extrinsic similarities of color, size or shape; but rather, organize them according to an order determined by conventional temporal and spatial categorizations, or by specific contextual factors (date and place of origin, or specific function within a larger cultural system).

Characters such as Eduard, Charlotte and Ottilie, who can be situated (in discursive terms) in close proximity to the absolutely sovereign, metaphoric pole, appear to reproduce the traits of contiguity disorder first of all in that they often seem to be incapable of organizing a given set of terms or items in a coherent sequence. It is said, for example, that Eduard "konnte niemals dazu kommen, seine Papiere nach Fächern abzuteilen"(34); and the order which the Hauptmann brings to these papers and documents, when left again to Eduard, soon decays into its former chaotic state.[37] Similarly, when confronted by various parts of the architect's collection, Charlotte and Ottilie do not comprehend its separate items in terms of their place in history or their specific cultural function. Instead, they contemplate these items in complete isolation from this context, and in a manner which completely flattens the distinctions according to which they were originally organized. Their comprehension of these items is instead guided exclusively by the apparent resemblances and extrinsic associations which they perceive as existing between them. For example, when the architect presents them with a series of "umrissene Figuren" of an "altertümlich[er] Charakter," Charlotte and Ottilie see in "allen Gestalten...nur das reinste Dasein." It is further described how they perceive in "allen Gesichtern, in allen Gebärden" only a "[h]eitere Sammlung," and a "stille Hingebung in Liebe und Erwartung"(128).

The essential difference separating such discursive forms or formations produced by the slave from those generated by the master is given succinct expression in an important, general distinction articulated by both Ottilie and the visiting "Gehülfe." In a conversation presented in the seventh chapter of the novel's second part, these two figures describe the difference between "die gute Pädigogik" on the one hand, and "die gute Lebensart" on the other. The first of these, it is said, demands that one grasp "einen Gegenstand, eine Materie...recht fest;" that one make it "in allen seinen Teilen recht deutlich;"(167) and that one not allow the mind "in die Weite [zu] reißen"(167). Accordingly, any given element or group of elements should, in this overtly servile form of pedagogy, be carefully organized and subordinated according to a spatial or temporal order which is dictated either by custom or the given context. Ottilie points out that, on the other hand, a process appearing exactly as "das Umgekehrte" characterizes what happens in "sovereign" society: "In der Gesellschaft," she says, "soll man auf nichts verweilen," instead, she continues, one should seek to encourage "Zerstreuung"(167). In this situation, the mind is allowed to "fly" into a wide variety of associations and elements, unhampered by restrictions of customary order and subordination, and motivated only by contingent similarities.

When the master, in his distraction, brings a number of similar elements together into contingent association with one another, he in effect produces the sovereign equivalent of the meticulous collections created by the novel's slave-figures. However, whenever this occurs, this collection invariably seems to resemble the aforementioned "word heap" generated by the contiguity-disorder aphasic: For example, at the very end of the novel, it is described how Eduard has kept in a single "Kästchen," a collection of "[einige] Blumen[, und] alle Blättchen, die [Ottilie] ihm geschrieben...hatte."[38] Although it is clear that these items are not ordered according to any contextual patterns dictated by custom, or by spatial or temporal succession, the very fact that they are collected together reveals the operation of a principle which often plays an important role the master discourse. This principle serves to motivate or guide the process of substitution according to similarity occurring in this discourse. Furthermore, this principle can be said to be brought into being by the necessary existence of a minimal amount of contexture which must inform any discourse generated within the spectrum of concrete discursive forms. This minimal contexture which thus influences the process of substitution is provided by the being or beings which Kojève says the master cannot escape --by the "statisch gegebene Sein" of the amorous familial unit. In the case of Eduard's collection, it is the contexture provided by Ottilie and his amorous relationship with her which informs the process of classification or association according to which these items are brought together.

Examples of actual discourse generated by the three master-characters identified earlier further illustrate the operation of this crucial contextual principle. Perhaps the clearest (and most familiar) example of this discourse is to be found in the novel's forth chapter, where the notion of the "Wahlverwandtschaft" is discussed by Eduard, Charlotte and the Hauptmann. While this form of interrelationship is being explained in purely scientific terms, Charlotte interrupts and attempts to translate this explanation into a sustained "Gleichnißrede"(37, 43) --into the metaphoric discourse of sovereignty: "Ich hörte von Verwandtschaften...und da dacht ich eben gleich an meine Verwandte"(39). And after it is further explained that the chemical "Wahlverwandtschaft" implies the unity of opposed elements, she continues her "Gleichnißrede" as follows: "Auf eben diese Weise können unter Menschen wahrhaft bedeutende Freundschaften entstehen: denn entgegengesetzte Eigenschaften machen eine innigere Vereinigung möglich"(40). Also, after the Hauptmann describes an experiment in which gypsum is formed though the combination of a solid and liquid and the simultaneous release a gaseous acid, she replies: "Der Gyps hat gut zu reden...der ist nun fertig, ist ein Körper, ist versorgt, anstatt daß jenes ausgetriebene Wesen noch manche Not haben kann, bis es wieder unterkommt"(41).

Charlotte's sustained "Gleichnißrede" thus can be seen to operate through the substitution of one term (the filiation of chemical elements) with another (the interrelation of family members). This substitution, in turn, takes place in accordance with specifiable similarities shared by both of these substituted terms (the attraction of opposites and the consequent exclusion of a third element are understood as occurring in a strikingly similar way in both the chemical and personal forms of interrelationship). Furthermore, it is evident that this substitution involves reference to the context of the family and familial relationships, thus confirming the validity of the aforementioned principle by again providing the necessary minimal contexture in which the master discourse is produced.

However, at the same time, the particular way in which these substitutions relate to this familial context points to a specific stipulation which almost invariably applies to the way in which this principle operates. This stipulation can be formulated as follows: Despite the fact that the contexture provided by the family invariably influences the substitutions occurring in the master discourse, this discourse typically refers chiefly to, or is motivated primarily by an absence or lack occurring in this context. In the case of instances of Charlotte's discourse quoted above, it is the absence of any satisfactory filiation with another (or better, the absence of this other) that Charlotte is experiencing which consistently motivates her "Gleichnißrede:" In this "Gleichnißrede," her metaphorical reference to the intimate union of opposite natures, and to the "ausgetriebene" "not habende" gaseous acid refer --as Eduard himself indicates[39]-- to the fact that relationship growing between the two men has caused them to be from "[ihr]er anmutigen Gesellschaft entzogen." The fact that this discourse is typically generated in the context of an absence occurring in the minimal familial environment can also be illustrated through reference to the two aforementioned examples involving collections --Eduard's collection of letters and leaves on the one hand, and the silhouettes of the architect (and Ottilie's and Charlotte's reaction to them) on the other. In the case of the former, the operative contextual absence, of course, is that created by the death of Ottilie. And in the case of the latter instance, it is the absence of Eduard and the Hauptmann as experienced by Charlotte and Ottilie which can be seen to motivate their reactions to the various items of the collection presented to them.

This, then completes this paper's description of the terms which regulate the operation of the master discourse. Although the consistent operation of this discursive mode can be claimed to occur at numerous occasions throughout the novel,[40] it will be best to illustrate this claim with reference to discourses produced in closer proximity to the middle of the discursive spectrum --rather than focus on more instances of extreme discursive forms.

The discourse of the slave, on the other hand, will be dealt with much more briefly. This is the case not only because the operation of this latter discourse is determined in a comparatively simple, unambiguous relationship to its physical contexture, but also because the novel actually offers only one example where this discourse is produced in a relatively unambivalent and sustained form. This instance is to be found in the aforementioned "Maurers Rede," which can be understood as presenting a metonymic representation of the construction of the Lusthaus. It presents, in other words, a description articulated strictly in terms of contiguous temporal succession and causal interrelation, in which each element and stage of construction is reduced to the terms its purposive function or its desired consequences or effects:[41]

The "Maurer" ends this speech with the aforementioned description of how he, despite the external layers of plaster and decoration, is always able to see the results of his labor, thus further illustrating how his discourse consistently orders and represents elements in terms of their immediate physical contiguity.

The operation of this servile discourse, generated in relative proximity to the metonymic pole, and the functioning of the discourse proximate to the metaphoric or sovereign pole can be further illustrated through reference to the development of the character of Ottilie. By briefly examining these discursive forms as they manifest themselves primarily in the context of her actions and interactions, it will be possible to trace one central way in which the operation of discourse in general relates to the narrative presented in the novel. In this way, it will also be possible work toward a response to the critics cited at the outset of the paper by outlining a different way of understanding the relation of language in the novel to its "tragic" ending.

Initially, the discourse produced by Ottilie is structured by her response to the education given to her at the "Pension," and thus is governed by the aforementioned pedagogical precepts of the Gehülfe. In this environment, Ottilie is described as possessing the ability to understand things only in their distinct but integral parts, and only in terms of their specific contexture: "Sie steht unfähig, ja stöckisch vor einer...Sache, die für sie mit nichts zusammenhängt. Kann man aber die Mittelglieder finden und ihr deutlich machen, so ist ihr das Schwerste begreiflich"(32). These broadly discursive characteristics persist as she moves from the Pension to the estate, and assists there with the administration of the household. Shortly after her arrival, she is described as demonstrating "[eine] anständige Dienstfertigkeit"(50), rapidly attaining a complete understanding of the context of the estate's household --and also of how to effectively utilize the protocol or customs and causal interconnections that govern this order: "Ottilie hatte schnell die ganze Ordnung eingesehen...Was sie für alle, einen jeden insbesondere zu besorgen hatte, begriff sie leicht"(48). It is also significant that on this same page, she is described as readily providing Charlotte with a "genaue...liebevolle Schilderung der ganze Pensionsanstalt"(48). In this way, she is depicted as producing a discourse which relates closely to context, guided by the relationships of spatial contiguity provided within that context.

Significant changes in this discourse become clear only in the novel's second book, as the characteristics of Ottilie's discursive behavior come to be less like those of the slave and more like those of the master. It is at this time in the novel that she is gradually guided by Charlotte away from a "[D]ienstpflicht..[die] einem Frauenzimmer nicht wohl geziem[t]..."(50) to the cultivation of the "Zerstreuung" proper to "der guten Lebensart"(167). The shifting of Ottilie's discourse in the discursive spectrum from a relatively servile locality to a more sovereign position is clearly illustrated in the discourse she produces in her diary. Signifi-cantly, the novel describes this discourse as being intrinsically linked and guided by "[ein] Faden...von innigerem Bezug" or "ein Faden der Neigung und Anhänglichkeit"(144, 130). Ottilie's diary entries dealing with the architect's archeological collection, for example, are entirely consistent with her and Charlotte's earlier responses to this collection mentioned above --thus revealing this "Faden" to be one which links up a series of extrinsic appearances, and whose "weaving" or linking action is motivated by the absence of Eduard within the contexture of the family. This process of weaving together appearances associated according to the awareness of this absence is continued in many of Ottilie's other entries: Her remarks, for instance, on the beauty of "mancherlei Denkmale und Merkzeichen, die uns Entfernte und Abgeschiedene näherbringen" and her observations on the architect's sketches of ancient "Grabmonumenten" in which she reflects on how pleasant it would be to rest "neben denen dereinst" are two further examples (among many others) illustrating the recurrence of this process.[42] In this way, her diary comes to represent a collection of "Bemerkungen, Betrachtungen, ausgezogenen Sinnsprüche"(130), analogous in nature to those aforementioned collections accumulated by the novel's other master-figures. Furthermore, many of the other entries in her diary can be understood as representing her conscious efforts to master "Bildung," (144), "Betragen, und gute Sitten"(156) apposite to the "gute Lebensart" of "Unterhaltung" and "Zerstreuung" of the master.[43]

In this way, Ottilie is led to become ever more fully involved in discursive modes which find their only contexture in the family, and which weave their way within this contexture only according to inessential analogues or similarities. Ottilie's acquisition of the discursive mode of the master --to now bring the question of discourse or language into more direct relationship with the novel's narrative structure-- can arguably be seen to play a crucial role in leading to Ottilie's (and the novel's) tragic end.[44]

The interrelation of this tragic narrative structure and the discourse of the master can perhaps be best clarified by returning briefly to Kojève's explication of the master-slave dialectic. Shortly after his description of the master's love relationship to his family, Kojève goes on to delineate what he describes as the "tragische Charakter" of the master: "Wie der Held der antiken Tragödie," Kojève says, "befindet sich die...Welt der...Herren in einem unausweichlichen und auswegslosen Konflikt, der...zum vollkommenen Zusammenbruch dieser Welt führt."[45] Kojève goes on to explain that in the final analysis, this world is met with ruination or destruction "weil sie die Arbeit ausschließt."[46] Although on one level, the "auswegslose Konflikt" leading to this destruction is, in fact, overcome through the dialectical "Aufhebung" of the two antithetical elements of master and slave, when seen in terms specific to or localized within this world, this moment can only appear as one of irremediable negation and destruction.[47] When understood in these specific, local terms, this tragic demise is comprehended as the necessary result of a inescapable contradiction or conflict between two irrevocably opposed elements. These two elements, as they appear in this context --and as they will be understood in this paper-- are constituted on the one hand by the isolation of the master in his inessential world and superfluous discourse, and on the other, by the ineluctable physical reality of labor and materiality in which the master necessarily exists.

When understood in these terms, Ottilie's acquisition and production of an excessively sovereign discourse --taken together with the similarly extreme discursive behavior of the novel's other master-figures-- can be understood as constituting this irrevocably doomed world of the master. The conflict or contradiction existing between the inessential contingency of this discourse on the one hand, and the ineluctable and essential materiality in which it is necessarily articulated, on the other, thus forms the inexorable tragic conflict central to Die Wahlverwandtschften. And this conflict between these two elements which necessarily results in the novel's tragic end, which is represented in the demise of those characters whose discursive behavior can be said to be most excessively sovereign and metaphorical.

This conflict can be said to become most clearly manifest at the crucial moment in the second book as the Hauptmann, and Eduard (following immediately after him) arrive on the scene at the Estate after their lengthy absence. Although both agree that Eduard should wait nearby while the Hauptmann prepares Charlotte and Ottilie for his arrival, Eduard catches sight of "das neue [Lust]haus...in der Ferne," and is gripped by an "unwiderstehliche Sehensucht"(209). Presumably driven by associations arising from this sight (perceived, of course, not in the terms of the mason, but according to its non-material, inessential significance), Eduard is led into a state of "Zerstreuung," in which he, both figuratively and literally, is caused to be "ins Weite gereißt." Thus, instead of waiting for the Hauptmann as planned, he hurriedly ventures into the estate park. Ottilie, meanwhile, is`sitting unsuspectingly in this same park, and is similarly lost in "Zerstreuung:" She is deeply immersed "in ihr Buch, in sich selbst," and as a result, she forgets "Zeit und Stunde"(210), and neglects her duties. Instead of returning punctually to the Lusthaus with the child, she lingers by the lake site as the sun sets, and is consequently surprised by Eduard; and this meeting, in turn, forces Ottilie to return home in the boat rather than walk around the lake in the growing darkness (211-212). In this way, the crucial instances of both characters' sovereign, fortuitous "Zerstreuung" can be seen to lead to the death of the child, and by implication, to Ottilie's own fateful and fatal "Entsagung."

It is precisely in the name of this ascetic Entsagung that Ottilie subsequently moves even further from any contact with essential, material reality, and retreats more deeply into an isolated world the contingent and inessential. Her radical isolation in this world is, of course, most clearly expressed in her complete neglect of the material reality of the food served to her, and of the physical necessity of its consumption. By way of contrast, however, it is important to note that her maidservant Nanni regards this same food only in its practical, essential "Dingheit," and consumes in Ottilie's place simply, as she says, "weil es so gut schmeckt"(239).

Thus, it can be said that Ottilie's practice of sovereign modes of discourse cuts her off from such simple articulations of rudimentary logic as Nanni's, and removes her from even the most elementary awareness of the material reality in which she necessarily exists. In these ways, these discursive forms lead Ottilie to her own demise, and this, in turn, compels Eduard "[ihr] `hinüber [zu] folgen'"(238). It is in this way, then, that the isolation of these master-figures in their superfluous discursive world is brought into conflict with the essential materiality in which this world necessarily exists; and it is in this way that this conflict ultimately leads to the destruction or demise of this inessential world.

It can thus be concluded that the tragic denouement of Goethe's narrative is brought about by the radical superfluity of the metaphorical discourse produced by the masters in the novel: By the extreme superabundance or imbalance manifest in this discourse when it is examined in quantitative terms, and by the drastically superfluous, inessential nature which is exposed when this it is understood in qualitative terms. This fundamental superfluity of the metaphorical master discourse comes to represent a serious discursive impairment, which makes all those figures who practice it highly vulnerable to disaster.

To now conclude, this paper will momentarily return to the post-structuralist or deconstructive criticism of Die Wahlverwandt-schaften presented at its outset. In briefly comparing the conclusions presented in the criticism of Hörisch and Miller with those reached in this paper, it is first important to note that like this paper, both critics come to the conclusion that the discourse of the novel's master-figures plays a decisive role in leading to its tragic conclusion. However, unlike this paper, both of these critics further suggest that the characteristics of the post-structuralist or broadly deconstructive discourse which informs their own interpretation of this novel also manifest themselves in the discourse of these master characters. Despite this dissimilarity, it is interesting to note that some of the characteristics of the master discourse described in this paper are curiously comparable to those commonly attributed to deconstructive discourse: Both represent an apparently endless process of substitution occurring at the site of an irrecoverable absence.

Significantly, Charles Bernheimer, in an essay entitled "Towards a Psychopoetics of Textual Structure,"[48] examines the discourse of deconstruction in the terms of Jakobson's bi-polar conception of language. Towards the end of this study, he explicitly confirms the fact that this discourse of deconstruction can be localized as existing in close proximity to the metaphoric pole of language --stating that some of its characteristics resemble those particular to the discourse produced by the aphasic with contiguity disorder. If this impaired discursive form can be understood, in the broadest socio-historical terms, as being uniquely typical of the master, then is not deconstruction --de-spite its self-proclaimed opposition to all violent master-discourses-- itself revealed to be an eminently sovereign master discourse?

Bibliography Bernheimer, Charles. "Introduction; toward a Psychopoetics of Textual Structure." Flaubert and Kafka; Studies in Psychopoetic Structure. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982. Pp. 1-44.Faber, Richard. "Zur sozialen Idylik Goethes." Goethes Wahlverwandtschfen: kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur. Ed. Norbert W. Bolz. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981. Pp. 91-168. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. Die Wahlverwandtschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1972.Hegel, G.W.F. Phänomenologie des Geistes (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1986) Pp. 11-68, 145-155. Hörisch, Jochen. "Das Sein der Zeichen und die Zeichen des Seins." Preface to Jacques Derrida. Die Stimme und das Phänomen. Trans. Jochen Hörisch. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1979. Pp. 7-50. Hörisch, Jochen. "Der Mittler und die Wut des Verstehens." Die Aktualität der Frühromantik. Ed. Ernst Behler and Jochen Hörisch. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1987. Pp. 19-32.Jakobson, Roman. "Two Aspects of Language and two Types of Aphasic Disturbances." From Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle, Fundamentals of Language. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1971. Pp.66-96.Kojève, Alexandre. Hegel; Eine Vergegenwärtigung seines Denkens. Ed. Iring Fetscher. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1975. Pp. 48-89.Lodge, David. The Modes of Modern Writing; Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. Pp. 73-124.Miller, Hillis, J. "A `Buchstäbliches' Reading of Die Wahlverwandtschaften." Glyph 6 (1979). Pp. 1-23.

Footnotes

[1] Jochen Hörisch, "Der Mittler und die Wut des Verstehens," Die Aktualität der Frühromantik, ed. Ernst Behler and Jochen Hörisch (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1987), p. 23.

[2] Jochen Hörisch, "Das Sein der Zeichen und die Zeichen des Seins," preface to Jacques Derrida, Die Stimme und das Phänomen, trans. Jochen Hörisch (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1979), p. 20.

[3] J. Hillis Miller, "A `Buchstäbliches' Reading of Die Wahlverwandtschaften." Glyph 6 (1979): 22-23, 13.

[4] Miller bases this claim on the "Gleichnißrede" found in the novel's fourth chapter, in which the identities of the novel's four main characters are substituted for four chemical elements. He explains Aristotle's conception of the metaphorical ratio by citing the following passage from the Poetics: "`By metaphor formed on the basis of analogy (or proportion) is meant the case when a second term, B, is to a first, A, as a fourth, D, is to a third, C; whereupon the fourth term, D, may be substituted for the second, B, or the second, B, for the fourth, D.... Hence one will speak of the evening (D) as the old age (B) of the day...and of old age as the evening'" (Miller, pp. 16-17).

[5] Miller explains this by again citing form Aristotle's Poetics: "`In certain cases, the language may contain no actual word corresponding to one of the terms in the proportion, but the figure nevertheless will be employed. For example, when a fruit casts forth its seed, the action is called "sowing," but the action of the sun casting forth its flame has no special name. Yet this nameless action (B) is to the sun (A) as sowing (D) is to the fruit (C)....'" Miller then goes on to assert that "Ottilie plays the same role in the proportion among the four characters of Die Wahlverwandtschaften as the missing term for the sun's act of casting forth its flame.... She is," Miller continues, "the blind spot in the novel, invisible from excess of light, silent, a kind of black hole..." (Miller, p.17).

[6] Jacques Lacan, as quoted in Hörisch, "Sein der Zeichen," pp. 27.

[7] Hörisch, pp. 20, 28, 27.

[8] G.W.F. Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1986) p. 150. Please note that the emphases in this and the following quotations from Hegel are Hegel's own.

[9] Ibid .

[10] The above terms are taken from J.B. Baillie's translation. (See The Phenomenology of Mind (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), p. 239. The original passage, with Hegel's own emphases runs as follows: "Die Arbeit...ist gehemmte Begierde, aufgehaltenes Verschwinden... (see 153).

[11] Alexandre Kojève, Hegel; Eine Vergegenwärtigung seines Denkens, ed. Iring Fetscher (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1975), p. 60.

[12] See Hegel, Phänomenologie, pp. 151-152.

[13] Ibid ., p. 152.

[14] It should be noted that Hegel's own words on this specific matter are as follows: "Die Befriedigung [dieser] Begierde...ist aber...selbst nur ein Verschwinden, denn es fehlt ihr die gegenständliche Seite oder das Bestehen." Ibid ., p. 153.

[15] Kojève, p. 79.

[16] Kojève, p. 79.

[17] Ibid .

[18] Ibid .

[19] Richard Faber, "Zur sozialen Idylik Goethes" Goethes Wahlverwandtschfen: kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur, ed. Norbert W. Bolz (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), pp. 92-92, 116-117; See also Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Die Wahlverwandtschften (Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1972), p. 53. Please note that all further quotations from this last text are taken from this edition, and will be noted within the body of the essay.

[20] See Faber, p. 92.

[21] Faber, p. 116.

[22] It is important to note here that the "work" on the park --as it is begun by Eduard and the Hauptmann, and continued by Charlotte and Ottilie-- is not "grob[e]" or "rauhe Arbeit" (111). Instead, is an activity, which, as Charlotte herself describes it, represents a "Scherz, einer Unterhaltung" which is done "aus Liebhaberei" (29), and which, she insists, should not be made into an arduous "Werk"(30).

[23] It is important to note at this point that although each of the three characters mentioned immediately above are not members of a single immediate family, the relationships existing between them are consistently conceived of in explicitly amorous, familial terms: The narrator, for example, even includes the Hauptmann in his depiction of the "Lebensweise einer Familie"(56) which is formed through the interactions of this tightly knit group of characters. Furthermore, it can be said that just as Eduard's amorous relationship with Ottilie inevitably comes to be framed in terms of its possible marital consummation, Ottilie's relationship of mutual affection with Charlotte progressively acquires the characteristics of a close mother-daughter relationship.

[24] Roman Jakobson "Two Aspects of Language and two Types of Aphasic Disturbances," from Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle, Fundamentals of Language (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1971), p.90.

[25] Jakobson, p.77

[26] Ibid ., 78.

[27] Charles Bernheimer argues for the validity of such a suggestion in his "Introduction; toward a Psychopoetics of Textual Structure," Flaubert and Kafka; Studies in Psychopoetic Structure (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982), pp. 12-13.

[28] See Jakobson, pp. 83-84.

[29] Ibid .

[30] M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981), p. 65.

[31] See Ibid ., pp. 63-64.

[32] Jakobson, p. 86.

[33] Ibid .

[34] This is suggested in Bernheimer, p. 31.

[35] Jakobson, p. 85.

[36] Jakobson, p.83.

[37] Although the Hauptmann works to bring some of Eduard's "verworrenen Heften und Blättern"(16) into "eine erfreuliche Ordnung"(36) --sorting them into "eine Repositur für das Gegenwartige, [und] ein Archiv für das Vergangene"(34)-- these documents and accounts are soon neglected (56). Eventually, as a result of Eduard's wild, "leidenschaftliches Trieben" in preparing for Ottilie's extravagant birthday-celebrations, and finally, completely obliterates the order of these accounts, and threatens the estate with financial disaster (91, 93, 110).

[38] It should perhaps be noted here that another conspicuous example of such a collection can be found in the description Ottilie's secret store of items associated with Eduard (see pp. 234-235).

[39] See page 41.

[40] Further instances of this operation can be found, for example, in the discourse produced by Ottilie in her diary (see pp. 25-26 of this paper); or in the metaphoric associations articulated by Eduard in direct connection with his initialed Kelchglas (see pp. 68, 118, 243), and with the deed or "Dokument" copied for him by Ottilie (see pp. 87, 90, 116).

[41] It should be noted here that in this address, there occur a few tropological references which are undoubtedly more metaphoric than metonomyic in character. The most conspicuous of these metaphoric tropes is to be found at the point where the mason emphasizes the apparent similarity between the effect of his mortar, and that of moral laws, both of which act as a "bindende Kraft" which holds together men --like bricks-- in a stable, compact unity. However, the infrequent appearance of such metaphors in this speech can be explained as being a result of the fact that it has been prepared for the ears of the masters, and is thus influenced by the extreme metaphoricity of their discourse. Furthermore, the rather stilted and forced nature of the above metaphor --as well as that of the other few metaphors employed by the mason-- can be seen to confirm their essentially extraneous, peripheral relation to the otherwise metonymic content of this discourse.

[42] Entries such as those referring to "die groß[e] Vorteile...die ein gebildeter Soldat...in der Gesellschaft...hat"(156) and on the way in which "[e]in Leben ohne...die Nähe des Geliebten...ein Comédie à tiroir ist"(184) can serve as further illustrations of this process of association.

[43] Examples of remarks illustrating these efforts can be found in the entries such as the following: "Die Angenehmsten Gesellschaften sind die, in welchen eine heitere Ehrerbietung der Glieder gegeneinander obwaltet"(144); "Niemand würde viel in Gesellschaften sprechen, wennn er sich bewußt wäre, wie oft er die andern mißversteht"(144); "Es gibt kein äußeres Zeichen der Höflichkeit, das nicht einen tiefen sittlichen Grund hätte. Die rechte Erziehung wäre, welche dieses Zeichen un den Grund zugleich überliefere"(156).

[44] It should be noted here that this paper --in conformity with its use of a dialectical, Hegelian frame of reference in its designation of sovereign and servile character types-- makes tacit appeal to a dialectical broadly Hegelian definition of tragedy in its own discussion of the tragic narrative structure of the Wahlverwandtschaften: Tragedy is accordingly understood as being constituted by that aspect of or moment in the dialectical process in which two antithetical elements are brought into contradictory conflictual opposition. This confrontation results in the negation of these two elements and in the affirmation of the absolute. Although this is evident that on the most elementary level, these antithetical elements are represented, in Die Wahlverwandtschaften, by master and slave. But when understood in terms of the more localized examination of the master discourse undertaken in the latter part of this paper, this opposition is manifested as occurring between the inessential contingency of this discourse on the one hand, and the ineluctable essentiality of the material world on the other.

[45] Kojève, p.80.

[46] Ibid .

[47] It should be noted here that this difference between local, specific moments of negation, and more comprehensive and general moments of affirmation and resolution occurring in Hegel's dialectic is also highlighted by Hayden White, in his book Metahistory; the Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Using generic literary designations, and speaking specifically about the historical content of Hegel's dialectical philosophy, White states that Hegel represents or "emplot[s] history on two levels." The first of these, he says, is the "microcosmic" level, in which history appears in "tragic" terms. The second, as White explains, is the "macrocosmic," in which history reaches its dialectical resolution, and thus appears to take on the characteristics of a "comic" narrative structure. (See White, Metahistory; the Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), pp. 30, 81-132.

[48] See Charles Bernheimer, Flaubert and Kafka; Studies in Psychopoetic Structure, p.1-44.