|
Discourses in Music: Volume 3 Number 2 (Winter 2001-2002)Schoenberg's Erwartung and Freudian Case Histories: A Preliminary Investigation1
By Alexander Carpenter
Arnold Schoenberg completed
his Erwartung op. 17 in 1909. Composed in less than three weeks, the work,
a monodrama for soprano and orchestra, is widely regarded as the quintessential
work of musical modernism and expressionism, and represents Schoenberg’s first
attempt at a large-scale atonal composition. It is also considered by many to be an unanalysable work, due in large
part to its athematicism and free atonal language, and to its text, a
fragmented, stream-of-consciousness monologue. In 1948 Theodore Adorno likened Erwartung
to a psychoanalytic case study,2 and since then a number of scholars seeking to make some sense of the work have
endeavored to uncover its “psychoanalytic background.”3 In investigating
Erwartung and taking Adorno quite literally, some connections have
been drawn between the monodrama’s text and an actual Freudian case history,
that of “Anna O.” from Freud and Josef Breuer’s Studien über Hysterie of 1895.4
While I do believe that Erwartung and Anna O. are linked, the fact of this linkage does not
completely unlock the monodrama’s secrets.
I would therefore like to further the project of (re)constructing a
psychoanalytic context for Erwartung by
revealing another possible—hitherto unconsidered—textual source, Freud’s 1905
case history of “Dora.”
The text of Erwartung was written by Marie
Pappenheim, a young medical student, in response to a commission from
Schoenberg in the summer of 1909. Pappenheim’s libretto depicts an unnamed woman, “Die Frau,” wandering alone in a forest
at night. She is searching for her
lover, and her fragmented, exclamatory text makes it clear that she is anxious, frightened, and quite possibly mentally
disturbed. She discovers the corpse of
her lover in the fourth and final scene and angrily expresses her suspicions
that he had been having an affair with another woman. Die Frau then spends the remainder of the work mourning him,
wondering aloud how she will go on living without him. Many musicologists have claimed a familial
relationship between Marie Pappenheim and Bertha Pappenheim, the real name of
Freud and Breuer’s famous hysteric “Anna O.”
Bertha was the first person to have been treated using the psychoanalytic
“cathartic” method, which she named the “talking cure.”5 Though Bertha was
Breuer’s patient, she is still generally regarded as
the first “Freudian” hysteric. The
question of the familial relationship between Marie and Bertha has never been
definitively answered; however, it has led to the supposition that, related or
not, Marie Pappenheim, as a medical student, may well have known of Anna O. and
may have used the case history as a partial basis for her monodrama. Certainly, there are similarities between
the case of Anna O. and the text of Erwartung. Robert Falck, Bryan Simms and others have
noted that the two texts share certain important features, namely the
“symptoms” of the two women. According
to Simms, Die Frau “has symptoms that are strikingly close to those of Anna O.,
suggesting that Breuer’s case study was, at least in part, a model used by
Pappenheim in writing the libretto.”6
Both women exhibit some of the typical
symptoms of hysteria, including amnesia, hallucinations, and a problem with
language (Anna O. switches between languages and is sometimes mute; Die Frau’s
speech is fragmented, littered with incomplete sentences and sudden
exclamations). Falck suggests that the importance of memory—as repressed
memories are at the root of Freudian hysteria—also features significantly for
both women: traumatic memories are triggered, by Breuer’s cathartic treatment
in Anna O.’s case, by Schoenberg’s music in Die Frau’s.7 While this recent scholarship has concerned
itself with the origins and content of the text of Erwartung towards a new interpretation of the work, it is my
contention that Freud’s “Dora” case has been overlooked as a possible source of
inspiration for Pappenheim’s text. This strikes me as odd. I do believe that the Anna O. case is one
important source for the monodrama, but have also discovered a number of
parallels between Freud’s case history of Dora and Erwartung, parallels which seem to me both compelling and
obvious.
If
we accept, even provisionally, that Erwartung’s
text may be based in part on a Freudian case study—and the Anna O. evidence
seems strong enough to allow this—then why not Dora too? Freud’s case history of Dora, entitled
“Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria,” was published in Vienna in
19058 and recounts the “petite hysterie” of a teenage girl in a difficult situation,
simultaneously concealing from her obsessive-compulsive mother her beloved
father’s affair with a family friend while facing seduction by this same
friend’s husband. Freud’s treatment of
the young girl consists of the analysis of two vivid dreams, which Freud
interprets towards the revelation of Dora’s (supposed) deepest unconscious
wishes. In the first dream, Dora is
rescued from her burning house by her father, but fears her jewel case
(“Schmuckkästchen”) will be consumed by the flames. In the second dream, Dora finds herself first in a strange town,
then in a forest searching for a train station. She encounters an unknown man and then learns that her father is
dead and that her mother is already at the cemetery. Freud interprets these dreams as expressions of Dora’s
unconscious sexual desire for the family friend’s husband, who had attempted to
seduce her on several occasions. Dora
ultimately rejects Freud’s interpretation and abruptly terminates the analysis.9
The case is thus a mere “fragment” but it is
nonetheless regarded as one of his most important case histories. In 1909, this fragmentary analysis would
have represented to Marie Pappenheim the latest word on hysteria.10
I think that the Dora case would have struck
Pappenheim as more interesting than the Anna O. case, certainly providing her
with more dramatic material for her monodrama, since Anna O.’s story is a study
of hysteria born out of domestic ennui,
while Dora’s is a tale of seduction, betrayal, and sexual intrigue. In addition, it is interesting to note that
Marie Pappenheim and Dora were the same age, both born in 1882. I think that this is important, since it
means that Marie Pappenheim would have seen Dora as her contemporary and would
have regarded herself a generation apart from Anna O., who was born in
1859. Ultimately, though, what really
draws Dora and Erwartung together are
not my suppositions but the correspondences between the texts, their shared symptoms,
settings, and symbology.
First, Dora and Die Frau
share some of the symptoms of the Freudian hysteric, though Dora’s “petite
hysterie” lacks the dramatic extremes of Anna O.’s affliction. Indeed, Dora suffers no hallucinations, an
essential point of symptomatic contact between Anna O. and Die Frau. I would note, however, that Dora and Die
Frau share something very important, namely a sexual aetiology for their
symptoms. Both women have experienced
some kind of sexual trauma, the cause of hysteria according to Freud. Dora is molested by an adult friend, while
Die Frau faces her lover’s infidelity and subsequent death. They do both suffer from one typical
hysterical symptom, and this is aphonia, or loss of speech. Freud notes that Dora is struck mute
whenever her ostensible love interest, Herr K. (the man who has been attempting
to seduce her) is absent; Die Frau’s speech is not lost persay, but is
consistently broken and fragmentary.
The symptomatic connection between Die Frau and Dora is not as
compelling as between Die Frau and Anna O.; however, I would argue that it is
one small piece of a larger puzzle.
Second, Erwartung and the Dora case share settings. In a general sense they are both dreams: Erwartung is a kind of “nightmare,” according
to Schoenberg,11 while
Dora’s case history is centred around her two dreams. In both texts there is a forest, an anxiety causing place. Die Frau, standing at the edge of Erwartung’s wood, sings “An oppressive
air attacks me/Like a storm that waits”; inside the forest, assailed by real or
imagined creatures, she sings “I hear a rustle…/It moves from bough to
bough…/It’s over my head […] Oh I feel such a fear.” In her second dream, Dora
recounts how she travels through “a thick wood” alone, in search of a train
station. When she finds the station she
cannot reach it: “At the same time I had the usual feeling of anxiety that one
has in dreams when one cannot move forward.”
Dora’s dream anxiety and stasis are certainly mirrored in Erwartung, where time seems to be
suspended as the work “develops the eternity of the second in four hundred
bars.”12 The settings of both the monodrama and
Dora’s dreams feature spatial displacement as well: in her second dream Dora
goes from the train station to her home suddenly, inexplicably: “Then I was at
home. I must have been travelling in
the meantime, but I know nothing about that.”13
In Erwartung,
Die Frau is displaced from scene to scene without explanation: there are no
breaks between scenes and the musical flow is seamless. Die Frau is at the edge of the woods at the
beginning of scene one, deep in the dark woods at the beginning of scene two,
in a moonlit clearing at the beginning of scene three, and in a state of bloody
dishevelment at the side of a moonlit road near a house as scene four
begins. To me, these shifts exemplify
the logic of the dream, in which continuity of time and place are suspended,
subordinate to the dictates of the unconscious.
Third and finally, there is
a shared symbology between texts, important because it is a Freudian,
psychoanalytic symbology. Both texts
are overloaded with (overdetermined) symbolic representations of (feminine)
sexuality. For example, in Erwartung Die Frau sings repeatedly of
her “garden,” which her lover used to visit (“Oh! Unser Garten…Die Blumen für
ihn sind sicher verwelkt”…“Es war so still hinter den Mauern des
Gartens”). In scene three Die Frau
encounters perhaps the most obvious Freudian symbols of the entire monodrama,
decidedly phallic mushrooms (“grosse gelbe Pilze”) rising out the grass like
eyes on stalks (“Glebe, breite Augen.
So vorquellend…wie an Stielen…Wie es glotzt”). In the Dora case, Freud offers a lengthy interpretation of Dora’s
second dream in which he identifies certain symbols—house, train station,
forest, cemetery—as standing for the female genitals. The train station in the forest (where Dora encounters a strange
man) is described by Freud as representing symbolically the interior and
exterior of the female genitals respectively.
Consider now, in light of Freud’s analysis, Erwartung’s dark forest (“der Wald hoch und dunkel”) in which is
found a man and house; moreover, in this house resides a woman, the other
woman, the slut (“die Dirne”) with the white arms. Erwartung’s house in the
woods seems equivalent to Dora’s train station in the woods: for Freud, I think
they might be one in the same, namely, unconscious representations of female
sexuality. Dora’s forest is part of
what Freud describes as “a symbolic geography of sex,”14
a phrase which applies no less to the sexually charged symbolic landscape of Erwartung.
My conclusion is necessarily
inconclusive: the Dora case may have
been one source of inspiration for Marie Pappenheim’s libretto. There is no documentary evidence to support
my claim, only what is in the texts. I
do believe, however, that the texts plainly speak for themselves in regards to
shared symptoms, settings, and symbology.
Erwartung’s forest is Dora’s
forest, a Freudian one but also the dark forest of feminine sexuality that
Freud’s theory was never able to find its way out of. If Marie Pappenheim drew upon the Anna O. case for a classical
representation of hysteria, then she drew upon the Dora case for its evocative
dreams and their subsequent interpretations, but also may have been drawn to
Dora herself as a powerful figure of irrepressible feminine sexuality and
sexual ambiguity. In the end, in a kind
of symbiosis, Dora and Die Frau achieve the same effect: they successfully
rebuff interpretation.
Notes
1. This paper represents a small section of a larger research project, a Ph.D dissertation in historical musicology currently underway at the University of Toronto.
2. Theodore Adorno, Philosophy of Modern Music, trans. Anne G. Mitchell and Wesley V. Blomster (New York: Seabury Press, 1973), 39.
3. Lewis Wickes, “Schoenberg, Erwartung, and the Reception of Psychoanalysis in Musical Circles in Vienna until 1910/11” Studies in Music, XXIII (1989), 95.
4. Cf. Robert Falck, “Marie Pappenheim, Schoenberg, and the Studien über Hysterie,” in German
Literature and Music, an Aesthetic Fusion: 1890-1989 ed. Claus Reschke and Howard Pollock (Wihelm Fink Verlag): 131-144; Bryan Simms, The Atonal Music of Arnold Schoenberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Christopher Butler, Early Modernism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).
5. Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud, Studies on Hysteria, The Penguin Freud Library, Volume 3 (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 83.
6. Simms, The Atonal Music of Arnold Schoenberg, 93.
7. Falck, “Marie Pappenheim, Schoenberg, and the Studien über Hysterie,” 136-138.
8. Sigmund Freud, Case Histories 1: “Dora” and “Little Hans”, The Penguin Freud Library, Volume 8 (London: Penguin Books, 1990).
9. Freud admitted, after the fact, that he had made two major mistakes in this case: he
did not take into account the effects of the transference (ie. the patient’s
strong feelings for the therapist) and the latent fact of Dora’s homosexual
love for her seducer’s wife. (“Dora,” 146n., 162n., 161)
10. I should note that there was also a 1909 edition of the Studien über Hysterie, but it was unaltered from the 1895 original printing.
11. Arnold Schoenberg, quoted in Butler, Early Modernism, 113.
12. Adorno, Philosophy of Modern Music, 30.
13. Freud, “Dora,” 133.
14. Freud, “Dora,” 139.
|
|
|
|