proportion of married persons is in India, Natal, Cyprus and Canada. The
lowest is in the West Indies. Depression in the birth rate is general
almost everywhere, but is most remarkable in Australasia. The proportion
of insane persons in the colonies is much below that in the United
Kingdom. Insanity is markedly decreasing in India, despite
consanguineous marriages. Indeed, the theory that such marriages produce
mental unsoundness is little supported by these statistics."
To those who read without preconceived notions, the figures given above
show how history repeats itself. The British Empire is decaying at the
centre, and the census just taken proves it conclusively. The proportion
of insane in the colonies, even in poor famine-stricken India, is "much
below" that in the United Kingdom. Striking as these figures on insanity
are, they convey but a part of the truth as to the real condition of the
people of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as all reference to
their material well-being (if we were Christians we would add and
spiritual, for over one million people in these countries never heard of
God) is carefully omitted. Charles Booth, author of that truly great
work, "Life and Labor in London," seventeen volumes, estimates that 30
per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom live in a state of
poverty, and Seebohm Rowntree, author of "Poverty, A Study of Town
Life," puts it at 27.84 per cent. Mr. Rowntree also states that an
average of one person in five, or 20 per cent. of the population, die in
some public institution, i. e., prison, poor-house, hospital or insane
asylum. These statements are depressing enough as they are, but they
become worse when we learn that the standard of living upon which they
are based are those enjoyed--we use the word advisedly--by poor-house
inmates. Think of this, ye Pharisees, Christian and otherwise, 30 per
cent. of the population of the British Isles living under such
conditions! These are not the idle statements of long-haired reformers
or yellow journalists, but of two very estimable Christian gentlemen,
both of them manufacturers and successful business men. They are
different from the ordinary exploiter only in the sense of being honest
and humane enough to recognize that something is radically wrong with
modern civilization and make an earnest attempt to remedy it.
In this connection it is worthy of note that when the proprietors of the
London "Daily News" had a systematic canvas and investigation made into
the housing conditions in London, some six or seven years ago, it was
found that 900,000 people, one-fifth of the population, were living in
violation of the law. This was the case notwithstanding that the law
says 400 cubic feet of air space for each adult and 200 cubic feet for
each child must be provided, whereas Professor Huxley, who at one time
was a physician in the East End of London, said at least 800 cubic feet
for an adult and 400 cubic feet for a child was absolutely necessary to
keep the air in a fair state of purity.
It was and is the proud boast of millions of people that they are
co-inheritors of this glorious empire, an empire the greatest the world
has ever seen: 400,000,000 souls and an area so vast that the sun never
sets on all its parts at one time. Pete Curran, the Trade Unionist and
Socialist, once remarked he knew parts of the empire upon which the sun
never shone, and Pete knew.
Glory and aggrandizement based upon injustice brings its own reward, and
when a people subjugate and exploit another, they must inevitably pay
the price of their own brutality and injustice. The handwriting is on
the wall in the shape of the present census report. Decaying at the
centre, the British Empire is rapidly going the way of the Persian,
Greek and Roman Empires, and her name will be synonymous with injustice
as theirs are. Nations no more than individuals can thrive, expand and
develop their best faculties unless their lives are based upon freedom
and justice. Not freedom to exploit a weaker person or people, not
justice before the law which is a mockery and a sham, but freedom for
each to live his own life in his own way, and justice to all in the
shape of equal opportunity to the earth and all it may contain.
This lesson applies equally to America, and if any of my countrymen are
so blind as not to see it, they deserve pity rather than censure, and it
is to be hoped their awakening will not long be delayed.
GERHART HAUPTMANN WITH THE WEAVERS OF SILESIA.
By MAX BAGINSKI.
WHEN I look at the last engraving in the illustrated edition of
"Hannele," at the Angel of Death with the impenetrable brow, over whom
Hannele passes into the region of beauty, I have the consciousness, that
that is Gerhart Hauptmann, such is the inexhaustible wealth of his inner
world.
The stress of the life effort and the certainty of death, groping forth
from delicate intimacies, ripened the fineness and sweetness of this
man's soul. The picture contains transitoriness, finiteness, yet also a
vista of new formation, new land.
Of Gerhart Hauptmann one can say, his art has given meaning to the idea
of human love, which in this period is looked upon with suspicious eyes
as a bad coin, a new impetus, the reality and symbolic depth of which
grips the heart. Out of his books one can draw life more than
literature. A strong soul-similarity with Tolstoi might be observed, I
think, if Hauptmann were a fighting spirit.
I met the poet among the weavers of the Eulengebirge, Silesia, in the
districts of greatest human misery, February, 1891, in Langenbielau, the
large Silesian weaving village. One evening, on my return from a
journey, I was informed that a tall gentleman in black had inquired for
me. The name of the stranger was Gerhart Hauptmann, who came to study
the conditions of the weaving districts. The visitor had taken lodgings
in the "Preussischen Hof," where I called on him the same evening, with
joyous expectation. The name of Gerhart Hauptmann in those days seemed
to contain a watchword, a battle call: not only against the unimportant
thrones of literature at that time but also against social oppression,
prejudices and moral crippling. Hauptmann's first drama, "Vor
Sonnenaufgang," had just appeared and been produced by the Free Stage in
Berlin; and had operated like an explosive. It was followed by a flood
of vicious and vile criticism. The literary clique little imagined that
the future held great success for such "stuff" both in book form and on
the stage.
This lamentable lack of judgment misled the various pot-boiler writers
to attack the new tendency with the most repulsive arguments. One
leading paper of those days wrote of Hauptmann as an individual of a
pronounced criminal physiognomy, of whom one could expect nothing else
but dirty, appalling things.
Such literary highway assaults made one feel doubly happy over the fact,
that together with Hauptmann were a few splendidly armed fighters, like
the aged Fontane, with his great poise and fine exactness.
The first impression of Hauptmann was that he was not a man of easy
social carriage, rather discreet, almost shy, and uncommunicative. An
absorbed, deep dreamer, yet a keen observer of the human all too human,
not easily led astray, not Goethe, rather Hoelderlin.
The guest room of the "Preussischen Hof" contained many empty benches.
The keeper thereof had ample time to meditate over the mission of the
strange gentleman, in the weaving districts. I learned the next morning
that he had quite decided that Hauptmann was some government emissary,
intrusted with examining the prevailing distress of the weavers. One
thing, however, appeared suspicious, the man associated with the "Reds,"
who, according to the government newspaper, only exaggerated the need
and poverty to incite the people for their own political ends.
Whether or not the misery of the weavers that winter had reached such a
point as to warrant an official investigation, had been the topic of
discussion for weeks. The State Attorney, too, had taken an active part
in the matter. The criticism in the labor paper, "The Proletarian," of
which I was the editor, that the exorbitant profit-making methods of the
manufacturers, which left the workers nothing to live on, were met with
a number of indictments against the paper on the following grounds: "It
was indictable to incite the public at the moment when the prevailing
poverty was in itself sufficient to arouse the people and cause danger;
that this was criminal, and therefore punishable. The distress was
thereby officially acknowledged; was that not sufficient? Why then hold
the conditions up before the special attention of the people?"
We mapped out a tour through the home-weaving settlements. At
Langenbielau, the textile industry had to a large extent been carried on
in mills and factories and at a higher wage. Misery was not so appalling
and hopeless there, as in the huts of the home weavers.
The following days unrolled a horrible picture before the eyes of the
poet. The figures of Baumann and Ansorge from his play "The Weavers"
became real.
With mute accusation on their lips, they moved before the human eye in
tangible shape; yet one longed to believe they were only phantoms. They
lived, but how they lived was a burning shame to civilization. Huts,
standing deep in the snow, like whitened sepulchres, and despair staring
from every nook, in these days of paternal care, just as at the time of
the famine that swept across the district in 1844.
Strewn among the hills and valleys lay bits of industry that had been
passed by technical progress, as so many damned, spooklike spots; and
yet those, who vegetated, worked and gradually perished here, were
compelled to compete with the great productive giants of steel and iron
machinery.
The poet entered these homes not with the spirit of a cool observer, nor
as a samaritan,--he came as man to man, with no appearance of one
stooping to poor Lazarus. Indeed, it seemed as though Hauptmann walked
with a much steadier gait in the path of human misery, than on the road
of conventionality.
Steinseifersdorf, situated beyond Peterswaldau. A bare snow field,
spread about huts of clay, shingles and branches, without a sign of
life. Neither a cat, dog nor sparrow, not even chimney smoke, to
indicate the activity of the inhabitants. Heated dwellings in this
stretch of land are luxuries, difficult of achievement; and how is one
to prepare a warm meal out of nothing?
We attempted to enter one of the huts to the right; there was no path
leading to it, so that we were compelled to work our way through the
deep snow. Was it possible that human beings breathed within? The old
weather-worn shanty looked as if the slightest breeze would tumble it
over. The few wooden steps, leading to the entrance, creaked underneath
our steps, and our knock was met with dead silence. We knocked again,
and this time heard a faint step slowly moving toward the door; a heavy
wooden bolt was moved aside, and we perceived a human face, with the
expression of a wounded, frightened animal. Like a delinquent, caught at
the offense, the human being at the door stared at the invaders. Not a
ray of hope enlivened the dead expression. No doubt the man had long
ceased to expect amelioration of his needs from his fellow beings. The
figure was covered with rags, and what rags! Not the kind of rags, that
tramps wear and which they throw off when luck strikes them, but eternal
rags, that seemed to have grown to the skin, to have mingled with it so
long that they had become part of it,--disgustingly filthy, but the only
cover he had and that he could not throw away.
The man, about fifty years of age, was silent and led us through a
dirty, cold gray entry into a room. In front of the loom we observed the
drooping figure of a woman, a cold oven, four dirty, wet walls, at one
of them a wooden bunk also covered with rags that served as bedding;
nothing else. The man murmured something to the woman, she rose; both
had inflamed eyes, water dripping from them with the same monotony as
from the walls.
Hauptmann began to speak hesitatingly, depressed by the sight of such
misery. He received a few harsh replies. The last piece of cloth had
been delivered some time since; there was neither bread, flour,
potatoes, coal nor wood in the house; in fact, no food or fuel of any
sort. This was said in a subdued, fearful voice, as if they expected
severe censure or punishment. Hauptmann gave the woman some money. The
thought of going without leaving sufficient for a supply of food at
least for the next few days, was agony.
On the widening of the road stood the village inn. The guest room showed
little comfort, the innkeeper looked worn and in bad spirits. No trade.
Innkeepers of factory towns are better off. They can afford guest rooms
of a higher order, since they enjoy the patronage of bookkeepers, clerks
and teachers. In Steinseifersdorf one had to depend on the weavers, and
that did not bring enough for a square meal, especially in the winter.
The wife of the innkeeper assured us that the misery in Kaschbach, a
neighboring village, was even greater, even more awful. It was getting
late, so we decided to go there the following day.
Our conversation on our ride homeward dwelt on the fate of these
unfortunates, condemned by modern industrialism to a life of the
Inferno. I asked Hauptmann what an effect an artistic, dramatic
representation of such a fate could possibly have. He replied that his
inclinations were more for summernight's dreams toward sunny vistas, but
that an impelling inner force urged him to use this appalling want as an
object of his art. As for the hoped-for effect, human beings are not
insensible; even the most satisfied, the most comfortable or rich must
be gripped in his innermost depths when pictures of such terrible human
wretchedness are being unrolled before him. Every human being is related
to another.
My remark that the right of possession has the tendency to blind those
who are part of it, Hauptmann would not accept as generally true. He was
anxious to bring the sympathies of the wealthy into energetic activity;
sympathies that would, of course, bring to the poor real relief from
their hideous conditions. He added that the poverty of the masses had at
times tortured him to such an extent that he was unable to partake of
his meals, which were meager enough, especially during his student life
in Zurich; yet he had felt ashamed of partaking of such a luxury as a
cup of coffee even. I had to admit that I could not share his hopes of
the influence of an artistic portrayal of the sufferings of the weavers
upon the people of wealth. Self-satisfied virtue is hard to move. Rather
did I believe that a great work of art, treating of the life of the
masses, was bound to rouse their consciousness to their own conditions.
At that time, I believe, Hauptmann had already completed his "Weavers."
His journey into the weaving district was not to collect material for
the structure of that tremendous play, rather than it was devoted to
details, localities and landscapes. He had already drawn up the outline
for his other play, "College Crampton," portraying a genial and joyous
man, of whom narrowness and miserableness of surroundings make a
caricature and who is finally wrecked.
Langenbielau, after our journey through the Golgatha of poverty, seemed
a place of relief. The mills, with the increasing noise of machines that
dulls the ears and racks the nerves, are by no means an elevating sight,
but they bring the workingmen together and awaken their feeling and
understanding of solidarity and the necessity for concerted action.
Here, in spite of sunken chests, great fatigue, poor nourishment, one
felt the breeze of the struggling proletarian mind that indicated a new
land of regeneration, beyond the misery of our times.
For one of the evenings a gathering of the older weavers was arranged.
Hauptmann had a plate set for each one. During the meal a lively
discussion developed. There was one weaver, Mathias, very bony, and with
a skin like parchment, very poor, but blessed with many children. He
related of a bet he had won. The owner of the tavern where we were
having our feast had expressed doubt as to the ability of Mathias to
consume three pounds of pork at once. He volunteered to do it, if the
meat would be paid for and a quantity of beer added to it. A neighbor
was intrusted with the preparation of the roast. At the appointed hour
Mathias appeared, together with two other men as witnesses of the
contest. The prize eating began, when Mathias was confronted by an
obstacle: Five children belonging to the neighbor surrounded the table,
with their eyes widely opened at the unusual sight of a roast. Their
little faces expressed great desire and their mouths began to water. The
prize eater felt very uncomfortable before the longing look of the
children. He imagined himself a hard-hearted guzzler, only concerned
about his own stomach. He forgot the bet, cut up some of the meat and
was about to place it before the children, when a howl of protest arose.
This was not permitted, if he wanted to win he would have to eat the
entire roast himself. Mathias submitted, but dropped his eyes in shame
before the children. Time and again he involuntarily passed portions of
meat to them, but his attempts were frustrated by renewed protests. He
could not continue, however, until the little ones were taken out into
the cold. There was no other place, since the only room was taken up by
the parties concerned in the contest. They might have been put into the
cold, dark garret, but that would have been too cruel and would have
made Mathias unable to carry out the feat. The undertaking was
finished, but the winner felt quite wretched; he was conscious of having
committed a great sin against the simplest of human demands.
The conversation turned to the uprising of the weavers in 1844. Many
incidents of those days were related. Various legend-like and fantastic
stories told. Also names of people of the neighborhood who had
participated in that historic event.
The entire affair was very informal and simple, and not an atom of the
oppressive atmosphere one feels in the relations between the members of
the upper and lower stations of life.
The next morning we started for Kaschbach. The place looked even more
dismal than the one we had visited the day previous. In one of the huts
a weaver, with a swollen arm in a sling, led us into a corner of the
room. On a bunk covered with straw and rags lay a woman with a little
baby near her. Its body was covered with a terrible rash, perfectly
bare, almost hidden within the floor rags. The shy father, himself in
pain, stood near, the personification of helplessness. If only there
were food in the house! The district physician? He would have been
compelled to prescribe food, light, warmth and sanitation for every hut
he visited, if he did not wish his science to prove a mockery. He could
not do that, so he came but rarely. Humanitarianism, thus far your name
is impotency! All that could be done was to leave money and hurry out
into the air.
The next abode might be considered pleasant compared with the previous
one. Two elderly people, not so worn and wan, and not so ragged. The man
was weaving, still having some work at times; his wife, very pleasant
and amiable, was almost ready to praise the good fortune of their home.
"We are better off than our neighbors," she said with some pride. She
pointed to a freshly cut loaf of bread, to the fire in the oven, to a
table and a real bed--a great fortune, indeed. The walls were covered
with some colored prints, representing virtue, patience, endurance to
the end. One picture showed the return of the prodigal son, one the
ejection of Hagar from the house of Abraham. Our hostess could boast of
the luxury of a coffee mill even, and, after she had ground and brewed
the coffee, we were invited to partake of it, which we gratefully did.
Local and general affairs were talked over; the man, quite talkative,
but careful and reticent in his remarks, especially when religious and
political questions were approached. His remarks were kept within
careful lines so as not to offend. Hauptmann said afterwards that he had
noticed such cautiousness in all weavers. No doubt it had grown out of
the great poverty that often brought out diffidence and reticence toward
strangers.
Hauptmann sat on a low stool, and, while we were sipping our coffee, the
woman petted him tenderly on the brow. "Yes, yes, young man, Want, the
awfulness of Want, but we cannot complain." At our departure, she
pointed to a hut nearby and said: "The people in there are nearly
starved." It was not exaggerated. When we entered, we saw a woman in the
dismal gray of the room, surrounded by a number of crying children. Two
or three of the maturer girls, thin and pale and drawn out by the
Procrustean bed of poverty, secretly wiped the last drops of tears from
their suffering faces. Hunger reigned supreme within these walls. The
woman, in the last stage of pregnancy, suffered the keenest under the
lamentations of the younger children, to whom she could give no food.
The husband had been gone two days on a begging tramp. He would surely
bring home something, though it was very difficult to get anything in
this neighborhood. One must tramp a long distance for a piece of bread.
Yesterday they could still obtain a few potatoes, but to-day she had
nothing more to give, nor did she know what to tell the children. She
had implored the minister to let her have something to eat, if only a
few morsels, but he had nothing himself, he said. The tightly pressed
lips of the older girls trembled violently, every breath of the family
was despair. Our presence had silenced the cries of the children with
the frost-bitten faces, but when we left, they again would tear the
heart of their mother, their weak little voices calling for bread.
No one could expect such fatalism from these starving little ones, that
they should coolly and philosophically analyse the "economic necessity"
that condemned their parents to a desperate battle with hunger. The only
thing that could perform miracles here was a coin. The poor woman did
not dare to believe that she actually held one in her hand. That which
was to secure these unfortunates relief from death, at the same moment
fostered elsewhere conceit, corruption and extravagance, and is being
used for the conversion of heathen to brotherly love. The terrible sight
of this mother and her little ones conjured up the heartlessness and
emptiness of all philanthropy and charity for dumb misery. Greatest of
all social crimes, that makes the possibility of stilling the hunger of
the little children dependent on money.
One morning Hauptmann and I went on foot to Reichenbach, where I
introduced him to an old weaver, a Socialist, who had participated in
the co-operative scheme proposed by Bismarck. The old man had much of
interest to relate of this venture, that had been very meagerly assisted
by the government. He said that the association could have survived, had
it not been for the conspiracy of the manufacturers, who had a large
capital at their disposal. The result of this, for the co-operative
movement, was the closing of the market. At one time all the weaving
products sent to the Leipzig Fair had to be transported back; a
clandestine but effective boycott had made the sale thereof impossible.
With much more gusto he related the days of Lassalle's agitation--that
had brought life into the still limbs of the masses, a great change had
seemed to be at hand. The wife of our old friend, too, had hoped for the
change; but now, she remarked somewhat resigned, "we old people would
rejoice if we were confident that the young generation would live to
bring about the change."
In this house we met a widow with a thirteen-year-old daughter.
Hauptmann found the child very striking. She had beautiful, soft,
golden-blond hair, deep-set eyes and a very delicate, pale complexion. I
learned later that he sent her occasional gifts. And when I read
"Hannele" I could not rid myself of the thought that the vision of this
child from Reichenbach must have haunted him when he created this drama.
That was my last outing with Hauptmann in the textile regions. A few
months later I visited him at his home, located in the woods, close to
the edge of a mountain.