Gerhart Hauptmann was the German naturalist dramatist whose plays Rudolf Steiner reviewed in Berlin, defending his truth-faithful realism against the 1900 slogan Los von Hauptmann.
Gerhart Hauptmann in Anthroposophy is the test case Rudolf Steiner used to measure what naturalism in drama can and cannot achieve as a picture of real life on the stage. Hauptmann (1862-1946), the Silesian playwright who later received the 1912 Nobel Prize in Literature, was the leading naturalist dramatist of Steiner's Berlin years, when Steiner edited the Magazin für Literatur. In the drama essays collected in GA 29, Collected Essays on Drama 1889-1900, Steiner reviewed Fuhrmann Henschel (1898) as the transformation of an everyday event into a drama of human destiny, discussed Schluck und Jau (1900), and answered Hans Landsberg's 1900 pamphlet Los von Hauptmann, holding that Hauptmann had made the strongest approaches within German poetry toward a worldview grounded in natural science. Steiner placed him beside Ibsen, dated his decline from The Sunken Bell, and read his selfless observation of life as the artistic relative of Goethe's method.
Gerhart Hauptmann entered Steiner's world not as an esotericist but as a working dramatist whose Berlin premieres Steiner attended and judged. The reviews in GA 29 treat Hauptmann's naturalism as a discipline of selfless observation: the playwright forces nothing into a scheme, he lets people and events show their own truth. That reading made Hauptmann, for Steiner, a standing lesson in what unprejudiced perception of reality can accomplish on the stage.
In Steiner's Own Words
Gerhart Hauptmann's mature art has transformed an everyday, almost uninteresting event into a drama that we follow from act to act with ever-increasing devotion and which, despite the apparent indifference of the subject matter, leaves us with the feeling that we have made a new experience of what is called human destiny. Hauptmann's art definitely has something that points to the artist's delicate hands. Hauptmann does not know a rough grasping and shaping of people and actions so that they correspond to the artist's intention. Hauptmann does not know the Shakespearean way of always doing violence to things in order to bring them into the dramatic framework. He obviously loves the things he treats too much for that. He sees their form, their life with the finest artistic sense.
What it Means Today
Hauptmann received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1912, and his modern scholarly afterlife runs through one figure above all: Peter Sprengel, the Germanist at the Freie Universität Berlin who has edited Hauptmann's texts for decades and published the standard biography, Gerhart Hauptmann: Bürgerlichkeit und großer Traum (C.H. Beck, 2012), in the playwright's 150th anniversary year. Sprengel's Hauptmann is a divided figure, an exact observer of Silesian weavers, carters, and maids on one side, a dreamer drawn toward myth and fairy tale on the other. Steiner had marked that same fault line already in 1900. His answer to Landsberg's Los von Hauptmann praised the observer of Die Weber and Florian Geyer, then warned that The Sunken Bell, the fairy-tale drama, was a step backward, a poet becoming unfaithful to himself and to his time. The Thalira synthesis: Steiner defended Hauptmann not because Steiner was a naturalist, but because Hauptmann's selfless fidelity to phenomena was the artistic twin of Goethe's method in science, the same schooling of perception that Anthroposophy would later ask of the spiritual researcher.
A reader can still test this directly. Take one act of Fuhrmann Henschel, then read Steiner's 1898 review beside it, and watch how the review models observation before interpretation: first the carter's world exactly as given, only then the judgment of what the drama means.
Where to Read More