Gerhart Hauptmann and John Galsworthy; A Parallel

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1917 Excerpt: ... III. Art. Galsworthy is often described as a realist or satirist who has made in The Little Dream a momentary excursion into romance; Hauptmann as a naturalist who has deserted naturalism for idealism, romance and symbolism. Both have been dubbed pessimists. Is this an actual statement of the case? What do these terms really signify and how are they related to each other? It is not the function of this study to go into an explanation of these hackneyed and much misused terms. Suffice it to say that the distinctions glibly made and accepted do not here apply. If we mean by satirist one who distorts the truth for the sake of the ideal, then Galsworthy is not a satirist. If we mean by idealist one who pictures the world as it should be, then Hauptmann is not an idealist. If we mean by naturalist what Sologub means--one who describes life from the standpoint of material satisfaction, then Hauptman is not a naturalist. If by realist we mean one who pictures the world merely as it is, then Galsworthy is no realist. Surely some term that will comprehend more than mere subject matter and treatment is needed to explain the work of these two men. This is afforded by Galsworthy himself in his Vague Thoughts on Art.94 For the purpose of this study, therefore, we can do no better than to accept his definitions in their entirety. What, he says, is Realism? Is it descriptive of technique, on descriptive of the spirit of the artist; or both, or neither? To me the words realism, realistic have no longer reference to technique, for which the words naturalism, naturalistic, serve far better. Nor have they to do with the question of imaginative power--as much demanded by realism as by romanticism. For me, a realist is by no means tied to naturalistic technique--he may ...