 
                        20080702.00

     Hamsun's avowed tolerance for the beastliness of his
characters raises interesting and I think important
theological, ethical, political and literary issues.  A
threshold consideration is whether and if so in what way
the amorality that is implicit in Hamsun's writing is
prevalent also in the work of other authors. In the face of
this question, I find myself at the relative disadvantage
for having spent so little time reading fiction, so that I
am not all that familiar with the mores either of the
characters or of their authors.  For the writers which I
know best, Th. Mann, Hoffmansthal, Rilke and Hesse,
morality is an integral part of their characters'
existence. In Th. Mann's work, from Buddenbrooks to Der
Erwaehlte, morality is guaranteed by the ethical standards
of the community, from Luebeck to Rome.  For Hofmannsthal
it is assured by the spirit of nobility which informed his
heroes and suffused his writings, for Hesse morality is a
concomitant of the ultimately rational structure of the
human mind exemplified in Das Glasperlenspiel; for Rilke
morality is the essential foundation of ultimate
sensitivity. Morality is an orientation that derives from
and reflects human experience, specifically, human
suffering. With this observation, I may have found the key
to Hamsun's view of the world: anesthesia. Neither Hamsun
nor his characters feel pain.  To be specific: In the novel
"Pan" there is no pain. When Glahn shoots himself in the
foot, there is no pain. In the almost ritual recitation of
hunting kills, the animals feel no pain.  When Eva is
killed by the rockslide that Glahn's explosion has set off,
there is no pain and no remorse.  Glahn shoots his dog,
Aesop, to keep him from falling into Edvardas hands, and
ultimately Glahn himself is killed by his hunting companion
and rival.  All this happens without pain and without
remorse on anybody's part; and just as Hamsun's characters
feel no pain for themselves or for others so Hamsun and his
readers feel no pain for the characters whose tortured
lives are described in the novels. Is it surprising then
that Hamsun himself felt no pain and no remorse in the face
of what happened at Dachau and Buchenwald and Auschwitz?
Of Hamsun and the character he depicts it might justly be
said: that "when he saw him, he passed by on the other
side." (Luke 10: 31) When my mother, who was so
enthusiastic a fan of Hamsun's, wrung her hands about the
atrocities of Hitler's Germans, shouldn't I have replied to
her: Aber Du hast doch Hamsun gelesen.  Der hat es doch
gezeigt wie man daran vorueber geht.

                     * * * * *
Copyright 2008, Ernst Jochen Meyer
