The Thomas Mann Group discussion
This topic is about
Buddenbrooks
Buddenbrooks Discussion Threads
>
Week 1 - Buddenbrooks: May 13 - 19. Until Part III, chapter 4.
message 1:
by
Kalliope
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Apr 09, 2013 01:27AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
How do both Johann Buddenbrooks, father and son, strike you?
Mod
Before that I just want to say that I think I am going to enjoy this novel.
What strikes me, apart from their very different clothing-- the father has never worn long trousers--is their attitude to religion.
Also, the father seems a man from the Enlightenment, with his speech peppered with French and his more questioning attitude to education, while the son is more a man of the nineteenth century, more conservative or conventional in some ways.
Mod
There is a great deal of yellow here.
You've hit the nail on the head. Johann senior is able to poke fun at the Catechism, but his son is much more coventional.
hmmm... I understand and agree with you Kalliope but I guess I need to read more, but still, their seemingly are contradictions in both of them to paint them in a definite colour, atleast uptill now. Ya, fathers clothing was a peculiarity which I understand only now, when you mention what it could possibly signify!
Mod
These are first impressions. We may learn more later on.
But several of the male guests in the dinner have powdered hair... and a couple of times the "old" vs the "new" way of dressing is mentioned. No continuum change in clothes, but a relative sudden turnover in fashion (and culture).
However to be fairer to the younger Johann, one might say that the attitude of the elder was that he was entitled to what he had and to enjoy it. His son, however was very much aware that life and money is fragile and can soon disappear; it is all much more serious
Mod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1830s_in...
Mod
Yes, yes.. we are at the very beginning... I agree.. too early to judge, just noting things.
There is also an opposite contrast between the two men in chapter one as well. The elder is not very tolerant of Tony having childish ideas about thunder and lightning, whilst Johann junior is more tolerant, you might have expected it to be the other way round because of the earlier exchnage.
Mod
Kal thanks for starting the thread and breaking the ice here. I think your question is perfect to get started.For me, Old Johann represents the already decaying prosperity of this merchant family and also the already fading mentality of the time (hadn't minded about the clothes, but of course, you are right!).
He might be less conservative about religion, but his bourgeois view about social classes are inflexible and strict. Like when he gets annoyed because Ida Jungmann, the nursery governess (or that "Prussian woman"), influences little Tony with her ideas about lightning and thunder.
So, in a way, I find that Old Johann is more rigid and inflexible in drawing a social line than his son.
He is also more obstinate and proud when discussing Gotthold's letter with Jean, who in turn tries to smooth (or does he?) his decision in not including the disowned son his share on the new house.
And Jean appears like the devoted son who will never confront his father's authority but who will change things gradually and slightly as the "modern" times dictate, surfing on the wave and not really taking any decisions. He appears kind of fluffy and mellow to me (for the moment!), will that have undesirable effects on their children?
May I ask...what about the women of the story? Backstage for the moment...will Tony make up for them?
I was also struck by the somber moment at the start of the dinner as the former owners of the home (and their downfall) are discussed. Foreshadowing perhaps along with Jean's careful approach.
The whole dinner scene made me think of the feast in Fanny and Alexander, a Swedish film by Ingmar Bergman. Gaiety and excess, celebrations and traditions yet even then a hint of a shadow growing.
Jeanette (jema) wrote: "The whole dinner scene made me think of the feast in Fanny and Alexander, a Swedish film by Ingmar Bergman. Gaiety and excess, celebrations and traditions yet even then a hint of a shadow growing."And the whole dinner scene shows that even the old patriarch is already showing and partaking in decadence. I mean this was supposed to be a "simple meal" (ein ganz normales Mittagessen) which is clearly not the case, it is overabundance and the amount of food would have fed many.
I was struck by how the elder Johann was referred to as "Monsieur" or "the head of the family," while the younger was almost always referred to by his title, "consul". A foreshadowing of the way they identify themselves? Or maybe I'm reading too much into it, and it's just a way to distinguish them from one another. It was interesting to me that while in many ways the father seems very conservative (still dresses the way he did when he was young, uses more French, more aware of social class distinctions), he also feels perfectly free to mock religious institutions. The son, on the other hand, seems far more lenient and understanding with his daughter, he also seems more socially aware/appropriate in terms of religion.
Thanks for posting the link to 1830s fashion, Kalliope! I was having a hard time imagining some of what was being described!
Was this "simple" meal meant to be at all satirical on Mann's part or do you think it's more historic, how things would have been done by a family in that position at that time?
I found the doctor's thoughts while diagnosing Christian's stomachache to be interesting in light of what we know today. He knew that fine, rich food 4 times a day would cause his patients much discomfort and early death, but was not averse to it himself. This meal in part 1 introduced us to many of the characters, and set the scene for later events. I am amazed at how much I love this book already.
iirc this was Mann's first novel but he had written short stories before, and these early scenes reminded me very much of short stories. I felt you could cut out say the dinner party scene and it could be a free-standing portrait of the changing of an era.My other strong impression was that the resulting picture was like something from Hogarth, sharp, witty and full of telling details.
The Eldest Buddenbrook - very much an Enlightenment figure in his attitudes (anti-Prussian, anti-nonsense, the amendment of the catechism, his clothing) - maybe even ancien regime, when my eyes slipped across the page I kept reading his wife's name as Marie Antoinette! Also language using French and Platt (dialect/low-German) in the family circle which the Consul doesn't.
The Consul struck me as representative of the 1830s and 40s, Pietismus might be to strong, but there is definitely the Romanticism and kind of religiosity associated with Frederick-William IV of Prussia.
My reading was that the Consul was a bit soft and unlike business like, I loved how the likes of Gruenlich (Mr Greenish) and his relatives were able to read and play the Consul so easily.
I noticed that when the Consul spoke about money to his wife as a way of explaining that they couldn't afford to take on another servant that he spoke about capital sums, rather than turnover, or profit. I wondered if this should clue us in that the Consul doesn't have a great understanding or grasp of his business himself?
Definite sense though that decline has already set in, that in Tony's metaphor they have crested the mountain and are now starting on a slow decent.
Mod
The father, wearing breeches and clothes in a style redolent of court life, is a man of the Enlightenment, critical of religion and of some educational practices. He likes French culture and rationality, with a preference of the ordered and trimmed gardens in a Versailles style, and sees Napoleon still as a heroic figure. He is a first generation of a trade family that is moving from a guild concept to a merchant class. He belongs to the German lands before Bismarck, and likes to speak in his Plattdeutsch.
The son, wearing the long trousers of the new more urban life, follows the conventions and beliefs of the rising bourgeoisie, who is less theoretical and more practical on every day matters. In ideals, he much prefers a Romantic notion of how a garden should be, in “accordance to Nature”, and prefers the new Bourgeois King of France (Louis-Philippe, since 1830) to the controversial Napoleon (execution of Duke of Enghien). He has dropped the French and speaks Hochdeutsch, and feels less animosity towards Prussia.
Mod
Jan-Maat,
Sorry, I posted mine and now see that you had mentioned many of the same points. I agree then with yours...!!!
Sue wrote: "Was this "simple" meal meant to be at all satirical on Mann's part or do you think it's more historic, how things would have been done by a family in that position at that time?"I think it was both reality and a satirical comment on the part of Mann about what the bourgeoisie considered a "simple meal"
Jan-Maat wrote: "I wondered if this should clue us in that the Consul doesn't have a great understanding or grasp of his business himself?"Thought exactly the same Jan-Maat! That and also that The Consul didn't have much authority as they end up contracting the manservant anyway!
Kalliope wrote: "On another line.. because I come from the Proust group I have become hypersensitive to colors.There is a great deal of yellow here."
Kal, I've been thinking about that comment of yours. Light yellow or dull,dingy yellow?
I am unable to form an opinion on the affair of the allegedly disinherited Gotthold. This bothers me because depending on the set up, Jean the consul is either an absolute cad or a reasonable person. I wonder if Jean bthinks that because Gottfield 'left' the family business to run a shop he is therefore not entitled to his inheritance (e.g. share of the firm)? It seems harsh and already has me doubting the Consul's integrity for all his mewling noises about how a family ought to stick together. And Gottfield, although he writes with an accusatory tone, may have the right of it.
Jeanette (jema) wrote: "The whole dinner scene made me think of the feast in Fanny and Alexander, a Swedish film by Ingmar Bergman. Gaiety and excess, celebrations and traditions yet even then a hint of a shadow growing."Absolutely agree re the feast in fanny and alexander. Lets hope it doesn't turn into La grande bouffe, though :)
It seems that Gotthold was disinherited mainly because he (oh horror) chose to marry not into a factory, but into a "gasp" store (so he married a merchant's daughter instead of marrying in "his class" a factory owner's, a high bourgeois' daughter). That is already bad enough, and I have no respect for Jean whatsoever that he thinks this way (I don't want to give away any major spoilers, but you should remember Jean's attitude towards his brother later on in the book, he definitely has an attitude that not only should the family stick together but that marriage is first and foremost to keep the money in the family or to augment resources). Considering Jean's supposed religiosity, his attitude towards family and finances are rather ironic if not hypocritical.But it should also be taken into account that Gotthold is Jean's half brother. He is the son of the first wife of Johann (the patriarch) and Johann has basically never forgiven Gotthold that his birth caused his mother's death (so Gotthold has always been a bit of an outsider and even a persona non grata within the family, and thus it might even make sense that he fell in love with someone a bit outside of his own tight familiar circle as he was never really allowed to be completely part of it). And while Johann's negative attitude towards his son for all intents and purposes have nothing to do with Jean, his negativity towards Gotthold could easily have rubbed off on the younger son and caused him to view his older brother as negative from early on, and he maybe also took advantage of this.
Hmmm, actually Jean seems to harbor no ill will towards his half brother, however, neither does he deem him worthy of an equitable share in the business as inheritance (although he does not mind his own sister and her husband having a share, despite the fact they do not work for the business). So a bit of a dichotomy. I have now read this week's portion (up to chapter IV part three) and can see that the elder B married G's mother for love: therefore, I am surprised at his attitude in pooh-poohing G's love matcch: seems what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
knig wrote: "Hmmm, actually Jean seems to harbor no ill will towards his half brother, however, neither does he deem him worthy of an equitable share in the business as inheritance (although he does not mind hi..."I actually think that Johann only on the surface was against Gotthold's love match. It was a useful tool for him to disparage his son whom he has always secretly hated because he sees him as the "murderer" of his first wife.
I take from this that the firm doesn't have a clear or a separate legal identity from the family - it is vague. So the business is unbusiness like -maybe this is a warning, maybe just a bit of irony.Gotthold's points are all about the conduct from a point of view of Christian morality, so I presume there isn't a legal basis, or - and quite possibly this would be the case since Frankfurt and Luebeck are two separate legal jurisdictions at this time - he doesn't want to chance anything in a court.
I definitely think this is meant to be read as irony though both the unchristian compliant about unchristian behaviour and how flustered Jean is by it.
I'll admit I didn't clock any irony so far re Jean: woest me. I am attune to a certain undercurrent of hypocrisy, though.
I don't know whether it's irony or hypocrisy but Jean felt relieved when Gotthold attended to Old Johann's funeral and acts civilly and even friendly afterwards, renouncing his claims on his share of the house.Either the law was against him or he chooses to forgive and forget as a good christian would do.
Yes but doesn't he get a lump sum of cash for basically writing a letter that embarrasses the Consul?
True, but it is not clear (at least to me) if he is legally entitled to this money or not. And maybe his giving in about his share in the house might mean that he received more than he bargained for...
oh my take on that was that it was hush money, to avoid Gotthold making public complaint and to avoid the possibility of having to go to court.Would he even have had a right to a share in the house? My feeling was that there was a lot that was deliberately obscure and this showed us something about business conduct and our characters.
Gotthold got cash for writing a letter and attending a funeral - a fantastic stroke of business for him. Jean Buddenbrook is apt to cave in and solve problems with money rather than fight it out. The boundary between family and business is extremely fuzzy - and with two daughters and two sons in the next generation that all looks like a recipe for trouble!
Jan-Maat wrote: "oh my take on that was that it was hush money, to avoid Gotthold making public complaint and to avoid the possibility of having to go to court.Would he even have had a right to a share in the hou..."
A major recipe for trouble, especially since, as you have said, Jean not only tries to solve problems with money, but that making money, keeping money in the family and augmenting wealth seem more important to him than feelings, than people.
Kalliope wrote: "On another line.. because I come from the Proust group I have become hypersensitive to colors.There is a great deal of yellow here."
Coming from that same group, I have to say I noticed a great deal of white: white complexion,snow-white powdered hair, white curls, white enameled furniture,, white folding doors, and white wine(let me just put that in lol)This was as far as I got. That was the quick read I started earlier. I'll start reading today.
To give a little biographical background regarding money and class: the Mann family in Lübeck in Thomas's early life was well-off, but not super wealthy. They had a very high social status in the sense that everyone in town knew and respected them; Thomas's father was both a merchant and a political figure (senator). People would doff their caps in the street when they walked by. When Mr. Mann died in 1891, Thomas was still a teenager. He left a very strict will; his wife Julia and the children were only to live off the interest of his estate, not the capital, which meant a drop in living standards for them. He also instructed Julia to be very strict with the children, "and if she ever felt tempted to waver, she should read King Lear."Thomas failed to get his Abitur, which meant he could not be a full-time student at a university, "an extraordinary setback for a boy of his intelligence." He had always been a lazy and indifferent student. But although his living standard had dropped, he was still financially supported by his mother and was able to live in apartments and start writing short stories, and begin his research for Buddenbrooks.
Several years after Buddenbrooks was published, he married Katia Pringsheim, whose father was an industrialist and whose family was quite wealthy. His standard of living rose dramatically, and at the same time he began to earn a very good living from writing.
Mod
There is a great deal of yellow here."
Coming from that same group, I have to say I..."
Yes, Reem, I have later seen a lot of white..
Mod
Thank you Lobstergirl for this information. My guess is that we will see parallels with this later on in the novel, in the younger generation from the one in this early part of the book.
Mod
It seems circumstances may be getting more difficult for their grain business. There is a bit of a discussion about a possible Customs Union that Prussia seems to be pushing and that would affect the Hanseatic ports of Hamburg and Lübeck (the town is not really mentioned, we just presume it is Mann's Lübeck). The young BB has already noticed an effect in the business and is somewhat concerned ("..But, no, everything's not going fine...").
And later on the father says of the son "... his son and partner often outdid him when it came to seizing the advantage"..
But this is so far...
So I know this is set before the unification of Germany, but I noticed a few comments seemed to point to a German national consciousness -- or at least cultural consciousness. What exactly was the political set up in Germany at the time? I also noticed that the characters seem rather enamored of France -- with the elder Johann admiring the Napoleonic empire (or at least Napoleon as a personality) and the consul admiring the more "of the people" Louis Philippe with his July Monarchy. What was the relationship between France and Germany at the time? Any books that might be good to read at the same time for those of us who aren't as familiar with the history?On a different note, I was struck with the irony of the scene when Jean stands out in the cold after the party, looking up at the motto engraved on the entrance to the house. After hearing the story of the decline of the previous owners, combined with Jean's own conflicted feelings about the business and his half brother's inheritance, the phrase "Dominus providebit" seemed particularly ironic.
Mod
Well, this is a long story...!!!.. but key are the Napoleonic wars and Napoleon's downfall and how the map of the European continent was partly redrawn.
Here is the wiki on the German Confederation created when Napoleon fell. And in this confederation the growth of Prussia is a major factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_C...
France had been the superpower and the centre of culture. The Enlightenment had had a strong impetus in France. Napoleon was greatly admired by many Germans, although this admiration turned sour. For example, Beethoven had dedicated his third symphony to him, until he invaded Germanic lands and then he ripped off the dedication page...!!!
Kalliope wrote: "Well, this is a long story...!!!.. but key are the Napoleonic wars and Napoleon's downfall and how the map of the European continent was partly redrawn..."Thanks so much, Kalliope, this is very helpful!
Kalliope wrote: "For example, Beethoven had dedicated his third symphony to him, until he invaded Germanic lands and then he ripped off the dedication page...!!! "Also, from that point on, Beethoven stopped using French and (sometimes) Italian titles, tempo markings, etc. in his music, and switched to German. E.g. langsam, mäßig, rasch.
Beth wrote: "I know this is set before the unification of Germany, but I noticed a few comments seemed to point to a German national consciousness -- or at least cultural consciousness. What exactly was the political set up in Germany at the time?"Messy, and it will change during the course of the novel. Luebeck is an independant city state, as were Hamburg and Frankfurt aM, to the north is the Kingdom of Denmark while the rest of German is made up of a mess of Principalities, dukedoms and kingdoms, some of which are very small, some big. Prussia is the largest and is pushing for the customs union (Zollverein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein). There is definitely a fairly widespread consciousness, at least at the bourgeosis level, of Germany as a cultural unity, with a shared cultural heritage. In Prussia in particular the wars against Napoleon have given this consciousness a strong anti-French flavour - so the Buddenbrooks' comments place them, er outside the Prussian orbit, Hamburg had been part of Napoleon's French Empire - not sure about Luebeck.
There's a history of Germany in this period by Thomas Mann's son Golo Mann - not much in there about Luebeck or even Hamburg through too small and not mainstream I suppose :(
Regarding Gundula's comment about marriage being a means to bring more money into the family and improve the business, Toni states to her friends at boarding school that it is her responsibility to marry well for the family business. It was taken for granted that love would come later, or at least respect.
The Thomas Mann Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Thomas Mann: A Biography (other topics)Effi Briest (other topics)
Buddenbrooks: The Decline of a Family (other topics)
The Magic Mountain (other topics)
Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ronald Hayman (other topics)Golo Mann (other topics)
