As the Prague philologist Emil Skála has shown, many elements appeared and disappeared in the long history of Prague German; if, in early centuries, northern and central German idioms combined, the events of 1620 and the Hapsburg centralization brought about an “Austrianization” of the Prague idiom; the scene was thoroughly provincial. The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries offered a late, uneasy stage; Yiddish had gone underground and was spoken with ambivalent feelings by family patriarchs (Kafka’s father, for instance); when Czechs and Germans met in everyday situations, curious constructions with many interferences and fusions could be heard. Czechs spoke
Kucheldeutsch
(kitchen German) with German employers and superiors; middle-class German housewives used
Kuchelböhmisch
(kitchen Czech) to discuss culinary matters with their Czech cooks and servant girls.
Mauscheldeutsch
(the term used by the Jewish-German nationalist Fritz Mauthner, which suggests “kinky” German) denotes the last traces of ancient Jewish-German stubbornly defying the rules of polite German conversation. Phonetically, spoken German in Prague was part of an equally complicated situation: Whether Jew or gentile, Prague speakers of German immediately revealed to German listeners that they were “different,” using the consonants
p, t, k for b, d, g,
simplifying all diphthongs in a uniform
ai,
and relying on Czech prepositions where German would have been appropriate. Johannes Urzidil renewed the romantic belief that Prague German was the purest of them all, going back to Johannes Noviforensis, chancellor to Emperor Charles IV—a defensive myth that compensates for the idiosyncrasies of speech and the literary abstractions of a middle-class idiom largely out of sync with the everyday speech of small-town Bohemian and Moravian Germans.
It may be misleading to regard Kafka as incarnating “Kafka’s world” or Prague German writing (he was not even representative of himself, he would say), but he was one of the few writers who wrote about writing, and he did not avoid even the most painful, if not self-destructive, reflections about the language he was doomed to use in a city he wanted to leave. Kafka wrote little about Prague, and his early prose, as in
Beschreibung eines Kampfes (Description of a Fight,
1909), combines literary considerations with rare allusions to Prague’s streets, churches, and monuments, all unhesitatingly named; a similar combination can be found only in his
late
Das Stadtwappen (The City Escutcheon),
though there in a more impersonal mode of narration. In the first part of the early text, a Prague flaneur who knows his Hugo von Hofmannsthal talks to a chance companion who turns out to be a writer too, characterized in a lively way by his theatrical manners as an actor and a thorough solipsist (I hesitate to think of Franz Werfel, who is chronologically wrong for the part, but the thought persists). The flaneur does not have a high opinion of his colleague’s writings; they are too exalted, restless, “this fever, this seasickness on the firm earth.” Unfortunately, the fellow writer is not content to call a poplar tree a poplar tree; he is not satisfied, in his “utter heat” to use “the truthful names of these things,” and pours out words, in striking impatience, over things. He does not even want to know what kind of a tree a poplar is, speaking of it as “the tower of Babel,” and the critic ironically adds he could have called the tree, swaying in the wind, “Noah as he drank.” Such metaphors, though biblical and of high seriousness, hardly yield valid insights into matters as they are, though they do reveal good or bad writing; mobilizing metaphors, refusing to call a tree a tree, turns into a central indication of bad style. Good writing, the Prague flaneur assumes, would be unadorned, free of ornament, like Adolf Loos’s architecture, and confident of a language of untroubled reference.
In their splendid and chaotic essay classifying Prague Jewish-German writing among the “minor” literatures of strong political potential, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari have suggested that Kafka, trying to solve his authorial problems, did not opt for Czech—as if it had been an option to leave or take. Kafka’s knowledge of Czech was better than Rilke’s, who knew deplorably little Czech (as emerges from his as yet unpublished correspondence with Valerie David-Rhonfeld, his first Prague love), but, after a completely German education from elementary school to his law degree, he never mastered it. He read it with great philological empathy, shown in his German letters to Milena, born and bred Czech, but his difficulties are revealed in letters he had to write to his superiors at the Labor Insurance Company (1908-24); as Josef
ermák has shown, he found himself in dire language straits when the company after 1918 switched to functioning solely in Czech; Kafka, when writing to his director, had to enlist the services of his “family translation office,” as he put it, consisting of his sister Ottla and her Czech husband, Josef. Kafka himself wrote about the “gorgeous lie about [his] knowledge of Czech” to his sister, and, when he went on writing in Czech to Josef, he curiously mixed spoken and literary idioms, ordered his sentences according to German syntactical rules, and stumbled over vocabulary and morphology,
particularly difficult for anybody educated in German schools. Yet he could not escape to Yiddish either, which powerfully attracted him when he attended the performances of a Jewish traveling theater group in the shabby Café Savoy; he even arranged an evening of Yiddish recitations for his acculturated Prague Jewish audience, who truly feared, he believed, a language that had been spoken in Prague two generations ago. He felt, in one of his romantic moods, that Yiddish was the vital and lustful language of an authentic and proud community of Jews, but he, son of his father and member of a German acculturated society, had gone too far the other way. More clearly than anyone else, he recognized himself as one of the young Jews who resolved to write in German, though “with their hind legs … still glued to their father’s Jewishness and with their waving front legs they found no new ground,” who made their despair their inspiration. (His story of the young man who awakes one morning in the shape of an ugly insect may be a linguistic self-portrait.) In his search for pure and simple words, Kafka was, among all the impossibilities of writing (including the one
not
to write), condemned to German; he believed that the product of his despair “could not be German literature, though outwardly it seemed to be so.” In his self-flagellation, he used images current in the vocabulary of contemporary German anti-Semites, as the historian Christoph Stölzl has reminded us, and asserted in 1921 that he was producing “a gypsy literature which had stolen the German child out of its cradle and in great haste put it through some kind of training, for someone has to dance on the tightrope.” His anxieties were a far cry from the joy and exultation that brought together his Czech contemporaries, blissfully walking under his dark windows.