The Transformation from “Das Nachtpfauenauge” to “Jugendgedenken” and the Description by the Narrator
When Hesse adapted “Jugendgedenken” from “Das Nachtpfauenauge” twenty years after writing the original work, he made some 140 changes of various degrees.
1“Jugendgedenken” has never been published in book form. “Das Nachtpfauenauge,” on the other hand, is not only included in volume eight of the twenty-volume Sämtliche Werke, but has also recently been translated into English and published in book form in Hermann Hesse, Butterflies: Reflections, Tales, and Verse, ed. Volker Michels, trans. Elisabeth Lauffer (Carlsbad, CA: Kales Press, 2023). The revisions can be divided into three categories: deletions from “Das Nachtpfauenauge” (about 30%), additions to “Jugendgedenken” (about 14%), and smaller adjustments, mainly polishing from the former to the latter (about 56%). Among these, the changes in the portrayal of the characters by the narrator are particularly important for our reading of “Jugendgedenken.”
For example, in “Das Nachtpfauenauge,” the narrator of the frame story refers from the beginning to “my guest and friend Heinrich Mohr” (“mein Gast und Freund Heinrich Mohr”),
2“Das Nachtpfauenauge,” SW 8:14. who later recounts bitter memories of his childhood in the framed story. At the beginning of “Jugendgedenken,” however, the narrator merely refers to “my guest” (“mein Gast”) and provides an ambiguous characterization of the guest.
3“Jugendgedenken,” I.P. 4. Indeed, in the latter half of the frame story, the guest is referred to as “my friend” (“mein Freund”), but his name is never revealed throughout the entire work. The same tendency in the treatment of the characters’ names can also be seen in the framed story in the description of the teacher’s son, who lives across the courtyard from the narrator. In contrast to the narrator, who is such a passionate butterfly collector that he forgets about lunch and class time, this teacher’s son is portrayed as an intellectual figure who is far superior in butterfly collecting and is even an expert in assessing the value of butterflies. However, in “Jugendgedenken” the name of this teacher’s son, Emil, is not revealed until the latter half of the story, unlike its earlier mention in “Das Nachtpfauenauge.” Such instances of information being withheld in the later story compared to the former are not limited to names. For example, the “tanned, thin face” and “skinny, lanky figure” that describe the guest Heinrich Mohr in the frame story of “Das Nachtpfauenauge,” as well as the characterization of the teacher’s son (Emil) in the framed story as having “a deep knowledge of stamps,” are also omitted from “Jugendgedenken.” Regarding the deletion of the “hobby of stamp collecting” from Emil’s attributes, Sato argues that “Hesse’s decision to deprive Emil of his hobby of stamp collecting is a mistake” because this change makes the contrast between him and the guest less striking.
4Fumihiko Sato, “An Essay on Hermann Hesse’s ‘Jugendgedenken’ (1931): In Comparison with ‘Das Nachtpfauenauge’ (1911)” (in Japanese), Studies and Essays, Language and Literature 6, Kanazawa Univ. (2014): 43. However, I disagree, because even without Emil’s attribute of being an expert stamp collector, his superiority over the guest is already clear in terms of his knowledge and skills regarding butterflies and moths, which are the theme of this story, and there is no danger of not being able to draw a contrast between the two on this basis.
There are many such changes that lead to the suppression of character setting and character portrayal, so that one can reasonably conclude that that was the intention of the author. In this sense, for example, the suppression of the explicit difference between the guest and Emil, the antagonist of the framed story, forms a dichotomous characterization. The two characters may take on the roles of symbols of opposing poles latent in human beings, rather than simply two characters in conflict with each other. In other words, the reader, who is naturally transported from the frame story to the framed story, sees not only two contrasting characters, but also symbols of the polarities of human beings. The symbolic representation of the two sides of human nature through the conflicting personalities of different characters is a characteristic of Hesse’s works, and it is quite possible to read this work in such a context. If so, the reader will be freed from a kind of biased emotional reading that sympathizes only with either the guest or Emil as described above, and, as a result, a deeper and possibly new interpretation of the work can be expected.
I would now like to focus on another highly symbolic moment. In the opening scene of the frame story, the host shows his collection of butterflies and moths to his guest, and they both bend down to get a better look at them in the bright light of the lamp (“Wir beugten uns über sie”).
5“Jugendgedenken,” I.P. 3. The guest performs an identical action later in the framed story, when he wants to take a closer look at Emil’s
Nachtpfauenauge (emperor moth) when he actually sees it on the mounting board in Emil’s room: “Ich beugte mich darüber.”
6“Jugendgedenken,” I.P. 9. Takahashi notes that this act (and expression) of “bending over” is used in two places in the work, and that the physical act of bending over the butterfly serves not only as a kinetic start signal for the guest’s story, but also as a trigger that unfolds the world of the story and opens the storehouse of childhood memories. As Takahashi’s analysis shows, the action in the frame story foreshadows and connects to the action that triggers the act of stealing in the framed story. The action of bending over thus brings back the memories that recreate the past, and it plays an important role in driving the work.
7Masato Takahashi, “Analysis of Multilayer Structures in Jugendgedenken: Network Structures of ‘Auge,’ ‘Kasten’ and ‘Erinnerung’” (in Japanese), Bulletin of the Faculty of Human Development and Culture 30, Fukushima Univ. (2019): 30.However, an important point to note here is that there are two people “bending over” in the frame story: the guest and the host. The synchronization of their movements not only indicates that they are looking at the same thing from the same point of view, but also symbolically shows that they are freed from the structure of divided roles that strictly separates them into “the viewer” and “the observed.” In other words, the assimilation of the perspectives of the host/narrator who depicts the guest and of the guest, who is depicted by the host, blurs the boundary between their roles. And the blending of host and guest in the frame story also allows for an objective approach via a difference in vision. The technique of assigning various human attributes to multiple characters and depicting the subjects from different perspectives in a multi-layered manner is one of the characteristics of Hesse’s work, as seen in Der Steppenwolf (Steppenwolf), Narziß und Goldmund (Narcissus and Goldmund), works that chronologically precede “Jugendgedenken.” If the guest and Emil in the framed story represent both sides of a person symbolically, it can be argued that Hesse was trying to analyze and reconsider an object that he was depicting in the story, focusing on it from the different multiple perspectives of host, guest, and Emil. This attempt is set up in the introductory part of the frame story and unfolds in the core of the framed story.