Throughout E.T.A. Hoffmann’s supernatural story The Sandman, the main character Nathanael’s unstable mentality depicts him as a deeply fascinating yet disturbed character in the current scholarship discussing the text. Haunted by a doppelganger figure with identities through Coppelius, Coppola, and Spalanzi, Nathanael’s mind slowly unravels in front of the reader throughout the story. In contrast, character’s such as Klara and Nathanael’s mother remain stable, logical, and compassionate, further highlighting Nathanael’s turbulent mind. While much of the scholarship explores Nathanael’s attitudes and behaviors, especially towards Klara, much of the discussion neglects to ask the question of why Nathanael behaves in a particular way. Most of the scholarship appears to ignore the details of Nathanael’s upbringing altogether, never exploring the dynamic between his parents, a significant aspect of the narrative. In E.T.A Hoffman’s The Sandman, Nathanael’s attitudes towards the female figures in his life stems from the familial dynamic portrayed in the story.
Born in 1776, Hoffmann had a very similar upbringing to the familial dynamic portrayed in the story. Hoffmann’s father was not only estranged, but fully absent during his childhood. Brought up by his uncle, Hoffmann faced instability and turbulence in his early life (Britannica). Similar to Hoffmann’s upbringing, a certain family unit archetype emerges during the Romantic period within literature. The introduction of the father figure as a “domestic tyrant,” cold and unyielding, starts to permeate throughout Romantic literature (Tosh 129). This archetype plays into the idea of an “absent father,” a role still seen in the media and literature today. However, “recent work on American families has unequivocally placed the origins of absent fatherhood in the first half of the nineteenth century” (Tosh 129). Hoffmann appears to play off of this emerging family unit archetype through Nathanael’s family, a point lacking in the current scholarship discussing the text.
Throughout the short story, Hoffmann’s doppelganger figure plagues Nathanael’s mental wellbeing. Portrayed through numerous different characters, the “Sandman” presents himself through Coppelius, Coppola, and Spalanzi. However, James Pearson synthesizes Freud’s initial argument surrounding Coppelius’ doppelganger, stating that Coppelius is rather a doppelganger of Nathanael’s father: “Coppelius (with whom Nathaniel associates the fantastical figure of the Sandman) and Nathaniel’s father each represent one moiety of the split father-imago – the former, “bad” father attempting to metaphorically castrate Nathaniel by stealing his eyes, whilst the latter, “good” father endeavours to protect them” (Pearson). Pearson further pushes that the story supports this theory, as Nathanael at one point states that his father resembles Coppelius: “His mild and honest features seemed to have been distorted into a repulsive and diabolical mask by some horrible convulsive pain. He looked like Coppelius” (Hoffmann 98). Pearson’s argument, or rather Freud’s theory, heightens the idea of this Romantic family unit archetype, as well as Nathanael’s positive view of his father. By positioning an evil doppelganger, Coppelius, next to Nathanael’s father, Hoffmann illuminates Nathanael’s father as an even more positive figure in his life, allowing Nathanael to gather inspiration from him. While readers may understand that Nathanael’s father embodies this tyrant role, Nathanael instead views him as the “good” father, creating him as a more idyllic figure in his mind, and therefore potentially picking up behaviors from him. Nathanael’s idealistic view of his father permeates throughout the description of his childhood. Although his mother clearly raises Nathanael, putting him to bed and comforting him, Nathanael only seems to remember the positive traits of his father despite his father’s emotional absence: “Father was very cheerful and was telling us entertaining stories of his youthful travels” (Hoffmann 99). Nathanael’s father appears to only be “involved” in his childhood when he tells Nathanael entertaining stories, never taking on a caregiving role. Coppelius’ contrast to Nathanael’s father paints him in a “good” father light to Nathanael, despite embodying this clear “domestic tyrant” role.
Nathanael’s treatment of Klara clearly illustrates his desire to maintain a sense of control over the female figures in his life, mirroring his father’s attitudes. However, this desire stems from his parents’ relationship, rather than an internal conflict rooted within his character. For example, when Nathanael expresses his fears of Coppelius, or this Sandman figure, Klara instead responds with logic and intelligence. Never demeaning, Klara compassionately explains to Nathanael her view of his issue, urging Nathanael to, “be convinced that these strange figures are powerless; only your belief in their hostile influence can make them hostile in reality” (Hoffman 102). In response, Nathaniel combats Klara’s logical intelligence, as her ideas do not align with his illusions (Hoffman 103). Eric White also discusses Nathanael’s behavior towards Klara, noting his hostility. However, White instead argues that Nathanael projects his own fears of automata onto his fiance, Klara, painting her as a cold character: “When he angrily denounces his fiancee as a “damned, lifeless automaton” (154) he merely projects onto her the suspicion concerning his own nature that fills him with anxiety and dread, his implicit recognition that mechanisms beyond or below the threshold of conscious awareness produce the illusion of autonomous selfhood” (White 365). Although White’s scholarship discusses the mistreatment of Klara, Nathanael’s motive behind this mistreatment instead lies in his upbringing, rather than his personal fears. For example, in the beginning of the story, Nathanael’s father regularly invites Coppelius to their house, as they work on “experiments” with one another. The narrator notes that while Coppelius visits, even Nathanel’s mother expresses extreme discomfort of his character: ““the moment he appeared, her gaiety, her lightheartedness, and her natural manner were transformed into dejected brooding…Coppelius needed only to hint, and his favorite dishes were cooked and rare wines were served” (Hoffman 97). Nathaniel’s mother’s typical compassion is diminished in the face of Coppelius, as she soon assumes a more submissive role. Despite this observation, Nathanael’s father neglects to acknowledge his mother’s discomfort, continuing to invite Coppelius to their home. Nathaniel’s mother is forced into a submissive role, a role that Nathanael then views as an example for the future women in his life–namely Klara. Although White’s argument explores the dynamic between Nathanael and Klara, taking into account the automaton themes throughout the story, it neglects to take into account Nathanael’s parents’ complex dynamic.
In addition to White’s automaton argument, White further argues that Nathanael’s parents and fiancé act as almost perfect characters, failing to satisfy him in any way. White contends that the short story centers around a cycle of oscillating repulsion and attraction for Nathanael, reflecting his mental status. Whether it’s between Nathanael’s “devoted mother, benevolent father, nor an adoring counterpart,” he is never satisfied (White 367). While White’s argument acknowledges Nathanael’s unraveling mental state, he neglects to provide evidence for Nathanael’s attraction or repulsion towards his parents. Described as “benevolent,” Nathanael’s father instead appears distant and uninvolved, only showcasing benevolence through occasional bedtime stories (Hoffman 99). Nathanael’s father’s treatment of his mother appears far from benevolent, as he at times orders the mother away from the study with force and hostility: “‘Go to bed! Goodnight!’” (Hoffman 99). Although Nathanael clearly remains unstable, White’s argument almost removes blame from each character, save for Nathanael. However, the unbalanced power dynamic and control of Nathanael’s father influences Nathanael’s later actions and attitudes towards Klara, as his father clearly does not remain blameless in his actions. White neglects to discuss the flaws in Nathanael’s upbringing, ignoring the impact of Nathanael’s family dynamic on his character.
Nathanael further allows his parents’ relationship to influence his connections, as he imposes his insecurities onto Klara, just as his father does in the beginning of the story. In accordance with White, Jutta Fortin’s argument centers around the fetishization of objects, and conversely the objectification of women. Fortin argues that while objects begin to be fetishized by male characters, human characters conversely “become like things or machines: they are depicted as insensitive, inflexible, and unspontaneous” (Fortin 258). The depiction of a mechanical human presents itself in Klara’s character, like White discusses, as Nathanael projects his own automaton fears onto Klara. Similarly, Fortin argues that Nathanel’s critique of Klara as “dull,” all while falling for an objectively dull automaton, also acts as a projection of Nathanel’s fear of his own dullness, as “it is not that she is too dull for him, then, but that, on the contrary, she is not dull enough to impose his own being on her” (Fortin 268). While Nathanael may impose his own insecurities onto his romantic counterpart, Fortin neglects to dive deeper into the text and explore where this projection stems from. Just as Nathanael projects his insecurities onto Klara, his father does the same to his mother. In the beginning of the story, Nathanael’s mother expresses not just discomfort but fear of Coppelius entering their house: “‘But Father, Father,’ she cried. ‘Must it be like this?’ ‘It is the last time,’ he answered. ‘I promise you this is the last time he will come here. Now go, take the children with you. Go go to bed! Good night!’” (Hoffman 99). Despite Nathanel’s mother voicing her own concerns and opinions, Nathanael’s father establishes control, neglecting to take into account her opinion. In addition, Nathanael’s mother calling his father “Father” further establishes this unbalanced power dynamic. Nathanael’s father is viewed as inherently above his mother, as his mother is depicted as somewhat childish in this moment. As a young boy, Nathanael witnesses this dynamic, potentially absorbing his father’s way of treating the women around him. This condescending view of women presents itself in Nathanel’s adult life, as he himself describes Klara with “bright, dreamy, child-like eyes,” and later belittles her intelligence (Hoffman 103). As Klara begins to question Nathanel’s opinions, he then projects this characteristic of “dullness” onto her, despite her compassion and intelligence. Nathanael’s inherent view of Klara as less-than, and therefore feelings of threat when she exhibits intelligence, directly relates to the parental figures in his life.
Nathanael’s rejection of opposing viewpoints from his female counterparts continues, as he only finds attraction in his partner through blind agreement. In an obvious sense, Nathanael’s attraction to Olympia emphasizes this argument, along with his repulsion for Klara. For example, when Nathanael first “meets” Olympia, he immediately romanticizes her being, despite her robotic nature. When Nathanael finally speaks to Olympia, he exclaims, “‘You deep soul, in which my whole being is reflected,’ and more of the same. But Olympia did nothing but continue to sigh, ‘Ah, ah!’” (Hoffman 115). Fortin furthers this point in his exploration of Nathanael’s attraction to automata: “Clara’s genuine emotional and intellectual response not only fails to interest him, but even disturbs him to a point that he manipulates or ignores, and finally denies. In expecting Clara to respond precisely as he wishes, Nathaniel wants her to be like a doll, whereas she has her own will and personality” (Fortin 267-268). Nathanael clearly expects Klara to respond with submission and agreement, a trait also exhibited through his father’s actions. For example, after Nathanael reads Klara’s letter denouncing the existence of the Sandman, utilizing reason and logic, “he was greatly angered” (Hoffman 107). Only when Klara disagrees with Nathanael does he appear frustrated and aggressive. This expectation also presents itself early in the story, as Nathanael grows curious about the Sandman. Nathanael then asks his mother about the Sandman, in which she responds with, “‘When I tell you that the Sandman is coming, it only means that you are sleepy and can’t keep your eyes open any longer, as though someone had sprinkled sand into them’” (Hoffman 94). Nathanael then expresses that, “Mother’s answer did not satisfy me, for in my childish mind I was certain that she denied that there was a Sandman only to keep up from being afraid of him–I had surely always heard him coming up the stairs. Full of curiosity to learn more about this Sandman and what his connection was with us children, I finally asked the old woman who took care of my younger sister what kind of man the Sandman was” (Hoffman 95). The old nurse then explains a much more frightening version of the story, in which Nathanael chooses to believe (Hoffman 95). After disagreeing with his own mother, Nathanael instead turns to an alternate maternal-figure, rather than accepting a story different from his expectations. Nathanael only appears to listen to an opinion that coincides with his own, especially from female figures, rooted in his upbringing. This rejection of combative opinions from women translates into his adult life, as Nathanael loses respect and attraction for Klara, opting for a sympathizing automaton.
While scholarship discussing The Sandman depicts Klara as an idea, Klara instead acts as a real, authentic character, all while encompassing a catalyst role to reflect Nathanael’s flaws. William Crisman takes Fortin’s argument a step further, focusing on Klara’s character as a whole. Crisman argues that Klara acts as an idea of Enlightenment and positivity rather than a real, authentic character. Crisman frames this argument around blame, as Klara “is not a person at all, and hence not liable for personal blame…Almost always the relation of Clara to Nathaniel appears as one of intrinsically positive potential that in one way or another Nathaniel perverts” (Crisman 17). Although Klara does avoid blame in the story, acting as an almost-perfect counterpart, both her compassion and frustration towards Nathanael establishes her as an authentic character. For example, as Nathanael starts to write and perform more poems for Klara, she expresses distaste: “Nathanael had formerly possessed a notable talent for writing delightful and amusing stories, to which Klara would listen with enormous pleasure; now, however, his tales were gloomy, unintelligible, and shapeless so that although Klara spared his feelings and did not say so, he probably felt how little they interested her” (Hoffman 108). The narrator describes this interaction almost through the viewpoint of Klara, not only showing her compassion but also her frustration. Although a very positive character, as Crisman argues, Klara still exhibits her own emotions and hesitations towards Nathanael’s character. However, although Klara remains authentic, her character is clearly utilized to reflect Nathanael’s own faults. After Klara’s feelings are revealed, the narrator utilizes these emotions to reveal Nathanael’s rejection of combative opinions from his female counterparts: “His resentment of Klara’s cold, prosaic disposition increased” (Hoffman 108). Only through Klara’s character is Hoffman able to expose Nathanael’s hostile and combative tendencies, rooted in his upbringing. Although an authentic character with both negative and positive emotions, Klara is still utilized as a catalyst for reflecting Nathanael’s faults.
In a different sense, the theme of optics and optical illusions permeates throughout the story, but neglects to fully influence Nathanael’s attitudes. Nathanael’s view of women predates the introduction of optics to the story. Differently from Crisman, Fortin, and White, Zeljko Uvanovic focuses his argument on the use of optics and illusion within the story. As optical imagery is consistently utilized throughout the story, especially within the characters Coppola and Coppelius, Uvanovic argues that optical instruments act as a sort of remote controller towards Nathanael, controlled by Coppelius (Uvanovic). He further argues that even after Nathanael realizes he was in love with an automaton, “the usage of the fatal spyglass in the company of his true love Clara reactivates mental disturbances and aggression toward Clara” (Uvanovic). While Uvanovic’s unique argument combines the theme of optics and illusion with the role of women throughout the story, Nathanael instead holds this combative and aggressive view towards women even prior to the introduction of optical instruments. For example, after Nathanael disregards his mother’s description of the Sandman, as it doesn’t align with his delusions as a child, he finds a scarier narrative that validates his own from the nurse. After hearing this narrative, Nathanael’s curiosity only grows stronger, leading him to hide in his father’s study to see the Sandman, completely ignoring his mother’s rules (Hoffmann 96). Only after ignoring the perspective and authority of his mother does Nathanael face Coppelius. Nathanael’s attitude towards his mother’s authority is clearly shown before optics are introduced into the story–both through spy glasses and eye imagery. The optical instruments and therefore illusions, such as the spyglass, do not create these combative attitudes. Rather, Nathanael’s upbringing creates these attitudes, as he leads by example of his father.
Furthermore, Uvanovic also neglects to address the irony of perception within the text in his argument. As Nathanael resists a change to perception throughout the text, through ignoring both Klara and his mother’s views, he instead accepts a change of optic perception from Coppola. When Coppola arrives at his apartment, Nathanael fully accepts eyeglasses from him, despite consistently resisting a change of perspective from other characters: “Nathanael decided actually to buy something, picked up a small, very beautifully finished pocket spyglass, and in order to test it, looked through the window. Never in his life had he come across a glass which brought objects before his eyes with such clarity” (Hoffman 112). This obvious change of perception seems inconsistent with Nathanael’s stubborn nature, as he even insults Klara for her differing views. When Klara tries to impose logic onto Nathanael’s delusions, he meets her with hostility: “Nathanael was greatly angered because Klara said that the demon existed only in his own mind” (Hoffman 107). Additionally, Nathanael only seems to accept a change of perception from other characters when they fit the gendered mold he assigns them in his mind. For example, despite his rejection of Klara’s ideas on the Sandman in her letter, he accepts her and her ideas with open arms when Klara runs into his arms, and he expresses that, “the instant he saw Klara again thoughts about the lawyer Coppelius or Klara’s pedantic letter–all his depression vanished” (Hoffman 107). Only through physical affection and assuming the role of “fiancé” does Nathanael accept Klara. Rather than listening to her mind, Nathanael views her as fulfilling a certain role. Nathanael’s expectations for Klara are rooted in his upbringing, as his father pushes his mother into a very specific, gendered role. For example, as Nathanael’s father constantly attempts to appease Coppelius, he pushes Nathanael’s mother into the role of “wife,” despite her fear and discomfort towards Coppelius: “Father behaved toward him as if he were a superior being whose bad manners must be endured and who must be humored at any cost. Coppelius needed only to hint, and his favorite dishes were cooked and rare wines were served” (Hoffmann 97). His father’s neglect of his mother’s emotions, as well as perpetuation of her gendered role in the household mirrors that of Nathanael towards Klara.
Hoffmann’s The Sandman emphasizes the emerging familial dynamic in the early nineteenth century literature, impacting the main character’s attitudes and relationships. Much of the scholarship surrounding Hoffmann’s short story neglects to explore the complex familial dynamic portrayed in the text, therefore neglecting to explore how this dynamic bleeds into the other characters. Nathanael’s actions and attitudes mirror that of his father, as Hoffmann further crafts Nathanael as an extremely complex and disturbed character. Hoffmann’s incorporation of a family unit containing this “domestic tyrant” archetype further highlights the emerging gender roles during the early nineteenth century, giving readers a glimpse into the reality of the Romantic era.
References
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “E.T.A. Hoffmann”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 21 Jun. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/E-T-A-Hoffmann. Accessed 11 December 2023.
Crisman, William. “The Noncourtship in E.T.A. Hoffmann’s ‘Der Sandmann.’” Colloquia Germanica, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, pp. 15–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23981777. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
Fortin, Jutta. “Brides of the Fantastic: Gautier’s ‘Le Pied De Momie’ and Hoffmann’s ‘Der Sandmann.’” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 41, no. 2, 2004, pp. 257–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40247431. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
Hoffmann, E.T.A. “The Sandman.” The Tales of E.T.A Hoffmann, edited by Leonard J. Kent and Elizabth C. Knight, illustrated by Jacob Landau, University of Chicago Press, pp. 93-125. Brightspace, brightspace.lmu.edu/d2l/le/content/223681/viewContent/2743047/V
Pearson, James. “Total Narcissism and the Uncanny: A New Interpretation of E. T. A. Hoffmann’s ‘The Sandman.’” Angelaki : Journal of Theoretical Humanities, vol. 18, no. 2, 2013, pp. 17-.
Tosh, John. Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family and Empire. 1st edition., Routledge, 2005, pp. vi–vi, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838533.
Uvanovic, Zeljko. “Men in Love with Artificial Women: E. T. A. Hoffmann’s ‘The Sandman,’ Ira Levin’s The Stepford Wives, and Their Film Adaptations.” Primerjalna Književnost, vol. 39, no. 1, 2016, pp. 123-.
White, Eric. “Insects and Automata in Hoffmann, Balzac, Carter, and Del Toro.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 19, no. 3 (74), 2008, pp. 363–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24352382. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.