by Glass! Love!! Perpetual Motion!!!-A Paul Scheerbart Reader Josiah McElheny
structure, which is so crucial “for mankind.”
Friedenau (Berlin), 24 February 1910
It was now clear to me beyond al doubt: once z began to turn, b, d and z
would natural y no longer be able to stop turning.
But now the question presented itself of whether z would ever begin to
turn. And in the end I was finding this more and more improbable. Final y
I decided it was out of the question that z would ever turn at al . And then
of course I had to laugh at my own gul ibility.
Nonetheless, the matter stil had me in its thral . And quite soon I said
to myself: What cannot be accomplished by weight pressing down can
perhaps be achieved by tensile load.
And after several detours I arrived on 11 March 1910 at drawings 23
and 24. The d in drawing 22 gave me the idea for the guide rails. I placed
the axes of e and d c in rails. When I removed the support St beneath
ZL, the wheels e d c were compelled to turn upward in the direction of
the arrow. I was able to demonstrate this by means of a simple experiment.
So this was where rotation began.
247
Natural y I was triumphant, thinking that final y I had achieved what
I’d been aiming for. To be sure, after al my bad experiences I did not have
complete faith in the correctness of my calculations — but I did believe in
any case that I was final y on the right track.
When c (drawing 24) met the toothed chain encircling a b above, the
rotation of c was necessarily translated to a b in the direction of the arrow.
Of course — the axis of e had to be shifted to the right, as it could not
be al owed to contact the vertical guide rail. This was easily achieved by
making e larger than the other wheels. So now e was the main wheel — and
I began to label it a.
And with this the most interesting period began: I kept combining the
rails, axes, and chains in different arrangements. And I suddenly realized
that infinitely many combinations could be produced in this way. Where for
such a long time I had been staring at bare wal s, now I suddenly saw doors
and windows opening before me — — — new perspectives everywhere I
looked — letting me peer into the most glorious park landscape.
I must have drawn a few hundred combinations — each of them slightly
different.
And on 1 April 1910 I arrived at drawing 25.
An April Fool’s joke!
But I took it quite seriously and did not al ow the ominous date to con-
cern me overmuch.
I aligned the axis of a with the edge of a box. This box could also be
bottomless. In any case, this produced a “portable” tensile load motor. I
was hugely impressed by e f sideways. d c could not rise any higher, since
the intermeshed teeth of the chains encircling d c and e f were always
248
correspondingly intermeshed. The teeth of e f slowed down d c, but at the
same time kept perpetual y giving way.
And on 5 April 1910 came the final touch — drawing 26.
Here too I set e f in guide rails and used the same tensile load with
which I was pushing up c d— to push e f down.
Now at least the construction as a whole did not appear so simple — on
the contrary.
Wheels e f could not sink down on the left, since the teeth were always
correspondingly intermeshed. On the right, however, the wheels c d
were prevented from rising for just the same reason. And so the system
remained at a constant height. It appeared to me impossible for ZL to
sink down.
250
In the month of March it sometimes seemed to me as if I were about to
invent an entire series of Perpetuies. But eventual y I conceded that merely
finding a single solution should be enough to satisfy me completely.
Theoretically, there are scarcely any objections to be made to the solu-
tion I am presenting here. The toothed chains prevent the rising up of the
right-hand side of the system and the sinking-down of the left side. At the
same time, however, the chains are perpetual y giving way, and there is
nothing stopping them from turning. I think that now final y there is no
longer any frictional resistance, jamming, or contrary wheel action.
Now the specialists are saying: but perhaps when the model has been
built, an entirely new factor wil appear — and destroy everything.
Perhaps!
I don’t know what such a new factor would look like.
If the thing now works, it is beyond al doubt the greatest wonder of the
world to be found on Terra — an unsettling Wonder of the World.
If the thing doesn’t work, though, then we shal have before us, beyond
al doubt, an even greater wonder of the world.
In any case it is now the job of technology to translate this matter into
practical terms.
We can construct cogwheels 20 meters in height. This smal Perpetuum
would accordingly be strong enough to overturn the largest Houses of Par-
liament — along with other, even heavier things.
Assuming that al of mankind were to die out some day, countless Per-
petua would imperturbably go on turning. And that would certainly have a
quite unsettling effect. Al the clocks would imperturbably go on displaying
the hours, and no one would hear that they were continuing to strike. And
that could continue on in this way for millennia, for the Perpetuum incor-
porated into the clockworks would no doubt be quite durably crafted . . . .
Of course these are al fantasies. Actual reality is always quite different
and destroys a great many fantasy realms. And so in the end I must hon-
estly confess that I am not particularly eager to see practical applications
developed for this perpetual motion machine. Practical experience wil de-
stroy many of my fantasies — of this I am quite sure.
Perhaps things wil turn out entirely dif erently. One should think twice
before saying anything about the immediate future. If the unknown factor
arrives that wil destroy the entire system, then a great deal wil remain as
it was before. If however, which is the more probable scenario, no unknown
factor arrives, then we shal experience upheavals whose prodigious effects
251
cannot yet be properly evaluated. We would then find ourselves standing
before a cultural earthquake. A great many venerable institutions would
perish. Traffic would increase so dramatical y that after twenty years it
would become impossible to distinguish one country from another. Al
national constitutions would then have to submit to extremely detailed
reforms.
Scholarly institutions, too, couldn’t prevent the world treating them
rather unkindly. For more than 60 years, al the “authorities” of science
have been insisting that perpetual motion is impossible. And yet every
mill-wheel in an ice-free river is a veritable perpetual motion machine. The
great Earth also revolves perpetual y, as does the sun. Al these things
have been forgotten and . . . . .
Human wisdom is a comical story. Even more comical is anyone getting
worked up over human wisdom . . . .
Friedenau (Berlin), 2 May 1910
One pe
rpetual motion machine, in any case, has now been definitively dis-
covered — the old mill-wheel in the ice-free river that never runs dry. This
machine is not, however, portable.
On the other hand, at least for the time being, Science can no longer
proclaim that a direct translation of the Earth’s gravitational force into
perpetual motion has been shown to be “impossible.”
This translation by no means contradicts the law of conservation of
energy, if the weight load can successful y be suspended at a constant
height while this weight can simultaneously be used to set wheels in perpet-
ual motion. This is most certainly not impossible.
Science must adjust its views accordingly.
Robert Mayer also spent three ful years vainly pursuing a great perpet-
ual motion machine. And when he couldn’t figure it out, he said: now No
One wil be able to accomplish this, for if I cannot do so, then it cannot be
done — No One can be cleverer than I am.
Physicists should not speak in such a way, since it is conceivable that
they might be cal ed to account some day for their propagation of false
theories.
In recent months I have spoken with a great many machinists and
engineers about this business and have noticed, to my astonishment, that
252
every machinist and every engineer was applying himself to the problem
of perpetual motion with the greatest seriousness, although Science in
its wisdom perpetual y declares a solution to this problem to be impossi-
ble; certain machinists have even told me about several perpetual motion
machines. If this isn’t a humorous story, then I truly do not know where
more humor can be found.
How queer it is that Everything on planet Earth always proves to be
so comical. In any case we should never forget al this comedy that is to
be found at every turn — and then we won’t lose our sense of humor so
easily . . . . .
Friedenau (Berlin), 16 June 1910
On 12 July of the year 1910, after introducing a new factor, I succeeded in
solving the problem flawlessly; unfortunately I must keep silent about my
discovery, since this would invalidate the applications I have submit ed to the
patent offices of various countries. But I did reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Translated by Susan Bernofsky
253
Hubertus von Amelunxen
Scheerbart’s Fiftieth Birthday Party:
An Interview with Egidio Marzona
The collector and publisher Egidio Marzona heard the story of Paul
Scheerbart’s fiftieth birthday and subsequent death from Marzona’s close
friend the architect and designer Heinz Rasch (1902–1996). In the follow-
ing interview conducted by theorist and curator Hubertus von Amelunxen
in Berlin, January 2014, Egidio Marzona relates this Scheerbart anecdote
and suggests that the rumors that Scheerbart starved himself to death in
protest over World War I are true.
HUBERTUS VON AMELUNXEN . Who was Heinz Rasch, and how did he
know Paul Scheerbart?
EGIDIO MARZONA. He was my “teacher,” a mentor, and role model, and
I visited him twice a week during the last twenty years of his life.
At the time I was commuting between Bielefeld, where I lived, and
Düsseldorf, where my publishing house was. In Bielefeld, Rasch was
the editor in charge of promoting and supervising all the books. But
on the subject of Scheerbart: naturally over the course of our friend-
ship and collaboration we discovered our mutual love of Scheerbart.
Rasch had a small collection of Scheerbart’s books, and Scheerbart
was one of our most important, and most frequent, topics of con-
versation. Once he told me the story of Scheerbart’s death and about
Scheerbart’s fiftieth birthday party; I understood that he attended
as an eleven- or twelve-year-old boy. The most interesting part of
the story was who was there: he said that of course all the cultural
luminaries were there, but so were the biggest gangsters in Berlin
and the chief of police too, so it really would have been quite a
colorful gathering. And they sat on orange crates or banana boxes,
Scheerbart was so poor.
Oskar Kokoschka, Portrait of Paul Scheerbart, 1910.
263
HUBERTUS VAN A M E L U N X E N
HVA. His fiftieth birthday, so that would have been in 1913.
EM. Scheerbart was already talking about the coming war at the birthday
party. Scheerbart had come to a decision. He already had the feel-
ing then that the war was going to happen, and when war actually
broke out in 1914 he went on a hunger strike.
HVA. So he died in 1915, after consuming only liquids?
EM. Only beer — he was severely alcoholic and drank mostly beer.
HVA. And Rasch told you this part too, about Scheerbart’s death?
EM. Yes, Rasch told me, because even then I was interested in creating a
complete Scheerbart collection. I wanted to bring all the materials
together, and already I had a great deal, but he helped me a lot. I
got a number of other documents from him about the collaboration
between the Taut brothers and Scheerbart. Scheerbart was very
important, a great visionary.
HVA. Back to the party: why were both the gangsters and the chief of
police at Scheerbart’s fiftieth birthday party?
EM. Yes, well, it was a colorful group — everyone from Indians to blind
drunks was there. He had a bizarre circle of friends and acquain-
tances. He wasn’t just interested in the cultural scene — other
writers, architects, Adolf Behne, and that circle; there was always
quite a colorful group of other figures around him.
HVA. Do any other contemporary witnesses tell this story of his death?
EM. I just know that Rasch used to tell me the story. But I have never
come across any other authentic report in my later research. As a
boy Rasch was probably quite fascinated by such a colorful scene,
so that is maybe why he remembered it.
HVA. When did Rasch tell you all this?
EM. It must have been in the 1980s that he told me.
Transcribed by Jonathan Larson and translated by Anne Posten
264
Letter from Anna Scheerbart, Paul Scheerbart’s widow, to the critic, activist, and Scheerbart
supporter Adolf Behne. Paul Scheerbart died on October 14, 1915.
Lichterfelde, October 17, 1915
Marschnerstraße 15.1
Dear Doctor,
The Waldners were here with me and let me know that you already know
of Paul’s sudden death. I thank you kindly for your deep sympathy. The
burial wil take place Thursday at 4:00 at the Park Cemetery of Lichter-
felde West. To get there, go to Händelplatz, then to Anglitznerstraße, where
at the corner of Gündelplatz there’s a tram that goes to the cemetery. I wil
be very glad if you can be present.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Anna Scheerbart
Transcribed by Erika Schrewe and translated by Laura Lindgren
265
Anselm Ruest
On the Birth, Death, and Rebirth
of Dionysus: A Memorial Wreath
for Paul Scheerbart’s
Grave
“The one truly real Dionysus appears in a multiplicity of
forms. . . .”
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy
The fifteenth of October — it is a date that wil long be remembered by
future generations: the birthday of Nietzsche and the death-day of Paul
Scheerbart. In 1888, the year of Nietzsche’s derangement, Scheerbart be-
gan for the first time to sound Dionysian, as if something were just then
dawning — oh, I know that to most people this wil stil seem like the most
disparate pairing! — From “Paradise, the Home of Art”:
The glow of heaven flows,
Burning, destroying thought
Round my world!
Swing of wonder, lift in rapture
All my longings, all my dreams
To the realm of magnificence!
Rock me into sweet sleep!
Bring me eternal bliss!
“Von Geburt, Tod und Wiedergeburt des Dionysus: Ein Gedächtniskranz auf Paul Scheerbarts
Grab” was published in the Dresden journal Neue Blätter fur Kunst und Dichtung (New pages
for art and poetry) April 1919.
Undated newspaper article, c. 1920–29. A remembrance of Paul Scheerbart by the critic and
activist Adolf Behne. Behne, Scheerbart, and Taut were involved with political activism and
radical aesthetic projects together, which Taut and Behne continued after Scheerbart’s death.
This led to a number of collaborations, including the book Die Stadtkrone (The city crown) pub-
lished in 1919, which included writing by Taut, Behne, and Scheerbart and described a vision
of a secular, nongovernmental, noncorporate building designed to mark the center of a city.
267
A N S E L M R E U S T
Dionysus cannot die. Again and again he is crucified, only to rise again.
Greek: again and again the boy Dionysus is torn apart by Titans, and
we have earth, water, fire, air, the individual, man — whose greatest hope
of bliss can only consist of a restored unity with al . “Somebody, I do not
know who, has claimed that al individuals, taken as individuals, are comic
and hence untragic” (Nietzsche) — the prevailing mood in al of Paul
Scheerbart’s work; “art as the joyous hope that the spell of individuation
may be broken” (Nietzsche) — Paul Scheerbart’s essential achievement in
two dozen texts. Always depicting the impossible as possible, creating a