A Plan of Schiller’s, and What Came of It
When the lamented Schiller, through the influence of the court, the solicitations of society, and the inclinations of his friends, was moved to change his place of residence from Jena to Weimar, and to renounce that seclusion in which until then he had wrapt himself, he had the theatre at Weimar particularly in his mind, and he decided to devote his attention carefully and closely to the productions there.
And such a narrowing of his field the poet needed, for his extraordinary genius from his youth up had sought the heights and the depths. The power of his imagination, his poetical activity, had led him over a great range; but in spite of the ardor with which his mind traversed this broad range, with further experience it could not escape his clear insight that these qualities must necessarily lead him astray in the field of the theatre.
At Jena his friends had been witness to the perseverance and resolute determination with which he occupied himself with “Wallenstein.” This subject, which kept expanding at the hands of his genius, was worked out, knit together, revised, in numerous ways, until he saw at last that it would be necessary to divide the piece into three parts, as was thereupon done. And afterwards he did not cease to make alterations, in order that the principal scenes might acquire all the effect that was possible. The result was, however, that the Death of Wallenstein was given oftener on all stages than the Camp and the Piccolomini.
Don Carlos had been condensed still earlier for the stage; and whoever will compare this play, as it is produced, with the earlier printed edition, will recognize the same laborious changes. For though Schiller in sketching out the plan of his work felt bound by no limitations, in a later revision for theatrical purposes he had the courage, as a result of his convictions, to adapt it stringently, yes even mercilessly, to the practical exigencies of the situation. These meant a definite limitation of time; all the principal scenes had to pass before the eyes of the audience in a certain period of time. All the other scenes he omitted, and yet he could never really confine himself to the space of three hours.
The Robbers, Intrigue and Love, Fiesco, productions of an aggressive youthful impatience and indignation at a severe and confining training, had to undergo many alterations for the stage-production which was eagerly demanded by the public and especially the young men. About them all he would speculate whether it was not possible to assimilate them to a more refined taste, a taste such as he had trained himself since to feel. On this point he was accustomed to take long and detailed counsel with himself, in long sleepless nights, and sometimes on pleasant evenings in talks with his friends.
Could these discussions and suggestions have been preserved by a shorthand writer, we should have possessed a noteworthy contribution to productive criticism. But even more valuable will discerning readers find Schiller’s own remarks about the projected and indeed commenced “Demetrius,” which fine example of penetrating and critical creative ability is preserved for us in the supplement to his works. The three plays mentioned above, however, we decided not to touch, for what is offensive in them is too closely bound up with their contents and form; and we had to trust to fortune in transmitting them to posterity just as they had sprung from a powerful and bizarre genius.
Schiller, finely matured, had not attended many performances, when his active mind, considering the situation and taking a comprehensive view of things, got the idea that what had been done to his own works could be done in the case of other men’s. So he drew up a plan whereby the work of earlier playwrights might be preserved for the German theatre, without prejudice to contemporary writers,—the accepted material, the contents of the works chosen, to be adapted to a form which should be partly determined by the requirements of the stage and partly by the ideas and spirit of the present time. For these reasons he decided to devote the hours which were left him from his own work to constructing plans, in company with congenial friends, whereby plays which had a significance for our age might be revised, and a true German Theatre founded,—not only for the benefit of the reader, who would come to know famous plays from a new standpoint, but also for the benefit of the numerous theatres of Germany, which would be given the opportunity of strengthening their repertories by laying a solid foundation of older works under the ephemeral productions of the day.
In order then to found the German Theatre on true German soil, it was Schiller’s intention to revise Klopstock’s Hermanns Schlacht. The play was taken up, but the first consideration of it produced much doubt in his mind. Schiller’s judgment was in general very liberal, but at the same time independent and critical. The ideal demands which Schiller according to his nature was obliged to make were not satisfied, and the piece was soon laid aside. Present-day criticism requires no hints in order to discover the grounds for the decision.
Towards Lessing’s work Schiller had a singular attitude. He did not care particularly for it,—indeed, Emilia Galotti was repugnant to him. Yet this tragedy as well as Minna von Barnhelm was accepted in the repertory. He then devoted himself to Nathan der Weise, and in this revision, in which he was glad to have the coöperation of discerning friends, the piece is played to this day, and it will be retained on the boards, because able actors will always be found who feel themselves equal to the rôle of Nathan. And may the German public remember always that it is called not only to witness this well-known piece, so excellently staged, but also to hear it and to understand it! May there never come a time when the divine spirit of toleration and forbearance contained in it will cease to be sacred to the nation.
The presence of the distinguished Iffland in 1796 gave occasion for the shortening of Egmont to the form in which it is now given here and in several places at present. That Schiller rather mutilated it in his revision is indicated by a comparison of the following scenes with the printed play itself. The public was annoyed at the omission of the Princess, for instance; yet there is in Schiller’s work such a consistency that no one has dared to attempt to alter the piece for fear that other errors and misadjustments might creep into its present form.