The Enigma of Emilia Galotti

132 Pages·1963·2.921 MB·English

by  Edward Dvoretzky (auth.)

THE ENIGMA OF EMILIA GALOTTI
EDW ARD DVORETZKY
THE ENIGMA
OF
EMILIA GALOTTI
•
THE HAGUE
MARTINUS NIJHOFF
1963
ISBN 978-94-015-0372-3 ISBN 978-94-015-0949-7 (eBook)
DOl 10.1007/978-94-015-0949-7
Copyright I963 by Martinus Nijhott, The Hague, Netherlands
Soitcover reprint oft he hardcover 1St edition 1963
All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to
reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form
TO TOBAN, MY SON
PREFACE
The purpose of this study is to report the reactions and criticism of
those German, Swiss, and Austrian authors who commented on Les
sing's Emilia Galotti from the time of its creation to the twentieth
century and to note the various degrees to which it influenced writers
of different personal and literary bent. It will be seen that the repre
sentatives of a given literary trend, although regarding the play
primarily in the light of their own ideals, were not necessarily in accord
with one another over certain of its aspects.
Emilia Galotti is especially suited to this kind of investigation
because it took form in an age when interest in principles of dramatic
composition was particularly intense, and because it was written by
a figure who was perhaps most influential in the discussions centering
on them. Emilia Galotti further lends itself to this study because,
despite the fact that it has remained an extremely enigmatic work, it
was and continues to be a highly popular play, having been. translated
into at least twelve foreign languages and having also had an overture
written in its honor.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Henry Hatfield
of Harvard University, who, in every phase of this study - from its
conception to its completion - generously gave invaluable suggestions
and support. My indebtedness to the library of the University of
Marburg, to Widener and Houghton libraries of Harvard University,
and to Rice University and Fondren Library for the various facilities
placed at my disposal is hereby gratefully acknowledged. To my wife,
Charlotte, without whom this book would have been impossible, my
inexpressible thankfulness for her years of encouragement and selfless
dedication.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface VII
Introduction I
I. The Enlightenment 4
II. Sentimentality 27
A. General 27
B. Gottinger Hainbund 34
III. Storm and Stress 43
IV. Goethe, Schiller, and Wilhelm von Humboldt 48
V. Romanticism 57
VI. Biedermeier, Young Germany, and Schopenhauer 73
A. Biedermeier 73
B. Young Germany 76
C. Schopenhauer 84
VII. Poetic Realism 87
VIII. Nineteenth-Century Aestheticians and Literary Historians 102
Conclusion III
Bibliography II7
Index of Names 124
INTRODUCTION
In February, 1772, Lessing completed a tragedy on which he had
worked sporadically since 1757, when he decided to dramatize the
ancient story of Virginia as related by Li'vy in his History 0/ Rome.l
This middle-class tragedy, Emilia Galotti, Ein Trauerspiel in /un/
Au/zugen, brought to late eighteenth-century Germany a play which is
still performed on the stage and which, because of its highly enigmatic
nature, continues to occupy the minds of dramaturgists, poets, and
critics.
Any successful work of literature can normally be expected to give
rise to public reactions of the greatest number and intensity during the
first years following its pUblication. This is especially true of Emilia
Galotti. Several factors contributed to the various early attitudes
toward this play, written at a time in the history of German literature
when interest in new works was at a peak: German literature was once
again beginning to flourish; literary periodicals, frequently edited and
contributed to by many of the more important authors, were active
and influential; thus the general tenor of the time was conducive to this
renewed interest.
The fact that three major literary trends - those of the Enlighten
ment, of Sentimentality, and of the Sturm und Drang - were prevalent
in Germany when Emilia Galotti first appeared accounts in large
measure for the many favorable, indifferent, and hostile comments
brought forth in the first few years after the appearance of this drama.
It should be noted, however, that the avid interest in Emilia Galotti
1 Livy, History of Rome, III, par. 44 ff. The story of Virginia allegedly took place under the
decemvirate of 45I-449 B.C. In his letter of March I, I772, to his brother Karl, Lessing writes
that the play is to be nothing more than a "modernized Virginia, freed frolll everything of
interest to the state." See Gotthold Ephraim Lessings siimtliche Schriften, hg. Karl Lachmann,
Dritte, aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte AufIage, besorgt durch Franz Muncker (Leip
zig, I886-I908), XVIII, 2I f. Hereafter, this work will be referred to as "LM."
2 INTRODUCTION
diminished significantly toward the end of the nineteenth century.
Before examining the criticism of some of the leading representatives
of these trends, it should be pointed out first that Lessing himself, even
before completing the play, was apparently quite concerned with its
reception. He had long been a leading figure in the contemporary
conflict revolving about dramaturgic principles. One might assume,
then, that any drama he would write would more or less represent the
practical application of his own theories of drama.1 Lessing, expressing
his concern in a letter to his brother Karl, asked for criticism of the
first part of the tragedy. He was especially eager for Karl's opinion,
because he had been unable to ask anyone else for advice. An author's
feeling of being on the right path is not convincing, Lessing writes; such
a feeling is "cold" and "fruitless" and does nothing to perfect the work
in question.2 Striking a more pessimistic note in a letter of the same
date to his publisher, Lessing expressed increasing dissatisfaction with
Emilia Galotti the nearer he came to completing it. He feared, too, that
the publisher would find the beginning of the work unsatisfactory.s
In fact, a little more than a month after the play's first production,
which Lessing missed because of ill health,4 he sought the critical
judgment of a person recognized in his own right as a translator of
Roman poetry and one called upon often for literary advice - Karl
Wilhelm Ramler: "Kritik, will ich Ihnen nur vertrauen, ist das einzige
Mittel mich zu mehrerem aufzufrischen, oder vielmehr aufzuhetzen."
But, as he continued, he did not desire this criticism with a view toward
possible revision of the play. Lessing would not consider the revision
of any dramatic work if it concerned nothing more than trifles and if
the work in question had already attained a certain degree of perfection.
Instead, he would apply such criticism to the creation of something
new.5
Actually, it is difficult to determine precisely how Lessing felt about
his play, for in both earlier and later letters, he reveals a certain
1 Whether this assumption is warranted is and has long been a matter of contention among
critics.
2 Letter to Karl, Jan. 25, 1772 (LM, XVIII, 10). Karl's immediate reply, in his letter of
Feb. 1, 1772: "Arbeitest Du seit einem Vierteljahr an diesem Trauerspiel? oder seitdem Du
die 'Minna' fertig hast? We1che Feile! - ohne allen Zusatz! ganz rein gediegenes Silber!"
(LM, XX, 124). Cf. also Fr. Schlegel's remarks, Chapter V below.
3 Letter to Christian Friedrich VoJ3, Jan. 25, 1772 (LM, XVIII, 11).
4 See his letter of March 15, 1772, to Eva Konig (LM, XVIII, 24).
5 See his letter of April 21, 1772, in Lessings Briefwechsel mit Karl Wilhelm Ramler, Johann
Joachim Eschenburg und Friedrich Nicolai (Berlin und Stettin, 1794), p. 39 f. See also Fr. L.
Schroder's letter of April 9, 1802, to Herder, as quoted in Heinrich Schneider, "Emilia
GaIotti's Tragic Guilt," MLN, LXXI (1956), 354 f.
INTRODUCTION 3
vacillation of feeling. As early as December, 1771, for example, he
seems to have been inwardly ready to have it put into print, and he was
anxious to have it performed; for, as he wrote to his publisher: 1 "Sie
konnen vors erste darauf rechnen, daB Sie noch vor Ablauf der ersten
Halite des Ja nuars meine neue Tragodie in Handen haben sollen. Ich
bin wirklich so gut als fertig damit; fertiger, als ich noch mit keinem
Stucke gewesen, wenn ich es habe anfangen lassen zu drucken .... Mit
meinem neuen Stucke hatte ich vor, es auf den Geburtstag unsrer
Herzogin, welches der IOte Marz ist, von Dobblinen hier zum erste n
male auffuhren zu lassen .... Auch bin ich uber diese neue Tragodie
fast wieder in den Geschmack des Dramatischen gekommen .... " 2
And, in addition, Lessing indicated that he would be satisfied if the
work as a whole were effective.3 Little did he anticipate the vast
effect this play was to have.
It has already been noted that one of the chief literary trends of this
time was that of the Enlightenment. Since Lessing is usually regarded
as perhaps the most influential German figure of this movement, it
would seem fitting that attention first be turned to the reception
afforded Emilia GaIotti by some of its representatives, who were
interested to a large extent in the moral aspect of a play and its relation
to Aristotle. However, the patent inadequacies involved in classifying
authors as belonging to certain literary schools must here be under
scored. It should be understood, for example, that some authors of the
Enlightenment may reveal irrational traits at times, so that a label
such as "Enlightenment" is necessarily an arbitrary and sometimes
dubious convenience which need not always be valid. Also, some of the
critics discussed below have been treated with members of a given
group mainly for reasons of chronological convenience. C. H. Schmid,
Ramdohr, and Menzel are cases in point. It should be added here, too,
that where deemed useful, certain German passages were rendered into
English.
1 Letter to Chr. Fr. VoB, Dec. 24, I77I (LM, XVII, 422f.).
2 Lessing had also hoped that his new play would be well received by the hereditary
prince. In his letter of March I6, I772, to Ebert, one reads: "Das zweyte Exemplar haben Sie
die Giite, des Erb Prinzen Durchlaucht zu iiberreichen. Ich unterstehe mich nicht ihm ein
Paar Worte dazu zu schreiben. Wie angenehm mir sein geringster Beyfall seyn wiirde, ver
steht sich von selbst" (LM, XVIII, 26).
3 Letter to Karl, Feb. w, I772 (LM, XVIII, 19). Note also the similar views of Hebbel
and Menzel below, Chapter VII and Chapter VI, Part B respectively.
CHAPTER I
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
The age of the Enlightenment is characterized to a large extent by the
many periodicals and journals which then served to spre~d and
popularize the ideas of the time. It was an age not only of "poets," but
of the academically learned as well - of philosophers and theologians.
Because of the important role played by these thinkers in shaping the
literature of the time, several of them will be included in this discussion.
Karl Wilhelm Ramler, the first to be treated here, had long been in
close contact with Lessing and had also been a member of the literary
and philosophic circle which centered on Lessing, Nicolai, and Mendels
sohn in Berlin. His interest in the theoretical and aesthetic aspects of
literature is mirrored in his reworking of Charles Batteux (1713-1780).1
Ramler's views of tragedy are basically neo-classic.
In discussing modern drama, Ramler sees no reason why the middle
class cannot contribute something of the tragic to the stage, for even in
the lowest classes, there are touching situations well suited for the
poet's hand. Indeed, the oldest kings and heroes of the heroic tragedies
written by the ancient poets were the most excellent and richest among
the burghers of their own little communities, and were "far more
bourgeois than our bourgeoisie" (p. 288). Ramler speciously maintains
that since the characters of middle-class tragedy are often wealthy and
socially prominent, there is essentially very little difference between
the ancient Greek heroic tragedy and the contemporary middle-class
tragedy ("unsrer biirgerlichen Tragodie" [po 292J) and there is thus no
1 Einleitung in die schiJnen Wissenschatten, Nach dem Franzosischen des Berrn Batteux,
mit Zusiitzen vermehret von Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Fiinfte und verbesserte Auflage (Leipzig,
1820). Especially in his view concerning drama, Ramler often disagrees with Batteux; in this
respect, Ramler has "reworked" his model, whom he accepts only generally. See Anakreonti·
ker und preu/3isch·patriotische Lyriker, hg. Franz Muncker, Deutsche National·Litteratur, XLV,
Zweiter Teil, p. 217.