Notes on the theater

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notes about the theater is a work by Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz , which was written in several writing phases and was first printed in 1774 together with a broadcast of Shakespeare's comedy Love's Labor's Lost under the title Amor vincit omnia . The comments on the theater belong to the epoch of Sturm und Drang . In addition to Goethe's lecture Zum Schäkespears Tag (1771) and Herder 's Shakespeare essay (1773), the work is one of the most important documents of Shakespeare's admiration for Sturm und Drang. Lenz presented his remarks on theater to the Strasbourg Société de Philosophie et de Belles-Lettres, of which he was a member during his stay in Strasbourg.

content

Lenz begins his work with a criticism of European theater. To this end, he divides the European theater into departments. He describes in detail the Greek, Latin / Roman, Italian, French and English forms of theater. The Greek describes Lenz in a very reduced way. He only says that the "great masterpieces of Greece by equally great masters in action" are presented. For the second department he names the authors Ovid and Seneca for the tragedies and Plautus and Terenz for the comedies. He suspects that the actors at the time essentially sang the pieces more than recited them. The origin of the theater seemed to be nothing more than a “hymn of praise to the father Bacchus”, sung by different people together. Another department is the Italian, which is of course immediately associated with the story of Orpheus. Then he came to the French art of playing. Lenz criticizes this deeply, because for him Amor is the autocrat in these pieces and "everything breathes, sighs, cries, bleeds and, with the exception of the light cleaner , no actor has ever stepped behind the scenes without falling in love in the theater." fifth department is the Elizabethan theater. For Lenz, this theater stands in contrast to the penultimate department. He sees the reason for this in the fact that the English would not be a shame to present nature to the audience "completely naked". You can see that Lenz was not satisfied with the forms offered in Europe and was looking for a new form of theater.

Next he goes into poetry and defines the essence of poetry in terms of imitation. In this definition he refers to Aristotle and his poetics. There Aristotle mentions that even as a child man is able to imitate and also puts forward the thesis that man is an animal that has the talent to imitate. Despite the criticism of Aristotle, Lenz also expresses that he has a great respect for the Greek philosophers. It is important to Lenz that the poetry imitates nature. Then Lenz goes into the sixth chapter of poetics. Aristotle defines the terms “customs” and “convictions” separately. For him, custom is the way in which someone acts and attitudes are the mood and the expression of same in speaking. Lenz would like to combine these two terms and for this he chooses the term “character”. Because for certain actions the character of the respective person is decisive. Furthermore, Aristotle claims that the ultimate purpose of an act of tragedy is the act and "not a quality". Their actions lead to happiness or unhappiness, but the mores of actors are of a certain nature. The actors should “not act to represent their customs, but the customs are introduced for the sake of the actions”. Lenz criticizes Aristotle's view and is certain that one can no longer build on this thesis, although it is of course possible that Aristotle was right with this argument in his time. It is also important that Lenz wants to abolish the three drama units. Because in his opinion these are superfluous. He describes in detail the three units of action, time, space and place. Lenz would like to dissolve the unity of the plot, because in a drama it should also be allowed to show several acts “which follow one another like thunderbolts”. With the unity of the place, Lenz assumes that the unity is broken up here too and that several changes of location can take place. Lenz also opposes the unity of time, according to Aristotle the “revolution of a sun”. Every country has a certain writer, according to whose form theater is played. England has Shakespeare as a model, Italy has the poet Dante and Germany has the writer Klopstock. The French drama conforms to the rules of Aristotle. And so the French don't show any characters on stage. This way of acting would make the French fail on stage. Above all, Voltaire's characters are “nothing but tolerant free spirits” and “the whole world” would adopt their “tone of desire”, even Rousseau in his Heloise could not be excluded. In these pieces, according to Lenz, a “piece of wig” would always peek out and Lenz no longer wants that, because the viewer should find himself in this world. To confirm this thesis, he compares the French author Voltaire with his work La mort de César and by Shakespeare Julius Caesar . Both writers address the death of the Roman statesman Caesar in their works. Voltaire's work is increasingly criticizing Lenz because, in his opinion, the figure of Brutus would preach too much: “Now the preaching continues on two sides.” On the other hand, he admires Shakespeare for his Brutus. Because in detail the emotions of Brutus are brought closer to the reader.

Then Lenz repeatedly devotes himself to Aristotle. He criticizes that he gives his characters too few qualities. But he relativizes this statement again, since he says that the time of Aristotle was very religiously shaped and for this reason the figures experienced less embellishment of their characters. The main feeling should not be "respect for the hero", but rather the "blind servile fear of the gods". In the eyes of Lenz, Shakespeare manages that with his characters and for this reason would also like to call Shakespeare's works “character pieces”. Then he briefly contrasts the forms of tragedy and comedy. Because in tragedy the “actions of the people are there for their own sake” and in comedy one should start from the plot and people can take part in it, as the author wishes.

Shakespeare reception

In the 1970s, a kind of "Shakespeare cult" developed in Germany and Shakespeare was considered an exemplary author in literature. The German writer Lenz also dealt a lot with the works of Shakespeare in literary terms and even Shakespeare's name appears in the dramatic satire Pandämonium Germanicum (1775) and the dramatic monologue Shakespeare Geist (1776). The comments on theater is Lenz's first and most provocative contribution to the German Shakespeare discussion. After the publication of this work, there was a "lively response" in the press. Discussions about this contribution were held especially in the literary magazines of the time. This contribution was regarded as the most important manifesto of the new party around Goethe and Herder and as the basis for a new form of drama.

style

The notes are mixed stylistically as well as mentally. In addition to longer passages in the sober, rationally arguing style, others are written again in questions thrown in, broken sentences or exclamations. But that was the new style of Sturm und Drang and was intended to provoke society. In this work Lenz presents his theses associatively.

expenditure

  • Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz: Notes on the theater. Along with the attached translated piece of Shakespeare. Weygandsche Buchhandlung, Leipzig 1774.
  • Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz: Notes on the theater. Shakespeare works and Shakespeare translations. ed. by Hans-Günther Schwarz. Philipp Reclam jun., Stuttgart 1995, ISBN 3-15-009815-7 .

literature

  • Eva Maria Inbar: Shakespeare in Germany: The Lenz case. Niemeyer, Tübingen 1982, ISBN 3-484-18067-6 .
  • Matthias Luserke-Jaqui : The "Notes on the Theater" as the poetological foundation of the Sturm und Drang. In: Lenz studies. History of literature - works - topics. Röhrig, St. Ingbert 2001, ISBN 3-86110-281-1 .

Web links

Wikisource: Notes on the Theater , First Edition (1774)  - Sources and full texts

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Inbar: Shakespeare in Germany. 1982, p. 23.
  2. ↑ See Reclam, epilogue, p. 83.
  3. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 5.
  4. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 7.
  5. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 7.
  6. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 7.
  7. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 11.
  8. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 8.
  9. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 16.
  10. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 16.
  11. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 21.
  12. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 13.
  13. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 25.
  14. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 28.
  15. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 28.
  16. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 28.
  17. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 28.
  18. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 38.
  19. ^ Inbar: Shakespeare in Germany. 1982, p. 15.
  20. ^ Lenz: Notes on the theater. 1995, p. 19.
  21. ^ Inbar: Shakespeare in Germany. 1982, p. 25.