Sturm und Drang (drama)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sturm und Drang is a play in five acts by Friedrich Maximilian Klinger . In the autumn of 1776 Klinger wrote a comedy in Weimar , the "Wirrwarr" . At that time he was already a well-known playwright; the year before he had won the Ackermann Theater Troupe Prize with his tragedy Die Zwillinge , endowed with 20 Louisdor. Klinger followed Goethe to Weimar. By Christoph Kaufmann (1753-1795) he was "forcibly" the title of "Sturm und Drang" so imposed upon Klinger in a letter. The piece was created in the year that is commonly seen as the climax of Sturm und Drang .

The world premiere took place in Leipzig on April 1, 1777 by the Seylersche troupe , whose theater poet Klinger was. Klinger brought the piece with him when he joined the troupe. Both the world premiere and the subsequent performance in Klinger's hometown of Frankfurt were not very successful. The original title is vaguely reminiscent of Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors - Comedy of Errors . Other influences from Shakespeare can be recognized: the dispute between the Berkley and Bushy families is reminiscent of Romeo and Juliet , but without the tragic end. The names Berkley and Bushy come from Richard II. , La Feu from The End Well, All Well .

More important than these traces of enthusiasm for Shakespeare and other authors, however, is the title "Sturm und Drang", which soon became the watchword. Although some half-heads , according to Klinger in 1814, made fun of it, this slogan became the epoch designation.

content

people

Wild (aka Karl Bushy)

La Feu and Blasius (Wild's friends)

Lord Berkley

Jenny Caroline (Lord Berkley's daughter)

Lady Kathrin (Lord Berkley's sister)

Louise (Lady Kathrins and Lord Berkley's niece)

Ship Captain Boyet (aka Harry Berkley, Lord Berkley's son who has been missing for ten years)

Lord Bushy (Wild's father)

A young Mohr (Boyet's slave)

The host

Betty (servant)

Brief content

The adventure-addicted game kidnapped his friends La Feu and Blasius to America against their will. There Wild wants to take part in the American War of Independence (presumably on the side of the colonists). In an inn the trio meets Lord Berkley and his daughter Jenny Caroline. Berkley has been robbed of his home and influence by his enemies, and he suspects his former friend, Lord Bushy, to be the mastermind. Wildly falls in love with Caroline and reveals to her that he is really Lord Bushy's son. The couple initially hides this fact from Lord Berkley, who unsuspectingly gives the son of his archenemy a post in the army.

The appearance of the ship's captain Boyet exacerbates the situation: old Berkley recognizes his son Harry, who has been missing since the attack on the Berkley property ten years ago. Boyet alias Harry Berkley, however, feels a spontaneous aversion to Wild, with whom he has already dueled in Holland. He is now demanding revenge for the wound he received. Boyet triumphantly reports to his father in Wild's presence (whose true identity remains unknown to the Berkley men for the time being) that he has abandoned old Lord Bushy on the high seas in a small boat and thus probably delivered him to certain death. Beside himself with anger, Wild now challenges the ship's captain to a duel. Shortly thereafter, Lady Kathrin reveals the true identity of the Berkleys Wilds, which she in turn learned from La Feu.

Before the duel, the sons of the warring old lords must go into battle together. Boyet is wounded in the calf and reluctantly acknowledges Wild's bravery. Before the duel can come after the victorious battle, Wild receives the message from the ship's captain's slave boy that old Bushy has been secretly brought back on board with the help of the ship's lieutenant and is still alive. Indeed, the one believed dead suddenly appears, forgives his adversaries and protests that he had no part in the conspiracy against Berkley; He does not name the real culprit, especially since he has long since died.

Old and young Berkley are reluctant to accept the offer of reconciliation, the hatred of many years has been too deep. Regardless, Wild and Caroline become a couple. Before that, La Feu and Lady Kathrin got together to choose a romantic existence as a shepherd and shepherdess. Blasius, whose grouchiness permanently deterred Louise, had meanwhile decided on a life as a hermit.

first act

In the first act, Wild (real name Carl Bushy), La Feu and Blasius arrive at an inn somewhere in America. Meanwhile, Caroline and Lord Berkley are together in another room of the inn and discuss the ongoing dispute with the Bushy family. The arrival of the three friends does not go unnoticed. Lady Kathrin, Lord Berkley's sister, Caroline and Louise talk about the newcomers, as they are also English.

Second act

Wild, La Feu and Blasius are waiting impatiently for the ladies they want to meet at the inn. La Feu falls in love with Lady Kathrin at first sight, while Wild leaves the room again. Blasius, on the other hand, bores Louise. Caroline didn't come to the meeting, in her room she longs for her childhood sweetheart, Carl Bushy. Wild and Caroline meet at the inn because Wild is wrong about the room. You recognize each other and are happy. Lord Berkley arrives and finds the two kissing. Wild does not reveal himself to him as Carl Bushy. Instead, he tells the Lord how badly he and his father, Lord Bushy, are doing, which Berkley is very pleased with.

Third act

Blasius and La Feu talk about Wild and the ladies. La Feu is still very enthusiastic about Lady Kathrin, which Blasius cannot understand because of her age. Blasius, sleepy and disinterested as always, goes to bed. After seeing Caroline again, Wild happily goes to his friends. Meanwhile the ship's captain Boyet arrives at the inn. Boyet learns that there is game in the inn and tries to force Blasius to look for him. Boyet and Wild are old arch enemies who have already dueled several times. When the two meet, an argument breaks out. When La Feu meets Lady Kathrin and Louise in the garden, he reveals Wild's real name to them. Meanwhile, Wild and Caroline meet secretly in front of their window and are discovered and observed by Lady Kathrin and Louise.

Fourth act

Berkley and the captain meet at the inn. During their conversation it turns out that the captain is actually Harry Berkley, the old lord's son. Caroline also meets her brother again. The captain must find out that his mother has died. He tells them that he dumped old Bushy in the middle of the high seas. When Wild arrives, the argument between him and the captain breaks out again. They arrange a duel for the next day. Finally Lady Kathrin joins the group and exposes Wild to Lord Berkley and the captain as Carl Bushy. Wild learns from the captain that he abandoned his father at sea.

Fifth act

The battle ends in victory, but the ship's captain was injured by a bullet in the calf. The Moor, who was on his ship with the captain, reports to Wild that, with the help of the ship's lieutenant, he secretly took his father back on board and thus saved him from drowning. Wild and Caroline meet the weakened Lord Bushy. He insists on meeting his old friend Berkley to make up with him. Now they all meet. The captain is surprised to recognize Lord Bushy. Caroline is torn between her father and Wild. Bushy tries to explain his innocence to Berkley, who initially refuses to believe him. Ultimately, the two reconcile and the family dispute is settled. Wild and Caroline can now give themselves completely to their love and are happy.

background

The original title of the play »Tangled« describes the plot very well: it appears complicated, almost confused. The three friends Wild, La Feu and Blasius meet in an inn in America. Meaningful names also characterize the figures: "le feu" means fire, flame, heat and embers; "Blasé" means something like indifferent, unresponsive or disgusted. Wild stands for the archetypal power guy.

The three friends suffer together from the "terrible uneasiness and indefiniteness" of the environment, and even more from their own inner conflict. "Our unhappiness comes from our own mood of the heart, the world has done it, but less than we".

Despite the programmatic title, Klinger's play is not an exemplary Sturm und Drang drama. The plot does not follow a dramaturgy that is interested in the likelihood of events or the unity of characters. The characters do not act logically, they are not guided by specific intentions; many statements and actions seem unmotivated. The reality in which they live is as indeterminate as the description of the location: "The America scene" . The information is therefore misleading, as the inn could just as easily be in another part of the world where war happens to be being waged. The war that the American settlers waged for their independence against the English colonial power plays in the background. Not as a political or humane problem, but as an opportunity to secure one's strength. Klinger's "Sturm und Drang" brings up his own fantasies of strength and its validation, of activity, love and true feelings, which, however, have no empirical content.

Klinger describes his play in September 1776: “I rounded up the greatest originals. And the deepest tragic feeling always alternates with laughter and neighing ”. The drama therefore deliberately refuses to be classified too quickly; it introduces itself as a “play” in which “comical and tragic is mixed with a bitter sauce.” Klinger had already shown that he could write plays. The plot of this play is less important and carelessly constructed. Rather, it describes the framework in which the passions of the characters come into play. With this piece, Klinger went a completely new way: he designed a comedic burlesque plot with unmotivated twists and a recognition scene at the end, which also brings reconciliation. It is only insufficiently motivated in its dramaturgical structure, but gains its meaning through the expressions of feeling, the occasions for which it offers. The language seems turned up and compressed; at the time this was something completely new and therefore initially met with rejection.

This drama shows the urge without a goal, the storm of passions for their own sake, in which they become confused. The fact that the title of the piece soon became the motto and later the epoch designation suggests that, in this unique mixture of conflicting feelings, it was felt to be indicative of the time it was written on the one hand, and the mood of its poet and admirers on the other has been.

"Sturm und Drang" can be seen as a harbinger of romanticism: the "jumble" of conflicting feelings, the vacillation between melancholy inactivity (Blasius) and claim to totality (La Feu) as well as the turmoil, as well as the lyrical-sensitive enthusiasm for nature (Wild). Klinger's drama lacks economy, structure, structure and contrast, all of the "virtues" that dramatists otherwise observe. It breaks with the principle of contrast, the alternation between calm and movement of emotion and mental coolness. Klinger's "Sturm und Drang" sustains a note from the first to the last line: the urgent, overheated, flaming, stubborn pathos of the genius style. Klinger's characters are also differentiated, there are both wild and tame natures. A few sentences make up the whole piece. It can be seen as a mood, a state, a gesture, an upsurge or even a movement that seeks space. “Sturm und Drang” is a paradigm for the flattening of the “style of genius”, for the protest that has come down to a mere linguistic surge. This work is concise because of its exaggeration. The epoch Sturm und Drang includes the grotesque, the caricaturistic in the circle of possible designs. For Klinger himself, this piece meant the summary and final departure from the genius era. Overall, the course of action seems very tense and constructed; everything always fits together when it is needed dramatically.

language

The language in "Sturm und Drang" is used very idiosyncratically, and this is how the idiosyncratic dramatic stylistic gesture emerges. This is served by dynamic verbs (drive around, roar, romp, tension), expressive adjectives (wild, great) and nouns (tumult, noise, storm, heart, confusion), unusual comparisons and images and apparently contradicting coincidences ("labe dich im confusion") ) . On closer inspection it can be seen that Klinger tried to give the individual dramatic characters an individual contour through language. Wild and the captain tend to use strong expressions and sensual imagery; La Feu and Lady Kathrin tend to use the formulaic vocabulary of used poetic expressions; Louise likes to joke, Caroline a melancholy, sensitive tone; Berkley builds his sentences in the area of ​​tension between love and hate; Blasius prefers melancholy and self-degrading statements. In general, a repetition and accumulation technique can be identified, whereby it is mostly about certain terms and statements.

Contemporary reception

An anonymous reviewer from this period criticized in 1778: “But how can a piece be called bearable with such a plan? A Lord Berkeley lost his son through a certain Bushy. But where, how, when and why? nobody finds out. The son comes back as skipper and is recognized by his father. But how he was saved, how he became a skipper; how he now gets to where he meets his father without knowing that he is there; you don't find out again. A young person who calls himself wild, but who is the son of that Bushy, comes with two friends [...] But how and why he got there; how and where he was before Berkley's daughter, in whom he and she is in love with him; has seen, and does not even know that her father and she are here; that is not said in the whole piece. [...] «

In general, Klinger's play has prompted theater critics and book reviewers to make snappy comments. Although u. a. there was also talk of the "spark of genius", but more often of a "portion of folly" or a "piece of horror" suffering from "exaggerated imagination" and "wild excesses". This is also the case with the review of the Berliner Literarisches Wochenblatt, which probably best illustrates the uncertainty of the critics: "Only we wish Mr. Klinger more cool blood - we wish his understanding more than his imagination, master - because it runs away too often with its understanding [ ...] What use are such plays? who can see them? and who wants to see them? who can sympathize with such people? "

There are certainly starting points for criticism of Klinger's piece. Without a doubt, a lot appears constructed, artificial and a lot is missing. "Sturm und Drang" does not create its unity with an action-intensive, goal-oriented and inherently logical structure, but with new, internal correspondence that is established through language, certain motifs and also by contrasting individual scenes and people. Klinger rejects the traditional unit of action, so to speak, as in classic drama. Instead of bracketing techniques via the plot structure, there is a variety of characters that are supposed to ensure a varied game. In “Sturm und Drang” z. B. the speaking names and above all the direct characterizations of the people the orientation. The shortcoming of the lack of social and political references in the play can, however, be explained with the intention that Klinger wanted to avoid the usual failure - including his heroes - in the Sturm und Drang dramas.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 107.
  2. ↑ See: Scheuer, Helmut: Friedrich Maximilian Klinger. Storm and stress. In: interpretations. Dramas of Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2007, p. 57.
  3. ↑ See: Kindler's new literature lexicon. Register Volume 9 Author register, title register. Ka-La. Ed .: Walter Jens. Munich: Kindler Verlag GmbH 1990, p. 507.
  4. ↑ See: Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 107.
  5. ↑ Vgl.:Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 107.
  6. ↑ See: Kindler's new literature lexicon. Register Volume 9 Author register, title register. Ka-La. Ed .: Walter Jens. Munich: Kindler Verlag GmbH 1990, p. 507.
  7. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, pp. 5-19.
  8. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, pp. 19–33.
  9. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, pp. 34-47.
  10. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, pp. 48-58.
  11. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, pp. 58-74.
  12. ↑ See: Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 108.
  13. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, p. 9.
  14. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, p. 8.
  15. ↑ See: Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 109.
  16. ↑ See: Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 109.
  17. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, p. 75.
  18. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, p. 75.
  19. ↑ See: Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 111 f.
  20. ↑ See: Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 112 f.
  21. ↑ Cf.: Klass, Werner: Sturm und Drang. Gerstenberg, Lenz, Klinger, Leisewitz, Wagner, painter Müller. Hanover: Friedrich Verlag Velber 1st ed. 1966, p. 93 f.
  22. ↑ Cf.: Klass, Werner: Sturm und Drang. Gerstenberg, Lenz, Klinger, Leisewitz, Wagner, painter Müller. Hanover: Friedrich Ver-lag Velber 1st ed. 1966, p. 96 f.
  23. ↑ Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian: Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2008, p. 5.
  24. ↑ See: Scheuer, Helmut: Friedrich Maximilian Klinger. Storm and stress. In: interpretations. Dramas of Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2007, p. 64 f.
  25. ↑ See: Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, p. 108.
  26. ↑ See: Scheuer, Helmut: Friedrich Maximilian Klinger. Storm and stress. In: interpretations. Dramas of Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2007, p. 60.
  27. ↑ See: Scheuer, Helmut: Friedrich Maximilian Klinger. Storm and stress. In: interpretations. Dramas of Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2007, pp. 84-87.
  28. ↑ See: Scheuer, Helmut: Friedrich Maximilian Klinger. Storm and stress. In: interpretations. Dramas of Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2007, p. 92.

literature

Primary literature

Secondary literature

  • Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoch-works-effect. Munich: CHBeck Verlag, 2nd updated edition. 2007, pp. 106-113.
  • Kindler's new literature lexicon. Register Volume 9 Author register, title register. Ed .: Walter Jens. Munich: Kindler Verlag GmbH 1990, p. 507.
  • Klass, Werner: Sturm und Drang. Gerstenberg, Lenz, Klinger, Leisewitz, Wagner, painter Müller. Hanover: Friedrich Verlag Velber 1st edition 1966 pp. 93-97.
  • Saran, Franz (Ed.): FM Klinger's “Storm and Drang” by Werner Kurz. In: Building blocks for the history of modern German literature. 1st edition. Wiesbaden: Dr. Martin Sendet OHG, Wiesbaden. Max Niemayer Verlag Tübingen 1973, pp. 7-90.
  • Scheuer, Helmut: Friedrich Maximilian Klinger. Storm and stress. In: interpretations. Dramas of Sturm und Drang. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag 2007, pp. 57-98.