CO LUM B IA UN I VE RSI T Y G ER M AN I C ST UDI ES
T HE SO LI LO QUY I N GERMAN DR AMA
C O LUM B IA UNI VERSI TY PRESS
SALES AG E NTS
N EW Y
L E M C KE
— 2
0
3 3
B UE C HNE R
W EST
L
OR K :
2 7 TH
ST R EE T
O N DO N
H UM PH R EY
M I LFO R D
AM E N C OR N E R , E C
.
.
T ORO NT O :
H U M PH R E Y M I L F O R D
W
2 5 R I C H M O N D ST R EE T
,
.
T HE S O L I L O
Y
U
Q
I N G E R M A N DR A M A
BY
E RW I N
SU BMITT ED
T HE
IN
W R O ESSLE R
.
PA R TIA L FU L FI LM E N T
DE G REE
OF
OF
DO CT O R
O F T HE
PH I L O SO PHY,
OF
R E QUI REM EN T S
I N T HE
PHI L O SO PHY, C O LUM B IA U N I VER SITY
£
m
12
ot h
g
C O LUM B I A UN I VE RSI T Y PR ESS
1
91 5
FO R
FA CU L TY
Co pyrigh t,
1
91 5
B Y C O LUM B I A UN I V E R SI T Y PR E SS
P rin t ed fro m
t yp e,
Febru ary
,
1
91 5
P RESS O F
THE NEW ERA P R I NTI NG CO MPANY
LA NCASTER, PA.
Appro v ed
G erm
a n ic
f
or
u élz ea tz o n , o n
'
p
L a ng u ag es
an d
’
5 eizalf
L itera ture:
of
e
a
m
l
D
e
r
i
fi
f
p
o
en l of
Calu m éia Un ivers ity
.
C A L V I N T H O MA S
N EW YOR K, Decem b er,
1
91 4
.
TO
M Y PA R E NT S
W H OSE
SE
F
L DE
N I A L M ADE
P
O SSI B LE
M Y EDU CA TI O N
C O NT E NT S
I N T RO DU C TI O N
1
Chapt e r
I E A R LY I N DI GE N O U S D R AM A
M edi v al Chur h Play s
S hr o v tid Play s o f t h F i ft e en th C en tury
R fo r ati o n
3 Dra a o f t h
4 H a n s S a ch s
o n Brau n s c h w e ig
5 H e rz o g H i n ri c h Juliu s
6 Ja k o b Ay re r
2O
.
1
2
c
e
.
e
.
e
e
m
.
.
e
m
e
.
.
.
.
v
e
.
.
.
.
I I T H E P sE U Do -C L A SSI C D RAM A
.
I G ry phiu s
.
2
3
4
.
.
.
e
2
.
3
4
IV
.
.
Fo
ll o w er s
L E SSI N G , G O E T H E , SC H I LLE R
OF
L ss i n g
S t o rm an d S tr es s Dra a
S chill e r
G o eth e
e
.
m
.
.
.
I H ei n ri ch
.
2
.
Kl ei s t
F ra n z G rillparz e r
von
.
2
.
3
.
.
76
.
.
V FO R E RU N N ER S
1
OF
M O DE R N R E AL I STI C D RA M A
ri edri ch H ebb el
Ott o Lud w ig
Ludwig A n z en gru b e r
F
2
.
88
.
.
.
R E C E N T D EVEL O P M E N TS
1
42
.
T H E R O M A N TI C D R A M A
.
VI
.
e
.
.
.
e
I I I T H E E RA
1
.
Lo h n st i n
Chri s tian W e i s
G o tt s ch d an d h is
e
34
H aupt m a n n
S ud e rm a n n
1 00
.
.
CO N CL U SI O N
1 09
B I B L I O GRA P H Y
113
I N DE !
116
ix
I NT R O D U C T I O N
In
th e family o f d ramatic conventions no member has played
S O important a role
and on the other h an d non e h as had so
ignominious an ending a fter a m ost glorious career a s the
sol iloquy I n its present crushed and lowly estate it forcibly
reminds on e o f th e last years o f the great exile at S t Helena
A fter centuries o f the greatest popularity with both playwright
and audience the solilo q uy has at last m et with the fate o f most
p opular i dols and been ruthlessly ousted from its com fortable
throne
Thi s revulsion O f feeling occurred in the final decades o f th e
“
nineteenth c entury when the le ading playwrights o f eve ry
modern language began to display a distaste for th e monolog
1
with I bsen setting th e exampl e o f renunciation
There s eem s
to b e a c onsensus o f opinion regarding I bsen s stimulating
2
influence on th e tech nic o f mo dern drama an influenc e which
mani fested itsel f particularl y in the di sappearance o f the so lil
“
M r Hamilton says : Th e p resent
o q u y from th e drama
p revalenc e O f O bj ection to soliloquy and a side is due largely
3
to the strong i nfluence o f I bsen s rigid dramaturgic structure
M r Henderson commenting upon I bsen s remark that his
”
“
L eagu e o f Yout h
is written w ithout a single m onolog in
“
fact without a singl e aside declares : I n this resp ect I be
li eve I bsen sounded t h e deathk n ell O f th e monolog the so lil
o q uy th e as ide a n d by his practi ce soon rendered ri diculou s
”4
tho s e dramatist s who p ersist ed in emp loying these devices
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
”
.
’
,
.
.
”
’
.
’
.
,
,
”
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
S tudy o f t h e Dra m a by B ra n d er Matth ew s N ew Y o r k 1 9 1 0 p 1 4 2
2 T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e Dra m a
by Bra n d e r Matth ew s N e w Y o r k
pp 3 7 3 2 1 3 2 6 3 4 9 De r M o n o l o g u n d I bs en by R F ra n z Mar
1 9 06
Die d eut s ch e Lit e ratur d e s 1 9 Jahrhu n d e rt s R M
b urg 1 9 07 p 9 5
M ey e r B e rli n 1 9 06 pp 7 09 7 8 7 e t c
3 Th e 0r y o f t h e Th eatr e b
y Cla y t o n H a m ilt o n N ew Y o r k 1 9 1 0 p 8 8
4 T h e E v o luti o n o f Dra m ati c T e c h n i c
b y Ar c hi b ald H e n d e r s o n N o rth
A m eri ca n R ev i ew Mar ch 1 9 09 p 4 3 9 F o r thi s an d a few o th e r c itati o n s
I am i n d eb t ed t o M r Arn o ld s m o n o graph o n T h e S o lil o q ui e s o f S ha k e
N ew Y o r k 1 9 1
s p e ar e
1
A
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
2
,
,
1
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
2
R V Gottschall repeatedl y rails at I bsen for having given the
1
soliloquy its deathblow
“
Pro fessor B rander Matthews admits that I bsen has been
masterl y in his adj ustment o f his methods to the conditions o f
2
the pi cture frame stage
but Shi fts the real responsibilit y for
th e disappearance o f th e soliloqu y a little further back upon
Edison s S houlders as the introduction o f electric lighting
to gether with the picture -frame stage created a setting SO real
ist ic that th e stepp ing out o f th e pictu re to talk intimatel y w ith
th e aud ienc e was felt to be enti rely out o f place The fact
remains however that I bsen was th e first to realize th is inap
i
n
s
h
n
r
r
ec
i
c
and
having
realized
i
t
to
per
fect
a
new
a
t
e
s
t
o
e
p
p
that discarded soliloquies and asi des Accordingly h e i s en
titled to th e greatest credit
B e fore discussing the various t y pes o f soliloquy and quoting
the O pinions held by critics and poets regarding the valu e and
j ustifi cation o f the same a definition o f the soli loquy might not
b e amiss
St Augustine coined the L atin s o lilo qu iu m from s o lus and
“
from which th e English form i s
lo q u i a
t alking alo ne
3
derived
Th e S tandard Dictionar y d efine s sol iloqu y as a talk
ing to one s sel f regardless o f th e p resence or absence o f oth ers
a discourse uttered for one s own benefit The French form
s o lilo q u e is d efined as the discours e o f a person who talks to
4
h imsel f
For some m y steriou s reason th e German language
has r e fused th e rights o f naturalization to the L atin applicant
5
and th ere seems to b e but on e instance o f its u s e and that in
th e L atin form I n the above definitions i t is notewo rth y that
th ere i s not th e slightest suggestion o f th e stage o r the drama
Tu rning to the word m o n o log from the Greek prim e and Aéyo s
“
?
a talking alone what do we find
Ox ford dictionary : a
scene in which a person o f th e drama sp eaks by h imsel f ; con
S tandard : a d ramati c so lil
t rast ed with chorus and dialogue
.
.
.
”
,
’
,
r
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
”
,
,
.
’
,
’
.
.
,
!
.
.
,
,
”
,
”
.
pp
1 1
.
2
3
4
5
Kriti k
Zu r
1
1 1
,
9,
3
21
d es
m
o
.
.
,
e
m
,
e
m
by R
,
.
V
.
Go tt sch all B erli n
,
.
Matth w s A S tu dy
W W Sk at Ety
N o uv au Lar o u s s e
B o d e r in a l tt er
e
d er n en Dra m a s
,
e
Dra a p 6 4
o l o gi c al Di c ti o n ary
of
the
m
.
,
.
.
v ol
7
.
to
.
C H Mill er Mar ch
.
.
,
5,
1
7 82
.
,
1
9 00,
3
Both add a modern u se V iz a d ramati c composition fo r
a S ingle p er former a kind o f dramatic entertainment per
formed throughout b y one p erson as e g a monolog in vau
de ville Th e Enc yclop edi a B ritannica M eyer s and B r o ckhau s
K o nv ersat io n s L exika and L a grand e E n cyclo p é die all agree
that a monolog i s a passage in a d ramatic p iece in whi ch a
p ersonage holds th e scene to himsel f and speaks to himsel f
I t would seem then that monolog and solilo q uy although et y
m o lo gically equivalent
are not s y nonym ou s inasmu ch as th e
former re fers to a porti on o f a d rama whereas the latter does
not neces saril y suggest the footlights The d ifficulty can b e
p eace fully settled however and both o f th e contestants put
“
upon an equal footing by p refi x in g dr amati c to soliloquy
1
W hy English and American criti cs with few exceptions have
p re ferr ed th e term soliloquy in sp ite O f the fact that all Ger
2
and French criti cs and dramatists have used M o rz o log
m an
and m o n o lo gu e respecti vely is a question that I am unabl e t o
answ er
“
I S h o ul d acco rdingly re ph rase D r Arnol d s d efinition
It
i s evid ent that al l solil o quies are monologs but that monolog s
3
a re not necessa rily soliloqui es
as foll o ws : No t all soliloqui es
a re monologs but monologs are necessaril y dramatic sol ilo q uies
A dramatic s oliloquy then is a p assage in a drama in w hich a
character i s alone upon the stage and speaks to himsel f believ
ing him sel f to be alone Even when th e ch aracter is not alone
on the stage h is speech may be a solil o quy i f it shows that the
character is entir ely oblivi ou s to hi s surroundings
How does th e aside di ffer from the sol iloquy ? M r Paull
6
5
M r H enderson and Dr H en n eq u in maintain that i t is noth
ing more than a short m onolog I nasmuch as the asi de is a
o q uy
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
’
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
”
.
‘
,
,
,
,
.
’
—
.
,
.
,
”
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
Dry d n E s s ay o n Dram ati c P o esy 1 6 6 8 Hé d lin T h e W h o l e Art o f
S tag e Mad e E n gli sh 6 84 A Hen n q u in T h e Art o f Play w riti n g
1
e
th e
1
,
,
1
,
.
e
.
e
.
,
,
,
89 0
.
a s i o n all y u s ed b u t it m ay r efe r t o a
f t h e s tag e as w ell as t o a m o n o l o g
s o l il o q u y o f
3 T h e S o lil o q ui e s o f S ha k s p ar
p
4 Dra m ati c C o n v e n ti o n w ith S p c ial R e fe r n c e t o t h e S o lil o q u y
F o rt
Ma y 1 8 9 9 p 8 6 3 ff
n ightl y R ev i e w
5 Th e E v o luti o n o f Dra
ati c T e ch n ic N o rth A m eri ca n R ev i ew March
p 4 3 2 ff
1 9 09
6 Art o f Pla y w riti n g
p 1 5 2 if
2
Th e w o
rd
S elb s tg e sp rac h is
o cc
,
.
e
e
e,
.
2
e
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
e
,
.
m
,
.
.
,
,
4
remark uttered b y an actor on the stage so as not to b e heard by
other characters on the s tage it violates two o f the p rinciples
o f the monolog The speaker o f th e a s ide i s not alone on th e
stage nor does h e believe himsel f alone ; h e is not speaking to
himsel f but nearl y alwa y s to th e audience Th e distinctive
characteristi c o f the aside i s that i t occurs in the midst o f d ia
l og although it i s als o regularly used in connection with the
o verheard soliloqu y
The overh eard soliloqu y frequen tl y emplo y ed in Roman
c omed y crop s o ut in large numbers i n G ryp h iu s s comedies and
c ontinues to be in vogu e till L essing s time a good example
“
”
Der j unge Geleh rte
Kleist makes us e o f thi s
o ccurs in
d evice on one o cc asion but as a rule it has been tab ooed by
“
I t is indeed an arrant absu rdit y a contra
s erious drama
1
d iction in terms
I nasmuch as th e convention o f th e dra
m ati c soliloqu y is that the audience is permitted to overhear the
thoughts o f a character wh en he i s alone on th e stage th at th e
t houghts are m ade audibl e onl y fo r the audience the absurdity
o f one actor actually overhearing another s th o ughts b ecomes
e vident
The definition o f monolog and soliloquy th e former re fer
ring to the stage the latter to real li fe naturall y suggests th e
qu estion : To what extent is it natural to soliloquize O ff th e
No person in the full posse s sio n o f hi s sens es will
s tage ?
H e ma y
u tter mor e than S hort exclamations when he i s alone
cry S ing whistle even laugh mumble a few words but never
2
Dr
e xpress what h e feels leas t o f all what h e intends t o do
Arnold sa y s that it i s undeniable that people do talk to th em
“
s elves but that it is pr eposterous that y ou n g h ealth y persons
3
audibl y set forth their secret ideas at great len gth
I hardly
believe that onl y th e aged and infirm indulge in this p eculiari ty
S ay what one will the fact remains th at a pers on who so lilo
quizes is considered peculiar i f not slightl y demented As Jean
“
Paul puts it : A p erson wh o in h is w aking moments talks to
h imsel f fills us w ith a shudder ; and i f I hear m y sel f talking
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
’
,
’
—
.
,
.
,
,
,
”
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
!
,
,
,
,
,
”
‘
.
,
.
,
,
”
.
.
,
t
.
,
r Matt h w Put n a
M o thl y N o
2 R
F ra n z D r M
olog
d I b n M ar b urg
8 Th e S o lil o q ui s o f S ha k s p ar
p 0
1
Bra
.
nde
e
,
on
e
e
m
s,
’
se
un
e
n
s
e
e,
,
,
.
2
.
v
.
,
,
1
9 06 ,
1
9 07 ,
p
p
.
.
1
83
42
.
.
5
”1
when alone I have th e same feeling
Gott fri ed Kelle r i n h is
autobi ogra ph ical novel con fesses : I felt ashamed o f m y sel f ;
I could not hear m y s el f talk alone and I was no longer abl e to
”2
3
p ra y aloud even i n the deep est s olitude and secrecy
H e y se
4
re fers to soliloquizing as a w eakness ; Do sto j ew sk y re fers to a
“
sol iloquizer as a h yp och ondriac Paull tersely says : A man
5
does not speak t o himsel f unless indeed h e i s b eside himsel f
B ut altera pars au diatu r ! Fo r th e soliloquy has champions
as well as sarcastic d e famers
D iderot in hi s essa y on dra
“
matic poetr y w rites : You know th at I have long been in th e
habi t o f soliloqu iz ing When I return home sad and c hagrin ed
I reti re to m y stu d y and there I question m y s el f and ask : what
“
”
6
?
M arm o nt el in h is Po é tiqu e d e fend s th e solilo quy
ails you
in ardent fashion : I t i s entirely natural to speak to one s s el f
There i s not a p erson who does not find himsel f talking t o
h ims el f at times about m atters that a ffect or s eriousl y interest
”7
him
Ni colai maintains that i t i s not contrary t o natu re fo r
8
a p erson who is arou s ed o r ex cited to t alk to himsel f
Hen
d erso n grants that p eopl e sometimes an d not i n fre q ue n tl y
9
do give audible exp ression to th eir thou ght s an d feel i n gs
Ac cording t o H G art elm an n it is a well known phen omenon
that p e o ple not in frequentl y begi n to think alou d t o soliloquiz e
“
1 0
when greatl y m o ved
Th e almost p roverbial d ictum Th ere
i s but on e step from th e s ubl ime to th e rid i culous i s sai d t o
b e a part o f a soliloquy delivered b y Napoleon on h i s retur n
from Russia D r H S chlag denies that solilo q uies are u n
natural and insists that man y p ersons when alone allow thei r
1 1
thoughts to becom e audible
.
.
.
”
.
,
—
.
,
,
.
’
.
.
.
—
”
.
.
,
,
”
.
,
”
,
.
.
.
.
Tita n 9 4 Zy k e l H p l s d V o l 5 - 8 p 4 3 4 F o r thi s an d a
few o th e r q u o tati o n s I am i n d b t ed t o R F ra n z u t s pra
2 D er
H i n ri ch I 44 d 9 04
g riin
3 M e rli n
I 5 9 d 89
4 Ein s a n ft s W e i b
Magazi n fiir Lit t eratu r 8 9 7 p 1 5 06
5
p 8 68
c it
6 O eu v r e s c o m pl et e s
89 5
B ell es L ettr es I V
by A s s zat Pari s
ed
Chap ! V I I
7 O eu v r s s e c o n d ed
Pari s 1 7 6 7 V o l I p 3 5 9 If
8 A b ha n dlu n g
om
Trau r s pi el e in B ib li o th ek d er s ch On en W i ss en
s c h aft en
1 757
I p 4 8 ff
et c
9 O
p c it p 4 3 3
1 0 Dra m ati k
B rli n 89 p 6 9
1 1 Das Dra m a
E s sen 9 09 p 3 06 ff
1
.
,
em
,
’
e
e
.
.
,
e
,
e
e
,
,
e
e
,
.
1
.
,
.
.
u
,
1
,
e
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
v
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
1
.
.
e
.
.
,
,
.
1
2.
1
.
e
,
,
,
1
e
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
e
,
,
,
1
,
2,
1
.
,
1
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
6
S o much fo r the views favorable an d otherwis e on th e
soliloqu y o ff the stage Wh at on th e other h and are th e vi ew s
o f th e critics with rega rd to th e dramati c solil o qu y the mono
?
L ong soliloquies have bee n th e subj ect o f attacks for
log
s everal centuries and in man y climes
About the middle o f
the 1 6 th c entur y an I t ali an critic dram ati s t and impre sario
De Sommi o f Mantua obj ects to monologs basing his o bj ec
ti on on th e fact that long s oliloquies on th e street are entirely
1
Unnatu ral
A repo rter in Pesaro in 1 5 7 4 bewails hi s sad lot
a s the monoton y o f th e solil o quies in a comed y he had to e riti
2
c ize p roved almost unendurable
Hé delin Abb é d A ub ign ac
1
6
n
c
obj
ects
strenuousl
y
to
expositio
al
soliloquies
e
( 57 )
and also t o emotional
m au v ais ar tifice
c e s ec o u rs é tran g e r
s oliloquies who s e position in th e drama m akes them absu rd : as
e g when a lover h earing o f a da n ger that threate n s hi s mis
tress soliloquizes at great length i n stead o f hurr y ing to h er
3
aid
The Earl o f Mulgrave i n his Essa y on Poetr y ( 1 7 1 7 )
believed that :
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
Fi r s t t h en S o lil o q u i es h a d n ee d b e few
E x tr em el y S h o rt an d sp o k e in p a ssi o n t o o
.
,
,
,
”4
.
Gottsched a few years later
a fter condemning all
“
soliloquies on th e ground that kluge L eute p fl egen ni cht
“
lau t z u red en wenn S ie allein S ind relents and adds : es
w a re denn in besonder en A ffekten u nd das zwar mit wenig
5
Worten
R amler who i s littl e more than the edito r an d
“
transl ator o f B att eu x ins ists that ever y soliloquy must be
short because it is almost unnatural I f it is long th e person
6
must be violentl y agitated
von
Sonnen
fels
theatrical
censor
at
V
ienna
and
author
o
f
J
“
B rie fe iib er die Wi eneris ch e Sch au biihn e obj ects to all
m o nologs on t h e ground o f their improbabilit y especiall y to
,
”
'
,
,
,
”
,
.
,
,
.
,
”
.
.
,
”
,
,
G es chi cht e d e s n eu e r e n Dra m a s W Creiz en ach Vo l II p 2 8 7
2 1 bid
n o te 2
p 2 87
3 Prati q u e d u Th ea
tr e Pari s 6 5 7 E n gli sh ed in 1 68 4 : T h e Wh o l e Art
o f t h e S tag
4 A n E s s a y o n P o e try
L o n d o n 1 7 7 p 3 08
5 V r s u c h e i n e r c rit is c h e n Di c ht k u n s t
p 5 98
6 Ei n l e itu n g in d ie s ch on e n W i s s e n sc ha ft e n
S K W R am l e r Vo l I I
p 2 46 ff
1
.
,
.
,
,
,
1
,
1
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
e
.
.
.
,
e
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
8
”1
with probabi lity
Diderot favors the emotional soliloqu y
but obj ects to its being length y Dr Arnold s quotation : Man
2
speak s to h imsel f onl y in mome n ts o f p erplexit y
i s in co m
“
I f long it s in s against th e nature o f
p let e a s Didero t ad ds :
3
dramatic action which it holds in suspense too mu ch
Ni colai
pre fers the emotional m onolog to a colorles s conversation with
f
a c o n fi dan t
Mendelssohn is especiall y enthusiasti c about that
t y p e o f soliloqu y in which violent inner conflict precedes a
final deci sion but demands natural artless expression i n all
5
emotional soliloquies
Tho ugh Fre y tag in his authoritative
dramaturgi c work is rath er un friendl y to th e soliloqu y h e i s
willing to tolerate the introsp ective soliloqu y prov ided that i t
ha s dramatic structur e and direct bearing upon th e action H e
“
insists that it must c ontain Satz Gegensatz Ergebnis und
zwar S chlussergebnis das fiir die Handlung selbst B edeutung
6
Engel
made
the
same
demand
as
earl
y
as
gewinnt
J J
1 7 74 :
Th e monol og must be really d ramatic m o n o l o gs which
bring about an important change in th e frame o f mind o f th e
7
character and b y that mean s in the plot are commen dabl e
8
L essing foll o wing in Diderot s fo o tsteps i s a warm admi rer
o f the emotional sol iloqu y A W v o n S chlegel demands that
ever y emo tional soliloqu y be cast in th e dialog form that it
9
be s ick m it s ich s elbs t bes prechen as though the ch arac t er
were divided into two persons Hebbel insists upon th e same
characteristic : Monologs are onl y pr o per when there i s dual
ism in the individual so that the two persons wh o at o t her
!
times o ught to be on t h e stage s eem to b e active in hi s br east
Acco rding to H egel all introsp ective soliloquies are j ustified
1 T h e W h o l e Art o f t h e S tag
p 57
2 P
8
3 O uv r s c o
pl et s Pari s 8 7 5 ; B ll s L ttr es I V Chap ! V I I
4 F
ch O e
Ni c o lai A bha dlu g o Trau r pi l Bi b li o th k d
W i ss s ha ft u d d r fr y Kii s t V o l I p 4 8
5 G sa
If
84 3 Vo l I p 3
e lt e S chri ft
6 T ch i k d s Dra
a s p 9 1f
7 S c hri ft
8
Fo thi s a d a f w o th r c itati o s I
V l 4 p
80
Diis l
o graph o f F
i d b t d t o t h s ch larl y
am
8 Ha
S t iic k
b urgi s ch e Dra aturgi
48
9 Sa
W rk L ipzig 8 4 6 V I I 5 0
t li h
1 0 Ta
I I 9 7 d by W r r B rli 1 9 04
g b ii c h
1 1 A s t h et ik
Vo l I I I
Q u o t d by R v G o tt s hall i Zu r Kriti k d s
Dra a s B erli 1 9 00 Chap o D r M o o l o g i Dra a p 1
od r e
.
,
’
.
.
”
,
,
,
”
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
”
.
.
.
—
”
,
.
,
’
,
,
'
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
”1
.
1 1
,
e,
1
.
.
m
e
e
e
m m
e
n
e
2,
1
m
e
e n
.
,
c
e
22
m
on
e r,
,
.
,
n
m
,
2
e
1
,
e e,
.
er
e
n
s
n
.
.
2 1
.
n
r
e
e
.
n
e
.
.
e
e
,
.
.
.
,
,
e ne
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
1
.
.
n,
e s
.
,
e
e
.
e,
e,
e
2
.
m
e
m
1
e
e,
.
,
.
o
e
e
1
,
o
n
en
e
m
e
m
v
en ,
m
m
n
e
e
1
,
,
n
n
en
c
en ,
n
e
,
.
en
.
.
n
.
e
n,
.
c
n
n
m
e
m
,
.
1 2
.
9
whether they ar e calml y reflective or rent b y inner c onflict
1
V i scher on th e other hand demands A fl ek t i e emotion
2
3
Among other admirers I might mention Mundt G artelm ann
4
7
6
5
7
S chlag Gottsch all L u dwig Delius Kilian
Contemporar y op inion as mirrored in th e modern natural
istic dramas appears distinctl y hostile to th e dram at ic So lilo
quy this hostility mani festing itsel f in ostracizing th e once
w elcome assistant Gottschall an ardent adm irer o f the so lil
“
o qu y
sums up the p resent condition as follow s : From th e
B erlin S inai ten new command ments are a n nounced to th e
kneeling populace And t o these ten belongs th e following :
”8
Thou shalt no longer w ri te monolog s !
But thi s new state o f
affairs i s not w ithout p recedents As Dr Arnold po ints out
Corneille more than two centuries ago discarded th e soliloquy
in the greater p art o f h is later works an d comments upon th e
fact in the intro duction to hi s works thu s showing that it was
9
p rem editated an d not ac c idental
Moli ere s masterpi eces also
”
contain practically n o soliloquies his I mp romptu the Cri
“
tiqu e and the Comtess e d E scarbagn n es having none at
all German literatu re fu rnishes us a p recedent in the d rama s
o f the pup ils and followers o f Gottsch ed esp ecially thos e
o f Johann Elias Schlegel and Frau Gotts ch ed Gottsched s
“
1 0
Deutsch e Sch au biih n e
consist s for th e greater part o f pla y s
1 1
i n which soliloquies and a si des are entirely avoid ed
Wh y di d
thei r departur e from t raditional dramatic techni c fail to in fl u
ence succ eeding dramatists ? Why coul d the y not exert th e
same influence that I bsen through h is techni c h as exerted upon
the playwrights o f p ractically every modern language ? Pri
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
”
”
’
.
,
’
.
”
'
.
S tuttgart 1 8 5 7 Vo l I V p 1 3 9 2
2 Th e o d o r Mu n dt Dra m aturgi e B e rli n
1 84 8
p 1 3 8 ff
3 Dra m ati k
B e rli n 1 8 9 p 1 6 9 ff
4 D as Dra m a
p 3 06 E
5 Zu r Kriti k d e s m o d e r n en Dra m a s
B e rli n 1 9 00 pp 1 09— 1 2 7
6 Ott o Lud w ig
S ha k esp e ar e-S tudi en e d b y M H ey dri ch 1 8 7 4
las s s c h rift en V o l I I p 1 05
7 Ar n o ld p
1 9
p 1 09
c it
9 Ar n o ld
p 15
1 0 L e ipzig
1 7 4 0- 1 7 4 5
1 1 R ud o l f F ra n z De r M o n o l o g u n d I b s e n
p 32
1
A e s t h et ik ,
,
,
2
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
N a ch
10
maril y and chi efl y b ecause contempor ar y and succeeding
d ramatists ( and incident all y audiences ) did not question th e
convention o f the soliloquy Then too the small intrin s i c
worth o f the pla y s militated against their being u sed as models
b y other dramatists For some y ears past however th e dra
mati c soliloqu y has been su bj ected to criticism which received
add ed stimulus from the new technic o f I bsen s power ful pla y s
B ut when a convention is attacked and becomes th e topic o f
dispute its da y s are numbered As Paull so aptl y expresses
“
it : A convention that i s questioned is doomed ; its existence
1
depends upon its unhes itating acceptance
The d rama has its conventions as well as every other art
A convention is an implied pact between the artist and his
patrons to accept certain variations from real li fe as absolutely
?
essential means o f expression
To enj o y an opera we mu st
accept the convention that all the characters expre s s themselves
through the medium o f song ; in s culpture we do not look for
colo r ( although Klinger has favo red the world o f art with a
few colored statues ) in paintings motion is out o f the ques
tion Dramatic con vention then i s an agreement be t ween the
author and the public between those be fore the curtain and
those behind it to accept variations from real li fe 011 the stage
as a part o f the game Among the conventions o f the drama
some are essential and these may be termed permanent because
o f thei r enduring qualities Others however have changed
fro m age to age ; a fter being used for a time the y have been
discarded and these might be called temporar y conventions
Among the perm anent conventions are the removal o f th e
fourth wall o f the room so that w e can see what is taking
place the raising o f the actors voices so that we can hear th em
the elucid ation o f the plot so that we can follow it making th e
action much mo re compact than it would be in li fe the co n den
sat ion o f the dial o g a s w e have only a short time in th e theater
S ome o f the temporary conventions are the u se o f prose ver s e
rime assona n ce and the soliloqu y Th e l atter has been so tena
ci o n s a convention that one might well say that i t has been
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
”
.
.
!
.
,
,
,
'
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
rt n ightl y R v i w Ma y 8 9 9 p 8 7 0
2 Bra d r Matth ew s T h e D v l o p
Dra a p
en t o f t h
1
Fo
e
n
e
e
,
,
,
1
e
.
,
e
m
.
e
m
,
.
2
ff
.
,
1 1
d emoted
to th e temporary divi sion a fter being at home in th e
o ther divi sion fo r centuries
The dramatic sol iloqu y then i s a convention and is not based
on re al li fe As generally stated t h is variation from li fe thi s
c onvention p ermits an actor wh o believes hims el f to be alone
on the stage to make his thoughts au dibl e so that th e audience
hears th em an d becomes acquainted with what would otherwi se
b e unknown to them I n other words an actor solilo q u izing
1
m ust b e supposed to be thinking aloud
Does this statement
regarding th e underl y ing p rincipl e o f th e mon olog cove r the
ground and include all types ? I t would s eem that only the in
t ro sp ect iv e soliloquies those that reveal th ought and feel ing
Th e expo sitional soliloqu y w hich co nveys
a re taken care o f
i n formation regarding the plot or the charac t ers to th e audi
I shoul d formulate
e nce i s not provided for in that definition
the p rincipl e underlying th e expositional soliloquy as follo ws
The sp eaker los es his personality for the time being becomes
the mouthp iece o f the author and while talking to himsel f
r
o
i
n
f
in
realit
y
to
the
audi
ence
conve
y
s
the
audience
su
ch
o
t
(
)
mation as the author desires ; whereas the introsp ective mono
log i s highly subj ective and vibrant with th e speaker s person
a lit y the expositional typ e is colorl ess o bj ectiv e and imp ersonal
Given the p roblem o f reducing the dramatic soliloquy to its
low est terms the investigator would doubtless find the result
to b e broadly s peaki ng the solilo quy conveying in fo rmation
an d th e soliloquy revealin g thought an d emotion Classified
a ccording to thei r underl y ing convention th e former might b e
termed verbal solil o qu y the latte r a thought soliloquy L astly
thei r relation to the audience di ffers inasmuch as the soliloquy
conveying in fo rmation always implies a consciousness o f the
audience especially so in it s crude u se in early German d rama
while th e though t soliloquy never implies a knowledge o f the
s pectators
Th e soliloquy that imparts in fo rmati o n has played a most
important rOle in th e construction o f the d rama especially at
the b eginning where it per fo rm s the important O fiice o f putting
1 B ra n d e r Matth ew s C o c e r n i g t h e S o lil o q u y Put n a m s M o n thl y
No v
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
”
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
!
,
,
1
9 06
.
n
n
’
,
,
.
,
12
the audien c e i n touch w it h th e author o f b ridging over the
chasm between author and sp ectator The spectators in o rder
to under stand th e action must b e made aware o f certa in facts
concer n ing the characters and th e p lot ; the y must becom e
acquainted with certain events that have occurred be fore th e
play begins Th e task o f convey ing such in formation known
as expositio n ma y be undertaken b y monolog o r dialog The
former i s a labor saving devi ce fulfilling its task w ith ease an d
despatch but critics from Hé delin down to the present time
have pron o unced it crud e unnatu ral a l ame makeshi ft an in
sult to the intelligence o f the audience The latter on the
other h and though slower and more difli cu lt is the more artis
tic method The expo sitional soliloq uy was a favorite device
with German dramati sts be fore Hauptmann Holz S udermann
an d other members o f the modern natu ral istic school not only
at the beginning o f the play but throu ghout its course I n a
pla y th e author is o ften c o n fronted w ith th e necessit y o f im
parti n g some sp ecifi c piece o f in formation to the au die n ce in
order to p revent con fusion and without compunctio n h e resorts
to the least taxi n g and simplest metho d V iz the exp o sitional
soliloqu y I t may des cribe some event : a battle a murder or
what n o t that has occurred o ff the stage du ri n g the p rogress o f
th e play or i s occurri n g back o f the scenes ; it ma y be narra t ive
iden t i f y ing sel f characterizing o r it ma y b e emplo y ed to reveal
th e pl ans an d intentions o f th e speaker N o matter when ex
pl anation is necessar y the expositional s oliloqu y is rea d y an d
willing to j ump into the bre ach The di ffere n t t y pes o f expo
intro ductory
s it io n al soliloquy may b e classified as follow s : 1
expositi o n 2 identification 3 s el f characterization 4 narra
tio n 5 description 6 intention
Naturally th e pu rest and least adulterated forms o f th e ex
positio n al sol iloqu y are fou n d amo n g t h e earl y dramatists the
authors o f chu rch plays Ha n s S achs and his contemporaries
handicapped as they were b y a ver y crud e tech n ic and but a
s tep removed from th e epi c st y le To b e sure we fi n d ex
amples o f th e baldl y expositional soliloqu y throughout Germ an
d ramati c literature ( except in the natu ralistic drama o f today
a s previously stated ) but generall y some attempt i s made to
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
—
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
13
render it more plausible by giving i t an emotional admixture o r
an ind ividual t o uch
Th e introductory expositional soliloquy supplies the au dience
with such in formation regarding th e plot and the characters as
is neces sary fo r foll o wing the sto ry intelligently
B e fo re Gry
h
u
i
s
the
maj
ority
o
f
plays
began
with
this
S
hort
cut
beginning
;
p
with him how ever th e d ialog opening was th e p re ferre d
method o f attack We find introductory expositional so lilo
“
r
u
a
d
u
s
u
in
o
f
r
hi
u
plays
Carolus
and
w
i
o
t
e
s
t
G
s
s
S
q
yp
”
P ap in ian u s
in L essing s Philotas an d Emilia Gal otti
”
i n S chiller s pro log to Di e Jung frau von O rleans in Goethe s
“
“
I phigeni e an d in his Faust although there is a large
ad mixture o f other eleme nts in b ot h the latter i n Grillparzer s
“
“
”
” “
Ahn frau
Des M eeres und der L iebe Wellen and De r
“
”
“
”
Traum ein L e ben in Hebbel s M ichelangel o and Agnes
”
B ernaue r
M ore than forty o f S ach s Sh rovetid e plays an d
many o f hi s comedi es an d t ragedies furn ish u nc o ntaminated
example s o f this typ e
Th e s oliloq uy employed to i denti fy the speaker generally
occurs at the beginning o f the pla y but it i s not confined to that
“
p osition Th e church plays fu rnish numerou s examples : I
am Abel wh o w as mu rdered by h is b rother
I am I saiah
1
one o f the p roph ets
The S hrovetide plays o f th e fi fteenth
century Hans S achs and many others u se this same na ive
“
type : I am called M r T an nh eu ser my name i s know n fa r
”
and wi de
I am called Eulenspiegel and am known th rough
2
o ut Germany
I n I phigeni e s o pening speech Goethe makes
u s e o f thi s typ e yet w ith what a w orl d o f consummate skill !
The sel f -characterizing typ e is an outgr o wt h o f th e previous
typ e and i s o ften ad ded to it A fter the speaker has tol d his
name h e goes on to give a frank rec ital o f his charac teristics
So e g Eulenspiegel a fter intro ducing h imsel f p roceeds to
d iscus s h is innate knavery and to illu strate it We find this
t y p e in classical and nineteenth centu ry drama but there it h as
been raised to a higher plane Th e villain makes u se o f it to
disclose his real vi ciou s sel f e g Franz M oor in Di e R a u
.
.
,
,
.
”
’
,
”
”
’
,
,
’
’
,
”
”
,
’
,
,
,
’
'
,
’
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
”
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
”
’
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
'
,
1
R e d e n t in er
2
H a n s S a ch s
O s t rs pi l
e
,
e
,
e d.
by
F as t n ac h t sp iele
.
.
.
T
.
F
,
r o n i n g pp
,
.
1
33,
1
34
.
14
her,
”
”
”
M arwood in Miss Sara Samp son Adelheid in GOtz
Zawish in
KO n ig Ottokars G liick u n d Ende
O ccasionally
h owever a frank bit o f sel f -characteri zation is met with ; S ieg
1
fried i n dulging in it in Hebbel s Genoveva
A more highly
devel o ped tech n ic allows the audience to draw its own conclu
sions as to the actor s character which displays it s el f both in
dialog and in soliloq uies o f an introsp ective nature
Descriptive and narrative soliloquies o ccur in such numbers
in th e earl y period th at the y make the pla y s fairl y topheavy
Nor are the y in frequent in the later pla y s A go o d example
o f the soliloqu y w hich de s cribes events that are goi n g o n simul
2
Emili a G alo tti
when
t an eo u sly o ff the stage occurs in
Marinelli stand s at the window and keeps the audience posted
as to what is going o n outsi de There is one instance even in
Hauptmann Rektor B esen m eyer repeating part o f th e serv ice
3
in the adj oining church
O rdinar y descrip t ive and narra t ive
soliloqui es that contain onl y a bald recital o f facts are not ire
quent but almo s t every dramatist contributes one o r more ex
amples I n M in n a von B arn h elm
Werner delivers a so lilo
t
qu y which is filled wi t h frankl y narrative m at erial in K a th
5
6
chen von Heilbronn th e C o unt and th e Emp eror d eliver
narrative speeche s
Eugenie s speech in
Die n atiirlich e
7
Tochter will illustrate the desc riptive t yp e
Th e soliloqu y that explai n s the plans and i n te n tions o f th e
speaker may be either complete in itsel f or it ma y be merel y
an append age o f another soliloqu y u sually o f the n arrative
type Werner s p reviousl y quoted speech e n ds in thi s m an ner
8
as d o s everal soliloquies in G o tz
Franz Moor s d ia boli cal
solil o quy at the beginning o f Act 2 is a splendi d example o f
how this ty pe can be in fused with dramatic li fe b y showing u s
the me n tal pro cesses whi ch led up to the formulation o f th e
,
,
”
s
,
.
,
”
’
.
’
,
.
.
.
”
,
.
,
.
,
”
.
i
,
”
’
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
”
’
,
1
2
A ct
I
Sc
,
1
.
A ct , 3 , Sc
F o
n
e
en d
,
2
.
c
5
6
7
8
e
,
.
A c t I V, Sc
A ct
A ct
A ct
V
V
1
,
,
Sc
,
Sc
SC
.
Al s o L
.
l ria G y r
4 A t III
Sc 6
3
,
,
2
.
.
2
.
6
2
.
A ct 3 ,
en
tir e
i g : Natha n
es s n
p
47
.
.
.
.
.
; A ct
I
,
en d
.
.
,
A ct
II
,
Sc
.
1
,
gi n n i n g
be
.
16
sons from past experiences thus introducing a consciou s didac
ti c strain The early plays from the serious dramas o f Sachs
through the dramas o f the re fo rmation have a large admixture
o f thi s m o ralizing element V i rtu e an d V ice right and wrong
are the pegs upon whi ch these little sermons are hung I n th e
philosophical soliloquy a wider field i s d rawn upon abstract
ideas rather than the concrete are at the basis o f the musing
“
1
F au st S immortal reveries P rim islau s in L ibussa
Wallen
3
stein on custom ! Sappho s beauti ful outbu rsts Attinghausen
4
on th e passing o f the good o ld da y s
th ese are some o f
the splendid examples that can b e found i n German literature
Th e deliberative soliloqu y considers and examines the reasons
for and against a p roposition it estimates th e weight and force
o f arguments it views the p robabl e c o nsequ ences o f an action
5
in order to reach a decision Nathan s soliloqu y j ust prior
6
t o hi s intervie w with S aladin and Posa s speech i n a simil a r
situation S how this calm e xami n ation o f th e pros an d co ns
V ery o ften however there is a c onsi derable admixture o f emo
tion in this t y p e and in that cas e the speaker reveal s an inner
conflict Wh ere thou ght i s subo rdinated to and ou tweighed
by feeling the soliloquy w ill b e re ferred to as a confli ct so lilo
qu y O do ardo s so liloquy Act 5 S c
not only illustrates th e
subordinati o n o f thought to passion but calls attention to it :
“
Aber sieh da ! S chon wieder ; schon w ieder rennet der Zo rn
mit dem V erstande davon
and then begins to exami n e th e
“
possibilities calmly O ther examples are M oor s to be or not
9
1 0
8
to b e
Fie s co s soliloqui es in th e seco n d and thi rd acts
1 1
th e soliloquy o f the
Ph ilo t as s outburst in the f o urth scene
Temp elherr Act 5 S c
1 A ct I I I
Sc
2 W all
Sc 4
s T o d Act I
st i
3 A ct I I I
A t I V Sc
Sc
4 W ilh el
T ell A c t I I S c 1
5 A ct I I I
W ise
S c 6 i Natha d
6 Do
Carl o s A c t I I I Sc 9
7 E
ilia G alo tt i
8 Di
R aub r A c t IV Sc 5
9 A t II
Sc
9
1 0 A ct I I I
Sc
1 1 W ilh l
T ll A c t I I S c
1 2 Nat h a
W is
d
,
.
.
,
,
.
'
,
.
”
’
,
,
’
,
—
,
.
,
,
’
.
’
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
.
,
I
”
—
’
.
”
’
,
,
’
,
1
.
,
e n
en
.
,
,
’
1
m
c
.
.
n
,
.
er
,
.
.
.
e
c
e
.
,
,
,
1
.
e m
e
n
er
.
.
2
.
,
,
e
e
.
.
.
1
.
.
n
n
,
m
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
1
.
e
.
17
“
AS
”
the term emotional solil oquy is no t subj ect to misin
t erp retatio n and a s even one example for each o f the numer
ous emotions would take up altogether too much space further
di scussion i s no t necessar y
I t is a generally accepted theory that the stage arch it ectu r
all y speaking has exerted an unmistakable influence upon the
1
d rama
I n other w o rds the form o f the stage o f a certain
p eriod has to a large extent determined the form o f th e play
The soliloquy is an exampl e o f this influenc e as the clo se p rox
im ity o f the spectators to th e actors on the stage o f the early
epochs p roduced an at m osphere o f intimac y which mad e th e
exposit ion al soliloquy seem p er fectly in place The stage o f
today set apart from th e aud ience and suppli ed w ith remark
able scenic and lighting e ffects produc es su ch an air o f n at
u raln es s o f vrai semblance that the expositional speech seems
altogether out o f place Th e lack o f stage settings in the carli
est period and p oo r illumination later on mad e explanation o f
bus iness on the stage necessary Many actions on th e stage
would ha ie b een unintellig ible to the sp ectators had not the
a cto r explained what he was doing To illustrate : i n Sachs s
S hroveti de play The Peasant in Purgatory the farmer a fter
being drugged is to be thrown into a dark cell Another actor
carries him on the stage lays him d o wn and announces that th e
farmer i s no w in th e cell I mmediately a fter that the peasant
“
according to stage di rections clears h is thr o at gets up and
”
gropes about in all direct ion s
Without an explanati o n the
spectators w o ul d have di ffi culty in interpreting h is actions and
V isualizing the s cene there fo re an explanatory sol iloquy is deliv
?
e red by the pea sant : Hang it whe re am I
What a dark hol e
thi s is ! I see and hear nothing h ere I take hold o f noth
”
ing but fou r stone walls etc I n th e last analysis o f course
all s oliloquies o f thi s type are expositi onal as they convey
in formation to the au dience
The structural soliloquy on the o ther hand is primarily a
mechanical device whose function it i s to p revent fri cti on i n
the wheelwork o f th e drama a lubricant as it were O ne V ari
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
!
.
r
’
.
”
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
1
F
3
r y tag T ech n i k
e
,
d es
Dra a s
m
,
1 0t h
ed
.
,
p
.
1
60
.
,
18
ety o f the structu ral solilo quy is re ferred to by Diisel as the
P au senffi llm o n o lo g which is employed to fill a gap be t ween th e
exit o f one pla y er an d the e n trance o f another D r Arnold re
fers to this as the link soliloq uy and adds two other varieties :
“
the entrance and exit soliloquy Th e entrance soliloquy pre
vents the S imultaneous appearance o f A at one doo r and B at
the other Even tho ugh they were meeting b y appointment
the y p robabl y would not arrive at the same instant S o A
comes on a moment be f o re B and fills th e interval with some
2
remark
The exit soli loqu y was used at the end o f an act to
prevent the awkwardness resulting from several peopl e leaving
the stage at th e same time One accordingly remained behind
and delivered a short speech The drop cu rtain o f course made
these two typ es unnecessary as it may rise o r fall on an assem
bled group Both the entrance and exit soliloqu y are in fre
quent in German drama as the earl y playwrights had n o com
u
n
i
n
c
o
t
s about allowing two o r more characters to enter and
p
l eave simulta n eou sl y I n S achs e g the stereot y ped stage
“
direction at the end o f the act i s t he y both depart Or the y all
depart
At the beginning o f an act we find either an ex p o si
t io n al soliloquy o r the simultaneou s entrance o f two o r more
characters I n the plays o f Heinrich Juliu s there are a few
examples o f entrance and exit soliloquy e g in Buhler und
”
Buhlerin I I 2 ; I I 5 ; IV 7 but even in these there i s an ad
m ixture o i the expositional element The unwillin gness to
have the stage empt y or t o have a pause between the exit o f one
actor and th e entrance o f another is res ponsible for the link
soliloqu y L essing was fond o f thi s device especiall y in hi s
early plays as Diisel points out I n h is plays th e fo rm i s ra t her
stereot y ped : a brie f re ference to w hat has preceded follo w ed by
an announcement o f th e a pproach o f a character h a there
h e is !
The link sol iloq uy as such is shortlived L essing in hi s later
plays and succeeding d ramatists trans fo rmed the structural de
vice into an i ntegral part o f the play by making it th e vehicle
1
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
”
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
”
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
—
,
.
1
2
0p
.
c it
,
c it
,
pp
p 8
.
.
2 2— 2 5
1
.
,
42
.
19
for reflections on th e preceding scene i e a reflective o r
though t soliloquy
A fter the p receding classification and d efinitions j u st a word
a s to the sc o pe and pu rpose o f this investigation I t will be in
the main a portra y al o f the career o f a dramatic convention
th e s oliloquy as mani fested in German d rama from its in fancy
i e the chu rch plays t o the p resent time Althou gh p rinci
pally a historical stu d y th e investigation will attempt to thro w
light on the qu estion whether the recent drama has o r has not
gained in artistic e ffectivenes s by its gradual disus e o f the so
lilo q u y
Two questions then will be answ ered : 1 What rOle
d oes the s o liloquy play in the technic o f th e various German
?
2
d ramatists
I s dramatic techni c improved by the el imin a
tion o f th e soliloquy ?
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
CHAPTER I
E A R L Y I N DI G E N O U S D R A M A
1
M ediev al C hu rch P lays
.
Moral izi n g embodi ed in a d ramati c spectacle is less o diou s
and va stl y mo re e ffective th an a sermon from a pulpit Real
i zing thi s the prie sts fostered the di fferent t y p es o f religiou s
d rama which had their origin in th e variou s church festivals
Th e germs o f th e Easter pla y e g are found i n th e Catholi c
ritual and consist o f fou r s entences that are chanted b y two
semi c h o ruses representi n g th e three Mar y s w h o visit Christ s
tomb and th e angels who tell them that Ch ri st has risen The s e
sentences form the ba si s o f th e L atin Easter pla y which in
turn gave rise to a L atin Germ an form in which the L atin
speeches w ere translated int o German fo r th e b enefit o f th e
uneducated spectators and fi n all y resulted in pla y s that were
almost ent irel y German Th e last mentioned gave ris e to th e
unwield y passion pla y s which sometimes lasted three to four
1
d a y s and required several hundred actors
The pla y s w er e at fi rst p er formed in th e church but as the y
grew t o such dimensio n s that th e church could no lo n ger
a ccommodate them the y were take n to an open air stage that
was usu all y set up in the market place The stage was a
large wooden pl at form somewhat longer than it was w ide
which was n o t raised far from the gr o u n d So that all par t s o f
i t were vi sible to th e standing or sitting sp ect ators I t rep re
sented all the places which were necessar y in the action such
as houses garde n s cities castles etc Natur all y these are
o nl y indicated and that in the crudest manner s o that even i n
th e fi fteenth centur y th e top o f a mountai n th e roo f o f the
temple and h ell w ere all represented b y a barrel Th e actors
w ere V isible th roughout the entire pla y At the beginn ing o f
1 R
i 3 v o l s Vo l I p 4
F r o i g D s Dra a d es Mitt lalt r
2 Ib d
6 6 if
Vo l I p
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
2
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
n n
.
m
a
,
e
'
z
.
,
.
,
.
2
.
20
e s,
n
.
,
.
,
.
.
21
th e pla y o r rather j u st previous to th e opening the actors
march upon th e stage i n solemn procession and sit down in
thei r appointed places wh i ch t h ey leave only when the p lay
requires thei r p resence elsewhere
The dramatic ar t was as c rud e as t he stage and its setti ngs
The whole treatment was epic rather than dramatic and th e
autho r s main concern was to get th e story across S election
o f essentials comp ression o f th e plot o r dialog di d not troubl e
the playw rights as th ey believed i n describing everything i n
th e greatest detail
I n one respect th e author o f a church p lay was deci dedly
better o ff than later playwrights : there was no need o f i ntro
d u cto ry exp osition as his audienc e was familiar with b ibli cal
lor e The onl y d i fficult y he fac ed was to let th e au dience know
wh o t he c haracters w er e that app eare d in th e play This h e
di d in the least taxing manner by having ever y character about
whom ther e was any doubt simply tell the spectat ors wh o h e
w as in other wo rds by emplo y ing th e i denti fying soliloquy
T o b e sur e this is an elastic us e o f th e term for strictl y
sp eaking thes e speeches are addressed directly to the audienc e
an d t h ere fore are not soliloquies Thi s also applies to th e
1
nar rative soliloquies o f which there are a few examples an d
to thos e expressing th e sp eaker s intention I llustrations o f
“
th e i denti f y ing soliloquy are numerous : R eden tin er O ster
“
”
“
sp iel 2 60 ff 68 5 ff ; Wiener Passions spiel 6 5 ff ; Als
”
“
felder Passio n spiel 7 1 89 ff ; and in every Kram erscen e
th e di fferent ch aracters are introduced i n this manner O cca
“
i
n
l
S o al y a bit o f sel f character ization i s ad ded as in the
A 15
felder pla y 1 2 5 3 ff Th e Redentin pla y has two good ex
amples o f th e intentional speech : 2 5 0 ff where Jesus tells o f
h is p lan to go to h ell and release Adam and Eve and th e h ol y
fathers and 1 9 5 0 ff where L uci fer discl oses hi s plan o f catch
ing all sinners and bringing them to hell
Real emoti onal solilo q uies how ever do occu r although no t
in great numbers Th e t y p e in which t h e sp eaker is so over
com e w ith emotion that h e i s entirely oblivi ou s o f his su r
roundings i s on th e whole more frequent than the typ e in
1 Tri r r
O s t er spi l 6 — 5 Vo l I p 5 5 A ls feld er Pa ss i o n sspi el
36
7 Vo l 3 p 7 0
,
,
,
.
.
’
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
:
.
,
’
.
”
,
.
,
.
,
”
.
,
.
”
.
,
.
!
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
!
e
2 2— 2
,
e
e
.
,
.
1
,
.
1
1
,
.
,
.
.
,
22
which the speaker is alone Thos e wh o o bj ect that a characte r
c an not be alone as all the a ctors are on the stage mus t
r emember that the action moves from place to place and that
any one station with its group o f actors constitutes th e stage
for th e tim e being and th e remainder beco m es non -existen t
“
S o wh en Peter in the
Frank furter Passio n ss sp iel after
d en y ing that he knows Christ leaves the house to deliver a
1
soliloqu y o f remorse th at p art o f th e plat form for th e time
b eing becomes an empty stage and he is alo n e on the stage
The same applies to Judas who del ivers a stirring soliloqu y
2
while going a wa y to commi t suici de Th e stage
o f remorse
d i recti ons read : Jud as throws the coins on th e ground and goe s
”
out to hang himsel f S a y ing on th e wa y et c
N either one o f
t hese soliloquies implies the least consciousness o f th e audience
“
I n the A ls felder Pas
a n d are accordingly real s o liloquies
Peter i s also alone when delivering h is soliloquy
s io n ssp iel
3
o f rem o rse
as th e stage d i rections read : Peter leaves w eep
The sp eech
in g bitterl y and withdraws from Chri st and sa y s
h owever i s not as e ffective as in th e Fra n k furt pla y
Judas s
4
s pe ech o f remorse
in the Als fel d pla y on th e other hand is
“
w eakened by being partl y addressed to the audience : O
friends now hea r my complaint which I am about to indulge
in ! I was one o f the twelve apostles ; I have betra y ed my lord
an d master and sold him to the Jews ! There fore I S hall now
4 —
com mit suici de
then h e begi ns hi s lament as follows : Oh
Go d that I was ever born etc B ut for th e introduction it
“
w o ul d be a true soliloqu y Every Marienklage illustrates
th e t y pe o f emotional soliloqu y which shows th e speaker en
Other examples ar e Mary
t irely oblivious to hi s surroundings
5
Magdalen s soliloquies o f remo rse and regret in th e Frank fu rt
7
6
and Als fel d pla y s L u ci fer s soliloq u y o f anxiet y at S atan s
8
long ab sence in the Redentin pla y and his outburst o f remorse
later in the same play
.
!
.
”
,
,
,
,
,
.
'
,
.
.
,
.
”
,
”
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
”
c
,
”
,
.
”
.
,
.
’
’
’
,
’
,
.
1
261
2 2
4 if
.
f
65 0 f
.
3
3 5 9 4 if
4
f
3 62 2 f
5
1 07
.
.
f
6 f
.
6 1
9 9 4 ff
7
1
f
69 1 f
8 1
f
928 f
.
.
.
24
few days be fore L ent w it h its long p eriod o f en forced sobriet y
Th no n gs o f m aske d cit ize n s par a d ed through t h e cities an d
r
t
c
t
en ered p iva e resi den es inns an d bar room s w he re they
sought t o evoke laughte r by mimicking certai n ty p es that em
bodied lu dicrou s ch aracteristic s
M imicry wa s soon su pple
m en t ed b y th e s poken w ord and th e boo rish pea sant th e arro
gan t knight t he immo ral prie st and others are hel d up to ri di
cul e i n sati ric speeches Th e c rudest type c onsists o f a s eries
d
a
n
i
o f denti f y ing
sel f c haract erizing speeches Th e masked
acto rs enter together eac h d el ivers a sel f -charact erizing speech
an d they d epart a ft er being dined and wi ned Then there are
court s cenes i n which case s o f every desc rip tion are tried in a
fa r c ical mann er u su ally c o mp laints against u n faith ful hus
bands which h ow ever di d not result i n divorces
Doctor
scenes are al so quite c o mmon in which a quack a fter boa sting
o f his skill and h is marvellou s cu r es gives t h e patient s ome
ludicrous presc ription Everyday li fe fu rni shes most o f the
th em es b ut s e riou s matter s dealing w ith religiou s and social
cond it io ns are no t tab o oe d I n fac t it is s om et imes di fficult to
tell where t h e religiou s play ends and th e carnival pla y begins
a s the lat ter has encro ached s o far upon the domain o f the
1
forme r
V er y few o f th e shrov eti de plays w ere p er formed on th e
stage or rathe r plat form such as was us ed fo r chu rch pla y s
Froning st ates that th e more s eri o us pla y s such a s Nos 1 1 1
and 1 1 9 i n Keller requi red a s tage All ot hers got along w ith
out stage o r scener y as t he y w ere repeated i n places where
suc h things were out o f th e qu estion Th e prolog o f th e fi rst
pl ay in Keller t h row s an i nteresting light u p on the average
place o f per f o rma nce and th e simpl e p reparat ions
Real s o liloquies do no t occu r i n t h ese pl ay s although w e
migh t term th e i denti fying sel f -characte rizing narrative an d
d escriptive speeches cru de exp o sit ional soliloquies Som e o f
th e pl a y s i n whic h there is a cru de pl ot are developed en ti rel y
The last name d d eals
b y means o f dialog : N o s 2 2 3 7 1 1 1
with t h e legen d o f Po p e Joan and i s a go o d example o f the
1 Fro i g
V o l 3 pp 9 5 5 ff ; E D
d r d ut sch en
ie t G e s chi cht
S chau spi l k u st 84 8 Vo l I p 9 6 ff
.
'
,
,
.
,
,
‘
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
n n
e
.
,
n
,
1
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
ev r
n
,
e
e
e
25
bl ending o f religiou s an d s ecul ar d rama Gottsc h ed calls i t
1
In
das alt est e t ragi sche gedruc kt e deut sch e O rigin alst iick
N o 57 ent itled Ain gu o t V asn acht sp il t h ere are t hree asi des
i n th e di alog poss ibly the ear li e st u se of t hi s device
.
”
.
.
,
.
,
D
am
r
3
.
a o
rm atio n
R
h
o
t
e
e
f
f
A lm ost ever y wh ere th e m e di eval chu rch d ram a w a s pu t to
tter ro ut by th e Re formati on fi rst b ecau se the Prot estants
obj ected t o i t as a Catholi c i n stitution an d s econdly becau se
th e t imes w ere to o s torm y to pe rmi t pe o pl e t o sit calml y an d
enj oy th e epic m eandering s o f t he c hu rch plays Th e drama
t h a t t ook its place w as used principally as a wea po n o f attack
esp ec ially by the Prote st ants
agai ns t religious
an d de fen se
adve rsari es Epi c t reat ment an d endless sermo n izing coupled
with t h e ex pos i ti on o f th e L ut he ran d o ctrine ch ar act eriz e th ese
plays The stage an d t he s cen ery w as cru de and vi rtua lly that
o f the chu rc h plays an d th e play s w ere given i n chu rches
sch ool s and publi c squ ares
2
S om e o f th e plays such as D ie T o t en fresse r by Gen gen
bach req u i red no s tage or s ettin g and w ere probabl y pe rformed
on the street Gengenb ach occ upi ed a u niqu e pos it i o n i n the
dra m a o f thi s p eriod as h e began in t he C atholic cam p an d
“
ended as a rabid champion o f the Re formation Hi s Zeh n
3
Alter d i ese r Welt
i s perm eat e d by th e C at h oli c do ct ri n e
w hile the T o t en fresser i s a b itter attack upon th e p rac tice o f
giving m as se s fo r th e so ul s o f t h e depart ed Th e gi s t o f th e
l atter is that t h e only o n e s that benefit by these mas s e s are the
p o pe and t h e c lergy wh o a re abl e t o live in lu xu rious ease from
the proc eeds The play i s ut terl y undramatic an d i s to all in
tents and pu rp o ses a s eri es o f exp ositional soliloquies w hich set
fo rth the V i ews o f the adh eren ts an d oppon ent s o f th e Catholi c
churc h
“
D er Ablassk ram er i s n o t mu ch m ore dramat ic an d con
u
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
!
,
,
.
”
,
,
.
,
.
”
,
.
,
.
.
’
'
1
Vo l
.
2
3 1
Das
II p 8
D ra a
,
.
m
dat e 5 5
3 I n K ll r :
4 Fro n in g p
0,
2
1
e
.
,
ed
.
by
R
.
F
ro n i n g S tuttgart pp
,
.
Fas tn ach t s p iele d e s
e
,
q u o t ed by K ell e r
d er R e fo r m ati o n s z e it
2,
.
1
f,
3 f
.
dat
e,
1
525
.
1
5
.
Jahrhu n d e rt s
.
,
.
26
si s ts o f a series o f denunciati o ns hu rle d at th e salesman b y
thos e whom h e h as fo rmerl y duped O r atorical attacks are
supplem ented by physic al as saults and th e vender i s c ompelled
to admit all his sham e ful practi ces A r eflectiv e soliloqu y near
the end o f the pla y shows him a sad der b ut wis er man
“
1
D er verlorene S o hn
b y Waldi s i s t he oldest Protestant
dram a b ased up o n a biblical t heme and p ave d the way for a
h o st o f imit ations the prodigal so n soon becoming a f avori t e
“
”
theme w ith d ramati sts B esides be ing a T en den z dram a it
h as a speci al po int o f in t erest in th e fact that it i s th e first
German drama that s h o w s influences o f t he R o man drama b y
the divi si o n into acts th e introduct ion o f ri o t o us scenes with
the m er etric e s an d t h e decep tive i nnkeep er T he intro ductor y
exp o s itional soli loquy i s a ddresse d t o th e audi ence th e o ther
expo s it io n al sp e ech es av oi d this crudit y S everal aside s b y th e
i nnk eep e r as h e pluck s th e p ro digal p ossibly show L ati n in fl u
ence Th ere is but one em o tional s o liloq u y an outbu r st o f
s o rr o w ful regret by t h e prodigal after h e has bee n plucked
2
by R ebhuhn i s th e earli est German pla y that
Susanna
sh o w s a c o nsc iou s striving fo r artist ic e ffect s o f po eti c form
”3
an d dramat ic const ructi o n
The play is divi ded int o five acts
and has a p rol o g epilog an d ch o ru s at the end o f the fi r st fou r
act s O f all t h e Susann a pl a y s this i s the bes t and the most
e ffe c tive as it i s t h e s im plest A l o n g exp ositio nal solil o quy
which rev eal s th e villai ny o f a rich rascal an d the c orruptness
o f th e j udges is i nter est ing as it i s introdu ced solel y to charac
O n th e whol e then the tec h n ic
t eriz e t h e ven ality o f th e bench
o f t h e s o l iloquy i n these pl ays i s o n th e sam e l evel as i n th e
chu rch pla y s
‘
.
.
.
.
”
,
.
,
.
,
.
'
,
.
.
”
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
4
.
H m m S achs
Th e early shr o veti de pla y s o f S achs were undoubtedl y pre
s ented in inns and p rivat e home s as were thos e o f th e 1 sth
century and p ro babl y the same me tho d o f p r esentat ion pre
vailed T he later pla y s may po ssibly h ave been p resented on
the stage used fo r the larger plays i e the s o -called comedies
1 Fr o i g
p 3 1 ff dat e 5 7
2 Fro i g p
0
dat e 5 3 6
3 Cal v i
Th o a G r a Lit ratur e p 5 8
,
,
.
.
,
n n
n n
n
,
,
.
.
1
,
1
m
1
s,
1
e m
n
2
.
,
.
.
e
,
.
1
.
27
an d t ragedies Th e latter were per formed for the most part i n
c hu rches t h e regular rendezvous o f the ma stersingers on crude
1
stages erected for t his purpose
B ut as early as 1 5 5 0 th e
m astersingers built th e fi rst Ge rm an theater in Niirn b erg for
t h e p er formance o f larger pla y s probably realizing th e inap
?
r
r
o
O r it i s possible
p p iaten es s o f giving the m i n chu rches
that the cler gy strenuousl y obj ected to such p er formances in
th e chu rches
Th e form o f th e stage o f thi s pe ri od i s largely a matter o f
c onj ectu re al though stage directions i n t h e plays th r o w a little
l igh t upon th e subj ect V er y likely then the st age consisted
o f a plat form rais ed ab out three feet from the ground and op en
to the sp ectators on three si des A broad partition about six
feet h igh ran across t h e rear o f th e stage so as to form a
d ressing room and wings for th e actors
There may h ave been
a real door or m erel y a curtain through which the actors
The t o p o f thi s
e ntered the stage from thi s enclosed space
subdivision was open so that the smoke o f a co n fl agrat io n o ff
th e stage was vi sibl e and t h e tumult o f a battle plainly audible
to the sp ectator s ; th e sides h owever were pr o b ably covered so
1
that ch anges in costume w ould not b e seen
I n front o f this
main stage there w as sometimes a lower stage especially in the
t heaters upon wh ich th e mastersinge rs ma y have sung the
2
entr acte musi c
There w as no scenery 0r stage setti ng o f any
sort no cu rtain to mark th e beginning or en d o f an a ct ; th e
characters came out upon the stage at th e b eginning o f an act
an d le ft i t at the conclusion o f the act
Cons i dering th e simplicity o f the stage and the ease wit h
whi ch o n e could be erect ed it is supposabl e th at t h e weal thy
c iti zens o ften entertained th eir fri ends by giving the at ricals in
t heir homes
The stereotyped form w ith which th e comedies an d tragedi es
b egin i s a prolog by th e ern h o ldt 0r herald who gives t h e
audien ce a b ri e f synopsi s o f th e pla y followed by an in tro du c
The pla y s themselves are simply
t ory expositional solil o quy
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
.
'
,
.
”
,
.
1
2
1 1
A n t o n Gl o ck
E
3 E
.
.
Dev rien t
,
,
H a n s S a ch s Pa s s au 1 9 03
d er d eut s ch en S c hau spi el k u n s t
Die B iih n e d e s
G e s chi cht e
,
,
.
,
Vo l
.
I p
,
.
28
stories cast in the dialog form ; getting the stor y across i s th e
main obj ect o f the author who is not concerned wit h th e
struggle o f one will against another with the inner p rocess es
o
that give ris e t a decision with th e soul state resulting from
a given act As Fre y tag puts it : Nicht die Darstellung einer
B egebenheit an sich sondern ihrer Einwi rkung au f die M en
1
s ch en s eele i st Au fgabe der dramatischen Kunst
The pla y s
regularl y conclude with a moralizing sermon whi ch i s also
d elivered b y t h e herald
Almost hal f o f the shroveti de plays have neither prolog or
epil o g and in m ost o f the others the prolog ha s been redu ced
to a mere formula o f greeting generally : ein guten abe n t ir
”
I n the plays that have a p rolog a dialog O p ening
e rbarn leut
is usu all y employed O ccas ionally e speciall y in the later plays
an expositional s o liloqu y foll o w s the prolog in th e manner o f
?
th e tragedies and co m edies
When Sach s discards th e more
o r less s tereot y ped prolog he decidedly favors the soliloq uy as
the vehicl e fo r attack I n m ore than fort y cases solil o quies are
u sed whereas a dialog openi n g occurs in o n l y thirteen o f th e
?
pla y s notabl y in his later p ro ductions
I n hi s later comedies and tragedies there i s als o a growing
tendency to discard the O pening soliloquy an d employ dialog
I n eight comedies written between 1 5 5 6 an d 1 5 60 fou r have th e
dialog opening ; in eight tragedies o f the same peri od seven
begin with dialog
The intro duct o ry expositional soliloquies are generall y
fra n kly addressed to the audience but there are numerou s case s
where th e character i s requi red by the stage directions to talk
to himsel f o r hersel f
red mit im selb or red mit i r selb
The speech itsel f i n this case is u suall y cast in th e same mol d
as those addressed to the audience and is in no sense a talking
to o n e s sel f But there are instances where thi s expositional
s peech i s raised to a h igher artistic level b y maki n g it an apos
Die sch o n M arina
Great p raise
t ro ph e to Fortune as in
and thanks to thee O Fortune ! H o w richly and ab undan tly
,
,
,
.
,
”
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
”
”
,
.
’
.
”
,
,
1
2
3
G F
.
r y tag
e
,
D ie
Fa s t n ac h t s p ie le
1 bid
.
,
No s
.
2 0,
,
T ch i k
n
e
No s
25,
2
.
7,
d es
Dra a s L ipzig
m
e
,
68 , 7 0, 7 1 , 7 3
3 5 , 3 6 , 4 3 5 0, 5 9
1
,
9 05 ,
p
.
1
8
.
,
,
6 0, 6 1
,
62
,
8 0, 8 3
.
.
29
thou hast p rovi ded m e with everything so that n o sorro w can
a pp roach me !
etc To be sure the speech graduall y sinks to
the level o f frank exposition but th e attempt to get away from
t h e direct address to the audience is praiseworthy
I n Fortu
natus we find an ap o strophe to God in the opening solil o quy :
O h God in heaven to thee I lame nt th e fact t hat I spent my
f
f
f
f
u
u
k
oung
da
y
s
foolishl
y
etc
I
n
Der
mit
dem
l
a
e
so
t
e
y
m an n
th e apostrophe to Fortu n e i s carried through to the
fect
An
e n d o f the speech thu s p roducing quite an artistic e f
emotional admixtu re is occasionall y used to good e ffect and
absolves the soliloquy from the charge that it i s addres sed to
Das b o ss w eyb mit den worten etc gut
t h e audi enc e e g in
z u machen
an d in Die vier u ngliickh afft en liebh ab en den per
“
I n the former the henpecked hu sband sa y s : Alas
so n en
?
poo r wretched man that I am what shall I do
That whi ch is
given as a com fort to men troubles my li fe most Oh ! Oh !
O h ! Oh ! alas ! alas ! w herever I stan d an d go I have nothing
b ut troubl e which only the grave can free me from !
The sol iloquy used fo r identification a cru de makeshi ft
which occu rs so o ften in th e chu rch plays and i n the shrove
t ide plays o f the 1 st h century is also emplo y ed by S achs N or
is its use confined t o the earl y pla y s ; on the contrar y i t crop s to
I n the earliest o f the shrovet id e plays
t h e su r face continually
dated 1 5 1 7 entitled Das h o ffgs in dt V eneris every character
intro duce d himsel f in thi s manner :
”
.
,
,
.
”
,
.
”
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
”
.
,
,
.
”
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
H e r r Do n h eu ser b in ich g en an dt
M ei n n am d er ist g a r w ei t erk an dt
A us F ran k en lan dt w as ich g ebo rn
,
,
”
et c
,
As late
b lin den
h e u se d this type in Der Eulenspiegel mit den
where Eulenspiegel introdu ces himsel f as foll o ws :
as I
”
'
,
.
5 53
E ul en spi eg el
bin ich g en an dt,
”
et c
.
Expos itional soliloquies o f the narrative descriptive s el f
c haracteri zing and intentional t y p e o ccu r o n practically every
page Whenever the author feel s that there is th e least doubt
about the stor y being absolutel y clear to the aud ience a char
a cter in fo rm s the sp ectators o f h is plans and intentions o r tell s
,
,
.
,
3O
them o f some event that could no t b e p resented on the stage
By mean s o f soliloquies the author answer s any possible ques
tions as to th e fate o r experiences o f a given character even
be fore they ari se
The enti re absence o f scener y frequentl y makes the explana
tory solil o q u y necessary so tha t th e audience ma y know wh at
th e character is do ing o n the stage and where he i s l o cated S o
”
in F o rt u n at u s the character s tates that h e i s now in a w ild
forest ( Act 2 ) or in L ond o n ( Act 5 ) in Der h o rnen Seifrit
the hero tells u s that he i s con fronted b y a high mountain ( Act
“
etc I n Der baur in dem feg feu r th e peasant gropes
blindl y about the stage an d explains his actions by telling th e
audience that h e is confined in a dark cell
As all o f the autho r s pla y s w ith the exception o f a few
shrovetide pla y s serve a mo ral purpo se as th e ep ilogs o f the
comedi e s and tragedies and the co ncludi n g speeches o f the
shrovetide pla y s s how it is not surp rising to find bits o f moral
izing in some o f the s o liloquies One exampl e taken from
“
Di e sch o n M arina will illustrate th e t y pe : Unchastity i s
the most inj urious o f all vi ces Whoever tries it is allured by
it ; who ever yields to it i s choked by it ; it weakens th e under
standing and shortens li fe hu rt s one s reputation consumes
hon or and wealth etc Other t y pes o f th e thought sol iloquy
do not occur Emotional soliloqui es however especially tho se
expressing the m o re common emotions su ch as grie f so rr o w
rage fear regret j oy etc are met with ver y frequently
I t is interesting to note that Sachs gave some thought to the
per formance o f his pla y s as o ccasi o nal stage directions will
show To be sure the y are for the most part rather crude and
one gesture i s made to do serv ice for di ffering emotions re
minding o n e fo rcibly o f the acting o f some o f th e prese n t oper
atic stars Soliloquies are usuall y without stage directions
“
other than the stereot y ped form : enters and speaks
or
enters and speaks to him o r hersel f
B ut n o w an d then th e
character i s asked to clap the hands together ab o ve the h ead to
express sorrow o r grie f or anger o r what not I n Krim h ilt s
“
solil o quy at th e end o f Seifrit th e aut h or is liberal w ith
“
stage directions : She takes the twigs o ff o f the corps e and
.
.
,
.
,
”
”
.
.
’
,
,
.
”
.
’
,
,
”
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
”
,
”
—
.
’
.
”
32
”
he is to get
The villains expo se their dark de signs in so lilo
qu y and the heroes announce both plan s and accompli shed facts
and sometime s give reports o f actions that th e audien ce has
al read y witnessed The moralizing solil o quy i s fr equentl y em
ployed but never at great length for fear o f tiring th e public
Ranting soliloquie s i n which passion was torn t o tatters were
also a f avorite device
Wha t did th e Duke a dopt fro m t hi s techni c o f the so lilo
?
T o secure re alisti c ac ting he supplied the soliloq uies
qu y
with full stage directions in th e manner o f the English c ome
dians Then too h e o ccasionally u ses th e ranti n g solilo qu y
which in those days must have exerted a power ful influence
upon the spectator s Good examples o ccur in th e traged y
“
V on einem u n gerath en en S ohn
VI en d where N ero i s
asked t o accompan y hi s ranting w ith such actions as : g riin
s elt w in selt k riim m et und windet sich und st ellet sich greulich
an b riillet wi e ein O ch s f a llet z u der Erden k rat z et mit
H a nden und F iis sen von s ich st eh et wieder au f u n d l a u ft her
u m b als wenn er gar von S i n nen w a re
Another long speech
o f this type is found in the last act o f Buhler und B uhlerin
“
part o f which read s : P fui dich du sti n kende Ho ffart p fui
d u heillose u n d v erg an glich e S chminke ! O wehe o wehe ach
was leide ich Angst und S chmerz in meinem Herzen ! O ih r
B erge f allet iib er mich und b edeck et mich ! Ach dass die
Erde sich au fth ate und mi ch v erschliin ge
F o r the most part th e exp o sitional solil o qui es are crude and
o ften as in th e case o f the clown directl y addressed to th e
3
audience S ometimes a moralizi n g or reflective bit and in one
4
cas e a l y ric p relud e raise s t h e soliloqu y to a slightl y h igher
plane The clown s solil o quies are either b aldl y expositional
or reflective I n the latter h e usuall y indulges in sardonic
5
lau gh ter at th e stupidit y or the disco m fi tu re o f hi s master and
frequentl y takes the audience into his confidence and begs them
not to betray him
T it t a
Di S chau spi l e d s H rz o g H i ri ch Juliu s L ip
J 1i
zig 8 8 0 p 3 3
Op
it p 7 3
3 O
S u sa a p
Vo
Ed l a n
ei e
p c it p 3
4 O
it pp 3 5 6 ; V o
i
Buhl r
p
5 O
07
tc
p it pp 6 4 9 0 9 6
.
,
.
.
,
.
'
.
,
.
”
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
”1
.
,
”
,
,
,
,
'
'
,
,
,
,
”2
.
,
,
,
.
’
.
.
.
1
1
,
2
m
us
u
.
2
.
,
c
.
,
.
.
,
n n,
c
.
,
.
c
.
,
e
e n
e
,
.
.
.
nn
.
.
—
.
e
e
.
,
,
n
.
,
,
.
1 1 1
e n em
1
,
e
—
e
.
n
1 1 2,
.
n
m
e m
n
.
e
33
6
A yrer
.
’
Two tendencies characterize A y rer s w ork : an endeavor to
remain faith ful to the traditi on o f S achs s dramatic art together
with an attempt to acclimate the histrionic art o f th e English
comedians on th e German stage The result o f this amalga
mation p roduced no development i n technic but rather a degen
e rat io n as the plays show greater fondness fo r epic treatment
than thos e o f Sachs To make up for the lack o f interest re
form he intro duced elab orate
s u lt in g from this undramatic
st age p rocess ions court sce nes battles an d devil s cene s an d
reache s a h igher plane in s tage e ffects esp ecially o f the luri d
1
m elodramatic typ e A cc o rding to Roberts on the plays w ritten
between I 5 93 an d 1 5 98 show no English influ ence W hereas
those b etween I 5 98 an d 1 605 reveal th e influen ce o f the English
comedians His stage p robably consisted o f a lower front
stage an d a raised s tage o r bridge u nder the m iddl e o f which
there was an op ening which m ight be used for a cave or an
?
a d ditional place o f entrance and exit or wh at not
Rathe r full
stage di rections the use o f the clown as a chara cter in th e
pl a y s and inst rumental mu si c all show Engl ish influence
The exp osition al soliloquy i s pressed into service on all p o s
sibl e occasions to a cquaint th e audience with the past p resent
and futu re and littl e e ffo rt i s made to rai se them above th e
baldly instructive plane by giving them a reflective o r emotional
admixture The moralizing element is usually c o nfined to
3
s ententiou s b its alth ough longer spee ch es do occur
short
Em o ti onal soliloq uies are fo r the most part o utbu rsts o f grie f
and despair These outbu rsts as a rule are rather tame a ffairs
4
an d sel dom t ear pass ion t o tatters
O n th e whole th en Ayrer s
s oliloquies are a l ittle c ruder than those o f S achs
G R o b e rt s o n Zu r Kriti k Ja k o b A y r es m it b eso n d er er Riick s ich t
H a n s S a ch s u n d d e en gli sch en Ko m odian t en
u
au f s ei n Verh aIt n is s
L eipzig 1 8 9
’
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
’
.
.
.
,
n
z
2.
,
2
I bid
.
C o edia v o n d er
4 K ell e r V o l I I p
3
,
m
,
.
,
.
sc
h on en
7 87
.
Sid ea,
II
,
b eg
.
A
.
vo n
K ell er s
’
ed
.
CHAPTER I I
P SE UDO -C L ASSI C D RA M A
T HE
1
Gryphiu s
.
There was a complete break with th e ol d dramatic tradition
in the 1 7 th century when Andreas Gr y phius th e o riginator o f
the German arti sti c drama introduced the Renaissance tradi
tion into German drama Nothing in modern drama i s based
on medieval o r 1 6th ce n tury drama I t really has its origi n in
“
”
the Ku n st dram a o f Gryphius which i s patterned a fter
foreign models The S ilesian s mo del however was not so
much S enec a as V ondel the great Dutch dramati st w ho w as
th e leading exponent o f th e Renaissance tradition in Holland
S eneca s style exerted an immeasurably greater influence
upon Gryphiu s than his technic
The techni c o f th e two play
”1
wrights sho w s few points o f conta ct
says Stachel How do
?
u
the two compare in th e se o f the soliloquy
S eneca with one
or two exc eptions invariably begins with an expositional so lilo
quy which i s followed by a commenting chorus Gryphius begins
L eo A rm en iu s
two o f hi s five tragedies with a dial o g viz
and Cardeni o und C elin de
I n th e second tragedy Cath
”
erine von Georgien a fter a prolog by Eternity in the style o f
th e Chu rch play prologs the dial o g form is employed I n
Carolus Stu ardu s and Pap in ian u s th ere are intro ducto ry
expositional soliloquies but nei ther is followed b y a ch oru s
I n S eneca s plays the soliloquy forms a large c o mponent part
”
especially in M edea which has m ore soliloquy than dial og
Th e Roman poet shows a d ecided fondness for identi fying
soliloquies a character o ften intr o ducing himsel f to the audi
ence be fore h e begins a conversation Another striking char
acteristic o f hi s soliloquies i s thei r position at th e beginning o f
an act
,
,
.
.
,
’
.
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
”
.
,
.
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
.
.
Pau 1 S ta ch l S en eca
p 270
1 9 07
1
e
,
.
,
und
d as
d eut s ch e R en ai ssa n c -Dra a B rli n
e
.
34
m
,
e
,
35
I n Gryphius the soliloq uy does not play so prominent a ré le
A lthough the length o f the soliloquies leaves nothing to b e de
si red they are not s o freq uent there are non e o f the i denti fy
ing type and there is no parti cular fondness sh ow n fo r the
b eginning o f an act
Gryphius was end o wed w ith a most melancholy temperament
and th e mi s fortunes th at be fell him and hi s cou n try served to
h eighten th is innate glo om H is five tragedies are permeated
w ith pessimism as a result o f his despai ring outlo o k upon li fe
”
All is vanity o r sic trans it gloria mundi is in brie f th e
theme o f his plays Hi s her oes are characterize d b y stead fast
n ess in enduring adversi t y r a ther than b y p o sitive action
The
bombast and ranting so characteri sti c o f th e plays as well as
th e author s dej ection an d pessimism are faith fully mi rrored in
the s o liloquies
”
The initial expositional soliloq uy in Carolu s Stu ardu s is
far from being baldly instru ctive S everal apostrophes ques
tion s and answers and an admixture o f anger and defian ce
s kill fully place the expositional m atter into the background
Th e author s sermonizing instinct un fortunatel y got the bette r
o f him and th e fine frenzy o f the clos et dramatist is r eveale d
in the line : B ebt di e ih r herrsch t und scha fft ! bebt ob dem
Trauerspiel
Once m ore later i n th e play th e stage -illusi o n.
i s dest royed when h e has Fai r fax say i n a soliloquy : Wer n ah
”
dis s Unh eil s ieht w er fern d is s t rau rsp iel h é rt
I n Papin
”
ianus the expos itional matter i s also cleverly cloaked in the
There i s a consi derabl e admixture o f phil o
initial s o liloquy
S ophical reflection :
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
”
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
“
W er
a ll e st eig t u n d v o n der st o ltz en héih
Der rei c h en e h r e s ch a u t w ie sc h l ec ht der p6 v el g eh
Hat w o l ( ich g eb es n a ch ) vi el fib er die g em ei n
A c h ! ab er ach ! w ie leic h t n i m m t ih n der s ch w i n d el e in
Un d bl en d e t u n v erh o fft sei n zi tt er n d es ge si eb t e
D ass er dur c h g é hen f al l w ir d e h r m an d en kt z u ni ch t e !
W ie lei ch t e b ri ch t d er f el s au f d em er st a n d gef a ss t
U n d r ei sst ih n m it si ch a b !
iiber
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
”
L ater
,
36
W er
g em e i n e n o t h
Zu li n d ern s i c h b em iih t su ch t n i c ht s als ei gn en t o d
W er si c h fiir al l e w a g t w ir d a u c h n i c ht e i n en fi n den
A u ff d essen r e c ht e t r eu er kéin n in s c h i ffb r u c h g riin den
d ie
.
,
,
,
”
.
The speech is a real talking to one s sel f apo strophe i s freely
u sed and in parts the dialog form i s success fully emplo y ed :
’
,
W as h a b ich d en n v e rw iirck t u n r e d li c h e g em iitt e r ?
K o m m t k lag er ! t r et et v o r ! en td e ckt w ie h e rb u n d b i tt e r
A u c h eu r e z u n g e sey ! I ch fl i eb e die gem ei n
u
m
n
e
m
n
S
r
ht
i
h
r
h
l
i
i
h
fr
u
d
f
r
d
n
d
s
ess
r
e
n
u
d
c
e
c
e
c
v
o
e
( p
)
Wah r ist s da ss ich et c
,
,
e in
.
”
,
.
,
H e takes up the charges one b y one and answers them as though
h is accusers w ere con fronting him
There are few expositional soliloq uies in the plays and all
Pap in ian u s V furnishes a go od
have an emotional c o ating
e xample o f inner conflict the first time that we meet with this
typ e o f soliloquy I t opens w ith a question o f perplexity :
“
What n o w ? then takes up th e p ros and cons and a fter a
s ho rt d eliberation th e decision i s made :
.
”
.
,
,
,
.
”
,
A ch
m
iissen w ir d ie
f a u st
in
bl u t e f a rb en ?
P a p i n i a n so ll s t e r b en
i
se n em
‘
Wi r
m
iissen !
ac h
!
es
s ey
!
”
.
Another new typ e is found in Cath erine von Georgien where
A bas in a long soliloquy de fends the d ecision h e has made
Ranting soliloquies in Gr y phius are practically s y nonymous
w ith emoti onal soliloquies as h e knows no bounds in th e dep ic
tion o f an emotion and regularl y tears passion into tatters I n
Catherine Abas pou rs forth pages such as th e following :
!
.
,
!
.
”
P rin c essin
!
A c h ! P rin c e s sin !
A c h w ir b ren n en !
I
F eu e r !
Fe u e r ! Fe u e r ! Feu e r ! Feu er ! kra c ht in d i esem
W ir v erl o d er n w ir v ers chm eltz en a n gest eckt du r c h
,
k ert z
,
en
P rin c essin !
sc
hau !
i
e ss in
r
n
c
p
! w ir b ek en n en
E n t z ep t ert , au f dem k n y u n d m it g ew u n dn en
D a ss w ir u n rech tm ass ig d i c h b et riib et,
D a ss w ir ein s t iick an d i r v eriib et
W el ch es all e r z ei t en z ei t w i rd g rau sa m
h a n d en
,
‘
n en n en
”
.
,
h ertz
sc
en
hw e f el
!
37
L eo A rm
In
“
en iu s
T r eul o ser a b erw i t z ! d u r ch w a hn v erffi h rt er m a n n !
U n d a n k d em l a st er s el b st k ei n l a st er gl ei c h en ka n n !
,
Du rch t eu ffelte s g em iith ! v erm aled eyt e
Die k ei n e r e d li c hk ei t n o c h w o hlt h at m
i
!
s n n en
gewi n n en !
H a b ic h d i c h t o ll en h u n d v o m k o th in h o f gebr a c h t
n
U d au f s e l b s t eign er sc h o ss be riih m t u n d gr o ss g em a ch t ?
H at u n s die ka l t e sc hl a n g d ie j etz u n d s t i c ht b et r o gen ?
?
n
o
n
l
n
s
e
e
I st d ie ser b asi is c a u s r er bru t rz g
Wa ru m h a t m an d i c h n i ch t erwiirgt a uf f r i scher t h a t ?
ag
,
,
”
”
The exp osition in Cardeni o und C elin de th o ugh appar
ently in dialog form i s in reality one long sol il o quy which i s
o ccasi onally interrupted by a pati ent friend wh o asks for in fo r
mation that he i s familiar with I n the sam e play in the so lilo
quy at th e beginning o f th e s econd act w e find a most interest
in g d e fen s e o f the soliloquy the first and o n ly j u stification o f
thi s convention in German dramatic po etry :
,
,
.
,
,
,
W as red
W ie
h ei sse m a ch t
Der seu ch en u n s b e si eg t ein z ag en d h ertz e s c h m a c h t
I n h a rt en tb ran dt er glu t u n d die g es ch w ac h t en s i nn en
E m p fi n den n a ch u n d n a ch w ie kr a f t un d g ei s t z erin n en
I n d em die in n re fl am m n u n m eh r d en si t z an féillt
I n w el ch em si c h v ern u n fft gl ei c h als b es c h l o s sen h a l t
D en n t a u m el t der v er sta n d d en n ir r en die ge da n k en
Den n z eblt d ie sc h w a rt ze zu n g des a b g el eb t en k ran ck en
Vi el u n gest a l t e w o r t in sch w e r em s ch w erm en her
ic h ?
un d m
it w em ?
,
w en n d ie
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
”
.
In
sh o rt when disease o r an all -c onsumi n g passion w eaken
bo dy and mind th e mind is clou ded and th e ideas become con
fused and the tongue o f th e un fortunate victim rambles in co
h erent ly
Gryphius accordingly believes t hat a p erson so lilo
q uizes only when h e i s in an abnormal condition
According to Pro els s these plays were p roduced on th e
stage not ve ry frequently to be sure and most l ikely in a sadly
mutilated form The stage vari ed according to the theater th e
stages in th e court and sch o ol theaters naturally being better
e q uipp ed w ith stage setting and scenery than thos e o f the trav
eling players
We still find a front and a back stage sepa rated
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
38
by a cu rt ain but the sides o f th e stag e are now shut off from th e
audience either b y cu rtains or walls The front s tage in th e
permanent theaters was provided with several drop curtains
one for each act ; the stages o f th e itinerant pla y ers on the
other hand generally had onl y one Artificial light had to be
used as mo st o f the per formances w ere given indoors
As we turn from th e tragedies to the comedies Sch erz spiele
is the author s designati on— w e involuntaril y smile at the i dea
o f an individual s o immersed in gloo m and melancholy even
harboring a humorous thought But as w e read along we can
but marv el at the wonder ful metamo rphosis and finally per
force resort t o a Dr Jek y ll and M r H y de theory to account
for the exuberant humor and the genuine tom f o ol ery that per
vades the plays
The expositional solil o quies are addressed di rectl y to the
“
audience and filled w ith such exclamations as : S e e here !
you may believe me etc Quite regularl y th e approach o f the
next character is announced at th e end o f a soliloq uy : O s ee
“
th ere sh e comes alread y ! or S ee there he is etc I n Die
gelieb te Do rn ro se the overheard soliloqu y is repeatedly used
and in connection with it the aside I n the first act o f this play
two soliloquies delivered b y characters at opp osite sides o f the
1
stage are overheard b y a third character wh o is hidi n g
The
as ides are for the m ost part humorous although a refl ect ive bit
“
o ccurs occa sionally s o e g
You see neighbor s that s what
you get when you all o w the girls to go to sch o ol and learn to
2
spell
possibly the earliest dramatic attack upon femini sm
Ranting soliloquies do not occur A goo d example o f the
s olilo q u y expressing in n er conflict o ccurs in Ho rribilicrib ri
“
fax : What shall I d o now ? S hall I turn back ? That
w ould app ear too unmannerl y I shall pass by and address her
“
3
“
ver y b riefl y
I n Peter Sq u en z where ther e i s a pl a y within
the pla y viz that o f P y ramus an d Thisbe the charac ters o f
the enclosed pla y emplo y the introduction soliloqu y in the style
4
o f the old church pla y s
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
—
’
.
,
.
.
.
”
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
”
.
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
”
.
,
.
”
.
”
”
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
1
2
3
4
Co
m
e
I bid
.
,
1 bid
.
,
1 b id
.
,
di s ed by H Pal ; I p 5 8 ff ; I I p
p 88
I I p 8 9 A n o th e r xa m pl e in IV p
II I p 8 ff
e
.
,
2
.
,
m
,
.
2
.
,
.
2
86 f
f
.
.
.
,
.
e
.
.
2
.
,
.
1 26
.
40
’
erve to illustrate Wei se s u se o f the soliloquy The large num
b er o f s olil oq uies is noteworthy as w ell as the autho r s fond
ness for asides Fo r the m ost pa rt these soliloq u ies are expo
sit io n al and 0 f the crude type in which the audience is taken
into the speaker s confidence As a rule they are short and the
language i s natural and free from o rnamen tation Our ol d
friends th e sel f identi f y ing and sel f characterizing solil o qu y
also crop to the sur face every now and then so e g in
”
?
M ach iav ellu s I I and I I I ;
M asaniello I I I Refl ective and
moralizing soliloquies are rather in freque n t but it is i n teresting
to no tice that the clown i s o ften th e au th or s mo uthpiece and
indulges in a moralizing harangu e in th e styl e o f th e French
?
raisonneu r
Emotion al soliloq uies are very prosai c and shal
lo w and offer nothing remarkabl e
O n the whole Weise s technic o f the soliloqu y sh o ws l ittle
advance over t hat o f the 1 sth and 1 6 th centuries
s
.
’
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
”
1
,
,
,
’
.
’
,
.
4
.
G o tts ch ed
an d
his F o llo w ers
Gottsched s view regarding th e s o lil o qu y has been previou sly
quoted vi z that san e p eople are not in the habit o f talking to
thems elves when alone except when they are overcome by emo
tion and in that cas e very briefly Although he himsel f did
—
not ent irely taboo the soliloq uy in his dramati c work his
Cato e g contains s everal sh ort reflective and li n k so lilo
q u ies and a l ong deliberative soliloqu y hi s pupil s and follow
His Deutsche Sch au b iihn e a c ol
e rs consistently avoided i t
lection o f translation s from Moli ere Corneille Racine V ol
taire Holberg etc and original works b y hi s w i fe J E
S chlegel and others for the mo st part c ontains d ramas which
do with out solil o quies and asides especiall y the pla y s o f J E
S chlegel and L u ise Adelgunde V ictoria Gottsched th e re form
er s wi fe S chlegel makes sp ort o f th e s o lil o qu y in a criticism
o f a drama b y J Klaj e n titl ed Herodes : Here w e plainly
see how use ful i t would be i f th e auth or o f the traged y himsel f
would step into a corner o f th e stage and talk occasionally
’
.
,
,
.
,
”
,
.
.
,
—
”
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
’
.
”
.
.
D eut s ch e Nat Lit
2 0
p c it p 7 8
3 I bid
p 48
1
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
Vo l 3 9
.
,
p
.
20;
p
.
45
.
41
I nstead o f t h e hero coming out and telling himsel f about
his troubles in a long speech so that the spectators may know
what is on his mind the author might say : no w love i s torment
ing my hero with c ruel t houghts ; n ow he does not know what
”1
to do
I n th e comedies the u se o f the confidant in th e French man
ner solves th e problem o f exposition ; in th e tragedies the dialog
i s overloaded with epic mat ter so that i t becomes entirely u n
”
d ramatic and li feless as i n S chlegel s H ermann
Ch aracteri
z at io n and p sychological development are practically wanting
in fact the whol e treatment i s epic rather than dramatic I f
these plays had had real d ramatic worth their new techni c viz
the dropping o f soliloqu ies and asides might have exer t ed great
influence up on succeeding dramati sts A s a matter o f fact th e
innovation passed un n ot iced
Gottsched s hostility t o the solilo q uy and as ide is doubtles s
du e to French influence primarily that o f H édelin whom h e
?
In
ranks wi th Aristotl e as an authorit y on dramatic matters
asm u ch as H é d elin s view was on the w hole hostile to th e so lilo
quy as w e have previously po inted out it is small wonder that
Gottsched adopts hi s master s point o f vi ew Then too th e
fact t hat Corneille s later dramas and M oli ere s masterpieces
w ere practically devoi d o f so lil o quies may al so have influenced
him
S umming up then th e period from Gryphiu s to L essing a
p eriod o f servil e adherence to foreign model s and forei gn
technic Roman i n th e case o f Gr y phius hi s followers and the
writer s o f s ch o ol drama French in the case o f Gottsched and
h is school illu strates the usual fate o f a popular idol in the
car eer o f th e soliloquy The flor id rhetori cal soliloqu y o f
Gryph ius dazzling th e populace a s di d B eau B rummel in the
h eyday o f hi s career meets with r everses and i s compelled to
slink o fi the s cene o f its fo rmer triumphs when it i s reduced
to a threadbare impossible exterior such as i t p resents in
Wei se s works
1
Q u 0t e d by Diis l in B e it ré g e zur C it is ch en H i s t o ri e d er d eut s ch en
S pra ch e 2 7 S tuc k 7 4
2 F Diis el p
f
4f
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
’
,
,
’
,
,
’
.
’
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
C
,
,
’
.
e
,
.
.
,
,
.
1
.
r
,
1
.
,
CHAPTER I I I
T H E E RA
L E SSI N G
OF
,
S C H I LL E R
G O ET H E
AND
I n the p receding p eri od the soliloqu y passed from a state o f
unchallenged acceptance and unqualified approval to a state o f
innocuou s desu etude During the classic period the era o f
L essing S chiller and Goethe the soliloqu y p racticall y under
went the oppos ite process L ess ing attempted the impossible
”
b y tr y ing t o transmute a convention into a sli ce o f li fe
Hi s
realisti c treatment o f the soliloqu y undoubtedl y invested it with
as much naturalness ( vrai semblance to use th e French term )
as was humanl y possible and yet the fact remains that even hi s
fo rm o f th e soliloq u y is not a faith ful counterpart o f real li fe
—
w e do not regularly think aloud
and a fter all a conve m
tion Schiller and Goethe on th e other hand di d not worr y
about the naturalness o r unnaturalne ss o f the sol iloqu y but
restored i t to its former position o f an absolute ruler wh ose
right s are in no wise questioned
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
—
.
,
.
I
If
.
L es s ing
L essing
had not been antagonisti c to all things Gott
s ch e d ian there i s a possibility that he might have developed and
per fected the new technic and given us power ful d ramas whose
appeal would not have been w eakened b y the ab sence o f so lll
B ut to return to actuality L essing s tech
o q u ies and asides
“
“
n ic o f the soliloqu y in his early comedies
Damon
Der
“
“
“
j unge Gel ehrte
Der M isogyn
D ie alte Jungfer
Der
“
” “
Freigei st
D ie Juden and Der S chatz i s on a plane so
much lower than that found in hi s maturer pla y s that it is best
treated separately
Exposi t ional soliloquies are rare in t h e earl y p la y s as the
e m plo y ment o f c o n fi dan ts in the French manner made them
unnecessar y Onl y one example o f the introductor y ex po si
in Der Mi sogyn but even h ere
t io n al so lilo q u v occurs viz
,
’
,
.
”
,
,
”
”
”
,
,
,
”
”
,
,
.
,
.
”
,
.
,
,
42
43
w e find quite an improvement over the bald and calm state
m ent o f facts that was cu s tomary
A h ighl y irate fath er bel
lows a few di sj ointed expositional bits at th e audience
A be
lated pi ece o f introductory exposition Freigeist I 2 show s
a skill ful blending o f the pu rely epic with the emotional th e
l atter outweigh ing the former The accumulated anger o f the
firs t scene bursts forth in wrath y reflections which are followed
by a few facts n ecessar y to th e comprehension o f the plot B ut
one crudel y expositi onal sp eech can be fou n d that o f Rap s in
“
”
“
D er S chatz S c I I in which he i dentifies himsel f : M an
muss allerlei Personen spielen k on n en Den m o chte ich doch
s ehen der in diesem A u fz u ge den T ro m m elsch lager Raps
erkennen sollte ? I ch seh aus ich w ei ss s elber ni ch t wi e ; und
—
?
s oll ich w eis s selber n icht w as
Ei ne narrisch e Kommi s
”
si o n !
Unnecessary characterizing bits which remind one o f the
lab els in the mouths o f old pictu res crop up in soliloquies now
“
and then e g i n Der Freigeist I end where th e serva n t
ch aracterizes his master and I I 4 wh ere L isette d scribes two
e
“
servants : Ei n Paar allerliebste S chlingel ! A drasts Johann
und T h eo ph an s M artin : di e wah ren Bilder ihrer Herren von
der h asslich en S eite ! Au s Freigeisterei ist j ener ein Spitz
”
bube ; u nd au s F rom m igk eit dieser ein Du m k p f
The speaker s intention rarely requires a whole speech ; as
a rule it form s the app endix o f a reflective s ol iloquy thus
giving a dram atic tou ch to speeches that temporarily retard the
1
m ovement o f a pla y
L es sing sh ows a dec ided p redilection for reflective so lilo
i
u
q es in the early plays a typ e o f s oliloquy in which th e speaker
revert s to th e th em e d iscussed in the p receding dialog and com
ments upon it or gives vent to the feel ing and emoti on arou sed
by that conversat ion Unless thes e reflective speeches result
in a change o f attitude on th e part o f the sp eaker o r i n the
formulation o f a plan that has som e bearing on th e acti o n they
n aturally are lyri c rather than dramatic Most o f them are
undramatic in character and have a considerable admixtu re o f
.
.
”
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
'
,
’
,
,
,
”
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'
.
’
,
.
,
.
,
.
1
Die
alt e Ju n g fe r I I
,
,
4 ; Der F
r eig ei st I I I
,
,
7 ;
D er
S chatz
,
Sc
.
2.
44
philosophi c reflection
Th e tone o f these solil o quies is natu r
all y not dramati c but rathe r elegiac and pas sive and philo
sophic embelli shment wh ich th e young thinker could not d o
wit hout even in his comedies makes them rather duller an d
1
more tire s ome t han livelier and brighter
Ever y on e o f the
”
“
earl y pla y s furnish es examples o f thi s t y p e : Damon S c 6
“
“
8;
Der j unge Geleh rte I I I I 4 ; Der M isogyn I I b eg
”
I I 6 ; I I end ; Die alte Jungfer I I 4 ; Di e Juden 1 7 1 9 ;
“
“
Der S chatz 3 8 1 0 I I ; Der Freigeist I I I 3 I I I 7 V
2
etc There i s a l iberal sprinkling o f th e ph ilosophical ele
ment in almost all o f the abo ve mentioned soliloquies A full
“
“
”
fledged T en den z m o n o lo g occurs in Die Juden S c 3 i n
which the attit ude o f Christians towards Jews i s criticized
Emotional outbursts are rare the best exampl es occurring in
“
Der Freigeist I 2 V 2
L essing s desi re to avoid an empt y stage gave rise to quite
a few link sol iloquies who se function it w as to fill the gap
?
between th e exit o f one character an d th e entrance o f another
The m ost interesting feature o f L essing s earl y solil o quies
“
i s their st y le Even in Damon his earliest attempt L ess
ing breaks awa y from the familiar t y pe with i ts carefully
exp ress ed logicall y develop ed and uninterrupted ideas such
as one might fi n d and expect in a previousl y p repared argument
o r oration B oth o f Damon s long reflective sp eeches S c 6
and 8 show the author s attempt to express the ideas as they
occur to th e sp eaker The thoughts come haltingl y one m o
ment t hen agai n one thought i s interrupted b y another that
suddenly suggests itsel f There are breaks in the continuity
o f th e thought sudden j ump s far afield reversion t o p reviously
expressed ideas su dden anticipatio n s
I ch w iird e ihn selbst
—
h
a
tadeln Doch ich halte ihn auch nicht einmal f ig dazu er
mag sein was er will aber i ch irre mich wohl auch— ich
—
b eu rt h eile ihn nach mi r weil ich s o schwach bin ; folgt es denn
darau s dass ein anderer Doch allerdi n gs eine so vollkommen e
Freundsch aft i st fiir diese Welt nicht O b auch wohl L eander
Halt I ch will etc
s o denk t als er r edet
.
,
”
.
,
”
,
.
,
”
,
,
,
,
.
,
”
,
,
,
,
,
”
,
”
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
”
.
,
,
.
,
”
,
,
,
,
.
’
'
’
”
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
—
—
—
—
,
—
,
—
—
”
—
,
I
,
1
1
Diis el
2
Da
.
,
m
.
,
o p.
o n,
I
,
c it
3 ;
,
I
p
,
.
30
.
5 ;
Die
alt e Ju n g f r
e
,
1
,
3 ;
I
,
4 ; De r
j u nge
G el ehrt e
,
45
I n his desire to emphasize the reali sti c element h e over
emphasized and went too far
but that does not detract from
the value o f th e i n novation There is at least no doubt i n any
o ne s min d that the speaker is thoroughly aroused and excited
A drast s soliloqu y in Der F re igeist V 2 also ad mirabl y p or
“
trays his violent agitation : Was fiir ein neuer Streich l I ch
kann ni ch t wi eder z u mir k o m m en l E s ist nich t auszuhalten !
V eracht ungen B eleidigungen B eleidigungen in dem Gegen
—
s tande
der ihm der liebste sein muss
a 11es i st umsonst ;
”
nichts will er fiihlen etc
The occasional interruption o f th e sp eaker in the middle o f
1
h is soliloquy is another reali stic tou ch
But th e announcing
o f th e next character by th e speaker o f th e soliloquy when h e
“
has finished i s far more common : Da k o mmt er j a selber ;
Ah hui da k o mmt ; Ha da k o mmt er ; k o mmt da nicht
Ap ostrophe is rarely used in th e early plays to enliven the
soliloquy A long apostrophe to learning by Damis occurs in
?
—
a p seu do soliloquy as a s ervant is pr es ent and li stening
“
“
”
Asides are numerous especially in
Die Jud en
Der
”
”
Fr eigeist and Der S chatz
I t seems strange that the same
man wh o strove to make th e s oliloquy realistic could all o w such
an imp robable convention a s the aside in his plays During
”
a d ialog in Di e Juden e g th e characters stop in the m iddle
o f a conversation and eac h delivers three asides a ludicrou s
p er forman ce Then a fter they have t alke d past each oth er
3
one asks the oth er why h e has been so los t in th ought
Of
cou rs e L essing s indebtedness to Fr ench comedy and especially
to Regn ard Marivaux and Destouches accounts fo r the u se o f
th e asid e bu t a s early as 1 7 5 0 th e same y ear i n w hich Der
“
”
S chatz was w ritten he found asides s o ungereimt dass
”4
nichts dariib er ist
and accused every one wh o di d not find
them very o ffens ive o f lack o f taste I t is evidently anoth er
instanc e o f the fact that theory and p racti se do n ot always
coinci de
1 Die alt e Ju n g f r
I I 4 ; Der F r e ig e i st V 2 ; Die Jud en I 3 ; I 1 9
2 D er Ju n g e G el ehrt
I
,
.
’
.
”
’
,
,
,
—
—
—
,
,
.
,
.
’
”
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
e
,
,
,
e,
3
4
d es
Se
.
6
1
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
Criti c i sm
Th eat er s
o
,
3
.
f
Plautu s Capti v i
Stii ck
’
,
1
750
.
in B ey t rag e
zur H i s t o ri e u Au fn ahm
.
e
46
“
”
I n the 4 8 th number o f the Hambu rgis che Dramaturgi e
L essing warml y de fends soliloquies which acquaint u s with th e
attitud e and th e plans o f the speaker Qu o ting from his trans
“
lation o f Diderot s essa y on dramatic art h e says : Waru m
haben gewi sse Monologen eine so grosse Wirkung ? Darum
wei l s ie mir die geheimen Ans chl a ge einer Person vertrauen
und diese V ertraulichkeit mich den Augenblick mit Furcht oder
”
Ho ffnung fiillet
He goes on to say that i f the attitude o f the
characters is unknown to the sp ectator the latter cannot mani
fest particular i nterest in the ac tion but that his interest will
be doubled i f h e has some ligh t on the matter and feels that
ferent i f th e
th e action and the speeches would be entirely di f
O nl y in t hat case h e will hardly
c haracters knew each other
be abl e to await the development when h e is able to compar e
their real selves w ith th eir acts L ater in the same essa y h e
de fends th e expositi o nal prologs o f Euripi des becaus e he main
tains that it is b ette r to acquaint the audie n ce with th e n ec es
sary exposition in a crude manner than not at all I n No 4 9
he again champions the expositional p rolog and states that h e
greatly pre fers it to a dialog exposition w ith t h e aid o f a talk
at ive confidant
L essing practis e d what h e prea ched with regard to the so lil
o q u y and we find expositional soliloquies o f all kinds includ
ing the introductor y variet y as well as soliloquies which revea l
the thoughts and emotions o f the speakers I nitial exposition
”
“
“
i s conve y ed in soliloqu y form in Philotas and Emili a
” “
Mis s S ara Sampson
Min n a
G alo tti in dialog form in
”
”
“
“
“
and Nathan
I n both Minna and S ara this exp o si
t io n al dialog takes place between the principal characters and a
trusted servant or chambermaid i n other words th e French
”
“
confidant ; in N at han the dialog i s bette r motivated as
Nathan returns from a j ourne y and n aturally wi shes to be put
in touch with the events that have occurred during his absence
”
“
Ros
remi nding one somewhat o f I bsen s technic i n Ghosts
” “
D oll s House and others
m ersh o lm
“
”
The bri e f expositional bit in Minna in w hich Just con
ve y s a few facts wh ile talki n g in his sleep i s t oo sh ort to be
a full fl edged initial ex position so liloquy The clever manner
.
’
,
'
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
”
”
,
,
,
”
.
,
,
,
’
,
’
,
.
‘
.
48
littl e light on his c haracter : Wer steht mi r dafiir dass eigner
Mangel mich nicht einmal verleiten kOn n t e Gebrauch davon z u
1
?
machen
Baldly exp ositional bits are rare indeed the two i n stances in
”
“
Minna bei n g the onl y examples B ut even h ere t hey are
partially redeeme d b y being but a part o f r espectable reflective
solilo q uies A little thought however w ould h ave made them
unnecessary
A good example o f a d esc ripti ve soliloq uy occu rs in Emilia
I I I 2 where Marinelli stands at the window and
G alo tt i
describes what is going on outside Questions and exclama
tions togeth er with apostrophes give i t quite a little dramatic
li fe Other descrip ti ve passages are found in Nathan I I 5
I I 7 in the first o f which Nathan describes the approaching
knight in th e second a former acquaintance
When a speaker express es h is intention in s oliloquy he
usually does so a fter d u e reflecti on and acco rdingl y we find
an intentional ending i n p ractically all refl ective soliloquies as
well as in some o f the deliberative and conflict solil o quies I n
this resp ect the reflective soliloqu ies o f the later plays stand
on a high er plane as they rise from passive inactivity to acti ve
part icipation in the plot
The reflective soliloquies o f the later plays then bo th revert
and anti cipate thus influencing th e action A good example
Nathan IV 8 where Daj a a fter reflecti ng for a
o c u rs in
moment about the p receding conversation annou n ces her i m ten
tion o f telling Recha wh o sh e really is O ther examples are
“
“
”
found in Minna IV 8 ; Philotas S c 4 ; Emilia I I I
2
I
I
I
The mo ralizi n g and philosophical element whi ch L ess
5
ing w as so partial to i n hi s early pla y s is discarded i n his later
d ramas
The best example o f a deliberative soliloqu y is Nathan s
famous sp eech I I I 6 in which he arra y s his keen mental
powers against the Sultan s tricky question that covers so many
pit falls and finall y hits upon a solution The slight p erplexity
that the Sultan s question has le ft him i n i s splendidl y portrayed :
,
,
”
'
,
.
.
,
,
.
”
,
,
,
.
”
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
”
,
,
,
,
,
.
”
”
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
’
.
’
1
Mi n n a I
,
,
7
.
49
W ie ist
M i r d en n
W as w ill d er S ul ta n ? W as
A uf G eld g e f a sst ; u n d e r will— Wah rh ei t
“
Hm ! Hm !— w u n der1 ich !
—
—
—
I c h b in
Wa h r h ei t
.
”
.
Then a fter h e has lai d bare the trap he proceeds to weigh
possible answers in masterly fashion :
I ch m u ss
B ehu t sa m g eh n u n d w ie ? w ie das — So g a n z
S to ckj u d e s e i n z u w o ll en ge h t s c h o n n i ch t
Un d g a n z u n d g a r n i ch t Ju d e geht n o ch m i n d e r
D en n w en n k ei n Jud e diirft e r n u r fr a gen
W aru m k ei n M u sel m a n ?
—
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
I n th e ensuing paus e a s olution p resents itsel f wh ich satis
”
fi es h im completely : Da s war s Das kann m ich rett en
S cene 8 o f the same a ct makes i t plain th at to L ess ing th e
soliloquy was a think ing alou d Th e stage di rections read :
Tempelherr Geht mit si ch s elbst k éim p fen d au f und ab ; b is
”
er l osbricht wh ich su rel y indicates th at we are now to h ear
th e continuati on o f an inner conflict that h is th oughts now
H is emotion qui ckly gives way to calmer
be come audible
deliberation which r esults in a d eci sion Th is transition from
silent t o audible thought is also evident in V 3 and I II 6
When the head is subordinated to th e heart when th e care ful
mental balancing o f the p ro s and cons is ups et b y an em oti onal
eruption w e pas s from the deliberative solilo q uy to one o f con
fl ict
O do ardo s speech V 4 aptly illustrates this t ransition :
“
Wi e — Nimmermeh r !— M i r vorschreiben w o s ie hi n soll ?
—
—
Mi r sie vo renthalten
We r will das ? Wer dar f d as
Der
hier alles dar f was er will ? Gut gut ; so soll er s ehen w ie
viel au ch ich dar f ob i ch es s ch on nicht diirfte ! Ku rzsi chtiger
W iiterich ! M it di r w ill ich es sch on au fnehmen Wer kein
Gesetz achtet i st eben so m ach tig als w er kein Gesetz hat
Das w eisst du nicht ? Komm an ! komm a n
Aber s ielie da !
S chon w ieder ; sch on wieder rennet der Zorn mit dem V e r
”
stande davon
Then he settles down to calm deliberati on :
“
Was will ich ? Erst m iisst es doch geschehen sein wo riib er
”
ich tobe etc S oliloquies in which emotion unmistakably holds
the upp er hand a re O do ardo s conflict solil o quy V 6 ; Melle
font s speech IV 2 ; M arw o o d s soli lo q uy IV 9 ; the sp eech o f
’
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
—
.
’
.
,
,
.
’
,
’
’
,
4
,
,
,
,
50
’
Temp elherr I I I I O Philo tas s long soliloqu y in th e 4th scen e
i s deliberative on th e w hole although there i s a strong under
cu rrent o f emotion at tim es
Purel y emotional soliloquies i e soliloquies whose sole
aim i s to acquaint u s with the speaker s feel ings are no t
frequent Most o f the soliloquies with th e exception o f th e
baldl y expositional and th e purel y mental deliberative speeches
have an adm ixture o f emotion M in n a s outburst o f j o y at
“
finding T ellh eim : I ch habe ihn wieder ! I ch hab ihn i ch
hab ihn ! I ch bin gliick lich ! und frOhlich !
i s the best ex
ample o f an unadulterate d emotional sol iloqu y in L essing s
dr amas
The language o f the soliloquies in the later pla y s lacks poetic
embellishment and rhetori cal flou rish ; it i s simpl e an d natu ral
L iberal u se o f apostroph e and the di al o g form in fuses a great
deal o f dramatic li fe into th ese speeches I n addition the s o lil
o q u ies give us an insight into th e workings o f the mind show
ing u s how the i deas come to consciousness o n e b y o n e Th e
fact that the e go o f t h e speaker is s o o ften divided into two
arguing o r opposi n g selves makes u s forget for th e time being
that th ere is but one character on the stage
Th e custom o f announcing th e approach o f an actor at t h e
close o f t h e soliloqu y is retained in the later pla y s Asides are
less numerous in the later dramas but e ven thi s i s surprising
when w e know how bitterly L essing den o u n ced them in t he
“
“
Dramaturgie wh ere he re fers to them as u n n at iirlich e
”
Nathan contains as man y as fi fteen asides !
Kiin st eleien
Nowh ere i n L essi n g s pla y s i s th e language o f th e soliloquy
embellished o r florid Generalizing and sententious in gred i
ents occur onl y in his earl y pla y s A growing desire to ma k e
the soliloquies as n atu ral as possible i s plainl y discernible a s
one r eads the dramas ch ronologicall y Whereas man y o f the
earl y sol iloquies served a merel y mechani cal purpose viz the
linking o f s cenes th e later soliloquies are essent ial parts o f the
drama as th e y have a direct bearing upon plot and ch aract eriz a
tion The scarcit y o f expositional soliloquies in the earl y pla y s
is due to the fact that th e necessary exposition was usually
1 II
7
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
’
,
.
,
,
’
.
’
—
,
”1
’
’
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
”
,
”
.
’
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
51
c onveyed to t h e au dienc e by dialogs o f se rvan ts o r co n fi dan ts
wh o w ere thoroughl y con v ers ant w ith the st ate o f affai rs
Alt hough t he later pl a y s h ave more expo sit i ona l solil o qui es
th ese s pe ec he s are ne ver c rud ely i n stru ctive bu t c lo sely knit
i n to t he fabric o f t h e pla y
.
,
.
2
S to rm
.
an d
S tress Dram
a
A craving for uncorrupted nature the glo rific ati o n o f indi
v idu alit y t h e d enunci ati on o f cu rrent social c o nditio n s
b itter
—
t
a tacks upon authority wh atever it s gui se thes e in short are
th e ch aracterist ics o f t hi s revo lutio nary m o vem ent Th e attack
upon literary authority m ani fest ed itsel f chiefly in a r evolt
against French i nflu ence French artifi ciality an d th e unnatur al
ness th at resulted from th e t y rann y o f the irk s o m e t h re e u n iti es
togeth er w it h a demand for t h em e s that were di stinc tively Ger
m an in characte r
How did all thi s a ffect th e technic o f t h e soliloquy ? Quanti
t at iv ely there i s l i ttl e di fference with th e excepti on o f a few
“
“
pla y s notably S chiller s D i e R a ub er and M ull er s Geno
v eva where rest raint is thrown to th e w in ds an d th e soliloquy
i s allow ed to floo d p age a fte r page Qualitat i vely h o w ever
t h e general tendency i s to in dulge in ra n ting and p ro du ce wei rd
excres cenc es up on t h e tree o f sane expres sion B u t wh atever
thei r faults t h e se soliloqui es a re fo r t h e most part highl y dra
mati c and vi rile The y show m any o f the b est traits o f L es
sing s technic w ith thei r u se o f t he dial o g form o f apo strophe
frequ ent p auses an d t h e prese nt atio n o f ideas as th ey occu r to
the s pe aker
S chiller s and Goethe s st o rm and st re ss pla y s w ill b e di s
cu ssed in c o nnecti on w ith thei r oth er dramas Th e d ramas to
“
be c o ns id ere d here a re Klinger s Di e Zwi llinge L eisew itz s
“
Ju liu s vo n Tarentum
Wagn e r s
D i e Kin derm Orderin
”1
“
”
L enz s D er HGol o und Gen oveva
o fm eist e r
a n d M iiller s
“
S au er s c riticism : Wi e ei n einziger M onolog brau st das
2
St iick d ah i n
i s j u stifi ed as Guel fo rages t h rough Di e Zw il
linge like a Titan su rrou n ded by pygmie s Although th e so lil
'
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
”
’
’
.
,
,
”
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
’
,
,
.
’
’
.
”
’
’
‘
,
”
”
’
,
,
’
’
,
.
’
”
'
,
.
r ger
3
Stiirm
er u n d
B an
2
I bid
Vo l
p
.
,
.
1
,
.
31
1
.
,
3
vo l s
.
ed
.
by
A S au er B e rli n
.
,
.
52
are not a s numer o u s as one might exp ect m an y o f Guel
fo s speech es h ardl y bear th e semblance o f dialog an d are i n
re al ity disguis ed so liloq uie s S o i n I 2 Guel fo i s interru pted
by Grimaldi with L i eb er Gu el fo nicht so after he has torn
a goodly suppl y o f pa s s i o n to tatters but he pay s absolutely no
atten tion to the remark Eight o f t h e ni ne s oliloquies fall to
the share o f Guel fo and all are h o t w ith rage an d anger with
th e exception o f the fi rst h al f o f hi s soliloq uy at th e en d o f Act
I I I Exclamati o ns a pos trophes ques t ions an d p ause s a dmi
soul
Th e f o llowing w ill
rably port ra y h is t emp es t -to ssed
?
illu strate th e s tyl e : H a ! v er folgt mich alle s
All e Dam o n en
?
und Ge sp e n ster der N acht
M ei n bo ser Geist han gt m ir au f
dem N acken er l a sst mi ch nic ht s ti er t mich au s allen Winkeln
an Blas zu l V ergift mi r j edes F aserch en meine s Herz ens !
?
W iihl gi ftig i n mei n em B lut ! Hu l w as mart ert den Guel fo
wen w ill Gue l f o m art er n
Di e Glo cke ru f t dump f d er Sturm
saust iiber die Tiber E ine sc hOn e Nacht l Fe rdinando gieb
1
The l anguage
das Weib ! Ferdi n and o gieb di e Er st gebu rt !
th r o ugh o ut l e aves th e imp re ss ion o f a ba ttlefield covered with
the disj ect a memb ra o f the c ombat ants
M uller s Gol o u nd Genoveva i s top -h eavy w ith soliloquies
and a si des The solil o qu ies are o ft en b aldly n arrative and d e
scriptive but togeth er with t h ese exp o si t i onal speeches we fin d
reflective s oliloqui es and a c h o ice asso ntm en t o f em otional out
burs ts mo stly by Gol o w ho supplies at least one example for
every em otion aroused by unreq uited l ove The language every
now and t hen is lost i n a m aze o f fl o rid ingredients as e g
“
Hi er will i ch die siis se L u ft ein sch liirfen d i e ihre sc hOn e
Wange gek iihlt darei n s i e ihre n balsamisc hen Atem ergoss ;
begrabt mich hier wenn ich ein st sterbe mein L ei b wir d nicht
i n S taub zer fallen all e meine erst arrt e A de rn werden bal d in
ein neues L eben z u riick drin gen u nd w ie Blumen du rch die
Erde z u dieser L u ft empo rsc hiessen Wer d oc h der S ehlum
mer s ein k o nnte a u f s olch einem Paar Wimp e rn z u ruhen
Kalter Tod w arm es L eben ; all es um s ie— di e Welt das Uni
v e rs um
um ei n em einzigen D ruck
o q u ie s
,
’
.
,
,
,
”
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
‘
,
,
.
—
,
—
.
,
”
‘
.
’
.
,
'
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
'
,
—
.
.
,
,
,
”
—
.
1
I II
,
1
.
,
53
“
S ch l a f w o h l u n d
A u f d ei n em M u n d
z a rt
"1
el f ah rt !
L ieb c h en
s iis s,
i
m e ne
Him
m
,
The language o f the soliloquies in the other plays mentioned
b e fore i s natu ral and appropriate to the c haracters I n Der
“
Ho fmeister and Die Kin derm O rderin th e few soliloquie s
are interesting becaus e o f th e rather full stage di rections call
ing for pantomime so e g : setzt s ich hin un d liest eine Zei t
lang ; legt das Buch hin geht sehr bewegt ein paarmal au f
“
und ab ; sucht in d er Tasche und zie h t den B rie f heraus
Guckt ihn noch einmal durch
S ile nce on th e stage and silent
express ion o f the emotions is an i nteresting forerunne r o f
modern reali sti c methods That soliloquies may have thei r
“
u ses is made clear by o ne o f the characters in Der Ho fmeister
w ho b egins to soliloquize in another s prese nc eand when inter
ru pt ed explains :
Es ist ein M onolo g au s einem Trauerspiel
3
d en ich gern recitiere wenn i ch Sorgen habe
in oth er w ords
an e fficacious means o f driving dull care away Th e solil o quy
“
i s O ften a real talking to one s sel f as in Juliu s von Taren
“
tum I I 7 : D um mkop f sie sagte mi r j a se lbst die U rsach
meiner Kéilt e
V 2 Alter ist das der To n eines Richters
I n thi s play especially th e soliloqu ies contain frequent pau ses
numerous apostrophes and the di alog form
.
”
”
—
,
,
.
.
”
,
”
.
.
’
,
,
,
”
,
,
.
’
,
”
,
,
,
”
,
,
,
,
.
i
r
h
l
S
c
l
e
3
.
The most striking fact about th e solil o quy i n S chiller is its
”
frequent occurrence in the earl y pla y s esp ecially Die R a uber
an d its gradual cu rtailment an d di sappearance i n th e latter
plays That S chiller gave thi s convention more than passing
”
“
thought is evidenced i n his pre fac e t o th e R a u be r whe re h e
sp eaks w ith approval o f the s el f revealing soliloquy the so lilo
quy which acquaints u s with th e inmost thoughts and feelings
o f the speaker To b e sur e h e doe s no t directly menti on th e
s o liloquy bu t he does speak o f surp rising the soul as it were
”
i n its m o st secret m ovements ( di e S eel e gleichsam bei ihren
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
1
II
2
1 V,
3
4
,
p
II 5
F ir s t
,
en d
4,
.
.
325 ,
Die Kin d e rm éird erin
.
t
s e n en c e o f
th e
V o rr d
e
e
.
.
V
,
gi n n i n g
be
.
54
geheimsten Operationen ertappen ) as an advantage o f the dra
matic method and thi s undoubtedly re fers to the convention o f
th e s oliloquy
Quite in accordance with thi s statement w e find a prepo nder
a nce o f reflective and emotional soliloquies and a comparative
s carcit y o f the purel y expositional t y pe
I n fact most o f th e
expositional soliloquies form a small component part o f some
other t ype o f s o liloqu y There is but an i s o lated example o f an
initial expositi o n soliloquy an d that d oe s not o c cur in a play
“
1
proper but in th e p rolog t o th e Jungfrau von Orleans
In
i t Joan acquaints us with the supernatural message whi ch sh e
h as received
Near the beginning o f Di e R a uber Franz pre faces a long
reflective soliloqu y with a bit o f sel f characterization that leaves
“
n o doubt as t o his villain y
e g
Da m iisst i ch ein erbarm
licher Stiim per sein wenn i ch s nicht ei n mal so weit gebracht
2
h at te einen S ohn vom Herzen d es V aters lo sz u lO sen
”
A nother e xample o f this t y pe occurs in Maria Stuart
where
“
Eli zabeth throws consi derabl e light upon her character : O
—
h
!
h
m
a
li
S kl averei des V o lk sdien st s Sc
Wie
ch e Knechtscha ft
bin ich s m iide diesem G o tzen z u schmeicheln den mein I nner
3
Apostrophes exclamations qu estions
st es verachtet ! et c
and answ ers impart considerable li fe t o thes e expositional frag
ments and raise them far above the old ad spectato res speeches
Narrative sol iloquies are scarce and wh en the y do occu r they
are incorporated in a reflective or emotional speech I n W al
len st ein s reflective soliloquy I I I 1 3 we find quite a bi t o f
narration
.
.
,
'
.
,
”
.
.
,
.
.
,
’
,
”
,
.
,
’
,
,
”
.
,
,
.
,
.
'
,
,
,
:
D ah i n ges ch m o lz en
vo r
S t a rk e w a r en eur e H eer e
A m L ec h s a n k T ill y eu er l et z t e r H o rt ;
I n s B ay erlan d w ie ein g e s chw o lln er S t r o m
E r go ss s i c h di ese r G u sta v u n d z u W i en
I n se i n e r Ho f bu r g zi tt e rt e d er K a i se r
4
S o l dat en w a r en t eu er et c
S c n e 4 n tir e
Der
s c h w e d s c h en
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
”
'
,
1
2
3
4
e
e
1
,
1
.
IV
W all
,
.
1 0
.
t i
en s e n s
To d
.
.
56
the ranting unnatural style so characteristi c o f Die R a uber
Nun s o llt ihr den nackten Franz sehen und euch entsetzen !
M eine Augenbrauen sollen jiber euch herh an gen w ie Gewitter
w olken mein herrischer Name schweben wie ein drohender
Komet tiber diesen Gebirgen mein e S tirne soll euer Wetterglas
s ein ! Er streich elte und koste den Nacken der gegen ihn
stO rrig z u riick schlu g
Streic heln und k o sen ist meine Sach e
nicht I ch will euch di e z ack icht en Sp o ren ins Fleisch hauen
und die s char fe Geissel versuchen
I n meine m Gebiet
da ss Karto ffeln und diin n Bier ein
s oll s s o weit k o mmen
Traktament fiir F estt age werden und wehe dem der mir mit
vollen feurigen Backen unter die Augen tritt ! Bl a ss e der
Armut und skl avischen Fu rcht sind meine L eib farbe in diese
1
Liv erei will ich euch kleiden !
Thought soliloq uies especially o f the reflective variety
greatly outnumber the expositi onal type and every play fu r
“
I n Di e R a uber Franz i s
n ishes one o r mo re examples
especially obliging in the matter o f taking the audience into hi s
confidence and un folding hi s crassly materialistic point o f vi ew
hi s h eartless villainy hi s cringing cowardice I n h is first long
winded s olil o qu y he reveals h is attitude toward li fe practically
a negati o n o f all ties which hold so ciet y together One by one
h e takes up an d c oolly dis pos es o f reputation conscience etc :
“
—
Gewissen o j a freilich ! ein tiichtiger L u m pen m an n Sper
linge von Kirschbaum en w egz u sch reck en !
I n der That
sehr lo b en swiirdige Anstalten die Narren im Respekt und den
P Obel unter dem Panto f
fel z u halten damit die Gesch eite n es
2
desto bequemer haben
I n spite o f its great lengt h the soliloqu y
is not without dramatic li fe Apostrophes are frequent ques
tions follow each other in breathl ess ha ste sometimes five o r
“
Warum hat er mich
s ix be fore an ans w er i s vouchsafed :
gemacht ? doch wohl nicht gar au s L iebe z u mi r der erst ein
?
?
I ch werden sollte
Hat er mich gekannt eh e er mich machte
O der hat er m ich gedacht wi e er mich machte ? Oder hat er
?
mich gew iin sch t da er mic h machte
Wusste e r was ich
2
?
werden wiirde
Das wollte ich ihm nicht raten
Occa
'
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
’
,
,
,
,
‘
”
,
,
,
”
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
”
.
.
,
,
,
,
”
.
1
Die Réiu b er
2
I
,
,
1
.
II
,
2
en d
.
.
57
s io n al
interruptions in the flow o f thought al so show a desire
to secure verisimilit u de I n th e same act Karl reflects upon th e
degeneracy o f the times i n a speech that is permea t e d with
1
d isgust an d indignati o n and characterized by terrible ranting
The s olil o quy at the beginning o f th e second act partly refl ect
ive partly deliberative su ffers from th e insertion o f medical
lo re in the reflective p ortion but is otherwise dramatic Th e
other reflective speeches i n this play are made more or less dra
mati c by the use o f exclamations questions and ans w ers and
?
pauses
The short reflective soliloquies in F iesco form quite a con
trast to the lengthy outpourings in Di e R éiu ber
Thei r brev
i ty might tempt one to regard them as link soliloquies but th ey
serve a dramatic purpose by characterizing th e speaker or by
showi n g hi s attitu de F iesco delivers most o f these speeches
“
u sually at the end o f a scene : Dieser Republikaner i st hart
“
Wenn di ese Flammen ins V aterla n d schlagen
w ie Stahl
”
m O gen die D oria feste stehen
Other instances occu r in I 2 ;
II 1 6 ; III 6 ; V 1
I t woul d lead to o far afiel d to take up all the reflective so lilo
3
u
Among th e m ore notewo rthy are Eboli s dramatic speech
q ies
4
wh en Don Karlo s sp urns h er love Wall enstein s long soliloquy
5
when he realizes that h e has hop elessly involved himsel f L ei
6
Tell s famou s
c est er s speech a fter hi s unmasking by B urleigh
7
s oliloquy in the hollow way
Th e length o f Tell s sp eech i s a
little surp ris ing at first sight but let u s remember that w e ar e
d ealing with a so liloquy not with dialog I n dialog h is l o qua
c io u sn ess would be surp rising but here i t i s simply a case o f
his thoughts being made audibl e as h e i s waiting to kill Gessler
Thi s reflective speech contains n o element o f conflict ; no at
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
”
.
,
,
.
”
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
’
'
,
,
’
’
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
1
I,
2
.
ra n z ; I V 2 en d by Fran z ; I V 4
3 Oth r exa
pl es : Kab al e u n d Li b e I 6 ; I V 8 ; Do n Karlo s I 1 ;
Pi cc o l o m i n i I I 5 ; I I I 9 ; W all en s t e i n s T o d
9 ; I I I 1 ; II I 5 ; IV 6
Ju n g frau I I 8 ; I I I 9 ; Braut v M ess i n a b eg o f
4 ; II 5 ; III 1 3
I I 1 en d
2 partl y ; T ll
2
I,
en d
Sc
,
,
.
,
,
D0n Karlo s I I
,
.
,
,
,
9
Wall e n st e i n s T o d
6 Maria S tuart
IV
7 W ilh el m
T ell IV
5
,
.
I, 4
,
,
4
,
,
3
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
e
4
,
e
,
II,
by F
2
m
e
I I,
; I V,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
58
tempt i s made to reach a decision no defense o f his intended
action i s made His decision is previously m ade and he is
abs o lutel y convinced o f the righteousness o f hi s undertaking
The form is practicall y that o f a dialog and consequentl y highly
d ramati c Practicall y a third o f i t is an apostroph e to Gess
ler and throughout th e remainder o f the soliloq u y apostrophes
are made now to his arr o w and bowstring now to his children
Purely d eliberative soliloquies are rather in frequent inasmuch
a s the speaker s emotional nature usually crops to the sur face
and puts an end to calm d e liberati on and a cool unimpassioned
weighing o f th e pro s and cons Franz M oo r s solut ion o f th e
p roblem o f committing murder legally admirably illustrates the
deliberative typ e The problem is stated : Wer es v erstiin de
dem To d diesen u n geb ah n ten Weg in das S chloss des L ebens
z u ebnen ? d en KO rp er vom Geist aus z u verderben
ha !
?
z
!
a
u
Originalwerk
we
r
Stand
br
a
chte
Hi s p erplexity
i
n
d
s
e
is removed little by little by a careful weighing o f all po ssible
solutions till the one eminently satis factor y w eapon is found :
“
Zorn ?
dieser h eissh u n grige Wol f fri sst sich z u schnell
?
satt
Sorge
dieser Wurm nagt mi r z u langsam
Gram ?
di es e Natt e r schle icht mi r z u tr a ge— Furcht ?
?
f
f
i
s
die Ho nung l a sst e nicht umgrei fen
Was sin d
?
das all die Henker des M enschen
I s t das Arsenal des
?
?
r
hO
f
T
nn
s
t
f
n
d
Todes s o bald e c f
p
( ie si e ) Wi e
N un ?
Was ? N ein ! Ha ! ( Au ffahrend ) Sch reck l Was
?
?
kann d er S chreck nicht
U nd d och Wenn er auch diesem
1
?
?
S turm stiin de
Wenn er etc
The final decision is
worked out as well as an y o f L es s i n g s The suspense th e
mental groping the fl ashlik e decision remind us o f Natha n s
decision in h is famous s oliloquy To be sure the ranti n g spoils
the good e ffect Posa s soliloqu y immedi atel y be fo re h is inter
vi ew with the king is moulded along the lines o f Nathan s speech
prior to his intervie w with the S ultan an d avoids M oor s rant
“
ing Posa is perplexed at being summoned b y the ki n g
Wie
komm ich aber h ieh er ? Eigensinn des lau n e n ha ften Zu falls
war es n u r was mi r mein Bild in diesen Spiegeln zeigte ?
,
-
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
’
’
.
.
,
'
n
—
”
.
’
.
,
’
,
,
.
’
.
’
’
.
.
,
1
Die
R aub e r I I
,
,
1
.
59
Ein Zu fall nur
A fter due deliberation he reaches a decision :
“
Was der KO n ig mit mir auch wollen m ag glei chviel ! I ch
‘
—
w eiss was i ch
i ch mit dem KOn ig soll und w a r s au ch
1
The M oor s soliloquy
eine F eu erfl o ck e Wah rheit nu r
2
in Fi esco di ffers from these in th at it rea ch es no decision
When the speaker s emotions intrude upon his cal m delibera
tion when head gives Way to th e heart the w ay i s paved
fo r a soliloquy in whi ch the struggle between conflicting i deas
F iesco
a n d emotions i s depicted in sh ort a conflict sol il o quy
3
passes through two such struggles I n th e fi rst co n fl ict b e
tween h is selfishness and his altruism the latter i s victoriou s and
h e decides t o renounce his ambition fo r the goo d o f the state
Th e opening lines leave no dou bt as to the type o f soliloquy :
Welch ei n Au fruh r in meiner B rust ! w elche heimlich e Flucht
4
der Gedanken
I n his s econ d inner struggle Fiesco
vacillates fo r s o me time between obe y ing and ruling but finally
deci des in favo r o f the h ammer rather than the anvil Here
too th e inner unrest is po inted o u t n ear the opening o f th e
s o lilo quy : Wilde Phanta s ien haben m einen S chla f au fge
schwelgt
mein ganzes Wesen k ram pfi g um eine Em pfi n d
5
ung gew a lzt
Joan s c onflict betw e en love an d duty
“
6
Karl Moor s to be o r not to b e s o liloquy Amalia s struggle
7
a fter sh e has s poken to Karl an d the lat ter s conflict as h e sees
8
th e s cenes o f h i s childhood a fter a l ong ab sence ar e o ther
9
examples o f th i s type
Philosophi c utterances frequ ently fo rm a small component
p art o f a reflective soliloquy especially i n the later dramas
The most notew o rthy example as well as the longest i s Wallen
1 0
stein s reflection on cu st o m :
—
,
’
,
”
’
.
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
'
’
.
,
’
’
,
’
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
’
1
Do n Karlo s
2
F
3
i es c o I II
,
III
,
7
,
,
9
.
.
Die V e rs ch wé ru n g d es Fi es co
III 2
5 Die Ju g frau
v 0 IV b eg
6 Die R éiu b e r IV
5
7 I bid
IV 4
8 1 bid
IV 1
9 T w o s o lil o q ui s in D em etriu s
1 0 W all en s t e i n s T o d I
4
4
F
i
e s co ,
.
,
n
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
e
.
,
,
.
II
,
1
9
.
60
“
N i ch t
l eb en d ig k r a f t v o ll si ch v erk iin digt
I st das g e fah rlic h Fu r c ht b a r e
Das g a n z
G em ei n e ist s das ew ig G est r ige
W as i m m er w ar u n d i m m er w iederk eh ret
U n d m o r g en gil t w eil s h eu t e h at g ego l t en !
D en n au s G em ei n em ist der M en s c h g em a c ht
U n d die G ew o h n h ei t n en n t e r s ei n e A m m e
W eh dem der an den wiirdig a l t en H a u sr a t
t
h
m
h
rii r
d as t eu r e E r b stiick s ei n er A h n en !
I
w as
,
,
.
’
,
,
’
,
'
,
.
,
”
,
I n the face o f death Talbot philosophizes as follows :
“
geht
M
h
E d e u n d die ei n zige
A u sb eu t e d ie w ir au s dem K a m p f d es L eb en s
W egt ra g en ist die E i n si c ht in das N i c ht s
Un d h e r z li c h e Ve r a c ht u n g a ll e s d es s en
W as u n s erh a b en s ch i en u n d w fi n sch en sw ert
So
d er
en s c
z u
—
n
,
,
.
“
Other exampl es occu r in Don Karlo s I I I 9 ; Maria Stu
art I I 6 ; IV 1 0 ; Wilhel m Tell I I I
“
Emotional solil o quies are especially numerou s in Die R a u
”
ber and th e early drama s are all characterized by th e m ost
unnatural florid style S o e g w hen Karl M oo r realizes hi s
brother s colossal knaver y h e regales u s with an allegro furi
2
Fiesco
05 0 on th e theme Spitzbube with several variations
c o ntributes this inimitabl e bit when h e disc o vers his murdered
“
wi fe : Ah ( mit frechem Zahn ebleck en gen Himmel ) h a tt ich
nu r seinen W eltbau zwischen diesen Zéihn en ich fiihlte mi ch
au fgelegt die ganze Natur in ein g rinsendes S cheusal z u zer
3
kratzen bi s si e aussieht wi e m ein S chmerz
Such examples
might be multiplied ad libitum but woul d serve no purpose
Th e later dramas furnish mo re examples o f thought sol iloquies
with the exception o f Die B raut von M essina in which three
o f the four soliloqui es are o f the emotional type The diction
o f these soliloquies like that o f the entire play i s lo fty and
highl y poetic
Pantomime by an actor le ft alone on the stage as a means o f
expressing his emotions has largely supplanted the soliloquy in
”
,
,
”
”
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
’
,
.
,
,
—
,
”
'
.
,
.
.
.
Ju g frau I I I 6
2 Di
R aub r IV
3 Fi es co
V 3
1
n
,
e
,
e
,
,
,
1
.
,
.
3
.
61
the modern realist ic d rama S chiller realizes th e value o f pan
t o m im e an d frequ entl y in s erts stage di r ecti o n s i n his soliloqui es
calling for it Yet he do es n ot at tem p t to supplant the so lilo
quy by pa n tom ime but W i sely mak e s it a n e ffe ctive servant
There is bu t one not ewo rt hy i n stance wh ere a characte r i s le ft
al o ne on the stage w it hout del iveri ng th e expecte d soliloq uy
Th e overp ow ering gri e f i s h er e expres sed by silent pantomime
which is far m o re e ffect ive than a l o ng out bu rst woul d b e The
stage di rect ions read : Wallenstein leaves The s erva n t lights
S e n i follow s Go rdon remains st and ing i n the dark
t h e way
nes s looking a fter th e duke u nt il h e has dis appeare d i n th e fu r
t h est corri do r ; then h e e xp ress e s his gri ef by g estu r e s an d
1
leans sorrow fully against a colu m n
O ne o f t h e most co m
mo n stage direct i o n s found i n the s o liloqui es i s t h at c all ing fo r
si lence W hich shows that S chille r re al ize d th at the min d do es
n o t work w it h c loc k lik e p recisio n an d t h at t he flow o f thought
is f requ ently inter rupt ed
N ac h ei nem langen T ie fsch weigen ;
Paus e ; gr o sse Paus e ; in T ie fsim m ve rsunke n ; blei bt ti e fsinnig
stehen ; geht t ie fdenk end au f u nd ni eder are th e m ost fre
qu e n tly u sed direo tio n s and are especi ally nume rous i n the fi rst
four pla y s A ll o f the eight di recti o ns f o und i n Wall enstein
a nd th e su cce eding dr ama s call fo r sile n ce
S umming u p then w e fin d t hat th e s o liloquy a fte r running
”
riot i n Di e R a uber bot h quantitatively and st ylistically gra d
u ally subsi des a n d sh o w s ma rked mod erati o n alon g b o th li n e s
Although Fi e s c o a n d Kabal e und L i ebe combi ne d do n o t
give as mu ch sp ace to t h e soliloquy as Di e R a uber the style
employed is stil l c haracterized by ranting and flo ri d o utbu rsts
an d th e t en de ncy t o wards s a n e exp ression i s slight i ndeed I n
Don Karlos on t h e other hand th e styl e o f th e s olil o quies is
natu ral an d fre e from o r n ame ntation I n th e later dram as i n
spite o f th e fact t h at t hey a re cl o th ed in vers e th e p revalence
o f natu ral diotio n an d th e c o mp arative absen ce o f rh et o ri cal
emb ellishment s i n th e s o lilo quies is note w orthy The most
s triki n g fact abo ut th e soliloqui e s how ever i s thei r d ram atic
form P rac tically only suc h passag es as em bo dy philosophi c
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
”
.
,
'
.
”
,
.
.
'
,
,
.
‘
”
,
.
,
I
.
,
.
‘
.
1
W all en st e i n s
T o d,
V
,
5
en d
.
62
generaliz ations might b e t erm ed undram ati c all others throb
with li fe S chiller is especially happy i n hi s u se o f th e dialog
form i n h is h abit o f mak i n g the soliloquy a r eal speaking to
one s se l f Wh en t his dual ity o f t h e speak er is not i n evi dence
the skill ful u se o f a postro phe again impa rts thi s dialog element
Questio n an d an sw er exclam ations and a pos
t o th e spe ech es
t no ph e never permit th e s oli loq uy t o dege n er ate into a li fel ess
narratio n o f f acts an d feeli ng s
,
.
,
’
.
.
,
.
4
.
G o eth e
Un q u est oning acceptan ce o f t he soliloquy in all its form s
characte riz es Go eth e s u se o f th e c o nventi o n I n hi s s econd
dramat i c e ffort Di e M i tschul digen w hich show s a pro fusion
o f solil o qui e s an d asi des Go ethe seems to h av e s een th e absu rd
it y o f this p r o digali ty and p okes fu n at it by sa y ing : Ohne
”1
viel Rai so n giebt s ma n chen M onol o g
Although his second
version o f G otz contains fewer s o liloq u ies than th e fi rst i t
i s not due to t h e fact t hat th e solil o quie s troubled him but
rather to t h e fact that Adelhei d had been t o o much i n the lime
light an d had b ec o m e too p romi nent in the pla y I n o rder to
readj us t t h e pl ay an d l essen th e emp h asis pl aced upo n thi s char
act er som e o f th e s oliloquies were di scarde d O n t h e other
hand t h e fi r s t pa rt o f Faust is ri cher i n s o liloqui es than the
”
o rigi nal versi on know n as th e Ur fau st
Th e gradual elim i
nation o f soliloquies noti ceable in S chiller i s not in evi den ce i n
Goethe s dramas ; quite th e co ntrar y G o et h e s later pla y s em
pl oy this c o nve n ti o n more freely i f an y thing t h an th e earl y dra
mat i c w orks The m o st notabl e change in the soliloquies as we
follow th e plays chronologic all y i s the gradual transiti o n from
a d ram at ic mo l d'to o ne th at is l y ric an d elegi ac
I nit ial ex p osi tion s olil o qui es are emplo y ed in Di e G esc h w is
”
ter
I phigeni e and Fau st
O f t h e th ree onl y that i n the
fi rst men tion e d is b al dly exp osition al an d i t i s rath er c rudel y
epic b ei n g reli eved o nl y b y an exp ress i on o f th e sp e aker s love
fo r M arianne in t h e fo rm o f an imp assi o ne d apo stro phe and the
po rtrayal o f th e d o ubts that ari se i n hi s mind as to her love for
II I 8
i
’
.
”
,
,
,
’
.
”
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
’
’
,
.
.
”
”
,
,
.
,
’
,
1
,
.
64
”
The third act o f the second part o f Faust opens with an ex
positional soliloquy by Helena in the style o f a Greek tragedy
I nstances o f identification are rare in the soliloquies Aside
from the example in Pandora in which Epimetheus intro
duces himsel f there are two instances in the secon d part o f
“
”
Faust in whic h E ric hth o and Helen intr o duc e th emselves
I n the opening soliloquy o f I phigenie and the first soliloquy
in Nau sikaa the identit y o f the speaker is revealed w ithout
the actual mentioning o f the name
The best o f the few examples o f sel f-characteri zatio n i s that
o f B rack en bu rg in Egmont in which he contrasts his boyish
1
traits with his present characteri stics
But even thi s form s but
a small part o f a reflective s o lil o quy as is the case wi th the other
“
characterizing bits e g
I ch hab e nicht gelern t z u hinter
halten noch j em an d et w as
Descriptive soliloquies are o f frequent o ccurrence especially
in the second part o f Faust the second act o f wh ich h as as
man y as nine o f this typ e W eislin gen s speech as he is dying
i s only partially relieved b y a dramatic e xpression o f remorse
“
at having condemned Go tz to death : I ch bin so krank so
s chwach
All e mein e Gebein e sind hohl Ein elendes Fieber
hat das Mark au sge fr-ess en Keine Ruh und Rast weder Tag
Im
noch N acht
halben S chlummer gi ftige T rau m e
M att ! Matt ! Wi e sind meine N a gel so blau
Ein kalter kalter
verzehrender S chweiss l a hmt mi r j edes Glied Es dreht mir
”3
alles vorm Gesicht Kon n t ich schl af en !
Shorter descrip
tions especially o f occurrences o ff the stage are less crude as
e g L erse s : Go tzen z u Hiilf! Er ist fast umringt B raver
4
S elbitz du hast s chon L u ft gema cht
or G o tz at the window :
“
Aha ! ein ro trock iger S churke der uns die Frage vorlegen
”5
w ird ob wir Hu n ds fotter s ein wollen
O r Gott sei Dank !
Dort seh ich Feuer sind Zigeuner M eine Wunden verbluten
die Feinde hinterher Heiliger Gott du endigst grasslich mit
”
6
mi r !
I n S tella the description at the window i s in fused
1 I
d
2 I phig
i IV I
3 G otz IV
0
4 G otz I II
I
5 G otz I II
6
3 G otz V 6
.
.
.
”
,
,
.
,
.
”
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
”
,
’
.
,
.
.
’
.
,
.
.
—
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
.
,
”
i
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
”
,
en
.
en e ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
.
I
.
1
.
.
.
,
,
65
w ith some d ramati c l i fe by an emotional admixtu re and fre
“
?
quent apostrophes
S o seh ich di ch wieder
Den S chau
platz all meiner G liick seligk eit ! Wie still da s gan ze Haus ist !
Kein Fenster o ffen ! D ie Galerie wie 6 de au f de r wir s o o ft
zusammen s assen ! M erk dir s Fernand o das k lé st erliche A n
1
sehn i hrer Wohnung wie schmeichelt es d einen Hoffnungen
I n Egmont the p rincess rather baldl y describes the unsettled
2
condition o f th e Neth erlan ds but later in the same play Alba
“
delivers a dramati c description at the window : Er ist es !
—
Eg mont ! Trug dich dein P ferd so leicht h erein und scheute
vo r dem B lu tgeru ch e nicht und v o r dem Geiste mit dem blan
ken S chwert der an der P forte dich emp f a ngt
Steig ab
So bist d u mit einem Fuss im Grab ! und so mit beiden !— I a
st reichl es nu r un d klop fe fiir seinen mutigen Di enst zum l et zten
3
Mal e den N acken ihm Und mi r bleibt keine Wah l
Euge
4
nie s d escription o f t h e p reparations made fo r h er departure
F au st s descriptive bits in his fi rst t wo soliloquies his rapturous
o utburs t a fter s eeing Gretchen Gretchen s description o f th e
j ewels all are enlivened by an emotional a dmixture The de
scriptive soliloqu ies in the second part o f Faust on the other
hand are quite undramatic and unnecessarily retard the action
A few o f these speeches are characterized by great stylisti c
beauty an d thei r marvellous word painting makes one fo rget
their dramatic shortc omings For exampl e :
.
,
’
,
”
.
,
,
,
—
,
,
’
”
—
.
’
,
’
,
’
,
.
,
.
.
“
I n Dam
lieg t sc h o n die W el t er schl o ssen
D er Wa l d ert6n t v o n t a u sen d s t i m m igem L eb en
T a l au s T al ein ist N eb el st r ei f ergo ss en
D o c h sen kt si c h Him m elsk larheit in die T i e f en
U n d Zw eig u n d As t e fri sc h e r q ui ckt en t sp r o ssen
Dem du ft g en A bg r u n d w o v e r sen kt s ie sc h l i ef en ;
A u ch F a r b an F a rbe kl a r t si ch lo s v o m Gr u n d e
W o B lum u n d B l a tt v o n Zitt erp erle t ri e f en
5
E in P a r a d i es w ir d um m i ch h er d ie R u n d e
m ers c h ein
,
,
,
'
,
’
,
,
’
,
’
,
’
,
”
.
S t ella I 2
2 Egm o n t
I 2
3 Egm o n t IV 2
1
,
,
,
4
5
.
,
.
,
,
.
T o cht e r V 6
Fau s t Part I I I o p en i n g s o l
Die N at iirlic h e
,
6
,
,
,
,
.
.
66
’
F au st s opening soliloquy in the fourth act is another instance
o f lyric beauty Other speeches however lack th e saving grace
o f form al beauty as e g M ephisto s soliloquy in the second
act :
B li ck ich h i n a u f hierh er h in iib er
A llu n v eran de rt ist e s u n v er seh rt ;
Die b u n t en S c h eib en si n d so diin k t m i ch triib er
D ie Sp in n ew eb en h a b en si ch v e r m eh r t ;
Die T i n t e s ta r rt v ergilb t ist d as P a pi er ;
D o ch all es ist am Pla t z g ebli eb en ;
S o g a r die Fe d er li eg t n o ch h i er
M i t w el c h er F a u st d em T eu f el si ch ver sc h ri eben
i
n
m
o
t
i
fer
R
h
re
t
kt
!
e
d
e
s
c
a
o
J
1
E in T r6pfl ein B lu t w ie i c h s ih m ab gelo ck t
.
’
,
.
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
”
’
.
,
Pu rely narrat ive soliloq uies are in frequent an d it i s ex
c ept io n al to find such an ad sp ectato res sp eech a s Sickin gen s :
“
Es geht alles nach Wunsch ; sie war etwas b estiirz t iib er
meinen An tr ag und sah mich vom Kop f bis au f die F iiss e an ;
ich wette sie verglich m ich mit ihrem W eiss fi sch Go tt sei Dank
dass i ch mich stellen d ar f S i e antwortete wenig und durch
2
einander ; desto besser !
Epimetheus s second soliloqu y in
Pan dora in which h e rel ates his first meeting w ith Pandora
at some len gth is enti rely narrative B ut generally the narra
tive passages are brie f and form but a portion o f some other
typ e o f solil oq uy as in I phigeni e where this narrative bit is
incorpo rated in a reflective solilo quy
,
’
,
.
.
”
’
”
,
.
”
,
,
“
Jet z t geh n sie ihr en A n sc hlag au sz u fiih ren
D er See z u w o das S chi ff m it den G efah rt en
I n ei n er B u ch t v er s t eckt a u f s Zei ch en l a u er t
U n d h a b en kl u g es W o r t m ir in den M u n d
,
,
,
,
G egeb en m i c h gel eh rt w as ich d em Kiin ig
A n t w o r t e w en n er s en d e t u n d das O p fer
3
M ir d ri n gen d er g ebie t et
,
,
,
”
.
’
’
Marthe s recital o f her husband s desertion B rack enbu rg s
5
mention o f his attempted sui cide S ophi e s mention o f her
4
,
’
,
1
2
F
au st Part I I I I
,
G6 t z
,
I II, 4
,
IV I
4 Fau s t
I p
5 Eg
o t
I
3
,
b eg
.
.
.
,
,
m
,
n
,
,
.
1 2 8,
e n d.
ed
.
by
H ei n em a n n
.
’
67
arriage w i th S tiller B reme s narration o f hi s plans are
o the r instances o f the above mentioned amalgamation o f a nar
rative passage with a reflective or some other type o f solil o qu y
S oliloquies whose p rime purpose is t o acquaint u s w ith th e
speaker s intention are in frequent For the most part th e in
tention is the result o f reflection o r inner conflict and i s made as
mere appendix to a soliloquy o f that typ e as was the custom in
L essing an d Schiller
Egle s s oliloquy in Di e L aune des
V erliebten illustrat es th e p urely intenti onal typ e :
’
1
m
2
,
,
.
’
.
,
’
.
S ch o n gu t ! W ir w o ll en seh n ! S ch o n l a n ge w iin scht ich m ir
G el egen h ei t u n d Gliick den S c h a f e r z u b ek ehr en
H eu t w ir d m ei n W un s c h e rfiillt ; w a r t n u r ich w ill di ch lehr en
3
D i r z eigen we r du b i st ; u n d w en n du d a n n sie pl a gst !
’
'
.
,
’
,
”
'
‘
,
O r G é tz s : Wi r wollen ihre Geduld f tiru Narren halten un d
ihre Tap ferkeit sollen sie mi r an ihren eigenen N a geln ver
”4
kauen
Practically every drama ha s ex ampl es o f solil o q uies
with intentional appendices generally solilo quies o f the re
”
5
fl ect iv e typ e
I n G o tz e g Franz a fter c omparing Maria
and Adelhei d in a reflective sol iloquy ends with : M ein Her r
muss hin ! I ch muss hin ! Un d da will i ch mi ch wiede r ge
6
s cheit o der v ollig rasend ga ffen
O r Mephisto ph eles a fter
refl ec t in g about reaso n and sci ence and F au st s character am
n o u n ces h is intention as follows :
’
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
n
”
.
,
’
q
,
Den
s chl epp ic h d u rch das W ilde L eb en
D u r c h fl ach e U n b edeuten h eit
E r so ll m ir z a ppel n st arre n k lebe n
Un d sei n er U n ersat tlichk eit
”7
S o ll S p ei s u n d T r a n k v o r g ier gen L i ppen schw eben ;
’
,
,
,
,
,
’
1
2
’
Die Mit s c huldig en I , 3
Die Au fg e r egt en I 5
Die Lau n e d e s V e rli eb t en , Sc 8
4
.
,
,
3
.
,
.
G otz I II 1 7
Die Lau n e d e s V erl i eb t en
.
,
,
.
Mit s ch uldig en I 7 ; I I 5
G otz I 2 ; I 5 ; I n d ; I I 7 ; I V 4 Clav ig o IV b egi n n i n g Die G e
p 3 44 d Bi b li o grap h i sc h es I n s t Egm o n t II I
s ch w i s t e r
F ab ri c e s
I phig en i e I 2 ; I I en d Ta s so II I 5 ; IV 3 N atiirlich e T o cht er
b eg
I I 2 ; V 8 Fau st I s eco n d so l in s c en e : Na cht : S tudi erzi e r
F a u s t I I V e n d o f s c n e : Mitt e rn a cht
6 G6 t
I en d
7 F au s t
I S tudi rzi m er
5
,
e
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
e
.
m
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
m m
.
.
,
e
Die
.
.
,
e
,
,
z
,
,
.
,
,
5
.
,
,
’
.
Sc
68
’
The remaining examples o f soliloquies containing the speaker s
i ntention are mo stly conflict soliloquies in wh ich a d ecision is
1
reach ed and th e plan o f action announced
Practicall y all o f the reflective solil o quies j ust mentioned are
in fused w ith dra m atic li fe b y the j udicious employment o f ex
Thi s i s tru e even
c lam at io n s apostrophes and th e d ialog form
o f th e later poeti c dramas where the atmosphere o f l y ri c beauty
afforded more than a passing temptation to ca st the speaker s
reflections in a lyric rather than a dramatic mold With th e
2
exception o f a few i solated passages so n o tably in Faust
Goethe success fully combats this temptation and in fuses th e
s oliloquies with dramatic vigo r The opening s olil o qu y in th e
fourth act o f Tasso is a splendid exampl e o f the dramatic
r eflective type :
.
,
.
,
,
’
.
”
,
,
.
”
“
B i st
i
T ra u m er w a c ht u n d h at
De r s ch 6n e T ru g a uf ei n m a l d i ch v e rl a ss en ?
H at d i ch an e i n em T a g d er h och st en L u s t
E in S c h l a f g eb an dig t h a l t u n d an g st et n u n
M i t s c h w er en Fessel n d ei n e S eel e ? Ja
Du w a c h s t u n d t rau m st
W o s i n d die S t u n d en h in
Die um d e i n H au p t m it B lu m en k ran z en spi el t en ?
D i e T a ge w o d ei n G e i s t m it f r ei e r S eh n s u ch t
Des H i m m el s a u sg esp a n n t es B l a u d u r ch d r a n g ?
Un d d en n o c h l eb st du n o c h u n d fiihls t d i c h an
Du fiih lst d i c h an u n d w ei sst n i c ht o b du l eb st
du
au s e n em
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
”
,
,
.
Many o f the purely reflective solil o quies are short as e
M argarete s :
,
,
.
g
.
,
’
D u l i eb er G o tt ! w as so ein M a n n
N i ch t al l e s al l es d en k en ka n n !
B esch am t n u r s t e h ich v o r ih m da
U n d sag z u al l en S a c h en j a
B in d o c h ein arm u n w i s sen d K i n d
”3
B egr ei f e n i c ht w as er an m ir fi n d t
,
’
’
.
,
’
.
,
’
S ententious bits are not ver y numerous except possibly in
Di e Mitschuldigen
where there i s a liberal sprinkling o f
”
,
Ta ss o I II 3
2 Fau s t
I V
3 Fa st
I 3
1
,
,
,
u
,
,
,
,
21
.
G ro s s c o ph t a
,
IV I ; I V
,
6 02 -5 ; 6 3 4— 6 3 9 ; 6 4 0— 6 5
1 — 32 1 6 ; o
e s 1 5 2 6— 2 9 ;
th r
,
8
.
-6
— 68
2
2
6
68
;
7
75 ;
5
2 6 7 8-8 3 ; 2 86 2 — 6 4 ; 3 6 7 7 — 8 6
1
.
.
69
“
hom ely p ractical trut h s :
” 1
dr an ! e tc
Ei n M a dchen i st wahrh a ftig
iib el
'
.
i h t eb en j u st da ss ei n er t a p f er ist ;
M an ko m m t a u ch d ur c h die W el t m it S c h le i che n u n d m it L i st
“
E s ist ein n a r ri sc h D i n g u m ein e m pfi n dlic h B l u t ;
3
E s p oc ht w enn m an a u c h n u r h albw eg w as B 6 5 es t u t
“
r
r
L
u
r
n
e
n
d
n
f
l
t
i
e
M
i
t
fr
u
d
li
h
a
o
d
e
e
b
n
!
e
c
e
b
e
e
G
g
J
L o ckt s ie e uc h a n f a n g s n a c h
D o ch w en n i h r ei n m a l den W eg v erliert
D a n n fiih rt k ein I nrlich t e u c h so s c h li m m als s ie eu c h fiih rt
5
W e n n m an w as B éises t u t e r s c h ri ck t m an v o r d em B éisen
E s b rau ch t
’
s n c
,
”2
.
”
.
,
,
,
,
”4
.
”
.
,
W eislin gen s : So gewis s ist der allei n gliic k lich un d gross
de r w eder z u h errsche n no c h z u geh orchen b raucht um etw as
6
z u s ein ;
L ers e s :
S o g eht s i n d er Welt w eis s kein M ens ch
7
was au s den D i ngen werden ka n n etc
M argarete von Par
“
m a s:
O w as s in d wi r Gros s en au f der W o der
M
ensch
e
g
h eit ? Wi r glaub en sie z u beherrsch en u n d s ie treibt u n s au f
8
un d nieder hi n u n d h er a re on a som ewhat higher plane and
s h ow a m atu rer min d
Philo sophi cal pas sa ges i n th e s olil o qu ies are i n frequen t
Fau st s s ec o n d s o liloquy in cludes t h e follow i n g philosophic al
passage :
“
’
'
,
,
”
’
'
'
’
,
,
,
.
’
u
'
,
”
,
,
.
.
’
un sre T at e n s elb st so gu t als u n s r e L ei den
Sie h em m e n u n s re s L eb en s G an g
Dem H errlich st en
w as a u c h d er G ei s t em p f a n g en
D r a n g t i m m er fr em d u n d f r em d er S t o ff s i ch an ;
W en n W ir z um G u t en d i eser W el t gel a n gen
D a n n h ei ss t das B ess re T rug u n d Wah n
Die u n s das L eb en g a b en h errli c h e G efiihle
E rs t a r r en in d em i rd i s c h en G ewiih le
W enn P h a n t a sie si c h so n s t m it k iih n em Flug
U n d h o ffn u n g sv o ll z um E w ig en erwei t er t
So ist ein kllein er R aum ihr n u n g en ug
1 I
8
3 v
2 H
I v 337
3 II
v 37 7
2
4 II
f
3 v 3 98 f
5 III
I v 5 40
6 G iit z
I 5
7 G otz
II I 9
8 Egm o n t
I 2
A ch !
,
,
.
,
'
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
1
1
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
1
,
,
,
.
.
,
7O
W en n Gliick a uf G liick im Zeit en st ru del s c h ei t ert
Die S o rg e n i s t e t gle i c h im t i e f en H e rz en
D o r t w irk e t s ie geh ei m e S c h m erz en
Un ru h ig w i egt s ie sic h u n d s t 6 r et L u s t u n d Ruh l;
S ie d eck t s i c h st et s m it n eu en M a sk en z u
S ie m ag als H a u s und Ho f als W ei b u n d K i n d er sch ei n en
A ls F eu e r Wa ss er D o l c h u n d G if t ;
Du b eb s t v o r a l l em w as n i c ht t ri fft
1
Un d w as du n ie verli e r s t das m u ss t du s t et s b ew ei n en ?
'
.
,
,
,
r
,
,
,
,
,
,
”
,
Ano ther sple ndid exampl e i s f o und i n Faust s opening so lilo
qu y in t h e s eco n d p art v 4 7 04 4 7 1 4
S olil o qui e s o f viol ent inn er conflict a re far more n umerou s
than the c alm er an d pu rel y mental de liberative soliloqu y which
as a m atter o f fac t i s very s carce i n deed W eislin gen s d elib
erat io n a fter agreeing t o remai n at B amb erg inci d en tall y de
p icts t h e w o rki n g o f h is cons ci ence : Du bl eib st ! Sei au f d einer
H ut di e V ersuchung i st gros s D och ist s n icht r echt di e vielen
G esch aft e die ich dem Bi s cho f unvollendet li egen li ess nicht
w e n ig st ens so z u o rdnen d as s ein Nach f o lger da an fan gen
kann w o i ch s gel as s en h abe Das kann ich do ch alles thun
u nb eschadet B erlic h ingen u nd unserer V erbindung
Denn
hal ten sollen s ie mich hier ni cht W a re d o ch be s ser gewesen
—
n
o
wenn ic h nicht gekommen w a re Ab er i ch will f t mo rgen
2
oder iibe rm o rgen
I n Di e Mits chul digen S o ller wh o n eeds money to pay his
gambling debts solv es t he predicament a s f o ll o ws :
’
—
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
’
—
,
,
'
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
'
.
—
'
,
.
”
.
”
,
,
,
I ch w e i s s
i ht au s n o c h ein
D i e tr i c h sc hl i essen
n c
u n d d i es e
A lc e st h a t G el d
W ie w a r s ?
E r h a t a u c h g r o s se L u st b ei m ir w as z u g en i ess en !
E r s c h l ei c ht u m m ei n e F r au das ist m ir l a n g v erh a ss t :
E h n un ! da l a d ich m i c h e in m al b ei ih m z u Ga s t
A l l e i n k am es h e r a u s d a ga b s d ir s chlim m e S a ch en
I c h bin n u n in d er N o t w as ka n n ich a n de r s m a c h en ?
De r S pi el e r wil l s ei n G el d s o n s t priig elt e r m i c h au s
3
C o u ra g e S oll e r ! F o rt ! es s c h l a f t das g a n z e H a u s
’
’
.
,
’
,
’
i
'
.
’
’
,
,
'
,
.
,
”
.
,
au st I
2 G otz I I
3 I
7
1
F
,
,
,
.
.
,
6 3 2— 65
,
7
.
1
.
.
72
und Hiilfe !
Und dies e zwei ? Diese drei besten w eib
lich en G esch é p fe der Erd e elend durch mich
I phigeni e s two conflict soliloq uies IV 3 and I V 5 are
characterized by a dignified rep ression which is quite in accord
with her nature an d fully as force ful as the wild outbursts o f
an unbalanced nature would be I n the fi rst o f the above men
t io n ed speeche s she is agitated by the emotions aroused by the
base deceit which P y lades urged her to use against h er be ne
factor A fter P y lades h ad p ersua ded her to adopt hi s plan
Arkas reminded her o f the man y kindnesses whi ch the king had
sh own her and unsettled her :
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
h at die S t i m m e
Des t r eu en M a n n s m i ch w i eder a u fg ew e ckt
D a ss ich a u c h M en sc h en h i er v e r l a sse m i c h
E ri n n ert D o ppel t w ir d m ir der B et rug
Verh a sst O bl eib e r u h ig m ei n e S eel e !
B egi n n s t du n u n z u s ch w a n k en u n d z u z w eif el n ?
Nun
,
,
.
.
,
”
I n th e second s peech her wish to leave guiltlessly so that sh e
may puri fy h er home struggles against the desire to save her
b rother and hi s frien d a course o f procedure which involves
“
”
sacrilege and gross ingratitud e I n Tasso L eonore passes
through a struggle between her selfish and her altruisti c Ego
the former dem anding that sh e abduct Tasso thus dep riving
the princess o f his presence the latter insi sti n g that sh e i s
richly blessed with the good things o f this world A fter an
uninterrupted series o f nine questions uttered by her better sel f
her selfish nature presents its arguments in d e fens e o f th e ab
duction and i s victoriou s
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
“
g ew i n n en ?
I st s d en n so n 6 t ig da ss e r si c h en t f e r n t ?
M a c h st du e s n ot ig u m all ei n fiir d i ch
Das H erz u n d d ie T a l en t e z u b esi t z en
Die du bi sh er m it ei n e r a n d e r n t ei l s t
U n d u n gl ei c h t eil s t ? I st s r edl i c h so z u ha n d el n ?
B i st du n i c ht r ei c h g en u g ? W as f ehlt dir n o c h
A ch ,
s ie
v erl i e rt
—
und
d en k s t
du
z u
’
,
,
,
,
’
,
’
The soliloqu y i s an excellent specimen o f a talking to one s
sel f o f a dialog between two well defined characters within one
soul
1 Ta s s o
II I 3
,
.
,
,
.
73
I n discussing the emoti o nal soliloquies only the more note
worthy examples will be m entioned as space forbids a detail ed
analysis o f thi s numerous type Lo ve s awakening and relent
”
“
l ess rul e are most beauti fully depi cted i n Fau st
Fau st s
soliloq uy beginning :
,
’
.
’
.
“
W ill k o m
s iisse r
m en
Dam
Der du d i es H eilig t um
i
E rg reif
’
D ie
du
H erz
m e n
,
!
d u rc hw eb st
du
T au d er
vo m
m ers ch ein
siiss e
.
L i eb espei n !
H o ffn un g
sc
h m a c h t en d l eb st
,
et c
’
p oetically d escribes his awakening passion ; Gretch en s
site l y ri c :
M ei n e R uh ist hin
M ei n H e r z ist schw er ;
I c h fi n de sie n i m m er
2
Un d n i m m er m ehr
” 1
.
ex q u i
’
,
”
pi ctures Gretchen in th e grip o f an overwhelming passion
S ubdued grie f p revades I phigenie s opening soliloquy passion
3
at e gri e f Clav igo s final outburst an d Stella s impassion ed utter
ance V I
A m ixture o f impassioned gri e f an d fear charac
”
Zwinger scene :
t eriz es Gretchen s p iti ful appeal in th e
.
’
,
’
.
,
,
’
’
W er fiihlet
W ie w iihlet
Der S c h m erz m ir im G eb ei n ?
W as m ei n ar m es H erz hi er b a n get
W as es zi tt er t w as v erlan g et
”4
W ei sst n u r du nur du a llei n !
,
,
,
,
,
Jealou sy is o f in frequent o ccurrence and i s rather gentl e than
vi o lent so e g B rack en bu rg s speeche s I end and V
an d
”
Wilhelm s o utbu rst in Die Geschwister
Three p o w er ful
6
instances o f fear are W eislin gen s deathbed sp eech Egm o n t s
7
horro r o f app roaching d eath an d Gretchen s terr o r -fi lled wail s
8
in the cath e d ral
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
’
’
,
’
,
.
au s t Pt I 2 6 8 7 -2 7 2 8
2 F au s t I
3 3 7 4 34 2
3 C lav i o
V
g
4 F au s t
I 3 5 8 -3 6 2 0
5 Egm o n t
6 G otz
V IO
7 Egm o n t V 2
8 Fau s t I
Do m
1
F
,
,
.
—
,
,
,
1
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
1
,
,
.
.
.
74
Exuberant j oy is the predominating emotion in Tass o s deli
t ious outburst
I I 2 in S tella s soliloquy IV I and in Eu
genie s speech I I
Deep despai r h o vers over several o f
Tasso s solil o quies notably I V I and I V 5 as well as Kl a r
2
3
chen s and B rack en bu rg s hopeless laments in Egm ont
Thoas s angry outburst V 2 I phigeni e s anxious speech I V
4
I
Fernando s remorse ful solilo q uy I I I end Stella s flash o f
hatred V
aptl y illustrate a few more o f th e commoner
passions
I n classi fying the above menti o ned emotional soliloq uies th e
p redominating passion has been the deci ding factor There
are comparatively few soliloq uies in which but one emotion i s
portrayed ; quite the contrary is true The speaker usually
veers from one emotion to another or from thought to emotion
and vice versa So in Faust s opening sol iloquy w e find hope
lessness dissatis faction longing hatred disgu st despair to
gether with reflective passages To b e sure w e do find so lilo
u
i
q es in th e crude drama o f the earl y periods which are purely
expositional or purely emotional and do not sho w a combina
tion o f thought and feeling B ut such instances in classical
drama are rare indeed Th e divi sion into thought soliloquies
and emotional solil o quies accordingly has been made solely for
the purpose o f discussion I n every instance the classification
has been made w ith re ference to the predominating element
A s Dr Arnold aptly expresses it :
I n the soliloq uy as in every
human document there is a natural intermingling o f thought
and feeling and there fore the segregation o f thought and pas sion
6
i s an arbitrary arrangement for con v enience o f discussion
To su m up the gradual eli m ination o f the solil o quy in the
later dramas as in the case o f S chiller i s not a characteristi c
o f Goethe s cra ftsmanship Quite the contrary is true and w e
find a larger number o f soliloqui es in th e later dramas than
those o f the earlier period Another marked difference is th e
’
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
’
,
,
’
,
,
,
”
’
.
’
’
,
,
’
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
”
.
,
,
,
’
.
.
1
N at iirlic h e
5
1 bid
6
Arn o ld
T o cht e r
.
.
,
The
S o lil o q ui es
of
S ha k esp ear e p
,
.
1
62
.
75
style o f the soliloqui e s o f t he v e rse d ra m as o f th e t wo p oets
As op po s e d to t he n atu ral diction an d th e comparat ive abs enc e
o f rh eto rical em b ellishm en ts in t he s o l iloqui es o f S chiller s
ve rse d ram as G o ethe s late r solilo qui e s delight in rh etorical
figures stylisti c beau ty an d philos o phi c reflection Thi s great
formal beauty h o w ev er does n o t exclu de d ram at i c for c e an d
”
li fe in all in stance s as the sol il o qu ie s in T asso and s om e o f
”
those i n Fa u st which h ave al ready b een c ited con clus ively
p rove Rou ghl y sp eaking p ractically all t he solil o quies oc cu r
ring in th e dramas p rio r t o Egmon t are d r amat ic an d natu ral
i n di ction w ith the p ossibl e e xc ep t ion o f the s o l iloquies i n
”
S tella which a re som ew h at florid p erf ervi d an d h yp ersen t i
m e n tal I n Egmont th e h ero s two p age soliloquy V 2 i s
an exampl e o f th e lo gic ally develop e d an d s t y li stical ly polished
so lilo q u y th at casts vrai sem blan c e ruthl essly as ide and aims
onl y at p ro duci n g a be au ti ful liter ary p as sage Egm o nt s p re
monition an d fear o f d eath i s the u nderl y ing thought but w e
are n o t convi nced th at a m an who can give expres sion to such
fi gu rat ive and highly emb ellish ed l anguage i s gre at ly wo rried
The oth er s oliloqui es o f t h e pl ay are n o t op en t o thi s criticism
“
” “
”
O f th e d ramas fo llow i ng Egmo nt
Tasso has th e m o st
“
”
d rama ti c an d l e ast emb ellished so liloqui es
I phigeni e and
“
D i e n at iirlich e Toc ht er more highl y o rn at e specimens and
“
at th e sam e t im e l es s d ram ati c a n d Fau st esp eci ally the
second sol iloquy o f the Fi rst Pa rt and mo s t o f the soliloquies o f
the S econd Part th e m o st b eauti ful and embelli sh ed but at
th e sam e ti m e l east dram atic s o lil o quie s Th e succ ess ful em
pl o yme n t o f t h e dialo g fo rm (s ich m it s i ch s elbs t besp rechen )
o f ap ost roph es an d a j u diciou s i n fusion o f p assion i nto the
raises v e ry m any o f t hem t o th e lev el o f dialog
s ol iloq uies
Tho se o f th e soliloqui es which are undram atic no t ably the de
s cripti ve s o lilo quies a re dou b tl e s s dram at i c slip s bu t they h ave
the s avin g grace o f b ei n g bea u ti ful err o rs
.
’
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
‘
,
,
”
’
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
'
.
.
,
,
”
,
”
,
,
,
!
.
‘
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
CHAPTE R IV
THE
I
R O M A N T I C D R A MA
H ein rich wo n Kleis t
.
I n asmuch
as Tieck A r nim and B rentan o produced only
closet dr am a s there i s nothing to be gai ned b y subj ec ting thi s
dram ati c o utp ut to
examin atio n L et u s t urn then to th e
real dr am at ist s o f the p erio d begi nn ing w ith Klei st
Kleislt s late st bi o graph e r H M eyer -B en fy i n discussing
h is d ram at ic te ch ni c as applied to the solilo q u y w rit es :
Klei st
differs from all ea rlier form s o f the dram a b y t h e remarkably
sp aring use o f the s oli loq u y Neith er S h ak espeare nor S chiller
h as b een his mode l in thi s resp ect
H e h as consi stentl y
sc o rn e d t he conveni ent an d sup erficial expe di ent o f French
d ram a viz co n v e r satio n s with a con fi dant I t is greatl y to hi s
c redit tha t h e go t al ong p ract icall y without s o liloqui es i n spite
o f this fast I t i s o n e o f the m ost not ew o rth y advances w hich
d rama tic art o w e s to Klei s t an advance which fo r the time
b ei n g exe rted no influ ence an d which th e mature I bsen t her e
”l
f o re h ad t o a cqu i re an ew
Thi s mus t be taken w i th a grai n o f salt The stat em ent con
cerning the s c arcit y o f s oliloqui es c ert ai n ly does not appl y to
Kath ch en v o n H eilbronn which n o t on l y di scloses a goodly
“
supply o f s o lil o quie s mo re than S chill er s Tell e g but
also a pai n ful c ru den ess in the t echnic o f t h e same That Klei st
got a lo n g w i t hout a c o nfi d an t i s true t o be su re but d oes this
?
s
place him o n a high er plane than hi s p redeces o rs L essing made
u se o f th is exp edient onl y in hi s earl y u nim po rtant dramatic
efforts which w ere unde r French influen c e disc arding i t i n his
lat er works S chiller did no t emplo y i t an d Goet he onl y i n
G otz in w hich Ad elhei d s mai d may be regar ded as a confi dant
Kleist de s erve s credit for h is avoidance o f th e confi dan t but i t
i s not nec es s ar y to mak e so much ado about it To what fact
1 Das Dra
a H i ri ch o n Kl i st s Vo l I p 9 6 if
,
.
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
'
.
,
.
.
”
’
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
”
’
.
,
,
.
m
e n
v
e
,
76
.
,
.
.
77
?
the scarcity o f soliloquies to be attributed
To the fact that
the characters are people o f action rather than people given to
though t and reflection I n such characters thought soliloqu ies
naturall y out o f place Woul d Kleist h ave written
a re
Tass o without soliloquies ?
“
”
I n Der z erbrochen e Krug n o soliloq uies occur alth o ugh
there are as many as sixteen asides Th e lack o f soliloquies is
a necessary outgro wth o f the action all o f which takes place in
a cou rtroom in which tw o or more characters are always pres
ent so that the number o f people on th e stage m akes a s o liloquy
impos sible I n Penthesilea that u nd ramatic portrayal o f
passion run riot there are also n o soliloqui es although a few
sho rt speeches o f Penthesilea might b e regarded as such inas
much as sh e pays abs o lutely no attention to those about her
This i s especiall y tru e when she i s at th e height o f her frenzy
Acc o rdingly o nly four plays viz
s o e g in scen es 1 9 an d 2 0
”
Kath ch en v o n Heilbro n n
Di e F am ilie Sch ro ffen stein
Die
H ermannsschlacht
Prinz von Homburg and th e fragment
Robert G u isk ard need be considered
At the beginning o f the second act o f Die Fam ilie Sch ro f
”
fen stein
Agnes delivers a rather puzzling speech At fi rst
sight it seem s to be a soliloquy which th e speaker delivers for
th e benefit o f Ottokar wh o has entered and has been obs erved
b y th e speaker I nasmuch as th e stage directions tell u s that
O ttoka r has hi s back turned wh en she espies him and that sh e
continues as though sh e had no t noticed hi s approach the obj ect
o f th e speech s eems to be to create the imp ress ion in Ottokar s
mind that he i s overhearing a bon a fi de solilo q uy This o f
co urs e w oul d be an arrant absu rdity as thought can not very
well be overheard A s a matter o f fact two pass ages in this
”
sp eech : Da i st zum B ei spi el heimlich j etzt ein J ungling an d
ii
n
i
l
n
dieser
a
J
J g g wo llt i ch sagen ist heimli ch nun herange
”
schlichen show that sh e intends the sp eech to be a declaration
o f love roguishly delivere d to O ttokar wh o knows that she i s
aware o f his presence becau se o f th es e allusions to him R
Franz wh o c o ndemns this speech as a most inexcu sable type
1
o f solil o quy evidently o verlooked these lines
is
.
.
,
.
,
,
”
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
”
,
,
”
”
,
,
”
.
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
I
R F
.
ra n z
,
Der
Mo n olog
und
I b s en p
,
.
54
.
.
78
-B en f
M eyer
states
that
Kleist
s
corns
the
soliloquy
through
y
out thi s drama an d thereb y proves himsel f an i n dependent artist
1
and born d ramatist
Else where h o w ev er h e admit s that th ere
are two short soliloquies in th e work and p roceeds t o lau d
them to th e skies because they are such splendid link so lil
I t h as b een pointed out in the d iscussion o f L e s sing
o q u ies !
that li n k soliloquies are an expedient o f an immature dramati st
S econdly M eyer -B en fy overlo oks a third and rather long so lil
o q u y delivered by Ottokar when h e i s shut up in the patern al
3
and a fourth solil o qu y whi ch B arnabe delivers
d u n geon
“
while sh e is chanting her incantations over th e witches kettl e
Ottokar s s oliloqu y I V 3 deserves special mention H e has
i nterrupted Barnabe in her incantations and suddenly makes a
di scover y ( a child s finger in th e broth ) which greatl y arouses
him H e is so overcome with emotion that he finds it absolutely
essential to his happiness to unburden himsel f o f a soliloquy
but un fortunately he can not do it legitimately w ith Barnabe on
?
H
o w does he meet the dilemma
th e stage
He politely re
quests her to leave repeats his invitati o n twice and when sh e
ignores h is three invitations pushes her out o f th e room and
p roceeds t o delive r himsel f o f his solil o quy n ow that th e con
dit io n s are sui t able
This surely i s a remarkabl e advance in
the techni c o f the soliloquy ! I t remained for Kleist to show
that a fitting place for a soliloquy ma y be created ad libitum by
th e en forced exit o f one s partner
”
I n Kath ch en we fi nd two s oliloquies th at di splay all th e
naive crudity o f the old shrovetide plays soliloquies that almo st
lead one t o the belie f that Kleist had no well defi n ed i d eas on
th e subj ect o f the soliloquy and that the good fea t ures are
merel y accidental I n the first I V 2 Count von Strahl takes
the audience into his confidence and narrates a conversation
j ust held with his servant then adds a few reflections an d ends
with a reversion to his in t erview w ith th e servant : Gottschalk
der mi r dies Futteral gebracht hat mi r gesagt das Kath ch en
.
,
,
2
.
,
’
’
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
Op
.
c it
P 97
3 IV
5
4 IV
3
2
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
p
.
1
70
.
,
80
“
”
The fou r soliloquies i n D ie Hermannsschlacht are brie f
and partially enlivened by the u se o f ap o strophe Two o f the
fou r soliloquies in Prinz von H omburg are apostrophes o n e
t o Fam e the o ther to I mmort ality and both are cast in flori d
s tyle The other two are reflective that o f the prince being
tinged with philosophi c reflection :
1
.
2
,
,
,
.
,
Das L eb en
D erw i s ch ei n e R ei se
U n d e i n e k urz e
Fr eili c h ! V o n z w ei S p a n n en
D i essei t s d er E r d e n a c h z w ei S p a n n en da ru n t er et c
n en n
t
de r
,
.
,
”3
.
Only on e o f the reflective soliloquies results in a decision the
‘
others having n o direct bearing upon the action
Th e open
ing speech in the fragment Robert G u isk ard a chorus by the
people is nothing but a disguised expositional soliloquy inas
much as th e committee to wh o m the speech is delivered is thor
oughl y co nversant with all the facts therein set fo rth
N ot one o f Kleist s s o liloquies is a real talking to one s
sel f and the dial o g for m whi ch i s so succes s fully employed by
the cla s si c triad is nowhere in evidence An o ccasional use o f
the apostrophe i s all that give s li fe to the soliloquies Klei st s
sole c lai m to distinction there fore i s his sparing us e o f the same
i n three o f the four pla y s This is counteracted how ever by the
undramatic form o f the same and the startling crudity o f the
soliloquies in Kath ch en mentioned above
,
.
”
“
,
,
,
.
’
’
,
.
’
.
.
.
2
F rcm
.
z
Grillparz
er
Unquestioning acceptance o f the convention as exemplified
in th e masterpieces o f th e clas sic period characterizes Grillpar
Goethe s influence i s visible in the
z e r s u se o f the soliloqu y
”
s o liloquies o f Sappho
Des M eeres und der L iebe Wellen
and Der Traum ein L eben
I n Sappho the l y ric wa rmth
and th e formal beauty o f I phigeni e and Tasso are par
S chiller s influenc e is frequentl y in evi
t icu larly noticeable
dence but most clearly so in Blanka von Kastilien the whol e
style and atmosphere of which is Sch illeresq u e Rather full
’
’
.
”
,
,
”
.
”
”
’
.
”
,
,
.
1
2
I V, 8 ; V , 7 ; V , 1 7 ; V ,
1 , e n d ; I V, 3 ; V , 2 ; V ,
IV
4 Ho
3
,
m
3
.
b
urg V
,
,
2
.
21
.
1 0
.
81
stage di re cti o n s th rough out the solilo quie s b espeak hi s o bliga
t i o n to S chille r a s w ell as t h e fact t h at most o f the d ramas
begin ning wit h Das go lde ne V liess cu rtai l th e p ow ers o f th e
soliloq uy a p ract ice w hich char act erize d the later dramas o f
S chiller
I niti al exposit ion soliloqui es are a favorit e devic e o f ou r
poet M any o f the fragm ents employ thi s m etho d o f a t tack
”
so e g
Ro sam un de Cli ffo rd
Rob e rt H erzog von der No r
”
“
“
” “
Drah o m ira
ma ndi e
Ps yche a n d Ro samu n de
Hi s
”
Di e Sc hr ei b fede r an d Wer ist s chuldig
t wo early pla y le t s
both have i n iti al s o liloqui e s th at o f th e form er h o w eve r being
very c ru d ely narrat ive All t h e othe r ab o ve -m entioned speech es
ha ve t he e xposi tio n al m at erial c onceale d by the emo ti on al ad
mixt u re Th e s am e holds tru e o f th e dramas whi ch employ
thi s devic e I n Des M eeres und der L iebe Wellen th e exu
beran t happin ess o f H e ro c l o ak s th e exp o s ition al mat te r ; in
“
”
“
”
B l an ka Fe driko s disgu st ; i n Di e Ahn frau the co unt s
”
“
r esignatio n and gloo m ; in Der T raum ein L eb en M i rza s
”
L i bu ssa
P rim islaus s j o y
anxi ety and un happiness ; i n
Apostr o phes exclam ation s qu estio n s an d th e p erv ading emo
tion are cle verly em ployed in t h es e sp ee ches
1
F edriko s exp os itio n speec h th row s c onsi d erable light u pon
his ch aracter an d in ci dent ally reveals h is id enti ty i n the fi rst
“
”
l ine : Ha Fe drik o di es dein e B est immung ?
B oth o f thes e
ty pes are i n frequ ent E rny s :
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
”
”
,
.
,
'
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
’
’
’
.
’
.
,
,
.
’
,
’
.
S ie gl a ub en w eil ich s elt en spre ch u n d w en ig
I ch kon n e m ic h n i ch t w eh ren n i cht v ert eid g en
M ei n Vat er sp r ach w o hl o ft : Sie h at s im N a ck en !
2
I ch h a b e s a u c h ! I h r so ll t n o c h w a hr l i c h seh n !
’
,
,
’
,
,
’
”
i s a go o d exam ple o f s el f -cha racteriz at ion H ero s op eni n g so lil
3
o q uy a nothe r i nst anc e o f ide nt ifi c atio n
Na rrativ e p a ss ages in t he solil o q u i es are rathe r i n fre q uent
4
5
Ja romir s rec ital o f his murd er Za n ga s ac cou nt o f the battle
1 Bla n k a v o n Ka s tili en
I I
2 Ein tr u e r Di e
r s e i es H rr I I
3 D s M ee r s u d r Li eb e W e ll n
I I
4 Di
Ah n frau V
5 Der Trau
I I I b eg
ein L eb en
’
,
.
.
’
’
‘
,
,
ne
e
e
e
e
m
.
n
n,
e
e
.
,
,
e
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
82
’
Gregor s r ep etitio n o f hi s conversation w ith the ki ng L eon s
2
narrative o f i nci de nts o n the retu rn trip I s aak s account o f
3
ho w h e e s caped th e s o l di ers
are th e m o st notewo rthy O f
th es e t he l ast m e n ti oned i s cru dely in st r u ct ive
’
1
,
’
'
,
,
“
.
i c h v e r s t eckt
A ls sie n a c h R au b erart d as S c h o s s d u rc h su c ht en
A m B o d en l a g ich in m ic h selb st g ek riim m t
U n d d i ese D ec k e w ar m ir D ac h u nd S c h irm
I ch
h ab e
m
,
.
,
,
”
.
’
’
H ero s and Jar o mi r s speech es are th e only ones that have an
em o tional a dmixtu re an d thu s escape b eing purely i n stru ctive
De scripti v e so liloqui es and p as s ages a re much i n evi d ence
A mon g thes e there are s ome pa ssages o f won der ful b ea uty that
de serve quot ation especially t wo by H ero an d an o the r by
M i rza :
.
.
,
“
W ie ruhig ist die N a ch t ! De r H ell esp o n t
L a sst K i n d e rn gl ei c h d ie fr o m m en W ell en spi el en
S ie fl iist ern ka u m so s t ill s i n d s ie v ergn iigt
K ei n L a u t k ei n S chi m m er r i n gs ; n u r m ei n e L a m pe
4
Wirf t bl ei c h e Lic ht er d u r c h d ie dun k l e L uf t
,
,
.
.
,
,
”
!
.
“
W ie sch tin du br enn st O L am pe m ei n e Freu n d i n !
N o c h ist s n i c ht N ac ht u n d d o c h ge ht a ll es L i c ht
Das ri n gsum h er die l a u t e W el t erl euch t et
5
Vo n d ir au s d ir d u S o nn e m ei n er N a cht
,
,
’
,
,
,
”
,
,
“
A b en d
ist
’
s,
.
f ei er t
Zw eig en
d ie Sch 6p fun g
Un d die Vtigel
au s
d en
,
,
W ie b es ch w i n gt e S ilbergk lock ch en
L a u t en ein d en F ei e r a b en d
S c h o n b e r ei t ih r siiss G ebo t
R uh en d s el ber z u e rfiillen
A l l es fo lg et i h r em R u f e
A l l e A u gen f a l l en z u ;
Zu d en H iird en zi eh t die H e rd e
Un d d ie B l u m e sen kt in R u h
S ch lu m m ers c h w er das H au p t zur E r d e
'
'
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
l
W eh
2 W eh
1
3
d em
,
d em
,
d er liigt ,
d er liig t
,
5
.
,
,
.
Die Jiid in v T o l ed o V b egi n n i n g
D e s M e e r e s u d e r Li eb e W e ll en I I I
De s M ee r e s u d e r Li eb e W ell e n IV , 3
.
4
I I
V I
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
83
F er n e
S t eig t
t
em po r die st i l le N a c ht
A u sg eliis ch t des T a g es K erz en
B r ei t e t s ie den dun ke l n Vo rh a n g
Um d ie Hau pter i h r er L ieb en
Un d su m m t sau s eln d sic in S c h l af
h er,
diistern O
vom
s en ,
,
,
Zaw isch
”1
.
’
d es cripti on o f t h e qu ee n fo llo w e d by a b ri e f survey
2
fai rs i s d eci de dly mo re d ram atic a s is Ph ryx
o f th e st ate o f a f
3
us s d esc rip ti on o f th e u nr u ly barba rians an d J ason s p ictu re
4
o f t h e vault h e h as e n tere d
J aromi r s d es cription o f the in
t erio r o f t h e c h apel whic h is n ot vi s ible to t he s p ectat o r is i n ter
5
e sting
Accounts o f w hat i s going o n o ff t he st age als o occu r
”
i n some o f t he solilo quies lIn Die Ahn f rau I I be ginning
Jaromir rep eat s a p ray er whi ch B ert ha is de liv ering i n an ad
”
j oining r o om ; i n Ott okar I I I Zawisch de s cribes th e ap
”
p roach o f th e qu een ; i n D er T raum ei n L ebe n I I I Z an ga
“
tell s how Rus t an i s e sc o rting th e prin c es s ; i n Weh dem
der liigt I II 2 L eon de sc ribe s th e a d j oin ing b edroo m and i ts
snori ng o ccup an t an d l ater I I I 3 in fo rm s u s th at A talu s i s
digging belo w t he bridge on whic h h e s ta n ds
Pu rel y in tent ional s o lilo q ui e s are s ho rt an d few i n numb er
Usually t h ey f o rm th e ap pen dix to a defl ect iv e solilo quy as wa s
“
N au kle ro s s :
N o ch geb i ch ihn
t he ca s e in cl ass ic d ram a
reu n de s am m l ic h w i r halt en ihn
nicht au f Die Fund w a r
”6
es
m it Gewalt
i llu s trat es t he pu rel y i nt ent ion al spe ech
S appho s soliloquy at t h e beginn ing o f the fou rth act i s a g o o d
exam pl e o f a r eflect ive so lilo quy with a n i n t ent ion a l endi n g
A fter l en gt hy reflection s ab o u t i ngratit u de an d her p lans with
regard t o Phao n she d ec id es to s en d M elitta aw ay inasmuch
as t he l att er ha d estrange d Ph ao n fro m h er :
s
,
,
,
’
’
,
’
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
”
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
’
’
.
’
’
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
'
“
N a ch
Chi o s
so
ll M ellitta
So
hin ,
s ei e s
!
Ha
,
so
se
i
’
s
!
Traum ein L eb en I I
2 Ott o k ar s G liick u
E n d e I I I b eg
3 De r G a s t fr eu n d
4 Di
Arg o n aut en I 2
5 Die Ah n frau
V
6 De s M ee r e s u
Oth er exam pl es ; Li b u s s a I
d er Li eb e W ell en I V 2
Der Trau m ein L eb en I V 4 R u s t an s
I Die Arg o n aut en I I
nd ;
sp e e ch
1
Der
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
.
e
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
e
,
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
84
I n D ie Jiidin von Tole do
tion s with t he wor ds :
“
All ei n
Gut
w as
a c h en
m
ll
so
t he
king inter ru pt s hi s
d as G riib eln
h eisst
’
s
;
un d
da m i t d enn
o w n refl ec
B et ra cht en
f a n g ich an
,
”1
’
“
,
Ha er geht er g eht !
Wa s soll i ch
S ei es
2
Nu n Fa ss u n g Fa s sung !
d en n !
is a n o tew o rthy ex am ple
o f con ci s ene s s as th e t wo lin es cont ain fi rst exposit ion sec
four thly an e xho rtation to
o n dly a c on flict t hi rdly a d ecis io n
himsel f to gain compo s ur e
He ro s lo ng soliloquy i n th e t hi rd act i s a s pl e n di d example
o f a d ram at ic refle ctive spe ech d ram atic in s t ruct u re as i t
abounds in a p o st rophes e xclam at io n s an d quest ion s a ddr essed
to h ers el f dram a tic in c o nten t as it th ro ws consi der able light
up o n h er c har act e r The fa c t t hat it is a th o ught s o liloq u y
i s em pha siz ed by th e wo rds : Gedan ken bu nt und wi rr durch
”
kreuz en m eine n S inn
B ertha s s ad reflec tive solil o q uy
”
i
!
1
Ahn frau II I
illust rate s the lyr c typ e :
J aromir
’
s:
?
,
,
”
,
,
,
,
,
“
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
“
,
L i eb e, d as
Das
,
W ie
Un d
i d d ei n e Fr eu d en
B esi t z ist d ei n e L u s t ?
s i n d da n n d e r T r en n u n g L e id en
W ie m a rt er t der Ve rlu st ?
s n
,
,
,
”
”
’
M edea s revi ew o f her p as t li fe M edea I V Milo s remarks
a bout Jaso n s chang ed c ha r acter Argonaut en I V 2 L eon s
refl e ct io n s o n t h e ma n ne r i n w h i ch h e ha s carried out the i n
j u n ctio n no t to p revaric at e Weh dem der liigt V are some
o f t h e mo re st rikin g exam p les o f t his t yp e
S e nt en t io u s and philo s oph ic i ngred ients are m et with i n man y
o f the s oliloq uies bot h in the early w orks an d the later dr am as
The unhappy lot o f w oman is t h e theme o f a serio c omic out
- ?
th e gist o f which is em bo died in :
burs t i n W er ist sc huld ig
’
,
,
,
”
’
’
,
,
.
,
”
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
“
G en u g ! I n Wien
I s t e i n e F ra u das
'
,
w ie in dem
L a n d e d er C h i n es en ,
’
u n g liick sel g s t e
a ll er W es en
”
3
w ell as o f Sapp h o s sad refl ec tions begi n ni ng :
1 IV
4
1
ar d Oth r xa pl s w ith i t t i o al d : D s M eer es u
Li b e W ll e I V I pri s t s s o lil o quy ; Die Arg o n aut n I I M d a
3 I
i g
b gi
’
as
.
,
2
,
ne
e
e
,
e
en
e
.
n,
nn n
,
.
,
m
e
e
’
e
n en
n
en
e
e
,
,
,
e
e
.
.
d er
85
“
F rau en g lu t
N ac h
W er Li eb e k en n t
P h ao n s
i sst M ann erlieb e n i c h t
u n d L eb en M an n u n d F rau
m
,
,
”1
.
’
realization o f wi shes M edea s on t he
3
folly o f m an Prim islau s s on t he relativ e p o sition o f m an an d
4
5
w oman th e king s o n h o no r and reput at ion bisho p Gregor s
6
a re some o f the m o re st riking illu strations
se rmon o n truth
D eliberative s oliloqu ies o f t h e typ e m ade fam o u s by N athan
an d P osa do not o ccu r in G rillpThe nea rest
arz er s d nam as
app roach i s t h e sho rt s p eech: o f th e escaping Q ueen i n Ein
”
tre u er Di ener sei nes H errn :
’
dictum
t he
on
2
,
’
,
’
’
‘
,
,
.
,
’
'
l
.
S te ll i c h den M euter n
’
m
i ch
A l s Kon igi n en t g eg en u n d a l s F rau ?
S i e s p o tt en m e i n u n d tun ih r blu t g es We rk
E rg reif ich d i eses S c h w ert den M an t el hi e r
’
.
’
,
Un d k am p f
a l s M a nn
’
sch wac h !
0
D ru m do rt hi n ei n !
Zu
i e siiss e B eute ?
K e i n ei n z e l n er gen iig t !
u rn m e n
G o tt !
”7
B ut even he re w e h av e a n a dmi x tu re o f fear w hich removes
the sp eec h from the pla ne o f c alm t h ou ght The sam e hold s
”
t ru e fo r Ferdin and s s olil oq uy i n Ei n B ru derzwist i n whi ch
th e li ne : M it ringen Zwei f el s elber i n der B rus t p o ints t o an
8
i nner struggl e
Conflic t s ol i loquies o n the othe r h an d a re w ell rep r es ent ed
”9
F edriko s M ania s and t h e king s co nflic t s p eeches i n B l anka
esp eci ally t he fi rst an d la st are cast i n high l y dram ati c mo ld
“
J aromi r s s oliloquy at the begi nn ing o f the fi fth act o f D i e
”
Ah n frau depicts him i n t errible in ner con fl ict c au s e d by the
kn o w ledge t hat h e h as mu rdere d his fathe r Th e h opeles s
at tem pt t o app eas e h is acc u si n g c on sci enc e is p o w er fully
p r esent ed
.
.
’
,
”
.
'
.
’
’
’
'
l
,
,
.
,
’
“
.
.
S app h o I I I b eg i n n i n g
2 S app h o
I I b eg i n n i n g
3 A rg o n a ut e n
I I
1
,
,
,
.
,
,
4
5
6
s sa
Jiid in v
L i bu
W eh
,
.
.
,
eg i nn in g
To l edo I I
I II, b
.
,
d em
,
d er liig t , I
7
I V, 3
8
V
1 V 3 ; V 5 ; V. 7
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
86
The m ention o f a few rep resen tat ive em ot i onal so l i l oq uies
1
w il l su ffice B e rt h a s raptu ro u s ex p ression o f j oy S appho s
2
b e auti ful l yri c portraying her grie f M el itta s sp e ech o f g ri e f
4
3
and l on g ing O ttoka r s outb u r st o f remors e H ero s two ex
5
p ressi ons o f her love for Leander M att h ias s hop e l es s resig
6
nation are som e o f t h e more striking exampl es found in th e
pl ays
The langu age o f the solil o qui es i n Bla n ka i s ext rav agant l y
“
flo ri d and rhetori c al i n Die Ahn frau it be comes l uri d and
fev eris h :
’
’
,
.
’
'
,
’
’
,
,
’
,
,
.
”
,
“
Un d die A n g st
m
it V am p irrii ssel
S au g t d as B l ut aus m ei n e n A d ern
7
A us dem K o p f e das G ehi rn
”
.
S appho fo rmal beauty characterizes th e styl e I n th e re
maining plays t h e tend ency towards beau ti ful expt essio n p re
dominates although unadorned sty l e i s oc c asional l y met with
O ccasi onal e x ampl es o f repressi on at time s o f great em o tional
stres s are i nteres t ing fore runners o f m o d ern t echnic Thei r
sc arc i ty however seem s to s h ow that they are acci dental rather
th an t h e resu l t o f care ful planning I n Ot tokar I V I th e
h ero a ft er hear ing the ins ulting remarks o f Zawisch and the
queen remains sile n t an d a fter h e h as stared at the ground for
“
some t im e i n silenc e says laconica ll y : I st da s mein S chatten ?
— N un
zwei Konige
When B anc b an sees hi s m u r
“
dered w ife Erny h e cont ents him sel f wi th a laconic : O
3
Erny ! O mei n Ki nd mei n gutes fromme s Ki nd !
But this
i s du e not so mu ch t o the o verwh elming grie f that b e fal l s him
as to the lack o f g ood red b loo d in h is vei ns O n the W h o l e
then one i s j u sti fied i n saying that Gril l parz er doe s not reach
In
.
.
,
.
,
,
”
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
”
,
,
,
.
,
1
D i e A h n frau I
,
S app h o I en d
3 S app h o
II 3
.
2
,
,
,
4
5
6
7
.
,
tt o k a rs Gliick V 5
D e s M ee e s u d er L i e b e W e ll e n II I I V
E in B ud e r w i st in Ha b s b u rg V e n d
I I b eg i n n i g
E in t re u e r D i e n e r II I en d
O
,
r
r
,
8
.
,
.
.
,
z
n
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
3
.
,
CHAPTER V
F O RERU N N ERS
I
OF
.
M O DER N R EAL I ST I C D RA M A
F riedrich H ebbel
Hebbel i s rightly considered th e o r i ginato r ( Stammvater )
o f the n ew drama T he endeavor to m i rror l i fe in its entirety
in drama to pursue man s inner li fe to its most secret impulses
p roceeds from him I n h i s techni c he remained a fo l lower o f
”1
the class i c writers in th e fu l lest sense o f the wo rd
Thi s last
statement applies especially to Hebbel s u se o f the so l i l oq uy
The striking feature o f his plays i s the frequency o f so l iloqui es
and the sti l l greater pr eva l ence o f asides And the cause ?
Hebbel s proneness to morb i d introspection and se l f ana l ysis
which is faith fu l ly reflected in hi s d ramas Fo r him the drama
i s an opportunity to ana l yze th e characters to reveal every
fiber o f the soul to dissect every e m otion an d thought We
find practically a ll the c h aracters su ffer i ng from this mo rbi d
surveillance o f thei r inner se l f The result i s t h at t h e dramas
“
m ake a menta l rather than an emotional appeal
The fre
queney and expl icitness o f the so l i l oq uies i s due to the intro
sp ec tio n and especia ll y the self c rit icism
o f the characters
With characters who are so constant l y occup ied with thems elves
and pursue thei r emot i ons and actions wi th skeptica l scrutiny
it is natural to give exp ression t o thei r inner l i fe in so l iloquy
form Seldom i s a so l i l oquy i n drama so j ustified by th e char
acter o f th e peop l e as in the tragedies o f Hebbel Th e m o n o lo gi
cal outpourings necessarily be l ong to t h e character po rtrayal o f
“
2
such reflecting problematic natures
Th e greater part o f
t he i r torment s wou ld remain unknown i f we did not know how
t h ei r thoughts acquit and accuse each o ther i n every moment
3
when they are alone
On e can not he l p but fee l that this
.
’
,
,
.
’
.
.
’
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
d
.
,
.
.
”
.
,
:
”
.
1
2
1 1 2,
3
R
C
.
W esz len y
P fe tfe r,
.
1 1
3
H e bb e l s Ge n o v e v a
D i e P sy c h o l o g i e d e r
,
,
e rli n 1 9 0 p 1 4 5
C h a ra k t e re in H e b b e l s
B
,
.
Ha n s t e i n I b s e n a l s I d e a l i st p
,
,
.
52
88
.
1
,
.
.
T rag od ie,
pp
.
89
m orbi d introspection i s carried too far th at w e are listening to
th e author an d n ot to th e chara cter in the p l ay and that th e
a ction su ffers from a needlessly exaggerated ch aracterization
B ut even though w e sh ould yield a point and accept thes e
revelations o f thought an d feeling w e must p rotest agains t th e
numerou s epi c ingredients i n the sol i loqui es
There are
altogether too many bits o f sel f characterizati on t o o many
anecdotes and personal experiences embodied in thes e speeches
Hebbel s theory with regard to the u se o f the so l iloquy is set
fo rth in th ree entri es in h is diary I n 1 8 38 tw o years be fore
“
the completion o f Judith h e mad e the fo l lowing entry :
Wenn der Dichter Charaktere dadu rch z u zeichnen sucht dass
er s ie selbst s p rechen l a sst so muss er sich h iit en sie iib er
ih r eigenes I nneres sprechen z u lassen Al l e ihre Au sseru n gen
m iissen sich au f e t was Au s seres b e z iehen : nu r dann spricht
si ch ih r I nneres farbig un d k raft ig aus denn es gestaltet si ch
”
nu r in den R efl ex en der Welt und des Lebens
This splendid
theory w as un fortunate l y ignored all too o ften in th e fren zy o f
c ompos ition
I n 1 843 we find thi s entry : M onologe im
D rama sind nu r dann stattha ft wenn im I ndivi duum der Dual
i smus hervortritt so das s di e zw ei Personen die sonst immer
zugleich au f der B iihn e s ein sol l en in einer B rust ih r Wesen
”
z u treiben s ch ein en
I f Hebbel had only born e thi s inj unction
in m ind we should have been spared many undramati c so lilo
i
u
We do find examples o f thi s type in h is wo rks but
q es
in frequently H is last entry on thi s topic i s made in 1 86 1 :
“
”
M on ologe ; laute A tem z iige der S eele
Th i s i s diametric
ally oppos ed to h is earlier definition and indicates a dramati c
retrogression O f cou rse no obj ection can b e rai sed to thi s
dictum as a definiti o n s ince solil oqu ies are thoughts and emo
tions made au dible but it seems to be in a measure a j u st ifi
c ation o f sel f -revealing soliloquies whether c ast in dramati c o r
undramati c mold I nasmu ch as thi s utterance w as made a fter
the completion o f all h is plays Hebb el may have had in mind
th e m any lyri c soliloquies o f the G 010 type
”
“
I n Ju dith th e reflectio n s o f H o l o fernes strik e a speci ally
discordant n ote H e indulge s in them both when alone and i n
the p resence o f his retinu e at the sam e time realizing their
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
’
.
,
”
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
90
incongruity for he turns to his fo ll owers w ith the words : I hr
w undert euch fiber mich dass I ch aus me i nem Kop f eine Spindel
m ache und dem Traum
und H irn k n auel darin Faden n ach
Faden abz w irn e wie ein B iin del Flachs Frei l ich der Gedanke
1
ist der Dieb am Leben
His long s el f -characterizing speech
i n t h e fi rst act as well as his reflective and descriptive sol i l oquy
i n th e fi fth act are als o a rtistic b l emishes N or mu st w e over
l o ok M irza s loquaciousness which regales u s with anecdotes
2
in the most app roved Sach sian manner
Genoveva is fai r l y swamp ed with soliloquies and u n n atu
ral l y l ong asides more than a dozen o f each variety be i ng deliv
ered by Golo O f these B erger says : Er ( Hebbe l ) hat Go l o
nur halb als obj ekt iv e Gesta l t gebildet denn dieser Char
akt er war auch e in G e fass i n das e r di e subj ektive Leid en
scha ft er g oss die er sich vom Leibe s cha ffen wo l lte Da h er
die lyris chen M ono l oge die zuweilen sogar als breite Apart e
”3
“
W esz len y
den bew egt hin st iirm en den Dialog unterbrechen
a l so co ndemns these s oliloqui es : Di e haarspalterische S ee l en
a
l
u
r
i
e
i
n
die
Hebbel
m
it
Golo
hineing
raten
ist
liess
ihn
e
e
q
auch h au fi g hau fi ger als i n j edem andern seiner Werke de r
V ersuchung sein Wesentlichstes allein oder beiseite au sz u
sprec h en erliegen Das S chlimme an den Mono l o g en ist d ass
Es ist ni cht die
s ie durchweg S elbstp sycholo g ie enthalten
S el bstberatung nicht das Ub erst rom en u n z ahm baren G e fiihls
w ie bei Ham l et sondern die an gstlich e Selbstbeschau u n g eines
s eelis o h en W o lliistlin gs das besonders in den S cen en m i t Gen o
veva st oren d eingrei ft
I nitial expos i t i on so l iloquies are s carce T h e unimportant
“
—
playlet M ichel An g e l o
whi c h i s directed against the nar
ro w mi n dedness o f critics wh o app rove o nly o f the p rodu cts o f
artists such as already occupy a niche in t h e Ha ll o f Fame and
consistently condemn products o f contemporary artists — open s
with a l ong soliloquy which is for the most part reflective show
in g u s M i chel s attitude towards art and critics The exp o si
,
,
'
.
,
”
.
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
'
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
'
.
,
,
,
”
.
.
”
'
,
,
,
’
.
Jud i t h I V
2
Jud i t h I I I b eg
1
.
,
,
3
A
.
4
R
.
V
.
,
B
e ge
r
W esz len y
r,
,
.
; IV
.
M e i n e Ha m bu rg i sc h e D ra m a t u rg i e
H e bb e l s G e n o vev a p 1 43
,
.
.
.
92
perso n al experiences that have ab solutely no dram atic j u stifi
cat i o n into t he so l iloqui es A quo tation o f o n e o f th e numer
“
1
ou s exam ples wi ll s e rve our pur p ose I n M ari a M agda
le na I 3 K lara a fter nar rat ing what sh e sees from th e
wi nd o w a nd indulgi ng in a few reflection s su dden ly ins ert s th e
f o ll owing : Ei n m al sah ich ei n ga nz kleines ka tholi sc hes M a d
ch en das sei ne K i rsche n zum Altar trug Wi e gefi el m i r das !
Es war en d i e er sten im Jah r die das Kin d bekam i ch s ah wi e
s ie z u es s en !
es b r annt e
De n noc h bek am p ft e es s ei ne u n
schul dige N eu gierd e e s war f sie um nur der V ersuc hu n g ei n
Ende z u m ache n rasc h hin de r M es sp faff der eben den Kel ch
erh o b sch au t e fi n st er drei n und das Ki nd eilte e rschreckt von
dannen ab er d ie M ari a tiber dem Alt ar lachelte so mild a l s
w iin sch t e si e aus i hrem R ahrn en h erauszut reten u rn dem Kin d
nach z u ei l en und es z u k iiss en ! I ch t at s fur sie !
2
Golo s a c count o f ho w he climbed t o t h e top o f th e tow er
3
Gen o veva s acc o unt o f he r son s b eh av io r B enj am i n s n arra
4
ti v e o f the t roubl e th e st o len gem is caus ing h im
Freising s
“
A gne s B er
t wo ins tructive sp eec hes i n t h e fou rth act o f
5
nauer A g nes s r ep o rt o f th e conver sation that i s being carri ed
6
o n o ff t h e s ta g e are some o f t h e nume rous narrative s o lilo
l
u
s
found
i
n
the
p
ays
i
e
q
Th ere is a g o odly numb er o f descript i v e s ol il o quies though
they are not a s f requent a s tho s e o f t h e narrat ive ty p e Ho l o
“
fern es s un s av o ry des cript ion Ju dith V G o lo s descri ption
7
o f Genoveva as sh e l ies i n his arms u n co n s c ious hi s ac count o f
8
h er c on fes sion in the chap el M lania s desc ription at the win
9
1 0
Jacob s
do w Leon ha rd s cha ra cteri z a tion o f Mary s father
.
.
”
,
,
,
,
,
’
'
‘
.
,
.
'
,
,
,
,
!
,
,
'
,
,
,
'
,
,
'
,
,
'
l
,
’
’
,
’
’
'
’
'
,
’
,
”
’
,
,
.
,
.
”
’
,
,
’
,
,
’
,
’
’
’
,
,
1
t h by M i r a M i c h e l A n ge l o b eg i n n i n g De r D i a
M a ri a M a g da l e n a I I I 7 Der R ub i n I I 4 T raue rsp i e l in
Jud i t h I I I
,
V
;
bo
.
z
a t I 4
S i z ili e n I 2
2 G e n o vev a
II 2
3 N a c h sp i e l
b eg
u r G e n o vev a
4 De r D i a m a t
II 2
5 A g n e s B e rn au e r I V
IV 3
I
6 I bid
IV 9
7 G e o vev a
I 2
8 G e n o vev a
I I I en d
9 M a ri a M a g da l e n a I
3
1 0 1 bid
I 4
m
n
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
z
n
,
.
,
,
,
n
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
93
d escri pti o n o f h is wi fe and t he j ew el a re so m e exam ple s o f
this t ype M o st o f the s e a re e n liven ed by the u se o f exclam a
ti ons ap o st r o ph es a n d an a dmi x tur e o f em o t io n
I ntent io n al s oli lo qui es o ccu r as W 6 11 as int ent i o n al app en
d ices t o refl ec tive an d con fl ic t soli lo q ui es T he fo rm er typ e i s
epi c a n d u ndramatic a s t h e fol lowi n g will sh ow :
1
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
G ol o
“
K e i n V aterunser wil l i c h Sp rech en m eh r
K e i n A ve w ie i ch s o n st do c h gern e Sp rach
W en n m o rg en s e i n e erste L erc h e st i e g
W en n a b en ds e i n e f erne G lo ck e k la n g
V o n j et z t an s o ll m ir z u m L eg en denb u ch
D as L e b en S i eg f r i eds d i e nen m e i n es Herr n
G ed en ken w ill i c h a ll d er Tu g e n de n
”2
D er T ap f er k e i t des h o h en Edelm ut s etc
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
’
H erod s two c o nflict s oli loqui es I 4 an d I I I bo t h ending wit h
a decision are h i ghly dramatic J u dit h s morbidly i nt rospe c tive
s oliloquy
I I I c ulmi n ates in h er de c i sion t o kill Hol o f ernes ; a
r efle ctive and d e s cri p tive s oli loq uy o f the lat t er co n clu des with
3
a s tateme n t i n f o rming u s o f hi s inte ntion s
Reflectiv e s oli loquie s o f th e r et ro sp ective t yp e o u tnumb er t he
phil o so phic variety O c ca sio n ally the two ty pe s neith er one
o f whic h i s d ram ati c are ble n de d in to one speech
Geno
”
“
”
ve v a a nd Julia a re well s up pli ed w ith refl ec t ive s p e ec h es
4
o f all three vari eti es
The fo ll o w i n g spe ec h by Alberto illus
t rates the i n t ermin gling o f the t wo t y pes : H a tt i ch s vo rher
gewu sst ich h at t e mich W i derse tzt ! Nun is t s z u sp a t ! Aber
der hat s ei n e Tocht e r n ie g eli ebt ! N u r d as B i ld das e r si ch
von ih r m acht e ! F reilich w er l ieb t anders ! Es ist nun einm al
das S c hicksal des Me nschen d as s m an ihn w egen Eigen scha ften
ver eh rt u n d a nb et et v erab s che u t u nd h asst di e er gar ni cht
1 D r D ia
an t I
2 G e n o vev a
I I 3 O t h e r e x a m p l es : Ju d i t h I I I 2 D i a m a n t I 5 ; V
Gy g es I I en d
4
3
2 ; M a ri a M a g da l e n a
I II
O t h e r e x a p l es : Ge n o vev a I I I
Jud it h V
I ; I II
H e ro de s u M a ri a m n e I 2 ; I V 7 ; Gyg es u se i n R i g I I I by
7
Rho d o p e
4 Ge n o vev a
I I 4 ; I I I 6 ; I I I 1 6 ; V 7 Ju l i a I 4 ; I I ; I I I 3
A gn es B I 1 2 ; II I 5 S i e g
O t h e rs : Ju d i t h I ; H e ro des I
; IV 6
fri e d s To d : I I 4 ; I II 5 ; I V 1 3 ; Kri e m hi l d s R a c h e : I 3 ; I 7 ; I I 6
( A ll o f th e s e s o lil o q u i e s in t h e N i b e lu n g e n t ri l o gy are s h o rt an d r e t ro
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
’
’
’
,
,
,
'
,
,
m
e
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
m
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
2
,
,
.
,
,
1
,
,
,
,
n
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
s p ec t iv e
.
)
,
,
,
,
,
,
2
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
94
”1
b esi tzt di e ihm v o n an deren nur geli ehen w e rden !
Gol o s
s oli loquy a fter he h as mu rdered Drago ill u strates th e phi l o
s ophi c t yp e
’
,
“
W as i st ein M o rd ? W as i st ein M en sch ?
E in Ni ch ts ! So i st d en n au c h e in M o rd e in Ni c h ts !
U n d w en n ein M o rd ein Nich t s i st d i en er m ir
A l s S p o rn fiir das w as w en g e r als e in M o rd
2
U n d al s o w en g er a l s ein Nich t s n o c h ist
E in M o rd !
’
,
’
,
,
”
’
”
I t is
not ew or thy that t he s ix soli loq ui es i n S iegfrieds Tod
four o f them reflective a re on l y thirt t h ree v ers es long and
“
that th e to tal length o f t he six s o liloqui es i n Kr i emhi l ds
i
Rache
s likew is e only thirt y t h ree vers es ( fou r o f th ese are
refl ective )
Th e philosophical e lement us ual ly form s but a small comp o
n ent part o f a refl ec tive soliloquy and a long o ut bu rst s u ch as
Go lo s o n remo rse V 7 i s s car c e
Although d el ibe rat ive so liloq uies a re very rare Al ex andra s
sp eec h I I
fu rnishes a goo d ex ample co nfli ct s o lilo qui es are
rath e r nume rou s
Golo s i nner confli cts are so metime s lai d
b are i n u npardo n ably long and un n atu ral asi d es ! agai n in so lil
5
The asi des h o w ever s pl endidly illu st rate Heb
o q u y fo rm
bel s idea o f a j u stifiabl e s o lilo q u y viz th at t wo c h ara cters
Ma ri a s t wo conflict s oli l oqui es
sho ul d app ea r t o be sp eaking
I I 6 and I I I
a s we ll as H ero d s t w o p reviou sly mentioned
7
sp e ech es are s plendid e x am pl es o f dramati c cra ftsmanship
One quo t at ion m ay be pardon ed :
“
?
?
Warum t u i ch s d enn nic ht
Werd i ch s nimmer tun
Werd ich s von Tag z u Tag au fschieben wie j etzt von M inute
Fort ! U n d doc h
z u M inut e
bis— Gewi ss ! Darum fort '
bleib ich st ehen ! I st s mi r ni cht als ob s i n meinem Schoss
?
bit tend H a nde au fhob e als ob Augen
Was so ll das
B i st
?
schwach
d
zu
S o f r ag dich ob du stark genug bi st
z
du u
a
,
,
!
.
,
’
,
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
’
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
’
’
’
’
’
’
,
,
’
’
,
,
’
,
1
Ju li a
,
I
,
4
.
III 6
3 H e o des
e
d M a ia
4 II
0
4 ; III 4 ; III
5 II
5 ; III 5
6 M a i a M a g da l e e
7 He
des d Ma ia e I
2
,
r
1
.
un
,
,
,
,
un
1
.
.
.
n
r
ro
,
n
m
r
.
r
m n
,
,
4;
III
,
en d
.
,
96
sp eare an d s o ught to p ress i nt o s ervice an d hi s natu ral su bj ec
t iv ity resul ted i n ind eci sion a n d unproduc tivity
S ev er al o f his utt eranc es i n his dram atic s t u dies point to
I bs en s t ech n ic esp eci ally when h e says : Die gun st igst e Hand
l ung ist ein ei nfacher S to ff i n dem e ine ni cht z u gross e Anz a h l
du rch G em iit sart I ntentio nen u sw scharf kont rastierter Per
so ne n vom An fang bi s zum E n de au f ei n en m oglich st engen
1
Raum z u sam m en gedran gt si nd
Ano th er int ere sting dictum
defin es a g o o d drama as really n o t h ing but a ca t astrophe and it s
2
care ful motivation th rough c haracters an d s it u at i o ns
His theo ry regardi ng t h e s o l iloq uy i s s et forth in his stu dies
freque nt in t ervals W it hout exc ept ion th es e expressi ons
at
s h o w him to be a warm fri e n d an d a dmirer o f this conventi on
wh en it acq uaint s u s w ith t h e secr et th o ughts an d em o tion s o f
the sp eak e r I n a chap ter ent itle d D er M o nolog he writes :
Wie s eh r m an tiber d as Wesen d es Dram atischen im I r rtum
ist kann di e j et z t geltende Regel z ei gen : s o w enig als m oglich
M o nologe ! Es kan n keinen gross ern M i ssver stan d ge b en a l s
di e sen : denn in Wah rheit l a hmt ein M ono log s o w enig dass
eben die M on o l o ge das eige n t l ich D ram at ische s in d N u r frei
3
li ch M o n ologe im r echten S i nne
H e co ns iders a so li loquy
no p e r only when it s obj ect i s t o rep resent the et hi cal an d p sy
p
B ut when a li ttl e l ater on h e
c h o lo g ic al content o f a n eve nt
s t at es th at Sh akesp eare s an d L es s ing s dram as are o nly a seri es
o f solil oqui es wi th inte rvening motives one can but smi l e at
this r eductio ad absu rdum
Lwdwig bold l y asse rt s th at mere pantom i m e can n ot reveal
Shak espeare s cha ra c
t he sp eak er s t h ough ts a nd em otions
ters think alou d as it we re a cco rdi n g to him H e go es o n to
say th at i n re ality only a p art o f o ne s t hought s an d em otions
are ex p re s sed but th at Sh akespeare brings all thi s to u tteran ce
B lo sse G ebarden d es S chauspielers tu n es nicht ( die inne ren
Zust a nde z u v er s innl i chen und dem Zu h ore r m itzute i len ) und
der Phantasi e des Zu schau ers kann m a n ni cht zumuten die
4
Pau sen z u e rgan z en
1 D ra
at i s c h e S tud i e i c h apt e : D a at i s c h e S t o ffe
2 1 b id
E t w i ck l u g d
S i tuat i o
3 I bid
D r Mo olog
4 I bid
p 9 e d by A E l o e s se r
,
.
’
,
,
'
,
.
”
.
.
.
”
.
,
'
:
,
.
”
.
.
’
’
.
’
’
.
.
,
’
.
,
'
'
'
,
,
”
'
.
m
.
,
.
,
.
,
n,
n
n
n
e
.
2,
n
n
er
.
.
.
r m
r
.
.
.
97
How tho roughly h e realizes that the soliloquy i s a convention
“
i s made clear w hen he says : W 0 die N atu r im h ochsten Grade
des A ffekts stumm ist oder nu r einen Hauch e i ne I nterj ektion
hervorbringt da iibersetz t Shakespeare den Hauc h den Seu f
zer das St ohn en in einen plastischen l a ngern Ausru f der die
”1
And
G e fiihle zusammen fasst in einen p ragn ant en S atz
aga i n : Die Entwicklung eines interessanten C harakters i st nu r
”
in M ono l ogen m oglich
B e fo re considering Ludwig s technic o f the soliloquy i n hi s
“
masterpieces a glance at his earliest dramati c venture
Hans
Frei a c o medy dealing with medieval Niirnberg conditions
is o f interest
His technic o f th e so lilo q u y in this play is ex
c eedin gly crude the comedy fairly teeming with soliloquies and
asides in the m ost app roved Sach sian manner Compared wit h
this play Lu dwig s masterpieces show decided p rogress both in
the character o f t h e soliloquy as well as in the remarkably tem
perate u se o f same
”
“
I n D ie M ak k abaer the second third an d fi fth acts are
entirely devo id o f soliloquies though not o f asides Lea s tw o
sol i loqu ies in the fourth a ct are power ful and dramatic depic
tions o f th e emotions that su rge th rough her breast The first
o f Judah s tw o s oliloqu ies I end is refle ctive an d permeat ed
w ith disgust ; the second I V I i s descriptive emotional and
intentional an d withal dramati c in form a real talking to
h ims el f :
,
,
,
,
,
.
'
2
.
’
,
”
'
,
,
.
,
.
’
'
.
'
,
’
.
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
“
W i e S i c h er h e i t hi er m it b eq u em e m Fliig el
D i es L a g er briit et K ei n V er h au ! K e i n G rab en !
I st Juda h t o t ? I st er ein T o r g ew o rden
D ass m an ihn hohn en dar f ? G edu l d b i s d i r
D i e au sg efalln en S c h w i n g en w i ed er wac h s en ;
D a n n z a hl d i e n eue S c h u l d ihm m it der a l te n
3
Nu n nac h Jerusa l em !
,
.
,
,
’
.
”
“
The empty stage at th e beginning o f th e fi fth act o f Der
E rb forster
followe d by considerable pantomime i s an i n ter
esting forerunner o f p resent day realistic methods The sho rt
”
,
,
.
1
2
3
D ra at i s c h e S t u d i e n p
m
I bid
I V,
.
,
p
,
I
.
.
I
39
.
.
1
38
.
98
oliloquy whi ch follows i s a dramati c trans l ation o f h er anxious
The eight soliloqu ies are al l short and
th oughts into words
dramatic Exc l amations questions o ften a real ta l k i ng to
one s sel f characterize thes e soli l o quies Th e expositional el e
1
ment is very in frequent most o f th e sp eeches b eing reflective
or emotiona l The ann o uncing o f t h e app roac h ing actor i s a
favorite device as i t was wi th Lessing St ein s s o l il o quy I I
beginning illustrates many o f the above menti oned charac
s
.
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
t erist ics :
“
D er ga n z e sch on e T ag v er
d o r b en Jetz t s ass en w ir b e i T i sc h R e c h t m ag er sch o n h ab en
dass das D u rc h f o rst en n i c h t t au g t A b er m uss er m i c h desshalb
F re il i c h i c h m iis st e k liige r s e i n a l s e r
so in R a g e b r in g en ?
M ei n e H i t z e war auch m it sc h ul d — M i c h dau ert n u r die F orst erin
—u n d d i e K i n d er
r
I c h w ill auc h
S
te
h
t
au
f
set
z
t
s
i
c
h
w
i
d
e
e
(
)
W as denn ? E i n e T o r h e i t m it der a n d ern gut m ac h en ? S o u m
N ac hg eb en s ei n w i e i c h s im U eb eln ehm en w ar ?
iib erleg t im
A l ter S p rud el k o p f ! A b er das s o ll m ir e i n e L e h re s ei n — ( Kl e i n e
P a u se dan n ste h t er w i ed e r au f n i m m t Hu t u n d S t o c k u n d w i r f t
b e i d e s w i eder h in ) N ei n es g eh t n i ch t ; es ge h t durch aus n i ch t
W as ? D as w ar e i n e B l a m a g e n ie w i ed er gut z u m ac h en D i e s
m al m uss er k o m m e n ; i c h k a n n ih m
n i c h t h e l f en
A b er e r h at
”
v i ell e i ch t sc h o n
i st das n i c h t M oll er ?
V erw iin scht er
a l ter
E ig en s i n n !
.
.
,
.
.
.
—
.
.
,
’
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
S umming u p then Lu dwig s soliloquies are short dramati c
and legit i mately u sed i e to convey thou g hts and emotions
which w ould otherwise remain unexpressed His fi de l ity to
the convention stamps h im as a conservative adherent to classi
cal tradition not as an innovator Credit i s due him however
fo r the avoidance o f the crude makeshi ft o f the expos i tional
soliloquy
’
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
3
.
L u dwig A n z eng ru ber
Through his hea l thy realism An z engruber paved the way in
a strik i ng manner fo r the natura l i sti c movement that fol l owed
”
althou g h h e has n othing in common w i th its p erversi ti es
According to R M M eyer Anzengruber was reco gnized as
the foremost dramatist in Germany at th e time o f his death
With his dramas rea l ism entered upon t h e stage His serious
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
1
IV
2
M ax
,
De r E rb forst er
Ko c h G e s c hi c h t e d er
7,
.
.
,
d e ut s c h e n
Li
t e ratu r p
,
.
4 83
.
CHAPTER VI
R E C E N T D E VEL O P M E N T S
I
H auptm
.
an n
The technic o f th e modern German realisti c drama notab l y
that of its c h i e f exponent Gerhart H auptman n i s indebted to
suc h an extent to I b sen s technic that a brie f discussion o f
I bsen s technic and it s influence upon German drama will not
be amiss This influence i s set forth i n a very il l uminating
manner by A von B erger : O f the di fferent e l ements which
are amalgamated in I bsen s mental physiognomy and impart to
i t the modern expressi on t h e scientifi c point o f view and man
ner o f pre s ent atio n and everyt h ing connected with it have ex
e rted the most stimu l ating and fru i t fu l influence upon German
drama I bsen a c cordingly w as the s ou rce o f the entire flood
o f realistic psycholo g ica l mi l ieu dramas which has poured over
Germany since th e middle o f the eighties an d has not subsided
yet Perhap s I bsen s sign i ficance and servi ce for German
poetry is best expressed by saying that he created a form o f art
a style and a techni c w hich has proven it se l f capable o f appro
r
i
i
n
r
li
fe
as
it
un
fo
l
ds
i
tse
l
f
when
seen
by
modern
a
t
b
s
v
o
e
p
g
ers and ana l yzed by modern psychologists The essence o f this
techn ic cons i sts in the exclusion o f a l l theatri cal conventions
from t h e dramati c form wh i ch do not correspond to real i ty
I t s aim is the impress i on as thou g h w e were witnesses o f scenes
from li fe and conversations which are given as though they
were not bein g listened t o T h e characters o f the o l d drama
do not entire l y i g nore t h e spectat o r ; t h ey say many things for
the sake o f the spectat or which rea l people who are th orough l y
en g rossed in thei r a ffa i rs cou l d not possi b ly say The charac
ters in Ib sen s plays do not seem to suspect that they are fi g
ures in a drama p er formed fo r an audience Everyt h in g t h at
smacks o f the theater i s to be rej ected Above all th en th e
mono l og b ut a l so many ot h er things t h at resem b l e th e mono
,
,
,
’
,
’
.
.
’
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
.
.
.
’
.
.
,
1 00
,
,
1 01
log : asides conversations i n which the characters tell each
other things they already know m erely so that th e au dience
wi l l be in form ed characteri zation which in the last analysis i s
nothing more t han the assurance by s ome one that h e has thi s
o r that characteristic The German real ists since the eighties
have adopted I bsen s techni c and adapted it to th ei r needs
Striking fi delity t o reality absolute sp ontan eity exact m oti
vation even to th e most minute detail th ese th ree things defin e
th e essence o f th e d ramati c form that has its origin in I bsen
Thi s form made possibl e the formatio n o f th e realisti c mi l ieu
1
drama wh ose chie f exponent is Hauptmann
I bsen shows a decided p re feren ce for the analytical d rama
in whi ch th e act ion is p racti cally ended b e fore th e cu rtain ri ses
and th e greater p art o f the pl ay devoted to th e un folding o f
—
th e expositional material Arch er r efers to it as the retro
sp ect iv e method
but he also uses the synthetic form in which
th e action is d evelop ed and takes place in th e drama and a
”
”
combination o f th e tw o methods
Ghosts
R o sm ersh o lm
“
”
“
Th e Wild Duck an d John Gabriel B o rk m an n are typ es
“
” “
o f th e analytical drama ; The Comedy o f Love
The Pre
”
”
”
tenders
B rand
Peer Gynt
Emp ero r and Galilean an d
The League o f Youth are types o f th e syntheti c drama an d
”
“
“
“
H edd a Gabl er
Littl e Eyo lf and
A Doll s House
”
The Lady from the S ea sh ow a mixture o f th e two types
I bsen s analytical drama in whi ch the conditions o f th e soul
“
“
états d ames
é tats des
rath er than outwar d conditions
ch oses are rep resented exerted a power ful influence upon
Hauptmann
I bs en s t echni c i n hi s early hist o ri cal an d fantasti c plays
in vers e was on a friendly footing with the soliloquy When
h e turned t o th e p ro se tragedy o f every -d ay li fe however a
change o f techn i c is notic eab l e B eginning w ith The Pil l ars
”
o f S o ciety th e soliloquy i s almost entirely dropped To b e
sure a few sho rt s oliloquies occu r in th e last mentioned play
“
and in A Doll s House bu t these cases ar e exceptional
Here and there we fin d short outbu rsts by p ersons le ft alone on
'
,
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
.
”
.
,
,
—
,
.
,
,
”
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
”
’
,
,
.
’
,
”
’
,
,
”
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
.
,
”
’
.
,
1
A
.
v
.
B
e rg e r
,
“
Ube r D ram a
11
.
Th
ea t e r
,
”
p
.
27
it
,
L
e ip ig
z
,
1
9 00
.
1 02
the stage as e g when Hedda burns up the manuscrip t end
“
”
o f act I I I ; Hilde end o f act I I o f The M aster B uilder ;
“
M rs B o rk m an n at th e b e g inning o f
Jo h n Gabri e l Bork
mann
Werle at the end o f Act I and Hj almar in Act V o f
“
The Wild Duck
To a l l intents and purpos es then the
later plays the p l ays whose techni c influenced the d ramatists
o f other countries are devoi d o f soli l oquies
I bsen however was not the on l y dramatist wh o influenced
Hauptmann s technic The influence exerted by the j oint p ro
”
ducti on o f Ho l z an d S chla f
Die Fa m ili e Selick e up o n
”
Hauptmann was pro found Especial l y V or Sonnenau f g ang
which incidental l y is dedicated to Ho l z and S ch l a f i s g reatly
indebted to t h e above ment i oned tou r de force
Die Famil i e
Selick e unrol l s a page from th e seamy side o f li fe j ust as it
m ig ht be enacted be fore an inv i sible spectator The natural
ist ic portrayal o f condit ions as s et fo rth in this play esch ews
so l iloquies asides and all remarks o rdinari l y made for the bene
fit o f the spectator B oth the minute and p ainstaking dep ic
tion o f conditions as w ell as the avo i dance o f the convention
o f the so l iloquy h av e undoubtedly l e ft thei r impression upo n
Hauptmann s work A g r i pping psycho l ogical drama M eis
ter O elze w ritten by S chla f a fter the di ssolution o f the liter
ary partnership deserves mention Th e treatment i s natural
istic throughout and but two short outbursts under the stress
o f the greatest emotion occu r
I n discussing Hauptmann s techni c o f the soliloquy I sha l l
confine mysel f to the rea l i stic dramas With t h e exception o f
short emot i ona l outbursts by characters who are le ft alone on
the stage similar to those found in I bsen s l ater dramas nothing
remotely resemb l ing a soliloquy occurs B earing i n mind that
the so lil oquy is a convention w e can hard l y re fe r to these brie f
utterances as so l i lo quies inasmuch as i t i s quite common in
every day l i fe to give vent to short ej aculat i ons when overcome
with some emotion
I t happ ens rather frequently that an ex
cited person so l i l oquizes B ut cases in whic h t h i s is in accord
ance with rea l ity are not sol il oqu i es in the technica l sens e and
even th e natura l ists ra i se no obj ection t o them On l y such
speeches can be regarded as soliloquies which are de l ivered o n
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
”
,
”
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
”
.
,
.
’
.
,
”
,
.
,
.
’
,
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
—
.
.
,
.
1 04
xpression are imp ossible o f execution as I shall shortly dem
o n st rat e th en the stage directions in part at least are intended
fo r th e reader and are epi c n ot dramatic A l thoug h pardon
able in a closet drama this method o f pro cedu re is entirely out
o f pl ace in a drama i ntended for th e stage And even where
the stage directions are capabl e o f execution the spectator sees
things more o r l ess through a veil and has to indu l ge in con
r
c
u
a
to
what
th
e
author
is
really
driving
at
I
ventu
re
to
e
t
e
s
j
suggest that the actua l thoughts the conflicting emotions them
selves are o f more interest to the sp ectato r than the mere knowl
edge that the acto r i s thinking o r passing through an inner
conflict
Some o f Hauptmann s stage directions cannot poss ibly be
e x ecuted while others must certain l y tax the ingenuity o f th e
“
actors to th e utmost I n V o r S onnenau f gang e g Frau
“
”
Krause on one o ccasion is asked to b e blaurot vor Wut on
“
“
anot h er puterrot
I n Das F rieden s fest he makes a de
man d whi ch only an actor with the characteri stics o f a chame l
”
eon can su i tably interp ret : S eine Farbe w echse l t o ft
Here
upon the m uch abused face i s to show p l ainly how confl i cting
emotions rack h is soul and how h is p revious l y made resolution
“
begins to weaken : Hierau f is deutlich wahrzunehmen wi e
wie er in seinem
St rom u n gen fiir und wi eder i n ihm k am p fen
”
Entschluss wankend w ird
N ot i ndistinct l y mark you but
plainly ! Then when his father appears he i s asked to portray
“
a violent inner struggl e by means o f pantomime : Wi l he l m
sc heint einen S eelenkamp f physisch durchzuringen
At th e
”
“
end o f th e first act o f Einsame M enschen th e stage direc
?
tions tell u s th at : I n K a the ist etwas vorgegan g en
What
And how is thi s mysteriou s something to be p resented to the
?
audience
Again the stage -di rections are fi ll ed w ith characterizing and
descriptive bits which sugg est t h e spurned c h aracter i zing so lilo
quy The action itse l f ou g ht to b ring out t h ese c h aracteristi cs
T h e author is m aking u se o f th e prerogatives o f t h e novel h e
emp l oys th e epic met h od i nasmuch as thes e statements are
intended for th e reader not the spectator in the theater The
“
direct i ons at the b eginning o f Die Weber are the best ex
e
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
’
,
”
,
.
.
.
,
,
”
.
.
—
,
.
,
,
,
”
.
,
,
‘
'
.
.
,
,
.
,
”
1 05
“
ample o f thi s und ramati c m etho d o f p rocedure : Di e m eisten
d er harrenden W eb ersleut e glei chen M enschen di e vo r die
S chranken des Geri chts gestellt sind w o s ie in peinigender
Gespanntheit ein e Entschei dung iiber To d und L eben z u er
warten haben Hinwiederum ha ftet allen etwas Gedriick tes dem
A lm o sen em p fanger E igen tiim lich es an der von Dem ut igu n g z u
Dem iit igu n g schreitend im B ewusstsein nu r geduldet z u sein
sich so klein al s m oglich z u machen gewohnt ist Dazu kommt ein
starrer Zug resu ltatlo sen bohrenden G riib eln s in allen M i enen
Di e M a nner einander ahn eln d halb zwergha ft halb sch u lm ei
st erlich sind in der M eh rzahl fl achb riistig e h iist eln d e arm lich e
M enschen mit s ch m u t z igblasser Gesichts farb e : G esch op fe des
Webstuhls deren Kn iee in folge vielen S itzens gek riim m t sind
I hre Weiber zeigen weniger Typ is ch es au f den ersten B li ck ;
l
sie sind au f
o
s
geh
etzt
abgetrieben
w
a
hrend
di
e
M
a
nner
e
t
g
eine gewi ss e klaglich e G rav it at noc h zur S chau tragen und z er
“
lum pt W 0 di e M a nner g efl ick t s ind
In
V or So n n en au f
gang we are in formed that M rs Krause s deportment an d
clo thing b etray pride stupi d arrogance and absurd vanity al so
that he r fac e i s hard sensual and w i cked ; that Ho ffman s ex
“
”
pression is verschwommen ; that K ah l w oul d like to play
b o th th e gentleman a s w ell as the man o f wealth that his fea
”
tu re s ar e c oars e and h is exp ression mostly du m m pfi ffig
Th e most s triking example o f epi c treatment is shown in a
direction at the beginning o f the second act o f th e same play
“
whi ch reads : hierau f di e fei erlich e Mo rgenstill e ;
Even a
p ast master o f stage e ffects might well b e p erplexed at thi s
demand I t would als o tax his ingenuity to p resent a sultry
day t o wards th e end o f M ay called for in t h e intro du ct ion to
”
Die Webe r
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
”
.
,
”
’
.
,
,
’
,
,
.
”
.
,
.
2
.
S u derm
ann
I n contrast to Hauptmann wh o devoted th e greatest atten
tion t o the portra y al o f exi sting conditions th e milieu S uder
mann s chi e f aim is a stirring exci ting action Opposed to the
negative passive h ero es o f th e former S udermann pres ents u s
with positive active p rotagonists I n contrast to th e messen
ger from th e outsid e world who attempts to relieve c o nditions
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
1 06
’
in Hauptm ann s dramas S udermann has th e hero hims el f
return from distant p arts to stir up a conflict between two con
“
“
tending point s o f vi ew a s in Di e Ehre
Di e Heimat
G liick im Winkel and o thers
“
?
What as to his technic o f the solil o q uy
I n Di e Ehre
1
his first dramatic ventu re w e find three short soliloquies and
numb erl ess asides ; six in the fi rst act el even in th e second
twelve in the third and six in the fourt h a total o f thirty fi v e
The sol il o qui es are o f the reflective type with an intentional end
ing thu s having some dramati c j ustification as they a ffect the
action The chie f blemish o f th e play are the long didacti c
speeches o f Trast the mouthpiece o f the autho r in the style
o f th e French raisonneur
“
I n So dom s Ende soliloquies are fairly numerous The
author aims thi s satirical thrust at th e solil o quy when he has
“
Adah say I I O
I ch iiberlasse S ie dem M onolog H err Pro
fesso r den S ie sogleich iiber unsere V erderbtheit halten w er
den
Whereupon t h e p ro fessor does del ive r a soliloquy
although h e avoids the type suggested The solil o quies are for
2
the most part refl ect ive w ith one very dramati c conflict so lil
o qu y by Willy between his b aser an d h is b etter sel f ending in
3
a victory for th e latter
I n Die Heimat his most e ffective stage play th e soliloq u y
does not occu r at all an d but th ree asides are found The same
“
”
holds true o f J ohannes
in wh ich but one aside occurs
”
“
Tej a an d Fritzchen eschew both soliloquies and asides
When we turn to the idealistic drama h o wever w e meet
with th e cust o mary techni c o f the soliloq uy I n Hauptmann s
”
Di e versunkene G locke
Sudermann s Di e d rei Reiher
“
”
federn Fulda s Der Talisman all s y mboli c dramas the
convention is employed as it was in th e dramas o f th e classical
period There seems to b e a tacit admission then on the part
o f the modern realisti c playwrights that th e soliloquy however
o ut o f p l ace in realisti c d rama has a per fectly j ustifi abl e place
in i dealisti c drama
,
”
”
,
,
,
.
”
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
”
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
”
,
.
.
,
,
.
”
,
,
.
.
,
”
.
,
,
’
.
’
,
”
’
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
; I I I , 4 ; I V, 3
I
II
Z
I V, 5 ;
111, I 7
3
,
1 0
IV
.
,
1
6;
IV
,
1
.
7 ;
en d o f
th e
play
.
1 08
the classical play Numerou s s o liloquies o ccu r in th is drama
some with a great deal o f expositional material in a rather u n
d ramati c m old o thers reflective and em o tional i n which ex cla
mations apostrophes and questions are emplo y ed to goo d e ffect
”
Hardt s T an tris der Narr and Stu ck en s Grail series con
”
”
”
Lan v al and
L an z elo t
sisting o f Gawan
will illustrate
th e other modern m o vement Th e splend o r o f medi eval knight
hood and ch ivalry enchanted wo ods and chapels moonlit val
leys and vile sorcerers are revived in these plays S oliloquies
”
are not numerous in these dramas I n L an z elo t e g none
whatever occur the autho r p re ferring to let h is character in
d u lg e in pantomime where th e set ting i s most p ropitious fo r a
“
soliloquy as in I I I 5 : A fter L an z elo t has gone Elaine falls
upon her knees besid e the b ed shaken with sobs Then sh e
rises wipes away the tears and g oes t o the al cove on the right
where sh e hastil y dresses Su ddenly she stops to li sten and
hurries to the do or in t h e background Care fully sh e opens
the doo r and looks out
O ccasionally long epi c narratives
”
a re found as in Ga w an
Exp o siti onal materi al is not often
met with in th e soliloq uies whi ch are generally cast in ver y
dramatic form as e g Gawan s sleep soliloquy I I I his con
fl ict soliloquy IV 2 L an v al s longing for hi s fairy wi fe IV I
“
”
I n the initial expositional soliloqu y in Ga w an delivered
by A rtu s there i s a beauti ful descriptive passage addres sed to
the V i rgin :
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
’
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
”
.
.
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
S ch on w ar st Du M a rie so er sch r o ck en u n d k i n d li c h h o ld !
A l ab a st er D e i n K i n n D ei n e L o ck en gespo n n en es G o l d
Un d D ei n A ug en p a a r z w ei S een m it b l a u en T i e f en
D i e selb st n ie die P e r l en geseh en die dr u n t en s c h li e f en
D ei n S ch n eeleib w ar d u r ch b eb t v o n des W u n d er s S c h a u e r
,
.
,
,
.
,
”
.
I n Hardt s T an tris there i s but one dramati c sol iloq uy in
”
hi s Gu drun fou r occu r three o f them reflective the other
an outburst o f anger and grie f Apostrophes and exclamation s
and occasionall y the dialog form are very e ffectively employed
in many o f th e soliloquies
”
’
,
,
,
,
.
.
1 09
C O N C L U SI O N
Has the recent drama gained i n artisti c e ffectivenes s by its
disuse o f the solil o quy ? I s dramatic technic improved by th e
?
o
elimination o f th e convention o f the solil quy
The answer
to these questions which were to uched upon in the discu ssion
o f Hauptmann will round out this i nvestigation
Th e histo ry o f the drama is the long record o f th e e ffort o f
the dramatist to get hold o f th e essentially d ramati c and to ca t
1
The natu ralisti c dramas h ave cast out
o u t ever y thing else
the soliloquy and the asi de because they have felt both to b e
“
unnatu ral Their attitud e is that o f Arch er W h o says : A
drama w ith soliloquies and as ides i s like a picture with inscribed
labels issu ing from the mouth s o f th e figures The glorious
problem o f the modern playwright is to mak e hi s characters re
veal the inmost w orkings o f thei r souls without saying o r doing
”2
anything that they would not say or d o in th e real wo rld
A
glorious problem indeed ! B ut unles s we are endowed wit h a
sixth sens e that wil l enable u s to b ecome proficient mind
readers I fear that these inmost w orkings o f the soul will b e
sh rouded in impenetrab le darkness B ut th e natu ralist w ill
ret o rt a pau se a lo ok o f th e eye facial exp res sion the actor s
actions an d pantomime will c onvey to the au di ence what is
“
going o n in the mind o f t he character I t i s undeniable that
for the p ractical pu rp o ses o f dramatic p resentation th e sym p
tom s o f passi o n can b e mechanically mimicked with tolerable
”3
p recision
The simple o r primary em o tions such as grie f j oy terro r
“
”
1
w hich have imme diate an d characteristic outward symptom s
can undoubtedly be reveal ed t o th e audience B ut what o f th e
mo re c ompl ex an d habitual em o tio n s wh ich are rathe r attitu des
o f mind and have n o characteristi c outwar d symptoms su ch as
love hatred j ealousy ? N either the ch aract er s attitude n o r
the conflicting emotions that surge through hi s soul at a crisi s
,
.
,
s
”
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
‘
,
’
,
,
,
B Mat th ew s T h D v el o p en t o f t h e D ra m a p 3 1
2 W
Ar ch er Play a k i n g A Ma n ual o f Cra ft sm a n ship L o n d o n
1
.
.
p
.
3 05
e
,
m
,
m
e
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
W Arch e r Ma sk s o r Fa c es L o n d o n
4 W
Ar ch er o p c it p 2 07
3
2
.
.
,
1
88 8 ,
p
.
1
99
.
,
1
91
2,
110
to say n othing o f his inner thoughts can be revealed to
the audi ence b y means o f facial expression or pantomime
The conflicting emotions o f a hero at th e crisis o f his fate can
1
n ot possibly b e m ade known except out o f his own mouth
Th e soliloqu y in which a character speaks bol dly o f his most
secret thoughts lets a tortured hero unpack his heart ; it opens
a window into his soul and it gives th e spectato r a pleasure not
1
to be had oth erwise
I quite agree with R obert Hessen when
h e sa y s : I have w itness ed e n ough pantomimes in my li fetime
to know that they are significant onl y where nothing at all i s to
be expressed and every laboring man would understand th e
crude stu ff Where s o mething worth while is to be conveyed
th e understanding ceas es and the l ibretto i s pressed into serv
ice 3An d along this line lies the development o f the dram a
when every soliloqu y is dropped On the stage pantomime ;
the audience with their noses bu ried in books that is known by
2
Sp eaking o f a p er formance
th e nam e o f modern dram as
o f F ran cillo n he s ays : Th e impersonator o f L ucien groped
about the stage fo r minutes in absolute silence an d the audience
s at th ere w ith gaping mouths without having the slightest i dea
2
o f what it was all about
I f accordingl y a character s inmost thoughts and hi s inner
conflicts can not be exp ressed even adequatel y b y means o f th e
substitute whi ch the naturalists have o ffered vi z pantomime
then the dramatist i s ha n dicapped by the loss o f th e soliloqu y
an d dramati c technic i s made less e ffective I f the drama lo ses
in artisti c power b y the elimination o f this convention it is high
time that the dramati sts o f toda y p rotest against its disuse and
“
emphasi ze the p rotest by again employing it
Artistic and
art loving painters and s culptors woul d sco rn fully rej ect such
a prop o sition as the following : Yes you ma y paint but you
must no longer use blue or yello w o r Y es indeed you may
make statues o f women but only w ith a veil like th e fellah
women in Egypt The upper part o f the nose and the e y es
ma y be vi sible but n o more I f y ou are an y sort o f arti st you
will be able to make a ver y expressive face in spit e o f this re
,
.
”
.
”
.
.
.
.
,
‘
’
”
.
”
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
‘
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
B Matth ew s A S tudy o f th e Dram a pp 4 8 1 4 9
2 Dr
R o b rt H ss en ( A o n an iu s ) Dra m ati s ch e H a n dw erk sl ehr e
pp 2 3 2 -2 3 3
1 90
1
.
,
e
.
lin ,
2,
.
,
e
v
.
,
.
1
—
.
,
B er
112
”
nism su ffers a change o f heart and champ ions the poor down
trodden outcast by approving o f th e emotio nal and conflict
soliloquy His attitude especially i f it reflects the point o f
vi e w o f the naturalists augurs well for the future o f the so lilo
quy and points to a new lease o f li fe for it I n answ er t o his
“
q uestion : Are there in m odern drama an y admissibl e so lilo
u
s
i
e
he writes : A few brie f ej aculations o f j o y o r desp air
q
are o f cou rse natural enough and n o ne will c avil with them The
approach o f ment al disease i s o ften marked by a tendency to
unrestrained loquacity which goes on w hile the su fferer is
alone and this distressing symptom may on rare occasion be
put to artisti c use ( Gryphius w as the fi rst to advance this
i dea ) Short o f actual derangement however there are cer
tain states o f nervou s excitation w hich cause even healthy
people to talk t o themselves and i f an author has the skill to
make us realize that h is character i s passing through such
a crisis h e ma y risk a s o liloqu y not onl y without reproach but
1
w ith consp icuous ps y ch ological j u stifi cat io n
Th e last p a rt
o f this statement bears out B rander M atth ew s s remark that
“
the conflict ing em o t ion s o f a h ero at the c risis o f hi s fate can
not be made known except out o f hi s own mo uth
The vul
n erab le part o f his dictu m
lies in the fact that h e attempts t o
convert a convention into a faith ful reproduction o f li fe The
thoughts and emotions o f a c haracter at a crisis woul d rarely
i f ever be expressed in real li fe o ther than by gestures and
facial exp ression and possibly b y brie f ej aculations I f then
the character on th e stage i ndulges in a soliloqu y i t is because
the author is making thought audible for our benefit b y means
o f the convention o f the soliloqu y w hich permits inaudible
thought to become audible At any rate M r Archer has s een
th e necessity o f in forming the audience o f what goes on in th e
minds o f the characters and that is a decided step in advance
o f th e naturalists who have been unsu ccess ful in conveying
such in formation b y means o f pantomime
I t i s to be hoped t hat the dramati c authors o f today and
t o morrow will realize that th e elimination o f the solil o quy o f
thought and feeling i s a loss to th e d rama and that thei r resto ra
tion will increase its arti stic e ffectiveness
1 W
Ar ch er Play a k i g p 3 06 ff
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
”
.
’
”
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
m
n
,
.
.
,
B I B L I O GRAPHY
Anzengruber L Dramas o f
Archer W Engli sh D ramati sts o f Today L ondon 1 882
M asks o r Faces L ondon 1 8 88
Playmak ing L ondon 1 9 1 2
Arnold L M Th e S oliloqu ies o f Shakesp eare N Y 1 9 1 2
A y rer J S elected Pla y s o f
B erger A v Mein e Hamburgi sch e Dramaturgie Wien 1 9 1 0
Uber Drama und Th eater L eipzig 1 900
Creiz en ach W Di e S chauspiel e der englisch en Ko m odiant en
B erlin 1 889
Ge s chichte d es neueren Dramas Halle 1 893
Dev rien t E Geschichte der deutschen S chauspielkunst 1 84 8
Drama des Mittelalters 3 vols ed by R Froning Stuttgart
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
'
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
1
89 1
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
Jah rhunderts
1
89 7
un d
in den Dram en
L essings ,
1
und
8
7
Hamb urg
1
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
0
0
9
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
'
.
,
.
,
9
.
.
,
Go ttsched J C V ersuch einer kritischen Dichtkunst
Cato
Grillparz er F Dramas o f
Gryphius A Dramas o f
Hamilton C Theory o f the Th eatre N Y 1 9 1 0
Hardt E T an tris der Narr Gu drun
Haup tm ann G Dramas o f
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
1
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
Franz R Der Monolog und I bsen Marburg 1 907
Freytag G Technik des Dramas l o th edition L eipzig 1 905
Fulda L Der Talisman
G art elm an n H Dramatik B erli n 1 89 2
Gengenbach P Di e T o ten fres ser D ie zehn Alter dieser Welt
Gl o ck A Die B iihn e des Hans Sachs Passau 1 903
Goeth e J W Dramas o f
Go tts chall R v Zu r Kritik des mod ernen D ramas B erlin
,
.
,
.
Diisel F Der dramatis ch e Monolog in der Poetik des
.
.
.
,
.
.
113
.
,
.
,
I
O
73
.
,
1 14
Hebbel F Dramas o f
,
.
T ageb iich er
.
Hé delin Th e Whole Art o f the Stage Made English
,
684
1
,
.
Heinri ch Julius Dramas o f
Henderson A The Evolution o f Dramatic Technic North
Am Rev M arch 1 909
Hen n eq u in A The Art o f Pla yw riting 1 890
Hes sen R Dramatische Handwerkslehre B erlin 1 902
H o fmannsthal H v Elektra O edipus
H olz A Die Famili e Selick e
Holz und Schla f )
I b sen H Dramas o f
Kleist H Dramas o f
Klinger F Sturm und Drang Die Zwillinge
L eisewitz J Julius von Tarentum
L enz J Der H o fmeister
Die S oldaten
L essing G E Drama s o f
Hambu rgi sch e Dramatu rgi e
B eitr a ge zu r Historie und Au fnahme des Theaters
L ohenstein C Cleopatra
I brahim S ultan
L u dwig O
Dramas o f
Shakesp eare S tudien
Dramatisch e Studien
Matth ews B The Development o f the Drama N Y 1 906
A Study o f the Drama N Y 1 9 1 0
Concerning the S oliloqu y ,Putnam s Monthly Nov 1 906
Meyer H Das Drama H v Kleists G o ttingen 1 9 1 1
M iiller Maler Golo und Genoveva
Mundt T Dramaturgi e B erlin 1 848
Paull H M Dramatic Convention w ith Special Re ference to
the S oliloqu y Fortnightl y Revie w May 1 899
P fe ffer C Die Psychologi e der Charakter e i n Hebbels Tra
go di e L eipzig
Rebhuhn P S usanna
Robertson J G Zu r Kritik Jakob A yrers mit besonderer
R iick s ich t au f sein V erhaltn is z u Hans S achs und den
engli schen Ko m odian ten L eipzig 1 89 2
Sach s Hans Fastn ach tsp iele ; Comedies and Tragedies sel ec
ti on o f
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
’
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
I NDE!
T h e I n d ex
m en
t io n ed
in
Abhan dlu ng
8n
tai n s
t h e t ext
titl es o f w o rk s
fo o t n o t es o f t he
or
T rau er sp iel e
vo m
5 n,
,
.
A blassk ram
Der
er,
H eg el s
A est h et ik ,
25
,
’
8n
,
A esth et ik , Visch er s, 9 n
A in g u o t Vasn ach t sp il, 2 5
P a ssi o n s spi el 2 1
A n z en g ru b er L 98 99
,
.
,
,
22 , 23
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
A rch er W 7 1 01 1 09 1 1 1 1 1 2
A ri st o tl e 4 1
A r n im A v 76
A r n o ld L M I n 3 4 8 9 1 8 74
A rt o f P la y w riti n g T h e 3 n
A u g u sti n e St 2
Avr et J 3 1 3 3
C o m ed ia v o n d er sch o n en Sidea
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
6
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
D ra m atik 5 n 9n
D ra m at isch e Ha n d werk sl ehr e 1 1 0
D ra m at isch e M o n o l o g in d er P o e
tik d es 1 7 u n d I 8 Jah rh un
d ert s u n d in d en D ra m en L es
l 8n 4 1 11
sin g s Der 7 n 8n
D ra m atur g ie 9 n
D r y d en J 3 n
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
Schau biih n e, 6
En c y c l o p ed ia 3
B ro ckhau s Ko n v er sati o n sl ex ik o n
,
.
,
Diis el F
,
.
,
E i n l eitu n g
.
7 , 8n
I
,
in d ie
6n
8, 4 1 11
.
Wissen
sch é n en
.
E n g el J J 8
E n g li sh D ra m at ist s o f T o da y 7 11
E ssa y o n D ra m ati c P o esy 3 n
E ssa y o n P o etr y 6n
E t y m o l o g i c al D i cti o n ar y 2 n
Ev o luti o n o f D ra m ati c T ec h n ic
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
t en ,
s ch a f
.
,
,
,
.
B rit tan ica
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
Ha n s Sa ch s
B iihn e d es
,
Die
,
2 7 11
,
.
,
C o n c er n i n g th e S o lil o q u y
Co rn eill e P 9 40 4 1
.
,
C reiz en ach
,
,
,
W
.
,
,
3I n
,
1 1 11
,
.
9
,
T h e, 3 n , 5 n
.
,
hu n d ert
.
.
.
.
.
6
.
,
F astn ach t sp iele
D el iu s N
De S o m m i
.
,
.
.
,
,
B erg e r A v 90 90n 1 00 m m
B o d m er J 2 n
B r en ta n o C 7 6
B r ie fe iiber d ie Wien er isch e
,
,
D ra m atic C o n v en t io n with Sp ecial
R e fe r en ce t o th e S o lil o q u y
.
B att eux , C
.
,
,
.
,
33
3
.
3 n, 5 11
.
.
.
.
,
.
2 5 11
.
,
1 09
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
J ahr
.
Dev rient E 2 4n 2 7 1 1
D id er o t D 5 8
Do st o j ew sky F 5
D ra m a Das 5 n 9 n
D ra m a H v Kl eist s Das 7 611
D ra m a d es M itt elalt er s Das 2 on
D ram a der R e fo r m at io n sz eit Das
.
,
9
,
.
,
1
,
,
.
d es
I n,
,
.
,
.
991 1
S ch aub iihn e, 9 40
en t o f t h e D ra m a , T h e,
,
,
,
.
I on ,
I n,
.
Kreu z elsch reib er Die 99
M ein eidbauer Der 99
P farr e r v o n K i rc h feld Der 99
V i ert e Gebo t Das 99
,
,
D eut sch e
D ev el o p m
.
n
.
h u n dert s,
.
A ls feld er
th e
an d
D est o u ch es P 45
D eut sch e L it eratu r
.
’
,
a m es o f auth o r s
fo r eg o i n g t r eati se
th e
co n
,
d em
2 3 , 2 5 , 2 81 1
Fastn ach tsp iele
116
au s
vo n
1
5
J ahr
.
.
Sa ch s
,
1
3 11
.
117
F ra n cill o n ,
1 10
.
,
F ra n k fu rt e r
P a ssio n ssp iel
F ra n z, R
4n , 5 n , 9 n , 7 7
7 , 8, I 7 , 2 8
.
F r eyt a g, G ,
.
F r o n in g R
F ulda, L
Der
.
.
.
.
2 o n , 2 4, 2 411
,
.
85
an n ,
H
G en g en ba ch
P
1 06
.
.
5, 9
,
25
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
3,
51
42,
62-7 5 ,
,
7 6, 80 8 7
A u fg er eg t en , Die, 63 67
B ru ch stiick e ein e r T ra g é d ie, 63
C lav ig o 67 n, 7 3
.
,
,
on
t
7 4. 7 5
F au s t ,
64. 6 5
.
.
.
3,
1
6 62 , 63 64 65 66,
,
,
,
,
67 , 68, 69 7 0. 7 3 7 5
Gesch w i st er, Die, 62 , 63 67 n 7 3
G é tz . I 4 62 . 64. 66. 6 7 . 69 7 o ,
7 3. 7 6
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
G ro ssc o pht a, Der, 6811
I ph ig en ie I 3 1 5 62 64 66 67 n
,
,
,
,
,
,
7 2 . 7 3 . 7 4. 7 s. 80
L a un e d es V erl i ebt en , Die, 67
M it sch u ldig en , Die, 62 , 66, 67 ,
.
.
a
68, 69 7 0, 7 1
N at iirlich e T o c ht er , Die,
,
67 H 7 0 7 4 7 5
N au sikaa , 6 3
P a n d o ra 63 64 66
,
.
4, 65 ,
St ella
T a s so
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
80
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
2,
8n 9
6 9,
,
,
,
,
25,
.
40, 4 1 , 42
,
.
.
.
,
82 , 83
,
.
,
,
86
,
.
.
,
,
1
3 , 80,
.
T r eu er D ien er
B in , 8 1 , 8 5 , 86
W eh dem d er liigt , 82 84, 85
W er ist schuldi g, 8 1 , 84
,
,
,
.
.
.
H ei n ri ch
Gr yp hiu s A 4
G riin e
.
.
,
.
,
Der 5 n
,
1
.
3 . 34 38. 39. 4 1
—
.
.
C ard en io u nd C elin de 34 3 7
C ar o lu s Stu ardu s I 3 3 5
C athar in e v o n G eo rg i en 34 36
G eli ebt e Do rn ro se Die 38
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
L eo A rm
en iu s,
,
38
.
.
3 , 3 5 , 36
I
.
,
34, 37
S q uen z , 3 8
.
.
Ha m b urg i sch e D ra m aturg i e
M ei n e 9 0n
Ha m ilt o n C I
Ha n st ein A 88n
Hardt E 1 08
Gudru n 1 08
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
Go tt schall R v
Go tt sch ed J C
C at o 40
,
.
64 6 5 7 1 . 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5
67 1 1 6811 , 7 2 7 4, 7 5 7 7 ,
.
,
,
,
P et e r
.
B in ,
80, 8 1 , 82 , 83 , 84 86
P apin ian u s,
.
.
,
I 3,
,
u
1
,
.
H o rribilicrib rifax
.
85 ,
.
,
,
,
,
1 12
.
,
,
P sy c h e 8 1
R o b ert 8 1
R o sa m u n d e 8 1
R o s a m u n d C l if
fo rd 8 1
Sa pph o 1 6 8o 83 84 85
S chr eib fed e r Die 8 1
T rau m ein L eben Der
81
.
1
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
66 67 n . 69 7 3 .
.
,
Ha b sbu rg
in
,
.
,
Egm
,
,
,
1
84
Ga st fr eu n d Der 83
Go ld en e Vliess Das 8 1
Judin v o n T o l ed o Die 82
Ko n i g O tt o kar s Gliick I 4 83 86
L i b u ss a 1 6 8 1 83 85
M ed ea 84
M eer es u n d der L i eb e W ell en
Des
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
Geschi cht e d er
tu r 9811
G eschi cht e d er d eut sch en S chau
27 n
s pi elku n s t
2 41 1
Gesch icht e d es n eu er en D ra m a s
,
.
.
8 5 , 86
.
W elt 2 5
d eut sch en L it era
Gl o ck A 2 7 n
Go eth e J W
,
B rud e rz wis t
.
,
6n
,
.
,
,
Die T o t en fres ser 2 5
Die z eh n A lt e r di ese r
,
86
,
86
,
.
,
,
.
A rg o n aut en Die 83 84 85
B la n ka v o n K a st il ien 80 8 1
.
T ali sm a n
G art elm
,
,
,
2 5 n , 2 6n
,
,
,
.
1 06
,
23
22 ,
,
I n,
,
Go tt sch ed L u ise 9 4o
Gran d e E n cyclo p edic L a 3
Grillparz er F 1 3 80-87
A h n frau Die 1 3 8 1 82 83
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
118
N arr
T an t ris d er
1 08
,
.
,
,
.
,
I bs en
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
95
4
Ju dl th . 89 . 9 0. 92 . 9 3 . 93 n . 9 5
.
.
.
1 03
,
,
.
.
.
,
M i ch ela n g el o I 3
N i b elu n g en Die
Si eg fri ed s T o d
,
,
94
93n ,
,
9 4,
93 n
1 2,
.
41
.
,
46,
1 01
1 01
1 02
,
I d eal ist, 88n
als
1 03
,
1 03
,
A
H enn eq u in A
,
.
.
I , 3, 5 , 7
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
7 8. 7 9 89
.
,
3
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
1 07
.
,
.
.
.
L ar o u s se
L eisew itz ,
N o u v eau
J 51
.
,
.
I 4,
.
,
,
.
,
.
80
,
.
P en th es il ea 7 7
P ri n z v o n H o m bur g 7 7
R o b e rt G u isk ard 7 7 8o
Zer b r o ch en e K ru g Der
K li n g er M ax 1 0
K li n g e r F 1 0 5 1
Die Zw illi n g e 5 1 5 2
K o c h M 9 8n
,
.
,
77
,
,
H er m a n n 4 1
H er o d es 40
H ess en R 1 1 0 1 1 1
H ey se P 5
H o fm a n n sthal H v
E l ektra 1 07
O edipu s 1 07
,
.
,
.
77
,
H er m a n n sschla cht Die
Kat h ch en v o n H eil br o n n
.
.
.
.
,
80
,
77
,
,
.
K ell e r A v 2 311 2 5 n 331 1
K ell er G 5
K ilia n E 9
K laj J 40
K l ei s t H v 4 7 6 80
F a m ili e Sch ro f
fen st ein Die
78
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
ersh o lm
,
.
,
.
—
—
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
1 01
,
M a st er B uil d e r 1 02
P eer Gy n t 1 01
P illa rs o f S o ci et y 1 01
P r et en d er s 1 01
,
,
1 03
,
.
,
.
H eg el G 8
H ei n ri ch J uliu s 1 8 3 1 33
B uhl e r u n d B uhl er in 32
Ko n i g v o n S ch o ttla n d 3 1
Su sa n n a 3 2n
V o n e i n em E d el m a n n 32 n
V o n ei n em u n g erath en en S o h n
,
,
.
.
,
1 01
1
,
L ittl e E y o lf, 1 01
’
L o v e s C o m ed y, 1 01
I bsen
.
T ag eb iich er, 8n 89
T rau er spiel in Sizili en , E in , 9 1
H ebb el s Geno v ev a , 88n , 90n
,
.
S ea,
f Y o uth
o
,
9 3n , 94
.
.
,
th e
W ild D u ck
.
,
.
,
,
.
90
,
,
,
,
,
R o sm
H é d elin 6 7
,
,
,
,
,
,
95
H en d er so n
1 00,
B ra n d 1 01
D o ll s H o u s e A 46 1 01 1 03
E m p er o r an d Galil ea n 1 01
Gh o st s 46 1 01 1 03
H edda Ga b l er 1 01 1 03
J o h n Ga b ri el B o rk m an n 1 01
L ea g u e
.
,
,
1 02 ,
,
46, 7 6, 96,
1 0,
2,
.
.
J ulia 9 1 93 9 3n 94
K ri em hild s R a ch e 9 3n
M aria M a g dal en e 92
32
.
,
.
,
,
,
I,
,
L ad y fro m
Gyg es u n d s ei n R i n g 93n 95
H er o d es u n d M aria m n e 93 9 3 11
,
.
,
9 3 11 . 9 4. 9 5
.
1 02
,
.
,
,
,
S elick e,
,
,
.
ili e
.
’
Web er Die 1 04 1 05
H ebbel F 8 88—9 5
A g n es B er n au e r I 3 9 1 92 93n
D ia m a n t Der 9 1 92 93 9 3n
Gen o v ev a I 4 89 9 0 9 1 92 93
.
H
,
1 01
.
,
,
9
1 02
1 2,
,
Die F a m
.
,
,
,
1 05
.
.
.
,
1 04,
,
.
,
,
,
40
,
Haupt m a n n G 1 2 1 4 1 00— 1 05
E i n sa m e M en sc h en 1 03 1 04
F l o r ia n G ey e r I 4
F ri ed en s fes t Das 1 03 1 04
V er su n k en e Gl o ck e Die 1 06
V o r S o n n en au fg a n g 1 02 1 03
,
H o l be r g
H o lz A
.
.
,
2 11
.
.
.
.
7 7,
1 20
T eu ffel
Der,
Vie r
it
m
29
Kau ffm ann
d em
,
.
L ieb ha b en
u n g luckh af
ft en
d en, Die,
29
Sa n ft es Wei b E in 5 n
Sau er A 5 1 s1 n
S chau sp i el e d er en g li sch en Ko m o
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
S chill e r
87
.
5
42,
,
,
.
,
.
,
M essin a
vo n
Die 5 5 5 7 n
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
L an v al,
1 08
59
1 08
Stud y
o
St iirm
er u n d
.
D ra m a A
f th e
,
I 6,
,
5 7 , 5 8, 5 9 , 60,
.
6. 5 5 . 5 7 . 5 9 . 60. 6 1
J u n g frau v o n O rl ea n s, Die
1
1
,
5 4 5 5 . 5 7 n . 5 9 69
K a bal e u n d Lieb e, 1 5 , 5 5 5 7 n
61
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
76
S chla f,
1
5,
1
5 4,
.
.
.
.
.
T it t m
.
1 02
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
J
an n ,
.
32 n
,
.
t r i l
O
s e sp e
D ra m a
,
2In
T h eat er
un d
Sitt en b erg er H
,
.
,
1 03 n
,
.
,
,
3 n , 4 n , 7 4n
S o n n en fel s, J v , 6
.
,
1 07
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
H
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
1 03 n
.
Waldi s B
W ei se C
,
.
I n,
l o1 n
51
Die Kin d erm ord erin 5 1 5 3
Wahrh eit au f d er B iihn e Die,
.
,
S o ph o cl es
Wa g n er
.
Sk eat W W 2 n
S o lil o q ui es o f Shak esp ear e
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
7n
V erl o r en e S o h n Der 26
V er su ch ein er C rit isch en D icht
ku n st 6n
V i s ch er F 9
V o n d el J 34
V o ltair e 40
il i e Selick e 1 02
M ei st er O lz e 1 02
S chla g H 5 9
S chl eg el A W 8
S chl eg el J E 9 4 1
S en eca L 3 4
S en ec a u n d d as d eut sch e R en ai s
s a n c e D ra m a
3 4n
Shak esp ear e W 7 6 96 9 7
,
I
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
T rier er
Ube r
,
,
Die F a m
,
.
,
6 5 7 , 5 8, 6 0
.
J
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
5 6, 5 7 . 5 8. 5 9. 60. 6 L
Wall en st ei n s T o d, I 6, 5 4, 5 5 , 5 7 ,
5 9 , 6o , 6 1
Wilh el m T ell
,
,
,
.
,
,
T ech n ik des D ra m a s 7 n 8n
T h eo r y o f t h e T h eatr e I n
T h o m a s C 26
T i eck L 7 6
T ita n 5 n
.
M ar ia Stua rt 5 4 5 5 5 7 6o
P i c co l o m in i Die 5 7 n
R a u b er Die 1 3 I 4 I 6 5 1 5 3
1 10
3,
.
,
5,
.
,
.
,
,
.
1
Sud er m a n n
D r ei R eih erfedern Die 1 06
E hr e Die 1 06
F ritz ch en 1 06
Gliick im Win k el Das 1 06
H ei m at Die 1 06
J o ha n n es 1 06
S o d o m s E n d e 1 06
T ej a 1 06
Su sa n n a 26
,
Fiesco .
I,
,
Dran g er s1 n
H 1 2 1 05 1 06
,
.
Do n Karlo s
.
.
,
,
2
,
.
,
D em etr iu s
61
5 3 6 2 , 7 6, 80,
—
1
,
,
.
B ra u t
6o
F
,
H ein rich
.
,
.
L an z elo t ,
.
dian t en , Die, 3 I n
S chau spi el e d es H erz o g
J ul iu s Die, 32 n
,
,
.
,
Sta ch el P 34 34n
Sta n dard D i ct io n ary
Stu ck en E 1 08
Ga w a n 1 08
,
Th e
,
.
,
.
,
26
.
39 40, 4 1
,
.
B au risch e M achiav ellu s, Der, 3 9,
4o
.
B o se C athari n e Die
M a sa n i el l o 39 40
,
,
,
,
.
39
.
1 21
W esz leny R 88n 90
Wh o l e A rt o f th e Sta g e
,
.
,
,
Zu r
.
T he, 3 11 ,
,
8n
Wien er P a ssi o n ssp iel
,
2I
.
d es
m o
d er n en D ra m a s
,
8n 9 n
K ritik J ak o b Ayrers 3 3 n
2n ,
Zu r
.
K rit ik
,
.
,
.
VI TA
The author Erwi n W Roessler wa s bo r n nea r Stuttgart
Germany Mar ch 1 7 th 1 880 H e at tended the element ary an d
high sc h ools o f Chicago
degree at th e
an d t o ok hi s A B
Universit y o f Chicago in the summ er o f 1 900 From 1 900
1 901 h e took graduate work i n L atin at the Un iversi t y o f Ch i
cago from 1 906 1 9 1 1 he pursu ed cou rses in th e d ep art ment o f
Germ ani c L anguages a n d L iteratu re o f Columb ia University
I n 1 904 he be came instructor o f mo der n langu ages i n th e New
York High School o f Commerce ; sinc e 1 908 h e has b een ch air
man o f the d epartment
The aut h or is ind ebted to Pro fe s so r C alvin Th omas for valu
able s uggestio ns given du ring the prep aratio n o f th e disser tation
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
—
.
.
.
1 22
B I NDIN G S ECT
PT
Ro e s s l
Th e
er ,
sol
.
1
7
9
1
4
P
2
E
S
Er wi n
i l o quy
Wi l l i am
Eu g e n e
Ge r m a n d r am a
R 2
PLEASE DO
NO T R EMO VE
CAR DS O R SLIPS FR O M THIS PO CKET
UNIVERSITY O F TO R O NTO LIBRAR Y