No description available.

No description available.

The thesis attempts to shew that J. E. Schlegel was the first German writer to analyse the nature of art and its effects from an aesthetic point of view. Hitherto the only writer who had made a systematic study of the problem was Gottsched, but his approach was a purely practical one and the standards by which he judged art were chiefly those of practical reality. In order to shew how it happened that, despite his aesthetically worthless writings, Gottsched yet wielded a unique authority on literary questions, Chapter I contains a brief survey of writers before Gottsched who had discussed similar problems in a manner inherently more valid than his, and whose work yet remained without influence. Schlegel's views are measured against Gottsched's, since his was, then, the only poetic theory which counted when Schlegel began writing. The chief mark of the latter's more aesthetic approach is that he accepts the existence of great works of art and tests his theories by them, if necessary modifying the theories; whereas Gottsched tests the works by the principles. Hence Schlegel accepts the imitation theory, but realises that art is always only a modified imitation of nature, affording different experiences from those afforded by reality. Were it merely a copy, affording identical experiences, art would be superfluous. The deviations from nature which the artist makes are due partly to the laws imposed upon him by his medium, partly to the necessity of ensuring that his work gives rise to the right kind of experience. Chapter III relates Schlegel to later writers and to later developments in aesthetics. He is usually regarded as a forerunner of Lessing, but it is claimed here that this is true only of his more practical suggestions for the drama. Each has a totally different approach to the problem of art. Gottsched,Lessing, Bodmer and Breitinger, the Sturm und Drang, different as they are in other respects, all tend to confuse art and life. Schlegel distinguishes between them and, in this more aesthetic approach, he is closer to Mendelssohn and to Goethe and Schiller. Many of Schlegel's views are borne out, too, by the most recent developments in aesthetics, especially his realisation of the importance of medium and of the existence of a specifically aesthetic experience.

Schiller's tragedies, his theory of tragedy, the relation between the latter and his general aethetics, and, finally, the relation between his aesthetics as a whole and his tragedies have all been exhaustively discussed during the last century and a half. By justification for submitting yet another study on the relation between Schiller's theory and practice is that I attempt to examine Schiller's poetry qua poetry, and by the method appropriate to the study of poetry; his aesthetics qua aesthetics, by the method appropriate to that discipline and with some knowledge of its problems and achievements; and lastly, the relation between postic practice and aesthetic theorym in due awareness of the delicate critical problem involved. This approach, it is hoped, will do more justice to the complexity of the subject than the customary approach to it from an overall biographical, philosophical, or 'ideengeschichtlichen' point of view. Such studies have resulted in views of Schiller that are conflicting with each other and contradictory in themselves. By making due allowances for the distinct nature and objective of statements made in a poetic, aesthetic and general philosophic context, respectively, and by approaching each with the method of investigation appropriate to it, no difficulty has been found in seeing the closest relation between the various aspects of Schiller's work. The detailed textual analysis of Schiller's tragedies has brought to light a well-defined pattern of tragedy in which certain fundamental features remain constant. The tragic theme is found to be concerned with the interaction of the individual and with the tragic untenability of onesidedness. The tragic hero, though in fact onesided, throughout Schiller's tragedies maintains a contemplative pose: he appears to be resting in the enjoyment of his full human potential. Lastly, the structural principle of externalisation is found to be operative throughout the tragedies: the protagonists are linked by the fact that each is the embodiment of those functions which the other suppresses in himself. This pattern of tragedy is borne out and explained by Schiller's theory of tragedy and general aesthetic theory. The tragic fact of onesidedness finds its explanation in the Asthetische Briefe, which define onesidedness as the tragic predicament of modern civilisation and propound that ideal of integration and totality which is the criterion of value that is operative throughout the tragedies. The contemplative bias of the tragic hero, which belies his real condition, is explained by the purely formal considerations put forward in Uber des Pathetische and borne out by every aesthetic essay from Schiller's pen. The dualistic structure of the tragedies, finally, is seen on the one hand to be an expression of Schiller's view of reality as expounded in the Asthetische Briefe; on the other hand it is governed by formal considerations voiced throughout his aesthetic writings. Thus that homogeneity of Schiller's art and aesthetics which impressed Goethe and Humboldt and which of late has tended to be lost out of sight, emerges as the final result of this thesis. It is hoped that the unified conception it presents will carry conviction in the measure in which it is based on the awareness, rather than the denial, of complexity.

The thesis deals with fairy tales on the Viennese stage and their narrative sources from the beginning of the eighteenth century to 1848. In the introductory chapter a statistical analysis of fairy tales illustrates that while the Viennese were greatly under the influence of fairy tales published in other German-speaking lands, the fairy tale on the Viennese stage did not follow the trends of the fairy tale in German literature. The first of the three main chapters discusses the dramatizations of the oriental fairy tales shown in Vienna. Raimund's Der Diamant des Geisterkönigs is one example. Wieland' s fairy tales provided the Viennese dramatists with a lot of source material, not only of oriental origin, but even of Italian origin too. The second main chapter analyses the sources of Vulpius's Die Saal-Nixe and looks at the different works inspired by this typical Sage der Vorzeit, including Hensler's Das Donauweibchen and Grillparzer's Melusine. The theme of the white deer links these works with the oriental tale about Cheheristany and La donna serpente, an Italian play by Gozzi which provided Raimund with material for Der Verschwender. The third main chapter studies the close interaction of the French and German folk tales in literature and on the Viennesestage. The two examples chosen are the stories about Rübezahl and Fortunatus. Special attention is paid to Musäus who wrote stories about both these folk-tale figures and whose collection of folk tales was a popular source of dramatization. The failure of the Grimm Brothers to inspire Viennese dramatists is contrasted with the success of popular authors, such as Langbein. The conclusion summarizes first the sources of Viennese fairy-tale dramas and secondly the similarities and differences between the fairy tale on the Viennese stage and in German literature. And finally the demise of the fairy tale is examined.

The present study began as an attempt to discover what mechanisms existed in Wilhelmine Germany to prevent the expression of radical views about politics and society by artists, writers and journalists. As the work progressed, it became clear that, because of the federal structure of the Reich, conditions varied considerably in different parts of the country} and that it would be both more practicable and more interesting to limit the investigation to a single city, Munich, which had a very active avant-garde, and where the strength of political clericalism made the debate about freedom of expression particularly fierce. Contemporary discussion centred mainly on two distinct, though related, topics: freedom of the press and freedom of the stage; and the sources available made it seem desirable, in addition to outlining the general legal background, to construct two detailed case-studies in order to investigate them. The choice of the satirical paper Simplicissimus on the one hand, and Frank Wedekind's plays on the other, soon proved to have been very appropriate. The history of Simplicissimus is interesting for three main reasons. In the first place, it sheds light on nearly all the major legal and practical issues connected with the liberty of the press in this period. Secondly, although Simplicissimus won a European reputation for its skilful satirical treatment of German and international affairs, the men who produced it were closely Identified with a particular community; and they commented acutely on events in Bavaria which had considerable bearing on Munich intellectuals' freedom to express themselves. Finally, a wealth of private and official documents makes it possible to study the relationship between an original and sometimes highly provocative paper and the state in exceptional detail. The case of Frank Wedekind forms an ideal counterpart to that of Simplicissimus. The authorities had much more power to control the theatre - which was regarded by many people ae an important channel of communication. than to control the press, and Wedekind's frequent and very well documented conflicts with the Munich censor reveal the weakness of a playwright's position compared with that of a journalist. Furthermore, Wedekind was for a time one of Simplicissimus' most 'subversive' collaborators; he was one of the acknowledged leaders of the Munich avant-garde. which was subjected to bitter attacks by Bavarian conservatives; and the nature of his plays meant that he became involved in the debate about pornography and low-grade literature which went on throughout the period. [Continued in text ...]

No description available.

Die Bedeutung des Prinzips der Anschaulichkeit wird im Zusammenhang mit Planung und Durchführung einer Unterrichtssequenz zu Johann Wolfgang von Goethes „Faust. Der Tragödie erster Teil“ herausgestellt. Dabei wird besonderes Augenmerk darauf verwendet, die Relevanz dieses Prinzips auch und gerade für die gymnasiale Oberstufe nachzuweisen.

No description available.

In 1985, the East German playwright Heiner Müller (1929-95) spoke of the importance of a ‘democratic’ theatre: for Müller, the theatre was to be a space in which audience members are free to produce their own interpretations of the material presented on stage. In turn, the audience is encouraged to question the composition of its material reality but is not presented with a solution. Müller explicitly related this practice to his own production of his three texts Der Lohndrücker (1956-57), Der Horatier (1968), and Wolokolamsker Chaussee IV: Kentauren (1986) together at the Deutsches Theater in 1988-91. As this thesis demonstrates, Müller foregrounds instigating audience participation and the means of creating ‘democratic’ theatre from the very beginning of his career. In studying the composition of Müller’s texts, the historical contexts in which they were written, and their premières we gain new perspectives on the ways in which the possibility for political theatre is anchored in Müller’s texts and just how this political theatre aims to engage its contemporary, implied audiences; indeed, this thesis argues that the politics of Müller’s theatre can be best defined as ‘democratic’. In the introduction, I establish how Müller understands the term ‘democratic’ and how his understanding differs from interpretations of democracy contemporary to him; in doing so, I borrow critical vocabulary from the contemporary French philosopher Jacques Rancière. The introduction also elaborates a methodology for studying both implied and real audiences. While each of the prevalent semiological, phenomenological, or materialist theories of audience response has its strengths, in order to pay sufficient attention to the multiple influences upon and aspects of audience interaction, we must take a more holistic approach to audience research. I therefore articulate a new materialist phenomenological approach to audiences, drawing on Martin Heidegger’s phenomenology. In the following chapters, I study Der Lohndrücker, Der Horatier, and Kentauren in their historical contexts and consider how they were both composed with their contemporary audiences in mind and staged in their premières. This approach sheds new light on each text in question: not only do all three texts demonstrate a concern for a lack of democracy in material reality, but each also contains strategies for engaging audience involvement in a piece of ‘democratic’ theatre. My final chapter analyses Müller’s own staging techniques in Der Lohndrücker in 1988, arguing that they enhance the production’s democratic political potential and contribute to our understanding of Müller’s political theatre. While the productions discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 have largely been overlooked by theatre scholarship to date, they provide important insights into the politics of Müller’s texts and the possible limits of writing political theatre texts. This thesis draws on a wide range of both published and unpublished materials, including rehearsal notes, stage manuscripts, audience letters, newspaper reviews, theatre programmes, records of reactions to Müller’s works within the GDR’s statecraft, and Müller’s own notes for writing his texts. Through this wealth of material we not only gain an insight into the ways in which Müller’s texts were written for his audiences but we also recognise the parameters for his audiences’ responses. In offering a fresh perspective on Müller’s works, this thesis demonstrates both a compelling model for audience research and that a synthesis of textual/performance analysis, historical contextualisation, and audience research provides us with a very adept tool for analysing the making of political theatre and the politics of making theatre.