A National Repertoire

Britische und Irische Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 42 A National Repertoire Schiller, Iffland and the German Stage von Lesley Sharpe 1. Auflage A National Repertoire – Sharpe schnell und portofrei erhältlich bei beck-shop.de DIE FACHBUCHHANDLUNG Peter Lang Bern 2007 Verlag C.H. Beck im Internet: www.beck.de ISBN 978 3 03910 714 8 Inhaltsverzeichnis: A National Repertoire – Sharpe Preface In 1780 the German theatre repertoire contained almost no German plays more than twenty years old. In 1800 the situation was similar; few plays enjoyed more than ten years’ life on the stage and were quickly replaced by others. By 1820, however, things were changing. The German theatre was acquiring what might be called a national repertoire, in other words a (still relatively small) stock of plays that, as part of a mixed repertoire, theatres could offer the more demanding sections of their public and which could stand alongside the classic dramas of other nations and thus have a representative function for an artistically ambitious theatre. The plays of Friedrich Schiller were the cornerstone of that emerging repertoire, for though only nine in number (counting Wallenstein as one) they were in the 1820s all being performed at one time or another at theatres across Germany. Indeed the frequency of performances increased in the course of the nine- teenth century (see Appendix). Plays by Lessing and Goethe, though less frequently performed, also belonged to this emerging repertoire. This study investigates how the constantly changing circum- stances of the German stage in the later eighteenth and early nine- teenth centuries gave rise to this repertoire. In particular it focuses on two key figures, Schiller himself and his now largely disregarded contemporary, the actor and dramatist August Wilhelm Iffland (1759– 1814), and on the three theatres – in Mannheim, Weimar and Berlin – with which they were principally associated. As an actor Iffland was a rising star at the Mannheim National Theatre at the time (1783–84) when Schiller was its resident playwright. As a budding playwright himself, Iffland’s keen sense of popular taste and readiness to con- tinue the stage trend away from tragedy, particularly high tragedy, to- wards bourgeois drama in a contemporary setting marked him out for rapid success. In spite of the instant sensation of the première of Die Räuber, Schiller’s struggle to establish himself at Mannheim as a stage writer was beset with difficulties, and his hopes there finally 9 dashed by Iffland’s rapid ascendancy. When he left Mannheim in 1785 he was turning his back not on drama but on the stage. Yet when he returned to writing plays in the later 1790s it was Iffland, now director of the Berlin National Theatre, who vigorously pursued a policy of giving his plays lavish productions. Many other theatres fol- lowed suit and in his last years Schiller enjoyed success as a stage writer to an extent he could never have anticipated, a success achieved in significant measure through the agency of his erstwhile rival. The lasting effects of that strange symbiosis are evident in the German repertoire to this day. It is, in short, one of the key relationships in Ger- man theatre history. Critical writing on Schiller’s dramas and on literary drama in general in the eighteenth century has often placed them within a literary narrative that stands apart from theatre trends and the cultural pol- itics of particular theatres. The dramatic development that forms part of it often leaves out of account an evolving repertoire of largely for- gotten, yet in their time very popular, plays. The dramas of the Sturm und Drang for instance, were rarely performed. Goethe’s most popular stage work was his libretto Erwin und Elmire. The bulk of writing for the stage came not from literary but from theatre people, who produced above all comedies and librettos for Singspiele. Much of the repertoire was translated from French, English and Italian sources. By the 1770s and 1780s tragedy seemed to be in terminal decline. One of the aims of this study is to bridge this gap, at least as far as Schiller’s dramas are concerned, between literary and theatre history. Schiller is an unusual case in his time in being a dramatist with literary ambitions who made an instant and sustained impact as a stage writer. In the case of his early plays in particular, the stage context provides not merely anecdotal background to the production of dramatic texts but is a vital shaping force. Yet though he had an in- stinctive feel for the stage, Schiller had an uneasy relationship with the practical realm of theatre. In his early twenties his literary aspirations, an imaginative richness he found hard to control, a restless need to experiment (intensified by the impact of Sturm und Drang drama) and a tendency to bombast combined to make his plays simultaneously fascinating and problematic for the theatre. Though after Don Karlos he ceased writing plays for more than a decade, he was still a 10 regularly, if not frequently, performed dramatist. His early setbacks at Mannheim made him later at times unwilling to make concessions to the stage. While exploiting certain contemporary trends (particularly an increased demand for stage spectacle), his plays from Wallenstein to Die Braut von Messina also (for example by their tragic intensity and use of verse) defy the dominant taste for domestic drama with a happy ending. Yet his uncompromising belief in high art and con- tempt for popular stage works mellowed somewhat in his last years into a more pragmatic attitude to the staging of his own plays. Wilhelm Tell, one of his most popular works and one that avoids a tragic ending, would not have been written if he had not been alive to the debt he owed Iffland for the latter’s commitment to his plays. The story told here about Iffland is a largely unfamiliar one. His career falls into two main phases, the Mannheim period (1779–96) and the Berlin period (1796–1814). Skilfully judging the tastes and mood of contemporary theatre-goers, as well as the priorities of the Mannheim National Theatre, Iffland rapidly became the most popular and most performed dramatist from the late 1780s to the mid-1790s, thereafter sharing that honour with his even more prolific fellow dramatist August von Kotzebue. His family dramas, and the wave of imitations they brought forth, seemed to proclaim the end of high tragedy as a viable art form in performance, and their success emphasized the extent to which most of Schiller’s plays ran counter to popular trends. Unlike him, Iffland had no pretensions to be a literary dramatist or to do more than write readily performable and entertaining plays with good dialogue, which gave him an opportunity to display his talents as a character actor. The didactic purpose he occasionally claimed for himself must be taken with a pinch of salt as catering for the penchant for moralizing among some sections of the public. His acting career is marked by a clear awareness of the need for pro- fessionalism as a means of securing success and also the social accept- ance he craved. For him Goethe’s and Schiller’s distinction between literary drama as high art and merely transitory popular entertainment ignored the fact that acting itself was an art that could elevate and re- fine the play and its audience. His promotion of Schiller’s dramas when he took over as director at the Berlin National Theatre sprang arguably less from any idealistic aim to make the stage more literary 11 than from a shrewd calculation of what the necessary ingredients were to secure the success of the theatre in a city such as Berlin. This study highlights Iffland’s achievements as director, arguing that they, rather than his plays or his acting (the latter being for him the primary activity), constitute his lasting legacy to the German stage. The theatres with which I am chiefly concerned, and others to which I allude, are mainly subsidized theatres. In the case of Mann- heim, Weimar and Berlin that subsidy, which came from the ruler, varied from about 30% to as little as 10% of the running costs and so was by no means sufficient to free the theatres from commercial pressures. This continuing negotiation between commercial viability and artistic ambition, between popular success and literary value, is one of the recurring themes of this book. It does not therefore extend its range to cover the growth in this period of purely commercial theatre as entertainment, the great centre for which was the leading theatre city of the German-speaking world, namely Vienna. Austria’s national theatre, the Burgtheater, was, however, an important example to the German theatre world and is mentioned at various points. One of the prerequisites of a study such as this one is information regarding what was played at the various theatres it focuses on. It has been my aim to incorporate precise figures and statistics as much as possible, in order to demonstrate the impact of changing circum- stances (for example, audience preferences, declining subventions, the upheavals of war, political sensitivities) on an environment as volatile as the theatre. Additional detail is contained in the Appendix. I have also included a glossary of frequently used German terms for which there is no satisfactory English equivalent. Another prerequisite is that the reader should have a clear picture of the German theatre on which Schiller and Iffland made their first impact in the early 1780s. While some, indeed much, of the Intro- duction may be familiar to theatre specialists, for the sake of those approaching the book from a literary background I considered it important to begin with an account of the forces shaping the theatre world in the second half of the eighteenth century.

Load more