What do you think?
Rate this book
Мария Стюарт
Эпоха Возрождения, эпоха раскрепощения личности, время обострения борьбы между католиками и протестантами. На этом историческом фоне и произошла самая романтическая драма XIV-го столетия. В трагедии она показана как вражда двух королев, Елизаветы и Марии. Королевские страсти, высокие конфликты: торжество и несгибаемость духа, тайная свобода и непокоренное человеческое достоинство. Образ Марии Стюарт сложен и противоречив. Она представляется то убийцей, то мученицей, то неумелой интриганкой и заговорщицей, то святой. Финал ее печален, Мария обезглавлена.
295 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 14, 1800
233 people are currently reading
3803 people want to read
About the author
Friedrich Schiller
5,338 books846 followersPeople best know long didactic poems and historical plays, such as
Don Carlos
(1787) and
William Tell
(1804), of leading romanticist German poet, dramatist, and historian Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller.
This philosopher and dramatist struck up a productive if complicated friendship with already famous and influential Johann Wolfgang von Goethe during the last eighteen years of his life and encouraged Goethe to finish works that he left merely as sketches; they greatly discussed issues concerning aesthetics and thus gave way to a period, now referred to as classicism of Weimar. They also worked together on Die Xenien ( The Xenies ), a collection of short but harsh satires that verbally attacked perceived enemies of their aesthetic agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...
This philosopher and dramatist struck up a productive if complicated friendship with already famous and influential Johann Wolfgang von Goethe during the last eighteen years of his life and encouraged Goethe to finish works that he left merely as sketches; they greatly discussed issues concerning aesthetics and thus gave way to a period, now referred to as classicism of Weimar. They also worked together on Die Xenien ( The Xenies ), a collection of short but harsh satires that verbally attacked perceived enemies of their aesthetic agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 346 reviews
January 24, 2021
Reading about Mary Stuart, the queen of Scots, without letting yourself immersed into the tragedy play by Friedrich Schiller, would render poor enough something of her doomed fate.
So, having myself lured into her troubled and turbulent past first by sir Anthony Burgess, with his “A Dead Man in Deptford“, and then tenderly embraced by monsieur Alexandre Dumas, pere, into his storytelling by “Mary Stuart, Celebrated crimes”, I have fallen (though better said, I have ascended) into the hands of the poetical verses of Friedrich Schiller (I have in mind of course the way words were displayed on the sheet), and let myself swim (I still keep myself afraid of water, but this time it seemed I was on a solid shore, prettily vouchsafed into a prison castle) on the tragic music (again, words-wise) recounting the tragic end of this remarkably beautiful queen, nonetheless a beauty that didn’t save her from her cursed destiny.
I am for sure not going to read another version on this topic, save for a Romanian version. Pardon. That is to say that this is not going to happen, surely, because it brings into my mind some anecdotes or jokes where there are involved different nationalities, and especially an English, a French, a German, and a Romanian ;)
I found the play really entertaining and smoothly flowing for my waking senses, good that the English translation was not very sophisticated, thus it allowed me to have a deep understanding of the wording. I guess the last castle where the queen of Scots was kept prisoner was the most ferocious, because I recall than in previous ones her stay was not so bitterly inflamed. But then again, after so many long, long years in captivity it didn’t change a bit of how one felt, totally deserted and left to wait for the final restful peaceful end… But I agreed with sir Amias Paulet, keeper of Mary, that ‘in idle hours the […] mind is busy’ (he said ‘evil mind’, I say it’s just a troubled mind)
After reading the previous works where this character of Mary Stuart queen is thoroughly presented or talked about, I feel that this tragedy play gives me a balance that I sensed it was missing or failing in the others, because here I can hear and read about Elizabeth I of England thoughts, cries, tormented impressions, reflections on what to do, on whom to rely, and why to really go for a final verdict.
Against all odds, this play makes somehow an equilibrium between those two conflicting queens, each on her side thinking for yourself that she was right to think and act as has been done, in terms of understanding and accepting the consequences, but then again the past cannot be erased or redone. In this sense the differences between those queens were so insurmountable and no narrow channel allowed any gap closing to be reached in a fair, just manner. It is a play that I could play in my mind’s eyes with the same aplomb as if I would have watched it on stage. I was struck with a crafty work, and I have appreciated that the history is not fully applied in the ‘stick to the point’ manner. I have in mind of course the irregularity allowed in this proceeding by creating the meeting scene between the two queens, who actually had never seen each other, but FS allowed himself to let mix two inconsistent things. As inclination changes, thus ever ebbs and flows of the unstable tide of any reader, this is a story that deserves the worthy attention, if not for the historical facts, at least for the game that the conscience plays on human minds.
So, having myself lured into her troubled and turbulent past first by sir Anthony Burgess, with his “A Dead Man in Deptford“, and then tenderly embraced by monsieur Alexandre Dumas, pere, into his storytelling by “Mary Stuart, Celebrated crimes”, I have fallen (though better said, I have ascended) into the hands of the poetical verses of Friedrich Schiller (I have in mind of course the way words were displayed on the sheet), and let myself swim (I still keep myself afraid of water, but this time it seemed I was on a solid shore, prettily vouchsafed into a prison castle) on the tragic music (again, words-wise) recounting the tragic end of this remarkably beautiful queen, nonetheless a beauty that didn’t save her from her cursed destiny.
I am for sure not going to read another version on this topic, save for a Romanian version. Pardon. That is to say that this is not going to happen, surely, because it brings into my mind some anecdotes or jokes where there are involved different nationalities, and especially an English, a French, a German, and a Romanian ;)
I found the play really entertaining and smoothly flowing for my waking senses, good that the English translation was not very sophisticated, thus it allowed me to have a deep understanding of the wording. I guess the last castle where the queen of Scots was kept prisoner was the most ferocious, because I recall than in previous ones her stay was not so bitterly inflamed. But then again, after so many long, long years in captivity it didn’t change a bit of how one felt, totally deserted and left to wait for the final restful peaceful end… But I agreed with sir Amias Paulet, keeper of Mary, that ‘in idle hours the […] mind is busy’ (he said ‘evil mind’, I say it’s just a troubled mind)
After reading the previous works where this character of Mary Stuart queen is thoroughly presented or talked about, I feel that this tragedy play gives me a balance that I sensed it was missing or failing in the others, because here I can hear and read about Elizabeth I of England thoughts, cries, tormented impressions, reflections on what to do, on whom to rely, and why to really go for a final verdict.
Against all odds, this play makes somehow an equilibrium between those two conflicting queens, each on her side thinking for yourself that she was right to think and act as has been done, in terms of understanding and accepting the consequences, but then again the past cannot be erased or redone. In this sense the differences between those queens were so insurmountable and no narrow channel allowed any gap closing to be reached in a fair, just manner. It is a play that I could play in my mind’s eyes with the same aplomb as if I would have watched it on stage. I was struck with a crafty work, and I have appreciated that the history is not fully applied in the ‘stick to the point’ manner. I have in mind of course the irregularity allowed in this proceeding by creating the meeting scene between the two queens, who actually had never seen each other, but FS allowed himself to let mix two inconsistent things. As inclination changes, thus ever ebbs and flows of the unstable tide of any reader, this is a story that deserves the worthy attention, if not for the historical facts, at least for the game that the conscience plays on human minds.
February 14, 2021
Zum Ende meines einwöchigen Maria Stuart-Dreikampfs (erst Neuverfilmung, dann Reclam, dann Aufführung am Deutschen Theater Berlin) darf ich feststellen: Schiller unterhält mich mit seinen Dramen stets zuverlässig. Alle drei Zugangswege zu diesem historischen Machtkampf um den Thron Englands im 16. Jahrhundert haben mich begeistert, wobei die Interpretation durch das Theater dem Eindruck erst die nötige Tiefe gab.
Maria Stuart, die hübsche schottische Königin, erhebt Machtanspruch an den Thron Englands, denn sie sieht sich als Stuart in der rechtmäßigen Nachfolge auf den Thron. Im Gegensatz zu ihrer katholischen Cousine ist die protestantische Elisabeth ehe- und kinderlos, strahlt bei Weitem nicht diese feminine Faszination wie Maria aus (sie ist eine Tudor und die Tochter von Heinrich VIII. (der Grausame mit den vielen Frauen) und Anne Boleyn). Während der Film den Werdegang bis zur Einkerkerung Marias beschreibt, beginnt Schillers Stück wenige Tage vor ihrer Hinrichtung. Die beiden Königinnen spielen die zentralen Machtrollen während die adligen Männer um sie herum versuchen, zu retten, zu schmeicheln und zu intrigieren. Eigentlich erstaunlich in einem noch mittelalterlichen, patriarchalischen Jahrhundert, das Frauen an der Macht zeigt.
In der Nachbesprechung zum Stück stellte jemand im Chat in Frage, ob Schiller heutzutage überhaupt noch Relevanz hat. Na aber, was für eine Frage, natürlich hat Maria Stuart alles, was man auch in diesen Zeit in der Gesellschaft beobachten kann. Welche Rolle spielt die Moral bei den Politikern und Führern eines Landes? Elisabeth hadert mit ihrer Rolle, als Königin vom Volk geliebt zu werden, aber dafür auch Entscheidungen treffen zu müssen, die ihren ethischen Vorstellungen widersprechen. Und da zählt die Unterzeichnung des Hinrichtungsbefehls auch dazu, den sie zwar vornimmt, aber keinem Diener bewußt übergeben möchte. Dusche mich, aber mach mich nicht naß oder wie sie es sagt:
„Warum hab ich Gerechtigkeit geübt, Willkür gehaßt mein Leben lang, daß ich Für diese erste unvermeidliche Gewalttat selbst die Hände mir gefesselt! Das Muster, das ich selber gab, verdammt mich![…]“
Das Stück am Deutschen Theater war übrigens hervorragend inszeniert, coronagerecht standen alle Schauspieler/innen in Boxen, wie in einem Querschnitt eines Hauses. Wir hatten uns Tickets über www.dringeblieben.de bestellt und damit das Recht für einen Videostream erhalten. Stilecht mit Sektorange dann vor den Fernseher gesetzt und mit 650 anderen Menschen online das Stück angeschaut. Theater suchen neue digitale Wege. Das ist zwar nicht kostendeckend, aber doch immerhin ein kleiner Beitrag, damit die Kulturszene in Deutschland nicht komplett geköpft wird, um beim Maria Stuart-Thema zu bleiben.
Maria Stuart, die hübsche schottische Königin, erhebt Machtanspruch an den Thron Englands, denn sie sieht sich als Stuart in der rechtmäßigen Nachfolge auf den Thron. Im Gegensatz zu ihrer katholischen Cousine ist die protestantische Elisabeth ehe- und kinderlos, strahlt bei Weitem nicht diese feminine Faszination wie Maria aus (sie ist eine Tudor und die Tochter von Heinrich VIII. (der Grausame mit den vielen Frauen) und Anne Boleyn). Während der Film den Werdegang bis zur Einkerkerung Marias beschreibt, beginnt Schillers Stück wenige Tage vor ihrer Hinrichtung. Die beiden Königinnen spielen die zentralen Machtrollen während die adligen Männer um sie herum versuchen, zu retten, zu schmeicheln und zu intrigieren. Eigentlich erstaunlich in einem noch mittelalterlichen, patriarchalischen Jahrhundert, das Frauen an der Macht zeigt.
In der Nachbesprechung zum Stück stellte jemand im Chat in Frage, ob Schiller heutzutage überhaupt noch Relevanz hat. Na aber, was für eine Frage, natürlich hat Maria Stuart alles, was man auch in diesen Zeit in der Gesellschaft beobachten kann. Welche Rolle spielt die Moral bei den Politikern und Führern eines Landes? Elisabeth hadert mit ihrer Rolle, als Königin vom Volk geliebt zu werden, aber dafür auch Entscheidungen treffen zu müssen, die ihren ethischen Vorstellungen widersprechen. Und da zählt die Unterzeichnung des Hinrichtungsbefehls auch dazu, den sie zwar vornimmt, aber keinem Diener bewußt übergeben möchte. Dusche mich, aber mach mich nicht naß oder wie sie es sagt:
„Warum hab ich Gerechtigkeit geübt, Willkür gehaßt mein Leben lang, daß ich Für diese erste unvermeidliche Gewalttat selbst die Hände mir gefesselt! Das Muster, das ich selber gab, verdammt mich![…]“
Das Stück am Deutschen Theater war übrigens hervorragend inszeniert, coronagerecht standen alle Schauspieler/innen in Boxen, wie in einem Querschnitt eines Hauses. Wir hatten uns Tickets über www.dringeblieben.de bestellt und damit das Recht für einen Videostream erhalten. Stilecht mit Sektorange dann vor den Fernseher gesetzt und mit 650 anderen Menschen online das Stück angeschaut. Theater suchen neue digitale Wege. Das ist zwar nicht kostendeckend, aber doch immerhin ein kleiner Beitrag, damit die Kulturszene in Deutschland nicht komplett geköpft wird, um beim Maria Stuart-Thema zu bleiben.
August 6, 2022
Шиллер показал нам Марию Стюарт не просто гордой и смелой женщиной, не готовой ради спасения собственной жизни поступиться своими правами и принципами. Он показывает ее умной, знающей законы и требующей их исполнения, в частности быть судимой людьми ее сословия, то есть королевскими особами. Соперничество Марии и Елизаветы было не только в части прав на престол, но и как женщин, что еще более усугубило конфликт. На фоне этого противостояния двух властительниц особенно гадким выглядит поведение любовника Лейстера. Гений Шиллера проявляется не только в изумительной, чарующей поэтической форме изложения, но и в глубоком проникновении в душу своей героини.
Read
November 1, 2017The first thing that I noticed was how the drama was stripped away, the situation is that Maria Stuart, Queen of Scots is being held in a secure facility at the pleasure of her cousin Queen Elizabeth of England, so far so historical, and historically we know that this situation ends with Mary/Maria decapitated. Early in the first act we are told that a sentence of death has been passed against Maria so the only dramatic issue is how, why and when Elizabeth will come to sign the document and command the deed to be executed.
Considering the date of the play it strikes me that Schiller doesn't, in the light of the end of Maria Antoinette, ask if crowned heads won't respect the sanctity of crowned heads then why will anybody else?
Power here is an interesting position, Maria is the prisoner at risk of death, while cousin Elizabeth feels under threat and imprisoned by political considerations, indeed despite being the Queen and being the most powerful piece on the board she is the one pushed into being reactive and responsive, hemmed in by the pawns maybe.
The two characters contrast in personality too, Maria passionate and outspoken haunted by her past,Macht Friede mit Euch selbst! (p16), she is advised, while she claims ich bin besser als mein Ruf. (p83). Elizabeth s cautious and contained, haunted by the ghost of Christmas future, rather than the ghosts of husbands past who play on Mary's mind. Maria's character attracts supporters who, alack, turn out to be as passionate and poor in judgement as her, while Elizabeth's reserve perhaps sees her retain her throne, but also abandoned and friendless at the end .
Ahistorical, but no less sad.
Considering the date of the play it strikes me that Schiller doesn't, in the light of the end of Maria Antoinette, ask if crowned heads won't respect the sanctity of crowned heads then why will anybody else?
Power here is an interesting position, Maria is the prisoner at risk of death, while cousin Elizabeth feels under threat and imprisoned by political considerations, indeed despite being the Queen and being the most powerful piece on the board she is the one pushed into being reactive and responsive, hemmed in by the pawns maybe.
The two characters contrast in personality too, Maria passionate and outspoken haunted by her past,Macht Friede mit Euch selbst! (p16), she is advised, while she claims ich bin besser als mein Ruf. (p83). Elizabeth s cautious and contained, haunted by the ghost of Christmas future, rather than the ghosts of husbands past who play on Mary's mind. Maria's character attracts supporters who, alack, turn out to be as passionate and poor in judgement as her, while Elizabeth's reserve perhaps sees her retain her throne, but also abandoned and friendless at the end .
Ahistorical, but no less sad.
Read
September 7, 2020Maria, the Queen of Scotland, flees to England after being accused in her own country of aiding and abetting the murder of her husband. Elisabeth, the Queen of England, had Mary imprisoned because she feared for her throne. The play begins a few years later. Young men try to free Maria, but they do not succeed. There is also hope for a reconciliation between the two. Elizabeth wants to do everything to murder Mary in order to save herself, but this backfires. The book was not boring, but it did not grab me, which I found a pity, because I was looking forward to this story. The end is very predictable.
January 3, 2024
So yes, with Friedrich von Schiller's 1800 grand historical drama Maria Stuart, readers (or indeed watchers since Maria Stuart is, of course, a play) kind of already know full well and also right from the beginning of the presented action that Mary Queen of Scots is most definitely going to be executed, that she is to be decapitated for high treason (and both from the factual and historic truth of the matter that Mary Queen of Scots was indeed executed by her cousin Queen Elizabeth I of England but in fact also from the play itself, since in the very first act of Maria Stuart we are already being categorically informed that Mary Stuart has received a death sentence and therefore, throughout Maria Stuart, the only real and naggingly frustrating question is simply and basically exactly when Elizabeth I will have her royal executioners carry out the death sentence of having her cousin's head chopped off).
And while there of course and expectantly is in Maria Stuart the necessary (and always required in classic drama) personal conflicts between Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots, in many ways and albeit that as queen of England, Elizabeth I is the one who wields the most political power and can therefore also rather single-handedly decide on her rebellious cousin's fate, well, despite all of that earned and presented might, Elizabeth I is in Maria Suart far more often being shown by Friedrich Schiller to be reactionary, unreasonable, sometimes even ragingly angry, like a young child with a temper tantrum (and indeed often also rather majorly unsure of herself to boot).
Generally rather majorly ahistoric, which I do know and more than well realise, but I also have to admit that especially when I read Maria Stuart for my first university German literature course (on Goethe and Schiller) in 1987 (and when I was also barely twenty years of age), I certainly and definitely massively enjoyed seeing in Maria Stuart Queen Elizabeth I being cast by Friedrich Schiller as mostly the main villain and Mary Stuart, and Mary Queen of Scots as the accepting of her fate tragic victim of both fate and of her birth, of her Catholic religion and dogma (although that yes, the more I have over the years reread Maria Stuart, the more I do tend to now find Mary Queen of Scots' often quite in one's proverbial face depicted passion and her staunchly Catholic at all costs faith rather draggingly tedious, even as I do still tend to find Friedrich Schiller's characterisation of Elizabeth I as really massively cold and as weirdly over-calculating, that for her, that for Elizabeth I, retaining her power, retaining ALL of her might and glory is obviously more important and more personally essential and necessary than acting humane and caring, that yes indeed, in Maria Stuart Elizabeth I rather much too willingly abandons and rejects her nobility of spirit for political expediency and for retaining her inherited crown undefeated).
And while there of course and expectantly is in Maria Stuart the necessary (and always required in classic drama) personal conflicts between Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots, in many ways and albeit that as queen of England, Elizabeth I is the one who wields the most political power and can therefore also rather single-handedly decide on her rebellious cousin's fate, well, despite all of that earned and presented might, Elizabeth I is in Maria Suart far more often being shown by Friedrich Schiller to be reactionary, unreasonable, sometimes even ragingly angry, like a young child with a temper tantrum (and indeed often also rather majorly unsure of herself to boot).
Generally rather majorly ahistoric, which I do know and more than well realise, but I also have to admit that especially when I read Maria Stuart for my first university German literature course (on Goethe and Schiller) in 1987 (and when I was also barely twenty years of age), I certainly and definitely massively enjoyed seeing in Maria Stuart Queen Elizabeth I being cast by Friedrich Schiller as mostly the main villain and Mary Stuart, and Mary Queen of Scots as the accepting of her fate tragic victim of both fate and of her birth, of her Catholic religion and dogma (although that yes, the more I have over the years reread Maria Stuart, the more I do tend to now find Mary Queen of Scots' often quite in one's proverbial face depicted passion and her staunchly Catholic at all costs faith rather draggingly tedious, even as I do still tend to find Friedrich Schiller's characterisation of Elizabeth I as really massively cold and as weirdly over-calculating, that for her, that for Elizabeth I, retaining her power, retaining ALL of her might and glory is obviously more important and more personally essential and necessary than acting humane and caring, that yes indeed, in Maria Stuart Elizabeth I rather much too willingly abandons and rejects her nobility of spirit for political expediency and for retaining her inherited crown undefeated).
October 11, 2022
Esta vez tocó acercarme un poco al teatro de la mano del gran Friedrich Schiller con la obra María Estuardo.
He de decir que la opinión no va a ser objetiva porque todo lo que tenga que ver con la reina de Escocia me encanta.
Hace cuatro años vi una serie que se llama Reign y que cuenta la historia de Marie Stuart. Tanto me encantó que, cuando vi el título de María Estuardo, me dije que tenía que leerlo sí o sí.
La obra teatral desarrolla el cautiverio de la reina escocesa con gran dramatismo. Es fantástico cómo en un mismo personaje se dejan ver la tranquilidad, la resignación, la frustración, la inquietud y la explosión de grandeza de acuerdo a su posición.
Por otra parte, me gustó mucho asistir al personaje de la reina de Inglaterra, Isabel. Sus dudas, sus inseguridades y sus arrebatos quedan caracterizados extraordinariamente.
Los otros personajes no llegan ni de lejos a la categoría de las reinas. Para mí, no hay ninguno con fuerza suficiente como para llenar un escenario, así que van a depender siempre de la presencia de la realeza.
Me gustó mucho este breve acercamiento a una parte de la vida de María de Escocia llena de oscuridad y de justicia bastante controvertida.
Si alguien sabe de alguna obra con la que seguir ilustrando mi interés por Marie Stuart, soy toda oídos.
He de decir que la opinión no va a ser objetiva porque todo lo que tenga que ver con la reina de Escocia me encanta.
Hace cuatro años vi una serie que se llama Reign y que cuenta la historia de Marie Stuart. Tanto me encantó que, cuando vi el título de María Estuardo, me dije que tenía que leerlo sí o sí.
La obra teatral desarrolla el cautiverio de la reina escocesa con gran dramatismo. Es fantástico cómo en un mismo personaje se dejan ver la tranquilidad, la resignación, la frustración, la inquietud y la explosión de grandeza de acuerdo a su posición.
Por otra parte, me gustó mucho asistir al personaje de la reina de Inglaterra, Isabel. Sus dudas, sus inseguridades y sus arrebatos quedan caracterizados extraordinariamente.
Los otros personajes no llegan ni de lejos a la categoría de las reinas. Para mí, no hay ninguno con fuerza suficiente como para llenar un escenario, así que van a depender siempre de la presencia de la realeza.
Me gustó mucho este breve acercamiento a una parte de la vida de María de Escocia llena de oscuridad y de justicia bastante controvertida.
Si alguien sabe de alguna obra con la que seguir ilustrando mi interés por Marie Stuart, soy toda oídos.
January 17, 2016
“Mary Stuart” is a play that gives us a fictional account of the last days of Mary Queen of Scots. In it we are treated to an entirely made up scene in which Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I meet face to face. And it is the stuff of great drama!
In Schiller’s hands the play and story leans heavily in the favor of Mary Stuart, and Elizabeth I comes across as the villain, if there is one. Elizabeth’s machinations and manipulations of others without her being honest in her intentions makes her a sharp contrast to Schiller’s Mary, who ends the play being brutally self-honest and content with her fate. Elizabeth on the other hand ends the play literally (and figuratively) alone.
One of the strengths of this play is that there are at least 6 characters that get good moments to shine in the text, and would be a treat for any actor to play. “Mary Stuart” really is an ensemble piece. Personally my favorite role was the role of Mortimer, a converted fanatic who is full of passion and religious fervor. His loyalty to Mary serves as a great contrast to another character who ultimately betrays her.
Act 3 in the play, where the two monarchs meet, is simply excellent and Schiller’s Mary scales the oratorical heights in her one moment of “triumph” against the Queen of England. It is nail-biting theater. Act 4:2 is also well done and builds and builds until Elizabeth finally signs the death warrant for Mary. The dialogue is thrilling and edge of your seat as Elizabeth’s council argues and weighs this momentous decision.
A good production of this play (and I have seen one at the Stratford Festival in Canada) is harrowing to watch and will keep you entertained as it gives a great glimpse into power, and just how much (or little) power those who assume it really have.
The new version by Peter Oswald is simply stunning. The translation is modern and accessible for any reader / audience. It is well done, and I prefer it to other translations I have looked into.
In Schiller’s hands the play and story leans heavily in the favor of Mary Stuart, and Elizabeth I comes across as the villain, if there is one. Elizabeth’s machinations and manipulations of others without her being honest in her intentions makes her a sharp contrast to Schiller’s Mary, who ends the play being brutally self-honest and content with her fate. Elizabeth on the other hand ends the play literally (and figuratively) alone.
One of the strengths of this play is that there are at least 6 characters that get good moments to shine in the text, and would be a treat for any actor to play. “Mary Stuart” really is an ensemble piece. Personally my favorite role was the role of Mortimer, a converted fanatic who is full of passion and religious fervor. His loyalty to Mary serves as a great contrast to another character who ultimately betrays her.
Act 3 in the play, where the two monarchs meet, is simply excellent and Schiller’s Mary scales the oratorical heights in her one moment of “triumph” against the Queen of England. It is nail-biting theater. Act 4:2 is also well done and builds and builds until Elizabeth finally signs the death warrant for Mary. The dialogue is thrilling and edge of your seat as Elizabeth’s council argues and weighs this momentous decision.
A good production of this play (and I have seen one at the Stratford Festival in Canada) is harrowing to watch and will keep you entertained as it gives a great glimpse into power, and just how much (or little) power those who assume it really have.
The new version by Peter Oswald is simply stunning. The translation is modern and accessible for any reader / audience. It is well done, and I prefer it to other translations I have looked into.
May 23, 2016
Erstaunlicherweise gar nicht mal nur doof! :D
November 6, 2015
Schiller version of the story of Mary, Queen of Scots. Beautiful and heartbreaking. I don't know whether it was the original prose or the translation, but the translation was like Shakespearean language - very beautiful.
January 19, 2014
Well, better than reading it. Acting is great. But the play is so not a favorite of mine. It feels like Elizabeth is being punished because she isn't beautiful enough.
October 4, 2021
Ladies and gentlemen, the first thing is to thank you for the warm reception that my review of"Mary Poppins" received https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... in which I had to justify, because I had put a star on it, and it seems that it has received your blessing. While it's true that it hasn't been as successful as BrandonSanderson's "Warbreaker" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., but it's pretty good, considering that most of the likes came before I had written the review.
In this case I plan to change third, and write about a different topic, also my criticism will be quite different, since from the four stars to a star there are several universes, and light years away. Not to mention that in this case we are going to talk about the dramatic genre. That is, the theater. I think it was Charles Ryder's nice father https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... who told his son that in most of the famous men they had had one thing in common, and that is that they had gone to the theater. It is not necessary to generalize, but what is evident is that in this case it is closer to the truth, and it is a literary genre that should have a greater follow-up, although it is true that culture is too politicized, and that people use classical works seeking to deal with current issues, which result in their benefit not to mention that the historical context of the work is not usually respected is the great failure that I see in today's theater. However, with this criticism I must sing a mea culpa,and recognize that I have been wrong, and I have been carried away by my prejudices just like Mr. Darcy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... in the masterful novel"Pride and Prejudice" and the first thing I do is ask Schiller for forgiveness, as Carthailac did with our Marcellin Saez Suetola (the discoverer of the caves of Altamira) for having labeled him an anti-Catholic, and for having been so critical of his work. While it is true, that I put a good note on his play"Fiesco"(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... (which had two endings, although this will challenge the historical truth), and despite the Hispanophobia (from that position I can not free Schiller) I put three stars to his Don Carlos https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., which would inspire in favor of unification, and in an example of a racism that had not been seen in Italy since the Renaissance (see the study of the black legend written by Sverker Arnoldson https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) to justify Italian Unification (it is always convenient to look for a foreign enemy, and the main rival of the Italian states to achieve unification was habsburg Austria, hence they resorted to the black legend that revitalized the Germans, and the Prince of Orange head of the Dutch Calvinists). However we see that despite having been a neoclassical author friend of Goethe https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... on the subject of German romanticism apart from Safranski https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... I recommend the novel of which a review was written"The world between scripts" by Jesús Trillo-Figueroa https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... Anyway as time goes by Schiller is becoming more sympathetic to Catholicism, although he does not manage to get rid of thee the Anti-Spanish Black Legend of Don Carlos, and the Wallenstein trilogy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., however both Joan of Arc https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., which at the request of my friend Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (whose books I highly recommend you read. They are in both Spanish and English. Most). That topic will already be discussed in my next review, but I can anticipate it, that I put three stars to a book. It does not mean that it is despicable, but it is a book that I liked not as much as others, that have come to me more, but the normal thing is that I like a book, but I do not fall in love, you can see that my average in Goodreads 3.39, and most likely as I get older I become more and more demanding with my readings. Anyway, with the exception, perhaps of"The Bride and Groom of Messina" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where in my opinion Schiller failedly tries to mix Christianity, and paganism in a story tinged with fatalism, and suicide. His work is too pagan, in fact, he tries to resurrect the choirs, left with a churro, and the plot is nothing of the other world. A Romeo and Juliet espwecie with a fratricidal, and incestuous touch. However, I was reafgirmó in what I say, I think that every time Schiller writes better. I have underestimated him, and I have considered he had less quality, than he has, but the four works that I have read to him in this extinct month of September show me, that although Dumasino sometimes follows the advice https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... of forcing history to obtain from it a good offspring. In fact, I think, that is the main problem of his dramas, which are very well written, but unfortunately Schiller follows the technique of Fu Manchu's daughter"Tell me lies, but tell them with sweetness" https://www.goodreads.com/series/5431... It's a problem, because when Schiller is faithful to the story is when he writes best, and it is when he improvises, and tells facts of his invention, or fiction, when his plots usually suffer. This is not noticed by most users, but for a historian this feature of Schiller predisposes him against him. If, for example, the subject it deals with is more unknown, it can work, as with"Guillermo Tell" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... or"Demetrio" the latter could not finish it, but the sketches he wrote seem to me one of his best works, and if he had finished it in my opinion it would have become his best play. Since the argument of the false Demetrius, who manages to be crowned Tsar has led to rivers of ink running on this subject. Prosper Merimee novelized it https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and Vladimir Volkoff https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... if the Goodreads user read my review of"A Library in the Oasis" https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... you will have seen how I recommended instead of the novel that Juan Manuel De Prada talked about (it was also very valuable)"The Pope's Guest" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., however I showed my preference for Vladimir Volkoff's historical novel"The Tsar's Men" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... where the Russian crisis that begins with the death of Ivan and l Terrible, and that until the arrival of Michael Romanov was about to cause the disappearance of Russia, during that episode several tsars were crowned among them the false Demetrius. Had it triumphed and been able to consolidate itself on the throne Russia would have returned to Catholicism, but unfortunately this led to more hatred among the Orthodox creed, including Dostoevsky, who never forgave Rome. Anti-Catholic writers used the mantra of the Jesuit conspiracy, and its infinite power so it was a boomerang that turned against the Catholics in Russia, and that, together with the capture of Byzantium in 1204, still colea in the Orthodox Church. All in all, it seems to me a great work by Schiller, and her character of Marina one of the most finished models of Lady McBeth, even more interesting than the character created by Shakespeare in McBeth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Returning to Mary Stuart although in the Don Carlos Philip II is fiercely attacked. When it comes to criticizing one of his main adversaries Elizabeth I of England. The author has been honest, and has not idealized it. I personally believe that the characterization and psychology of Queen Elizabeth are very well achieved, and are adapted to the evolution of history, and how the queen really was. Among the defects, one can count for example the historical licenses, which Schiller takes. How much characters are invented, like Anne Kennedy. It is curious that none of the Marys friends of Mary Stuart appear, and who were with her in her prison. It is also a mistake the presence of the fictional character of Mortimer, who in love with Mary Stuart plots the umpteenth attempt to free Mary Stuart without her asking him. Following the method previously employed by Babington. The one who is named, so it is impossible that Schiller has confused one conspirator with another. It takes some licenses like making Mary Stuart younger than she is. To have reduced the time that lasted his process, and the interview between the two queens, who never got to see each other personally. It is quite possible to influence both the film director John Ford, in fact, Katherine Hepburn played María Estuardo https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027948/, also José Luis Moreno in his interesting series queens https://www.filmaffinity.com/es/film6... confronts each other, but before María Estuardo is vilely imprisoned by her enemy, ignoring the gift of people. Being Philip II as a witness. I trust that one day the critics (who seeing the last skates), count less and less end up rectifying, and end up recognizing that Reinas is the wonderful series that it is. Of course it is a comparative study of what is happening in Spain, England, and Scotland at the same time, and although it makes the same mistake as Schiller for plot reasons I still think it is the bravest attempt to bring to fiction what is called a total history of at least three kingdoms in the sixteenth century.
Returning to Schiller, it is true that perhaps his play is not as good as luis Coloma's fictionalized biography"The Martyr Queen" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., if the psychology of Queen Elizabeth. As well as its contradictions, and its moral dilemmas are magnificently well described by Friedrich Schiller. The same goes for this modern incarnation of Mary Magdalene. He had a very tempestuous youth, which led St. Pius V https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... to say that he did not know which of the two queens was worse. It is true that here Schiller collects only Mary's last days, and not her entire life. Anyway he seems to believe, that Mary Stuart is innocent of the murder of her husband in Kirk O Field, after he is killing Rizio, he also seems innocent of his gallantry with the latter. Her marriage to her husband's killer would have been an act of consolidating her vacillating position on the throne, as Shwresbury points out well (the latter has a magnificent quote when she sardonically commented that plurality of vows does not mean justice, nor common good. This idea will also appear in Gulllermo Tell. This is pointed out when Elizabeth that Parliament following her orders condemned Mary Stuart to death). That also points out something very interesting, and in which I agree with him, that Isabella is a woman who until 1558, was always in danger of being executed, and who had to conspire to survive, while Mary Stuart, within what fits was educated with all luxury in the French court, only having the enmity of Catherine de Medicci, and that it was not made for the future that awaited it. In one of the most dangerous and conflictive courts of the sixteenth century. Not even an experienced person like Fitz James Stuart was prepared for the throne. In fact, Mary Stuart survived both her half-brother and Morton, both murdered. In any case, apart from indecent, the ultimatum posed by Ken Follet to this queen in his tendentious"Column of Fire" is immoral https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... where practically his characters demanded that Mary Stuart abdicate, and that she give the throne to her half-brother, he had no legitimacy as king, just like the seventeenth-century Monmouth, but that doesn't seem to be taken into account by anti-Catholics, and staunch Protestants. In any case, it is seen that Mary's repentance is credible, and it is very accomplished. Just as she was not involved in either the Norfolk conspiracy or babington's conspiracy, anyway, if she had been there no one would have said anything, because it was legitimate for her to use all the means at her disposal, to try to escape from the prison in which she was. Personally, I did not end up believing the character of Amyas Paulet, considering how he tortured Mary Stuart, and how he turned her imprisonment into hell. I do not believe that here he hesitates in the mission that Burleigh, and Elizabeth entrust to his nephew (Mortimer, had previously been converted to the cause of Mary Stuart, grace to the Cardinal of Lorraine, and his passage through Reims, and Douia). If I am much more convinced by the characters of Lord Burleigh, who is supposed to act, and calls for the death of Queen Mary Stuart for political, and patriotic, needs. Actually, to legitimize the looting of the abbeys, and the Catholic Church. Walsingham he does not appear in the work, but he is quoted, and he is a threat, always present, even if he is the man of confidence of the Cecil, who then knowing that the son is a coward, and has abandoned the faith of his mother will have no problem in installing him on the throne, as long as he is not Protestant, but they did not tell that his grandchildren Charles II in a disguised way, it will never be known whether instigated by Louis XIV on whom he depended, or by personal desire, and james II in an no longer disguised way would return to the faith of his ancestors, as this threatened the security of many could not be consented, and proceeded to mount a coup d'état against this dynasty, and to torture parliamentarism to legitimize such usurpation, or coup d'état. This topic was already discussed in "An Instance of the Fingerpost" by Iain Pears https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... Leicester's behavior didn't happen, but it's believable, but it fits with the character. Perhaps this is the most interesting thing about this work. Even when he makes fiction unlike other works of Schiller. What he tells us is credible, and plausible and could have happened. If you can't stay true to the facts, try to make the facts of your story as believable as possible. It should be remembered, that Leicester was offered as a sucked bone, since he was one of the lovers of the misnamed Virgin Queen to Mary Stuart as husband. In an attempt to offend, and to despise, however Mary Stuart initially came out on the right foot of this matter by choosing Lord Darnley what could not be assumed is that he was a degenerate. With everything schiller tells us it is possible that this lover, but out of cowardice does not dare to carry out his commitment to Mary Stuart, and having to choose between Mary, and he chooses to save himself. Cowardly, but very human. In fact in the plot there is no character who is evil Mortimer before a frightened Mary is willing to resort to assassination, like Babington to free her, Lord Burleigh acts against Mary for patriotic, and religious issues (I think Schiller paints him better than he is, but I do not see it wrong), Leicester is in love, but I will choose the betrayal of justice when I have to choose between his life, and that of the woman he loves (he already sacrificed his wife so that she would not harm him in the favor of his sovereign). The conflict between Burleigh, and Leicester is very well told by Schiller, perhaps the best character is Shwresbury, who is perhaps the only one who until the end does what is right, and what he should do, who will support Mary, and will only hesitate after the untimely interview between the two. Mary Stuart embodies the repentant sinner, and Elizabeth a woman with doubts, and hesitations, and also jealous. It is very well achieved. It's not as furious as Robert Hugh Benson's in "With What Authority?" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... but it is credible, and also the cruelty with which he will punish Secretary Davison, who together with Mary Stuart will be the innocent victim, along with Mary Stuart of the scruples of this great hypocrite. It is curious that both Schiller and Zweig pick up this fact. In my view Schiller's work is better than Zweig's biography, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... because the second one does believe, that Mary Stuart is guilty of the crimes that are imputed to her, and because despite her bad faith she is favorable to Queen Elizabeth I, due to her Anglophilia that is why she was given a (1). Instead Schiller chooses to support Mary Stuart, and show his sympathy for Catholicism, he will also make a similar decision in "The Maiden of Orleans". Without a doubt for me this is Schiller's best play, and if it had been more faithful to the story, maybe I would have given it the five stars. For example, the death of Mary Stuart if the work had represented her would have gained a lot with that mythical "my end is my beginning". While it is pointed out that the queen had confession, and did not die spiritually unassisted, Robert Hugh Benson also affects this in "Come rack, come rope", https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where it is its protagonist Robin Audrey who confessed to the queen. In this case it will be another character who does it. The ending fits with the character, but it is posture in my opinion Isabel could not do without Burleigh because she was the one who commanded as Hilaire Belloc points out in "Characters of the Reformation"
In this case I plan to change third, and write about a different topic, also my criticism will be quite different, since from the four stars to a star there are several universes, and light years away. Not to mention that in this case we are going to talk about the dramatic genre. That is, the theater. I think it was Charles Ryder's nice father https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... who told his son that in most of the famous men they had had one thing in common, and that is that they had gone to the theater. It is not necessary to generalize, but what is evident is that in this case it is closer to the truth, and it is a literary genre that should have a greater follow-up, although it is true that culture is too politicized, and that people use classical works seeking to deal with current issues, which result in their benefit not to mention that the historical context of the work is not usually respected is the great failure that I see in today's theater. However, with this criticism I must sing a mea culpa,and recognize that I have been wrong, and I have been carried away by my prejudices just like Mr. Darcy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... in the masterful novel"Pride and Prejudice" and the first thing I do is ask Schiller for forgiveness, as Carthailac did with our Marcellin Saez Suetola (the discoverer of the caves of Altamira) for having labeled him an anti-Catholic, and for having been so critical of his work. While it is true, that I put a good note on his play"Fiesco"(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... (which had two endings, although this will challenge the historical truth), and despite the Hispanophobia (from that position I can not free Schiller) I put three stars to his Don Carlos https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., which would inspire in favor of unification, and in an example of a racism that had not been seen in Italy since the Renaissance (see the study of the black legend written by Sverker Arnoldson https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) to justify Italian Unification (it is always convenient to look for a foreign enemy, and the main rival of the Italian states to achieve unification was habsburg Austria, hence they resorted to the black legend that revitalized the Germans, and the Prince of Orange head of the Dutch Calvinists). However we see that despite having been a neoclassical author friend of Goethe https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... on the subject of German romanticism apart from Safranski https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... I recommend the novel of which a review was written"The world between scripts" by Jesús Trillo-Figueroa https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... Anyway as time goes by Schiller is becoming more sympathetic to Catholicism, although he does not manage to get rid of thee the Anti-Spanish Black Legend of Don Carlos, and the Wallenstein trilogy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., however both Joan of Arc https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., which at the request of my friend Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (whose books I highly recommend you read. They are in both Spanish and English. Most). That topic will already be discussed in my next review, but I can anticipate it, that I put three stars to a book. It does not mean that it is despicable, but it is a book that I liked not as much as others, that have come to me more, but the normal thing is that I like a book, but I do not fall in love, you can see that my average in Goodreads 3.39, and most likely as I get older I become more and more demanding with my readings. Anyway, with the exception, perhaps of"The Bride and Groom of Messina" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where in my opinion Schiller failedly tries to mix Christianity, and paganism in a story tinged with fatalism, and suicide. His work is too pagan, in fact, he tries to resurrect the choirs, left with a churro, and the plot is nothing of the other world. A Romeo and Juliet espwecie with a fratricidal, and incestuous touch. However, I was reafgirmó in what I say, I think that every time Schiller writes better. I have underestimated him, and I have considered he had less quality, than he has, but the four works that I have read to him in this extinct month of September show me, that although Dumasino sometimes follows the advice https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... of forcing history to obtain from it a good offspring. In fact, I think, that is the main problem of his dramas, which are very well written, but unfortunately Schiller follows the technique of Fu Manchu's daughter"Tell me lies, but tell them with sweetness" https://www.goodreads.com/series/5431... It's a problem, because when Schiller is faithful to the story is when he writes best, and it is when he improvises, and tells facts of his invention, or fiction, when his plots usually suffer. This is not noticed by most users, but for a historian this feature of Schiller predisposes him against him. If, for example, the subject it deals with is more unknown, it can work, as with"Guillermo Tell" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... or"Demetrio" the latter could not finish it, but the sketches he wrote seem to me one of his best works, and if he had finished it in my opinion it would have become his best play. Since the argument of the false Demetrius, who manages to be crowned Tsar has led to rivers of ink running on this subject. Prosper Merimee novelized it https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and Vladimir Volkoff https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... if the Goodreads user read my review of"A Library in the Oasis" https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... you will have seen how I recommended instead of the novel that Juan Manuel De Prada talked about (it was also very valuable)"The Pope's Guest" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., however I showed my preference for Vladimir Volkoff's historical novel"The Tsar's Men" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... where the Russian crisis that begins with the death of Ivan and l Terrible, and that until the arrival of Michael Romanov was about to cause the disappearance of Russia, during that episode several tsars were crowned among them the false Demetrius. Had it triumphed and been able to consolidate itself on the throne Russia would have returned to Catholicism, but unfortunately this led to more hatred among the Orthodox creed, including Dostoevsky, who never forgave Rome. Anti-Catholic writers used the mantra of the Jesuit conspiracy, and its infinite power so it was a boomerang that turned against the Catholics in Russia, and that, together with the capture of Byzantium in 1204, still colea in the Orthodox Church. All in all, it seems to me a great work by Schiller, and her character of Marina one of the most finished models of Lady McBeth, even more interesting than the character created by Shakespeare in McBeth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Returning to Mary Stuart although in the Don Carlos Philip II is fiercely attacked. When it comes to criticizing one of his main adversaries Elizabeth I of England. The author has been honest, and has not idealized it. I personally believe that the characterization and psychology of Queen Elizabeth are very well achieved, and are adapted to the evolution of history, and how the queen really was. Among the defects, one can count for example the historical licenses, which Schiller takes. How much characters are invented, like Anne Kennedy. It is curious that none of the Marys friends of Mary Stuart appear, and who were with her in her prison. It is also a mistake the presence of the fictional character of Mortimer, who in love with Mary Stuart plots the umpteenth attempt to free Mary Stuart without her asking him. Following the method previously employed by Babington. The one who is named, so it is impossible that Schiller has confused one conspirator with another. It takes some licenses like making Mary Stuart younger than she is. To have reduced the time that lasted his process, and the interview between the two queens, who never got to see each other personally. It is quite possible to influence both the film director John Ford, in fact, Katherine Hepburn played María Estuardo https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027948/, also José Luis Moreno in his interesting series queens https://www.filmaffinity.com/es/film6... confronts each other, but before María Estuardo is vilely imprisoned by her enemy, ignoring the gift of people. Being Philip II as a witness. I trust that one day the critics (who seeing the last skates), count less and less end up rectifying, and end up recognizing that Reinas is the wonderful series that it is. Of course it is a comparative study of what is happening in Spain, England, and Scotland at the same time, and although it makes the same mistake as Schiller for plot reasons I still think it is the bravest attempt to bring to fiction what is called a total history of at least three kingdoms in the sixteenth century.
Returning to Schiller, it is true that perhaps his play is not as good as luis Coloma's fictionalized biography"The Martyr Queen" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., if the psychology of Queen Elizabeth. As well as its contradictions, and its moral dilemmas are magnificently well described by Friedrich Schiller. The same goes for this modern incarnation of Mary Magdalene. He had a very tempestuous youth, which led St. Pius V https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... to say that he did not know which of the two queens was worse. It is true that here Schiller collects only Mary's last days, and not her entire life. Anyway he seems to believe, that Mary Stuart is innocent of the murder of her husband in Kirk O Field, after he is killing Rizio, he also seems innocent of his gallantry with the latter. Her marriage to her husband's killer would have been an act of consolidating her vacillating position on the throne, as Shwresbury points out well (the latter has a magnificent quote when she sardonically commented that plurality of vows does not mean justice, nor common good. This idea will also appear in Gulllermo Tell. This is pointed out when Elizabeth that Parliament following her orders condemned Mary Stuart to death). That also points out something very interesting, and in which I agree with him, that Isabella is a woman who until 1558, was always in danger of being executed, and who had to conspire to survive, while Mary Stuart, within what fits was educated with all luxury in the French court, only having the enmity of Catherine de Medicci, and that it was not made for the future that awaited it. In one of the most dangerous and conflictive courts of the sixteenth century. Not even an experienced person like Fitz James Stuart was prepared for the throne. In fact, Mary Stuart survived both her half-brother and Morton, both murdered. In any case, apart from indecent, the ultimatum posed by Ken Follet to this queen in his tendentious"Column of Fire" is immoral https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... where practically his characters demanded that Mary Stuart abdicate, and that she give the throne to her half-brother, he had no legitimacy as king, just like the seventeenth-century Monmouth, but that doesn't seem to be taken into account by anti-Catholics, and staunch Protestants. In any case, it is seen that Mary's repentance is credible, and it is very accomplished. Just as she was not involved in either the Norfolk conspiracy or babington's conspiracy, anyway, if she had been there no one would have said anything, because it was legitimate for her to use all the means at her disposal, to try to escape from the prison in which she was. Personally, I did not end up believing the character of Amyas Paulet, considering how he tortured Mary Stuart, and how he turned her imprisonment into hell. I do not believe that here he hesitates in the mission that Burleigh, and Elizabeth entrust to his nephew (Mortimer, had previously been converted to the cause of Mary Stuart, grace to the Cardinal of Lorraine, and his passage through Reims, and Douia). If I am much more convinced by the characters of Lord Burleigh, who is supposed to act, and calls for the death of Queen Mary Stuart for political, and patriotic, needs. Actually, to legitimize the looting of the abbeys, and the Catholic Church. Walsingham he does not appear in the work, but he is quoted, and he is a threat, always present, even if he is the man of confidence of the Cecil, who then knowing that the son is a coward, and has abandoned the faith of his mother will have no problem in installing him on the throne, as long as he is not Protestant, but they did not tell that his grandchildren Charles II in a disguised way, it will never be known whether instigated by Louis XIV on whom he depended, or by personal desire, and james II in an no longer disguised way would return to the faith of his ancestors, as this threatened the security of many could not be consented, and proceeded to mount a coup d'état against this dynasty, and to torture parliamentarism to legitimize such usurpation, or coup d'état. This topic was already discussed in "An Instance of the Fingerpost" by Iain Pears https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... Leicester's behavior didn't happen, but it's believable, but it fits with the character. Perhaps this is the most interesting thing about this work. Even when he makes fiction unlike other works of Schiller. What he tells us is credible, and plausible and could have happened. If you can't stay true to the facts, try to make the facts of your story as believable as possible. It should be remembered, that Leicester was offered as a sucked bone, since he was one of the lovers of the misnamed Virgin Queen to Mary Stuart as husband. In an attempt to offend, and to despise, however Mary Stuart initially came out on the right foot of this matter by choosing Lord Darnley what could not be assumed is that he was a degenerate. With everything schiller tells us it is possible that this lover, but out of cowardice does not dare to carry out his commitment to Mary Stuart, and having to choose between Mary, and he chooses to save himself. Cowardly, but very human. In fact in the plot there is no character who is evil Mortimer before a frightened Mary is willing to resort to assassination, like Babington to free her, Lord Burleigh acts against Mary for patriotic, and religious issues (I think Schiller paints him better than he is, but I do not see it wrong), Leicester is in love, but I will choose the betrayal of justice when I have to choose between his life, and that of the woman he loves (he already sacrificed his wife so that she would not harm him in the favor of his sovereign). The conflict between Burleigh, and Leicester is very well told by Schiller, perhaps the best character is Shwresbury, who is perhaps the only one who until the end does what is right, and what he should do, who will support Mary, and will only hesitate after the untimely interview between the two. Mary Stuart embodies the repentant sinner, and Elizabeth a woman with doubts, and hesitations, and also jealous. It is very well achieved. It's not as furious as Robert Hugh Benson's in "With What Authority?" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... but it is credible, and also the cruelty with which he will punish Secretary Davison, who together with Mary Stuart will be the innocent victim, along with Mary Stuart of the scruples of this great hypocrite. It is curious that both Schiller and Zweig pick up this fact. In my view Schiller's work is better than Zweig's biography, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... because the second one does believe, that Mary Stuart is guilty of the crimes that are imputed to her, and because despite her bad faith she is favorable to Queen Elizabeth I, due to her Anglophilia that is why she was given a (1). Instead Schiller chooses to support Mary Stuart, and show his sympathy for Catholicism, he will also make a similar decision in "The Maiden of Orleans". Without a doubt for me this is Schiller's best play, and if it had been more faithful to the story, maybe I would have given it the five stars. For example, the death of Mary Stuart if the work had represented her would have gained a lot with that mythical "my end is my beginning". While it is pointed out that the queen had confession, and did not die spiritually unassisted, Robert Hugh Benson also affects this in "Come rack, come rope", https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where it is its protagonist Robin Audrey who confessed to the queen. In this case it will be another character who does it. The ending fits with the character, but it is posture in my opinion Isabel could not do without Burleigh because she was the one who commanded as Hilaire Belloc points out in "Characters of the Reformation"
August 24, 2021
Me encantó. Me pareció una obra muy cinematográfica, o tal vez me lo pareció porque hace poco ví la película "Elizabeth: La edad de oro" y, al leer, no podía dejar de recordarla.
Lo importante es que me gustó tanto que me dieron ganas de seguir leyendo otras obras de Schiller. Por ej, "La doncella de Orleans".
Lo importante es que me gustó tanto que me dieron ganas de seguir leyendo otras obras de Schiller. Por ej, "La doncella de Orleans".
November 5, 2024
Literalmente se siente a los personajes y sus penas. Schiller dibuja cada escena en la cabeza de uno, y lo hace sentir parte. Amé, amé, amé.
April 10, 2012
Ich frage mich, warum das Stück "Maria Stuart" heißt, wenn nicht bloß zur Einordnung in den geschichtlichen Kontext. Für mich ist die eigentlich interessante Figur Elisabeth. Das ganze Stück hindurch erschien sie mir regelrecht willenlos: Neben dem logischen Fehler, der sich aus ihrem Jungfräulichkeitswunsch und der Liaison mit ich verrate nicht wem ergibt, ist sie auch hin und her gerissen, was im Fall Maria Stuarts zu tun ist, steht zwischen ihren Beratern und dem Volk; ihr eigenes Herz offenbart sich in keinem Moment.
Sie erschien mir als bemerkenswert schwache Herrscherin, die mich etwas ratlos ließ. Bis dann die letzte Szene kam... Ein echter Augenöffner, so was habe ich noch nicht erlebt. Ich bin richtig mitgenommen von dieser Vorstellung.
Sie erschien mir als bemerkenswert schwache Herrscherin, die mich etwas ratlos ließ. Bis dann die letzte Szene kam... Ein echter Augenöffner, so was habe ich noch nicht erlebt. Ich bin richtig mitgenommen von dieser Vorstellung.
April 27, 2021
این کتاب نمایشنامه ای از نمایشنامه نویس معروف از بخش مهم از اواخر زندگی ماری استوارته
از زمانی که ملکه الیزابت اول در تردید برای حکم اعدام ماری به سر می بره و تا مرگ او
اگه پیش زمینه ای از این بخش از تاریخ انگلیس ندارید، ازاتفاقات و شخصیت ها چیز زیادی متوجه نمیشید و باعث میشه سر در گم شید پس بدون مطالعه قبلی سراغش نرید
برای من که این بخش از تاریخ رو خیلی دوست دارم، جالب بود
ترجمه و به خصوص ویراستاری این کتاب افتضاح بود و نیاز به ویراستاری مجدد داره. از نشر ثالث بعید بود
از زمانی که ملکه الیزابت اول در تردید برای حکم اعدام ماری به سر می بره و تا مرگ او
اگه پیش زمینه ای از این بخش از تاریخ انگلیس ندارید، ازاتفاقات و شخصیت ها چیز زیادی متوجه نمیشید و باعث میشه سر در گم شید پس بدون مطالعه قبلی سراغش نرید
برای من که این بخش از تاریخ رو خیلی دوست دارم، جالب بود
ترجمه و به خصوص ویراستاری این کتاب افتضاح بود و نیاز به ویراستاری مجدد داره. از نشر ثالث بعید بود
December 8, 2022
The Tragedy of Elizabeth
5 December 2022
The thing that sort of strikes me with this play is that in part it is recent history, relatively speaking (the events occurred about 200 years before the writing of the play), but it sort of makes me think about the Greek tragedies, though they were written about events that were separated by a dark age, whereas Schiller would have had access to quite a few historical records for his production (though like a lot of dramatisations of historical events, Schiller has inserted his own ideas and characters into the play – Mortimer for instance).
Anyway, this play is about how Mary, Queen of Scots, fled to England after murdering her husband, and was then imprisoned, apparently for the murder, but in reality, because she was a Papist, and at the time the English really didn’t like Papists (particularly since the previous monarch, Bloody Mary, had a reputation for killing protestants). Actually, the fact that the names were shared probably had something to do with it as well, but Schiller is clear throughout the play that Mary was an ardent Papist, and despite pressure, refused to renounce the Pope, which eventually cost her her life.
This is basically a play of political intrigue, and quite a long one though, however it sort of didn’t really grab my attention all that much, namely because it really did seem to drag in parts. Sure, some people argue that this is really only to build up the characters, but the other thing is that the play is written entirely in blank verse. That is actually something that surprised me because blank verse also exists in German, something I didn’t realise. Of course, I read a translation, but the translator had also written it in blank verse as well. Mind you, Shakespeare also wrote in blank verse, but nothing was wasted in any of his plays – it felt like there was a lot of wastage in this one.
Anyway, the intrigue involves a plot to rescue Mary, which of course ends up coming undone, and the plotters also turning on each other so as to save their skins. Yet, the interesting thing is that Mary was actually imprisoned in a castle, and her gaoler actually mentioned that his job is to keep her alive. It wasn’t even a single room either, she had the whole castle to herself, and the conspirators were also able to come and go. Yet, there are two conspiracies operating against each other, one of them attempting to free Mary, the other attempting to convince Elizabeth to sign the death warrant. They even go as far as to set up an attempted assassination to do this.
Okay, killing a monarch is a pretty big thing, which is probably why they need Elizabeth’s signature on the warrant. However, as we know in history, some side comments such as ‘will nobody rid me of that troublesome priest’ have resulted in murders that have been regretted. I guess (and I am only assuming here), this is why further checks and balances have been put in place (I believe this happened at least twice in English history). Of course, it ends up that Elizabeth signs the warrant anyway, and it ends up in the wrong hands, so of course, Mary is executed.
Yet, Elizabeth is painted as the bad guy in the end, something that I suspect the English populace wouldn’t have considered. Then again, the events are being viewed by an outsider, and that does help us view the events in a different light. The ending of the play has Elizabeth either banishing or imprisoning the members of her counsel, blaming them for the death of Mary. However, considering the mess that came about from the Stuart dynasty after Elizabeth’s death, I suspect the English probably don’t have too much love for Mary. Also, her name was Mary, and as I mentioned, Elizabeth’s predecessor, also named Mary, had the well-earned moniker of bloody.
Look, it does put an interesting twist on events, and I did find myself feeling a little more sympathetic towards Mary, though of course there is the whole ‘murdered her husband’ issue, which I’m sure probably should weigh a lot more on the reason for her imprisonment, and of course, there would also be the fact that I’m sure the Scots would be demanding her back – well, probably not her son James, since that meant that he was sort of king – yeah political intrigue really does play deep in these times, but then again nothing has changed, particularly since we live in an era in which we have a pretender living in a mansion still claiming that an election was stolen from him because, well, he simply can’t believe that people wouldn’t want to vote for him and that the woke left are just a bunch of radicals. One thing I have learnt in all my years is that if you believe that everybody hates a certain person because, well, you hate that person, then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
5 December 2022
The thing that sort of strikes me with this play is that in part it is recent history, relatively speaking (the events occurred about 200 years before the writing of the play), but it sort of makes me think about the Greek tragedies, though they were written about events that were separated by a dark age, whereas Schiller would have had access to quite a few historical records for his production (though like a lot of dramatisations of historical events, Schiller has inserted his own ideas and characters into the play – Mortimer for instance).
Anyway, this play is about how Mary, Queen of Scots, fled to England after murdering her husband, and was then imprisoned, apparently for the murder, but in reality, because she was a Papist, and at the time the English really didn’t like Papists (particularly since the previous monarch, Bloody Mary, had a reputation for killing protestants). Actually, the fact that the names were shared probably had something to do with it as well, but Schiller is clear throughout the play that Mary was an ardent Papist, and despite pressure, refused to renounce the Pope, which eventually cost her her life.
This is basically a play of political intrigue, and quite a long one though, however it sort of didn’t really grab my attention all that much, namely because it really did seem to drag in parts. Sure, some people argue that this is really only to build up the characters, but the other thing is that the play is written entirely in blank verse. That is actually something that surprised me because blank verse also exists in German, something I didn’t realise. Of course, I read a translation, but the translator had also written it in blank verse as well. Mind you, Shakespeare also wrote in blank verse, but nothing was wasted in any of his plays – it felt like there was a lot of wastage in this one.
Anyway, the intrigue involves a plot to rescue Mary, which of course ends up coming undone, and the plotters also turning on each other so as to save their skins. Yet, the interesting thing is that Mary was actually imprisoned in a castle, and her gaoler actually mentioned that his job is to keep her alive. It wasn’t even a single room either, she had the whole castle to herself, and the conspirators were also able to come and go. Yet, there are two conspiracies operating against each other, one of them attempting to free Mary, the other attempting to convince Elizabeth to sign the death warrant. They even go as far as to set up an attempted assassination to do this.
Okay, killing a monarch is a pretty big thing, which is probably why they need Elizabeth’s signature on the warrant. However, as we know in history, some side comments such as ‘will nobody rid me of that troublesome priest’ have resulted in murders that have been regretted. I guess (and I am only assuming here), this is why further checks and balances have been put in place (I believe this happened at least twice in English history). Of course, it ends up that Elizabeth signs the warrant anyway, and it ends up in the wrong hands, so of course, Mary is executed.
Yet, Elizabeth is painted as the bad guy in the end, something that I suspect the English populace wouldn’t have considered. Then again, the events are being viewed by an outsider, and that does help us view the events in a different light. The ending of the play has Elizabeth either banishing or imprisoning the members of her counsel, blaming them for the death of Mary. However, considering the mess that came about from the Stuart dynasty after Elizabeth’s death, I suspect the English probably don’t have too much love for Mary. Also, her name was Mary, and as I mentioned, Elizabeth’s predecessor, also named Mary, had the well-earned moniker of bloody.
Look, it does put an interesting twist on events, and I did find myself feeling a little more sympathetic towards Mary, though of course there is the whole ‘murdered her husband’ issue, which I’m sure probably should weigh a lot more on the reason for her imprisonment, and of course, there would also be the fact that I’m sure the Scots would be demanding her back – well, probably not her son James, since that meant that he was sort of king – yeah political intrigue really does play deep in these times, but then again nothing has changed, particularly since we live in an era in which we have a pretender living in a mansion still claiming that an election was stolen from him because, well, he simply can’t believe that people wouldn’t want to vote for him and that the woke left are just a bunch of radicals. One thing I have learnt in all my years is that if you believe that everybody hates a certain person because, well, you hate that person, then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
November 11, 2020
3.5 🌟
Wieder was für die Uni und es hat mir tatsächlich gefallen 😍😅 die Thematik finde ich mega interessant aber besser konnte ich es dann doch nicht bewerten da mir auch hier das Hörbuch sehr beim durchkommen geholfen hat🤷♀️
Wieder was für die Uni und es hat mir tatsächlich gefallen 😍😅 die Thematik finde ich mega interessant aber besser konnte ich es dann doch nicht bewerten da mir auch hier das Hörbuch sehr beim durchkommen geholfen hat🤷♀️
November 20, 2020
Gut :3
October 20, 2014
Friedrich Schiller is considered to be the greatest playwright of the German romantic movement that provided the foundation for the French, Italian and English romantic movements in the first half of the 19th Century. Schiller's formula is diabolically simple. You take a movement for national independence or unity, put a human tragedy in the centre and then tell your story with sublime verse.
As one of the foremost oracles of the Zeitgeist of his era, it is not surprising that several operas where written on Schiller's plays. In the case of this work, the honour goes to Giacomo Donizetti who wrote Maria Stuarda which was first performed in 1934. Maria Stuarda is still regularly performed.
Schiller's play also survives. The major last revival was mounted by the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada and was so well received that its run was extended.
As one of the foremost oracles of the Zeitgeist of his era, it is not surprising that several operas where written on Schiller's plays. In the case of this work, the honour goes to Giacomo Donizetti who wrote Maria Stuarda which was first performed in 1934. Maria Stuarda is still regularly performed.
Schiller's play also survives. The major last revival was mounted by the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada and was so well received that its run was extended.
December 9, 2020
Maria Stuart the play gives a fictional account of the last days of Mary, Queen of Scots. The play leans heavily in favour of Mary and her catholic believe and leaves Elisabeth in the role of the envious ruler whose biggest failure might be that she's not as young and beautiful as Mary. I didn't mind Schiller deviating from historical facts but his depiction of female characters, as strong and interesting as these queens were, was rather dull.
June 18, 2022
Stück ist immer noch spannend und macht Spaß zu lesen, — auch wenn sich die Bewertung der Personen gegenüber 1800 wohl ziemlich verschoben hat & man auf diese Eifersuchtsintrige gerne verzichten würde. Leider ist die Auswahl der Auszüge aus der literaturwissenschaftlichen Forschung zu Schiller und zum Stück ziemlich altbacken. Und es ist ein ebenso sprechender, wie schlechter Witz, dass sich da nur Autoren über ein Stück verbreiten, in dessen Inszenierung & Interpretation sich die bürgerliche, aber politisch kastrierte deutsche Gesellschaft das ganze 19. Jahrhundert hinweg ihre Angst vor Frauen mit politischer Macht und vor politischer Macht überhaupt als moralisch überlegen schön redet.
August 8, 2024
Das vielleicht packendste & ergiebigste, ja grösste Theaterstück, welches ich je zu Augen bekam. Hoffentlich bald irgendwann auch als Neuinszenierung am Zürcher Schauspielhaus.
Literaturkanon von Marcel Reich-Ranicki
35/180
Literaturkanon von Marcel Reich-Ranicki
35/180
March 10, 2025
Pretty brilliant
September 10, 2024
PERO MERECIDISIMO QUE TE DEJEN SOLA TODOS PEDAZO DE FORRAAAAAAAAAAA TE DETESTOOOOOO DIOS if isabel has 0 haters then i am dead
January 3, 2021
Den "deutschen Shakespeare", so wurde Schiller noch zu Lebzeiten genannt, hatte ich bis jetzt vermieden, wie auch den englischen. Wie ich schnell merkte, war dies falsch, so begeistert war ich von dem Trauerspiel, das auch mal das bestkonstruierte und pathetischste Theaterstück deutscher Literaturgeschichte genannt wurde. Verderben kann es wohl nur das Ekeltheater heutiger Zeiten mit kopulierenden Komparsen am Bühnenrand, die mit Fäkalien um sich werfen und das Innerste zum Äußeren kehren. Aber gleichzeitig gelesen und als Hörbuch rezitiert gehört, war das Vergnügen ganz ungetrübt und intensiv.
Die Grundgeschichte kannte ich schon, hatte ich wohl schon einmal im Fernsehen gesehen. Auch kennt man ja den grausamen Umgang der Engländer mit Schotten, Walisern und Iren, sodass die Präferenzen und Sympathien schon vor dem Lesen klar verteilt waren und meine Abneigung für diese hasserfüllte, despotische, aber gleichzeitig auch unsichere und fragile Königin Elisabeth. Wer von dem Unrecht an der schottischen Königin Maria je gehört, wird Sympathie und Mitgefühl für sie empfinden, doch gibt sie bei Schiller auch die Tat zu, für die sie angeklagt und gerichtet wurde.
Ihren Ehemann und Mitkönig Darnley ließ sie ermorden und musste aus Furcht vor Strafe ("vor dem Volke") nach England fliehen, wo sie unmittelbar festgenommen und eingekerkert wird, obwohl sie weder die Mordtat begangen noch sich eines Verbrechens in England schuldig gemacht hat. Aus einem ganzen Strauss von Gründen, muss sie aber beseitigt werden. Da wäre einerseits ihr rechtmäßiger Anspruch auf den englischen Thron, den Franzosen und Katholiken und in besseren Zeiten auch sie selbst einforderten. Elisabeth als "Bastard" von Heinrich VIII, von diesem zunächst abgelehnt, dann aber doch als Nachfolgerin bestimmt, will natürlich ihren Platz festigen und sich der Konkurrenz entledigen.
Auch die Abspaltung von der katholischen Kirche, Ursache für so viel Leid und Tod auf den Inseln bis zum heutigen Tage, die König Heinrich VIII aus niederem Anlass betrieben hat, war im Volk noch nicht völlig vollzogen und es gab noch viele Katholiken, die lieber eine katholische Königin gesehen hätten. Staatspolitisch erwehrte sich England der ausgestreckten Hand Frankreichs, trotz Verlobung mit dem Grafen von Anjou, die Elisabeth als List einging, aber gar nicht daran dachte, ihre Alleinherrschaft aufzugeben. Marias Familie hatte Wurzeln im französischen Adel.
Und schließlich war da die Eitelkeit und Eifersucht der Elisabeth, die wohl nicht ganz so attraktiv gewesen sein soll. Maria aber soll schön gewesen sein. Gründe genug, extra ein Gesetz durch das Parlament zu bringen, das sie berechtigte, die Stuart hinrichten zu lassen und ein fingiertes Gerichtsverfahren zu betreiben, das geltendes Recht mehr brach, als ihm zu genügen.
Besonders gut haben mir die erhabene Sprache Schillers und die Gestaltung der Akte gefallen. Das Mittelteil - das Ende des 2., der 3. und Teile des 4. Akts mit der Szene des Zusammentreffens von Leicester und Mortimer, der Begegnung der beiden Königinnen bis hin zum gescheiterten Mordanschlag auf Elisabeth - haben mir dabei besonders gefallen. Dramatisch war das Scheitern der Unterstützer Marias und wie der 4. und 5. Akt jeweils in die Länge gezogen werden und die Spannung damit unerträglich wird. So darf Theater gerne sein!
Die Grundgeschichte kannte ich schon, hatte ich wohl schon einmal im Fernsehen gesehen. Auch kennt man ja den grausamen Umgang der Engländer mit Schotten, Walisern und Iren, sodass die Präferenzen und Sympathien schon vor dem Lesen klar verteilt waren und meine Abneigung für diese hasserfüllte, despotische, aber gleichzeitig auch unsichere und fragile Königin Elisabeth. Wer von dem Unrecht an der schottischen Königin Maria je gehört, wird Sympathie und Mitgefühl für sie empfinden, doch gibt sie bei Schiller auch die Tat zu, für die sie angeklagt und gerichtet wurde.
Ihren Ehemann und Mitkönig Darnley ließ sie ermorden und musste aus Furcht vor Strafe ("vor dem Volke") nach England fliehen, wo sie unmittelbar festgenommen und eingekerkert wird, obwohl sie weder die Mordtat begangen noch sich eines Verbrechens in England schuldig gemacht hat. Aus einem ganzen Strauss von Gründen, muss sie aber beseitigt werden. Da wäre einerseits ihr rechtmäßiger Anspruch auf den englischen Thron, den Franzosen und Katholiken und in besseren Zeiten auch sie selbst einforderten. Elisabeth als "Bastard" von Heinrich VIII, von diesem zunächst abgelehnt, dann aber doch als Nachfolgerin bestimmt, will natürlich ihren Platz festigen und sich der Konkurrenz entledigen.
Auch die Abspaltung von der katholischen Kirche, Ursache für so viel Leid und Tod auf den Inseln bis zum heutigen Tage, die König Heinrich VIII aus niederem Anlass betrieben hat, war im Volk noch nicht völlig vollzogen und es gab noch viele Katholiken, die lieber eine katholische Königin gesehen hätten. Staatspolitisch erwehrte sich England der ausgestreckten Hand Frankreichs, trotz Verlobung mit dem Grafen von Anjou, die Elisabeth als List einging, aber gar nicht daran dachte, ihre Alleinherrschaft aufzugeben. Marias Familie hatte Wurzeln im französischen Adel.
Und schließlich war da die Eitelkeit und Eifersucht der Elisabeth, die wohl nicht ganz so attraktiv gewesen sein soll. Maria aber soll schön gewesen sein. Gründe genug, extra ein Gesetz durch das Parlament zu bringen, das sie berechtigte, die Stuart hinrichten zu lassen und ein fingiertes Gerichtsverfahren zu betreiben, das geltendes Recht mehr brach, als ihm zu genügen.
Besonders gut haben mir die erhabene Sprache Schillers und die Gestaltung der Akte gefallen. Das Mittelteil - das Ende des 2., der 3. und Teile des 4. Akts mit der Szene des Zusammentreffens von Leicester und Mortimer, der Begegnung der beiden Königinnen bis hin zum gescheiterten Mordanschlag auf Elisabeth - haben mir dabei besonders gefallen. Dramatisch war das Scheitern der Unterstützer Marias und wie der 4. und 5. Akt jeweils in die Länge gezogen werden und die Spannung damit unerträglich wird. So darf Theater gerne sein!
April 8, 2017
With Mary Stuart, Schiller once again explores the passions and pains of the human struggle for liberation: personal, political, familial, sexual, religious, social, psychological, etc. The last days in the life of Mary Stuart are set in contrast with the decisions made by Elizabeth. Both characters are women trapped in certain positions: Mary within the prison walls for her alleged plot against the crown, and Elizabeth in her role as head of state, who must fulfill certain duties at the behest of tradition, her court, and the people. Both strive for freedoms that they can never attain on earth. Events beyond their control (from plots and court intrigue by characters who are sympathetic to their causes to violence and assassinations) tie their hands.
Yet there are moments when the possibility exists to reconcile. By having Elizabeth and Mary meet (which did not happen in real life), Schiller suggests that we often miss opportunities to shape events due to our own personal failings. Elizabeth's pride causes her to meet Mary only under false pretenses (she has no desire to free Mary), whereas Mary's pride causes her reveal her true feelings about Elizabeth (Mary has no desire to truly ask for humble forgiveness). And so both characters are shackled by their own pride and inability to see how their personal faults prevent them from changing course.
Mary is physically imprisoned, but by the end of the play attains a sublime freedom: the liberation of earthly burdens and the subsequent spiritual rebirth that that comes with her death. On the other hand, Elizabeth is physically free and now commands the throne without challenge, but is psychologically and spiritually imprisoned by that very role. She is abandoned by her trusted court and can only make decisions that are dictated by events beyond her control. Even her order to execute Mary is forced upon her by the will of the people who demand it of her:
ELIZABETH [alone]: Oh, that a queen should be the slave of slaves!
Schiller's brilliance is that he allows the audience to have sympathy for both women. We understand their shared desire for freedom is impossible to attain on earth. The tragedy is that Mary will only gain her freedom in death, whereas Elizabeth will never be free as long as she is on the throne. She keeps her virginity as the only means to rebel against the coercion that every monarch feels from outside forces, but nonetheless loses the "virginity" of her free will to the masses:
"No matter how the kingdom flourishes,
I must be married off to guard their future.
I must surrender my virginity,
All of myself, my freedom and my treasure,
To those I rule--I must accept a master."
In sentencing Mary to death, Elizabeth seals the fate of both women: the freedom of death for Mary and slavery of rule for herself. Both women are subject to "masters" who determine their fates. Schiller shows us that the sublimity of liberty is in its limitation, and in the possibility of a violent end to events that have seemingly moral motives (i.e. the French Revolution).
Yet there are moments when the possibility exists to reconcile. By having Elizabeth and Mary meet (which did not happen in real life), Schiller suggests that we often miss opportunities to shape events due to our own personal failings. Elizabeth's pride causes her to meet Mary only under false pretenses (she has no desire to free Mary), whereas Mary's pride causes her reveal her true feelings about Elizabeth (Mary has no desire to truly ask for humble forgiveness). And so both characters are shackled by their own pride and inability to see how their personal faults prevent them from changing course.
Mary is physically imprisoned, but by the end of the play attains a sublime freedom: the liberation of earthly burdens and the subsequent spiritual rebirth that that comes with her death. On the other hand, Elizabeth is physically free and now commands the throne without challenge, but is psychologically and spiritually imprisoned by that very role. She is abandoned by her trusted court and can only make decisions that are dictated by events beyond her control. Even her order to execute Mary is forced upon her by the will of the people who demand it of her:
ELIZABETH [alone]: Oh, that a queen should be the slave of slaves!
Schiller's brilliance is that he allows the audience to have sympathy for both women. We understand their shared desire for freedom is impossible to attain on earth. The tragedy is that Mary will only gain her freedom in death, whereas Elizabeth will never be free as long as she is on the throne. She keeps her virginity as the only means to rebel against the coercion that every monarch feels from outside forces, but nonetheless loses the "virginity" of her free will to the masses:
"No matter how the kingdom flourishes,
I must be married off to guard their future.
I must surrender my virginity,
All of myself, my freedom and my treasure,
To those I rule--I must accept a master."
In sentencing Mary to death, Elizabeth seals the fate of both women: the freedom of death for Mary and slavery of rule for herself. Both women are subject to "masters" who determine their fates. Schiller shows us that the sublimity of liberty is in its limitation, and in the possibility of a violent end to events that have seemingly moral motives (i.e. the French Revolution).
February 11, 2024
Prawdę mówiąc miałem pisać tę recenzję bez czytania, bo po co czytać, a i kto by dzisiaj czytał Schillera, skoro wystawiona przed kilkoma dniami w Teatrze Narodowym Maria Stuart pozostawiła mnie w takim poruszeniu, że do teraz wprost nie mogę przestać myśleć o Schillerze i teatrze. To o czymś świadczy. Schiller nie mógł napisać byle ramoty, która potrafiłaby tak inspirować. Proszę więc zaufać memu długoletniemu doświadczeniu, kiedy mówię, że teatr rzadko kiedy ma do zaoferowania coś tak niesamowitego jak t o. Jezu, gdybym przeżył coś podobnego kilka lat wcześniej, jakżeż inaczej mogłoby się potoczyć moje życie... W skali plucia (moim zdaniem jednej słusznej skali przystającej do oceny spektakli teatralnych): trzech Mateuszów Rusinów na jedną Danutę Stenkę (wychodzi plus nieskończoność – ten pluje wielekroć, ta blisko zero razy).
Tak się składa, że w zeszłym miesiącu byłem na Dziadach. Och, jakżeż mi się nie podobało. „Banalne uwspółcześnianie klasyki", „ponowoczesne bzdury", „po macoszemu zinterpretowany Mickiewicz", myślałem sobie. Rozumiem, że teraz modne jest uwspółcześnianie staroci, ale gdybym miał owo uwspółcześnianie oceniać tylko po tym, jak robił to Eimuntas Nekrosius, byłbym zagorzałym przeciwnikiem tego precedensu. Tymczasem u Schillera Wiśniewskiego również mamy to uwspółcześnianie: dzisiejsze kostiumy, kamery, flesze (?), z niewiadomego mi powodu folia okrywająca stół i krzesła (nie muszę wszystkiego rozumieć, i tak mi się podoba), ... Na dodatek treść została wyraźnie skrócona: u Schillera scen jest pięćdziesiąt jeden w pięciu aktach, u Wiśniewskiego połowa z tego (no, pi razy drzwi dwadzieścia pięć i pół sceny, tak, a co?) w dwóch aktach. To akurat, powiedziałbym, na plus, bo w ten sposób napięcie fabularne zostało tylko i wyłącznie zintensyfikowane, a i doprawdy komu potrzebny jest drugi strażnik, który tylko stoi, albo hrabia Kentu, który tylko z rzadka coś powie (niektóre jego kwestie przejęli inni bohaterowie, i słusznie). W gruncie rzeczy może tylko nieobecność (czy raczej: obecność u Schillera) Hanny Kennedy jakkolwiek mnie zaskoczyła, bo zdaje się ona mieć cośkolwiek więcej do powiedzenia niż inni pominięci, jednakże widzę i dostrzegam, jak pozbycie się jej pozwoliło na większe wyeksponowanie milczenia w spektaklu, a to z kolei umożliwiło podkręcenie ogólnego napięcia. Bądź co bądź była Hanna tylko rozedrganą trajkotką, która rozpraszała uwagę od najcięższych problemów psychologicznych.
I wydaje się koniecznym zaznaczenie w tym miejscu, że takie i podobne rozważania, odnośnie sposobu podejmowania dramatu, są możliwe tylko dzięki temu, że Schiller napisał coś wybitnego, co pozwala być podejmowanym i być interpretowanym na nowo. Niewątpliwie znalazłby się reżyser, który dostrzegłby w Hannie coś niezbędnego dla swojej wizji Marii Stuart. Niewątpliwie Olga Dobijanka-Witczakowa, autorka wstępu do czytanego przeze mnie wydania Ossolineum (z grubsza jedynego znośnego na polskim rynku, nad czym już ubolewam, bo brzydkim – pozwólcie, że na Goodreads wybiorę znacznie seksowniej oprawione wydanie Penguina), za herezję wzięłaby sobie potraktowanie sceny śmierci Marii. Wiśniewski uczynił tę scenę drastyczną, pełną krzyku, wrzasku i szarpaniny, natomiast w prawdziwości (poetyckiej, o czym zaraz) Maria była bardzo spokojna i dostojna idąc na szafot: na krótko przed tym wyspowiadała się i przyjęła Komunię. W pewnym sensie rozumiem zarzuty p. Olgi, która nawet nie znając tej inscenizacji opiniuje, że wyzbycie się choćby sceny spowiedzi z dramatu (co Wiśniewski uczynił) pozbawia go szerszego wydźwięku, jednak znając oryginał śmiem przyznać, że zakończenie jakie proponuje reżyser jest na własnych warunkach bardzo, ale to bardzo interesujące. Zresztą Maria od samego początku jest u niego więcej histeryczna niż u Schillera, co ma sens o tyle, o ile ukazuje ostatnie dni jej życia i szarpaninę, poprzez którą stara się uniknąć śmierci. Schiller pokazał Marię histeryczną tylko w chwilach, gdy traciła nerwy, ponieważ zawsze potrafiła znaleźć uspokojenie w Bogu i wierze. Rozwiązanie zaproponowane przez Wiśniewskiego jest, rzekłbym, kontrowersyjne, bo na bakier z oryginałem, ale, doprawdy, pisząc o tym czuję się, jakbym pisał o występie Pogorelića na Konkursie Chopinowskim – the girls who get it (ja, Martha Argerich), get it, the girls who don't, don't.
Schiller, Schiller, Schiller. Z zamiłowania historyk (to wszystko niżej rekapituluję ze wstępu), dążył do zgromadzenia jak największej ilości materiałów źródłowych, celem przygotowania się do tematu. Wszelako, jak sam pisał, prawdę poetycką stawiał ponad prawdą historyczną. Wydarzenia z kilku miesięcy skondensował do kilku (trzech?!) dni, pojedynczymi anegdotami mniej istotnych postaci z życia dworu obdarzył głównych antagonistów swojego dramatu, no, chyba wiecie do czego zmierzam – Schiller rozumiał, że życie fikcyjne, aby było przekonujące, musi być prawdziwe od życia realnego. To samo robili przecież Dostojewski, Nabokov i inni z ferajny (bardzo skupił na sobie moją uwagę drobny fakt, że ta raczej mniej znana sztuka Schillera, przeciwnie, szybko zyskała uznanie w Rosji – proszę to sobie zrównać z Dostojewskim i Nabokovem, ach!). Ciekawe, że ten sztandarowy przedstawiciel Sturm und Drang okazuje się pod koniec życia porządniutki jak jakiś oświeceniowiec. Pani Olga tłumaczy to tym, że Schiller „po prostu" pożyczył z klasycystycznych wzorców to, co mu najbardziej odpowiadało. On sam powoływał się na „metodę Eurypidesa", czyli, jak to rozumiem: w pierwszym akcie przedstawię wam pełną intrygę, a potem aż do samiutkiego końca skupię się na psychologizmach, i to stąd pochodzić będzie całe napięcie. Wiśniewski wydobył te sensy w sposób zjawiskowy, tworząc widowisko drastyczne, agresywne, pełne pierwotnych instynktów i desperacji. To wszystko sprawiło, że (może nie powinienem się do tego przyznawać) miejscami aż przestawałem słuchać dokładnie wypowiadanych kwestii, a tylko zatracałem się w mimice, gestach i głosach aktorów. Ilekroć któryś z nich płakał, ja płakałem. Ilekroć któryś z nich bał się i drżał, ja drżałem. Jezu, czy nie o to chodzi w teatrze? W tej chwili, gdy to piszę, chcę płakać na wspomnienie jednej z końcowych scen (Elżbieta i Davison alias „Runąłem w przepaść!", „Jestem zgubiony!").
Pozwólcie, że teraz będzie troszkę o Mickiewiczu. Nie, nie, proszę, nie odchodźcie, to naprawdę ważne i może Was zainteresować. Kiedy oglądałem Dziady w wizji Nekrosiusa, myślałem, że oglądam jak ideał sięga bruku... Otóż Schiller w sposób subtelny a nader wymowny uświadamia mi, że być może to wcale nie tak, że może materiał źródłowy (chyba zacznę w ten sposób nazywać wszystkie dramaty sprzed ubiegłego stulecia wobec ich traktowania przez reżyserów) wcale nie stanowi ideału, którego się w nim doszukuję. Fakt faktem, muszę nadrobić kiedyś lekturę Mickiewicza w dorosłości, jednak nawet na podstawie tego, co jeszcze żywo pamiętam, myślę sobie: Rollison? Kim jest Rollison? Kim matka Rollisona? Jeno ludźmi z papieru, nikim więcej! Czy wypowiadam bluźnierstwo na miarę Konrada? A czy Rollison istnieje w tym dramacie po coś więcej niż jeden epizod z życia? (z okna wypadł, a tak naprawdę to może nie, ahjo) Czy te opowiastki ze sceny więziennej nie są żałosne? Czy są one czymś więcej niż wierszowanym dziennikarstwem? I, zważcie, nie mam problemu z przytaczaniem rzeczywistych wydarzeń, wszak przypominam, że Maria Stuart to dramat historyczny, ale spójrzcie na Schillera – kondensacja życia, superrealizm (hehe). Mickiewicz za bardzo skupił się na wystawieniu laurki swoim współziomkom, a za mało na stworzeniu wielkich bohaterów z historią (napisałem: historią, nie historyjką), problemami, sprzecznościami, ... Takiego jednego jak Konrad w dramacie Schillera jest sześciu lub siedmiu. A reszta?... To tak jakbym jednym z bohaterów Dziadów był ja: no dobrze, ale czy moje życie byłoby czymś więcej niż anegdotą? Czy anegdota to nie przymało jak na rolę w tragedii? Niech każdy odpowie we własnym zakresie. Och, Schillerze, ty geniuszu, ty objawicielu, ty to napisałeś u progu dziewiętnastego wieku? Klękam przed tobą pokornie i składam pokłony.
Tak się składa, że w zeszłym miesiącu byłem na Dziadach. Och, jakżeż mi się nie podobało. „Banalne uwspółcześnianie klasyki", „ponowoczesne bzdury", „po macoszemu zinterpretowany Mickiewicz", myślałem sobie. Rozumiem, że teraz modne jest uwspółcześnianie staroci, ale gdybym miał owo uwspółcześnianie oceniać tylko po tym, jak robił to Eimuntas Nekrosius, byłbym zagorzałym przeciwnikiem tego precedensu. Tymczasem u Schillera Wiśniewskiego również mamy to uwspółcześnianie: dzisiejsze kostiumy, kamery, flesze (?), z niewiadomego mi powodu folia okrywająca stół i krzesła (nie muszę wszystkiego rozumieć, i tak mi się podoba), ... Na dodatek treść została wyraźnie skrócona: u Schillera scen jest pięćdziesiąt jeden w pięciu aktach, u Wiśniewskiego połowa z tego (no, pi razy drzwi dwadzieścia pięć i pół sceny, tak, a co?) w dwóch aktach. To akurat, powiedziałbym, na plus, bo w ten sposób napięcie fabularne zostało tylko i wyłącznie zintensyfikowane, a i doprawdy komu potrzebny jest drugi strażnik, który tylko stoi, albo hrabia Kentu, który tylko z rzadka coś powie (niektóre jego kwestie przejęli inni bohaterowie, i słusznie). W gruncie rzeczy może tylko nieobecność (czy raczej: obecność u Schillera) Hanny Kennedy jakkolwiek mnie zaskoczyła, bo zdaje się ona mieć cośkolwiek więcej do powiedzenia niż inni pominięci, jednakże widzę i dostrzegam, jak pozbycie się jej pozwoliło na większe wyeksponowanie milczenia w spektaklu, a to z kolei umożliwiło podkręcenie ogólnego napięcia. Bądź co bądź była Hanna tylko rozedrganą trajkotką, która rozpraszała uwagę od najcięższych problemów psychologicznych.
I wydaje się koniecznym zaznaczenie w tym miejscu, że takie i podobne rozważania, odnośnie sposobu podejmowania dramatu, są możliwe tylko dzięki temu, że Schiller napisał coś wybitnego, co pozwala być podejmowanym i być interpretowanym na nowo. Niewątpliwie znalazłby się reżyser, który dostrzegłby w Hannie coś niezbędnego dla swojej wizji Marii Stuart. Niewątpliwie Olga Dobijanka-Witczakowa, autorka wstępu do czytanego przeze mnie wydania Ossolineum (z grubsza jedynego znośnego na polskim rynku, nad czym już ubolewam, bo brzydkim – pozwólcie, że na Goodreads wybiorę znacznie seksowniej oprawione wydanie Penguina), za herezję wzięłaby sobie potraktowanie sceny śmierci Marii. Wiśniewski uczynił tę scenę drastyczną, pełną krzyku, wrzasku i szarpaniny, natomiast w prawdziwości (poetyckiej, o czym zaraz) Maria była bardzo spokojna i dostojna idąc na szafot: na krótko przed tym wyspowiadała się i przyjęła Komunię. W pewnym sensie rozumiem zarzuty p. Olgi, która nawet nie znając tej inscenizacji opiniuje, że wyzbycie się choćby sceny spowiedzi z dramatu (co Wiśniewski uczynił) pozbawia go szerszego wydźwięku, jednak znając oryginał śmiem przyznać, że zakończenie jakie proponuje reżyser jest na własnych warunkach bardzo, ale to bardzo interesujące. Zresztą Maria od samego początku jest u niego więcej histeryczna niż u Schillera, co ma sens o tyle, o ile ukazuje ostatnie dni jej życia i szarpaninę, poprzez którą stara się uniknąć śmierci. Schiller pokazał Marię histeryczną tylko w chwilach, gdy traciła nerwy, ponieważ zawsze potrafiła znaleźć uspokojenie w Bogu i wierze. Rozwiązanie zaproponowane przez Wiśniewskiego jest, rzekłbym, kontrowersyjne, bo na bakier z oryginałem, ale, doprawdy, pisząc o tym czuję się, jakbym pisał o występie Pogorelića na Konkursie Chopinowskim – the girls who get it (ja, Martha Argerich), get it, the girls who don't, don't.
Schiller, Schiller, Schiller. Z zamiłowania historyk (to wszystko niżej rekapituluję ze wstępu), dążył do zgromadzenia jak największej ilości materiałów źródłowych, celem przygotowania się do tematu. Wszelako, jak sam pisał, prawdę poetycką stawiał ponad prawdą historyczną. Wydarzenia z kilku miesięcy skondensował do kilku (trzech?!) dni, pojedynczymi anegdotami mniej istotnych postaci z życia dworu obdarzył głównych antagonistów swojego dramatu, no, chyba wiecie do czego zmierzam – Schiller rozumiał, że życie fikcyjne, aby było przekonujące, musi być prawdziwe od życia realnego. To samo robili przecież Dostojewski, Nabokov i inni z ferajny (bardzo skupił na sobie moją uwagę drobny fakt, że ta raczej mniej znana sztuka Schillera, przeciwnie, szybko zyskała uznanie w Rosji – proszę to sobie zrównać z Dostojewskim i Nabokovem, ach!). Ciekawe, że ten sztandarowy przedstawiciel Sturm und Drang okazuje się pod koniec życia porządniutki jak jakiś oświeceniowiec. Pani Olga tłumaczy to tym, że Schiller „po prostu" pożyczył z klasycystycznych wzorców to, co mu najbardziej odpowiadało. On sam powoływał się na „metodę Eurypidesa", czyli, jak to rozumiem: w pierwszym akcie przedstawię wam pełną intrygę, a potem aż do samiutkiego końca skupię się na psychologizmach, i to stąd pochodzić będzie całe napięcie. Wiśniewski wydobył te sensy w sposób zjawiskowy, tworząc widowisko drastyczne, agresywne, pełne pierwotnych instynktów i desperacji. To wszystko sprawiło, że (może nie powinienem się do tego przyznawać) miejscami aż przestawałem słuchać dokładnie wypowiadanych kwestii, a tylko zatracałem się w mimice, gestach i głosach aktorów. Ilekroć któryś z nich płakał, ja płakałem. Ilekroć któryś z nich bał się i drżał, ja drżałem. Jezu, czy nie o to chodzi w teatrze? W tej chwili, gdy to piszę, chcę płakać na wspomnienie jednej z końcowych scen (Elżbieta i Davison alias „Runąłem w przepaść!", „Jestem zgubiony!").
Pozwólcie, że teraz będzie troszkę o Mickiewiczu. Nie, nie, proszę, nie odchodźcie, to naprawdę ważne i może Was zainteresować. Kiedy oglądałem Dziady w wizji Nekrosiusa, myślałem, że oglądam jak ideał sięga bruku... Otóż Schiller w sposób subtelny a nader wymowny uświadamia mi, że być może to wcale nie tak, że może materiał źródłowy (chyba zacznę w ten sposób nazywać wszystkie dramaty sprzed ubiegłego stulecia wobec ich traktowania przez reżyserów) wcale nie stanowi ideału, którego się w nim doszukuję. Fakt faktem, muszę nadrobić kiedyś lekturę Mickiewicza w dorosłości, jednak nawet na podstawie tego, co jeszcze żywo pamiętam, myślę sobie: Rollison? Kim jest Rollison? Kim matka Rollisona? Jeno ludźmi z papieru, nikim więcej! Czy wypowiadam bluźnierstwo na miarę Konrada? A czy Rollison istnieje w tym dramacie po coś więcej niż jeden epizod z życia? (z okna wypadł, a tak naprawdę to może nie, ahjo) Czy te opowiastki ze sceny więziennej nie są żałosne? Czy są one czymś więcej niż wierszowanym dziennikarstwem? I, zważcie, nie mam problemu z przytaczaniem rzeczywistych wydarzeń, wszak przypominam, że Maria Stuart to dramat historyczny, ale spójrzcie na Schillera – kondensacja życia, superrealizm (hehe). Mickiewicz za bardzo skupił się na wystawieniu laurki swoim współziomkom, a za mało na stworzeniu wielkich bohaterów z historią (napisałem: historią, nie historyjką), problemami, sprzecznościami, ... Takiego jednego jak Konrad w dramacie Schillera jest sześciu lub siedmiu. A reszta?... To tak jakbym jednym z bohaterów Dziadów był ja: no dobrze, ale czy moje życie byłoby czymś więcej niż anegdotą? Czy anegdota to nie przymało jak na rolę w tragedii? Niech każdy odpowie we własnym zakresie. Och, Schillerze, ty geniuszu, ty objawicielu, ty to napisałeś u progu dziewiętnastego wieku? Klękam przed tobą pokornie i składam pokłony.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 28, 2015
Great one. Even if hard to read, this drama is stunning. When our teacher told us we were going to read it in school I was going like " oh my god, another meaningless and stupid waste of time", but after having got into it, the story became really fascinating. Actually this fantastic piece of, yes, art was what made me interested in the Tudors and other powerful dynasties. Basically without having read Maria Stuart, I would never have got to read anything historical or fictional that other people just think is boring and has no significance nowadays. Summing up: Just a great piece of work and definitely worth to take the time reading.
January 12, 2023
Zwei Königinnen, die in einer von Männern dominierten Welt um ihre Legitimität streiten, die von ebenjenen in Frage gestellt wird und die sich dabei gegenseitig zerstören.
Doch „ein gebrechlich Wesen ist das Weib“ (V. 1373) auch bei Schiller nicht.
Doch „ein gebrechlich Wesen ist das Weib“ (V. 1373) auch bei Schiller nicht.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 346 reviews