What do you think?
Rate this book
Wallenstein #2
Wallenstein II: Wallensteins Tod
»Wallensteins Tod« ist der dritte Teil von Friedrich Schillers 1798/99 uraufgeführtem und im Jahr 1800 erschienenem dreiteiligen monumentalen Versdrama »Wallenstein«, dessen ersten beiden Teile »Wallensteins Lager« und »Die Piccolomini« sind. Angeregt durch historische Studien, die in sein Werk »Geschichte des Dreißigjährigen Krieges« (1790–92) mündeten, behandelt Schiller die letzten drei Lebenstage von Wallenstein, dem Herzog von Friedland, der ebenso schicksalhaft wie selbstverschuldet untergeht. Die Trilogie gilt als Inbegriff des klassischen Historiendramas, in dem Schillers klassische Dramenästhetik verwirklicht ist. Die fünfaktige Tragödie »Wallensteins Tod« bildet den inhaltlichen und formalen Höhepunkt des Werks.
Text in neuer Rechtschreibung. – Mit Anmerkungen von Kurt Rothmann.
Text in neuer Rechtschreibung. – Mit Anmerkungen von Kurt Rothmann.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1799
10 people are currently reading
294 people want to read
About the author
Friedrich Schiller
5,410 books860 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 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 14, 2024
Only now, in the third part (yes the third, not the second), does the drama of the Wallenstein trilogy (1799) really break loose, and this is expressed in both action scenes and in very charged, pathetic monologues and dialogues, and a perhaps predictable, but nevertheless intense denouement. Schiller really turns into a new Shakespeare here, clearly very much inspired by King Lear: the doubter Wallenstein, surrounded by loyal and false advisors, cannot escape his fate. Compared to the first and second parts, the female characters come somewhat more to the fore (and they too play both a good and an evil role), but they still remain very superficial figures.
My historical self cannot help but say that I had the impression that Schiller wanted to turn Wallenstein above all into a ‘German’ hero: he suggests that his forbearing attitude towards Sweden and Saxony has mainly to do with that. I know too little about the impossibly complex history of the Thirty Years’ War, but anachronistic nationalist sentiment (on the part of Schiller) may be at play here. In any case, this third part certainly makes up for the lack of action and commitment of parts 1 and 2 of this trilogy (see my review of these parts, here.
My historical self cannot help but say that I had the impression that Schiller wanted to turn Wallenstein above all into a ‘German’ hero: he suggests that his forbearing attitude towards Sweden and Saxony has mainly to do with that. I know too little about the impossibly complex history of the Thirty Years’ War, but anachronistic nationalist sentiment (on the part of Schiller) may be at play here. In any case, this third part certainly makes up for the lack of action and commitment of parts 1 and 2 of this trilogy (see my review of these parts, here.
November 18, 2024
Nachtrag 4,5 Sterne
Read
April 20, 2017Schiller apparently didn't care about spoilers.
I think dramatically the piece has a difficulty in that by the end of Wallenstein I: Wallensteins Lager, Die Piccolomini we've seen the magnificent hubbub of Wallenstein's camp and being exposed to Wallenstein's longing for the right moment, a decisive sign, a true politician waiting for the perfect moment to seize power without risk, at the same time we've seen those around him mobilise, either to force his hand or to strike him down.
The conclusion of the play then can only be a tragedy, a working out of the results of this and ending with only one possible conclusion, but what are we to feel? What do we see, Wallenstein is an elusive figure by the standards of Schiller's other leading men we can hardly say he represents nobility of intention or integrity in fact in addition to his vacillation he is also a dissembler and successfully -apparently- fools himself, believing or at least asserting that he can cross back over those burnt bridges, possibly imaging that he can use the smouldering timbers to mend fences with the Kaiser or mix his metaphors further.
Then Schiller doers something rather Romantic - he has the young Piccolomini represent the idea of integrity in politics and life in contrast to all the old men who instead are the forces of anti-youth, the back room deal makers, the back stabbers Was scheltet Ihr mich? was ist mein Verbrechen?/ Ich habe eine gute Tat getan,/ Ich habe das Reich von einem furchtbarn Feinde/ Befreit und mache Anspruch auf Belohnung./ Der einz'ge Unterschied ist zwischen Eurem/ und meinem Tun: Ihr habt den Pfeil geshaerft,/ Ich hab ihn abgedrückt. Ihr sätet Blut/ Und steht bestürzt dass Blut ist aufgegangen./ Ich wusste immer, was ich tat, und so/ Erschreckt und überrascht mich kein Erfolg. (p125) . Young Piccolomini, well he's just too pure and noble to live of course in this rotten world of the old and middle aged, but he lives ever on as a most Romantic and dashing literary trope, the generation of the Prussian Reform movement and the sky high hopes of the wars of Liberation would have done well to have born this in mind.
A fine portrayal of a counter coup with Wallenstein having missed his moment, pushed from place to place and cut off from his allies. A study in divided loyalties.
I think dramatically the piece has a difficulty in that by the end of Wallenstein I: Wallensteins Lager, Die Piccolomini we've seen the magnificent hubbub of Wallenstein's camp and being exposed to Wallenstein's longing for the right moment, a decisive sign, a true politician waiting for the perfect moment to seize power without risk, at the same time we've seen those around him mobilise, either to force his hand or to strike him down.
The conclusion of the play then can only be a tragedy, a working out of the results of this and ending with only one possible conclusion, but what are we to feel? What do we see, Wallenstein is an elusive figure by the standards of Schiller's other leading men we can hardly say he represents nobility of intention or integrity in fact in addition to his vacillation he is also a dissembler and successfully -apparently- fools himself, believing or at least asserting that he can cross back over those burnt bridges, possibly imaging that he can use the smouldering timbers to mend fences with the Kaiser or mix his metaphors further.
Then Schiller doers something rather Romantic - he has the young Piccolomini represent the idea of integrity in politics and life in contrast to all the old men who instead are the forces of anti-youth, the back room deal makers, the back stabbers Was scheltet Ihr mich? was ist mein Verbrechen?/ Ich habe eine gute Tat getan,/ Ich habe das Reich von einem furchtbarn Feinde/ Befreit und mache Anspruch auf Belohnung./ Der einz'ge Unterschied ist zwischen Eurem/ und meinem Tun: Ihr habt den Pfeil geshaerft,/ Ich hab ihn abgedrückt. Ihr sätet Blut/ Und steht bestürzt dass Blut ist aufgegangen./ Ich wusste immer, was ich tat, und so/ Erschreckt und überrascht mich kein Erfolg. (p125) . Young Piccolomini, well he's just too pure and noble to live of course in this rotten world of the old and middle aged, but he lives ever on as a most Romantic and dashing literary trope, the generation of the Prussian Reform movement and the sky high hopes of the wars of Liberation would have done well to have born this in mind.
A fine portrayal of a counter coup with Wallenstein having missed his moment, pushed from place to place and cut off from his allies. A study in divided loyalties.
November 15, 2013
In the public domain translation of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. I have the Penguin modern translation, but give me Coleridge:
The emperor hath urged me to the uttermost.
I can no longer honorably serve him.
For my security, in self-defence,
I take this hard step, which my conscience blames.
-- STC
The Emperor has driven me to take
The fatal step. I can no longer be his servant.
In self-defence, I must for my own safety
Do what my conscience cannot but condemn.
-- the Penguin
I happen to be thinking about defectors at the moment, quite elsewhere in history, and by accident came to this -- called Schiller's masterpiece, that I've always meant to read -- the tragedy of a defector in the Thirty Years' War.
The love story on the side pulled the play down. In short, five stars for Wallenstein's scenes.
The emperor hath urged me to the uttermost.
I can no longer honorably serve him.
For my security, in self-defence,
I take this hard step, which my conscience blames.
-- STC
The Emperor has driven me to take
The fatal step. I can no longer be his servant.
In self-defence, I must for my own safety
Do what my conscience cannot but condemn.
-- the Penguin
I happen to be thinking about defectors at the moment, quite elsewhere in history, and by accident came to this -- called Schiller's masterpiece, that I've always meant to read -- the tragedy of a defector in the Thirty Years' War.
The love story on the side pulled the play down. In short, five stars for Wallenstein's scenes.
January 14, 2023
Ein wirklich fulminantes und sehr tragisches Ende der Wallenstein Trilogie. Schiller hat hier wirklich ein tolles Historiendrama geschaffen, was die Kriege rund um das Habsburgerreich sehr gut illustriert. Die Lektüre hat mir unheimlich Spaß gemacht und ich möchte mich zukünftig, weiter mit genau dieser Thematik beschäftigen.
May 19, 2024
Despite the spoiler in the title his death is by far not as compelling as his choices in life. He is now feeling pressure from all sides and has to navigate treason by himself and the people by his side. Having read this book once before I remembered Wallenstein as an honorable man, but now he seemed a bit slimy, opportunistic and stubborn. Max Piccolomini on the other hand really shone as a light of honor.
The other characters continued their egoistic struggle in this war. There were some voices of reason, but they were easily drowned out.
I have now read this book over the course of a few months, so the whole story and message were not that coherent to me (oopsie). But if you were to put me on the spot, it is a story about war being fought in the upper ranks of the military, with their own selfish reasons which in turn influence the actual lives of so many others. Nevertheless, thank you Fritz!
The other characters continued their egoistic struggle in this war. There were some voices of reason, but they were easily drowned out.
I have now read this book over the course of a few months, so the whole story and message were not that coherent to me (oopsie). But if you were to put me on the spot, it is a story about war being fought in the upper ranks of the military, with their own selfish reasons which in turn influence the actual lives of so many others. Nevertheless, thank you Fritz!
June 3, 2019
3.75 Stars.
This was unexpectedly enjoyable! I remember reading this, or parts of it, years ago for school and I think I was either very bored by it or didn't understand half of what was going on throughout. Therefore, I was a bit sceptical picking it up once again for uni — and all the more surprised to find that I actually like it. It makes me think I probably should re-read the other Wallenstein instalments as well.
This was unexpectedly enjoyable! I remember reading this, or parts of it, years ago for school and I think I was either very bored by it or didn't understand half of what was going on throughout. Therefore, I was a bit sceptical picking it up once again for uni — and all the more surprised to find that I actually like it. It makes me think I probably should re-read the other Wallenstein instalments as well.
April 3, 2017
3.5 stars. The interesting thing about Schiller's dramas is that he really has no heroes or anti-heroes -- only characters who have ideals and flaws, desires and obstacles. They have strong wills tempered by the reality of circumstances or the stumbling block of fate (or other characters' wills or fates). His title characters grapple with questions of free will, justice, liberty, and authority, but so do the ancillary characters, sometimes in moments that are far more compelling. Indeed, whereas many playwrights would have events occur merely to fulfill a dramatic purpose, Schiller seems to give dramatic versions of character studies, with moments of reflection, doubt, and inner strife for even minor characters. He shows how even the minor players in a drama impact the whole, and how their grappling with these questions mirrors that of the protagonists.
In the case of Wallenstein, his tragedy -- like that of many of Schiller's heroes, if we may call them that -- is that he simply lives in a world where honesty, truth, and integrity do not ensure success or a positive outcome, much less a desired one. It's not that these traits are worthless or that others don't have them, it's just that having these traits doesn't necessarily mean one's path will be easier or more noble. In response to the classic question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Schiller seems to be saying, "There are no good or bad people, or good or bad things. Only wills and fates that sometimes come to fruition, but more than likely escape our grasp." Freedom to make our own choices is sometimes so tied up in the free choices of others that it really doesn't matter if we have free will no not -- outcomes will never be as we plan them in any case.
Wallenstein's Camp wraps up all the subplots from the previous two plays in the trilogy, with Wallenstein's murder being a foregone conclusion. So many events were beyond his control that what little free will he could exert would never overcome his inevitable downfall. But, as is often the case in Schiller, I found myself more fascinated with the arc of a secondary character: in this case, the older Piccolomini. He chooses to remain true to his Emperor. He believes he has the moral high ground. He places this loyalty above his bond of friendship with Wallenstein, still hoping until the end that he could remain faithful to the Emperor while saving the life of his friend. And what happens? His friend dies, his son dies, and his life crumbles around him. The irony? The emperor reward him with a princedom. He essentially takes Wallenstein's place: he is now at the command of the Emperor's troops in Austria, but he has lost everything he loves to obtain it -- and all because he thought he was making the the morally upright choice. In the end, he gets the best "reward" of anyone, but at a price that was much too high. Even in making what he thought to be the wise choice, he was bound by events set in motion beyond his control, ensuring that his freedom to choose would never lead to a satisfying conclusion. Indeed, Schiller leaves us to understand that Piccolomini has simply taken up Wallenstein's burden, and that he will soon find himself faced with the same troubles of Wallenstein. His punishment is only beginning.
The Wallenstein trilogy wasn't my favorite Schiller, but it's epic scale and deep commitment to exploring ideas from the perspectives of a whole host of characters makes it a worthy read.
In the case of Wallenstein, his tragedy -- like that of many of Schiller's heroes, if we may call them that -- is that he simply lives in a world where honesty, truth, and integrity do not ensure success or a positive outcome, much less a desired one. It's not that these traits are worthless or that others don't have them, it's just that having these traits doesn't necessarily mean one's path will be easier or more noble. In response to the classic question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Schiller seems to be saying, "There are no good or bad people, or good or bad things. Only wills and fates that sometimes come to fruition, but more than likely escape our grasp." Freedom to make our own choices is sometimes so tied up in the free choices of others that it really doesn't matter if we have free will no not -- outcomes will never be as we plan them in any case.
Wallenstein's Camp wraps up all the subplots from the previous two plays in the trilogy, with Wallenstein's murder being a foregone conclusion. So many events were beyond his control that what little free will he could exert would never overcome his inevitable downfall. But, as is often the case in Schiller, I found myself more fascinated with the arc of a secondary character: in this case, the older Piccolomini. He chooses to remain true to his Emperor. He believes he has the moral high ground. He places this loyalty above his bond of friendship with Wallenstein, still hoping until the end that he could remain faithful to the Emperor while saving the life of his friend. And what happens? His friend dies, his son dies, and his life crumbles around him. The irony? The emperor reward him with a princedom. He essentially takes Wallenstein's place: he is now at the command of the Emperor's troops in Austria, but he has lost everything he loves to obtain it -- and all because he thought he was making the the morally upright choice. In the end, he gets the best "reward" of anyone, but at a price that was much too high. Even in making what he thought to be the wise choice, he was bound by events set in motion beyond his control, ensuring that his freedom to choose would never lead to a satisfying conclusion. Indeed, Schiller leaves us to understand that Piccolomini has simply taken up Wallenstein's burden, and that he will soon find himself faced with the same troubles of Wallenstein. His punishment is only beginning.
The Wallenstein trilogy wasn't my favorite Schiller, but it's epic scale and deep commitment to exploring ideas from the perspectives of a whole host of characters makes it a worthy read.
February 16, 2010
Der letzte Teil der Wallenstein-Trilogie macht etwas mehr als die Hälfte des Umfangs aus und ist somit genauso lang wie die beiden ersten Teilen zusammen. Natürlich ist Umfang eines Textes kein relevantes Kriterium für seine Bewertung. In diesem Fall jedoch ist es insofern signifikant, als die Handlung etwas schleppend vorangeht und sich zumindest bei mir alsbald ein Gefühl der Ungeduld und der erlahmenden Leselust einstellte. Die immer wieder sich verzögernde Handlung ist natürlich auch der Dramatisierung von Wallensteins Handlungsunfähigkeit bzw. -unwilligkeit geschuldet. Die tragische Hauptfigur kann sich nicht zu einem Entschluss durchringen und verspielt so eine Chance nach der anderen. Ein wenig straffere Handlungsführung hätte dem Stück meines Erachtens jedoch gut getan.
July 18, 2013
Das war also die Wallensteintrilogie.
Viel mehr zu sagen, als zu den anderen beiden Teilen habe ich nicht wirklich. Ich hatte Sorge gehabt, nach so einigen Rezensionen auf der Seite, dass der zweite Teil etwas zäher ausfallen würde, das ist jedoch nicht geschehen.
Gut, ein paar Szenen in der zweiten Hälfte hätten vielleicht etwas knapper ausfallen können, aber es finden sich in diesem Stück doch durchaus einige sehr lesenwerte Verse. Ich kann keinen Qualitätsabfall zum ersten Teil feststellen.
Was gerade bei dieser Ausgabe etwas schade ist, dass man sich hier, im Gegensatz zu Reclams Wallenstein I das Heftchen mit Erläuterung zusätzlich anschaffen müsste. Das sollte man vor dem Kauf bedenken, falls man nicht nur eine reine Leseausgabe besitzen möchte.
Viel mehr zu sagen, als zu den anderen beiden Teilen habe ich nicht wirklich. Ich hatte Sorge gehabt, nach so einigen Rezensionen auf der Seite, dass der zweite Teil etwas zäher ausfallen würde, das ist jedoch nicht geschehen.
Gut, ein paar Szenen in der zweiten Hälfte hätten vielleicht etwas knapper ausfallen können, aber es finden sich in diesem Stück doch durchaus einige sehr lesenwerte Verse. Ich kann keinen Qualitätsabfall zum ersten Teil feststellen.
Was gerade bei dieser Ausgabe etwas schade ist, dass man sich hier, im Gegensatz zu Reclams Wallenstein I das Heftchen mit Erläuterung zusätzlich anschaffen müsste. Das sollte man vor dem Kauf bedenken, falls man nicht nur eine reine Leseausgabe besitzen möchte.
May 18, 2020
Wallensteins Tod has the makings of a fine political thriller, but like the other plays in this trilogy, it's a little bloated. The final two acts, in Eger, are probably the best in the whole trilogy. The situation keeps changing, information is scarce, and the possible outcomes many. There are some dramatic events and great conflicts.
In sum, the Wallenstein trilogy is a fine piece of drama of itself, but next to Schiller's next project, Maria Stuart, it does seem like apprentice-work.
November 1, 2020
Na een traag en daardoor toch niet altijd bijzonder leesbaar begin wordt Wallensteins Tod, het slotstuk van de Wallenstein-trilogie (waarvan de eerste twee toneelstukken doorgaans als Wallenstein I uitgebracht worden), een tragisch stuk over het noodlot dat de hertog Wallenstein tot vijand van zijn eigen rijk maakte en uiteindelijk aanleiding bood voor zijn dood.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 11, 2009
OK, so part 1 was really great and brilliant but part 2? *sigh* I felt like chewing on a never-ending chewing gum while reading it. It took me forever to finish it. Well not really, but you get my point. Sad. Really!
June 3, 2012
The trilogy was fantastic. A view into the end of an era and the ravings of a mad? general who is ready to depose the emperor. This story is told in many different ways with many different characters playing it out, but this is one of my new favorites and it is an old one.
June 30, 2025
Everything comes to its inevitable conclusion. Wallenstein remains as stolid, indecisive, and outright incompetent as ever, and one is surprised that such a man would have dominated Germany in previous years.
December 29, 2024
Plot / Story ☆☆☆☆
Characters ☆☆☆☆
Emotional Depth ☆☆☆☆☆
Tension / Entertainment ☆☆☆☆☆
Originality ☆☆☆☆☆
Writing Style ☆☆☆☆☆
Final: ☆☆☆☆☆
Characters ☆☆☆☆
Emotional Depth ☆☆☆☆☆
Tension / Entertainment ☆☆☆☆☆
Originality ☆☆☆☆☆
Writing Style ☆☆☆☆☆
Final: ☆☆☆☆☆
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews