What do you think?
Rate this book
Don Carlos / Mary Stuart
Don Carlos and Mary Stuart, two of German literature's greatest historical dramas, deal with the timeless issues of power, freedom, and justice. Dating from 1787 and 1800 respectively, one play was written immediately before the French Revolution, the other in its aftermath. These new translations into blank verse are accurate, elegant, and playable. The Introduction, Notes, and Chronology set the plays in their cultural and intellectual background, while a family tree explains the historical relationship between Don Carlos and Mary Stuart.
About the Series: For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the broadest spectrum of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, voluminous notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
About the Series: For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the broadest spectrum of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, voluminous notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
359 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1800
17 people are currently reading
668 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 - 19 of 19 reviews
July 19, 2017
Introduction
Note on the Translation
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Dates and Events during Schiller's Life
Royal Family Tree: The Historical Relationship between Mary Stuart and Don Carlos
--Don Carlos
--Mary Stuart
Explanatory Notes
Note on the Translation
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Dates and Events during Schiller's Life
Royal Family Tree: The Historical Relationship between Mary Stuart and Don Carlos
--Don Carlos
--Mary Stuart
Explanatory Notes
July 6, 2014
These are two powerful dramas, later turned into equally powerful operas. The operas have always been on my ‘desert island’ list, but I did not really expect much from the plays. What a revelation to be swept up in Schiller’s romantic passion for liberty. He is equally as moving in his portrayal of individuals, especially monarchs, forced to sacrifice their happiness to duty.
And yet the two plays are different enough to point out how much a fine artist can change from being a captivating, if sometimes clumsy, advanced apprentice still finding his way, to a master of his craft. Schiller abandoned drama for ten years after Don Carlos. During those years he intently studied and pondered aesthetics, historiography and dramatic theory, and he moved to Weimar and spent time with Goethe. He finally returned to the theater, with Wallenstein and Mary Stuart. Triumphantly.
Don Carlos is Schiller’s first play in blank verse; he had previously written prose dramas. It is also at least twice as long as a stageable long play can be, and is overly complex. He started it before studying the period adequately, so the prince wavers between heroic (Schiller’s initial thought) and unstable (the reality). It also imposes an anachronistic, romantic vision of liberty and questionable infatuation on the historical situation of the Spanish court. There are too many thematic conflicts and players. While the viewer senses that Schiller’s primary concern is the political, he can’t manage the material adequately and the personal jealousies of the King and Eboli drive the action and are the most vivid emotions. Nor does Posa’s self-sacrifice for such a simple-minded prince make sense; he should realize that Carlos is not cut out to liberate Brabant; he can’t even make it out of the castle.
And yet. And yet. The wonderful poetry and the ambitious fireworks grab you.
It took the genius of Verdi to understand that taking a machete to the play would reveal a heart-wrenching portrayal of complex characters torn between their duties, their ideals and their desires. Verdi focused on the conflicts of father-son-brother, church-state, and tyranny-liberty, and cleared away the underbrush of court intrigue that muddles the play. He also brilliantly expanded the Inquisitor’s role into one of the masterpieces of opera. Jealously remains in the opera of course, as a driver of the plot, but the power is in brotherhood, defense of liberty, and having set loose an evil monster that can force you to soul-destroying actions in the name of religion.
By the time he penned Maria Stuart, though, Schiller had learned that love had to play second fiddle to politics if he was to construct dramatic resonance for his theme. So while Elizabeth’s jealousy may tip the balance in the scene in which she decides whether to sign the death warrant, the whole play has been about how to rationalize the killing of a monarch to save a country from outside threats—and of course to save Elizabeth’s own life. (It should be noted that Schiller’s Mary is a lot more innocent than the original.)
Schiller’s greatness now shows in the subtlety and selection of the layers of court intrigue that he portrays. No more raw concoction of trumped up charges by despicable one-dimensional, if factual, figures, as in Don Carlos. Instead, loyal advisors to Elizabeth offer equally compelling arguments for and against the death sentence. Also, the clever indirect expression of Elizabeth’s desire for others to carry out acts she cannot afford to take responsibility for is searing, and has two effects: to make her less admirable, but also to engender sympathy for a ruler forced to stoop to such subterfuges to retain her throne and protect her people. And finally the desperate betrayal by Leicester is double; he is no longer worthy of either woman, if he ever was—the unfolding of this deed has the kind of dramatic force that was lacking ten years earlier.
And the poetry is even better. In one ironic line, Elizabeth reverses the threat that Posa cites to Philip in Don Carlos, that his best subjects are fleeing the Low Countries to enrich England’s pool of skilled craftsmen. She says, in contemplating Philip’s preparation of the Armada to rescue Mary:
And the patriotic passion here is for one’s own country, not an oppressed people offstage; the geographical distance weakened Don Carlos even if the disinterested championship was admirable. When Shrewsbury urges Elizabeth once again to show mercy, although the people are rioting and demanding Mary’s death, Elizabeth gives in to fatigue and anguish, momentarily wishing she could give up the throne to Mary and gain some peace. Her wisest and most perceptive counselor rebukes her.
Because the play is tighter and better structured than Don Carlos, Donizetti was able to retain more of it in his opera (although he had to rely on a 17-year-old librettist when his first choice refused to work with him). But the times were inauspicious for a play on such topics, and after censorship battles the opera languished for the rest of the 19th century. Even today it isn’t performed as often as the music deserves.
I have no way to evaluate whether this translation is faithful, but it is very good poetry. Both the translator who provided the literal English version (Hilary Collier Sy-Quia)and the poet who turned it into verse (Peter Oswald) are credited in the Oxford edition; I was very pleased with it.
And yet the two plays are different enough to point out how much a fine artist can change from being a captivating, if sometimes clumsy, advanced apprentice still finding his way, to a master of his craft. Schiller abandoned drama for ten years after Don Carlos. During those years he intently studied and pondered aesthetics, historiography and dramatic theory, and he moved to Weimar and spent time with Goethe. He finally returned to the theater, with Wallenstein and Mary Stuart. Triumphantly.
Don Carlos is Schiller’s first play in blank verse; he had previously written prose dramas. It is also at least twice as long as a stageable long play can be, and is overly complex. He started it before studying the period adequately, so the prince wavers between heroic (Schiller’s initial thought) and unstable (the reality). It also imposes an anachronistic, romantic vision of liberty and questionable infatuation on the historical situation of the Spanish court. There are too many thematic conflicts and players. While the viewer senses that Schiller’s primary concern is the political, he can’t manage the material adequately and the personal jealousies of the King and Eboli drive the action and are the most vivid emotions. Nor does Posa’s self-sacrifice for such a simple-minded prince make sense; he should realize that Carlos is not cut out to liberate Brabant; he can’t even make it out of the castle.
And yet. And yet. The wonderful poetry and the ambitious fireworks grab you.
King:
Look around,
In Spain my subjects prosper and increase
Under a cloudless sky—and this will last,
And this is what I wish to bring to Flanders.
Marquis Posa:
The undisturbed contentment of a graveyard.
And do you hope to end what you began?
To trample on the universal spring,
Halting the present changes in religion?
The world is growing younger day by day,
And you alone in Europe fling yourself
Into the path of the great world-fate’s wheel,
That runs unstoppably at full speed on!
To jam its spokes with your thin human arm!
You will not. Many thousands have already
Fled from your kingdoms, poor but overjoyed;
The citizen you lose for his religion
Is your best man. With open mother’s arms
Elizabeth receives your refugees,
And all the craftsmanship of your domains
Is building England fearfully.
It took the genius of Verdi to understand that taking a machete to the play would reveal a heart-wrenching portrayal of complex characters torn between their duties, their ideals and their desires. Verdi focused on the conflicts of father-son-brother, church-state, and tyranny-liberty, and cleared away the underbrush of court intrigue that muddles the play. He also brilliantly expanded the Inquisitor’s role into one of the masterpieces of opera. Jealously remains in the opera of course, as a driver of the plot, but the power is in brotherhood, defense of liberty, and having set loose an evil monster that can force you to soul-destroying actions in the name of religion.
By the time he penned Maria Stuart, though, Schiller had learned that love had to play second fiddle to politics if he was to construct dramatic resonance for his theme. So while Elizabeth’s jealousy may tip the balance in the scene in which she decides whether to sign the death warrant, the whole play has been about how to rationalize the killing of a monarch to save a country from outside threats—and of course to save Elizabeth’s own life. (It should be noted that Schiller’s Mary is a lot more innocent than the original.)
Schiller’s greatness now shows in the subtlety and selection of the layers of court intrigue that he portrays. No more raw concoction of trumped up charges by despicable one-dimensional, if factual, figures, as in Don Carlos. Instead, loyal advisors to Elizabeth offer equally compelling arguments for and against the death sentence. Also, the clever indirect expression of Elizabeth’s desire for others to carry out acts she cannot afford to take responsibility for is searing, and has two effects: to make her less admirable, but also to engender sympathy for a ruler forced to stoop to such subterfuges to retain her throne and protect her people. And finally the desperate betrayal by Leicester is double; he is no longer worthy of either woman, if he ever was—the unfolding of this deed has the kind of dramatic force that was lacking ten years earlier.
And the poetry is even better. In one ironic line, Elizabeth reverses the threat that Posa cites to Philip in Don Carlos, that his best subjects are fleeing the Low Countries to enrich England’s pool of skilled craftsmen. She says, in contemplating Philip’s preparation of the Armada to rescue Mary:
The Continent is reaching for my throat,
The Pope spits endless excommunications,
Brotherly France betrays me with a kiss,
While Spain caulks, victuals, and fits out attack.
And the patriotic passion here is for one’s own country, not an oppressed people offstage; the geographical distance weakened Don Carlos even if the disinterested championship was admirable. When Shrewsbury urges Elizabeth once again to show mercy, although the people are rioting and demanding Mary’s death, Elizabeth gives in to fatigue and anguish, momentarily wishing she could give up the throne to Mary and gain some peace. Her wisest and most perceptive counselor rebukes her.
Burleigh:
By the rage of God!
Hearing such folly, not to speak is treason!
You say you love your people more than life,
Show it! Do not take shelter in yourself,
And leave your kingdom arkless to the flood.
Should superstition, which her reign would bring,
Shatter our Church? Shall monks be ministers,
Shall legates sent from Rome uncrown our kings,
And tear down our cathedrals? For the souls
Of all your subjects I demand salvation,
Heaven and hell depend on your next words.
This is no time for feminine compassion,
The safety of your people is your duty.
Because the play is tighter and better structured than Don Carlos, Donizetti was able to retain more of it in his opera (although he had to rely on a 17-year-old librettist when his first choice refused to work with him). But the times were inauspicious for a play on such topics, and after censorship battles the opera languished for the rest of the 19th century. Even today it isn’t performed as often as the music deserves.
I have no way to evaluate whether this translation is faithful, but it is very good poetry. Both the translator who provided the literal English version (Hilary Collier Sy-Quia)and the poet who turned it into verse (Peter Oswald) are credited in the Oxford edition; I was very pleased with it.
November 21, 2025
De var virkelig ikke en girls girl nogen af dem hva’
November 23, 2025
Okay, jeg lægger mig fladt ned og siger at A Midsummers night dream var mere underholdende
September 11, 2021
A pair of tragedies from Friedrich Schiller, buddy to Goethe, and child of the enlightenment.
The first, Don Carlos, premiered in 1787, and in it Schiller used the events in the royal family of 16th century Spain as a basis for the tale, with King Phillip II reigning and whose son Carlos was weak and slightly deformed at birth. Carlos’s mental condition deteriorated as a teen and he was rumored to be fleeing Spain, a situation which led to his confinement and death at the age of 23 in 1568.
Mary Stuart, premiering in 1800, tells the tragedy of Mary, Queen of Scots, who claimed the throne held by distant cousin Elizabeth I, which led to her imprisonment and death.
As an aside, the historical relationship between the two is interesting. The common link is Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, whose daughter Catherine of Aragon was the first of Henry VIII’s wives. Ferdinand and Isabella’s royal lineage carried down to Phillip II, while Henry VIII of course dumped Catherine and had Elizabeth I by Anne Boleyn.
But I digress. In both stories, Schiller stretches the historical truth, shifts timelines, and invents characters in order to dramatize the tale. Hey, it was the Sturm und Drang, OK? And both were simply vehicles for him to speak of late 18th century concerns, including justice and freedom of conscience. Don Carlos is critical of the Spanish Inquisition, and it’s telling that during the early years of the Third Reich, audiences applauded in Germany over the expression of freedom of thought, a protest against repression, and that after the war the play was very popular.
I’m sure if I had been alive 200 years ago when it came out, both plays would have been 5 stars for me. And they are still good reads, just not great, maybe in part because it’s hard to capture the magic of a stage performance in print.
Quotes:
On death, from Mary Stuart:
“It is not flowers turning to the sun,
Nor the slow steering round of ships or swans,
When we abandon life it must be sudden,
A leap of lightning.”
On freedom, from Don Carlos:
“But what the crown can tolerate – is that
Enough for me? Can my humanity
Allow itself to chain humanity?
If they can’t think, I cannot call them glad.
Let me not be the chosen advocate
Of the serenity you force on men.
I must refuse to be so generous.
I cannot pledge allegiance to a lord.”
On home, from Don Carlos:
“Some breeze has found its way from France to here,
Reminding me of games I used to play –
Do not be cross with me. Our fatherland
Will keep our hearts, no matter where we are.”
On love, from Don Carlos:
“It is the one thing in the bounds of earth
That cannot be exchanged for anything
But its own self. Love is the price of love.
It is the only diamond I possess
That I must either give away or hide.”
And this one, which I love:
“The man I choose will be the only one,
And I will give him all eternally.
And he who has me will be made immortal,
His happiness will make him God. A kiss,
The distillation of divided souls,
The deep indulgence of the lover’s hour,
The unforbidden witchcraft that is beauty,
Are sister colors of a single flower
Whose close-locked petals blend their many shades.”
As well as this one, from Mary Stuart:
“The only reward acceptable to life
Is when two hearts bewitched by one another
Surrender self-awareness to delight.”
On love unrequited, from Don Carlos:
“And does he prize you? Can he understand
What he possesses? Is your heart his treasure?
If he was happy I would not be bitter,
I would forget the bliss I could have had,
But he is not. And that I cannot bear.”
On progress, from Don Carlos:
“And do you hope to end what you began?
To trample on the universal spring,
Halting the present changes in religion?
The world is growing younger day by day,
And you alone in Europe fling yourself
Into the path of the great world-fate’s wheel,
That runs unstoppably at full speed on!
To jam its spokes with your thin human arm!
You will not.”
On religion, from Don Carlos:
“A free mind sees the laws and not their maker.
Who needs a God, it says, the world is all.
And this free spirit’s blasphemous respect
is praise far greater than a Christian’s anthems.”
On sleep, from Don Carlos:
“King: I shall sleep when I am in the Royal Vault.”
The first, Don Carlos, premiered in 1787, and in it Schiller used the events in the royal family of 16th century Spain as a basis for the tale, with King Phillip II reigning and whose son Carlos was weak and slightly deformed at birth. Carlos’s mental condition deteriorated as a teen and he was rumored to be fleeing Spain, a situation which led to his confinement and death at the age of 23 in 1568.
Mary Stuart, premiering in 1800, tells the tragedy of Mary, Queen of Scots, who claimed the throne held by distant cousin Elizabeth I, which led to her imprisonment and death.
As an aside, the historical relationship between the two is interesting. The common link is Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, whose daughter Catherine of Aragon was the first of Henry VIII’s wives. Ferdinand and Isabella’s royal lineage carried down to Phillip II, while Henry VIII of course dumped Catherine and had Elizabeth I by Anne Boleyn.
But I digress. In both stories, Schiller stretches the historical truth, shifts timelines, and invents characters in order to dramatize the tale. Hey, it was the Sturm und Drang, OK? And both were simply vehicles for him to speak of late 18th century concerns, including justice and freedom of conscience. Don Carlos is critical of the Spanish Inquisition, and it’s telling that during the early years of the Third Reich, audiences applauded in Germany over the expression of freedom of thought, a protest against repression, and that after the war the play was very popular.
I’m sure if I had been alive 200 years ago when it came out, both plays would have been 5 stars for me. And they are still good reads, just not great, maybe in part because it’s hard to capture the magic of a stage performance in print.
Quotes:
On death, from Mary Stuart:
“It is not flowers turning to the sun,
Nor the slow steering round of ships or swans,
When we abandon life it must be sudden,
A leap of lightning.”
On freedom, from Don Carlos:
“But what the crown can tolerate – is that
Enough for me? Can my humanity
Allow itself to chain humanity?
If they can’t think, I cannot call them glad.
Let me not be the chosen advocate
Of the serenity you force on men.
I must refuse to be so generous.
I cannot pledge allegiance to a lord.”
On home, from Don Carlos:
“Some breeze has found its way from France to here,
Reminding me of games I used to play –
Do not be cross with me. Our fatherland
Will keep our hearts, no matter where we are.”
On love, from Don Carlos:
“It is the one thing in the bounds of earth
That cannot be exchanged for anything
But its own self. Love is the price of love.
It is the only diamond I possess
That I must either give away or hide.”
And this one, which I love:
“The man I choose will be the only one,
And I will give him all eternally.
And he who has me will be made immortal,
His happiness will make him God. A kiss,
The distillation of divided souls,
The deep indulgence of the lover’s hour,
The unforbidden witchcraft that is beauty,
Are sister colors of a single flower
Whose close-locked petals blend their many shades.”
As well as this one, from Mary Stuart:
“The only reward acceptable to life
Is when two hearts bewitched by one another
Surrender self-awareness to delight.”
On love unrequited, from Don Carlos:
“And does he prize you? Can he understand
What he possesses? Is your heart his treasure?
If he was happy I would not be bitter,
I would forget the bliss I could have had,
But he is not. And that I cannot bear.”
On progress, from Don Carlos:
“And do you hope to end what you began?
To trample on the universal spring,
Halting the present changes in religion?
The world is growing younger day by day,
And you alone in Europe fling yourself
Into the path of the great world-fate’s wheel,
That runs unstoppably at full speed on!
To jam its spokes with your thin human arm!
You will not.”
On religion, from Don Carlos:
“A free mind sees the laws and not their maker.
Who needs a God, it says, the world is all.
And this free spirit’s blasphemous respect
is praise far greater than a Christian’s anthems.”
On sleep, from Don Carlos:
“King: I shall sleep when I am in the Royal Vault.”
August 4, 2022
I only read Don Carlos, so my review will naturally entirely be based on that play, not Mary Stuart, and wow, what an experience it was (is).
Briefly, about the translation: it's serviceable enough. I've read the old English translation available on Project Gutenberg, and the French one published in the Folio classique edition, and I've also (struggled to) read it in the original German. This one does a good job of getting down the main points, but it's worth mentioning that, in the German, Carlos asks Posa to call him du (informal "you") instead of Sie, which is more formal. It's a mark of their friendship - and unfortunately gets erased in English, where we only have one word for "you"... unless you want to return to the early modern period and bring back "thou". It'd be unfair to blame the translator for this, though.
Harder to excuse is the fact that one of my favourite lines of Posa's gets replaced with something completely different. It ought to be the very last line act 4, scene 20. In German, he says, "O Gott, das Leben ist doch schön!" Now, my German reading skills are.... feeble, but even I am aware that this in no way translates to "There is no man I honour any more". Have my amateur's translation of the German line: "Oh God, life is so beautiful!". Completely different. This is a real mystery to me.
As for the actual play itself, I first read it after watching the opera version by Verdi. The opera, of course, was absolutely amazing, with sublime and incredibly moving music. I couldn't wait to read the play after that, especially because years previously I'd once read a book (forgot the name) in which the author quoted passages from Don Carlos - specifically, a quote from Posa, which really made an impression on 10-year-old me.
It takes as its subject Don Carlos, the son of King Philip II of Spain.... or, at least, a heavily fictionalized and romanticized version of Don Carlos. The myth of this prince's terribly awkward passion for his stepmom (formerly fiancee) was a good century in the making before Schiller took it up, but of course he managed to make it the best story I've probably ever read. But I'd be remiss if I didn't say that Carlos' and Elisabeth's relationship was the least interesting part of the play, taken by itself. Together with the rest of the play, it forms a captivating exploration of love and duty.
The most interesting aspect of the play, for me, is how it treats loneliness... and in my opinion, the real human tragedy of the play is how
There's also the amazing marquis of Posa, who introduces the political aspect of the play and generally saves it from Carlos' crushing stupidity. He's much more complex in the play than he is in Verdi's opera. In the preface, they say Schiller wasn't interested in looking at Posa "the flawed idealist"... but I think Schiller does leave the reader with plenty to think about in that direction if one is so inclined. He is also in love with Carlos. Really. There is so much gay subtext in this play. I've heard arguments in that regard regarding Philip and Posa, which convince me less. But still.
Posa grabs Philip's attention almost immediately, and if you haven't become interested in the play up till this point, I guarantee you that, like Philip, you too will be caught. He is obviously a walking, talking anachronism (but boy, can he talk). Enlightenment values in 16th-century Spain? Unlikely. He lampshades this fact at least once - and in the end, it serves the play brilliantly. - but it wasn't in vain. As he says to Philip, how can one man try to stop time on its path? The ending is bleak by anyone's standards, but it's cathartic to me because I know (and Posa knows, and he told us too) that what was important was that they tried, and that by itself is worth so much.
(And, about the ending - that last line! I was chilled to the bone. It's perfection itself. And MUCH better than that strange grandpa's ghost ex machina Verdi chose to end the opera with.)
Briefly, about the translation: it's serviceable enough. I've read the old English translation available on Project Gutenberg, and the French one published in the Folio classique edition, and I've also (struggled to) read it in the original German. This one does a good job of getting down the main points, but it's worth mentioning that, in the German, Carlos asks Posa to call him du (informal "you") instead of Sie, which is more formal. It's a mark of their friendship - and unfortunately gets erased in English, where we only have one word for "you"... unless you want to return to the early modern period and bring back "thou". It'd be unfair to blame the translator for this, though.
Harder to excuse is the fact that one of my favourite lines of Posa's gets replaced with something completely different. It ought to be the very last line act 4, scene 20. In German, he says, "O Gott, das Leben ist doch schön!" Now, my German reading skills are.... feeble, but even I am aware that this in no way translates to "There is no man I honour any more". Have my amateur's translation of the German line: "Oh God, life is so beautiful!". Completely different. This is a real mystery to me.
As for the actual play itself, I first read it after watching the opera version by Verdi. The opera, of course, was absolutely amazing, with sublime and incredibly moving music. I couldn't wait to read the play after that, especially because years previously I'd once read a book (forgot the name) in which the author quoted passages from Don Carlos - specifically, a quote from Posa, which really made an impression on 10-year-old me.
It takes as its subject Don Carlos, the son of King Philip II of Spain.... or, at least, a heavily fictionalized and romanticized version of Don Carlos. The myth of this prince's terribly awkward passion for his stepmom (formerly fiancee) was a good century in the making before Schiller took it up, but of course he managed to make it the best story I've probably ever read. But I'd be remiss if I didn't say that Carlos' and Elisabeth's relationship was the least interesting part of the play, taken by itself. Together with the rest of the play, it forms a captivating exploration of love and duty.
The most interesting aspect of the play, for me, is how it treats loneliness... and in my opinion, the real human tragedy of the play is how
There's also the amazing marquis of Posa, who introduces the political aspect of the play and generally saves it from Carlos' crushing stupidity. He's much more complex in the play than he is in Verdi's opera. In the preface, they say Schiller wasn't interested in looking at Posa "the flawed idealist"... but I think Schiller does leave the reader with plenty to think about in that direction if one is so inclined. He is also in love with Carlos. Really. There is so much gay subtext in this play. I've heard arguments in that regard regarding Philip and Posa, which convince me less. But still.
Posa grabs Philip's attention almost immediately, and if you haven't become interested in the play up till this point, I guarantee you that, like Philip, you too will be caught. He is obviously a walking, talking anachronism (but boy, can he talk). Enlightenment values in 16th-century Spain? Unlikely. He lampshades this fact at least once - and in the end, it serves the play brilliantly. - but it wasn't in vain. As he says to Philip, how can one man try to stop time on its path? The ending is bleak by anyone's standards, but it's cathartic to me because I know (and Posa knows, and he told us too) that what was important was that they tried, and that by itself is worth so much.
(And, about the ending - that last line! I was chilled to the bone. It's perfection itself. And MUCH better than that strange grandpa's ghost ex machina Verdi chose to end the opera with.)
October 22, 2014
Não é a peça de teatro mais famosa do mundo, muito menos em Portugal - e esse foi um dos motivos que me levou a escrever esta opinião literária. Gostei tanto da peça que achei que seria um desperdício não a divulgar e partilhar a minha opinião sobre esta.
Existem sinopses mas...estão em alemão. Como tal, decidi fazer uma pequena sinopse para vocês.
A ação passa-se durante o reinado de Filipe II de Portugal, I de Espanha; Filipe já tem uma certa idade, contudo, está casado com Isabel de Valois, uma princesa jovem, próspera e considerada uma santa. Contudo, há uma pessoa que os separou - Don Carlos, filho de Filipe II.
E,por mais que queira contar,vou ter de ficar por aqui,não quero estragar a magia da peça!
Desde já,elogio o tradutor que,apesar de ter cortado várias cenas, cortou-as de forma lógica,não nos fazendo perder nenhuma cena importantíssima.
A peça trata então de um amor puro e ilícito mas também um tanto lógico (não direi porquê), ou seja, o amor não é suposto ser lógico mas,nesta peça, esta paixão não é algo assim tão irracional. Eu simplesmente adorei a relação que foi retrata, adorei a profundidade de cada personagem, nunca caíndo no exagero ou nos antagonismos de O Bom e O Mau. É uma peça riquíssima, repleta de figuras de estilo, de acusações à sociedade da época (os males da corte espanhola; a ocupação de espanha em flandres) e de indícios de que a literatura estava a evoluir.
Existem sinopses mas...estão em alemão. Como tal, decidi fazer uma pequena sinopse para vocês.
A ação passa-se durante o reinado de Filipe II de Portugal, I de Espanha; Filipe já tem uma certa idade, contudo, está casado com Isabel de Valois, uma princesa jovem, próspera e considerada uma santa. Contudo, há uma pessoa que os separou - Don Carlos, filho de Filipe II.
E,por mais que queira contar,vou ter de ficar por aqui,não quero estragar a magia da peça!
Desde já,elogio o tradutor que,apesar de ter cortado várias cenas, cortou-as de forma lógica,não nos fazendo perder nenhuma cena importantíssima.
A peça trata então de um amor puro e ilícito mas também um tanto lógico (não direi porquê), ou seja, o amor não é suposto ser lógico mas,nesta peça, esta paixão não é algo assim tão irracional. Eu simplesmente adorei a relação que foi retrata, adorei a profundidade de cada personagem, nunca caíndo no exagero ou nos antagonismos de O Bom e O Mau. É uma peça riquíssima, repleta de figuras de estilo, de acusações à sociedade da época (os males da corte espanhola; a ocupação de espanha em flandres) e de indícios de que a literatura estava a evoluir.
July 8, 2014
One of the prominent German figures, Schiller as a playwright occasionally fabricated incidents in the lives of historical figures, that even today are believed true. Don Carlos tries to Flanders from his father King Philip of Spain. (Shiller promoted democracy.) Mary Stuart becomes a sympathetic figure manipulated by those she trusts into such intrigues that she loses her head over it. (She was, from most accounts, very ambitious because she believed she was the legitimate heir to the throne.) Good plays.
February 9, 2017
I read somewhere recently that this work inspired Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor. It appears very late in the text but there is an obvious though short clear connection. The text was interesting in other ways, reminded me of reading Shakespeare. One sees how secrets can create havoc at the level of people of power.
January 11, 2013
Pretty miserable translation, but the power of Schiller comes through all the same... I am particularly impressed by Schiller, a Protestant, for his honest account of the good Queen Mary and the Roman religion.
June 1, 2016
I did not know that Charles and Mary were cousins.
August 5, 2007
No way around it, Don Carlos is my favorite play of all!
February 11, 2025
Mary Stuart VERY GOOD. Don Carlos good!
Don Carlos
The First and Fifth Acts are outstanding. The somewhat plodding middle acts have some high points but feel overlong in the reading of it.
This probably could be really fun to do and see/hear on stage with judicious cuts.
The Inquisition is also a big element although, I feel that it was under-utilized.
Mary Stuart
More cohesive and dramatically propulsive than the colorful but messy Don Carlos (Schiller was a more mature writer by this point). Although I think he’s sucking too greedily at Shakespeare’s teat for it to stand as well on its own. At least as far as reading it goes. I’m sure with some cuts this would be rewarding if performed (TWO plum roles for women! A big deal!) but let’s be honest, no one is producing this relatively obscure German verse play in the United States.
The play is at its electric best of course when Elizabeth and Mary are actually in the same room. And then when Mortimer’s (literally overzealous) religious/sexual ecstasy kicks in.
Ultimately, Schiller is no Goethe. These plays have some incredible moments. But often can feel uneven. Even when Goethe overreaches, it’s spectacularly ambitious. Here, it’s can be dull.
Don Carlos
The First and Fifth Acts are outstanding. The somewhat plodding middle acts have some high points but feel overlong in the reading of it.
This probably could be really fun to do and see/hear on stage with judicious cuts.
The Inquisition is also a big element although, I feel that it was under-utilized.
Mary Stuart
More cohesive and dramatically propulsive than the colorful but messy Don Carlos (Schiller was a more mature writer by this point). Although I think he’s sucking too greedily at Shakespeare’s teat for it to stand as well on its own. At least as far as reading it goes. I’m sure with some cuts this would be rewarding if performed (TWO plum roles for women! A big deal!) but let’s be honest, no one is producing this relatively obscure German verse play in the United States.
The play is at its electric best of course when Elizabeth and Mary are actually in the same room. And then when Mortimer’s (literally overzealous) religious/sexual ecstasy kicks in.
Ultimately, Schiller is no Goethe. These plays have some incredible moments. But often can feel uneven. Even when Goethe overreaches, it’s spectacularly ambitious. Here, it’s can be dull.
April 19, 2025
“The meeting of the queens, the figure of Mortimer, the assassination attempt, and the romantic involvement of Mary and Leiscter, are all invented. Schiller chose to make his Mary guilty of complicity in the plot to murder Darnley but innocent of involvement in the Babington Plot—both matters of historical dispute —so that he could make her accept her death as atonement for her earlier guilt.” (p xx)
“The play does not teach us a moral lesson but rather mediated an experience that reminds us that we are autonomous moral beings….The play as moral triumph and the play as political tragedy need not be mutually exclusive. Schiller was as concerned with the art of living as with the art of dying, and it is not to detract from his portrayal of the possibility of transcendence to recognize his fascination with the ambiguities of the political world. It allows us to reserve a little sympathy for Elizabeth as she stands alone at the end, knowing she has failed the test of her humanity.” (p xxvi)
I was listening to the LATW production audiobook version which says it is Oswald’s, but reading the text here, the text in the LATW was significantly condensed. And I caught one divergent passage (z see notes under that edition).
I also have an edition adapted by Stephen Spender who states he specifically wrote his version for an English audience, who would be predisposed to favor Elizabeth over Mary (with that being the reason that this play isn’t staged in England)
I like how quickly this play moved - the fast pace, the short scenes, enhance the action
“The play does not teach us a moral lesson but rather mediated an experience that reminds us that we are autonomous moral beings….The play as moral triumph and the play as political tragedy need not be mutually exclusive. Schiller was as concerned with the art of living as with the art of dying, and it is not to detract from his portrayal of the possibility of transcendence to recognize his fascination with the ambiguities of the political world. It allows us to reserve a little sympathy for Elizabeth as she stands alone at the end, knowing she has failed the test of her humanity.” (p xxvi)
I was listening to the LATW production audiobook version which says it is Oswald’s, but reading the text here, the text in the LATW was significantly condensed. And I caught one divergent passage (z see notes under that edition).
I also have an edition adapted by Stephen Spender who states he specifically wrote his version for an English audience, who would be predisposed to favor Elizabeth over Mary (with that being the reason that this play isn’t staged in England)
I like how quickly this play moved - the fast pace, the short scenes, enhance the action
June 5, 2018
The Oswald translation of Mary Stuart is a delicious text, full of the tensions and questions that roiled England through much of Elizabeth I's reign. Schiller takes the question of what the relationship between Elizabeth and her doomed cousin must have been and plays it out to its logical conclusion. He raises questions like, How would a meeting between these women go? To what extent are they (or any of us) free to make their own choices? How does the arc of history curl back on itself?
I've read several translations of this text, but this is the one I can most readily hear in the mouths of actors, especially Act 3, when the two women come face to face.
I've read several translations of this text, but this is the one I can most readily hear in the mouths of actors, especially Act 3, when the two women come face to face.
April 5, 2020
Don Carlos started out being... incredibly hetero, dramatizing a unilateral infante-to-queen mother incestuous love when, about two thirds the way through, the play suddenly inverts itself into one of the most brilliant queer dramas I have ever read, featuring a homosexual who classically falls for a straight man and sacrifices for this dumbass. The ending, wrapped up by the last-minute appearance of the Inquisitor, ties a big knot on the thematic critique of the Roman Catholic Church.
Mary Stuart is also brilliant as a history play that similarly thematizes the loss of friendship/support by the end.
Mary Stuart is also brilliant as a history play that similarly thematizes the loss of friendship/support by the end.
June 28, 2018
Don Carlos might just have become one of my favourite German plays. And as a Swiss person, the Tell was pretty fun (and pretty much obligatory) to read too. I have not read much by Schiller as of yet, but I feel really inspired to pick up more plays now. I like his language, the themes, and the plot.
January 1, 2018
I read Don Carlos. I haven't read Mary Stuart
October 11, 2019
Do not read the introduction until after you have read the plays, like many texts that have become part of the literary canon, it reveals everything that will happen in both plays. I do not understand why this is the case, it's like academics, some at least, do not want you to directly encounter an artist by what they produced on their own terms.
Some soaring verse here, as they're in blank verse. Don Carlos is a bit too long, I think, though it is fantastic. Mary Stuart, on the other hand, was written many years later and is very tight. If you're interested in German romanticism you pretty much need to look at Schiller.
Some soaring verse here, as they're in blank verse. Don Carlos is a bit too long, I think, though it is fantastic. Mary Stuart, on the other hand, was written many years later and is very tight. If you're interested in German romanticism you pretty much need to look at Schiller.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews