What do you think?
Rate this book
Wallenstein
Wallenstein ist die gängige Bezeichnung für eine Dramen-Trilogie von Friedrich Schiller. Sie besteht aus den Werken Wallensteins Lager mit einem längeren Prolog, Die Piccolomini und Wallensteins Tod.
Schiller behandelt darin den Niedergang des berühmten Feldherrn Wallenstein, wobei er sich frei an den realen historischen Ereignissen orientiert: Wallenstein scheitert auf dem Gipfel seiner Macht, er ist der erfolgreiche Oberbefehlshaber der kaiserlichen Armee, als er beginnt, sich gegen seinen Kaiser Ferdinand II. aufzulehnen. Das Werk spielt im Winter 1633/1634 (also fast 16 Jahre nach Beginn des Dreißigjährigen Krieges) in der böhmischen Stadt Pilsen, wo sich Wallenstein zu jener Zeit mit seinen Truppen aufhält. Für die letzten beiden Aufzüge wechselt der Schauplatz nach Eger, da Wallenstein dorthin flieht. Hier wurde er am 25. Februar 1634 ermordet.
Schiller behandelt darin den Niedergang des berühmten Feldherrn Wallenstein, wobei er sich frei an den realen historischen Ereignissen orientiert: Wallenstein scheitert auf dem Gipfel seiner Macht, er ist der erfolgreiche Oberbefehlshaber der kaiserlichen Armee, als er beginnt, sich gegen seinen Kaiser Ferdinand II. aufzulehnen. Das Werk spielt im Winter 1633/1634 (also fast 16 Jahre nach Beginn des Dreißigjährigen Krieges) in der böhmischen Stadt Pilsen, wo sich Wallenstein zu jener Zeit mit seinen Truppen aufhält. Für die letzten beiden Aufzüge wechselt der Schauplatz nach Eger, da Wallenstein dorthin flieht. Hier wurde er am 25. Februar 1634 ermordet.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1800
4 people are currently reading
397 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 11, 2024
The more one delves into the Thirty Years' War, the more one asks: what, if anything, was it about? It is often described as a religious war, but then Protestant Sweden's primary ally was Catholic France against the Catholic Habsburgs. The chaos seemed to take on a life of its own, with armies of mercenaries regularly trading sides and various powers striving year after year to reap some new advantage from all the destruction.
Friedrich Schiller is primarily remembered as a poet, dramatist, and philosopher, of course, but he taught history at the University of Jena that now bears his name, and he wrote a substantial history of the Thirty Years' War. In the story of Albrecht von Wallenstein, generalissimo of the Habsburg forces until he was relieved, then called back to service, then assassinated by the emperor, he Schiller found an attractive subject who seemed to embody the complexities and contradictions for which the war is famous. After raising and leading one of the largest armies of the war on behalf of the emperor, Wallenstein began to fear a war without end (he wasn't wrong - this was about 15 years in). Under his own authority, he made ceasefire agreements with the Saxons and the Swedes, and the Habsburg emperor Ferdinand II began to fear that his high commander might forcibly impose peace on him. It was then he apparently ordered the general's death.
There are many enigmas in the historical record, and these are taken up as a central problem of the play, which keeps its protagonist at an arm's length to deepen the mystery about what he is thinking and what he actually intends. The enormous work is subdivided into a dedicatory poem, a poetical dramatic prolog of some 50 pages in length entitled Wallenstein's Camp, and then two full-length plays, The Piccolomini and Wallenstein's Death. The play begins at a great remove, approaching its titular figure from the outside and only very gradually.
In the introductory poem, the audience's attention is called to the imaginative character of art, in which both the actors and the audience must cooperate to fully "stage" the play's events:
Nicht er ist's, der auf dieser Bühne heut
Erscheinen wird. Doch in den kühnen Schaaren,
Die sein Befehl gewaltig lenkt, sein Geist
Beseelt, wird euch sein Schattenbild begegnen,
Bis ihn die scheue Muse selbst vor euch
Zu stellen wagt in lebender Gestalt,
Denn seine Macht ist's, die sein Herz verführt,
Sein Lager nur erkläret sein Verbrechen....
This might well remind the reader of the narrator of Shakespeare's Henry V:
O pardon, since a crookèd figure may
Attest in little place a million,
And let us, ciphers to this great account,
On your imaginary forces work.
Suppose within the girdle of these walls
Are now confined two mighty monarchies,
Whose high uprearèd and abutting fronts
The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder.
Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts....
This signals what will be one of the great themes of the play, which I interpret as a kind of idealist dramatics. The question of what, ultimately, is real, and what things mean, and how we know, and what the limits of our knowledge actually are, is a question that will be constantly evoked on every level of the play. The introductory poem highlights the imaginal co-construction that brings the dead words to life on the stage, and we move, then, into the events, starting at the outer periphery. Wallenstein's Camp with an itinerant father and a son who are seeking food, and the first spoken lines introduce in miniature the theme of discord between father and son that comprises the crisis of the play:
Bauernknabe: Vater, es wird nicht gut ablaufen,
Bleiben wir von dem Soldatenhaufen.
Sind Euch gar trotzige Kameraden;
Wenn sie uns nur nicht am Leibe schaden.
Despite the boy's warning, into the camp they go, and we get a lively panoramic view of many different residents, including soldiers and mercenaries of different backgrounds and motives. One can only imagine Brecht taking copious notes for his Mutter Courage.
The scene reminds me of the Easter walk sequence of Goethe's Faust I, which similarly paints the portrait of a milieu in a series of lively miniatures. This is one of the numerous ways that Goethe's mighty work, which was published in its complete form only a few years before Wallenstein, left its mark, and seemingly drove Schiller to reach for new heights in his own oeuvre.
By eavesdropping on the soldiers' discussions, the situation is set up for the audience, which learns that Wallenstein has called all his forces to him along with his family, and imperial envoys have been coming and going. The mood is tense, and no one knows what the general's plans are, or if he intends to break with the emperor. But one thing gradually becomes clear: among the rank-and-file, the final loyalty is Wallenstein, not the crown.
The Piccolomini brings us inside the castle walls, where we encounter Wallenstein, his principle captains, and his entourage and family. We remain at arm's length from Wallenstein and only very gradually begin to develop any sense of his personalitya. The mood is one of increasing urgency, and his supporters believe it is critical that Wallenstein make whatever move he is going to make, and soon. The Swedes are drawing near and the emperor is clearly growing ever-mmore suspicious of his motives.
Meanwhile, Wallenstein pushes to prolong making a final decision and devotes himself to reading the signs in the stars, aided by Seni, his astrologer.
The feeling of discomfort increases steadily, along with certain, urgent questions. Why is he delaying? What is he waiting for?
It was initially hard for me to believe that he ever could have been an effective leader, so long does he delay in the critical hour. We gradually learn that he injured his head falling out of a window (a kind of subconscious repetition of the defenestration that began the war?), and has never quite been the same.
Wallenstein himself frames his indecisiveness in extravagent terms, declaring that while lesser men can content themselves with the directives of the earth, he is chosen by history to operate on a higher plane, as it were, and therefore has to take his guidance from the heavens themselves.
There is a great deal of astrological symbology in this play, but I have to confess I do not have a distinct understanding of what it was supposed to convey, exactly. In general terms, it provides a kind of symbolic vocabulary for elaborating on the idealist theme of struggling to understand the meaning of historical moments and events, but to what end, I cannot say with confidence. I learn from the footnotes that the astrologer character was originally intended to be comic, but lost his stock qualities in later drafts. In an exchange of letters with Goethe, they speak of the appeal of astrology in a general way as a kind of extension of the intuition that environmental factors determine the significance of things, and it's not always obvious how far into the cosmos that significance extends, and whether or not we supply it. This, of course, seems to echo the image from the introductory poem of the play being a co-creation of theater and audience.
But I must say that Schiller's use of astrology seems more to raise the question than to shed any light on any possible answer. In a similar way, Wallenstein's remove from the audience as an enigmatic character highlights the historical problem of interpreting who he was and what he was about, but dramatically, the effect is that his personality never comes into focus. Such was the opinion of Ludwig Tieck, at least, who wrote an illuminating critique of the play, and Eckermann and Goethe likewise express that Schiller's intereest in certain philosophical problems at times usurps his attention from the poetic and dramatic effects of the play. It's perhaps understandable that one of the play's great admirers was Hegel, who said in his lectures on aesthetics that the play does an extraordinary job depicting the dialectic of determinacy and indeterminacy.
There is much more to be said about this play - very much more - and this itself is a bit of a problem. The play is huge in every respect, and Schiller did not fully succeed in keeping everything in focus. In my opinion, it is too long (it's easily the longest of his plays), and too crowded for any of its individual elements to land with sufficient force.
That being said, the play does offer a huge amount for its audience to chew on and to admire. It was relentlessly fascinating and sometimes deeply suspenseful, which is not an easy feat for a series of plays that, after all, end with Wallenstein's Death. In many respects, it's the best of the Schiller plays I've read, though dramatically, I would rank it well below Don Carlos and William Tell.
Friedrich Schiller is primarily remembered as a poet, dramatist, and philosopher, of course, but he taught history at the University of Jena that now bears his name, and he wrote a substantial history of the Thirty Years' War. In the story of Albrecht von Wallenstein, generalissimo of the Habsburg forces until he was relieved, then called back to service, then assassinated by the emperor, he Schiller found an attractive subject who seemed to embody the complexities and contradictions for which the war is famous. After raising and leading one of the largest armies of the war on behalf of the emperor, Wallenstein began to fear a war without end (he wasn't wrong - this was about 15 years in). Under his own authority, he made ceasefire agreements with the Saxons and the Swedes, and the Habsburg emperor Ferdinand II began to fear that his high commander might forcibly impose peace on him. It was then he apparently ordered the general's death.
There are many enigmas in the historical record, and these are taken up as a central problem of the play, which keeps its protagonist at an arm's length to deepen the mystery about what he is thinking and what he actually intends. The enormous work is subdivided into a dedicatory poem, a poetical dramatic prolog of some 50 pages in length entitled Wallenstein's Camp, and then two full-length plays, The Piccolomini and Wallenstein's Death. The play begins at a great remove, approaching its titular figure from the outside and only very gradually.
In the introductory poem, the audience's attention is called to the imaginative character of art, in which both the actors and the audience must cooperate to fully "stage" the play's events:
Nicht er ist's, der auf dieser Bühne heut
Erscheinen wird. Doch in den kühnen Schaaren,
Die sein Befehl gewaltig lenkt, sein Geist
Beseelt, wird euch sein Schattenbild begegnen,
Bis ihn die scheue Muse selbst vor euch
Zu stellen wagt in lebender Gestalt,
Denn seine Macht ist's, die sein Herz verführt,
Sein Lager nur erkläret sein Verbrechen....
This might well remind the reader of the narrator of Shakespeare's Henry V:
O pardon, since a crookèd figure may
Attest in little place a million,
And let us, ciphers to this great account,
On your imaginary forces work.
Suppose within the girdle of these walls
Are now confined two mighty monarchies,
Whose high uprearèd and abutting fronts
The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder.
Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts....
This signals what will be one of the great themes of the play, which I interpret as a kind of idealist dramatics. The question of what, ultimately, is real, and what things mean, and how we know, and what the limits of our knowledge actually are, is a question that will be constantly evoked on every level of the play. The introductory poem highlights the imaginal co-construction that brings the dead words to life on the stage, and we move, then, into the events, starting at the outer periphery. Wallenstein's Camp with an itinerant father and a son who are seeking food, and the first spoken lines introduce in miniature the theme of discord between father and son that comprises the crisis of the play:
Bauernknabe: Vater, es wird nicht gut ablaufen,
Bleiben wir von dem Soldatenhaufen.
Sind Euch gar trotzige Kameraden;
Wenn sie uns nur nicht am Leibe schaden.
Despite the boy's warning, into the camp they go, and we get a lively panoramic view of many different residents, including soldiers and mercenaries of different backgrounds and motives. One can only imagine Brecht taking copious notes for his Mutter Courage.
The scene reminds me of the Easter walk sequence of Goethe's Faust I, which similarly paints the portrait of a milieu in a series of lively miniatures. This is one of the numerous ways that Goethe's mighty work, which was published in its complete form only a few years before Wallenstein, left its mark, and seemingly drove Schiller to reach for new heights in his own oeuvre.
By eavesdropping on the soldiers' discussions, the situation is set up for the audience, which learns that Wallenstein has called all his forces to him along with his family, and imperial envoys have been coming and going. The mood is tense, and no one knows what the general's plans are, or if he intends to break with the emperor. But one thing gradually becomes clear: among the rank-and-file, the final loyalty is Wallenstein, not the crown.
The Piccolomini brings us inside the castle walls, where we encounter Wallenstein, his principle captains, and his entourage and family. We remain at arm's length from Wallenstein and only very gradually begin to develop any sense of his personalitya. The mood is one of increasing urgency, and his supporters believe it is critical that Wallenstein make whatever move he is going to make, and soon. The Swedes are drawing near and the emperor is clearly growing ever-mmore suspicious of his motives.
Meanwhile, Wallenstein pushes to prolong making a final decision and devotes himself to reading the signs in the stars, aided by Seni, his astrologer.
The feeling of discomfort increases steadily, along with certain, urgent questions. Why is he delaying? What is he waiting for?
It was initially hard for me to believe that he ever could have been an effective leader, so long does he delay in the critical hour. We gradually learn that he injured his head falling out of a window (a kind of subconscious repetition of the defenestration that began the war?), and has never quite been the same.
Wallenstein himself frames his indecisiveness in extravagent terms, declaring that while lesser men can content themselves with the directives of the earth, he is chosen by history to operate on a higher plane, as it were, and therefore has to take his guidance from the heavens themselves.
There is a great deal of astrological symbology in this play, but I have to confess I do not have a distinct understanding of what it was supposed to convey, exactly. In general terms, it provides a kind of symbolic vocabulary for elaborating on the idealist theme of struggling to understand the meaning of historical moments and events, but to what end, I cannot say with confidence. I learn from the footnotes that the astrologer character was originally intended to be comic, but lost his stock qualities in later drafts. In an exchange of letters with Goethe, they speak of the appeal of astrology in a general way as a kind of extension of the intuition that environmental factors determine the significance of things, and it's not always obvious how far into the cosmos that significance extends, and whether or not we supply it. This, of course, seems to echo the image from the introductory poem of the play being a co-creation of theater and audience.
But I must say that Schiller's use of astrology seems more to raise the question than to shed any light on any possible answer. In a similar way, Wallenstein's remove from the audience as an enigmatic character highlights the historical problem of interpreting who he was and what he was about, but dramatically, the effect is that his personality never comes into focus. Such was the opinion of Ludwig Tieck, at least, who wrote an illuminating critique of the play, and Eckermann and Goethe likewise express that Schiller's intereest in certain philosophical problems at times usurps his attention from the poetic and dramatic effects of the play. It's perhaps understandable that one of the play's great admirers was Hegel, who said in his lectures on aesthetics that the play does an extraordinary job depicting the dialectic of determinacy and indeterminacy.
There is much more to be said about this play - very much more - and this itself is a bit of a problem. The play is huge in every respect, and Schiller did not fully succeed in keeping everything in focus. In my opinion, it is too long (it's easily the longest of his plays), and too crowded for any of its individual elements to land with sufficient force.
That being said, the play does offer a huge amount for its audience to chew on and to admire. It was relentlessly fascinating and sometimes deeply suspenseful, which is not an easy feat for a series of plays that, after all, end with Wallenstein's Death. In many respects, it's the best of the Schiller plays I've read, though dramatically, I would rank it well below Don Carlos and William Tell.
Read
November 18, 2024Trilogy-play about the Thirty Years-War (1618-1648) in the German countries, with the Bohemian Duke Wallenstein as protagonist. It's slowly building up, with part 1 zooming in on the motley collection of mercenaries in the army of Wallenstein, part 2 on the nobles that surround Wallenstein (both loyals and traitors) and part 3 the fall of the duke. As a drama only the final part really captivates, but as a historic recounting of the devastating effect of war, both materially as in terms of human psychology and human lives, it's an interesting document. See the reviews in my general account on Goodreads: for parts 1 and 2: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show..., and for part 3: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
March 27, 2021
Wahrlich ein Meisterwerk, dass ich mit viel Vergnügen las. Immer wieder entdeckte ich Zitate, die ich kannte, ohne sie vorher einordnen zu können. Die Sprache und der Rhythmus des Gedichts sind großartig. Nach der Wallensteinbiografie interessierte mich besonders, wie sich Wallensteins Leben in einem Theaterstück umsetzen lässt und wieviel realer Wallenstein enthalten ist. Schiller interessierte sich wohl schon lange für den Stoff des Aufsteigers, der dann so tief fiel, aber fand erst allmählich zu einer Gestaltung, die zu einer Theateraufführung taugt. Ihm war klar, dass sich Krieg schwer inszenieren lässt und ihm das Wissen darum fehlt, also beschränkt eer sich auf die letzten Lebenstage.
Das Werk besteht aus drei Teilen: „Wallensteins Lager“ vermittelt einen Einblick in die Gesamtsituation in Pilsen, als der Feldherr sich weigert, den Bayern zu Hilfe zu kommen. Mit den wenigen Gesprächen wird klar, wie sehr Wallenstein bei seinen Truppen verehrt wird. Das könnte so ungefähr gewesen sein.
„Die Piccolominis“ zeigen Octavio Piccolomoni, einen lange Weggefährten Wallensteins, der auch in der Historie dem Kaiser von einem angeblichen Verrat Meldung machte, und Max Piccolomoni, dem Sohn Octavios und Geliebten von Wallensteins Tochter. Letzterer ist eine Zutat Schillers, auch wenn Octavio einen Ziehsohn namens Max hatte. Mit künstlerischer Freiheit wurde die Tochter in Thekla umbenannt, aber vor allem Oberst Buttler völlig verändert.
„Wallensteins Tod“ spielt in drei Aufzügen noch in Pilsen, dann zwei Aufzüge in Eger, auch hier nimmt sich Schiller Freiheiten, bleibt aber im großen Rahmen beim tatsächlichen Geschehen.
Das Thema ist unverkennbar das Schicksal, angelehnt an eine antike Tragödie. Wunderbar, wie sich eine ausweglose Situation entwickelt, sich die Schlinge immer fester zieht, ohne dass irgendeine Person das Geschehen voraussieht oder vollständig geplant hätte. Es gibt nicht die „Bösen und die Guten“, nahezu jede Person ist ambivalent dargestellt, ringt mit sich, das Richtige zu tun und kann doch den Strudel der Ereignisse nicht aufhalten. Sehr schön wird die Beeinflussbarkeit der Menschen gezeigt, wie ihre Meinungen sich wandeln oder welche Wirkung kleine Fehler oder selbst auferlegte Pflichten haben können. Mit Verschwörungstheorien lassen sich Menschen eben leicht beeinflussen.
Meine Bewertung betrifft wie immer den persönlichen Lesegenuss. Der litt besonders im 3. Teil an der enormen Länge des Textes. Eine Theateraufführung der Originalfassung soll zehn Stunden dauern! Fast jeder Regisseur kürzt den Text, der an manchen Stellen gekürzt die gleiche Aussage behält. Die eingestreute Liebesgeschichte empfand ich als überflüssig, sie war mir auch zu übertrieben. Klar, dafür gibt es zu Schillers Zeit genügend andere Beispiele, vielleicht erwartete das Publikum, dass man bei Liebeskummer mindestens sterben will, aber ich denke, dass diese Szene im Vergleich zu den anderen im Stück besonders unrealistisch ist.
Letztendlich kann ich „Wallenstein“ aber guten Gewissens empfehlen. Lest doch mal wieder Schiller, er ist erstaunlich zeitgemäß.
Das Werk besteht aus drei Teilen: „Wallensteins Lager“ vermittelt einen Einblick in die Gesamtsituation in Pilsen, als der Feldherr sich weigert, den Bayern zu Hilfe zu kommen. Mit den wenigen Gesprächen wird klar, wie sehr Wallenstein bei seinen Truppen verehrt wird. Das könnte so ungefähr gewesen sein.
„Die Piccolominis“ zeigen Octavio Piccolomoni, einen lange Weggefährten Wallensteins, der auch in der Historie dem Kaiser von einem angeblichen Verrat Meldung machte, und Max Piccolomoni, dem Sohn Octavios und Geliebten von Wallensteins Tochter. Letzterer ist eine Zutat Schillers, auch wenn Octavio einen Ziehsohn namens Max hatte. Mit künstlerischer Freiheit wurde die Tochter in Thekla umbenannt, aber vor allem Oberst Buttler völlig verändert.
„Wallensteins Tod“ spielt in drei Aufzügen noch in Pilsen, dann zwei Aufzüge in Eger, auch hier nimmt sich Schiller Freiheiten, bleibt aber im großen Rahmen beim tatsächlichen Geschehen.
Das Thema ist unverkennbar das Schicksal, angelehnt an eine antike Tragödie. Wunderbar, wie sich eine ausweglose Situation entwickelt, sich die Schlinge immer fester zieht, ohne dass irgendeine Person das Geschehen voraussieht oder vollständig geplant hätte. Es gibt nicht die „Bösen und die Guten“, nahezu jede Person ist ambivalent dargestellt, ringt mit sich, das Richtige zu tun und kann doch den Strudel der Ereignisse nicht aufhalten. Sehr schön wird die Beeinflussbarkeit der Menschen gezeigt, wie ihre Meinungen sich wandeln oder welche Wirkung kleine Fehler oder selbst auferlegte Pflichten haben können. Mit Verschwörungstheorien lassen sich Menschen eben leicht beeinflussen.
Meine Bewertung betrifft wie immer den persönlichen Lesegenuss. Der litt besonders im 3. Teil an der enormen Länge des Textes. Eine Theateraufführung der Originalfassung soll zehn Stunden dauern! Fast jeder Regisseur kürzt den Text, der an manchen Stellen gekürzt die gleiche Aussage behält. Die eingestreute Liebesgeschichte empfand ich als überflüssig, sie war mir auch zu übertrieben. Klar, dafür gibt es zu Schillers Zeit genügend andere Beispiele, vielleicht erwartete das Publikum, dass man bei Liebeskummer mindestens sterben will, aber ich denke, dass diese Szene im Vergleich zu den anderen im Stück besonders unrealistisch ist.
Letztendlich kann ich „Wallenstein“ aber guten Gewissens empfehlen. Lest doch mal wieder Schiller, er ist erstaunlich zeitgemäß.
June 21, 2023
Das Spiel zeigt einen Rückblick in die Geschichte Österreichs zur Zeit der Donaumonarchie unter Kaiser Ferdinand II. Von seinen Kriegserfolgen zum Grössenwahn getrieben versucht der Feldherr
Wallenstein sich in Böhmen eine eigenes Königsreich zu erringen und richtet sich damit gegen den Kaiser auf. Er wird am Ende von, dem Kaiser treuen Offizieren ermorded. Eine kleine tragische Liebesgeschichte ziert die Erzählung .
Namen an die ich mich erinnern möchte: Thekla, Tochter des Wallenstein, Max, Sohn des Octavio Piccolomini.
Sollte ich das Buch wieder einmal lesen ? Ich glaube nicht.
Wallenstein’s Tod (my review in English)
By Friedrich Schiller
"The play depicts a retrospective of Austria's history during the time of the Danube monarchy under Emperor Ferdinand II.
Driven by his military successes to megalomania, the commander Wallenstein tries to establish his own kingdom in Bohemia, thus opposing the emperor.
In the end, he is assassinated by officers loyal to the emperor. A small tragic love story adorns the narrative.
Names I want to remember: Thekla, daughter of Wallenstein, and Max, son of Octavio Piccolomini.
Should I read the book again? I don't think so."
Wallenstein sich in Böhmen eine eigenes Königsreich zu erringen und richtet sich damit gegen den Kaiser auf. Er wird am Ende von, dem Kaiser treuen Offizieren ermorded. Eine kleine tragische Liebesgeschichte ziert die Erzählung .
Namen an die ich mich erinnern möchte: Thekla, Tochter des Wallenstein, Max, Sohn des Octavio Piccolomini.
Sollte ich das Buch wieder einmal lesen ? Ich glaube nicht.
Wallenstein’s Tod (my review in English)
By Friedrich Schiller
"The play depicts a retrospective of Austria's history during the time of the Danube monarchy under Emperor Ferdinand II.
Driven by his military successes to megalomania, the commander Wallenstein tries to establish his own kingdom in Bohemia, thus opposing the emperor.
In the end, he is assassinated by officers loyal to the emperor. A small tragic love story adorns the narrative.
Names I want to remember: Thekla, daughter of Wallenstein, and Max, son of Octavio Piccolomini.
Should I read the book again? I don't think so."
June 14, 2020
2,5 Sterne
Read
May 23, 2025P. 437 - "Fa in fretta la gioventù a parole, in realtà difficili da adoperare come la lama di un coltello; della sua testa calda fa temerariamente la misura delle cose, che sole invece regolano se stesse. Per lei, subito una cosa è infame o degna di rispetto, cattiva o buona... e ciò che l'immaginazione fantasticamente racchiude in questi oscuri termini, essa lo addossa alle cose, alle persone. Tanto angusto è il mondo, quanto ampia la mente. Facilmente convivono i pensieri, ma con violenza nello spazio si scontrano le cose"
June 16, 2016
A dramatic trilogy by Schiller on the legendary German commander Wallenstein, with the last two parts translated (in my edition at least) by the English romantic poet Coleridge . The first play, which is also the shortest, takes place among the troops and helps the audience understand how the men view their leaders--none of the main characters of the play are introduced here. The second play introduces the major characters and has some of the stirring lines that one expects from Schiller. The last part is, I think, the best; it is titled "the death of Wallenstein" and it tells of the conspiracy that leads to the death of the old war hero. In addition to the main story, there is an arc where the son of the leader of the conspirators and Wallenstein's daughter fall in love (just like an Indian movie!).
June 2, 2013
I actually read the Kindle edition translated by Coleridge (well the last two plays).... and could you be in better hands for a poetic translation? Wallenstein, the trilogy, is broken into what amounts to really about 2 and 1/5 plays. The first two were interesting but not particularly moving. The last, however, the Death of Wallenstein, was most, most excellent.
February 16, 2022
Wallenstein is long and profound, but it lacks a bit of a punch. The ending is very strong, and the beginning is quite fun with it's verse, but the middle lacks the punch that would make me say it was a wonderful read. Still a good read, and I hate that I cannot rate it higher, but it just didn't do it for me. Would love to see this acted out though.
December 16, 2019
maybe better as play, than just reading. had problems with the tempo and rhymes. many things are just told, not seen.
May 26, 2021
(lamport trans in the penguin edition with the robbers)
October 20, 2022
Octavio, was sollte das damals?
May 3, 2023
I might be too stupid, but idc.
November 6, 2025
Wallensteins Death is the best out of the three stories. A great finale.
we don't like Illo.
we don't like Illo.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews