What do you think?
Rate this book
Die Räuber
Mit seinem 1781 erschienenen leidenschaftlichen Drama der Selbtstzerstörung einer Familie machte Schiller bei der Uraufführung am Mannheimer Nationaltheater 1782 Sensation. Fortan galt er den Zeitgenossen als ein deutscher Shakespeare. Die Themen und Motive des Sturm-und-Drang-Stücks blieben für Schiller bis zu seinen letzen klassischen Werken verbindlich und haben bis heute nichts von ihrer Faszination verloren.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1781
268 people are currently reading
6572 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 - 30 of 505 reviews
January 2, 2017
ACT I : everybody lies
ACT II : everybody cries
ACT III : everybody fights
ACT IV : everybody panics
ACT V : everybody dies
gotta love German literature
ACT II : everybody cries
ACT III : everybody fights
ACT IV : everybody panics
ACT V : everybody dies
gotta love German literature
September 28, 2023
Начну с того, что эта пьеса имела большое культурное значение, в частности, она вдохновила Пушкина на написание повести “Дубровский”, и действительно, сюжет немного перекликается с шиллеровскими разбойниками в этой повести. Есть шиллеровские мотивы и в произведениях других писателей. Верди написал оперу по мотивам "Разбойников". Сама пьеса, конечно, по тем временам была во вкусе той публики, но сейчас она звучит слишком романтичной, слишком сентиментальной. Магнитная полярность положительных и отрицательных героев с одной стороны выполняет задачи антитезы, но с другой стороны, упрощает коллизию добра и зла. Размашистость реакций Карла, то, как он рубит сплеча, вызывает недоумение. Почему на письмо родителя, пусть и поддельное, об отказе от наследства и благословления обязательно нужно становиться разбойником? Почему бы не измениться и не отказаться от разгульной жизни? Да, сам он грабил не для наживы, более того, отдавал нуждающимся, но члены его шайки не стали бы ничего делать без выгоды. Точно также с современных позиций, да и с позиций, возможно, того времени, из долга чести он убивает возлюбленную Амалию. Карл - сложный и противоречивый персонаж, и толкование его неоднозначно, он бунтарь, борющийся с тиранией и алчущий свободы, но бунтарь заблуждающийся. Он способен на раскаяние, но делает это запоздало. Но надо отметить, что язык Шиллера прекрасен, а идеалы свободы и борьбы за социальную справедливость будут актуальны еще долго.
August 18, 2024
- من المسرحيات الخالدة، ومن افضلها نقداً وفلسفةً ومن اكثرها متعة في القراءة حيث التناوب بين الحب والكره والنبل والوصولية والقيم الاجتماعية والانحلال والدين والالحاد وغيرها من الثنائيات التي استعملها شيللر بمكر وحذاقة.
- تبدأ المسرحية بغيرة بين ابن صغير وابن بكر، وينسجها شيللر على مبدأ الخديعة وردة الفعل، فيتحول النبيل الى لص مع بقاء صفات النبل فيه. اما الٱخر فبعد نسج خطته الشيطانية وفشل ما ظنه سعادته يسقط في النهاية بما جنت يداه.
- ٱماليا، الحبيبة المخلصة والتي بقيت على حبها لكارل ولم يأخذ مكانه احد حتى بعد موته المفترض، كللت تراجيديا حياتها بمشهد ملحمي رهيب.
- النهاية كانت مبتكرة، واقعية ومأساوية ولم يسقط شيللر في فخ النهايات السعيدة الخيالية لكنه انتصر للحق كقيمة مطلقة.
"الإنسانية حشد من التماسيح الزائفة المنافقة! عيون الناس تمتلئ بالدموع وقلوبهم تظل من حديد. قبلات على الشفاه وخنجر ينفذ في الصدر"
- تبدأ المسرحية بغيرة بين ابن صغير وابن بكر، وينسجها شيللر على مبدأ الخديعة وردة الفعل، فيتحول النبيل الى لص مع بقاء صفات النبل فيه. اما الٱخر فبعد نسج خطته الشيطانية وفشل ما ظنه سعادته يسقط في النهاية بما جنت يداه.
" الحياة كلها مكسب للصوص، لأن الٱخرة تهديد مروع لهم"
- ٱماليا، الحبيبة المخلصة والتي بقيت على حبها لكارل ولم يأخذ مكانه احد حتى بعد موته المفترض، كللت تراجيديا حياتها بمشهد ملحمي رهيب.
- النهاية كانت مبتكرة، واقعية ومأساوية ولم يسقط شيللر في فخ النهايات السعيدة الخيالية لكنه انتصر للحق كقيمة مطلقة.
" الأوراق تتساقط من الأشجار وها هو خريفي قد وافى"
March 1, 2019
Hat sich Schiller da etwas zu viel von Shakespeares Macbeth, Hamlet und König Lear abgeschaut? Love it! ♥
March 31, 2023
Did you know that Schiller had to have rotting apples in his desk in order to write? Apparently, they release methane and get you high.
Read
August 3, 2019I wish I had first read this years ago when I was writing my undergraduate dissertation on The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky explicitly has old man Karamazov refer to Dmitri and Ivan as the two sons from the play, a not entirely fair comparison but perhaps the novel is Dostovesky's translation of the family dynamic and the rejection of society from Schiller's play into his own world vision.
Books are invariably in more complex relationships with each other, and I felt if the Karamazovs were looking back at the Moors that they in turn were modelled on Shakespeare's Edmund and Edgar from King Lear.
The other thought that occurred to me was that Max Weber would have liked this - the ersatz brotherhood of the Robber-band as a purely male endeavour which becomes an alternative counter society but one from the first caught up in ideas of violence: Stelle mich vor ein Heer Kerls wie ich, und aus Deutschland soll eine Republik werden gegen die Rom und Sparta Nonnenkloester sein sollen (p.23), not sure quite why one would want to model one's republic on Rome or Sparta, indeed so much violence that the love sub plot becomes impossible rather than allowing a return to a heterosexual model of sociability.
The play - perhaps confirmation bias had the feel of a young writer and promised the melodrama and moustache twirling of popular theatre which then lay in the future.
Books are invariably in more complex relationships with each other, and I felt if the Karamazovs were looking back at the Moors that they in turn were modelled on Shakespeare's Edmund and Edgar from King Lear.
The other thought that occurred to me was that Max Weber would have liked this - the ersatz brotherhood of the Robber-band as a purely male endeavour which becomes an alternative counter society but one from the first caught up in ideas of violence: Stelle mich vor ein Heer Kerls wie ich, und aus Deutschland soll eine Republik werden gegen die Rom und Sparta Nonnenkloester sein sollen (p.23), not sure quite why one would want to model one's republic on Rome or Sparta, indeed so much violence that the love sub plot becomes impossible rather than allowing a return to a heterosexual model of sociability.
The play - perhaps confirmation bias had the feel of a young writer and promised the melodrama and moustache twirling of popular theatre which then lay in the future.
November 6, 2024
Rating 2.5 stars. I can understand why this play was so popular at the time (end of the 18th century): formally it has an incredibly fast rhythm, with a continuous succession of scenes and also quite a bit of action; and in terms of content it focuses on the fundamental theme of freedom and (in)justice. There's also this bohemian aspect of consciously stepping out of injust society. Of course, also the drama of the fratricidal struggle (this is a kind of Cain and Abel story) is very appealing. And the many monologues, in which the main characters indulge in dramatic introspection, give this play a very Shakespearean ‘feel’.
But there is a downside. The story is shaky on all sides; clearly, Schiller was not very concerned with the structure of his play and with the credibility of the plot twists. The female character Amalia also does not really come into its own, drowned as she is in an oversupply of male testosteron. And the excessive pathos, the melodramatic dialogues really are over the top. Thus, all in all, a mixed reading experience. I wonder what impression it makes on stage; is it still being performed?
But there is a downside. The story is shaky on all sides; clearly, Schiller was not very concerned with the structure of his play and with the credibility of the plot twists. The female character Amalia also does not really come into its own, drowned as she is in an oversupply of male testosteron. And the excessive pathos, the melodramatic dialogues really are over the top. Thus, all in all, a mixed reading experience. I wonder what impression it makes on stage; is it still being performed?
December 13, 2018
Nachdem ich die Räuber zu Schulzeit lesen musste, was keinen bleibenden Eindruck hinterlassen hatte, las ich das Schauspiel nun 35 Jahre später nochmals. Das Lesen von Schauspielen hat mich noch nie so gereizt, denn wie der Begriff ja schon sagt, lebt das Werk vom Spielen. Während es in den 80er Jahren in der Provinz schwer war, adhoc ein Drama sich auf der Bühne anzuschauen, hat man heute Dank YouTube ja jederzeit die Möglichkeit, aus verschiedenen Inszenierungen zu wählen. Ich entschied mich für die Aufführung des Thalia Theaters Hamburg aus 2009, las immer einen Akt und schaute mir danach die Umsetzung an. Es war grandios, kraftvoll, mitreißend und vor allem erstaunlich zeitlos. Ich war begeistert.
Ich hatte nicht mehr in Erinnerung, dass das Stück so derb, vulgär und aggressiv ist. Fluchen auf der Bühne, da denkt man gerne an den Götz von Berlichingen, aber dieses Stück von Goethe ist ja echt harmlos dagegen. Vor ein paar Wochen war ich im Schiller-Haus in Weimar und hatte in einem langen Audioguide mich in Leben und Werk eingehört. Schiller war 19 Jahre als er das Stück schrieb. Die Uraufführung in Mannheim 1782 war ein Skandal, das Publikum aufgebracht, Frauen fielen in Ohnmacht. Heutzutage kaum zu glauben, denn irgendwie ist diese Räuber-Posse auch etwas albern und zu Beginn einer Soap Opera ähnlich. Der vom gräflichen Vater geliebte Erstgeborene wird vom jüngeren Bruder verleumdet, der enterbt ihn, der Jüngere bekommt das Schloss, wirft sein Vater bei lebendigem Leib in die Gruft und der Ältere sieht als einziges Lebensmodell nach dem Davonschwimmen aller Felle die Tätigkeit als Räuberhauptmann. Und wie es für ein ordentliches Drama gehört, streben am Ende alle.
Warum finde ich es trotzdem nicht kitschig? Weil Schiller das Räuberleben nicht verherrlicht, denn ganz und gar nicht lustig geht es zu im Räuberwald. Das Freiheitsstreben treibt die Freunde des älteren Bruders (Karl Moor) in den Wald, um eine Gleichverteilung der Güter herbeizuführen. Das Stück zeigte schon vor 230 Jahren, wie der Mensch denkt und handelt, wenn es sich mit aller Macht gegen die Obrigkeit wehrt. Aus einer gut gemeinten Idee wird ein Gemetzel. Karl kann seine Räuber nicht unter Kontrolle bekommen. Zum Widersacher wird Sternburg, der vergewaltigt und mordet und später selbst aus den eigenen Reihen gerichtet wird. Doch Schiller ergötzt sich nicht an der Revolution in dieser Art. Im Grunde sieht man alle Personen des Stücks mit ihren Schwächen scheitern. Karls Freiheitsstreben kostet Unschuldigen das Leben -> Stellt sich selbst der Justiz. Das Machtstreben von Franz, dem Jüngeren, führt zur Verlust des Schlosses und der Stellung -> Selbstmord. Der Vater bevorzugt bei seiner Liebe zu den Kindern einen Sohn -> wird hintergangen und stirbt voller Gram.
Die Idee der Räuber scheitert an ihrer Gewaltbereitschaft. Schiller hat wie Goethe die Gewalt der sieben Jahre später stattfinden Französischen Revolution verurteilt. Damit standen unsere beiden großen deutschen Dichter im Kreis der Literaten recht alleine da. Ich hatte die Räuber immer als einen Aufruf zur Revolution im Sturm und Drang gesehen. Jetzt sehe ich das Stück mit anderen Augen. Wirklich ein Meilenstein der deutschen Literaturgeschichte und vielleicht mal so etwas wie ein bißchen deutscher Shakespeare.
Ich hatte nicht mehr in Erinnerung, dass das Stück so derb, vulgär und aggressiv ist. Fluchen auf der Bühne, da denkt man gerne an den Götz von Berlichingen, aber dieses Stück von Goethe ist ja echt harmlos dagegen. Vor ein paar Wochen war ich im Schiller-Haus in Weimar und hatte in einem langen Audioguide mich in Leben und Werk eingehört. Schiller war 19 Jahre als er das Stück schrieb. Die Uraufführung in Mannheim 1782 war ein Skandal, das Publikum aufgebracht, Frauen fielen in Ohnmacht. Heutzutage kaum zu glauben, denn irgendwie ist diese Räuber-Posse auch etwas albern und zu Beginn einer Soap Opera ähnlich. Der vom gräflichen Vater geliebte Erstgeborene wird vom jüngeren Bruder verleumdet, der enterbt ihn, der Jüngere bekommt das Schloss, wirft sein Vater bei lebendigem Leib in die Gruft und der Ältere sieht als einziges Lebensmodell nach dem Davonschwimmen aller Felle die Tätigkeit als Räuberhauptmann. Und wie es für ein ordentliches Drama gehört, streben am Ende alle.
Warum finde ich es trotzdem nicht kitschig? Weil Schiller das Räuberleben nicht verherrlicht, denn ganz und gar nicht lustig geht es zu im Räuberwald. Das Freiheitsstreben treibt die Freunde des älteren Bruders (Karl Moor) in den Wald, um eine Gleichverteilung der Güter herbeizuführen. Das Stück zeigte schon vor 230 Jahren, wie der Mensch denkt und handelt, wenn es sich mit aller Macht gegen die Obrigkeit wehrt. Aus einer gut gemeinten Idee wird ein Gemetzel. Karl kann seine Räuber nicht unter Kontrolle bekommen. Zum Widersacher wird Sternburg, der vergewaltigt und mordet und später selbst aus den eigenen Reihen gerichtet wird. Doch Schiller ergötzt sich nicht an der Revolution in dieser Art. Im Grunde sieht man alle Personen des Stücks mit ihren Schwächen scheitern. Karls Freiheitsstreben kostet Unschuldigen das Leben -> Stellt sich selbst der Justiz. Das Machtstreben von Franz, dem Jüngeren, führt zur Verlust des Schlosses und der Stellung -> Selbstmord. Der Vater bevorzugt bei seiner Liebe zu den Kindern einen Sohn -> wird hintergangen und stirbt voller Gram.
Die Idee der Räuber scheitert an ihrer Gewaltbereitschaft. Schiller hat wie Goethe die Gewalt der sieben Jahre später stattfinden Französischen Revolution verurteilt. Damit standen unsere beiden großen deutschen Dichter im Kreis der Literaten recht alleine da. Ich hatte die Räuber immer als einen Aufruf zur Revolution im Sturm und Drang gesehen. Jetzt sehe ich das Stück mit anderen Augen. Wirklich ein Meilenstein der deutschen Literaturgeschichte und vielleicht mal so etwas wie ein bißchen deutscher Shakespeare.
March 26, 2024
4,5 Sterne
Wow, das Schauspiel hat mich wirklich positiv überrascht! Ich fand das sehr spannend und gerade der letzte Teil war sehr emotional. Es gab ein Charakter, den ich wirklich gehasst habe, abgrundtief. Und passiert nicht oft, dass ich so wütend werde auf ein Charakter. Das Ende hat mich dafür komplett fertig gemacht. 😭
Wow, das Schauspiel hat mich wirklich positiv überrascht! Ich fand das sehr spannend und gerade der letzte Teil war sehr emotional. Es gab ein Charakter, den ich wirklich gehasst habe, abgrundtief. Und passiert nicht oft, dass ich so wütend werde auf ein Charakter. Das Ende hat mich dafür komplett fertig gemacht. 😭
July 20, 2020
Gde god bacite pogled, neka velika tema.
Ovaj tajfun Sturm und Drang-a: klobučećih strasti, (samo)destrukcije, izmičućeg smisla, borbe i nedohvatljivih proviđenja, predstavlja bombu melodramatičnosti. Njena eksplozija donosi i estetski efekat i mnogo žrtava.
A ako hoćemo da siđemo samo sprat niže, možemo dramu čitati i kroz prizmu zavodljivosti zla (ko sve nije pisao o banalnosti zla), predodređenosti (pravdi, pravednosti, porodičnim ulogama i razdoru), ili čak, što je meni bilo sasvim iznenađujuće – sagledavanja čoveka kao anomalije prirode! Izuzetni su preispoljni Karlovi lamenti u kojima želi da se vrati u majčinu utrobu jer je primećuje provaliju između grešnog sebe i prelepog sveta – „A ja sam tako ružan usred tog lijepog svijeta, a ja sam nakaza na toj divnoj zemlji.” (Posebno valja obratiti pažnju na preslikavanja prirode i ljudskog pogleda u Amalijinom monologu u IV činu. To što se dešava sa imaginiranjem prirode u romantizmu je čudo jedno!)
Koju repliku pre, Karl će primetiti zalazak sunca koje umire kao junak i ispriča Grimu kako je kao dete želeo da živi i mre baš kao sunce. Čitam i moždane sinapse me katapultiraju Đuri Jakšiću i pesmi „Veče”, koju je svaki srpski školarac morao makar jednom da pročita. I pomislim da je to jedan usamljeni detalj, plod moje čitalačke volje koja uvek želi da vidi više nego čega stvarno ima, kad, cap! još jedna, nimalo suptilna paralela sa srpskom književnošću. Momenat prerušenog Karla i odnosa sa Aurelijom, detalji sa prepoznavanjem glasa, čitav motiv povratka izuzetno je srodan tragediji Laze Kostića „Maksim Crnojević”. Ova veza je toliko očita da me je malko sramota što je nisam zapazio ranije. I inače, mislim da je nemačka književnost uticala na srpsku mnogo više nego što bi mnogi želeli to sebi da priznaju. I to ne u smislu podražavanja, već žive komunikacije.
Šiler, opet, mnoge monologe oblikuje kao oživljavanje prepoznatljivih momenata Šekspirovih drama. I ta veza je više nego očita – Francov samosažaljiv ton (proklinjanje sopstvenog laplandskog nosa, crnačkih ustiju i hotentotskih očiju) i krčkanje zla kao iz „Ričarda III” i Karlov biti-ili-ne-biti sa pištoljem.
Suprotno klasicističkom perfekcionizmu ili Čehovljeve puške, Šiler nije rob detalja sopstvene drame, a često mu se omaknu i krupne greške, poput one vezane za vremenski sled – nekoliko puta se za sasvim kratko vreme na sceni smrkava, razdanjuje, a likovi ponekad ne znaju da su bili tamo gde jesu (poput sluge Danijela). Međutim, ovo nipošto nisu nedostaci drame, već su sasvim logičan produžetak dramske bujice, u kojoj ne stradaju samo likovi već i činjenice.
Miodrag Loma je jednom prilikom rekao, gotovo usputno, kako je sve što je Dostojevski napisao šilerovština. I nisam mu verovao.
Sada, kada vidim kako Franc u očajanju stenje kako ne želi da bude besmrtan, kako je iluzorno ulepšati svet (i to, nota bene, ulepšati zločinom!) i kako duh sudeluje sa svim slabostima tela, vidim koliko nisam u pravu.
I zato samo tri, najočitije veze:
Braća Karamazovi – Braća Mor
Zločin i kazna – Razbojnici (i posledice)
Idiot – ulepšavanje sveta
Ovaj tajfun Sturm und Drang-a: klobučećih strasti, (samo)destrukcije, izmičućeg smisla, borbe i nedohvatljivih proviđenja, predstavlja bombu melodramatičnosti. Njena eksplozija donosi i estetski efekat i mnogo žrtava.
A ako hoćemo da siđemo samo sprat niže, možemo dramu čitati i kroz prizmu zavodljivosti zla (ko sve nije pisao o banalnosti zla), predodređenosti (pravdi, pravednosti, porodičnim ulogama i razdoru), ili čak, što je meni bilo sasvim iznenađujuće – sagledavanja čoveka kao anomalije prirode! Izuzetni su preispoljni Karlovi lamenti u kojima želi da se vrati u majčinu utrobu jer je primećuje provaliju između grešnog sebe i prelepog sveta – „A ja sam tako ružan usred tog lijepog svijeta, a ja sam nakaza na toj divnoj zemlji.” (Posebno valja obratiti pažnju na preslikavanja prirode i ljudskog pogleda u Amalijinom monologu u IV činu. To što se dešava sa imaginiranjem prirode u romantizmu je čudo jedno!)
Koju repliku pre, Karl će primetiti zalazak sunca koje umire kao junak i ispriča Grimu kako je kao dete želeo da živi i mre baš kao sunce. Čitam i moždane sinapse me katapultiraju Đuri Jakšiću i pesmi „Veče”, koju je svaki srpski školarac morao makar jednom da pročita. I pomislim da je to jedan usamljeni detalj, plod moje čitalačke volje koja uvek želi da vidi više nego čega stvarno ima, kad, cap! još jedna, nimalo suptilna paralela sa srpskom književnošću. Momenat prerušenog Karla i odnosa sa Aurelijom, detalji sa prepoznavanjem glasa, čitav motiv povratka izuzetno je srodan tragediji Laze Kostića „Maksim Crnojević”. Ova veza je toliko očita da me je malko sramota što je nisam zapazio ranije. I inače, mislim da je nemačka književnost uticala na srpsku mnogo više nego što bi mnogi želeli to sebi da priznaju. I to ne u smislu podražavanja, već žive komunikacije.
Šiler, opet, mnoge monologe oblikuje kao oživljavanje prepoznatljivih momenata Šekspirovih drama. I ta veza je više nego očita – Francov samosažaljiv ton (proklinjanje sopstvenog laplandskog nosa, crnačkih ustiju i hotentotskih očiju) i krčkanje zla kao iz „Ričarda III” i Karlov biti-ili-ne-biti sa pištoljem.
Suprotno klasicističkom perfekcionizmu ili Čehovljeve puške, Šiler nije rob detalja sopstvene drame, a često mu se omaknu i krupne greške, poput one vezane za vremenski sled – nekoliko puta se za sasvim kratko vreme na sceni smrkava, razdanjuje, a likovi ponekad ne znaju da su bili tamo gde jesu (poput sluge Danijela). Međutim, ovo nipošto nisu nedostaci drame, već su sasvim logičan produžetak dramske bujice, u kojoj ne stradaju samo likovi već i činjenice.
Miodrag Loma je jednom prilikom rekao, gotovo usputno, kako je sve što je Dostojevski napisao šilerovština. I nisam mu verovao.
Sada, kada vidim kako Franc u očajanju stenje kako ne želi da bude besmrtan, kako je iluzorno ulepšati svet (i to, nota bene, ulepšati zločinom!) i kako duh sudeluje sa svim slabostima tela, vidim koliko nisam u pravu.
I zato samo tri, najočitije veze:
Braća Karamazovi – Braća Mor
Zločin i kazna – Razbojnici (i posledice)
Idiot – ulepšavanje sveta
Read
October 19, 2022digga, was soll man dazu sagen !?
der urgroßvater aller plot twists …
der urgroßvater aller plot twists …
June 17, 2019
Ich kann es immer noch nicht leiden - Wer hätte es gedacht?
April 15, 2023
warum liest man sowas
March 26, 2021
i hated every single minute of this... school literature...
September 13, 2023
"Die Räuber" ist ein Drama von Friedrich Schiller, das erstmals 1782 veröffentlicht wurde. Es handelt von den beiden Brüdern Karl und Franz Moor, die sich wegen ihres Erbes und ihrer Liebe zu Amalia bekämpfen.
Karl, der jüngere Bruder, wird zum Anführer einer Gruppe von Räubern, während Franz zum Grafen und Vormund der Familie wird.
Das Stück behandelt Themen wie Macht, Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit und zeigt, wie die Charaktere mit diesen Themen umgehen.
"Die Räuber" war ein großer Erfolg für Schiller und half ihm, als Schriftsteller bekannt zu werden. Es ist ein wichtiger Beitrag zur deutschen Literatur und gilt als eines der bedeutendsten Werke der Sturm und Drang-Bewegung.
Manchmal etwas undurchsichtig, aber sehr original.
Karl, der jüngere Bruder, wird zum Anführer einer Gruppe von Räubern, während Franz zum Grafen und Vormund der Familie wird.
Das Stück behandelt Themen wie Macht, Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit und zeigt, wie die Charaktere mit diesen Themen umgehen.
"Die Räuber" war ein großer Erfolg für Schiller und half ihm, als Schriftsteller bekannt zu werden. Es ist ein wichtiger Beitrag zur deutschen Literatur und gilt als eines der bedeutendsten Werke der Sturm und Drang-Bewegung.
Manchmal etwas undurchsichtig, aber sehr original.
May 16, 2023
بحب المسرح وبحب فكرة إنه أبو الفنون وبحب كل الآباء الروحيين للمسرح مثل تشيخوف وهنرك ابسن وفيشلر وشكسبير وبيتر بروك... بقرأ بنهم المونولوجات اللي بختصر فيها الكاتب العبقري مئات الأفكار والأسئلة،،،،، بشكل عام بحب أي فن بقدر يختزل الكلام الكثير بكلمات قليلة ومباشرة مثل الشعر والمسرح وبشوف إنه المسرح بتفوق على الشعر بقدرته على بناء الحوارات يعني بطرح الرأي والرأي الآخر على عكس الشعر اللي بفرض على القارئ تقبل وجهة نظره لوحده بدون ما يكون في حد يخالفه أو يرد عليه...
الشيء المميز الآخر في الفن المسرحي هو المكان اللي ممكن يكون صغير جداً وبسيط وخالي من الأدوات والبهرجة والألوان وهالشي بخليك تركز على الكلمات والأفكار بس... الزمان والمكان من العناصر اللي ممكن تغطي على ضعف النص وتلفت انتباه المشاهد أو القارئ لأشياء أخرى بعيدة عن صلب الحدث وتطوره...
هاي المسرحية فيها حوارات ومونولوجات عظيمة وعبقرية وعميقة وسابقة لعصرها والشخصيات بتطرح مواضيع وجودية وإنسانية وإجتماعية حساسة مثل الحرية والطمع والجشع والغيرة بين الأخوة اللي حاول واحد منهم يخفي أخوه ويصوره إنه شرير وبالآخر زور موته ورسائله عشان أبوه يكرهه ويرث هو كل ممتلكاته ويحاول يتقرب من حبيبة أخوه بعد ما شوه صورته وحاول يلغي ذكره ووجوده...
بواحد من الحوارات بنتقد كارل النظام الإجتماعي القائم وبتهمه إنه بحد من قدراته وبثبط مواهبه وطموحاته وبقول:يريدون ارغامي على ضغط بدني في قماط، وإرادتي في قوانين، لقد أفسد القانون كل شيء بأن فرض خطوة الحلزون على من كان يستطيع أن يطير كالنسر، ان القانون لم يكون بعد رجلاً عظيماً، بينما الحرية تكون عمالقة وكائنات خارقة للعادة...
المسرح بحتاج لمؤدين وممثلين بارعين جداً لإنه جزء كبير من إظهار قوة الكلمات ومعناها بقع على عاتقه خاصة في المشاهد التراجيدية أو السريالية أو المليانة حزن أو حب، لازم يجبر المشاهد على التفاعل معه لهيك الفنان المسرحي مش زي أي فنان آخر لإنه بمثل مباشرة قدام الجمهور وتعابير وجهه وحركاته هي أدواته الإبداعية الوحيدة قدام الأشخاص اللي ما بفصل بينهم سوى عدة أمتار...
الشيء المميز الآخر في الفن المسرحي هو المكان اللي ممكن يكون صغير جداً وبسيط وخالي من الأدوات والبهرجة والألوان وهالشي بخليك تركز على الكلمات والأفكار بس... الزمان والمكان من العناصر اللي ممكن تغطي على ضعف النص وتلفت انتباه المشاهد أو القارئ لأشياء أخرى بعيدة عن صلب الحدث وتطوره...
هاي المسرحية فيها حوارات ومونولوجات عظيمة وعبقرية وعميقة وسابقة لعصرها والشخصيات بتطرح مواضيع وجودية وإنسانية وإجتماعية حساسة مثل الحرية والطمع والجشع والغيرة بين الأخوة اللي حاول واحد منهم يخفي أخوه ويصوره إنه شرير وبالآخر زور موته ورسائله عشان أبوه يكرهه ويرث هو كل ممتلكاته ويحاول يتقرب من حبيبة أخوه بعد ما شوه صورته وحاول يلغي ذكره ووجوده...
بواحد من الحوارات بنتقد كارل النظام الإجتماعي القائم وبتهمه إنه بحد من قدراته وبثبط مواهبه وطموحاته وبقول:يريدون ارغامي على ضغط بدني في قماط، وإرادتي في قوانين، لقد أفسد القانون كل شيء بأن فرض خطوة الحلزون على من كان يستطيع أن يطير كالنسر، ان القانون لم يكون بعد رجلاً عظيماً، بينما الحرية تكون عمالقة وكائنات خارقة للعادة...
المسرح بحتاج لمؤدين وممثلين بارعين جداً لإنه جزء كبير من إظهار قوة الكلمات ومعناها بقع على عاتقه خاصة في المشاهد التراجيدية أو السريالية أو المليانة حزن أو حب، لازم يجبر المشاهد على التفاعل معه لهيك الفنان المسرحي مش زي أي فنان آخر لإنه بمثل مباشرة قدام الجمهور وتعابير وجهه وحركاته هي أدواته الإبداعية الوحيدة قدام الأشخاص اللي ما بفصل بينهم سوى عدة أمتار...
December 1, 2014
‘The Robbers’ by Friedrich Schiller was first published in 1781. Is it the earliest German book that I have ever read? Possibly. I first got to know about it when I read the book ‘German Literature : A Very Short Introduction’ by Nicholas Boyle. This is what Boyle says about Schiller’s play :
“a rebellious schoolboy in Stuttgart, Friedrich Schiller, began drafting the definitive treatment of the theme, his first play, ‘The Robbers’, which took the reading public by storm on its publication in 1781, and reduced its audience to sobs and swoons when it was first performed the following year.”
“A modern, international audience can still be gripped by the story of Karl and his band, a prescient analysis of the logic of self-righteous terrorism in a moral void. The huge success of the play in Germany in its own time and subsequently was no doubt due to the ferocity with which it dramatized the conflict between the two value systems available to the middle class in its struggle against princely rule – self-interested materialism or university-educated idealism – while it left prudently unassailed the structure of power itself.”
“…Schiller focused, with the penetrating clarity of a born dramatist, on the political and moral fault-lines in his contemporary society. With ‘The Robbers’ an independent modern German literary tradition begins.”
How can you resist a description like that? Since I read that, I have wanted to read ‘The Robbers’. I managed to squeeze it in yesterday, on the last day of this year’s German Literature Month. Here is what I think.
‘The Robbers’ is about two brothers Karl and Franz. Karl is the eldest son and so is the natural heir to his father’s estates. Their father loves Karl. Everyone does. Karl is also engaged to a beautiful woman called Amalia. Franz resents this. He resents everything that Karl has, but which he desires. He covets his father’s name and estates. He wants to win the hand of Amalia. So, he plots against Karl. Karl himself seems to aid that venture. While he is away from home, he gets into debt and runs away from the law. Franz uses that and convinces his father to disinherit Karl. Karl has plans of coming back home and hopes that his father will forgive him for his indiscretions. But when he receives the letter from his brother Franz stating that his father has disinherited him, he is hurt and angry. And before he knows what he is doing, he joins with his companions and starts a band of robbers and becomes a fugitive who is hunted by the law. Franz meanwhile continues with his nefarious plots – he wants his father, the elderly Count, to die, so that he can take over the estates, but the Count, eventhough feeble, has a sound constitution. Using psychological threats and false news that his son Karl has died in a battle, Franz upsets the Count immeasurably that the Count dies in a shock. Franz takes over his father’s name and estates. The household staff serves him loyally. However, his plans to win Amalia come to naught. Amalia spurns his advances and decides to be faithful to her supposedly dead fiancé Karl. Meanwhile, Karl, as the head of his band of robbers, has adventures that robbers have. He saves one of his band members from near certain death and while saving him, burns down the whole town. Karl, though he is a robber, is noble. He doesn’t want any money for himself and helps poor people in need. He is a robber – he kills, he burns – but he is also kind. One day he hears some news about Amalia and comes to his father’s castle in disguise. There he discovers the truth about how Franz was responsible for his father’s death and how Franz usurped his rightful inheritance. Karl is wild with anger.
What happens next? Does Karl exact revenge? What happens to Franz? Does he reach the end that is reserved for all villains? Do Karl and Amalia get married? What happens to the band of robbers? The answers to these questions form the rest of the story.
There were many things that I liked about ‘The Robbers’. The first thing I liked was the way the characters of Karl and Franz were portrayed. Karl, though he is the noble hero, is also a robber. Schiller doesn’t shy away from portraying that part of Karl’s personality. Karl robs people, kills them, burns houses and towns. Schiller doesn’t condone that. So, we see two sides of Karl – the noble kind side and the ruthless robber side. Karl is not a traditional, hero, but a complex character. Franz, the villain, is quite complex too. He is an atheist and a materialist. Though I didn’t him much – it is hard to like a villain – I loved many of the lines that he spoke. They were insightful and profound. My favourite lines were a soliloquy by him :
Francis (soliloquy) : “…he is thy father! He gave thee life, thou art his flesh and blood – and therefore he must be sacred to thee! Again a most inconsequential deduction! I should like to know why he begot me; certainly not out of love for me – for I must first have existed.”
“Could he know me before I had being, or did he think of me during my begetting? Or did he wish for me at the moment? Did he know what I should be? If so I would not advise him to acknowledge it or I should pay him off for his feat. Am I to be thankful to him that I am a man? As little as I should have had a right to blame him if he had made me a woman. Can I acknowledge an affection which is not based on any personal regard? Could personal regard be present before the existence of its object? In what, then consists the sacredness of paternity?”
“Is it in the act itself out of which existence arose? As though this were aught else than an animal process to appease animal desires. Or does it lie, perhaps, in the result of this act, which is nothing more after all than one of iron necessity, and which men would gladly dispense with, were it not at the cost of flesh and blood? Do I then owe him thanks for his affection? Why, what is it but a piece of vanity, the besetting sin of the artist who admires his own works, however hideous they may be? Look you, this is the whole juggle wrapped up in a mystic veil to work on our fears. And, shall I, too be fooled like an infant?”
It made me remember those famous lines from ‘Paradise Lost’ which Mary Shelley quotes in the first pages of ‘Frankenstein’ – “Did I request thee maker, from my clay, to mould me man? Did I solicit thee from darkness to promote me?”
Franz was a villain, but he was also intelligent, smart and philosophical, like the best of them are.
The next passage is probably spoiler-ish, and so if you are planning to read the play, please be sufficiently forewarned.
One more thing I liked about the story was the internal conflict that Karl undergoes towards the end of the story, when he has to choose between his band of robbers who have sworn loyalty to him and his sweetheart Amalia. I have seen this scene in countless movies, but I think Schiller probably was the first to write this scene. So three cheers to him.
There were two surprises at the end of the story. One of them was unexpected but in a nice way. The second one was also unexpected but it was not-so-nice and I felt that it was not required. It just had shock value and I was upset with Schiller for doing that.
The ending of the story is interesting – not the regular good-guys-win-and-the-bad-guys-die kind of ending, but one which is more complex than that.
One word on the translation. One of the things I hated about the translation I read was that Karl was called ‘Charles’ and Franz was called ‘Francis’. Really? Is that anglification of characters’ names really necessary? What were you thinking, my dear Mr.Translator??
I enjoyed reading ‘The Robbers’. I am happy that I have finally been able to read one of the great landmark plays of German literature. By that born dramatist of penetrating clarity, Friedrich Schiller :) I would like to read some of his poems and his essays on aesthetics some day.
I will leave you with one of my favourite passages from the play. This one is spoken by Karl to Schwarz, one of his robber companions.
Karl (to Schwarz) : “Why should man prosper in that which he has in common with the ant, while he fails in that which places him on a level with the gods. Or is this the aim and limit of his destiny?”
“Brother, I have looked at men, their insect cares and their giant projects, - their god-like plans and mouse-like occupations, their intensely eager race after happiness - one trusting to the fleetness of his horse, - another to the nose of his ass, - a third to his own legs; this checkered lottery of life, in which so many stake their innocence and their leaven to snatch a prize, and, - blanks are all they draw - for they find, too late, that there was no prize in the wheel. It is a drama, brother, enough to bring tears into your eyes, while it shakes your side with laughter.”
Have you read Schiller’s ‘The Robbers’? What do you think about it?
“a rebellious schoolboy in Stuttgart, Friedrich Schiller, began drafting the definitive treatment of the theme, his first play, ‘The Robbers’, which took the reading public by storm on its publication in 1781, and reduced its audience to sobs and swoons when it was first performed the following year.”
“A modern, international audience can still be gripped by the story of Karl and his band, a prescient analysis of the logic of self-righteous terrorism in a moral void. The huge success of the play in Germany in its own time and subsequently was no doubt due to the ferocity with which it dramatized the conflict between the two value systems available to the middle class in its struggle against princely rule – self-interested materialism or university-educated idealism – while it left prudently unassailed the structure of power itself.”
“…Schiller focused, with the penetrating clarity of a born dramatist, on the political and moral fault-lines in his contemporary society. With ‘The Robbers’ an independent modern German literary tradition begins.”
How can you resist a description like that? Since I read that, I have wanted to read ‘The Robbers’. I managed to squeeze it in yesterday, on the last day of this year’s German Literature Month. Here is what I think.
‘The Robbers’ is about two brothers Karl and Franz. Karl is the eldest son and so is the natural heir to his father’s estates. Their father loves Karl. Everyone does. Karl is also engaged to a beautiful woman called Amalia. Franz resents this. He resents everything that Karl has, but which he desires. He covets his father’s name and estates. He wants to win the hand of Amalia. So, he plots against Karl. Karl himself seems to aid that venture. While he is away from home, he gets into debt and runs away from the law. Franz uses that and convinces his father to disinherit Karl. Karl has plans of coming back home and hopes that his father will forgive him for his indiscretions. But when he receives the letter from his brother Franz stating that his father has disinherited him, he is hurt and angry. And before he knows what he is doing, he joins with his companions and starts a band of robbers and becomes a fugitive who is hunted by the law. Franz meanwhile continues with his nefarious plots – he wants his father, the elderly Count, to die, so that he can take over the estates, but the Count, eventhough feeble, has a sound constitution. Using psychological threats and false news that his son Karl has died in a battle, Franz upsets the Count immeasurably that the Count dies in a shock. Franz takes over his father’s name and estates. The household staff serves him loyally. However, his plans to win Amalia come to naught. Amalia spurns his advances and decides to be faithful to her supposedly dead fiancé Karl. Meanwhile, Karl, as the head of his band of robbers, has adventures that robbers have. He saves one of his band members from near certain death and while saving him, burns down the whole town. Karl, though he is a robber, is noble. He doesn’t want any money for himself and helps poor people in need. He is a robber – he kills, he burns – but he is also kind. One day he hears some news about Amalia and comes to his father’s castle in disguise. There he discovers the truth about how Franz was responsible for his father’s death and how Franz usurped his rightful inheritance. Karl is wild with anger.
What happens next? Does Karl exact revenge? What happens to Franz? Does he reach the end that is reserved for all villains? Do Karl and Amalia get married? What happens to the band of robbers? The answers to these questions form the rest of the story.
There were many things that I liked about ‘The Robbers’. The first thing I liked was the way the characters of Karl and Franz were portrayed. Karl, though he is the noble hero, is also a robber. Schiller doesn’t shy away from portraying that part of Karl’s personality. Karl robs people, kills them, burns houses and towns. Schiller doesn’t condone that. So, we see two sides of Karl – the noble kind side and the ruthless robber side. Karl is not a traditional, hero, but a complex character. Franz, the villain, is quite complex too. He is an atheist and a materialist. Though I didn’t him much – it is hard to like a villain – I loved many of the lines that he spoke. They were insightful and profound. My favourite lines were a soliloquy by him :
Francis (soliloquy) : “…he is thy father! He gave thee life, thou art his flesh and blood – and therefore he must be sacred to thee! Again a most inconsequential deduction! I should like to know why he begot me; certainly not out of love for me – for I must first have existed.”
“Could he know me before I had being, or did he think of me during my begetting? Or did he wish for me at the moment? Did he know what I should be? If so I would not advise him to acknowledge it or I should pay him off for his feat. Am I to be thankful to him that I am a man? As little as I should have had a right to blame him if he had made me a woman. Can I acknowledge an affection which is not based on any personal regard? Could personal regard be present before the existence of its object? In what, then consists the sacredness of paternity?”
“Is it in the act itself out of which existence arose? As though this were aught else than an animal process to appease animal desires. Or does it lie, perhaps, in the result of this act, which is nothing more after all than one of iron necessity, and which men would gladly dispense with, were it not at the cost of flesh and blood? Do I then owe him thanks for his affection? Why, what is it but a piece of vanity, the besetting sin of the artist who admires his own works, however hideous they may be? Look you, this is the whole juggle wrapped up in a mystic veil to work on our fears. And, shall I, too be fooled like an infant?”
It made me remember those famous lines from ‘Paradise Lost’ which Mary Shelley quotes in the first pages of ‘Frankenstein’ – “Did I request thee maker, from my clay, to mould me man? Did I solicit thee from darkness to promote me?”
Franz was a villain, but he was also intelligent, smart and philosophical, like the best of them are.
The next passage is probably spoiler-ish, and so if you are planning to read the play, please be sufficiently forewarned.
One more thing I liked about the story was the internal conflict that Karl undergoes towards the end of the story, when he has to choose between his band of robbers who have sworn loyalty to him and his sweetheart Amalia. I have seen this scene in countless movies, but I think Schiller probably was the first to write this scene. So three cheers to him.
There were two surprises at the end of the story. One of them was unexpected but in a nice way. The second one was also unexpected but it was not-so-nice and I felt that it was not required. It just had shock value and I was upset with Schiller for doing that.
The ending of the story is interesting – not the regular good-guys-win-and-the-bad-guys-die kind of ending, but one which is more complex than that.
One word on the translation. One of the things I hated about the translation I read was that Karl was called ‘Charles’ and Franz was called ‘Francis’. Really? Is that anglification of characters’ names really necessary? What were you thinking, my dear Mr.Translator??
I enjoyed reading ‘The Robbers’. I am happy that I have finally been able to read one of the great landmark plays of German literature. By that born dramatist of penetrating clarity, Friedrich Schiller :) I would like to read some of his poems and his essays on aesthetics some day.
I will leave you with one of my favourite passages from the play. This one is spoken by Karl to Schwarz, one of his robber companions.
Karl (to Schwarz) : “Why should man prosper in that which he has in common with the ant, while he fails in that which places him on a level with the gods. Or is this the aim and limit of his destiny?”
“Brother, I have looked at men, their insect cares and their giant projects, - their god-like plans and mouse-like occupations, their intensely eager race after happiness - one trusting to the fleetness of his horse, - another to the nose of his ass, - a third to his own legs; this checkered lottery of life, in which so many stake their innocence and their leaven to snatch a prize, and, - blanks are all they draw - for they find, too late, that there was no prize in the wheel. It is a drama, brother, enough to bring tears into your eyes, while it shakes your side with laughter.”
Have you read Schiller’s ‘The Robbers’? What do you think about it?
April 13, 2022
"Los ladrones no pueden caer como los héroes"
Me gustó mucho esta cuidada edición que hizo Cátedra de la obra "Los bandidos". Esta obra de Schiller está inscrita en una etapa tardía del movimiento Sturm und Drang y se considera la primera pieza dramática del autor quien muy joven tuvo toda una odisea para poder publicarla y sobre todo estrenarla.
Las modificaciones que se realizaron para la puesta en escena fueron bastante importantes y creo toda esta odisea es un gran ejemplo de interacción dramaturgo - director. Los apéndices de esta edición permiten profundizar en este aspecto. La editorial Cátedra aclara que la edición que han usado es la origina la que Schiller realizó bastante larga y más para ser leída que para ser representada en un teatro.
La historia empieza cuando se nos cuenta el destino de los hijos de Maximilian, el viejo conde de Moor quien es dueño de muchas tierras y también desde luego de vasallos y familias. Franz viene a ser el hijo que está en la casa paterna pero tiene un carácter bastante malévolo, hipócrita y vil. Considerándose feo y de poca gracia anhela tener lo que le correspondería a su hermano mayor Karl. Para ello urde un plan para que su padre se separe y reniegue definitivamente de él.
"iMaldita sea la estulticia de nuestras no drizas y niñeras que corrompen nuestra fantasía con cuentos terribles y graban imágenes temibles de tribunales en nuestra blanda médula cerebral que hacen que escalofrios espontáneos estremezcan los miembros del hombre en miedo glacial, que bloquean nuestra tenacidad más osada, gue encadenan nuestra razón lúcida a la oscuridad supersticiosa..."
Karl ha huido de la familia para hacer una vida pródiga en fiestas y mujeres. Para ello cuenta con su pandilla de amigos como Spiegelberg, Schweizer, Grimm, Razzman, Schwars, Roller y otros más. Durante conversaciones con ellos en los cuales se ve el desprecio que siente Karl por la sociedad de ahora (pues él está encantado leyendo a Plutarco y recordando las hazañas de héroes anteriores) uno de ellos le sugiere la idea de ser "amo y señor" y dejar de ser siervos o mendigando cosas. Para ello hablan de volverse bandidos y poder robar a los más ricos y tener las mejores fiestas de ahora en adelante. Justo en ese momento llega una carta de la casa paterna donde Karl se ve despojado de su herencia e incluso de su nombre. Esto lleva al joven a tomar la decisión de abandonarse por fin del todo y volverse un peligroso bandido. Jurará lealtad eterna a aquellos sus amigos ahora ladrones quienes lo nombran su capitán.
En casa Karl ha dejado a Amalia von Edelreich, una joven fiel y modesta quien no siendo aristócrata tuvo una relación romántica con él. El malvado de Franz desea además de la posesión de la casa tenerla a ella como esposa y Amalia será la imagen de la mujer que espera y ama sin límites al hombre aparentemente perdido.
Los primeros dos actos son relativamente lentos si bien te explican bien y afianzan la idea de libertinaje que tiene Karl y los sentimientos oscuros de Franz. de ahí para adelante la obra se ve que despega ya mucho mejor con mucha acción de por medio.
"Pobre de mí, que creí erróneamente embellecer el mundo por medio de la atrocidad y mantener las leyes con la anarquía. Yo lo llamaba venganza y derecho"
Hay temas interesantes como la religión, la insatisfacción con la sociedad que se vive, la comunión que se da en una horda de bandidos a pesar de todo, de la ruindad y la cobardía. Personalmente no todo el desarrollo me gustó y algunas decisiones finales no fueron de mi agrado. Claro que esta manera de ver las cosas es debido a la experiencia que tengo con haber leído muchas obras de teatro y considero algunos "exabruptos" en las acciones de Schiller tal como me pareció en otra obra suya "La doncella de Orleans" . Es, desde luego, un punto de vista personal. Algunas escenas también me parecieron un poco declamatorias excesivamente aunque tiene también algunas buenas frases.
"Todo vive para volver tristemente a morir. Solo nos interesamos, solo ganamos para volver a perderlo con dolor"
Me gustó mucho esta cuidada edición que hizo Cátedra de la obra "Los bandidos". Esta obra de Schiller está inscrita en una etapa tardía del movimiento Sturm und Drang y se considera la primera pieza dramática del autor quien muy joven tuvo toda una odisea para poder publicarla y sobre todo estrenarla.
Las modificaciones que se realizaron para la puesta en escena fueron bastante importantes y creo toda esta odisea es un gran ejemplo de interacción dramaturgo - director. Los apéndices de esta edición permiten profundizar en este aspecto. La editorial Cátedra aclara que la edición que han usado es la origina la que Schiller realizó bastante larga y más para ser leída que para ser representada en un teatro.
La historia empieza cuando se nos cuenta el destino de los hijos de Maximilian, el viejo conde de Moor quien es dueño de muchas tierras y también desde luego de vasallos y familias. Franz viene a ser el hijo que está en la casa paterna pero tiene un carácter bastante malévolo, hipócrita y vil. Considerándose feo y de poca gracia anhela tener lo que le correspondería a su hermano mayor Karl. Para ello urde un plan para que su padre se separe y reniegue definitivamente de él.
"iMaldita sea la estulticia de nuestras no drizas y niñeras que corrompen nuestra fantasía con cuentos terribles y graban imágenes temibles de tribunales en nuestra blanda médula cerebral que hacen que escalofrios espontáneos estremezcan los miembros del hombre en miedo glacial, que bloquean nuestra tenacidad más osada, gue encadenan nuestra razón lúcida a la oscuridad supersticiosa..."
Karl ha huido de la familia para hacer una vida pródiga en fiestas y mujeres. Para ello cuenta con su pandilla de amigos como Spiegelberg, Schweizer, Grimm, Razzman, Schwars, Roller y otros más. Durante conversaciones con ellos en los cuales se ve el desprecio que siente Karl por la sociedad de ahora (pues él está encantado leyendo a Plutarco y recordando las hazañas de héroes anteriores) uno de ellos le sugiere la idea de ser "amo y señor" y dejar de ser siervos o mendigando cosas. Para ello hablan de volverse bandidos y poder robar a los más ricos y tener las mejores fiestas de ahora en adelante. Justo en ese momento llega una carta de la casa paterna donde Karl se ve despojado de su herencia e incluso de su nombre. Esto lleva al joven a tomar la decisión de abandonarse por fin del todo y volverse un peligroso bandido. Jurará lealtad eterna a aquellos sus amigos ahora ladrones quienes lo nombran su capitán.
En casa Karl ha dejado a Amalia von Edelreich, una joven fiel y modesta quien no siendo aristócrata tuvo una relación romántica con él. El malvado de Franz desea además de la posesión de la casa tenerla a ella como esposa y Amalia será la imagen de la mujer que espera y ama sin límites al hombre aparentemente perdido.
Los primeros dos actos son relativamente lentos si bien te explican bien y afianzan la idea de libertinaje que tiene Karl y los sentimientos oscuros de Franz. de ahí para adelante la obra se ve que despega ya mucho mejor con mucha acción de por medio.
"Pobre de mí, que creí erróneamente embellecer el mundo por medio de la atrocidad y mantener las leyes con la anarquía. Yo lo llamaba venganza y derecho"
Hay temas interesantes como la religión, la insatisfacción con la sociedad que se vive, la comunión que se da en una horda de bandidos a pesar de todo, de la ruindad y la cobardía. Personalmente no todo el desarrollo me gustó y algunas decisiones finales no fueron de mi agrado. Claro que esta manera de ver las cosas es debido a la experiencia que tengo con haber leído muchas obras de teatro y considero algunos "exabruptos" en las acciones de Schiller tal como me pareció en otra obra suya "La doncella de Orleans" . Es, desde luego, un punto de vista personal. Algunas escenas también me parecieron un poco declamatorias excesivamente aunque tiene también algunas buenas frases.
"Todo vive para volver tristemente a morir. Solo nos interesamos, solo ganamos para volver a perderlo con dolor"
November 2, 2016
Das erste Drama, das Schiller veröffentlicht hat und für mich auch das erste Drama, das ich von ihm gelesen habe. Es hat mir sehr gut gefallen und vor allem das Ende fand ich wirklich stimmig. Ich habe etwas mehr Zeit gebraucht, das Buch zu lesen, denn man muss sich eben erst einmal an die Sprache gewöhnen, sich in die Zeit hineinversetzen, in der Schiller das Drama geschrieben hat und es ist vor allem Hilfreich zu wissen, in welcher Situation sich Schiller befunden hat, als er "Die Räuber" geschrieben hat.
October 5, 2016
I had to read this in school, which probably explains my rating.
Read
November 18, 2024If you can appreciate Shakespearean plays, this one definitely also is for you. Published in 1781 it's the most famous of the German writer Friedrich Schiller, but not his best. As a story it's rather weak, too melodramatic also (Romantics!), but it offers a great reflection on how human freedom can manifest itself in different forms. See the review in my general account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
July 21, 2015
(Note: I did not read this in German, but I think that the needless anglicizing of "Karl" and "Franz" to "Charles" and "Francis" was "unnotig Scheibe eines Pferdes")
You can look up the details: German play. 1781. Influenced: Doestoyevsky, Nietzsche, et. al. It's hard not to have run across Schiller and Die Rauber. But have you read it?
I had a little anxiety before beginning this one because it fell into the "works that I would like to say that I've read, but I'm afraid will be a little dated for my taste and prove me a Philistine". Like Pushkin's Eugene Onegin.
And my fears were partially realized and partially unfounded.
Realized: The language itself was not always interesting, did not often move me. There were some excellent sections, but I found much of it overly melodramatic. I admit that I am missing some critical context (in that I have almost no socio-cultural knowledge of 18th, let alone 16th century Germany, but in terms of the language itself, I felt that someone kept switching on the "one-off-avuncular-shakespeare-filter". I also felt that some of what happened off-stage, in between scenes, could have been more interesting to see staged than say about a dozen pages of a supposed tyrant trying to convince a septuagenarian to commit a murder for him.
Unfounded: The ideas and questions still reverberate: What are the live options for someone long-denied justice? When one begins to operate outside of the conventional morality of society, is it possible to reintegrate oneself? What are the products of a corrupt society? How do our actions (and guilt) impact our notions of self?
3.25/5
You can look up the details: German play. 1781. Influenced: Doestoyevsky, Nietzsche, et. al. It's hard not to have run across Schiller and Die Rauber. But have you read it?
I had a little anxiety before beginning this one because it fell into the "works that I would like to say that I've read, but I'm afraid will be a little dated for my taste and prove me a Philistine". Like Pushkin's Eugene Onegin.
And my fears were partially realized and partially unfounded.
Realized: The language itself was not always interesting, did not often move me. There were some excellent sections, but I found much of it overly melodramatic. I admit that I am missing some critical context (in that I have almost no socio-cultural knowledge of 18th, let alone 16th century Germany, but in terms of the language itself, I felt that someone kept switching on the "one-off-avuncular-shakespeare-filter". I also felt that some of what happened off-stage, in between scenes, could have been more interesting to see staged than say about a dozen pages of a supposed tyrant trying to convince a septuagenarian to commit a murder for him.
Unfounded: The ideas and questions still reverberate: What are the live options for someone long-denied justice? When one begins to operate outside of the conventional morality of society, is it possible to reintegrate oneself? What are the products of a corrupt society? How do our actions (and guilt) impact our notions of self?
3.25/5
October 28, 2024
dobrze się czytało, ale nie podobało mi się zakończenie
December 2, 2022
Dieses Buch sollte nicht als Schullektüre erlaubt sein. Die Art wie Frauen diskriminiert werden ist einfach nur ekelhaft. Es gibt deutlich bessere Werke von Schiller die man durchnehmen könnte!
February 13, 2024
german literature?
more like torturature.
more like torturature.
July 4, 2023
The story is actually not bad but the insane writing makes it just ridiculous and unreadable.
March 2, 2025
Too many men. Just one woman like com' on
November 25, 2009
German Edition - German Review:
Ach ja, Schiller ist doch immer wieder herzerfrischend, zumindest wenn er noch ein wenig stürmt und drängt. Man merkt den Einfluss des englischen Schauerromans und es zwickt und zwackt noch etwas sowohl in der Handlungsführung als auch bei den Figuren, aber wen kümmert's? Mir jedenfalls hat's Spaß gemacht, mal wieder einen (hier ja eigentlich noch nicht) "Klassiker" zu lesen. Das Übergreifen des Sturm und Drangs in die zerrissene Diktion hat mich auf Dauer allerdings ein wenig genervt.
Ach ja, und das Ende ist natürlich echt unsäglich. Diese lapidare Hinmeuchelung von Amalia? Strapaziert...
Ach ja, Schiller ist doch immer wieder herzerfrischend, zumindest wenn er noch ein wenig stürmt und drängt. Man merkt den Einfluss des englischen Schauerromans und es zwickt und zwackt noch etwas sowohl in der Handlungsführung als auch bei den Figuren, aber wen kümmert's? Mir jedenfalls hat's Spaß gemacht, mal wieder einen (hier ja eigentlich noch nicht) "Klassiker" zu lesen. Das Übergreifen des Sturm und Drangs in die zerrissene Diktion hat mich auf Dauer allerdings ein wenig genervt.
Ach ja, und das Ende ist natürlich echt unsäglich. Diese lapidare Hinmeuchelung von Amalia? Strapaziert...
June 6, 2019
Very similar to Shakespeare's dramas so I'm wondering if that was the point.
July 31, 2013
Pisci su uglavnom najsmeliji u početku svog stvaranja, a kako sazrevaju, stavovi poprimaju jasnije oblike, stil se postepeno upotpunjava, a smelost da se suprotstavi većini, opštem mišljenju ili ustaljenom načinu pisanja polako jenjava. Kao što se Crnjanski u mladosti izražava veoma slobodno i jedinstveno (dok u poznim godinama piše „blaže“), ili Sartr, tako i Šiler stvara na samom početku književne karijere jednu veliku i jedinstvenu dramu, „Razbojnici“. Mladost svakog čoveka, tako i pisca, krasi entuzijazmom, smelošću i slobodom izražavanja, dok starost znanjem, iskustvom i strpljenjem, tako da se dela većine pisaca mogu podeliti na ta dva dela. Šilerova drama, „Razbojnici“, pripadaju prvoj skupini, tako da je karakterišu gorepomenute osobine. U drami se mogu pronaći skoro neprimetni nedostaci koji nastaju baš usled mladalačkog nestrpljenja, međutim, to ni u koliko ne umanjuje vrednost ovog dela.
U ovom delu se prožimaju razna pitanja čovka iz osamnaestog veka; shvatanje prirode, društva, religije, morala, dok ključnu ulogu igra odnos Karl – Stari Moor – Franc, tj. sin – otac – sin. U ovom slučaju se taj porodični odnos može uopštiti, tako da bismo dobili odnos dve različite vrednosti unutar jedne države, ili pak sveta. Karl i Franc, iako braća, na svet gledaju suprotno. Karla je priroda nagradila lepim izgledom, hrabrošću, smelošću, snagom, te on predstavlja klasičnog grčkog junaka, dok je Franc prilagodljiv, snalažljiv i nemilosrdan, pa uprkos mnogim nedostacima, uspeva stvari pokrenuti i okrenuti u svoju korist. On je pokretač radnje. Njihov otac, stari Moor, predstavlja središte, objekat preko koga sinovi deluju međusobno, tj. oca, vlast, pa čak i Boga. Na kraju svi glavni likovi stradaju, ali ipak drama nema sve karakteristike tragedije.
Ono što ovu dramu izdvaja od ostalih jeste savršena retorika. Monologe treba čitati pažljivo, jer se u svakom krije jedan nov i originalan pogled na određen problem. Ova drama je nastala u osamnaestom veku, tako da je prilično „neiskvarena“. Dok savremeni pisci pišu po ugledu na mnoštvo pređašnjih pisaca, ovde se primeti samo uticaj helenske i hebrejske književnosti. Radnja ove drame je poslužila Dimi kao osnova za roman „Grof Monte Kristo“, a tema koju razrađuje Šiler se produbljuje u delima Dostojevskog, Mana i mnogih drugih.
Najbolja drama koju sam čitao (s tim što ih nema baš mnogo), a Šiler mi je za sada iznad Šekspira. Ocena 10/10.
U ovom delu se prožimaju razna pitanja čovka iz osamnaestog veka; shvatanje prirode, društva, religije, morala, dok ključnu ulogu igra odnos Karl – Stari Moor – Franc, tj. sin – otac – sin. U ovom slučaju se taj porodični odnos može uopštiti, tako da bismo dobili odnos dve različite vrednosti unutar jedne države, ili pak sveta. Karl i Franc, iako braća, na svet gledaju suprotno. Karla je priroda nagradila lepim izgledom, hrabrošću, smelošću, snagom, te on predstavlja klasičnog grčkog junaka, dok je Franc prilagodljiv, snalažljiv i nemilosrdan, pa uprkos mnogim nedostacima, uspeva stvari pokrenuti i okrenuti u svoju korist. On je pokretač radnje. Njihov otac, stari Moor, predstavlja središte, objekat preko koga sinovi deluju međusobno, tj. oca, vlast, pa čak i Boga. Na kraju svi glavni likovi stradaju, ali ipak drama nema sve karakteristike tragedije.
Ono što ovu dramu izdvaja od ostalih jeste savršena retorika. Monologe treba čitati pažljivo, jer se u svakom krije jedan nov i originalan pogled na određen problem. Ova drama je nastala u osamnaestom veku, tako da je prilično „neiskvarena“. Dok savremeni pisci pišu po ugledu na mnoštvo pređašnjih pisaca, ovde se primeti samo uticaj helenske i hebrejske književnosti. Radnja ove drame je poslužila Dimi kao osnova za roman „Grof Monte Kristo“, a tema koju razrađuje Šiler se produbljuje u delima Dostojevskog, Mana i mnogih drugih.
Najbolja drama koju sam čitao (s tim što ih nema baš mnogo), a Šiler mi je za sada iznad Šekspira. Ocena 10/10.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 505 reviews