What do you think?
Rate this book
Mary Stuart: Queen of Scots
Regal and beautiful, Mary gambled away her throne for love, and only the deadly game of power she played and eventually lost to her own cousin could contain her. 4 cassettes.
Audio Cassette
First published June 14, 1800
280 people are currently reading
4568 people want to read
About the author
Alexandre Dumas
7,032 books12.4k followersThis note regards Alexandre Dumas, père, the father of Alexandre Dumas, fils (son). For the son, see Alexandre Dumas fils.
Alexandre Dumas père, born Alexandre Dumas Davy de la Pailleterie, was a towering figure of 19th-century French literature whose historical novels and adventure tales earned global renown. Best known for The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, and other swashbuckling epics, Dumas crafted stories filled with daring heroes, dramatic twists, and vivid historical backdrops. His works, often serialized and immensely popular with the public, helped shape the modern adventure genre and remain enduring staples of world literature.
Dumas was the son of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, a celebrated general in Revolutionary France and the highest-ranking man of African descent in a European army at the time. His father’s early death left the family in poverty, but Dumas’s upbringing was nonetheless marked by strong personal ambition and a deep admiration for his father’s achievements. He moved to Paris as a young man and began his literary career writing for the theatre, quickly rising to prominence in the Romantic movement with successful plays like Henri III et sa cour and Antony.
In the 1840s, Dumas turned increasingly toward prose fiction, particularly serialized novels, which reached vast audiences through French newspapers. His collaboration with Auguste Maquet, a skilled plotter and historian, proved fruitful. While Maquet drafted outlines and conducted research, Dumas infused the narratives with flair, dialogue, and color. The result was a string of literary triumphs, including The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, both published in 1844. These novels exemplified Dumas’s flair for suspenseful pacing, memorable characters, and grand themes of justice, loyalty, and revenge.
The D’Artagnan Romances—The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, and The Vicomte of Bragelonne—cemented his fame. They follow the adventures of the titular Gascon hero and his comrades Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, blending historical fact and fiction into richly imagined narratives. The Count of Monte Cristo offered a darker, more introspective tale of betrayal and retribution, with intricate plotting and a deeply philosophical core.
Dumas was also active in journalism and theater. He founded the Théâtre Historique in Paris, which staged dramatizations of his own novels. A prolific and energetic writer, he is estimated to have written or co-written over 100,000 pages of fiction, plays, memoirs, travel books, and essays. He also had a strong interest in food and published a massive culinary encyclopedia, Le Grand Dictionnaire de cuisine, filled with recipes, anecdotes, and reflections on gastronomy.
Despite his enormous success, Dumas was frequently plagued by financial troubles. He led a lavish lifestyle, building the ornate Château de Monte-Cristo near Paris, employing large staffs, and supporting many friends and relatives. His generosity and appetite for life often outpaced his income, leading to mounting debts. Still, his creative drive rarely waned.
Dumas’s mixed-race background was a source of both pride and tension in his life. He was outspoken about his heritage and used his platform to address race and injustice. In his novel Georges, he explored issues of colonialism and identity through a Creole protagonist. Though he encountered racism, he refused to be silenced, famously replying to a racial insult by pointing to his ancestry and achievements with dignity and wit.
Later in life, Dumas continued writing and traveling, spending time in Belgium, Italy, and Russia. He supported nationalist causes, particularly Italian unification, and even founded a newspaper to advocate for Giuseppe Garibaldi. Though his popularity waned somewhat in his final years, his literary legacy grew steadily. He wrote in a style that was accessible, entertaining, and emotionally reso
Alexandre Dumas père, born Alexandre Dumas Davy de la Pailleterie, was a towering figure of 19th-century French literature whose historical novels and adventure tales earned global renown. Best known for The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, and other swashbuckling epics, Dumas crafted stories filled with daring heroes, dramatic twists, and vivid historical backdrops. His works, often serialized and immensely popular with the public, helped shape the modern adventure genre and remain enduring staples of world literature.
Dumas was the son of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, a celebrated general in Revolutionary France and the highest-ranking man of African descent in a European army at the time. His father’s early death left the family in poverty, but Dumas’s upbringing was nonetheless marked by strong personal ambition and a deep admiration for his father’s achievements. He moved to Paris as a young man and began his literary career writing for the theatre, quickly rising to prominence in the Romantic movement with successful plays like Henri III et sa cour and Antony.
In the 1840s, Dumas turned increasingly toward prose fiction, particularly serialized novels, which reached vast audiences through French newspapers. His collaboration with Auguste Maquet, a skilled plotter and historian, proved fruitful. While Maquet drafted outlines and conducted research, Dumas infused the narratives with flair, dialogue, and color. The result was a string of literary triumphs, including The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, both published in 1844. These novels exemplified Dumas’s flair for suspenseful pacing, memorable characters, and grand themes of justice, loyalty, and revenge.
The D’Artagnan Romances—The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, and The Vicomte of Bragelonne—cemented his fame. They follow the adventures of the titular Gascon hero and his comrades Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, blending historical fact and fiction into richly imagined narratives. The Count of Monte Cristo offered a darker, more introspective tale of betrayal and retribution, with intricate plotting and a deeply philosophical core.
Dumas was also active in journalism and theater. He founded the Théâtre Historique in Paris, which staged dramatizations of his own novels. A prolific and energetic writer, he is estimated to have written or co-written over 100,000 pages of fiction, plays, memoirs, travel books, and essays. He also had a strong interest in food and published a massive culinary encyclopedia, Le Grand Dictionnaire de cuisine, filled with recipes, anecdotes, and reflections on gastronomy.
Despite his enormous success, Dumas was frequently plagued by financial troubles. He led a lavish lifestyle, building the ornate Château de Monte-Cristo near Paris, employing large staffs, and supporting many friends and relatives. His generosity and appetite for life often outpaced his income, leading to mounting debts. Still, his creative drive rarely waned.
Dumas’s mixed-race background was a source of both pride and tension in his life. He was outspoken about his heritage and used his platform to address race and injustice. In his novel Georges, he explored issues of colonialism and identity through a Creole protagonist. Though he encountered racism, he refused to be silenced, famously replying to a racial insult by pointing to his ancestry and achievements with dignity and wit.
Later in life, Dumas continued writing and traveling, spending time in Belgium, Italy, and Russia. He supported nationalist causes, particularly Italian unification, and even founded a newspaper to advocate for Giuseppe Garibaldi. Though his popularity waned somewhat in his final years, his literary legacy grew steadily. He wrote in a style that was accessible, entertaining, and emotionally reso
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 403 reviews
January 24, 2021
Reading about Mary Stuart, the queen of Scots, without letting yourself immersed into the tragedy play by Friedrich Schiller, would render poor enough something of her doomed fate.
So, having myself lured into her troubled and turbulent past first by sir Anthony Burgess, with his “A Dead Man in Deptford“, and then tenderly embraced by monsieur Alexandre Dumas, pere, into his storytelling by “Mary Stuart, Celebrated crimes”, I have fallen (though better said, I have ascended) into the hands of the poetical verses of Friedrich Schiller (I have in mind of course the way words were displayed on the sheet), and let myself swim (I still keep myself afraid of water, but this time it seemed I was on a solid shore, prettily vouchsafed into a prison castle) on the tragic music (again, words-wise) recounting the tragic end of this remarkably beautiful queen, nonetheless a beauty that didn’t save her from her cursed destiny.
I am for sure not going to read another version on this topic, save for a Romanian version. Pardon. That is to say that this is not going to happen, surely, because it brings into my mind some anecdotes or jokes where there are involved different nationalities, and especially an English, a French, a German, and a Romanian ;)
I found the play really entertaining and smoothly flowing for my waking senses, good that the English translation was not very sophisticated, thus it allowed me to have a deep understanding of the wording. I guess the last castle where the queen of Scots was kept prisoner was the most ferocious, because I recall than in previous ones her stay was not so bitterly inflamed. But then again, after so many long, long years in captivity it didn’t change a bit of how one felt, totally deserted and left to wait for the final restful peaceful end… But I agreed with sir Amias Paulet, keeper of Mary, that ‘in idle hours the […] mind is busy’ (he said ‘evil mind’, I say it’s just a troubled mind)
After reading the previous works where this character of Mary Stuart queen is thoroughly presented or talked about, I feel that this tragedy play gives me a balance that I sensed it was missing or failing in the others, because here I can hear and read about Elizabeth I of England thoughts, cries, tormented impressions, reflections on what to do, on whom to rely, and why to really go for a final verdict.
Against all odds, this play makes somehow an equilibrium between those two conflicting queens, each on her side thinking for yourself that she was right to think and act as has been done, in terms of understanding and accepting the consequences, but then again the past cannot be erased or redone. In this sense the differences between those queens were so insurmountable and no narrow channel allowed any gap closing to be reached in a fair, just manner. It is a play that I could play in my mind’s eyes with the same aplomb as if I would have watched it on stage. I was struck with a crafty work, and I have appreciated that the history is not fully applied in the ‘stick to the point’ manner. I have in mind of course the irregularity allowed in this proceeding by creating the meeting scene between the two queens, who actually had never seen each other, but FS allowed himself to let mix two inconsistent things. As inclination changes, thus ever ebbs and flows of the unstable tide of any reader, this is a story that deserves the worthy attention, if not for the historical facts, at least for the game that the conscience plays on human minds.
So, having myself lured into her troubled and turbulent past first by sir Anthony Burgess, with his “A Dead Man in Deptford“, and then tenderly embraced by monsieur Alexandre Dumas, pere, into his storytelling by “Mary Stuart, Celebrated crimes”, I have fallen (though better said, I have ascended) into the hands of the poetical verses of Friedrich Schiller (I have in mind of course the way words were displayed on the sheet), and let myself swim (I still keep myself afraid of water, but this time it seemed I was on a solid shore, prettily vouchsafed into a prison castle) on the tragic music (again, words-wise) recounting the tragic end of this remarkably beautiful queen, nonetheless a beauty that didn’t save her from her cursed destiny.
I am for sure not going to read another version on this topic, save for a Romanian version. Pardon. That is to say that this is not going to happen, surely, because it brings into my mind some anecdotes or jokes where there are involved different nationalities, and especially an English, a French, a German, and a Romanian ;)
I found the play really entertaining and smoothly flowing for my waking senses, good that the English translation was not very sophisticated, thus it allowed me to have a deep understanding of the wording. I guess the last castle where the queen of Scots was kept prisoner was the most ferocious, because I recall than in previous ones her stay was not so bitterly inflamed. But then again, after so many long, long years in captivity it didn’t change a bit of how one felt, totally deserted and left to wait for the final restful peaceful end… But I agreed with sir Amias Paulet, keeper of Mary, that ‘in idle hours the […] mind is busy’ (he said ‘evil mind’, I say it’s just a troubled mind)
After reading the previous works where this character of Mary Stuart queen is thoroughly presented or talked about, I feel that this tragedy play gives me a balance that I sensed it was missing or failing in the others, because here I can hear and read about Elizabeth I of England thoughts, cries, tormented impressions, reflections on what to do, on whom to rely, and why to really go for a final verdict.
Against all odds, this play makes somehow an equilibrium between those two conflicting queens, each on her side thinking for yourself that she was right to think and act as has been done, in terms of understanding and accepting the consequences, but then again the past cannot be erased or redone. In this sense the differences between those queens were so insurmountable and no narrow channel allowed any gap closing to be reached in a fair, just manner. It is a play that I could play in my mind’s eyes with the same aplomb as if I would have watched it on stage. I was struck with a crafty work, and I have appreciated that the history is not fully applied in the ‘stick to the point’ manner. I have in mind of course the irregularity allowed in this proceeding by creating the meeting scene between the two queens, who actually had never seen each other, but FS allowed himself to let mix two inconsistent things. As inclination changes, thus ever ebbs and flows of the unstable tide of any reader, this is a story that deserves the worthy attention, if not for the historical facts, at least for the game that the conscience plays on human minds.
February 14, 2021
Zum Ende meines einwöchigen Maria Stuart-Dreikampfs (erst Neuverfilmung, dann Reclam, dann Aufführung am Deutschen Theater Berlin) darf ich feststellen: Schiller unterhält mich mit seinen Dramen stets zuverlässig. Alle drei Zugangswege zu diesem historischen Machtkampf um den Thron Englands im 16. Jahrhundert haben mich begeistert, wobei die Interpretation durch das Theater dem Eindruck erst die nötige Tiefe gab.
Maria Stuart, die hübsche schottische Königin, erhebt Machtanspruch an den Thron Englands, denn sie sieht sich als Stuart in der rechtmäßigen Nachfolge auf den Thron. Im Gegensatz zu ihrer katholischen Cousine ist die protestantische Elisabeth ehe- und kinderlos, strahlt bei Weitem nicht diese feminine Faszination wie Maria aus (sie ist eine Tudor und die Tochter von Heinrich VIII. (der Grausame mit den vielen Frauen) und Anne Boleyn). Während der Film den Werdegang bis zur Einkerkerung Marias beschreibt, beginnt Schillers Stück wenige Tage vor ihrer Hinrichtung. Die beiden Königinnen spielen die zentralen Machtrollen während die adligen Männer um sie herum versuchen, zu retten, zu schmeicheln und zu intrigieren. Eigentlich erstaunlich in einem noch mittelalterlichen, patriarchalischen Jahrhundert, das Frauen an der Macht zeigt.
In der Nachbesprechung zum Stück stellte jemand im Chat in Frage, ob Schiller heutzutage überhaupt noch Relevanz hat. Na aber, was für eine Frage, natürlich hat Maria Stuart alles, was man auch in diesen Zeit in der Gesellschaft beobachten kann. Welche Rolle spielt die Moral bei den Politikern und Führern eines Landes? Elisabeth hadert mit ihrer Rolle, als Königin vom Volk geliebt zu werden, aber dafür auch Entscheidungen treffen zu müssen, die ihren ethischen Vorstellungen widersprechen. Und da zählt die Unterzeichnung des Hinrichtungsbefehls auch dazu, den sie zwar vornimmt, aber keinem Diener bewußt übergeben möchte. Dusche mich, aber mach mich nicht naß oder wie sie es sagt:
„Warum hab ich Gerechtigkeit geübt, Willkür gehaßt mein Leben lang, daß ich Für diese erste unvermeidliche Gewalttat selbst die Hände mir gefesselt! Das Muster, das ich selber gab, verdammt mich![…]“
Das Stück am Deutschen Theater war übrigens hervorragend inszeniert, coronagerecht standen alle Schauspieler/innen in Boxen, wie in einem Querschnitt eines Hauses. Wir hatten uns Tickets über www.dringeblieben.de bestellt und damit das Recht für einen Videostream erhalten. Stilecht mit Sektorange dann vor den Fernseher gesetzt und mit 650 anderen Menschen online das Stück angeschaut. Theater suchen neue digitale Wege. Das ist zwar nicht kostendeckend, aber doch immerhin ein kleiner Beitrag, damit die Kulturszene in Deutschland nicht komplett geköpft wird, um beim Maria Stuart-Thema zu bleiben.
Maria Stuart, die hübsche schottische Königin, erhebt Machtanspruch an den Thron Englands, denn sie sieht sich als Stuart in der rechtmäßigen Nachfolge auf den Thron. Im Gegensatz zu ihrer katholischen Cousine ist die protestantische Elisabeth ehe- und kinderlos, strahlt bei Weitem nicht diese feminine Faszination wie Maria aus (sie ist eine Tudor und die Tochter von Heinrich VIII. (der Grausame mit den vielen Frauen) und Anne Boleyn). Während der Film den Werdegang bis zur Einkerkerung Marias beschreibt, beginnt Schillers Stück wenige Tage vor ihrer Hinrichtung. Die beiden Königinnen spielen die zentralen Machtrollen während die adligen Männer um sie herum versuchen, zu retten, zu schmeicheln und zu intrigieren. Eigentlich erstaunlich in einem noch mittelalterlichen, patriarchalischen Jahrhundert, das Frauen an der Macht zeigt.
In der Nachbesprechung zum Stück stellte jemand im Chat in Frage, ob Schiller heutzutage überhaupt noch Relevanz hat. Na aber, was für eine Frage, natürlich hat Maria Stuart alles, was man auch in diesen Zeit in der Gesellschaft beobachten kann. Welche Rolle spielt die Moral bei den Politikern und Führern eines Landes? Elisabeth hadert mit ihrer Rolle, als Königin vom Volk geliebt zu werden, aber dafür auch Entscheidungen treffen zu müssen, die ihren ethischen Vorstellungen widersprechen. Und da zählt die Unterzeichnung des Hinrichtungsbefehls auch dazu, den sie zwar vornimmt, aber keinem Diener bewußt übergeben möchte. Dusche mich, aber mach mich nicht naß oder wie sie es sagt:
„Warum hab ich Gerechtigkeit geübt, Willkür gehaßt mein Leben lang, daß ich Für diese erste unvermeidliche Gewalttat selbst die Hände mir gefesselt! Das Muster, das ich selber gab, verdammt mich![…]“
Das Stück am Deutschen Theater war übrigens hervorragend inszeniert, coronagerecht standen alle Schauspieler/innen in Boxen, wie in einem Querschnitt eines Hauses. Wir hatten uns Tickets über www.dringeblieben.de bestellt und damit das Recht für einen Videostream erhalten. Stilecht mit Sektorange dann vor den Fernseher gesetzt und mit 650 anderen Menschen online das Stück angeschaut. Theater suchen neue digitale Wege. Das ist zwar nicht kostendeckend, aber doch immerhin ein kleiner Beitrag, damit die Kulturszene in Deutschland nicht komplett geköpft wird, um beim Maria Stuart-Thema zu bleiben.
January 19, 2021
I was very much impressed by the things I have learned of Mary Stuart, queen of Scotland and dowager of France, throughout the reading of this ebook. The end of her life was really tragic – I am obliged to confess that I am unable to imagine what a world was during those times. To be dead of a violent death after nineteen years of suffering and captivity. I could simply say that it is the greatest misfortune that could befall her. Moreover, the order is signed by her, Elizabeth I queen of England, who describes herself with the words “I have a woman’s frame, but in this woman’s frame beats a man’s heart.”
From the beginning, as the crafty Dumas (pere) introduces us into the subject, it looks there is a truth in saying that some royal names are predestined to misfortune. In the midst of this unlucky race, Mary Stuart was the favourite of misfortune, and indeed it has perfect sense what one biographer said of her, “whoever desires to write about this illustrious queen of Scotland has, in her, two very, large subjects, the one her life, the other her death.”
I found the book pretty informative in a pleasant way, and I feel it helped me frame into my mind some historical events, that are now even better coloured. With the exceptions of some mid-book chapters, the most part of the book is written in the form of giving a detail account of what happened with this queen, in the full bloom of her beauty, since the moment she quit France for Scotland, somewhere in 1561. It was a sad sea voyage and from the start accompanied by a sad omen, that cast a black veil over the entire book. Well, no wonder why the book is under the sub-title “celebrated crimes” – a series of 18 books by the same author.
The aim to pacify her kingdom, greatly divided by religious troubles, and to reign over there in her wild country, was indeed a great challenge, unfortunately with an unhappy finish, but, as the story tells us, she had to fulfil her destiny. I tried to follow somehow attentively the details given on the religious wars, on the plots, assassinations, political difficulties and complications triggered by these, although I was a bit lost in all that long succession of names.
However I enjoyed very much those moments where the writer gives enough space for some intimate dialogues, or those scenes when the characters display some unbelievable courage, all of them had made a lively impression on my mind, and kept my general enthusiasm, even if on some spots it was a bit reduced because of some boring presentation of historical facts and events.
I liked the statement that the writer made, could be of course an exaggeration but it doesn’t change a bit my sentiment, regarding what was indeed Mary’s great and real crime: “one single imperfection in face or figure, and she would have not died upon the scaffold.”
This was a good read, though unawares something strange and tragic came to pass. I didn’t expect it to be such a sorry story, somehow I was deceived by appearances, but it’s a worthy material for a bit of education, if not profound at least varied, to maintain a supple mind and a lively imagination in gentle ways. There is a lot of violence too, and I have to admit I had some trouble to overcome all those first impulses to pass quickly over the text. I cannot comment how well Dumas kept in line with the history, as officially presented in the books of the time, however I am sure that even the most clear-sighted historians may remain obscure on some points.
The book in itself surprised me very nicely and I am for sure to remember about Mary Stuart, if not all - though I cannot yet detach from the story flow -, at least all the charms of her wit and beauty, and that fatal love she felt for some people that she was never able to surmount. She was a fascinated woman, and with that eternal confidence of the woman in her own love, she gave afresh, now and then, proof of her folly, despite having been cruelly wounded. I guess that comes in line with the majesty of her rank and the beauty of her countenance. Or, maybe it’s just about spending part of the night gazing in the immensity of the heavens…
From the beginning, as the crafty Dumas (pere) introduces us into the subject, it looks there is a truth in saying that some royal names are predestined to misfortune. In the midst of this unlucky race, Mary Stuart was the favourite of misfortune, and indeed it has perfect sense what one biographer said of her, “whoever desires to write about this illustrious queen of Scotland has, in her, two very, large subjects, the one her life, the other her death.”
I found the book pretty informative in a pleasant way, and I feel it helped me frame into my mind some historical events, that are now even better coloured. With the exceptions of some mid-book chapters, the most part of the book is written in the form of giving a detail account of what happened with this queen, in the full bloom of her beauty, since the moment she quit France for Scotland, somewhere in 1561. It was a sad sea voyage and from the start accompanied by a sad omen, that cast a black veil over the entire book. Well, no wonder why the book is under the sub-title “celebrated crimes” – a series of 18 books by the same author.
The aim to pacify her kingdom, greatly divided by religious troubles, and to reign over there in her wild country, was indeed a great challenge, unfortunately with an unhappy finish, but, as the story tells us, she had to fulfil her destiny. I tried to follow somehow attentively the details given on the religious wars, on the plots, assassinations, political difficulties and complications triggered by these, although I was a bit lost in all that long succession of names.
However I enjoyed very much those moments where the writer gives enough space for some intimate dialogues, or those scenes when the characters display some unbelievable courage, all of them had made a lively impression on my mind, and kept my general enthusiasm, even if on some spots it was a bit reduced because of some boring presentation of historical facts and events.
I liked the statement that the writer made, could be of course an exaggeration but it doesn’t change a bit my sentiment, regarding what was indeed Mary’s great and real crime: “one single imperfection in face or figure, and she would have not died upon the scaffold.”
This was a good read, though unawares something strange and tragic came to pass. I didn’t expect it to be such a sorry story, somehow I was deceived by appearances, but it’s a worthy material for a bit of education, if not profound at least varied, to maintain a supple mind and a lively imagination in gentle ways. There is a lot of violence too, and I have to admit I had some trouble to overcome all those first impulses to pass quickly over the text. I cannot comment how well Dumas kept in line with the history, as officially presented in the books of the time, however I am sure that even the most clear-sighted historians may remain obscure on some points.
The book in itself surprised me very nicely and I am for sure to remember about Mary Stuart, if not all - though I cannot yet detach from the story flow -, at least all the charms of her wit and beauty, and that fatal love she felt for some people that she was never able to surmount. She was a fascinated woman, and with that eternal confidence of the woman in her own love, she gave afresh, now and then, proof of her folly, despite having been cruelly wounded. I guess that comes in line with the majesty of her rank and the beauty of her countenance. Or, maybe it’s just about spending part of the night gazing in the immensity of the heavens…
August 6, 2022
Шиллер показал нам Марию Стюарт не просто гордой и смелой женщиной, не готовой ради спасения собственной жизни поступиться своими правами и принципами. Он показывает ее умной, знающей законы и требующей их исполнения, в частности быть судимой людьми ее сословия, то есть королевскими особами. Соперничество Марии и Елизаветы было не только в части прав на престол, но и как женщин, что еще более усугубило конфликт. На фоне этого противостояния двух властительниц особенно гадким выглядит поведение любовника Лейстера. Гений Шиллера проявляется не только в изумительной, чарующей поэтической форме изложения, но и в глубоком проникновении в душу своей героини.
Read
November 1, 2017The first thing that I noticed was how the drama was stripped away, the situation is that Maria Stuart, Queen of Scots is being held in a secure facility at the pleasure of her cousin Queen Elizabeth of England, so far so historical, and historically we know that this situation ends with Mary/Maria decapitated. Early in the first act we are told that a sentence of death has been passed against Maria so the only dramatic issue is how, why and when Elizabeth will come to sign the document and command the deed to be executed.
Considering the date of the play it strikes me that Schiller doesn't, in the light of the end of Maria Antoinette, ask if crowned heads won't respect the sanctity of crowned heads then why will anybody else?
Power here is an interesting position, Maria is the prisoner at risk of death, while cousin Elizabeth feels under threat and imprisoned by political considerations, indeed despite being the Queen and being the most powerful piece on the board she is the one pushed into being reactive and responsive, hemmed in by the pawns maybe.
The two characters contrast in personality too, Maria passionate and outspoken haunted by her past,Macht Friede mit Euch selbst! (p16), she is advised, while she claims ich bin besser als mein Ruf. (p83). Elizabeth s cautious and contained, haunted by the ghost of Christmas future, rather than the ghosts of husbands past who play on Mary's mind. Maria's character attracts supporters who, alack, turn out to be as passionate and poor in judgement as her, while Elizabeth's reserve perhaps sees her retain her throne, but also abandoned and friendless at the end .
Ahistorical, but no less sad.
Considering the date of the play it strikes me that Schiller doesn't, in the light of the end of Maria Antoinette, ask if crowned heads won't respect the sanctity of crowned heads then why will anybody else?
Power here is an interesting position, Maria is the prisoner at risk of death, while cousin Elizabeth feels under threat and imprisoned by political considerations, indeed despite being the Queen and being the most powerful piece on the board she is the one pushed into being reactive and responsive, hemmed in by the pawns maybe.
The two characters contrast in personality too, Maria passionate and outspoken haunted by her past,Macht Friede mit Euch selbst! (p16), she is advised, while she claims ich bin besser als mein Ruf. (p83). Elizabeth s cautious and contained, haunted by the ghost of Christmas future, rather than the ghosts of husbands past who play on Mary's mind. Maria's character attracts supporters who, alack, turn out to be as passionate and poor in judgement as her, while Elizabeth's reserve perhaps sees her retain her throne, but also abandoned and friendless at the end .
Ahistorical, but no less sad.
Read
September 7, 2020Maria, the Queen of Scotland, flees to England after being accused in her own country of aiding and abetting the murder of her husband. Elisabeth, the Queen of England, had Mary imprisoned because she feared for her throne. The play begins a few years later. Young men try to free Maria, but they do not succeed. There is also hope for a reconciliation between the two. Elizabeth wants to do everything to murder Mary in order to save herself, but this backfires. The book was not boring, but it did not grab me, which I found a pity, because I was looking forward to this story. The end is very predictable.
January 3, 2024
So yes, with Friedrich von Schiller's 1800 grand historical drama Maria Stuart, readers (or indeed watchers since Maria Stuart is, of course, a play) kind of already know full well and also right from the beginning of the presented action that Mary Queen of Scots is most definitely going to be executed, that she is to be decapitated for high treason (and both from the factual and historic truth of the matter that Mary Queen of Scots was indeed executed by her cousin Queen Elizabeth I of England but in fact also from the play itself, since in the very first act of Maria Stuart we are already being categorically informed that Mary Stuart has received a death sentence and therefore, throughout Maria Stuart, the only real and naggingly frustrating question is simply and basically exactly when Elizabeth I will have her royal executioners carry out the death sentence of having her cousin's head chopped off).
And while there of course and expectantly is in Maria Stuart the necessary (and always required in classic drama) personal conflicts between Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots, in many ways and albeit that as queen of England, Elizabeth I is the one who wields the most political power and can therefore also rather single-handedly decide on her rebellious cousin's fate, well, despite all of that earned and presented might, Elizabeth I is in Maria Suart far more often being shown by Friedrich Schiller to be reactionary, unreasonable, sometimes even ragingly angry, like a young child with a temper tantrum (and indeed often also rather majorly unsure of herself to boot).
Generally rather majorly ahistoric, which I do know and more than well realise, but I also have to admit that especially when I read Maria Stuart for my first university German literature course (on Goethe and Schiller) in 1987 (and when I was also barely twenty years of age), I certainly and definitely massively enjoyed seeing in Maria Stuart Queen Elizabeth I being cast by Friedrich Schiller as mostly the main villain and Mary Stuart, and Mary Queen of Scots as the accepting of her fate tragic victim of both fate and of her birth, of her Catholic religion and dogma (although that yes, the more I have over the years reread Maria Stuart, the more I do tend to now find Mary Queen of Scots' often quite in one's proverbial face depicted passion and her staunchly Catholic at all costs faith rather draggingly tedious, even as I do still tend to find Friedrich Schiller's characterisation of Elizabeth I as really massively cold and as weirdly over-calculating, that for her, that for Elizabeth I, retaining her power, retaining ALL of her might and glory is obviously more important and more personally essential and necessary than acting humane and caring, that yes indeed, in Maria Stuart Elizabeth I rather much too willingly abandons and rejects her nobility of spirit for political expediency and for retaining her inherited crown undefeated).
And while there of course and expectantly is in Maria Stuart the necessary (and always required in classic drama) personal conflicts between Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots, in many ways and albeit that as queen of England, Elizabeth I is the one who wields the most political power and can therefore also rather single-handedly decide on her rebellious cousin's fate, well, despite all of that earned and presented might, Elizabeth I is in Maria Suart far more often being shown by Friedrich Schiller to be reactionary, unreasonable, sometimes even ragingly angry, like a young child with a temper tantrum (and indeed often also rather majorly unsure of herself to boot).
Generally rather majorly ahistoric, which I do know and more than well realise, but I also have to admit that especially when I read Maria Stuart for my first university German literature course (on Goethe and Schiller) in 1987 (and when I was also barely twenty years of age), I certainly and definitely massively enjoyed seeing in Maria Stuart Queen Elizabeth I being cast by Friedrich Schiller as mostly the main villain and Mary Stuart, and Mary Queen of Scots as the accepting of her fate tragic victim of both fate and of her birth, of her Catholic religion and dogma (although that yes, the more I have over the years reread Maria Stuart, the more I do tend to now find Mary Queen of Scots' often quite in one's proverbial face depicted passion and her staunchly Catholic at all costs faith rather draggingly tedious, even as I do still tend to find Friedrich Schiller's characterisation of Elizabeth I as really massively cold and as weirdly over-calculating, that for her, that for Elizabeth I, retaining her power, retaining ALL of her might and glory is obviously more important and more personally essential and necessary than acting humane and caring, that yes indeed, in Maria Stuart Elizabeth I rather much too willingly abandons and rejects her nobility of spirit for political expediency and for retaining her inherited crown undefeated).
October 11, 2022
Esta vez tocó acercarme un poco al teatro de la mano del gran Friedrich Schiller con la obra María Estuardo.
He de decir que la opinión no va a ser objetiva porque todo lo que tenga que ver con la reina de Escocia me encanta.
Hace cuatro años vi una serie que se llama Reign y que cuenta la historia de Marie Stuart. Tanto me encantó que, cuando vi el título de María Estuardo, me dije que tenía que leerlo sí o sí.
La obra teatral desarrolla el cautiverio de la reina escocesa con gran dramatismo. Es fantástico cómo en un mismo personaje se dejan ver la tranquilidad, la resignación, la frustración, la inquietud y la explosión de grandeza de acuerdo a su posición.
Por otra parte, me gustó mucho asistir al personaje de la reina de Inglaterra, Isabel. Sus dudas, sus inseguridades y sus arrebatos quedan caracterizados extraordinariamente.
Los otros personajes no llegan ni de lejos a la categoría de las reinas. Para mí, no hay ninguno con fuerza suficiente como para llenar un escenario, así que van a depender siempre de la presencia de la realeza.
Me gustó mucho este breve acercamiento a una parte de la vida de María de Escocia llena de oscuridad y de justicia bastante controvertida.
Si alguien sabe de alguna obra con la que seguir ilustrando mi interés por Marie Stuart, soy toda oídos.
He de decir que la opinión no va a ser objetiva porque todo lo que tenga que ver con la reina de Escocia me encanta.
Hace cuatro años vi una serie que se llama Reign y que cuenta la historia de Marie Stuart. Tanto me encantó que, cuando vi el título de María Estuardo, me dije que tenía que leerlo sí o sí.
La obra teatral desarrolla el cautiverio de la reina escocesa con gran dramatismo. Es fantástico cómo en un mismo personaje se dejan ver la tranquilidad, la resignación, la frustración, la inquietud y la explosión de grandeza de acuerdo a su posición.
Por otra parte, me gustó mucho asistir al personaje de la reina de Inglaterra, Isabel. Sus dudas, sus inseguridades y sus arrebatos quedan caracterizados extraordinariamente.
Los otros personajes no llegan ni de lejos a la categoría de las reinas. Para mí, no hay ninguno con fuerza suficiente como para llenar un escenario, así que van a depender siempre de la presencia de la realeza.
Me gustó mucho este breve acercamiento a una parte de la vida de María de Escocia llena de oscuridad y de justicia bastante controvertida.
Si alguien sabe de alguna obra con la que seguir ilustrando mi interés por Marie Stuart, soy toda oídos.
January 17, 2016
“Mary Stuart” is a play that gives us a fictional account of the last days of Mary Queen of Scots. In it we are treated to an entirely made up scene in which Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I meet face to face. And it is the stuff of great drama!
In Schiller’s hands the play and story leans heavily in the favor of Mary Stuart, and Elizabeth I comes across as the villain, if there is one. Elizabeth’s machinations and manipulations of others without her being honest in her intentions makes her a sharp contrast to Schiller’s Mary, who ends the play being brutally self-honest and content with her fate. Elizabeth on the other hand ends the play literally (and figuratively) alone.
One of the strengths of this play is that there are at least 6 characters that get good moments to shine in the text, and would be a treat for any actor to play. “Mary Stuart” really is an ensemble piece. Personally my favorite role was the role of Mortimer, a converted fanatic who is full of passion and religious fervor. His loyalty to Mary serves as a great contrast to another character who ultimately betrays her.
Act 3 in the play, where the two monarchs meet, is simply excellent and Schiller’s Mary scales the oratorical heights in her one moment of “triumph” against the Queen of England. It is nail-biting theater. Act 4:2 is also well done and builds and builds until Elizabeth finally signs the death warrant for Mary. The dialogue is thrilling and edge of your seat as Elizabeth’s council argues and weighs this momentous decision.
A good production of this play (and I have seen one at the Stratford Festival in Canada) is harrowing to watch and will keep you entertained as it gives a great glimpse into power, and just how much (or little) power those who assume it really have.
The new version by Peter Oswald is simply stunning. The translation is modern and accessible for any reader / audience. It is well done, and I prefer it to other translations I have looked into.
In Schiller’s hands the play and story leans heavily in the favor of Mary Stuart, and Elizabeth I comes across as the villain, if there is one. Elizabeth’s machinations and manipulations of others without her being honest in her intentions makes her a sharp contrast to Schiller’s Mary, who ends the play being brutally self-honest and content with her fate. Elizabeth on the other hand ends the play literally (and figuratively) alone.
One of the strengths of this play is that there are at least 6 characters that get good moments to shine in the text, and would be a treat for any actor to play. “Mary Stuart” really is an ensemble piece. Personally my favorite role was the role of Mortimer, a converted fanatic who is full of passion and religious fervor. His loyalty to Mary serves as a great contrast to another character who ultimately betrays her.
Act 3 in the play, where the two monarchs meet, is simply excellent and Schiller’s Mary scales the oratorical heights in her one moment of “triumph” against the Queen of England. It is nail-biting theater. Act 4:2 is also well done and builds and builds until Elizabeth finally signs the death warrant for Mary. The dialogue is thrilling and edge of your seat as Elizabeth’s council argues and weighs this momentous decision.
A good production of this play (and I have seen one at the Stratford Festival in Canada) is harrowing to watch and will keep you entertained as it gives a great glimpse into power, and just how much (or little) power those who assume it really have.
The new version by Peter Oswald is simply stunning. The translation is modern and accessible for any reader / audience. It is well done, and I prefer it to other translations I have looked into.
May 23, 2016
Erstaunlicherweise gar nicht mal nur doof! :D
November 6, 2015
Schiller version of the story of Mary, Queen of Scots. Beautiful and heartbreaking. I don't know whether it was the original prose or the translation, but the translation was like Shakespearean language - very beautiful.
January 19, 2014
Well, better than reading it. Acting is great. But the play is so not a favorite of mine. It feels like Elizabeth is being punished because she isn't beautiful enough.
October 4, 2021
Ladies and gentlemen, the first thing is to thank you for the warm reception that my review of"Mary Poppins" received https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... in which I had to justify, because I had put a star on it, and it seems that it has received your blessing. While it's true that it hasn't been as successful as BrandonSanderson's "Warbreaker" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., but it's pretty good, considering that most of the likes came before I had written the review.
In this case I plan to change third, and write about a different topic, also my criticism will be quite different, since from the four stars to a star there are several universes, and light years away. Not to mention that in this case we are going to talk about the dramatic genre. That is, the theater. I think it was Charles Ryder's nice father https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... who told his son that in most of the famous men they had had one thing in common, and that is that they had gone to the theater. It is not necessary to generalize, but what is evident is that in this case it is closer to the truth, and it is a literary genre that should have a greater follow-up, although it is true that culture is too politicized, and that people use classical works seeking to deal with current issues, which result in their benefit not to mention that the historical context of the work is not usually respected is the great failure that I see in today's theater. However, with this criticism I must sing a mea culpa,and recognize that I have been wrong, and I have been carried away by my prejudices just like Mr. Darcy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... in the masterful novel"Pride and Prejudice" and the first thing I do is ask Schiller for forgiveness, as Carthailac did with our Marcellin Saez Suetola (the discoverer of the caves of Altamira) for having labeled him an anti-Catholic, and for having been so critical of his work. While it is true, that I put a good note on his play"Fiesco"(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... (which had two endings, although this will challenge the historical truth), and despite the Hispanophobia (from that position I can not free Schiller) I put three stars to his Don Carlos https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., which would inspire in favor of unification, and in an example of a racism that had not been seen in Italy since the Renaissance (see the study of the black legend written by Sverker Arnoldson https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) to justify Italian Unification (it is always convenient to look for a foreign enemy, and the main rival of the Italian states to achieve unification was habsburg Austria, hence they resorted to the black legend that revitalized the Germans, and the Prince of Orange head of the Dutch Calvinists). However we see that despite having been a neoclassical author friend of Goethe https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... on the subject of German romanticism apart from Safranski https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... I recommend the novel of which a review was written"The world between scripts" by Jesús Trillo-Figueroa https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... Anyway as time goes by Schiller is becoming more sympathetic to Catholicism, although he does not manage to get rid of thee the Anti-Spanish Black Legend of Don Carlos, and the Wallenstein trilogy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., however both Joan of Arc https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., which at the request of my friend Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (whose books I highly recommend you read. They are in both Spanish and English. Most). That topic will already be discussed in my next review, but I can anticipate it, that I put three stars to a book. It does not mean that it is despicable, but it is a book that I liked not as much as others, that have come to me more, but the normal thing is that I like a book, but I do not fall in love, you can see that my average in Goodreads 3.39, and most likely as I get older I become more and more demanding with my readings. Anyway, with the exception, perhaps of"The Bride and Groom of Messina" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where in my opinion Schiller failedly tries to mix Christianity, and paganism in a story tinged with fatalism, and suicide. His work is too pagan, in fact, he tries to resurrect the choirs, left with a churro, and the plot is nothing of the other world. A Romeo and Juliet espwecie with a fratricidal, and incestuous touch. However, I was reafgirmó in what I say, I think that every time Schiller writes better. I have underestimated him, and I have considered he had less quality, than he has, but the four works that I have read to him in this extinct month of September show me, that although Dumasino sometimes follows the advice https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... of forcing history to obtain from it a good offspring. In fact, I think, that is the main problem of his dramas, which are very well written, but unfortunately Schiller follows the technique of Fu Manchu's daughter"Tell me lies, but tell them with sweetness" https://www.goodreads.com/series/5431... It's a problem, because when Schiller is faithful to the story is when he writes best, and it is when he improvises, and tells facts of his invention, or fiction, when his plots usually suffer. This is not noticed by most users, but for a historian this feature of Schiller predisposes him against him. If, for example, the subject it deals with is more unknown, it can work, as with"Guillermo Tell" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... or"Demetrio" the latter could not finish it, but the sketches he wrote seem to me one of his best works, and if he had finished it in my opinion it would have become his best play. Since the argument of the false Demetrius, who manages to be crowned Tsar has led to rivers of ink running on this subject. Prosper Merimee novelized it https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and Vladimir Volkoff https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... if the Goodreads user read my review of"A Library in the Oasis" https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... you will have seen how I recommended instead of the novel that Juan Manuel De Prada talked about (it was also very valuable)"The Pope's Guest" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., however I showed my preference for Vladimir Volkoff's historical novel"The Tsar's Men" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... where the Russian crisis that begins with the death of Ivan and l Terrible, and that until the arrival of Michael Romanov was about to cause the disappearance of Russia, during that episode several tsars were crowned among them the false Demetrius. Had it triumphed and been able to consolidate itself on the throne Russia would have returned to Catholicism, but unfortunately this led to more hatred among the Orthodox creed, including Dostoevsky, who never forgave Rome. Anti-Catholic writers used the mantra of the Jesuit conspiracy, and its infinite power so it was a boomerang that turned against the Catholics in Russia, and that, together with the capture of Byzantium in 1204, still colea in the Orthodox Church. All in all, it seems to me a great work by Schiller, and her character of Marina one of the most finished models of Lady McBeth, even more interesting than the character created by Shakespeare in McBeth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Returning to Mary Stuart although in the Don Carlos Philip II is fiercely attacked. When it comes to criticizing one of his main adversaries Elizabeth I of England. The author has been honest, and has not idealized it. I personally believe that the characterization and psychology of Queen Elizabeth are very well achieved, and are adapted to the evolution of history, and how the queen really was. Among the defects, one can count for example the historical licenses, which Schiller takes. How much characters are invented, like Anne Kennedy. It is curious that none of the Marys friends of Mary Stuart appear, and who were with her in her prison. It is also a mistake the presence of the fictional character of Mortimer, who in love with Mary Stuart plots the umpteenth attempt to free Mary Stuart without her asking him. Following the method previously employed by Babington. The one who is named, so it is impossible that Schiller has confused one conspirator with another. It takes some licenses like making Mary Stuart younger than she is. To have reduced the time that lasted his process, and the interview between the two queens, who never got to see each other personally. It is quite possible to influence both the film director John Ford, in fact, Katherine Hepburn played María Estuardo https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027948/, also José Luis Moreno in his interesting series queens https://www.filmaffinity.com/es/film6... confronts each other, but before María Estuardo is vilely imprisoned by her enemy, ignoring the gift of people. Being Philip II as a witness. I trust that one day the critics (who seeing the last skates), count less and less end up rectifying, and end up recognizing that Reinas is the wonderful series that it is. Of course it is a comparative study of what is happening in Spain, England, and Scotland at the same time, and although it makes the same mistake as Schiller for plot reasons I still think it is the bravest attempt to bring to fiction what is called a total history of at least three kingdoms in the sixteenth century.
Returning to Schiller, it is true that perhaps his play is not as good as luis Coloma's fictionalized biography"The Martyr Queen" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., if the psychology of Queen Elizabeth. As well as its contradictions, and its moral dilemmas are magnificently well described by Friedrich Schiller. The same goes for this modern incarnation of Mary Magdalene. He had a very tempestuous youth, which led St. Pius V https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... to say that he did not know which of the two queens was worse. It is true that here Schiller collects only Mary's last days, and not her entire life. Anyway he seems to believe, that Mary Stuart is innocent of the murder of her husband in Kirk O Field, after he is killing Rizio, he also seems innocent of his gallantry with the latter. Her marriage to her husband's killer would have been an act of consolidating her vacillating position on the throne, as Shwresbury points out well (the latter has a magnificent quote when she sardonically commented that plurality of vows does not mean justice, nor common good. This idea will also appear in Gulllermo Tell. This is pointed out when Elizabeth that Parliament following her orders condemned Mary Stuart to death). That also points out something very interesting, and in which I agree with him, that Isabella is a woman who until 1558, was always in danger of being executed, and who had to conspire to survive, while Mary Stuart, within what fits was educated with all luxury in the French court, only having the enmity of Catherine de Medicci, and that it was not made for the future that awaited it. In one of the most dangerous and conflictive courts of the sixteenth century. Not even an experienced person like Fitz James Stuart was prepared for the throne. In fact, Mary Stuart survived both her half-brother and Morton, both murdered. In any case, apart from indecent, the ultimatum posed by Ken Follet to this queen in his tendentious"Column of Fire" is immoral https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... where practically his characters demanded that Mary Stuart abdicate, and that she give the throne to her half-brother, he had no legitimacy as king, just like the seventeenth-century Monmouth, but that doesn't seem to be taken into account by anti-Catholics, and staunch Protestants. In any case, it is seen that Mary's repentance is credible, and it is very accomplished. Just as she was not involved in either the Norfolk conspiracy or babington's conspiracy, anyway, if she had been there no one would have said anything, because it was legitimate for her to use all the means at her disposal, to try to escape from the prison in which she was. Personally, I did not end up believing the character of Amyas Paulet, considering how he tortured Mary Stuart, and how he turned her imprisonment into hell. I do not believe that here he hesitates in the mission that Burleigh, and Elizabeth entrust to his nephew (Mortimer, had previously been converted to the cause of Mary Stuart, grace to the Cardinal of Lorraine, and his passage through Reims, and Douia). If I am much more convinced by the characters of Lord Burleigh, who is supposed to act, and calls for the death of Queen Mary Stuart for political, and patriotic, needs. Actually, to legitimize the looting of the abbeys, and the Catholic Church. Walsingham he does not appear in the work, but he is quoted, and he is a threat, always present, even if he is the man of confidence of the Cecil, who then knowing that the son is a coward, and has abandoned the faith of his mother will have no problem in installing him on the throne, as long as he is not Protestant, but they did not tell that his grandchildren Charles II in a disguised way, it will never be known whether instigated by Louis XIV on whom he depended, or by personal desire, and james II in an no longer disguised way would return to the faith of his ancestors, as this threatened the security of many could not be consented, and proceeded to mount a coup d'état against this dynasty, and to torture parliamentarism to legitimize such usurpation, or coup d'état. This topic was already discussed in "An Instance of the Fingerpost" by Iain Pears https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... Leicester's behavior didn't happen, but it's believable, but it fits with the character. Perhaps this is the most interesting thing about this work. Even when he makes fiction unlike other works of Schiller. What he tells us is credible, and plausible and could have happened. If you can't stay true to the facts, try to make the facts of your story as believable as possible. It should be remembered, that Leicester was offered as a sucked bone, since he was one of the lovers of the misnamed Virgin Queen to Mary Stuart as husband. In an attempt to offend, and to despise, however Mary Stuart initially came out on the right foot of this matter by choosing Lord Darnley what could not be assumed is that he was a degenerate. With everything schiller tells us it is possible that this lover, but out of cowardice does not dare to carry out his commitment to Mary Stuart, and having to choose between Mary, and he chooses to save himself. Cowardly, but very human. In fact in the plot there is no character who is evil Mortimer before a frightened Mary is willing to resort to assassination, like Babington to free her, Lord Burleigh acts against Mary for patriotic, and religious issues (I think Schiller paints him better than he is, but I do not see it wrong), Leicester is in love, but I will choose the betrayal of justice when I have to choose between his life, and that of the woman he loves (he already sacrificed his wife so that she would not harm him in the favor of his sovereign). The conflict between Burleigh, and Leicester is very well told by Schiller, perhaps the best character is Shwresbury, who is perhaps the only one who until the end does what is right, and what he should do, who will support Mary, and will only hesitate after the untimely interview between the two. Mary Stuart embodies the repentant sinner, and Elizabeth a woman with doubts, and hesitations, and also jealous. It is very well achieved. It's not as furious as Robert Hugh Benson's in "With What Authority?" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... but it is credible, and also the cruelty with which he will punish Secretary Davison, who together with Mary Stuart will be the innocent victim, along with Mary Stuart of the scruples of this great hypocrite. It is curious that both Schiller and Zweig pick up this fact. In my view Schiller's work is better than Zweig's biography, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... because the second one does believe, that Mary Stuart is guilty of the crimes that are imputed to her, and because despite her bad faith she is favorable to Queen Elizabeth I, due to her Anglophilia that is why she was given a (1). Instead Schiller chooses to support Mary Stuart, and show his sympathy for Catholicism, he will also make a similar decision in "The Maiden of Orleans". Without a doubt for me this is Schiller's best play, and if it had been more faithful to the story, maybe I would have given it the five stars. For example, the death of Mary Stuart if the work had represented her would have gained a lot with that mythical "my end is my beginning". While it is pointed out that the queen had confession, and did not die spiritually unassisted, Robert Hugh Benson also affects this in "Come rack, come rope", https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where it is its protagonist Robin Audrey who confessed to the queen. In this case it will be another character who does it. The ending fits with the character, but it is posture in my opinion Isabel could not do without Burleigh because she was the one who commanded as Hilaire Belloc points out in "Characters of the Reformation"
In this case I plan to change third, and write about a different topic, also my criticism will be quite different, since from the four stars to a star there are several universes, and light years away. Not to mention that in this case we are going to talk about the dramatic genre. That is, the theater. I think it was Charles Ryder's nice father https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... who told his son that in most of the famous men they had had one thing in common, and that is that they had gone to the theater. It is not necessary to generalize, but what is evident is that in this case it is closer to the truth, and it is a literary genre that should have a greater follow-up, although it is true that culture is too politicized, and that people use classical works seeking to deal with current issues, which result in their benefit not to mention that the historical context of the work is not usually respected is the great failure that I see in today's theater. However, with this criticism I must sing a mea culpa,and recognize that I have been wrong, and I have been carried away by my prejudices just like Mr. Darcy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... in the masterful novel"Pride and Prejudice" and the first thing I do is ask Schiller for forgiveness, as Carthailac did with our Marcellin Saez Suetola (the discoverer of the caves of Altamira) for having labeled him an anti-Catholic, and for having been so critical of his work. While it is true, that I put a good note on his play"Fiesco"(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... (which had two endings, although this will challenge the historical truth), and despite the Hispanophobia (from that position I can not free Schiller) I put three stars to his Don Carlos https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., which would inspire in favor of unification, and in an example of a racism that had not been seen in Italy since the Renaissance (see the study of the black legend written by Sverker Arnoldson https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) to justify Italian Unification (it is always convenient to look for a foreign enemy, and the main rival of the Italian states to achieve unification was habsburg Austria, hence they resorted to the black legend that revitalized the Germans, and the Prince of Orange head of the Dutch Calvinists). However we see that despite having been a neoclassical author friend of Goethe https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... on the subject of German romanticism apart from Safranski https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... I recommend the novel of which a review was written"The world between scripts" by Jesús Trillo-Figueroa https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... Anyway as time goes by Schiller is becoming more sympathetic to Catholicism, although he does not manage to get rid of thee the Anti-Spanish Black Legend of Don Carlos, and the Wallenstein trilogy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., however both Joan of Arc https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., which at the request of my friend Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (whose books I highly recommend you read. They are in both Spanish and English. Most). That topic will already be discussed in my next review, but I can anticipate it, that I put three stars to a book. It does not mean that it is despicable, but it is a book that I liked not as much as others, that have come to me more, but the normal thing is that I like a book, but I do not fall in love, you can see that my average in Goodreads 3.39, and most likely as I get older I become more and more demanding with my readings. Anyway, with the exception, perhaps of"The Bride and Groom of Messina" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where in my opinion Schiller failedly tries to mix Christianity, and paganism in a story tinged with fatalism, and suicide. His work is too pagan, in fact, he tries to resurrect the choirs, left with a churro, and the plot is nothing of the other world. A Romeo and Juliet espwecie with a fratricidal, and incestuous touch. However, I was reafgirmó in what I say, I think that every time Schiller writes better. I have underestimated him, and I have considered he had less quality, than he has, but the four works that I have read to him in this extinct month of September show me, that although Dumasino sometimes follows the advice https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... of forcing history to obtain from it a good offspring. In fact, I think, that is the main problem of his dramas, which are very well written, but unfortunately Schiller follows the technique of Fu Manchu's daughter"Tell me lies, but tell them with sweetness" https://www.goodreads.com/series/5431... It's a problem, because when Schiller is faithful to the story is when he writes best, and it is when he improvises, and tells facts of his invention, or fiction, when his plots usually suffer. This is not noticed by most users, but for a historian this feature of Schiller predisposes him against him. If, for example, the subject it deals with is more unknown, it can work, as with"Guillermo Tell" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... or"Demetrio" the latter could not finish it, but the sketches he wrote seem to me one of his best works, and if he had finished it in my opinion it would have become his best play. Since the argument of the false Demetrius, who manages to be crowned Tsar has led to rivers of ink running on this subject. Prosper Merimee novelized it https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and Vladimir Volkoff https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... if the Goodreads user read my review of"A Library in the Oasis" https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... you will have seen how I recommended instead of the novel that Juan Manuel De Prada talked about (it was also very valuable)"The Pope's Guest" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., however I showed my preference for Vladimir Volkoff's historical novel"The Tsar's Men" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... where the Russian crisis that begins with the death of Ivan and l Terrible, and that until the arrival of Michael Romanov was about to cause the disappearance of Russia, during that episode several tsars were crowned among them the false Demetrius. Had it triumphed and been able to consolidate itself on the throne Russia would have returned to Catholicism, but unfortunately this led to more hatred among the Orthodox creed, including Dostoevsky, who never forgave Rome. Anti-Catholic writers used the mantra of the Jesuit conspiracy, and its infinite power so it was a boomerang that turned against the Catholics in Russia, and that, together with the capture of Byzantium in 1204, still colea in the Orthodox Church. All in all, it seems to me a great work by Schiller, and her character of Marina one of the most finished models of Lady McBeth, even more interesting than the character created by Shakespeare in McBeth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Returning to Mary Stuart although in the Don Carlos Philip II is fiercely attacked. When it comes to criticizing one of his main adversaries Elizabeth I of England. The author has been honest, and has not idealized it. I personally believe that the characterization and psychology of Queen Elizabeth are very well achieved, and are adapted to the evolution of history, and how the queen really was. Among the defects, one can count for example the historical licenses, which Schiller takes. How much characters are invented, like Anne Kennedy. It is curious that none of the Marys friends of Mary Stuart appear, and who were with her in her prison. It is also a mistake the presence of the fictional character of Mortimer, who in love with Mary Stuart plots the umpteenth attempt to free Mary Stuart without her asking him. Following the method previously employed by Babington. The one who is named, so it is impossible that Schiller has confused one conspirator with another. It takes some licenses like making Mary Stuart younger than she is. To have reduced the time that lasted his process, and the interview between the two queens, who never got to see each other personally. It is quite possible to influence both the film director John Ford, in fact, Katherine Hepburn played María Estuardo https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027948/, also José Luis Moreno in his interesting series queens https://www.filmaffinity.com/es/film6... confronts each other, but before María Estuardo is vilely imprisoned by her enemy, ignoring the gift of people. Being Philip II as a witness. I trust that one day the critics (who seeing the last skates), count less and less end up rectifying, and end up recognizing that Reinas is the wonderful series that it is. Of course it is a comparative study of what is happening in Spain, England, and Scotland at the same time, and although it makes the same mistake as Schiller for plot reasons I still think it is the bravest attempt to bring to fiction what is called a total history of at least three kingdoms in the sixteenth century.
Returning to Schiller, it is true that perhaps his play is not as good as luis Coloma's fictionalized biography"The Martyr Queen" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., if the psychology of Queen Elizabeth. As well as its contradictions, and its moral dilemmas are magnificently well described by Friedrich Schiller. The same goes for this modern incarnation of Mary Magdalene. He had a very tempestuous youth, which led St. Pius V https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... to say that he did not know which of the two queens was worse. It is true that here Schiller collects only Mary's last days, and not her entire life. Anyway he seems to believe, that Mary Stuart is innocent of the murder of her husband in Kirk O Field, after he is killing Rizio, he also seems innocent of his gallantry with the latter. Her marriage to her husband's killer would have been an act of consolidating her vacillating position on the throne, as Shwresbury points out well (the latter has a magnificent quote when she sardonically commented that plurality of vows does not mean justice, nor common good. This idea will also appear in Gulllermo Tell. This is pointed out when Elizabeth that Parliament following her orders condemned Mary Stuart to death). That also points out something very interesting, and in which I agree with him, that Isabella is a woman who until 1558, was always in danger of being executed, and who had to conspire to survive, while Mary Stuart, within what fits was educated with all luxury in the French court, only having the enmity of Catherine de Medicci, and that it was not made for the future that awaited it. In one of the most dangerous and conflictive courts of the sixteenth century. Not even an experienced person like Fitz James Stuart was prepared for the throne. In fact, Mary Stuart survived both her half-brother and Morton, both murdered. In any case, apart from indecent, the ultimatum posed by Ken Follet to this queen in his tendentious"Column of Fire" is immoral https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... where practically his characters demanded that Mary Stuart abdicate, and that she give the throne to her half-brother, he had no legitimacy as king, just like the seventeenth-century Monmouth, but that doesn't seem to be taken into account by anti-Catholics, and staunch Protestants. In any case, it is seen that Mary's repentance is credible, and it is very accomplished. Just as she was not involved in either the Norfolk conspiracy or babington's conspiracy, anyway, if she had been there no one would have said anything, because it was legitimate for her to use all the means at her disposal, to try to escape from the prison in which she was. Personally, I did not end up believing the character of Amyas Paulet, considering how he tortured Mary Stuart, and how he turned her imprisonment into hell. I do not believe that here he hesitates in the mission that Burleigh, and Elizabeth entrust to his nephew (Mortimer, had previously been converted to the cause of Mary Stuart, grace to the Cardinal of Lorraine, and his passage through Reims, and Douia). If I am much more convinced by the characters of Lord Burleigh, who is supposed to act, and calls for the death of Queen Mary Stuart for political, and patriotic, needs. Actually, to legitimize the looting of the abbeys, and the Catholic Church. Walsingham he does not appear in the work, but he is quoted, and he is a threat, always present, even if he is the man of confidence of the Cecil, who then knowing that the son is a coward, and has abandoned the faith of his mother will have no problem in installing him on the throne, as long as he is not Protestant, but they did not tell that his grandchildren Charles II in a disguised way, it will never be known whether instigated by Louis XIV on whom he depended, or by personal desire, and james II in an no longer disguised way would return to the faith of his ancestors, as this threatened the security of many could not be consented, and proceeded to mount a coup d'état against this dynasty, and to torture parliamentarism to legitimize such usurpation, or coup d'état. This topic was already discussed in "An Instance of the Fingerpost" by Iain Pears https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... Leicester's behavior didn't happen, but it's believable, but it fits with the character. Perhaps this is the most interesting thing about this work. Even when he makes fiction unlike other works of Schiller. What he tells us is credible, and plausible and could have happened. If you can't stay true to the facts, try to make the facts of your story as believable as possible. It should be remembered, that Leicester was offered as a sucked bone, since he was one of the lovers of the misnamed Virgin Queen to Mary Stuart as husband. In an attempt to offend, and to despise, however Mary Stuart initially came out on the right foot of this matter by choosing Lord Darnley what could not be assumed is that he was a degenerate. With everything schiller tells us it is possible that this lover, but out of cowardice does not dare to carry out his commitment to Mary Stuart, and having to choose between Mary, and he chooses to save himself. Cowardly, but very human. In fact in the plot there is no character who is evil Mortimer before a frightened Mary is willing to resort to assassination, like Babington to free her, Lord Burleigh acts against Mary for patriotic, and religious issues (I think Schiller paints him better than he is, but I do not see it wrong), Leicester is in love, but I will choose the betrayal of justice when I have to choose between his life, and that of the woman he loves (he already sacrificed his wife so that she would not harm him in the favor of his sovereign). The conflict between Burleigh, and Leicester is very well told by Schiller, perhaps the best character is Shwresbury, who is perhaps the only one who until the end does what is right, and what he should do, who will support Mary, and will only hesitate after the untimely interview between the two. Mary Stuart embodies the repentant sinner, and Elizabeth a woman with doubts, and hesitations, and also jealous. It is very well achieved. It's not as furious as Robert Hugh Benson's in "With What Authority?" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... but it is credible, and also the cruelty with which he will punish Secretary Davison, who together with Mary Stuart will be the innocent victim, along with Mary Stuart of the scruples of this great hypocrite. It is curious that both Schiller and Zweig pick up this fact. In my view Schiller's work is better than Zweig's biography, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... because the second one does believe, that Mary Stuart is guilty of the crimes that are imputed to her, and because despite her bad faith she is favorable to Queen Elizabeth I, due to her Anglophilia that is why she was given a (1). Instead Schiller chooses to support Mary Stuart, and show his sympathy for Catholicism, he will also make a similar decision in "The Maiden of Orleans". Without a doubt for me this is Schiller's best play, and if it had been more faithful to the story, maybe I would have given it the five stars. For example, the death of Mary Stuart if the work had represented her would have gained a lot with that mythical "my end is my beginning". While it is pointed out that the queen had confession, and did not die spiritually unassisted, Robert Hugh Benson also affects this in "Come rack, come rope", https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where it is its protagonist Robin Audrey who confessed to the queen. In this case it will be another character who does it. The ending fits with the character, but it is posture in my opinion Isabel could not do without Burleigh because she was the one who commanded as Hilaire Belloc points out in "Characters of the Reformation"
August 24, 2021
Me encantó. Me pareció una obra muy cinematográfica, o tal vez me lo pareció porque hace poco ví la película "Elizabeth: La edad de oro" y, al leer, no podía dejar de recordarla.
Lo importante es que me gustó tanto que me dieron ganas de seguir leyendo otras obras de Schiller. Por ej, "La doncella de Orleans".
Lo importante es que me gustó tanto que me dieron ganas de seguir leyendo otras obras de Schiller. Por ej, "La doncella de Orleans".
November 5, 2024
Literalmente se siente a los personajes y sus penas. Schiller dibuja cada escena en la cabeza de uno, y lo hace sentir parte. Amé, amé, amé.
October 27, 2020
3,5
Hace unas semanas vi María, Reina de Escocia (Mary Queen of Scots,2018) película protagonizada por Saorise Ronan en el papel de María Estuardo y Margot Robbie en el papel de Isabel I de Inglaterra. Todo podía salir mal y, efectivamente, salió mal. La película no se esfuerza en ocultar toda la idelogía que reviste el film y que ha convertido a Hollywood en una ciénaga más infecta de lo que ha sido siempre. La historia de María Estuardo es muy atractiva desde el punto de vista de las ideologías identitarias que tienen nuestra sociedad patas arriba desde hace unos años. Una reina arrancada de la tierra en la que se crío y abandonada a su suerte en una tierra llena de hombres profundamente religiosos, mezquinos y salvajes. Oh, sí. El único hombre bueno de esta película es Rizzio, la mano derecha de María, que causalmente es homosexual (o transexual, no se esclarece del todo el asunto). Como la directora sabía que el rigor histórico de la película iba a ser cuestionable, decide justificarse aludiendo a que su película se basa en una novela de un señor aleatorio llamado John Guy, que para el caso podría haberse apellidado Smith. A Josie Rourke solo le faltó decir que a María Estuardo le dieron tres hachazos en el cuello no por ser reina, sino por ser mujer. Lo que hay que oír.
Lo único bueno que puedo sacar de esta experiencia es que la Rourke aumentó mi deseo de conocer la verdadera vida de María Estuardo. A pesar de que mis conocimientos sobre la historia de la isla son bastante deficientes, quería saber qué había hecho María Estuardo más allá de la visión endulzada e idealizada de Josie Rourke. Estuve dudando entre leer la biografía de Dumas o la de Sweig, y finalmente me decidí por la de Dumas por ser un poquito más breve, temiendo que la biografía de Sweig requiriera un mayor bagaje histórico.
María Estuardo (Crimes Célèbres: Marie Stuart, 1896) es una hagiografía de casi trescientas páginas, claro precedente de los documentales de crímenes dramatizados de la televisión. Papá Dumas nos recrea la vida de María desde su partida de Francia hasta el día de su ejecución, combinando la narración de hechos de una biografía pura y dura con reconstrucción de la personalidad de María Estuardo, dramatizando los momentos clave de su vida; su partida de Francia, el asesinato de Rizzio, la traición de hombres leales a su majestad, el posterior encierro en el castillo de Lochleven, la huida a Inglaterra y, finalmente, la triste ejecución de la reina.
Disfruté mucho el formato que le dio Dumas a esta biografía. No se hace pesada ni se pierde en los detalles. Es cierto que no se limita solo a contar los hechos tal como sucedieron, sino que en algunos puntos los reviste de ese conocido sentimentalismo francés que parece implícito en todas estas historias de amoríos, poder y celos. Pero las interpretaciones de la realidad de Dumas no llegan al nivel descarado de Josie Rourke, por lo que el resultado es una biografía bastante amena de una extensión ideal que nos acerca mucho más a la María de carne y hueso de lo que lo haría una biografía más detallada indicada para historiadores o aficionados de la historia de Inglaterra.
Recomendada.
Hace unas semanas vi María, Reina de Escocia (Mary Queen of Scots,2018) película protagonizada por Saorise Ronan en el papel de María Estuardo y Margot Robbie en el papel de Isabel I de Inglaterra. Todo podía salir mal y, efectivamente, salió mal. La película no se esfuerza en ocultar toda la idelogía que reviste el film y que ha convertido a Hollywood en una ciénaga más infecta de lo que ha sido siempre. La historia de María Estuardo es muy atractiva desde el punto de vista de las ideologías identitarias que tienen nuestra sociedad patas arriba desde hace unos años. Una reina arrancada de la tierra en la que se crío y abandonada a su suerte en una tierra llena de hombres profundamente religiosos, mezquinos y salvajes. Oh, sí. El único hombre bueno de esta película es Rizzio, la mano derecha de María, que causalmente es homosexual (o transexual, no se esclarece del todo el asunto). Como la directora sabía que el rigor histórico de la película iba a ser cuestionable, decide justificarse aludiendo a que su película se basa en una novela de un señor aleatorio llamado John Guy, que para el caso podría haberse apellidado Smith. A Josie Rourke solo le faltó decir que a María Estuardo le dieron tres hachazos en el cuello no por ser reina, sino por ser mujer. Lo que hay que oír.
Lo único bueno que puedo sacar de esta experiencia es que la Rourke aumentó mi deseo de conocer la verdadera vida de María Estuardo. A pesar de que mis conocimientos sobre la historia de la isla son bastante deficientes, quería saber qué había hecho María Estuardo más allá de la visión endulzada e idealizada de Josie Rourke. Estuve dudando entre leer la biografía de Dumas o la de Sweig, y finalmente me decidí por la de Dumas por ser un poquito más breve, temiendo que la biografía de Sweig requiriera un mayor bagaje histórico.
María Estuardo (Crimes Célèbres: Marie Stuart, 1896) es una hagiografía de casi trescientas páginas, claro precedente de los documentales de crímenes dramatizados de la televisión. Papá Dumas nos recrea la vida de María desde su partida de Francia hasta el día de su ejecución, combinando la narración de hechos de una biografía pura y dura con reconstrucción de la personalidad de María Estuardo, dramatizando los momentos clave de su vida; su partida de Francia, el asesinato de Rizzio, la traición de hombres leales a su majestad, el posterior encierro en el castillo de Lochleven, la huida a Inglaterra y, finalmente, la triste ejecución de la reina.
Disfruté mucho el formato que le dio Dumas a esta biografía. No se hace pesada ni se pierde en los detalles. Es cierto que no se limita solo a contar los hechos tal como sucedieron, sino que en algunos puntos los reviste de ese conocido sentimentalismo francés que parece implícito en todas estas historias de amoríos, poder y celos. Pero las interpretaciones de la realidad de Dumas no llegan al nivel descarado de Josie Rourke, por lo que el resultado es una biografía bastante amena de una extensión ideal que nos acerca mucho más a la María de carne y hueso de lo que lo haría una biografía más detallada indicada para historiadores o aficionados de la historia de Inglaterra.
Recomendada.
April 10, 2012
Ich frage mich, warum das Stück "Maria Stuart" heißt, wenn nicht bloß zur Einordnung in den geschichtlichen Kontext. Für mich ist die eigentlich interessante Figur Elisabeth. Das ganze Stück hindurch erschien sie mir regelrecht willenlos: Neben dem logischen Fehler, der sich aus ihrem Jungfräulichkeitswunsch und der Liaison mit ich verrate nicht wem ergibt, ist sie auch hin und her gerissen, was im Fall Maria Stuarts zu tun ist, steht zwischen ihren Beratern und dem Volk; ihr eigenes Herz offenbart sich in keinem Moment.
Sie erschien mir als bemerkenswert schwache Herrscherin, die mich etwas ratlos ließ. Bis dann die letzte Szene kam... Ein echter Augenöffner, so was habe ich noch nicht erlebt. Ich bin richtig mitgenommen von dieser Vorstellung.
Sie erschien mir als bemerkenswert schwache Herrscherin, die mich etwas ratlos ließ. Bis dann die letzte Szene kam... Ein echter Augenöffner, so was habe ich noch nicht erlebt. Ich bin richtig mitgenommen von dieser Vorstellung.
February 26, 2020
Ano passado, tatuei no braço esquerdo uma frase de Mary Stuart, a Rainha da Escócia: "my heart is my own". Nessa obra de Alexandre Dumas, que conta os percalços e tragédias dessa rainha, fica ainda mais claro que seguir seu coração pode ter medidas irreparáveis, mas que nos tornam quem nós somos. Mary não tomou as melhores decisões como líder, nem sua liderança foi tão transformadora quanto a de Henrique VIII ou Elizabeth I, aquela que sentenciou Mary à morte após 19 anos de sofrimento, migrando de prisão em prisão. Mas foi genuína e autêntica em suas decisões, e especialmente em momentos cruciais da vida. Me afeiçoei ainda mais a essa personagem curiosa da história. E a edição da Wish é bem linda e caprichada. Vale muito a pena. 💛✨
April 27, 2021
این کتاب نمایشنامه ای از نمایشنامه نویس معروف از بخش مهم از اواخر زندگی ماری استوارته
از زمانی که ملکه الیزابت اول در تردید برای حکم اعدام ماری به سر می بره و تا مرگ او
اگه پیش زمینه ای از این بخش از تاریخ انگلیس ندارید، ازاتفاقات و شخصیت ها چیز زیادی متوجه نمیشید و باعث میشه سر در گم شید پس بدون مطالعه قبلی سراغش نرید
برای من که این بخش از تاریخ رو خیلی دوست دارم، جالب بود
ترجمه و به خصوص ویراستاری این کتاب افتضاح بود و نیاز به ویراستاری مجدد داره. از نشر ثالث بعید بود
از زمانی که ملکه الیزابت اول در تردید برای حکم اعدام ماری به سر می بره و تا مرگ او
اگه پیش زمینه ای از این بخش از تاریخ انگلیس ندارید، ازاتفاقات و شخصیت ها چیز زیادی متوجه نمیشید و باعث میشه سر در گم شید پس بدون مطالعه قبلی سراغش نرید
برای من که این بخش از تاریخ رو خیلی دوست دارم، جالب بود
ترجمه و به خصوص ویراستاری این کتاب افتضاح بود و نیاز به ویراستاری مجدد داره. از نشر ثالث بعید بود
December 8, 2022
The Tragedy of Elizabeth
5 December 2022
The thing that sort of strikes me with this play is that in part it is recent history, relatively speaking (the events occurred about 200 years before the writing of the play), but it sort of makes me think about the Greek tragedies, though they were written about events that were separated by a dark age, whereas Schiller would have had access to quite a few historical records for his production (though like a lot of dramatisations of historical events, Schiller has inserted his own ideas and characters into the play – Mortimer for instance).
Anyway, this play is about how Mary, Queen of Scots, fled to England after murdering her husband, and was then imprisoned, apparently for the murder, but in reality, because she was a Papist, and at the time the English really didn’t like Papists (particularly since the previous monarch, Bloody Mary, had a reputation for killing protestants). Actually, the fact that the names were shared probably had something to do with it as well, but Schiller is clear throughout the play that Mary was an ardent Papist, and despite pressure, refused to renounce the Pope, which eventually cost her her life.
This is basically a play of political intrigue, and quite a long one though, however it sort of didn’t really grab my attention all that much, namely because it really did seem to drag in parts. Sure, some people argue that this is really only to build up the characters, but the other thing is that the play is written entirely in blank verse. That is actually something that surprised me because blank verse also exists in German, something I didn’t realise. Of course, I read a translation, but the translator had also written it in blank verse as well. Mind you, Shakespeare also wrote in blank verse, but nothing was wasted in any of his plays – it felt like there was a lot of wastage in this one.
Anyway, the intrigue involves a plot to rescue Mary, which of course ends up coming undone, and the plotters also turning on each other so as to save their skins. Yet, the interesting thing is that Mary was actually imprisoned in a castle, and her gaoler actually mentioned that his job is to keep her alive. It wasn’t even a single room either, she had the whole castle to herself, and the conspirators were also able to come and go. Yet, there are two conspiracies operating against each other, one of them attempting to free Mary, the other attempting to convince Elizabeth to sign the death warrant. They even go as far as to set up an attempted assassination to do this.
Okay, killing a monarch is a pretty big thing, which is probably why they need Elizabeth’s signature on the warrant. However, as we know in history, some side comments such as ‘will nobody rid me of that troublesome priest’ have resulted in murders that have been regretted. I guess (and I am only assuming here), this is why further checks and balances have been put in place (I believe this happened at least twice in English history). Of course, it ends up that Elizabeth signs the warrant anyway, and it ends up in the wrong hands, so of course, Mary is executed.
Yet, Elizabeth is painted as the bad guy in the end, something that I suspect the English populace wouldn’t have considered. Then again, the events are being viewed by an outsider, and that does help us view the events in a different light. The ending of the play has Elizabeth either banishing or imprisoning the members of her counsel, blaming them for the death of Mary. However, considering the mess that came about from the Stuart dynasty after Elizabeth’s death, I suspect the English probably don’t have too much love for Mary. Also, her name was Mary, and as I mentioned, Elizabeth’s predecessor, also named Mary, had the well-earned moniker of bloody.
Look, it does put an interesting twist on events, and I did find myself feeling a little more sympathetic towards Mary, though of course there is the whole ‘murdered her husband’ issue, which I’m sure probably should weigh a lot more on the reason for her imprisonment, and of course, there would also be the fact that I’m sure the Scots would be demanding her back – well, probably not her son James, since that meant that he was sort of king – yeah political intrigue really does play deep in these times, but then again nothing has changed, particularly since we live in an era in which we have a pretender living in a mansion still claiming that an election was stolen from him because, well, he simply can’t believe that people wouldn’t want to vote for him and that the woke left are just a bunch of radicals. One thing I have learnt in all my years is that if you believe that everybody hates a certain person because, well, you hate that person, then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
5 December 2022
The thing that sort of strikes me with this play is that in part it is recent history, relatively speaking (the events occurred about 200 years before the writing of the play), but it sort of makes me think about the Greek tragedies, though they were written about events that were separated by a dark age, whereas Schiller would have had access to quite a few historical records for his production (though like a lot of dramatisations of historical events, Schiller has inserted his own ideas and characters into the play – Mortimer for instance).
Anyway, this play is about how Mary, Queen of Scots, fled to England after murdering her husband, and was then imprisoned, apparently for the murder, but in reality, because she was a Papist, and at the time the English really didn’t like Papists (particularly since the previous monarch, Bloody Mary, had a reputation for killing protestants). Actually, the fact that the names were shared probably had something to do with it as well, but Schiller is clear throughout the play that Mary was an ardent Papist, and despite pressure, refused to renounce the Pope, which eventually cost her her life.
This is basically a play of political intrigue, and quite a long one though, however it sort of didn’t really grab my attention all that much, namely because it really did seem to drag in parts. Sure, some people argue that this is really only to build up the characters, but the other thing is that the play is written entirely in blank verse. That is actually something that surprised me because blank verse also exists in German, something I didn’t realise. Of course, I read a translation, but the translator had also written it in blank verse as well. Mind you, Shakespeare also wrote in blank verse, but nothing was wasted in any of his plays – it felt like there was a lot of wastage in this one.
Anyway, the intrigue involves a plot to rescue Mary, which of course ends up coming undone, and the plotters also turning on each other so as to save their skins. Yet, the interesting thing is that Mary was actually imprisoned in a castle, and her gaoler actually mentioned that his job is to keep her alive. It wasn’t even a single room either, she had the whole castle to herself, and the conspirators were also able to come and go. Yet, there are two conspiracies operating against each other, one of them attempting to free Mary, the other attempting to convince Elizabeth to sign the death warrant. They even go as far as to set up an attempted assassination to do this.
Okay, killing a monarch is a pretty big thing, which is probably why they need Elizabeth’s signature on the warrant. However, as we know in history, some side comments such as ‘will nobody rid me of that troublesome priest’ have resulted in murders that have been regretted. I guess (and I am only assuming here), this is why further checks and balances have been put in place (I believe this happened at least twice in English history). Of course, it ends up that Elizabeth signs the warrant anyway, and it ends up in the wrong hands, so of course, Mary is executed.
Yet, Elizabeth is painted as the bad guy in the end, something that I suspect the English populace wouldn’t have considered. Then again, the events are being viewed by an outsider, and that does help us view the events in a different light. The ending of the play has Elizabeth either banishing or imprisoning the members of her counsel, blaming them for the death of Mary. However, considering the mess that came about from the Stuart dynasty after Elizabeth’s death, I suspect the English probably don’t have too much love for Mary. Also, her name was Mary, and as I mentioned, Elizabeth’s predecessor, also named Mary, had the well-earned moniker of bloody.
Look, it does put an interesting twist on events, and I did find myself feeling a little more sympathetic towards Mary, though of course there is the whole ‘murdered her husband’ issue, which I’m sure probably should weigh a lot more on the reason for her imprisonment, and of course, there would also be the fact that I’m sure the Scots would be demanding her back – well, probably not her son James, since that meant that he was sort of king – yeah political intrigue really does play deep in these times, but then again nothing has changed, particularly since we live in an era in which we have a pretender living in a mansion still claiming that an election was stolen from him because, well, he simply can’t believe that people wouldn’t want to vote for him and that the woke left are just a bunch of radicals. One thing I have learnt in all my years is that if you believe that everybody hates a certain person because, well, you hate that person, then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
November 2, 2025
kurzer disclaimer vorab: Ich habe das Stück nie ganz gelesen, sondern nur einige Auszüge aus dem Unterrichts-Reader und alle möglichen Zusammenfassungen (Videos, Websites) bis zum Ende der Handlung durchstudiert haha…
alsoooo, erstmal fand ich Maria Stuart zwar immernoch unglaublich schrecklich zum Lesen (I mean es ist immernoch ein THEATERSTÜCK und kein Roman; also why tf LESEN wir das eigentlich??) aber es war tatsächlich schon mal eine um einiges bessere Experience als bei Kabale und Liebe (man merkt Steigerungen, Kollege Friedrich😁👍🏻)
nun kurz zur Handlung: also es ist immer noch ein Drama - also kurzgesagt ein (leider) unnötig schlecht ausgehender und ziemlich verstrickter Konflikt zwischen verschiedenen Parteien. Mir tut am Ende irgendwie immer jemand Leid haha. Bin für sowas mit meiner sozialen Ader wohl nicht gemacht…
Was ist eigentlich Burleigh für ein A…? 😡Übergibt und vollstreckt einfach unabgesprochen (!) das Todesurteil Marias, die zusätzlich dazu, dass sie eigentlich den rechtmäßigen Herrschaftsanspruch hätte (und nicht Elisabeth), dann auch noch wegen angeblichen Plänen, ✨EliSaBeTH erMoRDen zU wOllEn✨, ZU UNRECHT (, wie sich später herausstellt) beschuldigt wird?!
Lange Rede, kurzer Sinn: Kopf ab. Unfairerweise. 🔪
(obwohl… Maria hat auch Dreck am Stecken gehabt, ihren früheren Mann umgebracht, usw. - aber das ignorieren wir jetzt mal…😂)
.
.
.
Ich weiß, ich weiß, des basiert auf ner wahren Geschichte und Schiller kann nichts für den Inhalt… aber naja, die Storyline hat mich auch diesmal wieder einfach nur wütend gemacht/entsetzt.
Eine positive Sache würd ich aber erwähnen: irgendwie fand ich tatsächlich Maria und ihre Emotionen recht gut dargestellt und mir hat die Metaphorik in den Szenen ganz gut gefallen (maybe auch, weil ich den damaligen Konflikt zwischen Protestantismus und Katholizismus interessant finde, auf den manchmal stilistisch angespielt wurde).
Insgesamt war‘s um einiges erträglicher als das ständige „on-off, ich lieb, aber hass dich auch“-Kabale und Liebe.
Wirklich moralischer vertretbar ist an dem ganzen Konstrukt aber mal wieder gar nix hahaha & privat hätt ich’s mir auch nicht reingezogen.🫣
GaliGrü an meine Leutis, die sich meine Rezension wieder durchlesen - bin auch auf Eure gespannt (bzw. für die ausm anderen Kurs: auf die von Iphigenie auf Tauris) <3
alsoooo, erstmal fand ich Maria Stuart zwar immernoch unglaublich schrecklich zum Lesen (I mean es ist immernoch ein THEATERSTÜCK und kein Roman; also why tf LESEN wir das eigentlich??) aber es war tatsächlich schon mal eine um einiges bessere Experience als bei Kabale und Liebe (man merkt Steigerungen, Kollege Friedrich😁👍🏻)
nun kurz zur Handlung: also es ist immer noch ein Drama - also kurzgesagt ein (leider) unnötig schlecht ausgehender und ziemlich verstrickter Konflikt zwischen verschiedenen Parteien. Mir tut am Ende irgendwie immer jemand Leid haha. Bin für sowas mit meiner sozialen Ader wohl nicht gemacht…
Was ist eigentlich Burleigh für ein A…? 😡Übergibt und vollstreckt einfach unabgesprochen (!) das Todesurteil Marias, die zusätzlich dazu, dass sie eigentlich den rechtmäßigen Herrschaftsanspruch hätte (und nicht Elisabeth), dann auch noch wegen angeblichen Plänen, ✨EliSaBeTH erMoRDen zU wOllEn✨, ZU UNRECHT (, wie sich später herausstellt) beschuldigt wird?!
Lange Rede, kurzer Sinn: Kopf ab. Unfairerweise. 🔪
(obwohl… Maria hat auch Dreck am Stecken gehabt, ihren früheren Mann umgebracht, usw. - aber das ignorieren wir jetzt mal…😂)
.
.
.
Ich weiß, ich weiß, des basiert auf ner wahren Geschichte und Schiller kann nichts für den Inhalt… aber naja, die Storyline hat mich auch diesmal wieder einfach nur wütend gemacht/entsetzt.
Eine positive Sache würd ich aber erwähnen: irgendwie fand ich tatsächlich Maria und ihre Emotionen recht gut dargestellt und mir hat die Metaphorik in den Szenen ganz gut gefallen (maybe auch, weil ich den damaligen Konflikt zwischen Protestantismus und Katholizismus interessant finde, auf den manchmal stilistisch angespielt wurde).
Insgesamt war‘s um einiges erträglicher als das ständige „on-off, ich lieb, aber hass dich auch“-Kabale und Liebe.
Wirklich moralischer vertretbar ist an dem ganzen Konstrukt aber mal wieder gar nix hahaha & privat hätt ich’s mir auch nicht reingezogen.🫣
GaliGrü an meine Leutis, die sich meine Rezension wieder durchlesen - bin auch auf Eure gespannt (bzw. für die ausm anderen Kurs: auf die von Iphigenie auf Tauris) <3
November 11, 2020
3.5 🌟
Wieder was für die Uni und es hat mir tatsächlich gefallen 😍😅 die Thematik finde ich mega interessant aber besser konnte ich es dann doch nicht bewerten da mir auch hier das Hörbuch sehr beim durchkommen geholfen hat🤷♀️
Wieder was für die Uni und es hat mir tatsächlich gefallen 😍😅 die Thematik finde ich mega interessant aber besser konnte ich es dann doch nicht bewerten da mir auch hier das Hörbuch sehr beim durchkommen geholfen hat🤷♀️
November 1, 2025
Ich wage es zuzugeben: es ist das erste Mal, dass ich ein Drama von Schiller gelesen habe. Maria Stuart ist ein wirklich spannend verarbeitetes Historiendrama, welches vor allem in der allmählichen Zuspitzung des Konflikts und des nahenden Todes Marias an Fahrt aufnimmt. Hoffentlich kann ich es bald mal im Theater sehen!
November 20, 2020
Gut :3
October 20, 2014
Friedrich Schiller is considered to be the greatest playwright of the German romantic movement that provided the foundation for the French, Italian and English romantic movements in the first half of the 19th Century. Schiller's formula is diabolically simple. You take a movement for national independence or unity, put a human tragedy in the centre and then tell your story with sublime verse.
As one of the foremost oracles of the Zeitgeist of his era, it is not surprising that several operas where written on Schiller's plays. In the case of this work, the honour goes to Giacomo Donizetti who wrote Maria Stuarda which was first performed in 1934. Maria Stuarda is still regularly performed.
Schiller's play also survives. The major last revival was mounted by the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada and was so well received that its run was extended.
As one of the foremost oracles of the Zeitgeist of his era, it is not surprising that several operas where written on Schiller's plays. In the case of this work, the honour goes to Giacomo Donizetti who wrote Maria Stuarda which was first performed in 1934. Maria Stuarda is still regularly performed.
Schiller's play also survives. The major last revival was mounted by the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada and was so well received that its run was extended.
December 9, 2020
Maria Stuart the play gives a fictional account of the last days of Mary, Queen of Scots. The play leans heavily in favour of Mary and her catholic believe and leaves Elisabeth in the role of the envious ruler whose biggest failure might be that she's not as young and beautiful as Mary. I didn't mind Schiller deviating from historical facts but his depiction of female characters, as strong and interesting as these queens were, was rather dull.
June 18, 2022
Stück ist immer noch spannend und macht Spaß zu lesen, — auch wenn sich die Bewertung der Personen gegenüber 1800 wohl ziemlich verschoben hat & man auf diese Eifersuchtsintrige gerne verzichten würde. Leider ist die Auswahl der Auszüge aus der literaturwissenschaftlichen Forschung zu Schiller und zum Stück ziemlich altbacken. Und es ist ein ebenso sprechender, wie schlechter Witz, dass sich da nur Autoren über ein Stück verbreiten, in dessen Inszenierung & Interpretation sich die bürgerliche, aber politisch kastrierte deutsche Gesellschaft das ganze 19. Jahrhundert hinweg ihre Angst vor Frauen mit politischer Macht und vor politischer Macht überhaupt als moralisch überlegen schön redet.
August 8, 2024
Das vielleicht packendste & ergiebigste, ja grösste Theaterstück, welches ich je zu Augen bekam. Hoffentlich bald irgendwann auch als Neuinszenierung am Zürcher Schauspielhaus.
Literaturkanon von Marcel Reich-Ranicki
35/180
Literaturkanon von Marcel Reich-Ranicki
35/180
March 10, 2025
Pretty brilliant
Displaying 1 - 30 of 403 reviews