Form and Intention in Kleist's Prinz Friedrich von Homburg

Abstract

The interpretations of Prinz Friedrich von Homburg have been so numerous and so varied that it is now a commonplace of literary criticism to group them into a number of categories. 1Thus Professor Samuel, in his edition of the text, says: between these three interpretations—the subordination and education theory, the reconciliation theory, and the glorification of individualist bravado—many hues and shades of opinion have been given about the play, down to an existentialist one with its stress on the absurd in life.... The other extreme is the Marxist view. ...2 In a review article on Samuel's edition, Maurice Benn claimed that the editor had been faced with the necessity of choice between the education theory and the idealist interpretation, which sees the play as a drama of redemption in the Schillerian tradition. 3Benn's ingenious suggestion as to how to escape from Professor Samuel's dilemma is still closely linked to the traditional interpretations in that it sees the play as a conflict between Homburg and the Kurfurst. Even Gunter Blocker 4 and Walter Muller-Seidel, 5although laying more emphasis on the conflict within the mind of the Prinz, still tend to interpret the play in terms of the Homburg-Elector relationship. 6 All interpretations based on this