904 Reviews thatoffering, surely accounts inpart for the theological preoccupations of Lessing's last years and for their highly ambivalent stance in relation to Lutheran ortho doxy. (It seems to be generally agreed that in publishing the Reimarus fragments, Lessing was trying to pick one quarrel?with the neologians?but got another? with the orthodox; but could or should he not have foreseen this?And had the man who had written to his father in 1749 that 'Die Xstliche Religion ist kein Werk, das man von seinen Eltern auf Treue und Glaube annehmen soll' really reverted to that very position, as in Nathan's defence of his Judaic loyalties to Saladin?) The?forgiving or unforgiving??father also plays a significant part in Lessing's plays, even inMi? Sara Sampson, the 'least autobiographical' of them (p. 275). Indeed, as Nisbet points out, though Lessing s plays can be seen to some extent as experiments in dramatic forms and techniques, they are never totally removed from real lifeand itsproblems?paternal authority,war and peace, patriotism and politics, and of course ultimately religious truth and toleration. Nisbet argues?on this theremay be furtherdissension?that philosophically Lessing remained funda mentally a Leibnizian, and that in the famous 'Spinoza' conversations Jacobi quite failed to appreciate Lessing's irony and Lessing, quickly perceiving this, promptly took his usual pleasure inplaying Devil's (or in this case Spinoza's) advocate. (A pity that on page 391?one of a very few slips?the essay Durch Spinoza istLeibniz nur auf die Spur der vorherbestimmtenHarmonie gekommen has lost its all-important nur.) Lessing's faith in Providence was sorely tested by the loss of Eva and their son, but he clung to it to the end, even if in the last greatworks, Die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts, Ernst und Falk, and Nathan derWeise, the best of all possible worlds seems a vision foran increasingly remote, perhaps in real termsunattainable, future. After a brief but welcome tribute toKarl Lessing forhis irreplaceable services to his brother's memory, Nisbet concludes with a concise survey of the reception of Lessing's work down to the present, and a substantial bibliography. Drawing on an encyclopedic knowledge of both primary and secondary literature, of the circum stances of Lessing's life,and of all those who played significant parts in it, this is a trulyremarkable work of scholarship. Worcester College, Oxford F. J. Lamport Schiller und das Theater: ?ber die Entwicklung der Schaub?hne zur theatralen Kunstform. By Lothar Pikulik. (Medien und Theater, Neue Folge, 9) Hildesheim and Zurich: Olms. 2007. 160 pp. 22. ISBN 978-3-487-13502 1. This compact study, aimed primarily at undergraduates, positions Schiller within some of themajor theatrical developments of the eighteenth century. Lothar Pikulik stresses Schillers concern with transforming the stage into an aesthetic institution MLR, 104.3, 2009 905 rather than using ittopreach amoral (contrary to themisleading expectation some times aroused by hisMannheim essay, best known under the title 'Die Schaub?hne als einemoralische Anstalt betrachtet'). Under theheadings 'Zuschauer, 'Schauspie ler', and 'Inszenierung' the study surveys changing theatrical tastes and conditions: the creation of court and 'national' theatres, the process of Literarisierung, the turn away from theHaupt- und Staatsaktion to sentimental drama of the private sphere, the consequent cultivation of a realistic style of acting reflective of psychological states, the rise in status and professionalization of the actor.Against thebackground of these changes Pikulik positions Schiller's distinctive combination of heroic tra gedy and private emotion. He expounds the playwright's views on the stage, from the early Stuttgart and Mannheim essays to his aesthetic writings of the 1790s, and sketches his involvement with theWeimar Court Theatre from 1799 up to his death.While acknowledging how far the eighteenth-century theatre was from modern Regiekunst, Pikulik examines the Weimar theatre experiment as an attempt to realize a vision of theatre as an ?sthetische Anstalt' that rejected the dominant realist style. This account of Schiller's ideas on theatre and of their place within his aesthetic theory is clear and fluent. If,however, the title raises expectations of learning how Schiller related to the actual theatreworld of his day, rather than to the stage as a concept, then...
Read full abstract