In his early and unpublished essay on Schiller’s trilogy Wallenstein, Hegel criticizes the plays’ denouement as “horrific” and “appalling” and for depicting the triumph of death over life. Why was the young Hegel’s response to Wallenstein so negative? To answer this question, I first offer an analysis of Wallenstein in terms of Hegel’s mature theory of modern tragedy. I argue that Schiller’s portrayal of Wallenstein’s character and death indeed render the play a particularly dark and unredemptive (...) example of modern tragedy as Hegel understands it. I suggest, however, that Hegel’s early objections are primarily motivated by his philosophy of history rather than by his theory of tragedy. Hegel accurately sensed the loss of faith in historical progress that Schiller experienced in the wake of the French Revolution; in essays written shortly before Wallenstein appeared, Schiller associates the tragic sublime with humans’ ability to act in the face of the meaninglessness of history. In his essay “The German Constitution,” composed during the same period as his Wallenstein review, Hegel instead formulates his familiar exhortation that we see history as meaningful. Hegel’s objection to Wallenstein’s darkness, then, is primarily an objection to the vision of history it portrays. Against the background of Peter Stein’s 2007 Berlin production of Wallenstein, I suggest that Wallenstein’s lasting appeal lies in its ability to allow audiences to experience the sublime as Schiller intended: as an assertion of our agency despite the cycles of history we so little control. (shrink)

Abstract in English: The short essay is about impressive philosophical ideas of the great German dramatist Friedrich Schiller (1749-1805). In his “letters on the aesthetic education…” he critisizes, with respect to human behaviour, too much reason and too stringent principles, leading to a neglect of positive emotions such as empathy; he argues in favour of an aesthetic lifestyle. This is supported by biological as well as mental aspects of human self-understanding. My article follows these lines of thought in a sequence (...) of sections: The nature of human beings – a permanent topic of science, philosophy and the arts. The professional dramatist as temporary philosopher- Schiller’s “Letters on the aesthetic education…”. Against an “egoism of reason”, in favour of empathy. Basic human capabilities allow for an objective view on nature. Positive versus negative effects of the division of labour…and thoughts on a new “wholeness” with an aesthetic lifestyle. After Schiller’s philosophical phase, back to new dramas on stage – Wallenstein’s fragile sense of empathy. Evolution, empathy and the “art of living” – survival of the fittest or survival of the nicest? Self-contradictory self-images – Demetrius the illusiory tsar as rival of Boris Godunow. -/- Deutsche Zusammenfassung: Für uns Menschen gehört zum „guten Leben“, dass wir uns sowohl als Natur- wie auch als Kulturwesen nicht nur erkennen, sondern wirklich annehmen. Dazu spricht sich Schiller besonders für einen Vorrang der Empathie vor Grundsätzen der Vernunft und für eine ästhetisch begründete Lebenskunst aus. Mein Essay folgt solchen Denklinien in einer Sequenz der Abschnitte: Die Natur des Menschen – Dauerthema der Wissenschaft. Der Berufsdramatiker als Philosoph - Schillers Briefe zur ästhetischen Erziehung. Gegen den Egoismus der Vernunft, für den Vorrang der Empathie. Grundfähigkeiten des Menschen: Die Natur betrachten, die Natur denken. Segen und Elend der Arbeitsteilung…und Hoffnung auf neue Ganzheit in Formen ästhetischen Lebens. Zurück zur dramatischen Dichtung - Wallensteins brüchiges Verhältnis zur Empathie. Evolution, Empathie und Lebenskunst - „Survival of the fittest“ oder „Survival of the nicest“? Selbstbilder der Seele im Widerspruch - Der falsche Zar Demetrius als Rivale von Boris Godunow. -/- . (shrink)