Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/659

 Reviews and Notes 655 with unparalleled skill and undreamed of climactic effect. In the second place he uses Teichoskopie with finished art for the few scenes of violent action which he permits to occur in sight of those on the stage. But it is everywhere evident that the long period of fruitful experiment has intervened between the older classical form and the new. The highly developed tech- nique for the vivid presentation of the action as reflex has given the dramatist a new power, entirely changing the emotional values of his work. With the action, even outside the stage, re- duced to its minimum, we do not for a moment fail of the illusion of warlike surroundings and a momentous decision. The Lager also is found to be strictly classic in spirit, and all the desired effects are obtained by the power of the language, not by direct presentation. Compared as a whole with Wallenstein from this particular point of view, the Jungfrau, while not a destruction of the classic form, represents a considerable expansion of it to admit Shakesperean elements. This is true of the middle scenes, which show the actual conflict on the stage. The Jungfrau is a good example of the freedom of techinque in the German classical drama, for it makes use of all the various forms at will: the report, direct presentation, and Teichoskopie. The author shows in a detailed analysis that the middle scenes really represent only a compromise between the Shakesperean and the classical ideals, while the last act attains the true synthesis of the two. It does this by means of what is termed die symbolische Parteiung: that is, the battle outside between the French and the English armies is represented symbolically on the stage in the scene between Johanna and Isabeau. This scene is not only teichoskopic, it not only serves to show us what is happening on the outside, but it is at the same time a symbol of that outside action. The author is therefore justified in describing it as a true synthesis of the opposing ideals of presentation, because it shows the spectator the battle both directly and indirectly at one and the same instant. The same freedom of technique that Schiller showed in this work he kept later in Tell and Demetrius. (See especially pp. 323-324). The general evolution of the technical means as such reached in Schiller the high mark in German drama. Kleist proves his genius in his sure use of all the technical methods acquired during the evolutionary process. Indeed in the Familie Schrof- fenstein he discovers independently of Schiller, the same note- worthy use of the symbolical Teichoskopie. But the individual plays show rather a brilliant adaptation of the necessary form than any essential modification in a new direction. It is perhaps natural therefore that much of the discussion here turns on the question of Kleist's relation to war as such. He stands in the sharpest contrast to Schiller, who found a moral justification for war in keeping with his humanitarian philosophy. Kleist