SOURCE: “Die Ahnfrau,” in A Sense of Irony: An Examination of the Tragedies of Franz Grillparzer, Herbert Lang, 1976, pp. 19-36.

[In the following essay, Thompson discusses Grillparzer's drama Die Ahnfrau, focusing on his handling of supernatural elements and observing that the actions of Grillparzer's characters stem naturally from their motives, despite the supernatural workings of the plot.]

Since its first performance in 1817 Grillparzer's Die Ahnfrau has frequently been the subject of controversy, much of the argument having centred on the problem of the play's classification.¹ Initially it was regarded as a mere “Gespensterstück” and attacked as an example of romantic fate-tragedy,² but it was eventually recognised, for example by Jakob Minor, that although the undoubted presence of fatalistic elements placed the play within the tradition of the German fate-tragedy, one need not necessarily assume that events are brought about by the machinations of supernatural malignant forces.³ If a fatal force exists at all in Die Ahnfrau it has no specific origins such as a divine figure or a curse, as was the case with Schiller's Die Braut von Messina and the celebrated fate-tragedy by Zacharias Werner, Der 24. Februar. In Grillparzer's play there is only a legend existing in the minds of the characters that the ancestress must atone for her adultery by wandering as a ghost until her descendants die out. Although Borotin is himself convinced that fate has determined to extinguish them (88-92), at various times reiterates his fatalistic feelings (e.g. 998-1006) and eventually attributes his own death at the hands of his son Jaromir to the machinations of obscure powers, there is no proof of this. For this reason it is possible to argue that the play is not a fate-tragedy at all, but a ghost story. For example Zdenko Škreb has recently asserted the links between Die Ahnfrau and the Vienna “Volksstück”, placing it within the classification of “Räuberund Gespensterromantik”.⁴ Moreover because the catastrophes are not explicitly foretold, but appear to result simply from the characters of those involved, Emil Reich argued shortly before Minor's pronouncements that the play is simply a character-tragedy with the extra ingredient of some rather unfortunate coincidences.⁵ Joachim Müller also argues that the catastrophes stem from guilty actions for which the characters themselves are responsible,⁶ and it is true that the ancestress was killed because of her adulterous passion (488f), as also that Jaromir is a scoundrel who has deceived the family concerning his origin and identity. But for this the incestuous love between himself and Bertha, as well as his murder of Borotin, may well have been avoided. Even allowing for the fact that there at least seems to be a suggestion of powers operating beyond human control it should not be overlooked that these are embodied in human passions. For these reasons critics have claimed that Grillparzer has “internalised” or “deepened” the concept of fate,⁷ and in recent years a number of critics have also paid attention to the psychological aspects of the work, concentrating on the character of Jaromir, and treating the play as though it were a projection of Grillparzer's own psychological condition.⁸

Grillparzer may himself be held partly responsible for these tendencies, for as he points out in his autobiography, the fact that the characters themselves believe that they are subject to an avenging fate provides no decisive evidence for the existence of such a force:

Dass die Personen zufolge einer dunklen Sage eines frühen Verschuldens sich einem Verhängnis verfallen glauben, bildet so wenig ein faktisches Schicksal, als einer darum unschuldig ist, weil er sich für unschuldig ausgibt.⁹

Moreover following the adverse criticism of the play as a romantic fate-tragedy he claimed that the fate motif had been imposed upon his own original version as a result of suggestions on the part of Josef Schreyvogel, the Secretary of the Vienna Burgtheater.¹⁰ According to Grillparzer Schreyvogel wished that the fatal theme be developed more fully, and Grillparzer felt that the subsequent alterations brought the play closer into line with the fate-tragedies of his time.

Ich habe sogleich nach der Aufführung bemerkt, dass durch diese “tiefere Begründung” mein Stück aus einem Gespenstermärchen mit einer bedeutenden menschlichen Grundlage, sich jener Gattung genähert hatte, in der Werner und Müllner damals sich bewegten.¹¹

The main alteration which Grillparzer made was to provide a link between the adultery of the ancestress and the sufferings of her descendants. At Schreyvogel's suggestion¹² he has inserted the section in which the servant relates that the son of the ancestress who inherited the title was the product of her adulterous relationship with her lover (F only, 513-76).¹³ Consequently her sin is preserved in every succeeding generation, and the sufferings of her descendants are more easily linked with her adultery. This gives the fatal force a moral twist, for it seems that the descendants are being punished for succeeding to a title which is not legitimately theirs. The fatal force appears to operate against the later generations with greater justification, and becomes an instrument of divine punishment. But although the ultimate punishments are now more comprehensible, the play is not necessarily rendered more fatalistic. We may still sense the influence of higher powers, whether or not there is a reason behind the hand that strikes. Schreyvogel's alteration may affect the origin of the fatal force, but it alone does not turn the play into a fate-tragedy. Fatalistic elements which are part of the machinery of fate-tragedy are already present in Grillparzer's original version. Most obviously there is the fatal weapon, namely the dagger hanging ominously on the wall, and the eerie atmosphere of the Gothic hall, and of the dark cold night fills characters and audience alike with forebodings. We also find fatalistic thoughts voiced by Borotin, as also the latter's final conclusion that fate was responsible for his death at the hands of Jaromir (E 2086, F 2541). Moreover in both versions there is the undeniable fact that the ancestress appears as a ghost on the stage to signal approaching catastrophes which actually occur.¹⁴ Borotin's forebodings are proved correct, and the ancestress does indeed wander as a ghost until the family is extinct, so that the existence of supernatural influence is certainly suggested. In the original version the ancestress is no less sinful, for she is found in the arms of a servant (in the final version it is a lover). Thus although there is no direct link in the first version between her “sin” and her progeny, the sin of adultery is referred to in both versions and she and her descendants are doomed, no matter the identity of the father of the child who inherits the title. Even in the first version, therefore, the fatal force has moral implications, for the descendants appear to be punished for her sins. Schreyvogel has not provided a new essential feature, he has merely developed a theme already present and made it more obvious and more comprehensible.¹⁵ In both versions we sense the influence of fate through the atmosphere of the play, through the very nature of events, and particularly through the appearances of the ghost. If the play were a character-tragedy only, then there would be no point in introducing the legendary fatal force at all.

It thus seems that Grillparzer was not prepared, in view of the hostile reception afforded the fatalistic elements in the play, to admit that the fatal theme had already been present in his original manuscript. To deny the presence of fatalistic elements in either version is to ignore the obvious, and as has been recently pointed out, criticism which concentrates solely on the psychological or autobiographical aspects of the play tends to neglect the poetic merits and purposes of the work.¹⁶ Our belief in the influence of supernatural forces is encouraged and the dramatic effectiveness of the work is thereby enhanced. Moreover it is clear that Grillparzer also appreciated the dramatic potential of fate from his discussion of its use by his contemporaries, which suggests that from the very beginning he intended that the fatal force should at least serve a dramatic function.¹⁷ It is also apparent from the large number of notes and marks made by Schreyvogel on Grillparzer's manuscript that the bulk of his suggestions were concerned not with the origins of the fatal force, but with making the play more effective dramatically.¹⁸ His success in this direction was initially not acknowledged by Grillparzer who was more preoccupied with laying the blame for the fatalistic elements on Schreyvogel's shoulders, but has subsequently been frequently recognised.¹⁹ It is with the use of fate as a dramatic device that both Grillparzer and Schreyvogel were primarily concerned.

As we saw in the previous chapter the mere presence of a fatal force, whatever its origin, affords the dramatist ample opportunity for the creation of ironic effects, enabling the audience to anticipate impending disaster at the expense of an ignorant and unsuspecting character. In Die Ahnfrau, however, it is Borotin who believes that the family is doomed and in the early stages of the play the atmosphere of doom is established by the characters' own pronouncements and reactions. Borotin is convinced that the family will be extinguished (88-92) and his convictions are apparently justified by the loss of two brothers (123), his wife (131), and his son (139-59). They are substantiated by the descriptions of the history of the ancestress. Meanwhile Bertha has described the terrifying night (17-29), which contributes appropriately to the prevailing atmosphere. Because the audience's awareness of the fatal power stems originally from characters' own convictions, the audience is not placed in any position of superiority. Nor is the audience any better informed of what is to come than are the characters themselves. Only when disasters occur and we finally become aware of the whole sweep of the dramatic action can the ironic effect produced by various actions and remarks be appreciated. It is arguable, therefore, that the presence of fatalistic elements does not help to create an immediate ironic effect, and it would seem that any ironic effect produced in this play would be largely retrospective. That this is not the case, however, is due to the manner of the presentation of the fatal force, for it is the appearance of the ancestress on the stage as a ghost which affords the audience some degree of superiority and some notion of what is to come.

Although the ghost is the most obviously dramatic fatalistic element contained in the play, the ancestress cannot herself be regarded as an embodiment, or representative of fate, for we are told that she is herself doomed to wander as a ghost until the family is extinct (497-500). Thus she is as much a victim of fate as are her descendants, and she must wait with patience until the day of her deliverance. Nevertheless her appearances do have a dramatic function, for they give warning of the approach of future disasters and serve to remind us of the possible existence of the fatal force. In so doing they generate dramatic tension and help to produce a sense of irony, for whereas her warnings suggest that the disasters are avoidable provided that the characters take appropriate action, they fail to respond to her warnings correctly. We shall see that this sense of irony which derives from the dramatic use of the ghost is developed considerably by the additions made as a result of Schreyvogel's suggestions.

When the ghost makes her final appearance Borotin is confused by her resemblance to Bertha, and bids his “daughter” dispel his bad dreams with music (E 300 f., F 325f.). This reaction is clearly inappropriate, for the figure only provides fresh horror for him. Thus for the first time the audience is in a superior position to the character, so that a degree of dramatic tension is generated, and a sense of irony produced, of which Borotin is the victim. Grillparzer dwells for some time on Borotin's confusion. Having decided that the ghost is his daughter, he tells Bertha that he is convinced that it was she whom he saw in spite of her protests to the contrary. When she claims to have been on the balcony he feels that she is mocking him:

Schändlich!—Mädchen, höhnst du mich?

(385)

Here his sense of mockery is indeed ironic, for it is not Bertha who is mocking him, but the appearance of the ghost. Although we are as yet ignorant of the implications of the appearance of the figure, a skilful application on the part of the producer of the stage directions describing her will make it clear to the audience that Borotin has seen a ghost, and the effect of irony will be conveyed immediately. In addition the ghost's first words “Nach Hause” strike an ominous note and may be regarded as an anticipation of the eventual fulfilment of her wishes and of the extinction of the family. This becomes particularly clear when, shortly after this episode, we are given details of the legend, so that the ghost's appearance takes on an even more ominous significance. In the final version of the play Grillparzer exploits further the similarity of Bertha's appearance to that of the ghost by having Borotin make a statement which carries a deeper significance than he himself realises. He warns Bertha that they must be careful not to emulate the ancestress, and avoid such sins themselves:

Lass uns eignen Wertes freuen
Und nur eigne Sünden scheuen.
Lass, wenn in der Ahnen Schar
Jemals eine Schuldge war,
Alle andre Furcht entweichen,
Als die Furcht, ihr je zu gleichen.

(F only 580-5)

In the original version Borotin merely suggests that they should accept whatever Heaven sends them (E 486-91). The new lines are clearly designed to produce a further ironic effect, for whilst warning Bertha that she should not emulate the sins of the ancestress, Borotin is unaware of the fact that she has, so to speak, already “sinned”. Though her relationship with Jaromir is not adulterous, it is nevertheless unwittingly incestuous, and it is arguable that the sinful blood of the ancestress does indeed live on in the veins of Borotin's daughter. Although the audience is as yet unaware of the implications of Bertha's relationship with Jaromir the ghost's appearance has already provided a warning, and an attentive spectator may already react to their similarity in appearance sufficiently to appreciate the irony of Borotin's words, which consequently may themselves function as a pointer to the future. The sudden arrival at this point of Jaromir is particularly well-timed, for it is he who is unwittingly encouraging Bertha to “sin”. It is noteworthy that in the final version Grillparzer removes from this episode the concluding speech of Günther (E 495-508), so that Jaromir's arrival follows immediately upon Borotin's warning, and a link is suggested between the two.

The arrival of Jaromir also gives rise in itself to considerable dramatic tension, and here too a sense of irony is produced, this time by the ignorance on the part of the characters of his identity. Even before his arrival several remarks are made which, retrospectively at least, have greater significance for the audience than for the unwitting speaker. In the original version, for example, Borotin promises that he will welcome him as a son, and as Borotin sleeps, Bertha's words about their relationship may be regarded as ambiguous:

Ich soll also ihn besitzen
Mein ihn nennen, wirklich mein?

(E 268f.)

In the final version Grillparzer has made various alterations and additions. For example Borotin now refers to his noble lineage:

Edel nennst du sein Geschlecht,
Edel nennt ihn seine Tat, …

(F only 201f.)

Here he provides a good reason for welcoming Jaromir as a future son-in-law, whereas in fact the identity of his noble lineage makes this impossible. The line:

So begrüss ich ihn als Sohn

(E 187)

has been changed to:

So kann manches noch geschehn.

(F 205)

This is vaguer, but more inclusive, and could be made to refer to the murder of Borotin and all ensuing disasters, in addition to the actual relationship. However the most strikingly ironic effect is established by the joy with which he is received, for the characters assume that his new association with the house may offer some hope for the future. For example Borotin shows great enthusiasm, and even wishes he could give his life for Jaromir (!):

Könnt ich dankbar nur mein Leben
Für dich hin, du Guter, geben,
Wie du deines gabst für sie!

(E 596-8, F 678-80)

The irony of this unconscious anticipation of later developments is exploited further in the final version when Borotin forecasts that Jaromir will give his life for Bertha when she too is summoned by fate (F only 1150-2).

In the final version there are two large insertions during the scene of Jaromir's first appearance, the first of which develops Borotin's enthusiasm, containing words of gratitude (F only, 683f.) and hope (F only 708-12). The second, at the close of Act I, introduces a speech from Jaromir himself, in which he begs the gods of the house to accept him over its pure threshold:

Nehmt mich auf, ihr Götter dieses Hauses,
Nimm mich auf, du heilger Ort,
Von dem Laster nie betreten,
Von der Unschuld Hauch durchweht.
Unentweihte, reine Stelle,
Werde, wie des Tempels Schwelle,
Mir zum heiligen Asyl!

(F only, 742-8)

Schreyvogel required an ending to the Act which was dramatically effective,²⁰ and this is achieved by a supreme moment of dramatic irony. Jaromir unconsciously makes remarks about the house which are patently inappropriate, and expresses hopes which will be contradicted. That he should conclude with an appeal to an unknown power reinforces the ironic effect:

Unerbittlich strenge Macht,
Ha, nur diese, diese Nacht,
Diese Nacht nur gönne mir,
Harte! und dann steh ich dir!

(F only 749-52)

for we are invited to believe that the inexorable power which will actually operate this night will cause him to kill Borotin, and bring about his own death too. The irony of this speech may be compared with that found in Act III when Jaromir, having been identified by Bertha as the robber, still hopes that he will be purified by his relationship with her. He talks of gaining peace and happiness (1958), and purity (1960), and addresses her as an angel of Heaven (1971-3). As they embrace he feels purged of guilt:

Wenn dein Arm mich, Teure, hält,
Trotz ich einer ganzen Welt.
Meine Schuld ist ausgestrichen,
Jubelnd bin ich mirs bewusst, …

(1977-80)

when in fact the reverse is true. In the final version the ending of the third Act is similar to that of the first, for Jaromir still looks forward to a happy future:

Mutig, Froh!—Die Zukunft lacht!
Und gedenk: um Mitternacht!

(2158f.)

In the original version, which consists of four Acts only, these lines occur in the middle of Act III (E 1716f.). Grillparzer has thus succeeded in providing similarly ironic conclusions to both Acts I and II. Clearly a knowledge of later events is required for a full appreciation of the irony of hopes expressed in the first Act, but Grillparzer has given some immediate help through his use of the technical machinery of fate-tragedy. Moreover the appearance of the ghost has given a hint that Jaromir may bring misfortune rather than the opposite, so that the audience may react already to the optimism of the characters.

When the ghost makes her second appearance we have already been fully acquainted with the details of the legend, so that the impact is all the greater. Here Jaromir is the victim, and she is trying to avert disaster for the family by encouraging him to go away (E 661, F 790 and E 669, F 798). This provides the audience with an indication that Jaromir will be somehow concerned with the eventual disasters, and his reaction, like that of Bertha before him, is recognisably inappropriate, and similarly ironic. Imagining that the ghost is Bertha herself, he greets her with enthusiasm (E 662, F 791) and even attempts to embrace her (812 S.D.). The intention of the ancestress is thus again thwarted by her own similarity to Bertha. Even after he has learnt that the figure is indeed a ghost, he is full of defiance and confidence, precisely the opposite reaction to those required by the situation. Furthermore his appeal to the real Bertha to embrace him, that they might dispel the supernatural threat (E 830-3, F 952-5), is unfortunate, for he does not realise that they are, through their love, setting the family on a course for disaster. For anyone already acquainted with the details of the plot Jaromir's reaction creates a powerful sense of tension and irony, but an uninformed spectator should also now realise something of the implications of the ghost's warnings, particularly as Grillparzer supplies a number of hints. Jaromir's hopes for the first night have already been contradicted by his hallucinations and Grillparzer also supplies words of warning from Borotin that in associating himself with the family, Jaromir, referred to occasionally as “Sohn” (e.g. E 898, F 981) and “mein Kind” (E 873, F 1005), will only go down with them (E 874f., F 1005f.), a possibility which Jaromir is boldly prepared to accept:

Möge, was da will, geschehn,
Ich will Euch zur Seite stehn,
Muss es, mit euch untergehn!

(E 880-2, F 1011-3)

Thus again the outcome is anticipated with an unconscious allusion to the actual situation. Jaromir is continuing blindly on his path in spite of warnings and forebodings, and is anticipating unconsciously the outcome of events. Similarly, in the final version only, Borotin describes the situation unwittingly when he reacts to the news that Jaromir has seen the ghost:

Zählt man dich schon zu den Meinen?

(978)

Consequently when Borotin gratefully welcomes Jaromir as someone who will share their joys as well as their sorrows, reversing the traditional metaphor of the rose which has thorns, his choice of image is recognisably ironic, for its more usual form would be more appropriate. Jaromir is certainly concealing a fatal thorn, and in the final version Grillparzer develops the image when Bertha refers to the thorns on which she has walked since meeting him:

Seit ich fühlte seinen Kuss,
Ist das Feenland verschwunden,
Und auf Dornen tritt mein Fuss;
Dornen, die zwar Rosen schmücken,
Aber Dornen, Dornen doch, …

(F only, 1552-6)

These words could be applied to the actual situation in a manner which she does not yet envisage, for Jaromir brings her joy as her lover, but drives her to suicide when the truth is revealed. They also provide an appropriate contradiction of Borotin's hopeful interpretation of Jaromir's arrival. Although characters commit themselves unwittingly to ironic remarks whose full significance may become apparent only later, some of these remarks provide in themselves an indication of future developments to an attentive audience. In the final version Grillparzer develops considerably the contradiction existing between the forebodings of disaster and the hopes which characters also entertain. For example, Borotin entrusts Bertha to Jaromir's care with confidence (F only, 1148f.), having shortly before this recalled details of the legend:

Wenn sie wahr, die alte Sage,
Dass der Name, den ich trage,
Der mein Stolz war und mein Schmuck,
Nur durch tief geheime Sünden—
Fort, Gedanke!—Ha, und doch!

(F only, 1104-8)

Similarly Bertha now senses that her love involves her in guilt:

Tief im Busen scheints zu sprechen,
Wenn mein Blick in seinem ruht:
Deine Liebe ist Verbrechen,
Gottverhasst ist diese Glut.

(F only, 1563-6)

The characters thus have intimations that all is not well, but disregard them and the irony inherent in these situations is intensified by Grillparzer's additions in his final version.

The ancestress appears for the third time in Act III, to warn Jaromir not to take the dagger from the wall (F only, 2094). In the original version a warning is provided only by Bertha's words (E 1698-1703), but in the final version the ghost provides a more definite and vivid indication that the use of the dagger may be fatal to the family.²¹ Grillparzer has also added other ominous touches. For example, immediately before the ghost's appearance, Bertha now says of the dagger:

Blutges hat er schon gesehn.
Blutges kann noch jetzt geschehn!

(F only, 2093f.)

without yet realising just how disastrous Jaromir's use of the dagger will be. Jaromir's reaction to the ghost's appearance is again inappropriate and he also produces several significant remarks. For example he welcomes the dagger as something which he recalls from the days of his childhood (F only, 2104), and even senses that fate is inviting him to take it:

Sei gegrüsst, du hilfreich Werkzeug!
Lockend seh ich her dich blinken,
Und mein Schicksal scheint zu winken.
Du bist mein! Drum her zu mir!

(F only, 2125-8)

Jaromir thus disregards the warning again, and his words have far more sinister implications than he realises. Grillparzer has again exploited the appearance of the ghost, this time in the final version only, to create a situation whose drama and irony depend on an inappropriate reaction on the part of the victim, who then produces words which have a significance of which he is not conscious. The ancestress makes her final appearance at the close of the play when she comes to tell Jaromir that there is still time for him to fly, and thus to save himself and the family name. Again Jaromir takes her for Bertha, but although he now knows that Bertha is his sister (3220-2), he refuses to take her advice, desiring to remain at her side:

Leben, Bertha, dir zur Seite,
Oder sterben neben dir.

(3280f.)

These words are particularly poignant, for it is at this point that the ghost reveals her identity, and that Bertha's corpse is discovered. Jaromir dies in the ghost's embrace. The whole episode reflects the irony of the situation: Jaromir fulfils the fate of the family by embracing the ancestress, who resembles Bertha. This emphasises the fact that it is through his love for Bertha, the very thing which inspires Borotin and himself with hope, that the doom is eventually sealed. The ghost provides warnings to the characters, but these are either disregarded or misunderstood; Jaromir's arrival fills them with false hopes, which may be viewed ironically, for his arrival in fact heralds their doom; the series of revelations also creates an ironic effect, for these are gradual, and the full circumstances are not always known by all.

From the foregoing analysis it is clear that the introduction of the ghost onto the stage serves an important dramatic function in Die Ahnfrau, particularly with regard to the creation of irony. In Chapter I we have seen that a fatal force may provide the basis for an ironic effect, allowing the spectator to anticipate eventual disaster, and placing him in a superior position in relation to the ignorant and unsuspecting victim, and in Die Ahnfrau it is Grillparzer's particularly skilful use of his dramatic medium that produces the appropriate effect. Though we are not yet aware of the precise nature of later events, the appearances of the ghost, together with the fatalistic atmosphere and the use of various warnings and expressions of forebodings, provide the audience with appropriate indications. Thus the ironic effect depends initially on the contradiction existing between our forebodings and the failure of the characters to respond to the warnings of the ghost. The dramatic function of the ghost is to provide a hint of future disaster, and although the full implications of many of the examples of dramatic irony may only be appreciated retrospectively, the attentive audience may already gather something of their significance. The projection of the minds of the spectators forward to later events creates a sense of movement and excitement, and the ignorance, or “innocence”, of the character produces tension and a sense of irony. It is not therefore the actual presence of fatalistic material which is the important factor in this play, but the manner of its presentation. It is also clear that the dramatic function served by the introduction of the ghost onto the stage is developed considerably in the final stage version of the play, apparently at the instigation of Josef Schreyvogel. Schreyvogel did not turn the play into a fate-tragedy, but developed a theme already present in Grillparzer's original manuscript. His prime concern was to capitalise on Grillparzer's use of fate as a dramatic device and to make the play more effective dramatically. In this connection it is significant that many of the alterations led to an increase in the number of remarks producing a dramatic effect which, for various reasons, could be called ironic. Such remarks depend for their effect on the contrast between the viewpoint of the audience, who respond to the indications given of approaching disasters, and that of the character concerned, who remains unconscious both of the fate which awaits him and of the significance of his remarks. Such situations are obviously theatrically effective, and it is not fortuitous that they should have been developed following suggestions by a man of the theatre.

That Grillparzer had in mind a purely dramatic, as opposed to a philosophical or moral function for the fatal force, is clear from his writings at the time on the use of fate in drama. He rejects the notion that the presence of fatalistic elements in a play necessarily implies a belief in fate on the part of the dramatist. Even though the characters themselves may express such a belief we do not have to identify with them.²² Nevertheless he recognises that his contemporaries still sense the influence of fate on events, and it is to this vague awareness of fate (“dunkle Ahnung”) that the modern dramatist may appeal:

Als Ahnung nun muss sie (die Idee des Fatums) auch sich in der Tragödie zeigen. Es müssen die Fakten gegeben sein, und dem Zuschauer überlassen werden, dabei schaudernd ein Fatum zu denken.²³

Though we may recognise that a belief in fate is an irrational one, our imaginations may prefer in the theatre to believe in the workings of supernatural forces. Moreover in poetry the concept of fate may be used to great effect, and in contemporary tragedy it functions purely as a dramatic device (“Maschine”):

bei den Neuern wird sie—Maschine, eine schwer zu behandelnde, vorsichtig zu brauchende Maschine, …²⁴

Grillparzer is stressing its practical usefulness in the theatre, and he goes on to criticise some of his German contemporaries for turning their tragedies into vehicles for ideas at the expense of dramatic qualities.²⁵

Though Grillparzer mentions no names, a celebrated forerunner of Die Ahnfrau, Schiller's fate-tragedy Die Braut von Messina, could come within the orbit of such criticism, for the concept of fate and the problem of Man's relationship with forces greater than himself are frequently raised as ideas in this play (e.g. 11. 879-883, 929-43, 1476-8, 2267-2308), and a chorus offers periodic reflections both on the development of events and on the human condition in general. Like Grillparzer, however, Schiller also makes use of his fatalistic material, namely the oracles and dreams, to create dramatic tension and a sense of irony,²⁶ and many ironic remarks are also made during the succession of tragic revelations in the latter stages of the play. Here too there are similarities between Die Braut von Messina and Die Ahnfrau, for Grillparzer appears to have taken Schiller's play as his model at this point in the action.²⁷ Nevertheless there are two fundamental differences between the two dramatists' methods of presenting their fatalistic material. First, Grillparzer has the legend narrated at an early stage of the play (11. 108-15), so that the audience are immediately in the picture, whereas in Die Braut von Messina the story of the grandfather's curse upon his son's progeny is not uttered until approximately one third of the way through (11. 960-80), and the report of the dreams and oracles does not occur until 11. 1306-51. Secondly, as well as narrating the legend, Grillparzer provides us with a recurrent visual reminder of the existence of the fatal force in the figure of the ghost, whereas Schiller relies solely on the spoken word, and the sense of fatality remains a concept, existing in the minds of the characters, and established only by hearsay and by the course of events.

Grillparzer's methods in this respect may also be contrasted with those employed by Kleist in his contribution to fate-tragedy, Die Familie Schroffenstein. In this play it is not definitely established that a fatal force is at work, for the witch who appears in the final scene explains that the unfortunate succession of murders has been launched by an error (“ein Versehen”—1. 2705).²⁸ However, as I. V. Morris points out, “the many coincidences, the disguises and mistaken identities convey the impression of a mysterious, capricious power confusing the characters”.²⁹ The confusion of the characters lasts until the solution is eventually revealed at the close. What is particularly distinctive about this technique is that the spectators remain similarly confused until the later stages of the play. Although it is possible to recognise that the characters may be in error in their attempts to analyse and explain the course of events,³⁰ the degree of superiority of spectator over character which is established in Die Ahnfrau is lacking in Kleist's play. Grillparzer affords us the pleasure of being privileged spectators. Kleist allows us to share in the confusion and mystification of his characters.

Although we have seen that Grillparzer's use of fate in Die Ahnfrau is a major factor in his attempts to generate tension and a sense of irony, it must be stressed that the presence of a fatal force is not vital for the creation of ironic effects such as have been described. So long as indications of future possibilities can be given to the audience at the expense of unsuspecting characters a sufficient amount of tension may be created. After writing Die Ahnfrau Grillparzer abandoned the form of the fate-tragedy, not only because of the controversy it had inspired, but also because he felt that he could achieve the same dramatic purposes by other means. Through his skilful use of his dramatic medium we are enabled to anticipate, for example, the downfall of Ottokar, the fatal error of Hero, the wretchedness of Jason, the frustration of Sappho's hopes. In his tragedies Grillparzer frequently places his audience in a position of relative superiority over his characters, whose errors may be anticipated or immediately recognised, or who are depicted in moments of weakness or in the grip of powerful emotions. From the analysis of his use of his fatalistic material in Die Ahnfrau it has been seen that Grillparzer endeavours to produce dramatic effects which may be appreciated immediately, rather than retrospectively within the context of the dramatic action as a whole, and it is his use of the ghost as a dramatic device which most obviously enables him to achieve this. It is significant that Schreyvogel, the man of the theatre, further exploited the young author's method of presenting his fatal force, and Grillparzer served a useful apprenticeship, not as a future writer of fate-tragedies, but as a dramatist who wrote for immediate stage-purposes.

Notes

1. Accounts of the furore which the play originally inspired are provided by I. V. Morris (Morris 1), H. C. Seeba (Seeba 1), and R. Bauer. For an account of the early criticism of the play see also H. M. Wolff. Details are given in the Bibliography.

2. Especially by Hebenstreit, the editor of the Wiener Modenzeitung, who condemned the play primarily as an offence against religion. For details, see Morris 1.

3. Minor, pp. 59, 75.

4. Škreb, p. 237.

5. Reich, pp. 27-49.

6. Müller 1, pp. 9-15.

7. See Müller 2, pp. 25-26.

8. Notably by W. Paulsen, who attempts to rescue the play from the stigma of fate-tragedy and to interpret it as “Erlebnisdichtung”; by E. Krispyn (Krispyn 1), who is essentially concerned with the autobiographical elements in the play; and by Seeba (Seeba 1), who interprets the play in terms of Grillparzer's “Selbstentfremdung” and of Jaromir's Oedipus complex.

9. Hanser IV, p. 79 (Selbstbiographie).

10. Recent critics who take account of Schreyvogel's influence on the play include Krispyn and Morris. Morris, following Grillparzer's own plea, suggests that it is the original version which should be appreciated for its poetic merits alone, but as will be seen, it may at least be claimed that the final version is dramatically more effective.

11. Hanser IV, p. 76 (Selbstbiographie)

12. reported by August Sauer in his notes to the first version, Sauer-Backmann, I, i, p. 420.

13. References to Die Ahnfrau are to Sauer's edition. References are occasionally given to the two versions of the play printed by Sauer, the original version (Sauer, I, i, 153-256), designated by the letter E (“erste Fassung”), and the fifth or final stage version, printed in 1844 (Sauer, I, i, 9-148), designated by the letter F (“fünfte Fassung”). In contrasting the text of the original version with that of the fifth version in order to demonstrate the effect of Schreyvogel's advice, I am following the example of Krispyn.

14. That Grillparzer would not wish his ghost to be considered as a mere poetic symbol is clear from his rejection of the interpretation of the witches in Macbeth as extensions of the hero's own ambition. Like the ghost of Banquo they are real and to be regarded as such. Hanser IV, p. 79. This point has been made by Morris, op. cit., p. 289.

15. as recognised by Seeba, who writes: “Die publikums-wirksame Moralisierung des Schicksals zum Sühnegeschehen, nicht die Schicksalsidee selbst ist es, was Grillparzer Schreyvogel hätte vorwerfen können”. Seeba 1, p. 143.

16. by R. K. Angress, who claims that such criticism overlooks the play's “dichterische Aussage und Absicht”, and goes on to interpret the play as an example of “Unterhaltungsliteratur”.

17. Friedrich Gundolf also held that Grillparzer was using the accessories of fate primarily for technical reasons, Gundolf, p. 30, and Benno von Wiese describes the fatal force as “ein theatralischer, effektvoller Apparat”, von Wiese, p. 384.

18. Morris notes, p. 291, in spite of her plea in favour of the early version, that Douglas Yates considers that the play “profited considerably in content and in form by Schreyvogel's aid and criticism”, Yates 1, p. 29.

19. See for example Minor, p. 70, Ehrhard, p. 48, Yates 1, p. 29.

20. as reported by Sauer, op. cit., p. 421.

21. The appearance of the ghost at this stage was introduced at the express suggestion of Schreyvogel. Sauer, op. cit., p. 427.

22. Hanser iii, pp. 310-11. (Zweiter Brief Über das Fatum, 1817)

23. ibid, p. 307. (Tagebücher 270, 1817)

24. ibid, p. 310.

25. ibid, p. 311.

26. as recognised by Benno von Wiese, see von Wiese, p. 260.

27. as noted by G. A. Wells, Wells 1, p. 8. In Grillparzer's play the appearance of the Captain and the soldier, who provide information for the main characters, are also used to produce moments of dramatic irony, as also are the various revelations at the close of the play. These instances are also developed in the final version. See F only, 1321f., 1498.

28. H. C. Seeba concludes that this play too does not strictly belong to the category of fate-tragedy, but acknowledges the fatalistic nature of the plot, mentioning, for example, the “fatale Verwechslung” (p. 65) and “verhängnisvolle Kettenreaktion” (p. 74). Seeba 2.

29. Morris 2, p. 56.

30. as pointed out by Seeba, op. cit., p. 78.

Bibliography

1. General Works of Literary Criticism Consulted

The following lists contain only those works consulted and are not offered as a full bibliography either of Grillparzer or on the subject of irony.

Allemann, B., Ironie und Dichtung, Pfüllingen, 1956.

Bradley, A. C., Shakespearean Tragedy, London, 1904.

Brooke, N., Shakespeare: King Lear, London, 1963.

Campbell, L., edition of Sophocles' Works, Vol. I, Oxford, 1871.

Frye, N., Anatomy of Criticism, Princeton, 1957.

Heller, E., The Ironic German: a study of Thomas Mann, London, 1958.

Jepson, L., Ethical Aspects of Tragedy, Gainesville, Florida, 1953.

Johnson, S. K., “Dramatic Irony in Sophoclean Tragedy”, Classical Review, December 1928, pp. 209-214.

Jones, J., On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy, London, 1962.

Kitto, H. D. F., Greek Tragedy, London, 1939.

Knox, B., “Oedipus Rex”, in Tragic Themes in Western Literature, ed. Cleanth Brooks, New Haven, 1955.

Morris, I. V., “Fate and Form in German Drama of the Age of Goethe”, Publications of the English Goethe Society, 41, 1970-71, pp. 45-64. = Morris 2.

Moulton, R. G., The Moral System in Shakespeare, London, 1903.

Muecke, D. C., The Compass of Irony, London, 1969.

Muller, H. J., The Spirit of Tragedy, New York, 1956.

Nicoll, A., The Theatre and Dramatic Theory, London, 1960.

Peacock, R., The Art of Drama, London, 1957.

Prawer, S. S., Heine: The Tragic Satyrist, Cambridge, 1961.

Raphael, D. D.,The Paradox of Tragedy, London, 1960.

Sedgewick, G. G., Of Irony. Especially in Drama, Toronto, 1948.

Seeba, H. C., “Der Sündenfall des Verdachts: Identitätskrise und Sprachskepsis in Kleists Familie Schroffenstein”, Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift, 44, 1970, pp. 64-100. = Seeba 2.

Sengle, F., Das Deutsche Geschichtsdrama, Stuttgart, 1952.

Sharpe, R. B., Irony in the Drama, Chapel Hill, 1959.

Skreb, Z., “Die deutsche sogenannte Schicksalstragödie”, Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft, 9, 1972, pp. 193-237.

Styan, J. L., The Elements of Drama, Cambridge, 1963. = Styan 1.

Styan, J. L., Shakespeare's Stagecraft, Cambridge, 1967. = Styan 2.

Thirlwall, C., “On the Irony of Sophocles”, Philological Museum, II, 1833, and Remains, Literary and Theological, ed. J. J. S. Perowne, London, 1878.

Tymms, R. V., German Romantic Literature, London, 1955.

Wells, G. A., “Fate-tragedy and Die Braut von Messina”, Journal of English and German Philology, LXIV, 1965, pp. 191-212.

Wiese, B. von, Die deutsche Tragödie von Lessing bis Hebbel, Hamburg, 1948.

2. Editions of Individual Works by Grillparzer Referred to in the Text

Spalding, K., edition of Sappho, Macmillan, London, 1965.

Wells, G. A., edition of Die Jüdin von Toledo, Pergamon, Oxford, 1969. = Wells 3.

Yates, D., edition of Des Meeres und der Liebe Wellen, Blackwell, Oxford, 1947, reprinted 1960. = Yates 2.

3. Works of Criticism Relating to Grillparzer Referred to in the Text

Angress, R. K., “Das Gespenst in Grillparzer's Ahnfrau”, German Quarterly, 15, 1972, pp. 606-619.

Atkinson, M. E., “Grillparzer's use of symbol and image in Des Meeres und der Liebe Wellen”, German Life and Letters, N.S. IV, 1951, pp. 261-277.

Bauer, R., “Die Ahnfrau et la querelle de la tragédie fataliste”, Études Germaniques, 27, 1972, pp. 165-192.

Baumann, G., Franz Grillparzer: Sein Werk und das oesterreichische Wesen, Wien & Freiburg, 1954. = Baumann 1.

Baumann, G., “Ein Bruderzwist in Habsburg”, Das deutsche Drama vom Barock bis zur Gegenwart. Interpretationen, ed. B. von Wiese, Düsseldorf, 1958, Vol. 1, pp. 422-450. = Baumann 2.

Beriger, L., Grillparzers Persönlichkeit in seinem Werk, Wege zur Dichtung, ed. E. Ermatinger, Vol. III, Zürich & Leipzig, 1927.

Blackall, E. A., “Die Jüdin von Toledo”, German Studies presented to W. H. Bruford, London, 1962, pp. 193-206.

Busch, E., “Wesen und Ursprung von Grillparzers Idee des Tragischen”, Dichtung und Volkstum, 40, 1939, pp. 257-276.

Cysarz, H., “Grillparzer und das neunzehnte Jahrhundert”, Hochschulwissen, VI, 1929, pp. 139-146, 226-232.

Cowen, R., “The tragedy of Die Jüdin von Toledo”, German Quarterly, January 1964, pp. 39-53.

Ehrhard, A., Franz Grillparzer: Sein Leben und seine Werke. München, 1910.

Fischer, E., “Franz Grillparzer”, Von Grillparzer zu Kafka, Sechs Essays, Wien, 1962, pp. 9-56.

Fricke, G., “Wesen und Wandel des Tragischen bei Grillparzer”, Studien und Interpretationen, Frankfurt, 1956, pp. 264-284.

Fülleborn, U., Das dramatische Geschehen im Werk Franz Grillparzers, München, 1966.

Gundolf, F., “Franz Grillparzer”, Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts, 1931, pp. 9-93.

Hock, E., “Libussa”, Das deutsche Drama vom Barock bis zur Gegenwart. Interpretationen, ed. B. von Wiese, Düsseldorf, 1958, Vol. I, pp. 451-474. = Hock 1.

Hock, E., Franz Grillparzer: Besinnung auf Humanität, Hamburg, 1949. = Hock 2.

Hoff, H., and Cermak, i., Grillparzer: Versuch einer Pathographie, Wien, 1961.

Kaiser, J., Grillparzers dramatischer Stil, München, 1961.

Klarmann, A. D., “Grillparzer und die Moderne”, Die Neue Rundschau, 67, 1956, pp. 137-152.

Koch, F., “Grillparzers Staatsdramen”, Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, 37, 1956, pp. 15-31.

Krispyn, E., “Grillparzer and his Ahnfrau”, Germanic Review, 38, 1963, pp. 209-225. = Krispyn 1.

Krispyn, E., “Grillparzer's Tragedy Die Jüdin von Toledo”, Modern Language Review, 60, 1965, pp. 405-415. = Krispyn 2.

Lange, E., Franz Grillparzer. Sein Leben, Dichten und Denken, Gütersloh, 1894.

Lessing, O. E., Grillparzer und das neue Drama, München & Leipzig, 1905.

Matt, P. von, Der Grundriss von Grillparzers Bühnenkunst, Zürich, 1965.

Minor, J., “Zur Geschichte der deutschen Schicksalstragödie und zur Grillparzers Ahnfrau”, Jahrbuch der Grillparzergesellschaft, IX, 1899.

Morris, I. V., “The Ahnfrau controversy”, Modern Language Review, LXII, 1967, pp. 284-291. = Morris 1.

Mueller, J., Grillparzers Menschenauffassung, Weimar, 1934. = Müller 1.

Mueller, J., Franz Grillparzer, Sammlung Metzler 31, Stuttgart, 1963. = Müller 2.

Muench, I., Die Tragik in Drama und Persönlichkeit Franz Grillparzers, Neue Forschung 11, Berlin, 1931.

Mulholland, G. A., A Study of Grillparzer's major dramatic works in the light of a Baroque Tradition in Viennese Popular Drama, Diss., London, 1966.

Nadler, J., Franz Grillparzer, Vaduz, 1948.

Naumann, W., Grillparzer: Das dichterische Werk, Stuttgart, 1956. = Naumann 1.

Naumann, W., “König Ottokars Glück und Ende”, Das deutsche Drama vom Barock bis zur Gegenwart. Interpretationen, ed. B. von Wiese, Düsseldorf, 1958, Vol. I, pp. 405-421. = Naumann 2.

Papst, E., “Grillparzer”, German Men of Letters, ed. A. Natan, London, 1961, pp. 99-120. = Papst 1.

Papst, E., Grillparzer: Des Meeres und der Liebe Wellen, Studies in German Literature, ed. L. W. Forster and B. A. Rowley, N. 9, London, 1967. = Papst 2.

Paulsen, W., Die Ahnfrau—Zu Grillparzers früher Dramatik, Tübingen, 1962.

Peacock, R., “Grillparzer” in The Poet in the Theatre, London, 1946, pp. 39-53.

Reich, E., Franz Grillparzers Dramen, Wien, 1894. 4th ed. Grillparzers dramatisches Werk, Wien, 1938.

Seeba, H. C., “Das Schicksal der Grillen und Parzen. Zu Grillparzers Ahnfrau”, Euphorion, 65, 1971, pp. 132-161. = Seeba 1.

Staiger, E., “König Ottokars Glück und Ende”, Meisterwerke deutscher Sprache aus dem neunzehnten Jahrhundert, Zürich, 1948, pp. 165-187.

Stein, G., The Inspiration Motif in the works of Grillparzer, The Hague, 1955.

Stern, J. P., “Grillparzer's Vienna”, German Studies presented to W. H. Bruford, London, 1962, pp. 176-192.

Swales, M. W., “The Narrative Perspective in Grillparzer's Der arme Spielmann”, German Life and Letters, N.S. XX, 1967, pp. 107-116.

Volkelt, J., Franz Grillparzer als Dichter des Tragischen, Nördlingen, 1888.

Wells, G. A., The Plays of Grillparzer, Oxford, 1969. = Wells 1.

Wells, G. A., “The Problem of Right Conduct in Grillparzer's Ein Bruderzwist in Habsburg”, German Life and Letters, N.S. XI, 1958, pp. 161-171.

Weissbart, G., Bürgerliches Lebensgefühl in Grillparzers Dramen, Mnemosyne, Heft 3, Bonn, 1929.

Wolff, H. M., “Zum Problem der Ahnfrau”, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, 62, 1937, pp. 303-317.

Yates, D., Grillparzer: A critical Biography, Oxford, 1946. Yates 1.

4. Other Critical Works Consulted Relating to Grillparzer

Alker, E., Franz Grillparzer: Ein Kampf um Leben und Kunst, Marburg, 1930.

Auernheimer, R., Franz Grillparzer: Der Dichter Oesterreichs, Wien, 1948.

Backmann, R., “Grillparzer als Revolutionär”, Euphorion, 32, 1931, pp. 476-525.

Backmann, R., “Grillparzer und die heutige Biedermeier-Psychose”, Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft, 33, 1935, pp. 1-32.

Bietak, W., Das Lebensgefühl des Biedermeier in der oesterreichischen Dichtung, Wien, 1931.

Brinkmann, R., “Der arme Spielmann: Der Einbruch der Subjektivität”, Wahrheit und Illusion, Tübingen, 1957, pp. 87-145.

Burckhardt, C. J., “Franz Grillparzer” in Gestalten und Mächte, Zürich, 1961, pp. 475-502.

Coenan, F. E., Grillparzer's Portraiture of Men, Chapel Hill, 1951.

Enzinger, M., “Franz Grillparzer und das Wiener Volkstheater”, Grillparzer-Studien, ed. O. Katann, Wien, 1924, pp. 9-39.

Fries, A., Intime Beobachtungen zu Grillparzers Stil und Versbau, Germanische Studien, Heft 18, Berlin, 1922.

Fuerst, N., Grillparzer auf der Bühne, Wien & München, 1958.

Gmuer, H., Dramatische und theatralische Stilelemente in Grillparzers Dramen, Diss. Zürich, 1956.

Gruber, F. E., Franz Grillparzer und seine Bühnenwerke: Eine Einführung, Schneiders Bühnenführer, Berlin, 1922.

Handl, W., Oesterreich und der deutsche Geist: Franz Grillparzer, Die Teile der deutschen Einheit, III, Konstanz a.B., 1915.

Hoellerer, W., “Franz Grillparzer”, Zwischen Klassik und Moderne, Stuttgart, 1958, pp. 240-294.

Helmensdorfer, U., Grillparzers Bühnenkunst, Bern, 1960.

Hohlbaum, R., Grillparzer, Stuttgart, 1938.

Huber, W., “Zur Tragik Grillparzers”, Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft, 33, 1935, pp. 33-41.

Kassner, R., “Grillparzer”, Geistige Welten, Frankfurt am Main, 1958, pp. 90-101.

Klaar, A., Grillparzer als Dramatiker, Wien, 1891.

Kosch, W., Oesterreich im Dichten und Denken Grillparzers, Wien, 1946.

Lasher-Schlitt, D., “Grillparzers ‘Hero und Leander’: Eine psychologische Untersuchung”, Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-gesellschaft, 3te. Folge, 3, 1960, pp. 106-114.

Mason, E., “A new look at Grillparzer's Bruderzwist”, German Life and Letters, N.S. XXV, 1972, pp. 102-115.

Muehler, R., “Grillparzer und der deutsche Idealismus”, Wissenschaft und Weltbild, I, 1948, Heft I, pp. 62-75.

Naumann, W., “Die Form des Dramas bei Grillparzer und Hofmannsthal”, Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift, 33, 1959, pp. 20-37.

Politzer, H., Franz Grillparzer oder das abgründige Biedermeier, Wien, 1972.

Reger, H. A., Das Sprachbild in Grillparzers Dramen, Xerogrammatica 2, Bonn, 1968.

Redlich, O., Grillparzers Verhältnis zur Geschichte, Wien, 1901.

Roselied, H., “Grillparzers Weltanschauung”, Grillparzer-Studien, ed. O. Katann, Wien, 1924, pp. 40-73.

Schafroth, H. F., Die Entscheidung bei Grillparzer, Bern, 1971.

Schaum, K., “Grillparzers Drama Ein treuer Diener seines Herrn”, Jahrbuch der Grillparzergesellschaft, 3te. Folge, 3, 1960, pp. 72-93.

Schneider, R., Im Anfang liegt das Ende: Grillparzers Epilog auf die Geschichte, Baden-Baden, 1946.

Sprengler, J., Grillparzer: Der Tragiker der Schuld, Stuttgart, 1947.

Stafansky, G., “Grillparzers geistige Persönlichkeit”, Festschrift für August Sauer, Stuttgart, 1925, pp. 233-269.

Strich, F., Franz Grillparzers Aesthetik, Forschungen zur neueren Literaturgeschichte, XXIX, Berlin, 1905.

Strohschneider-kohr, I., “Wirklichkeit und Erweis: Notizen zu einem Problem im Denken Grillparzers”, Festschrift für Hermann Kunisch, Berlin, 1961, pp. 363-380.

Volkelt, J., “Grillparzer als Dichter des Zwiespalts zwischen Gemüt und Leben”, Zwischen Dichtung und Philosophie, München, 1908, pp. 162-208.

Wedel-parlov, L. von, Grillparzer, Wertheim, 1932.

Editions and Abbreviations

Quotations from Grillparzer's works and line references are taken from the Hanser edition of Grillparzer's Sämtliche Werke, Ausgewählte Briefe, Gespräche und Berichte, ed. Peter Frank and Karl Pörnbacher, München, 1960. Footnote references to this edition are identified by the word Hanser, followed by the volume number and page reference. The abbreviation S.D. denotes the stage direction following the line referred to.

Reference has also been made to the standard critical edition of Grillparzer's Sämtliche Werke, Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. August Sauer and Reinhold Backmann, Wien, 1909-48. Footnote references to this edition are identified by the words Sauer-Backmann, followed by the division and volume numbers, and the page reference.

References to works by authors other than Grillparzer are taken from the following editions:

Aristotle, Poetics and Rhetoric, from the Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann, London, 1927, English translation by W. Hamilton Fyfe.

Heine, Deutschland ein Wintermärchen, from Heinrich Heine, Werke, Insel Verlag, Frankfurt, 1968, Vol. I.

Kleist, Die Familie Schroffenstein, from Kleist, Sämtliche Werke und Briefe, Carl Hanser Verlag, München, 1964, Vol. I.

Schiller, Wallensteins Tod, from Schiller, Werke, ‘Nationalausgabe’, Weimar 1943 etc., Vol. 8. Die Braut von Messina, ‘Nationalausgabe’, Vol. 10.

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, from The Works of Shakespeare, ed. John Dover Wilson, Cambridge, 1949. Macbeth, from the Arden edition of Shakespeare's works, ed. Kenneth Muir, London, 1957 (reprinted). King Lear, from the Arden edition, ed. Kenneth Muir, London, 1961 (reprinted). Othello, from the Arden edition, ed. M. R. Ridley, London, 1962 (reprinted).

Sophocles, Oedipus Rex, from Sophocles, The Theban Plays, Penguin Books, 1947, English translation by E. F. Watling.

Wilde, The Importance of Being Ernest, from Oscar Wilde's Plays, Prose writings and Poems, Everyman's Library, London, 1966 (reprinted).

Reference has been made to a number of titles of Grillparzer's plays in an abbreviated form. These are as follows:

König Ottokars Glück und Ende is referred to as König Ottokar.

Ein treuer Diener seines Herrn is referred to as Ein treuer Diener.

Des Meeres und der Liebe Wellen is referred to as Des Meeres.

Die Jüdin von Toledo is referred to as Die Jüdin.

Ein Bruderzwist in Habsburg is referred to as Ein Bruderzwist.

Footnote references to critical works are also made in an abbreviated form, and are identified by the author's name, followed by the page reference. A full description of the relevant work will be found in the Bibliography.

A reference to a particular work by an author who has more than one of his works listed in the Bibliography will also include a number which identifies the relevant work in the Bibliography. e.g. Papst 2, p. 35 refers to E. E. Papst Grillparzer: Des Meeres und der Liebe Wellen, London, 1967. i.e. the second work by this author listed in the Bibliography.