battle in his history, and mentions in it a wütenden Anlauf der kaiserlichen Reiterei" against the Swedes, which was unsuccessful.

The need of a strongly concentrated dramatic action required a radical change in the chronology of events in the last days of Wallenstein's life. In history a series of causes compel by degrees Wallenstein to rebel against the emperor; in the drama the unity of action demanded that the various forces which had been silently at work should reach their climax in one critical moment, and with irresistible power drive the hero to his fatal decision. The conflict between the General and the Court had therefore to be accentuated, and the final step of Wallenstein made to appear as inevitable. Events which occupied the last three months of Wallenstein's life were so concentrated in the drama as to cover a period of but four consecutive days.

Schiller's power of dramatic condensation is illustrated in the famous diplomatic scene between Questenberg and Wallenstein in the presence of the generals. In Questenberg's mission to Pilsen we have a combination of three distinct events. In August, 1633, Count von Schlick was sent to Wallenstein to expostulate with him upon his military inactivity, and, if possible, win over the officers to the imperial side. In December, 1633, Questenberg, who was really very friendly to Wallenstein, was sent to Pilsen to present to the general the imperial wishes in regard to the immediate prosecution of the war and the evacuation of Bohemia. Wallenstein ordered Illo to lay the emperor's demands before his officers, and they unanimously concurred in the opinion that a winter campaign was impossible. Finally the Capuchin monk Quiroga appeared, Jan. 5, 1634, in Pilsen to ask Wallenstein to send a detachment of six thousand horse as an escort to the Cardinal-Infant. All these demands of the Court are skillfully united in Questenberg's mission to Pilsen, and thus through the great audience scene in the second act of the Piccolomini we become acquainted with the important series of events that led to the fatal conflict between Wallenstein and the emperor.

The two meetings of Wallenstein's officers on Jan. 12, 1634, and Feb. 19, 1634, are likewise united into the one banquet scene in the fourth act of the Piccolomini, and an undramatic repetition is thus avoided and the action intensified.3 For similar reasons the two imperial orders of Jan. 24 and Feb. 18,

1 Cf. Schiller, Werke, XI, p. 369.

2 Piccol., Act II, Scene 7.

3 Cf. Introductory note to Act IV of the Piccolomini, and see Introd., pp. xxviii ff.

depriving Wallenstein of his command, are combined into one manifesto by which the general is not only deposed but also put under the ban of the empire.1

As Wallenstein's negotiations with the enemy are an important element in the action of the drama, Schiller introduces the masterly scene between Wrangel and Wallenstein which discloses to us the character and scope of these negotiations.2 This scene is without any historical foundation, as Wallenstein never met the Swedish general, Karl Gustav von Wrangel, whose military career really begins several years after Wallenstein's death.

The capture of Sesin is fictitious. It is introduced to accelerate the dramatic movement by forcing Wallenstein to immediate action. As Wallenstein's compromising despatches to Kinsky, Thurn, Oxenstjerna and Arnim 3 are in the hands of the Court, he must either join the Swedes or fall. Sesyma had, in reality, nothing to do with Wallenstein's final decision. Not till one and a half years after Wallenstein's murder did he divulge to the Court Wallenstein's negotiations with the Swedes.

The fall of Prague into the hands of the imperialists took place a few days earlier than it is represented in the drama.4 Suys captured the city on Feb. 20 and published there the imperial manifesto against Wallenstein.5

Wallenstein's murder is so dramatically described in Schiller's sources that on the whole he follows these quite faithfully. The main deviations consist here in reducing the number of persons who participated in the murder, and, as has been said, in the leading part assigned to Buttler. The gloomy fate which overtook Wallenstein is made complete by the destruction of his family, which is, however, contrary to history.

The drama abounds in many smaller deviations from history mentioned in the Notes and the Index, but on the whole it may be said that in his Wallenstein Schiller follows his sources much more closely than in his other historical dramas, and that his fictitious characters and scenes, and his changes in the chronology of events, were never arbitrary, but were most carefully considered and introduced solely for artistic effect.

I Cf. Tod, l. 1739, and note to Piccol., 1. 2500.

2 Cf. Tod, Act I, Scene 5.

3 Ct. Tod, 11. 50 ff.

4 Cf. Tod, ll. 1734 ff.

5 Cf. Hallwich, II, p. 476.

6 Cf. Ted, ll. 3818 ff.

THE UNITY OF ACTION OF THE DRAMA.

The main theme of the drama is Wallenstein's treason gainst the emperor. The climax of the drama is the moment when the hero, after deep inner conflict, is constrained by the force of unexpected circumstances to summon Wrangel, in order to form an alliance with the Swedes against the emperor (Tod, 1. 643). This decision to unite with the enemy is the central point about which the whole dramatic action turns. The slowly ascending action of the Piccolomini records the motive for this step, and the rapidly descending action of Wallensteins Tod is a direct and necessary consequence of it.

It is the proof of Wallenstein's treason which enables Octavio to induce the officers to desert their general. Octavio knows that even Wallenstein's rude soldiery will shrink from treason. Wallenstein has endeavored in various ways to bind his officers and soldiers to his cause. They are really devoted

to him, they are awed by his powerful personality, they trust his military genius, their fortunes are closely bound up with his own, and yet Octavio is right when he claims that all the favors they received from Wallenstein and all their hopes of military advancement will not induce them to follow their general as soon as they have proofs of his treason.1 Before Wallenstein's compact with the Swedes, Octavio had no influence with the officers, but the horror of the word treason brings about at once a revulsion of feeling, and without serious scruples they desert their chief. No one understands better the power which legitimate authority and old custom wield over the minds of men than Wallenstein himself, hence his great caution and doubt when about to take the step 2 Instead of representing upon the scene the emperor and his court, which would have doubtless weakened the drama, the poet has tried to make us feel throughout the work the mighty force of the imperial name in face of treason. If Wallenstein had utterly disregarded the imperial commands, even if he had openly rebelled against the emperor in order to maintain himself in his position, the army might have stood faithfully by him, but as soon as he becomes a traitor, his influence over his soldiers and over Max is irreparably lost.3 Had Wallenstein not committed treason, even Buttler, with all his energy 1 Piccol., 11. 331-336. 3 Tod, 11. 768-778.

2 Tod, 11. 139 ff.

prompted by revenge, would have failed of his purpose. Gordon, Wallenstein's admiring friend, is commander of the fortress of Eger. For a while it seems as if he might stay the murderous hand of Buttler. He plead for the general, tries in every way to extenuate his guilt, but the reported approach of the Swedes upon Eger, and the proof of Wallenstein's guilt, make him powerless. Fearing that he might himself become guilty of treason by permitting the Swedes to enter Eger, he is compelled to abandon his general and friend. Even the brutal Macdonald and Deveroux shrink at first from assassination of the general, but Buttler overcomes their scruples by pointing to Wallenstein's treason.

Karl Werder, in his very suggestive book on Wallenstein,1 rejects the view that Wallenstein's treason is the cause of his downfall, and tries to find the real cause of his ruin in his conduct as general when he first assumed the chief command of the army in 1625. In the organization of his army he appealed to the most selfish instincts, and in the method of warfare he disregarded all moral considerations in attaining his end. He maintained his authority by open defiance of the imperial power, and ruled ruthlessly over conquered states. In Werder's opinion it is this deep moral guilt of Wallenstein which eventually reacts against him and ruins him. No moral bond unites Wallenstein's army, which is composed of coarse adventurers, who are loyal to their chief because it is to their advantage to be so. Upon this rude mass he builds his plans, foredoomed to failure, for such an army will in the very nature of things desert him when it is for their interest to do so.2 Werder's interpretation is in so far correct as it tries to show that in the last analysis Wallenstein's own character, his enormous egoism, is responsible for his ruin. But the question before us is, what concrete act of Wallenstein, in the last few days of his life represented in the drama, seals his fate? And the answer undoubtedly is, Wallenstein's treason. Werder's statement that they desert him because they find that under the circumstances the greater advantage is on the side of the emperor, is after all but a different way of saying that Wallenstein's treason causes the defection of the army. So great is the power and authority of the imperial name, that even officers who are most deeply indebted to Wallenstein's generosity aban

1 Vorlesungen über Schiller's Wallenstein, von Karl Werder, Berlin, 1889. 2 Werder, pp. 39-46.

3 Ibid., pp. 44 ff.

don him without any compunctions of conscience when they learn of his treason. Whatever be their character and their motives, it is the treason of the general that, in the critical moment, determines their conduct.

THE MAX AND THEKLA SCENES AND THEIR DRAMATIC FUNCTION.

We have already touched upon the reasons wnich necessitated the introduction of the Max and Thekla scenes. The idea of the drama required that the gloomy and realistic world of Wallenstein and his followers be supplemented by the idealistic world of Max and Thekla. In the latter part of his essay Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung Schiller had developed philosophically the nature of realism and idealism; in the Wallenstein drama these two conflicting views of life were embodied in the characters of Wallenstein and Max. By contrast, these two characters were to stand out with more impressive significance. It seemed to Schiller of the utmost importance that the moral guilt of Wallenstein's undertaking and of his whole view of life be correctly judged. To do this, the poet needed an idealist, bound to the hero by the strongest ties of admiration and love, who, fearing the ruin of his friend, was bold enough to pass a moral judgment upon his treasonable undertaking. Only a character of the purity and unselfishness of Max Piccolomini could make us see Wallenstein's treason in the most glaring light.

Max was not only needed to make us feel the enormity of Wallenstein's guilt, he served also to elevate the personality of the hero. The Wallenstein of history was by no means an attractive figure; he was stern, revengeful and taciturn, and feared rather than loved by his soldiers. A man lifted above human sympathy was not suited to be the hero of a great tragedy. The poet must invest him with tender and human interest, and soften the sterner features of his character. Among the various means used by Schiller to effect this end, none was so potent as the friendship of Max Piccolomini. A hero, who for so many years could be regarded by a young idealist as the finest type of strong and noble manhood, must have possessed extraordinary qualities of mind and heart.

Besides, it must be admitted that to some extent personal 1 Cf. Introd., pp. xlv ff.