FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W775007574> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W775007574 abstract "Grillparzer's comedy dem, der lugt! not only caused considerable personal grief for its author at its failed premiere on March 6,1838, but has also occasioned some controversy as to its merits, its main theme(s), and its position within the author's oeuvre. Designating dem, der lugt! as untief (91) in 1967, Gunter Schable further maintained: Dennoch wird diesem Lustspiel Grillparzers zu Recht die groste Geringfugigkeit unter seinen Stucken zugemessen. Es ist Produkt der deutlich hervortretenden Absicht zu Lockerungsubungen, und es hat, mit Ausnahme seiner Sprache, mit den anderen Stucken erstaunlich wenig Gemeinsames. (90) In what amounts to a decisive refutation of Schable's position, Ruth Angress argued convincingly for the comedy's backward-looking when she attempted to shed new light on the theme, structure and aesthetic intention of dem, der lugt!, largely through a comparison of this play with Ein treuer Diener seines Herrn on the one hand and the Medea trilogy, Das goldene Vlies, on the (335). Various other critics have also pointed out similarities with the earlier tragedies.2 Parallels to later tragedies that would constitute the forward-looking face of the comedy are also a point of dissension among critics. Birbaumer argued that Weh dem, der lugt! stellt tatsachlich den Abschlus einer Schaffensperiode dar (56), and more recently, Roe (1991) has faulted the comedy for absence of the psychological complexities that mark the characterization of Ottokar, Erny, Hero, Libussa, and Alphons (208). Several commentators have nonetheless found correspondences between dem, der lugt! and the later dramas Libussa, Ein Bruderzwist in Habsburg and Die Judin von Toledo. Beriger refers to the Gegensatz von Ideal ... und Wirklichkeit (109) as being fundamental to the comedy under analysis here,3 Libussa, and Ein Bruderzwist by outlining philosophical views held in common by Bishop Gregor in dem, der lugt! and Emperor Rudolf II in Ein Bruderzwist (110).4 In Hock's analysis the Lustspiel promotes the same lesson as Libussa, i.e., das Tun [hat] hoher zu gelten als die tatenlose Bewahrung unfruchtbarer Reinheit, sofern es namlich nicht im Dienst der Selbstsucht, sondern der liebe steht (22). Bandet has maintained that dem, der lugt! not only looks back to Sappho but also ahead to Libussa and Ein Bruderzwist in its treatment of language (164), while Jones sees a precedent for Die Judin in the implied lesson of the comedy that one can only be truthful after the successful integration of one's instincts and drives (44).5 Whereas these observations all have merit, to date the secondary literature has failed to recognize the full extent to which dem, der lugt! looks ahead to the three posthumous plays mentioned above. In an examination of the status of dem, der lugt! relative to the other dramas, two considerations stand out. First, according to a report by August von Littrow-Bischoff, Grillparzer, notoriously critical of his own works, regarded the comedy as one of his finest plays: Denn er hielt gerade Stuck, mit welchem er keinen Erfolg gehabt, fur eines der besten (quoted in Bachmaier 690). And second, one should bear in mind the extended period of time over which he created his comedy. Sporadically working on it between 1820 and 1837, he completed the first three acts of Libussa and the first and part of the second act of Ein Bruderzwist and Diejudin during the same period. Moreover, in the Stoffenverzeichnis of 1826, an inventory of his then current literary projects, he included dem, der lugt! among the titles of the three posthumous plays, indeed listing it in third position. Pornbacher remarked on this procedure: Uberraschend ist zunachst, Grillparzer sein Lustspiel innerhalb der Tragodienstoffe aufnotiert und nicht bei den Lustspielen (52). Hence, in consideration of the fact that he was working on all four dramas during the same period, one would expect some cross-pollination among them, even though the playwright himself does not allude to any interdependence in his letters and diaries. …" @default.
• W775007574 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W775007574 creator A5032526269 @default.
• W775007574 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W775007574 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W775007574 title "Weh dem, der lugt! Grillparzer's Janus-Faced Comedy1" @default.
• W775007574 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W775007574 type Work @default.
• W775007574 sameAs 775007574 @default.
• W775007574 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W775007574 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W775007574 hasAuthorship W775007574A5032526269 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C15708023 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C33566652 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C51364203 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W775007574 hasConcept C548253320 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C111919701 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C124952713 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C138885662 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C142362112 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C15708023 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C33566652 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C41008148 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C51364203 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C52119013 @default.
• W775007574 hasConceptScore W775007574C548253320 @default.
• W775007574 hasLocation W7750075741 @default.
• W775007574 hasOpenAccess W775007574 @default.
• W775007574 hasPrimaryLocation W7750075741 @default.
• W775007574 isParatext "false" @default.
• W775007574 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W775007574 magId "775007574" @default.
• W775007574 workType "article" @default.