Download Chapter 6 - CSU, Chico

Chapter 6 Witz in the Tragedy
Studies that discuss Witz in association with Lessing’s dramatic works typically offer
examples from his comedies, an approach that likely rests upon the twentieth-century association
of the term Witz with the comical. However, Lessing’s tragedies, too, strikingly demonstrate the
potential of aesthetic Witz, as he defined it, in dramatic genres. The first tragic work to be
examined, Miß Sara Sampson (1755), falls in the same period of production as Lessing’s early
literary reviews and prior to his correspondence with Mendelssohn and Nicolai indicating his
developing Wirkungsästhetik. The second tragedy, Emilia Galotti (1771), is a work that had
occupied Lessing since the mid-1750s. While his original three-act manuscript from 1758
provided him with a simple basis for the final version, the latter took the much different form of
five acts. Lessing worked on this later version of Emilia Galotti, which is the only surviving
form of the drama, during his tenure in Hamburg as well as after his move to Wolfenbüttel.
Because of the clearly differentiated dates of origin of the two tragedies Sara and Emilia, and
because they immediately follow clear periods for which his theoretical conception of Witz was
determined in Chapters 2 and 3, a comparison of the usages of Witz in each drama will help
determine how his direct repudiation of Witz in 1767 affected his usage of it as a poetic device in
the tragedy.
6.1 Miß Sara Sampson (1755)
AFTER an example, explain how contrast and comical contrast differ in quality. (Freud
Witz)
The contrastive type of dialogical Witz evident in the early comedies and so prevalent in
Minna von Barnhelm as a means of elucidating contrasting character perspectives is utilized
sparingly, by contrast, in Lessing’s tragedies. Two examples from Miß Sara Sampson indicate its
usage there. When Sara learns that one of Mellefont’s relatives wishes to pay her a visit, she tells
him she hopes she can appear before this relative “ohne zu erröten.” Sara’s reference is a selfcastigation, alluding to the immorality of her conduct, her loss of virtue. Mellefont employs Witz
to deflect Sara’s self-criticism, shifting the intention of her words: “Ohne zu erröten? Und
worüber? Darüber, daß Sie mich lieben? Es ist wahr, Miß, Sie hätten Ihre Liebe einem Edlern,
einem Reichern schenken können. Sie müssen sich schämen, daß Sie Ihr Herz nur um ein Herz
haben gegeben wollen, und daß Sie bei diesem Tausche Ihr Glück so weit aus den Augen
gesetzt” (II,46). Mellefont thus makes himself the brunt of her reproach. In his pretended
assumption that Sara’s words are a reference to his unworthiness, Mellefont demonstrates that he
does not question her virtue in the least. Like Minna’s intentional misunderstanding of
Tellheim’s reference to “[n]ichts als was [. . .] die Ehre befiehlt,” the ability for potential double
meanings here is dependent upon and simultaneously reflective of two varying character
perspectives.
Another example of such deliberate misinterpretation of a conversational partner’s words
occurs as Marwood is attempting to charm Mellefont. When she approaches him with open arms,
he responds: “[I]ch vermutete, daß Sie mich anders empfangen würden” (II,28), meaning that he
expected she would be irate (II,25). Marwood takes up Mellefont’s word “anders” and shifts its
intention: “Warum anders? Mit mehr Liebe vielleicht? mit mehr Entzücken? Ach ich
Unglückliche, daß ich weniger ausdrücken kann, als ich fühle!” (II,28-29) Although initially
beguiled by Marwood’s charm and her Witz,1 Mellefont finds the opportunity to counter her
efforts with his own Witz. After Marwood exploits their daughter Arabella to reclaim his
affections, Marwood prods him: “Nun sagen Sie es noch einmal, ob Sie fest entschlossen sind,
mich einer jungen Närrin [Sara] aufzuopfern.” Mellefont at first opposes Marwood’s
characterization of his treatment of her as sacrifice, since he rejects her self-representation as the
helpless victim. But then he finds in Marwood’s portrayal an opportunity to win verbal
advantage over her: “Sie machen, daß ich mich hier erinnere, daß den alten Göttern auch sehr
unreine Tiere geopfert wurden” (II,39). By placing her own reference to sacrifice in a new
context, Mellefont thus insults Marwood and emphasizes her flagrant inferiority to Sara. His
comeback tacitly expresses the dichotomy he sees between the angelic Sara and the tarnished
Marwood.
Such appropriation of words and phrases and their reconfiguration in character discourse
to carry altered meanings and thus demonstrate contrasting character perspectives was shown to
be a significant function of Witz in Lessing’s comedies. This form of Witz that relies on
polysemy for its effect plays only a minor role in Miß Sara Sampson. Rather the illuminative
type of Witz that uses imagery to vividly communicate abstract meanings is most abundant in the
tragedy. Among the potential manifestations of Witz, such visual renderings dominate in Miß
Sara Sampson and their specific functions are very heterogeneous.2
Individual characters use metaphorical imagery, for instance, to express their personal
affective reactions to specific situations. Sara exclaims in reaction to Waitwell’s monolog about
her father’s pain and her own responsibility in effecting a reconciliation: “Was für Schwerter
gehen aus deinem einfältigen Mund in mein Herz!” (II,52) By paralleling the physical pain a
blade can cause with her emotional state, she creates a sensate image to express feelings
otherwise unspeakable with mere words. She thereby indicates her own emotional anguish at the
thought of her father’s suffering. When Waitwell brings news to Sara’s waiting father that Sara
still loves him and will openly accept his forgiveness, Sir Willaim exclaims: “Was für Balsam,
Waitwell, hast du mir durch deine Erzählung in mein verwundetes Herz gegossen!” (II,60) He
compares his emotion with the physical sensation of having a soothing ointment applied to a
wound. With this image, Sir William articulates his emotional joy and relief at that prospect of
winning Sara back as his daughter. Allusions to the natural phenomena of fire and storms
throughout the drama optically convey expressions of human passion and emotional states
respectively.3
Visual representation is not exclusive to the expression of feeling. It can also illuminate
the attitudes, opinions, and motives of the dramatis personae. Mellefont, for instance, finds that
in comparison to the “Engel” Sara, he is a “Teufel,” “ein verurteilter Sünder” (II,16). His
imagery indicates that he deems her morally superior to himself. Marwood, too, characterizes
Mellefont in relation to the devil: “Ist der Teufel ärger als du, der schwache Menschen zu
In the second act, Mellefont directly characterizes Marwood as a woman with Witz; he tells her: “Ein
tugendhafter Entschluß sichert mich gegen Ihre Zärtlichkeit und Ihren Witz” (II,31). Here, the multifarious
connotations of the term Witz come into play. Certainly, Mellefont is referring to her cunning, guileful nature.
Moreover, Marwood demonstrates that she also has the ability implied by the term Witz—to recognize similarities
among disparates—an ability she uses to insidious ends. Marwood’s Witz becomes particularly evident in Act 4,
Scene 8, when she is left alone with Sara. See below, pp. 219-21.
2 For additional discussion of the appearance and meaning of metaphors beyond the ones discussed here, see Göbel
79-93.
3 See ... Göbel, ???, 87-89. On the deeper meaning of the storm metaphor in the work, cf. Heinrich Bornkamm,
“Die innere Handlung in Lessings Miß Sara Sampson,” Euphorion 551 (1957): 385-96.
1
Verbrechen reizet, und sie dieser Verbrechen wegen, die sein Werk sind, hernach selbst
anklagt?” (II,41) Her comparison derives from her own view of herself as one such victim of
Mellefont’s. Mellefont, she says, is her “Schöpfer,” she is his “Geschöpf” (II,33). She thus
depicts herself as a blameless victim, assigning all responsibility for her actions to Mellefont.
Marwood claims that has made her the diabolical, malicious creature she has become—”eine
neue Medea” (II,40). By likening herself to this sorceress in Greek mythology, Marwood
conveys to Mellefont her intention of killing their daughter Arabella, for Medea, who helped
Jason obtain the Golden Fleece, murdered her own children when he later deserted her.
Mellefont rejects all blame for Marwood’s circumstance, however. From his point of view, it
was she who entrapped him with her “Hölle von Verführung” (II,30). It becomes clear from the
metaphors they use that neither is willing to accept personal responsibility for his/her actions;
each blames the fiendish machinations of the other for his/her own moral depravity.
Witz can thus express not only feelings and moods, but it can also indicate a character’s
perception of his/her own position or his/her view of others. Metaphors of light and darkness,
which recur throughout the tragedy, are functionally variable. Waitwell portrayal of Sara in her
early years associates her with light: “Aus jeder kindischen Miene strahlte die Morgenröte eines
Verstandes, einer Leutseligkeit.” Her character diverges from that of Mellefont, who Waitwell
sees as one of the “[b]öse Leute” who consistently seek “das Dunkle” (II,11). The contrasting
metaphors express not only the antithetical nature of Sara’s goodness and Mellefont’s vice,
however. This juxtaposition simultaneously serves the exposition of the plot and indicates the
basic conflict that forms the crux of the work.4 Moreover, the early association of Sara with light
contributes to the structure of the play as a whole. Whereas Sara is described with respect to the
sunrise in the very first scene, in the final act, which depicts the final moments of her life, she is
“die Heilige” whose father asks her to leave behind “einen Strahl des Lichtes, welches dich über
alles Menschliche so weit erhebt” (II,98). Here, the concept of light points to Sara’s entrance into
the transcendental realm. She is still associated with light, but with her death, she takes her light
with her from the world. Her life is thereby depicted as a sun cycle. The images of the sunrise
and sunset also parallel the passage of time in the drama, as the action takes place on a single
day.5
Apart from other characters’ association of Sara with light, the early juxtaposition of the
images of light and darkness can take on new functions and meanings with the shifting
perspectives of characters. Sara, for instance, sees in the coming reunion with her father and his
acceptance of her relationship with Mellefont a “Strahl der Glückseligkeit,” the loss of which
would be “die dickste Finsternis” leaving her in a “Nacht [. . .] deren Schrecklichkeit [. . .] durch
diese kurze Erleuchtung erst recht fühlbar geworden” (II,62). Marwood, too, uses similar
imagery to insist upon the constancy of Mellefont’s love for her; it can, she says, experience
“eine kurze Verfinsterung; [. . .] weiter aber nichts als eine kurze Verfinsterung, aus welcher sie
hernach mit neuem Glanze hervorbricht” (II,80). In both of these contexts, light and darkness
represent positive and negative events as each of these characters perceives them.6
Marwood uses a number of images to portray her position and express her feelings. She
exposes the degree of her rage and the extent to which she is willing to execute her revenge, for
instance, when she explains that she would show her vengeance without reserve, “wenn mir ein
Tyrann seine Gewalt, oder der Himmel seinen Blitz anvertrauen wollte.” But she realizes she is
4
Göbel 79-81.
Göbel 84-87.
6 Göbel 84.
5
only “ein getretner Wurm” who, consonant with the weapons at her disposal, would like to at
least wound the heel of the trampler” (II,72). Marwood’s imagery illuminates both her deepest
destructive desire and her immediate plan of action, and indicates the discrepancy between the
two. At this point she is not planning to murder Sara, but seeks only to degrade Mellefonte in
Sara’s eyes. Mellefont is entirely aware of Marwood’s fury and appetite for vengeance, but
believes that, having taken away her dagger, she is now like “[d]ie Wespe, die den Stachel
verloren hat” (II,68)—harmless. He presumes that without her blade, Marwood “kann doch
weiter nichts als summen” (II,69). But Marwood hopes that “Wahrheit, Verleumdung und
Drohungen” can function as a “Stachel” (II,72); thus, these are the weapons she initially takes up
in the hope of destroying Mellefont’s chances with Sara. In the end, however, Marwood does
find the opportunity to fatally poison her rival. Marwood ensures that the “Stiche” from her
“Stachel” are felt. Sara, who does not yet know that she has been poisoned, feels “[e]in Stich!
nicht Ein Stich, tausend feurige Stiche in einem!” (II,86), which remind her, and the reader, of
her dream which, too, ends with “ein tödlicher Stich” from the dagger “von einer mir ähnlichen
Person” (II,19). Images of piercing, pricking, and stinging are consistently used to represent
Marwood’s ability to cause injury.
A number of other metaphors occur in the figures’ characterization of circumstances and
personalities; a number of these will be mentioned in the following, since they prove important
to the understanding how Witz functions as a unifying agent in the tragedy. This dream of Sara’s
ending in a “tödlicher Stich” serves as the basis of the Witz Lessing applies for the purpose of
macrostructural unity in the drama.7 Sara recounts to Mellefont in detail in the first act:
[. . .] [N]och schlief ich nicht ganz, als ich mich auf einmal an dem schroffsten
Teile des schrecklichsten Felsen sahe. Sie [Mellefont] gingen vor mir her, und ich
folgte Ihnen mit schwankenden ängstlichen Schritten, die dann und wann ein
Blick stärket, welchen sie auf mich zurückwarfen. Schnell hörte ich hinter mir ein
freundliches Rufen, welches mir still zu stehen befahl. Es war der Ton meines
Vaters [. . .]. [I]ndem ich mich nach dieser bekannten Stimme umsehen wollte,
gleitete mein Fuß; ich wankte und sollte eben in den Abgrund herab stürzen, als
ich mich, noch zur rechten Zeit, von einer mir ähnlichen Person zurückgehalten
fühlte. Schon wollte ich ihr den feurigsten Dank abstatten, als sie einen Dolch aus
dem Busen zog. Ich rettete dich, schrie sie, um dich zu verderben Sie holte mit der
bewaffneten Hand aus—und ach! Ich erwachte mit dem Stiche. Wachend fühlte
ich noch alles, was ein tödlicher Stich Schmerzhaftes haben kann; ohne das zu
empfinden, was er Angenehmes haben muß: das Ende der Pein in dem Ende des
Lebens hoffen zu dürfen.8 (II,19)
Sara’s dream both depicts her present situation and presages the events to come.9 Having fled
with Mellefont, her seducer and lover, she now blindly follows him—both physically, to the
7
The key role of the dream for the dramatic structure as a whole is discussed at length by Manfred Durzak,
“Äußere und innere Handlung in Miß Sara Sampson: Zur ästhetischen Geschlossenheit von Lessings Trauerspiel,”
Zu Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: Poesie im bürgerlichen Zeitalter. LGW Interpretationen 67 (Stuttgart: Klett, 1984)
35-36; and Rolf-Christian Zimmermann, “Über eine bildungsgeschichtlich bedingte Sichtbehinderung bei der
Interpretation von Lessing’s Miß Sara Sampson,” Verlorene Klassik? Ein Symposium, ed. Wolfgang Wittkowski
(Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1986) esp. 271-78.
8 My emphasis.
9 Her dream is not to be interpreted as an oracle, however. Gisbert Ter-Neddsen, Lessings Trauerspiele: Der
Ursprung des modernen Dramas aus dem Geist der Kritik, Germanistische Abhandlungen 57 (Stuttgart: Metzler,
desolate inn where they are now in hiding, and in her love for him, as she is willing to embrace
whatever fate their togetherness brings. In the third act, she receives word of her father’s
willingness to reconcile with her and accept Mellefont into his family. At this point the identity
of the person whom Sara perceives as being so similar to herself is still a mystery. That the evil
Marwood and angelic Sara could be deemed even remotely alike is beyond consideration in the
first act. The audience hears about the innocent Sara, whose virtue has been shamelessly
violated, and about “böse Marwood” (II,15), “buhlerische Marwood” (II,23). The audience, like
Sara, still knows Marwood solely from Mellefont’s descriptions. Sara’s blind faith and trust in
Mellefont lead her to believe that she means something different to him than Marwood did. As in
the dream, Mellefont in fact reassures Sara: “Sie [. . .] sehen, und alle Marwoods vergessen, war
eins” (II,23).
As the drama unfolds, however, the audience must recognize from its omniscient position
an increasingly evident similarity between the virtuous Sara and the depraved and rancorous
Marwood. With the release of more details about Mellefont’s past relationship with Marwood in
the second act, his involvement with Sara begins to resemble his affair with his former mistress.
It becomes apparent that Mellefont was able to escape a marriage to Marwood for ten years
under the very same pretenses he is now enlisting to avoid marrying Sara. In the first act,
Mellefont resists Sara’s pleas to amend their immoral deed by way of a marriage ceremony.
Verwünschtes Vermächtnis! Verdammter Unsinn eines sterbendes Vetters, der
mir sein Vermögen nur mit der Bedingung lassen wollte, einer Anverwandtin die
Hand zu geben, die mich eben so sehr haßt als ich sie! [. . .] Und wenn ich ihrer
nur entübriget sein könnte, dieser schimpflichen Erbschaft! So lange mein
väterliches Vermögen zu meiner Unterhaltung hinreichte, habe ich sie allezeit
verschmähet [. . .]. Aber itzt, itzt, da ich alle Schätze der Welt nur darum besitzen
möchte, um sie zu den Füßen meiner Sara legen zu können, itzt da ich wenigstens
darauf denken muß, sie ihrem Stande gemäß in der Welt erscheinen zu lassen, itzt
muß ich meine Zuflucht dahin nehmen. (II,21)
Mellefont’s justification for their present situation is analogous to his comforting glances from
the dream and is for Sara evidence that their dangerous position on the most precipitous section
of a terrifying cliff is only temporary. However, in the second act, the audience hears Marwood
say to Mellefont: “Ward ich nicht von dir beredt, daß du dich in keine öffentliche Verbindung
einlassen könntest, ohne einer Erbschaft verlustig zu werden, deren Genuß du mit niemand, als
mit mir teilen wolltest?” (II,40) Moreover, Sara is the latest in a long line of Mellefont’s amorous
diversions.10 Marwood realizes that her favor with Mellefont could not have lasted eternally:
Hätte ich es nicht voraus sehen sollen, daß sie [diese unseligen Gefälligkeiten]
ihren Wert nicht immer bei ihm behalten könnten? Daß ihr Wert auf der
1986) esp. 43-48, is among the few scholars who properly recognize Sara’s dream as a reflection of her
psychological state and her subconscious perception of the hazardousness of her present situation.
10 See Act 2, Scene 3. Marwood reminds Mellefont of his past indiscretions: “Kannst du mir nachsagen, kleiner
Flattergeist, daß ich jemals eifersüchtig gewesen wäre, wenn stärkere Reize, als die meinigen, dich mir auf eine
Zeitlang abspenstig machten? Ich gönnte dir allezeit diese Veränderung, bei der ich immer mehr gewann, als verlor.
Du kehrtest mit neuem Feuer, mit neuer Inbrunst in meine Arme zurück . . .” (II,30). Sara ardently disputes that
Mellefont carries any of the fault for her or Marwood’s situation. In her eyes, Mellefont is beyond reproach. In the
fifth act, Norton questions Sara’s position: “Warum soll Mellefont niemals Unrecht haben?” (II,87) Durzak notes
that Sara subscribes to the double bourgeois morality that allows men sexual freedom, while demanding exclusivity
in women’s sexual relationships (39). Sara does not expect to be “die einzige . . . , die für ihn [Mellefont] Reize
genug gehabt” (II,39).
Schwierigkeit des Genusses beruhe, und daß er mit derjenigen Anmut
verschwinden müsse, welche die Hand der Zeit unmerklich, aber gewiß, aus
unsern Gesichtern verlöscht? (II,27)
The implication of her statement is that the very same fate awaits Sara.
Yet Marwood is quite different from Sara in her approach toward Mellefont. She knows
that the way to maintain his interest over a long period of time is to keep him only “in leichte
Bande” and never “in schwere Fesseln” (II,30). Marwood knows that Mellefont is a “Vogel,” for
whom “das freie Feld” is preferable to a “Käfig” (II,8). Even Mellefont acknowledges that the
thought of being “auf Zeit Lebens gefesselt” is unbearable to him. He prefers by his own
admission to be the kind of “Gefangener, den man auf sein Wort frei herum gehen läßt” (II,65),
thus corroborating Marwood’s characterization of him.11 Sara’s insistence on a “Zeremonie”
(II,18), a “Verbindung” before God (II,20), the “Band, [. . .] ohne welches auch die aufrichtigste
Liebe eine unheilige Leidenschaft bleibet” (II,81), and Mellefont’s apparent inability to concede
this to her, as becomes apparent in the imprisonment metaphors used to characterize his stance,
build the basic conflict of the drama. Sir William’s initial disfavor toward their togetherness was
welcome to Mellefont as a concrete obstacle to their marriage. With the father’s willingness to
accept their union, Mellefont becomes dejected: “Sara Sampson, meine Geliebte! Wie viel
Seligkeiten liegen in diesen Worten! Sara Sampson, meine Ehegattin!—Die Hälfte dieser
Seligkeit ist verschwunden! und die andere Hälfte—wird verschwinden” (II,65). Thus, despite
his reassuring words to Sara, his intentions are quite different.
While correspondences between the situations of the two women become more and more
evident to the audience as the tragedy progresses, Sara remains haunted by only “strafende
Stimmen” (I,18) and “Ahnungen” (II,62), and “dieses rebellische Etwas” (II,64) will not allow
her to freely be happy. The impending reconciliation with her father seems to her an isolated ray
of happiness that makes the dreadful nature of her situation all the more apparent (II,62). Sara
knows of some of Mellefont’s past indiscretions, and while she does not outwardly appear
distressed about them, her subconscious apparently perceives a potential problem, as is also
evident from her dream. Even when Marwood appears to her in the fourth act in the guise of
Lady Solmes and openly divulges to Sara the gravity of her situation, the fickleness of
Mellefont’s character, and the similarity of Sara to Marwood, Sara rejects it as a “einen
blendenden Roman” (II,82).
While there is certainly a great deal of truth in the story Lady Solmes relates to Sara
about Marwood’s relationship with Mellefont, it is also by virtue of her Witz that Marwood is
cleverly able to play upon this similitude. She not only recounts the deferral of their marriage
due to Mellefont’s allegation of financial obstacles,12 but also describes Marwood’s actions and
character to make her seem very similar to Sara. Like Sara, Marwood was charmed by Mellefont
(II,79). Following Sara’s sigh, and taking up Sara’s words about the pardonability of
“menschliche Schwachheit” (II,76), Lady Solmes tells Sara that Marwood found herself sighing
repeatedly about her own weakness (II,79). She ascribes to Marwood a number of virtuous
qualities that make her similar to Sara not only by circumstance but also in character. While Sara
11
See Göbel 81-83, for a discussion of the metaphors of imprisonment in Sara.
Lady Solmes tells Sara of the failed marriage plans of Marwood and Mellefont. Mellefont is on the verge of
marrying Marwood, she says, “als er Nachricht von dem Tode eines Vetters bekam, welcher ihm sein ganzes
Vermögen mit der Bedingung hinterließ, eine weitläuftige Anverwandte zu heiraten. . . . Sie wurden eins, ihre
Vermählung so lange auszusetzen, bis die Anverwandte, des langen Verzögens überdrüssig, einen Vergleich
vorzuschlagen gezwungen sei” (II,78-79).
12
on the one hand rejects the “so erniedrigende Parallel” (II,82) with Marwood, and rebuffs Lady
Solmes’s placement of her and her rival Marwood “in einen Rang” (II,83), she must also
recognize a measure of truth in the woman’s words.13 When Lady Solmes reveals her true
identity, Sara finally recognizes Marwood as “die mörderische Retterin,” the “mir ähnliche
Person” from her dream.
By the end of the fourth act, it is apparent to both the audience and Sara that the image
Lady Solmes has presented of Marwood is nothing more than a mirror of Sara’s future self.14
Whereas Sara is in the ninth week of her relationship with Mellefont, the former has known him
for a decade. The marriage between Marwood and Mellefont never occurred because he enjoyed
the rights of a spouse without having to officially obtain them (II,80). So strong is his aversion to
marriage, even the birth of his child by Marwood is unable to move him to a legalized union with
her. What Marwood has become, Sara could just as easily become after ten years of dishonesty
and betrayal. That Sara is guilty of giving in to Mellefont’s advances without the guarantee of a
permanent relationship indicates that she is already on the path toward becoming the next
Marwood.15 Supporting this notion is Marwood’s association between the vial of poison she
carries with her and Mellefont’s love letters, which are according to her experience “für uns ein
eben so gewisses, aber nur langsameres Gift” (II,84). Her reference to “uns,” the female sex as a
whole, prefigures Sara’s inevitable inclusion among Mellefont’s victims. But instead of being
poisoned by Mellefont’s long years of inconstancy and indiscretion, Sara receives the swift
poison from Marwood’s vial. As in the dream, Marwood both saves Sara (morally from
Mellefont) and destroys her (physically with her poison).
Sara’s death absolves her of her difficult circumstance, having already irrevocably
sacrificed her virtue to a man who will undoubtedly never marry her. In the end it is ironically
Sara’s death through the hand of Marwood that affords her the opportunity to truly differentiate
herself from her rival. While Marwood eventually becomes hateful and vengeful as a result of
Mellefont’s deeds, Sara chooses to forgive Marwood for taking her life.16 She thus atones for her
loss of virtue with the development of her ability to forgive.17 Sara also learns to understand the
Whatever Marwood’s motives, her Witz becomes the instrument of making Sara acutely aware of the truth of her
situation. Whether or not she and Marwood are truly akin in character, the circumstances of their respective
relationships with Mellefont appear to be very similar. Cf. Hans Helmut Hiebel, “Missverstehen und Sprachlosigkeit
im ‘bürgerlichen Trauerspiel’,” Jahrbuch der deutschen Schillergesellschaft 27 (1983): 124-53. Hiebel notes that
“[d]ie Intrige der Marwood besteht nun . . . darin, Sara die Wahrheit, das beiden Gemeinsame näherzubringen”
(134).
14 Durzak indicates that while the quality of the Sara’s similarity with Marwood is at the time of the dream still
obscured for Sara, at the end of Act 4, Scene 8, the similarity occurs to her “blitzartig . . . , als sie ihren Traum
bewußt auf die Marwood bezieht” (36). See also: Simonetta Sanna, “Von Miss Sara Sampson zu Emilia Galotti: Die
Formen des Medea-Mythos im Lessingschen Theater,” Lessing Yearbook 24 (1992): 47-48.
15 Cf. Zimmermann 275. Before Lady Solmes’s confrontation with Sara, the latter depicts her own actions as
human weakness excusable in matters of love. By the end of the scene, the potentially chaotic and devastating
consequences of such actions becomes apparent in the example of Marwood. Zimmermann explains that at the end
of the fourth act Sara becomes fully conscious of the fact that her private transgression is a grand violation of God’s
order.
16 Cf. Hiebel: “Erst wenn das ‘Laster’ nicht mehr als das ganz Andere der ‘Tugend’ erscheint, die Extreme
einander kommensurabel werden, ist Selbstreflexion als Selbstüberschreitung denkbar” (“Missverstehen” 129).
17 Throughout the drama, Sara is tormented by the guilt of her actions, and she repeatedly seeks opportunities to
atone for them. On Sara’s need for atonement, cf. Durzak 38; and F. Andrew Brown, “Sara Sampson: The Dilemma
of Love,” Lessing Yearbook 2 (1970): 145-46. She wishes herself unhappiness for the pain she has caused her father,
and is at first willing to accept his forgiveness only under the condition that “in dem Augenblick, da er mir alles
erlauben wollte, ich ihm alles aufopfern könnte” (II,50). Her death is a fulfillment of this wish. Sara’s forgiving of
13
difference between practiced virtue and an ideal virtue that is only discussed and whose loss is
lamented. As the specific ability to perceive similarities, Witz serves as the basis for Sara’s
education; it allows her to sense the similarity between herself and Marwood despite the apparent
antithetical natures of the two women, and to first comprehend the truly perilous nature of her
situation. Marwood’s Witz likewise provides her with the ability to draw parallels between
herself and Sara.
And also “Die drei Reiche der Natur”—based on the similarity between nature and rococo social
world. Manifests itself as contrastive Witz2, however, the polysemy of love and drink, which
permits the syllogistic relationship between a stone and a person who refrains from flirtatious
behavior and drinking alcohol. The similarity between Sara and Marwood, on the other hand, is
emphasized through illuminative Witz1
Witz contributes to the structure of Miß Sara Sampson in the same manner as to Lessing’s
early comedy Der Freigeist. Like in Lessing’s comedy from 1749, here the audience is led to
realize how similar the situations of seemingly disparate characters are. The differences between
the presumably dichotomous figures, Theophan and Adrast. Sara and Marwood, are emphasized
from the start. Because such a structure does not serve to accentuate the contrast between the
characters, but rather their similarity, it is not particularly apt for producing comical effects,
which derive from incongruities. This is perhaps why Der Freigeist is oftentimes termed a
sentimental comedy.18 Even Lessing acknowledged that his comedy might not seem very
comical to observers: “Wer nicht zu lachen genug darin findet, mag sich an dem darauf
folgenden Nachspiele der Schatz erholen.”19
At the same time, Witz is also pervasive on the microstructural level of Miß Sara
Sampson. The Witz of illuminative imagery suffuses the drama while the contrastive type of Witz
that relies on polysemous language, which especially dominates in Minna von Barnhelm, is
almost absent in Lessing’s first tragedy. It is likely that the seeds of Lessing’s Wirkungsästhetik
were already beginning to take shape and that he was beginning to make distinctions between
comedy and tragedy based on their respective ends. In the following year, he would begin his
correspondence with Mendelsson and Nicolai, in which he first named the arousal of compassion
as the specific goal of the tragedy. In Sara, Lessing seemed to be contemplating ways of
achieving emotional effects and was experimenting with techniques for achieving an affective
Marwood is precedented by her father’s example of forgiveness, which in turn mirrors divine mercy. Cf.
Bornkamm, who sees the inner plot of Miß Sara Sampson as a dramatization of the supplication found in the Lord’s
prayer: “‘Vergib uns unsere Schuld, wie wir vergeben unseren Schuldigern’“ (393). While forgiveness is a motif
which runs through the entire work and which repeatedly illuminates the characters’ natures and motives,
Bornkamm’s reduction of the work to this single moral overlooks the complex other themes and motifs comprising
the dramatic structure. Wolfram Mauser’s conclusion (“Lessings Miss Sara Sampson. Bürgerliches Trauerspiel als
Ausdruck innerbürgerlichen Konflikts,” Lessing Yearbook 7 [1975]: 1-27) that Sara’s death results from the conflict
between emancipation from and conformity to social norms overlooks Sara’s repeated concerns about the status of
her soul. To Mellefont, she says: “[I]ch bin in meinem Herzen die Ihrige, und werde es ewig sein. Aber noch bin ich
es nicht vor den Augen jenes Richters, der die geringsten Übertretungen seiner Ordnung zu strafen gedrohet hat”
(II,19-20). Mauser thesis also overlooks Sara’s lack of concern regarding her place in society. She seeks “in der
Welt weiter von keiner Ehre [zu] wissen, als von der Ehre Sie [Mellefont] zu lieben” [II,20]. Zimmermann, on the
other hand, correctly finds that Lessing’s first tragedy is “von aller Sozialkritik . . . weit entfernt” (277).
BIBLIOG??
18 ??? see secondary lit ; commentary by Gerd Hillen in Werke, vol. 2, 635.
19 In his own review of his Schriften in the Berlinische privilegierte Zeitung 53, rpt. in Werke, vol. 2, 651.
response in the tragedy. He explicitly claims to have composed many passages of the drama to
rouse emotions in the actors, allowing them to better play their characters on stage. Of the
character Marwood, he writes: “[D]a ich in ihrem Gesichte gern gewisse Züge der Wut erwecken
möchte, die in ihrem freyen Willen nicht stehen, so gehe ich weiter und suche ihre
Einbildungskraft durch mehr sinnliche Bilder zu erhitzen, als freylich zu dem bloßen Ausdrucke
meiner Gedanken nicht nötig wäre.”20 The metaphoric language, the “sinnliche Bilder”—
examples of Witz—are meant to work at the level of lower perception to stimulate actual
emotions in the actors, allowing them to realistically portray the emotions effectively on stage.
For the early Lessing, a realistic visual portrayal is the best means for stimulating emotion in the
audience, and his writing is thus directed toward assisting actors in their ability to express
feeling.21 As seen in Chapter 2, Witz was well-suited to this purpose.
6.2 Emilia Galotti (1771) 22
Contrastive Witz is as infrequent in Emilia Galotti as in his earlier tragedy. The few
instances where this infusion of words and phrases with multiple meanings appears, it serves to
highlight character perspectives. For instance, when the prince learns from Marinelli that Emilia
and Appiani are to be wed that very same day, the prince sees the situation as hopeless in that
moment: “Heute sagen Sie? schon heute?” By taking up the word “heute” and placing it in a
different context, Marinelli expresses his contrary view that the situation is far from hopeless:
“Erst heute—soll es geschehen” (II,140). In the prince’s eyes, because “today” indicates the
present time and “today” is also the time when the marriage is to occur, there is no interval
during which the course of events could be changed. For him, the ceremony is as good as complete. Marinelli, on the other hand, makes a distinction between the two moments. He sees the
present instant and the moment of the marriage ceremony as two different points in time,
between which the opportunity exists to undertake action to change the coming course of events.
The point of convergence between both statements is the concept “heute,” within which both
character perspectives are reflected. The simultaneous existence of the two differing views in the
single concept of “heute” is evidence of Witz.
Such potential for double connotations of words exists within statements of certain
characters, as well. In discussing with the artist Conti a portrait he has painted of Orsina, the
prince tells the artist that his work is “redlich,” quite obviously referring to his artistic ability to
reproduce his original. After pausing a moment, the prince recant his praise for Conti: “Redlich,
sag ich?—Nicht so redlich wäre redlicher.” Because Conti has depicted only the positive
20
In a letter to Mendelssohn, Sept. 14, 1757, in Lessings Briefe 84.
See Michelsen 183-92. Michelsen explains that unlike in the theater of the baroque, in which gestures were
meant to support the spoken word, here the spoken word is meant to influence gesture. It is “das Nicht-Aussagbare”
(188) that is of central importance in Sara, “das dem Logos nicht Zugängliche, das ‘je ne sais quoi’, das der
sprachlichen Artikulation sich Verweigernde” (189)—in other words, Witz, in terms of eighteenth-century
aesthetics.
22 Although it does not play a role in determining Lessing’s poetic usages of Witz, for the sake of completeness, it
is important to mention here that the term Witz occurs twice within the dialogues of the characters. Both times it is in
reference to Emilia. Marinelli tells the prince that Emilia has managed to win the socially superior Appiani as her
future husband, as a result of her Witz. But that Marinelli is not referring to Witz as a form of cunning and trickery is
clear from its context, as it is grouped with the values of “Tugend” and “Gefühl” (II,137). A similar mention of Witz
occurs when Claudia refers to Emilia’s “Munterkeit” und “Witze” (II,149). In both instances, it is not the poetic use
of Witz which is meant but rather the value of social adeptness in the sense of esprit. By placing the term Witz in the
speech of his characters, Lessing demonstrates that, beyond the realm of aesthetic debate, Witz still retained other of
its various connotations among the general populace.
21
qualities of his subject, because he has translated “Stolz [. . .] in Würde, Hohn in Lächeln, Ansatz
zu trübsinniger Schwärmerei in sanfte Schwermut” (II,132) with his brush strokes, his work is
“ganz unendlich geschmeichelt” (II,131), according to the prince. The initial reference to
“redlich” thus refers to Conti’s artistic aptitude, while the second implies doubts about Orsina’s
character. With the very same word the prince uses to praise Conti’s artwork, he also insults the
absent Orsina. The subsumption of two antithetical meanings in a single word—the conventional
positive connotation and a context-dependent negative one—constitutes the Witz in the prince’s
expression.
As in Miß Sara Sampson, illuminative imagery is the most prolific form of
microstructural Witz in Lessing’s later tragedy. It frequently serves to vividly convey the stance
or attitude of the speaking character. In the very first act, for example, the prince’s thoughts
about Emilia are elucidated by way of such associations and metaphors. After the artist Conti
sells his painting of Emilia to the prince, alone in his room the prince responds: “[S]chönes Werk
der Kunst, ist es wahr, daß ich dich besitze?—Wer dich auch besäße, schönres Meisterstück der
Natur [. . .]. Am liebsten kauft’ ich dich [. . .]” (II,135). Owning Emilia’s portrait brings up a
correlation in the prince’s mind with possessing Emilia herself. Just as he has told Conti to send
a bill to his treasurer in whatever amount he pleases for his artwork, the prince responds in the
monolog which directly follows: “Was Sie dafür wollen, ehrliche Mutter! Was du willst, alter
Murrkopf! Fodre nur! Fodert nur!” (II,135) These associations reveal that the prince thinks of the
young woman as a purchasable commodity, as an object. In the scene that directly follows,
Marinelli metaphorically expresses his similar perception of Emilia’s position with respect to the
prince’s court. Having learned of Emilia’s impending marriage to the count Appiani, the prince
laments that his chances with Emilia are ruined. Marinelli remarks: “Waren, die man aus der
ersten Hand nicht haben kann, kauft man aus der zweiten:—und solche Waren nicht selten aus
der zweiten um so viel wohlfeiler” (II,140). By the end of Act I, it is clear that the court views
Emilia, who is from the lesser aristocracy, as a procurable material good. This is particularly
explicit in Marinelli’s report to the prince regarding the planned union between Emilia and the
count; following their marriage “will der Graf damit aus dem Lande” (II,140). The usage of
“damit,” a formulation applicable to objects as opposed to the personal form “mit ihr,” to refer to
Emilia again stresses their appraisal of her as a thing and not an autonomous human being.
In the second act, when the bandit and murderer Angelo indicates his plan to raid the
coach carrying the pair to their wedding ceremony, Pirro responds: “Das Bißchen Schmuck, das
die Braut etwa haben dürfte, wird schwerlich der Mühe lohnen.” Pirro naturally assumes that
Angelo seeks a booty of precious jewels, since they have been discussing a valuable ring, the
spoils of a previous raid. However, Angelo’s response makes clear whence he assumes the profit
of such an attack can be derived: “So lohnt ihrer die Braut selbst” (II,147). Emilia is considered
equivalent to a piece of jewelry. Angelo and his cohorts have been hired by Marnelli to attack the
coach in the guise of robbers, allowing Emilia to be abducted by the prince’s attendants under
the pretense of saving her from the criminals. Emilia is accordingly not only spoken of as a
tradable commodity but is also directly treated like one. She has no more autonomy than the
jewelry with which she is compared. For the bandits, she is a means for financial gain; to
Marinelli, she is the object desired by his ruler, the prince.
As in Miß Sara Sampson, characters in Emilia make use of Witz to express emotion. The
prince tells Marinelli that the news that Emilia is to be wed within a matter of hours is for him a
“Dolch ins Herz” (II,139). While he is mesmerized by Emilia’s portrait, looking at it with the
knowledge that she is promised to someone else causes him additional pain. He thus puts the
picture aside, asking “Warum sollt’ ich mir den Pfeil noch tiefer in die Wunde drücken?”
(II,141) The metaphors are thus similar to those in Lessing’s earlier tragedy, expressing
emotional pain in terms of physical sensations. In addition, calling himself “einen Raub der
Wellen” (II,140), the prince reflects with an image that he is at the mercy of his uncontrollable
passions.23
Like Marwood in Miß Sara Sampson, Claudia, too, uses imagery to make express her
rage. When Marinelli counters Claudia’s bellowing insults with an admonishment to consider
that she is in the prince’s castle, indicating that it is a place that demands her respect, Claudia
responds: “Bedenken wo ich bin?—Was kümmert es die Löwin, der man die Jungen geraubet, in
wessen Walde sie brüllet?” (II,173). Claudia thereby asserts that her behavior is both a basic
instinct and natural right, which like in the animal kingdom at large knows no bounds of social
propriety. Claudia’s self-characterization is taken up and altered by Marinelli in the scene that
directly follows: “Wenn Sie gesehen hätten, Prinz, wie toll sich hier, hier im Saale, die Mutter
gebärdete—Sie hörten sie ja wohl schreien!—und wie zahm sie auf einmal ward, bei dem ersten
Anblicke von Ihnen – – Ha! ha!—Das weiß ich ja wohl, daß keine Mutter einem Prinzen die
Augen auskratzt, weil er ihre Tochter schön findet” (II,174). The adjectives “toll” and “zahm”
and the verb “auskratzen,” which Marinelli uses describe Claudia’s manner and actions, are also
apt to a description of a lioness. However, Marinelli’s emphasis demonstrates that Claudia is
more of a social animal than she claims. She is clearly affected by the prince’s presence. Social
convention does interfere with her natural instincts as a mother, even in such a dreadful moment
as this, where she suspects Marinelli’s plan to murder Appiani and abduct her daughter. Just as
Minna and Tellheim both saw in the Moor of Venice the potential for different associations, so,
too, do Marinelli and Claudia use the common image of the lioness to express different views.
Witz is thus employed here to two different purposes—by Claudia to depict her inner state of
upset at the violation of moral standards, and by Marinelli to illuminate Claudia’s lack of moral
character. In the image of the lioness, the dichotomous spheres of morality and immorality, of
nature and culture, meet. The ascription of questionable mores to Claudia also places her in
association with the sinister Marinelli on a metatextual level, and creates the impression that
Claudia herself is not wholly free from culpability in Emilia’s fate.
In the mouths of the dramatis personae, metaphorical Witz is employed not only to
characterize oneself or others. Marinelli describes his intrigue as a “Tanz” whose “Takt” has
been disturbed by the prince’s unplanned visit to Emilia in the church. If the prince had not
appeared to Emilia, no one would suspect that the raid on the coach was staged. But a number of
people witnessed his meeting with Emilia there, making it public information. Marinelli seeks to
convince the prince that his spontaneous confession of his desires to Emilia has undermined “den
Grund meines Gebäudes” (II,177). Marinelli thereby relates his foundering intrigue to a building
whose foundation has been partially destroyed. Marinelli succeeds with his images in convincing
the prince of his own blame for the failure of his plan.
An example of microstructural Witz central to Emilia occurs in the last two scenes of the
drama. After Odoardo fatally stabs his daughter at her own request, Emilia characterizes herself
just before her death as “[e]ine Rose gebrochen, ehe der Sturm sie entblättert” (II,203). The
imagery she uses undeniably signifies the destruction of a more perfect Emilia before an
inevitable deflowerment. Her early death permits her to retain her virtue. However, the use of
This “Bild des auf dem Meer herumgetriebenen steuerlosen Schiffs” is a “häufige Metapher für Leidenschaft.”
In: Jan-Dirk Müller, Erläuterungen und Dokumente. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Emilia Galotti, RUB 8111
(Stuttgart: Reclam, 1971) 9. BIBLIOG
23
imagery instead of unequivocal language to directly reflect her meaning leaves the significance
of the storm image open to interpretation. On the one hand, the storm could represent unchecked
powers from without; in this case it would signify the prince’s impassioned domination over
Emilia’s fate. The storm motif could also characterize inner turmoil, emotional upset, and would
thus indicate Emilia’s volatile emotional state and her inability to surmount her own attraction to
the prince.
Rarely is consideration given to the possibility that the potential for multiple interpretations of Emilia as a “Rose gebrochen, ehe sie der Sturm entblättert” is an employment of
Witz on Lessing’s part that allows the simultaneous existence of both interpretations. It is not by
chance that the phrase is repeated twice in the last two scenes of the drama. When Emilia makes
the rose allusion before her father, she is expressing her own feelings of guilt for her situation. A
short time earlier, she had told her father: “Ich habe Blut mein Vater; so jugendliches, so warmes
Blut, als eine. Auch meine Sinne, sind Sinne. Ich stehe für nichts. Ich bin für nichts gut” (II,202).
She feels herself unable to uphold her virtue in the face of the prince’s amorous advances; in her
own eyes, she is in danger of falling victim to her own emotional tumult. From the mouth of
Emilia, the rose-storm metaphor is an expression of her inability to maintain her self-control. In
the following scene, Odoardo repeats Emilia’s rose analogy in response to the prince’s question:
“Grausamer Vater, was haben Sie getan?” (II,204). When Odoardo replies: “Eine Rose
gebrochen, ehe der Sturm sie entblättert,” he is casting blame upon the prince. The emphasis is
on the latter’s uncontrolled desire coupled with the power he wields and uses to execute such
conniving intrigues as the one to obtain Emilia.24 The meaning of the words is dependent upon
each individual character’s perspective.25 The rose metaphor demonstrates the well-suited
potential of Witz to illuminate the positions of individual characters as well as points to hidden
similarities between them.
Witz thus demonstrates itself to be intermittently operative in Emilia Galotti on the
microstructural level throughout the drama. Like in Miß Sara Sampson, instances of Witz occur
most evidently in the form of metaphors, but relative to his earlier tragedy, the metaphorical
language in Emilia is less abundant. On the plane of dramatic unity, Witz is conspicuously absent
in Lessing’s last tragedy. In Die Juden, he had employed Witz to overturn normative thinking.
The semantic volatility of the otherwise stable term “ehrlich” prefigured the relativization of the
designation “Juden.” In both Der Freigeist and Miß Sara Sampson, despite their genre
differences, the plot rested upon the recognition of similarities between ostensibly disparate
characters. Minna von Barnhelm incorporated Witz into its plot in the form of a feigned similarity
between disparates that eventually led to the abrupt revelation of a socially justified contrast
He tells the prince a short time later: “Ich gehe, und erwarte Sie, als Richter—Und dann dort—erwarte ich Sie
vor dem Richter unser aller!” (II,204) While Odoardo first has doubts about Emilia’s own role in the scheme, due to
insinuations made by Orsina and later by Marinelli, he becomes thoroughly convinced of her innocence when he
speaks to her directly. See Act 5, Scene 7 (II,201-03). Pütz’s explication of the rose metaphor emphasizes Odoardo’s
viewpoint: Virtue can be saved only “wenn sie nicht dem Sturm der am Hofe wirksamen Zwänge und
Leidenschaften ausgesetzt wird. Emilia muß eines gewaltsamen Todes sterben, damit ihr vom Hofe keine Gewalt
angetan wird” (168). What about other secondary lit.
25 The difference of perspectives among the dramatic figures in Emilia Galotti has been discussed by Frank L.
Ryder, “Emilia Galotti and the Algebra of Ambivalence,” Husbanding the Golden Grain, eds. Luanne T. Frank and
Emery E. George (Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1973) 279-94, who, as a result of these differing perspectives,
finds the drama as a whole to be an “exercise in ambivalence” (279). Albert M. Reh, “Emilia Galotti—’großes
Exempel der dramatischen Algebra’ oder ‘Algebra der Ambivalenz’,” Lessing Yearbook 17 (1985): 45-64, counters
Ryder’s critical view of contradictory character accounts. He points out the consistent psychological motivation in
each character’s actions and reactions.
24
between the main characters. Such a parallel of character perspectives is nowhere apparent in the
dramatic structure of Emilia Galotti nor does the work employ the polysemous potential of
language to upset conventional thought. A comment by Friedrich Nicolai about Emilia suggests
that perhaps Lessing's original plan for the drama made use of Orsina as a parallel figure to the
title character. Claiming to have seen this earlier manuscript for the work in 1778, Nicolai
reveals that “[n]ach demselben war die Rolle der Orsina nicht vorhanden, wenigstens nicht auf
die jetzige Art” (II,701). As mentioned above, Lessing's original conception for the drama
reached back to the mid-1750s. He continued to work on the drama during his time in Hamburg,
i.e., parallel to his authorship of the Hamburgische Dramaturgie, and finally completed this fiveact version of the drama while in Wolfenbüttel. It is conceivable that changes in Lessing's ideas
about the proper application of Witz for the tragedy influenced a transformation of Orsina from a
mirroring figure to her present status as an individual within the constellation of characters.
However, Orsina and Emilia, the two women who might even remotely reflect roles similar to
those of Marwood and Sara in his earlier tragedy, remain distinctly separate characters in
differing circumstances and driven by unlike motives. In the drama’s finalized version, Witz is
not operative as a basis of macrostructural unity.26 This avoidance of a unifying Witz is fully in
accordance with his Lessing's Witz conception as posited in the Hamburgische Dramaturgie.27
6.3 Witz and the Tragedy
Two factors are primarily responsible for the sudden inadequacy of Witz as a unifying
structure for the tragedy. First is the inherent nature of Witz, as seen in the discussion of the
Hamburgische Dramaturgie in Chapter 3. Characteristic of Witz is that it is attentive only to
26
The contrary view is advanced by Klaus Bohnen, Geist und Buchstabe: Zum Prinzip des kritischen Verfahrens
in Lessings literarästhetischen und theologischen Schriften (Köln: Böhlau, 1974), who finds three levels of the work
in which Orsina either mirrors or sets up a contrast to the dramatic plot: 1) as a figure parallel to Emilia, 2) as a
representative of “Schwärmertum” in contrast to “Vernunfthumanität”; and 3) in the illustration of the dramatic
message in a maxim (155-60). Bohnen’s interpretation of Orsina's function is unconvincing, however. The only
contrast set up between Emilia and Orsina occurs in the first act, in which the prince describes their respective
portraits. Here, the differences recounted by the prince reveal nothing more than his own attitude toward them and
serve the exposition of the plot. Unlike in the dramas where Lessing does use Witz, Emilia and Orsina remain as
different as the prince describes them to be. By the same token, neither explicitly nor implicitly are Emilia and
Orsina depicted as contrasting representatives of “Vernunfthumanität” and “Schwärmertum” respectively. To read
Orsina’s maxims as interpretive keys that point to the humanistic ideal that the drama seeks to promote overlooks
her less-than-model conduct in the tragedy. Her aphorisms seem more a reflection of her psychological state and
indicate her own perception of her circumstances. She therefore cannot fulfill an aesthetic function parallel to the
drama’s purpose, nor does Lessing use techniques of Witz to point out such correlations. Bohnen’s examination of
Witz in Lessing’s work is based on Böckmann’s explication and consequently does not consider the implications of
Lessing's own Witz conception.
27 The extent to which Emilia Galotti conforms to or deviates from Lessing's dramaturgy of the late 1760s has been
a subject of debate for decades. Scholars claiming that his dramatic theory is actualized in his drama include:
Bernhard Asmuth, Einführung in die Dramenanalyse, 3rd ed., Sammlung Metzler 188 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1990)
150-52; Karl S. Guthke, Der Stand der Lessing-Forschung: Ein Bericht über die Literatur von 1932-1962 (Stuttgart:
Metzler, 1965); Christiane Brown, "'Der widerwärtige Mißbrauch der Macht' or 'Die Verwandlung der
Leidenschaften in tugendhafte Fertigkeiten' in Lessings Emilia Galotti," Lessing Yearbook 17 (1985): 21-43; et al.
Scepticism with regard to a coincidence of Lessing's dramatic theory and practice in Emilia include: Reinhart
Meyer, Hamburgische Dramaturgie und Emilia Galotti: Studie zu einer Methodik des wissenschaftlichen Zitierens
entwickelt am Problem des Verhältnisses von Dramentheorie und Trauerspielpraxis (Frankfurt a.M: Humanitas,
1973) esp. 342-50; Fred O. Nolte, "Lessing's Emilia Galotti in the Light of his Hamburgische Dramaturgie,"
Harvard Studies and Notes in Philologie and Literature 19 (1937): 175-97; E. O. McInnes, "'Eine bürgerliche
Virginia'? Lessing's Emilia Galotti," Orbis Litterarum 39 (1984): 308-23; et al.
similarity or difference and it lingers at events that have nothing in common but that they occur
simultaneously (V,368). Witz detects coincidence and finds fixed points of comparison.
Whatever its subject matter, Witz can by definition depict only stasis.
The second factor causing a macrostructural unifying Witz to be appropriate for the
comedy while simultaneously inadequate for the tragedy is based on specific genre distinctions
Lessing makes by the time of the Hamburgische Dramaturgie. While all dramatic works consist
of characters and situations, genre determines where the emphasis should lie. In the comedy “die
Charaktere [sind] das Hauptwerk, die Situationen aber nur die Mittel.” Comedy deals primarily
with illuminating the natures of its characters, i.e., their static traits, attitudes, values, and
perspectives. To this end, Witz proves to be an ideal organizing principle. Consequently, his
comedies emphasize character above action. Adrast's dependence upon his emotions and
Tellheim's principle of honor are gradually unveiled as each plot unfolds. This occurs by way of
Witz, that is, their characteristics each become apparent relative to a contrast character
(Theophan and Minna respectively). The situational points of convergence between the two
disparates—Adrast and Theophan, Tellheim and Minna—make the characters' relative positions
evident. In Die Juden, the Jewish traveler’s honest and virtuous conduct proves antithetical to the
prejudices against Jews espoused throughout the drama. Witz seeks and finds these fixed
elements of coincidence. In the comedy, situations are important only insofar as they provide an
opportunity to reveal these static character traits. The love conflict in Der Freigeist and
Tellheim's apparent loss of reputation in Minna each present an apt occasion for exhibiting
characters' fixed (that is, unchanging at least for the duration of the drama) positions.
In contrast, the tragedy, is a genre in which “die Charaktere weniger wesentlich sind, und
Schrecken und Mitleid vornehmlich aus den Situationen entspringet” (IV,470). Because events
are more important than characters, the revelation of fixed character traits become important only
insofar as they indicate the basis for action in a tragedy. Therefore, any applications of Witz must
consistently be integrated into a clearly understandable context in order to become functional for
the tragedy as a whole. This precludes the use of Witz as a basis for unity in the tragedy, and
accordingly, in Emilia Galotti it is absent as a structural principle. In Miß Sara Sampson, on the
other hand--which was written well before the Hamburgische Dramaturgie, and thus before
Lessing's specific genre distinctions on the basis of situations and characters--Witz notably
functions as a unifying principle. The revelation of Sara's fatal resemblance to Marwood
becomes the crux of the drama, from the dream in Act 1 to the confrontation between the two
women in the fourth act. The drama does not primarily show a development of events over time
which indicate the motivating factors leading to Sara's death, but by virtue of its structure the
work simply reveals a state of circumstances as they exist. When the first act opens, Sara has
already sacrificed her virtue to the impetuous Mellefont. The contrast with Marwood offers
nothing more than the opportunity for Sara and the audience to perceive the true stand of things
and the tragedy of her situation. The first four acts of the tragedy, from the time of Sara's dream
to her realization that she is like Marwood, are devoted to this depiction of a static state of
circumstances. The fifth act does provide a context for the Witz of the first four acts, when Sara
make use of her new awareness of circumstances in order to differentiate herself from Marwood.
Despite the context provided by the fifth act, however, the greater part of the drama is devoted to
the exposure of Sara's circumstances as they exist. This would violate Lessing's later delineation
of the tragedy as being fundamentally situation-based to the end of displaying cause-effect
relationships. In Emilia Galotti, in contrast, the emphasis is not upon Emilia as a person, but
rather the events and motivating factors that lead to her death wish and her fate. In fact, the title
character Emilia appears in only six out of the forty scenes in the drama.28 More important is the
representation of how each character contributes in his or her own way to the final tragic
outcome of the work.29
Reactions of contemporary readers point to these structural differences between Sara and
Emilia. Dusch's criticism of Miß Sara Sampson implies that the mere depiction of character traits
is not sufficient to the end of the tragedy: “Dreimal habe ich das Trauerspiel schon gelesen, und
noch weis ich nicht, wie und warum ein Mellefont es aufschob, die Miß zu heiraten?”30 Of
Emilia Galotti, on the other hand, Goethe claimed: “Mit halbweg Menschenverstand kann man
das Warum von jeder Szene, von jedem Wort, mögt ich sagen, auffinden.”31 By the time of the
Hamburgische Dramaturgie, Lessing postulates that the exposure of static circumstances cannot
be the foremost objective of the tragedy; hence, Witz may not be incorporated as its fundamental
structural principle. To the structure of the comedy, which seeks to present stationary character
traits and values, Witz is highly appropriate. Witz overcomes the inherent nature of words as a
progressive succession in time, and allows the literary depiction of fixed characteristics. Because
the tragedy conversely requires the representation of motives with respect to their consequences,
that is, the establishment of clear cause-effect relationships, Witz is inappropriate as its basic
organizing principle. Because Witz is bound to the principle of simultaneity, it is fundamentally
unable to convey causal connections between events that occur successively in time. Miß Sara
Sampson and Emilia Galotti thus reflect the development of Lessing's dramatic theories over
time, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.
Of the two basic forms of microstructural Witz, the illuminative variety dominates in the
two tragedies explored here. By drawing upon imagery basic to human experience and infusing it
into the drama, it becomes possible to illuminate certain static characteristics or circumstances.
Marinelli's representations of his intrigue as a dance whose rhythm has been broken and as a
building whose foundation has been sabotaged reflect the damage the prince's actions have
caused to the minister's scheme. Marwood's self-representation as a trodden worm who would
like at least hurt the heels of the perpetrator visually conveys her feelings of victimization and
her desire to strike back with whatever means she can. The characterization of Mellefont as a
prisoner or a bird who naturally prefers the open field to a cage demonstrates his aversion toward
marriage. Such illuminative Witz is based on an intersection of contexts—one within the drama
and one from without. As such, character perspectives are not contrasted by way of a
simultaneous point of convergence. Illuminative Witz de-emphasizes the simultaneity of
characters and allows for more focused concentration on the progression of events than does
contrastive Witz. The illustration of character perspectives that can be achieved by introducing
contexts external to the drama is reduced in Miß Sara Sampson, however, not only by the use of
Witz for the larger structure of the work, but also in the choice of metaphor pairs which establish
relative points of comparison between characters: “Schöpfer” and “Geschöpf,” “Engel” and
“Teufel.” In Miß Sara Sampson, the exposition of Sara's situation through Witz becomes
28
Sara, on the other hand, appears in half of the scenes in Miß Sara Sampson.
Cf. Horst Steinmetz, "Verstehen, Mißverstehen, Nichtverstehen. Zum Problem der Interpretation, vornehmlich
am Beispiel von Lessings Emilia Galotti," Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 68 (1987): 397; Simonetta Sanna,
Lessings Emilia Galott: Die Figuren des Dramas im Spannungsfeld von Moral und Politik, Untersuchungen zur
deutschen Literaturgeschichte 43 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1988) 74-75; and Meyer 322.
30 In his "Briefe über Miß Sara Sampson" (1758). Qtd. in Lessing, Werke, vol. 2, 693-94.
31 In a letter to Herder, July 1772. Qtd. in Lessing, Werke, vol. 2, 710.
29
primary, dominating the first four acts of the work. Her resultant realization of her situation
influences the decisions she then makes in the final act.
In Emilia Galotti, Witz occurs less frequently than in all the other dramas explored here;
when it does occur, it is most often in the form of illuminative Witz, i.e., the infusion of an
element external to the drama to vividly delineate a trait or circumstance. Examples are the
repeated insinuation that Emilia is an inanimate object, for instance, or Marinelli's reference to
his scheme as a building or a dance. Some instances of Witz in Sara and Emilia do reveal
character traits and perspectives through comparative means, such as Marinelli's and the prince's
differentiated use of “heute,” but these are rather the exception than the rule. In Emilia, all
instances of illuminative Witz are consistently integrated into the larger context of the drama and
serve as evidence of the motivation for the events that occur.32 Claudia's comparison of herself
with a lioness is extended by Marinelli to reflect the mother's susceptibility to the conventions of
polite society. It is this very quality in Claudia which Emilia learns from her mother and which
becomes a crucial factor in Emilia's inability to resist the prince's advances.33 The rose metaphor
likewise sheds light on the nature of Witz in the tragedy. It indicates both Emilia's reasons for
wanting to die as well as Odoardo's urge to kill his own daughter, vividly disclosing their
respective motivations for the actions that ensue. Within the context of the drama, these
microstructural instances of Witz underscore the causes for the actions which take place. In
Emilia Galotti, events are primary while characters are important only to the extent to which they
motivate those events.34
The differences between Emila and Sara reflect the changes that Lessing's tragic theory
underwent from the time of his early criticism to the dramaturgy. Whereas in Miß Sara Sampson
“sinnliche Bilder” are Lessing's method of arousing emotion (in the actors), already in his
Literaturbriefe is evidence that he believes that imagery must be placed within a certain context,
that the motivation behind the emotion must become clear before an effect upon the audience can
ensue. In Emilia Galotti, while imagery serves the revelation of static traits, attitudes, and
intentions, these are not the end of the drama. They merely provide a backdrop for the action.
In the Hamburgische Dramaturgie, the need for clear ideas between expressions of emotion
becomes unmistakable. Witz remains apt for the expression of felt emotions. But when a
character expresses feelings by means of Witz, the association of two ideas or contexts occurs in
the imagination of the character. For the audience to also perceive why these emotions are
appropriate requires that an author “abstechende widersprechende Empfindungen durch
deutliche Begriffe, die nur Worte gewähren können, [. . .] verbinden [. . .]” (IV,355). Static
images alone cannot achieve the end of the tragedy; these require contextualization. “Wer mit
unserm Herzen sprechen, und sympathetische Regungen in ihm erwecken will, muß eben sowohl
Zusammenhang beobachten, als wer unsern Verstand zu unterhalten und zu belehren denkt”
(IV,356). Any literary work that seeks to evoke an emotional response must ensure that we, the
audience, “den Faden unserer Empfindungen nie verlieren; hier wissen wir nicht allein, was wir
32
Asmuth, too, judges that in comparison with Miß Sara Sampson, Emilia Galotti is "allerdings metaphernärmer"
but "dafür handlungsreicher" (173).
33 Cf. Durzak, "Das Gesellschaftsbild in Lessings Emilia Galotti," Zu Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, 63.
34 Monika Fick, "Verworrene Perzeptionen: Lessings Emilia Galotti," Jahrbuch der deutschen Schillergesellschaft
37 (1993): 139-63, sees the differences among the characters as crucial to the plot development (153-54).
empfinden sollen, sondern auch warum wir es empfinden sollen; und nur dieses Warum macht
die plötzlichsten Übergänge nicht allein erträglich, sondern auch angenehm.” First by means of
words can the “Motivierung der plötzlichsten Übergänge” (IV,355) be established.
To understand why events occur as they do requires a placement of instances of Witz in broader
contexts. Illuminative Witz can evoke an impression of a character's position or nature, it can
reveal a figure's state of being at a particular point in time or can make reference to invariant
traits. But Witz, which is by definition inseparably bound to the principle of simultaneity, can
depict only statis.
This can be accomplished only by clear ideas expressed in words in the medium of time.
While neither genre is exclusively composed of static images or progressive words, by
the time of Lessing's dramaturgy, each dramatic genre embraces one particular modus operandi
as its dominant representational principle.
microstructural – must know WHY of each… maintain illusion by keeping signs
appropriate to referents.
Something about macrostructure.
It is apparent that Der Freigeist and Miß Sara Sampson, despite their genre differences,
use the same basic structure. The plot of each rests upon the recognition of similarities between
disparates, in the former, between the freethinker Adrast and the theologian Theophan, and in the
latter, between the virtuous Sara and the evil Marwood. In both, a dichotomous relationship
between the characters is established in the first act, and the conversations that occur throughout
the drama accentuate their outward differences. In the course of the plot, the strict divisions
between the two increasingly begin to blur. Witz provides the basic composition for each drama.
Die Juden employs Witz in a different way. …
Minna seems to synthesize both methods.
Having analyzed the applications of Witz in Lessing’s early comedies and his first
tragedy as well as his latest work in each genre, it seems that Lessing’s dramatic practice
corresponds chronologically to his shifting ideas about Witz. It is present as a global
unifying principle in Die Juden, Der Freigeist, and Miß Sara Sampson.
But as Lessing begins to refine his ideas about the applicability of Witz
Minna von Barnhelm
The aptness of the anatomy of Witz for poignantly expressing comical contrasts
availing itself
He was already contemplating ways of achieving emotional effects and was experimenting with
techniques for achieving an affective response in the tragedy.
In addition, the fact that Lessing wrote Miß Sara Sampson with an eye to the theater
greatly influenced his composition of the work.35
As in Lessing’s earlier dramas, Witz occurs multiple times throughout Emilia Galotti and
it frequently functions to illustrate the relationships among or between characters.
Such Witz that relies on an intersection of contexts that exist within the work for its effect
Illuminative Witz uses imagery, intersection of context within the drama with something from
without/an image/experience from known world.
Sometimes they cross…
Rose, Moor of Venice.
BOTH forms can show character perspective, but the illuminative type does not exhibit
contrasts.
35
Lessing had varied experiences and associations with the acting troupes of the day, and Miß Sara Sampson was
one among many manifestations of Lessing’s endeavors to improve the acting of his time. See Theodore
Ziolkowski, “Language and Mimetic Action,” Germanic Review 40 (1965): 261-76. BIBLIOG
. In both, a dichotomous relationship between the characters is established in the first act, and the
conversations that occur throughout the drama accentuate their outward differences. In the
course of the plot, the strict divisions between the two increasingly begin to blur. Witz provides
the basic composition for each drama. Die Juden, on the other hand, employs Witz to overturn
normative thinking. Minna von Barnhelm incorporates Witz into its plot in the form of a feigned
similarity between disparates to abruptly reveal the justifiable contrast between the main
characters.