Customer Reviews

Don Carlos, Prince Royal Of Spain: A Historical Drama (1798)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

From Denmark to Spain: Don Carlos was Schiller's Hamlet. The Crown Prince of Spain, only son of Philip II, in conflict with his father, over politics and over his love for his step mother (who had been Carlos' bride before): the father an absolute ruler, an authoritarian and control freak, the son and his main pal Marquis Posa inspired by Rousseau and Montesquieu (contrat social and esprit des lois...). Sire, grant freedom of thought! Or should I say, inspired via the author? Otherwise we might have something of an anachronism here.

Carlos wants to be put in charge of the military expedition to suppress troubles in Flanders. Dad doesn't trust him. (Neither would I have, frankly speaking.)
The church reps and the Duke of Alba in Philip's court fear the crown prince: if he ever ascends to the throne, he will want a different Spain. Right wingers, when in power, don't like change. Neither do others, of course, when in power. Political opponents and frustrated love interests conspire to destroy the emotional young man.
Friend Posa tries to baffle the opposition with grand schemes and fails grandly.

Schiller wanted to write a family tragedy in a royal setting and he enriched it with his enlightenment thoughts. However, as is always the trouble with these historical plays of the classics, the play is quite free with historical truth, it appears. Schiller based it on one biography, which was not strictly scientific. I learn from Wiki that this specific Don Carlos was probably not quite right in his mind, which is suspected to be due to inbreeding. The poor boy had only 4 instead of 8 great-grandparents.
The most puzzling anachronism of the play is this: the historical Carlos died in 1568, at 23. (The play implies that the inquisition was involved in that, but there are doubts.) There is a scene when the Admiral who lost the Armada (20 years after Carlos died!) is distractedly forgiven by the King. Schiller made a name for himself as an historian. Here he carried fictional freedom too far, I would think.

Schiller himself wrote, that `Carlos has the soul from Shakespeare, but the pulse from Schiller'. Schiller's constant references to Shakespeare, in his letters and comments, show who his role model was. Personally, Schiller is more accessible to me, which is obviously a language issue.
On the other hand, Schiller can be tedious. The acts four and five seem to be superfluous, everyone seems to know the rest of the story, why go through the trouble. He did have a remarkable lack of humoristic tendencies. The man took himself all too serious.

Footnote: good news for all countries involved in this story: Denmark, Spain, England, Germany all managed to qualify for South Africa 2010! Shakespeare and Schiller would have been delighted! Sad for Poland and Turkey: they are out! Consolation prize: Germany's winner against Russia was scored by a Polish immigrant, using a pass from a Turkish immigrant.