Read die ruber mit einem anhang zeitgenssischer materialien by Friedrich Schiller Online


The Robbers, drama in five acts by Friedrich Schiller, published in 1781 and produced in 1782 as Die Räuber. Set in 16th-century Germany, The Robbers concerns the rivalry between the brothers Karl and Franz, both of whom operate outside conventional morality. A protest against official corruption, the play condemned a society in which men of high purpose could be driven toThe Robbers, drama in five acts by Friedrich Schiller, published in 1781 and produced in 1782 as Die Räuber. Set in 16th-century Germany, The Robbers concerns the rivalry between the brothers Karl and Franz, both of whom operate outside conventional morality. A protest against official corruption, the play condemned a society in which men of high purpose could be driven to live outside the law when justice was denied them....

Title : die ruber mit einem anhang zeitgenssischer materialien
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 22852732
Format Type : Kindle Edition
Number of Pages : 166 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

die ruber mit einem anhang zeitgenssischer materialien Reviews

  • Giulia
    2019-02-15 16:19

    ACT I : everybody lies ACT II : everybody cries ACT III : everybody fights ACT IV : everybody panics ACT V : everybody dies gotta love German literature

  • Jan-Maat
    2019-02-16 22:23

    I wish I had first read this years ago when I was writing my undergraduate dissertation on The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky explicitly has old man Karamazov refer to Dmitri and Ivan as the two sons from the play, a not entirely fair comparison but perhaps the novel is Dostovesky's translation of the family dynamic and the rejection of society from Schiller's play into his own world vision.Books are invariably in more complex relationships with each other, and I felt if the Karamazovs were looking back at the Moors that they in turn were modelled on Shakespeare's Edmund and Edgar from King Lear. The other thought that occurred to me was that Max Weber would have liked this - the ersatz brotherhood of the Robber-band as a purely male endeavour which becomes an alternative counter society but one from the first caught up in ideas of violence: Stelle mich vor ein Heer Kerls wie ich, und aus Deutschland soll eine Republik werden gegen die Rom und Sparta Nonnenkloester sein sollen (p.23), not sure quite why one would want to model one's republic on Rome or Sparta, indeed so much violence that the love sub plot becomes impossible (view spoiler)[ I think I just about avoided making a spoiler, I can wipe my forehead with relief (hide spoiler)]rather than allowing a return to a heterosexual model of sociability.The play - perhaps confirmation bias had the feel of a young writer and promised the melodrama and moustache twirling of popular theatre which then lay in the future.

  • Anna
    2019-02-16 21:27

    Das erste Drama, das Schiller veröffentlicht hat und für mich auch das erste Drama, das ich von ihm gelesen habe. Es hat mir sehr gut gefallen und vor allem das Ende fand ich wirklich stimmig. Ich habe etwas mehr Zeit gebraucht, das Buch zu lesen, denn man muss sich eben erst einmal an die Sprache gewöhnen, sich in die Zeit hineinversetzen, in der Schiller das Drama geschrieben hat und es ist vor allem Hilfreich zu wissen, in welcher Situation sich Schiller befunden hat, als er "Die Räuber" geschrieben hat.

  • Christopher
    2019-01-26 20:28

    (Note: I did not read this in German, but I think that the needless anglicizing of "Karl" and "Franz" to "Charles" and "Francis" was "unnotig Scheibe eines Pferdes")You can look up the details: German play. 1781. Influenced: Doestoyevsky, Nietzsche, et. al. It's hard not to have run across Schiller and Die Rauber. But have you read it? I had a little anxiety before beginning this one because it fell into the "works that I would like to say that I've read, but I'm afraid will be a little dated for my taste and prove me a Philistine". Like Pushkin's Eugene Onegin. And my fears were partially realized and partially unfounded.Realized: The language itself was not always interesting, did not often move me. There were some excellent sections, but I found much of it overly melodramatic. I admit that I am missing some critical context (in that I have almost no socio-cultural knowledge of 18th, let alone 16th century Germany, but in terms of the language itself, I felt that someone kept switching on the "one-off-avuncular-shakespeare-filter". I also felt that some of what happened off-stage, in between scenes, could have been more interesting to see staged than say about a dozen pages of a supposed tyrant trying to convince a septuagenarian to commit a murder for him. Unfounded: The ideas and questions still reverberate: What are the live options for someone long-denied justice? When one begins to operate outside of the conventional morality of society, is it possible to reintegrate oneself? What are the products of a corrupt society? How do our actions (and guilt) impact our notions of self? 3.25/5

  • Vishy
    2019-02-04 22:15

    ‘The Robbers’ by Friedrich Schiller was first published in 1781. Is it the earliest German book that I have ever read? Possibly. I first got to know about it when I read the book ‘German Literature : A Very Short Introduction’ by Nicholas Boyle. This is what Boyle says about Schiller’s play : “a rebellious schoolboy in Stuttgart, Friedrich Schiller, began drafting the definitive treatment of the theme, his first play, ‘The Robbers’, which took the reading public by storm on its publication in 1781, and reduced its audience to sobs and swoons when it was first performed the following year.”“A modern, international audience can still be gripped by the story of Karl and his band, a prescient analysis of the logic of self-righteous terrorism in a moral void. The huge success of the play in Germany in its own time and subsequently was no doubt due to the ferocity with which it dramatized the conflict between the two value systems available to the middle class in its struggle against princely rule – self-interested materialism or university-educated idealism – while it left prudently unassailed the structure of power itself.”“…Schiller focused, with the penetrating clarity of a born dramatist, on the political and moral fault-lines in his contemporary society. With ‘The Robbers’ an independent modern German literary tradition begins.”How can you resist a description like that? Since I read that, I have wanted to read ‘The Robbers’. I managed to squeeze it in yesterday, on the last day of this year’s German Literature Month. Here is what I think.‘The Robbers’ is about two brothers Karl and Franz. Karl is the eldest son and so is the natural heir to his father’s estates. Their father loves Karl. Everyone does. Karl is also engaged to a beautiful woman called Amalia. Franz resents this. He resents everything that Karl has, but which he desires. He covets his father’s name and estates. He wants to win the hand of Amalia. So, he plots against Karl. Karl himself seems to aid that venture. While he is away from home, he gets into debt and runs away from the law. Franz uses that and convinces his father to disinherit Karl. Karl has plans of coming back home and hopes that his father will forgive him for his indiscretions. But when he receives the letter from his brother Franz stating that his father has disinherited him, he is hurt and angry. And before he knows what he is doing, he joins with his companions and starts a band of robbers and becomes a fugitive who is hunted by the law. Franz meanwhile continues with his nefarious plots – he wants his father, the elderly Count, to die, so that he can take over the estates, but the Count, eventhough feeble, has a sound constitution. Using psychological threats and false news that his son Karl has died in a battle, Franz upsets the Count immeasurably that the Count dies in a shock. Franz takes over his father’s name and estates. The household staff serves him loyally. However, his plans to win Amalia come to naught. Amalia spurns his advances and decides to be faithful to her supposedly dead fiancé Karl. Meanwhile, Karl, as the head of his band of robbers, has adventures that robbers have. He saves one of his band members from near certain death and while saving him, burns down the whole town. Karl, though he is a robber, is noble. He doesn’t want any money for himself and helps poor people in need. He is a robber – he kills, he burns – but he is also kind. One day he hears some news about Amalia and comes to his father’s castle in disguise. There he discovers the truth about how Franz was responsible for his father’s death and how Franz usurped his rightful inheritance. Karl is wild with anger. What happens next? Does Karl exact revenge? What happens to Franz? Does he reach the end that is reserved for all villains? Do Karl and Amalia get married? What happens to the band of robbers? The answers to these questions form the rest of the story.There were many things that I liked about ‘The Robbers’. The first thing I liked was the way the characters of Karl and Franz were portrayed. Karl, though he is the noble hero, is also a robber. Schiller doesn’t shy away from portraying that part of Karl’s personality. Karl robs people, kills them, burns houses and towns. Schiller doesn’t condone that. So, we see two sides of Karl – the noble kind side and the ruthless robber side. Karl is not a traditional, hero, but a complex character. Franz, the villain, is quite complex too. He is an atheist and a materialist. Though I didn’t him much – it is hard to like a villain – I loved many of the lines that he spoke. They were insightful and profound. My favourite lines were a soliloquy by him : Francis (soliloquy) : “…he is thy father! He gave thee life, thou art his flesh and blood – and therefore he must be sacred to thee! Again a most inconsequential deduction! I should like to know why he begot me; certainly not out of love for me – for I must first have existed.”“Could he know me before I had being, or did he think of me during my begetting? Or did he wish for me at the moment? Did he know what I should be? If so I would not advise him to acknowledge it or I should pay him off for his feat. Am I to be thankful to him that I am a man? As little as I should have had a right to blame him if he had made me a woman. Can I acknowledge an affection which is not based on any personal regard? Could personal regard be present before the existence of its object? In what, then consists the sacredness of paternity?”“Is it in the act itself out of which existence arose? As though this were aught else than an animal process to appease animal desires. Or does it lie, perhaps, in the result of this act, which is nothing more after all than one of iron necessity, and which men would gladly dispense with, were it not at the cost of flesh and blood? Do I then owe him thanks for his affection? Why, what is it but a piece of vanity, the besetting sin of the artist who admires his own works, however hideous they may be? Look you, this is the whole juggle wrapped up in a mystic veil to work on our fears. And, shall I, too be fooled like an infant?”It made me remember those famous lines from ‘Paradise Lost’ which Mary Shelley quotes in the first pages of ‘Frankenstein’ – “Did I request thee maker, from my clay, to mould me man? Did I solicit thee from darkness to promote me?” Franz was a villain, but he was also intelligent, smart and philosophical, like the best of them are. The next passage is probably spoiler-ish, and so if you are planning to read the play, please be sufficiently forewarned. One more thing I liked about the story was the internal conflict that Karl undergoes towards the end of the story, when he has to choose between his band of robbers who have sworn loyalty to him and his sweetheart Amalia. I have seen this scene in countless movies, but I think Schiller probably was the first to write this scene. So three cheers to him. There were two surprises at the end of the story. One of them was unexpected but in a nice way. The second one was also unexpected but it was not-so-nice and I felt that it was not required. It just had shock value and I was upset with Schiller for doing that. The ending of the story is interesting – not the regular good-guys-win-and-the-bad-guys-die kind of ending, but one which is more complex than that. One word on the translation. One of the things I hated about the translation I read was that Karl was called ‘Charles’ and Franz was called ‘Francis’. Really? Is that anglification of characters’ names really necessary? What were you thinking, my dear Mr.Translator??I enjoyed reading ‘The Robbers’. I am happy that I have finally been able to read one of the great landmark plays of German literature. By that born dramatist of penetrating clarity, Friedrich Schiller :) I would like to read some of his poems and his essays on aesthetics some day. I will leave you with one of my favourite passages from the play. This one is spoken by Karl to Schwarz, one of his robber companions. Karl (to Schwarz) : “Why should man prosper in that which he has in common with the ant, while he fails in that which places him on a level with the gods. Or is this the aim and limit of his destiny?”“Brother, I have looked at men, their insect cares and their giant projects, - their god-like plans and mouse-like occupations, their intensely eager race after happiness - one trusting to the fleetness of his horse, - another to the nose of his ass, - a third to his own legs; this checkered lottery of life, in which so many stake their innocence and their leaven to snatch a prize, and, - blanks are all they draw - for they find, too late, that there was no prize in the wheel. It is a drama, brother, enough to bring tears into your eyes, while it shakes your side with laughter.”Have you read Schiller’s ‘The Robbers’? What do you think about it?

  • Felix
    2019-01-29 20:09

    German Edition - German Review:Ach ja, Schiller ist doch immer wieder herzerfrischend, zumindest wenn er noch ein wenig stürmt und drängt. Man merkt den Einfluss des englischen Schauerromans und es zwickt und zwackt noch etwas sowohl in der Handlungsführung als auch bei den Figuren, aber wen kümmert's? Mir jedenfalls hat's Spaß gemacht, mal wieder einen (hier ja eigentlich noch nicht) "Klassiker" zu lesen. Das Übergreifen des Sturm und Drangs in die zerrissene Diktion hat mich auf Dauer allerdings ein wenig genervt.Ach ja, und das Ende ist natürlich echt unsäglich. Diese lapidare Hinmeuchelung von Amalia? Strapaziert...

  • Rob
    2019-01-25 19:17

    (6/10) The Robbers reads like someone's -- Friedrich von Schiller's, if the cover's to be trusted -- attempt to make a German version of Shakespeare. There are eloquent philosophical speeches and sometimes ecstatic language, characters that swear eternal vengeance on each other, and a tragic ending in which everything ends up covered in blood. But it's a bit more abstract and a bit more grim than the Bard, and seems a bit more like one of his contemporaries, perhaps a classed-up version of one of John Webster's grand guignols.Of course, it's incredibly unfair to compare Schiller (or anyone) to Shakespeare, but the influence is so obvious that it's hard not to. That comparison makes the play's flaws -- the thinness of its characters and its overtalkative nature -- stand out more. That's not to say it's all bad -- it's a pretty decent read on its own, and from what I understand a Big Deal in German literature. But it always feels a little incomplete, obscured by the shadow of its influences. Maybe Harold Bloom was onto something after all.

  • Draganf
    2019-02-20 23:15

    Pisci su uglavnom najsmeliji u početku svog stvaranja, a kako sazrevaju, stavovi poprimaju jasnije oblike, stil se postepeno upotpunjava, a smelost da se suprotstavi većini, opštem mišljenju ili ustaljenom načinu pisanja polako jenjava. Kao što se Crnjanski u mladosti izražava veoma slobodno i jedinstveno (dok u poznim godinama piše „blaže“), ili Sartr, tako i Šiler stvara na samom početku književne karijere jednu veliku i jedinstvenu dramu, „Razbojnici“. Mladost svakog čoveka, tako i pisca, krasi entuzijazmom, smelošću i slobodom izražavanja, dok starost znanjem, iskustvom i strpljenjem, tako da se dela većine pisaca mogu podeliti na ta dva dela. Šilerova drama, „Razbojnici“, pripadaju prvoj skupini, tako da je karakterišu gorepomenute osobine. U drami se mogu pronaći skoro neprimetni nedostaci koji nastaju baš usled mladalačkog nestrpljenja, međutim, to ni u koliko ne umanjuje vrednost ovog dela.U ovom delu se prožimaju razna pitanja čovka iz osamnaestog veka; shvatanje prirode, društva, religije, morala, dok ključnu ulogu igra odnos Karl – Stari Moor – Franc, tj. sin – otac – sin. U ovom slučaju se taj porodični odnos može uopštiti, tako da bismo dobili odnos dve različite vrednosti unutar jedne države, ili pak sveta. Karl i Franc, iako braća, na svet gledaju suprotno. Karla je priroda nagradila lepim izgledom, hrabrošću, smelošću, snagom, te on predstavlja klasičnog grčkog junaka, dok je Franc prilagodljiv, snalažljiv i nemilosrdan, pa uprkos mnogim nedostacima, uspeva stvari pokrenuti i okrenuti u svoju korist. On je pokretač radnje. Njihov otac, stari Moor, predstavlja središte, objekat preko koga sinovi deluju međusobno, tj. oca, vlast, pa čak i Boga. Na kraju svi glavni likovi stradaju, ali ipak drama nema sve karakteristike tragedije.Ono što ovu dramu izdvaja od ostalih jeste savršena retorika. Monologe treba čitati pažljivo, jer se u svakom krije jedan nov i originalan pogled na određen problem. Ova drama je nastala u osamnaestom veku, tako da je prilično „neiskvarena“. Dok savremeni pisci pišu po ugledu na mnoštvo pređašnjih pisaca, ovde se primeti samo uticaj helenske i hebrejske književnosti. Radnja ove drame je poslužila Dimi kao osnova za roman „Grof Monte Kristo“, a tema koju razrađuje Šiler se produbljuje u delima Dostojevskog, Mana i mnogih drugih.Najbolja drama koju sam čitao (s tim što ih nema baš mnogo), a Šiler mi je za sada iznad Šekspira. Ocena 10/10.

  • Araceli.libros
    2019-02-20 22:14

    Esta obra fue... bastante genial.Siempre digo que no me gusta el teatro, pero cada vez que leo una obra (muy de vez en cuando) me termina gustando, y mucho.En "Los bandidos", es como si hubiera dos obras en una. Por un lado tenemos un especie de drama familiar (un hermano celoso y rencoroso, Franz, convence a su padre de desheredar a su hermano mayor, el más querido, el favorito: Karl. Más tarde le miente al decirle que, al verse abandonado y desterrado, este muere... Y la culpa de ese hecho recae en el pobre viejo. Francis planea deshacerse de su hermano y su padre para convertirse en el único heredero, y de paso quedarse con la chica). Por el otro lado, seguimos las "aventuras" de los bandidos, un grupo de asesinos a los que Karl se alía en un arrebato de rabia al enterarse de que su padre lo ha abandonado. Pasan cosas, bla bla, y Karl luego recibe noticias de su amada, va a su castillo y se entera de los viles planes de su hermano... Me gustó mucho. La obra tiene algo de telenovela, y tiene escenas que ya estamos acostumbrados a ver por todas lados... Pero algo me dice que Schiller fue de los primeros en idear este tipo de historias (se publicó en el año 1781), así que lo admiro por eso.Otra cosa que me sorprendió fue la cantidad de maldiciones, sangre, inmoralidad, traición, burlas a la iglesia, atrocidades, y todo lo que se puedan imaginar que hay en esta obra, teniendo en cuenta la época en la que se escribió. Supongo que habrá causado un gran revuelo por aquellos tiempos.Tenemos al hermano malvado, Franz (que es lo más inmoral del mundo) y al "bueno", al héroe, que es Karl. Pero Karl tampoco es un ángel. Sí, es noble, es un especie de Robin Hood, pero no le molesta mucho matar y robar para conseguir lo que quiere. Cada uno de los bandidos es un desastre de persona, y él lo sabe; pero son sus camaradas, así que les debe lealtad. En un par de ocasiones, Karl tiene que decidir entre la vida en el castillo con su amada, o la vida de forajido... Y bueno, no es una decisión muy fácil.Lo que no me gustó fue el trato que se le da a la única mujer de la obra... Pero bueno, estamos hablando de siglo XVIII, mucho no se puede pedir.La obra también tiene frases muy buenas, pero no se pueden apreciar demasiado debido a lo raro que suena la traducción al español. Qué lástima que no pueda leerla en alemán (algo que nunca va a pasar).

  • Jim Leckband
    2019-02-06 18:32

    "The Robbers" is a very strange play. Plays by their nature are very talky, but this one has long monologues without a lot of action at the start. There is more "drama" at the end. In his preface, Schiller acknowledges the dramatic problems of the play as he says he meant it as a dramatic prose piece rather than a full-blown stage play.The other strangeness in this play is that Schiller up-ends our expectations, set by Shakespeare and other classic tragedians, of finding our initial assessments of the characters refuted; where innocence is rewarded and guilt is punished, the wicked are always stained and the good are always pure, and love wins in the end.In "The Robbers", the innocent are killed, some of the guilty are rewarded, vengeance is deflected and love is finally shown as just a mistake. This is pretty nihilistic stuff, but it does make for page-turning reading because you definitely don't see it coming and I was surprised by how much Schiller defied expectations.

  • Kathrin
    2019-01-30 22:11

    Die Geschichte, ein Drama in Prosa, folgt den Gebrüdern Moor. Die Geschichte beginnt als Franz, der jüngere Bruder, einen Brief seines älteren Bruders Karl fälscht, um ihn beim Vater in Verruf zu bringen und die Macht des Vaters zu erben. Karl wird darauf aus Verzweiflung, da er denkt die Liebe des Vaters verloren zu haben, zum Robin Hood-esken Räuber, der eine Bande von mehr oder weniger zwielichtigen Ausgestossenen der Gesellschaft anführt. Er lässt Amalia auf dem elterlichen Hof zurück, die ihm bis zum bitteren Ende treu ist. Sowohl Franz, der seine durch Intrigen gewonnene Macht missbraucht, als auch Karl, der versucht ausserhalb des Gesetzes Gerechtigkeit zu schaffen scheitern schlussendlich. Der Konflikt zwischen Recht und Gerechtigkeit, die Ehre, Liebe, was es ist ein guter Mensch zu sein, werden behandelt auch wenn schlussendlich keine der Figuren, weder Pro- noch Antagonist, ein glückliches oder erfolgreiches Ende findet.

  • Czarny Pies
    2019-02-20 19:17

    Die Räuber,s rightfully considered to be a masterpriece of the the Sturm und Drang mouvement. First performed in 1782, it had a great impact on romantic writers in Germany, France and England for the next seventy-five years. Victor Hugo's Ernani and Adam Mickiewicz's Konrad Wallenrod are two of the most successful works to revisit the major themes of the Die Rauber which are the need to reconcile the apparent conflicts between personal or family loyalties and those of a country or nation. Two operas Italian operas I briganti (Mercadante 1836) and I masnadieri (Verdi 1847) were also based on Die Rauber. It was not until 1869 when Offenbach's parody Les brigands was staged that Europe's authors finally decided that it was time to move on and look for new sources of inspiration.Read this play. It will be a great help in understanding the thematic concerns of grand opera in the nineteenth century.

  • ❄ Pixelflocke ❄
    2019-01-24 20:30

    Schillers Räuber als Hörspiel angesiedelt in unserer aktuellen Zeit - es war großartig!Die Sprecher und die akustische Untermalung waren klasse (lediglich die Stimme von Mrs Daniels gefiel mir nicht ganz - sie klang einfach zu jung für so eine alte Rolle). An einigen Stellen musste ich auch echt schlucken, denn die Vergewaltigungen und Morde waren schon ziemlich krass inszeniert. Hier hat einfach alles zusammengepasst: der Text der Neuinterpretation, die Sprecher und die musikalische Gestaltung. Ich hoffe Audible wird noch mehr Klassiker auf diese Art neu aufnehmen, dann bin ich sofort wieder mit dabei!

  • Kelly
    2019-02-02 23:05

    Melodrama on the level of Verdi's Il Trovatore, but as with Il Trovatore, it's hard to regret the experience. It has moments of raw, authentic spiritual anguish and moments that leave you wondering "How many times can this person die of grief?" I'm starting to understand why the 19th-century Russians had a love-hate relationship with Schiller's work. Russian novels are known for nothing if not an exploration of spiritual anguish, but even Dostoevsky tends to pull the rug out from under characters who take themselves too seriously. Perhaps Schiller does that in his more mature work. Hmmm...time to update the reading list.

  • Christel
    2019-02-01 17:24

    Soll ich vor Furcht eines qualvollen Lebens sterben? Soll ich dem Elend den Sieg über mich einräumen? Nein, ich will's dulden. Die Qual erlahme an meinem Stolz! Ich will's vollenden.Besser kann man das Drama nicht zusammenfassen. Alte Schullektüre, überraschend wieder entdeckt. Immer noch spannend!

  • Ana
    2019-01-21 22:10

    Erst jetzt wird es mir klar, welch enormen Einfluss Shakespeare auf Schiller geübt hat. Und im Nachhinein wird es mir auch klar wie zermalmt, gequält und autistisch die jetzige Literatur im Vergleich zu der Klassischen zu sein scheint - wie erbärmlich ihre traurigen, einsamen Triumphe im Vergleich zu diesem Werk.

  • Justine
    2019-01-31 20:23

    Aweful required school reading back in the day.

  • حسنعدس
    2019-02-14 19:26

    عمل نميس الصراحة

  • Саша
    2019-02-02 18:23

    Ein Werk über Verzweiflung, Gewissenskonflikte und die Abgründe der menschlichen Seele

  • ✿ Eva ✿
    2019-02-15 21:24

    too much drama

  • Linda Vismane
    2019-01-28 00:17

    Mazliet vīlos Amālijā - uzticīga Kārlim, bet gandrīz apprec Kosinski. Arī Franča riebīgā attieksme pret Amāliju (ar varu grib iegūt sev) man ļoti nepatika. Biju apmierināta ar Kārļa rīcību lugas beigās, manuprāt, viņš rīkojās cēli, neizvēloties vienkārši izdarīt pašnāvību. Grūti pat pateikt, kas man labāk patika - "Vilhelms Tells" vai "Laupītāji". Laikam jau Tells labāk. Šeit tomēr tā necieņa pret sievietēm un sirmgalvju, zīdaiņu un slimo nogalināšana.

  • Matthew
    2019-02-20 17:11

    A curious mish-mash of King Lear, Hamlet, Robin Hood, and King Arthur, The Robbers is more impressive in context than by itself.Schiller was twenty when he wrote this very long, very dense dream of escape. What's more, he was a twenty year-old within the confines of a military academy, which is an especially unhappy and dissatisfied kind of twenty year-old. Remarkably, Schiller oversaw a massively successful premier of this play while still enrolled at the academy, which is sort of funny to consider-- this play's ideas about personal responsibility and (especially) sex and gender are sometimes so stunted and juvenile it's hard to imagine the enraptured, theater-going adult. But I guess a lot of strange ideas about women slipped under the radar during the 18th century.Anyway, The Robbers mostly couches within the world of kitsch and melodrama, though its strongest elements (Roller's brush with death, Karl's confrontation with the Priest, the Spiegelberg subplot) rise above and make up a sort of good-natured and wide-eyed adventure-drama.But Karl's side of the story is more gripping than the side headed by Franz. (I say "sides" because these two brothers never meet!) Franz is a tired stage villain, his speeches overlong and thin on substance, and his poetry lacking in glister. It's a chore to go from the colorful cast of characters in the Karl scenes to the lonely and sparse Franz scenes, where his only companions are the thinly-sketched Amalia, the shallow comic stereotype Daniel, and Old Moor, who's constantly and hysterically bemoaning his state of affairs.Karl is a notable creation, but, for my money, Moritz Spiegelberg is the most interesting character in this play. A sort of Jewish insurrectionist, Spiegelberg's ambitions of a Jewish state are quickly dashed when it becomes apparent to him he simply lacks charisma. After this initial failure, he spends the rest of the play quietly and unhappily lurking about, a sour and faintly humorous element of life in the robber band. He's an endearing character, though the play is perhaps too hard on him, maybe as a result of antisemitism.A few more notes: this play took me quite a long time to read. Every scene could have conveyed all of its information in at least half its length. Sometimes my theater mind would kick in as I read, and I tried to envision how a version of this play reduced for a 2-hour performance would read, but I couldn't do it! The comically overwrought monologues and the didactic, novelistic conversations between characters are a feature, not a bug, of this play's composition. I love it and hate it, because long length and undue repetition make this play a chore to read, but wouldn't it be a very different and less lovable play without these pompous quirks?The Robbers is not Shakespeare. Hell, it's not even Marlowe or Webster. But it's a moody and attention-grabbing tragedy, short on tears and slim on characterization, but with bushels of energy and atmosphere.

  • Realini
    2019-02-17 21:14

    The Robbers by Friedrich SchillerNot the best work I came across, but scholars appreciate itI do not know what to make of this work.On the one hand it is clearly a worthy endeavor to try and read it.It deals with values, a fight for freedom, love, both romantic and filial, it benefited from good acting and suspense.And yet, on the other hand I did not get emotionally, or indeed in any other way involved, which happens again with Schiller.It looks like I am getting into the wrong mindset- if it is Schiller, then I am going to miss most or all of it.As I try and make some sense of what was going on, I recall the curse and how it comes true.I am influenced in what I read from literature and fiction by my parallel immersion into psychology, so a curse and magic can work for me.If you curse someone who believes in the power of magic, or has a frame of mind where doubt gives way to depression- it will come true.The father curses the son and the latter is falling apart, under the weight of the bad omen.In other words, he becomes negative and pessimistic.Those who are pessimistic are exposed to illness, and live shorter lives.And when they become depressed, the negative spiral can lead to tragedy.The plot of the saga may also add to the pleasure of a reader who comes with an open mind and ready to enjoy Schiller.Those who are dead at one stage, show up very much alive like we are dealing with Avengers, Terminator or other movies in the same vein.There is one good son- Karl and another- Franz- who much like Cain, ready and willing to finish off his own sibling-- To the devil with my brother- I want to be the only masterThere is talk about the failings of the time, in this dialogue for instance:- This is a century of castrati, eunuchs- They have no respect for the ancient values- The poor are cheated and the rich steal from them- I would make a republic that would make Sparta seem small and weakThe son is waiting for a letter of absolution and forgiveness from his father, but instead there is a letter from his wicked brother, Franz- You will be sent in the cave with no food and never be forgiven- Our father cannot forget you- The life of a thief is better than being imprisoned in a cave- Stones would have cried- so much I have asked for forgivenessSo the wretched son joins a band of outlaws as their captain, because he is very bitter and upset, angry with his father:- I do not have a father, not anymoreAs a consequence, Karl becomes a kind of Robin Hood. At one point, the tragic news comes- the son that was banished is dead.In another letter, he blames the parental curse for his death:- I died alone, in the battlefield, because you, father did not want to forgive meBut this is not the end of the story, and you have to read more to find out.

  • Gordan Karlić
    2019-01-23 17:07

    Pretty sure this work was much better when it was released, and I would assume it is better if it is played in the theater.Somehow it just doesn't connect with today's reader, or at least me.There are nice themes and plot is good, it has all elements of good tragedy. Short, good, nothing too special.

  • Tomàs
    2019-01-30 18:35

    Que decir que estoy acostumbrado a la literatura española en mi caso, la cual en algunos casos, no ha llegado a convencerme. Sin embargo me ha sorprendido gratamente en general la literatura alemana. Jamás imaginé que iría cada día a la biblioteca de mi facultad para buscar más y más libros. Y es que en mis escasos conocimientos de esta literatura, Schiller se ha convertido en uno de mis escritores favoritos.La historia nos presenta a un padre adinerado con dos hijos Karl y Franz. El hermano mayor, Karl, el heredero por las leyes que se rige la sociedad en aquella época es un personaje romántico total (un personaje que no se rige por las leyes sociales aristocráticas y que vive por el arte, la belleza, la naturaleza. Y en su caso concreto, estar el día entero en una taberna bebiendo con sus amigos), y el hermano pequeño, Franz un personaje "malvado" que si que se rige por esas leyes que Karl no acepta. Es por ello que el hermano menor querrá hacer lo posible para que el padre, el viejo Moor, desherede a Karl y le entregue toda la herencia a él. Pero cuando Karl se entera, intentará por cualquier medio que las cosas vuelvan a cómo eran formando una banda de bandidos. Debo añadir que el personaje de Amalia me ha gustado bastante. No me suelen gustar esos personajes incapaces de defenderse, que dependen de otros. Y en un momento clave de la obra, Amalia nos demuestra que ella tiene sus propias ideas y que no hará lo que Franz le mande. Y el personaje de Karl es magnífico en sí mismo, con una personalidad fuerte que me ha gustado mucho.Puedo llegar a estar de acuerdo con la pequeña introducción que encontré en la edición de este libro la cual utilicé. Sí, hay escenas que no llegan a tener sentido completo. Que parece que falte algo ahí. Sin embargo por lo general esta pieza teatral me ha encantado. Y sin duda se la recomiendo a todo el mundo.

  • Albert
    2019-02-13 17:25

    I don't know whether I like this play or really like itIt's somewhere in the middle. I love the characters and the story. the dialogue was eh, and the development of the characters was eh too. One thing I liked was the characters and their characterizations. The Robbers is like a Shakespeare Tragedy times 10.The moral themes are bigger, the taboos are more shocking and the stress and pain the characters go through are very personal and heavy. Franz and Karl are opposites, and either you like one or the other, but we can see both a little bit of both within us (the reader) Schiller was a master of this indeed. And as the play develops we see a tough battle between who should be loved more? Family? Friends? Lover? A tough play to read but very grand and majestic

  • 78sunny
    2019-02-17 00:31

    Das Hörbuch an sich war wirklich gut gemacht. Die Stimmen wirkten authentisch und passten zu den Charakteren. Durch die Geräusche und Musik kam die Stimmung sehr gut herüber.Leider bedrückte mich die Stimmung aber extrem. Ich fand das Hörbuch sehr deprimierend und es gab Stellen an denen ich mich richtig angewidert gefühlt habe. Vor allem wo die Mord und Vergewaltigungen passierten. Sorry aber ich mag sowas absolut nicht und wenn ich dann auch noch schreiende Personen höre und die extrem abartigen, herablassenden Kommentare der Täter, dann ist für mich Schluß mit Geschichte genießen. Klassiker hin oder her, mich hat es an meine Grenzen geführt und sowas mag ich nicht beim Lesen.

  • Dũng Nguyễn
    2019-01-28 23:12

    I like the play. Though it's Schiller's first play, it's a classic anyway. Schiller described the two complex characters: Karl and Franz. Though they are brothers, they are driven by fate and their own deeds to stand against each others. Karl, the one who was adored by all other characters in the play, is a noble yet somehow immoral: he was lead astray after knowing that he was disinherited by his father. Franz, in the other hand, is a wicked man. He is an atheist and a materialist. However, the reader can definitely see that Franz expressed some harsh meaningful questions about moral. It's always something from both Karl and Franz that readers could project on themselves.

  • Barbora
    2019-01-27 16:25

    Tohle se nehodnotí lehce. Čte se to poměrně dobře, i když některé monology jsou zdlouhavé. Poslední scéna posledního dějství je tak na dvě *. Je hrozně patetická a když už si člověk myslí, že to dopadne dobře, tak se to všechno zase po****. Překvapení dobrý, ale tohle je trochu moc teda. Jinak je tohle pravé dítko období Bouře a Vzdoru, protože obě dvě hlavní postavy jsou tam pěkní ptáčkové a silné emoce tam se všemi mávají jako hormony s puberťáky. Fakt nevím, jestli se mám hystericky smát nebo hystericky brečet.

  • pax
    2019-02-03 22:34

    You go in for a mild-mannered classic and get something that intense. There are two scenes that shook me, enough to feel physically uncomfortable, to have to put down the book for a moment: Spiegelberg talking about the sacking of the Abbey in 2nd act, 3rd scene and Franz forcing old Daniel to promise him to kill "the count" in 4th act, 2nd scne. There is so much sickening unmitigated cruelty in both and both make so much sense in the context and for the characters ... Not easy to read, not at all, but oh so good.