Reviews and Notes 653 tions of form, dominate the whole development of warlike plays in Germany. The problem now was to win the new and freer elements of imagination for practical dramatic purposes. In a detailed analysis the author shows the attack on this problem, by pro- fessional writers for the stage as well as by men of more poetical ability, like Klinger and Maler Miiller. In Torrings Kaspar der Thorringer a true feeling for both elements is discovered, while the same writer's Agnes Bernauer united the chivalrous drama definitely with the stage. Or, as the author puts it, the con- flict between the unlimited subject and the limited artistic means had begun in earnest. It is particularly interesting to see how the lesser writers responded to the new demands, often revising former plays in accordance with the more modern spirit. We receive the definite impression of a collective effort groping toward the pure form. While the great steps forward were taken by men of true genius, the total effect of the host of lesser men, working on this or that phase of the problem of presentation, is seen to have been considerable, when the whole field is surveyed. Here the author's work is decidely important as bearing on the general question of the evolution of a parti- cular artistic form. In this case certainly it resembles the evolu- tion of industrial inventions. A powerful impulse is given in the fruitful direction, and then a host of co-laborers work in- cessantly to the logical end. From the appearance of Gotz into the eighties a type of work was being evolved to the advantage of the stage, if not to the advantage of literature as such. Schiller now entered the course of evolution as the man who was able to do full justice to the demands of both the stage and poetry. Surprisingly enough, in the question of the technical handling of the battle-scene, The Robbers is seen to be remarkably restrained. Schiller never loses sight of the dramatic end in view, and this firstling of his, stormy as it may be in other respects, really marks in this re- spect the turn toward the final classical form. Fiesco appears from the standpoint of this discussion also as a decided retro- gression when compared with the earlier play. In neither of these works, however, did Schiller use the teichoskopic form, which he later brought to perfection. Klinger's Konradin (1784) marked a further advance, in general and over against his earlier practice, in the adaptation of the pitched battle to the requirements of the stage. He was the first to do this in a practical way. His chief method was Teichoskopie, which now in his hands no longer served merely for vivid description of events beyond the stage, as in Klopstock's Hermanns schlacht and in Gotz, but was employed in a well articulated dramatic connection. Not the event, but its dramatic reflex became the
main thing. This definite advance toward the classic form
