Grillparzer's Libussa: The Tragedy of Separation 9780773567696

Citation preview

Grillparzer's Libussa The Tragedy of Separation

In Grillparzer's Libussa William Reeve provides an important interpretation of a work that has received little detailed attention from European and American critics. The play has been dealt with in a broader context in numerous monograph-length overviews or introductions to Grillparzer, but this is the first time that it has received the careful consideration it deserves. Reeve not only offers a close textual analysis of the drama focusing on the theme of separation but shows how Libussa and its author fit into the development of the history of ideas in nineteenth-century Europe. He contends that Grillparzer's work anticipates Bachofen, Nietzsche, Freud, Neumann, and Lacan. Using Freudian psychoanalysis, Neumann's investigation of the female archetype, and anthropological studies, Reeve argues that Grillparzer's tragedy portrays the struggle between matriarchy and patriarchy, nurturers and warriors, and rural and urban cultures. Since Libussa proves unable to overcome the gender bias of her male subjects, the play concludes with a symbolic statement of masculine superiority as man and woman remain intellectually and physically apart. Reeve's analysis draws parallels with Grillparzer's other two completed posthumous tragedies, Ein Bruderzwist in Habsburg and Die Judin von Toledo, relating his findings to the greater context of nineteenth-century German drama. WILLIAM c. REEVE is professor of German studies, Queen's University.

Kaiser Joseph 11 am Pflug by J.B. Bergmuller. See p. 91. Reproduced with permission from the graphic collection of the Albertina, Vienna, Austria

Grillparzer's Libussa The Tragedy of Separation WILLIAM C. REEVE

McGill-Queen's University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Ithaca

McGill-Queen's University Press 1999 ISBN 0-7735-1831-2

Legal deposit first quarter 1999 Bibliotheque nationale du Quebec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. McGill-Queen's University Press acknowledges the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program for its activities. We also acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Reeve, William C, 1943Grillparzer's Libussa: the tragedy of separation Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7735-1831-2

1. Grillparzer, Franz, 1791-1872. Libussa. 1. Title. PT2272.R33 1999 832'.6 098-901422-3 Typeset in Palatino 10/12 by Caractera inc., Quebec City

Fur meinen deutschen Onkel, Wilfried Messier, in Dankbarkeit

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Acknowledgments Introduction

ix

3

The Inescapable Paternal Legacy: Act One 9 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation: Act Two 58 Likes Repel: Act Three 97 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation: Act Four 135 The Final Separation(s): Act Five 185 Conclusion 247 Notes 259 Works Cited 283 Index 289

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

This project, having lasted many years, owes much to many people, but in particular I wish to single out Prof. Ernst Wangermann (Salzburg) for his freundliches Entgegenkommen, Dr. Wera Zelenka, Austrian Embassy, Ottawa, for her help in obtaining material, Bill McConnell for his patient typing of the many versions, and my family for their continued support and understanding. The second chapter, "The Inescapable Paternal Legacy: Act One," contains a slightly enlarged version of an article entitled "Divisive Fore-play in the 'Vorspiel' of Grillparzer's Libussa" which appeared in the "Special Franz Grillparzer Issue" of Modern Austrian Literature 28 (1995): 169-188. The author wishes to thank the editor of Modern Austrian Literature for permission to reprint this essay. A grant awarded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada enabled me to pursue this research interest in Vienna and collect much of the material needed to write this monograph. Needless to say, I am grateful to the Council for its vote of confidence. I should also like to express my gratitude to the Advisory Research Committee, Queen's University, for financial support to obtain some supplementary documents in Vienna.

This page intentionally left blank

Grillparzer's Libussa

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

One of the most quoted partial lines from Grillparzer's Libussa has been Primislaus's platitude: "Im Anfang liegt das Ende."1 If, however, one examines the "Anfang" and the "Ende" of the tragedy with this proverbial claim in mind, a common theme emerges. The opening sequence between Libussa and Primislaus draws to a close with four references to Trennung, while the subsequent scene where the actual parting takes place alludes four times to scheiden. The confusion and concern caused by the Scheiden (887) of the ruling head of state and the social chaos his death portends largely motivate the intervening segments. The "Ende" features the titular heroine's prophetic vision that begins with the alienation of Mensch and Natur, symbolized by the eviction from the Garden of Eden, and the play concludes with an actual death and the declaration: "Das Hohe schied, sein Zeichen sei hienieden" (2513). An archetypical appropriateness supports this structure, for separation circumscribes human life: it both begins (birth as a separation from the womb, a severing of the umbilical chord, a forced expulsion from the uterine paradise) and ends with a separation (Scheiden - "abschied vom leben, tod" [Grimm 14: 2398]). The German verb scheiden, according to the Duden Etymologie, has retained its "Grundbedeutung" of "spalten, trennen" (598), a significance which Scheide reflects in its literal meaning of separation and in the figurative sense of a parting from life. It also persists in Unterscheidung or Entscheidung, the need to make a distinction between two or more options (cf. Grimm 14: 2398) or in the office of a Schieds-

4 Grillparzer's Libussa

mann, "der verbundenes trennt" (Grimm 14: 2401). This judicial function has a particular applicability to Primislaus, upon whom Lapak confers the title of "Schiedsmann" (759) and who acts throughout Libussa, intentionally or unintentionally, as the great separator by virtue of this role or of his gender: "ein Mann, / Der ernst entschiede wo es geht um Ernstes" (958-9). In the sexual context, Scheide, related to the English sheath, also signifies vagina: "zum verbum scheiden gehorig und ursprunglich wol gleicher bedeutung wie das folgende 1. hulle fur ein schwert, messer u. dgl" (Grimm 14: 2396). It follows that scheiden also contains an erotic association in that it conjures up a phallic symbol: "das messer in die scheide stecken, schieben, verhiillend fur coire" (Grimm 14: 2397). The sword as a mark of masculinity denotes a divisive force both in the psychological sphere of the relationship between the sexes and at the social level of communal and international interests: "1st doch das Eisen / Fast wie der Mensch. Geschaffen um zu nutzen, / Wird es zur schneid'gen Wehr und trennt und spaltet / Die schone Welt und aller Wesen Einklang" (Bruderzwist 1504-7 - emphasis added). German literature achieved a period of unparalleled dramatic excellence in the first half of the nineteenth century, an accomplishment which only our current century has come to appreciate fully, as the big three, Kleist, Biichner, and Grillparzer, have gained the recognition they largely failed to enjoy during their own lifetime.2 In many respects quite different, they nonetheless share an amazing skill in suggesting what today critics would classify as the workings of the unconscious mind, thus anticipating many of the findings of Freud and the psychoanalysis of the twentieth century. Although not a committed Freudian myself, I have found his theories and observations of considerable value in understanding the implications of the symbolism in my detailed textual analysis of Libussa, surely not an unusual connection in view of the drama's strong sexual undercurrent. According to Freud, separation, the reduction of the primary identification with the mother and the development of an individual sense of self for both boys and girls, represents the crucial experience of the infant. A sense of oneness dominates the prenatal stage where the child perceives itself emotionally and physically as part of the mother's body to which it is joined. Even after the separation of birth, the baby does not differentiate itself from the mother, continuing to sustain the impression of unity with her, reinforced by breastfeeding. However, the child's awareness of its rival, the father as bearer of the phallus, severs him/her from the mother's body and forces the desire for her into the unconscious. For Lacan, Freud's more current apologist and interpreter, the father embodies the law,

5 Introduction

in this first instance, the taboo against incest. Furthermore, the Oedipus complex leads inevitably to a split personality, one divided between conscious, socially acceptable desires and unconscious, socially forbidden ones. Nor does the theme of separation stop here, as the developing personality must frequently deal with absence, for example in Freud's famous example of the "fort/da" game, by which the child attempts to come to terms with the loss of the mother, an imaginary process which parallels Primislaus's wishful thinking to compensate for the divisive barrier of social class and wealth (13-16; i625~8).3 Because of her continued association with her mother in the domestic context, a woman generally experiences a continuity in her life. In contrast, coming-of-age rituals for an adolescent male seek to remove him from the domestic realm by encouraging him to look down upon female pursuits and to prove his masculinity outside his home environment (the inner/external duality justified by the separate spheres theory and generally subscribed to by Primislaus). In Das Unbehagen in der Kultur Freud proposes that modern civilization has evolved primarily as the result of two underlying drives symbolized by the Greek gods Eros and Thanatos. The former sees its ultimate aim in union or fusion; the latter strives for separation or disintegration. The battle of the sexes belongs to this dynamic, especially as portrayed in Libussa, for however much man and woman may be drawn towards one another and need one another as parts to form the desired whole - "Es fehlt ein Teil, der voll erst macht das Ganze" (1787) - ultimately they remain "Getrennt[e]" (41). "Still, no matter how great the longing for complementation, it is nature's curse on the differentiated sexes that they cannot, in the play [Libussa] at least, fuse into unity" (Stein 185): "Begreifst du dafi ein Innres schmelzen mufi / Um Eins zu sein mit einem andern Innern?" (1680-1). Whereas Kleist and Buchner may be said to betray a predominantly male bias in their depiction of women as either wish fulfilment (Kathchen/Marion) or, in a Kleistian variation, as a sado-masochistic nightmare (Penthesilea),4 Grillparzer would seem to have adopted a more sympathetic observer status vis-a-vis women or, on the basis of a strong female orientation in his own personality, to have empathized substantially with his female protagonists, especially Libussa. It is not surprising, therefore, that this tragedy has attracted favourable, insightful, albeit not always balanced, interpretations from feminist critics who see it as a progressive step in support of the matriarchal ideal. Even though contemporary anthropologists have found no historical evidence to support the existence of a matriarchy past or present (Rosaldo/Lamphere, "Introduction" 3), it still has

6 Grillparzer's Libussa

relevance as a Utopian myth and source of hope for women (cf. Christa Wolf's Cassandra and its "Gegenwelt") and Libussa has made a modest contribution to this development. As Rosaldo has observed, "women seem to be oppressed or lacking in value and status to the extent that they are confined to domestic activities, cut off from other women and from the social world of men. Women gain power and a sense of value, when they are able to transcend domestic links, either by entering the men's world or by creating a society unto themselves" (41). Sexual segregation still holds sway for the broader masses in the matriarchy portrayed by the public scenes of the second act, but at the same time Libussa and her entourage call the immutable, unassailable nature of the gender barriers into question by "entering the men's world," while her sisters pursue the second option of "creating a society unto themselves." Analytical psychology has studied and described the human reliance upon myths to give meaning and direction to life. Freud, Jung, and one of the latter's students, Erich Neumann, have discovered in these early stories signs of our mental progress as a species and important revelations concerning human needs, fears, and aspirations. Neumann's monumental work, Die Grofte Mutter, provides a wealth of information for an analysis of the Libussa/Primislaus legend and also demonstrates the amazing extent to which Grillparzer, the creative artist, was in tune with the essential, formative archetypes of our culture. According to Neumann's research into ancient creation myths, the female principle, the Great Mother, originally contained within herself both the male and the female: "Hier wie iiberall herrscht die Vorstellung, dafi das Grofie Weibliche Himmel, Erde und Wasser als Nachthimmel in sich enthalt und es 'ist'" (213), i.e., the earliest matriarchal stage of unconsciousness constituted an all-encompassing unity (cf. Libussa's affinity "mit dem Geist des All" [2023]). Only later, once the separation of the primordial parents occurred, did the male principle, symbolized by light, sun, and consciousness, achieve prominence and differentiation came into effect. Through separation the male sought to distance himself from his female heritage, the true source of life: "Die Sonne ist ein Sohn des weiblichen Tageshimmels, so wie der Mond ein Sohn des Nachthimmels ist. Der weibliche Himmel ist das Bestandige, Fest-Stehende und Dauernde, die Lichter, Sonne ebenso wie Mond und Sterne, das Auf- und Absteigende, das innerhalb des schwarzweifien Welt-Eis des GroSen Weiblichen Wandernde und Vergangliche" (214). The patriarchal god of Genesis thus betrays his male orientation by his separating role in creation: "and God divided the light from the darkness" (i: 4); "And [God] divided the waters which

7 Introduction

were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (i: 7); "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night" (i: 14), etc. As this monograph will illustrate, Primislaus distinguishes himself as a separator, a function in keeping with his masculine mentality and consistent with early mythological traditions. As a final source of general reference, anthropology has done important research into the historical, sociological, and psychological reasons behind the strict separation of the sexes and the division of labour along gender lines prevalent throughout most civilizations and guaranteeing an almost universal standard of male dominance: "Sind aber Manner, Manner, Herrn des All!" (1319). Sherry Ortner has argued that woman, because of her physiological ties to nurturing, her domestic confinement, and her more personal, cooperative, concrete mode of thinking, has become identified with nature whereas man sees himself as the producer and guardian of culture. In an observation which casts light upon much of the dialogue from Libussa's fifth act, Ortner claims, "culture [Primislaus] tries to discipline nature [Libussa] and fit it to its purposes" (71). "Thus culture (i.e., every culture) at some level of awareness asserts itself to be not only distinct from but superior to nature, and that sense of distinctiveness and superiority rests precisely on the ability to transform to 'socialize' and 'culturize' nature" (Ortner 71). An imposed separation, a social construct without a tenable biological basis, justifies female subservience, a conclusion which Grillparzer's text would seem to uphold. Originally I began this project as an investigation of the completed posthumous plays, convinced that there were many correspondences between the three works. For instance, they all deal with the problem of rulership (Menschseinwollen / Herrscherseinmusseri), and although camouflaged behind a convenient cover of historicity or mythology, they nonetheless reflect political issues and social concerns contemporary with the life of the author and include prophetic warnings of an undesirable but inevitable future, the threat of the Danube Monarchy's disintegration with the approach of the 1848 revolution. Parallels also exist in the details such as the importance of the visual sign: "Gib mir ein Zeichen dran du mich erkennst" (254) such as Kette, Kleinod, Schwert, Feder or Bud, many of them common to the three tragedies. Clothing, especially Mantel or Rock, has a central, concrete purpose in Libussa's Bauerntracht and her "weifien Mantel" (p. 288) used to conceal her peasant costume, in Mathias's "ung'risch niedr[e] Tracht" (Bruderzwist 686) or in Alphons's appearance "im Mantel gehullt (Die Jiidin p. 499). As Julius observes, "Den Mantel

8

Grillparzer's Libussa

fallen lassend: I Die Hiille liegt am Boden. Das Verhiillte / Geht offen seinen Weg als Untergang" (Bruderzwist 1828-9; cf. Libussa 1764-73). But as I continued with what I call my dialogue with the text, I became increasingly fascinated with and engrossed in Libussa; interest turned into awe and developed into a love affair with a dramatically rich, psychologically subtle, and sociologically discerning depiction of the relationship between the sexes and its implications for the restructuring of a society from an agrarian to an urban way of life. On the basis of further analysis prompted by the tragedy and in the hope of promoting greater awareness of a largely ignored masterpiece (it has never received monograph-length coverage and since 1942 only seven articles dealing with it have appeared), I decided to focus primarily on Libussa although links to the two other posthumous plays still figure prominently in my close examination of the primary text. More and more my reading persuaded me that despite the heroine's valiant effort to salvage her optimistic faith in the goodness of the Mensch and his/her beneficial bond to nature, an underlying pessimistic message of separation/disintegration nonetheless predominates, tending to invalidate the illusion that there could ever be a genuine meeting of minds, a fusion into one between woman and man, Natur and Mensch, the sacred and the secular, but paradoxically at the same time, by the very prevalence of its numerous manifestations, providing an overall sense of thematic unity. Libussa thus substantiates Danton's disheartening response to his wife's query in Biichner's Dantons Tod: "Glaubst du an mich?" "Was weifi ich? Wir wissen wenig voneinander. Wir sind Dickhauter, wir strecken die Hande nacheinander aus aber es ist vergebliche Muhe, wir reiben nur das grobe Leder aneinander ab, - wir sind sehr einsam" (p. 9). As the final curtain falls on Libussa, husband and wife and what they embody remain both literally and figuratively apart in their respective solitudes.

The Inescapable Paternal Legacy: Act One

All of Grillparzer's completed posthumous plays commence with a negation: "PRIMISLAUS an der Ttir der Htitte horchend: Bist du schon fertig? LIBUSSA von innen: Nein"; "GERICHTSPERSON Im Namen kaiserlicher Majestat / Ruf ich euch zu: LaSt ab! DON CASAR Ich nicht, fiirwahr!" (Ein Bruderzwist 1-2); "ISAK Bleib zuriick, geh nicht in' Garten!" (Die Jtidin i). In all three instances the denial, pointing to a personal conflict, whether between a man and a woman, father and son, or father and daughter, reflects on the individual level a social development threatening the stability of a well established political structure or ideology. Negation implies an attempt to distance the self from a perceived potential threat. Libussa's first utterance of the tragedy is a simple, succinct "Nein": she stands up to Primislaus, and being in control from the outset, refuses to be rushed. Moreover, the one asking the question normally occupies the inferior position, i.e., expresses a dependence upon the person being asked. In contrast, the staging establishes a visual internal/external dichotomy: the woman within the cottage to which traditional gender patterns would relegate her and to which she will return at the beginning of the fifth act and the man on the outside, a dramatic realization of the female inner versus the masculine outer orientation.1 Primislaus's listening at the door may also convey esteem or deference. Therefore, the spectator immediately gains an inkling of a problematic relationship: although the physical staging reinforces typical sexual stereotypes, the attitudes expressed by word and gesture suggest their inversion.

10 Act One

Conflicting reviews and views have long characterized the fate of Libussa on stage and at the hands of literary critics. It has enjoyed little success with audiences - most recently Roe has alluded to "its undramatic quality which makes it one of Grillparzer's most disappointing works" (A Century 98) - but while the author himself conceded the weakness of the fifth act: "Im fiinften Akt ist mir die Libussa nicht so geraten" (Bachmaier 734), he defended the prologue: "Das Vorspiel, [...] das ist auch das Beste dran. Das Vorspiel zur Libussa ist gut, ist vielleicht das Beste, was ich geschrieben hab', ist vortrefflich" (Bachmaier 733), high praise which one should take into account, given its source, i.e., Austria's greatest playwright. In an effort to explain what some commentators have judged to be thematic inconsistencies, Lorenz, turning to Grillparzer's own "schlusselhafte Deutungen", concludes that he elected to place "den Schwerpunkt auf eine Konfliktsituation, nicht auf die Harmonic, auf den Gegensatz der Hauptfiguren, nicht auf ihren Einklang" ("Neubewertung" 33). If she is correct in her designation of conflict or opposition and their non-resolution as the focal point of Libussa, then one would expect the "Vorspiel" to introduce this perspective. Indeed, this theatrical exposition of psychological game-playing presents an underlying theme of separation/Scheiden: high from low, aristocracy from peasantry, female from male, far from near, unity from duality, meeting from parting, and life from death. Both on the basis of its visual and verbal message, the opening scene deserves closer scrutiny than it has received to date. Commenting upon Primislaus's first monologue, Politzer observes, "Dem festen Nein der Frau entspricht ein lyrischer Ergufi des Mannes, der ihn nicht eigentlich zu den Taten pradestiniert erscheinen lafit, zu denen ihn der Dichter bestimmt hatte" (309). This may be true of the tone, more spontaneous and hence more emotional than in his subsequent dialogue with Libussa,2 but the difficulties that will emerge in their relationship already manifest themselves in his choice of words and images. His initial contact with her was acoustic, "ein Schrei" (4) indicative of her defencelessness - the demoiselle in distress - and then visual: "eines Weibes leuchtende Gewande, / Vom Strudel fortgerafft, die Nacht durchblinken" (5-6). According to Grillparzer's own assessment, Libussa is equal or even superior to Primislaus in every respect except one: perseverance or determination. "Es war die Idee, dieser Beharrlichkeit ein aufieres Gegenbild zu geben. Libussa, im Walde verirrt und von den Fluthen eines Bergstromes fortgerissen, wird von Primislaus gerettet" (Bachmaier 727-8). From the perspective of the rescuer, the steadfast figure on the shore, the

ii The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

image of being caught in a whirlpool and dragged along against one's will further substantiates the impression of the helpless, irresolute woman. To describe his visual perception of the heroine, he resorts to metonymy: the clothes stand for the person who only exists as the presumed bearer of the garments. Pieces of clothing will continue to play a major role within the drama and, as signifiers, they lead an important life of their own, often functioning as concrete indicators of the unconscious realm. Primislaus's insistence upon the emanation of light - "leuchtende;" "durchblinken" - not only indicates the male tendency to idealize the female but also alludes to the richness of her attire, the first sign of the social barrier separating the two main protagonists. The retrieval of a woman from a stream is not in itself extraordinary. Her exalted status, clearly out of place in a mountain stream late at night, does attract his attention and arouse his curiosity. Hence, did the incident really happen as he perceived it: "1st es denn wahr? und ist es wirklich so?" (2) By continuing to dwell upon the impersonal, material aspects of Libussa's semblance in the next lines: "Ich eile hin und fasse sie [die Gewande or Libussa?], und trage / Die siiCe Beute, laue Tropfen regnend, / Hierher" (7-9), he betrays himself as the man more concerned with external appearances than with the individual personality underneath. Staking his claim on her person, he unconsciously treats her as an object, thereby inadvertently disclosing through his choice of metaphor his male desire to possess her: she embodies the spoils of war, an exclusively masculine prerogative, which he has rightfully earned by wresting her from a natural enemy. When in the second act Libussa rejects the "Reiche Beute" (609) offered in homage by the miners: "Mich ekelt an der anspruchsvolle Tand" (611), the pejorative aspect of Primislaus's impulsive utterance becomes more evident. Since Mother Earth does not freely bestow her treasures, men have to remove them by doing violence to her, an environmental rape particularly noteworthy in view of the symbolic significance of the mountain, the "Bergwerk" (609) from which "Bergknappen" (p. 300) extract the minerals: "Diese immer noch zum Elementarcharakter des Gefafies gehorende [Schutz] Funktion wird besonders deutlich im 'Berg,' der im Deutschen symbolisch mit sich bergen, sich verbergen und mit Geborgenheit ebenso wie mit Burg zusammenzustellen ist" (Neumann 57). His own words later in the second act add credence to this interpretation when he laments, "Doch nah' ich ihr, riickstattend meinen Raub, I Lohnt sie mit Gold die Tat, die mich begliickt" (748-9). "Raub" again invokes the martial male imagery in that it means plunder or booty, but it also signifies rape. As

12 Act One

will become apparent, his choice of "Raub" to designate Libussa's jewel possesses a particular appropriateness. Primislaus's account of the divestment exhibits obvious sexual overtones: "und sie erholt sich, und ich lose / Die goldnen Schuhe selbst ihr von den Fiifien, / Und breit' ins Gras den schwergesognen Schleier, / Und meine Hiitt' empfangt den teuern Cast" (9-12), although it is not without some ambiguity. The removal of her shoes could also signal his respect: stooping to serve her, he humbles himself. Lorenz speaks of "die Vorstellung einer Schandung der bewufttlosen Libussa" ("Neubewertung" 37) which Roe interprets to mean: "Lorenz insists that Primislaus may even have raped Libussa" (A Century 97), but in fairness to Lorenz, the noun "Vorstellung" could simply denote the fantasy of a rape, a possibility which the symbolic message clearly supports and, according to St Matthew's gospel, to harbour lust is just as reprehensible as to seek its actual satisfaction: "But I [Christ] say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (5:28). However, the text contains no direct evidence that Libussa ever lost consciousness - "sie erholt sich" does not necessarily signify a regaining of consciousness and has the contextual meaning of catching her breath - and, in any case, the removal of the wet clothing occurs after she recovers. Later Libussa asserts, "Ich half mir selbst, glaub nur! erschienst du nicht" (27), a trivializing of the danger she faced which Grillparzer would appear to have endorsed: "[Libussa] wird von Primislaus gerettet, oder vielmehr er hilft ihr die Gefahr bestehen, denn die letztere ist durchaus nicht so ernsthaft gemeint, dafi ohne seinen Beistand, Libussens Lage hilflos gewesen ware" (Bachmaier 728). She could not have been unconscious in a whirlpool if her life was never in jeopardy. Furthermore, she does not come across as the fainting type. The description does hint at a symbolic or metaphorical rape, especially through the reference to her veil for, along with the "Hiitte," it belongs to the cultural symbols of protection or containment, elementary attributes of the female vessel archetype (cf. Neumann 45). In some Middle Eastern cultures, only the husband may remove his wife's veil and view her face (cf. Rhodope's veil in Hebbel's Gyges und sein Ring). Since circumstances have provided Primislaus with this opportunity, this detail already anticipates his marital claim reinforced later by his removing her jewel. The "Schleier" also represents her divine heritage and mission, a symbol of the unknown, enigmatic woman in her closeness to nature. To quote Goethe's Faust: "Geheimnisvoll am lichten Tag / Lafit sich Natur des Schleiers nicht berauben" (672-3). In the case at hand, Libussa's veil has been brought low, desecrated in another

13 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

visual image of her descent from the realm of her sisters to a man's cottage in anticipation of the domestic sphere to which she will be eventually reduced at the beginning of the last act.3 Primislaus's monologue concludes with yet another implied sexual fantasy: "Gliickselige, ihr meiner Schwester Kleider, / Die sie getragen und mir sterbend liefi, / Ihr werdet dieser Hohen Leib umhullen, / Und naher sie mir zaubern, die so fern" (13-16). He envies his sister's clothes because they cover Libussa's body and thus he seeks to disguise the sexual desire she has aroused in him behind the socially admissible love he feels for his late sister. The "sie" of his final line refers to his sister but could also include Libussa, for he knows both women to be beyond his reach, his sister by the ultimate separation of death (Scheiden) and Libussa by her birth. His first speech of the tragedy draws heavily upon the social division he senses between himself and the woman he has saved, hence the prominence of "fern" as the last word of his monologue. The allusion to the light emanating from her clothing (cf. the German Durchlaucht), the golden shoes, the veil to conceal and distinguish the noble from the common, and aristocratic superiority in body and soul ("dieser Hohen Leib")4 set her apart from the ordinary. As Nietzsche was to point out later in the nineteenth century, the aristocracy claims its right to rule by its distinctiveness from "allem Niedrigen, Niedrig-Gesinnten, Gemeinen und Pobelhaften," what he called the "Pathos der Vornehmheit und Distanz, [...] das dauernde und dominierende Gesamt- und Grundgefuhl einer hoheren herrschenden Art im Verhaltnis zu einer niederen Art, zu einem 'Unten'" (Zur Genealogie 185). Primislaus knows that this woman stands above him on the social ladder and as a result of the feelings she has stirred in him, whether they be of love or, from a more cynical point of view, of desire for social advancement, or a combination of both, he faces a dilemma created by class distinction, a distance also apparent in the impersonal manner he employs to depict the rescue: "eines Weibes leuchtende Gewande" (5). The sense of excitement his soliloquy conveys intimates that despite his humble credentials, he still harbours the audacity to hope as he in retrospect confesses to Libussa in the fourth act (1610). The audience's visual introduction to the titular heroine " in landlicher Tracht aus der Hiitte tretend" (p. 277) suggests an affinity with this unpretentious ambience in contrast to the sophisticated garments laid out to dry, and her initial words only serve to reinforce this impression: "Hier bin ich, und verwandelt wie du siehst. / Des Bauern Kleider hiillen minder warm nicht / Als eines Fiirsten Rock; in so weit, merk' ich, / Sind sie sich gleich" (17-20). In this meeting

14 Act One

between the two classes, she immediately appears quite openminded: in comparing the outer shells from the point of practicality, she sees no difference. Already, this scene, both in its visual and verbal content, signals the feasibility of convergence on an equal ("gleich") basis between these representatives of the nobility and peasantry,5 but her speech also tends to underscore the social obstacles, even though it may seek on one level to deny them. Class distinction may pose less of a problem for her than it does for Primislaus: it costs her little to adopt this stance, smacking of condescension, since she occupies the dominant position. Interpreting in part the significance of Libussa's peasant dress, Lorenz maintains, "Indem Primislaus Libussa in die Bauerntracht seiner Schwester hiillte und sie der Abzeichen ihres Ranges sowie des miitterlichen Bildes aus der Spange beraubte, hat er sie ihrer Herkunft und ihrer Identitat entaufiert" ("Neubewertung" 37). Lorenz is more explicit in her 1986 monograph where she states, "Er [zieht] ihr die Kleider seiner Schwester an" (Grillparzer 184). Her antipathy for the ploughman is readily understandable, but on occasion she allows her dislike to colour her judgement as in the above quotations. Having retrieved an unknown noble woman from the water, can he realistically be expected to leave her in her wet clothing or to have at hand an outfit more in keeping with her station in life? He merely offers her his sister's "Bauerntracht" which she exchanges for her own wet attire (minus the shoes and the veil which remain outside) within his cottage as the text indicates: "LIBUSSA in lUndlicher Tracht aus der Htitte tretend: I Hier bin ich, und verwandelt wie du siehst" (17). She has done the dressing herself in the privacy of the cottage while Primislaus impatiently waits for her outside, as decorum would dictate, and imagines how his sister's clothes will cover, i.e., future tense ("werdet [...] umhullen") her body. Her country costume does have an obvious symbolic, visual function; however, her wearing it is a matter of fortuity rather than design and whereas Primislaus may steal her jewel, he does not deprive her of the "Abzeichen ihres Ranges": he returns them to their rightful owner once they have presumably dried out: "Dein Schleier und die schimmernden Gewande, / In denen ich den Fluten dich entriJS, / Hier eingebunden tragts des Pferdes Riicken" (261-3). In his epithet to address her, Primislaus persists in drawing attention to the separating distance: "Du Hohe, Herrliche! / Wie zierst du diese landlich niedre Tracht!" (20-1), while she has raised the possibility of ignoring it and has even expressed an outlook in keeping with his practical bent. Later in the drama he claims, "Bist du am

15 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

offenbarsten wenn verhullt / Und tragst die Krone wenn du sie verleugnest" (1771-2). From his perspective she cannot hide her royal aura, her inherent preeminence, even in a peasant outfit. Lorenz has overstated her case when she asserts: "Bereits in den scheinbar idyllischen Anfangsszenen fallen auf seiten Primislaus' Besitzgier und Mangel an Achtung vor der fremden, vornehmen Frau auf. Er mochte Libussa sofort zu seinesgleichen, ja Geringerem als seinesgleichen, zu einer Frau seines Standes, zu seiner Frau, seinem Eigentum, machen. [...] Obwohl diese [lines 25-7] und andere Worte eine Bemiihung Libussas darstellen, eine Entfernung zwischen sich und den in ihr Leben eingebrochenen Fremden zu setzen, iibersieht Primislaus taktlos derartige Versuche und halt seinerseits die Distanz moglichst klein" ("Neubewertung" 36-7). At the beginning of the scene, Libussa is the one to break down the barriers; Primislaus harps upon them. He faces, after all, quite a predicament: on the one hand he clearly feels physically attracted to her - she is a beautiful woman - but on the other he cannot deny his awareness of the social distance separating them. The critics have generally ignored or given only passing reference to the motif of love across the class barrier. While Florack implicitly acknowledges its importance in the early stages, she sees it as incidental later in the tragedy: "Nebensachlich jedoch wird die soziale Differenz zwischen den Antagonisten, wenn sich Primislaus im Verlauf der Handlung damit begniigt, dafi Libussa seinem Weiblichkeitsideal ahnlicher wird" (242). However, the very last line of the work plays on the same separation with which Libussa began: "Das Hohe schied, sein Zeichen sei hienieden" (2513). Also, Florack's view that the love interest functions "die Standesproblematik zu iiberdecken" (242) fails to apprec ate how, from the beginning to the end, the "Standesproblematik" puts a strain on their relationship and complicates the "Liebesmotiv" and the wider social issues. The omission or deemphasizing of this dynamic not only does Primislaus an injustice but also does not take into full account the subtle play between the sexes which Grillparzer was such a master at suggesting. The direct allusion to his late sister and to her reincarnation through Libussa as she enters in the dead girl's attire strikes a sincere note despite the ulterior motive of the flattering comparison (24). The fact that he also mentions his recent loss in his monologue during Libussa's absence, i.e., with no one to impress, gives his words a ring of genuineness by virtue of the implied tenderness for a departed loved one and does provide an explanation for the immediacy and urgency of his pursuit of the strange woman which goes beyond the

16 Act One

overtly sexual. After death has separated him from a close family member, he must now relinquish her again in the person his mind has cast as a surrogate. Libussa's spontaneous response is to show gratitude and to acknowledge him as her saviour: "Auch fur die Kleider Dank! du mein Erretter!" (25), but she then proceeds to minimize the significance of his heroic deed: "Wenn Rettung ja wo die Gefahr nicht grofi. / Ich half mir selbst, glaub nur! erschienst du nicht" (26-7). As in her opening utterance of the play, "Nein", she declares her independence, refusing to assume the part of the helpless female. Adamantly she seeks to avoid incurring a debt, an obligation, which can easily become a form of servitude.6 When he shows concern for her present physical well-being, she denies him again: "Ich hab' geruht, nun ruft mich ein Geschaft" (31) and refrains from going along with his solicitous attitude. Not one to be easily discouraged, Primislaus tries again to offer assistance only to be rebuffed by another "Nein" (32) and, just four lines later in the dialogue, she once more contradicts him: "Dort nicht" (36). The persistence with which she avoids any show of reliance and her constant denials, either direct or implied, may denote a strong, conscious resistance to a repressed attraction to this man. As Ehrhard has proposed, "Und nicht aus Undankbarkeit spricht sie [Libussa] so, sondern sie wehrt sich gegen eine Neigung, die ihr Retter einflofit" (506). Lorenz misses the point: "Gleich im ersten Akt ist das Verhaltnis zwischen Libussa und ihrem zukunftigen Gatten feindselig und ohne jede 'Innigkeit'" ("Neubewertung" 36). Indeed, reticence - there is no evidence of hostility frequently masks the very intimacy Lorenz would deny this scene. As Volkelt remarked back in 1888, "Die Tragodie erhalt ihren Zauber erst durch das zwischen Libussa und Primislaus stattfindende Liebesspiel" (67). The dialogue contains further indications of her apparent control of the present situation: "Du [Libussa] hast den Ort bezeichnet, der dein Ziel. / Geleiten sollt' ich zu drei Eichen dich" (33-4). She has already expressed her wish, if not her command, before she entered his cottage, and the "Ziel" designates a resolve; she does not normally flow with the tide. In the face of her laconic replies suggesting her fear of further involvement, he must "dig" for information. While her objective is to leave as soon as possible in order to attend to urgent domestic matters, his is somehow to guarantee a second meeting: "Und ich / Soil dort dem Ungefahr dich iibergeben, / Das niemals wohl uns mehr zusammenfuhrt?" (37-9). Ironically he anticipates Libussa's subsequent strategy since she does in fact leave their next encounter to chance: "Und iiberliefi dem Zufall derm / Ob sie

17 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

[the Wladiken] des Ratsels Ldsung dennoch fanden?" (792-3), an approach which this man of practical reason finds unacceptable.7 His choice of words, "dich iibergeben", divulges a sense of ownership on his part, as if he were required to surrender a possession or renounce a valid claim (cf. his earlier use of "Beute"). Libussa's response, taking the form of a proverbial statement, both summarizes and foretells their mutual fate: "Der Menschen Wege kreuzen sich gar vielfach / Und leicht begegnet sich Getrennter Pfad" (40-1). They seem to be constantly at odds, as the path each chooses proves to be different in nature and aims, and yet on occasion the two do meet, do reach a reconciliation of sorts in their common concern for the welfare of their people (although the means or method to that end diverge) and in the attraction they feel for one another. According to Lorenz, Libussa is "keine Liebeshandlung [...] sondern der Machtkampf zweier verschieden gearteter Herrschergestalten" ("Neubewertung" 35), but a love story, given the chemistry of some physical relationships (cf. Kleist's Penthesilea as an extreme example), can frequently represent a struggle for dominance and an extreme reluctance to expose one's vulnerability, a lesson the eternal bachelor Grillparzer knew only too well from personal experience. "Getrennter Pfad," appearing in the emphatic final position, stresses the realization that despite occasional concurrence, their final position will be one of separation: the crossings will be few and temporary. The text would thus seem to recognize the inevitability of disjunction, whether between male and female, patriarchy and matriarchy, com munity and individual, or a nineteenth- and eighteenth-century political ideal. Ultimately, notwithstanding their feelings for one another, each of the main protagonists will go his/her separate way. Libussa's aphorism may also attempt to conceal a specific interest in her interlocutor behind a generalization.8 Despite all the disqualifications contained in "Getrennter" - divisions of sex or social status - she still holds open the prospect of a future meeting, indeed presents it as even likely ("vielfach"; "leicht"). Hence, Wolf-Cirian's analysis of Libussa's attitude does not do her full justice: "Primislaus gegeniiber ist sie durchaus von herber Verschlossenheit, von ablehnender Haltung. Ihren Sinnen ist der Mann gleichgiiltig, [...] und die Huldigung, die ihr Primislaus entgegenbringt, gleitet, ohne jeglichen Eindruck auf ihre Eitelkeit zu machen, von ihrer stolzen, gefursteten Natur ab" (249-50). Encouraged by Libussa's concession, Primislaus exhibits bluntness or lack of tact, but also some deference when he asks for permission to sue for her hand in marriage: "Du bist kein Weib um das man werben konnte?" (42), an unambiguous expression of his honourable intentions. Since a negative interrogative

18 Act One

normally anticipates a negative answer, what he has been consistently receiving from her, his query betrays a lack of confidence: given the visible signs of social distinction, an imbalance in her favour, he solicits her counsel. In this instance she does not say no directly, opting for a milder form of denial which credits him with insight: "Du hasts erraten" (43). Anxious to know the exact cause of ineligibility, he seeks to confirm the obvious: "Und, verbeuts dein Stand, / Sinds andre Griinde, die's verbieten?" to which she replies, "Beides" (43-4). As has become the norm, he singles out the class issue, but significantly neither speaker alludes directly to his or her own personal feelings as the disqualifying factor, and she intimates that she has no or very little say in the matter, i.e., she does not enjoy the luxury of being able to follow her own inclinations. Although she acknowledges her dependence upon social conventions, her lack of control over her matrimonial destiny, a scenario partly confirmed by the tragedy, the audience already has sufficient evidence of an independent, spirited woman who does not wish to be beholden to anyone. Yet in an image which invites the spectator to interpret her words on a more symbolic level and in a prophetic vein, she commands her host, "gedenke deines Worts / Und fiihre mich aus dieses Waldes Schliinden / Zum Ziel meines Weges, das du kennst" (45-7). While sufficiently in control of the current situation to issue two orders, one of which reminds him that as a gentleman he must fulfil his word, she still concedes, albeit somewhat theatrically, the need for his protection and his guidance if she is to attain her goal; significantly she cannot reach it on her own. Moreover, as Primislaus's reaction makes evident - "Wohl, du gebeutst und ich mufi dir gehorchen" (48) - he recognizes the obedience he owes her both as the magnanimous rescuer of the beautiful demoiselle in distress but also as an obscure peasant before an illustrious lady. Even though by rights Libussa should be in his debt - he did retrieve her from the water and provide shelter and clothing - she comes across as the dominant party. Taking his cue from Libussa's phrase "Getrennter Pfad" (41), Primislaus now transforms the "drei Eichen" (34) into "TrennungsEichen" (51) repeated for emphasis (52). The number three appears as well in the three Wladiken, or the three sisters or the three belts. It expresses "sufficiency, or the growth of unity within itself", especially since it "represents the solution of the conflict posed by dualism" (Cirlot 232). Libussa supports this symbolic meaning since the three Wladiken form an almost indistinguishable unity, a self-serving sufficiency in the unanimity of their views while the sisters forgo this harmony, becoming a duality of sorts, i.e., Tetka/Kascha versus

19 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

Libussa once the latter abandons the fold ("Der Kreis getrennt" [382]). The number three does pose a threat for Primislaus in his pursuit of the queen, as the never completely severed link to her two sisters creates an ever present tension between him and her. But above all he becomes himself the great separator who, unwittingly or by conscious design, destroys the illusion of oneness either within the self or with the natural world (cf. 23201). The theme of separation achieves a culmination when Primislaus alludes to the fate of Libussa's belt towards the end of the opening scene: "Des Giirtels reiche Ketten aufgesprengt / Und in zwei Stiicken ein so schemes Ganze. I Ich samml' es dir und trag' es dienend nach, / Bis an dem Ort der Trennung du's erhaltst" (55-8). On the most general level the belt or its later variation as a necklace reflects "das Grofie Runde" (Neumann) symbolizing the sheltering, protective function associated with the elementary character of the Feminine (cf. Libussa's mission to save her father). In this instance, however, the divided belt announces both the loss of unity within herself and the forfeiture of innocence or virginity, a message intended by the dramatist9 and first highlighted by Dunham: "[T]he belt, while symbolizing family solidarity and the life of contemplation, stands also for chastity"(37).10 This convergence of two paths: "Der Menschen Wege kreuzen sich gar vielfach" (40), a crossroads in Libussa's life, will have far-reaching repercussions and implications as subsequently visualized by Kascha: "Sie ist in jener Lagen einer, sprichts mir, / Aus denen Gliick und Ungliick gleich entsteht, / Am Scheideweg von Seligkeit und Jammer" (282-4), another play on separation occasioned by "des Vaters Scheiden" (887). Thus the "Ort der Trennung" will mark not only a temporary parting from Primislaus but also a more permanent parting from a whole way of life: "Nur vorwarts fuhrt das Leben," she will come to realize, "ruckwarts nie" (386). As soon as Libussa leaves the stage to retrieve her basket, Primislaus takes advantage of her absence to ensure a reunion: "Ich will ein Zeichen nehmen meiner Tat, / Daran ich sie, sie mich dereinst erkennt, / Derm sie verhehlt, ich seh's, mit Fleifi ihr edles Selbst" (65-7). Later in the first act, one of Kascha's aphorisms: "Die Liebe kniipft sich gern an feste Zeichen" (377), intended as a criticism of Libussa, describes more accurately Primislaus's attitude, his insistence upon a concrete sign in response to the basic insecurity of a lover in the initial stages of a relationship and his/her need for a tangible guarantee. Despite Libussa's endeavour to minimize her deliverance at his hands, he persists in seeing it as granting him some right over her. Not only is he determined to remind her of this

20 Act One

debt to him, but he also desires to retain a token as a means to discover her identity. His choice of her jewel: "Das [Kleinod] 16s ich los und wahre mirs als Pfand" (71) achieves these objectives, but its forced removal from her belt conjures up the image of a rape, "Raub."11 Tradition depicts a woman's virginity as her most precious and most carefully guarded jewel (cf. Rhodope's diamond in Gyges und sein Ring). His act therefore signals his intention to "deflower" her and secure his claim.12 In an effort to downplay his offence, he stresses the jewel's relatively minor material merit but does concede its human worth: "wohl nicht reich zumeist, / Allein bepragt mit Bildern und mit Spriichen" (69-70). One can assume that the images and sayings possess a personal significance for its owner. From a practical point of view the jewel also provides the means to ascertain both her name and "Stamm und Haus und Stand" (72), a threefold reinforcement of her social ranking, his constant topic, if not obsession, throughout this episode. One should also bear in mind that the opportunity to steal the jewel only arises because Libussa has returned to his cottage to recover "ein Korbchen mit Krautern" (p. 279) symptomatic of her close connection to the natural world and of her practical concern for the physical welfare of her father, information to which the audience gains access in the next scene (81-4). Her gesture comes to reinforce our perception of her pragmatic orientation as intimated earlier in her comparison of peasant and noble attire (i8-2o).13 As this sequence concludes, she issues another command: "So komm!" (74) and moves towards his horse while he follows, "Libussas Gewande tragend" (p. 279). In this final visual image, he shows reverence by serving her, but by depriving her of her jewel, he demonstrates that he has a mind of his own. Already this "Vorspiel" bears evidence of the strong, individual wills of each of the main protagonists despite the limitations imposed by their respective sexual or social status: Libussa, as a semidivine princess, is supposed to remain aloof from mortal concerns and contacts, while Primislaus, as a humble farmer from the lowest social order, should know his place. A test of wills has begun, what Roe has fittingly called "an elaborate game, in which two equally proud individuals refuse to be the first to show any sign of weakness" (Introduction 227). There are some striking correspondences between this first scene from Libussa and the opening episode of Kleist's Prinz Friedrich von Hamburg where the titular hero describes his experience in the garden. The two expositions depend upon the tension between dream and reality: Primislaus's description of his state of mind: "Und wie ein Traumender nach seines Traums Entschwinden, / Frag' ich mich

21 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

selbst: wie wars? und weifi mich nicht zu finden" (62-3) approximates Homburg's upon his regaining consciousness: "Ich weifi nicht, [...] wo ich bin" (111). Griesmayer, in his analysis of the meaning of Primislaus's rescue of Libussa, maintains, "Das Traumhafte wird zum AnstoS, es zu verwirklichen [...] In diesem Streben nach Verwirklichung und Versicherung liegt die Bedeutung dieses Bildes [the deliverance from the stream]. Aus ihr wird sich alles kiinftige Handeln Primislaus' erklaren" (265). One could, of course, make the same claim for the dream sequence as it relates to Homburg's subsequent aspirations and actions, although Grillparzer's ploughman emerges as much more securely anchored in reality. In both instances the dramas associate female allurement with light in a nocturnal, wet setting: "Und weil die Nacht so lieblich mich umfing, / Mit blondem Haar [an allusion to the moonlight shining through the trees], von Wohlgeruch ganz triefend [i.e., dripping]" (Prinz Friedrich 120-1), all of which suggests the Eros-Thanatos theme. The two works thus convey an underlying drive for sexual union: "So legt ich hier in ihren [night's] Schofi mich nieder" (Prinz Friedrich, 123); "Gliickselige, ihr meiner Schwester Kleider, / Die sie getragen und mir sterbend liefi, / Ihr werdet dieser Hohen Leib umhullen" (13-15). Lacan's theory regarding the woman's meeting with the phallus, i.e., the law of the father, comes to mind: "The round, worshipped maternal body hides the disturbing darkness of the subject's origins and the wound that both penetration [presumably Primislaus had to reach down into the whirlpool to remove Libussa] and birth [immersion symbolizes a rebirth] leave behind on the virgin-whole-body of the woman. The woman does not come out unscathed from the encounter with the phallus [...] as it takes possession of her body ["Ich eile hin und fasse sie"] in order to deflorate [the removal of her jewel] and impregnate her" (Benvenuto/Kennedy 193). As a final parallel, Homburg and Primislaus, having forcefully removed a token, plan to use it to discover the identity of the woman who appeared to them in a dreamlike situation: "Das Ids' ich los und wahre mirs als Pfand, I Das Namen mir enthiillt" (71-2); "Bin Pfand [the glove] schon warfst du [das Gliick], im Voruberschweben, / Aus deinem Fiillhorn lachelnd mir [Homburg] herab [he actually snatched it away himself]" (359-60), and which they conceal next to their hearts as a sign of emotional commitment: "Er [Homburg] nimmt den Handschuh aus dem Kollett" (p. 644); "Er [Primislaus] steckt das Kleinod in den Busen" (p. 279). Although critics and audiences alike in the nineteenth century maligned the garden sequence in Prinz Friedrich and Hebbel even recommended its deletion, our own century has come to appreciate

22 Act One

its theatrical excellence and the dramatist's skill in introducing the basic motivations operative in the remainder of the play. Similarly, Libussa's "Vorspiel", called by its creator "vielleicht das Beste, was [er] geschrieben [hat]/' presents all the tragedy's major themes, including a power struggle and a love interest, captured in a visually effective and psychologically suggestive manner. Just as Prinz Friedrich returns to the garden to play out its last scene, Libussa looks back to its beginning in the concluding line which is made up of motifs introduced and developed in the first scene: "Das Hohe schied, sein Zeichen [the belts] sei hienieden" (2513). A short interlude, a continuation of the exposition to fill in more background for the audience, introduces Wlasta: "Dann kommt Wlasta mit einem Jagdspiefie bewaffnet" (p. 279). Whereas the opening scene presented a woman in traditional peasant dress emerging from a cottage, the symbol of female domesticity, the drama now highlights an Amazon, an aggressive, more masculine orientation in contrast to the usual feminine stereotype. This contributes to a blurring of the two well defined gender spheres, for according to the anthropologist Sanday, "Sexual separation for whatever reason creates two worlds - one male and one female - each consisting of a system of meaning and a program of behavior, almost like separate and distinct cultures. The male world focuses on such exclusively male activities as warfare and hunting" (109-10). By way of explanation Sanday proposes: "If there is a basic difference between sexes, other than the differences associated with human reproductivity, it is that women as a group have not willingly faced death in violent conflict. This fact, perhaps more than any other, explains why men have sometimes become the dominating sex" (210). Wlasta's initial stage appearance as a hunter thus calls the strict conventional sense of gender division into question. WLASTA Und nirgends Menschen? - Doch! Hier eine Hiitte. An die Ttire schlagend: Ihr drin im Hause! - Keine Antwort? Nachdem sie die Ttire geoffnet: Leer! (75-7)

Her first words are indicative of a blunt directness and her actions she does not knock at the door; she strikes it and then proceeds to open it herself - and give the impression of an assertiveness more in keeping with expected male behaviour. For the first time the audience hears Libussa's name; Dobromila juxtaposes it with her social status as "Fiirstin" (80-1), a verbal confirmation of the underlying assumption of the "Vorspiel." In addition

23 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

she justifies her mistress's absence from her usual environment and sets up an important association: "Einsam ging sie, / Nach Krautern suchend fur den kranken Vater" (81-2). Although Politzer concludes that Grillparzer had no knowledge of Johann Jakob Bachofen's Das Mutterrecht, published in 1861 (309-10), the playwright's inclusion of these details points to his awareness of the customary basis for the matriarchy. "If prior matriarchies did exist," Sanday observes, "they were probably a consequence of the evolution of plant domestication from the plant-gathering activities of women. This would have given women economic and ritual centrality and, hence, a primary voice in decision making ... . To conclude, the ascribed basis for female power and authority in the secular domain is found in a ritual orientation to plants, the earth, maternity and fertility" (120). The very decision to seek a practical cure for her father's illness denotes in advance her suitability to succeed him by assuming "das Amt der Hiiterin des Vaterlandes" (Bachmaier 739) and conveys a predisposition for the vita activa before her meeting with Primislaus: "So zeigt sie sich vorausbestimmt, die unniitze Beschaulichkeit aufzugzeben, um ins thatige Leben einzutreten" (Ehrhard 496).14 With another sudden change in locale to the sisters' castle at Budesch, the dramatist exploits the stars as a means of prophecy and as a subtle device to transmit an underlying sociopolitical message.15 Florack has provided an excellent interpretation of the meaning behind the various constellations (247-8) to which I would only add two further considerations. The lines, "Die Krone sinkt am Himmel und der Adler / Lenkt nach den Bergen seinen miiden Plug" (99100), may predict the death of Krokus, especially in the reference to the crown, but they may also connote the inevitable decline of an exhausted upper class ("Adler"). The vitality and cunning necessary to rule have passed on to another class embodied by Primislaus: "Die kluge Schlange droht mit fahlem Blinken" (114). Secondly, the observation, "Und auf dem Pfad der koniglichen Sterne / Folgt namenloses Volk zu weiter Feme" (115-6), may allude to the habitual dependence of the people upon the aristocracy for leadership. Being of an inferior order of life - "Fuchs, Fisch und Eidechs drangen / Die niedre Form dem edlen Vogel nach" (112-3) - the lower classes still need direction from above, a view expressed, needless to say, by a partisan of the governing hierarchy. Grillparzer's attitude towards the Adel as revealed in Libussa is problematic. The titular heroine and her sisters belong to the nobility, but one could also construe their status as prophets or seers living aloof from normal human intercourse as a metaphor for the isolation of the artist. On the other hand, the Wladiken, who now make their

24 Act One

noisy entry, provide a comic contrast to the three sisters: "Die Wladiken, bohmische Fiirsten, die den aristokratischen Standpunkt kompromiSlos vertreten und deshalb die Unterschiede von Adel und Burger erhalten wissen wollen, fungieren in ihrer Dreizahl als satirisches Pendant zu Libussa und ihren beiden Schwestern" (Bachmaier 740). Reminiscent of Wlasta in the previous sequence, Domaslav, the first to be heard, authoritatively demands, "Wo sind die Furstinnen? Bring mich vor sie!" (125). Obviously accustomed to having their own way, they show no hesitation to resort to the typical male expedient, force: "Sie miissen uns vernehmen, sei's mit Zwang" (132). Another of Domaslav's assertions inadvertently exposes their true priority: "Doch frommt es uns, es frommt dem ganzen Land" (129). What comes first in this spontaneous utterance is their own self-interest, then, as an afterthought, the good of the country. In their arrogance and egotism they associate their own well-being with that of the nation and, when thwarted, resort to sexist disparagement: "der Grund geniigt, / Dafi man den Schlummer stort, in dem ein Weib sich wiegt" (141-2). In the exchange with these caricatures - each allegedly embodies one quality (cf. 664-6) - Dobra easily gains the upper hand as she put the intruders in their place: "Am Tor der Einsicht tobt und larmt der Wilde, / Hort er am liebsten doch der eignen Worte Klang" (133-4), a truism expressed here at the expense of a self-centred aristocracy. She goes on to vindicate her mistresses: "Sie schlummern nicht, doch wenn in Schlaf versenket, / Ihr Traumen acht' ich mehr als was ihr Andern denket" (143-4). As a woman defending women, she posits their access to a higher spiritual dimension, but she also implies a preference for the unconscious over the conscious realm. Grillparzer portrays the revelation of psychological truth more in the former than in the latter since the self prefers to conceal and distort rather than confront an unpleasant reality. In this respect he anticipated his fellow Viennese, Freud, by more than half a century. As if to confirm Dobra's evaluation, the two sisters now enter already apprised of their father's fate and of Libussa's future decision to forsake their exalted sphere of meditation: "Ihr Platz ist dunkel in den sonn'gen Kreisen" (152). In the subsequent dialogue between Kascha and Tetka, the dramatist deals with the potential power of the human mind - its aptitude to will its own health but also its illness - and raises the issue of the extent to which we exercise control over our own mental lives. Tetka very perceptively observes that attitude or placebos can make a difference in the healing process, demonstrating Grillparzer's awareness of psychosomatic phenomena:

25 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy Wenn du den Kranken mit dem Besten frankest, Er stirbt, halt er fur Gift was du gebracht. Als Kriicke mag es sein dafi sie [Kascha's medical skills] noch leiste Fur schwache Seelen, die am Willen krank, In Wahrheit hilft doch nur der Geist dem Geiste, Er ist der Arzt, das Bette und der Trank. (169-74)

In other words a person cannot be cured unless he or she really wants to be cured. The sisters then turn to the consequences of Krokus's death for themselves: KASCHA TETKA

Nun aber ist er tot, wir sind verwaist. Bist du verwaist? ich nicht. Ich seh' ihn noch, Nicht wie zuletzt in seiner Schwachheit Banden. Ehrwiird'ger Greis, war Greis er immer doch, Mir ist er als ein Jiingling auferstanden. (179-83)

Both women acknowledge a dependency upon the father, while Kascha confirms his continued presence beyond the grave. Parents embody the child's first object choices, but the relationship between father and daughter can be particularly strong as implied in this instance. According to Freud, "betrachten sich die Frauen als infantil geschadigt, ohne ihre Schuld um ein Stuck verkiirzt und zuriickgesetzt, und die Erbitterung so mancher Tochter gegen ihre Mutter hat zur letzten Wurzel den Vorwurf, dafi sie sie als Weib anstatt als Mann zur Welt gebracht hat" ("Einige Charaktertypen," 10: 235). The text rarely mentions the mother of the three daughters, but by contrast, their father, although not a participating dramatic character, still represents a force to be reckoned with. In "normal" development, the parent becomes a prototype transferred to other people; however, for Kascha and Tetka who remain cloistered in their castle, the father retains his dominant function. As a venerable old man, a personification of wisdom but also of traditional authority, he commanded their respect and even after death he still has considerable power over their respective destinies (the belts). His passing only appears to end his control, for as Tetka concedes, her mind has resurrected him in the shape of a young man, i.e., he has usurped the role of husband/mate. She has not really progressed beyond the idealprototype stage. In Libussa's case, one could argue that once she left the protective walls of the domestic stronghold, Primislaus merely took over where the father left off. The night of their meeting significantly marked Krokus's "Scheiden" (887).

26 Act One

The two sisters conduct this whole conversation as if the others present did not exist, a sign that they dwell in another world and have access to a different dimension: "Wir haben es gewufit, bevor es noch geschah" (186). As an additional indication of their self-centredness, Kascha and Tetka actually resent their father's involvement in politics, his commitment to others, and would have preferred him to have devoted himself fully to his daughters (1902). Social responsibilities took precedence over domestic obligations - he neglected his family - and even contributed to his early death: "Weil euer Trutz vergallt ihm jeden Tag, / Gab er dem Kummer sich und welkte hin, erlag" (193-4). The drama thus introduces the problem of leadership very early on, proposing that the defiance and recalcitrance of the ruled take their toll upon the personal life of the ruler. In both Libussa and Bin Bruderzwist the thankless task of governing proves fatal for its practitioners and in Die Jiidin the representatives of the state eliminate the royal concubine in an effort to bring the king back from personal indulgence to his social and political duty. In response to Tetka's complaint, Domaslav pleads, "Lafit das uns nicht entgelten, hohe Frauen, / Belohnt, mit dem wir nahn, das kindliche Vertrauen, / Vollendet was begann des Vaters hohes Haupt" (197-9). Speaking as an aristocrat, he implies that the desired leader should act as a father to his subjects. This model, typical of eighteenth-century thought, portrays the people as helpless children in need of care and direction, incapable of managing their own affairs, and hence prepared to trust their political fate to a caring parent. The wording deserves particular note since "das kindliche Vertrauen" will become the publicly proclaimed foundation of Libussa's regime at the end of this act: "In Zukunft herrscht nur Eines hier im Land: / Das kindliche Vertraun" (444-5). The fact that the overt villains of the tale, the Wladiken, exploit the same principle in seeking a female substitute for Krokus, one whom they plan to manipulate to serve their own selfish ends, casts a shadow upon its later reiteration in the mouth of the central character. Although Libussa's perception of how she will transform childlike trust into beneficial social reforms devised by her, from which all will benefit equally, runs counter to the intent of the Wladiken, far from representing "den Geist der bewufiten Demokratie" (Lorenz, "Neubewertung" 42), her political ideal owes much to her own class and its fear of the masses.16 When Domaslav proceeds to vindicate the sisters' incumbency, the eventual divergences manifest themselves: "Ihr stammet, wissen wir, von hohern Machten, / Wir sind ein dunkles Volk, unkundig in den Rechten; / Der Stab, der in Fiirst Krokus

27 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

Handen lag, / Wer, als sein eignes Blut, zu halten ihn vermag?" (2025). Aristocratic prejudice claims the divine right of the upper class to rule, symbolized in the images of light in antithesis to the dark, ignorant lower class and justified by the preservation of a pure line of descent. "Hinweise auf 'Zucht,' 'edles Blut' und 'hohe Geburt' und iiberhaupt die Vorstellung der Aristokratie als einer erblichen Klasse - alle diese Dinge sind Ausdruck des aristokratischen Anspruchs auf ihre biologische Besonderheit" (Kautsky 12). Whereas Libussa also sets herself apart, she does not place as much store in these noble values and clearly has no use for "Rechte" and the rod. The latter fills a double function: it announces the life-and-death jurisdiction of the monarch, his ability to protect - Thomas Hobbes defines political power in terms of the leader's competence in this area: "The Obligation of Subjects to the Sovereign, is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them" (114) - but closely related to this consideration, the "Stab," a phallic symbol, also reifies the ultimate and absolute authority of the father figure here extended to the social model of the monarchy. Patriarchal practice has designated sexual prowess as a mark of the male's worthiness to hold office. For instance, the king from Die Judin expresses his desire to dominate Rahel sexually by drawing an implied parallel between himself and the gentile Persian king Ahasverus who took Esther to wife and protected her people: "Von Ahasverus, der den Herrscherstab I Ausstreckte iiber Esther, die sein Weib / Und selber Jiidin, Schutzgott war den Ihren" (499-501). Domaslav, by stressing the rod in Krokus's hand, may well be betraying his wish to reign through one of the daughters, for the phallus denotes what the mother lacks in the relationship between parents and their children. If one is to believe Freud or his later defender, Lacan, "sexual difference can only be the consequence of a division, without this division it would cease to exist. But it must exist because no human being can become a subject outside the division into two sexes. One must take up a position as either a man or a woman" (Mitchell 6). From the drama's male perspective, the sisters will always lack that which confers the right to rule. When offered the Bohemian crown, Kascha reacts by outlining her realm, the traditionally female sphere of nature. Drawn to the organic world which continually evolves but lacks awareness, she repudiates the conscious level of advanced organisms such as human beings, because "Des Lebend'gen Dasein ist Tod" (212), or as Freud put it equally succinctly, "Das Ziel alles Lebens ist der Tod" ("Jenseits des Lustprinzips" 3: 248). With our knowledge of death's inevitability, we are from the outset mere "Leichen" (213). Unwilling to renounce

28 Act One

the power her affinity to nature provides - "Was Natur vermag und kann / Ist mir willig untertan" (209-10) - she refuses to leave her inner orientation: "Geht zu Andern mit euern Reichen, / Was ist mir gemein mit Euch?" (214-5) and thus substantiates an anthropological finding: "In societies where the forces of nature are sacralized ["SchloG der Schwester"], ... there is a reciprocal flow between the power of nature and the power inherent in women" (Sanday 4-5). Tetka also rejects the offer, but in order to preserve or pursue oneness in the face of the disintegration of the subject: "Was sein soil ist nur Bins, / Was sein kann ist ein Vieles, / Ich aber will sein einig und Bins" (217-19). At Lacan's mirror stage (the sisters' province as the vita contemplative^, the ego gains the impression of being autonomous and whole; however, this is only an illusion and the individual will persist in seeking an imaginary completeness throughout life, but in vain, since fragmentation or separation, the underlying message of Libussa, characterizes human existence (Benvenuto/Kennedy 61). Tetka wants to deny by an act of will the divisive nature of the "Real Order" which Lacan links to the dimensions of death and sexuality, the domain out there. Both sisters seek to avoid any contact with the external world: "Mein sonnig Reich strahlt hellres Licht, / Von mir! Ich mag eure Krone nicht!" (224-5), preferring to live in splendid isolation in their castle, excluded from any foreign disturbances. As commented upon earlier, Kascha disclaims death and, as for sexuality, Tetka has resurrected her father and transformed him into a young man, an unconscious surrogate, indicative of Krokus's continuing dictatorial influence over his female offspring. Lorenz interprets "Wells', p. 153, geringschatziges Abtun der geistigen Tatigkeit der Schwestern: 'Libussa's love for man raises her above the selfishness of her sisters'" as an example of "sexistisch[e] Vorurteile," a judgment which strikes me as patently unfair and not supported by the text. The sisters come across as condescending, arrogant, and totally caught up with themselves: "Was ist mir gemein mit Euch?" (215) or "Mein sonnig Reich strahlt hellres Licht, / Von mir\ Ich mag eure Krone nicht!" (224-5) and prove indifferent to the welfare of the people: "LAPAK So lafit ihr uns derm hilflos und verwaist!" (226). This line echoes Kascha's earlier utterance: "Nun aber ist er [Krokus] tot, wir sind verwaist" (179). The sisters are able to overcome their loss - they see their father's death only as it relates to themselves - by resorting to the imaginary dimension, to the prototype of the typical narcissistic relationship of the child before the mirror captivated by its own image, and by shunning the unpleasantness of the external world: "Nutzen und Vorteil zahlen, / Aus Wahrheit und Luge wahlen, / Recht erdenken das kein Recht, /

29 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy Dafur sucht einen Siindenknecht" (220-3).17 Whereas Krokus's death actually orphaned the sisters, Lapak's exclamation (226) assumes the parental model of the monarchy discussed previously. Krokus, as a signifier of a social system, embodied a means of signification for his subjects. Indeed, they prove unable to function adequately unless the semiotic order is upheld and a new symbolic head appointed. This scene concludes fittingly with the sisters and their entourage forming a closed circle and donning their black veils after having condescendingly sent away the Wladiken and the people to satisfy their common material needs, "Speis' und Trank," "was sie am meisten lockt" (234-5). Nun aber ihr! Stellt euch ringsum, senkt cure diistern Schleier, Und feiert still und trauernd das Gedachtnis Des edlen Manns, der unsern Kreis verliefi. Nacht um uns und Dunkel, Damit in uns es Licht! (238-43) Both words and gestures show their concerted bid to blot out the Real Order: they retreat to an introspective, solipsistic realm of inner light in order to deal with the darkness of death. While Krokus may have died, he has not really left their domain, for as we shall ascertain, they still wear his chastity belts as a sign of his continuing control despite his physical absence. This episode also contains accents of the Lord's address to the archangels in the "Prolog im Himmel" from Goethe's Faust: Doch ihr, die echten Gottersohne, Erfreut euch der lebendig reichen Schone! Und was in schwankender Erscheinung schwebt, Befestigt mit dauernden Gedanken. (344-5; 348-9) The Lord discriminates between the spiritual, ideal level embodied by a lofty coterie of archangels and the material, real world represented by Mephistopheles. A similar degree of aloofness, an attempt to ignore "wie sich die Menschen plagen" (Faust 280) by indulging in metaphysical meditation characterizes both works. The dramatist has set up the next scene as a contrast. Even though a common darkness ("Es ist noch dunkel" [p. 286]) connects the two scenes, the specific visual figuration projects a very different message: "Primislaus tritt auf, ein weifies Rofi am Zugel fiihrend, auf dem

30 Act One

Libussa sitzt" (p. 286). The audience's last view of the two sisters had them trying to exclude physical reality; Libussa now appears in peasant dress in the company of a man and obviously involved in life. "Von ihren theoretisch-spekulariven Schwestern hebt sich Libussa durch ihren praktischen Sinn ab. Sie laCt sich mit der Welt ein" (GeiSler, 116). Whereas the sisters veiled themselves (p. 286), she moves openly in the world. (Her veil is part of the bundle on the horse's back.) Primislaus, walking as she rides, pays homage to her - she is literally more exalted (altus equals high; cf. his opening salutation: "Du Hohe, Herrliche!" [20]) - but he leads the way or retains control. Historians have hypothesized that the association of the aristocracy with height to signal social distinction may be derived from the nobleman's affiliation with the horse, which he alone could afford and from whose back he could talk down to the peasant. The aristocrat is the "Eioberer" and the peasants "ihm unterworfen" (Kautsky, 12). One can ascertain this close rapport between the upper class and the horse in the words used to designate the highborn knight: eques, Ritter, chevalier, caballero or cavalier (Kautsky 8). These considerations add to the complications and the extraordinary nature of the budding liaison between Libussa and Primislaus, for in this case the Ritter is a female aristocrat and a Bauer owns the palfrey These stage directions also prefigure their relationship in the fifth act: although he portrays himself as her agent and defers to her (19528), in actual fact, he supplies the real political direction, (1959-61), institutes a specific policy or goal, and runs the country while she has become a figurehead. Accentuating his obedience to her word, he once more attempts to elicit the merest vestige of interest on her part as a consequence of her increased obligation to him. As usual, Libussa is curt: "Sei drum bedankt" (246), but again this may signal an effort to disguise her emotional involvement by a terse, businesslike response: she hides behind formality. The audience has just witnessed a scene that ended with the mourning of a "Scheiden," the separation of the living from the dead, and Primislaus raises another variation of the same theme when he asks, "Nun soil ich von dir scheiden, dich verlassen, / Dich nie mehr wiedersehn vielleicht?" (247-8); indeed, he resorts to this same verb four times in this episode, three of which occur in the emphatic final position. While this obvious harping upon parting conveys the urgency of his desire to maintain some connection with this unknown woman, it also reflects the general note of separation and disintegration - death being the ultimate dissolution - typical of the tragedy as a whole. In this particular context, a well known French expression comes to mind, one which also ties in with the

31 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

previous incident: "Partir, c'est mourir un peu." The poem by Edmond Harancourt from which the line is taken goes on to claim, "C'est mourir a ce qu'on aime. / On laisse un peu de soi-meme / En toute heure et dans tout lieu."18 The idea of leaving something of one's self both in the literal (jewel/horse) and figurative sense plays a significant part for both Libussa and Primislaus. The "vielleicht" he tacks on to the end of his question indicates that he is "clutching at straws," anxious for her to make a small concession, anything to keep his hopes alive. During courtship at least, the female enjoys some influence since she can always decline the male's suit. Libussa shows a willingness to humour him with her succinct concession, "Vielleicht" (248), as it does leave open the possibility of a future reunion. Her response thus emboldens Primislaus to pose his question a second time: "Du bist kein Weib um das man werben konnte?" (249), further proof of his "Beharrlichkeit." He stubbornly persists in his attempt to establish a physical link, maintaining that he would always recognize her, even in the dark - an indirect form of flattery - but "would she recognize him?" (252) On the basis of his acquaintance with her up to this point, he remains understandably unsure of her feelings towards him and thus requests a sign: "Im Dunkel fand ich dich, im Dunkel scheid' ich. / Gib mir ein Zeichen dran du mich erkennst / Wenn ich dich wiederseh'" (2535). Coming as it does upon the heels of his renewed campaign to obtain permission to court her, this speech underscores by repetition the ominous Liebestod prelude to their relationship with its accent upon night and "Scheiden." As both Freud and Lacan point out, "Desire persists as an effect of a primordial absence [the failure of the child to find complete satisfaction] and it therefore indicates that ... there is something fundamentally impossible about satisfaction itself" (Mitchell, 6). Therefore, the text's persistent allusions to separation, absence, or division suggest the illusory nature of the romantic belief that one sex could ever complement or fulfil the other, the insight of a dramatist who studied women closely but avoided any lasting connection. Primislaus is the one to insist upon a visible token of commitment, if only implied - in fact the audience knows that he has already acquired his "Zeichen" by stealth - while Libussa fails to see the need: "Es ist nicht notig" (255). Ostensibly a suitable keepsake will promote her remembrance of him, should their paths cross again, but in practice he wants something concrete as a hold over her, as a reminder of her indebtedness to him. Die Jildin contains a parallel; only the gender roles are reversed. Both Primislaus and Rahel go against the specific will of his/her partner: Libussa declines to provide

32 Act One

a memento and the king insists Rahel return the painting. The instigators want to preserve a link to guarantee the eventual resumption of an incipient relationship and to this end choose an object (Kleinod/ Bild) symbolic of their sexual control over the queen/king. When Primislaus tries to discover her future reaction to the scenario he has intentionally stagemanaged by stealing her jewel, he does not receive the reassuring response for which he has been fishing: "Bring es hierher, ich werde darnach senden / Und 16s' es gern um Gold und jeden Preis" (258-9). She cannot be said to encourage his advances, as she insultingly offers to pay for his services. Out of wounded pride that she could misjudge him so, he retorts abruptly, "Fur mich ist Gold kein Preis. So lafi uns scheiden!" (260). This is the first of several misunderstandings that cloud their association since both protagonists set little personal store by material wealth.19 His exclamation: "So laC uns scheiden!" registers what he assumes to be an incompatibility, i.e., he can have little respect for someone who covets gold, the Geldsackgesinnung more typical of the nineteenthcentury middle class, "des Burgers Hand, des Kramers, Maklers, / Der alien Wert abwagt nach Goldgewicht" (Bruderzwist 1239-40). She underestimates him by supposing he can be bought with gold and likewise he misreads her by assuming she holds wealth in high esteem. The play illustrates how easily misconceptions can arise in the initial stages of a courtship where both parties, being particularly sensitive and thus readily hurt, evince a reluctance to expose their true feelings, to render themselves vulnerable; hence the issue of finding common ground becomes all the more difficult. Attention now focuses once more upon her belt: Nur eine Kette noch, es war dein Giirtel, Der unter meiner Retterhand zerstiickt, Doch fug' ich neu die goldnen Hakenglieder, Neig mir dein Haupt und trag den neuen Schmuck. Libussa senkt ihr Haupt, er hangt ihr die Kette um den Hals. (264-7)

Primislaus transforms her "Giirtel," symbolic of chastity, into a "Kette." It broke when he seized her - his formulation "Retterhand" again draws attention to his heroic deed - and therefore foreshadows her eventual loss of virginity to him; however, in a figurative sense she has already forgone her innocence because this chance encounter has removed her from her accustomed environment, a change manifested in her peasant costume. He has fashioned the new modification of the belt, a chain, and appropriately so, for he bears much of the responsibility for her becoming a ruler. She will be tied to a new earthly function and its obligations, i.e., the chains of office. Viewed

33 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

as a "Gnadenkette," a symbol of terrestrial authority, it provides an omen that she will accept the Bohemian crown. When he commands her to lower her head to receive the belt in its new form, she obeys,20 a visual demonstration of a symbolic subjugation and a sign of her sexual dependence upon him. (The "Kette" performs the identical function in Die Judin.) In many male-dominated societies, a woman's chastity belongs to the man as the jealously guarded property of the father, the ownership of which he passes on to the husband. (Even today the father gives his daughter in marriage.) The casting of Libussa in the role of the victim continues in an exchange which, however brief in terms of her participation, still suggests a degree of "Innigkeit" which Lorenz finds lacking in their relationship: PRIMISLAUS So zier' ich dich du Schone, Hehre, Hohe; Fur wen? ich weifi nicht; ists doch nicht fur mich. Und so leb wohl! LIBUSSA Auch du! (268-70)

He views his gesture as a mark of his respect, what Griesmeyer calls "[d]as ehrfurchtige Bild des Hohen" (265) (the adjectives "Hehre, Hohe" again highlight the class distinction), but his description also strongly implies the adorning of a sacrificial lamb (another anticipation of the fifth act), here the dressing of a woman before her wedding. The fact that the embellishment is designed to please a man - he regrets not being that fortunate male - again signals her dependent status, i.e., he decorates her not for her own sake but rather for someone else. The anonymous consort remains the main player even if Primislaus cannot be that individual. His final speech of the scene reminds the audience that all of this takes place at a crossroad, a "Scheideweg von Seligkeit und Jammer" (284), to use Kascha's prophetic phrase from the next sequence: Nur noch drei Schritte. Dort teilt, von selber kennbar, sich der Weg Und leicht gelangst du wieder zu den Deinen, Wenn du den Waldpfad rechts nur sorglich meidest, Die du, ein Marchen, kamst, und eine Wahrheit scheidest. Das Pferd leitend: Vertrau dem Pferd, es tragt dich gut und sicher. Beide ab. (270-75)

Scheiden in the form of Entscheiden signifies a decision and the image of the "Scheideweg" has from the earliest times denoted the need to choose one of two options - in the case of Hercules, for instance,

34 Act One

either virtue or pleasure21 - and the choice inevitably proves to be both far reaching and irrevocable. In a very real sense this has already occurred, as the crucial decisions in Libussa's life have been made without her awareness. Her own caring personality is partly to blame: it brought her down into the world to save her father, and Primislaus's unsolicited intrusion and his theft of the jewel will have serious repercussions: she can no longer return "zu den Deinen." The warning to avoid the "Waldpfad" comes too late. The first scene opened in an "Offnlem] Platz im Walde" (p. 277), and Primislaus's cottage from which she emerged stands in close proximity to "dieses Waldes Schlunden" (46). Already wearing the attire of this ambience, she has conceded how comfortable she feels in it. She came to him as if from a fairy-tale, i.e., such providential intervention or her rich dress as a fairy queen belongs to the supernatural realm of her remote sisters. The tragedy may be regarded as an ironic, self-reflective text, one consciously singling out its own implausibility, the fantastical dimension or the folklore sources of the tale: the peasant and the princess, the miraculous rescue from the water (Melusine in reverse). But the mythical has become real for him, has become a flesh-andblood person whom he desires and on whom he wishes to stake a claim. Two lines from Die Jiidin play on the same tension and cast additional light on Primislaus's enigmatic pronouncement: in speaking of the Jewish tradition as recorded in the Old Testament, Alphons mentions, "Samt all der Marchenwelt, die Wahrheit auch / Von Kain und Abel, von Rebekkas Klugheit" (495-6). Fairy-tales or myths have yielded a rich store of universal truths or archetypes for literary and psychological enquiry. And finally the gesture of leading the horse and her mounted departure illustrate his continuing control over her fate - the palfrey becomes an extension of Primislaus and his bond to her - and raises the issue of trust: she should have faith in his intent to care for her and should rely on his directions, a further foreshadowing of the last act. Trust or its absence will indeed become an obstacle to their relationship since he has already abused her confidence. When in the subsequent scene Kascha gives evidence of her sibyllie gift by her reference to Libussa at the crossroads, she also provides evidence of being privy to specific details of the meeting between her sister and Primislaus: "Horch! Spricht ein Mann?" (285); "Allein sie ist begleitet" (286). This device informs the audience that the two scenes are not sequential, but take place simultaneously, thereby enhancing the contrast between them. It is no accident that the text consistently relates the two sisters to their castle, a well established metaphor for a woman's virginity.22 While the Wladiken

35 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy and the people force ("dringen ... herein" [p. 282]) their way into the "Vorhof," they never gain admittance to the inner sanctum. Libussa now reappears: "Sie hat einen zueiflen Mantel iibergeworfen und ein Federbarett aufdem Kopfe. Wlasta und Dobromila gewaffnet hinter ihr" (p. 288). Sensing the inappropriateness of her dress, she mantles it. Her conscious desire is to return to her sisters, but under the surface lies indisputable proof that another way of life has touched her. Kascha's visionary eye saw her involved with a man and, interestingly enough, the outward semblance of this entry evokes typically masculine features: the cap with its feather, a notorious phallic symbol associated with the rake, and two armed servants suggest the dominant, aggressive male. She sends the horse back "zu den drei Eichen" (300), instructing the servant to reimburse its owner if he will accept payment; in other words, she still tries to discharge her obligation. But of particular interest is her amazingly succinct summary of what has transpired in her two scenes with the ploughman: "Im Wald verirrt, nicht Wegesspur, noch Fuhrer, / Ein GieSbach wollte sich das Ansehn geben / Als sei er fiirchterlich. Da kam mir Hilfe" (305-7). She clearly downplays its importance. "Die Demut," Politzer maintains, "die sie am Ende den Menschen predigen will, ist zu Beginn die Sache dieser Libussa nicht" (309). He assumes that the danger she faced was genuine: "das Sturzwasser, das ihr beinahe den Garaus gemacht hatte" (309). Although unwilling to admit it, she might well have been in jeopardy, but we do not know this with any certainty, especially in view of the dramatist's own comments cited earlier. One could also interpret her account as dictated by modesty: she does not wish to play for effect by overstating the seriousness of the threat. However, what is striking is her failure to furnish any details about her helper and "Fuhrer." Instead she employs an impersonal construction to conceal male assistance which would doubtlessly raise eyebrows in this miniature matriarchy. According to her formulation, the source of help need not even have been a person. Once Libussa obtains confirmation of Krokus's death, she completes the exposition by filling in the remaining details as to why she left her dying father's side: In all der Zeit Als ich an seinem Bette safi und wachte, Da schwebte vor den Augen des Gemiits, Hatt' ichs gehort nun, oder wufit' ichs sonst, Das Bild mir einer Blume, weifi und klein, Mit siebenspalt'gem Kelch und schmalen Blattern; Die gib dem Vater, sprachs, und er genest. (309-15)

36 Act One

Later in the tragedy in response to Primislaus's riddle, she will assert in words equally applicable to the present anecdote, "Das ist nun wohl des Ostens Blumensprache, / Die traumend redet mit geschloSnem Mund" (1294-5). Female wisdom, "Sophia-Weibliche," achieves, according to Neumann, "als Bliite die hochste sichtbare Form seiner Entfaltung" and remains, in contrast to male abstraction, "an die irdische Grundlage der Wirklichkeit gebunden" (305). At the bed of her father, the eyes of the mind disclosed the truth of the unconscious,23 the realm of the Other - hence the three instances of the impersonal pronoun "es." This reverie, availing itself of "Blumensprache," focuses on the little white flower with its open, sevenpetalled calyx surrounded by narrow leaves. The vessel, cup, or chalice denotes one of the most widespread manifestations of the female archetype, "das alles enthaltende Grofie Runde" (Neumann, 205). "Von Anbeginn an und bis zu den spatesten Stadien der Entwicklung finden wir dieses archetypische Symbol als Inbegriff des Weiblichen. Die symbolische Grundgleichung Weib = Korper = Gefafi entspricht der vielleicht elementarsten Grunderfahrung der Menschheit vom Weiblichen, in der das Weibliche sich selber erlebt, in der es aber auch vom Mannlichen erlebt wird" (Neumann, 51). As Neumann goes on to explain, the experience of woman as the containing vessel has an obvious source: "Die Frau als Korpergefafi ist der natiirliche Ausdruck der Erfahrung, dafi das Weibliche das Kind in sich tragt, und dafi der Mann im Sexualakt 'in' sie 'eingeht'" (Neumann, 54). Libussa's imagery drawn from the unconscious, "die Mutter aller Dinge" (Neumann, 204), features other attributes of the Great Mother. Since the "Kelch" is an open vessel, it "verbindet den Elementarcharakter des Enthaltens mit dem des Nahrens. Dadurch, dalS die Symbole dieser Reihe [i.e., Gefa'S, Schale, Becher, Kelch, Gral] ihrer Natur und Form nach ... of fen sind ..., ist die Natur des Gebens, Spendens und Darreichens betont" (Neumann 57-8). Libussa's nourishing role, later captured in her self-portrait as the gardener - "Was euch die Gartnerin mit nachster Sorge, / Verteilend hilfreich NaC und Warm' und Schatten, / Kann niitzlich sein, das ist euch ja gewifi" (600-602) - manifests itself already in her desire to minister to her father and to give him the means to recover: "Die [the flower] gib dem Vater, sprachs, und er genest" (315). "[D]as Lebenselixier [behalt] den Charakter des Natursymbols, und das 'hochste Gut' tritt auf als Unsterblichkeits-Kraut [cf. "Libussa kommt zuriick, ein Korbchen mit Krautern tragend" (p. 279)] oder - Frucht, als Rauschtrank oder als Lebenswasser, als Edelstein oder als Perle, als Bliite oder als Kern" (Neumann, 69). Even the location of the sought-for elixir intimates the realm of "die Grofie Mutter," i.e., "In feuchten Griinden" (316)

37 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

and "Das Tal von Budesch" (317). "Teile dieses Bezirkes [i.e., "Bauch" and "SchoS der Erde"] sind ... die Symbole von Schlucht, Schlund und Abgrund ebenso wie von Tal und Tiefe, die in unzahligen Riten und Mythen die Rolle des Schofies der zu befruchtenden Erdregion spielen" (Neumann 55-6). The number seven also shares this symbolism since it represents the "perfect order, a complete period or cycle" (Cirlot 233) and an important relationship of "MondSymbolik" to the underworld: "Mond-Sieben, die archetypische Beziehung zur Erd- und Fruchtbarkeitsgottin" (Neumann 158). In other words Libussa offers herself vicariously to her father through the blossom which dwells "In feuchten Griinden" (316). This same image with a more explicit but equally illicit sexual connotation occurs in Die Jiidin during the king's imaginative invention of a hypothetical seduction: "Und Blumenkelche duften siifien Rausch / Bis nun der giinst'ge Augenblick erscheint" (46i-2),24 a scenario replete with erotic allusions. Moreover, folk tradition depicts a woman's chastity as her flower (cf. Jungfernkranz) and to deflower a girl is to rob her of her virginity. It follows that Libussa may well be voicing the forbidden urge to sleep with her father - she later confesses that she has sought in vain to find his equal for her mate: "Allein zu Lieb' und Ehe braucht es Zwei; / Und, sag' ichs nur, mein Vater, euer Fiirst, / War mir des Marines ein so wiirdig Bild, / Dafi ich vergebens seines Gleichen suche" (656-9). Therefore, the subsequent reference to "die unfreiwill'ge Schuld" (320) in the same speech in which the white flower surfaces could also bear upon the guilt she feels at this unconscious sexual fantasy: she may even consider her culpable desire as having led to the punishment of his death. Lorenz posits the source of her guilt in her meeting with Primislaus, a delay which may have cost her father's life (38), while Politzer proposes: "Diese Schuld besteht aber nicht darin, dafi sie suchte, sondern dafi sie sich finden liefi. Ein Etwas in ihr weifi und ahnt auch, dafi das Bild des toten Vaters mit dem des vitalen Pflugers in Konflikt geraten ist" (310). It is not so much a conflict as a succession since the latter usurps the vacant role of the former as ruler and possessor of her virginity (jewel). The text includes a number of possible phallic allusions in support of male dominance. Relatively early in the play, Domaslav, a speaker with a decided sexist outlook, announces the people's need to have a leader who can bear the "Stab, der in Fiirst Krokus Handen lag" (204). This sexual symbolism ties in significantly with the general thesis of separation. According to the Freudian/Lacanian model, initially during the phallic phase, the male and female child share the identical sexual history: both have a masculine orientation - the first

38 Act One

object of their desire is the mother - and both assume they possess the phallus which the mother wants. The advent of the castration complex "'makes' the girl a girl and the boy a boy, in a division that is both essential and precarious" (Mitchell, 7). The forbidding agent, the one who by his presence as the bearer of the phallus, gives rise to the differentiation and thus separates the sexes into those who have and those who do not-have the phallus,25 is the father, the embodiment of the law. Eagleton summarizes: "The little girl, perceiving that she is inferior because 'castrated/ turns in disillusionment from her similarly 'castrated' mother to the project of seducing the father; but since the project is doomed, she must finally turn back reluctantly to the mother, effect an identification with her, assume her feminine gender role, and unconsciously substitute for the penis which she envies but can never possess a baby, which she desires to receive from the father" (155-6). This same idea of the phallus as the separator underlines the opening speech from Kleist's Penthesilea, another nineteenth-century mythical drama dealing with an alleged26 matriarchy: Wenn Mars entrustet, oder Delius, Den Stecken nicht ergreift, der Wolkenruttler. Mit Donnerkeilen nicht dazwischen wettert: Tot sinken die Verbifinen heut noch nieder, Des einen Zahn im Schlund des anderen. (7-11)

In Odysseus's assessment the male and female armies will destroy one another unless the masculine gods of the patriarchy intervene. This violent mediation, whether through the rods of Mars or Apollo or the thunderbolts of Zeus, seeks to reestablish male ascendancy through the signifier of masculine sexual superiority and distinction: the phallus. It must restore what the male speaker cannot comprehend - indistinguishable Greek and Amazon warriors locked in mortal combat - to the patriarchal norm by imposing masculine authority. A related but less overtly violent solution holds true for Libussa as well. No sooner does Kascha excuse one of the sisters: "Sag Zwei'n" (325) from the passive task of mourning their father's death than Libussa immediately jumps to the conclusion of a more specific exclusion: "Warum? Wen schliefiest du nur aus?" (325). Since she instinctively views herself as singled out, her oversensitive reaction points to a bad conscience and, like the concealed clothing, draws attention to what she herself has characterized as "die unfreiwill'ge Schuld" (320): her unavoidable dependence upon a man and her

39 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

unconscious attraction to him. I generally concur with Wolf-Cirian's analysis: "Libussa, aber, die wahre Tochter ihres irdischen Vaters, stand immer im Gegensatz zu ihren Schwestern und empfand diesen wohl oft als stillschweigenden Vorwurf - daher ihr gereiztes Auffahren, als sie sich aus dem Bunde der Schwestern ausgeschlossen wahnte" (251), but fail to detect on what grounds she assumes Libussa "always" stood in opposition to Tetka and Kascha as the text relates only the one previous incident indicative of an attitude contrary to that of her sisters. Once Kascha outlines the specific nature of the separating obligation: "Die, welcher obliegt mehr als ihn Beklagen: / Zu folgen ihm in seiner harten Pflicht" (326-7), the drama has predisposed the audience to cast Libussa as the ideal successor, for her "actions speak louder than words" and her two sisters have already eliminated themselves by their supercilious repudiation of the crown. Even though Libussa's immediate reaction is to decline: "Nehmt ihrs, ich nicht!" (331), this could be construed as an emotional response again dictated by guilty feelings: she has betrayed her loyalty to her father and has sensed being drawn to human society in the person of Primislaus. In addition, one should compare this spontaneous, emotional refusal to those of Kascha and Tetka, which are more extensive, with considerable preamble, giving the impression of a well considered decision (2071). This episode verifies the extent to which the father continues to exert authority over his daughters even after death: "Doch sahe gern der Vater unvollendet / Was er fur dieses dunkle Volk getan? / Und heifit es sein Gedachtnis hoch nicht ehren, / Fortsetzen, wenn auch schwach, was er begann?" (332-5). Here he embodies a sentimental influence: the force of tradition or the burden of obligation to one's parents. One of the daughters cannot escape the unavoidable duty of upholding her father's heritage, and in this sense Libussa becomes his victim at the conscious level as well. "When their major role is to discipline and control, fathers are not unlike supreme beings. They are distant, controlling figures who are removed from biological processes [such as death]" (Sanday 64). This appeal to Krokus's memory does have an effect: "Lafit derm das Los entscheiden" (336), a return to another variation on the Scheiden motif. As remarked earlier, Entscheiden also implies a division, i.e., the necessity to decide between alternatives, a theme reinforced by Kascha's proposal to allow fate or chance, "das Los," to make the determination (losen means "eine vom Menschen unabhangige Entscheidung zu erzielen" [Duden Etymologie 409]). Her choice of expression may also recall the identical word, but with a different root, used by Primislaus in the opening scene to announce the most portentous separation of the tragedy:

40 Act One

"Das [Kleinod] 16s' ich los und wahre mirs als Pfand" (71) - a case of a retrospectively ironic play on words. Both instances of the "los" / "Los" have the potential to sever Libussa's ties to her sisters' realm. The separation theme continues with Kascha's long speech describing the origin of the belts. "Am Jahrestag von unsrer Mutter Scheiden" (339), the father resolved to commemorate her passing by creating the bands featuring the image of both parents: "Bin kostbar Kleinod mit der Eltern Bild" (340). Hence the jewel may be said to reflect the tension between male and female, active and passive, real and ideal, or "Wahrheit" and "Marchen." Another "Scheiden," the death of the father, has brought about the current political crisis, one which requires a decision, Entscheidung. But one could argue that yet another "Scheiden" (260), Libussa's parting from Primislaus as she unknowingly stood at a "Scheideweg" (284) between two modes of life, has already made the choice: circumstances largely beyond her control have separated her from her jewel (71), her innocence, and any solidarity with her sisters. The recognition that Krokus had three belts made for three daughters looks back to Lessing's parable of the three rings and poses the question: who wears the true belt, i.e., who best incarnates the will of the father? Krokus may have conceived of the three belts as an efficient means of keeping his daughters chaste: Die Giirtel nun, des Vaters letzte Gabe Und geistiges Vermachtnis noch dazu Sprach er doch ja: so oft ihr sie vereint, Will ich im Geist bei euch sein und mit Rat Lafit legen uns in diese Opferschale. (346-50)

Since the belts are only effective if united, the father can thus keep his harem to himself and exclude any other male intruder. To stake his claim, Primislaus transformed the belt, a circle which he broke,27 into a chain which he placed about Libussa's neck, and as a mark of her subservience, she had to lower her head to receive it. While the belt, a "letzte Gabe," does possess a material existence, as a symbol of a spiritual or intellectual legacy, it also dominates the daughters' minds. Indeed, by the terms of Krokus's testament, to assure continuity they would have to stay together, remain pure, and refuse to permit anyone to come between them. The phrase "mit Rat" further implies their reliance upon the paternal figure: because he intends to counsel them from beyond the grave, they will become a mere extension of his will, having very little, if any, independence. Kascha's

41 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

formulation may contain another intertexual allusion, this time to the Bible. To prepare the disciples for his departure, Christ declares: "Denn wo zwei oder drei versammelt sind in meinem Namen, da bin ich mitten unter ihnen" (Matthaus 18:20). Just as Christ proved obedient to his father unto death in the garden of Gethsemane, Kascha proposes putting their belts which bear their respective names upon the "Opferschale." In a figurative sense they are to be sacrificed - their viginity represents their most treasured possession - to a god, the memory of their father. As a final manifestation of male tyranny over the female, the text reunites the three belts only at the end of the tragedy to legitimize the reinstatement of the patriarchy through Primislaus after Libussa's self-immolation for the good of the nation.28 Krokus or the father reasserts his male dominance via his surrogate, the ploughman. Ironically, Kascha inadvertently foretells this development when, in working out the details as to how she plans to conduct the draw, she concludes, "Der Dritten Giirtel wird zum Diadem. / Sie folgt, ob ungern, in die Furstenwohnung" (354-5). Both sisters obviously prefer remaining in their present domain to the undesirable occupation of governing in the real world with its petty concerns. It is an obligation entailing dependence ("folgen") and domesticity and therefore undertaken with great reluctance only because of what their father expects of them. At the prospect of the proposed lottery, Libussa removes her "Barett und Mantel" to expose her "Bauerntracht" (p. 290). Before she may have intentionally hidden her dress but now, at this crucial juncture, she unconsciously reveals what lies beneath and thus may divulge her concealed desire. The abrupt change in visual image also conveys a new orientation: the feathered cap and cloak projected a male tendency while the peasant attire, originating with Primislaus's sister, suggests the domestic, subservient female role, a suitable alteration in view of Kascha's preceding description of the father's despotic regulation of his female offspring. While Tetka draws attention to the strangeness of the costume,29 Libussa's defensive reaction testifies to the dramatist's remarkable skill at intimating the secret workings of the mind: LIBUSSA sich betrachtend: Sonderbar? Vergafi ichs doch beinah! Je, gute Tetka, Der Zufall kommt und meldet sich nicht an, Auftauchend 1st er da; und wohl uns, wenn beim Scheiden Er auSerlich verandert nur uns lafit. Das Kleid 1st warm, und also lieb' ich es. (357-62)

42 Act One

She personifies chance as a male agent who appears without warning - fortuitously or conveniently "Zufall" is masculine - and therefore once more disguises Primislaus's participation in an abstract, impersonal form. Lacan refers to such veiled language as "parole pleine," the symbolic discourse of the unconscious, in this example, the verbal means to present her meeting and her unconscious/ conscious attraction to her rescuer. Her image projects a surprisingly assertive portrait of chance/Primislaus - she is still unaware of the theft - while she generally occupied the dominant position in their dialogue and depreciated the extent of her indebtedness to him: she voiced her wishes, if not commands, and he reluctantly obeyed. Auftauchen means literally to rise to the surface and thus invokes her sudden emergence from the whirlpool through Primislaus's interference, but in her current formulation, the roles seem to have been reversed - the "er" is the one suddenly to resurface according to strict grammatical usage. However, the audience, in light of its knowledge, is more inclined to interpret the "Auftauchend" as relating directly to the speaker. Also, for the first time, she herself mentions "Scheiden," an echo of Primislaus's leitmotif from their final parting scene where he resorted to it four times (247; 253; 260; 274 a variation, "Trennung," of the same theme occurs four times in the opening scene). Although she couches her thought in a distancing, impersonal proverbial framework, the reappearance of "Scheiden" here reminds the spectator of a very specific separation and invokes Primislaus's continuing presence at the back of her mind. Unwittingly she concedes that the confrontation with a man and the subsequent parting did in fact touch her deeply. Even though she endeavours to insinuate that the experience had no lasting effect, that there was no emotional commitment on her part, she then goes on to concede that the peasant outfit gives her warmth and that she loves it - the peasant Primislaus earlier expressed the desire to be the clothes that cover her body (13-15) - and by extension this attitude betrays some affection for the man who gave the dress to her. As she later acknowledges, the warmth of the coat, far from remaining "aiifierlich," penetrates "bis zur tiefsten Brust" (403), the seat of human emotion in contrast to the cold, stellar, spiritual regions inhabited by her sisters. The "wohl uns" implies a certain urgency and while she alleges to be unaffected within her person, the oblique indications contained in her verbal images and her physical semblance undermine her position by advancing a different message. Moreover, her reference to "Scheiden" in the final position tends to recall Primislaus's parting line: "Die du, ein Marchen, kamst, und eine Wahrheit scheidest" (274). A separation evincing the truth cannot

43 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

but effect the parties involved. Libussa has evolved and her own view of herself is beginning to undergo a transformation. Prior to making this speech, she looks at herself in a new role: "LIBUSSA sich betrachtend" (p. 290). She once wore these clothes, feeling comfortable in them and forgetting their existence. The attractive young man from Kleist's essay, "Uber das Marionettentheater," comes to mind. After he gazes upon himself in a mirror, he acquires awareness of himself and forfeits his grace, his unconscious unity with nature (2: 243-4). Likewise, as Libussa is about to discover, she cannot return to her original state of innocence. When the women remove their respective belts, Libussa's sisters, noticing the changes, are curious to learn the details: "Doch wie -?" (363); however, she avoids disclosing any further information. LIBUSSA das Geschmeide vom Halse nehmend: Hier 1st mein Giirtel. TETKA ihren Giirtel ablosend: Hier der meine. KASCHA Libussens Geschmeide nehmend: Am Hals? LIBUSSA Und doch er selbst, wie ich dieselbe. KASCHA Das 1st dein Giirtel nicht. LIBUSSA Wie ware das? KASCHA Die Ketten wohl; allein der Mutter Bildnis, Das Mittelkleinod fehlt mit deinem Namen, O Unbesonnene! (363-8)

Kasha directs attention to her belt around her neck, the unusual location proclaiming subjugation (a dog or slave collar) and, according to another tradition, pointing to the very nature of her servitude. In Book in of the Argonautica, Apollonius Rhodius portrays how passion for Jason gradually invades the unsuspecting Medea through the neck: "[E]ver within anguish tortured her, a smouldering fire through her frame, and about her fine nerves and deep down beneath the nape of the neck where the pain enters keenest, whenever the unwearied Loves direct against the heart their shafts of agony" (247).3° The object actually testifies against her, exposes the truth of the unconscious and proves her wrong in her claim not to have changed. Since she met Primislaus, she is not the same, and this is graphically verified by her costume and the position of the belt (cf. Roe, Introduction 225). Kascha then focuses on the loss of the mother's image and Libussa's name (a person's essence), both of which were inscribed upon the missing jewel. The latter supposedly depicts both parents ("mit der Eltern Bild" [340]) but tellingly Kascha specifies

44 Act One

only two female representations which now rest in the hands of a new male. This incident touches on an issue conducive to the more or less universal subjugation of women, specifically purity versus pollution. Through her association with Primislaus, Libussa has metaphorically forfeited her virginal immaculateness and, contaminated by this contact, she may not return to the undefiled realm of her sisters. The demand for female purity requiring menstruating women in some societies to be ostracized from the rest of the community and thus seriously restricting female activities, obliges Libussa in this instance to enter the real world of male politics. Kascha and Tetka exploit the same dichotomy to justify their self-imposed isolation from crass male concerns (234-5). "Purity beliefs seem to be particularly attractive to women, who very often elaborate the norms concerned with purity, the rules for strict dress and demeanour, modesty, cleanliness, and prudishness, which they use as a device for contrasting their world and the men's world - establishing grounds for order and status among themselves" (Rosaldo 38). At this precise moment when Kascha makes an issue of the lost stone and Libussa replies in righteous indignation: "Was schmahst du mich?" (368), further evidence of a guilty conscience, Dobromila returns to report her lack of success in finding "jenen Mann" (370). The timing reinforces the enormous influence "that man" has had and will continue to have on Libussa, as she herself begins to recognize: "Vor sich hin: Das hat mir Der getan!" (372). On this occasion she states the male gender directly but only to herself and confirms how he has compromised her more than he ever intended. Since his reminder (65-6) will be indirectly responsible for bringing her down into the real world where she will eventually become a "Weib um das man werben konnte" (249), he unwittingly achieves his objective by a fortuitous combination of circumstances. The subsequent exchange only serves to emphasize male domination: "KASCHA Die Nacht im Wald, in Bauerntracht gehiillt, / Verloren deines Vaters Angedenken. / LIBUSSA Mein Vater lebt, ein Lebender, in mir , / So lang ich atme lebt auch sein Gedachtnis" (373-6). Now the gem becomes a memorial to the father rather than to the mother in whose memory Krokus ostensibly fashioned it. Reminiscent of Tetka's earlier remark - "Mir ist er [Krokus] als ein Jiingling auferstanden" (183) - Libussa's confirmation of her father's tyrannical power over her, even after his death, is truer than she realizes. More so than her two sisters, she cannot really lead her own life. In a manner anticipating Kafka's characters, she is guilty, "die unfreiwill'ge Schuld" (320), no matter what she does and despite her best intentions, for

45 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

she cannot escape the Law, the realm of the father, "des Vaters strenge Rechte" (427). In fact she regards herself as his reincarnation, an ironically accurate assessment, as she will accept his office and comes closest to him in her active, more socially responsible attitude. To ensure healthy heterosexuality Freud considered it normal for the female child to transfer to her father her initial attachment to her mother: "Aber am Ende der Entwicklung soil der Mann-Vater das neue Liebesobjekt geworden sein, d.h. dem Geschlechtswechsel des Weibes mufi ein Wechsel im Geschlecht des Objekts entsprechen" ("Weibliche Sexualitat 278). This identification with the father increases her sense of individuation and independence: "Most psychoanalytic and social theorists claim that the mother inevitably represents to her daughter (and son) regression, passivity, dependence, and lack of orientation to reality, whereas the father represents progression, activity, independence, and reality orientation" (Chodorow, 65), the paternal values present to some degree in Libussa relative to her sisters. Consistent with this argument, her mother receives only passing reference throughout the tragedy. At the same time this male orientation may well damage her confidence in her own femininity. The third act will afford numerous signs of the heroine's lack of faith in her ability as a woman to attract Primislaus (cf. 1249). Libussa's claim, "Mit Einem Wort lost' ich die Ratsel leicht, / Doch wiirdet ihrs entstellen und verkehren" (379-80), comes across as childish and overly defensive, i.e., I could explain everything but you wouldn't understand, the typical excuse of an adolescent. Anticipating their disapproval, she secretly appreciates how compromising a full revelation of her adventure would seem to her sisters and, as already noted, she has consistently skirted any direct, public reference to her male rescuer. The fear of misrepresentation could just as easily be a cover for genuine misgivings about her own emotional involvement with Primislaus. Only her heart knows for sure, but it will keep its counsel to itself: "Drum halt nur was du weifit, mein sichres Herz!" (381). Can it be trusted? Libussa's dramatic predecessors call into serious doubt the reliability of feelings to judge objectively in such matters. Sappho, Medea, or Hero all delude themselves on an irrational level: the heart is anything but "sicher." Another pretender has broken the protective ring raised by Krokus to safeguard his harem: "Der Kreis getrennt. Du kannst mit uns nicht losen" (382). Primislaus, the one to harp upon trennen in the opening scene (41; 51; 52; 58) has without specific intent, separated Libussa from any vestige of a unified self and from what her sisters embody. Her petulant reaction to exclusion again appears in a childish light: "Nicht losen? Und wer weifi, ob ichs auch will? / Ein Schritt aus

46 Act One

dem Gewohnten, merk' ich wohl, / Er zieht unhaltsam hin auf neue Bahnen, / Nur vorwarts fiihrt das Leben, riickwarts nie" (383-6). In other words, if you won't let me, it doesn't matter since I didn't want to in the first place. Out of wounded pride she is obviously attempting to save face. She took the initial step away from the usual routine when she opted to leave the castle, to descend to the valley, and thus to precipitate the chain of events in which Primislaus came to play such a key role. The universal application she abstracts from her experience conveys the recognition that for good or bad we can only move forward. There is no sense in trying to restore the past and its way of life, although one need not necessarily enthuse about the new political, social and commercial developments change brings in its wake. As a generalization on the function of will in Grillparzer's works, Papst has observed, "Man is still, as for Schiller, a creature with the distinctive characteristic of willing, but he no longer wills in accordance with genuine moral choice; he wills what he must will, what he is driven to will" (109). Libussa's rationalizations offer a case in point: Ich soil nicht losen? Und ich will es nicht. Wo sind die Manner aus der Czechen Rat? Den Vater will ich ehren durch die Tat, Mogt ihr das Los mit dumpfen Briiten fragen: Ich will sein Amt und seine Krone tragen. (387-91)

Does she really speak for herself or on behalf of her father or does he speak through her? Have not conditions largely created by Primislaus forced her to adopt this stance to salvage her dignity?31 Four times in the same speech she insists upon her will, her independence to make a decision. Such emphatic insistence begs another question: whom is she really trying to convince? At first she expresses doubt as to whether or not this is her intent: "ob ichs auch will" (383), but only four lines later, she declares, "Und ich will es nicht" (387). Then she maintains that her will is to honour her father by taking over his function. In the cleverly constructed verse: "Den Vater will ich ehren durch die Tat" (389), the father and the deed, traditionally associated with the male, occupy the initial and final emphatic positions respectively while the ego remains caught in the middle. Since at the conscious level she wants to make her dead father proud of her, she will assume his office and his crown. This formulation strongly implies that she has no intention of ruling in her own right, but as a surrogate, whereas in reality she later contrasts her rule with that of her

47 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

father, the sign of a rebellion against paternal authority. By progressive stages Grillparzer shows how she gradually convinces herself and claims credit for a decision largely determined by outside pressures: her father's legacy, Primislaus's intervention, and her sisters' disapproval. To quote a relevant line from Die Jiidin, "Und unser Wille will oft weil er mufi" (428). The deed, traditionally a male monopoly, she sets opposite her sisters' vita contemplativa which she denigrates with the phrase "mit dumpfen Briiten" (390). The latter means to sit on eggs, to incubate or to brood, pejorative connotations to characterize dull, stifling meditation. In this game of "one-upmanship," she now insults her siblings and, partly out of pique, puts down their major preoccupation. The irrationalism underlying this quarrel bears the responsibility in the first instance for her electing to accept the crown while the more ideal motivation, "an irresistible impulse of love [for her people], awoken in her by her encounter with Primislaus" (Papst 113), may simply constitute a rationalization or afterthought. When Kascha allows that her insult may have prompted her sister's petulant reaction: "Wenn ich gekrankt dich mit zu raschem Wort" (393), Libussa nevertheless resolves to abide by her resolve: "Mein Wort ein Pels" (395)She now consciously distances herself from her sisters: "Denk' ich von heut / Mich wieder hier in eurer stillen Wohnung" (396-7), i.e., your dwelling, not mine, and rejects their way of life as being empty, monotonous and remote from human interchange to which she now feels attracted: "Mit Menschen Mensch sein diinkt von heut mir Lust, / Des Mitgefiihles Pulse fuhl' ich schlagen, / Drum will ich dieser Menschen Krone tragen" (404-6), quite a change of heart from her first impulse: "Nehmt ihrs, ich nicht!" (331). Once more she declares her will but fails to appreciate how circumstances have conspired to induce her to reach this determination. Hence I cannot agree with Politzer's designation, "die freiwillige Furstin," nor with his contention: "ihr Wunsch geht nach 'Mit'gefiihl, wobei das Objekt dieses neu erwachten Gefuhls keineswegs der Erwecker, Primislaus, ist, sondern eine Abstraktion, 'diese Menschen,' deren Krone zu tragen sie sich herablafit" (311). If Primislaus could arouse this emotion, he would also be in part its recipient, as the many underlying signs would seem to indicate: her love of "diese Menschen" could just as easily represent a socially acceptable, anonymous proxy to conceal her affection for "den Menschen" Primislaus, given her lack of contact with other mortals from the outside world. Politzer goes on to argue: "Dafi sie in denselben Zeilen gleich zweimal sagen mufi, 'mir diinkt/ deutet auf den Abstand zwischen ihr und der Wirklichkeit"

48 Act One

(311-2); nonetheless, she felt drawn to the real order when she displayed "Mitgefuhl" with her father, a mark of her worthiness to rule, and risked exposing her vulnerability by leaving the safety of the castle. The text does establish distance "zwischen ihr und der Wirklichkeit," but on what basis does she make her value judgments? What has provided Libussa in her ignorance of human affairs, i.e., "Mit Menschen Mensch sein," with a gauge by which to reject her past and look forward to the future? One must posit Primislaus's agency here, however indirect, concretely manifested on stage through the peasant costume, his gift to her, to which she herself alludes with sensual relish: "Dies Kleid es reibt die Haut mit dichtern Fa'den / Und weckt die Warme bis zur tiefsten Brust" (402- 3).32 After the Wladiken reenter and Domaslav enquires, "Und welche will -1" (411), Libussa retorts, "Hier ist von Wollen nicht" (411), even though she has dwelt upon exercising her will, indeed five times, and now seeks to deny it: "Von Mussen ist die Rede und von Pflicht" (412). This implies the Kantian moral position - absolute obedience to "Pflicht," adherence to an intellectual obligation, to the exclusion of "Neigung," the disavowal of any natural drive or personal interest. She would seem to negate the Schillerian solution of "Neigung zur Pflicht," i.e., freely choosing to do one's moral duty, as for example in Homburg's speech before the assembled court: "Ruhig! Es ist mein unbeugsamer Willel / Ich will das heilige Gesetz des Kriegs / Das ich verletzt, im Angesicht des Heers, / Durch einen freien Tod verherrlichen!" (Prinz Friedrich 1149-52). Whereas her sisters were prepared to let fate decide by drawing lots, she rejects a haphazard selection and, contradicting herself, expresses her will by freely accepting the responsibility: "Und da nun Eine mufi aus unsrer Zahl, / So will ich und begebe mich der Wahl" (413-4). Grillparzer has nonetheless made it clear that a subjective "Wollen," in which personal interests have a significant share, plays its part not only at the conscious but at the unconscious level as well where emotions such as petulance, pride, and passion influence the will. In her refusal to leave the choice to chance, one out of three, she ironically mirrors a similar reluctance in Primislaus: "Und ich / Soil dort [drei Eichen] dem Ungefahr dich iibergeben, / Das niemals wohl uns mehr zusammenfuhrt?" (37-9)- A ruler may strive to eliminate accident in order to build on a more secure, permanent basis,33 but chance in the form of Primislaus's direct and indirect intervention at several crucial stages (cf. 359-61) has had a discernible effect upon events to date and has contributed to her reaching her current determination. Both Libussa and Homburg rebel against someone (her sisters; the Elector) by "going one better." Put in an embarrassing

49 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

situation, they endeavour to extricate themselves by "turning the tables" on their accusers and voluntarily assuming the nobler role in an attempt to restore a public image sullied in the eyes of their peers. In outlining her credentials for the task at hand, Libussa exhibits a vacillating attitude which casts some doubt upon the conviction Lorenz attributes to her: "Dem vaterlich-mannlichen Staat will sie das Beispiel eines mutterlich-weiblichen entgegensetzen, nicht aus Mangel an autoritativer Starke, sondern aus Uberzeugung" ("Neubewertung" 38-9). The drama includes several signs of her shaken confidence in herself: she admits to a lack of maturity and defers to her sisters' goodness and wisdom (415-6). Since she raises these issues herself, she both anticipates possible criticism and feels the need to defend herself in advance. Tetka and Kascha, being the embodiment of "Hohes" (417), deserve veneration while she, concerned with "irdisch niedres Tun" (418) does not. In this instance, however, she puts her sisters up in order to put them down, suggesting that she has a more practical grasp on reality than her contemplative siblings (a claim borne out by the tragedy) and thus is the more suitable candidate.34 But perhaps most tellingly, she again acknowledges her dependence upon her father: "Wenn nun des Vaters Geist auf mir beruht, / So fiigt sichs wie es kann und, hoff' ich, gut" (421-2). Wanting to follow his spirit, she allows for the possibility of error and of not being able to fill his shoes. The "Uberzeugung" of which Lorenz speaks comes more to the fore once Libussa begins to differentiate her understanding of her rule from that of her father: "Es hielt euch fest des Vaters strenge Rechte / Und beugt' euch in heilsam weises Joch" (427-8). "Freud always insisted that it was the presence or absence of the phallus and nothing else [Mitchell's emphasis] that marked the distinction between the sexes" (Mitchell 6) and the father, as the bearer of the phallus, has the authority to lay down the Law, indeed personifies it. Truth, especially when of a disturbing nature, seeks to express itself through the unconscious despite the efforts of the conscious self either to disregard or misconstrue it. "While conscious knowledge is ignorant, the apparently unknown knowledge in the unconscious speaks. It says what it knows, while the subject does not know it" (Benvenuto/Kennedy 166-7). It is therefore no accident that Libussa attempts to deny the paternal law as epitomized in phallic images: Ich bin ein Weib und, ob ich es vermochte, So widert mir die starre Harte doch. Wollt ihr nun mein als einer Frau gedenken, Lenksam dem Zaum, so dafi kein Stachel not,

50 Act One

Will freudig ich die Ruhmesbahn euch lenken, Bin uberhortes war' mein letzt' Gebot. (429-34)

She insists on her femaleness, in Lacan's view, a lack or omission (Scheiden), depicts her regime as necessarily dissimilar, and makes her pronouncements out of self-consciousness of her sex and its perceived limitations in anticipation of the later criticism levelled at her administration. She is on the defensive from the outset. Her concessional clause, "ob ich es [to rule like a man] vermochte" implies: I could elect to govern in a male manner but I have chosen not to - a "choice" which looks back to her alleged free decision to accept the crown. Now she finds distasteful "die starre Harte" and repudiates the "Stachel," paroles pleines intimating the phallus,35 the real legitimization of her father's rule and his tyrannical control over her. In light of the fact that only eight lines earlier she wished that her father's spirit would lie upon her, she betrays an ambivalent attitude to the male symbol of power: desire/dread, attraction/repulsion. Even if she had it, she would not use it, thus making a virtue out of a necessity. Since it should come as no surprise that a text depicting a battle of the sexes contains several phallic symbols, there would seem to be some justification for dealing briefly with the concept of penis envy. In Freud's reconstruction of childhood, he claimed that all children, regardless of gender, fault their mother for various self-centred reasons (cf. "Weibliche Sexualitat" 283), but the female offspring has to come to terms with a particularly devastating discovery: "Dafi sie [the mother] dem Kind kein richtiges Genitale mitgegeben, d.h. es als Weib geboren hat" ("Weibliche Sexualitat" 283). Rejecting her mother, the daughter turns to her father. Rarely does Libussa mention her mother (only three times) while she openly and frequently acknowledges her love, admiration, and devotion to her father (sixteen times). The women's movement obviously could not condone Freud's belief in "die Uberlegenheit des Marines" ("Weibliche Sexualitat" 279), his explanation of female psychology as derived essentially from "die Wirkungen des Kastrationskomplexes" ("Weibliche Sexualitat" 279), or his generally low opinion of women. Whereas he drew most of his conclusions regarding them from the central function of the phallus, an aspect which Lacan was to adopt, many psychoanalysts now regard these deductions as "ideological mistakes" attributable to his culture and times, but "still allow that his clinical observations of penis envy might be correct" (Chodorow 52). Undertaking to make Freud's theories more compatible with feminist views, Clara

5i The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

Thompson has "stressed the fact that the actual envy of the penis, as such, is not as important in the psychology of women as their envy of the position of the male in society. This position of privilege and alleged superiority is symbolized by the possession of a penis. The owner of this badge of power has special opportunities while those without have more limited possibilities" (51). This more sociological, political revision of Freud provides insight into Libussa's underlying frustration vis-a-vis the male world as embodied by her father, the Wladiken and Primislaus and into her several attempts to downplay or denigrate the phallus in its various guises as prick, rod, hook, or ploughshare. Politically oriented commentators such as Florack and Lorenz, both of whom see Libussa as a reflection of the social and political climate around the 1848 revolution, place considerable emphasis upon this speech. Lorenz, for instance, comments, "Libussa plant, den hierarchischen Staat in einen briiderlichen zu verwandeln" ("Neubewertung" 39), to create a "[d]emokratisch" society ("Neubewertung" 41) with the "Abschaffung von Klassenunterschieden" ("Neubewertung" 39) a position about which Florack harbours justifiable reservations: "Doch wenn Libussas Herrschaft nun 'demokratisch' und dem 'Humanitatsideal der biirgerlichen Aufklarung' verpflichtet genannt wird, ubersehen selbst solche Analysen, wie sehr das von Libussa Propagierte und im Stuck positiv Gewertete einer Bestatigung standischer Ordnung gleichkommt" (240). Whether it be in Krokus's patriarchy or in her proposed matriarchy, the basic hierarchy, still firmly entrenched , promotes a distinct separation between the ruler and the ruled, "Denn fur Libussa gibt es bei aller humanen, briiderlichen Zuwendung doch eine Art Hierarchic" (Geifiler 123). Both styles of governing cast the people metaphorically as dependent animals, either to pull the carriage or to bear the rider. The major difference lies only in how the master will treat the animal. In the case of Krokus's tenure, the beast had to place its neck in a yoke, thus forfeiting all personal freedom, i.e., the subjugation (sub-jugum; Unter-jochung - under the yoke) of the masses, while for Libussa, the people correspond to a horse responsive to the reins, i.e., still subservient but subject to a kinder, gentler rider who desires to avoid the goad or spur. Libussa will remain true to this model of the benevolent dictator till the end when in her concluding vision she summarizes the nature of her regime by paraphrasing the Christian simile of the good shepherd: "Gehiitet hab' ich euch dem Hirten gleich, / Der seine Lammer treibt auf frische Weide" (2314-5; cf. John 10:11). As a matriarchal figure she intends to function as the "Great Mother" to her immature children: "Dieser 'GroGe' des Weiblichen

52 Act One

entspricht, dafi das Enthaltene, Geschiitzte und Genahrte, Gewarmte und Festgehaltene immer ein Kleines, Wehrloses, ein Anhangendes und auf Leben und Tod dem Grofien Weiblichen Ausgeliefertes 1st. Nirgends vielleicht 1st es so evident, dafi ein Menschliches als 'Grofies' erfahren werden mufi, wie bei der Mutter. Jeder Blick auf einen Saugling und auf ein Kind [cf. the opening of the second act] wiederholt und bestatigt ihre Erscheinung als 'Grofie Mutter' und als 'Grofies Weibliches"' (Neumann 54). But in both Libussa's metaphors, the aristocratic leader takes advantage of the animal either as a means of conveyance or as a source of food and clothing so that the horse or lamb serves the upper class and supports its way of life. In her defence one should bear in mind that since she wants to be thought of as a woman (431), she takes for granted that her people will act as they have been conditioned to behave towards a woman, that is to say, with love and respect. According to Machiavelli, she makes the mistake of seeking to govern on the basis of love rather than fear (Krokus): "Men have ... less hesitation in doing an injury to a ruler who inspires affection than one who inspires fear. Affection is a tie like duty which, such is the worthlessness of men, is easily broken by selfish interest; but fear arises out of the imminence of punishment ["Stachel"], and will last a lifetime" (89). She assumes the people will prove amenable to her view of community and will naturally do the right thing by following her example. "Um ihre Unterthanen zu beherrschen, ruft sie deren gute Instinkte an, die, ihrer Uberzeugung nach, uber die bosen siegen miissen" (Ehrhard 498). By projecting her own ideal of goodness onto others, she sets herself up for a major disappointment. But as her implied threat (434) makes clear, she is not above using emotional blackmail: if you don't live up to my expectations, I'll resign. Since she alone will determine what lies in her people's best interest,36 she really wants a well trained, tame people that she can lead to its own welfare without any resistance. As Neumann has shown, "das Grofie Weibliche" is not above using "den 'Liebesentzug' als Instrument seiner Macht, als Mittel, seine Herrschaft als 'Grofie Mutter' zu verewigen, um das Geborene nicht zu seiner Selbstandigkeit kommen zu lassen" (76). In the final lines following her description of her model administration, the "Scheiden" motif makes an ominous return: "So wie ich ungern nur von hinnen scheide, / Lenkt' ich zuriick dann meinen miiden Lauf / Und trate bittend zwischen diese Beide; / Ihr nahmet, Schwestern, mich doch wieder auf?" (435-8). She admits her reluctance to leave the secure ethos of her sisters. The use of "Scheiden," recalling its many repetitions by Primislaus at their parting, reminds

53 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

the audience of his continuing influence at this very moment and reaffirms her loss of "ein so schones Ganze" (56) as another contradiction emerges. Whereas she asserted earlier in the scene, "Nur vorwarts fuhrt das Leben, riickwarts nie" (386), she is now attempting to keep an escape route open, a retrogressive one, in the event of failure - we learn later that when opposition arises, she does in fact send Wlasta to enquire if her sisters will take her back (ii4of). Even before she begins to exercise her rule, she jeopardizes it by allowing for the possibility of defeat and again exposes her lack of confidence. According to the subtext, the symbolic language of the unconscious, this low self-esteem may stem from another lack, that of the phallus.37 No sooner does Domaslav offer his class's fealty and that of their subjects than Libussa vehemently rejects and forbids the use of the word "Untertanen" (442): "Dies letzte Wort, es sei von euch verbannt, / In Zukunft herrscht nur Eines hier im Land: / Das kindliche Vertraun" (443-5). With this declaration she seemingly puts herself at odds with a noble society that assumes the privilege to have power over others by its god-given genetic superiority. The basis of her administration, childlike trust, supposes a confidence in the goodness, generosity, and wisdom of the ruler, which leads one to submit voluntarily to the gentle reins of her rule. If one loves someone as a child loves its mother, then one can accept that person as a parent and believe the he or she will always act in one's best interest. This must be seen in contrast to fear as the motivating force: "Der Stab, der in Fiirst Krokus Handen lag" (204); one behaves in a certain way because one wishes to avoid the punishment contingent upon failure to comply, the more dependable political expediency if one is to believe Machiavelli. Both scenarios, however, have in common the immaturity of the child, its need to be directed and cared for, a reflection of the dramatist's basic distrust of the masses and democracy: "Ertraglich ist der Mensch als Einzelner, / Im Haufen steht die Tierwelt gar zu nah" (Bruderzwist 1479-80). As commented upon previously, the negative depiction of an aristocracy availing itself of the same metaphor already discredits in part the feasibility of "das kindliche Vertrauen" (198) as a basis for governing, since it can also serve as a camouflage for self-interest. In the same speech Libussa raises the real issue: "Und nennt ihrs Macht, / Nennt ihr ein Opfer das sich selbst gebracht, / Die Willkiir, die sich allzu frei geschienen / Und, eigner Herrschaft bang, beschlofi zu dienen" (445-8). Ultimately the issue is power and how one rationalizes its tenure by a class or an individual from a particular class. (Ein Bruderzwist offers the same political message: "Die Macht ist was sie wollen" [1231].) She leaves the reference to a sacrifice

54 Act One

impersonal so that it could refer either to herself or her subjects: she willingly agrees to renounce her personal happiness to assure the welfare of her people, just as they in turn forfeit their political independence by placing their destiny confidently in her hands.38 "Willkur," meaning arbitrary if not despotic, rule, would be more characteristic of the aristocracy where there are no controls on the regime other than the good will of the leader. Whereas the nobility once reigned "allzu frei," without being accountable to anyone but itself, it now adopts through her a noblesse oblige posture, Frederick the Great's or Joseph n's stance of service to one's country.39 However, little has really changed since the head of state still answers only to his/her conscience. The phrase "eigner Herrschaft bang," in the sense of fearful for its own rule, may allude to the movement within the nobility itself to reform, the so-called "inner revolution," to eliminate the social injustices and bad political practice which made the French Revolution possible. (Arnim and Eichendorff recognized that their class had gone too far and had alienated the people by corrupt, self-serving, arbitrary practices.) Again one could regard Libussa's political manifesto as symptomatic of the author's own conservative attitude: his fear of the masses and their demagogues on the one hand and his resentment of the upper class and their privileges on the other. His compromise in the interest of "Ordnung" would seem to point to an enlightened monarch who would deny self-interest and govern in the name of the common good. In support of this position, Rudolf uses the same metaphors to characterize how he views his relationship to his subjects: "Die Zeit ist schlimm, / Die solche Kinder nahrt und braucht des Ziigels. / Der Lenker findet sich, wohl auch der Zaum" (Bruderzwist 1343-5).40 Both the dictatorial and impractical nature of her projected regime surface in her final lines: "Wollt ihr als Bruder leben, eines Sinns, / So nennt mich eure Furstin und ich bins; / Doch sollt' ich Zwei'n ein zweifach Recht erdenken, / Wollt' eher ich an euch euch selbst als Sklaven schenken" (449-52). While the concepts of universal fraternity and equality, the rejection of a double standard, signal the liberal influence of the French Revolution (Lorenz, "Neubewertung" 39), Libussa nonetheless envisions a uniformity or conformity of mind, i.e., a harmony of attitude synonymous with her own outlook, and as the next act will verify her desire for unity fails to accommodate the practical demands and diversity of the real world. To achieve her goal she is not above resorting yet again to emotional blackmail: "Allein vergafit ihr was uns Allen frommt, /.../ Da Diese hier [her sisters] den Riicktritt mir versagen, / So ging' ich hin es meinem Vater klagen" (454-6). In fact her sisters did not explicitly forbid her return: "Wenn du's noch kannst, von Irdischem umnachtet" (439), for

55 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy

they foresaw the potential problem in her, while she chooses to blame them. What she is saying amounts to, in Politzer's apt formulation, a "Selbstmorddrohung" (313): if you don't meet my ideal expectations and live together in harmonious brotherhood, I will die and my death will be upon your head - both a threat and a prophecy as it turns out. If this experiment, the matriarchy, fails, it will destroy her; she will have no one to turn to since her sisters have repudiated her. By implication she here closely associates her own death with that of her father - the mother is once more conspicuous by her absence - and by so doing she again combines Eros and Thanatos. Critics have interpreted the Libussa of the first act as being forceful and resolute in contrast to the last act, but the text does furnish several indications of a lack of confidence in herself and a dependence upon a heritage in which her late father's influence still holds sway. Her commands to her followers: "Ehr Madchen mir voraus, und stofit ins Horn, / Bis jetzt mir nachst, steht billig ihr nun vorn" (459-60), while anticipating the central role of females in her administration, also suggest that she needs her warrior women to shield her (cf. the fourth act) and that she still counts upon her past life for support. "Und so, gehobnen Haupts, mit furchtlos offhen Blicken, / Entgegen kuhn den kommenden Geschicken" (461-2). As if to contradict this verbally bold exit, her sisters and their attendants have the final say, a not particularly reassuring appraisal: "Ich [Tetka] bedaure sie, / Sie wirds bereun, und fruher als sie denkt" (464-5). In addition, whereas she proposes marching fearlessly towards whatever the fates have in store, their emissaries, the stars, announce a different message: "Die Jungfrau blinkt, doch nein, / Ich irrte mich, es ist des Lowen Macht, / Der auf sein Bohmen schaut" (475-7). The lion, belonging to "den Tieren der Sonne [i.e., the male god]" (Neumann 207) and hence signifying masculine sexuality, is in the ascendant (Primislaus), not the virgin (Libussa) who has symbolically lost her virginity to the lion.41 Similarly, in the last line of the act: "dem Tag weicht die Nacht!" (478), the female night succumbs to the masculine day. These two ominously mantic nocturnal images reinforce what the text has implied more or less consistently throughout the first act: the dominance of the male (father/suitor) over the female (mother / daughter). Act one opens upon a scene of spatial disjunction, the female inside the cottage and the male outside, an arrangement indicative of the opposition between an inner and outer orientation. At first sight, Libussa would seem to be in charge: she insists upon her independence and refuses to acknowledge a debt of gratitude or at least

56 Act One

downplays its significance. Continually denying Primislaus, she issues the orders and he reluctantly obeys. When he privately speaks of his female guest as an object and stakes his claim to her person, he exposes his patriarchal bias. There are, however, indications of a lack of confidence in both of these strong willed protagonists. Libussa does not feel comfortable in her new role as monarch as she attempts to keep an escape route open and actually allows for her own eventual failure. Primislaus likewise shows signs of insecurity, but in his case they stem from his preoccupation with the social discrepancy which puts him at a distinct disadvantage. The basic problem comes down to the issue of Scheiden in its many manifestations. The separation between an aristocrat and a ploughman, between high and low, the dramatist captures in the contrast between Schleier and Bauerntracht: the aloof, secret, ideal realm of the sisters, the vita contemplativa, versus the intimate, open, natural world of the peasant, the vita activa. Although Primislaus feels drawn to Libussa the woman, Libussa the queen raises a seemingly insurmountable social barrier and hence the Standesproblematik does put considerable pressure on their relationship by complicating the love interest. As "Getrennt[e]" (41) their paths and ultimate destinations may frequently diverge, but they still have much in common, above all a mutual physical attraction. The love story, a struggle for dominance, illustrates the sensitivity of lovers in the early stages of a liaison, as disclosed in their extreme reluctance to expose their vulnerability, another source of alienation leading to several misunderstandings. A major portion of the first act concentrates upon the leavetaking/ Scheiden between Libussa and her rescuer, what turns out to be a parting from a whole way of life, a separation which takes place during the night at the passing /Scheiden of Krokus. Therefore, the love interest develops concurrently with the death of the nonappearing major player, while the heroine wears the clothing of a dearly beloved, departed sister, an ominous confluence of love and death. Such references to absence or division point to the illusory nature of the romantic belief that one sex could ever fulfil the other, for while Eros strives for union - "In keinem anderen Falle [auf der Hohe eines Liebesverhaltnisses] verrat der Eros so deutlich den Kern seines Wesens, die Absicht, aus mehreren eines zu machen ..." (Das Unbehagen 237) - Thanatos seeks disintegration: "Infolge dieser primaren Feindseligkeit [i.e., "Aggressionsneigung" attributable to Thanatos] der Menschen gegeneinander ist die Kulturgesellschaft bestandig vom Zerfall bedroht" (Das Unbehagen 241). A crucial Entscheidung at a "Scheideweg" (284) brings about a farreaching separation for Libussa. Once she resolved to descend to the valley in aid of her father and leave the secure ethos of her sisters'

57 The Inescapable Paternal Legacy domain, she set a process in motion whereby, without her knowledge, her father's legacy, Primislaus's intervention, and her sisters' disapproval largely determine all the irreversible life choices made during this act. Her "Vaters Scheiden" (887) gives rise to the current political crisis and the need for an Entscheidung through "losen" (382), i.e., allowing fate to decide among three alternatives, a scenario culminating in Libussa's severing her ties to Kascha and Tetka: "Der Kreis getrennt" (382). The two central male characters, Krokus and his successor, Primislaus, share the role of the separator. As the bearer of the "Stab" (204) or "Stachel" (432), Krokus enjoyed the male right to rule by virtue of his sexual authority. The phallus separates male from female, ruler from ruled. Unconsciously Libussa betrays the desire to offer herself, her flower, to him. At the anniversary of his wife's death/"Scheiden" (339), he gave each of his three daughters what amounts to a chastity belt as a means to isolate them from normal human intercourse and thus to keep them to himself. His memory, the burden of obligation and tradition, dominates Libussa (375-6) and is instrumental in her decision to accept his crown. However, the text also suggests some sexual ambiguity in terms of strict gender stereotypes, since Libussa appears in male attire (p. 288) followed by armed Amazons. Furthermore her public proclamation also implies a limited rebellion against "des Vaters strenge Rechte" (427), the rule of the phallus, as she outlines the kinder, gentler disposition of her proposed autocratic regime in which she hopes to perform a maternal function vis-a-vis obedient, grateful children. In other words she perpetuates the separation practised by her father while vindicating her rule as being based upon voluntary submission to and trust in her benevolent wisdom. Taking over where Krokus left off, Primislaus separates Libussa from her jewel, a symbolic rape, and, so doing, bears the indirect responsibility for bringing her down permanently to the real world and removing her from the circle of her sisters. He also parts the chain, "em so schemes Ganze" (56), shattering the illusion of harmony within herself and threatening her sense of identity with nature. Whereas the first act initiates the contest of wills so integral to the dramatic interest of the next three acts, it also intimates the foregone conclusion. Primislaus's final portentous gesture of the opening act is to place the chain about Libussa's neck: " Libussa senkt ihr Haupt, er ha'ngt ihr die Kette urn den Hals" (p. 287), a symbolic subjugation to signal the inevitable dominance of the male (father/ suitor/husband) over the female (mother/daughter/wife) as substantiated in the last act.

Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation: Act Two

The secondary literature has scrutinized the opening sequence of the second act, interpreting it as "[d]ie in vollkommener Ubereinstimmung mit der Natur errichtete matriarchalische Ordnung ... diese herrschaftsfreie [!] und sanfte Idylle, die Erinnerungen an das verlorene Paradies erweckt" (Bachmaier 740-1), as "eine Art fruher, idealer Kommunismus" (Schable 108), as a reflection of "den sozialen Reformen Fouriers, des Begriinders des Phalansterismus, und Saint Simons" (Wolf-Cirian 253), as "ein goldnes Zeitalter der Liebe, in dem es die hochste und schwerste Tugend ist, auch noch den Feind zu lieben" (von Wiese 455) or as an attempt to realize Libussa's "politische Uberzeugungen," synonymous "mit den Schlagworten der franzosischen Revolution, Freiheit, Gleichheit, Bruderlichkeit, oder denen der amerikanischen Declaration of Independence, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness [Lorenz's emphasis]" ("Neubewertung" 39). Hock may be said to assume a middle position as he senses "[s]chon in den Szenen des Friedens und des Clucks ... das untergrundige Beben der Unzufriedenheit,"1 but he blames the eventual failure on the limitations of human nature or on the necessity of having to contend with a real rather than ideal order: "Das Unbedingte kann nicht rein in die Bedingtheit eingehen" (468-9). Florack alone dares to be openly critical of Libussa's "Staatsideal," arguing that it exhibits "unverkennbar Ziige standischer Uberlegenheit" and seeks "jegliches Moment von Herrschaft zu verschleiern" (243). What most critics have failed to appreciate is the degree to which separation, by age but particularly by gender, structures this scene and its representational dialogues.

59 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

In her work Female Power and Male Dominance, Sanday contends: "Sexual separation, as opposed to integration, is necessary for the development of sexual inequality and male dominance. Obviously, the sexes must be conceptually and physically separated before one sex as a group can exclude or dominate the other" (75). This division creates two different worlds, one male and one female, and determines the division of labour. "The male world focuses on such exclusively male activities as warfare and hunting and is supported by an ideology that projects power outward onto those aspects of nature and supernature that men follow. ... The female world focuses on such exclusively female activities as childbirth and food gathering and is supported by an ideology that projects power inward onto those aspects of nature and supernarure that contribute to growth the earth, the water, the female creator, nature deities" (109-10). Social and cultural historians have advanced both biological and cultural forces as determining this division of labour which, according to anthropological studies, has proven to be universally valid.2 In Libussa's matriarchy, despite her efforts at the top, the genders remain both conceptually and physically apart throughout this opening scene. The first human image to confront the audience at the outset of the second act: "ein kleines Gebusch [nature], vor dem ein Weib mit einem etwa vierjahrigen Kinde sitzt" (p. 296) and the introductory words, "DAS WEIB ihren Knaben emporhebend: I Nun, Tomyn, spring!" (479), highlight maternity. The subsequent redirection of attention to this same mother reinforces her nurturing function, "DAS WEIB IM VORGRUNDE das sich unterdessen mit dem Kinde beschaftigt hat, zu demselben: Wenn nun die Furstin komrnt, kufi ihr den Saum" (523), while the introduction of other women later in the scene adds to this image: "WEIBER UND KINDER hiipfend und in die Hande schlagend" (p. 300). If one excludes Wlasta and Libussa, the only other reference to a woman is the "Madel" who, in love with a poor young man, wants to marry him despite the disapproval of her father on exclusively financial grounds, a union, however, favoured by the other men present. The female activities support the inner orientation of the home and its domestic responsibilities: "Women give birth and grow children" (Sanday 5). Although "Ein Gewaffheter und Wlasta mit Brustharnisch und Helm" (p. 297) appear together, this does not reflect universal equality. Always depicted as the outsider, the Amazon Wlasta does not meet the typical female norms and denotes more Libussa's desire that the barriers be brought down than the reality of the actual situation: "und hier Wlasta, / Sie wacht in Waffen und gebeut statt mir" (627-8). In keeping with outward male orientation, the drama depicts exclusively men involved in physical labour: the

60 Act Two

women, staying at home, do not participate in the field work: "Man hort Gesang von Mannerstimmen. Mehrere Feldarbeiter kommen, sich paarweise umschlingend, die Jacken uber die Schultern gehangt" (297). The other part of the formula reads, "men kill and make weapons" (Sanday 5). To wage war has always been a male preserve: a community can afford to lose men but not child-bearing women who secure the future of the tribe. It is thus fitting that the first long speech spoken by a male representative of the older generation praises Krokus and his bellicose regime: "Der schlug, wenns etwa gait, auch einmal los / Und liefi den Mann am Herde nicht vertoffeln" (484-5). This picture of the father as an aggressive man of violence, because it contrasts with Libussa's advocacy of peaceful coexistence, tends to undermine his daughter's authority with the male population. "[C]e n'est pas en dormant la vie," observes Simone de Beauvoir, "c'est en risquant sa vie que I'homme s'eleve au-dessus de 1'animal; c'est pourquoi dans 1'humanite la superiorite est accordee non au sexe qui engendre mais a celui qui tue" (84). Libussa cannot really escape her father's influence as those who uphold patriarchal society constantly compare the daughter to the father and fault her for lacking that predilection for brute force more characteristic of the male. "Ein Jiingerer," rising to her defence, explains in Brechtian fashion how the ruling aristocracy satisfies its insatiable appetite for land and possessions at the expense of the little people, the ones to pay the real price in terms of their limbs and lives (48891). Such an observation on the part of a young man, the one to supply "cannon-fodder" in the event of war, testifies to a dawning social consciousness attributable to Libussa's administration with its emphasis upon communal harmony and cooperation. The idea of risk taking in battle in order to gain prestige and power as compensations for being expendable vis-a-vis the survival of the community manifests itself as well in the male proclivity to gamble. "What would there to be for men to do if women hunted, warred and ruled? How would men acquire the 'reason for being' that comes to women automatically? In certain sectors of our society and others, these questions are easily answered: Men gamble" (Sanday 115). Hence, the first masculine activity alluded to in the dialogue of the second act, gambling in the leisure hours between shifts, may satisfy vicariously a deeper male need than mere entertainment: "zum Scherz" (520). Indeed, the tragedy effectively epitomizes sexual segregation in the opening line of the act with a visual enactment of two forms of play, a female, then a male variation: "DAS WEIB ihren Knaben emporhebend: I Nun, Tomyn, spring! EINER DER SPIELENDEN Ei ja, der schwarze Stein, / Er stand erst hier" (479-80).

61 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

One can find much to admire in the social values championed by Libussa's reign, since they represent a progressive, enlightened point of view relative to the political realities of the nineteenth-century reactionary Danube monarchy. An appeal to tradition does not necessarily assure uncritical acceptance and money has become meaningless in a commonwealth where all share equally in the bounty of the land: "Was kaufst du um dein Geld da wo nichts kauflich ist, / Das Land ein breiter Tisch, an dem, wer hungert, ifit" (535-6). Unto each according to his/her needs and from each according to his/her ability. At least for her own subjects, Libussa has sought to deny any alienating social barriers by promoting equality amongst the members of the broader community, a practice which obviously does not sit well with the aristocracy: "DOMASLAV Und Jedermann ist satt. LAPAK So Herr als Knecht. DOMASLAV Der Knecht nun wohl am meisten" (544-5). In a famous section from the Phanomenologie des Geistes (1807) entitled "Herrschaft und Knechtschaft," Hegel contends that the master needs the servant to confirm his identity. The patrician goes to great lengths to distinguish, i.e., distance himself from the plebeian by setting up a contrast such as high (Hoheit) versus low or light (Durchlaucht) versus dark, but he still needs the lowborn to substantiate his preeminence. One could also posit in this class division an analogy to the relationship between the genders under patriarchy, a social construct also based upon separation between Herr and Knecht, domination and submission, light and darkness, the decisive justifying agent being the phallus. One of the central symbols of the aristocracy has always been the sword, a phallic symbol, the monopoly on which empowers the male to rule, and appropriately the Latin word vagina originally meant a sword sheath. The various episodes featuring the Wladiken located throughout the play generally satirize the upper class and provide some comic relief. At heart they dislike and distrust Libussa's rule and rightly view it as a major challenge to their former authority and their divine right to exploit others: "DOMASLAV Und braucht man nun sein Recht - LAPAK So eilt das gleich zu klagen" (566). However, circumstances oblige them to voice their disapproval obliquely since, because of her popularity, it would be politically unwise to attack her openly. They must therefore constantly "pull their punches" as indicated by the frequency of the qualifying adverbs "zwar," "nur" or "sonst." Casting caution to the wind, Biwoy speaks his mind, decrying the new order as social anarchy: "los aus seinen Fugen [ist] unser Land" (572). Women have taken over such exclusively male offices as warrior, ruler, and judge; the peasant has gained equal footing with his master; and the nobleman has lost his power base (570-7). "Und

62 Act Two

all dies Tandeln mit sanft und mild / Gibt hochstens 'ne Sangweis', ein feines Bild" (575-6). With the new policy of working together as evident in the field work done by male peasants, Libussa has endeavoured to create a non-aggressive, non-confrontational agrarian economy3 opposed to any form of social segregation among her subjects. What the drama illustrates comes surprisingly close to the description of an agriculturally based management practised by a people living in the Himalayas called the Lepcha. "Similarities rather than differences are the focus of attention. This stress on the resemblance of individuals makes for a low development of the ego, little internal competition and the minimization of the most obvious contrasts such as between rich and poor, between man and woman and between adults and children" (Sanday 84). A mythological and cultural heritage that concedes an important function to women in both the creation and exercise of power makes this reduction in separation possible. "The elevation of the female to the status of control means there is more co-operation than competition in human affairs" (Sanday 84). Likewise, Libussa is seeking to institute a collaborative matriarchal model rather than the competitive one employed by her father - the gambling under her rule is done for fun rather than profit, in part to please her: "ERSTER SPIELER Wir zahlen nur zum Scherz und gebens dann zuriick. WLASTA Ihr tut ganz recht, wollt ihr die Furstin euch gewogen" (520-1). Biwoy repudiates this synergetic program as a female fantasy (577) having little to do with the practical demands of Realpolitik: "Und fiel' ein Feind in unsre Gauen, / Wir wiirden des alien die Friichte schauen" (578-80). In character he resorts to scare tactics founded on military prowess, the exclusively male purview, to justify the dominance of his own sex, for as Domaslav subsequently summarizes the situation, "Dem Ganzen fehlt ein Mann, ein Mann an ihrer Seite" (584). Inadvertently exposing their true intent, they form a precarious alliance to protect their common interests: "LaCt uns zum Werk vereinen! / Wir werben ohne Neid. Sie wahle von uns Einen. / Und wer das Los erhalt, gedenke dankbarlich / Des Briiderpaars, und stell' als Nachste sie nach sich" (5914). Once in power, they, not Libussa, whom Domaslav does not even mention in this context, will govern. When Libussa makes her entrance in this act, the stage directions read, "Sie bleibt betrachtend stehen" (p. 302). Again suggestive of the lot of the artist she does not attempt to participate directly in the daily activities of the people, remaining aloof as an observer. This stance also supplies a visual reminder of her former life, the vita contemplativa, which she has been obliged to abandon but cannot fully renounce. In her opening speech she compares her subjects to

63 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

flowers: "Mich freut es wenn ihr sie [Blumen], die Frommen, liebt, / Und ihnen gleich auch bleibt an stillem Bliihn" (598-9). Her simile is indebted to the kind of Naturzustand eulogized by Rousseau, Schiller, and Kleist among others, where the individual unconsciously forms an integral part of his/her physical setting and there exists no separation between the human being and nature, only a basic harmony reflecting the primordial union of paradise. Extending her figure of speech, Libussa casts herself as the concerned gardener or, to use Neumann's apt designation of the "die Grofie Mutter," as "die Herrin der Pflanzen" (229): "Was euch die Gartnerin mit nachster Sorge, / Verteilend hilfreich Nafi und Warm' und Schatten, / Kann niitzlich sein, das ist euch ja gewifi" (600-602). This plant orientation featuring the nurturing, protective role of the mother figure can be found in many primitive agricultural societies in which women as the bearers of children and fosterers of plant life perform a greater leadership role within their communities in contrast to animal-based economies dependent upon hunting where masculine values predominate. In Neumann's analysis, the equation "Weib = Korper = Gefafi = Welt" (55), a symbolic representation of the female functions of giving life, nourishment, warmth and protection (54), constitutes "die Formel der matriarchalen Lebensstufe, das heifit einer Menschheitsphase, in der das 'Grofie Weibliche' in seinem tibergewicht iiber das Mannliche, das UnbewuSte iiber das Ich und iiber das Bewufitsein dominiert" (Neumann 55). However, in keeping with the implied enlightened despotism of her administration as outlined in the first act, Florack has maintained: "Die Fiirstin steht in Grillparzers Trauerspiel reprasentativ fur eine 'natiirliche' Ordnung, wobei religiose Beziige der von ihr vertretenen Position Giiltigkeit verleihen. So wird im Bild der treusorgenden Gartnerin die Existenz eines Naturzusammenhangs behauptet, in dem das Volk in Analogic zum 'stillen Bluhn' (V. 599) der Blumen - seiner passive Rolle nachzukommen habe" (240). Although with her mention of "religiose Beziige" Florack focuses on the adjective "fromm," one could expand the sacred dimension to include the whole image. "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden" (Genesis 3:8). Yahweh also planted a garden and established its specific order, including the expectation of obedience from his children, while the disruptive element, the temptation to be as God, parallels the outlook of the Wladiken who demand not just equality with, but superiority over, the gardener.4 They want to usurp her power and lord it over the other creatures in the garden.

64 Act Two

While Libussa still sustains a direct link to nature: "Mir schmerzt die Stirn; das zielt auf feuchte Zeit" (605), she also has a practical grasp on her people's needs:5 "Die Freude, hoff ich, stort nicht das Geschaft?" (603), i.e., business before pleasure. She is anxious to secure the well-being of the community as becomes particularly apparent in her rejection of the miners' tribute in favor of the "Butterblumen:" "Mich ekelt an der anspruchsvoile Tand" (611). The latter word recalls Biwoy's comment only forty lines earlier: "Verkehrt ist all dies Wesen, eitler Tand, I Und los aus seinen Fugen unser Land" (571-2). Just as Libussa denigrates gold and silver as trifles used to fashion "Schmuck" and "Gerat" (615), to embellish an idle aristocratic life style, and to appeal to such deplorable human characteristics as jealousy, vanity, and covetousness, the Wladiken likewise repudiate her regime and its more universal benefits as meaningless and disruptive. Libussa's treasure derives from living organic plants, ephemeral but forever renewing themselves - her jewel has great sentimental, not material, value - whereas their wealth depends upon dead metals: "toten Hort" (614). The "Tand" by the standards of the one faction is the essential for the other. By resorting to the same noun in such close proximity, Grillparzer focuses attention on the basic incompatibility between the two positions, perhaps even interjecting an allusion to and a corroboration of Christ's pronouncement: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matthew 6:21).6 Libussa's advice to Brom on his marital problems has provoked considerable critical interest and rightly so, for Grillparzer was clearly calling into question some of the sacrosanct conventions associated with a woman's status in a nineteenth-century marriage. WolfCirian may be guilty of overstating her case when she claims that he is testing "die damals neuen Forderungen des Feminismus" (253), although the attitude expressed through Libussa is undoubtedly progressive for the times. "Ah, Brom! Wie lebst du und wie lebt dein Weib? / Seid ihr versohnt und streitet ihr nicht mehr? / Demnachst komm' ich zu dir mich des zu iiberzeugen" (616-8). The last line contains an implied threat, i.e., you had better be treating her properly because I plan to come and check up on you. As will become a discernible pattern, she displays a marked tendency of seeking to oblige others to conform to her will - she threatened to resign if anyone failed to obey her (434). Moreover, Libussa is not one to reject outright the patriarchal model and may be said to adopt a compromise: "Nicht immer von Gehorsam sprich zu ihr, / Sie wird dir um so williger gehorchen" (619-20). The implication remains that normally the wife should submit to her husband in keeping with the

65 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

promise of obedience in the marriage vows; the progress lies in the recognition that she need not obey if the command be an unreasonable one (621-2). The husband can no longer play the tyrant: while he may be the head of the household, he is expected to be an enlightened one. One might also add that Libussa could have benefited from following her own advice in terms of her relationship to Primislaus. Since she insists that he be obedient to her will, she refuses even to consider his riddle, feeling it to be beneath her dignity as state leader: "Die Ratsel losen eignet dem Gehorsam" (1300). She may pose riddles but not he. As queen she adopts the male stance and expects, indeed demands compliance: "Gehorchen soil er und dann mag er ziehn" (1505). Speaking on her mistress's behalf, Wlasta declares, "Hier aber will man Ratsel nicht, Gehorsam" (1532) and then orders, "Was not tut ward gesagt. Gehorche nun!" (1574). This same issue of commanding/obey ing versus domination/subjugation will have to reach a qualified resolution before the two main protagonists can arrive at some form of reconciliation. To buttress her position, Libussa puts forward the example of her own administration where women no longer feel intimidated to speak their own minds, exhibit greater contentment with their lot in life (623-5), and participate directly in the governance of the community: "Sieh, deine Furstin ist ein Weib, und braucht sie Rat, / Geht sie zu ihren Schwestern, und hier Wlasta, / Sie wacht in Waffen und gebeut statt mir" (626-8). While at first glance this may suggest female freedom from male ascendancy, the privilege to reign still rests exclusively with the traditional ruling class, the three sisters or their immediate entourage - Krokus died without a male heir - and does not extend in any democratic sense to the broader masses. As an absolute monarch, Libussa is scarcely a typical female - in fact she insists upon her distinction - while the housewife should as a rule obey her husband provided, of course, he is in the right. The claim to equality on the basis of our common humanity depends on a feeling, an inner attitude, rather than a social reality: "Fuhlt sich dein Knecht als Mensch dem Herren ahnlich, / Warum soil sich dein Weib denn minder fuhlen? / Kein Sklave sei im Haus und keine Sklavin: / Am wenigsten die Mutter deines Sohns" (629-32). "[Mit] dem Gefuhl von Ebenbiirtigkeit anstelle wirklicher Gleichheit," Florack comments, "mufi der Untertan sich begniigen, und die blofie Ahnlichkeit von Herr und Knecht bedeutet ein Fortbestehen sozialer Unterschiede. Solange aber der Schein von Egalitat nur gewahrt werden kann, eriibrigt es sich, iiber Gehorsam zu reden (siehe V. 6i_9f.), ist die Dauer der Herrschaft gesichert" (244-5). O116 can discern a further

66 Act Two

subversion of this nebulous equality in her counsel to the husband to hold his wife in high esteem because, in keeping with the visual message with which this act began, she bears him children, and more specifically, male children. Grillparzer could have employed the nongender specific "Mutter deines Kinds" but opted instead for "Mutter deines Sohns" (623), since in a patriarchy male children are more desirable. Libussa would seem to be pleading at heart for the status quo in domestic affairs but with greater respect for the woman in view of her major contribution to the home as child-bearer. It is more a case of speaking out against wife abuse with continued adherence to the customary social and domestic norms which separate ruler from ruled or men from women. The double standards also come to the fore in her mediating the case of the young couple who wish to marry. Despite the father's objection to the suitor's poverty, she contends, "Derm was du [the father] immer sprachst von arm und reich / Da ist nicht Sinn dabei" (643-4). As a cornerstone of her regime, she renounces the social distinction between the haves and the have-nots, and yet wealth, a mark of class distinction, continually makes its presence felt throughout her relationship with Primislaus, beginning with her costly attire, her aloofness, and his deference in the prologue and reaching a climax in the fourth act as Libussa tries to intimidate the ploughman and compel his obedience (1505) by a show of her castle's "Pracht" (1392) and her extensive land holdings through her agent Wlasta.7 "Komm hier und sieh hinaus in die Gefilde, / Die endlos sich dem Horizonte nahn. / Das alles, Berg und Tal und weite Flachen, / Das alles ist Libussas, meiner Frau" (1408-11). The traditional source of wealth for the aristocracy has always been land. Catching sight of the Wladiken, Libussa addresses them with two sarcastic questions: "Sieh da ihr Herrn, so vornehm abgesondertl / Wie unzufrieden oder doch erstaunt?" (646-7). In order to be perceived as different and superior, the aristocracy has always endeavoured to keep itself distinct from the masses; however, Libussa, having been guilty of a more subtle form of separation, may scarcely be considered "prima inter pares" as Lorenz has argued ("Neubewertung" 39): "Die Freiheit, die sie fur ihre Untertanen durchsetzen will, indem sie auch den Geringsten unter ihnen zur Mundigkeit verhelfen mochte, beansprucht sie jedoch auch fur sich und weigert sich anzuerkennen, dafi prinzipiell zu einer Frau ein Mann, zu einer Fiirstin ein Fiirst gehore. Mit dem Hinweis auf ihr Recht zur freien Gattenwahl weist sie zunachst die ihr nahegelegte Ehe und den Vorwurf der Ehefreundlichkeit [sic? "Ehefeindlichkeit" would make more sense] zuriick" ("Neubewertung" 40-1). Images such as "Lenksam dem Zaum" (432)

67 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

or "an stillem Bluhn" (599) do not presage well for the promotion of personal freedom or maturity. In her own defence, she asks the Wladiken rhetorically, "Wie sollt' ich hassen was so menschlich ist? / Allein zu Lieb' und Ehe braucht es Zwei" (655-6) and finally acknowledges, "Und, sag' ichs nur, mein Vater, euer Fiirst, / War mir des Marines ein so wiirdig Bild, / Dafi ich vergebens seines Gleichen suche" (657-9). There is no direct evidence to suggest that she is attacking the patriarchal position whereby a woman only gains her raison d'etre as the wife to a man, or politically speaking, as the queen to a king. She simply declares her failure to find a suitable partner herself to meet the high expectations set by Krokus's example, an implied insult for the Wladiken who cannot live up to the ideal standard set by her father. She does, however, assert the right to make her own selection of a mate, to which her office as absolute ruler entitles her, for in the traditional courtship the male would seek out the female. Again class distinction creates special, if not unique, circumstances: she has this privilege of choice by virtue of her birth, her exalted status as Krokus's daughter. Also, by having recourse to her father again, she once more substantiates his tremendous and persistent influence. As she puts distance between herself and the Wladiken, optically intimating her rejection of them as valid suitors: " Sich von ihnen entfernend" (p. 304), she makes a revealing parting comment: "Zwar einmal schiens, doch es verschwand auch schnell" (660), indecipherable for her interlocutors but meaningful to the audience. Since she still employs the impersonal "es" rather than "er", she continues to avoid public disclosure of any affinity she feels for Primislaus and keeps him at arm's length in her formulation - she does not wish to grant him any authority over her. But once more she juxtaposes in close, interdependent proximity the two men, Krokus and Primislaus, who have really dictated the path her life has taken so far.8 Then, in words meant only for herself and the spectator: "' vor sich hin" (p. 304), she asks, "Stellt er sich derm der Priifung? wollt' ich auch" (662). Although in the privacy of her own confused emotions, she at least concedes his gender, in her doubt as to whether or not he would submit to the test, she divulges her own lack of confidence in her ability as a woman to attract him.9 As a lover in the initial stages of a relationship, she distrusts her potential partner because she does not know how to read him. Does he really love her? She remains unsure about his feelings for her as much as she is uncertain about her own feelings for him. Hence, each protagonist shows reluctance to expose him/herself, to confess his or her true sentiments out of fear they may not be reciprocated. As we shall see,

68 Act Two

Primislaus closely matches Libussa in this respect. Even though this unusual love interest obviously reflects what critics such as Lorenz, Pornbacher, and Kaiser see as the real "Schwerpunkt," "eine Konfliktsituation zwischen den Hauptfiguren, die Reprasentanten ihres Geschlechts und ihrer Klassen" (Lorenz, "Synthese" 181), I would still place the "Liebeshandlung" more in the foreground than in the "Hintergrund" to which they relegate it. Whereas Florack points out Libussa's negative traits and Lorenz gives a pejorative portrait of Primislaus, they have failed to appreciate what Roe has called "the essential similarity between the two main protagonists" (Introduction 223),10 engendered by the mutual physical attraction between them and their often common response to it. One must always bear in mind that this is not a normal courtship by normal standards: Primislaus may expect dominance by virtue of his sex, Libussa by right of her birth. A shared arrogance or pride based primarily on their respective source of power seriously complicates their alliance. Lorenz sees in Libussa's decision to pose a riddle with herself as the prize evidence of her democratic outlook: "Demokratisch auch in dem Sinn, sich einer ihr widerstrebenden Meinung zu fugen, wenn sie von der Mehrheit vertreten wird, unterwirft sich Libussa der Forderung ihrer Umgebung und setzt sich selbst als den Preis fur einen Wettkampf" ("Neubewertung" 41). First of all, the pressure that she should choose a consort, leading her to pose the riddle, originates only with the Wladiken who can scarcely be said to represent a majority and who clearly see themselves as the sole valid candidates. The more general outcry, "MEHRERE mit Domaslav und Biwoy [i.e., several males but still with aristocratic support]: Ja wohl: ein Mann, ein Mann!" (960), and her concession, "Wohlan ihr Herrn, ich geb' euch einen Mann" (965), occur long after she has established the rules of the contest and the only man who can solve the puzzle has already done so. Libussa is not so much responding to a questionable public pressure as she is looking for a pretext to reestablish contact with the man to whom she feels drawn. Moreover, the chain provides a significant visual link to the previous act: "Hort derm ein Ratsel, und als halbe Losung / Fug' ich ein Zeichen bei nach Seherart. / War doch die Kette stets der Ehe Bild. Sie nimmt ihren Halsschmuck und legt ihn auf ein Kissen, das ein Page halt" (667-9). While ostensibly her allusion to the symbolic value of the chain points to the indissoluble unity between man and woman in marriage, it could also denote the subjugation of the female to the male will. As a belt, it belonged around her waist to indicate her father's control of her maidenhood, but Primislaus transformed it into a chain which he placed about her neck just prior to their separation. From the stage

69 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

direction one has to assume that she has persisted in wearing it around her neck where he put it, concrete evidence of his abiding power over her and further damaging testimony against any absolute sense of altruism in her decision to proclaim a "Wettkampf" with "sich selbst als de[m] Preis." And finally, as we shall presently ascertain, she only plays with the possibility of the winner's becoming her mate. By having recourse to the female prerogative to pose a riddle (cf. the Sphinx or Turandot),11 Libussa is able to make a public statement which will not jeopardize her own status - in fact she can thus rid herself of three annoying suitors - while at the same time she can employ signifiers which will convey the desired message which is hidden to all but the spectator and the one man whom she really wishes to test. However, as Griesmayer remarks, the ambiguity called for by her strategy also provokes "die Gefahr des MiSverstehens, der Primislaus erliegt" (269). The first three lines of her riddle reinforce the general theme of separation versus completeness: "Wer mir die Kette teilt, / Allein sie teilt mit Keinem dieser Erde, / Vielmehr sie teilt, auf dafi sie ganz erst werde" (670-2). Primislaus did in fact sever her chain at least twice, once accidentally when he reached down into the whirlpool to withdraw her by her belt and intentionally when he removed the jewel, both incidents symbolic of a separation from innocence. If the "sie" alludes to Libussa herself (it could also refer to the chain's noble origin), the line suggests that she has nothing in common with those dwelling in the real world because of her semidivine heritage and intrinsic superiority, an oblique rebuke directed at the peasant Primislaus: he parted the chain without her consent and knowledge and she will share with no man at his instigation. She therefore declares her independence. The third line emphasizes that she will divide only on her terms, i.e., with an eye to becoming whole. This may well reflect Lacan's notion discussed earlier that the relationship between man and woman, from the latter's perspective, depends on a fantasy of oneness, a longing for union to counteract the fear of fragmentation. The human subject strives throughout its life to acquire an imaginary totality which the woman wrongly believes she will discover in love: "Eros, defined as the fusion making one out of two, that is, of Eros seen as the gradual tendency to make one out of a vast multitude" (Lacan 138). Libussa may also be expressing her willingness to share her rule with a suitable male - clearly she has Primislaus in mind - who unites in his person the "virtues" of the Wladiken, "die ihr euch teilt / In das was ich im Mann vereint mir denke" (665-6), another play on separation/unity. Her inclusion of

jo Act Two

the adverb "erst" contains an acknowledgment of her never having been complete and would further intimate that she now regards her earlier existence with her sisters as unfulfilling. Here, for the first time, she envisions the possibility of wholeness through union with her male counterpart who has what she lacks, the symbol of power and the law. The commonplace that one does not treasure something till one has been separated from it underlies the next two lines: "Hinzufugt was, indem man es verier, / Das Kleinod teurer machte derm zuvor" (673-4). She has acquired greater appreciation of its original value Krokus's memory and her virginity/reputation - and of its potential benefit - it might bring her and Primislaus together. The "machte" could be a subjunctive in which case it would mean: "if you were to return the jewel, it would than be more precious to me," in other words, an implicit admission of her affection for the man who stole it in the first place. Taken as a simple past indicative, how Primislaus chooses to interpret it (819-20), it would signify that she has paid dearly for its loss: the delay during which her father died, her subsequent acceptance of his crown, and her exclusion from her sisters' ethos. Accents of the novel power struggle between the two main protagonists alluded to earlier inform the last two lines of her conundrum: "Er mag sich stellen zu Libussas Wahl, / Vielleicht wird Er, doch nie ein Andrer ihr Gemahl" (675-6). With the implied concessional command, she assumes the dominant position: she will make the choice, not he, but at the same time, she does flatter him by singling him out: no one else but Primislaus may become her husband and only he is in a position to understand the full implications. Although the "Vielleicht" places his selection in some doubt, she does raise the possibility while reserving the right to make the final decision, a not unreasonable caution given that she does not really know this man well. As she insists the riddle be made known to all, she also wants to guarantee that he will in fact hear it: "Verbirg es nicht und teil es Diesen mit, / Er soil fur Alle" (680-1). In her isolation she desires to have someone to talk to at her own level, for "it's lonely at the top:" "Wer einsam wirkt spricht in ein leeres All, / Was Antwort schien ist eigner Widerhall" (687-8). The riddle focuses on the issue of sharing in order to achieve completeness and it is worth noting that in her search for the other worthy of her, she thinks in terms of "ein leeres All" or "meines Innern Wuste" (691), an empty internal wasteland. Both images, suggesting a serious lack which she is anxious to fill, reflect the Lacanian view of the woman as unconsciously resentful of her deficiency.

71 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

Lorenz's praise of Libussa to the detriment of Primislaus: "Libussas Skrupel 'Ich kann nicht hart sein, weil ich mich selbst achte' ... sind ihm fremd" ("Neubewertung" 41) would seem to overlook several incidents12 including her intervention and reaction to the two fighting men: "Schlagst du den Bruder? / Gebt mir ein Schwert, er soil des Todes sterben! / Und doch, schelt' ich den Zorn und fuhl' ihn selbst? / Trennt sie!" (693-6). Having just mentioned her sense of personal inadequacy and confronted with a situation which flies in the face of her social ideal, i.e., "Wollt ihr als Bruder leben, eines Sinns, / So nennt mich eure Fiirstin und ich bins" (449-50), she immediately resorts to the male expedient, i.e., "Lenksam dem Zaum, so dafi kein Stachel not" (432). As Manrike observes in Die Jtidin, "Die Wehr an Marines Seite spricht von Schutz" (1801), but one's ability to provide protection descends directly from the male's prowess and physical power symbolized by his "weapon", the sword or phallus. Libussa's reaction, since it is spontaneous - her defences are down - exposes her true sentiment; however, when her consciousness reasserts itself, she admits to having sunk to the level of her subjects. Since she is accustomed to getting her own way and does not readily countenance opposition to her will, this incident does not presage well for her future meetings with Primislaus who is equally self-willed or self-assertive but has the added support of patriarchal conventions. There is also considerable irony in her command to separate the warring parties so that she may impose a peaceful settlement: her avowed goal entails the promotion of social cooperation in an effort to eliminate the discord associated with the trennen/teilen of the older competitive order. Her final words and gesture: "Ei Streit um Streit! Die Hand auf die Brust gelegt: Ists hier derm etwa Friede?" (698) may once again infer her emotional ambivalence attributable to Primislaus - the breast as the seat of love - and not simply her more obvious concern with the immediate social issues arising from her rule. The subsequent scene featuring the Wladiken both provides some comic entertainment and discloses their selfish aims. While Krokus did apparently curb some of their power (713-4), his daughter has gone even further in restricting their political influence. They only wanted one of the sisters to rule in his place in the mistaken belief that they could exercise more control over a woman. Since Libussa's egalitarianism, extended to all her subjects, now poses an even greater threat to their privileged status, they form an unholy alliance to assure their own advantage, deciding to leave the choice as to who will represent and protect their mutual interests to chance. At that very moment, who should happen to wander by but Primislaus, a

72 Act Two

contrived fortuity in keeping with the fairy-tale overtones and reminiscent of the incident with which the tragedy commenced: "Der Zufall kommt und meldet sich nicht an, / Auftauchend ist er da" (359-60). Primislaus's monologue portrays his obsession with Libussa in a noncomplimentary but fitting image of himself as the predatory wolf: "So wie der Wolf rings um die Herde kreist, / Halb Hunger und halb Furcht, schleich' ich im Stillen / Her um das Haus, das jene Hohe birgt" (739-41). The dichotomy of hunger and fear captures a typically male attitude to the female: sexual appetite aroused by the beautiful woman versus dread of the unknown, of the male's dependence upon this other or, in this particular case, of rejection by a social superior, "jene Hohe." It is also revealing to compare this image with Libussa's simile from that part of her long speech where she looks back later on her reign: "Gehiitet hab' ich euch dem Hirten gleich, / Der seine Lammer treibt auf frische Weide" (2314-5). The male speaker views the herd, synonymous with Libussa herself, as a means to satisfy his own needs, whereas Libussa depicts herself as the good shepherd concerned with the well-being of her flock. In both instances, the choice of the herd divulges the desire for dominance over the other or others common to the main protagonists. The insecurity intimated in the wolf image becomes more explicit as he reviews and examines his feelings: Und in der Brust trag' ich das reiche Bild, Das sie mir gab, vielmehr: das ich mir nahm, So dafi, wenns hier zur linken Seite pocht, Ich unterscheide kaum, ob es mein Herz, Ob es ihr Kleinod was so machtig sturmt; Und Beide drangen hin zu ihrer Herrin. (742-7)

Because this speech is a soliloquy and thus not calculated to persuade a stage audience, one has to assume sincerity at the conscious level and a genuineness of the sentiments expressed. His monologue does contain evidence of his being honest with himself: at first he flatters himself - she gave me the jewel - but then corrects himself, confessing that he took it. In his own peculiar way, he does feel tenderness for this woman and the reference to his carrying her picture next to his breast and being caught up in stormy emotions parallels Libussa's action and rhetorical question from the previous scene also meant for her ears only: "Die Hand auf die Brust gelegt: Ists hier denn etwa Friede?" (698). Hence, in the idiom of love, he does recognize her as the mistress of his heart, but this metaphor belongs to a patriarchal

73 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

model dating back to the earliest times and in actual practice the male does not relinquish any of his real power. From his perspective, Primislaus faces a real dilemma. If he returns the jewel, he already knows she will only reward him materially (cf. 258-9) and thus sever the link which he wishes to preserve, but if he does not return it, she will eventually forget him: "so deckt ein schnell Vergessen / Was sie kaum weifi mehr und nur hier noch lebt" (750-1). He assumes that he has made no lasting impression on her and that what has occurred between them has special meaning only for him - the "hier" refers to his heart. This again demonstrates how insecure the lovers are, as neither can guess the feelings of the other but each still wants to keep the relationship alive. Both Primislaus and Libussa seek clandestinely to remind their partner of himor herself, the latter through the chain and the accompanying riddle, the former by speaking to her page and giving him "ein Wort versteckter Mahnung, / Riickrufender Erinnerung" (754-5). Whereas Primislaus feels himself to be at a disadvantage in his relationship to Libussa, the same does not hold true for his dealings with his male social superiors: "LAPAK Erschrick nicht, fremder Mann! PRIMISLAUS Erschrak ich denn?" (757). This is not a man to be intimidated by the likes of the Wladiken as, sure of himself, he stands his ground, thereby encouraging Lapak to recognize in this stranger a suitable judge: "Zum Schiedsmann bist du demnach wie erlesen. PRIMISLAUS Was ist zu scheiden und was ist getrennt?" (759-60). The noun "Schiedsmann" offers another variation on the scheiden motif. When parties find themselves separated by a grievance, a judge must decide (ent-scheiden), must separate true from false or just from unjust. Primislaus embodies one of the claimants himself, unbeknownst to the Wladiken who ask him to sit in judgment on his own case: to resolve who will be Libussa's chosen mate (765), and he will eventually undertake with conviction the very judicial function in society that Libussa has only reluctantly discharged. In addition, the audience is in a position to enjoy the delightful dramatic irony of both the situation and the dialogue's wording: the text, having consistently associated him with Scheiden, has preconditioned the spectator to consider his question in terms of his encounter with Libussa, since he is in fact the only one who can put back together that which he once separated. It may also strike the alert observer as odd that he should immediately jump to the correct conclusion that something has been separated unless, of course, he understands Lapak's assertion in light of his relationship to Libussa. This subjective interpretation underlies the following exchange:

74 Act Two

LAPAK Etwa die Kette hier. PRIMISLAUS fur sich: Libussas Kette. DOMASLAV Sie gab uns eine hohe Frau. PRIMISLAUS Libussa! LAPAK So weifit du -? PRIMISLAUS - Nichts, als nur, dafi es die ihre. (761-3)

Upon seeing the chain he has sufficient presence of mind and control of his emotions to conceal his knowledge. His exclamatory outburst of her name, however, would seem to stem from his surprise and dismay that she has surrendered the chain to these three men. In other words, this realization may explain his consternation at what he perceives to be a betrayal of an already existing special link he hoped to maintain between himself and Libussa; therefore, he exposes momentarily his true sentiments but quickly regains his composure, the dash indicating the necessary time to recollect himself. His denial amounts to a prevarication dictated by caution and cunning, for, aside from Libussa, he alone knows the full significance of the chain. Unless he hears all the details, he refuses to pass judgment: "Ich bin kein Mann des Zufalls und des Gliicks, / Zumal wo's Richterspruch gilt und Entscheidung" (766-7). Like Libussa (383-91), he is not willing to let an issue be settled by chance and thus insists on having control of his life and his decisions. On this occasion he proves his legalistic bent: he will make a good judge, since he will only reach an Ent-scheidung once he knows all the facts of a case. While such a responsible attitude sounds most commendable, the audience identifies it as a subterfuge to discover the reason for the chain's current location. Upon Primislaus's insistence that the Wladiken read out the exact wording of the riddle, he testifies to his knowledge of its meaning by visually enacting its concealed message for the audience, his separation and reunification of the chain's links, and when Domaslav mentions the jewel, "fahrt Primislaus schnell nach der linken Seite der Brust, wo er das Kleinod verborgen" (p. 310), a telling gesture which the audience can fully comprehend from his previous monologue: "Und Beide [jewel and heart] drangen hin zu threr Herrin" (747). Indeed, no sooner does he hear the last two lines than he at once obeys the promptings of his heart: PRIMISLAUS DOMASLAV PRIMISLAUS LAPAK

Ich will zu ihr! Was ficht euch an? Ihr geht? Das Ratsel 1st gelost. Wie nur?

75 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation PRIMISLAUS

- Es schien so, Doch decket neue Nacht das kaum Erhellte. (788-90)

Initially he reads the private invitation as Libussa intended: she is now a "Weib um das" only Primislaus "werben konnte" (249)/3 but again his uncensored reaction, once more signalled by the punctuation, soon comes under the scrutiny of his calculating mind, which assumes incorrectly that she was prepared to accept the Wladiken as serious candidates: "Sie sprachs zu euch als Werbern ihrer Hand?" (791). The metaphor he employs to convey the dashing of his hopes looks back to an actual visual image from his first major speech of the play: "Und eines Weibes leuchtende Gewande, / Vom Strudel fortgerafft, die Nacht durchblinken" (5-6). Just as her appearance once opened the prospect, however briefly and however impossibly beyond his social grasp, of winning her, he again discloses his lack of confidence in himself, his doubt that she could ever be drawn to him to the exclusion of her noble courtiers. As "kein Mann des Zufalls" (766), he objects that she would leave a decision of such magnitude to mere chance: "Und iiberlieC dem Zufall derm / Ob sie des Ratsels Losung dennoch fanden? / Und der es fand, er war ja ihr Gemahl!" (792-4). He assumes Libussa would accept the solution from one of the Wladiken, failing to appreciate how she had to resort to this tactic as a means to communicate her interest to him and to rid herself of unwanted suitors. What choice does she really have? She cannot show her fascination openly, nor instigate a formal procedure to retrieve the stolen jewel as it could cause her substantial social embarrassment. She does assume that Primislaus will somehow hear the riddle and, in this limited sense, does leave it to chance; however, she can be reasonably confident that the Wladiken could never come up with the answer to the riddle on their own. In the early stages of their relationship, lovers may be extremely vulnerable: since both parties are unsure of themselves and, more importantly, of their partner's feelings, they exhibit a reluctance to leave a major life decision to chance (383-91; 792-4). Obviously, from his perspective, the meeting did not mean as much to her as it did to him: "Fahr hin, mein Gliick, dein Plug war allzurasch! / Doch blieb ein Stachel, scheints, in ihrer Brust. / Lafi michs versuchen denn; ich driick' ihn fester, / Ob ihn die Zeit vertieft, ob sie ihn heilt" (795-8). He portrays himself as a mere annoyance to her whereas she rules his heart. In a response typical of a miffed or thwarted lover, he tries to hurt her just as she has hurt him. The object of this game of love is control: who will ultimately dominate the relationship? Significantly, out of damaged male pride, he

76 Act Two

has recourse to Krokus's weapon, the phallic prick (432), the incontestable symbol of male power, to represent his desire. Since it has penetrated the sign of her femininity, her breast, he intends to push or force it in even more deeply as a lasting reminder of his influence. Primislaus's intentional misinterpretation of the riddle may well represent a playful intertextual parody of Lessing's ring parable, a "Marchen" (Nathan 1956; cf. Libussa 274), according to Saladin's designation. Like the Wladiken, "jeder [son] will der Fiirst / Des Hauses sein" (Nathan 1960-1). "Man untersucht, man zankt / Man klagt. Unsonst; der rechte Ring war nicht / Erweislich" (Nathan 1961-3). Similarly the three nobles quarrel over ownership, show no reluctance to resort to violence to defend their claim, and prove incapable of deciding, "Wes von uns Dreien soil das Kleinod sein?" (765). In their frustration the sons turn to a judge to solve the riddle: "Denkt ihr, dafi ich [the judge] Ratsel / Zu losen da bin?" (Nathan 2012-3), and his pronouncement applies equally well to the three plaintiffs in Libussa: "Jeder liebt sich selber nur / Am meisten? O, so seid ihr alle drei / Betrogene Betruger!" (Nathan 2022-4). Each of the Wladiken wishes to be the jewel in order to secure his own selfish ends and, in fact, they turn out to be deceived deceivers in this confrontation with Primislaus: "DOMASLAV Wir sind betrogen" (957). They meet their match. The argument put forward by Lessing's judge, "Und gewifi, / Dafi er [the father] alle drei geliebt, und gleich / Geliebt, indem er zwei nicht driicken mogen, / Um einen zu begiinstigen" (Nathan 2037-40), corresponds to Primislaus's deliberately misleading contention: "Nicht Einen wollte sie vorerst bezeichnen, / Ihr Alle sollt zur Werbung euch berecht'gen" (801-2), and both magistrates encourage their respective trios to engage in a contest to select the true candidate. Grillparzer successfully exploits these parallels to ridicule the Wladiken in their egoistic goals and to enhance Primislaus's reputation as a "Schiedsmann." Libussa's judge, far from being impartial, is himself the main pretender and has knowledge which he draws on to lead his interlocutors deliberately astray as, for example, in his play on the verb teilen: Ihr Alle sollt zur Werbung euch berecht'gen, Den Einen wird bestimmen ihre Wahl Weshalb, da sie zu "teilen" euch gebot Und "mitzuteilen" doch so streng verponte, Sie in Gesamtbesitz euch wunscht zugleich: Gemeinsam haben heifit als Freunde teilen Gebt acht, ob ich die Wahrheit naher treffe. (802-8)

77 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

In his misreading he alleges that Libussa ordered them to share with someone else - he has himself in mind with a view to a possible exchange - but forbade them to divide amongst themselves, i.e., they must keep the chain in their common possession. By so doing, however, none of them can become the chosen husband. Primislaus capitalizes as well on the ambiguity of language, for he uses "mitteilen" in two senses (i) to share something with another person in a concrete sense and (2) to share information, to communicate with someone. The prohibition against "mitteilen" could also mean that they were not to mention this matter to anyone else, a possible scenario which Libussa did not intend (680) but which particularly troubles Primislaus (792-4). In her later response to the Wladiken, she too utilizes both meanings of the verb: "Verboten ward zu teilen, ihr teilt mit I An einen Fremden was euch ward zu huten" (951-2). They divided the chain with someone else when they were supposed to restore its wholeness and they communicated the riddle to another party, in point of fact, her real intent. Primislaus and Libussa come across as worthy opponents as both turn words to account at the expense of the Wladiken and successfully manipulate these three fools into becoming their unwitting messengers. It proves particularly profitable to examine how Primislaus interprets the events leading to Libussa's election: Die Spangen sie sind hier, das Bildnis fehlt. Wie sie's verier, die Fiirstin, wer kanns wissen? Doch dafi es fehlt, und damals schon gefehlt, Als jene Fraun um Bohmens Krone losten, Sagt das Geriicht in jedes Marines Mund; Wie auch, dafi durch den Abgang jenes Bildes Bezeichnet ward als Herzogin Libussa, Und in der Tat "durch das was man verlor, Das Kleinod reicher wurde als zuvor" Denn es trug ein der Bohmen Herzogskrone. (812-21)

No less than four times he harps upon the theme of loss or lack, specifically the disappearance of her jewel with all its erotic overtones. By accentuating her deficiency, he may be secretly boasting of his own virility and the mark that he has left on her to which he draws attention in the preamble to his analysis: "Doch blieb ein Stachel, scheints, in ihrer Brust" (796). Although he created the circumstances in order to keep alive her sense of indebtedness, he pretends ignorance of the details, but the audience knows that he knows.

78 Act Two

This speech also confirms that he now realizes the fateful repercussions of his intervention, including the implication that the stolen jewel was instrumental in her accession to the throne. Not only does he show no remorse for his theft and its effects, but the wording even intimates that he takes pride in and claims credit for her promotion. In his scale of values, this constitutes a desirable development, whereas Libussa accepted the crown reluctantly and largely out of pique and wounded pride occasioned by his interference. Grillparzer may be hinting at a possible divergence between the two central players by the subtle change in the riddle's wording, i.e., Libussa's actual line reads, "'Das Kleinod teurer machte derm zuvor" (674) versus Primislaus's slight variation: "Das Kleinod reicher wurde als zuvor'" (820). The dramatist could have used "teurer" - it has the same number of syllables - but opted for another adjective to underscore a difference in personality and priorities. Whereas she is more concerned with human intangibles such as tenderness - "teurer" here equals dearer in the figurative sense of more cherished - he stresses the material aspect - "reicher" - and power - "Derm es trug ein der Bohmen Herzogskrone" (821) - with the concrete symbol of that power in the emphatic final position. To reinforce further his pragmatism, he insists upon not just "Das Wort" (823), the apparent verbal solution to the conundrum, but also the object: "Sie will die Sache" (826), meaning, "Sie will das Bildnis" (824). For Primislaus the jewel would appear to signify wealth and power and for Libussa, love for her father and loyalty to his memory. In defence of Primislaus the text supplies another, more sympathetic explanation. For both of the main protagonists, the jewel comes to designate their affinity. Later in Libussa's presence, he recreates his spontaneous feelings upon first hearing these crucial lines: Mit erhobener Stimme:

Hinzufugt was, indem man es verier, Das Kleinod teurer machte denn zuvor O wiifitest du was mir bei diesem Wort Fur Hoffnungen durch meine Seele stiirmten! (1809-12)

Here he significantly reproduces the exact wording including the crucial adjective. One can account for the discrepancy in terms of the context of his respective interlocutors: before a noble male audience he appeals to those values, wealth and power, which conform to the aristocratic ethos and to which they can easily relate - he is after all deceiving the Wladiken by telling the truth but not the whole truth. For these self-serving listeners he gives greater prominence to "die

79 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

Sache" rather than to "Das Wort," providing what they want to hear, while for Libussa he not only singles out the importance of "diesem Wort/' i.e., "teurer" but offers evidence of the emotional impact it had upon him at the time. Are we to assume that in this instance he is acting, to cite Lorenz, "als Lugner, der sich nur um seinen Vorteil kummert, als Spieler mit menschlichen Emotionen" ("Neubewertung" 41) or may one detect a note of sincerity? The automatic, impulsive nature of his gesture upon hearing these two lines of the riddle for the first time, "Bei diesen Worten fahrt Primislaus schnell nach der linken Seite der Brust, wo er das Kleinod verborgen" (p. 310), and the fact that he does not aim to impress those present with this visual confirmation of his sensibility - indeed, he had every reason to conceal it from the Wladiken - lead the audience to posit some degree of genuine emotional involvement on his part. Hence the only real distinction that emerges between Libussa and Primislaus in this incident may be his greater14 skill and cunning in tailoring his utterances to the expectations of his audience. The divided nature of the Wladiken becomes obvious in their selfish responses to Primislaus's offer to provide the missing jewel. As each is out for himself, their unity quickly dissolves and the ploughman, using his intelligence and skill at manipulating people by an understanding of their nature, readily gains the upper hand. His metaphor delineates the usual fate suffered by an agent of those in authority: "Wer zielt, driickt das GeschoS an Brust und Wange, / Doch wenn er traf, wirft ers verachtlich hin" (835-6). Once a servant has outlived his usefulness, an ungrateful master casts him aside as expendable. In a situation where all four participants have aspirations to win sole possession of the queen, Primislaus compares himself to an arrow, another phallic symbol, to suggest the exploitation of his own virility to achieve their objective, a hypothetical staging replete with dramatic irony. However, by proposing to exchange the jewel for the chain, he effectively assures that they will not be able to fulfil the condition set by the riddle: "auf das sie ganz erst werde" (672) and thus perpetuates the separation, his only hope at the moment. Having understood the subtext of Libussa's riddle, he knows what he is doing, i.e., only the complete belt could possibly result in a successful courtship, as he later corroborates: "Auch weifi ich, dafi den werbenden Wladiken / Sie auferlegt, ihr ganz und ungeteilt / Das Kleinod auszuliefern, das sie hochhalt" (1533-5). He again plays the role of the divider. In his dealings with the three noblemen, he also demonstrates his practical, business sense: "Wer auf den Markt geht, der steckt Geld zu sich. / Fur Nichts ist nichts. Und somit Gott befohlen!" (842-3),

8o Act Two

i.e., if they want the merchandise, they will have to pay for it. When Domaslav suggests the use of force in a cowardly three-against-one contest, Primislaus astutely guesses their intent and, sufficiently confident in his own abilities, manages to intimidate them: "Der Ort der es verbirgt ist mir bekannt, / Und wer mich schadigt bringt sich um den Schatz. Die Hand an ein dolchartiges Messer in seinem Gurtel gelegt: Nebstdem dafi ich nicht wehrlos, wie ihr sent" (846-8). He effects the substitution by exploiting their gullibility, greed, and the techniques of the magician, for he is familiar with the mentality that he is dealing with, can speak its language, and would be prepared to do combat despite the odds. It seems highly unlikely that this scene would have found favour with a censorship dominated by the aristocracy, given its embarrassing implications for this class. Although Lorenz may be correct in her sarcastic denigration of Primislaus as "ein geeigneter Fiirst fiir die 'Besten' in Libussas Volk" ("Neubewertung" 41), this ploughman stands head and shoulders above "'die Besten'" by virtue of his "Klugheit" (856), independence, and courage. Asked by Domaslav why he wants the chain, Primislaus also has recourse to riddles or double entendres only fully accessible to the audience: "Vielleicht als Zeichen dessen was geschah, / Als Biirgschaft auch vielleicht fiir euern Dank; / Derm - wiederum vielleicht - geb' ich sie spater / Fiir einen Lohn der hoher als sie selbst" (85053). Picking up on Libussa's cue from the last line of her riddle: "Vielleicht wird Er, doch nie ein Andrer ihr Gemahl" (676), he qualifies his response with three ambiguous instances of "vielleicht." The first could relate either to his current negotiations with the Wladiken or to the events of the first act; the second "vielleicht" has a decidedly sarcastic flavour, since he easily recognizes the treachery of which these men are capable; and the third intimates his true goal, his ambition to win Libussa for himself as payment for a debt incurred. The consistent use of commercial diction to express his relationships to others resurfaces in his last speech of the scene: "Ich nehme meinen Lohn, der mir ein Zeichen / So gut wie jenes andre. Und Libussa / Sie wird erinnert. Hofmung bleibt wie vor" (862-4). The chain which replaces the jewel as a fitting reminder of Libussa's obligation to him, "ein Zeichen ... [sjeiner Tat" (65), has taken on several levels of meaning since he first separated it by rescuing her: chastity, the unity and bondage of marriage, sexual submissiveness, the chain of office, a reminder of the past, the contest of the present, and the hope of a future reunion. The substitution will produce the "Wort versteckter Mahnung" (754) alluded to in his earlier soliloquy, a secret sign intelligible only to the chief characters and the audience, but above all, he will be able to live on in hope.

8i Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

This episode concludes with the resolve of the Wladiken to return to Libussa in order to compel her to choose among them. If all else fails, they can always resort to violence to achieve their purpose: "Und sucht sie Ausflucht etwa weiter noch, / Bleibt uns das Schwert" (873-4), me emblem of their highborn heritage and the sign of their right to rule sanctioned by their physical superiority both as aristocrats and as males. Even though Libussa has secured considerable popular support, her position remains threatened, because an influential segment of the male population cannot countenance subservience to a woman who lacks the sword. "Es soil sich manches andern hier im Land / Und auch in euerm Haus, geliebts den Gottern. / Der Fiirstin Weisheit ehr' ich; doch ein Mann, / Es hat doch andern Schick!" (880-83). Once they have regained power, they will reassert male dominance in both sociopolitical ("Land") and domestic ("Haus") institutions.15 Nonetheless, the final stage directions show how Lapak and Domaslav unite against Biwoy, their more independently minded colleague, and therefore how the power politics of the masculine world, based on competition and acquisition, only engender distrust and betrayal. The setting now shifts back to Libussa's castle where the signs point to her preoccupation with Primislaus: Setzt mir den Stuhl heraus; ich will ins Freie. Vielmehr nur: sattelt mir das weifie Ro6, Dasselbe das mich einst nach Budesch trug, In jener Nacht, als bei des Vaters Scheiden Ich Herrin, Sklavin ward von diesem Land. (884-8)

Her confusion as to what she really wants to do - she issues a command, retracts it and issues a new one - suggests considerable internal tension, prompted by the many imponderables in her relationship to the man she has secretly summoned. Her longing for release "ins Freie" or her decision to mount his horse suggests her continual fascination with her rescuer. After all, why does she keep the horse in her possession? Once it brought her back safely home, she could have returned it anytime, as the end of this act will prove. She is just as anxious as Primislaus to keep the memory alive, to hold on to a tangible connection to the past, in the hope of some future contact. Moreover, in the same breath in which she insists upon riding his palfrey, she also mentions her father's "Scheiden" and its consequences, a pattern returning at the end of the act: "Sent hier das Rofi, denselben weifien Zelter, / Der mich nach Budesch trug an jenem Tag , / Da ich nach Krautern suchend fand die Krone" (982-4). That

82 Act Two

night did in fact mark at least three instances of separation: from her father, his surrogate, and her jewel, all of which led her to take upon herself Krokus's office. Assuming a martyr's pose with a formulation reminiscent of Frederick the Great's famous dictum/6 she paints a flattering portrait of herself as a slave to the state and its duties, as someone who lacks the freedom to be her own person. By establishing her social obligations/limitations, she also indicates the obstacles that stand in the way of any union with Primislaus, no matter how much Libussa the woman feels attracted to him. Since she is in public, she cannot allude to him directly, but reading between the lines we see where her mind, consciously or unconsciously, dwells. The issue of legal rights raised by the next episode: "Ich will mein Recht" (896) figures prominently in all three posthumous plays but with particular vehemence in Libussa and Ein Bruderzwist.17 Florack has shown convincingly how this concept brings out the worst in Libussa: "Sie praktiziert nicht etwa Nachstenliebe als Dienerin an Gleichen, droht sie doch mit Vernichtung der Existenzgrundlage: 'Vergleicht euch! Sonst zieh' ich das Streitgut ein / Und lasse Disteln sa'en drauf und Dornen / Mit einer Uberschrift: Hier wohnt das Recht.' (V. 913-915) Der Bildgebrauch deutet unmifiverstandlich auf das Buch Genesis ... Solcher Gebrauch biblischer Sprache legitimiert den Herrscher als denjenigen, der um die Ordnung weifi; der Anspruch auf Selbstbestimmung der Untergebenen erscheint daher zwangslaufig desavouiert" (240-1). From the end of the first act with the implied metaphor of the horse and rider, Libussa has never advanced any suggestion of political self-determination for the people. The political standard harking back to eighteenth-century Josephinismus would seem to be an enlightened, benevolent, paternalistic (Rudolf), maternalistic (Libussa) monarchy. Libussa's subjects should be grateful for life itself: Ich sehe iib'rall Gnade, Wohltat nur In allem was das All fur Alle fullt, Und diese Wurmer sprechen mir von Recht? Dafi du dem Diirft'gen hilfst, den Bruder liebst, Das 1st dein Recht, vielmehr 1st deine Pflicht, Und Recht 1st nur der ausgeschmtickte Name Fur alles Unrecht das die Erde hegt. (902-8)

Whereas the Old Testament inspired the image of sowing thorns and thistles as part of Yahweh's curse (Florack 240), Judeo-Christian values such as thankfulness for God's glorious creation, humility before the recognition of one's own wretchedness ("Wurmer"), charity to those in need, and brotherly love (agape) determine our sacred

83 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

duty and look forward to the crux of her final prophetic message to humanity: "Und Demut heifit ihr Oberer und Einer" (2489). The appropriate human posture of abject self-effacement before God's "Ordnung" Rudolf expresses in the line: "Des Menschen Recht heifit hungern ... und leiden [Grillparzer's emphases]" (1255) in the medieval Christian tradition. Both apologists of the divine order speak as a privileged member, as one who represents and benefits from this heavenly ordained system;18 however, their children have become recalcitrant and now want "to run their own show." Instinctively Libussa senses which of the two plaintiffs is at fault: "Ich les' in euren Blicken wer hier triigt, / Doch sag' ichs euch, so fordert ihr Beweis. / Sind Recht doch und Beweis die beiden Kriicken, / An denen alles hinkt was krumm und schief" (909-12). Neumann defines the matriarchal stage as that "Stufe, in welcher der Archetyp der Grofien Mutter herrscht und das UnbewuCte das psychische Geschehen des Einzelnen und der Gruppe dirigiert" (94); however, intuition is not admissible in a male court of law. Since the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty, the legal system can conceal its moral corruption behind its procedures. One is reminded of the adversarial model whereby each side, far from seeking justice, strives to win the contest, a process which is supposed to bring out the truth but in practice can largely depend upon the cleverness or cunning of the attorney. Grillparzer has captured what he perceived to be a regrettable but inevitable development in his depiction of the political intriguer and Streber who rules by the pen, Klesel: "Niemand soil zittern! / Vor allem der im Recht ist und der klug" (2573-4).19 The image of sowing desolation upon the contested land is intended as a warning, the potential destruction of a desirable, compassionate human component when one places one's faith in lifeless documents, procedures and rights: "Mit einer Uber schrift: Hier wohnt das Recht" (915). Libussa's response anticipates in many respects Rudolf's reluctant acquiescence to the Protestants' demand for their rights as guaranteed by "die Schrift" (1651): Hier meine Untersc/in/t. Da ihr Den toten Ziigen einer toten Hand Mehr traut als dem lebendig warmen Wort, Das von dem Mund der Liebe fortgepflanzt, Empfangen wird vom liebedurst'gem Ohr, Hier schwarz auf weifi. (1652-7)

When one of the adversaries requests the right to lay his claim before a jury of his own male peers, "Doch du erlaubst, o Fiirstin, dafi den Anspruch / Wir Mannern unsers Gleichen legen vor" (916-7),

84 Act Two

an exasperated Libussa retorts, "Wenn Gleiches sie begehren sind sie gleich, / Doch Gleiches leisten, stort mit eins die Gleichheit" (918-9). They are all equal when they want the same thing but once equality is achieved, they are no longer willing to do their share. In other words, they support a democratic principle provided it serves their best interest. Rudolf makes essentially the same point before the representatives of the "bohmischen Stande:" "Das Volk! Das sind die vielen leeren Nullen, / Die gern sich beisetzt wer sich fiihlt als Zahl, / Doch wegstreicht, kommts zum Teilen in der Rechnung" (1534-6). At this very moment in Libussa when "Selbstsucht" (Bruderzwist 1474), Rudolf's bete noire, raises its ugly head, the Wladiken reappear to demand the queen's hand, a claim to which she makes the caustic reply: "Nicht mehr als das? Fiirwahr ihr seid bescheiden" (922). She has just maintained that men always want more than their portion and, as a case in point, she now employs "bescheiden" to highlight through sarcasm the complete opposite of its meaning: bescheiden "meint eigtl. die Mitteilung eines richterlichen Entscheids ... Das reflexive 'sich bescheiden' 'zufrieden sein, sich zufriedengeben, sich begniigen' bedeutete urspr. 'sich vom Richter bescheiden lassen'" (Duden, Etymologic 61), i.e., to be satisfied with the decision, the share or separation deemed appropriate by the judge. These litigants do not wish to divide among themselves; each wants all for himself. No sooner does Domaslav produce the jewel than Libussa asks, "So habt ihr ihn getotet?" (925); she assumes that he must love her and would rather die than part with it, a rather flattering estimate of her impact on him. Upon learning that he surrendered it "Fur Gold" (926), she proves unable to mask her extreme disappointment: "So ist er auch derm wie die Andern alle: / Bin Sklav des Nutzens; nur der Neigung Herr, / Um etwa mit Gewinn sie zu verhandeln, / Fahr hin o Hofmung! erste, letzte du" (927-30). All the men around her would seem to exhibit the same self-centred, self-aggrandizing motives and are therefore incapable of sharing her priorities and earning her esteem. Consistent with Lorenz's uncomplimentary assessment of Primislaus's character, Libussa depicts him as a Machiavellian manipulator who, in full control of his emotions, exploits them to profit from a situation. She now believes she has a confirmation of his insincerity at their initial meeting where, ironically, a misunderstanding again based on gold, for which she bore the responsibility, preceded their separation: "Fur mich [Primislaus] ist Gold kein Preis. So lafi uns scheiden!" (260). Unwittingly she here confesses her earlier attraction to him: Primislaus was her first hope as he is also her last. She will accept him or no one, a reiteration of

85 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

the message contained in the last line of her riddle: "Vielleicht wird Er, doch nie ein Andrer ihr Gemahl" (676). Since he has shown himself undeserving, she has renounced all hope. Just as Primislaus assumed that she seriously considered the Wladiken as suitors and that she left his being informed to chance, "Fahr hin, mein Gliick, dein Plug war allzurasch!" (795), she likewise jumps to a wrong conclusion, once again illustrating the vulnerability of nascent love. To underscore the similarity of response, both protagonists use the same rhetorical formula, "Fahr hin." In his case he apostrophizes "Gliick," i.e., Fortuna, as he has been committed to Libussa from the beginning (42), and in hers she addresses "Hofmung" as she has more to lose and still does not really know what sort of a man she is dealing with. But Primislaus was also anxious to cling to some vestige of encouragement: "Sie wird erinnert. Hofmung bleibt wie vor" (864). In their continually frustrated attempts at rapprochement, keeping hope alive remains crucial for both parties. Still clutching at straws, she requests further details, unable or unwilling to acquiesce in such a negative view of her former rescuer: "Er nahm das Gold freiwillig?" (934), and, through her persistence, learns of the exchange: "Es war der Preis, / Den er, trotz hoherm, einzig nur verlangte" (936-7). He did in fact reject "Ein KornmaS Silber" (830), a "Schlo6 in Kresnagrund" (831) and "all [Biwoy's] Eigen" (832), thereby substantiating his repudiation of material wealth from the first act (260). Her impetuous exclamation at the news: "Habt Dank! -" (938) attests to her relief at the renewal of hope: all is not lost. While ridding her of the Wladiken, he has followed her example of using them to deliver a communication, a reminder of an outstanding debt of gratitude which she here acknowledges: "Erinnert mich an meinen Dank, und hat / Was ihn als Gegenstand des Dankes bezeichnet" (940-1), although she downplayed it at their first contact and chooses to ignore it at their next meeting. During this dialogue between Libussa and the Wladiken and her private asides, the text never allows the audience to lose sight of the two plaintiffs and their desire for male justice: "Nehmt euch, ihr Herrn [Wladiken], der Unterdriickten an!" (931) and subtly sets up Primislaus in the minds of the audience as the obvious candidate to fill the role of judge. For instance, when Libussa claims, "Verhartet [i.e., as opposed to her normal "sanft und mild" (575)] wie ich bin, pafit mir das Amt" (933), she foretells her listing of his qualifications among which she highlights his hardness: "Und eisern wird er sein so wie sein Tisch / Um euch zu bandigen, die ihr von Eisen" (9967). But, above all, the audience has been conditioned to perceive

86 Act Two

Primislaus as the agent of separation, a feature which Lapak's account brings to mind: "Den Schiedspruch kaum getan, war er verschwunden" (943). Since the ploughman has already demonstrated sufficient cleverness to outwit the Wladiken - "Der Mann ist klug" (938), Libussa observes - has separated the fools from the solution to the riddle: "Ihr [Wladiken] aber, statt des Ganzen, bringt den Teil" (954), and has produced a decision/verdict in his own favour: "Ich [Libussa] will ihn sehn" (947), he clearly is the man who can pass judgment in the pending case. To paraphrase Lapak's previous remark, "Zum Schiedsmann [ist er] wie erlesen" (cf. 759). This same theme culminates with the play on entscheiden: "LAPAK Doch erst entscheide, Fiirstin, unsern Anspruch. LIBUSSA Wozu entscheiden was entschieden schon?" (948-9); DER ERSTE DER STREITENDEN Ich will mein Recht. O ware hier ein Mann, / Der ernst entschiede wo es geht um Ernstes" (958-9). The right to make decisions, to separate right from wrong, belongs traditionally to the male, the one who, as bearer of the phallus, sets up, indeed, needs opposites to justify his dominance and to impose his will, the law of the father. The scales as a symbol of justice imply a distinction between two discrete points of view in the adversarial approach. Throughout the first two acts, one cannot ignore the unmistakable signs of Libussa's sense of self-worth. Largely out of wounded pride she declined to participate in drawing lots and accepted her father's crown. Hence, once she learns of Primislaus's refusal to come forward to declare his candidacy, her attribution of pride strikes an ironic note: "Wohl also stolz auch. Gut, ich liebe Stolz, / Zumal wenn er in eigner Hohe sucht / Den Mafistab, nicht in fremder Niedrigkeit" (944-6). While she claims to appreciate pride in others, she will go to great lengths to humiliate Primislaus and oblige him to humble himself: "Gehorchen soil er und dann mag er ziehn" (1505). Libussa focuses on two equally proud individuals drawn to one another, each anxiously waiting for the other to make the first concession (cf. Roe, Introduction 227), or as Wolf-Cirian has put it: "Zwei Menschen, einander wert, aber von unbeugsamem Stolze, werden durch eine Kette von MiSverstandnissen voneinander getrennt und wollen beide, von Schmerz gequalt und von Stolz getrieben, sich der scheinbaren Demutigung nicht unterwerfen" (256). Libussa also displays a lack of sensitivity in her failure to comprehend why he feels unable to take the initial step: "Verschmaht er meinen Dank?" (947). He has done damage to her pride by appearing to scorn her gratitude, whereas, from his perspective, the problem in their relationship has always stemmed from the social discrepancy between them: "Du Hohe, Herrliche! / Wie zierst du diese landlich niedre Tracht!" (20-1).

87 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

In her antithesis between "Hohe" and "Niedrigkeit," seemingly overlooking the class barrier, she extols high personal standards founded on an awareness of individual self-esteem - she calls Primislaus "Wohl edel auch" (938) - but it is easy for her to make such a pronouncement, speaking as she does from the privileged position of the "Hirten" vis-a-vis "seine Lammer" (2314-5). In this regard Nietzsche has argued in Zur Genealogie der Moral, "dafi iiberall Vornehm/ 'edel' im standischen Sinne der Grundbegriff ist, aus dem sich 'gut' im Sinne von 'seelisch-vornehm,' 'edel/ von 'seelisch-hochgeartet/ 'seelisch-privilegiert' mit Notwendigkeit herausentwickelt" (2: 187). The demand for male justice reaches a climax as "MEHRERE mit Domaslav und Biwoy" exclaim in unison: "Ja wohl: ein Mann, ein Mann!" (960). Faced with such open revolt against her regime,20 Libussa would seem to yield to public pressure, but largely, I suspect, because she has a suitable candidate in mind and consequently is more amenable to this solution, especially since it fulfils an unconscious wish: Da larmen sie, Und haben, fuhl' ich, recht. Es fehlt ein Solcher. Ich kann nicht hart sein, well ich selbst mich achte. Den Ziigel fiihr' ich wohl mit weicher Hand, Doch hier bedarfs des Sporns, der scharfen Gerte. (960-4)

Although these verses present stereotypical gender attributes, Libussa has shown a propensity to be harsh - under duress she momentarily considered executing a subject by her own hand. She bases her kindness upon her own high opinion of herself, for she would not demean herself by acting like a man. In view of the phallic implications of this speech, she may again be making a virtue out of a necessity as she reverts to her preferred metaphor of leading her submissive people with a gentle hand and divulges a rather autocratic attitude at heart: she once more regards her subjects ideally as a docile, well schooled horse. In order to reign effectively, she reluctantly concedes the need for the spur or the whip to exert the rider's authority over his mount. The male has the capacity to impose the law, if need be to inflict corporal punishment to accomplish his will, because he possesses the legitimizing, intimidating phallus. At the end of the first act she linked the rule of the father to the "Stachel" (432) and now, at the conclusion of the second, she associates the "Sporn" and "scharfen Gerte" with Primislaus, Krokus's true heir; in the very next line, after outlining what is required to be a potent

88 Act Two

leader, she turns to her male subjects and declares, "Wohlan ihr Herrn, ich geb' euch einen Mann:" (965), i.e., Primislaus. In an aside meant only for the ears of the audience, she voices her eagerness to enter a contest and to beat this man at his own game: "Du diinkst dich kliiger als Libussa ist? / Ich will dir zeigen, dafi du dich betrogen" (967-8), a battle of the sexes.21 Dem Fischer gleich wirfst du die Angel aus, Willst feme stehn, belauernd deinen Koder. Libussa ist keirt Fischlein das man fa'ngt. Gewaltig wie der fiirstliche Delphin ReiS' ich die Angel dir zusamt der Leine Aus schwacher Hand und schleudre dich ins Meet, Da zeig denn ob du schwimmen kannst, mein Fischer. (969-75)

Her choice of simile possesses an appropriate symmetry because Primislaus first retrieved her from the waters of the "GieSbach" and thus, in a real sense, he has already caught his "Fischlein" despite her protest here and has so far exerted considerable indirect influence upon his catch. Her reference to the fisherman's hook to which the fish is attracted and on which it impales itself shares a consistency with her earlier allusions to the male "Stachel," "Sporn" or "scharf[e] Gerte" since "Angel" in the old meaning signified "Haken, Stachel, Spitze" (Duden, Etymologic 25). Although the portrayal of a woman as a fish recalls the siren who lures the unsuspecting male to a watery grave in the female element - Goethe's poem "Der Fischer" comes to mind - Libussa casts herself in a more masculine role, "der fiirstliche Delphin." She attributes to herself the dignity and respect due to her noble person which Primislaus has neglected to show. Whereas she has just characterized her administration as exhibiting typically female gentleness: "mit weicher Hand" (963), now, under the influence of thwarted passion, she contradicts herself by threatening to resort to violence both to tear hook and line out of his hand and to hurl him into the hostile sea.22 "Die Mysterien des Todes als Mysterien der furchtbaren Mutter fufien auf ihrer fressend-einfangenden Funktion, die das Leben und das Individuum wieder in sich zuriickholt" (Neumann 79). The sea devours the male sun in the West. Turning back to her stage audience, she announces, "Da gilt es denn den Mann euch zu bezeichnen, / Der schlichten soil und richten hier im Land, / Und nahe stehn, wohl etwa nachst der Fiirstin" (976-8). She can hide her attraction to Primislaus behind the public demand for a man, i.e., I, who have spoken "Vernunft" (979), disagree

89 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

with your approach ("Unsinn" [980]), but you leave me no alternative: "Doch ihr bliebt taub" (980). To quote Ehrhard, "Als sie sich entschlieSt, einen Gatten zu wahlen, folgt sie ebenso ihrem Herzen, wie den Bitten ihrer Untertanen" (507). She even hints at the possibility that the male she has in mind - she will make the choice (675) - may share some power with her but leaves the commitment intentionally vague. She is also aware of the feasibility of contacting him through his horse and has kept this option in reserve for this express purpose since their last meeting. It is also revealing to juxtapose her current reference to his animal with the previous occurrence in the same act. Whereas in the earlier version she concluded with the line: "Ich Herrin, Sklavin ward von diesem Land" (888), in an appeal for public sympathy for her lack of personal freedom, i.e., a picture of weakness, she now elects to accentuate her political power symbolized by the crown in the strong final position: "Da ich nach Krautern suchend fand die Krone" (984). Her present resolve to do battle with Primislaus explains the shift from servitude to her divine right to rule.23 Outlining in explicit detail how the men are to use the horse, another betrayal of her considerable preoccupation with the ploughman, she orders that he be brought to her, leaving no option for a refusal on his part:24 "Ihr findet einen Mann / In Pfliigerart, der - da es dann wohl Mittag - / An einem Tisch von Eisen tafelnd sitzt / Und einsam bricht sein Brot. Den bring zu mir" (990-3). Even before their reunion takes place, she sets the autocratic tone of command, "de[n] krankenden Befehl," rather than request, "ich bitte" (1774), the source of much of the eventual tension between them. Das 1st der Mann, den ihr und ich gesucht. Was jetzo leicht und los das macht er fest, Und eisern wird er sein so wie sein Tisch Um euch zu bandigen, die ihr von Eisen. (994-7)

Once she alludes to the goal of their common search, she acknowledges publicly that he is the man she has sought and thus would seem to refute Lorenz's position: "Libussa wiinscht diesen Herrn nicht herbei; aber sie stellt ihre eigenen Neigungen zuriick, bereit, dem Volk zu geben, wonach es verlangt, da es ihre Werte, den Frieden, die individuelle Freiheit, die Achtung vor dem Mitmenschen ablehnt: den Tyrannen und Unterdriicker. Indem sie den Geist der bewufiten Demokratie vertritt und inn nicht nur predigt, gibt sie dem Willen der Untertanen den Vorrang vor ihrem eigenen. Sie stellt somit eine Regierung vor, die den Wunsch des Volkes ausiibt, selbst

90 Act Two

wenn er ihr verderblich erscheint - das Prinzip und oft der Nachteil eines liberalen Systems" ("Neubewertung" 42). As Libussa inadvertently confesses in her open declaration, she does find Primislaus attractive and hence to a certain degree out of wounded pride and resentment at public preference for a man, she blames on the will of the people - do "MEHRERE mit Domaslav und Biwoy" (p. 317) truly represent that will or a vociferous minority of self-interested males? - what is at least in part her own conscious desire. She has never been able to deny completely the influence of her father. The subsequent act makes it clear that her image of the ploughman's iron table refers to the blade of the plough: "Nimm Kas' und Brot aus deiner Pfliigertasche / Und halte Mahl am ungefugen Tisch. / ... / Er hat sich wieder gesetzt und den Inhalt seiner Tasche auf die Pflugschar ausgelegt" (1064-5). The German Schar comparable with "mhd. Schar, ahd. scara, niederl. schaar, eng. share ist eine ablautende Bildung zu scheren 'schneiden': die Pflugschar schneidet ins Erdreich" (Duden, Etymologic 595). An additional manifestation of the separation theme, the "Pflugschar" divides the soil as it penetrates the earth to create a furrow in preparation for sowing the seed, the impregnation of mother earth: "Auf die jagende, kampfende, totende und opfernde Mannlichkeit, das 'Messer der Grofien Gottin/ den das Weibliche blutig eroffnenden Phallus und den die Erde aufreifienden Pflug ist das Weibliche angewiesen, das mit dem dreimal gepfliigten Felde identisch ist, auf dem es sich dem Mannlichen zur Befruchtung, unbezogen und sich des Mannlichen bedienend, hingibt" (Neumann 286). The plough has always been a symbol of fertilization. "In an Aryan legend, Rama, the hero, marries Sita (the furrow). Because the earth is female in nature, ploughing is a symbol of the union of the male and female principle. The former Chinese custom of ceremonial ploughing by the emperor at the beginning of his reign is connected with this symbolism" (Cirlot 26o).25 This latter practice helps to account for the attributes of the peasant king associated with Primislaus: "Ist doch der Pfliiger, / Indem er Alle na'hrt, den Hochsten gleich" (1082-3). Sexual potency, the ownership of the phallus, entitles the male to rule over his domain, the female earth. While Krokus governed by the "Stachel", Primislaus, the man of iron,26 bases his authority on the "Pflugschar." With the introduction of Primislaus's leitmotif in the second act and its visually dominant location at the outset of the third: "Ein umgewendeter Pflug rechts im Vorgrunde" (p. 319), Grillparzer may also have been following his usual practice of exploiting his works to camouflage his own political preferences or to allude to recent historical events still familiar to an Austrian audience from the first half

91 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

of the nineteenth century. I am indebted to Ernst Wangermann's article: "Grillparzer und das Nachleben des Josephinismus" for bringing to my attention "die beruhmte Anekdote von Kaiser Joseph mit dem Pflug in der Hand" (67). According to the catalogue from a 1980 exhibition in Vienna, Osterreich zu Zeit Joseph II., "Am 19 August 1769 ackerte Kaiser Joseph n. beim Dorf Slavikovice in der Nahe von Brunn mit dem Pflug des Bauern Andreas Trnka einige Furchen. Da dieses Gerat bereits ein Jahr spater, nachdem es von Bauern des Dorfes als eine Art Reliquie aufbewahrt wurde, in das Haus der mahrischen Stande gebracht und seither museal betreut wird, ist es ein besonders seltenes im Original erhaltenes Ackergerat" (352). In a letter to me, Wangermann attributes "die verbreitete Vorstellung von Joseph ii. als 'aufgeklarter Herrscher' neuen Stils" above all to his trips and to the impact of this incident upon the popular imagination as evidenced in its revered status subsequent to the event. Wangermann's essay sees the anecdote reflected in Ottokar where "Rudolf [i.] mit dem Hammer in der Hand selbst seinen beschadigten Helm ausbessert" (67), but only implies an association with Primislaus by including him, and not Libussa, as one of the "drei nach 1820 geschaffenen Herrschergestalten" in whom literary historians have detected "Grillparzers josephinisch-aufklarerische Ziige" (66).27 Since Primislaus is by profession a self-declared "wackrer Pfliigersmann" (1009), he embodies a more direct parallel to Kaiser Joseph as ploughman, and the growing prominence of his leitmotif already signals to the audience both a symbolic and historical justification for his eventual and inevitable assumption of power. This symbolism has a long history in Western civilization. Since the ancient Greeks in their creation myth portrayed Gaia, the earth, as the mother of all things, they interpreted agricultural activities such as ploughing as an act of violence against the mother and posited a direct relationship between female subservience and human exploitation of the soil: "with the subordination of women the earth is tamed, and prosperity is possible" (Luban 312). The political philosopher Hannah Arendt has written in this regard: "[The] Greeks tended to consider even agriculture as part and parcel of fabrication, as belonging to the cunning, skillful, 'technical' devices with which man, more awe-inspiring than all that is, tames and rules nature [cf. Primislaus]. What we ... consider to be the most natural and the most peaceful of man's activities, the tilling of the soil, the Greeks understood as a daring, violent enterprise in which, year in year out, the earth, inexhaustible and indefatigable, is disturbed and violated" (212-3). This very outlook lies at the heart of the attitude expressed by the chorus in Sophocles' Antigone:

92 Act Two

Many wonders hath the world, But most wonderful of these, Man! ... ...

Earth, of all Gods ancientest Unwasting and unwearying, Yet feels his plough-teams tire her breast, As hither, thither, without rest They wheel with each new spring. (332-41)

Worth mentioning at this juncture in the social experimental context of the second act, the man in the geocentric matriarchal world view neither creates the woman nor is she made out of the man as in the Genesis tradition (2:21-22); "umgekehrt la'Ct dieses Gefa'fi [the female archetype], das den Geheimnischarakter des Schopferischen besitzt, das Mannliche in sich und aus sich entstehen" (Neumann 71). It follows that the matriarchate casts the man in the instrumental role of the sower: as a servant of the earth he sows not his own seed but that of the Great Mother. "Das Grofie Gefafi zeugt in sich seinen eigenen Samen, es ist urzeugerisch, parthenogenetisch, und braucht das Mannliche nur als Erofmer, als Pfliiger und als Verbreiter des Samens, welcher der weiblichen Erde entstammt" (Neumann 71). In Kascha's and Tetka's descriptions of their self-sufficient, natural spheres (207-225), they manifest transformational characteristics of the Grofte Mutter, the all-embracing darkness of sky and earth: "Unter Sternen schweif' ich, / In der Tiefe wait' ich" (207-8) associated with the primordial unity: "Was sein soil ist nur Bins" (217). Although Libussa may approach this position on the conscious level: "Und einen Mann begehrt ja dieses Volk; / Das Volk, nicht ich; das Land, nicht seine Fiirstin" (1320-1), she has acknowledged unconsciously her dependency upon her father, her attraction to Primislaus and the necessity "des Sporns, der scharfen Gerte" (964). The first awareness of the law in the child of either sex surfaces in its confrontation with the prohibition against incest. The child begins to perceive aspects of the domestic and social conventions into which it was born and from which there is no escape, the law of the father, an unfair, irrational authority, especially from the perspective of the female who lacks the power symbol to assert her will. "Der gibt euch Recht, das Recht zugleich und Unrecht / Und statt Vernunft gibt er euch ein Gesetz, / Und wachsen wirds wie alles mehrt die Zeit, / Bis ihr fur euch nicht mehr, fur Andre seid" (1000-3). Although the loss of personal independence applies to all members of the patriarchy regardless of sex, it holds particularly true for women, as confirmed

93 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

by Primislaus's monologue at the beginning of the next act: "Derm es sei nicht der Mann des Weibes [Grillparzer's emphasis] Mann, / Das Weib des Marines [Grillparzer's emphasis] Weib, so stehts zu Recht" (1028-9). Even though, or perhaps because, Grillparzer studied law, he had very little use for it, seeing it in the Hobbesian tradition as a secular, not divine, attempt to deal with the inadequacies of human nature: "Das Recht," he noted in his diary in the autumn of 1839, "ist eine Ausgeburt des Bedurfnifies und der Verschlechtung, daher menschlichen Ursprunges, Gottes Wort sagt: Hebe deinen Feind, das Recht sagt: schlag ihn tod, wenn er dich beschadigt" (quoted in Bachmaier 741). Echoing Mephistopheles' pejorative course description of law for the Schiiler, "Es erben sich Gesetz' und Rechte / Wie eine ew'ge Krankheit fort; I ... I Vernunft wird Unsinn, Wohltat Plage" (Faust 1972-6), Libussa underlines the relativity of law, since what one once considered a boon to humanity may develop into its bane. In addition, she strongly intimates that the legal system, having evolved into an extensive, self-perpetuating institution, runs the risk of becoming a law unto itself. The servant, i.e., the law designed to serve the betterment of humanity, has been transformed into the master. Libussa approaches the Marxist position: the law as a means to protect the interests of a self-serving, ruling elite at the expense of the broader masses. In a final attempt to protect herself from any future incriminations, Libussa places the major responsibility for the shift from the matriarchy to the patriarchy upon her subjects: "Wenn ihr dann klagt, trifft selber euch die Klage, / Und ihr denkt etwa mein und an Libussens Tage" (1004-5). She strongly insinuates that what she is proposing goes against her better judgment and, if it turns out badly, it is their fault, not hers. Indeed, they may live to regret the day they rejected her more conciliatory, benevolent rule. Rudolf, Libussa's male counterpart in Ein Bruderzwist, similarly fears the dissolution of a unifying, compassionate, humanitarian order, a disintegration brought about by submitting age-old traditions to legal definitions and by basing society upon disruptive individual rights: "Zieht nicht vor das Gericht die heil'gen Bande, / Die unbewuSt, zugleich mit der Geburt, / Erweislos weil sie selber der Erweis, / Verknupfen was das Kliigeln feindlich trennt" (1615-8). When he surrenders to pressure from the Protestant faction and signs the "Majestatsbrief" granting official recognition of a schism, he contributes significantly to the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War but, likewise, conceals a personal motivation - to avenge himself for his brother's usurpation of his crown - by placing the blame on others: "Und ist das Tor dem Unheil nun geoffnet, / Ist Mord und Brand geschleudert in die Welt, / Dann

94 Act Two

denkt einst spat, wenn langst ich modre: / Wir waren auch dabei und haben es gewollt" (1666-7). The overall thrust towards separation underlying the first act continues to make its presence felt in the second, as the audience sees a display of social division along gender lines: a female maternal, nurturing orientation versus a male preoccupation with games of chance, warfare and field labour. While Libussa's progressive, enlightened agrarian economy promotes cooperation, unity, if not uniformity, and equality among her subjects, many members of the male population, particularly the now disfranchised and disgruntled Wladiken, pursue a policy of power politics based on competition and acquisition that breed distrust and betrayal. Since the Wladiken need segregation to confirm their identity and authority, they view Libussa's collaborative matriarchy, where women perform typically masculine functions, as a threat to male dominance and hence mount a campaign to curtail her power by marrying her to one of their number. Libussa portrays her subjects as living ideally in harmony with nature, not set opposite it, and casts herself as the benevolent gardener. The proper posture of her people before the divine order should therefore be one of abject humility, but her children have become rebellious, demanding to have more say in the conduct of their legal affairs. Her attitude towards marriage is progressive according to nineteenthcentury expectations (but far from feminist by current standards): inasmuch as a husband should act like an enlightened head of state, a wife is under no obligation to obey if his command proves unreasonable. Libussa never advocates an equal partnership, only greater respect for women as childbearers. Libussa dissociates herself from her people both by standing aloof in order to observe them and in her role as ruler. The right to govern rests exclusively with the traditional upper class and not with the broader masses, and she calls equality into question when she implies the greater desirability of male children and demands the right to select her own mate by virtue of a privilege conferred by her birth and her position as absolute monarch. Although she may downplay the divisive influence of wealth and possessions as they relate to her subjects, she is not above using her own material advantage to intimidate Primislaus. The riddle captures the subtle interplay between the two conflicting impulses - the drive for unity or completeness and the equally powerful urge towards separation and independence. While she hints at her willingness to share her reign with a suitable male and

95 Cooperation/Integration versus Competition/Separation

betrays a dependence - only Primislaus could ever become her consort - and a resentment at her deficiency - he has what she lacks, the symbol of power legitimizing the law of the father - she still endeavours to preserve her freedom by insisting upon making her own choice. In announcing the open contest with herself as the possible prize, she is not so much responding to public pressure as looking for an acceptable pretence to reestablish a link with her rescuer and to convey a message accessible only to him. What is particularly striking about the emerging personalities of the two principal players in this act is their amazing similarity under the destabilizing influence of love. Each party is obviously preoccupied with the other, the only difference being that Libussa goes to great lengths to conceal her interest. She does not believe that she can appeal to Primislaus as a woman and, unsure about her own emotions, she fears even more the prospect of nonreciprocation. Likewise, Primislaus, assuming incorrectly that he has made no impression, feels torn between attraction to her as a woman and dread of his dependence upon a female social superior. This is not a normal courtship since Primislaus and Libussa have both been raised to expect dominance, the one by virtue of sex and the other by right of birth. When thwarted in their passion, each seeks to hurt the other, he, by resorting to his virility and pushing the phallic prick more firmly into her breast (796-7) and she, by appealing to her royal prerogative (972) and casting him into the sea, for in the battle of love (cf. 2254) in which they both eagerly engage, the object is to establish one's control over the other. Libussa distances herself from her subjects, while Primislaus claims equality with, if not superiority over, his male aristocratic rivals. Both protagonists readily fall prey to misunderstandings, exhibit the identical reaction to what appears to be a poor showing by their prospective mate, and, in their vulnerability, quickly jump to the wrong conclusion. However, they do turn words to account and successfully manipulate the three fools to act as their unsuspecting agents, and even though their partner first seems to disappoint them, they still struggle to keep hope alive in their relationship. Libussa claims to admire his pride but nonetheless strives to humble him. Out of offended vanity and indignation at public preference for a man, she blames on the will of the people what at heart is her own conscious desire. Libussa thus focuses on two equally proud and worthy opponents, each of whom wants the other to make the first concession. The text still suggests the advantage Primislaus enjoys in the contest as the great separator, a "Schiedsmann" who has the intelligence and authority to make the required Entscheidung. The law of the

96 Act Two

father empowers him to set up opposites to justify his ascendancy and to impose his will. He cunningly separates the Wladiken from the chain, takes credit for Libussa's succession to the throne, a development which parted her from her sisters' realm, and ensures the continued division between jewel and chain to remind her of her obligation to him. Whereas the tragedy links Krokus to the "Stab" or "Stachel," it associates Primislaus, the man of iron, with the leitmotif of the ploughshare: it cleaves and violates Mother Earth just as the phallus splits the genders into those who have and those who are without, those who rule and those who submit.

Likes Repel: Act Three

Act three returns the audience to the opening set of the tragedy, "Gehoft vor Primislaus Hiitte," and features, prominently displayed in the stage directions, "Ein umgewendeter Pflug redits im Vorgrunde" (p. 319), a concrete reminder of Primislaus's profession and the source of his strength. His opening words only reinforce the underlying message of virility: "Bringt nur die Stiere zum ersehnten Stall! / Der Pflug bleibt hier. Ich will darauf mich setzen" (1006-7). Bulls are noted for their aggressive sexuality, a vitality over which the peasant farmer has complete control as signalled by his command. (Zeus, famous for his amorous exploits, took on occasion the form of taurus.) Primislaus then insists upon retaining his plough, his iron table, of which he takes possession by sitting on it, another association with a male fertility symbol examined in the previous chapter. Traditionally, the nobleman, belonging to the leisure class, disparaged manual labour, "Arbeit gilt als ... unter der Wiirde des Adligen, sie ist ehrlos und erniedrigend" (Kautsky 9), and avoided field work, since it made the skin undesirably dark. (The expression "blue blood" comes from the aristocratic predilection for white skin through which the veins show.)1 Hence, when Primislaus announces, "Der Tag war heifi, die Arbeit ist getan. I ... I Nun wackrer Pfliigersmann, es steht dir wohl / Aus deinem schlichten Tun den Blick zu heben / Nach dieses Lebens Hohn, vom Tal zum Gipfel" (1008-11), he throws down the gauntlet, so to speak. Even though "Pflugersmann" designates a lowly status, all the subsequent images of ascension

98 Act Three

suggest the Streber. He feels entitled to aspire to the heights - from his first meeting onward he has consistently characterized Libussa as "Die Hohe" (20) - and is proud of his accomplishments. Zwar heifits, es war in langstentschwundner Zeit Im Lande weit begtitert unser Stamm Und licht und hehr in seinen ersten Wurzeln. Allein was soil das mir? 1st heut doch heut, Und Gestern aus demselben Stoff wie Morgen. (1012-6)

Primislaus is obviously at pains to establish his social credentials rendering him worthy of Libussa. At one time his ancestors belonged to the upper class:2 the aristocracy's economic strength lay in its land holdings and it depicted its genetic preeminence in images of height (konigliche Hoheit; Royal Highness) and light (Durchlaucht; illustrious). Seemingly confident in his own worth, he maintains that he need not resort to former glories to justify any current privileged position by an appeal to birth. If he is to gain esteem at all, it must be on the basis of his individual merit in the here and now. He has earned his current status, not inherited it as is the case with the Wladiken mentioned in the next line. Nonetheless, the very fact that he addresses the issue of his pedigree indicates his secret preoccupation with the class barrier, however much he may seek to deny its validity. He also implies that he has nothing to apologize for and can become just as powerful in the future as his family was in the past, again betraying his social ambition. When Primislaus alleges, "Nebstdem, dafi war' ich Einer der Wladiken, / Ich mich nicht stellte zu so hoher Werbung" (1017-8), i.e., even if he were an aristocrat, he would not court her, his petulant reaction sounds strangely reminiscent of Libussa's response to her exclusion from another contest: "Nicht losen? Und wer weifi, ob ichs auch will?" (383), i.e., even if she were allowed to participate, she would choose not to. She has broken solidarity with her class and family, "Der Kreis getrennt. Du kannst mit uns nicht losen" (382), as announced by her peasant dress, whereas he privately wishes he had the proper credentials enabling him to woo her. Both, in other words, transform a necessity into a personal virtue to appease a bruised ego. The similarity is even more striking in that both protagonists refuse, at least at the conscious level,3 to dwell upon the past: "Nur vorwarts fuhrt das Leben, riickwarts nie" (386). Once more the text provides additional evidence that these two characters, viewed by most commentators as antipodes, have much in common.

99 Likes Repel

To voice his dilemma as a social subordinate who should not presume to consider himself in serious contention, Primislaus appropriately enough selects the simile of the beehive, a "Darstellung der weiblichen Naturpotenz" (Bachofen 114): Denn wie im Bienenstock die Konigin Nicht nur die hochste, einzig ist, allein, Von niedern Drohnen nur zur Lust umflattert, Indes die Arbeitsbienen Honig baun, So ist der auf dem Throne sitzt, nur sich, Sich selber gleich und Niemandes Genofi. (1019-24)

This image could include an inadvertent exposure of his basic feelings of insecurity, his fear of being emasculated. As Bachofen would point out in 1861, "Das Bienenleben zeigt uns die Gynaikokratie in ihrer klarsten und reinsten Gestalt" (113). The queen bee functions as the supreme being in the apian hierarchy, a female with absolute authority to choose her own mate. The "Arbeitsbienen," clearly linked to the speaker who in the same speech observes, "die Arbeit ist getan" (1008) and later boasts, "Ist doch der Pfliiger, / Indem er Alle na'hrt, den Hochsten gleich" (1082-3), perform the tasks necessary for the survival of the hive but are neutered, i.e., lack the phallus to impregnate the queen. Therefore, Primislaus may unconsciously betray his sense of inadequacy vis-a-vis Libussa's threat to his masculinity. Her office as queen, the dominant social figure, goes against his understanding of normal social conventions and natural sexual roles whereby the female should be subject to and dependent upon the male. When, for example, in the fourth act Slawa cries out for protection, he retorts, "Du bist das erste Weib / An diesem Wunderort, das Schutz begehrt, / Die andern sind vielmehr geneigt zu meistern" (1465-7). One may also detect an ironic role reversal in his apian comparison, if one bears in mind that in Freud's analysis, "Beim Marine eriibrigt vom Einflufi des Kastrationskomplexes auch ein Mafi von Geringschatzung fur das als kastriert erkannte Weib" ("Weibliche Sexualitat" 279). The target of derogation as a result of a figurative social castration has become the male. Since the drones do not contribute in any constructive way to the care of the colony and only serve it by inseminating the queen, should the need arise, they parallel the Wladiken, useless, idle members of a class who live off the efforts of others.4 This aristocratic prejudice against work informs Primislaus's disparagement of the court as a place for frivolous pastimes rather than productive labour: "Dann, sollt' ich mit der Arbeit

ioo Act Three

Staub beladen / Mich nahn dem Ort, wo Arbeit nur ein Cast, / Nicht der Bewohner ist?" (1113-5). Actually this ironic analogy to drones comes across as particularly apt: the Wladiken tend to swarm around their queen while she regards them as a nuisance. No sooner does Primislaus turn to the human equivalent than his male bias comes through: "der auf dem Throne sitzt," a predilection shared by Vergil (Georgica 4) and other male authors of the classical period who, in reference to bee culture, speak of a rex rather than a regina. He can only perceive of the human ruler as masculine, automatically reverting to the male gender even though he singled out a matriarchy from the world of nature. The dramatist may be amusing himself at his character's expense and at the same time showing his sympathy for capable but socially repressed women. The isolation, the complete separation of the ruler from all other mortals, originates with the aristocratic myth of superiority in body and mind through select breeding. Like God, he does not have his equal and on earth is answerable only to himself, the justification for an autocratic regime, but, in addition, as the remaining segment of his speech demonstrates, he defends male dominance, notwithstanding the contradiction contained in his apian simile: "Der Fiirst verklart die Gattin die er wahlt, / Die Konigin erniedrigt den als Mann, / Den wahlend sie als Untertan erhoht" (1025-7). A king has the power to elevate a woman and although she achieves a higher social standing, all the credit belongs to the male. However, the reverse situation, owing one's position and prestige to a woman, only serves to degrade or humiliate the man in his masculinity, "den als Mann," what Lorenz calls "Geschlechtsstolz" ("Neubewertung" 42), because, in keeping with Primislaus's bias, the male should always have the upper hand: "Derm es sei nicht der Mann des Weibes Mann, / Das Weib des Marines [Grillparzer's emphases] Weib, so stehts zu Recht" (1028-9). "Women who exercise power," according to Rosaldo and Lamphere, "are seen as deviants, manipulators, or, at best, exceptions" (9). The issue, possession or male ascendancy, goes back to Krokus and his control of his daughters.5 This arrangement Primislaus portrays by his patriarchal standard as just, as belonging to the masculine realm of rights, the very development Libussa hoped to avoid: "Der gibt euch Recht, das Recht zugleich und Unrecht" (1000). What Primislaus is advocating represents a case in point, i.e., justice by male criteria but potentially injustice from a female perspective. As Libussa pointed out to Brom, "Das heifit: wenn du im Recht; denn hast du unrecht, / So seh' ich nicht warum sie Weichen sollte" (621-2). Dotzler has written that the "Hochschatzung des weiblichen Wesens als des vollkommeneren" is in reality "der Beginn der Unterwerfung

ioi Likes Repel der Frau" (376), a subjugation made manifest in Primislaus's contention: "Drum wie die Frau ist aller Wesen Krone, / Also der Mann das Haupt, das sich die Krone aufsetzt, / Und selbst der Knecht ist Herr in seinem Haus" (1030-2). By raising a woman to the level of an icon to be worshipped, by putting her on a pedestal to be admired, the man effectively denies her any power. He reduces her to an embellishment to enhance his own image, a pleasant diversion, excluded from participating in the real world of political decisions. Virginia Woolf has perhaps expressed it best: "Imaginatively she is of the highest importance, practically she is completely insignificant. She pervades poetry from cover to cover; she is all but absent from history. She dominates the lives of kings and conquerors in fiction; in fact she was the slave of any boy whose parents forced ring about her finger. Some of the most inspired words, some of the most profound thoughts in literature fall from her lips; in real life she could hardly read, could scarcely spell, and was the property of her husband" (47). The head, emblematic of the brain, depicts the male principle as the rational order and the source of leadership and authority as the head of state or the head of the household (cf. Hauptmann).6 Equating man and head, "der Mann das Haupt," Primislaus reinforces an implied predisposition and, inadvertently, an additional link to his predecessor, Krokus, established earlier in the first act by Domaslav, a more extreme representative of male chauvinism: "Vollendet was begann des Vaters hohes Haupt" (199). In a very real sense, the Wladiken see in Libussa only the royal crown, an ornament to exploit and to enhance their own power position (591-4). Primislaus's final line legitimizes the servant's dominion over his wife: each man, however humble, should be king in his own castle. "Wir wollen aber nicht vergessen," Freud maintained in Das Unbehagen, "dafi in der Urfamilie nur das Oberhaupt sich solcher Triebfreiheit [i.e., a lack of restraint placed on his instincts] erfreute; die anderen lebten in sklavischer Unterdriickung" (243-4). But by what right does Primislaus make such a claim? Freud/Lacan, of course, would propose phallocentricity. One of its manifestations, the separate spheres theory as expounded by Rousseau, Kant, and Fichte became prevalent towards the end of the eighteenth century: belonging to a biological order dictated by nature, women are meant to find fulfilment in performing a subservient, domestic function in society; any divergence from this inner orientation is deemed unnatural. However, since Primislaus has drawn attention to a matriarchy as the natural order for the bees, the dramatist has caused him unwittingly to subvert his own argument, a subtle, ironic device, readily imputable to an author who could record in his diary ("Winter 1825

io2 Act Three

auf 1826"): "Das weibliche Geschlecht thut es dem mannlichen in allem gleich, wenigstens in einzelnen Fallen. Wissen und Verstand, Muth und Entschlofienheit, alle diese Gaben besitzt, in seinen Erlesenen, auch das sogenannte schwachere Geschlecht, alle diese Gaben besitzt auch Libussa" (Bachmaier 727). The last of the three completed posthumous plays examines this same issue of authority within the home. In the first act of Die Jtidin Alphons seemingly defies social norms by declaring publicly a state of equality between himself and his wife, one which entails her active involvement in affairs of state: "Mein Weib sie ist gewohnt an Rat und Krieg, / Die Konigin teilt Jedes mit dem Konig" (229-30). This turns out to be more a public posture than a genuinely held belief, as becomes evident in the fourth act where practice belies principle. At first anxious to display a conciliatory attitude: "Gut machen heiSt's" (1329), he proves unable to countenance any challenge to what he perceives to be his absolute power: "Allein die Tiir versperrt? Holla, da drinnen, / Der Konig ist's, der Hen in diesem Haus, / Fur mich gibt's hier kein Schlofi und keine Tiir" (1332-4). When informed that his wife has locked the door from within, he seems to reverse himself: "Eindringen will ich nicht. Sagt ihr derm an / Ich sei zuriick und lasse sie entbieten - / Vielmehr sagt: bitten, wie ich's jetzt gesagt" (1337-9). His first, instinctive reaction is to order her to appear but then, on second thought signalled by the dash, he corrects himself and requests her presence, a conscious effort to effect a reconciliation with his estranged wife. This scenario parallels the turning point in Libussa also from the fourth act: "PRIMISLAUS Dem krankenden Befehl. LIBUSSA Nun derm: ich bitte" (1774). The change from command to entreaty announces a move from domination/subservience towards equality. In Die Jiidin all pretence later breaks down, however, when, apprehensive that his masculinity is at stake, "Bin ich der Tor in meinem eignen Haus?" (1538), the king asserts his right to be "der Mann / In [seinem] Haus" (151920) and, in an outburst of violence, betrays his real sentiments: ''Die Ttire mit einem Fufttritte sprengend: Auf! / So nehm' ich mir im Sturm mein hauslich Gliick" (1539-40). Might is right. As king of his castle, he at heart expects and demands the queen's obedience to him in keeping with the same patriarchal position espoused by Primislaus. Sexist attitudes come to the surface under emotional duress or in the privacy of one's personal musings. However much one may dislike Primislaus and what he stands for, one must nevertheless concede a grudging respect for his occasional bouts of honesty with himself: "So sprichst du, prahlst, und tragst im Busen doch / Was dich an jene Hoffhung jetzt noch kettet"

103 Likes Repel

(1033-4). Actions speak louder than words, i.e., he is still wearing her chain suggestive of "sexuelle Horigkeit." He continues to hope to be the man whom the queen humbles by choosing him as her mate, for he is merely fabricating reasons to reject Libussa, when he knows that he cannot be a serious suitor but would dearly like to be in contention and admits as much to himself. In the next section of his lengthy monologue, Primislaus provides a commentary on a major issue common to the other posthumous plays and central to the Biedermeier outlook: Man sage nicht das Schwerste sei die Tat, Da hilft der Mut, der Augenblick, die Regung; Das Schwerste dieser Welt 1st der Entschlufi. Mit Eins die tausend Faden zu zerreifien An denen Zufall und Gewohnheit fuhrt, Und aus dem Kreise dunkler Fiigung tretend Sein eigner Schopfer zeichnen sich sein Los .... (1035-41)

Once Leopold gains the desired authorization from a reluctant Rudolf, the archduke raises the same issue in Ein Bruderzwist: "Nichts teurer ist hier Lands als der Entschluft, / Man mufi ihn warm verzehren eh er kalt wird" (1788-9), and in Die Judin the king, confronted with erotic seduction, finds decisiveness particularly elusive: "Lafi jetzt! [Rahel tries to tempt him] Ich brauche Kraft und festen Willen / Und mochte nicht im Abschied mich erweichen" (1088-9). Grillparzer's dramas demonstrate how his characters usually perform deeds either under the duress of circumstances or on emotional impulse, the combined motivation, for example, behind the three decisions made by Rudolf - with devastating results. The emperor experiences the Biedermeier "Scheue vor der Tat" because, as a man of conscience, he rightly fears the consequences (1446-50). For Primislaus (and one could add, Klesel), the real crux of the matter lies in the determination to act despite conditions created by custom or chance. One must muster the strength or resolve to abandon a comfortable, habitual frame of mind, renounce the stance of resignation ("Fiigung") frequently linked to the Biedermeier mentality, and assume full responsibility for one's own lot in life. As Grillparzer himself observed, "Nur in einem iiberwindet er [Primislaus] sie [Libussa]: in der Ausdauer, der Beharrlichkeit auf seinem Entschlufie" (Bachmaier 727). The phrase "aus dem Kreise dunkler Fiigung" recalls the realm of the sisters from the first act and their tendency to dwell upon the past: "Stellt euch ringsum, senkt eure diistern Schleier, / Und feiert still und trauernd das Gedachtnis I Des

iO4 Act Three

edlen Manns, der unsem Kreis verliefi" (239-41). For Primislaus the past only exists as a foundation upon which to build a better future for humanity (1043-4). Under the present circumstances such a claim strikes the spectator as ironic. The playwright may again be having some fun at the soliloquist's expense: he speaks of severing "die tausend Faden ... / An denen Zufall und Gewohnheit fuhrt," of being "Sein eigner Schopfer," but the previous part of his monologue shows him to be firmly caught up in the sexual and social conventions and prejudices of his age. His self-determined "Los" will adhere to very traditional, if not reactionary, lines based on his belief in male superiority, and the people, far from rebelling against his rule (1042), will generally support it. The second half of this segment further contradicts his claim to disregard memories by conveying his extreme vulnerability under the influence of his feelings for Libussa. He desperately wants her to have some recollection of him: "Dafi sie mein denkt, dafi wach in ihrer Seele / Mein Bild - nicht einmal das: ein Traum, ein Nichts" (1045-6) and even makes excuses for her: it was late at night in the forest and she could scarcely see me; my image of our meeting has become equally vague and hence I cannot really blame her (1046-51). Since he obviously failed to make much of an impression on her, he tries to salvage some vestige of his male pride. All of this serves to illustrate once more the lack of confidence of those in love and their constant need for reassurance. In marked contrast to the self-esteem and freedom of which he boasted at the outset of his speech, he now acknowledges that the "Herr" has become the "Knecht" of love since he neither wants nor is able to renounce Libussa's memory: "Das doch mein Gluck ist, meines Lebens Saule, / Und das zerstoren ich nicht mag, nicht kann" (1052-3). Although Grillparzer has not fashioned a particularly attractive personality in Primislaus, the observer nonetheless senses in these lines, spoken only to himself and hence suggestive of his true sentiments, a genuine attraction to and tenderness for Libussa, the person, as expressed to the best of a pragmatic ploughman's ability. That he loves her for herself and not just for her position, he confirms in his wishful depiction of a "normal" relationship within the social confines of his own class: "War' sie ein Hirtenmadchen, nicht Libussa, / Und ich der Pfliiger der ich wirklich bin, / Ich trate vor sie hin und sagte: Madchen, / Ich bin derselbe dem du einst begegnet" (1054-7). Since a ploughman and a shepherdess come from the same social class, he would take the initiative to approach her. He does not imagine himself as king - he sees no need to apologize for his peasant status - but imagines her at his level where, of course,

105 Likes Repel he would be dominant. "Sieh hier das Zeichen. Wirds nun licht in dir, / Wie langst in dieser Brust, so nimm und gib!" (1058-9). The chain reminds her not only of the incident that brought them together, but also of his hold on her, her debt to him. By taking it back, she is obliged to give something in return, by implication, herself. As another indication of his insecurity, he now imagines the situation he most fears, wishes to deny, and yet outlines in painful detail: "Dann konnte sie nicht sprechen: Guter Mann, / Stellt dort euch zu den Dienern meines Hauses, / Des, wes ihr mich erinnert, denk' ich kaum" (1060-2). Reducing himself to a servant among servants, a subordinate relationship which his male ego could never accommodate despite his love for her, he does even further damage to his vanity by conjecturing that what meant everything to him signifies little or nothing to her. In his defence, one could point out that an entry from Grillparzer's diary observes in support of this hypothetical nightmare that "[Primislaus] aus Libussens herrischem Benehmen schliefien mufi, dafi ihre Hand ihn nicht zum Herzog sondern zu der Herzogin Gatten und ersten Diener machen soil" (Bachmaier 728). What keeps the protagonists apart continues to be a conflicting combination of social barriers which render Libussa dominant and sexual norms by which Primislaus has a claim to ascendancy. To console himself he has to fall back again on his peasant ethos and its values, a way of life symbolized above all by the "Pflugschar" upon which he spreads his simple meal (1064-5) and which grants him the means to exploit Mother Nature and confers, in his own eyes, a status equal to that of the gods: "1st doch der Pfliiger, / Indem er Alle niihrt, den Hochsten gleich" (1082-3)7 Primislaus returns to the issue of debt in his rationalization to excuse his retention of the chain: "Sie hat mein Rofi, das etwa so viel gilt / Als diese goldnen Spangen die ich trage, / Und so sind sie mein Eigentum zu Recht" (1068-70). Commenting upon these lines, Lorenz writes: "Primislaus halt sich nur an Materialwerte, an das was seh-, anfaSbar und mefibar ist, und, so kategorisiert, austauschbar wird als Masse. Yates beobachtet treffend: 'His standards are material ones'" ("Neubewertung" 42). It is also conceivable that Primislaus's questionable logic owes more to his sense of inferiority in his relationship to a female superior, than to materialism. Feeling at a distinct disadvantage, he seeks to justify his keeping the chain at a childish level of argumentation. Basically he has little use for possessions - he twice rejects gold (260; 2054-6), treating it only as a mean to an end. "Die Rechnung ist also Pferd urn Spange," Lorenz goes on to say, "wobei Primislaus konvenienterweise iibersieht, dafi er Libussas Kleinod nicht rechtlich durch Kauf erworben hat, sondern es

io6 Act Three

schwindlerhaft bei sich behielt, wahrend Libussa das Pferd offen und legal als Schenkung zuteil wurde, eine bezeichnende Kalkulation fiir den Legalitatsbegriff des zukiinftigen Herrschers" ("Neubewertung" 42). Such an analysis overlooks Primislaus's earlier admission: "Und in der Brust trag' ich das reiche Bild, / Das sie mir gab, vielmehr: das ich mir nahm" (742-3) and his even more explicit characterization of the jewel as "meinen Raub" (748). Moreover, Primislaus never actually gave her his horse, a detail which Libussa herself acknowledges when she tries to give it back: "Und trefft ihr einen Mann, stellts ihm zuriick, / Derm es ist sein. Und nimmt er Lohn, so gebt" (301-2). Just as she was keen on paying off any sense of obligation, he remained equally adamant that she be reminded of her debt by his avoiding repossession of his horse. The fact still remains, however, that she could have surrendered it much earlier to its rightful owner - she knows it will return home of its own accord - but decided to keep it until she had a legitimate excuse - public demand - to contact him. Since both parties cling to a token or physical link to their former relationship, one could argue that Libussa "halt sich an Materialwerte" no less than Primislaus does. The major difference arises in his justification. His claim "mein Eigentum zu Recht" in the emphatic final position echoes the earlier line: "Das Weib des Marines [Grillparzer's emphasis] Weib, so stehts zu Recht" (1029). This constitutes the second time in the same monologue that he insists on rights, in the first case, the man's right to assert his ownership of the woman and in the second, his right to retain the chain symbolic of his desire to possess Libussa. If one recollects her earlier repudiation of "Recht" as a mask for self interest (9O9-io),8 a source of future friction between them becomes evident. Also his choice of property claims in this context warrants comparison with Rousseau's assigning the fall of humanity to the advent of private property, a deplorable development which opened the floodgate to all sorts of social evils born out of self-interest. As a further confirmation of a fundamental resemblance between the two main characters, both of them independently hit upon the device of using the horse to renew a connection but with a noteworthy variation. "Ich wollte, sie bestieg' einmal den Zelter / Und in Gedanken ihm die Ziigel lassend, / Triig' sie das Tier hieher" (10713). Again Grillparzer signals implausibility by creating a text selfconscious of its indebtedness to the fairy-tale, for no sooner does Primislaus picture the scene in his mind than it miraculously materializes in sound and sight, the transition occurring in the same line of verse: "Triig' sie das Tier hieher. Dock welch Gerausch? / Tauscht mich mein Aug? Das ist mein Rofi; dock leer / Und ohne Reiter, rings

ioy Likes Repel

von Volk umgeben. / Bin ich im Land der Marchen und der Wunder?" (1073-6). Whereas the first "Doch" designates the transition from fantasy to its actual realization, the second instance registers his disappointment at what turns out to be only a partial fulfilment of his wishful thinking. If Libussa had approached him upon his palfrey, she would have taken a more compromising initiative in that it would have shown interest on her part and suggested submission to him - she would have trusted her fate to his horse, a traditionally male symbol. The sight of the Wladiken dashes all remaining hope: "Doch folgen die Wladiken, seh' ich nun, / Die sich erdachten etwa solchen Fund / Um zu erganzen was nur halb in ihrer / Und halb in meiner Hand" (1077-80). In conjunction with this incident, Lorenz passes an unduly harsh judgment on Primislaus: "Aus Primislaus eigener Unehrlichkeit motiviert sich sein immer gegenwartiges Mifitrauen gegen andere, z. B. seine Furcht, im Falle einer Weigerung mit Gewalt an den Furstenhof gebracht zu werden" ("Neubewertung" 42-3). She is referring specifically to the following lines: LAPAK

Sie befahl An ihren Hofhalt dich mit uns zu fiihren. PRIMISLAUS Gait mir auch, euch zu folgen, der Befehl? LAPAK Das nicht. PRIMISLAUS Doch, wenn ichs nun verweigerte, Kommt ihr mit Macht, mich not'genfalls zu zwingen. (1095-99)

To be fair to Primislaus, Libussa did order the Wladiken to bring him to her: "Den [Primislaus] bringt zu mir" (993), not to guide him to her court. One must take into consideration as well the nature of her emissaries and his initial confrontation with them in the preceding act. On that occasion, having experienced firsthand their arrogant, deceptive, cowardly ways, he intimidated them when they considered resorting to force: "Wir sind zu Drei'n, / Vielleicht dafi mit Gewalt -" (844-5) and essentially outwitted them by exchanging the jewel for the chain. Hence, his distrust and his assumption of coercion in this case are not unreasonable given his previous altercation with the aristocracy and their current reappearance with reinforcements. Also he may be looking for an excuse: he depicts as compulsory compliance what the audience knows that he would like to do out of inclination, i.e., restore contact with Libussa. In this game of "one-upmanship," he casts himself in the self-flattering role of the martyr or victim and Libussa in that of the tyrant who would impose her will by force. Regardless of the theatrics, his pride declares itself in his ironic reassurance to his escort: "Seid unbesorgt, ich folg' euch

io8 Act Three

ohne Zwang" (1100), and, in his taking control of the situation: h freely chooses to follow. Finally, his reaction stems in part from his ignorance of Libussa, for she revealed remarkably little of herself at their first meeting. If the audience bears in mind her "Fischer" simil "Gewaltig wie der furstliche Delphin / Reifi' ich die Angel dir zusamt der Leine / Aus schwacher Hand und schleudre dich ins Meer, / D zeig derm ob du schwimmen kannst, mein Fischer" (972-5), then his fear of violence is not without foundation. When asked about the motive behind the summons, Lapak, no doubt mindful of his past experience with Primislaus, proposes, "Vielleicht doch ward ihr kund, / Da6 du ein schlauer Richter bist zu eignem Nutzen, / Und wiinscht als Richter dich zu nutz dem Volk" (1102-4). The low opinion of the judicial system come through in the underlying assumption that a cunning judge uses his office in the first instance to enrich himself and then to benefit the community he is supposed to serve, an additional exposure of the selfish motivation of an aristocracy bent on securing its personal advantage. However, Primislaus does reinforce his own masculine orientation towards a legal system founded on rights: "Dies Tier, das meine Fiirstin hat getragen, / Besteige Niemand, der nicht eignen Rechts, I Nebstdem dafi es das ihre, und ich wiinsche, / Dafi es das ihre bleibe, nach wie vor" (1109-12). At first glance he may recognize Libussa as his ruler, but at the same time the possessive adjective could also register his claim on her - she belongs to him. This alternative interpretation draws some support from his veneration of his queen: no one else is to be permitted to ride the horse, the equivalent of putting her on the pedestal noted earlier in his crown metaphor (1031). He also wants her to maintain ownership of his horse, since the imbalance of liability would persist in his favour: she retains the horse, he the chain, while she remains in his debt for the rescue. Neither party wishes to be indebted to the other. This scene closes with an expressive gesture and commentary: Er [Primislaus] entliifit sie mil einer Handbewegung und geht in die Hiitte.

LAPAK Hast du gehort? DOMASLAV Wie stolz. BIWOY Nun um so besser. Stolz gegen Stolz, wie Kiesel gegen Stahl, Erzeugt, was Beiden feind, den Feuerstrahl. (1123-5)

Primislaus, a self-assured, independent man in the presence of the Wladiken, treats them as his inferiors: he dismisses them with a wave of the hand and turns his back on them to enter his cottage.

109 Likes Repel

Biwoy, the man of strength, correctly predicts the power implications when two equally proud personalities clash. By designating the "Feuerstrahl" as that which keeps them apart, he fixes upon a well established phallic symbol: Zeus consumed Semele when he appeared to her as a lightning bolt: "Strahl" harks back to his introduction to Danae in a shower of gold; and the Holy Ghost, often portrayed as a shaft of light, impregnated the Virgin Mary, to give only a few examples.9 Fire and air are, after all, the male elements. The sexual subtext in Libussa makes it clear that the phallus divides men from women, assigning them their gender-specific functions in society, and forms the focus of Libussa's unconscious rebellion against the domination of the father.10 The next scene demonstrates the degree to which Libussa has foregone whatever harmony she once may have possessed by entering the "real" world, a lesson also learned the hard way by her soul mate Sappho: "O Torin! warum stieg ich von den Hohn, I ... I Hernieder in das engbegranzte Tal" (Sappho 941-4). While Libussa has summoned Primislaus, at the same time she attempts to negotiate her return to her sisters' domain, but as Kascha points out, "Wer gehen will auf hoh'rer Machte Spuren / MuG einig sein in sich, der Geist ist eins" (1144-5). As outlined earlier, this note of separation, of not being collected within oneself, began even before the opening scene of the tragedy, when she elected to leave her sisters and run the risk of involvement with human beings in a society distinguished by "ird'sche Sorgen, Wiinsche und das schlimmste / Von allem was da stort, - Erinnerung" (1150-1). Memory has achieved near tyrannical influence over her in the form both of her father: "So lang ich atme lebt auch sein Gedachmis" (376) and of his successor, Primislaus: "Wozu noch kommt, dafi in der letzten Zeit / Die Neigung, scheints, die Neigung zu dem Mann, / In ihrem edlen Innern Platz gegriffen" (1157-9). Although Libussa has gone to considerable lengths to deny any affinity with a man, she has nevertheless betrayed a consistent fascination with her saviour, concealing it behind her duty: her devotion to the wishes of her people. All the indirect signs point to the triumph of Neigung over Pflicht as here certified by her sister's pronouncement, a psychological diagnosis applicable to Rudolf (Ein Bruderzwist) and Alphons (Die Jiidiri) as well. As an added confirmation of her emotional entanglement, her jewel, sent with Wlasta as proof of her mission, no longer shines as brightly as before. Because it ostensibly caused her alienation from her sisters, she may now produce it to substantiate the restoration of what she lost in the past. The audience, knowing that Primislaus still holds the chain, recognizes the deception: a man still has power over her, a situation verified

no

Act Three

by Kascha's supernatural assessment of the jewel's loss in luster: far from supporting her case, it testifies against her. The audience is in a position to confirm that not only the jewel but Libussa herself were "in einer fremden Hand" (1162). The tragedy reiterates an earlier intimation: once one has forfeited one's innocence, it cannot be retrieved. Divided in herself, she may not return since she would destroy the circle, the symbol of the original unity and its perfection: "Sie kann nicht mehr zu uns zuriick, derm storend / Und selbst gestort, zerstorte sie den Kreis" (1163-4) the last incident featuring the sisters, when Kascha made a similar pronouncement at the discovery of the missing jewel: "Der Kreis getrennt. Du [Libussa] kannst rnit uns nicht losen" (382) to realize how much more deeply embroiled in earthly affairs Libussa has become in the interim. Out of pride born of a belief in genetic superiority, Kascha assumes that her younger sister is wiser (1169) than her subjects, and if she were to reign in a decisive, authoritarian manner, she would easily put a stop to the current unrest. In anticipation of Ein Bruderzwist, one detects the political/social dilemma of the Biedermeier ruler who, being too compassionate and too reflective, lacks the self-reliance and ruthlessness to eliminate opposition to his/her will and therefore becomes the ineffective plaything of circumstances. Kascha exposes her own political naivete in her view of life as consisting of cycles ("Kreisen" [1173]) and unavoidable necessity ("Notigung" [1174]): "Der Regen trankt dein Feld, der Hagel triffts, / Du kannst es niitzen, kannst dich freuen, klagen, / Es andern nicht. Was will das Menschenkind / Das es die Dinge richtet die da sind" (1176-9). Availing herself exclusively of natural phenomena, she ignores the problems arising from living together in a community of diverse interests. Nature has no choice but to follow the divine plan with inevitable certainty, but as soon as human beings, who, since the fall, have gained freedom and are capable of deception, make an appearance, life becomes much more complex. As Rudolf informs his nephew, Der Mensch fiel ab von ihm [Gott], sie [die Sterne] aber nicht, Wie eine Lammerherde ihrem Hirten, So folgen sie gelehrig seinem Ruf So heut als morgen wie am ersten Tag. Drum ist in Sternen Wahrheit, im Gestein, In Pflanze, Tier und Baum, im Menschen nicht. (407-12)

Grillparzer may have found inspiration for this view in the "Prolog im Himmel" from Goethe's Faust where the archangels, like Libussa's

in Likes Repel sisters, join to praise the magnificence, the well ordered regularity and dependability of the divine order: "Der Anblick [of the cosmic scheme] gibt den Engeln Starke, / Da keiner dich ergriinden mag, / Und alle deine hohen Werke / Sind herrlich wie am ersten Tag" (26770). Significantly, the human element, conspicuous by its absence, only enters the picture with the opening speech of a sarcastic, cynical Mephistopheles: "Von Sonn' und Welten weifi ich nichts zu sagen, / Ich sehe nur, wie sich die Menschen plagen. / Der kleine Gott der Welt bleibt stets von gleichem Schlag, / Und ist so wunderlich als wie am ersten Tag" (279-82). It is quite a different matter, when one abandons the metaphysical highlands of the contemplative realm for the pragmatic lowlands of human interaction. Even though the sisters come across as politically inexperienced, the dramatist still employs them to give utterance in aphoristic format to certain general truths or proverbial wisdom: "Das Denken selbst, das frei sich diinkt vor alien, / Ist eigner Notigung zu Dienst verfallen" (1180-1). Ironically, Tetka here undermines her own selfsufficient position as profiled in the first act" "Mein sonnig Reich strahlt hellres Licht, / Von mir!" (224-5). She now recognizes that to regard thinking as an independent, isolated activity is an illusion. Philosophical speculation, especially in the form of Hegel's system which Grillparzer called "die monstroseste Ausgeburt des menschlichen Eigendiinkels" (Pabst 105) has fallen prey to its own techniques and limitations. For a dramatist celebrated for his concrete, visual representations of human thoughts and emotions, philosophy had become too divorced from life and sensory verification. Cause and effect form an unavoidable rule of existence not only in our doing but also in our thinking (1182-4). ^ imitation of Goethe's famous line: "In der Beschrankung zeigt sich erst der Meister" ("Natur und Kunst" i: 245), Tetka finally declares, "Wer seine Schranken kennt der ist der Freie, / Wer frei sich wahnt ist seines Wahnes Knecht" (1185-6). It follows that the master/servant dynamic also applies to our intellectual endeavours, for power politics dictate all aspects of human activity, including even our thought processes - one might add, especially our thought processes. Kascha also inclines to denying her earlier position (207-15), as she too becomes the playwright's mouthpiece, unmasking conviction as a subtle disguise for self-interest: "Hoffst du durch Uberzeugen dich geschiitzt? / Es billigt Jeder das nur was ihm niitzt" (1187-8). Our religion and its derived moral values uphold our secret desires and aspirations, or as the political realist Klesel puts it: "Auch ist der Seeleneifer und der Eigennutz / Nicht gar so unvereinbar als man glaubt" (Bruderzwist 2531-2). This is not to say that Kascha or her

112 Act Three

creator advocates a secular view of life. What holds a nation together is "Die Ehrfurcht, die nicht auf Erweis sich griindet" (1190), a spiritual dimension which does not require or cannot provide empirical evidence for its validity and must be accepted on faith. Rudolf expresses basically the same idea in his plea to the Standesherren: Dafi deine Vater glaubten was du selbst, Und deine Kinder kunftig treten gleiche Pfade Das 1st die Brucke die aus Menschenherzen Den unerforschten Abgrund uberbaut Von dem kein Senkblei noch erforscht die Tiefe. (1633-7)

It is no accident that the example Kascha selects to illustrate this principle deals with a father/son relationship: "Der Sohn gehorcht, gab sich der Vater kund, / Den Anspruch heiligt ihm der heil'ge Mund" (1191-2). A woman makes this statement, couching it in a proverbial, universal format as if it were a self-evident truth brooking no opposition. Out of respect for the father, the son obeys without question, effectively precluding revolution. Indeed, the patriarch enjoys divine authority, one exercised verbally, consistent with the God of Genesis: "And God said, 'Let there be light'"(i:3). Presented in a religious context, Kascha's example also evokes Christ in the garden of Gethsemane and his obedience unto death: "'My father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt'" (Matthew 26:39). If this holds true for the dutiful son, how much more so for the dutiful daughter, another sign of the burden Libussa must bear: "Wenn nun des Vaters Geist auf mir beruht [her very formulation suggests the weight], / So fug sichs wie es kann und, hoff ich, gut" (421-2). The implicit political message, a justification of Gottesgnadentum11 and the need for a religiously sanctioned myth to justify the nation and hold it together (cf. Bruderzwist 1277-84), become explicit in her reactionary proclamation: "Dafi Einer herrsche ist des Himmels Ruf, / Weil zum Gehorchen er die Menschen schuf" (1193-4). Humility and reverence will guarantee the preservation of the status quo. Hence the two sisters accept Libussa's rule over them in secular matters, "weil ihrer ward das Reich" (1196). Only someone who refused to be a "Mensch" would presume to disobey her (1197-8). Here again a biblical source comes to mind, the notorious words of temptation uttered by the serpent: "you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5), i.e., the son will no longer be a mere submissive human being but an independent, free, god-like individual having achieved parity with the father.

ii3 Likes Repel

Where exactly Grillparzer stands in this political exegesis would be difficult to ascertain, for as Roe has observed, "it is quite misguided to see the sisters as some form of ideal" (Introduction 222), and consequently the text encourages the audience to be sceptical of their pronouncements, especially since they contradict their own earlier positions. From the Sturm und Drang and the French Revolution onwards, the father/son metaphor had taken on a new, potentially subversive meaning: the son (people) rising up to declare his independence by destroying the father (the king). Grillparzer dreaded the consequences of revolution for his beloved Austria, threatened with dissolution from within, "Aus eignem Schofi ringt los sich der Barbar" (Bruderzwist 1269), and yet at the same time he had some sympathy for the aspirations of his own class to gain political equality, a predicament theatrically captured in his ambivalent creation of the priest Klesel.12 Once the perspective shifts back to Libussa's castle, the two delegations she has sent out reflect her own divided nature: the Wladiken charged to fetch Primislaus and Wlasta entrusted with an appeal to her sisters. As Libussa and Dobromila approach the balcony, their opening dialogue proves informative in its implications: LIBUSSA Und siehst du hier auch nichts? DOBROMILA Wie vor noch immer, Ringsum von den Wladiken keine Spur. LIBUSSA Ich sagte dir du sollst nach Wlasta sehn, Die ich gesandt zu meinem Schwesterpaar .... (1200-3)

Dobromila assumes that her mistress's impatience - this is obviously not the first time her servant has looked, nor the only vantage point from which she has observed - is due to Primislaus's failure to arrive, i.e., the ploughman monopolizes her mind, but Libussa admonishes her, insisting that she is only concerned with Wlasta's mission to her sisters. Extremely reluctant to let slip any regard for the man, she avoids acknowledging to a subordinate any influence he may already exert upon her. His tardiness in appearing, however, offends her female vanity, although she makes every effort to conceal it. Her barely contained annoyance also explains her sudden, seemingly unmotivated need to attack the male sex and champion her own: "Und die [Wlasta], halb Mann sie selbst, nach Mannerart / Die Zeit mit Vielgeschaftigkeit zersplittert. / Sagt einer Frau: Tu das! sie richtets aus; / Der Mann will immer mehr als man geheifien" (1204-7). She presents typically male features in a pejorative light, while questioning the stereotype of the loquacious woman (1208). Her castigation

114 Act Three

of the male gender really originates with her vexation at having apparently been "stood up" by Primislaus. Since she cannot have her own way, she even resolves to return home: "Ich will zu meinen Schwestern auf Hradschin!" (1212), a contradiction - why should Wlasta's tardiness so upset her, if she could simply go home herself without asking for permission - and conclusive proof of the real source of her agitation. When she objects to the behaviour of her "trotzigen Vasallen" (1213), the audience cannot avoid the suspicion that she really has only one particular vassal in mind who has dared to defy her. To buttress her wounded self-esteem, she invokes the name of her father and her high rank: "Das soil nicht sein mit Krokus Fiirstentochter" (1217), i.e., how dare he treat me this way! Her defensive mode of expression may actually divulge her dependence: she is queen solely as a consequence of her relationship to a great male ruler, not on the basis of her own merit. In connection with this speech Lorenz claims, "Je mehr sich also Primislaus' Charakter enthiillt, um so scharfer und kritischer werden Libussas Ausserungen gegen das mannliche Geschlecht und implizit gegen ihren Freier das nahere Kennenlernen macht sie der Ehe nicht geneigter: 'Sagt einer Frau'" etc. ("Neubewertung" 43). This interpretation again seems unreasonably severe, if not unfair, given that Libussa has not seen or spoken to Primislaus since their meeting of the first act13 and her negative comments in this speech derive in part from her mistaken belief that he has snubbed her. Libussa herself verifies the link between Primislaus and her disparagement of her liegemen: "Fast reut es mich, dafi ich die Toren sandte / Nach jenem andern Toren, wie es scheint, / Der trotzig so wie sie und stolz dazu, / Dort zogert wo die Eile noch zu langsam" (1220-3). "Sein Zogern," to cite Griesmayer, "fuhrt Libussa zu hochster Erregung, la'fit sie neuerlich ein krafi verkennendes Bild des Partners pragen" (274). By calling him a fool like the Wladiken, she rescinds her former praise: "Der Mann ist klug. Wohl edel auch" (938). Whereas before she alleged her admiration for his "Stolz, / Zumal wenn er in eigner Hohe sucht / Den Mafistab, nicht in fremder Niedrigkeit" (944-6) which distinguished him favourably from the Wladiken, she now finds his defiance and pride unacceptable. But what really concerns and disturbs her is the possibility that he does not feel as strongly about her as she does about him; otherwise he would come running - soon is simply not soon enough for her. Since he does not seem to share her sense of urgency or eagerness, her aristocratic sense of self-worth conflicts with her feelings of love. Even in this moment of excruciating doubt, she still makes a concession, the clause "wie es scheint," indicative of her desire that he will

115 Likes Repel

in fact turn out to be worthy (cf. her reaction upon learning that Primislaus relinquished her jewel to the Wladiken 9251), although, at this moment, appearances from her impatient perspective would seem to eliminate his candidature. In fulfilment of Biwoy's prophecy: "Stolz gegen Stolz" (1124), Libussa responds with a very unattractive display of superciliousness to counteract what she has chosen to interpret as evidence of pride: Wenn ich gewiirdigt ihn noch sein zu denken, Wenn unter dieser Stirn, in dieser Brust Die Spuren noch lebendig jenes Eindrucks Den gebend ich empfing, was halt ihn ab Hervorzutreten aus der Dunkelheit Des Ohres und der Nacht ans Licht des Auges, Den Dank zu holen, ob auch nicht den Lohn? (1224-30)

Who does he think he is, presuming to let me wait and refusing to pay the homage due my office and lineage? He should consider himself fortunate that I even deign to think of him. The "Spuren ... jenes Eindrucks" would have to refer to the opening incident, the lasting impression it left upon both her mind and heart, a sure sign of an "Innigkeit" (Lorenz, "Neubewertung" 36) she still experiences several months later. The phrase "aus der Dunkelheit / Des Ohres und der Nacht" both conjures up the setting of the exposition, perhaps containing an oblique "put-down" - an allusion to Primislaus's social obscurity and intimates her annoyance at his silence since their separation. Her desire to see him face to face emerges from the image "Licht des Auges," another indirect sign of how deeply the Vorspiel affected her, while her raising the issues of gratitude and recompense confirms her awareness, one that Primislaus has gone to great pains to foster, that she does remain in his debt and that she herself may even embody the appropriate "Lohn" as promised in her riddle. In all this the audience senses her being captivated by Primislaus but reluctant, indeed anxious, not to expose the weakness contingent upon love he must submit to her. In his capacity to empathize with a gifted woman, a Blaustrumpf, Grillparzer was clearly ahead of his times in comparison to the more typical, nineteenth-century view of a woman's place in society. Eager to preserve her identity as a person in her own right, Libussa does not wish to become a mere appendage to a husband: "Und unter Solchen war' mein Los zu weilen? / Wohl etwa gar, wie die Wladiken

n6 Act Three

meinen, / Mein Selbst gekniipft an Einen ihrer Schar?" (1231-3). Public opinion expected a wife to remain in the home and to sustain her husband in his pursuit of social objectives outside the domestic sphere, the attitude presupposed by Primislaus's monologue at the beginning of this act. In addition to seeking recognition of her own intrinsic worth, she wants control over her own body: "Die Glieder dieses Leibes, die mein eigen, / Zu Lehen tragen von der Niedrigkeit?14 / Der Hand Beruhrung und des A terns Nahe / Erdulden, wie die Pflicht folgt einem Recht?" (1234-7). Marriage imposed a sacred duty which followed from the husband's marital right to demand his pleasure so that women had no choice but to satisfy their husbands' physical needs. The prudish, convention-bound queen from Die Judin not only voices the same legal position recognized by Church dogma but, in contrast to Libussa, upholds it: "1st denn die Ehe nicht das Heiligste, / Da sie zu Recht erhebt was sonst verboten / Und ein Greuel jedem Wohlgeschafmen / Aufnimmt ins Reich der gottgefall'gen [i.e., pleasing to God the father] Pflicht?" (1204-7). Th*5 mark of Grillparzer's concern over the inequity inherent in such a situation even informs his comedy Weh dent, der liigt! The heroine Edrita complains, "Audi bin ich nicht mehr mein, noch eignen Rechtes, / Obwohl ich schaudernd denke, wem [dem dummen Galomir] ich eigne" (1165-6), completely in line with Libussa's abhorrence at the prospect of becoming the legal property of and having to yield her body to a man (one of the Wladiken) for whom she has no love or respect. The choice of "Recht" belongs to the realm of the law embodied by Krokus/Primislaus. Libussa's whole being, mental, emotional and physical, rebels, "All mein Wesen wird zum: Nein" (1238), a negation that looks back to her first utterance of the tragedy. Rather than run the risk of the slavery which marriage could entail, she proposes the ignoble escape of passing off her fate on one of her servants, Wlasta (1239-40), ironically the least suitable, "Halb Mann sie selbst" (1204) as Libussa herself has just remarked. Such a ludicrous choice, made on the spur of the moment, may indicate how seriously the audience should take such a proposal and encourage us to interpret it as a further petulant reaction to a great personal disappointment. With Dobromila's announcement of the imminent arrival: "Ha, die Wladiken sinds" and Libussa's reply: "Und Wlasta nicht?" (1243), the two options would still seem to be real in the queen's mind or is she merely feigning a greater concern for Wlasta's mission? In any case the exchange serves to remind the audience of Libussa's duality, her being torn between what Primislaus and her sisters represent. It is significant that Dobromila mentions the horse first: "Der Zug umgibt dein zugelfreies Rofi" (1244), i.e., the palfrey follows freely

ii7 Likes Repel

without any reins. Because Libussa has consistently employed the metaphor of reins to describe how she understands her rule - "Wollt ihr nun mein als einer Frau gedenken, / Lenksam dem Zaum, so dafi kein Stachel not" (431-2); "Den Zugel fuhr' ich wohl mit weicher Hand" (963), a benevolent but nonetheless authoritarian leader - the allusion to the horse minus its reins (Primislaus must have removed them) symbolizes his independence, his refusal to be led as she wishes and thus acts as a visible display of her limited control over this man. She sent the horse back to him by means of its reins but only up to the location where she still has some authority: "Fiihrt ihn [horse] hinaus am Zaum zu den drei Eichen, / Wo sich die Wege teilen in den Wald" (986). From this point of separation on, her influence ceases: "Dort lafit den Ziigel ihm und folgt ihm nach" (987). As the original owner of the horse, Primislaus has the greater power over this link between them as substantiated by the subsequent dialogue: LIBUSSA Das keinen Reiter tragt? DOBROMILA Ich sehe keinen. Vor Allen her nur geht ein Einzelner, Geschmiickt mit Blumen wie LIBUSSA Ein Opfer etwa? Ich will des Schrittes Unlust ihm ersparen, Und schien die Frau ihm nicht des Kommens wert, Soil ihm die Furstin wert der Achtung scheinen. (1245-50)

Devoted to Primislaus, the palfrey obediently follows him with no need for reins, so well has he trained it or earned its trust. Since Dobromila ascribes the horse to Libussa: "dein ziigelfreies Rofi," it may even look forward to the husband/wife relationship of the fifth act: "Mein hoher Gatte; somit Herr der Frau" (2003). Her fear that he has come out of a sense of duty or devotion, not love, highlights her problem. She feels particularly vulnerable, for she had to take the first steps to reestablish the connection with this man. According to Wolf-Cirian, "Um ihrer hohen Seele willen mochte sie geliebt sein, wie sie ihn liebt, nicht fragend nach dem Rang. An seinen Mannesstolz zu denken, kommt ihr nicht in den Sinn. Dafi sie Furstin ist, kummert sie wenig und sie ahnt nicht, dafi ihre Fiirstenkrone ihn verwirrt. Der aufiere Rang ist doch so gleichgiiltig. Nur der innere Adel entscheidet, nur innerlich mufi der Geliebte ihrer wurdig, ihr gleich sein" (259). On the basis of our analysis to date, it is more probable that not unlike Kleist's Penthesilea/5 she wants to be pursued in the first instance as a woman,

n8 Act Three not as a queen, but quickly falls back on her social rank if he appears to reject the woman: "Das soil nicht sein mit Krokus Fiirstentochter" (1217). The strong emotions Primislaus arouses in her even in his absence - one need only remember her "Fischer" simile (972-5) convey a more passionate, erotic attraction rather than the ideal love Wolf-Cirian ascribes to her. One should not underestimate the intensity of the Frau/Fiirstin dichotomy and the oversensitivity it gives rise to, when evaluating her attitude towards his entry, gestures and words.16 If he does not feel drawn to the woman in her, she will compel him to esteem the royal ruler, a subterfuge practised as well by Sappho, who suspects Phaon does not really love her but hopes his admiration for her as an artist will somehow compensate for her deficiency as a woman in his eyes (Sappho 394-422). After all, Libussa's aristocratic legacy has likewise granted her privileges not normally conceded to the rank-and-file of her own sex, specifically a degree of independence and control of her own body. (Contrary to patriarchal practice, both Sappho and Libussa enjoy the liberty of choosing their own mate.) She then commands her servants to surround her, "Umgebt die euch gebeut in voller Schar" (1252), in order to flaunt publicly the jurisdiction where she exercises absolute power and disparages him as being incapable of appreciating "Hohes," ironically his epithet to characterize her from the beginning: "Du Hohe, Herrliche!" (20). As a final touch of stage management, "Sie selbst besteigt den Thron" (p. 327), thus taking up a spatially dominant pose and realizing Primislaus's worst-case scenario. "Libussa nimmt nun," Griesmayer observes, "was Primislaus befurchtet hat (V. 1060 ff), die Haltung der unnahbaren Herrin, in der sie sich als herablassende, mit dem Anspruch der Hoheit auftretende Fiirstin zeigt" (274). In terms of archetypical symbolism her action contains a special meaning: "Nicht zufallig ist der Name der grofiten Muttergottin der fruhen Kulte: 'Isis/ der Sitz, der Thron, dessen Symbol sie auf ihrem Haupte tra'gt; und der Kb'nig, der die Erde, die Muttergottin, 'in Besitz nimmt/ tut dies, indem er im wahren Sinne des Wortes auf ihrem Schofie sitzt" (Neumann 103). It follows that Libussa issues an implied challenge by assuming a position considered the prerogative of the male, even though ironically the female throne signals the original mythological preeminence of the matriarchy over the patriarchy, i.e., the primeval mother of darkness gave birth to her male sons of light.17 Nor should one ignore, as Libussa does, the dilemma faced by Primislaus caught between, to cite Wolf-Cirian, his "Mannesstolz" and the loyalty he owes "ihre Fiirstenkrone," between his love and his social unworthiness to sue for her hand. He would like nothing better than to be able to treat her as a woman, a "Hirtenmadchen" (1054), subject to him, but must acknowledge her as his

ii9 Likes Repel

political superior. His awareness of the social barrier explains his reluctance to approach the queen in the first place, and yet his love for the woman prevents him from renouncing all hope (1033-5). "Ihre gegenseitige Zuneigung" in Geifiler's apt formulation, "verbirgt sich hinter der Fassade der Selbstheit" (123). Primislaus does not suppress his pride: preceding the Wladiken he stands out as "ein Einzelner" both by his position and his dress: "Er tragt einen Kranz von Ahren und Kornblumen aufdem Kopfe, in der rechten Hand eine Sichel, mit dem linken Arme halt er einen Korb mit Blumen und Friichten" (p. 327). Indeed his semblance symbolizes male dominance. The ears of grain and the cornflowers emblematic of the female principle of natural growth and fertility he wears as his crown in keeping with his dictum: "Also der Mann das Haupt, das sich die Krone [i.e., the woman] aufsetzt" (1031). In his right hand he bears the sickle, the sign of the peasant and his work ethic, which he calls "[sein] Schwert, der Waff en Beste" (1261), i.e., like the ploughshare, a phallic symbol, and in the left a basket with the products of his labour. Having sowed the seeds, he harvested the grains, flowers, and fruit. The German Sichel and English sickle both descended from the Latin secula, a derivation of the Latin verb secure meaning to cut off, another variation of the central theme. This allegorical image thus visually reinforces male exploitation of Mother Nature - the sickle separates the fruit from its nurturing source just as the father removes the child from the nourishing body of the mother. This incident warrants comparison with an earlier one from the second act where "einige VJeiber Elumenstraufie zu Libussens Ftiften legen" (302). In this case the women remained silent in their act of devotion while Primislaus accompanies his similar act with a long speech in which he shows respect but one tempered by a consciousness of his own merit and independence. Responding to the women's gesture, Libussa cast herself as the gardener, her subjects as her plants (600-2): she regards them as her dependents, as needful of her care. Whereas they demonstrated "Das kindliche Vertrauen" (445) she counts upon from her obedient children (the well schooled horse), Primislaus introduces himself as his own person with a secret message of masculine superiority notwithstanding the gestures and signs of submission.18 Therefore each protagonist approaches the other surrounded by the symbols of their respective strengths. Between the lines of Primislaus's opening speech emerge the symptoms of a power struggle: Auf dein Geheifi erschein' ich, hohe Fiirstin/9 Mit Landmanns Gaben und in Landmanns Schmuck

12O Act Three Und dir zu Fiifien leg' ich meine Habe. Den Kranz von Ahren, die der Fluren Krone Und minder nicht von Gold als Fiirstenschmuck, Ich neig' ihn vor der Fiirstin Diadem. (1255-60)

His introductory words amount to an open admission of her superiority - she commanded; he obeyed - and his gesture, bowing down to place his offering at her feet, reinforces the message. The yielding of his figurative weapons, lowering his crown to hers or laying down his sickle/sword and the basket/shield, is not only a statement of her obvious social ascendancy, but also an oblique confession of his love for her in keeping with the metaphorical battle of the sexes, i.e., he performs the very act of submission that Kleist's Penthesilea demands before she can surrender to Achilles. This relinquishment of his arms harks back as well to the "Arbeiterbienen" (1022) and the fear of being emasculated in a relationship which would contravene what Primislaus considers natural. Hence, he does some violence to his most genuinely held convictions. On the other hand, he declares publicly that he has acted only out of a sense of obedience to and respect for the queen, not of his own volition nor out of love for the woman, the concession that Libussa really wants to hear, and like her he conceals his amorous feelings behind the social barrier separating them. When he equates his wreath with a crown just as precious as gold, he parallels Libussa's preference for nature's living treasures over gold and silver (611-3). The observer cannot but suspect that at heart he considers himself her peer, but overcoming his pride he is prepared to show deference to her rank as "Furstin": "Ich strecke sie [Sichel], von hoh'rer Macht besiegt" (1264). However, what exactly is this higher power? Even though he shows all the outward signs of respect, one still detects his confidence in his accomplishments, his sense of self-worth, features shared by Libussa. (He stresses his "Landmann" status by mentioning it twice in the same line.) While the "Macht" he alludes to here may simply denote her social distinction conferred by birth, it could also intimate how love or beauty has conquered him. Since he is speaking before a general audience, he intentionally leaves his meaning open to interpretation, addressing its literal version explicitly to the queen but its disguised gallantry implicitly to the woman. Each protagonist is carefully feeling out the other and neither is prepared to confess outright his or her love. Although he is "der Niedre" (1269) - Libussa has stage-managed this scene in such a way as to accentuate the spatial discrepancy of the class difference - and would appear to recognize her social preeminence, in actual fact he draws attention not only to the equality

121 Likes Repel

but even to the superiority of his way of life: "die der Fluren Krone" rivals "der Furstin Diadem;" his sword, the sickle, being productive rather than destructive, represents "der Waffen Beste;" his cottage becomes his "Burg;" and his basket filled with the bounty of the soil substitutes for his shield and coat of arms, "Geschmiickt mit Inhalt und mit Wirklichkeit" (1266), i.e., brimming over with tangible, wholesome content, not the empty symbolism, the Unfruchtbarkeit of the leisure class. (Cf. "Ich [Rudolf] bin das Band, das diese Garbe [social order] halt, / Unfruchtbar selbst, doch notig, weil es bindet" (Bruderzwist 1163-4). The nobility, because of its aversion to manual labour, especially field work, justified its lack of productivity by extolling its protective function to which Libussa and Alphons (Die Jiidin 1073-7) lay claim and which Rudolf defends as the natural order of things: "Und aus dem Wechselspiel von hoch und niedrig, / Von Frucht [Bauer] und Schutz [Adel] erzeugt sich dieses Ganze, / Des Grund und Recht in dem liegt, dafi es ist" (1612-4). The peasant feeds the nation, including the aristocracy (cf. 1082-3); the nobleman serves by ruling and protecting those who toil. While Primislaus may acknowledge his place and his obligation to her by word and deed: "Komm ich zu Hof und, neigend dir mein Knie, / Frag' ich, o Furstin: was ist dein Gebot. Er kniet" (1272-3), he feels himself the match of any noble knight: "Wie es dem Hohern wohl der Niedre beut, / Der sich als niedrig weifi, obgleich nicht fuhlt" (1269-70). Sufficiently sensitive and perceptive to decipher the concealed challenge, Libussa retorts, "Es scheint du sprichst als Gleicher [masc.] zu der Gleichen [fern.]" (1274). From the perspective of sexual role expectations, for a man to speak to a woman as an equal would indeed constitute progress in the nineteenth century, but in social hierarchical terms where class takes precedence over gender, the peasant is being impertinent, although Libussa herself first broached the equality issue early in the drama in a manner which could have conceivably encouraged greater familiarity: "Des Bauern Kleider hiillen minder warm nicht / Als eines Ftirsten Rock; in so weit, merk' ich, / Sind sie sich gleich" (18-20). In contradiction to the underlying impression, he alleges, "Dir neigt sich nicht mein Knie nur, auch mein Sinn" (1275), and to the extent that he is in love with her, he does tell the truth. When Lorenz inveighs against Primislaus's character, "Libussa zeigt sich zu Recht verargert iiber Primislaus' Verlogenheit und seine Unverschamtheiten, die er, ein einfacher und im Grunde autoritatsglaubiger Bauer, sich einem mannlichen Herrscher gegeniiber schwerlich erlaubt hatte" ("Neubewertung" 44), she has overlooked his much more disrespectful treatment of the Wladiken, members of the Hochadel and as such "mannliche Herrscher" in

122 Act Three

spite of their comic relief value. Whatever arrogance his speech may insinuate, he does in fact kneel before her while Libussa's overtly supercilious response seeks to humiliate him even further: "Doch wenn sich beide nicht aus Willkur beugten, / Erreichten sie wohl etwa doch mein Mafi? / Steh auf!" (1276-8).20 She realizes that only by an act of will, one that does violence to his true self, is he able to defer to her. But if he were in a position to act freely, would he be qualified to rival her? Is he really her peer? As if to commence the process of finding out, she bids him rise; however, the very fact that her social station entitles her to command him stresses the unfairness of the ensuing contest. Her query could also hint at the extent of her love for him. Will he be able to reciprocate her feelings? "Die verzehrende Ungewifiheit tiber seinen Wert," Wolf-Cirian argues, "wechselt mit der sehnsuchtigen Frage: Bin ich, wurde ich geliebt? Libussa will - wie die meisten Frauen - die romantische, die heroische Liebe" (259). Which of these two protagonists, both of whom have a high opinion of themselves and cherish their personal liberty, will make the first real concession? The dialogue now switches its focus to the basket and its offering: "Wenn meine Gaben du erst nahmst, / Der Geber sieht in ihnen sich verschmaht" (1278-9). Playing the spurned, he compels her to accept his gift. One of her objectives in summoning him was ironically to settle her obligation: "Den Dank zu holen, ob auch nicht den Lohn" (1230), and now he increases her sense of indebtedness by insisting she accept his additional gift. When she contrasts the unpretentious nature of the proffered flowers which she admits to loving (1280) with the pride of their bestower, she could be intimating that he must genuinely humble himself if she is to love him (1284). But then could she love him, would he measure up to her if he were to deny his pride? She did maintain earlier, "Gut, ich liebe Stolz" (994). As an echo of an incident from the first act where she also admitted in public to loving another of his modest gifts: "Das Kleid ist warm, und also lieb' ich es" (162), her declaration before her court: "Ich liebe diese Blumen" (1280) may exemplify a psychological transference of a repressed emotion to a more consciously acceptable recipient. Primislaus seizes the opportunity to hand her the basket and in the process poses a riddle of his own: Unter Blumen liegt das Ratsel Und die Losung unter Friichten. Wer in Fesseln legte tragt sie, Der sie tragt ist ohne Kette. (1290-3)

123 Likes Repel

Similar to Libussa's enigma, it contains a clandestine admission of love. The first two lines insinuate the chain's concealed presence under the flowers, a literary allusion to the Latin sub rosa to stress the secretive nature of the communication. In his reference of the third line to enchainment, he concedes that she has made him fall in love with her and now holds not only the chain but the solution to their whole relationship, the possibility of reuniting the jewel and the chain. As a cautionary note, the word "Losung" also recalls the original separation: "Das 16s' ich los" (71). As for the last line, if the "Der" alludes to Primislaus, it means either literally that he no longer carries the chain on his body, or figuratively that he reasserts his independence in the political sense of being a free man. If he has Libussa in mind, he could be magnanimously suggesting that she is under no obligation to go through with her offer: "Vielleicht wird Er, doch nie ein Andrer ihr Gemahl" (676). Libussa's reaction to the riddle merits close scrutiny: "Das ist nun wohl des Ostens Blumensprache, / Die traumend redet mit geschlofinem Mund, / Und diese Rosen, Nelken, saft'gen Friichte / Sind wohl geordnet zu geheimen Sinn" (1294-7). Her choice of images provides both another example of a self-reflective text, one obviously aware of and underlining the presence of the literary play on words, and a case of dramatic irony at the titular heroine's expense. Primislaus and the perceptive audience know that the solution does in fact lie under the roses. Moreover, her composite noun "Blumensprache/' which one could translate as figurative speech, and her associating it with the dream experience, a non-verbal ("mit geschlofinem Mund"), visual mode of symbolic expression, anticipate Freud's finding that dream language consists of condensation, i.e., metaphor, and transference, i.e., metonymy (cf. the jewel/chain or "Kleid"/ "Blumen" and their metaphoric, metonymic value). Interestingly enough, she could just as easily be commenting on her own "Blumensprache" with its unconscious sexual desire from the first act: "Als ich an seinem [her father's] Bette safi und wachte, / Da schwebte vor den Augen des Gemuts, I ... I Das Bild mir einer Blume, weifi und klein, / Mit siebenspalt'gem Kelch und schmalen Blattern" (310-14). In her next lines she refuses as queen to be treated in the same manner as she has dealt with him: "Doch Ratsel geben ziemt nur der Gewalt, / Die Ratsel losen eignet dem Gehorsam. / Drum offen, da geheim nur was vertraut" (1299-1301). Giving a psychological interpretation of the power relationships involved in posing and solving riddles and thus drawing attention to their relative social positions, she, as the dominant, expects compliance. In addition to "pulling rank" in order to humble his social pride, she

124 Act Three

also endeavours to injure his male vanity by deliberately minimizing the importance of their first encounter: since there never was anything intimate between them, they may openly, i.e., publicly, discuss what transpired in the Vorspiel. This combination of emotional sadism - she seeks to hurt him - and masochism - she also does emotional harm to herself - goes back to their common fear that the one does not attach the same importance to what transpired as the other does and hence may even have forgotten it, whereas in point of fact that fateful episode continues to have a major impact, both direct and indirect, upon both their lives. Each wants the other to broach the topic first. In the game that Libussa initiates: "Sahst du mich irgend schon?" (1302), Primislaus cunningly "plays dumb": "Wer sah dich nicht / Als dich das Land mit seiner Krone schmiickte?" (1302-3). Because he does not wish to profess publicly the importance he ascribes privately to their meeting, he opts for her coronation, an innocuous event of public record, and therefore avoids giving the sought-after response. As she persists in pressing him to raise the forbidden subject: "Und sprach ich je zu dir?" (1304), he sticks to the general domain: "Zu mir, wie alien, / Die als dein Wort verehren dein Gesetz" (1304-5). Continually frustrated by his skilful skirting of the issue, she finally resorts to undeniable concrete evidence of their contact: LIBUSSA

Der Zelter den ich sandte, ohne Leitung, Er blieb in deines Hauses Raumen stehn. War er je dein? PRIMISLAUS Und war' ers ja gewesen, Wenn ich ihn gab, war er nicht mehr mein eigen. Bin Mann geht zogernd vorwarts, ruckwarts nie. (1306-10)

Even what the horse has confirmed he refrains from acknowledging directly by using a conditional clause and thus maintaining her liability to him. When he implies a sexually discriminatory belief to the effect that men look cautiously to the future while women dwell in the past, he attempts to put Libussa in her place, i.e., being a woman she really could not understand. But she has already imputed to herself a progressive attitude as if in anticipation of his charge, "Nur vorwarts fiihrt das Leben, ruckwarts nie" (386), and her prophetic vision will conclude with an affirmative look to the future. In practice she has nonetheless sought at least once to return to her sisters but was refused (1140-2). Moreover, the audience has witnessed how the speaker himself is not above dwelling on the past, specifically the

125 Likes Repel

fateful meeting that has disrupted his peace of mind (10501), and later he will aspire to relive their first idyllic adventure: "O tu's, Libussa, tu's! Sei wieder Jene / Als die du mir im Walde dort erschienst" (1862-3). As is frequently the case, these two are more similar than different. Primislaus's unguarded sexist platitude produces a violent outburst in Libussa: "Ein Mann, ein Mann! Ich seh' es endlich kommen" (1311). He has touched a very raw nerve indeed! In a speech at times verging on a diatribe, she passionately champions her own gender, maintaining that women such as her sisters, Wlasta, and herself have proven themselves to be as good as, if not better than, any man. In spite of their accomplishments, men persist in putting them down and thus refuse to appreciate their inherent ability.21 This same protest, although less impetuous, emerges in Die Jiidin with Rahel as the unlikely spokesperson: War' meine Schwester hier! Sie 1st besonnen Und kliiger weit als ich; doch fallt der Funke Von Willen und Entschlufi in ihre Brust, Dann lodert sie in gleichen Flammen auf. War' sie ein Mann, sie war' ein Held. Ihr Alle Erlaget ihrem Blick und ihrem Mut. (972-7)

Esther surpasses most men in terms of intelligence, determination and courage, an assessment borne out by the tragedy. Grillparzer obviously had serious reservations concerning the social restrictions imposed on a gifted, energetic woman solely because of her sex. When Libussa begins to generalize about the male sex with its historic record of discord and stupidity, not just an overall sense of frustration, but also her disillusionment with this particular man in whom she had placed so much hope and who does not appear to live up to her high expectations (1277) may dictate the vehemence of her criticism, culminating in the exclamation: "Sind aber Manner, Manner, Herrn des All!" (1319). Progressing from the general to the personal, she brings her attack closer to home: "Und einen Mann begehrt ja dieses Volk; / Das Volk, nicht ich; das Land, nicht seine Fiirstin" (1320-1). His implied criticism of her gender occasions this metaphorical slap in the face: I, both as a woman and queen, don't want you. If she were to follow her own inclination, she would never consider a consort, but the people demand a man by her side. Schiller's Elisabeth from Maria Stuart puts forward essentially the same line of argument:

126 Act Three Mein Wunsch wars immer, unvermahlt zu sterben, ... Nicht genug, Dafi jetzt [Schiller's emphasis] der Segen dieses Land begliickt, [Cf. Ich [Libussa] selber ordne schlichtend dieses Land (1314)] Auch ihrem kiinftgen Wohl soil ich mich opfem, Auch meine jungfrauliche Freiheit soil ich, Mein hochstes Gut, hingeben fiir mein Volk. Und der Gebieter wird mir aufgedrungen. (H57-68)22

In both cases, especially Elisabeth's, the reasoning is spurious: the English monarch hides behind the people, using them as an excuse to indulge in a martyr's pose, while Libussa conceals the passion Primislaus incites in her behind her responsibility to her subjects. Duty and inclination may not be as much at odds as she would have her audience believe. Another historic reason may also account for her desire to put some distance between herself and her people. Continuing to offend Primislaus directly, she challenges and criticizes one of his main attributes: "Du giltst fur klug, und Klugheit ist ja doch / Ein Notbehelf fiir Weisheit wo sie fehlt" (1322-3). Grillparzer ascribes "Klugheit," not a universally positive quality in his later works, above all to Klesel, the Realpolitiker from Ein Bruderzwist: "Drum brauch' ihn [Klesel], er ist klug, doch hiite dich" (1058). It is no accident that Klesel and Primislaus trace their roots back to the peasant class noted for its Bauernschlaue: "Der Bauer steckt noch ganz in seinem [Klesel's] Leibe / Mit des Emporgekommnen Ubermut" (2180-1). Libussa's play on the distinction between "weise" and "klug" may be indebted to Lessing's Nathan der Weise, specifically the introductory dialogue between Nathan and Saladin prior to the ring parable: SALADIN Ich habe langst gewiinscht, den Mann zu kennen, Den es [das Volk] den Weisen nennt. NATHAN Und wenn es ihn Zum Spott so nennte? Wenn dem Volke weise Nichts weiter war' als klug? und klug nur der, Der sich auf seinen Vorteil gut versteht? (i8o3~7)23

Both Lessing and Grillparzer link cleverness to the "Volk," the broader masses, and see it in comparison with wisdom as a manifestation of a deplorable self-interest and a decline in respect for the more altruistic values of the past in both the social and political

127 Likes Repel

domains. Rudolf delineates this historical process in greater detail to his confidant Julius: Den [Adel] gibt die Not, die Tochter der Verschwendung Drauf in des Burgers Hand, des Kramers, Maklers, Der alien Wert abwagt nach Goldgewicht. Der dehnt sich breit und hort mit Spottes-Lacheln Von Toren reden, die man Helden nennt, Von Weisen, die nicht klug fur eignen Sackel, Vor allem was nicht niitzt und Zinsen tragt. (1238-44)

This tendency to elevate wisdom over cleverness which begins with Lessing in the eighteenth century and continues to the end of the nineteenth in Fontane's novels stems from a fear of the masses (cf. Bruderzwist 1245-8), an aversion to the Geldsackgesinnung of the commercial middle class and a nostalgic idealization of the cultural and moral legacy of the aristocracy typified by the phrase noblesse oblige (Rudolf's motto: "Nicht ich, nur Gott" [1221] or Dubslav, the ideal Junker, in Der Stechliri). The "Klugheit" theme also has a bearing on the legal debate: Sie wollen einen Richter, der entscheide, Nicht was da gut und billig, fromm und weise, Nein, nur was recht, wie viel ein Jeder nehmen, Wie viel verweigern kann, ohn' eben Dieb Und Schelm zu heifien, ob ers etwa ware. (1324-8)

Touching again the Scheiden motif as it relates to a divisive judicial system, Libussa views legal rights as a camouflage to promote and protect male interests: the law as an arbitrary construct founded on masculine values, i.e., adversarial as opposed to conciliatory, to assure male dominance and the concomitant subordination of the female traits she attributes to her regime: "gut und billig, fromm und weise."24 To paraphrase a conclusion reached by Sanday's study, the promotion of the man to the status of control means that there is more competition than cooperation in human affairs, more division than unity (84). The male concept of Recht both appeals to and masks the worst aspects of human nature. The text thus presents the somewhat biased version of what one could term the controversy between Rousseau and Hobbes: Libussa adopts the former's belief in the essential goodness of the human being, a faith which, despite her reservations, she clings to till the end - "Der Mensch ist gut" (2458)

128 Act Three

- while Primislaus embodies the latter's more cynical opinion that society needs the law to protect itself from the disruptive influence of self-interest. Grillparzer remained divided or equivocal himself on this topic, for the Klesel of the final act of Bin Bruderzwist, "Niemand soil zittern! / Vor allem der im Recht und der klug" (2573-4), without some saving grace25 and Julius, the voice of reason and reconciliation, argues along Hobbesian lines: "Die Mehrheit siegt und mit ihr siegt das Recht. / War's anders, Herr, die Welt bestiinde nicht / Und alle Bande des gemeinen Wohls / Sie wa'ren langst gelost von Eigennutz" (2127-30). As soon as Libussa again shifts from the universal to the particular, she forthwith places Primislaus into context: "Dazu bist du der Mann, wie 's mindstens scheint" (1329). Her final word invites her interlocutor to prove the opposite, both in the specific sense of restoring her chain, but also in the general sense of demonstrating his worthiness as her chosen mate. "Drum sag nur an: ist nichts in deinen Handen / Was mir gehort und du mir vorenthaltst?" (1332-3). The question, couched in a coded language which only they and the audience can comprehend, elicits from Primislaus a confession of his affection for and submission to her, but still phrased in a manner which lends itself to a primarily sociopolitical interpretation and skirts the real issue: "Dein bin ich selbst und all was ich besitze" (1334). Just as she attempts to hide behind the persona of the omnipotent ruler, he responds in kind, cloaking his intimate feelings in the trappings of the loyal subject. Neither wants to lose face or to expose his or her vulnerability by admitting any genuine tenderness for the other. In addition, Libussa does not relish having the tables turned on her: "Mir widert dieser Reden Doppelsinn" (1336); she prefers to be in control of herself and the situation. Hence, intent upon forcing him to obey, she does not really listen to what he says: "Was ich besafi ist nicht in meiner Hand" (1335) and ironically accuses him of "Stolz" and "Hochmut" (1337) at the very point where he has conceded her complete power over him (1334). When she begins to enquire again: "Drum frag' ich offen dich zum letztenmal -" (1338), the dash signals a pause, time to consider her circumstances and to recognize the humiliation and damage to her vanity. Now she becomes more evidently guilty of the very pride and arrogance she imputes to Primislaus: he should consider himself honoured that she even deigns to notice him (1340-1). The "offen" picks up on her earlier formulation: "Drum offen, da geheim nur was vertraut: / Sahst du mich irgend schon?" (1301-2). But on both occasions, does she really pose an open question? As Primislaus will enquire later of Wlasta, "Wenn ihr es wifit, warum nur fragt ihr

129 Likes Repel noch?" (1518). Because Libussa already knows the answers to what amounts to rhetorical questions, she is more intent upon testing him in the area she sought to keep from her sisters in the first act, the "geheim" and "vertraut" aspects of her involvement with a man, while he refuses to play along. The pretence of openness accentuated by the repetition reminds the audience of the degree to which the dialogue is actually covert and only comprehensible to the two main parties and the audience, as each interlocutor tries to gain some psychological advantage over the other. Libussa realizes that what transpired between them did have intimate implications and thus must remain closed from public scrutiny, and yet to harm his pride, she pretends that nothing of any emotional consequence occurred. Not mentioned once by name, the "Kette" provides a mere pretence for the substantive motivation behind this dialogue. In order to ascertain his suitability as judge, she proposes a hypothetical case, "eine Gleichnisrede" (1342), really an extension of the testing process evident in their former conversation. Part of her wants him to fail, so that she may preserve her independence and full exercise of power, while the woman in her hopes that he will prove worthy (cf. "Fahr hin o Hoffnung! erste, letzte du" [930]). Her parable only barely disguises its indebtedness to the plot of the first act: "Vermifit er - einen Ring, ihm wert, ja heilig" (1347). The pause registers the need for invention. If she were to mention the jewel, the public, especially the Wladiken, might begin to penetrate the code. Only three lines later, the ring becomes "das Kleinod, seines Vaters Erbteil" (1350), a direct parallel. As well as changing the nature of the object, she also alters the gender of the central player - Libussa becomes the king, perhaps an additional reflection of her desire to replace her father (cf. 375-6) - and, as in the first act, she covers up the theft: "man weifi nicht wie" (1348). In other words, sex would not seem to play any part in her tale as all the characters are male: "Konig," "Landmann," "Vater." She elects to concentrate on the social division between ruler and subject where she prevails and ignores the gender dynamic by which the power relations would be reversed. By responding within the code, Primislaus is able to reveal his motives: "Vielleicht fuhlt' ich mich durch die Tat belohnt, / Und jener Ring, als Ausdruck des Bewufitseins, / War teurer mir als selbst der hochste Lohn" (1354-6). Again, if she were to listen carefully, she would extract a confession of his love for her. The audience can also verify that he is stretching the truth with his flattering analysis of his modest expectations, for, far from feeling adequately compensated by the deed alone, he staked his masculine proprietary claim in the Vorspiel.

130 Act Three

In the second stage of the parable, she takes advantage of the opportunity to defend her own policy: "Ein Aufstand, den veranlafit - was weifi ich? - / Vielleicht des Konigs Gtite, wie so oft" (135960), an allusion to the ingratitude of her people and their abuse of her kindness. She clearly portrays herself as being on the side of the angels - "gut und billig, fromm und weise" (1325) - and yet this section ends with a veiled threat: as an act dictated more by totalitarian whim than by justice, the king will spare from execution the one who restores the lost ring, "als Lohn fur jenen Dienst, / Den er, ob Pflicht, doch seinem Herrn erwiesen" (1369-70). Once more she diminishes the importance of her rescue - it was after all Primislaus's duty as her subject to save her. Understandably annoyed at Libussa's scenario and it implications, Primislaus refuses to be cowed by tactics which contravene her avowed principles of mildness and compassion (429-30) and insists, "Dem Zufall dank' ich nichts, noch eines Menschen Gnade" (1377). In his self-sufficiency he finds the idea of mercy especially objectionable. As he remarked earlier in the act, "Ists eignes Brot doch, das erhalt und starkt, / Das Brot der Gnade nur beengt und lastet" (10667). To be in someone's debt is tantamount to accepting the imposition of a limit upon one's personal freedom. Whereas he has continually aimed at fortifying Libussa's obligation to himself, he would rather put his life on the line than jeopardize his own liberty. This might seem at first sight to contradict his earlier declaration: "Dein bin ich selbst und all was ich besitze" (1334), but not necessarily. In the latter instance he freely chooses to submit to her and not as a result of coercion. "Stolz gegen Stolz, wie Kiesel gegen Stahl" (1124). Primislaus's rejection of both chance and mercy and his implied insistence upon a rationally determined order and a legal system founded on just laws, correspond to the traditional separation of the female and male spheres as depicted, for instance, in the Babylonian myth of creation: "Tiamat [the mother] ist die irrationale Macht der Urzeit und des schopferischen Unbewufiten. Sie bleibt, selbst in ihrem Tode, die Obere und Untere Welt, in die sie auseinandergespalten wird, und ist als Grofies Rundes Urwasser, Urgebarendes, Himmel, Erde und Unterwelt, Erbarmendes und Rachendes zugleich. Marduk [the solar hero] dagegen ist Gesetzgeber, weist den Himmelkraften ihren festen Ort an und ordnet, wie der Gott des biblischen Schopfungsberichtes, die Welt nach rationalen Gesetzen, die dem BewuGtsein und seiner Sonnennatur entsprechen" (Neumann 206). Other features of the female principle described above have a direct parallel in the drama: Libussa's orientation towards the creative spontaneity of the unconscious, her initial association with

131 Likes Repel the mountain stream, the sisters' preoccupation with the night sky, Libussa's strong affiliation with the natural world, and her compassionate but also, in unguarded moments, vengeful temperament. Libussa has already proven herself capable of resorting to her father's "starre Harte" (430) when sufficiently provoked: "Schlagst du den Bruder? / Gebt mir ein Schwert, er soil des Todes sterben! / Und doch, schelt' ich den Zorn und fuhl' ihn selbst?" (693-5); however, on this earlier occasion, she acknowledged her own fault. In the episode under discussion, she again has recourse to the male solution, threatening Primislaus hypothetically with death: "Der Furst gab Alle gleich dem Schwerte hin. / Verloren war der Ring, doch auch der Mann" (1379-80). Such intimidation would surely excuse "sein immer gegenwartiges MiGtrauen gegen andere, z. B. seine Furcht, im Falle einer Weigerung mit Gewalt an den Furstenhof gebracht zu werden" (Lorenz, "Neubewertung" 42-3). His fear has a substantial foundation in her own words and behaviour. Lorenz also accuses Primislaus of "Verlogenheit" ("Neubewertung" 44), but one could also argue that in his failure to pass her first significant trial, "Ich habe mich getauscht, du bist nicht klug, / Du kannst nicht Richter sein in diesem Land" (1381-2), he has not evinced the cleverness or cunning one would expect from a Klesel, for he would have engaged in "Verlogenheit" by telling her what she wanted to hear and ingratiating himself into her good graces. Instead he has insisted upon preserving his independence, given utterance to a pride prejudicial to his possible social advancement and, in the process, supplied a reasonably accurate self-portrait verifiable from the rest of the tragedy. Libussa, gratifying a sadistic urge, lets him see what he has foolishly forfeited by not accommodating her wishes: "Zeigt ihm das Schlofi mit alien seinen Schatzen, / Damit er sehe was ein Herr und Furst" (1384-5). Out of her wounded pride as a woman and because of his refusal to humble himself sufficiently before the queen, she tries to humiliate him even further. Indeed, her final words and actions of the act amount to a personal assault on his character, "Der Kopf, das Herz, so wie sein Tisch, von Eisen. Indem sie mit einer geringschatzigen Handbewegung sich abwendet" (1389), a cruel, unfair attack since, given his inferior social status, he can hardly defend himself, although he has shown himself quite prepared to dole out the same but more justifiable treatment to his male social superiors: "Er entl'dfit sie [Wladiken] mit einer Handbewegung und geht in die Htitte" (p. 323). (The analogous stage directions reinforce their common pride.) A morning deadline for his departure (1386), leaving open the feasibility of further attempts at rapprochement, suggests that while he may have failed the initial test, she has not

132 Act Three

relinquished all hope. Even though Primislaus has secretly returned the jewel to its rightful owner, both characters are too proud and too vulnerable to plead their cases openly and must resort to riddles and parables both to conceal and paradoxically to reveal their attraction to one another. To admit to being in love is to concede the power of the other over oneself. Libussa's reference to Primislaus's ploughshare, a male symbol of division, and the final gestures: her deprecatory hand movement and turning her back to him while he stands "tiefuerneigt" (p. 332) underscore the separating sexual and social distance between them.26 As the curtain rises on the third act, Primislaus delivers a soliloquy which attempts to justify male domination by word and symbol and which comes to an end with the arrival of the Wladiken. In direct parallel, after an interlude at the sisters' castle, designed to accentuate the growing alienation between their life style and Libussa's, the audience gains further insight into the heroine's dilemma but in the more guarded, oblique context of dialogue. This segment also culminates in the approach of the Wladiken and brings the protagonists together for a second confrontation. The two sequences featuring the main players in isolation from one another nonetheless establish a number of correspondences between them. Both remain at heart divided. While Primislaus seeks to justify his superior position as a male and to this end stresses the imbalance of obligation to his credit, he shows signs of being frustrated by his love for Libussa and his inability to produce the necessary credentials to be a serious contender. He is torn between his masculine pride - the woman should submit to the man - and his fear of emasculation - as his liege lord, she may choose her own mate and therefore he must defer to her. Similarly, faced with the unpleasant demands of leadership in the real world and barely able to disguise her interest in the ploughman, Libussa longs to return to the ideal realm of her sisters. Moreover, out of a sense of self-worth inspired by her aristocratic heritage, she insists on maintaining control of her life and body, but at the same time wants to appeal to Primislaus as a woman. Both pretend that the other means nothing to them while directly (Primislaus) or indirectly (Libussa) betraying a real physical attraction. Evincing the lack of confidence of those in love, they react petulantly when excluded from a contest (but eventually gain the desired status), make excuses, or engage in personally hurtful conjectures as to the other's genuine sentiments, convinced that the other could not feel as deeply as she or he does, and cling to a physical token of their former relationship

133 Likes Repel

to keep hope alive. They both hit upon employing the horse to reestablish contact and portray as compulsory compliance what the audience perceives to be a convenient pretence to gratify their true inclination. What really holds them apart, the real separating force, is their common pride: "Stolz gegen Stolz" (1124). While opposites attract, likes repel, for two so strongly individualistic characters can never achieve that disposition of self-surrender whereby "ein Innres [schmilzt ...] / Um Eins zu sein mit einem andern Innern" (1680-1). The symbolism, of the reins associated with Primislaus's entrance, signals his independence. Whereas he appears to arrive out of a sense of duty, she wants above all to be treated more as a desirable woman than as a queen, but she soon reverts to her exalted social rank once he seems to ignore the woman. In this second meeting, both surround themselves with the symbols of their respective strength, she by her female servants and the throne emblematic of the matriarchy, he by the products and instruments of his labour representing male dominion over and exploitation of the female earth. As each feels the other out and neither is prepared to make the first real concession, they conceal their love for each other behind the separating social barrier: she plays the omnipotent ruler, he the loyal servant. The parallels continue when Primislaus poses his riddle, but sensing his pride and seeking to humiliate the peasant, she arrogantly pulls rank and declines to participate. Despite the political/social unfairness of the contest, in terms of personality they prove to be an equal match. However, when Primislaus, true to the convictions expressed earlier in his monologue, dares to extol male determination to the detriment of the female sex, Libussa rises to the defence of her gender. She deplores the values of the patriarchy, especially its advocacy of Klugheit, since, responding essentially to self-interest, it pursues material benefits, shows no reverence for the transcendental dimension that unifies a nation (Donaumonarchie) and promotes dissolution of the human ties that hold a community together. Decisiveness, the aptitude to make difficult decisions on the basis of pragmatic, rational assessments and to follow through with them, does in fact distinguish Primislaus from Libussa who, being too compassionate, too reflective, and having forfeited her inner harmony, lacks the confidence in herself to provide the strong leadership demanded by her male subjects. Unique among Grillparzer's masculine protagonists, Primislaus exhibits a resoluteness and strength of conviction which empower him to pursue his objectives, few of which his creator would approve of, with a singleness of purpose bordering on stubbornness. Refusing to

134 Act Three

be in anyone's debt, he repudiates chance, mercy, and the conciliatory features of the matriarchy, and voices his unequivocal preference for justice based on rights, a system devised by men to protect their interests and to keep women in a subservient, domestic state excluded from political activity. The curtain falls on the third act with another parting, Libussa's disparaging dismissal of Primislaus reminiscent of his discharge of the Wladiken.

Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation: Act Four

The contest whereby each protagonist endeavours to gain an advantage or force a concession from the other proceeds unabated in the fourth act.1 In keeping with Libussa's tactical plan to intimidate Primislaus: "Zeigt ihm das Schlofi mit alien seinen Schatzen, / Damit er sehe was ein Herr und Fiirst" (1384-5), Wlasta has sought to overwhelm the unsophisticated ploughman with a display of aristocratic opulence: "Und sahst du je im Leben solche Pracht?" (1392). His rejoinder owes much to the optimistic humanism of the eighteenth century: "Wer wiinschte sich auch Fliigel wie der Adler / Und Flossen wie der Fisch? Sie mogens haben. / Das hochste, wie beschrankt auch, ist der Mensch, / Im Konig selbst der Mensch zuletzt das Beste" (1394-7). The first line conceals a disrespectful allusion to the upper class; the eagle, emblematic of aristocratic claims to superiority (lines 99-100 make a more direct connection), he puts on the same level as a fish and simultaneously implies that he feels no need to apologize for the status nature has conferred upon him, i.e., "Ist doch der Pfluger, / Indem er Alle nahrt, den Hochsten gleich" (1082-3). Klesel also employs the eagle to designate the princes of the Roman Catholic Church and their earthly greed with the same intent of subverting a self-flattering, ideal image: "Und wie der Adler, der der Sonne nachst, / Holt er sich Kraftigung durch ird'sche Beute. / Man meints selbst von der Kurie in Rom" (Bruderzwist 2534-6). The vindication of the "Mensch" and the concomitant reduction of noble distinction to a common human denominator shared by all, regardless of class, recalls verses from Lessing's Nathan der Weise: "Ah! wenn

136 Act Four

ich [Nathan] einen mehr in Euch [a noble Tempelherr] / Gefunden hatte, dem es g'niigt, ein Mensch / Zu heifien!" (1311-3) or a dialogue from a favourite work of the young Grillparzer, Die Zauberflote: "ERSTER PRIESTER Grofier Sarastro, wird Tamino die harte / Pruning bestehen? Bedenke: Er ist ein Prinz. SARASTRO Noch mehr! Er ist ein Mensch!" (II/i). Grillparzer esteems and eulogizes above all the Mensch in his rulers and, provided they display this compassionate, human quality, he shows a tolerant understanding for their human foibles. Rudolf II comes particularly to mind as he views Herrscher and Mensch as being more or less mutually exclusive: "Nicht dafi mich lockt die stolze Herrschermacht / Und wiifit' ich Schultern die zum Tragen tiichtig, / Ich schuttelte sie ab als ekle Last, / Von da an erst ein Mensch und neu geboren" (i488~9i).2 In light of the dramatist's strong commitment to the value of Menschlichkeit (cf. Libussa's final confession of faith: "Der Mensch ist gut" [2458; also 2461]), one has to assume that some of his sympathy lies with Primislaus. Since he draws self-esteem and confidence from his simple peasant background, he is not about to let an ostentatious parade of wealth and luxury impress him, especially when he correctly identifies it as part of a strategy to subdue him. Singling out a less wholesome lifestyle of personal dissatisfaction and insomnia as the price of culture, he argues that excess, an historical desideratum of the aristocratic ethos,3 only serves to compensate for a deficiency in one's psychological makeup (1398-1405). "Primislaus kann die hohere Qualitat des Lebens bei Hof, den Luxus und die Kunst nicht wiirdigen," Lorenz contends, "da sie einen Grad von Bildung und Geschmack voraussetzen, der ihm versagt ist. Jedoch ist er unwillig, zu lernen und Neues zu erfahren" ("Neubewertung" 44). Although he does come across as rather pretentious in his unpretentiousness - he wears his peasant credentials like a merit badge - one suspects that the playwright shares some aspects of his position, especially his advocacy of humanist values. He may be arrogant, but it is clearly a case of "Stolz gegen Stolz" (1124). What is, however, striking is an implied contradiction contained in his attack on the corrupting influence of civilization - "Verfalschend das Bediirmis mit der Kunst" (1401) - from the perspective of the frank, independent, hard-working peasant, as he will later promote the establishment of an urban society to the detriment of his own rural upbringing for which Libussa becomes the apologist: "Und furchtest du [Primislaus] denn nicht, dafi deine Mauern, / Den Menschen trennend vom lebend'gen Anhauch / Der sprossenden Natur, ihn minder fuhlend / Und minder einig machen mit dem Geist des All?" (2020-3). When Wlasta tries to impress him with the extent of her mistress's power, he retaliates,

137 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

"Und sie [Libussa] die Seele denn so vieler Gliederl / Ich mochte nicht mein Selbst so weit zerstreun, / Aus Furcht nichts zu behalten fur mich selbst" (1412-4): he declines to become a cog in a machine, to deny his own identity in the service of the collective, but proposes a similar model, admittedly in a different social context, later in the last act: "Wir schliefien einen Ort mit Mauern ein, / Und sammeln die Bewohner rings der Gegend, / Dafi hilfreich sie und wechselseitig fordernd / Wie Glieder wirken eines einz'gen Leibs" (2016-9). Uniformity is common: the divergence lies in the unifying principle the spiritual "Seele" versus the practical "Leib." In political terms," according to Roe, "the difference between their respective regimes is often only one of degree" (Introduction 220). Primislaus's dialogue with Libussa's servants furnishes additional evidence of his strong sense of self-sufficiency or self-worth, the main stumbling block in his relationship to Libussa who demands a show of obedience: "Gehorchen soil er und dann mag er ziehn" (1505)PRIMISLAUS Dein Buch ist weise wohl? DOBROMILA Komm selbst und lies! PRIMISLAUS Ich kann nicht lesen, Frau! DOBROMILA Nicht lesen, wie? PRIMISLAUS In Buchern nicht, allein in Mienen wohl. Da les' ich denn: du willst mich, Frau, beschamen. (1424-7)

Lorenz interprets this incident as reflecting negatively upon Primislaus: "Stolz demonstriert er sein Unwissen: 'Ich kann nicht lesen, Frau!'" ("Neubewertung" 44). Since Viennese society of the nineteenth century still generally regarded women of letters as anomalies, the text creates a highly ironic situation where, by a reversal of normal gender roles, a female lords it over a male because of her superior knowledge. Primislaus, sufficiently perceptive to detect the intellectual conceit and the attempt to humiliate him, manages to turn the psychological weapon back on its instigator. His sensitivity could also indicate some repressed feeling of inadequacy on his part since he may well realize that book learning is a source of power inaccessible to him.4 As the servants continue to put him to the test in order to embarrass him with his lack of qualifications for the office of ruler, Primislaus expounds in a proverbial format his natural wisdom acquired from his close affiliation with the soil and nature's cycles. In retaliation for Dobromila's endeavour to shame him with his ignorance of the stars, he declares in his own defence, "Ich sehe sie [the stars], /

138 Act Four

Und sehen sie nicht mich, bin durch mein Sehen / Ich besser derm als sie" (1436-8). Not the least in awe of the celestial bodies, he feels superior to them. Since he lacks that sense of "Ehrfurcht" (Bruderzwist 423) exhibited by Rudolf n for "jene hellen Boten in der Nacht" (Eruderzwist 406), the visible signs of a divine order, studied and revered by the sisters, this exchange prepares the audience for his subsequent campaign to exploit the sacred to advance his social material goals (2133^. When asked by Drobomila, "Was ist das Schwerste?" Primislaus proposes, true to character, "Gerechtigkeit," while she puts forward, "den Feind zu lieben" (1438-40). This elicits a lengthy apology from Primislaus which is worthy of detailed examination owing to the light it sheds on the subject of justice, what Freud sees as one of the first demands of civilization (cf. Das Unbehagen 225): Halb ist das leicht, und ganz vielleicht unmoglich. Allein bei alien Kampfen dieses Lebens Den Anspruch bandigen der eignen Brust, Nicht mild, nicht giitig, selbst grofimutig nicht, Gerecht sein gegen sich und gegen Andre, Das ist das Schwerste auf der weiten Erde, Und wer es ist, sei Konig dieser Welt. (1441-7)

In his rejection of the Christian admonition to love one's enemy, he finds himself in good company. His designation "halb ... leicht" may anticipate Nietzsche's conjecture: "[H]ier allein ist auch das moglich, gesetzt dafi es iiberhaupt auf Erden moglich ist - die eigentliche Liebe [Nietzsche's emphasis] zu seinen Feinden. Wieviel Ehrfurcht vor seinen Feinden hat schon ein vornehmer Mensch! - und eine solche Ehrfurcht ist schon eine Briicke zur Liebe" (Genealogie 2: 195); or it may connote the acquisition of an attitude of moral superiority over one's foe - an indulgence in self-righteousness. But to renounce hatred, to suppress one of humanity's strongest emotions, would do such violence to the self that he doubts that it could ever be genuine. Freud would later share this scepticism. Particularly incensed over this command to "love thine enemy," he repudiated it as a case of "credo quia absurdum," for it chooses to ignore the "primarfe] Feindseligkeit der Menschen gegeneinander" (Das Unbehagen 240-41). Primislaus portrays justice as an example of extreme self-discipline, the denial of the compassionate side of the human being, those virtues extolled by the matriarchy such as mildness, kindness, and generosity, in the interest of an objective, rational standard, a surrender of self in favour of an impersonal principle for the good of the community.

139 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

One has only to recollect Libussa's earlier assessment to establish how much at odds they are on this issue: Sie wollen einen Richter, der entscheide, Nicht was da gut und billig, fromm und weise, Nein, nur was recht, wie viel ein Jeder nehmen, Wie viel verweigern kann, ohn' eben Dieb Und Schelm zu heifien, ob ers etwa ware. (1324-8)

Their postures exemplify the two different approaches to the ancient Greek notion of dike: justice as conciliation or settlement to ensure order: "Und wenn ich [Libussa] dreifach Land dir [DER ERSTE STREITENDE] gebe / Fur das was du verlierst?" (895-6) versus justice as strict recompense or retribution: "Ich [DER ERSTE STREITENDE] will mein Recht" (896).5 But are they really that far apart? Libussa also interprets her regime as self-sacrificing service to the group: "Und nennt ihrs Macht, / Nennt ihr ein Opfer das sich selbst gebracht, / Die Willkiir, die sich allzu frei geschienen / Und, eigner Herrschaft bang, beschloG zu dienen" (445-8) - "Willkur" as the "Anspruch ... der eignen Brust"? Though they may differ in their general concept on account of their gender, their overall understanding of their own individual commitment is strikingly similar.6 Each protagonist is pleading his/her own case, for what best accommodates his/her interests. Libussa's brand of justice hinges upon the willingness of her subjects - "Das kindliche Vertrauen" (445) - to accept her wise, maternal, intuitive utterances, and if they refuse to conform, she has threatened to resign, "Ein iiberhortes war' mein letzt' Gebot" (434), or commit suicide (456), while Primislaus's insistence upon "Gerechtigkeit" reflects and supports the values of the patriarchy: "Derm es sei nicht der Mann des Weibes [Grillparzer's emphasis] Mann, / Das Weib des Marines [Grillparzer's emphasis] Weib, so stehts zu Recht" (1028-9). In both instances, however, personal pronouncements or judgments based on rights are the expression of a dominant ideology derived from a totalitarian hierarchy, the intuitions of a Fiirstin/ mother: "Ich [Libussa] les' in euren Blicken wer hier triigt" (909) or the justice of a Konig/father: "Und wer es ist [gerecht], sei Konig dieser Welt" (1447). By implication, Primislaus could be putting forward his own candidacy. The lines, "Doch lafi die toten Lehren deiner Blatter! / Die Wahrheit lebt und wandelt wie du selbst, / Dein Buch ist nur ein Sarg fur ihre Leiche" (1448-50), are ironic coming from Primislaus. He stands for "Recht," but judicial practice or the interpretation of rights is based on legal precedent and rules enshrined in written form for

140 Act Four

posterity. As Mephistopheles explains to the Schiiler, "Es erben sich Gesetz' und Rechte / Wie eine ew'ge Krankheit fort, / Sie schleppen von Geschlecht sich zum Geschlechte / Und riicken sacht von Ort zu Ort. / Vernunft wird Unsinn, Wohltat Plage" (1972-6). On this occasion, Primislaus pleads on behalf of an immanent, self-evident truth, ever present but also ever changing, and even suggests that it perishes when one attempts to capture it in written form, for it represents a living, vibrant entity that varies with the times and defies standardization.7 Grillparzer makes a case for the relativity of truth, legal or otherwise, as it is constantly undergoing transformation according to socially determined values, one of the major lessons offered by Libussa as a work depicting cultural history. Now Wlasta, the Amazon, issues a challenge to Primislaus's masculinity by offering to engage in a "friendly" duel. His male chauvinist attitude reemerges in his question: "Was soil dem Weib das Schwert?" (1452). The sword as the male instrument, the phallic symbol, has no right to be in the hands of a woman. His subsequent speech (1454-61) not only undertakes to relegate Wlasta to her proper place but also, in an amazingly bold attack, maligns the military tradition of the aristocracy: he repudiates fencing and martial endeavours, important peacetime activities for male members of the upperclass, as "Spiel"8 and denigrates the sword, the focal point of this noble ethos - only the high born were permitted to wear it on the street - as a trifle or toy ("Tand"). He, the peasant, will defend himself and his home with an axe which, like the sickle, also has a practical application. As the culminating insult, a mere commoner feels himself the equal to taking on and defeating five aristocrats at once if the need arises to protect his own property. He rests assured of his inevitable victory: "und der Mut / Mag dann entscheiden wer ein befirer Krieger" (1460-1). The subsequent interlude involving Slawa and her plea for protection once again confronts the issue of gender roles. By appealing to Primislaus's desire to defend the weak, she is the first woman from the court to meet his patriarchal expectations of the dependent female: "Du bist das erste Weib / An diesem Wunderort, das Schutz begehrt, / Die andern sind vielmehr geneigt zu meistern" (1466-8). Thomas Hobbes defined political power in terms of one's ability to protect: "The Obligation of Subjects to the Sovereign, is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them" (Leviathan 114). Primislaus's allegation that these women have shown a tendency to dominate has some foundation in fact: Libussa surrounds herself only with women (626-8), and the three Wladiken have lost most of the power they once exercised

141 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

(573). The current hierarchical arrangement translates into a reversal of traditional power relations and a curtailment of male authority, since women occupy the key posts and, within the home, no longer need demonstrate unquestioning obedience (621-2). Lorenz would appear to have overlooked this contrasting aspect of the Slawa incident which reflects more sympathetically upon Primislaus's situation: "Er kennt nur eine Art von Weiblichkeit, die underdriickte, wie seine anspruchslose Schwester und die furchtsame Slawa am Hof, die er als 'erste Weib' bezeichnet" ("Neubewertung" 44). She has taken the quotation out of context: he merely states that Slawa is "das erste Weib" he has met in the castle who does not aim to master him, not that she is the first among women because she plays the defenceless female as Lorenz's formulation implies. Moreover, up to this point, the fourth act has only confirmed his assertion: Dobromila has sought to humiliate him intellectually and Wlasta physically, while Libussa herself, at the end of this scene, expresses her determination to force from him a recognition of her supremacy (1505). No sooner does Slawa protest that she seeks safety from Primislaus and his ilk (1468), than she effectively turns the tables on her prospective protector, not unlike Libussa's belittling of her rescue at his hands in the Vorspiel. Setting forth the masculine practice of idealizing the woman: "Der Dritte kniet und schwort beim hohen Himmel, / Ich sei das Kleinod dieser weiten Welt" (1477-8), she deplores above all the male predisposition to judge a woman exclusively by her external appearance, i.e., as a sex object, rather than on the basis of her inner value as a person (1480-84). Slawa supplies a commentary on that very process of idealization which renders the woman socially and politically impotent and which Primislaus himself engaged in during his opening monologue from the beginning of the third act (1030-1). While concurring with Slawa: "Wer nach dem Aufiern seine Wahl bestimmt, / Bezweifelt, fiircht' ich, sehr den Wert des Innern" (1487-8), he could be intent upon ignoring or deflecting a justified criticism of his own attitude away from himself and onto his hostess by offering an oblique censure of the inappropriate emphasis Libussa would seem to place upon the jewel/chain rather than on the person, upon appearance rather than on essence (148991). Because the audience realizes that neither party really puts any personal store on material objects per se (260; 611), the incident succeeds in pointing out again how pride raises the major obstacle to the convergence of their respective paths (cf. 40-1). This note of separation or distance occupies the emphatic final position in the last line of his parting message to Libussa: "Ich will mit ihr, - sie soil mit mir nicht spielen. / Sagt das der Fiirstin als den

142 Act Four

letzten Grufi / Am Morgen, wenn ich fern schon meiner Wege" (1494-6). Even though he disclaims being like other men, he has nonetheless provided ample evidence of adopting their stereotypical attitudes, and while he refuses to play games with her and expects her to treat him in like manner, he conveniently forgets that he initiated the Liebesspiel in the first place when he stole her jewel; she has merely joined the contest by reciprocating with the riddle which he in turn met with a riddle of his own. This speech, to cite Lorenz, proves how he lacks the "Sinn fur das spielerische Element der Kultur .... Ebensowenig wie er den sportlichen Wettkampf versteht und Wlastas Einladung dazu ablehnt, versteht er das Liebesspiel, sondern halt dagegen: 'Mir ist das Weib ...'" ("Neubewertung" 44). This analysis ignores the real goal behind Wlasta's invitation, an opportunity to mortify a ploughman unfamiliar with the noble art of swordsmanship, and the general impression that the peasant comes away the overall winner in this opening debate of the fourth act. What Primislaus really finds intolerable is to be treated like a woman by a woman, i.e., it is acceptable for him to play the game, provided he retains control and she does not respond in kind. Similarly, Libussa declines to participate if it deflates her exaggerated sense of selfimportance: "Doch Ratsel geben ziemt nur der Gewalt, / Die Ratsel losen eignet dem Gehorsam" (1299-1300). As soon as Libussa enters the fourth act, her first words concern Primislaus: "Wie ists mit jenem Mann?" (1498). Despite his alleged ineligibility, established at the end of the third act, she still cannot suppress a strong interest in this man as also indicated by Wlasta's final comment: "Ich folg' ihm [Primislaus] nach, so lautet der Befehl" (1497). Dobromila's confirmation of his epithet: "Er ist von Stahl" (1498) calls forth an intriguing image from Libussa: "Es brach wohl auch ein Schwert schon im Gefecht. / Was sprode ist zerbrechlich" (1499-1500). In this test of wills, she reiterates her unrelenting resolve to make him yield to her. In her choice of metaphor she actually portrays her antagonist as a sword that she is intent upon breaking. (Kleist's Penthesilea drags down Achilles by his "Federbusch.") As an unconscious revolt against the domination of the phallus, the hard, inflexible law of the father, her figure of speech revives memories of the "starre Harte" (430) she associated with Krokus's administration, a rule based on the intimidating influence of his "Stachel" (432). The spectator may find her image dramatically ironic as well since Primislaus has just repudiated the noble sword as a trifle in favour of his utilitarian axe and yet she compares him to the measure of manliness within aristocratic society. However much she may struggle to conceal her involuntary attraction to the ploughman, it

143 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

nonetheless surfaces again and again. "Folg du [Dobromila] ihnen! / Der Abend dammert schon, es ziemt sich nicht, / Dafi er und sie allein in solcher Stunde" (1500-2). Die Jtidin offers an almost exact counterpart. As the night approaches, the king becomes increasingly averse to leaving Rahel alone with Garceran. The ruler in each case hides a growing jealousy behind a concern for decorum: "Der Konig, Herr [Garceran], befahl mir [a servant] nachzusehn, / Ob ihr noch hier mit eurer Pflegbefohlnen" (Die Judin 413-4). Once curiosity and possessiveness can no longer be held in check, she or he dons a disguise, a sign that a guilty conscience recognizes the impropriety of spying on the loved one, in order to see for her- or himself: "Vielmehr gebt einen Schleier mir [Libussa]. Ich selbst / Will Zeuge sein wie weit sein Starrsinn geht" (1503-4); "Der Konig kommt im Mantel gehullt" (p. 499); "Den Scherz sah' gem ich in der Nahe" (549). To voice a concern for either the peasant or the Jewess would be tantamount to betraying one's amorous feelings for someone beneath one's station. Since Primislaus appears to have disregarded the "Frau," then he must pay his respects to the "Fiirstin" (1249-50): "Gehorchen soil er und dann mag er ziehn. / Ich fuhl' es fast wie Hafi im Busen quellen" (1505-6). Thwarted passion in the woman or man commonly manifests itself as hatred of the denied object and, in this respect as well, the two protagonists /antagonists have a lot in common in view of the fact that Primislaus also admits to near hatred for Libussa: PRIMISLAUS

Ich hasse deine Eltern, deine Schwestern, Die Wurzel und den Stamm - bis auf die Bliite. LIBUSSA Wohl gar auch mich? PRIMISLAUS Auch dich, sagt' ich beinah. (i876-8)9

Whereas one may ascribe Libussa's outcry of animosity to her wounded vanity, his hostility stems from his sense of helplessness vis-a-vis an aristocratic heritage against which he cannot compete. He draws strength and confidence from gender stereotypes (1028-9) but only frustration and hatred from the social dispute, while Libussa faces the reverse situation. As the tragedy changes sets to disclose the interior of the tower, the opening dialogue between Wlasta and Primislaus invites comparison with the Vorspiel of which it is a variation: PRIMISLAUS Und da ich morgen schon mit dem Fruhsten scheide, So nimm schon heut ein doppelt Lebewohl. WLASTA So willst du fort?

144 Act Four PRIMISLAUS

Mein Haus 1st unbestellt, Auch gab mir meinen Abschied schon die Fiirstin. (1508-11)

Once more a Scheiden brings the issue to a head by creating a sense of urgency and by compelling Libussa this time to take the unusual step. In a sense the main players have exchanged roles. Before she wanted to withdraw to pursue a domestic matter over his protests, even if she showed signs of an unconscious reluctance, such as forgetting momentarily the exigency of her mission. Now he wants to depart to attend to his household affairs despite Wlasta's disinclination to let him go, although he too does not really wish to leave. During the opening scene, Libussa appeared to be in charge; under current circumstances, Primislaus has greater control of the situation, since he now knows whom he is dealing with. In the following dialogue between Primislaus and Wlasta, the latter acts as a spokesperson for her mistress's point of view: "Vielleicht fuhlt sich der Fiirstin Stolz beleidigt, / Dafi du mit einem Recht auf ihren Dank, / Aufgibst dein Recht, und ihren Dank verschmahst" (1519-21). At their second meeting before the court, he could not have known what sort of reception to expect: she made the first move by summoning him but to what end? Merely to retrieve the chain? He had no way of assessing her sentiments towards him after her aloof, uncooperative performance at their first encounter, and because of her social status it would be presumptuous of him to seize the initiative. Therefore, Primislaus comes closer to the truth when he reiterates Biwoy's evaluation (cf. 1124): "Stolz gegen Stolz, wenns wirklich also ware" (1522). The doubt expressed in the appended conditional clause divulges again the underlying insecurity of two people drawn to each other, each wanting and waiting for the other to make the first move, since both wish to avoid a damaging blow to their individual pride in the event of a rejection or confirmation of unworthiness. Wlasta's involuntary outburst would certainly not bolster Primislaus's self-confidence: "Allein der Stolz des Pfliigers und der Fiirstin!" (1523). Libussa's exalted social station fully justifies her high self-esteem. In the opinion of a female servant, the peasant has clearly overreached himself, another assault on his pride and irrefutable proof that the Standesunterschied continues to be an important part of the equation. Wlasta now focuses attention upon the jewel: "Zudem ist jenes Kleinod hoch ihr wert, / Als ihres Vaters deutungsvolle Gabe" (1524 5). With the choice of adjective the dramatist reminds his audience of the many and even problematic interpretations to which the jewel lends itself. As a symbol of virginity it belonged originally to her

145 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

father but has been violated by Primislaus. It has indeed revealed itself to be "deutungsvoll" for Libussa both as a "Frau" and "Fiirstin," because it made her for the first time cognizant of the former and transformed her into the latter. "Durch Zufall nur geriets in deine Hand / Und blieb ein Eigen meiner hohen Herrin. / Drum gib was eines Andern, nicht das deine" (1526-8). Chance was not involved - Primislaus stole the jewel - and Libussa knows it (372), but this account most likely represents how she has sought to rationalize its loss to others, i.e., protecting both herself and Primislaus from embarrassment, she has provided a more socially admissible explanation for what really occurred (cf. also her parable 1347-8). In addition, Wlasta's last line accommodates another meaning other than the obvious one of returning lost property to its rightful owner, specifically he should renounce the right to possess a woman formerly held by the father - "eines Andern" could only be masculine - but which he now implicitly claims for himself. In his own defence, Primislaus protests, "Ich sagt' es auch, ob etwas ratselhaft, / Schon als ich kam, doch ihr verstandets nicht" (1530-1), to which Wlasta retorts, "Hier aber will man Ratsel nicht, Gehorsam" (1532), unequivocally reproducing her mistress's expressed position: "Gehorchen soil er und dann mag er ziehn" (1505; cf. also 1299-1300). Adjectives such as "deutungsvoll" and "ratselhaft" highlight the difficulty in deciphering signs properly and, in their current context, intimate how signifiers can take on a life of their own, independent of the intent of their originators. The signifying chain, to use Lacan's phrase, can expand to obfuscate the issue. Since Libussa herself began speaking through riddles and thus introduced the code which only she, Primislaus, and the audience can comprehend, she employs a double standard: she may conceal her feeling behind enigmas - one can always allege a misinterpretation - but he may not, a rather autocratic attitude for someone who once promised, "Doch sollt' ich Zwei'n ein zweifach Recht erdenken, / Wollt' eher ich an euch euch selbst als Sklaven schenken" (451-2). Even though Libussa has yet to reappear, her influence dictates the cat-and-mouse nature of the exchange. "Wie war' es, holde Wlasta, wenn nur Neugier / Dir diese Fragen in den Mund gelegt? / Sprichst du zu mir im Auftrag deiner Frau?" (1545-7). He is astute enough to sense Wlasta's proxy role and has predicated his answers on the premise that they will reach the queen's ears, as for instance in his hypothetical case: "Vielleicht, war' erst die eine Halfte da, / Fiigt' ich die Zweite bei, besa'S' ich sie" (1536-7). "Hold" is scarcely an adjective that would immediately come to mind to describe the more masculine Wlasta (1204) and may be either a ruse to flatter her

146 Act Four

and gain her sympathy or a transference. If Libussa is in fact behind the servant's interrogation, such involvement would signal some interest in him on the part of her mistress. One begins to speculate as to what extent Wlasta is acting almost exclusively for Libussa despite the servant's denial: "In ihrem Auftrag nicht" (1548); her subsequent "Gehorche nun!" (1574) again echoes Libussa's intent (1505). Wlasta's detailed knowledge would suggest a considerable degree of preinstruction or coaching, which Dobromila confirms when, later in the scene, she issues a parting order, "Du aber Wlasta fordre dein Geschaft" (1571), i.e., "Get on with your business!" It is therefore highly likely that Wlasta's desire to protect her queen's royal reputation dictates her disclaimer to this man for whom she has little regard. The abruptness, if not rudeness, of Primislaus's reaction, especially after the unmistakable campaign to ingratiate himself with her, betrays insensitivity and crass single-mindedness in the pursuit of his objective: "Nun also denn! / Das Recht auf Antwort nur gibt Recht zur Frage" (1548-9). With his blunt reminder of her subaltern station, he admits that he has consideration for her only to the extent that he can use her to get to her mistress, the one who has the real authority, i.e., his watchword "Recht." Faced with this refusal to cooperate any further, Wlasta has no alternative but to concede that Libussa is aware of what the servant says and to produce the jewel as proof of her surrogate function: "Als Zeichen denn, daC nicht die Neugier blofi, / Dafi mich ein hoh'rer Wink dazu berechtigt, / Sieh hier das Kleinod, dessen Eine Halfte / Du vorenthaltst, und das man ganz begehrt" (1552-5). Noteworthy in this justification is the omission of Libussa's name as the instigating agent. Out of respect for her sovereign and disapproval of her current behaviour - she is demeaning herself by associating with and making herself dependent upon this "Pfliiger" (1523) - she resorts to the impersonal "man" to shield the dignity of Libussa's person and office. Obviously taken off guard by the unexpected appearance of the jewel, Primislaus blurts out, "Das schone Bild! Die glanzend reichen Steine!" (1556), an appraisal which contrasts with his initial, more calculating evaluation: "ein Kleinod, wohl nicht reich zumeist, / Allein bepragt mit Bildern und mit Spriichen" (69-70). In the interim the jewel has acquired substantial subjective worth: "Und in der Brust trag' ich [Primislaus] das reiche Bild" (742). His second line, "Derlei sah ich in meinem Leben nicht" (1557), does not necessarily represent a prevarication, which is how Wlasta chooses to interpret it, but rather signifies that he has never seen its equal before, an uninhibited confession of its present emotional importance to him

147 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

personally. The "Bild" was and remains a crucial link to the woman he loves, whom he would like to claim for himself, and for this reason, not in the material sense, it has gained in value. In addition, since he has to be aware of how dear the jewel is to its owner, "Das Kleinod teurer machte derm zuvor" (674), its presence here in the hand of a servant would seem to indicate an intent that goes beyond the mere practical wish to reunite chain and jewel: "und das man ganz begehrt" (1555); to quote Libussa herself, "War doch die Kette stets der Ehe Bild" (669); two halves together fashion a whole.10 When Wlasta insists that the jewel once rested in his hand, Primislaus answers with a rhetorical question and an exclamation: "Wie kame derlei in die Hand des Pfliigers? / O gib es mir, o laS es mich betrachten!" (1559-60). Whereas the servant has sought to shame him by an unflattering comparison of social origins (1523), he now turns the table on her with his sarcastic query. Beneath the irony lurks his conviction that he has every right to be as proud as these aristocrats (1009-16). But moving from an implied source of strength, he uncovers a source of weakness in the next line: the two imperatives, each beginning with "o," and the exclamation mark transmit a strong emotional commitment. The jewel now means a great deal to him and, replacing Wlasta as the weaker suppliant, he is unable to repress his genuine feeling. The servant, however, remains adamant in her overriding solicitude for Libussa's social ("offenkundig" [1565]) prestige, referring consistently to her office "Fiirstin," never to the person, insinuating the indignity her mistress must experience, knowing her jewel to have been "In niedrer Hand" (1565), and downplaying the importance of their first meeting: "einer halb vertraulichen Begegnung" (1566). Primislaus has an undeniable duty of obedience to his queen: "Du sollst, du mufit, die Fiirstin will es so" (1568). The chain/jewel, although characterized by Wlasta as "heilig" (1564) to Libussa, is now more a pretext than a genuinely held objective. If he will not recognize her as a woman, then at least he must make a show of compliance, a fulfilment of his "Pflicht" (1562) to her as Fiirstin. The "Gehorchen" (1505) entails the dutiful return of the chain, but one suspects in this test of wills: "die Fiirstin will es so" (1568); "Mein Leben setz' ich [Primislaus] ein fur meinen Willen" (1747), the object has become secondary to and more a reflection of the contest for domination. If Libussa were simply intent upon the surrender of the chain as Wolf-Cirian has argued (see note 10), then why would she suddenly enter behind Dobromila "eine Fackel tragend, vom Kopf bis zu den Fiifien mit einem dichten Schleier bedeckt" (p. 339), i.e., dressed as a servant in order to spy on Primislaus? Her disguise strikes the audience as

148 Act Four

hypocritical, since at their second meeting she demanded openness: "Drum offen, da geheim nur was vertraut" (1301), a line which in this current context would suggest a considerable degree of that secret intimacy which she has been at pains to deny, and, to accentuate further the double standards, Wlasta has just commanded Primislaus, "Verstell dich nicht" (1558). In other words, this whole episode, including Wlasta's reluctant participation, demonstrates the degree to which Libussa is also guilty of "Verlogenheit" (Lorenz, "Neubewertung" 44) out of her wish to mask her attraction to this man. Always aware of the theatre's need to transform human sentiments into a visible form, Grillparzer reifies Libussa's dilemma through her stage appearance. The torch announces her desire for enlightenment, for ascertaining Primislaus's true nature and his feelings towards her, while her veil, the emblem of deception or concealment, captures her reluctance to expose her own vulnerable emotions. An additional irony arises from the implied Diener/Herrin dynamic: she must seem to be a servant in the hope of discovering the "truth." The very fact that she condescends to assume this role also reinforces his power over her: she dare not come forward in her true capacity and must resort to this demeaning subterfuge. In her alleged total rejection of the "anti-sensuellen, primitiven Machtmenschen," Primislaus, Lorenz denies him "Subtilitat, wie sie Libussa besitzt" ("Neubewertung" 41) and an appreciation of "das Liebesspiel" (44). And yet the following asides, meant only for the ears of the audience, belie this severe judgment: "WLASTA da sie Libussa erblickt, vor sich hin: Sie ist es selbst! PRIMISLAUS Scheint Wlasta doch beklommen! / War' sie's? O still mein ahnungsvolles Herz!" (1572-3). This short interruption discloses sensitivity on his part, an ability to interpret the secret signs emanating from others, and thus substantiates his earlier contention in the act, where he correctly read Dobromila's intent to humiliate him (1426-7). Not taken in by appearances, he proves sufficiently perceptive to deduce from a servant's uneasiness the veiled presence of her mistress.11 He has one other ally; his heart senses her. Because he is not performing for an audience on stage, one has every reason, according to theatrical conventions, to assume that his spontaneous aside denotes genuine emotional involvement. Maintaining that Wlasta has done him an injustice, he claims the right, in keeping with his legalistic mind, to present his side of the story and proceeds to create a hypothetical situation to defend himself and to portray his feelings in the best possible light. This strategy enables him to declare his love for Libussa and simultaneously to shield his own emotions, since he offers the scenario only

149 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

as conjecture, a possibility which he could always deny in reality. In her presence he is thus able to confess indirectly what he could not utter directly. What makes the present circumstances particularly appealing to him is the realization that Libussa, a captive audience, must listen and cannot plead her case without unmasking her own deception.12 Nimm an: ich war es selbst, der einst bei Nacht Begegnet eurer Fiirstin tief im Walde, Nimm an: dafi aller Unterscheidung bar, Sie mir erschien als Konigin der Weiber, Nicht als das Weib das selber Konigin. Der Glieder holder Reiz, der Stirne Thron, Das Aug das herrscht, die Lippen die befehlen, Selbst wenn sie schweigen, ja im Schweigen mehr. (1577-84)

The repetition of "Nimm an" reminds the listener of the conditional nature of this clandestine confession of love. In the first instance, he alleges that he saw Libussa only as a woman without regard to class distinction, but the audience knows this not to be the case since he identified her noble birth from her attire and first addressed her as "Du Hohe, Herrliche!" (20). The Vorspiel deals extensively with the theme of "Unterscheidung": he was the one to dwell upon the note of separation between them both on the social and sexual level - as the bearer of the phallus he embodies the great separator symbolized by his severing of her chain (264-6). Almost as if he had overheard Libussa's complaint from the previous act, "Und schien die Frau ihm nicht des Kommens wert, / Soil ihm die Fiirstin wert der Achtung scheinen" (1249-50), he appeals primarily to her vanity as a woman, i.e., he fell in love not with the "Konigin" but the "Weib." At the same time, he skilfully exploits the features associated with the queen to flatter the woman: "Konigin der Weiber," "der Stirne Thron," "Das Auge das herrscht," die Lippen die befehlen." He is emotionally subject to her by virtue of his love for her. In other words, he implicitly addresses both sides of her duality and therefore tells her what she wants to hear. The images, however, lack spontaneity, owe much to the precious, cliched language of the gallant lover, do not necessarily translate into submission to her in the political arena and look back to the incident with Slawa: "Der Dritte kniet und schwort beim hohen Himmel, / Ich sei das Kleinod dieser weiten Welt, / Von meinem Blick erwart' er Tod und Leben" (1477-9). Depicting Libussa as his youthful ideal of womanhood (1585-7), Primislaus is just as guilty of putting her on a pedestal to gain her love, but once the

150 Act Four

woman yields, as Mutter Courage warns her daughter, Kattrin/'Er sagt, er mocht den Boden kiissen, iiber den deine Fiifi gehn ... und dann bist du sein Dienstbot" (4: 1372). His recreation of past events always gives the most complimentary rendering of his own attitudes and actions: Ich wufite nichts von ihrem Rang und Stand Und nichts verbot zu hoffen und zu werben. Sie schied, es kam der Tag. Des Kleinods Pracht, Das in der Hand start ihrer mir geblieben, Bezeichnete sie wohl als hoher Abkunft. (1588-92)

In the literal sense he did not know her specific social status - one of his rationalizations for stealing the jewel was to retain the means to discover "Stamm und Haus und Stand" (72) - however, he instantly ascertained her noble birth: "Derm sie verhehlt, ich sen's mit Fleifi ihr edles Selbst" (67). Notwithstanding this knowledge already evident in his opening monologue, he still had the presumptuousness to pose the key question not once but twice, "Du bist kein Weib um das man werben konnte?" (42; 249), to which he received negative replies. Hence his statement: "Und nichts verbot zu hoffen und zu werben" misrepresents to his advantage the overt message of the Vorspiel. The quite extensive play on Trennen /'Scheiden on which he dwelt at considerable length during their initial encounter and which included the separation of the jewel from the chain, he summarizes here succinctly and conveniently in two words: "Sie schied." In the short farewell scene entitled "Kurze Waldgegend" (p. 286), he employed the verb scheiden four times, once with Libussa as the subject in a proverbial context (274), once in the first-person plural which, although it would include both participants - "So lafi uns scheiden!" (260) - still put Primislaus in the dominant position since he issued the command, and twice with Primislaus as the reluctant subject: "Nun soil ich von dir scheiden" (247); "Im Dunkel scheid' ich" (253). Since originally Libussa was the one to insist upon immediate departure, these occurrences imply that Primislaus took some credit for the separation himself, whereas now he gives her back the full responsibility in his abrupt formulation intended to cast himself as the victim of an insensitive Libussa - "Sie schied" follows the line "Und nichts verbot zu hoffen und zu werben." In addition, the single line, "Sie schied, es kam der Tag. Des Kleinods Pracht" (1590), contains three variations on the central theme: a parting of male and female, the division of day and night, and the separation of a jewel/virginity from its owner.

151 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

He also conveniently forgets to point out how he really acquired the jewel by omitting himself as the agent - it somehow mysteriously chose to remain in his possession - and insinuates that only by the light of day, i.e., after Libussa had left, could he certify from the jewel's magnificence her "hoh[e] Abkunft". The reference to the jewel's staying in his hand instead of Libussa's both reminds his interlocutors that his hand held not only the jewel but also the queen herself and supplies the mental link to the next two lines: "Doch ist auch Primislaus nicht niedern Stamms, / Bin Enkelsohn von Helden, ob nur Pfluger" (1593-4). As a belated reaction to Wlasta's provocation that the chain now lies "In niedrer Hand" (1565), he follows up the hand motif with a repudiation of the adjective nieder as a characterization of his peasant heritage. His vindication of his family line (cf. also 1009-14) and the servants' numerous attempts to abase him throughout this act prove that the class issue perseveres in complicating this extraordinary love story. Once he learned of Libussa's identity, he allegedly acquiesced in the hopelessness of his suit: external barriers rendered his aspirations impossible. The audience, having been privy to the more candid evaluation of his monologue at the beginning of the third act, knows this to be only partly true: "So sprichst du, prahlst, und tragst im Busen doch / Was dich an jene Hoffnung jetzt noch kettet" (1033-4). Unable to find fulfilment in the external world, his mind fashioned an inner alternative: Doch aus den Trummern meines aiifiern Gliicks Erbaute sich im Innern mir ein neues. Wie Trauerfaltern kreisen um das Licht, Umflogen meine Wunsche nun das Kleinod, Was fruher Zeichen, ward jetzt Gegenstand. (1598-1602)

His ominous simile, suggestive of a flattering, dangerous attraction to the femme fatale, recalls the Liebestod theme, the contrast between light and darkness at their first meeting: "eines Weibes leuchtende Gewande / ... die Nacht durchblinken" (5-6). In his imagination the signifier became one with the signified, a substitute object over which he had control and which we know he carried close to his heart. Given the sexual implications of the jewel, the constant harping upon its having been in his hand, and its explicit transformation into Libussa herself, his "Wunsche" may well look back to the sexual fantasies of the Vor spiel: he tries to realize through imagination what social reality denies him. At the same time, this disclosure has an ulterior motive: he can be reasonably confident that his admission of

152 Act Four

how much the jewel came to mean to him will find favour with a certain listener, and he is not about to miss the opportunity to stage a passionate scene for her benefit in order to judge her reaction: Ich trugs mit mir auf meiner warmen Brust, Ich driickt' es an das Herz, an meinen Mund, Das Eigentum verwechselnd mit dem Eigner Heifi deine Freundin still die Fackel tragen, Wir sind im Dunkeln wenn verloscht das Licht. (1603-7)

The jewel becomes identical with its owner, affording the vicarious erotic pleasure of complete mastery, while his observation concerning the torch-bearer registers his awareness of his successful strategy. He has literally and figuratively moved her. In response to Wlasta's admonition that he should come to the point, Primislaus offers the general observation: "Bin Traum ist ja Erzahlung und sonst nichts" (1609). Since his narrative is only a dream, an expression of his fanciful aspirations and desires without any hope of their realization in reality, no one should take offence. He is appealing for sympathy, offering the opportunity to intervene and transform his fiction into fact, wish into fulfilment, and thus addressing Libussa's potential power. "Zerstort war nun, fur immer schiens, mein Hoffen" (1610). Each lives in hope, sees it dashed and then restored: "Fahr hin o Hoffnung! erste, letzte du" (930); Sie [Libussa] wird erinnert. Hoffnung bleibt wie vor" (864). From the outset, Primislaus's mind has connected Libussa to light images to describe her rescue: "Und eines Weibes leuchtende Gewande, / Vom Strudel fortgerafft, die Nacht durchblinken" (5-6); his subsequent obsession is expressed in the simile of the moths circling about the light; and now comes the reawakening of hope: "Da tauchts [mein Hoffen] auf einmal wieder blinkend auf (1611). This line contains at least two levels of meaning: the obvious significance from the context of his account, i.e., the renewal of contact with the arrival of the Wladiken, and an associative link ("die Erinnerung" [616]) to his first meeting with the future queen. The "wieder auftauchen" conjures up for the third time the picture of her retrieval from the whirlpool with her vestments shining through the night and thus parallels the second occurrence, where Libussa herself unconsciously invoked the same incident in her choice of metaphor: "Der Zufall kommt und meldet sich nicht an, / Auftauchend ist er da" (359-60). The dramatist's deft interweaving of these allusions into the fabric of the tragedy stresses the necessity of understanding the full implications of what transpired "An jene Nacht, die holde

153 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

Wunderzeit" (1617). As a case in point, aspects of the original event are in the very process of resurfacing on stage. In a nocturnal setting, Libussa provides the only light for this scene. As before, her veil, the symbol of her sacred calling, has become meaningless (cf. "Den schwergesognen Schleier" [11]), because Primislaus has already seen through her disguise. Despite his earlier protestation in the same speech, "Doch ist auch Primislaus nicht niedern Stamms" (1593), he would now seem to reverse himself: Nicht dafi ich glaubte, meine Niedrigkeit Erhobe je mich zu der Hoheit Hohe

Nicht dafi ich glaubte, die Bedingung, Die sie gesetzt den werbenden Wladiken, Sie wiirde je zum Anspruch fur mich selbst. (1618-22)

As a mark of his obsession he mentions height three times in one line of verse and puts himself down, seemingly below her reach, in a calculated attempt to flatter Libussa at his own expense, alleging that he would never be so bold as to make the claim to which the riddle would have entitled his noble rivals (and ignoring now as then that the wording would permit only his own candidacy). Even though he returns to the main obstacle, the class barrier he outlined from the beginning (20-1), one harbours serious doubts as to whether or not he is being completely truthful here. In language which only the audience could understand, he once informed the Wladiken: "Denn - wiederum vielleicht - geb' ich sie [Kette] spater / Fur einen Lohn der hoher als sie selbst" (852-3). Since he could only have had Libussa in mind as that possible future reward, one has to surmise that he has devised this display of humility and self-abasement to curry favour with his disguised listener. Like many lovers thwarted in their struggle to obtain the loved object, Primislaus cannot help speculating how, if circumstances were different, he might be a serious contender: Allein den Schatten eines fliicht'gen Eindrucks, Den miifiigen Gedanken: wenns nicht so, Wenns anders ware in der Welt der Dinge, Wenn dieser Umstand fort und jener da, Wenn niedrig ware hoch und wenig viel, Dann mocht'es sein, dann konnt'es wohl geschehn! (1623-28)

If only the social scale could be reversed! Another capable man of peasant stock, Klesel, also rises from the social depths to the heights

154 Act Four

of power, "Mich hat umsonst aus meiner Niedrigkeit / Die Vorsicht nicht gestellt auf jene Stufe / Zu der sonst nur Geburt und Gunst erhebt" (2565-7), but he accumulated "viel" by storing up material wealth (2501-4) and overplayed his hand. As part of a fairly constant message in Grillparzer's works, people of the lower class frequently prove as capable as members of the ruling hierarchy (cf. Leon in Weh dem, der liigt!). Indeed, the weight of evidence even suggests that the peasant is, in a practical sense, smarter, more energetic, and therefore more prone to take action. Primislaus's use of the adverbs "fort"/"da" anticipates Freud's analysis of the "fort-da" game in Jenseits des Lustprinzips, an expedient contrived by the child to come to terms with separation from its mother. Primislaus presents his own wishful thinking, his personal speculation, as a diversion for his own private pleasure and also as a means of dealing with an absence - his loss of Libussa from the Vorspiel and of the proper credentials (he maintains that his family once had them [1012-14]), and his lack of sufficient wealth. He suffers from the gap that separates the low-born from the high-born. In summarizing Lacan's theory as it relates to the "fort-da" game, Eagleton writes, [I]t is an original lost object - the mother's body - which drives forward the narrative of our lives, impelling us to pursue substitutes for the lost paradise in the endless metonymic movement of desire (cf. Sie [Libussa's physical attributes] riefen in die Seele mir ein Bild, / Das mich umschwebt seit meinen fruhsten Tagen [the mother as the feminine ideal of the child], / Und all mein Wesen es rief aus: sie ists!" [1585-7]) . . . Something must be lost or absent in any narrative for it to unfold: if everything stayed in place there would be no story to tell. (cf. "Ein Traum ist ja Erzahlung und sonst nichts" [1609]). This loss is distressing, but exciting as well: desire is stimulated by what we cannot quite possess, and this is one source of narrative satisfaction, (cf. 1598-1605). If we could never [Eagleton's emphasis] possess it, however, our excitation might become intolerable and turn into unpleasure; so we must know that the object will be finally restored to us. (185-6)

This passage describes with uncanny insight the psychological rollercoaster that must be endured both by Primislaus in the loss of his mother, sister, and then Libussa and by the latter in the forfeiture of her father, then of her jewel and what it represents. Neither party is ever without some hope of regaining the lost item in the Liebesspiel. His pride would have achieved its objective with the smallest particle of remembrance on her part (1629-30). The fear that she may have forgotten him implies his lack of faith in his ability to captivate

155 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

her as a lover, as confirmed in his earlier confession: "Und bleib' ich fern [fort], so deckt ein schnell Vergessen / Was sie kaum weifi mehr [she has forgotten the Vorspiel] und nur hier [da, in his heart] noch lebt" (750-1). His present long speech oscillates between two extremes: on the one hand an underlying insecurity, his mistaken belief that he cannot attract Libussa as a man and that he must deny himself (his fear of emasculation) in order to win her and, on the other, an excess of confidence in his own merit in order to compensate for the social circumstances beyond his control that dictate the unbridgeable distance separating them. In another brief interjection, "Die Freundin dort wird ungeduldig, scheints. / Wir miissen eilen, derm sie will von dannen" (1631-2), he reveals his awareness of the effect his words are having on Libussa and reminds the audience of the manipulative nature of his narrative, which is contrived not for Wlasta but for her mistress. The ironic deference for an alleged servant conveys the sadistic pleasure he draws from the sport he is having at her expense; however, the awareness that she is abusing her authority and deceiving her guest with her masquerade tempers whatever sympathy the audience may feel for her. (The deceiver is being deceived.) They are well matched in this contest.13 Wlasta's predilection for Libussa the "Fiirstin" over Libussa the "Weib" (1637) induces Primislaus to reiterate his prejudiced position on the subject of power and who by rights should exercise it: "Es ist die Herrschaft ein gewaltig Ding, / Der Mann geht auf in ihr mit seinem Wesen, / Allein das Weib, es ist so hold gefugt, / Dafi jede Zutat mindert ihren Wert" (1638-41). He bases his view on the primary sexual differences already raised in the second act: "Women give birth and grow children; men kill and make weapons" (Sanday 3), i.e., men have historically been drawn to violence - they are expendable - while women have sought to avoid it. "Es wird den Menschen offenbar nicht leicht," Freud asserted, "auf die Befriedigung dieser ihrer Aggressionsneigung zu verzichten; sie fiihlen sich nicht wohl dabei" (Das Unbehagen 242). Hence, ruling and its concomitant violence, "ein gewaltig Ding," belong more appropriately, indeed biologically - "mit seinem Wesen" - to the male whereas the female, a lovely, delicate creature, a beautiful ornament, risks her femininity if she trespasses on the masculine domain (cf. the male features displayed by the regent, Margarete von Parma in Goethe's Egmont, by Elisabeth in Schiller's Maria Stuart or by Kleist's Penthesilea). "Bereits vor der Eheschliefiung mit der Fiirstin spricht [Primislaus] der Frau jedes Recht und jede Befahigung zur Herrschaft ab, und zwar mit denselben unbelegbaren, biologischen und

156 Act Four

ideologischen Begriffen, die tief in der vom mannlichen Geschlecht dominierten abendlandischen Welt verwurzelt sind" (Lorenz, "Neubewertung" 44). In his efforts to flatter Libussa, it is no accident that Primislaus chooses beauty, the most desirable female attribute from the man's perspective: Und wie die Schonheit, noch so reich geschmiickt, Mit Purpur angetan und fremder Seide Dutch jede Hiille die du ihr entziehst, Nur schoner wird und wirklicher sie selbst, Bis in dem letzten Weifi der Traulichkeit, Erbebend im Bewufitsein eigner Schatze, Sie feiert ihren siegendsten Triumph. (1642-8)

The fantasy of removing artificial layers which, however costly (purple and silk both intimate aristocratic refinement), only detract from the essential beauty is particularly germane, given Libussa's disguised status, i.e., he perceives this paragon of loveliness despite her deception by covering herself, a source of dramatic irony accessible to the speaker and the audience. It also looks back to the divestment episode from the Vorspiel, especially the removal of her veil. His description in this instance suggests an erotic striptease, the disrobing of a beautiful woman until she stands "in dem letzten Weifi der Traulichkeit/' the white skin of the exposed naked body. The "Erbebend" recalls the constant asides to the servant whose shaking betrays her emotional involvement and establishes a secret link between beauty and its main source, Libussa. In this male sexual fantasy, the woman celebrates her greatest triumph on the basis of her sensual attractiveness or, more bluntly put, woman exists primarily as a sex object for man's gratification. "So ist das Weib, der Schonheit holde Tochter, / Das Mittelding von Macht und Schutzbedurfnis, / Das hochste was sie sein kann nur als Weib, / In ihrer Schwache siegenden Gewalt" (1649-52). The only power he is prepared to concede to woman derives from her beauty, her fundamentally passive faculty to turn men's heads, for although she may be conscious of her influence over others, "im Bewufitsein eigner Schatze," she has very little control over it. Since it naturally emanates from her body, she cannot readily suppress it as it has an existence independent of her will (cf. Schiller's Maria Stuart who cannot help it if various young men such as Mortimer, once captivated by her physical charms, throw their lives away in reckless abandon). The "Schutzbedurfnis" harks back to the Slawa incident and Primislaus's reply to her appeal for protection: "Dein Weg fiihrt dich

157 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

zurecht, hier bist du sicher" (1492). Men prefer to classify women as the weaker sex dependent on them for support and safety,14 since this stereotype panders to the their ego and guarantees male dominance. Therefore, women achieve their greatest power over man's mind in the erotic appeal afforded by their beauty and vulnerability. The best example of this phenomenon takes place in Die Jtidin: "Und dies Geschlecht ist stark erst wenn es schwach" (390). Once Rahel has successfully captivated the king through her sensual appeal, she is able to manipulate him and render him submissive to her whims, a case of sexual bondage, which only the disfigurement of her body, the obliteration of her beauty, "sie [Rahel] war nicht schon" (1848), can break. However, if one considers all the details of the Slawa episode, Grillparzer may be attacking the insidious nature of this social paradigm, since Slawa actually desires protection from the men who, in the guise of wanting to protect her, seek to take advantage of her, among whom she includes Primislaus: "Ja Schutz vor dir und deines Gleichen, Mann" (1468). Primislaus fortifies his passive female image by affixing an implied divine seal of approval: "Was sie nicht fordert das wird ihr gegeben / Und was sie gibt ist himmlisches Geschenk, / Denn auch der Himmel fordert nur durch Geben" (1653-5). The religious analogy justifies the notion that woman's main business in life is to provide love. The sacred overtones, i.e., the Divine expresses itself through giving, ties in with religion as one of the three traditional spheres of interest allotted to women, while the "himmlisches Geschenk" corresponds to what Lacan calls the "unspeakable" enjoyment obtained from genital satisfaction (Benvenuto/Kennedy 184): "a woman becomes a total object of fantasy ..., elevated into the place of the Other and made to stand for its truth. Since the place of the Other is also the place of God, this is the ultimate form of mystification" (Rose 5o).15 In accordance with the linguist Saussure's theory that a sign does not possess an intrinsic meaning in itself but denotes a divergence in meaning between itself and some other sign(s), or more simply put, identity arises out of difference, many writers have noted how patriarchal society has defined woman exclusively in relationship to man. To cite Simone de Beauvoir, "elle n'est rien d'autre que ce que rhomme en decide ... Elle se determine et se differencie par rapport a 1'homme" (16). Libussa's claim to equality puts in jeopardy the strict sense of separation demanded by the patriarchal model to ensure male ascendancy: Doch mengt der Stolz sich in die holde Mischung, Bin scharfer Tropfen in die reine Milch,

158 Act Four Dann losen sich die Teile; stark und schwach Und sufi und bitter treten auseinander, Der Schatzung unterwerfend und Vergleichung Was unschatzbar und unvergleichlich ist. (1656-61)

Pride, which the patriarchy assigns to the male, if it appeared in a woman, would proclaim both faith in herself, an awareness of her inherent worth distinct from that of the male, and self-assertion as opposed to the self-denial of the "giving" function. From a masculine perspective, "Stolz" would do serious damage to her ideal image, i.e., "holde Mischung" and "reine Milch", indicative of her nurturing maternal role (women lactate). The "reine" also reflects the pseudodeification of female virtue throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for the preservation of which heroines died (Emilia Galotti, Agnes Bernauer) or were prepared to die (Luise Miller, Alkmene, Rhodope), and which in effect granted control over a woman's virginity to her father/husband. The "scharfer Tropfen" in apposition to male pride may contain a phallic allusion. As a threat to the maternal metaphor it means hot or sharp in taste but in a visual sense, as a sharp drop penetrating (accusative) the pure milk, it may signal another modification of the sharp, pointed instruments - the "Stachel ... in ihrer Brust" (796), "Angel" (969), "Pflugschar" (p. 321), "Sickel, die mein Schwert" (1261) - which the text frequently associates with Krokus and Primislaus. Furthermore, if a woman lays claim to male attributes such as pride, she poses a threat to the social unity created by the attraction of opposites since likes clash: "Stolz gegen Stolz, wie Kiesel gegen Stahl, / Erzeugt, was Beiden feind, den Feuerstrahl" (1124-5). The woman served previously to vindicate the man's portrait of himself through contrast, "I am strong, independent, assertive and proud compared to the weak, dependent, submissive, humble female," a process which, according to the Freudian model, goes back to the castration complex phase and its consequences: "A boy, in his attempt to gain an elusive masculine identification, often comes to define this masculinity largely in negative terms, as that which is not feminine or involved with women" (Chodorow 50). But if there is no real difference, then comparison could seriously injure man's own flattering self-image. This would be the implied "down-side" for the male; however, in an attempt to forestall this development, Primislaus concentrates upon the negative repercussions he envisions for the woman. (He is after all seeking to convince an exclusively female audience.) If she were to compete with the man in his self-assigned domains, she would render herself open to evaluation and comparison, whereas she should strive to

159 Jockeying for Position and Apparent Reconciliation

remain beyond criticism. As a social icon safely posed on her pedestal, "Drum wie die Frau ist aller Wesen Krone" (1030), she need fear no reproach, but if she elected to descend (" wnterwerfend") into the male world of competition, she would forfeit her revered status as "der Schonheit holde Tocher" (1649) an