SCHILLER'S MARIA STUART, WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES. BY V. KASTNER, M.A. FRENCH AND GERMAN MASTER AT THE CHARTERHOUSE. LONDON WHITTAKER AND CO., AVE MARIA LANE. COVENT GARDEN. 1877. 288. c. " INTRODUCTION. Von der Parteien Gunst und Haß verwirrt, THE above lines, taken from Schiller's "Wallenstein,” may well be prefixed to his "Maria Stuart." Since the execution of the Queen of Scots, whom M. Dargaud, her French biographer, justly terms "the enigma of history, and the most problematic character that ever was," scores of books have been written either to vindicate her character or to establish her complicity in the murder of Darnley and the plots directed against Elizabeth's life. In spite of all that has been written, the problem of her guilt or innocence is far from being solved, and we may well say with the Latin poet, Adhuc sub judice lis est. We should not be surprised if the veil that hangs over the dark tragedy of "the Kirk of Feld" were never to be raised, and if Lamartine was right when he wrote, "The passions were Mary's judges, therefore she was not fairly judged, nor will she ever be." Schiller could not think of producing on the stage a character so dubious and undetermined, without boldly cutting the Gordian knot which historians were unable to untie. This is the verdict of our poet, till history pronounces in its turn: "Mary is 'guilty' of complicity in the assassination of Darnley; she is 'not guilty' of having conspired against the life of the Queen of England." If we accept the view of Schiller, this half-innocence will amply suffice to interest us deeply in the fate of his heroine, for the only crime that can be justly imputed to Mary has been committed in Scotland-that is to say, out of the reach of English laws. The long and solemn process of her trial will be in our eyes but a hollow mockery, her death a judicial murder and when she walks to the scaffold, her head will appear surrounded with a halo of martyrdom. If this situation of a woman, of a queen sacrificed to the jealousy of another woman, another queen, is in itself sufficient to awake our tenderest feelings, what will be the effect when the poet has applied all the resources of his art to show us the object of our sympathy clad in all the irresistible grace and personal beauty on which her contemporaries dwell in such glowing terms? Certainly there is not to be found in the German theatre-perhaps in any theatre-a more interesting heroine than Mary Stuart. It is quite natural that a subject so essentially dramatic should have tempted the fancy of those who write for the stage; nor is Schiller the first who brought the long tale of the sufferings of Mary "on the boards that represent the world." Long before him several writers, English as well as German, had attempted this subject, which, however, proved above their powers. Scarcely a few years before the appearance of our play, Alfieri had also presented the public with a "Mary Stuart;" but his drama, which besides ranks far below the other productions of the great Italian poet, has nothing, except the title, in common with the piece of Schiller his subject being the death of Darnley, not that of Mary. Strange to say, Alfieri did not consider the death of the Queen of Scots as a dramatic subject. He explains himself on this point with a clearness which does not leave the least doubt of his real opinion; 'Questa infelicissima regina, il di cui nome a primo aspetto pare un ampio, sublime e sicuro soggetto di tragedia, riesce con tutto cio uno infelicissimo tema in teatro. Io credo quanto alla morte di essa, che non se ne possa assolutamente fare tragedia; stante che chi la fa uccidere è Elisabetta la natural sua capitate nemica e rivale, e che non v'è tra loro perciò nè legami nè contrasti de passione, che rendiano tragediabile la morte de Maria, abbenchè veramente ingiusta, straordinaria et tragicamente funesta." Happily for us and posterity, Goethe and Schiller were of a different opinion. We have mentioned here the name of the illustrious friend of our author; to him, in fact, we are indirectly indebted for this masterpiece. At the beginning of 1799, when Schiller had scarcely given the last touch to his "Wallenstein," he thought of undertaking another drama. He was, however, so disheartened by the trouble he had experienced in keeping up through eleven long acts the historical characters of his celebrated trilogy, that he thought of altogether giving up historical compositions and devoting himself to the creations of mere fancy. On the 19th of March he wrote to Goethe: „Neigung und Bedürfniß ziehen mich zu einem frei phantasirten, nicht historischen, |