What do you think?
Rate this book
Nathan der Weise
Gotthold Ephraim Lessings Nathan der Weise (1779 erschienen und 1783 uraufgeführt) ist eines der zentralen Werke der deutschen Aufklärung. Der Text, der sich mit seiner Bezeichnung als "dramatisches Gedicht" der Festlegung auf eine der dramatischen Gattungen entzieht, trug wesentlich dazu bei, den Blankvers als den klassischen deutschen Dramenvers zu etablieren. Mit seinem Nathan reagierte Lessing auf die religiöse Orthodoxie und Intoleranz seiner Zeit. Ort der Handlung ist Jerusalem während der Kreuzzüge – eine Stadt, in der Christentum, Islam und Judentum direkt aufeinandertreffen. Höhepunkt des Stücks, in dem es um eine moral- und geschichtsphilosophische Botschaft, um die Aufforderung zu Toleranz und Humanität geht, ist die berühmte Ringparabel, die der reiche jüdische Kaufmann Nathan erzählt: Sie soll die hintergründige Frage des Sultans Saladin beantworten, welche der drei Religionen die wahre sei. Nathans Antwort ist die Forderung nach einem gleichberechtigten Nebeneinander aller Religionen.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1779
About the author
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
2,346 books202 followersGotthold Ephraim Lessing was a German writer, philosopher, dramatist, publicist, and art critic, and one of the most outstanding representatives of the Enlightenment era. His plays and theoretical writings substantially influenced the development of German literature. He is widely considered by theatre historians to be the first dramaturg.
Lessing was born in Kamenz, a small town in Saxony. His father was a clergyman and the author of theological writings. After visiting Latin School in Kamenz (from 1737 onwards) and the Fürstenschule St. Afra in Meissen (from 1741 onwards) he studied theology and medicine in Leipzig (1746–1748).
From 1748 to 1760 he lived in Leipzig and Berlin and worked as reviewer and editor for, amongst others, the Vossische Zeitung. In 1752 he took his Master's degree in Wittenberg. From 1760 to 1765 he worked in Breslau (now Wrocław) as secretary to General Tauentzien. In 1765 he returned to Berlin, only to leave again in 1767 to work for three years as a dramaturg and adviser at the German National Theatre in Hamburg. There he met Eva König, his future wife.
In 1770 Lessing became a librarian at the Herzog-August-Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. His tenure there was interrupted by many travels. For example, in 1775 he journeyed to Italy accompanied by Prince Leopold.
In 1771 Lessing was initiated into Freemasonry in the lodge "Zu den drei Rosen" in Hamburg.
In 1776 he married Eva König, who was then a widow, in Jork (near Hamburg). She died in 1778 after giving birth to a short-lived son. On 15 February 1781, Lessing, aged 52, died during a visit to the wine dealer Angott in Brunswick.
Lessing was also famous for his friendship with Jewish-German philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. In his celebrated biography of Mendelssohn's famous grandson, Felix, Larry Todd describes their friendship as one of the most "illuminating metaphors [for] the clarion call of the Enlightenment for religious tolerance".
Lessing was a poet, philosopher and critic. His theoretical and critical writings are remarkable for their often witty and ironic style and their unerring polemics. Hereby the stylistic device of dialogue met with his intention of looking at a thought from different angles and searching for elements of truth even in the arguments made by his opponents. For him this truth was never solid or something which could be owned by someone but always a process of approaching.
Early in his life, Lessing showed interest in the theatre. In his theoretical and critical writings on the subject—as in his own plays—he tried to contribute to the development of a new bourgeois theatre in Germany. With this he especially turned against the then predominant literary theory of Gottsched and his followers. He particularly criticized the simple imitation of the French example and pleaded for a recollection of the classic theorems of Aristotle and for a serious reception of Shakespeare's works. He worked with many theatre groups (e.g. the one of the Neuberin).
In Hamburg he tried with others to set up the German National Theatre. Today his own works appear as prototypes of the later developed bourgeois German drama. Scholars generally see Miß Sara Sampson and Emilia Galotti as the first bourgeois tragedies, Minna von Barnhelm (Minna of Barnhelm) as the model for many classic German comedies, Nathan the Wise (Nathan der Weise) as the first German drama of ideas ("Ideendrama"). His theoretical writings Laocoon and Hamburg Dramaturgy (Hamburgische Dramaturgie) set the standards for the discussion of aesthetic and literary theoretical principles. Lessing advocated that dramaturgs should carry their work out working directly with theatre companies rather than in isolation.
In his religious and philosophical writings he defended the faithful Christian's right for freedom of thought. He argued against the belief in revelation and the holding on to a literal
Lessing was born in Kamenz, a small town in Saxony. His father was a clergyman and the author of theological writings. After visiting Latin School in Kamenz (from 1737 onwards) and the Fürstenschule St. Afra in Meissen (from 1741 onwards) he studied theology and medicine in Leipzig (1746–1748).
From 1748 to 1760 he lived in Leipzig and Berlin and worked as reviewer and editor for, amongst others, the Vossische Zeitung. In 1752 he took his Master's degree in Wittenberg. From 1760 to 1765 he worked in Breslau (now Wrocław) as secretary to General Tauentzien. In 1765 he returned to Berlin, only to leave again in 1767 to work for three years as a dramaturg and adviser at the German National Theatre in Hamburg. There he met Eva König, his future wife.
In 1770 Lessing became a librarian at the Herzog-August-Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. His tenure there was interrupted by many travels. For example, in 1775 he journeyed to Italy accompanied by Prince Leopold.
In 1771 Lessing was initiated into Freemasonry in the lodge "Zu den drei Rosen" in Hamburg.
In 1776 he married Eva König, who was then a widow, in Jork (near Hamburg). She died in 1778 after giving birth to a short-lived son. On 15 February 1781, Lessing, aged 52, died during a visit to the wine dealer Angott in Brunswick.
Lessing was also famous for his friendship with Jewish-German philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. In his celebrated biography of Mendelssohn's famous grandson, Felix, Larry Todd describes their friendship as one of the most "illuminating metaphors [for] the clarion call of the Enlightenment for religious tolerance".
Lessing was a poet, philosopher and critic. His theoretical and critical writings are remarkable for their often witty and ironic style and their unerring polemics. Hereby the stylistic device of dialogue met with his intention of looking at a thought from different angles and searching for elements of truth even in the arguments made by his opponents. For him this truth was never solid or something which could be owned by someone but always a process of approaching.
Early in his life, Lessing showed interest in the theatre. In his theoretical and critical writings on the subject—as in his own plays—he tried to contribute to the development of a new bourgeois theatre in Germany. With this he especially turned against the then predominant literary theory of Gottsched and his followers. He particularly criticized the simple imitation of the French example and pleaded for a recollection of the classic theorems of Aristotle and for a serious reception of Shakespeare's works. He worked with many theatre groups (e.g. the one of the Neuberin).
In Hamburg he tried with others to set up the German National Theatre. Today his own works appear as prototypes of the later developed bourgeois German drama. Scholars generally see Miß Sara Sampson and Emilia Galotti as the first bourgeois tragedies, Minna von Barnhelm (Minna of Barnhelm) as the model for many classic German comedies, Nathan the Wise (Nathan der Weise) as the first German drama of ideas ("Ideendrama"). His theoretical writings Laocoon and Hamburg Dramaturgy (Hamburgische Dramaturgie) set the standards for the discussion of aesthetic and literary theoretical principles. Lessing advocated that dramaturgs should carry their work out working directly with theatre companies rather than in isolation.
In his religious and philosophical writings he defended the faithful Christian's right for freedom of thought. He argued against the belief in revelation and the holding on to a literal
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 565 reviews
September 20, 2020
The wise Nathan in Lessing's "dramatic poem" of 1779 knows how to help: He tells Sultan Saladin a story that has become known as a "ring parable" and as a plea for tolerance and moral action. In Lessing's classic, five-act drama, the conflicts finally break into a true embrace. After the Christian wants to marry the Jewess but can not, Lessing unravels the threads with the unveiling of an unprecedented family history: almost everyone is related to everyone. Moral action, reason, humanity and religious tolerance are the cornerstones of Lessing's Enlightenment Drama, which has been proving again and again for centuries and precisely today.
November 19, 2017
A ring to rule them all ... in three identical versions.
Tolerance taught in a story within a story containing the one and only ring, or three of them, as the case may be - "Nathan Der Weise" is required reading in German schools, supposedly celebrating the love and peace that can exist between Jews, Muslims and Christians, even in times of crusades!
I remember writing an essay on the metaphorical story Nathan told Saladin in one scene, - to illustrate the interchangeable character of the three religions clashing over details of worship, tradition and power play.
The general idea behind the play is that all three religions derive from a common root, symbolised by a mighty king in the story. He has a beautiful ring, and is expected to hand it over to his most beloved son when he dies. With the ring, the power in the palace is transferred to the next generation. The supposedly loving father however can't find any distinction between his three "obedient" sons, so he secretly makes two copies of the original ring, to give each of his sons a version. The copies are perfect, and even the king doesn't know how to tell the rings apart.
When the king dies, conflict arises as all three sons claim their right to rule the palace. This is where I got annoyed the first time, reading this as a teenager. How incredibly stupid of the father not to foresee this outcome! He delayed conflict, and caused confusion by adding those two rings. He must have understood that. It doesn't make sense.
The other thing that frustrated me when reading the story in school was the happiness with which my teacher claimed it was a symbol for the beauty of religion if it remains open-minded and tolerant towards other beliefs. Each son can be happy believing that he is in possession of the true ring. I didn't get that either. That means each son is secretly intolerant of the others, as he is convinced his ring is the right one, and the others wear fakes? Also, all rings are man-made, aren't they? And can be reproduced in as many copies as needed? And they are of course not given to any daughters of the family either, so how on earth can they be called "tolerant" and "open-minded"?
All those questions arising, and only stereotyped "study guide" answers offered to the indignant female student of the 20th century, not feeling represented in the story at all.
I think my teacher was rather helpless towards the idea of challenging the logical structure of Lessing's naively beautiful story. "It is supposed to be a symbol of religious tolerance. Period. You are not to prove that is not possible. Full stop."
Now I would say: Lessing involuntarily wrote a play showing how fake news spreads in the world and is used to cement patriarchal power. Those three rings are indeed identical in their claim to justify a power handover from one male tribal member to another, using religious allegiances to keep the strength within the family.
The original ring symbolises the need for religion to identify community structures and scare people into bowing to random authority instead of looking for their own chosen identity, based on education and critical thinking skills.
It was progressive at the time Lessing wrote it, but to me, it just shows the wrong approach of "the ring" in the first place. For it to work at least approximately, we would need thousands of replicas for the other religions in the world, and the right to refuse wearing a ring at all.
That is my choice.
Tolerance taught in a story within a story containing the one and only ring, or three of them, as the case may be - "Nathan Der Weise" is required reading in German schools, supposedly celebrating the love and peace that can exist between Jews, Muslims and Christians, even in times of crusades!
I remember writing an essay on the metaphorical story Nathan told Saladin in one scene, - to illustrate the interchangeable character of the three religions clashing over details of worship, tradition and power play.
The general idea behind the play is that all three religions derive from a common root, symbolised by a mighty king in the story. He has a beautiful ring, and is expected to hand it over to his most beloved son when he dies. With the ring, the power in the palace is transferred to the next generation. The supposedly loving father however can't find any distinction between his three "obedient" sons, so he secretly makes two copies of the original ring, to give each of his sons a version. The copies are perfect, and even the king doesn't know how to tell the rings apart.
When the king dies, conflict arises as all three sons claim their right to rule the palace. This is where I got annoyed the first time, reading this as a teenager. How incredibly stupid of the father not to foresee this outcome! He delayed conflict, and caused confusion by adding those two rings. He must have understood that. It doesn't make sense.
The other thing that frustrated me when reading the story in school was the happiness with which my teacher claimed it was a symbol for the beauty of religion if it remains open-minded and tolerant towards other beliefs. Each son can be happy believing that he is in possession of the true ring. I didn't get that either. That means each son is secretly intolerant of the others, as he is convinced his ring is the right one, and the others wear fakes? Also, all rings are man-made, aren't they? And can be reproduced in as many copies as needed? And they are of course not given to any daughters of the family either, so how on earth can they be called "tolerant" and "open-minded"?
All those questions arising, and only stereotyped "study guide" answers offered to the indignant female student of the 20th century, not feeling represented in the story at all.
I think my teacher was rather helpless towards the idea of challenging the logical structure of Lessing's naively beautiful story. "It is supposed to be a symbol of religious tolerance. Period. You are not to prove that is not possible. Full stop."
Now I would say: Lessing involuntarily wrote a play showing how fake news spreads in the world and is used to cement patriarchal power. Those three rings are indeed identical in their claim to justify a power handover from one male tribal member to another, using religious allegiances to keep the strength within the family.
The original ring symbolises the need for religion to identify community structures and scare people into bowing to random authority instead of looking for their own chosen identity, based on education and critical thinking skills.
It was progressive at the time Lessing wrote it, but to me, it just shows the wrong approach of "the ring" in the first place. For it to work at least approximately, we would need thousands of replicas for the other religions in the world, and the right to refuse wearing a ring at all.
That is my choice.
March 16, 2023
Das Stück ist nun 240 Jahre alt und verliert nicht an Bedeutung. Nathan unterrichtet seine Tochter Recha nicht in einer Glaubensrichtung, sondern in Ethik und Humanismus. Die Toleranz gegenüber den Andersdenkenden ist beachtlich für eine Zeit in der Aufklärung, in der es vor allem in den pietistischen Regionen Deutschlands immer noch viel Engstirnigkeit gab. Aber wenn ich mir heute die Diskussionen in den sozialen Medien anschaue, kann ich kaum eine positive Entwicklung feststellen. Nathan, wir brauchen dich.
"Was heißt denn Volk? Sind Christ und Jude eher Christ und Jude, als Mensch? Ah! Wenn ich einen mehr in Euch gefunden hätte, dem es genügt, ein Mensch zu heißen!"
"Was heißt denn Volk? Sind Christ und Jude eher Christ und Jude, als Mensch? Ah! Wenn ich einen mehr in Euch gefunden hätte, dem es genügt, ein Mensch zu heißen!"
April 19, 2022
hate the german education system for making me read this.
Read
May 4, 2024I read this short play in German, and that went more difficult for me than usual, possibly because the language and style really radiate the end of the 18th century. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781) is considered one of the giants of the German Enlightenment, and this is absolutely evident in this play. It is nothing less than a beautiful plea for tolerance between religions. The setting is Jerusalem during the time of the Crusades, when it was ruled by sultan Saladin, and the main character is a wealthy Jewish merchant (i.e. the wise Nathan). So, in this way Lessing handsomely brings Judaism, Christianity and Islam together. In particular, the parable of the old dying father and his opal ring (placed in the middle of the play) has become a classic text of religious (and ideological) tolerance. In line with Voltaire, hypocritical Christianity in particular has to suffer: the Bible is not a work of divine revelation, and the churches have completely corrupted the true Christian message.
Of course, there are a few minor touches that inevitably make the play a child of its time: the Templar makes a number of misogynistic statements, and the main characters are only men. The structure of the play is also a bit too soap-like, with a rather predictable progression and denouement that makes it seem more like a comedy of errors than a moralistic tale. In other words: the value of this play is not so much literary, but historically.
Of course, there are a few minor touches that inevitably make the play a child of its time: the Templar makes a number of misogynistic statements, and the main characters are only men. The structure of the play is also a bit too soap-like, with a rather predictable progression and denouement that makes it seem more like a comedy of errors than a moralistic tale. In other words: the value of this play is not so much literary, but historically.
February 8, 2022
Immer noch ein aktuelles Thema!
August 18, 2019
Die Frage wiegt schwer: Welche der drei großen Weltreligionen ist die beste; Christentum, Islam oder Judentum? Wer - von fundamentalistischen Eiferern abgesehen - könnte diese Frage beantworten, ohne in Argumentationsschwierigkeiten zu geraten? Der weise Jude Nathan in Lessings "dramatischem Gedicht" von 1779 weiß sich zu helfen: Er erzählt dem Sultan Saladin eine Geschichte, die als "Ringparabel" und als Plädoyer für Toleranz und moralisches Handeln bekannt geworden ist. In Lessings klassisch konstruiertem Fünf-Akt-Drama lösen sich die Konflikte am Schluss in eine wahre Umarmungsorgie auf. Nachdem der Christ die Jüdin heiraten will, aber nicht darf, entwirrt Lessing die Fäden mit der Enthüllung einer beispiellosen Familiengeschichte: So gut wie jeder ist mit jedem verwandt - die Großfamilie auf dem Theater will Vorbild sein für die "Menschheitsfamilie" in der Welt. Moralisches Handeln, Vernunft, Menschlichkeit und religiöse Toleranz sind die Eckpfeiler von Lessings Aufklärungsdrama, das schon seit Jahrhunderten und gerade heute wieder seine brennende Aktualität beweist.
Lessing hat seinem Fünfakter einen ganz klassischen Aufbau verliehen: Exposition (Einführung), Steigerung und Entwicklung, Klimax und Peripetie (Höhe- und Wendepunkt), retardierendes Moment (Verzögerung) und Auflösung. Jeder Akt besteht aus unterschiedlich vielen Szenen. Was später Friedrich Schiller missfiel, zeichnet das Stück eigentlich besonders aus: Es ist weder Tragödie noch Komödie, sondern ein "dramatisches Gedicht", das aber nicht unbedingt für die Bühne geschrieben wurde. Lessing stellte den Lehrcharakter in den Vordergrund und verzichtete dafür auf typisch dramatische Elemente, die z. B. für eine Tragödie wichtig gewesen wären. Im Zentrum des Stückes (und zwar wortwörtlich im Zentrum: in der siebten Szene des dritten Aktes) steht die Ringparabel mit ihrer liberalen und humanistischen Botschaft über religiöse Toleranz und moralisches Handeln. Lessing verwendete ausschließlich den reimlosen Blankvers (jambischer Fünfheber). Diese Versform kam in Deutschland derart gut an, dass sie sogar den bis dahin gebräuchlichen Alexandriner (jambischer Sechsheber) verdrängte.
Lessing hat seinem Fünfakter einen ganz klassischen Aufbau verliehen: Exposition (Einführung), Steigerung und Entwicklung, Klimax und Peripetie (Höhe- und Wendepunkt), retardierendes Moment (Verzögerung) und Auflösung. Jeder Akt besteht aus unterschiedlich vielen Szenen. Was später Friedrich Schiller missfiel, zeichnet das Stück eigentlich besonders aus: Es ist weder Tragödie noch Komödie, sondern ein "dramatisches Gedicht", das aber nicht unbedingt für die Bühne geschrieben wurde. Lessing stellte den Lehrcharakter in den Vordergrund und verzichtete dafür auf typisch dramatische Elemente, die z. B. für eine Tragödie wichtig gewesen wären. Im Zentrum des Stückes (und zwar wortwörtlich im Zentrum: in der siebten Szene des dritten Aktes) steht die Ringparabel mit ihrer liberalen und humanistischen Botschaft über religiöse Toleranz und moralisches Handeln. Lessing verwendete ausschließlich den reimlosen Blankvers (jambischer Fünfheber). Diese Versform kam in Deutschland derart gut an, dass sie sogar den bis dahin gebräuchlichen Alexandriner (jambischer Sechsheber) verdrängte.
October 7, 2021
آنچه بیم ازدستدادنش در تو نیست،
هرگز یقین نداشتهای که از آنِ توست،
هرگز آرزو نکردهای از آنِ تو باشد.
هرگز یقین نداشتهای که از آنِ توست،
هرگز آرزو نکردهای از آنِ تو باشد.
December 26, 2021
It is so bad I wanna give it a 0, but that's not possible, so I give it a 1
Read
February 20, 2017Another timely little nugget aus Deustschland. And much shorter than the Quran.
________
Set in Jerusalem around those crusaderish times, Nathan der Weise is read by every little German Gymnasium student as a lesson in tolerance. Those who discover they can tolerate each other are Muslim, Jew, and Christian. Were it written today we'd have to throw in that most intolerant believer, the atheist. But I think we could do it!
________
Set in Jerusalem around those crusaderish times, Nathan der Weise is read by every little German Gymnasium student as a lesson in tolerance. Those who discover they can tolerate each other are Muslim, Jew, and Christian. Were it written today we'd have to throw in that most intolerant believer, the atheist. But I think we could do it!
Read
February 19, 2015So today I finally had my German exam, that means that I'll (hopefully) never ever have to read this again.
May 16, 2021
no, just no
January 10, 2022
hab kein einziges wort verstanden
October 11, 2024
When I read Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's 1779 play Nathan der Weise for the first time, and no, not for high school (as my family moved from Germany to Canada when I was ten years of age and thus in high school, we of course read English language and not German language literature) but rather in a 1986 university undergraduate course on the German Enlightenment, for us students (and indeed also for our professor) Nathan's wisdom, his striving for universal religious tolerance (and to a certain point that Saladin himself could also be tolerant) were basically the main and the most essential points of consideration regarding Lessing's presented text (although I did indeed find the famous "Ring Parable" both a bit difficult to understand in and of itself and also leaving me at times more than somewhat personally uncomfortable with Nathan der Weise and really not completely satisfied either).
For if according to the play, if according to Nathan der Weise (and of course equally according to the "Ring Parable") Judaism, Christianity and Islam are supposedly all sprung from some common and universally good and beneficial source, why would in the ring story the father, why would the king have even created and furnished those three separate rings? I mean, it does not (or at least it should not) really take a genius to figure out and to realise that there would of course more than likely be major conflicts arising within the three sons' families, with everyone claiming that their specific ring is the right, the correct, the most important and ergo also the most universally acceptable ring (and I could never understand therefore how in Nathan der Weise, those three rings should supposedly be a solution to religious conflict, if each of the ring wearers would be thinking and believing that his ring was the greatest, the best, one "true" ring, since this would at least in my opinion and by simple logic and necessity discredit the other two rings and their wearers).
And therefore, as much as I did indeed majorly enjoy reading Nathan der Weise in 1986 and still have rather found my recent reread very much pleasurable, there is equally and in my humble opinion beneath Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's presented and indeed very essential messages of the necessity of religious tolerance also something that is not really one hundred percent positive, not altogether shining and to be universally lauded, namely how those rings really have created not a portrait of absolute tolerance but rather the opposite, with separate claims of superiority, something that I certainly doubt Lessing had intended, but something that is nevertheless subtly but still overtly present in Nathan der Weise and not to be ignored, and in particular with regard to the fact that religious tolerance is still totally and utterly a global pipe dream at best (and that is putting things mildly, that is basically a huge and all-encompassing global, universal understatement).
For if according to the play, if according to Nathan der Weise (and of course equally according to the "Ring Parable") Judaism, Christianity and Islam are supposedly all sprung from some common and universally good and beneficial source, why would in the ring story the father, why would the king have even created and furnished those three separate rings? I mean, it does not (or at least it should not) really take a genius to figure out and to realise that there would of course more than likely be major conflicts arising within the three sons' families, with everyone claiming that their specific ring is the right, the correct, the most important and ergo also the most universally acceptable ring (and I could never understand therefore how in Nathan der Weise, those three rings should supposedly be a solution to religious conflict, if each of the ring wearers would be thinking and believing that his ring was the greatest, the best, one "true" ring, since this would at least in my opinion and by simple logic and necessity discredit the other two rings and their wearers).
And therefore, as much as I did indeed majorly enjoy reading Nathan der Weise in 1986 and still have rather found my recent reread very much pleasurable, there is equally and in my humble opinion beneath Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's presented and indeed very essential messages of the necessity of religious tolerance also something that is not really one hundred percent positive, not altogether shining and to be universally lauded, namely how those rings really have created not a portrait of absolute tolerance but rather the opposite, with separate claims of superiority, something that I certainly doubt Lessing had intended, but something that is nevertheless subtly but still overtly present in Nathan der Weise and not to be ignored, and in particular with regard to the fact that religious tolerance is still totally and utterly a global pipe dream at best (and that is putting things mildly, that is basically a huge and all-encompassing global, universal understatement).
August 10, 2022
lessing du hund
September 7, 2023
Moin moin.
Ich bin im Deutsch LK und wir haben dieses Buch gelesen. Diese ✨Drama✨, um mich genauer auszudrücken.
Unser Kurs wollte das nicht lesen, aber unser sehr geehrter Lehrer meinte, dass man das schonmal gelesen haben sollte.
Jo. Hamma‘s also gelesen.
Ist ja alles schön und gut, Tochter von Nathan, deren Namen ich schon wieder vergessen hab weil.. jo, kein Plan, wird von nem Typen gerettet >> Love Story.
Sultan und seine Sis wollen nen alten Opi abzocken um an sein Geld zu kommen, weil die Zwei sich wie die Geissens verhalten und Geld verschwenden, als wären sie Carmen Geiss (spezifisch gesagt, wäre Sultan die Carmen und die Schwester Robert)
ABER NE
Der alte Opi ist DER Nathan der Weise ✨✨
Er freundet sich mit Sultan an (im Film hatten die ne gewisse Chemistry), und dann will er den Nathan doch nicht mehr abzocken.
Spannendes Buch über Religionen, lernt man vieles dazu (ich weiß jetzt was Erquickung und Labda heißt :DD) aber
DAS ENDE
SACHE MA LESSING, SIMMA IM SAARLAND?! DIE TOCHTER UND DER RETTER SIND EINFACH GESCHWISTER
Es gibt so viele krasse Plottwists, die man hätte lo inbauen können, ABER NE, LOVERS TO SIBLINGS I GUESS.
ich hielt nix viel vom Buch, war oke, hab’s nd gehasst,hab’s nd geliebt, aber DAS ENDE.
Ich hab die zwei voll geshippt, stellt euch mal vor wie mein Gesicht aussah als der Opi bekannt gab, dass die zwei Geschwister waren.
Lessing, wenn de unbedingt die zwei als Geschwister abstempeln willst, dann lass die doch nd ineinander verlieben, Zappalott nochmal.
Vielleicht magst du solche Tropes, aber ne, echt nicht mein cup of tea.
Der letzte Akt fühlte Sich an, wie als hätte n 13 Jähriges Kind ne Wattpad love story Geschrieben.
Aber ey, ich mag dass de Dich gegen Goeze so krass aufgestellt hast, das Buch war voll Deep und jo. War nice. Das Ende halt nd.
Edit: Mein Lehrer hat meine Bewertung gelesen und erstmal im Unterricht mit uns analysiert. Ich glaub dem hat’s gefallen.
Ich bin im Deutsch LK und wir haben dieses Buch gelesen. Diese ✨Drama✨, um mich genauer auszudrücken.
Unser Kurs wollte das nicht lesen, aber unser sehr geehrter Lehrer meinte, dass man das schonmal gelesen haben sollte.
Jo. Hamma‘s also gelesen.
Ist ja alles schön und gut, Tochter von Nathan, deren Namen ich schon wieder vergessen hab weil.. jo, kein Plan, wird von nem Typen gerettet >> Love Story.
Sultan und seine Sis wollen nen alten Opi abzocken um an sein Geld zu kommen, weil die Zwei sich wie die Geissens verhalten und Geld verschwenden, als wären sie Carmen Geiss (spezifisch gesagt, wäre Sultan die Carmen und die Schwester Robert)
ABER NE
Der alte Opi ist DER Nathan der Weise ✨✨
Er freundet sich mit Sultan an (im Film hatten die ne gewisse Chemistry), und dann will er den Nathan doch nicht mehr abzocken.
Spannendes Buch über Religionen, lernt man vieles dazu (ich weiß jetzt was Erquickung und Labda heißt :DD) aber
DAS ENDE
SACHE MA LESSING, SIMMA IM SAARLAND?! DIE TOCHTER UND DER RETTER SIND EINFACH GESCHWISTER
Es gibt so viele krasse Plottwists, die man hätte lo inbauen können, ABER NE, LOVERS TO SIBLINGS I GUESS.
ich hielt nix viel vom Buch, war oke, hab’s nd gehasst,hab’s nd geliebt, aber DAS ENDE.
Ich hab die zwei voll geshippt, stellt euch mal vor wie mein Gesicht aussah als der Opi bekannt gab, dass die zwei Geschwister waren.
Lessing, wenn de unbedingt die zwei als Geschwister abstempeln willst, dann lass die doch nd ineinander verlieben, Zappalott nochmal.
Vielleicht magst du solche Tropes, aber ne, echt nicht mein cup of tea.
Der letzte Akt fühlte Sich an, wie als hätte n 13 Jähriges Kind ne Wattpad love story Geschrieben.
Aber ey, ich mag dass de Dich gegen Goeze so krass aufgestellt hast, das Buch war voll Deep und jo. War nice. Das Ende halt nd.
Edit: Mein Lehrer hat meine Bewertung gelesen und erstmal im Unterricht mit uns analysiert. Ich glaub dem hat’s gefallen.
May 1, 2018
Probably the worst book of all famous german literature pieces. It almost ruined drama for me, as if I had a PTSD-recapitulation every time I read any drama, because it reminded me of this piece of shit. It took a long time to finally get back on track and read drama withouth thinking back on this obnoxious, over-the-top fantastical and staged play. it was absolutely horrible; Nathan is a notably crafted and manufactured, unrealistic old know-it-all, and that‘s about it. We get to hear his oh so boring monologues about basically nothing, no greater message besides „hey maybe all religions have sum truth in em!!!1“ and all the boring side „characters“ have no point in the play whatsoever. The writing is quite simple, but in a way that makes it an excruciating pain to read, since the stream of thought is so irregular, absolutely unpredictable or too predictable, boring, without any finesse whatsoever. By far, the worst piece of „literature“ I ever had to read. It is a pity that German schools require this piece of shame from german literature to be read. Horrible, absolutely disgusting. Do not waste your time on this.
August 30, 2010
Ah ja, Nathan der Weise einer der besten Stücke, die ich je gelesen habe. Was mich zu erst verwundert hat, war der Titel "Ein dramatisches Gedicht...". Wenn man sich allerdings die Formatierung anschaut, dann ist einem sofort klar, dass die Strukturierung einen dichterischen Aspekt hat und zwar das Metrum.
Nathan der Weise besteht aus Blankversen. Eine besondere Form, die ursprünglich aus England stammt. Normalerweise fällt niemanden außer der hartgesottenen Germanisten Dinge wie ein Metrum auf, aber bei Blankversen weiß jeder sofort bescheid, dass man mit einem Jambus konfrontiert wird. Ein anderweitig interessantes Mittel ist der Gebrauch von Enjambements, denn mir persönlich viel es schwer Nathan zu lesen bis mir klar war, dass ich nicht einfach am Zeilenende aufhören konnte. Es hat auch dafür gesorgt, dass ich schneller gelesen habe, um immer bei einem neuen Auftritt oder Akt wieder vom Neuen zu lesen. :) Ob das positiv oder negativ ist, sei jedem selber überlassen.
Aber genug über die äußere Form! Wichtig ist die Bedeutung, die das Stück für den Leser hat oder haben sollte. Die Ringparabel ist das Zentrum und der Angelpunkt der Geschichte. Eine logische und friedfertige Lösung, die allen drei monotheistischen Religionen zufriedenstellen sollte.
Ich werde nicht die Handlung verraten, da die Handlung selber sehr kurz ist und jeder das Stück selber lesen sollte, um geistig zu wachsen.
Nathan der Weise ist auf jeden Fall etwas, was jeder Mensch ein Mal gelesen haben muss. Wunderschön geschrieben mit einer bedeutenden Botschaft: "Die Wahrheit ist verlorengegangen. Lebt in Frieden miteinander, statt euch um etwas zu streiten worauf es keine logische Antwort gibt."
Ich bin mir sicher, dass Nathan der Weise ein zufriedenstellendes letztes Stück Lessings ist. Er ist in der Tat mit einem gewaltigen Knall untergegangen.
Nathan der Weise besteht aus Blankversen. Eine besondere Form, die ursprünglich aus England stammt. Normalerweise fällt niemanden außer der hartgesottenen Germanisten Dinge wie ein Metrum auf, aber bei Blankversen weiß jeder sofort bescheid, dass man mit einem Jambus konfrontiert wird. Ein anderweitig interessantes Mittel ist der Gebrauch von Enjambements, denn mir persönlich viel es schwer Nathan zu lesen bis mir klar war, dass ich nicht einfach am Zeilenende aufhören konnte. Es hat auch dafür gesorgt, dass ich schneller gelesen habe, um immer bei einem neuen Auftritt oder Akt wieder vom Neuen zu lesen. :) Ob das positiv oder negativ ist, sei jedem selber überlassen.
Aber genug über die äußere Form! Wichtig ist die Bedeutung, die das Stück für den Leser hat oder haben sollte. Die Ringparabel ist das Zentrum und der Angelpunkt der Geschichte. Eine logische und friedfertige Lösung, die allen drei monotheistischen Religionen zufriedenstellen sollte.
Ich werde nicht die Handlung verraten, da die Handlung selber sehr kurz ist und jeder das Stück selber lesen sollte, um geistig zu wachsen.
Nathan der Weise ist auf jeden Fall etwas, was jeder Mensch ein Mal gelesen haben muss. Wunderschön geschrieben mit einer bedeutenden Botschaft: "Die Wahrheit ist verlorengegangen. Lebt in Frieden miteinander, statt euch um etwas zu streiten worauf es keine logische Antwort gibt."
Ich bin mir sicher, dass Nathan der Weise ein zufriedenstellendes letztes Stück Lessings ist. Er ist in der Tat mit einem gewaltigen Knall untergegangen.
September 20, 2016
نمره ی وافعی: دو و نیم
نمایشنامه ای است پیرامون تساهل مذهبی - مشوق دوستی سه آیین ابراهیمی و دست برداشتن از تعصبات. داستان در اورشلیم و در آستان صلاح الدین ایوبی می گذرد، او نماینده ی اسلام داستان است، یک جنگجوی صلیبی نماینده ی مسیحیت و یک تاجر یهودی نماینده ی یهودیت. در پایان داستان آشکار می شود که این سه نفر، سببی یا نسبی، با هم خویشاوندند. اوج داستان را باید در تمثیل انگشتر جادویی و سه پسر جست که گویا اصلش از دکامرون بوکاچو است
برای من آغاز نمایشنامه جذاب نبود اما از اواسط کتاب به بعد، خصوصا بعد از بیان تمثیل انگشتر، داستان جذاب تر شد - در واقع تعلیقش کِشنده بود. اما پایان داستان و فامیل درآمدن همه با هم نه جذاب بود و نه با روحیات زمانه ی ما در مورد عشق و ... سازگار
من چهار صفحه از کتاب را هم با اصل آلمانی اش مقابله کردم و دو نکته را دریافتم؛ یکی اینکه اصل آلمانی جدا فراتر از سطح درک متوسط من است و دوم اینکه در همان سطح فهم من مترجم اشتباهی نداشت. باید منتظر بود کسی که دانشش به زبان آلمانی خوب، بلکه در حد آثار ادبی است، نظرش را در مورد این ترجمه بگوید. اما سوای مطابقت، زبان ترجمه برایم جذاب نبود
نمایشنامه ای است پیرامون تساهل مذهبی - مشوق دوستی سه آیین ابراهیمی و دست برداشتن از تعصبات. داستان در اورشلیم و در آستان صلاح الدین ایوبی می گذرد، او نماینده ی اسلام داستان است، یک جنگجوی صلیبی نماینده ی مسیحیت و یک تاجر یهودی نماینده ی یهودیت. در پایان داستان آشکار می شود که این سه نفر، سببی یا نسبی، با هم خویشاوندند. اوج داستان را باید در تمثیل انگشتر جادویی و سه پسر جست که گویا اصلش از دکامرون بوکاچو است
برای من آغاز نمایشنامه جذاب نبود اما از اواسط کتاب به بعد، خصوصا بعد از بیان تمثیل انگشتر، داستان جذاب تر شد - در واقع تعلیقش کِشنده بود. اما پایان داستان و فامیل درآمدن همه با هم نه جذاب بود و نه با روحیات زمانه ی ما در مورد عشق و ... سازگار
من چهار صفحه از کتاب را هم با اصل آلمانی اش مقابله کردم و دو نکته را دریافتم؛ یکی اینکه اصل آلمانی جدا فراتر از سطح درک متوسط من است و دوم اینکه در همان سطح فهم من مترجم اشتباهی نداشت. باید منتظر بود کسی که دانشش به زبان آلمانی خوب، بلکه در حد آثار ادبی است، نظرش را در مورد این ترجمه بگوید. اما سوای مطابقت، زبان ترجمه برایم جذاب نبود
June 8, 2020
Before realism and naturalism became cardinal virtues of drama in the nineteenth century, one of the core devices of European plays, particularly comedies, was the error or misunderstanding by which resolution was delayed and action held in a state of suspension. Take the countless instances in Shakespeare's comedies in which the primary action of the plot revolves around a simple misunderstanding or case of mistaken identity.
One dramatic purpose of such a device is to expand the scope of action and to put it under a microscope. Delay prolongs transient states of tension, and allows a work to meditate on the precise nature of specific kinds of mistakes. In this sense, I see it as analogous to the function of arias in nineteenth century opera. The action stops moving forward, and we have occasion for characters to analyze and articulate their feelings and motivations, the character of their yearning, their misguided anger, or what have you.
Perhaps the greatest example of this device in all of western literature is found in "Hamlet", which almost entirely occurs in such a state of suspension - Hamlet believes he knows the truth, but is not yet prepared to act. In Shakespeare's hands, this device itself is reflexively thematized as a deeply enigmatic crisis of Hamlet's subjectivity. This is precisely why the principle interpretive question of Hamlet has always been why he waits so long to act. Is he conflicted? Mad? Does he really believe that the ghost may be a deceitful evil spirit? Can he simply not bring himself to play the part of the avenging son?
Drama of the last century or two has generally eschewed devices of all kinds, except for broad entertainments such as the work of Gilbert and Sullivan. An audience today is trained to find contrivances false and distracting, as we are accustomed to action unfolding with something more or less approaching plausibility. In our age, the prolonged case of mistaken identity belongs to sitcoms, and is amusing precisely because it is false.
This, I think, highlights the great distance contemporary audiences are likely to find between themselves and a work like "Nathan the Wise", which, like "Hamlet", could not exist without key contrivances, but which, unlike "Hamlet," employs them naively. Almost by definition, such a drama feels false to the modern audience. Such contrivances are distracting, and confuse us with regards to the characters' motivations. Why, we ask, does that man not simply say such-and-such to clear everything up? Why, because then there would be no play! That is, no occasion to meditate at length on the misunderstandings.
"Nathan the Wise" is, of course, famous largely for the nature of the misunderstandings upon which it dwells. It has two principal messages for us: 1) decency and humanist virtues such wisdom are far more important than confession, creed, or dogma; and 2) the particulars of religious doctrine - particularly with respect to miracles and revelation - are superficial, superstitious accretions which threaten to distract us from the core virtues that all religions share, and which, according to Lessing, are the real heart of religious life.
Lessing creates artificial situations in which he can analyze and dissect the mechanics of human prejudice - specifically, antisemitism - and to analyze what it is, how it spreads, and what human frailties underlie it. At times, his analysis is psychologically revealing and deeply chilling, and the drama becomes engrossing. At other times, and all-too-often, I was put off by its contrivance, which blocked me from immersion and identification, and kept me at arm's length.
One may find a certain admirable (if somewhat unsophisticated) idealism in Lessing's brand of humanism, but I think the problems of religious identity are much deeper and more complicated than his formulation would have it. I do not believe that there is a shared ethical-humanist core to all religions, even if we restrict ourselves to the so-called Religions of the Book. Nor do I believe that the Beatitudes are more fundamental to Christianity than, say, Leviticus, or penance, or celebrating Eucharist, or singing hymns, or Pentecost festivals, or Trinitarian theology. I certainly believe that the simple existential humanism of the Synoptic Gospels is core for Lessing and his circle of poets and philosophes. But what makes them better representatives of what Christianity is "really about" than the tens of millions of less sophisticated believers who surround them?
One can only have limited enthusiasm for the literature of the Enlightenment, which deals with "messages" that are better treated by jurists and philosophers than playwrights. We can enthusiastically applaud the message of "Candide," but are there people who truly love the story? Like most people who read it in college, all I remember from it now is its mockery of Leibniz's "best of all possible worlds" dictum, which he caricatures, and its "one should tend one's garden." It is hard to love "Candide" as a novel because it is didactic, and didactic literature is two-dimensional. Its purpose is to express one point of view, one argument.
I imagine a modern "Nathan the Wise" - it would have to allow for genuine differences in perspective that don't boil down to the fact that many characters are simply wrong, but rather, they inhabit different lifeworlds, and have to coexist in the midst of actual difference. Such a work would more closely resemble Goethe, and this is one reason why Lessing is interesting and notable, but Goethe is great - he was too much an artist to believe a play like "Faust" should have a "message".
Ironically, the character in "Nathan the Wise" who comes closest to being a real villain is led astray by her conviction that hers is the only path and all others must follow it. Is this not Lessing's conviction about his own conclusions?
One dramatic purpose of such a device is to expand the scope of action and to put it under a microscope. Delay prolongs transient states of tension, and allows a work to meditate on the precise nature of specific kinds of mistakes. In this sense, I see it as analogous to the function of arias in nineteenth century opera. The action stops moving forward, and we have occasion for characters to analyze and articulate their feelings and motivations, the character of their yearning, their misguided anger, or what have you.
Perhaps the greatest example of this device in all of western literature is found in "Hamlet", which almost entirely occurs in such a state of suspension - Hamlet believes he knows the truth, but is not yet prepared to act. In Shakespeare's hands, this device itself is reflexively thematized as a deeply enigmatic crisis of Hamlet's subjectivity. This is precisely why the principle interpretive question of Hamlet has always been why he waits so long to act. Is he conflicted? Mad? Does he really believe that the ghost may be a deceitful evil spirit? Can he simply not bring himself to play the part of the avenging son?
Drama of the last century or two has generally eschewed devices of all kinds, except for broad entertainments such as the work of Gilbert and Sullivan. An audience today is trained to find contrivances false and distracting, as we are accustomed to action unfolding with something more or less approaching plausibility. In our age, the prolonged case of mistaken identity belongs to sitcoms, and is amusing precisely because it is false.
This, I think, highlights the great distance contemporary audiences are likely to find between themselves and a work like "Nathan the Wise", which, like "Hamlet", could not exist without key contrivances, but which, unlike "Hamlet," employs them naively. Almost by definition, such a drama feels false to the modern audience. Such contrivances are distracting, and confuse us with regards to the characters' motivations. Why, we ask, does that man not simply say such-and-such to clear everything up? Why, because then there would be no play! That is, no occasion to meditate at length on the misunderstandings.
"Nathan the Wise" is, of course, famous largely for the nature of the misunderstandings upon which it dwells. It has two principal messages for us: 1) decency and humanist virtues such wisdom are far more important than confession, creed, or dogma; and 2) the particulars of religious doctrine - particularly with respect to miracles and revelation - are superficial, superstitious accretions which threaten to distract us from the core virtues that all religions share, and which, according to Lessing, are the real heart of religious life.
Lessing creates artificial situations in which he can analyze and dissect the mechanics of human prejudice - specifically, antisemitism - and to analyze what it is, how it spreads, and what human frailties underlie it. At times, his analysis is psychologically revealing and deeply chilling, and the drama becomes engrossing. At other times, and all-too-often, I was put off by its contrivance, which blocked me from immersion and identification, and kept me at arm's length.
One may find a certain admirable (if somewhat unsophisticated) idealism in Lessing's brand of humanism, but I think the problems of religious identity are much deeper and more complicated than his formulation would have it. I do not believe that there is a shared ethical-humanist core to all religions, even if we restrict ourselves to the so-called Religions of the Book. Nor do I believe that the Beatitudes are more fundamental to Christianity than, say, Leviticus, or penance, or celebrating Eucharist, or singing hymns, or Pentecost festivals, or Trinitarian theology. I certainly believe that the simple existential humanism of the Synoptic Gospels is core for Lessing and his circle of poets and philosophes. But what makes them better representatives of what Christianity is "really about" than the tens of millions of less sophisticated believers who surround them?
One can only have limited enthusiasm for the literature of the Enlightenment, which deals with "messages" that are better treated by jurists and philosophers than playwrights. We can enthusiastically applaud the message of "Candide," but are there people who truly love the story? Like most people who read it in college, all I remember from it now is its mockery of Leibniz's "best of all possible worlds" dictum, which he caricatures, and its "one should tend one's garden." It is hard to love "Candide" as a novel because it is didactic, and didactic literature is two-dimensional. Its purpose is to express one point of view, one argument.
I imagine a modern "Nathan the Wise" - it would have to allow for genuine differences in perspective that don't boil down to the fact that many characters are simply wrong, but rather, they inhabit different lifeworlds, and have to coexist in the midst of actual difference. Such a work would more closely resemble Goethe, and this is one reason why Lessing is interesting and notable, but Goethe is great - he was too much an artist to believe a play like "Faust" should have a "message".
Ironically, the character in "Nathan the Wise" who comes closest to being a real villain is led astray by her conviction that hers is the only path and all others must follow it. Is this not Lessing's conviction about his own conclusions?
November 6, 2015
Ich hab es nicht komplett gelesen. Dafür manche Stellen fünfmal, wenn es das vielleicht relativiert. Ich weiß nicht, wie meine Klausur darüber gelaufen ist, aber ich fand es sooo unfassbar langweilig, eine schlimmere Schullektüre habe ich tatsächlich noch nicht gehabt. (Wilhelm Tell in der achten Klasse hab ich durch Krankheit zum Glück komplett verpasst)
August 9, 2015
Probably the worst book I ever had to read in school.
October 15, 2012
In some ways you could not ask for a better and nobler representative of the Enlightenment than Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in his "Nathan, the Wise" (1779). That is at least my initial, current impression of Lessing. In the face of the atrocious anti-Semitic caricatures and treatment of Jews by professing Christians that would eventually fester into Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, Lessing portrays a Jewish character who is humane and generous. In a way similar to Shakespeare, Lessing gives a more human face to his Jewish character. Unlike Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Lessing goes further in a way and explodes stereotypes of Jews as usurious, greedy money-lenders. However, Lessing is more preachy and didactic than Shakespeare in my opinion and Shakespeare's Jewish villain is portrayed with human motivations which I think goes a long way to undermining prejudice, and perhaps further than Lessing in that the characters are more real. A human villain is better than a didactic good guy for exploding anti-Semitic myths of unearthly cabals, I suspect. Not to stress this point unduly- everyone looks bad in comparison to Shakespeare. I also acknowledge that I am have read Lessing in translation and that may be a factor. In any case, Lessing's characters are not so wooden as to be un-moving. However, how much is Lessing really embracing the Jews? Does he not want to convert them to an Enlightenment view of religion just as much as the true believing Christian wants to convert the Jew to Christianity? Nathan is wise in an Enlightenment-style wisdom, and is that really wise? He is deemed wise because he is not truly a Jew, or a believing Jew anyway. He is culturally a Jew. The good guys, the wise in this story, end up trivializing their professed faiths in words and deeds. For instance, the the Templar, ostensibly a Christian, ends up often repudiating his faith in words, even calling it superstition, and he says in one place that he would become a Muslim to please Saladin. So much for Christ.
I think of Lessing in conjunction with the German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine who converted to Christianity but had an ambiguous relationship to Christianity and Judaism. Whatever the case for him personally, he made some startlingly prescient predictions of Nazi Germany one hundred years before it occurred. In his day he said, "Now they burn books; then they'll burn bodies." But the most interesting of all is a passage which concludes his book Religion and Philosophy in Germany [1832] and which is "one of the most remarkable prophesies in all literature." In it in vivid terms he predicts a play will be played out in Germany and abroad which makes the French Revolution look like child's play and he attributes this to the break up of the staying power of "that talisman, the cross" by the influence of Kantians and Fichteans and philosophers of nature. (See here: http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/quo-he... ).
That is, he indicts Immanuel Kant, the prince of the Enlightenment. One might even surmise he lays the coming "German thunder" at the feet of Lessing as well. Lessing brings into relief the vicious and murderous cruelty of Christian fanatics in the Crusades in his play as part of his argument for an Enlightenment view. (Even if we are in postmodern, or post-postmodern times, much of this Enlightenment view of religions remains intact and is perhaps becoming more virulent). At the same time Lessing observes contradictions between the Christians and their Scriptures, which naturally raises the unintended question whether their belief is the really the point of error or their believing in such a way as not to obey. Heinrich Heine, on the otherhand, sees the void opened up by the Enlightenment neutralization of the Cross in the hearts of the Germans, a void later to be most fully elaborated and hailed by Friedrich Nietzsche. Heine sees that the void will be filled by the unbaptized, unconverted "Beserker rage" of the Germans, as he calls it. Perhaps some of this Teutonic volatileness he refers to is reflected in the Templar's character in the play. The anti-Christs, the little Übermensches, are an ugly host, the prophecy seems to have implied in retrospect, that were summoned by the Enlightenment, or at least made possible by it, though one might add the Holocaust was first made possible by Christian anti-Semitism before the Enlightenment solution to Christian historic sins concatenated the sins into something far more virulent.
Lessing in some ways provides just one of the more eloquent iterations of a doctrine whose most religious version is that many roads lead to salvation and God is like an elephant which blind men grab different parts of and think the whole. This view is held by those who think they see the whole more comprehensively. There is still great contemporaneity to this idea. The condescending doctrine is the wraith's embrace of religion, the deadly kiss which drains the life and meaning from a religion while claiming to defend the religions.
Recha's epithet toward Daja in the play one could say is Lessing's judgment and epithet and is, more broadly, representative of the Enlightenment epithet in general toward religious belief: "She's one of those fanatics who imagine they know the universal and only true path to God!" Implied in Recha's statement of course is a belief in a universal negative of the possibility of there being such a way and it's being known. There is the supreme condescension toward religions which poses itself as an embrace of the religions but finally trivializes all that it embraces.
The Enlightenment seems to me a reincarnation of Greek universalism. All there is is thought to be universal principles and temporal, mundane processes. Belief in a unfolding particularity in history, or an advent in history, is derided as foolishness. The cross of Christ is "foolishness to the Greeks."
I think of Lessing in conjunction with the German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine who converted to Christianity but had an ambiguous relationship to Christianity and Judaism. Whatever the case for him personally, he made some startlingly prescient predictions of Nazi Germany one hundred years before it occurred. In his day he said, "Now they burn books; then they'll burn bodies." But the most interesting of all is a passage which concludes his book Religion and Philosophy in Germany [1832] and which is "one of the most remarkable prophesies in all literature." In it in vivid terms he predicts a play will be played out in Germany and abroad which makes the French Revolution look like child's play and he attributes this to the break up of the staying power of "that talisman, the cross" by the influence of Kantians and Fichteans and philosophers of nature. (See here: http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/quo-he... ).
That is, he indicts Immanuel Kant, the prince of the Enlightenment. One might even surmise he lays the coming "German thunder" at the feet of Lessing as well. Lessing brings into relief the vicious and murderous cruelty of Christian fanatics in the Crusades in his play as part of his argument for an Enlightenment view. (Even if we are in postmodern, or post-postmodern times, much of this Enlightenment view of religions remains intact and is perhaps becoming more virulent). At the same time Lessing observes contradictions between the Christians and their Scriptures, which naturally raises the unintended question whether their belief is the really the point of error or their believing in such a way as not to obey. Heinrich Heine, on the otherhand, sees the void opened up by the Enlightenment neutralization of the Cross in the hearts of the Germans, a void later to be most fully elaborated and hailed by Friedrich Nietzsche. Heine sees that the void will be filled by the unbaptized, unconverted "Beserker rage" of the Germans, as he calls it. Perhaps some of this Teutonic volatileness he refers to is reflected in the Templar's character in the play. The anti-Christs, the little Übermensches, are an ugly host, the prophecy seems to have implied in retrospect, that were summoned by the Enlightenment, or at least made possible by it, though one might add the Holocaust was first made possible by Christian anti-Semitism before the Enlightenment solution to Christian historic sins concatenated the sins into something far more virulent.
Lessing in some ways provides just one of the more eloquent iterations of a doctrine whose most religious version is that many roads lead to salvation and God is like an elephant which blind men grab different parts of and think the whole. This view is held by those who think they see the whole more comprehensively. There is still great contemporaneity to this idea. The condescending doctrine is the wraith's embrace of religion, the deadly kiss which drains the life and meaning from a religion while claiming to defend the religions.
Recha's epithet toward Daja in the play one could say is Lessing's judgment and epithet and is, more broadly, representative of the Enlightenment epithet in general toward religious belief: "She's one of those fanatics who imagine they know the universal and only true path to God!" Implied in Recha's statement of course is a belief in a universal negative of the possibility of there being such a way and it's being known. There is the supreme condescension toward religions which poses itself as an embrace of the religions but finally trivializes all that it embraces.
The Enlightenment seems to me a reincarnation of Greek universalism. All there is is thought to be universal principles and temporal, mundane processes. Belief in a unfolding particularity in history, or an advent in history, is derided as foolishness. The cross of Christ is "foolishness to the Greeks."
July 20, 2020
Words are ‘lifeless signs’ we attach to meanings and concepts. But words are such delicious little playthings to bat around in our minds that they can delude us. Often we end up adhering to the words more than the concepts they represent. Lessing seems to think this pitfall of human intelligence is at the root of much self-inflicted misfortune and suffering. In fact, here he attributes to this penchant of ours, among other things, religious conflict.
The point is summed up in this exchange: A Christian ‘lay-brother’ says to Nathan, a Jew. “You are a Christian, Nathan! Yes, by heaven / You are a Christian! Never was a better!” And Nathan replies to the Christian lay-brother: “What makes of me a Christian in your eyes / Makes you in mine a Jew.”
Here the two characters speak to the essence of their religions over the names of their religions: Their meanings over their words. For Lessing religion is an illustrative way to portray this problem since in his view there is a mystical level where all faiths are the same. This makes it easier for him to show that distorting the truth of things with language -- artificially and arbitrarily -- is a big-ass problem we have. There are more mundane examples of this throughout the play. Constantly how things are labelled differs from their truth. Is your father the one who gave you your genes, or the man who raised you? Are you really the winner of a chess game if someone helped you win? If you were born a Christian but everyone calls you a Jew, which are you?
I would love to see this on stage just for the costumes. Watching a sultan, a knight, a monk, a patriarch, a princess, a dervish and a wiseman bouncing into each other from scene to scene would be like watching a masquerade on ice skates.
The point is summed up in this exchange: A Christian ‘lay-brother’ says to Nathan, a Jew. “You are a Christian, Nathan! Yes, by heaven / You are a Christian! Never was a better!” And Nathan replies to the Christian lay-brother: “What makes of me a Christian in your eyes / Makes you in mine a Jew.”
Here the two characters speak to the essence of their religions over the names of their religions: Their meanings over their words. For Lessing religion is an illustrative way to portray this problem since in his view there is a mystical level where all faiths are the same. This makes it easier for him to show that distorting the truth of things with language -- artificially and arbitrarily -- is a big-ass problem we have. There are more mundane examples of this throughout the play. Constantly how things are labelled differs from their truth. Is your father the one who gave you your genes, or the man who raised you? Are you really the winner of a chess game if someone helped you win? If you were born a Christian but everyone calls you a Jew, which are you?
I would love to see this on stage just for the costumes. Watching a sultan, a knight, a monk, a patriarch, a princess, a dervish and a wiseman bouncing into each other from scene to scene would be like watching a masquerade on ice skates.
January 24, 2022
Nathan der Weise is the title and main character of a five-act drama of ideas by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, published in 1779 and first performed in Berlin on April 14, 1783. The work has as its main themes humanism and the idea of tolerance during the Enlightenment. The Ring Parable in the third act of the drama became particularly famous.
The action takes place at the time of the Third Crusade (1189-1192) during a truce in Jerusalem. When Nathan, a Jew, returns from a business trip, he learns that his foster daughter Recha has been rescued from the fire of his burning house by a young Christian Knight of the Temple. The religious knight, in turn, owes his life to the Muslim ruler of Jerusalem, Sultan Saladin, who has pardoned him as the only one of twenty prisoners because he resembles his late brother Assad. Despite these fortunate circumstances, the rational Nathan is unwilling to suspect a miracle behind this, and also convinces Recha that it is harmful to believe in the work of guardian angels.
This parable of the three rings is considered a key text of the Enlightenment and a pointed formulation of the idea of tolerance. It can already be found in the 73rd novella of Il Novellino (13th century) and in the third story of the First Day of Giovanni Boccaccio's Decamerone. The story of the three indistinguishable rings can be traced back to the 11th century. It was probably invented in the Iberian Peninsula by Sephardic Jews.
Ring Parable: The Ring Parable is about the peaceful coexistence of Christians, Muslims and Jews, the three religions between which war has often been waged and which sometimes contradict each other very strongly. The Ring Parable is about a father who has three sons. Since he dies soon, he always bequeaths his most precious possession, a valuable ring, to the son he likes best. Inheritance follows this pattern for several generations. Until one day a father of the family has two duplicates of the ring made, because he likes all his sons equally and wants to give each a beautiful ring.
Through the rings or sons should be described the three religions mentioned, the message of the ring parable is that these three are all right and should live peacefully side by side without further wars.
Personal opinion: We read this drama in the German high school course (11th or 12th grade) with Mr. Schönewald. I still remember the Ring Parable and Schönewald's references to Boccaccio.
The action takes place at the time of the Third Crusade (1189-1192) during a truce in Jerusalem. When Nathan, a Jew, returns from a business trip, he learns that his foster daughter Recha has been rescued from the fire of his burning house by a young Christian Knight of the Temple. The religious knight, in turn, owes his life to the Muslim ruler of Jerusalem, Sultan Saladin, who has pardoned him as the only one of twenty prisoners because he resembles his late brother Assad. Despite these fortunate circumstances, the rational Nathan is unwilling to suspect a miracle behind this, and also convinces Recha that it is harmful to believe in the work of guardian angels.
This parable of the three rings is considered a key text of the Enlightenment and a pointed formulation of the idea of tolerance. It can already be found in the 73rd novella of Il Novellino (13th century) and in the third story of the First Day of Giovanni Boccaccio's Decamerone. The story of the three indistinguishable rings can be traced back to the 11th century. It was probably invented in the Iberian Peninsula by Sephardic Jews.
Ring Parable: The Ring Parable is about the peaceful coexistence of Christians, Muslims and Jews, the three religions between which war has often been waged and which sometimes contradict each other very strongly. The Ring Parable is about a father who has three sons. Since he dies soon, he always bequeaths his most precious possession, a valuable ring, to the son he likes best. Inheritance follows this pattern for several generations. Until one day a father of the family has two duplicates of the ring made, because he likes all his sons equally and wants to give each a beautiful ring.
Through the rings or sons should be described the three religions mentioned, the message of the ring parable is that these three are all right and should live peacefully side by side without further wars.
Personal opinion: We read this drama in the German high school course (11th or 12th grade) with Mr. Schönewald. I still remember the Ring Parable and Schönewald's references to Boccaccio.
April 12, 2019
این نمایشنامهی تعلیمی، در کنار رسالهی «روشنگری چیست؟» کانت (۱۷۷۴) مهمترین اثر مکتوب قرن ۱۸ آلمان است. سال ۱۷۷۹ چاپ اولش در کمتر از یک سال ۳۰۰۰ نسخه میفروشد. و تا امروز در کنار فاوست، یکی از مهمترین و مشهورترین آثار مکتوب ادبیات آلمان به شمار میآید. جوهرهی کتاب، یکسان و محترم و به یک اندازه معتبر شمردن عمق همهی ادیان ابراهیمی است؛ همان که امروز آن را شمولگرایی مینامیم و متأسفانه به اندازهی انحصارگرایی و پلورالیسم در میان ما (در ایران؟) شناختهشده نیست. تنها میتوانم اظهار تأسف کنم که این نگاه ۲۵۰ سال قبل چنین بلوغی را تجربه کرده و تا امروز در کشورهای آلمانیزبان در مدارس و مقاطع مختلف تحصیلی و تئاترهای دورهای به عنوان یک آگاهی بنیادی و ضروری صدها هزار بار روی صحنه رفته، در حالی که در میان ما نهفقط این اثر خاص، بلکه این اندیشه تا امروز ناشناخته و حتی تصورناپذیر است. و این کتاب تازه پس از ۲۲۱ سال برای اولین بار به فارسی ترجمه شده!
در بخشی از کتاب، داستان پدری روایت میشود که برای تعیین وارث از میان سه پسرش که هر سه برایش به یک اندازه عزیزند، سه انگشتر با عیار یکسان را به آنها میدهد و وصیت میکند هر کس آن انگشتر را در اختیار داشته باشد، وارثش است. بعد از مرگش هر سه پسر علیه دو نفر دیگر اقامهی دعوی میکنند اما در انتها به این نتیجه میرسند که پدر هر سه را به یک اندازه وارث خود قرار داده. «داستان انگشتر» در فرهنگ آلمان یک استعارهی متداول از برابری قدر ادیان ابراهیمی نزد خداوند است.
شاید بتوانیم «داستان انگشتر» را با «داستان منازعت چهار کس جهت انگور» در مثنوی یکی بدانیم؛ گرچه آن داستان در اشارهی به ادیان صراحت ندارد و به نظر میرسد بیشتر صبغهی عرفانی و حتی صلحکلی و انحلالی دارد تا صبغهی کارکردی و اجتماعی و گفتگویی.
در بخشی از کتاب، داستان پدری روایت میشود که برای تعیین وارث از میان سه پسرش که هر سه برایش به یک اندازه عزیزند، سه انگشتر با عیار یکسان را به آنها میدهد و وصیت میکند هر کس آن انگشتر را در اختیار داشته باشد، وارثش است. بعد از مرگش هر سه پسر علیه دو نفر دیگر اقامهی دعوی میکنند اما در انتها به این نتیجه میرسند که پدر هر سه را به یک اندازه وارث خود قرار داده. «داستان انگشتر» در فرهنگ آلمان یک استعارهی متداول از برابری قدر ادیان ابراهیمی نزد خداوند است.
شاید بتوانیم «داستان انگشتر» را با «داستان منازعت چهار کس جهت انگور» در مثنوی یکی بدانیم؛ گرچه آن داستان در اشارهی به ادیان صراحت ندارد و به نظر میرسد بیشتر صبغهی عرفانی و حتی صلحکلی و انحلالی دارد تا صبغهی کارکردی و اجتماعی و گفتگویی.
Read
February 25, 2022this haunts my dreams along with the word 'die Aufklärung'
January 1, 2015
L'illuminismo applicato al rapporto tra le religioni: una proposta sconfitta dalla storia ma di grande attualità
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing è il più noto rappresentante dell'illuminismo tedesco, e Nathan il saggio è la sua opera più famosa, quella che riassume, sotto forma di una commedia teatrale, il pensiero di questo importante letterato della seconda metà del XVIII secolo.
La vita e le opere di Lessing sono bene illustrate nel bel saggio di Emilio Bonfatti che fa da introduzione a questa classica edizione Garzanti, dotata di testo originale a fronte, e ad essa rimando chi volesse approfondire la conoscenza dell'autore e del contesto culturale in cui ha operato.
Basti qui ricordare che Lessing anche in vita fu una sorta di irregolare rispetto ad una cultura dominante, quella tedesca dell'epoca, che – anche a causa della frammentazione politica da un lato e dell'incipiente ruolo egemonico della Prussia dall'altro – diffidava delle idee e delle elaborazioni provenienti da oltre il Reno, considerandole il prodotto di una società profondamente diversa. Di lì a poco lo Sturm und Drang e il Romanticismo avrebbero fatto virare il pensiero tedesco verso lidi affatto diversi, e quindi possiamo dire che l'illuminismo in Germania fu una corrente di pensiero che si affaccia sulla scena culturale per un breve periodo, incarnato da poche figure e che mantiene un ruolo del tutto minoritario (come anche la storia tedesca del XIX e XX secolo si incaricheranno di dimostrare).
Ciò non impedisce, tuttavia, che le opere di Lessing fossero ammirate dai primi romantici, e che buona parte della fortuna dei suoi testi teatrali tra '700 ed '800 sia dovuta all'attenzione che ad essi ha riservato Goethe.
Nathan il saggio viene scritto da Lessing tra il 1778 e il 1779, e sarà l'ultima opera teatrale di un autore che, a dimostrazione della sua irregolarità, ha speso gran parte della vita a polemizzare con i rappresentanti della cultura ufficiale ed accademica, soprattutto rispetto al ruolo che il teatro deve svolgere come strumento di cultura e quindi rispetto a cosa deve trattare e a come deve trattarlo. Anche per questi aspetti, dalla contrapposizione tra teatro francese e inglese al tentativo di Lessing di fondare un teatro tedesco, rimando al saggio di Bonfatti che approfondisce queste tematiche con ben altro spessore di quanto potrei fare io.
Il Nathan, infine, viene scritto da Lessing contemporaneamente alla censura che alcuni suoi saggi di riflessione sulla religione subiscono da parte dell'autorità politica dietro intervento della chiesa luterana, e questo episodio è sicuramente una delle molle che spingono Lessing alla scrittura dell'opera.
Nathan il saggio è infatti definito ufficialmente innanzitutto un inno alla tolleranza religiosa, alla rinuncia alla pretesa, da parte di una fede, ad agire contro le altre in virtù di una convinzione di verità. Secondo me il concetto di tolleranza non sintetizza bene il pensiero di Lessing rispetto alla religione: infatti si tollera qualcosa quando con spirito di condiscendenza si accetta che qualcuno pensi o agisca in modo diverso dal nostro, convinti tuttavia della giustezza e della superiorità dele nostre convinzioni o azioni. In Lessing non c'è tolleranza, ma la proposta di un mutuo riconoscimento tra le religioni, il riconoscimento della reciproca legittimità dovuto al fatto che esse hanno un fondamento comune, tendono ad un fine comune e che le differenze sono dovute ai diversi contesti culturali in cui si sono materialmente sviluppate.
A differenza di molti degli illuministi francesi, Lessing non è ateo, non contrappone ragione e religione. Egli, figlio di un pastore luterano e immerso nella cultura della Germania della riforma, attribuisce alla religione un ruolo fondamentale nella formazione dell'etica, ma contesta che questo ruolo debba essere attribuito ad una sola religione, in quanto tutte, o perlomeno le grandi religioni monoteistiche, hanno come detto lo stesso fondamento teorico e tendono allo stesso fine, distinguendosi solo formalmente.
Il Nathan, infatti, è la storia dell'incontro fra il protagonista, un saggio ebreo, il Saladino e un templare, che attraverso complicate vicende giungeranno a riconoscere di essere parte di un unico progetto di vita in cui ciascuno, mantenendo la propria identità culturale e religiosa, contribuisce alla felicità individuale e collettiva.
Fulcro del messaggio di Lessing sulla legittimità delle diverse religioni è la famosa parabola dei tre anelli, che Nathan racconta al Saladino nel terzo atto, e che l'autore ha mutuato da Boccaccio. Non è un caso, a mio avviso, che lo strenuo propugnatore tedesco dei valori borghesi ricorra ad una novella di quello che può essere considerato il primo intellettuale borghese della storia.
A fare da contraltare a Nathan e al Saladino, alla loro tolleranza, vi è nella commedia la figura del Patriarca, dogmatico ed intollerante, che pretende di applicare alla lettera la legge della sua religione anche quando questa genera male e sofferenza. E' sintomatico, a mio avviso, che l'unica figura negativa della commedia sia rappresentata da un alto gerarca della cristianità, a riprova del fatto che la critica lessinghiana era rivolta in primis all'apparato religioso che egli conosceva meglio.
Troviamo poi nella commedia una esemplificazione dei tratti essenziali dell'elaborazione teorica dell'autore sul teatro, sulle modalità della rappresentazione e sui caratteri dei personaggi. Lessing propugnava – in piena coerenza con i principi illuministici, che il teatro dovesse rappresentare la complessità e anche la contraddittorietà dell'agire umano, che i personaggi dovessero quindi non essere nettamente connotati come solo buoni o solo cattivi, ma dovessero avere comportamenti mediani, come è nella realtà. Per questo preferiva la commedia, in grado di far ridere e piangere alternativamente lo spettatore a seconda delle situazioni, alla tragedia classicistica in cui i ruoli sono nettamente caratterizzati. Nel Nathan, a parte le figure del saggio protagonista e del patriarca, funzionali alla caratterizzazione di due estremi comportamentali e filosofici, tutti gli altri personaggi, compreso il tollerante Saladino, presentano tratti contraddittori, nei quali a volte prevale una visione dei fatti distorta da angolazioni personali e condizionata da pregiudizi.
E' questo un aspetto di grande modernità del testo, ed a mio avviso questa concezione non manichea dei comportamenti umani rappresenta uno dei lasciti culturali più importanti di Lessing.
Lessing, infine, in quanto illuminista è portatore di valori borghesi, ed a fondamento di tali valori, non va dimenticato, c'è la necessità di una società che favorisca gli scambi commerciali, l'accumulazione, la produzione. Questi aspetti emergono, sia pure in maniera apparentemente sotterranea, da una lettura attenta del testo: Nathan, il saggio, è un ricco commerciante, e trae la sua saggezza proprio dalla sua ricchezza. Più volte nel testo il rapporto tra saggezza e ricchezza è messo in evidenza in maniera esplicita. E' proprio grazie a questa ricchezza che viene chiamato a colloquio dal Saladino, che si trova in difficoltà perché sperpera abitualmente il suo denaro ed ha bisogno di un prestito. Oltre che alla tolleranza religiosa, la commedia può quindi essere considerata un inno alla saggia amministrazione dei beni materiali, alla capacità di accumulare ricchezze che inevitabilmente genera saggezza. Nathan è il borghese che, non importando se sia ebreo, cristiano o musulmano, è saggio perché in grado di fare affari, in questo quasi contrapposto al Saladino, aristocratico animato da uno agire che sia pur altamente filantropico – dona il suo denaro ai mendicanti – lo mette in difficoltà nell'amministrazione dello Stato. Come mette in evidenza ancora Bonfatti nella sua introduzione, il rapporto con il denaro è un tratto che distingue nettamente Nathan dal Saladino: io aggiungerei che Lessing, coerentemente con il suo pensiero complessivo, con il suo illuminismo protestante, esalta nella figura di Nathan colui che è in grado di generare valore, anche morale, tramite l'accumulazione di denaro.
Nathan il saggio è ancora oggi un testo teatrale da gustare ma anche su cui riflettere, perché ci fa entrare in un filone della cultura tedesca che si può oggi dire fu indubbiamente sconfitto dalla storia (come del resto furono sconfitti i principi più egalitaristi dell'illuminismo rispetto all'evoluzione concreta del pensiero e della società borghese), e che se avesse avuto modo di contare di più sul palcoscenico del pensiero germanico avrebbe sicuramente potuto contribuire ad una evoluzione storica diversa rispetto ai grandi drammi che attendevano la Germania in particolare nel XX secolo. Ovviamente ci fa anche riflettere sul rapporto che oggi esiste tra mondo occidentale e mondo islamico, rapporto che appare molto più rozzo e manicheo di quanto Lessing ci proponesse oltre ducentocinquanta anni fa: ma questo è abbastanza scontato, visto il regresso culturale che caratterizza a tutti i livelli la nostra epoca.
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing è il più noto rappresentante dell'illuminismo tedesco, e Nathan il saggio è la sua opera più famosa, quella che riassume, sotto forma di una commedia teatrale, il pensiero di questo importante letterato della seconda metà del XVIII secolo.
La vita e le opere di Lessing sono bene illustrate nel bel saggio di Emilio Bonfatti che fa da introduzione a questa classica edizione Garzanti, dotata di testo originale a fronte, e ad essa rimando chi volesse approfondire la conoscenza dell'autore e del contesto culturale in cui ha operato.
Basti qui ricordare che Lessing anche in vita fu una sorta di irregolare rispetto ad una cultura dominante, quella tedesca dell'epoca, che – anche a causa della frammentazione politica da un lato e dell'incipiente ruolo egemonico della Prussia dall'altro – diffidava delle idee e delle elaborazioni provenienti da oltre il Reno, considerandole il prodotto di una società profondamente diversa. Di lì a poco lo Sturm und Drang e il Romanticismo avrebbero fatto virare il pensiero tedesco verso lidi affatto diversi, e quindi possiamo dire che l'illuminismo in Germania fu una corrente di pensiero che si affaccia sulla scena culturale per un breve periodo, incarnato da poche figure e che mantiene un ruolo del tutto minoritario (come anche la storia tedesca del XIX e XX secolo si incaricheranno di dimostrare).
Ciò non impedisce, tuttavia, che le opere di Lessing fossero ammirate dai primi romantici, e che buona parte della fortuna dei suoi testi teatrali tra '700 ed '800 sia dovuta all'attenzione che ad essi ha riservato Goethe.
Nathan il saggio viene scritto da Lessing tra il 1778 e il 1779, e sarà l'ultima opera teatrale di un autore che, a dimostrazione della sua irregolarità, ha speso gran parte della vita a polemizzare con i rappresentanti della cultura ufficiale ed accademica, soprattutto rispetto al ruolo che il teatro deve svolgere come strumento di cultura e quindi rispetto a cosa deve trattare e a come deve trattarlo. Anche per questi aspetti, dalla contrapposizione tra teatro francese e inglese al tentativo di Lessing di fondare un teatro tedesco, rimando al saggio di Bonfatti che approfondisce queste tematiche con ben altro spessore di quanto potrei fare io.
Il Nathan, infine, viene scritto da Lessing contemporaneamente alla censura che alcuni suoi saggi di riflessione sulla religione subiscono da parte dell'autorità politica dietro intervento della chiesa luterana, e questo episodio è sicuramente una delle molle che spingono Lessing alla scrittura dell'opera.
Nathan il saggio è infatti definito ufficialmente innanzitutto un inno alla tolleranza religiosa, alla rinuncia alla pretesa, da parte di una fede, ad agire contro le altre in virtù di una convinzione di verità. Secondo me il concetto di tolleranza non sintetizza bene il pensiero di Lessing rispetto alla religione: infatti si tollera qualcosa quando con spirito di condiscendenza si accetta che qualcuno pensi o agisca in modo diverso dal nostro, convinti tuttavia della giustezza e della superiorità dele nostre convinzioni o azioni. In Lessing non c'è tolleranza, ma la proposta di un mutuo riconoscimento tra le religioni, il riconoscimento della reciproca legittimità dovuto al fatto che esse hanno un fondamento comune, tendono ad un fine comune e che le differenze sono dovute ai diversi contesti culturali in cui si sono materialmente sviluppate.
A differenza di molti degli illuministi francesi, Lessing non è ateo, non contrappone ragione e religione. Egli, figlio di un pastore luterano e immerso nella cultura della Germania della riforma, attribuisce alla religione un ruolo fondamentale nella formazione dell'etica, ma contesta che questo ruolo debba essere attribuito ad una sola religione, in quanto tutte, o perlomeno le grandi religioni monoteistiche, hanno come detto lo stesso fondamento teorico e tendono allo stesso fine, distinguendosi solo formalmente.
Il Nathan, infatti, è la storia dell'incontro fra il protagonista, un saggio ebreo, il Saladino e un templare, che attraverso complicate vicende giungeranno a riconoscere di essere parte di un unico progetto di vita in cui ciascuno, mantenendo la propria identità culturale e religiosa, contribuisce alla felicità individuale e collettiva.
Fulcro del messaggio di Lessing sulla legittimità delle diverse religioni è la famosa parabola dei tre anelli, che Nathan racconta al Saladino nel terzo atto, e che l'autore ha mutuato da Boccaccio. Non è un caso, a mio avviso, che lo strenuo propugnatore tedesco dei valori borghesi ricorra ad una novella di quello che può essere considerato il primo intellettuale borghese della storia.
A fare da contraltare a Nathan e al Saladino, alla loro tolleranza, vi è nella commedia la figura del Patriarca, dogmatico ed intollerante, che pretende di applicare alla lettera la legge della sua religione anche quando questa genera male e sofferenza. E' sintomatico, a mio avviso, che l'unica figura negativa della commedia sia rappresentata da un alto gerarca della cristianità, a riprova del fatto che la critica lessinghiana era rivolta in primis all'apparato religioso che egli conosceva meglio.
Troviamo poi nella commedia una esemplificazione dei tratti essenziali dell'elaborazione teorica dell'autore sul teatro, sulle modalità della rappresentazione e sui caratteri dei personaggi. Lessing propugnava – in piena coerenza con i principi illuministici, che il teatro dovesse rappresentare la complessità e anche la contraddittorietà dell'agire umano, che i personaggi dovessero quindi non essere nettamente connotati come solo buoni o solo cattivi, ma dovessero avere comportamenti mediani, come è nella realtà. Per questo preferiva la commedia, in grado di far ridere e piangere alternativamente lo spettatore a seconda delle situazioni, alla tragedia classicistica in cui i ruoli sono nettamente caratterizzati. Nel Nathan, a parte le figure del saggio protagonista e del patriarca, funzionali alla caratterizzazione di due estremi comportamentali e filosofici, tutti gli altri personaggi, compreso il tollerante Saladino, presentano tratti contraddittori, nei quali a volte prevale una visione dei fatti distorta da angolazioni personali e condizionata da pregiudizi.
E' questo un aspetto di grande modernità del testo, ed a mio avviso questa concezione non manichea dei comportamenti umani rappresenta uno dei lasciti culturali più importanti di Lessing.
Lessing, infine, in quanto illuminista è portatore di valori borghesi, ed a fondamento di tali valori, non va dimenticato, c'è la necessità di una società che favorisca gli scambi commerciali, l'accumulazione, la produzione. Questi aspetti emergono, sia pure in maniera apparentemente sotterranea, da una lettura attenta del testo: Nathan, il saggio, è un ricco commerciante, e trae la sua saggezza proprio dalla sua ricchezza. Più volte nel testo il rapporto tra saggezza e ricchezza è messo in evidenza in maniera esplicita. E' proprio grazie a questa ricchezza che viene chiamato a colloquio dal Saladino, che si trova in difficoltà perché sperpera abitualmente il suo denaro ed ha bisogno di un prestito. Oltre che alla tolleranza religiosa, la commedia può quindi essere considerata un inno alla saggia amministrazione dei beni materiali, alla capacità di accumulare ricchezze che inevitabilmente genera saggezza. Nathan è il borghese che, non importando se sia ebreo, cristiano o musulmano, è saggio perché in grado di fare affari, in questo quasi contrapposto al Saladino, aristocratico animato da uno agire che sia pur altamente filantropico – dona il suo denaro ai mendicanti – lo mette in difficoltà nell'amministrazione dello Stato. Come mette in evidenza ancora Bonfatti nella sua introduzione, il rapporto con il denaro è un tratto che distingue nettamente Nathan dal Saladino: io aggiungerei che Lessing, coerentemente con il suo pensiero complessivo, con il suo illuminismo protestante, esalta nella figura di Nathan colui che è in grado di generare valore, anche morale, tramite l'accumulazione di denaro.
Nathan il saggio è ancora oggi un testo teatrale da gustare ma anche su cui riflettere, perché ci fa entrare in un filone della cultura tedesca che si può oggi dire fu indubbiamente sconfitto dalla storia (come del resto furono sconfitti i principi più egalitaristi dell'illuminismo rispetto all'evoluzione concreta del pensiero e della società borghese), e che se avesse avuto modo di contare di più sul palcoscenico del pensiero germanico avrebbe sicuramente potuto contribuire ad una evoluzione storica diversa rispetto ai grandi drammi che attendevano la Germania in particolare nel XX secolo. Ovviamente ci fa anche riflettere sul rapporto che oggi esiste tra mondo occidentale e mondo islamico, rapporto che appare molto più rozzo e manicheo di quanto Lessing ci proponesse oltre ducentocinquanta anni fa: ma questo è abbastanza scontato, visto il regresso culturale che caratterizza a tutti i livelli la nostra epoca.
October 25, 2020
Gut für ne Schullektüre
Displaying 1 - 29 of 565 reviews