Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Hill, David

Titel

Claudine von Villa Bella and the Publication of “Nähe des Geliebten”

Ist Teil von

• Goethe yearbook, 2015, Vol.22 (1), p.189-202

Ort / Verlag

Rochester: North American Goethe Society

Erscheinungsjahr

2015

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Literature Online (LION)

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The manuscript of the score in Berlin allows us to reconstruct the way in which the sequence of musical numbers was adjusted and new ones were added for this production, but we do not currently possess a copy of the prose version of the dialogue that had to be adopted.13 When Claudine was then performed in Weimar on May 30, 1795, another prose version of the dialogue was prepared, this time by Vulpius, and there were further adjustments to the musical numbers, including the insertion of "Ich denke dein," and this version too must be considered, in a sense, to have received Goethe's imprimatur inasmuch as he was responsible for the rehearsals (Mommsen, Die Entstehung, 2:214) and therefore the production as a whole, despite the fact that he was evidently having to make concessions to the practical imperatives of performance. Goethe studied these conventions with Kayser in Rome and tried to follow them when he rewrote the Schauspiel mit Gesang of 1775 into the Singspiel of 1788,17 but the practicalities of performance in both 1789 and 1795 showed that he had made some miscalculations that resulted in the need for last-minute adjustments-no doubt in negotiation with, and in deference to, the singers involved. [...]there was a problem in the distribution of material between Pedro and Rugantino, so that for the 1789 production Reichardt had to take four and a half of Rugantino's spoken lines and extend them into a fullblown aria, "Wie lieb ich die Schöne" (How I love this beautiful woman!).18 Something similar happened in the case of Lucinde, to whom Goethe had given considerably less sung material and correspondingly less emphasis than Claudine. [...]the practicalities of theatrical production in 1789 and 1795, notably the need to take account of the skills and expectations of the performers, meant that changes had to be made to the printed version of 1788, but one should hesitate before therefore declaring the 1789 and 1795 versions as inadequate, compromised realizations of the pure, authentic intentions of the author of the 1788 version. Since Vulpius's payment was made in 1794, it is clear that his version was not the one used for the Berlin performances of 178914.