Fools in Ludwig Tieck’s Der gestiefelte Kater

Serena Spazzarini

The aim of this essay is to consider how Tieck uses the Narrheit concept in his work Der gestiefelte Kater as a key to interpretation. In doing so， it is also possible to grasp the semantic variability and the multiple layering of the Narr concept. Tieck calls some of the heroes of his comedy Narr， and through these Narren—figures intended to describe some weak points of the society of his time—he intends to reflect on the correctness of the order in late eighteenth-century society.

Keywords： Der gestiefelte Kater， fool， Narrheit， Sebastian Brant

Introduction

Theatre played an important role in Tiecks life since he was a young boy. It was one of the literary genres he enjoyed the most， and his favourite means of spreading his ideas to a wide audience. This was particularly evident from his biography， which was published just two years after his death and written by his friend Rudolf K？pke. As a child， Tieck was introduced to theatrical performances by his father. This helped him to contrast his mothers rigorous education. She was a devoted woman and Tieck was educated in religious texts （K？pke， 1855， pp. 3-14）.

Tiecks meeting with the Kapellmeister， composer， and writer Johann Friedrich Reichardt （1752-1814）， which took place in 1788 （when Tieck was fifteen）， certainly contributed to increasing that interest. Reichardt grafted into Tiecks creativity an even more acute and disenchanted attention to the historical-political events of the time， which would have given its best fruits in the pungent irony of his future dramatic production （Paulin， 2011， pp. 14-17）.

While Reichardt expressed his sympathy for the liberal movements that emerged with the French Revolution， the young Tieck learned to develop a critical reflection on the historical-political events of his time. This led the young Tieck to focus on the tyranny of rulers which he considered unacceptable at the time as he stingingly alludes in later works， and in the Kater. Tiecks mindset developed in a geo-politically fragmented context which was based on different forms of government and where political particularism and abuses of power by the rulers were not the exception. During his university time， spent between Halle， G？ttingen and Erlangen， Tieck indulged his ardent desire to read， devouring the texts of an arsenal of authors of different languages， cultures， and historical periods， from which he would have been able to draw inspiration to compose his works， and which he would use for his countless translations （Thalmann， 1955， pp. 96-97）.

Once again， one encounter marked his intellectual and creative growth， this time with the publisher Friedrich Nicolai， where Tieck carried out “his training as a writer” （Tieck， 1949， p. 9）. On the one hand， the elderly， inflexible enlightened Nicolai must have contributed to refine the style of the young Romantic， as Mittner put it （1978， pp. 759-760）. Tieck learned from him to denounce inequalities through a refined use of satire， contradictory ideas， and attitudes of his time， as it can be seen in his satirical novel Sebaldus Nothaker. However， the collaboration with Nicolai seems to have constituted the pretext for the young Tieck to believe that art should not indulge the taste of an audience who wanted to be reflected in the theatrical works they took part in， and for the same reason he broke up with the Berlin publisher.

The collaboration with Nicolai had introduced Tieck into a publishing world in which the young writer had to learn to conform to the taste of his audience in terms of contents and style， as happened when he began to collaborate on the Straussfedern collection. After publishing Ritter Blaubart in 1796 and Der gestiefelte Kater in 1797， the publisher did not tolerate Tiecks eccentric style and refused to publish Die verkehrte Welt in his Straussfedern the following year. This work was harshly criticized by Nicolai. In a letter addressed to Tieck on 19 December 1797， Nicolai argued that the text did not seem to meet the taste of some of the audience （Holtei， 1864， pp. 58-62）.

During the years in which Tieck wrote the Kater and then with the Verkehrte Welt， he clearly criticised the idea of indulging the taste of a bourgeois audience interested mainly in seeing themselves reflected in the plays. In fact， he even highlighted how some viewers judgments on the actors interpretation on stage could enjoy a disproportionate resonance and prestige， like the speech by the Court Councilor Karl August B？ttiger when August Ifflands fourteen performances were staged at the Weimar theatre in April 1796 （B？ttiger， 1796）.

Tieck mentioned this issue in his Schriften （Tieck， 1828， pp. XV-XVI）， where he expressed his amazement at the importance given by the Councillor to such scenic devices， promoted as the essence of art. Kater did not intend to fuel an argument or criticism or be satirical. Tieck certainly wanted to focus on the power of judgement in affecting the playwrights choices. Through the characterization of B？tticher， as one of the Stücks spectators is allusively called， Tieck ridiculed the typical judgments about the actors staging and interpretation of the time.

Although it is evident that the adaptation of this fable also affected the taste of an audience who appreciated sentimental family dramas （i.e. Iffland and Kotzebue）， the predictability and prosaicism of contrived “romantic”atmospheres represent a good-natured parody. Years later， when Tieck was far from the enthusiasm and romantic ideals， he did not fail to include the Kater within the Phantasus. This version， however， was plenty of additions and had a playful tone. It is not surprising that the first performance of Kater took place only several years after its publication， when Tieck was in Berlin at the court of Frederick William IV， who promoted this performance which was staged on April 20， 1844 （Tieck， 1852， p. 377）. This work was particularly innovative， as August Wilhelm Schlegel （1828， p. 315） had immediately understood， mainly because it is based on a new theatrical technique， and it breaks with the fourth wall.

Der gestiefelte Kater uses the Narrheit concept as a key to interpretation. Tieck lays bare some dynamics of power of his time through parody： acceptance to please the taste of the audience （according to some writers of his time）， the servility of those Gelehrte who were willing to exchange freedom of thought and speech for good board and lodging at a court， and subjection due to a capricious and strong-willed ruler. Tiecks work is involved in a centuries-old tradition， by virtue of which it is possible to grasp the semantic variability and the multiple layering of the Narr concept.

Fools and Foolishness in the Kater

Tiecks Kater and Sebastian Brants Narrenschiff have a common ground. In these two texts， both Brant and Tieck denounce a power that the press was increasingly gaining. At the time of Brant， most were concerned for a new， growing distribution of books， due to the revolutionary Gutenberg movable-type printing press， while the comedy of Tieck became rather the means for a new concern linked to the ever-greater users decision-making， and which risked affecting or determine the fortune of a work and his or her writer.

The first chapter of the Narrenschiff bears the significant title Von unnützen Büchern： here Brant criticises the customs and society of the time using the voice of a fool， the only one that before Reformation could lawfully allow him to sharpen the cutting edge of his satire. Through the voice of the Büchernarr， Brant outlines the image of a “book fool” who is sitting at the bow of a ship before immoral sinners and corrupt transgressors who follow him.

From the very first pages the reader understands from Tiecks ironic tone how much a Dichter was influenced by the demands of the audience. Using a form of “theatre within the theatre”， the comedy opens with a prologue in which a group of spectators openly expresses their expectations concerning the performance they are about to observe. These spectators are obviously accustomed to regularly attending the theatre as an audience， careful connoisseurs of what was being staged， but not for this reason valid judges of the play. While boasting to be expert theatre judges， after having shown scepticism about the imagery of the Stück， they limit themselves to claiming that the Dichter should abide by established rules， known and shared rules of “good taste”. In fact， this late eighteenth-century audience， which was a well-marked caricature of a consumer audience rather than of actual theatre goers， seem to be demanding in virtue of being paid：

Fischer： Aber wollen wir uns denn wirklich solch Zeug vorspielen lassen？ Wir sind zwar aus Neugier hergekommen， aber wir haben doch Geschmack. […]

Schlosser： Aber man sollte doch das Stück erst zu Ende spielen lassen， denn man hat doch immer auf jeden Fall sein Geld gegeben， hernach wollen wir pochen， da？ man es vor der Tür h？rt.

Alle： Nein， jetzt， jetzt， - der Geschmack - die Regeln - die Kunst - alles geht sonst zugrunde. […]

Müller： Kein Stück - wir wollen kein Stück - wir wollen guten Geschmack.

Alle： Geschmack！ Geschmack. （Tieck， 1797， pp. 10-11）

The Dichter is also presented as a caricature because he hears the complaints of the spectators from the wings and goes out on stage to win their favour. Accused of not having been educated at all， he apologizes for his audacity， justifies his artistic choices， and moves the audience to indulgent benevolence. He uses pompous phrases full of rhetoric and shows off an obsequious and reverent attitude. In fact， the farcical component of the prologue reaches its peak when the poet obtains the expected result at the end of his speech. The audience hears voices shouting ‘da capo the gallery to hear his spectacular speech once again：

Dichter： Verg？nnen Sie mir nur eine Minute Geh？r， ehe Sie mich verdammen. Ich wei？， da？ ein verehrungswürdiges Publikum den Dichter richten mu？， da？ von Ihnen keine Appellation statt findet， aber ich kenne die Gerechtigkeitsliebe eines verehrungswürdigen Publikums， da？ es mich nicht von einer Bahn zurückschrecken wird， wo ich seiner gütigen Leitung so sehr bedarf.

Fischer： Er spricht nicht übel.

Müller： Er ist h？flicher， als ich dachte.

Schlosser： Er hat doch Respekt vor dem Publikum.

Dichter： Ich sch？me mich， die Eingebung meiner Muse so erleuchteten Richtern vorzuführen， und nur die Kunst unsrer Schauspieler tr？stet mich noch einigerma？en， sonst würde ich ohne weitere Umst？nde in Verzweiflung versinken.

Fischer： Er dauert mich.

Müller： Ein guter Kerl！

Dichter： Als ich Dero Pochen vernahm， - noch nie hat mich etwas derma？en erschreckt， ich bin noch bleich und zittre， und begreife selbst nicht， wie ich zu der Kühnheit komme， so vor Ihnen zu erscheinen.

Leutner： So klatscht doch！

（Alle klatschen.）

Dichter： Ich wollte einen Versuch machen， durch Laune， wenn sie mir gelungen ist， durch Heiterkeit， durch wirkliche Possen zu belustigen， da uns unsre neusten Stücke so selten zum Lachen Gelegenheit geben.

Müller： Das ist auch wahr.

Leutner： Er hat recht - der Mann.

Schlosser： Bravo！ bravo！

Alle： Bravo！ bravo！ （Sie klatschen.）

Dichter： M？gen Sie， Verehrungswürdige， jetzt entscheiden， ob mein Versuch nicht ganz zu verwerfen sei， - mit Zittern zieh ich mich zurück und das Stück wird seinen Anfang nehmen. （Er verbeugt sich sehr ehrerbietig und geht hinter den Vorhang.）

Alle： Bravo！ bravo！

Stimme von der Galerie： Da capo！ （Tieck， 1797， pp. 13-15）

It is therefore not surprising that this Dichter， who bows with respect to the audience and to his changing“taste” will be defined as Narr by the spectators themselves. This happens when he appears on stage for the second time to discuss his art with them again. On this occasion Tieck shows the Dichter without any control of his staging and who drags the musician to the fore with the hope that he can calm the minds of those there. He is confused and hesitant， then he interrupts the development of his play and allows that the Bes？nftiger plays a scene from Mozarts Zauberfl？te. In this upside-down world， the audience sets the rules and the Dichter has no courage to break free from these rules and is unable to assert his originality or freedom as an intellectual. Thus， he fails because he allows his role to be usurped.

Der Dichter k？mmt bestürzt aufs Theater： Meine Herren - verehrungswürdigstes Publikum - nur einige Worte.

Im Parterre： Still！ still！ der Narr will sprechen.

Dichter： Ums Himmelswillen， machen Sie mir die Schande nicht， der Akt ist ja gleich zu Ende. - Sehn Sie doch nur， der K？nig ist ja auch wieder zur Ruhe， nehmen Sie an dieser gro？en Seele ein Beispiel， die gewi？ mehr Ursache hatte， verdrü？lich zu sein， als Sie.

Fischer： Mehr als wir？ […]

Dichter： Einige Stimmen sind mir doch noch günstig， lassen Sie sich aus Mitleid mein armes Stück gefallen， ein Schelm giebts besser， als ers hat； es ist auch bald zu Ende. - Ich bin so verwirrt und erschrocken， da？ ich Ihnen nichts anders zu sagen wei？.

Alle： Wir wollen nichts h？ren， nichts wissen.

Dichter， rei？t wüthend den Bes？nftiger hervor： Der K？nig ist bes？nftigt， bes？nftige nun auch diese tobende Flut， wenn du es kannst！ （Er stürzt au？er sich ab.）

Der Bes？nftiger spielt auf den Klocken， das Pochen schl？gt dazu den Takt； - er winkt， Affen und B？ren erscheinen und tanzen freundlich um ihn herum： Adler und andre V？gel， ein Adler sitzt Hinzen auf dem Kopfe， der in der gr？？ten Angst ist， zwei Elephanten， zwei L？wen. （Tieck， 1797， pp. 85-87）

In this context， it is only Hanswurst， the Hofnarr， who allows himself to unmask the Truth. In fact， Hanswurt imposes himself on the scene by recalling his ban from the German scene by Gottsched， and thereby denouncing his expulsion from a pre-existing moral world but he also demonstrates freedom of thought and reasonableness in judgement. Hanswurst， who explicitly affirms his own German cultural affiliation， is the only Narr that fully recognizes himself in the epithet， because he is brave enough to be fool. He is the type of the fool who plays the role of mirror of human nature： he is a fool who is lucidly aware of his farcical role and who does not hesitate to mirror it to his fellow men so that they can recognize themselves in it.

When Hanswurt argues with the Hofgelehrter （Leander） and is called upon to judge the value of the Stück， Tieck provocatively uses the voice of the fool to redefine the coordinates of an ordered world. In this world the audience should not take part in the performance - as instead it does in the Kater， insofar as it claims to dictate the rules to the Dichter—but exists as it is， the final user of the staging （Tieck， 1797， pp. 110-112）. Making use of a refined use of satire， in a perspective of reversed mirrors and through the words of the king， who places Hanswurt and Leander on the same level， Tieck returns， precisely through the image of this hired Narr， that is the restored image of social order：

Leander： Der Narr， mein K？nig， kann so etwas nie begreifen， mich wundert überhaupt， da？ sich Ihro Majest？t noch von seinen geschmacklosen Einf？llen belustigen lassen. […] Man sollte ihn geradezu fortjagen， denn er bringt Ihren Geschmack nur in einen üblen Ruf.

K？nig， wirft ihm das Zepter an den Kopf： Herr Naseweis von Gelehrter！ was untersteht Er sich denn？ Der Narr gef？llt mir， mir， seinem K？nige， und wenn ich Geschmack an ihm finde， wie kann Er sich unterstehn zu sagen， da？ der Mann abgeschmackt w？re？ Er ist Hofgelehrter und der andre Hofnarr， Ihr steht in einem Gehalte， der einzige Unterschied ist， da？ er an dem kleinen Tischchen mit dem fremden J？ger speist. Der Narr macht dummes Zeug bei Tische und Er führt einen vernünftigen Diskurs bei Tische， beides soll mir nur die Zeit vertreiben und machen， da？ mir das Essen gut schmeckt： wo ist denn nun der gro？e Unterschied？ - Und dann tuts einem auch wohl， einen Narren zu sehn， der dummer ist， als wir， der nicht die Gaben hat， man fühlt sich danndoch mehr und ist dankbar gegen den Himmel： schon deswegen ist mir ein Dummkopf ein angenehmer Umgang. （Tieck， 1797， pp. 81-82）

The cultured man of the court—who represents the opposite of the Narr of the court—suffers the arrogance and humiliation by the king without defending the Truth， out of opportunism and cowardice. He also represents the type of subjugated Gelehrter， who betrays the Truth to enjoy the comforts at court.

This happens， for example， when Leander is greeted by the princess and talks with her about literary matters. In the presence of the Princess—an enthusiastic amateur who pretends to compose poetic verses or to write ghost stories without any preparation—Leander delves into disproportionate and pandering praises.

This also happens when Leander is called into the hall by the king to animate the banquet with a“vernünftiges Tischgespr？ch” （Tieck， 1797， p. 78）. Rather than nourishing the spirit of the diners with cultured arguments， the Gespr？ch immediately betrays the asymmetrical relationship between the interlocutors. The king is fascinated by the scientific advances of the time and surprised at the abilities of the human mind， but he shamelessly violates the “logic of conversation”， taking his pre-eminent role as master. With a threatening tone， he forces his cultured man to answer the questions he asks to him. However， in front of the diners the king can easily exhibit a capacity for reasoning—which he does not possess—thanks to the presence of Leander， who distorts data and notions upon command.

The king is thus associated with the fool， and this happens from his first entry on the scene， when he defines himself as “ein rechter alter Narr” （Tieck， 1797， p. 34）. As already in Brants “divine satire”， the fools sinned of political and social usurpation—so much that the stultitiae were considered above all as moral deficiencies. A little more than three centuries later， Tieck does not exempt himself from associating the concept of Narr to his king in Kater. He is an unlikely character outside the historical-literary context of the time in which Tieck lived and therefore functional with respect to his intent to criticize the spirit of his time. Ruling with indifference towards the destinies and living conditions of his subjects， the kings characterization is too defined to free himself from recent revolutionary events. Popanz， the evil and ruthless tyrant who will fall into the hands of the penniless Gottlieb thanks to the cunning of Hinze is defined as “n？rrisch” too. The king is capricious and strong-willed and his satisfaction at the table shows his greatest concern： he deems the rabbit received as a gift from the Count of Carabas worthy of being noted by the court historian as matter of his/their Weltgeschichte（Tieck， 1797， p. 73）. Doing so， the book fails to be an instrument for the transmission of （true） knowledge. As Myers aptly argues， “for the king […] knowledge is a means to enjoyment and has nothing to do with the real world， let alone the community， […]. Enlightenment in this court is thus a source for fulfilling desires， just as art had been reduced to taste in the case of the audience” （Myers， 2004， p. 69）.

Conclusions

In this “upside down” world， Narrheit seems to represent a trait that is almost collectively and transversally shared， through which Tieck playfully meditates on the dangers of German society at the end of the 18th century. Tieck calls some of the heroes of his comedy Narr， places them within a centuries-old tradition， participating in that fundamental polyvalence， and semantic variation， of the theme of “foolishness”. Precisely through these Narren—figures intended to describe some weak points of the society of his time—Tieck intends to reflect on the correctness of the order in late eighteenth-century society. Faced with these “fools”， the reader is thus confronted with a world that could be in danger because it appears to be “verkehrt”， that is， upside-down， in which creative freedom and freedom of thought should be protected from the intrusiveness of state institutions， human mediocrity and the intrusion of potentially destructive forces.

References

B？ttiger， C. A. （1796）. Entwickelung des Ifflandischen Spiels in vierzehn Darstellungen auf dem Weimarischen Hoftheater im Aprilmonath 1796. Leipzig： Bey G. J. G？schen.

Holtei， K. Von. （1864）. Briefe an Ludwig Tieck. Ausgew？hlt und herausgegeben von Karl von Holtei. Dritter Band. Breslau： Verlag von Eduard Trewendt.

K？pke， R. （1855）. Erinnerungen aus dem Leben des Dichters nach dessen mündlichen und schriftlichen Mittheilungen von Rudolf K？pke. Erster Theil. Leipzig： F.A. Brockhaus.

Mittner， L. （1978）. Storia della letteratura tedesca. Dal pietismo al romanticismo. Torino： Einaudi.

Myers， P. （2004）. Ludwig Tiecks Der gestiefelte Kater： Striking the Balance Between the Idealistic and the Fantastic. Monatshefte， 96（1）， 62-77.

Paulin， R. （2011）. Tieck in Berlin. In C. Stockinger & S. Scherer （Eds.）， Ludwig Tieck. Leben， Werk， Wirkung （13-22）. Berlin/Boston： Walter De Gruyter.

Schlegel， A. W. （1828）. Kritische Schriften. Erster Theil. Berlin： Bei G. Reimer.

Thalmann， M. （1955）. Ludwig Tieck. Der romantische Weltmann aus Berlin. Bern： Francke Verlag.

Tieck， L. （1797）. Der gestiefelte Kater， ein Kinderm？rchen in drey Akten mit Zwischenspielen， einem Prologe und Epiloge von Peter Leberecht. Berlin： Bey Carl August Nicolai.

Tieck， L. （1828）. Ludwig Tiecks Schriften. Erster Band. In zwei Theilen. Berlin： Bey G. Reimer.

Tieck， L. （1852）. Dramaturgische Bl？tter zum ersten Male vollst？ndig gesammelt von Ludwig Tieck. Zweiter Theil. Leipzig： F.A. Brockhaus. （Photomechanischer Nachdruck 1974. Berlin/New York： Walter De Gruyter）

Tieck， L. （1949）. Il gatto con gli stivali. Versione， introduzione e note a cura di E. Maddalena. Firenze： G.C. Sansoni.