Lincoln Snyder

A Study of Dialect Characters from Luise Gottsched’s Die Pietisterey im Fischbein-Rockeand Jakob Lenz’ Die Soldaten

Lincoln Snyder

December, 20 2024

How does an actor get away with stumbling onto the stage of the Staatsoper, breaking the fourth wall, mocking politicians, and not singing a note? He does so by having the audacity to speak Viennese in Vienna. Die Fledermaus is one of the few operettas to play in the Staatsoper, and the character of the drunken jailer Frosch is just one figure in a long line of characters in the tradition of dialect comedy on the German stage. Within the realm of dialect performance, the way the characters present varies greatly; not all dialects are treated equally. I will consider this variation by comparing the dialect characters of Frau Ehrlichin from Luise Adelgunde Victorie Gottsched’s Die Pietisterey im Fischbein-Rocke, and Aaron in Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz’ Die Soldaten. A comparison of these characters demonstrates that the function of dialect on the stage depends on which dialect is used, and who is using it. Characters like Ehrlichin can use their vernacular to connect to the audience, demonstrate authenticity, and speak truth to power, driving the joke without being the butt of it. As a Jew speaking mock Yiddish, Aaron does not enjoy these same privileges.

German philosopher Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700-1766) authored a philosophy of theater^[1] that stood in contrast to the low entertainment of his time. The specific target of his disdain was “Hanswurst,” the catch-all name for a vulgar comic archetype popular on the German stage of the 17th and 18th centuries. The character’s career came under threat when Karoline Frederike Neuber’s acting troupe, under watchful collaboration with Gottsched, banned the fool at the gates of the city of Leipzig in 1737 (Jürs-Munby, p. 124). Gottsched had moral goals for the theater, and the lusty jester ran afoul of Gottsched’s vision for a theater not only unified in time, place and action, but also one which supports the virtuous viewer in striving for chastity. Rather than corrupt, comic theater could help “bring the senses under the obedience of reason” (Jürs-Munby, p. 126). Gottsched’s bright line was that the viewer should no longer laugh with a comic figure, but rather about the wicked action of a person, as well as himself (Jürs-Munby, p. 128). This theory quickly ran into two potential challenges in his wife Luise Adelgunde Victorie Gottsched’s^[2] work: the character of Frau Ehrlichin in Die Pietisterey im Fischbein-Rocke; and the antisemitism reflected in the dialogue of some of her plays.

Frau Ehrlichin

Published anonymously in 1736 (Gottsched 1736, p. 149), Gottschedin’s Die Pietisterey im Fischbein-Rocke was a highbrow comedy of manners, but did feature a notable dialect character, Frau Ehrlichin. In her only scene in the play, Ehrlichin storms the stage and sows confusion by declaiming in dialect (in this case, Danziger Low German).^[3] She uses blunt sexual language, which is somewhat masked by the dialect. Does this appearance break Gottsched’s rules? Pietisterey maintains unity of time, place, and action, and in the case of Ehrlichin, the humor involves her forthright assault on the villain Scheinfromm’s wickedness. Note her use of language in these lines:

FRAU EHRLICHEN. Gründlich? Ja freylich! mehr, als’t my löv es! Du Schelm! Eck scheck dy myn Kind, dat du’t en der Gottseeligkeit onderrechten sollst; on nich en der Gottlosigkeit! Wat Düwel wöllstu von dem Meeken hebben? Wöllstu Hooren hebben; so seek dy welcke: Op der Lestadie loopen genoog herümmer; aber vertobb my nich myn Kind. (Gottsched, L.A.V., p. 99).

And:

FRAU EHRLICHEN. Ja! klook kosen;^[4] nuscht dohn! Wat Düvel sy jy denn vor Rackertüg? Eck glow, jy sennt von dat pietistsche Wievervolck, de seck en de Reelgon mengen. Aber jy verstahn so veel darvon, als de Koh vom nygen Door. Hör jy dat? Domme Düvels sy jy! Dat segg eck ju! Eck sy so klook, als jy: Awer eck gloow, de Wiewer, de seck en solche Sachen mengen, de eenen nuscht angahn, onn de se nich verstahn, dat send Kalwes-Köppe! On dat sy jy ook! (Gottsched, L.A.V., p. 100)

Ehrlichin delivers substantial lines, and she is speaking actual Danziger Low German, authentic and syntactically correct. Her use of the language does not diminish her dignity in this scene; she is forcefully advocating for herself, using her native tongue to speak truth to power. Her speaking name, Ehrlichin, refers to her moral state, and not her ethnicity. Although she only has one scene, Gottschedin writes her as a person and not a plot device, even if it means bumping up against her husband’s principles of theater. As Susanne Kord notes in Little Detours, “the most unusual aspect of Luise Gottsched’s characterization technique, and the one that clearly corresponds least to her husband’s dramatic rules, is the inclusion of complex characters in most of her comedies: characters who cannot, as per her husband’s recommendation, be reduced to a single characteristic” (Kord, p. 74).^[5] 

Gottschedin, the rules, and antisemitism

With regards to prejudice, Gottschedin’s record is not spotless. One dark aspect of Gottschedin’s characters’ authenticity is the casual anti-semitism that many of them express in her plays. As Alison Scott ^[a]notes in her essay “Gottsched and the Jews,” “literary evidence of (bigoted – ed.) public opinion was portrayed in the works of a slightly earlier Aufklaerung writer, who was not concerned with portraying Jews at all. As far as I know, no commentator on this period has drawn attention to the numerous “anti-Jewish” remarks made by characters in the plays of Frau Gottsched” (Scott, p. 513). ^[b]Scott draws attention to antisemitic lines delivered by characters from Das Testament, Die ungleiche Heirat, and Die Hausfranzösin – all of which Herr Gottsched duly reproduced in his treatise Die deutsche Schaubühne nach den Regeln und Mustern der Alten (Scott, p. 513). As Scott notes, Gottschedin “regards Jews as a licensed subject to joke about” (Scott, p. 513) – as does her husband. It is important to consider the degree of antisemitism expressed; Gottsched did not go so far as to incorporate actual Jewish burlesque into her plays. We cannot say the same of Lenz, who does include the open mocking of a Jewish character in his play Die Soldaten.

A Close Reading – Aaron’s Scene in Die Soldaten

Lenz published Die Soldaten in 1776,^[6] and, thanks to its “psychological realism, (its) open-ended approach to dramatic structure, and (its) sharp witted social commentary,” it has gone on to become a “canonical text” of the Sturm und Drang (Dupree 2024, pp. 17-18). This does not mean that the play is without its prejudices. In the third act of his play Die Soldaten (1776), Lenz introduces a Jewish character, Aaron, who figures in a scheme by the soldiers to humiliate their colleague, Rammler. In this section, I present the full scene with Aaron from Die Soldaten with commentary, using bold type to emphasize significant words and phrases; my interpretations are in bold and italicized directly after the respective line.  

Die Soldaten – Lenz^[7]

Dritter Akt – Erste Szene – In Armentieres. Des Juden Haus.

RAMMLER (mit einigen verkleideten Leuten, die er stellt. Zum letzten): Wenn jemand hineingeht, so huste—ich will mich unter die Treppe verstecken, daß ich ihm gleich nachschleichen kann. (Verkriecht sich unter die Treppe.)

AARON (sieht aus dem Fenster): Gad, was ein gewaltiger Camplat ist das unter meinem eignen Hause. (Aaron also offers exposition on the action, but uses two words that signal his otherness – his sentence is essentially Hochdeutsch, but marked with dialectical words and meter).

MARY: (im Rocklor eingewickelt kommt die Gasse heran, bleibt unter des Juden Fenster stehen, und lässt ein subtiles Pfeifchen hören).

AARON (leise herab): Sein Sie’s, gnädiger Herr? (jener winkt.) Ich werde soglach aufmachen. (Again, the pronunciation of two words and the sentence’s meter mark his accent).

MARY: (geht die Treppe hinauf. Einer hustet leise. Rammler schleicht ihm auf den Zehen nach, ohne dass der sich umsieht. Der Jude macht die Türe auf, beide gehen hinein).

(Der Schauplatz verwandelt sich in das Zimmer des Juden. Es ist stockdunkel. Mary und Aaron flüstern sich in die Ohren. Rammler schleicht immer von weitem herum, weicht aber gleich zurück, sobald jene eine Bewegung machen.)

MARY: Er ist hier drinne.

AARON: O wai mer!

(A stereotypical dialectical pronouncement, readily identifiable to the audience).

MARY: Still nur, er soll Euch kein Leides tun, laßt mit Euch machen, was er will, und wenn er Euch auch knebelte, in einer Minute bin ich wieder bei Euch mit der Wache, es soll ihm übel genug bekommen. Legt Euch nur zu Bette. (Aaron participates in setting the trap for Rammler at Mary’s direction). 

AARON: Wenn er mich aber ams Leben bringt, he? (The pronunciation of “ums” indicates the accent, and the tag word he suggests dialect).

MARY: Seid nur ohne Sorgen, ich bin im Augenblick wieder da. Er kann sonst nicht überführt werden. Die Wache steht hier unten schon parat, ich will sie nur hereinrufen. Legt Euch— (Geht hinaus. Der Jude legt sich zu Bette. Rammler schleicht näher hinan.)

AARON (klappt mit den Zähnen): Adonai! Adonai! (Hebrew for ‘Lord’).

RAMMLER (vor sich): Ich glaube gar, es ist eine Jüdin. (Laut, indem er Marys Stimme nachzuahmen sucht.) Ach, mein Schätzgen, wie kalt ist es draußen.

(Rammler invites himself to the “Jewess’” bed).

AARON (immer leiser): Adonai! (He uses the stereotypical cry a third time).

RAMMLER: Du kennst mich doch, ich bin dein Mann nicht, ich bin Mary. (Zieht sich Stiefel und Rock aus.) Ich glaube, wir werden noch Schnee bekommen, so kalt ist es. (Mary mit einem großen Gefolge Officieren mit Laternen stürzen herein, und schlagen ein abscheulich Gelächter auf. Der Jude richtet sich erschrocken auf.)

HAUDY: Bist du toll geworden, Rammler, willst du mit dem Juden Unzucht treiben?

RAMMLER (steht wie versteinert da. Endlich zieht er seinen Degen): Ich will euch in kreuzmillionen Stücken zerhauen alle miteinander. (Läuft verwirrt heraus. Die andern lachen nur noch rasender.)

AARON: Ich bin wäs Gad halb tot gewesen. (Aaron again uses dialectical words easily understandable to a German speaker).  

(Steht auf. Die andern laufen alle Rammler nach, der Jude folgt ihnen.)

The scene contains many aspects of a burlesque performance. Aaron is referred to as “the Jew” (or Jewess) seven times in the stage directions, and twice by characters in the play. He has a total of seven lines, all short; the language he speaks is essentially High German, but in each line, he uses dialectical words or pronunciation. His inaudible conversations with Mary tell us that he is in on the conspiracy to embarrass Rammler, but the soldiers are not asking him his opinion, or his feelings. The relationship is clearly instrumental, and not even transactional. Much of the comedy is physical, involving two men and a bed. Aaron is scared and sees himself as having no choice in the matter; he is the butt of the joke as much as Rammler.

Comparing and Contrasting Ehrlichin and Aaron

One of the hallmarks of Gottschedin’s writing is the fullness of her characters (Kord, p. 74), and Ehrlichin is a prime example of this. Ehrlichin’s dialogue is not a stage patois in High German with markers to suggest ethnicity, but is rather full-bore Danzgier Low German. Although Gottschedin spoke High German and was a member of a privileged class (Goodman, pp. 625-626), she was a native of the Old City of Danzig and thus grew up in an environment where that dialect was everywhere (Loew). Between Ehrlichin’s dialogue and Gottschedin’s upbringing, one can deduce that she either spoke proper Danziger Low German herself, or at least understood it and had friends who could help her get it right when writing Ehrlichin.  

This linguistic authenticity helps make Ehrlichin an actual person. A living, breathing human being in Gottschedin’s life spoke just like that; she understood them; and she made their voices come alive on stage. Moreover, Ehrlichin enjoys some privileged features in the story as a dialect speaker (Goodman, p. 643). She is only in one scene and separated from the plot. She speaks truth to power; although she makes an accusation against the antagonist, the appearance is such that it does not subvert the tone of the play.

Though shocking, Ehrlichin’s appearance stays within the bounds that Gottsched set in railing against Hanswurst. The joke is not at Ehrlichin’s expense, but rather provoked by Scheinfromm’s wickedness. She does use some coarse language – “hooren,” for example (Gottsched, L.A.V., p. 100) – but it is introduced not as vulgar comedy, but rather in the context of confronting a man who had abused her daughter. The audience is not laughing at her; she talks about sexual abuse, but it is not a sex joke. Given the authenticity of the speech, an actor playing Ehrlichin convincingly would have to speak Low German, or at least master its delivery. Speaking dialect helps Ehrlichin maintain her Gottschedian distinctions, as the humor is situational.

Lenz does not lift the character of Aaron to similar heights. He is not a round character, but rather a stereotype. He has precious few words to say, and his speech is impressionistic, in that it is High German blended with dialectical markers signaling that he is Jewish. This also signals to the audience that they have permission to laugh at him. Aaron is the butt of the joke, both with the soldiers and with the viewers. Like Ehrlichin, he does not return to the stage, but he does not leave any memorable impression as an individual – Aaron is simply a Jewish person that the soldiers involved in a cruel prank. It is notable that in adapting Lenz’ Die Soldaten for the opera, Zimmermann does not include the scene with Aaron.^[8] 

Ethnic Drag

The burlesque aspects of Aaron’s performance, particularly in reference to a Jewish character, would not surprise the 18th century viewer. What distinguishes this performance is that it falls into the category of Judenposse, or “Jew Farce.”^[9] In her study Ethnic Drag, Katrin Sieg argues that the Jew Farce is a “genre created by and for the amusement of Christian Germans. Through the practice of Jewish impersonation, Christians onstage and in the audience imagined themselves as Germans at a time when the referent of that term was purely cultural and primarily linguistic” (Sieg, p. 34). Gottsched may have exiled Hanswurst, but the Jew Farce continued, as we see with Aaron.

As a matter of principle, Lenz was not dismissive of speech in the colloquial register. Dupree cites a speech by Lenz, “Über die Bearbeitung der deutschen Sprache im Elsass, Breisgau, und den benachbarten Gegenden,” noting that he “emphasizes the ways in which the colloquial expressions of the ‘common people’ could enrich and enliven the German language” (Dupree 2024, p. 19). Dupree notes Lenz’ use of the image of a “tree with many roots” covering the entire Fatherland as a metaphor for the German language (Dupree 2024, p. 20). The joke, then, cannot be that Aaron uses dialect words and has an accent; the “joke” is that he is Jewish. “Without the idea that Jews are inherently comical,” notes Dupree, “the soldiers’ prank makes little sense” (Dupree 2024, p. 22).

Universal Performability and the Yiddish Dilemma

In her book Ethnic Drag, Katrin Sieg follows the evolution of the Judenposse – the Jew Farce – from the eighteenth century to its nadir in the form of Jud Süß, arguing that a combination of farce and mimicry formed the foundation of othering in the genre. The philosemitic response, as exemplified by Lessing’s Nathan the Wise, had its own problematic aspects; Nathan speaks High German, and non-Jewish actors have often performed the part; Sieg argues, “the question of who performs what role is undoubtedly an important aspect of a play’s meaning” (Sieg, p. 31). Sieg uses her book to illustrate a whole spectrum of impersonation, from farce to mimicry, questioning the “German actor’s conceit of universal performability” (Sieg, p. 32). By definition, actors play someone who they are not; both the actor’s intent and the audience’s perception influence where a performance falls on the spectrum.    

Jewish Germans wrestled with questions regarding performance and authenticity, and one debate within that conversation relates to Lenz’ Aaron: was the optimal way to present Yiddish speech in German theater? In 1912, Franz Kafka took up this question in a speech following a “yearlong study of Yiddish language and theater” (Carpenter, p. 150). In the speech, Kafka promoted speaking a “faux Yiddish,” “maintaining ‘proper’ German grammar, while imitating features of Yiddish” (Carpenter, p. 150). Kafka struggled to reconcile dialectical variation in grammar and vocabulary with his own respect for the German language; he appreciated the “liveliness” of Yiddish but also objected to the “mauscheln” that Yiddish speakers produced when speaking German (Carpenter, pp. 151-152).

Kafka’s ambivalence shows the dilemma that German Jews faced in presenting Yiddish to the broader German public. On one hand, Kafka was enthralled by the vitality of Yiddish; on the other hand, he did not know how to present it authentically for a general audience. Why did Kafka sense angst around this point that Gottschedin did not?  One clue lies in an article by John Edwards, “Nonstandard Dialect and Identity” (2018). Edward states that listeners consider dialects according to “two main evaluative dimensions of social status and solidarity” (Edwards, p. 22). Edwards elaborates, “the relevant literature here confirms what has long been well understood at a popular level. The speech patterns of regional speakers, of ethnic-minority-group members, of lower- or working-class populations – categories that frequently overlap, of course – elicit negative evaluations in terms of perceived status, prestige, and levels of skill and education” (Edwards, p. 22). Listener perception determines whether the dialect provokes a sense of solidarity or a sense of other. In a society that others Jews, Yiddish as a dialect faces different constraints in public discourse than other German dialects.^[10] This is what makes the difference between Ehrlichin’s  and Aaron’s scenes, “underscor(ing) the alterity of the Jewish character and rel(ying) on stock tropes of ‘Jewish burlesque’ to generate comic tension and laughs” (Dupree, p. 24).

From Hanswurst to Kasperl – 19th Century Evolution

As for German farce not involving Jews, a kinder, gentler Hanswurst would evolve in the world of the commedia dell’arte and Volkstheater over the course of the nineteenth century, as Arens documents in the essay “Hanswurst Redux.” As popular theater moved away from the “coarse burlesque for which it was lampooned by Gottsched” (Arens, p. 4), new audience identification figures occupied the space once filled by Hanswurst. Arens observes that by 1800 in Vienna, “the hero of a typical Volkstheater play was such an everyman, each a variant of a figure called ‘Kasperl’ who embodied him for the length of a career. Today’s world audiences would best know him from opera plots” (Arens, p. 5). Kasperl served as a proxy for the audience, sometimes speaking dialect, sometimes code switching between dialect and High German (Arens, p. 8). Papageno of Mozart’s The Magic Flute (1795) has aspects of a Kasperl, as does Frosch of Die Fledermaus (1874). As Juers-Murphy states, Kasperl “represents a ‘mere diminutive of the previous Hanswurstian corporeality’” (Juers-Munby, p. 133). Frosch doesn’t repulse; he cracks wise and drinks.

        Frosch also owes a debt to Frau Ehrlichin. Frosch is written and played broadly, but within limits that still admit him to the stage of the Staatsoper^[11]. Like Ehrlichin, he remains in a dialectical register, says what he thinks, speaks truth to power,^[12] and comes across as a fully developed character. And also like Ehrlichin, Frosch is a character with motivation.

For all the similarities, there are a number of differences between the characters that limit identification between Ehrlichin, Aaron, and Frosch. In the libretto, Frosch’s dialogue is more akin to Aaron’s than Ehrlichin’s; the lines in the libretto themselves are High German (Strauss), and the dialect comedy thus relies on the interpretation of the actor.^[13] In Die Soldaten, Aaron is afforded no such opportunity; he only functions as the butt of the joke and as a plot device. Attempts in German theater to exhibit greater solidarity with the Jewish community since World War II have met their own challenges. In describing German productions of Nathan the Wise in the postwar era, Sieg opines, “while philosemitism was represented as the opposite and remedy to antisemitism, the former actually mystified and facilitated the continued existence of the latter” (Sieg, p. 66). It is telling that, when he adapted Die Soldaten for opera, Zimmermann chose to cut Aaron rather than rehabilitate him.

Jewish and non-Jewish characters face an uneven playing field in dialect comedy. Characters like Ehrlichin and Frosch signal authenticity and an invitation to relatability to their German audiences. Jewish characters struggle to escape the realm of farce. In giving voice to antisemitism, both Gottschedin and Lenz yielded to societal prejudices and thus fell short of the principles that they had established for themselves.  

Works Cited

Arens, K. (2002). Hanswurst “Redux”: Staberl, Titus, and Annina. Modern Austrian Literature, 35(3/4), 1–25.

Bonnell, A. G. (2007). Shylock in Germany. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Carpenter, A. Tied to German, Unable to Find a Foothold in Yiddish: Examining Kafka Editing Choices of Yitzhak Loewy’s ‘Vom juedischen Theater.’ Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, Vol. 45, No. 1. Spring 2022, 150-158

Carrdus, A. (2000). Friedrich Friese’s dialect comedy of 1687: A taste of Altenburg School Theatre. German Life and Letters, 53(3), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0483.00167

Dupree, M. H. (2024). A Performance for Everyone? Mothering and the Politics of Language in J.M.R. Lenz’s Die Soldaten (1776). The Germanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory, 99(1), 17–26.

Edwards, J. (2018). “Nonstandard dialect and identity.” In R. Bassiouney, (Ed.) Identity and Dialect Performance: A Study of Communities and Dialects Routledge. (pp. 17-34).

Goodman, K. R. (2006). Pietism, Luise Kulmus-Gottsched, and “Frau Ehrlichin.” Daphnis, 35(3–4), 615–646. https://doi.org/10.1163/18796583-90001000

Gerwin, J. (n.d.). The role of dialect in comedy performances . https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/uni/fakultaeten/split_lehrstuehle/englische_sprachwissenschaft/Werner/Abstracts_SocLxPop/Gerwin.pdf

Gottsched, L. A. V. (1968). Die Pietisterey im Fischbein-Rocke. Reclam.

Hiebert, M. (n.d.). Dialects and perceptions of humor: Dialectal stereotypes. https://schwa.byu.edu/files/2016/01/Hiebert_Humor.pdf

Jürs-Munby, K. (2007). Hanswurst and Herr Ich: Subjection and Abjection in Enlightenment Censorship of the Comic Figure. New Theatre Quarterly, 23(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266464x07000036

Kord, S. (2000). Little Detours: The Letters and Plays of Luise Gottsched (1713-1762). Camden House.

Krobb, F. (2005). “Muthwillige Faschingstracht”: The Presence of Yiddish in Nineteeth-Century German Literature. In J. Sherman (Ed.), The Yiddish Presence in European Literature (pp. 22–33). essay, Legenda.

Kuligowska-Korzeniewska, A. (2022). Danciger Jidisz teater. Pamiętnik Teatralny, 71(3), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.36744/pt.1290

Lenz, Jakob Michael Reinhold. (1776). Die Soldaten. Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6832/pg6832-images.html

Lessing, G. E. (1779). Nathan der Weise. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9186/pg9186-images.html

Loentz, E. (2006). Yiddish, Kanak Sprak, klezmer, and hiphop: Ethnolect, minority culture, multiculturalism, and stereotype in Germany. Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, 25(1), 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2006.0134

Loew, P. O. (2024). Gdańsk: Portrait of a City. Oxford University Press.

The Language of Comedy. The Open University. (n.d.). A short introduction to the English language. Open Learning. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/languages/a-short-introduction-the-english-language/content-section-7

Myers, Eric. (2003). Send in the Clowns. Opera News. Volume 67, Issue 7, pp. 28-31.

The role that language plays in humor. expert.ai. (2022b, August 29). https://www.expert.ai/blog/the-role-that-language-plays-in-humor/

Karl Haffner and Richard Genée – libretto of die Fledermaus

Simonischek, P. (n.d.). Interview – Peter Simonischek – Frosch in “Die Fledermaus.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZKgtZ-Nhmk

Soukup, B. (2013). Austrian dialect as a metonymic device: A cognitive sociolinguistic investigation of speaker design and its Perceptual Implications. Journal of Pragmatics, 52, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.018

Strauss, J., Haffner, C., & Genee, R. (n.d.). Libretto von die Fledermaus von Johann Strauss. Opera Guide. https://opera-guide.ch/operas/die+fledermaus/libretto/de/

Wagner, M., & Wiggins, E. (2019). “Introduction.” In: Lenz, J. Selected works by J.M.R. Lenz: Plays, stories, essays, and poems. Boydell & Brewer.

Wiener Staatsoper. (n.d.). Escena de Frosch (Die Fledermaus / El Murciélago) – Peter Simonischek. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eojjbGfnkxg

Wilms, W. (2008). Dismantling the bourgeois family: J.M.R. Lenz’s “Soldatenfamilie.” Monatshefte, 100(3), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1353/mon.0.0039

Zimmermann, B. (2020, January 21). Die soldaten (Zimmermann) Bochum 2006. Opera on Video. https://www.operaonvideo.com/die-soldaten-zimmermann-bochum-2006/

---

[1] Gottsched, J.C, Die deutsche Schaubühne nach den Regeln und Mustern der Alten (Leipzig, 1741-45); cited by A. Scott in “Frau Gottsched and the Jews,” among others.  

[2]  hereinafter “Gottschedin,” to distinguish the two authors

[3] My assessment that the language is Danziger Low German is based on Gottschedin’s biography and my close reading of the language of her lines, including her choice of verbs (close to modern Dutch) and use of the term ‘klook kosen,’ with kosen being a loanword for ‘goat’ taken from the Polish. I continue to research whether there are any living speakers of the dialect outside of the Mennonite variety.

[4] Man merkt den polnischen Einfluss auf die Sprache: Klook kosen, beziehungsweise kluge Ziegen; Kose, aus dem Polnischen Koza, Ziege.

[5] Gottsched reprinted many of his wife’s plays in his own books (Scott, p. 513), and so her bumping up against his principles of drama did not lead to his rejection of her work.  

[6] “‘Die Soldaten’ was written in the winter of 1774-75 in response to a situation that Lenz himself had personally witnessed in Strasbourg, namely the seduction and abandonment of a merchant’s daughter, Susanna Cleophe FIbich, with whom Lenz himself was in love, by one of Lenz’ employers, Friedrich Georg Baron von Kleist” (Dupree 2024, p. 18).

[7] Retrieved from: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6832/pg6832-images.html

[8] The opera is challenging in other respects; it is composed in twelve-tone, and omits the reunion between father and daughter that ended the play. I watched an online video of a 2012 production of DIe Soldaten from the Salzburger Festspiele on November 28, 2024; the link appears to no longer be available. Another full production of the opera, from Bochum in 2006, is available at this link: https://www.operaonvideo.com/die-soldaten-zimmermann-bochum-2006/

[9] Dupree and others also use the term “Jewish burlesque” to describe this genre of racist comedy.

[10]  In the context of American culture, Jewish performers wrestled with similar issues, as evidenced by “Borscht Belt” comedy of the mid-twentieth century. An assessment of that genre goes beyond the scope of this paper, but Mel Brooks’ cameo as a Yiddish-speaking Native American chief in the racial satire Blazing Saddles demonstrates that, at least in the hands of Jewish-American performers, Yiddish farce is still a relatively recent phenomenon. See Jeremy Dauber’s Jewish Comedy (2017, W.W. Norton and Co.) for an exploration of this topic.  

[11] Here is a clip of Schimonischek performing Frosch at the Staatsoper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eojjbGfnkxg

[12] One of the traditions of Die Fledermaus is that Frosch ad lib comedic lines riffing on the politics and society of the current day; when Frosch speaks in Vienna, he speaks truth to power, and he speaks it in his natural register of colloquial, heavily-accented Austrian German.

[13] In Met productions of Die Fledermaus, actors as varied as Dom Deluise and Sid Caesar have played the role; Austrian actors include director Otto Schenk and the aforementioned Peter Simonischek. One clue to the difference in mindset is Schenk’s observation that “Frosch think(s) of himself as a military person – a low-class, low-ranking military man at the bottom of the hierarchy” (Myers, p. 30). Austrian actor Peter Simonischek elaborates, “ich moechte gerne einein oesterreichischen Gefaengniswerter spielen, der geistig ein bisschen beschraenkt ist – vielleicht hat er ein Verstand auch langsam versoffen aber natuerlich wie immer bei Alkoholikern, die dahin doch geradezu in traumwandlischer Sicherheit in Schwarze treffen” (Simonischek).