Abstract
This article examines the problem of succession in Hobbesian terms. Hobbes tried to solve it by means of principles of ‘artificial eternity’ that fitted his political science. But, evidently, political decisions cannot be explained only by principles. Securing artificial eternity is a goal that has ever been in the forefront of political thinking and practice, often better captured by literary works than by scientific treatises. Accordingly, the present approach makes use of two such works, Calderón’s Life Is a Dream and Kleist’s The Prince of Homburg. It is argued that both plays have valid and compelling solutions to the problem of succession, and that these solutions are surprisingly similar: political succession is a matter of a successful merging of identities while preserving the personal nature of political authority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In his commentary on Thomas Hobbes’ last, brief political letter, Quentin Skinner admits that the text is somewhat elusive and often unclear, but he assumes that the basic argument remains the same as the one Hobbes advanced in the Leviathan. It is remarkable that Hobbes’ last and quite unsatisfying word on politics is just about succession (see Hobbes, 2005).
Hart’s classic treatise, The Concept of Law (1994, Chapter IV.1.), addresses the problem of the conferral of sovereignty from Rex I to Rex II and concludes that there must be certain rules that make succession and obedience to Rex II legitimate. However, he then continues with the general normative problem of what makes obedience justified. Hampton (1986) similarly, and only briefly, notes the problem and repeats Hobbes’ general point that obedience to the incumbent sovereign is justified by the necessity that there be a sovereign.
Pedro Calderón de Barca (1600–1681) was one of the most influential and successful playwrights of the Spanish Golden Age. He wrote more than 120 plays, out of which Life is a Dream (written in 1635) is one of the most popular. It is mostly renowned for the problem of how to reconcile free will with grace. Heinrich von Kleist (1777–1811) produced dramas, novels, essays, aesthetical and political writings. He is considered to be one of the most important authors in German Romanticism. The Prince of Homburg (1809) is one of his most controversial dramas, canonically said to be about the moral dilemmas of obedience.
Arguably, among early modern and modern novelists and playwrights it is Shakespeare’s oeuvre that has been most extensively discussed in political theory. Methodological issues have also been often addressed. Armitage et al. (2009) note that early modern politics was much more centered around persons, counsellors, rhetoric, persuasion and less around principles and institutions. Hence, political plays could be more significant in forming political thinking than treatises. And they conclude that ‘[r]eading his works historically requires recognising that there is more to political thought than a history of doctrines, yet it is as an account of doctrines that the history of political thought is still largely studied’ (p. 21). Space does not allow me here to engage with methodological issues, I can only confirm that these plays are used to analyze, or at least illuminate, a problem that has been increasingly neglected by modern political theory of principles and institutions, inaugurated, among others, by Hobbes.
It was Honig (1972) who, to my knowledge, first put the problem of succession into the center of interpretation. His Basilio is simply jealous of his son. For Basilio as a Machiavellian prince, see Rupp (1996) and Kluge (2008).
It is undecided what motivates him in his soul’s depth. In addition to jealousy, some commentators point out his vanity (accepting flattery), and the foolishness that usually comes with it (see Soufas, 1993). Others speculate about a kind of guilt resulting from a possible incest (Segismundo’s mother might have been Basilio’s sister) (see Anthony, 1993).
For a very detailed analysis of the astrological symbolism of the play, see De Armas (1992).
The edition used here is that of Gwynne Edwards’s translation (1991) Calderón (1991). As it has no line numbering, and the scenes are quite long, citations will be referred to by page numbers.
The so-called double-personality theory (see Malcolm, 2002; Newey, 2008; Skinner, 2007), as was argued, is about the Leviathan as the artificial person and its representation by a natural person. The present point is about the conflict between the natural person qua private person and qua the representative of the artificial person.
Cascardi (1993) notes that the trajectory of the play leads from political chaos to political order, with the particular political will of the ruler merging with popular will. It is also noteworthy that Basilio’s reaction to Segismundo’s rage is to warn him of the limits of royal rights.
On the point that fate, or Fortuna, may have the last word in politics, both Calderón and Machiavelli seem to agree. Calderón’s age was partly marked by a growing appreciation of stoicism, and an atmosphere of disillusionment (on this, see Valbuena-Briones (1993) and Heiple (1993)). La vida es sueño has generally been held to be a characteristically religious drama, which has been heavily influenced by the contemporary theological debates on the freedom of will, but the stress on fate and the unmistakable elegic/stoic overtones have made some commentators such as Heiple doubt this. I share these doubts.
The usual condemnation of Segismundo’s apparent injustice has been questioned by A. Parker’s interpretation, which suggests that the soldier’s crime, or rather sin, consists in his egoistic desire to demand reward for his act. It needs to be noted that Parker emphatically denies that the father–son conflict is of primary importance in La vida es sueño. Of this I am less convinced, in view of the importance of the king/heir relationship (see Parker, 1988).
Kleist’s play, the Hermannsschlacht, is a generally cited example, as is his Katechismus der Deutschen, which states that it was abgefasst nach dem Spanischen.
The edition used here is Martin Greenberg’s translation (see Kleist, 1988). Citations are referred to by Act/Scene numbers.
Lucius Junius Brutus, one of the founders of the Roman republic, as consul ordered the execution of his two sons found guilty of conspiracy against the republic. The figure and the scene were very popular in Kleist’s age.
Accordingly, a host of interpretations concentrate on the psychoanalytical aspects of this relationship which is both about rivalry (for glory, for Natalie’s hand) and mutual affection (see, for example, Matt (1997) and Hoverland (1978)).
Hoverland (1978) also argues that Homburg’s action reverses the roles, but she concludes that thereby the Elector becomes a tyrant. But on that account the former disobedience of the Prince should have also been judged to have been tyrannical, which makes tyranny equal to free action, which does not make much sense.
Another influential interpretation of the drama focuses on whether the Prince develops and whether the Elector is his educator. Recent criticism $$favors the negative answer. Benjamin Bennett’s position is especially remarkable: he maintains that the Elector wants to teach something to the Prince but ultimately fails; however, he succeeds in ‘revitalizing’ both the army and Brandenburg (Bennett, 1979).
Natalie’s name also implies nativity, birth. She is instrumental in making Homburg come to the decision to accept death (see Nobile, 1997) and hence her role here is close to that of a midwife.
Thayer’s article (1984) comes also close to realizing the immortality issue involved in the play. However, in his interpretation, the Elector wins everything: ‘By sparing Homburg, the Elector both returns ultimate jurisdiction in Homburg’s case to himself, but also, and just as important, reconfirms himself as the steward of fame in his own realm’ (p. 186).
References
Anthony, R. (1993) Violante – The place of rejection. In: F.A. de Armas (ed.) The Prince in the Tower. Perceptions of La vida es sueño. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, pp. 165–182.
Armitage, D., Condren, C. and Fitzmaurice, A. (2009) Introduction to Shakespeare and Early Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–22.
Bennett, B. (1979) Prinz Friedrich von Homburg: Theory in practice. In: Modern Drama and German Classicism: Renaissance from Lessing to Brecht. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, pp. 22–56.
Calderón, P. (1991) Life is a dream. In: Plays: One, Translated by G. Edwards. London: Methuen Drama.
Cascardi, A.J. (1993) Allegories of power. In: F.A. de Armas (ed.) The Prince in the Tower. Perceptions of La vida es sueño. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, pp. 15–26.
De Armas, F.A. (1992) The king’s son and the golden dew – Alchemy in Calderón’s La vida es sueño. Hispanic Review 3: 301–19.
Dietz, D.T. (2012) La vida es sueño, Autos and Comedia: God, Segismundo, and Calderón. Bulletin of the Comediantes 1: 131–46.
Gómez, F. (2011) Inverting Plato’s allegory of the cave: The cave as a backstage to the world/theater in La vida es sueño and La hija del aire. Bulletin of the Comediantes 1: 87–104.
Hampton, J. (1986) Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hart, H.L.A. (1994) The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heiple, D.L. (1993) Life Is a Dream and the philosophy of disillusionment. In: F.A. de Armas (ed.) The Prince in the Tower. Perceptions of La vida es sueño. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, pp. 118–131.
Hobbes, T. (1967) Leviathan. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Hobbes, T. (2005) Questions relative to hereditary right. In: Q. Skinner (ed.) Hobbes: Writings on Common Law and Hereditary Right. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Honig, E. (1972) Calderón and the Seizures of Honor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hoverland, L. (1978) Heinrich von Kleist und das Prinzip der Gestaltung. Königstein, Germany: Scriptor Verlag.
Kleist, H.v. (1988) The Prince Friedrich of Homburg. In: Five Acts, Translated by and edited by M. Greenberg. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Kluge, S. (2008) Calderón’s anti-tragic theater: The resonance of Plato’s critique of tragedy in La Vida Es Sueño. Hispanic Review 4: 19–52.
Malcolm, N. (2002) Aspects of Hobbes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Martinich, A.P. (2005) Hobbes. New York and London: Routledge.
Matt, P.v. (1997) Verkommene Söhne, mißratene Töchter: Familiendesaster in der Literatur. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.
Newey, G. (2008) Routledge Philosophy Guide to Hobbes and Leviathan. London and New York: Routledge.
Nobile, N. (1997) ‘Der Buchstab deines Willens’: Kleist’s Prinz Friedrich von Homburg and the letter of law. The Germanic Review 72 (4): 317–341.
Parker, A. (1988) The Mind and Art of Calderón. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rupp, S. (1996) Allegories of Kingship: Calderón and the Anti-Machiavellian Tradition. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Skinner, Q. (2007) Hobbes on persons, authors and representatives. In: P. Springborg (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’ Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 157–180.
Soufas, T.S. (1993) Death as a laughing matter. In: F.A. de Armas (ed.) The Prince in the Tower: Perceptions of La vida es sueño. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, pp. 79–87.
Strosetzki, C. (1997) Ludwig Tieck und das Spanieninteresse der deutscher Romantik. In: W. Schmitz (ed.) Ludwig Tieck – Literaturprogramm und Lebensinszenierung im Kontext seiner Zeit. Tübingen, Germany: M. Niemayer Vl, pp. 235–252.
Thayer, T.K. (1984) The Ascendancy of Fame in Kleist’s Prinz Friedrich von Homburg. In: H. Kunisch, T. Berchem and F. Link (eds.) Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch im Auftrage der Görres-Gesellschaft. Berlin: N.F. Berlin, pp. 155–187.
Valbuena-Briones, A.J. (1993) The strategy of the painter of the world. In: F.A. de Armas (ed.) The Prince in the Tower: Perceptions of La vida es sueño. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, pp. 54–64.
Acknowledgements
I thank the two reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Balazs, Z. Artificial eternity: The problem of political succession in Pedro Calderón della Barca’s Life Is a Dream and Heinrich von Kleist’s The Prince of Homburg. Contemp Polit Theory 14, 2–22 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2014.12
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2014.12