Nathan the Wise

“[L]et her at least enjoy a dream / Where Christian, Jew, and Muslim can unite.”

Recha’s desire to meet the Templar is remarkable, given the setting and context of the play. The action takes place in Jerusalem, at the time of the Crusades, when Christians and Muslims battled for control of Jerusalem. The Jews of Israel lived in the midst of this conflict. Recha’s desire to meet the Templar and thank him for saving her life is noble and pure, and it has nothing to do with religious dogma or conflict, in Daja’s eyes. Thus, he expresses hope that Recha could experience an atmosphere of tolerance.

“For the tide / Which flows in high each morning by midday / Has flowed away.”

Al-Hafi, Saladin’s treasurer, speaks metaphorically to Nathan about the sultan’s poor financial management. The great wealth of Saladin is like a flood or tide, he implies, arriving but then quickly leaving because of poor choices and inattention. Al-Hafi’s remark also shows how others are aware of the financial issues in the sultanate before even Saladin himself. As a result, Nathan is not duped when Saladin attempts to manipulate him into providing a loan.

“I owe my life to Saladin. And now / I should take his?”

The Lay Brother conveys a message from the head of the Christian Church in the area, the Patriarch, which asks the Templar to get close to the sultan Saladin in order to gather intelligence for the purposes of victory in the Crusades and perhaps even to assassinate the sultan. The Muslim Saladin has already spared the life of the Christian Templar for the mere fact that he resembles Saladin’s brother. Thus, the Templar is reluctant to betray Saladin. The Templar’s refusal symbolizes a sense of justice that ignores religious dogma that pits one group against another.

“Nature, you do not lie! And in His works / God does not contradict himself.”

By appealing to God’s intent, the Templar provides a further reason for rejecting the Patriarch’s request to betray Saladin. He remarks on Saladin’s belief that the Templar is the spitting image of the sultan’s deceased brother Assad. He rejects the idea that God would arrange this similarity without a reason. Believing that the link between himself and Assad is so intended, he refuses to believe that he should betray Saladin.

“As if that love, which our Creator / Granted every man and woman, could / Be expected only of a Christian?” 

The play’s major characters each, at some point in the play, express a vision supporting religious tolerance and relativism. In a conversation with Saladin, Sittah responds to the idea that she would have to take a Christian name in order to marry a Christian. She rejects this requirement as dogmatic, believing that one religion cannot bar another from truth or goodness.

“Go, borrow, promise. But don’t borrow from / The people I made rich. For borrowing / From them might seem like taking back a gift. Go to the greatest misers.”

Saladin instructs Al-Hafi to inquire about whom he could borrow money from in order to make up for the financial shortfall in his sultanate. Though in need of money, Saladin is vain and shrewd, and does not want to appear desperate. He sets his target on the “misers,” grouping Nathan among them. Though Saladin is calculating, his plan ultimately falls apart.

“I know how all good people think, and that / Good people are produced in every land.”

Nathan and the Templar discuss differences between their respective religions, Judaism and Christianity. Yet they also focus on the Templar’s good deed in saving Recha from the house fire. Despite their differences, and despite the Templar’s lack of interest in getting attention for the rescue, they agree that the action was noble. Goodness is not restricted based on where someone comes from, Nathan articulates.

“What does ‘people’ mean? / Are Jew and Christian, Jew and Christian first / And human beings second?”

As Nathan and the Templar further their discussion, they arrive at an even more explicit expression of religious relativism. Nathan requests that he and the Templar become friends despite their difference in backgrounds, arguing that their common humanity is more fundamental than even their religion. While they did not choose the religion they were born into, they can recognize their humanity as worthy of respect, regardless of any religious label or cultural background.

“My name was—is—Curd von Stauffen. Curd.”

With a simple phrase, the Templar unwittingly ignites the drama that compels much of the play. Having become familiar with Nathan, the Templar finally and casually shares his given name. Nathan recognizes the name, and over the course of the next several acts he gradually pieces together the fact that the Templar and Recha are related to the von Stauffen and von Filnek whom he knew years ago. Lessing subtly hints at this confrontation of the past and present by having the Templar at first refer to his name in past tense (“was”) and then in present (“is”).

“What sort of God / Belongs to just one person? One who needs / People to fight for him?”

Daja and Recha discuss the Templar in a conversation. Recha asks Daja why she implies that the Templar’s God is separate from any one else’s, or would need humans to intervene in divine matters. With these questions, Recha articulates her own perspective on religious tolerance and relativism, which other major characters—such as Saladin and Nathan—also express through related ideas.

“For how could anyone who knew you / Not have saved you from the fire?”

When the Templar first visits Recha, he brushes off her calling him her savior by saying that rescuing her from the fire was merely part of his duty as a Templar knight. However, he is smitten and feels an instant bond. Thus, his remark wondering how anyone could not have saved her from the fire has two meanings: first, that it is simply a given that a good person would help another; second, that Recha is so magnetically attractive that saving her seems an obvious thing to do.

“Tell me, what kind of faith, what kind of law / Has seemed most plausible to you?”

Saladin’s question to Nathan is asked casually. It conveys that he feels confident, as though he has complete control in his plan to manipulate Nathan into giving him a loan. However, Saladin underestimates Nathan’s wisdom, which encompasses both an ability to see through the situation and a readiness to give a thoughtful answer to Saladin’s question. This throws Saladin off of his guard.

“Once, long ago, a man lived in the East / Who had a ring of priceless worth.”

Saladin attempts to deceive Nathan into loaning him money by putting him on the spot and asking which religion is best. Nathan, suspecting the deceit, responds by telling a story. The story is presented as a folk tale, which happened “[o]nce, long ago,” at some unspecified time and has a magical element (the ring), like many folk tales. By framing his tale in this way—as a parable from a distant time that contains shared wisdom passed down, Nathan avoids answering Saladin’s question in a way that would seem like a personal attack on Saladin or his religion.

“Let each one strive to emulate / His love, unbiased and unprejudiced.”

Nathan’s parable of the priceless ring is meant to counter Saladin’s question about which religion is best by suggesting that it is impossible to answer that question. The goodness and power of the ring, the parable suggests, lies within the belief in the ring, not in the ring itself. Likewise, according to Nathan’s analysis of the parable, it is by striving to live up to the ideals of love and respect that are contained within religions that goodness emerges—not from the religions themselves.

“Recha is no Jew, she is—a Christian.”

Daja, though a relatively minor figure, plays a crucial role in conveying information. In this scene, she reveals the truth about Recha’s background to the Templar. Later, she conveys the same fact to Recha. The simplicity and directness of Daja’s remark in a conversation masks its devastating effect on the Templar.

“It makes no difference. / The Jew shall burn.”

The Templar presents a hypothetical case to the Patriarch, effectively asking what to do about Nathan having raised Recha as a Jew when she was born a Christian without singling them out by name. He asks his question in this way to protect them. The Patriarch’s harsh indictment thus seems exaggerated and cruel by comparison. The Patriarch thrice insists that a Jew in such a situation would be put to death, even though the Templar protests. The Patriarch thus symbolizes the potential cruelty of religious dogma.

“I've never wanted / The same bark to grow on every tree.”

Saladin expresses the spirit of religious tolerance in a conversation with the Templar. Earlier, Saladin had shown some flexibility by sparing the Templar’s life because he resembled the sultan’s deceased brother Assad. In Act IV, however, he takes this spirit much further by asking the Templar to remain in his service. Through the metaphor of tree bark, Saladin conveys that he welcomes and respects their differences.

“Do not be a Christian just to spite / A Jew or Muslim.”

In one of the most powerful moments of Nathan the Wise, Saladin scolds the Templar for criticizing Nathan. The knight is upset after finding out that Nathan adopted and raised the Christian-born Recha as a Jew, but Saladin rebukes him for is anger. He asks the Templar to look past categories like “Christian” or “Jew” to see the fundamental good Nathan practiced when adopting, caring for, and loving Recha—a spirit Saladin is sure the Templar will agree with.

“But you have fixed a new string to your lyre, / Which will not hold or stay in tune, I fear.”

The Templar nearly begs Nathan to give him his blessing of approval to marry Recha. Nathan brushes them off in a case of dramatic irony, in which the audience of the play begins to suspect that the Templar and Recha are related before the Templar himself does. In this passage, Nathan uses especially poetic language, comparing the Templar to a lyre (an instrument to accompany poetic songs, often love songs) due to his infatuation with Recha but suggests that something is amiss (ultimately shown to be that the Templar and Recha are siblings) by calling the lyre out of tune, thus flawed.

“Children at that age / Need love, if only that of a wild beast, / More than they need Christianity.”

The Lay Brother represents an open, tolerant version of Christianity, one not focused on strict dogma. In his conversation with Nathan, he reveals himself to be the man who had brought the infant Recha to Nathan years ago. Despite the fact that the Lay Brother is a Christian and works for the Patriarch, he does not fault Nathan for having kept Recha’s true origin a secret, nor for having raised her as a Jew. Instead, he remarkably sets the matter of religion aside to see Nathan’s good intentions in caring for Recha in their purest form.

“Is it that the Christian in me is / More deeply rooted than the Jew in him?”

One of the messages presented in Nathan the Wise speaks toward religious relativism. This idea suggests that more than one religion may be true and that one’s perception of the truth of their religion is impacted by their cultural context. Scene 3 of Act V is a monologue, a rarity in the dialogue-heavy play. The scene utilizes its sole focus on the Templar’s thoughts and feelings to explore how he arrives at his own version of religious relativism. The Templar, literally talking to himself, overcomes his anger at Nathan and accepts the validity of each of their identities.

“How / The tangled web, which caused me such anxiety, / Unravels of its own accord!”

When Nathan receives confirmation of his suspicions that Recha and the Templar are related, the sense of drama is heightened. On one hand, Nathan knows he is in danger because the truth about Recha’s background has begun to circulate. At the same time, he feels relieved because he no longer has to maintain a secret. His exclamation reveals his vulnerability and imperfection, but also prompts the audience of the play to feel empathy for him.

“I / Am not a man who can deny my deeds. What I did, I did, and that is that. / And I am not a man who would defend / What I have done as always being right.”

Scene 3 of Act V is a monologue of the Templar coming to terms with Nathan’s good intentions in raising Recha, and shedding the anger he felt. In Scene 5, he shares his revelation with Nathan, admitting the error of his ways in being angry and revealing to the Patriarch and Saladin that Nathan obscured Recha’s identity in raising her. The Templar asks for forgiveness and earnestly requests that he and Nathan reconcile. The acknowledgement of his faults in the attempt to bond with another person is another example of the play prompting the audience to feel empathy for its characters.