Stauffacher

Stauffacher is presented in these closing scenes as both a political interpreter and a voice of collective recognition. He assesses what the unsettled imperial succession might mean for the people, then redirects a festival gathering toward Wilhelm Tell, whom he identifies as the founder of their freedom and the person who endured the worst. His words join cautious hopes for protection to a public act of gratitude: security remains uncertain, but the community can still choose whom it honors.

Political Judgment and the Empire

In an exchange with Walter Furst and several others, Stauffacher answers a question about whether anyone has been named to the imperial office. The Count of Luxembourg, he says, is already widely named. The detail is offered as a report of current opinion, not as confirmation of an election or a settled outcome. Stauffacher’s place in the exchange is that of a participant who can identify the leading name while leaving the uncertainty intact.

The conversation turns from the succession to the group’s position toward imperial authority. Someone observes that they had stood firmly by the empire and may therefore hope for justice with good reason. Stauffacher answers by imagining a reciprocal political need: the emperor will require valiant friends, and will shelter them from Austria’s vengeance. His confidence is conditional rather than triumphant. The protection he anticipates depends on an emperor who needs allies, while the prospect of Austrian vengeance remains present as a danger. In this brief argument, allegiance is not presented as passive submission; it is a basis on which the community expects justice and protection in return.

Stauffacher’s reasoning also makes the larger political situation intelligible through practical consequences. The question is not only who may become emperor, but what imperial authority might do for people exposed to Austria. His words express hope, not proof that justice or shelter has already been secured. The distinction gives the exchange its tension: the group can point to its loyalty and imagine the emperor’s interest in its friendship, yet its safety still depends on an unresolved political future.

The Absent Wilhelm Tell

Later, speaking directly to the people at the festival, Stauffacher asks where Wilhelm Tell is and whether the founder of their freedom will be the only one absent. The question makes Tell’s absence conspicuous without suggesting why he is not there. Stauffacher does not allow the gathering’s attention to remain on the people present; he measures the occasion against the missing figure whose actions, in his judgment, have made the celebration possible.

He explains the importance of that absence in emphatic terms: Wilhelm Tell did the most and endured the worst. The paired claims recognize both achievement and suffering. Tell is not merely credited with a decisive contribution; the cost he bore is made part of the reason for honoring him. Stauffacher’s phrasing places the absent man at the center of the festival’s meaning even while he is physically elsewhere.

His response is practical and collective. He calls for everyone to go to Wilhelm Tell’s dwelling and hail the savior of their country. The proposed movement from the festival to Tell’s home turns praise into an action shared by the assembled people. Rather than asking them to celebrate an abstract idea of freedom, Stauffacher directs them toward the person he says helped found it. The stage direction then has everyone leave, giving the appeal an immediate consequence: the group acts on his invitation.

Public Voice and Recognition

Across these exchanges, Stauffacher speaks in two registers that remain closely connected. In the political discussion, he weighs loyalty, justice, friendship, and protection against the threat of Austria’s vengeance. At the festival, he identifies the person whose service and suffering deserve public acknowledgment. In both settings he addresses collective circumstances: first the community’s precarious relation to imperial power, then the community’s duty to recognize Wilhelm Tell.

The ending gives Stauffacher a role in shaping how the gathering interprets its own freedom. His description of Tell as founder and savior is a judgment voiced before the people, followed by a proposal that they honor him together. The distinction between the festival and Tell’s dwelling matters: the celebration cannot, in Stauffacher’s view, be complete while its most deserving figure is absent. His final appeal therefore converts remembrance into communal movement, closing the scene not with a private tribute but with the people setting out to greet the man whose deeds, as Stauffacher declares, they have gathered to celebrate.