A-Level German Revision Guide: Andorra By Max Frisch

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of Max Frisch’s Andorra, covering the plot, character analyses, themes, context, style, key quotes, and exam-style questions. Use it to revise important aspects of the play and deepen your understanding.

A-level German revision courses

Plot Summary

Andorra is structured as 12 scenes (“Bilder”) with interludes. The story unfolds in a fictional town named Andorra (not the real country) and centres on Andri, a young man raised as a Jewish adoptee in a Christian community. Key events include:

Exposition: The play opens with Barblin (the daughter of the Teacher) whitewashing the wall of her house for a festival – a symbolic act of “whitewashing” that foreshadows themes of guilt and denial. Barblin is engaged to Andri, whom she loves. Andri was brought up by the Teacher (der Lehrer) and Mother (die Mutter), who claim he was a Jewish child rescued from the neighbouring anti-Semitic “Blacks”. Tension is introduced as a drunken Soldier (der Soldat) flirts crudely with Barblin (she rebuffs him), and rumours circulate that the hostile “Blacks” might invade Andorra. The Teacher, anxious about Andri’s future, sells a piece of land to the Landlord (der Wirt) to pay the Carpenter (der Tischler) to take Andri as an apprentice.
Growing Prejudice: Andri faces subtle prejudices at work and in town. The Carpenter accepts the payment but is reluctant to train Andri; when a chair breaks, Andri is unfairly blamed (the real culprit is the Journeyman, who stays silent). Andri is demoted to a shop clerk job – playing into the stereotype that he is “better with money than craftsmanship.” Townsfolk often refer to Andri’s “Jewish” traits in casual conversation (for example, suggesting he should go into finance or claiming “Jews are ambitious and good with money”). Anti-Semitic stereotypes pervade daily life, though Andri initially remains optimistic and eager to fit in.
Conflict and Secrets: Andri and Barblin plan to marry, having loved each other since childhood. When Andri asks the Teacher for permission to marry Barblin, the Teacher forbids the marriage without explanation. Andri assumes this is due to his Jewish identity, which deepens his sense of being an outsider. In truth, the Teacher’s refusal is because Andri is actually his biological son, making the engagement incestuous. The Teacher had lied about Andri’s origin years ago because he was ashamed of having an illegitimate child with the Senora. The Teacher privately agonises over this secret, and in an aside, he confirms that Andri is his son. He wants to tell Andri the truth but hesitates, burdened by guilt and fearing the community’s judgment for his lie.
Escalation of Tensions: The Soldier takes advantage of the situation. One night, while Andri sleeps outside Barblin’s room, the Soldier rapes Barblin inside (this happens off-stage and is revealed later). Barblin is traumatised and keeps this a secret out of shame. Meanwhile, Andri grows more frustrated with how the Andorrans treat him. The Doctor (der Doktor) makes bigoted remarks about “the Jew” (saying things like Jews lack deep feelings or are overly ambitious) in front of Andri. The Doctor and others project their own flaws onto Andri, calling him cowardly or greedy – prejudices they claim are the “truth” about Jews. Andri begins to internalise these views, struggling with his identity and wondering if he really is different.
Arrival of the Senora: The Senora (an unnamed woman from the “Black” side) arrives in Andorra, adding to the tension. The townspeople eye her with distrust because she’s a foreigner. She turns out to be Andri’s biological mother and comes in secret to see her son. When the Soldier later attacks Andri (out of hatred and jealousy), the Senora intervenes and helps Andri recover. She gives Andri a ring as a token (without revealing her identity as his mother) and departs. Before leaving, the Senora privately tells the Mother the truth – that Andri is not Jewish at all, but the Teacher’s son with her. This revelation horrifies the Mother, who now realises her husband’s lie. The Teacher finally resolves to come clean. He asks the Priest (der Pater) to explain to Andri that his Jewish identity is a lie.
Truth vs. Identity: The Priest tries to counsel Andri, hinting that who Andri is matters more than what he is. But by now, Andri refuses to accept any other truth – he believes his fate as “the Jew” is sealed. When the Priest tries to tell him he isn’t actually Jewish, Andri reacts with anger and disbelief. He has grown proud in a way, defiantly embracing the identity imposed on him. (“Why are you all stronger than the truth?” Andri asks, lamenting that the town’s image of him overpowers reality.) At the same time, Andri learns about Barblin’s rape by the Soldier. Feeling betrayed and full of anguish, he lashes out emotionally at Barblin, accusing her and himself in a confused mix of hurt pride and self-loathing. The Teacher personally tries to tell Andri, “You are my son, not a Jew”, but Andri covers his ears – he believes the Teacher is just ashamed of him. The tragic irony is that Andri has come to identify as Jewish precisely because of how everyone treated him, even though the truth could have saved him from this fate
Invasion and Tragedy: Suddenly, the feared invasion becomes reality. The “Blacks” invade Andorra, bringing an atmosphere akin to the rise of the Nazis (this is an allegory). The Soldier, showing his cowardice, defects to join the invading forces. Amid the chaos, someone throws a stone that kills the Senora. The Wirt (Innkeeper) seizes this moment to maliciously accuse Andri of murdering her – a false accusation likely to save himself (it is implied he may have thrown the stone). Hysteria grips the townspeople, and now Andri is a wanted man. A mob of townsfolk, who once merely ostracized Andri, now actively hunt him as a scapegoat. Andri hides briefly; the Teacher finds him and desperately tries one last time to convince Andri of the truth (that Andri is his son, not the hated “other”). But Andri remains unmoved, saying it’s too late. Resigned to his role and fate, Andri steps forward. The Soldier (now with the enemy) arrests Andri, dragging him to the town square.
“Judenschau” (Show Trial): In the climax, the occupying authorities conduct a “Judenschau” – literally a “Jew-inspection” – a grotesque show trial in the public square to identify the “Jew” and the murderer. All townspeople are forced to participate. (In one staging, everyone must put black hoods over their heads and walk before a Jew-Inspector so he can single out the supposed Jew – a humiliating ritual that echoes real historical persecutions.) During this, some townspeople protest feebly, but ultimately they all comply out of fear. Barblin and the Mother are the only ones who openly try to stop the process, crying out that Andri is innocent, but their pleas are ignored. Andri himself stays remarkably passive – he offers no defence. Having accepted the town’s hateful image of him, he almost welcomes martyrdom. The Jew-Inspector and soldiers quickly declare Andri guilty (it’s a predetermined outcome – a show trial). In a brutal scene, Andri is executed by firing squad. The soldiers even cut off Andri’s finger to steal the ring given by his mother.
Aftermath: The play ends on a bleak note. With Andri dead, the Teacher hangs himself out of overwhelming guilt. Barblin, witnessing her beloved’s murder and her father’s suicide, suffers a mental breakdown. Notably, her head has been shaved – earlier, there was a rumour that the “Blacks” shave the heads of the wives of Jews, and now Barblin, as Andri’s “bride,” is shorn. In the final moments, Barblin, traumatised and clinging to denial, wanders the stage with a whitewash bucket. She frantically tries to whitewash the square where blood was spilled, or she guards Andri’s old shoes, mumbling that Andri will come home. This haunting image of Barblin futilely painting everything white brings the play full circle, symbolizing how the society attempts to cover up its guilt but can never restore its lost innocence.

Throughout these events, Andorra interweaves witness monologues (the Vordergrund scenes) where characters step forward to comment on Andri’s fate in past tense. These testimonies, delivered after Andri’s death (from the audience’s perspective), reveal how each character rationalises their part in the tragedy. By the end, the audience has seen both the collective guilt of Andorra’s citizens and the personal devastation that prejudice brings about. The tragedy of Andri illustrates the play’s central warning: the images and stereotypes society projects onto individuals can destroy lives.

Character Analysis

Frisch deliberately names most characters by their roles (the Teacher, the Soldier, etc.), turning them into archetypes of society. Here are the main figures:

Andri

Andri is the protagonist – a young man in his late teens who has grown up believing he is Jewish. He is gentle, hard-working, and initially hopeful that he can belong in Andorra. At the start, Andri is kind and eager to please. He loves Barblin and dreams of a normal future (marriage, a job as a craftsman). However, the constant prejudice he faces profoundly affects his identity and self-esteem.

Identity Conflict: As a supposed outsider, Andri is caught between who he is and who society says he is. He desperately wants to be seen as an Andorran, yet everyone labels him “the Jew.” Over time, Andri becomes confused and insecure about himself. He wonders if the others are right about him being different. This inner turmoil is evident when he asks, “Wieso seid ihr stärker als die Wahrheit?” – “Why are you stronger than the truth?” – highlighting how the townspeople’s perception outweighs reality in his mind.
Development: When Andri is refused permission to marry Barblin (seemingly due to his background), he feels deeply wounded. He grows more bitter and defensive. By midway through the play, Andri starts showing flashes of anger and pride. For example, after learning of Barblin’s assault and hearing the Teacher still oppose their marriage, Andri erupts at the Teacher: “Ich verdanke dir mein Leben... Du ekelst mich… Geh pissen... Heul’ nicht deinen Schnaps aus den Augen…” – roughly, “I owe you my life... You disgust me... Go piss... Don’t cry your booze out of your eyes…” – a shocking outburst that reveals his pent-up resentment (Andri is lashing out at the Teacher’s drunken guilt). This marks a change from the polite, deferential youth to someone pushed to his emotional limits.
Tragic Resolve: By the end, Andri undergoes a tragic transformation. Having been told all his life that he must be different, he ultimately accepts the town’s image of him. When confronted with the truth (that he is not actually Jewish), he rejects it – by now, he has internalized the role of the victim. This acceptance of a false identity is Andri’s fatal flaw and the core tragedy: “He finally adopts the image society has made of him”. In the final scenes, Andri faces death with a calm, fatalistic demeanour. He does not protest or beg; in a sense, he wills himself to be the martyr the Andorrans expect. This makes Andri a tragic hero, destroyed by prejudice through no fault of his own. His journey illustrates how constant stereotyping can twist a person’s self-concept and lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Der Lehrer (The Teacher)

The Teacher is Andri’s adoptive father – and in secret, his biological father. He is a respected schoolmaster in Andorra, known initially as a man of principle. However, the Teacher is the central figure of guilt in the play. His one lie sets the entire tragedy in motion.

Background and Motive: Years before the play’s events, the Teacher fathered a child (Andri) with the Senora, a woman from the enemy “Black” side. Afraid of social shame (an out-of-wedlock child with a foreigner) and wanting to protect the infant, he claimed the child was a Jewish orphan he heroically saved. At first, this lie even earned him admiration – it “smoothed over” his transgression. As he later admits, “Es war leichter, damals, ein Judenkind zu haben. Es war rühmlich.” – “It was easier back then to have a Jewish child (than to admit the truth). It was honorable.” The Andorrans liked seeing themselves as benevolent toward a Jewish refugee because it flattered their self-image as tolerant people. This insight shows the Teacher’s initial intention wasn’t malicious – it was cowardice and concern for reputation.
Guilt and Denial: By the time of the play, the Teacher is drowning in guilt and alcohol. He drinks heavily and gets into public rants, hinting that his compatriots are “no better than the Blacks” – statements that puzzle others. These outbursts are a result of his internal conflict: he despises the town’s anti-Semitism (which his own lie unintentionally fed) and hates himself for not telling the truth. Throughout the play, he has several chances to confess, but he balks each time. For instance, when asked pointedly “Warum denn ist euer Sohn ein Jud?” (“Why is your son a Jew?”), the Teacher panics and changes the subject. He is haunted by cowardice. One of his key lines (to himself) is “Einmal werd’ ich die Wahrheit sagen – das meint man, aber die Lüge ist ein Egel, sie hat die Wahrheit ausgesaugt.” – “One thinks, ‘One day I’ll tell the truth’ – but the lie is a leech; it has sucked out the truth.” This metaphor encapsulates his paralysis: the lie has lived so long that the truth seems drained of power.
Role in Climax: In the final act, the Teacher frantically tries to undo his mistake. He begs the Priest to tell Andri the truth and later directly confronts Andri as the mob closes in. Tragically, it’s too late – Andri refuses to listen. When Andri is executed, the Teacher is completely broken. He takes responsibility in the only way he can now – by hanging himself. In his absence from the epilogue testimonies (he’s dead by then), the Teacher’s guilt is apparent to the audience. He is perhaps the character most tormented by personal responsibility, as he knows the blood of his son is on his hands. The Teacher represents how moral cowardice and deceit – even if meant to protect – can enable greater evil. His character also raises the question of what real courage and responsibility require (he should have owned the truth and trusted his community, but he underestimated their prejudice and his own strength).

Barblin

Barblin is the Teacher’s daughter and Andri’s beloved (unknowingly, she is Andri’s half-sister). At the start, Barblin is depicted as innocent, joyful, and loving. The image of her whitewashing the house in Scene 1 paints her as a symbol of youthful purity – she wants everything to be nice and clean for the holiday. She playfully asserts her boundaries with the Soldier, proudly saying “I’m engaged… and I don’t like you!” to fend him off. Barblin genuinely loves Andri and dreams of marrying him, though notably she avoids publicly naming him as her fiancé early on (perhaps sensing the taboo or prejudice it may provoke).

Character Traits: Barblin is kind-hearted and loyal. Throughout the play she stands by Andri, defending him when others mock or insult him. However, she’s also somewhat naive and powerless in the face of the town’s bigger forces. The secrecy around her engagement hints that Barblin subconsciously knows society won’t approve, yet she lacks agency to challenge that openly.
Trauma: Barblin’s character undergoes a harsh loss of innocence. In the central scenes, she is raped by the Soldier (Peider) – a traumatic event that she keeps secret. This act is not depicted graphically; we infer it from context and later dialogue. After the assault, Barblin becomes more subdued and haunted. She likely feels guilt and shame, as victims often do, compounded by the fact that she was attacked by someone from her own community. It’s a cruel irony that while Andri faces prejudice as a presumed threat to Andorran women, it is an Andorran man (the Soldier) who actually harms Barblin.
Final Stage: In the climax, Barblin shows immense courage and love. She is the only one (besides her mother) who openly opposes the Judenschau. She refuses to don a hood or look away; she cries out for Andri’s life and tries to reach him. This defiance is Barblin’s strongest moment, but it cannot save Andri. The ending finds Barblin shattered. Her head is shaved by the invaders (marking her as a “Judenhure” – a derogatory term meaning “Jew’s whore,” as the soldiers sneer). She loses her sanity, unable to process the horror: she babbles about preparing for Andri’s return, carrying his shoes, and obsessively whitewashing the square. Barblin’s fate is one of the most heartbreaking – she survives physically but is destroyed psychologically. She embodies the ultimate innocence lost, and through her, Frisch underscores the human cost of collective cruelty. The image of Barblin whitewashing at the end, trying to cover blood stains that won’t go away, is a powerful metaphor for society’s attempt to erase guilt – an effort doomed to fail.

Die Mutter (The Mother)

The Mother (given name not specified) is the Teacher’s wife and Barblin’s mother. She has raised Andri from infancy as if he were her own. For much of the play, the Mother appears as a quiet, nurturing presence, but also somewhat passive. She represents the ordinary people who “mean well” but stay silent.

Attitude Toward Andri: Believing Andri to be an orphan, the Mother has cared for him tenderly. However, it’s implied she, too, regards him as different due to his supposed origin. At one point, worried about Andri’s turmoil, she asks the Priest to talk to him and help him “accept his Jewishness”. This shows she has internalized the idea that Andri’s struggles stem from not accepting his role as a Jew in Andorra. She isn’t hateful at all – in fact, she’s kind to Andri – but her kindness is a bit condescending (treating his identity as something he must come to terms with, rather than questioning the townspeople’s prejudice).
Discovery of the Truth: The Mother is kept in the dark about Andri’s true parentage until very late. When the Senora arrives and eventually reveals that Andri is actually the Teacher’s son, the Mother is devastated. This revelation means her husband cheated on her and lied for twenty years. But in this crisis, the Mother doesn’t respond with jealousy or rejection of Andri – instead, her maternal instinct holds. She remains protective of Andri. If anything, learning he is truly her husband’s son (and thus Barblin’s half-brother) would make Barblin’s engagement to Andri even more untenable, yet in the face of immediate danger, the Mother’s priority is saving Andri’s life.
End Role: During the trial, the Mother is one of the few who tries to intervene. She reportedly runs to Andri, pleading for mercy, and is struck down. After Andri’s execution, the Mother is left in grief. (The play doesn’t detail her very final actions, but one can imagine she is left to pick up the pieces with a now-insane daughter and a dead husband.) The Mother’s character may not stand out as much as others, but she is significant as a decent person who nonetheless failed to act until it was too late. She illustrates how even good-hearted individuals can be complicit through silence or denial, a point Frisch makes about collective guilt.

Der Soldat (The Soldier)

The Soldier, later identified by the name Peider in some versions, is a young Andorran soldier who embodies aggressive masculinity and prejudice. He is often seen in uniform, loafing around rather than doing anything truly heroic.

Characteristics: Brash, vulgar, and self-important, the Soldier is introduced harassing Barblin. He flirts by teasing and taunting her (making crude comments as she paints). He also spreads fear by boasting about the potential invasion, claiming he’ll fight valiantly “bis zum letzten Mann” (“to the last man”) – all talk that later proves hollow. He clearly represents hypocrisy and cowardice beneath a macho exterior.
Prejudice: The Soldier’s attitude toward Andri is openly hostile. He sees Andri as a rival for Barblin’s affection and also as someone beneath him socially. In one scene, he suggests Andri join the army to prove himself, but quickly adds that he wouldn’t want to die in battle “for the likes of [Andri]”. His disdain is laced with anti-Semitic stereotypes: he calls Andri a coward (“Hosenscheisser”) and implies Jews are unworthy of sacrifice. The Soldier also represents the threat of violence that underpins prejudice – he’s one of the first characters to actually commit violence (the rape of Barblin, and later physically assaulting Andri).
Actions: The Soldier’s rape of Barblin is a pivotal off-stage event. It shows his sense of entitlement and cruelty. When the invasion happens, his true colours show: he immediately defects to the enemy side, betraying Andorra. He even becomes an instrument of Andri’s downfall, leading the search and personally arresting Andri. At the trial, he’s right there enforcing the will of the “Black” officers.
Justification and Guilt: In the epilogue testimonies, the Soldier tries to excuse himself with the classic line, “Ich habe nur Befehle ausgeführt. Ich war Soldat.” – “I was only following orders. I was a soldier.”This is a direct reference to the post-WWII Nuremberg defence and denazification period, where many perpetrators claimed they were just obeying orders. Frisch uses the Soldier to symbolise those who relish power when it’s in their favour but refuse accountability afterwards. Of all the characters, the Soldier is perhaps the least sympathetic – he doesn’t show remorse, only self-justification. He stands for militaristic fanaticism and bigotry, and how easily such individuals can be swayed to serve evil ends. In short, the Soldier is the play’s example of a bully who becomes a collaborator, underscoring the theme that prejudice often goes hand-in-hand with violence and cowardice.

Der Pater (The Priest)

The Priest is a complex character representing the Church and moral authority in the town. He is a figure of conscience, yet he too fails to prevent the tragedy.

Role in the Community: The Priest is expected to be a moral guide. He seems kindly and concerned about harmony. Early on, we see him mediating small matters (like gently scolding Barblin’s father for drinking too much). He’s cautious, often avoiding conflict. When the Teacher rants that Andorrans are no better than the Blacks, the Priest remarks with unease that “a teacher shouldn’t speak like that”. He prefers peace and avoids taking a strong stand, which is indicative of the Church’s sometimes passive role during crises.
Involvement with Andri: At the Mother’s request, the Priest speaks to Andri in a private scene. He tries to offer comfort by praising Andri: “Weißt du, Andri, was du bist? … Ein Prachtskerl! In deiner Art.” – “Do you know what you are, Andri? … A fine fellow! In your own way.” He also says, “Du bist nun einmal anders als wir.” – “You are, after all, different from us.” His intention is to be kind, but he still labels Andri as “different” – reinforcing the very division Andri struggles with. The Priest means well, yet his words carry the prejudice (even if gently) that Andri is “other”. This attempt at compassionate advice backfires; Andri is not particularly comforted and the talk doesn’t change his fate.
Guilt and Realisation: It is only after Andri’s death that the Priest fully confronts his failings. In his testimony to the audience, the Priest delivers one of the most significant self-indictments: “Auch ich habe mir ein Bildnis gemacht von ihm.” – “I too made an image of him.” Here, “Bildnis” (image) refers to the biblical Second Commandment (“Thou shalt not make a graven image”). The Priest realizes that by stereotyping Andri (even positively or pityingly), he sinned by violating the essence of that commandment. He, of all people, should have known better. Unlike others, the Priest does accept personal guilt: he doesn’t offer excuses. He regrets that he “wanted to meet Andri with love” but failed to truly listen or act. In the end, the Priest stands as the lone member of the community who openly acknowledges wrongdoing without self-justification. This makes him a somewhat redeeming figure, suggesting that recognition of guilt is the first step towards atonement. However, his late epiphany cannot save Andri – it serves as a lesson to the audience instead.

Other Townspeople (Carpenter, Landlord, Doctor, etc.)

The other named townspeople each represent different facets of society and various prejudices. They don’t undergo major changes, but collectively they paint a picture of how ordinary people contribute to injustice:

Der Tischler (The Carpenter): He is a craftsman who initially agrees (for a fee) to take Andri on as an apprentice. The Carpenter is not overtly hateful, but he is unwelcoming and biased. He complains that Andri doesn’t have “the craftsmanship in his blood” and suggests someone like Andri would be better as a “Makler” or working at the stock exchange. This reflects the stereotype that Jews are suited for trade/finance, not manual labor. When a chair breaks due to the Journeyman’s poor work, the Carpenter is quick to blame Andri and rid himself of the “problem.” In a foreground monologue, he justifies himself by saying “I thought I meant well; I’m not to blame for what happened later.” He insists he always said Andri was an “exception” among Jews, as if that absolves him. The Carpenter’s behavior shows how prejudice can be couched in seemingly practical concerns (business worries, etc.), and how people rationalize their lack of fairness by claiming good intentions.
Der Wirt (The Landlord/Innkeeper): The Landlord is portrayed as greedy and self-serving. He buys the Teacher’s land, is happy to profit from the situation, and has no moral qualms. He makes a telling remark: “Die Andorraner sind gemütliche Leut’, aber wenn es ums Geld geht… dann sind sie wie der Jud.” – “Andorrans are easy-going people, but when it comes to money… they’re like the Jew.” This quote is dripping with irony and prejudice; he essentially admits Andorrans can be greedy but uses “Jew” as a slur for greed. When things turn dire, the Landlord actively betrays Andri – falsely accusing him of murder to direct blame away from himself. In his testimony, he famously says “Ich wäre der Erste, der einen Stein wirft. Jawohl!” – “I would be the first to throw a stone. Yes indeed!”, illustrating how readily he participates in mob mentality. The Landlord exemplifies avarice and cowardice in one: motivated by profit, and quick to harm others to save himself.
Der Doktor (The Doctor): An intellectual figure, the Doctor represents educated bigotry. He often speaks in a pseudo-scientific or philosophical tone about Andri. He claims “Ich kenne den Jud. Die Wahrheit wird man in Andorra wohl noch sagen dürfen…” – “I know the Jew. One should still be allowed to speak the truth in Andorra…”, before spouting stereotypes: e.g. “Das Schlimme am Jud ist sein Ehrgeiz.” – “The bad thing about the Jew is his ambition.” The Doctor projects his own failures onto Jews – he laments that “they occupy all the university chairs in the world, leaving us nothing but our homeland”. This shows his envy and scapegoating: he hasn’t achieved as much as he wanted (perhaps he didn’t get a prestigious post), so he blames an imagined Jewish conspiracy. During the trial, the Doctor remains a bystander; afterwards, in his monologue, he advises everyone to stay calm and essentially rationalizes everything as a misunderstanding, showing no remorse. The Doctor’s character highlights how even the educated elite can harbour and justify racist ideologies, often cloaking hate under “just stating facts” or nationalist sentiment.
Der Geselle (The Journeyman): He is the Carpenter’s assistant, a minor character, but symbolically important as the real culprit behind the broken chair. He lets Andri take the blame to protect himself. This small act of cowardice is a microcosm of the larger betrayal. In his witness-box confession, the Journeyman likely says very little or denies responsibility. He shows how even a small lie or failure to speak up can contribute to someone else’s ruin.
Ein Jemand (The Someone): In the play, some testimonies are given by a character just called “Jemand” (Someone). This represents an anonymous member of the public – effectively, it could be anyone in Andorra. This everyman figure steps up to say they all thought the Teacher’s adopting a Jew was such a noble act, and that “nobody could have known it would end like this.” This voice reinforces how ordinary citizens distance
themselves from blame with excuses like “we couldn’t have known” or “I always treated him well.” It’s the voice of the average person who witnesses injustice but does nothing significant to stop it, yet later wants to avoid blame.

Each townsperson’s behaviour might seem small in isolation, but together they create a lethal environment for Andri. Their stereotypes, selfish actions, and inaction accumulate into a collective injustice. Frisch carefully constructed these characters to show a cross-section of society – from the friendly bigot (Doctor) to the greedy collaborator (Landlord) to the indifferent masses (“Jemand”) – implicating everyone in the moral failure. Notably, none of them, except the Priest, truly accepts personal guilt; they hide behind excuses or the idea of collective guilt (which dilutes individual responsibility). This is at the heart of Andorra’s critique of how societies often deal with the aftermath of atrocities.

Themes and Motifs

Prejudice, identity, and collective responsibility are central themes in Andorra, conveyed through recurring motifs like “image” (Bildnis) and whitewashing. Frisch’s play is a rich exploration of how stereotypes and fear can poison a community. Here are the key themes:

Prejudice and Antisemitism

Prejudice is the driving force of the plot. Although the targeted identity in the play is “Jewish,” Frisch uses it as a universal example of racial/religious hatred. The Andorrans’ anti-Jewish sentiments mirror the antisemitism that led to the Holocaust (though Andorra is fictional, the parallels to Nazi Germany are clear). Throughout the play, we see how prejudice operates on multiple levels:

Everyday Prejudice: In casual dialogue, characters utter stereotypical remarks as if they are truths. The Carpenter implying Andri should be a financier, the Doctor ranting about Jews on university chairs, the Soldier calling Andri a coward – these are all instances of normalized bigotry. None of the townspeople seriously challenge these statements, indicating how ingrained and socially accepted the prejudice is. This reflects how antisemitism was commonplace in many societies, not just among fanatics but average citizens.
Scapegoating and Fear: The play also shows how prejudice intensifies under stress. When the threat of the “Blacks” looms, the Andorrans’ prejudices escalate. They are quick to suspect Andri when the Senora is killed, showing how a prejudiced community can make someone the scapegoat for unrelated events. The fear of the “other” (the Blacks and by extension Andri) overrides truth and justice.
Antisemitism as a Mirror: Importantly, Frisch demonstrates that the traits the Andorrans hate are actually their own. They accuse Jews (Andri) of cowardice, greed, lust, and deceit – yet it’s the Andorrans who exhibit these behaviors (the Soldier is cowardly and lustful, the Landlord greedy, the community deceitful in hiding truth). As the Encyclopedia summary states, “The Andorrans see in Andri what they consider ‘Jewish’ traits… traits they themselves have and project onto him.” Prejudice thus serves as a mirror reflecting the society’s own flaws, which they refuse to acknowledge.

Frisch’s portrayal of antisemitism is a broader comment on all forms of prejudice. Andorra suggests that any community can become Andorra – drawing “us vs. them” lines, finding a minority to blame, and committing injustice under the guise of maintaining their own purity or security. The play was written in 1961, in the shadow of WWII, as a warning that the seeds of such hatred can exist anywhere and must be confronted.

Identity and Stereotypes

A central question in Andorra is: How does one’s identity form? Is it innate or shaped by society’s perception? Andri’s fate tragically answers that external labels can heavily shape personal identity.

Andri’s Identity: Andri is not Jewish by birth, but he is Jewish by social definition. His entire identity has been constructed by the society around him. He grapples with this: he wants to be just Andri, the Teacher’s son, but he’s only ever seen as “the Jew.” Despite not having a Jewish cultural upbringing, he faces expectations (e.g., that he’s good with money, or should behave a certain way). Over time, these stereotypes affect how Andri thinks and behaves. In a sense, the Andorrans impose an identity on him so forcefully that it becomes his reality. This explores the theme of the “image” vs. reality. Frisch explicitly connects this to the idea of “Bildnis” (image or stereotype) in the human mind
“Making an Image”: Characters often talk about what someone “is” or “is not,” drawing on stereotypes. The Priest eventually articulates the moral: “Auch ich habe mir ein Bildnis gemacht von ihm.” – “I too made an image of him.” Here “Bildnis” means a fixed idea or stereotype. This references the biblical commandment against making graven images, extending it to making rigid images of people. The play argues that defining a person by a single attribute (religion, race, etc.) is akin to idolatry – it’s a false image that replaces seeing the person’s full humanity.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: The stereotypes in Andorra become self-fulfilling. Because everyone treats Andri as “different,” he increasingly acts apart. He develops the pride and defiance they expect from him (they label it “Jewish pride/ambition”). He becomes withdrawn and secretive, which they interpret as “Jewish slyness.” Ultimately, he even goes willingly to his death, almost as if accepting the martyr role they’ve carved out for him. This shows how constant stereotyping can push an individual to embody that stereotype, especially when no alternative identity is allowed. It’s a vicious cycle: the more Andri tries to be accepted, the more the Andorrans point to something about him that “proves” their stereotype, which then causes him to behave differently out of frustration.
Other Characters and Identity: It’s worth noting that the Andorrans cling to a positive self-identity: they are proud of their “white” houses, their virtue compared to the Blacks. This self-image is also false, as shown by their moral collapse. So, the play juxtaposes personal identity vs. collective identity. Andri loses his personal identity to the collective’s stereotype; the Andorrans’ collective identity (as good, upright people) is revealed to be a lie by the end.

In summary, Andorra demonstrates how identities can be socially constructed and distorted. The play’s events underscore the profound harm in letting stereotypes define individuals. Frisch’s message is that we must recognize each person’s unique humanity, rather than the “image” we project – an idea he underlines by invoking the commandment against images.

Collective Guilt and Responsibility

One of Andorra’s most striking themes is the concept of collective vs. individual guilt. After Andri’s death, every surviving character (except Barblin and the Teacher) steps forward to address the audience, giving their version of events. This theatrical device directly confronts the idea of responsibility:

Collective Guilt: In these monologues, the townspeople implicitly acknowledge something terrible happened (“Andri’s death”), but each one speaks in a defensive tone, spreading or diminishing blame. They say things like, “No one could have known…”, “I did what everyone did…”, “We all thought it was for the best…” This echoes how many people after the Holocaust or other atrocities said “we all share the blame” as a way of diluting personal accountability. Frisch illustrates the danger of collective guilt: it can become an excuse. If everyone is guilty, then in a way, no one is guilty – because it’s seen as just an unfortunate fate or a societal problem rather than a result of individual choices.
Individual Responsibility: Frisch contrasts this with the notion of personal responsibility. The Priest is the only character who doesn’t hide behind “we” – he uses “I”. He admits his sin (stereotyping Andri, not intervening boldly). This suggests that true moral clarity comes when individuals say, “I am responsible for what I did or failed to do.” The Teacher’s suicide is another form of personal accountability – though tragic, it’s an acceptance of guilt so intense that he cannot live with it. Barblin’s madness could be seen as her inability to reconcile what happened – she perhaps feels survivor’s guilt or simply cannot accept the world’s evil.
The Bystanders: A significant point is that none of the Andorran townspeople committed a murder by their own hand – the invading soldiers killed Andri. Yet Frisch’s play squarely puts guilt on them for creating the conditions that allowed it. This is a direct commentary on the Holocaust: many ordinary citizens in Nazi-occupied countries and Germany did not personally kill anyone, but their prejudices, silence, or cooperation enabled the genocide. Andorra demands the audience ask, “What would I have done? Am I complicit if I do nothing?” The play leaves us uncomfortably aware that all of Andorra (except perhaps the innocents like Barblin) bear guilt for Andri. It’s a collective stain that whitewash cannot cover.
Responsibility for the Future: The theme isn’t just laying blame; it’s a call to human responsibility. In Frisch’s appended notes (and echoed in the Encyclopedia excerpt), he suggests that preventing another Holocaust or tragedy requires each person to actively resist stereotyping and hatred. The line “Jeder trägt die Verantwortung, einen künftigen Holocaust zu verhindern, indem er jeden Menschen in seinem einzigartigen Wesen anerkennt.” – “Frisch points out that each individual carries the responsibility of preventing a future Holocaust by accepting and affirming every person’s unique being.”
Thus, Andorra implores us to not be complacent “bystanders.” Responsibility is both personal (don’t contribute to prejudice) and collective (a community must not allow a culture of hate).

In essence, Andorra is a study in moral responsibility. It condemns the shrugging of shoulders and “who could have known?” mentality. The play’s structure forces the audience into a jury-like position, listening to these excuses and judging them. By doing so, Frisch turns the lens onto society (and the viewers themselves), stressing that we are responsible for how we treat others in our community.

Other Motifs: Whitewashing and Symbols

Several motifs reinforce the above themes throughout the play:

Whitewashing: Barblin’s whitewashing of the house at the beginning, and her frantic whitewashing at the end, frame the drama. White typically symbolizes purity or innocence. At first, it’s a festive, hopeful act. But by the end, the same act is tragic and futile – you can’t wash away blood or guilt. Whitewashing becomes a metaphor for the community trying to cover up or deny its sins. The fact that rain or blood can wash off the white paint (as the Soldier jests early on) shows that truth will bleed through any false facade. This motif directly ties into the theme of collective guilt and denial.
The Color White vs. Black: Andorrans pride themselves on their “snow-white” town (literal white houses, symbolic “moral superiority”) in contrast to the “Blacks” (the outsiders, painted as evil). This stark color imagery highlights the black-and-white mentality of prejudice. The irony is that the “whiteness” of Andorra is only superficial – underneath, as the Soldier says, the walls are made of red earth that shows through when it rains, “als hätte man eine Sau drauf geschlachtet” (like a pig was slaughtered on it). This gruesome image foreshadows the bloodshed to come and suggests that Andorra’s claimed purity is a lie covered by a thin coat of white.
The Ring: The ring the Senora gives Andri is a small but significant symbol. It represents Andri’s true heritage (it’s from his real mother). But instead of being a token of identity or love, it tragically becomes a motive for desecration – the soldiers literally cut off Andri’s finger to steal this ring. One can see the ring as symbolizing how Andri’s true identity was violently stripped from him to satisfy greed and cruelty. It’s also an object that ties Andri to the Senora (his connection to the “enemy”), and thus it makes him a target in the invaders’ eyes.
Shoes: At the end, Barblin guarding Andri’s shoes on stage is a potent image. Shoes often symbolize a journey or someone’s presence. Here, empty shoes signify Andri’s absence (like memorials of Holocaust victims with their shoes). Barblin not letting anyone touch them is her way of holding onto Andri and refusing to accept his death. It’s a motif of remembering vs. forgetting – she won’t let his memory be “cleaned up” or removed.
The Chair/Stool: The broken chair incident is symbolic of scapegoating. A literal broken object leads to Andri’s opportunity being taken away. The fact that the real culprit (the Journeyman) remains silent while Andri takes the blame is a microcosm of the whole play’s dynamic. It’s a physical motif for misplaced blame.
Names vs. Roles: Most characters have no personal names, only roles (Teacher, Soldier, etc.), which is a deliberate motif. It universalizes them – they could be any teacher, soldier, priest in any town. It strips them of individuality in the script, which is exactly what they do to Andri. They reduce him to “the Jew,” while the script reduces them to titles. Frisch’s theatrical motif here subtly forces the audience to see them as types, making the story an allegory about society at large rather than one town.

In conclusion, the themes of Andorra warn about the dangers of prejudice and the necessity of recognizing individual humanity. Motifs like the whitewashing and witness testimonies reinforce how a community’s attempt to absolve itself or hide the truth is doomed. The play’s message is clear: everyone must resist the urge to cast others into simplistic images or remain passive in the face of injustice – because the consequences, as shown, can be catastrophic.

Historical and Social Context

To fully grasp Andorra, it’s important to understand the context in which Max Frisch wrote it and the issues it responds to:

Post-WWII Reflection: Andorra premiered in 1961, at a time when Germany (and Europe) was still coming to terms with World War II and the Holocaust. Frisch, a Swiss playwright, was writing for an audience who had either witnessed the atrocities or grown up in their shadow. The play serves as an allegory for the Holocaust and a critique of the kind of thinking that allowed it to happen. References to the “Blacks” invading and conducting a Judenschau are direct parallels to Nazi tactics (black uniforms, identifying Jews, show trials). The behaviours and excuses of the characters echo those of real people under Nazism (e.g., the Soldier’s “I was just following orders”. By setting it in a fictional land called Andorra, Frisch created some distance, allowing audiences to examine their own moral choices without immediately saying “this is just about Nazis.” But the intention is clearly to reflect on how ordinary people contributed to extraordinary evil.
Antisemitism and Stereotypes: Frisch was influenced by the persistence of antisemitism even after the war. The play is subtitled “Andorra: Stück in 12 Bildern” – and those “pictures” show various facets of prejudice. In the diary entry that inspired the play (titled “Der andorranische Jude”), Frisch cataloged common antisemitic stereotypes (e.g., “no depth of feeling, only sharp wits; money-oriented; proud in a certain way”). These make their way into the play’s dialogue. By exaggerating them in the mouths of the Andorrans, Frisch exposes how absurd and baseless such stereotypes are – they say more about the Andorrans than about Jews. Historically, this was a period when Germany was beginning to educate the younger generation about the Holocaust; Andorra helped confront the mechanisms of prejudice that led to it.
Max Frisch’s Message: Frisch, though Swiss (Switzerland was neutral in WWII), was deeply concerned with issues of guilt and responsibility. Switzerland had its own reckoning (it wasn’t occupied, but it had to examine its attitudes towards refugees and the Holocaust after the war). Frisch’s message in Andorra is that everyone is responsible for combatting prejudice. He saw how easily people absolved themselves by saying “I didn’t personally do anything bad.” The play argues that allowing a climate of hate to grow is itself a crime. This reflects a broader post-war theme of Vergangenheitsbewältigung (coming to terms with the past) especially in Germany and neighboring countries.
Epic Theatre Influence: Frisch was influenced by Bertolt Brecht’s epic theatre, which was known for breaking the fourth wall and confronting the audience with social questions. Brecht used techniques to prevent the audience from getting too emotionally lost in the story, so they could think critically instead. Frisch employs similar techniques (like the witness-box speeches and the non-realistic elements) to make the audience reflect on the content. However, Frisch diverged from Brecht in that he wasn’t optimistic that just showing these things would enlighten society. Andorra is more of a cautionary tragedy than a didactic piece with a clear solution – it leaves you with heavy questions.
Cold War and “the Other”: Written in 1961, Andorra also came at the height of the Cold War. While the play isn’t directly about that, the idea of the “Blacks” (a faceless enemy) could resonate with audiences used to East vs. West propaganda, where each side demonized the other. The play subtly criticizes any binary division of humanity (whether it’s racial, national, ideological). In the era of segregation in the US and colonial conflicts abroad, the theme of racist prejudice was globally relevant too. Frisch’s universal approach means Andorra could be anywhere, and “Jews” could be any persecuted minority.
Reception and Relevance: Andorra was and remains one of Frisch’s best-known plays in German-speaking countries. It sparked discussions about Swiss neutrality and guilt as well – Switzerland had claimed moral high ground during WWII, but here was a Swiss writer implying that such self-righteous neutrality (“our houses are white”) might mask complicity. The play’s enduring relevance is seen in how it’s been used to discuss not only antisemitism but also xenophobia and racism in various contexts. It’s often staged in schools to teach about tolerance and the importance of speaking up.

In summary, Andorra is very much a product of its time – a moral examination of WWII’s lessons – but it’s also timeless in its appeal to human responsibility. Frisch’s context (post-war Europe) gave him the impetus to write a play that feels like a warning: This (Andri’s fate) is what happens when ordinary people let prejudice reign. The historical subtext of the Holocaust and other instances of persecution fuels the play’s emotional intensity and urgency.

Style and Structure

Max Frisch employs distinct dramatic techniques in Andorra that reinforce its themes and engage the audience’s critical thinking. The play’s form is as important as its content in delivering the message:

Epic Theatre Format: Andorra is written in the style of epic theatre, a form championed by Brecht. It is not a traditional linear narrative that aims for illusion; instead, it’s arranged in separated scenes or “pictures” with direct audience address. The play consists of 12 Bilder (scenes), each presenting a crucial episode (almost like snapshots). Between many scenes are the Vordergrund episodes (foreground witness monologues). These structural choices prevent the audience from simply getting lost in the story of characters – instead, after each major scene, we are pulled out and prompted to analyze what just happened. This aligns with epic theatre’s goal: to make the viewer an active, critical observer rather than a passive consumer of entertainment. For example, after the intense scene of Andri being fired by the Carpenter, the Carpenter steps forward to justify himself, essentially asking the audience, “Can you blame me?” This technique breaks the narrative flow but focuses our attention on the why and how of prejudice and guilt.
Witness Box Monologues: One of the most striking structural elements is the use of the “Zeugenschranke” (witness stand) monologues. Characters speak in past tense about Andri’s death, which hasn’t yet been seen in the main action at that point. This creates dramatic irony and foreshadowing – we know from early on that Andri will die and the town will lament it. The tension then comes not from what will happen, but why and how. Dramatically, this also serves the Verfremdungseffekt (distancing effect) – we are constantly reminded this is a story with a known end, so we should focus on the moral, not suspense. It’s a call to thought, not just emotion.
Symbolism: Frisch’s style is rich in symbolism:
- The whitewashing motif, as discussed, symbolizes covering up truth/guilt. It’s a visual recurring element (the audience sees Barblin with her brush at the start and end).
- The contrast of light and dark (white town vs. looming black threat) is a stylized way to portray good vs. evil – then subvert it by showing the “darkness” within the supposedly good town.
- Props and actions carry weight: The stool that Andri is blamed for, the money the Teacher pays (literally putting a price on tolerance), the Bible the Priest holds vs. the reality he ignores, etc., all have layered meaning.
Language: Frisch’s language in Andorra is simple, almost colloquial, yet laced with motifs. Characters repeat certain phrases (like “I have nothing against Jews, but…” or “Andri is an exception”). This repetition emphasizes how ingrained and unconscious the prejudice is – they all speak in cliche without realizing it. Also, terms like “die Andorraner”, “die Schwarzen”, “der Jud” (using a derogatory truncation for Jew) are used generically, showing how people are lumped into groups. When the Doctor says “Die Wahrheit wird man noch sagen dürfen” (“One should still be allowed to speak the truth (about Jews)”), it’s pointed – that exact phrasing was often used by bigots to preface offensive generalizations. Frisch intentionally mirrors real-life language to make the audience recognize it and cringe.
No Act Division, but Scenes: Unlike classic plays that have acts, Andorra is one continuous flow of scenes. This episodic structure can feel almost like a modern montage or a series of illustrative cases. It ensures there isn’t a traditional rising action-climax-falling action structure; instead, there’s a cyclical buildup of tension and a climax that’s foreshadowed from the start. It keeps the audience intellectually engaged – you’re piecing together the story from these fragments and testimonies.
Minimalism and Setting: The setting of Andorra is abstract in some ways. It’s a small town (could resemble a Swiss or German village), but Frisch gives few specific details about scenery beyond the white houses and the square. This allows productions to stage it simply – often a few benches, a wall that Barblin paints, maybe a table at the inn. The focus is on dialogue and interaction, not on elaborate sets. This minimalism is a stylistic choice to foreground the human interactions and moral questions over any realistic context.
Contrast of Tones: The play shifts from light, almost comedic or folksy tones (the banter between Barblin and the Soldier in scene 1, townsfolk gossip) to dark, tragic tones by the end. This tonal variation is a technique to show the normalcy of prejudice in everyday life and then its horrific culmination. The mundanity of the early scenes lulls the audience into recognizing these people as familiar, maybe even charming in their small-town quirkiness – which makes the shock of their later actions even more jarring.

In summary, Frisch’s style in Andorra combines epic theatre techniques, symbolic imagery, and deliberate structural choices to drive home the play’s themes. The structure (with its witness monologues and episodic scenes) forces viewers to constantly reflect, essentially making Andorra not just a play but a kind of moral tribunal. The symbols like whitewashing and the direct address to the audience ensure that the message – about prejudice and responsibility – is delivered not through preaching, but through the form of the drama itself. It’s a compelling example of how the medium (the play’s style and structure) is used to enhance the message in literature.

Key Quotes and Analysis

Here are some important quotes from Andorra, with explanations of their significance. These lines encapsulate major themes or turning points in the play:

“Einmal werd’ ich die Wahrheit sagen – das meint man, aber die Lüge ist ein Egel, sie hat die Wahrheit ausgesaugt.” – (Der Lehrer, Bild 1).Translation: “One day I’ll tell the truth – that’s what one thinks, but the lie is a leech, it has sucked out the truth.”Analysis: The Teacher says this early in the play, in a moment of private despair. It refers to the lie he told about Andri’s origins. The metaphor of the lie as a leech vividly conveys how the falsehood has drained the power from the truth over the years. This quote foreshadows that by the time the Teacher finally attempts to reveal the truth, it will indeed be too late – nobody will believe it (the lie has taken hold). It highlights the theme of truth vs. falsehood and how a sustained lie can corrupt reality. It also reveals the Teacher’s guilt and weakness; he knows what’s right but feels the lie has made the truth impotent. This sets the stage for the tragic outcome and underscores Frisch’s warning about the long-term corrosive effect of dishonesty and cowardice.
“Du bist nun einmal anders als wir.” – (Der Pater to Andri, Bild 7).Translation: “You are, after all, different from us.”Analysis: The Priest says this during his heart-to-heart talk with Andri. He intends to console Andri by acknowledging his “otherness” kindly. However, this quote is pivotal because it shows even the well-meaning Priest cannot break free from the prejudice. By affirming that Andri is fundamentally different, he reinforces the very barrier Andri faces. It’s a moment where Andri is looking for acceptance, and instead he’s essentially told to accept being an outsider. The quote ties into the theme of identity and stereotypes – even the community’s moral authority figure labels Andri as “not one of us.” This contributes to Andri’s eventual resolve to embrace the outcast identity. Dramatically, this line also resonates with the Second Commandment motif: the Priest later realizes he sinned by making Andri into an “image” or category, rather than seeing him as just another human being.
“Ich hab doch immer gesagt, Andri ist eine Ausnahme.” – (Townspeople, repeated idea in various forms.)Translation: “I always said Andri is an exception.”Analysis: Variations of this line are spoken by multiple characters (the Carpenter, the Teacher in his denial, etc.). It epitomizes the hypocrisy of prejudice. The townspeople claim Andri is an “exception” – meaning he’s not like the negative image of Jews they hold. They use this to justify that they personally don’t hate him (“see, I even acknowledged he’s a good Jew”). However, by calling him an exception, they still imply that the stereotype about Jews in general is true. It’s a patronizing form of prejudice: superficially praising the individual while still condemning the group. This mindset stops anyone from challenging the stereotype itself. In the end, it’s meaningless because when panic strikes, they treat Andri exactly as they would any hated outsider, “exception” or not. The quote is significant because it reveals the community’s self-delusion – they think saying this absolves them of bias, whereas it actually underscores their bias. It’s a critique of those who say “I don’t hate X people, my friend so-and-so is one and he’s fine,” while still harbouring general hatred.
“Wieso seid ihr stärker als die Wahrheit? Sie wissen genau, was wahr ist.” – (Andri, confronting the townspeople, late in the play.)Translation: “Why are you all stronger than the truth? You know exactly what is true.”Analysis: This is Andri’s anguished cry when he finally realizes that no matter what he says or even what reality is, the collective belief of the townspeople overrides it. The “you” he addresses is plural – he’s talking to society at large (could be the immediate onstage people or society metaphorically). This line encapsulates the theme of societal image vs. truth. Andri is essentially acknowledging that the prejudice (“you”) has defeated the actual truth of who he is. There’s also a plea in it – he insists they know the truth, deep down. Indeed, by this point some do know (e.g., the Teacher, the Mother), but “you” (prejudice, fear, hatred) prove stronger. It’s a very emotional line that resonates with anyone who has been victimized by a false narrative. In terms of the play’s impact, when Andri says this, it directly challenges the audience: we are part of that “you” – the majority that can propagate lies or truth. Are we stronger than the truth or do we uphold the truth? It’s one of the play’s key questions.
“Auch ich habe mir ein Bildnis gemacht von ihm.” – (Der Pater’s testimony, Vordergrund after Bild 11.)Translation: “I, too, made an image (idol) of him.”Analysis: This is the Priest’s confession in the witness box near the end. It’s significant because it’s a moment of clarity and admission of guilt. The Priest is referencing the Bible’s commandment against graven images, applying it to how he viewed Andri. By calling his perception of Andri a “Bildnis” (image/idol), he means he imposed a fixed idea on Andri (seeing him as a certain type of person rather than as himself). This is essentially the moral thesis of the play condensed into one line. It condemns the act of stereotyping as a kind of moral sin. Coming from the Priest, it carries theological weight – prejudice is not just socially wrong, it’s spiritually wrong because it violates the uniqueness of a human soul. This quote is a rare moment where a character takes full responsibility (“I, too, am guilty”). It serves as a lesson for the audience to reflect: each of us might also be guilty of “making an image” of others. In terms of resolution, it’s bittersweet – it’s the truth, but it comes only after irreparable loss.
“Wir werden ein weißes Andorra haben… ein schneeweißes Andorra.” – (Der Soldat parroting the Priest’s words, Bild 1.)Translation: “We will have a white Andorra… a snow-white Andorra.”Analysis: This line is repeated in the first scene, originally by the Priest as he blesses the town’s preparations, and mockingly by the Soldier. It foreshadows the play’s obsession with purity and the irony behind it. A “snow-white Andorra” symbolizes a community that sees itself as morally spotless and united. The Priest likely means it innocently (white for the church festival, pure hearts, etc.), but the Soldier’s repetition has a sharp edge – he suggests the whitewash might wash off if it rains, revealing red beneath (which it metaphorically does, in blood). The phrase “white Andorra” becomes ironic by the end: the town might be literally covered in white paint and the Senora’s white shawl, but it’s morally blood-stained. This quote also introduces the motif of white vs. black early on, and the idea of appearances vs. reality. It’s important because it’s emblematic – so much so that a production poster (like the one above) might use black-and-white imagery to capture this concept. In a sense, the whole play is about exposing that Andorra was never truly “snow-white.”

Each of these quotes is loaded with meaning and helps in analysing the play. When studying Andorra, consider the context of each line – who says it, why, and how it ties back to Frisch’s central messages about prejudice, identity, and responsibility.

Exam-Style Questions

To practice your understanding of Andorra, here are some exam-style questions and prompts. These are the kind of analytical questions A-Level German students might encounter. It’s a good idea to plan answers for these, using evidence from the text (in German) to support your points. (While the questions are in English here for clarity, remember your actual exam may pose them in German, and you would be expected to answer in German.)

Prejudice in Andorra: Analyse how prejudice is portrayed in Frisch’s Andorra. What different forms does it take among the townspeople, and what are the consequences for the individual and community? Points to consider: the everyday bigotry of characters like the Doctor and Carpenter; the role of fear (invasion) in amplifying prejudice; Andri’s treatment and fate; the message Frisch sends about prejudice.
Character Study – Andri: “Andri can be seen as both a victim and a hero.” Discuss the character development of Andri and to what extent he fits the role of a tragic hero. Points: his initially passive/victim status vs. moments of agency (e.g., standing by his love, defiantly embracing his identity); his moral innocence contrasted with his self-destructive acceptance of the town’s image; the audience’s sympathy and frustration with him.
Role of Minor Characters: Examine the role of two supporting characters (for example, the Soldier and the Doctor) and how they contribute to the play’s central themes.Points: Soldier – theme of violence and “following orders,” misogyny (rape of Barblin), open antisemitism; Doctor – intellectualized prejudice, envy, spreading stereotypes as “truth.” How each of their actions further isolate Andri and reflect societal attitudes.
Symbolism of Whitewashing: What is the significance of Barblin’s whitewashing in the play? How does this motif evolve from the beginning to the end, and what does it symbolize in the context of Andorra’s story? Points: Whitewashing at start (innocence, preparation for a hopeful event); whitewashing at end (attempt to cover guilt, loss of innocence); connection to the idea of covering up vs. confronting truth; how this visual symbol is woven into dialogue (rain washing off paint, etc.).
Structure and Its Effect: Frisch breaks the action of Andorra with “foreground” scenes where characters speak directly to the audience. How does this structure affect the audience’s experience and reinforce the play’s themes? Points: Brechtian influence – preventing emotional complacency; foreshadowing – knowing the end from the start; invites audience judgment of characters’ excuses; highlights theme of guilt (characters justify themselves to us as if we’re a court).
Collective Guilt: “It is not the individual who is guilty but the community.” To what extent do you agree with this statement in the context of Andorra?Points: The play’s depiction of collective vs individual guilt – all contribute in small ways (agree or disagree? Perhaps both – individuals are guilty as part of the community); the ending monologues – everyone has excuses (community guilt recognized, but no one takes personal blame except Priest/Teacher); Frisch’s intention about responsibility.
Frisch’s Message and Relevance: What message does Max Frisch convey about human responsibility in Andorra, and how might this message be relevant today?Points: “Thou shalt not make an image” – respect each person’s humanity; speaking out vs. staying silent; the need for personal courage to prevent atrocities; examples from the play (Teacher’s failure, Priest’s regret); application to modern instances of prejudice, racism, or any form of othering.

Official A-level German past paper questions on Andorra

„Sie werden sich wundern, wenn ich die Wahrheit sage". Von welcher Bedeutung sind die Worte des Lehrers?
Inwiefern spielt Geld eine wichtige Rolle in diesem Theaterstück?
Was ist für Sie das interessanteste Thema in Andorra? Begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Analysieren Sie die Darstellung des Doktors in diesem Schauspiel. Wie beeinflusst er die Handlung?
Von welcher Bedeutung ist Ihrer Meinung nach der Besuch der Señora in diesem Theaterstück?
Der Doktor sagt: "Was hat unsereiner eigentlich getan? Überhaupt nichts." Wie wichtig sind diese Worte für Andris Schicksal?
„Andorra hat keinen sozialen oder historischen Kontext". Erklären Sie, inwiefern Sie zustimmen.
Analysieren Sie die Bedeutung des Lehrers und des Soldaten für das Stück.
Beurteilen Sie, inwieweit das Selbstbild der Andorrander der Realität entspricht.
Analysieren Sie die Form des Stücks.
Beurteilen Sie, inwieweit es in Andorra Gerechtigkeit gibt.
Beurteilen Sie, wie wirksam die Vordergrundszenen in diesem Werrk sind.
Analysieren Sie die Ideen von Sein und Schein in diesem Stück.
Untersuchen Sie die Entwicklung von Barblin in diesem Stück.
Untersuchen Sie das Thema "Schuld" in diesem Stück.
Was wollte Frisch mit ‚Andorra‘ dem Publikum sagen? Inwiefern ist es ihm gelungen, seine Botschaft zu vermitteln?

When preparing answers, be sure to include specific examples/quotes in German from the play to support your analysis. Discuss not just the plot, but the dramatic methods (how Frisch uses structure, dialogue, symbols) to convey ideas. Good luck with your revision – and remember Frisch’s cautionary tale: it urges us not just to analyse literature, but to reflect on our own world and behaviour.

On my German language blog, you'll find a treasure trove of resources for A-level German students, such as revision guides on all major works of literature and films that are part of the AQA and Edexcel exam boards like Das Leben der Anderen, a guide on how to write excellent A-level German essays, etc.

#andorra #maxfrisch #alevelgerman #alevelgermanrevision