That was the title of a lecture given under the auspices of The Wagner
Society of Washington, DC, by Lou Santacroce last week on Thursday,
September 28, 2000 7:30 p.m. at the George Washington University's
Funger Hall, in Washington, D.C.

For many of the people attending, it was a reunion after having been
privileged through their membership in the Wagner Society to attend
performances of the Ring and/or other Wagner operas at Bayreuth this
summer.  Only members could participate in the ticket lottery and for
that reason alone, there were others, I did not participate.  Apparently
the opportunity will present itself again for next season and I'm
struggling in heart and mind to decide if I should enter what I almost
consider a devil's pact by joining up!

Mr. Santacroce is the host of National Public Radio's a program "At the
Opera", which is not broadcast in the DC area.  I was reminded that I
had heard him before in Baltimore, when he gave a pre-performance lecture
on *Tannhaeuser*.  While at the time I wasn't totally receptive to
Santacroce's characterization of *Tannhaeuser* as a Hegelian synthesis of
the Renaissance out of orthodox Christianity and neopaganism, I appreciated
some of the insights he had provided.

This time Mr. Santacroce presented Wagner's *Parsifal* as a recapitulation
of Christian (probably mainly Roman Catholic) dogma with new symbols.  As
one who has only that little knowledge of Mr. Santacroce's religion as can
be dangerous, I apologize in advance if I've inadvertently misstated some
of the things I recall hearing.

At the outset Mr. Santacroce rejects, at least in *Parsifal* the idea
that Wagner was influenced by Schopenhauer.  (I've seen many references in
Internet posts to the alleged influence of Schopenhauer on Wagner.  Since
the only thing of Schopenhauer's that I know is his comment "Obit anus,
abit onus" upon the death of an old lady to whom he had been directed to
pay a piddling weekly sum in restitution for having thrown her down the
stairs, I've never paid much attention to those discussions.)  Santacroce
describes Schopenhauer's teachings as full of pessimism, convinced of
life's futility and non-existence being the preferred state over life, best
approximated through the Indian concept of Nirvana, but that Wagner, as a
Christian, had rejected this attitude, affirming instead his belief in a
personal God and in redemption through Jesus.  What Schopenhauer influence
may have pervaded *Tristan* and *The Ring* ends w/ the first note of
*Parsifal*, which Santacroce considers a Christian "mystery play".

According to Santacroce, the Grail was not simply a symbol of Christianity;
it represented a resurrected Jesus.  Nevertheless, people cannot aspire
to the Grail castle at Montsalvat unless they are "guided" there by the
Grail itself.  (Here my limited grasp of theology breaks down.  I don't
think Santacroce is suggesting that salvation can only be found by those
predestined for it.  It had always been my impression that, according to
Roman Catholicism, salvation was available to all who sought it.  This was
not the only instance of my understanding of what Santacroce seemed to be
saying conflicted w/ my understanding of other matters.) The Grail knights
who are called are like Jesus' disciples.  (But is the Grail, like Jesus
Himself, capable of error? At least one of the twelve disciples seems to
have been a less than wise choice.) Incidentally, all whom the Grail has
drawn to it are not necessarily intended to be knights of the Grail.
Klingsor had also been drawn to the Grail but, to his disappointment, not
as a knight.  He was found on the grounds by Titurel, Amfortas' predecessor
(actually, Amfortas' father), but nevertheless ineligible for Grail
knighthood because of a sin, the nature of which Gurmenanz, the narrator,
does not know, but which Santacroce believes to be a sin of the flesh.  To
render himself incapable of sinning this way again, Klingsor, according to
Santacroce castrated himself (apparently inferred from the lines "powerless
to stifle the sin within him, on himself he laid dastardly hands") not
realizing that such mutilation would ipso facto render him ineligible for
inclusion among the knights, much as it would render him ineligible for the
priesthood.  Angered at his renewed rejection, he learns the arts of magic
and conjures up his rival castle into which to lure susceptible Grail
knights.  Santacroce says he represents Satan, Lucifer, the angel who had
cried out "Non serviam!"

Santacroce reminded us that the New Testament accounts are replete w/
instances of plenty coming out of little or nothing, from accounts of the
disciples being sent out by Jesus w/ neither food nor ample clothing and
yet returning from their missions filled and ample, to various creations
of supernatural abundance as in the tale of the loaves and the fishes.
Similarly, the Grail itself seems to be a cornucopia continually feeding
the Grail knights.

But also, like Jesus, the Grail issues commandments.  One such was
a requirement of abstinence, chastity, celibacy.  (I asked Santacroce
after his presentation whether, by having the Grail knights committed to
celibacy in *Parsifal* he thought Wagner was in his final opera seeking
to revoke *Lohengrin*, who's Parsifal's son.  I'd forgotten about Titurel.
Santacroce fielded the question like a smart politician, noting that
between the times Wagner wrote *Lohengrin* and *Parsifal* he had come to
refine and revise some of his ideas.) Nevertheless, many of the knights
have fallen victims to the temptations of Klingsor's flower girls
(analogized to the pagan temple prostitutes of biblical times) forfeiting
their right to return.  And it is a holy vision emanating from the Grail
that forecasts the arrival of the innocent fool, enlightened through
compassion, for whom the Grail knights are to wait.  And Amfortas himself?
Not willing to wait for God's time, he sought to enage and subdue Klingsor
himself, only to be intercepted by Kundry.  Caught by Klingsor in an
embrace w/ Kundry, he apparently recovered himself in time to avert full
consummation, but not before Klingsor had seized the sacred spear w/ which
he inflicted upon Amfortas the wound which will not heal.

Kundry is described by Santacroce as the only creature Klingsor cannot
control.  She had mocked Jesus on His way to His crucifixion and is doomed
to wander the earth evermore, or something like that, but she isn't the
wandering Jew(ess).  Why not?  Well first, because the Jews weren't there
at the time; they were home enjoying their Seders.  The only people outside
to mock Jesus, were pagans.  But, possibly more important, according to
Santacroce, Wagner finds her capable of salvation, which Jews, racially are
not.  This runs counter not only to Catholic teaching as I understand it
but also according to Santacroce's own account that Wagner had attempted
to secure the conversion of Hermann Levi.  She washes Parsifal's feet much
like the penitent woman washed Jesus' and Gurnemanz sprinkles water over
Parsifal as John the Baptist had baptized Jesus but Parsifal is not Jesus,
simply a believer, and Gurmenanz is not John the Baptist.  He keeps his
head all through the opera.

In the question period, in which I had recalled Lohengrin's parentage, a
person who had just attended a performance in Bayreuth remarked upon the
changes that had been made in the staging there.  When the spear hurled by
Klingsor at Parsifal stops in mid-air, Parsifal does not make a sign of the
cross (but nevertheless singing "With this sign I rout your enchantment")
and Kundry does not die at the end but stands alongside Parsifal to hold
the Grail.  Someone, maybe even Santacroce, remarked, tongue in cheek of
course, that this gave a new explanation to Lohengrin.

It will be noticed that in none of this, and there was more of the same,
was there any examination or discussion of Wagner's music and frankly, I
felt a little cozened.  Despite the announced title of the lecture, I had
not expected a lecture entirely on theology, which in any event, provided
insufficient enlightenment to the ignorant, and for those w/ a little more
acquaintance w/ the subject merely highlighted seeming analogies between
the biblical accounts and those of Wagner, only to have them rejected as
not really analogies.  It seemed to me almost as though Santacroce was
showing off his knowledge of the Bible and of Wagner's story of Parsifal,
and his ability to see parallels between them, which he would then expose
as false parallels after all.  As a result, I didn't feel that I came away
from the lecture knowing more about the opera, for which I have a ticket
this season, than I did before.

Walter Meyer