Stirling Newberry <[log in to unmask]> replies to me:
>You might want to go more into Wischer's background here - most people have
>not heard of him. You are right to point out that his outline for the ring
>is extremely important, and it might well be worth going into a few of the
>details.
Nah. I am not *The New Grove*. You already know him Mr. Newberry, and
if somebody else really is interested, write to me privately and ask very
properly, and I will write a summary then if necessary.
>Goethe's influence was pervasive - he certainly knew Faust, which has a
>tremendous similarity to Siegfried - only in reverse. Faust is saved
>because of his will, Siegfried killed because of it.
Exactly. Early vs. late romanticism in a nutshell.
>>"Rienzi" has paralells to as well "Goetz" as "Egmont"...
>
>Good observation, one that Wagner himself admitted to obliquely in his
>discussion of it.
Where does he discuss it, please?
>>Tannhaeusers similar situation ... brought him salvation", but somehow I
>>don't think Wagner had wanted to hear that.
Please be careful how you quote me. There is by the way an interesting
parallell between *Tannhaeuser* and the conclusion of *Lohengrin* from this
aspect, which might interest you.
>A very German styled paragraph for readers of English! but very well
>argued. And it lies at the difference between the two strains of the
>romantic movement, present from its inception. on the one had a classicist
>strain, positive, reasonable, with an affinity for the sunlit antiquity
>and purity of form, on the other hand gothicist - feudal, dark, with an
>affinity for the folk and the forest. the two were unified by the belief
>that time naturalises, thus antiquity was naturalised by time into being
>a ruin, and the folk art was a naturalisation by time of habit. ...
Very good summary. Thanks. Let me add that these two, or at least the
first (with the other asd a reactio to it) sprung from the scientific
discoveries a la Newton and c/o. Still I think it is interesting that it
was the late Romaticism that propagated the thesis of Patrinomy, and not
the classic aera with its mechanics...
>in Wagner's writing he collides head on with this problem - how to
>reconcile these two irreconcilable poles. alas he, like millions of
>others, would vere towards the idea of patrinomy being determinant of
>identity, and hence create the artificial problem of purifying the blood.
>because, after all, if the blood is impure then destiny cannot be reached.
>his obsession has a personal and autobiographical angle, and its expression
>in art dramas is hard to deny, the entire plot of the ring hinges on the
>question of purification of the taint of blood *and the impossibility of
>doing so*.
This has parallells to what I wrote under the concept of Sonata Form not
long ago, and I also had this in mind, although I may not have thought it
fully out, and gave it another shape. But I think this what Mr. Newberry
writes about Wagners dilemma has paralells to the predestinationdoctrine
of Islam. A wise old Arab once let me see the secrets of this religions
fundaments, which is both an afterconstruction, as well as old Semitic
tradition (At least I got to know a few secrets before I insulted him
with arguing about eating porkchop). And after much thinking of his wise
words I came to the conclusion that one has not got the point with Islams
predestinationdoctrine if one believes, like many people in the West
percieve it, and many Moslems too, that it doesn't matter what you do in
your life if everything is dictated from before. It isn't so - thats at
least how I see it - that predestination nullificates the importance of
striving in life. This can be understood as well intellectually as
emotionally. And I think Wagner came to see this, or a similar conclusion
according to the praemisse he set up, and set this mark in "Parsifal", and
he might have understood this as early as the draft for "The Victors"...
Sleep easy! Destiny can be reached! [and I am not talking LaMarckism
here of course:-) ...
Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]
|
