# Religion in Wagner's Parsifal: Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither?



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There have been a number of threads dealing with Wagner's fascinating final opera, a work unique in the operatic repertoire in its enigmatic nature and in the controversy it arouses. I've decided to start this one in order to set in bold relief an aspect of it which has aroused strong feelings and diverse views since the opera's premiere at Bayreuth in 1882. Conversation about the presence of religion in _Parsifal_ has been under way in this thread,

The Best Books on Wagner, interview with Michael Tanner

but is really tangential there. I think the subject deserves a thread of its own, which I hope will prompt people to examine their experience of this great work and perhaps be inspired to investigate it further, or even to discover it for the first time.

Wagner was strongly influenced by both Christianity and Buddhism in the creation of _Parsifal_, but he had an idiosyncratic slant on both of these religious traditions. For example, he insisted that Jesus was of Greek rather than Jewish origin, argued (like the Hellenistic Gnostics) that the Old Testament had nothing to do with the New Testament, that the God of Israel was not the same God as the father of Jesus, and that the Ten Commandments did not show the mercy and love of Christian teachings. Apparently he was raised in a rather conventional Christian home, and attend the St. Thomas Lutheran school in Leipzig. His impressions of Christianity were evidently intense; he recalled that as a boy he had contemplated the image of Christ on the cross and "yearned, with ecstatic fervor, to hang upon the Cross in the place of the Saviour." A man of the theater in the making! :lol:

Religious themes - specifically Christian or more broadly mythical - are essential aspects of Wagner's operas, and he had planned operas on both the life of Christ and a Buddhist tale. His mature religious outlook derived partly from the work of German philosophers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries who bequeathed to his era a blend of Enlightenment rationalism and idealism, along with Eastern philosophy (writings from which which had recently become more accessible to scholars). Feuerbach's view of religion as a projection of the deepest concerns of humanity, and Schopenhauer's transmission of Buddhist thought, were both definite influences. In his late years, confronted with the racial theories of Count Gobineau, Wagner countered Gobineau's racial suprematism by asserting that only Christianity could harmonize the races of mankind. What, exactly, that would entail is not entirely clear, but given some statements by the composer it's conceivable that it would not necessarily involve belief in a supernatural deity. Nothing about Wagner is simple!

How much of this, and more, found its way into _Parsifal_, and how we feel about it, is what I'd like to explore in this thread. I'll begin by looking at evidence in the libretto of a central doctrine of Christian orthodoxy: the Atonement.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Parsifal is full of references to Christianity. It's story is based on medieval legends about the Holy Grail - the cup from which Christ supposedly drank at the last Supper - and the spear of Longinus which pierced his side at the crucifixion. There are representations onstage of the Eucharist or Holy Communion, and of baptism. These might be no more than the trappings of religion in the absence of references to doctrine and belief. But we do find some of those.

Salvation contingent on an individual's acceptance of Christ's vicarious atonement, through his death, for human sin, is a central tenet of orthodox Christian belief. There are several passages in the libretto of _Parsifal_ which seem to entail a statement of this doctrine, if not necessarily an advocacy of it. During the temple ceremony, voices from the dome sing,

As once His blood flowed
with countless pains
for the sinful world
now with joyful heart
let my blood be shed for
the great Redeemer.
His body, that He gave to purge our sin,
lives in us through His death.

That seems a pretty clear reference to the doctrine of the atonement, and it implies as well a mystical identification with Christ's sacrifice through an incorporation of his blood and body. I see no contradiction of Christian orthodoxy here (unless one has Protestant reservations about the notion of mystical identification). In the opera's third act, when Parsifal returns to the domain of the Grail after years of wandering, Gurnemanz says to him,

Among what heathen have you dwelt,
not to know that today
is the supremely holy Good Friday?
Lay down your weapons!
Do not offend the Lord, who today,
bereft of all arms, offered His holy blood
to redeem the sinful world!

Later in the act, Parsifal baptizes Kundry and says,

My first office I thus perform:
Receive this baptism,
and believe in the Redeemer!

Finally, Gurnemanz explains Good Friday to Parsifal thus:

It is the tears of repentant sinners
that today with holy dew
besprinkle field and meadow:
thus they make them flourish.
Now all creation rejoices
at the Saviour's sign of love
and dedicates to Him its prayer.
No more can it see Him Himself on the Cross;
it looks up to man redeemed,
who feels freed from the burden of sin and terror,
made clean and whole through God's loving sacrifice.
Now grasses and flowers in the meadow know
that today the foot of man will not tread them down,
but that, as God with divine patience
pitied him and suffered for him,
so man today in devout grace
will spare them with soft tread.
Thus all creation gives thanks,
all that here blooms and soon fades,
now that nature, absolved from sin,
today gains its day of innocence.

It's hard to imagine anyone looking at these passages and failing to conclude that subscribing to the Christian belief in the redemptive power of Christ's death is, at the very least, a necessary qualification for being a knight of the Holy Grail. But we can't assume too much here: it's still reasonable to ask in what sense Parsifal can be considered a "Christian opera." We can ask: to what extent are Christian doctrine and Christian religious tradition expressed through the action of the opera? To what extent is the work intended to advance Christian ideas or ideals? Is _Parsifal_ a story with a specifically Christian message, is it merely a story involving characters who happen to be Christian, or might it even be, as a number of recent theatrical presentations seem inclined to make it, a critique and possibly a rejection of Christianity? And, not least in importance - since Parsifal is a work of music, and since Wagner was emphatic that it was primarily through the music that his works were ultimately to be understood - what does the music tell us?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Ooooooh!

I will need to study the work further before commenting, but this is a great idea for a thread.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

It’s great there’s finally a thread for this topic (if someone is ever going to look for some information on books about Wagner, he/she is going to find something pretty different from what one was looking for from the previous thread  ).


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I grew up Christian (conservative Protestant), and didn't know _Parsifal_ until later, but I would have consider it heretical; a parody of Christianity. I know that others have come to a very different conclusion, including seeing it as a deeply Christian opera. I have never seen it that way.

I see it as an Arthurian legend, told within that context. It depicts a religious brotherhood, but doesn't necessarily advocate for it. (Similarly, the Ring depicts Odinism, rather than pushes it). And though there are many references to Christianity (though much of it extra-Biblical) it does not include the name Jesus Christ (which certainly would have been a problem for a younger me). I think accurately depicting that context was important to Wagner; but if he wanted it to specifically/only be about Christianity (as Christianity) he could have made that explicit.

I also think of what happens in _Parsifal_, and what it means, and it doesn't strike me as particularly Christian in nature. Now _Lohengrin_ I can see as an allegory of the relationship of humans to God, and there's a lot going on with messaging in _Tannhäuser_, but _Parsifal_ seems to be somewhere else.

Or at least these are my initial feelings. I am sure it will be interesting re-examining the opera (and my feelings about it) in this thread!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I should note that I had not read the Books thread, and upon skimming, some of the things I mention were indeed brought up there.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I grew up Christian (conservative Protestant), and didn't know _Parsifal_ until later, but I would have consider it heretical; a parody of Christianity. I know that others have come to a very different conclusion, including seeing it as a deeply Christian opera. I have never seen it that way.
> 
> I see it as an Arthurian legend, told within that context. It depicts a religious brotherhood, but doesn't necessarily advocate for it. (Similarly, the Ring depicts Odinism, rather than pushes it). And though there are many references to Christianity (though much of it extra-Biblical) it does not include the name Jesus Christ (which certainly would have been a problem for a younger me). I think accurately depicting that context was important to Wagner; but if he wanted it to specifically/only be about Christianity (as Christianity) he could have made that explicit.


Interesting, mountmccabe. In essence I agree.

I also grew up attending a conservative Protestant church (the poor souls even elected me what was called "young people's president," a position I never could figure out, although I noticed that there was no Grail to wave over the kneeling congregation). I discovered _Parsifal_ at about age 15, and it did a major number on me: it reduced me to a sort of blissful zombie the first time I heard it complete (the old 1951 Bayreuth recording, the only one available at the time). The interesting thing is, re this thread, that I couldn't connect it with what they were talking about in church at all; it seemed not heretical but simply unrelated. The only thing that did seem related was some of the music, which, fascinatingly, I felt was more powerfully spiritual, more profoundly searching of my soul in its blend of pain and exaltation - and thus more evocative of the Christian struggle with sin and redemption - than any music I had ever associated with a religious service. I remember playing for my mother the "transformation music" from Act 1 and telling her that it expressed real spirituality, while the hymns we sang in church didn't. I don't recall what she said; it would have been something kind, although I doubt that she agreed with me deep down, if she understood at all. But you know what? I still think, deep down, after all these years, that I was right. _Parsifal_ may not be a "Christian work" in any strict sense, but its music seems to me to distill the religious _agon_ of Western man, in all the pain and glory of his acutely felt individuation, better than any music I know. It could only be the product of a Christian culture, and I'm reminded that Wieland Wagner said that his grandfather's works were "above all Christian." That is a fascinating claim, isn't it?


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Here's my hot take; all of Wagner's opera's are over the top monuments to his massive ego. If he used Christian themes they were just a means to an end. Kind of like how Nietzsche named his autobiography "Ecce Homo" comparing himself to Christ as if he was a new messiah.  The late 19th, early 20th centuries were sure ripe with egomaniacs. 

Christian opera? Buddhist opera? No -- it's a Wagner opera. It's religious in it's own way.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

arnerich said:


> Here's my hot take; all of Wagner's opera's are over the top monuments to his massive ego. If he used Christian themes they were just a means to an end. Kind of like how Nietzsche named his autobiography "Ecce Homo" comparing himself to Christ as if he was a new messiah.  The late 19th, early 20th centuries were sure ripe with egomaniacs.
> 
> Christian opera? Buddhist opera? No -- it's a Wagner opera. It's religious in it's own way.


Taking your post seriously for a moment (of course I'm joking), do you think the creation of great art can proceed from a desire to erect a "monument to one's ego"? Have you ever engaged in intense creative activity and noticed what happens when you begin thinking of yourself rather than the work? Do you know anything about Wagner's creative process or goals?

There are certain posts which are clearly monuments to the egos of the posters. One giveaway is that the poster shows no sign of being either knowledgeable about or interested in the subject.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Do you know anything about Wagner's creative process in particular?


Actually I've read about his creative process, especially during Parsifal.

"Certain schools of recent Wagner scholarship have focused on the composer's erotics. Joachim Köchler, author of Richard Wagner: The Last of the Titans, conveys, according to Spencer, "a lively portrait of a cross-dressing composer who needed an aura of femininity to stimulate his senses".

The richly erotic texture of operas such as Parsifal, Wagner's final opera, apparently required the creation of very specific conditions to provoke the composer's inspiration. Pink satins and rose-scented cushions were apparently de rigueur, and he would have his bath, positioned below his work room, filled with ungents so the perfume would rise up and fill his nostrils. Parsifal is a work that wrestles with carnality and the pain caused by sexual desire. The second act involves the titular hero striving to overcome the sexual allure of the Flower Maidens who attempt to seduce him in a magical, scent-filled garden. "He clearly needed this very refined and sensual, almost fetishistic atmosphere," said Mr Millington.

Scholars have also connected his taste for embroidered dressing gowns and floral perfumes with the fragrances described in the Venusberg - a grotto where sirens, naiads, nymphs and bacchantes indulge in orgiastic pleasures - in the opera Tannhäuser; and with the flowery banks described in the great love duet in the opera Tristan und Isolde."


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> There are certain posts which are clearly monuments to the egos of the posters. One giveaway is that the poster shows no sign of being either knowledgeable about or interested in the subject.


To this point I'll admit that you're right. I'm not really that interested in the subject. I'll leave the topic alone for those who are serious about Wagner. Cheers.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

mountmccabe said:


> I grew up Christian (conservative Protestant), and didn't know _Parsifal_ until later, but I would have consider it heretical; a parody of Christianity. I know that others have come to a very different conclusion, including seeing it as a deeply Christian opera. I have never seen it that way.
> 
> I see it as an Arthurian legend, told within that context. It depicts a religious brotherhood, but doesn't necessarily advocate for it. (Similarly, the Ring depicts Odinism, rather than pushes it). And though there are many references to Christianity (though much of it extra-Biblical) it does not include the name Jesus Christ (which certainly would have been a problem for a younger me). I think accurately depicting that context was important to Wagner; but if he wanted it to specifically/only be about Christianity (as Christianity) he could have made that explicit.
> 
> ...


I really like you brought up _Lohengrin_ here. I agree that _Lohengrin_ seems to me quite Christian/Biblical opera. The Christian themes are maybe easier to notice because _Lohengrin's_ plot is not as difficult as _Parsifal's_ seems to be. Also, in _Lohengrin_ Wagner doesn't deal with salvation in Christian sense the same way he does in _Parsifal_ and thanks to that he avoids many possible contradictions with the Bible. I actually really like _Lohengrin_!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner was strongly influenced by both Christianity and Buddhism in the creation of _Parsifal_


and why not? Christianity does take from Buddhism among other things.



Woodduck said:


> he insisted that Jesus was of Greek rather than Jewish origin


well, Christ was certainly into Greek philosophy, but i say he was a Roman.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> and why not? Christianity does take from Buddhism among other things.
> 
> well, Christ was certainly into Greek philosophy, but *i say he was a Roman.*


Now I've heard everything! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> and why not? Christianity does take from Buddhism among other things.
> 
> well, Christ was certainly into Greek philosophy, but *i say he was a Roman*.


And what heresy is this, then?

Are you sure you aren't confusing Jesus with Brian, in the _Life Of Brian_?

You'll be telling us next he was a Wo-Man (can't pronunce the "R" in "Roman"), and that his main follower was Biggus Dickus.

Nah, Christianity is firmly rooted in Judaism. Bhuddhism is way off.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Without wanting to derail the thread I would like to ask a question which has no direct bearing on the religious aspect to Woodduck's topic. I always assumed that Parsifal's eventual acceptance into the knightly order was as a result of his purity in terms of word, thought and deed. I also assumed that chastity/bachelorhood would be one of the conditions (Klingsor's self-castration notwithstanding), so how did Parsifal manage to father Lohengrin (or Titurel father Amfortas for that matter)?


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2019)

I would answer "neither" to the question posed in the thread title.

In the past, I have made several efforts to understand better the detail of the plots of all of Wagner's operas, but have never found enough enthusiasm to take the matter beyond an elementary level. I like all of his music, but am not interested in fairy stories and have never been interested in his religious or philosophical views, or how any of this did or did not affect any of his operas.

Purely for the purpose of this thread, I have attempted once again to acquire a more detailed appreciation of the plot of _Parsifal. _I am afraid to say that, yet again, I soon became very confused about what it is all about. I could have persevered but considered it not worthwhile given that the story line is so heavily based on mythology (Arthurian legend and all).

From my admittedly limited understanding of the plot, I would venture to suggest that it is very unlikely that anyone seriously interested in the Christian religion could expect to learn anything remotely relevant, over and above what they might otherwise obtain easily by reading a basic primer on the subject. This applies to the concept of "atonement" as much as to anything else in Christianity.

My knowledge of Buddhism is much less than for Christianity, but I have read enough to feel reasonably sure that _Parsifa_l contains anything of much use in guiding adherents on their path to enlightenment, which they don't already know from the basic tenets of that system of belief.

Excellent though the music of _Parsifal_ is, if a musical accompaniment is sought as a guide to the basic tenets of the Christian faith, better choices for this purpose are works such as Handel's _Messiah_ or Haydn's _The Creation_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> Without wanting to derail the thread I would like to ask a question which has no direct bearing on the religious aspect to Woodduck's topic. I always assumed that Parsifal's eventual acceptance into the knightly order was as a result of his purity in terms of word, thought and deed. I also assumed that chastity/bachelorhood would be one of the conditions (Klingsor's self-castration notwithstanding), so how did Parsifal manage to father Lohengrin (or Titurel father Amfortas for that matter)?


Good practical questions for any of us wanting to join the Order of the Grail! :lol:

It seems pretty clear that the founder of the order, Titurel, was exempt from the celibacy requirement. We might assume this exemption for whoever might be installed as CEO, and when Parsifal took over he was undoubtedly free to marry and father Lohengrin (although of course that is a different opera and can't be assumed to have the same ground rules for the participants).

That would be my practical, realistic answer. _Parsifal,_ though, is anything but a realistic opera. In fact, I would say it's the most uncompromisingly unrealistic, symbolic opera in existence, and that every character, action and object in it has to be examined and experienced poetically and psychologically if it's to be understood at all; taking things literally in this opera is the surest way to wander into the woods and never find our way back. Which is why the work has given people fits and inspired so many interpretations, many of them pretty wacky.

You raise the matter of celibacy - or, to be more precise, sexual abstinence. That really isn't off-topic at all, since Titurel, to whom angels are said to have delivered the Holy Grail and the Spear of Longinus for safekeeping, clearly regarded abstinence as a necessary condition for any man who would be devoting his life to doing whatever knights of the Grail do ("defending the faith," I suppose, like the medieval Knights Templar who are probably a model for them). The trouble is, we're not told what the purpose of celibacy is. Here a little digression into history may be useful.

We all know that the ideal of celibacy for priestly servants of God has a long history in the Roman Catholic Church, but it was not a part of Christianity at the beginning (when that was basically a branch of Judaism) and apparently didn't come up until Christian thought was influenced by a combination of Greco-Roman philosophy and Gnosticism. 2nd- and 3rd-century Gnostics believed that the material world and its creator were evil and had to be transcended through spiritual insight and practice, and they saw marriage as a necessary evil. Gnosticism was considered a heresy by the "mainline" church, but its asceticism, manifesting as a profound suspicion of sex (and, unfortunately, women), worked its way into orthodox thinking, with celibacy for priests becoming de rigueur by the 5th century. In 401 A.D., St. Augustine wrote, "Nothing is so powerful in drawing the spirit of a man downwards as the caresses of a woman."

It seems that Wagner's Titurel agreed with Augustine. But it's pretty obvious, if we can go by his biography and the bulk of his work, that Wagner didn't! And for that reason, among others, I think it's necessary to look beneath the surface of _Parsifal_'s apparent approval of sexual abstinence and into the consequences - the terrible consequences - the practice had for Titurel's holy order. The juxtaposition of sex and religion in _Parsifal,_ and its apparently negative portrayal of sex and women, seem to hinder enjoyment of the work for some people. But I don't believe that Wagner intended to advocate and perpetuate the attitudes of St. Augustine and the medieval church.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> From my admittedly limited understanding of the plot, I would venture to suggest that it is very unlikely that anyone seriously interested in the Christian religion could expect to learn anything remotely relevant, over and above what they might otherwise obtain easily by reading a basic primer on the subject. This applies to the concept of "atonement" as much as to anything else in Christianity.
> 
> My knowledge of Buddhism is much less than for Christianity, but I have read enough to feel reasonably sure that _Parsifa_l contains anything of much use in guiding adherents on their path to enlightenment, which they don't already know from the basic tenets of that system of belief.
> 
> Excellent though the music of _Parsifal_ is, if a musical accompaniment is sought as a guide to the basic tenets of the Christian faith, better choices for this purpose are works such as Handel's _Messiah_ or Haydn's _The Creation_.


Why would you want to look to operas, or other musical works, for religious instruction or information about religion? Music might function as an adjunct to learning in a liturgical context, or in an oratorio where doctrinal texts are set to music, but surely there are numerous works of art inspired by religious subjects that are addressed mainly to our emotions.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Why would you want to look to operas, or other musical works, for religious instruction or information about religion? Music might function as an adjunct to learning in a liturgical context, or in an oratorio where doctrinal texts are set to music, but surely there are numerous works of art inspired by religious subjects that are addressed mainly to our emotions.


 I could easily throw the same question back to you: why are you looking at _Parsifal _as a piece of music that might have religious value of some kind, whether to Christians or Buddhists? It's the same point.

I don't see any problem at all in looking at oratorios (or masses or similar) for any religious activity, whether it's instruction, information, or some kind of devotional activity.

I know various people who are no longer practising Christians in the sense of regularly attending church services, but who nevertheless occasionally listen to religious music, possibly in lieu of church attendance or because they enjoy the spiritual uplift that the music imparts. Particularly at Christmas and Easter time, these and other people might listen to, say, _Messiah_, as it may well help to remind them of the main facets of their faith, and to engage with it at those special times of the year.

This seems to be so obvious that it's scarcely worth elaborating upon further.

If some people can see religious significance or virtue of some kind in _Parsifal_, then that's up to them. With no wish to denigrate the work, my only point is that I can't see it myself, based on what I know of its story line.

I'm not clear why this thread is not in the Religious section of the Forum, where it might seem more appropriate given the possible religious aspects that you have drawn attention to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> I could easily throw the same question back to you: why are you looking at _Parsifal _as a piece of music that might have religious value of some kind, whether to Christians or Buddhists?


Why NOT look at _Parsifal_ with regard to its religious content? I say "content," not "value"; I would never suggest that anyone should find any particular value in the work. A demand for "value" sounds like a demand for some sort of utility beyond simple understanding and pleasure. Art has content which can be discussed by people interested in art _as art._ _Parsifal_ has well-known, but not necessarily well-understood, content derived from at least two religious traditions. It's possible to find that interesting - I and many others do - without asking more of the work, just as it's possible to investigate Bach's presentation of Lutheran theology in his cantatas, or Beethoven's musical setting of Schiller, or Debussy's treatment of Maeterlinck's _Pelleas et Melisande,_ and find these works interesting without asking more of one's inquiry than greater understanding and, hopefully, the enhanced pleasure which may come with it. Of course, we may derive more than that; we may actually have an experience that enriches our perceptions and deepens our understanding of life. It can happen - but we'll never find out if we're not open to it because of some particular expectation of "value."



> I don't see any problem at all in looking at oratorios (or masses or similar) for any religious activity, whether it's instruction, information, or some kind of devotional activity.


Neither do I.



> I know various people who are no longer practising Christians in the sense of regularly attending church services, but who nevertheless occasionally listen to religious music, possibly in lieu of church attendance or because they enjoy the spiritual uplift that the music imparts. Particularly at Christmas and Easter time, these and other people might listen to, say, _Messiah_, as it may well help to remind them of the main facets of their faith, and to engage with it at those special times of the year.


I listen to such music myself. I don't do it to become a better Lutheran, deist, Buddhist, or secular humanist, but I respect the objectives and experience of those who might do so.



> If some people can see religious significance or virtue of some kind in _Parsifal_, then that's up to them. With no wish to denigrate the work, my only point is that I can't see it myself, based on what I know of its story line.


OK. Others may have a different perspective. All perspectives are welcome.



> I'm not clear why this thread is not in the Religious section of the Forum, where it might seem more appropriate given the possible religious aspects that you have drawn attention to.


If I wanted to discuss racism in the operas of Mozart and Verdi, I would expect the greatest interest to be right here, in the opera subforum, not in the politics subforum. This is where people aware of this opera are most likely to hang out. I've put directions to this place over in the religion subforum in case people generally interested in the ways religion is represented in music want to come here.

Just an observation: it's clear that you don't know _Parsifal_ too well. Most people find it hard to understand; what looks like a simple, and rather strange, fantasy is actually a complex, cannily crafted work of symbolism with some pretty deep, archetypal resonances. The amazingly subtle and expressive music should clue us in to the fact that Wagner's treatment of the subject has left Arthurian romance far behind. You do say that it doesn't seem like your kind of thing, but if you ever do feel the attraction the following web site is a great source:

http://www.monsalvat.no/


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Wagner, "Of all pieces, this most Christian of works."


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It seems to me Parsifal is a criticism of "doctrine and ceremony" Christianity the organized religion had devolved into and an attempt to communicate the more fundamental messages of enlightenment, compassion and liberation (from earthly desires) common to the original teachings of both Buddha and Christ.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Partita said:


> why are you looking at _Parsifal _as a piece of music that might have religious value of some kind, whether to Christians or Buddhists?


because secularity has come forward, at some point, leaving religions merely a cult status, which is nothing like what these had before when they ruled the world and peoples; the church therefore may have felt it useful to smuggle religious ideas into art so that godless folk would still get religious message, one way or another.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> because secularity has come forward, at some point, leaving religions merely a cult status, which is nothing like what these had before when they ruled the world and peoples; the church therefore may have felt it useful to smuggle religious ideas into art so that godless folk would still get religious message, one way or another.


Religion merely a cult status?

Has Christianity died out in Russia, then? The last I heard was that it was still doing quite well, at least according to the statistics reported in wiki on this topic which you can look up for yourself.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Why NOT look at _Parsifal_ with regard to its religious content? I say "content," not "value"; I would never suggest that anyone should find any particular value in the work. A demand for "value" sounds like a demand for some sort of utility beyond simple understanding and pleasure. Art has content which can be discussed by people interested in art _as art._ _Parsifal_ has well-known, but not necessarily well-understood, content derived from at least two religious traditions. It's possible to find that interesting - I and many others do - without asking more of the work, just as it's possible to investigate Bach's presentation of Lutheran theology in his cantatas, or Beethoven's musical setting of Schiller, or Debussy's treatment of Maeterlinck's _Pelleas et Melisande,_ and find these works interesting without asking more of one's inquiry than greater understanding and, hopefully, the enhanced pleasure which may come with it. Of course, we may derive more than that; we may actually have an experience that enriches our perceptions and deepens our understanding of life. It can happen - but we'll never find out if we're not open to it because of some particular expectation of "value."


Hair-splitting waffle.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> Hair-splitting waffle.


Waffle? You asked me a question: _"why are you looking at Parsifal as a piece of music that might have religious value of some kind, whether to Christians or Buddhists?"_ I could have answered simply, "Why not?" But rather than be flippant, I attempted to get at what you were asking and answer you thoughtfully. Thanks a ton for the acknowledgement.

I'm offering an actual topic for discussion in his thread. I opened with two posts detailing some aspects of the subject which might provide a basis for beginning a discussion. Your immediate response to this was to say that you're _"not interested in fairy stories and have never been interested in [Wagner's] religious or philosophical views, or how any of this did or did not affect any of his operas."_

Great. You just couldn't resist dropping in here to say that the subject is of no interest to you and to ask why I would even bring it up.

Well, there are a few people who actually think the subject is interesting. So how about doing us a favor? Just turn and go out the door you came in.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If Parsifal has any "religious content," I would assume it is because Wagner put it there for his own purposes. I can see that this would be objected to by those who are orthodox Christians, especially in light of the OP's information:



> Wagner was strongly influenced by both Christianity and Buddhism in the creation of Parsifal, but he had an idiosyncratic slant on both of these religious traditions. For example, he insisted that Jesus was of Greek rather than Jewish origin, argued (like the Hellenistic Gnostics) that the Old Testament had nothing to do with the New Testament, that the God of Israel was not the same God as the father of Jesus, and that the Ten Commandments did not show the mercy and love of Christian teachings. Apparently he was raised in a rather conventional Christian home, and attend the St. Thomas Lutheran school in Leipzig. His impressions of Christianity were evidently intense; he recalled that as a boy he had contemplated the image of Christ on the cross and "yearned, with ecstatic fervor, to hang upon the Cross in the place of the Saviour." A man of the theater in the making!


This sounds like a new form of Christianity, in its departure from orthodoxy and The Old Testament. Was this a new form which emerged in the 19th century, could it be identified more precisely, and if so, who else besides Wagner was associated with it? I'm no Wagner expert, but the writing seems to be on the wall; good luck with an "objective examination" of this work.

Wagner's desire to hang on the cross brings to mind Carl Jung's chapter on "The Sacrifice" and scenes from Ken Russell's "The Devils," both of which I found fascinating.

So, if this thread is here (and not in the religion forum) because it seeks to objectively deal with this "Christian" imagery, then I'd like to know more about Wagner's use of it, and what trends of thought were going on during his time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> If Parsifal has any "religious content," I would assume it is because Wagner put it there for his own purposes. I can see that this would be objected to by those who are orthodox Christians, especially in light of the OP's information:
> 
> This sounds like a new form of Christianity, in its departure from orthodoxy and The Old Testament. Was this a new form which emerged in the 19th century, could it be identified more precisely, and if so, who else besides Wagner was associated with it? I'm no Wagner expert, but the writing seems to be on the wall; good luck with an "objective examination" of this work.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this post. I was starting to feel panicky about what I should have expected to be a touchy subject. The name "Wagner" and the word "religion" do have a way of making people lose their civilized inhibitions. What was I thinking, putting them side by side? 

I don't think any of Wagner's ideas on Christianity or Buddhism were original, taken separately. To begin with, German philosophers and theologians had apparently been busy reassessing traditional religious thought since at least the late 18th century (I'm hoping someone better versed in this subject than I can offer some information on this). I do know that with Enlightenment philosophy came efforts to "de-mythicize" Christianity, to abandon literal interpretations of its supernatural elements, to regard these as purely symbolic, and to give primacy to its ethical element (the goal, for example, of Thomas Jefferson's miracle-free Bible). Wagner was an avid reader well-acquainited with recent German philosophy, and he knew Ludwig Feuerbach's highly influential 1841 work, "The Essence of Christianity," in which Feuerbach takes de-mythicization the whole way and argues that God is created in man's image, and that the divinity and greatness of mankind's gods are projections of man's perception of, and aspiration toward, the divinity and greatness in himself. Obviously this view is a complete disavowal of the orthodox Christian view of God as an objectively existing entity, but it had been prefigured by the theologian Schleiermacher, who argued that as religion was fundamentally a matter of _feeling,_ it was conceivable to be a Christian without a belief in an objective God.

Wagner was nothing if not a creature of feeling, ruled by emotion often to the detriment of clear thought and reasonable action. And as far as I know, he subscribed to the humanist naturalism of his time and did not believe in a supernatural deity with an existence outside of man. Religious _feelings,_ however, seemed to be important to him all his life, and his operas are full of imagery and concepts which can broadly be considered religious in nature. _Parsifal_ represents a climactic case of this, but from _The Flying Dutchman_ on there is no work except _Die Meistersinger_ in which the symbols of religion, or the dramatic motivation of religious or quasi-religious aspiration, don't play a prominent part. Wagner and his dramatic protagonists are always seeking the ecstasy of transcendence, and in a real sense the entire progression of his work is a chronicle of his personal search for Heaven or Nirvana. No other composer could have composed a death aria that sounds simultaneously like an orgasm and a hymn.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Partita said:


> Religion merely a cult status?


yes, a cult position, see how secularity has taken over since hundred years ago?



Partita said:


> Has Christianity died out in Russia, then?


it has not, only got cultist, unlike it was in the centuries before.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What does "religion" mean?

According to Friedrich Schleiermacher, mentioned above: 
_
Religion is the outcome neither of the fear of death, nor of the fear of God. It answers a deep need in man. It is neither a metaphysic, nor a morality, but above all and essentially an intuition and a feeling. ... Dogmas are not, properly speaking, part of religion: rather it is that they are derived from it. Religion is the miracle of direct relationship with the infinite; and dogmas are the reflection of this miracle. Similarly belief in God, and in personal immortality, are not necessarily a part of religion; one can conceive of a religion without God, and it would be pure contemplation of the universe; the desire for personal immortality seems rather to show a lack of religion, since religion assumes a desire to lose oneself in the infinite, rather than to preserve one's own finite self.

_So this seems to replace God with "being" as feeling and intuition, and the desire to "lose oneself in the infinite." Definitely not orthodox, and fundamentalists might say "heresy." 
Yet, this could still be called a "religion" in the broader sense. Is this the correct place on the forum for such a discussion?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> What does "religion" mean?
> 
> According to Friedrich Schleiermacher, mentioned above:
> _
> ...


I see no way to avoid talking about what the word "religion" means, especially when the subjects of the thread - _Parsifal_ and its composer - represent unorthodox views and prompt questions of meaning in ways that anyone fairly well acquainted with them can't help considering. On the other hand, religions, as particular ideologies, personal disciplines, and social institutions, are so diverse and even contradictory that talking too much about those in their own right could be a distraction. But the distraction might be both unavoidable and in some ways worthwhile.

One way of looking at Wagner's "religion of feeling" might be simply to say that it's the essence of German Romanticism. E. T. A. Hoffmann wrote in 1810 that music "is the most romantic of all arts, and we could almost say the only truly romantic one because its only subject is the infinite. Just as Orpheus' lyre opened the gates of the underworld, music unlocks for mankind an unknown realm-a world with nothing in common with the surrounding outer world of the senses. Here we abandon definite feelings and surrender to an inexpressible longing. . ." This was part of his review of Beethoven's 5th Symphony, but if we didn't know better we might well imagine that he was talking about _Tristan und Isolde._ That opera contains no references to religion at all, but is probably the ultimate artistic representation of Western culture's investment of eros - romantic love - with "religious" significance: love as a longing and a gateway to the "infinite," to transcendence of the self.

The concept of "redemption by love" (I don't know who came up with that phrase; I think it might have been Hans von Wolzogen, who catalogued the _Ring_'s leitmotivs) was central to Wagner's work, and might be thought of as a kind of personal, secular religion, the inadequacies of which seemed to become clear to him once the ecstatic illusions of his doomed lovers were out of his system. Hans Sachs in _Die Meistersinger_ says he doesn't want to be King Mark to Walther's and Eva's Tristan and isolde, and the limitations and dangers of sexual love as a vehicle of salvation are explored ever more severely in the later _Ring_ operas and in _Parsifal._ The ways in which _Parsifal_ turns _Tristan und Isolde_'s universe upside down and inside out constitute a study in themselves, but here we could summarize by saying that Wagner's search for transcendence ultimately turns away from the glorification of sensual gratification and toward recognition of more traditional values recommended by religious traditions both Eastern and Western: self-knowledge, the overcoming of desire, renunciation of worldly gain, and compassionate action.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for this post. I was starting to feel panicky about what I should have expected to be a touchy subject. The name "Wagner" and the word "religion" do have a way of making people lose their civilized inhibitions. What was I thinking, putting them side by side?
> 
> I don't think any of Wagner's ideas on Christianity or Buddhism were original, taken separately. To begin with, German philosophers and theologians had apparently been busy reassessing traditional religious thought since at least the late 18th century (I'm hoping someone better versed in this subject than I can offer some information on this). I do know that with Enlightenment philosophy came efforts to "de-mythicize" Christianity, to abandon literal interpretations of its supernatural elements, to regard these as purely symbolic, and to give primacy to its ethical element (the goal, for example, of Thomas Jefferson's miracle-free Bible). Wagner was an avid reader well-acquainited with recent German philosophy, and he knew Ludwig Feuerbach's highly influential 1841 work, "The Essence of Christianity," in which Feuerbach takes de-mythicization the whole way and argues that God is created in man's image, and that the divinity and greatness of mankind's gods are projections of man's perception of, and aspiration toward, the divinity and greatness in himself. Obviously this view is a complete disavowal of the orthodox Christian view of God as an objectively existing entity, but it had been prefigured by the theologian Schleiermacher, who argued that as religion was fundamentally a matter of _feeling,_ it was conceivable to be a Christian without a belief in an objective God.
> 
> Wagner was nothing if not a creature of feeling, ruled by emotion often to the detriment of clear thought and reasonable action. And as far as I know, he subscribed to the humanist naturalism of his time and did not believe in a supernatural deity with an existence outside of man. Religious _feelings,_ however, seemed to be important to him all his life, and his operas are full of imagery and concepts which can broadly be considered religious in nature. _Parsifal_ represents a climactic case of this, but from _The Flying Dutchman_ on there is no work except _Die Meistersinger_ in which the symbols of religion, or the dramatic motivation of religious or quasi-religious aspiration, don't play a prominent part. Wagner and his dramatic protagonists are always seeking the ecstasy of transcendence, and in a real sense the entire progression of his work is a chronicle of his personal search for Heaven or Nirvana. *No other composer could have composed a death aria that sounds simultaneously like an orgasm and a hymn.*


You object to statements of the "Only Mozart could" type and yet seem to be engaged in the same on Wagner's behalf

explain please

special pleading?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Partita said:


> Religion merely a cult status?
> 
> *Has Christianity died out in Russia, then?* The last I heard was that it was still doing quite well, at least according to the statistics reported in wiki on this topic which you can look up for yourself.


It is booming in Russia. Business has never been better, just look at the Rolex on that Patriarchs wrist.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> You object to statements of the "Only Mozart could" type and yet seem to be engaged in the same on Wagner's behalf
> 
> explain please
> 
> special pleading?


I'm surprised at this.

Surely there's no objection to "only so-and-so could" statements if, in fact, only so and so could.

What problem might you have with the specific observation I made? Maybe you just didn't understand the context, which dealt with Wagner's peculiary religious take on eroticism. Can you think of another composer likely and able to combine those two particular qualities - qualities of a solemn religious anthem and a shattering sexual orgasm - in a seven-minute aria sung by a woman about to join her lover in death? And to do that so effectively that it succeeds in resolving the almost unbearable tensions of three hours of chromatic unrest, leaving an audience both exhausted and exalted, not to mention astonished - as Verdi said he was - that such a thing could have been composed by a human being?

If someone else could or would do that, why is it that no one else did? Or did Mozart write something he didn't think could get past the censors?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> it has not, only got cultist, unlike it was in the centuries before.


I think it has become a cult worldwide. Early Gnostic Christians believed the teachings in the bible to be symbolic allegories, not completely literal historic facts, but were accused of heresy. The church demanded people believe that Jesus was the literal son of God who walked on this earth, and was physically resurrected after death, and that one must believe this tale on faith and nothing else or be burned at the stake. This belief is how one gets to heaven. (It makes very little difference how immoral one is in this life as long as one believes in Jesus). This idea is what turned Christianity into a cult, and is one of the primary reason I think for so much tolerance of evil and immoral behavior in the world. How so many people can still believe this today is shocking and shows that religion is a form of mind control.

From what Woodduck has described Wagner's beliefs sound possibly related to the Nietzsche view, that God is dead and man's responsibility is not about morality so much as elevating oneself above a flawed existence and transforming oneself into a God. We can see an extension of this mind set continuing today as humans are being gradually pushed to merge with technology and AI to become more 'God-like'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> I think it has become a cult worldwide. Early Gnostic Christians believed the teachings in the bible to be symbolic allegories, not completely literal historic facts, but were accused of heresy.


It does seem as if there was a turn toward a kind of Gnosticism among many who still called themselves Christian in the 19th century. Scientists, especially in the disciplines of geology, paleontology and biology, were putting together a view of the physical universe which made Biblical accounts of the development of life untenable on a literal level; in combination with the skepticism of the supernatural inherited from Enlightenment philosophy, evidence contradicting traditional accounts of creation made it necessary for many to reinterpret the supposed revelations of scripture as allegorical if they were to maintain any belief at all. This weakened the whole idea of revealed truth and called into question the religious institutions that were supposed to be the guardians and dispensers of truth, and the spiritual seeker was more and more on his own.



> From what Woodduck has described Wagner's beliefs sound possibly related to the Nietzsche view, that God is dead and man's responsibility is not about morality so much as elevating oneself above a flawed existence and transforming oneself into a God.


Nietzsche didn't think so. He was angered by _Parsifal,_ appalled at what he thought was Wagner's abandonment of his earlier heroic outlook and his "conversion" to Christianity's "slave morality" of humility and compassion. I think Nietzsche imagined a greater change in Wagner than actually occurred, based partly on _Parsifal_'s overtly Christian symbolism. He might not have noticed that despite mention of a "Redeemer" in the opera, there is no mention of God. The twilight of the gods in the _Ring_ was unambiguous, and Wagner wasn't about to resuscitate them: they occur in _Parsifal_ in the form of the moribund Titurel, implacable ruler of the Grail's domain, who now can only utter commands from his tomb and must die when Parsifal returns from temptation in the wilderness, enlightened by _gnosis,_ and ushers in a new reign of compassion. Although Wagner denied that Parsifal was intended as a Christ-figure, I think he saw the replacement of Titurel (and his son and instrument, Amfortas) by Parsifal as a parallel to the replacement of the Judeo-Christian god by the man Jesus, whom he viewed not as an incarnation of a supernatural being who must be served and placated, but as a human ideal who redeems by inviting mankind to follow his example of perfect love.

Nietzsche, of course, had also described the death of the gods, but enunciated a very different moral ideal.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

From what Woodduck has described Wagner's beliefs sound possibly related to the Nietzsche view, that God is dead and man's responsibility is not about morality so much as elevating oneself above a flawed existence and transforming oneself into a God. We can see an extension of this mind set continuing today as humans are being gradually pushed to merge with technology and AI to become more 'God-like'.

I think Wagner is actually very critical of that idea, of elevating the self to God-status. The Ring is all about beings who presume to be Gods who find self-destruction in the pursuit and consolidation of power. That conception is ultimately *Satanic*, the desire to be God, the desire to know everything, the desire for omniscience to purge us of all fear of the unknown. Such bottomless desire can never be fulfilled, causing us to suffer. I believe both Buddhism and Christianity teaches the same thing regarding such desires: the desire itself is to be renounced and expunged, rather than an attempt to satiate it.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I'm surprised at this.
> 
> Surely there's no objection to "only so-and-so could" statements if, in fact, only so and so could.
> 
> ...


My objection to your statement is you cant prove it.

Wagner tried - and - according to you - succeeded.

Who else tried? Just because nobody else did it does not mean nobody else could have done it.

Are you saying the great operatic composers specifically could not have achieved this end? How do you know that?

You are doing the same as Mozart fans who say - only Mozart could have composed 3 great symphonies in 6 weeks. Or - only Mozart had the ability to breath the life of real everyday humanity into his operatic characters.

And these are statements you regularly highlight correctly pointing out that such absolute statements are unfounded and foolish.

Verdi was astonished - and many have said no other composer could have done what Mozart did in the finale of the Jupiter.

So I ask - how do you know that no other composer could have combined these two aspects into one operatic number and the result be as impressive as Wagner?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

tdc said:


> The church demanded people believe that Jesus was the literal son of God


he indeed worked miracles, otherwise would be unable to get followers and cause the jew priests trouble.



tdc said:


> (It makes very little difference how immoral one is in this life as long as one believes in Jesus)


in a material world, anything might happen to anyone, everyone might need a saviour to fix the karma.



tdc said:


> so much tolerance of evil and immoral behavior in the world.


as has always been, and the saviour came for the few, those who are smart enough to grasp the idea.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> *he indeed worked miracles,* otherwise would be unable to get followers and cause the jew priests trouble.
> 
> in a material world, anything might happen to anyone, everyone might need a saviour to fix the karma.
> 
> as has always been, and the saviour came for the few, those who are smart enough to grasp the idea.


He had followers and was in trouble with the authorities because of what he said and preached

miracle workers were not at all uncommon in biblical times


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Couchie said:


> That conception is ultimately *Satanic*, the desire to be God, the desire to know everything


but Satan did not want to be God, and he already knew much by the time of his rift with the latter.

his crime was that he opposed God and began to question God's decisions.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2019)

[invasive post withdrawn]


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> My objection to your statement is you cant prove it.
> 
> Wagner tried - and - according to you - succeeded.
> 
> ...


You're the fourth person to invade this thread, in just three days, for the apparent purpose of being bloody contentious. I'm beginning to think there's something about the subject area that attracts abuse. Or is this just TC's "lowest common denominator" asserting itself again? Are you REALLY entering this conversation for the sole purpose of needling me for making a SINGLE STATEMENT I can't "prove"? Are we limited to provable assertions when we talk about music? Are you willing to be held to that standard? No, I didn't think so.

I stated - rashly, it seems - that only Wagner could have written Isolde's "Liebestod," with its unique mix of quasi-religious solemnity and its deep, sensual yearning reaching an orgasmic climax. That doesn't imply a lack of musical skills on the part of any other composer; had some other composer been asked to write such an aria and tried to compose something, it might have partaken of some of those qualities and been a fine piece of music too. But would it have been anything like Wagner's iconic realization of spiritual fervor and erotic passion? Bloody unlikely. And besides - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? because there was only one Wagner. Nobody but he could have written the piece, for exactly the same reason that only Beethoven could have written the 5th Symphony. It does not matter whether, in some universe, somewhere, someday, someone besides Wagner might prove capable of composing _Tristan und Isolde_ or _Parsifal._ Maybe a million monkeys sitting at computers using Sibelius software will eventually do it. But in our universe, no one has ever written anything like these works, and we have no indication that anyone could have done so, would have done so, or will do so. Understanding this really should not be an intellectual challenge. Composers do not duplicate each other's work. They don't, because they are different people and each of them has his own work to do. That's the way it should be. That's the way it is.

I don't know what more I can say.

EDIT: Actually, I do have one more thing to say. It would be nice if you'd back off the needling for a millisecond and acknowledge that this thread is an original and worthwhile contribution to the forum. I would think you might enjoy a break from the endless unwinnable pea-shooting tournaments over why so-and-so can't like Mozart, whether Mozart or Mendelssohn was the most prodigious prodigy, whether anyone had as much "natural talent" as Mozart, whether Beethoven was more innovative than Mozart, whether anyone did anything as well as Mozart, whether Mozart was God or garbage, ad infintum.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

stomanek said:


> He had followers and was in trouble with the authorities because of what he said and preached


as to jewish priests - maybe, but to present oneself as the son of God - one has to show miracles.



stomanek said:


> miracle workers were not at all uncommon in biblical times


but not many have built such a following, let alone a church.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> as to jewish priests - maybe, *but to present oneself as the son of God - one has to show miracles.*
> 
> but not many have built such a following, let alone a church.


The followers of David Koresh believed he was truly divine and they were prepared to die for this belief. Did he work miracles?

Mohammad claims to have written the Koran as the direct word of god and he started a religion that now has billions of followers. So clearly - the success of a religion in no way indicates that it has any truth to it.

There is no sound evidence any miracle has ever happened.

The events of the new testament are not historical and the miracles are not confirmed anywhere outside of theological writings.

I understand you may be coming from a position of faith - that's fine. But there is no good evidence for any of the extraordinary claims in the NT.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You're the fourth person to invade this thread, in just three days, for the apparent purpose of being bloody contentious. I'm beginning to think there's something about the subject area that attracts abuse. Or is this just TC's "lowest common denominator" asserting itself again? Are you REALLY entering this conversation for the sole purpose of needling me for making a SINGLE STATEMENT I can't "prove"? Are we limited to provable assertions when we talk about music? Are you willing to be held to that standard? No, I didn't think so.
> 
> I stated - rashly, it seems - that only Wagner could have written Isolde's "Liebestod," with its unique mix of quasi-religious solemnity and its deep, sensual yearning reaching an orgasmic climax. That doesn't imply a lack of musical skills on the part of any other composer; had some other composer been asked to write such an aria and tried to compose something, it might have partaken of some of those qualities and been a fine piece of music too. But would it have been anything like Wagner's iconic realization of spiritual fervor and erotic passion? Bloody unlikely. And besides - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? because there was only one Wagner. Nobody but he could have written the piece, for exactly the same reason that only Beethoven could have written the 5th Symphony. It does not matter whether, in some universe, somewhere, someday, someone besides Wagner might prove capable of composing _Tristan und Isolde_ or _Parsifal._ Maybe a million monkeys sitting at computers using Sibelius software will eventually do it. But in our universe, no one has ever written anything like these works, and we have no indication that anyone could have done so, would have done so, or will do so. Understanding this really should not be an intellectual challenge. Composers do not duplicate each other's work. They don't, because they are different people and each of them has his own work to do. That's the way it should be. That's the way it is.
> 
> I don't know what more I can say.


The lesson from this is - don't make absolute statements particularly those that attempt to prioritise one composer over another.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> The lesson from this is - don't make absolute statements particularly those that attempt to prioritise one composer over another.


No, the lesson is: if you venture an opinion on TC, expect some nitpicking old geezer with nothing better to occupy his mind to jump all over you and ask you to prove your right to hold it.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

stomanek said:


> The followers of David Koresh believed he was truly divine and they were prepared to die for this belief. Did he work miracles?


today, folks are way more naive than back then; one talks anyone into anything.

but in the old times, you had to work real miracles in order to be convincing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Please try not to get distracted with purely religious debates on this thread. There's a religion subforum for that purpose. The subject here is Wagner's _Parsifal,_ the ideas which he put into it, and the ways in which theyre expressed in the work. Thank you.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Please try not to get distracted with purely religious debates on this thread. There's a religion subforum for that purpose. The subject here is Wagner's _Parsifal,_ the ideas which he put into it, and the ways in which theyre expressed in the work. Thank you.


do you have a link to that sub forum


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> today, folks are way more naive than back then; one talks anyone into anything.
> 
> but in the old times, you had to work real miracles in order to be convincing.


Then show me a miracle and I will believe.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

tdc said:


> I think it has become a cult worldwide. Early Gnostic Christians believed the teachings in the bible to be symbolic allegories, not completely literal historic facts, but were accused of heresy. The church demanded people believe that Jesus was the literal son of God who walked on this earth, and was physically resurrected after death, and that one must believe this tale on faith and nothing else or be burned at the stake. This belief is how one gets to heaven. (It makes very little difference how immoral one is in this life as long as one believes in Jesus). This idea is what turned Christianity into a cult, and is one of the primary reason I think for so much tolerance of evil and immoral behavior in the world. How so many people can still believe this today is shocking and shows that religion is a form of mind control.
> 
> From what Woodduck has described Wagner's beliefs sound possibly related to the Nietzsche view, that God is dead and man's responsibility is not about morality so much as elevating oneself above a flawed existence and transforming oneself into a God. We can see an extension of this mind set continuing today as humans are being gradually pushed to merge with technology and AI to become more 'God-like'.


Great post!

The abuse of religious fantasies to get power over people is of all times. If one can get people to sacrifice (as in kill) themselves and others for nothing but an empty promise, things get damn scary. I don't know what Wagner's actual drive was to create his own fantastic recipes of sex, quasi-religion and self-sacrifice and his own Bayreuth church. I only know that Wagner's legacy got a filthy pilgrimage of racist followers, just as the authors of the Holy Bible or the Koran. Can we blame anyone for creating megalomaniac fantasies about good and evil? Well, Tolkien, George Lucas and J.K Rawling contributed theirs recently. It only goes wrong when governments (including 'the' Church) start to take things seriously and create space for abuse.

So, let's not take alleged deeper meanings of a piece of music or a book too seriously and let's make sure that after we get elevated by a piece of music, we also come down again, before moving on in the real world. I sometimes see here at TC that this is easier said then done.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> Great post!
> 
> The abuse of religious fantasies to get power over people is of all times. If one can get people to sacrifice (as in kill) themselves and others for nothing but an empty promise, things get damn scary. I don't know what Wagner's actual drive was to create his own fantastic recipes of sex, quasi-religion and self-sacrifice and his own Bayreuth church. I only know that Wagner's legacy got a filthy pilgrimage of racist followers, just as the authors of the Holy Bible or the Koran. Can we blame anyone for creating megalomaniac fantasies about good and evil? Well, Tolkien, George Lucas and J.K Rawling contributed theirs recently. It only goes wrong when governments (including 'the' Church) start to take things seriously and create space for abuse.
> 
> So, let's not take alleged deeper meanings of a piece of music or a book too seriously and let's make sure that after we get elevated by a piece of music, we also come down again, before moving on in the real world. *I sometimes see here at TC that this is easier said then done.*


As a heathen skeptic - no religious beliefs at all - I have no issue with listening to spiritually inspired music whoever it comes from. So there is never the problem of getting trapped in the clouds. I listen purely for the beauty of the music and how it makes me feel - I don't care what ideological leanings are behind the music itself though I accept that others may like to delve deeper.

After following the discussion here I am curious about Parsifal and look forward to sampling some excerpts shortly.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

stomanek said:


> As a heathen skeptic - no religious beliefs at all - I have no issue with listening to spiritually inspired music whoever it comes from. So there is never the problem of getting trapped in the clouds. I listen purely for the beauty of the music and how it makes me feel - I don't care what ideological leanings are behind the music itself though I accept that others may like to delve deeper.
> 
> After following the discussion here I am curious about Parsifal and look forward to sampling some excerpts shortly.


If you just listen to the music, Parsifal is beautiful in creating a certain atmosphere. I can only recommend a listen, especially to a heathen

I am religious aware myself (although very suspicious towards all the worldly powers that constantly abuse it) so I have a special connection to religious music.

Parsifal, and Wagner in general, however are in my fairy-tale book, just as Tolkien, Star Wars, Harry Potter and Hollywood. Great entertaining fantastic stories, but no moral guidance. And very suspicious towards anyone who seeks truth in it.

As to Parsifal and Wagner in general, I don't really analyse the deeper layers, as it I just listen to the music and enjoy it. To me, Wagner produced fairytales on music and I do not want to dig deep to find some am not he complexity of the textsOf the religious music, Ilast


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This "conflict" and "drama" by respondents over what "religious ideas" Wagner has put into this opera seems contrived and unnecessary, because his idea of "religion" boils down to the ethics and morals of Man. 

If Wagner got a "filthy pilgrimage of racist followers," it's not really his doing; previously, Schleiermacher, the pioneer of this new form of religious thought (called "the father of modern liberalism"), neglected the study of the Old Testament, and this became the character of this new form of "Christianity," and was part of the widespread "new" beliefs of the time. To be fair, Schleiermacher was also critical of the New Testament, with its claims of miracles, virgin birth, etc. The "filthy pilgrimage of racist followers" thus would have to find other justifications for their racism, eugenically-based.

Let's look at the opera in terms of its own values, and forget the "religion."


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Christianity is _the_ religion (if any) that doesn't seek its treasures in _this_ world, as it were, and thus every form of biblical literalism becomes a kind of idolatry. In this regard, Lutheranism stands above both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in my opinion. Parsifal, which in gallic means "searching for the dish/bowl/grail", is thus the very emblem of this (Christian) idolatry. My conclusion: Parsifal is a Catholic opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NLAdriaan said:


> Great post!
> 
> The abuse of religious fantasies to get power over people is of all times. If one can get people to sacrifice (as in kill) themselves and others for nothing but an empty promise, things get damn scary. I don't know what Wagner's actual drive was to create his own fantastic recipes of sex, quasi-religion and self-sacrifice and his own Bayreuth church. I only know that Wagner's legacy got a filthy pilgrimage of racist followers, just as the authors of the Holy Bible or the Koran. Can we blame anyone for creating megalomaniac fantasies about good and evil? Well, Tolkien, George Lucas and J.K Rawling contributed theirs recently. It only goes wrong when governments (including 'the' Church) start to take things seriously and create space for abuse.
> 
> So, let's not take alleged deeper meanings of a piece of music or a book too seriously and let's make sure that after we get elevated by a piece of music, we also come down again, before moving on in the real world. I sometimes see here at TC that this is easier said then done.


You seem to be giving art works with religious themes and associations extraordinary power over human life. What artistic creations, besides perhaps those created for purposes of official propaganda, can you think of that have actually been taken up by governments and churches for evil purposes? Artists themselves tend not to be comfortable with that sort of thing. Wagner certainly wasn't; if you were actually to look closely at his works you would find an outright hostility to power structures and an almost anarchic plea for human freedom. _Parsifal_ presents a vision of a moribund religious tradition which can be saved from itself only by the act of a spiritually free agent from outside its stern walls, the "innocent fool made wise through compassion." Left to itself, the "official church" of the Grail would have died of its own illusions.

I'd venture to guess that your awful vision of a "fantastic recipe of sex, quasi-religion and self-sacrifice" and of "megalomaniac fantasies" - lumping together such diverse artists as Wagner, Lucas, Tolkien and Rawling - arises from some personal viewpoint (a religious one?) not much informed by close acquaintance with these artists' work. Of the four, only Wagner was a large enough cultural force to have an impact that might threaten the social order, and what threats may have come in his wake were mainly not his own doing. I think we're well past the need for warnings about invidious "alleged" deeper meanings in Wagner, and not in much danger from works of art which are now simply major contributions to our cultural heritage. Books are still being written, by the way, on the fairly deep meanings that await the receptive inquirer into Wagner's art. There are even threads worth investigating right here on TC.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

stomanek said:


> do you have a link to that sub forum


To find the discussion groups forum from the main page, click on the community link above the main forms.

https://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group.html


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

NLAdriaan said:


> I am religious aware myself (although very suspicious towards all the worldly powers that constantly abuse it) so I have a special connection to religious music.
> 
> Parsifal, and Wagner in general, however are in my fairy-tale book, just as Tolkien, Star Wars, Harry Potter and Hollywood. Great entertaining fantastic stories, but no moral guidance. And very suspicious towards anyone who seeks truth in it.


I think aspects of morality can be learned in various places, for example I think Tolkien's LotR is an excellent allegory. I try to take each work on it's own terms. Learning what we can from a multitude of sources is a great thing, but I think it is important not to make religions out of what we learn. Religions tend to attempt to place the whole truth in a box, but I think the truth is too big to fit in any box.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> I think aspects of morality can be learned in various places, for example I think Tolkien's LotR is an excellent allegory. I try to take each work on it's own terms. Learning what we can from a multitude of sources is a great thing, but I think it is important not to make religions out of what we learn. Religions tend to attempt to place the whole truth in a box, but I think the truth is too big to fit in any box.


I agree with this, and would add that if we assume that "learning" from experiences of art is equivalent to "learning" from an essay or academic course or Sunday school lesson, then we're not understanding the unique value of art. Music, especially, isn't addressed primarily to our rational faculty, but to our feelings. A friend of mine used to say that the novels of George Eliot "educate the feelings." Wagner insisted that his operas be understood first and above all with the emotions. It's a misconception that his works are ideological tracts; _Parsifal,_ for example, does not offer religious instruction, even though its story has strong moral implications. The primacy of art's appeal to the emotions is no reason to dismiss it as useless in cultivating our understanding of reality, since nothing is more real to a human being than the life of the emotions. Mankind has always expressed his perceptions of life in art, and that's because it supplies, at its best, something essential that complements the work of reason, not only giving concreteness to the mind's abstract understandings but arousing feelings with which the mind may never have engaged.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2019)

tdc said:


> I think aspects of morality can be learned in various places, for example I think Tolkien's LotR is an excellent *allegory*.


If it is, it wasn't deliberate. Tolkien disliked allegory and would reject any simplistic interpretations of his works. He also wanted to keep religion out of The Lord of the Rings, so whatever meanings the reader derives will arise because of the soil in which the story grew, not because of the visible branches and leaves (Tolkien's own metaphor).

Having said that, I agree. Whatever morality I have reflected on in art and story, it's not come solely from a Catholic upbringing but a number of sources.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> You seem to be giving art works with religious themes and associations extraordinary power over human life. *What artistic creations, besides perhaps those created for purposes of official propaganda, can you think of that have actually been taken up by governments and churches for evil purposes?* Artists themselves tend not to be comfortable with that sort of thing. Wagner certainly wasn't; if you were actually to look closely at his works you would find an outright hostility to power structures and an almost anarchic plea for human freedom. _Parsifal_ presents a vision of a moribund religious tradition which can be saved from itself only by the act of a spiritually free agent from outside its stern walls, the "innocent fool made wise through compassion." Left to itself, the "official church" of the Grail would have died of its own illusions.
> 
> I'd venture to guess that your awful vision of a "fantastic recipe of sex, quasi-religion and self-sacrifice" and of "megalomaniac fantasies" - lumping together such diverse artists as Wagner, Lucas, Tolkien and Rawling - arises from some personal viewpoint (a religious one?) not much informed by close acquaintance with these artists' work. *Of the four, only Wagner was a large enough cultural force to have an impact that might threaten the social order*, and what threats may have come in his wake were mainly not his own doing. I think we're well past the need for warnings about invidious "alleged" deeper meanings in Wagner, and not in much danger from works of art which are now simply major contributions to our cultural heritage. Books are still being written, by the way, on the fairly deep meanings that await the receptive inquirer into Wagner's art. There are even threads worth investigating right here on TC.


The Nazi government has adopted Wagner (and Bruckner) as their favoured Holocaust songwriter. At the same time they ruled out many other composers such as Mahler. The Soviet Government has attempted to control the works of Shostakovich. It can be said that churches are entirely founded on works of art and fantasies, starting with the lyrics, the buildings and including the music. Hiding behind this facade are the abusive powers. Music, and art in general, matters for dictators.

You seem to put Wagner exactly in the elevated position, idolizing him as the only one who is 'large enough' etc. You seem to be offset by the idea of Wagner being in the same league as Tolkien, Lucas and Rawling. And then you start to frame me as not well informed on the alleged deep meanings of Wagner's art.

Woodduck, you are a fan. Nothing wrong with it. And it goes with eloquence. But with a fan it is difficult, if not impossible to debate.

I leave you with the alleged deeeeeep meanings of Wagner's mind. I won't ever see a God in Wagner, but at most a megalomaniac attempt to become one, one of many. And Wagner apparently still has followers, good for him. I still like Wagners music though, good entertainment. Also Rawling, Tolkien and Lucas have die-hard fans for their creations, so I see Wagner rightfully in this league. For spiritual and religious directions in music, I stick to JS Bach, Messiaen and some others.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

NLAdriaan said:


> The Nazi government has adopted Wagner (and Bruckner) as their favoured Holocaust songwriter.


The Nazi government is past, and both Wagner and Bruckner were dead well before there was a Nazi party so neither were a "Holocaust songwriter."

That being said, both of those composers were representatives of "good German music" that was held up and supported. But so were Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and more. I rarely hear discussion of Beethoven being tainted by association with the Nazis, though there were plenty of performances of his symphonies at prominent and propagandistic events. They somehow used the 9th symphony and pretended the Ode to Joy supported their cause, which to my mind is on the order as ridiculous as pretending that Wagner's operas had anything to do with Nazism.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NLAdriaan said:


> The Nazi government has adopted Wagner (and Bruckner) as their favoured Holocaust songwriter.


Evidently you've accepted the popular conflation of Hitler's personal passions with "the Nazi government" and its functions (he would probably have liked that conflation, but we should be more precise). Hitler adored Wagner's operas and got cozy with his descendents, but the obedient rank and file just fell asleep at performances. There's no evidence that Wagner's music was played at concentration camps, as some have alleged. He wasn't the most performed opera composer in Nazi Germany (that was Verdi), and wasn't even Hitler's favorite composer (that was Franz Lehar). Bruckner is even less relevant to any point you're making about the co-optation of art. And as for _Parsifal,_ Goebbels eventually banned its performance. Too pacifist, apparently.



> The Soviet Government has attempted to control the works of Shostakovich.


And what does that tell you? It tells me that the spirit of art is essentially anarchic, and that autocrats are afraid of it. If Hitler had really understood what Wagner was saying he'd have realized that he and all dictators stood accused, not flattered. But why am I telling you this, since you've said you'd rather not know what Wagner's works are about?



> It can be said that churches are entirely founded on works of art and fantasies, starting with the lyrics, the buildings and including the music. Hiding behind this facade are the abusive powers. Music, and art in general, matters for dictators.


That's a bundle. Churches are not "founded" on works of art, and can do perfectly well without them, but of course it's natural for humans to express their feelings and beliefs in art. The music and architecture of churches are designed for a particular use, and can be used by people whose motives we either approve or disapprove. There's no reason here to be suspicious of art as such and to issue warnings about its possible abuse by "powers."

But how does any of this relate to Wagner and _Parsifal? _ Are you laboring under the impression that he intended his "festival play" to be a "religion" and to "hide abusive powers behind its facade"? Well, he didn't. And to my knowledge no religious or political institution has attempted to use it to advance its causes. A four-hour opera would serve such a purpose very poorly in any case.



> You seem to put Wagner exactly in the elevated position, idolizing him as the only one who is 'large enough' etc. You seem to be offset by the idea of Wagner being in the same league as Tolkien, Lucas and Rowling. And then you start to frame me as not well informed on the alleged deep meanings of Wagner's art.


As a creative genius, and with respect to the importance of his work for his own art form and for western culture in general, Wagner is _not _in the same league as Tolkien, Lucas or Rowling. And I haven't "framed" you as anything; you "framed" yourself when you said, "As to Parsifal and Wagner in general, I don't really analyse the deeper layers, I just listen to the music and enjoy it. To me, Wagner produced fairytales on music and I do not want to dig deep." Well, if you don't dig, you're unlikely to find anything below the surface. It also leaves you in a poor position to suggest that there's nothing there and that people who think there is, and who appreciate what they find and want to talk about it, are somehow suspect and need you to warn them about "abusive powers."



> For spiritual and religious directions in music, I stick to JS Bach, Messiaen and some others.


So your chosen vehicles of "religious direction" are legitimate and safe, and require no warnings about co-optation by church and state? Where's that cynicism now? 



> I leave you with the alleged deeeeeep meanings of Wagner's mind. I won't ever see a God in Wagner, but at most a megalomaniac attempt to become one, one of many. And Wagner apparently still has followers, good for him. I still like Wagners music though, good entertainment. Also Rawling, Tolkien and Lucas have die-hard fans for their creations, so I see Wagner rightfully in this league.


Well, you'll see what you want to see and not see what you don't want to see. I'd guess that hardly anyone nowadays sees a "god" in Wagner; Cosima has been dead since 1930, and Hitler since not long after that. The "debunkers" are behind the times; I get the feeling that your views on Wagner, like those of many others who aren't really interested in "digging deep," are still shaped by the post-WW II mythology of storm-troopers descending from the clouds to the Ride of the Valkyries.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Dear Woodduck, you're idolizing Wagner. Good for you and your fellow believers, enjoy yourselves. But further discussions are a waste. This is just another no-go thread here at TC.



> As a creative genius, and with respect to the importance of his work for his own art form and for western culture in general


:lol::lol:


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

I find it confusing how some people judge a certain piece of art or an artist while at the same they openly admit to never have taken a closer look at the work, to never have analysed the "deeper layers".

Another case of that is deeming opera productions trash after having seen one or two photos of them.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

interestedin said:


> I find it confusing how some people judge a certain piece of art or an artist while at the same they openly admit to never have taken a closer look at the work, to never have analysed the "deeper layers".
> 
> Another case of that is deeming opera productions trash after having seen one or two photos of them.


This, exactly this!

Some also can't separate the person from the person's art (until it happens to be the creator of the artworks they enjoy most and then they will forgive anything!)

N.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm going to play Devil's advocate, in order to stimulate more discussion. I think it is worth noting that Wagner's art and his thinking were to an extent a reflection of the times he lived in. This could be used for, or against him.

As far as being "representative of 'good German music' that was held up and supported, like Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven," to be fair, these composers came from an era when "God" was actually believed in, along with Christ and miracles, and the religious elements of their music was not as ambiguously unorthodox as Wagner's, and not manifestations of the new religious thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ludwig Feuerbach; so there is some validity in NLAdriaan's perspective, even if much of it is exaggerated, and even if we disagree with most of it.
_
"I'd guess that hardly anyone nowadays sees a "god" in Wagner"_ may be specifically true for a "God," but it still has, as you have admitted, a "religious" content, and we can't ignore the centuries-long connection with Western art & religion. If I can see a "religious" content in John Cage's music, and if Bach's chorales are still being used in Church, then to make Wagner's "religious content" purely artistic, and separated from any orthodox Western religious traditions in art, seems a bit desperate. 
True, _"__Churches are not 'founded' on works of art, and can do perfectly well without them,"_ but this ignores the close relation; there is overlap, and one can choose or choose not to recognize this. 
If there is admittedly "religious content and symbolism" in Wagner, then to either see it as purely art, or as promoting religion or religious ideas of Schleiermacher and Feuerbach becomes a purely personal matter, not an objective fact.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm going to play Devil's advocate, in order to stimulate more discussion. I think it is worth noting that Wagner's art and his thinking were to an extent a reflection of the times he lived in. This could be used for, or against him.


I'm not sure who the Devil is here, but your observation is true of most artists, no? It doesn't seem remarkable in Wagner's case.



> As far as being "representative of 'good German music' that was held up and supported, like Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven," to be fair, these composers came from an era when "God" was actually believed in, along with Christ and miracles, and the [/COLOR]religious elements of their music was not as ambiguously unorthodox as Wagner's, and not manifestations of the new religious thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ludwig Feuerbach; so there is some validity in NLAdriaan's perspective, even if much of it is exaggerated, and even if we disagree with most of it.


NLAdriaan made only one discussable point: art can be used for nefarious purposes. The relevance of that to this thread is approximately nil. No one here is likely either to use _Parsifal_ for any such purpose - what purpose could that be? - or to be seduced by the work's emotional power into submitting to what he calls "abusive powers," secular or ecclesiastical.

I'd guess that my juxtaposing the words "religion" and "Wagner" pressed a red button in his mind, and that he felt some righteous obligation to make us all aware of the peril to our souls. It's predictable that some people will go all funny inside at the mere mention of either of those things, even - or especially - when they know little about what's actually being discussed, and that they'll be unable to resist an opportunity to find an infidel to slay. That NLAdriaan should end up with nothing more trenchant than "Woodduck, you are a fan" was also predictable, and a waste of time and forum space. I and others here are very well aware that my interest in Wagner's works is something a good deal weightier than "fanhood" and is in fact rather well-informed.



> "I'd guess that hardly anyone nowadays sees a "god" in Wagner"[/I] may be specifically true for a "God," but it still has, as you have admitted, a "religious" content, and we can't ignore the centuries-long connection with art & religion. If I can see a "religious" content in John Cage's music, and if Bach's chorales are still being used in Church, then to exclude Wagner's "religious content" from the Western tradition should be no exception.


I don't know what you're saying here. No one should assume that discussing a work's religious content constitutes a propagandist advocacy of that content. On the other hand, there's no reason to declare a priori that there's nothing to be gained from the experience or discussion of such a work.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NLAdriaan said:


> Dear Woodduck, you're idolizing Wagner. Good for you and your fellow believers, enjoy yourselves. But further discussions are a waste. This is just another no-go thread here at TC.
> 
> :lol::lol:


Wagner's stature is well-established and doesn't depend on anyone's "idolization." Your ignorance of the artistic substance and cultural impact of his work is massive, and your disparagement of it, and of those who actually understand it, is an embarrassment.

The only thing that's a waste is the perverse effort of uninformed, sour nay-sayers like you to squelch the interest and pleasure of others.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's stature is well-established and doesn't depend on anyone's "idolization." Your ignorance of the artistic substance and cultural impact of his work is massive, and your disparagement of it, and of those who actually understand it, is an embarrassment.
> 
> The only thing that's a waste* is the perverse effort of uninformed, sour nay-sayers like you* to squelch the interest and pleasure of others.


why oh why does a perfectly noble attempt to discuss religion in Parsifal have to end in this awful mud slinging


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's stature is well-established and doesn't depend on anyone's "idolization." Your ignorance of the artistic substance and cultural impact of his work is massive, and your disparagement of it, and of those who actually understand it, is an embarrassment.
> 
> The only thing that's a waste is the perverse effort of uninformed, sour nay-sayers like you to squelch the interest and pleasure of others.


It is very clear that you are way too touchy and protective about Wagner. You've reacted very badly to everyone who has dared to express a view about Parsifal, or Wagner's status, that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas. I hardly think that the comment above to which you respond deserves this kind of remark.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> why oh why does a perfectly noble attempt to discuss religion in Parsifal have to end in this awful mud slinging


Why quote my protest of the very thing you ask about? Why not quote the mud-slinger who provoked that protest? And didn't you yourself enter the discussion back at post #33 solely in order to criticize me for an innocuous statement of opinion, demanding that I "prove" an aesthetic judgment? That was certainly calculated to muck things up a bit, wasn't it?

It happens to thread after thread on the forum. No topic, no matter how carefully it's framed, is too serious or substantial to be trivialized and diverted with irrelevancies and personal putdowns, and it can happen quickly. In the first three days of this thread's existence, four people entered demonstrating - and actually admitting - that they had no real interest in the subject, and making deprecatory remarks about Wagner, the opera, and me. One of the four had her post deleted at my request and has mercifully not returned to inflict further damage.

I've been tempted to write off the experiment and ask the mods to lock the thread. There's no pleasure in having to play kindergarten cop.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2019)

tdc said:


> I think it has become a cult worldwide. Early Gnostic Christians believed the teachings in the bible to be symbolic allegories, not completely literal historic facts, but were accused of heresy. The church demanded people believe that Jesus was the literal son of God who walked on this earth, and was physically resurrected after death, and that one must believe this tale on faith and nothing else or be burned at the stake. This belief is how one gets to heaven. (It makes very little difference how immoral one is in this life as long as one believes in Jesus). This idea is what turned Christianity into a cult, and is one of the primary reason I think for so much tolerance of evil and immoral behavior in the world. How so many people can still believe this today is shocking and shows that religion is a form of mind control.


In order to keep within the rules of this Forum, I will confine my comment to saying that I find this description of Christianity is not just lacking comprehension but is totally incorrect. Furthermore, I'm not going to waste my time on the likes of you trying to explain where you've got things badly screwed up.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

It's a topic about Wagner and religion, what did you expect? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Why quote my protest of the very thing you ask about? Why not quote the mud-slinger who provoked that protest? And didn't you yourself enter the discussion back at post #33 solely in order to criticize me for an innocuous statement of opinion, demanding that I "prove" an aesthetic judgment? That was certainly calculated to muck things up a bit, wasn't it?
> 
> It happens to thread after thread on the forum. No topic, no matter how carefully it's framed, is too serious or substantial to be trivialized and diverted with irrelevancies and personal putdowns, and it can happen quickly. In the first three days of this thread's existence, four people entered demonstrating - and actually admitting - that they had no real interest in the subject, and making deprecatory remarks about Wagner, the opera, and me. One of the four had her post deleted at my request and has mercifully not returned to inflict further damage.
> 
> I've been tempted to write off the experiment and ask the mods to lock the thread. There's no pleasure in having to play kindergarten cop.


I didn't read any of the earlier comments by any of the four members to whom you refer as "putdowns". You simply reacted badly to reasonable comments and questions put to you. You welcomed (gave likes to) several comments by others that seemed to indicate that you were looking at this thread as a way of knocking religion, and those who hold the Christian faith, under the pretext of discussing Parsifal.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm going to play Devil's advocate, in order to stimulate more discussion. I think it is worth noting that Wagner's art and his thinking were to an extent a reflection of the times he lived in. This could be used for, or against him.
> 
> As far as being "representative of 'good German music' that was held up and supported, like Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven," to be fair, these composers came from an era when "God" was actually believed in, along with Christ and miracles, and the religious elements of their music was not as ambiguously unorthodox as Wagner's, and not manifestations of the new religious thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ludwig Feuerbach; so there is some validity in NLAdriaan's perspective, even if much of it is exaggerated, and even if we disagree with most of it.
> _
> ...


I don't understand a word of this.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2019)

interestedin said:


> I find it confusing how some people judge a certain piece of art or an artist while at the same they openly admit to never have taken a closer look at the work, to never have analysed the "deeper layers".
> 
> Another case of that is deeming opera productions trash after having seen one or two photos of them.


What is your view on the substantive issues raised at the beginning of this thread? I don't think I've actually seen anything from you at all.

My answer to your comment is that an analysis of the "deeper layers" of classical music is not necessary in order to appreciate it fully. All you have to do is listen to it and ask yourself whether or not you like it. People have been doing this for centuries.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2019)

Forss said:


> Christianity is _the_ religion (if any) that doesn't seek its treasures in _this_ world, as it were, and thus every form of biblical literalism becomes a kind of idolatry. In this regard, Lutheranism stands above both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in my opinion. Parsifal, which in gallic means "searching for the dish/bowl/grail", is thus the very emblem of this (Christian) idolatry. My conclusion: Parsifal is a Catholic opera.


I think you must be very confused if you think that Catholicsm seeks its treasures in this world. On the contrary, the reward for living a "good life" is the hope one day of reaching "heaven".

This thread is so full of mis-information about religion generally, and Christianity in particular, that it's almost ridiculous.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> because secularity has come forward, at some point, leaving religions merely a cult status, which is nothing like what these had before when they ruled the world and peoples; the church therefore may have felt it useful to smuggle religious ideas into art so that godless folk would still get religious message, one way or another.


There is a huge amount of interest in the Orthodox religion in Russia, and there always has been, It was just the evil Marxist regime that tried to suppress it. What you're saying now sounds now very much like old-style propaganda from the old Soviet system.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> I'm going to play Devil's advocate, in order to stimulate more discussion. I think it is worth noting that Wagner's art and his thinking were to an extent a reflection of the times he lived in. This could be used for, or against him.
> 
> As far as being "representative of 'good German music' that was held up and supported, like Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven," to be fair, these composers came from an era when "God" was actually believed in, along with Christ and miracles, and the religious elements of their music was not as ambiguously unorthodox as Wagner's, and not manifestations of the new religious thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ludwig Feuerbach; so there is some validity in NLAdriaan's perspective, even if much of it is exaggerated, and even if we disagree with most of it.
> 
> ...





Partita said:


> I don't understand a word of this.


I was saying: We should acknowledge that Wagner was using his art to express what he thought, and felt; and that includes his views on religion, which are derived from religious ideas of Schleiermacher and Feuerbach.

I was also saying, this is no different from other Western art, such as Bach; it's possible to see it as "art only," but the connection between art as an extension of organized religion has always been there.

So Wagner does not "escape scrutiny" as religious music because his ideas were liberal and non-deistic; his "promotion" of the ideas of Schleiermacher and Feuerbach are no different than overtly "religious" music in this sense.

"Religion" has been replaced in Wagner by a "spiritual" non-dogmatic, non-deistic awareness which is self/morals/ethics/Man-centered. Let's discuss these elements, and see how Wagner uses symbolism to incorporate them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> It is very clear that you are way too touchy and protective about Wagner. You've reacted very badly to everyone who has dared to express a view about Parsifal, or Wagner's status, that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas. I hardly think that the comment above to which you respond deserves this kind of remark.


The only "preconceived ideas" I would like people to respect are stated in the title of this thread:: "Religion in Wagner's Parsifal: Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither?" Directly beneath that title are two opening posts which I hoped would set a serious and responsible tone for a good discussion. Were the topic something vague, strange or questionable, I could understand people not taking it seriously, but that is obviously not the case. Clearly there are people who feel attracted to the thread for reasons other than a desire to explore the topic.

The statement you think proves my "touchiness" is not directed at a single remark, but at NLAdriaan's entire "argument," which was clearly aimed at trivializing and disparaging both me and the subject I've proposed for discussion. He entered the thread with the following:

_The abuse of religious fantasies to get power over people is of all times. If one can get people to sacrifice (as in kill) themselves and others for nothing but an empty promise, things get damn scary. I don't know what Wagner's actual drive was to create his own fantastic recipes of sex, quasi-religion and self-sacrifice and his own Bayreuth church. I only know that Wagner's legacy got a filthy pilgrimage of racist followers, just as the authors of the Holy Bible or the Koran. ...let's not take alleged deeper meanings of a piece of music or a book too seriously._

Subsequently he made the seemingly inevitable reference to Nazism, said that he wasn't interested in exploring any "deeper meaning" in Wagner's work, put it on a level of value and significance with Star Wars, and called me a "fan" for pointing out the problems with his statements and the basic negativity of his attitude.

Apparently he doesn't think it's offensive to warn others, who may know more about a subject than he admits wanting to know, not to take it "too seriously." Evidently, citing Nazi genocide and religious fanatics who blow themselves up is meant to give us some idea of the fate that awaits us if we find Wagner's work more meaningful than space movies.

When I know little about a subject I generally say little, ask questions, or leave it alone. I realize that for many the temptation to put in their two (or more) cents is irresistible. But when that two cents is merely dismissive of the thread's topic, or even insulting to its originator, the originator may rightly object. Contrary to your accusation, I welcome any serious opinion on the subject, and any considered challenge to any idea I put forward. What I can't welcome, and can't fail to object to, is seeing the genuine interest of others in a great artist trivialized, and their passion for a subject equated to dangerous fanaticism.

Perhaps it all comes down to the fact that some people just can't stand it when others appear to get more out of something than they do, and seem to be having a good time in which they can't participate.


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

Partita said:


> What is your view on the substantive issues raised at the beginning of this thread? I don't think I've actually seen anything from you at all.
> 
> My answer to your comment is that an analysis of the "deeper layers" of classical music is not necessary in order to appreciate it fully. All you have to do is listen to it and ask yourself whether or not you like it. People have been doing this for centuries.


Of course you can enjoy the music without thinking about it at all. Nothing wrong with that.

I was merely questioning how it is possible for someone who says he doesn't bother learning about the background of Wagner's work to insist that the same work is nothing more than a fanatsy story comparable to Harry Potter.

There is little reasonable about that. Which is also why Woodduck rightfully criticised such reasoning...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Why quote my protest of the very thing you ask about? Why not quote the mud-slinger who provoked that protest? And didn't you yourself enter the discussion back at post #33 solely in order to criticize me for an innocuous statement of opinion, demanding that I "prove" an aesthetic judgment? That was certainly calculated to muck things up a bit, wasn't it?
> 
> It happens to thread after thread on the forum. No topic, no matter how carefully it's framed, is too serious or substantial to be trivialized and diverted with irrelevancies and personal putdowns, and it can happen quickly. In the first three days of this thread's existence, four people entered demonstrating - and actually admitting - that they had no real interest in the subject, and making deprecatory remarks about Wagner, the opera, and me. One of the four had her post deleted at my request and has mercifully not returned to inflict further damage.
> 
> I've been tempted to write off the experiment and ask the mods to lock the thread. There's no pleasure in having to play kindergarten cop.


I opened this thread with interest since I have never seen you start a thread before.

It was not the best contribution from me - I apologise.

You have generated some good discussion - would be a shame to lock the thread. Parsifal does interest me - as I had heard it is Wagner's most spiritual opera - so it has been good to listen to some of the exchanges.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I was saying: We should acknowledge that Wagner was using his art to express what he thought, and felt; and that includes his views on religion, which are derived from religious ideas of Schleiermacher and Feuerbach.
> 
> I was also saying, this is no different from other Western art, such as Bach; it's possible to see it as "art only," but the connection between art as an extension of organized religion has always been there.
> 
> ...


This seems a reasonable assessment of Wagner's objectives. I'd only offer the qualification - a pretty important one, really - that we're dealing with a single artwork here, different in its function and potential impact from the limitless body of functional liturgical music designed to support the dogmas and practices of organized religion. In that sense _Parsifal_ is a work incorporating elements of religious philosophy rather than a work of religious art.

Wagner did want to express ideas in which he believed, and even hoped by expressing them to oppose some traditional religious ideas, but he certainly had no illusions about founding a new religious sect. In fact, organized religion of any sort was repugnant to him. This places _Parsifal_ in an interesting position within the great body of religion-related music: it's neither liturgical, intended to function as part of a religious practice, nor merely aesthetic, in the tradition of the many concert settings of the Mass or other texts by composers who may or may not be expressing any personal beliefs in creating those works.

I think it's useful to recall periodically the following statement of artistic intention, set down at the time Wagner was working on _Parsifal:_

_"Where religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for art to save the core of religion by recognizing the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in a literal sense, and by revealing the deep truth hidden in them through ideal representation."
_
[_Religion and Art_, 1880, tr. William Ashton Ellis]

It's an ambitious objective in which some might detect hubris, but RW was never one to think small!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> I opened this thread with interest since I have never seen you start a thread before.
> 
> It was not the best contribution from me - I apologise.
> 
> You have generated some good discussion - would be a shame to lock the thread. Parsifal does interest me - as I had heard it is Wagner's most spiritual opera - so it has been good to listen to some of the exchanges.


Thank you for that. I don't plan to lock the thread (yet ) and I hope you'll continue to follow it. In the course of it I want to get into the music of the opera, which partakes in interesting ways of styles and techniques composers over the centuries have found appropriate for the expression of religious feeling. It's generally the music that draws people into thinking about the symbolism of the story, which is as it should be.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Partita said:


> There is a huge amount of interest in the Orthodox religion in Russia, and there always has been, It was just the evil Marxist regime that tried to suppress it. What you're saying now sounds now very much like old-style propaganda from the old Soviet system.


you obviously have no idea what Soviet propaganda was like. CCCP had at least 4 incarnations & therefore 4 propaganda styles which had little to do with one another: Lenin's - Stalin's - Brezhnev's - Gorbatchov's where the church was treated differently each time around. Lenin did 'suppress' it. Stalin didn't so much. Brezhnev embraced it. Gorbie let it have its way.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

.................


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As I understand it, the main theme of Parsifal, and indeed of all Wagner's work, is redemption. This is the rejection of power and greed and ego. It could be seen as the rejection of all desire, similar to the surrender of desire in Eastern philosophy, to reach the true "self."


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

I can't help wandering into this maelstrom here. I don't think I'll be able to provide any resolution, but I can state one person's opinion on the religious aspects of Wagner's operas.

Wagner's genius comes through most clearly to me in the Ring cycle and "Tristan und Isolde". The topic of sexual attraction as inspired madness permeates both great works, as this topic clearly plays to Wagner's strengths. The considerable symbolic and psychological power of ancient mythology also brings great dimensionality to these operas. If you love Carl Jung, you're likely to also love Richard Wagner.

I've sampled Wagner's "Christian" works, though, and they feel dead on arrival to me. The moral seriousness of Judeo-Christian religion doesn't seem to me to play to Wagner's strengths as a dramatist, and there is little in his own life story that indicates a deep understanding of the type of morality Jesus presented in the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe that's why I've never been able to get anywhere with "Parsifal". I feel that Wagner is a genius as an anthropologist, but an imposter as a religious philosopher. 

With that said, I have to admit that I haven't put in the work to really understand "Parsifal", but I always follow my instincts when it comes to which operas are worth investing my time in, and "Parsifal" does not attract me at all. I formed this judgement before learning (as I've learned here) that part of this opera's plot involves denying Jesus's Jewish origins, and now that I've learned this I'm not just disinterested in but actively repelled by this work. Racist pseudoscience is deeply offensive. I have my own strong beliefs about the religious and spiritual meaning of life, and Wagner is not the kind of artist who seems to have much authority in this realm.

I'm interested in hearing how enthusiastic Woodduck is about "Parsifal", though. I will try to give it a chance someday. But I also think it's a worthwhile position to cherish Wagner for what he is greatest at - crazy love stories, brilliant reinventions of pagan mythology - and not stretching this adoration beyond its breaking point.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

marceliotstein said:


> I formed this judgement before learning (as I've learned here) that part of this opera's plot involves denying Jesus's Jewish origins, and now that I've learned this I'm not just disinterested in but actively repelled by this work. Racist pseudoscience is deeply offensive.


M. Can you point me in the direction of the post that makes this statement about the plot and indeed, the relevant part of the libretto too?

I thought I knew Parsifal pretty well, but apparently not!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

marceliotstein said:


> I can't help wandering into this maelstrom here. I don't think I'll be able to provide any resolution, but I can state one person's opinion on the religious aspects of Wagner's operas.
> 
> Wagner's genius comes through most clearly to me in the Ring cycle and "Tristan und Isolde". The topic of sexual attraction as inspired madness permeates both great works, as this topic clearly plays to Wagner's strengths. The considerable symbolic and psychological power of ancient mythology also brings great dimensionality to these operas. If you love Carl Jung, you're likely to also love Richard Wagner.
> 
> ...


Personally, I also don't agree with some of the moral ideas Wagner's operas convey, but I just acknowledge that and then I move on - I don't think that it's somehow wrong to listen to the works because I don't agree with all the moral ideas (for example C.S. Lewis who has also written very many Christian books really enjoyed Wagner's operas). Of course it's very personal matter and I totally understand if you feel it's repulsive or not in accordance with your moral principles.

By the way, I don't think we even have to go as far as to discuss whether _Parsifal_ is Christian or not, to find contradictions with the Bible from Wagner's operas (for example Tannhäuser gets redeemed through the death of Elisabeth (correct me if I'm wrong)). I think it's just important to remember that Wagner's intention wasn't to write 'operatic' masses or religious music. He used religion a bit in the same way as he used mythology - Christianity in _Parsifal_ and _Nibelungenlied_ in the Ring. We could as well start discussing whether the Ring is truly Odinist or not because Wagner manipulated with _Nibelungenlied_ and the Ring is actually in contradiction with the original myth. I'm quite sure that Wagner wanted to convey his own ideas through the manipulation of either a myth or in this case maybe even a religion - his intention wasn't to convey only the principles of the religion itself, but also his own principles. Many of Wagner's own ideas were also in accordance with Christianity and we could say that through the seemingly contradictory ideas, he actually conveyed many Christian concepts.

Considering Wagner's self-confidence and his innovativeness, masses and requiems had already been written - he probably wanted to do something something new and as we can see from his writings.. he wasn't too afraid to give his opinion.

I have had a theory now for some time that Wagner's rejection of Jesus's Jewish origins or the Old Testament in general, plays an important part in the storyline and the allegorical meaning of the Ring. The idea of the progression from Wotan's legalistic power to his fall he himself wanted could be understood as Wagner's view of progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament. All thoughts on this theory are very welcome! I personally don't think that the Old Testament and the New Testament are somehow contradictory and should be separated in such a way, but this doesn't prevent me from enjoying the Ring immensely.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

annaw said:


> I don't think that it's somehow wrong to listen to the works because I don't agree with all the moral ideas (for example C.S. Lewis who has also written very many Christian books really enjoyed Wagner's operas).


Well, I've read some C.S. Lewis, and although he is basically Christian, there are a lot of his own imaginative ideas thrown in, like Hell being a series of infinitely smaller worlds. If anything, I'd think C.S. Lewis enjoyed Wagner because of the artistic license he took, similar to his own.



annaw said:


> I have had a theory now for some time that Wagner's rejection of Jesus's Jewish origins or the Old Testament in general, plays an important part in the storyline and the allegorical meaning of the Ring. The idea of the progression from Wotan's legalistic power to his fall he himself wanted could be understood as Wagner's view of progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament. All thoughts on this theory are very welcome! I personally don't think that the Old Testament and the New Testament are somehow contradictory and should be separated in such a way, but this doesn't prevent me from enjoying the Ring immensely.


Schleiermacher, the pioneer of this new form of religious thought (called "the father of modern liberalism"), neglected the study of the Old Testament, and this became the character of this new form of "Christianity," and was part of the widespread "new" beliefs of the time; but to be fair, Schleiermacher was also critical of the New Testament, with its claims of miracles, virgin birth, etc., so there was a wholesale rejection of the whole thing.

Anyway, what about redemption as an overriding theme? Redemption is not a miracle.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> As I understand it, the main theme of Parsifal, and indeed of all Wagner's work, is redemption. This is the rejection of power and greed and ego. It could be seen as the rejection of all desire, similar to the surrender of desire in Eastern philosophy, to reach the true "self."


If I'm not mistaken, then Schopenhauer's philosophy that influenced Wagner a lot also includes the Buddhistic idea of rejection of all desire, but I've read from one article that Wagner didn't accept this idea 100%.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

It seems to me that there are elements of Buddhism, Christianity, _and_ Schopenhauer in Parsifal, and trying to make disctinctions is somewhat artificial because the different beliefs share so many ideals. Compassion is at the heart of Buddhism, it is essential to Schopenhauer, and it is the essence of Christianity, its fundamental moral imperative. Perhaps Christianity is disctinctive in demanding a particularly active response.

It is difficult to pin down Wagner's very personal version of Christianity, but everything I've read and my experience of the works themselves indicate that Wagner's Christianity was centered less on Easter and Christ's resurrection than on his passion, and the compassion for humanity which it expressed. Wagner was emphatic about how completely Jesus Christ and his New Testament teaching of compassion had superseded the God of the Old Testament, whom he saw as a grim, narcissisitic and terrifying figure, and drew a contrast between this fire-and-brimstone tyrant and the Christ who preached a new covenant of love and divine compassion.

Wagner's quote from his essay Art and Religion regarding " When religion becomes artificial, it is reserved to art to restore the spirity of religion" is quoted time and again as indicating that Wagner had fulfilled his mission by transforming and transcending Christianity in a sort of Heglian process, subsuming its truths into a new religion of Art. However, people who read Wagner's essay further will discover assertations and beliefs that put a wholly different complexion on that sentence. Wagner was drawing a disctinction between symbols which depict a genuine truth and those that are nothing but an "appalling degradation of religious dogmas into artificiality." Wagner cited Raphael's Sistine Madonna has an example of a work of art that "represented true religion" and said that "The painter has revelaed here the inapprehensible and indefinable mystery of the religious dogmas, no longer to plodding reason, but to enraptured sight." It is clear that Wagner regarded "the mystery that the painter revealed" as a reigious mystery, and that he took the same as true for Parsifal. For Wagner, art was the best medium by which inaccessible religious mysteries could become most tangible to the mind, but this did not mean that art itself became a religion or replaced it. Cosima recorded "the thought he has written down: 'The path from Religion to Art bad, from Art to Religion good.'" Art was the "handmaid of religion", not "religion the handmaid of art." Nor did Wagner seem to find the miraculous aspect of religion unbelievable. He made it clear that he regarded its miracles as counter-intuitive, as a mystery going again all preconceptions, but then pointed out that Christ's compassion in dying on the Cross for the sake of humanity was proof that the counter-intuitive and inconceivable _could_ happen. Christ's acceptance of crucifixtion and the compassion it expressed signified to Wagner a reversal of natural laws just as extreme as -- say -- the reversal of the laws of gravity. After anything so improbable as Christ's achievement, anything was possible.

Wagner actually wrote to King Ludwig about Parsifal, "It is as though I am inspired to write this in order to preserve the world's profoundest secret, the truest Christian faith, or rather, to awaken that faith anew." This letter alone would be enough to demand a reappraisal of the notion that Wagner was not interested in glorifying orthodox religion through art. The threads woven into Parsifal were all interwoven with the stuff of Wagner's Christianity. The action of Parsifal takes place against the background of Christian beliefs. Parsifal takes it for granted that these beliefs are true and accepted, as much in life as in the framework of the drama. Parsifal acts out two Christian sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion, and its action centres on the Holy Grail, the chalice with which Christ instituted Holy Communion. Its action incorporates divine interventions that are miraculous, the daily rejuvenation of its knights by the Grail; the sudden ruin of Klingsor's castle when Parsifal makes the sign of the Cross; the breaking of Kundry's curse which had prevented Parsifal from finding the way back to Amfortas; the instant healing of Amfortas' wound by the spear which inflicted it; and the ecstasy of all creation on Good Friday in virtue of Christ's redeeming crucifixtion. Yet it is not only the action of Parsifal which resounds with Christianity; the music of Parsifal does the same. Much of the prelude and the other music reflects the church music traditions from two separate streams that Wagner knew well, the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran. Wagner transformed a theme of Liszt's from his cantata The Bells of Strasbourg Cathedral. There is the Communion theme with hints at monasticism and Gregorian chant. And there is the theme of the Dresden Amen that represents the Grail.

Of course Parsifal is not doctrine reinforcing in any fundametnalist sense. It does not state the Nicene Creed any more than does Milton's Paradise Lost. But Parsifal specifically embodies and promotoes the principles of Christianity as taught and lived by Jesus Christ. Wagner confronted the institutionalized distortions of Christianity which he saw all around him and put to himself the question, "Does this mean that religion itself has ceased?" He answered: "No, no! It lives, but only at its final source and true dwelling place within the deepest holiest chambers of the individual. For _this_ is the essence of true religion; that away from the cheating show of the day-time world, it shines in the night of man's inmost heart."

I have to admit, my personal sense of the relgious dimension of Parsifal has been colored by people who have found in it a conduit to the divine and the transcendental. Years ago I attended Parsifal with a companion who was not a Wagner expert, just a hard working faithful man who enjoyed the occasional opera. It was an eye-opener to spend some time with him and hear him explain how Parsifal was as religious for him as any service or liturgy in a church. He was a Lutheran, and Parsifal was not Lutheran worship, and certainly not like a normal church service where he would reckon to participate actively. However, Parsifal still afforded him a divine connection, a conduit to the Almighty. For him Parsifal inspired religious experience, it purveyed religious experience, it _was_ religious experience. When I gently challenged him and prodded him about the reality or otherwise of this communion, he explained it was as true and authentic as anything he knew, and that he saw no sense in doubting it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Schopenhauer's philosophy has been called "Buddhism without the joy," so maybe it's not wise to make a one-to-one correspondence. Maybe Wagner was not eager to embrace Schopenhauer's grim, existential brand of selflessness.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Apparently, Wagner was actually an atheist . In his maturity he was almost as anti-christian as he was anti-semitic . He never intended Parsifal to be a conventionally Christian work . Exactly what he intended it to mean is basically anyone's guess .


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

marceliotstein said:


> I feel that Wagner is a genius as an anthropologist, but an imposter as a religious philosopher.


Well, he was neither. He was an artist.

That some people are not able to take the moral, religious, and sacred aspects of the operas seriously because of Wagner's personal life and his character is just one of those side-effects of Wagner's biography and personal shortcomings being so well-known, as Michael Tanner said in his interview linked in the other thread on the best books about Wagner. I happen to agree with him that if we could erase every bit of knowledge we have on Wagner's life and opinions from existence and from our collective minds, it would be a good thing for the operas. We would be forced to evaluate the works on their merits alone and not in relation to the facts about his personal life. We don't sit down and listen to Bach's St. Matthew Passion and worry what kind of man Bach was, whether he was a scoundrel or not and if he was worthy of the subject, and what his _intentions_ were when creating it. We simply take the St. Matthew Passion for what it is, and what it arises in us when we experience it.

As regards to Parsifal, I think Deryck Cooke put it well:

"Even so, why, in Parsifal, should he put forward the message that sensual gratification has to be renounced by those dedicated to a great spiritual task? The answer is that the question is based on the false premise that an artist should be capable of practicing what he preaches. Few men can do that: scarcely any priest would undertake to be capable of doing so, and an artist, not having undertaken the mission of a priest, is even less capable. Inside Wagner the artist, as he himself said, was a saint trying to get out: in his life, the saint never got out at all, but something like it did in his art, and above all in Parsifal. Wagner's artistic heart and ideals were in the right place, whatever he may have done in his everyday life."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> As I understand it, the main theme of Parsifal, and indeed of all Wagner's work, is redemption.


This is the way I understand Wagner's work too. It's in the broad sense of the quest for redemption - for healing of the soul and deliverance from suffering - that "religion" can be found as his fundamental preoccupation, regardless of the specific mythic tradition or symbolism used in any particular opera. At the center of every drama (except for the comedy _Die Meistersinger_) is a central character (or characters) for whom life has gone wrong, wrong in a profound, spiritual way, and who longs and searches for salvation. Implicit in this is the protagonist's alienation, his inability to conform to ordinary norms or his misery in attempting to do so, due to his sense that some state of being is possible beyond the imagination, customs and laws of society.

Wagner's notion of the vehicle for his characters' (and his own) salvation changed over time. In his earlier operas it's romantic love that preoccupies him; male protagonists search for a love, spiritual and sexual, that will lift the curse from their lives and complete them, and female protagonists act to make that dream come true. From a cynical post-Hollywood perspective there may be nothing particularly "religious" about romantic love, but to the 19th century the "eternal feminine," the "essence" of woman which could draw man upward morally and spiritually, was a meaningful idea, and as a myth-maker and musician Wagner gave it a powerful artistic reality in such stories as those of the Flying Dutchman and Senta, Tannhauser and Venus/Elisabeth, Lohengrin and Elsa, and of course Tristan and Isolde.



> [Redemption] could be seen as...the rejection of power and greed and ego...the rejection of all desire, similar to the surrender of desire in Eastern philosophy, to reach the true "self."


_Tristan und Isolde,_ probably the most intense and iconic of all artistic treatments of the subject of romantic love, represents in Wagner's career a final tribute to _eros_ as a possible vehicle of personal salvation. _Tristan_ was composed, along with _Die Meistersinger,_ during an interruption in work on _Der Ring des Nibelungen,_ and the coming together within a few years' time of these three works, along with a close study of Schopenhauer - and, through him, Buddhism - intensified Wagner's growing sense that the promise of love was illusory and that redemption for the suffering soul lay elsewhere. With the characters of Hans Sachs in _Meistersinger_ and Wotan in the _Ring,_ we find desire giving way to renunciation, and passion to _com_passion, as central themes and agents of transformation. Wagner's sympathy with Buddhism blended with a renewed interest in Christianity - or, more accurately, with the idea of Christ as a symbol of perfect compassion - and once he was finished with Wotan's great renunciation of the power of the gods, their apocalyptic end effected by the sacrificial immolation of the loving Brunnhilde, he could turn to the long-simmering project of creating his final work, in which basic ethical themes common to the religious traditions of East and West are amalgamated in a new myth which, while it draws a central story line from familiar medieval sources (the _Perceval_ of Chretien de Troyes and, especially, the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach), departs significantly from them in its terse dramatic construction and its dense, archetypal symbolism resonant with philosophical and psychological overtones which Freudians and Jungians can probe to their heart's content.


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> As I understand it, the main theme of Parsifal, and indeed of all Wagner's work, is redemption. This is the rejection of power and greed and ego. It could be seen as the rejection of all desire, similar to the surrender of desire in Eastern philosophy, to reach the true "self."


I like add a little contribution.

Is this not what ultimately matters in the life of every person or the denial of it. Many religions are adrift and removed from the eternal source. To remain in the sphere of Parsifal., The holy grail is not the story of one person but every person.( or should be )


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bourdon said:


> I like add a little contribution.
> 
> Is this not what ultimately matters in the life of every person or the denial of it. Many religions are adrift and removed from the eternal source. To remain in the sphere of Parsifal., The holy grail is not the story of one person but every person.( or should be )


It's the "Perennial Wisdom": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> It's the "Perennial Wisdom": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy


I have read the Huxley book and spend a life questioning the comprehensive as well as the incomprehensive but that is the "Parsifal " in me.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> This is the way I understand Wagner's work too. It's in the broad sense of the quest for redemption - for healing of the soul and deliverance from suffering - that "religion" can be found as his fundamental preoccupation, regardless of the specific mythic tradition or symbolism used in any particular opera. At the center of every drama (except for the comedy _Die Meistersinger_) is a central character (or characters) for whom life has gone wrong, wrong in a profound, spiritual way, and who longs and searches for salvation. Implicit in this is the protagonist's alienation, his inability to conform to ordinary norms or his misery in attempting to do so, due to his sense that some state of being is possible beyond the imagination, customs and laws of society.
> 
> Wagner's notion of the vehicle for his characters' (and his own) salvation changed over time. In his earlier operas it's romantic love that preoccupies him; male protagonists search for a love, spiritual and sexual, that will lift the curse from their lives and complete them, and female protagonists act to make that dream come true. From a cynical post-Hollywood perspective there may be nothing particularly "religious" about romantic love, but to the 19th century the "eternal feminine," the "essence" of woman which could draw man upward morally and spiritually, was a meaningful idea, and as a myth-maker and musician Wagner gave it a powerful artistic reality in such stories as those of the Flying Dutchman and Senta, Tannhauser and Venus/Elisabeth, Lohengrin and Elsa, and of course Tristan and Isolde.
> 
> *Tristan und Isolde, probably the most intense and iconic of all artistic treatments of the subject of romantic love, represents in Wagner's career a final tribute to eros as a possible vehicle of personal salvation*. _Tristan_ was composed, along with _Die Meistersinger,_ during an interruption in work on _Der Ring des Nibelungen,_ and the coming together within a few years' time of these three works, along with a close study of Schopenhauer - and, through him, Buddhism - intensified Wagner's growing sense that the promise of love was illusory and that redemption for the suffering soul lay elsewhere. With the characters of Hans Sachs in _Meistersinger_ and Wotan in the _Ring,_ we find desire giving way to renunciation, and passion to _com_passion, as central themes and agents of transformation. Wagner's sympathy with Buddhism blended with a renewed interest in Christianity - or, more accurately, with the idea of Christ as a symbol of perfect compassion - and once he was finished with Wotan's great renunciation of the power of the gods, their apocalyptic end effected by the sacrificial immolation of the loving Brunnhilde, he could turn to the long-simmering project of creating his final work, in which basic ethical themes common to the religious traditions of East and West are amalgamated in a new myth which, while it draws a central story line from familiar medieval sources (the _Perceval_ of Chretien de Troyes and, especially, the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach), departs significantly from them in its terse dramatic construction and its dense, archetypal symbolism resonant with philosophical and psychological overtones which Freudians and Jungians can probe to their heart's content.


Woodduck, would you describe Gotterdammerung along those same lines? The summation of all that went on before in the cycle, the apotheosis of salvation, the light at the end of the tunnel? And that Parsifal takes it a step further in what you've been describing?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

superhorn said:


> Apparently, Wagner was actually an atheist . In his maturity he was almost as anti-christian as he was anti-semitic . He never intended Parsifal to be a conventionally Christian work . Exactly what he intended it to mean is basically anyone's guess .


Let's not throw the word "atheist" around; the Dali Lama is an atheist. This doesn't mean "anti-Christian," either. These are distortions.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

annaw said:


> By the way, I don't think we even have to go as far as to discuss whether Parsifal is Christian or not, to find contradictions with the Bible from Wagner's operas (for example Tannhäuser gets redeemed through the death of Elisabeth (correct me if I'm wrong)). I think it's just important to remember that Wagner's intention wasn't to write 'operatic' masses or religious music. He used religion a bit in the same way as he used mythology - Christianity in _Parsifal_ and _Nibelungenlied_ in the Ring. We could as well start discussing whether the Ring is truly Odinist or not because Wagner manipulated with _Nibelungenlied_ and the Ring is actually in contradiction with the original myth. I'm quite sure that Wagner wanted to convey his own ideas through the manipulation of either a myth or in this case maybe even a religion - his intention wasn't to convey only the principles of the religion itself, but also his own principles. Many of Wagner's own ideas were also in accordance with Christianity and we could say that through the seemingly contradictory ideas, he actually conveyed many Christian concepts.


Regarding _Tannhäuser_, I would say it's more complicated than that. The character of Elisabeth that Wagner created was modeled after (among others) Saint Elizabeth of Hungary. She was married to Louis IV, son of Hermann and his successor as Landgrave of Thuringia. Thus she was Hermann's daughter-in-law rather than his niece (but niece works better for him holding a contest about giving her away in marriage). Elizabeth died young (after Louis IV died) and was canonized shortly after her death.

Tannhäuser was not saved directly by Elisabeth's death, but by her intercession. German Protestants at the time were unhappy about this change to the Tannhäuser legend (traditionally he returns to Venusburg). But Catholics were also unhappy about the symbolism of Tannhäuser being rejected by the Pope (until the miracle happens), not gaining salvation in Rome but in Wartburg (where Martin Luther translated the New Testament from Greek to German). That is Wagner was trying to balance these groups; he wasn't interested in taking a side, because that wasn't where his focus was.

I am going to quote from a discussion on the opera (which itself quotes Wagner, which I have put in *bold and underline*), which goes a similar place:



see link above said:


> Lest there be any doubt about the supposedly Christian nature of the work, Wagner explains his use of religious symbols in a remarkable passage from A Communication to My Friends:
> 
> *It is a fundamental error of our modern superficialism, to consider the specific Christian legends as by any means original creations. Not one of the most affecting, not one of the most distinctive Christian myths belongs by right of generation to the Christian spirit, such as we commonly understand it: it has inherited them all from the purely human intuitions of earlier times, and merely molded them to fit its own peculiar tenets.
> 
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> I can't help wandering into this maelstrom here. I don't think I'll be able to provide any resolution, but I can state one person's opinion on the religious aspects of Wagner's operas.
> 
> Wagner's genius comes through most clearly to me in the Ring cycle and "Tristan und Isolde". The topic of sexual attraction as inspired madness permeates both great works, as this topic clearly plays to Wagner's strengths. The considerable symbolic and psychological power of ancient mythology also brings great dimensionality to these operas. If you love Carl Jung, you're likely to also love Richard Wagner.
> 
> ...


Don't write off _Parsifal_ just yet, Marc. I've enjoyed discussing the _Ring_ with you, and I hope we have an opportunity to talk about _Parsifal,_ which, surface appearances to the contrary, actually takes up some basic themes of the _Ring_ and works them out a little differently. To paraphrase you: if you love Jung, you won't find _Parsifal_ disappointing. Its psychological symbolism is pretty trenchant, and resonates beyond the boundaries of its Christian/ Buddhist frame. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but in this opera a spear isn't just a spear, a cup isn't just a cup, and your lover just might turn out to be your mother...

I'd also like to reassure you that there is no racist pseudoscience in the plot of _Parsifal,_ nor any references to the race of Jesus (who is never named, by the way) or of anyone else. You can read contorted, rationalized attempts to find it, but I wouldn't recommend coming to the opera with such ideas as mental background.

You may or may not come to love _Parsifal,_ but dally with it awhile and I think you'll at least respect it in the morning.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

mountmccabe said:


> Regarding _Tannhäuser_, I would say it's more complicated than that.


Yes, I was afraid that it might be so.

Thank you a lot for your insight!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Orfeo said:


> Woodduck, would you describe Gotterdammerung along those same lines? The summation of all that went on before in the cycle, the apotheosis of salvation, the light at the end of the tunnel? And that Parsifal takes it a step further in what you've been describing?


To a point. The end of the gods is only the clearing of the road, not the destination. It represents the final, self-dealt collapse of egoistic values - greed, ambition, wealth, and power, and the delusions of sex and religious dogma - and it leaves us with no more than a musical promise of the possibility of better things. _Parsifal_ is a more concentrated, psychologically more sophisticated retelling of the _Ring_'s moral tale: in both works, a boy comes, brashly brandishing a weapon, out of the woods and steps into a into a sinful world, ignorant of its ways. But whereas Siegfried succumbs to society's deceits, Parsifal, like the Buddha, feels the pangs of compassion for human suffering and is able to reject the temptations which lie at the root of it. He thus attains maturity, as Siegfried did not, and after long wandering in the wilderness can return to the world and heal its primal wound.

_Parsifal_ is Siegfried reincarnated, sent back to finish the work he had failed to achieve. In retrospect, I hear the gentle exaltation of _Parsifal_'s final tableau as fulfilling the promise of _Gotterdammerung_'s serene closing bars.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Don't write off _Parsifal_ just yet, Marc. I've enjoyed discussing the _Ring_ with you, and I hope we have an opportunity to talk about _Parsifal,_ which, surface appearances to the contrary, actually takes up some basic themes of the _Ring_ and works them out a little differently. To paraphrase you: if you love Jung, you won't find _Parsifal_ disappointing. Its psychological symbolism is pretty trenchant, and resonates beyond the boundaries of its Christian/ Buddhist frame. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but in this opera a spear isn't just a spear, a cup isn't just a cup, and your lover just might turn out to be your mother...
> 
> I'd also like to reassure you that there is no racist pseudoscience in the plot of _Parsifal,_ nor any references to the race of Jesus (who is never named, by the way) or of anyone else. You can read contorted, rationalized attempts to find it, but I wouldn't recommend coming to the opera with such ideas as mental background.
> 
> You may or may not come to love _Parsifal,_ but dally with it awhile and I think you'll at least respect it in the morning.


Thanks for this, Woodduck, and I will give Parsifal a chance. I have definitely enjoyed and benefited from the discussions we've all had here about Wagner, and I do have a taste for more. (Being Met-centric as always, I am studying up on Der Fliegende Hollander right now in preparation for Bryn Terfel's star turn next season!)

This conversation hasn't turned me off to Parsifal at all. Anything that generates so much enthusiasm must be worth my time. I'm sorry I missed it when it played at the Met 2 seasons ago.

However, I do think it was easy to misconstrue your words, Woodduck, when you wrote this to kick off this thread:



> Wagner was strongly influenced by both Christianity and Buddhism in the creation of Parsifal, but he had an idiosyncratic slant on both of these religious traditions. For example, he insisted that Jesus was of Greek rather than Jewish origin ...


This is the one and only reason I thought that Parsifal incorporated this idea - so to you and the other person on this thread who asked where I got this idea, this is where I got it. Please clarify: is this offensive idea part of the context/background to Parsifal, or not?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I hesitate to speak on behalf of Woodduck who can speak most eloquently for himself. But if you remove the words ‘in the creation of Parsifal’ from the paragraph that might clarify what W. was actually saying . An imperfect knowledge of Parsifal might lead you in the wrong direction too.
I don’t think Wagner’s religious idiosyncrasies permeated Parsifal to any anti-religious extent that might upset people of faith.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Thanks for this, Woodduck, and I will give Parsifal a chance. I have definitely enjoyed and benefited from the discussions we've all had here about Wagner, and I do have a taste for more. (Being Met-centric as always, *I am studying up on Der Fliegende Hollander right now* in preparation for Bryn Terfel's star turn next season!)
> 
> This conversation hasn't turned me off to Parsifal at all. Anything that generates so much enthusiasm must be worth my time. I'm sorry I missed it when it played at the Met 2 seasons ago.
> 
> ...


I can see how you drew that connection. As Barbebleu says, it wasn't intended. But this might be a good time to say a few words about the matter of antisemitism and its possible relationship to Wagner's operas. _Parsifal_ in particular has been the object of some strange misconceptions, especially since the publication of Robert Gutman's notorious _Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music_ in 1968.

The desire to divorce Christianity and Jesus from their Jewish roots apparently had some currency among theologians in the antisemitic milieu of 19th-century Europe, and wasn't original with Wagner (although I confess to not having much luck researching its origins). Given Wagner's well-known antisemitism, it's natural that scholars and others have searched _Parsifal_ (and all his operas) for signs of it. The discussion has arisen from time to time here on TC, with one poster rather persistent in insisting that certain characters in the operas are obvious Semitic caricatures. Even more extreme views have currency; Gutman, mentioned above, writes that _Parsifal_ is basically an allegory about race and racial purity, with the boy Parsifal a sort of proto-Nazi hero saving the noble Aryan knights of the Holy Grail from the taint of Jewish blood represented by the evil sorcerer Klingsor. Gutman claims the influence on Wagner of the racist ideas of Count Arthur de Gobineau, with whom Wagner had social intercourse around the time of Parsifal's premiere in 1882, and whose _Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races_ was a major contribution to the rise of Aryan supremacist thinking in Europe and the eugenics movement in America.

I won't bring in the other operas here, but as regards _Parsifal_ it's important to point out the easily checkable fact that its ideas were fully worked out long before Wagner knew of Gobineau's thinking (a strange "oversight" on Gutman's part which, along with some of his other views, reveals a clearly hostile agenda). It's also hard not to believe that if the very voluble composer had intended the work to contain any sort of racist sentiments he would certainly not have kept it a secret (especially not from Cosima, who worshipfully recorded in her diary virtually every pronouncement that fell from her husband's lips).

The one aspect of _Parsifal_ that might be seen as a reference to Jews is in the character of Kundry, that tormented figure of multiple personalities who confesses that in a former life she laughed at Christ on the cross and has been cursed to wander through many lifetimes seeking redemption. The idea of reincarnation obviously comes from Wagner's interest in Buddhism, in which tradition it may be taken either literally or as symbolic of the ever-repeating revolutions of the wheel of _samsara_, in which the mind is imprisoned until insight sets it free (in _Parsifal,_ that freedom is represented by Kundry's death). The "Jewishness" here is in the reference to the Jews' rejection of Christ, and more obliquely in the suggestion of the legend, familiar to the 19th century, of the "wandering Jew," also evoked by Wagner in the figure of Vanderdecken, the "flying Dutchman," who was condemned to sail the seas until he could find the love of a woman willing to devote herself to him even unto death. It should be pointed out to those eager to read antisemitism into these characters that neither Kundry nor Vanderdecken is presented as villainous; they are suffering figures, portrayed not judgmentally but compassionately. They evoke our sympathy and, in the Dutchman's case at least, Wagner clearly identified with them.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> To a point. The end of the gods is only the clearing of the road, not the destination. It represents the final, self-dealt collapse of egoistic values - greed, ambition, wealth, and power, and the delusions of sex and religious dogma - and it leaves us with no more than a musical promise of the possibility of better things. _Parsifal_ is a more concentrated, psychologically more sophisticated retelling of the _Ring_'s moral tale: in both works, a boy comes, brashly brandishing a weapon, out of the woods and steps into a into a sinful world, ignorant of its ways. But whereas Siegfried succumbs to society's deceits, Parsifal, like the Buddha, feels the pangs of compassion for human suffering and is able to reject the temptations which lie at the root of it. He thus attains maturity, as Siegfried did not, and after long wandering in the wilderness can return to the world and heal its primal wound.
> 
> _Parsifal_ is Siegfried reincarnated, sent back to finish the work he had failed to achieve. In retrospect, I hear the gentle exaltation of _Parsifal_'s final tableau as fulfilling the promise of _Gotterdammerung_'s serene closing bars.


I get it. 
Thank you very much Woodduck. You are as erudite as always.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> The one aspect of _Parsifal_ that might be seen as a reference to Jews is in the character of Kundry, that tormented figure of multiple personalities who confesses that in a former life she laughed at Christ on the cross and has been cursed to wander through many lifetimes seeking redemption. The idea of reincarnation obviously comes from Wagner's interest in Buddhism, in which tradition it may be taken either literally or as symbolic of the ever-repeating revolutions of the wheel of _samsara_, in which the mind is imprisoned until insight sets it free (in _Parsifal,_ that freedom is represented by Kundry's death). The "Jewishness" here is in the reference to the Jews' rejection of Christ, and more obliquely in the suggestion of the legend, familiar to the 19th century, of the "wandering Jew," also evoked by Wagner in the figure of Vanderdecken, the "flying Dutchman," who was condemned to sail the seas until he could find the love of a woman willing to devote herself to him even unto death. It should be pointed out to those eager to read antisemitism into these characters that neither Kundry nor Vanderdecken is presented as villainous; they are suffering figures, portrayed not judgmentally but compassionately. They evoke our sympathy and, in the Dutchman's case at least, Wagner clearly identified with them.


I find this answer satisfying, and I have reached similar conclusions. This is, indeed, why I am able to look past Wagner's anti-semitism and appreciate his great work. I see Wagner as an artist/philosopher -in answer to the person earlier in this thread who said that Wagner was not a philosopher but an artist, I think it's clear he wanted to be both, and was appreciated by his audience in both capacities - and the primary thrust of his philosophy is existentialist. He does not see the world as a battle between good and evil. Rather, he sees evil as part of the human condition, and as a protean, ironic force. We all partake of it, and are all capable of stumbling into it. We are all sometimes innocent and sometimes guilty, sometimes smart and sometimes stupid.

This philosophy of life is incompatible with the anti-semitism of the Nazis. I believe the examples cited above and in this thread also show an ironic and psychologically complex understanding of human motivation that cannot possibly be boiled down to the simplistic, hateful philosophy of Nazism (or, for that matter, Trumpism or any other current brand of institutionalized racism or fascism).

That's not to say that Wagner cannot be validly connected to Nazism. But I believe the connections were all made by the Nazis, and not by Wagner. I have no doubt that Wagner's operas encouraged and fortified Nazism. I also am sure that the vivid destructive ending of the Ring cycle became a useful metaphor for Hitler and the other Nazis who made the decision to refuse surrender and allow the total destruction of every German city (and much of the rest of Central Europe) even after the German armies were clearly defeated. I am sure it was no coincidence that the fall of Nazism resembled "Gotterdammerung". But this is a case of the Nazis being inspired by Wagner, and Wagner cannot be judged guilty of what happened long after his death.

There's also much that can be said about the correspondence between Wagner and Schopenhauer and Buddhism (and let's throw in Nietzsche here as well, as Nietzsche made a major point of rejecting Buddhism, and parodying it). Here, though, as I mentioned before, I am simply not likely to look to Wagner for the kind of wisdom that can be found in Buddhism. I take Buddhism very seriously as a philosophy of life, but I have no reason to think that Wagner ever apprehended this wisdom except superficially and decoratively. As others have correctly pointed out here, compassion is the essence of Buddhism. Compassion, selflessness, empathy and love. These are not the keys to Wagner's work. I believe Wagner was fascinated by Buddhism as an exotic philosophy that was fashionable among Germans in the late 19th century, and tried to crudely model some of its precepts, but I have never heard of a Buddhist writer (I have read many Buddhist writers) who was inspired to a greater understanding by Wagner's works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> I find this answer satisfying, and I have reached similar conclusions. This is, indeed, why I am able to look past Wagner's anti-semitism and appreciate his great work. I see Wagner as an artist/philosopher -in answer to the person earlier in this thread who said that Wagner was not a philosopher but an artist, I think it's clear he wanted to be both, and was appreciated by his audience in both capacities - and the primary thrust of his philosophy is existentialist. He does not see the world as a battle between good and evil. Rather, he sees evil as part of the human condition, and as a protean, ironic force. We all partake of it, and are all capable of stumbling into it. We are all sometimes innocent and sometimes guilty, sometimes smart and sometimes stupid.
> 
> *This philosophy of life is incompatible with the anti-semitism of the Nazis.* I believe the examples cited above and in this thread also show *an ironic and psychologically complex understanding of human motivation that cannot possibly be boiled down to the simplistic, hateful philosophy of Nazism (or, for that matter, Trumpism or any other current brand of institutionalized racism or fascism).*
> 
> ...


I think your insight into the Janus-faced aspect of human nature, and of Wagner's understanding of this, is spot-on. I can take some exception to only two points in this thoughtful post. We should be careful, not only about connecting Wagner's personal antisemitism (which as you probably know was rather eccentric and impure, existing more in theory than in practice, as his Jewish friends would attest) with Nazism, but about conflating Hitler's personal passion for Wagner with Nazism's ideology or practice. From a practical standpoint, there isn't much use a political movement can make of an opera composer fifty years deceased. It's highly questionable whether any lively association between Wagner's works and Nazism existed anywhere but in the minds of Hitler and a few of his intimates. It's true that Hitler liked to include Wagner in concerts and that he expected his officers to endure performances of the operas, but until after WW II had ended and people had had a chance to assess its legacy - which means, in part, to create a legacy for it - there was no notable prejudice against Wagner even among Jewish musicians and music lovers, at least among older ones for whom the concept of an antisemitic 19th-century composer was unremarkable.

My strongest point of disagreement with you concerns your belief that Wagner's interest in Buddhism was unserious ("decorative"). He was certainly serious about Schopenhauer, who was serious about Buddhism and incorporated it into his thinking. Wagner also worked for a while on plans for an opera about a Buddhist nun titled "The Victors" _(Die Sieger)_, and abandoned it only as he realized that his already-sketched-out _Parsifal_ would incorporate some of the same ideas. As far as _Parsifal_ is concerned, the basic Buddhist idea of _samsara,_ the wandering of the soul through successive incarnations, is an important part of the identity of the character of Kundry, while Parsifal himself is more of a Buddha figure than a Christ figure, attaining illumination through the realization that desire is at the root of suffering. There are other details of the story which derive more from a Buddhist than a Christian sensibility, e.g. Parsifal's shooting of the swan and Gurnemanz's lecturing him about the sacredness of all life. At a deep level, the opera's feeling of timelessness, the uncanny suggestion of time and space being disassembled, suspended, obliterated and absorbed into a spiritual present, a feeling which is such an essential part of the _Parsifal_ experience and which sets it at the opposite pole from the tension and drive of most of Wagner's works, has something decidedly East Asian, and not Judeo-Christian, about it. Although I can't prove it, I think Wagner absorbed quite a lot of Buddhism, and my sense of that contributes to my feeling that although _Parsifal_'s ethical assumptions are not _un_-Christian, they point as much to the Bodhi Tree as to the Cross. Compassion is the very basis of _Parsifal_'s ethical universe, as the prophesy of Parsifal's redeeming act tells us: _Durch Mitleid wissend, der reine Tor_ - "Through compassion made wise, the innocent fool."

Of course you are right that Wagner's thoughts on Buddhism would be of little interest to a student of Buddhism. Wagner as philosopher is interesting mainly to music lovers who want to better understand his art.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Well, in summary, I think the questions we are discussing here are broad enough for all of us to be right at the same time. 

Just a couple of quick responses regarding the question of Eastern religion: well, one funny thing about Schopenhauer that makes him not very palatable to many Buddhists (despite the Buddhist influence on his thought) is that he is essentially gloomy. Buddhism, in contrast, is an essentially positive philosophy. It sees oneness in all, suffering as an illusion, life as essentially a manifestation of joy. This is not reflected in Schopenhauer. It also doesn't seem to be reflected in Wagner's stories, though perhaps it is sometimes reflected in his music!

At the risk of begin pedantic, I have to point out that samsara is really a Hindu and Vedic concept that also fits in well with Buddhism. Which makes me wonder, did Wagner leave behind any impressions of the Hindu gods, who (in works like the Mahabharata) are as fascinating and complex as the Norse gods?


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

marceliotstein said:


> There's also much that can be said about the correspondence between Wagner and Schopenhauer and Buddhism (and let's throw in Nietzsche here as well, as Nietzsche made a major point of rejecting Buddhism, and parodying it). Here, though, as I mentioned before, I am simply not likely to look to Wagner for the kind of wisdom that can be found in Buddhism. I take Buddhism very seriously as a philosophy of life, but I have no reason to think that Wagner ever apprehended this wisdom except superficially and decoratively. As others have correctly pointed out here, compassion is the essence of Buddhism. *Compassion, selflessness, empathy and love. These are not the keys to Wagner's work.* I believe Wagner was fascinated by Buddhism as an exotic philosophy that was fashionable among Germans in the late 19th century, and tried to crudely model some of its precepts, but I have never heard of a Buddhist writer (I have read many Buddhist writers) who was inspired to a greater understanding by Wagner's works.


Speaking specifically of _Parsifal_, the young Parsifal learning compassion and empathy form the central point of the opera. He cries out "Amfortas! Die Wunde!" as he realizes the suffering that he saw at Monsalvat. He suddenly understands that the pain of Amfortas is relevant to him, and he feels the pain, too. He gets the spear and tries to return to Monsalvat, wandering for many years, never using the spear to defend himself. And from the Wikipedia description of Wolfram von Eschenbach's _Parzival_, the major source for Wagner's opera "Among the most striking elements of the work are its emphasis on the importance of humility, compassion, sympathy and the quest for spirituality."

I don't think it's fair to dismiss Wagner as an orientalist; this was not mere exoticism. He could have set operas in the Middle East or the Far East, like many composers of that era did. But no, Parsifal takes place in Spain. (To be clear, yes, Wagner moved it from France to Spain, and I think that was a deliberate choice, but not for mere exoticism).

And I don't think he was trying to express Buddhist ideas to explain or push Buddhism, much like he wasn't trying to push Christianity or Odinism with his earlier operas (or this one, for that matter). He isn't trying to teach anybody about Buddhism, but use elements of Buddhism that he finds true.

He also wasn't interested in the grail story as part of Christianity, but for the universal truths that are why Christians appreciate it. Vegetation ceremonies pre-date and are used outside Christianity.

One Christian explanation for this is similar to what Wagner is getting at (in the passage I quoted earlier): pre-Christian vegetation ceremonies were from those societies recognizing and expressing the truth of the resurrection, even if they didn't know the details (and they hadn't happened yet). (cf Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.") Another explanation, of course, is that Christians appropriated powerful stories, but this isn't the place to argue such things and it doesn't matter for what I'm saying.

Wagner was never about pushing any specific understanding of religion or culture, or teaching about any of it. His approach was more syncretistic. In the Ring, Wagner wasn't telling the German version or the Icelandic version, but pulling from all sources, picking what best expresses truth that he sees. in _Tannhäuser_ he wasn't pushing the Lutheranism of his youth or Catholicism, but using elements of both (and balancing them against each other) to do his own thing. And similarly, I believe that in _Parsifal_ he isn't trying to shine light on Christian truths in service of Christianity, or on Buddhist truths in service of Buddhism. He was taking from both and balancing them against each other, trying to get at the intersection, at what is underneath them both.

So yeah, it doesn't make sense to study _Parsifal_ to learn about Buddhism or Christianity. That's just not near what Wagner was trying to do.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Just a couple of quick responses regarding the question of Eastern religion: well, one funny thing about Schopenhauer that makes him not very palatable to many Buddhists (despite the Buddhist influence on his thought) is that he is essentially gloomy. Buddhism, in contrast, is an essentially positive philosophy. It sees oneness in all, suffering as an illusion, life as essentially a manifestation of joy. This is not reflected in Schopenhauer. It also doesn't seem to be reflected in Wagner's stories, though perhaps it is sometimes reflected in his music!
> 
> At the risk of begin pedantic, I have to point out that samsara is really a Hindu and Vedic concept that also fits in well with Buddhism. Which makes me wonder, did Wagner leave behind any impressions of the Hindu gods, who (in works like the Mahabharata) are as fascinating and complex as the Norse gods?


I'm not aware of Wagner discussing Hindu mythology, though I wouldn't be surprised if he did. He was a voracious reader with a huge library, and I believe he did some reading in the Upanishads and probably had them among his books.

Here's an interesting-looking article I just found. I'm going to read it right now.

http://www.the-wagnerian.com/2014/01/the-use-of-buddhist-and-hindu-concepts.html


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I think Wagner was quite insane and believed he was enlightened in the Zen-Buddhist sense and his works are an attempt to communicate and foster the enlightenment in others through an all-encompassing experience of total art. But that is just my opinion. I think he took the Buddhism very seriously.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I think Wagner was quite insane and believed he was enlightened in the Zen-Buddhist sense and his works are an attempt to communicate and foster the enlightenment in others through an all-encompassing experience of total art. But that is just my opinion. I think he took the Buddhism very seriously.


Maybe not quite insane, but there's good reason to think that Wagner suffered from both manic-depressive and borderline personality disorders, as well as flareups of eczema and, in later years, a bad heart which killed him. Here's an interesting article on the difficulty of being Wagner:

http://www.the-wagnerian.com/2012/08/the-psychopathology-of-richard-wagner.html

It seems unlikely that he was a "happy Buddhist" (or Christian), but undoubtedly he took comfort from his contemplations. Perhaps after writing _Parsifal_ he should have kissed Cosima and the kids goodbye and gone off to a zendo or monastery to pass his last years in meditation and devotions (but not forgetting to take along staff paper to write those promised symphonies in his down time). I'd guess that his father-in-law, the abbe Liszt, would have approved.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Couchie said:


> Wagner was quite insane


doesn't look that... he did know how to love money.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe not quite insane, but there's good reason to think that Wagner suffered from both manic-depressive and borderline personality disorders, as well as flareups of eczema and, in later years, a bad heart which killed him. Here's an interesting article on the difficulty of being Wagner:
> 
> http://www.the-wagnerian.com/2012/08/the-psychopathology-of-richard-wagner.html
> 
> It seems unlikely that he was a "happy Buddhist" (or Christian), but undoubtedly he took comfort from his contemplations. Perhaps after writing _Parsifal_ he should have kissed Cosima and the kids goodbye and gone off to a zendo or monastery to pass his last years in meditation and devotions (but not forgetting to take along staff paper to write those promised symphonies in his down time). I'd guess that his father-in-law, the abbe Liszt, would have approved.


Supposedly once you have been enlightened into the true nature of self and reality, you can free yourself from indulgences of the passions and achieve a state of detached Zen we typically associate with Buddhism monks. But not everybody _wants_ to be free from indulgences.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Here's a good essay I really agree a lot with. I believe Parsifal (and his other stage works) were Wagner's attempt to communicate an "intuitive" universal spirituality and metaphysic. As the heart cannot explain itself to the mind, such a message Wagner tries to communicate is one that cannot be easily translated and explained in a philosophical tome, but must rather be _experienced _through art. It also shows how there is the influence of Islamic mysticism in addition to Christianity and Buddhism. I think it is interesting since Parsifal is set in Moorish Spain, where there was for a time an unprecedented level of religious tolerance between Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/wagner/selectedessays/pdf/NelsonWeiss.pdf


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Couchie said:


> Here's a good essay I really agree a lot with. I believe Parsifal (and his other stage works) were Wagner's attempt to communicate an "intuitive" universal spirituality and metaphysic. As the heart cannot explain itself to the mind, such a message Wagner tries to communicate is one that cannot be easily translated and explained in a philosophical tome, but must rather be _experienced _through art. It also shows how there is the influence of Islamic mysticism in addition to Christianity and Buddhism. I think it is interesting since Parsifal is set in Moorish Spain, where there was for a time an unprecedented level of religious tolerance between Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
> 
> http://www.laits.utexas.edu/wagner/selectedessays/pdf/NelsonWeiss.pdf


It's worthwhile to put this all in context with the history of 19th century Europe's fashionable obsession with the mysteries of Asian culture. We see this especially in 19th century Germany, which saw itself as the world center of anthropology, and on the racial front the whole idea of an "Aryan" racial identity originated with the discovery of common Germanic/Asian origin (the word "Aryan" has come to signify "white" but actually refers to Indo-European languages). Less problematic examples of European art/culture fascination with Asia: Oscar Wilde's obsession with blue china, Vincent Van Gogh drawing Japanese paintings inside his own paintings, the works of Rudyard Kipling and Joseph Conrad ... and, in opera, Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado as well as (later) Puccini's Madame Butterfly. In America, we can read crude but curious ponderings about the religious ideals of the "Hindoos" and their book the "Bhagvad Geeta" in the great essays of Emerson and Thoreau. My point here is that Wagner's interest in Asian religion would have been consistent with this trends of his times.

Of all the different Asian religions, it is Thereveda, Mahayana, Tibetan and Zen Buddhism that I find the most rewarding. All these forms of Buddhism appeal greatly to the intellect. I think it's important to differentiate Buddhism's philosophical meaning - it is a revealed religion, like Christianity or Islam, based on a historical person, not an ancient traditional religion like Judaism or Hinduism. Concepts like reincarnation come from Hinduism and are not necessarily reflected in Buddhism. I think what most differentiates Buddhism - and this reinforces my earlier point about Buddhism's positive, joyful message - is the absence of tragedy or original sin. Unlike Jesus or Mohammed, Siddharta Gautama (Buddha) never fought battles, developed serious enemies or faced criminal charges. He lived to a happy old age and died in peace, surrounded by loved ones. That's my kind of religion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Here's a good essay I really agree a lot with. I believe Parsifal (and his other stage works) were Wagner's attempt to communicate an "intuitive" universal spirituality and metaphysic. As the heart cannot explain itself to the mind, such a message Wagner tries to communicate is one that cannot be easily translated and explained in a philosophical tome, but must rather be _experienced _through art. It also shows how there is the influence of Islamic mysticism in addition to Christianity and Buddhism. I think it is interesting since Parsifal is set in Moorish Spain, where there was for a time an unprecedented level of religious tolerance between Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
> 
> http://www.laits.utexas.edu/wagner/selectedessays/pdf/NelsonWeiss.pdf


A worthwhile essay, but occasionally it goes off the rails in applying its thesis to the _Ring._ The author writes:

"the Rheinmaidens [sic] are helpless to stop Alberich when, driven over the edge by the Rheinmaidens who spurned and mocked his offers of love, and tempted by the ultimate possibility of its power, takes the Rheingold. Alberich then plays the role of a church father, forging and distorting universal spirituality into the one force strong enough to subjugate the entire world, Religion. With the might of religion behind him, Alberich does exactly what the Catholic Church did - subjugate the peasants and become fabulously wealthy. The Ring, which is to say Religion, even inspires Alberich to commission Mime with the creation of an artifact, the Tarnhelm, straightforwardly paralleling the tradition of Catholic art."

A Nibelung as church father? The tarnhelm as Catholic art?  "Religion" is a complex concept, and Alberich isn't complex. He is pure infantile desire, frustrated, enraged, and ready to assert power over the world which denies him the gratification he craves. The beginning of _Rheingold_ is about the birth and development of ego, not of religion, which is far too advanced a phenomenon to come into play at the very start of the story.

The _Ring_ traces the development of human consciousness, particularly moral consciousness, but it barely touches on religion, which is a human institution and enters the saga, and only peripherally, in _Gotterdammerung,_ where the presence of shrines to the gods coincides with the gods' withdrawal from the world as active agents. From outside the drama, we might interpret the _Ring_ as a whole as humanity's evolution beyond a mythical world view, but religion - man's attempt to give form to his sense of a transcendental realty - is not dealt with inside the story. It's in _Parsifal_ that Wagner takes up that theme, and it's Titurel who is the "church father" and the ritual of the Grail that might be compared to "Catholic art."


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe not quite insane, but there's good reason to think that Wagner suffered from both manic-depressive and borderline personality disorders, as well as flareups of eczema and, in later years, a bad heart which killed him. Here's an interesting article on the difficulty of being Wagner:
> 
> http://www.the-wagnerian.com/2012/08/the-psychopathology-of-richard-wagner.html


Many hot-headed individuals are attracted to Buddhism as a form of self-medication, that doesn't mean they ever do achieve the calm Zen of a monk. Wagner seems more interested in the philosophy behind Buddhism rather than the way-of-life prescriptions.

As for "psychopathology", borderline personality disorder is characterized by emotional extremes and delusions of grandeur. Both I would say are prerequisites for an individual to ever attempting an undertaking of the scale and emotional breadth of the Ring Cycle. Let us be thankful Wagner existed before "psychopathology" or he might have been medicated out of writing anything good.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The _Ring_ traces the development of human consciousness, particularly moral consciousness, but it barely touches on religion, which is a human institution and enters the saga, and only peripherally, in _Gotterdammerung,_ where the presence of shrines to the gods coincides with the gods' withdrawal from the world as active agents. From outside the drama, we might interpret the _Ring_ as a whole as humanity's evolution beyond a mythical world view, but religion - man's attempt to give form to his sense of a transcendental realty - is not dealt with inside the story. It's in _Parsifal_ that Wagner takes up that theme, and it's Titurel who is the "church father" and the ritual of the Grail that might be compared to "Catholic art."


That's an interesting distinction. What was this change due to? Wagner's increasing understanding and confidence in his original "intuitions?"


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The _Ring_ traces the development of human consciousness, particularly moral consciousness, but it barely touches on religion, which is a human institution and enters the saga, and only peripherally, in _Gotterdammerung,_ where the presence of shrines to the gods coincides with the gods' withdrawal from the world as active agents. From outside the drama, we might interpret the _Ring_ as a whole as humanity's evolution beyond a mythical world view, but religion - man's attempt to give form to his sense of a transcendental realty - is not dealt with inside the story. It's in _Parsifal_ that Wagner takes up that theme, and it's Titurel who is the "church father" and the ritual of the Grail that might be compared to "Catholic art."


I largely agree with what you're saying, and those connections (Tarnhelm as artefact and so on) are each quite the stretch, and don't seem to have any illustrative power (I have the article open in my browser but have not yet had a chance to read it).

That being said... I think there is a fair amount of religion in the story. Hunding's prayers to Fricka are a big part of who he is and a large driving force _Die Walküre_. _Siegfried_ mostly ignores humans, other than Siegfried who can't even recognize a god when he sees one. But _Götterdämmerung_ is full of alter-stones, sacrifices to the gods, and characters calling upon the gods to help them. We also have Hagen using these sincere beliefs in his manipulations.

_Parsifal_ is certainly more deeply immersed in a world of religion, but most of the humans in the Ring seem to be devout followers of Wotan and the gods.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

mountmccabe said:


> I largely agree with what you're saying, and those connections (Tarnhelm as artefact and so on) are each quite the stretch, and don't seem to have any illustrative power (I have the article open in my browser but have not yet had a chance to read it).
> 
> That being said... I think there is a fair amount of religion in the story. Hunding's prayers to Fricka are a big part of who he is and a large driving force _Die Walküre_. _Siegfried_ mostly ignores humans, other than Siegfried who can't even recognize a god when he sees one. But _Götterdämmerung_ is full of alter-stones, sacrifices to the gods, and characters calling upon the gods to help them. We also have Hagen using these sincere beliefs in his manipulations.
> 
> _Parsifal_ is certainly more deeply immersed in a world of religion, but most of the humans in the Ring seem to be devout followers of Wotan and the gods.


In my opinion Paul Heise's analysis of the Ring (https://www.wagnerheim.com/) also sees the latter as a religious (I'd say Christian) allegory, but I'm not sure whether I agree with all the points he makes.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I largely agree with what you're saying, and those connections (Tarnhelm as artefact and so on) are each quite the stretch, and don't seem to have any illustrative power (I have the article open in my browser but have not yet had a chance to read it).
> 
> That being said... I think there is a fair amount of religion in the story. Hunding's prayers to Fricka are a big part of who he is and a large driving force _Die Walküre_. _Siegfried_ mostly ignores humans, other than Siegfried who can't even recognize a god when he sees one. But _Götterdämmerung_ is full of alter-stones, sacrifices to the gods, and characters calling upon the gods to help them. We also have Hagen using these sincere beliefs in his manipulations.
> 
> _Parsifal_ is certainly more deeply immersed in a world of religion, but most of the humans in the Ring seem to be devout followers of Wotan and the gods.


Where humans enter the _Ring_ they do recognize the gods, but the nature of religious belief is not explored and isn't what drives the story. Hunding may recognize Fricka, but the action is propelled by Fricka and Wotan; Hunding's beliefs have no apparent causal power, and neither do the beliefs of the Gibichungs later in the story. This seems to illustrate Wagner's view of religious belief - dogma or doctrine - as being an attempt to rationalize and concretize, and thus distort and spoil, something that really belongs in the realm of private feeling. Humans create religions populated by gods and goddesses, but those deities, being actually forces of nature, do as they please, and human attempts to harness them are futile at best and ultimately destructive. Hunding ends up dead, and the Gibichungs watch as the gods go up in flames, leaving them to confront their stark, unbuffered humanity.

_Parsifal_ takes up this idea, the distinction between spirituality and religion, explicitly and as a central theme. The Grail and Spear - revelations of the spirit - were given to Titurel for safekeeping, and he proceeded to found around them a religion, complete with architecture, ritual, dogma, vows of chastity, and missionary crusades to "defend the faith." The attempt to enforce and institutionalize purity of spirit through a rigid moral code led inevitably to moral corruption, and it took Parsifal, innocent of all this, to penetrate to the original core of spiritual life and free the Spear and Grail from capture by those who would manipulate them rather than simply accept them as gifts of grace. When Parsifal, at the end, says "No more let the Grail be confined," I think he meant to free it forever from ritual use, and so bring the religion of the deceased Titurel to an end. Wagner doesn't make this explicit, but it seems to me the logical implication of the symbolism of the opera as a whole, and of the music which ends it: the chorale-like motif called "Faith" has been released from its liturgical rigidity to float gently in grateful freedom, and the rising melody we hear at the very beginning of the prelude, and which is sung to Christ's words "take my blood" during the Grail ritual, no longer turns back downward in pain when it reaches the octave but breaks past it to its resolution as the voices from above sing "redemption to the redeemer." As Wagner always said he wanted it to, the music tells us the inner meaning of what we see.

(The music tells essentially the same story, in a similar way, at the end of _Tristan und Isolde._ There, to express Isolde's transfiguration, the ambiguous harmony and rising chromatic line that begins the prelude and haunts the opera, instead of leaving us suspended in uncertainty, finally continues upward to its peaceful resolution.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That's an interesting distinction. What was this change due to? Wagner's increasing understanding and confidence in his original "intuitions?"


It's hard to tell, since all Wagner's operas were conceived many years before they were actually composed and thus overlap chronologically; in some ways he worked on them concurrently, although he focused on their musical development more or less one at a time. From first dramatic sketches to final orchestration, he worked on the _Ring_ from 1848 to 1874, and on _Parsifal _from 1857 to 1882. Completion of the _Ring_ was interrupted for the composition of _Tristan_ and _Meistersinger,_ which needed shorter gestation periods. By the time the _Ring_ was premiered in 1876 _Parsifal_ was almost fully sketched out and ready for musical composition.

All these operas span the period of Wagner's intense absorption in the study of philosophy and religion, during which he was most deeply impressed by Schopenhauer and Eastern thought. The most notable artistic change that happened was in his conception of the _Ring,_ specifically in the fate of the gods; originally the focus had been on the hero Siegfried, whose death was to bring about the redemption of the gods, and the original title for the story was to be "Siegfried's Death." But Wagner came to see Wotan's struggle and the necessity of his willing his own demise as the real key to the work's meaning - redemption was possible only if the gods perished - and so he changed the title of the final opera to "Twilight of the Gods." Whether he saw, at that point, the obvious parallel to the salvation of the Grail by Parsifal and the death of Titurel I'm not sure, but he did eventually describe Titurel as Wotan, clinging to life in his tomb, unwilling to let go even at the cost of his son Amfortas's pain.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Where humans enter the _Ring_ they do recognize the gods, but the nature of religious belief is not explored and isn't what drives the story. Hunding may recognize Fricka, but the action is propelled by Fricka and Wotan; Hunding's beliefs have no apparent causal power, and neither do the beliefs of the Gibichungs later in the story. This seems to illustrate Wagner's view of religious belief - dogma or doctrine - as being an attempt to rationalize and concretize, and thus distort and spoil, something that really belongs in the realm of private feeling. Humans create religions populated by gods and goddesses, but those deities, being actually forces of nature, do as they please, and human attempts to harness them are futile at best and ultimately destructive. Hunding ends up dead, and the Gibichungs watch as the gods go up in flames, leaving them to confront their stark, unbuffered humanity.
> 
> _Parsifal_ takes up this idea, the distinction between spirituality and religion, explicitly and as a central theme. The Grail and Spear - revelations of the spirit - were given to Titurel for safekeeping, and he proceeded to found around them a religion, complete with architecture, ritual, dogma, vows of chastity, and missionary crusades to "defend the faith." The attempt to enforce and institutionalize purity of spirit through a rigid moral code led inevitably to moral corruption, and it took Parsifal, innocent of all this, to penetrate to the original core of spiritual life and free the Spear and Grail from capture by those who would manipulate them rather than simply accept them as gifts of grace. When Parsifal, at the end, says "No more let the Grail be confined," I think he meant to free it forever from ritual use, and so bring the religion of the deceased Titurel to an end. Wagner doesn't make this explicit, but it seems to me the logical implication of the symbolism of the opera as a whole, and of the music which ends it: the chorale-like motif called "Faith" has been released from its liturgical rigidity to float gently in grateful freedom, and the rising melody we hear at the very beginning of the prelude, and which is sung to Christ's words "take my blood" during the Grail ritual, no longer turns back downward in pain when it reaches the octave but breaks past it to its resolution as the voices from above sing "redemption to the redeemer." As Wagner always said he wanted it to, the music tells us the inner meaning of what we see.
> 
> (The music tells essentially the same story, in a similar way, at the end of _Tristan und Isolde._ There, to express Isolde's transfiguration, the ambiguous harmony and rising chromatic line that begins the prelude and haunts the opera, instead of leaving us suspended in uncertainty, finally continues upward to its peaceful resolution.)


I don't think we're too far off on this, but I think we're coming at a few things from different angles. Incidentally I also need to note that the description of what is going on musically at the end of _Parsifal_ (and Tristan) is really fascinating, and something I will listen for.

I think there are parallels in the Ring of the elements you call out in _Parsifal_. The Grail knights have their rituals and dogma that end up distracting them from true understanding. Similarly Wotan and the gods are too bound by their rigid natures to recognize and respond morally. I don't see the gods as free beings, and that's what causes their downfall.

Stepping back, I suppose I consider Hunding's prayer to Fricka as the actual catalyst for her going to Wotan (though I agree, in general religion doesn't drive much here). And I think Fricka's position as the god of marriage means that she cannot but side with Hunding and back marriage over love; she cannot choose otherwise. And she wins her fight with Wotan because he is also bound. He desperately wants to help Siegmund, to the point that Brünnhilde - referred to as his will - actually does. He is a god divided, but in the end his will must lose to his nature.

I never really thought about how Hunding, too, is bound by his contracts. That's why he's hunting Siegmund. And that's why he feels such ownership of Sieglinde. I can imagine a devastating Hunding who actually loves her, is heartbroken that she does not care for him, and - much like Wotan with Brünnhilde - is enraged when she supports Siegmund.

Of course it would be ridiculous for Hunding to see that his wife loves another and for him to respond positively (though to be fair this is Wagner's fantasy). Wagner does a lot to give his characters layered motivations; similarly Fricka has other reasons for coming down on Wotan and Brünnhilde.

What I'm getting at here is that all of these characters - save Brünnhilde - are stuck on legalism and tradition rather than truth, love, amd morality. It's not just about religion, and that's not the focus or the media through which it plays out. But I think the religious elements clearly fit.

Of course Brünnhilde has her own blindspot and rebuffs Waltraute's request for her to give up the ring because it ties her to Siegfried. Siegfried also refuses to give up the ring, so as to not upset his wife. It's not unlike the situation in _Die Walküre_: marriage/it's signifiers are getting in the way of fundamental truth (be it love or who should have the Rheingold).

The Gibichungs' sacrifices are for naught because they are doing these things to get the attention of gods that no longer care, and slaughtering livestock has no value in and of itself. They are empty rituals, like those of the Grail knights. The law is not morality. Religious rituals are not even positive if they are divorced from the underlying truths, if they distract and distance one from doing what is right.

But while the Ring covers law, religion, and other traditions, _Parsifal_ narrows in on religion, and clearly goes much further with that.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

mountmccabe said:


> I think there are parallels in the Ring of the elements you call out in _Parsifal_. The Grail knights have their rituals and dogma that end up distracting them from true understanding. *Similarly Wotan and the gods are too bound by their rigid natures to recognize and respond morally. I don't see the gods as free beings, and that's what causes their downfall.*
> 
> Stepping back, I suppose I consider Hunding's prayer to Fricka as the actual catalyst for her going to Wotan (though I agree, in general religion doesn't drive much here). *And I think Fricka's position as the god of marriage means that she cannot but side with Hunding and back marriage over love; she cannot choose otherwise. And she wins her fight with Wotan because he is also bound. * He desperately wants to help Siegmund, to the point that Brünnhilde - referred to as his will - actually does. He is a god divided, but in the end his will must lose to his nature.
> 
> ...


Yes, I also think that the inner division of Wotan and the conflict between the law and his own will is the thing that drives him to wish his own downfall, because he cannot endure it anymore. Because of the law, he had to kill Siegmund and punish Brünhilde and I think that was a bit too much for him.

There is one thing I'd like to specify - I think that both Wotan and Fricka could have chosen to do otherwise and go against their own law, but as their power existed only thanks to the contracts (= law) then that would have meant the absolute downfall of their power and reign. On those grounds, I can say that at least in my opinion all Wotan's problems were thanks to his inability to decide whether his will and his love were more important than his power. I think he basically solves the problem through his own destruction, but in reality without ever making the decision between these two things.

(The point I want to make is a bit analogous with Shakespeare's _Hamlet_, where Hamlet dies (actually pretty much everyone in the play dies) thanks to his inability to decide whether to kill the king or not. Even though he finally killed him, it seems to me that he never arrived to conclusion whether it was morally a right thing to do or not.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I don't think we're too far off on this, but I think we're coming at a few things from different angles. Incidentally I also need to note that the description of what is going on musically at the end of _Parsifal_ (and Tristan) is really fascinating, and something I will listen for.
> 
> I think there are parallels in the Ring of the elements you call out in _Parsifal_. The Grail knights have their rituals and dogma that end up distracting them from true understanding. Similarly Wotan and the gods are too bound by their rigid natures to recognize and respond morally. I don't see the gods as free beings, and that's what causes their downfall.
> 
> ...


We probably don't disagree, but I want to be very careful about using the word "religion" in talking about the _Ring_. Religion isn't synonymous with morality, or a philosophy or code of right action. The _Ring_ is indeed very much concerned, even centrally concerned, with morality - with the question of what is the true basis of right action. The Wotan-Fricka debate crystallizes the basic conflict between a law-based, duty-based concept of morality (Fricka and Hunding) and an intuitive one based on empathy and love (Brunnhilde and the Walsung twins), with Wotan caught between his obligations and his desires. Hunding's acceptance of the laws of the gods might represent a religious belief, but even if they didn't, nothing about the story would be different; Fricka doesn't need Hunding's prayers to be outraged by her free-thinking husband, as we've already seen in _Das Rheingold_.

The legalism of Titurel in _Parsifal_ and the legalism of the gods in the _Ring_ differ in this respect: Titurel's exemplifies religion in the true sense - an attempt to comprehend and carry out what he believes to be his divinely appointed mission on earth - while the gods' adherence to law is simply the expression of their nature, without which they don't exist as gods. Titurel believes in a god (whatever he conceives that to be); gods themselves, though, don't have to believe in something transcendent, only to act according to their natures. That's why I say that religion, _as such,_ isn't a subject of the _Ring_ until it enters with humans, for whom it proves ineffectual. That ineffectuality constitutes the _Ring_'s only real comment on religion: it tells us that the age of gods - of myth - is a phase of human development, and that it needs to give way to the age of existential humanism, when man discovers that the seeds of morality must be found within his own soul and that it's his responsibility, alone and unaided, to cultivate them and make them bear fruit.

I think that _Parsifal_ conveys this message too, but it uses the familiar trappings of a religious tradition to do it - to show that man's real power and value lie not in his adherence to received codes and rites but in his capacity for intuitive moral understanding and choice. Titurel, turning the Grail and Spear into magical fetishes - as does his alter-ego or "shadow" (see Jung) Klingsor, who likewise covets them, but unencumbered by morality - tries to exert egoistic control over the flow of divine grace, like all the religious leaders of history who position themselves as the gods' representatives and gatekeepers. His demand for chastity - the forcible suppression of nature - is symbolic of his Original Sin, and it opens the knights of the Grail to temptation, reveals the impotence of grace to save men who seek to turn it into a spiritual commodity - a religion - and results in Titurel's own _Dammerung_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> ...I want to be very careful about using the word "religion" in talking about the _Ring_. Religion isn't synonymous with morality, or a philosophy or code of right action. The _Ring_ is indeed very much concerned, even centrally concerned, with morality - with the question of what is the true basis of right action...the basic conflict between a law-based, duty-based concept of morality...and an intuitive one based on empathy and love...caught between his obligations and his desires.
> 
> ...religion, _as such..._proves ineffectual. That ineffectuality constitutes the _Ring_'s only real comment on religion...it needs to give way to the age of existential humanism, when man discovers that the seeds of morality must be found within his own soul and that it's his responsibility, alone and unaided, to cultivate them and make them bear fruit...man's real power and value lie not in his adherence to received codes and rites but in his capacity for intuitive moral understanding and choice...tries to exert egoistic control over the flow of divine grace...men who seek to turn it into a spiritual commodity...a religion...


Jung once said that the fulfillment of Man's "true self," and its natural manifestation psychologically, was often at odds with what was expected of him by his family, and by society at large.

This seems to present a conflict between Man the individual and "Religion" as a codified expression of restraints placed by society on a larger scale.
There is a possibility here, more likely than not, as Jung said, of Man's individual moral choices overstepping or violating the boundaries prescribed by religion.

Man's desires, unfettered, will lead to conflict, and to what may be seen as a "true," but ultimately more problematic, model of Man who is freer, more prone to desire, more sexual, more predatory, more opportunistic, more "everything" which might make other people uneasy...is Humanity "ready" for such a "new Man?"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Man's desires, unfettered, will lead to conflict, and to what may be seen as a "true," but ultimately more problematic, model of Man who is freer, more prone to desire, more sexual, more predatory, more opportunistic, more "everything" which might make other people uneasy...is Humanity "ready" for such a "new Man?"


Well, the "old Man" - the one whose desires were "fettered" by ten or a hundred commandments - didn't fare too well. Priests and monarchs impose codes of law and morality under threat of prison or hellfire while themselves claiming the freedom to be "more prone to desire, more sexual, more predatory, more opportunistic, more everything" at taxpayers' and tithe-givers' expense. I'm reminded of the famous remark of Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, the "old Man" - the one whose desires were "fettered" by ten or a hundred commandments - didn't fare too well. Priests and monarchs impose codes of law and morality under threat of prison or hellfire while themselves claiming the freedom to be "more prone to desire, more sexual, more predatory, more opportunistic, more everything" at taxpayers' and tithe-givers' expense. I'm reminded of the famous remark of Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."


Then there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in the area of religion. Then again, are they simply hiding behind a facade?

How far could "Man's independent moral choice" go before he becomes a strange new creature who would be unrecognizable? Would we begin to look exactly like the priests and monarchs you speak of?

Is this Man's natural state that Jung spoke of, a blend of "good" and "evil" which accepts itself without regrets? Is this what Nietzsche was touching on?
It seems that "morality" nowadays is used like a bludgeon, not only by priests and monarchs, but by women against men, people against politicians, etc. It's become so ingrained in thinking that's it's hard to attribute it to one institution.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Then there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in the area of religion. Then again, are they simply hiding behind a facade?
> 
> How far could "Man's independent moral choice" go before he becomes a strange new creature who would be unrecognizable? Would we begin to look exactly like the priests and monarchs you speak of?
> 
> ...


Morality has _always_ been used like a bludgeon, and in more authoritarian cultures the bludgeon can be fatal. I think it's our inheritance from centuries of religion's monopoly on moral thought; humans have a hard time with the idea of autonomy - it takes a little work and introspection, after all - and are always looking for something or someone outside themselves to tell them what's true and what's right, overlooking the fact that _all_ moral codes are man-made, regardless of the way they're labeled or who claims authority for them.

I do think we have to accept our "shadow" side as inseparable from our "light" side. We should realize that we're microcosms of the universe, in which dark and light - yin and yang - don't exist without each other. Without this fundamental acceptance there is constant war, with ourselves and with others. In the West, religion is spiritual warfare; the Judeo-Christian god has created a cosmos in which good and evil are absolute opposites, utterly separate and opposed, eternal enemies caught temporarily, and inexplicably, in relentless combat. We are instructed never to forget this, never to relax our vigilance or take anything for granted; nothing is exempt from judgment, not even our thoughts: according to Jesus, we are in danger of hellfire, not merely for adultery, but for lust. In some far-off denouement to the cosmic war, we're told, evil will be chained forever, and if we've managed to slip our last round of penitence in under the wire we'll be home free, while our unlucky neighbors will roast for eternity.

In his operas - yes, we can stay on topic! - Wagner dramatizes the spiritual warfare of the West and suggests, through symbolic stories and music of uncanny eloquence, that it isn't our only possible way of being. In _Parsifal_ he shows the "holy hero" Titurel exulting in "yang" and trying to banish "yin" - exactly as Jehovah would banish Satan and damn the sinner, or the church would excommunicate or slay the heretic and the apostate. Titurel bans the "yin" of feminine energy and sexuality from the holy order of the Grail, and when Klingsor tries to gain membership too easily through self-castration Titurel sends him away, symbolically rejecting his own "shadow" in order not to be confronted with the perversity of his own "yangness." With precise psychological truth and poetic justice, the banished Klingsor does not remain "out of sight and out of mind" but becomes Titurel's deadly enemy and brings the order of knights nearly to ruin by means of the very thing it has tried to exclude from consciousness and is thus helpless against: woman. Titurel's son and heir Amfortas falls to Klingsor's power, and in Kundry's arms receives a wound - a physical wound and an overwhelming guilt - which can be healed only by a savior from outside, an "innocent fool" who knows nothing of moral codes but, moved by compassion, spontaneously discovers the true source of goodness in himself.

I'm reminded of Lao Tzu:

_When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go._


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just joining this thread I haven';t had time to read many of the other comments but as I have said before Parsifal has nothing whatever to do with the Christianity of the New Testament except in the borrowing of some of its symbols - most of course, like the cross, spear, cup, etc, - were never preserved for posterity, and possibly some of its language. It is ironic, of course, that the rabid anti-semitic Wagner of all people composed a 'Christian' opera when Christianity is a religion totally of Jewish origins. The New Testament is quite clear on this. As Jesus himself said, 'Salvation comes through the Jews' - ie from the line of Abraham culminating in Jesus the Messiah. If Wagner believed Jesus was Greek then you can see how up the creek he was theologically. It is ironic to me that Wagner, the arch indulger of the flesh, should write an opera about abstinence. Not that the sort of monastic celibate type community shown in Parsifal has any place in the New Testament. It is also ironic that Wagner - who as far as I know never shows any compassion in his life towards anyone apart from himself but rather filched off everyone - wrote an opera about compassion. Comassion in the New Testament is something we do not just something we feel. So if we see a starving kid we feed them as Jesus did when he fed the 5000 or healed the sick. Compassion involves action not just feeling sorry. For example, when we see Verdi financing a home for destitute musicians we can see that as an act of compassion . Anyone think of Wagner doing such a thing? Or maybe I haven't read that bit?
Of course, central to the Christian message of the New testament is the doctrine of justification by faith whereas in Parsifal it is very much a mediaeval form of self-justification. Of course, the fact that Wagner was repulsed by the idea of a jewish Christ and chose to recast him in an ayrian image is one of the more disturbing aspects of Parsifal. As if also the possibility that Kundry is a symbol of the wandering Jew who has laughed at Christ and has been doomed to wander the ages. The fact is that many Jews who laughed at Christ found redemption and forgiveness at the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the risen Christ to them. Such an idea that is found in Parsifal is totally contrary to the New testament. Sorry guys, the music may be wonderful but the theme and theology is not at all Christian according to the New testament!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Well this has been a fascinating thread and I have been waiting to post so that I could reflect on this opera and what it means to me. I haven't listened to it as much as some of the other contributors to this thread and I don't know as much about Wagner's thoughts on the work and his intentions when composing it.

In order to get better acquainted with the opera I read through the libretto and the thing that stood out was the enigmatic nature of the text. Some earlier comments here concern some people's feeling that they find the work difficult to understand. A read through of the libretto reveals an obvious symbolism, but symbolic of what? And in which way?

I find it fascinating that in reading the libretto in order to 'know' the work better I am left with the impression that I understand it far less than I thought I did! This makes me cast my mind back to a Good Friday performance in Berlin with Schager and Meier conducted by Barenboim. I had no problem understanding the opera back then, or rather it wasn't a piece I needed to _comprehend_, but rather something to be experienced. Just as Parsifal doesn't comprehend the ceremony at the end of act one until he _experiences_ Amfortas' pain for himself, this is an opera that one can't fully understand by reading the libretto alone or studying it solely on an intellectual level. Just as the innocent fool will resolve the crisis facing the knights by knowing compassion (durch mitleid wissend), we have to _know_ this work, that is experience it to understand it. Study and analysis serve little if they aren't combined with listening to/watching a performance.

That is why it is a Christian opera. This is a mystery and like all mysteries there are those whose souls can't comprehend it.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> In order to get better acquainted with the opera I read through the libretto and the thing that stood out was the enigmatic nature of the text. Some earlier comments here concern some people's feeling that they find the work difficult to understand. A read through of the libretto reveals an obvious symbolism, but symbolic of what? And in which way?
> 
> I find it fascinating that in reading the libretto in order to 'know' the work better I am left with the impression that I understand it far less than I thought I did! This makes me cast my mind back to a Good Friday performance in Berlin with Schager and Meier conducted by Barenboim. I had no problem understanding the opera back then, or rather it wasn't a piece I needed to _comprehend_, but rather something to be experienced. Just as Parsifal doesn't comprehend the ceremony at the end of act one until he _experiences_ Amfortas' pain for himself, this is an opera that one can't fully understand by reading the libretto alone or studying it solely on an intellectual level. Just as the innocent fool will resolve the crisis facing the knights by knowing compassion (durch mitleid wissend), we have to _know_ this work, that is experience it to understand it. Study and analysis serve little if they aren't combined with listening to/watching a performance.
> 
> This is a mystery and like all mysteries there are those whose souls can't comprehend it.


I'm reminded of what an acquaintance new to Wagner said after he had read the libretto to _Tristan_ in preparation for listening to it: "Well, I'll believe this when I hear it!"

Wagner was increasingly aware, over the course of his career, that for all his theorizing about the "total art work", an opera's ultimate meaning was to be found in its music, and as a composer he developed the ability to adapt the substance and style of his libretti to the specific nature of the work he was writing. A comparison of the libretti to the _Ring,_ _Die Meistersinger_ and _Parsifal_ shows him changing his verbal style considerably to fit the very different musical worlds he was creating. _Parsifal_ is one of his longest operas (with anywhere from about four to four and a half hours of music, depending on the conductor), but its libretto is shorter than that of _Das Rheingold,_ an opera with at least one and a half hours less music. The main reason is that _Parsifal_ conveys much less of its meaning verbally, and what words it has are in far greater need of music to make any kind of sense of them. I'm sure Wagner was quite conscious of this and enjoyed the idea that our comprehension of his mystery play would arise from feeling, as aroused by the music, rather than from intellectual analysis. Modern directors need to understand this and refrain from filling the stage with strange objects and activities designed to "make us think." The soul's mysteries are locked out by an overactive mind.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Just joining this thread I haven';t had time to read many of the other comments but as I have said before Parsifal has nothing whatever to do with the Christianity of the New Testament except in the borrowing of some of its symbols - most of course, like the cross, spear, cup, etc, - were never preserved for posterity, and possibly some of its language. It is ironic, of course, that the rabid anti-semitic Wagner of all people composed a 'Christian' opera when Christianity is a religion totally of Jewish origins. The New Testament is quite clear on this. As Jesus himself said, 'Salvation comes through the Jews' - ie from the line of Abraham culminating in Jesus the Messiah. If Wagner believed Jesus was Greek then you can see how up the creek he was theologically. It is ironic to me that Wagner, the arch indulger of the flesh, should write an opera about abstinence. Not that the sort of monastic celibate type community shown in Parsifal has any place in the New Testament. It is also ironic that Wagner - who as far as I know never shows any compassion in his life towards anyone apart from himself but rather filched off everyone - wrote an opera about compassion. Comassion in the New Testament is something we do not just something we feel. So if we see a starving kid we feed them as Jesus did when he fed the 5000 or healed the sick. Compassion involves action not just feeling sorry. For example, when we see Verdi financing a home for destitute musicians we can see that as an act of compassion . Anyone think of Wagner doing such a thing? Or maybe I haven't read that bit?
> Of course, central to the Christian message of the New testament is the doctrine of justification by faith whereas in Parsifal it is very much a mediaeval form of self-justification. Of course, the fact that Wagner was repulsed by the idea of a jewish Christ and chose to recast him in an ayrian image is one of the more disturbing aspects of Parsifal. As if also the possibility that Kundry is a symbol of the wandering Jew who has laughed at Christ and has been doomed to wander the ages. The fact is that many Jews who laughed at Christ found redemption and forgiveness at the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the risen Christ to them. Such an idea that is found in Parsifal is totally contrary to the New testament. Sorry guys, the music may be wonderful but the theme and theology is not at all Christian according to the New testament!


All this defensiveness seems to miss the point that Parsifal was probably not intended by Wagner, as far as I can tell, to be an orthodox manifestation of Christianity. Rather, it is his own take on his own, and extant version of a modified, re-thought version of Christianity and religion in general.

The OP doesn't make any claims that Parsifal is a "Christian" opera, but poses a question: Religion in Wagner's Parsifal: Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither?

I think you've made the point that you do not think it is a Christian opera, and this is being revealed...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Just joining this thread I haven';t had time to read many of the other comments but as I have said before *Parsifal has nothing whatever to do with the Christianity of the New Testament except in the borrowing of some of its symbols *- most of course, like the cross, spear, cup, etc, - were never preserved for posterity, *and possibly some of its language.* It is ironic, of course, that the *rabid *anti-semitic Wagner of all people composed a 'Christian' opera when Christianity is a religion totally of Jewish origins. The New Testament is quite clear on this. As Jesus himself said, 'Salvation comes through the Jews' - ie from the line of Abraham culminating in Jesus the Messiah. If Wagner believed Jesus was Greek then you can see how up the creek he was theologically. *It is ironic to me that Wagner, the arch indulger of the flesh, should write an opera about abstinence.* Not that the sort of monastic celibate type community shown in Parsifal has any place in the New Testament. *It is also ironic that Wagner - who as far as I know never shows any compassion in his life towards anyone apart from himself but rather filched off everyone - wrote an opera about compassion.* *Comassion in the New Testament is something we do not just something we feel. *So if we see a starving kid we feed them as Jesus did when he fed the 5000 or healed the sick. Compassion involves action not just feeling sorry. For example, when we see Verdi financing a home for destitute musicians we can see that as an act of compassion . Anyone think of Wagner doing such a thing? Or maybe I haven't read that bit?
> Of course, *central to the Christian message of the New testament is the doctrine of justification by faith whereas in Parsifal it is very much a mediaeval form of self-justification.* Of course, the fact that Wagner was repulsed by the idea of a jewish Christ and chose to recast him in an ayrian image is one of the more disturbing aspects of Parsifal. As if also *the possibility that Kundry is a symbol of the wandering Jew who has laughed at Christ and has been doomed to wander the ages. The fact is that many Jews who laughed at Christ found redemption and forgiveness at the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the risen Christ to them.* Such an idea that is found in Parsifal is totally contrary to the New testament. Sorry guys, the music may be wonderful but *the theme and theology is not at all Christian according to the New testament!*


You make a number of assertions, each of which which could really support a separate discussion. I would say right away that your last point is absolutely correct: _Parsifal_ does not represent New Testament theology - Catholic, Protestant, Pauline, Augustinian, Lutheran, or any theological school in the history of Christianity. Theologically it is completely noncommittal - and in fact, as far as I can tell, effectively non-theistic: although there are references to "the redeemer," there is no mention of God as creator and ruler of the universe or as father to Christ, who is not identified as the incarnation of a deity.

It is consistent with the absence of an explicit theological framework that in _Parsifal_ the Protestant concept of "justification by faith" - salvation through acceptance of the proposition that Christ died as proxy for sinful humanity - does not occur. The relative effectuality of "faith" versus "good works" in procuring man's salvation is an ancient debate in Christianity, and _Parsifal_ doesn't take it up. What _is_ clear is that the turning point in the story, the crucial event on which the fortunes of the dying Grail order turn, is Parsifal's comprehension of the meaning and importance of Amfortas' suffering and his choice to follow the urging of compassion rather than yield to soul-stunting, infantile cravings. Parsifal's decision to assume the responsibilities of adulthood is neither an act of faith nor a commitment to good works, but it's a basic movement of the mind and heart which must precede either of those things, and it makes the debate over dogma meaningless. Salvation here is not "procured" by assuming a theological position, but comes spontaneously with insight into life's illusory promises, the unity of all life, and the importance of empathy as the basis of morality. Of course Parsifal, "made wise through compassion," must steel himself to face the trials of life which will bring him back to the precincts of the Grail, where he will perform the needed good work of mercy.

The other things you say are more peripheral. Kundry contains, among her many identities, the aspect of the Wandering Jew. That was a familiar legend in Wagner's time, and it occurs elsewhere in his operas in the figure of the Flying Dutchman.

_Parsifal_ is not "about abstinence." I realize that the meaning of sex in the opera, particularly given Parsifal's horrified rejection of Kundry's seduction, is not obvious. The fact that erotic love is an important theme in all of Wagner's operas, as well as in his personal life and writings, ought to provide at least a suggestion that he may not actually have written an opera glorifying chastity! But that is a big subject which, if this discussion continues long enough, is likely to come up again. The provocative blend of sex and religious symbolism in _Parsifal_ has caused many a mind to boggle, and some people to dismiss the work as hypocritical hokum. I'm convinced that it isn't, but don't want to get into that now.

As for Wagner never showing any compassion in his life... Well, I'm sure you knew him and his family intimately, and they must have told you some hair-raising stories of how he abused Cosima, his children and their dogs.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> All this defensiveness seems to miss the point that Parsifal was probably not intended by Wagner, as far as I can tell, to be an orthodox manifestation of Christianity. Rather, it is his own take on his own, and extant version of a modified, re-thought version of Christianity and religion in general.
> 
> The OP doesn't make any claims that Parsifal is a "Christian" opera, but poses a question: Religion in Wagner's Parsifal: Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither?
> 
> I think you've made the point that you do not think it is a Christian opera, and this is being revealed...


Oh dear! What do you mean defensiveness? I am merely answering the question! Amazing to me when someone merely answers the question theologically with no guff he is being 'defensive'. :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You make a number of assertions, each of which which could really support a separate discussion. I would say right away that your last point is absolutely correct: _Parsifal_ does not represent New Testament theology - Catholic, Protestant, Pauline, Augustinian, Lutheran, or any theological school in the history of Christianity. Theologically it is completely noncommittal - and in fact, as far as I can tell, effectively non-theistic: although there are references to "the redeemer," there is no mention of God as creator and ruler of the universe or as father to Christ, who is not identified as the incarnation of a deity.
> 
> It is consistent with the absence of an explicit theological framework that in _Parsifal_ the Protestant concept of "justification by faith" - salvation through acceptance of the proposition that Christ died as proxy for sinful humanity - does not occur. The relative effectuality of "faith" versus "good works" in procuring man's salvation is an ancient debate in Christianity, and _Parsifal_ doesn't take it up. What _is_ clear is that the turning point in the story, the crucial event on which the fortunes of the dying Grail order turn, is Parsifal's comprehension of the meaning and importance of Amfortas' suffering and his choice to follow the urging of compassion rather than yield to soul-stunting, infantile cravings. Parsifal's decision to assume the responsibilities of adulthood is neither an act of faith nor a commitment to good works, but it's a basic movement of the mind and heart which must precede either of those things, and it makes the debate over dogma meaningless. Salvation here is not "procured" by assuming a theological position, but comes spontaneously with insight into life's illusory promises, the unity of all life, and the importance of empathy as the basis of morality. Of course Parsifal, "made wise through compassion," must steel himself to face the trials of life which will bring him back to the precincts of the Grail, where he will perform the needed good work of mercy.
> 
> ...


You seem in your wordy prose to be agreeing with me that Parsifal has nothing to do with new testament Christianity. Imo fact Wagner';s paranoid mind appears not to have been able to understand Christianity, a religion based on the worship of the Son of God who strong from the jews which is at the centre.

As for Kundry, to many people it is not peripheral but it appear the elimination of the Jews - at least a race - was in Wagner's mind at the time he wrote the opera. The ending with Kundry's death is too pointed. But let's not pursue that as my point is to show the opera is not at all Christian as the new testament defines it.

As for compassion. You appear to miss the point. Compassion is not merely not abusing people in your circle. Compassion in the New testament is showing love even for those outside of your circle in a practical way. The classic illustration Jesus gave was the Good Samaritan who - though from outside of the race of the traveller and considered even his enemy - nevertheless spend his time and money and effort into helping the wounded man because he had 'compassion'. That is new testament compassion. Nothing to do with dogs!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> *You seem in your wordy prose to be agreeing with me that Parsifal has nothing to do with new testament Christianity.* Imo fact *Wagner';s paranoid mind appears not to have been able to understand Christianity,* a religion based on the worship of the Son of God who strong from the jews which is at the centre.
> 
> As for Kundry, to many people it is not peripheral but *it appear the elimination of the Jews - at least a race - was in Wagner's mind at the time he wrote the opera**. The ending with Kundry's death is too pointed.* But let's not pursue that as my point is to show the opera is not at all Christian as the new testament defines it.
> 
> *As for compassion. You appear to miss the point. *Compassion is not merely not abusing people in your circle. Compassion in the New testament is showing love even for those outside of your circle in a practical way. The classic illustration Jesus gave was the Good Samaritan who - though from outside of the race of the traveller and considered even his enemy - nevertheless spend his time and money and effort into helping the wounded man because he had 'compassion'. That is new testament compassion. *Nothing to do with dogs!*


I do apologize for my "wordy prose," and must ask your indulgence now, since I'm about to produce some more of it.

Yes, we agree that _Parsifal_ does not represent New Testament Christianity. I'm a little confused by your second sentence. You say that Wagner had a "paranoid mind." Well, if he did - and I don't know how you know that he did - he might still have understood New Testament Christianity but simply disagreed with it. After all, New Testament Christianity had been pretty standard fare in Western society for centuries, and anyone who wanted to understand it could easily find good sources of information. The Bible, for example. You can be sure that Wagner read that, as he was very well read and quite interested in the subject of religion. He even worked up a sketch for an opera to be called "Jesus of Nazareth."

There is no evidence whatsoever for your assumption that Kundry's death is meant to illustrate the elimination of the Jews, or that Wagner had any such thing in mind, either at the time he wrote his libretto or at any time. Kundry is a complex melange of half a dozen characters drawn from the Grail romances and other legendary sources both European and Indian, and she embodies ideas much more subtle than any simplistic attempt to view her as "Jewish" would permit. To echo your diagnosis of Wagner regarding Christianity, this may be too difficult for a "paranoid mind" - such as, say, Robert Gutman's - to understand. Gutman's theory of _Parsifal_ as an allegory of racial supremacy is as full of holes as a wheel of Jarlsberg, but I suspect that concocting it gave him the righteous thrill of feeling that he was avenging his persecuted people against bad old RW (who, by the way, did not persecute them or recommend their persecution).

What point do I "appear to miss" about compassion? Why fixate on my little joke about Wagner's dogs when the subject here is _Parsifal_? You said you haven't read the posts in this thread. Perhaps, if you had, you could address the thoughts expressed in them and wouldn't be tempted to go off on irrelevant tangents. Accusations that Wagner had a paranoid mind, was unable to understand Christianity (really, it isn't very complicated), and that he was incapable of compassion, certainly seem irrelevant and tangential to me, as well as incredibly presumptuous. Not to mention dead wrong.

I did sincerely hope that people would try to stick to the subject I've proposed and not rant about Wagner's personal faults, and so far most contributors seem to want to do that. Perhaps it will prove useful to call your attention to their posts so you can see how it's done.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I do apologize for my "wordy prose," and must ask your indulgence now, since I'm about to produce some more of it.
> 
> Yes, we agree that _Parsifal_ does not represent New Testament Christianity. I'm a little confused by your second sentence. You say that Wagner had a "paranoid mind." Well, if he did - and I don't know how you know that he did - he might still have understood New Testament Christianity but simply disagreed with it. After all, New Testament Christianity had been pretty standard fare in Western society for centuries, and anyone who wanted to understand it could easily find good sources of information. The Bible, for example. You can be sure that Wagner read that, as he was very well read and quite interested in the subject of religion. He even worked up a sketch for an opera to be called "Jesus of Nazareth."
> 
> ...


Anyone who could write anti-Semitic tracts as Wagner did had a paranoid mind. The theological and philosophical mess of Parsifal indicates that he either disagreed or missed the point entirely. Possibly the latter. In any case, you were the one I believe who said Wagner thought Jesus was Greek which meant Wagner hadn't bothered to look at the New Testament or he had chosen to ignore what it clearly states. 
Funny how you attribute Wagner's paranoia to others! I haven't noticed Gutman writing too many anti-Jewish tracts! it is really touching the lengths you go to to defend RW when his own writings are the chief witness for the prosecution. But never mind. No use arguing with you as your mind us fixed. None of Wagner's objections philosophy must enter the operas although the rest of his philosophies did! 
An irrelevant tangent? Peopke carry on about 'compassion' in Parsifal but my point is it is not Christian compassion which goes beyond feelings. It is action. I have made that clear. I was just trying to clear up the irrelevant tangent you brought in about Wagner's dogs. Sorry the love of dogs is not Christian compassion in action. I remember hearing a lecture on William Wilberforce where the (non-Christian) lecturer ended by saying: "So here we have a man who inherited a fortune and spent most of it during his life trying to help others. That's what I call a Christian!" That is Christian compassion.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Wagner thought Jesus was Greek which meant Wagner hadn't bothered to look at the New Testament or he had chosen to ignore what it clearly states.


Hence underlining the point you both agree on: Wagner's views of Christianity as reflected in his operas, was not an accurate reflection of New Testament Christianity.

However, this source

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Richard_Wagner

shows that the belief that Jesus was Greek was not uncommon - and there are still those who advocate it. It should be borne in mind that the New Testament is not the pure and unique source of the various forms of Christianity available to believers either in Wagner's time or ours. So to suggest that Wagner can't have read, or ignored what is written in the NT is to ignore a fact well known even to reasonably well-read non-believers that there is much more to Christianity than the NT.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

I revisit this thread after a while, finding that my earlier observations are confirmed over and over again. Thanks for that!

Just as in Wagners work, huge facades are built, now only to downplay immorality and racism, added by some and to add unlimited weight and glorification to the vague decadent storylines, tweaked to his liking, not invented by the egocentric composer. Any opposing view is being ridiculed in far too many words and without any argument, but the 'fact' that anyone not kneeling in Hosanna (or better: 'Heil') for this egocentric man, is 'irrelevant and tangential, not to mention dead wrong'. 

Wagnerites seem to share the urgent need to hear themselves talk endlessly and aimlessly and to see any thought or idea from outside as a clear attack, not only to the Reine Tor himself, but also to their own minds.

This is indeed a clarifying thread, I learned a lot:tiphat:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

NLAdriaan said:


> I revisit this thread after a while, finding that my earlier observations are confirmed over and over again. Thanks for that!
> 
> Just as in Wagners work, huge facades are built, now only to downplay immorality and racism, added by some and to add unlimited weight and glorification to the vague decadent storylines, tweaked to his liking, not invented by the egocentric composer. Any opposing view is being ridiculed in far too many words and without any argument, *but the 'fact' that anyone not kneeling in Hosanna (or better: 'Heil') for this egocentric man, is 'irrelevant and tangential, not to mention dead wrong'.*
> 
> ...


Perhaps we should stick to discussing the work (in this case _Parsifal_) rather than its composer, then. (Although it is worth considering what Wagner said specifically about the opera itself.)

N.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> *Some *Wagnerites *seem *to share the urgent need to hear themselves talk endlessly and aimlessly and to see any thought or idea from outside as a clear attack, not only to the Reine Tor himself, but also to their own minds


There. Fixed that for you. I am not a Wagnerite - nor a fan of Wagner's music at all - but am interested in the contribution he has made to CM; and in the example it offers for those troubled by "the man (woman) / the music / the morals" as explored in another thread at the moment.

Moral alignment chart of composers


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Wagner did not care that some people would be displeased with his take on Christianity, and neither do I. Many sincere Christians have objected to his ideas, and their objections are duly noted; others - Christians as well - have viewed the work more favorably. Wagner expressed what was important to him about the idea of Christ, he had no obligation to flatter anyone's religious preferences, he is now dead, and _Parsifal_ is what it is. The purpose of this thread is to analyze and discuss what it is: a very rich and complex work of art which offers many people - including many Christians - a magnificent experience.

I understand that you, DavidA, are obsessed with Wagner's personal flaws, and that no one can do anything to remedy your weird compulsion to look for nefarious meanings in Wagner's art. What I've never understood is what motivates you to enter every discussion about it to make the same tired points, offering no more evidence for their validity the hundredth time than you did the first, and knowing that others here find your attitude irritating. Maybe you think it's your godly mission to annoy people for the good of their souls, and to spit on their pleasures in the name of "New Testament Christianity."

You've made your point: Wagner's take on religion is different from yours. Try to accept that he had a right to it, and move on. There's more to be said about what is actually in this opera.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> However, this source
> 
> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Richard_Wagner
> 
> shows that the belief that Jesus was Greek was not uncommon - and there are still those who advocate it. It should be borne in mind that the New Testament is not the pure and unique source of the various forms of Christianity available to believers either in Wagner's time or ours. So to suggest that Wagner can't have read, or ignored what is written in the NT is to ignore a fact well known even to reasonably well-read non-believers that there is much more to Christianity than the NT.


If you Google "Jesus was Greek" you'll quickly find many references to a man called Apollonius of Tyana who lived around the same as Jesus of Nazareth. The former was a Greek preacher who is reckoned to have gone round doing similar sorts of things as Jesus, and performing miracles etc. It is claimed by some that the early Church ascribed the teachings of Apollonius to Jesus, and then eradicated Apollonius from history.

I gather that this story is not new but has been around for a long time, and gets dug up again every so often. It could be something along these lines that Wagner picked up. If so, it would, of course, have suited him to believe that Jesus was not Jewish, but of Greek origin, because of Wagner's well-known anti-semitic views.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Hence underlining the point you both agree on: Wagner's views of Christianity as reflected in his operas, was not an accurate reflection of New Testament Christianity.
> 
> However, this source
> 
> ...


The New Testament is a a jolly sight nearer than all the other forms! The ridiculous nonsense that Jesus was Greek just arose from an anti-semite view. It has neither history nor scripture to suppport it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> If you Google "Jesus was Greek" you'll quickly find many references to a man called Apollonius of Tyana who lived around the same as Jesus of Nazareth. The former was a Greek preacher who is reckoned to have gone round doing similar sorts of things as Jesus, and performing miracles etc. It is claimed by some that the early Church ascribed the teachings of Apollonius to Jesus, and then eradicated Apollonius from history.
> 
> I gather that this story is not new but has been around for a long time, and gets dug up again every so often. It could be something along these lines that Wagner picked up. If so, it would, of course, have suited him to believe that Jesus was not Jewish, but of Greek origin, because of Wagner's well-known anti-semitic views.


I don't have specific information, but I know that the desire to distance Christianity from Judaism was not original with Wagner. It has long been a perennial sentiment within Christianity itself, dating back, I think, to the gnostics. I encountered its echo in the church I attended as a youngster; although there was no contention that Jesus wasn't Jewish by birth, there was a conspicuous emphasis on the fact that Christians are "free from the law" and that they don't do and believe what Jews do and believe, despite the fact that Jesus was an observant Jew and is recorded to have commanded that the laws are to be kept.

But this is peripheral, and I don't want to lose the focus of the discussion, which I think has been pretty satisfying so far.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I don't have specific information, but I know that the desire to distance Christianity from Judaism was not original with Wagner. It has long been a perennial sentiment within Christianity itself, dating back, I think, to the gnostics. I encountered its echo in the church I attended as a youngster; although there was no contention that Jesus wasn't Jewish by birth, there was a conspicuous emphasis on the fact that Christians are "free from the law" and that they don't do and believe what Jews do and believe, despite the fact that Jesus was an observant Jew and is recorded to have commanded that the laws are to be kept.
> 
> But this is peripheral, and I don't want to lose the focus of the discussion, which I think has been pretty satisfying so far.


Fair enough. My aim was simply to refute the idea, in case anyone might think otherwise, that Wagner invented the story about Jesus being a Greek. It was already a story that was circulating in some quarters.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner did not care that some people would be displeased with his take on Christianity, and neither do I. Many sincere Christians have objected to his ideas, and their objections are duly noted; others have viewed the work more favorably. Wagner expressed what was important to him about the idea of Christ, he had no obligation to flatter anyone's religious preferences, he is now dead, and _Parsifal_ is what it is. The purpose of this thread is to analyze and discuss what it is: a very rich and complex work of art which offers many people - including many Christians - a magnificent experience.
> 
> I understand that you are obsessed with Wagner's personal flaws, and that no one can do anything to remedy your weird compulsion to look for nefarious meanings in Wagner's art. What I've never understood is what motivates you to enter every discussion about it to make the same tired points, offering no more evidence for their validity the hundredth time than you did the first, and knowing that others here find your attitude irritating. Maybe you think it's your godly mission to annoy people for the good of their souls, and to spit on their pleasures in the name of "New Testament Christianity."
> 
> You've made your point: Wagner's take on religion is different from yours. Try to accept that he had a right to it, and move on. There's more to be said about what is actually in this opera.


frankly I couldn't care less what Wagner thought of Christianity. He was to me just a man (albeit a genius musician) whose ideas were frankly pretty bent. The problem - as has been stated - is that Wagnerians have this obsession to whitewash Wagner and his operas. They view any objective observation of him as being 'obsessed with Wagner's personal flaws' and a 'weird compulsion to look for nefarious meanings in Wagner's art' when the composer's own writings give us clues enough into those meanings. Oh and we are then questioned as to why we 'enter every discussion about it to make the same tired points' when you bring out your same old tired points! Then you accuse others of being irritating. It no doubt is when you are faced with uncomfortable things. But sorry, fact is fact and there is enough literature out there to show that many other people share my own thoughts about Parsifal despite your protestations.
Your accusations that I am here 'to annoy people for the good of their souls, and to spit on their pleasures in the name of 'New Testament Christianity' is just rubbish as I was just answering a question you yourself put to the group. If you cannot take a point of view that you do not agree and cannot answer without such personal insults do not bother asking the question!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I don't have specific information, but I know that the desire to distance Christianity from Judaism was not original with Wagner. It has long been a perennial sentiment within Christianity itself, dating back, I think, to the gnostics. I encountered its echo in the church I attended as a youngster; although there was no contention that Jesus wasn't Jewish by birth, there was *a conspicuous emphasis on the fact that Christians are "free from the law" *and that they don't do and believe what Jews do and believe, despite the fact that Jesus was an observant Jew and is recorded to have commanded that the laws are to be kept.
> 
> But this is peripheral, and I don't want to lose the focus of the discussion, which I think has been pretty satisfying so far.


The teaching that Christians are 'free from the law' was given by a Jew named Paul who realised that the Jewish ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ and therefore it has passed away. Jesus was an observant Jew, of course, because before the crucifixion and resurrection the types and figures of the law had not yet been fulfilled.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2019)

DavidA said:


> frankly I couldn't care less what Wagner thought of Christianity.


That says all we need to know about your reasons for joining a thread about the religious aspects of Wagner's _Parsifal_?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> frankly I couldn't care less what Wagner thought of Christianity. He was to me just a man (albeit a genius musician) whose ideas were frankly pretty bent. The problem - as has been stated - is that Wagnerians have this obsession to whitewash Wagner and his operas. They view any objective observation of him as being 'obsessed with Wagner's personal flaws' and a 'weird compulsion to look for nefarious meanings in Wagner's art' when the composer's own writings give us clues enough into those meanings. Oh and we are then questioned as to why we 'enter every discussion about it to make the same tired points' when you bring out your same old tired points! Then you accuse others of being irritating. It no doubt is when you are faced with uncomfortable things. But sorry, fact is fact and there is enough literature out there to show that many other people share my own thoughts about Parsifal despite your protestations.
> Your accusations that I am here 'to annoy people for the good of their souls, and to spit on their pleasures in the name of 'New Testament Christianity' is just rubbish as I was just answering a question you yourself put to the group. If you cannot take a point of view that you do not agree and cannot answer without such personal insults do not bother asking the question!


Your single point - Wagner's Christianity is not St. Paul's - is correct, and we all get it. Now, do you have any more actual knowledge to share about _Parsifal,_ or even, God forbid, a question? If not, know that no one gives a fig about your loathing for what you take to have been Wagner's personality or behavior. That isn't the subject here, and it would be a real pleasure if people who don't respect that subject would leave it to those who do.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2019)

Having read most of this thread, I have not come across opinions from anyone who would appear to be sympathetic to any of the mainstream forms of the Christianity whether _Parsifal_ offers them further enlightenment on any aspect of their religion. If I have missed something, I would be grateful to be referred to the relevant posts so that I, and possibly, others can have a further look into what they have had to say.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

At the risk of heaping opprobrium on my own head - every day I thank god I'm an atheist. :devil:


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2019)

Partita said:


> If you Google "Jesus was Greek" you'll quickly find many references to a man called Apollonius of Tyana who lived around the same as Jesus of Nazareth. The former was a Greek preacher who is reckoned to have gone round doing similar sorts of things as Jesus, and performing miracles etc. It is claimed by some that the early Church ascribed the teachings of Apollonius to Jesus, and then eradicated Apollonius from history.
> 
> I gather that this story is not new but has been around for a long time, and gets dug up again every so often. It could be something along these lines that Wagner picked up. If so, it would, of course, have suited him to believe that Jesus was not Jewish, but of Greek origin, because of Wagner's well-known anti-semitic views.





DavidA said:


> The New Testament is a a jolly sight nearer than all the other forms! The ridiculous nonsense that Jesus was Greek just arose from an anti-semite view. It has neither history nor scripture to suppport it.


I neither said that it was true, nor that I believed it to be true. I was simply pointing out that such a belief existed, and that if Wagner believed it to be true, his Christianity was not a mainstream version.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Really guys, after being censored unilaterally for my 'shocking' (read:inconvenient) posts on this controversial composer, whether or not initiated by fellow contributors, and noticing that personal insults from the 'opposing side' (Wagner fans) are still there in all their dark glory, I leave you to it in this cleansed environment. 

Censorship...really? Sad.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NLAdriaan said:


> Really guys, after being censored unilaterally for my 'shocking' (read:inconvenient) posts on this controversial composer, whether or not initiated by fellow contributors, and noticing that personal insults from the 'opposing side' (Wagner fans) are still there in all their dark glory, I leave you to it in this cleansed environment.
> 
> Censorship...really? Sad.


Censorship? No, just the mods doing their job - a little modest housecleaning (which, by the way, affected the posts of others as well, so don't feel singled out). The thrust of your contributions to this thread - that we shouldn't take the "alleged deeper meanings" of Wagner's works seriously - is still there to be considered by anyone to whom that advice might appeal. But I _do_ wonder to whom you thought it _would_ appeal. Isn't it the equivalent of saying, "you fanatical devotees may imagine that this work - in this case _Parsifal_ - is deeply meaningful, but _I_ know better than to be taken in by such nonsense"? What sort of reaction to that would you expect from someone who's known and studied the opera for more than half a lifetime?

It shouldn't be difficult to, at the very least, respect what Wagner was attempting to do, recognize his seriousness of purpose in this and his other operas, and acknowledge that there must be pretty good reasons why his art continues to fascinate and move people. However incomprehensible it may be to you, Wagner's reputation as one of the most significant creative figures in our history seems unlikely to diminish. On the contrary, his "modern myths for the theater" keep on re-establishing their universal humanity and relevance to a changing world; scholars keep writing books analyzing them - looking into those "alleged deeper meanings" - and performances are invariably major events that sell out the house.

_Parsifal,_ in all its strange and troubling power, is going to be moving listeners and watchers when you and I and our little opinions are long forgotten. Maybe that realization should influence the nature of those opinions, and the spirit in which we offer them.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

_"When religion becomes artificial, art has a duty to rescue it. Art can show that the symbols which religions would have us believe literally true are actually figurative. Art can idealize those symbols, and so reveal the profound truths they contain."_ -Richard Wagner

Just like Christianity, Parsifal is a complex and confused mess of verses, symbolism, and influences, and perhaps even contradictory ideas. The challenge for interpreting Parsifal, like the Bible, is distilling out the profound and universal truths locked within them. The truths do not require PhD-level dialecticals to understand. They are *universal truths*, intended for comprehension by even the simplest, emptiest of minds (see Siegfried and Parsifal!). Such are the messages of compassion and wisdom through experience. But because they are so simple, they are the hardest to grasp, this is the tragedy of the human mind. We avoid looking for the core commonalities of goodness between us and instead pick apart the details looking for something to deem as "wrong".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The ethical message of _Parsifal_ is indeed simple. Wagner even spells it out for us: _Durch Mitleid wissend, der reine Tor_ ("made wise through compassion, the innocent fool"), which we hear sung by the celestial voice at the end of the Grail ceremony and repeated as a leitmotiv throughout the score. But the symbolism of the drama, as well as the often disturbing qualities of the music, vibrate with mysterious meanings that seem to want to take us outside the comfortable genre of the morality play or the confines of any religious tradition.

I think there's a deep psychological coherence to _Parsifal,_ independent of any religious or ethical meaning, that we need to perceive in order for its strange characters and events to make sense, and I think that attempts to read its religious symbols in terms of their ordinary signification can actually get in the way of penetrating to the work's inner tale of psychological growth. This "esoteric level" of meaning is exactly parallel to that beneath the _Ring_'s surface conflict of love vs. power, and is in fact a variation of the _Ring_'s depiction of the growth of human consciousness from infancy to maturity: the story of Parsifal and the Grail kingdom is the story of Siegfried and the gods, with a new twist that makes possible a new ending, hinting at life beyond the _Gotterdammering._

To analyze _Parsifal_ as a myth of psychological development puts its religious symbols in a new and sometimes startling light, and I believe that the feeling many people have that the opera is not a religious work at all - or might even be, in a way, anti-religious - is in a real sense justified. The opera's explicit, exoteric ethical message is not incompatible with Christianity; those elements in its plot and music which summon a sense of the transcendental and the sacred are real and potent; and its intense expression of the need of corrupted and pain-ridden humanity for salvation certainly invites a religious interpretation. But at the center of its story is a character directly out of pagan (Celtic) myth - the hero of mysterious birth - who is surrounded by pre-Christian symbols: wounded king, waste land, black magic, femme fatale, shape shifter, dark forest, sacred spring, invisible castle, magical vessel and spear. These symbols may have been overlaid with Christian meanings in the medieval romances upon which Wagner drew, but I believe they continue to resonate in the opera with psychological meanings that predate and transcend any religious tradition and which are better understood with reference to Freud and Jung than to the Bible or the Sutras.

Wer ist der Graal? - "Who is the Grail?" - Parsifal asks Gurnemanz, who does not correct the pronoun. I think there's more than boyish ignorance behind the Freudian slip.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> frankly I couldn't care less what Wagner thought of Christianity. He was to me just a man (albeit a genius musician) whose ideas were frankly pretty bent.


In fact, Wagner's ideas on Christianity were highly influenced by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who, because of his profound effect on subsequent Christian thought, is often called the "Father of Modern Liberal Theology" and is considered an early leader in liberal Christianity.

That "bent" thought includes most of my family, and many members here.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> At the risk of heaping opprobrium on my own head - every day I thank god I'm an atheist. :devil:


Ok, but please don't use that term, as it isn't very specific. It could include liberal Christians, the Dali Lama, radical Episcopal priests, etc.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, but please don't use that term, as it isn't very specific. It could include liberal Christians, the Dali Lama, radical Episcopal priests, etc.


I find rather it is quite specific, as it allowed you to identify various people to whom it applies.

Atheist allows one to identify that they do not believe in/follow any gods. That can be relevant information. Of course it doesn't say much about what one does believe, what one's system of morality is, but frankly the same can be said of a lot of other such terms.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> I find rather it is quite specific, as it allowed you to identify various people to whom it applies.
> 
> Atheist allows one to identify that they do not believe in/follow any gods. That can be relevant information. Of course it doesn't say much about what one does believe, what one's system of morality is, but frankly the same can be said of a lot of other such terms.


I just don't care for the term, because as you said, it is exclusionary, and not descriptive. Other such terms are the same; they are used for convenience, for exclusionary purposes, and may carry baggage. But suit yourself, I will protest no more.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

mountmccabe said:


> I find rather it is quite specific, as it allowed you to identify various people to whom it applies.
> 
> Atheist allows one to identify that they do not believe in/follow any gods. That can be relevant information. Of course it doesn't say much about what one does believe, what one's system of morality is, but frankly the same can be said of a lot of other such terms.


Maybe I misunderstand or am guilty of oversimplification but I thought atheists actually believe there is no god. If one simply does not believe in or follow a god, wouldn't that be more in the category of agnostic?


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Maybe I misunderstand or am guilty of oversimplification but I thought atheists actually believe there is no god. If one simply does not believe in or follow a god, wouldn't that be more in the category of agnostic?


That is one way the terms are used. I typically prefer descriptive language, but there are also times it's just sloppy.

Technically agnostic means belief that the existence of gods and the supernatural are unknowable, or at least unknown. It doesn't have anything to do, directly, with religious worship. It can pair with atheism, but does not have to. Søren Kierkegaard comes to mind as something like an agnostic theist.

I prefer to make a distinction, if necessary, between weak and strong atheism (I've also seen soft/hard, or negative/positive... I find all of them annoying terms), where strong atheism is believing there are no gods, weak atheism is limited to not acknowledging the existence of any gods, rather than specifically denying all options.

But as this is quite off-topic I am not going to continue down this line of discussion.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, but please don't use that term, as it isn't very specific. It could include liberal Christians, the Dali Lama, radical Episcopal priests, etc.


On the contrary, by any known definition of the term, atheism is very specific - 'A disbelief in the existence of god or gods.'

You just can't make up your own definitions, that way lies chaos. I would think that liberal Christians would still acknowledge the possibility at the very least of the existence of god/gods.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Wagner, as far as I can determine, seems to have been a sort of atheistic Christian late in life. He definitely didn't believe in the supernatural deity of traditional Judaism and/or Christianity, and had no use for such notions as the impregnation of virgins by ghosts from on high. Jesus was for him the exemplification of an ethical ideal, a man wholly motivated by compassion whose crucifixion represented the taking into himself of the sufferings of all humanity. I'm not even sure that Wagner considered him an actual historical individual. If anyone has a specific reference concerning the question, please tell us.

It might be worth recalling that Wagner's thinking was also heavily influenced by Buddhism, and that theistic belief in various branches of Buddhism is quite variable and in some cases nonexistent. The Buddha is said to have avoided or dismissed questions from his followers about God.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> The ethical message of _Parsifal_ is indeed simple. Wagner even spells it out for us: _Durch Mitleid wissend, der reine Tor_ ("made wise through compassion, the innocent fool"), which we hear sung by the celestial voice at the end of the Grail ceremony and repeated as a leitmotiv throughout the score. But the symbolism of the drama, as well as the often disturbing qualities of the music, vibrate with mysterious meanings that seem to want to take us outside the comfortable genre of the morality play or the confines of any religious tradition.
> 
> I think there's a deep psychological coherence to _Parsifal,_ independent of any religious or ethical meaning, that we need to perceive in order for its strange characters and events to make sense, and I think that attempts to read its religious symbols in terms of their ordinary signification can actually get in the way of penetrating to the work's inner tale of psychological growth. This "esoteric level" of meaning is exactly parallel to that beneath the _Ring_'s surface conflict of love vs. power, and is in fact a variation of the _Ring_'s depiction of the growth of human consciousness from infancy to maturity: the story of Parsifal and the Grail kingdom is the story of Siegfried and the gods, with a new twist that makes possible a new ending, hinting at life beyond the _Gotterdammering._
> 
> ...


Personally I think Parsifal is more spiritual rather than religious. There is no dogma, it does not offer a creed to repeat. What it offers is an _experience._ A seed of something beyond the meaninglessness of materialism. Just lifting up the veil of reality a little bit so we can see that there is something behind it. I can see that spirituality ties in quite well with Jung's ideas about spiritual awakening. However I think subjecting Parsifal to a sexualized Freudian analysis is a disservice to the work's deeper and nobler ambitions, but to each their own I suppose.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Personally I think Parsifal is more spiritual rather than religious. There is no dogma, it does not offer a creed to repeat. What it offers is an _experience._ A seed of something beyond the meaninglessness of materialism. Just lifting up the veil of reality a little bit so we can see that there is something behind it. *I can see that spirituality ties in quite well with Jung's ideas about spiritual awakening. However I think subjecting Parsifal to a sexualized Freudian analysis is a disservice to the work's deeper and nobler ambitions, but to each their own I suppose.*


I don't think it was either/or for Wagner. The blending of sex and spirituality, often to the point of indistinguishability (see _Tristan_), is one of his major peculiarities and preoccupations, and it percolates through his work in ways both obvious and not. Freud's psychosexual stages weren't invented out of thin air, and I think Wagner breathed the air that they congealed out of. In opera after opera Wagner works through his feelings about the place of sex in the life of a man, and I think hat in _Parsifal_ he takes this exploration to a new level of dept and complexity. Parsifal wasn't just choosing moral responsibility in Klingsor's garden. He was taking final leave of Mother, which in Freudian terms is the essential choice that makes growing up possible.

I suppose the degree to which we want to look at the symbolism of _Parsifal_ in such terms is partly just a matter of what interests us; Wagner's symbolism is amenable to varied interpretations, thanks to its Christian associations, and we don't need to take its sexual overtones into account to come up with a plausible view of the opera's meaning. But if we don't consider them we'll end up with somewhat different, and in some ways incompatible, interpretations of certain key elements in the story, and maybe even the tale's ultimate meaning. For example, we can look at just the central pair of symbols, the objects of ultimate veneration, the Grail and the Sacred Spear: how can we not be struck by the femaleness of a bowl that glows with crimson blood at the bidding of men, or the phallic aspect of a projectile weapon of war, which is essentially the Grail's mate and, according to Parsifal, glows with longing to be reunited with her? "Wer ist der Graal?" Parsifal asks. Who? She is woman, the bride, the mother, the nurturer, the giver of the wine/milk that sustains our lives. If we do recognize this pair of archetypal forms as a kind of sacred marriage, symbolizing the eternal truth that "maleness" and "femaleness" belong together, we'll have a different perspective on the other, more explicit sexual elements in the story, a different view of their moral status, and indeed a different view of the very meaning of sex in the opera. We may find that a story which seems to many to be advocating celibacy is doing no such thing, and that Titurel's requirement of chastity is, rather than a mark of spiritual attainment, a symbol of a fundamental spiritual failing, a "castration" of basic human nature, a schism in the psyche, a rejection of his "female" aspect by man for the sake of attaining power (just as the absolute power of the medieval church was exercised by celibate male priests in the name of a stern male God). We can see this self-mutilation as the root of all the story's misfortune, the source of Amfortas' wound, of the desperate alienation of the female Kundry, and the thing that needs to be corrected for the psyche - the soul - to be whole. And isn't it interesting that before that can happen, Titurel and his castrated "shadow" Klingsor must die?

I don't believe that the sexual and spiritual character of this opera are at odds. At the deepest level Wagner may be telling us - perhaps not even knowingly, since artists are not always fully aware of the resonances in their own works - that what he spent his life trying to come to grips with is true after all: that the soul and the body, the sexual and the spiritual, and the qualities of our psyches that maleness and femaleness embody as symbols, are ultimately one indivisible being which we must embrace fully.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Partita said:


> Having read most of this thread, I have not come across opinions from anyone who would appear to be sympathetic to any of the mainstream forms of the Christianity whether _Parsifal_ offers them further enlightenment on any aspect of their religion.


i am Orthodox christian. Parsifal is of no news to me, except when i first heard its music.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

NLAdriaan said:


> this controversial composer


and which composer is not?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I've read a story about Wagner attempting to read the Bible and declaring it to be complete and utter hooey . He was certainly never a conventionally devout Christian by any means . He also claimed that Jesus was not the son of God but of a Roman soldier who had an affair with a young Jewish woman .


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I came across this and was interested in comments by others with regard to Wagner's quotes:

Religious Philosophy:



> Though he befriended philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the two men shared certain anti-Christian views, especially with regard to puritanical attitudes about sexuality, religious belief was nonetheless a part of Wagner's upbringing. As a boy he once stated that he "yearned to, with ecstatic fervor, to hang upon the Cross in the place of the Saviour." One of his early works, Jesus of Nazareth was conceived after a study of the Gospels and included verses from the New Testament. Another work, The Love Feast of the Twelve Apostles, was also based on Biblical texts.
> 
> The incongruities of his life from a moral and ethical perspective remain a source of controversy and are as perplexing today as they were during his life. Yet his acknowledgment of the reality of the redemptive aspects of Christian faith in attaining happiness and fulfillment cannot be denied. He wrote: "When I found this yearning could never be stilled by modern life, in escaping from its claims upon me by self-destruction, I came to the primal fount of every modern rendering of the situation-to the man Jesus of Nazareth."
> 
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ In reading Wagner's statements I'm often struck by the intensity with which he says things that I can't make much sense of! If we try to relate his philosophical musings to his art, the problem of how much they enter into it and how much they can help us to understand it is constantly present, and probably not completely soluble. Wagner himself confirmed this impression in a letter to his friend August Roeckel, where he says that the meanings a work of art holds may often be unsuspected by the artist himself, since art to a great extent proceeds from the unconscious part of the mind. This certainly describes Wagner's creative process, which he often described as a dreamlike state in which things happened virtually without conscious control (of course many other artists have described being "in the creative zone" in similar terms). 

Wagner's religious views are interesting, but experiencing the way they're expressed - or not expressed - in his operas may be the key to cutting through his convoluted and feverish rhetoric. If music proceeds from a place in the composer's psyche deeper than consciousness, it's apt to tell us more about his nature and his values than are his efforts to express verbally what he believes and what he's about.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I think it's important to understand Wagner through his works, which were consistent, years-long if not decades-long projects of focused effort on what Wagner _really _wanted to say, rather than what he wrote off-the-cuff during a flight of fancy or bout of mania in a letter to Liszt or an aside for Cosima's diary. That Wagner is utterly incomprehensible and sometimes reprehensible.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think it was either/or for Wagner. The blending of sex and spirituality, often to the point of indistinguishability (see _Tristan_), is one of his major peculiarities and preoccupations, and it percolates through his work in ways both obvious and not. Freud's psychosexual stages weren't invented out of thin air, and I think Wagner breathed the air that they congealed out of. In opera after opera Wagner works through his feelings about the place of sex in the life of a man, and I think hat in _Parsifal_ he takes this exploration to a new level of dept and complexity. Parsifal wasn't just choosing moral responsibility in Klingsor's garden. He was taking final leave of Mother, which in Freudian terms is the essential choice that makes growing up possible.
> 
> I suppose the degree to which we want to look at the symbolism of _Parsifal_ in such terms is partly just a matter of what interests us; Wagner's symbolism is amenable to varied interpretations, thanks to its Christian associations, and we don't need to take its sexual overtones into account to come up with a plausible view of the opera's meaning. But if we don't consider them we'll end up with somewhat different, and in some ways incompatible, interpretations of certain key elements in the story, and maybe even the tale's ultimate meaning. For example, we can look at just the central pair of symbols, the objects of ultimate veneration, the Grail and the Sacred Spear: how can we not be struck by the femaleness of a bowl that glows with crimson blood at the bidding of men, or the phallic aspect of a projectile weapon of war, which is essentially the Grail's mate and, according to Parsifal, glows with longing to be reunited with her? "Wer ist der Graal?" Parsifal asks. Who? She is woman, the bride, the mother, the nurturer, the giver of the wine/milk that sustains our lives. If we do recognize this pair of archetypal forms as a kind of sacred marriage, symbolizing the eternal truth that "maleness" and "femaleness" belong together, we'll have a different perspective on the other, more explicit sexual elements in the story, a different view of their moral status, and indeed a different view of the very meaning of sex in the opera. We may find that a story which seems to many to be advocating celibacy is doing no such thing, and that Titurel's requirement of chastity is, rather than a mark of spiritual attainment, a symbol of a fundamental spiritual failing, a "castration" of basic human nature, a schism in the psyche, a rejection of his "female" aspect by man for the sake of attaining power (just as the absolute power of the medieval church was exercised by celibate male priests in the name of a stern male God). We can see this self-mutilation as the root of all the story's misfortune, the source of Amfortas' wound, of the desperate alienation of the female Kundry, and the thing that needs to be corrected for the psyche - the soul - to be whole. And isn't it interesting that before that can happen, Titurel and his castrated "shadow" Klingsor must die?
> 
> I don't believe that the sexual and spiritual character of this opera are at odds. At the deepest level Wagner may be telling us - perhaps not even knowingly, since artists are not always fully aware of the resonances in their own works - that what he spent his life trying to come to grips with is true after all: that the soul and the body, the sexual and the spiritual, and the qualities of our psyches that maleness and femaleness embody as symbols, are ultimately one indivisible being which we must embrace fully.


I see what you're saying but I always find these psychosexual interpretations a little bit "on the nose". Very little can not be made to suffer the psychosexual interpretative treatment. I'm reminded of this comic:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I think it's important to understand Wagner through his works, which were consistent, years-long if not decades-long projects of focused effort on what Wagner _really _wanted to say, rather than what he wrote off-the-cuff during a flight of fancy or bout of mania in a letter to Liszt or an aside for Cosima's diary. That Wagner is utterly incomprehensible and sometimes reprehensible.


Didn't he say (to Liszt?) that inside him was a saint struggling to get out? It may not have succeeded in getting out too often in his everyday life, but we can't mistake it in his works, unless we're determined, as many are, to overlook it. I think this is what bothers me most about the "updated" productions I've seen: the deliberate efforts to undermine the nobility, the grandeur of aspiration if not of attainment, which give even Wagner's operatic villains a certain magnificence. People who knew Wagner well saw it in the man as well: his _Parsifal_ conductor, the Jewish Hermann Levi, praised Wagner as "the noblest of men" to his skeptical rabbi father. But it's a part of him that's become more or less invisible to history except to those (many, fortunately) who can respond comprehendingly to his work. And even in the most distorted of _regie_ productions the music continues to tell the truth. Wagner was no saint, but the music that came from the deepest part of him is often sublime.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I see what you're saying but I always find these psychosexual interpretations a little bit "on the nose". Very little can not be made to suffer the psychosexual interpretative treatment. I'm reminded of this comic:


Heh heh. Post-Freud, it's all true. I don't think we know how much Wagner looked at the symbolism of _Parsifal_ in a proto-Freudian, proto-Jungian (more the latter) way. All I know is that these sex-tinged archetypes fit the symbolism and atmosphere of the opera like a glove. I mean, did anyone before Wagner imagine a seduction of a boy by a woman who essentially poses as his dead mother, and sings him a gentle, rocking song ("Ich sah das Kind...") which is essentially a lullaby, the most disturbingly chromatic lullaby that ever reduced a kid to a frightened blob of Jello? This charming scene is a gut-punch to the subconscious.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

You mean you don't begin your seductions by sorrowfully relating to the woo'd that they failed their mother? Gotta try that one bro, works like a charm


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

not interesting anymore


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Essentially, women do have a '*****,' although it's internal. I think it's more productive to think of Freud in terms of "drive theory," which I think is still relevant. This relates him to Nietzsche, in the sense that instinctual drives are the "subconscious" energies which compel Man in certain ways.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Of course, Freud is no less a controversial and widely misunderstood genius than Wagner. I'm far more of a Jungian than a Freudian, but even so I do want to point out that Freud's major innovation was to establish the notion of the subconscious, and to pursue investigation and research into the subconscious in a scientific and modern way. ALL of modern psychology follows from this innovation. That was Freud's greatest achievement.

Note that nothing in Freud's greatest achievement involves sexuality, or female envy of male organs, or the Oedipus complex. These were his most widely publicized theories, and are now considered "Freudian". But to reduce the magnitude of Freud's contribution to psychology to his theories about sexuality would be like ... reducing every opera Verdi ever composed to Rigoletto. Verdi was great, but I don't think Rigoletto was his greatest opera. Freud was great, but I don't think his theories of sexuality were his most enduring work.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NLAdriaan said:


> not interesting anymore


In your previous posts you've been explicit about the fact that you never were interested in this subject. May we assume that you'll now leave the conversation to those who are?

The question is rhetorical - and thank you in advance.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> In your previous posts you've been explicit about the fact that you never were interested in this subject. May we assume that you'll now leave the conversation to those who are?
> 
> The question is rhetorical - and thank you in advance.


The need to comment on threads that one isn't interested in to tell everyone who IS that the commenter isn't interested in them, certainly isn't interesting anymore.

N.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The Conte said:


> The need to comment on threads that one isn't interested in to tell everyone who IS that the commenter isn't interested in them, certainly isn't interesting anymore.
> 
> N.


Yes, but what's fascinating are the replies to such comments.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

His opus one is interesting enough for an opus one.

Richard Wagner - Piano Sonata in B-flat, Op. 1, WWV 21 (1831) [Score-Video]






His Aflat sonata of 1853 is long-winded. ..but I like that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Of course, Freud is no less a controversial and widely misunderstood genius than Wagner. I'm far more of a Jungian than a Freudian, but even so I do want to point out that *Freud's major innovation was to establish the notion of the subconscious, and to pursue investigation and research into the subconscious in a scientific and modern way.* ALL of modern psychology follows from this innovation. That was Freud's greatest achievement.


I agree with the second half of the statement I put in bold. The first half seems to me to need a little qualification.

I admit to not being a close student of Freud, but I think it should be pointed out that the unconscious life of the mind wasn't his discovery or invention, but was something Romantic artists had long been keenly aware of, even preoccupied with. Wagner in particular was intensely aware of it, spoke of it pretty often, created an entire compositional method (his complex use of leitmotif) capable of expressing the subconscious experience of his characters, and directly inspired other artists (notably novelists such as Proust, Joyce and Wolff) to create their own expressions of it.

Freud, Jung, and psychologists and ethnologists working in their shadow, theorized about the subconscious origins of myth, and the correspondences of its symbols and archetypes with subconscious experiences characteristic of the stages of human psychological development. Wagner, an artist rather than a theorist, whose conscious life and thought often seemed at the mercy of a rampant id, dreamed up (almost in the literal sense of "dreamed") and presented to our conscious mind and senses dramatic rituals in which mythic symbols and archetypes combine with music (an art which affects us mainly beneath the level of conscious understanding) to represent the unconscious human journey about which Freud and Jung talked and wrote.

I would suggest that the reach of Wagner's artistic intuition in fusing timeless archetypes into modern myths evocative of preconscious psychic experience, combined with his ability to express hidden and even forbidden things through music of a visceral power that shook European culture (musical and otherwise), makes him one of the most prominent sources of the milieu that gave rise to modern psychology. Conscious, subconscious, unconscious, ego, superego, id, eros, thanatos, repression, Oedipus complex, the Shadow, the Self - all these conceptualizations of psychic life might have entered the brains of Freud and Jung as they sat watching and listening to _Tristan,_ the _Ring_ or _Parsifal_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I took Freud seriously from the beginning because of his ideas about _hypnogogic dreams_, of which I read several accounts in a book called "Passivity." As soon as I read these accounts, it triggered a memory of a disturbing hypnogogic dream (waking dream) I had when I was about 10 yrs. old.

I think that many of these ideas exist not just as "ideas" per se, but can reflect actual experiences people have had, perhaps including Wagner, and many people of his epoch. This might tie-in to some of the characters' psychology in the operas. Was there a "helpless" or "paralyzed" character in Wagner? Passivity would seem to be the opposite of passion.

Schoenberg may also have been "tuned in" to these sorts of psychological phenomena, and we all know that he was a Wagnerian.

While these dream experiences are subjective, and have no real scientific basis, they are nonetheless the stuff of metaphysics, and akin to religious experience, but more importantly, could have to do with the psychology of characters in an opera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia_

•See Passivity: A Study of Its Development and Expression in Boys by Sylvia Brody (1964)_
_•See Russell H. Davis: Freud's Concept of Passivity
•See Husserl_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I took Freud seriously from the beginning because of his ideas about _hypnogogic dreams_, of which I read several accounts in a book called "Passivity." As soon as I read these accounts, it triggered a memory of a disturbing hypnogogic dream (waking dream) I had when I was about 10 yrs. old.
> 
> I think that many of these ideas exist not just as "ideas" per se, but can reflect actual experiences people have had, perhaps including Wagner, and many people of his epoch. This might tie-in to some of the characters' psychology in the operas. Was there a "helpless" or "paralyzed" character in Wagner? Passivity would seem to be the opposite of passion.
> 
> ...


You've aroused my curiosity about hypnagogic dreams. I gather they seem very real. How do they relate to "passivity," and what do you mean by that? I'm not sure whether I've had such a waking dream (to be distinguished from simple daydreaming by its seeming reality?). Maybe the nearest I've come would be some very vivid artistic inspirations.

Judging not only by the mythical archetypes of his stories, but also by the way he dismantles musical form and reconceives it as a seismograph of the psychic tremors of his characters (obliterating the "normal" sense of musical time established by the Classical tradition), I think Wagner may have been more immersed in the ocean of his unconscious than any other composer (which may help explain why his life in the conscious world was so chaotic). His operas can take us to places in the mind where the ordinary dimensions of experience hardly apply - where, as Gurnemanz says to Parsifal, "time becomes space" - and coming back to everyday reality after full immersion in _Tristan_ or the _Ring_ can be, as many people have noted, a bit like waking from a dream, a seance, a drug trip, a theophany, or - if we're really paying attention and not too repressed - a therapeutic regression.

It doesn't seem outrageous to think of Wagner's operas as "hypnogogic dreams" which we can share if we submit ourselves to them. He claimed that the unique prelude to _Das Rheingold_ (134 bars on the chord of Eb) occurred to him in a sort of half-waking drowse, and he commented elsewhere about the "altered state" he would go into while composing. The visionary music that poured out of him as he composed _Tristan_ led him to write to Mathilde Wesendonck,"Tristan is and remains a miracle to me! I find it more and more difficult to understand how I could have done such a thing...if I am honest with myself, I have far overstepped the limits of what we are capable of achieving in this field." And, "Only mediocre performances can save me. Great ones will drive people insane."

Being driven insane is the opposite of what psychotherapy is supposed to do for us. But there's no predicting the consequences of a plunge into the frightening, deep waters of the unconscious. What we may find there is something more wondrous than mundane sanity, something such as Lear found in the storm on the heath. There's a wonderful moment in Act 3 of _Tristan_ when Tristan's consciousness "flips" from the most excruciating agony of self-loathing and despair to a beatific vision of Isolde coming to him over the ocean on petals of flowers. Here, as always in Wagner, the goal at the end of suffering is transformation, and the way to the heights is through the depths.

Opera as hypnagogic therapy? Is that something I just invented?


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Opera as hypnagogic therapy? Is that something I just invented?


I'm down with that.

Agreed about Wagner and the subconscious, and I think many operas deal with the subconscious. (I believe that is the better word to use, since unconscious means literally unconscious. Even La Sonnambula was in a subconscious state.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Yes, thanks, I agree about "sub" vs. "un." I revised my post.

Which operas, other than Wagner's, would you cite as dealing with the subconscious, and in what ways do they do it?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

_Shall I drink,_
_immerse?_
_Sweetly in fragrances _
_melt away?_
_In the billowing torrent,_
_in the resonating sound,_
_in the wafting Universe of the World-Breath --- _
_drown,_
_be engulfed ---_
_unconscious --- _
_supreme delight!_

I like Jung because he took Freud's conception of the unconsciousness and through the collective unconsciousness, made it transcendental. Jung's archetypes are almost certainly influenced by the mythos of Wagner's music-dramas. Freud's sexual-drive and Nietzsche's power-lust as fundamental motivators are a poverty of imagination and merely a reflection of their authors. The desire to _transcend _governs all (a desire that perhaps can never be fully satiated here on this earth in waking life) and this is best reflected in Wagner.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

that said, i wouldn't put too much sexual connotation on Wagner operas, for sex is merely a cover-up of politics depicted in art.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Opera as hypnagogic therapy? Is that something I just invented?


Some of Schoenberg's work has that quality, like Erwartung. Maybe he took Wagner's ideas to an extreme.
Maderna's _Satyricon_ has that unreal quality.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Couchie said:


> _Shall I drink,_
> _immerse?_
> _Sweetly in fragrances _
> _melt away?_
> ...


Agreed. I've posted previously here about how much I love the beginning of Das Rheingold, that is, the beginning of the Ring cycle - the fact that this epic cycle begins with an evocation of an underwater state. This calls to mind not just the human race's historical primordial soup but also the process of birth. I'd like to know more about how Jung was influenced by Wagner.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Which operas, other than Wagner's, would you cite as dealing with the subconscious, and in what ways do they do it?


I have to think hard before beginning to answer this one. A quick answer that occurs to me is that the popularity of some well-known operas that have convoluted, incomprehensible or unbelievable plots can be explained by their subconscious appeal. An example might be Verdi's Il Trovatore, which I often cite as an example of a wonderful work with a terrible plot. And yet this plot clearly has emotional appeal. Perhaps this points to subconscious explanations?

I don't know. I admit this is a half-baked answer to a good question. Have to think about it. I could of course take the easy way out and say "Strauss", but that's cheating since Strauss actually read Freud.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

marceliotstein said:


> An example might be Verdi's Il Trovatore, which I often cite as an example of a wonderful work with a terrible plot.


the Il Trovatore plot is ok, for in fact it pushes a political agenda: do not hurry to kill your opponent, because he may be your brother, even though looks like a gypsy. Aida seems to justify high treason: anyone at any point might occur to become agent of enemy interests etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I like Jung because he took Freud's conception of the unconsciousness and through the collective unconsciousness, made it transcendental. *Jung's archetypes are almost certainly influenced by the mythos of Wagner's music-dramas.* Freud's sexual-drive and Nietzsche's power-lust as fundamental motivators are a poverty of imagination and merely a reflection of their authors. The desire to _transcend _governs all (a desire that perhaps can never be fully satiated here on this earth in waking life) and this is best reflected in Wagner.


Since reading Robert Donington's Jungian study, "Wagner's Ring and its Symbols," almost forty years ago, I've tended to view _Parsifal,_ including its treatment of religion, through Jungian spectacles, but haven't known exactly how much influence Wagner's operas had on Jung himself. There's plenty in Wagner's work to invite Freudian interpretations, and given Wagner's intense interest in Schopenhauer it's fascinating that Freud confessed to being indebted to that philosopher for his concept of the unconscious (the irrational "id" having so much in common with Schopenhauer's striving "will"). But I agree that Wagner's world of mythic archetypes is ultimately more Jungian than Freudian, and I'm beginning to think that we should really turn that around and speak of Jung as being Wagnerian, and consciously Wagnerian at that. As a result of this conversation, I've come up with this very germane article https://www.jrhaule.net/wound.html in which we find Jung, in his traumatic break with Freud, turning directly to Wagner, and specifically to _Parsifal,_ in search of archetypes to help him heal what he dubbed the "Amfortas wound" in his soul.

We may find Freud guilty of overreach in seeming to reduce virtually everything to sex, but we shouldn't minimize the sexual component in Wagner, or pretend that its prominence in his most "religious" opera isn't, on its face, a bit stunning. The challenge, I think, is to see if there's a way of integrating it with the spiritual/ethical theme of the work. To me, the only approach that makes sense of _Parsifal_'s puzzling features and recognizes its artistic integrity - the only successful counter to the accusations of incoherence or depravity or blasphemy sometimes leveled against it - is to view the sex in it as a manifestation and symbol of something larger, something more fundamental to the journey of the psyche (or personality or spirit or soul) toward wholeness, which is the overriding theme of the opera. I believe this means viewing sexual temptation and its principal purveyor, Kundry, not as inherently evil or as a simplistic invitation to vice, but as a perverted manifestation of the feminine archetype in the soul of man, Jung's "anima." This "eternal feminine" is symbolized in several forms throughout the opera, and is shown as suffering through the actions of male ego, upon which, like all repressed aspects of the self, it inevitably tries to avenge itself.

The wounded feminine archetype appears as: the Grail (used by Titurel to service the order, and losing its efficacy when deprived of its companion, the Sacred Spear, by an act of male hubris); Herzeleide (the mother who tries to hold back the man from maturing and weeps and dies when he leaves her); and Kundry (whose dual identity represents both the abused and the avenging feminine, both used by man and a danger to him, appearing as the reincarnation of the mother trying to lure the son back to helpless infancy and oblivion through a deadly mixture of adolescent guilt and appeal to his overweening masculinity). At the root of it all is that icon of masculine power, Titurel, who in trying to control the feminine and banish it from his spiritual paradigm only succeeds in creating that dark caricature of himself, Klingsor - Titurel's "shadow," in Jung's archetype - who turns the tortured woman into the destroyer of man and of his castrated and castrating "religion."

Wagner carries out this psychodrama with such consistency and logic that I can only marvel at the rightness of his instincts.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> I have to think hard before beginning to answer this one. A quick answer that occurs to me is that the popularity of some well-known operas that have convoluted, incomprehensible or unbelievable plots can be explained by their subconscious appeal. An example might be Verdi's Il Trovatore, which I often cite as an example of a wonderful work with a terrible plot. And yet this plot clearly has emotional appeal. Perhaps this points to subconscious explanations?
> 
> I don't know. I admit this is a half-baked answer to a good question. Have to think about it. I could of course take the easy way out and say "Strauss", but that's cheating since Strauss actually read Freud.


If the plot of _Il Trovatore_ has any appeal it must be to the subconscious, since barbecued infants are unlikely to excite many conscious minds. 

In any case an _appeal_ to the subconscious is quite a different thing from a dramatization of subconscious processes through archetypal symbols.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> If the plot of _Il Trovatore_ has any appeal it must be to the subconscious, since barbecued infants are unlikely to excite many conscious minds.
> 
> In any case an _appeal_ to the subconscious is quite a different thing from a dramatization of subconscious processes through archetypal symbols.


Yes, it was the detail of throwing her own kid (by mistake) into the fire just did not ring true to me. No matter which way you look at this, it does not make sense. WHO DOES THAT.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

marceliotstein said:


> it was the detail of throwing her own kid (by mistake) into the fire just did not ring true to me.


the point of such episode is to hint you should no try doing any harm to a noble person, for he is guarded by God, so the harm planned will fall on you instead. Rigoletto has the same message. Verdi plots are not silly or unreasonable, far from that.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> the point of such episode is to hint you should no try doing any harm to a noble person, for he is guarded by God, so the harm planned will fall on you instead. Rigoletto has the same message. Verdi plots are not silly or unreasonable, far from that.


I think there are a number of ways of reading the plot of _Trovatore_. Manrico and the Conte are literally brothers and yet spend the whole opera fighting each other as sworn enemies. Whether for religious or humanist reasons many see the human race as one big brotherhood and wars as a useless tragedy. _Trovatore_ is making that point IMO but intensifying it by having the two male protagonists as literal brothers.

I agree that Verdi's plots aren't as ridiculous as they might seem. Azucena displays quite a few symptoms of mental health problems, it's totally believable that she would throw a baby on the fire (and in the confusion of her grief throw the wrong one). It's grotesque of course, but it's not as if other forms of fiction (think big box office films) are totally believable. Furthermore, when you have the right singers _Trovatore_ is a gripping drama and 100% convincing (Siimionato's late career Azucena was capable of anything).

N.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I think there are a number of ways of reading the plot of _Trovatore_. Manrico and the Conte are literally brothers and yet spend the whole opera fighting each other as sworn enemies. Whether for religious or humanist reasons many see the human race as one big brotherhood and wars as a useless tragedy. _Trovatore_ is making that point IMO but intensifying it by having the two male protagonists as literal brothers.
> 
> I agree that Verdi's plots aren't as ridiculous as they might seem. Azucena displays quite a few symptoms of mental health problems, it's totally believable that she would throw a baby on the fire (and in the confusion of her grief throw the wrong one). It's grotesque of course, but it's not as if other forms of fiction (think big box office films) are totally believable. Furthermore, when you have the right singers _Trovatore_ is a gripping drama and 100% convincing (Siimionato's late career Azucena was capable of anything).
> 
> N.


Yes, I agree. Opera is dealing with the same sort of material that any cinema or literature deals with, and after all, this is not documentary, it's art.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

marceliotstein said:


> Agreed about Wagner and the subconscious, and I think many operas deal with the subconscious. (I believe that is the better word to use, since unconscious means literally unconscious. Even La Sonnambula was in a subconscious state.)





Woodduck said:


> Yes, thanks, I agree about "sub" vs. "un." I revised my post.


For what it's worth, Freud always spoke about the "unconscious."


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

marceliotstein said:


> A quick answer that occurs to me is that the popularity of some well-known operas that have convoluted, incomprehensible or unbelievable plots can be explained by their subconscious appeal. An example might be Verdi's Il Trovatore, which I often cite as an example of a wonderful work with a terrible plot. And yet this plot clearly has emotional appeal. Perhaps this points to subconscious explanations?


Another Verdi candidate might be _La forza del destino_. The opera's very title announces its nightmarish premise that, no matter what you do, a series of the most seemingly improbable events will lead to your destruction.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> For what it's worth, Freud always spoke about the "unconscious."


I find on looking into this that "unconscious" was preferred by Freud and by post-Freudian theorists and clinicians to refer to mental processes occurring beneath the level of awareness, but "subconscious" is sometimes used as a synonym. I don't know what word Wagner used.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Okay, it's possible there is some validity to these explanations for the bizarre backstory of Il Trovatore, or at least for the symbolic meaning of the bizarre backstory. Worth thinking about. I'm intrigued to realize that, yes, both Trovatore and Rigoletto involve attempts to kill "noble" people that backfire in grisly ways. I have never heard such an explanation before. 

If this is true, though, it does exonerate these operas for nonsensical plotting, but at the expense of promoting the really depressing and offensive idea that being born "noble" amounts to an actual spiritual blessing along with supernatural powers. As if the 1% doesn't already get too many breaks.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

WIK:
_Sigmund Freud first used the term "subconscious" in 1893 to describe associations and impulses that are not accessible to consciousness. He later abandoned the term in favor of unconscious, noting the following:__"If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically - to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness - or qualitatively - to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious."
_​_In 1896, in Letter 52, Freud introduced the stratification of mental processes, noting that memory-traces are occasionally re-arranged in accordance with new circumstances. In this theory, he differentiated between Wahrnehmungszeichen ("Indication of perception"), Unbewusstein ("the unconscious") and Vorbewusstein ("the Preconscious"). From this point forward, Freud no longer used the term "subconscious" because, in his opinion, it failed to differentiate whether content and the processing occurred in the unconscious or preconscious mind._

So apparently Freud preferred "unconscious" because it fit his concept better, and it is more specific to his theories. So for general artistic purposes like ours, I prefer the term subconscious, since it implies that these are process which work beneath (sub) the level of consciousness, and are not totally alien (un) or separated from consciousness.

_WIK: Carl Jung said that since there is a limit to what can be held in conscious focal awareness, an alternative storehouse of one's knowledge and prior experience is needed. This alternative storehouse is often referred to as the subconscious.
In the social sciences, the term subconscious, was resurrected in an article by Stajkovic, Locke, and Blair (2006) who referred to subconscious motivation as occurring "without intention, awareness, and conscious guidance." A review of early research on the subconscious can be found in Latham, Stajkovic, and Locke (2010).
Scholars have used other adjectives with similar meanings, such as unconscious, preconscious, and nonconscious, to describe mental processing without conscious awareness. The distinctions among these terms are subtle, *but the term subconscious refers to both mental processing that occurs below awareness, such as the pushing up of unconscious content into consciousness, and to associations and content that reside below conscious awareness, but are capable of becoming conscious again...*
...Psychologists and psychiatrists use the term "unconscious" in traditional practices, where metaphysical and New Age literature, often use the term subconscious.

_The WIK entry for "unconscious" is much shorter:
_Unconscious may refer to:_


_Unconsciousness, the lack of consciousness or responsiveness to people and other environmental stimuli_


_Unconscious mind, the mind operating well outside the attention of the conscious mind *as defined by Sigmund Freud* and others_
_Unconscious, an altered state of consciousness with limited conscious awareness_
_Not conscious_


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Dear Wooduck,

Over the years I have noted your deep interest in Wagner's operas/musical dramas. You and of course many others seek an explanation/meaning of what they are about. Your own views make reliably for stimulating reading. I have read several interpretations and listened to several explorations of the Ring Cycle, listened to and read closely T. und I. and Tannhäuser and am currently exploring Parsifal, having closely read the the libretto several times and followed every word along with the Solti recording (an easy task given the slow progress of the musical narrative). This begs the question then, have the said critiques (this thread being a case in question) enhanced my appreciation of the work(s) that are first and foremost conceived as a musical entertainments, all be it ones of considerable semantic depth. Alas, though interesting, in my particular case, not really. 
I am constantly thrown back on the dilemma of there being a bottomless hermeneutic spiral that any exegesis must invariably encounter and, though undoubtedly interesting as an academic exercise, I question if this is necessary for enjoyment of W.'s Dramas in the sense that I presumed them to have been conceived. Having taught poetry this question has frequently been in the back my mind. Can we enjoy W.'s works without bringing the science of seeking a definitive interpretation to bare? I think we can and I enjoy W.'s works for what I hear and read without trying to fathom a deeper meaning or pedagogical function for which the layers of an onion analogy seems here to be appropriate.

Your thoughts please, sir.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think a lot of the discourse here has been necessary in order to fend off some negative outlooks, and explain some context. Unfortunately.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KRoad said:


> Dear Wooduck,
> 
> Over the years I have noted your deep interest in Wagner's operas/musical dramas. You and of course many others seek an explanation/meaning of what they are about. Your own views make reliably for stimulating reading. I have read several interpretations and listened to several explorations of the Ring Cycle, listened to and read closely T. und I. and Tannhäuser and am currently exploring Parsifal, having closely read the the libretto several times and followed every word along with the Solti recording (an easy task given the slow progress of the musical narrative). This begs the question then, *have the said critiques (this thread being a case in question) enhanced my appreciation of the work(s) that are first and foremost conceived as a musical entertainments, all be it ones of considerable semantic depth. Alas, though interesting, in my particular case, not really.*
> I am constantly thrown back on the dilemma of there being a bottomless hermeneutic spiral that any exegesis must invariably encounter and, though undoubtedly interesting as an academic exercise, *I question if this is necessary for enjoyment of W.'s Dramas in the sense that I presumed them to have been conceived.* Having taught poetry this question has frequently been in the back my mind. *Can we enjoy W.'s works without bringing the science of seeking a definitive interpretation to bare? I think we can and I enjoy W.'s works for what I hear and read without trying to fathom a deeper meaning or pedagogical function for which the layers of an onion analogy seems here to be appropriate.*
> ...


It's characteristic of art that it can be enjoyed on many levels, according to one's capacity or inclination. It's also characteristic that one can approach it and understand it through a variety of concerns and disciplines. After all, art is - or can be - a microcosm of life, originally shaped according to its creator's values, and then interpreted and enjoyed in accordance with ours. Those values may be superficial and transient or profound and eternal, and the only way to determine what they are is to expose ourselves to the artwork with an open spirit and an inquiring mind, and watch what happens inside us as the work performs its function over time.

Everyone who encounters a great work of art will take from it what he wants and needs to take, and everyone's takeaway will be subtly different, guided but not rigidly determined by the content of the work. The only takeaway which is decidedly wrong is one which decides that, once we've gotten from the work all we want, there is nothing more to get, and that others who look further are mistaken, foolish, or perverse in seeking it. To those who have lived with and studied a complex work such as _Parsifal_ and found that it continues to provoke and unfold as more and more of its aesthetic subtleties and symbolic resonances become apparent, such an attitude of dismissal _a priori_ can only appear startlingly ignorant and, possibly, arrogant.

To your particular - and rather skeptical - inquiry, I would only suggest caution in trying to explain the limits of your interest on grounds of what looks like an _a priori_ assumption about Wagner's intentions. When you say "I question if this is necessary for enjoyment of W.'s Dramas in the sense that I presumed them to have been conceived," I have to ask, "In what sense do you presume them to have been conceived"? Perhaps your answer is elsewhere in your post: "work(s) that are first and foremost conceived as musical entertainments, all be it ones of considerable semantic depth." But that, I'm afraid, leaves the question as fog-bound as before.

Going purely on what you've said, I don't know what you're asking, or asserting. Perhaps I've answered you - or, if not, you might clarify.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> It's characteristic of art that it can be enjoyed on many levels, according to one's capacity or inclination. It's also characteristic that one can approach it and understand it through a variety of concerns and disciplines. After all, art is - or can be - a microcosm of life, originally shaped according to its creator's values, and then interpreted and enjoyed in accordance with ours. Those values may be superficial and transient or profound and eternal, and the only way to determine what they are is to expose ourselves to the artwork with an open spirit and an inquiring mind, and watch what happens inside us as the work performs its function over time.
> 
> Everyone who encounters a great work of art will take from it what he wants and needs to take, and everyone's takeaway will be subtly different, guided but not rigidly determined by the content of the work. The only takeaway which is decidedly wrong is one which decides that, once we've gotten from the work all we want, there is nothing more to get, and that others who look further are mistaken, foolish, or perverse in seeking it. To those who have lived with and studied a complex work such as _Parsifal_ and
> 
> ...


To clarify, I feel that W. conceived of his dramas as first and foremost musical entertainments, though being something of a philosopher he clearly put a lot of symbolic and allegorical literary content to open up a broad range of possible interpretation(s). You yourself point out that it is the music itself that provides us, the listener, with aural signposts leading us in directions as to how this content might be best understood. Music as metaphor indeed. My point however is, his works can be enjoyed for what they are i.e. musical entertainments without recourse to esoteric textual interpretations of what they may or may not mean in a broader religious or philosophical context. Such an endeavour, regardless of how interesting this may be in abstraction, leads to issues common with all acts of textual interpretation. I have already alluded to the hermeneutic spiral, but what about the matter of the historicity of understanding? We all bring our cultural, religious and philosophical presuppositions to bare from our position or point in the historical process and this leads to very different interpretations of how audiences understand or even how W. himself conceived of his works.

Take Bernard Shaws Ring interpretation for instance. His take on the Ring was clearly perceived through a Marxist lens; a product very much of the times he was writing in. The Naval Race was kicking off, Jingoism was rearing its head and the question of the day would be: will workers place the interests of the Proletariate before that of Nationalism. This almost certainly coloured B.S's approach. Any such at interpretation then, now and in the future must be subject to the same foibles (for want of a better word).

My point is not that such attempts at interpretation are futile; they are not. They are very interesting in themselves i.e. as attempts to expand our understanding and aesthetic appreciation of the works. However, with W. it really is all in the music and for me this is where it begins and mostly, but not exclusively, ends.

If we read too much between the W.'s lines we run the risk of bumping up against W.'s anti-semitism, in the form of Klingsor, Mime, and Alberich, among others. It is not irrelevant to this discussion in respect of the historicity of understanding to point out that anti-Semitic views were rampant in 19th Century Europe and nurtured by vast swaths of the population. W.'s views were certainly nothing out of the ordinary for the times he was writing in. Regrettably, I suspect the inevitable linkage of this with National Socialism and Hitler prevents many from appreciating W.'s dramas for the works of art they really are.

So the point I am making once more is this: in my view: it really is all there in the _musical _interpretation of the Libretti. To go further or to presuppose ad nauseam a profound underlying meaning risks turning listeners away from what night be an otherwise be an up-lifting aural experience. I am not sure W. would entirely disagree.

BTW: Wooduck I feel _Arrogance_ and _ignorance_ are rather unfortunate words to use in your response to my post. This was not after all the spirit in which I wrote it. Any perceived belligerence, arrogance or ignorance on my part is perhaps best understood as a misinterpretation on yours. Not so much a priory as post-factum then?


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Whoops, an unnecessary double post.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KRoad said:


> To clarify, *I feel that W. conceived of his dramas as first and foremost musical entertainments, though being something of a philosopher he clearly put a lot of symbolic and allegorical literary content to open up a broad range of possible interpretation(s). You yourself point out that it is the music itself that provides us, the listener, with aural signposts leading us in directions as to how this content might be best understood.* ... his works can be enjoyed for what they are i.e. musical entertainments without recourse to esoteric textual interpretations of what they may or may not mean in a broader religious or philosophical context. ...what about the matter of the historicity of understanding? We all bring our cultural, religious and philosophical presuppositions to bare from our position or point in the historical process and this leads to very different interpretations of how audiences understand or even how W. himself conceived of his works.


You're suggesting the term "musical entertainment" as representing what Wagner intended us to see in his works, but that term fails to distinguish between vastly different sorts of productions with very different artistic purposes, and at best tells us nothing specific about Wagner. The composer spent a good percentage of his creative time writing prose works on the nature of musical drama, as well as producing voluminous correspondence and conversation (the latter dutifully recorded in his wife's diaries) in which he left many thoughts on what he wanted his works to be and mean. In the light of what the flood of words he left behind tells us about his purposes, "musical entertainment" sounds like nothing so much as the sort of ear-and-eye-titillating operatic spectacle he intended, from his earliest theoretical speculations, to transcend.

Wagner's repeated insistence that his work had to be understood through its music was not an indication that it contained no other ingredients intended to communicate anything. His works are dramas, and they are carefully constructed dramas. He labored hard at selectively and drastically condensing the raw materials of romance and myth to convey particular dramatic and poetic ideas, and these were the direct inspiration for music of an unprecedented emotional complexity and specificity. Having conceived every aspect of an opera himself, without collaboration, he could and did create highly unified works in which the various elements - plot, character, setting, symbolism and musical expression - are intended to work together and can't be understood fully in isolation. This is not less true merely because his extraordinary music assumes its rightful place as the dominant medium of expression.



> Take Bernard Shaws Ring interpretation for instance. His take on the Ring was clearly perceived through a Marxist lens; a product very much of the times he was writing in. The Naval Race was kicking off, Jingoism was rearing its head and the question of the day would be: will workers place the interests of the Proletariate before that of Nationalism. This almost certainly coloured B.S's approach. Any such at interpretation then, now and in the future must be subject to the same foibles (for want of a better word).
> 
> My point is not that such attempts at interpretation are futile; they are not. They are very interesting in themselves i.e. as attempts to expand our understanding and aesthetic appreciation of the works. However, *with W. it really is all in the music* and for me this is where it begins and mostly, but not exclusively, ends.


I'm afraid you aren't supporting your conclusion that "it really is all in the music," perhaps because you're not making clear what "it all" is. The statement seems to make no sense on its face: if Wagner had wanted to create works in which all meaning resided in the music, he certainly wouldn't have gone to the trouble of creating such unique and complex works for the stage. That he had definite intentions for what occurred on that stage is seen in the abundance of stage directions he provided, as well as in reports from his performers describing the specificity of his demands and the brilliant acting ability with which he demonstrated his wishes in the preparation of his productions at Bayreuth.



> If we read too much between the W.'s lines we run the risk of bumping up against W.'s anti-semitism, in the form of Klingsor, Mime, and Alberich, among others. It is not irrelevant to this discussion in respect of the historicity of understanding to point out that anti-Semitic views were rampant in 19th Century Europe and nurtured by vast swaths of the population. W.'s views were certainly nothing out of the ordinary for the times he was writing in. *Regrettably, I suspect the inevitable linkage of this with National Socialism and Hitler prevents many from appreciating W.'s dramas for the works of art they really are.*


Your last sentence here appears - regrettably, as you say - to be true. But since there is no way definitively to demonstrate antisemitic content in the operas (a question rather extensively addressed in other threads on this forum), there is no particular reason to discuss the matter here, except to say that, since Wagner was not reticent about stating his artistic goals, it would be remarkable for him to have failed ever to mention that particular goal had he entertained it.



> So the point I am making once more is this: in my view: *it really is all there in the musical interpretation of the Libretti. To go further or to presuppose ad nauseam a profound underlying meaning risks turning listeners away from what night be an otherwise be an up-lifting aural experience.* I am not sure W. would entirely disagree.


I'm simply baffled by the assertion that someone's attempt to find meaning in a work of art would discourage others from investigating that work for themselves. I should think that knowing that others have found meaning in something would constitute an attraction to inquiring minds, not a deterrent. In any event, as far as Wagner's works are concerned, that horse has long since left the barn; it left, in fact, as soon as his operas (and his writings about musical drama) appeared for public consumption. The cultural world has always been aware that Wagner's art is about something - about a good many things, actually - and to suggest otherwise at this date is, to me, inexplicable. Your caution about reading things into works of art that may not have been intended by their creators is reasonable, but against it I must offer the observation that meaning in art is inherently transactional - it arises out of the interaction between the content of the work and the mind of its audience - and that this is something any intelligent artist knows and respects. Artists also know that because an artistic inspiration is a wild animal that emerges from the unconscious and must be allowed to live by its own laws, a work is likely to manifest meanings that the artist's rational mind never expected or intended. Wagner's own awareness of the unconscious sources of art and the open-endedness of artistic meaning is stated outright in a letter to his friend August Roeckel, and we can only draw from it a conclusion opposite to yours: that Wagner would have been fascinated by the insights such diverse disciplines as psychology and comparative mythology have contributed to the cumulative, and still ongoing, examination of his works.

The ultimate value of any of these examinations is unimportant. What's important is that the operas are rich and suggestive enough to support the continuing effort to come to terms with them. No one is forced to participate in that effort, of course; if musical entertainment is all you want, there's plenty of that to be had, although to call the agonies of Tristan or Amfortas entertaining may be to stretch language even further than Wagner stretched tonal syntax.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> No one is forced to participate in that effort, of course; if musical entertainment is all you want, there's plenty of that to be had, although to call the agonies of Tristan or Amfortas entertaining may be to stretch language even further than Wagner stretched tonal syntax.


Interesting reply.

I had conceded this point myself before I was automatically logged out and lost my first draft...

I agree we take from his operas that which we can connect and relate to as individuals. How deep we wish to plumb the depths seeking to unravel the mysteries of the meaning of what he might have intended to convey, or how we can relate that which we understand to be the case to the modern world is for each of us to decide. However, since as you say, W. was a prolific writer of prose would not his literary works be a better more appropriate place to seek clarification to some of the questions, that those who are so inclined, believe are posed in his operas?

In respect of Tristan and Amfortas, as sources of entertainment, I wonder in the case of Lear, Othello, Shylock, Macbeth et al. if Shakespeare would be of the same opinion.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The preceding exchange only reinforces my assertion that the purpose of this whole thread is somewhat like an apologia, a formal justification, a defense of Wagner's ideas, in the continuing onslaught against him. KRoad's plea that we "just forget" about the ideas evidently does not fly with such an advocate as Woodduck, who "wants it all" and wants it to be accepted without question. Granted, WD has distilled from Wagner all the good nectar, and has discarded the poison, if, indeed it can even be proven to exist in the work itself. 
But KRoad's plea is a bit like asking Wagnerites to listen only to "Wagner without Words" recordings.

My advice to KRoad is: rather than asking Wagnerites to withdraw, you should be proactive and come forth with a defense of your own assertions, namely the antisemitic content you say is manifest in characters such as Klingsor, Mime, and Alberich.




KRoad said:


> If we read too much between the W.'s lines we run the risk of bumping up against W.'s anti-semitism, in the form of Klingsor, Mime, and Alberich, among others. It is not irrelevant to this discussion in respect of the historicity of understanding to point out that anti-Semitic views were rampant in 19th Century Europe and nurtured by vast swaths of the population. W.'s views were certainly nothing out of the ordinary for the times he was writing in. Regrettably, I suspect the inevitable linkage of this with National Socialism and Hitler prevents many from appreciating W.'s dramas for the works of art they really are.


If these views were so widespread, than why is Wagner so often singled-out as a culprit? If this is your view, then support it; don't ask Wagnerites to ignore a major aspect of Wagner: the dramatic content.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Not sure what you're getting at here.



millionrainbows said:


> The preceding exchange only reinforces my assertion that the purpose of this whole thread is somewhat like an apologia, a formal justification, a defense of Wagner's ideas, in the continuing onslaught against him.


That isn't the purpose of the thread. I think its purpose is clear in its title and in the opening posts.



> KRoad's plea that we "just forget" about the ideas evidently does not fly with such an advocate as Woodduck, who "wants it all" and wants it to be accepted without question.


Wants _what_ to be accepted? Go ahead and question. The only thing Woodduck does _not_ want is people asserting that a discussion such as this is illegitimate or not worth their time, and using the thread purely as an invitation to exhibit their contempt for the subject and for people who take it more seriously than they do. A few people did that right at the start and they were rightly told off. Those who think a subject is not worthwhile should simply avoid it.



> Granted, WD has distilled from Wagner all the good nectar, and has discarded the poison, if, indeed it can even be proven to exist in the work itself.


What poison? How can you discard something that may not even exist?



> My advice to KRoad is: rather than asking Wagnerites to withdraw, you should be proactive and come forth with a defense of your own assertions, namely the antisemitic content you say is manifest in characters such as Klingsor, Mime, and Alberich.


That would not be my advice. I wouldn't presume to offer advice. Everyone is entitled to derive from Wagner whatever they wish. I don't think KRoad has asked Wagnerites to withdraw (whatever that means). He has merely questioned the legitimacy of trying to interpret Wagner's work from certain points of view which may run the risk of imposing on it ideas alien to it. I think the caution is reasonable, but I also think that caution can be taken too far and that the open-ended nature of meaning in art justifies, and even requires, taking some hermeneutical risks. It's virtually a defining characteristic of great art that it has implications unplanned and unseen by its creators.

The possible presence of antisemitism in the operas has been dealt with a number of times on the forum. It's a question that always leads to a dead end and, frankly, the thought of having to deal with it again makes me groan.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> 1. KRoad's plea that we "just forget" about the ideas...
> But KRoad's plea is a bit like asking Wagnerites to listen only to "Wagner without Words" recordings.
> 
> 2. My advice to KRoad is: rather than asking Wagnerites to withdraw, you should be proactive and come forth with a defense of your own assertions, namely the antisemitic content you say is manifest in characters such as Klingsor, Mime, and Alberich.




1. No, not at all. I do not listen to any opera without first reading the libretto very carefully two or three times. This allows me to appreciate how any particular author/composer has set the text to music. Next I listen following the libretto, again two or three times, then, being at this stage familiar with both the textual and musical narratives, I simply listen - minus libretto. You can appreciate this is a timely process in the case of any Baroque or Wagnerian opera - but ultimately very satisfying. And it is on the point of satisfaction that I entered this discussion.

Let me explain. I get home after a long slog at work, tired from having dealt with the daily imponderbilia. I listen to opera to relax and be entertained. This being the case, I am happy to be able to simply follow the plot and listen to how this has been musically interpreted/rendered by composer, singers, conductor and orchestra. I have no where dismissed further attempts at more in-depth analyses of libretti in a search for deeper meaning, (which I have no doubt there _is_ in many cases) as being invalid, its just not my particular thing given the reason I listen to opera.

2. As for anti-semitic content on Wagner's operas, this topic really has been done to death. I guess its there if you choose to look for it. But at my level of interest (opera as a musical entertainment) I do not go looking for it. Klingsor to me is a guy who cut his balls off, was kicked out of the Holy Grail Club for this unseemly act, and who subsequently sought revenge through seducing the guys in shining amour to bonk his harem, Alberich is a greedy little man and Mime a manipulative no gooder. They are the bad guys, proponents of conflict necessary in any drama. At this level Wagner remains good, relatively undemanding entertainment for me.

But I assure you I am no philistine when it comes to deeper semantic probing when in the mood - which clearly I am from time to time given what I have discussed in my previous two posts here and the fact that I am here contributing once more.

I categorically am not asking the Wagnerites (what ever they are) to desist from seeking out deeper meanings, however I have mentioned some of the methodological challenges/considerations which need to be taken into account when approaching this matter in any systematic fashion. If that floats your boat then go for it I say. Its just not _my_ thing. I enjoy W. at my level of understanding for the stated reasons and in most, but not all cases, its enough. I do not think any one needs to be put off W. for fear of not being able to follow an opera at a level of intellectual depth suggested by some of the more esoteric posts on this thread - and I believe some listeners are. I am not seeking to provoke or confront any one, or engage in a slagging match of the type to which threads of this nature so often descend.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, that's my take on it.

I don't consider it "following Wagner at a deep intellectual level," but just having an informed background of the era. This came about as being of benefit for the fundamentalist Christians among us, not antisemites.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

KRoad said:


> his works can be enjoyed for what they are i.e. musical entertainments


music is not entartainment but only disguised as such while in fact being political matters put into sound.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> music is not entartainment but only disguised as such while in fact being political matters put into sound.


Tell that to Kylie or Take That!!:lol:


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> Tell that to Kylie or Take That!!


their not music.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> music is not entartainment but only disguised as such while in fact being political matters put into sound.


One thinks Handel's Oratorios, Haydn, Schosta's symphonies, Beethoven, even Bach's Cantatas as an opioid for the Lutheran masses just off the top of one's head - all can be conceived as politically motivated and/or subsequently manipulated for political ends.

But still, good entertainment along the way. Makes the much bitter pill easier to swallow and one can choose, as in the case Wagner, to limit ones appreciation to an aesthetic level that suites.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I remember scarecrow, and that he was a Marxist. Remember that?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> their not music.


Again, tell that to Kylie or Take That!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

KRoad said:


> One thinks Handel's Oratorios, Haydn, Schosta's symphonies, Beethoven, even Bach's Cantatas as an opioid for the Lutheran masses just off the top of one's head - all can be conceived as politically motivated and/or subsequently manipulated for political ends.
> 
> But still, good entertainment along the way. Makes the much bitter pill easier to swallow and one can choose, as in the case Wagner, to limit ones appreciation to an aesthetic level that suites.


I take it that you aren't taking the estimable Zhdanov seriously here? At least I hope that's the case!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KRoad said:


> One thinks Handel's Oratorios, Haydn, Schosta's symphonies, Beethoven, even Bach's Cantatas as an opioid for the Lutheran masses just off the top of one's head - all can be conceived as politically motivated and/or subsequently manipulated for political ends.


In some limited, targeted formal sense, depending on the approach (Marxist), yes, it is possible to conceive of the works this way. On the other hand, one can critique subjectively (non-formally) by asking questions like, "Was the composer sincere?" In the case of Handel's arias, I am compelled to say YES.



> But still, good entertainment along the way. Makes the much bitter pill easier to swallow and one can choose, as in the case Wagner, to limit ones appreciation to an aesthetic level that suites.


You're making a false distinction. Art can still be profound, even if one is not a Marxist or some other kind of formalist. It can be based on emotion alone.

See Robert Henri: _The Art Spirit_


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> Again, tell that to Kylie or Take That!


okay, i tell them: your not music.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> depending on the approach (Marxist)


how politics a Marxist invention? Ancient Greeks invented it, no?.. ('politika' translates from Greek as 'cities affair')



millionrainbows said:


> "Was the composer sincere?"


what is 'composer' to start with? should he differ from other agitprop men like book writers, architects & painters?



millionrainbows said:


> It can be based on emotion alone.


but emotions are manipulated very well - a perfect tool for politics.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

back on topic, the main point about Parsifal is that it takes on the subject of the knights of The Holy Grail who gradually become prone to corruption but in the end are saved through actions of a 'new leader' who has 'no idea' and thus is pure, i.e. square & straight enough to bring about redemption & resumption.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> okay, i tell them: your not music.


It's clearly not music you take seriously which is fair enough, but it's still music and an awful lot of people like it and for them it is a source of pleasure.

Nothing wrong with that!:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> back on topic, the main point about Parsifal is that it takes on the subject of the knights of The Holy Grail who gradually become prone to corruption but in the end are saved through actions of a 'new leader' who has 'no idea' and thus is pure, i.e. square & straight enough to bring about redemption & resumption.


Aha! I knew the Masons figured in to this somehow...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Aha! I knew the Masons figured in to this somehow...


or the Jesuits, for that matter... but Freemasons would be more likely. Jesuits don't promote leadership.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Early Gnostic Christianity which was practiced geographically nearer to the far east had "buddhistic" influences, if you want to call them that. in 300 A.D., these gnostic books and ideas were expunged from the Bible as we now know it.

In particular, there was a gnostic account of the crucifixion which said that Christ was "detached" during the crucifixion, that he "saw through" what was happening to him as "illusion" or not real (maya).
This idea did not fly with the church fathers in Rome, close to where this Nicene Council in 300 A.D. was compiling the Bible. For them, the "redeeming" of our sins had to be a _real sacrifice_ of Christ's life in order for it to be valid. Otherwise, it would not be a true redemption.

Christianity is not as different or unconnected or separate from ancient or "primitive" pagan religions as some might like us to see it. From a broader perspective, the "garden" myth in Genesis can be found elsewhere in other more ancient incarnations.

I see Wagner's interest in Christianity as part of his general interest in mythology; it's well-known that by the nineteenth century, the common thought was that Christ was human, the virgin birth was questioned, and Christian myths were seen as myths, in this sense similar to other more ancient mythologies.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Early Gnostic Christianity which was practiced geographically nearer to the far east had "buddhistic" influences, if you want to call them that. in 300 A.D., *these gnostic books* and ideas were expunged from the Bible as we now know it.
> 
> In particular, there was a gnostic account of the crucifixion which said that Christ was "detached" during the crucifixion, that he "saw through" what was happening to him as "illusion" or not real (maya).
> This idea did not fly with the church fathers in Rome, close to where this Nicene Council in 300 A.D. was compiling the Bible. For them, the "redeeming" of our sins had to be a _real sacrifice_ of Christ's life in order for it to be valid. Otherwise, it would not be a true redemption.
> ...


They were never part of the Bew a Testament literature. The New Testament I'd as unconnected from paganism as can be. Why do you think Paul talks about 'turning from idols to serve the living Gpd.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> They were never part of the Bew a Testament literature. The New Testament I'd as unconnected from paganism as can be. Why do you think Paul talks about 'turning from idols to serve the living Gpd.'


My above post applies more to the Old Testament.

_Still, _the nineteenth-century "demythologizing" of the New Testament, which even denies the immortality of Christ, is what I wish to connect with Wagner's use of Christian themes in Parsifal. This was a new perspective which it is safe to say that Wagner shared;_ in fact the details of this connection, with sources, were already discussed in the early posts on this thread.
_
The New Testament miracles were mythology to Wagner, perhaps even connecting him to gnostic ideas, which shared similarities to buddhism (thus this thread's raison d'être), and because of that were rejected by the Nicene council as they compiled the New Testament (see crucifixion account described above).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> My above post applies more to the Old Testament.
> 
> _Still, _*the nineteenth-century "demythologizing" of the New Testament, which even denies the immortality of Christ,* is what I wish to connect with Wagner's use of Christian themes in Parsifal. This was a new perspective which it is safe to say that Wagner shared;_ in fact the details of this connection, with sources, were already discussed in the early posts on this thread.
> _
> The New Testament miracles were mythology to Wagner, perhaps even connecting him to gnostic ideas, which shared similarities to buddhism (thus this thread's raison d'être), and because of that were rejected by the Nicene council as they compiled the New Testament (see crucifixion account described above).


yes I would agree with that. But the de-mythologysing of the New Testament was done by men who were practically pagans anyway.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Early Gnostic Christianity which was practiced geographically nearer to the far east had "buddhistic" influences, if you want to call them that. in 300 A.D., these gnostic books and ideas were expunged from the Bible as we now know it.
> 
> In particular, there was a gnostic account of the crucifixion which said that Christ was "detached" during the crucifixion, that he "saw through" what was happening to him as "illusion" or not real (maya).
> This idea did not fly with the church fathers in Rome, close to where this Nicene Council in 300 A.D. was compiling the Bible. For them, the "redeeming" of our sins had to be a _real sacrifice_ of Christ's life in order for it to be valid. Otherwise, it would not be a true redemption.
> ...


The gnostic texts in particular were not unearthed until the 20th century, so that Wagner wouldn't have been familiar with them. I suspect he would have found them as interesting as he did other religious ideas, but I'm pretty sure that the gnostic's radical dualism - it's irreconcileable sepration of the material and spiritual realms - wouldn't have been sympathetic to him or provided him with dramatic material.

As for the idea that Wagner's interest in Christianity was similar to his interest in pagan myths, it's true that he used both in his operas; he was working on a Buddhist opera too (_Die Sieger_ - "The Victors") which never got composed but some themes of which were absorbed by _Parsifal._ The difference, though, is that the old Norse myths were of purely artistic use to him, while both Christianity and Eastern religious thought became part of his philosophy of life. He had Hindu and Buddhist writings in his library, understood the Buddhist influence on his pet philosopher Schopenhauer, and knew the writings of Feuerbach and other philosophers of religion who were "deconstructing" Christianity.

That said, I believe that his specifically artistic purpose in employing the different mythologies from these sources was fundamentally the same, and that we can trace through them the evolution of his personal philosophical development. Right at the head of his essay "Religion and Art" (1880), Wagner wrote:

_"One might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognising the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through representational imagery." 
_
This statement can describe his purpose in the _Ring_ as well as in _Parsifal,_ regardless of the fact that he never described himself as a "pagan" but did, in his late years, call himself a Christian. _Parsifal _has been called "the fifth opera of the _Ring_," and it carries forward the _Ring'_s theme of the human struggle for a moral consciousness liberated from both personal egoism and the rigid power structures which are the instruments by which ego imposes itself on natural life. The reign of the old gods is destroyed in the _Ring _by the disobedience and conscious sacrifice of Brunnhilde, who opposes love to power. But this wasn't the end of the story, and Wagner tells it again in _Parsifal,_ this time representing the old gods - the institutions of power and the dogmas and egoism that sustain them - by the religious order of the Grail and its "chief god," Titurel. Like Wotan in the _Ring,_ who shares a love of power with his alter ego, the Nibelung Alberich, Titurel shares his hold on the spirit with his "shadow" (in the Jungian sense) the sorcerer Klingsor, and both pairs are bound together helplessly, locked in a power struggle of righteousness/depravity, the yin and yang of legalistic morality, from which only the spirit of love can release them. Parsifal, the "innocent fool," like Siegfried a child of nature, is what Siegfried was intended, but failed, to be.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> _Still, _the nineteenth-century "demythologizing" of the New Testament, which even denies the immortality of Christ, is what I wish to connect with Wagner's use of Christian themes in Parsifal. This was a new perspective which it is safe to say that Wagner shared;_ in fact the details of this connection, with sources, were already discussed in the early posts on this thread._


_

What's fascinating is how Parsifal "demythologizes" Christianity but then "remythologizes" it by selecting images and ideas from both Biblical and medieval literary sources, along with less obvious but clear references to Buddhism.




The New Testament miracles were mythology to Wagner, perhaps even connecting him to gnostic ideas, which shared similarities to buddhism (thus this thread's raison d'être), and because of that were rejected by the Nicene council as they compiled the New Testament (see crucifixion account described above).

Click to expand...

As I suggested above, Wagner wouldn't have accepted gnosticism's radical metaphysical dualism._


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

"The gnostic texts in particular were not unearthed until the 20th century, so that Wagner wouldn't have been familiar with them."

Were these specific texts that were unearthed later?

A prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Luchesi said:


> Were these specific texts that were unearthed later?
> 
> A prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.


I'm thinking of the Nag Hammadi Library, discovered in Egypt in 1945. This includes a large number of the best-known "Gnostic Gospels" such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth, once thought to have been lost during the early centuries of Christianity. In checking this, I see that there were some other gnostic texts discovered during the late 19th century, and a few earlier than that, but I'm unaware of Wagner having any knowledge of them.

Wagner's antipathy toward the Judeo-Christian deity, Jehovah, and his fascination with the mystical redeemer Christ, might be seen as somewhat parallel to the gnostic view that the creator of the material world, the demiurge, is separate from the supreme divinity and represents the realm of darkness and evil from which "gnosis" in Christ affords an escape. In this light, Parsifal's enlightenment, which occurs independent of any religious doctrine or institution, might be seen as gnosis. It's another way of looking at a many-faceted work of symbolism that's generated many interpretations.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

^^^^^^

Yes, we're lucky today that even with a casual interest in Gnosticism we can read much more than was available to Wagner.

I wonder what Wagner would've thought of

"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors"
published in 1875


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Luchesi said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> Yes, we're lucky today that even with a casual interest in Gnosticism we can read much more than was available to Wagner.
> 
> ...


Never heard of that, but looking it up I see that it's a study of the many versions of the savior god concept in world mythologies. I don't know what Wagner would have thought about a multiplicity of savior figures. Given his broad reading in religion, it certainly wouldn't have surprised him.

It's noteworthy that the libretto of _Parsifal_ refers only generically to the crucified "savior" and nowhere calls him "Jesus" or the "Christ." The knight Gurnemanz describes the "savior's angel messengers" delivering the Holy Grail into the hands of Titurel for safekeeping, but nowhere in the text does the word "God" appear. It's my impression that Wagner had no desire to posit any version or equivalent of the egotistical, capricious, violent superperson he saw in the Judeo-Christian God, and that if he believed in any sort of transcendent being it would have been along the lines of the Hindu "ultimate reality," Brahman. The "savior" was, for him, not a god but the image of ideal Man, perfect in both limitless compassion and the complete transcendence of desire, and this fusion of Christian and Buddhist ideals is the primary theme of the story of _Parsifal._ The character of Parsifal seems to present the spiritual ideal of compassion and renunciation/detachment much as Buddhism presents it, as something to realize fully in oneself, and as something gained through sudden insight into the nature of life. Despite the Christian imagery in the opera, Wagner dismissed the suggestion that Parsifal represented Christ ("What? Christ a tenor?", he snorted), but the idea of Parsifal as a Buddha figure, a sheltered boy awakened to compassion by the sight of suffering, seems quite plausible.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

While it may be true that Wagner was a "Christian," his was a mythologized version, in keeping with the new Christian revisionists such as Feuerbach and other philosophers of religion who were "deconstructing" Christianity.

Why does it matter what Wagner the man actually believed in relation to his art? We've already separated him from Norse (pagan) mythology. Why is this necessary? He was using mythology as symbols. It seems to me that he was using the Christian symbols independently of what he subscribed to as "truth." A myth is a myth. What is the "gain" whether or not he subscribed to any of the symbols in his art, be they Christian or Norse? Why is it necessary to separate Gnostic ideas? Aren't they similar to Eastern ideas?

Since this new form of Christianity was demythologized, the separation of gnostic principles (material life is an illusion, to be enlightened means to see through the illusion) by the orthodox Roman Church fathers loses much of its credibility. This gnostic interpretation is basically a buddhistic idea, expunged for political reasons as well; the power was in Rome.

Since Wagner was interested in eastern religion as well, I question the reasons behind such a separation. How does the idea of Christ's detachment "degrade" Christian ideas when it has already been demythologized (no immortal Christ, not son of God, no virgin birth, etc.)? Does Wagner believe Man was "redeemed" by the actual death-sacrifice?

If not, what specific Eastern ideas "pass muster" in order to be compatible, and why this concern with Wagner's personal beliefs, which lie outside the formal boundaries of the art?


----------



## Schopenhauer (Jan 9, 2020)

It is a christian opera, but the Schopenhauer's version of Christianism. For Schopenhauer, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianism all shared the idea of denial of the will, which I think is at the core of the story of Parsifal.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Schopenhauer said:


> It is a christian opera, but the Schopenhauer's version of Christianism. For Schopenhauer, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianism all shared the idea of denial of the will, which I think is at the core of the story of Parsifal.


Schopenhauer was an atheist who did not believe in an afterlife. How could he have had any idea of Christianity? Parsifal has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Schopenhauer was an atheist who did not believe in an afterlife. How could he have had any idea of Christianity?


Good grief, do you not realize how totally "tone deaf" your reply is? 
I was born into a catholic family and had Christianity rammed into my mind from infant school until the age of 18; schools where morning assembly with hymns and readings from the bible was obligatory; schools where RE (Religious Education) was obligatory.
Then, about the age of 14, whilst singing a hymn about "the Lamb of God" I suddenly woke up and realized I didn't believe this crap anymore. 
I thus *became an atheist* and *had plenty of ideas of what Christianity was all about*.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Good grief, do you not realize how totally "tone deaf" your reply is?
> I was born into a catholic family and had Christianity rammed into my mind from infant school until the age of 18; schools where morning assembly with hymns and readings from the bible were obligatory; schools where RE (Religious Education) was obligatory.
> Then, about the age of 14, whilst singing a hymn about "the Lamb of God" I suddenly woke up and realized I didn't believe this crap anymore.
> I thus *became an atheist* and *had plenty ideas of what Christianity was all about*.


If you had taken the trouble to read the rest of my post other than the piece you quoted and also the context in which it was made, then you would have realised that I was actually replying to another post. I don't believe in the stuff atheists talk but I hope I'm not rude enough to call other people's beliefs 'crap' on a forum. I would've hoped we are beyond that sort of thing in a civilised discussion . But I do realise people like you feel you have every right to name-call other people's beliefs. Of course if you knew anything about Christianity as you claim you would realise of course that being an atheist Schopenhauer's beliefs were incompatible with Christianity and similarly Parsifal is not a Christian opera if we mean the Christianity of the New Testament. But I think that point has already been made by others than me so I don't know why you get so uptight about it. If you had read the context you would realise it was not my reply that was 'tone deaf' but your reading of it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Let's please focus on Parsifal and it's relation to religion rather than make comments about other members. Also please do not post purely religious comments which have no direct relation to Parsifal (or Wagner's other operas). Some posts were removed.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2020)

DavidA said:


> If you had taken the trouble to read the rest of my post other than the piece you quoted and also the context in which it was made, then you would have realised that I was actually replying to another post. I don't believe in the stuff atheists talk but I hope I'm not rude enough to call other people's beliefs 'crap' on a forum. I would've hoped we are beyond that sort of thing in a civilised discussion . But I do realise people like you feel you have every right to name-call other people's beliefs. Of course if you knew anything about Christianity as you claim you would realise of course that being an atheist Schopenhauer's beliefs were incompatible with Christianity and similarly Parsifal is not a Christian opera if we mean the Christianity of the New Testament. But I think that point has already been made by others than me so I don't know why you get so uptight about it. If you had read the context you would realise it was not my reply that was 'tone deaf' but your reading of it.


It will probably take me several days to unpick this rather incoherent post. When I get a quick tea-break I'll attend to it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If Wagner's "savior" was the ideal man, self-realized, this is similar to buddhism. Christian imagery is thus used for its psychological significance, not for its being "the truth" or as a dogma. Schopenhauer needs to be seen in light of this as well. 

Some here are using a "dogma" argument which inevitably takes us back into an area which really has little relevance to Wagner, his thought, or his use of symbolic and religiously-derived imagery. This is a discussion firstly about art, not religion per se.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Schopenhauer was an atheist who did not believe in an afterlife. How could he have had any idea of Christianity? Parsifal has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament.


I thought this was cleared up in the early stages of the discussion. Parsifal was Wagner's use of _Christian-derived_ themes and imagery, as vehicles to reveal psychological and moral truths. The "Christianity" referred to is not "New Testament" Christianity, but a demythologized version which does not believe in the immortality of Christ, the virgin birth, etc., and is not attempting to convey a Christian message.

It seems that this is a defense of a "fort" that was abandoned over 250 posts ago. Do we need reminding of this?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I thought this was cleared up in the early stages of the discussion. Parsifal was Wagner's use of _Christian-derived_ themes and imagery, as vehicles to reveal psychological and moral truths. The "Christianity" referred to is not "New Testament" Christianity, but a demythologized version which does not believe in the immortality of Christ, the virgin birth, etc., and is not attempting to convey a Christian message.
> 
> It seems that this is a defense of a "fort" that was abandoned over 250 posts ago. Do we need reminding of this?


Yes, we're reminded that people believe things wholeheartedly without repeatable evidence. Every religious person becomes a believer in the psychologically-offered proposals of their religious stories and claims. The same is true about Wagner and anti-semitism. It's emotional, because he did write some pamphlets..

So the problem is evidence, whether we are discussing christology or Hinduism or Wagner. And people will continue to argue about their favorite notions. It's emotional. But since there's no reliable evidence there'll be no end to this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> While it may be true that Wagner was a "Christian," his was a mythologized version, in keeping with the new Christian revisionists such as Feuerbach and other philosophers of religion who were "deconstructing" Christianity.


I would say that Wagner's Christianity was DE-mythologized, not mythologized. He had no use for magical virgin births or walking on water. There is only the crucifixion of an ideal man, who is not the incarnation of a Judaic sky god.



> Why does it matter what Wagner the man actually believed in relation to his art?
> We've already separated him from Norse (pagan) mythology. Why is this necessary? He was using mythology as symbols. It seems to me that he was using the Christian symbols independently of what he subscribed to as "truth." A myth is a myth. What is the "gain" whether or not he subscribed to any of the symbols in his art, be they Christian or Norse?


I find the above confusing, but knowing something about Wagner's personal beliefs aids our understanding of the symbolism in _Parsifal, _a work which has been interpreted in a variety of ways and which many people simply find baffling. I think its basic concept is pretty clear, but the overtones of its symbols can lead us in a variety of directions, including comparative mythology and psychology (which in thinkers like Jung amount to more or less the same thing).



> Why is it necessary to separate Gnostic ideas? Aren't they similar to Eastern ideas?


Similar, but... Was Wagner a gnostic? No. Does _Parsifal_ suggest a gnostic conception of salvation? Not to me.



> Since this new form of Christianity was demythologized, the separation of gnostic principles (material life is an illusion, to be enlightened means to see through the illusion) by the orthodox Roman Church fathers loses much of its credibility. This gnostic interpretation is basically a buddhistic idea, expunged for political reasons as well; the power was in Rome.


Gnosticism does not consider material reality an illusion. It holds that the material world is real but evil, the creation of a demiurge, and that salvation consists of escaping it. I don't find this fundamental dualism in _Parsifal._



> Since Wagner was interested in eastern religion as well, I question the reasons behind such a separation.


Hinduism and Buddhism aren't gnosticism. We should be clear about differences. Gnosticism is just not relevant.



> Does Wagner believe Man was "redeemed" by the actual death-sacrifice? If not, what specific Eastern ideas "pass muster" in order to be compatible, and why this concern with Wagner's personal beliefs, which lie outside the formal boundaries of the art?


Wagner saw Christ's sacrifice as the expression of total empathy and compassion, so complete that he was willing to experience all human suffering as his own and give up his life. As for the actual "mechanism" of human salvation, that's the "mystery" of Christianity and I don't know what his views were, if he even had any. I can only say that in _Parsifal,_ redemption comes about through Parsifal's empathy with suffering, achieved through several experiences leading to insight: the killing of the swan, the witnessing of the wounded Amfortas at the Grail ceremony, and the temptation to regress to pure self-gratification in the garden of Klingsor, a temptation he rejects as he realizes that Amfortas' wound represents the yielding to that very temptation. Parsifal's rejection of Kundry's seduction is the critical turning point at which a selfish child becomes a morally responsible man, capable of forswearing self-interest and serving others. This is symbolized in the healing of Amfortas and the final unveiling of the Grail.

(An interesting Buddhist connection: Parsifal's enlightenment through the experience of empathic suffering echoes the experiences of Prince Siddhartha, the Buddha, who was awakened to the need to seek enlightenment by observing instances of pain and mortality. There is a story about Siddhartha's compassion for a swan shot by a companion, which seems to have found its way into the opera via a poem written by Mathilde Wesendonck, several of whose poems Wagner set to music in his _Wesendonck Lieder._)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, we're reminded that people believe things wholeheartedly without repeatable evidence. Every religious person becomes a believer in the psychologically-offered proposals of their religious stories and claims. The same is true about Wagner and anti-semitism. It's emotional, because he did write some pamphlets..
> 
> So the problem is evidence, whether we are discussing christology or Hinduism or Wagner. And people will continue to argue about their favorite notions. It's emotional. But since there's no reliable evidence there'll be no end to this.


There are other indirect connections to be made, concerning not "evidence" per se, but symbolic imagery which follows similar threads or has parallels in usage with other factions or social trends.

So, my answer to the OP is "none of the above."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> It will probably take me several days to unpick this rather incoherent post. When I get a quick tea-break I'll attend to it.


Please also have the regards to the moderators request


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I didn't conflate Gnostic Christian beliefs with Buddhism; I simply said they had flavors of "Eastern" thought, and geographically, they originated further to the East, away from Rome, and were expunged by the Nicene council.

_"Early Gnostic Christianity which was practiced geographically nearer to the far east had "buddhistic" influences, if you want to call them that. in 300 A.D., these gnostic books and ideas were expunged from the Bible as we now know it.

In particular, there was a gnostic account of the crucifixion which said that Christ was "detached" during the crucifixion, that he "saw through" what was happening to him as "illusion" or not real (maya).
This idea did not fly with the church fathers in Rome, close to where this Nicene Council in 300 A.D. was compiling the Bible. For them, the "redeeming" of our sins had to be a __real sacrifice of Christ's life in order for it to be valid. Otherwise, it would not be a true redemption."

_This was all to show that there were Eastern quasi-buddhistic influences in Christianity early on, and the idea that Wagner was interested in both is not that far-fetched or impossible to reconcile.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> So, my answer to the OP is "none of the above."


You forgot to say, "Spoiler alert!"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Post #263 now has disturbing resonances, unfortunately. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't conflate Gnostic Christian beliefs with Buddhism; I simply said they had flavors of "Eastern" thought, and geographically, they originated further to the East, away from Rome, and were expunged by the Nicene council.
> 
> _"Early Gnostic Christianity which was practiced geographically nearer to the far east had "buddhistic" influences, if you want to call them that. in 300 A.D., these gnostic books and ideas were expunged from the Bible as we now know it.
> 
> ...


There is apparently long-standing uncertainty and controversy over the origins of gnosticism. A far-eastern influence is only one theory. I don't presume to have a theory of my own.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Post #263 now has disturbing resonances, unfortunately. :lol:


What do you mean?


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Please also have the regards to the moderators request


Sorry, I don't understand the syntax; please advise.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

For the purposes of this thread, I agree that Wagner (the man) was Christian, in the best sense of the word, and that this explains his use of imagery in Parsifal, and neatly takes care of The Ring and puts it in perspective as well.

As we are talking about _Wagner's_ art, though, it seems that it is necessary to bring in non-formal elements and details about the artist as a person, his beliefs, whether he was sincere, what his intent was, etc.

This follows principles of a non-formal analysis. That seems to be how it goes; the more one knows about a composer, the more conjecture can be made designed to 'back up' any formal conclusions or aspects of the art. 
Of course, both approaches are valid, but it seems that non-formal analysis (using inter-subjective factors) makes it harder to view the art as a dispassionate outsider. There could be contradictions as well...

Also, unless we are looking at the formal aspects in a more objective formal manner rather than bringing in subjective content (the artist's intent, ostensible beliefs, etc.), it opens the door to all sorts of other outside influences, especially since the artist is not isolated, but is part of his milieu. It's a double-edged sword.

I'm beginning to see some tensions in the use of Wagner's Christian beliefs and the application of this biographical informationto the uses of Christian themes and symbols in his art.

We already established in the early parts of the thread that the Christianity which influenced him was a revised nineteenth century version, not orthodox and doctrinaire. It seems that if there is no essential _moral_ distinction, then Parsifal might as well be considered as a Christian opera in the best sense of the word (minus the orthodox insistence on miracles, etc.).

As it stands, I see no reason to disqualify Parsifal from such consideration. If there anything in this new revised version of Christianity which might give one pause, it has not surfaced (besides the usual orthodox belief-system reasoning).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> For the purposes of this thread, I agree that Wagner (the man) was Christian, in the best sense of the word, and that this explains his use of imagery in Parsifal, and neatly takes care of The Ring and puts it in perspective as well.


I'm reminded that Wagner's grandson Wieland, whose innovative and beautiful productions defined Bayreuth in the '50s and '60s, said that Wagner's operas were "above all Christian," and that he wasn't speaking only of _Parsifal._



> As we are talking about _Wagner's_ art, though, it seems that it is necessary to bring in non-formal elements and details about the artist as a person, his beliefs, whether he was sincere, what his intent was, etc.
> 
> I'm beginning to see some tensions in the use of Wagner's Christian beliefs and the application of this biographical informationto the uses of Christian themes and symbols in his art.
> 
> ...


The question of how "truly Christian" Parsifal is will surely remain unsettled. There are some orthodox Christians who say it's utterly heretical and who find its use of the Eucharist and other Biblical references (e.g., baptism and foot-washing) offensive, but others who are not merely untroubled but deeply moved. The late Basilian priest and music scholar Father M. Owen Lee wrote and spoke eloquently on Wagner, and I recall that his intermission talk about _Parsifal_ on a Met opera broadcast many years ago was quite eloquent and inspiring; he was not merely untroubled by the work's original mix of mythical imagery, but found deep meaning in it. An obituary notice for Father Lee says: 'His thoughts on "Parsifal" were further elaborated in his book on the meaning of Quests ("The Olive-tree Bed") which also provided an inspiring Jungian interpretation of the quests of Homer's Odysseus, Goethe's Faust, and Virgil's Aeneas.' Father Lee was one of those Christian thinkers in the best Catholic tradition who, like Thomas Merton, were able to look beneath the surface of orthodox theological ideas and find essential spiritual (or psychological - take your pick) values that transcend specific religious creeds.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I wonder what Wieland meant by "Christian," exactly? Did he believe in the divinity of Christ, or miracles as well?

If Father M. Owen Lee found Parsifal inspiring, then he is a Wagnerian of good will, who sees the work for what it is on the face of its symbolism and content as an art object.

The question of "how Christian" (or what kind of Christianity) Parsifal is has no answer in formal terms, since a formal analysis excludes inter-subjective functions of art, and accompanying biographical extrapolations of art, which assume that the artwork is not merely a detached "object" or artifact, but a highly-charged symbolic expression of aspects of the artist's being as it interfaces with us. 
And really, to be honest, we should concede that it's just art, not religion. The fact that Parsifal uses religious imagery confuses the issue further. Is this a conceit?

Perhaps the rift will exist because some _are able_ to make this separation, and see Parsifal for what it is, _as an art work_, on terms of its formal content, in favor of its obvious symbolic meaning; and some are not able to do this. For them, art is art, and religion is religion.

The ability of someone like Father Lee to look beneath orthodox theological ideas and find spiritual/psychological values does connect Parsifal to Christian values, as far as those values can be presented; but no art work can contain everything. Wagner was selective in what he included and excluded.

Also, Father Lee is selective in what he chooses to see as "relevant" crossover aspects of Parsifal's Christianity which would connect it with essential spiritual/moral values. Value are values, but there is a limit. To confuse Christianity with art could be a mistake, because of what the art has left out and ignored.

Perhaps it is a mistake to separate "essential spiritual and psychological values" from Christianity, then turn right around and use them in art, clothed in the same trappings and imagery. It's confusing, unless that was the intent: to make an artwork into a religion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I wonder what Wieland meant by "Christian," exactly? Did he believe in the divinity of Christ, or miracles as well?


I don't know Wieland's personal beliefs. I suspect he was referring mainly to the themes of self-transcendence and redeeming sacrifice, at least in the _Ring_ and _Parsifal._ Brunnhilde, at the end of _Gotterdammerung_, voluntarily joins Siegfried in death, praising love, as the flames of the funeral pyre seize and destroy the gods' and their reign of power, greed and violence, freeing humanity to try to make a better world. Parsifal voluntarily chooses compassion over self-gratification, embarks upon arduous years of wandering in search of the Grail, and is thus able to heal the wound of Amfortas, the symbol of the spiritual malaise afflicting the order of Titurel who, like Wotan, dies as the new order is born. In each case there is a volitional sacrificial act by an individual, and the necessity of death preceding a new birth.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't think Parsifal is a "religious" opera, whatever that might mean. It's certainly not a religious work in the same way Bach's Cantatas are, because the belief systems are different.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I was walking thru the park one day...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think Parsifal is a "religious" opera, whatever that might mean. It's certainly not a religious work in the same way Bach's Cantatas are, because the belief systems are different.


The difference is more radical than a matter of belief systems.

Bach was an employee of the church. Any messages his cantatas and passions conveyed had to be compatible with the church's teaching; their texts consisted mainly of passages from the Bible, and their subjects were generally dictated by liturgical purposes, according to the calendar, tradition, and specific ceremonies. Their function was to support an institution of religion.

_Parsifal_ is not only an artist's personal expression, incompatible with the doctrines of any established religion. Its message is anti-institutional; as I interpret it, it tells the story of a religious order corrupted from within by the tendency of human nature to egoize morality - to identify it with obedience to the regime and the observance of law, thus resulting in corruption and cruelty and the need for redemption by a "pure fool," whose morality is a matter of the heart.

Viewing _Parsifal _this way suggests the possibilty of seeing in it a criticism of institutional religion in general, but more fundamentally of authoritarianism in general. But it's also at this point that we can see in this opera, and in Wagner's work in general, his rejection of Judaism as he understood it. He viewed Jehovah, the god of the Jews, as a horrific creature, dictatorial, cruel, warlike, demanding absolute obedience, and determined to gain imperial power over the whole world. To the extent that the Christian church inherited this monstrous delty and attempted to claim universal hegemony in his name, _Parsifal_ places institutional Christianity under the same condemnation. The fact that Wagner considered the opera a Christian work shows that he wanted to "rescue" what he regarded as the true religion of Christ from Judaic influences. The idea of a non-Judaic Christianity was not original with him, but he was bound to find it appealing, and it became basic to his views on Jewishness.

One of the interesting aspects of this, as far as the effort to find antisemitic representations in the characters in Wagner's operas is concerned, is that the logical place to look for a critical portrayal of "Jewishness" is not in dwarves and comic villains but in those characters who wield power, specifically legalistic or institutional power: in the _Ring,_ Wotan, and in _Parsifal,_ Titurel. I put "Jewishness" in quotes, because the theme of anti-authoritarianism and of power as a corruption of nature is of broad human significance, and there is no artistic necessity of discovering in it a specifically antisemitic message. The innocent fool, Parsifal, is a rebuke to all forms of egoism, power and domination, as was Brunnhilde in the _Ring._ In both works the gods that must be overthrown are not specifically Jewish.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I was walking thru the park one day...


In the merry, merry month of May!

Sorry, couldn't resist it. :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I wonder what Wieland meant by "Christian," exactly?
> 
> T.
> 
> ...


I remember reading Wolfgang Wagner's autobiography in which he expressed the view that 'Wieland was no saint'


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I remember reading Wolfgang Wagner's autobiography in which he expressed the view that 'Wieland was no saint'


How is this relevant to anything? How many saints live in your house?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Then to say Wagner considered Parsifal to be a "Christian" opera is a somewhat misleading statement, as is the thread title question. It's certainly not an orthodox "belief-in-miracles" Christianity, but a modified version which rejects miracles and the OT, and unfortunately reflects this trend as it took place on a larger stage, with perhaps different aims.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Then to say Wagner considered Parsifal to be a "Christian" opera is a somewhat misleading statement, as is the thread title question.


To say that Wagner considered Parsifal to be a "Christian" opera is not misleading. He did, by his own statements, consider it to be a Christian opera ("this most Christian of works," he said at one point). There is also nothing misleading about the thread title's question. _Parsifal_ must, in fact, be considered a "Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither," by any definition of those terms we might use to judge it. Choosing any of them doesn't imply that it can't be something more as well. Since I see no necessity of defining "Christian" or "Buddhist" in narrowly orthodox terms (and _which_ orthodoxy, by the way?), I think it's Christian, Buddhist, and something more. The whole point here is to see in what ways it incorporates these religious traditions.



> It's certainly not an orthodox "belief-in-miracles" Christianity, but a modified version which rejects miracles and the OT, and unfortunately reflects this trend as it took place on a larger stage, with perhaps different aims.


Why "unfortunately"? I don't know any Christians who accept the OT entire. Christianity, to most Christians, is not Judaism. And for that matter a great many Jews of liberal persuasion don't accept the OT entire.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As I see it, what Wagner meant when he said "this most Christian of works" is his own interpretation, which reflects a very specific version of "Christianity" which was emerging at the time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> As I see it, what Wagner meant when he said "this most Christian of works" is his own interpretation, which reflects a very specific version of "Christianity" which was emerging at the time.


What very specific version do you mean? I don't see _Parsifal_ reflecting any _specific _version current then or since, although it shows influences from some of the philosophical thought of the time. It's a highly idiosyncratic creation, and the longer you look at it the more peculiar it seems. It makes an attempt, unprecedented in art and for the most part elsewhere, to reconcile Christianity with Buddhism by finding some common essence, and goes beyond even syncretism when it utilizes nominally Christian symbols - the Grail of the Last Supper and the Spear of Longinus - in a way that unmistakably suggests female and male sexual archetypes (the blood-filled bowl and the pointed weapon) and so points at once backward to their pagan origins and forward to the psychoanalytic study of myth. Wagner had a unique, intuitive grasp of the psychological meanings of mythic (which includes religious) archetypes; things which he represented or suggested in symbolic theater and music had to wait for the 20th century for others, such as Jung and Joseph Campbell, to explicate in words. As an artist he seemed to live in the realm of the "collective unconscious," where the myths of different traditions meet and merge across time and space.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

We've already discussed an emerging form of Christianity in the nineteenth century which was the result of whole different way of looking at religion, and this included that Jesus was not Jewish but Greek, that the OT was separate from the NT, the God of Israel was 'meaner' and not Jesus' "father," and more. I thought this point was already established.

Rather than idiosyncratic, I see Parsifal and Wagner as influenced by this new strain of thought (Schleiermacher, etc). You can call this 'religion' or 'philosophy;' I've always seen the two as very similar.
_
Religion is the outcome neither of the fear of death, nor of the fear of God. It answers a deep need in man. It is neither a metaphysic, nor a morality, but above all and essentially an intuition and a feeling. ... Dogmas are not, properly speaking, part of religion: rather it is that they are derived from it. Religion is the miracle of direct relationship with the infinite; and dogmas are the reflection of this miracle. Similarly belief in God, and in personal immortality, are not necessarily a part of religion; one can conceive of a religion without God, and it would be pure contemplation of the universe; the desire for personal immortality seems rather to show a lack of religion, since religion assumes a desire to lose oneself in the infinite, rather than to preserve one's own finite self. - Schleiermacher_

So this seems to replace God with "being" as feeling and intuition, and the desire to "lose oneself in the infinite." Definitely not orthodox, and fundamentalists might say "heresy." 
Yet, this could still be called a "religion" in the broader sense. 
I disagree that this was all Wagner's idea, or that he was superior to Jung and Campbell, or a 'super-philosopher.'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> We've already discussed an emerging form of Christianity in the nineteenth century which was the result of whole different way of looking at religion, and this included that Jesus was not Jewish but Greek, that the OT was separate from the NT, the God of Israel was 'meaner' and not Jesus' "father," and more. I thought this point was already established.
> 
> Rather than idiosyncratic, I see Parsifal and Wagner as influenced by this new strain of thought (Schleiermacher, etc). You can call this 'religion' or 'philosophy;' I've always seen the two as very similar.
> _
> ...


Typical philosophers statement which reminds me of that philosophy is the art of making the simple difficult. Parsifal is obviously following the line of German scholars at the time who were attempting to take the Judaism out of Christianity. This of course is now pretty much discredited as it misses the whole point of Christianity, which is profoundly Jewish. But Wagner was writing an opera.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Typical philosophers statement which reminds me of that philosophy is the art of making the simple difficult. Parsifal is obviously the attempt to take the Judaism out of Christianity which German scholars were seeking to do at the time. This of course misses the whole point of Christianity which is profoundly Jewish, but so what?


Written with all the deep perception and sensibility of a professional historian. *Not.*


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Written with all the deep perception and sensibility of a professional historian. *Not.*


It was actually a philosophy professor who told me that! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2020)

DavidA said:


> It was actually a philosophy professor who told me that! :lol:


Hah hah hah... What's so funny, buster?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Hah hah hah... What's so funny, buste?


Just that some people have a sense of humour and can laugh at themselves!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What is it about the OT God that is disliked by many, and why did Wagner reject it? The Jewish people felt protected by God, like when he parted the Red Sea, and they had a "covenant" with God. All these ideas were supposedly "transferred" to the NT, and seen in a new light. The meanest thing I can think of is when Lot's wife got turned into a pillar of salt, in the Sodom and Gommorah section. And "the LAW" is still the law, right? Thou shalt not kill? Makes sense to me. And Leviticus was designed to keep their culture from being assimilated into the "Borg" collective mind. Nothin' wrong with wanting to hold on to your identity. What was the problem for Wagner? What, specifically, did he have a problem with, I wonder?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> We've already discussed an emerging form of Christianity in the nineteenth century which was the result of whole different way of looking at religion, and this included that Jesus was not Jewish but Greek, that the OT was separate from the NT, the God of Israel was 'meaner' and not Jesus' "father," and more. I thought this point was already established.
> 
> Rather than idiosyncratic, I see Parsifal and Wagner as influenced by this new strain of thought (Schleiermacher, etc). You can call this 'religion' or 'philosophy;' I've always seen the two as very similar.


Wagner was influenced by these ideas. But _Parsifal_ is not a tract on 19th-century German neo-Christian philosophy. The work's complex melding of Christianity, Buddhism and paganism is indeed idiosyncratic. I know of nothing else in all the arts to compare with it. Do you?



> So this seems to replace God with "being" as feeling and intuition, and the desire to "lose oneself in the infinite." Definitely not orthodox, and fundamentalists might say "heresy."
> Yet, this could still be called a "religion" in the broader sense.


_Parsifal_ is not about woowoo stuff like "being" and "the infinite" and "losing oneself." Actually it's about finding and transcending oneself. If you don't know that religion can (sometimes) also be about this, you don't understand religion.



> I disagree that this was all Wagner's idea,


The woowoo "being" stuff you're talking about was indeed not Wagner's idea.



> or that he was superior to Jung and Campbell, or a 'super-philosopher.'


No one is saying he was "superior" to anyone. But he preceded Jung and Campbell in the psychoanalysis of myth, realizing in art things that they and others later put into words. I said that Wagner was unprecedented in this. If you can show that I'm incorrect, please show.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Just that some people have a sense of humour and can laugh at themselves!


You really should go professional. You know, on the stage - stand-up comedy, that sort of thing. 
You'd make a fortune.
Go on, give us a joke about Wagner!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> You really should go professional. You know, on the stage - stand-up comedy, that sort of thing. You'll make a fortune.


You're not the first person to tell me that! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> What is it about the OT God that is disliked by many, and why did Wagner reject it? The Jewish people felt protected by God, like when he parted the Red Sea, and they had a "covenant" with God. All these ideas were supposedly "transferred" to the NT, and seen in a new light. The meanest thing I can think of is when Lot's wife got turned into a pillar of salt, in the Sodom and Gommorah section. And "the LAW" is still the law, right? Thou shalt not kill? Makes sense to me. And Leviticus was designed to keep their culture from being assimilated into the "Borg" collective mind. Nothin' wrong with wanting to hold on to your identity. What was the problem for Wagner? What, specifically, did he have a problem with, I wonder?


In asking what the "problem" is with the portrayal of God, especially in the Old Testament, you're asking others to do a lot of work here. How well do know the Bible? Any better than you know Wagner? I hesitate to go into detail here about the actions of the deity that have struck people through the centuries as morally hideous (and those actions are numerous), for fear of attracting the true believers who will try to justify it all and thus derail the thread. Suffice to say that Wagner is far, far from unique in finding Blake's "old Nobodaddy" impossibly repugnant.

But _Parsifal_ does not discuss God. It isn't about God. It has no theology. That's the point. Wagner once said, "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in divinity."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Typical philosophers statement which reminds me of that philosophy is the art of making the simple difficult. Parsifal is obviously following the line of German scholars at the time who were attempting to take the Judaism out of Christianity. This of course is now pretty much discredited as it misses the whole point of Christianity, which is profoundly Jewish. But Wagner was writing an opera.


I actually agree with most of this, although just how Jewish Christianity is is debatable. Christianity has taken many forms since it first became a thing, and Judaism iteself has branched in recent history. I don't want to see a debate on what "true" Christianity is.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Typical philosophers statement which reminds me of that philosophy is the art of making the simple difficult. Parsifal is obviously following the line of German scholars at the time who were attempting to take the Judaism out of Christianity. This of course is now pretty much discredited as it misses the whole point of Christianity, which is profoundly Jewish. But Wagner was writing an opera.


Christianity is closer to being anti-Jewish than it is to being profoundly Jewish. If it were 'profoundly Jewish' it would simply be Judaism. Sure Christianity has roots in Judaism but saying that makes it profoundly Jewish is the same as saying Islam is 'profoundly Jewish.' A silly statement that seems more designed to inflame than to illuminate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

bz3 said:


> Christianity is closer to being anti-Jewish than it is to being profoundly Jewish. If it were 'profoundly Jewish' it would simply be Judaism. Sure Christianity has roots in Judaism but saying that makes it profoundly Jewish is the same as saying Islam is 'profoundly Jewish.' A silly statement that seems more designed to inflame than to illuminate.


Though I tend to agree, I don't think David's statement was designed to inflame. Anyone who thinks the New Testament is an accurate portrayal of history - and some who don't - finds there a Jewish Jesus whose first followers were Jews, and who claimed to be "fulfilling the law of Moses." But there's also no question that the Jewishness of the new religion was questioned and rejected from a variety of viewpoints very early in its history. Given the variety of Christian thought, I think this is not worth pursuing as a general matter. What matters here is that Wagner preferred a non-Judaic sort of Christianity and that this perspective found its way into _Parsifal. _


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

bz3 said:


> *Christianity is closer to being anti-Jewish than it is to being profoundly Jewish.* If it were 'profoundly Jewish' it would simply be Judaism. Sure Christianity has roots in Judaism but saying that makes it profoundly Jewish is the same as saying Islam is 'profoundly Jewish.' A silly statement *that seems more designed to inflame* than to illuminate.


Sorry but how on earth can it be any different when all the books in the New Testament apart from perhaps two are written by Jews? That the man who above all did most of the work of spreading the gospel to the Gentiles was a Pharisee brought up in the strictest Jewish sect? It is absolutely steeped in Judaism and sees all the Messianic promises of the Old Testament as found in a Jewish Messiah. Looked at properly it is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. This is what the German scholars who are alleged to have influenced Wagner (whether they did or didn't) couldn't get their heads around. But this is going beyond the bounds of the thread into theology so we'd better leave it there.
Just to say I'm sorry that giving an opinion which is based on sound theology and which many leading New Testament theological scholars (such as Professor NT Wright) share is 'bound to inflame'.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but how on earth can it be any different when all the books in the New Testament apart from perhaps two are written by Jews? That the man who above all did most of the work of spreading the gospel to the Gentiles was a Pharisee brought up in the strictest Jewish sect? It is absolutely steeped in Judaism and sees all the Messianic promises of the Old Testament as found in a Jewish Messiah. *Looked at properly* it is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. This is what *the German scholars *who are alleged to have influenced Wagner (whether they did or didn't) couldn't get their heads around. But this is going beyond the bounds of the thread into theology *so we'd better leave it there*.
> *Just to say I'm sorry that giving an opinion which is based on sound theology and which many leading New Testament theological scholars (such as Professor NT Wright) share is 'bound to inflame'*.


Good grief, where to begin to unpick all this?
I have bolded *five* statements for critical appraisal. As a serious historian, DavdA, I'm sure you will appreciate my approach.
1) *"Looked at properly"*: Never have I read this phrase in any self-respecting peer-reviewed article in any academic journal... anywhere and in any language;
2) *"So we'd better leave it there"*: Says you. We, your readers, will decide if what you post is best "left there". To be frank, I'd be very happy if you'd leave your thoughts where they spring from;
3) *"The German scholars"*: In academic texts one normally references such statements, if not, it all sounds a bit vague and amateurish. So, can you cite your references to give, you know, a bit of weight to your point?
4) "*I'm sorry that giving an opinion [...] is 'bound to inflame*": One of your hoary old chestnuts again, I regret to say. As others on this forum have pointed out, there is nothing wrong with proffering an opinion so long as it is backed up by solid reasoning. If you find that your posts are bound to inflame perhaps you should ask yourself why. It's never too late to learn.
5) *For a bit of levity*, there is and has never been a fifth point.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Good grief, where to begin to unpick all this?
> I have bolded *five* statements for critical appraisal. As a serious historian, DavdA, I'm sure you will appreciate my approach.
> 1) *"Looked at properly"*: Never have I read this phrase in any self-respecting peer-reviewd article in any academic journal... anywhere and in any language;
> 2) *"So we'd better leave it there"*: Says you. We, your readers, will decide if what you post is best "left there". To be frank, I'd be very happy if you'd leave your thoughts where they spring from;
> ...


1. It may have escaped your attention but TC isn not a peer reviewed academic journal but rather a place for off the cuff comments. If it was a peer reviewed journal I hope some of your previous comments on this thread would not be included.
2. Fine if you want to continue. Only the OP might then well object to his thread being hijacked. 
3. The German scholars have already been referred to. I am assuming they are the same. If you want to look them up do so.
4. My reasoning is backed up by scholars such as Professor NT Wright as I quoted. I suggest you read him as he is the leading NT scholar today. If you find objection to what I say you should give solid reasoning based on scholarship. Please apply these standards you preach to yourself.
5. I assume this is your attempt at wit?


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2020)

^^ Oh well, missing the point and avoiding direct questions as always.
Off you go, then.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> ^^ Oh well, missing the point and avoiding direct questions as always.
> Off you go, then.


See answers 1-5 please. I think you are rather missing the point of what this thread is about.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but how on earth can it be any different when all the books in the New Testament apart from perhaps two are written by Jews? That the man who above all did most of the work of spreading the gospel to the Gentiles was a Pharisee brought up in the strictest Jewish sect? It is absolutely steeped in Judaism and sees all the Messianic promises of the Old Testament as found in a Jewish Messiah. Looked at properly it is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. This is what the German scholars who are alleged to have influenced Wagner (whether they did or didn't) couldn't get their heads around. But this is going beyond the bounds of the thread into theology so we'd better leave it there.
> Just to say I'm sorry that giving an opinion which is based on sound theology and which many leading New Testament theological scholars (such as Professor NT Wright) share is 'bound to inflame'.


I can assure you that people who disagree with your religious opinions have no trouble "getting their heads around" them, including those German scholars whom you do not name but whose intelligence you insult.

I'm not a "leading New [or Old] Testament scholar," but it's obvious to me that Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally and irreconcileably different theologically. Both are nominally monotheistic, but Judaism rejects the trinity as disguised polytheism and does not accept the notion that God has a "son" or that a human can be divine (or vice versa). It also rejects the idea of human sacrifice, and that one person can be punished for the sins of another. It does not accept that Jesus was the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, and it must regard the Biblical accounts of him as heavily mythicized in an effort to portray him as divine.

Ritually, and in their customs and laws, Jews and Christians are very different, and culturally they have found common ground primarily thanks to modern secular society. You statement that Christianity is "profoundly Jewish" is clearly prejudiced by your personal belief that Jewish beliefs were somehow "fulfilled" by Christ. But even the casual reference by Christians to the "Old" and "New" Testaments is prejudicial; it assumes that Christianity is the newer and better model that renders the old model obsolete. No Jew is going to accept any of that as "profoundly Jewish."

Considering, then, the elements of theology, ritual, custom and law, the differences between the two religions go rather deep - and, given the terrible events of history, there is good reason to regard Christianity as _anti-Jewish._

I hope that mentioning these concrete points of difference has helped to introduce some reality into this tangential issue. Now let's have no more preaching.


----------



## aussiebushman (Apr 21, 2018)

At the risk of being banned (That would be greatly regretted because I find TC to be excellent in every respect), I must say that I find DavidA's persistent negativity wearisome at best and downright insulting at worst. 

Whether it relates to "modern" vs "vintage" recordings" or many other discussion issues like this current one, Woodduck's use of the term "preaching" strikes me as highly accurate. If DavidA is not happy with the content provided by other members, perhaps he should refrain from participation of any kind. We will be better off without him.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

aussiebushman said:


> At the risk of being banned (That would be greatly regretted because I find TC to be excellent in every respect), I must say that I find DavidA's persistent negativity wearisome at best and downright insulting at worst.
> 
> Whether it relates to "modern" vs "vintage" recordings" or many other discussion issues like this current one, Woodduck's use of the term "preaching" strikes me as highly accurate. If DavidA is not happy with the content provided by other members, perhaps he should refrain from participation of any kind. We will be better off without him.


You are actually saying that you dislike me giving an opinion which is contrary to your own? I can assure you that what Woodduck refers to 'preaching' is merely discussion and you may notice that my posts have been aimed at answering points made by other members and is surely no more 'preachy' than own own last post. It is regrettable to me that certain members attempt to censor discussion that is contrary to their own thoughts and try and justify that by putting labels to it. I assure anyone that in merely saying what scholars today I am just using what I consider freedom of speech and am not 'preaching'. Sorry if giving an opinion that you do not agree with offends you but tolerance to me is accepting the right of someone else to give options you don't agree with as well as opinions you do agree with. But sadly tolerance among some members for differing opinions does not seem to be on the table .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I can assure you that people who disagree with your religious opinions have no trouble "getting their heads around" them, including those German scholars whom you do not name but whose intelligence you insult.
> 
> I'm not a "leading New [or Old] Testament scholar," but it's obvious to me that Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally and irreconcileably different theologically. Both are nominally monotheistic, but Judaism rejects the trinity as disguised polytheism and does not accept the notion that God has a "son" or that a human can be divine (or vice versa). It also rejects the idea of human sacrifice, and that one person can be punished for the sins of another. It does not accept that Jesus was the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, and it must regard the Biblical accounts of him as heavily mythicized in an effort to portray him as divine.
> 
> ...


I think it's quite ironic that you tell me to stop preaching when your whole post is preaching to me. The fact was that you have a totally missread my argument and it would help if you read my post. In no way did I say that Christianity and Judaism are the same. They are not. What I said was that Christianity is a Jewish religion. It has its roots in Judaism.The belief that the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled in Christ is not some 'personal belief' of mine but is standard Christian theology found throughout the New Testament. The book of Hebrews which is found in the new Testament and its written to Jewish believers describes the New Covenant as 'they new and better way'. Your statement that Christianity is anti-Jewish is a terrible one as Christianity is not anti-Jewish but rather a fulfilment of the great promises given in what we call the Old Testament. Your points do not bring any reality into the discussion but really point out the misunderstanding people have.
Your thing about the Trinity as disguised polytheism is frankly wrong as Christianity us as monotheistic as Judaism and the early believers were strict Jews. Of course if you don't accept Jesus as the son of God the only thing to do is to regard the Bible accounts of him as heavily mythologised and that the German scholars referred to were seeking to do just that. But as Christian believers we believe in Jesus as the son of God and that the resurrection proves that. But of course to say they are heavily mythologised is the say you knew better than the person who was there on the spot . This is what the German scholars who were there at their office desks 2000 years later did . The theories were based on the anti-supernaturalist philosophy that was around at the time. To me you have to accept the supernatural in Christianity or reject it all together . There is no half way point. 
Christianity is not anti-Jewish but it is rather steeped in the history of Judaism. It is Jewish in its roots and to understand it properly one has to go back to its Jewishness. I do realise that this is not accepted by people of Jewish faith being married into a Jewish family myself, but amazing how we manage to respect one another's views and differences without falling out! Perhaps if you met them you would understand how we can have a discussion on these matters. It's called agreeing to differ.
I do not want to continue with the theological discussion but I'm just seeking to answer your points as I fear you greatly misunderstood me. The thread is about Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think it's quite ironic that you tell me to stop preaching when your whole post is preaching to me.


My post was a refutation of your little lecture.



> The fact was that you have a totally missread my argument and it would help if you read my post. In no way did I say that Christianity and Judaism are the same. They are not.


I didn't claim that you said they were "the same." Can you try not to put words in my mouth? I choose words for their exact meaning. Don't try to paraphrase me.



> What I said was that Christianity is a Jewish religion.


What you said was that Christianity is "profoundly Jewish." It may have begun as a Jewish religion, but it isn't now.



> It has its roots in Judaism.


So what? Origins don't define things. I have roots in Hungary but am not a Hungarian. America has roots in England but is not "profoundly English." The Enligtenment had roots in Greek philosophy and politics but was not "profoundly Greek." Ad infinitum. Everything starts somewhere, but goes somewhere else.



> The belief that the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled in Christ is not some 'personal belief' of mine but is standard Christian theology found throughout the New Testament.


But Jews do not accept that "standard."



> The book of Hebrews which is found in the new Testament and its written to Jewish believers describes the New Covenant as 'they new and better way'.


Jews don't think it's better.



> Your statement that Christianity is anti-Jewish is a terrible one as Christianity is not anti-Jewish but rather a fulfilment of the great promises given in what we call the Old Testament.


Jews don't think so.



> Your points do not bring any reality into the discussion but really point out the misunderstanding people have.


Don't be insulting. So you think the Jews misunderstand their own scriptures? That's your "reality"?



> Your thing about the Trinity as disguised polytheism is frankly wrong as Christianity us as monotheistic as Judaism and the early believers were strict Jews.


It's not "my thing." Many Jews view the trinity as a violation of monotheism.



> Of course if you don't accept Jesus as the son of God the only thing to do is to regard the Bible accounts of him as heavily mythologised and that the German scholars referred to were seeking to do just that. But as Christian believers we believe in Jesus as the son of God and that the resurrection proves that.


We know what you believe. We don't care.



> But of course to say they are heavily mythologised is the say you knew better than the person who was there on the spot .


We don't know that anyone was "there on the spot," or that there was even a spot to be on. Again, what you believe is irrelevant here.



> This is what the German scholars who were there at their office desks 2000 years later did . The theories were based on the anti-supernaturalist philosophy that was around at the time. To me you have to accept the supernatural in Christianity or reject it all together . There is no half way point.


Again, these are your beliefs which not everyone shares. Many Christians believe that their religion contains myths.



> Christianity is not anti-Jewish but it is rather steeped in the history of Judaism. It is Jewish in its roots and to understand it properly one has to go back to its Jewishness.


Again, its Jewish roots don't make it "profoundly Jewish." Somewhat Jewish, sure, or Jewish in some ways. But radically different.



> I do realise that this is not accepted by people of Jewish faith being married into a Jewish family myself, but amazing how we manage to respect one another's views and differences without falling out! Perhaps if you met them you would understand how we can have a discussion on these matters. It's called agreeing to differ.


Cowpoo. We don't agree on anything here, and I'm tired of having your personal beliefs held up as truth.



> I do not want to continue with the theological discussion


Good.



> but I'm just seeking to answer your points as I fear you greatly misunderstood me. The thread is about Wagner.


I understand you all too well. And who the hell are _you_ to be telling _me_ that this thread is about Wagner? You're the Sunday school teacher who insists repeatedly on lecturing the world about what "real" Christianity is, whether anyone wants to listen to you or not (subtle hint: NO ONE DOES).

Your original contention was that Christianity is "profoundly Jewish." I cited a number of major differences between the two religious traditions, in point after point which you characteristically proved incapable of addressing. What Christianity means to you is not what it means to everyone, and your tiresome defense of your religious orthodoxy is beside the point and should not be part of this discussion. I don't care what your religious beliefs are, and neither does anyone else on this forum. It's clear that you aren't here to talk about _Parsifal,_ which makes sense since you most certainly don't understand it. I have worked hard to keep this thread free of contamination by two-bit evangelists. Stop screwing it up.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The reason I asked "what's the problem with the OT God?" is because Wagner's rejection of the OT, along with Parsifal being a criticism of authority, was given as the main point of Parsifal.

As an aside, and not as an advocate of Christianity, any "good" Christian knows that the OT is used by the NT in interpretation: as a "projection" of Christ's coming, the law, the covenant, prophecy, etc. Both share the same moral law.

So my question still stands, and it seems that it could be answered in a succinct, general way. Why did Wagner want to reject the OT: for his own reasons, or was this indicative of the already established "general 19th century philosophical trend" which was occurring?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I am compelled to think one single man with intentions as ignoble as "taking the Jewishness out of Christianity" would be incapable of producing a work as sublime as Parsifal in which to do so.

You must answer to that contradiction, DavidA, if that is your theory.

Myself. I think it is quite obvious that Parsifal is a tale of Buddhist-esque spiritual enlightenment packaged for his contemporary Christian audience. It is actually a damning critique of "doctrine, dogma, tradition" Christianity in its contemporary form, and an appeal to the deeper, more universal message of Buddha and Christ prior to the politicization and canonization of the religions named after them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The reason I asked "what's the problem with the OT God?" is because Wagner's rejection of the OT, along with Parsifal being a criticism of authority, was given as the main point of Parsifal.


I don't know who gave the impression that that is the main point of _Parsifal_ (actually those are two points). I'm sure I didn't. Wagner's operas are not basically rejctions and criticisms of things. Even the _Ring,_ which shows the gods - implicitly, all gods - going up in flames, ends with a musical affirmation that it's the heroic love of Brunnhilde that matters and may save the world, if it's to be saved.



> As an aside, and not as an advocate of Christianity, any "good" Christian knows that the OT is used by the NT in interpretation: as a "projection" of Christ's coming, the law, the covenant, prophecy, etc.


That is the orthodox position. I would comment that interpreting old writings to mean things never contemplated by the writers is a time-honored tradition not only in religion, but in politics, art, etc.



> Both share the same moral law.


They do share basic moral principles (don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, etc.), but different forms of both Judaism and Christianity have different attitudes toward the more particular and elaborate law enunciated in the Jewish scriptures.



> So my question still stands, and it seems that it could be answered in a succinct, general way. Why did Wagner want to reject the OT: for his own reasons, or was this indicative of the already established "general 19th century philosophical trend" which was occurring?


Wagner thought the Old Testament deity morally hideous. He was also atheistic ("I do not believe in God, but I do believe in divinity"). It's worth pointing out that Buddhism, which arguably is as strong (if less obvious) in _Parsifal_ as Christianity, is in its most basic form an atheistic religion. Of course all these factors had currency in Wagner's time, as they still do.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Since Wagner was an atheist, the OP is misleading in its inclusion of Christianity, or in offering "choices" as to opinion. From a survey of the thread, it doesn't seem that the "question" can even be be discussed with the Wagner experts here, unless they are in complete agreement down to the last specific detail. 

I even wonder if such a topic should even be discussed at all in a public forum like this, as it is apparently a very valuable piece of intellectual real estate. But, the question was asked...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Buddhist philosophy first made contact with the West via missionaries around the time of David Hume, whose empiricist philosophy is a radical departure from the rationalist philosophy before him.

I read somewhere that Schopenhauer was essentially the first "Buddhist" philosopher in the West, and Wagner was his poet. To conceive of Wagner as an eventuality of Western Judeo-Christian philosophy is a mistake. Especially, Wagner much had much loftier ambitions in his works than merely Jewish critique. I wish this pathetic lens from which we peer back through the holocaust to assess Wagner's works would be put to rest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Since Wagner was an atheist, the OP is misleading in its inclusion of Christianity, or in offering "choices" as to opinion.


It's an invitation for people to offer their views on the presence, influence, meaning or value of religious content in a work of art. That's straightforward enough for the average person to understand.



> From a survey of the thread, it doesn't seem that the "question" can even be be discussed with the Wagner experts here, unless they are in complete agreement down to the last specific detail.


The "Wagner experts" are looking for information and insights that others may have, and giving interested parties a chance to talk about the work. Some contributors seem to think this acceptable and even normal. When Wagner operas have been discussed in past threads among some of the opera enthusiasts here, there's been plenty of interesting dialogue. This particular thread takes on a conspicuous aspect of one of his operas which I haven't seen isolated in this way.



> I even wonder if such a topic should even be discussed at all in a public forum like this, as it is apparently a very valuable piece of intellectual real estate. But, the question was asked...


Yes, it was asked. Given the precedent here, I rather expected to be insulted and abused to some extent for presuming to offer a complex subject and to expect a normal conversation. Sure enough, you're telling me now that my topic question is misleading, that you don't like talking with people who may know more about a subject than you do, and that you "wonder" whether I should even have bothered.

Stop wondering. I'm here to stay. Anyone is free to go.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but how on earth can it be any different when all the books in the New Testament apart from perhaps two are written by Jews? That the man who above all did most of the work of spreading the gospel to the Gentiles was a Pharisee brought up in the strictest Jewish sect? It is absolutely steeped in Judaism and sees all the Messianic promises of the Old Testament as found in a Jewish Messiah. Looked at properly it is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. This is what the German scholars who are alleged to have influenced Wagner (whether they did or didn't) couldn't get their heads around. But this is going beyond the bounds of the thread into theology so we'd better leave it there.
> Just to say I'm sorry that giving an opinion which is based on sound theology and which many leading New Testament theological scholars (such as Professor NT Wright) share is 'bound to inflame'.


Yes, the messiah who was himself fairly critical of Judaism. And that is to say nothing of the fact that modern Judaism is almost entirely Talmudic Judaism, which post-dates Christianity. Unless the rabbis developed a time machine it's probably more colloquially accurate to call Old Testament Judaism 'profoundly Christian' in the sense that Christianity fulfilled the prophesies, and modern Judaism as a rejection of both.

In any case it's such an absurd statement that I had to comment when I read it in this otherwise interesting thread. I agree with Woodduck that it is probably not worth pursuing.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DavidA is committed enough to say, "Just to say I'm sorry that giving an opinion which is based on sound theology and which many leading New Testament theological scholars (such as Professor NT Wright) share is 'bound to inflame'."

Wright has given himself away saying that he could never remember a time when he was not aware of the presence and love of God since he was four or five years old!! This still has a profound emotional effect on him. How can he be a reliable scholar on questions of New Testament written opinions, fantastic and full as they are with the need for belief in supernatural events?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Since Christ was critical of Judaism, and Judaism changed to a Talmudic form after Christianity, and modern Judaism rejects both OT and Christianity, the resulting "meta-statement' is: "It's OK to reject Judaism and the OT," regardless of context. That seems dangerously misleading to me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Since Wagner was an atheist, the OP is misleading in its inclusion of Christianity, or in offering "choices" as to opinion. From a survey of the thread, it doesn't seem that the "question" can even be be discussed with the Wagner experts here, unless they are in complete agreement down to the last specific detail.
> 
> I even wonder if such a topic should even be discussed at all in a public forum like this, as it is apparently a very valuable piece of intellectual real estate. But, the question was asked...


This statement does not address anyone specifically.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Why "unfortunately"? I don't know any Christians who accept the OT entire. Christianity, to most Christians, is not Judaism. And for that matter a great many Jews of liberal persuasion don't accept the OT entire.


One problem with this discussion, and perhaps the reason Woodduck's basic point here (which is reasonable and understandable to me) is raising hackles, is that Wagner was very much a 19th century man, artist, philosopher and theologian. Intellectual attitudes towards traditional Christianity and the Church had profoundly changed in the Age of Enlightenment with the rise of empiricism. I often give the example of the Italian astronomer Galileo, who spent the last years of his life in the 17th century under house arrest by the Pope for daring to make the heretical claim that the planets, including Earth, orbited around the sun, rather than the sun and other heavenly bodies orbiting around Earth. By Wagner's time the Church was no longer in a position to impose its doctrine so literally, even where expressly supported by Biblical passages. So, when Wagner calls himself a Christian, it isn't surprising he meant it in a way that hardly would have been considered Christian only two centuries earlier.

Judaism originates from an even older tradition, so much so it isn't really a "religion", strictly speaking, though that is one aspect of it. Rather, it is a comprehensive set of social, economic, moral, legal and political rules and principles for a particular population to govern themselves and function as a nation. It expressly supersedes the even older and more primitive concept of a smaller social, economic and political group, the "tribe", as the nation of Israel consists of a combination of 12 tribes (or, if you accept the general concepts but not the exact statistics in the Bible, many tribes). Judaism's great crisis came with the loss of its national identity at the hands of the Romans. One result was Christianity, which does away altogether with the concept of national identity or polity. Thus, it isn't surprising that Wagner the German nationalist would be even less sympathetic to the concepts of Judaism or even the existence of German Jews, than to traditional Christianity, as Jews have their own concept of nationality (even though they didn't yet have any physical national territory at that point), and it isn't German. (This could help explain why Wagner could have such close personal and professional relationships with individual Jews, and yet such a hostile, antisemitic attitude as a whole.)

In other words, while I'm not the Wagner expert and maven Woodduck and others of you here no doubt are, I've long since learned to view him in the context of his time and place.

Edit: And I've never considered whether Parsifal is more Christian or Buddhist, so I thank all who delved into that. Quite interesting.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Kundry is the only character in Wagner's works which is undeniably (at least partially) "Jewish" in implication - the Wandering Jew. After laughing at Christ on the cross, she recognizes and is redeemed by Parsifal and her cycle of rebirth (_Samsara_) is put to rest: enlightenment _(Satori)._ Here Wagner equivocates Buddhist enlightenment with the second coming (Parsifal) of the savior, which also affirms the common Christian view that Jews will recognize and be redeemed at the second coming.

The *grail* is the path to enlightenment. The key to Christian salvation. The monks can ceremonially bask in its presence, catching glimpses of enlightenment/salvation, but enlightenment itself eludes them. It keeps Amfortas alive, while simultaneously causing him to suffer - such is the suffering the world, seeking enlightenment, seeking fulfillment, but in _material_ desires. This mode of worship of symbols while losing the significance of their meaning is the path to ruin, and we see the monk's order fall to shambles.

*"Who is the Grail?" *Asks Parsifal. The noble fool Parsifal, in his innocent ignorance, reveals the key to enlightenment is not found in the object-grail, the external material world, but _within_ a person.

GURNEMANZ:
"That cannot be said;
*but if you yourself are called to its service
that knowledge will not remain withheld.*
And see!
I think I know you aright;
*no earthly path leads to it,
and none could tread it
whom the Grail itself had not guided.*

PARSIFAL:
I scarcely tread,
yet seem already to have come far.

GURNEMANZ:
You see, my son,
time here becomes space!

Witnessing the grail and the ceremony is therefore utterly meaningless to Parsifal. It is after suffering Kundry's recollection of his mother's death, the temptation of her seduction, and succumbing to her kiss that awareness (Buddhist _Sati_) of the nature of the temptation and suffering of Amfortas (and thus the world) is awakened in him, and sets him on his path to self-discovery and enlightenment.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

fluteman said:


> One problem with this discussion, and perhaps the reason Woodduck's basic point here (which is reasonable and understandable to me) is raising hackles, is that Wagner was very much a 19th century man, artist, philosopher and theologian. Intellectual attitudes towards traditional Christianity and the Church had profoundly changed in the Age of Enlightenment with the rise of empiricism.


To the contrary, it seems to me that there is a general resistance to Wagner being considered as part of nineteenth century thought; at least, when I attempted to establish this, it was dismissed as being 'not specific enough' or 'too specific.'

I only disagree with you as to that application; I think it's a good idea to see Wagner as very much a 19th century man, artist, philosopher and theologian.

You're correct when this is applied to the orthodox believers here; but even as I am not, there are aspects of this 19th century approach which might raise "other hackles" on completely different animals.

I see no reason why Wagner should be removed from the thought-stream of his milieu, or from general cultural attitudes which were also changing at this time. I'm perfectly comfortable with that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> To the contrary, it seems to me that there is a general resistance to Wagner being considered as part of nineteenth century thought; at least, when I attempted to establish this, it was dismissed as being 'not specific enough' or 'too specific.'


Not at all.

I began this thread with the statement that "Feuerbach's view of religion as a projection of the deepest concerns of humanity, and Schopenhauer's transmission of Buddhist thought, were both definite influences." In post #29 I wrote: "I don't think any of Wagner's ideas on Christianity or Buddhism were original, taken separately. To begin with, German philosophers and theologians had apparently been busy reassessing traditional religious thought since at least the late 18th century...with Enlightenment philosophy came efforts to 'de-mythicize' Christianity, to abandon literal interpretations of its supernatural elements, to regard these as purely symbolic, and to give primacy to its ethical element (the goal, for example, of Thomas Jefferson's miracle-free Bible). Wagner was an avid reader well-acquainited with recent German philosophy, and he knew Ludwig Feuerbach's highly influential 1841 work, 'The Essence of Christianity,' in which Feuerbach takes de-mythicization the whole way and argues that God is created in man's image, and that the divinity and greatness of mankind's gods are projections of man's perception of, and aspiration toward, the divinity and greatness in himself. Obviously this view is a complete disavowal of the orthodox Christian view of God as an objectively existing entity, but it had been prefigured by the theologian Schleiermacher, who argued that as religion was fundamentally a matter of feeling, it was conceivable to be a Christian without a belief in an objective God."

You even "liked" the above. There's probably more, but I don't feel like taking the time to find it. You're arguing about something that's been clearly established all along.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> "I don't think any of Wagner's ideas on Christianity or Buddhism were original, taken separately.


What about taken together? Is there much in the way of synthesis between Christianity and Buddhism prior to Schopenhauer and Wagner? I think that is were Wagner is original.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Kundry is the only character in Wagner's works which is undeniably (at least partially) "Jewish" in implication - the Wandering Jew. After laughing at Christ on the cross, she recognizes and is redeemed by Parsifal and her cycle of rebirth (_Samsara_) is put to rest: enlightenment _(Satori)._ Here Wagner equivocates Buddhist enlightenment with the second coming (Parsifal) of the savior, which also affirms the common Christian view that Jews will recognize and be redeemed at the second coming.


Kundry is the only one with a specific "Jewish" reference - Klingsor, naming some of her incarnations, says "You were Herodias" - and her description of herself as wandering in search of salvation after laughing at Christ on the cross is pretty specific. But as Wagner himself noted, there's an image of the Wandering Jew in Vanderdecken, the "Flying Dutchman," another character whose curse obligates him to wander until he can be saved through a quasi-Christian sacrificial love. And that brings up Wotan, whom the curse of having lusted after power (symbolized by the ring) forces him to wander the earth (as "The Wanderer") until the sacrificial love of Brunnhilde can bring his own _samsara_ to an end.

In _Parsifal_, after the hero breaks the power of Klingsor, setting Kundry free, he himself takes on the role of the wanderer seeking salvation, just as he had already taken on the pain of the suffering Amfortas. The idea of the wanderer in search of a spritual "home" is pervasive in Wagner's works, but in_ Parsifal_ it's given a further dimension in having Parsifal take on that role voluntarily, as an act of compassion, an image of Christ taking on the sufferings of the world. This makes Parsifal a sort of Christ figure, but just as much a Buddha figure, specifically a _bodhisattva_ (one who delays the attainment of _nirvana_ out of compassion in order to save suffering beings).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> What about taken together? Is there much in the way of synthesis between Christianity and Buddhism prior to Schopenhauer and Wagner? I think that is were Wagner is original.


I agree. Wagner was a voracious eclectic, but his syntheses were unique. There just isn't anything like _Parsifal _(or _Tristan,_ or the _Ring_...).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> DavidA is committed enough to say, "Just to say I'm sorry that giving an opinion which is based on sound theology and which many leading New Testament theological scholars (such as Professor NT Wright) share is 'bound to inflame'."
> 
> Wright has given himself away saying that he could never remember a time when he was not aware of the presence and love of God since he was four or five years old!! This still has a profound emotional effect on him. How can he be a reliable scholar on questions of New Testament written opinions, fantastic and full as they are with the need for belief in supernatural events?


How can you not be a serious New Testament scholar and not believe in supernatural events? The new Testament is absolutely full of the supernatural. It seems to me decidedly odd that you guys are discussing quite happily an opera like Parsifal which is full of supernatural events and based on Christian imagery yet you can make a statement like this.The new Testament is absolutely full of the supernatural. It seems to me decidedly odd that you guys are discussing quite seriously an opera which is full of supernatural events yet you can make a statement like this. Let's face it if you take the supernatural out of the new Testament there isn't much left. The question of whether we believe or not in the supernatural isn't a matter of scholarship it's a matter of philosophy


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> In _Parsifal_, after the hero breaks the power of Klingsor, setting Kundry free, he himself takes on the role of the wanderer seeking salvation, just as he had already taken on the pain of the suffering Amfortas. The idea of the wanderer in search of a spritual "home" is pervasive in Wagner's works, but in_ Parsifal_ it's given a further dimension in having Parsifal take on that role voluntarily, as an act of compassion, an image of Christ taking on the sufferings of the world. This makes Parsifal a sort of Christ figure, but just as much a Buddha figure, specifically a _bodhisattva_ (one who delays the attainment of _nirvana_ out of compassion in order to save suffering beings).


The Bodhisattva's vow: "Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation; never enter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout all worlds. Never will I leave this world of sin and sorrow and struggle until all are delivered. Until then, I will remain and suffer where I am."


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> How can you not be a serious New Testament scholar and not believe in supernatural events? The new Testament is absolutely full of the supernatural. It seems to me decidedly odd that you guys are discussing quite happily an opera like Parsifal which is full of supernatural events and based on Christian imagery yet you can make a statement like this.The new Testament is absolutely full of the supernatural. It seems to me decidedly odd that you guys are discussing quite seriously an opera which is full of supernatural events yet you can make a statement like this. Let's face it if you take the supernatural out of the new Testament there isn't much left. The question of whether we believe or not in the supernatural isn't a matter of scholarship it's a matter of philosophy


One man's supernatural events are another's allegory. Jesus primarily demonstrated his divinity through casting out demons. I don't think that involves the supernatural at all, rather he put tormented psyches to rest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> How can you not be a serious New Testament scholar and not believe in supernatural events? The new Testament is absolutely full of the supernatural. It seems to me decidedly odd that you guys are discussing quite happily an opera like Parsifal which is full of supernatural events and based on Christian imagery yet you can make a statement like this.


Supernatural occurrences are those which invade the natural world and contravene its laws. It makes no sense to say that a work of fantasy which is entirely symbolic is "full of the supernatural" when there are no natural laws in it to be violated. Everything in _Pasifal_ is a representation of some spiritual/psychological force or idea. It's remarkably well-thought-out in that way.



> Let's face it if you take the supernatural out of the new Testament there isn't much left. The question of whether we believe or not in the supernatural isn't a matter of scholarship it's a matter of philosophy


Well, a lot of people seem to find a good deal of value in the teachings of Jesus. Others find the symbolism of his birth, life, death and resurrection inspiring even without believing in their literal reality. You might be surprised to discover how many "believers" are extremely selective in which elements of Christian doctrine they actually do believe. I'm sure that Wagner knew what he was accepting and rejecting, and why.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> One man's supernatural events are another's allegory. Jesus primarily demonstrated his divinity through casting out demons. I don't think that involves the supernatural at all, rather he put tormented psyches to rest.


There were also one or two minor things like raising the dead! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> There were also one or two minor things like raising the dead! :lol:


This reminds me (getting back to _Parsifal_ again ) that in the first synopsis I ever read of the opera - in "The Standard Operas" by George Upton, published in 1914 (no, I'm not that old) - it's stated that as Parsifal uncovers the Grail after healing Amfortas, old Titurel "rises from his coffin and bestows a benediction." I have never since encountered this event in any telling of the story or seen it in any production, and it isn't in Wagner's stage directions. I've always wondered where it came from, since it would be utterly wrong to bring back the stern patriarch who symbolizes the old regime which Parsifal has replaced with the "new testament" of compassion. It would be the equivalent of resurrecting Wotan!

Death, in mythic terms, represents a transition to a new phase of life or state of being. Something or someone dies so that something or someone greater can be born. When Wagner's characters die, they stay dead.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> There were also one or two minor things like raising the dead! :lol:


Hard for me to believe that actually happened. 

Jesus instructed his disciples specifically to heal the sick and cast out demons. He meant cater to the needs of the physically and mentally sick and assist them in spiritual enlightenment. These actions are not supernatural miracles, or wouldn't any miracle-performing disciple have a claim equal to that of Jesus for being the Son of God? Are miracles what establish Jesus as divine? If yes, then you have a contradiction, if not, then miracles are irrelevant.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> This reminds me (getting back to _Parsifal_ again ) that in the first synopsis I ever read of the opera - in "The Standard Operas" by George Upton, published in 1914 (no, I'm not that old) - it's stated that as Parsifal uncovers the Grail after healing Amfortas, old Titurel "rises from his coffin and bestows a benediction." I have never since encountered this event in any telling of the story or seen it in any production, and it isn't in Wagner's stage directions. I've always wondered where it came from, since it would be utterly wrong to bring back the stern patriarch who symbolizes the old regime which Parsifal has replaced with the "new testament" of compassion. It would be the equivalent of resurrecting Wotan!


Parsifal mourns the death of Titurel, which to me means he has significance beyond representing the old regime. His resurrection could entail the universality of salvation. But I agree with you better he stays dead to make way for the new.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Hard for me to believe that actually happened.
> 
> Jesus instructed his disciples specifically to heal the sick and cast out demons. He meant cater to the needs of the physically and mentally sick and assist them in spiritual enlightenment. These actions are not supernatural miracles, or wouldn't any miracle-performing disciple have a claim equal to that of Jesus for being the Son of God? Are miracles what establish Jesus as divine? If yes, then you have a contradiction, if not, then miracles are irrelevant.


If you read the gospel accounts it is quite clear that Jesus meant nothing of the sort. You are looking at the thing through a 20th-century materialistic mindset which does not believe in the supernatural. We might say with Paul, 'why do you think it impossible that God should raise the dead?' Because a materialistic mindset cannot believe something does not make it necessarily Untrue. Miracles didn't necessarily establish the divinity of Christ as other people have done them before him and after him but what did establish the divinity of Christ was the miracle of the resurrection. but isn't this Parsifal? Plenty of supernatural there you are discussing.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> If you read the gospel accounts it is quite clear that Jesus meant nothing of the sort. You are looking at the thing through a 20th-century materialistic mindset which does not believe in the supernatural. We might say with Paul, 'why do you think it impossible that God should raise the dead?' Because a materialistic mindset cannot believe something does not make it necessarily Untrue. Miracles didn't necessarily establish the divinity of Christ as other people have done them before him and after him but what did establish the divinity of Christ was the miracle of the resurrection. but isn't this Parsifal?


I invite you to visit the Religious discussion group where I make it quite clear I most certainly _do not _have the materialistic mindset. Nor is Hume's argument made from materialism, he simply points out the balance of testimony is never in favor of a miracle having occurred.

Yes this is Parsifal, but we are following a thread that you yourself started when you said a proper reading of the New Testament requires a belief in miracles. Nothing of the sort is required.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> I invite you to visit the Religious discussion group where I make it quite clear I most certainly _do not _have the materialistic mindset. Nor is Hume's argument made from materialism, he simply points out the balance of testimony is never in favor of a miracle having occurred.
> 
> Yes this is Parsifal, but we are following a thread that you yourself started when you said a proper reading of the New Testament requires a belief in miracles. Nothing of the sort is required.


As I say this is a question of philosophy and who is to say Hume was right? I always thought that raising the dead required a miracle! But as you say this is belongs to the religious group


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> As I say this is a question of philosophy and who is to say Hume was right? I always thought that raising the dead required a miracle! But as you say this is belongs to the religious group


If Hume is wrong then miracles are as common as non-miracles, which is to say, they are not much of a miracle at all! Dead bodies would be coming back to life all over the place! But I agree, let's leave this here.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> If Hume is wrong then miracles are as common as non-miracles, which is to say, they are not much of a miracle at all! Dead bodies would be coming back to life all over the place! But I agree, let's leave this here.


So because Wagner singers who can sing Tristan and Parsifal are not as common as people like me who cannot sing, that means that the Wagner singers of this world never happen? Because an event is rare and unique does not mean it did not happen. The Dam Busters raid was the only day of its kind ever.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> So because Wagner singers who can sing Tristan and Parsifal are not as common as people like me who cannot sing, that means that the Wagner singers of this world never happen? Because an event is rare and unique does not mean it did not happen. The Dam Busters raid was the only day of its kind ever.


Hume's argument is not that miracles do not happen, rather that there is insufficient testimony to say that they do. If a miracle had sufficient testimony to be accepted, we would cease to think of it as being a miracle at all.

If a random person tells you they can sing Wagner, do you believe them, knowing how rare they are? Or do you ask for something beyond testimony - evidence?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Couchie said:


> I invite you to visit the Religious discussion group where I make it quite clear I most certainly _do not _have the materialistic mindset. Nor is Hume's argument made from materialism, he simply points out the balance of testimony is never in favor of a miracle having occurred.
> 
> Yes this is Parsifal, but we are following a thread that you yourself started when you said a proper reading of the New Testament requires a belief in miracles. Nothing of the sort is required.


It's interesting how this discussion has arrived at Hume. As I have mentioned in other threads, for me Hume applies an empiricist approach to aesthetics, including the arts such as music, in a much more compelling and insightful way than his fellow empiricists (or those with whom I am familiar), whether from his own 18th century or later. Alas, for me he also has a disorganized and rambling style of writing, but it's worth wading through.

It's also interesting that Wagner (as I am now learning) was unique, or at least highly unusual, among 19th century artists or thinkers in combining Christian and Buddhist concepts. In contrast, any number of modern, 20th and 21st century western artists, composers included, have embraced various Buddhist concepts (though perhaps different versions of Buddhism) -- e.g., Cage, Stockhausen and Glass. Can Wagner, and Parsifal in particular, be seen as at least one of the origins of that trend?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

fluteman said:


> It's interesting how this discussion has arrived at Hume. As I have mentioned in other threads, for me Hume applies an empiricist approach to aesthetics, including the arts such as music, in a much more compelling and insightful way than his fellow empiricists (or those with whom I am familiar), whether from his own 18th century or later. Alas, for me he also has a disorganized and rambling style of writing, but it's worth wading through.
> 
> It's also interesting that Wagner (as I am now learning) was unique, or at least highly unusual, among 19th century artists or thinkers in combining Christian and Buddhist concepts. In contrast, any number of modern, 20th and 21st century western artists, composers included, have embraced various Buddhist concepts (though perhaps different versions of Buddhism) -- e.g., Cage, Stockhausen and Glass. Can Wagner, and Parsifal in particular, be seen as at least one of the origins of that trend?


Hume is such a radical departure from the Western philosophy before him that some think he had one of the earliest contacts with extensive exposure to Buddhist philosophy in the West: http://alisongopnik.com/Papers_Alison/Gopnik_HumeStudies_withTOC.pdf.

Hume gave us Kant, who gave us Schopenhauer and Wagner. I think it's fair to say we are on the cutting edge of Buddhism in the West with Wagner.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> Wagner's rejection of the OT, along with Parsifal being a criticism of authority, was given as the main point of Parsifal.


This was rejected because it was not "the main point," but the observation itself was never addressed.




> As an aside, and not as an advocate of Christianity, any "good" Christian knows that the OT is used by the NT in interpretation: as a "projection" of Christ's coming, the law, the covenant, prophecy, etc.


This was rejected because it is orthodox, and did not reflect the intent of the authors, but the idea that "God was mean" was accepted as a valid rejection of the OT. This seems unbalanced.



> Both (the OT & NT) share the same moral law.


This was rejected because there are other discrepancies. Yet Wagner is said to bring a "moral vision" into Parsifal, while rejecting the OT. This is not consistent; perhaps Wagner had other reasons.



> So my question still stands, and it seems that it could be answered in a succinct, general way. Why did Wagner want to reject the OT: for his own reasons, or was this indicative of the already established "general 19th century philosophical trend" which was occurring?


This was rejected because Wagner thought "the OT God was hideous" and because he was an atheist. This is contradictory; if Wagner was atheistic, why would he feel the "philosophical" need to reject the OT? He must have rejected it for other reasons not related to religion or belief, since these ideas would be irrelevant in this case to an atheist.



> Since Wagner was an atheist, the OP is misleading in its inclusion of Christianity, or in offering "choices" as to opinion.


This was rejected because the OP was supposedly "an invitation for people to offer their views on the presence, influence, meaning or value of religious content in a work of art;" yet, ideas were constantly rejected because they were orthodox, or for other reasons. It seems unbalanced to say that the ideas in Parsifal are "religious" while refusing all "religious context" of those ideas and beliefs. 
If this is the case, then don't call it "religious content" while concurrently making assertions about Wagner's modified form of "religion" which ultimately is a rejection of that religion as we know it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> If this is the case, then don't call it "religious content" while concurrently making assertions about Wagner's modified form of "religion" which ultimately is a rejection of that religion as we know it.


Whether one looks at it as a modification or a rejection of religion is mainly a semantic question, no? If one refers to Christianity as the "orthodoxy" as you have, you have already decided the question in favor of "rejection". But consider America's founding fathers, for example, very much children of the Age of Enlightenment. John Adams took a knife to his copy of the Bible and cut out the passages that he disagreed with, reportedly taking this redacted "confetti Bible" with him wherever he went. He certainly regarded himself as religious and Christian, otherwise why keep the Bible at all? 
I've suggested that, similar to the case of the founding fathers, there was a distinctly political element to Wagner's modification or rejection (whatever one calls it) of Christianity, and certainly of the Old Testament, in which we read that God not only created heaven and earth, but also imposed a very specific and detailed legal system and political order on His chosen people.
Nietzsche saw this, as he appears to have parted ways with Wagner and his operas mainly on political grounds.
Edit: My mistake, it was Thomas Jefferson who created his own cut-and-paste version of the Bible, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, excluding miracles and references to the supernatural, including the Resurrection. But John Adams had similar post-Enlightenment views.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> This was rejected because it was not "the main point," but the observation itself was never addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be honest, I find much of this post confused/confusing/incoherent. I try to respond clearly to points and questions when they make sense to me. Little of this does, and where it does I find it simply insubstantial or wrong-headed. You're clearly objecting to a bunch of things I and others have said, but I can't see why.

I see that fluteman has attempted to address one of your statements. He says what should be obvious: that rejecting a specific religion "as we know it" (your words) is not equivalent to rejecting religion. Parsifal isn't void of "religious content" (your words) just because Wagner's Christianity is not the same as the Pope's.

(BTW, why do your posts always have these indications for color in brackets [COLOR] when they appear in my writing field? I've never seen this in anyone else's posts.)


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Sorry for appearing flippant, but do any of the thread's contributors wonder what the man himself may have thought about it all? Would he be flattered? Would he be outraged? Would he feel misunderstood? Not too many personages from any of the arts can still provoke such spiky debate well over 100 years after their demise, and I can't help thinking whether Dicky Cartwright might just be smirking a little behind his silk handkerchief.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> Sorry for appearing flippant, but do any of the thread's contributors wonder what the man himself may have thought about it all? Would he be flattered? Would he be outraged? Would he feel misunderstood? Not too many personages from any of the arts can still provoke such spiky debate well over 100 years after their demise, and I can't help thinking whether Dicky Cartwright might just be smirking a little behind his silk handkerchief.


How could he be less than pleased to know that people are still writing not merely forum posts but books about his work? That's not to say that he wouldn't be annoyed at those who misunderstand his intentions, but then while he lived he got plenty of bad (to say the least) press concerning everything from his music to his love life and his taste in underwear.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

elgars ghost said:


> do any of the thread's contributors wonder what the man himself may have thought about it all?


he sure would be surprised his works life would be this long and cause as much dispute as in his days.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> he sure would be surprised his works life would be this long and cause as much dispute as in his days.


I think, like Beethoven, he believed his work was for the ages, so he would expect his fame to be as durable as it has been, if not more so. What might surprise him is that his dramatic innovations, though still highly influential (Tolkien's books, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones), have been superseded by other sharply contrasting, even contrary, dramatic innovations and developments. That, in turn, has had a profound impact on how dramatic music is created. Commercial recording, radio, movies, TV, and finally the internet, all of which postdate Wagner, have steadily pushed those developments along.

The religious and philosophical issues inherent in his work and raised in this thread, on the other hand, are part of a continuous debate that I think will last as long as humanity itself, stemming as it does from our knowledge of our mortality and our need to contemplate the immortal and infinite. So I think Wagner the philosopher and theologian will outlast Wagner the dramatist and even Wagner the composer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I think, like Beethoven, he believed his work was for the ages, so he would expect his fame to be as durable as it has been, if not more so. What might surprise him is that his dramatic innovations, though still highly influential (Tolkien's books, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones), have been superseded by other sharply contrasting, even contrary, dramatic innovations and developments. That, in turn, has had a profound impact on how dramatic music is created. Commercial recording, radio, movies, TV, and finally the internet, all of which postdate Wagner, have steadily pushed those developments along.


Is "superseded" the word you want here? I suspect "succeeded" might be more to the point. Maybe it depends on exactly what dramatic innovations you have in mind.



> The religious and philosophical issues inherent in his work and raised in this thread, on the other hand, are part of a continuous debate that I think will last as long as humanity itself, stemming as it does from our knowledge of our mortality and our need to contemplate the immortal and infinite. So I think Wagner the philosopher and theologian will outlast Wagner the dramatist and even Wagner the composer.


The thought of Wagner's ventures into philosophy and religion having more long-term viability than his artistic creations is a bit startling to me. I doubt we'd be talking about his concept of Christianity or his interest in Buddhism if we didn't find them expressed in a unique and powerful work of musical theater. Reading Wagner's essays, and even reading his libretti, can be thought-provoking, but his thoughts on these subjects were not very original and, frankly, not even consistently comprehensible in the abstract. His musical drama is not powerful because of the ideas that inspired it, but because of the ability of musical and theatrical representation to transcend intellectal formulations and speak to those qualities of experience to which no ideas can do justice, and in relation to which religious and philosophical imaginings are, as the Zen master would put it, mere fingers pointing at the moon.

Nothing Wagner ever said about religion, philosophy or anything else can probe as deep, or will stand as long, as this:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Is "superseded" the word you want here? I suspect "succeeded" might be more to the point. Maybe it depends on exactly what dramatic innovations you have in mind.
> 
> The thought of Wagner's ventures into philosophy and religion having more long-term viability than his artistic creations is a bit startling to me. I doubt we'd be talking about his concept of Christianity or his interest in Buddhism if we didn't find them expressed in a unique and powerful work of musical theater. Reading Wagner's essays, and even reading his libretti, can be thought-provoking, but his thoughts on these subjects were not very original and, frankly, not even consistently comprehensible in the abstract. His musical drama is not powerful because of the ideas that inspired it, but because of the ability of musical and theatrical representation to transcend intellectal formulations and speak to those qualities of experience to which no ideas can do justice, and in relation to which religious and philosophical imaginings are, as the Zen master would put it, mere fingers pointing at the moon.
> 
> Nothing Wagner ever said about religion, philosophy or anything else can probe as deep, or will stand as long, as this:


When I referred to Wagner the philosopher, I only meant through his operas, not his essays. 
The more centuries that pass between the creation of a work of art and its audience, the greater the importance of the work as a window into a society, its culture and its values, but also, most likely, the more difficult it becomes to understand and appreciate solely on its own aesthetic merits, out of its original social and cultural context. So, Parsifal remains important, but for increasingly different reasons.

Similarly, the more recent a work, the more likely it is of our own culture, and the more directly it can communicate with us. So, yes, I did mean superseded, not in the sense that anything better has or will come along, but in the sense that Don Giovanni, Tosca, Parsifal, indeed the whole of late 18th and 19th century opera, has largely been superseded, i.e., supplanted, or replaced, in its function and role in our culture, by other things.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> When I referred to Wagner the philosopher, I only meant through his operas, not his essays.
> The more centuries that pass between the creation of a work of art and its audience, the greater the importance of the work as a window into a society, its culture and its values, but also, most likely, the more difficult it becomes to understand and appreciate solely on its own aesthetic merits, out of its original social and cultural context. So, Parsifal remains important, but for increasingly different reasons.
> 
> Similarly, the more recent a work, the more likely it is of our own culture, and the more directly it can communicate with us. So, yes, I did mean superseded, not in the sense that anything better has or will come along, but in the sense that Don Giovanni, Tosca, Parsifal, indeed the whole of late 18th and 19th century opera, has largely been superseded, i.e., supplanted, or replaced, in its function and role in our culture, by other things.


Yes, works of art do speak differently to later generations. _Parsifal_ can't be viewed by most people now as it was in its own time. Its Christian elements, in particular, don't "convince" us as they might once have, and modern productions deal with them in a variety of ways which Wagner himself might have found surprising and not necessarily agreeable. Even though the work as he conceived it is subversive of conventional Christian dogma and of institutional religion as such, it makes explicit and clearly reverent use of elements of Christian ritual which modern audiences may find disturbing, baffling, or simply quaint. There has always been something strange and unsettling about the opera, but audiences which could easily embrace its surface pieties would have found it easier than we do to dismiss or explain away any discomfort it may have caused them.

I believe that we are better equipped to perceive the deeper implications of the piece than were people in 1882 whose sensibilities were tied to traditional religious notions. _Parsifal_ is for us less a work _of_ religion than a work _about_ religion, having accrued additional layers of complexity and become in the process a surprisingly modern meditation on our post-religious psychology. And because Christianity has receded in its influence on the modern mind, the Buddhist elements in the opera, less obvious but no less important, have become more meaningful. Alan Watts pointed out that Buddhism is not so much a religion, as the term is understood in the West, as a psychological discipline, and I believe that something parallel can be said of _Parsifal._ If we can now see the symbolism of the opera as a kind of magic show that directs us, half-unconsciously and through the seduction of musical theater, to the psychic realms that lie deeper and more universal than any particular religious ideology or practice, there is no reason to expect the work to lose meaning as the time of its creation recedes into the past. It may have greater power now than ever.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, works of art do speak differently to later generations. _Parsifal_ can't be viewed by most people now as it was in its own time. Its Christian elements, in particular, don't "convince" us as they might once have, and modern productions deal with them in a variety of ways which Wagner himself might have found surprising and not necessarily agreeable. Even though the work as he conceived it is subversive of conventional Christian dogma and of institutional religion as such, it makes explicit and clearly reverent use of elements of Christian ritual which modern audiences may find disturbing, baffling, or simply quaint. There has always been something strange and unsettling about the opera, but audiences which could easily embrace its surface pieties would have found it easier than we do to dismiss or explain away any discomfort it may have caused them.
> 
> I believe that we are better equipped to perceive the deeper implications of the piece than were people in 1882 whose sensibilities were tied to traditional religious notions. _Parsifal_ is for us less a work _of_ religion than a work _about_ religion, having accrued additional layers of complexity and become in the process a surprisingly modern meditation on our post-religious psychology. And because Christianity has receded in its influence on the modern mind, the Buddhist elements in the opera, less obvious but no less important, have become more meaningful. Alan Watts pointed out that Buddhism is not so much a religion, as the term is understood in the West, as a psychological discipline, and I believe that something parallel can be said of _Parsifal._ If we can now see the symbolism of the opera as a kind of magic show that directs us, half-unconsciously and through the seduction of musical theater, to the psychic realms that lie deeper and more universal than any particular religious ideology or practice, there is no reason to expect the work to lose meaning as the time of its creation recedes into the past. It may have greater power now than ever.


Those are good points, and in fact, you post has relevance that extends well beyond Wagner and Parsifal, really to a greater or lesser extent to everything discussed here at TC, since we are mostly discussing music written before we were born, often well before. You are willing and able to examine how Parsifal would have been seen and understood by a contemporary audience, and how it is generally viewed and understood today, and, _mirabile dictu_, understand that those are at least potentially two very different things. Some here seem unwilling to concede that the 20th and now the first 5th of the 21st centuries have actually happened and have had an impact on our culture.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Those are good points, and in fact, you post has relevance that extends well beyond Wagner and Parsifal, really to a greater or lesser extent to everything discussed here at TC, since *we are mostly discussing music written before we were born, often well before.* You are willing and able to examine how Parsifal would have been seen and understood by a contemporary audience, and how it is generally viewed and understood today, and, _mirabile dictu_, understand that those are at least potentially two very different things. *Some here seem unwilling to concede that the 20th and now the first 5th of the 21st centuries have actually happened and have had an impact on our culture.*


It's a little different if we're talking about pure music, isn't it? The principle is the same: we hear it in some ways differently than our ancestors did. But it's harder to say what anyone hears in music than to say how a work with literary content was and is understood.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It's a little different if we're talking about pure music, isn't it? The principle is the same: we hear it in some ways differently than our ancestors did. But it's harder to say what anyone hears in music than to say how a work with literary content was and is understood.


Yes, and operas have literary as well as musical content, so it is particularly important to place them in historical context.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

A religion is concerned with spiritual matters, and devotion. A philosophy is rational. The difference is obvious, and Parsifal is not "religious."

Don't refer to Parsifal's "religious content" while concurrently making assertions about Wagner's modified form of "religion" which ultimately is _a rejection of that religion as we know it._ Wagner's ideas are a philosophy, are rational, and are dealing with morality, not religious beliefs or the metaphysical.

Opposing ideas were constantly rejected because they were religiously orthodox, or for other merely argumentative reasons. To say that the moral ideas and imagery in Parsifal are "religious" while cutting off all "religious context" of those ideas is contradictory.

At the most, Parsifal can be said to be "religiously-derived," and I'm doing you a big favor by conceding that. If anything, Parsifal emerges as "a work of art in search of a religion," and in those terms is foggy, unfocused, confused, and vague. Anyone can interpret it as they wish, it's fodder for that, but it doesn't work as a "religion" by any stretch of the imagination. Good entertainment, yes, but let's stop there.

"Amen" to fluteman's statement that "it is particularly important to place them in historical context."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> A religion is concerned with spiritual matters, and devotion. A philosophy is rational. The difference is obvious, and *Parsifal is not **"religious."* *Wagner's ideas are a philosophy, are rational, and are dealing with morality, not religious beliefs or the metaphysical.*


Putting quotes around things is a nice way to squirm out of being pinned down. But let's pin some things down.

_Religion_ is a complex phenomenon which generally embraces metaphysical and ethical concepts, i.e. philosophical ideas about the nature of reality, some of which have implications for ethics, i.e. moral action. Religious thought is rooted in intuition, but may in some cases be highly rational, i.e. deductive.

_Philosophy _is an intellectual - not exclusively "rational," if that is taken to exclude the intuitively grasped - effort to understand the nature of reality, which has implications for ethics. Ethics is the philosophy of moral action, which presupposes particular conceptions of the nature of reality.

Spirituality, in any sense implying value to human existence, is inseparable from ethics, which rests on metaphysics, with which religion and philosophy are both concerned.

The overlap between religion and philosophy in the areas of metaphysics and ethics should be obvious. The ethical dimension is clear and paramount in the plot of _Parsifal,_ where it is not based on a rational philosophical system but on intuitions about human subjectivity and conceptions of spiritual growth. That Parsifal is called the "innocent fool" makes this clear. To call _Parsifal_ "philosophical and not religious" indicates a lack of acquaintance with the work, and assumes a dichotomy - between the "spiritual" and the "rational" - which does violence to the integrity of human nature, the nature of human cognition, and the reality of human subjective experience.



> Don't refer to Parsifal's "religious content" while concurrently making assertions about Wagner's modified form of "religion" which ultimately is _a rejection of that religion as we know it._



You've said that before. Two of us have pointed out the fallacy of identifying religion with "that religion as we know it." It's a favorite contention of mine that every religious man has his own religion - i.e., he will conceive of the meaning of his tradition in his own way. That is inevitable, and is every man's prerogative.




> Opposing ideas were constantly rejected because they were religiously orthodox, or for other merely argumentative reasons. To say that the moral ideas and imagery in Parsifal are "religious" while cutting off all "religious context" of those ideas is contradictory.



That doesn't make any more sense to me this time around.



> At the most, Parsifal can be said to be "religiously-derived," and I'm doing you a big favor by conceding that.


Do me a bigger favor and don't do me any favors.



> If anything, Parsifal emerges as "a work of art in search of a religion," and in those terms is *foggy, unfocused, confused, and vague.* Anyone can interpret it as they wish, it's fodder for that, but* it doesn't work as a "religion" by any stretch of the imagination. Good entertainment, yes, but let's stop there.*


No one has claimed that _Parsifal_ is supposed to "work as a religion." It's supposed to work as art, and do for us the sorts of things that art can do. No work of art, experienced outside of a religious ritual, "works as a religion," and that includes works such as passions, oratorios and requiems which are set to texts drawn from religious scriptures. If you want to posit a crude definition of "religious" art as art intended for use in religious functions, and want to stop at calling all other art "entertainment," regardless of the concepts it communicates, suit yourself, but that leaves an extraordinary amount of the world's art out of the discussion.

Whether any work of art affects a given audience in a manner that audience would call religious - or spiritual - is a matter of what the audience expects of it or receives from it. If _Parsifal_ moves people to feel and contemplate things which affect their perspectives on life in ways they consider deep or significant, nattering about whether it ought to be called "religious" is pointless and picayune.

(_Parsifal_ is not "foggy, unfocused, confused, and vague." But your attempts to tell others about it certainly are.)


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> A religion is concerned with spiritual matters, and devotion. A philosophy is rational. The difference is obvious, and Parsifal is not "religious."
> 
> Don't refer to Parsifal's "religious content" while concurrently making assertions about Wagner's modified form of "religion" which ultimately is _a rejection of that religion as we know it._ Wagner's ideas are a philosophy, are rational, and are dealing with morality, not religious beliefs or the metaphysical.
> 
> ...


Have you even listened to or seen Parsifal in performance, or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> If _Parsifal_ moves people to feel and contemplate things which affect their perspectives on life in ways they consider deep or significant, nattering about whether it ought to be called "religious" is pointless and picayune.


That about sums up my attitude, and not just about whether Parsifal should be considered a religious work. Too many "issues" like that are little more than excuses for academicians to write tiresome books that I'll never read. However, you did start this thread and give it the title "Religion in Wagner's Parsifal: Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither?", inevitably raising the questions, What is a Christian or Buddhist opera? and finally, What is religion? I do think you're being a bit hard on millionrainbows, after luring him into his Platonic rationalist mode and setting yourself up to answer your own question 355 posts later. You did provoke some good discussion along the way, though.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> That about sums up my attitude, and not just about whether Parsifal should be considered a religious work. Too many "issues" like that are little more than excuses for academicians to write tiresome books that I'll never read. However, you did start this thread and give it the title "Religion in Wagner's Parsifal: Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither?", inevitably raising the questions, What is a Christian or Buddhist opera? and finally, What is religion? I do think you're being a bit hard on millionrainbows, after luring him into his Platonic rationalist mode and setting yourself up to answer your own question 355 posts later. You did provoke some good discussion along the way, though.


The question "Is Parsifal a Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither?" hasn't yet generated all possible views. Reports of this thread's death have been greatly exaggerated, so don't you go writing an obituary!

The question "Is Parsifal a religious work?" is a vaguer and more general one, less likely to yield pertinent information, and apt to spin off into other topics, which is probably why I didn't ask it. "Religion" means different things to different people and in different contexts. In the pre-WW I era there was the phenomenon known as "Wagnerism," a rather fuzzy blanket term for a widespread and intense interest in Wagner and his works (including even his prose works) which could sometimes manifest itself in ways reminiscent of religious devotion. For obvious reasons, _Parsifal_ and its theater in Bayreuth both bestowed and reflected an aura of religiosity which was generally noticed by festival attendees and was famously mocked by sharp wits from Nietzsche to Mark Twain and Stravinsky. Wagner himself had laid some groundwork for this cultic atmosphere by stipulating that _Parsifal_ should be performed only at Bayreuth, where the proper conditions of performance could be maintained, and after his death Cosima adhered to his wishes until the Met, not bound by German copyright law, staged the work in 1903.

The aura of religiosity surrounding the performance of _Parsifal_ persisted through the 20th century; the Met had (and may still have, though not every year) the tradition of presenting it around Easter, almost as if it were the operatic equivalent of Handel's _Messiah_ at Christmas. Given that the action of Act 3 of the opera transpires on Good Friday, and that Gurnemanz sings of the delicate flowers of spring, spared from trampling by a grateful mankind, as images of resurrection, such a ritual presentation is certainly not inappropriate. For nonbelievers like me it has always been a perfect, nondoctrinaire expression of gratitude for another year of life renewed. Perhaps, if I'm lucky, millionrainbows will even accept that as a legitimately spiritual experience!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The question "Is Parsifal a Christian opera, Buddhist opera, both, or neither?" hasn't yet generated all possible views. Reports of this thread's death have been greatly exaggerated, so don't you go writing an obituary!


Oh, no! That wasn't my intention. Actually, it was my backhanded way of thanking you, and also our resident skeptic/rationalist millionrainbows for egging you on, and Couchie and everyone else for contributing here. I'd rather sit through several Wagner operas without intermissions than read any of those tedious books and journal articles you have all saved me from reading. I can imagine the titles. Religion and Wagner. Symbolism and Wagner. Richard Wagner: Radical or Reactionary? Wagner and Ancient Mythology in 19th Century Art. So, thank you, and carry on.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> A religion is concerned with spiritual matters, and devotion. A philosophy is rational. The difference is obvious, and Parsifal is not "religious."
> 
> Don't refer to Parsifal's "religious content" while concurrently making assertions about Wagner's modified form of "religion" which ultimately is _a rejection of that religion as we know it._ Wagner's ideas are a philosophy, are rational, and are dealing with morality, not religious beliefs or the metaphysical.


I strongly disagree, Wagner considered the stage-play sacred (_Bühnenweihfestspiel_). The more I get familiar with Wagner and Parsifal, the more I think he did intend it to elicit a sort of esoteric ecstatic spiritual-insight in the listener, and not just as a mere social commentary.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If we can't agree on what "religion" is compared to "philosophy," and see the differences, we will get nowhere. NOWHERE. A philosophy is rational, concerned with things which are intuitive like "being," so in that case could be said to have a tenuous connection to "religion."

However, this does not make Buddhism a "philosophy" because it is non-deistic. There is a moral and devotional aspect to Buddhism (right thought, right action), and rituals, etc. which makes it a religion.

Philosophy is rational, intellectual, and an individual matter, unorganized and unrecognized as a collective effort. That's a crucial difference, whether or not the effort is "collective."

I suppose in this _limited sense_ that Parsifal has a "collective effect" since it is viewed by large audiences, but to make this into a "religion" is going too far. Parsifal may embody "religious" ideas, but that's no different than saying John Cage's art is a "religion" which can substitute for real Buddhism. It Can't, and shouldn't. Art is the expression of individuals, not collectives.

By this criteria, even "occult" practices are more like a religion than Parsifal, since astrology, Ouji boards and Tarot cards deal with the irrational, unconscious, belief, and metaphysical speculation.

I like Mark Rothko's paintings and John Cage's music, but I'm not going to say this art is a replacement for actual religion.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> If we can't agree on what "religion" is compared to "philosophy," and see the differences, we will get nowhere. NOWHERE. A philosophy is rational, concerned with things which are intuitive like "being," so in that case could be said to have a tenuous connection to "religion."
> 
> However, this does not make Buddhism a "philosophy" because it is non-deistic. There is a moral and devotional aspect to Buddhism (right thought, right action), and rituals, etc. which makes it a religion.
> 
> ...


I think we can safely say that although art is not religion, art can convey or reflect religious themes and ideas. And while religion and philosophy are not the same thing, religious tenets can and often do include and reflect philosophical ideas. As Woodduck mentioned, two whole branches of philosophy, metaphysics and ethics, concern issues directly addressed at least by most well-developed, sophisticated religious systems. That two things are different does not make them wholly unrelated.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> If we can't agree on what "religion" is compared to "philosophy," and see the differences, we will get nowhere. NOWHERE. A philosophy is rational, concerned with things which are intuitive like "being," so in that case could be said to have a tenuous connection to "religion."
> 
> However, this does not make Buddhism a "philosophy" because it is non-deistic. There is a moral and devotional aspect to Buddhism (right thought, right action), and rituals, etc. which makes it a religion.
> 
> ...


All you're doing here is fighting with a straw man. No one has asserted that a work of art can or should function as a religion.

As for your refusal to acknowledge the commonality between religion and philosophy, you're out to lunch, if you aren't merely being stubborn. To say that philosophy can have a "tenuous" connection to religion is mind-bogglingly absurd. A religious view of how the world and human life are constituted and what is important about them becomes philosophy the moment it generates analytical thought, at any level of sophistication, no matter whether it's personal or collective, and no matter whether it's a contrivance by a scholar in a musty library or simply a cultural tradition. A philosophy needn't be academic or systematic - but, in fact, religion has generated an enormous amount of systematic philosophy, both metaphysical and ethical. Your dichotomous thinking leaves Thomas Aquinas - and a great many other religious philosophers - intellectually homeless.

Debating whether Wagner's intention in writing _Parsifal,_ or whether its dramatic content, IS "philosophical" or "religious" is dichotomous thinking and a semantic sleight of hand. It IS both, in certain respects. The whole purpose of this discussion is to examine those respects.

Don't worry. No one here worships the Holy Grail and is trying to convert you to Parsifalism.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Parsifal has been elevated way above its significance. Yes, there are similarities between religion and philosophy, but to avoid this slop which has resulted, we need to focus on the differences. 

Don't worry, if you listen to 4'33" you won't become a Buddhist.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

if you cross philosophy (ideology) with art (appeal to emotions), you get religion


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

This thread has gotten 16,000 views. People are interested.

"I try to decorate my imagination as much as I can."
Franz Schubert


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Jacck said:


> if you cross philosophy (ideology) with art (appeal to emotions), you get religion


but art in itself is a ideology...

a religion, however, can be started to build from anything, it only takes a proper organisation.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Parsifal has been elevated way above its significance. Yes, there are similarities between religion and philosophy, but to avoid this slop which has resulted, we need to focus on the differences.
> 
> Don't worry, if you listen to 4'33" you won't become a Buddhist.


I won't, and you needn't worry about Parsifal, or any of Wagner's operas, being elevated above their significance due to the religious themes of this thread. While I've long been aware in a general way of the religious themes Wagner uses and Woodduck has raised here, and have enjoyed this discussion of them (as I said, anything to avoid tedious books and musicology journal articles), this sort of thing has never been what has most interested me in these operas.

Rather, it is Wagner's innovations in the area of musical drama that I find most significant. For, rather than taking a libretto, usually written by someone else and based on a pre-existing literary work, and adding a series of arias in an episodic fashion, each of which functions in part as a separate performance of a separate musical work (and usually earns its own applause, interrupting the drama, which is often secondary and even superficial anyway) Wagner creates a unified music-drama. Separate instrumental overtures and preludes are his only major concession to the prior tradition, but even there, there is great thematic and structural unity.

Wagner's innovative approach helps him examine profound, complex "big" themes, such as those raised in this thread.

It is therefore hardly surprising that when "talkies" came along, and with them the need to compose synchronized musical scores for bigger, longer, and more dramatically complex movies, Hollywood turned to composers with European classical backgrounds, such as the Austrian born Wolfgang Korngold and Max Steiner, who were thoroughly familiar with Wagner (and his successors Mahler and Richard Strauss) and his ideas.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> *Parsifal has been elevated way above its significance.* Yes, there are similarities between religion and philosophy, but to avoid *this slop* which has resulted, we need to focus on the differences.
> 
> Don't worry, if you listen to 4'33" you won't become a Buddhist.


The only "slop" here is coming from you.

"We" don't need to "focus" on the differences between philosophy and religion in order to understand what Wagner is doing in _Parsifal._ "We" are not confused about it. I'm sorry that you are. Perhaps it would help you to study the work before opining on what it is and isn't.

It isn't your place to tell anyone here how "significant" this subject is or how far anyone should "elevate" anything. If _Parsifal_ is of little value to you, go back to wrangling over whether some interval or other is "really" a dissonance. That's really a matter worth "elevating," isn't it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

fluteman said:


> I
> Wagner's innovative approach helps him examine profound, complex "big" themes, such as those raised in this thread.
> 
> It is therefore hardly surprising that when "talkies" came along, and with them the need to compose synchronized musical scores for bigger, longer, and more dramatically complex movies, Hollywood turned to composers with European classical backgrounds, such as the Austrian born Wolfgang Korngold and Max Steiner, who were thoroughly familiar with Wagner (and his successors Mahler and Richard Strauss) and his ideas.


Bernard Hermann? American born. Juilliard trained. Worked with Welles and Hitchcock.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Zhdanov said:


> but art in itself is a ideology...
> 
> a religion, however, can be started to build from anything, it only takes a proper organisation.


I am not sure that art is ideology. It works outside of reason and intellect, through emotion and intuition and feelings. 
and it is true that religion can be created. Some charismatic leader + some deep sounding feel good nonsense and the people start to flock. For example a guru called Rajneesh could gather a following of many thousand peoples, while he sexually abused the the women and collected Rolls-Royce cars from the follower's contributions. The only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of properties they own.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Jacck said:


> I am not sure that art is ideology. It works outside of reason and intellect, through emotion and intuition and feelings.
> and it is true that religion can be created. Some charismatic leader + some deep sounding feel good nonsense and the people start to flock. For example a guru called Rajneesh could gather a following of many thousand peoples, while he sexually abused the the women and collected Rolls-Royce cars from the follower's contributions. *The only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of properties they own.*




And how many properties did the founder of Christianity own?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

DavidA said:


> [/B]
> 
> And how many properties did the founder of Christianity own?


at that time it was not a religion. Jesus gathered a small crowd of followers, later became a cult, and it became a religion only after several centuries, when it sufficiently spread and was adopted by Rome and the Church was created. And the Church perverted the whole teaching. Jesus taught simplicity, humility, freedom, love, poverty, hated hypocrity. And church was all about power, control of people, wars, inquisition etc. Christianity did not become religion until after Jesus' death


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Jacck said:


> at that time it was not a religion. Jesus gathered a small crowd of followers, later became a cult, and it became a religion only after several centuries, when it sufficiently spread and was adopted by Rome and the Church was created. And the Church perverted the whole teaching. Jesus taught simplicity, humility, freedom, love, poverty, hated hypocrity. And church was all about power, control of people, wars, inquisition etc. Christianity did not become religion until after Jesus' death


It depends of course how you define a religion. You have a habit of making very sweeping statements that the church perverted the whole of the teaching. Some of the church perverted some of the teaching. The teaching had to be recovered. In many places today it is still the religion that Jesus actually taught that is still being followed. The church was actually created by Jesus and to use the term itself. The word 'ekklesia' simply means congregation. Of course we see in a work like Parsifal how myth and legend obscured the actual message of Christianity.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Here is the esoteric interpretation of Parsifal, which views Parsifal as depicting the evolution of higher consciousness: 
https://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/arts/ar-rmay.htm

Wagner was not likely esoteric beyond some loose association with Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, but societies/brotherhoods protecting tradition and wisdom feature prominently in his works.

The Grail, the cup which Jesus Christ used at the Last Supper, was made from the stone which fell from Lucifer's crown as he plunged to earth. Lucifer (the Light-bringer) brought the mental principle to evolving humanity. The stone from Lucifer's crown can therefore be regarded as ego-consciousness or "I am I": without the awakening mind principle humanity would not be able to acquire knowledge, and the first step along this path is "I am I." That this stone was fashioned into a cup or bowl which was used to catch the blood of Christ elevates its meaning because it then stands for the divine self, atma-buddhi (compassion). As Wagner remarked, it becomes "Grail consciousness" -- purified, redeemed "I am."

The second act of Parsifal takes place in the magic castle (maya) of the black magician Klingsor. Here Satan, personified as the magician, tests Parsifal's will power. Wagner regards Klingsor "as the counterweight to the god-seeking impulse, which beclouds the power of discernment [the thinking principle, manas], with two sources of illusion: the power of sense impressions and passionate desire [maya and kama]." How does maya becloud our knowledge? If we were to rely on sensory perception alone, we would conclude that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and that the sun therefore orbits the earth. If we use manas, however, which provides us with knowledge of the earth's rotation and the motion of the planets and stars, we come to a different conclusion and one which is far nearer to the truth.

When Parsifal enters the magic castle, Klingsor conceals himself and turns the area into a beautiful tropical garden where young maidens clad in soft-colored veils dance. When Parsifal approaches, they embrace him, and the game with the flower maidens begins. The higher self can only play with beauty; as soon as one is entrapped by it, his powers become bound to the physical realm. The maidens want more than just to play, and they crowd around him. Firmly driving them off, Parsifal cries: "Have done! You shall not catch me!"

*The first attempt at seduction through the power of deceptive beauty has been repulsed.* But when Kundry enters and calls his name -- Parsifal -- he is shocked, because his mother had once addressed him in just the same way in a dream. The flower maidens fade away and Parsifal recognizes the deceptive nature of the material world. Now the power of the desire world is revealed to him: Kundry becomes visible. She tells Parsifal of his origin: Parsifal (the monad) left the world of illusion and went his way, following the laws of spirit. In the world of appearances it is impossible to understand such decisions. So great is the sorrow of his mother (his biological origin) at his decision that she finally dies. When Kundry tells of his mother's grief when he ran away to seek higher things, she awakens the pity of the higher self with regard to the personal self. Parsifal sinks down at Kundry's feet and torments himself with severe self-reproaches.

*Parsifal experiences here the possibly strongest temptation the aspiring human being can encounter. Overpowering pity in the face of suffering has proved the undoing of many who betrayed their divine ideals for the sake of alleviating suffering.* In his state of weakness, Kundry tells Parsifal of the great love between his parents; nevertheless, he does not give in to Kundry's fantasies but sees Amfortas before him. This time he does not merely see the sorrow in the realm of the Grail, as in the first act, but suffers it directly. Parsifal suddenly starts up with a gesture of the utmost terror, his demeanor expresses some fearful change; he presses his hands hard against his heart as if to master an agonizing pain. He cries: "Amfortas! The wound! The wound! It burns within my heart!"

Parsifal remembers what he saw in the temple of the Grail and "falls into a complete trance." The vision of his link with divinity awakens once again within him. He is filled with deep compassion which no longer relates to the personal self, nor to the suffering of the spiritual self (Amfortas), but to the inmost divine heart of creation calling us to liberation. It is compassion for his own essential divinity (atma-buddhi, the higher duad) which is enchained by the fetters of desire. This compassion for the divine activates love of the divine and sets in motion the will to complete the process of attaining divinity.

Kundry tries to hinder Parsifal's compassion, but he recognizes the demonic nature of her attempt. Kundry tries to kiss Parsifal, but he forcefully repulses her. This is the turning point of the whole drama. The deceptive maneuver of the black magician which brought about the downfall of Amfortas and the knights of the Grail, is penetrated by Parsifal, enabling him to achieve clearness of vision. He sees through the bewildering attacks of his adversary and hears the call of the divine will to redemption "in proving himself through the active pity he feels for the sorrow of humanity" (quotation from Wieland Wagner).

*Only now does Klingsor begin his most powerful attack on the initiant. Through Kundry he attempts to conjoin universal love with the personal.* Kundry reveals to Parsifal the tragedy of her existence and her own suffering, saying:

One for whom I yearned in deathly longing, whom I recognized though despised and rejected, let me weep upon his breast, for one hour only be united to you and, though God and the world disown me, in you be cleansed of sin and redeemed!

Parsifal here recognizes Klingsor's seductive attack on his will to redemption. He discerns the way in which the human desire nature repeatedly feigns reformation and binds us to things of matter. He again repulses Kundry, saying: "For evermore would you be damned with me if for one hour, unmindful of my mission, I yielded to your embrace."

The seducing skills become increasingly spiritual (geistig). Kundry begs for pity and promises Parsifal the attainment of divinity. But the initiant understands that in no event must he allow himself to be ruled by the desire nature; only if desire is used to liberate the aspiring human ego will it be redeemed. He says to Kundry: "Love and redemption shall be yours if you will show me the way to Amfortas."

Kundry tries once again to win Parsifal's act of redemption for herself: she tries to embrace him and implores him to take pity. But it is too late: Parsifal is already in a higher state of consciousness. He vigorously pushes her aside. The initiant has withstood the test. Kundry flies into a fury and curses "the fool" in her selfish longing for redemption. She tries to prevent him from reaching the Grail. Klingsor appears in person and hurls the spear at Parsifal, but Parsifal catches the spear and holds it above his head: sensuous lower mind is transformed into aspiring higher mind. Parsifal says: "With this sign I rout your enchantment. As the spear closes the wound which you dealt him with it, may it crush your lying splendor into mourning and ruin!" In the light of the higher mind the demonic illusion fades away; Klingsor's magic realm sinks as if by an earthquake.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Jacck said:


> I am not sure that art is ideology. It works outside of reason and intellect, through emotion and intuition and feelings.
> and it is true that religion can be created. Some charismatic leader + some deep sounding feel good nonsense and the people start to flock. For example a guru called Rajneesh could gather a following of many thousand peoples, while he sexually abused the the women and collected Rolls-Royce cars from the follower's contributions. The only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of properties they own.


Art comes from our long history on the planet and that's what science studies.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

DavidA said:


> It depends of course how you define a religion. You have a habit of making very sweeping statements that the church perverted the whole of the teaching. Some of the church perverted some of the teaching. The teaching had to be recovered. In many places today it is still the religion that Jesus actually taught that is still being followed. The church was actually created by Jesus and to use the term itself. The word 'ekklesia' simply means congregation. Of course we see in a work like Parsifal how myth and legend obscured the actual message of Christianity.


by the word ekklesia Christ simply mean the body of his followers. He did not create any chierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops and popes, or prohibit women from serving in his community etc. One of his closest pupils was Mary Magdalene and she wrote a Gospel
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DavidA said:


> It depends of course how you define a religion. You have a habit of making very sweeping statements that the church perverted the whole of the teaching. Some of the church perverted some of the teaching. The teaching had to be recovered. In many places today it is still the religion that Jesus actually taught that is still being followed. The church was actually created by Jesus and to use the term itself. The word 'ekklesia' simply means congregation. Of course we see in a work like Parsifal how myth and legend obscured the actual message of Christianity.


People, even today, need a religion and therefore the above is what Christians need to believe. It has to be the ultimate for them. ...I'm happy to know that this satisfies some people.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Bernard Hermann? American born. Juilliard trained. Worked with Welles and Hitchcock.


I'm a big fan. But Hermann was a little younger, got started with film scores a little later (1941), and as you say, was American trained. For me, his style predominantly reflected other, more modern influences.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I'm a big fan. But Hermann was a little younger, got started with film scores a little later (1941), and as you say, was American trained. For me, his style predominantly reflected other, more modern influences.


Yes, although the use of leitmotifs featured prominently all throughout his work from beginning to end (1975) and is something he had in common with the aforementioned Europeans.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Parsifal is "Wagnermania." If we elevate it to the near-status of religion, we have grossly overstated it. We _must_ distinguish between the areas in which religion and philosophy/morals intersect, because if we don't, virtually _any_ art can be over-elevated into a modern "religion."

If religious views of "how the world and human life are constituted and what is important about them becomes _philosophy _the moment it generates analytical thought," then that's _overlap,_ not religion in its purest sense.

And if this happens "at any level of sophistication, no matter whether it's personal or collective, and no matter whether it's a contrivance by a scholar in a musty library or simply a cultural tradition," then _anything_ can equal Parsifal: Beatlmania, Monkees fans, Sinatra, or Britney Spears mania.

"Religion has generated an enormous amount of systematic philosophy, both metaphysical and ethical. (This) leaves Thomas Aquinas - and a great many other religious philosophers - intellectually homeless."

No, that's simply overlap. Their thinking may derive from religion, but if we take them too seriously, we are left with figures like C.S. Lewis and his pseudo-sci-fi version of Hell. This is "fanboy" stuff, public fodder for people who are filling an emptiness which would better be served by real religion, not clever variations and elaborations of religious themes.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Parsifal is "Wagnermania." If we elevate it to the near-status of religion, we have grossly overstated it. We _must_ distinguish between the areas in which religion and philosophy/morals intersect, because if we don't, virtually _any_ art can be over-elevated into a modern "religion."
> 
> If religious views of "how the world and human life are constituted and what is important about them becomes _philosophy _the moment it generates analytical thought," then that's _overlap,_ not religion in its purest sense.
> 
> ...


But it really needs to be the ultimate for people -- and Art can never be the ultimate. Art is never finished.

Jesus started out as a poor man, an underdog, preacher and he was scapegoated by the occupying forces and the Jewish leaders allowed it, for the sake of domestic peace. He was an underdog and then he was the victor and then he was the promised messiah and then ... etc.etc., heading for the ultimate, the ontological foundation of the context of our veryselfhood revealed..


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

@millionrainbows I really don't share your esteem for maintaining "real religion" as a "protected class". This attitude positively sneers at the religious practices less-followed. Does making Beatlemania a religion somehow lessen the stature of major religions like Catholicism?

Wagner clearly intended his Art to have religious impact beyond a fan following:

_"One might say that where Religion becomes artificial, *it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion *by recognizing the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal presentation."_

- Wagner, _Religion and Art_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Parsifal is "Wagnermania."


Bullpucky. It's an opera. Some people find it powerful and love it. Get over it.



> If we elevate it to the near-status of religion, we have grossly overstated it.


We aren't "elevating it to the near-status of religion" (whatever the hell that means), or overstating anything. We're looking at a work of art and trying to discuss what's in it. If you can't do that, be silent and learn from those who can.



> We _must_ distinguish between the areas in which religion and philosophy/morals intersect, because if we don't, virtually _any_ art can be over-elevated into a modern "religion."


This seems to be your problem, not mine. You've come onto this forum and described 4'33" as religious music and Webern's atonality as an approach to God. No one has said anything comparable about Wagner or_ Parsifal._ Your hypocrisy is grotesque.




> If religious views of "how the world and human life are constituted and what is important about them becomes _philosophy _the moment it generates analytical thought," then that's _overlap,_ not religion in its purest sense.


There is no such thing as "religion in its purest sense." Religion is a complex phenomenon, an immense and varied jumble of psychology, philosophy, science and aesthetics wherein human beings try to comprehend and relate to the world. Religion does not have the clear, simple boundaries you want it to have.



> And if this happens "at any level of sophistication, no matter whether it's personal or collective, and no matter whether it's a contrivance by a scholar in a musty library or simply a cultural tradition," then _anything_ can equal Parsifal: Beatlmania, Monkees fans, Sinatra, or Britney Spears mania.


Huh?



> "Religion has generated an enormous amount of systematic philosophy, both metaphysical and ethical. (This) leaves Thomas Aquinas - and a great many other religious philosophers - intellectually homeless."
> 
> No, that's simply overlap. Their thinking may derive from religion, but if we take them too seriously, we are left with figures like C.S. Lewis and his pseudo-sci-fi version of Hell. This is "fanboy" stuff, public fodder for people who are filling an emptiness which would better be served by real religion, not clever variations and elaborations of religious themes.


Pursue your own "real religion" and spare us your preachments.

Since you don't have much of an idea of what _Parsifal_ actually is, you're cluttering up this thread with pointless quibbling, as well as staging a continuing putdown of people who actually know something, or would like to know something, and think this is a subject worth talking about. You are derailing my thread and benefitting no one. If this is all you can do, as it seems to be what you do wherever you go, know that you are not welcome.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Here is the esoteric interpretation of Parsifal, which views Parsifal as depicting the evolution of higher consciousness:
> https://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/arts/ar-rmay.htm


Esoteric indeed. The author of that article was addressing a meeting of the Theosophical Society in the Netherlands, and I have to wonder whether he was a Dutchman speaking English, or whether this is a bad English translation of the original talk given in Dutch. I guess I have to trust that a theosophist would find all of its ideas and language comprehensible. But it bothers me when someone with an avowed ideological bias claims to know what Wagner intends his symbols to mean while making obvious mistakes.

One example: the notion that the Holy Grail was made of a stone from Lucifer's crown was not Wagner's. In fact he rejected the idea when it was suggested by Princess Carolyne Sayn-Wittgenstein. The Grail as a precious stone is found in the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach, who seems to have derived the idea via a misunderstanding of Chretien's earlier _Perceval._ Wagner explicitly said that Wolfram, his major literary source, had it wrong. This throws doubt (at the very least) on our speaker's further explanations of the nature of Wagner's Grail.

Another example: The Sacred Spear is correctly identified with the spear of Longinus, the Roman centurion who is said to have thrust it into the side of Christ on the cross. But claiming that it "stands for higher mind, that part of us which must decide whether the mind will aspire to spirit or succumb to material desire" is a bit fanciful (though not completely off base, I think). What we're told about the spear in the opera is that it is the Grail's companion, belongs with it, and must never be used in battle. What we see is that Amfortas, in violating its nature by removing it from the Grail's domain in order to try to combat evil with it, loses it to the forces of evil and has it turned against himself, suffering a wound which can only be healed when the spear is returned to its rightful place. The spear is thus an enormously suggestive symbol, but "higher mind" doesn't tell us much.

I believe that an "esoteric" interpretation of Parsifal - one that finds meanings in it which are not apparent from a simple reading of its libretto - is very possible, but that if we're to avoid foating off into clouds of fantasy we have to look closely at what is and isn't in the opera. I would look above all at the work's central symbols, the Holy Grail and the Sacred Spear, and would suggest that the companionship of these talismanic relics, delivered together into the care of Titurel, constitutes a "sacred marriage" of spiritual archetypes. The complementary genderedness - female and male - of the nourishing chalice and the piercing weapon couldn't be more obvious to anyone versed in mythology, and the absolute importance of keeping these archetypal objects together in harmonious union might be key to an understanding of the opera's spritual/psychological meaning.

Sexual symbolism may be alien to (in fact suppressed by) Christian tradition, but it isn't alien to other spiritual traditions, and it can put the opera's pervasive preoccupation with sex, so baffling to some, into a different light. From this perspective, the "original sin" in the story is the failure of Titurel and his administrator Amfortas to keep the masculine Spear - the ego - in harmony with the feminine Grail - the nourishing spirit. This is manifested by the attempt to create a religion and a priesthood around the relics - controlling the Grail's emanations, making of it a fetish, covering and uncovering it in a ritual rather than merely revering and guarding it - and by Titurel's parallel attempt to control the sexuality of his knights. Both represent an offense against the feminine, against the spirit of love, by the controlling male ego, the arrogant will, and this act of violence is symbolized and completed by the physical removal of the Spear from the precincts of the Grail. The consequences of this severing of that which should remain harmoniously united, this breakdown of the sacred marriage of love and will, are devastating: the masculine ego turns back on Amfortas and wounds him - phallic aggression ironically renders him spiritually impotent - and the nurturing feminine is transmuted into the seducing, devouring feminine, tempting Parsifal with a promise of complete regression into infantile passivity, the pure, conscienceless ego of the child sucking forever at the breast of Herzeleide.

The ego's rebellion against the spirit and its violation of the wholeness of the self is at the heart of "sin" in both Eastern and Western religion, despite the different ways in which it's described and the different disciplines by which the religious adept seeks to refute its false claims and restore spiritual wholeness. To my knowledge, Wagner never spelled out explicitly the meaning of the Grail and Spear or the reasons why they "behave" as they do, and the archetypes he employs in the opera were probably not described as such before Jung looked at myth as an embodiment of psychological phenomena. If we do look at _Parsifal_ through that lens, we see an almost frighteningly intense portrait of psychological sickness - the "wages of sin" - represented as a rebellion not against some totalitarian deity but against nature herself. This idea - the fracturing of our nature, and the need to restore its integrity - is larger than any particular religion, but is the essential meaning of the spiritual quest, whether that takes the form of a religious discipline, psychotherapy, or any process of striving for wholeness and maturity. The quest, in _Parsifal,_ is the Spear's desire to return to the Grail, the aspiration of the immature, rebellious will to return, now fully conscious, to its partnership with the fountainhead of love. It's basically the process of becoming oneself, the process of growing up, made possible by the choice of the "innocent fool," Parsifal.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> One example: the notion that the Holy Grail was made of a stone from Lucifer's crown was not Wagner's. In fact he rejected the idea when it was suggested by Princess Carolyne Sayn-Wittgenstein. The Grail as a precious stone is found in the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach, who seems to have derived the idea via a misunderstanding of Chretien's earlier _Perceval._ Wagner explicitly said that Wolfram, his major literary source, had it wrong. This throws doubt (at the very least) on our speaker's further explanations of the nature of Wagner's Grail.


That's too bad I liked that connection between Lucifer and his initial "gift" of knowledge to man and Parsifal gaining knowledge as to the true nature of Amfortas' suffering via Kundry's Kiss.

From Wagner to King Ludwig:

_What is the significance of Kundry's kiss?' - That, my belovèd, is a terrible secret! You know, of course, the serpent of Paradise and its tempting promise: 'eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum' [Genesis 3:5, 'Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil']. Adam and Eve became 'knowing'. They became 'conscious of sin'. The human race had to atone for that consciousness by suffering shame and misery until redeemed by Christ, who took upon himself the sin of mankind.

My dearest friend, how can I speak of such profound matters except in a simile, by means of a comparison? But only the clairvoyant can say what its inner meaning may be. 'Adam - Eve - Christ'. How would it be if we were to add to them: - 'Amfortas - Kundry - Parzival" ? But with considerable caution!

The kiss which causes Amfortas to fall into sin, awakens in Parzival a full awareness of that sin, not as his own sin but as that of the grievously afflicted Amfortas whose lamentations he had heard only dully, but the cause of which now dawns upon him in all its brightness, through his sharing the feeling of sin: with the speed of lightning he said to himself, as it were: 'ah! that is the poison that causes him to sicken, whose grief I did not understand until now!' - Thus he knows more that all the others, more, especially than all the assembled Knights of the Grail who continued to think that Amfortas was complaining merely of the spear-wound! Parzival now sees deeper ..._


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Parsifal is "Wagnermania." If we elevate it to the near-status of religion, we have grossly overstated it. We _must_ distinguish between the areas in which religion and philosophy/morals intersect, because if we don't, virtually _any_ art can be over-elevated into a modern "religion."
> 
> If religious views of "how the world and human life are constituted and what is important about them becomes _philosophy _the moment it generates analytical thought," then that's _overlap,_ not religion in its purest sense.
> 
> ...


You totally misunderstand CS Lewis, like his pseudo-intellectual contemporaries did, but never mind.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Jacck said:


> by the word ekklesia Christ simply mean the body of his followers. He did not create any chierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops and popes, or prohibit women from serving in his community etc. One of his closest pupils was Mary Magdalene and she wrote a Gospel
> http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm


The word Ekklesia literally means 'called out ones' and was correctly translated by Tyndale as 'congregation' unfortunately to be retranslated as the more institutional word 'church'. In the New Testament Jesus appointed apostles and there are listed apostles, prophets evangelists pastors and teachers as gifts to lead the church. Bishops are mentioned but the word means 'overseer' as does 'elder' and it means 'leader'. These people led the congregations initially following the Jewish synagogue pattern. There are no popes, archbishops or priests as in the New Testament every believer is a priest. The myth that the early church prohibited women from serving might be undone by looking at Romans 16 where around 8 of the names mentioned by Paul of his fellow ministers are women! The myths about Mary Magdelene have no place in the New Testament but are later fictional Gnostic additions and even crop up in the fictitious Kundry figure in Parsifal. Amazing as so little is actually known about her.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

DavidA said:


> The word Ekklesia literally means 'called out ones' and was correctly translated by Tyndale as 'congregation' unfortunately to be retranslated as the more institutional word 'church'. In the New Testament Jesus appointed apostles and there are listed apostles, prophets evangelists pastors and teachers as gifts to lead the church. Bishops are mentioned but the word means 'overseer' as does 'elder' and it means 'leader'. These people led the congregations initially following the Jewish synagogue pattern. There are no popes, archbishops or priests as in the New Testament every believer is a priest. The myth that the early church prohibited women from serving might be undone by looking at Romans 16 where around 8 of the names mentioned by Paul of his fellow ministers are women! The myths about Mary Magdelene have no place in the New Testament but are later fictional Gnostic additions and even crop up in the fictitious Kundry figure in Parsifal. Amazing as so little is actually known about her.


I am no expert on Christianity, but as far as I can remember, Jesus never talked about any of this in any of his speeches (if he did, the quote it). All this hierarchical church baggage was created after his death, including the barring of women from participating in the church. The church was corrupt from the beginning, and from the beginning has banned some "gospels". ALL POWER IS CORRUPT. I cannot stress this enough and Jesus would no doubt agree with this. The Romans became decadent, corrupt and brutal, so the message of compassion and caring for the poor gained a lot of support. The Romans first tried to supress it, but then they realized that it cannot be supressed, so they coopted it. And since then the Church gained power and competed for power with kings and rulers, but it was already hopelessly corrupt. In fact, one of the first reformation movements against the corruption of the Church was started in my country.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Jacck said:


> I am no expert on Christianity, but as far as I can remember, Jesus never talked about any of this in any of his speeches (if he did, the quote it). All this hierarchical church baggage was created after his death, including the barring of women from participating in the church. The church was corrupt from the beginning, and from the beginning has banned some "gospels". ALL POWER IS CORRUPT. I cannot stress this enough and Jesus would no doubt agree with this. The Romans became decadent, corrupt and brutal, so the message of compassion and caring for the poor gained a lot of support. The Romans first tried to supress it, but then they realized that it cannot be supressed, so they coopted it. And since then the Church gained power and competed for power with kings and rulers, but it was already hopelessly corrupt. In fact, one of the first reformation movements against the corruption of the Church was started in my country.


Please allow a little correction. Jesus did say, 'I will build my church (congregation)' and told his followers to go into the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He appointed 12 to be apostles To be with him and to begin his mission in Israel. Later on of course the apostles lead the fledgling church. The fact that the first witnesses of the resurrection recorded in the gospels are all women should give lie of the fact that they were not allowed to participate. Also the fact that they were also present in the upper room when the disciples receive the holy spirit. You are very misinformed that the church was corrupt from the beginning - you need to read the acts of the apostles to actually get the eyewitnesses account of it. Of course it wasn't perfect because we are dealing with human beings who are imperfect. The Romans didn't become decadent corrupt and brutal - the fact is they were decadent corrupt and brutal already. The early church's message came as a total revolutionary challenge to their society. Yes we know later on corruption came into the church as it was politicised but we are talking now about the very beginning of the church when it was a persecuted minority which gradually conquered the Roman Empire. Unfortunately Christianity then became Christendom and of course corruption and misinformation came in. We see this legendary misinformation adapted by Wagner in Parsifal. Same with things like The Da Vinci Code. It's OK as long as it is regarded as what it is - fiction.
But I say the church was totally corrupt is a misnomer because there were always people trying to reform it and get it back to what it should be. It is the simplicity of Jesus' teaching and the early church's message that Christianity should be measured by. But this thread is about Wagner not a discussion about theology so leave it there.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Please allow a little correction. Jesus did say, 'I will build my church (congregation)' and told his followers to go into the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He appointed 12 to be apostles To be with him and to begin his mission in Israel. Later on of course the apostles lead the fledgling church. The fact that the first witnesses of the resurrection recorded in the gospels are all women should give lie of the fact that they were not allowed to participate. Also the fact that they were also present in the upper room when the disciples receive the holy spirit. You are very misinformed that the church was corrupt from the beginning - you need to read the acts of the apostles to actually get the eyewitnesses account of it. Of course it wasn't perfect because we are dealing with human beings who are imperfect. The Romans didn't become decadent corrupt and brutal - the fact is they were decadent corrupt and brutal already. The early church's message came as a total revolutionary challenge to their society. Yes we know later on corruption came into the church as it was politicised but we are talking now about the very beginning of the church when it was a persecuted minority which gradually conquered the Roman Empire. Unfortunately Christianity then became Christendom and of course corruption and misinformation came in. We see this legendary misinformation adapted by Wagner in Parsifal. Same with things like The Da Vinci Code. It's OK as long as it is regarded as what it is - fiction.
> But I say the church was totally corrupt is a misnomer because there were always people trying to reform it and get it back to what it should be. It is the simplicity of Jesus' teaching and the early church's message that Christianity should be measured by. But this thread is about Wagner not a discussion about theology so leave it there.


There's probably recent interpretations about "the simplicity of Jesus' teaching". But if you just read his ideas about dropping everything and following him, and forsaking your family and not caring about worldly concerns about your future, I think it needs a modern interpretation involving metaphors.

Parsifal probably has gaps like this too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The myths about Mary Magdelene have no place in the New Testament but are later fictional Gnostic additions and even crop up in the fictitious Kundry figure in Parsifal. Amazing as so little is actually known about her.


The character of Kundry in _Parsifal_ suggests Mary Magdalene in a couple of ways. Mary is described in the Gospels as having been healed of demonic possession by Jesus, which may be reflected in Parsifal's freeing of Kundry from Klingsor's power over her. The Roman Church, probably uncomfortable with the idea of a prominent woman as a church leader, spuriously conflated Mary with the "sinful woman" in the Gospels who annointed Jesus's feet and dried them with her hair, a gesture which Wagner has Kundry perform for Parsifal in the third act of the opera.

The striking character of Kundry is Wagner's original creation, unlike any character in the medieval versions of the Percival story, yet compounded of traits from many sources in Christian legend. One of these was the tale of St. Josaphat, in which the saint, who has taken a vow of chastity, is promised by a beautiful maiden that if he sleeps with her just once she will become a Christian and her soul will be saved. Kundry uses precisely this tactic after Parsifal refuses her seductive advances. The major source for Kundry was Wolfram's _Parzival,_ but that poem actually contains no single character like her; Wagner took traits from three different characters. There is Condrie, the "loathly damsel", who can appear as either a repulsive hag or a lovely maiden (in Wagner, Kundry appears alternately as the wild woman who serves the knights of the Grail and the beautiful enchantress who seduces them under Klingsor's spell). There is Orgeluse, a lady who has been put under a spell by the sorcerer Clinschor; the grail king Anfortas sets out to win her heart, and in the process is wounded (in Wagner, Amfortas sets out with the Sacred Spear to destroy Klingsor, and while lying in Kundry's arms loses the Spear and is wounded by it). And there is Sigune, Parzival's cousin, who in Chretien's _Perceval_ tells Perceval of his mother's death (Kundry does this in Parsifal) and in Wolfram reveals to Parzival his name (as Kundry does in Klingsor's garden). Other ingredients that went into Kundry were the legendary figure of the Wandering Jew - in one version, the Jew was accompanied by a woman named Herodias, which according to Klingsor was one of Kundry's names - and Wagner's own figure of Prakriti, the central female character in his projected opera on a Buddhist theme, _Die Sieger._

That Wagner was able to synthesize traits and actions of all these women into a single unique and powerful character is a compelling testimony to his skill as a dramatist.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> That Wagner was able to synthesize traits and actions of all these women into a single unique and powerful character is a compelling testimony to his skill as a dramatist.


You make a persuasive case, or at least provide further support, for my view of Wagner as an innovator in using musical theater to examine deeper and more substantial philosophical, moral and religious themes rather than the lighter dramatic fare we see in many of the famous 18th and 19th century operas, which often feature farcical comedy or melodramatic tragedy, both often designed mainly to be a showcase for great music and singing (and nothing wrong with that -- no need to defend the traditional opera buffa / opera seria concepts and their greatest proponents, please).

However, putting aside Wagner's music and looking at him solely from a dramatic and literary standpoint, his heavy reliance on ancient myth and metaphor tie him to pre-late 19th century traditions and put him behind trailblazing contemporaries like Henrik Ibsen and Gustav Flaubert. For me, Wagner's dramatic devices hark back to the day writers couldn't address contemporary social, political or religious themes directly for fear of offending the King or Queen or other aristocratic or ecclesiastical guardians of the traditional order. And that is hardly surprising, as he had radical political beliefs that got him into trouble, at least in his younger years. Maybe that trouble is what inspired him to express himself in this way. (And he was far from the last to resort to such dramatic devices. For example, L'apres-midi d'un faun, Daphnis et Chloe, and even Le sacre du printemps, can all be seen as examples of the use of ancient myth and metaphor to deal with sexual themes without provoking too much outrage. But I digress.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> You make a persuasive case, or at least provide further support, for my view of Wagner as an innovator in using musical theater to examine deeper and more substantial philosophical, moral and religious themes rather than the lighter dramatic fare we see in many of the famous 18th and 19th century operas, which often feature farcical comedy or melodramatic tragedy, both often designed mainly to be a showcase for great music and singing (and nothing wrong with that -- no need to defend the traditional opera buffa / opera seria concepts and their greatest proponents, please).
> 
> However, putting aside Wagner's music and looking at him solely from a dramatic and literary standpoint, his heavy reliance on ancient myth and metaphor tie him to pre-late 19th century traditions and put him behind trailblazing contemporaries like Henrik Ibsen and Gustav Flaubert. For me, Wagner's dramatic devices hark back to the day writers couldn't address contemporary social, political or religious themes directly for fear of offending the King or Queen or other aristocratic or ecclesiastical guardians of the traditional order. And that is hardly surprising, as he had radical political beliefs that got him into trouble, at least in his younger years. Maybe that trouble is what inspired him to express himself in this way.


I doubt that Wagner was ever motivated artistically by the desire to stay out of trouble. He tried his hand at a few different opera genres before "finding himself," but even in maturity his works do differ somewhat in their style and intent (the comedy _Die Meistersinger_ stands at quite a distance from _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_). By the time he began to think of writing opera, the genre in Germany had already reflected the revival of interest in national folklore in the works of Carl Maria von Weber, most famously in the sensationally popular _Der Freischutz_ (1821), and in operas such as _Der Vampyr_ (1828) by the then-successful Heinrich Marschner. The young Wagner responded to this fascination with legendary and magical tales in his first opera _Die Feen_ (The Fairies), composed in 1833 but not performed in his lifetime. His next opera was very different, a comedy, _Das Liebesverbot _(The Ban on Love), composed in 1836 and based on Shakespeare's _Measure for Measure._ Modeled on the French and Italian social comedies popular at the time, it deals in a fairly lighthearted way with the theme of sexual freedom in a repressive society, a theme Wagner would explore in a more serious way in later works. His third opera, _Rienzi,_ premiered in 1842, was a grand opera in emulation of Meyerbeer on a thoroughly political theme, the story of a Roman populist leader opposed to the power of the nobility. Both _Das Liebesverbot_ and _Rienzi_ had social implications quite consistent with the young Wagner's own revolutionary political impulses, but I don't think the fact that his very next work, _Der Fliegende Hollander_ (The Flying Dutchman, 1843) turned back to the Romantic world of folklore represented any sort of shyness about making political statements, especially given his participation a few years later in the revolutionary activities that necessitated his fleeing to Switzerland. I think it's simply a case of his finding, after some experimentation, his true sphere, the depiction of the internal drama of the spirit through the symbolism of myth and legend. But his commitment to symbolic drama shouldn't obscure the fact that in the stories of all his operas there is plenty of social criticism in the depiction of the struggle between the demands of nature - the subjective life of the individual - and the repressions and corruptions of society. In this Wagner prefigures Freud's ideas on civilization and repression - and, contrary to your evident impression, he got there some time before Ibsen, whose first major play, _Brand,_ didn't come until 1865 when Wagner had already written the libretti of all his works except _Parsifal._



> And he was far from the last to resort to such dramatic devices. For example, L'apres-midi d'un faun, Daphnis et Chloe, and even Le sacre du printemps, can all be seen as examples of the use of ancient myth and metaphor to deal with sexual themes without provoking too much outrage.


Wagner's use of sexual themes provoked a goodly amount of outrage. It's always been one of the chief objections to _Parsifal_ in particular that its religious content couldn't possibly be taken seriously since the whole plot seems (at first glance) to revolve around sex. That's definitely a subject worth looking into!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Ibsen, whose first major play, _Brand,_ didn't come until 1865 when Wagner had already written the libretti of all his works except _Parsifal._


Thank you for that synopsis of Wagner's career, some of which I was aware of, but not all. I didn't mean Wagner was behind Ibsen temporally, they worked at roughly the same time, and your point that most of Wagner's work was completed a few years earlier is well taken. Flaubert also worked at roughly the same time (no?). I meant that Wagner was behind them in terms of the development of modern drama and literature, where Ibsen and Flaubert were at the vanguard. I'm not familiar with his earliest operas that you cite, and maybe I should be, but what I have seen makes use of much older dramatic traditions, one of which is what I've called "myth and metaphor". Ibsen and Flaubert were leaders of what is (perhaps somewhat misleadingly) called the "realist" movement in drama and literature, a new paradigm in which "ordinary" (though not truly ordinary) people and situations are depicted using ordinary language. I don't think Wagner was a dramatic or literary "realist" in that sense. His innovations were in a different area.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Thank you for that synopsis of Wagner's career, some of which I was aware of, but not all. I didn't mean Wagner was behind Ibsen temporally, they worked at roughly the same time, and your point that most of Wagner's work was completed a few years earlier is well taken. Flaubert also worked at roughly the same time (no?). I meant that Wagner was behind them in terms of the development of modern drama and literature, where Ibsen and Flaubert were at the vanguard. I'm not familiar with his earliest operas that you cite, and maybe I should be, but what I have seen makes use of much older dramatic traditions, one of which is what I've called "myth and metaphor". Ibsen and Flaubert were leaders of what is (perhaps somewhat misleadingly) called the "realist" movement in drama and literature, a new paradigm in which "ordinary" (though not truly ordinary) people and situations are depicted using ordinary language. I don't think Wagner was a dramatic or literary "realist" in that sense. His innovations were in a different area.


Quite true about the difference between Ibsen's route and Wagner's. Ibsen used the everyday appearances of life to uncover the often scandalous (at least for his day) psychological truths that "proper" society preferred not to acknowledge. Wagner, if anything, moved increasingly in the direction of symbolism, to the point where everything in the _Ring_ and _Parsifal_ occurs in a parallel reality and has an esoteric meaning (or more than one), consistent and comprehensible at the level of emotional truth but baffling if we try to take it literally (which some people oddly insist on trying to do).

Where Wagner was an unparalleled realist, however, was in his conception of music; he seemed to operate on the faith that virtually anything could be represented and expressed in the expanded vocabulary of Romantic music, and he never stopped pushing that language to express subtler and deeper dramatic conceptions. By the time he reached the third act of _Parsifal_ he said that he felt as if he had to reinvent music itself; the desolate, searching prelude to that act, and the agonized processional before the final scene, contain chromatic ambiguities akin to the remarkable late piano pieces of Liszt, and possibly beyond anything to be heard before the second Viennese school they so clearly influenced.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> There's probably recent interpretations about "the simplicity of Jesus' teaching". But if you just read his ideas about dropping everything and following him, and forsaking your family and not caring about worldly concerns about your future, I think it needs a modern interpretation involving metaphors.
> 
> Parsifal probably has gaps like this too.


Agreed and this is where if you strip the 2000 years of accrued religion away (like Parsifal has) that Jesus' teaching becomes incredibly radical and challenging even today. I mean, 'Love your enemies'. Some of us have a problem with the guy next door! :lol:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> By the time he reached the third act of _Parsifal_ he said that he felt as if he had to reinvent music itself; the desolate, searching prelude to that act, and the agonized processional before the final scene, contain chromatic ambiguities akin to the remarkable late piano pieces of Liszt, and possibly beyond anything to be heard before the second Viennese school they so clearly influenced.


That orchestral prelude is a series of linked long legato phrases that lead into the third act proper with no transition. Not even an eighth rest pause or silence throughout. (Your comparison to late Liszt is apt.) The otherworldly atmosphere Wagner conveys here and elsewhere comes in large part from its departure from the characteristics of the human voice, whether speaking or singing. We humans need to pause to breathe, nor can our voices reach the crashing climaxes of a full orchestra. It's therefore no surprise that Wagner is such a workout for the orchestra, and requires the utmost strength and stamina in the singers. (I agree that Wagner stretches key Romantic music concepts here, structurally as well as harmonically, as far as anyone.)

For me, Renaissance and Baroque music tended to reflect the characteristics of the human voice much more closely, and there finally was a return to that in modernism with its more episodic structures, choppier textures and shorter durations, as I've mentioned in other threads. Not to derail the thread, but discussing and listening to Parsifal again brings me back to for me an equally great masterpiece that also makes use of religious metaphor and symbolism, but from the early modern era, and that is Histoire du Soldat. (An old folktale is used, and the key symbols are a violin and a book.)

But most relevant to your comment about the prelude to act 3 of Parsifal is Stravinsky's use of silence, so much unlike Wagner. The jaunty introduction to The Soldier's March comes to a complete halt after three measures for four beats of complete silence other than the clipped vamp from the bass. To me that encapsulates the entire ensuing story, as the march of life is suddenly cut off, leaving the limitless void that is all that can be left for one who has bargained away his immortal soul. There is no such moment for the heroic Parsifal, who declines such temptations.

So we see the contrast between the Romantic and Modern sensibilities very starkly in these two works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> That orchestral prelude is a series of linked long legato phrases that lead into the third act proper with no transition. Not even an eighth rest pause or silence throughout. (Your comparison to late Liszt is apt.) The otherworldly atmosphere Wagner conveys here and elsewhere comes in large part from its departure from the characteristics of the human voice, whether speaking or singing. We humans need to pause to breathe, nor can our voices reach the crashing climaxes of a full orchestra. It's therefore no surprise that Wagner is such a workout for the orchestra, and requires the utmost strength and stamina in the singers. (I agree that Wagner stretches key Romantic music concepts here, structurally as well as harmonically, as far as anyone.)
> 
> For me, Renaissance and Baroque music tended to reflect the characteristics of the human voice much more closely, and there finally was a return to that in modernism with its more episodic structures, choppier textures and shorter durations, as I've mentioned in other threads. Not to derail the thread, but discussing and listening to Parsifal again brings me back to for me an equally great masterpiece that also makes use of religious metaphor and symbolism, but from the early modern era, and that is Histoire du Soldat. (An old folktale is used, and the key symbols are a violin and a book.)
> 
> ...


Wagner was definitely not Stravinsky's cup of tea. Their music couldn't be much more dissimilar. Among Stravinsky's many barbed dismissals of other composers, he said that a work of art had to be conceived in terms of definite boundaries, and that Wagner failed to acknowledge this. About the latter's "endless melody" Stravinsky remarked that it should never have begun at all, and of _Parsifal_ he said that it's what you get when you start writing without a sense of limits. If you don't establish such limits, he quipped, "you end up with _Parsifal_ - but who wants to write it again?" Of course that's all nonsense - if someone said that here on the forum he'd deserve to get piled on - but Stravinsky knew his wit was good copy.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner was definitely not Stravinsky's cup of tea. Their music couldn't be much more dissimilar. Among Stravinsky's many babed dismissals of other composers, he said that a work of art had to be conceived in terms of definite boundaries, and that Wagner failed to acknowledge this. About the latter's "endless melody" Stravinsky remarked that it should never have begun at all, and of _Parsifal_ he said that it's what you get when you start writing without a sense of limits. If you don't establish such limits, he quipped, "you end up with _Parsifal_ - but who wants to write it again?" Of course that's all nonsense - if someone said that here on the forum he'd deserve to get piled on - but Stravinsky knew his wit was good copy.


Burn!!! (Wagner is in good company. Stravinsky had his claws out for Vivaldi too, saying he wrote the same concerto 600 times.) But that's what makes art so much fun. Wagner celebrated magnificent, luxurious excess, Stravinsky responded with a tablespoon of astringent tonic and a strictly-timed bath of ice water.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Burn!!! (Wagner is in good company. Stravinsky had his claws out for Vivaldi too, saying he wrote the same concerto 600 times.) But that's what makes art so much fun. Wagner celebrated magnificent, luxurious excess, Stravinsky responded with a tablespoon of astringent tonic and a strictly-timed bath of ice water.


Wagner used a lot of chromaticism. Composers were wary of excessive chromaticism for the future.

Stravinsky used polytonality. For example C major with a Db major over it gives you the flat ninth, the eleventh and the flat thirteenth. You hear the dissonance.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Wagner used a lot of chromaticism. Composers were wary of excessive chromaticism for the future.
> 
> Stravinsky used polytonality. For example C major with a Db major over it gives you the flat ninth, the eleventh and the flat thirteenth. You hear the dissonance.


Good point. I tried to discuss Stravinsky's use of polytonality in Petrushka in a previous thread. Here, I was talking about his use of silence. The opening theme of The Soldier's Tale stops dead in its tracks four measures in, just before reaching the final tonic chord in a cadence.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Luchesi said:


> Wagner used a lot of chromaticism. Composers were wary of excessive chromaticism for the future.
> 
> Stravinsky used polytonality. For example C major with a Db major over it gives you the flat ninth, the eleventh and the flat thirteenth. You hear the dissonance.


An interesting thing about Wagner's harmony is that no matter how far he took chromatic fludity and ambiguity of key, he remained very classical in his part-writing and voice-leading. You can really appreciate this when you play a piano reduction of his scores (or follow along with the score in the YouTube clip of the prelude to Act 3 of _Parsifal _: 



). Sound for its own sake never took precedence over directionality and syntax; that was a Modernist idea, as heard in the floating, "impressionist" harmonies of Debussy and the tart dissonances of Stravinsky. The flower maidens' music in _Parsifal_ is positively fragrant with sweet, ethereal harmony and scoring: 



, and even the more "religious" music in the opera can be quite sexy in its glowing sonority and subtle harmony. This sensuousness wasn't lost on Debussy (or Mahler, e.g. in "What the flowers tell me" in his third symphony), but in Wagner the music is still drawn in lines of clear polyphony, with voice-leading "by the book."

Debussy may have recognized this musical conservatism when he called Wagner a "sunset mistaken for a dawn," and someone (I forget who) pointed out that the score of _Parsifal_, in its synthesis of a full range of styles from unaccompanied plainchant to diatonic renaissance polyphony to Tristanesque chromaticism to near-impressionism, virtually recapitulates the progression of Western music up to that moment. But Debussy also complained that echoes of the opera kept intruding as he composed _Pelleas et Melisande,_ which won't surprise anyone who knows both operas at all well. _Tristan_ gets plenty of recognition for its pioneering chromatic complexity, but the peculiar sound world of _Parsifal_ was, in my estimation, no less influential; I hear echoes of its subtle harmony, radiant orchestration and mysterious moods not only in Debussy but in French postromanticism, in English music (Elgar, Vaughan Williams, et al.), in German music from the 1880s up to and including the Second Viennese School, and even in Sibelius. No surprise that Stravinsky was so eager to keep his distance, and after flirting with Romanticism found a style about as far from Wagner's as he could imagine. But I wonder whether he ever recognized that in the synthesis of styles that make up the score of _Parsifal,_ Wagner was being something of a neoclassicist himself.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> No surprise that Stravinsky was so eager to keep his distance, and after flirting with Romanticism found a style about as far from Wagner's as he could imagine. But I wonder whether he ever recognized that in the synthesis of styles that make up the score of _Parsifal,_ Wagner was being something of a neoclassicist himself.


I don't know about Stravinsky, but Ravel as well as Debussy borrowed very obviously from Wagner. For example, you don't need to be a musicologist to figure out that Daybreak from Part III of Daphnis and Chloe is more than a little based on Forest Murmurs from Siegfried. I've read that Ravel had a monumental case of writer's block partway through writing Daphnis and nearly handed the job off to another composer. Then he suddenly regained his inspiration and finished it rather quickly. One has to wonder if listening to Forest Murmurs (perhaps it was in his record collection by 1912?) helped him get going again.

And I actually do know a little bit about Stravinsky. He made a deliberate attempt to leave the 19th century behind after Firebird. I also think that it was not only successful, but also inevitable, much as the Finns can sit in a sweltering, steamy sauna only so long before they have to burst outside and jump naked into frigid water. Brrr. Some here are not too happy about how later composers developed Stravinsky's ideas, but he took that salutary first jump into the cold water.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Agreed and this is where if you strip the 2000 years of accrued religion away (like Parsifal has) that Jesus' teaching becomes incredibly radical and challenging even today. I mean, 'Love your enemies'. Some of us have a problem with the guy next door! :lol:


Skeptics say that Jesus was born at the time of Galilean uprisings. They were brutally put down, many rapes. So it's expected that Jesus would teach appeasement against the occupiers (and others in power), especially to the poor, powerless people of the settlements.

But it doesn't matter what that context was.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Stravinsky was a bitter old man. I will side with Prokofiev here and say dissonance is a spice, too much and it spoils the batter. _The Rite of Spring_ is enchanting on the first listen and tedious on the tenth. I have yet to "wear out" either Wagner or Debussy in the same manner, despite my best efforts to do so as they are probably my two heaviest in rotation. Something about Stravinsky doesn't reward repeated listening. It has no "soul".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Stravinsky was a bitter old man. I will side with Prokofiev here and say dissonance is a spice, too much and it spoils the batter. _The Rite of Spring_ is enchanting on the first listen and tedious on the tenth. I have yet to "wear out" either Wagner or Debussy in the same manner, despite my best efforts to do so as they are probably my two heaviest in rotation. Something about Stravinsky doesn't reward repeated listening. It has no "soul".


I'm not sure whether Stravinsky was bitter - he had little reason to be, he was successful enough - but I get little depth of feeling from most of his work, which strikes me as the product of a clever, detached intellect playing around with the materials of music. That may be the essence of "neoclassicism," but it's certainly not actual classicism, which sought merely to keep emotional expression in balance with intellectual pleasure, not to subordinate or obliterate it. This is truly at the opposite extreme from Wagner, whose intellect was obviously extraordinary but was never indulged for its own sake (except in _Meistersinger,_ where it's caricatured as pedantry in contrast to the spontaneous art of Walther/Wagner).

I've often noted how little discussion there is of Wagner's musical methods compared to, say, Bach's, Beethoven's or Schoenberg's, and I think that's simply because his music goes so relentlessly to the gut, and leaves you little time or inclination to figure out how he does it. The score of _Parsifal_ (keeping to the subject, more or less) is full of fiendishly brilliant structural and stylistic ideas - contrapuntal devices, orchestral blends, motivic relationships - but the average listener isn't going to think about them or even notice them. It's an art that conceals art, as compared to music in which the perception of artfulness is more than half the point of listening. I'm not going to put down that sort of music; it affords its own pleasures. But I respect Stravinsky as a craftsman while rarely loving him as an artist. I enjoy both the emotional and the intellectual in art, but come down a bit more on the side of the former. I'd have been happy if Stravinsky had written more Russian Romantic fantasies like _Firebird._


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure whether Stravinsky was bitter - he had little reason to be, he was successful enough - but I get little depth of feeling from most of his work, which strikes me as the product of a clever, detached intellect playing around with the materials of music. That may be the essence of "neoclassicism," but it's certainly not actual classicism, which sought merely to keep emotional expression in balance with intellectual pleasure, not to subordinate or obliterate it. This is truly at the opposite extreme from Wagner, whose intellect was obviously extraordinary but was never indulged for its own sake (except in _Meistersinger,_ where it's caricatured as pedantry in contrast to the spontaneous art of Walther/Wagner).
> 
> I've often noted how little discussion there is of Wagner's musical methods compared to, say, Bach's, Beethoven's or Schoenberg's, and I think that's simply because his music goes so relentlessly to the gut, and leaves you little time or inclination to figure out how he does it. The score of _Parsifal_ (keeping to the subject, more or less) is full of fiendishly brilliant structural and stylistic ideas - contrapuntal devices, orchestral blends, motivic relationships - but the average listener isn't going to think about them or even notice them. It's an art that conceals art, as compared to music in which the perception of artfulness is more than half the point of listening. I'm not going to put down that sort of music; it affords its own pleasures. But I respect Stravinsky as a craftsman while rarely loving him as an artist. I enjoy both the emotional and the intellectual in art, but come down a bit more on the side of the former. I'd have been happy if Stravinsky had written more Russian Romantic fantasies like _Firebird._


As I said earlier, the great contrast between Wagner and Stravinsky, on opposite ends of the spectrum in many ways, is very much the contrast between Romantic and Modern sensibilities. I tried to suggest how Stravinsky's anti-heroic Soldier is the counterpart to Wagner's heroic Parsifal. To me it isn't really a case of clever, intellectual detachment, but rather of countering the larger-than-life themes of Wagner with everyday, ordinary life-sized themes.

With his faults and failures, the Soldier is far more human a character than are Parsifal, Kundry, Klingsor, or indeed just about any of the characters of Wagner's operas, who, though complex, seem more like metaphors and symbols than real people (and thanks for your explanations on that count in this thread, Woodduck, which do clear some things up for me -- I'll return to Parsifal better prepared). The Soldier loses sight of what really matters most in life, as represented by the violin (home, family, friends, love), in an ultimately useless pursuit of money and power, as represented by the book, after succumbing to temptation, in the form of the devil. Yes, there are many clever little wrinkles and a number of other symbols, but that's the very simple basic idea, in one sentence.

And just as what really matters in life can be distilled down to a few essential things, and told in a simple (but with the right treatment, powerful) folk tale, Stravinsky suggests that the same is true with music. Everything about the music in Histoire is minimalist -- instrumentation, structure, duration, even the use of silence that I mentioned earlier, that is rarely encountered in Wagner.

Now, I concede there can be no anti-Parsifal without Parsifal. The Finns don't jump into the cold water until after sitting in the hot and steamy sauna for a good long while. But what Stravinsky is doing is very far from "playing around" with musical materials in a detached way. He is relating a hard and starkly simple lesson of the consequences of human frailty with hard and starkly simple music. His intellect comes into play in how he matches the music to the story in such a skilled and sophisticated way. But the, Wagner does that too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> As I said earlier, the great contrast between Wagner and Stravinsky, on opposite ends of the spectrum in many ways, is very much the contrast between Romantic and Modern sensibilities. I tried to suggest how Stravinsky's anti-heroic Soldier is the counterpart to Wagner's heroic Parsifal. To me it isn't really a case of clever, intellectual detachment, but rather of countering the larger-than-life themes of Wagner with everyday, ordinary life-sized themes.
> 
> With his faults and failures, the Soldier is far more human a character than are Parsifal, Kundry, Klingsor, or indeed just about any of the characters of Wagner's operas, who, though complex, seem more like metaphors and symbols than real people (and thanks for your explanations on that count in this thread, Woodduck, which do clear some things up for me -- I'll return to Parsifal better prepared). The Soldier loses sight of what really matters most in life, as represented by the violin (home, family, friends, love), in an ultimately useless pursuit of money and power, as represented by the book, after succumbing to temptation, in the form of the devil. Yes, there are many clever little wrinkles and a number of other symbols, but that's the very simple basic idea, in one sentence.
> 
> ...


You prompt me to listen to _L'histoire du soldat _again after many years to see how it strikes me. I'll get back to you!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You prompt me to listen to _L'histoire du soldat _again after many years to see how it strikes me. I'll get back to you!


I don't see it on youtube, but there is a recording from the 1980s by Kent Nagano and the London Sinfonietta featuring the rock star Sting as the soldier, and Vanessa Redgrave and Ian McKellen in the other roles, that is a lot of fun. I don't know why there aren't more celebrity recordings, as there are with Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I don't see it on youtube, but there is a recording from the 1980s by Kent Nagano and the London Sinfonietta featuring the rock star Sting as the soldier, and Vanessa Redgrave and Ian McKellen in the other roles, that is a lot of fun. I don't know why there aren't more celebrity recordings, as there are with Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf.


I seem to recall Merle Streep doing Poulenc's _Babar the Elephant._


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I can never understand why hip celebrities are roped in for narrative purposes on classical works - they usually don't raise any further awareness due to their presence and as a result they don't shift more units, yet presumably they still get paid. And in a language or accent different to the original? Would Gerard Depardieu have done wonders for Britten's _The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra_? How about Zsa Zsa Gabor breathing her dulcet Magyar tones over Copland's _Lincoln Portrait_?

The Stravinsky work in question would work perfectly well with any French speaker who might actually have a natural affinity for the premise in the first place. But no - let's get Sting instead, because he's a rock star and he's also appeared in a few films. Spare me !!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> I can never understand why hip celebrities are roped in for narrative purposes on classical works - they usually don't raise any further awareness due to their presence and as a result they don't shift more units, yet presumably they still get paid. And in a language or accent different to the original? Would Gerard Depardieu have done wonders for Britten's _The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra_?  How about Zsa Zsa Gabor breathing her dulcet Magyar tones over Copland's _Lincoln Portrait_?
> 
> The Stravinsky work in question would work perfectly well with any French speaker who might actually have a natural affinity for the premise in the first place. But no - let's get Sting instead, because he's a rock star and he's also appeared in a few films. Spare me !!


Did Sting actually narrate _L'histoire?_ I agree with your aversion to the cult of celebrity, but it's a long-standing tradition to have well-known actors do narrations, and I'd imagine they've often been apt choices. I recall Streep's _Babar_ as very nice (I think it was on Naxos), and knowing her love of music she probably relished the job. _Peter and the Wolf_ has been done by everyone; Google brings up Alice Cooper, Bill Clinton, Boris Karloff, David Attenborough, David Tennant, Mikhail Gorbachev, Sophia Loren, Sting, Patrick Stewart, Sir Peter Ustinov and Leonard Bernstein. And don't forget Dame Edna Everage, possum!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Did Sting actually narrate _L'histoire?_ I agree with your aversion to the cult of celebrity...


Sting has an album of Dowland songs. A good attempt on his part, but far from the best.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Did Sting actually narrate _L'histoire?_ I agree with your aversion to the cult of celebrity, but it's a long-standing tradition to have well-known actors do narrations, and I'd imagine they've often been apt choices. I recall Streep's _Babar_ as very nice (I think it was on Naxos), and knowing her love of music she probably relished the job. _Peter and the Wolf_ has been done by everyone; Google brings up Alice Cooper, Bill Clinton, Boris Karloff, David Attenborough, David Tennant, Mikhail Gorbachev, Sophia Loren, Sting, Patrick Stewart, Sir Peter Ustinov and Leonard Bernstein. And don't forget Dame Edna Everage, possum!


My mistake, Woodduck - Sting played the soldier. Perhaps I overreacted because I only like that particular work in French, I suppose. As for _Peter and the Wolf_, the version I have is in English, but narrated by Prokofiev's son and grandson, which at least has a genuine connection with the composer! I should lighten up and accept the fact that for certain works written for younger folk getting celebrities involved isn't that bad an idea, as long as the choices in question can bring something to the party and not just because an A-list face can be added to the album cover. Stravinsky's work is one I wouldn't put into that category as it's more adult-oriented, and I honestly think it can do nicely without the celebrity treatment at all.

Anyway, I don't wish to side-track the thread any further. Back to Wagner!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

elgars ghost said:


> My mistake, Woodduck - Sting played the soldier. Perhaps I overreacted because I only like that particular work in French, I suppose. As for _Peter and the Wolf_, the version I have is in English, but narrated by Prokofiev's son and grandson, which at least has a genuine connection with the composer! I should lighten up and accept the fact that for certain works written for younger folk getting celebrities involved isn't that bad an idea, as long as the choices in question can bring something to the party and not just because an A-list face can be added to the album cover. Stravinsky's work is one I wouldn't put into that category as it's more adult-oriented, and I honestly think it can do nicely without the celebrity treatment at all.
> 
> Anyway, I don't wish to side-track the thread any further. Back to Wagner!


Yes, I shouldn't have derailed the thread, with the anti-Parsifal, no less, though I think it's fun to compare the two works. I do think Sting made a good soldier (btw, there are a number of classical music references in his songs), and Vanessa Redgrave and Ian McKellen are great actors and give fine performances. No doubt Sting would have a hard time with the roles of Parsifal, Siegfried, Tristan or Walther, but nor would he attempt them. As Woodduck says, there's nothing wrong with using well-known actors for the right roles. If someone has a favorite version of The Soldier's Tale, please let me know -- in a new thread. Now back to Parsifal and his Christian or Buddhist grail.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I've had the displeasure of seeing _L'Histoire du soldat_ done with Elvis Costello as the narrator and Malcolm McDowell as the Devil. All in English, to be clear. It's sadly the only time I've seen Elvis Costello live.

The concert was my first performance at Davies Symphony Hall. I took the BART train in and was unsure of where to go until I recognized John Adams exiting the station and followed him. He conducted his _Grand Pianola Music_ to start the concert (which I really enjoyed) followed by MTT conducting the Stravinsky.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> I've had the displeasure of seeing _L'Histoire du soldat_ done with Elvis Costello as the narrator and Malcolm McDowell as the Devil. All in English, to be clear. It's sadly the only time I've seen Elvis Costello live.
> 
> The concert was my first performance at Davies Symphony Hall. I took the BART train in and was unsure of where to go until I recognized John Adams exiting the station and followed him. He conducted his _Grand Pianola Music_ to start the concert (which I really enjoyed) followed by MTT conducting the Stravinsky.


Sorry that didn't work out. I'm a fan of Malcolm McDowell, he was hilarious in Mozart in the Jungle. Was he too over the top? The one time I attended a MTT/SFSO concert at Davies, they did a contemporary piece by Colin Matthews and the Brahms violin concerto with Vadim Repin. I took the BART there, too.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Sorry that didn't work out. I'm a fan of Malcolm McDowell, he was hilarious in Mozart in the Jungle. Was he too over the top? The one time I attended a MTT/SFSO concert at Davies, they did a contemporary piece by Colin Matthews and the Brahms violin concerto with Vadim Repin. I took the BART there, too.


I think my biggest issue is with the piece itself. I am not sure if I haven't spent enough time with it/haven't heard the right version or if I just plain don't like it. I mostly went to hear the John Adams and because my friends were going (though they cancelled).

McDowell has been a memorable actor on the screen, but I suppose I am not in a place to judge his performance here. I think reviews for him were good, but more mixed on Elvis Costello.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> *Skeptics* say that Jesus was born at the time of Galilean uprisings. They were brutally put down, many rapes. So it's expected that Jesus would teach appeasement against the occupiers (and others in power), especially to the poor, powerless people of the settlements.
> 
> But it doesn't matter what that context was.


Unfortunately skeptics have a tendency to see through everything and see nothing! Jesus actually was not teaching appeasement if you look at the context of the Sermon on the Mount he was teaching about true righteousness. He was teaching a set of values in dynamic contrast to the values of the Roman and also the Jewish world around him.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Unfortunately skeptics have a tendency to see through everything and see nothing! Jesus actually was not teaching appeasement if you look at the context of the Sermon on the Mount he was teaching about true righteousness. He was teaching a set of values in dynamic contrast to the values of the Roman and also the Jewish world around him.


Well, it's all just religious words and religious thinking. Which religion should I invest my time in? They all develop over time from human psychology, so maybe that's what I should study. Then I could prune away the differences between religions (and Parsifal) (and Jesus the underdog).

"Wagner's spelling of _Parsifal instead of the Parzival that he had used up to 1877 is informed by one of the theories about the name Percival, according to which it is of Arabic origin, Parsi (or Parseh) Fal meaning "pure (or poor) fool"."_


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> I think my biggest issue is with the piece itself. I am not sure if I haven't spent enough time with it/haven't heard the right version or if I just plain don't like it. I mostly went to hear the John Adams and because my friends were going (though they cancelled).
> 
> McDowell has been a memorable actor on the screen, but I suppose I am not in a place to judge his performance here. I think reviews for him were good, but more mixed on Elvis Costello.


Here's a well-known version featuring Jean Cocteau as the narrator. L'histoire is a major landmark in the history of musical theater, though often performed without speaking parts as an instrumental suite. It's influence on Copland's Quiet City and Bernstein's On the Waterfront is rather obvious.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Also, it should be pointed out that Stravinsky was a leading example of the anti-Wagner sentiment seen in many early 20th century modern composers. From his 1935 Autobiography:
I do not wish to discuss the music of Parsifal or the music of Wagner in general. At this date it is too remote for me. What I find revolting in the whole affair is the underlying conception which dictated it -- the principle of putting a work of art on the same sacred and symbolic ritual which constitutes a religious service. And indeed, is not all this comedy of Bayreuth, with its ridiculous formalities, simply an unconscious aping of a religious rite?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> Well, it's all just religious words and religious thinking. Which religion should I invest my time in? *They all develop over time from human psychology, *so maybe that's what I should study. Then I could prune away the differences between religions (and Parsifal) (and Jesus the underdog).
> 
> "Wagner's spelling of _Parsifal instead of the Parzival that he had used up to 1877 is informed by one of the theories about the name Percival, according to which it is of Arabic origin, Parsi (or Parseh) Fal meaning "pure (or poor) fool"."_


That is of course where we would differ. Jesus the underdog? His title is 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords' (see Handel's Messiah) Some underdog! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> That is of course where we would differ. Jesus the underdog? His title is 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords'. Some underdog! :lol:


Since you are well aware of the undesirability of conducting religious spitball fights on the music forum, your reviving the one you're engaged in after it had lapsed for a week is particularly unappreciated. Kindly cut it out.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Also, it should be pointed out that Stravinsky was a leading example of the anti-Wagner sentiment seen in many early 20th century modern composers. From his 1935 Autobiography:
> I do not wish to discuss the music of Parsifal or the music of Wagner in general. At this date it is too remote for me. What I find revolting in the whole affair is the underlying conception which dictated it -- the principle of putting a work of art on the same sacred and symbolic ritual which constitutes a religious service. And indeed, is not all this comedy of Bayreuth, with its ridiculous formalities, simply an unconscious aping of a religious rite?


Apparently Stravinsky became a wholehearted devotee of the Russian Orthodox religion in 1924. According to one web site, he believed in a literal Devil and surrounded himself with Byzantine icons. It's hard to imagine anyone of that persuasion approving of any free artistic treatment of Christianity. Of course his music was also radically un-Wagnerian, so he had every reason to dislike _Parsifal. _

That web site, titled "The Sacred Music of Stravinsky," is an interesting read: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/sacred-music-stravinsky It mentions Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), the Thomist philosopher who led a Catholic intellectual revival in France between the World Wars, and tells us: 'Maritain hailed Stravinsky as a living example of the ideal Christian artist, praising the "discipline," "classical rigor," and "purity" of his more recent music. After befriending Maritain in 1926, Stravinsky's own statements about aesthetics began to echo the philosopher's, moving towards a religiously informed traditionalism. "The more one separates oneself from the canons of the Christian Church," he declared in a 1930 interview, "the further one separates oneself from the truth." And then there was his notorious, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, statement to a reporter: "I hate modern music," by which he meant a faddish modernism that pursued shock effects for their own sake.'

It's often difficult to know how to take some of Stravinsky's pithy pronouncements, but we're rarely in doubt about what he disliked.

That article concludes: 'Stravinsky had traveled a long road from The Rite of Spring, yet in a sense he had not changed at all. In his biography of Stravinsky, Paul Griffiths speaks of the "festival spirit" and "play element" that permeate his music, claiming that Stravinsky's art evinces a "joyful acceptance of an intelligent order in life." This festive spirit can be expressed as rejoicing and comic exuberance or as the tragic and funereal, but it is always deeply connected with ritual, liturgy, ceremony, and folk roots; with the primal life cycles of man. This holds the key for understanding why the same composer who created the savagery of Rite of Spring should have written so many powerful pieces of religious music during his career. All considered, Stravinsky's output qualifies him as one of the last Christian humanists in the world of art.'

I would wonder whether anyone listening to Stravinsky's music, absent any information about his personal beliefs, would find the words "Christian humanist" coming to mind. I would wonder similarly whether anyone listening to the prelude, temple scene, or final scene of _Parsifal_ would be thinking "this is the music of an atheist."

The concept of "religious art" is certainly a problematic one.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I would wonder whether anyone listening to Stravinsky's music, absent any information about his personal beliefs, would find the words "Christian humanist" coming to mind. I would wonder similarly whether anyone listening to the prelude, temple scene, or final scene of _Parsifal_ would be thinking "this is the music of an atheist."
> 
> The concept of "religious art" is certainly a problematic one.


Of course, I broke one of my own cardinal rules in my post above, and that is, don't take too seriously what great composers say about other great composers. It's an example of my broader principle of letting music (or other forms of art) speak for themselves. I thought the more obvious riposte to that excerpt of Stravinsky about the Bayreuth performances aping a religious rite would be, "What about The Rite of Spring"? In the article you link, Mr. De Sapio describes the Rite as "the swan song of decadent late Romanticism". There, I'm afraid, he is referring mainly to your beloved Wagner. For The Rite depicts religious ritual in its rawest and most primitive form, stripped of all philosophical or theological theory, and certainly all pomp and self-important trappings.

The point is driven home even more forcefully five years later with the spare, even severe, music and structure of The Soldier's Tale. Stravinsky then enters his so-called neoclassical period, including sacred music such as the great Symphony of Psalms, (edit) as you say, reflecting his newly found, or reinforced, faith (though I'm not sure who aside from Mr. De Sapio considers this Stravinsky's "masterpiece"). The gesture back towards Bach can also be seen as a rebuke to the Romantic excess of Wagner et al. And more to the topic of this thread, setting Biblical texts certainly is a rebuke of Wagner as well, though his music is of far more interest than his religious beliefs to me. (But isn't it interesting that both Nietzsche and Stravinsky started off as utterly devoted to Wagner's operas but soured on them later in life?)

This all seems rather predictable and understandable to me, as that is how art evolves. Movement, then counter-movement. Complexity countered by simplicity, the elaborate by the minimalist, the lengthy saga by the briefest of parables. Then perhaps back in the other direction. That's why I see Wagner, in the most fundamental way, as a 19th-century artist, as I said much earlier in this thread.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Since you are well aware of the undesirability of conducting religious spitball fights on the music forum, your reviving the one you're engaged in after it had lapsed for a week is particularly unappreciated. Kindly cut it out.


That was my fault. Apologists haven't heard of that characterization before.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Luchesi said:


> That was my fault. Apologists haven't heard of that characterization before.


Actually, I think spitball fights are more profitable. They certainly result in fewer casualties.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

fluteman said:


> Of course, I broke one of my own cardinal rules in my post above, and that is, don't take too seriously what great composers say about other great composers. It's an example of my broader principle of letting music (or other forms of art) speak for themselves. I thought the more obvious riposte to that excerpt of Stravinsky about the Bayreuth performances aping a religious rite would be, "What about The Rite of Spring"? In the article you link, Mr. De Sapio describes the Rite as "the swan song of decadent late Romanticism". There, I'm afraid, he is referring mainly to your beloved Wagner. For The Rite depicts religious ritual in its rawest and most primitive form, stripped of all philosophical or theological theory, and certainly all pomp and self-important trappings.
> 
> The point is driven home even more forcefully five years later with the spare, even severe, music and structure of The Soldier's Tale. Stravinsky then enters his so-called neoclassical period, including sacred music such as the great Symphony of Psalms, (edit) as you say, reflecting his newly found, or reinforced, faith (though I'm not sure who aside from Mr. De Sapio considers this Stravinsky's "masterpiece"). The gesture back towards Bach can also be seen as a rebuke to the Romantic excess of Wagner et al. And more to the topic of this thread, setting Biblical texts certainly is a rebuke of Wagner as well, though his music is of far more interest than his religious beliefs to me. (But isn't it interesting that both Nietzsche and Stravinsky started off as utterly devoted to Wagner's operas but soured on them later in life?)
> 
> This all seems rather predictable and understandable to me, as that is how art evolves. Movement, then counter-movement. Complexity countered by simplicity, the elaborate by the minimalist, the lengthy saga by the briefest of parables. Then perhaps back in the other direction. That's why I see Wagner, in the most fundamental way, as a 19th-century artist, as I said much earlier in this thread.


I don't know about Stravinsky, but for Nietzsche it seemed to have been more a question of principle and philosophy - in fact, he's main problem was _Parsifal_. In _Ecce homo_ he writes for example that "The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude, or, if I have been understood, in honour of purity. Thank Heaven, it is not in honour of "pure foolery"!" "Poor foolery" has been understood as a clear reference to the character of Parsifal who's in conflict with Nietzsche's Zarathustra.

The second problem Nietzsche had was that he couldn't really believe that Wagner had so suddenly sincerely converted into Christianity. His sister writes in _Wagner and Nietzsche: The Beginning and End of Their Friendship_: "My brother had the greatest respect for sincere, honest Christians, but he considered it quite impossible that Wagner, the avowed atheist, should suddenly have become a naive and pious believer. He could, therefore, only regard Wagner's sudden change of heart as prompted by a desire to stand well with the Christian rulers of Germany [...]"

There were of course other things that disturbed Nietzsche, as an example, Wagner's "German-ness" in later life but I don't think that Nietzsche didn't like Wagner's music anymore (he as far as I know valued _Parsifal_ musically very much).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

annaw said:


> I don't know about Stravinsky, but for Nietzsche it seemed to have been more a question of principle and philosophy - in fact, he's main problem was _Parsifal_.


I think it was a question of principle and philosophy for Stravinsky as well.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

fluteman said:


> I think it was a question of principle and philosophy for Stravinsky as well.


That's interesting - I shall certainly look into it!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> That was my fault. Apologists haven't heard of that characterization before.


When you have been around as long as I have you have just about heard it all! :lol:

Of course it was another myth that came in and went like the Aryan view of Christianity that Wagner proclaimed in Parsifal which was very prevalent among German scholars around that time. Built on a certain philosophy and prospered among those theorists sitting at desks in academia but actually historical research showed it full of holes and it has now been generally abandoned.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Of course, I broke one of my own cardinal rules in my post above, and that is, don't take too seriously what great composers say about other great composers. It's an example of my broader principle of letting music (or other forms of art) speak for themselves. I thought the more obvious riposte to that excerpt of Stravinsky about the Bayreuth performances aping a religious rite would be, "What about The Rite of Spring"? In the article you link, Mr. De Sapio describes the Rite as "the swan song of decadent late Romanticism". There, I'm afraid, he is referring mainly to your beloved Wagner. For The Rite depicts religious ritual in its rawest and most primitive form, stripped of all philosophical or theological theory, and certainly all pomp and self-important trappings.


It seems to me questionable whether the _Rite of Spring_ should be regarded as either "the swan song of decadent late Romanticism" or as religious in any sense at all. We can say that human sacrifice had religious significance to its primitive practitioners (and let's not flinch at the fact that blood sacrifice remains right at the center of Christianity among us "civilized" people), but I hear nothing in the music of the ballet to suggest that Stravinsky wanted to express any sense of the sacred such as might have been felt by the rite's practitioners; certainly the sounds he makes suggest no stylistic kinship to any culture's religious music with which I'm familiar. As far as decadent Romanticism is concerned, I don't hear that either; the rugged dissonances and pounding rhythms are signatures of early 20th-century Modernism, and in fact inspired much imitation by composers for decades to come.



> The point is driven home even more forcefully five years later with the spare, even severe, music and structure of The Soldier's Tale. Stravinsky then enters his so-called neoclassical period, including sacred music such as the great Symphony of Psalms, (edit) as you say, reflecting his newly found, or reinforced, faith (though I'm not sure who aside from Mr. De Sapio considers this Stravinsky's "masterpiece"). The gesture back towards Bach can also be seen as a rebuke to the Romantic excess of Wagner et al. And more to the topic of this thread, setting Biblical texts certainly is a rebuke of Wagner as well, though his music is of far more interest than his religious beliefs to me. (But isn't it interesting that both Nietzsche and Stravinsky started off as utterly devoted to Wagner's operas but soured on them later in life?)


Not much has been said here about the music of _Parsifal,_ but by referring to Stravinsky's "gesture back toward Bach" and Wagner's "Romantic excess" you are overlooking, even somewhat misrepresenting, what Wagner has done in style and spirit for his "Christian" opera. It's a long opera (four hours or more, depending on the conductor) and has its grand and sumptuous moments, but it's distinctive among Wagner's works for its subtlety, delicacy and restraint (surely impressive to Debussy), as well as its stylistic heterogeneity; it gestures back to Bach and beyond to Renaissance polyphony in search of a "purity" of feeling capable of conveying its moral and spiritual idealism and a sense of existence in a dimension that transcends time and place. The prelude to Act One is an austere structure unlike any other in Wagner: principal musical motifs are set forth slowly, successively and with quiet deliberation, separated by pauses, like the elements of a liturgy, and the effect is very much that of a devotional meditation - anything but "excess." Elsewhere in the opera there is a predominance of slow tempos, quiet dynamic levels, and subtle, restrained orchestration. It's often noted that _Parsifal _seems to suspend time - to slow it down, giving each event time and space to "breathe" - and to subjectivize it to the extent that we have no idea whether we've spent minutes, hours, or an eternity in its mystical realm. In this effect of suspended time it does seem to achieve something akin to the religious works of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and has little in common with other works of its century except perhaps with late Beethoven and certain works of Schubert and Bruckner. It might even be felt to adumbrate the meditative music of Feldman and other moderns who embrace an aesthetic of atemporality. As Gurnemanz says to Parsifal, "You see, my son, here time becomes space."



> This all seems rather predictable and understandable to me, as that is how art evolves. Movement, then counter-movement. Complexity countered by simplicity, the elaborate by the minimalist, the lengthy saga by the briefest of parables. Then perhaps back in the other direction. That's why I see Wagner, in the most fundamental way, as a 19th-century artist, as I said much earlier in this thread.


We might consider the feat of dramatic and stylistic syncretism Wagner has created in _Parsifal_ as some extreme example of Romantic expression, but other terms also come to mind: Neoclassicism (for the adaptation of old forms such as chant, chorale and imitative counterpoint), Impressionism (for the ambiguous harmonies and delicate, sensuous scoring), Symbolism (for the employment of archetypes in a no-time, no-place milieu), and Expressionism (for the extremes of emotional expression and the exploration of the dark side of the psyche). _Parsifal_ is in many ways not the Wagner of the popular imagination; the unbridled erotic passion of _Tristan_ and the epic grandeur and excitement of the _R__ing_ seem worlds away - acknowledged, but regarded, in Buddhist fashion, as _maya,_ and finally transcended.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DavidA said:


> When you have been around as long as I have you have just about heard it all! :lol:
> 
> Of course it was another myth that came in and went like the Aryan view of Christianity that Wagner proclaimed in Parsifal which was very prevalent among German scholars around that time. Built on a certain philosophy and prospered among those theorists sitting at desks in academia but actually historical research showed it full of holes and it has now been generally abandoned.


"historical research showed"

Is the "historical research" reliable about Buddhism or Islam or Christianity?

I did read Wolfram von Eschenbach: Parzival (Parsifal)
Summary by Michael McGoodwin

https://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/we_parzival.html


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> "historical research showed"
> 
> Is the "historical research" reliable about Buddhism or Islam or Christianity?
> 
> ...


I'm just concerned with Christianity and the far earlier dating of the NT documents which proved that the people who were present at the time had more idea than men sitting in a study 1900 years later. But like everything else the ideas of the so-called 'German school' came and went. 
Of course the legend of Parsifal is that -a legend - like Robin Hood. Wagner used it for his own purposes


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It seems that in this thread, everything can be considered to be an exaggeration, but like you said, everything rises and falls.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> It seems that in this thread, everything can be considered to be an exaggeration, but like you said, everything rises and falls.


That's your knack for getting to the heart of what's going on in a thread. We exaggerate.

What stories do you cling to, decade after decade? The Holy Grail of peoples' interior lives? Aliens coming to save us from ourselves? Living forever in some heaven we can't understand?

What was Wagner's philosophy of life? Did he have one? How many did he have? He probably would've wanted to know that science has discovered so much. New finding, our galaxy and our sister galaxy are already colliding and forming stars a million or so light years from here!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> That's your knack for getting to the heart of what's going on in a thread. We exaggerate.
> 
> What stories do you cling to, decade after decade? The Holy Grail of peoples' interior life? Aliens coming to save us from ourselves? Living forever in some heaven we can't understand?
> 
> *What was Wagner's philosophy of life? * Did he have one? How many did he have? He probably would've wanted to know that science has discovered so much. New finding, our galaxy and our sister galaxy are already colliding and forming stars a million or so light years from here!


"Me First!"

'A monster of egoism and ingratitude' as one biographer puts it


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DavidA said:


> "Me First!"
> 
> 'A monster of egoism and ingratitude' as one biographer puts it


I'd like to know about his parents and how he was brought up.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> I'd like to know about his parents and how he was brought up.


Of course he had the uncertainty of not knowing who his father really was.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Playing Wagner's piano;


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Of course he had the uncertainty of not knowing who his father really was.


That sounds like a blessing to me; but that's from my perspective.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> Playing Wagner's piano;


Nah, I don't like it. It's got that short-string out of tune spinet sound, like somebody's grandmother playing. Give me a Steinway.


----------



## Bellerophon (May 15, 2020)

I’ve only just discovered this fascinating thread. Here’s my contribution to an answer. 

There are clear Christian references in Parsifal: to God, Christ and Good Friday for example. And the final theme is the Christian theme of redemption, returning to God having been estranged by sin, although, as others have already pointed out redemption is finally brought to the Order by Parsifal and there is no direct reference to Christ at this critical point.

I don’t think there are any similarly direct references to the Buddhist concept of Enlightenment or awakening, although the themes of compassion and release from suffering are central to both religions, and to Parsifal. 

Schopenhauer thought that his philosophy had revealed the fundamental truths of the universe and of humanity’s place within it, which all religions had attempted to express in mythological terms. I think Wagner probably agreed with that, and thought that art, and more specifically music-drama could express these truths. 

So how did Wagner see the relationship between philosophy and music-drama? It would be much too simplistic to say that it resembled that between liturgy and theology for example. I don’t think Wagner could have intended any such thing. More probably he was thinking in terms of the Athenian tragedies and their expression of Greek religious feeling.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Taking your post seriously for a moment (of course I'm joking), do you think the creation of great art can proceed from a desire to erect a "monument to one's ego"? Have you ever engaged in intense creative activity and noticed what happens when you begin thinking of yourself rather than the work? Do you know anything about Wagner's creative process or goals?
> 
> There are certain posts which are clearly monuments to the egos of the posters. One giveaway is that the poster shows no sign of being either knowledgeable about or interested in the subject.


I agree with you. Posters chat and talk about themes and "stuffs" that they don´t know. In the case of Wagner, I find the same attacks: anti -semite, super ego, overrated, trash, etc, etc. Poor world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellerophon said:


> I've only just discovered this fascinating thread. Here's my contribution to an answer.


Welcome to the forum.



> There are clear Christian references in Parsifal: to *God, Christ and Good Friday* for example. And the final theme is the Christian theme of redemption, returning to God having been estranged by sin, although, as others have already pointed out *redemption is finally brought to the Order by Parsifal and there is no direct reference to Christ at this critical point.*


The Christian references are there, but used in original ways. It's interesting that Christ isn't named, but is called only "the savior." Parsifal's own path to enlightenment seems to have little to do with theological belief, and the knights of the Grail are not saved by their own religious faith. For these and other reasons the opera looks more like a critique of religion than an affirmation of it.



> I don't think there are any similarly direct references to the Buddhist concept of Enlightenment or awakening, although the themes of compassion and release from suffering are central to both religions, and to Parsifal.


Compassion, yes, and the insight, voiced by Parsifal in Act 2, that desire - the buddha's "craving" or "clinging" - is at the root of suffering.



> Schopenhauer thought that his philosophy had revealed the fundamental truths of the universe and of humanity's place within it, which all religions had attempted to express in mythological terms. I think Wagner probably agreed with that, and thought that *art, and more specifically music-drama could express these truths. *
> 
> So how did Wagner see the relationship between philosophy and music-drama? It would be much too simplistic to say that it resembled that between liturgy and theology for example. I don't think Wagner could have intended any such thing. More probably he was thinking in terms of the Athenian tragedies and their expression of Greek religious feeling.


Wagner begins his essay, "Religion and Art," this way:

_ONE might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the
spirit of religion by recognising the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former
would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through
an ideal presentation. Whilst the priest stakes everything on the religious allegories being
accepted as matters of fact, the artist has no concern at all with such a thing, since he freely
and openly gives out his work as his own invention. But Religion has sunk into an artificial
life, when she finds herself compelled to keep on adding to the edifice of her dogmatic
symbols, and thus conceals the one divinely True in her beneath an ever growing heap of
incredibilities commended to belief. Feeling this, she has always sought the aid of Art; who
on her side has remained incapable of higher evolution so long as she must present that
alleged reality of the symbol to the senses of the worshipper in form of fetishes and idols,-
whereas she could only fulfil her true vocation when, by an ideal presentment of the allegoric
figure, she led to apprehension of its inner kernel, the truth ineffably divine._


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

DavidA said:


> "Me First!"
> 
> 'A monster of egoism and ingratitude' as one biographer puts it


This 'biographer' sounds like a moron. Incidentally, I doubt he/she/xer is a 'biographer' at all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

bz3 said:


> This 'biographer' sounds like a moron. Incidentally, I doubt he/she/xer is a 'biographer' at all.


Right on. Good biographers don't beat up their subjects like schoolyard bullies - or internet trolls.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Agamenon said:


> In the case of Wagner, I find the same attacks: anti -semite, super ego, overrated, trash, etc, etc.


Another common pattern I find in these "detractors" of Wagner is that they use the term "megalomaniac" to describe his music. But why? Because his operas are long, or intricate in terms of plot? Why is Wagner the only one described in this way, and why not Bruckner, for example? 
(I think, like all other composers, Wagner has his "highs and lows"; in his best moments, he strikes me as "sincere" in his musical expressions.)

"Wagner would be awesome if he wasn't such a *megalomaniac* and wanted to write his own librettos. Some of the platitudes the characters sing make me cringe." -TalkingPie (post1833084)
"Personally, I prefer a walk through a real dark forest over the aimless *megalomaniac* mazelike storylines of Wagner, Rawling or Tolkien." -NLAdriaan (post1652246)
"Admittedly Siegfried Idyll and the Wesendock songs have endured. Not so the symphony (but I've not heard that one). So for non Wagnerites they are decent options, not rubbish. & not a shred of *megalomania* in them, which you can't say is the case for the operas (esp. The Ring & Parsifal)." -Sid James (post432743)
"His music does not repay repeated listening, it just gets worse and you get sucked in by his cheap tricks and *megalomania*" -Sid James (post294511)
"I think Hitler liked Wagner because he saw realized in the operas his own visions of grandiloquence and *megalomania*, the ideas of a great and mythical Germany." -aleazk (post509266)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Another common pattern I find in these "detractors" of Wagner is that they use the term "megalomaniac" to describe his music. But why? Because his operas are long, or intricate in terms of plot? Why is Wagner the only one described in this way, and why not Bruckner, for example?
> (I think, like all other composers, Wagner has his "highs and lows"; in his best moments, he strikes me as "sincere" in his musical expressions.)
> 
> "Wagner would be awesome if he wasn't such a *megalomaniac* and wanted to write his own librettos. Some of the platitudes the characters sing make me cringe." -TalkingPie (post1833084)
> ...


Well-observed. It's a favorite anti-Wagner cliche.

Wagner's operas are big and intense, and they deal with big issues expressed through archetypal symbols and situations. Only someone with extraordinary ability, ambition, drive and persistence could have conceived and realized them. They made him a dominant force in Western culture and altered the course of Western music. None of the remarks quoted above tells us a single real thing about them.

It becomes wearisome to have to say it, but in no other composer's case do people think they know so much more than they actually do, or care so little whether their conceptions of his work constitute knowledge or not.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Another common pattern I find in these "detractors" of Wagner is that they use the term "megalomaniac" to describe his music. But why? Because his operas are long, or intricate in terms of plot? Why is Wagner the only one described in this way, and why not Bruckner, for example?
> (I think, like all other composers, Wagner has his "highs and lows"; in his best moments, he strikes me as "sincere" in his musical expressions.)
> 
> "Wagner would be awesome if he wasn't such a *megalomaniac* and wanted to write his own librettos. Some of the platitudes the characters sing make me cringe." -TalkingPie (post1833084)
> ...


I'm not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist but I wouldn't be overly surprised if it turned out that Wagner indeed was a megalomaniac. However, if that was the case, I think his megalomania together with his artistic genius were to greater or lesser extent responsible for his musical greatness. I recall Donington coming up with that kind of theory, and have found it rather fascinating since then.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't know what people mean by "megalomania." Is it a recognized psychiatric disorder?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what people mean by "megalomania." Is it a recognized psychiatric disorder?


I'm pretty sure it's no longer a recognised medical condition. Is there a doctor in the house?

It's a pity that those most qualified to answer this question are banned.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Wagner seems to have been an atheist . Despite his childhood infatuation with Christianity, he was never a conventionally devout Christian . From one story I've heard, Wagner once read through the Bible and declared it to be "nonsense ". 
The Ring takes place in a mythical ancient pagan Germany inhabited by gods, goddesses, water nixies, dwarves, giants, half divine superheroes and regular humans . The gods are mortal like humans , and every bit as fallible .


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what people mean by "megalomania." Is it a recognized psychiatric disorder?


This got me interested enough that I did some Googling. I can only say what _I_ meant by the word, though.

Megalomania is still considered to be a medical condition or at least connected with one. It was previously used synonymously with narcissistic personality disorder (or that's what Wikipedia seems to claim), which is characterised by an inflated opinion of oneself and by an intense need for admiration - whatever you call it, that's basically what I meant when I said that Wagner _might_ have had megalomania (in this case, a form of narcissistic personality disorder).

I definitely do not support posthumous Google-based diagnosing, but just found it fascinating how Wagner's potential megalomania (as brought up in those above-mentioned negative comments) could be seen as something essential for Wagner's artistic greatness, if viewed from a slightly different angle.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bellerophon said:


> I've only just discovered this fascinating thread. Here's my contribution to an answer.
> 
> There are clear Christian references in Parsifal: to God, Christ and Good Friday for example. And the final theme is the Christian theme of redemption, returning to God having been estranged by sin, although, as others have already pointed out redemption is finally brought to the Order by Parsifal and there is no direct reference to Christ at this critical point.
> 
> ...


Much of Act 2 is lifted from Buddhist folklore concerning Buddha's enlightenment. Kundry relates how Parsifal was shielded and raised in ignorance of the world's horrors by his mother, which is similar to Buddha's privileged upbringing within the palace walls. It is when Buddha ventures beyond the walls that he encounters suffering for the first time and seeks to understand and solve it. Klingsor is modelled after Mara, the demon who tempts Buddha, by sending his (psychological) armies to defeat him and his daughters to seduce him. When Parsifal withstands Kundry's temptations and recovers the spear, Klingsor's illusory materialistic realm falls to ruin, the veil of _Maya _is pulled back, and he sees the true nature of reality. Parsifal is thus enlightened.

Act 3 is more Christian in theme, with Kundry reappearing as a subdued Mary Magdalene figure who washes Parsifal's feet with her hair, who in turn performs the sacrament of baptism on her. She dies, finally liberated from the cycle of rebirth. This seems to be an attempt by Wagner to draw unity between the Christian and Indian religions, with Buddha, Jesus, and Parsifal all being enlightened redeemers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Much of Act 2 is lifted from Buddhist folklore concerning Buddha's enlightenment. Kundry relates how Parsifal was shielded and raised in ignorance of the world's horrors by his mother, which is similar to Buddha's privileged upbringing within the palace walls. It is when Buddha ventures beyond the walls that he encounters suffering for the first time and seeks to understand and solve it. Klingsor is modelled after Mara, the demon who tempts Buddha, by sending his (psychological) armies to defeat him and his daughters to seduce him. When Parsifal withstands Kundry's temptations and recovers the spear, Klingsor's illusory materialistic realm falls to ruin, the veil of _Maya _is pulled back, and he sees the true nature of reality. Parsifal is thus enlightened.
> 
> Act 3 is more Christian in theme, with Kundry reappearing as a subdued Mary Magdalene figure who washes Parsifal's feet with her hair, who in turn performs the sacrament of baptism on her. She dies, finally liberated from the cycle of rebirth. This seems to be an attempt by Wagner to draw unity between the Christian and Indian religions, with Buddha, Jesus, and Parsifal all being enlightened teachers.


Wonderful little summary, Couchie. It really makes you appreciate Wagner's way of thinking, his power of synthesis.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> It's a pity that those most qualified to answer this question are banned.


NLAdriaan isn't banned, btw. He just doesn't come to TC anymore.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I wasn’t actually thinking of him/her.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

What question? .......


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

See post #455. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

OperaChic said:


> Well, he was neither. He was an artist.
> 
> That some people are not able to take the moral, religious, and sacred aspects of the operas seriously because of Wagner's personal life and his character is just one of those side-effects of Wagner's biography and personal shortcomings being so well-known, as Michael Tanner said in his interview linked in the other thread on the best books about Wagner. I happen to agree with him that if we could erase every bit of knowledge we have on Wagner's life and opinions from existence and from our collective minds, it would be a good thing for the operas. We would be forced to evaluate the works on their merits alone and not in relation to the facts about his personal life. We don't sit down and listen to Bach's St. Matthew Passion and worry what kind of man Bach was, whether he was a scoundrel or not and if he was worthy of the subject, and what his _intentions_ were when creating it. We simply take the St. Matthew Passion for what it is, and what it arises in us when we experience it.
> 
> ...


After perusing quite carefully and with much curiosity an interesting and provocative subject on _Parsifal_, an opera which, up till now, I simply thought of as one of the most gorgeous pieces of music I had ever heard, I came to a point which I felt thwarted by the myriad spats, insults, blah blah blah, and food fights that began to take hold -- so prevalent when a subject gone long starts to wane from the original healthy premise to the back-biting stage -- but just as I decided that I had had enough, I came across this gem which expresses exactly what I kept feeling throughout my entire reading process -- yet not until this moment had it been addressed (unless I missed a post back there somewhere).
So thank you, *Opera Chic* for this illuminating post which expresses what I wanted to say but said so much better than I ever could.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Happy Good Friday everybody.  Today nature gains its innocence.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^Absolutely the goodest thing about Good Friday.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It is the tears of repentant sinners
that today with holy dew
besprinkle field and meadow:
thus they make them flourish.
Now all creation rejoices
at the Saviour's sign of love
and dedicates to Him its prayer.
No more can it see Him Himself on the Cross;
it looks up to man redeemed,
who feels freed from the burden of sin and terror,
made clean and whole through God's loving sacrifice.
Now grasses and flowers in the meadow know
that today the foot of man will not tread them down,
but that, as God with divine patience
pitied him and suffered for him,
so man today in devout grace
will spare them with soft tread.
Thus all creation gives thanks,
all that here blooms and soon fades,
now that nature, absolved from sin,
today gains its day of innocence.


----------



## Music Snob (Nov 14, 2018)

I gave up Parsifal for Lent each of the last few years... I was super tempted to put the Karfreitagzauber music on today but was able to resist. Parsifal by far is my favorite piece of music and the Karfreitagzauber music is a miracle to someone like me.

Kna 54 followed by Muck and Solti.

I try not to delve too deep into some of the meanings of the this and that’s- the music says all that needs to be said IMO.


----------



## parlando (Oct 11, 2021)

Just joined. Very, very late to the game. Like this thread very much. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

parlando said:


> Just joined. Very, very late to the game. Like this thread very much. :tiphat:


Thanks, and welcome! :tiphat:


----------

