# Wagnerians: what is the significance of Loge?



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

As I prepare myself for two major bouts with Wagner and the Gods tomorrow and Saturday at the Met, I am puzzling over the significance of Loge. I found his character appealing but enigmatic during Das Rheingold. He seems to have a special kind of relationship with Wotan, but I am having trouble understanding exactly what the nature of this relationship is, as well as what Loge's own motivation and experience is meant to be during the course of this entire cycle. Most significantly, I'm really curious why he is the only character who chooses not to cross the Rainbow Bridge. 

I've gotten very helpful answers from the Wagnerians in this forum before. Hoping for more enlightening answers - thanks.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck will be able to clarify all this for you but as I understand it Loge is not a pure breed god. Rather he is a Demi-God who therefore doesn't warrant a place in Valhalla. By his own admission he has always been a bit distant from the other gods and Freia was always a bit niggardly with him when it came to golden apple sharing time!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Loge is an elemental like the Rhinedaughters, not a god. He is the spirit of fire, as they are water spirits, and at the end they are all called upon to destroy the world of the gods with fire and flood. As fire is both friend and enemy to man, Loge is both friend and enemy to the gods; he surrounds Brunnhilde at Wotan's behest, but turns on him when the time comes. It's more than a metaphor to say that in seeking Loge's help, Wotan is playing with fire.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Solomon R. Guhl-Miller has written an interesting analysis about the Ring, but I'm not sure myself whether it is somehow contradictory or not.
Here's a short passage from his work:
_"In Goethe's Faust, the evil into which Faust is led does not stem from himself, but from Mephistopheles. By merely following Mephistopheles, and not dreaming the evil acts himself, Faust retains enough of his own inherent goodness and love so that he may be saved by his sacrificial act in the end. Faust finally becomes free of Mephistopheles when fear takes a hold of him in Act V, and then Mephistopheles becomes non-functional. Wagner does the same with Wotan. It is now Loge, Wotan's Mephistopheles, who dreams these evil acts, not Wotan, and so Wotan does not, strictly speaking, independently reject love as he had done in the earlier winter sketch, but follows Loge's lead and so hangs on to both power and love. As such, this Wotan is now capable of making the moral progression to the Wanderer. Finally, once fear takes a hold of Wotan, he is no longer under the influence of Loge, just as Faust was no longer under the influence of Mephistopheles."_
It is certainly an interesting viewpoint, but as his analysis is very strongly focused on the idea of moral progression then this interpretation is probably missing some things that for example Woodduck pointed out.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Fascinating! Thank you. 

This may be because I am much more knowledgeable about Italian opera than German, and often think in terms of character archetypes, but Loge's character type does seem to me a Harlequin - even though he is a tenor and Harlequin is almost always a baritone. His attitude as he stands jauntily aside, watching and commenting, as the others cross the Rainbow Bridge is one place where I see this. I wonder if Wagner had that in mind for this character? He was aware of archetypes?

I sure hope I like Siegfried and Gotterdammerung as much as I liked the first two ... cover for me, I'm going in .....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marceliotstein said:


> Fascinating! Thank you.
> 
> This may be because I am much more knowledgeable about Italian opera than German, and often think in terms of character archetypes, but Loge's character type does seem to me a Harlequin - even though he is a tenor and Harlequin is almost always a baritone. His attitude as he stands jauntily aside, watching and commenting, as the others cross the Rainbow Bridge is one place where I see this. I wonder if Wagner had that in mind for this character? He was aware of archetypes?
> 
> I sure hope I like Siegfried and Gotterdammerung as much as I liked the first two ... cover for me, I'm going in .....


The archetype of Loge is The Trickster, a common figure in mythical traditions, including Native American lore. Wagner's immediate model is, of course, Loki from Scandinavian mythology, a thoroughly amoral and mischievous demigod who is always getting himself and the gods into trouble.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

marceliotstein said:


> I sure hope I like Siegfried and Gotterdammerung as much as I liked the first two


I'm sure you will  IMHO, the Ring gets better and better as it goes along. And look out for guest appearances by Loge - or at least his music - in the remaining two operas.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

annaw said:


> "In Goethe's Faust, the evil into which Faust is led does not stem from himself, but from Mephistopheles. By merely following Mephistopheles, and not dreaming the evil acts himself, Faust retains enough of his own inherent goodness and love so that he may be saved by his sacrificial act in the end. Faust finally becomes free of Mephistopheles when fear takes a hold of him in Act V, and then Mephistopheles becomes non-functional. Wagner does the same with Wotan. It is now Loge, Wotan's Mephistopheles, who dreams these evil acts, not Wotan, and so Wotan does not, strictly speaking, independently reject love as he had done in the earlier winter sketch, but follows Loge's lead and so hangs on to both power and love. As such, this Wotan is now capable of making the moral progression to the Wanderer. Finally, once fear takes a hold of Wotan, he is no longer under the influence of Loge, just as Faust was no longer under the influence of Mephistopheles."[/I]
> It is certainly an interesting viewpoint, but as his analysis is very strongly focused on the idea of moral progression then this interpretation is probably missing some things that for example Woodduck pointed out.


Thanks for this - it's an idea I need to think more about. I agree with your skepticism, though, since it seems to me the evil influence in the Ring cycle is gold=money=greed, which Loge does not represent in any sense. I see Loge as a trickster character, as Woodduck just mentioned - and like most trickster characters, his force tends to be benevolent, spontaneous and humane.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I never saw Loge/Loki as in any way benevolent or humane. He has a malevolent streak that shows itself more often than not and his humour, such as it is, is sardonic at best.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Solomon R. Guhl-Miller has written an interesting analysis about the Ring, but I'm not sure myself whether it is somehow contradictory or not.
> Here's a short passage from his work:
> _"In Goethe's Faust, the evil into which Faust is led does not stem from himself, but from Mephistopheles. By merely following Mephistopheles, and not dreaming the evil acts himself, Faust retains enough of his own inherent goodness and love so that he may be saved by his sacrificial act in the end. Faust finally becomes free of Mephistopheles when fear takes a hold of him in Act V, and then Mephistopheles becomes non-functional. Wagner does the same with Wotan. It is now Loge, Wotan's Mephistopheles, who dreams these evil acts, not Wotan, and so Wotan does not, strictly speaking, independently reject love as he had done in the earlier winter sketch, but follows Loge's lead and so hangs on to both power and love. As such, this Wotan is now capable of making the moral progression to the Wanderer. Finally, once fear takes a hold of Wotan, he is no longer under the influence of Loge, just as Faust was no longer under the influence of Mephistopheles."_
> It is certainly an interesting viewpoint, but as his analysis is very strongly focused on the idea of moral progression then this interpretation is probably missing some things that for example Woodduck pointed out.


Welcome to the forum, annaw.

That's an interesting parallel. Wotan could never forswear love as Alberich did; he values it highly and pursues it persistently in ways that outrage his longsuffering wife, whose idea of the correct channel through which loving impulses should flow is bound by conventions against which Wotan's expansive nature chafes. Fricka has nothing but contempt for Brunnhilde, because Brunnhilde is Wotan's and Erda's child, the child of Wotan's insatiable desire for Love and Wisdom. Brunnhilde embodies the best part of Wotan's character, and her loving nature brings Wotan up against the insoluble contradiction between his desires for both love and power (a contradiction over which Alberich never lost any sleep).

I think the comparison of Loge with Mephistopheles is reasonable, but qualified. Loge is Satan-like in being Wotan's tempter and, finally, his destroyer (interestingly, by fire), but he differs from the Christian Devil in not possessing a moral nature at all; he's neither good nor evil, as fire is neither good nor evil by nature but quickly switches from one role to the other if those who use it are careless of their purposes and not attentive to its capabilities. Thus Loge is Wotan's servant, always coming at his call, but Wotan is heedless of the danger of playing with fire until Brunnhilde's power ascends above her father's and she becomes fire's new master. She gains this power by virtue of having wrested the sceptre of moral authority from the hands of the gods, and when she calls upon Wotan's raven messengers to send Loge to Valhalla she enlists the amoral spirit of fire to a moral end.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

marceliotstein said:


> Thanks for this - it's an idea I need to think more about. I agree with your skepticism, though, since it seems to me the evil influence in the Ring cycle is gold=money=greed, which Loge does not represent in any sense. I see Loge as a trickster character, as Woodduck just mentioned - and like most trickster characters, his force tends to be benevolent, spontaneous and humane.


That's one of the reasons why that interpretation seems in some sense inaccurate. Nevertheless, I find it very fascinating how differently the Ring cycle and its characters can be understood and interpreted by different people, but I think the philosophical background of Wagner's operas just makes them even more beautiful.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Welcome to the forum, annaw.
> 
> That's an interesting parallel. Wotan could never forswear love as Alberich did; he values it highly and pursues it persistently in ways that outrage his longsuffering wife, whose idea of the correct channel through which loving impulses should flow is bound by conventions against which Wotan's expansive nature chafes. Fricka has nothing but contempt for Brunnhilde, because Brunnhilde is Wotan's and Erda's child, the child of Wotan's insatiable desire for Love and Wisdom. Brunnhilde embodies the best part of Wotan's character, and her loving nature brings Wotan up against the insoluble contradiction between his desires for both love and power (a contradiction over which Alberich never lost any sleep).
> 
> I think the comparison of Loge with Mephistopheles is reasonable, but qualified. Loge is Satan-like in being Wotan's tempter and, finally, his destroyer (interestingly, by fire), but he differs from the Christian Devil in not possessing a moral nature at all; he's neither good nor evil, as fire is neither good nor evil by nature but quickly switches from one role to the other if those who use it are careless of their purposes and not attentive to its capabilities. Thus Loge is Wotan's servant, always coming at his call, but Wotan is heedless of the danger of playing with fire until Brunnhilde's power ascends above her father's and she becomes fire's new master. She gains this power by virtue of having wrested the sceptre of moral authority from the hands of the gods, and when she calls upon Wotan's raven messengers to send Loge to Valhalla she enlists the amoral spirit of fire to a moral end.


Thank you for your answer! I have never thought about the metaphorical meaning behind Loge, but it actually makes a lot of sense. (I usually focus more on the allegorical meaning, but now I understand how much I have missed out...) I have one question - can we say that Loge was 'neutral', neither good nor evil, character if he had free will and a freedom of choice (had he?)? I suppose the choices one makes are what determine whether a person is good or bad (assuming we have some kind of moral law that defines good and bad). According to that logic, if Loge had a free will, he couldn't be a 'neutral' character, but maybe I'm just overthinking.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Thank you for your answer! I have never thought about the metaphorical meaning behind Loge, but it actually makes a lot of sense. (I usually focus more on the allegorical meaning, but now I understand how much I have missed out...) I have one question - can we say that Loge was 'neutral', neither good nor evil, character if he had free will and a freedom of choice (had he?)? I suppose the choices one makes are what determine whether a person is good or bad (assuming we have some kind of moral law that defines good and bad). According to that logic, if Loge had a free will, he couldn't be a 'neutral' character, but maybe I'm just overthinking.


I think there's a level on which the question of free will doesn't really pertain to what happens in myth, and particularly in Wagner's mythical allegories in which characters and their actions function as symbols of the forces at work in consciousness as it evolves toward more enlightened states. Characters do what the needs of the soul at any given juncture require that they do, and they are usually unaware of the higher purpose which, through good acts or evil ones, they serve. This dramatic premise may be viewed as a negation of the very notion of free will, despite the fact that the characters are most emphatically engaged in willing. But this "will" seems to me more a representation of the blind, striving "Wille" of Schopenhauer than of free will as understood by Christianity.

In any case, with respect to Loge, free will and morality are meaningless without values and goals, and Loge doesn't appear to have any of his own.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

annaw said:


> _It is now Loge, Wotan's Mephistopheles, who dreams these evil acts, not Wotan, and so Wotan does not, strictly speaking, independently reject love as he had done in the earlier winter sketch, but follows Loge's lead and so hangs on to both power and love. As such, this Wotan is now capable of making the moral progression to the Wanderer. Finally, once fear takes a hold of Wotan, he is no longer under the influence of Loge . . ."_


Loge suggests stealing the ring from Alberich, but he also more than once reminds Wotan that the gold (and by extension, the ring) belongs to the Rhinemaidens. G. B. Shaw saw Loge as the embodiment of the Lie, but in some respects he's the most truthful character in _Das Rheingold_. For that reason, I'm inclined to see Wotan's transgressions as his own responsibility, rather than blame Loge as his tempter.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I think there's a level on which the question of free will doesn't really pertain to what happens in myth, and particularly in Wagner's mythical allegories in which characters and their actions function as symbols of the forces at work in consciousness as it evolves toward more enlightened states. Characters do what the needs of the soul at any given juncture require that they do, and they are usually unaware of the higher purpose which, through good acts or evil ones, they serve. This dramatic premise may be viewed as a negation of the very notion of free will, despite the fact that the characters are most emphatically engaged in willing. But this "will" seems to me more a representation of the blind, striving "Wille" of Schopenhauer than of free will as understood by Christianity.
> 
> In any case, with respect to Loge, free will and morality are meaningless without values and goals, and Loge doesn't appear to have any of his own.


Thanks, Woodduck for a brilliant explanation  ! I now understand where I made my mistake.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

marceliotstein said:


> I sure hope I like Siegfried and Gotterdammerung as much as I liked the first two ... cover for me, I'm going in .....


Siegfried is my favorite of the four, by far.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

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


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

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


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

gellio said:


> Siegfried is my favorite of the four, by far.


Siegfried is my favourite also, although Götterdämmerung comes close.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> I never saw Loge/Loki as in any way benevolent or humane. He has a malevolent streak that shows itself more often than not and his humour, such as it is, is sardonic at best.


Barbebleu, I must be missing something here. And I'm sure it's me who's missing it, because I am absorbing all of this for the first time. But I really hope you can explain what you mean, because I don't see where Loge/Loki is malevolent at all. Can you give me an example, or cite a scene? Are you perhaps referring to something in the original myths regarding Loki, rather than in Wagner? I just can't think of any moment in the 3 operas I saw (I'm attending Gotterdammerung tomorrow night) that I would call malevolent.

Woodduck's characterization of Loge as Trickster, however, makes perfect sense to me - especially since it agrees with my original impression that Loge appeared to be a Germanic/mythical version of a Harlequin - a wily, crafty servant. Harlequin characters are fully human, but they are always tricksters.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

marceliotstein said:


> Barbebleu, I must be missing something here. And I'm sure it's me who's missing it, because I am absorbing all of this for the first time. But I really hope you can explain what you mean, because I don't see where Loge/Loki is malevolent at all. Can you give me an example, or cite a scene? Are you perhaps referring to something in the original myths regarding Loki, rather than in Wagner? I just can't think of any moment in the 3 operas I saw (I'm attending Gotterdammerung tomorrow night) that I would call malevolent.
> 
> Woodduck's characterization of Loge as Trickster, however, makes perfect sense to me - especially since it agrees with my original impression that Loge appeared to be a Germanic/mythical version of a Harlequin - a wily, crafty servant. Harlequin characters are fully human, but they are always tricksters.


I suppose I am thinking more of the original Loki of myth but I am not sure that Loge and Wotan's treatment of Alberich is anything other than malevolent or that Loge's misleading of Wotan with regard to the payment of the Giants suggests anything other than a warped sense of humour. Wotan is sure that Loge has promised he will find a way out of his (Wotan's) promise to to reward Fafner and Fasolt for building Walhall but Loge professes to have promised nothing of the sort. Not the act of someone who is merely a trickster. His machinations have serious consequences. I would suggest that he is a perfect example of the concept of Schadenfreude.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> I suppose I am thinking more of the original Loki of myth but I am not sure that Loge and Wotan's treatment of Alberich is anything other than malevolent or that Loge's misleading of Wotan with regard to the payment of the Giants suggests anything other than a warped sense of humour. Wotan is sure that Loge has promised he will find a way out of his (Wotan's) promise to to reward Fafner and Fasolt for building Walhall but Loge professes to have promised nothing of the sort. Not the act of someone who is merely a trickster. His machinations have serious consequences. I would suggest that he is a perfect example of the concept of Schadenfreude.


I don't think the consequences of stealing Alberich's gold and the ring would have been nearly that serious had Wotan returned the ring to the Rhinemaidens right away as Loge advised him. In addition, Loge didn't get any benefit from stealing the gold so we can't say whether he even had any personal motives when helping Wotan.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

annaw said:


> I don't think the consequences of stealing Alberich's gold and the ring would have been nearly that serious had Wotan returned the ring to the Rhinemaidens right away as Loge advised him. In addition, Loge didn't get any benefit from stealing the gold so we can't say whether he even had any personal motives when helping Wotan.


But Loge's benefits are causing consternation among the gods for whom he has scant regard. Malevolent mischief making. His final words at the end of Rheingold kind of reveal his true character to me. 
From "Ihrem Ende eilen sie zu," to "Bedenken will ich's: wer weiß, was ich tu!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> But Loge's benefits are causing consternation among the gods for whom he has scant regard. Malevolent mischief making. His final words at the end of Rheingold kind of reveal his true character to me.
> From "Ihrem Ende eilen sie zu," to "Bedenken will ich's: wer weiß, was ich tu!"


I can't see Loge as malevolent. He's just playful. Everything is a game to him. He has no stake in any outcome, and so he neither loves nor hates. As fire, he's both obedient and uncontrollable: Wotan can use him to protect Brunnhilde's rock, but when Wotan's power is gone Brunnhilde will command the flames and Loge will consume the god he once obeyed, not from ill will but according to his elemental nature. From the moment Wotan consults Loge about his bargain with the giants he is literally and figuratively playing with fire. Unlike the gods, fire is eternal and has the last laugh (and as one not looking forward to another season of nearly uncontrollable forest fires on the west coast and wondering what town will burn to the ground this year, I can attest to this).


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I can't see Loge as malevolent. He's just playful. Everything is a game to him. He has no stake in any outcome, and so he neither loves nor hates. As fire, he's both obedient and uncontrollable: Wotan can use him to protect Brunnhilde's rock, but when Wotan's power is gone Brunnhilde will command the flames and Loge will consume the god he once obeyed, not from ill will but according to his elemental nature. From the moment Wotan consults Loge about his bargain with the giants he is literally and figuratively playing with fire. Unlike the gods, fire is eternal and has the last laugh (and as one not looking forward to another season of nearly uncontrollable forest fires on the west coast and wondering what town will burn to the ground this year, I can attest to this).


Playful as in "I feel a desire to change into flickering fire and destroy those gods that thought I was tamed by them? I must consider what I might do!" That kind of playful? Mmm. I'll tell you this, he's not coming to play with me!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

He came to play with Oregon last summer and we couldn't breathe the air for two and a half months. But I know it wasn't his fault.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

2 and a half months?!!!!!!!!!
Maybe he's a satanic figure.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

No, just a heavy smoker.


----------



## Ulrich (5 mo ago)

I find Loge to be a generally underappreciated character. Some very good explenations have been given, especially by Woodduck, about his significance.
I also want to point out, that Loge actually predicts the demise of the gods in his final monologue of Rheingold and expresses his desire to burn them.
Wagner always had this idea of restoring humanity to it‘s natural state. Loge (a representative of nature) wanting to destroy the gods (and finally doing so) is probably a hint, that in Wagner’s view the old order of monarchs and their laws (which in the Ring are represented by the gods) is an unnatural state that needs to be overcome.


----------

