# The Best Books on Wagner, interview with Michael Tanner



## Taminointhestreets (May 26, 2019)

For the Wagnerians in the group!

Opera critic and philosopher Michael Tanner discusses what he considers to be the best books on Richard Wagner, with a detailed interview discussing his life and operas:

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/wagner/


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Thanks! I was just thinking of this yesterday, and I love those conversations at the five books site.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Everyone should read this! Michael Tanner on Wagner is an absolute delight. I can recommend his own little book, _Wagner_ (Princeton University Press, 1996) wholeheartedly. In this interview we get up-close glimpses of the composer and a de-mystification of his work in humorous and readable language. Tanner could make the subject fresh even for veteran Wagner lovers who may already know all the facts he relates.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I just finished reading it. A very enlightening conversation. I ordered a copy of the Millington Compendium. If anybody else is interested, Abebooks has hardcover copies for five dollars and change, free shp.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

starthrower said:


> I just finished reading it. A very enlightening conversation. I ordered a copy of the Millington Compendium. If anybody else is interested, Abebooks has hardcover copies for five dollars and change, free shp.


From what I've read, Millington is a very good Wagner scholar. He does have one area where caution is advised, and that's his argument that some of Wagner's characters, particularly Beckmesser in _Die Meistersinger,_ are intended to represent antisemitic stereotypes. I'm not sure how active a controversy this is, but the idea still has some currency in the popular media and finds its way into some contemporary productions. The arguments in favor of it strike me as contrived, and Wagner himself, who talked constantly and whose thoughts are remarkably well-documented, seems never to have expressed such an intention.


----------



## Telramund (May 20, 2019)

I am reading _Wagner and Philosophy_ by Magee. He's giving a lot of insight into the political and philosophical mindset of that time.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Taminointhestreets said:


> For the Wagnerians in the group!
> 
> Opera critic and philosopher Michael Tanner discusses what he considers to be the best books on Richard Wagner, with a detailed interview discussing his life and operas:
> 
> https://fivebooks.com/best-books/wagner/


Thank you for this link. I see that Tanner also wrote one of the Very Short Introduction books: Nietzsche. I have the strong impression that Wagner's music and Nietzsche are strongly associated in many people's minds and it is not simply because Nietzsche commented upon Wagner's music.

Is there factual evidence that the interpretation of Wagner's operas and Nietzsche's thoughts are that similar to warrant this frequent association?

If this has been discussed in another thread, please let me know. TY


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^Nietzsche was Wagner's much younger protege, associate, and friend of the family for years, even living in the Wagner home for a time. His first successful scholarly publication was _The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music_, a study of Greek drama which proclaimed Wagner's _Tristan_ to be the rebirth of the Greek Dionysian spirit. Nietzsche later turned away from Wagner, personally and philosophically, and wrote several famous essays critical of him, most notably _Der Fall Wagner_ (The Case of Wagner) and _Nietzsche Contra Wagner._ The already inextricable association of the two men was reinforced later when Hitler fell under Wagner's musical spell and simultaneously appropriated aspects of Nietzsche's thought.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Nietzsche was Wagner's much younger protege, associate, and friend of the family for years, even living in the Wagner home for a time. His first successful scholarly publication was _The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music_, a study of Greek drama which proclaimed Wagner's _Tristan_ to be the rebirth of the Greek Dionysian spirit. Nietzsche later turned away from Wagner, personally and philosophically, and wrote several famous essays critical of him, most notably _Der Fall Wagner_ (The Case of Wagner) and _Nietzsche Contra Wagner._ The already inextricable association of the two men was reinforced later when Hitler fell under Wagner's musical spell and simultaneously appropriated aspects of Nietzsche's thought.


It's safe to say that Wagner had a tremendous influence on Nietzsche, for better and worse, and that Nietzsche had just about zero influence on Wagner.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Just read the Tanner interview; the man knows his stuff. Not a bad place to start for those unsure how to approach Wagner.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Nietzsche was Wagner's much younger *protege*, associate, and friend of the family for years, even living in the Wagner home for a time. His first successful scholarly publication was _The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music_, a study of Greek drama which proclaimed Wagner's _Tristan_ to be the rebirth of the Greek Dionysian spirit. Nietzsche later turned away from Wagner, personally and philosophically, and wrote several famous essays critical of him, most notably _Der Fall Wagner_ (The Case of Wagner) and _Nietzsche Contra Wagner._ The *already inextricable association* of the two men was reinforced later when Hitler fell under Wagner's musical spell and simultaneously appropriated aspects of Nietzsche's thought.


Highlighting is mine. I also read Amfortas' first comment below.

Most important to me: "Is there *factual evidence that the interpretation of Wagner's operas and Nietzsche's thoughts are that similar* to warrant this frequent association?

Is there factual evidence that Nietzsche's thoughts on *individuals and the will to power* are keys to understanding the widest/deepest/most important message that Wagner wanted to convey. Along the lines of Tanner talking about Wagner hoping his opera (my addition _The Ring & Parsifal_) would transform society?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

amfortas said:


> It's safe to say that Wagner had a tremendous influence on Nietzsche, for better and worse, *and that Nietzsche had just about zero influence on Wagner*.


Thanks for taking the time to reply but could you back up that latter phrase with some evidence?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Highlighting is mine. I also read Amfortas' first comment below.
> 
> Most important to me: "Is there *factual evidence that the interpretation of Wagner's operas and Nietzsche's thoughts are that similar* to warrant this frequent association?
> 
> Is there factual evidence that Nietzsche's thoughts on *individuals and the will to power* are keys to understanding the widest/deepest/most important message that Wagner wanted to convey. Along the lines of Tanner talking about Wagner hoping his opera (my addition _The Ring & Parsifal_) would transform society?


Well, the question of what's factual may be in some dispute when it comes to philosophical ideas. I agree with amfortas that Nietzsche had virtually no influence on Wagner, who was 21 years his senior and had already composed, or drafted, all his operas except _Parsifal_ when the two met in 1868. Their mutual philosophical interests, especially in Schopenhauer, were a strong bond at first, and Nietzsche had also entertained musical ambitions, though these were discarded in the face of Wagner's genius. Wagner was a powerfully dominating personality and was something of a father figure to Nietzsche, whose later schism with the composer had a number of causes, one of which was simply the increasing divergence in their thinking, but another of which seems to have been Nietzsche's growing professional status, sense of his own value, and desire not to be seen as a Wagner acolyte.

Nietzsche saw in the passionate and heroic elements of Wagner's art, especially of _Tristan_ and the _Ring_, a presage of the "Uebermensch" and "will to power" concepts he was to formulate later, but this was partly youthful wishful thinking. When Parsifal was presented to the world, not as a fearless, muscular hero wielding a sword, slaying dragons and walking through fire, but as one who looks like Siegfried at the outset but breaks his bow for shame at shooting a swan, rejects the sensual indulgence in which previous Wagnerian heroes had reveled, and carries a spear only to fulfill his destiny in an act of compassion, Nietzsche denounced his former mentor as having committed a disgraceful about-face and fallen under the spell of what he called the "slave morality" of Christianity.

In my view, Nietzsche saw the Wagner he wanted to see, while the real Wagner just went on developing his own views, and representing them in his work, with an inexorable logic that made a rupture between the two men inevitable. Wagner's heroes, as we can see them now, were always subversive of the existing order - in a sense embodying a human nature "beyond good and evil" like Nietzsche's philosophical avatar - but they were also destined to fail, like Wagner the youthful political activist, in ambitions of earthly revolution. The Dutchman, Tannhauser, Lohengrin, Tristan, Walther, Siegfried - all are broken or chastened by a world they cannot change. Only Parsifal, by seeing Buddha-like through the illusion of ego and consciously renouncing self-gratification and violence, succeeds in overcoming the world by realizing that the quest is internal and that the hero must overcome himself and serve others. It wasn't a concept of heroism of which Nietzsche could approve. And the subsequent fusion of Wagner and Nietzsche in the popular imagination as mutual purveyors of Nazi brutality is just one of the distortions of history that is Hitler's legacy, one that people with certain agendas have perpetuated, and one that has needlessly hindered access to Wagner for many people.

I'm no authority on Nietzsche, and only a semi-authority (if there is such a thing) on Wagner, but I hope this partly answers your question.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> Thanks for taking the time to reply but could you back up that latter phrase with some evidence?


As Woodduck points out, Wagner had written most of his theoretical and artistic works, and had his own firmly established views, by the time he met Nietzsche. And when Wagner did have apparent changes of outlook later in life, after his time with Nietzsche, they went in directions Nietzsche despised and rejected--_Parsifal_ being the final straw.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I am amused by the bit about how Wagner took over conducting the last act of Parsifal and conducted it so slowly ... I can't help but think 'Goodall'


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> I am amused by the bit about how Wagner took over conducting the last act of Parsifal and conducted it so slowly ... I can't help but think 'Goodall'


It's a handy anecdote for refuting the idea that there's such a thing as a "correct" tempo.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, the question of what's factual may be in some dispute when it comes to philosophical ideas. I agree with amfortas that Nietzsche had virtually no influence on Wagner, who was 21 years his senior and had already composed, or drafted, all his operas except _Parsifal_ when the two met in 1868. Their mutual philosophical interests, especially in Schopenhauer, were a strong bond at first,...."
> 
> Jo: Yes, it is helpful to learn that Nietzsche was a young, friend of the Wagner family.
> 
> ...


Jo: (I have put my responses within the original quote. I hope I still make some kind of sense.)


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

One more thing before I continue: I have no interest in trashing Wagner the man. Anti-Semitism, stealing from one's creditors, being a malicious gossip, whatever, true or false, it's not my interest. We all can't work for every good cause.

Also, I remember hearing in college that a great deal of Nietzsche's anti-semitic remarks in his works were forged by his sister Elizabeth. I don't know if that is true or false, but that's been the understanding I've worked with for a very long time and I've listened to/watched: The Dutchman, The Meistersinger, Tristan and Isolde, Tannhauser, The Ring, parts of Parsifal and I don't see, hear, or read any anti-semitism in any of those works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

> From what I know of Nietzsche's thoughts and writings, especially re/ religion and ethics I can definitely see how he would reject a character as you describe Parsifal. But, I've seen very little compassion or self-sacrifice-for others in Parsifal myself--I admit I avoid watching the thing even though I own two DVDs of the opera.


Meaning no disrespect, but perhaps you would understand _Parsifal_ better if you were not so determined to avoid it.  OK, I'll admit that it can be a tough nut to crack for many people. It exists in such a dreamlike, symbolic dimension, with almost nothing comprehensible in terms of "real life," that all sorts of contradictory things have been said about it. As one musician said, "The music is glorious, but what on _earth_ are those people doing up there?"

Joking aside, Wagner's dramaturgy is concise and the events of the story are reduced to the barest essentials, with only the key moments made visible onstage. But even with a cursory reading of the libretto, the boy Parsifal's schooling in empathy through his contact with the suffering knights of the Grail, and with the dangerous temptation to regress to the irresponsibility of infantile self-indulgence, is pretty hard to miss on even a cursory perusal of the libretto, and is illuminated with piercing profundity by the music. "Made wise through compassion, the innocent fool" is the prophecy delivered to Amfortas in his pain, and thus the stage is set for our hero to choose the mature path, heal the wounded king, and redeem the Grail's domain.

(BTW I strongly recommending not relying on videos of any productions to illuminate _Parsifal_ for you. It's much abused by directors with "ideas." Get a good recording - the Bayreuth recording under Knappertsbusch from 1962 is a classic - read the synopsis and libretto, and let the music speak to your imagination.)



> I think you are the only person I have ever heard on TC (or elsewhere?) that has used the terms compassion and self-sacrifice in association with Parsifal (or any of Wagner's operas for that matter.)


You must look harder at what's been written about Wagner. That Parsifal learns compassion, and that it enables him to heal the sickness which has overtaken the order of the Grail, is the most salient of the drama's themes. Likewise, in the _Ring,_ Brunnhilde's capacity for empathy is fundamental to her nature and to the progress of the story.



> What I keep hearing is individual freedom at the cost of anyone or anything else.


You have never heard that from me, or from anyone else here whom I can think of.



> I don't know enough, and haven't thought enough about what I know, to say that most/many of his characters "were always subversive of the existing order", for purely selfish reasons as opposed to agapic love." The fact that you say "in a sense embodying a ...beyond good and evil" mentality, again makes me think that you think that to a great degree you think Wagner did embrace the idea. Again, that irresolvable contradiction.


All of Wagner's operas, even the comedy _Die Meistersinger,_ feature major characters whose view of life is in tension with the "normal" or conventional realm in which they live. Wagner is always questioning values, and does so through his protagonists who, whatever their errors or their fates, yearn for something beyond what society seems to offer them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> One more thing before I continue: I have no interest in trashing Wagner the man. Anti-Semitism, stealing from one's creditors, being a malicious gossip, whatever, true or false, it's not my interest. We all can't work for every good cause.
> 
> I remember hearing in college that a great deal of Nietzsche's anti-semitic remarks in his works were forged by his sister Elizabeth. I don't know if that is true or false, but that's been the understanding I've worked with for a very long time and I've listened to/watched: The Dutchman, The Meistersinger, Tristan and Isolde, Tannhauser, The Ring, parts of Parsifal and I don't see, hear, or read any anti-semitism in any of those works.


I don't believe there is any antisemitism in the operas, but some people have gone to great lengths to find it. They can never forgive Wagner, often for things done fifty years after his death.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I don't believe there is any antisemitism in the operas, but some people have gone to great lengths to find it. They can never forgive Wagner, often for things done fifty years after his death.


Hmmm... "This second interpretation of Beckmesser may dovetail with the antisemitism interpretation above, as Wagner attacked Hanslick as 'of gracefully concealed Jewish origin' in his revised edition of his essay Jewishness in Music."

Hanslick does appear to have been Jewish (through the maternal side) or, more importantly, Wagner thought him so.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... "This second interpretation of Beckmesser may dovetail with the antisemitism interpretation above, as Wagner attacked Hanslick as 'of gracefully concealed Jewish origin' in his revised edition of his essay Jewishness in Music."


What he said about Hanslick in an essay and what's in the opera are not the same. There is nothing particularly Jewish about Beckmesser, despite the strained efforts of some to find it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> What he said about Hanslick in an essay and what's in the opera are not the same. There is nothing particularly Jewish about Beckmesser, despite the strained efforts of some to find it.


It seems to me that Beckmesser's role is quite close to this: "The Jew's musical nature is utterly unlike our own. He is incapable of apprehending the depths of our Folkish music; he can only attend to its surface."


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Meaning no disrespect, but perhaps you would understand _Parsifal_ better if you were not so determined to avoid it.  OK, I'll admit that it can be a tough nut to crack for many people. It exists in such a dreamlike, symbolic dimension, with almost nothing comprehensible in terms of "real life," that all sorts of contradictory things have been said about it. As one musician said, "The music is glorious, but what on _earth_ are those people doing up there?"
> 
> I knew I wrote to much in my first post, but I didn't realize I REALLY wrote too much. You are not responding to all my points; I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I REALLY wrote too much.
> 
> ...


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

KenOC said:


> It seems to me that Beckmesser's role is quite close to this: "The Jew's musical nature is utterly unlike our own. He is incapable of apprehending the depths of our Folkish music; he can only attend to its surface."


It seems to me it's also quite close to this: "Scholars Dieter Borchmeyer, Udo Bermbach and Hermann Danuser support the thesis that with the character of Beckmesser, Wagner did not intend to allude to Jewish stereotypes, but rather to criticize (academic) pedantism in general. They point out similarities to the figure of Malvolio in Shakespeare's comedy Twelfth Night."

Wagner wrote the first prose draft of the plot of the opera before he had any sort of antagonism for Hanslick, and before he wrote the essay "Jewishness in Music" by the way.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ Where, in the music of the prelude, is there any suggestion of an open mouth? How is that even possible? 

You're looking at the opera too literally. Kundry isn't a single individual. Messenger, slave, temptress, mother reincarnated, wanderer, sinner seeking salvation... In the male world of the Grail knights, she is every role that woman is forced into by man when he has renounced the "feminine" part of his soul - she IS that feminine part, disowned by man - and her agony is her enslavement to man's ego-illusions. I think she's the most amazing creation in opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

OperaChic said:


> It seems to me it's also quite close to this: "Scholars Dieter Borchmeyer, Udo Bermbach and Hermann Danuser support the thesis that with the character of Beckmesser, Wagner did not intend to allude to Jewish stereotypes, but rather to criticize (academic) pedantism in general. They point out similarities to the figure of Malvolio in Shakespeare's comedy Twelfth Night."
> 
> Wagner wrote the first prose draft of the plot of the opera before he had any sort of antagonism for Hanslick, and before he wrote the essay "Jewishness in Music" by the way.


Beckmesser's tradition-bound pedantry is the essence of his character. There isn't anything Jewish about that. He also occupies two socially respectable positions; that of town clerk and of "marker" in the mastersingers' guild, where he is entrusted with the job of notating the faults in singers' creations and performances. It's a little bizarre to think that Wagner wanted us to imagine such a pillar of the community of Nurnberg as Jewish.

There's a statement in "Jewishness in Music" to the effect that Wagner would not put a Jewish character on the stage, and he never made a statement to the effect that he did that, even with satirical intent. Had he done so, the chance that we'd have no record of his mentioning it to anyone is virtually zero.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The question of Beckmesser and "Jewishness in music" is addressed in a long article in the New York Times back in 1993:

'Beckmesser's failings are precisely those Wagner ascribed to the Jews in his notorious essay on Jews in music: Beckmesser has no melody or art of his own but preys on others (even stealing Walther's song); he speaks of loopholes, and he acts with legalistic ruthlessness. "In song," Wagner wrote, "the peculiarity of the Jewish nature attains for us its climax of distastefulness." Beckmesser's two major songs have awkward rhythms, unbalanced phrasing and a whining melisma that listeners of the time recognized as satires of Jewish melodies. His music jerks according to Wagner's idea of Jewish speech: a "creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle." In Walther's first song, Mr. Millington points out, one verse alludes to a Grimm fairy tale, "The Jew in the Thorn," while clearly referring to Beckmesser.'

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/24/arts/classical-view-beckmesser-two-villains-at-a-swipe.html


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Beckmesser's tradition-bound pedantry is the essence of his character. There isn't anything Jewish about that. He also occupies two socially respectable positions; that of town clerk and of "marker" in the mastersingers' guild, where he is entrusted with the job of notating the faults in singers' creations and performances. It's a little bizarre to think that Wagner wanted us to imagine such a pillar of the community of Nurnberg as Jewish.


Yeah, I mean, even if there was some sort of tie between the "musical mind of Jews" and Beckmesser that Wagner had in mind when he created the character, what an incredible stretch it is to claim that makes the character or the opera antisemtic. How often have two people attended a performance of Die Meisteringer where one turns to the other and says "man, that Beckmesser. He has no apprenshion of the depths of German folk music" and the other responds "I know, what a ghastly antisemitic caricature!"


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

KenOC said:


> The question of Beckmesser and "Jewishness in music" is addressed in a long article in the New York Times back in 1993:
> 
> 'Beckmesser's failings are precisely those Wagner ascribed to the Jews in his notorious essay on Jews in music: Beckmesser has no melody or art of his own but preys on others (even stealing Walther's song); he speaks of loopholes, and he acts with legalistic ruthlessness. "In song," Wagner wrote, "the peculiarity of the Jewish nature attains for us its climax of distastefulness." Beckmesser's two major songs have awkward rhythms, unbalanced phrasing and a whining melisma that listeners of the time recognized as satires of Jewish melodies. His music jerks according to Wagner's idea of Jewish speech: a "creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle." In Walther's first song, Mr. Millington points out, one verse alludes to a Grimm fairy tale, "The Jew in the Thorn," while clearly referring to Beckmesser.'
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/24/arts/classical-view-beckmesser-two-villains-at-a-swipe.html


All of that is pretty dumb and has been convincingly refuted by numerous scholars. Honestly. The Jew in the Thorn clearly referring to Beckmesser. :lol:

Its simply a case of reading the essay and trying to ascribe Wagner's descriptions of Jews to characters in the operas. The same arguments are made as to why Mime is an antisemitic character. No matter how stupid the comparisons. "Creaking, squeaking, buzzing"? Yeah, that's Beckmessers serenade to a tee. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> The question of Beckmesser and "Jewishness in music" is addressed in a long article in the New York Times back in 1993:
> 
> 'Beckmesser's failings are precisely those Wagner ascribed to the Jews in his notorious essay on Jews in music: Beckmesser has no melody or art of his own but preys on others (even stealing Walther's song); he speaks of loopholes, and he acts with legalistic ruthlessness. "In song," Wagner wrote, "the peculiarity of the Jewish nature attains for us its climax of distastefulness." Beckmesser's two major songs have awkward rhythms, unbalanced phrasing and a whining melisma that listeners of the time recognized as satires of Jewish melodies. His music jerks according to Wagner's idea of Jewish speech: a "creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle." In Walther's first song, Mr. Millington points out, one verse alludes to a Grimm fairy tale, "The Jew in the Thorn," while clearly referring to Beckmesser.'
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/24/arts/classical-view-beckmesser-two-villains-at-a-swipe.html


Several problems with this. One is that so many unattractive traits were ascribed to Jews that almost any unattractive person presented onstage could be seen by an antisemitic culture as "Jewish." Another is that Beckmesser's music doesn't really sound like Jewish music, which is characterized above all by its "Arabian" minor modes. Wagner had a good enough ear for musical idioms that he would not have failed to include this diagnostic trait in Beckmesser's songs.

Millington is too eager to prove his thesis. He even falsely attributes to Beckmesser awkward speech patterns and a jerky gait which are nowhere to be found in the stage directions. Millington is not a reliable source on this question.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The question of Beckmesser and "Jewishness in music" is addressed in a long article in the New York Times back in 1993:
> 
> 'Beckmesser's failings are precisely those Wagner ascribed to the Jews in his notorious essay on Jews in music: Beckmesser has no melody or art of his own but preys on others (even stealing Walther's song); he speaks of loopholes, and he acts with legalistic ruthlessness. "In song," Wagner wrote, "the peculiarity of the Jewish nature attains for us its climax of distastefulness." Beckmesser's two major songs have awkward rhythms, unbalanced phrasing and a whining melisma that listeners of the time recognized as satires of Jewish melodies. His music jerks according to Wagner's idea of Jewish speech: a "creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle." In Walther's first song, Mr. Millington points out, one verse alludes to a Grimm fairy tale, "The Jew in the Thorn," while clearly referring to Beckmesser.'
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/24/arts/classical-view-beckmesser-two-villains-at-a-swipe.html


This article sums it up pretty well with regard to Mastersinger. Although some of Wagner's admirers would never want to admit it, it is pretty obvious when you take his writings into account. Of course, Beckmesser is not a Jew, as a Jew would never be allowed to be two clerk in Nuremberg at the time, but he has what Wagner saw as Jewish characteristics which make him distasteful. I saw this from the first time I listened to Mastersingers - in addition to the mocking of the town clerk by the mob and Sach's speech about 'Holy German Art' where the 'enemies' are only too obvious.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> This article sums it up pretty well with regard to Mastersinger. Although some of Wagner's admirers would never want to admit it, it is pretty obvious when you take his writings into account. Of course, Beckmesser is not a Jew, as a Jew would never be allowed to be two clerk in Nuremberg at the time, but he has what Wagner saw as Jewish characteristics which make him distasteful. I saw this from the first time I listened to Mastersingers - in addition to the mocking of the town clerk by the mob and Sach's speech about 'Holy German Art' where the 'enemies' are only too obvious.


We should have known to expect you to alight here with the usual nods of approval for your pet Wagner scholar. But it looks as if you have nothing to add to the discussion. What a surprise.

Millington's article does not sum "it" up. Nothing about "it" is "pretty obvious." Wagner's writings about Jews don't say anything about what he did in his operas. The "Jewish characteristics" of Beckmesser are not specifically Jewish and in most cases are not even present in the way "the article" claims they are. The "this" that you saw in the opera is your own idea of "this."

Hans Sachs' speech urging Walther and the people of Nurnberg to preserve their musical art reads as follows:

Scorn not the Masters, I bid you,
and honour their art!
What speaks high in their praise
fell richly in your favour.
Not to your ancestors, however worthy,
not to your coat-of-arms, spear, or sword,
but to the fact that you are a poet,
that a Master has admitted you -
to that you owe today your highest happiness.
So, think back to this with gratitude:
how can the art be unworthy
which embraces such prizes?
That our Masters have cared for it
rightly in their own way,
cherished it truly as they thought best,
that has kept it genuine:
if it did not remain aristocratic as of old,
when courts and princes blessed it,
in the stress of evil years
it remained German and true;
and if it flourished nowhere
but where all is stress and strain,
you see how high it remained in honour -
what more would you ask of the Masters?
Beware! Evil tricks threaten us:
if the German people and kingdom should one day decay,
under a false, foreign rule
soon no prince would understand his people;
and foreign mists with foreign vanities
they would plant in our German land;
what is German and true none would know,
if it did not live in the honour of German Masters.
Therefore I say to you:
honour your German Masters,
then you will conjure up good spirits!
And if you favour their endeavours,
even if the Holy Roman Empire
should dissolve in mist,
for us there would yet remain
holy German Art!

There's no hint of antisemitism in this talk of foreign rule. The "enemies" you think are "only too obvious" are pretty obviously not Jewish. And Beckmesser himself is no enemy of the noble tradition: a respected mastersinger, he has worked as hard and sincerely as anyone in honoring "Holy German Art."

Can we put this prejudicial fantasizing to rest now?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Millington in his book 'The Sorcerer of Bayreuth' sums it up pretty well. You can see the anti-semitic references and typology without turning the operas into anti-semitic tracts. Only those committed to the rather curious notion that the only part of Wagner's philosophy that didn't find its way into the operas was his anti-semitism, of which he wrote volumes. It does in the form of certain characters. Even Mahler, a champion of Wagner, realised this: "I am Mime". This, as Millington says, if the 'Faustian pact' Wagner gives us. No doubt if Wagner hadn't have written so extensively about the matter it wouldn't be such an issue.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

And here we go again!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Millington in his book 'The Sorcerer of Bayreuth' sums it up pretty well. You can see the anti-semitic references and typology without turning the operas into anti-semitic tracts. Only those committed to the rather curious notion that the only part of Wagner's philosophy that didn't find its way into the operas was his anti-semitism, of which he wrote volumes. It does in the form of certain characters. Even Mahler, a champion of Wagner, realised this: "I am Mime". This, as Millington says, if the 'Faustian pact' Wagner gives us. No doubt if Wagner hadn't have written so extensively about the matter it wouldn't be such an issue.


The most common anti-semitistic reference people can come up with is the ending of Die Meistersinger and whether it's anti-semitistic or not is strongly debatable. Also, what Mahler thought couldn't be acknowledged as a universal truth. He certainly had his own opinion, but we can't just say that every evil or unpleasant character in Wagner's operas is his reference to jews if he hasn't made a unambiguous reference to that. Mahler was definitely a very wise man, but we are still allowed to slightly disagree with him  .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> The most common anti-semitistic reference people can come up with is the ending of Die Meistersinger and whether it's anti-semitistic or not is strongly debatable. Also, what Mahler thought couldn't be acknowledged as a universal truth. He certainly had his own opinion, but *we can't just say that every evil or unpleasant character in Wagner's operas is his reference to jews *if he hasn't made a unambiguous reference to that. Mahler was definitely a very wise man, but we are still allowed to slightly disagree with him  .


Sorry but I don't think anyone is saying that


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just to say another rattling good read is "The Wagner Clan" by Jonathan Carr.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> He even falsely attributes to Beckmesser awkward speech patterns and a jerky gait which are nowhere to be found in the stage directions.


it's in the score where the bassoon represents the Beckmesser (in music bassoon portrays baseness).



DavidA said:


> Sach's speech about 'Holy German Art' where the 'enemies' are only too obvious.


and he spoke of the English because did not know these will be the Americans.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

in 19th century, it was Germany & Austria that assimilated Jews best of all, which could be a problem for the nascent Zionist movement who felt losing control over the Jews and, therefore, could use only false-flag tactics put in the form of so-called 'antisemitism' in order to disrupt there assimilation. Wagner thus appears to be a secret agent of Zionist interests, not those of the German state, actually.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> in 19th century, it was Germany & Austria that assimilated Jews best of all, which could be a problem for the nascent Zionist movement who felt losing control over the Jews and, therefore, could use only false-flag tactics put in the form of so-called 'antisemitism' in order to disrupt there assimilation. Wagner thus appears to be a secret agent of Zionist interests, not those of the German state, actually.


So the Holocaust was the ultimate Zionist triumph. Good to know.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> in 19th century, it was Germany & Austria that assimilated Jews best of all, which could be a problem for the nascent Zionist movement who felt losing control over the Jews and, therefore, could use only false-flag tactics put in the form of so-called 'antisemitism' in order to disrupt there assimilation. Wagner thus appears to be a secret agent of Zionist interests, not those of the German state, actually.


Sounds like a true conspiracy theory...


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Of course, Beckmesser is not a Jew, as a Jew would never be allowed to be two clerk in Nuremberg at the time, but he has what Wagner saw as Jewish characteristics which make him distasteful.


It doesn't really matter what characteristics Wagner did or didn't see as being Jewish. Beckmesser doesn't have any characteristics that are recognized as exclusively belonging to Jews, so calling a non-Jewish character with no specifially Jewish traits an antisemitic caricature is pretty ridiculous. But then again Milington's argument is full of all kinds of holes that are only possible to ignore if you are intent on coming to the same conclusion he does.



DavidA said:


> Only those committed to the rather curious notion that the only part of Wagner's philosophy that didn't find its way into the operas was his anti-semitism, of which he wrote volumes.


If he was able to manage to write an entire autobiography (Mein Leben) without antisemitism finding its way into that, its not hard to imagine that he was able to write operas without antisemitism finding its way into them either.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> It doesn't really matter what characteristics Wagner did or didn't see as being Jewish. Beckmesser doesn't have any characteristics that are recognized as exclusively belonging to Jews, so calling a non-Jewish character with no specifially Jewish traits an antisemitic caricature is pretty ridiculous. But then again Milington's argument is full of all kinds of holes that are only possible to ignore if you are intent on coming to the same conclusion he does.
> 
> If he was able to manage to write an entire autobiography (Mein Leben) without antisemitism finding its way into that, its not hard to imagine that he was able to write operas without antisemitism finding its way into them either.


As the rest of his philosophy tended to find its way into his operas it was astounding that a central plank of it didn't. But discuss no further as we are discussing books and Millington's is worth a read and no more full of holes than other books about Wagner, for and against. The Bluffer's Guide to Opera has an interesting section on Wagner and indeed many other composers as well.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

DavidA said:


> As the rest of his philosophy tended to find its way into his operas it was astounding that a central plank of it didn't.


You've been using this same tired argument for years. Actually, its not astounding at all. Wagner's philosophy did not find its way into the operas -- certain philosophical ideas that he was preoccupied with as an artist did. Not all. Some. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

As for good books about Wagner, Michael Tanner's list is excellent. A few others that I would recommend would be Roger Scruton's comprehensive and erudite analyses of The Ring and Tristan und Isolde; Bryan Magee's engrossing discussion of Wagner and philosophy, and any of Father M. Owen Lee's clear, succint and insightful publications on Wagner. I'm particularly fond of "Wagner's Ring: Turning the Sky Round" and "Wagner: The Terrible Man and His Truthful Art".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Just to say another rattling good read is "The Wagner Clan" by Jonathan Carr.


Your idea of a "rattling good read" is any book that causes you to salivate gleefully over Wagner's antisemitism.

"The Wagner Clan" is not only NOT one of the "best books about Wagner" (as per the OP), it's primarily a book about his descendents.

It always helps to figure out what a conversation is about before entering it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> As the rest of his philosophy tended to find its way into his operas


No, it didn't.



> it was astounding that a central plank of it didn't.


Antisemitism was not a central plank of Wagner's philosophy. But it's obviously a central plank in your lifelong campaign to downgrade his works and annoy everyone on the forum.



> But discuss no further as we are discussing books


You don't get to decide what gets disussed.



> and Millington's is worth a read and no more full of holes than other books about Wagner, for and against.


How would YOU know?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> As the rest of his philosophy tended to find its way into his operas it was astounding that a central plank of it didn't. But discuss no further as we are discussing books and Millington's is worth a read and no more full of holes than other books about Wagner, for and against. The Bluffer's Guide to Opera has an interesting section on Wagner and indeed many other composers as well.


Found some trustworthy information from Wikipedia - the article actually has references if someone is more interested. (this also partially explains why I wrote "we can't just say that every evil or unpleasant character in Wagner's operas is his reference to jews" in my previous comment + it was a slight exaggeration):

"_Some biographers, such as Theodor Adorno and Robert Gutman have advanced the claim that Wagner's opposition to Jews was not limited to his articles, and that the operas contained such messages. In particular the characters of Mime in the Ring, Klingsor in Parsifal and Sixtus Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger are supposedly Jewish stereotypes, although none of them are identified as Jews in the libretto. Such claims are disputed. Wagner, over the course of his life, produced a huge amount of written material analyzing every aspect of himself, including his operas and his views on Jews (as well as many other topics); these purportedly 'Jewish' characterizations are never mentioned, nor are there any such references in Cosima Wagner's copious diaries._"

Had Wagner intended to bring his anti-semitistic views into his operas he would probably have mentioned that more clearly. We know that the Ring was influenced by Schopenhauer's philosophy, because Wagner makes a plain statement about Schopenhauer's influence in _Mein Leben_. There's no reference about whether or not Wagner intended Beckmesser or Mime to be Jewish stereotypes - we still arrive to the same place where we started. Wagner didn't write 'jewishness' into his libretto, but we can't prove neither positive nor negative. So, this really is a never-ending debate, because there doesn't exist any universal proof, but just the opinions and probabilities.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Found some trustworthy information from Wikipedia - the article actually has references if someone is more interested. (this also partially explains why I wrote "we can't just say that every evil or unpleasant character in Wagner's operas is his reference to jews" in my previous comment + it was a slight exaggeration):
> 
> "_Some biographers, such as Theodor Adorno and Robert Gutman have advanced the claim that Wagner's opposition to Jews was not limited to his articles, and that the operas contained such messages. In particular the characters of Mime in the Ring, Klingsor in Parsifal and Sixtus Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger are supposedly Jewish stereotypes, although none of them are identified as Jews in the libretto. Such claims are disputed. *Wagner, over the course of his life, produced a huge amount of written material analyzing every aspect of himself, including his operas and his views on Jews (as well as many other topics); these purportedly 'Jewish' characterizations are never mentioned, nor are there any such references in Cosima Wagner's copious diaries.*_"
> 
> *Had Wagner intended to bring his anti-semitistic views into his operas he would probably have mentioned that more clearly. We know that the Ring was influenced by Schopenhauer's philosophy, because Wagner makes a plain statement about Schopenhauer's influence in Mein Leben. There's no reference about whether or not Wagner intended Beckmesser or Mime to be Jewish stereotypes* - we still arrive to the same place where we started. Wagner didn't write 'jewishness' into his libretto, but we can't prove neither positive nor negative. So, this really is a never-ending debate, because there doesn't exist any universal proof, but just the opinions and probabilities.


Exactly. It's really not even worth speculating about this. If antisemitism were really a crucial part of Wagner's "philosophy" (as DavidA claims it was), and if he had considered it something he needed to express in his art, he would have talked and written about it. Of all artists, Wagner was the least shy or secretive about what he thought or intended. His theoretical writings, correspondence and recorded conversations are staggeringly voluminous, and there isn't a word about "Jewish" caricatures in the operas. There is, however, a remark about how much he loved his villains.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> Found some trustworthy information from Wikipedia - the article actually has references if someone is more interested. (this also partially explains why I wrote "we can't just say that every evil or unpleasant character in Wagner's operas is his reference to jews" in my previous comment + it was a slight exaggeration):
> 
> "_Some biographers, such as Theodor Adorno and Robert Gutman have advanced the claim that Wagner's opposition to Jews was not limited to his articles, and that the operas contained such messages. In particular the characters of Mime in the Ring, Klingsor in Parsifal and Sixtus Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger are supposedly Jewish stereotypes, although none of them are identified as Jews in the libretto. Such claims are disputed. Wagner, over the course of his life, produced a huge amount of written material analyzing every aspect of himself, including his operas and his views on Jews (as well as many other topics); these purportedly 'Jewish' characterizations are never mentioned, nor are there any such references in Cosima Wagner's copious diaries._"
> 
> Had Wagner intended to bring his anti-semitistic views into his operas he would probably have mentioned that more clearly. We know that the Ring was influenced by Schopenhauer's philosophy, because Wagner makes a plain statement about Schopenhauer's influence in _Mein Leben_. There's no reference about whether or not Wagner intended Beckmesser or Mime to be Jewish stereotypes - we still arrive to the same place where we started. Wagner didn't write 'jewishness' into his libretto, but we can't prove neither positive nor negative. *So, this really is a never-ending debate, because there doesn't exist any universal proof, but just the opinions and probabilities.*


Absolutely. There is no absolute proof and so we have to go by opinion which appears to be pretty evenly split between those who think that great works of art cannot be so sullied and those who accept the view that the man and his art cannot be so easily separated. You cannot necessarily argue from silence. I mean, I don't think Mozart wrote racist or anti-feminist views in his letters but they are there in the Flute. You simply cannot deny that. But whichever side of the divide you fall it is OPINION!
I have mine, and I think Millington makes a good case for his. You mention Klingsor. Interesting that Howard Goodall (always provocative) mentions in his 'Story of Music' that until the 1930s Klingsor 'was typically portrayed in Parsifal productions as of Arabic or Jewish origin.' His section on Wagner is an entertaining read, as is indeed the whole book.
Of course, another couple of books we should mention is Wolfgang Wagner's autobiography (ACTS - I have read it - very opinionated, of course) and the book by the great grandson Gottfried Wagner, 'Twilight of the Wagners'. Actually reading about Wagner and his awful family rivals any soap opera! Even if you don't like the operas reading about the family is very entertaining!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> PS I have mine!


I think we've got that  !

My personal opinion also remains the same - the odds that Wagner somehow forgot to mention that "Oh, guys, Mime is actually a Jewish stereotype. Keep this in mind when playing his part." seems very small, but as I already said myself, it's still all about what one wants to believe (although the probabilities also play a role, or logic, whatever you want to call it).


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

When I first listened to the Ring, I didn't know about Wagner's antisemitism and it *never* entered my mind that Mime might be a Jewish stereotype. That's the main thing that matters to me, there are so many much more important themes in Wagner's operas than the question whether Mime was allegorically a Jew or not and as Wagner himself didn't give us the answer, I don't want to let myself be bothered by it too much.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Absolutely. There is no absolute proof and so *we have to go by opinion* *which appears to be pretty evenly split* between those who think that great works of art cannot be so sullied and those who accept the view that the man and his art cannot be so easily separated. You cannot necessarily argue from silence. I mean, *I don't think Mozart wrote racist or anti-feminist views in his letters but they are there in the Flute.* Whichever side of the divide you fall it is OPINION!
> I have mine, and I think Millington makes a good case for his.


You may "go by opinion" - which means nothing more than the opinions you happen to like - but I go by evidence. Where evidence of an offense is lacking, integrity demands that one make no accusation. And how do you know that "opinion" is "evenly split"? Split between whom? Those who know what they're talking about and those, like you and Millington, who make stuff up and present it as evidence?

The racist and sexist elements in _Zauberflote_ are actually right in the text. We don't need to know Mozart's private views about blacks and women. It's the operas of Wagner we're talking about, not his private views.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You may "go by opinion" - which means nothing more than the opinions you happen to like - but I go by evidence. Where evidence of an offense is lacking, integrity demands that one make no accusation. And how do you know that "opinion" is "evenly split"? Split between whom? Those who know what they're talking about and those, like you and Millington, who make stuff up and present it as evidence?
> 
> The racist and sexist elements in _Zauberflote_ are actually right in the text. We don't need to know Mozart's private views about blacks and women. It's the operas of Wagner we're talking about, not his private views.


Precisely. This is not about your opinion vs. mine. Millington makes a claim, and the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence to support his arguments.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> Precisely. This is not about your opinion vs. mine. Millington makes a claim, and the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence to support his arguments.


Given Wagner's writings I would have through the burden of proof lies in the other direction. Any law court might think the same. But it is pretty pointless going on with this as we have already said that it is a matter of opinion whether you can separate the man from his works.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Given Wagner's writings I would have through the burden of proof lies in the other direction. Any law court might think the same. But it is pretty pointless going on with this as we have already said that it is a matter of opinion whether you can separate the man from his works.


Oy vey. No, the burden of proof does not lie in the other direction, because the claim is not about whether there is antisemitism in Wagner's writings. Any court of law could easily make the distinction that you seem incapable of understanding.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Even the most absurd fantasy or thought crime can be justified as "opinion."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> Oy vey. No, the burden of proof does not lie in the other direction, because the claim is not about whether there is antisemitism in Wagner's writings. Any court of law could easily make the distinction that you seem incapable of understanding.


Nope sorry, you are confusing a criminal court with a civil court. However I cannot see why you are banging on about this as I have already stated more than once it is a matter of opinion and this thread is about books about Wagner.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Nope sorry, you are confusing a criminal court with a civil court. However I cannot see why you are banging on about this as I have already stated more than once it is a matter of opinion and this thread is about books about Wagner.


Nope sorry, in civil court the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. Who is making the claims here? Millngton. Is he making a case for antisemitism in the operas, or in the writings? The operas. Hence, the burden is on him to prove his case, even by a preponderance of the evidence. He offers no evidence, only conjecture.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ Where, in the music of the prelude, is there any suggestion of an open mouth? How is that even possible?
> 
> You're looking at the opera too literally. Kundry isn't a single individual. Messenger, slave, temptress, mother reincarnated, wanderer, sinner seeking salvation... In the male world of the Grail knights, she is every role that woman is forced into by man when he has renounced the "feminine" part of his soul - she IS that feminine part, disowned by man - and her agony is her enslavement to man's ego-illusions. I think she's the most amazing creation in opera.


(Leaving the image of the woman's mouth to later.)

The character Kundry has been punished because she laughed at Jesus on/on his way to the cross. Is this not true?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Why keep trying for the last word, David, when it's exactly the same as the last word before that - and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, ad infinitum for the last six years?

Rational adults understand that they can't insist over and over that something is "obvious" and then, when challenged, retreat into "it's just a matter of opinion." If something is just an opinion, it can't be said to be "obvious." That's an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, and evade responsibility for your statements. It's abysmally bad faith.

So what is this obsession, really? A righteous mission to save people from too much pleasure and appreciation? Let someone dare to say something in appreciation of Wagner, and the entire one-man platoon of the Jewish Anti-Caricature Patrol appears out of nowhere carrying an antique single-shot musket that keeps blowing up in his face, but somehow never stops him from shooting again.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> Nope sorry, in civil court the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. Who is making the claims here? Millngton. Is he making a case for antisemitism in the operas, or in the writings? The operas. Hence, the burden is on him to prove his case, even by a preponderance of the evidence. He offers no evidence, only conjecture.


I can't understand why you make such a thing of this. I mean we know Wagner's views. What if they found their way into the operas? What difference does it make? We know the man who wrote the operas held these views anyway, don't we and that he himself was not exactly a paragon of virtue? Would it make any difference to your enjoyment of the operas?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Poor Taminointhestreets. He/she starts a nice, simple thread on worthwhile books on Wagner and look where we've ended up.

A plague o' both your houses!:lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> Poor Taminointhestreets. He/she starts a nice, simple thread on worthwhile books on Wagner and look where we've ended up.
> 
> A plague o' both your houses!:lol:


As I said, let's get back to what the OP asked rather than trying to prove what cannot be proven.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Poor Taminointhestreets. He/she starts a nice, simple thread on worthwhile books on Wagner and look where we've ended up.
> 
> A plague o' both your houses!:lol:


Warm Greetings, Barbebleu! is it true that the character Kundry is being punished because she laughed at Jesus on/on his way to the cross?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Verdi and/or Wagner by Peter Conrad

Conrad has some interesting things to say and prefers Verdi but unfortunately writes in the style of Wagner in extremely heavy prose which makes this book very hard going. Get it out the library and skip read parts


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I couldn't possibly comment not having a religious bone in my body. I approach all opera from an emotional rather than intellectual standpoint so character backstory and motivation are not in the forefront of my thoughts. That's the plot line stated by Wagner in act 2 and unless proven otherwise I would take it at face value. I'm not sure there is an historical equivalent for Kundry so I'll have to pass on whether or not that person was punished in that way for that particular crime, if indeed it ever happened. Perhaps Klingsor cast a spell on her and made her think that she was Herodias, Gundryggia and that she had mocked Jesus. 

There are more questions than answers but that's the joy of Parsifal. Endless questing, a bit like the search for the grail!


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I can't understand why you make such a thing of this. I mean we know Wagner's views. What if they found their way into the operas? What difference does it make? We know the man who wrote the operas held these views anyway, don't we and that he himself was not exactly a paragon of virtue? Would it make any difference to your enjoyment of the operas?


Let's put it this way: if Wagner's operas were as repulsive as some of his antisemtic tracts, then absolutely it would affect my enjoyment of the operas. They would have a different content and ideological make-up, and its very likely I wouldn't want anything to do with them.

If you're asking me if Wagner's operas were exactly what they are now and it was the case that Wagner had made a statement that he associated Beckmesser, or Mime, or Alberich, with Jews and intended them to be antisemitic caricatures, would I care? My answer would be no, it wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the works. It would be unfortunate in some respects, but ultimately when judging the content of the operas and considering the context I would have to say if that was his intention he did a rather poor job of implementing it and the operas are still devoid of anything that can seriously be called antisemitic.

But that's not the issue here. The issue is not pretending opinions count as evidence when putting forth a thesis.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

"A festival play for the consecration of the stage"
is what Wagner called it. 

What do you make of this?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I couldn't possibly comment not having a religious bone in my body. I approach all opera from an emotional rather than intellectual standpoint so character backstory and motivation are not in the forefront of my thoughts. That's the plot line stated by Wagner in act 2 and unless proven otherwise I would take it at face value. I'm not sure there is an historical equivalent for Kundry so I'll have to pass on whether or not that person was punished in that way for that particular crime, if indeed it ever happened. Perhaps Klingsor cast a spell on her and made her think that she was Herodias, Gundryggia and that she had mocked Jesus.
> 
> There are more questions than answers but that's the joy of Parsifal. Endless questing, a bit like the search for the grail!


It is not a religious question or at least I did not mean to phrase it as if it were a religious question. Is it not true that in this particular opera Wagner creates a character Kundry who is being punished because she laughed at Jesus on the cross? It doesn't matter what or what didn't happen a few centuries ago. Just in this opera.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

DavidA, I would like to know what you have read or heard about how listeners of Wagner's operas consider Nietzsche's ideas of individualism, the will to power, and the belief that Christianity fundamentally has a slave mentality to be present in Wagner's music.

Are these ideas conveyed in this music?

Do many people believe they are conveyed in his music?

Has anyone written about this. Not Fritz' alleged ant-semitism; the other ideas I mentioned.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> The character Kundry has been punished because she laughed at Jesus on/on his way to the cross. Is this not true?


Kundry is described as having lived many lives, as she has played many roles. In one of those lives she mocked "the savior." Like everything else in _Parsifal_, this is symbolic. To the extent that the opera has a Christian meaning (it certainly is not orthodox, and some feel that it isn't Christian at all) I suppose we can view Kundry's mockery as a sort of "original sin," like Alberich's theft of the gold, which results in the curse of suffering. I don't think Kundry is being "punished," because the opera doesn't posit a theistic universe in which there is a punisher. By mocking Christ she was rejecting what Wagner tells us (implicitly) that Christ represents, and so suffers the intrinsic pain of her own unredeemed nature.

Without going too deeply into this right now, I want to put forward the perhaps difficult notion that Kundry's life and story are not hers alone, but that the stories of all the characters in _Parsifal_ are one story told from different standpoints. Each of the characters needs to be felt as an aspect of a single overarching character, all of them being personalized refractions, as it were, through a single prism of consciousness, the consciousness of an "oversoul" that perceives reality in as many ways as there are personages and lives through all of them simultaneously. Not only is Kundry not a single woman, she is not even a person, but rather one way the oversoul has of perceiving its own condition. And because she has no independent existence, her redemption depends on the redemption of the Grail, its domain, and all those within it. Indeed, it literally IS that redemption.

This mythic/psychic dimension, in which narrative-dramatic events, necessarily presented in time and space, represent intrapsychic phenomena beyond time and space and seen through the eyes of different personifications, reaches its highest development in _Parsifal_ among all Wagner's works. It seems to me to be what Gurnemanz is enigmatically referencing when he says to Parsifal, "here time becomes space."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> Let's put it this way: if Wagner's operas were as repulsive as some of his antisemtic tracts, then absolutely it would affect my enjoyment of the operas. They would have a different content and ideological make-up, and its very likely I wouldn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> If you're asking me if Wagner's operas were exactly what they are now and it was the case that Wagner had made a statement that he associated Beckmesser, or Mime, or Alberich, with Jews and intended them to be antisemitic caricatures, would I care? My answer would be no, it wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the works. It would be unfortunate in some respects, but ultimately when judging the content of the operas and considering the context I would have to say if that was his intention he did a rather poor job of implementing it and the operas are still devoid of anything that can seriously be called antisemitic.
> 
> But that's not the issue here. The issue is not pretending opinions count as evidence when putting forth a thesis.


Well as someone who doesn't care why bang on about it?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> "A festival play for the consecration of the stage"
> is what Wagner called it.
> 
> What do you make of this?


The word "Buehnenweihfestspiel" translates literally to "festival play for the dedication of a stage" (meaning Wagner's theater at Bayreuth). "Consecration" has a more religious connotation than the German does.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Well as someone who doesn't care why bang on about it?


You've been banging on about it for six years.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JosefinaHW said:


> DavidA, I would like to know what you have read or heard about how listeners of Wagner's operas consider Nietzsche's ideas of individualism, the will to power, and the belief that Christianity fundamentally has a slave mentality to be present in Wagner's music.
> 
> Are these ideas conveyed in this music?
> 
> ...


Wagner's operas have absolutely nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament. The Christianity of the New Testament is about freedom not slavery. 'If Christ sets you free, you will be free indeed.'


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> By mocking Christ she was rejecting what Wagner tells us (implicitly) that Christ represents, and so suffers the intrinsic pain of her own unredeemed nature.


You are saying that Wagner thought that a belief that an individual would be punished because they laughed at Jesus' suffering was antithetical to Christianity?

Is this the same thing in Tannhauser? Did Wagner know that in Catholicism it is forbidden for ANYONE to say that another person is condemned to hell? And he was showing that such a belief is sick and twisted? I don't remember getting that impression when I watched the opera.

(The rest of what you wrote is EXTREMELY interesting and thought provoking.)


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Wagner's operas have absolutely nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament. The Christianity of the New Testament is about freedom not slavery. 'If Christ sets you free, you will be free indeed.'


I did not phrase my question well. Have you read or say spoke to another person who has said that they think that Wagner is endorsing/advocating a world where Nietzche's idea of the will to power and extreme individualism are the ideal?


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Well as someone who doesn't care why bang on about it?


Because you're discussing it and I'm responding to your statements? When you bring up subject matters, reply to me, counter my thoughts with new ones and ask me questions don't turn around and tell me to stop.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> It is not a religious question or at least I did not mean to phrase it as if it were a religious question. Is it not true that in this particular opera Wagner creates a character Kundry who is being punished because she laughed at Jesus on the cross? It doesn't matter what or what didn't happen a few centuries ago. Just in this opera.


He does indeed according to the libretto. But at the end of the day Kundry is just a character, created by Wagner, as a means to an end. And Woodduck has given us food for thought in his posit that each character is a symbol of one entity seen from a different point of view.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Wagner's operas have absolutely nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament. The Christianity of the New Testament is about freedom not slavery. 'If Christ sets you free, you will be free indeed.'


I think it's very Christian.
Blood, spear, crucifiction, chalice, redemption.
Those are Christian ideas


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> You are saying that Wagner thought that a belief that an individual would be punished because they laughed at Jesus' suffering was antithetical to Christianity?
> 
> Is this the same thing in Tannhauser? Did Wagner know that in Catholicism it is forbidden for ANYONE to say that another person is condemned to hell? And he was showing that such a belief is sick and twisted? I don't remember getting that impression when I watched the opera.
> 
> (The rest of what you wrote is EXTREMELY interesting and thought provoking.)


Wagner's ideas on Christianity and the meaning of the Christian savior were complex, and would be an interesting subject to discuss. Right now i'm ferociously hungry and need to go to lunch! I'll just say that I don't think Wagner was saying what you suggest. Actually I rather doubt that the idea even occurred to him. I was only saying that he isn't presenting Kundry's wretched state as a punishment meted out by anyone, since there is no God in _Parsifal_ to punish her. She might be said, figuratively, to be "punished" as the natural consequence of her own unredeemed state, just as the knights of the Grail are.

In Tannhauser it's at least clear that Wagner doesn't have much respect for those, including the Pope, who condemn Tannhauser. I doubt that he had a view of catholic doctrine.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Wagner's operas have absolutely nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament. The Christianity of the New Testament is about freedom not slavery. 'If Christ sets you free, you will be free indeed.'


I haven't read new posts yet, but if Woodduck is correct that Wagner-was thinking as Christian, as I've stated above, whether or not Wagner thought he was thinking like a Christian, he really was believing Christian values, at least in these two very fundamental points of theology.

You and Wagner might be in agreement to a great extent.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's ideas on Christianity and the meaning of the Christian savior were complex, and would be an interesting subject to discuss. _*Right now i'm ferociously hungry and need to go to lunch!*_


Good Sir, Where is your renunciation of self-gratification!!!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

^^ I meant the above in good cheer and fun.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the Good Friday music!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's ideas on Christianity and the meaning of the Christian savior were complex, and would be an interesting subject to discuss. .... I'll just say that I don't think Wagner was saying what you suggest. Actually I rather doubt that the idea even occurred to him. I was only saying that he isn't presenting Kundry's wretched state as a punishment meted out by anyone, since there is no God in _Parsifal_ to punish her. She might be said, figuratively, to be "punished" as the natural consequence of her own unredeemed state, just as the knights of the Grail are.
> 
> *In Tannhauser it's at least clear that Wagner doesn't have much respect for those, including the Pope, who condemn Tannhauser.* I doubt that he had a view of catholic doctrine.


My emphasis in bold. This is another way of saying what I mean. Catholicism (and I don't just mean the Catholic Church in Rome) was all of Christianity for a long time at least in major points of belief. VERY sadly the true meaning, spirit and actions of followers of Jesus has been perverted from the beginning, including popes. Yes, there are many historical accounts of popes, priests, theologians saying that someone is condemned to hell, and that people are punished for mocking the faith, etc., etc.,.... they are not acting as true Christians when they have done this.

So Wagner is *CORRECT* in not having respect for such an action!

Maybe my understanding is not clear to others. I believe that a person can be acting as a disciple of Jesus even if they hate what they understand what it means to be a Christian. The explicit words are not important, in my opinion. It's how you treat and think of others (including our non-human brothers and sisters) that makes one a Christian.

A holy fool. A person who acts without guile and with compassion (to the greatest extent that is possible in this life) is a great hero. Like Siegfried. But this is also the true ideal of a Christian (and I would also say any person of any religion/faith that has developed a mature understanding of their faith).


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Isn't it the Popes staff that grows green sprouts showing that he's forgiven?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Good Sir, Where is your renunciation of self-gratification!!!


It will return in about fifteen minutes. Meanwhile this stir-fry is the highest good to which I can aspire.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Isn't it the Popes staff that grows green sprouts showing that he's forgiven?


Imagine the Pope's surprise. His prayer that night: "OK, God, what the hell just happened?"


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Itullian said:


> I think it's very Christian.
> Blood, spear, crucifiction, chalice, redemption.
> Those are Christian ideas


Itulian this is where it gets complicated for me. I knew this before I read the interview posted in the OP but it is stated in the interview, too. Wagner was fascinated with myth!!! Why exactly, I'm not completely certain about that, but I think that

1. He just loved the myths as fun/magical stories. As a great reader of non-fiction, I think he delighted in such stories: the dragons, the magic potions, the Norns, fate, magic disguises, etc..

2. I think he realized the power of myths to convey fundamental truths of reality.

3. Along these lines, to some degree (I really don't know what degree--this is just my impression) he viewed the Catholic Bible to include mythological events and things whose truth was not the literal but things that conveyed powerful truths.

3. Wagner understood that mythological stories were a powerful pedagogical tool.

So, he uses elements such as the spear the pierced Jesus' side, the crucifixion, redemption, etc.. as means to convey HIS understanding of the ideal of reality. (My point in another post is that I POSSIBLY think that Wagner was rebelling against a corrupt and perverted understanding of Christianity.)

Again, others more versed in his writings, etc., etc.. will have to say whether I am mistaken.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> My emphasis in bold. This is another way of saying what I mean. Catholicism (and I don't just mean the Catholic Church in Rome) was all of Christianity for a long time at least in major points of belief. VERY sadly the true meaning, spirit and actions of followers of Jesus has been perverted from the beginning, including popes. Yes, there are many historical accounts of popes, priests, theologians saying that someone is condemned to hell, and that people are punished for mocking the faith, etc., etc.,.... they are not acting as true Christians when they have done this.
> 
> So Wagner is *CORRECT* in not having respect for such an action!
> 
> ...


Woodduck and others, I'd like to hear what you think of what I've said above. (Or am I being too wishful/hopeful that Wagner is saying this?)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Itulian this is where it gets complicated for me. I knew this before I read the interview posted in the OP but it is stated in the interview, too. Wagner was fascinated with myth!!! Why exactly, I'm not completely certain about that, but I think that
> 
> 1. He just loved the myths as fun/magical stories. As a great reader of non-fiction, I think he delighted in such stories: the dragons, the magic potions, the Norns, fate, magic disguises, etc..
> 
> ...


I believe you are right on all counts.

In his essay, _Religion and Art_, 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 an ideal representation."

In _Parsifal,_ Wagner took elements of the mythology of Christianity, which he regarded as having become perverted and empty, and synthesized them into a new mythical tale (based on the Percival romances and the legends of the Holy Grail) designed to go to the heart of what he believed Christ taught and signified. This was essentially no different than what he did with other myths and legends from the European cultural tradition, but dealing as closely as _Parsifal_ does with specifically Christian imagery the work has always struck a lot of nerves and raised a lot of hackles, as well as inspired very deep devotion and reverence. I think it's a testament to its symbolic depth and musical power that it can inspire all those responses.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I believe you are right on all counts.
> 
> In his essay, _Religion and Art_, 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 an ideal representation."
> 
> In _Parsifal,_ Wagner took elements of the mythology of Christianity, which he regarded as having become perverted and empty, and synthesized them into a new mythical tale (based on the Percival romances and the legends of the Holy Grail) designed to go to the heart of what he believed Christ taught and signified. .....


I just want to be as clear as possible. I only made it through an hour of Parsifal last night, but I seem to remember that the Christian symbols were all broken by the time the opera is over...and I can't remember if the order of knights (I'm assuming a symbol of the priesthood) is dissolved in the end. Maybe I'm wrong. But if this is true, this was Wagner's rejection of what he understood as the historical church and priesthood. He was not rejecting the true spirit of Christianity as I've described it above?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I don't see any of them broken.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Itullian said:


> I don't see any of them broken.


Very good to hear. Now Antonio Pappano and Stephen Langridge's decision to include in the image projected on the stage of an explosion of red (sort of like a red big bang, but with more structure) during which we see coming from the primordial red soup the image of an open woman's mouth is BRILLIANT! I have liked almost all of the Pappano productions that I have seen thus far and I enjoy his interviews--he is a thoughtful man.

I will paste screenshots. (Give me a few minutes to take them, etc.)

(The only thing I'm not sure of is it specifically Kundry or Klingsal's face. That wouldn't matter if Woodduck is correct that no one is an individual.) Mockery?Delight in another's suffering might be considered to be the cause of all evil in the world and the very thing that is driving Wagner to say-so to show this image in the beginning is BRILLIANT (although I think it is over-used later).


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

JosefinaHW said:


> I just want to be as clear as possible. I only made it through an hour of Parsifal last night, but I seem to remember that the Christian symbols were all broken by the time the opera is over...and I can't remember if the order of knights (I'm assuming a symbol of the priesthood) is dissolved in the end. Maybe I'm wrong. But if this is true, this was Wagner's rejection of what he understood as the historical church and priesthood. He was not rejecting the true spirit of Christianity as I've described it above?


"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." -RW


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Royal Opera House, Parsifal, A Pappano, Stephen Langridge (Director)

1.










2.










3.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Royal Opera House, Parsifal, A Pappano, Stephen Langridge (Director)

4.










5.










6.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Royal Opera House, Parsifal, A Pappano, Stephen Langridge (Director)

I did not take every screenshot, so you won't be able to see the movement of the mouth as clearly as it is shown in the video, but I think after the following for you to get the idea. Really Brilliant!!!

7.










8.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> "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." -RW


I'd like to hear it even clearer than that, but I will leave it there. Thank you.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

^^^ Are you all able to see the mouth?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> ^^^ Are you all able to see the mouth?


I see it but I don't know what to make of it. Is it part of a staged production? What part?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I see it but I don't know what to make of it. Is it part of a staged production? What part?


The first image shows the stage and some of the surrounding seats of the Royal Opera House, 2013/14? Production of Parsifal 
Conducted by Antonio Pappano, Directed by Stephen Langride

Cast including Gerald Finley, Rene Pape, Robert Lloyd, Simon O'Neill, Angela Denoke

Film released by Warner Classics

Image 1. So you see that image with the mix of red and "fibrous" looking shapes. That is somehow being projected onto a screen on the stage.

Image 2. You see enough of the red to realize that it is located on the stage behind the orchestra facing the conductor and the audience while the overture/prelude is being played.

Image 3. Basically some kind of film is being projected onto that screen and it begins to play and you see in the successive images I posted different moments of that film captured.

It is difficult to see in still shots here, but the mouth is moving as if the mouth is laughing.

Given the fact that I hated this opera before because of Kundry being condemned for laughing at Jesus' suffering as Barbebleu has confirmed from one of his magnificent scores/librettos. I immediately saw that moving mouth as Kundry's mouth. Kundry's revolting punishment for laughing at Jesus' suffering (or now as I understand it; any of us mocking any one's suffering vs. compassion) is the driving force/primal force /whatever of this opera.

Do you see it now? I'm sorry I do not have the software to record a part of a copyright/recording protected film.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I took a video with my phone. I'm uploading it to YouTube right now. Give it a few minutes.

Here's the cover of the BluRay:


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Okay, first video clip you see the seating of the Opera HOuse behind the conductor, the conductor and then the image that is being projected onto the screen.






Second Academy Award Winning video is how the image changes until it disappears and then (not included in video, the audience sees Amfortas in the enclosed hospital room in the shape of the cube on the cover of the BluRay:


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Ok, a good night to all! TY for an excellent discussion; I view the opera in a completely different way now and I am going to finish watching it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Hmmmm.... I'm generally opposed to adding visuals to Wagner's preludes and overtures. A laughing mouth - or any mouth! - seems to me incongruous with the music of the prelude to _Parsifal,_ which sets forth calmly and in ritualistic order the major themes of the drama: the blessings of the Grail, faith, suffering, compassion, and hope. I don't want to see anything during this music, which is an almost dreamlike induction into the opera's special, timeless world. I would play it in total darkness. I'm sure there is some rationale for using this image in this production, but I'd have to have it explained to me.

My other thought is that if this is supposed to represent Kundry's laughter, despite that gesture of mockery being a clear symbol of the lack of compassion which is a major theme of the opera, it places too much emphasis, and perhaps too much blame, on Kundry, who is not the primal, driving force of the story. It's significant that Kundry only appears when she is needed to perform some function for men, serving either as messenger and bringer of relief to the knights of the Grail, or as seductress compelled by Klingsor's black magic to corrupt and destroy the knights she helps. This is a story in which man, not woman, has made the primal choices, and so we need to look at what the men have done in order to understand both the woman's - Kundry's - suffering and the woes of the Grail order.

I'll say here only that I think the evils which are destroying the Grail's domain were ultimately created by a deep schism in the psyche, a schism between the "male" and "female" sides of our nature; that that schism was created by the one into whose keeping the Grail and Spear were given, Titurel; and that the healing of that schism is the ultimate goal of Parsifal's quest, as symbolized in his return of the Sacred Spear to its companion in sacred union, the Holy Grail.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Deleted in the interests of good taste.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> Because you're discussing it and I'm responding to your statements? When you bring up subject matters, reply to me, counter my thoughts with new ones and ask me questions don't turn around and tell me to stop.


If you look back at the posts, I did not bring the matter up. I merely responded to another post. I did also suggest we moved on sometime ago back to the question posed by the OP.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JosefinaHW said:


> You are saying that Wagner thought that a belief that an individual would be punished because they laughed at Jesus' suffering was antithetical to Christianity?
> 
> Is this the same thing in Tannhauser? Did Wagner know that in Catholicism it is forbidden for ANYONE to say that another person is condemned to hell? And he was showing that such a belief is sick and twisted? I don't remember getting that impression when I watched the opera.
> 
> (The rest of what you wrote is EXTREMELY interesting and thought provoking.)


 The whole concept is of course sick and twisted according to the new Testament. If you read Peters sermon on the day of Pentecost he there offers the very people who helped put Christ on the cross forgiveness and reconciliation. As I say according to new Testament Christianity it is complete nonsense and a complete perversion of the whole of the values the new Testament


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I think it's very Christian.
> Blood, spear, crucifiction, chalice, redemption.
> Those are Christian ideas


 They are Christian symbols but this is where the Christianity ends. The way it worked out is entirely non-Christian way if you actually read the new Testament . For Wagner the idea of a religion centred on the worship of a religion based around the worship of a Jew was repulsive so he refashioned it into an image that suited him.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> "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." -RW


Of course Wagner meant his own art. It is an indication of his immense ego that he could write such a thing


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> ^^^ Are you all able to see the mouth?


we see it.

yet another case of sabotaging an opera and the music.

an open mouth publicised means an obscenity like readiness to do a blow job etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> i[There] are Christian symbols [in Parsifal] but this is where the Christianity ends. The way it worked out is entirely non-Christian way if you actually read the new Testament. It is complete nonsense and a complete perversion of the whole of the values the new Testament.
> 
> For Wagner the idea of a religion centred on the worship of a religion based around the worship of a Jew was repulsive so he refashioned it into an image that suited him.
> 
> It is an indication of his immense ego that he could write such a thing.


You are correct that Wagner's brand of Christianity was theologically unorthodox. Not only did he want to divorce it from its Jewish roots, but he was by any reasonable definition an atheist. The idea of an atheistic, non-Judaic Christianity was not Wagner's invention; German theological philosophers had been busy with such notions for decades, and Wagner was well-read and strongly influenced by them, notably by Feuerbach's "The Essence of Christianity," published in 1841.

For Wagner Christ was fully human, not the incarnation of a Jewish deity, and the essence of his being was compassion for the sufferings of all life, a compassion so great that he would take the sufferings of the whole world onto himself. That this conception of Christ overlaps substantially with the Buddhist concept of the _bodhisattva_ - a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings - was not an accident, as Wagner had acquired an interest in that tradition through his reading of Schopenhauer.

Wagner had drafted a scenario for an opera on a Buddhist subject called _The Victors_, but his absorption in the Parsifal legend resulted in the abandonment of the strictly Buddhist work in favor of incorporating some of its philosophy, and probably its music, into his Christian opera. _Parsifal_ is thus a work of syncretic philosophy which borrows concepts from different religious/ethical traditions and extracts their common elements. To call it "a complete perversion of the whole of the values of the New Testament" is certainly too sweeping and negative an evaluation.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

When you actually study the message of the new Testament and it's teaching you will find that Parsifal is a complete perversion of it. Yes it has Christian symbols but all the time they are perverted into the image Wagner wanted. Whether you are a believer or not this is just a plain fact


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

OperaChic said:


> "They point out similarities to the figure of Malvolio in Shakespeare's comedy Twelfth Night."


I'd never thought of that before, but it's a neat comparison. With minor tweaks, Malvolio's "My masters, are you mad? Have you no wit, manners, nor honesty but to gabble like tinkers at this time of night?" could easily be Beckmesser's response to Sachs's _Schusterlied_ in Meistersinger Act II 



JosefinaHW said:


> Okay, first video clip you see the seating of the Opera HOuse behind the conductor, the conductor and then the image that is being projected onto the screen.


Is that the Covent Garden production by Stephen Langridge? I was there on the opening night. I enjoyed Gerald Finley's debut as Amfortas and the rest of the cast were splendid, as was the orchestra under Pappano. Sadly the grim stage production, with its claustrophobic sets and hints of child abuse, put a real damper on the evening for me. The people sitting either side of me left in disgust after the first act, but I stuck it out to the end in the hope of some sort of _Erlösung_ but alas, apart from the purely musical experience, there was little to redeem it.



Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Is that the Covent Garden production by Stephen Langridge? ... Sadly the grim stage production, with its claustrophobic sets and hints of child abuse, put a real damper on the evening for me.


In fairness, I should point out that I thoroughly enjoyed Birtwistle's _The Minotaur_ by the same production team of Stephen Langridge and Alison Chitty, which worked superbly. It's a shame that their take on _Parsifal_ didn't click for me.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Of course Wagner meant his own art. It is an indication of his immense ego that he could write such a thing


 That's your point of view and I feel it's too narrow and limited in scope. He was speaking along much broader lines than that and in far greater universal terms or he would have had no interest in some form of spiritual compassion or redemption. Or was that just meant for him alone because it was his Art?... I think the only question that some of his vehement critics and accusers need to ask themselves is whether they feel that Wagner himself and his actions were beyond some form of spiritual redemption, and I mean for his _soul_, for his being and _spirit_. But if there's none for him, then why should there be any reserved for you or anybody else for _their_ shortcomings? I do not believe he was beyond some form of Redemption, nor anyone else, for that matter, in an imperfect world where everyone is capable of making grievous mistakes and causing suffering to others... and I consider _Parsifal_ an act of redemption in Wagner's own life and on a universal level, no matter how imperfect his attempt might have been by those who still unmercifully condemn him.
--
"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." -RW


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> That's your point of view and I feel it's too narrow and limited in scope. He was speaking along much broader lines than that and in far greater universal terms or he would have had no interest in some form of spiritual compassion or redemption. Or was that just meant for him alone because it was his Art?... I think the only question that some of his vehement critics and accusers need to ask themselves is whether they feel that Wagner himself and his actions were beyond some form of spiritual redemption, and I mean for his _soul_, for his being and _spirit_. But if there's none for him, then why should there be any reserved for you or anybody else for _their_ shortcomings? I do not believe he was beyond some form of Redemption, nor anyone else, for that matter, in an imperfect world where everyone is capable of making grievous mistakes and causing suffering to others... and I consider _Parsifal_ an act of redemption in Wagner's own life and on a universal level, no matter imperfect his attempt might have been by those who still unmercifully condemn him.
> --
> "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." -RW


I think if someone else had said it we might have though he might have meant a more general application. But we know that that Wagner was a monster of egoism - that is history not opinion - who married a woman because she returned his own self-adoration. He didn't just enjoy praise like most other human beings - he required it, required admiration and adulation absolutely. When bruno Walter once intimated to Cosima that he admired some of verdi's operas he was shown the door as you just didn't mention Verdi in the same breath as the master. This was the atmosphere that Wagner cultivated. So when he said that 'Art can idealize those symbols, and so reveal the profound truths they contain' we can have no doubt he was talking about his own art. This is not some unjust condemnation of Wagner but exactly what he meant.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> we see it.
> 
> yet another case of sabotaging an opera and the music.
> 
> an open mouth publicised means an obscenity like readiness to do a blow job etc.


Is that straight from the mouth of the director? A bit of cheap porn for 21st century audiences?

This has turned in to a fascinating discussion, Zhdanov's comment notwithstanding. Like Woodduck, my preference is for the music only, so I listen on CD. This conversation has got me eagerly anticipating the two books I ordered from the recommended list.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

DavidA said:


> So when he said that 'Art can idealize those symbols, and so reveal the profound truths they contain' we can have no doubt he was talking about his own art.


When he referred to Art, did he use the word "Musik" or "Kunst"? If the latter, then surely he wasn't referring just to himself? Do we take it that Wagner was so self-centred that he didn't believe that Goethe, Schiller or Shakespeare (to name but three) could "reveal profound truths" through their respective Arts? And, as to revealing truth through symbolism, wouldn't Wagner have also counted as "Art" the works of Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach and the authors of the Eddas and the Nibelungenlied?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> When he referred to Art, did he use the word "Musik" or "Kunst"? If the latter, then surely he wasn't referring just to himself? Do we take it that Wagner was so self-centred that he didn't believe that Goethe, Schiller or Shakespeare (to name but three) could "reveal profound truths" through their respective Arts? And, as to revealing truth through symbolism, wouldn't Wagner have also counted as "Art" the works of Gottfried von Strassburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach and the authors of the Eddas and the Nibelungenlied?


He was referring to the art of the future by which he meant his own primarily. 'Total artworks' - ie his music dramas. We not dealing with an ordinary man here. We are dealing with someone of unfathomable ego. That is history.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

DavidA said:


> He was referring to the art of the future by which he meant his own primarily.


Did he not class the works of Goethe, Schiller, Shakespeare, Gottfried, Wolfram (etc) as "Art", then? Beethoven? Bach? Aeschylus? Euripides? Homer? Dürer? Da Vinci? Friedrich?

Wagner may have been an egoist of the first water, but he was assuredly no philistine.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> When you actually study the message of the new Testament and it's teaching you will find that Parsifal is a complete perversion of it. Yes it has Christian symbols but all the time they are perverted into the image Wagner wanted. Whether you are a believer or not this is just a plain fact


I think that Wagner used Christianity in _Parsifal_ almost the same way he used _ Nibelungenlied_ in the Ring cycle. Although he manipulated with the New Testament and its' truths, he still conveys many purely Christian ideas through the opera (like redemption through love etc.)


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> He was referring to the art of the future by which he meant his own primarily. 'Total artworks' - ie his music dramas. We not dealing with an ordinary man here. We are dealing with someone of unfathomable ego. That is history.


No matter how egoistic Wagner might have been, I think his music is still sublime  . He definitely wasn't the most egoistic man who has ever lived.
I think there are only a few composers who managed to remain humble despite a great success. Beethoven is not a very great example of a humble person either.
Beethoven: "Prince, what you are, you are by the accident of birth; what I am, I am of myself. There are and there will be thousands of princes. There is only one Beethoven."


----------



## MaxKellerman (Jun 4, 2017)

DavidA said:


> He was referring to the art of the future by which he meant his own primarily.


The quote comes from his essay Art and Religion, written in 1880, and is quite distinct from his writings about the "total artwork" and "artwork of the future" from his revolutionary period some 30 years prior. Unsurprisingly your assertion here is wrong, and not only are you conflating separate essays but combining them with aspects of Wagner's character and reputation to suggest some sort of monstrous caricature who cannot produce anything that is honest, lucid, insightful, or truthful. Everything he touched is corrupted in some way, and hopelessly self-centered. However most readers can look at the quote in its context and realize that while there's little doubt he thought of his own work as filling this role, it's also obvious he was making a general observation about the respective roles of art and religion in society and was not speaking exclusively about himself.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I'll say here only that I think the evils which are destroying the Grail's domain were ultimately created by a deep schism in the psyche, a schism between the "male" and "female" sides of our nature; that that schism was created by the one into whose keeping the Grail and Spear were given, Titurel; and that the healing of that schism is the ultimate goal of Parsifal's quest, as symbolized in his return of the Sacred Spear to its companion in sacred union, the Holy Grail.


This is very much along the lines of François Girard's Metropolitan Opera production.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Is that straight from the mouth of the director?


straight from his directives realisation for all to see.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> we see it.
> 
> yet another case of sabotaging an opera and the music.
> 
> an open mouth publicised means an obscenity like readiness to do a blow job etc.


I'm going to show you a series of inkblots. Tell me what you see.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

amfortas said:


> I'm going to show you a series of inkblots. Tell me what you see.


you mean you don't see the open mouth?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> When you actually study the message of the new Testament and it's teaching you will find that Parsifal is a complete perversion of it. Yes it has Christian symbols but all the time they are perverted into the image Wagner wanted. Whether you are a believer or not this is just a plain fact


Why must Wagner's Christianity, with its image of Christ as the exemplar of compassion, be called a perversion? Can it not be simply a variant, an interpretation, perhaps even an evolution?

The history of religion is a massacre conducted by people who regarded each other's differences as perversions. This was in fact one of Wagner's most fundamental objections to the God of Judaism and Christianity, whose documented policies of genocide and eternal damnation are presumably approved by the non-perverse.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> you mean you don't see the open mouth?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

amfortas said:


>


so you don't get the meaning of an open mouth?

here you go -









http://the-news.fyi/dems-are-obstru...et-as-house-opens-new-financial-probes-13140/









https://www.myjoyonline.com/world/2...eu-summit-after-surviving-confidence-vote.php


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

^^^ I rest my case.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> so you don't get the meaning of an open mouth?
> 
> here you go -


If that's what an open mouth means, I don't ever want to open my mouth again.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I'm a believer and I see nothing offensive about it.
I find it reverential and respectful and the music
gives rise to a very spiritual part in me.

Particularly the last act when they gather around and pass the cup of blood around.
It reminds me of holy communion.
And the dove , which Wagner had in his production,
to me, is representative of the Holy Spirit.

I think if it offends it may be because one wants to be offended.
Just my take of course.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

In response to #135.

Ah, the grand fakir of fake news, the master of mendacity, the big kahuna of ******

Aye, right!!

Ah I've been edited! I had two letters in there for two words. One beginning with B and the other ending in T.

The mods or the computer confounded me and all the other adults on the thread.


Clearly not democrats!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> In response to #135.
> 
> Ah, the grand fakir of fake news, the master of mendacity, the big kahuna of ******
> 
> ...


There's always horsepucky.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There's always horsepucky.


Not a well used colloquialism in Scotland W. or I probably might have used it. Weird isn't it that your expression gets through but mine doesn't. And mine was two letters!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> No matter how egoistic Wagner might have been, I think his music is still sublime  . *He definitely wasn't the most egoistic man who has ever lived.*
> I think there are only a few composers who managed to remain humble despite a great success. Beethoven is not a very great example of a humble person either.
> Beethoven: "Prince, what you are, you are by the accident of birth; what I am, I am of myself. There are and there will be thousands of princes. There is only one Beethoven."


No but pretty high up the scale!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MaxKellerman said:


> The quote comes from his essay Art and Religion, written in 1880, and is quite distinct from his writings about the "total artwork" and "artwork of the future" from his revolutionary period some 30 years prior. Unsurprisingly your assertion here is wrong, and not only are you conflating separate essays but combining them with aspects of Wagner's character and reputation to suggest some sort of *monstrous caricature *who cannot produce anything that is honest, lucid, insightful, or truthful. Everything he touched is corrupted in some way, and hopelessly self-centered. However most readers can look at the quote in its context and realize that while there's little doubt he thought of his own work as filling this role, it's also obvious he was making a general observation about the respective roles of art and religion in society and was not speaking exclusively about himself.


A man who behaved in the way he did is not some monstrous caricature. We mustn't whitewash history


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I'm a believer and I see nothing offensive about it.
> I find it reverential and respectful and the music
> gives rise to a very spiritual part in me.
> 
> ...


I wasn't talking about being offended. I was saying that Parsifal has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New testament except perhaps in certain symbols. As Wooduck says, Wagner puts a very different spin on things.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> A man who behaved in the way he did is not some monstrous caricature. We mustn't whitewash history


But "blackwashing" a dead man and his work at every opportunity is something we MUST do?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I wasn't talking about being offended. I was saying that Parsifal has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New testament except perhaps in certain symbols. As Wooduck says, Wagner puts a very different spin on things.


I disagree. We have the crucifixion, the holy spirit, good Friday, redemption.,
the mocking of Christ by the woman.
Yes Wagner made a mythical tale of it symbolically,
but without the New Testament it wouldn't exist.

What specifically do you have issues with?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I wasn't talking about being offended. I was saying that Parsifal has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New testament except perhaps in certain symbols. As Wooduck says, Wagner puts a very different spin on things.


As Woodduck also says, your assertion that Wagner's Christianity "is complete nonsense and a complete perversion of the whole of the values of the new Testament" is insupportable.

There is not - and since the time of Christ (assuming he actually existed), never has been - a single Christian religion, nor a single undisputed authority on who "the Christ" was, what he did and said, or what it all means. The same is true of all the major religious traditions, which are exactly that: traditions. Objecting that Wagner disagrees with some of what you were taught in Sunday school is pretty silly.

But as far as that goes, Parsifal seems like a pretty well-behaved Catholic boy. :angel:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I wasn't talking about being offended. I was saying that Parsifal has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New testament except perhaps in certain symbols. As Wooduck says, Wagner puts a very different spin on things.


How do you know that God hasn't forgiven Wagner for whatever he needed to be forgiven for? Or that he was beyond redemption or salvation even if he differed from literal fundamentalist Christian values? How do you know? You'd have to be without sin yourself (John 8) in order to cast a stone... What's more selfish and egotistical than anyone setting himself up as judge and jury on the ultimate fate of someone else's soul? You have no idea what his ultimate spiritual destiny was and are measuring him by fundamentalist Christian values that even most Christians fall short of. You have no idea what his ultimate spiritual fate was. You can only guess and you could be wrong... The music in _Parsifal_ is sublime and carries its own message of hope and salvation beyond the words. No one is beyond the hope of salvation or every sinner would be in hell according to literal Christian doctrines that are interpreted as literal truths.

Matthew 19: 25-26: When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Yes, it is a Wagner opera with some of his philosophy in it. 
But I see nothing disrespectful about it.

It's not the St Matthew Passion.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> How do you know that God hasn't forgiven Wagner for whatever he needed to be forgiven for? Or that he was beyond redemption or salvation even if he differed from literal fundamentalist Christian values? How do you know? You'd have to be without sin yourself (John 8) in order to cast a stone... What's more selfish and egotistical than anyone setting himself up as judge and jury on the ultimate fate of someone else's soul? You have no idea what his ultimate spiritual destiny was and are measuring him by fundamentalist Christian values that even most Christians fall short of. You have no idea what his ultimate spiritual fate was. You can only guess and you could be wrong... The music in _Parsifal_ is sublime and carries its own message of hope and salvation beyond the words. No one is beyond the hope of salvation or every sinner would be in hell according to literal Christian doctrines that are interpreted as literal truths.
> 
> Matthew 19: 25-26: When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.


I'm not setting myself up as judge and jury on anyone's eternal soul. It is amazing how you guys like put words into people's mouths. What I did say is (in answer to a specific question asked me on this site) that the so-called 'Christianity' in Parsifal' is not the Christianity of the new testament which is just a fact if you look at the two side by side. That I would have thought is obvious to anyone. In addition I am certainly not standing in judgment on Wagner's eternal soul as I won't be judging him. I can, however, commentn on the views he expressed during his life.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I'm not setting myself up as judge and jury on anyone's eternal soul. It is amazing how you guys like put words into people's mouths. *What I did say is (in answer to a specific question asked me on this site) that the so-called 'Christianity' in Parsifal' is not the Christianity of the new testament* which is just a fact if you look at the two side by side.


That is NOT what you said. What you said is that Wagner's Christianity is _"complete nonsense and a complete perversion of the whole of the values of the New Testament."_ That is a different and much more extreme statement. It is also a false statement.

You may claim that people are putting words into your mouth, but you are trying to back away from the words that actually have come out of your mouth, and at the same time acting as if you haven't heard the arguments against them. You are arguing in bad faith.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> If that's what an open mouth means, I don't ever want to open my mouth again.


you got it all wrong... the editorial team's intention was to *humiliate* the subject in the eyes of the reader, on subconscious level; to achieve that effect in the publication, for the main pic was chosen a still of him with open mouth as if prepared to do ********.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> you got it all wrong... the editorial team's intention was to *humiliate* the subject in the eyes of the reader, on subconscious level; to achieve that effect in the publication, for the main pic was chosen a still of him with open mouth as if prepared to do ********.


Yeah, OK, well... Honestly, I'm not interested in looking at Donald Trump or in imagining his sexual practices. I'd prefer to keep the focus on Wagner.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I'd prefer to keep the focus on Wagner.


that's the point.

back to the Parcifal production where the beautiful music was marred by the open mouth image.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Excellent review of the Pappano Parsifal:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/Dec14/Wagner_Parsifal_OABD7159D.htm


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Your idea of a "rattling good read" is any book that causes you to salivate gleefully over Wagner's antisemitism.
> 
> "The Wagner Clan" is not only NOT one of the "best books about Wagner" (as per the OP), it's primarily a book about his descendents.
> 
> It always helps to figure out what a conversation is about before entering it.


It IS a rattling good read, but tells us little about Wagner or his music.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Even the most absurd fantasy or thought crime can be justified as "opinion."


It seems to me that when some people are losing an argument, they play the 'Hey, guys, it's just an opinion!!' card.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Verdi and/or Wagner by Peter Conrad
> 
> Conrad has some interesting things to say and prefers Verdi but unfortunately writes in the style of Wagner in extremely heavy prose which makes this book very hard going. Get it out the library and skip read parts


I hear they are planning a version that only has pictures and short captions in, it's very entertaining!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Well as someone who doesn't care why bang on about it?


EXACTLY!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

N.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Zhdanov said:


> you mean you don't see the open mouth?


The open mouth can also be interpreted as contempt or ridicule. The tension in the mouth does not appear to me as sexual at all, but I haven't seen the entire video and I probably won't because of its symbolic and metaphoric liberties. I'd rather start out with a more traditional production that reflects Wagner's thinking and direction, then go to something more modern and contemporary that may distort everything out of fear that the audience will be bored unless something shocking is present. But a BJ? No. I don't think so unless somebody who has seen this entire production says that it is, or I end up seeing it myself. It would sexualize _Parsifal_ at the beginning and the libretto is ultimately about spiritual compassion and redemption, though "in the second act of Parsifal we see the opposition of two different kinds of love: Kundry offers Parsifal sexual love, 'έρως or amor, and he responds (to her confusion) by offering her loving-kindness, 'αγάπη or caritas."


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> When you actually study the message of the new Testament and it's teaching you will find that Parsifal is a complete perversion of it. Yes it has Christian symbols but all the time they are perverted into the image Wagner wanted. Whether you are a believer or not this is just a plain fact


This is a complex subject, does the New Testament only have one message? Or are there a number of messages? Does Parsifal only have one message? Parsifal, like most works of art has a number of valid interpretations and even if Wagner had left a detailed account of the messages in Parsifal that wouldn't mean that other readings in addition to his thoughts aren't valid.

That said, the overriding message of Parsifal is the need for compassion. Parsifal is derided by the religious community in act one because he does not have intellectual understanding of the knights' mission and faith. The community is compromised due to the sin of Amfortas and that the knights can't understand his position. In act two Parsifal avoids Kundry's temptation because he perceives the link between that temptation and Amfortas' suffering. He sympathises with Amfortas (sumpatio is the greek equivalent of the latin compati, to feel/suffer with) becauses he undergoes the same suffering, that is the same temptation. The knights of the grail don't experience this temptation and so cannot have compassion on Amfortas. In act three Parsifal can resolve the suffering of the community due to this compassion and it's compassion that means that he can forgive Kundry (although it's arguable whether he recognises her or not).

I can't see how this is incompatible with the New Testament. Christ can have compassion on man because he has been tempted by Satan and so understands the human condition. Is not compassion part of the key to loving ones neighbour in the Christian faith?

The main message of the New Testament is that God will save man even though man doesn't deserve it and that loving others is a higher form of morality than following rules and commandments.

N.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> now-now... take it easy... the bluray is out and nothing could be done.


You'll survive.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Taminointhestreets said:


> For the Wagnerians in the group!
> 
> Opera critic and philosopher Michael Tanner discusses what he considers to be the best books on Richard Wagner, with a detailed interview discussing his life and operas:
> 
> https://fivebooks.com/best-books/wagner/


Thank you very much for the interesting interview. I purchased the Wagner Compendium and Borchmeyer's _Drama and the World of Wagner_.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

So I've just read this thread through from beginning to end...

Wow guys! Just WOW!

I think someone must have spiked my drink!

N.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Excellent introduction to Parsifal:
http://www.monsalvat.no/introduction.htm

'It is an attempt to help those who are intimidated by Parsifal and a guide through the controversy and confusion surrounding it.'


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> The open mouth can also be interpreted as contempt or ridicule. The tension in the mouth does not appear to me as sexual at all, but I haven't seen the entire video and I probably won't because of its symbolic and metaphoric liberties. I'd rather start out with a more traditional production that reflects Wagner's thinking and direction, then go to something more modern and contemporary that may distort everything out of fear that the audience will be bored unless something shocking is present. *But a BJ? No. I don't think so* unless somebody who has seen this entire production says that it is, or I end up seeing it myself. *It would sexualize Parsifal at the beginning and the libretto is ultimately about spiritual redemption.*


I've been reading all the available reviews of the production and watching the YouTube bits advertising it. I'm certain that "the mouth" is not supposed to represent Kundry's and is not sexual. What it is intended to be, I wouldn't care to speculate. All I know is that it's absurdly out of place as an accompanying visual to the prelude (which, again, needs no accompanying visuals).

It's been fashionable in recent years to mount very grim and pessimistic productions of _Parsifal_, evidently because the idea of spiritual redemption isn't hip. I gather that this one does allow for redemption, but dramatizes it in ways that Wagner didn't ask for; apparently Kundry, instead of attaining the extinction she yearns for (symbolic, as in Buddhism, of her liberation from _samsara,_ the wheel of rebirth and suffering), hooks up with Amfortas, the former victim of her seduction. I guess the director figures that the mending of a lover's quarrel is the sort of redemption we tiny-brained moderns are capable of understanding, but it certainly shrinks the metaphysical scope of Wagner's vision.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> Excellent introduction to Parsifal:
> http://www.monsalvat.no/introduction.htm
> 
> 'It is an attempt to help those who are intimidated by Parsifal and a guide through the controversy and confusion surrounding it.'


That web site is really extraordinary, and worthy of its subject. Anyone truly interested in _Parsifal,_ and in Wagner in general, should bookmark it, and anyone unsure about their interest in Wagner might find it a gateway to greater understanding and pleasure.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I've been reading all the available reviews of the production and watching the YouTube bits advertising it. I'm certain that "the mouth" is not supposed to represent Kundry's and is not sexual. What it is intended to be, I wouldn't care to speculate. All I know is that it's absurdly out of place as an accompanying visual to the prelude (which, again, needs no accompanying visuals).
> 
> It's been fashionable in recent years to mount very grim and pessimistic productions of _Parsifal_, evidently because the idea of spiritual redemption isn't hip. I gather that this one does allow for redemption, but dramatizes it in ways that Wagner didn't ask for; apparently Kundry, instead of attaining the extinction she yearns for (symbolic, as in Buddhism, of her liberation from _samsara,_ the wheel of rebirth and suffering), hooks up with Amfortas, the former victim of her seduction. I guess the director figures that the mending of a lover's quarrel is the sort of redemption we tiny-brained moderns are capable of understanding, but it certainly shrinks the metaphysical scope of Wagner's vision.


Yes, it may not be sexual at all though I think there's something about overcoming temptation in Parsifal that might somehow be a related to Kundry's sexuality (and perhaps being referred to in the Pompano dvd gaping mouth, but not necessarily as an invitation but as contempt, ridicule or scorn): "In the second act of Parsifal we see the opposition of two different kinds of love: Kundry offers Parsifal sexual love, 'έρως or amor, and he responds (to her confusion) by offering her loving-kindness, 'αγάπη or caritas." If so, there is one dimension of misunderstanding and suffering in the world right there... The whole of Parsifal is endlessly fascinating and there is a phenomenal life-time amount of background that Wagner researched and studied to write it and it obviously had great personal significance to him. It's truly a transcendent work that does it not seem to follow any strict religious or spiritual dogmas but he was exploring what he felt was the true spirit of religion and spiritual beliefs, including the idea of reincarnation... This is by far my favorite Wagner opera because of the way he's dramatizing what he feels are the ultimate realities of life with the music being the summation, the embodiment of that beyond the words. If listeners miss what's being conveyed by the powerful, transcendent, and serene beauty of the music, I doubt if they'll ever understand or accept Parsifal... And yes, the idea of spiritual redemption isn't hip. The prevailing philosophy of reality seems to be more about what one can get away with without getting caught with one's hand in the cookie jar. I would rather see a more traditional production that Wagner would have approved of himself without too many shocking liberties taken that the modern mind seems to demand to find something interesting or worthwhile. Those modern liberties can also be a distraction from Wagner's transcendent music, and I don't believe it's necessary.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> If listeners miss what's being conveyed by the powerful, transcendent, and serene beauty of the music, I doubt if they'll ever understand or accept Parsifal.


Wagner would have agreed completely.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I've been reading all the available reviews of the production and watching the YouTube bits advertising it._* I'm certain that "the mouth" is not supposed to represent Kundry's *_and is not sexual. What it is intended to be, I wouldn't care to speculate. All I know is that it's absurdly out of place as an accompanying visual to the prelude (which, again, needs no accompanying visuals).
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Actually having watched the entire opera, it most certainly is Kundry laughing. You have to watch further on to see that. Although I am sure I am not the only 21st century viewer of my generation to have strong feeling against a character who was being punished because s/he laughed at Jesus. Maybe the director was very aware of this disgust and wanted to address it immediately. As I said, I had not played that DVD or seen any of that production until after I posted on here that I found the portrayal of such a character as an obstacle to tolerating the opera _Parsifal. _And there it was! I'm glad the director got right to my aversion right from the beginning!
> ...


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I'm not going to waste my time trying to find the post that basically said that religions are genocidal and condemn individuals to hell. To those of who you have something of an open mind or know a bit of history but are still inclined to believe this, please send me a PM; I'm open to a civilized and balanced conversation(s).


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

It never fails. So many times that the opera Parsifal comes up on here, ugliness comes out in the thread.

Adieu.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> It never fails. So many times that the opera Parsifal comes up on here, ugliness comes out in the thread.
> 
> I'm not going to waste my time trying to find the post that basically said that religions are genocidal and condemn individuals to hell. To those of who you have something of an open mind or know a bit of history but are still inclined to believe this, please send me a PM; I'm open to a civilized and balanced conversation(s).


What ugliness? Don't just hit and run. There's been some earnest, responsible, insightful discussion here, but we are not perfect. If you have something to criticize, point it out and say why.

If you are correct that the projection of an open mouth during the prelude represents Kundry's laughter, my impression of this production as just another directorial hit job on Wagner is reinforced. To anyone who may want to check out the video, it might be good to warn them that in place of the uncovering of the radiant Holy Grail in the temple ceremony we are treated to the sight of a child being mutilated and the knights drinking his blood. I gather that at this point some members of the audience chose to walk out.

If you're looking for ugliness, as well as a horrible view of religion, try that on for size.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

^^^ Sorry, "hit and run" it is:  Otherwise I will say something I will regret. Re-read what I said in post #168. Even if I didn't express myself as clearly as possible you are intelligent enough to figure out what I am saying if you think about it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> This is a complex subject, does the New Testament only have one message? Or are there a number of messages? Does Parsifal only have one message? Parsifal, like most works of art has a number of valid interpretations and even if Wagner had left a detailed account of the messages in Parsifal that wouldn't mean that other readings in addition to his thoughts aren't valid.
> 
> That said, the overriding message of Parsifal is the need for compassion. Parsifal is derided by the religious community in act one because he does not have intellectual understanding of the knights' mission and faith. The community is compromised due to the sin of Amfortas and that the knights can't understand his position. In act two Parsifal avoids Kundry's temptation because he perceives the link between that temptation and Amfortas' suffering. He sympathises with Amfortas (sumpatio is the greek equivalent of the latin compati, to feel/suffer with) becauses he undergoes the same suffering, that is the same temptation. The knights of the grail don't experience this temptation and so cannot have compassion on Amfortas. In act three Parsifal can resolve the suffering of the community due to this compassion and it's compassion that means that he can forgive Kundry (although it's arguable whether he recognises her or not).
> 
> ...


Yes but Wagner, rejecting the idea of Jewish Messiah, has attempted to recast the Messiah as an aryan image in Parsifal, an idea completely contrary to the New testament. The idea that a woman has been damned to wander the ages under a curse because she laughed at Christ on the way to the cross is completely foreign to the new testament where many of the the very people (Jews) who cried out for Christ's blood were feely forgiven on the day of Pentecost and became the first members of the early church. The whole idea of how forgiveness may be obtained is foreign to the new Testament as there it is comes simply through faith in christ's sacrifice not through resisting the temptations of a sorceress or through a magic spear. In any case the spear, the actual cross and the grail are all things which would have quickly passed away in any case and there is no record of them being kept as relics. As has been said the symbols of Christianity are there but they are distorted through a Wagnerian lens so it has more to do with the superstitious mediaeval practices of the Dark Ages than the radical Christianity of the new Testament.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> ^^^ Sorry, "hit and run" it is:  Otherwise I will say something I will regret. Re-read what I said in post #168. Even if I didn't express myself as clearly as possible you are intelligent enough to figure out what I am saying if you think about it.


I know. You get teed off when religion is criticized. Well, Wagner did it all the time, and _Parsifal_ contains, among other things, a critique of religion, and specifically of the Judeo-Christian tradition's male, egotistical, authoritarian, and frequently violent deity. It should be observed that not a small part of Wagner's antisemitism was a protest against the Jewish God, a being he regarded as evil.

Consider what we see in _Parsifal_: it takes a naive boy from the woods (a "child of nature"), who knew nothing of the "church of Titurel," to save the authoritarian, militant, celibate, male order of knights from itself by wresting the Spear (male principle) from the power-hungry male hands of Klingsor and bringing it back to dwell with its companion Grail (loving, nourishing female principle), correcting the psychic schism created by male hubris. This, at the deepest psychological level of _Parsifal_'s symbolism, is a reiteration of the _Ring_'s "twilight of the gods," here effected by the enlightened "natural man" untouched by the revered demigod (or Pope?) Titurel's controlling and dogmatic institutionalism. For healing to occur, Titurel had to meet his end - fascinatingly, through the poetic justice of being denied the feminine Grail's nourishing grace - as surely as did Wotan.

Wagner does in _Parsifal_ what he said he wanted art to do in relation to religion: he wanted to rescue the spiritual truths underlying religion from religion itself. In his characteristically subversive way, he used the symbols of Christianity - as in the _Ring_ he used stories from pre-Christian mythology - to make a humanist statement glorifying the better part of humanity's intrinsic nature.

Of course this aspect of _Parsifal_'s message may not be be acceptable to anyone who doesn't acknowledge the perversions contained in religious dogma and the atrocities wrought in its name. (How much good, as well as evil, religions have wrought in the world is another discussion which I see no reason to have here.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Yes but Wagner, rejecting the idea of Jewish Messiah, has attempted to recast the Messiah as an aryan image in Parsifal, an idea completely contrary to the New testament. The idea that a woman has been damned to wander the ages under a curse because she laughed at Christ on the way to the cross is completely foreign to the new testament where many of the the very people (Jews) who cried out for Christ's blood were feely forgiven on the day of Pentecost and became the first members of the early church. The whole idea of how forgiveness may be obtained is foreign to the new Testament as there it is comes simply through faith in christ's sacrifice not through resisting the temptations of a sorceress or through a magic spear. In any case the spear, the actual cross and the grail are all things which would have quickly passed away in any case and there is no record of them being kept as relics. As has been said the symbols of Christianity are there but they are distorted through a Wagnerian lens so it has more to do with the superstitious mediaeval practices of the Dark Ages than the radical Christianity of the new Testament.


This is rather confused. You may know (your brand of) Christianity well, but you don't understand _Parsifal_ too well. Wagner is definitely not advocating any medieval superstitions! It would be more accurate to say that he is critiquing some of them - specifically, religious dogma and institutions - and showing them as destructive to the spirit.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> The open mouth can also be interpreted as contempt or ridicule.


no, in that case it would have been smiling or laughing in a clear manner.

but of course this was meant to show contempt for the music.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> "the mouth" is not supposed to represent Kundry's and is not sexual.


it sure is not Kundry's, but *is* sexual, however the offence intended represents sex in asexual context of dealing the audience, the performers & the music an insult kind of 'suck on this' etc.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> Another male diver came into the house and made the comment that Zhadov did.


and he was right.

no pic of a person with open mouth should be shown if you don't mean offence to that person.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Larkenfield said:


> The open mouth can also be interpreted as contempt or ridicule.


I wonder whether Langridge/Chitty were influenced by Hans-Jürgen Syberberg's film version of _Parsifal_, which uses Wagner's death-mask as a "stage", and close-ups of Syberberg's own mouth as he mimes the part of Amfortas?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> and he was right.
> 
> no pic of a person with open mouth should be shown if you don't mean offence to that person.


This is a cultural thing. I've never heard about photos with open mouths as being necessarily offensive. In Western European culture it's quite normal to smile with an open mouth and it not to be offensive to anyone. Capturing a photo of someone yawning could be considered rude, but it is also considered rude not to cover your mouth with your hand when you yawn. I've never heard of a blanket rule about all kinds of open mouths being offensive though.

There was a news story this morning about a beauty contest in India where most of the finalists have wide smiles because they want to imitate last year's winner.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> This is rather confused. You may know (your brand of) Christianity well, but you don't understand _Parsifal_ too well. Wagner is definitely not advocating any medieval superstitions! It would be more accurate to say that he is critiquing some of them - specifically, religious dogma and institutions - and showing them as destructive to the spirit.


This is indeed one of the messages of Parsifal and a key part of the message of the New Testament. Irrespective of Wagner's views and his intentions when it comes to Parsifal (not that they aren't important), I find there is a Christian interpretation of Parsifal. Wagner plays with certain Christian themes, but I think these mostly fall in line with the mystical side of the religion. I don't think Wagner necessarily intended to, but his exploration of life, religions and philosophy naturally lead to him unintentionally being more 'Christian' than some religious traditions.

However, isn't part of Wagner's genius that there are a number of different valid interpretations of his works so that each individual can understand them on their own terms? That's what makes a good performance of Parsifal such an intensely intimate experience.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> This is indeed one of the messages of Parsifal and a key part of the message of the New Testament. Irrespective of Wagner's views and his intentions when it comes to Parsifal (not that they aren't important), I find there is a Christian interpretation of Parsifal. Wagner plays with certain Christian themes, but I think these mostly fall in line with the mystical side of the religion. I don't think Wagner necessarily intended to, but his exploration of life, religions and philosophy naturally lead to him unintentionally being more 'Christian' than some religious traditions.
> 
> However, isn't part of Wagner's genius that there are a number of different valid interpretations of his works so that each individual can understand them on their own terms? That's what makes a good performance of Parsifal such an intensely intimate experience.
> 
> N.


I have said and continue to repeat that there is nothing in New Testament Christianity in Parsifal. In the New Testament redemption was made with Christ and it is obtained by faith in him not by some mystical enlightenment experience as in Parsifal. This is not my 'brand' of Christianity but that found in the New Testament. I know there are other 'brands' but I prefer my religion straight from the horses' mouth so to speak!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> In Western European culture it's quite normal to smile with an open mouth


only with teeth clenched, not open.

for example, how often did you see the Queen with mouth open as opposed to May's or Trump's?










https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/news-opinion/theresa-delivered-tough-talking-speech-10227422










https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/p...y-cohen-special-counsel/2018/11/29/id/892562/


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> In any case the spear, the actual cross and the grail are all things which would have quickly passed away in any case and there is no record of them being kept as relics.


Numerous pieces of the "True Cross" are kept as relics in churches around the world. There are also several versions of the Holy Spear; the Vatican has one.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

offtopic, but needs be said, oral sex insinuations a plenty in song genres, btw -


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Somebody here needs to get laid in order to alleviate his oral sex fixation. And please don't upload photos of politicians on this thread. I see enough of those two faces in the news everyday. This stuff has nothing to do with Wagner's opera.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Somebody here needs to get laid in order to alleviate his oral sex fixation.


go do it, but don't deny the facts.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

starthrower said:


> This stuff has nothing to do with Wagner's opera.


tell that to those who staged that Parcifal production.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> tell that to those who staged that Parcifal production.


No, that's your interpretation.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

starthrower said:


> No, that's your interpretation.


your simply in denial... ostrich policy much?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

You're the only person involved in this thread that insists on the fellatio interpretation. You're simply trolling.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

starthrower said:


> You're the only person involved in this thread that insists on the fellatio interpretation.


that is why 'bad' productions have there way because most folks are ignorant fools.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

This thread has runs its course. Time to just enjoy the music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> Numerous pieces of the "True Cross" are kept as relics in churches around the world. There are also several versions of the Holy Spear; the Vatican has one.


In the Middle Ages there were enough pieces of the 'true cross' to build Noah's ark! There was also a vial containing 'the blood of Christ' a monastery in England which the faithful came to adore. When the monasteries were dissolved it was found to be honey dyed with red ink.

It may be a shocking fact to some but the cross on which Jesus was crucified may well have been used to crucify another victim, the goblet he used at the last supper washed up and used again for drinking and the spear returned to the Roman soldier's armoury. These were not important. It was Who was being crucified who is important to the Christian faith not the so-called relics.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Somebody here needs to get laid in order to alleviate his oral sex fixation. And please don't upload photos of politicians on this thread. I see enough of those two faces in the news everyday. This stuff has nothing to do with Wagner's opera.


Shame, I was going to post a picture of the Blairs going to vote last week in which both of them have their mouths open. If anyone finds it in any way sexual they need therapy!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I have said and continue to repeat that there is nothing in New Testament Christianity in Parsifal. In the New Testament redemption was made with Christ and it is obtained by faith in him not by some mystical enlightenment experience as in Parsifal. This is not my 'brand' of Christianity but that found in the New Testament. I know there are other 'brands' but I prefer my religion straight from the horses' mouth so to speak!


Perhaps it's not your brand of Christianity that precludes you seeing the Christianity in Parsifal, but your brand of Parsifal interpretation!

The central act in Parsifal is the communion that comes about by all partaking in the body and blood of Christ, so Christ as saviour is present, however it has become an empty ritual in the society of the knights as they have lost compassion and love for one another, thus making the communion a clanging cymbal. One of the main themes of both Parsifal and the New Testament is the need for compassion and love. I'm not saying that the messages of the New Testament and Parsifal are exactly the same. However, neither is 'there is nothing in New Testament Christianity in Parsifal' true. They both have elements in common and Parsifal is more a Christian opera than many others.

N.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

First, Warm Greetings, Everyone.

As an abbreviated summary of where I left off in this thread last night:



JosefinaHW said:


> Woodduck said:
> 
> 
> > I've been reading all the available reviews of the production and watching the YouTube bits advertising it._* I'm certain that "the mouth" is not supposed to represent Kundry's *_and is not sexual. What it is intended to be, I wouldn't care to speculate. All I know is that it's absurdly out of place as an accompanying visual to the prelude (which, again, needs no accompanying visuals).
> ...


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Somebody here needs {text deleted} to alleviate his oral sex fixation. And please don't upload photos of politicians on this thread. I see enough of those two faces in the news everyday. This stuff has nothing to do with Wagner's opera.


Thank you for your post. Apart from the text I deleted, I completely agree with you and thank you for saying it, Star.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Perhaps it's not your brand of Christianity that precludes you seeing the Christianity in Parsifal, but your brand of Parsifal interpretation!
> 
> The central act in Parsifal is the communion that comes about by all partaking in the body and blood of Christ, so Christ as saviour is present, however it has become an empty ritual in the society of the knights as they have lost compassion and love for one another, thus making the communion a clanging cymbal. One of the main themes of both Parsifal and the New Testament is the need for compassion and love. I'm not saying that the messages of the New Testament and Parsifal are exactly the same. However, neither is 'there is nothing in New Testament Christianity in Parsifal' true. They both have elements in common and Parsifal is more a Christian opera than many others.
> 
> N.


Your point has validity, Conte, but I wouldn't call the celebration of communion the central act of the opera. That has to be the decision of Parsifal - which is literally in the center of the opera - to choose _agape_ over _eros_, compassion over passion, responsibility over self-indulgence, manhood over childhood, spiritual growth and maturity over infantile regression and spiritual self-destruction. All of that resides in his rejection of Kundry-cum-Herzeleide's embrace.

The question for DavidA is: is Parsifal's choice, the crucial choice upon which everything depends, "Christian"? Not exclusively, certainly; the Buddha would have made the same choice. But is it compatible with Christian morality? "What (and forgive the cliche, which I feel positively silly invoking) would Jesus do?" Well, what DID he do when, the Bible tells us, he was tempted by the Devil?

I think DavidA may be misunderstanding and trivializing Parsifal's crisis in the garden (and it's interesting that in the Bible mankind's first crisis took place in a garden, and that when Adam and Eve left the garden they wandered, like Parsifal, in a barren wilderness). Parsifal's choice isn't a simple rejection of sex, much less a condemnation of sex. Sexuality - its uses, abuses, and manifestations - carries complex symbolic meanings in this opera. The two talismans whose use and abuse are at the center of the action and of which everyone speaks with awe and reverence, the Sacred Spear and the Holy Grail, are Christian relics on the surface, but they are also primeval archetypes of maleness and femaleness, and on a deep level the story of the opera is their story, a story of the devastating consequences of their separation and the redemptive healing brought about through their reunion. Christianity, of course, doesn't operate on this "psychoanalytical" level, but that shows only that _Parsifal_ is _more than_ Christian. It doesn't negate its Christian elements.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

As we progressed through this conversation I thought that most of us were in agreement that religion, faith, spirituality and the resulting ethic have been and will continue to be perverted and distorted by SOME believers in SOME locations and SOME time. 

Even before a Christian church was formed it was acknowledged very publicly that the apostles were an award-winning lot. Then ever since Christian believers of a variety of types pray for each other as a group in ritual (and non-ritual) form because we know that we are all imperfect people on a journey. You can't listen to a Catholic mass or Bach/Protestant cantata that doesn't remind us and in which we publicly admit that we have done harm and we ask forgiveness for it and strength to improve.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> of sex. Sexuality - its uses, abuses, and manifestations - carries complex symbolic meanings in this opera. The two talismans whose use and abuse are at the center of the action and of which everyone speaks with awe and reverence, the Sacred Spear and the Holy Grail, are Christian relics on the surface, but they are also primeval archetypes of maleness and femaleness, and on a deep level the story of the opera is their story, a story of the devastating consequences of their separation and the redemptive healing brought about through their reunion. _*Christianity, of course, doesn't operate on this "psychoanalytical" level*_, but that shows only that _Parsifal_ is _more than_ Christian. It doesn't negate its Christian elements.


It most certainly does!

But the explicit exploration and discussion of this aspect of Christian education doesn't happen in elementary school! One has to make the decision to explore one's religion, faith and spirituality as an adult.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

It would seem that some other people's temper has cooled since last night: at least religion, faith, spirituality and the corresponding ethics aren't being trash indiscriminately!

Discussions of Parsifal on here frequently end because someone makes a broad--almost complete--rejection of religion, usually specifically Christianity or even more specifically the Catholic Church (in Rome and Spain). AND that broad rejection happened again last night.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I want to talk more about how the Royal Opera House Stephen Langridge includes imagery of mockery throughout the opera: I think because whoever was on that team of direction and design realized that mockery and a gross lack of compassion are destructively very strong right now. Look at how many posts in the Comment sections of internet sites and Op-Eds and TV shows, etc., etc. are vicious statements of ridicule and belittlement!

The thought also JUST occurred to me. May part of the anti-mockery imagery in this production of Parsifal by directed against mocking Wagner's opera? I'll have to watch the thing again.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

My last post here for a bit. A major part--probably the most important part of the reason that I dislike discussion and blanket rejection of religion (particularly Christianity) is that it so incredibly clear to me how many people know so little about it.

None of us cognitively understands ever aspect of it, it's a Mystery that goes beyond our capacities in this life. BUT,.... over the years I have observed on here that some people *know ONLY the blanket rejections* that they hear on here and elsewhere in the world!

* It can be very easy for those of us who were raised in some faith* to forget that there are people who only have heard the worst stories and stereotypes and usually those are grossly inflated. (e.g., There were not hundreds of thousands people burned to death during the existence of the Office of the Inquisition.)

Then those who haven't re-explored the entire faith as an adult either--just in this thread I see people broadly dismissing relics without having a clue of some/any of the valid theology and psychology behind them. They were not ONLY or even PRIMARILY a means for corrupt people to make a buck or deny that Jesus' death on the cross was not sufficient!

I'm done for now. I hope someone will find what I said interesting enough to discuss it an open-minded and balanced manner.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

*Parsifal and Christianity:*
http://www.monsalvat.no/xtianity.htm

1.) Is Parsifal a Christian work? If not, then what did Wagner mean when he described it as such?
2.) What if anything does this opera say about Christianity?
3.) Is it meaningful to speak of Wagner as theologian?

"Wagner's Parsifal poses a riddle that is hard to solve. The sacred character of the work is beyond question; this is obvious as well from the music of this "stage consecration festival play". But what form of the sacred are we dealing with here? Wagner's turn to Christian mythology, upon which the imagery and the spiritual contents of Parsifal rest, is idiosyncratic and contradicts Christian dogma in many important ways. In the case of a religion of revelation that is almost two thousand years old, and that in the course of its history has assumed huge societal significance in the Western world, and quite early canonized rigid articles of belief, are we allowed even to talk of "myth"? But how else can the action of Parsifal be understood, if not in the category of myth? Furthermore, as Wagner understood it, "myth" is a distinctive way of thinking that has its own logic and truth. It distinguishes itself from the rationality of philosophy through its use of images and the archetypical nature of its forms and characters; it differs from dogmatic religion by the freedom with which it undertakes to re-form and re-create traditional elements to revitalize them. The philosopher Hans Blumenberg coined the phrase "work on myth" [Arbeit om Mythos] to describe this process."


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> *Parsifal and Christianity:*
> http://www.monsalvat.no/xtianity.htm"


VERY interesting, L. I have many thoughts and we could probably use that "article" as a framework to discuss Parsifal for the rest of our lives, but I would prefer not to, for a large number of reasons.

What I would like to discuss, eventually, as is alluded to in the article and is glaringly in my mind re/ Wagner's thought: is Wagner's "problem with sexual relations"! As a great believer in the message of the incarnation I don't consider sex to be sinful or chastity to be the necessary ideal of Christianity. The problem becomes/is when it is viewed as "SELF-gratification" and the de-personalization of the other person vs "mutual gratification and celebration."

I have to say that another thing that has really annoyed me about Parsifal is that to me it does consider the common understanding of chastity as an ideal. I think this is very unhealthy and un-Christian, as shocking as that might sound to some.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> As we progressed through this conversation *I thought that most of us were in agreement* that religion, faith, spirituality and the resulting ethic have been and will continue to be perverted and distorted by SOME believers in SOME locations and SOME time.


When did any of us agree on that?

I think there are two opposite assumptions operating here. Some of us appear to assume that there is a "true" Christianity and that people who don't abide by a certain version of Christianity are perverting and distorting the religion. Others of us don't accept this and think that people are entitled to differing ideas of who and what can be included under the designation "Christian" (or "Muslim," or any other religious category).

People who want to consider themselves Christians are apt to put a lot of effort into figuring out what "true" Christianity is. Other people, having no need to do this, will feel free to use the term "Christian" to describe the whole range of historical identities, behaviors and institutions that have taken that name. They may point out that disagreements between people calling themselves Christians date back to the first generation of the followers of Jesus, and have never ceased to exist and create conflict.

The contents of the body of writings accepted as "valid" by Christians are problematic for anyone who wants to define "true" religion and talk about others "perverting" it (and the problem was even greater for early Christians who fought about which writings belonged in the "canon" and which did not). For example, it's legitimate to claim that Jesus did not advocate violence, and to say that those who commit cruel acts in his name may for that reason be called "un-Christian." But it's also legitimate to point out that the God of Christianity is recorded in the Bible as advocating massive killing, the conquest of foreign lands, the wholesale destruction of life and property, capital punishment for minor offenses, the rape of young virgins, slavery, continuous blood sacrifice, the condemnation of people of other faiths, and eternal damnation for people who don't think or behave as He demands. And it is legitimate to point out that such atrocities, and more, have served as examples of God's "goodness" and "wisdom," and have been perpetuated, through centuries of Western history, by men totally convinced that they were doing God's will, glorifying His name and His church, spreading the Good News around the globe, and saving the souls of the heathen from everlasting torment. Enlightened, ethical Christians today may deplore all of this (though, alas, not all do), but they can't minimize it and claim that it isn't a significant part of their religious tradition.

I recite all this not to be argumentative, but because it's directly relevant to this discussion. Wagner, in _Parsifal,_ presented a personal (though not especially original) conception of Christianity as primarily ethical, a conception which was, in part, a reaction of deep aversion to the elements of violence, intolerance and rationalism which he saw in traditional Christianity (and Judaism), both in its theology and in its practice. In his opera, he represented the sort of religion he deplored in Titurel and the order of the Grail, where we see sincere spiritual ambition coupled with rigid codes of conduct, exclusivity, and egotistical pride. Wagner is very fair and humane in presenting Titurel not as a villain but as a holy but flawed hero, and in showing how even the noblest aspirations can be undermined by dogma and poisoned by ego, and can result in misguided behavior and terrible consequences.

It's arguable that _Parsifal_ is actually more heavily indebted to Buddhism than to Christianity. I agree with this view. But I think Wagner wanted very much to extract an essential moral ideal which the two traditions have in common, and to comment on how far his "Christian" culture fell short of it.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> When did any of us agree on that?
> 
> I think there are two opposite assumptions operating here. *Some of us appear to assume that there is a "true" Christianity and that people who don't abide by a certain version of Christianity are perverting and distorting the religion. Others of us don't accept this and think that people are entitled to differing ideas of who and what can be included under the designation "Christian" (or "Muslim," or any other religious category). *


Do you think that I am specifically one of the people you mention above?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

I deleted this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Do you think that I am specifically one of the people you mention above?


I don't know exactly where you stand. I was thinking mainly of DavidA, who seems very sure of what Christianity must be and of his belief that _Parsifal_ is totally un-Christian.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know exactly where you stand. I was thinking mainly of DavidA, who seems very sure of what Christianity must be and of his belief that _Parsifal_ is totally un-Christian.


I don't think you carefully read or thought about most of my posts, most certainly my recent posts, esp. re/ Christianity as a body/bodies of sinful believers. My frequent reference to multiple spiritualities within Christianity. Please re-read them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> What I would like to discuss, eventually, as is alluded to in the article and is glaringly in my mind re/ Wagner's thought: is Wagner's "problem with sexual relations"! As a great believer in the message of the incarnation I don't consider sex to be sinful or chastity to be the necessary ideal of Christianity. The problem becomes/is when it is viewed as "SELF-gratification" and the de-personalization of the other person vs "mutual gratification and celebration."
> 
> I have to say that another thing that has really annoyed me about Parsifal is that to me *it does consider the common understanding of chastity as an ideal.* I think this is very unhealthy and un-Christian, as shocking as that might sound to some.


I believe that the idea that _Parsifal_ advocates sexual abstinence is mistaken. On the contrary, I think it shows quite powerfully the problems that can arise when the full complexity of human nature is denied and suppressed. But Wagner is a sly one! Where the opera appears to be about sex, it's really about something else, and where it appears to be about something else, it's about "sex" - but in the highest symbolic sense of archetypally "masculine" and "feminine" qualities and the need for their harmonious fusion.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I believe that the idea that _Parsifal_ advocates sexual abstinence is mistaken. On the contrary, I think it shows quite powerfully the problems that can arise when the full complexity of human nature is denied and suppressed. *But Wagner is a sly one! Where the opera appears to be about sex, it's really about something else*, and where it appears to be about something else, it's about "sex" - but in the highest symbolic sense of archetypally "masculine" and "feminine" qualities and the need for their harmonious fusion.


Just addressing the text I bolded: I am glad that you said this because it confirms my difficulty with the music in the garden (although I might still be in error because of the second phrase...sigh). I did not hear erotic or even sensual music in the garden when the women are (supposedly) trying to seduce Parsifal. Would you agree with me? I'm still at that awful stage of watching complicate or most certainly ambiguous subtitles and complex imagery, so I'm not hearing all the elements united yet.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Just addressing the text I bolded: I am glad that you said this because it confirms my difficulty with the music in the garden (although I might still be in error because of the second phrase...sigh). I did not hear erotic or even sensual music in the garden when the women are (supposedly) trying to seduce Parsifal. Would you agree with me? I'm still at that awful stage of watching complicate or most certainly ambiguous subtitles and complex imagery, so I'm not hearing all the elements united yet.


Kundry appears to Parsifal not as some painted hooker but as his mother, Herzeleide - literally, "heart's sorrow." She knows his family history because, in the dreamlike symbolism of collapsed, mythical time and space, she IS his mother, who did not want him to leave home and grow up and is now calling him back to infancy and oblivion. She did the same to all the knights of the Grail, and they failed the test (why they had to encounter her, and why they had to lose their manhood in her arms, is a fascinating question that goes to the heart of the opera). When Kundry sings to Parsifal, "I saw the child on its mother's breast," the music is a lullaby, albeit a strange and harmonically restless one, portraying at once her soothing, smiling gestures and his sense that something about this is not quite right. When I was first getting to know _Parsifal_ in my teens I actually felt some of the uneasiness, the sense of something evil, that Parsifal at the same age must feel. Good thing for me that it was fiction!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

JosefinaHW said:


> Lark, aslo re/ that article: You may/may not know already that it reminded of where the ugly/punished view of Kundry came from and I would really like to sweep that under the carpet, but I think it might be an EXTREMELY important key to understanding what is going on in at least part of Parsifal.  What say, You, either here on in a PM?


 Yes, I believe that I can understand why you or anyone would feel that way, so I hope everyone is able to get to the bottom of that for their own benefit and satisfaction. I haven't had a chance to look further into the relationship between Kundry and Parsifal and I look forward to it... From what I've seen and heard of this production, I'm not comfortable with its controversial modern and contemporary depiction of Wagner's intentions, archetypes, and symbols, and consider it unfortunate that it's this production this discussion is revolving around rather than a production that's closer to Wagner's original conception and perhaps more fair to everyone in accuracy, and I hope that's somehow kept in mind... Despite all the controversy, I do consider Parsifial a sacred work in its intensions that are conveyed primarily through the sublimity of the music, and that there's nothing wrong with questioning things related to religion and Christianity in order that one's faith be real.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> *I believe that the idea that Parsifal advocates sexual abstinence is mistaken.* On the contrary, I think it shows quite powerfully the problems that can arise when the full complexity of human nature is denied and suppressed. But Wagner is a sly one! Where the opera appears to be about sex, it's really about something else, and where it appears to be about something else, it's about "sex" - but in the highest symbolic sense of archetypally "masculine" and "feminine" qualities and the need for their harmonious fusion.


This time re/ the text I bolded. I really do get the impression that at least in Parsifal, Wagner is saying that the ideal behavior is sexual abstinence. Amfortas is in the state he is in because Kundry seduced him?!?! Parsifal aggressively throws off Kundry when she tries to have sex with him. You will have to show examples or explain for opinion in greater detail.

Now something else did come to mind as I was re-watching part of Parsifal yesterday: In her own mind (yes, I think at least at one level she is an individual character) she might never be able to break the cycle of her punishment because she CANNOT FORGIVE HERSELF. She thinks that because she laughed at one man's suffering she has to make sex or more accurately here, make love with men who are suffering so that she can "undo" the mockery of the first man.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> This time re/ the text I bolded. I really do get the impression that at least in Parsifal, Wagner is saying that the ideal behavior is sexual abstinence. Amfortas is in the state he is in because Kundry seduced him?!?! Parsifal aggressively throws off Kundry when she tries to have sex with him. You will have to show examples or explain for opinion in greater detail.
> 
> Now something else did come to mind as I was re-watching part of Parsifal yesterday: In her own mind (yes, I think at least at one level she is an individual character) she might never be able to break the cycle of her punishment because she CANNOT FORGIVE HERSELF. She thinks that because she laughed at one man's suffering she has to make sex or more accurately here, make love with men who are suffering so that she can "undo" the mockery of the first man.


Kundry isn't motivated to have sex. She is used by Klingsor, and she hates it.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Kundry isn't motivated to have sex. She is used by Klingsor, and she hates it.


Yes, ty for reminding me, but during that very long scene where she is inter-acting with Parsifal, she seemed so earnest that I began to wonder if she was just very cleverly trying different approaches or if she really believed what she was saying, in particulr when she begins to talk about looking into the eyes. Should I try to find the exact moment and the words in the subtitles?


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

What video version of Parsifal would people recommend as closest to Wagner's stage directions and "libretto"? TY


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Yes, ty for reminding me, but during that very long scene where she is inter-acting with Parsifal, she seemed so earnest that I began to wonder if she was just very cleverly trying different approaches or if she really believed what she was saying, in particulr when she begins to talk about looking into the eyes. Should I try to find the exact moment and the words in the subtitles?
> 
> What video version of Parsifal would people recommend as closest to Wagner's stage directions and "libretto"? TY


It's not either or with her. She is both cunning in her seduction and desperately sincere. Remember that Kundry is not an individual woman but many women (soprano Leonie Rysanek called her "all women").

It occurs to me that it makes no difference whether Kundry participates in actual sex at all, much less gets any pleasure from it. Klingsor only requires that she get a man to lower his guard so that he, Klingsor, can capture him and come one knight closer to destroying the holy order and procuring the Grail. Klingsor is a reincarnation of Alberich, lusting after the Grail as Alberich lusted after the gold, and he gained his evil powers by an equivalent renunciation of love (self-castration).

Someone else will have to recommend videos. I've seen a few but they all disappoint me.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It's not either or with her. She is both cunning in her seduction and desperately sincere. Remember that Kundry is not an individual woman but many women (soprano Leonie Rysanek called her "all women").
> 
> It occurs to me that it makes no difference whether Kundry participates in actual sex at all, much less gets any pleasure from it. Klingsor only requires that she get a man to lower his guard so that he, Klingsor, can capture him and come one knight closer to destroying the holy order and procuring the Grail. Klingsor is a reincarnation of Alberich, lusting after the Grail as Alberich lusted after the gold, and he gained his evil powers by an equivalent renunciation of love (self-castration).


Very interesting and enlightening. TY.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> I did not hear erotic or even sensual music in the garden when the women are (supposedly) trying to seduce Parsifal.


in other words, you didn't listen thoroughly... (at 21:18)


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Act ll (libretto) Klingsor, Kundry, The Maidens, and Parsifal:
http://www.murashev.com/opera/Parsifal_libretto_English_Act_2

The characters read like from out of a myth, legend, or fairytale! Kundry is viewed as a witch by Klingsor and is subject to his coercion against her will with regard to her attempted seduction of Parsifal. There's a tremendous battle of wills between them. Then Parsifal to Kundry:

PARSIFAL
My dull gaze is fixed on the sacred vessel;
the holy blood flows: -
the bliss of redemption, divinely mild,
trembles within every soul around:
only here, in my heart, will the pangs not be stilled.
The Saviour's lament I hear there,
the lament, ah! the lamentation
from His profaned sanctuary:
"Redeem Me, rescue Me
from hands defiled by sin!"
Thus rang the divine lament
in terrible clarity in my soul.
And I - fool, coward,
fled hither to wild childish deeds!

(He flings himself in despair
on his kness)

Redeemer! Saviour! Lord of grace!
How can I, a sinner, purge my guilt?

KUNDRY
(whose astonishment has changed
to passionate admiration,
hesitantly tries to approach Parsifal)

Honoured hero! Throw off this spell!
Look up and greet your fair one's coming!

PARSIFAL
(still kneeling, gaze fixedly
at Kundry, who bends over him
with the cressing movements
indicated in the following)

Yes! This was the voice with which she called him; -
and this her look, truly I recognise it -
and this, smiling at him so disquietingly;
the lips - yes - thus they quivered for him,
thus she bent her neck -
thus boldly rose her head;
thus laughingly fluttered her hair -
thus her arms were twined around his neck -
thus tenderly fawned her features!
In league with the pangs of every torment,
her lips kissed away
his soul's salvation!
Ah, this kiss!

(He has gradually risen
and thrusts Kundry
from him)

Corrupter! Get away from me!
Forever, forever away from me









Kundry by Sigune


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Perhaps it's not your brand of Christianity that precludes you seeing the Christianity in Parsifal, but your brand of Parsifal interpretation!
> 
> The central act in Parsifal is the communion that comes about by all partaking in the body and blood of Christ, so Christ as saviour is present, however it has become an empty ritual in the society of the knights as they have lost compassion and love for one another, thus making the communion a clanging cymbal. One of the main themes of both Parsifal and the New Testament is the need for compassion and love. I'm not saying that the messages of the New Testament and Parsifal are exactly the same. However, neither is 'there is nothing in New Testament Christianity in Parsifal' true. They both have elements in common and Parsifal is more a Christian opera than many others.
> 
> N.


Yes but central to the New Testament is justification by faith which is not present in Parsifal unless I am missing something. The New Testament is clear that the act of communion only becomes meaning full if we have experienced justification by faith


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JosefinaHW said:


> I don't think you carefully read or thought about most of my posts, most certainly my recent posts, esp. re/ *Christianity as a body/bodies of sinful believers. * My frequent reference to multiple spiritualities within Christianity. Please re-read them.


According to the New testament Christians are a body of believers who are justified through faith in Christ: 'Having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.'


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Your point has validity, Conte, but I wouldn't call the celebration of communion the central act of the opera. That has to be the decision of Parsifal - which is literally in the center of the opera - to choose _agape_ over _eros_, compassion over passion, responsibility over self-indulgence, manhood over childhood, spiritual growth and maturity over infantile regression and spiritual self-destruction. All of that resides in his rejection of Kundry-cum-Herzeleide's embrace.
> 
> The question for DavidA is: is Parsifal's choice, the crucial choice upon which everything depends, "Christian"? Not exclusively, certainly; the Buddha would have made the same choice. But is it compatible with Christian morality? "What (and forgive the cliche, which I feel positively silly invoking) would Jesus do?" Well, what DID he do when, the Bible tells us, he was tempted by the Devil?
> 
> I think DavidA may be misunderstanding and trivializing Parsifal's crisis in the garden (and it's interesting that in the Bible mankind's first crisis took place in a garden, and that when Adam and Eve left the garden they wandered, like Parsifal, in a barren wilderness). Parsifal's choice isn't a simple rejection of sex, much less a condemnation of sex. Sexuality - its uses, abuses, and manifestations - carries complex symbolic meanings in this opera. The two talismans whose use and abuse are at the center of the action and of which everyone speaks with awe and reverence, the Sacred Spear and the Holy Grail, are Christian relics on the surface, but they are also primeval archetypes of maleness and femaleness, and on a deep level the story of the opera is their story, a story of the devastating consequences of their separation and the redemptive healing brought about through their reunion. Christianity, of course, doesn't operate on this "psychoanalytical" level, but that shows only that _Parsifal_ is _more than_ Christian. It doesn't negate its Christian elements.


Yes, you are right, act is the wrong word, but ritual isn't quite right either, perhaps group action? In any case I agree with your post.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> When did any of us agree on that?
> 
> I think there are two opposite assumptions operating here. Some of us appear to assume that there is a "true" Christianity and that people who don't abide by a certain version of Christianity are perverting and distorting the religion. Others of us don't accept this and think that people are entitled to differing ideas of who and what can be included under the designation "Christian" (or "Muslim," or any other religious category).


Whilst this may be so, my comments don't relate to 'true' Christianity which could mean different things to different people as you say, but to the comments that specifically referred to the New Testament. Whilst I find it difficult to discuss how Parsifal relates to 'true Christianity' for this exact reason, it can be compared to the New Testament (despite the complexities and difficulties involved in doing that, which I did caveat in one of my early comments).



Woodduck said:


> I recite all this not to be argumentative, but because it's directly relevant to this discussion. Wagner, in _Parsifal,_ presented a personal (though not especially original) conception of Christianity as primarily ethical, a conception which was, in part, a reaction of deep aversion to the elements of violence, intolerance and rationalism which he saw in traditional Christianity (and Judaism), both in its theology and in its practice. In his opera, he represented the sort of religion he deplored in Titurel and the order of the Grail, where we see sincere spiritual ambition coupled with rigid codes of conduct, exclusivity, and egotistical pride. Wagner is very fair and humane in presenting Titurel not as a villain but as a holy but flawed hero, and in showing how even the noblest aspirations can be undermined by dogma and poisoned by ego, and can result in misguided behavior and terrible consequences.


Wagner's message as you have summarised it here (not that that is the only message in Parsifal) is very much the same as Jesus' in the New Testament (which similarly has other further meanings). That's why I think it is wrong to say that there is nothing of the New Testament in Parsifal and why I find it very much a Christian work, a 'truly Christian' work if you like.

Christ brings everything back to God, which Wagner doesn't emphasize, but it is clear that the community is a religious one. Of course, you could view Parsifal in a humanist light because of this difference between the New Testament and Parsifal. Parsifal doesn't negate wider interpretations that include god-centred views, just as it doesn't negate a Buddhist reading.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Yes but central to the New Testament is justification by faith which is not present in Parsifal unless I am missing something. The New Testament is clear that the act of communion only becomes meaning full if we have experienced justification by faith


Now yes, I agree with you. (Although I would have to re-read the Parsifal libretto to be sure it is entirely absent.) However, I am not saying that all the important messages and meanings in the New Testament are in Parsifal, but it is equally untrue to say that 'there is nothing of the New Testament in Parsifal'.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

'that shows only that Parsifal is more than Christian.'

Maybe to you. To me it's an opera which completely distorts the central message of the New testament. If you want to believe it fine, but like any other opera it is a piece of fiction which came out of the head of its composer. I'm not despising its genius and I know Wagner want4ed to make a religion out of it (as did indeed Hitler) but it remains an opera you pay to see actors perform.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Now yes, I agree with you. (Although I would have to re-read the Parsifal libretto to be sure it is entirely absent.) However, I am not saying that all the important messages and meanings in the New Testament are in Parsifal, but it is equally untrue to say that 'there is nothing of the New Testament in Parsifal'.
> 
> N.


If you miss out justification by faith you miss out the Good News. Parsifal is not Christianity. It is more about Buddhist renunciation suggested by Wagner's readings of Schopenhauer which run contrary to the ideas justification in the new testament


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> If you miss out justification by faith you miss out the Good News.


As has been pointed out to you before, maybe in your 'brand' of Christianity. Is not the 'good news' that believers partake in the resurrection of Christ and therefore shan't die? The symbol (and I mean that in the original Greek meaning of the word) of that partaking in the mysteries of the death and resurrection of Christ is the Eucharist and we find that in Parsifal. Faith may not take a central role in Parsifal, but it is there, after all the final words of act one are "Blessed in faith!"

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

We can say that Parsifal has a Christian background, but I'm not sure whether it's reasonable to say that it's Christian in its' purest form, or otherwise we could move this thread into 'Religious music' subforum... The Christianity in Parsifal comes partially from the allegorical meaning of different symbols (like the temptation in the garden as Woodduck pointed out - very genius idea actually), but everything allegorical gives way for different interpretations, because this allegorism could be understood in various ways.

For example, if you listen to Brahms's German requiem (love it!), it's sensible to interpret it only in one way and that is the Christian way (to avoid any arguments against this: of course you can consider it as a non-Christian work, but majority of people wouldn't), but we wouldn't debate here whether Parsifal is a Christian opera or not, if it was a straightforwardly Christian work.

Also, I'm not sure if arguing here whether it's Christian or not will get us anywhere if we have different understandings of Christianity. If DavidA's understanding of the New Testament doesn't allow him to consider Parsifal as a purely Christian work, then I think we should accept that but it doesn't mean others can't interpret it in such a way.

This post is not meant as an argument, these are just my thoughts on the topic as I've followed this thread.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> 'that shows only that Parsifal is more than Christian.'
> 
> Maybe to you. To me it's an opera which completely distorts the central message of the New testament. If you want to believe it fine, but like any other opera it is a piece of fiction which came out of the head of its composer. I'm not despising its genius and I know Wagner want4ed to make a religion out of it (as did indeed Hitler) but it remains an opera you pay to see actors perform.


Neither Wagner nor Hitler (you just can't resist linking those names, can you?) wanted to make a religion out of _Parsifal._ What does that even mean? _Parsifal_ expresses some of Wagner's ideas on religion. He certainly realized that it was an opera, as is shown by the fact that during one of its performances at Bayreuth he was heard to say "Bravo!" as the flower maidens exited the stage and was shushed by some others in the audience.

The "sacredness" of _Parsifal,_ its status as some kind of ersatz religious ceremony, is often exaggerated. The phrase Wagner used to describe the opera, "Buehnenweihfestspiel," often translated as "stage-consecrating festival play," is more correctly translated as "festival play for the dedication of a stage," without the religious connotations of "consecration." It's true that Wagner said he wanted Bayreuth to have a monopoly on performances of the work, but he had proposed the same thing about the _Ring,_ and his reasons were artistic and financial, not religious.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> As has been pointed out to you before, maybe in your 'brand' of Christianity. Is not the 'good news' that believers partake in the resurrection of Christ and therefore shan't die? The symbol (and I mean that in the original Greek meaning of the word) of that partaking in the mysteries of the death and resurrection of Christ is the Eucharist and we find that in Parsifal. Faith may not take a central role in Parsifal, but it is there, after all the final words of act one are "Blessed in faith!"
> 
> N.


My 'brand' of Christianity is that of the New testament. Before the resurrection believers are justified by faith not by some mystical experience with mystical objects and relics. Faith plays THE central role in the Christianity of the New testament in that 'the just shall live by faith' is key.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> My 'brand' of Christianity is that of the New testament. Before the resurrection believers are justified by faith not by some mystical experience with mystical objects and relics. Faith plays THE central role in the Christianity of the New testament in that 'the just shall live by faith' is key.


I feel this is starting to go off on a tangent and become a debate on religion rather than the nature of Parsifal. Anyone can quote one verse and say that that is the key verse of the whole, just as I could take one quote from Parsifal and say that it is the central meaning of the work. All I will say is that this focus on 'justification through faith' seems to me to be some modernist nonsense that has probably only been around a mere 500 years and has nothing to little to do with what the Church would have wanted. Maybe I am wrong and you are a member of the Church that wrote and selected the scriptures and still reads such scriptures out in the original language. In any case, this is taking things off on a tangent and so... back to Parsifal!

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I feel this is starting to go off on a tangent and become a debate on religion rather than the nature of Parsifal. Anyone can quote one verse and say that that is the key verse of the whole, just as I could take one quote from Parsifal and say that it is the central meaning of the work. All I will say is that this focus on 'justification through faith' seems to me to be some modernist nonsense that has probably only been around a mere 500 years and has nothing to little to do with what the Church would have wanted. Maybe I am wrong and you are a member of the Church that wrote and selected the scriptures and still reads such scriptures out in the original language. In any case, this is taking things off on a tangent and so... back to Parsifal!
> 
> N.


Since this is, or was, nominally a thread on books about Wagner, how about let's move the present conversation to a thread of its own? I have a thread ready to start on "Religion in Parsifal." Anyone interested? Do people have more to say on the subject?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Since this is, or was, nominally a thread on books about Wagner, how about let's move the present conversation to a thread of its own? I have a thread ready to start on "Religion in Parsifal." Anyone interested? Do people have more to say on the subject?


I always have more to say! :lol:

And it's Friday night and the wine has been flowing...

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I always have more to say! :lol:
> 
> And it's Friday night and the wine has been flowing...
> 
> N.


Good to hear! Here we go: https://www.talkclassical.com/61698-religion-wagners-parsifal-christian.html#post1647798


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Wonderful! This post is a gem. Truly, a cornerstone.:tiphat:


----------



## Bellerophon (May 15, 2020)

So back to books (I hope it’s not considered bad form on this board to resuscitate past threads), has anyone here read Roger Scruton’s books ‘The Ring if Truth’ and ‘The death devoted heart’ (on Tristan and Isolde), and would you recommend either of them?


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Bellerophon said:


> So back to books (I hope it's not considered bad form on this board to resuscitate past threads), has anyone here read Roger Scruton's books 'The Ring if Truth' and 'The death devoted heart' (on Tristan and Isolde), and would you recommend either of them?


Yes, and I would strongly recommend both as two of the most thorough and thought-provoking analyses of those two operas that I've encountered.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Bellerophon said:


> So back to books (I hope it's not considered bad form on this board to resuscitate past threads), has anyone here read Roger Scruton's books 'The Ring if Truth' and 'The death devoted heart' (on Tristan and Isolde), and would you recommend either of them?


I quite recently started reading Scruton's book - so far it seems to be rather good. Scruton is quite a Wagnerian and that's a good thing, I'm personally not too fond of books about Wagner by people who don't like Wagner. Scruton gives a lot of interesting philosophical, historical and cultural background as well.

Reviving old threads instead of creating new ones for the same topic is a good thing to do! This thread is an interesting one though.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

And just as a heads up, Scruton's book on Parsifal is set to come out posthumously in a couple of months. Definitely something I'm looking forward to.

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/315017/wagner-s-parsifal/9780241419694.html


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

WildThing said:


> And just as a heads up, Scruton's book on Parsifal is set to come out posthumously in a couple of months. Definitely something I'm looking forward to.
> 
> https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/315017/wagner-s-parsifal/9780241419694.html


Review in Spectator

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/roger-scruton-s-swan-song-salvation-through-parsifal


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Review in Spectator
> 
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/roger-scruton-s-swan-song-salvation-through-parsifal


The issue seems to come from the dichotomy some feel between _reason_ and _emotion_. Carnality being part of the emotional being, I assume, while compassion being associated to the sublimated love and, thus, closer to reason. I believe that the dichotomy misleads us when they need be integrated.

Thanks for alerting us of this book and pointing us to the review. My curiosity is certainly piqued.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Review in Spectator
> 
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/roger-scruton-s-swan-song-salvation-through-parsifal


What a shallow review. It gives the impression that Scruton's ideas about _Parsifal_ are shallow too. "A tale of redemption from the corrupting bondage of erotic love, a cleansing of the shame that emerges spontaneously from sexual desire"? Is that really the essence of Scruton's view? Are we really to believe that that's what Wagner wasted his sublime music on, with over a century's worth of psychology, comparative mythology, and literary and religious studies between Nietzsche and us?

Par for the _Parsifal _course, I'm afraid.

Anyone interested in getting beneath the surface of the opera couldn't do better than to plunge into this exraordinary web site:

https://www.monsalvat.no/


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> What a shallow review. It gives the impression that Scruton's ideas about _Parsifal_ are shallow too. "A tale of redemption from the corrupting bondage of erotic love, a cleansing of the shame that emerges spontaneously from sexual desire"? Is that really the essence of Scruton's view? Are we really to believe that that's what Wagner wasted his sublime music on, with over a century's worth of psychology, comparative mythology, and literary and religious studies between Nietzsche and us?
> 
> Par for the _Parsifal _course, I'm afraid.
> 
> ...


That's an amazing web site! Sad we don't have similar ones for all other Wagner's operas, at least the mature ones.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> What a shallow review. It gives the impression that Scruton's ideas about _Parsifal_ are shallow too. "A tale of redemption from the corrupting bondage of erotic love, a cleansing of the shame that emerges spontaneously from sexual desire"? Is that really the essence of Scruton's view?


Judging by his nuanced thoughts on Tristan and the Ring, and his comments in this video, I seriously doubt it.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

WildThing said:


> Judging by his nuanced thoughts on Tristan and the Ring, and his comments in this video, I seriously doubt it.


Yeah, he certainly has thought thoroughly about the matter but I think none of the writers has tried to actually make an objective case (maybe Cooke did but sadly he wasn't able to finish his work) - they are all biased towards something. Scruton is very strongly into the philosophical aspect (and seemingly the sexual one as it turns out from the video) while Donington is all about pcyhoanalysis, Heise analyses the whole _Ring_ mainly through Feuerbach etc. I'm somehwat skeptical about Hegelian intepretations and the kind because Wagner, according to his letters, dismissed Hegel's (and Kant's?) philosophy. Although Scruton actually makes an argument that because Feuerbach was influenced by Hegel then unknowingly Wagner was as well. So, I think to develop a personal understanding, one should read all of the books. Donington was certainly an eye-opener for me - I don't agree with everything he says, but the way he analyses and the methods he uses are fascinating.

I didn't watch the whole video but only bits of it. Scruton seems to interpret a lot of Wagner's works through sexual desire. As it certainly plays a very important role, especially in _Tristan_, neither the _Ring_ (nor _Parsifal_) are not all about sexual desire while this is certainly one of the major themes.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

annaw said:


> I didn't watch the whole video but only bits of it. Scruton seems to interpret a lot of Wagner's works through sexual desire. As it certainly plays a very important role, especially in _Tristan_, neither the _Ring_ (nor _Parsifal_) are not all about sexual desire while this is certainly one of the major themes.


Having read his book on the Ring, I can say that Scruton definitely does not interpret that work solely through the lens of sexual desire, or even primarily for that matter. Keep in mind the video is specifically discussing this Kantian dualism and the role of the erotic in Wagner's work. As the host says, "one might wonder whether Wagner's other mature tragedies might also be understood through this lens." In that way it's kind of like the Heise you mentioned, or Bryan Magee's book on Wagner, where Magee spends a majority of his time tracing and identifying the Schopenhauerian influence and framework in Wagner's works, to the point that one might even say he is _over_ emphasizing that aspect of the works.

But of course, unlike Heise neither Scruton or Magee pretend that their interpretations are all inclusive, and even go out of their way to make the point that they are not. I'd say that it's worth watching the entire video, and reading Scruton's book on Tristan (and Magee's books on Wagner as well.)


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

WildThing said:


> Having read his book on the Ring, I can say that Scruton definitely does not interpret that work solely through the lens of sexual desire, or even primarily for that matter. But the video is specifically discussing this Kantian dualism and the role of the erotic in Wagner's work. As the host says, "one might wonder whether Wagner's other mature tragedies might also be understood through this lens." In that way it's kind of like the Heise you mentioned, or Bryan Magee's book on Wagner, where Magee spends a majority of his time tracing and identifying the Schopenhauerian influence and framework in Wagner's works, to the point that one might even say he is _over_ emphasizing that aspect of the works.
> 
> But of course, unlike Heise neither Scruton or Magee pretend that their interpretations are all inclusive, and even go out of their way to make that point. I'd say that it's worth watching the entire video, and reading Scruton's book on Tristan (and Magee's as well.)


Yes, agreed! I still have to finish his _Ring_ book. I somehow managed to watch the wrong bits of the video then and maybe I'm just oversensitive :lol:. I don't think that it's wrong to have very specific interpretations, on the contrary, I think it's great! I find it extremely interesting to read books from people who know what they are writing about and I can combine these myself to form my own personal view. It is certainly amazing to have an actual philosopher like Scruton write Wagner analysis as I'm very fond of philosophical/psychological take of Wagner's operas.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

annaw said:


> Yes, agreed! I still have to finish his _Ring_ book. I somehow managed to watch the wrong bits of the video then and maybe I'm just oversensitive :lol:. I don't think that it's wrong to have very specific interpretations, on the contrary, I think it's great! I find it extremely interesting to read books from people who know what they are writing about and I can combine these myself to form my own personal view. It is certainly amazing to have an actual philosopher like Scruton write Wagner analysis as I'm very fond of philosophical/psychological take of Wagner's operas.


I believe that Wagner emphasis was on the psychology of the characters than on a philosophical positioning. There's an underlying philosophical context but the richness comes on how the characters act and react in that context. The emotional and the rational aspectsc are not separate as they cannot be separated in real life. That is the beauty of Wagner's dramas in my opinion. The emphasis on one or the other by each author or commentator reveals more about themselves than about the artist.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Wagner described Parsifal not as an opera, but as Ein Bühnenweihfestspiel ("A Festival Play for the Consecration of the Stage").[1] At Bayreuth a tradition has arisen that audiences do not applaud at the end of the first act.

Sounds pretty reverential to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Wagner described Parsifal not as an opera, but as Ein Bühnenweihfestspiel ("A Festival Play for the Consecration of the Stage").[1] At Bayreuth a tradition has arisen that audiences do not applaud at the end of the first act.
> 
> Sounds pretty reverential to me.


The German word "weihen" in "Buhnenweihfestpiel" can be translated as "dedicate" or "inaugurate" as well as "consecrate." It may or may not have a religious connotation.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> The German word "weihen" in "Buhnenweihfestpiel" can be translated as "dedicate" or "inaugurate" as well as "consecrate." It may or may not have a religious connotation.


Maybe true, but in everything i have read about Parsifal it always says consecration. And given the work itself Consecration seems more appropriate.


----------

