Nietzsche breaks with Wagner: the mortal insult

[Derrick Everett]

Anyone who has read either a biography of Richard Wagner or one of
Friedrich Nietzsche will know that these two iconoclasts became friends in
1868. Wagner was much older, of course, and it appears that he looked
upon the precocious professor of philology as an adopted son. Within a
decade the friends had drifted apart. In 1876 Nietzsche, plagued by
migraine, reacted to the first Bayreuth Festival with disgust. Already in
1874, as his notebooks reveal, Nietzsche became increasingly hostile to
Wagner and (from 1878) in particular to his 'Parsifal', the printed
libretto of which Wagner had sent to Nietzsche at the end of 1877. After
Wagner's death, Nietzsche wrote and published several polemical attacks on
his dead friend, in which, despite the negative thrust of his comments,
the reader is occasionally able to detect Nietzsche's undiminished
fascination with Wagner and his fond memories of a friendship that had
been "written in the stars".

The first book to be written about the relationship between Nietzsche and
Wagner was by Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth. It was published as a
personal tribute on what would have been her brother's seventieth
birthday. The story she told in 'Wagner und Nietzsche zur Zeit ihrer
Freundschaft' (in Caroline Kerr's English translation: 'The
Nietzsche-Wagner Correspondence') was built around the first -- and for
many years only -- edition of Wagner's letters to Nietzsche. Most of
Nietzsche's letters to Wagner were burned (along with Hans von Bülow's
letters to Cosima and many of Mathilde Wesendonk's letters to Richard
Wagner) in the great letter-burning frenzy of the Wagner family in 1909.
Elisabeth focussed mainly on the happy decade of the friendship between
Nietzsche and Wagner and had relatively little to say about their
estrangement. Her account of the breach between the two men has been
taken as factual by many later writers about them, although this and much
else in 'The Nietzsche-Wagner Correspondence' has been shown to be her
invention or subtle distortion of the actual events.

Since 1980 the publication of critical editions of Nietzsche's writings
(Sämtliche Werke), correspondence (Sämtliche Briefe) and his previously
unpublished notes (Nachlass), edited by Giorgio Colli and Mazzino
Montinari, has allowed a different and significantly more complicated
picture to emerge, in which Nietzsche's break from Wagner was more of a
gradual process, beginning around 1874. From this year it appears that
Nietzsche was ambivalent towards Richard Wagner and this ambivalence
continued to develop until his final collapse into insanity in 1889. It
is also almost certainly the case that he was in love with Cosima Wagner,
who was much younger than her husband and closer in age to Nietzsche.
Biographers and others who have written about the breach between Wagner
and Nietzsche, up to 1980 and even beyond, have relied upon Elisabeth's
account of the events leading up to the break. It is unfortunate that
most of these writers have chosen either to take Wagner's side or
Nietzsche's side in their accounts, applauding one party and denouncing
the other. A striking example of these debates is the guessing game that
commentators have played, trying to fathom the meaning of the "mortal
insult" which Nietzsche is said to have been dealt by Wagner. Those words
appear in a letter that Nietzsche wrote to Franz Overbeck on 21 February
1883, that is, a week after Wagner's death in Venice:

"Wagner was by far the fullest person I ever knew and in this sense I have
suffered great deprivation for the past six years. But there is something
between us like a mortal insult and it could have become terrible had he
lived any longer." ['Friedrich Nietzsche: Sämtliche Briefe', VI, 337]

One of the writers who took the side of Wagner against Nietzsche was Curt
von Westernhagen. In Germany in 1936 he published a book entitled
'Nietzsche, Juden Antijuden', in which he condemned the philosopher (who
was generally admired by most other Nazis) from a standpoint of National
Socialist ideology. The review in the 'Völkischer Beobachter' was
hostile. It appeared that bashing Nietzsche would not get the Nazi party
to prefer Wagner over the philosopher. After the war, Westernhagen (whom
many regarded as an unreconstructed Nazi) continued to attack Nietzsche.
One of the arguments he developed concerned the "mortal insult" that
Nietzsche mentioned in the letter quoted above. Westernhagen's theory has
been repeated by many other writers: Robert Gutman in 1968; D. Fischer-
Dieskau in 1974; Curt Paul Janz in 1978-9; Martin Gregor-Dellin in 1980;
and most recently Bryan Magee in 2000. Magee perpetuates the theory as
follows:

"What I believe to be the solution to this mystery came to light as
recently as 1956 [the year in which von Westernhagen's biography, 'Richard
Wagner: sein Werk, sein Wesen, sein Welt', appeared], when correspondence
between Wagner and a doctor who had examined Nietzsche emerged into
daylight for the first time, having been buried in the archives at
Bayreuth, where it still is. The nub of the story it reveals is this. In
1877 Nietzsche met in Switzerland a doctor from Frankfurt who was also a
passionate Wagnerian and had written an essay on 'The Ring'. This man,
Otto Eiser, was astounded to discover from Nietzsche that throughout all
those years of serious illness he had never once undergone a proper
medical examination. He invited Nietzsche to come and see him in
Frankfurt for this purpose, and Nietzsche did so. Between 3 and 7 of
October, Dr Eiser, together with an opthalmologist colleague and friend
called Dr Krüger, submitted Nietzsche to a thoroughgoing clinical
investigation. Both doctors detected severe and irreversible damage to
the retinas of his eyes, and diagnosed a chronic inflammatory condition in
his central nervous system as part-cause of his debilitating headaches.
Immediately afterwards Nietzsche wrote a letter to the Wagners in Bayreuth
telling them that there was 'bad news' about his health, and enclosing a
copy for them of Dr Eiser's essay on 'The Ring'. Wagner instructed his
newly acquired factotum Hans von Wolzogen to write to Dr Eiser thanking
him for the essay and asking if he could give any news about Nietzsche's
health. Eiser replied to this that there was, alas, a serious possibility
that poor young Nietzsche was going blind."

"At this point Wagner himself wrote to the doctor -- and now it needs to
be remembered that in the nineteenth century it was generally believed by
otherwise serious and intelligent people that masturbation put young males
in danger of going blind. Little boys were taught this in all sincerity
by anxious parents and it was widely accepted as a fact. Wagner wrote to
the doctor: 'In assessing Nietzsche's condition, I have long been reminded
of identical or very similar experiences with young men of great
intellectual ability. I discovered all too certainly that these were the
effects of masturbation. Ever since I observed Nietzsche closely, guided
by such experiences, all his traits of temperament and characteristic
habits have transformed my fear into a conviction.' He then urged the
doctor to do all he could to get Nietzsche to stop the practice, with the
characteristically Wagnerian observation: 'The friendly doctor undoubtedly
possesses an authority denied to the doctoring friend.'" [Wagner and
Philosophy (=The Tristan Chord) pages 335-336.]

Magee goes on to note that the correspondence between Wagner and the
doctor was leaked, most likely by Wolzogen. So by the next Bayreuth
Festival, in 1882, there was gossip that Nietzsche was going blind as the
result of excessive masturbation, perhaps even pederasty (which neither
Wagner nor Dr Eiser had suspected). Inevitably this was reported to
Nietzsche, perhaps by his sister or by his friend Lou Salomé. On 21
April 1883 Nietzsche wrote to one of his friends:

"Wagner is rich in malicious ideas but what do you say to his having
exchanged letters on the subject (even with my doctors) to voice his
belief that my altered way of thinking was a consequence of unnatural
excesses, with hints at pederasty?"

Magee comments: "There had actually been no hints at pederasty: this was
either an affronted Nietzsche's exaggeration or, more probably,
embellishment by the Bayreuth gossips." Despite what has been alleged by
Joachim Köhler -- who seems to believe that it explains not only
Nietzsche but also the later Wagner and much else besides -- there is no
evidence whatever to suggest that Nietzsche was homosexual. Magee follows
Westernhagen, Gutman and others in seeing in this unfortunate affair the
"mortal insult":

"This, I think, is the wound that explains so many things. The rumours
were not of the kind that Nietzsche could have mentioned, or would have
dreamt of wanting to mention, in his published writings, but they are more
than enough to explain the feeling he had for the rest of his life that he
had been intolerably wounded by Wagner, who had done him an unforgiveable
wrong. They explain why, when he talked about Wagner, he was so often
like a gored animal lashing out in blind fury. They explain why this
behaviour began at the time when it did, and why, crucially, it was so
oddly independent of his continuing perception of Wagner's greatness as
both man and artist. They explain why his later diatribes are, if
anything, more about Wagner's personal character than about his works, and
also the forms they most commonly take ('There's something sick about this
man!' and, 'I worshipped him but I was taken in: he betrayed me'), while
at the same time being so disappointing unbruising to the works
themselves; and they explain a lot of apparently muddled chronology in
what seem to be contradictory reactions and statements, especially about
'Parsifal'".

This is poppycock. Not least because some of those contradictory
reactions and statements predated Nietzsche's discovery that Wagner had
been corresponding with his doctor. Magee's repetition of the "mortal
insult" theory is all the more remarkable because the evidence that
undermines that theory had appeared twenty years earlier. In 1980 the
editors of Nietzsche's 'Sämtliche Werke' published (in volume 15), for
the first time, a letter from Nietzsche to Malwida von Meysenbug, which
had turned up in the papers of Romain Rolland. Meysenbug had been a
friend not only of Rolland but also of Nietzsche and Wagner (who called
her 'hideously ugly' but who also liked this outspoken proto-feminist).
Later the letter was included both in the 'Kritische Gesamtausgabe' of
Nietzsche's correspondence (III, 2) and in the 'Kritische Studienausgabe'
(VI, 335). The letter is dated 21 February 1883, that is, the same day as
the letter, quoted earlier, that mentions the "mortal insult"! Now that
passage, on which von Westernhagen built a theory that became accepted by
Gutman and others, appeared in a different light. Nietzsche wrote to
Malwida as follows:

"W[agner] insulted me in a mortal manner -- I insist on telling you what
it is! -- His slow retreat and creeping back to Christianity and to the
Church I felt as a personal affront to me: my whole youth and the
direction I was taking seemed to me to be tainted, inasmuch as I had paid
homage to a mind that was capable of such a step."

Dieter Borchmeyer has commented (in his article, 'Wagner Literature: a
German Embarassment', in 'Wagner', vol.12, no.2, 1991): "The 'mortal
insult' suffered by Nietzsche refers, therefore, to Wagner's act of
self-abasement before the Cross. It is Wagner's allegedly sudden espousal
of Christianity in and with 'Parsifal' that he gives as the actual reason
for his estrangement. Mazzino Montinari set forth all these facts with
irrefutable logic in the proceedings of the 1983 Turin conference,
'Richard Wagner e Nietzsche'." (Proceedings of that conference were edited
by Enrico Fubini and published in 1984 as, 'Richard Wagner e Friedrich
Nietzsche').

It is unfortunate that Bryan Magee has overlooked these discoveries and
chosen to perpetuate a theory, developed by Westernhagen and repeated by
Gutman and others, that had long been discredited (like much else put
forward by Westernhagen and Gutman respectively). Wagner's "betrayal" of
Nietzsche was his conversion to Christianity and his creation of a drama
that Nietzsche regarded as not only Christian but Roman Catholic in its
theology. Oddly, Wagner never understood why Nietzsche arrived at those
conclusions.

[John Koehler]

Manfred Eger, in a recent and rather extensive study, adds that Nietzsche's
disappointment with the Master actually developed when he rejected the
philosopher's musical compositions as being merely the work of a dilletante.
http://www.dieter-david-scholz.de/Rezensionen_Interviews/dieter_david_scholz_rezension_eger.htm

I am only one third of the way through this tome. It is indeed fascinating.

The split between these two men is something I still cannot understand, no
matter what the theory, and surely Nietzsche was intimate enough with
Wagner's thought to realize his use of Christian symbolism was not
necessarily an endorsement of Rome or organized religion.

In the rec.music.classical.recordings newsgroup there are periodically spats
of such thrilling invective, two or more educated, humanist, well-read
people, some actually involved in the classical music "industry" (producers,
reviewers)... it astonishes me that the mental balsam of great music does
not alleviate some of these selfish, unreasoned, all-too-human passions!
And the arguments are almost always trivial.

Perhaps something simple and similar lies at the bottom of the RW/FN
divorce.

Lurking here in the RW group is ALWAYS a positive education, for which I am
grateful.

regards, jk (NO relation to Joachim Crumbum)

[Derrick Everett]

Post by John Koehler
Manfred Eger, in a recent and rather extensive study, adds that
Nietzsche's disappointment with the Master actually developed when he
rejected the philosopher's musical compositions as being merely the work
of a dilletante.
http://www.dieter-david-scholz.de/Rezensionen_Interviews/dieter_david_scholz_rezension_eger.htm
I am only one third of the way through this tome. It is indeed fascinating.

Wagner's dismissal of Nietzsche's musical compositions might have added
another brick to the wall that they built between each other. Wagner was
rarely sensitive to the feelings of others, of course, but I am sure that
his criticisms were intended to be helpful. Whether or not Nietzsche
intended to repay Wagner in the same coin when he later called him, in
print, a dilettante, then in my view he was on target. When he drifted
away from his core business of music and theatre into other fields, Wagner
*was* a dilettante, just as much as Nietzsche was when dabbling in musical
composition.

In an article that I cited in my previous posting, Dieter Borchmeyer was
quite harsh in his criticism of Manfred Eger's previous book on this
subject ('"Wenn ich Wagern den Krieg mache ...": Der Fall Nietzsche und
das Menschliche, Allzumenschliche', Vienna, 1988). In this book Eger had
attributed the split to personal reasons, on Nietzsche's part, rather than
to matters of principle. Borchmeyer called his approach "recidivist" and
one that "lapses into ways of thinking long since abandoned in scholarly
writings on Nietzsche". Amongst other criticisms, he writes: "... Eger
repeatedly overplays his hand, as, for example, when he discusses the
psychological effect of Wagner's all too deserving dismissal of
Nietzsche's attempts at composition."

Eger's title refers to Nietzsche's 'Menschliches, Allzumenschliches',
which contained his first public criticism of Wagner and which is
significant as the first public evidence of the split between them. The
first part of this book arrived in Bayreuth in April 1878. In 'Ecce Homo'
Nietzsche spoke of an ominous "crossing of the two books". The other was
the printed libretto of 'Parsifal', which Wagner had sent to Nietzsche
four months earlier, with the humorous dedication from Richard Wagner,
"Oberkirchenrath" (High Councillor of the Church). So in fact the books
did not "cross" each other.

Post by John Koehler
The split between these two men is something I still cannot understand,
no matter what the theory, and surely Nietzsche was intimate enough with
Wagner's thought to realize his use of Christian symbolism was not
necessarily an endorsement of Rome or organized religion.

Nietzsche would often write of misunderstandings, such as: "... when
listening to this music [of 'Parsifal'] one lays Protestantism aside as a
misunderstanding". Elsewhere he wrote that Christianity itself was a
misunderstanding (a view with which Wagner would have agreed, perhaps to
Nietzsche's surprise) and even that Richard Wagner was a misunderstanding.
Whether any of those things were misunderstandings, it seems to me that
Nietzsche's reaction to 'Parsifal' was indeed a misunderstanding, one that
has served to consolidate the widespread view that this drama is a parable
based on some kind of Christian theology (one that various writers have
tried to decode, without success).

It is also remarkable that this reaction was so very delayed. Already at
Christmas 1869, Nietzsche had read through the Prose Draft of 'Parsifal'
(then still called 'Parzival') with Cosima:

"Family lunch; afterward read 'Parzival' with Prof. Nietzsche, renewed
feelings of awe." [Cosimas Tagebücher, entry for 25 December 1869]

It is unlikely that they were reading Wolfram von Eschenbach. Even if the
feelings of awe were restricted to Cosima herself, there is nothing here
to indicate any aversion to Wagner's draft on the part of Nietzsche. The
libretto which Wagner completed eight years later and which was printed in
December 1877 follows the 1865 Prose Draft closely (there are some minor
changes, such as the addition of the spear that stops in mid-air at the
end of the second act). So when Nietzsche received a printed libretto in
January 1878, the contents could hardly have come as a surprise. So how
and why did Nietzsche get the idea that Wagner had fallen before the
Cross?

How could Nietzsche believe that Wagner, who for the entire decade of
their friendship had been paranoid that the Jesuits (in league with the
Jews) were out to get him, had suddenly cried, "Nach Rom!"? If Nietzsche
had ever discussed Christianity with Wagner, as he must have done many
times during that decade, then he would have known that Wagner rejected
all forms of organised religion. The mystery that remains to be solved, I
believe, is that Nietzsche developed a wrongheaded interpretation of
'Parsifal', eight years after his first contact with Wagner's project.

<snip>

Post by John Koehler
Lurking here in the RW group is ALWAYS a positive education, for which I
am grateful.
regards, jk (NO relation to Joachim Crumbum)

ROFL. Please jump in to our discussions whenever it suits you!

[Mike Scott Rohan]

The message <***@c2i.net>
from Derrick Everett <***@c2i.net> contains these words:

{snip}

Post by Derrick Everett
How could Nietzsche believe that Wagner, who for the entire decade of
their friendship had been paranoid that the Jesuits (in league with the
Jews) were out to get him, had suddenly cried, "Nach Rom!"? If Nietzsche
had ever discussed Christianity with Wagner, as he must have done many
times during that decade, then he would have known that Wagner rejected
all forms of organised religion. The mystery that remains to be solved, I
believe, is that Nietzsche developed a wrongheaded interpretation of
'Parsifal', eight years after his first contact with Wagner's project.

My knowledge of Nietzsche is limited, but I think that his developing
mental illness would be quite sufficient explanation. There are
parallels in other cases -- Sir Walter Scott's German secretary is one.
It seems that symptoms like paranoia often appear in muted form long
before anything identifiable as illness develops, and as they grow
stronger can quite suddenly fasten on particular objects as the source
of the supposed persecution, often someone important in their lives.
Scott's secretary, to whom he'd been a generous benefactor and something
of a hero, suddenly tried to murder him, heralding a rapid descent into
hopeless insanity. Nietzsche's fixation with Cosima might well have
contributed.

Post by Derrick Everett
<snip>

Post by John Koehler
Lurking here in the RW group is ALWAYS a positive education, for which I
am grateful.
regards, jk (NO relation to Joachim Crumbum)

ROFL. Please jump in to our discussions whenever it suits you!

Absolutely. You're educating us!

Cheers,

Mike

[Charles Zigmund]

Derrick Everett <***@c2i.net> wrote in message news:<***@c2i.net>...

"...How could Nietzsche believe that Wagner, who for the entire decade
of

Post by Derrick Everett
their friendship had been paranoid that the Jesuits (in league with the
Jews) were out to get him, had suddenly cried, "Nach Rom!"? If Nietzsche
had ever discussed Christianity with Wagner, as he must have done many
times during that decade, then he would have known that Wagner rejected
all forms of organised religion. The mystery that remains to be solved, I
believe, is that Nietzsche developed a wrongheaded interpretation of
'Parsifal', eight years after his first contact with Wagner's project."

If 'Parsifal' is not about Christianity, why is it so full of
Christian iconography? Wagner's position by the late 1870s was surely
so eminent that had he mounted an opera about Buddha, people would
have flocked to see it. However unwonted the subject, he would have
brought in the crowds, so he didn't need a Christian theme to 'cover'
for his real theme.

Can the work be seen as a plea for Christianity, whether organized or
not, to be reinvigorated with the spirit of Buddhism? If not, I don't
understand why it is so laden with Christian elements.

[Derrick Everett]

Post by Charles Zigmund
"...How could Nietzsche believe that Wagner, who for the entire decade
of

Post by Derrick Everett
their friendship had been paranoid that the Jesuits (in league with the
Jews) were out to get him, had suddenly cried, "Nach Rom!"? If
Nietzsche had ever discussed Christianity with Wagner, as he must have
done many times during that decade, then he would have known that
Wagner rejected all forms of organised religion. The mystery that
remains to be solved, I believe, is that Nietzsche developed a
wrongheaded interpretation of 'Parsifal', eight years after his first
contact with Wagner's project."

If 'Parsifal' is not about Christianity, why is it so full of Christian
iconography? Wagner's position by the late 1870s was surely so eminent
that had he mounted an opera about Buddha, people would have flocked to
see it. However unwonted the subject, he would have brought in the
crowds, so he didn't need a Christian theme to 'cover' for his real
theme.
Can the work be seen as a plea for Christianity, whether organized or
not, to be reinvigorated with the spirit of Buddhism? If not, I don't
understand why it is so laden with Christian elements.

In a word, "resonance". Wagner was aware that Greek tragedy had resonated
with the Athenian audiences because they were already familiar with their
myths. In developing his 'Ring' cycle, Wagner faced the problem of
finding similar resonances in a public that had largely lost contact with
myth. In his projects (two of them abandoned and one completed) on
religious subjects, Wagner tried to make use of the potential for
resonance that was found in his public's experience of religion.

When he began developing a scenario for a drama based on Buddhist legend
(the prose sketch for 'Die Sieger' or 'The Victors' is dated 16 May 1856),
he faced an even greater difficulty in this respect. Although it was
possible to write an opera that made use of oriental elements (such as
"Pearl Fishers" or "Lakme"), when dealing with religious ideas, it was
difficult to resonate with a public that understood little or nothing
about oriental spirituality. The story on which 'The Victors' is based
concerns the Buddha preaching against caste. Both in the original and in
Wagner's adaptation, key elements of the story are the related ideas of
reincarnation and of karma from earlier lives affecting a later life.
These ideas would be quite alien to a 19th century European audience and
so, I believe, Wagner was unable to proceed with 'The Victors' because he
could not get around this obstacle.

In 'Parsifal', by contrast, the ideas of karma and reincarnation are
subtly introduced and, although they are important underlying ideas, the
audience is not asked to understand them. It might even escape the notice
of the audience, at least on seeing 'Parsifal' for the first time, that
there are some decidedly unorthodox aspects to the supposedly Christian
community that protects the Grail: the old knight Gurnemanz speaks of
Kundry's former lives, from which she might be carrying a burden of sin;
and Kundry reminds two of the knights that in this domain the animals are
sacred (which is the case in Buddhism but not in Christianity or Judaism).

What is most obvious to a European audience -- just as much today as in
1882 -- are the visible Christian elements, such as the references to the
passion of Christ. It is certainly not obvious, to a European audience,
that there are definite references to the life of the Buddha in the first
and second acts of 'Parsifal'. Even today, many people, I have found, are
resistant to this idea until -- if they allow it -- those references have
been explained to them. The subtle fusion of Christian and Buddhist
doctrines in the third act is appreciated only by those who know a little
about both religions and who know that Wagner believed there to be a
common kernel of religious truth that was shared by these and other
religions. It has also escaped the attention of most commentators on
'Parsifal' that, while the religious ritual of the first act Grail scene
is reminiscent of a Christian eucharist, that of the third act Grail scene
is more closely related to the temple rituals of Tibetan Buddhism. It
seems to me remarkable that Nietzsche, who probably knew as much about
oriental religions as Wagner and who had been a disciple of Schopenhauer,
was unable to see the non-Christian references in 'Parsifal'.

It should be added that Wagner did not intend his spiritual hero,
Parsifal, to represent either Christ or the Buddha (Shakyamuni). It is
clear to me at least that he intended to show in Parsifal what we might
call the "redeemer archetype". Therefore in the second act, when Kundry
believes that the one whom she has sought from world to world has returned
to forgive and release her, she recognises in Parsifal an archetype that
she had met once before. When in the first and second acts Wagner uses --
as structural elements and not, as some have wrongly assumed, as
decoration -- specific and critical events in the life of the Buddha,
which happen on stage not involving Shakyamuni but another example of the
"redeemer archetype", he is showing a mythic pattern. For Wagner, the
history of religion involved mythic patterns that repeat themselves, just
as -- he believed -- mythic patterns repeated in all history. Each time
this particular mythic pattern repeats itself -- as it did at the time of
the Buddha, and again five hundred years later by the Sea of Galilee --
the Redeemer had been redeemed.

[Charles Zigmund]

Thank you.

Post by Derrick Everett

Post by Charles Zigmund
"...How could Nietzsche believe that Wagner, who for the entire decade
of

Post by Derrick Everett
their friendship had been paranoid that the Jesuits (in league with the
Jews) were out to get him, had suddenly cried, "Nach Rom!"? If
Nietzsche had ever discussed Christianity with Wagner, as he must have
done many times during that decade, then he would have known that
Wagner rejected all forms of organised religion. The mystery that
remains to be solved, I believe, is that Nietzsche developed a
wrongheaded interpretation of 'Parsifal', eight years after his first
contact with Wagner's project."

If 'Parsifal' is not about Christianity, why is it so full of Christian
iconography? Wagner's position by the late 1870s was surely so eminent
that had he mounted an opera about Buddha, people would have flocked to
see it. However unwonted the subject, he would have brought in the
crowds, so he didn't need a Christian theme to 'cover' for his real
theme.
Can the work be seen as a plea for Christianity, whether organized or
not, to be reinvigorated with the spirit of Buddhism? If not, I don't
understand why it is so laden with Christian elements.

In a word, "resonance". Wagner was aware that Greek tragedy had resonated
with the Athenian audiences because they were already familiar with their
myths. In developing his 'Ring' cycle, Wagner faced the problem of
finding similar resonances in a public that had largely lost contact with
myth. In his projects (two of them abandoned and one completed) on
religious subjects, Wagner tried to make use of the potential for
resonance that was found in his public's experience of religion.
When he began developing a scenario for a drama based on Buddhist legend
(the prose sketch for 'Die Sieger' or 'The Victors' is dated 16 May 1856),
he faced an even greater difficulty in this respect. Although it was
possible to write an opera that made use of oriental elements (such as
"Pearl Fishers" or "Lakme"), when dealing with religious ideas, it was
difficult to resonate with a public that understood little or nothing
about oriental spirituality. The story on which 'The Victors' is based
concerns the Buddha preaching against caste. Both in the original and in
Wagner's adaptation, key elements of the story are the related ideas of
reincarnation and of karma from earlier lives affecting a later life.
These ideas would be quite alien to a 19th century European audience and
so, I believe, Wagner was unable to proceed with 'The Victors' because he
could not get around this obstacle.
In 'Parsifal', by contrast, the ideas of karma and reincarnation are
subtly introduced and, although they are important underlying ideas, the
audience is not asked to understand them. It might even escape the notice
of the audience, at least on seeing 'Parsifal' for the first time, that
there are some decidedly unorthodox aspects to the supposedly Christian
community that protects the Grail: the old knight Gurnemanz speaks of
Kundry's former lives, from which she might be carrying a burden of sin;
and Kundry reminds two of the knights that in this domain the animals are
sacred (which is the case in Buddhism but not in Christianity or Judaism).
What is most obvious to a European audience -- just as much today as in
1882 -- are the visible Christian elements, such as the references to the
passion of Christ. It is certainly not obvious, to a European audience,
that there are definite references to the life of the Buddha in the first
and second acts of 'Parsifal'. Even today, many people, I have found, are
resistant to this idea until -- if they allow it -- those references have
been explained to them. The subtle fusion of Christian and Buddhist
doctrines in the third act is appreciated only by those who know a little
about both religions and who know that Wagner believed there to be a
common kernel of religious truth that was shared by these and other
religions. It has also escaped the attention of most commentators on
'Parsifal' that, while the religious ritual of the first act Grail scene
is reminiscent of a Christian eucharist, that of the third act Grail scene
is more closely related to the temple rituals of Tibetan Buddhism. It
seems to me remarkable that Nietzsche, who probably knew as much about
oriental religions as Wagner and who had been a disciple of Schopenhauer,
was unable to see the non-Christian references in 'Parsifal'.
It should be added that Wagner did not intend his spiritual hero,
Parsifal, to represent either Christ or the Buddha (Shakyamuni). It is
clear to me at least that he intended to show in Parsifal what we might
call the "redeemer archetype". Therefore in the second act, when Kundry
believes that the one whom she has sought from world to world has returned
to forgive and release her, she recognises in Parsifal an archetype that
she had met once before. When in the first and second acts Wagner uses --
as structural elements and not, as some have wrongly assumed, as
decoration -- specific and critical events in the life of the Buddha,
which happen on stage not involving Shakyamuni but another example of the
"redeemer archetype", he is showing a mythic pattern. For Wagner, the
history of religion involved mythic patterns that repeat themselves, just
as -- he believed -- mythic patterns repeated in all history. Each time
this particular mythic pattern repeats itself -- as it did at the time of
the Buddha, and again five hundred years later by the Sea of Galilee --
the Redeemer had been redeemed.

[michael]

Post by Derrick Everett
In a word, "resonance". Wagner was aware that Greek tragedy had resonated
with the Athenian audiences because they were already familiar with their
myths. In developing his 'Ring' cycle, Wagner faced the problem of
finding similar resonances in a public that had largely lost contact with
myth. In his projects (two of them abandoned and one completed) on
religious subjects, Wagner tried to make use of the potential for
resonance that was found in his public's experience of religion.

Anent the above, the other day I came across this in Lowes Dickenson's
1896 "Greek View of Life". Dickenson, as some my know, was a Cambridge
lecturer and has been described as an intellectual, an essayist, "the
best man that ever lived" (by EM Forster), and a pederastic invert with
a fetish for shoes. A lot for any lifetime, I guess. But his book on
Greek life was evidently widely used as a text and is well respected,
even today, I think.

"The nearest modern analogy to what the ancient drama must have been is
to be be found probably in the operas of Wagner, who indeed was strongly
influenced by the tragedy of the Greeks. It was his ideal, like theirs,
to combine the various branches of art, employing not only music but
poetry, sculpture, painting, and dance, for the representation of his
dramatic theme; and his conception also to make art the interpreter of
life, reflecting in a national drama the national consciousness, the
highest action and the deepest passion and thought of the German
race...The comparison may be recommended to those who are anxious to
form a concrete idea of what the effect of a Greek tragedy may have
been, and to clothe in imagination the dead bones of the literary text
with the flesh and blood of a representation to the sense."

michael

[Mike Scott Rohan]

The message <***@c2i.net>
from Derrick Everett <***@c2i.net> contains these words:

{snip}

Post by Derrick Everett
It should be added that Wagner did not intend his spiritual hero,
Parsifal, to represent either Christ or the Buddha (Shakyamuni).

Indeed, and it infuriated him when people assumed otherwise. "The idea
of making Christ a tenor!" he's reported to have growled.

Cheers,

Mike

[Derrick Everett]

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
{snip}

Post by Derrick Everett
It should be added that Wagner did not intend his spiritual hero,
Parsifal, to represent either Christ or the Buddha (Shakyamuni).

Indeed, and it infuriated him when people assumed otherwise. "The idea
of making Christ a tenor!" he's reported to have growled.

Or, as I recall Richard Burton delivering the line in Tony Palmer's
overextended Wagner film: "CHRIST!!! a TENOR???"

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by Charles Zigmund
"...How could Nietzsche believe that Wagner, who for the entire decade
of

Post by Derrick Everett
their friendship had been paranoid that the Jesuits (in league with the
Jews) were out to get him, had suddenly cried, "Nach Rom!"? If Nietzsche
had ever discussed Christianity with Wagner, as he must have done many
times during that decade, then he would have known that Wagner rejected
all forms of organised religion. The mystery that remains to be solved, I
believe, is that Nietzsche developed a wrongheaded interpretation of
'Parsifal', eight years after his first contact with Wagner's project."

If 'Parsifal' is not about Christianity, why is it so full of
Christian iconography? Wagner's position by the late 1870s was surely
so eminent that had he mounted an opera about Buddha, people would
have flocked to see it. However unwonted the subject, he would have
brought in the crowds, so he didn't need a Christian theme to 'cover'
for his real theme.

There is a difference between a Christian work and a work about
Christianity. It's not at all a subtle one, but Nietzsche seems to have
refused to understand it. It is not a Christian work in the sense that
the St. Matthew Passion is, or even agnostically motivated but still
Christian-based works like the Deutsches Requiem or Sancta Civitas.
Parsifal is the latter, a work centering on a Christian myth but
interpreted through -- well, you could call it Wagner's pantheism, or
since that is only approximately true, simply his wider spiritual
beliefs. These led him to leaven it with strongly Buddhist elements, but
I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a Buddhist work, if that's
what you mean -- it is more an attempt to reconcile Christianity with
Buddhism in a synthesis of belief. In the same way the Ring is a Norse
mythical synthesis interpreted in much wider terms -- although never
losing sight of the Norse original.

Why Nietzsche was unable to appreciate this is a moot point. Since the
distinction is so obvious, I'd say it has to be considered a deliberate
blindness, motivated by unreasonable hatred -- whether of Wagner or
Christianity or both.

Post by Charles Zigmund
Can the work be seen as a plea for Christianity, whether organized or
not, to be reinvigorated with the spirit of Buddhism? If not, I don't
understand why it is so laden with Christian elements.

It is certainly not a plea for Christianity per se -- nothing so narrow.
Wagner did not consider himself any kind of Christian -- hence his much
misinterpreted joke about getting Levi baptised before he could conduct
it. He actually included himself and another non-Christian on the team
as well. What he was saying boiled down to "look at we three heathens
mucking about with sacred Christian themes!"

Cheers,

Mike

[michael]

Post by Derrick Everett
In 1876 Nietzsche, plagued by
migraine...

http://home.cfl.rr.com/mpresley1/fn.pdf for something I came across if
you haven't seen it already.

Post by Derrick Everett
After
Wagner's death, Nietzsche wrote and published several polemical attacks on
his dead friend, in which, despite the negative thrust of his comments,
the reader is occasionally able to detect Nietzsche's undiminished
fascination with Wagner and his fond memories of a friendship...

Sometimes one has the impression that FN is directly criticising
Wagner...other times the impression is that his critique is with
Wagnerism.

Post by Derrick Everett
It
is also almost certainly the case that he was in love with Cosima Wagner,

Inspite of the real 'stictly philosophical' differences between the two,
I think that this aspect of the relationship cannot be ignored, even
though HOW it manifested in Nietzsche's thinking is something that we
can only speculate upon. Certainly, nothing can be definitively implied.

Post by Derrick Everett
"At this point Wagner himself wrote to the doctor -- and now it needs to
be remembered that in the nineteenth century it was generally believed by
otherwise serious and intelligent people that masturbation put young males
in danger of going blind.

But mom...couldn't I just keep it up until I need glasses? [Sorry,
sometimes in my seriousness I just can't help myself...]

Post by Derrick Everett
Magee comments: "There had actually been no hints at pederasty: this was
either an affronted Nietzsche's exaggeration or, more probably,
embellishment by the Bayreuth gossips." Despite what has been alleged by
Joachim Köhler --

Kohler appears to be just out to sell some books using outrageous and
unsupported allegations.

Post by Derrick Everett
Dieter Borchmeyer has commented (in his article, 'Wagner Literature: a
German Embarassment', in 'Wagner', vol.12, no.2, 1991): "The 'mortal
insult' suffered by Nietzsche refers, therefore, to Wagner's act of
self-abasement before the Cross. It is Wagner's allegedly sudden espousal
of Christianity in and with 'Parsifal' that he gives as the actual reason
for his estrangement. Mazzino Montinari set forth all these facts with
irrefutable logic in the proceedings of the 1983 Turin conference,
'Richard Wagner e Nietzsche'." (Proceedings of that conference were edited
by Enrico Fubini and published in 1984 as, 'Richard Wagner e Friedrich
Nietzsche').
It is unfortunate that Bryan Magee has overlooked these discoveries and
chosen to perpetuate a theory, developed by Westernhagen and repeated by
Gutman and others, that had long been discredited (like much else put
forward by Westernhagen and Gutman respectively). Wagner's "betrayal" of
Nietzsche was his conversion to Christianity and his creation of a drama
that Nietzsche regarded as not only Christian but Roman Catholic in its
theology. Oddly, Wagner never understood why Nietzsche arrived at those
conclusions.

Sorry...I don't have the books in front of me at the moment, but I
believe that in one of his books (Tristan Chord?) Magee discusses
Wagner's 'Christianity' and comes to the conclusion that, in light of
his [Wagner's] philosophical beliefs (particularly, the Schopenhauer
material), any view that Wagner was a Christian in any formal sense of
the word is wrongheaded.

michael

[Derrick Everett]

<snip>

Post by michael

Post by Derrick Everett
Dieter Borchmeyer has commented (in his article, 'Wagner Literature: a
German Embarassment', in 'Wagner', vol.12, no.2, 1991): "The 'mortal
insult' suffered by Nietzsche refers, therefore, to Wagner's act of
self-abasement before the Cross. It is Wagner's allegedly sudden
espousal of Christianity in and with 'Parsifal' that he gives as the
actual reason for his estrangement. Mazzino Montinari set forth all
these facts with irrefutable logic in the proceedings of the 1983 Turin
conference, 'Richard Wagner e Nietzsche'." (Proceedings of that
conference were edited by Enrico Fubini and published in 1984 as,
'Richard Wagner e Friedrich Nietzsche').
It is unfortunate that Bryan Magee has overlooked these discoveries and
chosen to perpetuate a theory, developed by Westernhagen and repeated
by Gutman and others, that had long been discredited (like much else
put forward by Westernhagen and Gutman respectively). Wagner's
"betrayal" of Nietzsche was his conversion to Christianity and his
creation of a drama that Nietzsche regarded as not only Christian but
Roman Catholic in its theology. Oddly, Wagner never understood why
Nietzsche arrived at those conclusions.

Sorry...I don't have the books in front of me at the moment, but I
believe that in one of his books (Tristan Chord?) Magee discusses
Wagner's 'Christianity' and comes to the conclusion that, in light of
his [Wagner's] philosophical beliefs (particularly, the Schopenhauer
material), any view that Wagner was a Christian in any formal sense of
the word is wrongheaded.

Briefly, I agree with Magee about this, at least in outline. Wagner had a
consistently negative attitude towards organised religion in general.
Yet, as Alan David Aberbach has shown, Wagner was always interested in
spirituality and mysticism. In his last decade he became interested in
Church history and especially in the origins of Christianity, as discussed
by contemporary writers such as Ernest Renan and A.F. Gfrörer.

His attitude towards and ideas about Christianity (and so indirectly
about Judaism and the Old Testament) were complex and they developed over
the years. As Magee explains, they were influenced (especially in the
period 1849-1853) by Feuerbach and then (after 1854) by Schopenhauer.
Nietzsche was probably right in his view that in his later years, Wagner's
attitude to religion had been modified by the influence of his second
wife Cosima who, like her father Franz Liszt, tended towards piety. During
those years Wagner seems to have taken a liking to Christian ritual and
sacraments, although he refused to acknowledge any dogmas or doctrines.

In the final analysis, however, I agree that Wagner was not a Christian
"in any formal sense of the word". He developed the view that whatever
was specific to any religion, denomination or sect was probably error and
misunderstanding, whereas that on which all religions, denominations and
sects (more or less) agreed was the kernel of religious truth. He stated
that this kernel of religious truth had been preached by all the great
saints, sages and religious teachers throughout the ages, but that much
of that kernel had been misunderstood by their disciples and distorted in
scriptures that (as biblical scholars were then beginning to realise) had
been written down and consolidated only generations after it had been
revealed to those disciples. He also held that this kernel of truth could
be found in the philosophy of Schopenhauer, who had acknowledged that many
of his philosophical ideas had already appeared "in religious clothing".

I intend to discuss these matters in more depth in the chapter on "Wagner
and Religion" in my book about 'Parsifal'.

[michael]

Post by Derrick Everett
I intend to discuss these matters in more depth in the chapter on "Wagner
and Religion" in my book about 'Parsifal'.

Any chance for an hmca Newsgroup participant discount? :-)

michael

[Charles Zigmund]

Post by Derrick Everett
<snip>

Post by michael

Post by Derrick Everett
Dieter Borchmeyer has commented (in his article, 'Wagner Literature: a
German Embarassment', in 'Wagner', vol.12, no.2, 1991): "The 'mortal
insult' suffered by Nietzsche refers, therefore, to Wagner's act of
self-abasement before the Cross. It is Wagner's allegedly sudden
espousal of Christianity in and with 'Parsifal' that he gives as the
actual reason for his estrangement. Mazzino Montinari set forth all
these facts with irrefutable logic in the proceedings of the 1983 Turin
conference, 'Richard Wagner e Nietzsche'." (Proceedings of that
conference were edited by Enrico Fubini and published in 1984 as,
'Richard Wagner e Friedrich Nietzsche').
It is unfortunate that Bryan Magee has overlooked these discoveries and
chosen to perpetuate a theory, developed by Westernhagen and repeated
by Gutman and others, that had long been discredited (like much else
put forward by Westernhagen and Gutman respectively). Wagner's
"betrayal" of Nietzsche was his conversion to Christianity and his
creation of a drama that Nietzsche regarded as not only Christian but
Roman Catholic in its theology. Oddly, Wagner never understood why
Nietzsche arrived at those conclusions.

Sorry...I don't have the books in front of me at the moment, but I
believe that in one of his books (Tristan Chord?) Magee discusses
Wagner's 'Christianity' and comes to the conclusion that, in light of
his [Wagner's] philosophical beliefs (particularly, the Schopenhauer
material), any view that Wagner was a Christian in any formal sense of
the word is wrongheaded.

Briefly, I agree with Magee about this, at least in outline. Wagner had a
consistently negative attitude towards organised religion in general.
Yet, as Alan David Aberbach has shown, Wagner was always interested in
spirituality and mysticism. In his last decade he became interested in
Church history and especially in the origins of Christianity, as discussed
by contemporary writers such as Ernest Renan and A.F. Gfrörer.
His attitude towards and ideas about Christianity (and so indirectly
about Judaism and the Old Testament) were complex and they developed over
the years. As Magee explains, they were influenced (especially in the
period 1849-1853) by Feuerbach and then (after 1854) by Schopenhauer.
Nietzsche was probably right in his view that in his later years, Wagner's
attitude to religion had been modified by the influence of his second
wife Cosima who, like her father Franz Liszt, tended towards piety. During
those years Wagner seems to have taken a liking to Christian ritual and
sacraments, although he refused to acknowledge any dogmas or doctrines.
In the final analysis, however, I agree that Wagner was not a Christian
"in any formal sense of the word". He developed the view that whatever
was specific to any religion, denomination or sect was probably error and
misunderstanding, whereas that on which all religions, denominations and
sects (more or less) agreed was the kernel of religious truth. He stated
that this kernel of religious truth had been preached by all the great
saints, sages and religious teachers throughout the ages, but that much
of that kernel had been misunderstood by their disciples and distorted in
scriptures that (as biblical scholars were then beginning to realise) had
been written down and consolidated only generations after it had been
revealed to those disciples. He also held that this kernel of truth could
be found in the philosophy of Schopenhauer, who had acknowledged that many
of his philosophical ideas had already appeared "in religious clothing".
I intend to discuss these matters in more depth in the chapter on "Wagner
and Religion" in my book about 'Parsifal'.

I welcome the news that this book is being written. I'm glad you have
overcome your scruples about a project that will probably remain
incomplete in many ways unless you had a hundred fifty years or more
to work on it. The book should definitely be written and shared with
the world.

[Tauser]

While hardly able to claim serious scholarship here, I have a hunch the rift
between RW and Nietzsche occurred over sexual issues rather than religious or
philosophical.....and I am thinking particularly about the business where RW
made an allusion to Nietzsche's failing eyesight being caused by too frequent
masturbation (the common medical opinion at that time and place). And Nietzsche
preferred to talk about religion rather than explore his own homosexuality.
Tauser

[Derrick Everett]

Post by Tauser
While hardly able to claim serious scholarship here, I have a hunch the
rift between RW and Nietzsche occurred over sexual issues rather than
religious or philosophical.....and I am thinking particularly about the
business where RW made an allusion to Nietzsche's failing eyesight being
caused by too frequent masturbation (the common medical opinion at that
time and place). And Nietzsche preferred to talk about religion rather
than explore his own homosexuality. Tauser

The rift had already taken place, and indeed widened, before Nietzsche
knew that Wagner had written to his doctor suggesting that self-abuse was
the cause of Nietzsche's poor health. If Robert Gutman had paid any
attention to chronology then he might not have endorsed this theory, which
I believe originated in von Westernhagen's attempt to put all the blame
for the split on Nietzsche. It takes two sides, however, to quarrel. The
idea that Nietzsche was homosexual is an invention of Joachim Köhler, who
writes more to shock his readers than to inform them.