THe Wagner Group
Paul Lower
It is quite interesting that the group is not falling out with each other
and posting highly intellectual messages that contradict each other. Peace
reigns. Wagner has only so many controversial issues and maybe these have
been exhausted. Fat chance.
I love this music and it is a pity there are so many anally retentive nerds
hooked on it too.
Who cares if Hitler was a fan. He also liked Franz Lehar. He was a
vegetarian and an animal lover. I am not.
My father was in the RAF but my cousins were probably in the SS in WW2.
Wagner to me represents the soul of Germany and I love his music. I can hear
it playing when I visit certain parts of the country. I am determined that
music is to be enjoyed and not intellectualized over. Who cares that the
plots don't add up, the the music is repeated and the plot reiterated from
time to time. I don't want to agonies over the motives of the various
characters. What comes around, comes around. Leitmotifs, dreadful betrayals
all emend up where it started.
In the Rhine. Sorry if this post is Ring Centric. The other operas are also
superb.
Peace and Love as ringo said
Paul
Bert Coules
> Who cares that the plots don't add up...
In what way do the plots not "add up"?
Bert
Richard Partridge
following:
What a question!
One example: in the second act of Die W�lk�re Fricka argues with Wotan and
points out that his plan for the W�lsungs is flawed. If they attack Fafner
or take the ring from him, as Wotan had intended, it would be seen as, and
would actually be, Wotan's act and hence forbidden by his treaty with the
giants.
Wotan loves his children -- later in the opera we see the manifestation of
his rage and grief at what is to happen to Siegmund. He has to admit that
Fricka is right. Why was it not open to him to tell her, "Very well, I see
that you are right about my plan for them to take the ring from Fafner, and
I have to abandon that plan, but it does not by any means follow that they
must die. They have led a hard life up till now, and they deserve some
peace and happiness. I'll let them live out their lives together, and of
course I'll have to make sure that they stay away from Fafner."
Wagner couldn't write it that way because it would not lead to the later
plot developments that he intended. So he made Wotan agree to kill
Siegmund. But it doesn't add up.
Dick Partridge
Bert Coules
> Wagner couldn't write it that way because it would not lead to the later
> plot developments that he intended. So he made Wotan agree to kill
> Siegmund. But it doesn't add up.
But that's not a weakness in the plotting. You could perhaps argue that
it's a weakness in characterisation, but I'd argue against that, too: since
Wotan is Wagner's creation, Wagner can make him act any way he wants,
including being illogical, weak, self-centred and downright stupid.
Given the way in which Wotan does act, the events arising from his action
makes absolute and perfect sense. That's not a plot "not adding up", that's
a plot cleverly and neatly constructed.
Bert
A.C. Douglas
Astonishing -- that is, astonishing coming from a confirmed Wagnerian who
presumably knows a bit more about the music-dramas than your ordinary
operagoer.
You single out one of Wagner's most profoundly perceptive, compellingly
dramatic, and psychologically perfect episodes in all the _Ring_ which
together with Wotan's following monologue forms the linchpin of the entire
tetralogy, and declare that, plot-wise, "it doesn't add up."
I would suggest to you that it's a failure of understanding on your part
rather than Wagner's failure as a dramatist that's at fault here -- entirely.
Peter
illicit relationship, which could certainly also provide a reason for both
of them to die, and they do die. Siegmund at the end of the second Act of
Walkuere, and Sieglinde offstage between Walkuere and Siegfried.
"Bert Coules" <ma...@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49CdnQNGiYtpWhTX...@brightview.co.uk...
A.C. Douglas
> Should we not also remember that Siegmund and Sieglinde entered into an
> illicit relationship, which could certainly also provide a reason for both
> of them to die, and they do die. Siegmund at the end of the second Act of
> Walkuere, and Sieglinde offstage between Walkuere and Siegfried.
If by "illicit relationship" you mean illicit because incestuous, then the
answer is, No, as that's entirely beside the (dramatic) point, and nowhere
suggested. Fricka may be outraged by the incest, and use that as the core of
her cudgel in her devastating (for Wotan) Act II _Walk�re_ confrontation with
Wotan, but that's not why she demands death for Siegmund (but not for
Sieglinde concerning whose ultimate punishment Fricka is silent). It's
Siegmund's sin against the sanctity of marriage and her authority as the
guardian of marriage for which Fricka demands his death. So, if by "illicit
relationship" you mean illicit because adulterous, then, Yes, that's the
instant and ostensible (but not the true underlying) reason for Siegmund
having to die (Sieglinde's death is another matter altogether).
A.C. Douglas
> Fricka may be outraged by the incest, and use that as the core of
> her cudgel in her devastating (for Wotan) Act II _Walk�re_ confrontation
> with Wotan....
Missing word in the above. The fragment, "...the core of her cudgel...."
should have read, "...the moral core of her cudgel...."
Richard Partridge
following:
> Richard Partridge wrote:
This may be a problem of definition. "[T]he plots don't add up" is a vague
phrase. I took it to mean that the plots strain credibility -- they have
people doing things that are inexplicable or totally out of character for
them.
Most plot developments in any work of fiction involve the actions or words
of one of the characters. As you say, Wagner can make Wotan act any way he
wants, but if he makes Wotan, who in general is portrayed as a wise and
thoughtful man, do something that is incomprehensible, irrational, I would
call that a flaw in the plot, not a weakness in characterization.
I do agree that given Wotan's promise to Fricka -- "Nimm den Eid!" --
subsequent events flow naturally.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
The trouble with that argument is that Wotan pretty clearly intended from
the beginning that they were going to get together (including sexually);
also, he ridiculed Fricka when she strongly condemned Siegmund and Sieglinde
on that ground. A modern European, if he believed in capital punishment,
which of course he would not, might agree that Siegmund's actions deserve
death, but it strains credibility too far to think that Wotan would react
that way.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
Your conclusion comes through clearly enough, but I think you have entirely
failed to explicate the reasoning that leads you to that conclusion.
And thanks for the kind words, which one doesn't often receive from this
source!
Dick Partridge
Bert Coules
> As you say, Wagner can make Wotan act any way he
> wants, but if he makes Wotan, who in general is portrayed as a wise and
> thoughtful man...
Wise and thoughtful sometimes, maybe, but I wouldn't say "in general". Most
of the time, Wotan is just as irrational and inconsistent as anybody else.
Isn't that what makes him such a fascinating and rounded creation?
Bert
Bert Coules
> The trouble with that argument is that Wotan pretty clearly intended from
> the beginning that they were going to get together (including sexually)...
I don't get that from the text. Wotan needed someone - presumably a male
someone, given the ethos of the world and the strength necessary - to fight
Fafner. Unless we are to assume that he can deliberately choose the gender
of his offspring, he was lucky to get a son first time (or are there lots of
bastard Wotan daughters with different mothers out there somewhere,
discarded failures?) - the fact that his would-be hero came complete with a
twin sister was probably unplanned. Why would Wotan need a woman hanging
around his hero? Until Fricka's argument convinces him that Siegmund won't
and can't cut the mustard, Wotan was presumably pinning all his hopes on
him. In the face of all the other hardships and obstacles Wotan throws in
his son's path, why should he provide him with not only a sexual partner but
also one who'll enrage Fricka and almost certainly lead to the downfall of
the entire scheme?
If there is a weakness in the plotting it's that Siegmund highly
conveniently impregnates Sieglinde in the short time available to them
before he has to die. Phew, what a stroke of luck! It's second only to
that wonderful cheesy moment in G�tterd�mmerung act one when Gunther's
question "How can we get Siegfried to come here?" is immediately answered by
the approaching hero's horn call.
Bert
dan
> Should we not also remember that Siegmund and Sieglinde entered into an
> illicit relationship, which could certainly also provide a reason for both
> of them to die, and they do die. Siegmund at the end of the second Act of
> Walkuere, and Sieglinde offstage between Walkuere and Siegfried.
>
>
> news:49CdnQNGiYtpWhTX...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > Richard Partridge wrote:
>
> >> Wagner couldn't write it that way because it would not lead to the later
> >> plot developments that he intended. So he made Wotan agree to kill
> >> Siegmund. But it doesn't add up.
>
> > But that's not a weakness in the plotting. You could perhaps argue that
> > it's a weakness in characterisation, but I'd argue against that, too:
> > since Wotan is Wagner's creation, Wagner can make him act any way he
> > wants, including being illogical, weak, self-centred and downright stupid.
>
> > Given the way in which Wotan does act, the events arising from his action
> > makes absolute and perfect sense. That's not a plot "not adding up",
> > that's a plot cleverly and neatly constructed.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have always seen this relationship as between the member of the same
race. Siegmund and Sieglinde are the only two members of a race. What
about Adam and Eve. Discussing about "incest" means that we are moving
symbol toward politically correctness.
A.C. Douglas
> On 8/18/09 12:24 AM, A.C. Douglas, at acdo...@soundsandfury.com, wrote
> the following:
>
>> Astonishing -- that is, astonishing coming from a confirmed Wagnerian who
>> presumably knows a bit more about the music-dramas than your ordinary
>> operagoer.
>>
>> You single out one of Wagner's most profoundly perceptive, compellingly
>> dramatic, and psychologically perfect episodes in all the _Ring_ which
>> together with Wotan's following monologue forms the linchpin of the entire
>> tetralogy, and declare that, plot-wise, "it doesn't add up."
>>
>> I would suggest to you that it's a failure of understanding on your part
>> rather than Wagner's failure as a dramatist that's at fault here --
>> entirely.
>
> Your conclusion comes through clearly enough, but I think you have entirely
> failed to explicate the reasoning that leads you to that conclusion.
I'm sorry, Richard, but I don't have the time to go through that episode with
you in detail to show you just how perfectly constructed it is both
dramatically and psychologically. It will have to suffice for me to simply
repeat what I've already said, and point out to you that on Fricka's side
she's perfectly portrayed as both outraged goddess and as justifiably
aggrieved wife who knows her spouse better than he knows himself. On Wotan's
side, he's perfectly portrayed as the thoroughly self-deceiving, duplicitous
character that he is as a god; a god who's finally been properly and spot-on
called out for his self-deception and duplicity, and perfectly portrayed as a
less than faithful husband properly caught with his pants down by his wife.
In the end, Wotan capitulates to Fricka's demand for Siegmund's death NOT
because "Fricka ... points out that his plan for the W�lsungs is flawed," but
because Wotan finally realizes he can no longer continue to deceive himself
concerning his actions and motives in the matter of his son, and in
particular, can no longer maintain his self-deceiving notion that that son is
the "free hero" needed to do what the god himself is barred from doing.
Richard Partridge
following:
> Richard Partridge wrote:
O.K., but he paid with one eye to drink from the well of wisdom. That ought
to be worth something.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
I agree with almost everything you say about this episode. I do not follow
you, however, when you say that "because Wotan finally realizes he can no
longer continue to deceive himself concerning his actions and motives in the
matter of his son, and in particular, can no longer maintain his
self-deceiving notion that that son is the "free hero" needed to do what the
god himself is barred from doing," therefore Wotan must shamefully betray
the son who honored and trusted him to an ignominious death (and consign
Sieglinde to Hunding's tender mercies). Yes, Fricka caught Wotan with his
pants down, but do you think he cared about that very much? The fact that
Fricka knew so much about his peccadilloes suggests that he didn't try very
hard to conceal them.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
> Richard Partridge wrote:
I don't have any trouble with the idea that Wotan can choose the sex of his
offspring, and can manage twins when the spirit moves him. Even Br�nnhilde
knew before any ordinary mortal could know that Sieglinde was pregnant (and
indeed, she knew it before Sieglinde actually was pregnant, according to
most accepted definitions of pregnancy), which implies the gods have unusual
powers on matters pertaining to reproduction. Also, didn't Wotan talk about
a race of W�lsungs? (Br�nnhilde, at least, thought so, telling Wotan, "Du
zeugtest ein edles Geschlecht; kein Zager kann je ihm entschlagen . . .")
That implies more than one. Wagner even dedicated a musical theme for that
purpose -- at least, most commentators call it the theme of the W�lsungs,
though of course Wagner did not name it.
Wotan managed to engender nine Valkyries in a row, apparently without any
sons in between, thus surpassing the record of Mr Bennet in "Pride and
Prejudice."
If Wotan didn't want a woman hanging around his hero, why did he go to so
much trouble to bring them together, after he had separated them?
I don't think Wotan gave a damn whether he enraged Fricka, and Wotan's
scheme was flawed, and doomed, from the start regardless of whether Siegmund
and Sieglinde got together. If Fricka hadn't pointed out the flaw to Wotan,
a greater catastrophe would probably have resulted.
I like your word "cheesy." The "Ring" is a magnificent work of art, but the
plot certainly has its cheesy moments.
Dick Partridge
Bert Coules
Good points about the gods and gender selection.
> If Wotan didn't want a woman hanging around his hero, why did he go to so
> much trouble to bring them together, after he had separated them?
But did he separate them? I don't think it's in the text, is it? He was
out hunting with Siegmund when the Neidings attacked: are you saying that
the attack was a deliberate contrivance on Wotan's part?
I agree that there's more evidence for Wotan's bringing them together again:
he plants the sword in Hunding's hut and so it's a reasonable deduction that
he engineers the storm that drives Siegmund there. But again, I don't
recall it being specifically stated in the text.
> I like your word "cheesy." The "Ring" is a magnificent work of art, but
> the
> plot certainly has its cheesy moments.
And nothing wrong with that. I like a good hunk of cheese.
Bert
Bert Coules
> O.K., but he paid with one eye to drink from the well of wisdom. That
> ought
> to be worth something.
We've only got his word for it, though. Elsewhere he says that he
sacrificed the eye in order to win Fricka, and while I suppose the two
things could be linked ("Marry an idiot like you? Never! Go and get some
wisdom!") I rather like the idea that he makes up these stories as he goes
along, for sheer expediency. He probably left a spoon in his mead-cup one
night and put it out himself.
Bert
Bert Coules
> I agree that there's more evidence for Wotan's bringing them together
> again: he plants the sword in Hunding's hut and so it's a reasonable
> deduction that he engineers the storm that drives Siegmund there. But
> again, I don't recall it being specifically stated in the text.
Fricka accuses him of it: "Can you deny it, that your hand alone has led him
where it was hid?" And of course he *doesn't* deny it...
Bert
A.C. Douglas
> I agree with almost everything you say about this episode. I do not
follow
> you, however, when you say that "because Wotan finally realizes he can no
> longer continue to deceive himself concerning his actions and motives in
> the
> matter of his son, and in particular, can no longer maintain his
> self-deceiving notion that that son is the "free hero" needed to do what
> the
> god himself is barred from doing," therefore Wotan must shamefully betray
> the son who honored and trusted him to an ignominious death (and consign
> Sieglinde to Hunding's tender mercies).
Because as one of the unintended consequences of Wotan's self-deceiving and
duplicitous machinations, that son has committed an offense against Fricka's
authority (among other offenses), and it's Fricka who declares his punishment
as is her right as the offended goddess. Wotan can save his son, of course,
by overriding Fricka's decision, but, as Fricka rightly points out, that
would bring only more shame on himself and the gods.
You see the impossible predicament Wotan now finds himself enmeshed in
vis-a-vis Siegmund; a predicament due entirely his (Wotan's) own
machinations, right?
>Yes, Fricka caught Wotan with his
> pants down, but do you think he cared about that very much? The fact that
> Fricka knew so much about his peccadilloes suggests that he didn't try very
> hard to conceal them.
His "peccadilloes" (i.e., his philandering) are the least of it. Fricka has
caught him out on *everything*, and *that* he cares about right to the very
depths of his soul as we learn from his great monologue that follows.
bo...@boston.quik.com
least) that Wotan has indeed predetermined the birth of boy/girl twins
to his mortal wife "while disguised under the singularly appriate name
of Wolf". (Thank you Anna Russell).
Wotan is the chief of the gods. He is quite able to plan for certain
eventualities, if not able to alter the course of fate. The purpose
of creating and raising the Wäsung twins is to establish a team of
renegades who Flout the Law of the Gods openly. Having sent his
daughter into a loveless and forced marriage, Wotan wills that
Siegmund should find her and the magic sword AND become incestuous
lovers. When Fricka protests that such a thing was never heard of he
answers "You've heard it here today". He is creating a rebel figure
in Siegmund whom he can pointedly claim is acting free of the god's
rules, and therefore is an appropriate hero for killing Fafner and
claiming the Ring.
Fricka's logic destroys this sham fifth column approach to the Big
Dilemma, and the price Wotan must pay is aquiesence in the death of
Siegmund - as punishment for either adultery or incest (or both).
Neither Fricka or Wotan ever speak seriously about Sieglinde as an
independent figure; to their discredit.
Ironically, Wotan seemingly has no idea that Sieglinde is pregnant -
fate, or nature has determined that little development. It isn't a
"plot weakness", pace to the O.P., but simply the next logical
development: nature insures that there will be a really and truly
free agent who can defeat Fafner - one who doesn't even know the gods
exist. But then, I don't think Siegfried's sudden appearance in the
Gibichung Hall is a plot problem either: Hagen knows he is coming and
simply takes the hour or so before his expected arrival to bring up
the problem with his dimwitted half-siblings.
Jim Bodge
****
Bert Coules
> Neither Fricka or Wotan ever speak seriously about Sieglinde as an
> independent figure; to their discredit.
On Wotan's case, to return to my earlier argument, this is surely because he
never thinks of her as a contender in the great battle. Of course he
doesn't: Valkyries apart, women aren't warriors in the world of the Ring.
> Ironically, Wotan seemingly has no idea that Sieglinde is pregnant -
> fate, or nature has determined that little development.
There are some wonderful what-if byways in the Ring. What if Sieglinde
hadn't fallen pregnant? What would Wotan's next Great Plan have been? What
if Siegmund and Sieglinde's child had been a girl? What if Hagen hadn't
been too weak to fight Fafner? (which given the way most Hagens look
requires a real leap of faith).
> But then, I don't think Siegfried's sudden appearance in the
> Gibichung Hall is a plot problem either...
I never called it a plot problem, as such. Just a whopping great and highly
convenient coincidence. But...
> Hagen knows he is coming and simply takes the hour
> or so before his expected arrival to bring up
> the problem with his dimwitted half-siblings.
Clever of you! But I'd argue with "dim-witted"...
Bert
Richard Partridge
following:
> Richard Partridge wrote:
I think we have more than Wotan's word for that. How about the beautiful
words of the Norn, with the beautiful music:
"Im k�hlen Schatten
rauscht' ein Quell,
Weisheit raunend
rann sein Gewell':
da sang ich heil'gen Sinn. --
Ein k�hner Gott
trat zum Trunk an den Quell;
seiner Augen eines
zahlt' er als ewigen Zoll."
When Wotan says (in "Das Rheingold"),
"Um dich zum Weib zu gewinnen,
mein eines Auge
setzt' ich werbend daran:
wie t�rig tadelst du jetzt!"
I believe that means he hazarded, or wagered it. And then he won the bet.
I don't think we're supposed to believe that he had no eyes left.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
> "Richard Partridge" <r.par...@verizon.net> wrote:
We'll have to disagree about this. I think Wotan showed in the early part
of the argument that he was quite ready to override Fricka's decision to the
extent it was based on adultery and incest. I don't think he was impressed
by her argument that letting Siegmund and Sieglinde live together would
bring shame on the gods. He was caught out, and defeated, only when she
pointed out the fatal flaw in his plan for the W�lsungs.
Directly following Wotan's language in "Das Rheingold" that I cited in
another post today, he says to Fricka with irony (answering her complaint
that men, in their lust for power and glory, sacrifice the interests of
women),
"Ehr' ich die Frauen
doch mehr, als dich freut;"
In other words, his philandering has long been a source of discord between
them. It isn't anything new.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
> Richard,
I would have to admit that most of the fiction I most admire has its cheesy
moments.
Dick Partridge
Bert Coules
Richard Partridge wrote:
> I think we have more than Wotan's word for that. How about the beautiful
> words of the Norn...
Of course, you're right. And also about Wotan's lines:
> "Um dich zum Weib zu gewinnen,
> mein eines Auge
> setzt' ich werbend daran:
> wie t�rig tadelst du jetzt!"
Your interpretation of that speech had somehow passed me by, but I see now
how "mein eines Auge" could mean "my one eye" rather than "one of my eyes",
which is how I've always seen it. This is the approach taken by Mann's
translation, which was one of my first exposures to the Ring:
When for my wife I won you,
one of my eyes
I gave up so as to court you.
And Porter follows suit:
Recall the days when I wooed you,
when I for Fricka
paid the price of an eye.
Interestingly, the generally less than satisfactory Stewart Robb singing
translation gets closest:
That time I wooed you to win you,
I won by wager
with an eye as the risk.
If the German *is* ambiguous (and I'm not fluent enough to know) then I
suppose the chronology is a key point: did Wotan lose an eye at the spring
of knowledge before or after he won Fricka? And on that point, I'm pretty
sure that Wagner is silent.
Bert
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
Bert Coules wrote on 19-8-2009 as follows:
> We seemed to have split off into a new thread.
>
> Richard Partridge wrote:
>
>> I think we have more than Wotan's word for that. How about the beautiful
>> words of the Norn...
>
> Of course, you're right. And also about Wotan's lines:
>
>> "Um dich zum Weib zu gewinnen,
>> mein eines Auge
>> setzt' ich werbend daran:
>> wie tï¿œrig tadelst du jetzt!"
>
> Your interpretation of that speech had somehow passed me by, but I see now
> how "mein eines Auge" could mean "my one eye" rather than "one of my eyes",
> which is how I've always seen it. This is the approach taken by Mann's
> translation, which was one of my first exposures to the Ring:
>
> When for my wife I won you,
> one of my eyes
> I gave up so as to court you.
>
> And Porter follows suit:
>
> Recall the days when I wooed you,
> when I for Fricka
> paid the price of an eye.
>
> Interestingly, the generally less than satisfactory Stewart Robb singing
> translation gets closest:
>
> That time I wooed you to win you,
> I won by wager
> with an eye as the risk.
>
> If the German *is* ambiguous (and I'm not fluent enough to know) then I
> suppose the chronology is a key point: did Wotan lose an eye at the spring of
> knowledge before or after he won Fricka? And on that point, I'm pretty sure
> that Wagner is silent.
>
> Bert
The German word /'ein'/ has two meanings:
- /ein/ = a, an
- /ein/ = one
(As a Dutchman I see the same in Dutch; /een/ is both a or an and one.)
In the quotation: /mein eines Auge/, this can only mean: one of my
eyes. "My only eye" would have been the translation of /mein eiziges
Auge/, which would have been quite different (and for the Tetralogie
idiotic).
The remark of the Norn: /"seiner Augen eines zahlt' er als ewigen
Zoll"/ can also only be translated as "one of his eyes he payed as
eternal toll".
Wotan needed wisdom to make Fricka his wife, but that is *my*
conclusion after reading the two texts. For Wotan it was more obvious
to win Fricka, so he gave up one of his eyes - yes, there was still
love in the air, so to speak.
For the Norns the fact that Wotan gave his eye to drink from the well
of wisdom was more important as a fact. My second conlusion is that
Wotan won Fricka *after* drinking from the well.
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Cheers!
Herman van der Woude
Bert Coules
held up as authoritative, seems to misread that Rheingold passage
completely.
Bert
Richard Partridge
following:
[snip]
> Interestingly, the generally less than satisfactory Stewart Robb singing
> translation gets closest:
>
> That time I wooed you to win you,
> I won by wager
> with an eye as the risk.
>
> If the German *is* ambiguous (and I'm not fluent enough to know) then I
> suppose the chronology is a key point: did Wotan lose an eye at the spring
> of knowledge before or after he won Fricka? And on that point, I'm pretty
> sure that Wagner is silent.
>
> Bert
Like you, I'm not fluent enough in German to be sure of the translation.
The most I can say for my interpretation is that it avoids the problem of
turning the one-eyed god into an eyeless god.
If anyone is reading this whose native language is German, I'd be glad to
know his opinion of the correct translation.
From the context of the Norn's words that I quoted, I get the impression
that she is talking about very ancient history. But Fricka may have been
Wotan's wife for a very long time, so that doesn't prove anything.
Dick Partridge
Peter
news:c2a5176b-e909-41b5...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
But then, I don't think Siegfried's sudden appearance in the
Gibichung Hall is a plot problem either: Hagen knows he is coming and
simply takes the hour or so before his expected arrival to bring up
the problem with his dimwitted half-siblings.
Jim Bodge
Where are we told that Hagen knows Siegfried is coming?
A.C. Douglas
> We'll have to disagree about this. I think Wotan showed in the early part
> of the argument that he was quite ready to override Fricka's decision to
> the
> extent it was based on adultery and incest. I don't think he was impressed
> by her argument that letting Siegmund and Sieglinde live together would
> bring shame on the gods. He was caught out, and defeated, only when she
> pointed out the fatal flaw in his plan for the W�lsungs.
You're right. Wotan wasn't at all "impressed" by Fricka's early complaints
about adultery and incest per se, each of which complaints he lightly and
sophistically dismissed. What he couldn't dismiss, however, was Fricka's
justified complaint against Siegmund's direct offense against her authority
as goddess of wedlock which was reason sufficient for her to demand his
death, and that if Wotan countermanded that demand he could do so only at the
expense of bringing more shame upon himself and the gods which is simply the
plain truth of the matter; ergo, Wotan's impossible predicament vis-a-vis
Siegmund.
And you really do have to cease insisting that Fricka, "pointed out [to
Wotan] the fatal flaw in his [Wotan's] plan for the W�lsungs." She did no
such thing. Saying she did misses the very core of what's going on in that
episode because it implies that previously Wotan was naively unaware of that
"flaw" when the fact of the matter -- a fact made explicitly clear by Wotan
in his following monologue -- is that it's not that he was unaware of the
"flaw", but that he willfully deceived himself by imagining that no one would
be able discover it.
I trust you see the meaningful and crucial distinction here.
Bert Coules
> And you really do have to cease insisting that Fricka, "pointed out [to
> Wotan] the fatal flaw in his [Wotan's] plan for the W�lsungs." She did no
> such thing. Saying she did misses the very core of what's going on in that
> episode because it implies that previously Wotan was naively unaware of
> that
> "flaw"...
How does it imply that? It's perfectly possible to point out to someone
something that he already knows. "Point out" doesn't imply "demonstrate for
the very first time".
Bert
Richard Partridge
following:
[snip]
> You're right. Wotan wasn't at all "impressed" by Fricka's early complaints
> about adultery and incest per se, each of which complaints he lightly and
> sophistically dismissed. What he couldn't dismiss, however, was Fricka's
> justified complaint against Siegmund's direct offense against her authority
> as goddess of wedlock which was reason sufficient for her to demand his
> death, and that if Wotan countermanded that demand he could do so only at the
> expense of bringing more shame upon himself and the gods which is simply the
> plain truth of the matter; ergo, Wotan's impossible predicament vis-a-vis
> Siegmund.
>
> And you really do have to cease insisting that Fricka, "pointed out [to
> Wotan] the fatal flaw in his [Wotan's] plan for the W�lsungs." She did no
> such thing. Saying she did misses the very core of what's going on in that
> episode because it implies that previously Wotan was naively unaware of that
> "flaw" when the fact of the matter -- a fact made explicitly clear by Wotan
> in his following monologue -- is that it's not that he was unaware of the
> "flaw", but that he willfully deceived himself by imagining that no one would
> be able discover it.
>
> I trust you see the meaningful and crucial distinction here.
>
> ---
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/
>
I don't follow your argument in the first paragraph. What was "Siegmund's
direct offense against her [Fricka's] authority as goddess of wedlock," if
it wasn't the adultery? So if we agree that Wotan was dismissive of
Fricka's complaints about adultery and incest, why could he not "dismiss . .
. Fricka's justified complaint against Siegmund's direct offense against her
authority"?
I don't know to what extent Wotan was unaware of the flaw in his plan, that
Fricka called to his attention. From all the context, I have always
thought, and continue to think, that he did deceive himself in his desperate
desire to regain the ring or at least neutralize it as threat to his power.
(To say someone "willfully deceived himself" seems to me a contradiction in
terms. If you know you're doing it, you are not really deceiving yourself.)
Dick Partridge
A.C. Douglas
> I don't follow your argument in the first paragraph. What was "Siegmund's
> direct offense against her [Fricka's] authority as goddess of wedlock," if
> it wasn't the adultery? So if we agree that Wotan was dismissive of
> Fricka's complaints about adultery and incest, why could he not dismiss
> "Fricka's justified complaint against Siegmund's direct offense against
> her authority"?
What Wotan was dismissive of was Fricka's complaints about adultery and
incest *per se*, as I've already stated. IOW, adultery and incest considered
abstractly as things in themselves. There was, however, nothing abstract
about Siegmund's direct offense against Fricka's authority as goddess of
wedlock (i.e., by his adulterous liaison with Sieglinde), for which offense
Fricka demands his death. Wotan cannot dismiss that without bringing more
shame upon himself and the gods as Fricka does in fact "point out" to
him as I've also already stated, which is unlike what she does in the matter
of the "flaw" which was no "point[ing] out" at all, but rather simply letting
Wotan know that he wasn't pulling the wool over her eyes in that matter.
BTW, in rereading what I wrote above on the matter of Wotan's willful
self-deception, I see I neglected to note specifically that Wotan also
willfully deceived himself in respect of Siegmund's free will. But that
should have been tacitly understood in this context.
A.C. Douglas
In this context, to say that Fricka "point[ed] out" to Wotan the "flaw" in
his plan *clearly* implies that she's pointing out to him something of which
he was priorly unaware, which is, of course, completely nonsensical.
Bert Coules
> In this context, to say that Fricka "point[ed] out" to Wotan the "flaw" in
> his plan *clearly* implies that she's pointing out to him something of
> which
> he was priorly unaware...
I can't say that I interpret it that way.
Bert
bo...@boston.quik.com
We aren't told. But we know who Hagen is from Wotan's mention of him
in WALKüRE, and the opening moments of the Gibichung scene make it
pretty clear that he is manipulating his siblings. It isn't a stretch
to believe that this man, who summons up troops clearly loyal to him
alone with a blast on his horn, can also have spies watching up and
down the Rhine for tenorial heroes stroking their way upstream. I bet
Hagen knows all about Fafner's death, too. And learned it from his
Daddy, who was there.
ALSO
Bert Coules challenged me on the matter of the level of Gibichung
wittidness. It wasn't a good choice of words on my part, as I think
Gunther and Gutrune are very ambitious and willing to look the other
way and take whatever path is easiest. That said, they are also naive
and poor judge's of Hagen's character. At least at first.
Jim
Derrick Everett
> We seemed to have split off into a new thread.
>
> Richard Partridge wrote:
>
>> I think we have more than Wotan's word for that. How about the
>> beautiful words of the Norn...
>
> Of course, you're right. And also about Wotan's lines:
>
>> "Um dich zum Weib zu gewinnen,
>> mein eines Auge
>> setzt' ich werbend daran:
>> wie törig tadelst du jetzt!"
>
> Your interpretation of that speech had somehow passed me by, but I see
> now how "mein eines Auge" could mean "my one eye" rather than "one of my
> eyes", which is how I've always seen it. This is the approach taken by
> Mann's translation, which was one of my first exposures to the Ring:
>
> When for my wife I won you,
> one of my eyes
> I gave up so as to court you.
>
> And Porter follows suit:
>
> Recall the days when I wooed you,
> when I for Fricka
> paid the price of an eye.
>
> Interestingly, the generally less than satisfactory Stewart Robb singing
> translation gets closest:
>
> That time I wooed you to win you,
> I won by wager
> with an eye as the risk.
>
> If the German *is* ambiguous (and I'm not fluent enough to know) then I
> suppose the chronology is a key point: did Wotan lose an eye at the
> spring of knowledge before or after he won Fricka? And on that point,
> I'm pretty sure that Wagner is silent.
>
I have long been convinced that both Mann and Porter mistranslate these
lines, and so mislead their listeners. Even the usually reliable Sabor
nods here, I believe, with "one eye I yielded". Although the "one eye"
or "an eye" might be ambiguous, "setzt' ich" seems to be clear enough,
meaning "I staked" or "I hazarded" but certainly not equivalent to "I
yielded", "I paid" or "I gave up". That would only be possible if the
god had lost his gamble but obviously he won Fricka, so he kept his one
eye.
--
Derrick Everett
====== Writing from 59°54'N 10°37'E =======
http://www.monsalvat.no/index.htm
http://www.monsalvat.no/wagnerfaq.htm
Derrick Everett
>
> Where are we told that Hagen knows Siegfried is coming?
I don't believe it is by coincidence that Hagen tells his half-siblings
about Siegfried just before the hero appears around the nearest bend of
the river.
Bert Coules
> Even the usually reliable Sabor
> nods here, I believe, with "one eye I yielded". Although the "one eye"
> or "an eye" might be ambiguous, "setzt' ich" seems to be clear enough,
> meaning "I staked" or "I hazarded" but certainly not equivalent to "I
> yielded", "I paid" or "I gave up".
Thanks for that. In retrospect (as so often) it seems perfectly clear, but
I've accepted the Mann/Porter/Sabor version unthinkingly for many years.
I think it's splendid that the generally-derided Stewart Robb singing
translation actually gets it right, though in fairness, so does Jameson,
though in highly convoluted language:
When I for wife sought to win thee,
an eye, as forfeit, placed I wooing in pledge.
Bert
bo...@boston.quik.com
reading a letter in "Opera" some years ago in which this issue of the
eye wagering was raised, and the writer concludes, as do those on this
group, that Wotan wagered his eye, but won, thereby gaining Fricka in
marriage (and keeping his eye).
The letter went on to state that the matter had been discussed with
Andrew Porter, who became convinced of its rightness, and ordered his
translation altered to reflect this thinking.
The releavant line: "when I for Fricka
Paid the price of an eye"
became something like
When I for Fricka
Pledged the price of an eye"
Jim Bodge
Bert Coules
> Pledged the price of an eye.
Yes, that does it. Very neat, and (like Porter's original) it has a
pleasing bit of Wagnerian-type alliteration, even if it's not an exact
mirror of the German.
Thanks.
Bert
Richard Partridge
following:
I don't agree with the distinction you're making. In my view, from the very
beginning of their quarrel both Wotan and Fricka were talking about the
conduct of Siegmund and Sieglinde, not about adultery and incest in the
abstract.
Very early in the quarrel, Wotan says,
"Was so schlimmes
schuf das Paar,
das liebend einte der Lenz?"
(usw.)
Dick Partridge
Fragments@ech.co.uk Skill Fragments
news:mIqdnaghqdMNvBbX...@brightview.co.uk...
> Richard Partridge wrote:
>
>> O.K., but he paid with one eye to drink from the well of wisdom. That
>> ought
>> to be worth something.
>
> We've only got his word for it, though. Elsewhere he says that he
> sacrificed the eye in order to win Fricka,
Different eyes, and the second one was pledged, not 'sacrificed'. Read the
text more carefully, numpty.
> and while I suppose the two things could be linked ("Marry an idiot like
> you? Never! Go and get some wisdom!") I rather like the idea that he
> makes up these stories as he goes along, for sheer expediency. He
> probably left a spoon in his mead-cup one night and put it out himself.
>
Pathetic dribble, in view of your elementary error.
S.
Bert Coules
possess.
Bert
Richard Partridge
following:
> Ah, but writing pathetic drivel is a skill I'm particularly proud to
> possess.
>
> Bert
>
>
I think that's the right line to take when you're dealing with gratuitous
rudeness.
By the way, I don't think your error was by any means "elementary." I was
puzzled by the German text for years, wondering how many eyes Wotan had
left.
Dick Partridge
Bert Coules
> I think that's the right line to take when you're dealing with gratuitous
> rudeness.
Thank you.
> By the way, I don't think your error was by any means "elementary." I was
> puzzled by the German text for years, wondering how many eyes Wotan had
> left.
Again, thanks. As I mentioned in one of my less pathetically drivelling
posts, it's a misunderstanding embodied in a good many highly praised
published translations, so at least I was in goodly company.
Bert
Mike Scott Rohan
> On 8/17/09 3:18 AM, Bert Coules, at m...@bertcoules.co.uk, wrote the
> following:
>
> > Paul Lower wrote:
>
> >> Who cares that the plots don't add up...
>
> > In what way do the plots not "add up"?
>
> > Bert
>
> What a question!
>
>(snip)
> Dick Partridge
If I ever have enough time (and find a publisher) for the Wagner book
I'd like to write, it'll be a study of character and motivation
intended to show that the plots *do* add up. To claim they don't is to
play into the hands of the "unrealistic drama" brigade, who use this
to justify idiotic Eurotrash productions.
In this instance, for example, Wotan has no alternative. Fricka has
made a challenge under divine law -- which Wotan and his Spear embody,
as we have seen with the giants, and he later confirms in his
monologue -- and if Siegmund can no longer be considered a truly free
being, then he and Sieglinde fall back into the jurisdiction of that
law. They become offenders, guilty of wife-stealing, adultery and
incest, and Wotan is bound to apply the penalty, which is death.
Cheers,
Mike
Harlett O'Dowd
Yes, I always felt that Woton approaches his various schemes with
chess-like planning. the problem is that he eventually boxes himself
into a moral corner, which Fricka points out to him. The wonderful
thing about the Fricka WALKURE scene is that it works simultaneously
as a domestic quarrel *and* it forwards the Siegmund/Ring plot.
Some wonderful obersevations all around, here are a few things this
episode always meant to me (YMMV)
1) I don't believe Woton had the ability to choose the sex of his
offspring. I think he's one of those men who kept at it until he got
it *right* (male heir.) Note that the norns and walkures are all
female.
2) It is quite clear that Fricka is extremely offended by the adultery
of both her husband and his offspring *as well as* the incest of
Siegmund and Sieglinde. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time
Wagner wrote the ring, wormen were unable to sue for divorce on the
grounds of adultery (although men could divorce their wives for it.)
So, much as the adultery galls her, I don't think Fricka ever had the
power to do anything else but complain and store those offenses for a
latter battle (the one we witness.) On top of that, I believe Fricka's
only real legal authority is that of the goddess of marriage. In other
words, Fricka may not have legal authority over her husband's bastard,
incestuous children, but when Hundig comes to her for seeking
retribution for his own adulterous wife, *that's* something on whch
Fricka can lay down the law.
3) As a result of this, I always felt Woton killed Hundig as a way of
getting back at Fricka. I always feel that Fricka should be on stage
to witness this, as if Woton is telling her that she won the battle
but lost the war - and their marriage, often a sham before, is
officially over.
4) Woton totally conspired to bring Siegmund and Sieglinde together.
Winning her was one of the tasks Woton assigned Siegmund to make him
hero enough to take on Fafner and win back the ring.
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgardpublishing.co.uk, wrote the following:
[snip]
>
> If I ever have enough time (and find a publisher) for the Wagner book
> I'd like to write, it'll be a study of character and motivation
> intended to show that the plots *do* add up. To claim they don't is to
> play into the hands of the "unrealistic drama" brigade, who use this
> to justify idiotic Eurotrash productions.
>
> In this instance, for example, Wotan has no alternative. Fricka has
> made a challenge under divine law -- which Wotan and his Spear embody,
> as we have seen with the giants, and he later confirms in his
> monologue -- and if Siegmund can no longer be considered a truly free
> being, then he and Sieglinde fall back into the jurisdiction of that
> law. They become offenders, guilty of wife-stealing, adultery and
> incest, and Wotan is bound to apply the penalty, which is death.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
I don't see that at all. Fricka's complaint about adultery and incest does
not depend on whether Siegmund is subject to divine law. The fact that
Hagen asked for Fricka's blessing on the marriage of Gunther and Br�nnhilde
shows that she is concerned with the marriages of mortals, and not only of
persons who are subject to divine law.
In this case, the divine law reads on Wotan, not on Siegmund. Wotan made a
contract with Fafner to give him the ring in exchange for Freia. Since, as
we know, Wotan's power depends to a great extent on the sanctity of his
contracts, treaties, etc., it is not open to Wotan to attack Fafner himself
and take back the ring by force. That can only be done by someone who is
independent of Wotan. Wotan imagined that Siegmund would be independent and
would be able to do that, but Fricka made him confront the fact that he had
micromanaged the lives of Siegmund and Sieglinde, enticing them to a time
and place where adultery and incest would be inevitable, as Wotan foresaw
and intended. So Siegmund is not independent of Wotan, and Wotan's plan to
get the ring away from Fafner is fatally flawed. Siegmund, however, has not
himself entered into any contract or compact, and it does not follow that
Siegmund and Sieglinde must be punished for their marital transgression.
Dick Partridge
Harlett O'Dowd
Siegmund, however, has not
> himself entered into any contract or compact, and it does not follow that
> Siegmund and Sieglinde must be punished for their marital transgression.
It does not follow that S&S must be punished for their *incestuous*
transgression, but they must be punished for Sieglinde's abandonment
of her marriage vow to Hundig.
Mike Scott Rohan
[snip}
> I don't see that at all. Fricka's complaint about adultery and incest does
> not depend on whether Siegmund is subject to divine law. The fact that
> shows that she is concerned with the marriages of mortals, and not only of
> persons who are subject to divine law.
>
> In this case, the divine law reads on Wotan, not on Siegmund. Wotan made a
> contract with Fafner to give him the ring in exchange for Freia. Since, as
> we know, Wotan's power depends to a great extent on the sanctity of his
> contracts, treaties, etc., it is not open to Wotan to attack Fafner himself
> and take back the ring by force. That can only be done by someone who is
> independent of Wotan. Wotan imagined that Siegmund would be independent and
> would be able to do that, but Fricka made him confront the fact that he had
> micromanaged the lives of Siegmund and Sieglinde, enticing them to a time
> and place where adultery and incest would be inevitable, as Wotan foresaw
> and intended. So Siegmund is not independent of Wotan, and Wotan's plan to
> get the ring away from Fafner is fatally flawed. Siegmund, however, has not
> himself entered into any contract or compact, and it does not follow that
> Siegmund and Sieglinde must be punished for their marital transgression.
>
Divine law is evidently applied to all humanity. That's implied in
several places; and it must be, mustn't it? Or Wotan would not find it
so hard to find a free agent, and Siegmund would not be so special.
Only Siegmund, and to some extent Sieglinde, are free of divine
constraints -- and that, as Fricka points out, is ultimately because
the gods have willed it so. If they're not free, after all, then they
mus be considered lawbreakers and treated accordingly. Otherwise, as
you say, Wotan would be able to save Siegmund; but he simply isn't
free to; as he says himself, he is the least free of all.
And that is why the drama does make sense. If you're going to claim
that divine law doesn't apply to Siegmund, even after Fricka destroys
his facade of freedom, you're going to have to explain away several
things -- such as why Fricka's revelation is so destructive on Wotan,
and why she says that Siegmund falls to her as a slave. All that is
going to get rather complicated, and not very convincing. This is
because the simpler answer is the real one. The moment Wotan sees her
point, he understands its implications. Bound by his own laws, he can
no more save him than he can attack Fafner.
acdouglas
> The moment Wotan sees her [Fricka's] point, he understands its
> implications. Bound by his own laws, he can no more save [Siegmund] than he
> can attack Fafner.
Wotan knew that point and those implications way before Fricka voices it all
out loud thereby making it all explicit. Wotan in fact knew it all from the
very beginning, but willful self-deceiver that he's been in this business, it
all presented no obstacle to him or his plan. It's Fricka's being able to see
through that self-deception that so dismays and devastates Wotan as he now
realizes in an instant that he can no longer maintain his self-created
illusion (delusion), and at long last realizes with absolute certainty that
he and his plan are utterly defeated.
I point out the above not to be pedantic, but because it's key to
understanding the depth of Wotan's mortal distress in the great monologue to
follow in which he's finally forced to admit to himself "Zum Ekel" that "find
ich ewig nur mich in allem was ich erwirke!"
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgardpublishing.co.uk, wrote the following:
> On Sep 24, 9:02�pm, Richard Partridge <r.partri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [snip}
>> I don't see that at all. �Fricka's complaint about adultery and incest does
>> not depend on whether Siegmund is subject to divine law. �The fact that
>> Hagen asked for Fricka's blessing on the marriage of Gunther and Br�nnhilde
I won't say your interpretation is unreasonable, but I don't agree with it.
The only support in the text for your concept of "divine law," as far as I
can see, is the phrase
"Eines h�re!
Not tut ein Held,
Der, ledig g�ttlichen Schutzes,
Sich l�se vom G�ttergesetz."
Immediately after that, as if explaining what it means to be free of the
gods' law, Wotan says that only thus can he do the deed that the god is
forbidden to do. There is no suggestion that being free of the gods' law
means anything more than that. Nor are there any other references in the
text, as far as I know, to the existence of a divine law as you describe it.
I think you're leaning awfully heavily on this one reference to it.
If you translate "G�ttergesetz" as "divine law," that does imply that it
applies to everyone. I think the term can just as well mean the law that
applies to the gods.
Wotan's initial response to Fricka's complaints was to ridicule them. What
did the pair do that was so bad, he asked. If you (Fricka) get such
pleasure from the blessing that goes with marriage, he said, feel free to
bless the union of Siegmund and Sieglinde. Fricka says the sexual union of
brother and sister makes her dizzy and gives her heart palpitations; when
was such a thing ever known?, she demands. It's known today, Wotan replies.
Wotan was directly mocking Fricka's ideas about sexual morality. To be
consistent with your interpretation, Wotan should accept the general
validity of Fricka's morality, but argue that it just doesn't apply in this
case.
Dick Partridge
acdouglas
> Wotan's initial response to Fricka's complaints was to ridicule them. What
> did the pair do that was so bad, he asked. If you (Fricka) get such
> pleasure from the blessing that goes with marriage, he said, feel free to
> bless the union of Siegmund and Sieglinde. Fricka says the sexual union of
> brother and sister makes her dizzy and gives her heart palpitations; when
> was such a thing ever known?, she demands. It's known today, Wotan
> replies.
> Wotan was directly mocking Fricka's ideas about sexual morality. To be
> consistent with your interpretation, Wotan should accept the general
> validity of Fricka's morality, but argue that it just doesn't apply in this
> case.
As I pointed out to you in a recent previous thread, Richard, I think you're
missing the central point here.
It wasn't so much that Wotan was "mocking Fricka's ideas about sexual
morality" as it was that Wotan was attempting desperately to maintain for
himself his self-created illusion (delusion) that these things occurred of
their own natural accord rather than as the result of his own machinations.
Understanding that is key to understanding what's going on in this episode
and the great monologue to follow.
Richard Partridge
following:
I think we agree on some basic points: Wotan was profoundly wrong when he
thought Siegmund was a free agent, acting according to his own will. In
fact, he was Wotan's creation, guided by Wotan at every important step, and
the argument with Fricka made Wotan realize this (rather belatedly, for a
god who is supposed to be so wise). The question is, what are the
consequences of the fact that Siegmund was Wotan's creation, and tool?
Clearly it means that Siegmund must not do what Wotan is forbidden to do:
take the ring from Fafner. I don't see that it means that Siegmund's
adultery and incest, to which he was guided and enticed by Wotan, thereby
become criminal, and even capital crimes.
(The difference between Siegmund and Siegfried on this point is profound,
and in Siegfried we see what a free agent is really like.)
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
> mike.sco...@asgardpublishing.co.uk, wrote the following:
>
>>
>> Divine law is evidently applied to all humanity. That's implied in
>> several places; and it must be, mustn't it? Or Wotan would not find it
>> so hard to find a free agent, and Siegmund would not be so special.
>> Only Siegmund, and to some extent Sieglinde, are free of divine
>> constraints -- and that, as Fricka points out, is ultimately because
>> the gods have willed it so. If they're not free, after all, then they
>> mus be considered lawbreakers and treated accordingly. Otherwise, as
>> you say, Wotan would be able to save Siegmund; but he simply isn't
>> free to; as he says himself, he is the least free of all.
>>
>> And that is why the drama does make sense. If you're going to claim
>> that divine law doesn't apply to Siegmund, even after Fricka destroys
>> his facade of freedom, you're going to have to explain away several
>> things -- such as why Fricka's revelation is so destructive on Wotan,
>> and why she says that Siegmund falls to her as a slave. All that is
>> going to get rather complicated, and not very convincing. This is
>> because the simpler answer is the real one. The moment Wotan sees her
>> point, he understands its implications. Bound by his own laws, he can
>> no more save him than he can attack Fafner.
>>
>>
I think there's another problem with your interpretation. The special thing
about Siegmund, Wotan says, is that he grew up on his own, without any
protection from the gods. Thus the "G�ttergesetz" didn't apply to him. But
surely thousands of men met that description? Take Hunding, just for
example. We don't think that Wotan, or any other god, took an interest in
Hunding or protected him in any way, do we? So why is he, and all other men
like him in that respect, subject to the "G�ttergesetz"? And if he isn't
subject to it, what is left of your theory that divine law is applied to all
humanity?
Wotan would not have found it hard to find a free agent -- the world is full
of them. The problem is to find a _hero_ who is a free agent. And, of
course, the insoluble problem was to find a hero who was a free agent but
would still do, of his own accord, what Wotan wanted him to do.
Dick Partridge
acdouglas
> I think we agree on some basic points: Wotan was profoundly wrong when he
> thought Siegmund was a free agent, acting according to his own will. In
> fact, he was Wotan's creation, guided by Wotan at every important step, and
> the argument with Fricka made Wotan realize this (rather belatedly, for a
> god who is supposed to be so wise). The question is, what are the
> consequences of the fact that Siegmund was Wotan's creation, and tool?
> Clearly it means that Siegmund must not do what Wotan is forbidden to do:
> take the ring from Fafner. I don't see that it means that Siegmund's
> adultery and incest, to which he was guided and enticed by Wotan, thereby
> become criminal, and even capital crimes.
No, Wotan's argument with Fricka did NOT "[make] Wotan realize...rather
belatedly" that Siegmund was his (Wotan's) creation. Wotan, the incomparable
self-deceiver, knew that right from the beginning, but willfully blinded
himself to the fact. His argument with Fricka simply showed him that he
wasn't deceiving anyone else, and *that* was the devastating realization for
him, for now he can no longer maintain his self-created illusion (delusion).
I've pointed that out to you some three times now, but you still can't seem
to get it.
As to Siegmund's "crime" (and Sieglinde's, too, for that matter), it was his
crime against Fricka's authority as the goddess of marriage and the hearth
for which Fricka demands his death, and THAT'S why he has to pay with his
life (Fricka should have demanded the same for Sieglinde, but she's silent on
that matter). I've also pointed that out to you some three times now, and
that, too, you can't seem to get.
Richard Partridge
following:
> "Richard Partridge" <r.par...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I think we agree on some basic points: Wotan was profoundly wrong when he
>> thought Siegmund was a free agent, acting according to his own will. In
>> fact, he was Wotan's creation, guided by Wotan at every important step, and
>> the argument with Fricka made Wotan realize this (rather belatedly, for a
>> god who is supposed to be so wise). The question is, what are the
>> consequences of the fact that Siegmund was Wotan's creation, and tool?
>> Clearly it means that Siegmund must not do what Wotan is forbidden to do:
>> take the ring from Fafner. I don't see that it means that Siegmund's
>> adultery and incest, to which he was guided and enticed by Wotan, thereby
>> become criminal, and even capital crimes.
>
> No, Wotan's argument with Fricka did NOT "[make] Wotan realize...rather
> belatedly" that Siegmund was his (Wotan's) creation. Wotan, the incomparable
> self-deceiver, knew that right from the beginning, but willfully blinded
> himself to the fact. His argument with Fricka simply showed him that he
> wasn't deceiving anyone else, and *that* was the devastating realization for
> him, for now he can no longer maintain his self-created illusion (delusion).
> I've pointed that out to you some three times now, but you still can't seem
> to get it.
As you say, I don't get it.
> As to Siegmund's "crime" (and Sieglinde's, too, for that matter), it was his
> crime against Fricka's authority as the goddess of marriage and the hearth
> for which Fricka demands his death, and THAT'S why he has to pay with his
> life (Fricka should have demanded the same for Sieglinde, but she's silent on
> that matter). I've also pointed that out to you some three times now, and
> that, too, you can't seem to get.
As you say, I don't get it.
Dick Partridge
M
>
> I think there's another problem with your interpretation. The
> special thing about Siegmund, Wotan says, is that he grew up on his
> own, without any protection from the gods. Thus the "G�ttergesetz"
> didn't apply to him. But surely thousands of men met that
> description? Take Hunding, just for example. We don't think that
> Wotan, or any other god, took an interest in Hunding or protected him
> in any way, do we? So why is he, and all other men like him in that
> respect, subject to the "G�ttergesetz"? And if he isn't subject to
> it, what is left of your theory that divine law is applied to all
> humanity?
Practically the first thing Hunding does is pay vocal, leitmotivic homage to
Fricka...
>
> Wotan would not have found it hard to find a free agent -- the world
> is full of them. The problem is to find a _hero_ who is a free
> agent. And, of course, the insoluble problem was to find a hero who
> was a free agent but would still do, of his own accord, what Wotan
> wanted him to do.
As the content of the Act I conversation makes clear, Hunding is basically
just a taller version of Alberich, with a stronger streak of clan and family
loyalty...
M.