Hitler's Favourite Operaa
Paul Lower
I have just been researching which versions of Die Meistersinger are
available on DVD. The cheapest one was at "DVD Popcorn" complete with the
advertising blurb "Known to be Hitler's favourite opera" Not exactly a best
seller then?
I would have thought that his favourite opera would have been the Merry
Widow and far more to his taste.
Hitler's favourite Wagner opera would appear to have been Rienzi as he took
the manuscript with him to his death.
There appears to be two version of Meistersinger on DVD, Frohberg DeBurgos
and Mackerras.
Which is the best version to buy? (and which one would Hitler have
preferred)
Paul
Stephen Worth
the Sawallisch version to him if he was shopping for a copy today. I
don't think he would mind the judicious editing of the score.
See ya
Steve
--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Herzeleide
Tristan. Unfortunately, I don't believe he gives us his source.
Stephen Worth <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote in message news:<251020041546257088%ne...@vintageip.com>...
Laon
> According to William Shirer, Hitler said his favorite Wagner opera was
> Tristan. Unfortunately, I don't believe he gives us his source.
I can confirm that Shirer didn't give a source for _Tristan_ being the
favourite. He was probably quoting someone who did actually know
Hitler, so it can't be dismissed; but it's not the whole story either.
I don't think there is actually any one answer to this question. As a
young man, Hitler's favourite opera does seem to have been _Rienzi_.
Sources independent of Kubizek confirm that. By 1943 or so his
favourite opera seems to have been Lehar's _Merry Widow_, according to
Frederick Spotts.
For the period in between, it was more likely to have been a Wagner
opera than anything else, at any particular time, but I'm not aware of
any primary source that would even give a clue as to which one, at
which time. It probably wasn't _Meistersinger_, because Hitler
complained to his secretary about people making that very assumption.
Traudl Junge wrote:
"I asked Hitler why he only went to hear _Die Meistersinger_ and other
Wagnerian operas. 'It's just my luck that I can never say I like
something without finding that I'm stuck listening to one piece of
music or hearing one particular opera. I once said that
_Meistersinger_ is really one of Richard Wagner's finest operas, so
then it's supposed to be my favourite opera and I don't get to hear
anything else. The same thing happened with the _Badenweiler March_.'"
[_Until the Final Hours: Hitler's Last Secretary_; Traudl Junge,
edited by Melissa Müller, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2002. Page
81.]
Also, Friedelind Wagner reported that Hitler really, really loved _La
Fille du Regiment_, and saw it over and over again; she was talking
about the late 1930s, so _La Fille du Regiment_ may well have been his
favourite opera at that specific time. Or it may not.
So "Hitler's favourite opera" changed over time. In the period between
the _Rienzi_ days and _The Merry Widow_ days, his "favourite opera"
was probably one of the Wagner operas most of the time, but possibly
not all of the time. And we don't know which Wagner operas were most
favoured, or when.
I gotta say, the people using "Hitler's favourite opera" as a
marketing line want their cars keyed, their taxes audited, and dead
fish dumped in their air conditioning system. It's a pretty creepy
idea of marketing, and I wouldn't give them any business.
Laon
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Paul Lower" <paul_...@tiscali.co.uk> contains these words:
> Hi
> I have just been researching which versions of Die Meistersinger are
> available on DVD. The cheapest one was at "DVD Popcorn" complete with the
> advertising blurb "Known to be Hitler's favourite opera" Not exactly a best
> seller then?
Against stupidity....
> I would have thought that his favourite opera would have been the Merry
> Widow and far more to his taste.
Oh, there's no doubt he loved Wagner; but that's not Wagner's fault. His
favourite opera, at least for most of his life, actually seems to have
been Tristan -- an opera which could not possibly appeal to
world-dominating megalomania, let alone create it as some idiots claim.
He did as you say come to dote on Lehar, and that was in his years of
supreme power, Final Solution and etc.
> Hitler's favourite Wagner opera would appear to have been Rienzi as he took
> the manuscript with him to his death.
He had several important Wagner MSS with him in Berlin, certainly not
just Rienzi; probably they were destroyed, though not directly with him,
but nobody knows for certain -- except possibly the Russians.
> There appears to be two version of Meistersinger on DVD, Frohberg DeBurgos
> and Mackerras.
> Which is the best version to buy? (and which one would Hitler have
> preferred)
I very much hope that's a joke.
But if you're seriously interested, here's my opinion, for what it's
worth. The Mackerras is an Australian TV recording of a medium-scale
stage production, notably traditional, with plenty of life and good
humour. M. turns in a lively theatrical reading; Donald McIntyre is an
excellent if rough-edged Sachs, the Eva is pretty good and John
Pringle's Beckmesser likewise, but Paul Frey's Walther is rather
dry-toned and pallid, and while the orchestra and the recording are both
decent enough, they're not first-class. The Fruhbeck de Bourgeois -- as
Henry Kelly once referred to him on Classic FM -- is, surprisingly, more
lyrically conducted than Mackerras; there's not much to choose, but the
orchestra is a great deal better, and the recording is excellent. I
really dislike Brendel's moustachioed Sachs, finding him superficially
characterized and unimpressively sung, generally a bore, but not
everyone agrees. The late Gosta Winbergh's Walther, on the other hand,
is very good, though a bit on the beefy side. The Eva is not bad, but
even beefier. Eike Wilm Schulte was born to sing Beckmesser, but he's
not as funny as Pringle. The production I find unsatisfying, straining
to be "different", by sticking everyone in semi-Victorian costumes and
in ostentatiously stylized, rather sterile sets; characterization seems
to be left to the singers, so some of the lesser roles and the chorus
are distinctly routine. I disliked it greatly when I first saw it, but I
must admit my opinion improved with the DVD; it's by no means
unwatchable. All the same, of the two it's usually the Mackerras I watch
for pleasure.
There are two more possible choices, one imminent, the other a good
candidate for re-release. The imminent one is the Met staging with James
Morris and Ben Heppner, a positively cetacean Walther but fine voiced;
it could outclass the others. The other is the Bayreuth staging with
Bernd Weikl, Siegfried Jerusalem, Hermann Prey and Marianne Haggaender,
conducted by Horst Stein; and though that has its sillinesses, and can
be a shade bland, and Jerusalem is a rather diffident Walther, it does
outclass the Fruhbeck de Burgos and Mackerras both. But when that will
appear is anybody's guess; Philips has rather a strange reissue
selection, and of its Bayreuth recordings only the Ring has so far
surfaced. The others are long overdue -- perhaps to be released in a
set, or something. Worth waiting for the Met, therefore; but keep your
eye out for this.
Paul Lower
Thankyou for your comprehensive assessment of the two available candidates.
I am serious about my Wagner listening and watching, although the Hitler bit
was an example of my warped sense of humour.
It would seem that I would be better off waiting for the Met version in the
near future. I have seen the Bayreuth version on video and was not overly
impressed with it. It does look however seem to be a safer bet than either
of the ones I have mentioned in my email.
It is a pity that Philips have not released the rest of the Bayreuth
recordings on DVD. I particularly liked the Hollander and the Lohengrin from
that set.
Paul
"Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200410261...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
Derrick Everett
Maybe we should suggest to "DVD Popcorn" that, in the interests of
"truth in advertising" (there's a novel concept), they might like to
try selling 'Die lustige Witwe' and 'La Fille du Regiment' packaged
together as "Hitler's favourite operas"?
--
Derrick Everett
Hans Christian Hoff
"Derrick Everett" <mimir...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec71da1e.04102...@posting.google.com...
Frederic Spotts: "Hitler and the power of aesthetics" has a whole chapter
called "The perfect Wagnerite" about Hitlers relationship with Bayreuth and
its leading figures. On pp.235-236 the author discusses which opera was
Hitler's favourite. Herer it is said that he could hum every tune in Die
Meistersinger, having heard it at least a hundred times, that Lohengrin held
a special place in his heart (a rather dubious recommendation, I should say)
but that it was Tristan that meant most to him.
The author cites Winifred Wagner saying that Hitler's passion for Wagner was
considered 'downright batty' within the higher echelons of the Nazi party,
and states that Albert Speer and Sepp Dietrich confirmed this. He also cites
Heinz Tietjen stating that leading party officials were hostile to Wagner.
Spotts also confirms that in his later years the Merry Widow was Hitler's
favourite; at his birthday party in 1943 he treated his guests to a complete
recording.
Regards
Hans
Derrick Everett
> The message <417d702b$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> from "Paul
> Lower" <paul_...@tiscali.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> Hitler's favourite Wagner opera would appear to have been Rienzi as he
>> took the manuscript with him to his death.
>
> He had several important Wagner MSS with him in Berlin, certainly not
> just Rienzi; probably they were destroyed, though not directly with him,
> but nobody knows for certain -- except possibly the Russians.
>
>
There are tantalizing rumours that some of those MSS survived. I admit to
being sceptical. The 'Rienzi' MS was the autograph score, completed by
Wagner in 1840 and presented by him to King Ludwig at Xmas 1868.
--
Derrick Everett (deverett at c2i.net)
==== Writing from 59°54'N 10°36'E ====
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
Hans Christian Hoff
possession of the original scores that Wagner had given to Ludwig II - the
autograph scores of die Feen, das Liebesverbot and Rienzi, the clean copies
of Rheingod and Walkure, a duplicate of orchestral sketches for parts of
Siegfried and a cop of the orchestral sketch for Götterdämmerung. These were
gifts from Winnifred Wagner for Hitler's 50th birthday in 1939; they had
under some duress been bought from the Wittelsbach estate for 800.000
Reichsmark.
Winnifred in 1945 urged Hitler to send them back to Bayreuth, so that they
would not be destroyed in the Russian onslaught, but Hitler would not let go
of them, and their subsuquent fate is unknown.
Regards
Hans
"Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.10.29....@c2i.net...
Derrick Everett
> According to Spotts: "Hitler and the power of the Aesthetics" Hitler had
> possession of the original scores that Wagner had given to Ludwig II -
> the autograph scores of die Feen, das Liebesverbot and Rienzi, the
> clean copies of Rheingod and Walkure, a duplicate of orchestral sketches
> for parts of Siegfried and a cop of the orchestral sketch for
> Götterdämmerung. These were gifts from Winnifred Wagner for Hitler's
> 50th birthday in 1939; they had under some duress been bought from the
> Wittelsbach estate for 800.000 Reichsmark.
Spotts does not give the complete details, which include the following.
From 1865 onwards, Richard Wagner presented to his patron, King Ludwig II
of Bavaria, the manuscripts you mentioned above. Seventy years later,
those manuscripts were purchased from the Wittelsbach estate by the
German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, who presented them to Hitler on
his 50th birthday.
Precisely, the manuscripts that were in possession of Adolf Hitler were:
1. The autograph full score of 'Die Feen'
2. The autograph full score of 'Das Liebesverbot'
3. The autograph full score of 'Rienzi'
4. An autograph copy of the full score of 'Das Rheingold'
5. An autograph copy of the full score of 'Die Walküre'
6. Wagner's orchestral sketch (Gesamtentwurf) for 'Holländer'
7. His orchestral sketch for 'Götterdämmerung'
8. His orchestral sketch for the third act of 'Siegfried'
For each of these manuscripts, the WWV states: "Von 1939 bis 1945 im
Besitz von Adolf Hitler" (pages 116, 137, 180, 229, 335, 367, 382 and 398).
The history of these manuscripts is described in the foreword to WWV (page
21, last paragraph).
> Winnifred in 1945 urged Hitler to send them back to Bayreuth, so that
> they would not be destroyed in the Russian onslaught, but Hitler would
> not let go of them, and their subsuquent fate is unknown.
It is not recorded that Winifred discussed these manuscripts with Hitler.
Wieland Wagner and his brother-in-law Bodo Lafferentz went to Berlin, at
great personal risk, to plead with Hitler to allow them to take the
manuscripts back to the relative safety of Bayreuth. They were not able
to speak to Hitler, who was busy mismanaging a war, but an aide assured
them the MSS would be safe in Berlin and so they returned to Bayreuth
empty-handed. See Wolfgang Wagner's autobiography, pages 72-3, and of
course Spott's 'Bayreuth, a History of the Wagner Festival', page 198.
Hans Christian Hoff
I am impressed (and realise why everyone should beware of the man with only
one book) ;-).
Regards
Hans
Jonathan Carr
generally accepted as an accurate source, Hitler said after listening
to the Tristan Prelude und Liebestod that "Tristan is indeed his
greatest work." (Entry dated the night of 24/25.1.1942).
But maybe his favourite was simply the one he had most recently heard.
It does happen.
Cheers.
Jonathan Carr
Derrick Everett <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.29....@c2i.net>...
Juan Merello-Galasso, M.D.
Nürnberg, but enjoyed all of them, as all real Wagnerians.
Greetings
"Hans Christian Hoff" <hch...@broadpark.no> escribió en el mensaje
news:4182d539$1...@news.broadpark.no...
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Juan Merello-Galasso, M.D." <sa...@mi.cl> contains these words:
> The favourite Hitler's Wagner work seems that it was Die Meistersinger von
> Nürnberg, but enjoyed all of them, as all real Wagnerians.
If he'd been a real Wagnerian, that is with some understanding of and
empathy with the composer, he would hardly have been a fascist.
gavro...@yahoo.com
most recently heard. After listening to a recording of the Vorspiel und
Liebestod from "Tristan und Isolde" at his "Wolf's Lair" HQ
in East Prussia in the night of January 24/25 1942, the "Führer"
reportedly sighed that "Tristan really is his greatest work. We have
the love of Mathilde Wesendonk to thank for that.....(although)... she
did not have the greatness of Cosima." (Source: the "Monologe im
Führer-Hauptquartier" of Heinrich Heims - almost universally
deemed reliable).
I can't help feeling that had Hitler not been the "Führer" but
merely an Austrian artist of humble ability and still humbler means, he
would have been locked up (or worse) by the Nazis for his dangerous
musical taste. After all, "Tristan's" doomed, treacherous lovers
were anything but role models for a Reich urging increased production
of bouncing (Aryan) babies. Then there is the infernal "Ring" that,
muddled though it be, surely shows how disaster strikes those spurred
by greed and lust for power. The truth of that message was indeed never
better confirmed than by the "Führer" and his loathsome movement,
but that was hardly their intention.
That Hitler beamed with delight during "Meistersinger" is well
documented. No doubt he saw himself as Sachs. Both played big roles in
Nuremberg after all. But then, what does Sachs do after being hailed in
the "Wach´ auf" chorus? He responds with an admonition - that
the people too easily bestow great honour on one not worthy to receive
it. The music here harks back to the "Wahn" monologue, in which
Sachs reflects on the endless capacity of human beings to "torment
and flay one another in foolish, useless anger." If Hitler and his
minions had really listened carefully, and pondered what they heard,
they would have found it hard to avoid classing Wagner's real
"message" as subversive.
Come to think of it, they did get round to banning "Parsifal"
during the war - or at least to making it clear that performances
were "not desired" which almost came to the same thing. Maybe if
the war had gone on a few years longer, the "Ring" and "Tristan" would
have gone the same way (not to mention the defeatist "Rienzi").
Cheers.
Jonathan Carr
Mike Scott Rohan
from gavro...@yahoo.com contains these words:
> I can't help feeling that had Hitler not been the "Führer" but
> merely an Austrian artist of humble ability and still humbler means, he
> would have been locked up (or worse) by the Nazis for his dangerous
> musical taste.
More likely he would have been drafted for something nasty -- or even
sent to the camps, on the basis of his brief Communist party membership
(something which has only just emerged, during his final days in the
army).
{reordered}
> Come to think of it, they did get round to banning "Parsifal"
> during the war - or at least to making it clear that performances
> were "not desired" which almost came to the same thing. Maybe if
> the war had gone on a few years longer, the "Ring" and "Tristan" would
> have gone the same way (not to mention the defeatist "Rienzi").
It came to absolutely the same thing, only without the publicity.
Banning "degenerate art" was good publicity, banning Wagner would just
have made them look ridiculous -- which of course they were. But for the
most part it's well established that the Nazis were not as a rule fond
of Wagner, and his link with them came chiefly from Hitler's tastes;
Wagner's antisemitism was mildly convenient, but didn't make a big
difference, since it did not endorse their key views.
> That Hitler beamed with delight during "Meistersinger" is well
> documented. No doubt he saw himself as Sachs. Both played big roles in
> Nuremberg after all. But then, what does Sachs do after being hailed in
> the "Wach´ auf" chorus? He responds with an admonition - that
> the people too easily bestow great honour on one not worthy to receive
> it. The music here harks back to the "Wahn" monologue, in which
> Sachs reflects on the endless capacity of human beings to "torment
> and flay one another in foolish, useless anger." If Hitler and his
> minions had really listened carefully, and pondered what they heard,
> they would have found it hard to avoid classing Wagner's real
> "message" as subversive.
Yes -- although "trust the people" is the message of Meistersinger, at
least in human matters; that's what Sachs advocates in Act I -- not that
her father or the other Mastersingers should choose the winner, not Eva
herself (who is only a slip of a girl, after all, and this is a
Victorian work) and hence not even that love should, but that the people
should choose for her. So I don't think Sachs is being terribly critical
of the people's choice -- just modest. The Wahn motive is indeed
significant, but I think it refers more to Sachs' personal emotions, and
fears which later emerge in his final speech. The Nazis hailed that as
nationalistic and triumphalist, and of course people have acceted that
unquestioningly today; but the more you know about the history of the
following years, the clearer it is that Sachs is not talking about
conquest or anything of the sort, but about art as a shield for a people
victimized, embattled and under alien rule -- all of which happened.
Wagner is saying, very clearly, it was art, not force of arms, that
preserved the identity of Germany during that dreadful time that Sachs
foresees, basically the Thirty Years War. That message would indeed have
disturbed the Nazis, and so I agree with you by a different route!
But "subversive"-- that's a word I distrust. Not everything
revolutionary is subversive. It was the Nazis, if anything, who were
subversive in their attempts to overturn human nature and turn it into
something much more ruthless and savage, which in their infantile
fantasies they confused with strength. Sometimes art's message is to
preserve, unite and restore, and that can be the most explosive one of
all; and it's that I hear in Mastersingers, one of continual
reconciliation.
Cheers,
Mike
P.S. Of course Beckmesser is left out, but that's both his fault and his
choice; he's neither decisively punished nor banished, just laughed at,
and as Sachs says earlier, such a man may learn through his folly, so I
think we can assume that's Beckmesser's fate.
gavro...@yahoo.com
> The message <1107197466.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> from gavro...@yahoo.com contains these words:
>
> Yes -- although "trust the people" is the message of Meistersinger,
at
> least in human matters; that's what Sachs advocates in Act I -- not
that
> her father or the other Mastersingers should choose the winner, not
Eva
> herself (who is only a slip of a girl, after all, and this is a
> Victorian work) and hence not even that love should, but that the
people
> should choose for her.
A "slip of a girl" eh? Rather, a girl who knows what she wants from
the very start when she - oh so accidently - leaves her shawl in the
pew, who twists Sachs around her little finger and who finally gets her
Meister. Some slip! I agree some Evchens give the impression that they
are more acted upon than acting, but not the great ones - Schwarzkopf,
Janowitz, Mueller....
As for the Nazis "overturning" human nature - well, its a nice thought
but a bit too optimistic, I fear.
Cheers.
Jonathan Carr
Mike Scott Rohan
from gavro...@yahoo.com contains these words:
> Mike Scott Rohan wrote:
> > The message <1107197466.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> > from gavro...@yahoo.com contains these words:
> >
> > Yes -- although "trust the people" is the message of Meistersinger,
> at
> > least in human matters; that's what Sachs advocates in Act I -- not
> that
> > her father or the other Mastersingers should choose the winner, not
> Eva
> > herself (who is only a slip of a girl, after all, and this is a
> > Victorian work) and hence not even that love should, but that the
> people
> > should choose for her.
> A "slip of a girl" eh? Rather, a girl who knows what she wants from
> the very start when she - oh so accidently - leaves her shawl in the
> pew, who twists Sachs around her little finger and who finally gets her
> Meister. Some slip! I agree some Evchens give the impression that they
> are more acted upon than acting, but not the great ones - Schwarzkopf,
> Janowitz, Mueller....
My point was that that was how a girl of her age was viewed in Victorian
times, and in Sachs' own time, still more so -- look at Shakespearian
comedies, as of course both the real Sachs and Wagner did -- as not
having enough judgement of her own, and therefore requiring approval
from elsewhere. Of course, like several Shakespearean figures, Eva does
indeed manoeuvre and manipulate around this -- but carefully, so as not
to challenge her father's assumptions: "Ein folgsam Kind...." But does
she twist Sachs? She tries, but though he's indulgent I'd say he does
most of the twisting.
> As for the Nazis "overturning" human nature - well, its a nice thought
> but a bit too optimistic, I fear.
Sorry, not sure what you mean by "a nice thought" -- that the Nazis were
actually all too much a part of human nature? Yes, unfortunately, they
were. But not content with that, they made a religion out of their
systematized brutality, believing that it was not only right but
fundamentally necessary for their ideal "new men" to be consistently
"hard". It was a belief which ennobled plain bullying and sadism to the
status not only of duty but of consecration and ideal. So the SS types
who made elderly Jewish pianists scrub the streets with their bare hands
and caustic soda, or the Wehrmacht cavalry that herded women and
children into marshes and cut them down, could according to Nazi
doctrine congratulate themselves on refining their natures according to
the new values. It conveniently took care of anything like regret.
gavro...@yahoo.com
Of course, like several Shakespearean figures, Eva does
> indeed manoeuvre and manipulate around this -- but carefully, so as
not
> to challenge her father's assumptions: "Ein folgsam Kind...." But
does
> she twist Sachs? She tries, but though he's indulgent I'd say he does
> most of the twisting.
Well, I must beg to differ (though maybe Wagner would say - happily -
that we are both right since the two characters are not easily tied
down). I feel Eva has Sachs in the palm of her hand - or thereabouts -
for much of the time. If Walther falls through then in her view the
lovelorn Sachs ("Gar gross und schoen!") will very likely be available,
despite his unconvincing claim of being "zu alt fuer dich." And how
delighted Evchen must have been when Sachs made mincemeat of Beckmesser
and his puerile song well within earshot in the second act.The best
possible preparation for a reasonable outcome, from her point of view,
in the third.....
By the way, I'm not quite sure what significance "Victorian" has in the
"Meistersinger" context - except that the lady concerned ("not at all
pretty with, I am sorry to say, a rather red nose" - Wagner) happened
to be on the British throne at the time.
> > As for the Nazis "overturning" human nature - well, its a nice
thought
> > but a bit too optimistic, I fear.
>
> Sorry, not sure what you mean by "a nice thought"
I'm sorry too. I can see that is unclear. I meant the Nazis did not,
alas, have to "overturn" human nature - merely encourage and reward the
worst constituent parts of it.
Cheers.
Jonathan Carr
gavro...@yahoo.com
Of course, like several Shakespearean figures, Eva does
> indeed manoeuvre and manipulate around this -- but carefully, so as
not
> to challenge her father's assumptions: "Ein folgsam Kind...." But
does
> she twist Sachs? She tries, but though he's indulgent I'd say he does
> most of the twisting.
Well, I must beg to differ (though maybe Wagner would say - happily -
that we are both right since the two characters are not easily tied
down). I feel Eva has Sachs in the palm of her hand - or thereabouts -
for much of the time. If Walther falls through then in her view the
lovelorn Sachs ("Gar gross und schoen!") will very likely be available,
despite his unconvincing claim of being "zu alt fuer dich." And how
delighted Evchen must have been when Sachs made mincemeat of Beckmesser
and his puerile song well within earshot in the second act.The best
possible preparation for a reasonable outcome, from her point of view,
in the third.....
By the way, I'm not quite sure what significance "Victorian" has in the
"Meistersinger" context - except that the lady concerned ("not at all
pretty with, I am sorry to say, a rather red nose" - Wagner) happened
to be on the British throne at the time.
> > As for the Nazis "overturning" human nature - well, its a nice
thought
> > but a bit too optimistic, I fear.
>
> Sorry, not sure what you mean by "a nice thought"
I'm sorry too. I can see that is unclear. I meant the Nazis did not,
gavro...@yahoo.com
Of course, like several Shakespearean figures, Eva does
> indeed manoeuvre and manipulate around this -- but carefully, so as
not
> to challenge her father's assumptions: "Ein folgsam Kind...." But
does
> she twist Sachs? She tries, but though he's indulgent I'd say he does
> most of the twisting.
Well, I must beg to differ (though maybe Wagner would say - happily -
that we are both right since the two characters are not easily tied
down). I feel Eva has Sachs in the palm of her hand - or thereabouts -
for much of the time. If Walther falls through then in her view the
lovelorn Sachs ("Gar gross und schoen!") will very likely be available,
despite his unconvincing claim of being "zu alt fuer dich." And how
delighted Evchen must have been when Sachs made mincemeat of Beckmesser
and his puerile song well within earshot in the second act.The best
possible preparation for a reasonable outcome, from her point of view,
in the third.....
By the way, I'm not quite sure what significance "Victorian" has in the
"Meistersinger" context - except that the lady concerned ("not at all
pretty with, I am sorry to say, a rather red nose" - Wagner) happened
to be on the British throne at the time.
> > As for the Nazis "overturning" human nature - well, its a nice
thought
> > but a bit too optimistic, I fear.
>
> Sorry, not sure what you mean by "a nice thought"
I'm sorry too. I can see that is unclear. I meant the Nazis did not
need to "overturn" human nature because, sadly, human nature - at least
the brutal, opportunistic, envious, greedy elements of it - met them at
least half-way.
Cheers.
Jonathan Carr
Bert Coules
Mike Scott Rohan
from gavro...@yahoo.com contains these words:
{snip}
> Well, I must beg to differ (though maybe Wagner would say - happily -
> that we are both right since the two characters are not easily tied
> down). I feel Eva has Sachs in the palm of her hand - or thereabouts -
> for much of the time. If Walther falls through then in her view the
> lovelorn Sachs ("Gar gross und schoen!") will very likely be available,
> despite his unconvincing claim of being "zu alt fuer dich." And how
> delighted Evchen must have been when Sachs made mincemeat of Beckmesser
> and his puerile song well within earshot in the second act.The best
> possible preparation for a reasonable outcome, from her point of view,
> in the third.....
Sachs is certainly *not* available, as the entire "Tristan und Isolde"
scene shows. He specifically says he's advancing her romance to marry
her off, because he's too wise to suffer King Mark's fate -- by
implication inevitable.
(It's interesting, though, that the historical Sachs, who was only a
widower for one year, his 60th -- which is why we know when
Meistersinger is set -- did marry a very young second wife, barely out
of her teens, I believe. Old goat.)
> By the way, I'm not quite sure what significance "Victorian" has in the
> "Meistersinger" context - except that the lady concerned ("not at all
> pretty with, I am sorry to say, a rather red nose" - Wagner) happened
> to be on the British throne at the time.
Simply to define the period -- in a handy, although British term -- in
which the work was written, in which women were still not considered
entirely able to make up their own minds; in that there was no great
clash between the ethos of Sachs' own time and Wagner's. Though mind
you, I have reports by German travellers to England in the Elizabethan
era, remarking on the liberty the women enjoyed compared to home...
> > > As for the Nazis "overturning" human nature - well, its a nice
> thought
> > > but a bit too optimistic, I fear.
> >
> > Sorry, not sure what you mean by "a nice thought"
> I'm sorry too. I can see that is unclear. I meant the Nazis did not,
> alas, have to "overturn" human nature - merely encourage and reward the
> worst constituent parts of it.
Yes, indeed -- but they were trying to burn out what normal people would
consider the better parts, or at least make these highly selective. They
did not altogether succeed; flashes of humanity would keep surfacing at
the least expected times, though hardly counterbalancing the rest. They
did even among the more heavily indoctrinated Japanese soldiers, too. It
was that attempt, and that failure, which I had in mind.
Cheers,
Mike
gavro...@yahoo.com
Indeed! But I'm not sure I would call on Wieland as an ally in this
particular connection - much though I loved many of his productions,
Wagnerian or not. In his bid to avoid what he called "a mixture of
Lortzing and Reichsparteitag" he really did take Nuremberg out of
"Meistersinger" and presented the work in a way that, with the best
will in the world, I can only call perverse. His bad conscience, no
doubt, having done the heavily traditional stage designs for those
notorious Bayreuth "Meistsrsingers" during the war - the ones in which
members of the SS "Wiking" division were used to strengthen the chorus
of jolly Nurembergers on stage.
Oh dear, we're back to Hitler again. I cease.
Cheers.
Jonathan Carr
gavro...@yahoo.com
>
> Sachs is certainly *not* available, as the entire "Tristan und
Isolde"
> scene shows. He specifically says he's advancing her romance to marry
> her off, because he's too wise to suffer King Mark's fate -- by
> implication inevitable.
Yes, I know what he says about the dismal King - but only after he's
erupted in anger because he sees Eva really will get her knight after
all. If he had no hope ("Du machst wohl ALT und Jung begehrlich, wenn
du so schoen erscheinst,")why does he fly into such a rage? By the way,
I sometimes wish Wagner had produced a "real truth" act four - with Eva
back in Sachs's little shop bewailing her husband's superficiality (and
lack of a steady job?),above all compared with.....Bad theatre, of
course, and whatever else one can accuse Wagner of, it's not that.
>
> (It's interesting, though, that the historical Sachs, who was only a
> widower for one year, his 60th -- which is why we know when
> Meistersinger is set -- did marry a very young second wife, barely
out
> of her teens, I believe. Old goat.)
And, I believe, they lived happily ever after - well, almost ever.
Old(ish), no doubt - goat,hardly.
Cheers.
Jonathan Carr
>
Lady Chatterly
gavro...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>Mike Scott Rohan wrote:
>
>Of course, like several Shakespearean figures, Eva does
>> indeed manoeuvre and manipulate around this -- but carefully, so as
>not
>> to challenge her father's assumptions: "Ein folgsam Kind...." But
>does
>> she twist Sachs? She tries, but though he's indulgent I'd say he does
>> most of the twisting.
But does she twist sachs.
>Well, I must beg to differ (though maybe Wagner would say - happily -
>that we are both right since the two characters are not easily tied
>down). I feel Eva has Sachs in the palm of her hand - or thereabouts -
>for much of the time. If Walther falls through then in her view the
>lovelorn Sachs ("Gar gross und schoen!") will very likely be available,
>despite his unconvincing claim of being "zu alt fuer dich." And how
>delighted Evchen must have been when Sachs made mincemeat of Beckmesser
>and his puerile song well within earshot in the second act.The best
>possible preparation for a reasonable outcome, from her point of view,
>in the third.....
>By the way, I'm not quite sure what significance "Victorian" has in the
>"Meistersinger" context - except that the lady concerned ("not at all
>pretty with, I am sorry to say, a rather red nose" - Wagner) happened
>to be on the British throne at the time.
Why do you think you are not quite sure what significance Victorian
has in the meistersinger context except that the lady concerned? Is
that how long have you thought you were sorry to say?
>> > As for the Nazis "overturning" human nature - well, its a nice
>thought
>> > but a bit too optimistic, I fear.
>>
>> Sorry, not sure what you mean by "a nice thought"
>
>I'm sorry too. I can see that is unclear. I meant the Nazis did not,
>alas, have to "overturn" human nature - merely encourage and reward the
>worst constituent parts of it.
End of this is that 72 of the French government and French people.
>Cheers.
Divinissimum est.
>Jonathan Carr
Not like your view is at all presumptuous ...
--
Lady Chatterly
"It's Mark Twain and you're replying to a bot." -- Reverend Mosnar©
Richard Loeb
beginning of the second Act duet but half way through Sachs realizes what
she is up to and clinches it by pretending to denigrate Stolzings singing in
the first Act trial. When she flies into a rage, he figures out exactly what
she has been up to and from then on, he pretty much knows exactly what she
is about and who she loves. Richard
"Lady Chatterly" <gavro...@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote in message
news:12205f0....@worldnet.att.net...
Mike Scott Rohan
from gavro...@yahoo.com contains these words:
> Mike Scott Rohan wrote:
> >
> > Sachs is certainly *not* available, as the entire "Tristan und
> Isolde"
> > scene shows. He specifically says he's advancing her romance to marry
> > her off, because he's too wise to suffer King Mark's fate -- by
> > implication inevitable.
> Yes, I know what he says about the dismal King - but only after he's
> erupted in anger because he sees Eva really will get her knight after
> all. If he had no hope ("Du machst wohl ALT und Jung begehrlich, wenn
> du so schoen erscheinst,")why does he fly into such a rage?
I don't believe that's what Wagner intended, because it neither reads
nor plays that way. Sachs's burst of anger is hardly disappointment, but
a reaction to the way Eva has been trying to manipulate his feelings --
a mistake she realizes when she suddenly sees that he "knows better than
she does where the shoe pinches". Sachs is too much in control
throughout to be jealous; if he had ever had the least will or hope
himself he could easily capitalize on it. The situation is set up for
him -- no doubt because that's what Pogner originally intended*. Yet at
every turn he takes the opposite course and goes out of his way to help
Walther and her. So how would it fit for him to still have any
expectations? But that's not to say he doesn't have any feelings for Eva
-- of course he does, and he hasn't had much credit for them from Eva
till now, hence her reaction to his tetchy revelation. Eva, blind with
the ruthlessness of youth and love, acquires a little insight herself
and realizes how much she's been messing him about -- hence the apology.
"I would, I really want to -- but it's out of my hands...." And, very
sensibly Sachs agrees.
*To marry off his daughter, with his riches, to his best friend. A point
I've never seen made elsewhere, so I lay claim to it, but when you look
at things from his POV, and before Walther lounges onto the scene, it
makes considerable sense of what's otherwise a rather outre plot point.
Pogner's scheme becomes a clever and elegant gesture, a way of forcing
matters without appearing to, and of honouring his friend at the same
time. He could be confident of Sachs winning the contest, if he entered
-- and Sachs would of course be by far the most likely "Master of Eva's
choice". And he must be aware of their mutual affection. It's no
accident that he's just suggested dropping in on Sachs when he stresses
that point to her.
By the way,
> I sometimes wish Wagner had produced a "real truth" act four - with Eva
> back in Sachs's little shop bewailing her husband's superficiality (and
> lack of a steady job?),above all compared with.....Bad theatre, of
> course, and whatever else one can accuse Wagner of, it's not that.
Kitchen-sink Wagner? No, I don't think it sounds terribly promising,
either -- despite at least two recent Siegfried stagings which have
featured exactly that (and one a lavatory). "Mild und leise..." would
sound like a soap ad.
Anyhow, Eva's auguries aren't that bad; despite being a tenor Walther
has some promising points -- wild romantic with scholarly instincts,
since he can read the Minnesingers, so he may have some depths. And he
has the money from selling his lands, plus his dowry from Pogner, which
would be substantial -- all his property, after his death one presumes,
and that would be a lot of money. Some contemporary or other records
that "the King of Scotland does not live in the splendour of a burgher
of Nuremberg", and Pogner would be the wealthiest. (And the Scottish
royal residences weren't at all bad, back then.) That makes up for the
lack of a job -- or he might just swallow some of that pride and go into
the business. And Eva has more personality and resources than, say,
Mozart's Countess. I think her biggest problem is likely to be Walther
discovering middle-aged womanizing. Anyone that eligible and ardent is
going to find it just too easy.
> >
> > (It's interesting, though, that the historical Sachs, who was only a
> > widower for one year, his 60th -- which is why we know when
> > Meistersinger is set -- did marry a very young second wife, barely
> out
> > of her teens, I believe. Old goat.)
> And, I believe, they lived happily ever after - well, almost ever.
> Old(ish), no doubt - goat,hardly.
Marrying a fresh young thing at that age? Worse than Warren Beatty or
whoever. Still, no doubt I'm just jealous.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> contains these words:
> But she doesn't really twist Sachs at all, does she - she tries to at the
> beginning of the second Act duet but half way through Sachs realizes what
> she is up to and clinches it by pretending to denigrate Stolzings
> singing in
> the first Act trial. When she flies into a rage, he figures out
> exactly what
> she has been up to and from then on, he pretty much knows exactly what she
> is about and who she loves. Richard
That's certainly how I've always understood it! And it makes Sachs a
more consistent and self-aware figure, which is how he's shown us in
every other context. His outburst is undoubtedly partly triggered by
sexual tension at seeing Eva's reaction to Walther, but not exactly
jealousy or disappointment. He has, of course, just been handling her
foot, which would be something of a turn-on and seen as such by Wagner
and his audience, I'm sure -- a little risque for the time, when a
glimpse of stocking was shocking, to paraphrase Cole Porter, or at least
piquant, especially given his Act II song. So the situation is shall we
say charged.
Which is not to enter into Rose's, or whoever the fool is, speculations
about foot-fetishism in Wagner. It probably did not occur to the twit
that if your central character is a cobbler you're inevitably going to
end up with a lot of foot-imagery!
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from Lady Chatterly <gavro...@catcher.in.the.rye> contains these words:
{snip}
> >
> >I'm sorry too. I can see that is unclear. I meant the Nazis did not,
> >alas, have to "overturn" human nature - merely encourage and reward the
> >worst constituent parts of it.
> End of this is that 72 of the French government and French people.
Mille excuses, mais ca veut dire quoi, pardi?
Sante,
Mike
Derrick Everett
speculations about foot-fetishism in Wagner. It probably did not occur
to the twit that if your central character is a cobbler you're
inevitably going to end up with a lot of foot-imagery! "
It was Marc Weiner. His foot-fetishism theory is a lot of cobblers.
--
Derrick Everett
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Derrick Everett" <mimir...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
Thanks, Derek. Except for that last bit. Sachs would have loved it.
Cheers,
Mike
gavro...@yahoo.com
>
> That's certainly how I've always understood it! And it makes Sachs a
> more consistent and self-aware figure, which is how he's shown us in
> every other context. His outburst is undoubtedly partly triggered by
> sexual tension at seeing Eva's reaction to Walther, but not exactly
> jealousy or disappointment.
Well, if it isn't ,,exactly" it's peculiarly close. Or are we to
understand Sachs's words - "ist er erst noch Witwer gar, zum
Narren haelt man ihn fuerwahr: die juengsten Maedchen, ist Not am Mann,
begehren, er hielte um sie an...usw" as a general statement about
the victimisation of widowers by young girls in the world at large?
As for "consistent" and "self-aware," they are not the first
words I would use about Sachs. He helps Eva win her knight at least
half hoping it will not work out; hence his rage, also at himself, when
he sees her slipping away from him for good in act three. Eva does
indeed want Walther above all, but she is pretty sure she has "freund
Sachs" to fall back on should her first option not prove possible.
She even tells Sachs he was really her first choice - overdoing it a
bit, admittedly, but not turning the truth wholly on its head.
I agree much depends on how these characters are played (and sung).
When the Sachs is avuncular and/or intellectual (Hotter, F-Dieskau), it
is hard to believe he really has designs on Eva, or indeed ever acts
from self-interest. More aggressive Sachs's (Tomlinson,
Imdahl)literally explode with rage in act three, as though they have
been playing a very deep game that has not worked out after all. Theo
Adam came nicely in the middle - more on the stage than in his
recording, alas.
Something of the same can be said of the other characters. Is Eva tough
and calculating (Schwarzkopf, Janowitz) or sweetly obedient (Gueden,
Popp)? Beckmesser can seem sympathetic (Prey), Magdalene seductive
(Fassbaender), David witty (Schreier). The miracle is that Wagner's
score can yield all this. Some Wagner I could do without
("Lohengrin" one or two bits apart); some I would be loath to part
with ("Tristan."); but "Meistersinger" - that is simply
indispensable. Did Wagner ever write a finer act than the second one
here? Did anyone?
Cheers
Jonathan Carr
P.S. As I write this I am being interrupted by the strains of carnival
in the Rhineland. Something like the Fest on the Nuremberg meadow, I
suppose - but less well sung.
Mike Scott Rohan
from gavro...@yahoo.com contains these words:
{snip}
> Well, if it isn't ,,exactly" it's peculiarly close. Or are we to
> understand Sachs's words - "ist er erst noch Witwer gar, zum
> Narren haelt man ihn fuerwahr: die juengsten Maedchen, ist Not am Mann,
> begehren, er hielte um sie an...usw" as a general statement about
> the victimisation of widowers by young girls in the world at large?
No, but nothing in that outburst justifies your idea that Sachs actually
*intended* or expected to get Eva for himself.
> As for "consistent" and "self-aware," they are not the first
> words I would use about Sachs. He helps Eva win her knight at least
> half hoping it will not work out; hence his rage, also at himself, when
> he sees her slipping away from him for good in act three. Eva does
> indeed want Walther above all, but she is pretty sure she has "freund
> Sachs" to fall back on should her first option not prove possible.
> She even tells Sachs he was really her first choice - overdoing it a
> bit, admittedly, but not turning the truth wholly on its head.
They're exactly the words I would use. and I'm afraid they are
justified, and your contention contradicted, from very early on in the
text. For a start, in Act I, when Beckmesser taunts Sachs with the
suggestion he might try for Eva's hand, Sachs (before he has even met
Walther) not only flatly denies this, but says very specifically why:
that it will require a younger suitor than either of them. Beckmesser
spots a rival in Walther, and so evidently does Sachs, because he
accuses Beckmesser of malice on that ground. So by the end of Act I he
has renounced, in the Mastersinger's council, any designs on Eva's hand;
recognised Walther's interest in her; and done his best to help him in
the face of his colleagues' condemnation.
In Act II Eva starts making up to him to find out about Walther, but he
turns that aside; he then teases Eva to find out how she feels about the
young man, annoying and alienating her -- not something he would risk if
he had designs on her himself, unless you're saying he's a complete
idiot. When she rages at him, his reaction is absolutely clear: "Das
dacht ich wohl! Nun heisst's: Schaff Rat!" -- that is "Just as I
thought! Now a plan is needed!" What could that possibly refer to?
Hardly winning Eva for himself; it doesn't need a plan, and he's already
rejected the possibility twice. So it has to be to bring her and Walther
together. And that he specifically tells Eva in his song, rebuking her
for putting him to so much trouble -- which cannot be construed as
jealousy, because he refers to "Herr Adam" as well. His message, again
abundantly clear, is that he's working to bring the couple together.
After the fight he then takes Walther in -- why should he do that, if he
had the least view of him as a rival?
Then, in Act III, he rejects David's insistence that he could beat
Beckmesser, and proceeds to help Walther write a mastersong, even when
the young man says absolutely clearly what his aim is. Honestly, if
Sachs had the least expectation of Eva by this time, he would have to be
not just inconsistent but a complete moron to behave like this, or to
feel the disappointment you claim! The outburst is caused by impatience
with the time Eva has given him earlier with her teasing, and by the
situation no doubt arousing the desire he still feels -- but could there
possibly be more evidence in the text that he has decided to abandon
this desire from the word go? That he has planned, as he says, to marry
Eva off in part to save himself from that temptation, which could only
end badly? I see no room for argument there. But if any further proof is
needed, there's Sachs repeating his disclaimer to Beckmesser -- with
whom he is legalistically careful always to be truthful. And there is
the recognition Wagner puts in the mouths both of the Masters and the
people, that this has all been arranged by Sachs.
So there is plenty of evidence for my interpretation in the text -- but
where can you find one single word to firmly contradict any of it? Let
alone to justify yours?
I agree much depends on how these characters are played (and sung).
> When the Sachs is avuncular and/or intellectual (Hotter, F-Dieskau), it
> is hard to believe he really has designs on Eva, or indeed ever acts
> from self-interest. More aggressive Sachs's (Tomlinson,
> Imdahl)literally explode with rage in act three, as though they have
> been playing a very deep game that has not worked out after all. Theo
> Adam came nicely in the middle - more on the stage than in his
> recording, alas.
No. I'm afraid I cannot even remotely agree that it's anything to do
with interpretation. The text will not allow it, and neither will the
structure of the piece; Wagner would have to be a botcher making up a
ridiculously inconsistent character. And while that is enough for me, I
could add that no other authority I've ever read, not Newman or
Millington or anyone else, has suggested anything like your
interpretation; they take essentially the same line as I do. So, I would
be very interested to hear if anyone else in the group agrees that Sachs
still has any hope of Eva by Act II, let alone Act III? And that he is
not consciously plotting to bring about her more suitable marriage? I'll
leave it at that, for now.
Cheers,
Mike
Richard Loeb
with David at the beginning of Act III - when David brings up the idea of
Sachs remarrying, Sachs teasingly asks him if he thinks there should be a
"Meisterin im Haus??" and then thoughtfully says "Wer weiss - kommt Zeit,
kommt Rat" he is only thinking about it sometime in the future (of course he
has his mind on other things at this point anyway" What a wonderful and
humane work this is (sorry just had to put that in!) Richard
Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200502031...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
Ralph
Meistersinger, which trumps the irritating subject line.
Ralph
Bert Coules
Another point in favour of your position is surely this: if Sachs did
have hopes for a match with Eva, why didn't he do anything about it
before the opera began and all the complications of rival suitors and
singing competitions even arose?
Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk, wrote the following:
[snip]
> So, I would
> be very interested to hear if anyone else in the group agrees that Sachs
> still has any hope of Eva by Act II, let alone Act III? And that he is
> not consciously plotting to bring about her more suitable marriage? I'll
> leave it at that, for now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
When Eva suggests that a widower could win her, Sachs immediately replies
that such a one would be too old for her. I always thought it was obvious
from the text as a whole that from the beginning Sachs thought of nothing
except what would be best for Eva -- and that was Walther.
Dick Partridge
Richard Loeb
she says in her Act 2 scene with Sachs that she thought she had been in
Sach's heart for long time, he asks her if it was because he had carried her
as a child (I find the whole conversation has very much a parent-child feel
to it). She says that she sees it was just because he had no children and,
with ineffable sadness, he says he had a wife once and many children. She
then says "But your wife died and I've grown up!" which always strikes me as
a bit cold" Sachs replies :"Yes tall and lovely" with a mixture of nostalgia
and yearning for things past. He then then shakes himself out of it when he
jokes on his next line that it would be nice to have a child and a bride!!!!
Richard
"Richard Partridge" <r.par...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BE2815C8.C061%r.par...@verizon.net...
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> contains these words:
> And I must say I have always felt one of Eva's lines a bit heartless - when
> she says in her Act 2 scene with Sachs that she thought she had been in
> Sach's heart for long time, he asks her if it was because he had
> carried her
> as a child (I find the whole conversation has very much a parent-child feel
> to it). She says that she sees it was just because he had no children and,
> with ineffable sadness, he says he had a wife once and many children. She
> then says "But your wife died and I've grown up!" which always strikes
> me as
> a bit cold" Sachs replies :"Yes tall and lovely" with a mixture of
> nostalgia
> and yearning for things past. He then then shakes himself out of it when he
> jokes on his next line that it would be nice to have a child and a
> bride!!!!
> Richard
True, o king. And it's very true to life. Youth can be cruel. And age
can be -- well, let's call it doting. The conversation has the ring of
experience about it. Best not to ask Wagner how he knew, though; or
anyone. :-)
Cheers,
Mike
Jonathan Carr
> No. I'm afraid I cannot even remotely agree that it's anything to do
> with interpretation. The text will not allow it, and neither will the
> structure of the piece; Wagner would have to be a botcher making up a
> ridiculously inconsistent character. And while that is enough for me, I
> could add that no other authority I've ever read, not Newman or
> Millington or anyone else, has suggested anything like your
> interpretation; they take essentially the same line as I do.
Halt, Meister! Nicht so geeilt!
Nicht jeder eure Meinung teilt
I think the Sachs Wagner finally left us is a more complex character
than you give him credit for. Much of what you say would fit the
pretty simple cobbler in the draft of 1845 who was manifestly not in
love with Eva (or whatever the girl's name was at that stage). But the
more Wagner pondered "Meistersinger" the more dimensions his plot and
characters assumed. "Ridiculously inconsistent" would be one rather
unkind way to describe Wagner's final, mature Sachs, I suppose; "at
war with himself" suits me better – striving to do the "right thing"
by young Eva but sorely tempted by the "wrong" one until, at any rate,
that act three outburst and the resigned reference to King Mark.
Some authority or other, probably several, compared Sachs to the
Marschallin in "Rosenkavalier" and I find that a worthwhile thought.
Strauss's mature (but not really "old" and certainly not unattractive)
"heroine" relinquishes the young man she adores to a girl more or less
his own age, pretty late in the day and not without many pangs but
because she sees it's really "for the best" – as the saying goes. The
pain of renunciation and the joy of love unbound are then
intermingled, not as with Wagner in a great quintet, but in a trio
that for sheer beauty runs the Master pretty close (if one is allowed
so outrageous a remark on a Wagner List). It is true that whereas
Octavian really has been the Marschallin's lover, Eva has certainly
not been Sachs's. Not so far, anyway, and Sachs is surely well aware
that that is how things should stay. On the other hand….well,
actually, why not – if the knight doesn't make it (as, in principle,
he should) and the beastly Marker gets his just deserts. Not the sort
of dilemma unknown to the Master, of course, from Mathilde Wesendonk,
via Judith Gautier to Carrie Pringle.
I'm sorry if such fine Wagnerians as Ernest Newman and Barry
Millington are not on my side here (although I had the impression that
Millington was rarely called on in this List as a reliable witness in
connection with "Meistersinger"). But even in the absence of such
allies, I don't think what I suggest is as frantically original
(crazy, absurd, outrageous, outlandish, preposterous?) as you seem to
infer. Lucy Beckett, for instance, in her interesting essay "Sachs and
Schopenhauer" ("Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg,"Cambridge Opera
Handbook, 1994, edited by John Warrack) evidently comes to similar
conclusions, albeit by a rather different route. As she writes, "For
Sachs to become a complete example of Schopenhauerian renunciation of
the will, of the particular kind of virtue towards which Wagner saw
himself fighting bravely through the Wesendonk years, he must be
afflicted by, and capable of suppressing in himself, the pain of
erotic need." She goes on to call Sachs a "near tragic hero, who can
identify in himself a possessive desire for his mate, and, after
conflict both within and outside himself, master his self –will."
I'm not sure that one really has to call on Schopenhauer here, but the
key point is that conflict does indeed rage within Sachs. It crucially
makes him so fascinating a character and it is not resolved until
towards the end of the tale. Take away the conflict, make of him
simply the wise old cobbler-poet who knows what's best and acts on it
unhesitatingly from the start, and you are left with - less than half
a Sachs. And why should I be content with that when I believe
Wagner's text and his music can yield us a whole one.
Cheers.
Jonathan Carr
Richard Loeb
sexual object except perhaps as a fleeting thought - the text tells us that
he continually and throughout the opera renounces such an idea - in the
first Act in his exchange with Beckmesser regarding their age - in the
second Act just about throughout except for a little teasing in the scene
with Eva and in the third Act note that the King Marke reference is only in
response to Eva's outburst; he quickly puts a little sanity to her impetuous
outburst of thanks - it's really gratitude that causes her "O Sachs Mein
Freund" not any real declaration of love in any kind of matrimonial way.
Also I must say I certainly see Wagner's as a incredibly well-rounded and
humane portrait indeed. Best Richard
"Jonathan Carr" <gavroch - he _d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47a6b2c.05020...@posting.google.com...
> Mike Scott Rohan <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> No. I'm afraid I cannot even remotely agree that it's anything to do
>> with interpretation. The text will not allow it, and neither will the
>> structure of the piece; Wagner would have to be a botcher making up a
>> ridiculously inconsistent character. And while that is enough for me, I
>> could add that no other authority I've ever read, not Newman or
>> Millington or anyone else, has suggested anything like your
>> interpretation; they take essentially the same line as I do.
>
>
> Halt, Meister! Nicht so geeilt!
> Nicht jeder eure Meinung teilt
>
> I think the Sachs Wagner finally left us is a more complex character
> than you give him credit for. Much of what you say would fit the
> pretty simple cobbler in the draft of 1845 who was manifestly not in
> love with Eva (or whatever the girl's name was at that stage). But the
> more Wagner pondered "Meistersinger" the more dimensions his plot and
> characters assumed. "Ridiculously inconsistent" would be one rather
> unkind way to describe Wagner's final, mature Sachs, I suppose; "at
> war with himself" suits me better - striving to do the "right thing"
> by young Eva but sorely tempted by the "wrong" one until, at any rate,
> that act three outburst and the resigned reference to King Mark.
>
> Some authority or other, probably several, compared Sachs to the
> Marschallin in "Rosenkavalier" and I find that a worthwhile thought.
> Strauss's mature (but not really "old" and certainly not unattractive)
> "heroine" relinquishes the young man she adores to a girl more or less
> his own age, pretty late in the day and not without many pangs but
> because she sees it's really "for the best" - as the saying goes. The
> pain of renunciation and the joy of love unbound are then
> intermingled, not as with Wagner in a great quintet, but in a trio
> that for sheer beauty runs the Master pretty close (if one is allowed
> so outrageous a remark on a Wagner List). It is true that whereas
> Octavian really has been the Marschallin's lover, Eva has certainly
> not been Sachs's. Not so far, anyway, and Sachs is surely well aware
> that that is how things should stay. On the other hand..well,
> actually, why not - if the knight doesn't make it (as, in principle,
> he should) and the beastly Marker gets his just deserts. Not the sort
> of dilemma unknown to the Master, of course, from Mathilde Wesendonk,
> via Judith Gautier to Carrie Pringle.
>
> I'm sorry if such fine Wagnerians as Ernest Newman and Barry
> Millington are not on my side here (although I had the impression that
> Millington was rarely called on in this List as a reliable witness in
> connection with "Meistersinger"). But even in the absence of such
> allies, I don't think what I suggest is as frantically original
> (crazy, absurd, outrageous, outlandish, preposterous?) as you seem to
> infer. Lucy Beckett, for instance, in her interesting essay "Sachs and
> Schopenhauer" ("Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg,"Cambridge Opera
> Handbook, 1994, edited by John Warrack) evidently comes to similar
> conclusions, albeit by a rather different route. As she writes, "For
> Sachs to become a complete example of Schopenhauerian renunciation of
> the will, of the particular kind of virtue towards which Wagner saw
> himself fighting bravely through the Wesendonk years, he must be
> afflicted by, and capable of suppressing in himself, the pain of
> erotic need." She goes on to call Sachs a "near tragic hero, who can
> identify in himself a possessive desire for his mate, and, after
> conflict both within and outside himself, master his self -will."
Derrick Everett
> Lucy Beckett, for instance, in her interesting essay "Sachs and
> Schopenhauer" ("Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg,"Cambridge Opera
> Handbook, 1994, edited by John Warrack) evidently comes to similar
> conclusions, albeit by a rather different route. As she writes, "For
> Sachs to become a complete example of Schopenhauerian renunciation of
> the will, of the particular kind of virtue towards which Wagner saw
> himself fighting bravely through the Wesendonk years, he must be
> afflicted by, and capable of suppressing in himself, the pain of erotic
> need." She goes on to call Sachs a "near tragic hero, who can identify
> in himself a possessive desire for his mate, and, after conflict both
> within and outside himself, master his self-will."
>
>
I agree with much that Lucy Beckett wrote in that essay, which I can
recommend to anyone seeking a deeper understanding of 'Die Meistersinger'.
Although not with her assertion that it is Wagner's most Schopenhauerian
work; I think that most commentators would place it third in that
competition.
--
Derrick Everett (deverett at c2i.net)
====== Writing from 59°54'N 10°36'E ======
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/wagnerfaq.htm
Derrick Everett
> I don't believe that's what Wagner intended, because it neither reads
> nor plays that way. Sachs's burst of anger is hardly disappointment, but
> a reaction to the way Eva has been trying to manipulate his feelings --
> a mistake she realizes when she suddenly sees that he "knows better than
> she does where the shoe pinches". Sachs is too much in control
> throughout to be jealous; if he had ever had the least will or hope
> himself he could easily capitalize on it. The situation is set up for
> him -- no doubt because that's what Pogner originally intended*.
...
> *To marry off his daughter, with his riches, to his best friend. A point
> I've never seen made elsewhere, so I lay claim to it, but when you look
> at things from his POV, and before Walther lounges onto the scene, it
> makes considerable sense of what's otherwise a rather outre plot point.
> Pogner's scheme becomes a clever and elegant gesture, a way of forcing
> matters without appearing to, and of honouring his friend at the same
> time. He could be confident of Sachs winning the contest, if he entered
> -- and Sachs would of course be by far the most likely "Master of Eva's
> choice". And he must be aware of their mutual affection. It's no
> accident that he's just suggested dropping in on Sachs when he stresses
> that point to her.
>
I've always thought so -- but you published first :-)
As you say, Pogner knows that, if Sachs enters the song contest, he will
win. Pogner might even have reasoned that, if there is any danger of his
daughter having to choose between Beckmesser and spinsterdom, Sachs would
feel himself obliged to enter and to win the contest.
Hans Christian Hoff
His bad conscience, no
> doubt, having done the heavily traditional stage designs for those
> notorious Bayreuth "Meistsrsingers" during the war - the ones in which
> members of the SS "Wiking" division were used to strengthen the chorus
> of jolly Nurembergers on stage.
> Oh dear, we're back to Hitler again. I cease.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Jonathan Carr
>
I have never heard of this, and I doubt the veracity. The SS divisions
from 1942 onwards were from a military point of view all to valuable to
be employed in the capacity you mention, and the "Wiking" division was,
I believe, a Scandinavian unit composed of Nazi collaborators from
Denmark and (mainly, I am sorry to say) Norway, hardly the natural
choice for amateur operatic choristers. I may be wrong, however, and
would very much like to be told your source for this.
Regards
Hans
Hans Christian Hoff
Sachs is a young widower, and Eva an attractive young girl with whom he
is on friendly terms, as he very much is with her father. He is also
conscious of Eva's empathy and friendship, and probably knows that he
would manage to obtain her hand in marriage, if not through other ways
so at least by being triumphant in the singing contest. This he
consciously abstains from, and he also contributes actively to
Beckmesser's defeat, knowing very well that it is Walther that Eva
wants. I believe Wagner emphasizes Sach's unselfishness in this matter
to point out the human qualities, above all the broadmindedness and
insight, that make him qualified to be the spokesman for Wagner's own
ideas. (That this also makes him Wagner's antipode in just those matters
have hardly entered Wagner's mind)
Regards
Hans
Richard Loeb
middle of the 16th century so Sachs would be about 50 and I always think of
Eva as being in her late teens - also more than once Sachs refers to her as
a child. Richard
"Hans Christian Hoff" <hch...@broadpark.no> wrote in message
news:42040cbb$1...@news.broadpark.no...
gavro...@yahoo.com
>
> I have never heard of this, and I doubt the veracity. The SS
divisions
> from 1942 onwards were from a military point of view all to valuable
to
> be employed in the capacity you mention, and the "Wiking" division
was,
> I believe, a Scandinavian unit composed of Nazi collaborators from
> Denmark and (mainly, I am sorry to say) Norway, hardly the natural
> choice for amateur operatic choristers. I may be wrong, however, and
> would very much like to be told your source for this.
I quite agree this seems bizarre, indeed macabre, but there is no doubt
about it. The participation of SS "Wiking" personnel, along with
members of the Hitler Jugend and the Bund Deutscher Maedel, was noted
on Bayreuth programmes at the time. Evidently more men than women were
available for the Ersatz-Nurembergers. I happen to have a bit of film
footage showing manifestly male participants dressed in skirts clumping
about onstage. At least they had laid aside their SS insignias for the
performance - although I suppose it might be argued that such
markings would not be inappropriate for those involved in the act two
riot.
A rather strange exchange occurred fairly recently after Dieter David
Scholz in his Bayreuth history "Kinder! Macht Neues!" (Parthas
Verlag, Berlin 2001) drew attention to the presence in those
"Meistersingers" of members of the SS, "Hitler's notorious
special troops." Some furious member of a Richard Wagner Verband
wrote to complain that those involved had been members of the
"general SS" - not of Hitler's special force. The scribe clearly
felt that vile critics will go to any lengths in their efforts to
besmirch the good name of the festival...
Actually, the participation of the SS even at that late stage of the
war is not quite as unusual as it may appear. Bodo Lafferentz, the head
of the Kraft durch Freude organisation that organised the logistics for
the wartime festivals, was not only the husband of Verena Wagner
(Winifred's younger daughter) but also an Obersturmbannfuehrer
(lieutenant colonel) of the SS. He was close to Himmler among others
and would surely have had no trouble in having SS personnel
commandeered for Bayreuth - all the more so since in late 1944 Hitler
was still interested enough in the festival to ask whether performances
would be possible in the following summer. When summer came, of course,
the "Fuehrer" was happily in no position to take further interest
in anything.
Cheers
Jonathan Carr
Richard Partridge
following:
> And I must say I have always felt one of Eva's lines a bit heartless - when
> she says in her Act 2 scene with Sachs that she thought she had been in
> Sach's heart for long time, he asks her if it was because he had carried her
> as a child (I find the whole conversation has very much a parent-child feel
> to it). She says that she sees it was just because he had no children and,
> with ineffable sadness, he says he had a wife once and many children. She
> then says "But your wife died and I've grown up!" which always strikes me as
> a bit cold" Sachs replies :"Yes tall and lovely" with a mixture of nostalgia
> and yearning for things past. He then then shakes himself out of it when he
> jokes on his next line that it would be nice to have a child and a bride!!!!
> Richard
>
[snip]
I agree. I think Eva is simply a little self-centered -- a common trait of
young people.
Dick Partridge
Laon
FWIW I agree with Jonathan.
It seems to me that both Sachs and Eva keep their options open until
quite late. Sachs always parries Eva's approaches, but always
playfully, without finality. And when he suggests that if he married
her he'd have the wife, and a child, he's being ironical, sure, but
also, it's not such an unappealing prospect.
And the fact that he realises, after a while, that the option isn't
open any more - well, he knows that he's done the right thing, but it's
also why he has his mini-tantrum when Walther definitely, beyond all
argument, gets the girl.
I also think that you can read the text either way, a Sachs that is
always pure and wise versus a Sachs who is tempted, and only just
manages to do the right thing. My feeling is that the tempted Sachs,
who for quite a while thinks that he might just finish up with Eva,
even if only by default, and that that might not be such a bad thing,
is a more complex and interesting character - though both versions of
Sachs work, dramatically.
So I agree with Jonathan.
Me, I'm on chapter 6, and got my sights on 7, for later today.
Cheers!
Laon
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> contains these words:
> Also there is a bit of an age difference - Wagner places the opera in the
> middle of the 16th century so Sachs would be about 50 and I always think of
> Eva as being in her late teens - also more than once Sachs refers to her as
> a child. Richard
The point is good, but the gap is even wider than you thought. I agree,
Eva comes over as a teenager. Betrothal and marriage early was quite the
rule at that time; Shakespeare's Juliet is about 13, and by 20 a girl
was in danger of being "on the shelf".* We know, as Wagner undoubtedly
must have, that he was only a widower for a year, which was his 60th.
Wagner took his historical detail seriously, so it's not unfair to say
that Meistersinger is set in the summer of 1554. And contrary to
stereotypes, he lived for another two decades!
Cheers,
Mike
*Karita Mattila in the new Meistersinger DVD evidently agrees; she does
a nice line in bouncy-teenager mannerisms, even if they don't altogether
survive close-up!
Richard Partridge
> Hi,
> FWIW I agree with Jonathan.
>
> It seems to me that both Sachs and Eva keep their options open until
> quite late. Sachs always parries Eva's approaches, but always
> playfully, without finality. And when he suggests that if he married
> her he'd have the wife, and a child, he's being ironical, sure, but
> also, it's not such an unappealing prospect.
I always thought that his remark about acquiring a wife and a child together
was intended to heap ridicule on the whole idea. So I don't agree that he
only means to parry her suggestion, without finality. He wants to shut her
up on the subject, which is wasting time, because he needs to find out how
she really feels about Walther.
>
> And the fact that he realises, after a while, that the option isn't
> open any more - well, he knows that he's done the right thing, but it's
> also why he has his mini-tantrum when Walther definitely, beyond all
> argument, gets the girl.
In my view, the mini-tantrum is for show, to convey a message, and he isn't
really angry. The message is that he has just done some very big favors for
all the people in the room and it wouldn't hurt if they would realize this
and show some gratitude.
>
> I also think that you can read the text either way, a Sachs that is
> always pure and wise versus a Sachs who is tempted, and only just
> manages to do the right thing. My feeling is that the tempted Sachs,
> who for quite a while thinks that he might just finish up with Eva,
> even if only by default, and that that might not be such a bad thing,
> is a more complex and interesting character - though both versions of
> Sachs work, dramatically.
In the first act, Sachs is at some pains to pin down the understanding that
Eva retains a right of refusal -- she will not be compelled to marry the
winner if she really dislikes him. If Sachs had been thinking of competing
himself, wouldn't he have been confident of his ability to beat Beckmesser?
If that's so, he wouldn't have worried about the right of refusal. He might
have thought of asking for her hand before Walther came on the scene (and he
needn't have waited for the contest; he knew her and her father well
enough), but I don't believe we are supposed to think that he continued to
think of her that way after Walther came along.
[snip]
Dick Partridge
Mike Scott Rohan
from gavro...@yahoo.com (Jonathan Carr) contains these words:
{snip}
> I think the Sachs Wagner finally left us is a more complex character
> than you give him credit for. Much of what you say would fit the
> pretty simple cobbler in the draft of 1845 who was manifestly not in
> love with Eva (or whatever the girl's name was at that stage). But the
> more Wagner pondered "Meistersinger" the more dimensions his plot and
> characters assumed. "Ridiculously inconsistent" would be one rather
> unkind way to describe Wagner's final, mature Sachs, I suppose; "at
> war with himself" suits me better – striving to do the "right thing"
> by young Eva but sorely tempted by the "wrong" one until, at any rate,
> that act three outburst and the resigned reference to King Mark.
At war with himself, certainly. But not to the point of disappointment
in Act III. Strong feelings, turmoil perhaps; good sense doesn't
preclude longings for the less sensible option, far from it. But Sachs
as "ridiculously inconsistent" -- no. Contrary to the line the
deconstructionist producers take, Wagner makes sense; he wrote coherent,
viable drama about characters who, within the terms of the drama, make
sense with their thoughts and actions. We see both the outer and the
inner Sachs, both illuminated by the music. He muses on many things, but
not once, not even slightly, does he give the least hint of any real
hope or intention regarding Eva. If you could find even one, I'd accept
your interpretation as one possible reading among many. But there isn't
one. All the indications are to the contrary. He simply isn't blindly or
dividedly "striving to do the right thing". Sachs is depicted as wise,
experienced and the opera's moral compass. In that sense he is not
complex, in that his intentions are firm, his mind made up, and while he
takes swift advantage of circumstance he is always moving in the same
broad direction. What makes him complex is that behind the rather
stereotyped comic figure of the wise old fixer, who dates right back to
the roots of comic opera, there is this swirl of opposing feeling, which
makes his conquest of it and assistance to the lovers all the more
impressive. Without that he wouldn't be complex, he'd be meaningless.
And the deconstructionist producers would be right to mess around with
the opera as they see fit.
> Some authority or other, probably several, compared Sachs to the
> Marschallin in "Rosenkavalier" and I find that a worthwhile thought.
> Strauss's mature (but not really "old" and certainly not unattractive)
> "heroine" relinquishes the young man she adores to a girl more or less
> his own age, pretty late in the day and not without many pangs but
> because she sees it's really "for the best" – as the saying goes. The
> pain of renunciation and the joy of love unbound are then
> intermingled, not as with Wagner in a great quintet, but in a trio
> that for sheer beauty runs the Master pretty close (if one is allowed
> so outrageous a remark on a Wagner List). It is true that whereas
> Octavian really has been the Marschallin's lover, Eva has certainly
> not been Sachs's. Not so far, anyway, and Sachs is surely well aware
> that that is how things should stay. On the other hand….well,
> actually, why not – if the knight doesn't make it (as, in principle,
> he should) and the beastly Marker gets his just deserts. Not the sort
> of dilemma unknown to the Master, of course, from Mathilde Wesendonk,
> via Judith Gautier to Carrie Pringle.
Pleasant speculation, on Holmesian lines, but there is no actual
evidence that Sachs is thinking "Why not, if the knight doesn't make
it....". Whereas there's lots of evidence that he isn't. All you say
goes no way to answering the point I raised -- that if Sachs has even
the slightest hope of Eva, he's acting like an idiot. And if he's an
idiot, he ceases to become the pivot of the opera, and his views lose
their moment. And that is not at all what the music tells us; his music
is consistently reflective, mellow, paternal but relieved of any
ponderousness (what critics used to call "Sachs sucking on his boring
old pipe") by an impish, anarchic streak whose possibilities shock him,
as in the riot and its aftermath. He muses on human madness so strongly
because he is all too well aware that he shares it. If he had any
serious desire for Eva, still, it would surely surface at some point in
his thinking. But that particular aspect he has already conquered.
The comparison with the Marschallin does not hold water, I'm afraid. The
issue with her is not whether or not to marry, but when it will be time
to let her lover go and move on to the next one. She knows that right
from the start, and in the opening moments of the opera upsets Octavian
by saying so. She has no intention of hanging onto him in the least, and
her renunciation is simply a matter of waiting for the right time. She
is not in control in the way Sachs is; the matchmaking trickster in
Rosenkavalier is Octavian himself. The Marschallin simply appears to
resolve things more speedily and elegantly; she does nothing to
orchestrate the action -- except, perhaps, put Octavian in the way of a
pretty young girl by suggesting him as the rose-bearer. A idiotic
custom, incidentally; I could not believe in it for a moment. But
Hoffmansthal did not write coherent drama; Wagner did.
> I'm sorry if such fine Wagnerians as Ernest Newman and Barry
> Millington are not on my side here (although I had the impression that
> Millington was rarely called on in this List as a reliable witness in
> connection with "Meistersinger").
Very true. I listed them as extremes, sense and nonsense if you like;
neither even considers your interpretation.
But even in the absence of such
> allies, I don't think what I suggest is as frantically original
> (crazy, absurd, outrageous, outlandish, preposterous?) as you seem to
> infer. Lucy Beckett, for instance, in her interesting essay "Sachs and
> Schopenhauer" ("Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg,"Cambridge Opera
> Handbook, 1994, edited by John Warrack) evidently comes to similar
> conclusions, albeit by a rather different route. As she writes, "For
> Sachs to become a complete example of Schopenhauerian renunciation of
> the will, of the particular kind of virtue towards which Wagner saw
> himself fighting bravely through the Wesendonk years, he must be
> afflicted by, and capable of suppressing in himself, the pain of
> erotic need." She goes on to call Sachs a "near tragic hero, who can
> identify in himself a possessive desire for his mate, and, after
> conflict both within and outside himself, master his self –will."
Absolutely not. Nothing you quote there supports your view. Everything
in it is consistent with mine. I never denied his desire for one moment,
or the battle within himself -- indeed, I suggested what fuels its
revival in his Act III outburst. But that desire has already been
mastered -- which does not mean extinguished -- before the action
starts. His refusal to participate is absolute evidence. In his day as
in Wagner's, what you said about such things, at least in public and
before witnesses, was considered to matter, all the more so in a
guild-master, a responsible position. One of the compliments paid to
Pogner by his fellow masters, in fact, is "Ein Wort, ein Mann!" which
could roughly be rendered "The man is his word!" If Sachs, having
publicly disclaimed any intent to participate -- and particularly giving
a solid disqualifying reason, as he does -- he would be seen as breaking
his word. We don't think so very much of that today, to our loss I
suspect; but people still occasionally died in duels for it, in the
Europe of the 1860s.Therefore while he is undoubtedly deeply moved in
Act III, tormented even, he cannot be said to be disappointed, to have
held any hopes up to that point; quite the contrary.
> I'm not sure that one really has to call on Schopenhauer here, but the
> key point is that conflict does indeed rage within Sachs. It crucially
> makes him so fascinating a character and it is not resolved until
> towards the end of the tale. Take away the conflict, make of him
> simply the wise old cobbler-poet who knows what's best and acts on it
> unhesitatingly from the start, and you are left with - less than half
> a Sachs. And why should I be content with that when I believe
> Wagner's text and his music can yield us a whole one.
You are not addressing your own point there, let alone the one I made.
You attempt to denigrate the reading I advance by suggesting it requires
"simply....etc". That simply isn't true. Why, if your point has an ounce
of worth in it, do you need to misrepresent mine?
What I said above demonstrates that my own reading -- although I
shouldn't call it that, because I did not originate it; it is the
general reading -- requires conflict. But it is not a conflict of hope;
Sachs has, as Beckett states, renounced that. It is a conflict of
feeling and not, emphatically not, of action. The view you advance, that
Sachs still entertains hopes of Eva as late as his Act III outburst --
after he has stopped the elopement, revenged Walther on Beckmesser,
rescued Walther, helped him discipline his own feelings enough to
construct the prize-song, allowed Beckmesser to dig his own grave and
carefully brought Walther and Eva together -- requires Sachs's actions
to be blundering and unmotivated to the point of idiocy. Where is there
any suggestion of that in the music? His behaviour would be complex, but
only in the sense that a bouncing squash-ball is complex, ricocheting
here and there with minimal predictability. Mere complexity does not
create a whole character, unless it also creates a coherent one; not
necessarily consistent, but one whose actions make sense at least in
their own terms.
You loftily invoke "Wagner's text and his music", but not one single
example of either do you advance to justify yourself. This would become
a genuine discussion if you would do so.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Laon" <pra...@presto.net.au> contains these words:
> Hi,
> FWIW I agree with Jonathan.
> It seems to me that both Sachs and Eva keep their options open until
> quite late. Sachs always parries Eva's approaches, but always
> playfully, without finality. And when he suggests that if he married
> her he'd have the wife, and a child, he's being ironical, sure, but
> also, it's not such an unappealing prospect.
The situation doesn't require finality; it would be impossibly harsh,
and alter the playful nature of the exchange. But that cannot be taken
as an indication of serious hope.
> And the fact that he realises, after a while, that the option isn't
> open any more - well, he knows that he's done the right thing, but it's
> also why he has his mini-tantrum when Walther definitely, beyond all
> argument, gets the girl.
As I said elsewhere, Sachs has effectively given his word right from the
start that he is not going to compete. He refuses to advance his name as
competitor when Kothner asks for contenders, and in normal circumstances
that would be the end of it; one is not expected to just turn up at the
meadow and sing, which is one of the two reasons he has to slip Walther
in as a "witness". Is the fact that it's stated so early and so flatly
really likely to be an accident? When we study Wagner we usually find he
has very good reasons for everything he does in a libretto. Sachs's
tantrum does not require him to have had even the least expectation
left. We can still be tormented by feelings we know very well could or
should never be fulfilled, and even when we've closed a door ourselves
it's never pleasant to see it slammed and nailed shut in front of us --
especially so, in fact. We're just feeling a little bit smug about what
we've achieved, and the old Adam rises up unexpectedly -- the more so as
Sachs feels rightly that Eva has been playing with him, just in case.
That supplies the depth in that scene; it is simply not conceivable in
the libretto as constructed that Sachs had, by then, the least hope. But
it's evident that that's been a victory, not a condition, and adds bite
to his selflessness. If he'd been seriously interested, he wouldn't have
been selfless, he'd have been moronic.
> I also think that you can read the text either way, a Sachs that is
> always pure and wise versus a Sachs who is tempted, and only just
> manages to do the right thing. My feeling is that the tempted Sachs,
> who for quite a while thinks that he might just finish up with Eva,
> even if only by default, and that that might not be such a bad thing,
> is a more complex and interesting character - though both versions of
> Sachs work, dramatically.
Again, this isn't the question. *Of course* a consistently pure, wise
Sachs would be shallower. It would also take the bite and sparkle from
his scenes with Eva. The feeling has to be there; the more so as,
inevitably, Sachs has to be the much more interesting and involving
character than the unformed Walther. In how many operas, particularly of
the mid-19th century, do we feel that the hero is blander and a lot less
compelling than the secondary characters, even the villain? That's
especially true of Rossini and his successors, even earlier Verdi. After
all, it reflects youth and age in real life, very often; age has the
character, but youth conquers by virtue of sheer groin power. Wagner
was, I would guess, very well aware of that tendency in constructing
Meistersinger, and explored the conflict in Sachs and Eva, leaving
Walther a slightly baffled spectator. But there is a huge gulf between
the existence of a feeling which creates turmoil beneath Sachs' mature
surface, and that feeling continuing to dominate him to the point of
making his actions random to the point of absurdity -- which is what J's
view requires.
What's being posited here, remember, is Sachs entertaining serious hope
up to that point in Act III, when he has carefully and repeatedly closed
off any such possibility, and his tantrum being triggered by on-the-spot
disappointment, instead of a bump on an unhealed wound, as it were. I
was provoked by that possibility, and tried to find one single
indication in libretto or music that would justify it. I couldn't, not
even any productive ambiguity. I found plenty that told heavily against
it; and when things get to that stage, I'd suggest the unusual view is
just that, a view.
> So I agree with Jonathan.
I'm not so sure this is a matter of agreement or disagreement, to any
realistic extent. If there were more evidence, it could be; but all the
evidence seems to point the other way. Perhaps you can find something
which counters that....
> Me, I'm on chapter 6, and got my sights on 7, for later today.
...although I don't want you to get distracted!
Cheers,
Mike
Richard Loeb
I might tend to agree or at least try to understand - but when there is
nothing in the text to support these positions I have a problem and hesitate
trying to endorse elements that just aren't there. Perhaps with Wagner more
than most other composers, there seems to be a need to find a carload of
hidden meanings - thats fine if the jumping off point is in the text but
when it isn't, well I'm not so sure. Best Richardnews:200502070...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> contains these words:
> Yes Mike - if I was able to discern even one iota of all this from the text
> I might tend to agree or at least try to understand - but when there is
> nothing in the text to support these positions I have a problem and
> hesitate
> trying to endorse elements that just aren't there. Perhaps with Wagner more
> than most other composers, there seems to be a need to find a carload of
> hidden meanings - thats fine if the jumping off point is in the text but
> when it isn't, well I'm not so sure. Best Richard
I'm afraid that's also my position. Of course anyone is free to hold any
view they like, it'd be a narrow world if we couldn't, and in
interpretation of art there's no orthodoxy -- pace Beckmesser! But I
feel that when an interpretation is advanced in a discussion of whatever
kind, it's not unreasonable to test it against the evidence. If there's
none, or it's inconclusive, one can argue its merits at length. But when
the evidence appears to actually contradict it, then one has to argue it
on that ground before any other. And if there is no answer, like it or
not, that does of itself put a value on the interpretation.
A great work has room for any number of interpretations, but if they
don't bear some definable relation to its content, then they're
effectively arbitrary, random and meaningless -- and we end up with a
Peter Konwitschny production.
Cheers,
Mike