About That Hunding Business
A.C. Douglas
to do so.]
http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2008/03/about-that-hund.html
Bert Coules
in order to meet one of the Gods*, so his instant decease wasn't a
contradiction of Wotan's command to "stand before Fricka" but a necessary
condition of obeying it: part and parcel of the order, in fact.
(*Outside of what you might might call the normal circumstances of
immortal/mortal interaction, as exemplified by Brünnhilde's appearance to
Siegmund, or the exceptional instances, like Wotan's own showing up in this
very scene.)
I'd argue with you on another point in that piece. I see no contradiction
between Mime's two differing statements as to how he came by the fragments
of Nothung. He tells Siegfried that they were given to him by Sieglinde
"for payment, food and service" (and he moans that they weren't much of a
reward) but we've absolutely no reason to believe him: he routinely lies
about Siegfried's parents. Later, in a far more unguarded moment, what
surely is the truth comes out: "Accursed sword! Why did I ever steal it?"
A.C. Douglas
news:13st5kg...@corp.supernews.com...
> I've always rather assumed that Hunding - or any mortal - *had* to be dead
> in order to meet one of the Gods*, so his instant decease wasn't a
> contradiction of Wotan's command to "stand before Fricka" but a necessary
> condition of obeying it: part and parcel of the order, in fact.
Another poster (on Opera-L) made the same argument, and my response to him
was to point out that's not true in the _Ring_. A mortal can speak to a god
or vice versa if the god so wills it. You might remember how Siegmund and
Sieglinde came to be, and also Wotan's little tête-à-têtes with Alberich and
with Mime, and with his mortal grandson, Siegfried.
In any case, Wotan's charge to Hunding to "kneel before Fricka" is NOT a
charge to him to kneel before Fricka in person, but to kneel before her
shrine as he did initially to secure her help in the matter of Siegmund
stealing Sieglinde from him.
> I'd argue with you on another point in that piece. I see no contradiction
> between Mime's two differing statements as to how he came by the fragments
> of Nothung. He tells Siegfried that they were given to him by Sieglinde
> "for payment, food and service" (and he moans that they weren't much of a
> reward) but we've absolutely no reason to believe him: he routinely lies
> about Siegfried's parents. Later, in a far more unguarded moment, what
> surely is the truth comes out: "Accursed sword! Why did I ever steal it?"
Well, I don't argue that point in the linked piece and I won't argue it here
except to note that Mime's story about how he came into possession of the
sword fragments is not, to my mind, wholly unbelievable. I can see a dying
Sieglinde giving Mime the sword fragments to pass on to her son, _faute de
mieux_. I merely mentioned it in the piece as an example of a malapropos
carry-over; one remarked by several commentators, Newman included.
Bert Coules
> Another poster (on Opera-L) made the same argument, and my response to him
> was to point out that's not true in the _Ring_. A mortal can speak to a
> god
> or vice versa if the god so wills it.
Well yes, as I said. But in this instance the god (or rather goddess -
Fricka) presumably doesn't will it, and in fact knows nothing about the
situation yet - which is surely why Wotan orders Hunding to go and tell her.
> In any case, Wotan's charge to Hunding to "kneel before Fricka" is NOT a
> charge to him to kneel before Fricka in person, but to kneel before her
> shrine...
Indeed? I see nothing in the dialogue to support that. What makes you
think it?
A.C. Douglas
> [A.C. Douglas wrote:]
>> In any case, Wotan's charge to Hunding to "kneel before Fricka" is NOT a
>> charge to him to kneel before Fricka in person, but to kneel before her
>> shrine...
>
> Indeed? I see nothing in the dialogue to support that. What makes you
> think it?
Because Hunding -- a primitive brute -- has no special privileges with the
gods, his communication with them being as a mere suppliant through what we
today would call prayer. As I've already noted, that's how Hunding begged
the intercession of Fricka initially. There's nothing in Fricka's words
remarking on her hearing that initial plea to indicate Hunding made it to her
in person. Indeed, the very idea would be absurd.
Bert Coules
> There's nothing in Fricka's words
> remarking on her hearing that initial plea to indicate Hunding made it to
> her
> in person. Indeed, the very idea would be absurd.
I agree. But with Wotan's command we're surely in very different territory.
Would Wotan really be content to let the man who's just killed his son (and
ruined his grand plan and devastated his future to boot) simply walk away
alive? How much more satisfying to kill him and by so doing enable him to
deliver the news to Fricka in person.
You might be right, of course. But there's nothing in the text to support
that point of view.
A.C. Douglas
"Bert Coules" <ma...@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13st8c1...@corp.supernews.com...
> A.C. Douglas wrote:
>
>> Another poster (on Opera-L) made the same argument, and my response to him
>> was to point out that's not true in the _Ring_. A mortal can speak to a
>> god or vice versa if the god so wills it.
>
> Well yes, as I said. But in this instance the god (or rather goddess -
> Fricka) presumably doesn't will it, and in fact knows nothing about the
> situation yet - which is surely why Wotan orders Hunding to go and tell
> her.
Well, yes, but if Wotan -- the honcho of all the gods -- was really ordering
Hunding to appear before Fricka in person to deliver *Wotan's* message, that
would be sufficient to give Hunding special privilege for direct
communication with a god, would it not.
Beyond that, there's a large measure of sarcasm and irony in Wotan's
charge -- a sarcasm and irony directed against himself -- and so we really
ought not to take that charge exclusively in its most literal sense in any
case, wouldn't you agree.
A.C. Douglas
> A.C. Douglas wrote:
>
>> There's nothing in Fricka's words remarking on her hearing that initial
>> plea to indicate Hunding made it to her in person. Indeed, the very idea
>> would be absurd.
>
> I agree. But with Wotan's command we're surely in very different
> territory. Would Wotan really be content to let the man who's just killed
> his son (and ruined his grand plan and devastated his future to boot)
> simply walk away alive? How much more satisfying to kill him and by so
> doing enable him to deliver the news to Fricka in person.
That would require the dead Hunding to be transported to Walhall, a place
reserved for dead heroes alone. Not much of a chance of that in Hunding's
case, is there.
Further, as always, context is everything, and the context here -- a context
established by Wotan's great Act II monologue -- is that Wotan knows full
well that *he*, not Hunding, is the sole author of Siegmund's death. As I
wrote to another poster who expressed something of the same opinion (again,
on Opera-L), the anger and contempt Wotan feels is for one person and one
person alone: himself. At this point in the drama of the _Ring_, Wotan is
filled with self-loathing as thanks to Fricka he can no longer deceive
himself about his underhanded and duplicitous machinations in the matter of
his attempts to secure Alberich's ring for himself, and he now knows as well
that he's the sole author of this tragedy that has resulted in the death of
his only son with a promise of more tragedy to come. Hunding is a nothing to
him, and he also knows that Hunding's slaying of Siegmund was not Hunding's
doing, but his own. He has no reason to slay, nor is there any point to his
slaying, Hunding. Wotan simply wants him out of his sight, and so issues his
angry and contemptuous charge to him to, "Knie vor Fricka: meld ihr, dass
Wotans Speer gerächt, was Spott ihr schuf."
@zonnet.nl Herman van der Woude
I think, that you are right, Bert. Just look at th text, "As he
[=Wotan] waves one arm contemptuously, Hunding falls dead on the
ground."
After all, Wotan *is* a god and we all know that a god is capable in
doing things men can't. So why not kill a man with a simple gesture?
Ad yes, the words, "Be off, slave. Kneel for Fricka", are meant as
sarcastic words from Wotan, maybe meant for Fricka, a goddess who can
be aware of what is going on (but we don't know that), but certainly
for himself. You could even imagine that Wotan is thinking of himself
as the Knecht (slave) after his lost debate with Fricka.
Cheers!
--
Met vriendelijke groet
Herman van der Woude
Bert Coules
> He has no reason to slay, nor is there any point to his
> slaying, Hunding.
No logical reason, I agree. But this is a supremely emotional moment,for
Wotan as well as for the audience; and the most satisfying thing that can
happen (for both parties, I'd contend) is for Wotan to slay Hunding.
And - unless you're going to argue that Hunding's death is a coincidence, or
brought about by unlikely remorse or something - Wagner evidently thought so
too.
OK, if I'm right, Hunding ends up in Valhalla, but that doesn't necessarily
mean eternal glory (at least until the fiery end) as one of the elite
God-protecting warriors. Presumably they need someone to clean the toilets
and do the washing-up...
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
This is ground we've gone over before. This sort of remark was common
among woefully ignorant and unimaginative early 20th century
commentators, who would demand with probably deliberate obtuseness how a
dead Hunding could kneel before Fricka. As far as I can see, Bert has
the right of it entirely. Wotan's comment to Hunding could carry either
meaning, but his action following demonstrates unarguably which he
intends. Why tell somebody to go kneel at a shrine and then immediately
destroy their ability to do so? At the beginning of the act, he has
already forseen the deceased Hunding must "go where he likes; for
Valhalla he's no use to me!". So Wotan's entirely used to thinking of
people going places, whether they're alive or dead; that's merely a
technical distinction to him -- which makes entire sense.
Likewise the Mime business. Mime consistently reveals he is a determined
and deliberate liar -- in saying he never knew Siegmund's name, for
example, then minutes later revealing he not only knows it but all about
the Volsungs. His account of Sieglinde "giving" him Siegmund's only
legacy to his son *is* utterly unbelievable -- the one thing she would
never deprive him of. Giving it to keep for him is specifically not what
Mime says; he asserts it was a price for "Muhe, Kost und Pflege", which
would mean it was his own and to do with as he liked. Then, in the same
manner, he very soon lets slip (to the audience, not to Siegfried) that
he wishes he'd never "stolen" it. Stealing it, in this case, is keeping
it from the growing Siegfried, both for its value, and in case it
affects his control over Siegfried. Much better for his cause if he
could repair the sword and present it to Siegfried as his own creation,
thus claiming a vital share in Siegfried's deed. Only when he finally
despairs of forging it does he reveal it.
Personally I cannot find anything in the Ring that is a "malapropos
carry-over" -- nothing at all, whatever Newman or others say. There's
always a reason, and generally a very good one, for any action or
reference that may seem initially obscure, and merely ascribing it to
"carry-over" is a lazy assumption we should beware of. Is it likely that
a detail freak such as Wagner would tolerate such a thing? It always had
to make sense to *him*; so we should be able to work it out too, and
often it isn't too difficult -- as with Hagen's "Knecht sind die
Nibelungen ihn!". Sometimes, of course, the apparent obscurity may be a
reference to the source mythologies which Wagner simply assumes his
audience will understand, or should.
Cheers,
Mike
A.C. Douglas
> OK, if I'm right, Hunding ends up in Valhalla, but that doesn't necessarily
> mean eternal glory (at least until the fiery end) as one of the elite
> God-protecting warriors. Presumably they need someone to clean the toilets
> and do the washing-up...
LOL!
A touch! A distinct touch! You are developing a certain unexpected vein of
pawky humour, Bert, against which I must learn to guard myself as a certain
someone once said about a certain someone else.
A.C. Douglas
news:Huyzj.10702$6R.8506@trnddc04...
> ...as a certain someone once said about a certain someone else.
That should have read: "...as a certain someone once said to a certain
Bert Coules
> ... as a certain someone once said about a certain someone else.
I really can't imagine who you mean...
A.C. Douglas
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> As far as I can see, Bert has
> the right of it entirely. Wotan's comment to Hunding could carry either
> meaning, but his action following demonstrates unarguably which he
> intends. Why tell somebody to go kneel at a shrine and then immediately
> destroy their ability to do so?
So, you're saying that Wotan *doesn't* strike Hunding dead? If so, that's my
argument, not Bert's. Or are you saying something else?
Bert Coules
> so we should be able to work it out too, and
> often it isn't too difficult -- as with Hagen's "Knecht sind die
> Nibelungen ihn!".
Now that one I do find slightly puzzling. I've always supposed that what
Hagen actually means is, "The Nibelungs would be Siegfried's slaves, if he
only knew it and chose to exercise his power" (and there's presumably an
unvoiced, "And thank the Gods he doesn't and he hasn't!").
On the whole, I think Wagner's line is snappier.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
> "Bert Coules" <ma...@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:13st9qr...@corp.supernews.com...
> > A.C. Douglas wrote:
> >
> >> There's nothing in Fricka's words remarking on her hearing that initial
> >> plea to indicate Hunding made it to her in person. Indeed, the very idea
> >> would be absurd.
> >
> > I agree. But with Wotan's command we're surely in very different
> > territory. Would Wotan really be content to let the man who's just killed
> > his son (and ruined his grand plan and devastated his future to boot)
> > simply walk away alive? How much more satisfying to kill him and by so
> > doing enable him to deliver the news to Fricka in person.
> That would require the dead Hunding to be transported to Walhall, a place
> reserved for dead heroes alone. Not much of a chance of that in Hunding's
> case, is there.
As I pointed out, that's been specifically ruled out. But there's
nothing to require his soul being transported to Valhalla; presumably a
howl from a wandering spirit in the Norse afterworld (which Wagner, to
judge by Wotan and Siegmund's mention of Hella, evidently built into his
Ring concept) would reach her at least as directly as that from a live
worshipper, wherever she herself was. The whole point of prayer in
primitive mythologies is as a way for the god to hear you directly and
personally.
> Further, as always, context is everything, and the context here -- a context
> established by Wotan's great Act II monologue -- is that Wotan knows full
> well that *he*, not Hunding, is the sole author of Siegmund's death. As I
> wrote to another poster who expressed something of the same opinion (again,
> on Opera-L), the anger and contempt Wotan feels is for one person and one
> person alone: himself. At this point in the drama of the _Ring_, Wotan is
> filled with self-loathing as thanks to Fricka he can no longer deceive
> himself about his underhanded and duplicitous machinations in the matter of
> his attempts to secure Alberich's ring for himself, and he now knows as well
> that he's the sole author of this tragedy that has resulted in the death of
> his only son with a promise of more tragedy to come. Hunding is a
> nothing to
> him, and he also knows that Hunding's slaying of Siegmund was not Hunding's
> doing, but his own. He has no reason to slay, nor is there any point to his
> slaying, Hunding. Wotan simply wants him out of his sight, and so
> issues his
> angry and contemptuous charge to him to, "Knie vor Fricka: meld ihr, dass
> Wotans Speer gerächt, was Spott ihr schuf."
While there's much sense in this, I can't agree that Wotan doesn't care
about Hunding. His tone is of vicious contempt, and understandably so,
for what Hunding is -- for the dog's life he has led Sieglinde, for his
intention to murder the unarmed Siegmund (as Siegmund taunts him, it
seems he hasn't noticed the sword's disappearance!) and for the fact
that he finally does so. It's only when Siegmund is again made
defenceless by an external cause that Hunding steps in and spears him.
He has no honour in this killing; it's not fair fight, but murder, fully
as much as Hagen's. And though Wotan hates himself, that will only make
him hate the instrument more; that's human nature, and Wotan is all too
human. He kills a dog to lay at his son's feet.
Cheers,
Mike
A.C. Douglas
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> [A.C. Douglas wrote:]
>> That would require the dead Hunding to be transported to Walhall, a place
>> reserved for dead heroes alone. Not much of a chance of that in Hunding's
>> case, is there.
>
> As I pointed out, that's been specifically ruled out. But there's
> nothing to require his soul being transported to Valhalla; presumably a
> howl from a wandering spirit in the Norse afterworld (which Wagner, to
> judge by Wotan and Siegmund's mention of Hella, evidently built into his
> Ring concept) would reach her at least as directly as that from a live
> worshipper, wherever she herself was. The whole point of prayer in
> primitive mythologies is as a way for the god to hear you directly and
> personally.
Pardon me, but that's a bit of a stretch, Mike -- a stretch significantly
beyond the snapping point, IMNSHO.
>> Further, as always, context is everything, and the context here -- a
>> context established by Wotan's great Act II monologue -- is that Wotan
>> knows full well that *he*, not Hunding, is the sole author of Siegmund's
>> death. As I wrote to another poster who expressed something of the same
>> opinion (again, on Opera-L), the anger and contempt Wotan feels is for one
>> person and one person alone: himself. [etc., etc.]
> While there's much sense in this, I can't agree that Wotan doesn't care
> about Hunding. His tone is of vicious contempt, and understandably so,
> for what Hunding is -- for the dog's life he has led Sieglinde, for his
> intention to murder the unarmed Siegmund (as Siegmund taunts him, it
> seems he hasn't noticed the sword's disappearance!) and for the fact
> that he finally does so. It's only when Siegmund is again made
> defenceless by an external cause that Hunding steps in and spears him.
> He has no honour in this killing; it's not fair fight, but murder, fully
> as much as Hagen's. And though Wotan hates himself, that will only make
> him hate the instrument more; that's human nature, and Wotan is all too
> human. He kills a dog to lay at his son's feet.
And there's much sense in what you say above as well. But on balance, I
think those considerations are far, far outweighed by Wotan's sense of sole
authorship of this tragedy that's resulted in the death of his only son, and
all he wants at this point is to get the instrument of that death out of his
sight so as not to be a source of further rebuke to him. Killing that
instrument means only more blood on Wotan's hands, and at this point that's
the very last thing Wotan wants.
Andy
>
>
>
> > "Bert Coules" <m...@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote in message
I think you are pretty hard on Hunding. He has at least some honor,
or he would have killed Siegmund the night before. Also, I get the
impression that Sieglinde's sadness is more from her own sense of
belonging somewhere else than from anything Hunding has done. He is
not enlightened, of course, but he seems to live according to the
prevailing code of behavior of the time. Really, what would you do if
someone who had just slaughtered your family at a wedding showed up at
your door and ran off with your wife?
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Bert Coules" <ma...@bertcoules.co.uk> contains these words:
> Mike Scott Rohan wrote:
It does derive from an earlier draft, in which when Siegfried wins the
Ring, Alberich and the Nibelungs come up and swear obedience to him.
(This in turn derives from several of the Germanic sources.) However,
that's pretty meaningless even in the draft, given what Hagen gets up
to, and even less so in the final version. So why did Wagner keep it?
Well, it sounds grimly effective without examining the meaning too
closely, anyway! But for its actual meaning, which is not far removed
from what you suggest, but more fully reasoned, we have to refer back to
Wotan's description of Alberich's plans in Walkure -- namely, to raise
the legions of the Underworld to storm Valhalla and take over the world.
As long as Siegfried has the Ring, they cannot make a move, any more
than Valhalla can now. Brunnhilde's transmitted wisdom would tell him
how to wield the Ring if he needed to. Only when this is blotted from
his mind and Brunnhilde alienated so she won't tell him again, are the
Nibelungs free to make their move -- as Hagen rejoices in the Revenge
trio. Until then they're still subject to his will, and that must gall
Hagen at every waking moment -- and to judge by Act II opening, in his
sleep as well. There also Alberich confirms it -- "Valhall and Nibelheim
are subject to him..." Which confirms that it wasn't just a chance
carryover.
Acquiring the Ring is of course the Schlafenplan stage three!
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
What I'm saying is perfectly clear. Wotan's action demonstrates the
meaning of his words -- namely that he's *not* just dismissing Hunding
to go pray, he's sending his spirit off to spoil Fricka's triumph -- to
make it clear that she has achieved nothing for her worthless
worshipper.
A.C. Douglas
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> [A.C.Douglas wrote:]
>> So, you're saying that Wotan *doesn't* strike Hunding dead? If so,
>> that's my argument, not Bert's. Or are you saying something else?
>
> What I'm saying is perfectly clear. Wotan's action demonstrates the
> meaning of his words -- namely that he's *not* just dismissing Hunding
> to go pray, he's sending his spirit off to spoil Fricka's triumph -- to
> make it clear that she has achieved nothing for her worthless
> worshipper.
So, you're saying Wotan *does* kill Hunding.
Sorry, I can't see it that way for reasons already expressed, not to mention
that this whole idea of the "spirit" of the dead Hunding doing the telling to
Fricka is so far-fetched, in my opinion, as to be dismissible out of hand.
Mike Scott Rohan
<bbafa891-c868-42e3...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
from Andy <amhen...@gmail.com> contains these words:
{snip}
> I think you are pretty hard on Hunding. He has at least some honor,
> or he would have killed Siegmund the night before.
That's a not unknown interpretation, certainly, but it doesn't square
either with the moral compass of Walkure -- natural justice, as Wotan
sees it -- and the sources. The law Hunding obeys here is the rigid law
of hospitality that many societies observe, and which was implicit in
Norse customary law, as Wagner knew from his reading. But what Hunding
is applying here is the letter of it, without the spirit. Killing an
unarmed man in the morning is just as dishonorable as it would have been
the night before; and Hunding takes very specific, sadistic pleasure in
taunting him with the prospect. Any "honour" in that is like Telramund's
in Lohengrin -- distinctly hollow.
Also, I get the
> impression that Sieglinde's sadness is more from her own sense of
> belonging somewhere else than from anything Hunding has done.
She specifically says that he's bought her from thugs and married her --
she describes her misery at the feast -- without the slightest question
of love. There's only one word for that -- rape. Rape repeated over many
years, and to judge by his manner and the opinion of him she unleashes,
a constant stream of cowardly bullying as well. No love, no respect, no
colour in life and nowhere else to go -- she's been led a dog's life.
She's deeply scarred, as witness her reaction to discovering love with
Siegmund; she feels defiled and unworthy of him. That's a very modern
insight, in its way.
One of the worst offences throughout the Wagner canon, from Daland
onwards, is the buying and selling of love.
He is
> not enlightened, of course, but he seems to live according to the
> prevailing code of behavior of the time. Really, what would you do if
> someone who had just slaughtered your family at a wedding showed up at
> your door and ran off with your wife?
First of all, Siegmund hasn't done that yet, nor was that his intention
in the original incident -- in which Hunding's family were preparing
another legalized rape -- although Hunding chooses to assume so, and the
worst of his wife, too. It's largely his own behaviour that drives
Sieglinde to make the break. But yes, Hunding might be justified in
challenging Siegmund -- in fair fight. When you have ample weapons to
guard and attack with, attacking a bare-handed, defenceless man is
nothing short of murder -- as Hunding later demonstrates. Meanwhile he
gloats over the fact and his intention -- "Mit Waffen hegt sich der
Mann" -- implying that Siegmund is less than a man, and sneeringly
advising him to defend himself well when he knows Siegmund has nothing
to do it with. Once again, he's hiding behind the letter of the law
while betraying its spirit. And though it's not usually clear in modern
stagings, he's hunting down Siegmund, whom he still believes
"waffenlos", with hounds and probably his followers as well -- a "feige
Wicht", a cowardly wight indeed.
So, sorry, but to me Hunding's just a son of a bitch!
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
{snip}
>Pardon me, but that's a bit of a stretch, Mike -- a stretch significantly
>beyond the snapping point, IMNSHO.
Not at all. It's a reasonable and entirely consistent interpretation of
Wotan's words and actions, and the rational behind them -- squaring
closely with everything Wotan says in the first half of Act II. And the
point about the gods hearing directly is both common religious belief
and specifically confirmed by Fricka:
"...um Rache rief er mich an;
Der Ehe Huterin horte ihn ..."
Can't get more direct than that.
> And there's much sense in what you say above as well. But on balance, I
> think those considerations are far, far outweighed by Wotan's sense of sole
> authorship of this tragedy that's resulted in the death of his only son, and
> all he wants at this point is to get the instrument of that death out of his
> sight so as not to be a source of further rebuke to him. Killing that
> instrument means only more blood on Wotan's hands, and at this point that's
> the very last thing Wotan wants.
And yet he does it. As the music and the stage directions make clear.
One other rationale for the killing, incidentally, is natural justice --
the humane, flexible justice Wotan instilled in Siegmund, and which he
has just urged against Fricka's defence of rigid, inhumane custom.
Hunding offends at every level and earns a death sentence.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> > [A.C.Douglas wrote:]
> >> So, you're saying that Wotan *doesn't* strike Hunding dead? If so,
> >> that's my argument, not Bert's. Or are you saying something else?
> >
> > What I'm saying is perfectly clear. Wotan's action demonstrates the
> > meaning of his words -- namely that he's *not* just dismissing Hunding
> > to go pray, he's sending his spirit off to spoil Fricka's triumph -- to
> > make it clear that she has achieved nothing for her worthless
> > worshipper.
> So, you're saying Wotan *does* kill Hunding.
Which was what Bert said in the post I responded to.
> Sorry, I can't see it that way for reasons already expressed, not to mention
> that this whole idea of the "spirit" of the dead Hunding doing the
> telling to
> Fricka is so far-fetched, in my opinion, as to be dismissible out of hand.
Yet -- in terms of the Ring as Wagner wrote it -- spirits undeniably
exist and persist after death; they can be taken to Valhalla as
soldiers, make horses fight, be rejected and consigned to Hella's realm,
and be enslaved there by Alberich into an even more terrible army. It's
all there in the text. If anything, it should be easier for the spirit
of Hunding to communicate with the divine, once out of his body.
Wagner, incidentally, assumes that we know Hella was the Norse goddess
whose realm did not usually have the connotations of Christian Hell; it
was more like the classical Hades, a cold and shadowy domain, jealous of
warmth and life but not inherently evil.
Cheers,
Mike
Derrick Everett
> On Mar 5, 1:58 pm, Mike Scott Rohan
> <mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> While there's much sense in this, I can't agree that Wotan doesn't care
>> about Hunding. His tone is of vicious contempt, and understandably so,
>> for what Hunding is -- for the dog's life he has led Sieglinde, for his
>> intention to murder the unarmed Siegmund (as Siegmund taunts him, it
>> seems he hasn't noticed the sword's disappearance!) and for the fact
>> that he finally does so. It's only when Siegmund is again made
>> defenceless by an external cause that Hunding steps in and spears him.
>> He has no honour in this killing; it's not fair fight, but murder,
>> fully as much as Hagen's. And though Wotan hates himself, that will
>> only make him hate the instrument more; that's human nature, and Wotan
>> is all too human. He kills a dog to lay at his son's feet.
>>
...
>
> I think you are pretty hard on Hunding. He has at least some honor, or
> he would have killed Siegmund the night before. Also, I get the
> impression that Sieglinde's sadness is more from her own sense of
> belonging somewhere else than from anything Hunding has done. He is not
> enlightened, of course, but he seems to live according to the prevailing
> code of behavior of the time. Really, what would you do if someone who
> had just slaughtered your family at a wedding showed up at your door and
> ran off with your wife?
Hunding is living accord to a "code of behaviour" or custom (German:
Sitte) that included a strict rule of hospitality. I suggest that a good
analogy is to be found in the customs of the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan
and Pakistan, who call their code "Pashtunwali".
There are many aspects to Pashtunwali but among them are, notably, a
strong tradition of hospitality to strangers ("melmastia") and an
obligation to give sanctuary ("nanawateh") to anyone who asks for it.
There are many cases reported of Pashtuns giving asylum to individuals
that are either known enemies or discovered to be enemies after asylum has
been granted and the individual has become, under the code, inviolate.
Siegmund has, further, taken advantage of the hospitality and asylum
granted to him by Hunding -- as you put it -- to run off with his
protector's wife. Therefore it is the same code or custom by which
Hunding lives that justifies him in pursuing Siegmund and killing him. By
his lights, Hunding has acted honourably according to "the rules of the
game".
--
Derrick Everett
Derrick Everett
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
>
>> [A.C. Douglas wrote:]
...
>>> Further, as always, context is everything, and the context here -- a
>>> context established by Wotan's great Act II monologue -- is that Wotan
>>> knows full well that *he*, not Hunding, is the sole author of
>>> Siegmund's death. As I wrote to another poster who expressed something
>>> of the same opinion (again, on Opera-L), the anger and contempt Wotan
>>> feels is for one person and one person alone: himself. [etc., etc.]
>
>> While there's much sense in this, I can't agree that Wotan doesn't care
>> about Hunding. His tone is of vicious contempt, and understandably so,
>> for what Hunding is -- for the dog's life he has led Sieglinde, for his
>> intention to murder the unarmed Siegmund (as Siegmund taunts him, it
>> seems he hasn't noticed the sword's disappearance!) and for the fact
>> that he finally does so. It's only when Siegmund is again made
>> defenceless by an external cause that Hunding steps in and spears him.
>> He has no honour in this killing; it's not fair fight, but murder,
>> fully as much as Hagen's. And though Wotan hates himself, that will
>> only make him hate the instrument more; that's human nature, and Wotan
>> is all too human. He kills a dog to lay at his son's feet.
>
> And there's much sense in what you say above as well. But on balance, I
> think those considerations are far, far outweighed by Wotan's sense of
> sole authorship of this tragedy that's resulted in the death of his only
> son, and all he wants at this point is to get the instrument of that
> death out of his sight so as not to be a source of further rebuke to
> him. Killing that instrument means only more blood on Wotan's hands,
> and at this point that's the very last thing Wotan wants.
>
>
The very last thing Wotan wants is for Alberich to get the ring.
--
Derrick Everett
A.C. Douglas
news:47cf0a21$1...@news.broadpark.no...
> [A.C. Douglas wrote:]
>> Killing that instrument means only more blood on Wotan's hands,
>> and at this point that's the very last thing Wotan wants.
>
> The very last thing Wotan wants is for Alberich to get the ring.
Cute.
O.K. Then make it, the *next* to last thing Wotan wants is more blood on his
hands.
A.C. Douglas
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> And yet he [Wotan] does it [kills]. As the music and the stage directions
> make clear.
Oh? How do you figure that? The stage directions merely indicate at what
point Hunding falls to the ground (viz., when Wotan gives a contemptuous wave
of his hand), and the music at that point (i.e., the 32nd note descending
scale followed by a trombone pedal and a halting sounding of the Hunding
motif on the tympani) merely announce Hunding falling to the ground and his
demise, respectively. Neither the stage directions nor the music says
anything whatsoever about *how* Hunding dies, or whether Wotan intentionally
offed him or not.
Derrick Everett
It is obvious to me that there is an element here of "carry-over" from the
Germanic sources through 'Siegfrieds Tod': of elements of the myth that
are at most only implicit in the final 'Ring' poems. But it also seems to
me that the important point is more a matter of plot elements not being
carried over -- presumably by a conscious decision of Wagner, when he
reworked his drama, to leave them out -- than of unimportant elements
being retained.
In the 'Ring' we have only the word of a Rhinemaiden for the supposed
power of the ring. There, as often happens elsewhere in the 'Ring' (or in
other Wagner dramas), a character is telling us what they believe, rather
than stating objective facts. I have argued (in earlier threads) that
this power has only a psychological reality: the ring has power over those
who believe in its power. It is only because Fafner believes in the power
of the ring, for example, that he kills his brother Fasolt in order to
take the ring; and so the death of Fasolt is attributed to the ring and to
the curse that Alberich has put upon it.
Although Wagner probably wanted the audience to believe in the power of
the curse -- if not the power of the ring -- it seems to me that Wagner's
basic agenda is that certain things in our society have a power over us
only because we allow them to have such power. This is part of the
anarchistic political world-view to which Wagner subscribed at the time he
wrote the 'Ring' poems. It has been suggested, plausibly, that the power
of the ring is the power of gold. If the ring has any real power then it
is -- as suggested by Alberich's words implying that once he got the ring
back he could get more gold -- some kind of help in finding gold, perhaps
like a dowsing rod, although what exactly it does or how is not spelled
out in the poem.
That possibility aside, in general the power of the ring is an illusion,
like the power of Wotan's spear. Just as the former has been seen by Shaw
and others to represent the power of gold, the latter can be interpreted
as the power of the State in the form of laws and treaties. Perhaps even
extending to the power of the Church in the form of commandments, and
including even customs and social conventions if they too are written on
Wotan's spear. Hence the irony in Wotan's words at the end of 'Die
Walküre': only a hero who does not fear Wotan's spear can pass through the
Magic Fire surrounding Brünnhilde's rock. The power of the Magic Fire is
an illusion: those who fear it will feel its heat and even suffer burns
when they try to penetrate the fire; but a hero who does not know fear can
pass through it unharmed. It is because Siegfried does not know fear --
and because he has been brought up deep in the forest, in ignorance of
laws, treaties, commandments, customs and social conventions -- that he
does not experience the Magic Fire as a barrier to him, and neither does
he regard the ring as holding any power over him. Although it is to him,
and to him alone, only a fashion accessory, Siegfried keeps the ring (even
after he is dead) because it is *his* ring.
The ring represents the Nibelung hoard, which is an important element of
the Germanic sources but which in the 'Ring' poems is in effect reduced to
the ring and the tarnhelm; where the former is a symbol (of love to
Brünnhilde, of power to Hagen), the latter is just a device. In the
'Nibelungenlied' whoever owns the hoard is the lord and master of the
Nibelungs, and therefore Sîfrit becomes their lord and master when he wins
the hoard. Thus in 'Siegfried's Tod' after Siegfried wins the ring, as
you note, the Nibelungs swear obedience to him.
Not much of that feudal stuff remains in the 'Ring' and the motivation,
important in 'Siegfried's Tod', of the distress of the Nibelung's is quite
absent from the 'Ring'. The removal of this motivating element changes
the ending of the drama: you might recall that at the end of 'Siegfried's
Tod', Brünnhilde -- about to return the ring to the waters of the Rhine --
tells the Nibelungs that their slavery is now at an end. In 'Götter-
dämmerung' the only mention of their slavery is one line from Hagen. Yet
if the Nibelungs need to be released at all, it is from their subjugation
to Alberich, one that one was suspended when the ring was taken from him
and one that might return if Alberich or his son were to regain the ring.
Although this subtext could be read into the 'Ring' poems, it is not
explicitly present, as it had been in 'Siegfried's Tod'.
So I suggest that it is more significant that an element of the plot has
been stripped away in the reworking of the drama, than that an echo of
the element remains.
--
Derrick Everett
Richard Partridge
following:
O. K., I will admit this allusion is over my head. Who are the two
"someones?"
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk, wrote the following:
[snip]
I wouldn't accept either cited example as an instance of a "malapropos
carry-over." An illustrated set of books published by the Met that I was
given as a child, telling the stories of the "Ring" operas for children,
said, "Wotan killed Hunding with a contemptuous wave of his hand." I never
had any trouble with that, either then or when I was older and knew the
operas better. I don't see that it's hard to accept the idea that Hunding
was killed by Wotan, and that he might on his way to Hella (Wotan had said
he was not a candidate for Valhalla) stop and tell Fricka what Wotan had
done. Who knows what dead people can do in that world? (One thing we know
they can do, or at least one of them can do, is even after death raise their
hand threateningly when somebody tries to take the ring from their finger.)
Even if he could not have done it on his own, it may be that Wotan's command
would make it possible. It's also possible, and even likely, as I think
someone suggested in an earlier post, that Wotan was simply expressing his
bitterness at the death of his son and didn't care whether Hunding actually
reported it to Fricka.
As for Mime's inconsistent statements, I think the likeliest explanation is
that Wagner intentionally created some ambiguity about how the sword came
into his possession, and what really happened between him and Sieglinde. My
own view is that it would have been better dramatically if Wagner had made
it clear that Mime murdered Sieglinde. It would make it easier to accept
the scene in the second act where Siegfried kills Mime. I've always thought
that is a little hard to swallow. Granted, Mime is wicked and dangerous and
if he had lived Siegfried could never be safe. I'm still bothered by the
image of this strong young man striking dead an unarmed, defenseless old
dwarf.
On the other hand, I do think we can see signs of stresses and strains in
the story that resulted from changes made when Wagner expanded it into four
operas and when he changed the ending after the failed rebellions of 1848.
Mike cites one of them above: Hagen's statement that the Nibelungs are
vassals of Siegfried. There's no evidence that either Siegfried or the
Nibelungs know this. I suppose it would be possible that they could be his
vassals without knowing it, but that would be a strange situation, and the
likeliest explanation, as I think Mike suggested in an earlier post, is that
in an earlier version of the story they had expressly submitted to his
overlordship.
Another example of this, perhaps, is Wotan's reference (in one of his
answers to Mime) to Fafner and Fasolt as princes of the giants. Nothing
like that was suggested in "Das Rheingold;" on the contrary they talked
about their hard work building Valhalla, implying that they did it
themselves.
In the third act of "Siegfried" Wotan tells Erda that after Siegfried wakes
her, Brünnhilde will wreak an "erlösende Weltentat." It isn't explained
what that will be, but I've always thought that was clarified in Waltraute's
narrative, where she begged Brünnhilde on Wotan's behalf to give the ring
back to the Rhinedaughters. Well, at the end of the opera Brünnhilde did
exactly that, but it didn't seem to help Wotan. Valhalla still burned up.
Perhaps the strongest evidence of my "stresses and strains" theory is the
amount of repetition in the later operas -- the instances of telling the
audience things they have already seen on stage. As Anna Russell said
(approximately) of the Norns, "Darned if those three dreary sisters don't
tell us the whole story all over again, from the beginning!" There is, to
be sure, some new material in that scene, but a lot of it is already known
to those who have heard the first three operas. In the interview between
Wotan and Mime in "Siegfried," the answers to the first five of the six
questions tell the audience things they already know. There is new material
in Wotan's monologue in "Die Walküre," but also much unnecessary repetition,
which was probably what caused Anna Russell to observe, "and he's a crashing
bore, too!"
Dick Partridge
Bert Coules
> O. K., I will admit this allusion is over my head. Who are the two
> "someones?"
It's Sherlock Holmes (who was fond of a night - or even part of a night - of
Wagner at Covent Garden) talking to John Watson.
Richard Partridge
following:
[snip]
>
> In the 'Ring' we have only the word of a Rhinemaiden for the supposed
> power of the ring.
[snip]
Although I agree with most of your analysis, which as usual is very
persuasive and interesting, I think we have more than the word of a
Rhinemaiden for this. I think Mike was the first one to point out here the
various powers demonstrated for the Ring. It conferred knowledge, not only
of where to dig for gold, but of how to make a Tarnhelm, which was pretty
important. It allowed Alberich to summon the Nibelungs from a considerable
distance. Loge, when he first talks about it, tells of its boundless power.
Granted, Loge is capable of lying, but Wotan also remarks that he has heard
of the power of a ring made from the gold.
I also wonder whether possession of the ring was the reason Siegfried
prevailed in the encounter with Wotan. Take away the ring, and Siegfried
and his sword were entirely Wotan's creatures.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
It beats me why Wotan would mind getting more blood on his hands. (And by
the way, he managed to kill Hunding without getting blood on his hands.) I
must have missed the part about how Wotan is a bleeding-heart humanitarian.
He just saw Hunding kill his son. It was not unnatural for him to kill
Hunding. Hunding's death would hardly be the last thing he would want.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
I think we owe Mr. Douglas a debt of gratitude for introducing a topic that
has led to about five times the usual amount of interest and argumentation.
Dick Partridge
Bert Coules
> It conferred knowledge... of how to
> make a Tarnhelm, which was pretty
> important.
Actually, that's never specifically stated, is it? Alberich says that he
designed the Tarnhelm, but we don't know that it was inspired by the ring
(or the gold). I agree that it probably was, but it's interesting that
Wagner never directly says so. Or have I missed the reference?
Derrick Everett
> On 3/5/08 4:42 PM, Derrick Everett, at sparafu...@yahoo.com, wrote
> the following:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> In the 'Ring' we have only the word of a Rhinemaiden for the supposed
>> power of the ring.
>
>
Words of Loge and Wotan too, of course, but that's just hearsay.
> Although I agree with most of your analysis, which as usual is very
> persuasive and interesting, I think we have more than the word of a
> Rhinemaiden for this. I think Mike was the first one to point out here
> the various powers demonstrated for the Ring.
More of them claimed or inferred, I suggest, than demonstrated.
> It conferred knowledge, not only of where to dig for gold,
"Durch das Ringes Gold erräth seine Gier,
wo neuer Schimmer in Schachten sich birgt..."
> but of how to make a Tarnhelm, which was pretty important.
I'm not sure how the ring helped with this. Alberich says:
[Mime wollte] "für sich behalten das hehre Geschmied,
das meine List ihn zu schmieden gelehrt?"
> It allowed Alberich to summon the Nibelungs from a considerable
> distance.
Yes it did.
> Loge, when he first talks about it, tells of its boundless power.
> Granted, Loge is capable of lying, but Wotan also remarks that he has
> heard of the power of a ring made from the gold.
Both Loge and Wotan have heard rumours about the power of the Rhine's gold
that can be made into a ring of power. The gods have heard about the
reputation of the ring -- but does it deliver "boundless power"?
> I also wonder whether possession of the ring was the reason Siegfried
> prevailed in the encounter with Wotan. Take away the ring, and
> Siegfried and his sword were entirely Wotan's creatures.
>
>
I agree that the sword might not help Siegfried against Wotan, even though
it is now Siegfried's sword, since he has forged his own destiny.
Siegfried is less of a creature of Wotan that his father was, although to
what extent he is a creature of the god is much debated. In my view the
hero is not "entirely Wotan's creature".
In the contest with Wotan the hero demonstrates that he does not fear the
spear and therefore we are not surprised when he passes through the Magic
Fire unharmed. The thought occurs to me that the reason for Wagner
including the scene in which the god blocks the path of the hero is so
that he can show that the spear (and everything it represents) means
nothing to Siegfried. I think that is why he prevails.
Note that the ring does not help Brünnhilde against the disguised
Siegfried. If it has any coercive power at all, we know from this that at
least it lacks such power over Siegfried. That might just be because he
does not know about its power, just as he does not know that possession of
the ring makes him the lord and master of the Nibelungs. In fact,
Siegfried (a regular Lil Abner type) doesn't know much about anything,
except how to make a sword.
--
Derrick Everett
Richard Loeb
Oh I think there is another reason why the scene between Wotan and Siegfried
is there and it concerns Wotan - don't you think it gives us more insights
into the mind of this character - how he has to meet the person who will
wrest his last real power from him ; how he has to try to stop the
inevitable from happening one last time even though he really may not even
at this point in the drama even really want there to be any change from what
is intended to happen. A very human response to his situation and one that
Wagner felt important for us to experience.
I don't understand the L'il Abner allusion at all . Richard
A.C. Douglas
news:C3F5879A.18656%r.par...@verizon.net...
> On 3/5/08 4:34 PM, A.C. Douglas, at acdo...@soundsandfury.com, wrote the
> following:
>
>> "Derrick Everett" <sparafu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:47cf0a21$1...@news.broadpark.no...
>>
>>> [A.C. Douglas wrote:]
>>>> Killing that instrument means only more blood on Wotan's hands,
>>>> and at this point that's the very last thing Wotan wants.
>>>
>>> The very last thing Wotan wants is for Alberich to get the ring.
>>
>> Cute.
>>
>> O.K. Then make it, the *next* to last thing Wotan wants is more blood on
>> his hands.
>
> It beats me why Wotan would mind getting more blood on his hands. (And by
> the way, he managed to kill Hunding without getting blood on his hands.) I
> must have missed the part about how Wotan is a bleeding-heart humanitarian.
>
> He just saw Hunding kill his son. It was not unnatural for him to kill
> Hunding. Hunding's death would hardly be the last thing he would want.
The only thing Wotan wants for Hunding is for him to be out of his sight as
quickly as possible as I've previously explained. As to why the last thing
Wotan wants is more blood on his hands, it has nothing to do with his
becoming "a bleeding-heart humanitarian," and everything to do with my fairly
detailed previous explanation of Wotan's state of mind.
Derrick Everett
<snip>
> I don't understand the L'il Abner allusion at all .
Siegfried lacks sophistication.
--
Derrick Everett
Richard Loeb
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
Such nonsense - of course Wotan kills Hunding. The stage directions read "
Vor seinem verachtlichen Handwink sinkt Hunding todt zu Boden" "Before the
contempuous wave of his hand, Hunding sinks dead to the ground". At least
thats how it reads in my edition - Wotan kills Hunding. One can argue
rantionale from today till tomorrow but Wotan kills Hunding - punkt!!!.
Richard
Mike Scott Rohan
from Richard Partridge <r.par...@verizon.net> contains these words:
{snip}
> I also wonder whether possession of the ring was the reason Siegfried
> prevailed in the encounter with Wotan. Take away the ring, and Siegfried
> and his sword were entirely Wotan's creatures.
No, actually. It's a tempting idea, but the whole point of Siegfried is
that's he's independent of Wotan -- who, having learned by his mistakes
with Siegmund, takes care to keep it that way. That's the point of their
little exchange about where the Sword came from -- it's a catechism of a
sort.
At the same time, possession of the Ring would certainly give Siegfried
the power to dominate Wotan -- and everything else -- if he cared to use
it. But probably not as directly as Alberich dominated the Nibelungs;
Wotan has more power of his own, and it would take a major assault of
the kind Alberich envisages to defeat him. That's a deduction from
various things said and done, but not, I think, an unreasonable one. The
power of the Ring is probably less usable against individuals, anyhow,
which would make sense; its gift is the mastership of the world, rather
than blasting the bloke next door, which while undeniably impressive is
not power in the absolute sense.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
The descending scale, coming on that final "Geh!" -- which is a
definite, spat command, however the singer chooses to articulate it --
conveys a definite image of something emitted, and culminates in the
thud of Hunding's fall. It's as if the word itself has flown out and
struck him down. Of course, we couldn't be precise about that -- except
that the bitter tone and the words themselves indicate a very hostile
dismissal. And, contrary to what you suggest, the full stage direction
states:
"Vor seinen verachtlichen Handwink sinkt Hunding tot zu Boden."
Literally "Before his contemptuous hand-gesture sinks Hunding dead to
the ground." That "Vor" establishes the direct causal link between the
gesture and the death. No possible ambiguity there.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
{snip}
> The only thing Wotan wants for Hunding is for him to be out of his sight as
> quickly as possible as I've previously explained. As to why the last thing
> Wotan wants is more blood on his hands, it has nothing to do with his
> becoming "a bleeding-heart humanitarian," and everything to do with my
> fairly
> detailed previous explanation of Wotan's state of mind.
Certainly, but the problem, as it were, is whether Wotan's read that
explanation. On balance the evidence doesn't support it. After he's
killed Hunding, he goes after Brunnhilde with blood in his eye. There's
a reason his advance is so thunderous in the orchestra, and why the
Valkyries are so scared. He intends to punish her with -- quite
literally -- a sentence of death. And a lingering, humiliating one, at
that. He's more merciful, if anything, to Hunding.
There is also plenty of evidence that he intended to include Sieglinde
in his enforcement of Fricka's demand, perhaps even kill her as well.
Brunnhilde -- who knows his mind best -- says exactly that to her
sisters in her pleas for help, and it's because of that that she finally
decides to stay. Wotan confirms it a little later, when he says angrily
that "Von dir geschieden, scheid ich von ihm; vernichten musst'ihn der
Neid!"
"Abandoned by you, I abandoned them; hatred (ie Fricka's) must wipe out
their race!"
Far from not wanting to kill, he seems to be ready to lash out
murderously wherever he can, in his grief. And that also is a not
uncommon reaction.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from Derrick Everett <sparafu...@yahoo.com> contains these words:
{snip}
> It is obvious to me that there is an element here of "carry-over" from the
> Germanic sources through 'Siegfrieds Tod': of elements of the myth that
> are at most only implicit in the final 'Ring' poems. But it also seems to
> me that the important point is more a matter of plot elements not being
> carried over -- presumably by a conscious decision of Wagner, when he
> reworked his drama, to leave them out -- than of unimportant elements
> being retained.
My point is that the "carry-over" -- or its opposite -- should never be
dismissed as unintentional sloppiness without much deeper consideration;
that's lazy thinking. And when it is investigated, so far I've always
found sense to it, provided one has the (fairly elementary) knowledge of
the sources Wagner evidently expected.
I believe the power of the Ring is largely mental, certainly -- not
shooting out beams of power like Green Lantern's in the comic book
(amusingly by Gil Kane, originally, who also drew the Ring as a comic!).
But mental is certainly not the same as illusory. Is Alberich's new gold
illusory? Or the knowledge to shape and use the Tarnhelm? And, more
importantly, the ability to drive other minds to do these things? We're
shown these at once. Wagner takes great care to demonstrate that the
Ring *does* convey some very substantial and unusual ability on its
wearer. But it's not anything so crude as raygun zapping or summoning
genies or whatever. What we see can best be construed as power in its
purest, most abstract form -- which must naturally, though, manifest
itself through the mind of the user. So Alberich attains the power
that's appropriate to him; so, in his slothful way, does Fafner. If
Wotan had retained the Ring, he probably wouldn't have got news about
gold, or the knowledge to hide away in a state of sluggish and
terrifying immortality; he would have got "inside knowledge", probably,
to allow him to confect new schemes, divide enemies, convince allies,
move armies strategically, direct the world his way. And the curse would
ultimately have turned these against him. Siegfried doesn't particularly
want power of any kind, except to be himself; and it's arguable that his
breathtaking blind arrogance with the Rhinemaidens is the manifestation
of that. As Alberich says, he doesn't rely on the Ring, so it has very
little opportunity to affect him. It can only do it through his weakest
point, his relations with others -- in this case his trust of the
Gibichungs and his mistrust of the Rhinemaidens.
The Ring's powers as demonstrated therefore boil down to what Wagner in
the Ring calls "wisdom" -- rather confusingly, because in English that
means something different. In the Ring it derives from the ON usage,
which also had overtones of "secret knowledge" or even magic. Here it's
best summed up as the power that makes the world work. Erda possesses
it, to a lesser degree the Norns, and the gods apparently a still lesser
share, that which Brunnhilde imparts to Siegfried. That's why he doesn't
seem to benefit much from "wisdom" in his actions; it refers to the
magic power surrounding him, that guards him from harm, not any great
advance in intelligence or experience. The Ring is a gnostic force,
tapping into the secret basis of creation -- but, thanks to the curse, a
built-in spin.
Least of all, for me, is the concept of power in the Ring such a
literal-minded Shawish allegory, whether in Wotan's hands or Alberich's.
The Ring, as Shaw unintentionally demonstrated, does not hold up as
literal allegory, a plonking and unpoetic form which Wagner displays no
interest in; it's not any kind of pagan Pilgrim's Progress. Its themes
are strongly applicable, certainly, to the world outside the tale; but
they don't dictate its progress. If Alberich "represents" a capitalist
and Wotan doomed royalty, for example, it's only in terms of their roles
within the myth; "recall" or "resemble" would be a truer way of putting
it than "represent".
> So I suggest that it is more significant that an element of the plot has
> been stripped away in the reworking of the drama, than that an echo of
> the element remains.
I'd suggest they're the same thing, looked at from different angles. I
was addressing examples of what Newman and others have dismissed as
inconsistencies; given Newman's ability to skewer other such
inconsistencies, he should have known better. Wagner's reasons for
dropping the subservient Nibelungs are certainly significant, in the
light this shines on his synthetic process and its intentions; and by
the same token, so are his reasons for retaining the reference.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Bert Coules" <ma...@bertcoules.co.uk> contains these words:
> Richard Partridge wrote:
In Siegfried there's a pretty direct statement. When Mime claims the
Tarnhelm as his own creation, Alberich replies contemptuously:
"Was hattest du Stumper
Je wohl zum stampfen verstanden?
Der Zauberring
Zwang mir den Zwerg erst zu Kunst!"
It's implicit elsewhere, anyway. Mime doesn't have the slightest idea
what he's making, at Alberich's instructions; it's something wholly new
to the Nibelungs. Alberich specifically says "Den hehlenden Helm ersann
ich mich selbst..." If it was something he already knew how to make, why
hadn't he done so already? Hard to imagine this little stinker missing
any such powerful trick -- could have used it to sneak up on the
Rhinemaidens, for a start. So it's newly acquired knowledge -- where
from? He's acquired other sources of knowledge through the Ring -- where
new deposits of gold are, for example -- so it's fairly safe to assume
this came from the same source.
Cheers,
Mike
Richard Partridge
following:
> Richard Partridge wrote:
Well, I think you're exactly right. It was just a supposition on my part
that Alberich needed the ring to design it.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:35:49 +0000, Richard Partridge wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>> It conferred knowledge, not only of where to dig for gold,
>
> "Durch das Ringes Gold erräth seine Gier,
> wo neuer Schimmer in Schachten sich birgt..."
>
>> but of how to make a Tarnhelm, which was pretty important.
>
> I'm not sure how the ring helped with this. Alberich says:
>
> [Mime wollte] "für sich behalten das hehre Geschmied,
> das meine List ihn zu schmieden gelehrt?"
Bert made that point also, and I think you're right.
>
[snip]
>
>> Loge, when he first talks about it, tells of its boundless power.
>> Granted, Loge is capable of lying, but Wotan also remarks that he has
>> heard of the power of a ring made from the gold.
>
> Both Loge and Wotan have heard rumours about the power of the Rhine's gold
> that can be made into a ring of power. The gods have heard about the
> reputation of the ring -- but does it deliver "boundless power"?
Wotan says,
"Von des Rheines Gold
hört' ich raunen:
Beute-Runen
berge sein roter Glanz,
Macht und Schätze
schüf' ohne Mass' ein Reif."
That doesn't prove its power was really "ohne Mass," but it shows Wotan
thought so.
>
>> I also wonder whether possession of the ring was the reason Siegfried
>> prevailed in the encounter with Wotan. Take away the ring, and
>> Siegfried and his sword were entirely Wotan's creatures.
>>
>>
> I agree that the sword might not help Siegfried against Wotan, even though
> it is now Siegfried's sword, since he has forged his own destiny.
> Siegfried is less of a creature of Wotan that his father was, although to
> what extent he is a creature of the god is much debated. In my view the
> hero is not "entirely Wotan's creature".
I have to agree, the word "entirely" is too strong.
>
> In the contest with Wotan the hero demonstrates that he does not fear the
> spear and therefore we are not surprised when he passes through the Magic
> Fire unharmed. The thought occurs to me that the reason for Wagner
> including the scene in which the god blocks the path of the hero is so
> that he can show that the spear (and everything it represents) means
> nothing to Siegfried. I think that is why he prevails.
>
> Note that the ring does not help Brünnhilde against the disguised
> Siegfried. If it has any coercive power at all, we know from this that at
> least it lacks such power over Siegfried. That might just be because he
> does not know about its power, just as he does not know that possession of
> the ring makes him the lord and master of the Nibelungs. In fact,
> Siegfried (a regular Lil Abner type) doesn't know much about anything,
> except how to make a sword.
It could be that the ring is powerful in general, but not over Siegfried.
I've also thought a possible explanation is that Brünnhilde didn't know how
to use it. In the case of Tolkien's ring (and I know we can't argue from
one to the other, but it's an illustration), only one who had vast knowledge
and strength of mind could use its full powers, and even then it seems that
there is a learning curve.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:35:14 -0500, Richard Loeb wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> I don't understand the L'il Abner allusion at all .
>
> Siegfried lacks sophistication.
I know there are those in this group who don't care for Anna Russell, but
she described Siegfried as "a regular L'il Abner type."
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
> "Richard Partridge" <r.par...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:C3F5879A.18656%r.par...@verizon.net...
>
[snip]
>>
>> It beats me why Wotan would mind getting more blood on his hands. (And by
>> the way, he managed to kill Hunding without getting blood on his hands.) I
>> must have missed the part about how Wotan is a bleeding-heart humanitarian.
>>
>> He just saw Hunding kill his son. It was not unnatural for him to kill
>> Hunding. Hunding's death would hardly be the last thing he would want.
>
> The only thing Wotan wants for Hunding is for him to be out of his sight as
> quickly as possible as I've previously explained. As to why the last thing
> Wotan wants is more blood on his hands, it has nothing to do with his
> becoming "a bleeding-heart humanitarian," and everything to do with my fairly
> detailed previous explanation of Wotan's state of mind.
>
> ---
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/
>
Ipse dixit.
When I have time, I'll go and look for the previous explanations.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk, wrote the following:
> The message <13t0tik...@corp.supernews.com>
> from "Bert Coules" <ma...@bertcoules.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> Richard Partridge wrote:
>
>>> It conferred knowledge... of how to
>>> make a Tarnhelm, which was pretty
>>> important.
>
>> Actually, that's never specifically stated, is it? Alberich says that he
>> designed the Tarnhelm, but we don't know that it was inspired by the ring
>> (or the gold). I agree that it probably was, but it's interesting that
>> Wagner never directly says so. Or have I missed the reference?
>
> In Siegfried there's a pretty direct statement. When Mime claims the
> Tarnhelm as his own creation, Alberich replies contemptuously:
>
> "Was hattest du Stumper
> Je wohl zum stampfen verstanden?
> Der Zauberring
> Zwang mir den Zwerg erst zu Kunst!"
Couldn't this be interpreted as meaning only that the ring forced Mime to do
the work, not that it was essential to the ability to design it?
>
> It's implicit elsewhere, anyway. Mime doesn't have the slightest idea
> what he's making, at Alberich's instructions; it's something wholly new
> to the Nibelungs. Alberich specifically says "Den hehlenden Helm ersann
> ich mich selbst..." If it was something he already knew how to make, why
> hadn't he done so already? Hard to imagine this little stinker missing
> any such powerful trick -- could have used it to sneak up on the
> Rhinemaidens, for a start. So it's newly acquired knowledge -- where
> from? He's acquired other sources of knowledge through the Ring -- where
> new deposits of gold are, for example -- so it's fairly safe to assume
> this came from the same source.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
This is pretty persuasive, I'd say.
Dick Partridge
A.C. Douglas
Of course the stage direction is ambiguous as is Wotan's state of mind at
that instant. Were that not the case, this thread and my S&F article that
provoked it wouldn't exist. The question is, By that contemptuous hand
gesture, did Wotan intend a death-dealing stroke, or was it simply as I
assert; viz., that Hunding was struck dead by his own terror at that final
hand gesture backed by all that preceded it? Based on the *full* context of
that moment, your reading is the former; mine, the latter, and I of course
think mine correct, and yours not. This question is akin to the perennial
question of Hamlet's sanity: was he or wasn't he? It's testimony to the
greatness of both authors that such questions can even exist.
---
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/
A.C. Douglas
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <i50Aj.10937$li.1066@trnddc06>
> from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
>
> {snip}
>
>> The only thing Wotan wants for Hunding is for him to be out of his sight
>> as
>> quickly as possible as I've previously explained. As to why the last
>> thing
>> Wotan wants is more blood on his hands, it has nothing to do with his
>> becoming "a bleeding-heart humanitarian," and everything to do with my
>> fairly
>> detailed previous explanation of Wotan's state of mind.
>
> Certainly, but the problem, as it were, is whether Wotan's read that
> explanation. On balance the evidence doesn't support it. After he's
> killed Hunding, he goes after Brunnhilde with blood in his eye. There's
> a reason his advance is so thunderous in the orchestra, and why the
> Valkyries are so scared. He intends to punish her with -- quite
> literally -- a sentence of death. And a lingering, humiliating one, at
> that. He's more merciful, if anything, to Hunding.
> [snip]
> Far from not wanting to kill, he seems to be ready to lash out
> murderously wherever he can, in his grief.
It's not at all that Wotan's "more merciful" to Hunding, but rather that
Wotan knows he, not Hunding, is the sole author of Siegmund's death. Hunding
is a cipher as far as Wotan is concerned, and all he wants at this point is
to have him out of his sight so as not to be a rebuke to him (Wotan) as I've
written. Not at all the case with Brunnhilde which is a different matter
*entirely*, and the two cases are NOT comparable in any sense, measure, or
degree.
---
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/
A.C. Douglas
"Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> The descending scale, coming on that final "Geh!" -- which is a
> definite, spat command, however the singer chooses to articulate it --
> conveys a definite image of something emitted, and culminates in the
> thud of Hunding's fall. It's as if the word itself has flown out and
> struck him down.
That descending 32nd-note scale is simply a generic musical device to
illustrate musically Hunding falling to the ground. Period. Full stop. It
conveys nothing more than that -- unless, that is, one is attempting to make
the general argument you're making here. Were the 32nd-note scale intended
to convey what you insist it conveys, it would hardly be a *descending*
scale; just the opposite, in fact.
Bert Coules
Excellent argument. I sway in your general direction.
Bert
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk, wrote the following:
[snip]
> Alberich specifically says "Den hehlenden Helm ersann
> ich mich selbst..." If it was something he already knew how to make, why
> hadn't he done so already? Hard to imagine this little stinker missing
> any such powerful trick -- could have used it to sneak up on the
> Rhinemaidens, for a start.
[snip]
That's an intriguing thought. He could have made himself invisible, or,
better yet, he could have made himself look like Tom Cruise. Then he would
have had to fight them off.
Dick Partridge
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
{snip}
> Of course the stage direction is ambiguous as is Wotan's state of mind at
> that instant.
*Ambiguous? How much more certain d'you want it? "Wotan sticks his hand
down Hunding's throat and pulls him inside out"? Of course it isn't
ambiguous.
Unless you twist it around so far that by the same technique you could
doubt anything -- that Siegfried breaks the anvil, for Heaven's sake. We
know he raises the sword to it, but that could be just a gesture,
couldn't it? Only the music and the stage direction say it splits, we
don't actually know that, do we? It might just have collapsed from metal
fatigue after all that beating!
Were that not the case, this thread and my S&F article that
> provoked it wouldn't exist.
Well, you said it, I didn't.
The question is, By that contemptuous hand
> gesture, did Wotan intend a death-dealing stroke, or was it simply as I
> assert; viz., that Hunding was struck dead by his own terror at that final
> hand gesture backed by all that preceded it?
Since he wasn't too terrified at all these appearances to skewer
Siegmund, it demonstrates fairly accurately he wasn't. And Wotan's
ominous words and the colour and vivid representation of the music
depict something very active and malevolent about that gesture -- far
too specifically to make Hunding's keeling over from terror remotely
likely.
Based on the *full* context of
> that moment, your reading is the former; mine, the latter, and I of course
> think mine correct, and yours not. This question is akin to the perennial
> question of Hamlet's sanity: was he or wasn't he? It's testimony to the
> greatness of both authors that such questions can even exist.
No, it isn't. This isn't any kind of comparable ambiguity, and can't be
blown up into one. Even Hamlet the character isn't sure if he's mad or
not. This is just one single statement, not one of the major thrusts of
the drama. In Hamlet there's any amount of evidence for both sides of
the question (including, interestingly, the sources!). Here there's no
evidence whatsoever to doubt Wotan's action except the provisos you
yourself manufacture, and considerable evidence to discount them. You
always insist all the information is there in the text, yet here you are
inventing reasons out of thin air to contradict it.
Richard Loeb
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
I have never heard such a ridiculous argument in my life - look, Wotan kills
Hunding - do you think its a coincidence that Hunding drops dead when Wotan
makes his hand movement - for Christs sake stop wasting the time of
intelligent people here who not only know Wagner but have some good old
common sense!!!!! Richard
Richard Loeb
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
At least it was posted in the right place - this is a prize example of sound
and fury adding up to absolutely nothing! Richard
A.C. Douglas
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <loeAj.11$wM2.9@trnddc07>
> from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
>
> {snip}
>
>> Of course the stage direction is ambiguous as is Wotan's state of mind at
>> that instant.
>
> *Ambiguous? How much more certain d'you want it? "Wotan sticks his hand
> down Hunding's throat and pulls him inside out"? Of course it isn't
> ambiguous.
>
> Unless you twist it around so far that by the same technique you could
> doubt anything -- that Siegfried breaks the anvil, for Heaven's sake. We
> know he raises the sword to it, but that could be just a gesture,
> couldn't it? Only the music and the stage direction say it splits, we
> don't actually know that, do we? It might just have collapsed from metal
> fatigue after all that beating!
Don't be absurd. The ambiguity of whether Wotan intentionally deals Hunding
a death stroke is nothing like the explicitness of Siegfried splitting the
anvil. Unlike the explicitness of that moment, there's *nothing* in the
score (music, text, stage directions) that can settle the ambiguous question
of the why of Hunding's death unambiguously. Nothing.
>> The question is, By that contemptuous hand
>> gesture, did Wotan intend a death-dealing stroke, or was it simply as I
>> assert; viz., that Hunding was struck dead by his own terror at that final
>> hand gesture backed by all that preceded it?
>
> Since he wasn't too terrified at all these appearances to skewer
> Siegmund, it demonstrates fairly accurately he wasn't.
Rubbish. Hunding facing off against Siegmund, a fellow mortal, is *nothing*
compared with his confrontation by Wotan the god -- obviously.
> And Wotan's
> ominous words and the colour and vivid representation of the music
> depict something very active and malevolent about that gesture -- far
> too specifically to make Hunding's keeling over from terror remotely
> likely.
What's remarkable about that short episode is the *absence* of anything
active in Wotan's words, his final gesture, and the music accompanying them;
ergo, the ambiguity concerning what exactly struck Hunding dead.
>> Based on the *full* context of
>> that moment, your reading is the former; mine, the latter, and I of course
>> think mine correct, and yours not. This question is akin to the perennial
>> question of Hamlet's sanity: was he or wasn't he? It's testimony to the
>> greatness of both authors that such questions can even exist.
>
> No, it isn't. This isn't any kind of comparable ambiguity, and can't be
> blown up into one. Even Hamlet the character isn't sure if he's mad or
> not. This is just one single statement, not one of the major thrusts of
> the drama. In Hamlet there's any amount of evidence for both sides of
> the question (including, interestingly, the sources!). Here there's no
> evidence whatsoever to doubt Wotan's action except the provisos you
> yourself manufacture, and considerable evidence to discount them. You
> always insist all the information is there in the text, yet here you are
> inventing reasons out of thin air to contradict it.
I've never "insist[ed] all the information is there in the text." What I've
insisted is that all the information necessary for understanding is there in
the *score* (music, text, stage directions). That doesn't preclude the
possibility of ambiguity, intentional or accidental. You can keep repeating
ad nauseam that "there's no evidence whatsoever to doubt Wotan's action," but
that will not settle the matter. There's more than reason sufficient to
doubt whether Wotan's contemptuous hand wave was an intentional striking dead
of Hunding, or whether Hunding simply expired from sheer terror at that hand
wave. Here, the text is no help, the stage directions ambiguous, and the
music silent on the matter. Your notion that the descending 32nd note figure
in the strings "conveys a definite image of something emitted...as if the
word itself has flown out and struck [Hunding] down" is perversely
nonsensical and exactly backwards musically as I've already pointed out.
That descending 32nd-note scale is simply a generic musical device to
illustrate musically Hunding falling to the ground. Period. Full stop. It
conveys nothing more than that -- except to one desperate to make his
questionable case.
A.C. Douglas
news:pvOdnSDROuLrxkja...@comcast.com...
> I have never heard such a ridiculous argument in my life - look, Wotan
> kills Hunding - do you think its a coincidence that Hunding drops dead when
> Wotan makes his hand movement - for Christs sake stop wasting the time of
> intelligent people here who not only know Wagner but have some good old
> common sense!!!!! Richard
And,
> At least it was posted in the right place - this is a prize example of
> sound and fury adding up to absolutely nothing! Richard
Idiot.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> > The message <loeAj.11$wM2.9@trnddc07>
> > from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
> >
> > {snip}
> >
> Don't be absurd. The ambiguity of whether Wotan intentionally deals Hunding
> a death stroke is nothing like the explicitness of Siegfried splitting the
> anvil. Unlike the explicitness of that moment, there's *nothing* in the
> score (music, text, stage directions) that can settle the ambiguous question
> of the why of Hunding's death unambiguously. Nothing.
Point to something that *makes* it ambiguous, then.
> >
> > Since he wasn't too terrified at all these appearances to skewer
> > Siegmund, it demonstrates fairly accurately he wasn't.
> Rubbish. Hunding facing off against Siegmund, a fellow mortal, is *nothing*
> compared with his confrontation by Wotan the god -- obviously.
What, with gods and Valkyries joining in and mixing it round his ears?
And since Wotan's appearance then saves his life and lets him kill
Siegmund, he should be encouraged rather than the other way around.
Wotan's scorn barely has time to register; the actual words certainly
aren't *mortally* scary if you're not expecting to be killed -- all the
menace is in the music. Anyhow, I can assure you that people die of
fright rather less often and less easily than thrillers would have us
think. All in all, this is a pretty absurd thing to assume without at
least some evidence to support it.
> > And Wotan's
> > ominous words and the colour and vivid representation of the music
> > depict something very active and malevolent about that gesture -- far
> > too specifically to make Hunding's keeling over from terror remotely
> > likely.
> What's remarkable about that short episode is the *absence* of anything
> active in Wotan's words, his final gesture, and the music accompanying them;
> ergo, the ambiguity concerning what exactly struck Hunding dead.
"Nuts" is as sensible a riposte as this deserves. Wotan's words are
contemptuous, and combined with the tense, menacing and finally violent
music, they create an impression sufficiently clear for everyone except,
apparently, you. If you're going to claim that Wagner *might* have meant
otherwise, the burden is wholly on you to produce something to prove it.
But you can't.
As I said, you claim the text -- or "score", in a way nobody else uses
that term -- is all you need to interpret the Ring, but what you
actually mean is "I am sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips, let no dog
bark".
> I've never "insist[ed] all the information is there in the text." What I've
> insisted is that all the information necessary for understanding is there in
> the *score* (music, text, stage directions). That doesn't preclude the
> possibility of ambiguity, intentional or accidental.
If it can't provide anything to resolve this, then it most certainly does.
You can keep repeating
> ad nauseam that "there's no evidence whatsoever to doubt Wotan's
> action," but
> that will not settle the matter.
Really? You should study the principles of evidence some time, and
logic. You are not entitled arbitrarily to assume something's ambiguous
without somehow supporting this. Until you do so, you have exactly as
much grounds for asserting any ambiguity here as you would for the
non-splitting anvil. The analogy is exact, and just as bloody stupid.
You produce nothing except bluster and evasion. There is no argument, no
dispute, therefore -- just your cranky ego.
It
> conveys nothing more than that -- except to one desperate to make his
> questionable case.
You're the one desperate to make the case, but yours isn't even
questionable. The real question might be whether it's curable.
A.C. Douglas
news:3130303032303...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <WtdBj.17451$er2.15968@trnddc08>
> from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
>
>> Don't be absurd. The ambiguity of whether Wotan intentionally deals
>> Hunding a death stroke is nothing like the explicitness of Siegfried
>> splitting the anvil. Unlike the explicitness of that moment, there's
>> *nothing* in the score (music, text, stage directions) that can settle the
>> ambiguous question of the why of Hunding's death unambiguously. Nothing.
>
> Point to something that *makes* it ambiguous, then.
What is that? Some sort of lame attempt at a joke? I already have detailed
what makes it ambiguous -- several times; viz., that the text is no help,
the stage directions ambiguous, and the music totally silent on the matter of
the how and why of Hunding's death.
>> Rubbish. Hunding facing off against Siegmund, a fellow mortal, is
>> *nothing* compared with his confrontation by Wotan the god -- obviously.
>
> What, with gods and Valkyries joining in and mixing it round his ears?
> And since Wotan's appearance then saves his life and lets him kill
> Siegmund, he should be encouraged rather than the other way around.
> Wotan's scorn barely has time to register; the actual words certainly
> aren't *mortally* scary if you're not expecting to be killed -- all the
> menace is in the music. Anyhow, I can assure you that people die of
> fright rather less often and less easily than thrillers would have us
> think. All in all, this is a pretty absurd thing to assume without at
> least some evidence to support it.
I've given my evidence -- at length and in detail. That you refuse to
understand or accept that clear evidence is a matter totally out of my hands.
>> What's remarkable about that short episode is the *absence* of anything
>> active in Wotan's words, his final gesture, and the music accompanying
>> them; ergo, the ambiguity concerning what exactly struck Hunding dead.
>
> "Nuts" is as sensible a riposte as this deserves. Wotan's words are
> contemptuous, and combined with the tense, menacing and finally violent
> music, they create an impression sufficiently clear for everyone except,
> apparently, you. If you're going to claim that Wagner *might* have meant
> otherwise, the burden is wholly on you to produce something to prove it.
> But you can't.
I can and have -- again, at length and in detail. And there is NO "finally
violent music" to that brief episode. That episode ends with Wagner's
announcement of Hunding's death in trombones and tympani. What follows
immediately thereafter has to do with Brunnhilde exclusively, and *nothing*
to do with Hunding.
>> I've never "insist[ed] all the information is there in the text." What
>> I've insisted is that all the information necessary for understanding is
>> there in the *score* (music, text, stage directions). That doesn't
>> preclude the possibility of ambiguity, intentional or accidental.
>
> If it can't provide anything to resolve this, then it most certainly does.
Excuse me? That's pure gibberish. The very fact that the score DOESN'T
provide anything to resolve this matter is proof positive that the
possibility of ambiguity isn't precluded.
> You can keep repeating ad nauseam that "there's no evidence whatsoever to
> doubt Wotan's action," but that will not settle the matter.
>
> Really? You should study the principles of evidence some time, and
> logic. You are not entitled arbitrarily to assume something's ambiguous
> without somehow supporting this. Until you do so, you have exactly as
> much grounds for asserting any ambiguity here as you would for the
> non-splitting anvil. The analogy is exact, and just as bloody stupid.
> You produce nothing except bluster and evasion. There is no argument, no
> dispute, therefore -- just your cranky ego.
Your anvil analogy is preposterous -- almost as preposterous as your imbecile
(and desperate) attempt to compare Wotan's fury at Brunnhilde with his
contempt for Hunding -- a contempt at bottom directed toward himself, not
Hunding as I've already pointed out. Your anvil analogy is no analogy at all
as there's not an iota of ambiguity in the matter of the splitting of the
anvil. And as to my supporting my argument of ambiguity in the matter of
Hunding's death, I've done so at length and in detail, as I've already noted
several times above. Again, that you refuse to accept that clear evidence is
a matter totally out of my hands. I suggest you go back to refresh your
conveniently faulty memory and thereby acquire some modicum of understanding
of that evidence.
There's a good fellow.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@soundsandfury.com> contains these words:
{Chop}
> >
> > Point to something that *makes* it ambiguous, then.
> What is that? Some sort of lame attempt at a joke? I already have detailed
> what makes it ambiguous -- several times; viz., that the text is no help,
> the stage directions ambiguous, and the music totally silent on the
> matter of
> the how and why of Hunding's death.
In other words, it's ambiguous only because you say so. Nobody else
does, in all the vast writings about Walkure. When will you accept that
your own unsupported assertion simply isn't enough?
> I've given my evidence -- at length and in detail. That you refuse to
> understand or accept that clear evidence is a matter totally out of my
> hands.
No. If you had given evidence we could evaluate it.
> >> What's remarkable about that short episode is the *absence* of anything
> >> active in Wotan's words, his final gesture, and the music accompanying
> >> them; ergo, the ambiguity concerning what exactly struck Hunding dead.
> >
> > "Nuts" is as sensible a riposte as this deserves. Wotan's words are
> > contemptuous, and combined with the tense, menacing and finally violent
> > music, they create an impression sufficiently clear for everyone except,
> > apparently, you. If you're going to claim that Wagner *might* have meant
> > otherwise, the burden is wholly on you to produce something to prove it.
> > But you can't.
> I can and have -- again, at length and in detail. And there is NO "finally
> violent music" to that brief episode. That episode ends with Wagner's
> announcement of Hunding's death in trombones and tympani. What follows
> immediately thereafter has to do with Brunnhilde exclusively, and *nothing*
> to do with Hunding.
The descending scale is, in context, as identifiably violent enough to
fit the literal meaning of the stage direction. Next?
> >> I've never "insist[ed] all the information is there in the text." What
> >> I've insisted is that all the information necessary for understanding is
> >> there in the *score* (music, text, stage directions). That doesn't
> >> preclude the possibility of ambiguity, intentional or accidental.
> >
> > If it can't provide anything to resolve this, then it most certainly does.
> Excuse me? That's pure gibberish. The very fact that the score DOESN'T
> provide anything to resolve this matter is proof positive that the
> possibility of ambiguity isn't precluded.
Aha. The "possibility" of ambiguity. But possibilities need to be
assessed, and since the "score", in your usage, says nothing but the
obvious, this one's about as low on the scale as they come -- exactly on
a level with my anvil analogy. Both are equally open to doubt -- or
equally indubitable.
> Your anvil analogy is preposterous -- almost as preposterous as your
> imbecile
> (and desperate) attempt to compare Wotan's fury at Brunnhilde with his
> contempt for Hunding -- a contempt at bottom directed toward himself, not
> Hunding as I've already pointed out. Your anvil analogy is no analogy
> at all
> as there's not an iota of ambiguity in the matter of the splitting of the
> anvil.
But you haven't shown there's any more in the matter of Hunding's death.
In fact there's rather less. Wotan's words at least suggest something
nasty for Hunding; Siegfried's don't refer to the anvil at all. The
music does suggest an obvious action in both cases, which is as much as
it can do, and the stage directions describe what happens with equal
clarity. What's left? You can doubt either, but if you can't produce any
grounds for doubt, then you're just an idiot and your doubt doesn't
matter. People doubt the earth is round, but they're not exactly
relevant. And all you've ever advanced to justify your doubt is that it
*is* yours. Which would be insufficient in anyone, but with your track
record it's doubly unsafe.
And as to my supporting my argument of ambiguity in the matter of
> Hunding's death, I've done so at length and in detail, as I've already noted
> several times above. Again, that you refuse to accept that clear
> evidence is
> a matter totally out of my hands. I suggest you go back to refresh your
> conveniently faulty memory and thereby acquire some modicum of understanding
> of that evidence.
> There's a good fellow.
Not really; I'm too inclined to rattle your cage. It becomes pretty
fruitless after a while, because you're your own worst enemy in these
matters (although admittedly plenty of others are willing to bid for
that position). This, though, has become entirely sterile. You just go
on repeating that you've produced evidence, but if you really believe
that, you've got a serious problem; and if you don't, well, what does
that say? Mere contrariness is not a virtue. Advancing the pointless and
defending the indefensible rapidly exhausts the patience of your
audience.
Andy
> On 3/7/08 3:49 AM, Derrick Everett, at sparafucile1...@yahoo.com, wrote the
> following:
>
> > On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:35:14 -0500, Richard Loeb wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >> I don't understand the L'il Abner allusion at all .
>
> > Siegfried lacks sophistication.
>
> I know there are those in this group who don't care for Anna Russell, but
> she described Siegfried as "a regular L'il Abner type."
>
> Dick Partridge
I downloaded and listened to the Anna Russell Ring bit not long ago.
It was funny, and perceptive, but very outdated - such as the L'il
Abner joke. I have a vague knowledge of L'il Abner as a character on
a radio show, but I don't know anything about him.
Andy
<mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <C3F58697.18656%r.partri...@verizon.net>
> from Richard Partridge <r.partri...@verizon.net> contains these words:
It is not clear to me exactly what kind of power Wotan has. He
doesn't do many 'supernatural' things. He kills Hunding with a wave
of his hand (or by speaking a word, or not at all depending on where
you come down in the current debate). He creates the magic fire, but
that is not his own, but rather his ability to control Loge. His
power seems to come from knowledge, and cunning. He gained power, I
think, by being daring enough to break a branch off of the World Ash
tree, and he got Fricka by giving up an eye, not by winning a battle.
Since a big part of the Ring is his struggle to constrain his own
power, maybe it is just not evident in this story, but he doesn't do
many god-like things. At least Donner can control the weather.
Andy
<mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
Anyhow, I can assure you that people die of
> fright rather less often and less easily than thrillers would have us
> think. All in all, this is a pretty absurd thing to assume without at
> least some evidence to support it.
> mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
Though I agree with you about Wotan and Hunding, this is Wagner, and
people die for no external reason in Wagner all the time.
Richard Loeb
"Andy" <amhen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:056d4e61-5849-4cc6...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Thats good since in reality he has very little to do with the character of
Siegfried. Richard
REP
Tannhauser, for example. Without the libretto, one could assume he's just
collapsed with grief.
And Elsa. My libretto says she "sinks lifeless to the ground." But is she
actually dead?
Re: this thread. I just about blocked it after reading the first message. Is
anyone here familiar with the phrase "facepalm?"
REP
Bert Coules
> It is not clear to me exactly what kind of power Wotan has. He
> doesn't do many 'supernatural' things.
When the Götz Friedrich Ring was first mounted at Covent Garden, Mime's cave
(which naturally was nothing of the sort) was equipped with an extremely
large mechanised forging machine which clanked and groaned and belched steam
and moved gratingly up and down whenever Mime got agitated (which meant most
of the time). When Wotan entered, he took one look at this monstrosity,
winced at the horrendous noise it was making - and stopped it dead in its
tracks with a simple wave of his hand, thus earning the gratitude of most of
the audience.
That kind of casual mastery over the physical world is something I'd like to
see more of in productions.
Bert
Richard Partridge
following:
[snip]
>
> Your anvil analogy is preposterous -- almost as preposterous as your imbecile
> (and desperate) attempt to compare Wotan's fury at Brunnhilde with his
> contempt for Hunding -- a contempt at bottom directed toward himself, not
> Hunding as I've already pointed out. Your anvil analogy is no analogy at all
> as there's not an iota of ambiguity in the matter of the splitting of the
> anvil. And as to my supporting my argument of ambiguity in the matter of
> Hunding's death, I've done so at length and in detail, as I've already noted
> several times above. Again, that you refuse to accept that clear evidence is
> a matter totally out of my hands. I suggest you go back to refresh your
> conveniently faulty memory and thereby acquire some modicum of understanding
> of that evidence.
>
> There's a good fellow.
>
> ---
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/
>
In the world of the "Ring," gods can often foresee things that ordinary
humans could not. (They "grok" them, probably.) For example, Brünnhilde
knew Sieglinde was pregnant before Sieglinde herself did (and indeed, in
medical terms, probably before conception could have occurred).
Assume, arguendo, that Mr. Douglas is right. That would lead to the
question, did Wotan know that his gesture would so terrify Hunding that he
would go into ventricular fibrillation? If Wotan knew that -- and it seems
to me that he would have -- that points to a compromise solution of this
argument. Wotan didn't want to kill Hunding, but he knew that his gesture
would have that effect, and indeed it did.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
following:
[snip]
>
> Idiot.
>
> ---
> ACD
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/
>
I knew that was coming. He always ends his arguments that way.
Dick Partridge
Derrick Everett
> "Andy" <amhen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:04af8ce2-15ec-4392...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 10, 2:55 pm, Mike Scott Rohan
>> <mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Anyhow, I can assure you that people die of fright rather less often
>> and less easily than thrillers would have us think. All in all, this is
>> a pretty absurd thing to assume without at least some evidence to
>> support it.
>>
>>
It is possible that the appearance of the vengeful god in all his wrath
was enough to finish Hunding. Although it is not an exact comparison,
consider the effect of Zeus appearing in all his glory to Semele.
...
>>
>> Though I agree with you about Wotan and Hunding, this is Wagner, and
>> people die for no external reason in Wagner all the time.
>
> Tannhauser, for example. Without the libretto, one could assume he's
> just collapsed with grief.
>
> And Elsa. My libretto says she "sinks lifeless to the ground." But is
> she actually dead?
>
>
Wagner believed in a strong ending and in many of his operas, as in his
essays, he tried to end on something powerfully ambiguous. Tannhäuser is
without question dead, I believe, although what killed him is not entirely
clear to me. Probably exhaustion. And Elsa? I think that is a deliberate
ambiguity. We don't know whether she is dead or just unconscious. If she
were dead, the audience might assume that Ortrud has won. Surely that
cannot be what Wagner intended?
--
Derrick Everett
Richard Loeb
news:47d6df17$1...@news.broadpark.no...
How can Ortrud have won anything???? She lost her husband, Gottfried has
returned from his spell and she is the only one still believing in the old
gods when everyone else has long gone past them. Richard
Richard Partridge
I agree her discussion of the Ring is badly dated now. For instance, I
think she described the Rhinemaidens as something like "an aquatic version
of the Andrews sisters." There aren't many people still extant who could
remember the Andrews sisters.
You also have to be of a certain age to remember Al Capp's cartoons about
L'il Abner, which were widely syndicated and popular in their day.
Dick Partridge
Richard Partridge
[snip]
>
> It is not clear to me exactly what kind of power Wotan has. He
> doesn't do many 'supernatural' things. He kills Hunding with a wave
> of his hand (or by speaking a word, or not at all depending on where
> you come down in the current debate). He creates the magic fire, but
> that is not his own, but rather his ability to control Loge. His
> power seems to come from knowledge, and cunning. He gained power, I
> think, by being daring enough to break a branch off of the World Ash
> tree, and he got Fricka by giving up an eye, not by winning a battle.
> Since a big part of the Ring is his struggle to constrain his own
> power, maybe it is just not evident in this story, but he doesn't do
> many god-like things. At least Donner can control the weather.
It's true that he doesn't do many god-like things in the operas, but he does
demonstrate some powers that are not to be sneezed at. He can control the
other gods, and of course also the heroes gathered in Valhalla. By virtue
of his spear and the treaties and laws carved into it he has considerable
influence, though not total control, over other races in the world. He can
father the Valkyries and also a race of superhuman heroes. He can plunge a
sword into a tree all the way up to the hilt, where it is so tightly stuck
that no ordinary man can pull it out. Merely by kissing her, he can put
Brünnhilde into a coma, and strip her of her divinity. He can summon Erda
out of the earth when she would rather sleep. And he knows a lot, although
he isn't always that smart.
Dick Partridge
Andy
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:15:37 +0000, REP wrote:
I was also thinking of Isolde and Kundry.
Isolde "sinks, as if transfigured." I always assumed that she died,
though I guess that is not explicit.
Kundry "with her gaze resting on Parsifal, sinks lifeless to the
ground."
Derrick Everett
>
> It is not clear to me exactly what kind of power Wotan has. He
> doesn't do many 'supernatural' things. He kills Hunding with a wave
> of his hand (or by speaking a word, or not at all depending on where
> you come down in the current debate). He creates the magic fire, but
> that is not his own, but rather his ability to control Loge. His
> power seems to come from knowledge, and cunning. He gained power, I
> think, by being daring enough to break a branch off of the World Ash
> tree, and he got Fricka by giving up an eye, not by winning a battle.
> Since a big part of the Ring is his struggle to constrain his own
> power, maybe it is just not evident in this story, but he doesn't do
> many god-like things. At least Donner can control the weather.
There are suggestions in the 'Ring' that Wotan too is a storm god, notably
his arrival at the Valkyrie rock in the last act of 'Die Walküre' and at
the start of the last act of "Siegfried"; in both cases he is heralded by
stormy music and in the former scene, the valkyries describe the
approaching storm.
Wotan does not, in fact, say that he sacrificed an eye to win Fricka,
although this is the kind of mistake that is made by translators, quite
easily, especially when condensing for supertitles. In 'Das Rheingold'
Wotan says:
"Um dich zum Weib zu gewinnen,
mein eines Auge
setzt' ich werbend daran..."
(In order to win you as wife,
my only eye
I staked that I might woo you...)
It is not the case, as is sometimes claimed, that this conflicts with the
statement of the Norn that Wotan sacrificed an eye at the well of wisdom.
The eye that he sacrificed was his first eye and the sacrifice is an
element that Wagner took from Nordic mythology. The staking of his second
eye to win Fricka is not found in the sources and it appears to be
Wagner's own idea.
Whether the eye that he sacrificed is the one that enables Siegfried to
see him is a separate issue.
--
Derrick Everett
Derrick Everett
What chance does the naked infant have, when the Swan Knight has departed,
if Elsa isn't around to protect him from Ortrud? Remember that she is the
worst kind of monster, according to Wagner: the political woman.
--
Derrick Everett
Derrick Everett
If she stands any chance of joining Tristan in the kingdom of night, then
Isolde has to be dead. Although in most productions these days she is
still standing as the curtain falls.
>
> Kundry "with her gaze resting on Parsifal, sinks lifeless to the
> ground."
Wagner said, late in his life, that Kundry had undergone Isolde's
transfiguration many times. With this statement he implied, I think, that
Isolde dies only to be reborn and that Kundry has been reborn many times.
It is essential to an understanding of the character of Kundry and her
motivation to realise that at the end of 'Parsifal' she dies, like
Brünnhilde in the 1856 ending of the 'Ring', "redeemed from rebirth" (von
Wiedergeburt erlös't).
--
Derrick Everett
Richard Loeb
Lohengrin restores Gottfried - I also always assumed Konig Heinrich would
become his protector until he reached manhood, Richard"
Derrick Everett" <sparafu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47d6e4ed$1...@news.broadpark.no...
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
[snip]
> In the world of the "Ring," gods can often foresee things that ordinary
> humans could not. (They "grok" them, probably.) For example, Brünnhilde
> knew Sieglinde was pregnant before Sieglinde herself did (and indeed, in
> medical terms, probably before conception could have occurred).
I am not sure if I can follow you here. Sieglinde hears from Brünnhilde
in the very beginning of act 3 of Die Walküre, that she, Sieglinde, is
expecting a child from Siegmund. She hears this after the death of
Siegmund of which she is very much in dispear. Brünnhilde tells
Sieglinde even that she has to give her son the name of Siegfried (and
that he will one day swing his fathers sword). In short, conception
must have taken place at the very end of Act 1 of Die Walküre when "the
curtain closes quickly", probably out of decency...
Nevertheless, Brünnhilde does know that Sieglinde is pregnant!
> Assume, arguendo, that Mr. Douglas is right. That would lead to the
> question, did Wotan know that his gesture would so terrify Hunding that he
> would go into ventricular fibrillation? If Wotan knew that -- and it seems
> to me that he would have -- that points to a compromise solution of this
> argument. Wotan didn't want to kill Hunding, but he knew that his gesture
> would have that effect, and indeed it did.
Well, it did not stop Wotan making this gesture, did it?
In the very beginning of Act 2 of Die Walküre it is Wotan who tells
Brünnhilde to help Siegmund. In his eyes (I should write: 'in his one
eye') Hunding is not sympathetic, Wotan doesn't want to have him in
Walhalla. It is only after his lost argument with Fricka that he orders
Brünnhilde now *not* to help Siegmund, she has to fight for Fricka's
slave ("für Frickas Knechte kämpfe nun du!"), /not/ *with* Hunding.
After his lost argument with Fricka Wotan must feel even more disgust
(if I can use this word) for Hunding. So, when Wotan himself and not
Brünnhilde fights for Hunding and after saying that it is him, Wotan,
who had killed Siegmund, and not Hunding ("meld ihr, dass Wotans Speer
gerächt..."), he simply disposes of Hunding by killing him with this
(mind the word:) "contemtuous" gesture: "Geh! - Geh!"
In short again: yes, Wotan wanted Hunding dead.
Cheers!
--
Met vriendelijke groet
Herman van der Woude
REP
news:C3FC52A1.18733%r.par...@verizon.net...
Remember first-hand, perhaps, but there are a few old ninnies among the
young. At the age of 23, Li'l Abner is admittedly outside my sphere of
knowledge, but I have willingly choked back a few Blondie flicks, among
other things -- enough to get a firm and terrible grasp upon the pop culture
of the time. I know the Andrews Sisters better than I'd like, for example,
having misspent a few teenaged years archiving early pop music. The actors
and comedians of the time are also familiar to me, as are some of their
imitators (Sammy Petrillo doing Jerry Lewis, Maggie McNamara doing Audrey
Hepburn, etc.)
REP
Richard Loeb
news:mn.5d3c7d835...@isp.studenten.net...
Derrick Everett
> I have always gotten the impression that any power Ortrud has is broken when
> Lohengrin restores Gottfried - I also always assumed Konig Heinrich would
> become his protector until he reached manhood,
>
I'm not sure I share that impression of Ortrud's defeat but I think it is a
reasonable assumption that Heinrich will protect Gottfried.
--
Derrick Everett
Richard Loeb
news:1LCBj.6489$Y33.1361@trndny07...
McNamaras career quickly imploded. Richard
Richard Loeb
futiure"Derrick Everett" <sparafu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47d6fa4c$1...@news.broadpark.no...
Thats part of Ortruds problem - she is stuck on the wrong side. She still
believes in the old religions while the rest of the world has moved on --- I
wouldn't be too concerned about her having much of an effect, good or bad,
in the future - she is the past. Richard
REP
news:hrOdndHn-NDqZ0va...@comcast.com...
> "REP" <loir...@iolrqapq.com> wrote in message
> news:1LCBj.6489$Y33.1361@trndny07...
>> "Richard Partridge" <r.par...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:C3FC52A1.18733%r.par...@verizon.net...
There's more than one film deserving of that moniker, and I'm scared to
watch any of them. I do, however, own a copy of BLMABG, if that's the one
you meant.
REP
Richard Loeb
some of favorite films ) but that one really tries my patience Richard (who
just saw and kind of enjoyed "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Died and
Became Mixed Up Zombies" with the redoubtable Cash Flagg!!!!)
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
Yes - you know that, I know that. But this is just what this whole
debate went turning around: did Wotan kill Hunding, or didn't he? The
vast majority who participated here, is of the opinion that he did. I
think that there's only one around who has doubts... And he is wrong.
Hunding didn't die of heart failure, he was not wounded in the fight
(Siegmund never had the chance to do anything), he was simply killed by
Wotan with a hand-gesture. That's all there is to say to this.
REP
That's a painful one. It took my sister and I months to figure out what the
accented guy was saying in the breakfast scene. We're pretty sure it's,
"What do you think we come here for, to eat?", but I might have the exact
phrasing off, as it's been a few years. Of course it sounds like "Wadayoo
deenk week ahm here for do-eeeeet?", all slurred together.
REP
Richard Loeb
have to do with that at all!!!!! The rest was the old mountain made from
molehill effect - couldn't be more useless, futile and dull. Richard
Richard Partridge
wrote the following:
> Richard Partridge schreef op dinsdag, 11-3-2008, het volgende :
>
> [snip]
>
>> In the world of the "Ring," gods can often foresee things that ordinary
>> humans could not. (They "grok" them, probably.) For example, Brünnhilde
>> knew Sieglinde was pregnant before Sieglinde herself did (and indeed, in
>> medical terms, probably before conception could have occurred).
>
> I am not sure if I can follow you here. Sieglinde hears from Brünnhilde
> in the very beginning of act 3 of Die Walküre, that she, Sieglinde, is
> expecting a child from Siegmund. She hears this after the death of
> Siegmund of which she is very much in dispear. Brünnhilde tells
> Sieglinde even that she has to give her son the name of Siegfried (and
> that he will one day swing his fathers sword). In short, conception
> must have taken place at the very end of Act 1 of Die Walküre when "the
> curtain closes quickly", probably out of decency...
> Nevertheless, Brünnhilde does know that Sieglinde is pregnant!
>
[snip]
One hesitates to be unnecessarily clinical in a matter of this kind, but
conception is widely considered to have taken place when, following sexual
intercourse, a spermatozoon binds with an ovum (though some maintain that it
occurs only upon implantation). Before this can happen the spermatozoon
must pass through the cervix and uterus and find the ovum in one of the
Fallopian tubes. Because the spermatozoa are so tiny, it takes them at
least several hours to traverse that distance. Depending on when we assume
sexual intercourse to have occurred -- which could have been as soon as they
got outside Hunding's house, but which I have always supposed to have been
after they had run away for some distance -- and on how we define it,
conception may or may not have taken place when Brünnhilde sings, " . . .
ein Wälsung wächst dir im Schoss!"
Pregnancy is generally considered to begin when the blastocyst implants in
the endometrium of the uterus. That would happen many hours after
conception, at the earliest. When Brünnhilde talked about Sieglinde's
pregnancy, she was talking about a future event.
Dick Partridge
Richard Loeb
Of course in the Chereau production, intercourse starts in Hundings hut just
as the curtain falls!!!! (Chereau actually has a "second" curatin rapidly
fall as Siegmund gets on top of Sieglinde before the main curtans close.
Richard
>
@isp.studente.net Herman van der Woude
Well, thanks for the explanation. It's obvious, that I am not a doctor.
But, Dick, we still are talking about an opera and not about a
historical, let alone a medical event. I doubt if Wagner ever thought
as far as you do. But it is a theory, why not!
Mike Scott Rohan
<04af8ce2-15ec-4392...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
from Andy <amhen...@gmail.com> contains these words:
> On Mar 10, 2:55 pm, Mike Scott Rohan
> <mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> Anyhow, I can assure you that people die of
> > fright rather less often and less easily than thrillers would have us
> > think. All in all, this is a pretty absurd thing to assume without at
> > least some evidence to support it.
> > mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
> Though I agree with you about Wotan and Hunding, this is Wagner, and
> people die for no external reason in Wagner all the time.
That's a function of 17th and 18th century literature as much as
anything -- which of course provided a lot of the source material for
opera. They weren't into heart attacks etc then. But I did study some
forensic medicine at college, and while terror or other shocks can
trigger a problem, it was generally serious already. As a rule only very
old or infirm people actually die of fright directly -- something to do
with the vagus nerve, I believe. There are exceptions, but Hunding is
rather an unlikely candidate! The more so, as his actual mental state
ought to be deep and savage satisfaction, however unnerving the
surrounding events.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from Andy <amhen...@gmail.com> contains these words:
> It is not clear to me exactly what kind of power Wotan has. He
> doesn't do many 'supernatural' things. He kills Hunding with a wave
> of his hand (or by speaking a word, or not at all depending on where
> you come down in the current debate). He creates the magic fire, but
> that is not his own, but rather his ability to control Loge. His
> power seems to come from knowledge, and cunning. He gained power, I
> think, by being daring enough to break a branch off of the World Ash
> tree, and he got Fricka by giving up an eye, not by winning a battle.
> Since a big part of the Ring is his struggle to constrain his own
> power, maybe it is just not evident in this story, but he doesn't do
> many god-like things. At least Donner can control the weather.
Yes, Wagner doesn't make it particularly clear, and this is one of many
reasons it helps to know a bit about the source material -- which is
what Wagner evidently expected. Doesn't have to be much, no more than
most popular books on the myths will give you. Wotan is the lord of the
gods, and so indeed controls the others, but his own powers are
enormous; he's the commander, the war-leader, the shaper of destinies.
And his plethora of secondary names suggest all sorts of other things
that were associated with him at one time, everything from black magic
to shape-shifting; he was also well known for rewarding brave warriors
with good fortune, then one day betraying them to their deaths --
because he needed them for his army in Valhalla, to fight the final
apocalype of evil. The original story of Siegmund was like this. He has
his own powers over fire, the weather etc. He is also the god of skalds,
ie poets, musicians and chroniclers.
In actual fact this was a very aristocratic viewpoint, because the
aristos wrote down the myths, or had them written down by skalds. Thor,
ie Donner, was considered to be the chief god by many, especially the
middle-class bondis, yeoman farmers and small landowners like Hunding;
he embodied the weather more than controlled it, ie thunder was the
rumbling of his chariot, and lightning the flashes of his hammer as he
fought the enemies of men, the giants. This was his real attribute,
defending humanity against such supernatural enemies. It seems he had
others as well; his token, the upside-down hammer worn as a pendant,
often had piercing eyes on it. We now know it was sometimes used as a
sort of divining instrument to find and punish thieves. A lot of the
stories told about him are more or less comic, making him jolly, hearty,
gluttonous and awesomely strong -- the archetype of his farmer
worshippers, bluff but dangerous when threatened. But the Odinist
stories portray him as a complete blundering dork. It seems Frey also
was an extraordinarily important god to some, associated with fertility
and some kind of horse cult.
The 19th century tended to take the Odinist accounts at face value,
partly because that made them resemble the familiar and very structured
Greek myths so closely, and this was what Wagner imbibed from the Grimms
and elsewhere. It's fascinating to see how he integrated this with his
own views on kingship etc.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from "REP" <loir...@iolrqapq.com> contains these words:
> "Andy" <amhen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:04af8ce2-15ec-4392...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 10, 2:55 pm, Mike Scott Rohan
> > <mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Anyhow, I can assure you that people die of
> >> fright rather less often and less easily than thrillers would have us
> >> think. All in all, this is a pretty absurd thing to assume without at
> >> least some evidence to support it.
> >
> >> mike.scott.ro...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
> >
> > Though I agree with you about Wotan and Hunding, this is Wagner, and
> > people die for no external reason in Wagner all the time.
> Tannhauser, for example. Without the libretto, one could assume he's just
> collapsed with grief.
Well, without the libretto you could assume practically anything. But
it's clear he's worn himself out, making the pilgrimage exceptionally
masochistic going out, and too hurried coming back. What gets Elizabeth,
I'm less sure, unless she's wasted away with worry; *that's* all too
real a phenomenon.
> And Elsa. My libretto says she "sinks lifeless to the ground." But is she
> actually dead?
Here there really is some evidence of ambiguity. The German word is
"entseelt", literally "unsouled", and it's rather an antique flowery,
poetic one -- trust Wagner! -- which does mean lifeless but, I'm assured
by better German-speakers than myself, has also been used to mean
something less -- a "dead faint", in fact, or "deathly swoon". So we
don't know one way or the other, and many producers leave her alive. I
probably would, because it seems so damned trite otherwise.
We don't hear what happens to Ortrud, either, although given her open
avowal of paganism and witchcraft she's probably for the chop -- if not
the steak.
> Re: this thread. I just about blocked it after reading the first
> message. Is
> anyone here familiar with the phrase "facepalm?"
Actually, no, but I can guess. I'm certainly happy to ditch the bloody
thing. Mind you, it's led to some interesting byways.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from Derrick Everett <sparafu...@yahoo.com> contains these words:
{snip}
> There are suggestions in the 'Ring' that Wotan too is a storm god, notably
> his arrival at the Valkyrie rock in the last act of 'Die Walküre' and at
> the start of the last act of "Siegfried"; in both cases he is heralded by
> stormy music and in the former scene, the valkyries describe the
> approaching storm.
> Wotan does not, in fact, say that he sacrificed an eye to win Fricka,
> although this is the kind of mistake that is made by translators, quite
> easily, especially when condensing for supertitles. In 'Das Rheingold'
> Wotan says:
> "Um dich zum Weib zu gewinnen,
> mein eines Auge
> setzt' ich werbend daran..."
> (In order to win you as wife,
> my only eye
> I staked that I might woo you...)
> It is not the case, as is sometimes claimed, that this conflicts with the
> statement of the Norn that Wotan sacrificed an eye at the well of wisdom.
> The eye that he sacrificed was his first eye and the sacrifice is an
> element that Wagner took from Nordic mythology. The staking of his second
> eye to win Fricka is not found in the sources and it appears to be
> Wagner's own idea.
Very true. Or it might well be that in Wagner's mind the sacrifice of
the eye to win wisdom *also* allowed him to win Fricka, the one as
consequence of the other -- presumably, by elevating him to his eminence
among the gods. It's important to this, too, to remember that, as I said
elsewhere, "wisdom" in the Ring is often used in the Norse sense, to
mean secret or magical powers.
> Whether the eye that he sacrificed is the one that enables Siegfried to
> see him is a separate issue.
Indeed, but that's a metaphor, surely -- just an example of Wotan's
riddling habit. Like many people proud of their superior knowledge, he
enjoys teasing others with it -- Fricka over the name of Valhalla, for
example, Alberich, and of course Mime. In this case, I'd suggest, he
knows it would compromise Siegfried's all-important freedom of action to
give him even a clue that this is his grandfather, so he cloaks it in
exactly the kind of enigma Siegfried's cast of mind won't even try to
understand.
Cheers,
Mike