Why "Der Ring des Nibelungen"?

[Anselm]

Most of Wagner's operas and music dramas are named for the lead character(s): Rienzi, Tannhauser, Lohengrin, Siegfried, Tristan and Isolde, and Parsifal. The reasons for the exceptions are fairly clear: The Flying Dutchman has no name, while The Mastersingers was and is a well-known name for the fraternity that is central to the work. Gotterdammerung was changed from Siegfried's Tod when the emphasis of the work changed from Siegfried to Wotan.

So what's with "The Nibelung's Ring"? Alberich is meant, so why the circumlocution instead of "Der Ring von Alberich" or however it pans out in German? And while we're on circumlocutions: if the third of the Ring dramas is "Siegfried", why isn't the second "Brunnhilde"? I'm aware of the original title of "Siegmund und Sieglinde: der Walkure Bestrafung", but Wagner obviously assumed the Walkure title from the outset. Why?

[REP]

To answer a question you didn't ask, I think if Wagner had chosen to name his cycle after a person or people instead of the ring, he might have chosen "The Volsungs." This would have covered many of the major players and would have strayed furthest from the cycle's roots in the Siegfried legend.

As to why "The Nibelung's Ring" is preferable to "Alberich's Ring," I can't quite put my finger on why, but the former is, for whatever reason, much preferable to the latter, and not just because of familiarity. Consider the same two options for The Lord of the Rings. Would you prefer "The Hobbit's Ring" or "Bilbo's Ring" as an alternative title? (Or "Gollum's Ring" or "Frodo's Ring" or "Sauron's Ring," for that matter?) I know I prefer "The Hobbit's Ring."

REP

[Anselm]

On Sunday, 19 May 2013 21:43:02 UTC+1, REP wrote:

<snip>

> As to why "The Nibelung's Ring" is preferable to "Alberich's Ring," I can't quite put my finger on why, but the former is, for whatever reason, much preferable to the latter, and not just because of familiarity. Consider the same two options for The Lord of the Rings. Would you prefer "The Hobbit's Ring" or "Bilbo's Ring" as an alternative title? (Or "Gollum's Ring" or "Frodo's Ring" or "Sauron's Ring," for that matter?) I know I prefer "The Hobbit's Ring."
>
> REP

But the title "The Lord of the Rings" is exactly parallel to "The Nibelung's Ring", and thus raises exactly the same question. Whatever our individual preferences may be, "The Lord" in this case is Sauron, just as "The Nibelung" is Alberich. So why not "Sauron's Ring" for Tolkien, as "Alberich's Ring" for Wagner? The only difference I can see is that "The Lord of the Rings" is a more descriptive title than the almost purely grammatical circumlocution of "The Nibelung's Ring". Tolkien's title points to much more than does Wagner's: the existence of several rings, and their relationship to Sauron as not merely their owner but their "Lord". Wagner's only tells us that there's a Nibelung (by implication, one of a larger number) that owns the ring.

It's precisely those indefinite responses like your "I can't put my finger on why" and "for whatever reason" that are the most fascinating. I have many such moments myself, and they cry out for explanation. They're also the hardest to answer.

[Bert Coules]

It's as much a matter of rhythm as anything. For whatever deep-seated
reason, "The Ring of the Nibelung" (in both German and English) sits better
in the brain and on the tongue than does "The Nibelung's Ring".

In the same way, The Twilight of the Gods is more euphonious than Twilight
of the Gods, while (perversely) Götterdämmerung is "better" than Die
Götterdämmerung (which Wagner didn't favour in any case, so it's not a
terribly good example).

There's a reason why Mozart's most popular opera is known in English as The
Marriage of Figaro rather than Figaro's Marriage, and it's not merely
because the former is a more literal translation of the form of the original
title. (Though full marks to the ENO which some years back gave us Figaro's
Wedding, the second word arguably a more accurate translation of Nozze and
the whole definitely an effective way of making us regard anew a work whose
title - like so many - has become just an unthinking string of sounds rather
than a phrase with a specific meaning.)

[REP]

I think you missed my point slightly. "The Hobbit's Ring" is parallel to "The Nibelung's Ring," and both are preferable to "Bilbo's Ring" and "Alberich's Ring," don't you think? There's no familiarity involved with the LOTR examples because "The Hobbit's Ring" and "Bilbo's Ring" are both titles I made up for the sake of this thread.

Bert is also right about rhythm being involved. Unfortunately, there is probably no satisfying explanation for what works and what doesn't. As far as I know, the only way to learn rhythm is by feel.

Convention also comes into play. For some reason, "The Ring of the Nibelungen" suggests an epic fantasy far more than "Alberich's Ring" does. The same with "Lord of the Rings" vs. "Sauron's Ring." I would bet that most epics avoid character names in possessive titles like this. They also probably prefer "of" over the possessive construction ("The Return of the Jedi" vs. "The Jedi's Return"). There's just something common and plain about the possessive form, whereas the other is lofty and sweeping. On the flip side, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "Sophie's Choice" seem appropriately titled, precisely because they're neither epics nor fantasies.

So does any title get it "wrong" and sound inappropriate for its content? Personally, I've always been baffled by science-fiction titles, perhaps because science-fiction cuts almost equally across realism and fantasy. So if I were to nominate a title that "feels wrong," it would have to be "Ender's Game."

REP

[Anselm]

On Monday, 20 May 2013 19:53:28 UTC+1, REP wrote:I think you missed my point slightly. "The Hobbit's Ring" is parallel to "The Nibelung's Ring," and both are preferable to "Bilbo's Ring" and "Alberich's Ring," don't you think? There's no familiarity involved with the LOTR examples because "The Hobbit's Ring" and "Bilbo's Ring" are both titles I made up for the sake of this thread. Bert is also right about rhythm being involved. Unfortunately, there is probably no satisfying explanation for what works and what doesn't. As far as I know, the only way to learn rhythm is by feel. Convention also comes into play. For some reason, "The Ring of the Nibelungen" suggests an epic fantasy far more than "Alberich's Ring" does. The same with "Lord of the Rings" vs. "Sauron's Ring." I would bet that most epics avoid character names in possessive titles like this. They also probably prefer "of" over the possessive construction ("The Return of the Jedi" vs. "The Jedi's Return"). There's just something common and plain about the possessive form, whereas the other is lofty and sweeping. On the flip side, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "Sophie's Choice" seem appropriately titled, precisely because they're neither epics nor fantasies. So does any title get it "wrong" and sound inappropriate for its content? Personally, I've always been baffled by science-fiction titles, perhaps because science-fiction cuts almost equally across realism and fantasy. So if I were to nominate a title that "feels wrong," it would have to be "Ender's Game." REP

OK, I get both your points, and they strike me as good ones. Maybe I'm just trying to read too much significance into Wagner's title.

But how about "Siegfried" vs "Die Walkure"? Why not "Brunnhilde"? The points you both make cover the cycle's title, but there doesn't seem to be enough of a difference between the second and third works in the cycle to warrant a different style of title. Also, "Die Walkure" is near enough to "Brunnhilde" to make no odds on the grounds of rhythm.

[Bert Coules]

Anselm wrote:

> "Die Walk�re" is near enough to "Br�nnhilde" to make

> no odds on the grounds of rhythm.

Well, I would argue that the two titles are more different in that respect
than you allow, but in this instance I don't think the rhythm was the
deciding factor.

Think in terms of a public who don't know the work: I suspect that "The
Valkyrie" was a more resonant title for an audience in the Germany of the
1870s than the much more specific "Br�nnhilde". I could of course be
talking through my Tarnhelm but I'm inclined to think that more people would
have been familiar with the general stories of warrior-maidens and their
doings than with one particular example of the breed. And even if they
weren't, isn't The Valkyrie simply a more *intriguing* title? A good
dramatist never gives too much away.

[REP]

I've thought about "Die Walkure" before. As Bert points out, intrigue is part of it. But then why "Lohengrin" and not "The Swan Knight?" The two seem to correlate. The most logical explanation for me in rationalizing this difference is that "Die Walkure" stresses Brunnhilde's importance without over-stressing it. Lohengrin can be the title character of his opera because he is central to it from the very first note of the prelude. Brunnhilde, on the other hand, isn't even seen until the second act, nor are we aware of her existence until then. This is different from, say, Turandot, who also doesn't sing until the second act, but who is nonetheless the central character at all times in her respective opera.

Aside from being completely absent for a third of the opera, Brunnhilde is also devoid of much significant personality until she alters the course of events in the Annunciation of Death scene. Even in the dialog between Fricka and Wotan, she is frequently referred to not by name, but by title ("Keep the Valkyrie away from him too." "The Valkyrie does as she pleases."), suggesting that she is merely one of nine, albeit Wotan's favorite. In a way, Die Walkure is about a nobody becoming a somebody. By breaking free of Wotan's will, Brunnhilde becomes a person over the course of the drama. To me, the title emphasizes this development. We are supposed to see Brunnhilde as "the Valkyrie," someone of marginal importance. This makes it all the more surprising when she makes one of the most fateful decisions of the whole cycle.

REP

[Mike Scott Rohan]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:46:19 PM UTC+1, Anselm wrote:

> So what's with "The Nibelung's Ring"? Alberich is meant, so why the circumlocution instead of "Der Ring von Alberich" or however it pans out in German? And while we're on circumlocutions: if the third of the Ring dramas is "Siegfried", why isn't the second "Brunnhilde"? I'm aware of the original title of "Siegmund und Sieglinde: der Walkure Bestrafung", but Wagner obviously assumed the Walkure title from the outset. Why?

Never wise to second-guess an author over titles, but IMHO he chose this one specifically because the Ring is a character -- THE character, you might say. The mention of Nibelungen, a name Germans know as instinctively as we know King Arthur, anchors the drama in myth, but in its subsidiary place also warns the listener not to expect a straight dramatization of the Nibelungenlied.

Cheers,

Mike

PS To pick up the Tolkien references, the full name of his assumed source book (contained in the Red Book of the Westmarch) is The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King -- making the references slightly different.