Wagner's Lexical Tonality 0773460071, 2005052077

Citation preview

Wa g n e r ’s Le x i c a l To n a l i t y BY Jo n a t h a n Ch r i s t i a n Pe t t y

Wa g n e r ’s Le x i c a l To n a l

it y

Jonathan Christian Petty

Mu«jc Library V ThaMew School T iaOW®st85thSt

WgwYocfe, NY 10024

The Edwin Mellen Press Lewiston’Queenston'Lampeter

(VAU

l\\0

P3^ TOoS

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Petty, Jonathan Christian. Wagner's lexical tonality / Jonathan Christian Petty, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7734-6007-1 1. Wagner, Richard, 1813-1883. Ring des Nibelungen. 2. Wagner, Richard, 1813-1883. Parsifal. 3. Tonality. 4. Symbolism in music. 5. Music and mythology. I. Title. ML410.W19P38 2005 782.r092-dc22 2005052077 A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Front cover art © 2005 by Michaela Daystar Author photo by Carmel Frye

Copyright ©

2005

Jonathan Christian Petty

All rights reserved. For information contact The Edwin Mellen Press Box 450 Lewiston, New York USA 14092-0450

Jl The Edwin Mellen Press Box 67 Queenston, Ontario CANADA LOS ILO

The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd. Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales UNITED KINGDOM SA48 8LT Printed in the United States of America

j '

I dedicate this book to the Student, who one day will know all that we do not.

Ta b l

e o f c o nt e nt s

Part I: The Nibelung’s Ring Fo r e w o r d by Nathan Hesselink...........................

i

Ac k n o w l e d g m e n t s .................... V

CHAPTER On e An Overview of Wagner’s Lexical Theory and Practice I. Tonal Language [TL] Lexicality............................... n. On Disregarding Wagner on Wagner......................i" CHAPTER Two The Syntactical Sorcerer l. Rules? What Rules?............................... II. Sonorous Surface, Syntax, Semantics.................. m. Wagner Never Heard of Schenker........... . IV. The “House-Laws of Affinity”............................. V. A Summary ofWagner’sCategorial Tonal Syntax.... Ch a pt e r Th r e e The Cognitive Stmcture of TL Lexemes I. The Virtual Intelligible Object................................... n. The “House-Laws of Affinity” (yes, again)............... in. Metaphoric Entailments in Natural Language............ rV. Building a Tonal Household...................................' Ch a pt e r Fo u r Lexicon is Culture I. Rebutting Humpty Dumpty.............................. n. Lexemes, Key Characteristics, and Public Cultural Properties.......................................... in. A Sound of Many Waters............................ rV. There and Back Again: God, Barbarossa, Bonaparte, Siegfiied—and God......................................... V. Heroes, Dead in the Water......................... . . . VI. Gendering the Keys............................................ ....... Vn. Chaos, Gynophobia, and Revolution, or. That Old “C Minor Mood”.................................. Vm. Waters Above, Waters Below..................................... Ch a pt e r FIVE The Lexical Loge I. Key Characteristics and Expressive Shift Theory........ n. Shifty God vs. “Expressive Shift”................................ ni. Loge, Meet Hermes........................................ IV. The Prevaricating Patron of Purity............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. The Outer Limits of the Musical World...........

..1 17

45 .50 61 74 87

,.91 104 115 138

.155 158 164 168 176 180 190 197

203 211 228 238 245

CHAPTER Si x A Short Introduction to Tonal Cartography I. n. in. IV.

Orientational Metaphors and Humpty Dumpty Horoscopes.251 Lexemes of Humiliation, Coordinates of Contempt..............265 A Tonal Mappa Mundi..........................................................270 The Dodecahedron and Wagner’s “True Earth”.................. 296

Part II: Parsifal CHAPTER SEVEN “Wondrous Legends He Had Heard”: The Mediaeval Sources of Parsifal I. n. in. rV. V.

Wagner’s Contempt for Wolfram......................................... 317 “Orientalism” and “Otherness” in Wolfiam......................... 320 Testing Wagner’s Argument via Wolfram’s Magical Oriental Healing Stone.........................................................328 Wagner’s/diofae Sources.....................................................336 Parsifal, an Operatic Gnostic Text.......................................348

CHAPTER Ei g h t The Gospel of St. Richard I. n. in. IV. V.

Wagner’s Gnostic Lexicon................................................... 365 Pessimism, Gnosticism, Antisemitism.................................. 371 Cannibal Jews, Kundry, and Idiotae Literature.................... 376 The Continuation of Lexical Tonality in Parsifal................ 405 Epilogue: The Social Significance of Lexical Tonality....... 445

APPENDIX ONE A. B. C. D.

A Table of Linear Lexemes: Das Rheingold.................... ;...449 A Table of Linear Lexemes: Die Walkure........................... 463 A Table of Linear Lexemes: Siegfried................................. 485 A Table of Linear Lexemes: Die Gotterdammerung........... 513

APPENDIX Two A Lexicon of Poetic Key Associations in Der Ring des Nibelungen....................................................................547

APPENDIX THREE Miscellaneous Percepts, Methods, and Problems in the Compilation of the Lexicon................................................ 569

MUSICAL Ex a m pl 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7.

es

An example of [C=LIGHT] {Das Rheingold, scene ii).............. 4 An example of [C=LIGHT] {Die Walkure, Act I)...................... 6 An example of [C=LIGHT] {Siegfried, Act I)............................ 8 An example of [C=LIGHT] {Gotterdammerung, Act I).............10 An example of [C=LIGHT] {Parsifal, Act I)............................12 Tristan und Isolde Prelude..................................................... 29 An example of eighteenth-century “directionality”................. 33

1. 8 . 1.9. 1.10. 2 . 1. 2 .2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2 .6 . 2.7. 2 .8 . 2.9. 2.10. 2.11. 2.12. 2.13. 2.14. 2.15. 2.16. 2.17. 2.18. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 8 . 1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6 . 8.7. Al. A2. A3.

A pair of bright, shining C Major eyes.................. 35 Wotan giving Siegfried the Eye...............36 ^ enraptured gaze and a resplendent object...... ZZZZ....3S “Ich hab’ mein Sach’ Gott heimgestellt” (Pachelbel)...........52 ‘|Ich hab’ mein Sach’ Gott heimgestellt” (with anchoviesZ.. 53 rieimgestellt again, by the sound of it..................... 54 Siegfried stokes the bellows................................ ............55 Nom “Chords” without syntax............................ ........... 55 Nom “Chords” with syntax...........................,...................... 55 Nom “Chords” with different syntax....................................57 The women cry out, and Gunther feels shamed....... !!Z..."Z58 Gotterdammerung Vorspiel............................... g2 The Second and Third Noms (G minor and E k minor)........63 Beethoven s Symphony No. 1 (1800), opening bars..... 65 Garden variety Nomish syntax......................................... gp A bad drink.............................. ................... .................... Annunciation of Death.............................. . .....................76 Amfortas can’t take it anymore............................... ..... yg “Treue Gott, ich muss dir klagen” (Pachelbel)...........Z......81 Amfortas petitions the court for euthanasia......................... 83 Parsifal closing Amfortas’ wound........................................gg Wotan spying out Mime.................................. 109 Wannabe heroes trying to cook the part..'......... ................... 113 Wotan speaks loudly and carries his big stick..................... 133 Kundry’s scorpion tail-like motif........................... 388 Parsifal crowned as king of serpents.................................. 401 Parsifal returns the Lance of Longinus to the Grail.... 403 Parsifal reveals the Lance to the Grail Knights......... . 404 The undead daddy swallovring poor Amfortas alive....... 421 Amfortas prays for purity to Titurel in heaven............... 434 Parsifal on his penitential knees, eternally cadencing......... in C)t minor.............................................. Alberich, waiting................................................. jgj Hagen, waiting...................................... 582 Unforced modulations.......................................... jgj

Lb v e a r Ha r m o n ic An a l y s e s la. Vb. Vc. Vd. Ve. Vf. Vg. Vh. Vfe. Ib. Vic.

Prelude, Tristan and Isolde Prelude (bars 1-12)............. Haydn: The Creation, No. 2: “In the beginning” (recit) Das Rheingold, sc. ii (“Vom Felsen druben”)................ Das Rheingold, sc. ii (“Halt, du Wilder!”).............. . Das Rheingold, sc. ii (“In Frieden lasst mir...’’)......... Die WalkUre, Act m, sc. iii (“Loge hOrl ”)............... . sc. ii(“NunWonnescha£frdir,”).... Das Rheingold, sc. ii (“Wo frier Muth frommt,”).....;...... D II} sinfa into [DARK NESS]. Note that the semantics of {*c ►*b=SINKING} itself depends on a TL pragmatics in which the sense of hearing processes pitch by means oim a priori

’This usage is discussed in detail in Chapter Three, esp. pgs. 126-7.

8 cognitive high—low axis to which the interpretation of tone is cognitively parasitic.* For the rest, E minor is treated both as the relative minor {G:vi} of [G=Sieglinde], who is momentarily absent and thus inspires her brother’s iimer darkness and thoughts of death, and as the tonic minor {E:i} of [E=love].’ Thus Wagner develops [£=UGHT]

by means of recursive specifications of core lexical meanings. Keys are

used lexically within linear harmonic strings analogous to natural language sentences. This has far-reaching consequences for architectonic theories, which maintain plausibility only insofar as Wagner’s lexical meanings remain unmapped. When mapped, as they will be in this book, Schenkerism recedes and finally vanishes, except as a gloss to Wagnerian TL semantics. The following example culled firom many in Siegfried shows the consistency of this lexical practice into the Second Night:

'See, e.g.. Chapter Five, p. 217n. Wagner also uses C minor as a lexical entry for darkness and the Lexicon suggests how he differentiates them poetically. Thus [b=darkness] refers to Harlmpcc as an active agent, for instance, the dark plots, dark weapons, or dark counsels of enemies, e.g., night and darkness (#281, #]758)\ hidden purpose (#135)-, dark meanings (#829)-, dark weapons (#22/); dark mists (#239)', dark works (#339)', darkplots (#1805). This usage presents darkness as a palpable presence as in “darkness crept over the face of the earth” or where, in Homer, “death could be conceived as a dark cloud shrouding the person.” (Shirley Darcus Sullivan, Psychological Activity in Homer, p. 66n.) Contrarily [c=darkness] refers to darkness as the withdrawing ofthe light, as in the darkness of confusion, madness, fainting, or fear, e.g., £=UGHT, extinguished (#67)', dim (#1842)', blind obedience (#977); gathering clouds (#1175); darkness, of terror or madness (#2440). The syntactical difference is that between the tonic minor of UGHT, as in {I;i=diminution} vj. the active agency of the key that underlies and thus dogs or lies in wait for UGHT. ’A typical semantic feature of Wagner’s minor key usage discussed in Chapter Three, pgs. Wagner continues to use [e{b:iv}=darkening shadows] in Act II, as where Sieglinde relapses into a swoon and Siegmund sits alone unknowingly awaiting the decree of the Heavenly Messenger who is to announce his doom (see e.g.. Chapter Two, pgs. lAffand esp. Ex. 2.13.)

9

Ex. 1.3: Example of [C=LIGHT] {Siegfried, Act I)

10 Again C Major functions lexically through simple metaphoric transformation [LIGHT=intelligence], the genius Wanderer. Its appearance here expresses Wotan’s offer to enlighten the puzzled Nibelung.Within the earlier signature Mime despairs of assistance by means of a futile invocation (#1500) of [*Db= ZENITH, heaven (unavailable)]; the Ab minor and Gb minor lexemes through which he vents his acute consciousness of dwarfish inferiority are lexical indices for heavenly skills and abilities conspicuously absent from Mime’s paltry armamentarium, and #1501 and

#1503 throw in lexically mandated references to the F minor Fafher and B b minor Nibelung fires. Again all these keys are lexically not architectonically sequenced. The following example from Gotterdammerung, Act I, suggests something of the compression Wagner is able to inflict upon his long-suffering TL lexemes:

'“Discussed below, e.g., Chapter Two and passim.

11

Ex. 1.4: Example of [C=LIGHT] {Gdtterddmmerung, Act I) Siegfried (#3051) has spent considerable time and energy in ravishing the ring from BrOnnhilde—a rape image which, in the maimer ofAlberich’s ravishing ofthe Rhine Daughters, invokes C minor and E k minor." The great plasticity of lexical keys stands out. Lexeme #3051 essentially consists of a single eb.:iix7 chord stretched for bars at a time where #3052 and #3053 persist for only a chord or two. The E minor and C Major lexemes coincide with the directions “Als sie wie gebrochen in seinen Armen nieder sinkt. .. ihr Blick bewusstlos die Augen Siegfrieds” Their semantic point is that [E=love], [e=love (waning, dark, or absent)], [e=nadir (sinking)], and [C=LIGHT, eye].'^ Of exceptional interest is #505-/in the rare key of Djt minor. This lexeme, which like #3051 consists entirely of a d£:iix7 chord, is simply an enharmonic transposition of the preceding e^:iix7 denoting Brilnnhilde’s rape. Its point is the transformation of her sense of her womanhood (Cf#2872 [Eb=wonderwoman]), and Wagner employs the same keys and the same transposition in Parsifal, Act r, to denote the negative transformation of Amfortas’ sexual self image in the arms of Kundry (“... ein fiirchtbar schones Weib,” etc.). These and many other examples that lexical entries show that [C=LIGHT] and its synonyms [0=seeing, eye, shining, brightening, etc.] are distributed across each of the Ring dramas. This semantic logic and key-placement practice can be shown to be tme ofthe other thirty-five keys also. In Wagner’s lexical usage each minor key proves to fimction like an NL homonym, that is, as identical sonorities given different

' 'For the syntactical significance ofthis with respect to the lexeme fEb^Etemal Woman], see triangM/aflon, Chapter Three, pgs. 127^ '^The semantic logic of the dual use of E minor to denote on the one hand a weak or darken■ ing love (via {E;i}) and a sinking downward toward a nadir (via {G:vi}) is argued in detail in Chapters Three and Six. The usage [C=eye] derives from #50 (‘Goldenglanz’, ‘Jetz kilsst sie sein Auge.’) For a parallel example of [C=eye, looking] see Chapter Three, especially Ex. 3.1.

1

12 (thougji often rationally reinforcing) meanings. This is so for syntactical reasons: minor keys are treated as dependent variables of Major keys but not the other way round. Thus each given minor key may mean either one Major key’s tonic minor or another Major key’s relative minor. Minor keys thus have two semantic forms in lexical usage. Thus there are not twelve but twenty-four minor keys, lexically considered. Wagner would understand this grammatical feature of minor keys in terms of their attachment to different Tonal Households whose house laws (=background semantics) diverge. In crass quantitative terms the effect of Lexical Tonality theory is to vastly expand the sheer number of bars in Wagner’s scores whose tonal behavior may be accounted for by specifically lexical procedures. What about Lexical Tonality mParsifall The same lexical logic pertains here as in the earlier dramas. Here for instance is a typical example fiom Act I to show that here too the lexical meaning [C=LIGHT] is still alive, well, and generating mean ing and moment: AMFORTAS

13

I E-L1GHT11

14

J L

Ex. 1.5: Example of [C=LIGHT] {Parsifal, Act I) By this time [C=LIGHT] may seem a familiar figure, so that the linguistic model for Wagner’s tonality will become more intuitively obvious. Again, allowing for the different cognitive domains embraced by natural and tonal languages, TL keys fimction much as do ML words. These TL words form coherent entries in a unitary

Lexicon that stretches fi’om Das Rheingold through Parsifal. In this Lexicon [Q=LIGHT]

and the linguistic synonyms for light and this usage is constant, as indeed

they must be for Wagner’s TL to fimction as a public and not a merely private language.'^ Within this language other TL lexemes retain their own distinctive meanings. In the present example, for instance, Amfortas—^himself a standard D Major hero even if currently wounded and thus rendered minor-key [d=wounded king, Amfortas]—longs to ascend to the ZENITH or the height of heaven, indexed in the present passage by the Godhead in D b Major and its Ab Major grail. These are again a standard pair of lexemes that may become almost too familiar by the end of this book. The TL here proceeds in tandem with the king’s NL words, which speak of his longing to ascend or progress. Yet the linear-lexical suc cession tells us the opposite story. Amfortas’ soul is not progressing but regressing, as indexed by the continuous subdominantward ({SD=regressio«}) not dominantward motion. The semantic-syntactical logic is again standard. Where |’Db=godhead. ZENITH],

its relative minor ([a£(bi)=godhead receding] tells us that the ZENITH is

at the moment tmattainable. Amfortas’ emotional realization ofthe receding Godhead triggers an inward and backward collapse finm the curse-key of B minor through E “For a discussion of public cultural linguistic properties see Chapter Four.

15 ]\iajor (=b:IV) and A minor (=b:iv/IV) which, if it continued, would deposit right back onto Amfortas’ own impotent D minor “wounded hero” key. This backward colfapse is arrested by the sudden arrival of C Major in the guise ofthe “Lichtstrahl”, which as the king also informs us, appears not at his bidding but in the grail’s own good tirne.'^ In syntactical terms this commandeering of the king’s time schedule by that of the Godhead is articulated, and is emotionally felt, by the sudden sense of strain that invests the A minor-to-C Major modulation announcing the light beam, and which can be analyzed in terms of the relatively creaking set of chords required Such typical Wagnerian linear-harmonic organization is not architectonic but lexical. Keys appear where they do for the same reason that ML words appear where they do. The TL lexemes function linguistically to convey a set ofextra-musical facts just do as ML words. At the same time, and again as in ML, the semantic coherence ofthe lexemes depends upon a tonal syntax which is itselfcapable ofconveying more traditional architectonic and strictly-musical meanings. TL syntax provides the grartimar that rationalizes semantic relations between the lexemes. It is only because lexical semantics and syntax operate together that the tonal language conveys not merely generic, but specific, extra-musical information. A linguistic term for the relationship between grammar and meaning is a “syntactical-semantic interface” and thiSis precisely what we see in Wagner’s post-Qpera and Drama Lexical Tonality. How all this works in detail, and a translation of a significant part of this tonal language, constitutes the bulk of the following discussions. As to the character ofthe TL lexemes themselves, it is not to be supposed that a tonal language word will function precisely as does its natural language counterpart. Were this so TL would be simply isomorphic with NL and therefore redundant and pointless, like Debussy’s gibe about a moron presenting his card to you in person. On the contrary, as Wagner foresaw and chronicled in Opera and Drama, the status of “It is interesting to compare Amfortas’ plight here with that of Mime in Ex. 1.3: both sufferers are unable to attain to the D b-A b-G b quadrant that everywhere in the Ring and Parsifal collectively denotes such qualities as highness, loftiness, and exaltedness (and for which see Chapter Six). The fact that something lofty is withheld from them accounts for the minorization of these keys and their subdominantward collapse into precisely those keys which these two characters experience as most impotent. Both protagonists share the pli^t ofbeing unable to attain their lofty goals by their own efforts and both are offered sudden influxes of C Major UGHT emblematic ofproffered assistance from above. Such parallels between the Ring and Parsifal are abundantly evident once the entire scores are subjected to bar-by-bar linear harmonic and semantical analysis.

16 the lexeme as such is elevated relative to its ML counterpart, one reason I call this a “Lexical Tonality.” His TL lexemes perform more semantic work than do their NL fellows. They can do this because, as Wagner also described, they are essentially parasitic upon prior NL words and act in concert with them. Again, what they provide that standard architectonic tonal practice does not is a dramatically decisive combination of specific extra-musical referentiality and an expressed emotional attitude toward the NL referents. This is possible because of the essential functional distinction between TL sonorous surfaces and syntax

/semantics that I will discuss next chapter. In the present example for instance, the sonorous surface enunciates what amount to commentary on the lexical referent UGHT: the tremolo backdrop and the descending and arpeggiated C Major triad force the lexeme to drop its light beam downward as it were onto Amfortas’ head. This kind of contribution to the TL discourse is entirely typical of the non-syntactical and non-semantic sonorous surface; in fact TL would be pointless without it. Although it is possible to describe the "descending arpeggio” as a pictorial figure, Wagner evidently did not conceive these surfaces pictorially but emotionally. This is very evident throughout his theoretical writings, in which he almost never describes poetic key associations as other than emotional factors. His theoretical descriptions thus cohere with his practice in pointing to what is fundamentally a systematic language

of the emotions replete with syntax (linear harmonic functions), semantics (lexical keys, chords, and tones), and pragmatics (the sonorous surface). When therefore he describes his mastery of Lexical Tonality in terms of the fluency that characterizes a mother-tongue'^ he is intending to speak literally not metaphorically. To Wagner the emotional impact of a descending C Major broken arpeggio expressed an attitude toward the immediate dramatic situation and if this attitude was capable of being rendered pictorially so much the better. But pictorialism is secondary, in which respect Wagner’s figures cohere with those of Bach. Wagner can get so much milage out of his TL lexicon because although far more bulky than NL words TL lexemes bustle busily about expressing attitude about the objects they denote. It is this attitude, conveyed by the sonorous surface, that tends to elude descriptive quantification in our accounts of Wagner’s TL. Because of this sonorous factor each TL lexeme, while semantically imified, is also an

”E.g., A Communication to My Friends, pgs. 363 and 365.

17 individual emotional form. Thus despite the restricted number of “words” available to Wagner’s TL, this language packs an enormous amount of information into relatively small packages—a capability which, as the composer often made clear, was beyond the NL vocabulary of ideas to duplicate.

II.

On Disregarding Wagner on Wagner Where does Lexical Tonality fit into the current theoretical landscape? It is

useful to begin with a statement of what scholars themselves sometimes recognize to be a problem in the field. In a discussion on Wagner’s prose theory, its application to Music Drama, and the history of criticism that has been directed toward (more often against) it, Carl Dalhaus remarked that “for more than a century Wagner’s ‘poetic intention’ and the musico-dramatic interrelationship ofleitmotiv has been the subject of strenuous exegetic exercises which have frequently taken off in directions suggested by fertile imaginations and tend to require rebuttal rather than further exploration.”'* Dalhaus’ comment enjoins us to consider the background situation that makes such proliferation possible. It is the absence of a unified theory capable of describing Wagner’s musical practice from the first note ofDas Rheingold to the final cadence ofParsifal. Lacking a unified theory scholars seek special theories that may explain if not the tonality as a whole, at least some intelligible part of it. It is this lack of a unified theory that makes possible the substance of Dalhaus’ complaint. The absence of such a theory is striking today, a century and a half after Wagner began to compose in the manner in question. Such a gap is unprecedented after so many serious scholars have devoted such vast corporate effort to filling it. Since it is arguably musicology’s primaryjob to provide theory or formal explanation for matters ofmusical interest, this absence of a consensus unitary theory represents a general failure of field. Yet some scholars imply that unitary theory is absent because impossible; for instance, this assessment by Patrick McCreless: A theory of tonality in the Ring must include both the fundamentals of eighteenth and early nineteenth-century practice and Wagner’s extensions of and additions to that practice. The tonal structure of the Ring involves the interaction of four independent tonal principles; 1) the traditional or classical, tonic-dominant tonality as defined by Schenker; 2) “associative tonality,” or the consistent association of

'‘Carl Dalhaus, Richard Wagner's Music Dramas,p. 117.

18 particularly dramatic symbols or ideas with specific tonalities (and frequently with specific melocfrc material as well; 3) “expressive to nality,” or the progression of structural tonalities in ascending or descending half-steps or whole-steps; and 4) later nineteenth-century “directional tonality,” or the construction of a formal unit not as a prolongation of a single key by means of the elaboration of its tonicdominant polarity, but as a progression from one structural key at the beginning to another at the end.’’ McCreless’ imperative must in combination with the caveat “iwdependenr principles” imply that the tonal structure ofMusic Drama is essentially multiple. If this is so then the fact that a unified theory has not been forthcoming from musicologists reflects not failure but simple recognition of real facts about the scores. But does this claim accord with real analytical acts in Wagner studies? The answer is clearly yes. His is a consensus view both stated and seen in analytical claims concerning this tonality. Yet the situation sketched by Dalhaus is a peculiar one, for Wagner was both composer and theorist ofhis own works. The multiple special theories proposed over the last century have done so in spite of an artist who made extraordinary efforts to explain how his music worked and how we should analyze it. The tonal practice under consideration followed publication of Opera and Drama, A Communication

to My Friends, The Art- Work of the Future, and many other incidental explanations often addressed to the academy itself. Wagner considered himself expert in both composition—the object of the academic music theorist’s domain—and music theory—the academic’s own profession. A potential conflict of intellectual interest thereby logically arises between what musicologists declare to be facts about Music Drama and what the composer himself says is true. This fact did not escape Wagner himself,'* and it provided him with countless opportunities to protest against the '^Wagner's Siegfried, pgs. 88-9. McCreless calls these “four independent principles” but, since each of these principles is in fact articulated in a theory, the theoretical point remains. "For instance, “It seems that already a very large portion of the public finds much, nay, almost everything in my dramatic music quite natural, and therefore pleasing, at which our ‘Professors ’ still cry Fie. Were the latter to seat me on one of their sacred chairs, however, they perhaps might be seized with even greater wonder at the prudence and moderation, especially in the use of harmonic effects, which I should enjoin upon their pupils; as I should have to make it their foremost rule, never to quit a key so long as what they have to say, can still be said therein. If this rule were complied vnth, we possibly might again heat Symphonies that gave us something to talk about; whereas there is sin^tly nothing at all to be said ofour latest syn^honies. Wherefore I too will be silent, until some day I am called to a Conservatorium—only, not as ‘Professor’.” (“Music Applied to the Drama” (1879) in Religion and Art, pgs. 190-1.) Wagner’s denigrations of professors has been returned in their own

19 importation of strange theories into his own works. In particular the composer predicted that those who fail to apply his theory as he set it down will, as he puts it, “nusunderstand me.” And the absence ofconsensus theory suggests that he was right. It is not that academic disbelief in artistic self-appraisal is peculiar to Wagner studies. Scholars typically assume that “artists [like Wagner] are notoriously unreliable judges of their own works”” but until such class-based and not casebased generalities can be measured or the truth-standards by which the “class of scholars” prove superiorjudges to the “class ofartists,” such claims logically amount to self-interested prejudices. And particularly so in the case of a composer who is a theorist m his own right. It is not that scholars might be contradicting the artist’s facts with their own fancies. Wagner said they were doing so often and vehemently. His favorite word in such protests was intelligible-. Wagner claimed that strange theories applied to his Music Dramas would render them unintelligible. Because of this scholarly dismissal of Wagner the theorist is the main logical prerequisites that has m^de the field of “Wagner theory” possible in the first place. Despite the composer’s warnings Wagner is often implied to be incompetent tq explain his own art and the solution has been theories that taken as a whole contra dict every one of the composer’s published claims. The theme is longstanding. Thus seventy years ago Ernest Newman was answering Wagner’s strenuous protests about the senousness of his theories with equally strenuous rejoinders that the composer was academically incompetent. Thus. “Wagner’s philosophical stock, indeed, was never a very large one... There is no need, no reason, to discuss the ‘philosophy’ of such a mind. He is no philosopher: he is simply a perplexed and tortured human soul and a magnificent musical instrument. All that concerns us today is the quality of the music that was wrung fi-om the instrument under the torture.”^ Newman thus sounded a theme that has been often repeated in subsequent spholarship: That only the composer’s scores speak; his verbal claims are void. Thus Wagner s presumed theoretical inadequacy requires more adequate theorists to tender

writings, often with a disquietingly personal tone, to an extent not seen in studies of other composers. ' P • / Wagner, and the Germans,” in A Companion to Wolfram's Parzival, p. 248. The insert reflects the fact that Miiller is talking here about Wagner. ''

^Wagner as Man and Artist, pgs. 272-3.

20 the explanations that the composer cannot. This may explain the trend to call in Schenker as an arbiter of Wagner’s tonal practice. This is remarkable because Schenker himself believed that his own theory demonstrated Wagner to be a compo sitional as well as theoretical incompetent. Notwithstanding this, McCreless opposes Schenker “the theorist” to Wagner “the composer” so: If we ... put aside the ideological’differences between theorist and composer and concentrate on their beliefs about how music should “work,” we discover more common ground than might be expected. Schenkers’s opinions are not hard to find; he purveyed the ideology, unblushing, in the polemic that accompanied his analyses. Wagner’s ideas about musical art found expression in his letters, in his writings, in autobiography, and, finally, in daily conversations with Cosima, reported dutifiilly in her two thick diaries.^' This description relegates Opera and Drama to unreferenced nonentity sandwiched between “letters” and the spousal scribe’s thickly dutiful diaries, and permits McCreless to follow Newman’s lead by taking the view that “If... our experience of Wagner’s scores convinces us of their musical integrity or unity, we may wish to impute to Wagner certain aesthetic convictions.” From there it is a short step to the inference that “the composition ... is itself, in some sense, a commentary on the phenomenon music cast in musical form.”^^ This and absence ofreferences to Opera

and Drama permits McCreless to apply verbal theories to mute scores as if these themselves were theories; for instance, to apply Schenker the “theorist” to Wagner the “composer” irrespective of this scholar’s “critical comments concerning Wagner and... his refusal to consider Wagner’s works as worthy of analytical attention.”^ But the claim that the theorist’s writings and the composer’s scores jointly articulate “beliefs about how music should work” misrepresents the SchenkerWagner axis in a crucial way. Wagner’s published theories are not beliefs about how music should work but declarations about how his own works are going to. Applied to himself they are privileged in a way that a generic theorist’s are not—an awkward fact that adjourns to the degree that Opera and Drama does too. Wagner himself disclaims any general prescriptions about how music in general should “work” when

^‘Patrick McCreless, “Schenker and the Noms,” p. 276. “/6W.. p.

^Ibid.

21 he says that, “Whoever... may have understood me to be occupied with setting up an arbitrarily concocted System, according to which all poets and musicians should construct their work in future,—he has willfully misunderstood me.”^‘* Thomas Grey likewise considers Wagner’s theorizing inadequate on accoimt of what in formal logic might well be seen as a laudible William of Occam-like fjarsimony of his terms: “what Simon Sechter would designate several years later as an auskomponierte Nebenstufe (such as a parenthetical Neapolitan or flat-VI relationship, for instance) would have counted as a modulation in Wagner’s primitive technical vocabulary.”^’ In order to bring Wagner up to twentieth-century standards Grey provides a more sophisticated-sounding technical lexicon, as follows: Clearly when he speaks here of “modulation” away from and back to a principal tonality within such a brief span—^presumably no more than four to eight measures of music in the case of these two (or three) lines—Wagner must understand the term to embrace local phenomena such as Neapolitan inflections, parallel minor or major, minor subdominant, or fleeting tonicizations of the third or sixth degrees ... we can assume therefore that Wagner understood the tonal peregrinations of the “wandering tonality”... as a continuously “modulating” melodic discourse. The German terms Rucking and Ausweichung— to suggest a momentary harmonic shift or deceptive resolution—would also be encompassed by Wagner’s understanding of the word “modulation.”^ From a linear harmonic analyst’s perspective however this lengthy catalogue ofterms

{localphenomenon, inflection,fleeting tonicization, tonalperegrination, wandering tonality, Ausweichung, Rucking, momentary harmonic shift, deceptive resolution) is meaningless because it is impossible to use it systematically in any meaningful analytical act. Upon closer examination all such terms collapse into impressionism or redundant rehashing of Wagner’s term “modulation.”^^ This is true however many such approximated terms may be accumulated, e.g..

Opera and Drama, p. 351. ^Wagner's Musical Prose, p. 184. “Ibid., pgs. 183-4. ^’They tend to reduce to such concatenations as “modulation-to-the-Neapolitan-secdnd”, “modulation-to-the-flat-submediant”, “trick modulation”, and so on. In other words, they do no analytical work that a strict linear harmonic analysis does not do more precisely and informatively.

22 ... the movement through “the most diverse tonalities” {die verschiedensten Tonarten) within a period covers not only genuine modulations but also all manner of local inflections, parentheses, and the attributes of “wandering” and “centrifugal” tonal behavior that become so characteristic of Wagner’s idiom beginning with Das

Rheingold}^ The only analytical work here is to attempt to claim the existence of “genuine” modulation as opposed to ersatz “tonal behavior” that embraces “all manner” of

parentheses^ and either “wandering' or “centrifugar behaviors (or perhaps only the “attributes” of these). None ofthis shows Wagner’s vocabulary to be either primitive or imprecise; in fact, the more colorful terms are strong together the less meaningful they appear. We are therefore left with Wagner’s pedestrian but serviceable term “modulation” and with its equally orthodox linear-harmonic analysis as the appropri ate tool to parse it. Such thematizing on Wagner the non-theorist is of no small moment to a theory based on Wagner the Theorist. Since the present Lexical Tonality theory recasts Wagner’s own theory in the light of subsequent, important, and generally noncontroversial theoretical developments in cultural studies and linguistics, then I must rebut implications ofWagner’s theoretical incapacity lest this entire book may itself be judged to have been prebutted.

Opera and Drama is often simply dismissed altogether, as when McCreless interprets the work not as what Wagner himself claimed that it was—a description of its author’s new compositional procedures—but rather as “... in effect a written record ofhis creative search for the artistic principles upon which he was to compose his cycle. Although his theory of the interrelation of drama and music, with its psychological and emotional orientation, hardly measmes up to the empirical standards demanded by twentieth-century linguistics and music theory, it is consistent and meaningful within its own metaphoric idiom.”^“ This permits McCreless to group Wagner himself among those of his scholarly successors whose imaginative theorizing Dalhaus considers worthy only of rebuttal; i.e., “Wagner’s

^Ibid., p. 190. "One dare not even guess how many “manners” of these there might be.

^'‘Wagner's Siegfried, p. 85.

23 theory, however fanciful it may seem in light of modem linguistics, nevertheless served him well from an artistic point of view.”^' It is surprising to read such an assessment considering that it appeared at precisely the time that the school of generative semantics founded by Berkeley lin guist George Lakoff was arguing the indissoluble link between metaphor and cog nition and making it the foundation for a rigorous linguistic and cognitive theory. The question ofWagner’ s metaphoric idiom arises most obviously in cormection with the four independent theories that McCreless believes necessary to adequately explain what Wagner s own theory carmot. Within these four he appears to assign primary importance to associative (or what I call lexical) tonal procedures. Thus, . . . associative, not classical, relationships are predominant at the background level in the Ring. Its broader tonal stmctme arises not from the established tonal and harmonic constraints of the classical system as do, say, the works of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, but from the deliberate choice that particular keys, whatever their traditional relationships, may represent the vital symbols of the drama. Thus, E-flat is chosen to represent the primal state of the Rhine, and in a more general sense, nature, while D-flat is chosen for Valhalla, B-flat for the Nibelungs, B for the Curse, Tamhelm, and Valkyries, C (or D) for the Sword, and F for Siegfried’s Horn. At the background level the above keys dictate the tonal focus of many of the acts and scenes of the individual operas. In addition, at a level of greater detail, the same keys, as well as other less cmcial associative tonalities, often govern the outlines ofmiddle ground and foreground progressions in the sense that reference to certain symbols in the text call forth the appropriate keys in the music.” As far as it goes this is a correct summary of limited facts. But such examples do not go beyond such crude equivalences as [C=SWORD], and the general Wagner literature does no better. The present Wagner-based analysis however argues not only this limited number of tonal associations also the metaphoric entailment background that rationalizes [C=SWORD] in the prior [C=IDEA] (as in Wotan’s Grossen Gedanken) and that in the prior [C=LIGHT], as well as other such metaphoric entailment lines that I shall analyze using assumptions implicit in Wagner’s metaphoric idiom, which McCreless and others discount as inadequate to a serious modem linguistic approach.

^'Ibid., p. 86. p. 90.

24 Thus C=SWORD because C=IDEA because IDEA= LIGHT (as in “what a bright idea!”). This approach systematically explains the metaphoric entailment network that supports such pidgin correspondences and identifies the full range of the composer’s associative networks in the resulting Lexical Tonality. We may thereby recognize that Wagner’s TL vocabulary is vastly richer and more subtle than has been generally understood. And to the degree that this Lexicon is recognized for the systematic and continuous tonal language that it is, so too the non-associative partners of the “four necessary and independent theories” dwindle in explanatory force. Moreover, to claim any “synthesis” of the abstract and the associative in Wagner s texted music commits the very error that the composer himselfwarned his fiiend Uhlig against, i.e., “Do not forget, as centre and axis of the whole, to give prominence to subject-matter' ... 7 treat form purely from this aspect, whereas others have always dealt with form quite apart firom contents.”” Since the composer never rescinded this absolute dictum it preempts any notion that Wagner was aiming to synthesize abstract and associative music as separate categories. Once again we see how twentieth century theorists have proceeded without taking the composer’s own theoretical pronouncements into account. Sometimes Wagner himselfis called to witness that his own theory is invalid for understanding his scores. The sentence used to validate this assumption is found in the composer’s essay “Zukunftsmusik” and describes not the Ring but Tristan: Upon [Tristan] I consent to your making the severest claims deducible from my theoretic premises: not because I formed it on my system, for every theory was clean forgotten by me; but since here I moved with fullest freedom and the most utter disregard of every theoretic scruple, to such an extent that during the working out I myself was aware how far I had outstripped my system.^'* Again we turn for interpretation to McCreless, who deduces firom this sentence taken in isolation that “although he does not state explicitly that he is overthrowing the concept -of the poetic-musical period,” nonetheless the statement proves that the composer “was moving toward an entirely new method of formal organization in the

“J.S. Shedlock, ed., Richard Wagner’s Letters to his Dresden Friends, p. 145, letter of 20 November, 1851. My italics. ” Zukunflsmusik,” in Judaism in Music and Other Essays, p. 327.

25 works beginning with Tristan.

McCreless quotes Robert Bailey’s justification for

jettisoning Opera and Drama as a guide to the composer’s poetic aim. Calling it a “ptecise” statement of the issue, McCreless quotes Bailey that;

.. any attempt to

deal with Opera and Drama in connection with those two acts or indeed, any of the operas after Tristan, is both uninformed and futile.”^* But Bailey’s precision is unnecessary in evaluating Wagner’s sentence, for the composer’s next one tells us “precisely” how to understand its predecessor: This [sense of fullest compositional fi-eedom] perhaps was only possible because a previous period of reflection [e.g., the Opera and Drama period] had strengthened me in much the way my master once said he had done by a course of the hardest contrapuntal exercises, namely, not for writing fugues, but for that which a man can only make his own by rigorous practice: self-reliance, sureness!^’ On the basis of Wagner’s whole thought we need no one else’s precision to tell us how uninformed and futile it is to consult Opera and Drama. Wagner is telling us that the relation of Opera and Drama to the late works is precisely that of academic fugue-writing to the acquisition of contrapuntal mastery and confidence. Through practice one can apply deep laws of contrapuntal combination in compositional contexts that transcend but do not obviate strict academic fugues. Contrapuntal mas tery remains the object however used to say “fugue” or “fantasia.” To Wagner as to many others, transcendence of system is not the abandoning of rules but the acquisition of confidence, mastery, and the appropriate application of such rules. We may therefore usefully transpose Wagner to the key of Bach: “Upon my

Musical Offering I consent to your making the severest claims deducible from contrapuntal premises: not because I formed it with an anxious eye to the future treatises of Cherubini, for every theory was clean forgotten by me; but since here I

Musical Structure ofSiegfried, p. 189. ^‘Robert Bailey, “The Genesis of Tristan und Isolde and a Study of Wagner’s Sketches and Drafts for the First Act,” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1969, p. 6. Quoted in McCreless, p. 1'89. “Zekunfts^sik,” p. 327, The master, Theodore Weinlich, was further described in the autobio^aphy: “Weinlich himself did not seem to attach much importance to what he had taught me: he said, ‘Probably you will never write fugues or canons; but what you have mastered is Independence: you can now stod alone and rely upon having a fine technique at your fingers’ ends if you should wnt it.’ The principal result of his influence over me was certainly the growing love of clearness and fluency to which he had trained me.” {My Life, Vol. 1, p. 68.)

26 moved with fullest freedom and the most utter disregard of every theoretic scruple,, to such an extent that during the working out I myself was aware how far I had outstripped contrapuntal systems.” Wagner scholars may therefore confidently discount contrary arguments based on this decontextualized sentence from “Zekunflsmusik. ” Literary theory has also been tapped for what Wagner would have considered strange theories. Some critics have toyed with the notion of Romantic irony as a necessary explanation for ambiguities with which Wagner is assumed to have strewn poems, motives, tonalities, scores, or even whole Music Dramas, and which shows them to be intentionally ambiguous. To Mary C. Cicora, Wagner intentionally draws Romantic irony like a veil over otherwise straightforward statements to insinuate the ambiguity of existence. Thus, “Critics have sometimes been puzzled over Wagner’s use of a particular motive when it does not seem appropriate to the present dramatic situation. Such uses can only be explained as ironic.”^* The presence of irony is thus confirmed by instances of interpretive failure, for instance, this of Ernest Newman: Wagner merely confuses us when he uses the motive that accompan ies Kundry’s ride ... to accompany Parsifal’s description of the horsemen he had once seen in the wood... afterwards to accompany Kundry’s account of the death of Herzeleide... after that, again, to accompany Kundry as she hastens to the spring in the wood to get water for the fainting Parsifal. . . after that to describe the rush of Klingsor’s warriors to the ramparts ... after that to accompany the thronging of the Flower Maidens to the scene... again to give point to Parsifal’s words; ‘And I, the fool, the coward, to deeds of boyish wildness hither fled —’ and to accompany —^for what reason it is difficult to say—^Kundry’s threat that she will call the spear against Parsifal if he continues to repulse her . . . and finally, as an accompaniment to her last words to Parsifal... No ingenuity can justify the employment of the same motive for so many different purposes.” But Newman was wrong again. Romantic irony would have clarified his confusion. Since the motif puzzles him it could only have been intended ironically, QED. The point of this example is again that like its many theoretical fellows Romantic irony has been applied reflexively without prior reference to Wagner’s ^'Mythology as Metaphor: Romantic Irony, Critical Theory, and Wagner's Ring, p. 22. '^^Wagner as Man and Artist, pgs. 288-9.

27 theory. It ignores the strai^tforward explanation of ambiguous moments that he provides in Opera and Drama and, unfortunately for Romantic irony, this already explains the phenomenon that the former has been called in to provide. 1 refer to Wagner’s theory of “Foreboding,” which the composer describes as follows: A Foreboding is the herald of an emotion as yet unspoken out,— because as yet unspeakable, in the sense of our customary wordspeech. Unspeakable is any emotion which is not as yet defined; and it is undefined, so long as it has not been yet determined through a fitting object. The first thrill of this emotion, the Foreboding, is thus its instinctive longing for defmement through an object: through an object which it predetermines, in its turn, by the force of its own need; moreover, an object which must answer to it, and for which it therefore waits.^ Here Wagner limns a compositional technique for articulating feelings that have no obvious objects but which, when such objects do at last appear, retroactively reify the meaning of the moment. The technique is designed to give musical voice to such common experiences as “nameless dread”, where the motivating object is real but not distinctly perceived or understood. At the same time Wagner claims his purpose to be not arousal of uncertainty but extinguishment of ambiguity or doubt or “silencing the question Whyl"*^ byproviding concrete and reified iftemporarily hidden, objects or causes to feelings masquerading as unmotivated. Ambiguity in Music Drama is not an expression of some ontological stance beloved of theorists of Romanticism, but a testimonial to the empirical fact that real human beings cannot know all the factors that condition their lives and this necessary ignorance often produces feelings of nameless dread or disquiet. But whether or not the human being is conscious ofthem, these factors exist and take their toll. Any serious study ofthe composer’s writings throughout the Ringpenoi will convince that Romantic irony is foreign to Wagner’ s expressed interests. At this time he was obsessed not with ambiguity but with intelligibility. One cannot open a page of Opera and Drama and not stumble over the world, sometimes two or three times. What Wagner wanted to explain, at least during this period of his life, was what he

knew—in detail. Part of what he knew undoubtedly included the fact that people

*°Opera and Drama, p. 331. ^'“Zukunftsmusik,” p. 320, etc.

28 don’t generally know why they do the things they do, but are rather acted upon by un conscious motivations, impulses, urges, and appetites. Wagner thus provided a musical technique to convey the sense of unconscious forces which, although they may for a time present themselves as ambiguous, are not in themselves so. Be that as it may, the existence of the composer’s technique of Foreboding, which occupies roughly the theoretical niche claimed by'Romantic irony, makes it impossible to apply such notions with any degree of confidence. As usual we are thrown back onto the composer’s own self-evaluation for the most insightful ingress to his art. Since Wagner’s theory is generally deemed insufficient relative to extraneous theories it is necessary to note how well such theories fare in real analysis. McCreless uses them to explain the Nom scene in Gdtterddmmerung. He assigns associative status to E t minor and B minor and denies it without argument to F, F )t and G Majors in contradiction to arguments by such scholars as Warren Darcy.^^ This requires “directional” and “expressive tonality” to step in at the point where Wagner presumptively “abandons the associative tonal references and... instead builds on an abstract tonal relationship there prefigured... before disintegrating into a linearchromatic maze.” The four theories thus discover not coherence but disintegration. Despite this the movement “achieves an impressive synthesis, both as abstract music and as a tonal structure with associative connections.”'” But this is mere hedging: should the “four theories” discover disintegration this can always be claimed to reflect the higher category synthesis, which any set of multiple theories is certain to discover by definition. But both the claimed disintegration and the synthesis cannot be distinguished from meaningless artifacts of the simultaneous imposition of theories which in many respects are not even logically compatible. Again, in an attempt to explain the Tristan Prelude Christopher Lewis fleshes out “directional tonality” with a more theoretically charismatic-sounding term, the “double-tonic complex.” Thus, “the background progression [of the Tristan Prelude] is reflected in the musical texture right from the opening measures, which imply the two tonics both successively and simultaneously. An analysis that reduces one ofthe implied tonics to the role of a decorative element will misrepresent the background

“For instance Warren Darcy’s correct arguments regarding [F=Giants] (Wagner's Das

Rheingold, p. 130.) “"Schenker and the Noms”, p. 284 and Ibid.

29 tonality.”^ But does this notion tell us anything real about Wagner passages that the composer’s does not? The passage to which Lewis refers is this:

.

Langsam und schmachtend. 2_______ 3

5_________

—i

pp fn.

1

a;l 6

fA6

r

V7

V ■ '

2

7=b6 1 1

9

^----------

...

.. ....

£:fA6V7

r- ^

__________________________ ^ , 7=a:2

Ex. 1.6: Tristan und Isolde (Prelude, bars 1-12) and a standard linear harmonic analysis of the bars in question such as I use through out this book and which uses no assumptions not considered orthodox in parsing Beethoven sonatas or even Bach two-part inventions, reads thus;^’

‘■'Christopher Lewis, “Mirrors and Metaphors: Reflections on Schoenberg and NineteenthCentury Tonality,” in Mneteen/A Century Music, Vol. XI, No. 1, Summer, 1987. ‘’Readers interested in comparative analysis should check this against that of Leland Smith

(Handbook ofHarmonic Analysis, Chapter Ten) which differs in some slight details, particularly the absence of my A minor reference at bar 10. Marshall Tuttle has also analyzed the prelude (Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera, pgs. 99ff)

30 Ex. la; A minor k»m

..........................

................

...............

•

t................!

|C(ni)

|E(V) |1 |6 5

1

1

3

2

fA6

1 4

V7

1

2 |7=b6

5

6

1 1

fA6

1 t

V7

|2 7....

1-2 b2 1

lviio7/susp. ffl+-I+|V7|

9

10

11

12

The paragraph to which Lewis applies the double-tonic complex does not deposit onto C but instead onto the orthodox dominant E. Bars 1-4 establish tonic a through an orthodox French augmented sixth-to-dominant half cadence. At bar 6 apivot tone a:7 = C: b 6 gives four more bars of orthodox C (a:III) through the fA6-V7 half cadence. At bar 10 a new pivot C:7=a:2 repeats the process in near parallel, for the chord at bar 11, which cannot be reconciled with either C or E, moves momentarily back to the tonic a via a resolution of the a:viio7 over a non-chord c(a:3)-suspension to a:in+, which levers the pivot to the dominant via a direct i—V_ resolution. The orthodox dominant emerges via a—^E, not a—and is thus the paragraph’s goal. To claim otherwise is to analyze a thought fragment as if it were the whole. This whole consists not of the two tonics necessary to Lewis’ argument but of three: a—C—^E, the second and the third ofwhich strengthen not weaken the original a. This begs the question why we are not theorizing about a “triple tonic complex.’’ Visual graphing lets us “see” the grammar spell the orthodox tonic triad, thus: |a(i)

(key I = scale degree 1)

lC(in) |E(V)

(key in = scale degree 3) (key V = scale degree 5)

As suggested by (Key i=scale degree 1, etc.) keys are established on single-tonic scale degrees. Such composing out the scale degrees of a single tonic not as chords but keys is typical of Wagner’s style even in passages in which no one would dream of declaring a double-tonic complex. What we see here is a syntactically well-formed example of the classical tonal principle that the only reason that expositions often move firom tonic T to dominant D is that D is the closest—^but by no means the only—scale degree of T. In classical tonality minor key movements often move to their relative majors. They do so for the same reason that major key movements move to their dominants. Both relative major and dominant mark the arrival points as a dependent variables of T. In Wagner’s case, C Major and E Major likewise only exist where they do because they are on scale degrees of the single tonic a. This marks them too as dependent variables of T. The tonal logic of the one case is that

31 of the other, namely the logic of all tonal music. Lewis’s claim that failtire to recognize the double-tonic complex reduces C to a “decorative element” of a is therefore simply nonsensical. There is no need to assign to C either structural or decorative values depending on acceptance of double tonic complex theory. The key would not be decorative even in classical tonality even were it not a mere rest-stop on the way to the dominant. It would be a dependent variable of the tonic just as here, in which nothing is generated from anything other than some dependent or doubly-dependent variable oftonic a. Decoration has nothing to do with it. Given tonic a, C is a dependent variable of T for the same reason that the first modulation in a minuet is a dependent variable of its tonic. Such dependency would justify any second key built on a scale degree of the opening T, whether that degree were 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 in a major opening or 2 (altered), 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 in a minor opening. Should “doubling theory” be required the only thing doubled here is tonal dependency upon tonic a, which strengthens not weakens a as the sole origin. So too with the claim that failing to recognize the double-tonic complex misrepresents the background. The first key here is tonally (not lexically, which is another question) sui generis. The other two appear where they do because they mark cmcial scale degrees of T. The backgroimd is an orthodox expansion of tonic a’s scale degrees and needs no other explanation. To claim that the double-tonic complex is indicated because the Prelude ends on a C tonic is false since the key in question is c, which has an entirely different background syntax that excludes A, E, and a.^® It coheres not with any key in the Prelude but begins a new backgroxmd. If the rationale is that the Act ends in C then background as such acquires occult abilities to aftect arbitrary action-at-a-distance and.begs the question why double-tonic complexes do not occur in Acts II (opens inBb, ends in d) or HI (opens in f, ends in B). Or need we whistle up two more special theories to handle these separate cases?

*®In syntactical terms C minor disintegrates A Major by annulling its constituting tonic (a i), major diird (c ^0, and dominant (e i); it disintegrates E Major by annulling its constituting major third (g t/)'i and it disintegrates A minor by annulling its dominant (e i), while A minor, A Major, and E Major disintegrate C minor by annulling its minor third (ei) and its dominant (g i) also. Since Lewis’ double-tonic coir^lex idea means nothing other than as an explanation for the Prelude’s sequence of surface keys, then the tonal background of its final bars literally disintegrates every conceivable sense in which a double-tonic complex could be a meaningful explanation. The linear harmonic descriptive term for such relationships are “doubly indirect.” Wagner would have understood this in terms of his tonal Household concept: the keys in question obey different “House Laws.” For more on this see below. Chapter Five, especially pg. 215.

32 But straightforward lexical theory answers a range ofquestions where double tonic complex theory answers no interesting questions and begs many more. Consider the long-distance unity that such ideas as double-tonic complexes must clarify ifthey are to be theoreticallyjustified. Such notions want to explain the sense in which, say, the Tristan Prelude articulates a unified tonal concept stretching over long distances of music. Such mechanisms in Wagner’s tonality are not structuralist but lexical. What unifies these scores is the coherent meaning of its tonal lexemes. C Major

means LIGHT in the Prelude and means LIGHT at the end of Act I and B Major means DARKNESS at the

end of Act HI for reasons I have mentioned and will develop with

respect to its sinister kinsman B minor. These are long-distance relationships indeed, spanning in this instance the entire length of Tristan md Isolde—a span far beyond the reach ofdouble-tonic complex to explain. It is even more long-distance than this for it reaches beyond Tristan itself into Die Meistersinger too, as for instance the B Major section of the Prize Song, which has the same lexical relationship to its tonic C Major as Tristan’s final B Major has to its Act IC Major.^’ Again, structuralist theories can explain only what is present in the scores. But lexical logic explains not only the presence of keys but their absences. Why for instance is E Maj or once articulated in the Prelude so conspicuously AWOL through out the remainder of Tristan! It is aimed for in the Prelude only to be dropped in the Drama. For this we must again turn not to what E Major is (its presumed “E-ness”) but rather to what E Major means, to E Major not as an abstract tonal structure but as a lexeme. Its only signatured appearance, in Act HI, expresses this: “Und drauf Isolde, wie sie winkt / wie sie hold mir Siihne trlnkt; / Siehst du sie? Siehst du sie noch nicht? / Wie sie selig, hehr vmd milde, / wandelt durch des Meer’s Gefilde? / Auf wonniger Blumen lichten Wogen / kommt sie sanfl ans Land gezogen.” What has this to do with the absence of E Major elsewhere? This is straightforward Venusffom-the-sea-foam stuff: The dominant of Tristan’s A minor key of virginal sexual

interest fulfills itself in the image of an E Major Cytherean Venus just as it had for Tannhauser and as it would do for Siegfried and for Amfortas too. The lexical explanation is [E=VENUS], sexual consummation, which can have no place in a

*’I will be discussing the logic of B Major and B minor as darkness, sex, death, and trans formation as appropriate throughout; interested readers may peruse the Lexicon to get a feel for the types of lexical entries these keys acquire in the Ring.

33 drama about thwarted love other than as an hallucination. [E=VENUS] also means that lexical tonality was operating in primitive form even in Tannhdiiser, in which Venusburg’s mistress is E Major. It was developed the Ring, Tristan, and Parsifal, determining key placements not only within single works but across all of later and even middle Wagner. Lexical Tonality’s answer to such notions as the “double-tonic complex” is thus that long-distance musical unity has the same character in Wagner that it has in natural languages, which are “unified” by their lexicons and grammar. Again, being essentially lexical Wagner’s tonality is cultural to the core. As essentially structuralist formulae the “four theories” find culture invisible and its omission burdens them with descriptive and analytical errors, for instance the claim that directional tonality is a late-nineteenth century extension oftraditional practices. It Is an expression of normal eighteenth century practice, e.g., this;

"Christe, du Lamm Gottes" {CantataNo. 23, "Du wahrer Gott und Davids Sohn")

Ex. 1.7: An example of eighteenth-century “directionality” Wagner would have understood this as seven distinct micro-modulations compressed

34 to a mere eight bars with TL syntax semantically tied to an ML text. Amfortas would have felt right at home here. And Wagner’s serviceable Lutheranesque hymn from

Die Meistersinger shows that Wagner understood Bach’s syntax and semantics perfectly. He would have taken this as a model for his own practice and would have done so moreover not because he thought it revolutionary but because he knew it to be traditional and thus intelligible to German TL speakers. Everything that we find in typical Parsifal TL sentential strings is here: the striking augmented triads, the abrupt modal shifts from major to minor tonics within single bar compasses, the indeterminate see-sawing between two keys before striking out for a key not even previously hinted at. The only thing missing is the hint of a “double-tonic complex.” Wagner would also have noted that Bach’s passage is related to poetic keywords only generally and that these can only generally justify its modulatory freedom. He would have seen his own abrupt and ephemeral modulations as doubly justified because motivated by consistent lexical associations. Thus Wagner may well have considered Parsifal perhaps even more conservative than this Bach chorale. To apply standard lexical theory to the Tristan Prelude, unity is achieved not through C and a as architectonic bricks but through their falsifiable meanings as TL

lexemes. Wagner’s lexical usage often treats

C

as a frank, open gaze where a_is a

half-averted or veiled gaze. Both have to do with LIGHT and LIGHT with gazing. This is apt to Wagner’s poetic aim, for in heroic cultures the act of gazing is imagined not subjectively but in terms of light flashing from the gazer’s eyes, as if the acts of

seeing and shining were identical.^* Wagner uses C Major in this sense when Wotan describes his daughter’s ardent gaze via [C=LIGHT, eye] thus:

^'This treatment is a special case ofthe poetics ofconcrete image that stand for internal states. Thus “Idomeneus effectively describes cowards by changes in skin color, frequent postural alterations, fast heartbeat, and teeth chattering, a quasi-paralinguistic leakage ... The eyes index the spirit... Baleful looks, blazing eyes, glaring glances... concretely convey emotional states.” (Donald Lateiner, Sardonic Smile: Nonverbal Behavior in Homeric Epic, p. 43.) Again, “When they leam of Telemakhos’ unexpected escape, the suitors sit in a huddle, their contests stop, and Antinoos develops blazing eyes and emits grants at being balked.” (Ibid., p. 234/1.) Wagner’s insistence throughout the Ring period on concretizing everything, such that a single lexical referent might often be overdeter mined via poetic keyword, physical prop, leitmotif, and TL lexeme, therefore reflects a point of view similar to that of Bruno Snell, who “argues that Homeric man has no concept of a body but only of the parts that compose it. Similarly he argues that Homeric man lacks a knowledge of a psychic whole because there are no terms in Homeric Greek conq/arable to our abstract terms for ‘soul’ or ‘self’ Man’s psychic activity is seen in terms of the ftmctions of separate entities. These act in analogy with physical organs or members." (Psychological Activity in Homer, p. 2).

35

Ex. 1.8: A pair of bright, shining C Major eyes Briinnhilde’s gaze is to her father a blazing LIGHT and that light is at the same time a C Major modulation; the lexeme embraces the experience of light standing for the act of gazing. With respect to the C Major EYE, eyes come in pairs (hence “Augen strahlendes Paaf'), and thus twoness as such attaches to C Major poetics in sometimes peculiar ways, for instance, this from Siegfried:

36

Ich ^ U**rr !—J

sieh',

meinSohn,

wo dunichts weisst,

da weisst du dir leicht

[ ... . ig-

li“i

f

pdolce

i.

mir

zum____

Se - hen

ver

-

bleib.

f ^

•0

I V

0 ----?

I

'r

Ex. 1.9i Wotan giving Siegfried the Eye

etc.

37 Here Wotan flaunts psychic knowledge of the Unconscious ('rEb=psvchic know ledge,UNCONSCIOUS], per #1) before resorting to [C=EYE] to tell Siegfried that they share a common ancestry. EYE stands for genealogical relationship via its

duality*^ Again (fi729), Sieglinde picks up on something like this when she describes' that-which-shines in her brother not as his C Major eyes but, more interestingly still, as the twin veins in his C Major temples, which entwine and pulse with blood, .thereby arousing her desire.^® My such means lexical keys begin to map the poetic expressions of psycho logical activities in the manner of Bruno Snell’s theory of Homeric or heroic man. To the C Major poetics of LIGHT, eyes, seeing, and knowing Wagner adds the F Major poetics of EARTH, hands, guarding, and desiring; the B b Major poetics of FIRE,

repulsing, hating, and enraging; Db Major UPRAISING, achieving, and over

mastering; G Major SINKING, reclining, and nurturing; E Major SHINING, adorning, displaying, and so on. Some of these lexical domains naturally combine or ally with each other while others repulse each other. Thus the C Major poetics of seeing and

gazing combine with the E Major poetics of attracting and displaying to jointly cofflFigure the human fascination with bright, attractive objects or persons. In Die

Walkure, Act I (#661) C Major indexes the sword’s bright gleam, the “adornment key” of E Major (#662) the resplendent object of the hero’s fascination. This is of course one of the lexical harbingers of the E Major Magic Fire Music:

’’The idea that C Major is double-bodied was present from the beginning of tonality. For instance. Jacques Chailley describes Mozart’s C Major as “the central point of reference for all the other tonalities, sign of {actuality, of light.” The key has this character in part because of its pivotal geography; thus “On the two sides of C major, the key-signatures locate two opposed worlds. On one side, the solemn flats of Wisdom; on the odier, the fluttering sharps of profane lighmess (at least, that is the significance, not generalized, which they are given in Die Zauberflote).'' (The Magic Flute, Masonic Opera^igs. 16(y) What is generalized is the ^eowjan/icmflppjMg, in whichCMajorfimctions as a viewpoint looking in two opposite directions. In terms of mythic personifications we are talking here about Mercury, in terms of zodiacal signs, of the midsummer (=light) sign of Gemini (H). “Sieglinde is picking up on a folk figure here, namely, that of the spirit Mercurius, who “as Cupid and Kyllenios... tempts us out of the world of sense; he is the benedicta viriditas and the multi flares of early spring, a god of illusion and delusion of whom it is rightly said: ‘Invenitur in vena / Sanguine plena’ (He is found in the vein swollen with blood). He is at the same time a Hermes Chthonios and an Eros, yet it is from him that there issues the Tight surpassing all lights,’ the lux moderna, for the lapis is none other than the figure of light veiled in matter.’’ (C.G. Jung, “The Spirit Mercurius,” H299). Every one of these qualities could be claimed for Siegmund. The persistence of straightforward alchemisfic and gnostic imagery in Wagner’s NL and TL lexical texts is a theme that I will develop throughout the present study.

38

Ex. l.IO: An enraptured gaze and a resplendent object

39 Semantic analysis oftheiJiVigoverwhelminglyconfirmsMcCreless’ observation that associative keys are prominent background organizers of structure, but more than that: TL lexicality empirically unifies both the background tonal paths and the foreground linear surface, rendering both equally semantic. The present findings likewise deny Marshall Tuttle’s more recent contrary opinibn. Tuttle denies associativity to the linear harmonic surface by interpreting

Opera and Drama (p. 293) as follows: “Here, to realize the poetic aim, the musical Mo'dulation would have to be led across to, and back from, the most diverse keys; but all the adventitious keys would appear in exact affinitive relation to the primary key, which itself will govern the particular light they throw upon the expression, and, in a maimer, will lend them first their very capability of giving them light.’’^' Tuttle concludes from this that “Were we to be satisfied with the earlier definition,” it would be necessary to treat every appearance of a key in any context as a de facto grouping together of elements in an associative context for a given tonality. With this passage Wagner makes it clear that only the highest level of the tonal hierarchy is associative while all modulations within that structure are conditioned by their relationship to the primary key.’’” Tuttle’s interpretation of Wagner’s argument is however simply incoherent. Given that functional harmony is syntactical, and that any given key functions at a word'at any selected level, his a priori proscription would entail that no other nearby word could be judged meaningful (that is, be judged a “word”) that could be shown to be syntactically related to it. His claim thus negates any notion of a syntaxsemantics interface and with it any possibility of a linguistic model. His attempt to exbnlplify his insight is equally incoherent. Thus “There are often references to what seem to be associative keys within a section, but their importance can be significantly overstated. An example of such a humorous occurrence occurs [jfc] on Siegfned’s words ‘glazender Fisch’ [glittering fish] {Siegfried, I, I, m. 886), as the music drops for two measures onto the Rhine’s E b chord. The use of the progression to the key

^'Quoted in Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera, pgs. 107/ “E.g., Opera and Drama, pgs. 292/ Ellis translation. I also discuss these passages below. Chapter Three, pgs. 91ff. ^^Ibid.,p. 108.

40 of VI earlier in the narrative includes some mention of Siegfried looking at his reflection in a brook, but the significance of this key relationship is determined more by the major third modulation. Both these instances utilize a close relative of G minor, and therefore tonal association is not a major factor in determining the structural coherence of such an excerpt.”^'* Thus surface keys both cannot be lexical

und ^lexical, can only be marginal. Similarly, words cannot be meaningful when found in syntactically well-formed sentences, and ifmeaningful, semantics is either absent or marginal. Tuttle’s allusion to keys that “appear” to be associative and yet are of “overstated importance” is equally incoherent. If a key is associative it is lexical and its meaning is the only thing relevant about it qua lexeme. “To overstate” such a meaning is itself meaningless. One cannot overstate it, only define it. Finally, Tuttle’s conclusion that tonal association is not a major factor in determining structural coherence misconceives the proper function of lexemes even in NL. Even were all keys lexical (a possibility my present research makes appear increasingly probable) it is not the function of lexemes to determine structural coherence as such. That is the job of syntax and this fact renders Tuttle’s argument irrelevant. Thus granted functional harmony all excerpts would structurally cohere whether their constituting keys were lexical or not. On the contrary, whether keys are lexical can only be determined not by syntactical but only by semantic analyses. Syntax remains coherent in either case; indeed, were this not so keys would become incoherent even apart from their possible lexicality. What lexicality does effect is in what direction the tonal syntax will direct coherent linear harmonic flow, for instance, lexicality will determine that Ek will appear here and not there within an overall coherent syntax. Lexicality affects not structural coherence but only what type of coherence is evident in any given excerpt. Thus none of Tuttle’s arguments present coherent critiques of Wagner’s surface keys as lexemes and may therefore be discounted in any serious theory ofthe composer’s Lexical Tonality.

Contra Tuttle, the need for a unitary linguistic theory is most obvious in the present project ofvocabulary-building, where success depends upon s. single method being applied consistently firom Das Rheingold, bar 1 through Gdtterddmmerung, bar n. This method records the lexical characteristics ofevery one ofthe Ring’s identified

41 keys and thus permits the history of associative usage to be reliably recorded and cross-referenced. This renders lexical interpretations objective and falsifiable. To keep the method honest I must treat all keys as lexemes even where given trans lations appear problematical. To admit problematical lexical interpretations is a precondition for reducing the problematical character of the method as a whole. This is exactly the method by which we attempt to decipher new languages. Tuttle’s attempt to use structuralist assumptions to arbitrate Wagner’s theory is oilly one example of the general weakness in musicological efforts to operational ize it in a way that genuinely engages its linguistic implications. In Tuttle’s case the error manifests itself in terms of such reflexive notions that a semantic meaning may be either marginal or central (false), or that semantic factors cannot be shown to establish syntactical coherence (true but irrelevant). In fact such factors cannot be shown to establish such coherence even in natural languages, whose coherence in stead depends upon the composite syntactical-semantical interface itself This generic error is also present in the grammatical-seeming assessment of the tonality offered by Anthony Newcomb: ... the tight, limited grammatical rules of chord connections, conventions represented by the Roman numerals or letter designations that we assign individual chords, are sometimes so far loosened as to lose much of their binding force.’’ Taken literally the iorni grammar implies that music is a language that obeys principles that characterize natural languages. Yet if the force of TL grarrunar is lan guage-syntactical and ifits rules represent a genuine syntax-semantics interface, then what “binding force’’ may such rules be said to exert that can be tightened or loosenedj? A genuinely linguistic syntax is not a set of screws one can ratchet up or down but a network of formal constraints that act to increase or decrease not the force but the semantic domain ofpossible intelligible syntactical strings. Since real NL and TL outputs only exist because they make sense to their users, the relationship of rule to grammar is one of constraint to sense. Users converse right up to the end of their sentences to make sense and do not converse in sentences that do not. This is an error that Wagner himself never commits either in theory or in practice. Instead he confesses from the start that syntax creates an abstract coherence

Anthony Newcomb, “The Birth of Music out of the Spirit of Drama.” Nineteenth Century Music (Summer), 1981, p. 38.

42 while semantics specifies that coherence in terms ofits meaning. The classic example of a syntactically well-formed sentence that is nevertheless meaningless is Noam Chomsky’s “colorless green ideas sleep fiiriously.” This NL sentence is perfectly well-formed firom the syntactical point of view but is nonetheless meaningless. It is so because its lexical entries are random and thus its incoherence is entirely seman tical. So too with Tuttle’s example; Wagner’s syntactically sound excerpt makes no semantical sense unless FEb-fishl because [E£=Rhine, river, mermaids, water denizens]. And analysis ofthe passage’s fimctional key relations can no more decide the question of its TL lexicality than can similar analysis in Chomsky’s NL sentence. This is what Wagner means by insisting that it is only semantical associations that justify his TL linguistic strings, what he means when he warns Uhlig that he always treats form in terms of its content, and what Tuttle’s argument fails to address. The content is the extra-tonal meaning of the keys, chords, or tones where tonal syntax would otherwise be well-formed, but meaningless. So too withNewcomb’s idea that Wagner’s syntax represents “loosening.” As an element of a syntax-semantics interface it is irrelevant to imagine syntax as tight or loose. Either it falsifiably establishes manifest keys or it does not. If it does so the lexicality is intelligible, but not otherwise. Wagner’s, as I have empirically determined, is intelligible. Yet not even the “four independent theories” exhaust the trove available to deal with ever more assumed special cases. Thus David Lewin explains the tonal behavior of Amfortas’ prayer in Parsifal, Act III with a new theory of “tonal substitutions” according to which Wagner composes an abstract D minor template then “substitutes” Db minor or D){ minor according to a transformation schema intended to subvert Roman Catholicism with heresy.’* Wagner presumably uses this scheme nowhere else and its general validity is therefore moot: it is irrelevant to the tonal behavior of Music Drama generally but only some thirty-odd bars of it. But there are many thousands of bars of music in the Ring and Parsifal, to say nothing of Die Meistersinger and Tristan. May we look forward to welcoming several hundred new theories to deal with several hundred special cases? Scholars with a minimal love of least hypotheses may be excused for throwing up their hands at a

” “Amfortas’ Prayer to Titurel and the Role ofD in Parsifal. The Tonal Spaces of the Drama and the Enharmonic C b /BMarshall Tuttle critiques this theory in Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera, pgs. \12ff.

43 discipline owning such indifference to logical parsimony. In sum, my purpose is to understand Wagner in his own terms. Such a goal would be worthwhile applied to anyone but particularly to an artist as culturally paramount as he. Since the composer told us that Music Drama aimed for unity and never rescinded his requirement that such unity was also to be found in his theory, then I must develop my present theory strictly along the lines Wagner himself set forth and to import nothing into it that is incoherent with the composer’s own. What then does it take to imderstand Wagner in his own terms? Wagner’s theorizing is linguistic to the core. It concerns grammar and lexicon. And since lexicon is inseparable from culture, to understand Wagner’s tonality requires a systematic and sympathetic immersion in the common practice culture of both the composer and his contemporaries. This is a very broad requirement indeed, particularly since nineteenth century has become more alien to us of the twenty-first century than we would probably like to believe. Unsurprisingly, Wagner provided not only the theory itself but the correct logfcal framework within which to relate it to natural language. Wagiler claims his tonality to be a natural language not metaphorically but analogically. The usage difference between metaphor and analogy is captured by Janet Soskice and it is relevant to how the composer understood his own TL. Soskice is speaking of analogy as a literary trope but the cognitive structure, and the use to which analogy is typically put, transcends literary trope theory. Soskice writes: Analogy as a linguistic device deals with language that has been stretched to fit new applications, yet fits the new situation without generating for the native speaker any imaginative strain... suppose that one encountered intelligent life on another planet . . . that communicated by means of the arrangement of fibres on its body. If we were able to interpret this new mode of communication, even though it involved no sounds at all, we should quite naturally say that the Martian ‘told’ us such and such, or made this or that ‘comment’. We would probably not regard it as speaking metaphorically; more likely we would regard it as a justified extension of what ‘told’ and ‘comment’ really mean. This would not be a metaphorical but a ‘stretched’ or analogical use of language. Analogy is, to redirect a phrase ofNelson Goodman’s, more properly than metaphor ‘a matter ofteaching an old word new tricks—of applying an old label in a new

44

And here is a relevant example of how Wagner himself talked about the specifically tonal substance of his composite Music Dramas. When... we have arrived at speaking entirely fi'om out the spirit of a tongue, at feeling and thinking quite instinctively therein, there also springs up in us the power ofbroadening this very spirit, of enriching and extending at once the mode of utterance and the utterable in that tongue. Yet that which is utterable in the speech of Music, is limited to feelings and emotions: it expresses, in abundance, that which has been cast adrift from our Word-speech at its conversion into a mere organ of the Intellect, namely, the emotional contents of Purelyhuman speech. . . With the attained facility of speaking in this Tone-speech fi"eely from my heart, I naturally could only have to give my message also in the spirit of that speech; and where, as artist-man, I felt the most peremptorily urged to its delivery, the Matter of my message was necessarily dictated by the Spirit of the means of expression that I had made my own... What I beheld, I now looked at solely with the eyes of Music; thou^ not of that music whose formal maxims might have held me still embarrassed for expression, but of the music which I had within my heart, and wherein I might express myself as in a mother-tongue.^* This passage is typical and Wagner never changed his tune. He understood the Stuff of music express feelings and emotions linguistically and thus the composer could speak of Music as an extension of natural language [NL] and his acquisition of fluency in it as analogous to his earlier acquisition of linguistic competence in Ger man, his natural language [NL] mother tongue. Keeping Soskice’s useful distinction between analogy and metaphor in mind, those doubtful that the “Martian” Wagner is speaking in a “language” may remember her distinction to good effect.”

Metaphor and Religious Language, p. 64. '‘A Communication to My Friends, pgs. 364 and 365. ’’Again, where metaphor tends to remain constant in meaning or to decay over time into dead metaphors, analogy exists in a constant state ofpotential reification. Analogies may over time become identical with the literal facts toward which they tend. Like an intelligent household pet metaphor will never be anything but dog or cat, while analogical relations, like relations between oneself and one’s baby, converge over time until what was once analogical tend to become literal. This is the implication of Soskice’s Martian “language” of fibers. To encounter such a phenomenon forces an analogical interpretation. As familiarity increases what was once analogical begins to appear singly literal, until it begins to appear less useful to keep the two categories separate. They then merge in usage, such'the Soskice’s Martians and earthlings (or, sticking to cases, Wagner and the rest of us) simply “talk.”

Ch a pt

er

Tw o

The Syntactical Sorcerer ... these laws of hannonic sequence ... allow the most varied choice from amid the kingdom of harmonic families... they demand, however, before all a strict observance of the house-laws ofaffinity of thefamily once chosen, and a faithful tarrying with it, for the sake of a happy end. Richard Wagner^

I.

Rules? What Rules? ■ In this chapter I will describe what it is about music that made it possible for

Wagner to treat it as an extension ofnatural language [NL]; in particular, to treat keys as words. By this I mean what is true whether keys are lexical or not. This involves

rules and I will consider the rules applicable to Western music that arbitrate between pragmatics (the sonorous surface or what we hear), syntax (function), and semantics (what it means other than itself), then move to Wagner’s modifications and additions of lexical rules that levered keys into fully functioning words. The rule question concerns intelligibility and the rules Wagner considered necessary to secure it. To do this requires confronting the status of linguistic modeling in music theory. It is I fear not well understood. Just as Wagner criticism has proceeded as if Wagner’s theories were marginally relevant to his compositional practice, so general njusic theory has proceeded as if music were not intrinsically linguistic. The antilinguistic position declares that claimed linguistic characteristics are metaphorical qnd not intrinsic, an objection of which Roger Scruton’s may stand as a type: ... imtil the kind of understanding proper to actual musical experi ence can be shown to be already and intrinsically an understanding of music as a language, it will not be clear how the possibility of a linguistic interpretation enables one to appreciate, as apart ofmusical experience, the expressive character of works of music. The listener could find the music beautiful, and imderstand its character as art, and yet not dream that it is also a code that could be given independent meaning. Nobody has yet shown that ordinary musical understanding is linguistic in form, and it is doubtful that it could be shown.^ How may we evaluate this? The argument assumes that modem listeners including philosophers in fact “understand music’s character as art.” Unless this is true his

'The Art-Work of the Future, p. 117. ^The Aesthetic Understanding, p. 59.

46 demand that such understanding be intrinsically linguistic is empty. Yet the inventors of this art concurred that music is a language ofthe emotions and their imderstanding of its character included that of the emotional content it was composed in some measure to convey.^ If Scruton is right, Wagner and his composer colleagues knew not what they were about. Scruton’s assumption (not conclusion) thus places him under a heavy burden of demonstration. However, this does not occur. Rather the philosopher implies, but does not show, that linguistic understanding of tonal music such as that of its inventors must degenerate into philosophically empty metaphor. In particular,” he continues, “meanings can be assigned to the words of spoken language only because what is said can be interpreted in terms of the true and false.” Thus Scruton’s initial appeal to consensus (“ordinarymusical understanding”) is suspect, since if composers are to be believed such understanding may well not exist among those who deny music’s emotion-bearing semantics. The consensus issue cuts the other way too. Since Scruton’s objection is an exemplary one while Wagner theonzed as if ordinary musical intelligibility were intrinsically linguistic. It would be desirable to evaluate the composer’s theoiy by Scruton’s criteria. The consensus view of composers might conceivably be trumped by some counter consensus view from linguists, for instance that music intrinsically lacks qualities acknowledged by the linguistics community to be constitutive of any imaginable language. This would of course entail a prior consensus account of what constitutes intrinsic linguistic form.” Yet linguists themselves do not agree on what such an jntrinsic linguistic form might be, and had Scruton asked them to report how “ordinary linguistic understanding is linguistic in form” they might, unlike the community of Western composers, have been unable to return a consensus view. Thus describing the intellectual and personal battles between generative grammarians and Chomskyans that had polarized linguistics for decades, Randy Allen Harris was forced to concede the absence of consensus on the intrinsic nature of NL: Not all linguists [Chomsky, Jackendoff, Katz, Lakoff, McCawley, Postal, and Ross] would agree that their science charts the sinuous relations of language to thought, thought to language, nor even that linguistics is a science, nor, if it is, about what sort of science it is___ The definition for linguistics .... runs afoul of several [linguists].

thp r detailed ^scussion of this issue see my “HansUck, Wagner, Chomsky: Mapping Lmguistic Parameters of Music,.” J. Royal Musical Association, 123 (1998).

47 Katz and Postal, for instance, regard linguistics as something very much like mathematics, a pristine formal science without connection to anything as messy as thought. Lakoff and Chomsky both agree that linguistics is very much concerned with mind, and that it is an empirical science, but disagree severely on many specifics, including ' what It is to be an empirical science. Ross, McCawley, and Jackendoff are in the empirical science camp, but fall between LakofFand Chomsky on various specifics, depending on the issues. All of these people and issues show up recurrently in the story of the linguistics wars. For now, we will alleviate the sense of discord over fimdamental issues by offering a more conventional definition of linguistics, one that virtually all linguists would agree to (although with linguists, as with most reflective humans, we can’t do without that virtually): the study of the links between sound and meaning.^ Yet Harris’ effort to construct even the most generic consensus definition encounters unexpected difficulties: Two qualifications ... are immediately necessary. First, sound is something of a shorthand here for the most accessible element of languap; meaning, for the most elusive. That is, sound in this definition includes the noises we make, but also stands in for the letters of written languages (like English), the characters of picto^aphic languages (like Chinese), the gestures of signing languages (like Aineslan). Meaning runs the gamut from logical and grammatical concepts (like negation and subject/predicate relations) to the nebulous domains of implication and nuance (like getting someone to close the ivindow by snarling “It’s cold in here’’ at her enforcing social relations to boot)... The idea of standing-in is a critical, but implicit, part of the definition of linguistics, so much so that the definition would be more accurately rendered as “the study of the links between symbolic sound and meaning.’’^ Yet not even this qualified account qualifies as tiformally logical definition of the intrinsic object of linguistic investigation. For the symbolic is itself a cutego/y of

meaning and thus even a minimal definition to satisfy all linguistic parties intended to palliate all linguistic parties seems to collapse into tautology, e.g., “linguistics is the study of the link between meaning and meaning.” What is more, since meaning IS,the province ofsemantics then the tautology’s source itself appears to be semantic.

'The Linguistics Wars, pgs. 4-5. V6W., p. 5.

48

But this provides a clue how to weasel out of this tautological trap—and perhaps even satisfy Scruton as well. We are saved by Harris’ seemingly incidental allusion to that “critical-but -implicit” notionstanding-in. Harris alludes to the so-called constitutive rules, a key example of which is

counts as fin context C.” The difference between a formal

and a constitutive rule is that between formal logic and game playing: e.g., logic constrains propositions from justifying theihselves but is irrelevant to free human decisions on how to play games. This is why the rules of chess are not logical tautologies and, apposite to Scruton’s demand for linguisticybrm, Mario Ricciardi notes that “a rule is not constitutive according to the form it has, but to the job it does----- What constitutive rules are ‘constitutive of is the idea (or form) of the object of which they are rules.”® Ricciardi summarizes the theory like this: The central thesis ofthe theory of constitutive rules is surrunarized in the claim (made by G.E.M. Anscombe, and developed by J. Rawls, J.R. Searle, T.A. Honor6 and N. McCormick) that there are facts whose existence depends on rules. These facts are said to be “institutiorial facts”. Hence constitutive rules are “conditions ofpossibility” of an institutional fact. These rules are.. .“constitutive rules” because they “constitute” the fact itself; .e.g., the rules of chess are the conditions of possibility of the game. One can change the size, the material or the shape of the characters, or change the colours of the S(^uares on the chess-board; but one will have a chess game still, iiisofar as one uses the proper set of rules. The “principle of indi viduation” of the institution is the set of constitutive rules of the institution itself This means that the proper answer to the question: “what is chess?” is not “the game played in country Y at time r” or the game created by X”; but it is “the game that is played in such and such a way.’” The primacy of constitutive rules in the composition of linguistic behavior explains why Scruton’s demand for an “intrinsic linguistic form” is so hard to satisfy, why efforts to provide such a thing prove so elusive even to linguists, and why it would in the end fail to satisfy even were it possible to provide it. For such a form, were it to exist, could never itself be intrinsic to language but would be an institutional epiphenomenon constituted by the rules of the language game. It is these rules that

‘“Constitutive Rules and Institutions,” online, p. 2. ^Ibid., pgs. 8-9.

49

are primary in both natural language [NL] and in music [TL] and in both cases these rules exist to do a job. That job is to render both spoken language and musical lan guage intelligible as communications throu^ acts of communicative game plajdng. It is this shared human institution—communicating with each other by means of sounds—that is the intrinsic entity sought by Hanslick, Scruton, and other logical structuralists, and which they can never find so long as they must proceed from a framework based on tacit assumptions derived from formal logic. The conflict boils dowh to this: philosophers of Hanslick’s tradition can never accept music as lin^istic sans a logical account ofits linguistic/or/w, while to Wagner music will never be anything else so long as its intelligibility depends on gamelike rules that prescribe how it is played. Wagner wants to talk to us using music to say things he can’t say using natural language. Thus Opera and Drama treats rule as entirely devoted to

intelligibility and much ofthe book discusses psychological intelligibility constraints imposed upon music by the pragmatics of the Feeling function and its relation to Thinlcmg or Phantasy. Wagner finds this necessary to intelligibly play his music game. Behold Hanslick/Scruton the Logicians V5. Wagner the Game Theorist. Thus when Scruton implies that he, fellow philosophers, and the public al ready understand music’s character as art and denies the consensus view of its inven tors including Wagner, yet calls for philosophical bolstering from an academic community that cannot offer a comparable level of theoretical consensus, he functions like a formal logician who is unaware that his very role is maintained by that higher-order category, the constitutive rule. This is why support for intrinsic fofm does not exist in linguistics. It is also why to claim the authority of Frege or anyone else on what is intrinsic to either language or music or what features if absent debar music from being a language commits the error of false precision. Such quest ions can only be empirically decided in the act of playing NL and TL games and its analysis can only be meaningful through acts of translating such games in the light of constitutive intelligibility rules. As used by Scruton therefore “ordinary musical understanding,” a term necessary to his argument and at odds with composers’ accounts, is simply imaginary an'd 3oes not convince that antilinguistic critics understand music’s character as art berter than did its inventors, who perforce functioned as game theorists not logicians. Nor does it establish authority to pronounce upon what is or is not intrinsic to either «ie art or its understanding. Instead it is quite possible that in rejecting the emotional

50

content of music such critics simply have no idea what music is talking about. Even so, Scruton’s demand that musical understanding be shown to be more than metaphorically linguistic remains reasonable and I believe that it can be satisfied in general and even so where Wagner is concerned. The key is the proper analysis of the institutional facts constituted by the intelligibility rules of the TL game, and to

minimally sketch this will take up the remainder of this and the next chapter. I must talk about the intrinsic propositional background structure in music within which such subordinate institutional facts as truth and falseness become meaningful. Later I will argue that any medium that intentionally asserts similarities Q‘this is like that”) must employ such a background. I will stress that the constitutive rule “X counts as Y in context C” has a cognitive structure much like that of metaphor (“FIRE counts as LOVE in context WOOING”) and that metaphor is therefore an unusually transparent,

but by no means the only, surface representation ofthis background constitutive rule. This is the key to understanding how Wagner composes his keys as mean ing-bearing words. This he does through what he calls Affinity, a special case of the fact that NL-and TL depend alike upon a prelinguistic metaphoric cognition that compares familiar and unfamiliar objects to derive inferences about their nature. The difference may be described in terms of levels of operation expressed as a back

ground and a surface. Metaphoric strategy depends on background propositional cognition and repression of its surface expression. To overtly proposition would be to undo the metaphoric work. Background metaphor is thus intrinsic to ordinary linguistic structure without rendering the structure itselfmetaphoric. Since Wagner’s theory of music depends on its ability to assert that “this is like that", then the background propositionality intrinsic to metaphor may under the right conditions apply to music also. Wagner made it his life’s work to produce such conditions.

II.

Sonorous Surface, Syntax, Semantics The constitutive rule question thus hangs on intentionality and meaning. For

music to be linguistic must bear intrinsically intentional qualities. In descriptive terms an intentional view such as Wagner’s would hold that no description of musical factors as such can be complete, for any given example of intelligible music bears content that cannot be completely described in entirely musical terms. This content is what the music means. Thus intrinsic intentionality segues into intrinsic meaning-bearing capabilities. With respect to the NE-linguistic understanding of

51

meaning, Norbert Homstein avers that philosophers and linguistics assume a

semantical approach so strongly that the terms “meaning” and “semantics” are almost synonymous: “A theory of meaningVs a semantic theory and it is constitutive of such a theory that it be cast in semantical terms.”* He and others argue that viable meaning theory must be governed by rules that relate syntactically defined linguistic entities to nonsyntactical specified objects. The relationship between syntactical and semanti cal mles is such that the former are systematically related to the latter, which amoimts to relating ML strings to extralinguistic propositions, though these propositions may manifest themselves in nonorthodox ways. The cognitive structure that expresses and ehfo'rces this systematic relationship has often been called a syntax—semantics

interface and I will apply this term to TL throughout this book. NL and TL meaning involve relation between syntactical, semantical, and pragmatical rules.’ Variants of this view on the intrinsic structure of NL syntax and semantics are sufficiently common in linguistics to permit the inference that tonal music may be considered intrinsically linguistic insofar as its intelligibility depends upon a meaningfully isomorphic cognitive organization. Pauline Jacobson, who speaks for the linguistics school known as “categorial grammar” [CG] further specifies the relationship between syntax and semantics as a compositional one: Each (surface) linguistic expression is (directly) assigned a modeltheoretic interpretation as a function of the meaning of its parts. Thus the syntactic system can be seen as a recursive specification of the well-formedness of certain linguistic expressions (the base step being the lexicon), and as the syntax “builds” larger expressions firom smaller ones the semantics assigns each expression a model-theoretic interpretation.'® Categorial grammar is “a lexical approach in which expressions are assigned categories that specify how to combine with expressions to create larger expressions. An analysis of an expression proceeds by inference over the categories assigned to its individuatable parts, trying to assign a given goal-category to the expression. In

^Logic as Grammar, pgs. 12-3. ’/fti'rf., pgs. 13-4. Homstein’s account of neo-Fregean philosophical linguistics ofthe type to which Scruton appears to be beholden is set forth in order to refute it (typically enough the refutation itself is controversial).

'““The Syntax/Semantics Interface in Categorial Grammar,” p. 89.

52

the type-logical variant of categorial grammar, a semantic representation is built compositionally in parallel to the categorial inference.”" Wagner’s tonal practice assigns model-theoretic interpretations to musical surface expressions and recursively specifies their semantic well-formedness against the prior well-formedness ofcertain tonal-grammatical expressions (keys) (e.g., Ex. 2.14, discussed below). The role of inference in categorial grammar theory coheres with Wagner’s “House Laws of Affinity,” describe in Opera and Drama as a prelinguistic emotional categorization

strategy responsible for our felt convictions concerning sameness and difference. His compositional practice bears out his theory, powering an empirically categorialgrammatical use of intelligibility rules to painstakingly construct simultaneously composed syntactical and semantical structures. It is this method that is ultimately responsible for the emergence of a full-fledged TL syntax-semantics interface. This leads to the relation of sound to meaning. Donald F. Tovey once remark ed that “the art of music had not attained to the simplest scheme for dealing with discords before it traversed the acoustic criterion in every direction. It became a language in which sense dictated what should be accepted in sound.”'^ Consider this humdrum organ chorale as a typical example;

Let us ask the question, “What do these notes sound likeT’ Western music theory assumes that they will sound like music in keys, and the notations with which Ex. 2.2 is festooned amount to a set of claims that we hear both the sounds (the surface) and an added semantical factor: what the tones mean. Such meanings are not given in perception but are matters of interpretive contention and identical pitch sets are thus often argued to mean one thing or another. The relations between “sonorous surface,” “syntax,” and “key,” answer to the relation ofHarris’ “(symbolic) sound to meaning,”

"Ibid. "The Forms ofMusic, p. 46.

53

hparing in mind the richness of connotation with which linguistics endows the term. In both compositional and analytical acts surface sonorities are assigned modeltheoretical interpretations as a function of the meanings of their parts. Given that Schenkerian, roman, or other graphs constitute not arguments or proofs but claims that must be argued, a highly truncated argument about this chorale might read:

*

In bar 1' the three tones, g, are tonic T in scale g, which is never heard at any one time but inferred from what is heard. Scale connotes the presence of the even more abstract entity the Key, G minor, which is never heard at any time as such but is both artifact and intelligibility condition of the meanings of the parts. Pachelbel asks us to agree that the note that follows,/ff is the leading-tone (^degree 7) of the G minor scale and key. Three companion c/-tones claim to collectively assert the abstract dominant (5) scale degree of the key. Roman numerals step in to support Pachelbel’s argument that d zxidf^ have become elements in an abstract triad, a dingus that does not exist as an object but only as a relationship, and thus a mental entity that cannot be true or intelligible unless everything that proceeded it and more is likewise true and intelligible. This triad gets a name—g: F—but no, in bar 2 a rogue tone now claims to be 7, which iftrue obliges the preceding 5 to relinquish its dominant status and be content to claim 1 {5=1) and thereby claim a new abstract key, D minor. This identity theft forces the last dollop of d to change its meaning in mid tone. Thus 5=1 claims that meaning is not the same thing as tone but asserts sovereign power over how it is heard.

And a more abstract way of arguing this, using the standard notation that may well become over-familiar before we are done, would look so:

1

1

1

7

3=6

5

4 3 4 5 6 3

2

1

2 5=3

5

Ex. 2.2: “Ich hab’ mein Sach’ Gott heimgestellt” (with anchovies) This represents but a fraction of those elements directly assigned model-theoretic interpretations as functions of the assigned meanings of the parts. The complexity required to argue facts constituted by syntactical rules in ordinary musical phrases is well described by Leland Smith: “The graphing ofthese functional implications will not always present a simple picture. It will generally be simple or complex in relation

54

to the music it is representing___the simplest four-bar phrase in Mozart is made up of acoustical and psychological relationships that, if all were recounted, would stagger the mind.”'^ Some would say that xmless your unconscious music parser understands this and more, then you don’t understand what Pachelbel just said.And they would be right, else we couldn’t tell wrong notes from profundities. This preconscious understanding that we do not experience conditions our understanding of what we do experience, which is not audible tones but what they mean. The sonori ties received by the ear are far simpler than their syntax. To group the bracketed section of Ex; 2.1 not in terms of the meaning imputed to it by roman numerals but of the acoustical combination of pitches permits this claim (8' and 4' registration):

Ex. 2.3: “Heimgestellt” again, by the sound of it The difference between the sounds heard and the meanings imposed upon them by grammar is dramatic. Pachelbel seems to provides two consecutive augmented triads: surely a progression of considerable audacity. But then was Pachelbel really all that audacious? How many persons hear augmented triads, though this imputed meaning is simpler to describe than the former? I should say not even Pachelbel noticed that he had used augmented sonorities. TL grammar conditioning had predetermined the way he and his congregation must interpret these elements as unconsciously as they had picked up their native tongues. The magic wand of the grammatical Gandalf had charmed alternative possibilities to sleep. Enter, Guest, the world ofroman numerals. Constant permutations of meaning as tones pass the one to the other are the stuff of grammar, the precondition for being able to say anything whether clever or not. Nor do audiences take such combinations to be clever. They only take them as

'^A Handbook ofHarmonic Analysis, p. 7. Which is not accidentally also true of NL. '*The idea of a preconscious linguistic parser of some kind is a necessary assun^tion if the cognitive characteristics of both natural languages and tonal language are to make sense. Ray Jackendoff discusses the musical parser in “Musical parsing and musical affect.” Music Perception 9 (1991), pgs. 199-230.

55

intelligible. Anything more is gravy—or grace. They only sound complicated when translated from TL into NL descriptive categories, but then so does NL itself. Here is an-example from Siegfried in which Pachelbel’s nontriadic arpeggiated d-b b-fft pifches sound exactly like the augmented arpeggiated triads that they now are:

Ex. 2.4: Siegfried stokes the bellows (Lexeme #1671) Wagner’s d-fft-b h only sound like a “triad” because his syntax prepares and re solves it so as to exclude other meanings. Whereas Pachelbel’s excludes this meaning not least by denying that there is anything to resolve while at the same time diligently resolving every other intelligible tonal relationship in sight. For comparison here are some bona fide parallel augmented sonorities from Gotterdammerung:

4 'i

i

Ex. 2.5: Norn “Chords” without syntax If these look like Pachelbel’s non-chordal sonorities it is because they are. How then do they become “chords”? Simple. Here is the constituting syntax: BRUNNH.

j Du

A

,

,

I

-

list - i - ger Held, sieh'

^

0 '*1 -d:viix7 o7

wie du lug'st!

wie

aufdein

■_ _ _ _ _ C3

,

7—

«i.

1

^

itJ .

hJ 1 c:vix7

Tj. 1— IIji,,,)

—

“ iix7

V7=d:IV7 c.p.t.

vix7

c.p.t. viio7// c;vix7

l Z_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I CI I- - - - —- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' [M7a7(d=lamishedherol| |[c=sword(ersatz)]| I]d=tamishedhei^

'- - - - - - - -

56

Ex. 2.6: Norn “Chords” with syntax Briinnhilde has just cadenced on an orthodox C:A6-V7 to accuse Siegfried of being a dirty rotten liar. The pitch-set is marked as a£;I+ tonic with an augmented fifth (a h forg) in first inversion (e in bass). This being so. Jackendoff and LerdahTs “prefer ence rules”'® lever the ensuing pitch %t\g-djt-b to fimction as an augmented C Major dominant, d^-iot-d

Wagner gives us some bars of orthodox C Major to confirm

the syntax we almost think we’ve heard. As part of that confirmation, at the word “Scharfe” he deconstructs the augmented C chord into its unaugmented tonic v^ant (*) by means of the “Sword motif,” which forces the rogue a ^ to resolve as if it were an appogiatura onto g ^ as if Siegfned were anxious to straighten everything out by reference to a heroism which as [d=tamished hero] he cannot claim to own. The syntax is almost 100% preference rule-driven, constituting I-V chords because these are set up to do so, nothing contradicts the reading, and they resolve as if they were. And so they are by constitutive fiat, “X counts as y in context C.” To show that they need not be taken for £;I-V but will sound like whatever their syntax tells us they do let us look at the same pitch set, same inversions, as they occur only a few bars later, but in a different syntactical context, thus:

'^Discussed in A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, p. 9. In “Musical Parsing and Musical Affect,” p. 209n, Jackendoif further describes the preference rule through which the presumed cognitive music parser assigns provisional functions to simultaneously sounding pitches: “The limiting case of underdeteimination of key is when the musical surface contains only a single pitch or at best a single triad. As suggested by Butler (1989), this pitch or triad is by default taken to determine the most likely tonic; a slightly mote general form ofthis observation appears in Longuet-Higgen’s ‘tonicdominant preference rule. ’ This default rule is motivated by the fact that pieces conventionally begin on the tonic or with a tonic triad." (Jackendoff refers to Longuet-Higgins, Mental Processes: Studies in Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 1987, and D. Butler, “Describing the perception of tonality in music: A critique of the tonal hierarchy theory and a proposal for a theory of intervallic rivalry,” Music Perception 1989,6(3), 219-42.)

57

Ex. 2.7-. Norn “Chords” with different syntax

58

Here Brunnhilde has not only called Siegfried a dirty rat but spelled out exactly why. In righteous indignation Gunther’s vassals crowd together shouting angrily—on the same pitches which have just spelled C Major. Here however they spell A b Major'® and for exactly the same reason: They are preceded by the Valkyrie’s formal Ab:I-V half-cadence, which forces the e Ij-a b-c triumvirate now to spell “Ab:I-V” 'msecond inversion. Since these are the same pitches as before, their new functions force e ^ to play the role of a misspelled /b CAb: b 6) while the same modal ambiguity as before afflicts the new “key.” Again, this is a combination of well-formedness and preference rales working together. Well-formedness requires that the I-V pattern be completed by‘T’, which is also the advice of the preference rales.'^ Syntax has thereby bound these pitches c-e Ij-a ^into an augmented chord syntactically forced into the roles of successive C+ “Major” and A b+“Major” tonics and generating keys Q—^Ai.—X. These keys are therefore built upon two of the augmented triad tones in question, the other being c

We therefore predict that the

next key will be E “Major.” Indeed this happens on cue. Now the women chime in with two cents worth of indignation, in E Major, which Wagner has associated with importunate women since Das Rheingold, scene ii (e.g., #200ff)\

“A semantic entailment of Briinnhilde’s Ab Major lexeme is that she is peisoniiied Virtue talking. This follows from the generic usage rAb=heavenlv virtues], as when she describes her exit from Walhall as a holy thing (#2427), or when Loge ducks into the enharmonic to protest his sincerity (#163). She is therefore posturing as an unimpeachable witness. An entailment of her C Major lexeme is, of course, that what Lady Virtue has to reveal is a blinding revelation. '’The alternative reading, that the “Wie? Brach er die..." chord might frmction as a “deceptive cadence” in which e i functions as a root for a VI+ chord, is arguable, though a weaker “preference.” This is because secondary enforcers step in to lever the first preference: for instance the soprano a h-to-g 4 patterns, standard for instance in baroque or classical I-V progressions, in which they mean “l"-to-“7.”

59 GUNTH.

I #3293ab fbl> =Gunlher shamed] |

Ex. 2.8: The women cry out, and Gunther feels shamed and Wagner expects us to remember this now. Note how (#3293) the “last straw” E Major, which lexicalizes the women before whom an honor society chieftain like

60

Gunther would rather die than look small, impels the machismo B b Gunther (from FBb=Mars.

cf]) to cringe into his two minor keys of G minor and B b

minor—typical

tonal triangulation that unambiguously fingers the B b Tonal Householder. The two minor keys used in conjunction index the greatest possible density of psychological shame (for which see, e.g.. Chapter Six):

G minor (B b :vi1

IB b=GUNTHER ©]

B ^ Minor (Bb:i1

Tonal Triangulation: Gunther fingered as a coward The snippet ofWagner’s syntax-semantics interface derives its additional syntactical meaning through the tritonal tonal opposition between E Major female witnesses and B b Major cowardice exposed, a syntax which places the exposed king at the greatest possible emotional distance from his sister’s appalled ladies-in-waiting. Let me sum up what these augmented sonorities from Pachelbel through

Gdtterddmmerung permit us to generalize about Wagner and rules, particularly with reference to Searle’s notion of “constitutive rules,” that is, rules that institutionalize the facts that we often mistake for elementary givens. Nothing that I have presented so far is intelligible or even expressible unless Wagner is pulling Gdtterddmmerung by means of our tired old draught horse, strict linear harmonic (otherwise known as “roman numeral”) syntax. This is the analysis taught in first and second year harmony classes and promptly forgotten. It depends on rigorous observance of the principle that key is created and articulated by means of intelligible scale degree alterations. These rules articulate what Opera and Drama calls the “House Laws ofTonal Affinity,” in which leading tones reach out to connect with nearly or more distantly related keys according to the “necessary law of Love.”'* Even “backgrormd keys” obey the law of Affinity that regulates the surface. The power of grammatical rules to cobble augmented sonorities into chords and force any such chord to function as multiple tonics or keys validates Tovey’s description of tonal music as a “language in which sense dictates what is to be accepted in sound.” Such considerations reveal

key to be a unit ofsemantic meaning which, via “constitutive rules,” exists as a “fact” only by the grace of grammar. Absent these grammatical rules there is no “key” and nothing other than arbitrary declaration can conjure it into being. Meanwhile we are left with Wagner’s

'‘Opera and Drama, p. 291.

61

caveat that “these laws of hjumonic sequence... allow the most varied choice from amid the kingdom of harmonic families... they demand, however, before all a strict observance of the house-laws of affinity of the family once chosen, and a faithful tarrying with it, for the sake of a happy end.” That end is intelligibility. Let us now turn aside for a brief but educational excursion down the alley of an alternate form of musical analysis, in which the notion of “constitutive rules” has apparently never taken hold and which therefore depend for their explanations not on grammar but Gandalf

III.

Wagner Never Heard of Schenker Beginning in the 1980s a curious fad emerged in Wagner studies. The theories

ofHeinrich Schenker were essayed in efforts to explain how Wagner’s compositional practices really worked, in contrast to the mistaken way in which the composer had told us that they actually worked. Unlike linear harmonic analysis, Schenkerism collapses when applied to this music. Nor should this surprise, since Schenker himself thought that on account of its failing to validate his own opinions this was not real music. Thus I must discuss Schenker methods to show how their use wreaks havoc with Wagner’s empirical principles, practices, and meanings. The elevation of Schenker to arbiter of Wagner proceeded from analysts’ inability to understand Wagner’s theories; for instance, the cogmtive structure of Wagfrer’s lexical keys. Without a description of this structure and a falsifiable application theory scholars have been unable to identify the referents of Wagner’s lexical keys or describe theirbackground logic, which means that considerably fewer of these referents have been recognized than actually exist. This has left gaping theo retical holes that make Wagner theory resemble pre-Livingstone maps of equatorial Africa. Lexical Tonality is marginalized and scholars must seek alternative guides however imsatisfactory. Thus Patrick McCreless analyzes Siegfried under the rubric of “traditional or classical, tonic-dominant tonality as defined by Schenker,”’’ the very man who claimed that his theory showed Wagner to be a hack. Unbelievable. Again, consider McCreless’ analysis of the Gotterdammerung Vorspiel, particularly the question of identification of keys, without which Schenker analysis is empty. This analysis depend on a claim that it opens in E b minor. Thus, “Certain

'’Patrick McCreless, Wagner’s Siegfried, ygs. 88-9.

62

key areas play a role in articulating the time of the scene. Basically the scene turns on a shift from E b minor toward a B minor only hinted at in the final moments.”^ By arguing in this fashion McCreless represents this single claim as the most fundamental point of over three hundred bars of music, and he exhausts a good deal of his analysis in explaming how Wagner accomplishes the miracle of this “shift” fixjm the initial Eb minor to a grammatically undefined “hint” of B minor. The question of keys involves intelligibility rules. Given that keys are facts constituted by rales, and that the constitutive rales in question are grammatical rales, how does this claim hold up to simple linear harmonic analysis? What for instance happens to an opening E b ? Here are the first eight bars of the Vorspiel:

Ex. 2.9: GdtterdSmmerung Vorspiel And here a standard linear harmonic analysis of bar 1 to bar 28, at which E b minor “"Schenker and the Noms,” p. 282.

63

is confirmed by the orthodox V-I cadence: Eb minor

|eb(i)*

------------------------------—

ICb(Vl).....................................................................................................................

Ui!II I 1 V |1 V IIV I VIIVIV U VI VI 1 I '^^^56789 Eb minor

ieb(i)*

iii

I10 ii

HHiT II

------- ------------------------------------

|Cb(VI)................................................................................... ...

IsQiffl

______________

|ii iii & I ii vi

■7

13

| ii vi u

| jj 13

| jj 16

| jj; IT

n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | // sp; vijo7

|V 1 & I V I

II

&

^----------i;--------------

Eb minor

leb(i)*

//....................................

|Cb(VI) : Ig(iii/1)..........//

I

7*

..........................

................................................... _______________________ _______ _________________________ .

V '_____ S I iio7 viio7

IV

23

I

24

V

I V

23

|

26

V

|

V

I i

27-------------- M

etc.

Despite the signature the opening key is Cb Major, and it progresses through G minor to E b minor at bar 28. A great deal follows semantically from the linear key sequence, which is why it is important to get it right.

64

I #2S09ab [b^=Darkness / FlREfl

Ex. 2.10’. The Second and Third Norns (G minor and E b minor) Commencing at bar 18, the C b Major mediant (Cb.:iii) which has already served as a V substitute twice, is decomposed into a pivot chord leading to the G minor domin ant ninth. This chord resolves in classical form, V-I, not once but twice, making bars 18-20 as G minor as Mozart’s No. 40. From bars 21 on the key has modulated to E b minor, which is not the first but the third key of this Music Drama.

65

This in itself is not particularly interesting since it is the norm in Music Drama to advertise a key through its signature, commence with some related key, and circle back to it in a linear sweep. And indeed Beethoven had already opened his Symphony No. 1 in C Major by this same method:

Ex. 2.11: Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1 (1800), opening bars To open in a key other than that indicated by the signature was already orthodox syn tax back in 1800. So the mere fact is uninteresting. What is interesting is that the tonic sequence shown by real-time syntax [(CiL=B)-4(g)-4eiJ is the exact reverse of McCreless’ claim [eb-»BfCb)1. which means that one of these two analyses has slipped a clutch.^' This is remarkable since Schenker analysis stands or falls on its ability to locate keys. This removes the question from what this analysis might have told us about Wagner to this: By what method other than linear harmonic analysis could anyone ever have hoped to argue the existence of any key? Though here the flctive E b minor is simply assumed, it might have been argued, for instance on the grounds that in Siegfried an analogous E minor chord had arrived as atonic at the end of a dominant preparation and so it must be a tonic here. But this would be false, for that the E minor chord was in fact not only a tonic but also a dual—function pivot chord whose only relevant motivic syntax was not as tonic but as dominant substitute in a full cadence in C (C:iii(=Vs)—1}. And, since motivic logic as well as function is what Wagner offers here, it is heard as a dominant Ci dominant substitute here. Again, the key (not chord) of E b minor might have been claimed on the authority of the preference rule cited above, e.g., that all else being equal a lone triad will be

^'Notwithstanding, the analysis exhausts much of its substance on the obscure processes by means of which the shift is said to take place. Thus the “strange music for the Third Norn” sings in an idiom differs from that ofher sisters sufficiently to eamherthe epithet “the Third, chromatic-language Nom” and which “turns the tonal color ofeach round in new directions, and her music ultimately turns Ek minor toward B nunor.” {Ibid., p. 288.) She manages this by manipulating “a single, peculiar seventh chord, f-ab-cb-eb, the point around which the turn is made.” {Ibid.) On examination this ‘*peculiar” chord turns out to be an orthodox eb:iix7. standard since, well, Pachelbel.

66

heard as either a tonic (first preference) or dominant (second) and so it must be a tonic here. Here all else is not equal. We have heard this Vs—cadence before and shall hear it again with the same Vs—syntax, and there is no preordinate reason not to hear it as such now. Thus the second preference must prevail. Now the question of proper identification of keys is no abstract matter for a grammarian like myself who understands keys to be TL lexemes. It is vitally important to understanding semantical meanings that the composer is using TL to convey. Given that Wagner is using keys as words it makes a difference whether we’ve mastered first and second year harmony sufficiently to be able to tell C minor from A b Major (the present i—VI relation). For instance, if we can’t find the first three keys of this Vorspiel we won’t be able to find this: Cb A g

eb

“Three Noms” on duty at “spinning stations.” In other words, background tonality means this. This is the semantical level at which Wagner is talking to us in his lexical TL and it is both simple and cartographical in concept.The Circle ofFifths acts as a constitutive rule proj ecting linear key (=time) relations into virtual cartographic (=space) relations. This is where we go back to our previous musical examples Nos. 2.5-2.8 and notice that we have there the expansion of the augmented chord to an augmented key to an augmented tonality bound to gether by three implied tonics lying at the interval of a major third. Pretty complex syntax, but so what? The what is that these augmented chord relations have meant “Noms” since these first 28 bars of Vorspiel, which is the prototype of all the aug mented sonorities Wagner gives us for the next three Acts. Like all Wagner’s tonespirits the Sisters inhabit a geomantic tonal space defined by the Circle of Fifths, which they have trisected and at whose vertices they now sit at the ready, fateful spinnerets cocked and aimed at the world. Augmented chords projected into tonics signify background Nom activity, e.g., inescapable, tragic Fate. That’s all there is to it. There is nothing conceptually hard about any of this but if we cannot understand this about Wagner’s syntax, what can we understand? In such an event he’s been usjng tonal language to discourse to the deaf. And none

“For a full discussion ofthe cartographical entailments ofTL syntax see below, Chapter Six.

67

of this can even be described apart from detailed observance of Wagner’s infinitely precise linear harmonic grammar. The description is the grammar. If we replace this grammar with wooly Schenkerian approximations we have essentially erased the composer’s text and with it our ability to understand Wagner in his own terms. Even when correctly applied Schenker analysis obliterates hundreds of bars of lexical and syntactical evidence at a sweep. Appendix Id identifies ninety odd keys where McCreless identifies only eighteen, some nonexistent. Thus the fourth linear key above (bar 28) is C b minor. This is already confirms the “B minor only hinted at” hundreds of bars later and the opening 28 bars as a closed [Ci.-g-^-ci.(=b)] clause, and it therefore re-obviates the idea that Wagner devotes any composition ingenuity to turning from this C b -pre-encapsulated E b minor to a distant wisp of B minor at bar 304. There is no such turn in any stronger sense than that “Wagner often modulates.” The Norn scene thereby establishes ho-hum closure through the closed Cb(cbl-»b. a humdrum fact that needs no Schenker or even “directional tonality” to explain. Lexical tonality already explains it and a good deal more: for instance, that the opening Cb Major (#2506) means “nocturnal light” per #2366, AWAKENING, while C b minor (“ Was Licht leuchtet dort?”, #2509) is a default (MINOR IS WEAKER) minor key reference to the Norn’s failing second-sight, which is why this so-called know-all trance medium had to ask. It explains the use of B/b/C^ for sinister darkness wherever it appears in Das Rheingold, Die Walkiire, or Siegfried—or even

Tristan or Parsifal. These are long-distance compositional facts instituted by the syntax—semantics interface and far beyond the range of Schenker even to describe. Similarly, by using Schenker methods in isolation unverified by linear harmonic analysis, untonicized surface sonorities matriculate to keys in the face of counter-evidence that would annul similar elaims in any Beethoven analysis. Such nonexistent keys then become the sandy cornerstones for complex secondary claims such as this: ... the process involving the pitch E in the Noms’ Scene concerns a phenomenon central to Schenker’s theory: the expansion of a chromatic detail early in a piece and its fimctions at progressively higher structural levels. The Fb in measure 2 is the first chromatic pitch in Gdtterddmmermg. When we first hear the F b, it is merely a passing tone between E b and G b. But in measure 4, briefly, and at “Welch’ Licht leuchtet dort” (m. 28), it becomes the seventh of the dominant seventh of C b, and it is in this guise that it serves as the

68

harmonic preparation—^that is, a V of V—for the tonicization of E in the First Norn’s music of Round I (mm. 64-7). In both cases the F b is a dissonance; a passing tone in the first case, a seventh in the second. A further, complementary aspect of its growth involves its gradual acquisition of status as a consonance. The first instance of its consonant use is measure 10, where F b is the third of the D b minor triad; a second and more important instance occurs on the final word of “dammert der Tag schon auf?” (M. 31), where Fb becomes the root of a major triad. Having thus been a third and a root of foreground triads early in the piece, the next step for it is to be expanded to become the root of a triad that controls a large-scale tonal area, and that is precisely what happens when the F b, respelled as E, becomes the tonal center for the middle section of the First Norn’s music in Round I. This motion, up a semitone from E b to E, will set up the ascending tonicization in Round II, after the allusion to Eb between the first two rounds (mm. 190-5). The First Nom in Round n begins with the same F b triad as at measure 31 and then progresses through triads on F, F)}, and, eventually, G. In this way a single chromatic pitch, the first of the piece, serves as a clue to the tonal.structure of the entire (first) section... expansion of the pitch F b/E is, at the most fundamental level, Schenkerian, for it concerns the transferral of an element of the musical surface to higher levels.^ But we only need “clues” in the presence of puzzling facts, and none of the facts of interest are puzzling. This/^ passing tone would only be “chromatic” if the opening key were E b minor. Since this key is than an fl ^ in a

C

Cb

Major this /tone is no more chromatic

minor Bach prelude written with a two flat signature. It is an

orthodox diatonic scale degree 4, and the claim that “in measure 4, briefly, and at ‘Welch’ Licht leuchtet dort’ it becomes the seventh of the dominant seventh of Cb” thus loses its point. It was in

already, consonant not dissonant, and no orthodox

consonance merits further discussion. And so on up the stmctural levels: there was no more reason to dog this nondescript tone than it would be to hang Horace Townsend for the murder committed by John Robert Sommersby. Another of several phantasy keys appears in McCreless’ chart at “Round II, The Loge Narrative, mm. 195-247, First Nom,” which now depicts/^ (bar 195) as a tonic. This is what McCreless is talking about:

23ti

‘Schenker and the Noms,” p. 286.

69 2 NORN

Ex. 2.12: Garden variety Nornish syntax

70

No trace ofFi tonicization exists in the real music. No tonal path leads to a tonicized F b Major and no path leads out of it. Instead the same orthodox syntax that serves Pachelbel now forces the “Nom Chords” of Ex. 2.5 to spell IV+—1+ in C b Major. Thus the E b triad that cues dammert, oder, and Lohe refutes an Fb tonic: if this is the key ofFb then Schenker students will conectly identify the key of C Major by its constituting B Major triad. When the chords do pivot they do so not into F b Major but E b minor, whose orthodox chords and scale degrees dutifully surround it and whose lexical usage is consistent with the opening

and eb.. These are typical

“facts constituted by rules,” artifacts of the invariant syntactical (roman numeral) rules applied through-out this book to the entire tonal body of the Ring. On the other hand, since the attribution of tonicity to this chord is central to McCreless’ proffered graph and the discussions based on it, they fall together. Again it will not do to generalize the moment as an allusion tofbz&z. chord or a key, as McCreless does with e b (e.g., “allusions to both modes ofE b, as key and chord, weave in and out of the texture.”)^'* The absence of syntactical specification as to what constitutes an “allusion” to a chord or a key rather than its literal presence renders the term meaningless, while failure to properly interpret theJunction of such a chord means that Schenker’s notion of a chromatic detail being raised to a higher structural levels remains essentially undiscussed. Though even as Schenkerism this analysis collapses at once, it presents the opportunity to ask if Schenker’s general explanation of the significance of early chromatic details is necessary at all. The fact that isolated chromatic tones often find themselves passed on up the hierarchy is uninteresting unless it means what Schenker says it means, e.g., that it offers evidence for some all-constituting Ursatz. But such occurrences can easily be explained by generic and thus extra-musical sorting logic of the type that decrees that randomly distributed bits of gravel will eventually end at the sides of the road. In any musical piece there are fewer keys than chords, tonic than non-tonic chords, non-scale tones than scale-tones. Any random tone will thus find fewer slots

^Ibid., p. 282. So too with respect to the earlier “hint ofB minor”; ifgrammar is hinting then it cannot be articulating a given key, otherwise it would simply be the key in question. The question ofwhat ifnot grammar technically constitutes a “hint” remains undiscussed. And if grammar can’t do the job, what else can? Is grammar working side-by-side some other principle? This is the language to which one must revert in the absence of linguistic explanations.

71

to occupy at each ascending level. Generic sorting logic dictates that as the harmonic mixture increases in complexity a dissonance is bound to convert to consonance. It is also no surprise that dissonances pop up in generic chords before tonics. What is surprising is that Schenkerism has been accepted without concern for readily avail able alternate explanations, the existence of which make it impossible to show that simple facts mean what Schenker says they mean. Such things would go on anyway whether the target tone was structurally important or not. To test this, consider the first actual chromatic tone of this piece. It is not McCreless’ diatonic/^ but the a ! of bar 18 that transforms the Ci:iii chord to the g;viio7 with fe ^ a resolved suspension that immediately pivots to the g:V9. Every tone before this one is completely diatonic and, unlike McCreless misidentified diatonic/^, this tone actually sounds chromatic.^’ What is the fate of this a 111 It doesn’t take it long to tread the cursus honorum instituted by crass sorting logic. Saving begun its career as an humble altered chromatic chord tone it recurs (bar 31) as an internal part of a neighbor-motion attendant chord to the M:VI; then (bar 32) as*the root of a neighbor-motion attendant chord to the A^:!. It is duly promoted to root position E;IV triad (bar 69) and finally to tonic A;I at bar 74. It acquires its own signature at bar 225Since this nobodyfb does the same thing as our somebody a What does all this admirable “lawfulness” imply with respect to Schenker principles? Nothing whatsoever. It is the logically predictable artifact of tagging and sorting any arbitrary invariant tone within a context ofongoing and cumulative tonal complexity. Having begun as lowly chromatic water-boys, our two intrepid little tones have nowhere to go but up to team captains. Thus our need for Schenker to explain this evaporates. As in most cases where profound Schenkerian explanations are offered, here a humdrum but relevant alternative readily presents itself. Let us therefore consider some broader theoretical implications ofthe power

“Should a true chromatic passing tone be required in bar 2, singly erase Wagner’s b at the /, leaving the unalteredf^, and listen up. That's what “chromatic means. “This tone is constitutive ofthe “Annunciation ofDeath” motifto be discussed presently (Ex. 2.13). A tally interesting but completely unSchenkerian quality of the resolution of the 6 A to the a # in bar 18 is that it resolves to a viio7, that is, to a dissonance, which makes the immediately preceding consonant b b sound dissonant, even though it is the paradigmatically consonant fifth degree of what had a moment before been an equally consonant minor triad. This is our “Pachelbel factor” again: it is not how an acoustical entity literally sounds but what it a syntactical entity means that determines its perceived consonance or dissonance.

72

of syntax to command the sense in which a surface sonority is heard. According to Nicholas Cook Schenker’s theory is generally justified insofar as it explains why music sounds the way it does in a stronger sense than may be captured by mere linear harmonic analysis. Thus the question this theory attempts to answer is this: .... no Roman-letter analysis can adequately explain the sense one has in listening to the music that there’s a continuous and measured harmonic evolution through the piece. By this I mean that each chord does not seem to depend just on the previous chord (which is the maximiun range of traditional contrapuntal theory), nor even on the previous ^oup of chords (as in a hierarchical Roman-letter analysis); instead it is experienced as a part of a larger motion towards some future harmonic goal.” This sounds like is the source of Cook’s lexicon of sense and evolution and seem and experience and goal. If Schenker cannot answer this question he is not doing his job. Let us now ask what Schenker offers with respect to Bunnhilde’s compositional moment and myriad others like it, all of them commanded by precise micro-tuning of syntax operating within single bars or even single beats and in which orthodox syntax is empowered to repress or enhance sonorities and predetemine how sense dictates what we may accept in sound? He has nothing to say about this. He can only provide a single question-begging answer: How does composition A"create the effect of leading to a final cadence, simultaneously and tautologically defined as both a datum and an axiomatic assumption? The question begged is that of “unity” and cadential teleology the answer is that the unitary impression we receive is nothing other than cadential teleology. But if keys may sound infinitely varied according to micro-syntax then the composers of interest to Schenker are producing unity simply by repressing most senses in which syntactically well-formed keys may be heard. They are choosing to produce a stereotyped effect by limiting their syntax much as a poet intentionally limits his syntax by various metrical, rhyming, and line-length filters to generate sentences like “he clasps the crag with crooked hands close to the sun in lonely lands.” There is nothing essential to English syntax that forces that to cadence onto “lands.” The poet has simply filtered out any intelligible element that won’t cadence onto “lands.” Similarly stereotyped musical periods self-limit to restrict the range oftonal intelligi-

Guide to Musical Analysis, pgs. 28-9.

73

bility, for instance, by politely choosing not to say what Brilnnhilde just said about Siegfried.^* Schenker thus does not begin to address the full range of TL intelligible syntax. This is why in dismissing Wagner he dismisses Western musical intelligi bility as a whole and with it, all hope of representing himself as general theoretician. This is also why Wagner, who possesses a more general theory of TL intelligibility and a compositional technique to make it real, can employ intelligible key with Ifexical consistency without being bound t o a narrow range of sonorous surface expressive possibilities. His syntax-semantics interface obliges sonority to shoulder much of the expressive burden once delegated to key-shackled melody, thus freeing the composer to retain an unbroken chain of extra-musical lexical referents while surface expression discourses upon them. Micro-roman numeral syntax, operating on Wagner’s minute scale of modulation (and of everything else)—commands what we hear, making us deaf to this sonority or painfully aware of that, or making some innocuous triad impress us like a party-crashing boor or a grotesque dissonance appear to be no more than just the polite sort of thing that proper persons say. How then do Schenkerians justify their system to those not already con vinced? Their argument is simple: they refuse to argue. And in so doing the theorist’s disciples have censored their master’s capacity to justify to the non-believer why his system should be considered either culturally or artistically relevant. Robert Snarrenbefg has discussed the American jettisoning of the conceptual superstructure that motivates Schenker’s methods, analyzing the systematic censorship that attended the Eilglish translation of the master’s works.^’ The practice licenses expunging every cultural context from any analytical act and thus, since “lexicon is culture” (Chapter Four, below), all possibility that a genuinely linguistic model of tonality can find Schenkerism relevant in its own terms. Thus culture, psychology, aesthetics, and every other extramusical context, are rigorously expunged from Alan Forte’s and Steven E. Gilbert’s classic work. The authors mock argument itselfas apology, thus:

“Or to allow Wagner to put the matter with his customary restraint and tact: “To be able in these conventional forms so to toy with Music’s stupendous powers that her own peculiar function, the making known the iimer essence of all things, should be avoided like a deluge, for long was deemed by aesthetes the true and only acceptable issue of maturing the art of Tone.” (“Beethoven”, P-78). “See “Competing Myths: the American Abandonment of Schenker’s Organicism.”

74

“Now that Schenker’s ideas have been quite broadly disseminated, especially in the United States, and his concepts have gained wide acceptance, it is not necessary to offer an apologia for them.” Forte’s marketing logic is satisfied when the ad campaign has sold the product to consumers. What replaces argument is claim: “Suffice it to say that many musicians have discovered that Schenkerian principles, correctly applied, yield musical, insights not obtainable from other methods of analysis.”^® Yet Eugene Narmour’s equally classic work^' gives good reasons why argument is necessary, and its absence suggests why Schenker charts collapse back into roman numeral functions that cannot be taken as axiomatic. It is thus unsurprising that Wagner scholars who attempt to use Schenker soon find themselves lost in the woods. They have received no warning that Schenkerism cannot describe the full range ofwhat constitutes syntactically well- formed keys. In fact, Schenker methods as such cannot even define what constitutes a well-formed key. And since no one argues in Schenkerland no one considers it important to verify the existence of Wagner’s keys by other than Schenkerian declarations. Yet keys must be verified by other than Schenker claims since Schenkerism, which purports to be a rational system, cannot self-validate its primary data.

IV.

The “House Laws of Affinity” We thus fall back on Wagner’s warning to observe the minutiae of the “tonal

house laws of affinity”—good old roman numeral syntactical analysis—lest we mis understand what the composer is talking about. Wagner’s common but impeccable syntax can command keys or chords as semantic meanings while denying them as sounds, or conjure key- or chord-like objects as sounds while evaporating them as meanings. Another simple analysis will help clarify the standard linear harmonic means by which Wagner regulates surface by means of orthodox, Pachelbelapproved syntax. This one from Gdtterddmmerung, Act I shows the strange surface sonorities that Wagner can generate by the use of syntax similar to that by which Mozart or even Salieri articulate their precious andante cantabiles. This is the “magic potion” motive (Lexeme #2722): ^Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis, p. 2 and Ibid., next line. ^'Beyond Schenkerism, particularly Chapter Two. This penetrating critique of the logical basis of Schenkerism remains unreferenced in either McCreless ’s or Darcy’s own Schenkerian studies.

75

Ex. 2.13: A bad drink The hannonic bogie here is the weird C minor-sounding thing that squats on the first beat ofbar 3 and repeats itself at the same place in bar 4. One is tempted to claim the rogue sonority to be an ersatz Neapolitan second in B minor, which would yield a C Major chord (orthodox b: b IT) with a.dff chromatic non-chord grace note cunningly placed so as to deceive us into hearing “C minor” {dff=e h). But this runs into the difficulty that by the time the rf/ has resolved to e ^ its parallel c ^ has moved ivith it to c(t, thereby denying a b; bn. But there is a simpler answer: the c ^ is a mis spelled b(f chromatic grace note in parallel with its dff companion. Both are non chord tones and both resolve in orthodox fashion to c / and e ^ respectively, leaving us with only the b:iix7 in both bars. For clarification I respell the tone in bar 4 (*).^^ An even more instructive example ofhow strict and orthodox syntax concocts expressive, semantically relevant sonorities marks the beginmng ofDie Walkure, Act n,

scene iv. Every Wagner lover knows this chord and its associated motif; often

referred to as the Annunciation of Death, it is perhaps the loneliest moment ever penned by a compositional hand. Merely to hear it strikes desolation into the soul. But it is produced by the same syntactical logic through which Pachelbel sequesters his parallel augmented sonorities behind seven veils of semantical meaning:

“In general flie misspelling of pivot tones is inevitable because any such tone serves two functions and you can’t spell them both. Wagner does the same thing in the very same bar, beat 3, V^ere the tenor/if is clearly a misspelled chromatic e tt passing tone resolving upward to the requited ftt. Why would Wagner feel indifferent to good spelling here and not there? The functional difference is between chord-tones and chromatic passing tones. The former must be spelled correctly, for in stance, the student writing an F minor triad as/-g/^-c would flunk basic concept. But neither gracenotes or chromatic passing-tone ate strictly functional and may therefore be spelled anyhow. Thus this example is even simpler than the desolated singleton of Siegmund’s dissolving “D minor” chord {Ex. 2.14) for the effect is acconqtlished as it is through orthodox chromatic grace notes and passing tones Slat resolve in orthodox fashion that obviate any need for a change of key.

76

I itlOI9ab [d^=Siegmund (in Tableau)]!

| »1020 [Bk=Spring (Dying)]|

**---------------------- 1

K--F—......... T^"pp_____

------------

------------------ 1---------- _1----------1----------- Ip—

PPP

__

... ........z-----J

l

\#102I [s=darkeningshadows]!

I #1022 [i^Hcavenly M^enger])

Ex. 2.14: Annunciation of death Marshall Tuttle has convincingly explained why this sonority sounds as empty as it does. It is one of the clearest examples of a structure which sounds like a chord from a foreign key, but is not. The motive seems to be made up ofthe chord D minor resolving to a dominant seventh chord in F }i minor, a progression not possible in any key. [The ersatz D minor chord appears suddenly after a repeated iv-V progression in E minor, so that its initial appearance is already disorienting. Resolution to F}t:V renders it non-functional]. At least one of the notes in the progression must be a non-chord tone. Examination shows that the third of the seeming D minor chord is not F natural but E sharp. Since chords must be built in thirds, “D minor” is not functionally a chord here at all, and the notes D and A are treated as non-chord tones. D minor forsakes its own “house laws” in favor of those of the Valkyrie’s F}t

77

minor.” Just so: and since a lexical meaning of D minor is “Siegmund” [d=Siegmimd], who noW lies at dissolution’s door, Wagner reaches into the doomed hero’s heart, transforming it to a leading-tone that resolves itself into the Death Messenger’s receiving tonic key while its now irrelevant meaning dissolves away to nothing. The extraordinary expressiveness ofthis example is only possible because of Wagner’s impeccably conservative command of the constitutive rules of his tonal syntaxl. Tuttle’s syntactically correct identification of the non-functionality of Siegmund’s ersatz D minor “triad” offers an instructive example of the standard appli cation of NL categorial grammar theory to Wagner’s TL. Per the compositional strategy that Jacobson describes as maintaining the syntax—semantics interface,

syntax assigns a present {absence offunction) to the semantic entry [d=SffiGMUND], thereby composing the model-theoretic Tneamng-, * {functionless [hero]}. Assigned to the extramusical entry Siegmund his syntactical functionlessness is heard as such on the level of expression (surface sonority). This categorial grammar—style pro cedure is the source of the emptiness of this “compositional moment,”-that is, of our conviction that although Siegmund still appears to be alive, he is a “dead man walk ing.” Again, it is noteworthy that the Annunciation non-chord shares Pachelbel’s common syntax to achieve an effect precisely the opposite to that of Ex. 2.3. Where Pachelbel syntactically represses our awareness of the augmented sonority by splittingtts meaning into I—V segments, Wagner’s syntactically forces our awareness of a meaningless sonority that resolves itself out of existence. This cognitive split between what things sound like to the ear and what they mean to the brain is crucial to the aesthetic qualities not merely of Wagner’s but of all tonal music. These are precisely the syntactical rules that permit Pachelbel to bandy augmented sonorities about unremarked and unpunished. It is because these rules permit Pachelbel to get away with the things he does that Wagner gets away with even more outrageous—because fanatically backward-looking

amoves under

'^Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera, p. 40 and [40n]. Tuttle’s sensitive and nuanced linear-harmonic analysis of this “Annunciation of Death motif may be contrasted with Grey s quotation of the same material, which is innocent of any linear harmonic concepts or analysis and thus has nothing to say about this ersatz chord’s structure, lexical significance, or effect {Wagner's Musical Prose, pgs. 232-4; example quoted onp. 233.) A slight correction to Tuttle’s analysis reflected in.Ex. 2.13 is that the only non-chord tone here is the e/f. The a # is a pivot e;4=fl;3 while ffied^ is a noncadential e:7=£i:6. The e cannot be a misspelled e: k 2 since chords must be built on thirds.

78

the canard, “Music of the Future.” This example again underscores the extremely long-distance semantic though not structural means by which Wagner composes unity into his scores. The lexemes that compose Siegmund’s doom {§1019, §1020, and §1021) communicate with lex emes that predict this moment back in Act 1.1 refer to Siegmund’s B b Spring Song

{§701 etc.). Lexeme §1021 (E minor) likewise communicates with the predictive E minor §673, “Nachtiges Dunkel deckt mir das Auge.” The keys of B b Major and E minor articulate the oppositional tritone, one ofWagner’s most pervasive syntactical indices of opposition or negation: Siegmund is the dying promise of Spring (B b Major-+B b minor. Spring Equinox), around which an untimely Fall (E minor. Fall Season) has descended. Turning from Siegfried to Amfortas, from one D minor heroic failure to another, allows us to note the continuity of common practice syntax from the Ring into Parsifal and to observe how even its most radical-seeming moments are rendered intelligible by rigid adherence to syntactical logic used even by Pachelbel:

---------------------.................. r

Ha!

Scho fuhl' ich den

Tod______ mich

Ex, 2.15: Amfortas can’t take it anymore

--

¥...........................

urn -

-■

79

As ifi previous examples we see Wagner employ constitutive grammar to thmst a nonsyntactical surface sonority into a prominence predetermined by its previously comi)osed lexical significance. Thus as poor Amfortas reaches the snapping point he tenders the latest in a long line of painful augmented sonorities, painstakingly connected in linear real time with the wound that will never close. This works because the effect derives from a normal triad that has been unnaUirally wedged “open” from a major third-plus-minor third to a major third-plus-major third. This sonority therefore does a good deal of the bleeding that we find throughout Parsifal. and so it is not surprising that Amfortas relies on it to bleat for him now. Here however the augmented “triad” is a syntactical fake. Before surmising

why let us consider how. In bar 2 (“Nicht mehr!”) Amfortas mimics the orchestra’s g ft—e I major third drop by yelping out a copycat e ^—c t) drop. This distributes the melodic tones glt—e k—c j across the bar, which an octave orchestral whirlwind fools the ear into hearing as one big augmented triad. But it is syntactically nothing of the kind, for the octave continuation has hastened on to resolve its own e If not to c I but to c It. Thus by the time Amfortas lands on his mewling c ^ it has already been enharmonically redefined as the leading tone of C{t minor. This brackets the first three beats of the bar as an orthodox C)1 minor half-cadence whose dominant V chord is outlined via the c

tf)—b Ij—b b— a If—g jt. This completes the key s

constituting scale degrees before segueing into a new and collapsing iteration in C minor. Here the sheer speed of syntactical resolution passes the ear by as it clings to the augmented sonority as if it were still chordal—the precise opposite of how the syntactical parser hears the Pachelbel organ chorale. Why should Amfortas try to convince us that he is augmented (=“in pain”) when the syntax denies that there is still a problem? We are at the tail end of the grail king’s long prayer to his CtJ major/minor father to invoke the D Major Savior to mercifully permit the son’s agony to come to an end. Amfortas clings to his augmented sonority as if it were a valuable possession—^his justification for begging his knights to kill him. But Parsifal [D=hero], who has mingled unseen among the knights, already grasps the G b instrument [G b =spear] of A Major [=purity] healing. The Ctt minor father has already facilitated the miracle of providing a D Major savior as requested. But Amfortas does not notice this resolution (read: “the answer to his prayer”) in his anxiety to generate ever more self-justifying augmented sonorities, the badges of his worthiness to die.

80

This example also offers another opportunity to mark Wagner’s syntactical orthodoxy. Ireferto the curious-seeming—a—b b(=afi)—c(-bft)—dft—e—

eft—g ^—gff scale over a sustained viio7 chord, c^-e-g-b b{=^ajf). The d:viio7 is keyed to the grail knights’ imperative “du musstV’ demanding that the wounded grail king [d=afflicted hero] fulfill his office. The

b b, and c/ tones are anchored to

the viio7 chord, marking them as scale' degrees, which thus marks g^ as the chromatic passing tone and a

as the D minor dominant tone. Were this scale to

persist it would confirm the key ofD minor via its determinate leading tone-to-tonic c tf—d. But it is a modulating scale: d: viio7 drops out midway to unshackle Amfortas for his despairing leap fi:om his couch to deliver his refusal word “Nein!” This coincides with the continuation a—b b/a (t—b ft—c ft—d d—e—fd—g —g d- D minor key confirmation is the last thing on Wagner’s mind here because from this moment Amfortas abdicates his office, leaving the kingdom without a king for the twenty bars between this moment and the heroic D Major flourishes signaling Parsifal’s triumphant return ofthe spear to the assembled brotherhood ofknights. The D Major

Heldentum has been restored by the abdication of the D minor Amfortas. Syntactically then, Amfortas jumps from his nonviable “failed hero” D minor straight into the C

minor arms of his father Titurel in heaven, whom he has been

invoking in D b Major throughout his preceding prayer. To accomplish this he has enharmonically altered his d tone to

in mid-hop, permitting Fctf^hope for heaven

(Db~)] to emerge as lexically required. Again the meaning of this key has been carefully prepared in the preceding prayer as Wagner’s standard rPb=heaven. zenith], with this iteration keyed to Titurel the father, looking down from directly above. This is Wagner’s standard “altitude” key and we are going to see a lot of it throughout this book, always with the same semantical meaning. From this point [d=defimct hero] has had its day in the Grail Kingdom. Yet even Wagner’s outer limit of compression ofkeys by altering an upward moving key-constitutive scale against a pedal chord has a history, for Pachelbel yet again does the same in his chorale partita “Treue Gott, ich muss dir klagen,” second variation, in which a modulating scale, c—d—e—f l—g—a—b—c—d—e—fd—g, redefines a C major chord held against it from G:IV to C:I and back again in a single bar via the chromatic scale degree alterationfl-to-fd- The last iteration of this triple flip-flop G-C-G is accomplished within the compass of the final //^eighth-note in the bar—actually faster than Amfortas’ D minor-to-C }t minor leap.

81

VJ' ^

r

1

■—

LtJJ

1=V______ I=iv

V

‘

r

r

IV_ viixT. 1

Ex. 2.16: “Treue Gott, ich muss dir klagen”, Variatio 2 (Pachelbel) The syntactical conservatism that supports Wagner’s surface radicalism is, as always,

striking The only difference between the two scales—and this is inessential to their syntactical function—is that Wagner’s is built on a viio7 pedal that drops out, where Pachelbel’s is built on a soprano and alto minor third pedal that changes function twice. Here Pachelbel employs in naked form the modulation-is- scale degree alteration assumption described in Opera and Drama and taken to a logical but still intelligible extreme in om Parsifal example. Yet both are governed by the same orthodox syntactical rule-boundedness. This is Wagner’s “a strict observance of the house-laws of affinity of the family once chosep, and a faithfiil tarrying with it, for sake of a happy end.” Without such consistent syntactical orthodoxy it would be impossible to identify the ephemeral scalar df ss the determinant leading tone that collapses D minor to Cjl minor. Though Wagner rejects the Schenkerian logic of cadential confirmation as a well-formedness condition, he clings even harder to the second Schenkerian notion that tonality must “intelligibly invoke the tonic scale and Wad as a frame of reference.”^^ Yet whether articulated by triadic or other means Schenker’s well-formedness rule must remain in force, else keys would vanish (as almost happens here), entailing the collapse ofthe composer’s tonal-lexical scheme.

’^Alan Forte and Steven E. Gilbert, Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis, p. 131.

82

Again, in the 27th bar of the Lebhaft section (bar 9 of Ex. 2.17) describing Amfortas’ rejection of his sacred office, a variant of the Grail motif is heard that chromatically modulates" within the phrase (denoted

”I include in the exanqile the preceding eight bars of what Lewin has described as “raging ■ atonality,” to show the syntactical precision with which Wagner maintains strict and orthodox tonal syntax. In the first eight bars he does so by textural reduction to single pivots tones or chords: (bar 1): a: 5=f:7(=V)-t^l(i); (bar 2): f: III=^:V; (bar 3): ci; III=a:V; (bar 4): a:5=b; b 2; (bar 5) b:5=ci: b 2; (bars 5-7) two iterations of rising tonics in succession without pivot tones; (bars 7-8); E: viio-viix7. Note that the Klingsor motif that drives the first four bars is composed of tonics a major third* apart, outlining with keys the augmented triad sonority ofAmfortas’ wound. (The Grail motif that opens the Act 1 Prelude does the same thing with different melodic material).

83

Ex. 2.17: Amfortas petitions the court for euthanasia Recalling the modulating scale of Ex 2.15, and which precipitated the grail king out of his D minor key of failed sainthood into that of his C ft minor father-saint in heaven, it is possible to observe how the single D minor chord accompanying Amfortas’ Quail serves to close this dramatic paragraph moments before Parsifal . appears to heal the king and to assume his office. The word again motivates a d minor triad whose tonal function considered alone would be ambiguous. Since it is followed by b b and g minor triads it could be the d:i, B^;iii, g:v, or F:vi. But it is

84

autographed by a background d minor harmonic scale, d—e—f—g—a—b Ij—c ^—d. The seemingly accessory backgroimd scale and not the more easily audible triad confirms the chord function as d:i. Were this scale to persist the following b b and g minor triads would become d: VI and iv respectively. However, the scales in first and second violins deny the continuation ofD minor via the flattening of its “determinant leading tone” c {t-to-c k, thus permitting the key of F Major (meaning [F=comfort]) to emerge firom D minor in token of Amfortas’ plea that he and the Grail be separated and that “von selbst dann leuchtet euch wohl der Grab” Why does Wagner bother to autograph this ephemeral triad with the signature “D minor” rather than simply allowing the chord to line up with its successors as a pendant of its F Major continuation? Simply because as in the Ring [d=afflicted hero], that is, Amfortas. The lexeme has reached across the two works such that the key now says in Parsifal what it said in the earlier dramas. Thus like the luckless Siegmund, the mournful Mark, the wounded Tristan, and Siegfiied in his moral letdown moments the afflicted Grail King finds himself in the one key unable to locate its heroism. This is fundamentally Amfortas’ Quail and the lexeme responds accordingly before pivoting the king’s key into F Major—as far as tonally possible from Klingsor’s B minor curse (another lexical carryover from the earlier dramas). The lexical logic of Quail requires the emergence of D minor while the practical exigencies of aLebhaft tempro requires the music to move right on. Wagner, always practical, solves the problem of combining rigorous lexicality with fast music by scribbling “this is D minor” across a singleton tonic triad before rushing on to com plete the phrase in the requisite [F=comfort]. Given that Amfortas’ pain has been indexed throughout by the augmented sonority, and given that in syntactical terms HEALING IS RESOLUTION, it is only natural that Parsifal’s healing should consists of formal resolutions of each of the constituting tones of Amfortas’ augmented triad. The resolutions are shown in Ex.

2.18 as lines ® [cl=GODHEAD]), ® ([A=PURITY]) and ® ([F=COMFORT]). The controlling key, A Major, here lexicalizes the forward motion out of Amfortas’ intolerable D minor via the i=l>V progression. Formal closure, here the index of

wound closure, serves to rectify the augmented triad into its former tonic triad on the key level, and the augmented keys on the tonality level. The result is the following act of ritual healing, articulated by means of a ritually-employed Lexical Tonality:

85

s

V

86

ifM

...........

1 sei

MhL

..............................-....

dein

#¥^==J=f=F=l l-r

Lei

-

-

-

v:| -

-

den

-1.....................

} S

Ex. 2.18: Parsifal closing Amfortas’ wound As a further lexical refinement consider the lexical meaning ofA minor/Maj or in the light of its use in the Ring. In that drama the Major key was related to virginity and its minor key to its deflowering. In particular, Wagner has repeatedly used A minor to lexicalize the piercing of a breastplate by means of a symbolically phallic sword

(#2319, #2328, and #2330). Now in Ex. 2.17 ("Heraus die Waffen!”) Amfortas pleads for the same treatment at the hands of his knights, again in the “virgin” key of A minor, that is, in [a=VIRGIN (penetrated)]. Why should the king beg his knights to treat him like a sacrificial virgin? Simple enough: he wishes to die pure. The gift ofpurity is therefore given to him in [A=PURITY] by Parsifal, not with the sword but the Spear.^® The continuity of Wagner’s lexical thinking is total, even across dramas and even into the most intimate details of its categorial-grammatical semantics.

“For discussions ofthis (the “Lohengrin complex”) see below, Chapter Three, pgs. 127^and 136/ and Chapter Five, p. 203 and 242ff. Again the three minor keys of Amfortas’ plea to be pierced by swords fa-f-ctll are answered, and in sequence, when the Spear touches the wound in the major mode (A-F-Cl). Here again {minor mode=wounded, lowered in value}, as in [D=hero (Sieg&ied)], [d=wounded hero (Siegmund, Amfortas, Tristan, Mark)].

87

V.

A Summary of Wagner’s Categorial Tonal Syntax As the technique is refined by practice keys become concise and their

appearances ephemeral. In Parsifal keys can appear and change about as rapidly as chords did in Lohengrin. The result is a kind of microminiaturization of the syntactical unit “key.” The point of the technique is to make lexical keys pithy enough to apply with increasing precision to fleeting poetic moments and their de pendent emotions. Wagner wants to specify and differentiate these as precisely as possible, and he does so by continuing to refine the technique. Wagner appears to have been aiming at a situation in which the duration of a key approximates that of a short phrase dominated by an emotionally relevant “compositional moment.” This is the situation summarized by Caroline Abbate as a difficulty for Schenker’s theory; Wagner’s conception of “modulation” is very different from that of contemporary theory. His scale is small; he is discussing modulation within a setting of one or two short lines of verse, internal modulation that a reductionist analysis would view as ripples on the surface, no modulation at all. A reading of the “Alte Weise” shaped by Wagner’s idea might speak of passages in E b Major, or C major, or A b major, while Schenker’s views them all as epiphenomena arising out of F minor. The misunderstanding of Wagner’s minute scale of modula tion has had a profound effect on Wagnerian reception in the twen tieth century.” Abbate’s description, correct as far as it goes, does not explain why Wagner con sidered the technique necessary. And such an explanation was impossible absent the linguistic framework of Wagner’s tonality outlined here. Wagner developed this modulatory technique because keys had become lexemes that must keep pace with developing compositional moments signaled by relevant textual passages. Had keys not become the TL equivalents of NL words, no such technique would have been necessary or indeed as Wagner himself was happy to concede, even intelligible. But to make lexical tonality intelligible required the composer to adhere to a tonal syntax sufficiently conservative and consistent to ensure that lexical keys could be identified whenever they occurred. Wagner depended on this principle to make possible the syntax—semantics interface that defines his unique tonality. Thus in his 1879 essay “On the Application of Music to the Drama,” Wagner advertised his conservatism in both modulation and motivation, enjoining composers never to leave a key so long

’’“Wagner, “On Modulation,” and Tristan", p. 41.

88 as what they had to say could still be said in it and describing his care to make transformations ofmotive—^which likewise involved lexically relevant transpositions of key—intelligible according to a strict and unbroken linear logic spelled out thus; Had I used in an Overture a motive cast like that which is heard in the second act of “Die Walkiire” at Wotan’s smrender of worldsovereignty to the possessor of the Nibelimgen-hoard:

trated a piece of downright nonsense. But after in course ofthe drama the simple nature-motive

had been heard at the earliest gleam of the shining Rhinegold; at the first appearance of the Gods’ -burg “Walhall,” shimmering in the mor ning’s red, the no less simple motive

and each of these motives had undergone mutations in closest sympathy with the rising passions of the plot,—with the help of a digression in the harmony I could present them knit in such a way that, more than Wotan’s words, this tone-figure should give to us a picture of the fearful gloom in the soul of the suffering god. Again, I am conscious of having always endeavoured to prevent the acerbity of such musical combinations fi-om making a striking effect as such, as a special “audacity” we will say; both by my marks of expression and by word of mouth I sought to so tone down the change, whether by a timely slackening of tempo or a preliminary dynamic compen sation, that it should invade our willing Feeling as an artistic moment in strict accordance with the laws of nature. So that it may be ima-

89 gined how nothing more enrages me, and keeps me away from strange performances of my music, than the insensibility of most of our conductors to the requirements of Rendering in such combin ations in particular; needing the most delicate treatment, they are given to the ear in false and hurried tempo, without the indispensable dynamic shading, and mostly unintelligible. No wonder they are bugbears to our “Professors.”^* Still, is such a practice as intelligible as Wagner hoped? In Wagner’s music expression follows from key relationships more directly than from keys. It is hard to hear keys as such but easy to hear key relationships. The audible signal that a new key has commenced is often the obtmsion of a disruptive alien entity into the key of the moment, anomalous or ersatz chords or unexpected chromatic neighbor or passing tones. The triad is relieved of key definition duties and Wagner is free to' dwell upon secondary dissonant or consonant triads at will, including the b E or the A6, which thus swarm to the sonorous surface to endow compositional moments with increased pungency and memorability, though at a considerable cost of apparent confusion to Wagner analysts for whom the minutia of fundamental harmonic grammar is either a sphinx or a bore. A non-tonic triad may abruptly obtrude and linger to express the arcane torque of some fleeting dramatic moment. The expressive point of a new key is thus more often that it distinguishes itself from the prevailing texture in some grammatically striking way—signaling the separation of compositional moments and their meanings—than that it is heard as a new thing-initself It is the degree of separation or distance, similarity or difference, that Wagner is aiming to express, in line with his fundamental claim that music has the power to demonstrate similarities or differences and thus to make claims about essential relations between poetic moments. It is this “meaning” that eludes generic structuralist formulas. It is trae enough that stracturalism often talks the syntactical talk.” But tonal structuralism as currently imagined lacks emy meaningful notion of a syntax-semantics interface and this is its fatal flaw. It is only through this strictly linguistic concept that the twin domains of

syntax (or “form”) and semantics (or “meaning”) can be relevantly expressed. And lackiiig a viable and idiomatically musical formulation of such an interface there is

the Application of Music to the Drama.” ^®For exan^les of which see Chapter One, pgs. 39-42.

90 no systematic way to handle the question of meaning, for instance, to define at any given level which tonal phenomena must be recognized as irremediably syntactical and which irreducibly semantical. By “semantical” must be understood “facts consti tuted by rules,” where rules are understood as specifically constitutive and which therefore compose the meanings that we are obliged to assign to the phenomena that are of interest to us in meaningful analytical acts. This remains true whether the music under consideration is texted or not, or whether keys or other tonal entities are assigned specifically lexical meanings or not. The failure ofmusic theory to embrace the linguistic model dooms it to impotence insofar as the goal of music theory is to understand the question of musical meaning. In his discussion of musical syntax Joseph P. Swain reminds us that the term first gained popularity in the 1950s and 1960s, decades during which Noam Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar was sweeping academia and being enthusiastically taken up as a liberating (and thus ideological) concept particularly by twelve-tone composers. Swain points out without particular stress that the term was a darling owing to its accidental similarity to the concept of stracture so beloved of those feeling a need for liberation fi'om the dark tide of occult subjectivities, and thus came to be used somewhat interchangeably with the latter, such that one could talk about the structure and the syntax of a piece as if the two were effectively identical. This prompts him reasonably enough to ask in what sense such “syntax” differs from a trendy euphemism for generic “structure,” that is, what conceptual work it does that “structure” does not.^® His answer is rich, concise, and well worth reading,"" but our Pachelbel example and its Wagnerian counterparts dramatize its ability to suppress some sonorous meanings and enforce others even when these require the multiple hierarchies of rules to be intelligible. Thus to Swain’s question “What is syntax for, anyway?”^^ I would answer that syntax is a thaumaturgist casting mind-clouding spells to transmogrify the foundation of our perceptive faculties—an ability that generic “structure,” however subtly it may otherwise be conceived, cannot explain.

^“Joseph P. Swain, Musical Languages, p. 20.

*'Ibid., pgs. 19-43. *^Ibid., pgs. 22-5.

CHAPTER THREE The Cognitive Structure of TL Lexemes “When I greet him at breakfast, he is reading a conversation in Die Serapionsbruder, and he says, ‘The worst German book means more to me than the best French one—in German some mystical word is touched of which others show no trace.’ But then he observes that I should not take this too literally.”'

1,

The Virtual Intelligible Object Wagner demands subservience to strict common-practice harmonic syntax to

maintain control over a flood of linear tonal structures that otherwise would disintegrate into unintelligibility. That he is not joking is evident when we reexamine his syntax in detail as in Chapter Two above. His point arises when compositional conditions change to bring intelligibility under threat. These changed conditions are simple: modulations are now determined by semantical content not abstract musical structure. This content is to be quantified by keywords in an accompanied text or their semantic equivalents (gestures, props). Thus natural language keywords are to trigger modulation to what has become semantically determined linear strings of tonal language words. Semantics replaces abstract structure. For this to make sense semantics has to be rational, systematic, and recursively applied to TL syntax. The key word is “structure.” For semantics to replace the tonal stracture, it too must have a structure comparable with the replaced tonal stracture. So if by “semantics” we do not mean “semantic structure” we are whistling in the dark. I now want to describe this semantic stracture and its functional relation to TL syntactical stracture. If I cannot demonstrate this, then I have probably misrepresented Wagner’s theory. What I call atonal language [TL] lexeme is no more than a discrete key used as if it were an information-bearing unit of grammar. A lexeme represents “the minimal unit oflanguage which has a semantic interpretation and embodies a distinct cultural concept. It is made up of one or more form-meaning composites called lexical units.”^ The fact that Wagner’s keys fit this description including their frequent composition upward from smaller form-meaning composites like tones that

'Cosima’s Diaries, II, p. 852, April 26, 1882. ^From the ‘Glossary of Terms’ at the LinguaLinks website, http://www.sil.org/linguistics/ Glossary Of Linguistic Terms /What Is A Lexicon.htm (downloaded February 20,2004).

92 can function as lexical units is one formal basis for describing his as a “lexical tonality.” In this chapter I jvant to discuss the characteristics of Wagner’s keys that render them metaphor-like and thereby intelligible as TL lexemes, to prepare for discussing those characteristics oftheir cognitive structure that are specifically public in nature and thus permit keys to convey information from person to person in a variety of styles and historical periods. Wagner’s modifications of the tonal syntax rules discussed in Chapter Two all tend to the same piupose: to permit a discrete unit ofmusic to refer to some extra musical object, and to make rational comparisons between these objects: this is like

that, that is unlike this. This may seem simpleminded but Wagner draws from it a most remarkable conclusion, which the composer arrives at not by considering TL syntax but rather NL semantics, thus: In keeping with an unaffected view ofNature and a longing to impart the impressions of such a view. Speech set only the kindred and analogous together, in order not only to make plain the kindred by its analogy and explain the analogous by its kinship, but also, through an Expression based on analogy and kinship of its own “moments,” to produce a still more definitive and intelligible impression upon the Feeling. Herein was evinced the sensuously composing {sinnlich dichtende) force ofSpeech. Thought taking the open sound, employed for purely s'iibjective expression of the feelings inspired by an object—in scale with its impression,—and clothing it with a garment of mute articulations, which stood to the Feeling as an objective expression borrowed from an attribute of the object itself, it had arrived at moulding different “moments” of expression, in its speechroots. Now, when Speech set these roots together according to their kinship and alikeness, it made plain to the Feeling both the impression of the object and its answering expression, in equal measure, through an increased strengthening of that Expression; and thereby in turn, it denoted the object as itself a strengthened one, —^namely, as an object strictly-speaking multiple, but one in essence through its kinship and alikeness.^ Phonetics renders impressions designated by Feeling as akin into words perceived to be ofthe same species, and wherever these recur all such species-similar words point their phonetic fingers back toward the Unconscious source of their Affinity. This source lies neither in Time nor Space but in Intelligibility, which is the main reason ^Opera and Drama., pgs. 226-7.

93 that this was Wagner’s favorite word until his late-period neo-gnosticism rendered it obsolete and replaced it with “Knowledge.”^ Wagner calls this object that-notdirectly-expressed “multiple” because it is indexed by innumerable species-similar words that are expressed. His term “one in essence” refers to its intelligible indivisibility, vindicated by the fact that Feeling offers a similar response to its tokens words wherever they appear. The idea ofun-Expressed Essence is crucial to a systematic theoryofAffinity. To stress its Platonic resonance would be correct but, almost uniquely, Wagner also understands Essence to be Feeling-generated. Here the composer grants emotion its greatest share of philosophical dignity, a feature of his thinking which, though it closely resembles Schopenhauer’s, must be owned to be innate to the composer’s own natural philosophical bent. Which makes sense: we all tend to espouse what we do best and what this fellow did best was opera, which lives by emotion. Wagner’s Expression-to-Essence theory charts what may be called virtual

intelligible objects, that is, objects never intelligible to the senses as such, but which are comprised of apparently discontinuous images that our unified Feeling responses convince us belong to an abstract cognitive whole. These virtual intelligible objects live in the background of cognition and are modular or multiple in their manifestation. Any part may index or stand for the whole, whose intelligibility is never grasped at once but only in increments, by means of the growing appreciation given by repetitive iterations of its parts. Wagner’s is a theory of a psychological surface-to-background axis and it is the foundation of his later poetics. For instance, he coordinates this psychological axis with the TL syntax of surface keys and background tonalities in which keys that are Expressed are controlled and rationalized by the background presence of a “tonality that is not Expressed or, for that matter, of chords that are heard controlled by the background presence of a key that is not heard in its entirety at any given moment. And now in the virtual intelligible object Wagner aligns his NL and TL theories along the same surface-to-background axis thus;

‘About which probably too much more will be said in Chapters Seven and Eight.

94 Expression Surface tonc/chord Surface scale Surface key Surface words

—

to made intelligible by made intelligible by made intelligible by made intelligible by

—

Essence background scale background key background tonality background Affinity (Virtual intelligible object)

In this hierarchical cognitive model objects ofExpression become real only by virtue ofbackground Essence at the preceding level. Expression is therefore always relative to some backgroimd Essence. This is the core of Wagner’s understanding of the rational relation between TL and NL syntax and semantics. It is the rough algorithm through which he gets keys to behave like words or rather, like this intelligibility stracture that he believes that he finds in words. How may we evaluate the validity of Wagner’s theory? It is in the first place coherent with classical psychological and literary theories that are not in themselves controversial. In psychological terms both TL and NL language structures originate in a prior psychological structure of foreground and background that Wagner con stantly refer? to as the Conscious and the Unconscious. His accoxmt of this process is coherent with psychic structures posited by Freud and Jung over half a century later, in particular the latter’s so-called feeling-toned complexes, which are also virtual intelligible objeets held together by their feeling-value, that is, their perceived psychic energy. In general, the feeling-toned complex is a staple ofpopular literature, for instance the whodunit genre, in which such objects make cameo appearances whenever Miss Marpole or Hereule Poiroit surprise some suspect into a revealing gesture with a casual mention of the word “truss” or “knife.” A technical invention based on complex theory is the lie detector. Again, in her classic study of Shakespeare’s imagery Caroline Spurgeon observes how similar virtual objects contribute to the playwright’s poetic style: “Shakespeare’s tendency to have a similar group of ideas called up by some one single word or idea is a very marked feature of his thought and imagination... It is very interesting to trace these groups, and to note, for instance, in his early and late work, how his art develops and gains strength in the expression of them.”’ Spurgeon cites several cases of such image-complexes, for instance time—^beggar

^Shakespeare's Imagery, p. 186. Her entire chapter (“Association of Ideas”, pgs. 186-99) is highly relevant to the present discussion.

95 -r-scraps—alms, which appears in Lucrece 985, “Let him have time a beggar's arts to crave / And time to see one that by alms doth live / Disdain to him disdained

scraps io give”, and Troilus and Cressida, 3.3.145:

. a wallet at his back wherein

he puts alms for oblivion,... Those scraps are good deeds past, which are devour’d As fast as they are made”, to conclude that “Although the complete thought of the two passages is quite different, yet we can see that without doubt, when Shakespeare wrote the later one, the connection between time and a beggar, scraps and alms, had been sleeping in his imagination for at least five years (1594-9).”‘ An essential aspect of such imaginal complexes in Shakespeare is thus that they persist over some significant portion of creative life and transcend individual works. This is precisely what we find about the lexical associations in the Ring and Parsifal. Wagner’s principle of emotional affinity is also present in Shakespeare, and Spurgeon conj ectures that the connection between members of Shakespeare’s imagecomplexes are evaluated emotionally for affinity on the grounds that “There are, of course, several other groups of ideas which recur together, but some of them— though they imdoubtedly and definitely follow one another in Shakespeare’s mind— are so apparently unrelated that it is difficult to trace more than a thread ofmeaning in them. Such a group is the association of death, cannon, eye-ball, eye-socket of skull (a hollow thing), tears, vault, mouth (sometimes teeth), womb, and back to death again. The association is so vivid that whenever Shakespeare speaks of death he seems immediately conscious of the hollows in the skull where the eyes have been.”’ She cites Exeter’s threat to the Dauphin as an example of a “connection of idea so far-fetched that it is difficult to see the reason for the threat until we re member how Shakespeare’s imagination works.”® Thus such usages represent “a tendency to group repeatedly a certain chain ofideas round some particular emotional or mental stimulus.”’ Spurgeon infers that Shakespeare’s virtual intelligible objects can render his surface poetics obscure but also, when analyzed, clarify it.

‘Ibid.,pss. 186-7. ’/Wd.,pgs. 191-2. 'Spurgeon refers to Henry K, 2.4.120:"... an if your father’s highness / Do not, in grant of all demands at large, / Sweeten the bitter mock you sent his majesty, / He’ll call you to so hot an answer of it, that caves and womby vaultages ofFrance Shall chide your trespass...” {Ibid., p. 194.)

^Ibid., p. 195.

96 Like Shakespeare’s image-complexes, Wagner’s virtual emotional objects are metonymy-driven and their constituent parts are independent ofSpace and Time. Any one of their constituent parts may stand for the whole or conjure it wherever and

whenever it occurs, even ifindividual appearances of such parts are widely separated and interrupted by other materials in a lengthy linear narrative or score. Any constituent part enjoys the same undiminished power to conjure the others wherever and whenever it appears; it is invulnerable to dilution or interference by interposing poetic stuff. Thus with respect to the generic idea of false friends Spurgeon notes “a rather curious set of images which plays round it. These are: a dog or spaniel, fawn ing and licking; candy, sugar or sweets, thawing or melting. So strong is the associ ation of these ideas in Shakespeare’s mind that it does not matter which of these items he starts with—dog or sugar or melting—it almost invariably, when used in this particular application, give rise to the whole series.”'® Wagner’s and Shake speare’s associative principles are thus highly similar. In this respect Wagner differs from Shakespeare not in kind but in degree. Shakespeare’s virtual poetics are rela tively marginal where Wagner’s are central. There is no particularlyprofound reason for this. The composer simply had tonal language to play with where the bard did not. Since the cognitive underpinnings of virtual poetics are practically isomorphic with the syntactical structure of Western tonality Wagner could make it the linchpin ofhis composite TL / NL interface strategy. All that it took to do so was to understand this common feature correctly, draw the right procedural conclusions, and run with them. The result was “Lexical Tonality.” Pairs ofpoetic objects thus reveal degrees of similarity or difference through a “Law of Affinity” sensed by the Poetic Aim. This is the beginning and the end of Wagner’s lexical tonality. But it embraces a universe of expressive linguistic capability. Opera and Drama describes how this procedure is to work. In addition to redefining cadentiality and surface texture rules with respect to key, Wagner added a definitively linguistic rule; key is now lexical and the index of its lexicality is to be

expressive or emotional. For this to happen Wagner needs a theory of how emotions start in libretto text so he can coordinate them with the arrival of their lexical keys. Just as he brings the key-defining “moment” forward to the head of the key, so he '°Ibid. She cites Julius Caesar, which starts with thawing-, Hamlet, with candy, Antony 'and Cleopatra, with dog; and J.C. again, with sweets.

97 pulls his emotion-defining “moment” forward to the head of the text, in the form of alliteration or Stabreim. This “composing moment” of Speech is its alliteration or Stabreim, in which we recognise the very oldest attributes of all poetic speech. In Stabreim the kindred speech-roots are fitted to one another in such a way, that, just as they sound alike to the physical ear, they also knit like objects into one collective image in which the Feeling may utter its conclusions about them." Wagner posits a fundamental characteristic of poetic speech, that it uses phonetic gestures to rope together images emotionally felt to belong together. Wagner claims a Principle of Affinity which organizes the poetic stmcture ofthe mind. He describes this principle as the Feeling-equivalent of the Understanding’s product, “thought.”It is an analogy-based consciousness that develops poetic entailments by sequences df perceived emotional sameness and difference. In so doing the Feeling creates phonetic analogies to external objects. Wagner’s didactic example is the German sentence Liebe giebt Lust zum Leben (“l/5ve gives delight to living”): as a like emotion is physically disclosed in the accents’ Stabreim-^ roots, the musician would here receive no natural incitement to step outside the once selected key, but would completely satisfy the feeling by keeping the various inflections of the musical tone to that one key alone.'^ Here Wagner prescribes first, that the modulatory impulse is to arise fi'om the demands of emotion such that singularity of emotion translates to singularity ofkey. He contrasts such homogeneity of feeling with a second case involving contradictory feelings: On the contrary, if we take a verse of mixed emotion, such as: die Liebe bringt Lust und Leid, then here, where the Stabreim combines two opposite emotions, the musician would feel incited to pass across from the key first struck in keeping with the first emotion, and determined by the latter’s relation to the emotion rendered in the earlier key." Wagner defines the choice ofKey I, his referential key, as being one “in keeping with the first emotion.” The choice of the secondary Key H, is determined by its

"Opera and Drama, p. 227. "Ibid., p. 292. "Ibid.

98 “relationship to the emotion rendered in the earlier key.” The relationship between emotions determines the re.lationship between keys, but such key relationships are to be articulated by means of an otherwise orthodox use of common-practice harmonic syntax, as Wagner prescribes elsewhere: ... these laws of harmonic sequence, based on the nature of Affinity, - just as those harmonic columns, the chords, were formed by the affinity of tone-stuffs, - united themselves into one standard, which sets up salutary bounds around the giant playground of capricious possibilities. They allow the most varied choice fi-om amid the kingdom ofharmonic families, and extend the possibility ofunion by elective-affinity... with the members of neighbouring families ... they demand, however, before all a strict observance of the houselaws of affinity of the family once chosen, and a faithful tarrying with it, for sake of a happy end.'"* Wagner describes the syntax governing keys as Hasix House-Laws ofAffinity, thereby subjecting TL syntax to the burden of lexical meaning. Syntax exists to control the relations between “Tonal Households” and semantic meaning. He can do this because he has theorized poetry and music in structurally parallel fashion. Thus extraneous tones are not to appear in a key once selected, however briefly or they must be syntactically accommodated to the prevailing scale degrees. To do otherwise would 0

undermine the integrity of key by means of which poetic keywords may be recognized to have modulated. Since such recognition is central to poetic intelligibility Wagner observes remarkably orthodox harmonic syntax within the keys he has chosen, while the pace of modulation dramatically speeds up and its range of possible modulatory paths greatly widens. Why then does Wagner call his keys “Tonal Households”? Simply put, since keys are words while meanings are many, then few words, many synonyms. Over time huge amounts of poetic grist is shoveled into the tonal mill, processed via the lexical tonality, and fed into twelve major hoppers. The result is thepileup of similar poetic materials on view in the Lexicon. Every entry in each of the twelve major Tonal Households shows its species-relationship to all the others: they are all lexical '*TheArt- Work ofthe Future, p. 117. Here and elsewhere Wagner argues like Steven Pinker, for whom the miraculous fecundity ofhuman natural languages arises ftom the constraining influence of grammatical rules by which intelligible sentences may be distinguished from unintelligible ones. “Who could not be dazzled by the creative power of the mental grammar, by its ability to convey an infinite number of thoughts with a finite set of rules?”(7Vie Language Instinct, p. 126.)

99 tenants in a tonal Household under the direction of a single Householder. The basis of Wagner’s lexical tonality is the construction and categorization of poetic and aflFective similarities under the rubrics of lexical keys. Wagner’s “House Laws of Affinity,” which formMizes his similitude-seeking tonal strategy, is the core concept in his real tonal practice. Recurring referents to a once-named poetic image impel a return to its original lexical key. It is only by means of such repeated tonal returns to the same or similar images that “the musician becomes perfectly understandable.” Such intelligibility may be quantified by looking in the Lexicon. If the Lexicon and its organizational logic proves intelligible and the methods by which Wagner constracted it prove reasonable and capable of being used to discover further aspects of the language, then my theory proves falsifiable and is more or less vindicated. If after all this the Lexicon still proves a sphinx, then my present theory collapses like a house of cards. Wagner further argues that modulation itself is to be governed in its details by the same emotional factors that determine key choice; The word Lust (delight)—which,' as the climax of the first emotion, appears to thrust onward to the second—^would have in this phrase to obtain an emphasis quite other than in that; die Liebe Giebt Lust zum Leben; the note sung to it would instinctively become the determinant leading tone, and necessarily thrust onward to the other key, in which the word Leid (sorrow) should be delivered. In this attitude toward one another, Lust und Leid would become the manifestment of a specific emotion, whose idiosyncrasy would lie precisely in the point where two opposite emotions displayed themselves as condition one the other, and thus as necessarily belong together, as actually akin.’’ Wagner replaced confirmatory cadence with his “determinant leading tone” as an arbiter of key, thereby shifting the action fi-om the end of a compositional moment to its beginning. To Wagner such a tone is any scale degree that successfully denies the scale of its predecessor key. This is a forward-looking procedure and creates the impression of an ongoing tonal inertia that replaces or enhances the tonal prolongational procedures of his predecessors and contemporaries. The sense of large-scale structure that has caused analysts to search for tonal prolongations in this music without success is due in large part to this feeling that the commencement of a key

'^Opera and Drama, p. 292.

100 equates to forward motion. In practice such tones most often prove to be unusual pivot tones or chords, and the short analysis of the Tristan Prelude va.Ex.L6 shows examples, for instance the pivot tone a:7(g tl )= C: b 6(a b), which involves the need to invoke enharmonic equivalence. Wagner specifies a means by which two simple emotions are tonalized to create precise yet complex emotional entities or effects: Let us see how musical Modulation, hand in hand with the verse’s Content, is able to lead back again to the first emotion. Let us follow up the verse “die Liebe bringt Lust und Leid” with a second: “dock in ihr Web auch webtsie Wonnen”-then webt, again, would become a tone leading into the first key, as from here a second emotion returns to the first, but now enriched, emotion. To the feeling’s sensory organ the poet, in virtue of his Stabreim, eould only display this return as an advance from the feeling of Weh to that of Wonnen, but not as a rounding off of the generic feeling Liebe\ whereas the musician becomes completely understandable by the very fact that he quite markedly goes back to the first tone variety, and therefore definitely denotes the genus of the two emotions as one and the same - a thing impossible to the poet, who was obliged to change the root initial for the Stabreim}^ Wagner stresses that comparison of similarities is to be one of the most powerful tools of the new genre of Music Drama: THIS is like THAT. The arbiter of similitude is key: modulation is to subserve poetic comparisons, comparisons, and more

comparisons. To employ a key as a TL lexemes is to assert its similarity of content with that of other such usages. Thus IfC Major is LIGHT and i/iNTELLIGENCE is like LIGHT, then C MAJOR is like BRAINS and thus \0=The Wanderer], that is, a know-it-

all {Cf. Mozart’s know-it-all C Major Sarastro). This is a cognitive and not an abs tract tonal structuralist move and typifies the logic of all TL lexemes. Already we have seen Wagner draw an axis from a unitary intelligible object that is not expressed to the multiple kinship-objects that are. But what kind of axis is this? It turns out that this axis can be empirically specified, for it is not an ideal abstraction but a real entity that stretches out toward and rettmis from a real cognitive space. The axis is the linear history of the lexemes on view as Appendices la through

Id. The cognitive space is the Memory projected in Appendix II. The former is the

'‘Ibid., p. 292/

101 actual operation of Wagner’s TL in linear Time and Space. The latter is the inferential reconstruction of a set of virtual intelligible objects of multiple elements that exists independently of Time and Space. It is the virtual space of the Ringworld’s Memory. To make this clear let’s consider Wagner’s theory of the cognitive interface between poetic image (mostly metaphor), harmonic logic (TL grammar), and linear history (Memory). Let’s consider Memory first. Memory is all-important to Wagner. It is in the first place simply identical with Thought, and this thinking is itself conditioned, and resides within, a collective or cultural entity, which Wagner blsewhere names the “Folk” and which in Chapter Four I will discuss in terms of ‘“public cultural linguistic properties.” Thus, The expression: Thought, is very easily explainable, if only we go back to its sensuous speech-root. A “thou^t” is the “thin” image in our minds, of a non-present, but yet a real “thing.” By its ... origin, this Non-present is areal, a physically apprehended object, which has made a definite impression on us in another place, or at another time: this impression has lain hold upon our feeling, and, to impart the latter to our fellows, we have been forced to invent an expression which shall convey the object’s generic impression in terms of the sentience of mankind at large. We thus could only take the object up into us according to the impression which it made upon our senses; and this impression, regulated in its turn by our sensoryfaculty, is the image that appears to be (dunkt) the object itself, when we think ofit (im Gedenken). “Thinking-of ’ and “remembering,” then, are really one and the same thing ...‘’ To Wagner Memory is not a hall closet into which objects are tossed willy-nilly but , a rational arrangement of bimdles of associated objects. Thus to “think” is to reach into the container of memory and pull out of this storehouse the required images. By leaning on the term IM-pression / EX-pression Wagner draws the linear pathway into

Memory and back again Thus to “talk” is to unfold these recalled memory-thoughts out to a linear path winding from Memory through common cultural space into the Memory of a sympathetic conversationalist. More crucially, to unpack such images and send them along the linear path through the common cultural space is likewise to unpack the logic of their associational relationships as they exist in Memory. This is where Feeling becomes crucial. What rationalized them in the first place was the

'''Ibid., p. 325.

102 Feeling-tone with which they were tagged when entered in this virtual database. This is Wagner’s basis for describing a thought as a virtual object recalled from a central clearinghouse of images of what were once real and material object perceptions. It is cracial to Wagner’s theory that such virtual objects caimot be dissociated from their integral Feeling-tones. His evidence for this is that FEELING IS ARRANGEMENT or PLACEMENT. The Feeling-tone associated with a word is what first arranged it by Affinity to its associated words. Once in Memory words stay put, glued together by their common FeeUng-tones. One chooses “similar” words to express similar situations because they have been prearranged for easy retrieval in the virtual space of Memory by Feeling. Why by Feeling in particular? Because no one calculates communication by thinking about it; proper communication just/ee/j good. Thus Feeling-tone is a type of memorial arrangement EMOTION IS SPACE: a “thought” is the image impressed upon our sensory faculty by an object, yet molded— by that faculty itself and now brought back by musing Memory-that witness to both the force ofthe impression and the lasting power of its receiver, - brought back to re-arouse the Feeling, itself, into an after-sense of the impression. We here have nothing to do with Thought’s development to the power of combina tion, i.e., of binding together all self-won or transmitted images of objects passed away from “presence,” but whose impressions are treasured-up i n m emory, - w ith T hinking, s uch a s w e m eet i t i n philosophic Science, - for the Poet’s path leads out ofPhilosophy and into Art-work, into a realisement of the thought in physical presence.'* The reason poetic words “realize thought in physical presence” is that they already exist in virtual physical presence, that is, in MEMORY IS SPACE. Feeling, which arbitrates virtual SPACE, thus acts in partnership with the Senses, which indexes physical space, but is least coimected with reified Phantasy, which is beholden to no SPACE whatsoever

(other than perhaps Cloud Cuckoo Land)."* Wagner’s notion of

'‘Ibid., pgs. 326-8. ’’One argument among many of Wagner’s: “In the beginning of Science Man stands toward Life in the same relation as he stood toward the phenomena ofNature when he first commenced to part his life from hers. Science takes over the arbitrary concepts of the human brain, in their totality; wliile, by her side, Life follows in its totality the instinctive evolution of Necessity. Science thus bears the burden of the sins of Life, and expiates them by her own self-abrogation; she ends in her direct antithesis, in the knowledge ofNature, in the recognition ofthe unconscious, instinctive, and therefore real, inevitable, and physical.... But that alone is true and living which is sentient, and hearkens to

103 thinking is the very opposite of philosophical abstraction, in which physical particulars inspire the creation of immaterial or Ideal categories, which Wagner associates instead with the reified function Phantasy which, itself having no Feeling nature, is free to combine images as it pleases without regard either to salience or physical possibility—but diminished chance of proving intelligible in the act of talking.^® The reason philosophers argue all the time and caimot agree about anything is that their philosophy is based on the reified Phantasy function, their concepts lack common Feeling, and therefore lack COMMON SPACE. Abstract words are like refugees from common culture, stateless or displaced persons. Nobody knows how to PLACE philosophical concepts when they are said without falling back on still more homeless philosophical concepts that require still more such concepts and so on in an infinitely regressive chain. This is one of the reasons that Wagner holds professors in such low esteem; they think themselves most judicial when most beholden to Phantasy; that is, to the arbitrary. The use to which Wagner puts this reified Memory is to conjure word and key as if they were species memories of an emotional genus or a tokens of an emotional type: Now, as it were before our eyes, the poet’s Verse-Melody materialises the thought - i.e., the non-present emotion recalled by Memory, converting it into a present, an actually observable emotion. In its sheer words this Verse-Melody contains the non-present but conditioning emotion, as described from memory and thought; in its purely musical melody it contains the conditioned, the new, the the ternis of physicality (Semlichtkeit); whereas the highest victory of Science is her selfaccomplished crushing of this arrogance, in the acknowledgment of the teaching of the senses. The end of Science is the justifying of the Uncomcious, the giving of self-consciousness to Life, the re instatement of the Senses in their perceptive rights, the sinking of Caprice in the world-Will ' ("Wollen' j of Necessity.” {The Art-Work of the Future, pgs. 72-3). ^ ^°Thus “Completely intelligible in its extemalisation will the fancy-picture never be, until it re-presents to the senses the phenomena in the selfsame measure as that in which the latter had originally presented themselves to them; while by the final correspondence ofthe effect ofhis message with his previous longing, does man first become insofar acquainted with the correct measure of the phenomena, as he recognises it for the measure in which they address themselves to men in general. No one can address himself intelligibly to any but those who see things in a like measure with himself; but this measure for his communication is the concentrated image ofthe things themselves, the image in which they present themselves to man’s perception. This measure must therefore rest upon a view in common, for only what is perceptible to this common view allows, in turn, of being artistically imparted thereto; a man whose mode of viewing is not that of his fellow-men, neither can address himself to them artistically.” {Opera and Drama, p. 152-3.)

104 “present” emotion into which that instigated thought resolves itself, as into its kindred new embodiment. Evolved and vindicated, before our eyes, by the recollection of an earlier emotion; directly moving, and surely influencing the sympathetic Feeling, by its sound.^' A present compositional moment is anew iteration of an old one. Wagner’s argument thus provides the basis for assigning cognitive structure to the elements of his ArtWorks, including words and tonal lexemes. Since people tend to file only memories that are emotionally important, and since they derive their strongest sense of salience from their relations with other people, then the strongest feeling-tones accrue to memories held in common by the group of language users. Culture, being the generator of the strongest feelings, is the generator of the most persistent and salient memories, that is, the most persistent MEMORY SPACE. Memoiy is a collective and cultural project performed in cooperation between the individual and the group. The dramatic personas are thus to the scores as we to our collective culture. In both worlds history, memory, custom, mores, and precedent constrain the expressive possibilities ofthe moment. Characters walk around in their scores the way we walk around in our culture, which is why the lexicon recorded in the scores is primarily a cultural docu ment. The major difference between our own memories and the Music Drama scores is, that we have access to the latter as physical documents from which we may extract complete data, whereas we have no direct access to our own cultural collective memory other than by inferential techniques like Jung’s association test. II'

The “House-Laws of Affinity” (yes, again) Wagner requires that for words to be fully intelligible they must have the

characteristics outlined above, particularly the cultural characteristics that make them common properties. He calls the cultural space within which such intelligible communications proceed the Mythos. To Wagner Mythos and structure go together, where STRUCTURE IS (CULTURAL) SPACE. To get a handle on Wagner’s theory and practice we therefore have to grasp the entailments of this SPACE. I have said that without a theory of “semantic structure" the present theory is empty, and this is where we must turn to the general theory of cultural word-space offered by linguistics.

^'Ibid.,p. 327.

105 Wagner’s core term is Affinity, that is, similarity, which he discusses as if it were an arbiter of structure. The idea that poetic keywords can be either similar or

dissimilar places a theoretical burden on the notion of similarity per se and its relief is to be found in modem metaphor theory. How for instance does modem linguistics tackle the idea of COMMUNICATION IS SPACE? One of the ways it does so is to turn metaphor theory upon itself; specifically, to subject to metaphor-analysis the metaphoric discourse by which natural languages express their notions about what natural languages are. Michael J. Reddy discusses this in terms of the “conduit metaphor,” as in this example; What do speakers of English say when communication fails or goes astray? Let us consider (1) through (3), some very typical examples. (1) Try to get your thoughts across better. (2) None of Mary’s feelings came through to me with any clarity. (3) You still haven’t given me any idea of what you mean.“ Reddy argues from his analysis of such examples that language-speaking cultures ifiiderstand language itself within a framework in which LANGUAGE IS SPACE and thus for instance, “(1) thoughts and feelings are ejected by speaking or writing into an external ‘idea space’: (2) thou^ts and feelings are reified in this external space, so that they exist independent of any need for living human beings to think or feel them; (3) these reified thoughts and feelings may, or may not, find their way back into the heads of living humans.”“ Reddy calls this a “semantic pathology” but it pretty much sums up the way we all talk about talking, and Wagner is no exception. Ih fact, Wagner talks that way because we do and he wants his new TL to make sense to us. Reddy’s point (2) is thus a cultural basis for Wagner’s (and our own) intuition that there is such a place as a reified cognitive space and that virtual intelligible objects may objectively be understood to exist within it. Wagner uses “Affinity” in two complementary senses. In the TL sense keys demonstrate varying degrees of relationship, and the networks of mutual attractions •that develop out of this tendency are what make it possible to refer to the “House Laws of Key.” In the NL sense poetic keywords demonstrate varying degrees of relationship that the poet understands in terms of emotional affinities and struggles ““The Conduit Metaphor,” p. 166. “ySW., pgs. 170-1.

106 with only partial success to quantify using such poetic techniques as end-rhyme or head-rhymes (Stabreim). The NL affinities of the poetic lexicon show themselves to be tolerably isomorphic with the House Laws of Key. The composer exploits this generic similarity by mapping quantifiable tonal house laws onto less precise similarities and dissimilarities of words. By praetice poetic keywords become ever more precisely specified in their own internal relationships by being grafted into the House Laws of Key. At the same time key becomes ever more externally referential as its internal house laws come to be filled with semantic meanings. Keys become more word-like while words become to a lesser degree more key-like.^'* The arbiter of this is usage: key proves to be lexical to the degree that it is actually used as lexeme. Its lexicality is proven by a linear history that it traces in dialectic with other keys, just as words prove their NL credentials in usage (pragmatics). Wagner’stheorypresupposes an NL-like pragmatic element as well as an NL-like syntax and semantics. A composite law of similarity therefore arises in usage. If the return to Key I from Key II is determined by the return of poetic image that governs the choice of the key of derivation, then associative references to new images must, on the same principle, impel a tertiary modulation to Key HI, and so on. In this way, Wagner argues, tonality assumes the characteristics of a vast network of more or less closely related lexical keys, all of which trace their tonal behaviors back to varying degrees of emotional Affinity to the original, “once-selected key.” The Law of Affinities is an intelligibility rule; the dual law of poetic and tonal Affinity acts as a cognitive constraint upon the composer’s powers of free modulation. It behaves like a grammatical rule called in to constrain the number and forms of intelligible natural language sentences. This exhausts much of what Wagner means by “salutary bounds around the infinite playgroimd of capricious possibilities.” Since keys are conjured by sensed affinity between keywords, then keys accrue what amount to synonyms. Here is a case of a real and well-known lexical entry: the use of C Major as lexical entries to denote “Light”, as in the first appear ance of this key under its own iconic key signature to denote the blaze of light in which the Rhinegold awakens. Iterations of the key of C Major behave like tonal brackets or boxes that delimit the poetic space governed by the image of light, so:

^‘Which makes the term KEYWORD much more than an empty pun.

107 -keys a,b,c-------------------- {1 C MAJOR}- keys x, y, z------- {2 C MAJOR}----.—keywords a'.b'.c'------- {1 UOHT}-}— words x'. y', z'- {2 “light-like” word}-

{i.e., roEA}

Poetic keyword 1, LIGHT, acts as a bump in the linear flow that scares up a little smitch of C Major to cover it. Keyword 2 is a “light-like” word that the composer, sensing its affmity with “Light”, again brackets by C Major. C Major has accrued what amovmts to a synonym. To take a real instance, Wagner actually associates C Major with INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, KNOWING, ASKING, and SO on. Why? Because C MAJOR IS BRAINS^^

brains are constructed as metaphoric entailments of C MAJOR

IS LIGHT. For this same reason, when I tell my fiiend she has the

liots for you or am

fold he is in a fever over his lost love, neither the words “hots” nor fever make sense unless LOVE IS FIRE. That’s all there is to it. Even so it is a good deal, as we areabput to see. Wagner wanted to reduce keys to definitive and epigrammatic moments for the simple reason that his keys were becoming lexical referents to extra-musical factors in real time. Stage action moves on at a pace, and for key to be both lexical and sophisticated it had to keep pace with dramatic moments. The biggest stopper to tapid modulation is formal cadence. If a key only exists by virtue’of a cadential Confirmation then much ofthe surface material is hij acked to make no other semantic statement than s t

op

AHEAD.

Cadence as such conveys no other lexical information.

Thus Wagner moved the'key-defining point from its end to its opening moment. Key is defined when a previous key’s scale degrees are altered to replace them with the new pitch set. Wagner’s modulatory concept and practice is one of arrival not fieparture. Cadence is not forbidden; indeed, many of the epigrammatic keys that scurry past amount to little half-cadences. Cadential passages abound in Wagner but they are not well-formedness conditions for the identification of keys, which are lexically referenced with the syntactical accomplishment of their definitive scale degrees. Instead cadence is used to achieve poetic effects according to the dramatic requirements ofthe moment, as in Wotan’^s Walhall aria, in which (attitude aside) IVI-V-I architectonic cadences simply say “wow, just look at those big strong walls."” Thus, though the Walhall music sounds as if it is behaving in lawful Schenkerian fashion such an appearance is pure accident. It is to Schenkerism what "Come to ttiinV about it, C Major literally is the physical brain, i.e., #2149. [C-brains, thought] (‘wo Hirne sinnen, haftet dein Sinn’).

108 a tiger is to a candy cane or a zebra to prison dungarees. It is what it is not to satisfy some notion of abstract tpnal structure but to generate the impression of a big building that its architect thinks is going to last forever. The proof of this accidental relationship is that next moment the tonality is apt to race off again into micro-tuned syntactical antics equally responsive to their own semantic necessities ofthe moment. And in fact Wagner’s theories predict the appearance of such little micro-moments composed by extra-musical lexicality. The effects will arise in the form of unique tonal combinations mirroring combinations of emotion-charged poetic images. It is thus only natural [£=LIGHT] should combine with other lexical keys, as in Siegfried, Act I where Mime mutters, “On me lighted the Eye ofWotan and peered into my cave.’’^‘ Here a phrase of the “Walhall” motif is heard in its Db tonic to denote Wotan and the heavenly height from which the god peers down, and is repeated immediatelyinCMajor(#757d) since [C=LOOKINO]. Within this exquisite ly fine-tuned lexical phrase Wagner even makes room for two smaller lexical units, the chord (not key) *D b to denote “ihm” (i.e., "Wotan”) and the chord (not key) *G Major in token of [*G=mother] (“Mutter-witz”). For these keys and chords to be lexically intelligible at the moment oftheir occurrence each must have already acqui red a linear history of prior associations, which is precisely what Wagner means in sa>dng that the un-Expressed background is both multiple and one-in-Essence. In the linear event C Major lexicality properly commences at §30 [C=airlightness] and §49 [C= LIGHT], which comes in a cluster of related images §50 (EYE, the source of §1576). Thus in linear terms physical lightness and dexterity predate the visual sense in which both English and German understand light and licht and thus too Wagner empirically embeds the sense of sight in the prior sense of proprioception or body-awareness. The association EYE IS INTELLECT (eye standing for Wotan’s superior mind) has been generated through innumerable associations between the “brilliant” C Major and geniuses; keeping only to Siegfried, Act I, these include §1430, §1433, §1460, §1509, §1520, §1529, §1553, §1564, and §1566. The lexical associations of D b to Wotan and Walhall first appeared as early as §72. ^^This exan^le con^rises lexemes #I572a [f=Earth‘s surface; not-Nibelheim]; #1573 fDb=Wotanl: #1574 [C=eye]; #1575 (the lexical chord [*Db=Wotan]); and #1576 [C=wits]. It is Wagner’s stage version of Dumezil’s description of Wotan, “his face hidden under his hood, in his somber blue cloak, he goes about the world, simultaneously master and spy,” (Gods of the Ancient Northmen, p. 19.) In lexical terms fPb^MASTERl. [C=SPY].

109

Inn-

^71 A6—i |Xp O

#/572& Ibl>-Nibelungj |

//V

~T

l#/J72c[f-childbirth.laboril

Ex. 3.1: Wotan spying out Mime

110 To Wagner then, the Stuff of lexical tonality is poetic moments declared to be identical, similar, or dissimilar by means of tonal grammar. Wagner constructs correspondences by the categorial-grammatical means referred to in Chapter Two. In defining poetic form in this way Wagner produces a coherent theory of how verse and key link up; for instance, the sounding of a head-rhyme or Stabreim impels a key to begin. Both 5/abrcim-defined poetic moment and emotion-defined modulation commence together. The key terminates when a new poetic moment presents the occasion for a new modulation. The grammatical entity key thus becomes equivalent to natural language

word. Wagner’s didactic example is entirely devoted to quantifying poetic similarities and differences via lexical key relationships, and this is a reasonably accurate summary of lexical tonality in general. It is all about vocabulary building by comparisons. While modulation is motivated by emotion, in texted music emotion is signaled by poetic keywords; keyword-determined elemental emotions combine to compose hitherto unsuspected emotional complexes. This is not a technique of jockeying such stereotypical emotional icons as “love” or “hate” but of combining affective elements creatively to conjure nameless emotions not otherwise capable of expression. Complex emotions are to be composed rather than simple, extant ones reiterated. The intelligibility of the process depends on coordinating “determinant leading tones” with crucial poetic keywords. As suggested by the phrases/wss across and thrust onward, modulation is pulled forward byfront-rhyme keywords or their equivalent and does not look back unless keywords themselves draw it back. Otherwise it thrusts onward, a process Wagner personified in such terms as heroic poets setting sail on the sea of infinite harmony.^’ For music to actually behave in this way in real time musical units ofmeaning must be capable of precise and instant identification. Such elegant precision expresses itself in two ways. On the NL side, poetic texts are written as if they contained “poetic moments” signaled by such devices as head-rhyme, which in effect act like a front bracket ([) that defines the beginning of a poetically unitary string of words. This string ends at a closing rhyme thus: (]) or by the onset of a new and contrasting set of Stabreim. On the TL side, Stabreim are to act as triggers that impel

‘‘^Cf. Opera and Drama, p. 286.

Ill modulation to a syntactically specified key by the establishment of its definitive scale degrees. This key expresses its TL material with reference to the relevant NL poetic moment. Wagner conceived this as a miniature musical form, an entity in a space that had a beginning, middle, and end. This is the form I call a TL Lexeme. Wagner’s theory of Affinity poetics is, not accidentally, isomorphic with his theory of key confirmation; just as sonorous poetic forms place emotions in boxes of sound through their Stabreim and end-rhymes, so keys place emotions in boxes of sound through their scale degrees and leading-tones. Everywhere the composer aims at describing NL and TL rules and procedures in isomorphic terms, even templating his criticism ofpoetics down onto his key-definition theory to deconstract End-rhyme just as he does cadence: This End-rhyme . . . since it was also dwelt on as the stanza’s rounding-off... acquired so weighty a significance for the spoken verse, that all the other syllables of the line had to rank as a mere preparatory onset on its closing syllable, as a lengthened upstroke for the down-beat of the rhyme.^* To appreciate Wagner’s critique of end-rhyme consider its coherence with Edward T. Cone’s evaluation of the significance of cadence: Just as, in a normal musical period the antecedent phrase stands in some sense as an upbeat to its consequent, so in the large forms one entire section can stand as an upbeat to the next. And if, as I believe, there is a sense in which a phrase can be heard as an upbeat to its own cadence, larger and larger sections can be so apprehended. A completely unified composition would then constitute a single huge rhythmic impulse, completed at the final cadence.^’ Cone’s is an extremely reductionist but not implausible description of Schenkerian cadential logic and in the Ring it is precisely this that Wagner sets about to turn on its head—^which is one reason why Schenkerian theory is not only irrelevant to Wagner’s TL but actually erases much of it in the analytical act. Here is a typical example of a passage in which Schenkerian erasers would be rubbed blunt to efface Wagner’s micro-tuned lexical tonality in their vain search of an imaginary allfulfilling, single huge rhythmic impulse;

^’Opera and Drama, p. 245. Musical Form and Musical Performance, pgs. 25-6.

112 GUNTHER

113

Ex. 3.2: Wannabe heroes trying to cook the part Musical structuralists may parse this passage as they please, but if they are good Schenkerians they will reduce almost everything in it to a single Ursatz and stampede straight for some imagined finish line, churning up little lexical fragments with their clattering hooves as they flee. Whereas to the lexical analyst its whole point is Gunther’s timorous pussyfooting between B minor and D Major. And the only point of that is that [D=hero] while its relative minor (D ;vi) is the compromised, ersatz, or otherwise morally problematical brandX. Gdtterddmmerung, Act I thus opens in the key of shadow heroes, of waimabe leading men condemned to play the supporting roles. The lexical tonality here lets us know how Wagner understands Gunther’s psychology: flirting with the hero key only to revert to B minor moral inferiority, fatuously grasping at firaudulent F (1 Major glitz and glamor (bars 6-7), salving his wounded narcissism (bar 11) with the unguent of his D Major father’s heroic name(bar 12). Other lexemes are fine-tuned according to the images ofthe moment. Hagen

114 sucks up to big brother in the minion key of G Major (bar 16)/« the feminized subdominant ofthe key Gupther aspires to and thinks he owns. No clinical psycholo gist could craft a more apt syntax to sample the feel of flattery. From thence the indefinably weird sibling invokes the C minor of dark knowledge (bar 18) to imply some occult relation to the scary G minor inom (bars 19-20) from [G= mother]) who begot these B b Major Gibichung boys (bar 18). He rounds offhis claim by invoking the A minor of dark tidings (h:^2l-2-, from [C=tidings, knowledge]) that he implies their maternal prophetess imparted to him and him alone. None of this is rocket science. It’s just lexical tonality talking in a humdrum paragraph. But its semantical content is beyond the ability ofother theoretical models even to express. This is why I call Schenker a theoretical rubber eraser, at least when applied to Wagner’s music. Admittedly, my Wagner-based theory may lack the wow accruing to Ursatzes, Klangs, and Riemann Spaces. But we mere lexicographers have never owned much charisma anyway, so its not like we really miss it. The grammar ian feels he’s had a good day if he can worry his way through what three bars of lexical tonality may saying, and to make a good guess where it fits in the dictionary. It IS sometimes claimed that Wagner’s example may not be generalized across operas or that the composer later modified or abandoned this principle for others he did not care to mention. However, confirming the consistency of Wagner’s theoretical position, Abbate points to Wagner’s fragment “On Modulation’’ in the socalled ‘Tristan sketchbook,” still being compiled in 1868-9: , as [£=LIGHT] controls the entailments [c=dim] or [a=murky]. Wagner is equally rational about the logic of House-to-House relations. Though there are many of these, I want here to discuss a single type of such relations, namely the use of {X:vi} as a semantical/syntactical pivot key. I have said that a given {X:vi} acts as a semantic homonym through its other function as a {Y;i} (that is, C minor is both {C:i} and {Ei'.vi.}). Strictly speaking this is not a type of ambiguity. It is a TL parallel of a fact well known in metaphor theory, that metaphor axes can cross and interact at the nexus of single composite

150 linguistic expressions that appear mutually exclusive but in fact cause no cognitive confusion in users. Consider this example: The British monarchy has always been felt to be a profoundly lofty institution. The sentence may be felt to be true or false but it is not confusing. We know what it means even though it is composed of two logically antithetical core metaphors;'KINGSHIP IS HIGH and KINGSHIP IS LOW. The monarch’s “height” accrues to our imderstanding that we stand beneath a source of authority that looms over us [POWER IS IMPORTANT; IMPORTANCE IS HEIGHT]. The monarch’s “depth” accrues to oiu understanding that important institutions reach to the roots of our experience and roots are embedded in the ground [IMPORTANCE IS PROFOUND; PROFUNDITY IS DEEP]. The sentence is not understood as a logical

contradiction because metaphors make comparisons by selecting only certain features of experiences and, by expressing these, effectively hide others. When two such entailment chains meet and “collide” in a single expression, they are processed independently. They are thus rationally invisible to each other.“ Thus when Wagner imposes the cognitive structure of metaphor on his keys he likewise imposes their rational mutual invisibility. This is why G minor can mean both Nibelung and Mother. It is a Nibelung (and a paltry one at that) because [Bb.=Nibelungs] and G minor is Bb.:vi. It is a Mother because [G=Mother] and G minor is G;i. All other minor keys show this systematic metaphoric feature as well. Wagner uses this cognitive feature to relate Tonal Households to each other. Why, for instance, does the brat Siegfried grow up in G minor and not in some other key? And why can Mime assume Sieglinde’s role so successfully for so long? The questions are one and the same because they have the same answer, namely, this: SiegUnde’s House-Laws Nibelung House-Laws G MAJOR (I) / G Minor (i) ♦- (g) -♦ G minor (vi) / B b MAJOR (I) E minor (vi) B b Minor (I)

SIEGFRIED’S FOSTER HOME Showing G minor as the meeting ground between Nibelung and Sieglinde's child

Keep in mind that this is not a Schenkerian tonal structure but a cognitive structure mapped onto Schenker-describable key relationships and determining their

*’ln this respect the psychology of the metaphor coheres with the psychology of the wish discussed below in Chapter Eight (e.g., Wotan as Wunse).

151 linear sequencing and general relationships in usage. Such syntax/semantics interface formulas construct large sections of music as mapped by key signature. The present case lexically controls the flow of the first three signatures of Siegfried, Act I. Thus the sequence of signamres— No. I. Bb minor; No. II. G Major; No. III. G minor—establishes this lexical binding relationship at the tonality level (the level standing above linear keys and controlling their combination in sequence) by inscribing it as a structural factor in Act I, with “stmcture” implying here, as always, a cognitive/ semantic stmcture expressing itselfthrough tonal syntax. In Mime s case the B b Minor signature establishes the Nibelung thesis, the G Major signature the maternal antithesis, the G minor signature their synthesis. None of this has anything to do with Schenkerian logic. It is lexical through and through, a linear signatured key progression, organizing several hundred bars ofmusic along semantic/syntactical logic. Again we should pause to notice what happens when this semantic explanation of the tonal stmcture of Siegfried, Act I, scene i, meets Schenker. Semantic and Schenkerian explanations are not simply different nor can they be mutually reinforcing. They are utterly incompatible. Ifthe semantic explanation is correct then no imaginable Schenkerian analysis of this scene can be tme other than by astro nomically implausible chance. This application of the formula likewise organizes subsidiary images, for instance, the image of “smallness.” Everything is small in these bars. Mime is an insignificant, mentally deficient dwarf given to petulant kvetching; Siegfried an infantalized brat given to tantrums, and they only speak to each other’s smallness. In Mime’s kindergarten cavern this smallness is semantically overdetermined from both the relative minor of BbIS POWER (G minor marks the low rung on the Nibelung totem pole) and the tonic minor of G MAJOR IS NADIR (the mother-and-child scene, as in Bach’s G Major/minor Nativity scenes). Thus G minor is both child and dwarf. This overdetermination of smallness as such provides psychological dynamics to both Siegfiied and Mime. In both cases G minor is a small, crabbed venue out of which one cannot wait to modulate, though the tonal destination differs. Mime wants to acquire a B b Major place in the sun, thereby remainiiig within his own Nibelung tonal household, whereas Siegfiied pushes to change households altogether, modulating to dominant D Major hero-dom. In both cases to remain in G minor is a sign of failure and specifically of low family status: brother-subordinated or mother-

152 bound respectively. This is why, for instance, in Siegfried, Act I, Siegfried reverts to Sieglinde’s G the moment he sees an unveiled woman. To the fledgling D Major hero G Major is his mother, and thus the key acquires an Oedipal significance to him as it later does to Parsifal, and for the same reason. The semantic significance of No. II, G, is thus no more profound than that at this point Siegfried is still just a kid. G is everywhere primarily the “maternal scene,” replete with mommy and baby, which in the Ring is the root of a tree just as in Bach it is a Manger. Mom’s tonic minor g arises when mothers turn sinister (Grimhilde) or get sick or die (Sieglinde) or when otherwise nice children (Siegfried) throw fits.‘* G Major stands as subdominant to D Major, rightfully inhabited by heros. As any parent well knows, G minor fiissbudgets resemble ugly little dwarves—whence such typical phrases as “that little monster,” and hence, too, the link to Mime, whose house laws permit this little monsterto temporary appropriate bigbrother’sB k Major(#7. thus turning her hard-hearted (b =»io//e, “soft”; durum, hard ), hence .the hardness of her heart in the present tirade. Whichever way Fricka turns Briinnhilde has gotten there first, flaunting the goddess’ humiliation in her face. From Fricka’s point of view her own unsatisfactory house laws would therefore look something like this; (I)B Major

Ab Major(I)

(vi)G|t minor(i) (relative minor/tonic minor)

Fricka’s House Laws Whichever way Fricka takes it, Brilnnhilde comes out on top. What is worse, Gtt minor is also B:vi, and B Major is the tonal Household that controls violent transformations and transformers, such as B Major love-deaths. B minor Curses, murdering villains, death-dealing Valkyries, hungry bears, and other monsters,andGttminorTamhelm-mutants. Inparticular hernewkey communicates negatively with B minor, the Curse, i.e., [(Ab :i + B:vi) = Fricka, Alberich’s "Fifth Column”in heaven] This particular application of our syntactical/semantic formula is the technical specification of Wagner’s comment that Alberich’s ring would have been without power to afflict the gods had they not already been ready to be corrupted.^ It is, as it were, the cognitive structure of Walhall’s readiness to fall. ““Alberich and his Ring would have been powerless to harm the gods had they not themselves been susceptible to evil. Wherein, then, is the root of the matter to be sought Exa^e die first scene between Wotan and Fricka, which leads up to the scene in the second act of Die Walkure. The necessity of prolonging beyond the point of change the subjection to the tie that bm^ dieirr-a tie resulting from an involuntary illusion of love, the duty of maintaining at all costs the relation mto which they have entered, and so placing themselves in hopeless opposition to the umversal law of change and renewal, which governs the world of phenomena—these ate the conditions which bnng the pair of them to a state of torment and natural lovelessness.” (Letter to August Rockel, Januap^ 25, 1854 m Wagner on Music and Drama, pgs. 290-1.) Semantically Wagner’s “universal law of change and renewal” is significantly expressed by the key of B Major. This usage is even more tme m Parsifal.

Ch a pt e r f o u r Lexicon is Culture “If the composer wished to furnish a straightforward and appropriate Expression, he could not, with the best will in the world, do it otherwise than in tlwt musical dialect which we recognize today as an intelligible musical utterance. Richard Wagner'

I.

Rebutting Humpty Dumpty The natural result of treating keys as words is the constellation of a de facto

tonal language [TL] Lexicon such as comprises the Appendices below. In the context of my arguments this Lexicon represents a composite claim that, • tonal lexemes exist as empirically as do keys or natural language [NL] words and can be studied with a similar degree of confidence; • lexeme are both words and keys or occasionally tones or chords that act something like the “lexical units” described below; • '* my arrangement of the lexicon is the correct representation ofthe knowledge the native speaker, Wagner, had about his TL language; • the libretto’s NL referential domain is drawn fi-om the world while that of the TL Lexicon is drawn firom the libretto and its theatrical accessories, • TL lexemes state emotional attitudes about their NL refererits but such affective statements by no means exhaust the information they convey; • this TL Lexicon differs from other real Music Drama elements only in that to date no one appears to have noticed its existence or analyzed its implications. Should these prove true then this music as such is telling us things that we have not been hearing and cannot until we get that tones are talking as if they were words. Having argued why Wagner proceeded as he did and how he went about it, from here on I want to allow the Lexicon itself to begin to guide us into the semantics of Wagner’s tonal language. Now emphasis shifts from the means by which Wagner coerced music to speak toward the contents ofwhat he relied upon music to say. This means first describing the Lexicon's general properties. The next chapters will grow more detailed, moving gradually from the Lexicon proper to the key constellations or Tonal Households (natural key groupings, e.g., E b Major-E b Minor-C minor) asdiscussed in Opera and Drama as measures of Affinity used to evaluate the similarities within groups of poetic images, and on down at last to the lexemes themselves, their interrelationships, and meanings. 'Opera and Drama, p. 67.

156 It is useful to begin with an orthodox definition of an ML lexicon; A lexicon is the knowledge that a native speaker has about a language. This includes information about the form and meanings of words and phrases; • lexical categorization; the appropriate usage of words and phrases; relationships between words and phrases, and categories of words; • phrases. Phonological and grammatical rules are not considered part of the lexicon.^ -in which a lexeme is “the minimal unit of language which has a semantic interpretation and embodies a distinct cultural concept. It is made up of one or more form-meaning composites called lexical units.”^ My “TL Lexicon" differs little from this aside from the role of native speakers: the material studied by linguists is produced by populations of interactive NL speakers whereas this material is an artificial TL addressed by a single individual to appropriately acculturatedaudiences.^Missingislivingdialectic betweenpemonsWagner’s language talks, but it never listens; its audiences listen, but never talk. Urns “knowledge” becomes the knowledge that Wagner and his audiences (including musicologists) have about his TL that permits them to consider it intelligible. Now, recalling that eyen after a century and more Wagner theory (though surely not Wagner’s theory) does not agree on what constitutes his keys, the claim that such objects are lexical to boot might easily be mistaken for a case of describing the unknown m terms of the unknowable: a retreat from the objectivity that we ‘Glossary of Temis' at the LinguaLinks website, http.V/www.sil oredinmiistics/ GlossaryOf LinguisticTenm /WhatIsALexicon.htm (downloaded Febr^ty 20, 2004).

oc ’ w ■ ’ ■ *’ descnbed such acculturation in minimalist terms; “An audience which assembles m a fair mood is satisfied as soon as it distinctly understands what is eoine forward and it

isa^eatrmstake to think thatatheatrical audience must h^^veaspedalta^^^^^

bS^by *e"£ a mefllKsSav^tre

”

°P“°” have been *e drama was merely

to a good-that IS. rational-opera, people should, so to speak, not think of the music at“l buS represrnted““°“'“'’ *h'=h&llest sympathy should be wholly occupied by the action

157 rightfully demand of a real lexicon back to a full-blown Humpty Dumpty theory of tonal language.’ This is why I fret so over how Wagner understood keys, what they look like, and especially how you can tell where one leaves off and another begins. Although knowing such things is worthwhile in itself, the key theory in the previous chapter has a more pedestrian purpose: crass measurement.^ In Wagner’s theory and practice the periodic compass of a key locates its libretto referent, without which yardstick intelligible lexicality collapses like a house of cards. Yet merely quantifying keys cannot in itself rebut Humpty Dumpty. They mhst be shown to express distinct cultural or public concepts. The bingo word is public, words are not private but public individuals who go about their referential business in the harsh glare of public scrutiny, like cons on parole who must answer for unlawful behavior to the word police, that is, to us. They caimot bear much crossexamination: too many questions like “does grok means to get it or to HeinleinT' calls down a guilty verdict of “gibberish!” and back to the slammer they go—out of circulation. Words pay for unintelligibility by vanishing; contrarily they enjoy the perks of intelligibility not merely by surviving but by engendering other words that create over time extended social networks or kinship patterns among the survivors. This is what Wagner meant in saying; “Do not forget, as centre and axis of the whole, to give prominence to 'subject-matter' ... I treat form purely from this aspect, whereas others have always dealt with form quite apart from contents.”^ The philosophical term is intentional object, one that caimot be fully described without also describing something else; in this case, its meaning which, per our definition, is the cultural idea that it embodies. TL lexemes must get past Humpty Dumpty—^that ’E.g., “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dun^ty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that's all.’’’ (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter VI.) Hence, “Humpty Dumpty language (noun): An idiosyncratic or eccenCtic use of language in which the meaning of particular words is determined by the speaker.” (http://www.wordspy.co1n/words/HumptyDun5jtylanguage.asp, downloaded October 24,2004.) More dryly, the relevant distinction is between “lexicographic” versus “stipulative” meanings. ‘Readers interested in more elaborated analyses of tonal tecbnicalia based on assumptions and methods similar to those in the present book, should consult Marshall Tuttle, Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera (Lewiston, 2000.) ’To Uhlig, in Richard Wagner's Letters to his Dresden Friends, p. 145, letter ofNovember

158 sneaking suspicion that they might mean just anything or nothing—else they are no trae lexemes at all. The heart of Wagner’s intelligibility conundrum is that for TL to work keys must not only refer but we his audience must understand that they do and to be able to prove it by pointing, if not to a literal dictionary, at least to a body of public consensus that arbitrates disputes.

II.

Lexemes, Key Characteristics, and Public Cuitural Properties The Case of[Et= WATER. ORIGIN. DREAM (PSYCHE)]. The “distinct cultural

concept” that the musical public already owned was a convention of key character istics that had existed since the eighteenth century. This convention was so strong that it inspired Beethoven to make notations like “B minor: black key,” or, con cerning Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, “He always begins far too high up above his audience. With him it is always mcestoso. D flat major! Isn’t that so?”® Such remarks would be unintelligible absent prior conventions associating B minor with blackness and D b Major with altitude, and the existence ofsuch conventions permitted W agner to paint his own B minor over with both literal and metaphoric darkness or to extend his calipers from D b Major to the mountain-top home ofhis gods, thereby endowing this spatialized point with the attribute of HEIGHT “atop” the Circle of Fifths, which by such means was to become in effect a tonal mappa mundi? How pervasive was this convention? Rita Steblin answers flatly: “References to key qualities appear everywhere, as though they were well established musical facts. Joseph Kerman discusses ‘the famous C-minor mood of Beethoven’s early years.’R.M. Longyear writes: ‘As Forster’s String Quintet, Op. 19 (1802) shows, C minor meant to him what it did to Mozart and Beethoven. ’ But, did keys really mean different things to these composers, and if so, what did C minor, or the other keys, signify? In a sense this question has been adequately answered. Werner Liithy, in his 1931 dissertation on Mozart and key characteristics, states: Even though one might personally hold a negative view of key char acteristics, one caimot get around the fact that each great composer *The “black key” is from the sketch books (N. 11, p. 326), quoted in Paul Mies, Beethoven's Sketches, p. 175. Mies attributes the “D t Klopstock” to a letter to Rochlitz, quoted in Ibid., p. 174. ®The lexical logic thus becomes, IPb^ZENlTH. mountain peak] (#72; #334; #2623; #2828, etc.).£i=ZENITH works because MUSIC IS SPACE, TOTALITY OF KEYS = SPACE (CIRCLE). For Circle of Fifths as mythic world map see below, Chapters Six and Seven.

159 preferred to associate similar emotional meanings with the same or related keys.”'" It is thus noncontroversial to conclude that Wagner’s common practice musical community treated key characteristics as public cultural properties, and that for our composer to use them as TL building blocks satisfied at least the minimal requirement for establishing and extending objective and intelligible tonal lexemes. Key characteristics participate in Wagner’s aforementioned theory ofAffinity by which, when keys become lexical, certain keys become drawn to others whose own lexical meanings they resemble. Following Wagner s affinity theory, the relation

of TL lexemes to key characteristics is easy to define: Lexemes related hy Affinity are grammatical specifications of a generic background KEY CHARACTERISTIC precisely as hotly debated issue or sharp retort are grammatical specifications of a generic background concept ARGUMENT IS CONFLICT, CONFLICT IS FIRE." They are tokens qf a type or for the present purposes, of a “public cultural property. Let us see how this “distinct cultural concept” applies to #la, “A lexical meaning of Eb Major is ORIGIN, WATER, DREAM (PSYCHE)”'^ and its entailments. Since the Lexicon proceeds firom a single e b tone Wagner develops his lexical logic by means of precise evaluations of its House Laws and those of its nearer and more distant neighbors. Since these are all rationally related to this Referential Key I Wagner’s selection of this tone may be considered his only absolutely arbitrary compositional decision. '°A History ofKey Characteristics in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, p. 1. Embedded quotes: Kerman,,TAe Beethoven Quartets, p. 341; Longyear. Nineteenth Century Romanticism in Music, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs. 1973). p. 67; Llithy. Mozart und die Tonartencharakteristik{Sti3sbo\ug, 1931), p. 1. "As m04 [F=Giants, workers] and M67I [d(F:vi) = blacksmith, forging] are grammatical specifications of F MAJOR HOUSEHOLD IS PHYSICAL STRENGTH. The cognitive Strategy is to liken an abstraction like argument or F Major with a concrete experience like^ire or strength.

"Respecting objectivity, the interpretive moves employed in this stady and based on Wagner’s own theory and practice are standard; thus according to physicist Wolfgang Pauli (“NatunvissenschaftlicheunderkenntnistheoretischeAspektederIdeenvomUnbewussten, ’Mi//sflIze

und Vortrage iiber Physik und Erkenntnistheorie (Brunswick, 1961, p. 95), quoted in von Franz, Number and Time, p. 35n): “I am in agreement with Bohr that the objectivity of a scientific interpretation of nature should be defined as broadmindedly as possible. Every way of thinking that can be L-gbi to others, that can, with the necessary previous knowledge, be made use of by others, and that can be discussed, may be called objective.” " Written, [Eb.=ORlGIN, WATER, DREAM (PSYCHE)].

160 But is it? Lexeme #la derives from Wagner’s dream of September 5, 1853, described in the composer’s autobiography: ... I fell into a kind of somnolent state, in which I suddenly felt as though I were sinking in swiftly flowing water. The rushing sound formed itself in my brain into a musical sound, the chord of E flat major, which continually re-echoed in broken forms; these broken chords seemed to be melodic passages of increasing motion, yet the pure triad of E flat major never changed, but seemed by its continuance to impart infinite significance to the element in which I was sinking. I awoke in sudden terror from my doze, feeling as though the waves were rushing high above my head. I at once recognized that the orchestral overture to the Rheingold, which must have long lain latent within me, though it had been unable to find definite form, had at last been revealed to me___ The composer underscored the “infinite significance’’ of this experience by calling his Referential Key I the watery “beginning of the world”'^ whose entailments constituted “a mythos compassing the whole relations of a world.”'** The lexeme’s translation is thus straightforward: Wagner himself declared that the substance of the dream was identical to both the waters and the beginning of all things. Cosima reconfirms this in reporting that “ofthe movement of the waves in Das Rheingold R. says, ‘It is, so to speak, the world’s lullaby’,”” a thought that links this b e g in n in g IN WATER to poetically reified UNCONSCIOUS via SLEEP. Thus there appears tobeno

more cogent formula for translating the meaning of this initial lexeme.'* PAs an additional referential level Wagner saw music itself as her peculiar character is of a fluid natim^lement poured out betwixt the more defined and mdividuaUsed substances of the other arts.” {The Art-Work of the Future, p. 150.) This rather elegantly toows m additional lexical sop to the uroboric, self-referencing circularity that we reasonably demand of any self-respecting, all-engendering WORLD RIVER. wat cr

; thus

' Letter to Liszt, February 11, 1853 {Correspondence of Wagner and Liszt, Vol l,p.

257)

'^“Epilogue to the ‘Nibelung’s Ring’,” p. 269. "Cosi"aWagner,.piiiries,Vol.I.eutiyofJunel7.1869,p.l27.WagnergeneralizestheEb Major/unconscious relation beyond the Ring, for instance in Die Meistersinger, Act III when Walther shares his own nunmous Eb Major dream with Sachs. There can be Uttle doubt that Wagner con^osed this episode with an autobiographical eye to his own seminal dream of E b Major w a t e r . •

what appears as this lexeme is; “The end of Science is the fjnng ofthe Unconscious, the giving of self-consciousness to Life, the reinstatement ofthe Senses mAeirpeiceptive nghts the sinkmg of Caprice in the world-Will {"Wollen") of Necessity. Science nf" f of Knowledge, her procedure mediate, her goal an intetmediation; but Life is the great Ultimate, a law unto itself. As Science melts away into the recognition of the ultimate and

JUS

161 This dream has no doubt been over-discussed but it strikes to the heart of the public cultural property requirement without which L-E-X-E-M-E spells only “bunk.” Since Wagner considered this lexeme to be substantially identical to the contents of his dream, then to argue that fEb=0R10IN. WATER, DREAM (PSYCHE)] is a private not public meaning is to argue that Wagner’s was a private not a public dream. But even aside from the question of the choice of E b per se, its psychological depiction of the unconscious as a water-world was already a mid-nineteenth century German cultural public property and we need not risk anachronism by citing such twentieth century psychologists as Freud or Jung to show it. The archetypal (read “public”) image of the UNCONSCIOUS as WATER had only recently been publicized by the pioneering psychologist C. G. Cams, a man with whom Wagner pointedly compared himself,” and whose treatise Psyc/ie had with admirably synchronistic exactitude just appeared in Germany in 1846, the year that saw Wagner’s first work on the Ring cycle. , Envisioning psyche in terms of ELEMENTAL WATER, Cams evoked an inscape whose every detail is mirrored in Wagner’s dream, his underwater Rhine Prelude, and his First Scene. Like Wagner, Cams chose the mythological WORLD RIVER as his primary metaphor for the unconscious; thus “the life of the psyche may be compared to a great, continually circling river which is illuminated only in one small area by the light of the sun.”^® In Wagner the latter detail recurs, obviously enough, as the magical Rhinegold that alternately sleeps and wakes in the depth of a RIVER that is self-determinate reality, of actual Life itself: so does this avowal win its frankest, most direct expression in Art, or rather in the Work ofArt" {The Art-Work of the Future, p. 73.) ‘’See, e.g., Cosima Wagner,Diaries, Vol. II, p. 409, entryofDecemberS, 1879. Cams’ name comes up in a casual anecdote concerning an event that took place years before in Zurich (“That was vanity—I was like Councilor Cams.”). However, the fact that Wagner should suddenly recall Caras inparticular to exemplify generic vanity in a casual reference to an incident long past suggests that the councilor/physician signified more to Wagner than a random morality-play figure. Among Cams’ numerous accomplishments (physician, painter, politician, psychologist) only the latter comes within the composer’s normal range of interests, and since Cams’ theories appeared at the precise moment when Wagner began his Ring work inearaest, we may reasonably surmise that W agner may have been acquainted with Cams’ psychological pamphlet of 1846, published just five years before Wagner’s dream. I conjecture that Wagner read it between 1846 and 1852. The keyword vanity is a clue: both men were prominent, vain, considered themselves polymaths, and undoubtedly were. Since Wagner explicitly identifies himself with Cams I suspect that his notorious jealousy acted to trigger the memory and his Rhine dream may be understood in part as cultural one-upmanship. I’m not suggest ing that the dream did not occur (for the contrary argument see Warren Darcy, Wagner's Das Rheingold, pgs. 62-4, pgs. 24-5), only that Cams’ vivid “Rhine Scene”, right there on page 1, may have suggested it to the composer’s unconscious, which obligingly did the rest. ”C. G. Cams, Psyche (1846), Part I, p. 1.

162 simultaneously MUSIC, DREAM/PSYCHE and UNIVERSAL ORIGIN. That Cams’ PSYCHE also is the mythic and not some naturalistic river is given by ENDLESSLY CIRCLING, a pointedly non-naturalistic mythic detail. The psychologist’s expansion ofhis image IS important to our purpose of accurately describing the defining affect of the imaginal constellation in question: “In the entire realm of the unconscious life of the sou\, fatigue does not exist. Liquid currents thus flow restlessly within us, the heart

beats, the lungs breathe, and the glands secrete incessantly. In all these manifestations of life, there is no pause or fatigue. This is all the more remarkable when we consider how quickly other muscles tire after long activity. All conscious processes require constant intermption and refreshment.’’^' It is almost superfluous to document that this experience is an essential affect ive core of dreams (and, as I am about to argue, of the common practice perception of the “nature” of the key of Eb); this is perhaps best summed up by Helen Keller thus: “All attest that in Dreamland there is no such thing as repose. We are always up and doing with a mind for any adventure. We act, strive, think, suffer, and are glad to no purpose. We leave outside the portals ofSleep all troublesome incredulities and vexatious speculations as to probability. I float wraith-like upon clouds in and out among the winds, without the faintest notion that I am doing anything un usual---- Into whatsoever situation or society my wanderings bring me, there is the same homogeneity.

The unmistakable affective fingerprint of ORIGIN, WATER,

DREAM is a perceived state of endless yet ^ortless activity within an all-embracing state ofparadoxical repose, and the three Rhine Daughters endlessly circle within the

psychic/tonal waters in tireless playful activity, personifications of Caras’ “liquid currents flowing restlessly without pause or fatigue.” From the correspondences between Caras’ and Wagner’s inscapes we may draw a general point. The ability of Wagner’s lexemes to bear propositional significance depends on their prior ability to be recognized as either pre-cultural or culture-specific public properties, which are essentially synonymous with these lexemes’ meanmgs.Suchmeaningsmayrest in any generalpsychological experience that can be distinguished, described, and recognized when reproduced. As far as the Ibid., pgs. 57-8. I (1903), p. 87. One reason for this general absence of repose in dreams IS simple the dreamer is asleep already, which makes sleeping-within-dreams both oxymoronic and redundant even to the Unconscious.'*

163 present TL theory is concerned, this class of experiences (psychological archetypes or virtual intelligible objects) is synonymous withpab/zc culturalproperties. Wagner uses such properties as primary lexemes to generate secondary lexemes (basically sjwonyms) whose intelligibility is conceptually related to their own. These in turn generate tertiary lexemes and so on down in the linear propositional chain that we are now examining. Wagner’s lexical production line is simplicity itself, and an exemplary case is the ensuing #lb, [E b = RHINE]. The logic of differentiating the one lexeme from the other is simply that the former refers to the “curtain down” sound-world, which Wagner takes every pain to endow with universal and thus pre-cultural character istics, while the curtain’s rise segues the generically human to the culturally specific

II

by the words “An Tiefe des Rheines” and their visual representation. The curtain conjures the culture-specific from the psychologically general: everyone potentially ha^ WATER dreams but only in Germanic Europe would these be likely be RHINE dreams.^’ This initial lexical sequencing exemplifies the painstakingly linear way in which these lexemes begin to unfold their entailments, an effectively propositional process best understood in terms of such an implied sequence of entailments as, “If [Eb=WATER] then [Eb=RHINE]. [Eb.=WATER], therefore [Eb=RHINE] . . . If [Eb.=RHINE] then [Elb=RHINE DAUGHTERS]. [Eb.=RHINE], therefore lEb=RHINE DAUGHTERS] . . . etc.”

Again, ther« are no conceptual or practical difficulties about this process. Aside from having to embody some recognizable and verifiable cultural property, the ”E.g., "Vater Rhein, for millennia a prime artery of international commerce and communication, became a focal point for mid-nineteenth-century German culture in general, and for music in particular.” (Cecelia Hopkins Porter, The Rhine as Musical Metaphor, p. 219.) The most well-known and amb itious exan^le ofcultural Rhine-homage music is undoubtedly S chumannM’hird Syn^honyinE b Major (“Rhenish”), conyosedbetweenNovember2andDecember9,1850, and thus roughly contemporaneous with Wagner’s preparations for the composition of Das Rheingold and exactly contemporary with his first sketches for Opera and Drama (discussed in Ibid., pgs. 188-96). The most musically generative “Rhine” text of the nineteenth century was Niklaus Becker’s “They shall not take the Rhine”, written in jingoistic defiance against the French threat of 1840 to retake the river from the Germans: “From late 1840 through the following spring, German music journals, hoping to expand readership, published a national competition to determine the ‘best’ setting of Becker’s Rhine poem. There were nearly two hundred entries.” (Ibid., p. 48.) Despite the title the uninspiring and indeed execrable text (translated in Ibid., p. 46) is actually more about militant defiance of foreigners than the river as such, which may explain why of the twelve san^ile settings offered by Porter half are in D Major (3) and C Major (3), the traditional military flourish keys, while only the ten^eramentally pacific Schumann's is, as in the Rhenish Symphony, in E b, which suggests that the key’s poetic hold over the composer’s Rhine-imagery was general.

164 only other requirement is that the lexemes unfold in a linear sequence in which one leads in implied propositional style to another, permitting us to follow their step-bystep logic and to recall what we have previously learned about them. This is what Wagner means in claiming that knowing is a form of recollecting, and his present process operationalizes his theory. Something known now is something that has been known before, all the way back to the earliest cognitive building blocks with which we as infants begin to construct our complex image of the world. His linear-lexical tonality unfolds on this step-by-step and modular principle, bar 1 through to bar N, a procedure which, as a model of human cognitive development, would earn at least provisional approval from early childhood psychologists. This relentless linearity and its propositional purpose is why I found it necessary to analyze.the Ring bar-by-bar and why Appendix H could not be omitted from the present study but must be available to permit falsification or alternate translation. It is also why strict linear harmonic analysis remains indispensable for capturing the syntactical behavior of lexical tonality and why this technique cannot be replaced, e.g., by Schenkerian analysis, which wherever imposed on the scores effectively erases every smidgen ofwhat Wagner was most concerned to express. As in ML sentences but unlike as in paintings or architecture, linear sequencing (e.g., word order and sentence order) is crucial. Assuming the composer to be Tlinguistically competent (knows how to talk) then when his keys become lexemes they automatically participate in propositional strings whether one chooses to thinlf ofthese as actively expressed or cognitively latent. Either way he’s arguing lexically and using keys to do so, just as if he were talking in German.^''

III.

A Sound of Many Waters The i? ing-’ s musical score, then, reads precisely like an ML novel, in which the

sentence order and the minute grammatical connection between words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, is the most fundamental characteristic ofits construction! In this TL novel lexical keys function as do words, propositioning, arguing, and concluding, expressing attitude and describing local scenes as they go. And since its “E.g., "... I had completely learnt the speech of Music; I was at home with it, as with a m what I wished to utter. I need no more be careful for the normal mode: it «ood ready at my call, exactly as I needed it, to in^art a definite impression or emotion in keeping with my inner in^ulse. (A Communication to My Friends, p, 363.) ^ ®

165 lexemes are intentional objects, then the Ring too is an intentional object and its meaning must be sought not in itself alone but also in its surrounding standard musical repertoire or, if you will, the “canon.” When rendered as art lexicality is canonical for the same reason that intelligibility is that which survives the egotistical depredations of Humpty Dumpty. For our purposes the canon is the collective record ofconsensus on the distinct cultural concepts common to Wagner and his colleagues, that is, the intelligibility factors called key characteristics or, when Wagner uses them as the basis for a XL discourse using these factors like words, TL lexemes. To begin mapping the region spanned by these public cultural entities let us consider #5, Eb= WAVE, RHINE DAUGHTERS in a context that distributes imagery across composers, genres, and time periods. Wagner’s image of the key as a wave form bears detailed comparison with Landowska’s description of the Eb Major Prelude fiom the Well Tempered Clavier, Book I, whose beauty she imagines “lies in the never ending ebb and flow of waves which, from begirming to end, bestow upon the whole piece a calm grandeur, something eternal that goes beyond the last bar.”^* Donington resorts to similar imagery in his description of the Rheingold Prelude that, “A sense of timelessness sets in. The sense of having somehow drifted out of time..The imity of these statements consists an imaginal compound of calm, flow, wave, eternal, endless, traditional entailments ofWATER without which background image they wouldbe unintelligible. WATERconstellates these secondary images into an integral system as opposed to a loose collection of vague similarities; hence my term key constellation to designate such integrated systems of imagery. All are congraent with the lexical entailments of the Rheingold Prelude, which is correspondingly constellated, and we shall see that such constellations are likewise general conceptual features of key characteristics throu^out the common practice period. As a sequence of images the segue of Wagner’s Prelude-to-opening curtain designated as Lexeme #i follows Landowska’s description that fiom Prelude to Fugue; “Here is a Fugue, babbling along, light and carefree. Bach, as though relieved after the overwhelming Prelude, is happy in the midst of [three] voices that chatter

“Denise Restout, ed., Landowska on Music, p. 185. “Robert Donington, Wagner’s Ring and its Symbols, p. 21.

166 back and forth, pursuing and teasing one another.Ladowska’s imagery presents a meaningful coincidence to Wagner’s [three] nixies, happily chattering, pursuing, and teasing, within the nevCT ending ebb and flow of E b WATERS. This is no generic similarity but a highly specific, detailed, and nuanced network of correspondence, replete with images keyed to metaphysical state (timelessness, eternity); element (flow, wave); affect (calm, happy); personality (voices); characteristic behavior (babbling, chattering, teasing, pursuing, inferentially swimming); overdetermined threeness (three flats, voices);^® and specific sequence oftimeless eternity that segues to three personified, carefree, and babbling voices. Considered as musical imagery and adjusting for stylistic differences accruing to different time periods and available expressive resources, the two pieces inspire a remarkable uniformity of inscape or intelligible poetic experience, unified on the most general level by a shared identity of key. The constellating image in both is WATER. Unless this overwhelmingly detailed correspondence is meaningless, then

since no cause-and-effect relation can obtain, the expressive parallels can only arise from a shared cultural key concept through which precise and relevant imaginal correspondences are articulated and transmitted. The idea that key characteristics are sets ofmodular and decomposable poetic elements means that WATER may act independently as a thing in itself to poetically articulate the key. The following brief survey of canonical examples will suggest the range of poetic contexts within which the element paired with E b. The key and its tonic and relative minors retained their WATER associations as things-in-themselves in nineteenth century opera and art song before and after the Ring. Three-flat WATER took on a poetic life of its own, dissolving its mysticism into a kind of Romantic ambiguity which, keeping its poetic origins in mind, actually proves to be not all that ambiguous after all. The elemental image remains as a poetic background. For in stance, in The Damnation ofFaust (Scene XI), Berlioz brings the three-flat key into connection with WATER in an originally Romantic way. In the song “The King of Thule”, otherwise in F, the passage “he threw the chalice into the sea” falls to flat subtonic Eb Major and “down in a whirlpool sank the relic” flushes it down the

“I.e., “built in three sections—^preamble, fiigato in the spirit of a chorale, double-fugue... Thanks to a unity of tempo from beginning to end, these three sections merge into one vast piece.” {Ibid.)

167 CHAOTIC C minor drain (for C minor as CHAOS see below). Again, references to the

“chalice” itself fall to Ab Major, Wagner’s grail or generic cup-key, on the reason able theory that dominant LIQUIDS are best contained in subdominant VESSELS. Often a simple reference to “water” is sufficient to constellate the three-flat key. In Fidelia, Act II, No. 12, the image of the stagnant well beneath Florestan’s prison calls forth the requisite trio of flats (“somewhere beneath this rubbish is the old well”, etc.)—a passage that resonates as late as Pelleas and Melisande, Act El, Scene H, in which Golaud’s “See there, the stagnating water I told you abouf’ impels Debussy to reach for the customary three-flat WELL icon. The tendency of the threeflat key to gather WATER also appears in Brahms. In his song “Juchhe” (Hurrah!), Op. 6, No. 4, the words “why is the world all so wondrous fair... The lake knows, the rivers know, the sea knew it long ago. In mirrors they paint the'mountains, the' gardens, the town, the fountains” arepainted in three flats. “Verzweiflung” (Despair), Op. 33, No. 10, the passage “roar on, ye waves that surround me, that seize me to drag me far down, ye floods that are dragging me down,” is in C minor, while “Gaudium Certaminis,” Op. 33, No. 8, in G b Major, takes an E b at the words, “I’ll plunge into the onrushing waters, and welcome the incoming tide, though many a swimmer has foundered.” The combination of WATER and DEPTH constellates the heavily flat-burdened E b minor as in “Liebestreu” (True love). Op. 3, No. 1; “In the sea, in the sea sink grief, my child, in the sea, in the silent sea!... A stone will rest on the ocean’s floor.” In “Lied” (Song), Op. 3, No. 4, the passage "High over the Volga a seagull flies, and circles round till he spies out his prize. O stay you down deep in the stream, little fish, nor swim to the top as the seagull would wish. For if you come up, then down comes he,” is likewise in the tonic minor. And when the sea turns eerie, as in “Sulima,” Op. 33, No. 13 (“Hark to the waves of the sea, how they moan, they skip, they gambol, and call to their own!”) enharmonics intervene to twist A b and E b minors to G t* and D U respectively. Again, in Schumann’s song “Lust der Sturmnacht” (Joy in a Stormy Night), Op. 35, No. 1, the words “When rainstorms gust and squall over hill and plain, making inn-signs and windows rattle with their violence... how sweet to be at peace within doors, blissfully lost in love!” splash dutifully through an E b minor notated, however, with three flats. On the other hand, in “Heiss mich nicht reden” (Bid me not

168 speak), Op. 98a, No. 5, the relative C minor reveals how “the hard rock cleaves, freely releasing its hidden springs.”^ Mendelssohn likewise understands the key’s elemental point. When the “roaring waves” recur in Elijah the approach ofWATER signals the modulation from the A b Major of No. 19a (“Thou has overthrown thine enemies”) to E b at the cue “a little cloud riseth now from the waters... the storm rusheth louder and louder!” And the three-flat key expresses No. 20: “He laveth the thirsty land, the waters gather, they rush along, they are lifting up their voices.” This compares with Elgar’s The Dream of Gerontius, Part II, in which E b floods the old man’s soul, as it did St. John’s, with the “sound of many waters.”^® These are specifically heavenly, not terrestrial, WATERS, as in Vaughan Williams Sea Symphony. “O vast Rondure, swimming in space”, “O farther, farther shore.- .

or the passage in the slow

movement (“On the Beach at Night Alone”) where appears the text “A vast similitude interlocks all, all distances of place however wide, all distances of time, all souls, all living bodies though they be ever so different.” In similar vein Schubert finds the key congenial to the image of SPACE when, in the song Op. 80, No. 3, he enfolds the text “Standing in the boundless night. Yearning fills my breast. Starry splendour gleaming bright. Gives my heart nor rest.” In the song “On the Lake,” the composer makes his WATER and SPACE connection explicit through the E b setting of the text “We are like the lake, we mortals, in it countless stars are falling, falling out ofHeaven’s portals, where our souls are swaying, while the little waves are playing.” Thus to Schubert LAKE and SKY conjoin through three-flats—a conjunction active in Brahms’ imagination as well, as the E b passage “your eyes, blue as summer skies, and cool as mountain lake, cool as mountain lake” from the song “Fair Blue Eyes,” Op. 59, No. 8, suggests. IV.

There and Back Again: God, Barbarossa, Bonaparte, Siegfried —and God Wagner’s use of E b to denote the First Cause is likewise canonical. The use

of E b Major to denote the origin ofeverything appears to have arisen in the Baroque ^’Trans. Eric Sams, p. 167. “Some counter-exanqjles would not be out of order. Schubert’s long song “On the River” is inE Major, the key of Smetana’s The AfoWau, perhaps due to the scoring requirements of the accompanying Waldhom in E. Schubert’s other song “On the River” is in D Major.

169 period with the symbolism of the number Three, through which E b was brought into relationship with the triune image of God. Thus as early as 1784, C. F. D. Schubart claimed that “through its three flats it expresses the holy trinity”^’—a numerological perception an example ofwhich is Bach’s E b Prelude and Fugue for organ from the Klavierubung, of which Schweitzer says that “the same theme recurs in three interconnected fugues, but each time with another personality,

referring

specifically to the Lutheran formulation of Father—Son—^Holy Spirit. He elaborates at length: “The first fiigue is calm and majestic, with an absolutely uniform movement throughout; in the second, the theme seems to be disguised, and is only occasionally recognizable in its tme shape, as if to suggest the divine assumption of an earthly form; in the third, it is transformed into rushing semiquavers, as if the Pentecostal wind were coming roaring from heaven.’’” Schweitzer’s derivation ofhis second and third fugue-imagery from the “absolute uniform motion” of the first, likewise “calm and majestic,” substantially recapitulates the feeling-tone and technique described by Landowska in her assessment of the E b Prelude from WTC, Vol. I.” On the basis of evidence culled from both criticism and compositional strategies we can construct a model ofhow key characteristics were cobbled together and communicated among composers and critics and across time periods. Numerological calculations also inform twentieth century criticism, as where Chailley imagines Eb Major in The Magic Flute to derive its meaning from the “three of perfection, the maj or of serenity, and the flats of solemnity.”^’ This implies ’’Quoted in Key Characteristics, p. 245. ’’Albert Schweitzer, Bach, Vol. I, p. 385. ” Ibid. ”A point noted by Erwin Bodky, The Interpretation ofBach's Keyboard Works,p. 256, who draws a specific link between this fugue and the E b Prelude discussed by Landowska as follows: “The figure ‘3’ clearly played a role in the choice of key (three flats ) of the E flat major Prelude, W.K. I, which is very closely related to the great Organ Prelude and Triple Fugue in E flat major from the Klavieriibung, part III, in which the Trinity is the secret subject. ’’Jacques Chailley, The Magic Flute, Masonic Opera, p. 161. Chailley’s formulation (number/mode/sign) exemplifies the modular nature of the imaginal strategy that we may infer gives rise to these key characteristics. Their meaning resides not in unitary but constellated images. Thus sharps and flats proper were likewise imagined as having characteristics: the sharp (t being designated durum (hard), the flat b molle (soft). The tenaflat itself carries, in English, a meaning—sinking, low.

170 that TL lexical meanings are modular, deriving more complex and interconnected associations by accretion from more elemental ones. A composite image is assembled from poetic primitives and common cultural meanings are developed over time by means of public property logic in music practice and criticism. With respect to feeling-tone, Chailley’s emphasis on the solemnity of E bis but one instance of a general perception.^* Trinitarian imagery projected onto Eb Major was associated with a profound atmosphere of the sacred or religious. Thus Jean-Francois Lesueur (1797) called Eb “the religious key,” Johan Jakob Heinse (1795), “Solemnity of priesthood. Noble, solemn, dignified; magnificent,” Justin Heinrich Knecht (1792) descnbed it as splendid and solemn,” Pietro Lichtenthal (1826) as suitable for “serious and religious matters,” J. A. Schrader (1827) believed that “in this key resounds that which is solemn, noble, and dignified; it depicts pious feelings, devotion, love, and thankfulness,” Henri Weikert (1827) identified it with “devotion and love; everything solemn and splendid;” to G. F. Eberhardt (1830) the key represented “gentle majesty, praise of God, cheerful splendour, solemnity,” and W. C. Mflller (1830) remarks its “religious solemnity.””. The idea that three-flat solemnity issues from the Tnnity is supported by the solemn passage in Elgar, pream ofGerontius,VwX E: “A presage falls upon thee, as a ray/Straight from the Judge, expressive ofthy lot./That calm and joy uprising in thy soul/Is first-fhiit to thee ofthy recompense,/And heaven begun” where the Angel is points directly to an E b FatherSon-Holy Spirit, naming it as such. ThoughE b ISTRINTTY was accepted as late as 1900, Trinity references arenot common, in part because the dogma provides poor poetic mulch for cultivating the public culture-specific properties required to render TL lexemes intelligible. Here Wagner’s insistence that imagery be concrete kicks in: a “father” no one has seen and “ m lying fhtm flatbed truck, and thus automatically constellates sinking, lying, resting sleeping Thus Eric Oiafe identifies Baroque conventions distinguishing not merely tonictand thfir ic^ fs species but groups of keys divided under genus designated by their flaLss or sharpness (Tonal Allegory in the Vocal Works ofj. S. Bach, pgs. 73-89.) suoipncss ir onai “For the related key-characteristic affect peace and its relation to solemnity, see below. pgs. 245ff. The essence of solemnity here-a weighty sense of si^ficance mth metaphysical or cosmological resonance—recurs in LandowsS^ overwhelming and in Donington’s “we become increasingly aware of the modulation that h not the surface of phenomena and exports it to a higher, and thus presumptively metaphysical, pLe.

171 a'“ghost” no one can see prove arid and abstract, and in projecting TRINITY onto Bach’s Eb organ fugue Schweitzer’s just about exhausts its capacity to generate ’ interesting poetics. “Son” stamped dogma with a human face and it was not long before “Redeemer” (Erldser) acquired just the kind of culture-specific elaboration that we have seen in Wagner’s lexical transition from generic WORLD RIVER to the culture-specific RHINE. An objective line of descent is thus evident; TRINITY (3 b)-* [x +x + SON] -♦ [CULTUREHERO], This process left critical traces; thus August Gathy (1835) identified E b with both Martin Luther and Friedrich Barbarossa?* Both figures may be understood as 'Catholic and Protestant tokens of a cultural savior-hero type. The self-evident association with Luther exports Eb religiosity from Catholicism to Lutheranism and asserts a common type across sects. Barbarossa may appear less obvious until we recall that he too had acquired mythic status as through the “old man asleep in the mountain” fable, which in Britain was projected upon Arthur through the “once and future king” motif Gathy’s association is based on the fact that “Frederick is the subject of a sleeping hero legend. He is said not to be dead, but asleep with his knights in a cave in Kyffhauser'mountain in Thuringia, Germany, and that when ravens should cease to fly around the mountain he would awake and restore Germany to its ancient greatness. According to the story his red beard has grown through the table beside which he sits. His eyes are half closed in sleep, but now and then he raises his hand and sends a boy out to see if the ravens have stopped flying.”^’ A peculiarity of this figure its reappropriation of HERO SON into FATHER by means of its alignment with the motif of TIME and thus of the GOLDEN AGE, the END OF DAYS, or the period of anticipated future CULTURAL EXTREMIS that calls for the

“Return of the King.” The Graeco-Roman source is of course SATURN or KRONOS,“ “See Key Characteristics, p. 248. ’’“Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor,” Wikipedia, accessed November 11, 2004. ’“This figure is central also to European alchemy, which was still being practiced when Wagner was a child. Here Saturn is synonymous with lead, an image of death and transformation; thus “Saturn is ‘an old man on a mountain, and in him the natures are bound with their complement [i.e., the four elements], and all this is in Saturn.” (Michael Maier, quoted by C. G. Jung, “The Spirit Mercurius,” in CW13, f274.) The connection to Wotan is transparent, e.g., “He is the ‘wise old man,’ or the ‘wizard,’ or the ‘spirit of the mountain’ who lives in a castle or a cave ... he plays the role of the helper or the enemy of a young man on the way to become a ‘hero,’ and also the role of the father or the one who holds imprisoned the princess for whom the ‘hero’ is destined.” (Augusto Vitale, “Saturn; The Transformation of the Fa&er,” p. 15.) Wotan and his paradigmatic D b Household may

172 and the point of his inquiry about the mountain-circling ravens is clearly that, when, the CIRCULATIO stops the end of days is at hand."" This figure in fact played a central role in Wagner’s own painstaking construction of his tonal language, as in his, description of the Mountain King; “The 'poor Folk' sang, read, and printed in time, the Nibelungenlieder, its only keepsake from the Hoard; belief in it never wavered; only, one knew it was no longer in the world,—for it had been sunk into an old God’s-hill again, a cave like that whence Siegfried had won it from the Nibelungen. The great Kaiser himself had brought it back to that hill, to save it up for better times. There in the Kyffliauser he sits, the old ‘Redbeard Friedrich’; all round him the treasures of the Nibelungen, by his side the sharp sword that one-time slew the dreaded Dragon.”^^ Wagner intended to make Friedrich the subject of a separate opera but abandoned the plan and incorporated most of the Red Kaiser’s folk-tale iconography into later dramatis personae, in particular Siegfried, Wotan, and Titurel.''^ Thus by Wagner’s day Eb had been constructed as a tonal line of descent from “God” to “savior of mankind” to “culture-hero.” On the way it reincorporated via Barbarossa the original connection to elemental WATER which began the present be understood as a poeticized “House of Saturn.” However one may wish to interpret synchronistic coincidences, it seems not without that the planetary Saturn is famous as the ringed planet and thus Wotan the ringed god, bound about by multiple constraints largely of his own devising. *'In “The Spirit Mercurius” {CW13, ^ 2'i2ff) Jung refers to the German fairy tale “The spirit in the bottle,” which Wagner knew froinhis long studies of Grimm, in which the story appears. A poor boy finds a bottle at the base of a tree that imprisons the self-identified spirit, “Mercurius.” The boy releases the spirit, is threatened with death, and tricks it back into the bottle again. A variant appears in Loge’s tricking and binding of Alberich (only in reverse, for Loge himself is Merciuius, see below. Chapter Five). The immediate point is, that in another form Mercurius is Saturn (“The Spirit Mercurius,” CW 13, U301, etc.), the raven—and Wotan: “It is worth noting that the German fairytale calls the spirit confined in the bottle by the name of the pagan god, Mercurius, who was considered identical with the German national god, Wotan. The mention of Mercurius stamps the fairytale as an alchemical folk legend, closely related on the one hand to the allegorical tales used in teaching alchemy, and on the other to the well-known group of folk tales that cluster round the motif of the ‘spellbound spirit’.” Among the prominent attributes ofWagner’s Wotan are his state ofbondage and much of Das Rheingold and Die WalkUre is devoted to rationalizing why the god is so bound. Such dramatic machinery maybe understood as a composing-out of Wagner’s alchemistic motifs. He did this con-sciously; in Lohengrin, Act II, he presents an actual prayer to the pagan and now defunct god “Wo-dan” by a pagan sorceress who resents the spirit’s replacement by the Christian deity. "“The Wibelungen,” p. 298. "As when, in Gotterddmmerung, Act III, Wagner atomizes and reconfigures the iconic gestures of the undead Friedrich raising his arm fl-om his funeral seat to send the boy to inquire of the ravens into the boy-hero asked to inquire ofthe ravens, whose undead hand raises in warning ffomhis funeral bier.

173 public cultural property inquirywith Wagner’s Leceme 1. The connection is through the archetype ofthe STREAM OF TIME which connects alpha, origin, with omega, end of days. WATER was prominent in Wagner’s “Wibelung” construction ofBarbarossa as a bridge between Nibelung lord and grail king; thus, The WATERS association is likewise prominent in Wagner’s Barbarossa fantasies, e.g., “There on tempestuous field he broke the power of the Saracens; unchallenged lay the promised land before him; he could not wait for the constmction of a flying bridge, but urged impatient Eastwards,—on horse he plunged into the stream: none saw him in this life again.”^ Wagner’spromised land pointedly identifies this RIVER not as some banal backwater creek but as mythic WATERS like the Jordan, refurbishing Barbarossa as a latter-day Moses sans impulse control. The latter’s name "from the waters’’ (inverted by Wagner to imply “into the waters”) again closes the circle and bends said WATERS into the uroboric WORLD RIVER upon which our present inquiry was launched. The cultural generality ofsuch image-transformational moves may be gauged by Beethoven’s parallel E b key-characteristic logic in his treatment ofBonaparte as mythic figure. Gathy’s Luther-Barbarossa axis bears comparison with the E b of the composer’s Third Symphony, upon which he projected a plethora of superhuman, world-redeeming fantasies only to snatch them back from what he came to regard as a clay hero and construct instead an alternate ideal “world redeeming hero” {Bonaparte into Eroica). That the meanings composer projected onto first consul and emperor were mythic constracts rationalized within the WORLD RIVER image is reinforced by Napoleon’s own self- evaluation: “Everybody has loved me and hated me: everybody has taken me up, dropped me, and taken me up again ... I was like the sun, which cross the equator as it describes the ecliptic; as soon as I entered each man’s clime, I kindled every hope, I was blessed, I was adored; but as soon as I left it, I no longer was understood and contrary sentiments replaced the old ones.’**’ The emperor describes his effect on people in terms of the mariner sun’s tack through the ecliptic, a cosmic river illuminated at one spot by the sun.''® Beethoven was ““The Wibelungen,” p. 293. ^’Quoted in J. Qiristopher Herold, ed., The Mind ofNapoleon, p. 214. “Bonaparte’s “ecliptic” is the CIRCULATO—astronomically the cyclic path of time as measured by the annual peregrinations of the sun. The association is found in E b music as an overt image, for instance in Brahms’ Opus 33, No. 1 (“Magdelone” Romances): “None who rides a gallant horse, fiery, young, and foaming ..which pictures an ideal rider circling on horseback round the

174 prominent among those people whom Napoleon described as loving and hating, understanding and misunderstanding him. His alternately constructed / deconstructed figure occupied a position within the composer’s Romantic humanistic mythos comparable to that held by the figures of Barbarossa and Luther within those of Catholicism and Protestantism. In this we may see a “full circle” progression like the circulatio of the alchemists, by which they hoped to engender from lead the golden prize of immortality, or human God-likeness;^’ Mythic Abstraction [0. Triiuty/God] •• Personification [1. Luther, 2. Barbarossa] •

Personification [3. Bonaparte] •• Mythic Abstraction [4/0. Hero/God Man]

A grand tour through the CIRCULATIO that elaborates its expressive potential. The

end points, Trinity/God vs. Hero/God Man, show that this is not a zero-sum game. The former has retired from personification back to abstraction transmogrified by its baptism in the waters ofhumanism, a development appropriately like the Incarnation. In the Eroica’s poetic evolution then, we see the process by which E b acquires a set ofimaginal properties that define the key in its specific context and align it to parallel constructions in Beethoven’s common practice cultural environment.

world. The mages,fiery, young, endfoaming iaihe translation of “Keinen hat es noch gereut, der das RoB bestegon. urn in fhscher Jungend zeit durch die Welt zn fliegen,” are suggested by the steed’s ^ittle and flying sweat. They index a traditional conjunction of FIRE (Mars, Aries) and WATER (Neptime, Pis m s ) ftat is typical ofthe HORSE is an image for the CIRCULATIO. The origin of the image f

SymboKsm”, reprinted P- 37: “Running within Sight of the river, the horses became i^ges ome rrater, symbols of the god. The river bordered the race track, while swords, representahons of the god, were ii^lanted m the ground as metae. Mars himself looked on at the games Horse chMoUnd wheel stood m a Neptunian relation to water.” Cosima lets us know [Diaries I p. 595 entry of Febma^ 17,18^) that Wagner was familiar with Bachofen’s (1815-87) writings’; “(R) ^owed me Prof. Bachofen’s Tanaquil and said how interesting it was to pursue Oriental traces in *T.e., smce all TL lexemes or key characteristics operate within the Circle of Fifths then the tonal circle as such appears as a background assumption in the projection of poetic imagery onto mdivid^l keys modjflatmg or circling within it. “Musical work” thus bears fundamental structural rese^lances to alchemical work,” about whose circulating imagery Jung writes (CTP12, f 214) “It IS to be noted that the wheel is a favourite symbol in alchemy for the circulating process, the circulatio. T ascensus and descensus... and secondly the rotation of the universe as a model for the wor^ and hence the cyclmg of the year in which the work takes place. The alchemist was not imaware of the connection between the rotatio and his drawings ofcircles. The contemporary moral allegones of the wheel emphasize that the ascensus and descensus are, among other thingV God s descent to man and man’s ascent to God.” *’

175 I am far from suggesting that Beethoven literally employed Gathy as a poetic consultant. The fact that Napoleon understood his own significance in parallel terms shows that such imagining is wider than music or even than culture, residing instead itl'the background darkness of the archetype. Such logic guided imagination in the directions we have observed and it was so well integrated in the common imagination that all concerned manipulated Eb lexicality intelligibly without undo to-do, as lafiguage-competent people must. By the time Wagner plugged Siegfried into x the keyhadbecome atypical constellation controlled by areflex “like-belongs-with-like” principle. In Opera and Drama Wagner merely raised this general hands-on strategy to theory and made it so in his linear-lexical compositional practice. The following schema suggests the axes along which the original E \> Godimage was deconstructed to allow its poetic implications sufficient space in which to develop new lexical meanings. The three abstract “persons” of the dogma are broken apart and each developed along a parallel line of associations. The “Father” acquires through the figure ofBarbarossa the resonance ofSaturn or Kronas, the end ofdays, or the Golden Age as expressed by the CIRCULATIO, the cyclic flow ofTime. Satum/Kronos commimicates with SPIRIT (t) since both were traditionally associated with WATER.“* For obvious human interest reasons the most poetically elaborated ^xis is the SON/CULTURE HERO. The diagram is intended to show, among other things, the position of SIEGFRIED in the public cultural property scheme of things. FATHER (fiarfiaroMa

^

3b ORIGIN b b b —*

t

(Luther), Kronas, CIRCULATIO)

h o l y srmiT

(pentecostal wind,

w at e r )

—* (to Cm, CHAOS)

V SON / SAVIOR / CULTURE HERO

(Bonaparte, Beethoven, SIEGFRIED)

E b poetic key constellation as prototype of the “Tonal Household”

“As noted by Jung (“The Visions of Zosimos,” CW13, f 103-4: “Aurora Consurgens says: ‘Send forth thy Spirit, that is water... And thou wilt renew the face of the earth.’ And again: ‘The rain fo the Holy Spirit melteth. He shall send out his word... his wind shall blow, and the waters shall rua’ Amaldus de Villanova (1235-1313) says in his ‘Flos Florum’: ‘They have called water spirit, and it is in trath spirit.’ The Rosarium philosophorum says categorically: ‘Water is spirit.’ In the treatise of Komarios (1st cent A.D.), the water is described as an elixir of life which wakens the dead sleeping in Hades to a new springtime___ The water acts upon the substances as God acts upon he body. It is coequal with God and is itself of divine nature.... the spiritual nature of the water comes from the ‘brooding’ of the Holy Spirit upon the chaos (Genesis 1:3).’’ From this we derive the notion ofbaptism by “water and spirit.” Jung notes (“The Spirit Mercurius,” OF 13, |274) that in Gnosticism Saturn is particularly associated with the water that destroys all, that is, Time.

176 When generalized such poetic key constellations map the transformations of core imagery into poetic particulars in a dialectical process passed among composers and critics and across both genres and time periods. The distinction between such constellations and Wagner’s Tonal Households is mostly that the former assert public cultural properties and the latter Wagner’s lexical specifications of such properties. Both constellations and households derive their dynamic structures from this same process of generating poetic tokens out ofbackground conceptual types. This general poetic strategy accounts for such uniformities of key concept and treatment as we observe in the common practice period and particularly in Wagner. V.

Heroes, Dead in the Water This then is the construction oipublic property cultural intelligibility in real

time and is it is at this level that Wagner manipulates his own tonal lexemes. An example ofhis use of [E b = CULTURE HERO] occurs in the Gotterdammerung Prelude with #2596, whose connection to Barbarossa is evident in the composer’s “Wibelungen” essay arguments that sketch a direct line of poetic descent from the Nibelungen Lord (Siegfried) to the Savior-Saint (Grail Keeper) through the pivotal figure of Kaiser Friedrich. By this association #2596 acquires the significance of “Ruler (or Redeemer) of the World” via the cultural baggage acquired by Friedrich, which had aligned the Red Kaiser to parallel and culture-specific redeemer-figures via the “once and future king” motif. Wagner still had to endow his CULTURE HERO lexeme with an appropriate feeling-tone. To do so he used a kind ofbait-and-switch tactic, borrowing the Eroica, which had already used E b to exactly this effect. The point was that he had already conferred upon his illustrious predecessor the order of “Culture Hero First Class” as the man who “set music free.” Now he lexically reconfirmed the award by tweaking Siegfried’s naive hom-call to conform to the tone of Beethoven’s overblown HERO motif, thus scrawling the signature “Beethoven” across #2596, thus in effect plugging Beethoven himself into the '"Numinous Culture Hero x" slot that the latter had been kind enough to make available by his erasure ofBonaparte. This neat trick permitted him to pay homage at the Shrine of Musical Redemption by allowing his musical idol’s spirit to hover over Siegfiied and Briinnhilde as they emerged from the cave which the hero likewise shared in spirit with Barbarossa.

177 Though perhaps a bit overblown, the NL translation SIEGFRIED IS BEET HOVEN is logically impeccable: As Beethoven is to music so Siegfried is to the Ring.

Beethoven emancipates the macrocosm, Siegfried the microcosm. Thus Wagner’s niythic axis, like Beethoven’s, exposes the complex’s propositional scaffolding while the inflated feeling-tone pumped into. #259(5 answers to Beethoven’s equally overblown symphonic Hero. The inflationary tone resides precisely in the connection of this imaginal constellation with God or “God-Man,” that is, a humanistic variant on E b religiosity and solemnity.'’’

Eroica motif

Ex. 4.1'. “Eroica” motif and Wagner’s Lexeme §2596 Yet Wagner is not finished with the chore of aligning his culture-hero lexemes with intelligible common practice convention. He still has to integrate C minor into the formula and thereby redeem this key ^ a public cultural property rationally related to the primary Referential Key I. His strategy is again conventional and thus intelligible: he gives us the obligato C minor Heroic Funeral (# 3616). The origin of C MINOR IS DEAD SAVIOR is venerable and was first applied to Jesus, the paradigmatic case. The poetic logic is simple: If Eb=TRINITY then Eb.:I=SON (HERO); If so, then Eb:vi=HERO ASLEEP (= DEAD). Thus Chafe cites the C minor aria and chorus “I would beside my Lord be watching” from Bach’s St. Matthew Passion

«In “Beethoven’s ‘Heroic’ Synqjhony”, p. 221.) Wagner specifies the meaning ofthe ‘Hero’ and thus of his #2596-. “If we broadly connote by ‘hero’ (‘Held’) the whole, the full-fledged man, in whom are present all the purely-human feelings—of love, of grief, of force in their highest fill and strength, then we shall rightly grasp the subject which the artist lets appeal to us in the speaking accents ofhis tone-work.” Thus HEROISM IS WHOLENESS. Wagner’s notion relates to the totality of the Eb constellation as a public cultural property as well as to the Ring Lexicon. Its various imaginal synonyms include the familiar imagery: circulatio, eeliptic, world river, uroboros. Nature, anthropos, divine man, alpha and omega, etc.

178 as an example of the use of C minor to denote sleep as the persona of death.^” The movement “matches its affirmative text with an opening motive reminiscent of a horn call; but the key is C minor, the horn is a pathetic oboe solo, and the chorus sings ‘sleep’ music. The affect of this piece, based on these details and its place in the narrative—soon after Peter’s insistence that he will never deny Christ, in a move from sharps to C minor—is made up of both the desire to fulfill Christian percepts and the weakness of the flesh.”’’ Wagner’s and Bach’s usages both conform to Bachelard’s proposition concer ning the unity of sleep and dead waters'. “Still water bring the dead to mind because dead waters are sleeping waters.”” That Bach’s usage is standard operating association is confirmed by the composer’s return to the sleep-and-death key for the ultimate chorus: “Here yet awhile Lord, Thou art sleeping / Hearts turn to Thee, our Saviour blest: Rest Thou calmly, calmly rest.” Bach thereby reconfirms C minor as the key of heroic death in its poetic euphemism of sleep. Again Bach’s TL usage is subservient to a more generalized poetic hydrology, traceable to Grasco-Roman philo sophy and even further back to Egyptian Osiriology, within which WATER IS DEATH as discussed by Bachelard thus: Heraclitus of Ephesus imagined that the soul even now in sleep, by detaching itself from the sources of living and universal fire, “tended momentarily to transform itself into humidity.” For Heraclitus, then, death is water. “To become water is death to the soul.” [Edgar] Poe, it seems to me, would have understood this wish carved on a tombstone: “May Osiris give thee cool water.”” "Again universal, thus: “In me thou seest the twilight of such day / As after sunset fadeth in the west, / Which by and by black night doth take away, / Death's second self, that seals up all in rest.” (Shakespeare, Sonnet 73.) Tonal Allegory, p. 265. ’^Thus, “In point of fact, the new psychologies of the unconscious teach us that the dead, so long as they remain among us, are for the unconscious, asleep. They are resting. After the funeral, they are merely absent for the unconscious, that is, more hidden, more covered, more deeply sleeping sleepers. They awaken only when our own sleep gives us a dream deeper than memory; we find ourselves, along with those who have disappeared, in the land ofthe Night. Some go far away to sleep, on the banks ofthe Ganges, in ‘a kingdom by the sea,* in ‘the greenest of our valleys* near anonymous and dreamy water. But they always sleep.** (Gaston Bachelard, Water and Dreams, p. 64.) Ibid., p. 56. Embedded quote from Gaston Camille Maspero, Etudes de mythologie et d’archeologie egyptiennes, Paris, 1893, 1:336# This imagery streams without a break from Osiris* coffin through the writings of the Greek pre-Socratics, flowing into the world-views ofgnosticism and alchemy, for instance the imagery of the CIRCLE or r o t u n d u m that contains the great secret of

179 Here as always TL and NL meanings converge: what is true of the one is trae of the other—as must be so, else, CHAOS.’^ Thus like Bach, Beethoven elaborates the Eroica’s tonal poetics according to formula by giving us the conventional C minor funeral march and thereby drawing an E b Major-to-C minor-to-E b Major “hero’s life-death-resurrection,” circle in which DEATH stands to HERO as CHAOS to COSMOS (WATERS), a logic that I want to discuss separately below.

So conventional was this move that, in his Symphony No. 2 in C minor, “Resurrection,” Mahler can reverse both his journey and his lexical keys, beginning with the hero’s C minor funeral and working his way back to resurrection in an E b Major finale. That this complex is controlled by the core meaning WATER through an ascensus-descensus logic is important to its lexical meaning: the complex is again both alpha (beginning) and omega (end)—a connection well represented in the LexiconOn the way Gustav pays a courtesy call upon the WATERS/FiSH images via the movement “St Anthony preaching to ihe fishes" {Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt), individuating the complex with HEAVEN-AS-SEA, REDEEMER-AS-HSH, FAITHFUL-AS-FISHES. In this set of interconnected examples we niay observe the network ofcollective cultural ideas circulating in true WORLD RIVER style throughout a single rationalizing key constellation. By such means key characteristics rapidly acquired the status ofimaginal complexes operating within a common compositional and critical imagination. This touches again on Wagner’s systematic psychologizing of music theory, in which musical properties are aligned with psychological “everything” which, ‘“in the language of the corporeal... is named Okeanos, the origin and seed, so they say, of all the gods.’ Hence the rotundum is outwardly water, but inwardly the arcanum. For the Peratics Kronos was a ‘power having the colour of water,’ ‘for the water, they say, is destraction. (C. G. Jung, “The Visions ofZosimos,” OF 13, UlOl.) Embedded quotes fromBerthelot, Alch. Grecs, 111, xix, 1.) For “inner arcanum” read Bodky’s “secret subject” (the TRINITY, from whence it meanders out again into the poetic inscapes of Goethe and the Romantic poets as wells as those of the common practice composers, where it first appears as texted imagery and thence dissolves ivXofeeling-tone. ^One of the most subtle evocations of E b “dead waters” is Schumann s Auf das Trinkglas eines verstorbenen Freundes” (To the wine-glass of a dead fnend). Op. 35, No. 6: “Tonight you shall be filled moonbright with the gold of Rhenish grapes. I look into the hallowed gleam of your depths and tremble. What I see there is a secret not to be told to ordinary mortals. But it tells me clearly that nothing can part friend from friend.” Here the Rhine-motif is linked with the mj^te^ of death; Eric Sams notes that “the music perhaps offers mystery rather than the poet’s certainty (The Songs of Robert Schumann, p. 172); Stephen Walsh points to its “attentiveness to the mystical quaUty of Kemer’s poem ... the solemnity and awkward feminine endings, perhaps deliberately empty and conventional.” (The Lieder ofSchumann, p. 71.) "See, e.g., Lexicon,'E'o, “Qualities and Actions.”

180 dynamics and structure such that the one functions as does the other. Wagner proceeded along this path precisely because common practice keys had already acquired the essential qualities of a psychological sthicture that Jung called the “feeling-toned complex” (gefiihlsbetonter Komplexf^ This may be defined as a con stellation of thematically interconnected ideas bound together by a characteristic affective state that makes itself felt by inspiring characteristic behavior patterns or other somatic effects. But this could equally serve as the definition of an associative key, whose characteristics function as a constellation of thematically interconnected poetic images bound together by a characteristic affective state understood (as for instance in Baroque affect theory or Wagner’s own theory of affective key affinities) to move the emotions in tolerably dependable ways. Key characteristics, then, may be usefully understood in terms of analog feeling-toned complexes projected from individual to cultural frameworks such that musical culture operates insofar as possible as an analog person: a collective “mind-sharing” strategy. So rich and rational is the analogy between key constellation and complex that I would in fact be inclined to regard the latter as the empirical basis for the core mythologem of our musical art, the Orpheus-myth that pervades Western music from Renaissance to the present. The magical power of our patron god of music to control the souls of auditors, dcemones, or weather, depends on a shared cultural consensus that musical expression wields a power like that of a feeling-toned complex, among whose most important attributes is its autonomy from the ego or will. Emotion is something that befalls us as if directed from without, which is why we experience it as paradoxical and magical.^’ The fantasy of controlling others by this power resides in the notion that to those who know its secrets music offers an objective way to control other people. ORPHEUS is the demi-divine wizard who commands emotion by means of music, in whose hands key becomes the lexeme, the WORD OF POWER through which he moves the unseen forces of soul and nature.

“Described in Jung, “The Psychology of Dementia Praecox,” CWi, pgs. 38-51. ”E.g., “Emotion... is not an activity of the individual but something that happens to him. ... hence one meets with projections, one does not make them.” (C. G. Jung, CW 9, ii, )[15-6.)

181 VI.

Gendering the Keys: CHAOS, WOMAN, GODDESS, PEACE—and HYSTERIA The development of this Eb poetic typology moves down an axis between

t r in it y

and CULTURE HERO—an axis itselfsubsumed into elemental WATER, which

bends it from straight line to circle via the motives of TIME and RETURN. But a second axis also extends from Eb via the projection of the TRIUNE CREATOR onto a TRIUNE CREATION. The numerological thinking that fitted Eb with Trinitarian livery also guided the poetic logic of the use of C minor and E b Major to denote the primordial CHAOS, the srwJ"of Creation, and this image rapidly acquired a gendered life of its own through which the FEMININE ELEMENT missing from TRINITY found a voice that feminized the keys of E b and C minor. In Wagner, as we shall see, this culturally elaborated perception of E b as the primary TL expression of the FEMALE even comes to subsume the overtly male CULTURE HERO figure, such that Siegfiied is at last subsumed into Brilnnhilde as her agent or “arm’ (U2649). The poetic lineage and logic of this strategic re-alignment of masculine and feminine under the aegis of this key constellation is what I would now like to describe. This is the axis, b ORIGIN b b b -»HOLY SPIRIT (pentecostal wind, WATER) -►(to C, CHAOS)

from our key constellation schema above. The richest TL development of this axis between Creator and Creation prior to Wagner was the “Depiction of Chaos” and its attendant recitative and chorus from Haydn’s The Creation. Like the Ring Prelude it sounded the tonality of the creation of the world from the primordial Waters, presenting the CHAOS in C minor and the words “and the world was without form and void” (Gen. 1:2) in the apparently remote key of Eb minor. The two keys are reconciled by Eb Major, their common tonic, to express “and the Spirit of God moved on the face ofthe Waters”—hence, again, [Ei=^RINITY=SPIRIT of GOD (SON waiting in the wings).*® Haydn’s C Major “Boo!" at “and there was LIGHT remains, of course, one of Western music’s most famous Big Surprises. Wagner’s faithful reproduction ofhis predecessor’s strategy in his Rheingold Prelude and in the Rhine Daughters’ apostrophe to its LIGHT (iM9ff) amounts to another cultural formula, in which a specific complex of keys means a specific “Wagner further develops the syntactical technique of identifying a single Tonic Major via references to its Tonic and Relative Minors (“tonal triangulation”). For a detailed analysis of Haydn’s paradigmatic key constellation see below, Chapter Five.

182 complex of images. The cmcial fact here is complex. Far from being crude pidgin backs dropped on swollen ML toes merely to conjure mindless redundancies, such structures are complex yet elegant tonal phrases replete with their own syntactical coherence, tension, and meanings. Their independent TL grammar completes that of their NL referents independently of the NL grammar itself, saying things about it which it cannot say about itself.” Nor was this particular complex peculiar to Haydn. Handel used it to the same effect in Deborah, No. 8: “By that adorable decree / that Chaos cloth’d with symmetry, / By that resistless pow’r that made / Refulgent brightness start from shade/That still’d contending atoms strife/ and spake Creation into life / O thou supreme Transcendent Lord! / Thy succors to our cries afford!” Handel s CHAOS is also a C minor and Eb Major TL complex while LIGHT bursts from the same three-flat tonal matrix. This means that Wagner’s E b Major-Minor-C minor-C Major key constellation existed in the same form and with an identical complex ofpoetic associations from the beginning ofthe major-minor key system—a paradigmatic “common cultural property.” The poetic logic is undoubtedly the transference of the Trinitarian FATHER of Creation directly into the BEGINNING OF CREATION, as in the “spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters.” Such imaginal pairings of E b with SPIRIT ON WATER can hardly be avoided in any survey of the poetics of three-flat music; witness the cntic Joseph W. Voss on Bruckner’s E b Major symphony as “Nature itself, with all Its splendour and grandeur—and with its uproar and ultimate calming—and above all ‘the spint of the Lord that hovers on the waves’.”*® The reason for such motivic persistence undoubtedly lies in the natural flow of the public property imagery, by which cntics and composers communicated with each other over time in the manner ofnatural language speakers. The reason that critics and musicologists did not notice and comment upon this process itself was the same reason they did not stand fixed in wonder at their own ability to talk. Voss may have fondly believed his image to be individual and spontaneous. In fact it was public and prefabricated. It was simply there in the “collective unconscious,” in the form of a public cultural property. And just as it was there m Voss’ linguistic database we may be sure it was also there in below,

comparison of Haydn’s and Wagner’s parallel key constellations see

Scores tscores, 1928. For Uproar and calming see pe a c e , below.

183 Biruckner’s, a probability that dramatically increases the likelihood that the WATER imagined by Voss was in fact actually in the composer’s key. Here again WATER powers the transformation of male to female Trinity. The poetic logic is straightforward; since Eb. (THREE) = WATER and WATER IS FEMALE, then CHAOS IS FEMALE as well and thus “the spirit of God moves on the face of the waters” is a decorously indirect mating or impregnating act: the God MAKES IT (COSMOS) with his CHAOS even as his prototypical human face, Adam, MAKES IT

(humanity) with his own rib. Given that the basis of such perceptions lies at the generic psychological level that gives rise to cultural specifications, one would expect that numerological Threeness would likewise appear in the image ofCHAOS, and this does in fact characterize mythic images of WATER and particularly of CHAOTIC or GENERATIVE WATER in the myths that flowed into Christian formulations. This in

itself is unsurprising but a crucial element of this poetic return of Threeness fi:om “God” to the CHAOS is, that the image is thereby genriereri and the Eb constellation becomesfemale both in feeling-tone and poetic contents as the framework shifts from the Christian theology of the Baroque toward the hiunanistic anthroposophy of the Romantic period. This is the basis for the overwhelmingly feminine emphasis that we find in Wagner’s Eb key constellation, which stands in sharp contrast to the equally comprehensive masculinity ofthe Eb dominant (B b Major), and which reads, out in the Lexicon as the natural groupings of TL synonyms centered around the categories ETERNAL WOMAN or GODDESS. In point ofdramatic detail, this feminized perception of the key is responsible for such moments as Siegfiied’s willing subordination of his martial Bb Major to his wife’s ETERNAL FEMININE Eb tonal household in U2649 (‘ich bin nur Briinnhilde’s Arm’). This feminine essence of the CHAOS is prefigured in the Graeco-Roman culture from which Wagner drew his most overt mythic generalizations and which finds alphabetic expression, for instance, in the Greek letter delta [A] which, as we know, is the mouth ofa river—^THREE IS WATER—and by extension, all that proceeds (MOUTH) firom WATER, ordo ab chao.^' Our paradigmatic lexical expression of this is #3, THREE RHINE DAUGHTERS, which we may understand as anthropomorphized ‘'Moran compares the Greek delta A with the Hebrew dal 1, ‘a door’, ‘a bucket’, 'to draw water’; Assyrian dalu, ‘draw water’; dilutu, ‘a bucket’. (Hugh A. Moran and David H. Kelly, The Alphabet and the Ancient Calendar Signs,, p. 73.) Thus “we may relate this series of ideas, daleth, the door, the mouth of the dragon, the gate of life or of heaven; delta, the mouth of the river, the alimen tary canal of mother earth... with the letter d." (Ibid., p. 75.)

184 distillations of this feminine-procreative principle. This poetic development tweaks impersonal ordo ab chao in the direction of physiological child-birthipg and E b in the direction of GREAT MOTHER. This is no doubt the reason why the classically savvy Johan Jakob Heinse (1795) associated E b Major with “Queen Juno,”“ which in our present notation translates as lEb^WOMAN. BIRTH, PROCREATION]. Imagery linking the key to regal femininity is a feature of E b criticism, for instance Girdlestone’s characterization ofMozart’s E b Majdr Piano Concerto, K. 482, as “the queen of the twenty-three,’’® an image that grips the critic’s mind and refuses to let go, obliging him to vamp on it at length. Thus it is “the queenliest, combining grace and majesty, (unfolding) like a sovereign in progress, the queen of the twenty-three ... a blend of grace and majesty... the queen (is) not only anxious to please, but sure of doing so.’’^ Though derided by metaphorophobic musicologists, such exuberant overdescriptions provide crucial evidence of the background cognitive structures by which key characteristics were sewn together in real time. Indeed, so self-evident was the key’s gender to critics that, in connection with Beethoven’s The Ruins ofAthens, Paul Mies simply took it for granted that “the part of the maidens, who perform graceful dances to the words ‘Pflucket die Rosen, SchmUckt die Altare,’may have induced Beethoven to employ the key of E flat major,’’® and that we would under stand what he was talking about. The E b key constellation ofCHAOS (ORIGIN)-THREENESS-FEMALE-WATER is thus an intelligible image of the female Trinity of which Marie-Louise von Franz writes that “in terms of content the number three . . . serves as the symbol for a dynamic process (for instance the three Noms, three Parcae, three Gorgons, three Hecates, etc.). In the ihythological production ofthe unconscious psyche, underworld divinities are particularly likely to appear in triadic form... they represent the_/7ow ofpsychic energy, indicating a connection with time andfate.”^ Thus too Eliade ^Hildegard von Hohenthal (1795), Cited in Key Characteristics, p. 246. ‘^Mozart and His Piano Concertos, p. 352. “Ibid., pgs. 352 and 355. “Beethoven's Sketches,^. 17. *®Marie-Louise von Franz, Number and Time, p. 101. In this context one might perhaps cite the popular fable that the core motif of Beethoven*s C minor syn^hony represents “fate knocking at the door.”

185 points out that the Greek letter, delta. A, was a symbol for woman, which lexically entails [Ebf3 b)=RIVERDELTA, WOMAN]: “The Pythagoreans regarded the triangle as’the arche geneseoas because of its perfect form and because it represented the archetype of universal fertility. A similar symbolism for the triangle is to be found in India,”” while von Franz quotes Allendy’s Le Symbolisme des Nombres: “Three definitely is the dynamic principle itself,” and Balzac; Three is the formula for all creation,”” pointing out that in the Tarot the third major arcanum is the Empress. That this THREENESS-WATER-CHAOS complex is both ancient and crosscultural is shown by its appearance in the I Ching’s third hexagram, Chun, which pictures WATER over THUNDER and is designated as “Difficulty at the Beginning,” thus, “The hexagram pictures the way in which heaven and earth bring forth individual beings. It is their first meeting, which is beset with difficulties. The lower trigram Chen is the Arousing; its motion is upward and its image is thunder. The upper trigram K’an stands for the Abysmal [WATER], the dangerous. Its motion is downward and its image is rain. The situation points to teeming, chaotic profusion; thunder and rain fill the air. But the chaos clears up. While the Abysmal sinks, the upward movement eventually passes beyond the danger.

Elemental WATER then

rationalizes a transference of its chaotic details downward into the CHAOS key, C minor, as when Chailley defines the key in the Magic Flute as the “Kingdom of Darkness and Chaos”™ and its CAwn-like feeling-tone as “incomplete or tortuous advance,”^' an image in agreement with Girdlestone’s on the main subject of the andante of Mozart’s piano concerto, K. 482, “a mournful trailing tune, whose heavy sadness and muffled tone, unfold a long lament, irregular and tortuous, that moves almost entirely within the compass of an octave. It comes and goes upon itself and calls up the picture of a blind man groping his way toward the light.”™ The phrase "Mircea Eliade, The Forge and the Crucible, p. 42/ The compound image contains Chailley’s “three of perfection” cited above, morphed to female form. ^Number and Time. pgs. 101 and 104n. ‘’Richard Wilhelm, ed., I Ching, p. 16. ™77ie Magic Flute. Masonic Opera, p. 89. ’'/iW., p. 161. ''^Mozart and His Piano Concertos, pgs. 357-8.

186 “comes and goes upon itself’ is of course yet another uroboric trace of the tail-eating serpentine representation of the WORLD RIVER, the ultimate source of our present E b -C minor key constellation. As a sexualized image the danger posited here fits in with the gynephobia that lurks about predominantly masculine cultural perceptions of ELEMENTAL WATER, which recurs in the well-known mermaid motif, most relevantly in Wagner’s Rhine Daughters who, as the exasperated Fricka complains, continue to ply their traditional trade of dragging men down to a watery doom. The FATE knocking on C minor’s door is thus decidedly ominous and this affect is aligned with the sense of peril cross-culturally projected onto WATER. It is a harbinger of DOOM. Thus Wagner himself resorted to dangerous oceanic imagery when describing Beethoven’s C minor when the composer had got it right, as in the C minor Symphony; thus, “Hold my fermata firmly, terribly! I did not write fermatas in jest, or because I was at a loss how to proceed; I indulge in the fullest, the most sustained tone to express emotions in my Adagio; and I use this full and firm tone when I want it in a passionate Allegro as a rapturous or terrible spasm. Then the very life blood of the tone shall be extracted to the last drop. I arrest the waves of the sea, and the depths shall be visible; or, I stem the clouds, disperse the mist, and show the pure blue ether and the glorious eye of the sun.’’” Like the imagery that the composer projected onto Barbarossa, Wagner’s allusions here again are to Moses parting the Red Sea; thus like the Red Kaiser, BEETHOVEN IS MOSES, “From the Waters.” The heroic binding agent in the composer’s imagination is, in this as elswhere, ELEMENTAL WATER.

The element both rationalizes and universalizes the transition fi:om C minor storm to Eb placidity, for the association between WATER and PEACE is crossculturally omnipresent; for instance, “according to Lao-Tse, water is the symbol of the soul’s peace. Like sound it contains all the requirements for undisturbed higher cognition.”’'' We’re talking still waters run deep here. Thus in Bach “we find in this

”Richard Wagner, “On Conducting,” tans. Edward Dannreuther, Project Gutenberg Etext, http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/ncndtl0.txt, accessed November 10, 2004. ’^Marius Schneider, “Acoustical Symbolism in Foreign Cultures,” in Joscelyn Godwin, ed.. Cosmic Music, Musical Keys to the Interpretation ofReality, Rochester, 1989, p. 61. Relevant to WATER = ORIGIN Schneider quotes the Lao-te-King, Chapter Eight: “The best of man is like water; Water helps all things; And strives with none of them. It tarries in low places that the whole world disdains, and therein it stands close to the origin of things.” {Ibid.)

187 key some of the most wonderful demonstrations of ‘peace of mind’,”’’ while to Alfred Einstein E b is Mozart’s “tranquil key,”” and Mies noted that Beethoven’s “E flat major appears frequently as the key denoting something elegant and tender.”” Of the latter’s E b Major quartet, Kerman writes that “unlike any of the quartets of Op. 59, this quartet in E flat is ostentatiously at peace with itself.”” This ostentatious is a clue that, like C minor pathos, E b tenderness was in some sense a put-on, as indeed must be so, purchased as it was at the cost of C minor hysterias and bipolarity. Since the common practice female E b was potentially “false like a woman” or like the proverbially treacherous SEA, Wagner’s Eb nixies were eultural constructs on whose XL intelligibility the composer had every reason to rely. He had plenty of precedent for endowing his Eb lexemes with the full range of masculine projections onto women, from CHAOS to that pedestal always ready to valorize what cannot be denigrated. Its high-point is GODDESS— Heinse’s “Queen Juno” to be sure, but most typically VENUS, who makes regular cameo appearances in critical commentary on E b Major poetic contents. Thus Girdlestone, who could never stop projecting queens onto Mozart’s Eb Major piano concerto, surpasses himself in his descriptions of the E b string quintet: “the andante is... haunted by the three Graces from the Primavera, and the gruppetti which accompany the refrain on its last appearance and persist to the end, eall up the flowers that flutter round the goddess in the Birth of Venus. In tying both paintings together in a single package the critic inadvertently cues us to the point of this key’s transformation from HOLY TRINITY to GODDESS OF LOVE. InRenaissanceNeo-Platonic thought the Graces were Venus, who was herself literally this TRINITY in female form. Thus, The principal Renaissance source for considering the Graces as the unfolded attributes of Venus, in whom the three converge to produce ”Erwin Bodky, The Interpretation ofBach's Keyboard Works, p. 232. ''^Mozart, His Character, His Work, p. 247. ''^Beethoven’s Sketches, p. 178. ‘‘‘The Beethoven Quartets, p. 159. ''^Mozart and His Piano Concertos, pgs. 366 and 492. Again, the “feminine Three” such as appears in Mozart’s Three Ladies is sometimes Christianized, in connection with the three flats, as in Schubert’s song. Op. 97, “Faith, Hope, and Charity.”

a whole of extraordinary beauty, is Pico de la Mirandola: “Qui profunde et intellectualiter divisionem unitatis Venereae in trinitatem Gratiarum . . . intellexerit, videbit modum debite procedendi in Orphica Theologia.”... (Conclusiones, XXXI, 8). The translation is as follows: “He who profoundly comprehends the division of the unity of Venus into a trinity of Graces, will see how to proceed into Orphic theology.” This process of infolding within Venus herself the attributes of the Graces appears to be what Spenser was thinking of in The Faerie Queene (VI, X, 15) when he says that all “that Venus in her selfe doth vaunt, / Is borrowed of them.”*® The power of the key to constellate Cytherean imagery extended from Mozart into the twentieth century; witness Vaughan Williams’ opera Sir John in Love, Act HI: “See the chariot at hand here of Love, wherein my lady rideth,” which carries the Cytherean goddess “through seas whither she would ride,” or Holst’s The Planets and its E b Major “Venus, Bringer of Peace.” Girdlestone’s haunted cues us to the feminine numinosum lurking behind the unsuspecting Holy Ghost. This Eb House of Venus was in effect the surgery in which a divine sex-change operation had been performed upon the MALE TRINITY, transmogrifying the old heavenly basso profundo into a proper young soprano for poets and musicians to worship and thereby receive their modicums of muse in return. We must never forget that this same culture had only recently invented the castrato. E b “grace and maj esty” annoimced themselves as Cytherean feeling-tones no less than as imagery. Like any other elements of a key characteristic they could and were decomposed to reflect new meanings required by their culture. Thus grace also arrived as peace and both were expressive accoutrements of this nouveau-Cytherean TRINITY. To bring this down to earth simply erasur majesty to derive the stereotypical

woman’s virtues advertised in the aristocratic and newly-assertive bourgeois cultures. In fact, given that Eb IS HEAVENLY CIRCLE it may come as no surprise that Venus should lead us full circle back to Bonaparte’s ecliptic, through which the emperor imagined his culture to imagine himself a-sail and tacking. His precise port of embarkation is now evident. Composition and eriticism alike unmistakably identify E b poetics the with the zodiacal PISCES (H), the Fishes. From Grsco-Roman times to day before yesterday this “mutable water” sign has been known as the exaltatio of “George Camamis, “The concept of Venus-Humanitas in Cervantes as the key to the enigma of Botticelli's Primavera" Bulletin ofthe Cervantes Society ofAmerica, 8.2 (1988), pgs. 188-223.

189 Venus and as the heavenly mansion from which Aphrodite descended to be bom of the sea-foam of the ocean.** Thus the accumulations of WORLD RIVER, WATER, GODDESS, VENUS imagery that defines this key constellation would have been intelligible to any seventeenth or eighteenth century alchemist or astrologer or even to an ordinary educated European tolerably acquainted with the classics. The feminization of Eb made itself felt most prominently perhaps in crade genre terms. Thus to some commentators, Eb Major is the very archetype of the galante or stile sueto. The message is straightforward: WOMAN IS SAVEET. The logic is that since Eb IS A WOMAN her proper emotional expression must be crafted to reflect what is to be expected of a lady that a gallant would find worth knowing, for whatever reason. Thus Girdlestone calls the key the galante period’s “key of grace and happiness,” suggesting that it was particularly associated with galante eesthetics.*^ The genre, considered as best expressed in the three-flat key, "demanded a singing style, nuance and elaborate fioritura, politeness over force, fluffmess over deep content.... Charles Bumey, one of the first of the great music historians and a spokesman for his age . . . called for music that offered ‘with Clearness and propriety whatever is graceful, elegant, and tender,’ rather than music expressive of ‘complicated misery and the tempestuous fury of unbridled passion . ■ "Richard Hinckley Allen in Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning (1899), p. 340, mfornis us that “In early astrology, the constellation appropriately was under the care of the sea-god Neptune, and so the Neptuni Sidus ofManilius; and it was the Exaltation of Venus, as Chaucer said in the Wyf of Bathes Tale,— ‘In Pisces where Venus is exaltat,—’ which Sir Thomas Browne, the authorphysician of the 17th century, thus commented upon; ‘Who will not commend the wit of astrology? Venus bom out of the sea, hath her exaltation in Pisces.’ Thus it naturally ruled the Euphrates, Tigris, and the Red Sea, and Parthia . . .” Again, as with our present key constellation, the sign likewise marked the FIRST CAUSE or ORIGIN; “By reason of the precession this constellation is now the first of the zodiac, hut entirely within its boundaries lies the sign Aries; the vernal equinox being located in a comparatively starless region south of to in the tail of the southwestern Fish ... This equmoctial point is know as the First of Aries, and the Greenwich of the Sky; and frin their containing it, the Fishes are ealled the Leaders of the Celestial Host.” {Ibid., p. 337.) For the lexical associaUons of the E b dominant, B b Major, with the zodiacal Aries (T). my “The Genealogy of Chaos” (Music and Letters, Vol. 79, No. 1, Febmary 1998). ‘^Mozart and His Piano Concertos, p. 365. "Harold C. Schonberg, Hie Great Pianists (1963), p. 15. In particular, the cultural transition a corresponding performance venue transition, e.g., “it marked music’s shift fto the church to the salon, from fugue to sonata.” (Ibid.) In its own cultural context, however, the SAIGN that now enclosed music connoted in particular, “The reception-room of a Parisian lady of fashion; hence, a reunion of notabilities at the house of such a lady; also, a similar gathering in other capitals.” (OED, online) The associations of E b with sweet and galante embraced not only the atmosphere of the key but literally the g r e a t FEMALE ensconced within her audience chamber.

190 All very well, but let us examine the political economy of passion and decor a bit more closely to see if we can figure out what was really going on here. The psychological combination of Eb is WOMAN + Eb is GALANTE gives us reason to speculate on the sexual overtones oftheverbto;i/ay as “to perform” onapianoforte

and m the sex act. Let us recall that gallant entails “markedly polite and attentive to the female sex. ... man of fashion and pleasure; a fine gentleman.”*^ One such gallant. Lord Chesterfield, described the gentleman’s appropriate attitude toward his plaything like this. Women, then, are only children of larger growth; they have an entertaining rattle and sometimes wit; but not solid reasoning, or good sense. I never knew m my life one that had it or one who reasoned or acted consequently for four and twenty hours altogether. A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does, which is the thing in the world that they are most proud of

His description is indistinguishable from those of Rococo eestheticians

and performers toward musical performance and particularly toward its most congemal lexical salon Eb Major. The relation of pianist to his pianoforte was evidently sexualized along the lines of those dalliances of God with Ms. Chaos or Adam with Ms. Rib. VII,

CHAOS, Gynephobia, and Revolution; or, “That Old C Minor Mood.”

This then is the process by which certain keys turned male and others female, thereby conforming themselves to the psychologies of the culture that used them as words. By the early nineteenth century both EbMajor and C minor had been constructed as almost prototypically female. That the two keys expressed closely related yet distinct emotions was attested by Johann Jacob Wagner’s complaint that “composers who do not understand their song texts often substitute E b Major for C minor.”"‘ More often the distinction was clear; Burney’s “complicated misery” was kicked downstairs into the Eb relative minor, which became appropriately pathetiqm- the C minor victim was held responsible for “producing an effect upon**

**OED online. “Quoted in H. R, Hayes, The Dangerous Sex, p. 178. ““Ideen aber Musik” (AMZ. 1823), quoted in Jfg. Characteristics, p. 232.

191 the emotions; exciting the passions or affections; moving, stirring, affecting.”*’ This is most likely the psychological origin of what Kerman calls Beethoven’s “famous C minor mood,” which he describes in the course of an aesthetic criticism, thus: His affection for this tonality in the early years amounted to a mania ... Back of all these pieces lay an expressive vision of Mozart’s, in such compositions as the great C-minor Concerto, the C-minor Quintet, and especially the Fantasy and Sonata for Piano in C minor . . . But the ‘C minor mood’ in early Beethoven, the mood of the Sonata Pathetique, is one that has dated most decisively and dishearteningly over the years___hi this familiar emotional posture, Beethoven seems to be an unknowing prisoner of some conventional image of passion, rather than his own passion’s master.** Kerman’s useful terms “mania” and “conventional image of passion” let slip the secret of key characteristics generally: they are cultural constructs that I have associated with the feeling-toned complexes, and thus it suffices for their purpose that they be intelligibly related to the “feelings” they represent and be recognizable when reproduced. Anything beyond this is gravy—or greatness. Kerman’s critical evaluation of Beethoven’s C minor points to a seeming paradox: a “conventionality” experienced as a “mania.” The paradox maybe resolved when one keeps this tonality-sexualization process firmly in mind and applies it to ordinary psychological contexts in which one’s powerful desires are thwarted by tinfavorable social environments such as the one we are observing. The mood had much to do with the newly enhanced problem of imagining thefemale in an era of revolutionary CHAOS such as both Beethoven and Wagner lived through and which powered these new semantic impositions upon the old TRINITY and CHAOS keys, giving the “gods” contemporary sexual and political significance. For starters, there is a straightforward sense in which like its relative major E b, C MINOR IS A WOMAN. Thus J. J. H. Ribock: “I consider C minor to be the most tender of all, the most womanly exalted, the most languishing, and I compare it to the colour of a pale rose and also to the aroma of the same.”®’ Here ROSE minus PALE points back to E b, tonal

Oxford English Dictionary online. '®77ie Beethoven Quartets, p. 70. ‘’Cramer’s Magazin derMusik, 1783, cited in

Characteristics, p. 231.

192 binhplaceofteGoddessandpalicdarlytohertoclionasMCmffiRmdoWGIN"’ OiemodiilarPALB watering aemagedow.|whapstolheraore.edatemd therefore leas sexually threatening Ma r y . Boiled down to feeling-tone C minor femininity is a oonventional appeal to Kn^mess, that Is, to •■physical softness or deUeaey fta^hly; mabihtyto stand rough usage; weakness, ftailty,’’" In other words C minor

tstheEtwoMANunder duress, whenwhiningandeomplainingorsnlferinginsamtly silenee, and scoresof such lexemes may be viewedintheappendediarton. At this sui^cial poetic level C minority was simply its own relative mrjor on Prexac a m^e prejection conjured to express what the culture eonsidered appropriMe to’ a gallant sympa,hiring with his Sagilefemalecompanionorexhibitinghisowntender srmtaentrirtywhen under orders fromMissMaune,s.Yetwhatskulked beneath the “1, ^ tttiwas^ttiinorraped/uAlberich’sassaultonthoseinsensitivelittleEt chatters/ ■ntisalsoisacharaeleristicifunacknowledgedgntaesignaturei'The nmnhiblted fornication of the gallant, Wren mgether with a repression of strong en.ot.on m d,e sphere ofsex, seveais bod. a profound disturbance in die unconscious

»dadeephosbliB,.-»w.gnerhadaiargo„.em.forjus.suehaprof„umia„ddeeply hostile unconscious disturbance. It was The Curse. Keeping for the moment to the sphere of personal courtship relations for whchbothEbMajorandCminorhadbecomepublicculturallexical codes, wemay understand Beethoven’s mania in terms ofhighly-charged sexual contents impacting against a culturally mandated sexual decorousness. One does not have to be a Freudianto smell “repression”here: this iswhatkeptCminorinthebasement,which as always in this classically-oriented European culture clothed itself in mythic Quoted in C.

the living andsupei^l/ScaLie?t£erd r;T/T J‘"™’'f^^

P' ^3. trans. Hinkle. 1916.

agesus/YettheWsrd^SS'f^o" Rameau(rSr/?L^“^7?2?TS^^

‘"“H’

Jean-Philippe

GeorgPriedrichWoifSi^J^rS^^^^^^^^

It IS suited to plaintive and ipnd,.r exnressions ” Inhunn r v v u • 1795); “Tenderly lamenting.” (Culled &omKey Characteristics, pgS^f See, e.g.. Lexicon, “c =ETERNAL WOMAN, THWARTED” for exan^les. "Hayes, pgs. 179-80.

sensitive, whereby

193 trappings. The complementary entailment was misogyny, its affective fingerprints hysteria and consternation. As first-cut poetic precipitates such affects are simply CHAOS on the brain, the obvious source, for instance, ofEberhart’s designation of C

minor as “raving nonsense.’”^ Among numerous examples; in Handel’s Jeptha, No. 3l', the cry “Horror! Confusion! (Entsetzen)” is set in this “raving” key. Comic examples include Figaro, Act II, Scene xii, “Our confusion augmenting, for help where shall we fly? ... I’m bewildered, confounded,” or. Act I, Scene ii, “Why all this confusion?” Wagner’s comic contribution to three-flat emotional chaos is Die Meistersinger, Act I, at Beckmesser’s “Where begin it, when sense no man can see? False beat and feet, without any law, phrases too short, too long; no form, nor plan, ne’er an end I saw!”’’ Such examples from texted music fall under the affective convention of C minor CHAOS feeling expressed in Gustav Shilling’s description of C minor as “a sighing to the Father of Light.”’* Its entailments are again standard: since LIGHT IS KNOAVING or CLARITY, then LACmiG LIGHT is IGNORANCE or CONFUSION. Like poetic imagery affect follows standard metaphoric propositionality,

which is one significant reason why Wagner, his predecessors, and contemporaries composed as if music could argue. Yet this still does not reach the heart of the matter, at least where the young Beethoven was concerned. When it came to C m\noxpathos falseness of feeling was essential to the point: it is the displacement downward of affects that rightfully G. F. Ebhardt, Die hohern Lehrzweige der Tonsetzkunst (1830) quoted in Steblin, Key Characteristics, p. 233. With respect to the association ofplanetary gods to key constellations (Queen Juno, Venus) with its attendant modular expansion of perceived key characteristics, we may observe an identical process moving forward in nineteenth-century astrology. The new planet Neptune was discovered on the night ofSeptember 23,1846 and, following Graeco-Roman precedent, was assigned to Pisces as “the planet of confusion, causing hypochondria, hysteria, etc.” (Alan Leo, The Art of Synthesis, p. 102.) The connection between the sign ofthe Fishes and the CHAOS is explicit in heretical doctrines, such as this account of the Cathars by Jung (CIV 9,ii, H229f.): “Satan finds the two fishes before the creation, i.e., ‘in the beginning,’ when the spirit ofGod still brooded upon the dark face of the waters (Gen. 1:2)... (the) two fishes, joined by a commissure (yoke), which can refer only to the zodiacal fishes . . . The dawn-state corresponds to the unconscious; in alchemical terms, it is the Chaos, which the adept likens to the creation of the world.” "The E b Major section from the Vorspiel connotes the same thing. "Gustav Schilling, “Universal-Lexicon der Tonkunst” (1835-6), quoted inCharacter istics, p. 230.This latter image likewise coimects C minor as relative minor of E b Major to C Major as tonic minor, thereby enlarging the network of key associations by demonstrating what CHAOS, WATER have to do with LIGHT. I will discuss this binding logic, which rationalizes the poetics of major key constellations via their shared relative/tonic minors, presently.

194 belong elsewhere, “upstairs” in the relative major. It’s not for nothing that Beethoven with his C minor “mania” was also one of the age’s great misogynists,*’ and in this respect his pathetic C minbr posmring were both representative of his culture and in particular its loss of sexual moorings. Kerman’s “C minor mood” was essentially an Eb Major mood locked Boo Radley-like in the basement. C minor pathos halfrevealed its underlying Rococo smirk and its overt falseness paradoxically and honestly told a higher truth: the Eb-C minor constellation was the tonal venue in which late eighteenth and early nineteenth centurymisogynist culture felt most com fortable working out its idiomatically false style of gender relations, in which one emotional posture mimed what the other could not declare. Which is precisely why Wagner’s giggling nixie teasers ended in the keys that they did. Such telling of one tonal trath in the act of faking another is an ELEMENTAL signature: the attitude expressed by the emotionally schizoid E b Major constellation was organized around the cultural entailments of [FEMALE] WATER, where “female” coimoted both culturally sanctioned fantasies about women and the corresponding male appropriation and internalization of these in the guise of ostentatiously ornamental sensitivity and taste. WATER provided a solvent that blended mythic resonances with social meanings and attitudes toward man-woman relations. Abstract mythic formulae were appropriately sexualized, social sex-role relations tinctured with Cytherean rose-water to enhance their feeling of numinous connection with the (GODDESS) ORIGIN OF IT ALL. By such moves aperson’s individual courtship choices

became mythic morality plays: thus the man who forgot his Lord Chesterfield risked waking up next morning wedded to CHAOS. The complex that resulted was drenched in sexuality and fraught with the phobias of fraudulence, and thus these keys commanded an impressive armory of repressed cultural tension, one ofthe background reasons why three-flat emotions got so overblown so quickly. WATER rationalized the complex through the divalence of

placid versus rushing waters and controlled the feeling-toned relationship between Eband C minor, whose WATERS were either peaceful or raging. The latter image ”An attitude perhaps best summed up in the composer’s remark, “And if I had wanted to sacriEce my life in such a way [that is, by becoming emotionally bound to a woman] what would have remained for the nobler, the better?” (Georg Schflnemann, Ludwig van Beethovens Konversationshefte, Vol II, Berlin, 1941-3, p. 365 and Karl-Heinz Kdhler and Grita Herre, eds., Ludwig van Beethovens Konversationshefte, Leipzig, 1968, Vol. H, p. 367, quoted in Maynard Solomon. Beethoven,^. 150.

195 offers a convenient segue from the personal to the social and political spheres. For this we need to understand how CHAOS operated socially. This was, after all, the Age ofRevolution, for which SOCIAL CHAOS is a time-honored quasi-mythic euphemism. Thus the EbMajor constellation already possessed ample semantic meaning to facilitate its lexical usefulness in describing the new order of affairs. The old salon culture and its Rococo trappings were remarkably transient, a fact which has not escaped music historians. What I would like to add is that tonal lexicality had to run tb keep pace, it did so successfully, and the measure of that success was the wealth of social meanings attached to the keys by the time Wagner picked them up to prime his own tonal lexicon. In the case of our three-flat constellation the public property solution was simple; CMINORIS CHAOS,CHAOS ISWOMAN,REVOLUTIONISWOMAN. Let US see how this worked in cultural real time. The old clerical-aristocrat axis laid claim to God the Father, this new social amalgam laid claim to the pagan gods as well and the god which the culture factors

found most attractive was imderstandably the goddess of attractiveness. Thus the inevitable happened, as it so often does; the goddess turned heroic, the birth of Aphrodite acquiring some ofthe charisma ofthe Incarnation in such Romantic guises as MOTHER NATURE incarnate from MOTHER NATURE. Despite initial appearances this humanization of Aphrodite was simply a female variant of the decompositional strategy that brought the SON OF GOD down to us in the guises of Bonaparte or Beethoven. Thepublic cultural property logic is strai^tforward; Woman is GODDESS OF SALON and thus SOCIETY; a glance through the salon drapes into the street will

convince that society is coming apart at the seams; thus, WOMAN IS SOCIETY IS CHAOS. That is, during the period between the compositions of the Eroica and Das Rheingold a process of heroicfeminization was taking place all across Europe and the United States, in which the Third Symphony’s referential object, heroic x, was almost everywhere else being given a new name, GODDESS LIBERTY. Here the GODDESS OF LOVE is transmuted into the LOVE OF MANKIND. Among innumerable

examples ofHEROIC GODDESS imagery in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries might be cited Delacroix’s renowned painting “Liberty Leading the People’’; the official flag of the State of New Jersey, designed by Eugene de Simitiere and consisting of a coat of arms featuring the Goddess Liberty on pedestal (L) and Ceres, the Goddess of Agriculture (R); the Statue of Liberty in New York City. These three examples derived from the same cultural source; France and particularly Paris, which

196 likewise gave the musical world the salon in which musicians and artists could worship VENUS in her more traditional form and venue. The Delacroix canvas in particular suggests the CHAOS association through the emphasis on the sprawling dead heroes, some of them in the act of raising their dying arms in worship of the GODDESS whose right arm (positive) raises the Tricolor (read A, as in 1. Liberte, 2.

Equalite. 3. Fratemite) and whose left (negative) the bayonet-tipped rifle. CHAOS is overt; behind her the ruined city leaps in flames, and thus the fiindamental ambivalence of GODDESS LffiERTY is laid bare: to many and not merely to artists of the ancien regime LIBERTY IS CHAOS. Thus our now-familiar heroic cast of characters is represented, all subsumed into the triumphant image of Venus pugnax (fighting Venus) or Venus armata (armed Venus).’* That GODDESS LIBERTY is in fact VENUS in her fighting mood is suggested by such imagery as that of the membership certificate ofthe American secret society, the Order of United Americans, in which the Goddess is shown to be worshiped by American patriots while her unfolded Trinitarian essence is displayed in the female trinity ofFAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY which, like LIBERTE, EQUALITE, FRATERNITE, are variants of the older Graces. Both formulas again segue through CHAOS back to the THREE FATES motif which, as always, connote an approaching DOOM: the Revolution as the avenging Nom cutting the lifeline of the Old Order. The musical implications of this may be understood when we recall that Beethoven’s “hero X' formula of the Third Symphony does not, in fact, force a male gendering: this variable may be equally male or female. And indeed, Wagner opted for the latter in subordinating the heroic-seeming Siegfned to the status of Brflnnhilde’s Arm” ifi2649') and in elevating her to the status of actual redeemer of the world. Again, if c MINOR IS CHAOS and if CHAOS IS FATE, then Beethoven’s C minor Symphony may be deciphered accordingly: the “fate knocking at the door” is the avenging Goddess, come to square her accounts with the world of men. Eb poetics thus proceeded from [MALE] TRINITY down the CHAOS sluice, absorbing SEA, RIVER, FLOOD, and WAVE until, in Wagner’s lexically sexualizing hands, snchprima materia precipitated out as DANGEROUS WOMAN and its culturally ’*Discussed by Jung in “Paracelsus as a Spiritual Phenomenon,” (CW13, H234)' “What is

SsLt

f“ cemSy lov^ta i::

‘f whenhe interprets them as the ‘shield andbuckler of love.’ Shield and buckler are martial attributes, but there is also a Femis armata.”

197 sanctioned response sexual abuse. Speaking to men now, C minor is where you go when you wish to humiliate a woman or where you sprawl after a dominatrix has had her way with you. This is one reason why the key was so often used to deliver the knockout-blow to suffering heroes,’’ particularly those who have been too cozy with their FATE, especially FRICKA, into whose capable hands Wagner passed Hera’s heroharrying responsibilities en masse. A glance through the Lexicon will overwhelm ingly document C minor as the key of choice of rapists and degraders of women,'®' and justifiably enough, of harridans, harpies, and vengefiilly pursuing female nemeses—another public cultural property, since “a distracted lady takes naturally to C minor”'®^ and, in Wagner at any rate, eventually comes hunting for him. The femininization of the E b constellation, then, was a natural tonal product of poetic imaginations facing the entailments of an abstract theological Trinity and its first documented creative act ofbrooding upon or impregnating the CHAOS, whose WATERS unsurprisingly proved to be the WOMAN that men had always suspected her

to be. As WOMAN the constellation acquired her own affective contents through the magic mirror of masculine projections, dutifully dishing up FURY in high dudgeon or bearing PEACE in patience as poetically required. VIII. Waters Above, Waters Below The most dynamic aspect of WATER lies not in the fact that it either ripples calmly or rages dangerously but that it CIRCULATES freely between heaven and earth. This quality of circulation was bound to the careers of numinous culture heros (Barbarossa, Bonaparte, Siegfried,... Hero x), and their descent from heaven to earth, ”Hence “a tragic key, fit to express grand misadventures, deaths of heroes, and grand but mournful, ominous, and lugubrious actions.” (Grancesco Galeazzi, Elementi teorico-pratici de musica, 1796, quoted in Key Characteristics, p. 231.) '“Thus “an ambivalent aspect [of the Mother archetype] is seen in the goddesses of fate (Moira, Greeae, Noms). Evil symbols are the witch, dragon (or any devouring and entwining aniiml, such as a large fish or a serpent), the grave, the sarcophagus, deep water, death, nightmares and bogies; Pmpi.ia Lilith, etc.).” C. G. Jung, “Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype,” U81-2.) ""Not only in Wagner either; witness Handel’s Deborah, No. 26, in which the E b heroine suffers Sisera’s dominating B b put-downs: “That here rebellious arms I see, proud Deborah, proceeds from thee! But, would’st thou yet thy vain ambition cease, whilst our affronted mercy offers peace, bow down submissive, ere th* impending blow lays thee and all thy lost associates low. ‘“Anonymous,“ThatKeysInfluenceMusicalThinking,”27ie5pectator,1828,quotedinKey Characteristics, p. 233.

198 thence to death, and thence again back to heaven via resinxection. This is a specific cally liquid signature that cannot be applied to AIR, the other obviously active element, but whose recreations and furies alike are experienced as HORIZONTAL affairs whether gently kissing the cheek or blowing down the house of sticks. WATER rises and falls and most dramatically perhaps rains down from heaven. Since in the early days of common practice poetics WATER was imagined theologically, then the element came to hold the meaning not only of the mysterium of the watery depths but of the condescension of God to man, a divine precipitation like rainfall. WATER is thus both depth and height, life and death, and circulates between both; hence WORLD RIVER. As CIRCULATION and CYCLE this element evokes TIME and RETURN, and it

is thus that WATER reveals its connection with REBIRTH, RESURRECTION, REIN CARNATION: “What goes ROUND comes ROUND.” From this the E b constellation is

bound with paradoxical wholeness, dying and returning heroes, funerals and incar nations, remembrance and precognition. And since WATER IS WOMAN the Female Trinity supervises all this with serpentine tape and scissors to measure the hero’s life span, snip him out of CIRCULATION and send him back to the SHOWERS.'” By means of such usages the mystical resonance of the key survived the transitions from Baroque and Classical periods into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The more nature-based imagery ofthe nineteenth century naturally moved composers with increasing frequency to set texts featuring the night sky and the twinkling stars—^traditional stand-ins for SEA and its piscine denizens, who often, as in Christian mysticism, stand for SOULS and particularly for the poet’s soul or for the soul of the (almost always female) beloved with which the poet longs to commune in spirit (WATER IS WOMAN, WOMAN IS SOUL). Ironically perhaps, this tendency was given a boost by recent developments not in poetics but in science and technology. Thus even before the mid-nineteenth centuiy the image of SPACE, imported into poetic vocabulary through advances in astronomical science that prompted Tovey to hypothesize a link between Haydn’s “Depiction of Chaos” and the Nebular Hypothesis had helped to make the poetic pairing of WATER and SPACE both

'“Indeed, since our composer proved himself to be almost pretematurally sensitive to the poetic resonances ofwords whether tonal or otherwise, it could not have escaped his attention that E b or the poetic principle it expressed ruled not only over the RING but of its creator as well: “Wagner”, wagoner, WHEELWRIGHT.

199 contemporary and exotic.'"'' Tovey’s suggestion that eighteenth and nineteenth century popular science gave new life to the musical treatment of poetic imagery is hardly farfetched. However it may have been with Haydn, for Wagner science was, on the evidence of comments on Darwin, evolution, and nineteenth century racial anthropology recorded by Cosima, received and integrated as if such scientific theories were simply new genres or poetic or mythic configurations.'"^ The conjunction of mystic WATER and mystic SPACE evident in Whitman’s “0 vast Rondure” and its E b Sea Symphony setting exemplifies the parallel conjunction of science, poetry, and music that lent continuity to old mystical formulae. Thus throughout the Romantic period E b tended with increasing frequency to be selected to convey the image of DISTANCE IN SPACE, THE BEYOND, or INFINITY that had once accrued to the boundless SEA. Girdlestone projects the BEYOND retroaetively onto Mozart’s late E b string quintet, using WATER to conjoin it to the “mystical” essence of the Magic Flute which “in the most personal part of its contents, mingles its waters with the stream which, a few months earlier, had flowed through the quintet in E flat,”'"" which latter “is the sanetuary into whieh Tamino and Pamina enter after the trial by fire and water. As Boschot expresses it, a ‘Franeiscan blitheness’ (‘une allegresse firanciseaine’) reigns in it; we hear ‘the song of a heart living beyond visible things... an ethereal, luminous murmur, like the rustling of a 4

'“^rhus Tovey, “Haydn: ‘The Creation,’ in Essays in Musical Analysis, Vol. 5, p. 114.)“[Haydn] has a remarkably consistent notion of [Chaos], which harmonizes well enough with the Biblical account of the Creation; not less well with the classical notions of Chaos, whether in Hesiod or Ovid; but most closely with the Nebular Hypothesis of Kant and Laplace, which almost certainly attracted Haydn’s attention. Kant’s speculations on the subject had been already published in 1755, hnd Laplace’s discussion of it was published in a readable and popular form in 1796, two years before Haydn’s Creation. Haydn, who did a certain amount of dining-out mfin-de-siecle London, was as likely to have heard of the Nebular Hypothesis as a modem diner-out is likely to hear of Einstein and Relativity. Moreover, he visited Herschel at Slough, saw his famous forty-foot telescope and his less famous but more successful other telescopes, and doubtless had much conversation with Herschel in German on both music and astronomy, Herschel having been a musician before he made astronomy his main occupation.” ‘“For instance, “Godhead is Nature, the will which seeks salvation and, to quote Darwin, . selects the strongest to bring this salvation about.” (Diaries, Vol. II, p. 22, entry of lanuary 24,1878.) Here Godhead, which the composer endows with heretical and particularly Indian poetic significance, mingles with Schopenhauer’s Will and receives ratification fi-omDarwin, who provides just the imaginal tessitura the composer needs for his Heldentenor. "“Mozart and His Piano Concertos, p. 493.

200 grove full of twittering birds conversing with the Poverello of Assisi.”"” Here WATER FLOWS and its currents carry imagination effortlessly from the terrestrial

waters back to those above the firmament. A numinous and unfathomable distance informs Beethoven’s E bAn diefeme Geliebte (‘To the distant beloved”) and recurs in Brahms, “Die Liebende schreibt” (The beloved writes). Op. 47, No. 5: “You love me, far off here across the ocean! By dist^ce can a bond like ours be broken? The sea wafts the love that you are sending”—another E b variant on the Whitman-like “vast similitude” that interlocks all. A variant appears in WexAVs A Masked Ball, No. 23, where an Ab—to—^Eb modulation conveys “the ocean unbounded will part us ... but though by wide seas divided, memory shall enshrine thee.” Such connections also guide Schumann’s key choices, as in Frauenliebe und Leben, No. 2: “even as in yonder blue depth shines bright and glorious that star, so is he in my heaven, bright and glorious, sublime and fair”, or No. 3: “I had dreamed it to the end, the peacefully beautifiil dream of my childhood; I found myself alone, forsaken in an infinite barren space. You ring on my finger... you opened my eyes to the infinite, deep value of life”, in which the now-familiar E b images of DREAM, END, INFINITY, SPACE, RING, and DEEP complete the poetic complex with remarkable

richness. Again, STAR and MARINER conjoin in the same composer’s E b Op. 25, No. 2 (“Liberty”): “stars ofHeaven shining high above me, God put sttirs above in the sky to guide us on land and sea”, or Op. 25, No. 25 (“roses from the East”); “I send a greeting fair as maiden’s tresses ... to eyes like stars upon a summer night.” Or in “Question,” Op. 35, No. 9, “If there were no stars alight on a summer night... what would there be when sad, to cheer and comfort me?” in the same key; or in “My Beautiful Star,” Op. 101, No. 4, the singer pleads, “My beautiful star! I beg of you, oh let not your joyful light be clouded by mists in me.” This usage reconfirms the peculiarity of E b STAR imagery, that it star in question floats in a space at once heaven and psyche. Thus in “In the Heavy Evening,” Op. 90, No. 6, E b minor, already noted to be resonant with HEAVY, SINK ING, and SEA, is transposed from OCEAN to SPACE to express “dark clouds (that) hung

down, so fearful and heavy... and starless the night.” In Op. 104, No. 4, Brahms revisits C minor TURBULENCE and its link to DEATH, RESURRECTION, and SLEEP with which we are become familiar from Mahler and Beethoven: “the day passed p. 492.

201 blustering and rain-swept; on ev’ry grave was etched the word, ‘Forsaken.’ The storm is past, the dead now sleep again, and over ev’ry grave is writ, ‘Awaken’Again, the starry sky as the “waters above the firmament” appears in Schubert’s song. Op. 96, No. 1, in which stars “float through the sky as angels of love... often with kisses fly over the sea... point from the grave with their fingers of gold to what faf above in the blue they behold.” Schumann’s E b Major stars also evoke death and resurrection, as in “Requiem,” Op. 90, No. 7, “For the just there shine the bright stars in the cell of death, for him, who himself as star ofnight will appear, when he beholds the Lord, beholds the Lord in Heaven’s glory.” C minor CHAOS clearly reflects the second aspect oftwo-faced WATER, which is its tendency to pour violently from the sky, to flood, and mix the other elements up into a seething foam. In other words, the violence of WATER is to artifact of its

descent: things get rough whenever itfalls. Though the element circulates there is a poetic asymmetry of direction in which downward motion is privileged. Once again iconography tells much of the story, for the E b signature with its triangular array of

flats inkblot-like reminiscences of liquid drops that descend (flatten) or fall from a higher to a lower plane. Thus in Wagner three-flat keys tend to appear in poetic contexts {eatanngfalling, as in Alberich’s “O Schmerz! O Schmerz! (Das Rhein-

gold, scene i). This rfescensMs-motif as such likewise appears to guide the logic of tonal CHAOS-representations in a line of descent from the tonic major E b and into the relative minor C, which thereby becomes a CHAOS key not merely in Wagner but generally, and especially in common practice texted music in which Chaos is the subject. What we observe in such music then, is the expansion of a single key, Eb Major, into a larger E b -to-C minor complex, in which the two keys act together to express a far more nuanced account of the relation between Creator and CHAOS than would be possible by remaining within the compass of a single key.

The example of E b Major suggests the cultural properties that Wagner could rely upon to secure the intelligibility of his initial choice of Referential Key I. If the arguments and evidence presented here are even remotely valid, then it is remarkable that the lexical use of keys has fallen into such obscurity in music theory. Acknow ledging some welcome exceptions it is not too much to say that most of the public cultural properties ofmusic have been substantially erased from scholarly conscious-

202 ness with its historically acultural and structuralist paradigm.’®* This is not the place to discuss the reasons for this generic ignorance on the part of music theorists. I only refer to the fact in order to-place Wagner’s concerns about the intelligibility of his dramatic purposes in a perspective broader than critical prejudice against this com poser’s music or his person. Since Wagnerproceeded step-by-step in linear time to develop his XL lexeme as rational entailments of a single key, then his only possible arbitrary decision was the choice of his initial Referential Key I. Had this first key choice proved truly arbitrary then everything built upon it that followed might well prove equally so with respect to the surrounding culture and its own pubUc lexicon. It would follow from this that however rational the remainder of his procedure might prove, the composer still occupied Humpty Dumpty’s precarious perch, threatening to fall to the musicological Alice’s criticism of egotistical and unintelligible arbitrariness. In the event, Wagner’s initial Referential Key I proves to have already been a full-fledged tonal lexeme within a common practice Lexicon that jnelds its secrets easily to such garden variety analytical concepts and procedures as I have used here. What is more, as I shall argue throughout the more detailed analyses that follow, the same poetic logic operates with respect to the remaining major keys, which means that they are all as much public properties as is this one. The same analytical logic that cracks Wagner s lexical coding works equally to crack that found in common cultural practice. It likewise cracks the Humpty Dumpty conundrum and vindicates Wagner’s tonal language as public cultural property. Let us therefore return from this shared cultural linguistic space to the interior spaces of Wagner’s Ring language proper, that is, to the domain that Wagner called the “Tonal Households” and their meanings, to inquire how Wagner’s lexicon is organized as a thing-in-itself.

For example, a recent theoretical study ofthe beliefsystems with which music was invested specifically written to place musie in its cultural context (Robert Walker, Musical BeliefsPsychoacoustic. Mythical, and Educational Perspectives, 1990) neither meaningfully discusses key associauons or key characteristics nor references Rita Steblin’s groundbreaking survey of this rich, coherent, and all-pervasive factor in musical intelligibility.

Ch a pt

er

Fi v e

The Lexical Loge “What an infinitude of technical details I have passed over in this cursory, yet perhaps itself too circumstantial statement, you may easily imagine; particularly if you reflect how inexhaustibly varied is their nature, even in a theoretical exposition.” Richard Wagner'

I.

Key Characteristics and “Expressive Shift” Theory Theory must not only be valid in itself but it must prove superior to

alternative theories. I have already juxtaposed lexical explanations of Wagner’s tonality with Schenkerism, one of the Four Theories ofthe Ragnarok offered in place of Wagner’s unitary theory, to show how Schenker’s methods plaster over the composer’s semantic content and deflect attention from the rich but theoretically straightforward type of TL discourse that the composer had actually developed, and which he predicted in Opera and Drama and never later rescinded. In this chapter I would like to focus on a more in-depth discussion of Wagner’s Tonal Household theory by looking at a single such household, A Major, in detail. I have written about this key elsewhere^ and since I’ve argued much of its public cultural aspects there I

will not discuss common practice A Major key characteristics except to identify its core metaphor up front as the “Lohengrin complex”, [A=VIRQIN, PURITY]. The theory most in need of,the debunking hammer now is “expressive shift.” This is the idea that it requires the charisma of a separate theoretical category to explain and describe Wagner’s occasional tendency to juxtapose keys separated by semitones or whole-tones as if this were somehow more than mere modulation or aimed to achieve effects distinct from those accraing to generic interval relations, all of which achieve their own expressive points through the same general syntax. Thus to honor one or two such generic relationships with separate theory appears to have little work to do other than to hand someone credentials as a theorist. Let me begin by referring again to the existence of public property key characteristics and then inferring what the presence of these do to expressive shift. After that I will criticize '“Zukunftsmusik,” p. 340. ^“The Ravished Flower: A Major VoeiksmMadamaButterfly'

204 the actual use of expressive shift as it has been applied in Wagner scholarship, to see what, if any, matters of interest it explains and show how Wagner’s garden-variety tonal lexicality explains such smidges and more besides. Perhaps the most salient feature of lexemes is that they are public cultural

properties, elements of a cultural lexicon, the broadest expression of cultural space intelligible to its users. In Das Rheingold [C=LIGHT] because it was light in Die

Schöpfung and to Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, and their colleagues. It appears at Rheingold! for no better reason than that C Major is the right word to call a glittery glob of gold. This is what it means that C Major is a lexeme in a public cultural property TL lexicon. What justifies this differs not a whit fixim what justifies an NL word as a lexical entry: objects are lexical that function like lexemes. Nor is this observation a tautology. It is a constitutive mie, "x counts as y in context c”, which makes possible both our common natural language and Wagner’s tonal language games. To verify is to demonstrate that composers use C Major in a common semantic way. To test, read C Major as if it were word and see what follows. If it leads tCT further insight about what this music is saying, check it off and go on to consider [S=y]. If it leads nowhere, cross it off and dust off your Kontrapunkt. Lexical theories make provisions for public cultural property elements where non-lexical theories do not. Their failure to do so therefore prejudices their explanatory power to the degree that the materials they would explain show such elements. What happens for instance to “expressive shift” or Schenkerian theory when confronted with public cultural property % characteristics! To Robert Bailey and others, Siegmund’s D minor, not an associative key, is an “expressive shift of tonality’ from Wotan’s Db Major, which is an ássociative key.^ Indefinite notion

expressive frumps definite notion lexical. This formulation effectively rfenders D minor a dependent variable on P b Major and to describe the one requires describing the other. The unsystematic and arbitrary character of such interpretations is evident. JfD minor Siegmund is an “expressive upward shift” ofD> Major Wotan, then since [D/d=Freia] one must consider Freia also to be Wotan’s upwairi shift or be told why not.The problem is that although Freia’s clan is clearly akin to Siegmund’s and this

1, July 197Z

Ring and its Evolution.” in MVieteeuiA Century Music, Voi. I, No.

205 kinship justifies their shared Tonal Household, with respect to Wotan, Freia and Siegmund/Sieglinde mean different and in some senses opposite things. For instance, Wagner’s divine geneálogy makes it clear that Freia and her siblings predate Wotan just as Siegmund’s clan postdates him, while his mythic theory makes it clear that his mythic figures are intended to connote evolutionary advances.* Therefore if expressive shift theory is generalizable they must both be expressive upward shifts yet they caimot both be expressive shifts. If it is not generalizable then it is arbitraiy. The resolution is that the Ring's keys have the functions that they do because they have the public cultural properties that they do. These properties are mostly their public semantic meanings. D minor here is a TL word that means, Siegmund. If this explanation explains then D b becomes someone else’s bulky suitcase, which an elegant TL lexeme has been coerced into lugging about. Naturally a lexical theory will also have to explain why D minor means "Siegmund” and to systematically account for the facts that it also means, e.g., Amfortas bleeding, Mark kvetching, Siegjfried dripping sweat, or Freia whenever she’s not being flattered. This it will do as it does everything else: by syntactical and semantic analysis and arguments. To show that D minor lives a lexically independent life of its own collapses expressive shift theory into lexicality ànd m^es it “go away.” Key characteristics entail common usage. The lexeme [d=Siegmund] is a secondary (derivative) semantic meaning accruing to the prior [D=Hero, Sun]. D minor is Siegmund because he is a doomed hero where his D Major son is a success. This in turn accmes to a'typical.^yntax/semantics interface genus hallowed by constant usage, that MINOR MODE IS MXJOR MODE WEAKENED. Amfortas is wounded, Mark is cuckolded, Siegfiied is under duress, Freia is abducted. This throws these D Major Householders into minor mode but whenever they “get better” 'they revert to Major. How do we know that [D=Sun]? First, because Wagner says so; for instance

*That Wotan is younger than Freia is evident from Wagner’s assignment of divine functions to evolutionary stages of human consciousness: “Though his nature marked him as the highest god, and as such he needs must take the place of father to the other deities, yet was he in no wise an historically older god, but sprang into existence from man’s later, higher conseiousness of self; consequence he is more abstract tlm the older Nature-god while the latter is more corporeal and, 4o to phrase it, more'personally ifiborn in man.” (“The Wibelungen,” p. 275.) Wagner’s concept 0ms allies Siegmund’s clan with the older “nature gods” including Freia, Froh, and Donner; this is one reason for their shared key, which marks them as fellow tonal householders.

206 here; At the farthest point to which we can trace it, the Frank stem-saga shews the individualised Light or Sun-god, who conquers and lays low the monster of ur-Chaotic night:—^this is the original meaning of Siegfried's fight with the Dragon, a fight like that of Apollo fought against the dragon Python.’ Since [D=Siegfiied], D Major means everything Wagner just said above. But why “D” rather than “A b ” or any other key? Because everyone else said so and no one ever contradicted them. The association was another public cultural property, a com mon practice key characteristic intelligible to any cultured nineteenth-century music lover curious enough to open the score. To Wagner and his audience D Major was the traditional (and not only Lutheran) D Major fisticuffs-Jesus who harrows Hell, dukes with the Old Serpent and returns triumphant, bearing a treasure of redeemed human souls. It was Handel’s metaphorical Great Light seen by the B minor (D:vi)

people that walked in darkness. It was Haydn’s material Great Light bom before our eyes in The Creation, or Dittersdorfs D Major Fall of Phaeton sympohny. The default association was simply there, and for straightforward Humpty Dumptyconfounding reasons Wagner put it to work in his own Ring usage, e.g., to tell us that in passing through a D Major Fire-Circle Siegfiied has become one with the Sun, as when the HERO reaches the mountaintop at DAWN, rising in D Major with the MORNING SUN {Siegfried, Act EH, #2308).

Again, SUN IS GOLD where GOLD IS VALUE. Wagner painstakingly constracts this complex via straightforward catégorial grammar procedures visible in the score fi'om Das Rheingold to the end of Götterdämmerung. It is first connected to kindled (male) heart-fire when exposed to a bright vision of supreme and initially sexual value; e.g., (#25, #88) Alberich’s aggressive sexual pursuit of the Rhine Daughters through the waters, described by Wagner as “Passion in the most primitive naivety of expression.” Lexeme #99 associates it with heroic freedom of action, which thereby attaches it to the independent motif of HEROISM. Lexeme #102 connects it to FREIA, giving her linear priority as the first D Major tonal householder. Now it

’“The Wibelungen,” p. 275. In his identification of Siegfried (Leo) with the Sun God Wagner appears to concur with Evangejine Adams, i.e., “The moral character of the native of Leo can best be understood by those who have made an intimate study of the rites of the Sun God.” {Astrology: Your Place in the Sun, p. 58.)

207 connotes the uplifting sense of heart-power when contemplating something highly valued such as youth, strength, pride, or one’s destined mate. In #105 it becomes the SUN, DAY, BRIGHTNESS, which aligns it with its semantic cousin [C=LIGHT] and also with Genesis’ differentiation ofUGHT from SUN, which were created independently.*

Lexeme #128 describes the person of Freia as “licht und leicht,” which adds these qualities to the growing lexical household of heart-fire, sun, day, value, mate, light, striving, and heroic struggle. Lexeme #132 gives us WOMAN’S WORTH; almost at once {#136) the person of FREIA is subsumed into her characteristic fetishes, the GOLDEN APPLES, which specifies the kind of licht this lady sheds and adds GOLD and SOLAR FRUIT to the lexicon via the traditional mythic image of the Tree of the Sun

and Moon, which likewise places [ßf^TREE], e.g., the Mother-Tree (G) is the sub dominant (source, precursor) of dominant successor (product) D (the Son-frait)—a relationship which, for the same reason, syntactically fixes the relation of Sieglinde (Mother, G, Moon) to Siegfried (Son, D, Sun).'' By this time we can confidently expand the core D Major metaphor to D MAJOR IS HEART AND SUN: her tonal House hold is the Heart and Sun of Heaven. In Die Walküre Siegmund’s interest in Sieglinde as he leans against the

hearth (#558) carries on this thematic development; here HEARTH-FIRE IS HEART, SUN, hearth being household’s heart as heart is the body’s sun. Thus Siegmund

momentarily transforms Hunding’s clammy C minor house into a D Major Tonal

‘This is entirely coherent with common practice key characteristics bothbaroque and rococo, in which C is also LIGHT while D is unquestionably SUN. The psychological basis of the difference is, that LIGHT is that which illuminates other things while SUN is LIGHT itself made visible, which is why in traditional astrology Sun and Moon are called the Greater and Lesser Lights; hence, for instance, D Major solar usages include Handel, “The people that walked in darkness have seen a GREAT LIGHT.” Haydn’s strict tonal syntax faithfully reflects the Biblical distinction between generic LIGHT and the Greater and Lesser LIGHTS, assigning the former to C Major and the latter to D Major (Sun) and G Major (Moon) respectively. Wagner follows this precedent precisely. ’The sun-tree goes back to Egypt and Babylon, for which see Neumann, The Great Mother, p. 243 & Fig. 53. Again, the alchemist Mylius: ”... I perceived two outstanding [trees], higher than the others, of which one bore a fruit like to the brightest and most refulgent sun, and its leaves were like gold. But the other brought forth the whitest of finits, more brightly shining than lilies, and its leaves were like quicksilver. They were named by Neptune the tree of the sun and the tree of the ¿toon.” (Quoted in Jung, “The Philosophical Tree,” p 89«.) See also Travels of John Mandeville,'()ne of Wagner’s likely sources for Parsifal (below. Chapters Seven and Eight); I have discussed this mythic logic in detail in “Sieglinde and the Moon.”

208 Household.* In Siegfried the hearth-fire is brought into the woods via D Major sing ing birdlings, animal wives with animal husbands, nests, parents brooding on their young, and quests for familial (clan) origins, which always point back to D.’ That D Major Siegfiied should seek G Major roots [IV'S'D] derives fi'om lexemes [D=Son, G=Mother (roots)], where {subdominant=regression}], as when {Siegfried, Act IE) the hero’s sustained acts of active imagination deposit him under the G Major X.inrfeK [=Sieg-Z,/«i/e(n)].'“ Naturally in both Siegfried and Götterdämmerung [D=hero] exhausts the bulk of its lexical efforts in tonalizing the person of Siegfiied. D MAJOR IS SUN AND HEART thus provides default dramaturgical motivations :

people cherish values in their hearty that they consider to be like gold, which warm the heart’s blood and inspire the joy of being alive. D Major is the psychological domain of the heart 's desire, DESIRE here being distinct from hunger for money or sex {Cf. [F=gre,ed]). D Major is the public and cultural psychology of HOPE for the future, the YOUTHFULNESS which is the registry of hope, LOVE of life, JOY of living, sunris^like relief from the dragon of death and night that is hopelessness, fear, and despair. This is the origin of its youthfiilness, hearth-fires, and parental nurturing of young, and for its perennial association with Son the Redeemer, standing behind which is every G Major mother watching her D Major child take its first toddling steps toward the renewal of life. Wagner merely contributes a systematic psycho logical exploration of its prior key characteristics, developing them anew from primitive to developed poetic form. D Major/minor Major being thefire ofthe heart, it constellates heart- and fire-imageiy of every description, including but not limited to the fiery activities of heroes. It is Briinnhilde’s fiery hope,'* and the substance of

'The same lexical logic appears in Die Meistersinger, e.g., Walther: “In snowbound hall, by fireside” (Am stillen Herd in Winterzeit), [Die Meistersinger, Act I, scene iii]. 'Relevant lexemes include. #1401, #1403, #1411, #1439, #1441, #1445, #1452, #1473 #1497, #1547, and #1656. . '“A few ofthe relevant G=m o t h e r lexemes include, #1442, #1451—iot G=reflected (moon) Sun—, #1900, #2090, #2093, #2336, #2374, #2382, and #2457. ' " Brünnlulde’s fiery hope constitutes the entire topic oí Die Walküre, III, Sig. LXXX: e.g., #1342 [D—Valkyrie] (motif, passim); #1343 fftt/Fi)—Flame] (‘Aufdein Gebot entbrenne ein Feuer’); 1344 [D=Fire] (‘der frech sich wagte dem freislichen Felsen zu nah’n!’); #1345 [b=Valkyrie] (‘du kühnes, herrliches Kind!’). The gender reversal here (Alberich

......r‘Jl VI IIV VI IIV VI I//V VI // V VI 1//V(nt) IWVI 1 1 Endlich Loge! Il 1 II (wholetone minor-key sequences controlled from A) #/5=foreboded trouble]^ M80b [F=greed, Giants]

A minor

WO

IdfivVA Ul__ V IFreia! Achtloser, lass’ dich eritSOc [d=Freia bartered]

I Lohn’s! Die

IBurg ist fertie. ver-l

A minor

WO

IBbfbll)

I ÍV i=iv V J__ M Ifallen das pfand: verIgassest du. was du verttSI ta=Loge’s bad bargain]

J______________ A6=V7_________ I Igab’st? Wotan: Wohl dünkt mich*s. was sie be-1 *[Bb=power]

^Lexical tonality however explains it easily by the logic of general TL hatmonic syntax that supports the momentary logics of individual TL lexemes. Thus the ençirical fact of verifiable usage confirmed by the Lexicon shows that [b=eneiity], which is in'itself sufficient semantic justification to explain its appearance in Fricka’s denunciation of her husband, whom she here casts in this role and thereby repudiates. But B minor is in additional a syntactical element that enters into relations with the other relevant TL lexemes [D=Friea the Free] and [d=Friea bought cheap]. The syntactical relation of B minor to Freia the Free is direct: it is the D Major relative minor. On the other hand B minor has no direct relation to D minor. Thus in accusing Wotan of frivolous disregard uiing the D:vi lexeme Frickahas automatically alluded to the object ofthat disregard, D Major, thereby reinstating Freia as a worthy D Major object by implication. The fact that TL lexemes automatically relate themselves to other lexemes in the act of speaking distinguishes TL from NL and definitively rebuts any accusation that TL is simply a pidgin duplication of NL and thus pointlessly tautological. A given TL lexeme always implies more than its NL counterpart noun, one reason why Wagner can say more with less. “Op. cit., p. 137.

227 A minor__________________________________ ___ ____ |a(0 lBb(I.U)........................................................................................ : Idfivl___________ ............................................................................................................................ JV7IV7 I 1 =VII viioV I Miingen. die dort die Burg mir eeIbaut: durch Ver- Itrag zähmt ich ihr Itrotsiz Gesucht das sie diel #83 [d=Giants subordinated] A minor___________________ _______ ____ _

|a(i)

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

|d{iv)............................................................................................................. IF(Vn_________ __________________________ __________________________________ ____ IV IV_____________ LJ______ ÏÎI iv i=iv V________________ I Ihehre Halle mir I schüfen: die Istehtnur Dank den I Starken: um den1 A minor------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|a(i)......................: IBb(bll) : Id(iv) : |F(VI) : Ibfiil:...........................................................................................-......................... -................. • JV7 I=VII IV ______ iI:------------------------------ISold sorge dich nicht!I Frlcka: O lachend frevelnder Leichtsinn!]eíc¡

This linear harmonic analysis reconverts expressive rise, unfolded B b, large-scale

expression of, and ""undoes" from the decorative frgures they are back to gardenvariety lexical tonality. When this is done it is evident that a tonal syntax/semantics interface has been generating the TL equivalent ofNL sentences from Das Rheingold bar 1. Key signature punctuates lexemes into coherent TL phrases syntactically defined by the signature key. Keys unfold lexically within these topical signatures. Fricka impatiently chafes under the seemingly interminable D b Major cadentiality of her spouse’s grandiose goings-on about his big stone building until a pause for •breath permits B b minor (D b :vB a coramsnt that in effect calls him a moral dwarf.*^ The Giants’ key duly identifies the objects of herlears^Freia’s lexical D minor tells

what she knows they’re up to; and A minor why she knotvs they think they can get away with it. To parry his wife’s B b minor insinuendo of dwarfish smallness Wotan flexes big Bb Major muscles, and acknowledges in passing her D minor concern only to duck back behind Loge’s A minor bad bargain. All in all a typical husbandly performance in the face ofspousal criticism ofhis unacknowledged shadow, lexically specified as such. We need no Schenker to explain this, just a good TL dictionary should our tonalese prove rusty.

“The best analysis of the lexical and psychological relationship between Wotan and Bb minor occurs in Tuttle’s Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera, Chapter Seven.

228

III.

Loge, Meet Hermes Loge would like us to take him for proud owner of not one but two keys, A

Major and Ftl “Major.” Only one is his; the second is façade. His own Household reaches only as far as F jl minor (A:vi): wits in moral tailspin. The hmnbug himself is the only one who ever names himselfin F jl Majof*’ and Loge is by definition a liar (Lüge).^ Taken literally—as everything Loge says must for reasons that will appear —^Loge’s screed is not about himselfper se but FIRE generally,.which he represents as his to give away. But FIRE is not in his gift: he stole it fi’om another Household with its own constellation of subsidiary keys that I will survey in Chapter Six. The question remains, why two keys, though the second bp subordinated to A Major?^’ The conspicuous tonal duality is resolved by situating it within Wagner’s generic myth-conflating moves. In terms of background mythic and syntactical structure Wagner’s Loge is largely a multiple-coherence importation into Saga surface of the Græco-Roman Hermes (Mercurius).^ This is evident in Wagner’s treatment of the character. Although LOGE IS HERMES at first seems to contradict

y Tacitus’ claim concerning the religion of the Germans that Wodan and not Loki was

*^E.g. Das Rheingold: “Kennst du mich gut, kindischer Alp? Nun sag, wer bin ich dass du so hell’st? Im kalten Loch, da kanemd du lag’st, wer gab dir Licht und wärmende Lohe, wenn Loge nie dir gelacht? Was hülf dir dein Schmieden, heizt’ ich die Schmiede dir nicht?” Even here, he is obliged to retiun to his tonic A minor (A:i) to deliver “nicht fein drum dünkt mich dein Dank!” See also Loge to Mime: “Das will ich freilich, und mehr noch, hör! Holfen will ich dir, Mime” in A minor (A:i). This is what Loge promises to do, and this is exactly what he does, fulfilling the promise in the major. "Thus Fricka:-“Sieh, welch’ tmgvollem Schelm du grtraut!” in A Major; Froh: “Loge heisst du, doch nenn’ ich dich Lüge!” returns from A Major (at the word “Loge”) to F )i minor (not Major), the key in which Donner threatens to club him (“Verfluchte Lohe, dich lösch’ ich aus!”). The gods themself declare F )) Major to be a disguise, and they should know. ‘’This formulation, “two keys,” cannot even remotely suggest a “double-tonic conçlex” since the two keys in questioii are lexical not linear entities. Indeed, in token of Logo’s Grasco-Roman duality, Wagner endows his ersatz Norse humbug with numerous dualistic details: two keys, two-four lime signature, two-bar cadential anticipations, multiple modulations via ii/ii/ii or bll/bll/bll. "In “The Genealogy of Chaos” I have explained Wagner’s need,to fall back on classical models in terms of (1) his desire fo demonstrate Germanic and old Norse mythblogy’s equal stature conqrared with Græco-Roman’mythology; (2) the new mania for classification that had just hit the humanities, and particularly Oriental and mythological studies in the mid-nineteenth century, and (3) the the disorganized and inconqrlete nature ofold Norse scholarship. Loge is a perfect example ofwhy Wagner needed to borrow classical deep stmcture, considering that up to the 1960s Scandinavian folklore studies had not even reached consensus on whether Loki was a dwarfor brownie or connected with fire or water or what (see Anna Birgitta Roo% Loki in Scandinavian Mythology, pgs. 1-12). And Norse scholarship was much less organized in the ISSOs.

229 NÍercury/’ Wagner’s move is coherent with developments in Saga during the mediaeval period, for instance the detail in Snorri Sturluson’s Skálskaparmál that magic shoes carry him through the air and over water, about which Rooth comments that “the information about Loki’s shoes with the aid of which he can travel both through air and water (Jopt ag lob) is not found in other myths. It can hardly have been a generally known motif as the messenger Loki usually travels in the guise of a bird. There is reason to believe that helpful mythographers have borrowed the winged shoes of Mercury from the Classical tradition to give to his poorer Scandinavian colleague. In Togail na Tebe Mercury, too, travels in the guise of a bird like Loki in Scandinavian mythology. Loki’s ability to travel lopt ok log can be an authentic trait even if the shoes have been borrowed from the classical tradition.’”'* The general coherence between Loki and Mercury was thus active in the culturally porous context of North European mediævalism with its fluid poetic dialectics be tween pagan, Christian, and classical motifs. A particular expression ofthe affinity between the double-bodied Mercurius duplex and his Norse cousin appears in the Prose Edda. Here “Loki”, the companion of the gods, challenges “Logi”, the companion of the giants and the ELEMENT FIRE, to an eating competition: the former devours only the meat, the latter the meat, bones, and plate as well. As discussed by Jakob Grinrni, whom Wagner studied, the two figures “Loki” and “Logi” are practically identical but maintain a distinction evident in the fact that they face off in a contest that Logi (Fire) wins.“’ The hierarchical value judgment between nearly identical factors shows concern to keep distinct personae otherwise in danger of blending together^Moreover the Edda is careful to locate Loki and Logi across the divide between Asgardahd Giant-land, showing that they differ not only by species but by genus, representing two types of fire: tellurian and celestial. Wagner converts this episode to one in which one figure covets and

^’Thus H.R. Ellis Davidson {Gods and Myths ofNorthern Europe, pgs. 140-1) suggests that “Since the Romans equated Wodan with Mercury, we may assume that similarities between the two deities existed as early as the days of Tacitus. Even if Wodan, like Odin, resembled Mercury m wearing a hat, this is not enough to account for the identification... Mercury was the god of trade, the patron of wisdom and learning, the god who was carried by his winged sandals over land and sea, and the guide who directed souls to the Other World.” **Loki in Scandinavian Mythology, p. 45. ^’Jakob Grimm, Germanic Mythology, 15-30.

230 appropriates attributes of the other—with a difference. In the Edda the celestial fire is less potent than the earthly; in Wagner it is the other way round: Loge the tellurian fire [A] appropriates [Fi=HEAVENLYFIRE]. As usual Wagner appropriates a mythic detail but inverts its meaning and value. Hermes-Mercurius too is a double-bodied figure; thus in Renaissance astrology the signs Gemini and Virgo, and Sagittarius and Pisces, were classified as the “double-bodied” signs.’“ Also called the “mutable” (wandering, changeable) signs, their common denominator was Mercury. Wagner left it to TL to keep tabs on evolving Grasco-Roman configurations of his Saga supematurals’mythic bona fides. He did this by subsuming the abstract mjdhic categories of classical astral theology directly into tonal syntax, which lexicalizes not dramatis personce per se but rather Dumézil-like mythopoetic semantic structures with rationally functional interrelations. As with all GræcoRoman mythic personages this deep structure is quantified by me^ ofNeoplatonic astrology, which provided a culturally omnipresent” cosmological structure through which the ancient deities were projected onto man and society. Within this structure Hermes was.the mler of the signs of the Twins (Gemini, Dioscuri) and the Earth Mother (Virgo), in which he is in exaltation. These signs correspond to the Tonal Households of C Major and A Major. Hermetic figures thus tend to appear at these Households. Wagner is composing-out this Circle as if it were a zodiac. This is clear fi'om the constellations of imagery that gather about the twelve major keys in sequential order progressing dominantward fi'om Referential Key E b, and generating successor keys via dominant motion: Pisces )( H

Db Ab Gb Eb B Bb O E F A «-Virgoïïb

CD G

dominant progression Wagner s procedure would appear to be to develop his poetic key relationships using

”E.g., William Lilly, Introduction to Astrology (1647), p. 16. ’■Thus per Eugenio Gssin{Astrologyin the Renaissance, pgs. 75-6): “Astrology and religion, astrology and politics, astrology and propaganda, but also astrology and medicine, and astrology and sicence: a pMlosophy of history, a conception of reality, a fatalistic naturalism and an astral cult—astrology was all of this and more.”

231 the same logic that the Greek philosophers and dramatists used to rationalize the cosmological relationship of the gods via celestial mapping practices. By this means the Circle of Fifths becomes a cosmological map that one may actually use to find one’s way around the Ring’s poetic world. Logo’s double-bodiedness is thus the Saga source of his Tonal Household syntax, which permits him to appropriate a second Household. This translates to a semantic distinction between two Tonal Households, the one linked with the realm of Walhall, the other not. To pull off his heist of celestial fire Loge explôits the dual funetion of F¿;i as his own A: vi, tunneling from there into the other household and making off with six sharps worth of scintillating swag. He must then clamber back .through his Fd minor basement and back A ahead of the alarm. Thus Logo’s linear rhârmonic syntax is that of a sneak-thief on a heist. Yet like Inspector Plodder we can follow the miscreant’s lexical footprints as he scurries between the Households of A Klajor/Minor/F Jl minor and F d Major/Minor/ D d minor*^ enacting the constant baitahd-switches he needs to maintain the disguise. In syntactical terms Loge presents himself to his victims like this;

Linear surface Background

The double-arrow symbol

The Thief The Mark A Major (■*-•■) F d Major '» V

(Fd Minor) A:vi, Logo’s basement

simplyjneans that on the linear key surface the two

unrelated keys A Major and Fd are manipulated hyprestissimo legerdemain to give the impression that they are directly related so long as A Major unobtrusively drops out of the picture^^ leaving the surface to its flashy tonal alias. To transmogrify F d minor to Maj or requires j acking up his scalar a li, d 1], and e li to a d, d d, and e d. The ad tone (=Alberich’s bb) is the specific fraud that the god must set aside when confronting Alberich. His surrender of his mendacious majot third ad/bb to his opponent, its owner, and his resumption ofhis original seale degrees is the syntactical embryo of the “expressive shift.” The controlling key is PI minor, the only gluè

“D |t minor (aka E b minor) is, incidentally, the path heUikes to get to the Rhine Daughters, too. Like the old blues song, Loge’s got twenty-seven ways to make it to^his baby’s door. /

”E.g., Ex. Vb, “Wie?”

linking these incompatible surface keys together. Under this surface, on the level expressed through real linear tonal syntax Logo’s true tonal household looks like this: LOGE LOGE really being sneaky A Major F |t Minor (A:vi)

Linear surface

V

Background

(Fÿ Major)

In reality F If Major is a* disposable object (»»j: it can be donned or doffed at will, using F)} minor as the magic broach that does and undoes the magician’s cape. Wagner levers his Loge from Scandinavian bivouac to classical camp by repressing Loki the Trickster, which leaves to the Ring only Loki the Liar and Thief. Tricking, lying, and stealing differ in kind. The Trickster is Loki the theriomorphic entity playing goblinish tricks for pore pleasure and spite. The Liar is the Loki who engages in dishonest bargaining for some.advantage to himself or his patrons. The Thief is self-evident. The Norse Loki is compoimded fairly equally of all these motifs; not so in Wagner. Loge never plays tricks for fun—^he only lies, steals, or deceitfully bargains. These are the quintessential Hermetic activities; thus LOGE IS HERMES both by commission and omission. Wagner lets us know the functions he considers proper to Loge by means of this snippet of orthodox TL syntax: Ex. Vg: Das Rheingold, Scene ii £ minor le(i). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :

|D(VII)

;.............................................................................................. :

_____________________________________ :...........

I i VI IllHVIV7 \Wotan-. * I Wo freier Muth Ifivmmt, al#99 [e=repulsive wooing] #100 [D=hero] E minor

IV7 I I V 1=111 I |lein frag' ich nach IKeinen. Doch des I #lOIa [^enemy]

____________________________________________________

|e(i)

|D(VII) lb(v).................. // iflt(ii) //. |A(1V)______________________________________ -■

__________________________ :............................

I

V iv |//viio7 VI I viio7__________ (PQ IFeindes Neid zum | Nutz sich fiigen, | lehrt nur Schlauheit und

I |

VI = IV ^ List, wie_________

#J0lb [fl=guile] ©»102 [A=LOGE] Ejninor______________________________________________________________ |A(IV)............................................................................................................................................................................

I - I

V__________(PC)

Loge verschlagen sie

IIV iv *| übt.

I_________ V7________________ I_________ I______________ |

Derzum Vertrage mir

|

reith. versprach mir

233 E minor

IFreia zu liasen: auf »103 [D=Freia]

j___________ I Ì lihn verlass’ ich mich______taun.

I etcI etc.

The linear path is lexically transparent.'Treier Muth” invokes [D=hero], whose poetic connection to Freia as patron goddess of ardent youth will be discussed elsewhere, and which forebodes the D Major Siegfried as the quintessential “free Hero.” “Feindes Neid” accrues to the orthodox [b=enemy] discussed above, an association Wagner works out throughout Scene ii, the remainder of the Ring and Parsifal [b=Klingsor]. “Nutz sich fugen” employs the b;V in its syntactical sense of “dominator,” e.g., [fi=guile] trumps [V] [b=enemy]—Wotan is talking judo here.’“ “Schlauheit,” “List,” and “Loge” deliver a new bag of TL synonyms to A Major’s door: in preference to impotent D Major heroics, the B minor enemy is to be yoked by the F minor guile of the A Major humbug. The phrase is capped by th&lexically necessary return to [D=Friea], in the major now in token of Wotan’s almost reasonable hopes of her ransom. “Freier Muth” also underscores another Græco-Roman distinction, between

force aná fraud as expressed for instance in the rough distinction acknowledged by Alberich and others between robbery ÇNotan dex Räuber) vs. theft (Loge der Dieb)?^

’^Loge uses the same grammatical foiimila to the same purpose in »223 [f¿-guile] trumps (V) -»[ b=enemy] (‘zieh’st éeriRâuber duaiRecH’), showing the syntactical generality ofDOMINANT IS DOMINATOR. ’' " ^

“Robbery is theft plus violence; it is distinguished from theft not so much by its modus operandi as by the relative portions of fear vs. contempt that it inspires in the victim. Robbery connotes violence to person and requires physical daring; hence Alberich {»3088 [g=unworthy ravisher, robber] ; ‘der wüthigen Räuber'V) remembers his fear via “wüthigen.” This principié èxplains the lexical as well as expressive precision oftheforte andpiano in»2J8 [^dominate (V) Alberich (b b = Rheingold thief)]: (‘Durch Raubl Was ein Dieb stahl, das stielhl’st du dem Dieb']. Swaggering robbery receives, as it deserves, the violent delivery, while weasely theft sidles off with its also-ran piano. The use ofboth forms in »181 ([b=vengeance] {‘áaraubte sich rächend der Dieb') uses a mere six words to suggest that a mewling thief might aspire to the glory of robbery under impetus of momentary courage bestowed by desire for revenge. In the Ring rape and robbery are practically the 'same thing, which is why B b Gibichungs think bride-robbing is courtship. Thui the Rhine Daughters . {»184 [A=promise]) remember Alberich as a robber (‘...dass zu Recht du zögest dell Räuber'), as Brünnhilde does Siegfried while suffering the act itself {»3041 [Bb.=fapist, robber, attacking] (‘du Räuber'.'); her anger and defiance, however, demote him to mere thief {»3042 [c=Etemifl GoiMess, defending]) (‘Frevelnder Diebl Erfreche dich nicht mir zu nah’n!’). The-keyword “frevelnder” (outrageous) is an epithet suitable for furious spewal at contençtible punks, as is “schamloser” {»1763 , [C=Wanderer] (‘schamloser Diebl ’), which puts the shame back where it belongs. Dieb is used where

234 Thus Wotan’s previously cited “Nichts durch Gewalt” (#145-6) suggesting treachery

via Loge’s a: V pedal, clearly differentiates occasions on which the gods should resort to public violence from those which “legitimately” call for private deceit. This distinction is likewise structurally crucial to the fimction of Loge’s mythic

Doppelgänger, Hermes. In his discussion of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes Norman O. Brown differentiates Hermes’ theft ofApollo’s cattle from robbery—activities with clear differences in the Saga-like heroic culture of ancient Greece. Cattle-raiding, as depicted in Homer, was a public enterprise, led by the kings and participated in by the whole people. It is described as a war—a resort to force, and open force. The institution appears to have been a common heritage of all the Indo-European peoples and to have had everywhere the same general characteristics. To cite one illustrative example, in Sanskrit the word for “war” means literally “desire for more cows.” Coexistent with this institution of warlike plundering, or robbery, and terminologically distinguished from it in the Indo-Emopean languages, was another type of appropriation, called theft. Theft is appropriation by stealth; robbery is open and forcible appropriation. In Greek law the terms force and fraud, robbery and theft, are standard antitheses ... Once this distinction has been made, there can be no doubt that the practices associated with Hermes are theft, not robbery. Just as Hermes’ behavior defines heroic Greek ethos so Loge’s defines that of Wagner’s heroic Saga. The question cascades onto where and how Wagner detaches Wotan from Mercury, substitutes Loge, then reverts to Tacitus’ conception in his mercurial Wanderer. The relevant detail is his pasting of his wandering twain Wotan

and Loge over Jove and Mercurius, who appear in tale of Philemon and Baucis from

contençt finds itself hard up for lexicon. Thus once Briinphilde thinks she has him cornered, she flushes Siegfried down }he G minor drain via #3252 [g=unworthy thief] (‘Siegfned! Der trugvolle Diebl’); so too with Mime {#3280 [C=knowing, knowledge] {‘Kenn ’ ich dich dummer DiebV) or #2080 [hb.=Nibelung] (‘Einen guten Wächter geh’ ich dir auch: dass er vor Diehen dich deckt’)—and of course, Loge, always Loge {#347 [a=Loge], ‘das hörte der Dieb jetzt gern! ’) or #380 (‘Verfluchter DiebV). /

^Hermes the Thief, pgs. 5-6. Ofequal relevance to the Hermes-Loge connection is the shared victims of their stealthy activities: giants. Thus “because the gods do not care to risk an open attack on the dangerpus giants, it falls to Hermes to steal Ares out of the brazen pot where Otus and Ephialtes have imprisoned him." {Ibid., pgs. 6-7, referring to Iliad 5-.390; 24.24,109; Odyssey 19:395-7). This episode parallels the eddic tale of Loge’s rescue of Thor’s hammer from the grasp of the giants {Prymskvfda, discussed in Loki in Scandinavian Mythology, pgs. 56-9). Wagner generalizes this by farming out Loge’s favors indiscriminately to dwarfs and giants.

235 Ovid’s Metamorphoses.^'' The tale was no doubt in Wagner’s mind in Mime’s inhospitable welcome to Wotan and the punishment dished out for it {Siegfried, I). This episode is a imique pairing of the two figures; otherwise “his face hidden under his hood, in his somber blue cloak, [going] about the world, simultaneously master and spy,”’® Wagner’s Wanderer, like Odin, typically prowls alone. Such mythic time sharing is pragmatic. Wagner had too few protagonists to spread over complex Græco-Roman mythic stmcture and had to pair Wotan with

Zeus, e.g., “What a strange night that must have been when Wotan subjugated Erda! That is my own invention entirely—I know nothing about Zeus and Gaea, for instance, and nothing struck me in another poet, the way we are sometimes much struck by some feature which escapes other people.”” Wotan has to star as himself in the surface Saga epic or as Hermes, Zeus, Kronos, or Ouranos in the'deep-structured version. In Das Rheingold plot exigencies required the role of psychopompus and tempter be delegated to a subordinate (“the devil made me do it!”); thus the Norse Wodan-Mercurius momentarily bifurcates into Wotan-Zeus (Jove) and Loge-Mercurius, who dons Hermes’ hat here only to surrender it to the Wanderer there. With this in the bag Wotan is free to show his expendable hermetic underling the door through an aside that Loge has wandered off to parts unknown. This releases the boss to star as the mercurial Wanderer in his new mercurial key, C Major. But he strews hermetic clues whenever his god of thieves deigns to appear among us, transferring Hermes’

ralership of treaty-making wholesale to Loge. The treaty-motif

appears in an anecdote of baby Hermes’.iljeft^£Apollo’s cattle. “Apollo, taking the child back to Olympus, told Zeus all that had hap)rened. Zeus warned Hermes that henceforth he must respect the rights of property and refrain from telling dovraright lies... T will never tell lies,’ [said Hermes] ‘Though I cannot pro^mise alw^s lo tell the whole truth.’ ‘That would not be expected of you,’ said'Zeus, with a smile. ‘But

”Cosima afTirms Wagner’s familiarity with Ovid in Diaries, Voi. I, p. 272, entry of September 18,1870, an account which affords R. the opportunity to reiterate his.generic conceptual distinction between literati and idiotae literature as follows: "ft is in effect literaturfe for the refined people in their villas, there is nothing popular about it, but it captivates through its erudition and wit—in short, its refinement.” ’’Dumézil, Gods of the Ancient Northmen, p. 19. ^Diaries, Voi. I, p. 755, entry of May 8, 1874. Such additional “inventions” further lever Wotan in the directions ofKronos (Saturn) and Ouranos as Wotan ages toward A b, E b, and C minor.

/

236 your duties would include the making of treaties . .

This function is further

specified by Norman O. Brown as follows; A special kind of stealthy or guileful action is attributed to Hermes in Homer’s description of the gift he bestowed on Autolycus. That gift was not merely “stealthiness”; it was “stealthiness and skill at the oath.” “Skill at the oath” means guile or curming in the use of the oath and derives from the primitive idea that an oath was binding only in its literal sense; a ciuming person might legitimately manipulate it in order to deceive, as occurs often enough in Greek mythology. In the Homeric Hymn, when Hermes uses just such an oath to deny that he has stolen Apollo’s cattle, he is said to show “good skill.”*' This is the source for Loge’s standing on the letter of the law regarding his bargain: Ex. Vh: Das Rheingold, Scents Dk Maior

IPKI)....................................... ..=C|t lIGbilVI II vi7 1 V IILoge: kein IStein wankt im Ge#156 [Db=Walhall]

=f|t

HA Maior IKI/iii)......................................................................; IKvi) ;................. II I 1 VIV IVIV& IVI I 1 IV=I 1 II stemm. 1________|________1 | Nicht 1

A Major |ftt(vi)...............................................................................................................................;

Mi)•

______________ :.............................

I VIV Vl Ibll VLJNyI V I [massig war ich, wieImancher hier: der llQgt. wer lässig michIschilt. Wot: #157 ffH=bustle. flash (fraudulent)] #158 [^enemy, traitor]

A Major |ftt(vi) |b(ii)...................... igfi/bii/vn 1 V7 1 V7 Iweich’st du mir laus:

lArglistig I

n.................................................................................................................................... 1 // viio7 1 V Irnich zu betgrügen Ihütein ITreuendich #159 [f£=Loge threatened]

1 i 1 wohl! Von

1VI=V 1 allen

1 1

A Maior |g(i/bll/vi)............;.......: Miiy)______________..................................................................................................................................... .. ..... 1 IV ” 1 Hv IV 1 V7 1 V7 1 V7 1 IGSttem dein leinz’eer IFreund. nahm ich dich lauf in der 1 übel [trauenden 1 tH60 [g=lowest god on totem-pole, nadir, outsider] #161 [d=Freia’s clan (=Loge’s enemies)] A Maior IA(I) |b(ii) Idfivl.............. 1 i . 11 7& 1 ITross.— 1 Nun 1

=a(i/l)............................... bll red’ und rathe klua!

1 i=iv 1 ii V 1 1 1 da einst die #162 [a=Loge’s bad bargain]

^’Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, Voi. I, pgs. 64-5, my italics.

^'Hermes the Thief, pgs. 8-9.

V Bauer der Bu f 2 zum

1 1

237 A Major lAfli......................... 1 iv ii 1 IDank Freia be- 1

V daneen.

1 bll Idu weisst. nicht

1

ui

i.

landers willitrt’ ich 1

viioW ein. als weil auf

1 1

A Major |a(i)..............................................

|b(ii) |c|t(iii) ld|l(ii/iii) |fl|(id/iii)

IgU * iG«iv/iin

1 i IPflicht du eelobtest zu •

.................// II...JI n.... // II..JI //........// n..............................n //....... 1 A6 1 V VI VN VI &I//&//& 1 IN 1 1 lösen das hehre 1 Pfand? 1 1 Lose-, 1 Mit höchster 1

A Major |A(I) IGltfV/iin.............................................................................................. 1 viio 1 I V 1 I iv 1 V ISorae drauf zu binnen, wie es zu llösen. das 1 hab’ ich ae’■ UI63 lGlt=Freia unredeemable]

1

i

Hobt.

I1VI=V II UI 1=1.11

1

1

1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L

A Major

1A(I)

iGH(V/iii). Ifllivn 1 I f4n0 {Doch, dass ich

.......................................................................................... _ :....................................................... 1 viio7 lviio7 4==ll A6 1 wie 1 Hess’ sich das wohl ae- 1 1 linet— 1 UI 64a ff"Lose helpless]

1......... II=V viio7 Ifände was nie sich Ifilat. was nie ae-

AMaior Itt(vi).................... ici füll (f) // 1 V=VI V // 1 V 1 V Hoben? 1 Fricka: 1 Sieh, welch'

.............. // feU //

UcHI.............. 1 vi i IVI V // UI I Itruavollem Schelm du aeItraut! Froh: Lose 1 #l65a rcll=Wotan. made a fool]

AMaior |ftt(vi) Icltfiii').................. L vi=m Iheisst du. doch nenn' ich dich

IV Vi - - 1 V VI ILüae! Donner: Verfluchte Ttohe. dich lösch’ ich Iti 65b rfH=Loge threatened]

1 etc. 1 aus!

Truly delicious is Loge’s lightning shift from the A minor of his bad bargain to the G}t Major of heavenly virtue, whence he delivers his protest of sincerity.“ Again the target key has its independent lexicality, concerning heavenly virtues and values. For Loge to dart into Gjlis thus simply to put on righteous airs. “This swift chromatic passage incidentally has the honor of containing Wagner’s most ephemeral identifiable key. This is the g that immediately precedes the G¿ and which is marked by a single g:V chord (“Mit höchster...”). This sole chord can define the key because it is the last iteration of a standard Logish [V-VI//] progression. The D chord is‘the interrapted V at the end of this sequence This sequence also syntactically explains Loge’s obligation to recede here fi:om his A Major tonic to A minor (e.g., “...Pflicht du gelobtest zu lösen das hehre Pfand?”): the pattem is a series of surface V-VI major chords moves in ascending minor, not major, keys.

238

IV.

The Prevaricating Patron of Purity The Graeco-Roman derivation of Wagner’s Loge-Rhine Daughters axis is

further evident in the generic motif of Hermes and the nymph triad found, for instance, in the Judgment of Paris legend. In this connection Lindsay notes that a triad of nymphs ... are connected with a herdsman; they are giftbearers and some question of choice arises about their gifts; they are led by Hermes, who as psychopomp or soul-leader is the natural intermediary between mankind and the spirit world . . . Hermes is leader of the nymph triad, quite apart firom the Judgment story. An archaic relief fi'om the Akropolis shows the three Horai dancing to his pipe.. .arelief of the fourth or third century has three dancing nymphs, with a large head of the river-god Acheloos on the right, in the rocks.“ The Greek reliefs bear comparison with Arthur Rackham’s Loge and the Rhine Daughters (Frontispiece), which shows the Three River Nymphs in complementary opposition to their patron. The Greek tableaux Hermes—questionable gifi-giving Nymph triad—unnamed river god-father^ parallels Wagner’s tableaux Loge— questionable gift-giving Rhine Daughters triad—unnamed river-godfather. In Das RheingoldNlSigasc conserves thejudgment motifbetween individual women’s relative worth by means ofjudgment between wealth and women’s worth generally.

No. Sa: Hermes with the Three Goddesses, each with a wreath; he takes Paris by the wrist: black-figured vase. (Note Hermes’ characteristic “Wanderer”-sty(e hat.)

“Jack Lindsay, Helen of Troy, pgs. 191-2. “For further discussion of Wagner’s unnamed River God see David H. White, The Turning

Wheel, pgs. 36-8.

No. 5b: Hermes with sheep on shoulders and the Triad; the three goddesses of the Judgement or the Triad of Nymphs (7); black-figured vase

No. 5c: Hermes with the Three Graces aiid youthful figure (?Eniautos)i.4S!55j2n Akropolis

Figs. 5.a-c; Greek Reliefs: Hermes and Ihe Nyinph Triad“ The fact that Græco-Roman giß giving is substantially the province of triads of nyptphs pertainly explains a thiefs otherwise unmotivated proprietary interest in three nixies. In Wagner and his Græco-Roman models the river god’s presence suggests the ultimate source of the treasures bestowed by the nymphs; the sea of world river. Thus Perseus called upon the three daughters of the sea god Phorcysio obtain the three magic weapons of Hades from the (unnamed) nymphs. These three (triad) were the winged sandals (ofHermes), the magic wallet and the helmet ofinvisibility. Wagner’s account of the Tamhelm’s origin is stmcturally similar: “Sources: Helen of Troy, op. cit.: No. 1 (p. 193); No. 2 (p. 192); No. 3 (p. 188).

240 HERO

Perseus Siegfried

obtains

t r ea su r e

from

Helmet of Invisibility Winged Sandals Magic purse of wealth Tamheim of Invisibility and Magical Transport Magic ring of power

ORIGIN

via

Sea God (Phorcys)

Sea Daughters —Nymphs

River God (Father Rhine)

Rhine Daughters-Nixies

Both heroes obtain magical implements at the hands of daughters of the ELEMENTAL WATERS or their delegates, and the objects obtained—invisibility, infinite mobility, magical acquisition of wealth—are practically identical. Triple-nymphs and goddess triads are implicated in problematical gifts generally: such triplets often give gifts that fixate both owner and coveter on their value, thereby leading to disaster (e.g., Helen, Alberich’s ring). One'is reminded ofthe connection between “gift” and “poison.”“* The motif lies at the core of classical depictions of “womankind,” for standing behmd Helen is the first mortal woman. Pandora, with whom Hermes is also connected and who “appears as She-who-gets-all-gifts, though originally she was Earth the All-giver. ... Round Pandora, as round Harmonia at her wedding, were Hermes, Aphrodite, and the Hours, Peitho, and [Three] Graces . . . The Graces offered Pandora golden necklaces... the necklace is a mythical form ofthe leaf garland belonging to the earth in her spring renewal.”®’ Hermes’ connection with Pandora is described in the Iliad 60-68: “[Zeds] bade famous Hephaestus make haste and mix earth with water and to put in it the voice and strength of hmnan kind, and fashion a sweet, lovely maidenshape, like to the immortal goddesses in face; and Athene to teach her needlework and the weaving of the varièd web; and golden Aphrodite fo shed grace upon her head and crael longing and cares that weary the limbs.* And he charged Hermes the guide, the Slayer of Argus, to put in her a shameless mind and a deceitful nature.” We’ve seen the Graces’ connection with the E b poetics of the unfolded Venus. That they should likewise appear in association with Pandora suggests she too has a triadic nature: she is compounded of the female elements WATER’and EARTH, distributing the former’s female triad to the latter. Since the female triad was imagined visuâlly through the

“E.g., the magic ring is the “poison that is fatal to love.” (Wagner to August Rockel, 25 January, 1854)

Helen ofTroy, p. 180. The receiving and giving ofgifts, which is a prototype ofcommercial buying and selling, is a core attribute of the Earth, since gifts are primarily solid objects (elemental earth) that arise from and return to earth. This goes in particular for human bodies; hence Hades “the wealthy one,” who eventually receives all gifts into himself again.

241 delia A it is also the case that both WATER and EARTH are at once abstract female triads and visual triangles. Such hermetic clues suggest that the three-flat Rhine Daughters learned their seductive guile from a three-sharp source. This is no idle conceit, for among Hermes’ most quintessential teachings were those of sexual wiles and seductive deception. Thus, In the myth of Pandora, Hermes’ gift of “lies and deceitful words and a stealthy disposition” is the gift of guile in sexual seduction. Seduction was, throughout Greek civilization, a magic art, employing love-charms, compulsive magic directed at the person desired, and supplicatory rituals invoking the deities of love—of whom Hermes was one, and Aphrodite the foremost.** Since the Rhine Daughters-Loge relation is that ofNymph Triad to Hermes he is their patron god of sexual dishonesty, which is why it is not farfetched to posit a three-sharp source for the Daughters’ three-flat seductions. Which returns us to [A=Loge], for without this lexeme the relationship leaves no TD-semantical trace. Fortunately the Lexicon provides a syntactical-semantical record of the nixies’ precise diction of deceit. Consider Flosshilde’s #35ff. As the sniggling nixie draws her bead A Major disguises itself as B b

b

to mimic Alberich’s B b Major (the old “hiya pal\” bit) in a

[Gb->-Bbb-»gb] key pattern dangling from Flossie’s seductively wiggling D b

uvula,

which conjures HEAVEN to the twitterpated gnome. Alberich’s bathetic b b b yelps on ‘Mir zagt, zuckt und zehrt sich das Herz’ show him to be beside himself (B b ). By this time however the key has darkened to G b (= F }t ) minor as the nixie turns really nasty. Flossie’s seduction sequence is thus an-enhannonic inversion of Logo’s flattering A-*-F ft

A sidle up to Wotan;

^

^

Nixie’s Gb-B b b-G b [A] / Loge’s: Fft-A-Fft [T] Loge’s hermetic fingerprints are thus smeared all over the syntactical interstices ofhis tonal brogue and justify the speculation that I—^VI—/ VI—I—VI, nexus “A”, is a general disinformational cue, in the nixie’s case a hermetic syntactical trace of Loge’s tutorship in the arts of sexual deceit.*’

‘^Hermes the Thief, p. 14. “Of course Flossie deserves an “A+” for originality for her innovative double-flat substitution gimmick.

242 Given the semantic relationship between [Eb.=Three Rhine Daughters] and [A=Loge] it is obvious that the meaning of Wagner’s Loge is bound with the meaning of his three-sharp key. The Loge-Rhine Daughters syntax is that of the )t 4 relation ship, in this case E b -A. Keys lying at a tritone distance bisect the CIRCLE OF FIFTHS like this: Eb© A Tritone = 180° Such COMPLEMENTARY OPPOSITES syntax is cartographic in nature: the tritone means what it does because it has the angular characteristics that it has, mapped onto a CIRCLE without which there is no 180° angle to bear the semantics of OPPOSITION. But once CIRCLE becomes a public Cultmul property the metaphoric entailments flow as it were by themselves. Syntactically outside each other’s keys. Loge is the Rhine Daughters ’ augmented fourth, they his flattened fifth, and they intersect at that infinity where UP becomes DOWN, e.g., ( b b b A)—^Three Nixies 0 Loge—[▼ ÿ

ÿ]

tritone (ÿ4) The Augmented Fourth unifying “Complementary Opposites” I have already discussed the participation Græco-Roman sign Pisces and the female trinity in providing a core metaphor for three-flat iconic imagery. Granted this rational source it is unsurprising that these iconic images should unfold as three sharps in her Hermetic counterpart, A Major. Tritone-oppositional syntax brings three flats into complementary relationship with Loge and his three sharps. Again, all this grammatical usage is public cultural property-driven. What then are the public cultural property characteristics of Loge’s key? I have discussed A Major poetics in detail elsewhere and described the kej’s core metaphor as VIRGIN pu r it y .™ Lohengrin is but a token of a general type. His virgin purity is the culturally imderstood quality of his three-sharp key. In TL-lexical terms, for Loge to be lord of A Major is thus for the Fire God to be Lord of [A=VIRGIN PURITY]. In Græco-Roman astrolôgy HermesMercurius was both ruler and exalted in the sign of the Virgin, the Earth sign Virgo

™See“The Ravished Flower.”

243

(nj), just as Aphrodite was exalted in its opposite celestial house, Pisces (K).” Since LOGE IS HERMES then his tonal Household A Major also embraces the imagery of the

Earth Goddess. This precise poetic placement of the hermetic Loge in the key of virgiruty and the mines of the Earth is found in only one other poetic configuration in Western culture, which is mediæval astrology. This is ihe planetary exaltation of HermesMercurius in the Earth Sign of the Virgin. The musical and astrological inscapes are virtually identical. In the Lexicon this dual connection between the Virgin and her planetary ruler makes itself felt as the intersections of two sub-groups of related images, one centered in purity, chastity, visions of pure womanhood, virginal attractiveness and sexual resistance; the other centered in deceit, bad bargains, schemes, lies, and evasions. The former qualities constellate around “Virgin” figures like Sieglinde, Brünnhilde (as “Wish Bride”), or Noms, the other around Loge. These two themes—^virgin purity and deceitfulness—exhaust the great bulk of the key s lexical character. Wagner goes so far as to bring the two motifs together in Briinnhilde’s A minor conundmm, “der Reinste war er, der mich verrieth!” (ß369S) and “Ächter als er schwär Keiner Eide” {#3704), in which she contemplates the fact that, under the auspices of A Major, the temple of the pure, treachery should have achieved such fearsome density of impact. These A Major—Minor—F )t minor image groupings are there for one reason; that Hermes-Loge is living fire in the Earth Mother’s subterranean womb; that is, a tellurian or subterranean heat. It is clear^omthi^hy Alberich ironically welcomes Loge back to the bowels of the earth. As the dwarfbitterlyieininds him, this is Loge’s home turf. Thus Wagner describes the underworlders as burrowing through the bowels of the earth like worms in a body.’^ With Alberich and Loge we are deep into the imagery of the mine as the uteras of the Earth Goddess, in which Loge plays the role of a specifically tellurian fire. Within the CIRCLE OF FIFTHS A Major marks the cartographic location for the “world’s navel”, the center of the Mother. This was the

’'This notion is also present in modem astrology, e.g., “The relation existing between Virgo and Pisces (between the Virgin Mother and the Fish Goddesses) is well known, for they are pote opposites and their functions are interchangeable in a peculiar manner.” (Alice A. Baüey, Esoteric Astrology, p. 278) ’’“The Nibelung Myth as Sketch for a Drama,” p. 301.

244 mythic heart of the aneient mining cults from whose rituals and mysteries arose both the art of alchemy and the popular tales of kobolds and underworld dwarfs.’’ In ieonic terms the Greek delta A, the symbol for “woman” and “mouth of a river,” correlates with the three flats triangle of |~Eb=RHlNE DAUGHTERS] sueh that this association becomes a formative element in E b semanties. What then of threesharps [▼]? Semantically, what is true of the delta or river is equally true of the mine-, thus the belief that ores were given birth in the earth’s womb gave rise to the eomparison of caves and mines to the womb of the Earth-Mother. The saered rivers of Mesopotamia were supposed to have their source in the generative organ of the Great Goddess. The source of rivers was indeed eonsidered as the vagina of the earth. In Babylonian the term pù signifies both “source of a river” and “vagina”. The Sumerian bum means both “vagina” and “river”.... in Egyptian the word bi means “uterus” and ‘ gallery of a mine”. It is worth remembering, too, that the caves and eavems were compared to the matrix of the Earth-Mother. ... the designation delph (uterus) had been preserved in the name of the most sacred sanctuary of Hellenism, Delphi___The Sybils were, of course, intiihately cpnneeted with the eult of the caves... An analo gous symbolism was coimected with the triangle. Pausanias speaks of a place in Argos called delta whieh was considered to be the sanctuary ofDemetrius. Pick and Eisler have interpreted the triangle as meaning “vulva”, and this interpretation is valid if the term is allowed to retain its first sense of “matrix” or source.’'* The three-flats/three-sharps opposition implies two entries into the generative mystery of the Mother’s body: the first through the river-mouth and the seeond through the mine-vagina. This is why Loge proves so admirably eompetent to serve as Wotan’s psychompompus: the underworld journey is a trip down memory lane. Loge’s sulfureleft (Schwefelkluft) is also understandable in this coimection. Like cousin Alberich,

”As in Greece there arose “certain groups of mythical personages—Telchines, Cahiri, Kuretes, Dactyls—(who) were both sacred guilds associated with mysteries and corporations ofmetal workers. According to various traditions, the Telchines were the first people to work in iron and bronze, the Idaean Dactyls discovered iron-smelting and the Kuretes bronze work. The latter, too, were reputed for their special dance which they performed with a clash of arms. The Cabiri, like the Kuretes, are given the title of ‘mastets of the furnace’ and were called ‘mighfy in fire’; their worship spread all over, the eastern Mediterranean.,The Dactyls were the priests of Cybele, the goddess of mountains as well as of mines and caves and having her dwelling inside the mountains.” (Mircea Eliade, The Forge and the Crucible, pgs. 102-3.)

^*Ibid., pgs. 41-2.

245 toge is relatçd to Sulphur, that is, to the fire within the earth, which also an alchemistic synonym for Mercurius."’ This brings Loge, via “Schwefel”, into multiple coherence with Earth, Virgo, and Mercury. What of the moral qualities of sulphur? We may divine that by noting the relation of Loge/Hermes to the Nymphs; he is a corrupting agent, endowing something apparently virginal and pure with something unfathomable and shifty; thus “Sulfur is the ‘cause of imperfection in all metals,’ the •corrupter of perfection,’ ‘causing the blackness in every operation,’ too much sulphurousness is the cause of corruption,’ it is ‘bad and not well mixed,’... These unfavourable accounts evidently impressed one of the adepts so much that, in a marginal note, he added ‘diabolus’ to the causae corruptionisAs diabolical cômiptor Wotan’s sulphurous fire-spirit guide is the devil that makes us do it.

V.

The Outer Limits of the Musical World Why then does Loge covet F ÿ Major? To ask this is not to ask what F it Major

is—likeeveryotherkeyitisaTLlexem^butwhatFttMajormeans.For starters we

must turn as always to F (} Major as a public cultural property key characteristic, for if Loge is after its meaning then the coveted object lies here. Throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries key was consistently associated with images of HEIGHT, including both topographical altitude and emotional peak experiences whose core metaphors gather around Schubart cites “triumph

OVER

UP.

Thus with respect to the latter C. F. D.

difficulty, free sigh of relief when hurdles are

SUR

echo of a soul which has-fiercely struggled and finally conquered lies m all uses of the key.”’’ Anton Gräffer likewise Ffear(i.‘_‘Victory OVER vanquished

MOUNTED;

, "Thus in alchemy Sulphur’s “fiery nature is unanimously stressed, though this fiemess does not consist merely in its combustibility but in its occult fiery nature.... In keeping with its dual rwtoe sulphur is on the one hand corporal and earthly, and on the other an occult, spintual principle. As an eaAly substance it comes from the ‘fatness of the earth,’ by which meant the radical «o^toe as prima materia.... As a chthonic being it has close affmities with the dragoiv which4s called our secret sulphur.’ In that form it is also the aqua divina, symbolized by the uroboros. These analogies often mate it difficult to distinguish between sulphur and Mercurius, wmce the same thing is said of both.” (C. G. Jung, Mysterium Coniunctionis, ÌI134-5.)

''^Mysterium Coniunctionis, H138-9. ^Vdeen zu einerÄsthetic der Tonkunst .(circa 1784), quoted in Steblin, Key Characteristics, p 266 my metaphor caps. Again, to J. A. Schrader G b Major “depicts splendour and ma^ficence; songs of triunqih and victory.” {Kleines Taschenwörteruch der Musik, (1827) quoted iq Ibid., similar assessment appears in Hemi Weikert, Kunstwörterbuch (1827), quoted m Ibid.

246 HURDLES

in both F and G b 7* C. G. Kellner emphasized the key’s “strange, LOFTY

pride, fit to put the listener in admiring awe.”™ More specifically, stating that in F Major “the state ofnature has disappeared to a great extent,” Johann Jakob Heinse located the key at the “outer limits of the musical world. *** That such “outer limits” referred to the axis drawn between earth and sky appears in W. C. Müller’s mercurial suggestion that G b or F}i coimoted a Loge-like “ambiguous vacillation between heaven and earth."*' The most complete evaluation of these keys, which drew fi-om his immediate predecessors’ opinions as well as his own reflections, was that of Gustav Schilling, who wrote as follows: ... in the practical application itself, on account of the difference in modulations and the key relationships lying beyond each key’s reach, FK major sounds brighter and sharper than G b major. Therefore, the former is more suited to the expression of a HIGHER passionate emotional character than the latter, which always inclines more to gloominess, to the aspect of difficulties just OVERCOME and of struggles which the soul has endured. As in their enharmonic relationship, when considered fi-om an external point of view, they form TWO DIFFERENT REGIONS WHOSE BORDERS COME TOGETHER AT ONE POINT, so they also appear here, in consideration of their inner nature, as a kind of CROSS-ROADS WHOSE SIDES SEPARATE TWO COMPLETELY CONTRASTING REGIONS, each with its own area but still touching. Where the most inner feeling has WORKED ITS WAY UP out of pain and violently seizes the joy which has eluded it, this, in our opinion, is Fÿ major. Where [the soul] is notjyet sure of its goal, and still PEERS ANXIOUSLY ACROSS at the newly-opened realm of joy, there G b major might be used mosfsuitably and expressively. At one point so s}Tichronized and fully integrated, they still form a DOUBLY SEPARATED BORDER, which, when considered further, also agrees with their external harmonic differences.“ Few such descriptions are intelligibleunless MUSIC IS SPACE an:// www.annabelburton.com/astrology_houses.html, downloadeiî March 25, 2005. Again, “Second House: Possessions of all kinds, and the person's attitude towards them, and worldly resources which support the physical body, also moral values and ambitions!” (http://membets.tripod.com/~RavenSilverwing/bos/astrology.html) (downloaded 3/25/05). Now read the F Major Lexicoa Check out the other astrological houses in sequence with the Lexicon on the table as see the results. This consistent public cultural property manner of thinking about the inscribed cosmos hasn’t changed in 2,000 years and more than anytìiing is why I insist on reading Wagner against what mediæval scholarship calls “idiotae” (or vernacular, popular) discourse.

309 EARTH IS TREASURE specific;

Though doomed to death by acquisition of the Hoard, each sequent generation strives to seize it: its inmost essence drives it on, as with necessity of Nature, as day has ever to dethrone the night anew. For in the Hoard there lies withal the secret of all earthly might: it is the

Earth itselfwith all its splendour, which injoyous shining ofthe Sun at dawn ofday we recognise as ourpossession to enjoy, when Night, that held its ghostly, gloomy dragon‘s wings spreadfearsomely above the world's rich stores, hasfinally been routed?^ This is the source ofWagner’s F Major-based legends ofdesire and greed, spread out before our view in the Lexicon.” To this constellation also belongs all F Majorbased lexical references to the Giants and particularly to Fafiier as dragon, that is, as a guardian of the Hoard. The dragon personifies the grasping and possessive psycho logy of the Element Earth. I have already discussed the metaphork entailment chain C MAJOR IS LIGHT; LIGHT IS LIGHT-HEARTED; LIGHTNESS IS JOY and SO need not stress this connection

other than to point to its Elemental poetics. A second affective connection isfreedom

ofmotion and thus the affect of expansiveness. Again, the coherence of C MAJOR IS AIR; JOURNEY follows fix)m the element offleetness: C Major is the slippery elusive

ness of the ever-moving Rhine Daughters, the swiftness of horses galloping or men fleeing for their lives; it is short journeys going and rehuning. All are coherent with both the element AIR and the Greek Gemini (Dioscuri), in whose astrological map the “Third House” rules such travels. Again, since Wagner spatializes the Elements their constitutive affects auto matically become topographical affects; that is, the elemental poetics of spatialized emotion. He likewise elements cartographically, placing the Fire realm ofNibelheim directly beneath the Water realm of the Rhine Daughters. In this he follows the

’’’“The Wibelungen,” p. 276, Wagner’s italics. "E.g„ F=APPETrrE(#7J5);—, sexual (#534; #654; #732; #735); 'wandering eye’ (#5P);—, embrace of (#704); hunger (#74/3); desire, satisfied (#2774); intoxication (#2063); desire to kiss {#2349): —. a Kiss (#2359); —, True Love (#2358); —, Wisdom through (#2435); —, phallic, penetrating intentions (#2454); really ardent intentions {#2476): f=APPETJTE, object of (#953); swallowing (#7852); salivating(#7856); d=APPETnE;DESlRE, foolish(#737); amoney-grabber(#490); F = GUARDING: {#3072): watcÙng witìi desire {#307S): a Shield Maiden (guarding die rear) {#1253): f = GUARDING: holding (#4; #11): seizing magical ring fl-om Alberich (#278); holding on to treasure till deadi {#416): greed, for gold (#333; #1830): watching (#73; #1840): cost, room, and board {#1492): the hoard’s guardian (Fafiier) {#*1786)

310 Empedoclean model as it was transmitted via classic and mediæval alchemy. Thus the early alchemistic work Turba philosophorum employs the figure of the poetphilosopher to present his “scheme of water under the earth and then, at the earth’s centre, of fire underneath the water.”®*

The Principles of Strife and Love. Closely related to his strategy of lexicalizing elemental feeling tones, Wagner also coordinates the details of his elemental poetics to presocratic philosophy and Grasco-Roman astrology, which were not nearly as separate in their own intellectual context as modem scholarship has, until recently,Mended to assume. The Empedoclean connection is highly specific. Thus in the “Nihelungen Sketch” Wagner describes how the gods “bound down the elements with prudent laws.” Everywhere else the composer links “Law” with “Oath” through Wotan’s Spear, which inscribes universal laws iqjon the talisman of the World Ash Tree, including apparently these original “natural laws” on its point in the form of oaths. Wotan therefore appears to have separated and regulated the elements by means of a divine oath extracted from the elements that keep them ever after in their proper places. By means ofthis oath Wotan created the tonal-poetic coordinate system that reads out as a Circle-of-Fifths or the Ring's dodecahedron-based ‘True Earth” in which Wotan’s Tonal Household of D b Major enjoys pride of place at the

apex and the others are arrayed accordingly. Wagner’s idea of Cosmos emerging from Chaos through the agency of an

elemental oath, though a curious one, is not unique. It appears in the Fragments of Empedocles, thus; “. . . the coming together and separation of the elements is subjected to a universal law ‘stretched overaH’ and held fast by a ‘wide oath.’”®® The result of this Empedoclean oath is the world Sphere, within which the fom elements may be imagined as constituting potential axes, 0, but which in practice move and revolve within it under the impetus of the opposed principles of Love and Strife. Thus, . . . these (elements) never cease changing place continually, now being all united by Love into one, now each borne apart by the hatred engendered of Strife, until they are brought together in the unity of

’*Kingsley, Empedocles, p. 63. ”Helle Lambridis, Empedocles, p. 56.

311 the all, and become subject to it. Thus inasmuch as one has been wont to arise out ofmany and again with the separation ofthe one the many arise, so things are continually coming into being and there is no fixed age for them; and farther inasmuch as they [the elements] never cease changing place continually, so they always exist within an im movable circle.”'“ I opened this chapter by describing the geomantic effect ofnaming Wotan and Albe rich as tonal cousins through their shared key of B b minor (I)b:vi = B¿:i). But the idea that the world is constituted by elements under the command of a universal oath relates them as cousins in another sense: both of them are masters of the curse. Alberich’s curses are on love and the ring. Wotan’s take the more general form ofhis lordship over the oath, for “an oafit is a curse, a magic formula that binds parties to a given action. As the etymology of the Greek word shows, it is something which restricts or ties; that power lies in the words themselves, which are magical, as are the words inscribed on the cursing tablets.”'“' This is part of the mythic logic of Wagner’s claim that had the gods not been prone to evil in the first place Alberich’s curse would have been powerless against them. The magic binding force acts on its master as well as his servants: the more often Wotan swears, the more powerless he becomes. The binding power of the curse-oath may be part of the logic of Fafiier’s eternal squatting on the Hoard: bormd (cursed) to hold the treasure in place of Freia, he is helpless to renounce it. The dragon is cursed fi-om both ends. This move of locating the origin of the elements in an oath is not the only such correspondence between Wagner’s virtual intelligible circle and the Empedo-

cleaaSpairos: Empedocles is the primary philosophical source for the doctrine ofthe Four Elements and the conflict between Love and Strife. The resulting mappa mundi explains many of the large-scale structural peculiarities of the Ring’s design. Thus for instance the D b Major of Walhall lords it over two opposing principles lexicalized in B b and E, and which may be roughly denoted STRIFE and LOVE. The angular structure of the relevant lexical keys thus commuiucate the fundamental issue of the

Ring: will the world be ruled by Power or Love? This lexical logic imposes itself upon the most general structural feature of the Ring, which is that its midpoint—^the

"“Fragment 66, Ençedocles Fragments and Commentary, in Arthur Fairbanks, ed. and trans. The First Philosophers of Greece, 157-234. '^'Hermes the Thief, p. 14.

312 last chord of Die Walküre and the first of Siegfried—is determined by the absolute balance between these two principles. Thus, the Valkyrie’s E Major Love Fire ofDie IFa/ilMre’slastchordseguesstraigbttotheNibelung’sB b minormusing on obtaining the magical ring with which Siegfried opens. The Ring is structurally bisected like this:

D b Major [A Wide Oath] [Strife] B b minor I E Major [Amity] This generieelemental semantics can be shown to be responsible for the largest scale tonal divisions of the Ring, for instance, this:

Siegfried

^

^ \as a typical mediaeval Jew-nightmare. It is not that everything about Kundry spells “Jeyir.” Rather, identifying the precise type of Jew to which a significant part of Kundry does refer permits a more accurate appraisal of her other qualities and of her integral contribution to the mediaeval mappa mundi that is Parsifal. Recently ^thony Winterbourne has re-opened the longstanding debate about whether Kundry is a Jew and thus an antisemitic figure. His excellent discussion of this protagonist takes.painstaking account of the rich detailing with which Wagner inscribed her, including her multiple names and her iconic visualizations, and readers interested in Kundry and her world could do no better than to consult Winterbourne’s chapter.“” The author translates Klingsor’s call to his demon-woman as follows: Arise! Arise! To me! Your master calls you, nameless woman, first she-devil! Rose of Hades! Herodias were you, and what else? Gundryggia then, Kimdry here! Come here! Come here now, Kundry! Your master calls: arise!^’ Winterbourne focuses some discussion on each ofher six separate epithets: Nameless Woman, First She-Devil, Rose of Hades, Herodias, Gundryggia, and Kundry. In addition he mentions a couple of Kundry’s iconic images: her red skin and her snakeskin girdles. His discussions are upefiil but incomplete, for they do not factor in the primary sources whose cultural context permits us to bind these elements together into a single coherent whole. I would like to complete this then, using Kundry’s anti-Judaic content as an ingress to her multiple-coherence wholeness.

"In particular Chapter Three: “Kundry—and What Else?” in A Pagan Spoiled: Sex and Character in Parsifal, pgs. 60-82. *>Ibid., p. 62.

381 Winterbourne casts doubt on the evidence for Kundry’s Jewish identity as follows: “Wagner describes her has having a ‘deep, ruddy-brown complexion,’ and she has her skirts fastened by a snakeskin girdle—an item of clothing that in such a form is replete with symbolic significance, not least for a late-nineteenth-century audience, for whom images of snakes would often be juxtaposed with those of women, especially, ofthe devouring, vampish variety. Yet these things cannot be said to mark her as definitively Jewish.”^ But Winterbourne is mistaken. Kundry is a.redskin, and even without such additional fetishes as her serpent-girdle or her alias Herodias, in the mediæval estimation this alone would have marked her as a Red Jew, the antisemitic bogey of the German Middle Ages. This is not simply because like some kabbalistic Lady Macbeth, Herodias-Kundry has the Baptises red blood on her hands and no number of penitential reincarnations can wash the stain away. The Red Jews were a specifically German cultural invention and were literally and totemistically red.'*’ .Gow traces this German vision of Red Jews to a source admired by Wagner since Samuel Lehrs introduced it to him in Paris in 1839: The Red Jews are first mentioned in Der Jüngere Titurel, a latethirteenth-century continuation ofthe courtly poet Wolfiam’s Titurel fi-agment. ... It was highly prized in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as a treasure trove of practical lessons concerning the best German literary style, comtly behaviour, and moral principles. Alexander is not mentioned in the Younger Titurel,... but in his tour ofthe Asiatic kingdom of Prester John (the Grail is being taken from the corrupt West to the pious kingdom ofPrestef John) he encounters Pagan Spoiled: Sex and Character in Wagner's Parsifal, p 77. ”For instance, mediæval artistic iconography typically depicted the Red Jews by means of the red skin that Wagner offers in Parsifal-, thus, “Possibly owing to the limited transmission of the legend, there are not many extant unequivocal images of the Red Jews. One imposing exanqile, though, appears in an early fifteenth century German book ofweapons {Offenbachsches Wappenbuch), broadly conceived to include the imagined weapons of Biblical and Eastern rulers. In the upper register of the folio, eight Jews are visible as half-lengths peering from both sides of a large, grey, rocky mountain... the Jews are rendered with mddy skin and grotesque profiles... the knobs oftheir hats resemble the yellow finials of the red-tiled buildings in the lower register, which continues the red-yellow color scheme of in&my... from the inscription at the top of die folio, we assume that this is the urban location in India behind which the mountain is situated. ‘This is the hidden mountain under which the Red Jews lie; it is in India where Saint Thomas the Apostle is buried.’ Although the inscription asserts that the mountain is in India, it visually recalls images ofthe Caspian mountains, where Alexander was said to have inqirisoned Gog and Magog, with whom the Red Jews were ultimately conflated.” (Saracens, Demons, and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art. pgs. 233-4).

382 the Red Jews, enclosed between two mountains called Gog and Magog... These Red Jews are numerous; they are “keen fighters and savage,” and their large armies could swarm across “the whole world”; they threaten both Christians and the barbarous “heathen”. They are enclosed “so that they cannot march war-like and proud across the earth.”^® Gow links the debut of Red Jewry to our major focus, the German Grail literature, the Alexander legends, and the Letter of Prester John.« This is the same literature

that includes theLamprechtandStrassburg^/exa«i/ers, with which Wagnerwas also familiar, and iVhich had provided the composer with his image of those nasty former cannibals now running the businesses of the world. The site of their imprisonment is Wagner’s bid haunt, the Caspian (= Causacus) Mountains. They have a unique relationship to dangerous and warlike women such as Kundry, for they are subject to the Queen ofthe Amazons who herself is a vassal of the ^níic/iráí and who “will be the first, at the end of time, who will worship the damnable Antichrist as the Lord God and offer him her assistance along with the Jews and heathens.

As for their

other attributes, “The Red Jews are pilloried as an evil-looking, foul and unnatural people. In modem depictions offoreign peoples, American anti-J^anese propaganda of the second World War, or Tolkein’s ores, come close—very close. A subliminal racism, or a well-developed xenophobia, that associates foreign features (eyes, skin, hair colour, customs) with evil is at work in both instances.”®* The cannibalism and redness of mediseval German Jew-iconography refute the claim that Kundry’s Herodias-red-snakiness-“devouring vamp” complex does notpreciselyfingerprint her

as, in this aspect at any rate, a classic mediaeval German Red Jew fantasy. What about the combination of redness and serpent-skins trailing fi-om her waist, which, in combination with her creeping horse and snakelike movements mark her as woman above, serpent below? Again, the serpent was a classic Red Jew association, particularly through its associations with poisoning and venom. Thus in

“TTie Red Jews, p. 71. ”Ibid. ’°Jbid.,v. 73. ^'Ibid.

383 mediæval Germany the Red Jews were understood to have been the instruments of the Black Death: In an entry concerning the second great year of the Black Death, 1349, an anonymous chronicler echoes the widespread contemporary belief that the Jews were responsible for the plague: they had poisoned the wells, springs, and streams. This entry documents the absolute horror of this unheard-of sickness, so contagious that even the breath of an infected person was known to be deadly. The chrotucler is at a loss to explain such incredible virulence except by poison, a poison which itself must be exceptional. It was not enough that the Jews spread it, as he and many others claimed. To explain its extraordinary effects, he had recoxnse to die exotic, the outlandish and bizarre: the poison could be no ordinary one. He says it had bçen augmented (‘spiked’) with the venom of serpents or basilisks, ex pressing an idea fairly common in his time concerning the source of the plague. Like the Red Jews, the peison was unrain, unclean or evil beyond all imagining. This descriptk^ was especially appropriate because the Jews are said by the chronicler to have obtained the poi son from the Red Jews.’^ The Red Jews are thus physically redpersons associated with reptiles, basilisks, and poisonous serpents, with eating animalfood and human flesh, and with poisoning water sources. Applying this to Kundry obtains the following transformation schema: •

[KUNDRY IS HERODIAS = KUNDRY IS A JEW] +

•

[KUNDRY IS RED = A RED JEW] +

•

[KUNDRY IS A SERPENT = A TREACHEROUS RED JEW POISONER] +

•

[KUNDRY IS A WATER POISONER = A POISONER OF THE GRAIL]

As a venerable Germanic antisemitic bogie the Red Jews speak directly to the motif ofpurity that serves as the central pillar for Wagner’s Grail universe. As Gow suggests, the Red Jews were above all impure (unrein). In Wagner’s terms Kundry definitively belongs in the company ofKlingsor, the very wellspring of impmity. Her very presence is a plague. The Malignancy of the Serpent in Wolfram and Wagner Recently modem medical science has been brought to bear on poor Amfortas’ mystery malady in the form of Drs. Linda and Michael Hutcheon, M.D.’s, joint

“ÆW.,p. 82.

384 diagnosis of syphilisP Since every patient deserves a second medical opinion I hereby offer mine as follows. To appreciate how Wolfram and Wagner understood this malady it is helpful to know how the mediæval medical authorities applied their wisdom to the public health problem presented by the activities ofthe Red Jews. They did so in significant part through astrologyP Gow notes that legal cases involving real Jews really burned alivé on charges ofpoisoning were known to bring expert astrological opinion to bear on the issue; thus “Contemporary learned treatises on the plague concentrated more on astrological and atmospheric influence than on contagion. The opinion rendered by the Parisian Faculty of Medicine at the request of Philip VI in the Compendium de Epidemia... per Collegium Facultatis Medicorum Parisiis was that an unfavor able conjunctioh of the planets had caused the earth and bodies of water to exude noxious gas.”” Thus like Red Jews, these planetary demons poison water sources, thereby precipitating plague. This tells us that Jews were believed capable of nega tively impacting public health in the same way as the two malefici Mars and Saturn when these came into conjunction with benign planets. As demomc figures Red Jews and astral malifici were equally reified and thus interchangeable and therefore to debate whether an outbreak of disease was the work of Jews, Saturn, or Mars, made perfect sense. Any calumny one could allege about planetary malefici one could asperse onto Red Jews, thence to dribble down onto real Jews. The question is, which

““Syphilis, Suffering, and the Social Order,” in Opera: Desire, Disease, Death, pgs. 61-93. “Astrology had been a core coirqjonent ofmedicine from the beginning. Galen, for instance, wrote that "Astrology is the foreseeing part of their [i.e., physicians’] art, and if not all, but at least most of them have accepted this astrology as part of medicine . . . Hippocrates said that [any physician’s] mind strays into darkness, who has not used physiognomy. But the physiognomical part of astrology is its major part” (“Prognostics,” voi. 19, pp. 529-73 (Kühn), tr. F. H. Cramer, quoted in Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology, p. 185.) That medical practice remained the most consistent haven for astrological practice through the mediaeval and renaissance periods is evident finm analysis of its ongoing relationship with European university and court cultures. Thus Hilary M. Carey notes with respect to the general ecçlesiastical ban on astrological practice, that “... religious foundations seem to have made an exception in the case of medical astrology. It is not uncommon to find in monastic fibraries tracts on bleeding according to the mansions of the moon, or on the influence of the planets on the progress of disease, sometimes bearing the name of the infirmarian.” {Courting Dis aster: Astrology at the English Court and University in the Late Middle Ages, p. 44). This intimacy between medicine and astrology provides context for Wolfram’s extended astrological diagnoses. “The Red Jews, p. 83.

385 planetary demon is implicated in the kind of activities Kundry has been set up to suggest? In the event Wagner sets Kundry imder the rubric ofMars, as Winterbourne lets us know in translating Kundry’s old Valkyrie-name Gundryggia as “Instigator of Wars.”^* The malefic context, in combination with her trailing snake-skin and a scary reptilian horse fiuther identifies her with Scorpio, the negative House ofMars, which in the Ring is aligned with the B minor Valkyrie (Gundryggia) camp. Such an alignment triangulates between Wagner’s two Kimdry aliases, Gundryggid and Herodias thus: is KUNDRY < is

GUNDRYGGIA is HERODIAS

is

MARS BLOODY

is is

RED JEW

Kundry is red anyway you look at her, Whether as Mars or as Jew—^another dollop of multiple coherence that overdeteimines a single image via multiple outsourcing. Holding that thought while turning to' Parzival, the prevailing mediæval cultural understanding that disease is visited upon the sufferer by an astrological demon connected with poisoning is, I propose, the proper medical fi-amework from which to parse Wolfram’s diagnosis of the Grail îGng’s mysterious malady: There is a beast called the unicorn, which is so attracted by the piuity of virgins that it falls asleep in their laps. We took a portion of this animal’s heart to heal the king’s pain. And we took the garnet from the same animal’s forehead where it grows beneath the hom. We rubbed the edge of the wound and even inserted the stone into the wound, which seemed to be full of venom . . .Then we got an herb called trachonte. Of this herb we heard it said that when a dragon is slain, it springs up from the blood. The herb is inclined to have the characteristics of air. Perhaps the Scorpion’s orbit in the sky would

*“The name Gundryggia is formed &om Scandinavian linguistic material, 6om the stem Gunn (Old Norse Gunnr) meaning battle, or combat; and diyggia, meaning to prepare or excite. One of Cosima’s Diary entries has Wagner calling Kundry ‘Gundrigia (sic) Strikerin des Krieges,’ or ‘weaver ofwars. * And so we have Kundry—perhaps somewhat surprisingly—as a Valkyrie; female— just—but hardly soft and welcoming to a man’s embrace in the fashion of Kundry as ferrtme fatale; for, like all Valkyries, Gundryggia would embrace a man only in death.” {A Pagan Spoiled: Sex and Character in Wagner's Parsifal, p. 64.) In addition the name obviously rationalizes the stage namp Kundry [=G 'und 'ri '] which otherwise would be a meaningless garbling of Wolfinm’s Cundrie and serve no multiple-coherence propose.

386 help us too in the time before tìie planets turn backward and the change ofthe moon begins—this was when the wound pained most.” In Dr. von Eschenbach’s professional opinion the king is suffering from chronic purity anefnia owing to the malignancy ofan unrain planetary demon that has stuffed his wound with yucky astral sludge. On the principle of “fight fire with fire” a strict regimen of dragonwort is indicated which, since Scorpio is also thefall ofthe moon, may be expected to soak up the pus with the limar spongewhile the wound is being daubed with unicomian purity-extract.” But does this diagnosis agree with that of Dr. Wagner? Only up to a point. Both authorities concur on the areinavinosis syndrome but differ significantly on its aetiology. Dr. von Eschenbach fails to connect Cundrie with the scorpion/serpent because he thinks the Grail Messenger is not a public health problem but a nurse on his own medical staff who can therefore own no role in the Grail King’s illness, whose aetiology of poisonous venom and scorpions he explains to his own satisfaction by his self-consistent astral diagnosis. Dr. Wagner however lets us know what his este^ed colleague apparently does not, which is that this impurity is to be found in the body ofKundry. She is the source of the illness and thus must bear the burden of conveying to us what Dr. von Eschenbach relies upon his astrology of the Scorpion to dO. All of this’may be observed in the sea-changes suffered by Wolfram’s Cundrie in her metamorphosis into Wagner’s Kundry. Wagner claims the “wildness of Condrie” as one of the few details in Wolfram’s poem that made an impression on him. La sorcière is a'mass of deformities indeed, but none of them have anything to do with Wagner’s crawly reptiles;

”Parzival, p. 258. The editors translate “trachonte” as Greek drakóntion, “dragon-wort.” (Ibid., p. 258n). Similarly in her medicinal handbook Physica Hildegard von Bingen devotes a book to “Reptiles” and their connection with disease, which arises from their generic relation to the Old Serpent, Satan,'and to their afiinity with diabolical arts (dragon); Tartarus (basilisk); scorpion (infernal punishments.) ^ ’*I’m hot making this up, for the plant Lunaria is a sponge to soak up poison. Thus (Artis Auriferœ, I, p. 141, quoted in Mysterium Coniunctionis, 1157): ‘“In the lunar sea there is a sponge planted, having blood and sentience [sensum], in the manner of a tree that is rooted in the sea and moveth not from its place. If you wouldst handle the plant, take a sickle to cut it wth, but have good care that the blood floweth not out, for it is the poison of die Philosophers’.” Thus when the moonsponge waxes it sucks up poisons; when it falls (wanes in Scorpio) it takes them away with it.

387 Over her hat swung a braid of her hair, so long that it touched the mule. It was black and hard, not pretty,-md soft as the bristles of a pig. She had a nose like a àog’s and two boar’s teeth stuck out from her mouth, each a span in length. Both eyebrows were braided and the braids drawn up to the ribbon that held her hair... Cundrie had ears like a bear’s... In her hand she carried a whip ... and the hands... looked hke monkey’s skin.” Wagner has however embodied the astrological aetiology presented in Parzival,' Book IX, in Kundry, by unifying Cundrie’s polyglot deformities under the sole rubric of the snake. She is now the “wilde Reiterin,” her mount a “Teufelsmähre” that alternately flies (“Flog sie durch die Luft?”) and creeps snakelike (“Jetzt kriecht sie am Boden hin”). Kriecht aUgns the beast to the reptile world {Kriechtiere, reptiles): the horse is a flying serpent such as we see in Græco-Roman mythology in the genesis of the flying Pegasus from the blood of the severed head of the ^erpentwoman Medusa. Dismounted she creeps snakelike (“Was liegst du dort wie ein wilde Thier?”) and is graced with symbolic snake tail (“Gürtel von Schlangenhäuten lang herabhängen”). We can weave “Red Gundryggia/Herodias Girl” into this medico-mediæval coat of many colors by virtue of her asfrologically reptilian qualities: Kundry’s redskin (“tief braunröthüche Gesichtsfarbe”) can only pertain to the master of the Scorpion (lU.), Mars, whose glyph depicts (d^ the male genitaha and whose flery return signals that of Anfortas’ red bleeding. Kundry’s serpentine creeping and red skin are related to blood and their vampiric resonances render them demonic too; i.e., ***A moment of demonic absoiptiMTl. u^ls^the bars which accompany Kxmdry’s kiss and in which the fatal motive of love’s lon^n^creeping like a poison through the blood, makes a shattering effect.”“ The Kiss is a creeping blood-infection administered by the scoipion-sting, as here in Kundry’s characteristic musical motif, a violently downward-thrusting figure like the strike ofserpent, scorpion, or spear— here aimed directly at [sJt.=wounded God]:

^Parzival, pgs. 169-70. ^Diaries, U, p. 85, June 4, 1878. The Kiss is delivered on an enharmonic Cb/B minor imperfect cadence: the Tonal Household of the Serpent (ÏÏL).

388

Ex. 8,1: Kundry’s Scorpion tail-like motif Further medical evidence concerning Kundry’s B minor Curse deserves diagnosis: the participation of laughter as its precipitating agent. Kundry laughed at Christ on the way to crucifixion; their eyes met, and now (Act II) like the astral malifica she has become, she must reincamationally orbit seekmg salvation, only to belch out dia bolical and mocking laughter the moment it reappears. This is yet another reptilian symptom in the mediaeval aetiology of disease. Thus Hildegard’s book on “Reptiles” describes the baleful influence of the so-called ‘Tree Frog,” which groyfs firom the air through which trees bring forth their greenness and flowers. At thetime when trees are producing this greeimess and their flowers, airy spirits attack hufnans more than at any other time. At that time people’s minds are bursting with the vanity of joking and ridiculing. Just as the viridity of the trees is increasing, humans create idolatry arid many empty things with the trpe fi"og, througih diabolic arts. If someone wishes to ensnare this reptile, so that diabolical deeds are not created through it, he should throw it in a spring^of living water so that it becomes wet. Then no one can bring about diabolic happenings with it.®'

^^Physica^ p. 232. It may signify that both Wolfram’s trachonte and Hildegard’s Tree Frog are drawn from the element Air.

389 The diabolical reptile enters the human psyche through the laughter-organ, always tunable to mockery and ridicule. One can only neutralize its baleful buffoonery by locating the “living water” which Christ gave to the woman ofSamaria and drowning it there, just as mocking jibes can only be drowned by a contemplation of something too, innately profound to inspire a wisecrack. In other words, next time you see a giggling fiog, chuck it into the Grail.

t Fig. 8a: A melusine piercing the fllius Philosophorum with Longinus’ Lance*^ Kundry thus suffers multiple afflictions visited upon her from the reptile quadrant of the universe that disqualifies her for salvation in part by rendering her unable to take it seriously. Thiffconnecfion^one would mark the Grail-illness as psychological one: it is in one’s attitude that one ftiockg God. Mediaeval reptiles are among other things theriomorphic representations ofunhealthy attitudes. The reason is theological: In the beginning, every creature God made was good. Then, by means of the serpent, the devil deceived the human being so that he was thrown out ofparadise. After that, in revenge, creatures testing divine will were made worse with humans. Whence, seeds of crael and poisonous vermin rose up for this revenge, revealing infernal punish ments with their death-bearing cruelty. Striking hellish terror in

“Source: Woodcut from Reusner’s Pandora .-Darisí, die edelst Gab Gottes, oder der werde und heilsame Stein der Weysen (Basel, 1588), in C.G. Jung, ‘Taracelsus as a Spiritual Phenomenon,” Plate B4.

/

390 people, with divine pennission the vermin used their poison to kill. . . . Vermin that are a bit like diabolic arts in their nature kill other animals, as well as humans, with their poison.*^ Nurse Hildegard posits a cycle of revenge between man and serpent down the generations from Paradise to Monday last and in “Wibelungen” Dr. Wagner concurs, describing heroic dragon-slaying as motivation for the dragon’s heir to slay him and be re-punished in his turn “just as Christians punish the Jews for the murder of Chrisi.” By 1849 Wagner had already kneaded Hebrew yeast into his dragon dough, permitting Sun-God vs. Dragon to morph into Just Plain God vs. Jew. Redskin malefica Kundry is only the composer’s last iteration of this recursive “ideal event.” Female-Bogies and The Snake-Bodied Gnostic Edem NaturallySKundry is much more than just a Jew. She is also a mediasval misogynist’s morality-play hand puppet. Thus in calling Kundry “Rose of Hell Klingsor signals a specifically bogeyized kind ofbeauty that prompts us to look past Red Jews and Mars toward such mediæval female nightmares as the nymphs and the melusines. In Chapter Five I discussed nymph triads and their dubious gifts, and Kundry with her own peculiar offerings is to some degree a species of nymph. But somewhere between the laid-back Ring aeon and the uptight kalpa of the Grail the anti-nymph attitude hardened, driving these pretty young pagan things downward to slum through alchemistic and folk tale nightmare settings. Thus to Paracelsus “the nymph is specified as a Schröttli, ‘nightmare’. Melusines, on the other hand, dwell in the blood,”*^ which gives additional poetic body to Kundry’s erotic blood-poison. But mediæval melusines were by no means merely generic gynophobic gesticulations. They were directly implicated in alchemistic variants on the PassionPlay-like tableaux from which Parsifal drew its most significant poetic material. Thus like Kundry, the snake-tailed Melusina of the alchemistic texts was literally associated with the Spear of Christ, as in the sixteenth century woodcut reproduced by Jung showing “Melusina as the aqua permanens, opening the side ofthe^/iws (an

‘^Physica, p. 229. ‘‘“Paracelsus as a Spiritual Phenomenon,” ^180.

391. allegory of Christ), with the Lance of Longinus.”*’ Melusina appears on the extreme left striking rightward into the flliits’ side; Eve stands before her such that fi-om the son’s perspective the thrust appears to come from her or from behind her. Thus like Wagner’s Kundry this female is a composite figure composed from a naked and seemingly available woman (Eve AKA “Kundry sexy”) behind which a treacherous melusine (AKA “Kundry nasty”) administers a coup de grâce to the spurting side of the king’s son (AKA “Amfortas whiny”) with the very spear of Monsalvat (AKA “spear ofMonsalvat”) before the 3+1 =4 flat-sign [ b ]-shaped [AKA A b Major] vessel [AKA “Grail”]. By any critical standards this is remarkably comprehensive and

coherent parallel imagery:

Pandora FILIUS [KING’S SON] LANCE OF LONGINUS SNAKE-BODIED MELUSINA CASTLE KEEP TEARDROP RETORT FOUR TEARDROP RETORTS

Parsifal AMFORTAS LANCE OF LONGINUS SNAKE-piRDLED KUNDRY GRAIL CASTLE THE GRAIL AS MAJOR [=l> b l> b]

To my way ofthinking such vast coherence places the correspondence astronomically outside the range of any conceivable chance explanation (where the jargon word “chance” is code for “no meaning there”). Yet the correspondences go even farther. Pandora and Parsifal bay like bloodhounds for their single geme source and inspiration, and they tree it precisely where we ought most to have expected it to be fpund. The Eve-Melusina figure is gnostic in inspiration. It descends from the gnostic figure oîEdem, as in the Book Baruch, in which the female portion of the divinity is described by the heresiologist Hippolytos as “halfwoman, half serpent, is ‘irascible, of double mind and double body, and in all respects resembling the one in the fable ofHerodotus.”** Hyppolytos’ reference is to Echidna finm the latter’s ffisio/y. Book rv. This too has Wagnerian resonance: as we should have guessed already, the historian reserved a room for this lady at om composer’s favorite resort hotel in the scenic Caucasus mountains with their fiiendly colorful natives, right next door in fact

‘’From Reusner's Pandora: Das ist, die edelst Gab Gottes, oder der werde und heilsame Stein der Weysen (Basel, 1588), p. 249, reproduced in “Paracelsus,” op. cit., as plate B4. For more on the meaning of “Pandora” see above. Chapter Five. ““Refutation of All Heresies”, quoted in Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, Female Fault and Ful filment in Gnosticism, p. 4.

392 to those very daddy and mommy-munching Issedones so soon to be advanced up the mediaeval German antisemitic cursus honorum to take office as the cannibal Jews of the Alexander legends—and Religion and Art.^’’ There are meaningful psychological and affective correspondences too. Take Kundry’s horrific harridan hectoring as symptomatic ofa deeper psychological com plex than mere generic infantility, homicidal negative transferences to paternal Redeèmer-figures, or bipolar fits of guffaws and dumps. Echidna and the snake bodied gnostic Edem’s independent psychological test results have just returned, and these ladies score identically in traumatic life history profiles and concomitant psy chotic reaction formations. Both fell for high-minded, quest-oriented heroes (Hera kles and Elohim), were callously abandoned by their high-minded beaus for the re demptive destinies beckoning to them, and in consequence both ladies went starkraving bonkers, firing poisoned arrows and curses wildly in all directions. This gives gnostic context to such otherwise unexplained features of Kundry’s relations with Parsifal as their joint epithets Nameless or her more than this-ain’t-^ersonal-just -business meltdown at being repulsed by the prig in Act H. Their Namelessness fingers them as twin detached essences firom the higher uncreated realm somehow stuck slumming down here in our dirt-and-smut sublunary world. Kundry clearly recognizes Parsifal as someone with whom she has shared quite a few lifetimes of prior intimacy and can’t believe that der Thor doesn’t recognize her but seems put out that he can’t get rid of her. Logically enough therefore she curses him to be like herself, wandering endlessly in circles with all his footsteps leading nowhere but back to her. Significantly Parsifal only finds the Grail again when Kundry beats him to it. Her curse is therefore fulfilled when, orbiting back toward yet another astrologically piophecied planetary conjunction, the wanderer twain once again collide and collapse at the very foot ofMonsalvat. The question is, how does the lady possess the power of the curse, whose patent we were led to assume was owned by Klingsor alone? The answer is, that Kundry is cursed by virtue of being a Red Jew and curse-delegated by virtue of being a gnostic archon or planetary demon. Her

"In the Caucasian sector of the Hereford mappa mundi appears a snake-bodied figure who may well be Echidna; however, the figure appears to lack a written legend and so it is inçossible to say for certain.

393 cursor divides the screen precisely alon^ the fault-line sketched by the Mars/Red Jew schema offered above. Such correspondences identify defendants Kundry and Melusina as identical with the precision of mytho-forensic DNA tests. Such iconic and thematic parallels ought therefore to project themselves directly into the lexical tonality as well. In fact, given the astrological resonances informing the Ring’s TL it would have been astoimding had Wagner not further developed and specified these in Parsifal’s tonal lexicon. Fortunately this'is not difficult to show, since our gnostic-alchemical Pandora picture also encrypts an additional astrological semantics independent of its alchemistic or gnostic content, and which may be extracted and compared with Wdgner’s parallel TL lexemes that reference the four objects Kundry, the Spear, the Son (King), and Grail. The presence of such zodiacal encryptions is in no way retnarkable, since the alchemistic opus or process of redemption was always coordinated with the solar year such that, for instance, “the synthesis ofthe elements is effected by means of the circular movement in time {circulatio, rota) of the sun through the houses of the Zodiac.”“ In particular “in the spring all the forces of life are in a state of festive exaltation, and the opus alchymicum should also begin in the spring (already in the month of Aries, whose ruler is Mars).”

Scorpio (ill.) "^Sagittarius (>?*) ~*Capricom (^)o) “^Aquarius (^)

Fig. 8b: The Pandora illustration showing its astrological encryptions ‘‘^Mysterium Coniunctionis, ^[4.

394 Just as this alchemistically typical Pandora illustration’s visual iconogr^hy tells the same story as Wagner’s stage imagery concerning Kundry, Longinus’ Lance, and the wounding of the King’s son, so its encoded astrological language speaks in Parsifal's astrologically-based TL lexicon in semantic detail. Let me first insert the astrological syntax underlying the picture’s visual semantics for further comment, as in Fig. 8b. The fom: implied signs in sequence comprise a sentence in the usual deep-structured astrological (=“multiple coherence”) idiom applicable to multi cultural surface contexts, concerning which the following semantic specifications

^ply: (1)

The serpent-melusine says, (la) (lb)

(2)

precisely what Wolfi-am says about Anfortas’ astrological assailant; that is, “Serpent/Scorpio”;® and, precisely what Wagner says about Amfortas’ protagonistic assailant: that is, “Kundry/Melusina”; and,

The wounding instrument says, (2a) precisely what Wolfiram says about what wounded Anfortas: that is, “Ipce”; and, précisely what Wagner says about what wounded Amfortas: that is, “Lance of Longinus”; and, The wounded object says, (3a) precisely what Wolfi-am says about Anfortas: that is, “son of the

(2b) (3)

king”; and, precisely what Wagner says about Amfortas: that is, “son of the king”; and, (4) The mystical station before which the object stands wounded says, (4a) precisely vifhat Wolfiam says about Murisalvache: that is, “temple of the magical stone [lapis Philosophrum]” (a God-image); and, (4b) precisely what Wagiier saj^ about Monsalvat: that is, “temple of the magical Chalice [GraiT]” (a God-image). Thus in tabular form# (3b)

Image Image Image Image

Parzival

Parsifal

Pandora

Scorpio

Knndpr Longinus Lance Son of King Monsalvat (Grail Chalice)

Melusina Longinus I.ance Son of Philosophers

spear Son of King Munsalvache (Grail Stone)

Alchemistic Oven (Lapis/Retort)

:± -* -* -»

Astroloev Scorpio ni.

Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius ^

“This specification is in fact a single transposition since Anfortas’ assailant is, literally. Scorpio.

395 When read out as a sentence in which four asteological icons are understood as four generic (non myth-specific) lexemes, the result may be read: “Scorpio (IH., serpent) uses Sagittarius (>?, spear, sword, arrow)’“ to wound Capricorn CVlo, god-image)” before Aquarius (233, temple/vessel).” The astrological lexemes may be simply derived: Scorpio is cognate with sexuality, which when used as a wounding weapon may be read sexual knowledge or knowledge derivable fi:om same; Sagittarius is cognate with “knowledge” or “wisdom” via “sag,” fi:om sagit, arrow, fi’om which root also comes our wisdomlexicon that includes, sage (wise man), sagacious (wise, knowing), and saga (a telling, as of a scripture); Capricorn is cognate with the God-image through a logic that I shall be devoting much of this chapter to further specifying; and Aquarius the Water Carrier is the higher Godhead who bears all of this within his heavenly Urn (again, AKA Grail). This maybe directly translated into Wagner’s astrological TL thus: [B=ïïl.]; [Gb=^]; [Db.=\k>]; [Ab=233], What this formula asserts is simple: each of these lexemes will “mean,” in the context of Parsifal’s linear harmonic TL syntax, precisely what I have just outhned. If I am correct, this will be easily falsifiable. Let t

us see then how far it is in fact falsifiable. I have aheady described 11=111,]: it is simply the semantic logic of all of Wagner’s B Major/minor curses, love-deaths, stabbing villains, or death-dealing Valkyries and female vampires. However, some further specifications will give ad-

™This alchemistic weapon kills and likewise healS.-Thi^There is a picture in the ‘Speculum veritatis’ of Mercurius killing the king and the snake with the sword—‘gladio proprio se ipsum interficiens.’ Saturn, too, is shown pierced by a sword. The sword is well suited to Mercurius as a variant of the telum passionis, Cupid’s arrow---- Since Ae Logos, the Word of God, is ‘sharper than any two-edged sword’ (Hebrews 4: 12), the words of the Consecration in the Mass were interpreted as the sacrificial knife with which the offering is slain. One finds in Christian symbolism the same ‘circular’ Gnostic thinking as in alchemy. In both the saciificer is the sacrificed, and the sword that kills is the same as that which is killed.’'’ (“The Visions of Zosinws,’’ f 110.) ’’Through Saturn via the transformation schemas to be discussed presently. ’’For instance, in early alchemy the vessel is likewise a temple, for “the temple built of a ‘single stone’ is an obvious paraphrase of the .lapis. The ‘spring of purest water’ in the tençle is a fountain of life, and this is a hint that die production of the round wholeness,' the stone, is a guarantee ofvitality. Similarly, the light that shines within it can be understood as the illumination which whole ness brings. Enlightenment is an increase of consciousness. The temple of Zosimos appears in later alchemy as the domus thesaurorum ox gazophylacium (tréasure-house).’’ (“The Visions of Zosimos ’’

tll2)

396 ditional body and depth to Wagner’s gnostic B minor serpent-woman resonances. Kundry’s curious vendetta against the Godhead is a frequent alchemistic / gnostic theme. Thus apart from her compulsion to knife Redeemer figures, in alchemy as in Parsifal this snake-woman is á cup-bearer of a peculiar type: she offers a serpentdrink to the godhead. Jimg reproduces such a figure from the eighteenth century “Figurarum Aegyptiorum secretarum,” commenting that this Anima Mercurii is the feminine Physis who longs for the embrace of the One, the Monad, the good and perfect. The Justinian Gnosis depicts her as Édem, virgin above, serpent below. VengefuUy she strives against the pneuma because in the shape of the demiurge, the second form of God, he faithlessly abandoned her. She is the “divine soul imprisoned in the elements,” of whom it is the task of alchemy to redeem----Now, ail these myth-pictures represent a drama of the human psyche on the furfher side of consciousness, showing man as both the one to be redeemed and the redeemer. The first formulation is Christian, the second alchemical___ In the latter case man takes upon himself the duty of carrying out the redeeming opus, and attributes the state of suffering and consequent need of redemption to the anima mundi imprisoned in matter.’^ Her snake-tail motif again connects her to gnosis. Thus “[Melusina] appears as a variant of the Mercurial serpent, which was sometimes represented in the form of a snake-woman by way of expressing the monstrous, double nature of Mercurius.”^'* Thus along with assorted sexual and medicinal offering she also brings that rarest and most valuable of all mediæval commodities: knowledge. She is the eyes and ears of the Grail, apparently seeing and knowing all but like Cassandra lacking any ability to use her knowledge for her own or anyone else’s benefit. Kundry embodies the dual imagery of gnosis and demonism, another gnostic signature, for “according to the alchemists, Mercurius is the old serpent who already in paradise possessed ‘know ledge,’ since he was closely related to the devil.”” Again, “Mercurius is not only split into a masculine and a feminine half, but is the poisonous dragon and at the same time the heavenly lapis.”” Since Kundry is animated by this alchemistic concept. ^’Psychology and Alchemy, ^413-4. ’“‘Paracelsus as a Spiritual Phenomenon,” ^180. ”“The Visions of Zosimos,” HI 10. ''^Mysterium Coniunctionis, H235.

Wagner likewise identifies Kundry’s nature as dual, linking it to Wotan’s: “Both long for salvation and both rebel against it.”''^ Both have one foot in the dark underworld, she being equally at home in Klingsor’s B minor realm or that of the A b grail. She is thus the exact parallel of the gnostic Sophia, the wandering feminine spirit of Wisdom, who journeys endlessly round the dark marches of the created world seeking her way back to the uncreated Pleroma or world of light.

Fig. 8c: Kundry-like snake-woman offering a poisoned draught. Source; Aegyptiorum secretamm. [Illustrated with series of colored drawings. Solidonius series.] Reproduced in Psychology and Alchemy as Plate 157, p. 305.)

Kundry likewise appears in this guise offering a “kleines KrystallgefUss” fi-om Arabia. The vial contains “balsam” for Amfortas, whose aromatic stench which we have already smelt in the necromantic Temple of St. Thomas in the realm of Prester John. This alchemical medicament pertains to scorpions and serpents; the origin of

''''Diaries, n, p. 85, June 4,1878.

398 the spiritual gold, it had a circular form like the snake that bites its own tail. Kundiy’s balsam is also an antidote to her own venom; thus to offer it to Amfortas is a kind of promise she won’t bite him again. The Grail too is a “crystal vessel” (Krystallschale), which suggests that the balsam is an element of its own contents. Wagner adopts another feature of such alchemistic serpent-woman figures: they generally appear crowned. This is a typically divalent alchemistic detail deriving from default “virgin above, serpent below” imagery. On the one hand the crowned womaii is a reference to the Virgin, the Queen of Heaven. But the crown is also proper to the serpent, an alchemistic allegory of the Redeemer; thus the alchemistic hermaphrodite is likewise crowned’* and like the Redeemer the snake is crucified.” Since this is the prerogative of fire Son of God, then the serpent must also be considered an à^ect of the godhead. Does Wagner depict this dual Christian/alchemistic imagery? Typically in this late period the composer trusts his TL to articulate religious mysteries, which it can do by virtue of a quarter-century of accrued linear-lexical history that permits us to understand the meaning by such lexical cross-referencing techniques as I have consistently applied throughout the present study. Thus, given that [B=ni.], let me refer to the composer’s lexical treatment of the crowning of Parsifal (Act HI). Here the key of B Major finally comes into its own, but only after the Redeemer’s redeemer has purged the key of its B minor Curse by his retrieval of the sacred spear. The meaning of this must be sought in the gnostic doctrine of the divisibility of God that Wagner depicts as the separability of Spear from Grail, both ofwhich bear God’s Blood and thus form a composite Imago Dei. The division is effected by Klingsor’s abduction of the Spear; that is, of God, and His áppro{)riation of the divine power for evil. His B minor lexeme makes it clear that he is a representative of the dragon or serpent, which Wagner associates with the evil “god who leads us into the world” as opposed to the righteous “god who leads us out of it.” Klingsor is thus a demiurgic figure capable of spinning illusion into the semblance of substance. The Spear is a typically divalent wounding image cognate with both Mars (cf) and Sagittanus (;?); as the former it is a genital symbol that leads to sexual knowledge, while the latter

™C. G. Jung, Symbols of Transformation, f268n. ”As in John 3 : 14, in which the snake is set up on a pole.

399 is a spiritual symbol that points to wisdom (sagit-; sagacity). To retrieve the fetish is thus to reconvert the former back to the latter, e.g., to redeem the power of the male to prefer spirit over carnality. A motivic entailment is that in redeeming the Spear-God Parsifal has likewise redeemed the meaning of Ex. 8.1, that is, Kundry’s downward-striking motif, thereby as it were pulling her fangs. For Parsifal to be crowned in B Major thus employs this lexeme in the sense ofthe “redeemed dragon.” Parsifal is worthy of kingship by virtue of this redemptive deed. This usage is entirely coherent with default alchemistic doctrine. For instance, in the “Scriptum Alberti” of 1602, in a commentary on an engraving now unfortunately lost, and Jung describes the Parsifal-Vike spiritual redemption of the cauda draconis in terms of th6 return of its phallic image to the domain of the godhead; It [the “Scriptum” passage] begins with the statement, “This is a picture of heaven, which is named thèJieavenly sphere, and contains eight most noble figures, viz., the first figure, which is named the first circle and is the circle of the Dejty,” etc. It is clear fi:om this that it was a picture of concentric circles. The first, outermost, circle contains the “verba divinitatis,” the divine world order; the second the seven planets; the third the “corruptible” and “creative” elements (generabilia)', the fourth a raging dragon issuing fi'om the seven planets; the fifth the “head and the death” of the dragon. The head of the dragon “lives in eternity,” is named the “vita gloriosa,” and “the angels serve it.” The caput draconis is here obviously identified with Christ, for the words “the angels serve it” refers to Matthew 4:11, where Christ has just repudiated Satan. But if the dragon’s head is identified with Christ, then the dragon’s tail must be identical with Antichrist or the devil. According to our text the whole of the dragon’s body is absorbed by the head, so that the devil is integrated with Christ. For the dragon fought against the imago Dei, but by the power of God it was implanted in the dragon and formed its head: “The whole body obeys the head, and the head hates the body, and slays it beginning from the tail, gnawing it with its teeth, until the whole body enters into the head and remains there forever.”*“ Here as always Wagner’s mediæval mappa mundi is entirely coherent with German alchemy and mysticism, for instance in the cosmology of Jakob Boëhme, in which the dragon is the uroboros and also desire, for the body to be devoured by the head

““Scriptum Alberti,” quoted and discussed in C. G. Jung, “The Philosophical Tree,” f416.

400 is for desire to be withdrawn from the created world (tail) back to the godhead (Wagner’s “god who leads us out of [the world]”). This is trae down to the anti papist insinuations of its details, as in the “Scriptum’s” anti-Roman gibe concerning the “secret” of this doctrine, that “Wise women hide it, foolish virgins show it in public, because they wish to be plundered. Popes, certain priests, and monks revile it, because it was so commanded of them by God’s law.”** The alchemist would definitely have enjoyed Wagner’s religion-garbling Romish priests.

Ex, 8.2: Parsifal is crowned king of serpents [Gb=x']. As in the Ring Wagner lexicalizes G b as the heavenly messengers descending to Titurel, which topographically locates it again on the upwarddownward pathway between heaven fDb'=^aiith] and the vale of the dragon [b=serpent, Klingsor, Kundry], For Gumemanz to annoint Parsifal’s head in B Major is thus to certify that the reclamation of the cauda draconis [ b=dragon (tail)] is now accomplished. Like the Scoipionic serpent-glyph this symbol for Sagittarius points to the virtual intelligible object without which the surface semantics cannot meaningfully cohere. In Parsifal this semantic field centers around the Lance of Longinus, which likewise carries straightforward alchemistic and gnostic implications. Wagner makes this lexical association plain at the two dramatic moments when the Spear is revealed to have been rescued and returned, i.e., the revealing of the Spear to Gumemanz and its return to the custody of the Grail. Here [Gb =Lance ofLonginus] while surrounding lexemes conserve old Ring resonances. The Parsifal map is a recycled Ring map with new lexical specifications of the cardinal axes. G Major signature the wilderness of ignorance and error and is again topographical in concept, projecting the same high-low axis as in the Ring’s mappa mundi: it is as always nadir, situated as far as possible fi-om the D b Major zenith. Again topographical features automatically emerge in acts of TL discourse and the high-low axis carries the same gendered significance as in the Ring only more so. Where [G=Sieglinde (mother)], here [G=Herzeleide (mother)] and these two personifications of maternity dutifully situate themselves opposite the paternal D b, since as Jung and von Franz have observed, the Grail kingdom is specifically the

■ 402 “realm of the/âi/iers.”*’ Wagner therefore associates Herzeleide’s environment with the ignorance in which his mother brought him up and with the maternal forest,' associations also found in Wolfram, alchemy, the gnostic gospels and especially the Book of Thomas. Indeed,.as we have seen, the “Twin” even considers females to be ineligible for salvation unless they literally become males. Heaven is thus attained by dominantward progression from a G Major nadir associated with mothers and children, through the D Major estate of the hero, and upward through A, E, and B. B minor indexes fateful transformations of the hero brought about by agents of the dark powers or heavenly representatives demanding death and transfiguration as the price for Anther ascent toward the heavenly summit. Though from the perspective of the Circle ofFifths G b Major indexes the approaching summit and is topographically high, in scalar tertns it reads out beneath the G Major forest of ignorance and error. It is so however only from the earthly perspective of the chromatic scale, which is again reconfirmed as a lower-order orgaiuzing principle than the heavenly dominant tuning by which the mappa mundi itself is semantically realized.

“77ie Grail Legend, pgs. 74-5.

403

Ex. 8.3: Parsifal retaros the Lance of Longinus to the Grail.

(With encrypted “KHngsor mqtif” chords) Wagner again employs the same lexane to denote the Lance to the astounded Gumemanz. Here we see the semantic consei^ation of [ß=hero triumphant] that characterized this lexeme in the Ring. Further syntactical details include the enforced minorization of At at “ich bring’ ihn euch” necessary to fit the Grail chord to the impending G b Major cadence. Wagner makes use semantic use of this necessity: the striving upward motif of the Redeemer cannot achieve modal majority until it receives the rest of its blood, which is at the moment preparing to drop fi'om the spear-head but has not yet been able to do so. Only after the Lance is again in place can the Redeemer resume its rightful Ab Majority.[Db.=yjo] and [Ab.=i33]. Parsifal paces towards the centre, the Spear raised high before him.

404

[ Lc x :G]Ìf = Lance of Longinu^

Ex, 8,4i Parsifal reveals the Lance to the Grail Knights These then are some of the primary TL lexemes by means of which Kundry articulates her identity and her relationships with the other figures with whom she shares Parsifal's peculiar soimdscape. As to that identity there can be no doubt. Like all her composer’s literary creations she is a composite figure. Besides being a classic Red Jew bonfabulation, Kimdry acts in garden variety multiple-coherence fashion to bind the saga surface of Parsifal to the mediæval domains of astrology, alchemy, and neo-gnosticism. The composer’s Lexical Tonality devotes its nonredundant dis course to the task of fleshing out Kundry’s relation to the world of serpents and scorpions by means of the same “í/iís-is-like-í/iaí” strategy that Wagner had used for decades, in this case systematically aligning her B Major/minor-based vocabulary with previous vocabulary connected to the world of dark powers and crawly creatures. The evidence is overwhelming; indeed, on far less persuasive testimony HpfenHants in trials for bigamy or mail firaud have been identified with their aliases and sent to the slammer. Therefore in the case of H. Grail vs. Kundry et alias the court declares the defendant to be a mythico-classico-alchemico-astrologico-gnostico-anti-semitico

405 hodgepodge and hereby remands her to the joint custodies of Messrs. Herakles/ Elohim/Parsifal (in the event that any of these gentlemen can be located and subpoenaed). rV.

The Continuation of Lexical Tonality in Parsifal Those who have followed me this far will have anticipated that in Parsifal

keys like A b Major or B minor are lexical units like other words, and it will by now seem natural for me to talk about “Red Jews,” “Mars,” or “B minor'’ not as three entirely different categories but as three lexical synonyms. Similarly, Wagner’s TL lexemes permit the juxtaposition of the “star of Israel,” “Satmn,” and “D b -A b.” This is evident on the same principle, that these superficially distinct entities tell essentially the same story. And because Wagner was consistent about his lexicality and had extended it from work to work accumulating synonyms, by the time he began to compose Parsifal the keys could be trusted to engage in independent discussions that could be intimated by painstaking cross-referencing to prior lexical usages. Because Wagner has been accused of “raging atonalism” in his Parsifal tonality, a brief coimnent on Wagner’s concept of “key” in this last creative period ofhis life. Since in Parsifal compression of keys can generate modulations separated by a single bar (examples of which have appeared in earlier chapters) it is desirable to show that Wagner understood even this material to consist ofdiscrete “keys” with names and functions. Cosima took note of numerous compositional decisions in her Diaries and all speak of “keys” and “modulations” (the term “transition” sometimes replaces “modulation”).“ Such descriptions'appLyjo^sages varying in length from one bar to the entire D Major Good Friday section. Most are undistinguished by formal cadences and all constitute discrete links in an ever-lengthening linear “ Thus “R. plays me what he has composed of ‘Amfortas’ Lament’; the modulation on the words ‘nach ihm’ (‘after him’) occupied him the whole morning.” {Diaries, Voi. II, p. 18, January 12, 1878); Or, “He was looking for a certain key, and mechanical modulation is something he finds inçossible! ‘I’m such a fine musician,’ he says... addingIhat it is only when he is working without reflection that he finds what he wants—if he starts to consider how to transpose a theme into another key, he gets confused!” (p. 18—9, January 13.); Or, “A ‘modulation’ causes him difficulties... I hear him cry aloud, ‘It must be Ab, Gb,F’.”(p. 21, January21); Again, “He exclaims, ‘A mistake, it will be Ab major!’ (p. 50, March 27.); Or, “‘I have found a transition,’ he tells me.” (p. 58, April 4) (a similar quote appears on p. 59, April 6); Or, “To him it is only... his tme work which is really sacred, even if a day’s work produces just a single modulation or turn.” (p. 61, April 12); Or, “‘Stupid fellow, not D minor, it must be C minor!” (p. 90, June 9); or “‘The [Good Friday] meadow will be in D major.’” (p. 185, October 30).

406 modulatory chain. Conspicuotisly absent are recorded exclamations of “This will be in no key whatever!” or “No tonal functions for Amfortas today!” Wagner’s understanding ofwhat he was about would qjpear to contradict Lewin’s declarations of “raging atonality” applied to the material of Parsifal’s Third Act.®^ As far as Wagner is concerned, keys are still sovereign in Parsifal and they continue to provide lexical referentiality up to the final At cadence. And why not? To discard “key” would be precisely to discard the entire lexical vocabulary that Wagner had spent the preceding thirty years in painstakingly constructing first in theory and then in unbroken compositional practice. To have renoimced key would have been to have wilfully struck himself dumb. And no one in artistic history appears to have been more preoccupied with talking than he. Anti-Judaism, the Demiurge, and the Houses ofSaturn. In Parsifal reincarnation serves semantic as well as theosophical functions; like some bustling reincamational Hindu toting her karmic portmanteau fiom lifetime to lifetime Kundry lugs her past-life key of B minor and its trunk-full of lexical associations.*’ This time roimd her B minor key adds a number of Mars and serpentbased lexical entries to the composer’s TL vocabulary. As we might have expected, most of these are public cultural linguistic properties derived fiom our now-familiar

“‘‘Amfortas’ Prayer to Titurel,” p. 337. “With respect to sources available to Wagner it is unnecessary to travel to India to acquire atf adequate prototype for Wagner’s substitute for orthodox resurrection. Reincarnation was in fact important in the neo-gnostic religion of the Church-exterminated, mediæval Cathar sect. Thus “The testimony of one of the last Perfects to be put to the stake is a reminder of the movement’s origins in the Euphrates-Indus belt, where belief in transmigration of souls was one of the marks distinguishing its adherents &om church Christians. This Perfect, Guillaume Bibaste, spoke of the spirits’ fear of being destroyed ]by evü demons when they came out ofdying people, and their urgent need to find new receptacles; ‘When the spirits come out* of the fleshy tunic [die body] they run very fast, for they are fearful, ’ and a terrified spirit ‘hurls itself into the first hole it finds free! ’ The new receptacle might be a female dog, rabbit, or horse, or wo|nan. The round of rebirths would continue until the spirit is finally ‘saved’...” {The Gnostic Apostle Thomas, "Twin" ofJesus, pgs. 95-6). This shows that Wagner need not have gone all the way to India to dredge up Kundry’s terror of falling under the demonic power of her dark master as she slept, nor her enforced reincaniatipnal round. Wagner had given us a traffic'sign pointing to the Cathar origin of all this by situating his Monsalvat smack'atop the Pyrenees site of the destroyed Cathar fortress of Montsegur. He strews his score with clues as to the origin of Parsifal's gnostic cosmology. For a detailed account of Italian Cathar beliefs as transmitted to Church authorities by practicing Cathars see Carol Lansing, Power and Purity: Cathar Heresy in Medieval Italy, Part II.

407 common practice key associations discourse. Thus Gustav Schilling regarded B minor as “one of the most significant and striking of all our keys, and only a few of the others have exerted as powerful an impression on the human heart as this one. For example, this key almost always made the recently deceased violoncellist and virtuoso chamber player Hofßnan of Dresden completely sick, thus often greatly inipeding him in his chosen profession.”“ No other key save E minor was ever spoken of like that. B and E minors: the left and right hook of hero-K.O.’ing keys. Yet Kundry is not the only soul reincarnating her way from opera to opera. Here for instance Cosima lets us in on another little karmic secret: “Who is Titurel?” he asks me [Cosima]. I reflect. “Wotan,” he says. “After his renunciation of the world he is granted salvation, the greatest of possessions is entrusted to his care, and now he is guarding it like a mortal god.” - a lovely thought! I say that Wotan’s name ought to be reflected in the name Titurel, and he replies, Titurel, the little Titus, Titus the symbol of royal standing and power, Wotan the God-King.”*’ But this is rather more than a “lovely thought.” Richard’s folderol that Titurel simply means imperium crashes against the pre-emptive cultural usage of “Caesar” (Kaiser, Czar). The allusion thus serves another purpose and this is not difficult to locate. If anti-Judaism had a Graeco-Rpman patron saint it would be Titus, who engineered the final destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and precipitated the Jewish diaspora. Indeed, as noted by Heilig, “the emperors Titus and Hadrian, especially, are identified with cruel attempts to root out Judaism, ftie firstTor crushing the 66-70 C.E. Jewish rebellion and destroying the sècòniHemple^md the second for the cruelties and censorship of Jewish learning associated with ftieBa^Kochba revolt of 132-5 C.E. Titus s victory thrust the Jews into almost two thousand years of homelessness and, even today, no Jew is permitted to stand under the Arch of Titus in Rome, which depicts the Romans removing the holy objects as spoils fi-om the temple.”** What Wagner really means is clearly this: that Titurel has erected Monsalvat upon the Temple’s ruins, which is to say on the ruins of Judaism. Since the Grail

’•^Universal-Lexicon der Tonkunst (1835-6), quoted in Rita Steblin, A History of Key Characteristics in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, p. 297. ' ”Æid., II, p. 29, Feb. 19. 1878. ’’The Holocaust and Antisemitism: A Short History, p. 139.

408 Castle signifies gnosis, that is “true religion,” then the imposition of Titus as Grail King signifies the gnostic anticipation of the destruction of the God of Israel. Thus the world had been created by a cabal of ignoramus angels under the direction of “their chief.. .the one who is known as the god of the Jews. And since the latter wanted to subject all nations to his own, the Jews, all the rest of the rulers resisted and opposed it; and so all the other nations, too, resisted (the Jewish god’s) nation.”*’ IFor which reason Christ came “for the destraction ofthe god ofthe Jews.’”® To attain true gnosis therefore requires the prior dismantling of the edifice symbolized by the Jewish Temple which, in the context of a gnostic opera, is at the same time the artistic demolition ofeverything that Judaism in Music had been written to repudiate. Wagner is thus alluding here to the artistic destruction of Israel’s religion, which Richard, like his gnostic exemplars, imderstands to be based on the ignorance not only of the worshipers but of the object ofworship itself. But this isn’t Wagner’s original idea. When Gutman sees in Parsifal a Black Mass he is sensing the resurrected presence of Helleiustic gnosticism, as described by Helling: [Gnosticism] is a system of thought in which the entire Jewish value system is inverted. The Jewish God is seen as an evil, inferior creator of the material world, called the Deniiurge. In some gnostic sects, contemporaneous with the birth of Christianity, Jewish religion is regarded as the primary source of evil. Gnosticism arises from a fimdamental dualism in which the universe is conceived as the arena of conflict between two powers—one good, one evil. The evil power created the earth and rales over it. He is the God worshiped by the Jews, who are. his chosen people and to whom he gave the evil revelation, the Torah. The Jewish religion is the direct expression of evil, from the source of evil. Jews were chosen to act as the represen tatives of the Demiurge, the evil God, in his straggle against Light.” The gnostic origin of Wagner’s borrowed ideas must therefore be taken into account in any attempted reckoning with the composer’s attitudes toward Judaism, for instance this of Gutman:

*^e ^osis ofBasilides, from St. Iianaeus, Against Heresies, quoted in Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 423. "SL Irenaeus’ rebuttal of Satotninos, quoted in ÆW., p. 162. ” The Holocaust and Antisemitism, p. ISO.

409 He had set Parsifal within the framework of a medieval Christian tale, Chnst’s blood being the agent of the various characters’ redemption. Benighted historians, lacking Wagner’s insight, had gulled the world into believing Christ a Jew. “Public and Popularity,’’ a series of articles by Wagner appearing in the Blätter during 1878, had declared the identification of Christ’s God with the tribal God of Israel to be “one of the most terrible, derangements of world his tory.’”^

In Gutman’sfirameofreferenceParsi/a/isatravesty that perverts orthodox Christian materials to its composer’s heretical and antisemitic ends. When the real sources are factored in Parsifal becomes an orthodox expression of gnostic Christian materials, straightforward reportage ofan historical and anti-Judaic variant ofthat religion. The existence of this venerable Christian-style áects professing hostility to the God of Israel thus provided Wagner with a theosophical justification for being an antisémite. This makes a significant difference how

connect Wagner’s ideas to intellectual

history. Thus Gutman interprets Wagner’s religious speculations historically forward a^ proto-Naziism. The sources however permit inteipretatioi) backward as mognosticism?^ It is thus unsurprising that Wagner’s slurs against the Jewish Creator in “Religion and Art’’ should regurgitate objections current in third to fifth century gnosticism. Thus he specifies that true Christianity is the religion ofthe denial ofthe Will, not without a generic plug for gnostic-style world renunciation and a typical side-swipe at the Jewish God: As though impelled by an artistic need, leaving Jehova the ‘Tather’’ to shift for himself. Belief devised the necessary miracle of the Saviour’s birth by a Mother who, not herself a goddess, became div ine through her virginal conception of a son without human contact.

^Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music, p. 424. n ® conclusion, which we owe to Cyril O’Regan in pointing to Gnosticism s commitaient to continued production that rales out of court the closure to textol promotion necessary for scnpture to be scripture, and to have the kind of authority scripture has or ou^t to have. {Gnostic Return in Modernity, p. 146.) This entails that gnostic “scrip^hirc” was a contmuousprocessofcreation. ThisattitudepermitsWagner to consider his ownproduction,PnriôÎ7/ to be a legitimate gnostic gospel. This is wlty my term “Gospel according to St. Richard” is not ai flippant It may sound. Parsifal really is a gnostic gospel and at least in his own mind Wagner was contempo^ answer to St. Thomas the ‘Twin.” Since this is means “twin of yetus” Ü is not ^sonable to engage injusta little armchair psychoanalysis to extract the probable attitudinal logic

410 against the laws of Nature ... the mystery of motherhood without natural fecundation can only be traced to the greater miracle, the birth of the God himself; for in this the Denial-of-the-world is revealed by a life prefiguratively offered uj) for its redemption.*^ Here gnqsis and anti-Judaism combine in the context of a highest good presented as a conundrum: since God is bom from a redemptive denial of the world and of life in the world, then to believe in God is, paradoxically, to deny the Creator. From the orthodox perspective the following book report to Cosima sounds simply incoherent, e.g., “He reads Strauss’s Life ofJesus and finds it on the whole better than he expect ed, except that ‘by God they always mean the Jewish creator of the world, and do not admit that here it is a manifestation ofthe divine principle.”*’ Again, Wagner praises “Kant’s and Laplace’s theory ofthe origin of the world, and he also speaks about the Indian ‘breath’ (an image he much admires),which would form with the ending ofthe world and is the same thing as what humans understand by desire. Compared with such a myth the whole Jewish mythology is just hack work.”*® Even here there is room for differentiation. Thus Wagner objected to the notion of “creatór gods” generally and not just in Judaism, and never allowed a reference to one pass without snide comment even should such references appear in his beloved Indian carions. Thus, “‘Tbmy sorrow I must state that the Bhagavad-Gita is becoming very childish; downright grotesque hocus-pocus when, as Vishnu, he reveals himself as an être suprême [supreme being].”** hi this too Wagner was reacting appròpriately both with respect to hard-core Hinduism and Schopenhauer’s transmittal of it, for instance, the philosopher’s explanation that “The Vedas... teach no God creator, but a world-soul Brahm (in the neuter),”” or again, “Brahma who is bom and dies to make way for other Brahmas, and whose production of the world is

’‘“Religion and Ait,” pgs. 217-8. ^Diaries, II, p. 117, July 20,1878. ^Ibidfp. 160, October 1, 1878. ”Md., p. 99, June 23, 1878. ^Parerga andParaiipomena, trans. E. F. J. Payne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), Voi. I, p. 127, quoted in “The Muences of Eastern Thought on Schopenhauer’s Doctrine of die Thing-inItself,’’p. 184.

411 regarded as sin and guilt,This opinion dôes more than show that the composer did not genuflect to Hindu materials simply because they were Indian: his objection to “creator gods” was distributed across Christian, Hindu, or Jewish mythologies generally. Thus when Cosima tells him that she loves God and is grateful to bim. Wagner replies, “Yes, not thé God who created the world, but the one who leads us out of it.”'“ Proto-Catholics bristled from similar heretical heckling emahating from the pews of their gnostic nemeses. Thus, fulminating as ever against heresy, Irenaeus accuses the gnostic Satominos of denigrating the God ofIsrael: “And—^he says—^the god ofthe Jews is one ofthe angels. And because the parent wished to destroy all the rulers, the annointed (Christ) came for the destruction of the god of the Jews and for the salvation of those who might be persuaded by him: and these are the ones who h%ve the spark of life within them.”'®' Der Erlöser’s gnostic sandals fit Titus to a tee. Thus Layton refers to gnosticism’s “open hostility to the god of Israel and its views on resurrection, the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering, and .the universality of Christian salvation.”'®^ Such hostility was expressed most directly by gnosticism’s demotion of Yahweh to a minion of the uncreated and upcreating Godhead. Thus ‘The gnostics’‘nonspiritual being’(laldab^th) is the god of Israel”'®^ and also Saturn,'®^ which in the Hellenistic philosophical context often meant the same thing. Such ideas give rise to anti-Jewish theology, and gnostics never tired of

”Schopenhauer’s Early Fourfold Root [1813 eA], quoted in Ibid., n. 58, p. 210. "^Diaries, II, p. 33, March 2,1878. '°'Sl. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” quoted in Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 162. Or, again, “And certain ofthe prophecies (he says) were spokephy the angels who crated the world, others by Satan. The latter—he postulates—was itself also an angel, which opposed the ones that created the world and opposed above all the god of the Jews.” {Ibid) '’^Ibid., 19.21,22.23-33, p. xxü. "‘^Ibid., p. 13 and 16. '"See Jung, Aion, ^325-7. In the belief that the name means “child of chaos”, Jung refers to Mephistopheles as “strange son of chaos” (Ibid) Layton considers the name to connote “creator of Sabaoth” (heavenly armies) (The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 75n.)

'

412 panning the God of Israel for his insistence that, “I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other God before me.” Typical is the “Hypostasis of the Archons” quoted by Layton; Opening its eyes it [laldabaôth] saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and it became arrogant, saying, “It is I who am god, arid there is none other apart from me.” When it said this, it sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying “You are mistaken, Samaêl”—^which is, “god of the blind.”'“ The impersonal pronoim is not a mistranslation: the gnostics understood laldabaôth much as Freud understood his “Id” {das Es) or Schopenhauer his blind Will. In the gnostic scheme of things the Creation was a ghastly mistake, the work of a demidivine maHman. Thus “gnostic scripture now seems strange because it rebels against important beliefs shared by many early Christians and their Jewish predecessors, beliefs which even now belong to the core of ordinary Western Judaism and Christianity--especially belief in the goodness and omnipotence of the Creator; gnostics believed that Satan made the world. From the ordinary modem perspective, then, gnostic scripture may seem both Christian and anti-Chnstian, both Jewish and anti-Jewish: the strength of this paradoxical ambiguity eventually made it the classic exampié of heretical scripture.”'“ Simply read ‘Tarsifal” for “gnostic scripture” and—Ah! Bisto! Just taste the gnosis. In the late classical period the figures of Yahweh, Saturn, and laldabaôth merged such that a reference to one often implied an allusion to the others. Thus, In Zosimos’ day Saturn was regarded as a Hebrew god, presumably on account of the keeping holy of the Sabbath Saturday means “Saturn’s Day” — and also on account of the Gnostic parallel with the supreme aichon laldabaôth {child ofchaos) who as Xeouroeiöris, may be grouped together with Baal, Kronos, and Saturn. . . . The parallel between the Hebrew god and Saturn is of considerable importance as regards the alchemical idea ofthe transformation ofthe God of the Old Testament into the God of the New. The alchemists naturally attached great significance to Saturn, for, besides being ùe outermost planet, the supreme archon (the Harramtes named him ‘Primas’), and the demiurge laldabaôth, he was also the spiritus niger

'°’The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 74. "*Ibid., p. xix.

413 who lies captive in the darkness of matter, the deity or that part of the deity which has been, swallowed up in his own creation.”'*" A fourth and specifically mediæval synonym was Satan; thus, “Saturn is not only a maleficus but actually the dwelling place of the devil himself. Even as the highest archon and demiurge his Gnostic reputation is not the best. According to one Cabalistic source, Beelzebub was associated with him.”'®* Such a move demoted Yahweh to a planetary demon condemned to orbit through his own “creation” like any other subordinate—a variant on the gnostic notion that the Demiurge could only create by pouring something ofhis own substance into the creation, which thereafter controls part of God, and gods are bom in conjunctions; thus, “According to mediæval tradition, the religion of the Jews originated in a conjunction of Jupiter wjth Saturn, Islam in (Jupiter conjunct Venus), Christianity in (Jupiter conjunct Mercury), and the Antichrist in (Jupiter conjunct Moon).”'®® The Islantic “5” was understood in much this latter sense in the ifliddle ages. Despite the nasty cleverness of this strategy, which explains the Creator as a robotic entity remote-controlled by higher order potencies emanating fi’om the fixed spheres, the transformation schema SATURN IS YAHWEH was by no means a mere astrological aspersion cooked up by hostile gentiles and forced down Jewish throats, since Jewish mysticism itself agreed that Saturn could act as a synonym for the God of Israel. Thus, Don Isaac Abarbanel, who was bom in Lisbon in 1437 and died in Venice in 1508 ... explained ... that the House of the Fishes is the house of justice and of brilliant splendour. Further, that in anno mundi 2365 [corresponding to 1396 B.C.] a great conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter took place in Pisces. These two great planets, he says, are also the most important for the destiny of the world, and especially for the destiny of the Jews. The conjunction took place “"C. G. Jung, "Transformation Symbolism in the Mass”, H350. Again, “James of Saiug (d. 521) says the Israelites worshiped Saturn. The Sabaeans called him the ‘god ofthe Jews. ’ The Sabbath is Saturday, Saturn’s Day. Albumasar testifies that Saturn is the star of Israel___Between the god of the Naassenes and the god of Apelles' there is evidently a close relationship, and als, it appears, with Yahweh, the demiurge of the Old Testament.” And, “Also, Pierre d’Ailly, Concordantia astronomie cum theologia, etc., fol. g4 (Venice, 1490): ‘But Saturn, as Messahali says, has a meaning which concerns the Jewish people or their faith.” {Ibid., 1f436 & 436n.) *“C. G. Jung, “The Spirit Mercurius,” H276. '®C. G. Jung, Aion, |130.

414 three years before the birth of Moses. (This is of course legendary.) Abarbanel expects the coming of the Messiah when there is a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces. He was not the first to express such expectations. Four hundred years earlier we find similar prqnouncements; for instance. Rabbi Abraham ben Hiyya, who died about 1136, is said to have decreed that the Messiah was to be expected inl464, at the time of the great conjunction in Pisces; and the same is reported of Solomon ben Gabirol (1020-70). These astrological ideas are qmte understandable when one considers that Saturn is the star of Israel, and that Jupiter means the “king” (of justice).'"* Thus there was a broad agreement on the correspondence between Yahweh and Saturn both within and without Judaism, at least on the mystical level. Let us see how such facts impact Dr. von Eschenbach’s medical report. Saturn in Wolfram and Wagner. The case of Ktmdry persuades me that Wagner was astrologically sensitive to Wolfiram’s planetary diagnosis of the Grail King and, recognizing that his lexical tonality was at last up to>the task of directly translating this astrological syndrome into dramatic form and language, did so accordingly. This required translating the imagery of Mam and Scorpio to the stage in the form of characteristic redness and an abundance of serpentine symbolism and back to the snake-bodied gnostic Edem (“Ur-Teufelin^’). Finally, Wagner aligned his serpent-woman with his prior B minor TL lexemes expressing dragons, curses, warrior women, sex and death.'" Let me now consider the second part of Wolfi-am’s diagnosis of the causes of Anfortas’ malady, bearing in mind that Wolfimn and at least the more savvy among his audience would tìnderstand that SATURN IS YAHWEH: When the star Saturn had returned to the zenith, we knew it by the wound and by the summer snow. Never had the fi-ost caused your sweet uncle such anguish. The spear had to be thrust into the wound; then one pain helped the other, and fi-om this the spear became bloodred. ... whèn [the stars whose courses ran plarallel], one high above the other, and which move irregularly, in contrast to the ^thers. "°C. G. Jung, Aion, ^128. This kind of dilution of the Jewish God was probably admitted as a rhetorical device to accommodate the post-Hellenistic syncretism that rendered religious discourse in the Roman world uniform much as did the Latin language. ‘"For the “Liebestod” also belongs to this Tonal Household.

415 appear... And the change ofthe moon]... A great chill torments him so that his flesh becomes colder than snow. At such times, since they know the poison of the iron spear point is hot, they lay it on the wound. That draws the frost out ofthe body and it hardens to ice, like glass, around the spear. But no one was able in any way to break this ice off from the spear. Then Trebuchet the wise man forged of silver two knives which could cut rightthroOgh it. A charm engraved on the king’s sword had taught him this skill... never before nor since has the king suffered such p^ as the, when with a hard frost, the Star Saturn heralded its coming. It did not help to lay the spear on the wound as had been done before; they had to thrust it right into the wound. Saturn climbs so íñgb aloft that the wound knew of its coming before the other frost arrived. The snow ... did not fall till the following night, but still during sununer’s reign. Wolfram diagnoses a malefic planetary intruder whose imtimely visitation brings down winter’s frost in midsummer, the season of Sol, as winter^s chill invades the King’s body. Wolfram’s audience knew by this that Mimsalvaesche had fallen under the dominion of Capricorn, the winter solstice and the negative Mansion of Saturn. The modality of intrusion is the imposition of one solstice upon another—a catastrophe that imagines a material disordering of Time. This aspect of the king’s malady thus depehds upon what Saturn introduces into the king’s body and soul. There can be no question what Saturn means to Anfortas: it is Titurel, the undead father, who in planetary disguise imprints on him the harrowing implications of a decrepit and dying God-Image. Wolfram’s Saturn thus returns in Parsifal in the guise of Kronos, which is Time; thus “the central idea of the Saturn myth from Classical mythology is that, since creation tSes^aCe-in^time and is thereby cyclic, it mevitably invokes the inverse process of destmction. The'devouring nature of time in its destmctive aspect is symbolized by Saturn devouring his own children.”' ’’ Maim, Gutman, and others have protested agaiiist Wagner’s grotesque religious symbolism and its deliberate emotional intensification by means ofhis tonal language, which makes its grotesqueness stick to your face. But the more grotesque Parsifal may seem, the closer it is to its gnostic and alchemistic models. An example is the cannibalfather motifwithin the alchemistic discourse that has already given

"^Parzival, pgs. 261-3. ‘

Age in Myth and Symbol: A Cultural Dictionary, p. 132.

416 us the hapless^/ÍM5 Philosophorum stabbed in the side by the Lance of Longinuswielding melusine. We should not be surprised therefore that the poor kid likewise suffers the prototypical Saturnian symptom; being swallowed alive by his own father, as in this charming alchemistic rendition:

Fig. 8d: The king as prima materia, devouring his son."^ Here the Old King sits down to actually dine on his own hapless son. Given Titurel and Amfortas one must ask, How Parsifal can you get? The reference to the prima materia refers to the fact that Saturn is lead and thus the chemical origin of the gold, which is also the lapis Philosophorum or, as Emma Jung and von Franz would have it. Wolfram’s Grail. Thus “Saturn (lead) is one of the best known synonyms for the prima materia, and hence is the matrix of the frlius Philosophorum.”"’ This would certainly explain poor Amfortas’ chronic blues, since again, “Vigenère says of the Saturnine lead: ‘Lead signifres the vexations and aggravations with which God af flicts us and troubles our senses.’ This adept was aware that lead, which had always been considered an arcane substance, was identical with the subjective state of de-

"‘Source: Lambspringk, “Figurae et emblemata,” raMusaeum hermeticum (1678), in C. G. Junz, Psychology and Alchemy, Fig. 168, p. 331. "^Mysterium Coniunctionis, ^703.

417 pression. Sunilarly, the personifiedprima materia in the ‘Aurelia occulta’^ says ofher brother Saturn that his spirit was ‘overcome by the passion of melancholy’.”'“ This is a disposition of great importance to the self-images of artists for, as Rudolf and Margot Wittkower have argued, from antiquity to Wagner’s day possession of a “Saturnine temperament” was de rigueur for entrée to the society of snobbish, self-valorizing, and half-mad geniuses. Thus “in order to understand fully the peculiar power of the classical doctrine of the temperaments, one has to see it in conjunction with the belief in astrology which exerted an ever-growing influence fi'om the twelfth century onwards.... A man’s temperament was determined by his planet: while men bom under Jupiter are sanguine and men bom under Mars are choleric, Saturn determines the melancholic temperament; depending on Saturn’s conjunction at the moment ofbirth, the melancholicus will be either sane and capable of rare accomplishment or sick and condemned to inertia or stupidity.”"’ As both Wolfimn and Wagner were well aware, in mediseval and Renaissance medical theory Saturn’s sol niger returned as the black bile considered to be excessively present in the melancholic and to account for his peculiar symptomatology. Not for nothing are both of Wagner’s melancholic protagonists Titurel and Wotan the most creative, the former having founded the Grail Kingdom and the latter nearly everything else."* Just as lead is the matrix of the gold so Titurel is the matrix of the Grail, which owes its earthly advent to the activities of Saturn with all its baggage of profound darkness, despair, and internal chaos. For instance, the idea that only the King can reveal the Grail makes little specific sense outside of the alchemistichoroscopic view of salvation, such as Michael Maier’s alchemistic journey through the planetary houses, which “begins with Saturn, who is the coldest, heaviest, and

"‘C. Q. Jung, “The Philosophical Tree,” ^445. "^Bom Under Saturn, p. 103. "niis generic cultural idea that artists are especially privileged to pronounce upon the texture of melancholy makes it possible to accurately translate the subtext of the “melancholic” Beethoven’s designation of the D minor slow movement. Largo e mesto, of his Piano Sonata in D major, Op. 10, No. 3 as “the state of a melancholy person's soul” as follows; “I’m a genius.” "*E.g., “By associating the humours with psychology, they became determinants of man’s tençerament; predominance of blood, it was believed, engenders sanguine types, of phlegm, phlegmatic types, ofyellow bile, choleric types, and ofblack bile, melancholic types. From here it was a short step to the linking of tenq)eiaments not only widr physiological characteristics but also with intellectual and professional predispositions.” (Bom Under,Satum, p. 102.)

418 most distant of the planets, the maleficus and abode of evil, the mysterious and sinister Senex (Old Man), and from there he ascends to the region of the sun, to look for the Boy Mercurius, the longed-for and long-sought goal of the adept.”"’ In Parsifal Wagner depicts this planetary transitas as a progression from King Titurel (Saturn) through King Amfortas (dead Sol) to King Parsifal (living Sol, see Ex. 8.3, D Major), which since the latter is der reine Thor, is to say. King Fool. But this is simply a journey from dead to living Saturn since “Fool” itself is popular occultese fnr nifi Man Satiun and for our favorite old demon fanuliar, the anti-Judaic YAHWEH

IS SATURN, as follows: If we consider... the daemonic features exhibited by Yahweh in the Old Testament, we shall find in them not a few reminders of the unpredictable behaviour of the trickster, of his senseless orgies of destruction and his self-imposed sufferings, together with the same gradui, development into a saviour and his simultoeous humanization. It is just this'transformation ofthe meaningless into the meaningful that reveals the trickster’s compensatory relation to the “saint.” In the early Middle Ages, this lead to some strange ecclesiastical customs based on memories of the ancient saturnalia. Mostly they were celebrated on the days immediately following the birth of Christ—that is, in the New Year—with singing and dancing ... By the end of the twelfth century, the subdeacons’ dance had degenerated into a realfestum stultorum (fools’ feast)-----“Even the pnests and clerics elected'an archbishop or a bishop or pope, and named him the Fools’ Pope” (fatuorum papam).'’^ Despite the surface elitism of Parsifal’s gnostic pretensions, nowhere is Wagner more connected to his “Folk” than in the person ofhis “Fool,” which is just the pagan demon Saturn on temporary leave from Tartarus to preside as Master of Ceremonies over the populist “witch’s sabbath”"' that made Gutman, Mann, and Pope Innocent m tear their critical hair. The major difference between mediæval pseudo-saturnalia and Parsifal’s Mass of the Fool is that in the latter no one has any fun and this because Wagner was obUged for brevity’s sake to conflate it with the prima materia

"’¡Mysterium Coniunctionis,V’^%. '”C. G. Jung, “On the Psychology of the Trickster-Figure,” in The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, ^58-9. '^'E.g., “It is not surprising that this veritable witches’ sabbath was uncommonly popular, and that it required considerable time and effort to free the Church from this pagan heritage.” {Ibid., H459.)

419 via Tedious Tiurel the old sol niger. Here for instance is Wagner’s rendition of the “passion ofmelancholy,” which inaugurates what Gutman considered to be Wagner’s “Black Mass”: TITUREL

Muss ich ster - ben, //£Ì>:i_____________ 7=V7I [st>== death, cursel

vom Ret-

un - ge - lei- let i 7=V6=1 7=V _l L.

la 1>= SATURNI

421

Ex. 8.5’. The undead daddy swallowing poor Amfortas alive In calling this a “black Mass” Gutman was more accurate than he knew, for Wagner’s Mass is, as the astrologers would say, “under Saturn,” and in alchemy Saturn was, specifically, the black sun {sol niger). The black sun “coincides with the [alchemistic] nigredo and putrefactio, the state of death.”'^^ Gutman’s, shivers are appropriate to the non-initiate brought face to ‘fece with the weird imagery of mediæval alchemy. The creepy entombed king Is a classic alchemistic Saturn signa ture, for “in the alchemical myth the King Gold must be killed and buried in order to be able to rise again in his full glory, and it is precisely in the house of Saturn that he is buried. The tomb of the king is therefore called Saturn.”'“ Since this tomb is Monsalvat therefore MONSALVAT IS SATURN. In lexical terms this is the Tonal House-hold of A b Major; thus FAb=House of Saturn]. Finally since this Household of Saturn is the heavenly Um-Bearer (the Grail) then [Ab.=Aquarius

Cup

(Grail)-BearerJ. This latter is an angelic figure where the entombed Saturn is ifnot a demonic one at least one battened on by demons. It is not simply that Wagner’s Saturnine siblings D b and A b lexicalize angels or the graves. They lexicalize angels hovering oyer the graves. This is a highly specific imaginai configuration and one would not expect it to recur very often by mere chance, particularly in the context of an àrt-language like Western tonal music with a finite canonical repertoire and whose effective life span was hardly more than three centmies. Yet like so much else in Wagner’s TL lexicon, these images too were public cultural linguistic properties of

'^Mysterium Coniunctionis, f 113. '^Ibid.,p. 13.

422 the common practice period. Consider the composer’s D b zeniths and castles, by which he meant spiritual dwelling places, in terms of this generic evaluation by Gustav Schilling: The pure chord of D b major has only to ring out, and the sensitive soul will see itself, as it were, surroimded by pure luminous spiritual creatures, which perceive it in a shape or apprehend it in a form to which [the soul], by virtue of its momentary mood, caused by various inner or outer circmnstances, is attracted most of all... The key, by and of itself—^we would like to maintain—appears here only as a splendidand glistening, as it were, heavenly and beautifully decorated structure or as a transparent garment, showing offthe beautiful forms still more beautifully, in which the actual art work as such is elevated, or with which it is wrapped up to its most exalted perfection. For it is in ghostly tones, in an ethereal language, that the key of D b major, like no other, speaks. This passage, based on Schilling’s culling of key characteristic testimony from contemporary criticism, was intended as a public cultural property consensus statement. Here is what the critic has to say about the dominant successor A b Major: The psychical expression of aesthetical character of Ab major is a sense of piety, on its sound waves, spirit and soul appear to swing over into the heavenly and spiritual homeland. The wounded heart prays ih it, and devout lamenting sympathetically lends it its soimds. But it is also the key of the grave: death, grave, putrefaction, .judgement, and eternity with all its secrets lie in its radius. Therefore, it also likes to modmate to F minor’s melancholy and grave-desiring longing, to Db major’s grief and rapture, and, through enharmonic transformation, to E major, the key -which is not yet complete, although granting more than partial enjoyment and satisfaction.'“ It is unnecessary to work all this out in boring analysis: anyone who has read this far can, armed wjth the piano-vocal score and seyeral borrowed volumes of C. G. Jung’s alchemical tomes, track these common practice musico-poetic logics back to their European mystical sources. Sufficient to italicize piety, sound waves, swing over, heavenly homeland, wounded heart, devout lamenting, grave, death, grave, putre faction,judgment, eternity, and secrets as poetic contents to be rev^ently laid in the '^Universal-Lexicon der Tonkunst (ÌS35-36), quoted in Rita Steblin, Key Characteristics, pgs. 235/ Or, in my own de-frou-firou-ized twenty-first century musicologica! jargon (Chapter Six), “here is the door, and here the steeple, open the door and see all the people.” '^Ibid., pgs. 278-9.

423 exalted, elevated, luminous, transparent, beautifully decorated D b structure, set the goblin-alarm, lock the door, pocket the key, and stroll home to a well earned dinner, happy that a hard day’s lexicographic work is done. Thus A b and D b once again crack the Humpty Dumpty conundrum. Their straightforward metaphoric entailment logic only reconfirms a lexical usage dating back to the beginning of the Ring and carried forward without break to Wagner’s final opera. Wagner’s present Redeemer’s Chalice is but a token ofa generic A b type we can call the WATER BEARER or CUP BEARER. The resonance begins immediately (#7-5) when Wagner associates A b Major as subdominant of the Referential Key I, E b Major. Within this opening lexical gambit #5 connotes the Rhine Daughters swimming (‘schwimmend’ etc.) or rather being borne lightly in the billowing flood of WAVES (“Weia, Wala,” etc.). Lexeme #5 with its “Weia, Wala” has a certain priority ofplace as the Ring’s first use ofStabreim to mark off a lexically significant cpmpositional moment. Thus the key enjoys pride of priority.. The recursive “w” alliterations, wwww, produce the “wave-form” image which is the core visual icon for the zodiacal Aquarius (^). Again, Wagner endows the key with its usual topo graphical significance: since it appears (#77) at the Scene i-ii transition to denote the space between the E b WATER and the D b ZENITH—^but nowhere in between—it acts cartographically as a bracket pair [*] mq)ping the middle region ofthe NW Quadrant on Wagner’s tonal mappa mundi. Its topographical usage thus mirrors that ofF (1 /G b, previously discussed, as a transitional lexeme denoting either the approach to or the departure fi:om [Db.=ZENlTH]. Thus when the Rhine Daughters bewail-thgir^st gold (#520) they gayp upward from the Eb WATERS toward the Ab REVELERS at the Db ZENITH. The swimming motif likewise follows the key about; thus Siegflied longs to bathe in the fire-clouds surrounding the sleeping Bride,’“ and indeed to swim in the Bride her self'”

'“lAb = bailing, in Fire] (Tm Feuer mich baden! ’) ‘”I.e., #2472 [Ab =BrOnnhiIde, a glorious flood into which to plunge] (‘Dich! Ein herrlich Gewässer wogt vor mir, mit allen Sinnen seh’ ich nur sie, die wonnig wogende Welle’). Welle here nicely conserves the original meaning (“Weia, Wala, woge du Welle’’); the legends of Siegfried’s ascent to the mountain bride likewise reinteipretthe A b cloud covered heights {#1554, #2261, #2274) as a rarefied water-cloud proceeding from the Goddess’ breath {#2351) and denotes her lips as a Chalice from which to drink kisses {#2409). In general the liquid in which one bathes or which one

424 The idea that At contains Eb waters as a cloud contains rain is prefigured long before Parsifal's [Ai=Redeemer’s Chalice] by step-by-step associations of Ab with mythic or magic waters, cloud-covered heights and holy clouds (and thus with WATER-AIR or WATER VAPOR), goddess’ breath, heavenly treasure and holy values, and so on. Semantic analysis of A b Major in the Ring shows its core lexical meaning to be “container” or “cup-bearer” fAb=container, cup-bearer], meaning variously the substance, the container ofthe substance, or the bearer of the container (who is herself sometimes the container she bears). Such are the “Wunschmädchen” who serve fallen heroes in D b Major Walhall. The Heavenly Messenger’s report of the Wish-maidens motivates#7057[Db=Walhall](‘Wunsch-mädschen walten dort hehr’) and #1038 [Ai=Cup-Bearers] (‘Wotan’s Tochter reicht dir traulich den Trank!’); thus [Db=Walhall fI->-VÌ-»Ab =cup-bearer1. Db embraces “dorf' (i.e., Walhall) and “Wotans Tochter” while A b Major is gives the cup-bearer at “reicht dir traulich den Trank!”'^* This lingers on the Gtt =A b dominant of [C (D b_)=Walhall], favoring the chord in a fermata-like pause which in the context of this complex of lexical key-dialectics would normally proceed to tonicize itself, raising the cup bearer key from chord level to key level. This move is prohibited by the dramatic situation; Siegmund’s imagination takes him to the cup-bearer’s door but declines to pass through, which denies key-status to the chord. In Die Walküre, Act H, Fricka’s denunciation of Wotan employs [Ai=cupbearer] to denounce his Wunschmadchen Töchtern as well,’^’ while enharmonic alter ation of original lexical material subserves TL semantics; in common practice the sign (1 was considered durum (hard) and the sign b molle (soft) and transition from sharp to flat keys was not simply a modulation but a change oí genus. Thus Fricka

receives as a drink is a holy substance, a highest treasure, via A b Major’s association with heavenly treasure (See Lexicon for exançles). This is typical of mythic uses of generic WATER to denote any magical liquid, e.g., the Blood ofthe Redeemer, as in the mythic dispensation of blood and water from the Cmcified’s wounded side. '“Contrarily Siegmund’s response, that the Messenger greet the maidens/or him, pushes past their key, rejecting it in his own dominant [A= heroic struggle]. I.e., #1050 [C¿=heavenly host] (‘Wälse’ und alle Helden’); #1051 [*Gt/£U (‘grüss’ auch die holden Wunschesmädchen’); #1052 [A=rejection of messenger] (‘zuihnen folg’ ich dir nicht!'). '”I.e., #S20.[G¿=CUP, Fricka’s runnelh over] (‘So führ’ es denn aus’); #52i[c¿ = POURER, -Wotan as] (‘FüÙe das,Maas!’); #822 [gi=FRICKA, shamed] (‘less’ auch zertreten!’); #823 [a=bad Student] (‘Nicht lerntest du, wollt’ ich dich lehren, was nie du erkennen kannst’).

425 denies her step-daughter’s genus with her hardened attitude, standing like Siegmund and Lx)ge on the outside looking in as she offers [g¿=cup of shame] (“So führ’ es dem ais! Fülle das Maß”). Recalling Wagner’s intentionally archaic poetics brings to mind that “Maß” implies “pot, tankard,” as in Zwei Maß Bier, “two tankards of beer.” Fricka’s G ji minor thus says that Wotan has hurled his so-loverly cup-bearer’s bitter dregs in her face. Wotan’s response is typical: He accuses Fricka of being a poor student in the dim-witted A minor (from [C=Intelligence]). Again, Sieglinde fills Hunding’s horn in A b (#640 [Ab.=drink-hom, (female) preparer] (‘Sie...filllt ein Trinkhom’). Or the cupping key (Wotan: “das Trinkhom nicht reich’st du traulich mir mehr”) falls to relative F minor (#1266, “.. .aus meinem Angesicht bist du verbannt”) in token of Wotan’s rejection of his Ab Major cup bearer daughter. Contrarily, Brünnhilde’s claim to be the holiest wish-maiden in heaven‘s® robes her for a poignant moment in her old A b Major charisma. Taking her tonal meaning, Siegfiied likewise resorts to her flagon key to flatter her with the image of a rolling flood into which he yearns to plimge, thereby neatly burdening her stand-offish cup-key with a new and sexual point.Having won cup-bearer apd its contents he reverts to lAb=cup1 to toast her in Gunther’s hall. Thus almost every reference to cups, cup-bearerSj or cup-derived metaphors observe A b Major house-laws. lAb=cup] transfers directly to the successor drama as the Redeemer’s Chalice. The Ring locates its ultimate orienting cadential tonic at the D b mountain fortress of Walhall, and this pitch defines the entire pre-Christian epoch of the pagan gods. The move to its dominant A b marks an epochal shifi from the Age of the Gods to that of the Châlicerïfie mountain castle-fortress of Walhall is an enclosme containing the entire meaning of the godS and the epoch over which they preside. Now the mountain castle-fortress of Monsalvat, raised in the glorious past reign of a now defunct and entombed mountain-king whom the poet-composer specifically identifies with Wotan, yields its meaning to the more spiritual container

™#2427 FA b-Wish Maiden, excessively lofty] (‘Heilig schied sie aus WalhaU’); #2428 [a¿=her lofty social status dissolving] (passhn+‘WehederSchniach.f’); [f=her lofty social status kaput] (‘Verwundet hat mich, der mich erweckt!’) [g=breast plate]; (‘Er erbrach mir Brünne’) '^'#2472 [Ak=Brünnhüde] (a glorious flood into which to plunge, ‘Diehl Ein herrlich Gewisser wogt vor mir, mit allen Sinnen seh’ ich nur sie, die wonnig wogende Welle’)

426 of the Redeemer’s Chalice. Wagner’s New Age subsumes the castle’s meaning into itself, creating the paradox that Monsalvat is spiritually contained within its Chalice. Yet [Ak=grail] does not exhaust this key’s lexicality. It tonalizes Kundry as she “comes from the hut, carrying apitcher, and goes to the spring,’’ or Parsifal as he “fills his hand with water from the spring, bends forward to Kundry.. .and pours it overhear head” (Act HI). Thus Wagner is apt to understand the key as a container for any kind of liquid, for which reason the generic astrological Water Carrier S35 is precisely the right virtual intelligible object to rationalize the key’s general usage. Wagner derived the Wunsch core of his Ab Wunschmädschen from Jakob Grimm’s Deutsche Mytholgie, which he began to study in 1843. Grimm informed him that Wotan’s names included Wunse and from this he realized that the god’s paradoxical psychological dynamics were to be fomid in deep-structured paradoxes inherent in the act of wishing. The figure of the one-eyed (half blind) Wotan has probably never been surpassed as a poetic personification of the unconscious dyna mics of the “wish.” Thus Wagner’s Wishing God’s greatest creation is a wish that he both perish ahd survive.’” That fAb=Wunsch1 is a central tonal lexeme to Wagner is suggested by the composef hifnself: “The key to my music is the A b major from Tristan-. Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart, well and good, but that is my music.’”” Wagner refers to the Act n love duet, in párticular its climax, “Niewiedef-erwaschens wahnlos hold bewußter Wunsch." The swains perceive their magic gohlet as ingress to the A b Wunsch that Brilnnhilde once offered to Siegmund in vain. Thus Ab Major lexicalizes wishpoetics in the* Ring and Tristan. This wishing-axis marks two-thirds of a tonal mythologem of the Wunsch, -w\à\e Parsifal cämpletes the tonal trinity by promoting the key to the tonic through which Wagner summed up his lifelong creative opus.

’’“Thus Gordon notes that “Not only is it possible to be ambivalent in what one wishes, that is, concurrently to wish it to be the case that p and to wish it not to be the case that p. Mote interesting, wishes are rationally blind to each other. That is, ifI recognize that getting a certain wish ofmine will exact an exorbitant cost in terms of öfter wishes of i^e, this is no reason tc^ give up or even to weaken ftatwish.ForI may wish that getting that wish did not exact so high a cdst; indeed, 1 may wish fte world to be such that fulfillment of all my present wishes would be' mutually conçosèible. (Robert M. Gordon, The Structure ofEmotions, p. 31.) Gorden refers to R. S. Peters (1961-2), “Emotions and fte Category of Passivity.” Proceedings ofthe Aristotelian Society 62:117-42, p. 127.) My italics.

'^Diariés, n, p. 286, April 4,1879.

427 A general poetic commonality between Norse, mediæval, and Arthurian cup bearers is suggested in Parava/, in which grail bearer like Wishmaiden is female. In Book V we are told that the bearer ....was clothed in a dress ofArabian silk. Upon adeep green achmardi she bore the perfection [=wish] of Paradise (der Wunsch von Paradise), both root and branch. That was a thing called the Grail, which surpasses all earthly perfection. Repanse de Schoye was the name of her whom the Grail permitted to be its bearer. Such was the nature of the Grail that she who watched over it had to preserve her purity and renounce all falsity. Wolfram’s phrase Wunsch von Paradise, which the poet repeats, imports a Wishmaiden resonance to his Grail bearer. As a poeticized psychologem Wolfram’s wish ing stone inherits the paradoxical deep structure accruing to the wish, which helps explain why the Grail gives bliss and woe in equal measure and why, as what Jung and von Franz call a “God image,” it stands itself in need of redemption. Since Wagner was acquainted with Wolfram before writing the Ring and Tristan, then similar tonal-poetic treatment ofwish-imagery in these works is a reason to doubt the composer’s claim of total independence from Wolfram’s text, in which cup-bearing receives a wish-maiden inflection.'” A b Wunsch semantics is more coherently inter related between Ring, Tristan, and Parsifal soundscapes than the composer perhaps cared to admit. Be that as it may, the lexical association fAb=cup-bearer]. is an entirely coherent and inter-related poetic usage of the key in all three works. Since to Wolfram Grgil=Wunsch von Pardise, it is clear that what the Fisher King is seeking is a new relationship toUodrThat he should be afflicted by a venge ful astral Yahweh-surrogate whose astrological time of year extends through the zodiacal signs of Capricomus and Aquarius, which together define winter and therefore both the Christmas and New Year seasons, is therefore highly suspicious. This is the kind of retribution one would expect to be visited publicly upon heretics or, inwardly upon souls racked by theological doubts and torments. All of this is implicit in the grail-stone as a Wunsch, the woimded and wounding Satum-Yahweh

'"Wolfram von Eschenbach, Parzival, p. 129. The enforcer ofsuchhigh-mindedness is, of course, Saturn the Pinifier. '"I.e., the conçoser claimed confíete independence between his and Wolfram’s versions of the Grail (Diaries, Ü, p. 327, March 28, 1879.)

428 may be understood as a poetic further elaboration of the ambivalent nature of the “Wimsch,” which magically wishes opposite and incompatible rewards at once. In addition, the Yahweh-SatumW niger complex imposes upon the god-image a darkness, blindness, and state of ignorance that prescribes gnosis as its remedy. The god image sought by the Fisher King both rewards and punishes fealty, and the only remedy is a decisive influx of LIGHT. Such prior lexical usage bears upon the semantics of Wagner’s so-called “black Mass.” Titurel’s sepulchral Ab minor voice with its insistence on the Db minor chord (ai;iv) brings the planetary ruler of the W ater-bearer (Aquarius, AKA Grail) into relief: Wagner describes Saturn. Titurel’s minor Grail key has syntactical consequences, for Ab:i=Cb:vi. which brings [M=Grail] and [b=curse, damnation] into intimate relationship, which Titurel spells out with his eerie momentary move to C b minor for “Muss ich sterben." The films' desperate outburst commencing in B b minoris syntactically Dirvi andnotBirl, and Amfortas thus finds himself in the same position relative to [Db=king Saturn] the depressive and devouring father that poor Mime once occupied relative to the dwarfs overmasteringbigbrother Alberich. Amfortas himself experiences the Grail in its minor mode: not the least torture inflicted by Klingsor’s B minor curse is to render the Imago dei itself into an image of damnation. To both Wolfram and Wagner, then, Saturn represents a formidable/aíAer-

complex deriving from a previous generation and reign. Consider the following personality characteristics in comparison to the psychologies of Titurel and the oneeyed Wotan: In astrology Saturn is... characterized by the qualities of profundity, austerity and remmciation, by pessimism, diffidence and selfishness. Saturn is represented as an old man with a white beard and white hair, often with signs ofbodily infirmity... He corresponds to the father’ or to an important and aged person. Many of his characteristics tend toward a single point: a passionate concern, deep and continuous, in his own destiny, he is the tendency toward thorough examination of his own thoughts and feelings, continually dissecting his own actions, tormenting without rest himself and others.'^* '“Augusto Vitale, “Saturn: The Transformation ofthe Father,” pgs. 14-15. Again, “Another important aspect of the saturnie depression is the inhibition of the will... an unpossibility to get free from the snarls and obstacles that hinder, a wracking of one’s brains about possible ways out, and a continuous collision with a greater and stronger obstacle.” (Ibid., p. 18.)

429 Saturn’s austerity, profiindity, renunciation, and pessimism make him a personifi cation of the religious attitudes that rule the Grail Kingdoms in both Wolfi-am and Wagner—that is, the ideology proper to the “realm of the fathers”'^’—and again associates Anfortas’ Satum-at-zenith with the God of Israel.”® Whatever Wolfit says about Saturn may therefore be said ofYahweh and, since Saturn is a major agent of Anfortas’ never-closing wound, we are justified in understanding the King’s affliction as originating in the malefic activities of the Demiurge or Creator of the World in the guise ofthe Father. Since Titurel is the creator ofthe Grail’s world, then Anfortas’ malady arises in part out of his involvement with this world: like Saturn and the Demimge, he is himself crucified within the fom elements, pierced by a sword (or spear).

D b Major and the Negative House ofSaturn. Just as Wagner encrypts Wolfi’anj’s Scorpionic lexicon of snakes and curses into his B minor lexemes, so he inscribes Saturnian semantics into his D b Major and A b Major lexemes of arrested progress, patriarchal meddling, and leaden despair. For openers, the Wotan—^Titurel axis that Wagner had described to Cosima is incoherent unless both have been subsumed into Saturn, the god of cyclic process of

succession firom king to king or fi-om age to age.”’ At the same time, the mediæval equivalence SATURN IS YAHWEH offered this symbolically sensitive antisemitic com poser the bonus of easy access to a warehouse of prefab anti-Judaic images. Thus Wagner did not have to concoct personal fulminations against Judaism but could just present what was already festering in his sources. These are doubly encrypted into the '^’Jung and von Franz, The Grail Legend, pgs. 73/ '““The connection with Saturn is highly significant, since in the astrology ofantiquity Saturn was considered to be the star of Israel and of the Old Testament Yahweh. In the medieval view, however, Saturn was thought to be the domicile of the devil. He was depicted as lion-headed, like the demiurge laldabaôth of certain Gnostic systems, and was considered to be a ‘black star’ and an evildoer, to whom belonged donkeys, dragons, scorpions, vipers, foxes, cats, mice, night birds and other devilish creatures.” {Ibid., pgs. 205-6.) '"In judicial astrology “succession” is SatumiaiL Thus the seventeenth century English astrologer Jolm Lilly, operating on assunqttions likewise current in both Wolfinm’s and Wagner’s days, defines questions falling under the jurisdiction of Capricorn and the Tenth House (ruled by Saturn) as, “Whether a Person shall remain in the Office he holds, or not,” “Whether a iCing expelled from his kingdom, or an Officer having lost his Place, shall be restored,” (William T illy, An Introduction to Astrology (1647), p. 270.)

430 score: first, through iimate arcanity and second by the difficulty of translating the composer’s TL, as I have here. A theoretical apostrophe is apt. Saturn’s closet antisemitism offers an objective way to evaluate how much the composer thought he could bet on his antisemitic message being received by his audience. If he thought we were going to get it without scholarly assistance he was sadly mistaken. For to do so requires understanding not both the mediæval cultural references and the lexical TL. Time was for instance when I smiled at Gutman’s unremittingly antisemitic interpretation .And my lexical work on the Ring had found no evidence for antisemitic content. I think I have shown by rigorous source arguments that critical opinions Ûiat Alberich means

Jew have no basis. Alberich is entirely explainable as a multiple-coherence confla tion from traditional mining cult lore, alchemy, Græco-Roman mythology and dramaturgy, and Neoplatonic astrology and, given this satisfactory explanation there is no room for Jew in Alberich’s imaginai portmanteau.'^ So I expected a similar dearth of antisemitic content in Parsifal. The same linear-lexical technique caused the antisemitic materials discussed here to burst out like raw sewage. I would liken us, Wagner’s audience, to Wolfimn’s courtly audience to ask how njany of either of us got that ‘Titurel is Saturn is Yahweh” and drawn appropriate conclusions? We want a good yam and Saturn and Mars make good surface story, so there they are. Even so if Wolfram’s thinking was tending in the heretical direction evil-minded people might suspect, then considering the fates of Kmghts Templars and Cathars, and times being what they were, had he been too well understood he might well have been eligible for an all-expense trip to the stake, courtesy of the orthodox Church. Similarly, by this stage in Wagner’s life the composer was old and expressed himself tired ofbeing publicly pilloried by “the Jews” and the capitalists for what he took to be the reasonable racist opinions he had been broadcasting for years. Besides, by now he didn’t much care whether we got the antisemitic point or not. He was in his own mind a Knower and if we didn’t get it we were not, QED. Since what he Knew was Real the fate ofJudaism was set in Wolfimn’s and Titurel’s stones what ever the rest of us^ought we knew. However that may be, we must take Wagner at his own word not Schenker’s or anyone else’s, and that the only way to do that is by

'“This is all argued out in "The Genealogy of Chaos.”

431 translating his musical scores as the tonal language they are. Without the lexical

tonality there is no antisemitism because it is mostly encrypted into his lexical keys and their syntax. Such resonances are impressed upon the libretto by the lexical tonality itself, which now bares much of the burden of articulating his occult world view. Like his occult treatment of B minor, that of D b Major is a case in point. D b IS SATURN cuts other lexical Gordian knots, particularly the significance ofthe successor tonality A b Major, which is also Saturn however transmogrified into a purifying angel watching over the Golden Age, Wagner’s ideal gnostic community. WOTAN IS TITUREL convinces us that the one-eyed god has stopped playing Jove and now stars as Saturn by the expedient of showing him age and decay not once but twice, ifyou stir Titurel into the Saturnian stew. To ostentatiously crumble into senescence before our eyes is Saturn’s special prerogative. Wotan discovers to his cost that hiding out inside Titurel provides no miracle cure, for in doing solté only succeeds in dying offstage of old age. Saturn manifests in Parsifal via the motifof endless waiting—^Kundry for the Redeemer, Amfortas for Parsifal, or Parsifal the Grail. Thisis standard Saturn issue. In the Hellenistic astrology of Wolfram’s time Saturn connoted delay, tardiness, debility, impotence, lameness, and infirmity—^the old man, the aged father—images we have seen in the Cinedian fish of the alchemists whose stone the philosophers seek. It is called “serotinus” (of late growth or origin) and “tardus” (slow, hesitant) because it is Saturn, a God Image whose advent is unendurably delayed, as Amfortas and Wotan learn as they endlessly await theirredeeming Others, Siegfried qr Parsifal. This is what Amfortas is praying for, really: to effect a definitive separation fi-om the Old Man. The medical treatment takes the usual occult course: This process of separation of the king fi'om his son will reveal the former shining in heaven and revealing the immortal nature of the soul and thus confer everlasting life.'^' The son should then pray for purity, as Amfortas prays to his Father Titurel in heaven (Act HI) for, “... although astrologically Saturn is a malefic planet of whom only the worst

'■“Thus “Saturn is the cold, dark, heavy, injure element. Sol is the opposite. When this separation is conqileted and the body has been purified by Melissa and fireed firom Saturnine melancholy, then the coniunctio can take place with the long-living inner, or astral, man.” “Paracelsus as a Spiritual Phenomenon,” ^190.

432 is expected, he is also a purifier, because true purity is attained only through repentance and expiation of sin.”'^^ This alchemistic and astrological connection of Saturn to the expiation ofsin underscores a subtle difference between Wagner’s gnostic sources and those drawn from astrology, alchemy and indeed, orthodox Catholicism, with which alchemy shares many of its images and ways of thinking. Sin is stressed in Parsifal as it is not in gnosticism. Thus “for most Gnostics, sexual indulgence was not so much a sin (a word not often found in Gnostic writings) as a distraction. We do not find in their texts the lists ofprohibited acts and relationships characteristic of orthodox Judaism and Christianity and Islam. The sexual urge, so powerful an aspect of bodily thisworldliness, is the very archetype of ‘ignorance’ and diverts the seeker fi:om the search for gnosis. Wit is one ofthe most potent devices invented by a wily creatorgod to keep sparks of spirit in thrall. Procreation perpetuates the false god’s rule, the continuation and extension of spiritual seeds’ imprisonment in corporeal form. Alchemy on the other hand often weaves “sin” into its sagas of the living metals, as in

Aurora consurgens: “Then the rivers disappeared in dry land, which

make the city of God joyful; when this mortal shall put on immortality, and the corruption of the living shall put on incorruption, then ineed shall that word come to pass which is written. Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? Where thy Sin abounded, there now grace doth more abound.”'^ The con trast between alchemy and Parsifal with gnosticism is well explained by the differences in their surroimding cultures. Alchemy and Parsifal were produced amidst a dominant Christian culture, as gnosticism was not. It is reasonable then that both should absorb some of the public cultural property concepts of the dominant paradigm. Thus Amfortas looks to Titurel-Satum not merely as the source of the intolerable spiritual pressure that characterizes his miserable life as the unwilling

filius Philosophorum, but also as the opportunity for attaining the purity that will release him from bondage to the terrible world in which he finds himself, as in his prayer to his father in heaven:

'*^Mysterium Coniunctionis, H472«. '"7Äe Gnostic Thomas, “Twin " ofJesus, p. 43. '“Quoted in Jvmg, Psychology and Alchemy, H475.

AMFORTAS

433

434

“heaven?] (passim, 335) [c=reversal of fortunes] (dir Frau doch’, 337) [d=Siegmund’sjoiuney] (‘fort wend’ ich Filss und Blick’, 339) [arSieglinde’s side] (‘So bleibe hier!’, that is, beside her, 343) [C=no reveiSal of fortunes] (‘Nicht bringst du Unheil dahin, wo Unheil im Hause wohnt!’ 344) [d=Siegmund remains] (‘Siegmund hehlt zurück’, 353)

IV. D Major [364-80] 558. ^ P>=Hearth-fire, Siegmund calm] *^(‘Er4ehnt sich an den Herd’, 365)

Zweite Scene. V. 559. 560. 561.

562. 563.

C minor [381-475] [d=alarm] (‘Sieglinde fährt plötzlich auf, 381) [fr=Hunding’s hprse] (‘der sein Ross aussen zu Stalle führt’, 383) [c=HUNDlNG] (‘Hundjng’, 387) [Ek=Hunding’slook](‘Hunding wendet sich mit einem ernst fragenden Blick an Sieglinde’, 593) [Ak=female cup-be^er] (‘Du labtest ihn?’ ‘Den Glaumen letz’t ich ihm; gastlich sorgt’ ich sein!’ ‘Dach und Trank dank’ ich ihr’.

464 564. 565. 566. 567. 568. 569. 570. 571. 572. 573. 574. 575. 576. 577. 578. 579. 580. 581. 582. 583. 584. VI. 585. 586.

400) [g=betating] (‘willst du dein Weib dnim schelten?’, 404) [eb=propriety offered] (‘Heilig ist mein Herd’, 408) [c=propriety required] (‘heilig sei dir mein Haus’ 410) [c=Hunding] (motif, 412) [E k “hospitality] (‘Rüst uns Märniem to Mahl!’, 415) fb k “dragon-glance] (‘Der gldssende Wurm glänzt auch ihm aus dem Auge'', 429) [a=conpealed surprise] (‘Er birgt sein BeTB;emden’, 431) [f=Siegmünd’s fleeing pathway] (‘Weit her,^traun’ kamst du des Weg’s’,435K [C“fleeing on foot] (‘ein Ross nicht ritt’, 435) [bk“wildcountry] (‘Durch Wald und Wiese, Haide und Hain’, 440) [g=unknown country] (‘nicht kenn’ ich den Weg, den ich kam’, 442) [Bk“Hunding’shouse] (‘Dess’ Dach dich deckt, dess’ Haus dich hegt’, 446) [c=Hunding] (‘...Hunding heisst der Wirth’, 448) [C=TheWest]*(‘wendes't von hier du nach West den Schritt, in Höfen reich hausen dort Sippen’, 450) [c=Hunding’s Honour] (‘die Hunding’s Ehre behüten’, 453) [F“Siegmund’s name] (‘wird sein Name nun mir gnannt’, 437) [a=Sieglinde’s glance] (‘Sieglinde... hefted i¿ Auge’, 468) [F“intense synçathy] (‘mit auffallender Theilnahme und Spannung auf diesen’, 469) [B k“suspicion] (‘Trägs’t du Sorge mir zu vertrau’n’,471) [g“Sieglinde] (‘der Frau hier’, 472) [d=Siegmund] (‘Gast, wer du bist’, 475) G minor [476-564] [c“not Friedmund] (‘Friedmund darf ich nicht heissen’, 482) [B k“Frohwalt] (‘Frohwalt möcht ich wohl sein’, 484)

587. 588. 589. 590. 591. 592. 593. 594. 595. 596. 597. 598. 599. 600. 601. 602. 603. 604. VIL 605. 606. 607.

[g“Wehwalt] (‘doch Wehwalt’, 487) [F=Wolfe] (‘Wolfe, der war mein Vater’, 490) [d“Siegmund and Sieglinde’s birth] (‘zu swei kam ich nur Welt’, 491) [Bk“twins, two] (‘eineZwillings Schwester und ich’, 492) [g“mother] (‘Früh schwanden mir Mutter und Maid’, 494) [c“little knowing] (‘kaum hab’ ich’, 497) [g=little known mother] (‘je sie gekannt’, 497) [F“father, warlike and strong] (‘Wehrlich vmd stark war Wolfe, der Feinde wuchsen ihm viel’, 499) [C=joumeys fi'om home, hunting] (‘Zum Jagend zog mit dem Jungen der Alte’,.501) [c=retuming home from journey] (‘von Hetze und Hars einst kehrten wir heim,’ 503) [g=nest, laid low] (‘da lag das Wollsnest leer’, 504) [d“Siegmund’s house] (‘Zu Schutt gebrannt der prangende Saal’, 507) [g=mother’s stricken corpse] (‘erschlagen der Mutter mutbiger Leib’, 511) [d“vanished sister] (‘verschwunden in Gluthen der Schwester Spur’, 512) [f=wild boy] (‘lange Jahre lebte der Junge mit Wolfe im wilden Wald’, 521) [B k “warfare; a pair of wolves] (‘doch mufhig werte das Wofspaar sich’, 524) [g=Wölfings, with threatening inflection] (‘den als Wölfii^ mancher wohl kennt’, 528) [d“Siegmund] (‘Wehwalt der Wölfing’, 563) A minor [565-650] [a=dark tidings] (‘Mich dünkt, von dem wehrlichen Paar vernahm ich, dunkle Sage’, 565) [*C=brighter tidings] (‘Doch weiter künde’, 568) [e“tidings of Sieglinde’s &tfaer]

465 608. 609. 610. 611. 612. 613. 614. 615. 616. 617. 618. 619. 620.

Vin. 621.

622. 623. 624. 625. 626. 627. 628. 629.

(‘wo wilt dein Veter jutzt?’, 570) [a=storm and stress] (‘stellten die Neidinge an’, 574) [B b *=foes, slain] (‘der Jäger viele fielen den Wölfen’, 574) [a=Wolfe, missing and sought] (‘Doch ward ich vom Vater versprengt’, 578) [a=fether, lost] (‘den Vater fend ich nicht’, 585) [C=society, longing for] (‘mich drängt’ es zu Männern imd Frauen’, 590) [a=society, rejecting] (‘immer doch war ich geächtet’, 598) [C=the right idea] (‘Was rechtes je ichrieth’, 601) [B b=*wickedness](‘was schlimm immer mir schein’, 603) [F==happiness] ‘gehrt’ ich nach Worme’, 608) [a=woe] (‘weckt’ ich nur Weh’, 610) [g=Wehwalt] (‘drum musst’ich mich Wehwalt nennen’, 611) [a=palhway, woefiil] (‘des Wehes waltet ich nur’, 615) [d=Siegmund] (‘Er sieht zu Sieglinde auf, 616)

C Minor [621-858]

[c=Siegnnmd’s Nom] (‘nicht liebte dich die Norn’, 625) [c=Hunding] (‘Felge nur ferchten den der wafferdos einsam fährt’, 632) [C=tidings] (‘Kfinde noch, Gast, wie du im Kattgrf zuletzt die Waffe verlor’st?’ 632) [c=sorrowing woman] (‘Ein trauriges Kind’, 638) [g=force, coercion] (‘Wider den Zwang ich zum Schutz’, 642) [D=Siegmund, Hero] (‘der Dränger Tross traf ich im Kampf, 644) [g=sinking low, being laid low] (‘dem Sieger sank der Feind’i 645) [c=wildly flowing tears, grief] (‘mit wildem Thränen Flutb’, 654) [e b =storming assaitots] (‘Der Erschlag’nen Sippen stürmten daher’, 662)

630.

[c=prostrate maiden] ( ‘Doch von er Wal wich nicht die Maid’, 666) 631. [d=Siegmund] (‘verhassest ist es Allen und"mir’, 707) 632. [e b =Hunding, kinsman of the maid] (‘Zur Rache ward ich’, 709) 633. [B b=outrageous enemy] (‘des fiücht’gen Frevlers Spur’, 715) 634. [E b “conventional hospitality] (‘mein Haus hütet, Wölfing, ¿ch heut’, 723) 635. [Cb=night, hostile] (‘fflr die Nacht nahm ich dich aüf, 725) 636. [E b “customary punishrnent] (‘für Todte zahlst du mir Zofi', 733) 637. [b b “Separation, of combatants] (‘Sieglinde schreitet mit besorgter Gebärde zwischen die beiden Männer vor’, 735) 638. [fmight-drink, (female) preparer of] (‘Den Nachttrunk rüste mir drin’, 780) 639. [c=sleep, rest] (‘und haire mein’ zur Ruh’, 782) 640. [Ab “drink-hom, (female) preparer] (‘Sie...füllt ein Trinkhom’, 804f) 641. [bb=enemy] (‘Sie gewahrt Hunding’s Spähen’,'822) 642. [G=Tree, Adi, stem] (‘auf eine Stelle am Esehenstamme’, 832) 643. [c=Hunding] (‘Hunding fährt auf, 836) 644. [C b=weapons] (‘Mit Waffen wehrt sich der Mann’, 844) 645. - [bb“threatening gesture] (‘Im Abgehen sich zu Siegmund vrendend’, 845) 646. [f=moming of battle; difficult and evil labor] (‘Dich Wölfing, treffe ich morgen’, 847) 647. [c=sleeping cljamber] (‘Er geht in das Gemach’, 852) 648. [g=a prison bolt] (‘man hört ihn von innen den Riegel schliessen’, 851)

Dritte Scene. IX. 649.

C Major [858-996] [e=ing)otence] (‘Siegmund allein. Es ist vollständig Naeht geworden’, 858)

466 [a=T)roniised sword (=ftaudulent sword)] (‘Ein Schwert’, 874) [f^Wolfing] (‘Ein Schwert verhiess 651. mir der Vater’, 880) [e=need] (‘Noth’, 883) 652. [g=prisoner] (‘raste ich hier’, 890) 653. [F=sexual desire] (‘entzückend 654. Bangen, 895) [g=a seized heart] (‘zehrt mein 655, Herz’, 897) [a=Sieglinde] (‘Zu der mich nun 656. Sehnsucht zeiht’, 898) [ç=magic, sweet] (‘die mit süssem 657. Zauber mich sehtt’, 901) [eb^rofoimd abyss] (‘Wälse!’, 658. 908) V [f=Wäts^] (‘Wälse!’, 909) 659. [c=benserker rage] (‘was wOthend 660. das Herz’, 9^15) [C=GLOW, of-Sword] (‘der 661. auisprUhendenGIuth’, 917) [E=a joyfiil flash] (‘lustig lacht da 662. der Blick’, 929) [G=a blooming maiden] (‘der Blick 663. der blühenden Frau’, 939) [e=a departed maiden’s sensed 664. presence] (‘den dort haftend sie hinter sich Hess’, 943) [g=darkening shadow] (‘Nächtiges 665. Dunkel’,950) [c=gleam of woman’s eye] 666. (‘Blickes Strahl’, 954) [G=wamiäi and day] (‘Wärme 667. gewann ich imd Tagi, 956) [C=blissful glance] (‘wonniger 668. Glanz’, 964) 669a. [b=sinking and darkening (=dealh)] (‘bis hinter Bergen sic sank’, 965) 669b. [e=love (fading, darkening)] (passim, 966) [C=UGHT, last glràm] (‘noch 670. einmal da sie shied’, 971) 671a. [e=love (evening of)] (‘traf mich Abends ihr Schein’, 974) 671b. [b=darkness (death)] (‘selbst det...^ 671c. [a=old ñght] (‘selbst der alten Esche Stamm...’, 976) 671d. [O^UGHt ] (‘...erglänzte in gold’ner Gluth’, 978) 672ab. [e-»a=blanched blossoms] (‘da bleicht die Blüthe, das Licht 650.

673. 674. X, 675. 676. 677. 678.

XI. 679. 680. 681. 682. 683. 684.

xn.

685. 686. 687. 688. 689. 690. 691. 692. 693. 694.

verlischt’, 980) [e=darkening shadows] (‘nächtiges Dunkel deckt mir das Auge’, 982) [c=depths, abyss (of heart)] (‘tief in des Busens Berge’, 988) G Major [997-1031] [G=Sieglinde] (‘Siegl. In weissem Gewände’, 997) [e=Sieglinde] (‘Ich bins’, 1002) [C=Sword] (‘Eine Waffe’, 1010) [e=an unwooed haggled-for bride] (‘zur Hochzeit geladen: er freite ein Weib das ungefragt Schächer ihm schenkten zur Frau’, 1024) E Major [1032-62] [E=A Stranger] (‘ein Fremder trat da herein’, 1031) [C)t“Stranger’s eye] (‘doch des andern Strahl’, 1039) [f|t “human fear of Stranger] (‘Angst schuf es allen’, 1042) [G)t “Stranger’s kin] (‘mir allein’. 1046) [f|t=stranger’s eye] (‘weckte das Auge’, 1048) [E=tears and comfort mingled] (‘Thränen und Trost zugleich’, 1053) G Major [1063-1162] [C=sword-in-Ash] (‘in der Esche Stamm’, 1062) [e“the ash-stem] (‘der aus dem Starmn’, 1040) [E=the chosen one] (‘der aus dem Starmn es zög’, 1070) [e=the others (not kin)] (‘Der Männer Alle’, 1072) [E=The Stranger recognized (“kin)] (‘Da wusst’ ich wer der war’, 1082) ■[D=Hero] (‘O find ich ihn heut’. 1105) [G“Sieglinde] (‘käm’ er aus Fremden zur ärmsten Frau’, 1106) [a“Sieglinde’s bitter pain] (‘was je ich gelitten’, 1108) [b=Sieglinde’s shame] (‘Schmach’, 1114) [D=SiegUde’s sweet vengeance]

467 695.

(‘süsseste Rache’, 1117) [a=Sieglinde’s purity, virginity] (‘Eijagt hält’ ich was je ich verlor’, 1120)

696. 697. 698. 699. 700.

Xm. 701. 702. 703. 704. 705. 706. 707. 708. 709. 710. 711. 712. 713.

[G^motherhood (speculative)] (‘war mir gewonnen fänd’ ich den heiligen Freund’, 1123) [g=motherhood] (‘Dich, selige Frau’, 1130) [D/G=foreordained Hero] (‘dem Waffe und Weib he stimmt!’, 1136) [e=Wedding Oath] (der Eid’, 1140) [G=the gloiy of Sieglinde’s beating heart] (‘halt’ ich dich Hehre unfangen’, fühl’ ich dein schlagendes Herz!’, 1159) B b Major [1163-1262] [B b =the Spring equinox] (‘Winterstürme wichen dem Wonnemond’, 1183) [c=winter and storm] (‘Winter und Sturm’, 1205) [g=Spring’s martial strokes] (‘wohl musste den tapfem Streichen’, 1207) [F=desire’s embrace] (‘Zu seiner Schwester schwang er sich her; die Liebe lockte den Lenz’, 1215) [e=hidden love] (‘m uns’rem Busen barg sie sich tief, 1223) [C=UOHT] (‘nun lacht sie selig dem Licht’, 1229) [c=ruined winter] (‘zertrümmert liegt was je sie getrermt’, 1234) [Db=zenith of bliss, heaven] (‘vereint sind Liebe und Lenz’, 1237) [E b =female longing for Spring] (‘du bist der Lenz nach dem ich verlangte’, 1246)» [c=fiosty winter-time] (‘in frostigen Winters Frist’,‘1250) [g=dread of Spring] (‘Dich grflsste mein Herz nüt heiligem Grau’n’, 1253) [b b =Siegnnmd’s fatal look] (‘als dein Blick zuerst mir erblüte’, 1259) [db=exile] (‘Fremdes nur sah ich von je’, 1262)

XIV. 714. 715. 716. 717. 718. XV. 719. 720. 721. 722. 723. 724. 725. XVI. 726. 727.

A Major [1263-81] [fjt“Strangers, not km] (‘freundlos war mir das Nahe’, 1264) [c tt =far off unknown things] (‘als hätt’ ich nie es gekaimt’, 1266) [E=love (kin)] (‘Doch dich kannt ich deut lieh und klar’, 1270) [A=Sieglinde’s secret heart] (‘warst du mein Eigen; was im Büsen im barg’, 1275) [B=Sieglinde’s being] (‘was ich bin’, 1281) Db Major [1282-1316] [A b =a holy day] (‘hell wie der Tag’, 1282) [Db“self-knowledge] (‘taucht’ es mir auf, 1284) [c=echoing winter tones] (‘wie tönender Schall schlug’s an mein Ohr, als in frostig’, 1286) [bb=cold distance] (‘Fremde’, 1291) [D b “Vision of Salvation] (‘erst ich den Freund ersah.’ 1292) [G b=threshhold of heaven] (‘O süsseste Wonne!’, 1297) [G b “holy radiance] (‘den hehren Schein’, 1309) Eb Major [1317-29] [Eb=Sieglinde’s radiance] (‘Im Lenzesmond leuchtest du heil’, 1317) [g=snare] (‘was nuch berückt’, 1327)

xvn. C Major [1330-1443] 728. 729.

730. 731. 732.

[Oknowing through seeing] (‘errath’ ich nun ieicht derm wonnig weidet mein Blick’, 1330) [C=twisting blood-veins in tenerle] (‘Wie dir die Stirn so offen steht, der Adern Geäst in den Schläfen sich schlingt!’, 1337) [E“marvelous image] (‘Ein Wunder will mich gemahnen’, 1346) [C=numinous image] (‘frnBach erblickt’ ich mein eigen Bild’, 1360) [F=sexual desire] (‘Du bist das Bild das ich in mir barg’, 1375)

468 733. 734. 735. 736. 737. 738. 739. 740. 741. 742. 743. 744.

745. 746.

[d=Siegmund, memory of] (‘mich dünkt, ihren Klang hört ich als Kind’, 1383) [C=sudden insight] (‘Doch nein! ’ 1385) [F=desire] (‘O lieblichste Laute’, 1393) [a=recent glance] (‘Deines Auges Gluth erglänzte mir schon’, 1400) [E=The Stranger] (‘so blickte der Gries’, 1404) [.^=The Stranger’s child] (‘An dem Blipk erkannt’ ihn sein Kind’, 1412) [D =The Stranger’s Name] (‘schon wollt’ ic]i beim Namen ihn nennen’, 1415) [g=Wehwalt] (‘Wehwalt heisst du flirwahr?‘ 1^9) [a=Sieglinde] (iseit du mich liebst’, 1422) [D=heroic success] (‘nun wait’ ich der hehrsten Wonnen!’ 1424) [c=not Friedmund] (‘Und Friedmund darfst du &oh dich nicht nennen?’, 1428) [F/d=Wolfe] (‘Doch nanntest du Wolfe den Vater?’ 1435) [E=the Stranger’s glance] (‘Doch dem so stolz strahlte das Auge, wie. Herrliche, hehr dir es strahlt’, 1438) [OWälse] (‘Wâlsç genannt,’ 1443)

XVUI. G Major [1444-1599] 747. [D=SIEGMUND] (‘Siegmund, so nenn’ ich dich!’ 1452) 748. [b=Siegmund] (‘Siegmund heiss’ ich’, 1454) 749. [C=Wälse’s sword] (‘Bezeug es diess Schwert...Wälse verheiss mir’, 1460) 750. [a=Siegmund’s need] (in höchster Nod^fänd’ ich es einst’, 1466) 751. [G=4iilt] (‘ich fass’ es nun!’, 1471) 752. [estimate need] (‘Heiligster Minne höchste Noth’, 1476) 753. [bk=death-fire] (‘brennt mir hell in der BrusVdrängt zu That und Tod’, 1485) 754. [e/E=Noöiung] (‘Nolhung! So nenn’ ich dich Schwert,’ 1493) 755. [bb=envious Steel] (neidlicher

756.

757. 758. 759. 760. 761. 762. 763. 764. 765. 766. 767. 768.

Stahl!’ 1503) [fÿ »rBvelation] (‘Zeig’ deiner Schärfe schneidenden Zahn!’ 1505) (•an isolated and fimctionless chord) [g=tree-stem] (‘zumir!’1510) [C=Sword] passim., 1513) [a=Wälsung, esp. Sieglinde] (‘Siegmund der Wälsung siehst du, Weib!’ 1520) [B=Wedding-sword] (Als Breutgabe bringt et diess Schwert’, 1526) [G=Sieglinde] ‘So freit er sich die seligste Frau’, 1527) [a=foeman’s house] (‘dem Feindeshaus’, 1531) [e=escape] (führt er dich so’, 1533) [B=far county in spring] (‘Fern von hier folge mir nun, fort in des Lenzes lachendes Haus’, 1536) [G=laying with the woman] (‘wenn Siegmund dir liebend erlag!’, 1547) [D=Siegmund] (‘Bist du Siegmund’, 1553) [G=Sieglinde] (‘Sieglinde bin ich’, 1557) [e=hoped for son] (‘So blühe denn WälsungenBlut!’, 1572)

Zweiter Aufzng. XDC. A minor [1600-89] 769. [a=storm and stress] (passim., 1600) 770. [d=War-FaÜier] (‘Nun zäume dein Ross, reissige Maid: bald entbrennt brünstiger Streit’, 1673) 771. [a=stonn and stress] (‘Brünnhilde stürme zum Streit’, 1673) 772. [b=death-angel; victory in battle] (‘dem Wälsung kiese sie Sieg!’,, 1680) 773ab. [g/e=Nadir (Hunding’s place)] (‘Unding wähle sich, wem er gehört’, 1682) 774ab. [d/a= War-Father, Lot Chooser + storm and strife] (‘Nach Walhalltaugt er mir nicht‘, 1684) 775. [b=death field] (‘reite zur Wal’, 1689)

469 XX. 776. 777.

778. 779. 780. 781. 782. 783. 784. XXI. 785. 786. 787. 788. 789. 790. 791. 792. 793. 794.

795. 796. 797.

B minor [1690-1750] [bíB=Valkyrie, death angel] (‘Hojo-to-ho!’ 1690) [d=War Father, Lot Chooser] (‘Dir rath’ ich, Vater, rüste dich selbst’, 1713) [a=Fricka] (‘Fricka naht, deine Frau’, 1716) [e=ranis, whipped] (‘im Wagen mit dem Widder gespann’, 1717) [a=storm and strife] (‘zornig fährt sie zum Zank’,1722) [Odelight] (‘In solchem Strausse streit’ ich nicht gern*, 1726) [a==human strife] (‘muthiger Männer Schlacht’, 1726) [b=Valkyrie, deadi angel] (‘Ho-joto-ho!’, 1729) [d=War Father, Lot Chooser] (passim., 746) C minor [1751-1869] [c=Fricka’s demand] (‘Wo in Bergen du dich birgst’, 1763) [C=tidings] (‘Was Fricka kümmert, künde sie frei’, 1771) [b b=vengeance] (‘Ich vernahm Hunding’s Noth, um Rache’, 1772) [c=wedlock’s guardian] (‘der Ehe Hüterin hörte ihn’, 1779) [El>=Eros, Oneness] (‘Was so schlimmes schuf das Paar das liebend einte der Lenz?’ 1787) [B b “Logos, Separation] (“wer büsst mir der Minne Macht?’ 1792) [f=*stupid] (‘Wie friörig und taub du dich seilst’, 1795) [e b “profaned wedlock] (‘der Ehe heUigenEid’, 1799) [b b=unholiness] (‘Unheilig acht’ ich den Eid, der Unliebepde eint’, 1799) [D b “divine authority] (‘denn wo kühn Kräfte sich regen, da rath’ ich offen zum Krieg’, 1809) [bb=suprcme condemnation] (‘dass Blutscande entblüht dem Bund eines Zwilligspaar’s!’ 1818) [B b =new C5«:le, innovation] (‘Heut hast du’s erlebt!’ 1831) [Eb=Bond] (‘Siegmund’s und Sieglinde’s Bund’, 1848)

798. 799. 800. 801. 802. 803. XXn.

804. 803. 806. 807. 808. 809.

810. 811. 812. 813. 814. 815.

816. 817. 818.

[a b “Godhead passing] (‘So ist es denn aus mit den ewigen Götter’, 1851) [d b “Wotah’s bidden thought] (‘traf ich den Sinn?’, 1857) [e t> “brökenhonds?] (‘Nichts gilt dir & Hehren heilige Sippe!’, I860)' [a b“passing of godhead] (‘Hin wirfst du Alles was einst du geachtet’, 1864) [d b “Wotan’s bond-breaking self] (‘die selbst du gebunden’, 1867) [D*“Wotan’s lost grip] (‘lösest lachend des Himmels Haft’, 1869) GH minor [1870-1948]

[g“capriciousness, freakishness] (‘dass nach Lust und Laune nur walte’, 1872) [b=outrageous, inçious] (‘frevelnde’, 18?4) [E“illegitimate offspring] (‘deiner Untreue zuchtlose’, 1876) [g|t=FRICKA, Scorned Wife] (‘O was klag’ ich lun Ehe und Eid’, 1880) [.c H “Wotan] (‘du selbst sie versehrt’, 1883) [B“concupiscence, sickening jeering] (‘lugte lüstern dein Blick...und höhnend kränktest mein Hetz’, 1890) [g tt “FRICKA, saddened in spirit] (‘Trauern den Sinnes musst Ich’s ertragen’, 1897) [cH “Wotan, shaming her] (‘zogst du zur Schlacht’, 1899) [d|l“those bad girls] (‘mit dem schlimmen Mädchen’, 1900) [g)l“FRICKA] (‘denn dein Weib noch scheutest du so’, 1904) [E=Wotan’s regard] (‘dass der Walküren Scb^’, 1905) [A“Wish-Bridé; Spiritual-Bride] (‘Brünnhilde selbst, deines Wunsches Braut’, 1906) [FH “submissive condescension] (‘in Gehorsam’, 1909) [Ö“Valkyries] (‘der Herrin du gabst’, 1910) [0=new names/Wälse] (‘da dir

470 819. 820. 821. 822. 823.

neue Namen gefielen’, 1912) [ci “Wotan, shamed] (‘da zu neidrigster Schmach du dich neigtest’, 1917) [Gi=cúp, Fricka’s runneth over] (‘So führ’ es denn aus’, 1929) [ci=POURER, Wotan as] (‘Fülle das Maas!’, 1932) [g)t=FRICKA, shamed] (‘less’ auch zertreten! ’,1935) [a=bad student] (‘Nicht lerntest du, wo^’ ich dich lehren, was nie du erkennOT kannst’, 1942)

XXin. C Major [1949-2020] 824. [Ci/Db=^otan] (‘doch’, 1950) 825. [C=Great Idea] (‘danach trachtet mein Sinn’, IMl) 826. [d=hero(Siegmund)] (‘Noth thut ein Held’, 1956) 827. [F=independence] (‘der ledig göttlichen Schutzes, sich lösse vom

1958) [magic ring, fieeing o£] (‘So nur taugt er zu wirken die That die, wie Noth sie den Göttern, dem Gott doch zu wirken verwehrt’, 1962) [deep, cozening meanings] (‘Mit tiefem Sinne, willst du mich tauschen’, 1971) [G=minions] (‘was Hehres sollten Helden je wirken, das ihren Göttern wäre verwehrt, deren Gunst in ihnen nur wirkt’, 1974) [D=heros’ courage] (‘Ihres eig’nen Mufhes achtest du nicht?’ 1980) Göttergesetz’,

828.

829. 830.

831. 832. 833. 834. 835. 836. 837. 838.

[G=minions] (‘Wer hauchte Menschen ihn ein?’ 1981)

[a=dull-witted sight] (‘Wer hellte den Blöden den Blick?’ 1983) [F=strenglh] (‘In deinem Schutz scheinen sie stark’, 1984) [d=heroes, struggling] (‘durch deinen Stachel streben sie auf, 1986) [a=agitation, storm and strife] (‘du reizest sie einzig’, 1987) [e=deed, heroic (e.g., winning ring)] (‘die so mir Ew’gen du rühmst’, 1988) [a=new cunning] (‘Mit neuer List’, 1989)

839. 840. 841. 842. 843. 844. 845.

[b=deadWälsui^] (‘diesen Wälsung gewinnst du dir nicht’, 1992) [d=Siegmund, like father like son] (‘in ihm treff ich nur dich’, 1993) [G=minion] (‘denn durch dich trotzt er allein’, 1995) [a=heroic afflictions] (‘In wildem leiden erwuchs er sich selbst’, 1996) [g=double-cross] (‘Nimm ihm das Schvrert, das du ihm geschenkt’, 2004) [*C=Great Idea, sword] (‘Das Schwert?’ 2006) [a=heroic afflictions] (‘Siegmund gewann es sich selbst in der Noth’, 2012)

XXIV. C Minor [2021-2115] 846. [c=pursuing female Fate] (’Willst du mich täuschen, die Tag und Nacht auf den Fersen dir folgt?’ 2019) 847. [bb=unworlhy opponents] (‘Mit Unfeien streitet kein Edler’, 2037) 848. [ab =T)unishers (e.g., Fricka) 849. [db=Wotan’s power demoted] (‘Wider deine Kraft führt’ ich wohl Krieg’, 2046) . 850. [eb“slave] (‘doch Siegmund verfiel mir als Knecht’, 2049) 851. [bb=impotence, god’s] (‘Wotan...dann Versinken in das Gefühl seiner Ohnmacht’, 2053) 852. [Db=Wotan](‘Derdirals...’, 2059) 853. [c=bondsman (‘...Herren hörig und eigen’, 2061) 854. [bb “unworthy opponent] (‘gehorchen soll ilun dein ewig Gamahl?’ 2061) 855. [eb=shame, goddess’s] (‘2063) 856. [b b “bass ones] (‘der niedrigste schmähen’, 2065) 857. [frimpudent fieedmen] (‘dem Frechen zum Sporn, dem Freien zum Spott?’ 2067) 858. [*D b“Wotan] (‘mein Gatte’, 2069) 859. [c“goddess, shamed] (‘die Göttin entweiht er nicht so! ’ 2071) 860. [G=Wotan defeated] (‘Was

471 861. 862. 863. 864. 865. 866. 867. 868. 869. 870. 871.

verlangst du?’ 2080) [d=Siegmund] (‘Er geh’seines Weg’s’, 2087) [g=Siegmund unprotected] (‘Doch du schütze ihm nicht’, 2089) [c=Hunding] (‘wenn zur Schlacht ihn der Rächer ruft!’ 2091) [d b =Wotan wiggling] (‘Ich schütze ihn nicht’, 2094) [B b b(=A)=Liar] (‘Sieh’ mir ihn’s Auge; sinne nicht Trag’, 2095) [f=VaIkyrie] (‘die Walküre wend’ auch von ihm!’, 2098) [g b =delusion of fireedom] (‘Die Walküre walte...’, 2101) [*D=hetoine] (‘...fiel.’, 2104) [g=minion] (‘Nicht doch: deinen Willen vollbringt sie allein;’ 2104) [c=pursuer, Siegmund’s] (‘verbiete ihr Siegmund’s Sieg!’ 2105) [*D b =Wotan]/[c=Fricka] (‘in heiligen itmeren Kartqrf ausbrechend’, 2108)

XXV. C Major [2116-23] 872. [C=Grosse Gedanken/Sword] (‘er fand mein Schwert’, 2115) 873. [a=useless sword] (‘Entzieh’ dem den Zauber’, 2118) 874. [*e=inçotent magic] (‘Zauber’, 2119) 875. [•C=shieldlessness] (‘Schutzlos’, 2122) 876. [b=death, enemy] (‘find ihn der Feind’, 2123) XXVI. Bnünor [2124-34] 877. [b=Valkyrie] (‘Heiaha! ’, 2124) 878. [D=Siegmund] (‘Ich rief sie für Siegmund’, 2132) 879. [f)l=ride, horse] (‘zuRoss!’2133) XXVn. C Major [2135-37] 880. [*c=Friclm] (passim, 2136)

XXVm. C minor [2138-2186] 881.

882. 883.

[E b =eternal Goddess] (‘Deiner ewgen Gattin’, 2140) [c=etemal Goddess shattKd] (‘Von Menschen verlacht, verlustig der Macht’, 2145) [D b=gods] (‘gingen wir Götter zu’.

884. 885. 886. 887. 888. 889.

2147) [Gb=gods demoted] (‘Grund!’, 2148) [e b=Goddess’ rights and honor] (‘mein Recht...meiner Ehre’, 215056) [Eb=Goddess triumphant] (‘Fricka schreitet dem Hintergründe’, 2164) [c=bad news] (‘lass’ ihn dir künden’, 2174) [E b =Fricka’s judgment] (‘wie das Loos er gekiesst’, 2176) [a b “Fricka’s scora avenged] (passim, 2179)

XXIX. C Major [2187-2205] 890. [g=abject moral sprawling, Wotan’s] (‘In eig’ner Fessel fing ich mich, ich tmfi-eiester Aller! ’, 2199) 891. [d=War-Father’s tortured heart] Cwas nagt dir das Herz?’ 2207) XXX. F minor [2206-2236] 892. [f=Wotan Agonistes] (‘O heilige Schmach!’ 2212) 893. [*D b=Wotan crazed and helpless] (passim, 2212) 894. [bb=grief, eternal] (‘Ewiger Gram!’*2230) 895. [f=sorrow, divine] (‘Der Traurigste bin ich von Allen! ’ 2232) XXXI, C Major [2237-2285] 896. [c=bad news] (‘Vater! Vater! Sage WM ist dir?’ 2237) 897. [B b =supplication, benign] ÖBrünnbilde bittet’ 2244) 898. [a=clouded Will] (Lass’ ich’s verlauten,lös’ ich Hann nicht meines Willens haltenden Haft?’ 2262) [A=Wotap’s Will] (‘Zu Wotan’s 899. Willen sprichst du, sagst du mir was du willst, wer bin ich, wär ich dein Wille nicht?’ 2265) 900. [a=intimate confession] (‘mit mir nur rath’ ich, red’ ich zu dir’, 2281)

xxxn. 901.

Ab Major [2286-2302] [ab =aspiration for power] (‘verlangte nach Macht mein

472 902. 903.

Muth’, 2293) [*E b =the world] (gewann ich mir die Welt’, 2294) [*Fb(E)=love] (‘Von der Liebe doch mocht’ ich nicht lassen’, 2301)

XXXm. C Major [2303-12] [b=Alberich’s Curse] (‘Den Nacht 904. gebar, der bange Nibelung Alberich br^ch ihren Bund; er fluchte der Lieb’ und gewann durch den Fluch’, 2303) [C=LIGHT, brightness] (‘Rheines 905. glänzendes Gold’, 2306) [c=measureless might] (‘und mit 906. ihm maasslose Macht’, 2307) [a=cunning deceit (aka Loge)] 907. (‘Den Ring, de^er schuf, entriss ich ihm listig’, 23M) [A=bad bargain, LÒge’s] (‘mit ihm 908. bezahlt’ ich Walhall’s Zinnen’, 2311) XXXIV. A Major [2313-79] 909. [C tl (D b )=Walhall] (‘aus der ich der Welt mm gebot’, 2314) 910. [c)l=Erda](‘Die Alles weiss, was ernsten war, Erda’, 2317) 911. [ g tl=oppressed heart] (‘Da verlor ich den leichten Muth’, 2325) 912. [a=knorving] (‘zu wissen begehrt’ es den Gott’, 2326) 913. [bb=WorldWonib] (‘inden Schoos der Welt’, 2327) 914. [c(t=Love-tnagic]'(mit Liebes Zauber zwang ich die Wala’, 2328) 915. [A=wisdom] (‘Kunde ençfing ich von ihr’, 2331) 916. [E=Love=remaiiimg] (‘Verweile, 989. süssestes Weib!’, 2796) [Db=heaven] (‘Aus Wonne 990. Entzücken’, 2799) [B b=distancing] (‘jagtest du fort 991. kaum folgt’ ich der wilden Flucht’, 2804) [ehrest] (‘Ruhe nun aus’, 2819) 992. [A b=rema!ning] (‘Sieh dein Bruder 993. hält seine Braut’, 2826) [Ohusband] (‘Siegmund ist dir 994. GeseU!’ 2833)' [D b=heavenly raptare] (‘von der 995. süssesten Wonne heiligster Weihe, die ganz ihr Siim und Seele durchdrang’, 2886) [b b=loathing and horror] (‘Grauen 996. und Schätzer’, 2896) [c=hateful dishonor] (‘ob 996. grässlichster Schande, musste mit’. 2898). [fi=scream] (‘Schreck die 998. Schmähliche fassen’, die je dem Manne gehorcht, und ohne Mitme sie hielt!’, 2900) [bb=separation] (Lass’ die 999. Verfluclrte’, 2908) 1000. [c=fleeing woman] (‘lass’ sie dich fliehn!’,^909) 1001. [d=the purest man (Siegmund)] (‘dir reinstem Manne’ 2916) 1002. [B b =separation] (‘muss ich entriimen,’ 2920)

1003. 1004. 1005. 1006. 1007.

[b b=shame] (‘Schande bring ich dem Bruder’, 2923) [f=rescuer] (‘Schmach dem Seienden Freund!’ 2926) [b b=shame, payback] (‘Was je Schande dir schuf, 2930) [c=Hunding’s blood=vengeance] (‘das büsst nun des Frevlers Blut! ’ 2933) [bb=enerrnes] (Horch! Die Hörner, hörst du den Ruf?’ 2946)

XXXIX. A minor [2956-76] 1008. [a=gathering foemen] (‘Sippen und Himde ruft er zusmamen” 2957) 1009. [b=heaven’s vengeance] (‘um der Ehe gebrochenen Eid’, 2964) 1010. [b=Siegmund slipping away] (‘Wo bis du Siegrmmd?’ 2970) XXXX. F miiior [2977-3038] 1011. [ab=Eye-star] (‘Deines Auges Stern’, 2977) 1012. [bb “rejection] (‘wehre dem Kuss’ des verworfnen Weibes nicht! ’ 2982) 1013. [c=Hunding’s dogs] (‘Seine Meute naht mit mächf ger Wehr’, 2992) 1014. [^abandoned sword] (‘Kein Schwert formmt vor der Hunde Schwall: wirf es fort, Siegntund,’ 2996) 1015. [g=Tree, falling] (‘die Esche stürzt’, 3020) 1016. [c=Tree, split] (‘es bricht der Staimn’, 3021) 1017. [c/eb=swoon] (‘Sie sinkt ohnmächtig in Siegmtmds Arme’, 3027) 1018. [F=loving anxiety] (‘Er lauscht ihrem Athem und überzeugt sich dass sied noch lebe’, 3031) XXXXI. A minor [3039-3057] 1019. [d=Siegmund in tableau] (‘mit ihrem Haupte auf seinem Schooss zu ruhen kommt’, 3039) 1020. [F->Bb “loving kiss flom dying Spring] (‘und mit einem langen Kusse ihr die Stirne küsst.’ 3048)

475

Vierte Scene. XXXXn. Fj» minor [3058-3069]

1021. 1022.

[e=darkening shadows (containing •d=Siegmund)] (3058) [f)t -*b=heavenly messenger, soul guide] (3066)

XXXXni.Db Major [3070-3086] 1023. [Db=WalhaU](3082) XXXXTV. F# minor [3087-98] 1022. [f)l-*-b=heavenly messenger, soulguide] (“Siegmundr, 3082) 1023. [ab=upward journey] (‘Ich bin’s, der bald du flog’st’, 3089) 1024. [fjl -►b=heavenly messenger, soul guide] (‘Wer bist du, sag’ die so schön und ernst mir Erscheint?’ 3094) XXXXV. D b Major [3099-3112] 1025. [ab=death] (‘NurTodgeweighten tangt mein Anblick’, 3099) 1026. [B b=warfield] (‘Auf der Walstatt allein’, 3106) 1027. [G b =heavenly messenger, soul guide] (‘erschein’ ich Edlen wer mich gewalirt, zur Wal kor ich ihn mir!’3107)' XXXXVl. Fjt minor [3113-60] 1028. [f)i=journeying, following] (‘Der dir nun folgt, wohin führst du den Helden?’ 3126) 1029. [A=Warfather] (‘Zu Walvater, der dich gewählt, führ’ ich dich’, 3131) 1030. [E=Walhall] (‘nach Walhall folgst du mir’, 3134) 1031. [a=comrades](‘InWalhall’sSaal Walvater find’ ich allein?’ 3139) 1032. [D=heroes] (‘Gefall’ner Helden hehre Schaar umfäng dich hold mit chochheiligcmGruss.’ 3142) 1033. [b=deatìi?] (‘Fand’ ich in Walhall Wälse, deç eig’nen?’ 3149) 1034. [E=beloved father?) (‘...Vater?’ 3152)’ 1035. [C=Father] (‘Den Vater findet der Wälsung dort!’ 3153) 1036. [A=a woman] (‘Grtisst mich in Walhall firoheine Frau?’ 3157)

XXXXVn.Db Major [3161-72] 1037. [Db»Wish Maidens] (‘Wunschmädschen walten dortlielir’, 3161) 1038. [Ab»Ci^Bearers] (‘Wotan’s Tochter reicht dir traulich den Trank!’ 3164) XXXXVni. Flf minor [3173-3274] 1039. [BÆ=Valkyrie] (‘Hehr bist du: und heilig gewahr ich das Wotan’s kind’, 3173) 1040. [f(t “heavenly messenger, soulguide] (‘doch Eines sag’ mir, du We’ge!’ (3178) 1041. [F#=good greeting] (‘Begleitet’, 3183) 1042. [•D/b=Siegmund] (‘den Bruder’ 1034) 1043. [*Ó7/b=Sieglinde] (‘die bräutliche Schwester?’ 3185) 1044. [bî=death] (himfangt Siegmund ,Sieglinde dort?’ 3187) 1045. [djt=earth] (‘Erdenluft muss sie noch athmen, Sieglinde dieht Siegmund dort nicht.’ 3196) 1046. [A»Sieglinde] (‘Siegmund neigt sich sanft über Sieglinde, küsst sie leise auf die Stim und wendet sich ruhig wieder zu Brünnhilde’ 3198) 1047. [D=Siegipund] (‘So grüsse mir Walhall’, 3203) 1048. [E=Wotan] (‘grüsse mir Wotan’, 3205) 1049. [fjt »heavenly messenger] (‘grüsse mir’, 3207) 1050. [C)t “heavenly host] (‘Wälse’ und alle Helden’, 3208) 1051. [*G (t /C tt ] (‘grüss’ auch die holden Wunschesmädchen’, 3211) 1052. [A=rejection of messenger] Czuihnen folg’ ich dir nicht!’ 3213) 1053. [ffl^heavenly messenger] (‘Du sah’st der Walküre, 3219) 1054. [b=death-glance] (‘sehrenden BHck’, 3221) 1055. [fji“long journey] (‘mit ihr mustt du nun zieh’n! ’ 3222) 1056. [E=cleaving fest to purpose, love, decision] (‘Wo Sieglinde lebt in Lust und Leid, da will Siegmund auch säumen’, 3225)

476 [b=death-glance] (‘noch machte dein Blick’, 1058. [c)t=c!eaving fest to purpose, love, decision] (‘vom Bleiben zwingt er mich nie!’ 3241) 1059. [F=life’s strengdt] (‘So lang du lebst’, 3243) 1060. [g=useless force] (‘zwäng’ dich wohl nichts’, 3245) 1061. [c=fbad news] (‘ihn dir zu künden kam ich her’, 3250) 1062. [C=good news] (‘Wo wäre der Held i)em heut’?’ 3254) 1063. [b=deaà] (‘ich fiel?’, 3255) 1064. [E) (‘Hunding feilt dich im Streit’, 3256) 1065. [A}==collapsed threat (‘Mit stärkrem drohe'’x^258) 1066. [D}(‘als Hunding^ Streichen’, 3259) V 1067. [b=deafii] (‘Laurest du hier’, 3259) 1068. [A=successfiil fight] (‘ich denk’ ihn zu fellm im Kan^fl’ 3262) 1069. [f)l “heavenly messenger] (‘höre nñch wohl’ 3265) 1070. [F=sword] (‘Kennst du diess Schwert? Der mir es schuf, beschied mir Sieg’, 3268) 1071. [B^eavenly threats] (‘deinem Drohen trote’ ich mit ilmi!’ 3272) 1072. [C=bestower] (‘Der dir es schuf, beschied dir jetzt Tod...’ 3275)

L. 1081.

XXXXIX. B b minor [3275-3309] 1073. [eb=recaller (of sword)] (‘seine Tugend’, 3276) 1074. [b b “treason] (‘nimmt er dem Schwert!’ 3277) 1075. [eb “saddest wife] (‘Süssestes Weib! Du traurigste aller getreuen!” 3282) 1076. [f=hòstility] (‘Gegen dich wüthet’, 3287) 1077. [g=weapons] (‘in Waffen die Welt’, 3288) 1078. [b b “traitor] (‘Und ich dem du einzig vertraut’, 3290) 1079. [eb=shame] (‘Ha Schande ihm der das Schw^ ttóÉ schürf, beschied’ er mir Schmq;)f für Sieg!’ 3298) 1080. [b b=hell] ‘Hella halte mich fest!’ 3307)

1095.

1057.

1082. 1083. 1084. 1085. 1086. 1087. 1088. 1089. 1090. 1091. 1092. LI. 1093. 1094.

1096. 1097. LH. 1098. 1099. 1100. 1101. 1102. 1103.

Ftt minor [3310-68] [fll“heavenly messenger] (‘So wenig achtest du ewige Wonne?’ 3312) [b=merciless angel] (‘filhlose Maid!’ 3332) [e“lovelessness] (‘nur von Wallhall’s spröden Wonnen sprich du wahrlich mir nicht! ’3339) [a=heroic need] (‘Ich sehe die Notti’, 3345) [d=heroic heart] (‘die das Herz dir zernagt’, 3346) [b=heroic grief] (‘ich fühle des Helden heiligen Harm’ 3347) [f|l “heavenly messenger] (passim. 3349) [G=wife] (‘Siegmund, befiel mir dein Weib’, 3351) [b“sheild-maiden] (‘mein Schute umfange sití'fest!’ 3352) [c“pure one (soll die Reine leben berüttmen’, 3357) [ftt“heavenly messenger] (‘befiehl mir dein Weib’, 3364) [a=failed sword] (‘dies Schwert’, 3368) A minor [3369-84] [a“two-faced sword] (‘flrommt es nicht gegen den Feind’, 3373) [c=two-faced sworä] (‘so fi:omm’ es den wider den Freund’, 3374) [fi=two huthan lives] (‘Leben lachen dir hier:’, 3377) [fjt “death-blow] (‘nimm sie. Nottiun^, neidlicher Stahl!’ 3379) [g=death-blow] (‘nimm sie mit einem Streich!’ 3381) F# minor [3385-3459] [cj) “changed decision] (‘Höre mein Wort!’ 3386) [F(t “Siegmund lives] (‘und Siegmund leben mit ihr!’, 3394) [d(t “Changed decree] (‘Beschlossen lat’s;’, 3397) [A“Siegmund victorious] (‘schafïï ich Segen und Sieg!’, 3403) [e=enemy’s call] (‘Hörst du den Ruf?’ 3407) [a“(false) trusty blade] (‘Traue dem

477 1104. 1105. 1106. 1107. 1108.

Lin. 1109. 1110. 1111. 1112.

Schwert’, 3410) [C=(false) trusty blade] (‘und schwing’ es getrost:’, 3411) [F=weapon] (‘treu hält dir die Wehr’, 3412) [C=(false) protection] (‘wie die Walküre treu dich schütz!’ 3415) [a”battlefield] (‘Auf der Walstatt seh’ ich dich wieder!’, 3421-53) [e=magic sleep] (‘Siegmund neigt sich wieder über Sieglinde, den Athem lauschend: ‘Zauberfest bezähmt ein Schlaf, 3457) A minor [3460-71] [g=dealhlike exhaustion] (‘Schmerz und Harm’, 3462) [c=unconscious] (‘Da die Walküre zu mir trat’, 3465) [E b=wondrous sleep] (‘schuf sie ihr den wonnigen Trost?’ 3466) [g =furious fight] ‘Sollte die grimmige Wal nicht schrecken ein gramvolles Weib’? (3470)

LIV. 1113.

Bb Major [3472-84] [B b=Spring] (‘Traum’, 3482)

LV. 1114.

A minor [3485-3509] [g=battle] (‘bid die Schlacht gekânçft’, 3487) [D=Peace] (‘und Friede dich erfireu’!’ 3490) [E=kiss] (‘Er legt sie sanfi auf den Steinsitz, und küsst ihr zum Abschied die Stime’ 3492) [a=farewell] (passim) [g=battlel-call] (veminunt Hunding’s Honuuf, 3498) [OSword] (‘Nothung zahlt’ ihm den Zoll!’, 3502)

1115. 1116. 1117. 1118. 1119.

LVI.Bb Major [3510-62] 1120. [g/bb=daik storm cloud] (‘sogleich in finstrem Gewittergewölk, aus welchen als bald WettêrÎeuchten aufblitzt’, 3510) 1121. [bb “vulnerability] (‘Kehrte der Vater nun heim!’ 3529) T122. [a=dark vapors, licking flames] (‘Schwarze Dânçfe schwüles Gedünst’, feurige Lohe leckt

1123. 1124.

swchon nach uns’, 3527) [bb=thunder clouds] (‘schwarze Gewitterwolken’ 35M) [g=Wehwalt] (‘Wehwalt! Wehwalt!’ 3543)

LVn. C Major [3563-74] 1125. [d=armed hero] (‘Droh’st du mit Frauen,’ 3564) 1126. [a=sword ih tree] (‘Derm sieh’: deines Hauses heimischem Stamm’, 3566) 1127. [Oconqueting sword] (‘entzog ich zaglos das Schwert’, 3568) 1128. [g=battling héros] (‘Haltet ein, ihr Männer: mordet erst mich!’ 3572)

LVin. B minor [3575-82] 1129.

1130. LDL 1131. 1132. 1133. LX. 1134.

n^Valkyrie] (‘Triff’ ihn, Siegmund! Traue dem Schwert!’ 3578) [D=Hero] (passim, 3582)

C Major [3583-92] glowing red light] (‘ein glöüiend röthlicher Schein durch das Gewölk aus’, 3583) [c=broken sword] (‘Siegmund’s Schwert zerspringvt an dem vorgehaltenen Speere’, 3585) [e=broken magic] (‘Siegmund stürzt todt zu Boden’, 3588) D minor [3593-3662] [d=Siegmund fallen] (‘Mit Siegn^d’s Fall’, 3593)

Dritter Aufzug. LXI. 1135.

B minor [3663-3719] [b=Valk^es] (passim, 3663)

LXn. 1136.

B Major [3720-39] [B=Valkyries] (passim, 3720)

LXra. B minor [3740-80] i 137. [e=rest, grazing] (‘Zu Ortlinde’s Stute stell’ deinen Hengst’, 3741) 1138. [Drhero] (‘Wer hängt dir im Sattel?’ ‘Sinholt derHegeling!’ 3744) 1139. [b=enemies] (‘Führ deinen

478

1140. 1141. 1142. 1143.

Brauimen fort von der Grauen; Ortlinde’s Mähre trägt Wittig, den Inning!’ 3746) [f)t=horses] (‘Als Feinde nur sah’ ich Sintolt und Wittig!’ 3749) [G=cottdc fight] (‘Heiaha!Die Stute stösst mir der Hengst!’ 3751) [f(t =horses] (‘Der Recken Zwist entzweit noch die Rosse!’ 3755) [D=h^es (e.g., “woric”)] (‘Arbeit gab’s!t3766)

LXIV. B Major [3781-99] 1144. [B=Valk^es] (passim) LXV. 1145. 1146.

B minor [3800-75] [b=Valkyries] (jiassim, 3800) [G=woods] (‘in dèn Tann rufend’.

zu Rast und Weid!’ 3822) [f)l=hotses] (‘Ftihret die Mähren fen von einander’, 3826) 1149. [*D=heroes heated] (‘bis uns’rer Helden Hass sich gele^!’ 3828) 1150. [d=heroes cooling] (‘Ha ha ha ^ ha ha ha ha ha ha!’, 3830) 1151. [c tt “heavenly repercussions?] (‘Der Helden Grimm büss’te schon die Graue!’ (3832) 1152. [F# “riding] (‘War’t ihr Kühnen zu zwei?’ 3847) 1153. [g)t=junçing-off point (for heaven)?] (‘Getreimt ritten wir, und trafen uns heut’ 3848) 1154. [E=assembled sisters] (‘Sind wir alle versammelt’, 3850) 1155. [G= slain] (‘Wotan zu bringen die Wal’, 3856) 1156. [f)t “approaching Walhall] (‘sah’ ohne sie er uns nah’n’, 3865)

1148.

LXVI. C minor [3876-91] 1157. [c=VaIkyrie flight] (‘Sie spähen mit wachsender Vçrwunderm;®’, 3876) 1158. [bb “exhaustion] (‘Nach dem Tarnt lenkt’ sie das taumelnde Ross’, 3883) 1159. [c=Valkyrie flight] (‘Wie schnaubt Grane vom sctmellen Ritt!’ 3887)

LXm D minor [3892-3911] 1160. [d=hero] (‘Das ist kein Held! ’ 3894) 1161. [g=woman] (‘Eine Frau führt sie’, 3899) 1162. [b b “obliviousness to others] (‘mit keinem Gruss grüsst sie die Schwestern!’ 3904) 1163. [c=deafiiess] (‘Btünnhilde, hörst du uns nicht?’ 3906) 1164. [d=assistance] (‘Helft der Schwester vom Ross sich schwingen!’ 3910) LXVm. B minor [3912-26] 1165. [b=Valkyries] (‘Ho-jo-to-ho!’ 3913) 1166. [f=ground, earth] (‘Zu Grunde stürzt Grane’, 3916) 1167. [f)t=horse] (‘der Starke!’ 3919) 1168. [G*“SiegUndei (‘Aus dem Sattel hebt sie hastig das Weib! ’ 3921) 1169. [f|t “sister Valkyrie] (‘Schwester! Was ist gescheh’n?’ 3923) LXK. D minor [3927-4075] 1170. [a=support] (‘Alle Walküren kehren auf die Bühne zurück, mit ihnen kommmt Brünnhilde, Sieglinde unterstützend und hereii^eleftend’, 3927) 1171. [E=pursued woman] (‘und helft in höchster Noth!’, 3931) 1172. [d=War-Father, pursuer] (‘Herrvater hetzt mir nach!’, 3938) 1173. [E=pursued woman] (‘O Schwestern’, 3946) 1174. [bb=^understorm] (‘Gewittersturm naht von Norden’, 3955) 1175. [c“gathering clouds] (‘Starkes Gewölk staut sich dort auf!’, 3957) 1176. [d=wild Hunter] (‘Der wilde Jäger, der wüthend mich jagt’, 3963) 1177. [a=Sieglinde] (‘Sieglinde ist es’, 3971) 1178. [d=Siegmund] (‘Siegmund fiel; doch ich flöh fern’, 3983) 1179. [g^Sieglinde] (‘mit der Frau sie zu retten heilt’ ich’, 3985) 1180. [a=si^>port] (‘ob mich Bange auch ihr berget vor dem strafenden

479 1181. 1182. 1183. 1184. 1185. 1186. 1187. 1188. 1189. LXX. 1190. 1191. 1192. 1193. 1194. 1195. 1196. 1197. 1198. 1199. 1200. 1201.

1202.

1203.

Streich!’, 3988) [g=extiemis] (‘Bethöite Schwester’, 3992) [g==darkness] (‘Nächtig’,.4003) [d=War Father, hunter] (‘Wüttend steuert hieher der Sturm’, 4005) [g=neighing horse] (‘Wild wiehert Walvater’s Ross!’, 4008) [bk=fiightful danger] (‘Schrecklich schnaubt es daher!’, 4010) [d=War Father] (passim, 4018) [c )l =heaven denied] (‘Nicht sehre dich Sorge um mich’, [d=death (of Siegmund and Sieglinde)] (‘einzig taught mir der Tod’, 4047) [Oawakening, seeing] (‘Ein Wälsung wächst dir’, 4075) G Major [4076-4221] [e=womb] ( im Schoos’, 4076) [b=rescuing angel] (‘Rette mich Kühne!’, 4079) [d=unbom child] (‘Rette mein Kind!’, 4082) [c=nearing storm] (‘Der Sturm kommt heran!’, 4087) [d=danger] (‘Flieh’, wer ihn furchtet!’, 4089) [b=Valkyries] (‘der Walküren keine wag’ ihren Schutz!’, 4093) [g)t=pleading mother] (‘Rette die Mutter’, 4096) [E=point of decision] (‘Brüimhilde mid lebhaften Entschluss hebt Sieghnde äuf, 4097) [E=fleeing woman] (‘So fliehe den eilig und fliehe allein!’, 4100) [e=female sacrifice] (‘Ich bleibe zurück, beite mich Wotan’s Rache’, 4102) [G=Sieglinde, mother] (‘v^^hrend du seinem Rasen entrinnst’, 4107) [b=Eastem forest, dragon] (‘Nach Osten weithin dehnt sich ein Wald: der Niblungen Hoh entführte Fafiier dotdnn’, 4113) [e=dtagon hole/magic ring] (‘Wurmes-Gestalt schuf sich der Wilde: in einer Höhle hütet er Alberich’s Reif! ’4118) [e^helpless woman] (‘Nicht

1204. 1205. 1206. 1207. 1208. 1209. 1210. 12J1.

1212. 1213. 1214. 1215. 1216. 1217. 1218. 1219.

geheu’r ist’s dor für ein hülflos Weib’, 4122) [b=dreaded place] (‘ihn schent’ der Mächt’ge und meidet den Ort’, 4127) [b/d=War-Father, pursuer] (‘hör’ seines Nahen’s Gebraus!’, 4131) [C=swifl flight] (‘Fort derm eile’, 4135) [e=diíBcult flight] (‘Muthigen Trotzes ertrag’ alle Müh’n’, 4139) [a=hunger and thirst] (‘Hunger und Durst’, 4143) [Ogreatest hero] (‘den hehrsten Helden’, 4156) [Eb=Great Wther] (‘o Weib, hn sehirmenden Schoos!’ 4161) [b=breas^late] (‘Sie zieht die Stücken von Siegmund’s Schwert imter ihrem Panzer hervor, und überreicht sie Sieglinde’, 4165) [OSword’s strong fiagmets] (‘die starken Schwertes Stücken’, 4171) [d=Siegmund] (‘seines Vaters Walstatt’, 4173) [G=death-field] (‘entführt ich sie glücklich’, 4175) [C/c=new-forged sword] (‘der neugefügt das Schwert einst schwingt’^ 4178) [0=Siegfiied] (‘Siegfiied eerffeu’ sich des Sieg’s’, 4187) [G=Sieglinde’s Wonder] (‘O hehrstes Wunder!’ 4195) [D=^iegfiied, Sieglinde’s reward] (‘meines Dankes Lohn lache dir einst!’, 4211) [G=Sieglinde’s woe] (‘dich segnet Sieglinde’s Weh’!’, 4217)

LXXI. D minor [4222-4309] 1220. [g=black thunderclouds] (‘Die Felsenhöhle ist von schwarzen Gewitterwolken umlagert’, 4223) 1221. [aHearfiil storm] (‘furchtbarer Sturm braust aus dem Hintergunde daher,’ 4225) 1222. [bb*=growing fiery light] (‘wachsender Feuerschein rechts daselbst’, 4226) 1223. [c=approaching god] (passim, 4227)

480 1224. 1225. 1226. 1227. 1228. 1229. 1230. 1231.

[d=War Father] (‘Wotan’s Stimme’, 4228) [g=Britanhilde] (‘Steh’ Britanhilde’, 4231) [c=approaching god] (‘Den Fels erreichten Ross und Reiter!’, 4232) [d=War Father] (‘Rache entbrennt!’, 4236) [e=female extremis] (‘Ach Schwestern helft! Mir schwankt das Herz!’, 4238) [b=destruction] (‘Sein Zorn zerschellt mich, weim euer Schutz ihn nicht zähmt’, 4240) [bk=^bel-sheltering] (‘Hieher, VerloVne! Lass’ dich nicht seh’n, schmieg| dich m uns! ’, 4243) [f=Wotaitcoming to earth] (‘Weh! Wüthend schwingt sich Wotan vom Ross’, 4254) ^

Zweite Scene. 1232. 1233. 1234. 1235. 1236. 1237.

[bb=Wotan enraged (‘Wotan tritt in höchster zorniger Aufgeregtheit aus dem Taijn auf, 4263) [c=approaching god] (‘und schreitet vor der Gnçpe der Walküren auf der Hohe,’ [a=glaring god] (‘nach BrOnnhilde spähend, heftig einher’, 4266) [d=War Father] (‘Wo ist Brümihilde, wo die Verbrecherin?’, 4270) [a=upstarts] (‘Hütet euch. Freche!’, 4286) [c=weak-hearted women] (‘Weich herziges Weibergezüdht!’, 4309)

LXXn. G minor [4310-81],

1238.

1239.

1240. 1241.

[D t=paternal source] (‘So matten Muth gewannt ihr von mir?’, 4311) [c=women] (‘Erzog ich euch kühn, zum Kattçfe zu zieh’n, schuf ich die Herzen euch hart und scharf, dass ihn Wilden [f=whining] (‘nun weint und greint, weim me|n órimm eine Treulose straft?’, 4318) [g=crime] (So wisst du. Winselnde, was die verbrach, um die eunc Zagen die Zähre entbrermt’, 4324)

1242. 1243. 1244.

[a=wish-bride] (‘keine wie sie wusste den Quell rtMines,Willens!’, 4335) [b=Brünnhilde’s seif] (‘Sie selbst war meines Wimsches schaffender Schoss’, 4340) [g=broken bond] (‘und so nun brach sie den seligen Bund, dass treulos sie meinem Willen getrotzt, mein herrschetid Gebot, offen verhöhnt, gegen mich die Waffen gewandt, die mein Wunsch allein ihr schuf, 4345)

LXXm. F minor [4382-4496] 1245. [f=Brürmhilde, ex-cup bearer] (‘Hier bin ich Vater’, 4383) 1246. [b b=self-imposed sentence] (‘Nicht straf ich dich erst: deine Strafe schufst du dir selbst’, 4388) 1247. [G b=Brürmhilde, Wotan’s Will] (‘Duch meinen Willen war’st du allein’, 4392) 1248. [ab/all“rebellious will] (‘gegen mich doch hast du gewollt’, 4394) 1249. [Db=Wotan’s commands] (‘meinen Befehle nur führtest du’, 4397) 1250. [bb/bi=Brünnhilde’s commands] (‘gegen mich doch hast du befohlen’, 4399) . 1251. [E b=Wish Maiden] (‘Wunschmaid war’st du mir’, 4403) 1252. [c=rebellious wish] (‘gegen mich doch hast du gewünscht’, 4405) 1253. [F=shield maiden] (‘Schild-maid war’st du mir’, 4407) 1254. [d=rebellioua shield] (‘gegen mich doch hob’st du den Schild’, 4413) Í255. [g=rebellious lot-chooser] (‘gegen tmch doch kiestest du Loose’, 4417) 1256. [E=hero-raiser] (‘Helden-reizerin war’st du mir’, 4419) 1257. [d b=herp-perverter] (‘gegen mich doch reiztest du Helden’, 4421) 1258. [b b=traltor] (‘Was sonst du war’st, sagte dir Wotan’, 4427) 1259. [Caldea, ofSelf] (‘was jetzt du bist, das sage dir selbst!’, 4431) 1260. [e=rejected Wish-maiden] (‘Wunsch-maid bist du nicht mehr’, 4434)

481 1261. 1262. 1263. 1264. 1265. 1266.

[f=Brünnhilde rejected] (‘Walküre bist du gewesen, nun sei fortan, was so du noch bist!’ 4436) [D b=Walhall] (‘nicht führst du mehr Sieger in meinen Saal’, 4455) [g=heavenly meal] (‘bei der Götter trautem Midile’, 4460) [c=drink-hom] (‘das Trinkhom nicht reich’st du traulich mir mehr’, 4464) [Eb=mouth, kiss] (‘nichtkos’ich dir mehr den kindischen Mund’, 4469) [f=exile] (‘aus meinem Angesicht bist du verbannt’, 4484)

LXXTV. D minor [4497-4538] 1267. [g=unworthy conqueror] (‘Der dich zwingt, wird dir’s entzieh’n! Hieher auf den Berg banne ich dich’, 4497) 1268. [d= unguarded prize] (‘in wehrlosen Schlaf schliesse ich dich’, 4505) 1269. [a=awakening maid] (‘der Mann datm &nge die Maid, der am Wege sie findet und weckt’, 4510) 1270. [d=ravisher] (‘soll die Maid verblüh’n und verbelichen dem Maim?’ 4516) ‘1271. [g=shame] (‘Ach wende ab die schreiende Schmach!’ 4520) LXXV, F minor [4539-87] 1272. [b b =enemy, traitor] (‘Aus eurer Schaar ist die traulose Schwester geschieden’, 4543) 1273. [eb=female virginity] (‘die magdliche'Biume verblüht der Maid’, 4550) 1274. [b b=enemy husband] (‘ein Gatte dewinnt ih^e weibliche Gunst: dem herrischen I^anne gehorcht sie fortan, am Herde de sitzt sie und spinnt, aller ,Spottender Ziel und Spiel!’ 4553) 1275. [bb=separation, repulsion) (‘die Walkuren weichen entsetzt, mit heftigem Geräusch von ihrer Seite’, 4567) 1276. [c=female terror] (‘Schreckt euch ihr Loos?’ 4572)

1277. 1278.

[b b=separation] (‘Wer von euch wagte bei ihr zu weilen’, 4578) [Woolish rebel] (‘die Thörin theillte ihr Loos’, 4581)

LXXVI. B minor [4588-4636] 1279. [b=Valkyries] (passim, 4588)

Dritte Scene. LXXVn. E minor [4637-4822] 1280. [e=supplicant] (‘Brünhbilde,die noch zu seinen Füssen hingestreckt hegt*, 4637) 1281. [b=crime, às thief of horror] (‘dass mein Vergeh’n mm die Ehre mir raubt?’ 4680) 1282. [d=hidden guüt (=love of Siegmund)] (‘deute mit hell die dunkle Schild’, 4696) 1283. [b=trusty child (Brünnhilde)] (‘dein trautestest Kind’, 4703) 1284. [e=Brünnhilde’s deed] (‘Frag’ deine That, sie deutet dir deine Schuld!’, 4706) 1285. [G=faithful servaht] (‘Beinen Befahl führte ich aus’, 4710) 1286. [e=life to Siegmund] (‘Befahl ich dir, für den Wälsung zu fechten?’ 4711) 1287. [b=death to Siegmund] ( ‘Doch meine Weisung nahm ich wieder zurück!’ 4716) 1288. [g=enemy (Wotan to Wotan’s own Self)] (‘war’st du selber dir Feind.’ 47 1289. [b=treason] (‘So hätt’ ich Verrath nicht zu rächen’, 4734) 1290. [e=love] (iriotíf, 4738) 1291. [A=loveofSiegmund] (‘dass den Wälsrmg du liebtest’, 4749) 1292. [a=storm atu! stife] (‘Ich wusste den Zwiespalt, der dich zwang’, 4751) 1293. [b=back, unconscious] (‘rathlos den Rücken du wandtest’, 4774) 1294. [f}(=heavettly rr»ssenger] (‘Tod kündend trat ich vor ihn’, 4785) 1295. ^ [a=heroic distress] (‘ich vernahm des Helden heilige Noth’, 4794) 1296. [E==limitless love] (‘freiester Liebe’, 4802) 1297. [c tt “limitless pain] (furchtbares

482 1298. 1299. 1300.

Leid’, 4805) [d=Siegnnmd] (...zu geü’gem Beben mir trrf’, 4818) [b=Valkyiie] (‘Scheu \md staunend stand ich in Scham’, 4821) [e=decision to lovp] (‘Sieg oder Tod mit Siegmund zu theilen’, 4830)

LXXVm. E Major [4823-38] 1301. [E=Love (vs. will)] (‘Der deine Liebe’, 4822) 1302. [Ctl=Will] (‘dem Willen, der dem Wälsung mich gesellt’, 4829) 1303. [E=Ttue Love] (‘ihm innig vertraut, trotzt’ ich deinem Gebot’, 4831) LLIX. C Major [4839-46] 1304. [a=longed-for deed] (‘So Üiatest du, was so gern zu thun ich jiegehrt’, 4840) 1305. [c=denying fate] (‘doch was nich zu thun, die Noth zwiefach mich zwang’, 4844) /

X LXXX. AbMajor [4847-4941] 1306. [f=heart’s deepest bliss] (‘So leicht wähntest du Wonne des Heizens erworben’, 4848) 1307. [bb=buming woe] (‘brennend Weh’, 4852) • ‘ 1308. [eb=love-spring] (‘zuLiebe der Liebe Quell’, 4856) 1309. [ab=container of love-spring, heart as] (‘im gequälten Herzen zu hemmep?’, 4860) 1310. [Ab=emotional inebriation] (‘da labte süss dich selige Lust’, 4870) 1311. [E=Love-drink] (‘trank’st du lachend’ der Liebe Trank’, 4890) 1312. [^all, drink of] (‘mir göttlicher Noth nagende Galle gemischt?’, 4896) 1313.

1314.

[bb “Separation, avoidance] (‘von mir sagtest du dich los. Dich muss ich meiden’, 4904)

■ [eb “maiden, foolish] (‘Wohl tangte dir nicht die thör’ge Maid’, 4926) 1315. [Gb=wisdom] (‘zu lieben was du geliebt’, 4933) 1316. ,[ab “Brünnhilde, demoted] (‘Muss ich"denn scheiden und scheu dich

meiden, musst du spalten was einstsich umspannt’, 4937) LXXXI. D Major [4942-5070] 1317. [e=possession, Wotan’s] (‘Hälfte fern von halten dass sonst sie ganz dir gehörte du Gott’, ,4942) 1318. [Oremembering] (‘vergiss das nicht!’, 4946) 1319. [a=etemal ^If, Wotan’s] (‘Deine ewig Theil", 4948) 1320. [d= Biünnhilde shamed] (‘Schande nicht wollen, die dich beschinçft’, 4952) 1321. [D“Wotan failing] (‘dich selbst liessest du sinken, säh’st du dem Spott mich zum Spiel’, 4954) 1322. [ftt=joumeying, following] (‘Du folgtest selig der Liebe Macht’, 4962) 1323. [a=wife, coerced] (‘folge nun dem den du lieben musst’, 4966) 1324. [e=braggart] (‘dem feigen Prahler gieb mich nicht preis’, 4972) 1325. [B=Brünnhilde, Valkyrie] (‘nicht werthlos sei er, der mich gewiimt!’ 4979) 1326. [e=parting, divorcing] (‘Von Walvater schiedest du’, 4982) 1327. [ Brünnhilde’s fate] (‘nicht w^en darf er für dich’, 4985) 1328. [g“birth, lineage] (‘der weihlichste Held ich weiss es entblüht dem Wälsungenslamm’, 4994) 1329. [B b=separation] (passim, 4997) 1330. [c=silence] (‘Schweig’ von dem ’Wälsungeijstamm’, 4998) 1331. [d=Wälsungs]*(‘schiedichvonihm; vernichten inusst ihn der Neid! ’, 5000) 1332. [a=Sieglin4e] ÒSieglinde hegt die heiligste Frucht’, 5005) 1333. [C=sword] (‘Sie wahret das Sqhwert’,^5017) 1334. [^Valkyrie’s lot] (‘iñcht kiesen kaim ich es dir’, 5033) 1335. [C->c=waking->sleeping] (‘In festen Schl^,^060) 1336. [d=the wakener (Siegfiied)] (‘wer so die Wphrlbse weckt, dem ward, erwacht, sie zum Weib!’, 5066)

483 LXXXn. C minor [5071-5117] 1337. [c=fetters of sleep] (‘Soil fesselnder Schlaf, 5072) 1338. [b b “frightening horror] (‘scheuchenden Schrecken’, 5087) 1339. [C=heroic awakener] (‘dass nur ein furchtlos freiester Held’, 5088) 1340. [c=sleeping maid] (‘hier auf dem Felsen einst nach ^d’, 5089) 1341. [f=supplicating] (‘Dies Eine musst du erhören!’, 5101) LXXXm. D Major [5118-5148] 1342. [D=Valkyrie] (motif, passim, 5118) 1343. [f)l/F)t=Fire] (‘Auf dein Gebot enteenne ein Feuer’, 5128) 1344. [D=Fire] (‘der frech sich wagte dem freislichen Felsen zu nah’nl ’, 5131) 1345. [b=Valkyrie] (‘du kOhnes, herrliches Kind!’, 5145) LXXXIV. E Major [5149-68] 1346. [f)t=pride of the heart] (‘Du meines Herzens heiligster Stolz’, 5149) 1347. [E=love-greeting] (‘mein Gruss’, 5165) LXXXV. C Major [5169-73] 1348. [g=tiders] (‘sollst du nun nicht mehr neben mir reiten’, 5169) 1349. [A b=cup-bearer] (‘noch Medi beim Mahl mir reichen’, 5171) LXXXVI.E Major [5174-95] ~ - 1350. [E=Bridal Fire] (‘ein bräutliches Feuer’, 5182) LXXXVn. E minor [5196-5201]

1351.

1352.

[C*“awakener] (‘Denn Einer’, 5197) [e=bride] (‘nur freie die Braut’, 5199)

LXXXVm. E Major [5202-26] 1353.

[E=Wotan’s Love] (passim, motif, 5202fl)

LXXXIX. E minor [5227-71] 1354. [C=bright eyes] (‘Der Augen leuchtendes Paar’, 5228)

1355. 1356. 1357. 1358. 1359. 1360. 1361. 1362. 1363.

[G=child’s kiss] (‘wenn Kaiqjfes lust ein Kuss dir lohnte’,' 5232) [D*=heroes] (‘Helden’, 5235) [C=gleaming eyesj (‘dieser Augen strahlendes Paar dits oft im Sturm mir geglänzt’, 5236) [a=hopelessness] (‘weim Hof&ungs sehnen das Herz’, 5240) [b=bewüdering fear] (‘webendem Bangen’, 5243) [E=a kiss] (‘mit des Lebewohles letztem Kuss’, 5246) [F=closing eyes] (‘nntss es scheidend sich schliessen’, 5254) [e=separation] (‘Denn so kehrt der Gott sich dir ab’, 5257) [C=eyes, open] (‘so ki¿s er die Gottheit von dir! ’, 5260)

LXXXX. E Major [5272-93] 1364. [E=Bridal bed] (“Er geleitet sie zart auf einen niedrigen Moosbügel zu liegen, über den sich eine breitästige Tarme ausstreckt’, 5272 & passim.) 1365. [f)t=Loge threatened] (‘er schreitet mit fíerlihrem Entschlüsse in die Mitte der Bühne’, 5291) LXXXXI. D Major [5294-5320] 1366. [g=Spear’s dominating power] (‘...und kehrt die Spitze seines Speeres gegen einen mächtigen Felsstein’, 5294) 1367. [a=sltppety fire] (‘wie dann einst du mir schwandest’, 5303) 1368. [b=prison, binding, oatìi, curse] (‘wie ich dich band’, 5305) 1369. [C)(=Wotan, Sovereign] (‘bann’ ich dich heut’ ! ’, 5307) 1370. [A=Loge] (‘um lod’re mir feurig den Fels! Loge! Loge!’ 5312) 1371a. [c#=Wotan, Sovereign, dangerous] (‘hieher!’, 5317) 1371b. [a=Loge] (passim, 5318) LXXXXn. E Major [5321-82]

1372.

1373.

[E=bridal fee] (‘Hier bricht die lichte Flackerlohe aus’, 5321) [A=Loge, inlassable] (‘Wer meines Speeres Spitze fürchtet durch schreite das Feuer nie!’,

484 1374.

5340) [E=bridal fire] (passim)

Ende Z>i'e fValkUre

485

APPENDIXIc: Linear Tabulation of Tonpl Lexeme» in Erster Aufzug.

Vorspiel und erste Scene I. 1375. 1376. 1377. 1378. 1379. 1380. 1381. 1382.

1383. 1384. 1385. 1386. 1387. 1388. 1389. 1390. 1392. 1393. 1394. 1395.

n.

1396.

Bb minor [1-250] [b b =Nibeluags] (passim, vsp.) [f=swprd fragments] (motif, 115) [a=cunning(7)] (passim, 123) [bb=Mime] (‘Müh’ohne Zweck!’, 139) [f=giants] (‘Riesen Fäusten’, 143) [g=4>oy] (‘schmähliche Knabe’, 147) [f=swonl fragments] (‘Es giebt ein Schwert’, 155) [b b=smith skills] (‘könnt ich die starken Stücken schweissen, die meine Kunst nicht zu kitten weiss!’, 166) [Db=reward (power)] (‘meiner Schmach erlangt’ ich da Lohn!’, 176) [ab=dragon] (motif, 183) [f=Fafiier] (‘Fafiier der wilde Wurm’, 187) [eb=monstrous bulk] (‘mit des fruchtbaren Leibes Wucht’, 197) [bb=Nibelung hoard] (‘der Niblungen Hort hütet er dort’, 201) [f=physical strength/Fafirer] (‘Siegfried’s kindischer Krafr’ erläge wohl Fafiier’s Leib’, 209) [c=the one sword] (‘Ein Schwert nur taught zu der That’, 216) [D=conquering hero] (‘wenn Siegfried schrend ihn schwingt’, 220) [bb=smith] (‘Und ich kann’s nicht schweissen Nothung das Schwert! ’, 226) [f=the only important deed] (‘zu der einzigen Tliat!’, 244) [g=young man] (‘der Knabe es heischt’, 246) [b b=smith] (‘schmied’ ich ihm nicht!’, 250) G Major [251-343] [G=Siegfiied] (‘Hoi-ho! ’251)

1397. 1398. 1399. 1400. 1401. 1402. 1403. 1404. 1405. 1406.

m.

1407.

1408. 1409.

1411. 1412. 1413. 1414. 1415. IV. 1416.

[B=bear] (‘Was taught mir der Bär’? 267) [C=sword] (‘Dort liegt die Waffe’, 275) [bb=Nibelung] (‘So fährst du heute nochheü!’, 278) [C=conç)anionship] (‘Nach bess'rem Gesellen sucht’ ich’, 291) [D=a wordiy friend] (‘ein guter Freund’, 302) [b=bear] (‘Aus dem Busche kam ein Bär’, 310) [D=a worthy friend] (‘doch bessre fänd’ ich wohl noch!’, 315) [a=scoundrel] (‘dich, Schelm’, 320) [c=sword] (‘Das Schwert prüfend’, 334) [g=trivial toy] (‘Den schwachen Schifi nennst du ein Schwert?’, 341) G minor [344-512] [g=unworthy people] (‘Da hast du die Stücken, schänlicher Ständer!’, 344) [c=berzerker raging] (‘Nun tob’st du vWeder wie toll’, 420) [g=hadboy] (‘Mach’ ich dem bösen Buben nicht aUes gleich zu best’,4Ì9) Ç b=good boy] (‘Willst du denn me^edei^^’, 448) [D=best boyJ'(‘Dem sollst du willig gehorchen, der je sich wohl dir erwies’, 456) [d=not so good boy] (‘Das willst du wieder nicht hören!‘, 467) [F=hunger] (‘Doch speisen magst du wohl!’, 480) [d=broth] (‘versuchtest du gern den Sud?’, 486) [a^lop] (‘Deinen Sudel sauf allein’, 499) F minor [513-80] [f=caregiver, worker] (‘Als zullendes Kind zog ich dich auf. 513)

486 1417. 1418. 1419. 1420. 1421. 1422. 1423. 1424. 1425.

V. 1426. 1427.

1428.

1429. 1430. 1431. 1432. 1433. 1434. 1435. 1436. 1437. 1438.

[D b=niaster?] (‘wie du erwuchsest wartet’ ich dein’, 529) [bb=servant?] (‘dein Lager schuf ich, dass leicht du schliefst’, 532) [Ab=toys] (‘Dir schmiedet’ ich Tand und ein tönend Hom’, 537) [g=happy smithing] (‘müht’ ich mich flx)h’, 543) [el>=cunning counsel] (‘mit klugem Rathe rieth ich dir klug’, 543) [Cb=shining wisdom] (‘mit lichtem Wissen lehrt’ ich dich Witz’, [bt>=bondage] (‘Sits’ ich daheim in Fleiss und Schweiss’, 553) [D b=freedom] (‘nach Herzenslust schweifst du umher’, 556) [fNlrudgeiy](‘fUrdichnurin Plage, in Pein nur fUr dich verzehr’ ich mich alter armer Zwerg!’, 560) D minor [581-763] [B b =Mime, nice] (‘Vierles lehrtest du, Mime’, 581) [d=Siegfiied] (‘doch was du am liebsten mich lehrtest, zu lernen gelang mir nie: wie ich dich leiden könnt’,588) [g=Mime, nasty] (‘beim Genick’ möcht’ ich dep Nicker packen, den Garaus geben den garst’gen Zwicker!’, 652) [d=Siegfried] (‘so lernt’ ich, Mime, dich leiden’, 562) ^ [C=smart guy] (‘Bist du nun weise’, 667) [a*=ignorance](‘so hilf mir wissen’, 670) [e=Üie woods] (‘in den Wald lauf ich’, 675) [C=smart guy] (‘Bist du klug, so thu’ mir’s kund’, 704) [d=Siegfried’s1ieart] (‘wie lieb ich am Herzen dir lieg’, 711 ) [b b =rejection] (‘Mime fährt ziuOck, imd setz sich wieder abseits, Siegfried gegendber’, 719) [g=young ones, infants] (‘Jammernd verlangen Junge’, 734) [a=parents’ nest] (‘nach ihren Alten Nesf, 736) [B b *=Mime] (passim., 744, 758)

VI. 1439.

D Major [764-839] [D=courtship] (‘Es sangen die Vöglein so selig im Lenz, das eine lockte das and’re’, 766) 1440. [b=wolves, foxes] (‘selbst wilde Füchse rmd Wölfe’, 794) 1441. [D=Father] (‘das Märmchen’, 797) 1442. [G=Mother] (‘das Weibchen’, 798) 1443. [a=nest-love] (‘Da lernt’ ich wohl was Liebe sei’, 804) 1444. [e=Mother] (‘der Mutter entwandt’ ich die Welpen nie’, 807) 1445. [D=son of mother] (‘dass ich es Mutter nerme?’, 818) 1446. [g=dumb boy] (‘Was ist dir Thor?’, 820) 1447. [g=whirrçering babe] (‘Das zullende Kind’, 825) 1448. [a=trust] (‘Glauben sollst du’, 839) G minor [840-934] [g=Mime] (‘ich bin dir Vater und Mutter zugleich’, 840) 1450. [E b =origin, stream] (‘Nun kam ich zum klaren Bach’, 851) 1451. [G=reflections] (‘Sonn’und Wolken, wie sie nur sind, im Glitter erscheinen sie gleich’, 858) 1452. [D=Siegfiied, image] (‘mein eigen Bild’, 870) 1453. [c=toad] (‘so glich wohl der Kröte’, 875) 1454. [Eb=fish] (‘glänzender Fisch’, 877) 1455. [g=Mime] {‘doch kroch nie ein Fisch aus der Kröte’, 878) 1456. [Eb=origin] (‘wer Vater und Mutter niir sei!’, 898) 1457. [g=Mime] (‘So itruss ich dich fassen’, 907)

Vn.

1449.

Vin.

1458. 1459.

C minor [935-60]

[c=knowledge] (‘Was zu wissen dich geizt’, 938) [g=Mime] (‘noch verdank’st du mir dich!’, 942) /

IX. C Major [961-94] 1460. [C=knowledge] (passim, 961) 1461. [g=Sieglinde] ¿lassim, 962) 1462. [d=woman] (‘Einst lag wimmernd ein Weib’, 965) 1463. [a=Sieglinde] (passim, 967)

487 1464. 1465. 1466. 1467. 1468. 1469. 1470. 1471. 1472. 1473. 1474. X. 1475. 1476. 1477. 1478. 1479. 1480. 1481. 1482. 1483. 1484. 1485. 1486. XI. 1487.

[e=cave] (‘zur Höhle half ich ihr her’, 970) [b=cave hearfh] (‘am warmen Herd sie zu hüten', 971) [Ftl=fire] (passim) [F i) =%hildbirthing labor] (‘Ein Kind trug sie im Schoosse’, 975) [f=harder childbirthing labor] (‘traurig gebar sie’s hier’, 977) [e b =childbirth] (‘sie wand sich hin und her’, 979) [d b=trauma] (‘ich half so gut ich könnt’: gross war die Noth!’ 980) [C b=dying] (passim, 982) [b=deatìi] (passim, 983) [D=Sieg&ied] (‘doch Sieg&ied, der genas’, 982) [b=death] (‘so starb meine Mutter an mir?’, 984) F minor [995-1070] [G b =rescuer] (‘Meinem Schutz über gab sie dich’, 998) [Cb=Mime’s shelter] (‘ich schenkt’ ihn gern dem Kind', 1000) [B b b(=A)=loving care] (‘Was hat sich Mime gemüht! Was g^b sich der gute für Noth!’, 1005) [f=caregiver, worker] (‘Als zullendes Kind zog ich dich auf, 1009) [C b=rejection] (‘Mich dünkt, dess’ gedachtest du schon!’ 1012) [Eb=origin] (‘Jetz’ sag!’, 1015) [Cb=deaäi](‘Sohiessmichdie---- ^ Mutter, möcht’ ich dich heissen: als “Siegöied” würdest du’,.1017) [f=physical strength] (‘stark und schön’, 1020) [C b “evasion] (‘Entfiel er mir wohl? Doch halt!’, 1039) [b b=Siegmund] (‘wie hiess mein Vater?’, 1049) [c=mnknown origin] (‘Den hab’ ich nie geseh’n!’, 1051) [b b ^jattlefield] (‘Erschlangen sei er’, 1055) Eb Major [1071-1172] [c=sword (=T>roof)] (‘Soll ich der Kunde glauben, hast du mir nicht gelogen, so lasst mich Zeichen

1488. 1489. 1490. 1491. 1492. 1493. 1494. 1495. 1496. 1497.

seh’n!’, 1072) [f=eyes (“tangible evidence)] (‘dir glaub’ ich nur mit dem Aug’, 1082) [Eb=evidence](‘welch’ Zeichen zeugt für dich?’, 1085) [b b=Mime] (passim, motif 1087) [C*=sword] (motif, 1094) [f=trouble, room and board] (‘für Mühe, Kost und Pflege’, 1102) [B b=last battlefield] (‘als im letzten Kan^f er erlag’, 1113) [b b “Mime, smith] (‘Auf! Eile dich, Mime!’, 1123) [c=Sword] (‘den Trümmern allein trau’ ich’ was zu!’, 1140) [f=work] (‘Find’ ich dich faul füg’st du sie schlecht’, 1148) [D=Swoj:d, winning] (‘die Waffe gewinn’ ich noch heut’!’, 1167)

Xn.

Bb Major [1173-1245]

1498.

[B b “Separation, leaving home] (‘Aus dem Wald fort in die Welt zieh’n: nimmer kehr’ ich zurück!’, 1180)

Xin.

Bb minor [1246-79] [bb“Mime] (‘Nun sitz ich da’, 1244) [*D b“helper] (‘Wie helf ich mir jetz?’, 1254) [f=Fafiier] (‘Fafiier’s Nest?’, 1261) [c b“spite] (‘des tückischen Stahl’s?’, 1263) pj b=fumace fire] (‘Ofens Gluth’, J265) [dP*4>ringing together] (‘glüht mir die ächten’, 1267) [a b “heavenly skül] (‘keines Zt^ergen Hammer zwingt mir die harten’, 1269) [g b=Nibelung envy (of high things)] (‘des Niblungen Neid’, 1273) [ab“Nibelung need and sweat] (‘NothundSchweiss’, 1276) [b b “Nibelung impotence] (‘nietet mir Nothung nicht’, 1279)

1499.

1500. 1501. 1502. 1503. 1504. 1505. 1506. 1507. 1508.

488

1533.

weapons] (‘drei der Fragen stell’ ich mir frei!’, 1402) [b=wicked cogitation] (‘Mime, sammelt sich zum Nachdenken’, 1407)

XVn.

E minor [1404-54]

Zweite Scene XIV.

C Major Í1280-1361]

1509.

[C=UGHT] (‘Heil dir, weiser Schmied!1282)

1510.

[e=Mime’s home] (‘des Hauses Herd!’, 1291) 1511. [Db=Tfie Wanderer, wisdom, knowledge, enlightenment] (‘Wanderer’, 1296) 1512. [Eb=the Earth] (‘auf der Erde Rücken rührt’ ich mich viel’, 1302) 1513. [C=goodness] (‘Gastlich ruht’ ich bei Guten’, 1307) 1514. [A=wicked hearts] (‘denn Unheil fürchtet, wer unhold ist’, 1314) 1515. [Bt=Mime] (‘immer hei mir’, 1318) 1516. [[a=heart’s distress] (‘nagende Herzens Noth’, 1332) 1517. [Bb=Mime] (‘Einsam will ich’, 1338) 1518. [E b =unconscionsness] (‘Mancher wähnte weiser,zu sein’, 1341) 1519. [F=questioná, honest] (‘was ihm &ommte Hess ich erfragen’, 1349) 1520. [Onmderstanding] (‘lohnend lehrt’ ihn mein Wort’, 1353) 1521. [a=useless knowledge] (‘Müss’ges Wissen’, 1355) 1522Í [Bb*=Mime](‘ichweissmir g’rade genug’, 1357) 1523. [C*=wits] (‘mein Witz’, 1359) XV. 1524. 1525. 1526. 1527. 1528. 1529.

C minor [1362-84] [c=spear] (tnotif, 1362) [eb=head](mein Haupt’, 1366) [Db=Wotan] (passim, 1371) [c=head] (mein Kopf, 1374) [F=questions, honést] (‘was dir fföinmt’, 1381) [C=leatning] (‘lös ich’s mit Lehren nicht ein’, 1383)

XVI. j V minor [1385-1403] 1530. I ■[a=half-baked ^dom] (‘Wie werd’ ich den lauernden los? Verfänglich muss ich ihn fragen’, 1388) 1531.

[c)!=Wotan] (‘nun sorg’ es sinnig zu lösen!', 1400)

■ 1532.

[f)t =lhree questions, insincere, as

1534. 1535. 1536. 1537. 1538. 1539. 1540. 1541. 1542. 1543. 1544.

[F=earth’s back] (‘der Erde Rücken’, 1412) [B b ■*-+e=West-East axis] (‘die Welt durch wander’st du weit’, 1414) [B b =Nibelungs] (‘ln der Erde Tiefe tagen die Nibelungen’, 1427) [c=dark elves] (‘Schwarzalben sind sie’, 1430) [B b *=Alberich] (‘SchwarzAlberich’, 1432) [G=former Nibelung-lord] (‘hütet’ als Herrscher sie einst!’, 1433) [e=magic ring] (‘Eines Zauberringes zwingende Kraft [b=power of ring] (‘zähmt’ihm das fleissige Volk’, 1438) [C*=loveliness] (‘reicher Schätze’, 1440) [F=laborious piling] (‘häuften sie ihm’, 1444) [e=magical ring] (‘die Welt ihm gewinnen’, 1445)

XVra. F minor [1453-97] 1545. [g b =(fil )=three questions, insincere] (‘wohnt auf der Erde Rücken?’, 1467) 1546. [frOiants] (‘Auf der Erde Rücken wuchtet der Riesen Geschlecht; Riesenheim ist ihr Land’, 1474) 1547. [F=Fasolt and Fafiter, rough Giantprinces] (‘Fasolt und Fafrier der Rauhen Fürsten’, 1475), 1548. [b b =î(ibelung] (‘neide den Nibelung’s Macht: den gewaltigen Hort gewarmen sie sich, errangen mit ihm den Ring’, 1478) 1549. [eb=brother-strife] (‘der Fasolt fällte’, 1487) / 1550. [f=Fafher] (‘als wilde Wurm hütet nun Fafrier’, 1489) 1551. [hb=Nibelung hoard] (‘den Horf, 1493)

489 XIX 1552. 1553. XX 1554. 1555a. 1555b. 1556ab.

1557. 1558. 1559.

1560a. 1560b. 1560c. 1561. 1562. XXI. 1563. 1564. XXn. 1565. 1566. 1567.

C Major [1498-1514] [f)t=three (insincere) questions] (‘Mime ganz entrükt und nacbsínnend’, 1498] [C=knowledge] (‘Viel Wanderer veisst du mir’, 1504) Db Major [1515-78] [Ab=cloud-hidden heights] (‘Auf woUdgen'Höh’n’, 1515) [Db==rogue] (‘Doch schilt mich nicht mehr Schelm!’, 3430)

1852.

LX.Eb Major [3434-45] 1835. [E b =Nature] (‘Alles ist nach seiner Art: an ihr wirst du nichts ändern', 3434) 1836. [c=knowledge] (‘der Art ja versieh’st du dich besser’, 3445)

1853.

LXI. F Major [3446-62] 1837. [c=Wanderer, departing] (‘Er verschwindet schnell im Walde’, 3452) 1838. [b=Öirse] (‘ihr leichtsinges lustgieriges Göttergelichter’, 3460)

1856.

LXn. C Major [3463-71]

1839.

1840. 1841.

[ Euch seh’ ich noch Alle vergeh’n!’,) [f=^tching, guarding] (‘So lang’ das Gold am Lichte glänzt, hält ein Wissender Wacht’, 3469) [C*=light] (‘Lichte’, 3470)

LXm. F minor [3472-93]

1842.

[c=light, dim] (‘Morgendämme rung’, 3479)

1854. 1855.

1857. 1858. 1859. 1860. 1861.

1862. 1863.

Zweite Scene.

1864.

LXIV. D minor [3494-3693] 1843. [d=Sieg&ied] ( ‘Bei ambrechendem Tage treten Sieg&ied und Mime auf.3494) 1844. [c=leaming, unpleasant](‘Hier soll ich dj^ Fürchten lernen?’, 3513) 1845. [E=feat, sexual] (passim, motif, 3518-9) 1846. [g=Mime] (‘Fern hast du mich geleitet’,^3519) 1847. [d=SieglMed] (‘Lem’ ich hier nicht, was lernen soll, allein zieh’ ich dann weiter’, 3526) 1848. [B b =Nibehmg] (‘dich’, 3528) 1849. [a=dich endlich werd’ ich da los!’, 3528) 1850. [c=leaming, unpleasant] (‘lem’st du heut’ und hier das Fürchten nicht’, 3529) 1851. [b=dragon, wild] (‘Darin wohnt ein gräulich wilder Wurm’, 3538)

1865. 1866. 1867. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871.

1872. 1873. 1874.

[6=swallowing] (‘mit Haut auf einen Happ, verschlingt der Schlimme dich wohl’, 3544) [d=heroic resistance] (‘Gut ist’s, den Schlund ihm zu schliessen’, 3547) [F=physical agility] (‘dmm bief ich mich nicht dem Gebiss’, 3549) [c=T5oison foam] (‘Giftig giesst sich ein Geifer ihm aus’, 3550) [ft=salivating] (‘wen mit Speichers Schweiss er bespei’t,’ 3552) [d=hero] (‘dem schwinden wohl Fleisch und Gebein’, 3554) [c=poison foam] (‘Dass des GeHer’s Gift’, 3555) [d=hero] (‘mich nicht sehre’, 3556) [B b “Separation] (‘weich’ ich zur Seite dem Wurm’, 3557) [bb=aserpent-tail](‘Ein Schlangenschweif schlägt sich ihm auf: wen er damit umschlingt’, 3558) [a=sight] (‘Vor des Schweifes Schwang mich zu wahren, half ich den Argen im Aug’, 3563) [F=Fafiier’s heart] (‘Doch heise mich das: hat der Wurm ein Herz’, 3567) [d=hero] (‘Noüiung stoss’ ich dem Stolsen in’s Hetz!’, 3577) [g=Mime] (‘Hei! Du Alter!’, 3582) [a=no learning] (‘das Fürchten lern’ ich hier nicht’, 3588) [e=fear, sexual] (motif, 3597) [d=Siegflied] (‘den dank’st du’, 3605) [Bb=Mime, best face] (‘gedenk’st, wie Mime dich liebt’, 3610) [d=Siegfiied, angry] (‘Du sollst mich nicht lieben! Sagt’ ich’s dir nicht?’, 3612) [Eb=spring] (‘Ich lass’dich schon.Am Quell dort lagr’ ich mich; steh’ du nur hier: steigt dann die Sonne zur Höh’, merk auf den Wurm’, 3629) [g“cave] (‘aus der Höhle wältz er sich her’, 3638) [Bb=path to stream] (‘am Brunnen sichzu trilnken’, 3643) [c=spring, dangerous] (‘Mime,

497 1875. 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. 1880. 1881. 1882.

weil’st du am Quell’, 3646) [d=hero] (‘dahin lass’ ich den Wunn wohl geh’n’, 3647) [g=Müne] (‘Nothung stoss’ ich ihm erst in die Nieren, wenn dich selbst dort mit’ weg gesofifen’, 3649) [Eb=spring] (‘amQuell’, 3657) [g=separation] (‘und komm’ nie mehr zu mir! ’,3658) [B b =Mime’s drink] (‘wirst du mir wohl nicht wehren?’, 3664) [c=counsel. Mime’s] (‘Rufe mich auch, darb‘st du des Rathes’, 3667) [d=Siegfiied, angry] (‘Siegfried erhebt sich’, 3672) [d=Siegfried and Fafiier] (‘Fafirer und Siegfried, Siegfried und Fafiier: Oh! brächten Beide sich um! ’, 3675)

LXV.E Major [3694-3718] 1883. [F=father] (‘Dass der mein Vater nicht ist’, 3692) 1884. [E=Eastem Forest, beautífiil] (‘Nim erst gefällt mir der fiische Wald’, 3697) 1885. [F)l=iather, unknown] (‘Wie sah mein Vater wohl aus?’, 3715) LXVI. E minor [3719-31] 1886. [C=idea] (‘Ha! Gewiss, wie ich selbst!’, 3718) 1887. [Bb*=Mime] (‘denn wär wo von Mime’, 3719) 1888. [d=son] (‘ein Sohn’, 3720) 1889. [B b =Nibelung] (‘G’rade so garstig’, 3723) 1890. [b=goblin] (‘Fort mij dem Alp! ’, 3729) 1891. [e=ugliness] (‘Ich mag ihn nicht mehr seh’n!’, 3730) LXVH. E Major [3732-55] 1892. [E=Eastem Forest, beautiful] (‘Er lehnt sich tiefer zurück uhd blickt durch den Baipnwipfel auf, 3732) 1893. [b=mother-image] (‘Das kann ich nun gar nicht mir denken!’, 3745) 1894. [E=mother-attraction] (‘Der Rebhindin gleich gläntzen gewiss ihr’ hell ’, 3747)

1895.

[c)t “heavenly vision] (‘schimmernde Augen?’, 3752)

LXVm. G Major [3756-98]

1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901.

[e=painfiil childbirth] (‘Da bang sie mich geboren’, 3760) [b=death] (‘Sterben die Menschen mütter’ 3766) [C=seeing] (‘Ach, möchf ich Sohn meine Mutter sehen!’, 3775) [D=hero-son] (cadence, 3781) [G=Sieglinde, Mother] (‘Meine Mutter, ein Menschenweib!’, 3783) [C=seeing] (passim, 3791)

LXK. E Major [3799-3841] 1902. [E=Eastem Forest, beautiful] (passim, 3799) 1903. [E=a ir ] (‘Wachsendes Wald wehen’, 3900) 1904. [E=F0REST b ir d ] (‘der Waldvögel’, 3801) 1905. [A=Forest Bird] (‘Du holdes Vöglein’, 3824) 1906. [b=death song] (‘Verstund’ ich sein süssen Stammeln! Gewiss sagt’ es mir ‘was, verlleicht, 3826) 1907. [D=son, longing] (‘von der lieben’, 3829) 1908. [G*=Mother] (‘Mutter’, and passimi 3834) LXX. A Major [3842-90] 1909. [B b *=dwarf] (‘Zwerg’, 3842) '-,1910. [D=men] (‘der Voglein Stammeln ' gufra vdrsteh’n, dazu körmte man domrrfin’, 3843) 1911. [Oidea] (‘Hei! Ich versuch’s’, 3847) 1912. [E=Forest Bird, bird song] (‘sing’ ihm nach; auf dem Rohr tön’ ich ihm ähnlich’, 3848) 1913. *[A=foreign language; ersatz bird song] (‘entratii’ ich der Worte, achte der Weise; sing’ ich so seine Sprache, versteh’ ich wohl auch was es spricht’, 3850) 1914. [b=sword] (‘Er springt an den naben Quell, schneidet mit dem Schwerts ein Rohreb’, 3855) 1915. [A=a reed; a pipe] (‘ein Rohrab’, ‘eine Pfeife’, 3855)

498 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919.

[E=Forest Bird] (‘Er schweigt’, 3869) [F=pipe (=hom) call] (passim, 3872) [A=pipe] (‘Das tönt nicht recht’ auf dem Rohre tangt die wonnige Wiese mir nicht’, 3883) [f)i=stupid](‘Vöglein, mich dünkt, ich bleibe dumm’, 3887)

LXXI. E Major [3891-3902] 1920. [E=Forest Bird] (‘Er hört den Vogel wieder’, 3893) LXXn. C Major [3903-6] 1921. [C=idea] (‘Heida!’, 3903) 1922. [F=hom] CSo höre nun auf mein Horn’, 3903) LXXra. F Major [3907-4001] 1923. [B b=forest song] (‘Einer Waldweise, wie ich sie kann’, 3907) 1924. [F=lustiness] (‘dçr lustigen sollst du nun lauschen’, 3909) 1925. [C=comrades, society] (‘nach heben Gesellen lockt’ ich mit ihr’, 3912) 1926. [b=wolf] (‘als Wolf, 3916) 1927. [C=comrade, fiiend] (‘ob ¿is mir ein lieber Gesell’, 3921) 1928. [F=hom] (passim, 3928) 1929. [eb=abyss] (dragon motif, 3971) 1930. [f=Fafiier] (‘Fafiier hat beta AmbUck Siegfiieds auf der Höle’, 3983) 1931. [])b=enemy (alt: Siegf. as Nibelung)] (‘Du wär’st ein saub’rer Gesell!’, 3985) 1932. [c=dim awareness] (‘Was ist da?’, 3987) 1933. [c=human speech] (‘Hei, bist du ein Ihier, das zum Sprechen tangt, wohl Hess’ sich von dir ‘was lernen?’, 3988) 1934. [bb“challenge] (‘Hier kennt Einer das Fürchten nicht ¡cann er’s von dir erfahren?’,' 3990) 1935. [f=Fafiier] (‘Hast du Obetmuth?’, 3993> 1936. [F=courage] (‘Muth oder Übermuth, was weiss ich! ’, 3995)

1937. 1938. 1939.

[C“leamtag] (‘Doch dir fahr’ ich zu Leibe, lehrst du das Fürchten mich nicht’, 3996) [c=drink] (‘Ha! Trinken wellt’ ich’, 3998) [b=raventag maw] (‘Nun trefF ich auchFrass!’, 4001)

LXXTV. C Major [4003-18] 1940. [b=dangerous teeth] (‘Eine zierliche Fresse zeigst du mir da, lachende Zähne im Leckermaul!’, 4002) 1941. [C=idea] (‘Gut wär’ es, den Schlund dir zu schliessen’, 4005) 1942. [G=not so raventag maw] (‘dein Rachen recktisch zu weit’, 4006) 1943. [d=Siegflied] (‘Zu tauben Reden taugt er schlecht: dich’, 4007) 1944. [c=devouring] (‘dich zu verschlingen, frommt der Schlund’, 4009) 1945. [a=bad idea] (‘Hoho! Du grausam, grimmiger Kerl! Von dir verdau’t sein dünkt mich übel!’, 4012) 1946. [C=better idea] ( ‘Räthlich und fromm doch schetat’s,’, 4014) 1947. [f=Fafher] (‘du verrecktest hier ohne Frist’, 4015) 1948. [F=braggart] (‘Früh! Komm, prahlendes Kind!’ ‘Hab’ Acht, Brüller! Der Prahler naht! ’4016) LXXV, D minor [4019-69] 1949. [F=hom] (motif, 4019) 1950. [eb=Fafiierristag] (motif, 4021) 1951. [c=dthgon spit] (‘speiht aus den Nüstern’, 4025) 1952. [d=Siegfiied] (‘Siegfried weicht dem Geifer aus’, 4027) 1953. [bb=dragon tail] (‘Faflier sucht ihn mit dem Schweife zu erreichen’, 4030) 1954. [D=Siègfried] (Siegfried, welchen Fafiier fesst erreicht hat, springt mit einem Satze über dibssen hinweg’, 4043)^ 1955. [a=swOTd stroke] (motif, 4056) 1956. , [c=mortal wound] (‘Fafiier bäumt sich vor Schmerz’, 4058) 1957. [g=abject’sprawltag] (‘Da lieg’, neidlischer Kerl!’, 4062)

499 1958. 1959.

[D=sword] (‘Nothung tiäugt du im Herzen’, 4065) [c=mortal wound] (‘Herzen!’, 4067)

LXXVI. F minor [4070-6] 1960. [D b=Wotan] (‘Wer bist du, kühner Knabe’, 4069) 1961. [bb=Alberich] (‘der das Herz mir traf? Wer’, 4072) 1962. [D=Siegfiied] (‘reizte des Kindes Muth’, 4075) LXXVn. C Major [4077-87] 1963. [b=murder] (‘zu der mordiichen That? Dein Hirn brütete nicht, was du vollbracht’, 4077) 1964. [D=Siegfried] (‘Viel weiss ich noch nicht, noch nicht auch, wer ich bin’, 4084) 1965. [bb=enemy] (‘mitdirmordlichzu ringen reiztest du selbst meinen Muth’, 4085) LXXm. F minor [4088-4114] 1966. [F=feir eyed youth] (‘Du helläugiger Knabe’, 4089) 1967. [f=Giants, extinct] (‘wen du gemordet, meid’ ich dir. Der Riesen ragend Geschlecht, Fasolt und Fafeer...’, 4092) 1968. [D b *=Gods] (‘von Götter vergabt’, 4103) 1969. [b b =Nibelung Hoard] (‘traf ich Fasolt zu todt’, 4105) 1970. [f=Fafher] (‘der nun als Wurm den Hort bewachte, Fafeer, den letzen Riesen’, 4106) 1971. [Ab=Fafeer, death] (‘fällte ein rosiger Held’, 4110) LXXIX C Major [4115-46] 1972. [a=blind obedience] (‘Der dich Blinden reizte zur That’, 4115) 1973. [b=murder] (‘beräth jetzt des Blühenden Tod!’, 4118) 1974. [C*=consciousness] (Merk’ wie’s endet!’, 4122) 1975. [b=death] (‘Fafeer ersterbend’, 4124) 1976. [E=lineage, kin, household] (‘Woher ich stamme, rathe mir

1977. 1978. 1979. 1980. 1981.

noch’ weise ja scheinst du Wilder im Sterben’, 4125) [e=unknown household] (’rath’es nach meinen Namen’, 4130) [C=information] (‘Siegöied bin ich genannt’, 4132) [d=Siegfried] (‘So leite mich derm min lebendes Sword!’, 4140) [C*=Sword] (motif, 4143) [d=fire, blood] (‘Wie Feuer bremit das Blut!’,4146)

LXXX. E Major [4147-82] 1982. [E=Forest Bird, song] (‘der Waldvögel angezongen’, 4147) 1983. [E=magical objects] (‘Wollt er den Tamhelm gewinnen der traught’ ihm zu wonniger That, doch wollt’ er den Ring sich errafhen, der macht’ ihn zum Walter der Welt! ’, 4170) 1984. [f)t=wise advice] (‘Dank, liebes Vög’lein für deinen Rath!’, 4176) LXXXI. Ab Major [4183-91] 1985. [Ab=Fafher’s Cave] (Er...steigt in die Höhle hinab’, 4183) LXXXn. B b minor [4192-4237] 1986. [b b=Nibelungs] (‘Mime schleicht heran...Gleichzeitig kommt von der anderen Seite Alberich auf dem Geklüft’, 4192) 1987. [f=work] (‘Was ich erschwang mit ~ schwerer Müh’, soll mir nicht schwinden’, 4212) 1988. [c=gol4iheft of] (‘Hast du dem Rhein das Gold zum Ringe geraubt?’, 4215) 1989. [d=work] (‘Erzeugtest du gar den zäheii Zauber im Reif?’, 4218) 1990. [B b=Wime] (‘Wer schuf den Tamhelm, der die Gestalten Tauscht?’ 1991. [c=no idea] (‘Was hättest du Stünçer’,4227) 1992. [b b =Nibelung] (‘jewohl zu stampfen verstanden?’, 4229) 1993. [g=Mime] (‘Der 2!auber ring ’ + Mime motif, 4230) 1994. [c=no idea] (‘zwang mir den Zwerg erst zur Kunst’, 4231 )

500 1995. 1996.

[F=Giants] (‘Wo hast du den Ring? Dir Zagem entrissen ihm Riesen’, 4233) [c=cunning] (‘was du verlor’st, mein List erlangt’ es für mich’, 4236)

LXXXm. G minor [4138-4250] 199X [D=Hero] (‘Mit des Knaben That will der Knicker nun knausern?’, 3238) 1998. [b t “Nibelung] (‘Dir gehört sie gar nicht’, 4241) 1999. [F^Lord of the Ring] (‘der Helle ist selbk ihr Herr’, 4243) 2000. [g=MÌriKì](‘Ichzogihnauf, fUrdie Zucht zàWt er mir nun: für Müh’ und Laste^lauert’ ich lang meinen Lohn’, 4244) 2001. [B b==Mime puffed iç] (‘Für des Knaben Zucht’, 4250) LXXXIV.Bk minor [4251-4301] 2002. [b b “Mime deflated] (‘will der knick’rige, schäbige Knecht keck und kühn wohl gar...’, 4251) 2003. [F l>“king] (‘König nun sein?’, 4254) , 2004. [C b =curse] (‘nimmer emngst du Rüpel den Herrscher reif!’, 4259) 2005. [b b “Alberich] (‘Behalt’ ihn denn, unä hüt’ ihn wohl, deahellen Reif, zei du Herr’, 4264) 2006. [C b =evil, axis of] (‘doch mich heisse auch’Bruder!’, 4270) 2007. [bb “Mime] (‘Um meines Tamhehn’s lustigen Tand’, 4272) 2008. [Gb=attempted bargain] (‘tausch’ ich ihn dir’, 4274) 2009. [bbfNibelungs] (‘uns Beiden taugt’s, theilen die Beute wir so’, 4275) 2010. [e b “Sleep, dangerous] (‘Sicher schlief niemals vor deinen Schlingen’, 4284) 2011. [bb=Nibelungs, hateful] (‘Selbst nicht tauscjjen?’ 4286) 2012. [Cb=evihno axis of] (‘Nichts von Allen»! ’ + motif, 4294) 2013. [bb“Nibelungs, hateful] (‘Weder Ring noch Tamhelm soll dir denn taugen’, 4298)

2014.

[F“dominator] (‘nicht theil’ ich nun mehr!’, 4300)

LXXXV. A minor [4302-8] 2015. [a=4alf-baked idea] (‘Gegen dich doch ruf ich Siegflied zu Rath und des Recken Schwert: der rache Held, der richte, Brüderchen, dich!’, 4302) LXXXVI. Ab Major [4309-18] 2016. [Ab=Fafiier’s cave] (‘Kehre dich limi Aus der Höhle kommt er daher’, 4309) LXXXVn. C Major [4319-48]

2017.

2018.

[C=lopking, pondering] (‘Was ihr mir nützt, weiss ich nicht’, 4323) [B b “battlefield] (‘als des Tages Zeuge, es mahne der Tand, das ich Idnçfend Fafiier erlegt, doch das Fürchten noch nicht erlernt’, 4334)

LXXXVm. E Major [4349-77]

2019.

2020. 2021.

2022.

[E=Forest Bird] (‘Hei! Sieg&ied!’, 4350) [A/f)t=thinking] (‘Er sinnt’, 4364) [g jt /B=enemy, hidden counsel] (‘Weilte woU hier ein weiser Wand’rer, schweifte lanher, beschwatzte das Kind mit list’ger Runen Rath?’, 4369) [A=cunning] Cürft’ ich ihn fürchten, meiner Angst fand’ ich ein End’!’, 2092) 2920. [a“Wotan’s work over] (motif+ context, 2096) 2921. [b=frightened Valkyrie] (‘Staunend versteh’ ich dich nicht’, 2099) LXXn. Eb Major [2101-06] 2922. [c“female emotional frenzy] (‘Wehre der Wallung’, 2101) 2923. [e b “frightened Heavenly Messenger] (‘Nach Walhall wieder treibt mich die Angst, die von Walhall hierher mich trieb’, 2103) LXXm. C Major [2107-12] 2924. [e“magical ring] (‘Was ist’s...’.

524 2925. 2926. 2927.

2107) [b=AJiberich’s Curse] ('mit den ewigen Götter?’, 2108) [C=tidings] (‘Höre mit Sinn’, 2111) [f|l =Heavenly Messenger] ('was ichmir sage!’, 2112)

LXXIV. F# minor [2113-27] 2928. [ftl =Valkyries (going to and fro)] (‘Seit er von dir geschieden, zur Schlacht nicht mehr schickte un...’, 2114) 2929. [cf)=Wotandefimct] (‘...Wotan’, 2117) 2930. [e=decrepitude, sickness] (passing context, 2119) 2931. [ftt=heavenly meetings] (‘Walhall’s muthige...’, 2120) 2932. [b=heroes defimct] (‘...Helden’, 2933. 2934. 2935.

2121)

[c)t=Wotan defimct] (‘Walvater’, 2123) [f#=restless wandering] (‘Einsam zu Ross, ohne Ruh’ noch Rast, durchst reift er als...’, 2125) [c=the Wanderer] (‘Wand’rer die Welt’, 2127)

LXXV. Eb Major [2128-45] 2936. [c=Spear, broken] (‘Jüngst kehrte er’, 2129) 2937. [eb=Foundations, mined] (‘...heimtin der Hand hielt er seines...’, 2131) 2938. [B b=strife, battle] (‘Speeres Splitter’, die hatte ein...’, 2133) 2939. [Cb=Curse] (‘...Held ihm geschlagen’, 2135) 2940. [e b =World Ash Tree] (‘Mit stummm Wink Walhall’s Edle wies er zum Forst, die Weltesche zu Men’, 2138) 2941. [Gb=Walhairs doorstep] (context, 2144) LXXVI. C Major [2146-53] 2942. [D=Heroic host] (‘Des Stammes Scheite hiess er sie schichten zu ragendem’, 2146) 2943. [F=labot, piling] (‘Häuf rings um der Seligen Saal. Der Götter Rath liess erberufen’, 2149)

2944.

[d=Warfather] (‘den Hochsitz nahm heilig er ein’, 2152)

LXXVn. C minor [2154-62] 2945. [c=Foundations, ruined] (‘Dun zu Seiten’, 2154) 2946. [d b “Throne of Heaven, defimct] (‘hiess er die bangen sich setzen’, 2155) 2947. [G b “Throne of Heaven, foot of] (‘in Ring und Reih’ die Hall’ erfüllen die Helden’, 2156) LXXVra. E minor [2163-83] 2948. [e=sickliness, aging] (‘So sitzt er’. 2163) 2949. [c tt “defimct God] (‘sagt kein Wort’, 2165) 2950. [b=cutsed God] (‘auf hehrem Sitze stumm und ernst’, 2167) 2951. [e=sickly God] (‘des Speeres Splitter fest in der’, 2170) 2952. [b=cursed God] (‘...Faust’, 2172) 2953. [e=sickly God] (‘Holda’s Äpfel rührt er nicht an’, 2174) 2954. [c“foundations, mined] (‘Staunen und Bangen binden starr die Götter’, 2178) 2955. [b=Cursed Gods] (context, 2182) LXXIX. D Major [2184-2208] 2956. [b=Ravens] (‘Seine Raben beide, sandt’ er auf Reise’, 2186) 2957. [E=Good Tidings] (‘kehrten die einst mit guter Kunde zurück’, 2190) 2958. [D=Siegflied] (‘dann noch eternai zum letzten Mall lächelte ewig der Gott’, 2193) 2959. [d“Warfather] (‘Seine Knie umwindend liegen wir Walküren’, 2202) LXXX. C minor [2208-34] 2960. [f=supplicant Valkyrie] (‘An seine Brust presst’ ich nnch weinend’, 2209) 2961. [d“Warfather] (‘da brach sich sein Blick', 2211) 2962. [g“daughter] (‘er gedachte, B., dein!’, 2212) 2963. [c“sleep] (‘Tief wufet’er auf.

525 2964. 2965. 2966. 2967. 2968.

schloss das Auge’, 2215) [Al>=retumtoRiver](‘undwieim Traume raunt’er das Wort’, 2219) [E t =Rhine Daughters] (des tiefen Rheines Töchtern gäbe....’, 2222) [eb=Ring-in-Rhine] (‘...den Ring sie wieder’, 2225) [db=God, defunct] (‘...zurück, von des Fluches Last’, 2225) [A b =Wotan’s release] (‘erlös’! wär Gott und Welt!’, 2229)

LXXXI. V$ minor [2235-2243] 2969. [f}t =Heavenly Messenger] (‘Da sann ich nach;’, 2235) 2970. [g)l “heavenly assembly] (‘...von seiner Seite durch stumme Reihen stahl ich mich fort; in heimlicher Hast bestieg ich mein Ross’, 2238) LXXXn. E b Major [2244-59] 2971. [b b=tumultuous storm] (‘und ritt im Sturme zu dir’, 2244) 2972. [e b = Brflnnhilde supplicated] (‘Dich, o Schwester, beschwör’ ich nun’, 2248) 2973. [b b=power] (‘was du vermag’st’, 2252) 2974. [c=Brünnhilde supplicated] (‘ende der Ewigen Qual! ’, 2256) LXXXm. Fjt minor [2260-89] 2975. [ftt “Heavenly Messenger, her report] (‘Welch’ banger Träume Mären meldest du Traurige mir!’, 2265) 2976. [F((=High heaven’s clouds] (‘Der Götter heiligem Himmels-nebeT, 2268) 2977. [D=Heroes] (‘bin ich Thörin enttaucht’, 2270) 2978. [C (1 “Heaven] (nicht fass’ ich was ich erfahre’, 2274) 2979. [fft “Heavenly Messenger, inconçrehensible] (‘Wirr und wüst’ scheint mir dein Sinn’,2276) 2980. [c(t=defimct heaven] (‘in deinem Aug’, 2279) 2981. [a“a blanched sister] (‘du bleiche Schwester, was willst du Wilde von mir?’, 2286)

LXXXIV. C Major [2290-2305] 2982. [a= Brürmhilde’s hand] (‘An deiner Hand’, 2290) 2983. [g=Alberich’s Ring] (‘der Ring, er ist’s, hör meinen Rath’, 2292) 2984. [*D b =*Wotan] (‘für Wotan’, 2294) 2985. [Ab“Brünnhilde] (‘wirf ihn von dir!’, 2295) 2986. [g=magic ring] (‘Den Ring?’, 2296) 2987. [d=Rhhie Daughters] (‘Den Rheintöchtem gieb ilm zurück! ’,

2297) 2988.

[OLight, purity] (‘Siegfried’s Liebespfand?’, 2301)

LXXXV. F)t minor [2306-67] 2989. [f)t “Heaveidy Messenger] (‘Hör’ mich¡ hör’ meine Angst!’, 2306) 2990. [e=magic ring] (‘Der Welt Unheil haftet sicher an ihm’, 2308) 2991. [a“magic ring, rejected] (‘Wirf ihn von dir, fort in die Welle’; 2310) 2992. [fjt“Heavenly Messenger] (‘den verfluchten \virf in die Pluth!’, 2314) 2993. [F Jf=false brightness] (‘ein Blick auf sein helles Gold, eim Blitz aus dem hehren Glanz...’, 2335) 2994. [C(l“Walhall] (‘...^t mir werther als aller Götter ewig währendes Glück’, 2338) 2995. [A=Fantasy Love] (‘Denn selig aus ihm leuchtet mir Siegfried’s Liebe’, 2345) 2996. [b“cursed love] (‘Siegfried’s Liebe!’, 2352) 2997. [E=married Love] (‘O liess’ sich die Wonne dir sagen!’, 2356) 2998. [A=Fantasy Love] (‘Sie wahrt mir den Reif, 2360) LXXXVI. C Major [2368-80] 2999. [C=Counter Message] (‘Von meiner Ringe raime ihnen zu:’, 2367) 3000. [c=Etemal Feminine in extremis] Cdie Liebe liesse ich nie,’, 2372) 3001. [Ab=Heavenly Host] (‘ mir nähmen nie sie die Liebe’, 2376)

526 LXXXVn. Fit minor [2381-2443] 3002. [c |l “Walhall mined] (‘stiiizt’ auch in TrOnnnem Walhall’s strahlende Pracht!’, 2381) 3003. [f|t=Heavenly Messenger] (‘Dies deine Traue? So in Trauer enüässest du lieblos die Schwester?’, 3004. [b=Curse, lovelessness] (‘Schwinge dich fort, fliege zu Ross’, 2392) 3005. [c=Etemal Feminine in extremis] (‘Wehe! Wehe! Seh’ dir Schwester!’, 2399) 3006. [f|l “Heavenly Messenger departing] (‘[W.] stürzt fort’, 2407) 3007. [b=Valkyrie] (‘Dlitzend Gewölk, vom Wind getragen, stürme dahin, zu mir nie steure mehr her! ’, 2421) 3008. [F It “firelight] (‘B. Blickt ruhig in die Landschaft hinaus’, 2437) LXXXVm. E b Major [2445-54] 3009. [A b “twilight of a day] (‘Abendlich Dämmern deckt den Himmel, heller leuchtet...’, 2445) 3010. [Bb=flames] (‘die hütende Lohe herauf, 2450)

3020. 3021. 3022. 3023. 3024. 3025. 3026. 3027.

[A jl (B b )=Gunther/Nibelung lord] (‘Ein Heide der dich zähmt bezwingt...’, 2535) [C |t “ godlike pretensions] (‘...Gewalt dich nur’, 2538) [g=a Nibelung] (‘Ein Unhold’, 2539) [d]t“an eagle] (‘Ein Aar kam geflogen, mich zu zerfleischen!’, 2544) [E“Tamhelm] (motif + ‘Stammst du von Menschen?’, 2554) [b“Hella] (‘Kommst du von Hella’s nächtlichem Herr?’, 2556) [G“Gibichungs] (‘Ein Gibichung bin ich’, 2556) [b/D“fake hero] (‘Und Gunther heisst der Held dem Frau, du folgen sollst’, 2559)

LXXXXn. C Major [2562-74] 3028. [b b “Wotan, traitor] (‘Wotan! Ergrimmter grausamer Gott! ’, 2562) 3029. [C=enlightenment] (‘Nun erseh’ ich der Stafe Siirn!’, 2571)

LXXXXm. F i minor [2575-87] LXXXK. C Major [2455-71] 3011. [C=Light] (‘Der Feuerschein’, 2455) LXXXX. F Major [2472-2503] 3012. [F“Siegfiied, Nature Boy] (‘Siegfiied!’, 2472) 3013. [eb“Goddess betrayed] (‘Verrath!’, 2493) LXXXXI. B minor [2506-61] 3014. [Fb“TamhelmJ (motif + ‘Wer drang zu mir?’, 2506) 3015. [b=Curse] (‘Siegfiied.. betrachtet Brünnhilde’, 2510) 3016. [g|l=Tamhelm] (motif+ ‘Brünnhilde!’, 2514) 3017. [b“Curse] (‘Ein Freier kam’, 2515) 3018. [D“Heroic pretension] (‘du folge willig mir!’, 2524) 3019. [g==Steife](‘Wastufteszu Herr?’, 3172) 3172. [e=peril (the ring)] (‘Hoiho Hagen!’, 3189) 3173. [eb=Hagen] (‘Hoiho, Hagen!, 3197) 3174. [al>=Hagen’ssubordmates] (‘Welche Noth ist da? Welcher Feind ist nah’? Wer giebt uns Streit?’, 3205) 3175. [endanger?] (‘Welche Noth ist da? Welcher Feind ist nah’? Wer giebt uns Streit?’, 3211) 3176. [c=Gibichung Vassais] (‘Ist Gunther in Noth?’, etc., 3217) 3177. [Ek=Gibichung Vassais] (‘Ist Gunther’, etc., 3222) CXIV.C Major [3237-48] 3178. [e=peril] (‘Rüstet euch wohl und tastet nicht!’, 3237) 3179. [E=Wife] (‘Ein Weib’, 3246) 3180. [C=announcer, herald] (‘hat der gebrei’t’, 3247) CXV. 3181.

E i Major [3249-3314] [g=strife] (‘Drohet ihm Noth?’,

3182. 3183. 3184. • 3185. 3186. 3187. 3188. 3189. 3190. 3191.

3250) [A b=cup-bearer, heavenly maiden] (‘Ein ffeisliches Weib fOhret er heim’, 3256) [g=enemies] (‘Ihm folgen der Magen’, 3260) [c=vassals] (“Ihm folgen der Magen’, 3265) [Bk =QunÖJer] (‘Einsam fährt enkeiner folgt’, 3269) [bk=Gunther in^jerilled] (‘So bestand er die Noth?’, 3275) [C=Siegfried] (‘Siegfried der Held, de schuf ihm Heil!’, 3288) [c=Vassals] (‘Was soll ihm das Heer nun noch helfen?’, 3295) [D k =Wotan] (‘Starke Stiere sollt ihr schlachten’, 3297) [c=Wotan blood- samifrce] (‘am Weihstein fliesse Wotan ihr Bhit’, 3305) [Dk=gods] (‘Was, Hagen, was hiessest du uns dann?’, 3311)

CXVI. D minor [3315-33] 3192. [D=Froh] (‘Einen Eber fällen sollt ihr für Froh’, 3317) 3193. [d=Donner] (‘einen stämmigen Bock stechen fUr Donner’, 3320) CXVn. E k Major [3334-40] 3194. [E k “Vassais, relaxing] (‘Schlugen wir Thiere, was schlaffen wir dann?’, 3335) CXVm. E Major [3341-54] 3195. [B=Dtink-hom] (‘Das Trinkhom nehmt von tauten Frau’n mit Meth und Wein wonnig gefüllt’, 3341) CXK. C Major [3355-3423] 3196. [C=^oy] (‘Rüstig gezecht, bis der Rausch euch zähmt’, 3355) 3197. [e=Wedding] (‘Alles den Göttern zu Ehren, dass gute Ehe sie geben!’, 3361) 3198. [C=good fortune] (‘Gross Glück und Heil lacht nun dem Rhein’, 3379) CXX. 3199.

E k Major [3424-88] [Ek=Gunther’s Bride] (‘Empfangt

531 Gunther’s Braut’, 3426) [Cb=Brünhhilde] (‘BrSnnhilde nah’t dort mit ihm’, 3431) [G b=mountain height] (‘Er deutet die Mannen nach dem Rheine hin’, 3434) [e b=Hagen] (motif + ’traf sie ein Leid rasch seid zur Rache!’, 3459) [B b=Gunther*] (‘Heil!’, 3462) [D=Heroes*] (‘Heil!’, 3464) [G b =*] (‘Willkommen! ’, 3471)

CXXI. Bb Major [3489-3528] 3206. [B b =House of Gibich] (‘Gunther steigt mit p.’, etc., 3489) 3207. [eb=cowedBride] (‘B. Welche bleich und gesenkten Blickes’, etc., 3503) 3208. [A b “heavenly woman] CBrünnhilde’, 3506) 3209. [D b=Walhall] (‘die hehrste Frau, bring! ich euch her zum Rhein’, 3507) 3210. [A b “heavenly woman] (‘Ein edleres Weib ward nie gewonnen’, 3511) 3211. [B b “House of Gibich] (‘Der Gibichungen Geschlecht eben die Götter ihm Gtmsf, 3515) 3212. [eb=cowed Bride] (motif+ context, 3526)

Biünnhilden’s Blick?’, 3573) [D b “heaven] (passing, 3574) [G b “heaven sinking] (‘Kaum ihrer mächtig’, 3575) 3225. [e b “inferior bride, wounded goddess] (‘Gutrune?’, 3576) 3226. [A b “Gutrune, “heavenly” maiden] (‘Gunther’s milde Schwester’, 3578) 3227. [D b=Gutrune, in “heaven”] (‘mir vermählt, wie Gunther du’, 3580) 3228. [b b “Érünnhilde, in “hell” (Nibelheim)] (‘Ich? 3582) 3229. [c=unwilling bride] (‘Gunther?’, 3583) 3230. [b b “denial] (‘Du lüg’st! ’, 3584) 3231. [D=Siegfiied, Hero] (‘Mir schwindet das Licht’, 3588) 3232. [A b “heavenly maid] (‘Siegfried kennt rnich nicht?’, 3591) 3233. [Db “heaven, disintegrating] (‘Gunther, deinem Weib ist übel! ’, 3594) 3234. [D“Siegfried, Hero] (‘Erwache Frau! Hier steht dein Gatte’, 3596) 3235. [a“hand, wearing Ring] (‘Brünnhilde erblickt am ausgestrechten Finger Siegfried’s den Ring’, 3599) 3236. [e b “Hägeri] (‘Hagen aus dem Hintergründe)

CXXn. G Major [3529-2615] 3213. [G=Gutrune] (‘Gegrüsst sei, theurer Held; gegrüsst, holde Schwester’, 3529) 3214. [E=Wedlock] (‘Zwei sel’ge Paare seh’ ich hier, prangen’, 3541) 3215. [Eb= Brünnhilde, Bride] CBrünnhilde’, 3546) 3216. [Bb*=Gimther] (‘...und Gunther’, 3548) 3217. [C b “The Shadow] (‘Gutnin’und Siegfried!’, 3550) 3218. [bb=Nibelungs] (context, 3555) 3219. [e=sickness] (‘Was ist ihr?’, 3564) 3220. [b b=Nibelungs] (‘Ist sie entrückt?’, 3566) ^221. [Db“heaven] ('Siegfried geht einige Schritte auf Brünnhilde zu’, 3572) 3222. [A b “heavenly maid] (‘Was müht

CXXIII. F Major [2616-45] 3237. [Afhand, tyearing Ring] (‘Einen Ring sah ich an deiner Hand, 3616) 3238. [d“Siegfried, inferior Hero] (‘nicht dir gehört er, ihn entriss mir’, 3618) 3239. [g“Gunther, inferior husband] (‘auf Gunther deutend’, ‘dieser Mann! Wie mochtest von ihm den Ring du ençfah’n?’, 3622) 3240. [d=Siegfiied, inferior Hero] (‘Siegfried betrachtet auf merksam den Ring an seinem Finger’, 3626) 3241. [F=Fafiter] (‘Den Ring ençfing ich nicht von ihm’, 3628) 3242. [e b *=the Rhine, long ago] (motif, 3630) 3243. [d=inferior hero] (‘Nahmst du von mir den Ring, durch den ich dir vermählt, 3632) 3244. [C“tidings] (‘so melde ihm dein

3200. 3201. 3202. 3203. 3204. 3205.

3223. 3224.

532 3245. 3246. 3247. 3248. 3249.

Recht’, 3534) [e=magic ring] (‘ford’re ziffttck das Pfand!’ ‘Den Ring?’, 3636) [c=ignorance] (‘Ich gab ihm keinenidoch, kenn’st du zugh gut?’, 3637) [bl>=Guntherataloss](‘Wo bärgest du den Ring, den du von mir...’, 3639) [a=a thief] (‘...erbeutet?’, 3641) [C=undetstanding] (motif+ context, 3643)

CXXIV. C minor [3646-3779] 3250. [c=Brünnhilde, beside herself] (‘B. fährt wüfhend auf, 3646) 3251. [e=magic ring] (‘Dieser war es, der mir den Ring entriss’, 3648) 3252. [g=traitor] (‘Siegftied! Der trugvolle Dieb!’, 3651) 3253. [a=woman’s hand] (‘Von keinem Weib kam mir der Reif, noch war’s ein Weib’, 3658) 3254. [C=recollection] (‘dem ich ihn abgewanntgenau erkenn’ ich’, 3661) 3255. [e k=Rhine-booty] (‘des Kampfes Lohn den vor Neidhöl’ einst ich bestand’, 3664) 3256. [B b=battle, booty-winning] (‘als den starken Wurm ich erschlug’, 3667) 3257. [eb=Hagen/Brännhild] (‘BrOnnhild’, kühne Frau!’ 3770) 3258. [e=magic ring] (‘kennst du genau den Ring? Ist’s der, den du Guniher’n gabst ’, 3671) 3259. [e b =Hagen] (‘Und Siegftied gewann ihn durch’, 3676) 3260. [e=magic] (‘Trug; den der Treulose bfissen sollt’!’ 3676) 3261. [eb=Brünnhilde beside herseif] (‘Betrug!’, 3681) 3262. [a=betrayal] (‘Schändlichster Betrag!’, 3685) 3263. [f=deceit] (‘Verrath!’, 3688) 3264. [g=liaitor beyond punishment] (‘Wie noch nie er gerächt’, 3694) 3265. [c=chaos, confusion] (‘Verrath? An wem?’, 3699) 3266. [Db =apostrophe to Gods, beginning] (‘Heil’ge Götter,

3267. 3268. 3269. 3270. 3271. 3272.

3273. 3274. 3275. 3276. 3277.

3278. 3279. 3280.

himmlischen Lenker! ’, 3703) [ab=dark council] (‘Rauntet ihr diess in eiuemRath?’, 3712) [d=unequalled anguish] (‘Lehrt ihm mich Leiden, wie keiner sie litt?’, 3717) [ftnmequalled shame] (‘Schuft ihr mir Schmach, tvie nie sie geschmerzt?’, 3722) [0=information](‘Radietnun’, 3728) [g=of revenge] (‘Rache wie nie sie geras’t!’, 3729) [a b =cosmic rage] (‘Zünder mir Zorn, wie noch nie er gezähmt!’, 3733) [F=broken heart] (‘Heisset Brünnhild’ ihr Hetz zu zerbrechen’, 3739) [D b =apostrophe to Gods, conclusion] (‘den zu zertrümmern’, 3744) [c=Brünnhilde, supplicant] (‘der sei betrog!’, 3747) [Bb=Gunther] (‘Brünnhild’, Gemahlin! Mäss’ge dich!’, 3750) [E b=Brünnhilde] (‘Weich’ fern, Verträther! Selbst-verrath’nerl’, 3753) [c=Brünnhilde in action] (context, 3757) [bb=actual husband] (‘nicht ihm, dem Manne dort bin ich vermählt’, 3763) [G b = false lover] (‘Er zwang mir Lust und Liebe am’, 3773)

CXXV. F Major [3780-3823] 3281. [d=inferior hero] (‘Achtest du so der eig’nen Ehre? Die Zunge die sie lästert muss ich der Lüge sie’, 3780) 3282. [b=falsehood] (‘zeihen?’, 3786) 3283. [F=iimocence] (‘Hört, ob ich Treue brach!’, 3788) 3284. [Db=Blood brotherhood] (‘Blutbrüderschaft hab’ ich Gunther geschworen’, 3792) 3285. [f/OSword] (‘Nothung, das werftie Schwert, wahrte der Treue Eidimich trennte seine Schärfe von...’, 3796)

533 3286.

[c^BrUmihilde sorrowing] (‘diesem train’gen Weib’, 3808) 3287. [d=inferior hero] (‘Du listiger Held’, 3812) 3288. [c=wor(hless Sword] (‘sieh’ wie du lüg’st! Wie auf dein Schwert du schlecht dich berufst!’, 3813) 3288(b) [d=inferior hero] (passim) 3289. [0=Sword] (‘Wohl kenn’ ich seine SchiK^e, doch kenn’ auch die Scheide, darin sowonnig ruht an der Wand...’, 3817) CXXVI. Eb Major [3824-51] 3290. [Al>=heavenly maid] (‘Notinmg, der treue Freund, als die Traute sein Herr sich gewann’, 3824) 3291. [Ab/E/C=TheNoms, Fate] (motif + ‘Wie? Brach er die Treue?’, 3829) CXXVn. A minor [3833-5] 3292. [E=Love] (motif + ‘Brach er die Treue?’, 3833)

CXXVm. Eb Major [3836-51] 3293.

3294. 3295. 3296. 3297.

[bb “Günther shamed] (‘Geschändet wär ich, Schimhlich bewahrt, gäb’st du die Rede nich ihr zurück!’, 3836) [d b “honor, truth doubted] (‘Treulos Siegfried, sannest du Trug?’, 3842) [bb “accusations] (‘Bezeuge, dass Jene falsch dich zeih’t! ’, 3845) [c“dcfense] (‘Reinige dich, bist du im Recht!’, 3848) [d“herd on the spot] (‘Schweige die Klage! Schwören den Eid!’, 3850)

CXXIX. C Major [3852-94] 3298. [a=an oath] (‘Schweig’ ich die Klage, schwör ich den Eid:’,*3852) 3299. [Oinquiiy] (‘wer^ von euch wagt seine Waffe daran?’, 3855) 3300. [c|t=Hagen’s Spear] (‘Meine Speeres Spitze wag’ ich daran:sie vrahr’ in Ehren den Eid!’, 3859) 3301. [a=oath] (motif, 3866) 3302. [C“oath (Siegfried)] (‘Siegfried legt zwei Finger seiner reehten Hand auf die Speeres spitze’, 3875)

3303. 3304. 3305. 3306.

[a“oalh] (motif, 3876) [e“Siegfried’s oath] (‘Helle Wehr, heilige WaQfe!’,3880) [C/c=Siegfried’s oath] (‘Hilf meinem ewigen Eide! Bei den Speeres Spitze’, 3885) [f=Siegfried’s oath] (‘sprech’ ich den Eid’, 3893)

CXXX. C minor [3895-3917] 3307. [Db=Siegfried’s oath] ^‘Spitze, achte des Spruchs!’, 3895) 3308. [e b “Siegfried’s oath] (‘Wo Scharfes mich schneidet’, 3899) 3309. [c“Siegfried*s oath] (‘Schneide du mich’, 3902) 3310. [fr=Siegfiried’s oath] (‘wo den Tod mich soll treffen’, 3904) 3311. [Db“Siegfried’s oath] (‘treffe du miclnklagte das Weib dort wahr’, . 3907) 3312. [E b “Siegfried’s oath] (‘brach ich demBmder den Eid!’, 3912) CXXXI. C Major [3918-30] 3313. [b“Br0nnhilde’s oath] (‘Helle Wehr!’, 3918) 3314. [e“Brilnnhilde’s oath] (‘Heililge Waffe!’, 3920) 3315. [C/c“Brünnhüde’s oath] (‘Hilf meinem ewigen Eide!’, 3922) 3316. [C“ Brünnhilde’s path] (‘Bei des Speeres Spitze’, 3926) 3317. [fr=Brünnhilde’s oath] (‘sprech’ ich den Eid:’,,3929) CXXXn. C minor [3931-49] 3318. [Db“Brünnhilde’s oath] (‘Spitze! Achte des Spruch’s!’, 3^30) 3319. [e b“B.’s oatii] (‘Ich weihe deine Wucht, dass sie ihn...’, 3934) 3320. [c=B’s oath] (‘Werfe! Deine Schärfe senge ich, dass sie ihn...’, 3937) 3321. [Db=B’s oath] (‘schneide! Denn, brach’, 3942) 3322. [c“B.’s oath] (seine Eid er all 3323. [Eb=B.’s oath] (‘schwar Meineid jetzt dieser...’, 3947) CXXXm. B minor [3950-85] 3324. [b=The Shadow] (‘Mana’ ‘Hilf,

534 3325. 3326. 3327. 3328. 3329. 3330. 3331. 3332. 3333. 3334. 3335. 3336. 3337.

Donner!’, 3950) [B=Shadow ascendant] (‘zu schweien die wüthende Schmach!’, 3956) [e=wife, subordinate] (‘Gunther! Wehr’ deinem Weibe das schamlos Schande dir lOgt. GSnn’t ihr’, 3958) [g=iinpotent rage] (‘Weil’ und Ruh’, der wilden’, 3964) [F)i=mountain woman] (‘Felsenflau, dass ihre fleche Wuth sieh lege’, 3966) [e=kobold] (‘die eines Unhold’s arger List’, 3969) [b=The Slädow] (‘wider uns Alle erragt!’, 3971) [D=Heros] (‘Dir Mannen, kehret euch ab!’, 3972) [a=Women] (‘lasst das Weibergeseif!’, 3974) [D=Men] (‘Als...’, 3976) [b/e=cowaids] (‘Zage weichen wir gern’, 3977) [G=Scolds triumphant] (‘gilt es mit Zungen dem Streit’, 3978) [b=The Shadow] (‘Er tritt dicht zu Gunther.” ‘Glaub’, 3980) [e=bad magic] (‘mehr zürnt es mich als dich sass scUecht ich sie getauscht’, 3982)

CX7ÍXIV. G Major [3986-99] 3338. [G=tainhelm/Women] (‘der Tamhelm, dünkt mich fast, hat halb mich nur geheht Doch Frauengroll fliedet sich bald’,, 1397) 3339. [E^l>=Noms] (motif + ‘dass ich dir es gewann, danktjlir’, 3992) 3340. [A 1> =heavenly mmden] (‘gewiss noch das W=lost gift] (‘dass er’s verworfen’, 4869) [b b=Nibelung ring] (‘nur dem Ring den zum Tod ihm taugt den Reif nur will et sich wahren!’, 4871) [D k=heaven] (‘Ein Stollen Weib wird noch heut’ dich Argen beerben’, 4876) [A b^heavenly woman] (‘sie beut uns bess’res Gehör’, 4880) [F=Nature=water +Iand (Nixies/Siegfiied)] (‘Im wasser wie am Lande’, 4895) [b=Curse](‘Hoi-ho!’, 4933) [F=Siegftied, Nature Boy] (motif, 4941) [g=hiding place] (‘Finden wir endlich wohin du flogest?’, 4958) [Ab =Dverside] (‘Kommtherab! Hier ist’s ftisch und köhl’, 4962)

CLXVm. A Major [4966-74] 3532. [A=meal] (‘Hier rasten wir, und rüsten wir das Mahl!’, 4972) CLXIX, F Major [4975-82] 3533. [F=booty] (‘Lasst tuh’n die Beute, und bietet die Schläuche!’, 4983) CLXX. A Major [4983-5013] 3534. [A=wineskins] (‘die Schläuche’, , 4983) 3535. [f(t=heroic htpiting] (‘Der uns das Wild verscheuchte’, 4995) 3536. [D=Siegftied] (‘nun sollt ihr Wunder hören, was...’, 4997) 3537. [b=chase] (‘Siegfiied sich eijagt.’ ‘Schlimm steht es um mein Mahl’, 4999)

3538. 3539.

[C=tidings] (‘Du beutelos?’ ‘Auf Waldjagd zog ich aus’, 5003) [A=water-birds] (‘‘doch Wasserwild zeigte sich nurrwas irch Hawi recht berathen, drei wilde Wasservögel fiätt ich euch wohl gèûngen, die dort auf dem Rhein mir... ’, 5006)

CLXXI. C Major [5014-21] 3540. [c=ill tidii^s] (‘sangen’, 5014) 3541.

[e=dangef of murder] (‘erschlagen würd’ ich noch heut. “Das wäre üble Jagd’, 5014)

CLXXn. D Major [5022-52] 3542. 3543. 3544. 3545. 3546. 3547.

3548. 3549. 3550. 3551. 3552. 3553. 3554.

[A=thirst] (‘Mich dürstet! ’, 5022) [A=forest birds, remembered] (‘Ich hörte sagen, Siegvfiied, der Vögel...’, 5025) p>=Sieg&ied] (‘Sanges spräche’, 5026) [G=tnvial matter (bird q>eech)] Cverstündest du wohl’, 5027) [Oinquiry] (‘so wäre das wahr?’, 5028) [e=even more trivial matter] (‘Seit lange acht’ ich des Lailens nicht mehr’, 5029) [a=drink hom]‘ (‘Er fasst das Trinkhom und wendet sieh damit zu Gunther’, 5031) [D=Siegfiied, Hero-brother] (‘Trink’, Gunflier, trink:dein Bruder bringt es dir!’, 5036) [a=pallid] (‘Du mischtest matt und bleich’, 5039) [e=danger of murder] (‘dein Blut allein darin!’, 5043) [b/D=Siegfiied, Hero] (‘So misch’ cs mit dem, 5046) [A=a mixed drink] (‘Er giesst aus Gunther’s Horn in das seinige, so dass dieses überläuft’, 5049) [Oover-fullness] (‘Nun floss gemischt es über’, 5049)

CLXXm. E b Major [5053-8] 3555. [E b=Mother Earth] (‘der Mutter Erde lass’ das ein Labsal sein!’, 5053) 3556. [d=inappropriate Hero] (‘Du überfi-oherHeld!’, 5057)

540 CLXXIV. C Major [5059-83] 3557. [e=ill-fated mairiage] (motif + ‘Dan macht BriUinhlide MOh?’, 5060) 3558. [C=understandmg] (‘VerstOnd’ er sie so gut, wie du der Vögel Sang!’, 5063) 3559. [D=Siegfried, hero] (‘Seit Frauen ich singen hörte, vergass ich der Vöglein ganz’, 5067) 3560. [a=understan¿i^, faded ] (‘Doch einst vernahmst du sie?’, 5071) 3561. [C=tales] (‘Dank’st du es mir, so sing’ ich dir Mähren aus meinen jtmgen Tagen’, 5076) CLXXV. G minor [5084-5114] 3562. [g=Mime] (‘Mime, heiss ein mürrischer Zwerg’, 5096) 3563. [D=Siegftied] (‘in des Neides Zwang zog er mich auf, dass einst das Kind, wann kühn es erwuchs’, 5098) 3564. [E k = dragon] (‘einen Wurm ihn fällt’ im Wald’, 5103) 3^65. [d=guardiaa] (‘der lang’ schon hütet einen Hort’, 5104) 3566. [Bk “Nibelung forging] (‘Er lehrte mich schmieden und Erze schmelzen;’,J107) 3567. [g=inferior smith] (‘doch, was der...’, 5111) 3568. [A k “master, would-be] (‘der Künstler selber nicht konnt’,5111) 3569. [C k “cloudy knowledge, apprentice’s] (‘des Lehrling’s Mufhe musst’ es...’, 5113) CLXXVI. p Major [5115-40] 3570. [B=sword-splinters] (‘...gelingen:eincn zerschlag’nen’, 5115) 3571. [C=Sword] (‘...Stahles Stücken neu zu schmiedenzum Schwert’, 5116) 3572. [d=Siegmnnd] (3)es Vater’s Wehr fügt’ ich mir neu’, 5119) 3573. [a=consideration, Üjinking] (‘Tüchtig zum Kampf (lünkf er dem Zwerg;) 3574. [d=Sieg6ied and Fa&er ] (‘der führte mich mm zum Wald;dort fällt’ ich Fafiier, den Wurm’, 5127)

CLXXVn. E Major [5141-86] 3575. [E=Forest Bird] (‘Auf den Aesten sass es und sang’, 5144) 3576. [E=magic Ring] (‘doch möcht’ er den Ring sich errathen, der macht ihn zum Walter der Welt!', 5156) 3577. [G=treç] (‘Das Vöglein hörtest du wieder?’, ) 3578. [A=ring-in-hand] (‘Ring und Tamhelmhatt’ ich gerafft’, 5163) 3579. [E=Forest Bird/Ring] (‘da lauscht’ ich wieder dem wonnigen taller, der sass im Wipfel und sang’, 5167) 3580. [b=death] (‘Vergaltest du Mime?’, 5184) CXXXVra. C Major [5186-5206] 3581. [Oconfession] (‘Mit tödtlichem Tranke trat er zu mir; bang imd stotternd gestandet mir BösemNolhung streckt den Strolch!’ 5187) 3582. [g=Mime] (‘Was nicht er geschmiedet schmeckte doch Mime!’, 5193) 3583. [G=inquiry of Wood Bird] (“Was wiess das Vöglein dich wieder?’ ‘Was wiess das Vöglein dich wieder?’, 5197) 3584. [e k“Hagçn] (‘die Erinnerung hell dir zu wiscken’, 5209) 3585. [B=fatal magic] (‘dass Fernes nicht dir 5206) CLXXK. E minor [5207-15] 3586. [F)i=distant memory] (‘entfalle!’, context, 5209) 3587. [E/e=Love] (motif + ‘In Leid zu den Wipfel lauscht ich hinauf, 5213) CXXXX. E Major [5216-35] 3588. [E=Forest Bird] (‘da sass es noch und sang:“Hei! Siegftied...’, 5217) 3589. [a=dark advice] (‘Und folgtest du des VOglein’s Rathe?’ 5235) CLXXXI. C Major [5236-56] 3590. [F/f=heioio action] (‘Rasch ohne Zögern zog ich nun aus:’, 5237) 3591. [Ak=heavenly ground] (‘Bis den

3592. 3593. 3594. 3595. 3596.

feurigen Fels ich traf, 5240) [A=penetration] (‘die Lohe durch...’, 5243) [B b =phallic penetration / fire] (‘...schritt icl^ und fend’, 5245) [F=reward] (‘zum Lohn’, 424'^ [e b =sleep] (‘schlafend*, 5251) [A=Virgin Bride] (‘ein wonniges Weib!’, 5255)

CLXXXn. A Major [5257-66] 3597. [E=Goddess Bride] (‘in lichter Waffen Gewand’, 5259) 3598. [A=penetration] (‘Den Hehn löst ich der herrlichen Maid’,5262) 3599. [a=awakening maiden] (‘mein Kuss erweckte sie kühn’, 5263) CLXXXm. C Major [5267-5336] 3600. [C=sexual knowledge] (‘ oh! Wie mich brihmstig da umschlang der schönenBrOnnhilde Arm!’, 5267) 3601. [g=Gunther cuckolded and shamed] (‘Washör’ ich!’, 5274) 3602. [b=Curse] (‘Erräth’st du auch dieser Raben Garaun? l|ache! Riethen sie mir! ’, 5277) 3603. [c=the end] (‘Hagen, was thu’st du?’, 5288) 3604. [a b =Hagen, murtfcrerl (‘Hagen, was festest du?’ ‘Meineid’, 5292) 3605. [g=vengeance, Siegfried’s fall] (‘rächt’ ich!’, 5295) 3606. [e=vengeance, Siegfried’s fall] (‘Hagen wendet sich ruhig zur Seite ab’, 5298 ) 3607. [f)i=victim dying] (‘Die Maimen umstehen feeilnahmvoll den Sterbenden’, 5302) 3608. [C=Awakening] (‘Brünnhilde!’, 5307) 3609. [a=Awakener] (‘Der Wecker kam, er küsst dich wac£, und aber der Braut bricht er die Bande’, 5330) CLXXXIV. A Major [5337-49] 3610. [E=Bride] (‘da lacht ihm Brünnhilde’s Lust’, 5337) 3611. [A=Bride’s Eyes] (‘Ach! Dieses Auge ewig nun offen!’, ) 3612. [ftl=Bride’s breath] (‘Ach dieses Afeem’s wonniges Wehen!’, 5343)

3613. 3614. 3615.

[D=Siegfried] (cont, 5345) [Db “Siegfried’s surrender] (‘Düsses Vergehen’, 5346) [A=Desti¿y, longed for] (‘seliges Grauen!’, 5347)

CLXXXV. C Major [5350-66] 3616. [g)t=deafe] (‘bietet mir Bruss! ’, 5350) 3617. [c=fimeral] (passing, 5355) CLXXXVI. C minor [5367-90] 3618. [c=funeral] (passing, 5367) 3619. [f] (passim, 5373) 3620. [Ab] (passim, 5377) 3621. [C] (passim, 5379) 3622. [f] (passim, 5381) 3623. [A b ] (passim, 5385) 3624. [g] (passim, 5386) CLjpCXVn. C Major [5391-5403] 3625. [C=Sword] (motif, 5393) CLXXXVm. Eb Major [5404-31] 3626. [Eb](5406) 3627. [Bb](5413)

3628.

3629.

Dritte Scene.

[b b “Alberich] (Love motif:Alberich as poisoner of love, 5419) [e=cursed ring] (Curse motif, 5423)

3630. 3631.

[c=funeral] (5425) [G=wing light] (‘ Sie blickt ängstlich hinaus’, 5466) 3642. [d=Siegfiied, Men hero] (‘Säh ich Sieg&ied nur bald!’, 5468) 3643. [e=fear] (‘Als Gutrune Hanen’s Sthnme hört, bleibt sie, von Furcht gefesselt, eine Zeit lang unbeweglich stehen’, 5471) 3644. [o=balefiil light, awakening] (‘Wacht auf! Lichte, lichte’, 5474) 3645. [C=arising] (‘Auf’, 5482) 3646. [G=Gutrune] £Gutrune! ’, 5482) 3647. [c=funeral] (‘Der starke Held, ericehret heim’, 5484) 3648. [e=fallen hero] (‘Der bleiche Held, nicht’ bläst’ er es mehr; nicht stürmt er zur Jagd, zum Streite nicht mehr’, 5489) 3649. [G=Gutnme] (‘noch wirbt er um wonnige Frauen’, 5494) ,CLXXXXH. C minor [5495-5585] 3650. [c=futfferal] (‘Was bringen die?’ 5497) 3651. [d=fallen hero] (motif, 5498) 3652. [C b‘^=boar (murder)] (‘Eines wilden Eber’s Beute, Siegfried, deinen todtenMann!’, 5501) 3Ö53. [f=wailing] (‘Gutrune schreit auf, etc., 5505) 3654. [e b “devastated woman] (‘holde Schwester’, 5514) 3655. [gKSutrune mourning] (‘hebe dein Auge’, 5516) 3656. [Ab=heavenly treasure, woman’s voipe] (‘schweige mir nicht!’, 5519) 3657. [a=dark knowledge ] (‘Siegfried erschlangeri!’ 5525) 3658. [frwailing] (‘Fort, treuloser Bmder’, 5527} 3659. [b b “Gunther, traitor] (‘du Möder meines Mannes’, 5529)

3660. 3661. 3662. 3663. 3664. 3665. 3666. 3667. 3668. 3669. 3670. 3671. 3672.

[c=woman bereit] (‘O Hülfe! Hülfe! Wehe!’, 5531) [d=Siegfiied, fallen hero] (‘Wehe! Sie haben Siegfried...’, 5534) [a b “tnurder] (‘erschlagen! ’,5537) [c“nasty revelation] (‘Er ist der verfluchte Eber, der diesen Edlen zerfleischt’, 5540) [b=murder] (‘Ich Hagen schlug ihn zutodf, 1559) [c=false oath] (,‘Meinem Speer warer gespart bei dem er Meineid sprach’, 5562) [e b “sacred bonds] (‘Heiliges beuterechf, 5573) [ab=murder ] (‘hab’ ich mir nun errungen’, 5575) [e=magical ring] (‘Drum fordr’ ich hier diesen Ring!’, 5578) [g==Gunther crossed (separation)] (‘Zumck!, 5581) [c“ravaging (the ring)] (‘Was mir verfiel sollst nimmer du ençfehn’n!’, 5583) [e=magical ring] (motif, 5584) [d”4ieroes out of tireir depth ] (‘Ihr Mannen!’, 5585)

CLXXXXm. C Major [5585-5606] 3673. [C“unmasking] (‘Rühr’st du an Gutmne’s Erbe’, 5585) 3674. [g=contençtible Nibelimg] (‘Schamloser Albensohn!’, 5589) 3675. [e=cursed ring] (motif + ‘Des Alben Erbe,’ 5591) 3676. [b=Curse, murder] (‘fordert so sein Solm’ 5593) 3677. [D“Siegfiied, hero after all] (‘Siegfried’s Hand hebt sich drohend ençor’, 5600) CLXXXXIV. Eb Major [5607-50] 3678a-c [E b -G-C b “Noms (or Fate)] (‘Schweigt eures Jammers jauchzender Schwall! Das ihr Alle verriethet...’, 5607) 3679. [c“wronged woman (Brürmhilde)] (‘zur Rache schreitet sein Weib’, 5615) 3680. [d=Siegfried] (‘doch nicht erklang mirwüdige’, 5621) 3681. [c=hero lament. Amerai (‘Klage,

543 des höchsten Helden weidi,’ 5624) [f=wailing] (‘Brünnhilde! Neideibos’te!’, 5628) 3683. [Ek/ek“Etemal Woman, Eternal Rival (Gutiune)] (‘Du brachtest uns diese Nodndie du die Männer ihm verhetztest’, 5631) 3684. [c=unfortunate woman] CArm¿el’ge, schweig’!’, 5637) 3685ab. [Ab/al>=value tarnishing] (‘als Buhlerin bandöst du ihn,’, 5641) 3686. [D b “eternal vows] (‘Sein Mannesgemahl bin ich, der ewige Eide er schwur’, 5644) 3687. [g=laint] (‘Meine Klage hör’, 5760) 3723. [f(l “heroic deed] (‘Durch seine tapferste...’, 5764)

544 CC. 3724. 3725. 3726. 3727. 3728. 3729.

E b Major [5766-76] [a b =Wotan’s will] (‘That, dir so tauglich erwûncht,’ 5767) [b b =condenmation] (‘weihtest du', 5769) [db=condenmed god] (‘den, der sie gewirkt’, 5770) [e b =doom] (‘dem Fluche dem du) [f=payment] (‘verflielesf, 5773) [c=sad wisdom] (‘Mich musste der Reinste verrathen, dass wissend wOrde ein Weib!’, 5773)

CCI. C Major [5777-94] 3730. [c)t=Wolan’s need] (‘Weiss ich nun was dir frommt?’, 5779) 3731. [d)t=all things] (‘Alles, Alles’, 5782) 3732. [e=ring] (‘Alles ward mir nun’, 5785) 3733. [b=curse] (‘frei’, 5786) 3734. [b=dealh birds] (‘Auch deine Raben hör’ ich rauschen’, 5787) 3735. [e=death tidings] (‘mit bang ersehter Botschaft send’ ich die Beiden nur’, 5792) CCn. 3736. 3737. 3738.

A b Major [5795-5819] [ab=path to Walhall] (‘heim’, 5795) [D b =Wotan] (motif; Ruhe, ruhe, du Gott!’, 5800) [ab=heritage, curse] (‘Mein Erbe nun nehm’ ich zu eigen’, 5812)

ccm. Eb Major [5820-50] 3739. [B b “Rhine Daughters ençoweicd] (‘Der Wassertiefe weise Schwestern, des Rheines schwimmende Töchter’, 5822) 3740. [E b=Rhine Daughters] (‘euch dank’ ich redlichen Radi: was ihr begehrt ich geb’ es euch’, 5828) 3741. [D=ashes] (‘am riieiner Asche nehmt es zu eigen!’, 5837) 3742. [G b =Fire] (‘Das Feuer, das mich verbrennt’, 5838) 3743. [eb=purified ring] (‘rein’ge vom Fluche den Ring! ’, 5841) 3744. [A b “flood] (‘Ihr in der Fluth’, 5842) 3745. [E b=waters] (‘löset ihn auf, und

3746.

lauter bewahrt das lichte Gold,’, 5846) [c b/b=Curse] (‘das Euch zum Unheil geraubt’, 5848)

CCIV. A minor [5851-62] 3747. [bb“firebrand] (‘Sie entreisst einem Manne dem mächtigen Feueibrand’, 5857) 3748. [a=Loge] (‘Fliegt heim ihr Raben’, 5862) 3749. [Ab“upward path to Walhall] (‘Rann’t es eurem Herren’, 5864) 3750. [E=Good Tidings (per #2957)] (‘was hier am Rhein ihr gehört’, 5865) 3751. [A“Loge] (motif + ‘An Brihmhilde’s Felsen fahrt vorbei! Der dort noch lodert’, 5868) CCV. 3752. 3753. 3754. 3755. 3756.

Ab Major [5563-81] [D b “Walhall] (‘weiset Loge nach Walhall! Denn der Götter’, 5863) [Eb=Omega] (‘Ende dämmert auf, 5869) [fr=grasping and hurling a torch] (‘So werf ich den Brand in Walhall’s prangende’, 5873) [Db“WalhaU] (‘Burg’, 5878) [D=bright flames] (‘weicher sich schnell hell entzündet’, 5879)

CCVI. A minor [5882-5] 3757. [Obrightening] (passim, 5882) 3758. [D“flames] (passim, 5883) CCVn. B minor [5886-5901] 3759. [d/D=Siegfried] (‘Grane, mein Ross!’, 5886) 3760. [b=Valkyrie] (‘Weisst du auch, mein Freund, wohn ich dich ’, 5895) 3761. [D“Siegfried] (‘führe?’, 5897)

CCVin. E Major [5902-23] 3762. 3763.

3764.

3765.

[E=Lady Love] (‘Siegfried’, 5902) [B“Lord (dominant) of Lady Love] (‘mein seliger Held’, 5903) [D=Siegfried] (‘Dem Freunde zu folgen wie herst du freudig?’, 5904) [E=Love-Light] (‘Lockt dich zu

545

3766. 3767. 3768. 3769.

ihm, die lachende Lohe? Fühl’ meine Bnisst auch, wie sie entbrennt’, 5908) [A=virgin, pure] (‘helles Feuer das Herz mir erfasst’, 5913) [B=consummation] (‘ihn zu umschlingen, umschlossen von ihm, in mächtigster Mimte’, 5917) [cjt=sexual union] (‘vermähltihn zu sein!’ 5921) [E=sexual union] (‘Hei-a-ja-hol ’, 5923)

CCK. C Major [5924-8] 3770. [F=desire] (‘Sieg&ied! Siegfried!’, 5925) 3771. [Dbblessedness] (‘Selig grüsst dich dein Weib’, 5927) CCX. 3772.

3773. 3774. 3775.

D Major [5929-40] [F )) =fire] (‘Soglich prasselt der Brand hoch auf, so dass das Feuer den ganzen Raum vor der Halle’, 5929) [D,Eb, Eli, F] (passim, 5955) [A=purifying flames] (passim, 5937) [F, FH, G, Ab] (passim, 5939)

CCXI. C Major [5941-4] 3776. [A b, E, C=Fate (Noms)] (passim, 5941) ccm Ab Major [5945-51] 3777. [A b =flood] (Rhine Daughters on flood, 5945) 3778. [e=magical ting] (‘Zurück vom Ring!’, 5951) CCXm.C Major [5952-] 3779. [e=magical ting] (passim, 5952) 3780. [CMight?] (passim, 5956) CCXIV. Ab Major [5957-61] 3781. [A b=flood] (passim, 5957) CCXV, Db Major [5962-] 3782. [D b=WaIhall] (motif; 5962) Ende Götterdämmerung

APPENDIX II: A Lexicon of Poetic Key Referents in Der Ring des Nibelungen I.£l> MAJOR (E b Minor, C minor) a. Persons Eb=RHINEDAUGKreRS (2, *187, 229, 2965, 3470,3478,3502, 3740), —, triunçhant (45) e b=RHlNE DAUGHTERS, Cause woe (16, per No.l5),—left in lurch (189), —, bereft (522), cruel nixie (39), traitorous nixies (44), —, sorrowing (2664) C=RHINE DAUGHTERS (266, 387), —, complaining (460) Eb=NORNS (2557,2575,2591,3339,3348, 3678abc) e b=Nom fete (3507); precognitive knowledge (3512) Eb=GREATMOTHER(1210); Womankind (2686) E b “ETERNAL WOMAN [incL “BRONNHIUJE’T (881,2131,3700); —, triimmhant (886); —, seduced (2163); —, wanmg (2190); Woman’s will (2610); —self-assertion (2696); —, strength (2605); —, (Freia) emerging ftom captivity (484); a blessed maiden (2414); Wish Maiden (1251); Woman’s will 2610); —, sefttassertion (2696); —, strength (2605); Gutnme in BrOnnhilde’s place (3345); Ladies in Waiting (3342); b r On Nh il d e , “Wonderwoman” (2615,2617, 2630,2650,2762, 2872,3277 ); —, erstwhile wonderwoman (3356); —, Wish Maiden, successftil (2^); —, Wotan’s fulfilled Wish (2896); —, her protection (2894); —, seduced, won (2608); —, her fool’s paradise (2908); —, Bride (3215); Gunther’s Bridq (3199); Eternal Woman, Eternal Rival (3432,3434,'3683) eb=ETERNAL WOMAN, her'wjll (951); —, her decree (971); —, goddess, sick (247); in decline (2508,3068); —, defimct (2581); —, deserted (2655,3350); —, devastated (3654); —, victim (3047) —, taped (3051)—, her spinning (2511); girl, foolish (1314); wife, sa'ddest 0075); Woman seduced (2608); e b=wojnan.

diminished (2612); —, distressed (2577); divine female spinning (2511); goddess’s c^lmning spirit (2530); goddess, clinging by e ftiread (2543); —, cowed (3207,3212); —, betrayed (3013); an inferior bride (3225); inferior female lover (2769); all-giving woman (2614); BRONNHILDE (2888,2890); — , supplicated (2972); —, beside herself (3261) c =e t e r n a l w o m a n : fewarted (431); —, shamed (882); —, wronged (3679); —, longing for Spring (709); radiance, of Sieglinde (726); wpmen (1239); a woman, sorrowing (624); —t prostrate (630); —, bereft (3660); —, fleeing ÒOOO); —, unfortunate (3684);»—, terrified (1276); Valkyrie pursued (1457, 1159, 1226, 1233);—, weakhearted and womanly (1237); rebellious Wish Maiden (1252); —.mother, Hagen’s (963); Brünnhilde sorrowing (2887, 3286);—, her Judgment (888); —, her will'(969); —, Wotan’s inqiotence against her (965); —, the Wanderer whispering her last feet in her ear (2191); Brûimhilde, sm>plicant (3275); Brünnhilde siçplicated (2974); Eternal Woman in extremis (3000,3005); B. resisting rape (3035); —, defending (3042); —, r^ed (3050); —, in action (3278); Eternal Woman’s fool’s paradise firaying (2909); —, unwilling bride (3229); PURSUING (FEMALE) FATE (1305); Norn, Siegmund’s (621); ill-fortune, Siegnamd’s pursuer (551,553, 846); —, wedlock’s guardian (788, 880) E b=HUNDiNG : his look (562) e b “HUNDING, kinsman of maid (632) C=HUNDING (561, 567,622,643,863); —, Siegmund’s host (576); —, his honor (578); —, his blood vengeance (1006); Us dogs (1013) eb=HAGEN ( 3079,3081,3093,3101,3173, 3202,3236,3259); —, a cold-blooded creature (2819); —, waiting (2840, 2847); —, and BrihmUld (3257) —,

548 Nibelung’s Son (960,2852); holds the Hoard (3443) dtt”god, sick (248); (e k)=—, defunct (2187); bad Valkyries (812) e b=Alberich as Nibehmg Lord (285); deposed (3448); guardian of night (3450) eb=Loge, as ftiend of Nibelung foes (320); cunning (Nibelung) council (1421) E b“A WISE OLD MAN, Wotan (2220); —, his occult knowledge (2247)

b. Places or Seasons

E b =RIVER, RHINE (388,2663, 2834,3462); a stream (1450); a spring (1871,1877) eb “RHINE, long ago (*3242); Rhine-booty (3255); Ring-in-Rhine (2966); Rhinegold (3491, 3493) eb=^e primæval Spring of Wisdom (2518) c =STREAM (2474,2808); —, dangerous (1874); —, gold stolen from (1988); sacred Spring, defunct (2542); setting saU(2829) Eb “THE EARTH* (902,1512); —, its circumference (171); world-circle (2729); dtl=the sublunary world (1045); origin, lineage, proof of (1489); Mother Earth (3555) (*e.g., “wholeness”, not “elemental earth”) dlt=everydiing, all filings (3731) Eb=WORLD ASH TREE (2514,2548); an ash’s stem (1593); a POLE, or poles (438) eb=WORID ASH TREE (2515,2573,2940); —, sickening (2528); —, inferior substihite (2513) c=W0RlD ASH TREE, its Stem (1557); —, its corpse (2540); c=forbidden fruit (1800) e b “threshold of Gibich’s Hall (2837) (n; for “Gichich’s Hair see B b)

c. Qualities or Actions

Eb “WATER, ELEMENTAL (1,

1682, 2459, 3745); —, as retreat fiom FIRE (2279) eb “WATER, ELEMENTAL : dousing passion with a woman’s love (2423) Eb“DfePTHS: Ultimate Depfiis (2132); UQUID=STRONG EMOTION: storming

(170); flood of passion (2422); emotional frenzy (2922); DRINK, good (2047); freeflowing, pure liquid (2817) eb=DEPTHS=abyss, profound (658); UQUiDS : Spring, of love (1308); storming assailants (629); imiversal sin (3419)

c=DEPTHS, a cleft, abyss (294); —, descent into (500); —, of the heart (674); dissolution, of identity (2431); —, ripples (2458); UQUIDS, drink-hom (1264); a driiÁ (1938); a poison drink (1707,2048,3688); poison foam (1855, 1951); a sluggish, injure liquid (2816); Wotan blood- sacrifice (3190,3446); storm, nearing (1193); tears, flowing wildly (628,478); berzerker raging (660, 1408); need, ultimate (752); chaos, confusion (3265); BrOnnhilde, beside herself (3250) Eb“DEPTHS“SLEEP(2142,2188): —, wondrous (111 1); —, eternal, the World Unconscious (2134)—, poisoned (1678); rest (987); unconsciousness of need (1518); Magic Sleep (2899); eb “sleep eb=SLEEP (3595); —, dangerous (2010); —, endless (2179); slumber (2143); dreams, darkened (2162); deathlike surrender (2358); depfiis of forgotten memory (3584) c “SLEEP(1832, 2153,2963); —, persistent (2355) UNCONSCIOUSNESS : the back (3383); evil dream (3634) E b “ORIGIN, FOUNDATION: the Past (2228); —, Wotan’s (124) eb “ORIGIN, FOUNDATION, of Wotan’s power (118); childbirth (1469);-rained foundations (2937) c=ORIGlN, FOUNDATION, Wotan’s, collapsing (463); ruined (2954); measureless might (906); ROOTS, LINEAGE (1456,1480); origin, unknown (1485); birth-giver (2673) Eb “ENDING (Q) (959,3753); Walhall, in evening light (501); Wotan, his inheritance (2195); —, his successor (2196) e b“ENDING (ß), of Gods (137); a sunset (509); doom (3727) c=ENDiNO (P): nightM (514,2547,3603); —, dream of (2206); fading ponç (957); wasted patrimony (968); tree, split (1016); —, extinction, as of Light (2258); —, Wotan’s last moment of power (2297); ultimate ending (3091, 3095,3166); funeral (3618,3630,3647, 3650,3681) c=WINTER (702); -, ruined (707); -, frosty (710); echoing tones of (721)

í

I 549 E b “WORLDONENESS, HOLDING TOGETHER (=^ONDS, OATHS^ (789) Ek=ONENESS=NATURE, natural law (434, 1835); custom (1568); Bond, natural (797); bonds (3361); female binding (2713); ultimate oneness (2659); bonds of love (2598); Eternal Woman, fulfilled (=bonded) (2656); normal binding 2719); bonds (2627,2711); ETERNAL BOND (Siegfined and Brünnhilde); their sunrise (2596,3711) eb=BOND (3666); —, broken (800); Siegfiied’s oath (3308, 3312) c=Siegfiied’s oath (3665); BrOnnhilde’s oath (3320) E b =bon(lsman (2567) c=bondsman (853); Gibichung vassals (3169,3176,3184,3188); Eb=Gibichung Vassals (3177,3194) E b=BiNDiNG LAW=Hospitality, law of (568); -, conventional (634) eb “BINDING LAW, reluctant (565); fetters, of fear of woman (2405) C=BINDING LAW, customary (566) Eb“punishment, customary (636); c=—, demanded by Fricka (785); eb “repossession, of Sword (1073); a dead slave (850) E b =EROS=^EXUALITY & MISOGYNY: a girl’s mouth (1265); a woman’s breath or atmosphere (2352); —, her sweet song (2401); longing for woman (2223,2225); inpotence, Nibelung (1657); —, divine: pre-natal love (2379) e b=EROS: wedlock, profaned (792); virginity threatened (1273) shame (1079); —, of goddess (859); goddess’ rights and honor (885) c=EROS : hateful dishonor (996); blushing (1702); seduction (1714); renunciation, of woman (59,211,1743?); -, of a woman (437); a renounced object (451) Eb=Ring lost again (384,482) eb=Ring lost again indeed’(385); —, purified in fire and water (3743) c=winning Ring again (934); theft of Ring (2666,3087,3670); Rhinegold’s forging (3482)

d. Things

c=SPEAR, Wotan’s

(1524, 2285,2527, 2533, 2537,2562,2565,2936, 3508); —, as

implement of Oafti (3114); —, its might (1782)—, broken (3089) eb “SPEAR, Wotan’s (2264); —, Wotan’s its inscribed treaties (1559); Wotan’s bad treaties (1773,1779); —, its power threatened (2257) c=HEA0,'Wotan’s (1527); HEART, Wotan’s (2182) eb=HEAD, Wotan’s (1525) Eb=ABYSMALANIMALS; fishes (1454); dragon (3564) eb=ABYSMALANiMALS: dragon, immense bulk of (1386, 1588, lè23, 1929,2227); —, sleeping (1746); —, rising (1950); a dragon-glance (569) c=ABYSMAL ANIMALS: eel (32); a toad (1453); dragon (1624); —, devouring (1944); —its corpse (2082) c=“darit elves (1537) c=an un|mown enemy (3354); defense against attack (3296) C“not ‘Friedmund’ (585,743)

n.B Ir MAJOR (B b Minor, G minor) a. Persons

Bb=ALBERICH(8,19, *212, *1538,1822, 2069, 2580,2725); —, dirty old man (17); —, handsome (ironic) (40); —, his wooing (962); —, master of magic (60); —,'triunphant (283); —, Mime’s boss (304); —, so wonderful (353); —, thief (389); —, much maligned (392); —, defeated (*396); —, thief (2578,2656); bb “ALBERICH (308,310, 349,952,. 1548, 1760,1961,1965,2005 2743,3094);—, ironically praised (38); —, devastated (43); —, emaged and chasing (46); —, ascendant (66); —, lonj-down (220); —, sadist (282); —, wicked and greedy (295); —, master of magic (303); giving orders (313, 376);—, poisoner of love (3628); —, threat to Walhall (338); —, his wretchedness (397); —, stricken to the heart (402); :—, his plans (1794); —, threatening Faftier (1828); —, his hand (419); —his grudge (2194); b b /e b “Alberich/Hagen (=b:i/iv, father/son) grALBERiCH, as unwotihy antagonist (216, 1823, 1827); —, invisible (283); —, gods’ ensnarer (330); —, renouncer

I

É

550 (331); —, careôee (350); —, as homonculus inside serpent (359); —, black (*1763); —, wised up\\117)-, —, a failure (1815) Bb=MIME(1426, *1438, 1515, 1517, *1522, 1565,1668, *1887, *1909, 1990, 2226,2239,2241); —, idler (1625); —, the booby (1686); —, demoted (1687); —, his extremity (1649); —, as cook (1689); —, Fafher’s foe (1707); —, puffed up (2000); —, his best face (1869); —, his drink (1879); —, the helpful (2049) bb=MlME(1378,1469,1494,1499,1662, 2007); —, the thief (1605); —, defeated (1609); —, deflated (2001); —, dead (2079) g=MIME(312, 1449, 1455, 1457, 1459, 1629, 1672,1865, 1876, 1993,2000, 2046,2058,2065,2071,2099, 3582); —, inferior smith (3562, 3567); —, nasty (1428); subservient (291); his most wretched bondage (297); —, smart guy (1602); —, his mercy (1611); —, his doorstep (1614); —, doomed (1618); —, bungler (1652); —, failed teacher (1654); —, his woe (1664); —, as guide (1695); —, murdered (2076) B b=GUNTHER(2709,2759,2835, *3203, 3216,3276); —, son of Gibich (2734); Gunther, Gibichungs (2709); —, and battle (2741); A)I(B b)=Gunther/Nibelui^ lord (3020) b b =GUNTHER, at a loss (3237); —, imperilled (3186); —, a treacherous husband (3279); —, traitorous brother . (3659) g=GUNTHER, inferior husband (3239); cuckolded and shamed (3601) B b “GIBICHUNGS (2748); CHbichung brothers (2674); Gibichnng, battle (2741) Bb=NIBELUNG(s)(306, 1375,1536,1560, 1848, 1889, *2044,2715,3107); —, host (343); —, forging (3566); —, ring (3511) bb=NlBELUNG(s)(1399, 1812,1986,1992, 1998,2009,2751,2778,2818,2843, 3064,3066, 3077,3218,3220,3427, 3490,3639); —, skills (1382);—, separation (2812); —, snuth (1392, 1395); —, hateful (2011,2013); — lord (3034y, —, treachrày (3437); Nibelung inqjotenee (1508) g=NIBELUNO(s) (931,1817,2635,3022); —,

subservient (293); —, happy smith (1420); Nibelungish smithing (2750); Nibehmg arti&ct (2754); —, cuiming (2794); —, plots (2854); shameless (3674) B b “RHINE DAUGHTERS given power over flieir destiny (3739) Bb “‘Frohwalt’ (586) g=‘Wehwalt’ (587,618, 740, 1124) b b “father, unknown and nameless (“Siegmund, probably in Hella) (1484)

b. Places

B b=WORLD ASH TREE’S surrounding primaeval woods (2517) B b “NIBELHEIM (274) b b=NIBELHEIM (275); Brünnhilde, in “hell” (Nibelheim) (3228) g“NIBELHEIM(264,287);nightof(10); a cavern(1872) B b“GlBiCHUNG HALL (2746,2827); House of Gibich (3206,3211) bb“HELLA (1080); World, Won* of (913) Bb“a path to a stream (1873); w o r l d a s h TREE, its surrounding woods (2517) B b “SPRING EQUINOX (tallying Siegmud's wooing) (701); SPRING (1113); a new cycle (796); brightness of day (inçlying Sieg&ied’s wooing) (2445) b b=SPRlNO (Siegmund); his fatal look (712) g=SPRING, his martial strokes (703); —, dread of (711) B b •'-+e“WEST-EAST AXIS (1535) B b“Hunding’s house (575); a forest song (1923) bb“a trackless wilderness (573); a lair (3460) g=an unknown country (574); a hiding place (3530)

c. Qualities or Actions

B b“lTRE, ELEMENTAL (287); —, penetrated (3593); —, burning in the heart (2112); bleaching clouds (503); shooting flames (2275,3010); —, brigjhtest fires (2306); devouring fire (2572); red glow of dawn (2595); Sumise (3117) d r y n e s s : thirsty gazing (2408); conqtlete hedonism (2477) bb“FiRE, of furnace (1503); hungry and licking (519); -, of death (753); oppressive mists (502); hissing steam

551 (1717); ever- daikening thunder clouds (506, 1120, 1123, 1220); thunderstorm (1174); darkening shadow (665, 1182); fiery light, swelling (1222); a firebrand in the water’s surge, Siegfiied as (2473); tumultuous storni (connoting lightning) (2971) lightning sky, dimming (2644); DRYNESS : b t=failing Spring (2529) ; a firebrand (3747) g=FIRE; THUNDERBOLT, e.g.. Donner*« hammer (505); —, from Wotan*s spear (2296); a glowing red light (1131); sparks (1711); fiery billows (2269); thunder and lightning (2643); Spear’s power (1366) B t=BLOOD, burning dragon’s (2224); blood (2799,2803); blood brotherhood (2796, 2811, 2813); mania (blood gone wild) (2790) bb=BLOOD: lifeblood (2800); goblinlike brother’s blood (2802); blood brotherhood (3404) g=BLOOD, hot (1699) B b =STR1FE (2938, 3171); battle (2698, . 2750); battlefield (1026,2018); —, Siegmund’s last (1493); Siegmund fallen (2098); martial spirit (2597); masculine valor (2651); fiery courage (2791); weapon, Brünnhilde’s (2649); master of horse (2647) bb = STRIFE, battle (3097); battlefield, Siegmund’s last (I486); battle, to conquer fear (517); bondage to fear (2404) g=BA1TLEFIELD, Siegmund’s last (1729); dragon-fight (3471) B b =SEXUAL VIOLENCE: violent wooing (2793,2820,2831); male conqueror (2786,2901); "Nibelung" robber/rapist (♦3038); —, attacking (3041); wooing (2623); bride-winning (2600); battle, booty-winning (3256) b b “Violent wife (comic) (3477); bad mockery (3481) bb=male thiet seducer (2607); Eternal Rapist, in action (3048) Bb “SEPARATION (7,790, 1002, 1277, 1860); —, leaving home (1498); curt dismissal (2232); opposition (2244); disabling, of heart (2415) b b “SEPARATION (999,2259,2262,2280, 2564); —, of combatants (637); distancing, avoidance (988, 991,1313);

splitting apart (2536,2541); distance, cold (722); opposition (226); hostility (111); rejection(1012, 1435); loathing and horror (996, 1338); repulsion (1275, 2425); rejection (1329); curt dismissal (2235); tyranny, coercion (121); resentment (2251); grudge (2257); disdain (2613); denial (3230); accusations (3295); bond-breaking (3714); broken blood bond (3406) g=SEPARATION (1878,2250,3669); hostility, opposition, strife (123,2284,2286, 2703, 2679,3170,3181); defiance (2892); force, coercion (625); -, useless Ó060); fight, furious (1112); battle (1118); battle-call (1118); battling heroes (1128); bond-breaking (1244,3715); violent sleep-breaking (2127,2129, 2137,2151); consciousness-breaking (2192); obsessive or driven wandering (2126); defiance (2167,2254); rebeUion (2392); rebellious battle (2169); “look but don’t touch” (2464) B b=POWER, might (3099) bb “POWER (2973) B b “AFFLICTIONS; penalty, pain (6); delighted sight, Siegmund’s (537); wickedness (*615) bb=AFFUCnONS: vulnerability to attack (1121); fiightful danger (1185); inçotence, of god (851); eternal grief, Wotan’s (894); anxiety, goddess’s (73); utter exhaustion (1158); obliviousness to others (1162); woeful loss (453); burning woe (1307); foreboding, goddess’s (2531) Bb=EVlLS: injustice, Wotan’s (458); pride (78); suspicion (582); deadly hatred (3109) bb=EVILS: fiery rage, Wotan’s (1232); Wotan, traitor (3028); villainy (115); discontent (450); Alberich-likeness, the last gasp of (480); vengeance (787); unholiness (793); shame (1003,1005); treason (1074); traitorousness (1078, 1258,1272); rebel-sheltering (1230); a self-inqjosed sentence, exile (1246); rebellious coimtermanding (1250); guilt (3515); condemnation to doom (3725) g=EviLS: condemnation, supreme (795); double-cross (843); crime (1241); sentence, Briinnhilde’s (1334); wounding

552 blow (2571); ravishnKint, force (inferior) (2825,3142); revenge (3271); unworthiness (2777); woe 0358); shame (3363); power, frittered away (3100,3102) B b “DEGRADATIONS: supplication, beiugn (897) bb=servile bondage (1423) g=DEGRADAT10NS: self-demeaning, Wotan’s (459); submission (1703,1715); being dishonored, Fasolt (489); deepening weakness (246); deathly exhaustion, weariness (530,535 1109); shameful abasement (3392); extremis (1181); being publicly berated (564); a seized heart (655); a freakidi caprice (804); shame (of being conquered by the unworthy) (1271); defenselessness, nakedness (2413); iirçotent rage (3327); just rage (2897); inferior haiwUer (2745); unworthy enemy (3369); imworthy ravisher, robber (3088); a traitor (3252); traitor beyond punishment (3264); oathbreaker (3506) b b =a wish, for gold’s return (524)

c. Things

Bb=NlBELONG HOARD (455, 1387, 1551); Ring, thrown onto the Nibelung Hoard (483) bb=NtBELUNG H0ARD(1969); Nibelung ring (3423,3524) g=NIBELUNO h o a r d : Tamhelm (448); booty, a last smidgen of (459) g=W0LFINGS, as threats (603) Bb=AN ENEMY (18, 305, 1579); —, slain (609); —, an outrageous (633); —, a dangerous (973); —, a beloved sexual (2492); — (successors); of die gods (2657) bb=AN ENEMY (641,1007,1931,1965, 2266); an opponent, unworthy (847, 854); an enemy husband (124); gesture, direatening (645); a half-dark spirit (256); —, a challenge to (1931); —, Siegfried as Wotan’s (2211); divine criminal (3418) g=AN ENEMY (258, 1288,3183); Siegfried’s game (3459); a fool (3517); an oathbreaker (3519) B b=a good jioy (1410); an audacious boy (2198); Siegfried’s True Self (2384) bb=THE UNWORTHY: bass persons (856);

servile (1418) g=THE UNWORTHY: slaves (921); minions (976,2539); menials, gods as (439); gods, dead (263); unworthy people (1407); a tretribling, wasting coward (418); unwordiy sexual approach (2426) g=a prison bolt (648); prisoner (653); fetters of cowardice (477) g=WEAPONS(1077); a snare (727); a neighing war-steed (1184); war-riders (1348); —, suicide with (1097); shield, hero-protecting (2411) b b “WEAPONS shield and helmet, being without (2418); steel, envious (755) g=WEAPONS : being without (862) bb=false pride, Wotan’s (75) b b “youth, dieft of (260) B b“boat-on-Rhine (3128) b b =a bad fish (31); the tail of a dragon (1861, 1953) B b “twins (590); g“a pair of wolves (602) g“Alberich’s Ring (2983); Nibelung ring (2986) g“Gundier/Nibelung lord (3019) g“Rope of Fate (motif, 18) (alt, inferior tree, fir tree) (2507)

m. F MAJOR (F Minor, D minor) a. Persons

(*82,104,108,122,129, 133,167, 175, 1995); —, determined, (140); advantaged, 227, giving orders, 234); FASOLT AND FAFNER, BROTHERS (1547) f=THE GIANTS (1379, 1546, 1776);—, crossed and dumfoimded (114); turning ugly (236); stem but trustworthy (433); protesting (462); fed up (464); —, extinct (1967) d=THE GIANTS, Subordinated (83); threatened (192); impotent (193,231) F“Fa s o l t (96) fi=FASOLT, grieving (436) d=FASOLT, wooing (97) F“FAFNER (1818, *2038); —, his heart (1863) f=FAFNER(1385, 1501, 1550, 1591, 1599, 1663,1695, 1739,1745,1795,1817, 2752, 3241,3096, 3108); —, dragon (1643,1930,1935,1947);—, the dwarfs foe (1706); —, the last Giant

F“THE GIANTS

553 (1970); —, his corpse (2081) d-=FAFNER, his intending death (1820); Fafiier and Siegfried (1882', 3574); —, Biiinnhilde as a stand-in for the dragon (2493) F=L0RD o f t h e RINQ, Alberich as (314,377, 399,3451,3516); —, Mime wants to be it (1665); —, Wotan as (404); —, Siegfried as (1999,2199) f=LORD OF THE RING (1589, 1813, 1819, 3112); —, Fafher as (1749); —, doomed (3489) F=LORD OF ONESELF (1810); a husband as lord (2171) fKiNESELF, as a lost possession (no longer master of oneself) (2471) F=d o m in a t o r , of Nibelungs (2014) F=d o n n e r , Lord of the Clouds (504) F=w o l f e , his clan (588,744, 1798); —, warlike and strong (594); Siegfried’s fantasy &ther (1883) f=WOIFING(651) f=RHINE FATHER (12) F=SIEGFRIED, “Nature Boy” (2586,2693, 2836,3012,3123,3126,3121,3453, 3480,3529); —, Siegfried’s hom=“natore boy” (2731) d=°a son of Alberich (964); a hypothetical son of Mime (1888) f=fieedmen, inçudent (857) f=a rescuer (1004); a sÙeld maiden (1253) F=husband (2900)

b. Places

F=g ia n t -l a n d (237); route, of Giants toward Rhine (271) F/f=NEiDHöLE(1644,1646,1762);—, guarding Fafiier’s house (1765) f=Toute, Siegmund’s fleeing (571) fr=Earfrt’s surface, not-Nibelheim (1572)

c. Qualities or Actions

F=EARTH, ELEMENT (55, 1534); GROUND, Brihmhilcle coming to (1166); —, War Father coming to (1231); —^.■'Waltraute coming to (2885) f=concrete evidence (1488); hardness of adamant (1683,'1716) Pestate of Nature (3457,3527); Loge as Nature Spirit (2559); innocerfr Eden (2558); innocence (3283); innocent wooing (2839)

F=Ught (2276); Light-elves (319) F=WILL, motivating power (79) F=DESIRE (3707,3770); APPETTTE (155); —, sexual (534,654,732,735); ‘wandering eye’ (89); —, embrace of (704); hunger (1413); desire, satisfied (2714)f infokicätion (2063); desire to kiss (2349); —, a Kiss (2359); —, True Love (2388); —, Wisdontthrough (2438); —, phallic, penetrating intentions (2454); really ardent intentions (2476) f=APPETlTE, object of (953); swallowing (1852); saUvating (1856) d=APPETlTE, DESIRE, foolish (131); a moneygnibber (490) F=GUARDING: (3072); watching (3075); a Shield Maiden (guarding the rear) (1253) f=GUARDiNG: holding (4,11,3444); seizing magical rii^ fixim Alberich (2FS); holding on to treasure till death (416); greed, for gold (333, 1830); watohing (13,1840, 3067); cost, room, and board (1492); the hoard’s guardian (Fafiier) (♦1786); grasping and hurling a torch (3754) d=GUARDiNG, all in vain (415); an unguarded prize (1268); a guarded treasure (1826); GUARDING: a rebellious sUeld-maiden (1254);*SE1z in g , a sleeping maiden (1270); —,-gold (488, 1789); a grasping hand (1808); covetousness (1814); guardian (3565) F=eyes, closing (1361) f=eyes, darkening (2439) d=eyes, watchful (1752) F=W0RK(1496, 1556; 2512); -, smithing (276); forging (1648,2233); the smith himself (1704,1730); laborious piling (1543,2943,3694); labor, of childbirth 0467); FORGING, HEROIC (1671); —, feminine (2512); deeds (2621,3590); —, heroic (2661) f=WORK(1627,1987,);—, evil (292); —, difficult (513);^ DEED, the only inçortant (1393); drudgery (1425); harder labor, of childbirth (1468); a worker, baregiver (1416,1478); workers (1778); hewing down (2538); heroic action ($); an in^ssible deed (3509 (+ d, 3510) d=woRK;(1989,2207) F=PHYSICAL STRENGTH (1388, 2652, 2733, 3154); physical life experiences (90);

554 courage (531,1936, *2501); —, restored (536); boy, valiant (1597); independence (827); strength (834); refteshment of body and spirit (533); physical robustness, ironic (244); bodily health (539); life-strength (1059); physical agility (1854); lustiness (1924); boastful challenger (1948); fair-eyed youth (1966); burning blood (2088); physical courage (2883); physical invulnerability (3378); a fearless follower (2646) f=PHYSICAL STRENGTH/IMPOTENCE (1482); human lives (1095) mastery, over fear (518); eternal powetlessness (2268) pleading, of Rhine Daughters (266); a scream (998,3653,3658,3682); whining (1240); supplicating (1341) d=PHYSlCAL STRENGTH, Siegfried’s (3371); physical assistance (1164) F=s t u pid it y (1768); wisdom given away (3359) f=STUPlDnY (*791); foolish rebel (1278); stupid victim (1771); stupid boy (1598); stupid giants (1790); ignorance (1634); questions, honest (1519, 1528, 1563, 1570,1577,1582,1586) d=STUPŒ)m', gullible fool 0^70); —, Siegfried’s assumed (2055) F=happiness (616); a broken heart (3273) f=heart’s deepest bliss (1306); loving anxiety (1018); loving kiss (1020); intense synqsathy, wifri sexual resonance (581) f=hostility (1076); obstinacy (2240) F=antidote to curse (3500)

d. Things

F=A prize, treasure (3396); reward (3594); booty (3533) f=prize (3362); —, worthless (967); sword, abandoned (1014); payment (3728) F=Sword (1070); —, as phallus (2329) f=Sword, fragments (1376, 1381,1604);—, ,hilt (1724); —edge (1732); adamantine (1606) F=weapon (1105); f=moming of battle, difficult and evil labor (646) F=EORGING IMPLEMENTS : hammers and anvüs (276,368,1697,1710); woik, artifact (277) fr=FORGiNG IMPLEMENTS : smithies, forges (288)

: work, artifact, undone (395) F=a horn (1922, 1928, 1949,2304); a pipe (1917) F=Siegmund’s cognomen (579) f=foes (of Alberich, 307); master of Alberich (1781); bad fnend (3394); foeman (3385) d=fetters, Alberich’s (371) F=STEED, BrOnnhilde’s emtbly (2406) fr=HORSE, Hunding’s (560)

d=FORGING IMPLEMENTS

d=brofh(1414) F=Curse, antidote to (3489) fmeceit (3263); daikness (3454), bond, broken (3713) fr=Siegfried’s oa¿(3306, 3310); BrOnnhUde’s oath (3317) fNmequalled shams (3269)

IV. C MAJOR (C Minor, A minor) a. Persons

(1509, 1661, 1804,1829, 1837,2185, 2236,22); —, as ftief (1763,1769,2243,2283); —, as traitor (1766); —, object of vengeance (2293) c=THE WANDERER (2935); —by night (1759);—, mocked (2238) a=THE WANDERER, haggled with (1801) C=w Al s e (746, 1035); —, Wotan’snew name (818); SIEGFRIED, mostly as Light (1584,3187) a=WÄLSUNGS (esp. Siegf.) (759,1584, 2305); “Wolf-Son” (2072) C=wise guy (1430) C=a husband (994) C=adopted child (2037)

C=THE WANDERER (UGHT)

b. Places

C=a vista, viewpoint (369) • c=Giant-land’s towering border (432) C=the Western lands (577)

c. Qualities or Actions

Ou g h t , e l e m e n t a l (49,185,390,706, 905,1574, *1757, *1841,2300,2364, 2489,2870,2988,3011,3483,3702); —, DAY (2366); —, conquering (2389); Light in frie dmkness (3499); —, growing (3641); —, the Eye of Wotan (2248,

555 3447) {see also //for the “missing ^e"); —, disorienting (2089); —last gleam of (670); lightening (71); brighteninè (423,3757,3789?); —, Son of (117); —, Hero of (2467); —, kind or clan (2255); glow, of sword (661, 1732); gleam, in woman’s eye (666); glance, blissful (668); eyes (50); seeing brightness (2322,2551); —, bright or gleaming (1354, 1357);—, awareness of (2316); —, opening (1363); star (52); a blaze (2421); laughter, light, and day (2505); twilight (3032); light, exposure (3395); brilliant shine (3456); herald (3157); shining gold (3468); light, eye, look, knowledge (3053); light, the north (2587); sword, li¿it, knowledge (2584); witness, testimony (2639); sight (2767) c=UGHT, extinguished (67); —, dim (1842); —, baleful (3644); darkness (69); blind obedience (977); gathering clouds (1175); darkness, of tenor or madness (2440); moonlight (3073); lightning sky (2645) a=uaHT, dim (3640); palor (3550); —, of Gods (241); pale light (3071); palor (3537); blanched blossoms (672); blanched sister (2981); darkness and solitude (649); light, eiqtiring (673); glance, recent (736); sight (1862); glaring, of Wotan (1234); glance, Siegmund’s (580); blind obedience (1972); darkness, of tenor (2441); horrible illumination (2446); ring glittering on finger (3469, 3486); moonlight, somnambulistic awareness (3074,3092) C=AIR.ELEMENT(427, 2123, *2354); slipperiness, elusiveness (30); swiftness of motion (543); fleeing on foot (572); swift flight (1206); rushing (2087); an air-steed (2878); O^oumeys, from home (595); c=joumeys, returning home (596) C=AWAKENING (51, 1189, 1335,2172,2362, 2373,2375,2865,2902, 3608, 3645); awakener (Siegfried) (1339, *1351, 2119,2203a, 2377); consciousness (*1974,2Ì52?) a=AWAKENING maiden (1269); —, in doubt (2337); awakener (3609); a/Osleeping/awakening 2881) c=SLEEPiNG, dimming (5, 639); sleeping

chamber (647); sleep, fetters of (1337); sleeping maiden (1340); rest (992); c/eb=swobn (1017); c=unconsciousness (inb); deafiiess (1163); sflence(1330); slumber (2624) C=KNOWLEDGE, INTELLIGENCE (109, 210, 280,1460, 1553, 1564, 1566,3431, 3487,3497); —, wonderfirl (Í637); —, through seeing (728,1898, 1901);—, sexual (3600); learning (1529,1937); understandh^ (1520, 3249,3558); remetpbering (1318,2620); recollection (3254); medita^ (1642,2685); slyness, intelligence (126); wits (1523); genius (1600); enlightenment (*195, 3029, 3690); wisdom (346,2387,2437, 2678,3360); unnrisking (3673); curiosity, violent (1806); information (1978,3270); pondering (2017); investigating (2242); fearlessness (=°supreme wisdom) (2202); independent discovery (2216); wandering and seeking (2218); inquiring (3299,3546,3632); Wotan, all-knowing (3449) C=KNOWLEDGE (1836); —, LnTLE(592, 1458); —, fatal (3716); awareness, dim (1932); incomprehension (2402); duUwittedness (1571); a teacher, distant (1696); ignorance (211,2252, 3246); stupidity, unfliought-out plan (298); learning, unpleasant (1844, I860); intelligent speech (1933); cuiuiing (1996); falsehood (2178); wisdom, losing it (2436); forgetfulness (2706,2710); memory, weak (2629); bidden intelligence (2704); cbntenqilation (2761); nasty revelation (3663); sad, wisdom (3729) a=KNOWLEDGE, (3477,3488); —, pa r t ia l (912); —, none (*1431); —, useless (1521,1530); —, dark (3657); nofliing to learn (1866); searching in vain (2105); half-wit (1567,1680,1697); half-witted head (1616); delusions of grandeur. Mime’s (1723,1725,1734); a half-baked ideà (299); an ignoramus (3520); light, unknown (54); a clouded will (898); surprise, concealed (570); the certitude of &lse knowledge (3429); Ugbt, knowledge, hazy (2585); bad student (823); dull-witted sight (833); being without gitidance (2215); understanding;

556 fetal question (2770);—, feded (3560); a direction indicated (by the Forest Bird) (2217); virtigo, going a little loony (2435), consideration, thinking (3573); dark advice (3589) C=OATH, truth (3370,3712); confession (3581); oath (Siegftied) (3302); justice (2807) C/c=Briinnhilde’s oath (3315,3316, 3322) Siegfried’s oath (3305,3309) a=oath (3301,3298, 3303) C=TTOINGS (425, *606, 623,786,2691, 2779,2891,2926,3244; 3538); —, present (2544); —, good (1062); promise, of hero (1209); tales (3561); herald (3180); Cpunter Message (2999) c=TIDINGS, bad (887, 896,1061; 3540); —, searching in vain for (173); —, dark (2753) a=TiDiNGS, dark (605); —, watching for (1751); —, obscure (2676) C=ADVICE (1633); decision (1709) c=ADVICE, Mime’s (1880) C=viCTORY (933); absence of bad luck (556); Good People (1513); purity (2200) c=pure one (1090); bright loveliness (1542) a=Alberich’s curse, powerless against purity (22Ô1) OJOY(53, 3196, 3344); exuberance of youfrj (427); delight (781); laughter (2376); total rapturous love (2487); Joy (3196,3344); celebration (3045); good fortune (3198); over-fullness (3554); festivities (3452) c=JOY: levity, spoiled (14); woe (3164) a=JOY: sweet delight, longed for (430); spirit, sinking (251) a=conqueror. Giants’ (194,214)

d. Things

C=the physical brain (2149) Oa g r e a t id e a , WOTAN’S (Grosse Gedanken) (515, 825, *844,2395) a=A GREAT IDEA, WOTAN’S, perceived only dimly (2390) C=IDEA, right (614); —, good (1941); —, better (1946); —, about oneself (1259); —, a bright flash of (1886,1911,1921); image, numinous (731); insight, sudden (734) c=IDEAS, none (1991,1994); —,

Btünnhilde’s idea (2893); —, its failure (2895 ) a=lDEA, bad (1945); —, half-baked (2015) C=SWORD, WOTAN’S (677,758, 872,949, 956,972, 1119, 1127, 1333, 1398, *1491,1594,1626,1653,1679,1693, 1705, 1731, *1980, 3285,3289,3062, 3386, 3571; 3708); —, as the Problem (1615);—as the Answer (1617); —, in ash tree (685); —, of Wälse (749); —, of Wotan (1596); —, false and trusty (1104);—, false protection of (1106); —, bestower of (1072); —, trusty fragments of (1212); —, new-forged (1215); —, unbreakable (1728); shieldlessness (*875); —, dragon-slaying (*1590, *1592) c=SWORD (1405, 1495, 1669); —, broken (1132,1742); —, worthless (3288); —, fee one trae (1389), —, as proof (1487); ■ —mortal wound from (1956,1959) a=SWORD, promised (650); —, in tree (1126); —, useless (873); —, failed (1092); —, two-faced (1093); —, false and trusty (1103); a sword-stroke (1955); —, former (2287) C=Society, longed for (612,1400,1925, 1927); a=Society, rejecting (613); public acclaim (3133); Wedding Feast (3341); friendship (3705) C=veins, twisting in fee tenqile (729) Obutring and fainting (1642)

V. G MAJOR (G Minor, E minor) a. Persons

G=SIEGUNDE, as Mother (675,761, *1168, 1200,1900, *1908,2373,2382); —, fee glory of her beating heart (700); —, her wonder (1217); her woe (1218); as Sister (*1043); —, Sister-Wife (1088) g=SŒGLINDE(583, 1179, 1670); —, in extremis (1461); in extremis on horseback (1161) e=SIEGLINDE, as Mother (676,691,1632); —, her painful childbirth (1896) G=GUTRUNE (2707,’2727,2760, 2768,2771, 2773, 2776,3044,3134, 3138,3156, 3161, 3213,3343,3430, 3631.3646, 3649, 3691) g=GUTRUNE, insecure (3135); —, lowdown (3433); —, let down (3633a); mourning

557 (3655); —, put in her place (3687) e=GUTRUNE (3132); —, let down (3633b) G=a m o t h e r (1442,2336); —, a mother like lover (2386); a sister (2880) g=A MOTHER, unfortunate (591); —little known (593); —, dead on the ground (599); —, grim (2675); a daughter (2962) e=A MOTHER (1444, 3402); —, her inçregnated womb (1190); —, dead (2381,3402), a mottier-like guardian angel (2451) G=motherhood (696); specifically impregnating intercourse (765) g=motherhood (697) G=a defended or armored woman (2321) G=Siegfiied, hated by Mime (2035) g=boy Siegfiied, a spoiled brat (1380,1394, 1409)

b. Places

(Hunding’s proper place) (773); nadir (2851,2590); Hero’s fall (3441) g=HOME: a wolf- nest, desolated (597); birth, lineage, clan (1328) g=NADiR ; Oodlikeness con^letely gone (2488); e/g=precipice (2884) g=LOW POINT, Alberich’s (230); Alberich, standing below (9); devalued (29); brought low (47); lowly (48),' helpless but issuing fiireats (372); just helpless (374); crushed (403); Wotan, morally low (112); abject moral sprawling, Wotan’s (890); sinking low, being laid low (627); Loge, lowest god on totem pole (160); sinking (1631); abject sprawling 0957, 3399); Siegfiied laid low (3403,3439,3605) e=abject sprawling (3398,3400); Siegfiied laid low (3438,3606,3648) G=Na d ir

G.

Qualities or Actions

G=eiribracing breast-to-breast (2484) G/e=solicitude (‘maternal’) (2599) G=warmth and day (667) G=water reflections (1451); a reflecting stream (2457) G=miE TRIVIAL, THE SMALL: ALBERICH, trivialized (62,383); -, deposed (1539); minions, humans as (830, 832, 841); MIME, as he wishes he were (301,1719); WOTAN, overthrown (860); a comic

(trivialized) fight (1141); Fafiier’s teeth, mocked (1942) g=THE TRIVIAU THE SMALL: a boaster (1783) e=THE TRIVIAL, THE SMALL: a braggart (1324) G=underling (2672); e=enslavement (922)

d. Things

G=FEAR(1635, 2025); (see also E Major) G=the slain (1155); a death-field (1214) e=FEAR(1636, 1866, 3643); —, of Wala (918) G=TREE, U NDEN (2090,3577); —, branches (2093); —, stem of (642); Charcoal (tree as fuel) (1655); hilt, sword (751); Golden Apples, absent (253,259); approach of Freia (meaning, increasing possibility of eating her Golden Apples) (424,426); g=^meal, heavenly (1263) g=Tft£E, stem (757); —, falling (1015); the woods (1146); —, inferior, fir tree (2507); inferior tree, fir tree (2507) G=a ihaiden, blooming (663); e=woman, departed (663); a hoped-for son (768) G^Brtinnhilde, now human and wisdom's chfld(2204) g=Brünnhilde, under arrest (1225); e=—, her extremis (12281 G=THE EVER-yoUNO (2208); a fair youth? (26); a boy (1803); Sieved, unborn 0216); first entrance (1396) g=a wild boy (601);^ hero (943); a trivial toy (J406); foolish youth (1446); a faithful (female) servant (1285); young ones, infants (1436); a whimpering babe (1447); a child’s kiss (1355); e=foster chüdÓ041) G=SC0LDS (3159); Scolds triun^hant (3335); wheedlmg women (3473) G=a fiivial matter (bird speech) (3545); e=bird speech forgotten (3547,3583) G=Nom 2 (“spinning) (2574) G=Tarnhelm/Women (3338)

VI. D MAJOR (D Minor, B minor) a. Persons D=f r e ia

(102); bright (128); trophy bride

(134) d=FREiA (228,235,257,428,435);

threatened (80); demeaned (8'^; the good (93); object ofbarter (113,1744?);

558 loveliest goddess (127); beauty of (130); in peril (141); wilting Ó48); as Giants’ wage (168); (generic) a desirable wife (2350) d=FRElA’S CLAN, Loge’s enemies (161); D=FROH, with heroic flourish (142, 3192) d=Donner (3193) d-shame, BrOnnhilde’s (1320) D=‘RHINE DAUGHTERS’ (meaning ‘Freia’ 224); Rhine Daughters 3103 D=SIEGMUND, Hero (626,747, 878,1047) d=SIEGMUND(527,528, 538, 584,604,620, 631,826,861,948,970,974, *984, *1021, *1042,1213, 1298,3572); —, purest man (1001); —, unlucky man (548);—, in tableau (1019); his journey (550,554); alarm, taking attention from him (559); his birth, witìi sister (586); his homestead (598); his vardshed sister (600); he remains (557); —memory of (733); —, faUen (1134,1178,1188) b=SIEGMUND (748); —, slipping away (1010) D=SIEGFRIED(1452, 1473, *1621, 1628, 1656,1954,1962,1964,2024,2031, 2040,2043,2061,2320,2385,2726, 2747,2772,2792,2830,2958,3043, 3231, 3234, 3410,3465,3536,3549, 3552,3563,3613,3677,3693,3697, 3759,3761,3764>, —, Mime’s master (1690); —, Sieglinde’s child (1899); —, his mother-longing (1907); —, his heart (2113); —, inçortunately making love (2434); —, his face’s image (2456); —, physically invulnerable (3382) d=SIEGFRlED(1427,1429, 1843,1847, 1868, 1870,1875, 1881,1943,1952,2040, 2092,2213,2219,2253,2331,2478, 2708,2749,3122,3559,3635,3642, 3641,3661, 3680,3689.3710); —, and Fafiier, 1882, —, diminished hero 3238, 3240,3445,3458,3503, feilen hero, 3663, —, Sieglmde’s child (1192,2343, 2383); —, awakener (1336); —, Mime’s new teacher (1688); —, threatened (2050,2052,2074); —, a dead duck 0436,3442); stubborn (2059); —, blind and foolish (3518); —, hated (2067); —, hot and erthausted (2086); —, only child (2097); —, chosen by Wotan (2197); —, his path (2249); —, to be devoured by

fire (2278); —, fearftrl and uncertain (2346); —, his face’s image, marred (2460); —, object of self-love (2468); —, passionately embracing (2485) b=SlEGFRIED (2907; 3552); dragon-slayer (1756); —, too duthb to know fear (2122); —, wakener bringing doom (2203b); —, himself sexually unawalœned (2347); —, hero chided (3463); b-D=Siegfried and Gunther (heroic posturing) (2738,2739) D=HERO(690, 920, 1130, 1138, 1143,1681, 1784, *1792, *1797,1809, *1811,1997, 2671,2677,2682,3124, 3130,3139, 3158,3160,3167,3204,3331,3368); —, Sieglinde’s avenger (694); —, conquering (1390,2784); —, foreordained (698); success, heroic (742); heroes (1032); heroic relief (2724); —, courage of (831);—, heated (* 1149); heroic action (1647); the most heroic deed,(2205); heroic host 2942, hero’s heart (2782); heroic friend (2806); heroic pretensions 3018, D*=heroes (=g;V)(2849) d=HERO (1601,1857,1864, *2535); heroes, strug^ing (835); —, armed (1125); —, problematical (932); —, heroic clan (1582);—, cooling (1150);—, not there (1160); —, fearless (1652,1659); heroic resistance (1853); heroism, weak (2346); Heroes 2977, —, feiled (2912, 2690, 3391,3036, inferior 3243,3287,3281, 3365,3397); —, Siegfried as 3238, 3240, diminished (3127,3143); —, Gunther as 2740, incomplete 2683, —, inappropriate 3556, —, masculine and feminine 2653, —, on die spot 3297 b/D=hero, fake (3027); —, defunct (2932) d=Wälsungs as hero-clan (1331); SIEGMUND a n d s ie g u n d e , their birth (589); heroes out of their depth (3672) b=HEROES, perverted (937) d=WAR FATHER (770,774,777,784,1186, 1224, 1235,2944, 2959,2961); — just like Siegmund (840); —, his tortured he^ (891); —, as hunter (1172,1176, 1183,1194,1205); —, the stormcontroller (2168); —, Lord of the Ravens (2263) D=A friend worthy of a hero (1401,1403); the best boy (1411); d=not-so-good boy

559 (1412); a son of a moúier (1445) D=mightiest man (341); —, in triunq>h (352); a mighty lord (405); men in general (1910); menfolk (3333) D=A Valkyrie (1345); —, joyously received (2882) d=Rhine Daughters (2987) d=the Tree-Breaker (2526) D/d=ending(2555) d=Sun (2592); b=daybreak (2593) D=fidehty, tmth, eternity (2628)

b. Places

None obvious

c. Qualities or Actions

D=FIRE (1344); —, HEARTH (558); b=—, Mime’s (1465); D=—, smilight(107); SUNRISE, Siegfried as (2308); brightness, of soaring vision (25); sunrise, anticipated (1754); ASHES of Pyre (3741); bright flames (3756,3758) d=FiRE: fiery anger (1712); flames (2490); —, of Brünnhilde’s ardor (2497) D=VALUE, women’s (88, 132,176); peace (1115); d=worthiness, devalued (27); woman’s, demeaned (91) D=courtship, animal (1439) D=prowess, heroic and free (99) D/d=Freia’s worth, debating (225) D=inescapable, hidden decay of the gods (468) d=heroism, undone (213,215, 245) d=Brihmhilde’s hidden guilt (loving a forbidden hero) (1282) d=unequalled anguish (3268)

d. Things

(136); Golden hoard (323); golden fis( (329); d=gold, pile of (296); golden eye (56) D=SW0RD, SIEGFRIED’S (1497, 1735, 1738); —, driven into a heart (1959); —, flourished at Mipie (2075) d=SWORD, SIEGFRIED’S, blade (1700); —, Siegfried’s new (1723,1727,2290) b=SWORD, SŒGFRiEp’S, used to^^QUt a reed (1914) D=frie s t r a n g e r ’s name (739) D=Twilight of the Gods (474); —, fear of it (476); grip, Wotan’s lost (803, ’*1780); Wotan failing (1321); d=Twilight offrie D=g o l d e n a ppl e s

Gods, prophecy of (961) D=BLOOD, hot (1685); HEART, heroic (1085); -, Siegfried’s (1434); —, slowing (252); blobdlessness, of Gods (242) d=BLOOD, fiery (1981) b=grief, heroic (1086) d=a bass fi^t (982) D^animal frither (1441)

Vn. A MAJOR (A Minor, F )t minor) a. Persons

A=l o g e ( 98, 101, *139,150, 169,268,270, 273,322,362,370, 1310,2568, 2905, 3751); —, thief, 184; —triunqihant, 367); -, iitqtassable (1373); -, his inclinations (154); -, his bad bargain (84, 110,144,908, -, reconfirme4 147, *187,188) a=LOGE(255,286, 289, 318,321,346,351, 354,361, J78,3748); —, as slippery fire (1367); —, his deceit (315); as thief (380); Èis en^ (412); his bad bargain (81,172); —, renounced (94); —, reluctantly recognized (146); Loge’s slippery fire (2566) fjl=LOGE, threatened (159, 1365); at a loss (164); demeaned (165); his advice about ting (208); his deceit (355) A=THE NORNS (472,2157): Wisdom, female (915,2135); a wise woman, Brünnhilde as (2165) a=THE NORNS, powerless (2158); f|t=standing in need ofIemale wisdom (2160); a=femafe wisdom, defimct (2189); ftt=female wisdom proven ignorant (2175) A=b r ü n n h il d e , b r id e , Wotan’s Wish Bride (815); —, Siegfried’s Wish Bride (2303, 2394,3596); —, Wish Bride’s Eyes (3611); Pure Bride (3766); ftt=-, her breath (3612); —, as WOTAN’S WILL (899); a=—his eternal self (1319); -, an intimate confession with (900); —, Brünnhilde’s defiance (975); —, betrayer ofWotan(1242); f(l=—, pride of Wotan’s heart (1346) A=s ie g u n d e (1046,1463); —, hero’s Lady Sun (545); —, her secret heart (717); -, the Stranger’s child (738) a=SIEGLINDE (529,656,741, 1177,1332); -

560 , as nurse (532); at her side (555); her bitter pain (692); her purity (695); “a woman” (1036); Wälungs (2692) f)t=SlEGUNDE, sharing drink, with desire (546) A=WAR FATHER, found (1029); Heroes, fellowship of (926); a=comrades (1031); a=WOLFE, missing and sought (610); a father, lost (611) a=FRICKA, as War Father’s dominatrix (778); GRIMHILD (3078) a=ALBERiCH, defeated (3083) a=slaves (947)

b. Places

A=HOUSE or HOME: the Forest Bird’s home (1905,2091) a=HOlréEor HOME: parents’ nest(1437); burning homestead (1122); nest-love (1443); siblings (2094); a foeman’s house (762) A=earth’s surface (1052); BRAVE NEW WORLD, VIRGIN EARTH (2372) A Major=The Rhine’s bank (2662); Siegfried’s Rhine Jountey (2660); waterbirds (3539)

c. Qualities or Actions

B b b/A=CUNNING, deceit, firaud (35,2022); —, triunçhant(17Zl, 1736); —, plan (326); trickery (2033); fraudulent love 0477); crafliness (3084); wicked hearts (1514); Three Questions, cunning and insincere (1610,1622); three-questions, insincere, as weapons (1532,1552, 1569); B b b=a liar (865); A=promise, Logo’s (184); BARGAIN, Loge’s (1741); —, betrayed (116); Art, Loge’s (166, 217, ironic) a=CUNNING(1674. 1691, 2039,2051,2068, 2070,2078,3372,3374); shady advice (2723); trickery, shamefril (391); tricksters (396); thieves (400); frieft (941); ultimate crime (398); —, deceit (907); seizing Freia (233); a scoundrel 0404); trust in a liar (1448); BARGAIN, Wotan’s bad (942); á liar (2054); betrayal (3262); a thief (3248) f#=cuNNlNG(222,13777);—.magnificent (340) —, coming to fruition (1718); cunning plan, described (327); Mime’s cunning and forfeited head (1620); three

questions (1545); intellectual conimdrum (1607); BARGAIN, imsuccessful (1825); calculating (2020); witlessness (2064) A=BIRDS0NG, ersatz or practice (1913, 1918); f)t=—, ineffective (1919); bird’s advice (1984) A-hero’s successful escape (1068); his victory (1101); battle-facing hero, 3384 a=STORM AND STRESS, hero’s (542, 608, 769,771,780, 836, 1292, —, human, 782); fearful storm (1221); hero’s woe (61^; his pathway (2369); —, woeful (619); hunger and thirst (1208); his need (750,1084); shield and spear, hero’s (540); heroic deed, longed for (1304); his affliction (842, 845); his gathering enemies (1008); heroic battlefield (1107, 3367); stmggle (946,1660); distress (1295, 1516); heroic hopelessness (1358, 2789); defeat (935,980,985); his farewell (1117); his returning courage (2500) A=WIRGIN1TY, and the desire to keep it (2453); penetration (3592,3585,3598); magic armor (3380); FEMININE AVAILABILITY; WAKE-SONG, or waking a woman (2133,3390); ravishment, • abduction (138); pl e a s u r e s , hero’s: Good rest and sweet repose, Siegmund’s (meaning woman) (549); vain wooing (180); Woman to be awakened (2222); a tme conqianion (meaning woman) (2104); Love, of Siegmund (1291); blissful penetration of a woman (2475); fantasy love (2995,2998); purity (3718); purification by fire (3774) a=FEMININE CHASTTIY or DIFFICULT WOMEN; Woman to be awakened, but with difficulty (2270); coldness, sexual (ironic) (1701); celibacy (3606); laughter, ironic (1713); womanly armor (2319); helmet, maiden- hiding (2412); woman’s breasqilate (2419); —, violated (2330,2430); a coerced wife (1323); chaste nursing, caring for hero (532, 1170,1180); upstart women (1236); shamefully illuminated defilement (2446) (see also C Major); imrequited love, virginal intentions (2470); awakening maiden (3599); sexual awakening (2866); chastity (3135); virgin42780, 2910); rejected suit (2774); female

561 defenselessness (3057); a pure betrayer (3703,3709); purity defUed (3719); —, couqjlamt about such (3722) f)l=FEMININE CHASTITY Or DIFFICULT WOMEN: aversion to women (2333); sbamefìilly illuminated defilement (2447); purification (3440) a=War Father’s finished work (958,2920); his wralh (978); Wotan’s worries or dismay (499, 1785, 1788)

d. Things

a=tirelessnéss. Giants’ (105) a=bad blood, Alberich’s (191); his army (929) A=a meal (3532); thirst (3542) a=slop (1415): flowers and herbage for slop 0677); wineskins (3534; 3548); a mixed drink (3553) A=a reed (1915) A=hand, wearing Ring (3235,3237); ringin-hand (3578); woman’s hand (3253); Brilnnhilde’s hand (2982); magic ring, rejected (2991) A=Brilnnhilde’s memory (2648); Love-Fire, remembered (2622); feminine Wisdom (2522) a=vengeance (2582) A=World Ash Tree’s branch or power (2525) a=bond-breaking (2805,2815); magical binding (2718,2720) A=wedding pair, approaching [e.g., E;iv] (3155) a=flying cloud-steed (2879); a boat (2732) A=0estiny longed for [in^ilying death and union with the Bride after death], (3615); a=a rolling wheel (i.e., destiny) (2161) A=call to Rhine Daughters (3482) a=dark undermining war (3985) a=women (3332) A=hero mocked by Rhine Daughters (3472)

Vm.E MAJOR (E Minor, C|J minor)

a. Persons

E=ERDA, the great Ancestress (471); —, her primal virgin womb (472); —, her wisdom (2155) e=ERDA, Mother of Fear (2209) c#=ERDA (910) —, her appearance, her aspect (467); —, her prophecy of doom

(475) (see also D t Major) E=FASCINATING STRANGER (=Wotan) (679, 737); -, recognized (689); -, his glance (745); reunited in heaven (1034); WOTAN, Father in (a distant, offstage, and unknown) Heaven (1048); Walhall (distant, offstage, and unsown) (1030) e^FASClNATING STRANGER: Sieglinde’s Father, tidings of (607); —, his displeasure (2256) E=THE FOREST BIRD (1904, 1916, 1920, 1986,2019,2107,3575,3588); —, his birjlsong (1912); *Fb=—, his path, terminated (2265) e=THE FOREST BIRD, appealed to with pain (2103) E=b r id e , b r On n h il d e a s (2120, 2125,2307, 3610); —, as “VENUS” (232'^; —, Lady Love (3762) E=KIN (716,1976); a chosen kinsman (687); offspring, illegitimate (806); a Love Child (916); an assemblage of sisters (1154); —, Forest Bird among his own (2095) e=KIN, not (688); —, unknown (1977); —, without, alone (2096,2106); —, enemy, Siegfiied and Wotan as (2292,2294) e=womenfolk (3475); —, excluded (86); woman, defenseless and pursued (95); —, just defenseless (2420); bride, purchased (678); repulsive wooing (103)

b. Places

E=ftie ends of the Earth (171) e=THE EASTERN FOREST 0202, 1750,2116); —, beautiful (1884, 1892,1902); the dragon-hole (1202); the woods (1432); Mime’s cave therein (1464); Mime’s hearth(1510); EAST()645)

c. Qualities or Actions

E=e l e m e n t a l a ir (1903) E=BEAUTY (64,2326); —, of Gods (240); image, marvelous (730); vanitas, luxuriousness, voluptuous courting (328); a pleasing picture (2450); a pleasing picture of narcissistic self-love (2466) e=UGUNESS (1891); appearance, disparaged (28); —, aged (249); repulsiveness (24); sickliness (243,250,2930,2948,3219); sickly God (2951,2953) F b (E)=l o v e (*903, 2036,2611,2619,

562 3061,3292,3347, 3587); —, mairied (2997) —, Mystery of (2114); E=Good Tidings (=Love) 2957, F b=holy runes 2603, love, palpitations of (1638); —, longing for (1642); —, Wotan’s (1353); —, true (1303); —, greeting (1347); —, limitless (1296); —, vs. Will (1301); —, decisive cleaving fast to (1056,1197); —, labor of (981); —, Siegfried as persoiuflcation of (2371); F b =embracing Love, rejecting Power (481); sexual mating (2109) E=couttship, marriage (2775,3214); lovebride 2758, Wife 3174, Love-Fire (2633); Love-Light (3765); mystic marriage (3769) E=Bride (3597); Goddess Bride (3597) e=love diminished (3137); wedding, not happening (2684); Bridal Fire, fading (3140); Wedding 3197, Gutrune, object of marriage (3134); ill-fated marriage (3557); Bridal Fire (3137); wedlock betrayed (3704) e=LOVE0580); —helpless (1290); —, absence of (1083); kiss (1360); kiss, last (1116); divorce, loving separation (1326, 1362); —, hidden (705); —, longing (21 loy, —, waking or softening to (2170); —, suffering (2391); —, troublirlg and undesired (2465); fondness (3052) cÿ=LOVE, decision to (1058,1300); marital consummation in death (3768) E=WIFE, WOOING: fascination with the female (454); woman, pursued (1171, 1173,1198); wooing, wife-seeking (92); wife, regard for (814); —, cajoling (204); magic bridal fire (1350, 1372, 1374,2108,2118, 2221,2318); bridal bed (1364); Siegfried’s wife, immediately (2483); marriage (ironic) (3464) e=WOOING,'called off (2471) E=(EDIPAL FASCINATION (sexual fascination with mother-image) (1894); c # iíaácinating maternal gaze (1895) e=WffB A BRIDE (1352) gold vs. wife, con^aring Value (486); woman-chasing (21); female sacrifice (1199); woman, helpless (1203); wedding oath (699); wifç, subordinate (3326); c)l=magical dominatrix (201,203)

c |l =lirrutless pain ( 1297) E=motivation, hero’s (1256); c demotivation, perverted (1257) E=frcedom, of Freia (269); e=escape, of Sieglinde (763); -, Sieglinde’s difiicult (1207) E=tears and corrrfort, mingled (implying profound kinship love, 684); e=helplesshopelessness (290); despondency to the point of insanity (407); darkening senses (544); need (652) e=Brünnhilde’s heroic deed (1284); decision; life to Siegmmd (1286)

d. Things

F belustrous, beautifuL but mysterious eyes (2398) E=life (2148); Good Tidings (=Briinnhilde chooses Love) (3750) E=FEAR(1845, *2186,2344,2340); —, of a sleeping woman (2344); —, now forgotten (2502) e=FEAR(1636,1866,2181,2184,2332, 2339,2449) {see also G Major) ctl=FEAR, Sie^ed’s teacher of (2026) E=MAGIC(360, *1658?, 2139a, 2721); —, gold, stolen (178); —, flash, joyftd (662); —, frivolous (197); —, ring’s (58); magical jewelry for women (200,202); magical objects (1983); —, sleep (2174, 2344,2367); love magic (2717); Wotan’s magic (2570); magic fire (2553) e=MAGIc(302,1650,2139b, 3141); —, sleep (1108,2353,2356,2393); —, sleep dissolving (2360); —, sleep, last moment of (2363); —, sweet (657); —serious (198);—, shape-changing (365);—, useless (*874); —, spell, broken (1133); sulphur, hissing (63); bad magic (3337); magic charm (3381); c)l=MAGlC, love (914); Love-Drink (1311); the Noms’ rope of destiny (2156) E=RING, MAGICAL (386,936,3576) e=RiNG, MAGICAL (61,65,70,272,300,375, 393,413,491,938, 1540,1544,1666, 1675, 1747, *1787,1806, *1831,2084, 2159,2583,2588,2634,2638,2640, *2701,2736,2757,2864,2868,2871, 2924,2990,3037,3039,3049,3104, 3245,3251,3258, 3260,3421,3473, 3484, 3492,3495,3498,3513,3629, 3636,3668, 3671,3675, 3732,3778);

563 —, master of Sieg&ied 284,2853, cursed ring (2742,2797,2810); cause of sin (3721); tilings of doom (3735); ringwinner 3106, peril (ring) (3168); —, haggling over (1802); fb=ring, magical (*1775,2846); e=—, of vengeance (68); —, cursed (410,494,498); —, fieeing of (828,837); —, Alberich’s grudge about (930); tune, magical (209); gold, magical 090); magic threat (928); peril (the ring) P172,3175); ctt=magicring lost (3105); e/b=Alberich’s power (2667) E=TARNHELM 2705,2824,3024, Fb=TARNHELM ^78 3014); e=ri'ARNHELM(348, 357,379,381,3119, 3152) e=bauble, trinket (57); Wotan’s legacy (966); -, his possession (1317) E=Nodiung (magical name?) (754) e=bargain, Donner’s ironic (145) e=broken weapons (541); dirty work (983); enemy, call of (1102) e=a grazing steed (1137) e=goblin (kobold) (20, 3329,3353); rams, Fricka’s terrified (779); c)t=a toad (364, 366) F baking, idea of Mime as, derided (2003) e=a sickening coward (3397); b/e=cowar^ (3334) e=Hagen’s spear (3388); danger of murder (3551) e=Sieg&ied’s oadr (3304) e=Gibichungs in peril (3163, 3165) E=price of wisdom (2524) E=the young Wotan (2521) e=dead wood (5550) e=heavenly concourse (2546) e=once-Valkyrie steed (2642) e=Rhinegold (2665) e=Bruimhilde’s oath (3314)

IX.B/CbMAJOR (B Minor, Ab/Gjt minor) a. Persons

B=SIEGLINDE, her essence (718) B=BROn n h il d ç (1325); —, Valkyrie (3412); Life Angel (2380, 3200); [Cb] Siegfiied’s promised love (2481); [B] —, Siegfiied’s promised love (2482); —, personification of sexual fear and lust (2498); Btünnhüde’s love (286,2863);

—, mountain-woman (2632) C b=BRONNHiLDE, Wotan’s Will (1247); Valkyrie (2618) b=BRÜNNHiLDE and Valkyries (Death Angels) (776,783, 917, 1129,1135, 1145, 1165,1195,1243,2271,2217, 2370,3760); Angel, merciless (1082); shield-maiden (1089); —, rescuing angel (1191) B=v a ix y r ie s (817, 1039, 1136,1279, 1299, 1345,2504,2689,2785) B=Siegfiied, Lord of Lady Love (3763) C b “VALKYRIES, also “death” (2631) b=VALKYRlES (2781,2783,2787,2913, 3007, —, fiighteited (2921); —, lightning (2876); Valkyrie thunder (2886); Valkyries, cursed heroes (2911); Valkryie in fear (2916); ab=BRÜNNHlLDE, his rebellious will (1248), Valkyrie steed (3699) B=Btiinnfiilde’s sentence (2898); B=Wotan’s curse (2906) b=HAGEN (2669,3^92); —, his wisdom (2680); ensorcéling (2766)

b. Places

B=Hella (1793); b=HeUa (3025); prison (1368) b=DRAGON FOREST ( 1201 ); a dreaded place (1204) B=distant (deaüi-haunted) country (764) b=upwatd journey, toward mountain top (2115); —, the'end ofthe Forest Bini’s journey (2214) B=the Valkyrie woods (2314)

c. Qnalities or Actions Cb=PRlMÆVALHOLINESS (2519); knowledge, past (alt.. First Nom?) (2532); awakening, nocturnal (2506); blindness (2576); cb=Light, nocturnal (2509); B“descending god (2520); b=generic descending firom mountainside (3139) Cb=woe (*15); baseness (*41); treason (42) Cb “enemy opposition, to Giants, *232); —, to Mime (1478,1603); B=—by Wotan (2234); ab=Mime flummoxed (1608) B=4nagic spell of the ring (205j; hidden power of ring (199) B=enemy guests (316); Cb“cnemy, adoption of (1476)

564 b=power, malicious (196) physical distress (22); ab=need and sweat. Mime’s 0506); b=sacrilege (85); spite, envy 000); mercilessness (149); inçiety, outrageous (805); concupiscence, jeering and sickening (809); cogitation, wicked (1533) b=betrayal (158); treason (955,3409, 3411); falsehood (3282); vengeance (181); —, heaven’s (1009); nefarious labors (2826); b=devilish cunning (2755); shame, Sieglinde’s (693); evil magic (2722); B=fatal magic (3585) C b=dark meanings (2397); shining wisdom. Mime’s, ironic (1422); uncovered eyes (looking sex in the fece) (2444); an apprentice’s cloudy knowledge (3569) b=night and darkness (281,1758); evening light (671); hidden purpose (135); darksome meanings (829); dark weapons (221); dark mists (239); dark works (339); dark plots (1805); —, schemes (1833); b/e=Tamhelm (2795); c b =noctumal light (2509); a b “nocturnal dawn (2510); g|t=dark councils (2021) b=battling for ring (492); victory in battle (772); battle-strength (919); storm and strife, divine (924); dragon-fight (1676); a fruitless chase (3536)

d. Things

B=buming sexuality (2281); burning sexual consummation (3767) b=FEAR, the real filing (2122); —, bewildering (1359); a sexual fi'enzy (2111); shocking sensual beauty (2325); —, sexual terror (2334); outright sexual paniq (2442); dangerous female gaze (2338); a sexual kiss (2486); real sexual fi-enzy (2499) Cb=ENEMY, dark (311) —, evasive (1483); —, Hagen (2735,2814); a taunter (2712); B=enemy, Wotan as Siegfiied’s (2291) Cb “night, hostile (635); nocturnal awakening (2506); treason (1289) b=ENEMY (223,940, 1139,2032,2053, 2060,2085,2100); enemy of women (177,179); purchaser of gold with women (487); a thief of one’s honor (1281); —, Alberich as Mime’s (1720); villains (1737); —, flatterer (2023);

ab “ENEMY: rogue, Wotan maligned as (1834) b=CURSE, generic (23); CURSE, Alberich’s, on magic ring (408,419,422,495,904, 1748,1838,2077,2589,2728,2737, 2862,2925,3496,3105,3420,3514, 3528,3602,3637,3676, 3733); power, of ring (1541); trap, of ring (1667,3422); blessing, diminishing 671); the Curse (topographized) (2668); —, on sexual love (2867,2869, 2996); —, of lovelessness (3004); —, as secret enemy (Hagen) (2856); cursed God (2950, 2952,2955); Curse, blood-vengeance (3407,3017); curse effect (2702); deathcurse (3494); Hagen, murderer (3664) cb=a curse (3435); Alberich’s curse (3747) B=CURSE, Alberich’s, given away for free (497); Nibelung Hoard, cursed (2699) Cb “CURSE (2004,2939; 3511); CURSED GOLD, with a flourish (479); spite (1502) a b “CURSE -induced fiatemal strife (485); enerr^ (3351); Hagen, murderer (3604, 3662,3667); DEATH (1025); murder, of dragon (1587); gtl “death (3616); curseinheriting deed (3724); the curse, BrOnnhilde’s legacy (3738) ab=DEATH(1025, 3701); murder, of dragon (1587);g)t “death (3616) Cb“DEATH(1471); a dead mother (1481) b=DEATH(1044, 1063, 1067,1472, 1474, 1975,3580); death field (775); — by eneir^ action (876); -, glance of (1054, 1057);—day of (1753); a dead hero (839); decision: death to Siegraund (1287); a dead father (1033); dead mothers (1897); rrwrtal danger (1821); —, a death song (1906); mirrder (1973, 2034,2042,2045,2066,2073,2102); —of dragon (1963); corpse, Mime’s (2079) **Gb=master of fire Curse (3098) b=hatted, fixity, monomania (THE SHADOW) (3055,3056,3059,3070,3129,3140, 3162, 3324,3330,3336,3063, 3352, 3366); shadow council (3375); B=The Shadow, looking good (3131); C b “The Shadow (3217,3346,3401); —, denied (3060); B=Shadow ascendant (3325) C b “invisible enemy (2848); C b “cunning plot (2687); a b “dark council (3267) B=destroying enemy (2552); dragon (2637)

565 b=dangerous enemy (2561); dragon, Neidhöle (2697); traitor (2809); dark schemes (2823) untrustwort4iness (2716) B=t h r e a t , heavenly (1071) b=T™EAT (143); -, of destruction (1229); —, Wotan’s (2288) B=poison (2062); b=a poisoner (1692) C b =EVIL, an axis of (2006); —, no axis of

(2012) Cb “weapons, missing (644); Wotan’s eye, missing (2245); B=wedding-sword (760); dead sword (1211); swordsplinters (3570); cutting weqton (2798); b=hero chided (3474); scolding wife (3476) (perhaps fium “cutting” remarks); a b=heavetdy skill (1505) b=promise, Loge’s (186) b=back, the unconscious (1293) B“Mo n s t e r s , or s t r a n g e o r d a n g e r o u s ANIMALS; a bear (1397); Cb=a deadly boar (3652) b=MONSTERS,_ or STRANGE OR DANGEROUS ANIMALS; a small creature (363); an ugly elf (1890); a bear (1402); Wolves and foxes (1440); wolf and bear (1926); dragon, wild (1851,2026); —dark and dead (2083); —, his a ravening maw (1939); —, his threatening teeth (1940); Ravens (2956); death-birds, ravens (3734) g # “MONSTERS, or STRANGE OR DANGEROUS ANIMALS; a toad (366); a giant serpent (358); ab=adragon (1384) b=a fantasy mother (1893) B=splitting apart (3136) b“Gunther’s power (2670) B=North(2556) b=Brünnhilde’s oath (3313) B“Drink-hom (3195) B=Gibich’s (Shadow) house (2730)

X.Fÿ/Gb MAJOR (Fÿ Minor, Dtt/Eb'minor) a. Persons

Gb“HEAVENLY MESSENGER [Brünnhilde]

(1027); F)t“—, repents (1099); —, Good Greeting of (1041); —, Siegfried’s guardian angel (2378); fjl “HEAVENLY MESSENGER [Brünnhilde], leading to death and transformation (1022, 1024, 1040, 1049,1053, 1069, 1081,1087, 1091,1294); -, following after (1028);

journeying with (1053); —, asleep, leading to life and transformation (2357) FU “HEAVENLY MESSEbiGER [Waltraute] (2889) fit “HEAVENLY MESSENGER [Waltraute]

(2877,2927,2969,2989,2992,3003); —, departing (3006); —, afraid (2918); her report (2975); —, inconprehensible (2979); heavenly meetings (2931); a sister Valkyrie (1169) d(J“HEAVENLY MESSENGER [Btünnhilde] changed decision of Û iOO); eb=[Waltraute], frightened (2923); heaven’s gate/messenger (2914) G b “Gods, demoted (884) F )t “an unimaginable father(1885); ftt=strangers (714)

b. Places

G b=HEAVEN’S PORTAL : WORLD ASH TREE, its spreading branches (2516); THRONE of Heaven, foot of (2947); RAINBOW BRIDGE to Walhall(507); F It “High heaven’s clouds (2976); G b “THRESHOLD OF HE^^VEN (2626); mountainside, heaven’s gate (2850); heaven’s doorway, open (34); heaven, threshold (724); Sunjnut, entrance to Walhall (.77,1742); Walhall’s doorstep (2941); its Foundation (2549); antechamber (of Nibeluñgs) (309); standing before heavenly maiden (3428); Ftt=HEAVEN, standing before (2361); g b “HEAVEN'S PORTAL (closed) (36); f|l=HEAVEN’S PORTAL (1156); g b “heaven’s gate (2844) F |l “condescension (816); —, gods’ (2601); G b “heaven sinking (3224); dispensation from above (3414) G b “heavenly gift (3379); eb “gods’ beneficiary (2602); g ¿“heavenly gift borne away (3069); freely given ring (3515) G b -D b “MOUNTAIN SLOPE/SUMMIT (2654); mountainside (2821); mountain height (3201); Ftl“mountamside (3138); BrüntMde’s mountain (2688); f¿“lofty height (3046); F|t “mountain woman (3328) F|t=BRONNHiLDE'S FELL (2117); —, barred by flame (2273); —, a lofty height or scene (2311,2313)

566 £S=BROn n h il d e ’S f e l l , upward path toward (2272)

G l> "“transport to heaven, weaker (2875); f)i =Valkyries (going to and &o) (2928); restless wandering (2934); journeying, following (1322) Gb=heavenlyjustice; Gb/gl>>=—, wisdom, treasure of (2604,3522); eb=—, lost (3523); f)i=heavenly judgment (3030)

c. Qualities or Actions

F )I=FIRE (1343,1466,3696,3698,3772); —, glowing (1639); —, delusory (151); Loge-fire (317); stars (342); racUance, holy (725); motion or activity, incessant (157); firelight (3008); Logo’s firelight, feding (2594); false brightness (2993); f)l=Loge, domesticated (2560); delusions of grandeur (406) Gb=FIRE (3742); —, mad-m¿ing (2424); light, glorious (510) G b “false lover (3280) gb=false, dastardly glory (525); false fieedom (867); self-deception (*950) f|l“revealed but ersatz sword (*756); f(I “enemy sword (3364); a wavering, dissipating image (2462); a psychically divined juture (470) G b “rescuer. Mime as (witìi suggestion of ftaudulence) (1475) Gb=Wisdom(1315); Deception(279); divine plotting (1799); wicked cunning (2101)' fit “Wish to win ting, witíi inçlication of kidding oneself (207,414); delusory fieedom (409); delusory obedience or worship (923) G b “attempted bargain (2008) f)t “heroic hunting (3535); heroic deed (3723) fÿ=fear, human, of the divine (681) gb=envy, Nibelung (1506)

d. Things

FU “NEAR OR OF THE HEAD : a goddess’ hair (2324) G b “NEAR OR OF THE HEAD : a goddess ’

breath (6136); head-wounds (2416) ftl “NEAR OR OF THE HEAD : eye, ofWotan (683) eb “NEAR OR OF THE HEAD; eye, ofWotan (2246)

f|l“a divine goad (925) Ftt“STEEDS: horseback riding (1152) G b “STEEDS; Grane awakened (2401^ f)l=STEEDS, of Valkyrie (879,1140,1142, 1148, 1167); —, of Wanderer (1755) ftt“a message to heaven (3717) f)l“death-blow, to Fasolt (493), eb=—, to Fasolt (1549); -, to Siegmund and Sieglinde (1096); to Siegfried (3607); curse, fieedom fiom 3485) d|l “an eagle (3023) F )t “distant memory (3586) ftl “insincere question? (3408) f|)=&ding light, eye, look, knowledge (3054) G b “Hagen’s fair-seeming council (2694) G b “feminine self-effacement (2695) G b “Courage (3080)

XI.Db MAJOR (Db/C)t minor, Bb minor) a. Persons Db“WOTAN(72, 824, 852, *858, *871, 1526, 1573, 1761, 1767, *1791,1960, *2984,3189,3737); -, supreme lord (1561);-, The Wanderer (1511); -, pawn of Giants (*238); -, as Judge (267); -, his Commands (1249); -, consumed by fear (*417); -, fleeing fiom everybody (466); —, crazed and helpless (*893); -, patriarch bestowing courage (1238); Db“Siegfiied’s surrender (to Wotan’s Will) (3614); Siegfried’s oath (3303,3311); BrOnnhUde’s oath (3318,3321); eft “Hagen’s Spear (3300) C|1 “WOTAN, his eye (680); —, Master (1369, 1371);—, unknown helper (1500) db=WOTAN (954); Wotan, bond-breaker (802); —, demoted (849); —, defunct (2967); —, wiggling (864); —, damned (3726) ctl=WOTAN(808, 1531, 1824,2569 ); —, obscuritanist (1796); —, object of pleading (183); —, careworn (411); —, shaming his wife (811); —, shamed (819); —, pouring his wife’s cup of bittemess (821); —, fearful (939); —, judge (3031); —his judgment countermanded (1098); Wotan defimet (2917,2929,2933,2949); —, his need (3730) Db=OODS(883,1555, *1968,2563,2744,

567 3086,3191, 3638); —, honorable at last (449); Wish-Maidens (1037); —, in decline (2183); —, gone (*2298) Ctt=GODS(2554) db=oODS, intending thieves (345); gods (3076); —, defimct (3090) c)t=GODS, failing (927); —, prayed to but unavailable (2335)

b. Places D b =ZEN1TH, mountain peak (72,334,2625, 2828); —, of bliss (708); —, way upward to (2260); a mountain apex (2312); inaccessible (still too high falutin) Goddess (2432); zenith (2822); zenith of happiness (2832); Qutrune, in “heaven” (3227); C)»=zenith (3125) Db “WALHALL (72,508, 526, 909, 1023, 1262, 1777, 3209,3752,3755,3782); db=—, threatened(337);—.abandoned or ruined (261); —Fafiier’s memory of (1740); db=Walhall (3065,3054); c)t=Walhall on the'edge (2545); —, ruined (3002); db=Throne of Heaven, defimct (2946); distant heaven (2874); c)t “heaven, defimct (2980); heaven’s disgrace (3720) Db=HEAVEN (990,3221, 3223,3525); —, vision of (33); —, emotional (37, 552); —, rapture of (995); con^)any of (1050); —Siegfned’s upward path toward (2301); c|t“—, unmemorable (152); —, disintegrating (3233); C)l “Walhall (2994); Heaven (2978) c|l=Nibelheim, joyless, probably as shadow of Walhall (324, 325) C|t=Erda rising (2138)

c. Qualities D b /d b “EARTH, ELEMENT: hardness of adamant (1684) D b “achievement (76); authority (120, -, divine, 794, 1558, 1561); kingship (156); supreme power (2534); —, (Mime's desired reward) (1383); master (1417); cjt “supreme poW (2523); —, defimct (2289); D b=heavenly law (3377) justice, Wotan’s (457,3413,3417,3424); fi:eedom &om bondage (1424) D b“sacredness (2764); holy oath (2804, 3405); eternal vows (3686); apostrophe to Gods, beginning (3266); —,

conclusion (3274); heavenly gift; godlike brother’s blood (2801); c|t=most valued thing (182); Ctl=WiU, vs. Love (1302); godlike pretensions (3021); db“honor, tmfti doubted (3294); blessedness (3771) C )t “gazing at heaven (547); c )t “world withotn end (469); db“exile, ftom heaven (713); deadly physical trauma (1470) Db “self-knowledge (720) db=fiising, uniting (1504)

d. Things Db“Head, Siegfiied’s (2416); a heavenly gift (3521) Db“Castle (72); Possession, Wotan’s (219); Glance, -, goddess’s (452j; Judgment, Wotan’s (521); Glory, divine_(523); Salvation, vision of (723); C# “bargain, Wotan’s (153); db“thought, Wotan’s hidden p99) db “underlings, of gods (335); ctt=foes, of gods (382); repercussions, heavenly (1151) c)t“Brümihilde defimct (3058) c|) “unknown wizard (3^55)

Xn. Ab MAJOR (Ab/Gÿ Mihor, F minor) a. Persons Ab“THE WALA (2128,2150); —, her

musings (2154); —, Wotan’s Mother (2180) A b “RHINE DAUGHTERS, refused (3479, 3501) A b “BRÛNNHILDE, Cup-Bearer or Wishmaiden (2164, 2479,2480, 3033, 3040); —, Wala-daughter (2173); —, excessively lofty (2427); —, too inaccessible (2433); herself a flood into which to plunge (2472); —, her blinding eyes (2494); her wondrous tone (2396); heavenly maiden (2985,3151 3182, 3208,3210,3222,3232,3340,3389, 3290); —, scornful (3393); a b “heavenly bride (2845,3349,3387); —, degraded (2842); Gutrune, ersatz “heavenly” maiden (3226, 3426,3526,3656) ab “BRÛNNHILDE, Erda and Wotan’s child (2166); — demoted (1316, 1349);—, her lofty social status dissolving (2428); Valkyrie in fear (2915)

568 f=BRONNHILDE, demoted by Fricka

(866); —, exiled from Walhall (1261); —, ex ctq)-bearer (1245); —her lofty social status kaput (2429); pleading Wish Maiden (2903); supplicant Valkyrie (2960) G|t=SlEGLINDE, God’s daughter (682) f=SlEGUNDE, hounded by heaven (986) Ab=a (female) cup-bearers (563, 1038) Ab=Rhine Daughters (3461,3463) G#=Wish Maidens (*1051) g)i=FRiCKA, scorned and demoted (807, 813); -, saddened in spirit (810); shamed (822); ab=FRlCKA, punisher (848) Ab=W0TAN, Self-judging suicide (2193); Wotan’s release (2968) ab=W0TAN, unjust judge (2176); gtt=^, his oppressed heart (911) f=W0TAN, unjust punisher (2177); —the punished (892); his divine sorrow (895) Ab=Gods, dying (262); —, as Mime’s fantasy minions (1722)

b. Places

Ab=HEIGHTS, HTODEN BY CLOUDS (1554, 2261); a mountain space (2788); Ab/f^ountain height (2510,3591), a mighty pile (3695) Ab=upward path to Walhall (3749) ab=final path to Walhall (3736) g|)=HElGHTS: distant matters (1612); junçoff point for heaven (1153) f=HElGHTS: distant (inçlying high, exalted) matters (2403); exile fi'om heaven (1266) Ab=A wondrous cavern (1985,2016,2210); waters (3455); riverside (3531)

c. Qualities or Actions

in Fire-Clouds (2302) —, glowing (2274); —, a goddess’ breath (2351) Ab=HEAVENLY VALUES: honor, renown (74, 2606,2609); virtue (2636); Freia, captured (254); —, captive forever (465); G#=—, perhaps unredeemable (163); Siegftied, lofty, treasure of ftie world, life of the earth (2452); A b -+a b =values tarnishing (3685ab) g)l=HEAVENLY VALUES; Freia begging for rescue (1196)

A b=BATHING,

Ab=AIR, ELEMENT: CLOUD (1554);

ab=HEAVENLY VALUES: Fricka’s honor

avenged (889); —, soiled; Wotan’s guilt (1774) Ab=GODHEAD, passing (798,801); revels, gods’ (336); revelers (3082); HEAD, illuminated (2277) a b “aspiration for godly power (901); Wotan’s final departure into darkness (2299) A b “Waves, ripples, floating in water (3); resting (989,993); return to River (2964); flood of waters (3744); 3777, 3781)

d. Things

drink-horn (640); f=nightdrink(638); drinking vessel (2763, 2765); Gjt“flagon, Fricka’s runneth over with gall (820); ab “container, heart as (1309); a goddess’ helmet (2323); Ab “intoxication, emotional, as from drinking (1310); gall, of a drink (1312); goddess’s mouth as chalice (2409) Ab=treasure, heavenly (2855,2658); over abundant giving (2616); host, — (2970, 3001); assistance, — (3376); transport to heaven (2873) f=weapons, goddess’ discarded (2410) A b“a morning light (511); a holy day (719); twilight of a day (3009); ab=span of a single fatefiil day (512); eye-star (1011) Ab “lost Rhinegold, with inçlication that it is above the waters (520); upward journey (1023) gtl/E/gtl“Tamhelm(2756,3016) , Tamhelm (3120); a b “Tamhelm magic (3153) a disguise, deceptive shape (356) Ab“to3fs (1419) Ab=a fallen Giant (1971); old man (2237) Ab=a hero’s heart trembling in hand (2341); a b =an unknown hero (2368) g)l=WaltTaute unafiuid (2919) Ab/E/C“The Noms, Fate (3291) Ab “rock, end of rope (2579) Ab=Siegflied as prize (2833) ab“COsmic rage (3272) ab“Hagen’s subordinates (3174) Ab=watmabe master smith (3568) g (I “Hoard-master (2700)

Ab “VESSELS:

APPENDIX III: Miscellaneous Percepts, Methods, and Problems in the Compilation of the Lexicon The following miscellaneous notes, with some brief citations culled from Wagner’s theoretical dicta, will be relevant to estimating whatever may be of value in it, since it was from Wagner’s theory that I have derived the linear harmonic methodology that produced the Lexicon. I only cite a few representative sample quotes for brevity. Also, Marshall Tuttle has published a more structuralist variation of the theory that we jointly cobbled together during the 1990s, and sipce he argues most ofour shared syntactical assumptions there, I can direct those who are interested to his Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera for more elaborated synt^tical dis cussions and demonstrations. Om two books differ si^ifrcantly in practical approach within the same general paradigm, which will give insight into how divergently even the most unitary theory may be legitimately understood and applied.

I.

KEY IS SCALE

Sample source: “The bond-of-kinship ofthose tones whose rhythmic-moving chain, with its links of‘ridge and hollow,’ makes out the Verse-melody, is first of all made plain to Feeling in the Key {Tonart)', for it is this which prescribes the particular tone-ladder [or scale] in which the tones of that melodic'chain are contained as separate rungs.”'

Analytical Application and Problems: Wagner consistently describes keys as scales. Since “scale” is a categorical concept while “key” is a semantic unit of meaning, the presence of a defiiutive scale (elfrier as a linear scale or as a pitch set)

means the presence of the key. “Definitive” can thus only refer to accessory syntactical material that sqrves to restricting possible meanings of the scale to a single or at most a pair of meanings. ‘TL syntax” is thus mostly an intelligibility

constraint as indeed it is in NL. Ip many cases pariicularly in the later dramas there is insufficient syntactical information to rule out all but a single meaning. In such cases so-called preference rules apply: the meaning is in all casés the simplest, easiest, or most coherent with the surrounding flow of keys. Additionally, lexical

'Opera and Drama, Part IH, p. 286.

570 coherence can help determine the key: in toss-up cases one of the choices will almost always be lexically obvious. Thus Ex. 1, bars 8-9, MI9 (“des Ringes Herr als des Ringes Knecht!” could be analyzed in either of two ways: (1) F minor: viio7 bn (twice), or (2) R minor: viio7 V (twice). This is about as close a tossup as one will find in the Ring. But what does the syntax mean? Both keys are possible, both fit with the surrounding key flow, preference rales show a 50-50 split, and both are lexically relevant. In terms of generic usage, F minor is the key of grasping and guarding, B minor of the curse on possession. This is not strictly ambiguity. Instead it resembles dual usage. We know, for instance firom Siegfried, H, that the F minor Fafiier, the Ring’s cursed guardian, has had his original F minor mutated by the introjection of B minor syntax into his now cursed “Gant” motif. So Wagner is consistently forcingF minor (possession) against B minor (curse) to create composite lexical meanings. The present bars appear to be the origin of this tendency and it is likely that Wagner was happy with the syntactical and semantic double-meaning. In the event, my choice was B minor. If anyone had complained I would have been happy to go with F minor. The likelihood is that Wagner meant them both here.

n.

TL SYNTAX IS AN INTELLIGIBILITY CONSTRAINT Source: “These laws ofharmonic sequence, based on the nature ofAffinity,—

just as those harmonic columns, the chords, were formed by the affinity of tonestuffs,—munite themselves into one standard, which sets up salutary bounds around the giant playgroimd of capricious possibilities. They allow the most varied choice fix)m amid the kingdom of harmonic families, and extend the possibility ofunion by elective-affinity with the members of neighbouring families, almost to fi:ee liking; they demand, however, before all a strict observance of the house-laws ofaffinity of

thefamily once chosen, and a faithful tarrying with it, for the sake of a happy end.”^ Analytical Application and Problems: I have discussed Wagner’s Affinity principle at length. This is a conservative and rale-bounded claim; to break syntactical rales is to court unintelligibility. Wagner asserts his tonal conservatism everywhere, all the way into the late 1870s. Paradoxically it is this manic conserva tism that earns him the reputation of a rale-breaker: he ruthlessly applies the logic of harmonic syntax that makes both simple and complex surface statements intelligible

^The Art-Work ofthe Future, p. 117.

571 with such fanatical precision that in adhering to the letter of intelligibility constraint he sets aside such superficial or mid-level rules as cadential closure that favor facile periodic phrases. The problems are that you have to observe every last accidental or enharmonic equivalence in every beat under penalty of misconstruing chromatic passing or neighbor-tones for key-denying modulations. Such fussy anal3^is is necessary even in the most simple-seeming passages. For instance, in Ex, 3,1 translate Flossie’s “bewacht des schlummernden Bett” as G minor and not G Major even though the water-arpeggio figure proceeds a !-b k-c which would seem to spell G Major”, and not the a ^-b h-c necessary to nail down “G minor.” My reasoning is simple enougli; (a) the surrounding chord is a G minor : viio7 with the minor-modal e b ; (b) the ft

has Just appeared in Flossie’s line not

as a scale degree but as a chromatic neighbor tone and can be disregarded as modeconstituting while the water arpeggio must imitate the tone she has just left to avoid the false relation; (c) although G Major may well be the c: V and thus logical fi-om a backward-looking perspective, still the surrounding keys, C minor and B b Major, strongly stamp the intervening key as G minor {c: v =Bb.: vi} and thus leads smoothly fiom C minor to B b where G Major denies the latter’s tonic ft b. Since Wagner’s is a forward-thrusting leading-tone and not backward-thrusting cadential linear syntax, the combination ofthese factors must prevail. Only after working out such syntactical possibilities should one look to the semantic usage to confirm that [g=SEPARATlON, Alberich, Nibelungs] where G Major makes no semantic sense whatever. m.

KEY IS FAMILY HOUSEHOLD

Source. “The Key (Tonart) is the most united, most closely kindred/a»i//y of the whole tone-genus-, it shews itself as truly of one kin with the whole tone-genus, however, where it advances to an alliance with other Keys, through the instinctive inclination of its individual members. We here may suitably compare the tone-key with the ancient patriarchal families of the various human stems: by an instinctive error the kinsmen of these famiUes considered themselves as a pecuhar people, and not as members of the entire human race; yet the Individual’s sexual love was not enkindled by a wonted, but solely by an un-wonted object, and thus it climbed the barriers of the patriarchal family, to knit alhances with other families.”

Application and Problems: At the time he was writing The Art-Work of the Future and Opera and Drama Wagner consistently imagines keys as organized into

572 human family or kinship units. The most obvious reason for this is that he had been immersing himself for a decade in mediæval literature both Christian and pagan Geimanic-Norse and this literature is drenched in the social particulars of the patriarchal clan and the honor system. What he has to say about keys is thus very much what the Saga writers had to say about héros, their alliances, and their household clans. Since he wanted to write an heroic pagan Gomanic Saga {The

Nibelung’s Ring) the composer, ever pragmatic, theorized his keys as if they were mediæval Germanic clans. His “instinctive inclinations” ofkeys for one another, the straightforward application of his theory of Affinity, is literal transliteration of the feuding and allying Saga personæ that he was about to depict on stage. Since what was true of the one was true of the other, it relieved the composer of innumerable arbitrary and unsystematic key relationship decisions and thereby pretty much did his tonal-planning work for him in advance. None of this has anything to do with such speculations as Jean-Jacques Nattiez reduction of Opera and Drama the single term, “androgyny,”^ the vacuity of which may be estimated when one attempts to operationalize it in the context of the actual music and librettos. A glance through the present Wagner-based book will yield a hundred precise and relevant entailments ofWagner’s tonal clan metaphor for every dubious distortion dredged up by Nattiez’ “extended sexual metaphor.” What of any conceivable interest could “Wagner the Androgyne” have to say about •

Alberich the Lord to Alberich the punk (Bb/gi. Wotan the Judge to Wotan the criminal (Db./H), Loge the Lawyer to Loge under indictment (A/fi), Brünnhilde Daddy’s Little Darling to Brünnhilde booted out of heaven (Ab/f). Wotan the Wise to Wotan the hare-brained (C/a), Fasolt the Wooer to Fasolt the impotent (£/d), Woglinde the Swim Champ to Woglinde dead in the water Œb/c~): Siegfiied the Noble to Siegfiied the schmuck ®/b), or,

•

Alberich the Ravager to Rhine Girls the ravaged (Bb/Ebl. Gunther the Big Shot to Hagen the doorman fBb/ebJ. Fafiier the Nibelung-Squasher to Alberich the minimus fF/Bbl. Wotan the Brilliant to Fasolt the fooled (Ç/F), Sieglinde the Implementrix to Wotan the idea guy (G/Ç), Siegfiied the Product to Sieglinde the producer (D/©, Wotan the Lot Chooser to Hunding the short stick (d/g), Brünnhilde the Lost Chance to Siegfiied the defunct

'Wagner Androgyne, p. 38.

573 (A/d), Fricka the butt-kicker to Wotan the bum fett/Dbi. or, •

Siegfried the Winner to Siegmund the loser (D/á), Rhine Girls the Peaches to Noms the crones (Eb/eb). Freia the Freebora,to Freia bought cheap ©/d), Sieglinde Kissing Baby to Grimhilde fingering gold (G/g), Alberich Lovely Boy to Alberich sneezing (E/^, Brünnhilde Hoity-Toity to Brünnhilde wised up (Ab/ab). Wotan the Know-All to Wotan flunking out (C/c)

or five hundred other rational semantic relations between persons, places, situations, or things? What could Wagner’s “sustained sexual metaphor” say about anything he is actually saying in either TL or NL or both? It has nothing to say about any of this because Wagner’s core metaphor is not I AM ANDROGYNY but KEY IS HOUSEHOLD. Such problems as there are simply have to do with the problems attending any sustained effort to translate a new text in a hitherto unknown languagp.- probable errors of translating individual words and phrases, falsifiable and therefore correctable with new insights into the text’s general semantic logic. IV.

KEY RELATIONS ARE FAMILY RELATIONS {Principle ofPersonification)

Sample source: “The Key of a melody is that which presents to Feeling its various included tones in their earliest bond ofkinship. The mcitement to widen this narrower bond to a richer, more extended one, is derived finm the Poetic Aim, insofar as that has already condensed itself in the speaking-verse to a moment-offeeling; while this extension is governed by the particular exprepsional character of single chief-tones, which have themselves, in turn, been prompted by the verse. These Chief-tones are, in a sense, the adolescent members of the family, who yearn to leave its wonted surrounding for an unhindered independence; this independence, however, they do not gain as egoists, but through encounter with another being, a being that lies outside the family.”^

Application and Problems: Wagner consistently personifies his musical materials even in his theoretical formulations. In these systematic personifications of syntactical and lexical entities in terms oftonal households, householders, and house laws, Wagner intentionally uses personification to subvert abstract stmcturalism, which he never ceases to deride as missing the whole point of opera, and to subserve his own interpretive approach in a way similar to that discussed by James Hillman

*Opera and Drama., p. 291.

574 in his analysis of Freud’s case histories as a Uterary genre intentionally modeled on defective fiction. The essence of such a technique is the protagonized participation of the genre itself in doing some of the case history’s analytical work, or at least seeming to. Hillman writes, In the prefatory remarks to his famous 1905 publication, “Fragment of an Analysis of a Case ofHysteria,’’—the Dora story^Freud vmtes: “I am aware that—in this town at least—fiiere are many physicians who... chose to read a case history of this kind not as a contribution to the psychopathology of neuroses, but as a roman à clef designed for their private delectation.’’ He also imagines “unauthorized,” “nonmedical readers” turning to this story. Already the “reader'’ was figuring in Freud, the writer’s, fantasy. And how often in his subsequent w ork we come upon these Victorian, these detectivestory-style appeals to the reader, reminding him of what was said some pages back, or cautioning him that á point is worth holding in mind for it will £q)pear again later, or showing concern for his wonder, confusion, perplexity—and maybe even shock at the bold frankness with which a matter is being exposed . . . Freud’s associations are with literature, for which he uses—always a sign of affective importance—a foreign term, roman à clef, meaning “a work which presents real persons and events, but disgmsed by the author.”* This works because psychoanalysis itself is structured like whodunits and neuroses like the rniscreants whose devious crinies motivate both theory and genre. Wagner’s writing style works because his theory is stractured like Music Drama and its lexemes like the mythical protagonists whòse antics motivate both theory and Drama. In the event, Wagner’s theory proves to be a de facto psychological system. The major difference is that unlike poor Freud, who depended for material on the neurotic^ff-the-street, Wa'gner enjoys the benefit of having created not only genre

'James Hillman, Healing Fiction, pgs. 4-5. Wagner was aware of the rhetorical useflilness of emotiolially charged “foreign” terms like Freud’s romanó clefor Grey’s Geschichtsphilosophie. He comically analyzes German critics’ recourse to foreign terminology to account for the inçact of keyerbeer’s music: “The secret ofMeyerbeer’s operatic music is,—Effect. Ifwe wish to gain a notion of what we are to understand by this ‘Effect’ {‘Effekf), it is inçortant to observe that in this connection we do not as a rule employ the mote homely word ‘Uîrfa/ng’ [lit. ‘a working ]. Our natural feeliilg can only conceive of ‘ Wirkung' as bound up with an antecedent cause: but here, where we are instinctively in doubt as to whether such a correlation subsists, or are even as good as told that it does not subsist at all, we look peqilexedly around us for a word to anyhow denote the ingression we think we have received ffom, e.g., die music-pieces of Meyerbeer; and so *we fall upon a foreign word, not directly appealing to our natural feeling, such as just this word ‘Effect’ If, then, we wish to define what we understand by dqs word, we may translate ‘Effect’ by ‘a Working, without a cause.’ ('Wirkung ohne Ursache’).” (Opera and Drama, p. 95.)

575 and psychological theory but his own neurotics as well. This is by no means a stupid strategy—provided only that the target audience is not a dissertation committee. There is no mysticism about it; the strategy is entire pragmatic. His entire lexical technique depends upon drawing intelligible comparisons (iÂw-is-like-fAa/); such comparisons are what make TL lexemes possible, e.g., [D=Siegfried]. His personifying theory does much ofthat work for him before he has penned a single note. KEY IS HOUSEHOLD is thus his core semantical met^hor. Every kind of usefiil metaphoric entailment streams from it. Since KEY IS HOUSEHOLD then *B b IS NIBELUNG HOUSEHOLD. If MAJOR is IMPORTANT then B b MAJOR is HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD, Alberich. If Bb IS HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD then RELATIVE MINOR is a minor relative such as a down-and-out little brother and thus G MINOR IS MIME. And SO on the TL lexemes march past om doors, like so many rabbits and foxes on parade, until the entire Circle of Fifths is populated by,a readyto-hand cast of smiling, waving fairy-tale figures whose dramatic relationships are quantified with Euclidean precision by empirical TL key relationships. Wagner’s KEY RELATIONSHIP IS HOUSEHOLD principle is not without some practical problems of translation. The most persistent of these is how to translate a Tonal Household’s relative minor into consistent real-time TLlexemes. The problem derives from the fact that one Household’s relative minor is another Household’s tonic minor and thus to translate a minor-key lexeme requires a determination of which Household is controlling its metaphoric entaihnents. Most ofthe time a minor key lexeme expresses a complex semantics derived from a blending of the core metaphors proper to the two Major keys to which it relates, as when [c=SLEEP / DEPTHS] is rational both from [¡C=UGHT / waking] and IEb= WATERS / sinking (into)]. Though hard to quantify I should guess that perhaps 15% of the minor-key lexeme translations are still somewhat tentative in my mind. In the event I’ve found it most difficult to puzzle out the semantics of Cf{ minor. I don’t know why that should be so; it is just the fact.

V.

MODULATION IS SCALE DEGREE ALTERATION

Sample source: “The maiden attains her independence, her stepping beyond the family, only through the love of the youth who, himself the scion of another family, attracts her over to him. Thus the tone which quits the circle of the Key is a tone already prompted and attracted by that other key, and into the latter it must

576 therefore pour itself according to the* necessary law of Love. The leading-tone

(Leitton) that urges from one key into another, and by this very urgence discloses its kinship with that other key, can only be taken as prompted by the motive of Love.”*

VI.

ÖHORDS ARE BUILT ON THIRDS

Sample source: “Harmony grows from below upwards as a perpendicular pillar, by the joining-together and overlaying of correlated tone-stuffs. Unceasing alteration of such colunms, each freshly risen member taking rank beside its fellows, constitutes the only possibility of absolute harmonic movement ‘in breadth’.’”

Practical application and problems: Here Wagner reaffirms that, Sechterlike, his TL syntax respects thoroughbass. The entailments are simple but highly useful in complex harmonic analysis: Thoroughbass is unintelligible unless scale is being derived from harmonics and chords from open intervals. Thus all a keyconstituting chords must be built in fifths and thirds (fourths are simply inversions). Given Wagner’s syntactical fanaticism this denies for instance such later assumptions as “chords with added seconds.” Thus in Wagner’s TL such chords as c-e b-g-a (added second a) must be analyzed as the composer himself would have understood them, e.g., as a-c-e b-g in third inversion (thirds). The fact that other inversions are relatively rare is immaterial, for this is a usage not syntactical question (for instance, up to Wagner’s young adulthood the bn almost always appeared in first inversion.) This becomes useful in analyzing Wagner’s ersatz chords, such as the

Annunciation ofDeath motif discussed in Chapter Two.

VII.

MUSIC-DRAMATIC FORM IS DISCONTINUOUS AND INDEPENDENT OF TIME AND SPACE

Sample source: “In the singlest Space and the most compact Time one may spread out an Action as completely discordant and disconnected as you please,—as we may see to our heart’s content in our Unity-pieces. On the contrary, the Unity of an Action consists in its intelligible connexion; and only through one thing can this reveal itself intelligibly, —^which thing is neither Time nor Space, but the Expression. If... we have ascertained what is this Unitarian, i.e., this continuous Expression,

^Opera and Drama, p. 291. ^The Art-fVork ofthe Future., p. 115.

577 which at all times keeps the Continuity in presence; and if we have shewn it as a thing by all means possible: then in this Expression we have also won back the severed by the necessity of Space and Time as a thing once more united, and a thing made ever present where needful for an understanding; for its ‘necessary’ Presence lies not in Time or Space, but in the impression which is made on us within them. The limitations of Space and Time, which arose fiom lack of this Expression, are upheaved at once by its acquirement; both Time and Space are annihilated, through the actuality of the Drama.”*

Analytical Application and Problems: This is crucial to interpreting Wagner’s concept ofthe ‘Toetico-musical Period” {dichterisch-musikalische Periode). Wagner theorists have completely failed to understand the composer’s argument here, though it is simple enough. Thus Thomas Grey boisterously overdescribes Wagner’s accoimt of the “Period” as a (scare-quoted and thus pseudo-) “theory” comprised of ideas

paradoxical, hazy, overwrought, vacuous, awkward, shadowy, notjully coherent, fanciful-sounding, elusive, vague, unclear, hypothetical, and imbalanced.^ 11 is nothing of the sort, rather it is a straightforward description of basic psychological and dramatic facts. The reason this is a conceptual sphinx to music theorists is that the term “period” acts as a galvanic shock to their stereotyped analytical reflexes, jerking them into an autonomic quest for some new and continuous musical form something like a fugue subject or a complex theme. Nothing in Wagner’s exposition sanctions such an assumption. Wagner is aMusic Dramatist and is here talking about nothing more complicated than that insofar as we are real human beings we all make stories of our lives. Nobody remembers their life as a continuous linear sequence of events, e.g., endlessly waking up, getting out ofbed, putting on clothes, going potty, making food, eating it, experiencing the breath-taking shock of a stranger’s sexually provocative look, brushing teeth, setting the clock, getting up, unexpectedly meeting the stranger in the hall and having anear heart attack ofdizzying desire, phoning the office, fixing the flat, marrying the stranger, paying the bills, holding the squalling firstborn dizzy with wonderment, flossing, etc. This would be Wagner’s Time and Space which is

'Opera and Drama., p. 350.

’The tenns are culled ftom Grey’s discussion of the dichterisch-musikalische Periode that appears on pgs. 181-2 of Wagner’s Musical Prose.

578 “annihilated by a human Action.” Instead we X out all the Junk and leave the

meaning: the Glance, the Affair, the Proposal, the Wedding, etc., which are real to us by virtue of their common Feeling-tone. In other words, we edit out Reality, leaving the Story. Nobody does anything else. My own life is filled with just such Moments as Wagner describes: Carmel’s bright, winning smile; the telephone talks; the First Date; Moving In; the Life Together, the Proposal; the Wedding; the Special Moments; e tc. T hese w idely s eparated Moments e xist a s a s ingle c oherency o f Meaning confirmed by their unitary Feeling-tone. They all live in my memory as if they happened yesterday. They thus comprise a single virtual intelligible object, a unitary poetic-feeling Period. Interwoven with this Period are others unified by, e.g.. The Kids; The Parents; The Job; The Wagner Research; The Traveling; etc. All the rest is junk, erased fi'om my memory, non-existent. As Wagner declares. Time and Space have been annihilated by emotionally meaningful Human Action. Since Wagner is a dramatist and fanatically logical as well, he does the same thing

in his Music Dramas. Moments connected by Expression, that is by Feeling-

tone, appear as discontinuous Moments of shared meaning interspersed with other Moments made intelligible by their otvn proper Feeling-tones. To understand his musical-poetic periods one has only to think of one’s life and substitute “key” for “feeling tone.”

Ex. 1 and£ic. 2 show two such Moments in asingle dichterisch-musikalische Periode. The first is the last bit of Alberich’s Curse, Das Rheingold, iv. The relevant syntax and semantics are simple enough: The Curse consists of a harrowing subdominantward collqjse backward fi^om B minor to deposit on a shocking B^. ininor:i-6/4 chord disappearing into pregnant silence. This is (#420) [M.=Alberich’s hand]. The point ofthe 6/4 is that it is a classic demand for resolution: Alberich (B b minor) will spend the rest of his life in suspense, waiting for “justice” (6/4). Compare this with Ex. 2, which occurs in Götterdämmerung, I, three operas later. Here Hagen sits waiting for Siegfiied to bring the Ring to him. He sits in the subdominant holding-bin of [B b =Alberich/Gunther1. The lexical key cues his subordinated position relative both to his B¿ father and his Bb. older Erother (see

Ex.3). The relationship is shown in the key signature, that forces Hagen’s EJ^ into the menial subdominant role. There he sits, fiozen on a humungous eb:16/4 chord. It is a vastly expanded discourse on his father’s single eighth-note bb:16/4 and here too it means the same thing: waiting, waiting for “justice.” The Alberich clan has been

579 suspended in this state of waiting—^this dichterisch-musikalische Periode—since long before Hagen was bom. This is a textbook example of Wagner’s poetic-musical Period. It is unified by every expressive technique possible to music: key relationship, orchestration, rising tremolando fi-oufiou in the bass. Even the distorted “Walhall” motifmakes use of an echo of the “Lord of the Rings cursed” pattem. As a tonal technique it is perfectly intelligible; there is nothing conceptually difficult about it. The only false problem is the analyst’s disbelief that a coherent “musical period” can be anything but strictly continuous. The false difficulty derives fix)m the fact that no one in music school is ever told that music can be anything but temporally and spatially continuous, unless the lucky student should have read and understood Opera and

Drama. Vni.

Forced and Unforced Modulations

Sample Source: From the Law ofleast hypothesis {Occam‘s Razor) as applied by Wagner: “Never quit a key while so long as what you have tosay, can still be said therein.”*“ This is an expression of Wagner’s general self-image as a conservative and not a radical composer, particularly in terms of modulation, e.g. : I have never yet made the acquaintance ofa young composer who did not think to gain my sanction for ‘audacities’ before all things. On the other hand it has been a real surprise to me, that the restraint I have striven for with increasing vigilance in the modulation and instrumenting of my works has not met the smallest notice."

Analytical Application: (A). This means no key in the Lexicon is declared until some empirical scaledegree alteration denies its predecessor, forcing the key referent. These I call “forced modulation.” Basically keys appear that are able to kick their predecessors out the door. This is a very conservative concept of linear harmonic analysis. Since KEY IS LEXEME it serves to restrict rather than multiply the number of such lexemes, which

is to say, to restrict the vocabulary. The risk is that some shorter lexemes may be missed; the advantage that the lexemes that are translated are more clearly real and

“’“Music Applied to the Drama,” p. 191. "“Music Applied to the Drama,” in Religion and Art, p. 185.

580 not imaginary. A further advantage is that it minhnizes my role as a translator. I’m not conjuring keys I vrish were there but as far as possible puzzling out the meamngs of keys I know are there on the table. There are a very few exceptions, which I call “unforced modulations,” that is, an instance of a key modulating to a key that could have been analyzed as if it had remained in the same key but is obviously (usually for rhythmic placement logic) a new key. These always occur in very simple and diatonic music. Ex, 3 shows such

anunforcedmodulationfromi>flsÄA««gc>W,I,#5,[C==SLEEP].Thelinearsyntactical analysis reads {Ei;l, vi=ç;i, iix7). Because there is no b ^ leading tone it could have simply stayed in E b, i.e., {Ik:I, vi, vüx7}. The modulation is thus not “forced.” But Flossie’s “Des Goldes Schlaf’ is placed on a ff-c—e k—à phrase that screams for C minor. Besides, the lexical usage is completely consistent with other usages [£=sleep] and is, moreover, coherent with [C=LIGHT, awake], [c=dimming, sleep], which is confirmed at M9 at the point where the light illuminates the Rhine bed. An even earlier instance is M, [^guarding (the gold)]. This is even less forced but again, the usage is coherent with later uses of F minor to denote possessing, holding, watching (guarding), i.e., Fafiier. (B). Scale degrees also stand until forced to change by an accidental. This means that any tone, e.g., dt. at. bff, remains in background force until cancelled by a real surface chromatic alteration, even if the key has changed in the meantime. This is important because in at least 20% of later key changes, the third scale degree is

entirely omitted and never appears at all. Anyone who tries a hand at linear harmonic analysis will find this out quite soon. Often mode is uncommitted by real tones. This means that surface sonority often does not tell you about mode. What tells you about mode is the background presence of the prior key’s tone carried forward to imply an uncontradicted mode. Inotherwords, in late Wagnermode is often only virtually and not sonorously intelligible. The reason identification of mode is necessary is that mode assigns Tonal Household to keys. Since these keys are also TL lexemes mode makes a semantic difference. Thus it matters if a modally uncommitted key is C Major or C mmor. C Major will semantically disquaUfy the lexeme for inclusion in the E b Major Tonal

Household where C minor will not.

.

Ex. 1: Alberich, waiting...

581

582

Ex. 2: Hagen, waiting...

583

Ú

Bibliography

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbate, Carolyn. “Wagner, ‘On Modulation,’ and Tristan,” in Cambridge Opera Journal, 1,1989. -------. Unsung Voices: Opera and Musical Narrative in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, New Jersey: Princetqn University Press, 1995. Abbate, Carolyn and Roger Parker, editors. Analyzing Opera: Verdi and Wagner. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989. Aberbach, Alan David. Richard Wagner: A Mystic in the Making. Wakefield, New Hampshire: Longwood Academic Press, 1991.

——. Richard Wagner’s Religious Ideas: A SpiritualJoumey.'Lsviis\.on,'H&NYox\i: Edwin Mellen Press, 1996. Adams, Evangeline, .lis/ro/ogy; Your Place in the Sun. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1928. Adorno, Theodore. In Search of Wagner. London: Verso, 1981. Allen, Richard Hinckley. Star Names, Their Lore and Meaning. New York: Dover Publications, 1966. Armour, Eugene. Beyond Schenkerism: The Needfor Alternatives in Music Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Bachelard, Gaston. Earth and Dreams. Dallas, Pegasus Foundation, 1983. —The Psychoanalysis ofFire. Dallas, Pegasus Foundation, 1983. -------. Water and Dreams. Dallas, Pegasus Foundation, 1983. Bachofen, Johann, Myth, Religion, and Mother Right. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. Bailey, Alice A. Esoteric Astrology. New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1951. Bailey, Robert. “The Structure of the Ring and its Evolution,” vaNineteenth Century Music, Voi. L No. 1, July 1977. Barton, Tamsyn. Ancient Astrology. London and New York: Routledge, 1994. Bar-Yosef, Amatzia. “Musical Time Organization and Space Concept: A Model of Cross-Cultural Analogy,” Ethnomusicology 45/3 (2001), 423. Beckingham, Charles F. and Bernard Hamilton, eds., Prester John: The Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1996. ------ . “The Achievements of Prester John”, in Beckingham and Hamilton (1996), pgs. 1-22. Berry, Patricia, editor. Fathers and Mothers: Five Papers on the Archetypal Back ground ofFamily Psychology, Zurich, 1973. Bevan, Rev. W. L, and Rev. H. W. Phillott, Medioeval Geography: An Essay in Illustration of the Hereford Mappa Mundi, London: E. Stanford, Charing Cross, 1873. Bingen, Hildegard von. physica, translated by Priscilla Throop. Rochester, Vt: Healing Arts Press, 1^98. Bodky, Erwin. The Interpretation of Bach 's Keyboard Works. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 19^0.

588 Brown, Norman O. Hermes the Thief. New York; Vintage Books, 1969. Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen. Female Fault and Fulfilment in Gnosticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986. Budge, E. A. Wallace. Amulets and Talismans. New York; University Books, 1961. Carey, Hilary M. Courting Disaster: Astrology at the English Court and University in the Later Middle Ages. New York; St. Martin’s Press, 1992. Cams, Carl Gustav. Psyche (1846). New York: Spring Publications, 1970. Chafe, Eric. Tonal Allegory in the Vocal Works of J. S. Bach. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991. Chailley, Jacques. The Magic Flute, Masonic Opera. Translated by Herbert Weinstock. New York, Alfied A. Knopf, 1971. Cicora, Mary A. Mythology as Metaphor: Romantic Irony, Critical Theory, and Wagner's Ring. Westport, Connecticut.: Greenwood Press, 1998. ------ . Wagner's Ring and German Drama: Comparative Studies in Mythology and History in Drama. Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1999. Cone, Edward T. Musical Form and Musical Performance. New Y ork: W. W. Norton, 1968. Cook, Nicholas. A Guide to Musical Analysis. New York: G. Braziller, 1987. ------ , Musical Analysis and the Listener. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. 1989. Cooper, John M., editor. Plato Complete Works. Indianapolis/Cambridge; Hackett Publishing Co., 1997. Cord, William O. The Teutonic Mythology of Richard Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung. Lewiston, New York:'Edwin Mellen Press, 1991. Cumming, Naomi. “Metaphor in Roger Scruton’s aesthetics of music.” In Anthony Pople, editor. Theory, Analysis, and Meaning in Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pgs. 3-28. Dalhaus, Carl. Analysis and Value Judgment. Translated by Siegmund Levarie. New York: Pendragon Press, 1983. Dalhaus, Carl. Richard Wagner's Music Dramas. Mary Wittall, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Darcy, W arren. Wagner 's Das R heingold, N ew Y ork; O xford U niversity P ress, 1993.383-9. de Girolami Cheney, Liana and John Hendrix, editors.. Neoplatonism and the Arts, Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002. David, Hans T. “Mozartean Modulations,” in Paul Henry Lang, editor. The Creative

World ofMozart. New York; Norton & Co., 1991. Davidson, H. R. Ellis. Gods and Myths ofNorthern Europe, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1964. Deathridge, John, “Wagner’s Sketches for the ‘Ring’”, Musical Times, 118 (1977) ------ . “Cataloguing Wagner”, in The Richard Wagner Centenary in Australia, edited by Peter Dennison (Adelaide, 1985), 185-99. Donington, Robert. The Rise of Opera. Boston; Faber and Faber, 1981. ------ . Wagner’s Ring: The Myth and the Music. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1969.

¡jÜPiOB

589 Dumézil, Georges. Gods of the Ancient Northmen. Edited and translated by Binar Haugen. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Dunsby, Jonathan.“Recent Schenker: The Poetic Power ofIntelhgent Calculation (or. The Emperor’s Second Set of New Clothes). Music Analysis, 18/ii (1999). Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms ofReligious Life. Translated by Karen E. Fields. New York: Free Press, 1995. Einstein, Alfred. Mozart, His Character, His Work. Translated by Arthur Mendel and Nathan Broder. London, Oxford University Press, 1968. EUade, Mircea. Cosmos and History: The Myth ofthe Eternal Return. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959. ------ . The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature ofReligion. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1959. ------ . The Forge and the Crucible: The Origins and Structure ofAlchemy. Second Edition. Translated by Stephen Corrin. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1962 and 1978. Eschenbach, Wolfram von, Parzival. Translated by Helen M. Mustard and Charles E. Passage. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. Fairbanks, Arthur, editor and translator. The First Philosophers of Greece. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1898. Fiske, Harold E. Music and Mind: Philosophical Essays on the Cognition and Meaning ofMusic. Lewiçton, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. Forte, Alan and Steven E. Gilbert, Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton, 1982. Franz, Marie-Louise von. Number and Time. Evanston: Nortíiwest University Press, 1974. Fredriksen, Paula and Adele Reinhartz, editors. Jesus, Judaism, and Christian AntiJudaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Freeman, Kathleen. The Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Companion to Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953. Garin, Eugenio. Astrology in the Renaissance, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976. Ginzburg, Carlo. The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller. Translated by John and Anne Tedeschi. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. Girdlestone, Cuthbert. Mozart and His Piano Concertos. New York: Dover, 1964. Godwin, Joscelyn, editor. Cosmic Music: Musical Keys to the Interpretation of Reality. Rochester, Vt.-..Inner Traditions, 1989. ------ . Harmonies of Heaven and Earth: The Spiritual Dimension of Music from Antiquity to the Avant Garde. Rochester, Vt.: Lmer Traditions, 1987. Gordon, Robert M. The Structure of Emotions: Investigations in Cognitive Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ------ . Music, Mysticism^ and Magic: A Sourcebook. New York: Arkana, 1986.

i

I

^

i

É

590 Gow, Andrew Colin. The Red Jews: Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age, 1200-1600, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1995. Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. Two Volumes. Middlesex, England; Penguin Books, 1955. Grimm, Jakob. Germanic Mythology. Translated by Vivian Bird. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1997. Grimm, Reinhold and lost Hermand, editors. Re-Reading Wagner. Madison, Wi.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993. Gutman, Robert W. Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music. New York; Hartcourt, Brace, & World, 1968. Hanslick, Eduard. The Beautiful in Music. Translated by Gustav Cohen. Indianapolis; Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1957. Harris, Randy Allen. The Linguistics Wars. New York; Oxford University Press, 1993. Hasty, Will, editor. A Companion to Wolfram ‘sParzival. Columbia, South Carolina; Camden House, 1999. Hayes, H. R. The Dangerous Sex: The Myth of Feminine Evil. New York; G. P. Puntam’s Sons, 1964 Heilig, Jocelyn. The Holocaust and Antisemitism: A Short History. Oxford; Oneworld, 2003. Herodotus. The History. Translated by David Greene. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1987. Herold, J. Christopher, editor and translator. The Mind of Napoleon: A Selection fromHis Written and Spoken IFords. New York; Columbia University Press, 1955. Hillman, James. Archetypal Psychology: A Brief Account. Dallas, Texas; Spring Publications, 1981. ------ . Healing Fiction. Banytown; Stanton Hill, 1983. Hornstein, Norbert. Logic as Grammar. Cambridge and London; MIT Press, 1986. Humphries, Mark. Communities of the Blessed: Social Environment and Religious Change in Northern Italy, A.D. 200-400. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1999. Hutcheon, Linda, and Michael Hutcheon. Opera: Desire, Disease, Death. Lincoln; University of Nebraska Press, 1996. Jackendoff, Ray. “Musical Parsing and Musical Affect,” Music Perception, Winter 1991, Voi. 9, No. 2,199-230. Jacobson, Pauline. “The Syntax/Semantics Interface in Categorical Grammar,” in Shalom Lappin, editor. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pgs. 89-117. Janaway, Christopher, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1999. Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity, Boston; Beacon Hill, 1958.

591 Jordan David R., Hugo Montgomery, and Binar Thomassen, editors. The World of

Ancient Magic. Papersfrom thefirst International Samson Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institute at Athens 4-8 May 1997. Bergen: TheNorwegian Institute at Athens, 1999. Jung, C. G. Collected Works. Published for the Bollingen Foundation by Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Cited throughout as CW. -------. Aion, CW, Voi. K, pt. 2, second edition, 1968. -------. Alchemical Studies, CW, Voi. Xin, 1968. -------. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. CW., Voi. DC, Part 1, second edition, 1968. -------. Experimental Researches. CW, Voi. H, second edition, 1973. -------. “hidividual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy,” in Psychology and Alchemy, CW, Voi. XII, second edition, 1968, pgs. ------ . Mysterium Coniunctionis. CW, Voi. XIV, second edition, 1970. ------ . Psychological Types, CW, Voi. VI, 1974. ------ . Psychology and Alchemy, CW, Voi. XE, second edition, 1968. -------. The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. CW, Voi. VIH, second edition, 1969. ------ . Symbòls of Transformation, CW, Voi. Second edition, 1967. ------ . “The Visions of Zosimos,” in/l/cÄeffizca/ Studies, CW, Voi. Xni, 1968. ------ . “Paracelsus as a Spiritual Phenomenon,” m Alchemical Studies, CW, Voi. Xin, 1968. -------. “The Spirit Mercurius,” 'm Alchemical Studies, CW, Voi. XTTT, 1968. -------. ‘Transformation Symbolism in the Mass,” in Psychology and Religion, CW, Voi. XI, 1969. Jung, Emma, and Marie-Louise von Franz. The Grail Legend. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960. Juslin, Patrik N., and John A. Sloboda, eds. Music and Emotion: Theory and Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Kahane, Henry and Renée Kahane. In collaboration with Angelina Pietrangeli. The Krater and the Grail: Hermetic Sources ofthe Parzival, Urbana and Chicago : University of Illinois Press, 1965. Katz, Ruth and Ruth HaCohen. Tuning the Mind: ConnectingAesthetics to Cognitive Science. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transactions Publishers, 2003. Keller, Helen. The World I Live In, New York: New York Review Books, 2003. Keller, Hermann. The Well-Tempered Clavier by Johann Sebastian Bach. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1976. Kerman, Joseph. The Beethoven Quartets. New York: Norton, 1979. Kingsley, Peter. Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Krause, Martin, editor. Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour ofAlexander Böhlig. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of

Î

592 Chicago Press, 1980. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Lambridis, Helle. Empedocles. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1976. Landowska, Wanda, Denise Restout, editor. Landowska on Music, New York, Stein and Day, 1969. Lang, Paul Henry, editor. The Creative World ofMozart. New York: Norton & Co., 1991. Lansing, Carol. Power and Purity: Cather Heresy in Medieval Italy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Lappin, Shalom, editor. The Handbook ofContemporary Semantic Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996. Lateiner, Donald. Sardonic Smile: Nonverbal Behavior in Homeric Epic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. Lauer, Hans Erhard. “The Evolution of Music Through Changes in Tone System,” in Joscelyn Godwin (1989), pgs. 168-225. Layton, Bentley. Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1987. Leo, Alan. The Art ofSynthesis (1912), Edinburgh: International Pub. Co., 1949. Lewin, David. “Amfortas’ Prayer to Titurel and the Role ofD in Parsifal. The Tonal Spaces of the Drama and the Enharmonic Cb/B,” in Nineteenth Century Music, Voi. Vn, No. 3 (3 April 1984). Lewis, Christopher. “Mirrors and metaphors: Reflections on Schoenberg and nineteenth-century tonality,” in Nineteenth Century Music, Voi. XI, No. 1, Siunmer, 1987. Lilly, William, An Introduction to Astrology (1647). Hollywood, Ca., 1972. Lindsay, Jack. Helen ofTroy: Woman and Goddess. London: Constable & Company, 1974. Loomis, Roger Sherman. The Grail: Proni Celtic Myth to Christian Symbol Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991. Magee, Elizabeth. Richard Wagner and the Nibelungs. Oxford; Clarendon Pre^ss, 1990. Mandeville, John. The Travels of Sir John Mandeville: The Version of the Cotton Manuscript in Modern Spelling. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd, 1900. Marks, Lawrence E., Robin J. Hammeal, Marc H. Bomstein. Commentary by Linda Smith. Perceiving Similarity and Comprehending Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Mann, Thbmas. Pro and Contra Wagner. Translated by Allan Blunden; introduction by Erich Heller. London: Faber and Faber, 1985. Maxwell-Stuart, P.G., editor and translator. The Occult in Early Modem Europe: A Documentary History. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. ------ . The Occult in Mediaeval Europe, 500-1500: A Documentary History. New

York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. McCorkle, Donald Macomber, editor. Variations on a Theme of Haydn for Orchestra, Op. 56A andfor two pianos. Op. 56B by Brahms. New York: W. W. Norton, 1976. McCreless, P atrick. “ Schenker and t he Noms.” In A nalyzing Opera: Verdi a nd Wagner, Carolyn Abbate and Roger Parker, eds., Berkeley and Los Angeles; University of California Press, 1989. ------ . Wagner 's Siegfried: Its Drama, History, and Music. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1982. McLerran, Jennifer, and Patrick McKee. Old Age in Myth and Symbol: A Cultural Dictionary. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991. Merillat, Herbert Christian. The Gnostic Apostle Thomas: "Twin" o/Jest«.[N.p.]; Xlibris, 1997. Mies, Paul. Beethoven's Sketches: Analysis of His Style Based on a Study of His Sketch-Books. Translated by Doris L. Mackinnon. New York: Dover, 1974. Miller, William Ian. The Anatomy ofDisgust. Cambridge: Harvard Uiuversity Press, 1997. ------ . Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. ------ . Faking It. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. -------. Humiliation: And Other Essays on Honor. Social Discomfort, and Violence. Ithaca: Cornell Uiuversity Press, 1993. Modell, Arnold. “Reflections on Metaphor and Affects.” PSYART: A Hyperlink Joumalfor the Psychological Study ofthe Arts. Article 0010M7. October 1, 2001, http://www.clas.ufl.edu/ipsa/joumal/2001_modell01. shtml. May 30, 2004. Moore, R. I. The Birth ofPopular Heresy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975. Moran, Hugh A. and David H. Kelly, The Alphabet and the Ancient Calendar Signs, Palo Alto: Pacific Books, 1953. Müller, Ulrich. “Wolfi-am, Wagner, and the Germans.” In Will Hasty, editor, A Companion to Wolfram's Parzival, pgs. 245-258. Narmour, Eugene. Beyond Schenkerism: The Need for Alternatives in Music Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. Wagner Androgyne: A Study in Interpretation. Translated by Steward Spencer. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993. Neumann, Erich. The Great Mother. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University of Press, Second Edition, 1974. Newcomb, Anthony. “The Birth of Music out of the Spirit of Drama: An Essay in Wagnerian Formal Analysis.” Nineteenth Century Music, 1981, pgs. 38-56. Newman, Ernest. Wagner as Man and Artist. Garden City, New York: Garden City Publishing Co., 1934. Noegel, Scott, Joel Walker,,and Brannon Wheeler, editors. Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World. University Park, Pa.:

594 Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003. O’Brien, D. Empedocles ' Cosmic Cycle: A Reconstruction from the Fragments and Secondary Sources. Cambridge, Ma.: Cambridge University Press, 1969. O’Regan, Cyril. Gnostic Return in Modernity. Albany: State of New York Press,

2001. Ortony, Andrew, editor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiuversity Press, 1993. Ovid. The Metamorphoses. David R. Slavitt, trans. Maltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Pagels, Elaine. Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House, 2003. -------. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1981. Petty, Jonathan Christian. “The Genealogy of Chaos: Multiple Coherence in Wagnerian Music Drama.” (with Marshall Tuttle). Music and Letters, Voi. 79, No. 1, February 1998. -------. “Hanslick, Wagner, Chomsky: Mapping the Linguistic Parameters ofMusic. ” J. Royal Musical Association, 123 (1998). -------. “Landscape and Soundscape: Geomantie Spatial Mapping in Korean Traditional Music.” (With Nathan Hesselink). J. Musicological Research (2004). -------. “The Ravished Flower: A Major Poetics in Madama Butterfly." The Opera Journal, Voi. XXX, No. 4,1997. -------. “Sieglinde’s ‘Long Day’s Journey into Night’,” in The Opera Journal, Voi. XXX, June, 1997, pgs. 11-35. -------. “Sieglinde and the Moon,” The Opera Quarterly, Voi. 14, No. 2, Winter 1997/98 ,pgs. 41-56. -------. ‘Tonal Psychology in Puccini’s Turandot.” (with Marshall Tuttle). British Postgraduate Musicology, Voi. 4, March, 2001. Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: William Morrow, 1994. Plato. Complete Works. Edited with introduction and notes by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997. -------. “Phaedo.” In P/flio; Complete Works, pgs. 49-100. -------. “Timaeus.” In Ibid., pgs. 1224-91. Poirier, Paul-Hubert. “The writings ascribed to Thomas,” in John D. Turner and Anne McGuire, editors. The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years: Pro ceedings ofthe 1995 Society ofBiblical Literature Commemoration. Lieden: Brill, 1997. Pople, Anthony, editor. Theory, Analysis, and Meaning in Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Porter, Cecelia Hopkins. The Rhine as Musical Metaphor: Cultural Identity in German Romantic Music. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1996. Rayner, Charles. Wagner and Die Meistersinger. London: Oxford University Press,

595 1940. Reddy, Michael J. “The Conduit Metaphor,” in Andrew Ortony, editor. Metaphor and Thought, pgs. 164-201. Ricciardi, Mario. “Constitutive Rules and Institutions.” Paper presented at Rejoint meeting ofthe Irish Philosophical Club and the Royal Institute ofPhilosophy, Ballymanscanlon, February 1997. Rooth, Anna Birgitta. Loki in Scandinavian Mythology. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups Förlag, 1961. Saint-Foix, Georges de. The Symphonies ofMozart. New York, Dover Publications. 1968. Sams, Eric. The Songs ofRobert Schumann,ljonàon:'bAeûi\ieasaà Co.,Ltd., 1969. Schäfer, Peter. Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Schenker, Heinrich, Counterpoint. Translated by J. Rothgeb and J. Thym, edited by J. Rothgeb. New York: Schirmer, 1987. Schiller, Friedrich. On the Esthetic Education of Man. Wilkinson, Elizabeth M., editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Schlegel, Friedrich von, 1772-1829. Philosophical fragments, .ixsaslzAed by Peter Firchow; foreword by Rodolphe Gasché. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991. Schoenberg, Arnold. Theory ofHarmony. Translated by Roy E. Carter. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Schoedel, William R. “‘Topological’ Theology and some Monistic Tendencies in Gnosticism”, in Krause, Martin, editor. Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour ofAlexander Böhlig. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972, pgs. 88-108. Schonberg, Harold C. The Great Pianists. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Schweitzer, Albert. Bach, Vols. I & H. New York: Dover Publications, 1966. Scmton, Roger. The Aesthetic Understanding: Essays in the Philosophy ofArt and Culture. Manchester, Carcanet Press, 1983. Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Translated by E. F. J. Payne. Two Volumes. New York: Dover, 1966. Searle, J. R., editor. The Philosophy ofLanguage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. ------ . “What is a speech act?” in Searle, J. R. editor. The Philosophy ofLanguage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971, pgs. 39-53. Sedlar, Jean W. India in the Mind of Germany: Schelling, Schopenhauer, and their Times. Washington, D.C., University Press of America, 1982. Shedlock, J. S., editor. Richard Wagner’s Letters to his Dresden Friends, Theodor Uhlig, Wilhelm Fischer, and Ferdinand Heine. New York: Vienna House 1972. Shumaker, Wayne. The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance: A Study in Intellectual Patterns. Berkeley: University o( California Press, 1972. Smith, Leland. Handbook of Harmonic Analysis. Palo Alto: San Andreas Press,

596 1979. Slessarev, Vsevolod. Prester John: The Letter and the Legend. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1959. Snarrenberg, Robert. “Competing myths: the American abandonment of Schenker’s organicism.” In Pople, pgs. 29-56. Solomon, Maynard. Beethoven. New York: Schirmer, 1977. Soskice, Janet Martin. Metaphor and Religious Language, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Spencer, Stewart and Barry Millington, editors and translators. Selected Letters of Richard Wagner. New York: W. W. Norton, 1987. Spurgeon, Caroline. Shakespeare’s Imagery and What It Tells Us. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Steblin, Rita. A History ofPoetic Key Associations in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. Rochester, New Yoric: University of Rochester Press,

2002.

Strickland, Debra Higgs. Saracens, Demons, and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2003. Stoyanov, Yuri. The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Sullivan, Shirley Darcus. Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phrm. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Swain, Joseph P. Musical Languages. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997. Tester, S. Jim, A History of Western Astrology, New York, 1987. Thomas, J. W., editor. The Strassburg Alexander and Munich Oswald: Pre-courtly Adventures of the German Middle Ages. Columbia, S.C.: Camden House, 1989. Tomliiísoñ, Gary. Metaphysical Song. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. ------ . Music in Renaissance Magic: Toward a Historiography of Others. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. Tovey, Donald Francis. “Coimterpoint,” in The Forms ofMusic. London: Oxrford University Press, 1957. Tovey, Donald Francis. “Haydn: ‘The Creation’, in Essays in Musical Analysis, Voi. 5, London: Oxford University Press, 1937 and 1972. Turner, John D. And Anne McGuire, editors. The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty

Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Lieden: Brill, 1997. Tuttle, Marshall. Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2000. Vitale, A ugusto. “ Saturn: T he T ransformation o f t he F ather,” i n P atricia B erry, editor. Fathers and Mothers: Five Papers on the Archetypal Background of Family Psychold^,Z\mch, 1973. Vosniadou, Stella and Andrew Ortony. “The emergence of the literal-metaphoricalanomalous distinction in young children.” Child Development, 54,154-61.

597 Wagner, Cosima. Diaries, Vols. I and H. Translated by Geof&ey Skelton. Npw York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977. Wagner, Richard. “A Communication to My Friends,” in The Art- Work ofthe Future and Other Essays, pgs. 267-292. -------. The Art- Work ofthe Future and Other Essays. Translated by William Ashton Ellis. Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press, 1993. -------. Actors and Singers. Translated by William Ashton Ellis. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. -------. “Beethoven’s ‘Heroic Symphony’,” m Judaism in Music, pgs. 221-224. -------. “The Art-Work of the Future,” in Art- Work of the Future and Other Essays, pgs. 69-213. -------. Correspondence ofWagner andLiszt. (Two volumes). Second edition, revised by W. Ashton Ellis; translated by Francis Hueffer. New York: Vienna House, 1973. -------. “Epilogue to the “Nibelung’s Ring” (1871), in Judaism in Music and Other Essays, pgs. 255-273. -------. “Hero-dom and Christiandom,” in Religion and Art, pgs. 275-284. -------. Judaism in Music and Other Essays, translated by William Ashton Ellis, Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. -—-. “Judaism in Music,” in Judaism in Music and Other Essays. -------. “Know Thyself,” in Religion and Art, pgs. 264-274. -------. My Life. (Vols. I & H). Authorized translation fiom the German. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1911. -------. “The Nibelungen-Myth as Sketch for a Drama,” in Pilgrimage to Beethoven and Other Essays, pgs. 299-311. -------. “On the Application of Music to the Drama,” in Religion and Art and Other Essays, pgs. 173-191. -------. Pilgrimage to Beethoven and Other Essays. Translated by William Ashton Ellis. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1994. ------ . The Nietzsche-Wagner Correspondence. Edited by Elizabeth FoersterNietzsche; Introduction by H.L. Mencken, translated by Caroline V. Kerr. New York: Liveright, 1949. ------ . Opera and Drama. Translated by William Ashton Ellis. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. -------. “Religion and Art,” in Religion and Art, pgs. 211-252. -------. “Shall we Hope?” In Religion and Art, pgs. 111-131. ------ . “The Wibelungen,” in Pilgrimage to Beethoven and Other Essays, pgs. 257-298. -------. “Zukunftsmusik,” in Judaism in Music, pgs. 293-345. Wagner, S., E. Winner, D. Cicchetti, & H. Gardner.. “‘Metaphorical’ mapping in human infsats,”Child Development, 52, 728-731 (1981).. Walsh, Stephen. The Lieder ofSchumann, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971. Walker, Robert. Musical Beliefs: Psychoacoustic, Mythic, and Educational

598 Perspectives. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990. Wender, Dorothea, translator and editor. Hesiod: Theogony / Works and Days, and Theognis, Elegies. London: Penguin Books, 1973. Westemhagen, Curt von. The Forging of the "Ring”: Richard Wagner’s Compo sition Sketches for “Der Ring des Nibelungen ”. Translated by Arnold and Mary Whittall. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Westrem, Scott D. The H ereford Map: A Transcription andT ranslation of the Legends with Commentary. Tumhout, Belgium: Brepolis, 2001. White, David A. The Turning Wheel: A Study of Contracts and Oaths in Wagner's Ring. London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1988. Wilhelm, Richard. The I Ching: or. Book of Changes. The Richard Wilhelm translation rendered into English by Cary F. Baynes. Foreword by C. G. Jung. New York: Pantheon Books, 1961. Winterbourne, Anthony. A Pagan Spoiled: Sex and Character in Wagner‘s Parsifal. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson Uiuversity Press, 2003. Wittkower, Rudolf. Bom Under Saturn: The Character and Conduct ofArtists, a Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution. New York: Random House, 1963.

INDEX A Abbate, Carolyn, 88,115 Acheloos (river god), 238 Adam, 183 Adorno, Theodore, "ilff, 33« AfHnity, 93,96, 105, 159; emotional, 94; House Laws of, 73, 99,104^ sense of, 119 alchemy, 172«, 174, 179«, 189,193«, 207«, 244,245,245«, 248,309,320 passim, 328, 332,343,345,347,361,365,365«, 390, 392«, 396,397,414; and Alberich, 429; and Amfortas, 333jg', and astrology, 327; Eucharists, 321; gnosticism, 321#, 335, 393,394,403; and Kundry, 394; multiple coherence, 329,329«, 408; and Parsifal, 366,432; and redeixQjtion, 393,416; and Saturn, 411,420,431# 436# a«d vessel, 326; a«d Wagner’s sources, 367# 402; and Wolfram von Escbenbach, 326,329, 331/335,399 Alexander the Great, 369; literature, 44,257, 342,344, 347«, 371,372/ 375, 379, 387; Pfaffe laatpxecìAAlexander, 340, 340«, 376,378; Strassburg Alexander, 380; Flower Maidens in, 343; and mappcB mundi, 257 Alben, 251 Alberich, 11, 139,143, 147«, 149, 153,201, 206,208«, 213, 214,217,225,231,248, 283«, 285,289,292, 302,308«, 327«, 329«; a«dFricka, 154; and Mime, 14«, and Rhine Daughters, 115,192,241, 266,267,268«, 273,312; inaugurates B b, 130, 312; and E Major, 140; binding of 172«; robber, 233, and Loge, 243, and sulphur, 244; and Wotan, 251# 256# 310,401,424; his curse, 277, 323 Amfortas, 11,14/ 32,42, 80# Exs. 1.5, 2.15, 84# 147«, 205,276, 333, 334, 344,345/ 359,365; his malady, 381, 388,391,394; and Titurel, 415,417, Ex. 8.5, 8.6,426,430,433,436,437,438, 439; and Parsifal, ,428; and Wotan, 429 androgyne, androgyny, 572 antisemitism, gnostic, 407; Hellenistic, 375, 375«, 407; mediæval, 389; and idiotae

literature, 377,417, useful to antisemitic conqioser, 427; anti-Judaism, and gnosticism, 355; in Wolfram and Wagner, 405; and Hadrian and Titus, 406; and creator gods, 411; and gnosticism and Christianity, concept of sin in, 429 Apollo, 206,234,235 Aquarius 25,210«, 384, Fig. 8b, 392,393, 420,422,425,426,433,434,439 Aries 'Y’> 189«, 210«, 302/ 388; and FIRE, 174«, 303; and Spring equinox, 189« armor, 128; shitting, 437 association test, 104 astrology, 38/ 189«, 193«, 207«, 210,230, 230«, 242,243«, 261,262,271, 284, 304, 307,308«, 309,320,321, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328,332«, 333,403,408,416, 426,427«, 428,429,433

B Bach, Johann Sebastian, “Christe, du Lamm Gottes”, 33, Ex. 1.7; Prelude and Fugue (E b ), WTC1, 165/ Prelude in E b (KlavierUbung), 169, St. Matthew Passion, 178 Bach, Philipp, 252« Bachofen, Johann, 174«; Tanaquil, 337 background, cognitive, 118 Barbarossa, Friedrich L 44,169 passim, 174, 186, 338/ 345, 348,350,351, 359; and Kronos/Satum, 175/ and Siegfried, 177; and cttiture hero schema, 197 Bailey, Alice A., 261 Bailey, Robert, 25 balsam, 344/ 346,347,347«, 394 Balzac, Honoré de, 185 Bar-Josef, Amatzia, 258/ basilisk, 381, see also reptiles Beethoven, 66,174,175; 204, 306, 307, 360,365, 368; “C minor mood”, 158, 191; d« diefeme Geliebte, 200; Eroica (SynçhonyNo. 3 inEb), 173,175,176, 179,195, 196; motif, ill, Fidelio, 167; Quartet, Op. 59, No. 3,121; Lafgo e mesto, of the Piano Sonata in D major. Op. 10, No. 3,416«; The Ruins of Athens, 184; Quintet, Op. 29 (C Major),

602 216; Sonata, Op. 106,216; Synçhony No. 1 (C Major), 66; No. 5 (C minor), 185«, 186; “Pastorale” Synçhony (No. 6), 307; Symphony No. 7 (A Major), 368; Trios. Op. I. No. 2,216; Op. 9. No. 1,216; Op. 97,216 Berlioz, Hector, “The King of Thule,” 167; The Damnation ofFaust, 167 Bhagavad-Gita, 409 Bingen, Hildegard von, Physica, 330ff, 335, 367,383, 383« Boehme, Jakob, 397 Bonaparte, Napoleon, 173/ Brahma, 407 Brahms, Johannes, Songs: Op. 3, No. 1,167; Op. 3, No. 4, 167; Op. 6, No. 4, 167; Op. 33, No. 1,174n; No. 8, Op. 47, No. 5, 167,200; No. 10, 167; No. 13, 167; Op. 104, No. 4,201 Brandan, St, legend, 338« Brown, Norman O., 236 Bruckner, Anton, Synçhony No. 4 in E b, 182 Brünnhilde, 56,58,120,124,124«, 128, 144,154,177,181,183,196,208,208«, 233«, 234«, 243,266,267,270,280, 280«, 281», 284, 285«; 300«, 303,312», 363,421«, 422#, 423«, 435 ; her Bridal Fire, 304; Brünidiilde’s rock, 289,292 Bumey, Charles, 189

c Cabiri, 244« cadence, 107, 110 Cancer 25,210« cannibals, 374# 376, 378,380,389, —, father-motif, 413 Capricorn y)>, 210«, 391,392,414,425, 427«, 432,433«, 434,436, see also Saturn cartography, tonal, Korean, 259, 265/ see also circle of fiñhs Cams, C. G., 161# Caspian region, 374, 375,380; see also Caucasus catégorial grammar, 50, 110,128,135,143, 206,216/256 categorization strategies, 118 Caèars, 44,193«, 329«, 336,357«, 359«, 405« Catholicism, 321, 329«, 345,349«, 357,

363, 372,410,429; anti-Catholicism, 355,364 Caucasus mountains, 336/) 389; in Hereford mappa mundi, 389« Ceres, 195 Chailley, Jacques, 37», 169,170 Chaos, 167,175«, 176, 179, 181 passim: female, 193, 195; psychological, 193; social revolution, 195; a«