The Case of Wagner, Nietzsche Contra Wagner, and Selected Aphorisms. · Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
51.
Just listen to the second act of the “Götterdämmerung,” without the drama. It is chaotic music, as wild as a bad dream, and it is as frightfully distinct as if it desired to make itself clear even to deaf people. This volubility _with nothing to say_ is alarming. Compared with it the drama is a genuine relief.—Is the fact that this music when heard alone, is, as a whole intolerable (apart from a few intentionally isolated parts) in its _favour_? Suffice it to say that this music without its accompanying drama, is a perpetual contradiction of all the highest laws of style belonging to older music: he who thoroughly accustoms himself to it, loses all feeling for these laws. But has the drama _been improved_ thanks to this addition? A _symbolic interpretation_ has been affixed to it, a sort of philological commentary, which sets fetters upon the inner and free understanding of the imagination—it is tyrannical. Music is the language of the commentator, who talks the whole of the time and gives us no breathing space. Moreover his is a difficult language which also requires to be explained.
He who step by step has mastered, first the libretto (language!), then converted it into action in his mind’s eye, then sought out and understood, and became familiar with the musical symbolism thereto: aye, and has fallen in love with all three things: such a man then experiences a great joy. But how _exacting_! It is quite impossible to do this save for a few short moments,—such tenfold attention on the part of one’s eyes, ears, understanding, and feeling, such acute activity in apprehending without any productive reaction, is far too exhausting!—Only the very fewest behave in this way: how is it then that so many are affected? Because most people are only intermittingly attentive, and are inattentive for sometimes whole passages at a stretch; because they bestow their undivided attention now upon the music, later upon the drama, and anon upon the scenery—that is to say they _take the work to pieces_.—But in this way the kind of work we are discussing is condemned: not the drama but a moment of it is the result, an arbitrary selection. The creator of a new _genre_ should consider this! The arts should not always be dished up together,—but we should imitate the moderation of the ancients which is truer to human nature. Wagner reminds one of lava which blocks its own course by congealing, and suddenly finds itself checked by dams which it has itself built. There is no _Allegro con fuoco_ for him.
I compare Wagner’s music, which would fain have the same effect as speech, with that kind of sculptural relief which would have the same effect as painting. The highest laws of style are violated, and that which is most sublime can no longer be achieved. The general heaving, undulating and rolling of Wagner’s art. In regard to Wagner’s rejection of form, we are reminded of Goethe’s remark in conversation with Eckermann: “there is no great art in being brilliant if one respects nothing.” Once one theme is over, Wagner is always embarrassed as to how to continue. Hence the long preparation, the suspense. His peculiar craftiness consisted in transvaluing his weakness into virtues.— The _lack_ of melody and the poverty of melody in Wagner. Melody is a whole consisting of many beautiful proportions, it is the reflection of a well-ordered soul. He strives after melody; but if he finds one, he almost suffocates it in his embrace. The natural nobility of a Bach and a Beethoven, the beautiful soul (even of a Mendelssohn) are wanting in Wagner. He is one degree lower. Wagner imitates himself again and again—mannerisms. That is why he was the quickest among musicians to be imitated. It is so easy. Mendelssohn who lacked the power of radically staggering one (incidentally this was the talent of the Jews in the Old Testament), makes up for this by the things which were his own, that is to say: freedom within the law, and noble emotions kept within the limits of beauty.
_Liszt_, the first _representative_ of all musicians, but _no musician_. He was the prince, not the statesman. The conglomerate of a hundred musicians’ souls, but not enough of a personality to cast his own shadow upon them. The most wholesome phenomenon is _Brahms_, in whose music there is more German blood than in that of Wagner’s. With these words I would say something complimentary, but by no means wholly so. In Wagner’s writings there is no greatness or peace, but presumption. Why? _Wagner’s Style._—The habit he acquired, from his earliest days, of having his say in the most important matters without a sufficient knowledge of them, has rendered him the obscure and incomprehensible writer that he is. In addition to this he aspired to imitating the witty newspaper article, and finally acquired that presumption which readily joins hands with carelessness “and, behold, it was very good.” I am alarmed at the thought of how much pleasure I could find in Wagner’s style, which is so careless as to be unworthy of such an artist. In Wagner, as in Brahms, there is a blind denial of the healthy, in his followers this denial is deliberate and conscious. Wagner’s art is for those who are conscious of an essential blunder in the conduct of their lives. They feel either that they have checked a great nature by a base occupation, or squandered it through idle pursuits, a conventional marriage, &c. &c.
In this quarter the condemnation of the world is the outcome of the condemnation of the ego. Wagnerites do not wish to alter themselves in any way, they live discontentedly in insipid, conventional and brutal circumstances—only at intervals does art have to raise them as by magic above these things. Weakness of will. Wagner’s art is for scholars who do not dare to become philosophers: they feel discontented with themselves and are generally in a state of obtuse stupefaction—from time to time they take a bath in the _opposite conditions_. I feel as if I had recovered from an illness: with a feeling of unutterable joy I think of Mozart’s _Requiem_. I can once more enjoy simple fare. I understand Sophocles’ development through and through—it was the repugnance to pomp and pageantry. I gained an insight into the injustice of _idealism_, by noticing that I avenged myself on Wagner for the disappointed hopes I had cherished of him. I leave my loftiest duty to the end, and that is to thank Wagner and Schopenhauer publicly, and to make them as it were take sides against themselves. I counsel everybody not to fight shy of such paths (Wagner and Schopenhauer). The wholly _unphilosophic_ feeling of remorse, has become quite strange to me. _Wagner’s Effects._ We must strive to oppose the false after-effects of Wagner’s art. If he, in order to create Parsifal, is forced to pump fresh strength from religious sources, this is not an example but a danger. I entertain the fear that the effects of Wagner’s art will ultimately pour into that torrent which takes its rise on the other side of the mountains, and which knows how to flow even over mountains.(18)
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.