The Case of Wagner, Nietzsche Contra Wagner, and Selected Aphorisms.
The reason why the figures in Wagner’s art behave so madly, is because he
greatly feared lest people would doubt that they were alive.
44.
Wagner’s art is an appeal to inartistic people; all means are welcomed
which help towards obtaining an effect. It is calculated not to produce an
_artistic effect_ but an effect upon the _nerves in general_.
45.
Apparently in Wagner we have an art _for everybody_, because coarse and
subtle means seem to be united in it. Albeit its pre-requisite may be
musico-æsthetic education, and _particularly_ with _moral_ indifference.
46.
In Wagner we find the most ambitious _combination_ of all means with the
view of obtaining the strongest effect whereas genuine musicians quietly
develop individual _genres_.
47.
Dramatists are _borrowers_—their principal source of wealth—artistic
thoughts drawn from the epos. Wagner borrowed from classical music
besides. Dramatists are constructive geniuses, they are not inventive and
original as the epic poets are. Drama takes a lower rank than the epos: it
presupposes a coarser and more democratic public.
48.
Wagner does not altogether trust _music_. He weaves kindred sensations
into it in order to lend it the character of greatness. He measures
himself on others; he first of all gives his listeners intoxicating drinks
in order to lead them into believing that it _was the music that
intoxicated them_.
49.
The same amount of talent and industry which makes the classic, when it
appears some time _too late_, also makes the baroque artist like Wagner.
50.
Wagner’s art is calculated to appeal to short-sighted people—one has to
get much too close up to it (Miniature): it also appeals to long-sighted
people, but not to those with normal sight.
_Contradictions in the Idea of Musical Drama._
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.
52.
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.
53.
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.
54.
The general heaving, undulating and rolling of Wagner’s art.
55.
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.”
56.
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.—
57.
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.
58.
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.
59.
Wagner imitates himself again and again—mannerisms. That is why he was the
quickest among musicians to be imitated. It is so easy.
60.
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.
61.
_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.
62.
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.
63.
In Wagner’s writings there is no greatness or peace, but presumption. Why?
64.
_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.”
65.
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.
66.
In Wagner, as in Brahms, there is a blind denial of the healthy, in his
followers this denial is deliberate and conscious.
67.
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.
68.
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.
69.
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_.
70.
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.
71.
I understand Sophocles’ development through and through—it was the
repugnance to pomp and pageantry.
72.
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.
73.
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.
74.
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._
75.
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.
76.
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)
FOOTNOTES
1 It should be noted that the first and second editions of these
essays on Wagner appeared in pamphlet form, for which the above
first preface was written.
2 Fisher Unwin, 1911.
3 T. N. Foulis, 1910.
4 See _Richard Wagner_, by Houston Stuart Chamberlain (translated by
G. A. Hight), pp. 15, 16.
5 Constable & Co., 1911.
6 See Author’s Preface to “The Case of Wagner” in this volume.
7 Senta is the heroine in the “Flying Dutchman”—_Tr._
8 A character in “Tannhauser.”—_Tr_.
9 See “The Will to Power,” vol. ii., authorised English edition.—_Tr._
_ 10 Note._—It was a real disaster for æsthetics when the word drama got
to be translated by “action.” Wagner is not the only culprit here,
the whole world does the same,—even the philologists who ought to
know better. What ancient drama had in view was _grand pathetic
scenes_,—it even excluded action (or placed it _before_ the piece or
_behind_ the scenes). The word drama is of Doric origin, and
according to the usage of the Dorian language it meant “event,”
“history,”—both words in a hieratic sense. The oldest drama
represented local legends, “sacred history,” upon which the
foundation of the cult rested (—thus it was not “action,” but
fatality. δρᾶν in Doric has nothing to do with action).
11 Hegel and his school wrote notoriously obscure German.—_Tr._
12 Was Wagner a German at all? There are reasons enough for putting
this question. It is difficult to find a single German trait in his
character. Great learner that he was, he naturally imitated a great
deal that was German—but that is all. His very soul contradicts
everything which hitherto has been regarded as German, not to
mention German musicians!—His father was an actor of the name of
Geyer.… That which has been popularised hitherto as “Wagner’s life”
is _fable convenue_ if not something worse. I confess my doubts on
any point which is vouched for by Wagner alone. He was not proud
enough to be able to suffer the truth about himself. Nobody had less
pride than he. Like Victor Hugo he remained true to himself even in
his biography,—he remained an actor.
13 This undoubtedly refers to Nietzsche’s only disciple and friend,
Peter Gast—_Tr._
14 My “Genealogy of Morals” contains the best exposition of the