Let's talk Tristan und Isolde.....................

Woodduck said:

Here is a passage from a book I am now perusing, Death devoted Heart:
Sex and the Sacred in Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, by Roger Scruton.

 

"The music that we now know as the Liebestod was first described by
Wagner, when arranging it as the second half of the well-known orchestral
epitome, as Isolde's "Verklärung"-transfiguration. The stage direction
tells us that "Isolde sinkt, wie verklärt, . . . auf Tristans Leiche." And in a
program note Wagner elucidated the music thus:

'what Fate divided in life now springs into transfigured life in death:
the gates of union are thrown open. Over Tristan's body the dying
Isolde receives the blessed fulfillment of ardent longing, eternal
union in measureless space, without barriers, without fetters, inseparable.'

The death of Isolde is also a transfiguration and a renewal, and the entire
work of the music is to imprint this fact upon our innermost emo-
tions. Its success is sufficient dramatic proof that love can be fulfilled in
death, when death is chosen, and that this fulfillment is a genuine redemption."

If the composer has anything to say about the meaning of his work, this should settle the matter.

It has occurred to me, too, that it was Liszt who gave the title "Love-death" to Isolde's dying song - which Wagner had called "Transfiguration," giving the name "Love-death" to the opera's prelude - when he wrote his piano transcription of it. That transcription was published in 1867, not long after Tristan's premiere. Liszt and Wagner were, of course, exceedingly close. I've been unable to find any comment by Wagner on this change of title, but we can be sure that he did comment on it, and since the change was allowed to stand, he obviously did not forbid it. Additionally, the practice of having Isolde remain alive at the conclusion of the opera probably dates back only to the mid-twentieth century; her death was traditionally assumed to be the correct conclusion of the story and, judging from the above facts, that assumption surely dates back all the way to Tristan's earliest performances.

In light of all this - plus all the considerations I've raised in previous posts - I think it's abundantly clear that Wagner intended for Isolde to die, and that death in this opera does in fact represent the "realm of Night" to which Tristan and Isolde have dedicated themselves and which they finally attain. Your view is an interesting one, but in addition to being incoherent and insupportable on evidential grounds it clearly departs from Wagner's own.

That tells me that the fundamental problem of interpreting this work is to grasp the full symbolic meaning of death as the fulfillment of love.

P.S. It would seem that Wagner shares with me the "soap opera logic of Italian opera."

Click to expand...

DavidA said:

Does it really matter whether or not she dies in the end? The opera is over anyway as we've run out of words and music! Or as Bugs Bunny said, "What do you expect in opera? A happy ending?"

Click to expand...

DavidA said:

Well, of course, they could have lived happily ever after!

Click to expand...

Woodduck said:

You have more respect than I do for postmodernist malarkey, not to mention arrogance and obfuscation.

Mr. Douglas's position is based solely on Wagner's omission of the word "death" in describing Isolde's fate at the end of the opera, which he claims is inconsistent with the composer's usual practice. The assumption that this omission adequately demonstrates that Isolde lives on is logically absurd, but when that conclusion can also be shown to be contradicted by statements and actions of Wagner and Liszt (and certainly many others) and Mr. Douglas admits that he has always been aware of these statements and actions, the integrity of Mr. Douglas's position is on the line. Invoking dogmas such as "New Criticism" is mere obfuscation; the so-called "intentional fallacy," applied here, is nothing but a cover for the dishonest act of putting one's own "interpretation" of the "text" above that of the author, who is presumed to be incapable of interpreting the text he himself has written. It is saying nothing more than "Wagner doesn't know what he's doing or what he's talking about, but I do."

In the absence of any reason to do otherwise, simple honesty requires that we give greater credence to what Wagner says his work is about than what some random commentator says it is about a century and a half later. If Wagner says that Isolde dies at the end of the opera he has just driven himself to the limit of his powers to compose, then Isolde dies at the end of that opera. No further "criticism," "new" or otherwise, is necessary or relevant.

Postmodernist jargon is horsepuckey postmodernists wallow in to entertain themselves. Rational people with respect for the clear truth do not find it entertaining.

Click to expand...

Woodduck said:

That's it, basically. How could they have expressed their underlying feelings, given their impossible circumstances? Isolde reveals her emotions rather cryptically to Brangaene; Tristan has to suppress his completely, translating them into his extreme formality and curt responses. Their dialogue before drinking the potion is quite a nice piece of verbal fencing, keeping everything unstated; they're virtually speaking to each other in code, but they both know what they're about to do. What they aren't prepared for is the poison not working.

Click to expand...