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 Jl

The Edwin Mellen Press The Edwin Mellen Press

Box 450 Box 67 j
Lewiston, New York Queenston, Ontario
USA 14092-0450 CANADA LOS ILO '

The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd.

Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales
UNITED KINGDOM SA48 8LT
Printed in the United States of America
 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" ..1
17
CHAPTER Two
The Syntactical Sorcerer
l. Rules? What Rules?...............................
45
II. Sonorous Surface, Syntax, Semantics..................
m. Wagner Never Heard of Schenker........... . .50
IV. The “House-Laws of Affinity”............................. 61
V. A Summary ofWagner’sCategorial Tonal Syntax.... 74
87
Ch a pt e r Th r e e
The Cognitive Stmcture of TL Lexemes
I. The Virtual Intelligible Object...................................
,.91
n. The “House-Laws of Affinity” (yes, again)...............
in. Metaphoric Entailments in Natural Language............ 104
115
rV. Building a Tonal Household...................................'
138
Ch a pt e r Fo u r
Lexicon is Culture
I. Rebutting Humpty Dumpty..............................
n. Lexemes, Key Characteristics, and Public .155
Cultural Properties..........................................
in. A Sound of Many Waters............................ 158
164
rV. There and Back Again: God, Barbarossa, Bonaparte,
Siegfiied—and God.........................................
V. Heroes, Dead in the Water......................... . . . 168
VI. Gendering the Keys............................................ ....... 176
Vn. Chaos, Gynophobia, and Revolution, or. 180
That Old “C Minor Mood”..................................
Vm. Waters Above, Waters Below..................................... 190
197
Ch a pt e r FIVE
The Lexical Loge
I. Key Characteristics and Expressive Shift Theory........
n. Shifty God vs. “Expressive Shift”................................ 203
ni. Loge, Meet Hermes........................................ 211
IV. The Prevaricating Patron of Purity............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
V. The Outer Limits of the Musical World........... 238
245
CHAPTER Si x
A Short Introduction to Tonal Cartography
I. Orientational Metaphors and Humpty Dumpty Horoscopes.251
n. Lexemes of Humiliation, Coordinates of Contempt..............265
in. A Tonal Mappa Mundi..........................................................270
IV. The Dodecahedron and Wagner’s “True Earth”.................. 296

Part II: Parsifal

CHAPTER SEVEN
“Wondrous Legends He Had Heard”: The Mediaeval Sources
of Parsifal
I. Wagner’s Contempt for Wolfram......................................... 317
n. “Orientalism” and “Otherness” in Wolfiam......................... 320
in. Testing Wagner’s Argument via Wolfram’s Magical
Oriental Healing Stone.........................................................328
rV. Wagner’s/diofae Sources.....................................................336
V. Parsifal, an Operatic Gnostic Text.......................................348
CHAPTER Ei g h t
The Gospel of St. Richard
I. Wagner’s Gnostic Lexicon................................................... 365
n. Pessimism, Gnosticism, Antisemitism.................................. 371
in. Cannibal Jews, Kundry, and Idiotae Literature.................... 376
IV. The Continuation of Lexical Tonality in Parsifal................ 405
V. Epilogue: The Social Significance of Lexical Tonality....... 445

APPENDIX ONE
A. A Table of Linear Lexemes: Das Rheingold.................... ;...449
B. A Table of Linear Lexemes: Die Walkure........................... 463
C. A Table of Linear Lexemes: Siegfried................................. 485
D. 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 es
1.1. An example of [C=LIGHT] {Das Rheingold, scene ii).............. 4
1.2. An example of [C=LIGHT] {Die Walkure, Act I)...................... 6
1.3. An example of [C=LIGHT] {Siegfried, Act I)............................ 8
1.4. An example of [C=LIGHT] {Gotterdammerung, Act I).............10
1.5. An example of [C=LIGHT] {Parsifal, Act I)............................12
1.6. Tristan und Isolde Prelude..................................................... 29
1.7. An example of eighteenth-century “directionality”................. 33
 1. 8 . A pair of bright, shining C Major eyes.................. 35
1.9. Wotan giving Siegfried the Eye...............36
1.10. ^ enraptured gaze and a resplendent object...... ZZZZ....3S
2 . 1. “Ich hab’ mein Sach’ Gott heimgestellt” (Pachelbel)...........52
2 .2. ‘|Ich hab’ mein Sach’ Gott heimgestellt” (with anchoviesZ.. 53
2.3. rieimgestellt again, by the sound of it..................... 54
2.4. Siegfried stokes the bellows................................ ............55
2.5. Nom “Chords” without syntax............................ ........... 55
2 .6 . Nom “Chords” with syntax...........................,...................... 55
2.7. Nom “Chords” with different syntax....................................57
2 .8 . The women cry out, and Gunther feels shamed....... !!Z..."Z58
2.9. Gotterdammerung Vorspiel............................... g2
2.10. The Second and Third Noms (G minor and E k minor)........63
2.11. Beethoven s Symphony No. 1 (1800), opening bars..... 65
2.12. Garden variety Nomish syntax......................................... gp
2.13. A bad drink.............................. ................... ....................
2.14. Annunciation of Death.............................. . .....................76
2.15. Amfortas can’t take it anymore............................... ..... yg
2.16. “Treue Gott, ich muss dir klagen” (Pachelbel)...........Z......81
2.17. Amfortas petitions the court for euthanasia......................... 83
2.18. Parsifal closing Amfortas’ wound........................................gg
3.1. Wotan spying out Mime.................................. 109
3.2. Wannabe heroes trying to cook the part..'......... ................... 113
3.3. Wotan speaks loudly and carries his big stick..................... 133
8 . 1. Kundry’s scorpion tail-like motif........................... 388
8.2. Parsifal crowned as king of serpents.................................. 401
8.3. Parsifal returns the Lance of Longinus to the Grail.... 403
8.4. Parsifal reveals the Lance to the Grail Knights......... . 404
8.5. The undead daddy swallovring poor Amfortas alive....... 421
8.6 . Amfortas prays for purity to Titurel in heaven............... 434
8.7. Parsifal on his penitential knees, eternally cadencing.........
in C)t minor..............................................
Al. Alberich, waiting................................................. jgj
A2. Hagen, waiting...................................... 582
A3. Unforced modulations.......................................... jgj

Lb v e a r Ha r m o n ic An a l y s e s
la. Prelude, Tristan and Isolde Prelude (bars 1-12).............
.. 30
Haydn: The Creation, No. 2: “In the beginning” (recit)
.211
Vb. Das Rheingold, sc. ii (“Vom Felsen druben”)................
Vc. Das Rheingold, sc. ii (“Halt, du Wilder!”).............. . .218
Vd. Das Rheingold, sc. ii (“In Frieden lasst mir...’’)......... ,219
Ve. Die WalkUre, Act m, sc. iii (“Loge hOrl ”)............... . 223
Vf. sc. ii(“NunWonnescha£frdir,”).... 224
.226
Vg. Das Rheingold, sc. ii (“Wo frier Muth frommt,”).....;......
.232
Vh. D<^ Rheingold, sc. ii (“kein Stein wankt im Gestemm”).
.236
Vfe. Die Walkure, Act II, sc. ii (“Nun zSume dein Ross”)......
269
Ib. Siegfried, Act II, sc. I (“Einst lag wimmemd ein Weib”)
274
Vic. Parsifal, Act H, sc. ii (“Erlosung dem Erloserl”)........... .
275
FIGURES
5a-c. Greek Reliefs; Hermesand the Nymph Triad....................... 238
6a. Chinese Lii Tonal System..................................................... 258
6b. Yggdrasil, the World Tree of the Eddas................................ 287
6c. Folded and unfolded dodecahedrons..................................... 298
7a. The swastika and variant early cruciform amuletic
signs.................................................................................... 362
7b. The arch-demon Set, holding scorpions................................362
8a. A melusine piercing the filius Philosophorum
with Longinus’ Lance.................................................... 389
8b. The Pandora illustration showing its astrological
encryptions.....................................................................393
8c. Kundry-like snake-woman offering a poisoned draught.......397
8d. The king as prima materia, devouring his son.......................416

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................. 5 87

INDEX. ,601
 FOREWORD
From the opening pages, Jonathan Petty walks us lovingly and painstakingly
through the logic ofwhat is on the surface a simple argument—to take Wagner at his
own word—^yet when investigated in its full manifestations reveals a mind’ of
tremendous creativity and complexity. The brilliance here is that the author very
clearly states that his theory is not his own, but is rather that of Wagner’s which for
a number of reasons (provided in Chapter One) has not been treated as a whole in
any serious manner. Petty highlights the grand paradox of Wagner scholarship to
date, i.e., disregarding Wagner the theorist as the foundation ofWagner theories. The
approach based on Wagner’s own writings embraced and elucidated by Petty
throughout this work, in contrast, is the discovery ofthe linguistic and /exfca/nature
of Wager’s musical workings, with the conclusion that one should be able to read a
Wagner score in precisely the same manner as a natural language novel.
Petty’s treatment of theory, though xmusually detailed and thorough, is
remarkably easy to follow. Through a discussion of Wagner’s “house-laws of
affinity” we begin to see how Wagner was able to treat his musical compositions and
its tonal language as an extension of natural language, that is, to treat keys as
words—thus music refers rationally to some extra-musical object. This involves
serious discussion of the relation of Wagner’s compositional practice to the
syntactical and semantical rules of natural languages, and Petty does so clearly and
substantively in Chapter Two. Of particular interest is his linking of Wagner’s
empirical compositional practice (worked out by means of numerous musical
ekamples and their accompanying discussions) with theories in the field of
linguistics (for instance, “categorial grammar”) that are themselves primarily lexical.
Petty shows step by step how Wagner’s method of building up semantically
intelligible lexical keys out of previously well-formed syntactical musical strings
adheres with the fundamental principles of lexically-based linguistic theory. Equally
impressive is Petty’s analysis in Chapter Three of the cognitive structure of
Wagner’s tonal language lexemes, and his demonstration that this structure is
serviceably isomorphic with both modem metaphor theory and with the previously
discussed tonal syntax. Taken together Petty’s Chapters Two and Three go far to
"explaining how Wagner is able to maintain a non-stop flow of linear surface
sonorities that are simultaneously intelligible as tonal language words.
As Petty points out, all this is rule-based and such rales are essentially similar
ii

to those that make natural language intelligible. In music theoretical terms this was
only possible due to the simplification—some would say breaking—of two primary
harmonic rules by Wagner to allow for such a fluid approach to music and text
setting, namely, the freeing of conventional approaches to cadence and triad (the
building blocks of common practice musical practice). Petty brilliantly reveals the
holistic nature of Wagner’s genius, the intimate and powerful marriage of narrative,
meaning, and music that results from the smooth integration of poetic image/
metaphor, harmonic logic, and linear history.
Another aspect of this manuscript that I especially appreciate is Petty’s
tenacity and courage to takepopular knowledge seriously—astrology and alchemical
thinking—^rather than simply dismiss it as the ruminations of simple-minded folk.
This is where his work expands beyond “pure” theory and engages currents of new
musicology and ethnomusicology head on. By actively tackling the cultural
component of Wagner’s work, the fact that his words and actions expressed distinct
public concepts understood by the broader populace. Petty is able to identify and
distinguish a fantastically deep pool of semantically rich-laden imagery. This realm
of previously unacknowledged shared knowledge—concepts that have been largely
ignored by the academy—are the key characteristics that informed all common
practice composers, but that only now are being rediscovered (i.e., that the same or
related keys have strong accompanying emotional meanings). Significantly, Petty is
also able to show how the above is related to orientational metaphors, how a
particular society’s view of and relation to physical space—^that ofthe individual and
society—reinforces their view of the cosmos and their collective relation to the
spiritual realm. This is an insight that is only now being explored in the field of
ethnomusicology, and this b ook is thus relevant in this field as well as general
musicology and music theory.
Petty further argues, using a rich storehouse of cultural examples, that for
much ofWagner’s work the key to understanding his textual, musical, and harmonic
pairings was alchemy and Gnosticism. An aspect of these arguments of potential
cultural significance is Petty’s linking of the Gnostic inspiration ofParsifal with the
regrettable antisemitism increasingly evident in the composer’s later prose works but
which has, until now, been difficult to quantify in the actual libretto and score.
The most breathtaking aspect of this work, however, resides in the
appendices. On the surface Petty engages us in straightforward analyses—ground-
level grunt work which, when laid out in such a sweeping and comprehensive
maimer, begins to show the amazing logic and consistency behind Wagner’s music.
It is here in the midst of numbers, letters, and words that we see Wagner’s broad
metaphorical universe, his collecting and grouping together of thoughts, emotions,
imagery, and objects into related spheres of meaning. This is the real heart of this
study, this is what ultimately makes Petty’s work nothing short of magnificent. Here
Petty shines in his full glory, displaying the detail and passion of the true treasure
hunter. It is here where students and their professors will visit time and time again,
consulting it as a guide or even oracle because of the comprehensive and transparent
nature of its organization.
Other strengths of this work I would like to highlight include the wide variety
of musical examples drawn from, not just those of Wagner’s, and the author’s refer
ences to cross-cultural resonances (including similar cultural appropriations of
geomancy found in the music of East Asia). An undercurrent or perhaps even
counterpoint to the theme of this book is the author’s positioning of himself as the
eager student rather than the curmudgeonly academic, especially appropriate in light
of Wagner’s own distrust of professors, and the related book’s dedication to “the
Student.’’ I should also say that for a study so focused on the intricacies of language,
Petty’s own use of words is similarly varied, precise, and multifarious. The writing
throughout is elegant and structurally sound, with the narrative flowing smoothly,
guiding US'through both Wagner’s and the author’s logic and reasoning. Wagner's
Lexical Tonality contains all the elements of great scholarship; unabashed passion,
detailed analysis, comprehensive scope, open-minded reasoning, use ofintuition, and
genuine humility. It is for these reasons that this work will become the yardstick by
which all other Wagner analyses will have to measure.

Nathan Hesselink
Assistant Professor of Ethnomusicology
University of British Columbia
 Ac k n o w l e d g m e n t s

One should always begin by thanking one’s angels, those souls whose lives
and work interact with our own and who, just by being who they are, help make one’s
dreams possible.
Thus, I owe the ultimate genesis of this book to the late Dr. Marcel Vogel of
San Jose, California, who in 1976 and fresh from his recent collaboration on The
Secret Life ofPlants, introduced me Alice A. Bailey’s Esoteric Astrology and thus
provided me with the key that eventually made the present theory possible.
I must also express deep gratitude to Mr. Noel Tyl for graciously welcoming
me into his home at a time he was fully occupied performing the role of Wotan at the
summer 1977 Seattle Ring Cycle. In spite of the demands on his energies, Mr. Tyl
nonetheless made an afternoon available to discuss my work and to advise me on the
astrological aspect of it, and encouraged me to persevere and present my research in
what is now this book.
1 owe a particularly deep debt to Professor Marshall Tuttle, who worked
closely with me during the mid 1990s in jointly honing this theory, and in particular
devoted endless patience, dedication and, it must be admitted, genius in pounding
■the essentials of linear harmonic analysis into my recalcitrant head.
Professor Nathan Hesselink has been a fine friend and invaluable research
colleague, whose amazing scholarly and performance knowledge of Korean music
has made it possible to generalize the cultural space aspects of the present theory
from western to Sino-Korean music.
I am indebted indeed to my colleagues at the Center for Korean Studies, U.C.,
Berkeley, Professor Clare You and Dr. Yangwon Ha, for their sincere encouragement
and support in facilitating the writing process. I would also like to express thanlfg to
Ms. Elinor Davis for enduring endless lectures and harangues on the topics of tonal
cosmology during the formative years of this theory. And also to Ms. Michaela
Daystar for the wonderful cover art.
Saving the best till last, I want to express my endless gratitude to my own
personal angel, my wife Carmel, whose endless encouragement, frequent and
significant research suggestions, eagle editorial eye, impatience withj argon and cant,
and most of all, her warm smile of love, gave me the heart to see this job through.
Jonathan Christian Petty
NOVEMBER 2005
Used by permission of Bridgeman Art Library, New York
 CHAPTER ONE
An Overview of Wagner’s Lexical Theory and Practice
“I must explain, once and for all, that whenever... I speak of ‘understanding
me’ or ‘not understanding me,’ it is not as though I fancied myself a shade too
lofty, too deep-meaning, or too high-soaring; but I sinqjly demand of whosoever
may desire to understand me, that he will look upon me no otherwise than as I
am, and in my communications upon Art will only regard as essential precisely
what, in accordance with my general aim and as far as lay within my powers of
exposition, has been put forth in them by myself.”
—Richard Wagner^

I. Tonal Language [XL] Lexicality

In this Chapter I will discuss the general but essential features of Wagner’s
post-Opera and Drama tonal practice. Wagner’s “Lexical Tonality” may be defined
as a linear string ofsemantically distinct, emotionally expressive sonorous surfaces
syntactically organized in the manner of natural language [ML] words to refer to
extra-musical facts. Linear entails precise linear key placements in the manner of
meaning-bearing NL words. Semantically distinct entails that sonorous surfaces are
distinguished by semantics and thus not by what they are but by what they mean.
Semantic meanings entail extra-musical facts. Syntactically organized entails that
these semantic units or lexemes^ are differentiated and placed by functional harmony
employed linguistically not architectonically. I will use the term syntax-semantics
interface to denote this joint participation in constituting the final linguistic product.
The term Lexical entails that the linguistic factor that levers this music into
a tonal language [TL] is lexical as distinct, say, from syntactical. While this lexical
principle depends on the availability of coherent TL syntax Wagner’s distinctive
ingress to TL is through.key association and vocabulary-building. From this the
theory requires inclusion of lexeme, lexical unit, or lexicon coherent with their use
in the field of linguistics. Thus these terms have no special musical meaning here not
found in linguistics, in which lexicality is inseparable from culture: a lexicon is what
it is because it expresses ideas shared between language users, and the common
conceptual space that makes such interactions possible is a language community’s
culture. Assuming some set of data to constitute a lexicon obvious next questions

'A Communication to My Friends, p. 269n.

’For standard linguistics definitions of “lexeme” and “lexicon” see Chapter Four, p. 156.
2

include, what kind of person is this, why does he talk like that, and what is he talking
about? What kind of vocabulary is this and why isn’t it something else that we’ve
seen in other lexicons? Again, tonal material must be understood according to lexical
and grammatical intelligibility rules. Since the tonal lexemes or minimal units of
meaning that Wagner employed were mostly keys, key must be strictly and conser
vatively defined so we can agree what Wa^er understood by key, where it starts, and
where it ends. Otherwise we would be unable to quantify the TL equivalent of
“nouns,” let alone siumise their meaning or relation to other nouns. Tonal lexicality
is also distinct from, e.g., architectonic or Schenkerian notions of musical unity or
meaning and is generally incompatible with them except in local musical sections
where architectonics can be subsumed into TL lexicality and used to clarify it.
The term lexical entails that a linguistic tonality is central to Wagner’s
intentions and was advanced to say things in tonal language [or TL] that could not
be said in natural language [or NL]. Wagner’s intentions generate an intentional
tonality that cannot be described without describing something else: the semantic
meaning of the TL, just as the something else of NL is the meaning of its words.
Descriptions ofNL words that omit their meaning are inadequate and therefore false
descriptions of the words. Descriptions of Wagner’s TL lexemes that omit their
meaning are inadequate and therefore false descriptions of the lexemes.^
In sum, “lexical” here replaces such earlier terms as “associative” (as in “key
association” or “associative key”) because it entails specifically linguistic properties
.and eonsequences that the term “associative” does not. This theory of Lexical
Tonality is intended to replace associative tonality theory or to extend it until it
subsumes other special theories into a unified view of what Wagner’s tonality is and
what it tells us about the composer’s purposes and ways of thinking.
To show in detail what all this means, how it works, and how it is useful, will
exhaust the bulk of my theoretical work. This will require discussion ofthe essential
distinction between sonorous surface and syntax (Chapter Two), of the cognitive

’Thus since Wagner’s tonal lexemes (=keys) are defined by their extra-musical meaning,
absolute pitch or changes in the firequency of Concert A over time become inelevant in understanding
them. Just as the presun^tive “Lah-ness" of the NL (Engl.) word light is irrelevant to its essence as
an NL word, so the presumptive “C-ness” of C Major is irrelevant to its essence as a TL lexeme. What
is necessary to understand them (i.e., to understand why C Major appears in score where it does in the
linear flow) is their lexical meanings. C Major and all other keys appear where they do in Wagner’s
scores not because of what they are but because of what they mean, that is, their semantic content.
 3

underpinnings of key as lexeme (Chapter Three), of the public cultural property

aspect of the nineteenth century common practice key characteristics that made it
possible for Wagner to treat keys as meaning-bearing lexemes analogous to natural
language words (Chapter Four), of an in-depth study of how one such lexical key (A
Major) functions in the Ring both as a thing-in-itself and in cooperation with other
such lexemes (Chapter Five), of some of the properties innate to TL that render it
non-redundant to ML (Chapter Six) and an exploration of Wagner’s extension of the
lexical key vocabulary of the Ring into his final Music Drama Parsifal (Chapters
Seven and Eight).
Where does “my” present theory come from? It argues the expansion of a
prior disorganized notion ofassociative tonality into a imified theory. But associative
tonality is itself unoriginal, descending directly from Opera and Drama, The Art-
Work of the Future, and Wagner’s miscellaneous theoretical writings, all of which
argue the lexical nature of his posX-Lohengrin tonality. Thus “my” theory is not my
own but is Wagner’s own theory worked out with the linear harmonic rigor and
cultural reach that his arguments require. Wagner’s is a unitary theory and it fits a
unitary tonal practice. My major theme will therefore be the unitary nature of this
practice. As the occasion arises I will juxtapose the present approach with each ofthe
current prevailing theories to show how these are either inadequate as formulated or
how they are easily subsumed into the theory of Lexical Tonality.
For the rest, the term lexeme applied to Wagner’s TL mostly means key. The
essential difference between C Major in Wagner and C Major in Brahms is that
Wagner understood this key lexically, as if it were a tonal word.*
* To adequately
describe this word thus requires a description of its meaning. Just as NL words have
synonyms, so Wagner’s TL lexemes have several meaning. The difference between
these lexemes and'NL words is that Wagner’s TL synonyms are far more organized.

r
*A complete catalog of every identifiable key in the four Ring dramas and their lexical trans
lations. appears below in Appendices la through Id onA Appendix II. These lexical keys were derived
by a rigorous linear-harmonic analysis of every bar of the Ring consistently applied with no special
cases. Thus the linear analysis that parses Das Rheingold also parses Gotterddmmerung by using a
consistent technique. The technique itself is a modification (mostly a simplification, e.g., the omission
of analyses of “guide tones”, which do not affect the integrity of individual key-lexemes) of the
technique published by Leland Smith {A Handbook ofHarmonic Analysis) and adapted by myselfand
Marshall Tuttle (an account of whose variant of the present theory appears in the book Musical
Structures in Wagnerian Opera) over a period spanning roughly 1993 to 2000. This consistency of
analysis insures against special pleading with respect to individual lexical meanings.
4
They are falsifiably related to core meanings in a way I will describe in Chapter
Three. They radiate from the core meanings like spokes from a wheel. The core
meaning of C Major is, LIQHT.^ The following preliminary examples of this core
meaning and various synonyms will give a feel for what such TL lexemes are all
about. Here is one from Das Rheingold-.
LOGE

Ex. 1.1: An example of [0=LIGHT] (Das Rheingold, scene u)

Loge has Just pleaded that the Rhinegold be returned to the Rhine Daughters and
allowed to remain forever in the waters. How would Lexical Tonality theory
understand this key? A consistently applied linear harmonic analysis identifies the
onset of the key, its duration, and its replacement by a succeeding key, identifies it
as the 185 th linear-lexical key since the first tone of Das Rheingold, and logs it as
such in Appendix la. It immediately follows lexical key #184 (A Major), which for
reasons to be argued in Chapter Five means “thief’ ([A=thief]). Again, [C=LIQHT]

’My notational convention for such lexemes will be the bracketed [^=UGHT]. An underscored
letter will refer to a key; a non-underscored letter will refer to some more elementary component of
a key, e.g., a chord or a tone. {Curlicue} brackets denote a syntactical factor.
 5

because earlier usage proclaimed [C=LIGHT] (e.g., it49-53), Wagner declares his TL
lexicality to be consistent and claims moreover that if we fail to record this we fail
to understand him in his own terms. This being our goal we infer a TL connection to
light here, even though the libretto text does not literally contain the ML word,
“Licht.”‘
What then can C Major mean here? The Rhine Daughters have taken pains
to convince us that they understand their gold entirely in terms of its light. It is
magical to them because it shines. Clearly Loge is singing in a TL language in which
C Major infers the meaning, “let the gold shine in the waters forever.” Since this
meaning is additional and thus non-redundant to his libretto text, our understanding
of what Loge is conveying in this simple case requires our understanding that
[C=LIGHT]. To shine is functioning as a TL synonym for LIGHT and thus we may add
to the meaning of C Major, [LIGHT; to shine]. “To shine” [NL] is part of what it
means “to C May or”[TL]. They are parallel ifnot entirely identical lexical entries and
we therefore mark them as such in owi Lexicon and move on.
What is our theoretical arbiter of such arguments? It is, simply, general
usage. We can only recognize that [C=LIGHT] because Wagner consistently uses it
as j/[C=LIGHT]. Similarly we can only recognize that [Q=to shine] because Wagner
consistently uses the key as if “to Q' means “to shine”. This exposes a crucial
principle of usage that TL shares with NL: a thing is lexical that is used as //it were
lexical, as if were usage generally (not particularly) intelligible, and finally as if a
lexical interpretation added to our Understanding ofnon-lexical facts. This is exactly
the way NL words are used and it is exactly how Wagner uses his keys.
How consistent is [Q=LIGHT, to shine] across Music Dramas? Can we say that
C Major forms a lexical entry in a common vocabulary from Das Rhinegold bar 1
to Die Walkure bar AT? Consider this example of Siegmund’s fascination with the
glowing sword-hilt in Act I. Here Siegmxmd has been rhapsodizing on a glint from
Sieglinde’s Ash Tree that his epithet goW/ies Gluth goes out of its way to poetically
associate with the archetypal glow of the Rhine Daughters’ C Major gold. Wagner
is thus still building lexical bridges from his earlier light-based C Major lexemes to
their extensions in this First Night of his Ring Trilogy:

*Cf. ftlS4, which does in fact contain the word “Rauber.” For [A=thief] see Chapter Five, esp.
pgs. 227jfandp. 231.
SIEGMUND
 7
I

Ex. 1.2: Examples of [C=LIGHTj (Die Walkare, Act I)

Lexemes #655, #670, and #67Id me overdetermined as synonyms for [C=LIGHT].
What about #671c [a=an old dim light]? This follows from earlier usage, e.g., #54
[a=an unknown light]. Syntactical analysis of this and similar usage convince that
Wagner is using functional key relationship as a grammatical factor that regulates the
core meanings of Major key lexemes with derivative or radial meanings attached to
their close relatives, the tonic and relative minors. In this case {C:vi} to the C Major
light-constellation of #49-53 as a lexical satellite. From this we see that not only is
C Major consistently treated as a lexeme for LIGHT but its relative minor is
consistently lexicalized as a distant, unknown, or old light.^
This example includes enough of the linear environment of these lexemes to
suggest how they semantically interact with fellow TL words. For instance, B minor
is treated as a species of darkness; here specifically the darkness occasioned by the
sulking of the sun behind mountains (#671 b). One obvious syntactical aspect to this
lexical usage is that the ft-tone lies just beneath the c-tone as the leading tone (ft) of
C Major. The semantic processing queue might therefore look something like this:

[C=LIGHT] ► *c-tone ► wonniger Glanz...

I
*b-tone ...siesank ► [b=darkness]
That is, z/[C=LIGHT] then (C:7(ft)=b}n5C5 into [LIGHT] or (b: \> 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=Sieg-
linde], 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=wonder-
woman]), 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 (=back-
ground 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 dominant-
ward 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 tonic-
dominant 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 case-
based 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 Schenker-
Wagner 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 word-
speech. 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 linear-
chromatic 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 —i 5_________

pp
fn.

1
a;l 6 fA6 V7r V ■ ' 2 7=b6
1 1

9
... ..

r- ^
^----------
....

£:fA6V7 __________________________ ^ , 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 Nineteenth-

Century 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 fA6 1 V7 1 2 |7=b6 1 fA6 1 V7 |2 7.... 1-2 b2 1 lviio7/susp. ffl+-I+|V7|
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 t 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) (key in = scale degree 3)
|E(V) (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 Venus-
ffom-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 sieh', meinSohn, wo dunichts weisst, da weisst du dir leicht

^ U**rr !—J [ ... . ig-

pdolce f li“i
i. 0 ----?

mir zum____ Se - hen ver - bleib.

f etc.

^ I
•0
'r
V I

Ex. 1.9i Wotan giving Siegfried the Eye

 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 syntax-
semantics 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 loosen-
edj? 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 Purely-
human 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 anti-
linguistic 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 Jacken-
doff 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 fimda-
mental 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 “insti-
tutiorial 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 model-
theoretic 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 categorial-
grammatical 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 model-
theoretical 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 pre-
conscious 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
Ex. 2.5: Norn “Chords” without syntax
i
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 I - ^ 1
Du list - i - ger Held, sieh' wie du lug'st! wie aufdein
A , , , ■_ _ _ _ _ C3

7— itJ .
«i. hJ
Tj. 1—
IIji,,,) —
^ 0 '*1 -- 1 “
d:viix7 o7 c:vix7 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 ‘tonic-
dominant 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
iii I10 ii HHiT
II

Eb minor
ieb(i)* ------- ------------------------------------

|Cb(VI)................................................................................... ...
IsQiffl ______________ n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|ii iii & I ii vi | ii vi | jj | jj | jj; | // sp; vijo7 |V 1 & I V I &
■7 13 u 13 16 IT 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
27-------------- M
I i 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 tone-
spirits 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 Cb Major this /tone is no more chromatic
than an fl ^ in a C 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 Snarren-
befg 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, Pachelbel-
approved 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 grace-
notes 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^"- ------------
----------- 1---------- _1----------1----------- Ip—

pp_____ 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 Sieg-
mund’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 split-
tingtts 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 urn -

Ex, 2.15: Amfortas can’t take it anymore

 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 ‘ r r

1=V______ I=iv V 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 ........... MhL ..............................-.... v:|

1 sei dein Lei - - - - - den
#¥^==J=f=F=l - -1.....................
l-r
}
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 world-
sovereignty 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-in-
itself 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 speech-
roots. 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-not-
directly-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 — to — Essence
Surface tonc/chord made intelligible by background scale
Surface scale made intelligible by background key
Surface key made intelligible by background tonality
Surface words made intelligible by 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 image-
complexes 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 house-
laws 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 prolong-
ational 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 Ring-
world’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 self-
accomplished 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 Art-
Works, 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 are-

abput 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) IV-
I-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=air-
lightness] 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 //V ~T

#/572& Ibl>-Nibelungj | 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 all-
fulfilling, 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 so-
called ‘Tristan sketchbook,” still being compiled in 1868-9:
<3ii modulation in pure instrumental music and in drama. Fundament
al difference. Swift and free transitions are in the latter often just as
necepary as they are unjustified in the former, owing to lack of mo-
ive.-’'
Wagner had thus not changed his opinion in the years since writing Opera and
Drama, and which had already seen the composition Tristan. Even after the Ring
was completed, Wagner insisted upon the consistency of theory and practice;
In the instrumental introduction to Rheingold... it was impossible
to me to quit the fundamental note, simply because I had no reason
for changing it; a great part of the not un-animated scene that follows

timers
"Carolyn Abbate, “Wagner. ‘On Modulation,’ and Tristan,” p. 37; discussed pgs. 38-41.
 115

for the Rhine-daughters and Alberich would only permit of modula

tion to keys the very nearest of kin, as Passion here is still in the most
primitive naivety of its expression.^^
This description of the modulatory behavior of the first scene of Das Rheingold
suggests that Wagner understood the didactic example from Opera and Drama as
predictive oftonal behavior not only on the level ofthe short phrase but distributively
across twelve hours of music. In theory there is nothing to prevent such lexicality
from driving onward from bar 1 of Rheingold to bar N of Gotterddmmerung or, for
that matter Parsifal. Having established a primary poetic pairing (Lexeme #i:
Bb^WATERl and its poetic entailments, Wagner’s process was, as claimed in “Music
Applied to the Drama,” to employ modulation to the most closely related keys to
define such keys’ poetic content with reference to this referential Key I. Recursive
iterations of the process upon the new referential keys eventually create the poetic
definition of the entire Circle of Fifths. In practice as well as theory Music Drama
proceeds by means ofcontinual poetic redefinition of lexical keys with respect to the
first key, Eb. plus continuous lexical assignments to its relative keys, predict the
upfoldment of a vast network of consistent and mutually interdependent poetic key
referents. In principle, fixation ofone primary lexical point, [Eb=WATER], would fix
all subsequent lexemes even were everything that followed to be defined only in
terms of interval relationships from that moment on.

III. Metaphoric Entailments in Natural Language

Wagner needed his music to make sense not as the substance of abstract tonal
forms but as the expressive content ofdramatic moments indexed by ML words. Both
words and keys needed to tell complementary aspects of the same story. For this to
happen keys had to cooperate with words and, since words could not become more
key-like then keys had to become more word-like. In place of an abstract tonal
structure keys, like words, were to acquire a cognitive structure. Wagner solved this
problem by exploiting two ready-to-hand linguistic strategies, metaphor and meto
nymy. The former is a strategy for making the obscure more intelligible by comparing
it to something less obscure; the latter is a categorization strategy whereby one token
of a type may substitute for the entire type. They are both intelligibility aids that help

^^Music Applied to the Drama, p, 185.

116

us to deal with the obscure. Wagner’s new keys were obscure because they no longer
functioned as default units of independent tonal form building. They were now to be
standard linguistic units, lexemes. And as such their intelligibility now depended not
on architectonics but semantics. Thus they stood in need of the clarifying services
offered by metaphor. Wagner imposed intelligibility on his lexical keys by templating
onto them the cognitive structure of metaphor, such that the TL syntactical unit key
became an extension of the NL semantic unit metaphor. By such means a single
cognitive strategy drove both imder the impulse of usage. NL and TL usage merged
imder a single lexical category. In particular, the generative principles ofboth worked
to enlarge their joint frameworks of intelligible expression.
To see what Wagner accomplished with keys let us first consider something
that Shakespeare accomplished with words. Spurgeon notes that Shakespeare “has
a large number of merely conventional images of love; it is a fire, a furnace, a blaze
and lightning; it is an arrow, a siege and a war; it is a food, a drink and a banquet; it
is a plant, a fruit, a sickness, a wound, a fever; it is a building on firm or frail found
ations, fair and strong or in ruins; it is constant as the sun, false as water, musical as
Apollo’s lute. All these we find in one fom or other in contemporary dramatists,
while fire, war and food are common to them all.’’^^
Spurgeon’s catalog of Shakespeare’s imagery of love has a rational structure.
It is not simply that love is a lightning and a fire: lightning is understood as a species
of the genus fire and thus love is a lightning because love is a fire, though not
necessarily the other way roimd. LOVE IS FIRE is the intelligibility condition for the
facts that love is a blaze, a lightning, or a furnace; moreover, its absence entails the
absence of such conditions, such that we find the following completely natural:
Bertram. Now will I lead you to the house, and show you
The lass I spoke of.
Second Lord. But you say she’s honest.
Bertram. That’s all the fault: I spoke with her but once
and found her wondrous cold.
All's Well That Ends Well, Act HI, Scene vi.
The dreaded cold shoulder precipitates from PASSION IS HOT and ultimately from
LOVE IS FIRE, which informs not only its entailments but also its contraries. Hidden

^^Shakespeare’s Imagery and What It Tells Us, pgs. 146-7.

 117

within “found her wondrous cold” is a string of metaphoric entaihnents intelligible

as implied propositions. Thus poor Bertram gets the COLD shoulder because PASSION
IS HOT because LOVE IS FIRE and she’s not that.
Again, because LOVE IS WAR, a species of fire, then Wooing is Siege, and thus
the following passage is intelligible:
Fenton. Good Mistress Page, for that I love your daughter
In such a righteous fashion as I do.
Perforce, against all checks, rebukes, and manners,
I must advance the colours of my love,
and not retire.
The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act m. Scene iv.
Thus, “I must advance” because COURTSHIP IS SIEGE because LOVE IS WAR.
Again, there is a cross-communication between LOVE IS FIRE and LOVE IS
WAR, since WAR IS FIRE as well, which yields such dual-use FIRE metaphors as this:
Philo. Nay, but this dotage of our general’s
O’erflows the measure: those his goodly eyes.
That o’er the files and musters of the war
Have glow’d like plated Mars, now bend, now turn
The office and devotion of their view
Upon a tawny front: his captain’s heart,
which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst
The buckles on his breast, reneges all temper,
and is become the bellows and the fan
To cool a gipsy’s lust.
Antony and'Cleopatra, Act I, Scene i.
Since MARS IS WAR and WAR IS FIRE, then MARS IS FIRE and the j ealous soldier sees
Cleopatra’s sexuality as warfare against his captain, in which, fighting fire with fire,
she commandeers her lover’s martial ardor to put out her own LOVE FIRE—an office
more routinely assigned to WATER.’” Thus the metaphoric households FIRE and WAR
show rational affinities that allow new, complex, and intelligible combinations. The
stractural utility of this for Wagner’s Tonal Households will be evident.

"Note too the elemental ambiguity of transmuting FIRE to AIR, thereby dissipating it in the
act oifanning and conjuring too the feeling of triviality or social inferiority via the slave fanning his
taistress. The ambiguity accraes to bellows, through which AIR is mote generally understood as the
element that stokes the FIRE. Such ambiguity is inscribed in the mythic persona ofLove, Venus, whom
we shall meet in Chapter Four in her role as Venus armaia otpugnax (Armed or fighting Venus).
 118

To fully describe this kind of intelligibility requires both a description of

metaphoric entailments and categorization strategies. The strategies oimetaphor and
metonymy cognitively interact in a technical sense that has not to my knowledge been
remarked in metaphor or general trope theory, but which become important when we
try to understand the cognitive structures of Wagner’s TL lexemes. In particular the
trope of metonymy, in which a single token may be taken for a type, can be regarded
as a logical artifact of the entailment axes that depend fixjm core metaphors.
For instance, both the words “cold” and “cool” from the Shakespeare exam
ples would normally be recognized as metaphoric but not necessarily as metonymic.
The reason is that metonymy is typically understood as a relationship between two
surface expressions, as when crown stands for British monarchy. But metonymy also
operates between surface metaphors and cognitive background categories, as when
the expressed words blaze, lightning, and heat each stand as tokens of the back
ground type FIRE. Thus “cold” and “cool” stand in relation to LOVE IS FIRE as tokens
to types, such that both words signal the background presence of the core metaphor
and thus index it. The cognitive basis for the sense of affinity by which Wagner’s
understood the poetic contents ofkeys to be intelligibly related, derives directly from
the background cognitive fact that metaphor systems automatically generate as well
metonymic inter-relationships in which single surface tokens speak for the entire core
background. This relationship can be pictured as follows, with surface tokens and
core metaphor charted and the intermediate entailment axes omitted for simplicity:

Mars •* lust ■» tenqjer

\|/
LOVE IS FIRE
/i\
cool w cold *« fan
An (unexpressed) CORE m e t a ph o r and its surface (expressed) Metaphors
Showing how any of six tokens may stand for the core metaphor-type

The metaphoric entailments generated from this default human cognition strategy
comprises systems ofsurface images rationalized both across surface lines (‘»), all of
which are themselves controlled along axes radiating from the cognitive core.
This default background cognitive strategy already exists in any ML metaphor
network. It is in the background because it is a latent system of unspoken but present
 119

propositions that rationalize the kinds of images sauntering by on the conversational

surface. To say “become the bellows and fan to cool a gypsy’s lust” and mean some
thing by it requires a background proposition LUST IS FIRE. A given metaphor’s
intelligibility is unimaginable unless some such propositional calculation has already
been made or is made and imderstood in the act of understanding the metaphor.
Wagner’s TL lexemes are likewise imintelligible absent the assumption of a
propositional background. This type ofimplied propositional cognitive pattern recurs
wherever we try to rationalize TL lexemes. The basic cognitive move is that KEY is
to CORE METAPHOR (TYPE) as CORE METAPHOR is to GIVEN IMAGE (TOKEN). For
instance, “E MAJOR is to ATTRACTIVENESS (LOVE) as LOVE is to FIRE” yields E
m Aj o r i S LOVE-FIRE (#i350 etc.). E Major absorbs the metaphor entailment network
inherited from LOVE. Thus, to process the intelligibility of individual images
associated with E Major requires proceeding from the surface image (e.g., “Magic
Fire”) back to LOVE IS FIRE back to E MAJOR IS LOVE. A snapshot of a region of the
E Major Tonal Household showing the secondary step E MAJORIS ATTRACTIVENESS
\vould look like this (any images from the E Major Lexicon would do as well):

Fire •• trinket •• Forest Bird

\|/
E MAJOR IS ATTRACTIVENESS (or LOVE)
/l\
Stranger’s eye** fear *• painful glance

Many surface images are bracketed by E Major. They do not cohere unless the
background move E MAJOR IS ATTRACTIVENESS is made. However, given this
intermediate core metaphor mediating between the key and the surface images, these
become intelligible through the mediumship ofthe core metaphor ATTRACTIVENESS.
An Exemplary Cultural Linguistic Property: [£=LIGHT]. In Chapter Four I
will discuss the question of language as a public cultural property in which words and
grammar provide the primary substance for the broadest possible human interactive
space. In order for words to work the lexicon must be public and general, not private
and particular. The TL equivalent of the public lexicon is what Rita Steblin calls key
120

characteristics?^ These are generic qualities or associations generally agreed in

critics, composers, and public discourse to accrue to some or all keys. As such they
pertain to the domain of semantics and thus contribute to the cognitive structure of
Wagner’s TL lexemes.
A case in point is “a lexical meaning of C major is Tight’ [C=LIGHT]”.^* The
Rhinegold awakens in a blaze of C major light. Siegmund gazes at the sword’s C
Major radiance. Briinnhilde awakens to glorious dawn in C. Siegfried’s dead body
“C Majors” at her from its bier (‘Wie Sonne lauter strahlt mir sein Licht’). Why? All
this makes sense to Wagner because it already made sense to his common practice
culture. It had achieved status as a public cultural property. This is everywhere
attested in compositional practice and critical analysis. Thus on the topic ofMozart’s
tonal cosmology, Chailley writes that,
at the center is C . . . central point of reference for all the other
tonalities, and therefore the paradigm tonality, sign of factuality, of
sincerity, of light: Charles Gounod would say: “God speaks in C
major.” It is in C major that the revelation in Mozart’s “Dissonant”
Quartet arrives, that the “Es war Licht” burst forth in Haydn’s Die
Schopfung {The Creation), that the fanfares salute the arrival of
Sarastro.”
In Samson, No. 16, Handel chooses the key to express the words: “O first-created
beam, and thou, great Word! Let there be light! And light was o’er all!” The dark B
minor world of murder and human sacrifice that characterizes Gluck’s Iphigenia in
Taurus is dispelled in the final C Major chorus, “Heaven’s anger passes away, gone
is our fear and sorrow; brighter will life be tomorrow, for after night follows day.”
And the C Major opening of Richard Strauss’s tone-poem Thus Spake Zarathustra
again suggests the words “Let there be Light!” Thus the perceived luminosity of C
Major was a public cultural property whether the music was texted or not.
Many critical passages likewise show that C Major is understood in terms of
luminosity. Among many examples, De Marliave says that the opening of

’’See Rita Steblin, A History ofKey Characteristics in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth
Centuries.
“ As used in this book this fonnula amounts to a claim that the most basic use of C Major
in Wagner’s TL is as a noun-like key which we may translate as Eng. “light” (meaning either “bright”
or “weighing little”), or Ger. both “licht” and “leicht.”
’’Jacques Chailley, The Magic Flute, Masonic Opera, p. 160.
 121

Beethoven’s Quartet, Op. 59, No. 3 “deliberately leads up to the effect of daylight
breaking upon darkness.’’^** Or of Mozart’s C Major concept Chailley writes,
the harmonic peculiarities of its [Quartet, K. 465] introduction ...
continue a well established tradition for describing darkness and
chaos, a tradition going back at leeist to the Elemens (1737) of Jean-
Ferey Rebel, who explained it at length in his own commentary. That
tradition was continued in such works as Handel s Israel in Egypt
(1739); it recurred after Mozart in the introduction to Haydn’s Die
Schopfung,... The adagio introduction of the “Dissonant” Quartet
could only have been looked upon at that time as an image of chaotic
darkness, and it was violently opposed to the contrary depiction of
order and clarity which bursts forth so soon in the allegro: Ordo ab
Chao, as one of the most important Masonic mottos expresses it.”
Girdlestone rhapsodizes on Mozart’s C Major piano concerto, K467, which follows
K466; “the luminous C major exorcises the sombre and diamonisch D minor.
Einstein writes that Mozart’s C, “the plainest of all the keys, becomes a shining goal,
^■glorious revelation.”'" He suggests that “in Beethoven, C major has a specific
'tolliance,’“" and, of K467, affirms that the concerto “with its modulations through
darkness into light, is one of the most beautiful examples of Mozart’s iridescent
iikmony and of the breadth of the domain embraced in his conception of the key of
e major.”^^ Saint-Foix extols C Major light in his description of the Jupiter
Symphony: “So behold this cornerstone laid before us with the most irresistible
vigour and clearness, in the full, frank light of C major.”^ And Rayner christens Die
Meistersinger’s tonic “the Great C major of life.
From the moment such lexical formulae are unleashed upon common-practice
harmony in the guise of keys tonal syntax acquires the capability of syllogistic logic.
Consider the following as background syllogistic propositions controlling the
understanding of similarities between pairs of lexical keys.

“Joseph de Marliave, Beethoven's Quartets, p. 118n.

“TTie Magic Flute, p. 84.
■“Cuthbert Girdlestone, Mozart’s Piano Concertos, p. 443.
Mozart, His Character, His Work,y. 160.
•Hbid.
*Jbid., p. 309.
"Camille Saint-Foix, The Symphonies ofMozart, p. 156.
"Charles Rayner, Wagner and Die Meistersinger,p. 184.
 122

(«) iT[C=LIGHT], then, [c=DARKNESS],

(*) [C=LIGHT].
(c) Therefore, [c=darkness]/®
2- (a) ^[C=LIGHT], and,
{b) If LIGHT = awakening.
(c)
Then, [C=awakening].^’
2- (a)
^[£=UGHT],fl«£f,if[c==darkness],a«^/
{h) Tf [LIGHT -►darkness] = lowering, diminishing; then
(c) Syntax: {1] b = lowering, diminishing}:
id) Therefore, z/[D=Hero] then [d=lowered, diminished hero].«
Such background propositional networks are assumptions necessary to explain in
what sense Wagner’s TL lexemes could be claimed to be “intelligible.” That they are
not expressed but latent is quintessentially linguistic, since unarticulated propositions
support standardNLmetaphor also. The Lakoffschooloflinguistics argues that these
unexpressed but palpable propositions are the stuff of speech acts, which simply
distibute publicly the “this-is-like-that” cognition that would be going on anyway.
They are no different from those necessary to explain the intelligibility of metaphor
and particularly how the Understanding evaluates the degrees and types of sameness
inherent in metaphoric comparisons.
Once C Major and the other keys become TL lexemes they behave exactly
like such generative metaphors as LOVE IS FIRE or AUTHORITY IS HIGH. When they
are manipulated for expressive purposes their background syllogisms are manipulated
also. For metaphoric entailments too operate according to syllogistic logic. Thus I AM
AT THE KING’S FEET because if AUTHORITY IS HIGH then SUBORDINATION IS LOW
and AUTHORITY IS HIGH, therefore I AM LOW.« If LOVE IS FIRE then its absence
makes the heart grow COOLER and although generally ANGER IS HEAT, in the case of

rr=pv^ir‘r w’ ^ [C-UGHT]) (‘ein zauberisch goldenes Licht’); USO

1 ^®*^'?^®*®‘®®®“A"g®’);#-^^[e=Star]CfIiesstseinstraMenderStern’V#53
E joy] ( wche froh!’); #54 [a=unknown light] (‘Was ist’s ihr Glatten, das do’rt so
glanztundgleisst. ). For C minor. #5 Tc—sJeenino Himmin#*!...
light] (‘.Das Licht I6sch ich e__
[c=darkness] (‘Dichte Nacht’).
E.g., #51 [C=awakening] (‘Die Weckerin lacht in den Grund’)
1, rf;!o p=hero] (‘Wer hangt dir imSattel?' ‘Sinholt der Hegeling!’) or deliciouslv
nough, [lexical chord '►D-heroes heated] (‘bis uns’rer Helden Hass sich gelegt!’)-
[d-heroes cooling (meaning “dead”)] (‘Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! ■). ® J. w/JW
‘’For the lexical use Wagner puts this metaphoric Hl-LOW axis see below, Chapter Six.
 123

my angry lover her response to my advances will not be hot but chilly. And so on and
on throughout the duration of our cognitive existence.
And once [£=LIGHT] in the same sense that [Ger.] “licht” = [Eng.] “light”,
then C Major is free to behave like any other metaphor and in particular to enjoy the
privileges of generating its own metaphoric entailments. Such entailments build
bridges from what we do know toward what we do not using our physical under
standing of what it means to exist in space in physical bodiesj which are oriented
up-down, left-right, have eyes and ears and the senses that go with them, and so on.
Thus since we are diurnal animals we awaken with increasing light, where to awaken
is to become conscious and thus light is consciousness. Thus LIGHT comes to mean
UNDERSTANDING (“He saw the light!”), INTELLIGENCE (“What a brilliant theory!”),,
or JOY (“Why so light-hearted?”), none of which are intelligible imless [C=LIGHT].
To the degree that C MAJOR IS LIGHT then the key functions something like “She saw
the C” (Briinnhilde understood [that she’d been had]),’" or “What a C idea!”
(Wotan’s Grossen Gedanken, #515), or “I feel so C-hearted!” (Froh’s joy, #427).
This practice creates an expanding set of metaphoric entailments from a core
TL lexeme to establish a vocabulary of TL synonyms. For instance, it controls the
semantics ofmode, e.g., the meaning of modal shifts. Tonic Major and minor keys
derive semantic meaning via the Major-minor axis as Greater intensity—lesser inten
sity. Thus if C Major entails LIGHT ON, AWAKENING, EYE OPEN, then C minor may
rationally entail LIGHT OFF, SLEEPING, EYE CLOSED or its relative minor A may
rationally entail LIGHT DIM, DROWSY, EYE UNFOCUSED. The core referential TL
lexeme is always a major key while its TL lexical entailments are tonic and relative
minor keys. The Major-minor relationships thus answer the one-way nature of
metaphors, e.g., I am hot for Sally because PASSION IS FIRE but not the other way
roimd. This modal relationship principle is clear from the way in which the lexemes
fall into tonal “Households” and from Wagner’s logical sequencing ofhis linear key
progressions commencing from the ultimate key of origin Eb Major—although
owing to the everywhere-and-always nature ofvirtual intelligible objects, which lurk

’“I.e., #3249 and #3250, in C (empty third) and C minor respectively. These index
Briinnhilde’s sudden and overwhelming—^but wrong—conviction that Siegfried has knowingly played
her false. The wrongness of her guess is indexed by the empty third moving to a sudden “flash” of the
minor mode of KNOWLEDGE, that is, a wrong intuition.
124

in the cognitive background and can throw tokens up wherever called for, minor
lexemes can appear before-their Major keys. Notwithstanding this, in the event only
major keys organize Tonal Households, and this lexical logic specifies the empirical
sense in which Wagner may be called a major key composer.
From this cognitive dependency on propositional entailment chains we can
see why Wagner equated “Memory” with thought itself. The same line of reasoning
appears in modem metaphor theory. Thus Arnold H. Modell suggests that
... the memory of affective experiences is also categorical and that
such categories are evoked in current time through metaphoric
correspondences with current perceptions. Edelman suggests that
what is stored in the brain is not something that has a precise
correspondence with the original experience, but is a potentiality
awaiting activation. The perceptual and motor apparatus serve
memory by means of a scanning process in which there is an attempt
to match current experience with old memory categories. What is
stored in memory is not a replica of the event but the potential to
generalize or refine the category or class of which the event is a
member. What is significant for the psychoanalyst is that activation
of these potential categories is evoked through cognitive metaphors,
which form bridges between the past and the present; metaphor
allows us to find the familiar in the xmfamiliar. This means affective
memories are enclosed as potential categories; we remember cate
gories of experience evoked by metaphoric correspondence with cur
rent perceptual inputs. We can think of ourselves as owning a library
of categorical memories ofpleasurable and painful experiences, all of
which at certain points in our life will be activated by means of meta
phoric correspondences with current inputs.^'
This well summarizes the cognitive interface between metaphor, affect, and memory
but more, it is also a practical summary of the cognitive structure of Wagner’s
TL-NL interface, so much so that for “library of categorical memories ofpleasurable
and painful experiences” one may read “Wagner’s TL Lexicon" with no significant
loss ofmeaning or point. The motivational engine driving the choice of keys is linear
and historical: what appears now as a thought or a compositional moment is a virtual
object dredged fi-om Memory and adapted to and by its contemporary context.
Wagner enlarges his core lexeme [C=LIGHT] by a host of synonymizing
moves, each governed by such well-known, simple principles as would be recognized

’’Arnold H. Modell, “Reflections on Metaphor and Affects” online.

 125

by any administrator of psychological association tests. For instance, [C-LIGHT] is

developed is via BRIGHTNESS IS LIGHTNESS. This associates the key with the element
Air, with balmy breezes, lightening of atmosphere, and the like. It is a common
cultural property that JOY IS LIGHT, where “lightness” means both levity and
brightness. This property transcends mere musical culture but belongs to the
surrounding European culture from which TL drew its own meaning. Thus pretty
flowers brighten up a gloomy room and our light-hearted wedding guests dance with
wings on their feet. My wife’s bright smile of greeting or “I have often walked down
this street before, but the pavement always stayed beneath my feet before” are

unintelligible unless JOY IS LIGHT.

The thematic coherence we observe in the Lexicon is thus a product of the
consistency of Wagner’s standard metaphoric entailment strategy. An example of
such coherence is the following abstract from the C Major Tonal Household.

The C Major LIGHT-Household

C MAJOR (Referential Tonic) C Minor (Tonic Minor) A minor (Relative Minor)

C=LIGHT c=DIMMING a=PALOR

SLEEP UNKNOWN LIGHT
WAKING
CONSCIOUSNESS UNCONSCIOUSNESS PART-CONSaOUSNESS

KNOWING FORGETTING IGNORANCE

KNOWLEDGE, TIDINGS TIDINGS, DARK TIDINGS, BAD
EYE CLOSED SIDE/AVERTED GLANCE
EYE OPEN
IDEA, GREAT IDEA, WRONG IDEA, OFF-BASE
(or, CONFUSION)

This tracks a hierarchical semantics between A minor and C Major, with the latter
controlling the meaning of the former but not vice versa. A minor connotes the half-
averted, half-seeking glance because C Major connotes the frank, open gaze, and not
the other way round. All the usages discussed here are controlled not from A minor
itself but from its relative Major, C. This is the systematic basis for assigning this
usage of A minor to a subordinate position in the C Major tonal Household. A minor
shows its affinity for C Major by attracting and expressing this particular coherent
subset of poetic images drawn from the libretto texts.
In Wagner’s lexicon [C=LIGHT] unfolds in a second direction via. the
constitutive metaphor INTELLIGENCE IS LIGHT. By composing as if [C=LIGHT],
 126

Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and their contemporaries had impressed this
semantic meaning on it as a cultural property ready for Wagner to develop as he
<:onsidered which keys might be “appropriate” to certain emotions and not others.
Just as people talk about braininess in terms of light bulbs or bright boys, so Wagner
exploits contemporary impressions of C Major as bright ~ a public “key character-
istic”-to make simple statements about great ideas, mental brightness, awakening
Siegffied’sbrightcountenanceortheWanderer’sgenius.Specificobject associations
derive from these constitutive lexemes. For instance, the association of C Major with
the Sword proceeds via [C=LIGHT] [^^intelligence] - [C-Grossen Gedanken
(great idea)] -♦ [C-sword]. Moreover, Siegfried’s forging ofNothung modulates his
grandfather’s C Major sword to D Major because a good idea (C Major) has now
become an heroic fact [D=hero]. Note that to developmentally modulate from C to
D requires passing through [S=Mother]—meaning that Wotan’s abstract Grossen
Gedanken of a future Held must be materialized through human birth and the hero
jx)w to manhood—a usage that well coheres with the composer’s observation that
m the newborn child, which does not remain what it was in the mother’s womb, one
can clearly perceive the idea; all states ofbeing and becoming are nothing. The IDEA
originating in the mother’s womb is everything.”’^
The syntax of tonal triangulation. The fact that the metaphoric entailment
logic of TL lexemes is coordinated to their key relationship logic makes it possible
to rationally explain a potentially unlimited number of facts about Wagner’s key
choices, for instance, why he begins Tristan and Isolde in the key of A minor with
a motif generally agreed to connote the half-averted sideways glance of an unex-
p^tedly revealed lover. This usage is coherent with the derivation [£=EYE OPEN-
a-EYE AVERTED] such as we see in the Ring, and which derives from the following
linear-lexical complex:

IM9. [C=LIGHT]) (‘ein zauberisch goldenes Licht’)

[£=eye] (‘Goldenglanz’, ‘Jetz kusst sie sein Auge’)
#51. [£=awakening] (‘Die Weckerin lacht in den Grund’)
[£=Star] (‘fliesst sein strahlender Stern ’)
[£=Uoy] (‘Wache Freund, wache froh!’)

Cosima Wagner, Diaries, I, p. 141, entry of August 27, 1869.

 127

#54. [a=unknown light] (‘Was ist’s ihr Glatten, das dort so glanzt und
gleisst?’)
Lexeme #54, the first appearance of A minor in the Ring, is bound as a satellite by
the Semantic gravity of C Major LIGHT imagery of #49-53; thus this meaning enjoys *
linear pride of place. LIGHT is also KNOWING and SEEING and RELATIVE MINOR IS
DISTANCE (I: vi) establish A minor as DISTANT LIGHT, a semantics connoting roughly

“looking through a glass darkly.” The sexualization that the image accrues in Tristan
arid elsewhere is coherent with categorial grammar assumptions in which well-form
ed syntactical modules simultaneously compose well-formed (intelligible) semantical
modules. The present derivation is an orthodox expression of the syntactical di
valence of Tonal Households in which Household A:i=Household £:vi, that is, A
minor simultaneously inherits associations from both C Major and A Major. As I
have argued elsewhere,” the primary public cultural linguistic property (key char
acteristic) of A Major is PURITY, v ir g in it y (i.e., [A=VIRGE^I]), what maybe called
the “Lohengrin archetype.” Since [C=LIGHT] then LIGHT and VIRGIN triangulate to
A minor to yield [a=sexual knowledge, virgin curiosity], thus:

[A Major = VIRGIN] ■®’A Minor ■s' [C Major = KNOWLEDGE]

(sexual knowledge)

Such tonal triangulation turns out to be a standard categorial grammar-style move

in Wagner’s lexical tonality: the multiple semantic coherence accruing to two Major
keys jointly composes the meanings of their affiliated minor key. In the present case
the complex unit sexual awakening or sexual knowledge accrues to virginity+know
ing / awakening. This rationalizes, for instance, Wagner’s consistent use of A minor
to denote the sleeping Brilimhilde’s armor (#2319), emblematic of defended
virginity, and Siegfned’s cutting through her breastplate with his F Major (in this
instance) phallic sword {#2328 and #2330). The consistency of Wagner’s poetic
understanding of the tonal semantics of virginity and its awakening is evident in
Gotterddmmerung, Act HI, where Siegfiied uses the same keys to make the same
metaphorical point, e.g., #3592 [A=sexual penetration] (‘Den Helm lost ich der
herrlichen Maid’) and #3599 [a=awakening maiden] (‘mein Kuss erweckte sie
kiihn’). This is all straightforward “waking the virgin” stuff. We are further

”“The Ravished Flower: A Major Poetics in Madama Butterfly."

128

persuaded of the semantic consistency of Wagner’s view when we see that in the
Ring, A minor can connote a feminine languishing in twilight and longing for a full
light that is also a joy (i.e., #430). From EYE AVERTED it is a small step to SHYNESS,
FLIRTATIOUSNESS, COYNESS, and Other entailments that unfold from the other’s half-

averted glance such as we see in Tristan. Thus Wagner’s understanding of this

metaphoric entailment process is general throughout the Ring, Tristan and, if we
understand the A Major Swan Knight in this sense, in Lohengrin also.
Such usage is equally coherent with the syntactical mle, DOMINANT IS
DEVELOPMENT, that is, that Households related by dominant, as A Major (I) to E
Major (A:V), develop core metaphors in step-by-step {syntax=I->V} fashion. To
understand how A Major semantics relate to those of E Major we only need ask
ourselves what is the logical entailment of waking a virgin to derive [E=bride, wife].
The background propositional entailments are simplicity itself; thus,
(1). If A MAJOR IS VIRGIN, then if C MAJOR IS AWAKENING, therefore A
MINOR IS VIRGINAL AWAKENING, (“sexual awakening.”)
(2). If\_A minor is E:iv] then ifiv IS WAITING therefore [E=bride, wife]
(“the virgin awaits marriage.”)
No. 2 depends upon the general syntax SUBDOMINANT IS WAITING and is precisely
the usage we do in fact observe.
Tonal triangulation also works in reverse in the syntactical context of the
linear harmonic flow. By this I mean that Wagner composes larger semantical units
out of the tonic and relative minors of single Major key Tonal Households to
triangulate from the surface minor keys that are heard to the implied Major key that
is not heard. The example of the Gibichung brothers above contains such a
syntactical-semantic form as follows;

c=dark knowledge {#2673) C IS KNOWING a=obscure tidings {#2676)

The syntactical logic of this is that a given core metaphor (=Tonal Household) may
be unambiguously referenced by its tonic and relative minor, when used in close
proximity and with congment semantical meanings. In Hagen’s case, C minor and
A minor are coordinated with two references to being given information or receiving
tidings. Taken as a semantically bound unit no key can directly rationalize them other
than their joint Tonal Householder C MAJOR IS KNOWING.
 129

Wagner thus employs the two minor keys of a single Tonal Household as a
compound TL lexeme that precisely defines the Major key by triangulation. Again,
the principle is that if a single phrase or two nearby references to the same object
occur in keys x;i and x:vi, they together specify their shared semantical source X:I
and specify it unambiguously. The expressive utility is evident: Saga surface sonority
is greatly enriched as lexical specificity is strengthened. An example discussed in
more detail in Chapter Six is #773, Wotan’s {G:i(g) + vi(e)} phrase used to denote
the “place where Hunding can go,” G Major, as in G MAJOR IS NADIR (Hell).
To identify this syntactical feature of Wagner’s grammar permits us to verify
hypotheses that have been derived from independent (non-syntactical) logic. A case
in point is David A. White’s claim that Wotan derives his power firom Nature;
Nature is the source of both Wotan’s wisdom (via the spring) and of
Wotan’s power (via the branch of the ash tree). Thus, nature must
have possessed the capacity to transmogrify herself into these
particular forms prior to the emergence of Wotan’s desire to possess
them. Furthermore, nature does not exhaust herself by bestowing the
conditions of world rule on Wotan, since both before and after this
event the waters of the Rhine continue to flow and the trees of the
forests continue to blow in the wind. Nature must therefore have kept
to herself stores of energy even more primordial than those which
provided the wisdom and power granted to Wotan. A conclusion from
this line of thought begins to take shape... The process that allowed
nature and Wotan to interact and sanctioned Wotan’s right of
legitimacy is in some sense derivative and less primordial than the
fiill source of that legitimacy.^^
Toevaluate this fi-om the TLgrammarperspectivewemayobserveWagner’sstrictly
syntactical treatment of this poetic fetish. For instance, the Wanderer s narration to
Mime {Siegfried, Act I, Ex. 3.3 below) establishes the following lexical clause:
#1557. [c=Nature, World Tree, wounded] (‘dorrt der Stamm')
#1558. [D baking Wotan] (‘mit seiner Spitze sperrt Wotan die Welf)
#1559. [eJb=Nature, World Tree, domesticated] (‘Heilger Vertrage
Treue Runen schnitt in den Schaft er ein. Den Haft der Welt
halt in der Hand’)
#1560a. [f=grasping, holding] (‘den Wotan’s Fausf)
#1560b. [c=the.Spear] (‘imspanntf)
#1560c. [bi=Nibelungs] (‘der Niblungen Heer’)

^The Turning Wheel, p. 35.

130

#1561. rDb=authority] (‘der Riesen Gezucht zahmte sein Rath’)

#1562. [Db=supreme lord] (‘Herm’)

As in Ex. 3.2 standard syntactical triangulation that Hagen used with respect to
[C=KN0WLEDQE] recurs with'respect to C minor and Eb minor, by which Eb Major
is unambiguously fingered as the lexical origin of Stamm and Shaft. As in NL, such
TL tonal triangulation represents Wagner’s syntax—semantics interface with unusual
clarity in that lexical, linear, and inferential logic work together to confirm unitary
communicative gestures. In cognitive structural terms, just as [C=KNOWING] maybe
defined as a background inference permitted or even required to make lexical sense
of Hagen’s lexical C minor and A minor, so too FEb^NATURE] is permitted or even
required in order to make lexical sense of the C minor and E b minor, thus;

Ek Minor {Ei:i} (“Schaft”) ^ [Eb=NATURE] “S® C minor {Eb:vi} (“Stamm”)

Runes / Spear

Wotan’s Spear: Its Origin in Nature

(via Tonal Triangulation)

In TL-sentential terms the lexical chains follow the libretto TL word order
to coordinate TL lexemes with NL referents. Just as Hagen’s triangulated inference
about KNOWING is coordinated with its surrounding lexical environment including
references to mom and her sons, heroes, and wannabe heroes, here the lexemes c,
Db. e^, f, c, b_^, Dbmav be rudely translated as, “[The broken power ofnature] that
[king Wotan] [domesticated] and [wields as weapon] [dominates {f=bb:V.
(V=DOMINANT)} ] [the Nibelungs].” Again the all of the participating lexemes show
complete coherence with prior lexical usage; for instance, F minor, the dominant of
[bb.=Nibelungs] consistently reads out as NIBELUNG LORD per #314 or #344.
This farcically obvious TL-to-NL transcription only records what the
sentence is about. Ifthis were all there was to it TL would simply be redundant to NL
and therefore boring. Additionally however each lexeme exploits the sonority-
surface distinction argued in Chapter Two to contribute its own expressive surface
sonority (including orchestration, dynamics, tempi, motivic content, and choice of
certain surface chords and accessory tones over others) to emotionally comment
 131

about what all this/ee/s like. This is the added and intrinsically non-redundant contri
bution of TL to the composite TL-NL interface and its eloquent non- redundancy is
why Wagner bothered to develop this lexical TL at all.
Wagner’s TL syntax and semantics thereby articulate a background inference
([E b=NATURE]) that validates White’s non-lexical argument; Wotan transforms the
cdmmandeered power of E b Nature into D b mastery, but at the cost to Nature of
withering into its own relative minor. The rape of the Spear recalls that of the
Rhinegold, which likewise reduced an E b Eden to a C minor wasteland. Only the
lexical agencies differ: Wotan’s theft of Nature’s power inaugurates [Db.=supreme
power], Alberich’s its relative B b minor. Either way Nature withers. Again, Wotan
identifies the treaties inscribed on the shaft as E b minor, which we know from
Wagner’s Nibelung sketch represent the “powers of Nature bound down by pradent
laws.’’ That Wotan is boss is evident fi-om the fact that his key appears as a surface
Household (in Major) italicized by a resounding V-I cadence while Nature’s
background Major is broken into its subordinate tonic and relative surface minors.
132
 Further lexical testimony ofthe god’s relation to Nature appears in #1525 and
#1527. Here Wotan differentiates two senses ofhis own /leacf—“Haupt” (E b minor)
vs. “Kopf’ (C minor). Haupt in particular connotes the core Eb. root-lexemes basic
and root. The keys again triangulate to an implied E b Major, implying that Wotan
regards his head as the cosmological root of all things. The clause again binds these
by an interposed [Db^Wotanl (leb-Db-cH. In terms of background the question
again is, what is the controlling key? It cannot be Db. since c interposes its key-
denying g ! scale degree. Only Ei can bind the phrase and this by relegating Di. to
a background c; b II. Thus again we have the following syntax—semantics interface;

Eb minor {Ei;i} (“Haupt") [Eb=NATURE] C minor {Eb:vi} (“Kopf)

Wotan’s Head: Its Origin in Nature

(via Tonal Triangulation)
 134

Such usages would be incoherent unless Wagner is composing complex lexemes fiom
prior basic lexical units ofmeaning. Thus from whatever angle it is approached the
composer’s lexical tonality coheres with elementary categorial grammar concepts.^’

Tonal triangulation suggests something further about the virtual intelligible

objects or un-Expressed tonality that organizes its expressed keys, and which
Wagner, following Schopenhauer, would have called an Idea of the world. Like all
ideational objects tonality is not only un-represented but essentially irrepresentable.
The same veil covers it that prevents direct representation of the Idea of the generic
triangle, the existence of geometric representations of geometric triangles naturally
incites the belief in triangles generally, particularly the belief in the representability
of the class. Triangle. Any representation of a general class must represent all its
members while any representable triangle is either isosceles or right, and thus the
representation of the one must exclude that of the other. No single representation can
include all possible examples of class. Triangle. Indeed, belief in Class, Triangle,
likewise impels usage to speak of even more abstract examples, such as the
Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis or "China and South Korea in a New Triangle.” No known
cognitive principle can exclude such images from the class that includes the isosceles
and right species, other than the arbitraiy limiting of members to Class, Geometry.
This is one reason why we are incited to speak about a virtual intelligible Space as
ifIt were real—a move that would seem to make such questions as whether a menage
k trois is right, wrong, or isosceles, make perfect sense. Wagner composes as if

w . • concerning the severed head of Mimir. which

Wotan pickled and k^t ever at hand to pronounce oracles. It is thus Wagner’s condensation of the
oracular head motif Here as often what he poetically condenses he leaves for TL to express. This
my be lexically parted via fee TL synonyms [Eb=head] c/ [Eb=omega. Q] (Lexicon: #P5P, #/57
etc etc.). The motif of the severed oracular head is world-wide and Jung cites several cross-
cultural instonces,i.e.,thispseud<^ostic variantCTransformationSymbolismin the Mass”. f366/7):
As far back as ^isimos we find the philosophers described as ‘children of the golden head ’ and we
also encounter the ‘round element,’ whichZosimos says is the letter omega (Q). The symbol inay well
be interpreted as the head, smce the ‘Liber quartonun’ also associates the round vessel with the head
^simos. moreover, refers on several occasions to the ‘whitest stone, which is in the head. ’ Probably
all Aese ideas go back to the severed head of Osiris, which crossed the sea and was therefore associ
ated with the Idea of resurrection. The ‘head of Osiris’ also plays an important part in medieval
alchemy. , In tos connection we might mention the legend that was current about Gerbert of
Rheiim. afterwards Pope Sylvester II (d. 1003). He was believed to have possessed a golden head
wtoch spoke to hm m oracles. Gerbert was one of the greatest savants of his time, and well known as
a transmitter of Arabic science.”
 135

Platonic Ideas or virtual intelligible objects enjoy sufficient reality to power expres
sive music-dramatic moments, and it is not difficult to identify these and to discuss
their virtual intelligibility in significant depth.
This passage presents opportmity for comment on the syntactical function
(f=b b :D], where [Z)(dominant)=DOMINANCE], which in the above linear translation
reads {[Wotan’s hand-held broken natural object (n.)] DOMINATES (v.) [Nibelungs
(n.)]}. This default {D/d=dominance} usage with the ugly implications of minor-key
“d” syntax coheres with the syntax/semantics interface {SD/sd=subordinate}.
Keeping to F minor, {C:SD} or {C:sd} can syntactically modify the core metaphor
[C= INTELLIGENCE]; e.g., [C=genius], [C:sd=ignoramus]. The most basic expression
of'this is fF/f= GIANTS] where [Giant=dolt], Fasolt establishes this usage with “ein
dummer Riese” {#12S), and in lexicalizing uppity human fi’eedmen in F minor (#55 7)
Fricka likewise compares them to Giant-like bumpkins. Amusingly enough, she lexi
cally tonalizes “Wie thdrig und taub du dich sellst” (#79/) in [f=dolt] in token of her
resentment at being thought a Giant (=ignoramus) by her husband. This standard
tl}is-is-like-that strategy is how Wagner extends the meanings of his TL lexemes.
F minor is established as a bozo then extended by comparison to similar bozos. TL
thus permits protagonists to make innuendos and accusations. Such usage even trans
fers fi-om the Ring to Parsifal, as when Gumemanz’ query “Wirst deiner Stlndenthat
du inne?” and Parsifal’s “Ich wusste sie nicht” (Act I, bars 881-93) duly conjure the
“ignoramus” lexeme.
Since V MINOR IS IGNORANT it is natural that requests for ENLIGHTENMENT
—^honest questions {HI563 etc.)—take the form of modulations to C Major. In the
“battle of wits” scene {Siegfried, Act I) F MINOR IS IGNORANT permits Wagner to
bring this lexeme into telling interplay with Ftt MINOR IS CLEVER, GUILEFUL,
CUNNING, a usage inherited from Logo’s A Major Household to be described in
.detail in Chapter Five. Thus F minor is what the know-all Wanderer expects finm the
ignoramus Mime. What he gets however is F}t minor {HI552, etc.) when Mime
bypasses the generic “question key” and his Three Questions, H1563, HI576, and
HI583, instead use Loge’s F)} minor. As opposed to honest questions. Mime reveals
 136

his Loge-ish dishonesty’'* intended to confound the insufferable Wanderer’s

ostentatious wisdom, employ minor-mode augmented, fourth syntax to pinpoint the
precise opposite of the disguised god’s know-it-all C Major.
Some no doubt would claim this F-to-Fjt as a vindication of the “expressive
shift’’ theory that I shall be debunking in Chapter Five. Expressive shift has nothing
to do with it. Both F and F(1 have established their own lexical meanings and these
happen to be juxtaposed here. Besides, expressive shift theory is mute on the overall
coherence of Wagner’s interval-relationships. Thus apart from being a close-but-no-
cigar mimicking of an honest question Fjt minor is also the polar opposite of the
Wanderer’s C Major. Too-clever-by-half Mime’s modal and harmonic interval
syntax rnadvertently places him as far as possible from Wotan’s brilliance of mind.
Some Tonal Jokes. One crucial sign that a language has arrived is evidence
that you can joke in it. To take a break from linear translations then, the virginal A
minor just reminded me that, especially when they’re not having it, people think sex
IS funny, and that along with other TL lexemes A minor participates in what can only
be called TL joking. I hope I am not getting ahead of myself but a language must be
apt to real use by real human beings and, armed with our lexical entailment
hypothesis we are in a position to penetrate further into the virgin hinterland of
Wagner’s lexical usage. Nothing is less funny than explaining someone else’s jokes,
but Wagner strews his scores with very funny moments that have to be heard to be
appreciated, so it’s probably worth a try. Those who do not believe in the possibility
of a fully functional TL will naturally discount the notion that one could joke in it.
Those who are by now convinced might find the following lexical readings interest
ing and even fiinny.
One of Wagner’s tonal joking moves is comic contrast, as when Mime carps
about his life of endless and unappreciated toil {Siegfried. Act I, #1416, “Als
zullendes Kind”). The dwarf employs F minor in its default sense of “hard work,”
drudgery,” and “toil,” from [f=Giant, laborer], with perhaps a bit ofbozo thrown in.
A dwarfs use ofthe Giant’s key to convince an indifferent brat that he has borne this

’‘Discussed m Chapter Five. Further exanples include #1569 [fi=Mime’s hand (= his three
^ZZT#n7M^ (‘gab ich in deineHand'); #J570 [f=questions, honest] (‘drei derFlagt St
I,™! ’ “ (dull)] ( D rum frische dir. Mime, den Muth!'). That Mime is utterly at sea
heeissyntacicallycontodbyFtiminor-stonal dissociation from every otherS^ftelS^
ith respect to its immediate linear harmonic history the key here has no idea whaUs going on.
 137

humongous burden entirely for the sake of said brat is a piece of grotesque comic
exaggeration that drafts TL into the NL joking complex.
Again, HI422 uses the enharmonic C b as an acrid joke: Mime’s braggart “Mit
lichtem Wissen lehrt’ ich dich Witz” wants to assert C Major, whereas Mime’s
“wisdom” has more to do with things like #221, dark weapons; #239, dark mists;
#135, hidden purpose; and so on. In Cotterddmmerung, Vp, #2506, Cb also does
duty for C Major wisdom, this time referring to the nocturnal obscurity of Nomish
somnambulism.” Here the flat sign (b) appended to C MAJOR IS LIGHT also appears
to suggest that Mime wants a candle in his candelabra.
No catalog ofjokes however briefwould be complete without sexual humor,
and the “Hammer Song” {Siegfried, Act I, bars 1698-1717) is one of Wagner’s most
outstanding uses of low comedy in its depiction of the hammering of a sword as
machismo ravishment of a resisting but ultimately willing virgin. The text is funny
anyway but the tonal lexemes are a scream once one follows them back to their
earlier, not-so-furmy semantical precedents. Every key in it is composed as a straight
lexeme and ironic element of sexual mockery; thus:
• [J)=hammer, smith]: The tonic F Major (I), which makes use of its prior
lexical history as work, hammers, forging, bull-like strength, deeds,
robustness, and sexual desire, now stands in for both smith-and-hammer cum
ravisher-and-phallus.
• [g=blood; sparks]: G minor (F:ii) again shows here its dual lexical
citizenship with B b Major (Nibelungs) and G Major (Mother) which is its
defining characteristic in the context of Siegfiied’s adolescent home-life.
From its association with B b Major (F:IV) Nibelungishness it has acquired
an impressive history of Nibelungyires and sparks but also of defenseless
sprawling, abject submission, and shame - all personified in Mime, and here
feminized and transferred to the virgin sword that lies defenseless on the
anvil receiving the ravisher’s mighty blows. From this G minor acquires the
“blood” imagery which in the present context can only be a reference to the

"Instances like this, of which there are many in the Ring, constitute one of the valid but mote
restricted senses in which it is appropriate to speak of overt irony such as Dalhaus and Cicora would
like to use mote broadly, but can’t, owing to the prior claims of Wagner’s “Reminiscence"' and
“Foreboding,” the existence of which renders the concept too opaque to be usefully extended. For a
discussion of this see Chapter One above, pgs. 26-28.
 138

deflowered virgin’s blood staining the phallus. A second level of irony

denves from G M^or (F:I of ii), which was once Sieglinde and now carries
Siegmed’soedipal fantasies. This association makes the sexual imagery here
highly oedipal. The irony concerns the obvious ignorance involved in the
combmation of an oedipal rape fantasy with the appearance of a sanguine
image that cormotes virginity.
A minor (F:iii) plays the role of the ironically stand-offish virgin who really
likes It, as proven when her coquettish laughter belies her coldness.
C minor (F:V) is perhaps the most opaque key until we recall Alberich’s C
minor rape oftheRhinegold. Then its appearance to tonalize the hammerer’s
otherwise puzzling reference to “luck” (glUckf) becomes clear: luck has
nothing to do with the lexicon of forging but, in the lexicon of cads,
everything to do with seduction. The C minor ravishment-luck manifests
Itself in the splayed-out G minor lying on the anvil at the forger’s pleasure.
Somehow Wagner manages in Mime’s apostrophe to conjure a passing
reference to C Major (E:V) swords and to construct a neat syntactical
combination of F Major and B b Major to tonalize Fafiier as Mime’s foe, and
to C minor as poison from [c=water, liquid]. A more speculative reading is
C Major (F:V) to denote the aftermath of the F Major Fafiier’s death.
If this reading of the Forging Song is remotely right it makes this song one of the
funniest moments in the Ring.

IV. Building a Tonal Household: [E=a ppe a r a n c e ],

To get back to business, let us use the core metaphor E MAJOR is BEAUTY to
consider what kind of cognitive structure it takes to make this lexically intelligible.
For instance, in Das Rheingold {#64), a signature change to E Major signals the
Rhine Daughters’ ciy “Lieblichster Albe! Lach’st du nicht auch? In des Guides
Scheme wie leuchest du schSn.” The signature change is only intelligible if it has
acquired background metaphoric entailments in propositional form; e.g., “Alberich
sounds E Major” because ALBERICH LOOKS GREAT and E MAJOR IS BEAUTY. The TL
usage entails the imposition of an NL-type core metaphor E MAJOR IS b e a u t y with
the same cognitive structure as LOVE IS FIRE. Just as the one asks us to understand
the obscure experience oUove in terms of the more easily understandable;?^^ so the
 139

other asks us to understand the obscure experience of E Major in terms of the more
* easily understandable experience of beauty. And the reason E Major is now obscure
is that it has begun to function like a TL word. And since most poetic words subserve
metaphoric cognition the new ‘TL lexeme” does the same. Thus as FIRE becomes a
metaphor for LOVE so E MAJOR becomes a metaphor for BEAUTY. A shared cognitive
stracture renders the fact that one is a “key” while the other is a “word” irrelevant.
It is not what a thing is but how it is treated that makes it a word.^*
This is the general strategy by which Wagner made his lexical keys
intelligible. That such keys needed to be rendered semantically intelligible was given
by their new functions TL lexemes. As with NL words, lexical function is confirmed
by usage: keys become increasingly lexical and thus more semantically intelligible
the more they are used. That a key should become a word when it acquires metaphor
ic entailments by the same cognitive strategy as do prior words is a necessary real
ization for a lexical key to be intelligible. But is it a sufficient move? Consider this
parallel meaning: E MINOR IS UGLINESS. This meaning is established by usage even
earlier than E Major, at #20 [e=a goblin], ‘Alberich klettert mit koboldartiger Be-
hehendigkeit’, and #24 [e=repulsiveness], ‘Pruhstendhahtmeines Prefers Pracht!’
Here E minor scrawls its ugly signature across the kobold’s grotesque scramble up
the slimy rocks and his disgusting sneezing, which one can imagine is doing no good
to the Rhine Daughters’ bath.
In these instances we have an obvious pair whose semantic Affinity regulates
key relationship usage like this:

E MAJOR IS BEAUTY E MINOR IS UGLINESS

The Lexicon shows this pair to be paralleled by other related pairs, e.g., ATTRACTION
/ REPULSION; or KIN (FAMILIAR) / STRANGER (STRANGE); or WOOING / FLEEING.
Thus a complete description of E Major/minor lexicality requires a general model-
theoretic interpretation of what attraction, beauty, kinship, and wooing have to do
with each other and what all of these in turn have to do with repulsion, ugliness,
strangeness, andfleeing. Since the answer is intuitively self-evident we have already

”This is true of “words” themselves: the first words only became words vdien they were
treated as if they were words. This sounds like a logical tautology but it is not. It has nothing to do
with formal logic but everything to do with the “constitutive rules” of the language game, which
institute the conditions under which such entities as “words” become “facts.”
 140

penetrated a great distance into the mystery of what makes the E Major/minor
lexemes intelligible, which is to say, of its semantic or cognitive structure.
To make this structure real we must generalize Wagner’s TL in such a way
that It IS tolerably isomorphic with TL syntactical structure. This is because (per
Jacobsen, Chapter Two), each surface T-linguistic expression is directly assigned a
model-theoretic interpretation as a function ofthe meaning of its parts. Wagner’s TL
syntactic system is a recursive specification of the well-formedness of certain
linguistic expressions (the base step being the lexicon), and as the TL syntax builds
larger expressions from smaller ones the semantics assigns each expression a model-
theoretic interpretation. I use the general linguisitic term, syntactical-semantical
interface to describe the systematic behavior Wagner’s “lexical tonality.”
Let s consider semantical and syntactical structure separately. The latter is
describable in terms of constitutive rules, that is, rules that constitute “facts.” I need
to describe enough of these to permit a general description of “lexical key.” These
rules include at a miniTniinr
A TLLEXEME is a semantically meaningful KEY where a “key” is a syntactical
object. ■’

A KEY is an INTELLIGIBLE SCALE .and a SCALE is an INTELLIGIBLE PITCH

PITCH SETS are organized around INTELLIGIBLE TONIC ROOTS, which define
SCALE DEGREES as dependent variables of independently variable r o o t s
(hence, i.e., T/t, 2.3,4.5,6,7).
An identical ROOT may define either of two distinct PITCH SETS • Tonic Major
orT'omcmmorMODES.MODEisintelligiblydefinedonlybytheidentification
of major or minor scale degree 3. Thus MODE is proof against such terms as
modal mixture.” Since “mode” Thus a scale with root C and third o\ is
MAJOR despite the possible presence of“borrowed chords,” e.g ofAb Maior
or F minor. ^
An identical SCALE may define two distinct PITCH SETS: Tonic Major T or
Relative minor R SCALES, whose ROOTS are located at R;1=T:6.
Thus MY IS a GENUS regulating one of two possible SPECIES. Since any key
must be either Majororminor, only SPEClEScan be expressed as audiblekeys
in real time: GENUS is a background intelligibility rule.
KEYS are syntactically discrete despite the fact of “modal borrowing” (e g
a major key that borrows surface chords from its parallel minor remains
s^tacticallymajorthoughitmight present largely minor-like sonority). This
TL featoe is entailed by the functional division between surface sonority and
syntax described in Chapter Two.
 141

• Like NL words each must be intelligibly entered and exited. Thus strings of
music consist largely of strings ofkeys. Their intelligibility therefore requires
the participation of SYNTACTICAL INTELLIGIBILITY RULES sufficient to
exclude or at least severely limit other intelligible KEYS as possibilities.
(There are always gray areas in both NL and TL and these are always decided
by pragmatics.)
• “Non-functional” syntax is possible but rare between functional keys. Since
KEY IS LEXEME then “non-fimctional” only means NON-LEXICAL. Since
lexicality and syntax are not identical then non-functional harmony is still
syntactical; that is, continues to grammatically regulate the relations between
surrounding keys.
These rules and dependent subordinate syntactical rules are sufficiently structural
to make TL LEXEMES intelligible. How about semantic rules and stmcture?
This is where the virtual intelligible object becomes crucial. All of semantics
depends on the presence of unexpressed (background) cognitive structures that reg
ulate (constrain) the surface structures that are expressed. For instance, the simple E
MAJOR IS BEAUTY / E MINOR IS UGLINESS description above is incomplete because
it only describes two surface key SPECIES but does not describe their GENUS:

Genus E MAJOR
Species E Major E minor
beauty ugliness

The cognitive structure ofgenus, E MAJOR exactly parallels that ofgenus, TRIANGLE
in that neither can be completely represented as surface expressions. To be complete
any such expression must not exclude any of its members but, just as any possible
visualization of a token triangle must be either intelligibly right or isosceles, then any
surface representation must misrepresent the genus, TRIANGLE. It is only intelligible
not representable and thus is a virtual intelligible object. Similarly just as any token
key must be either intelligibly major or minor, then any surface expression must
misrepresent the genus, E MAJOR, which is thus a virtual intelligible object.
Further, just as to become lexical the surface syntactical units E Major/minor
must acquire model-theoretic interpretations, e.g., beauty and ugliness, so the virtual
intelligible object, E MAJOR, must acquire a virtual semantic interpretation, e.g.;
E MAJOR
APPEARANCE
E Major (I) E Minor (i)
beauty ugliness
142

APPEARANCE cannot itself be visualized but it controls the semantic relations

between the surface expressions beauty and ugliness that can be visualized. Thus its
model-theoretical semantic interpretation cognitively coheres with its model-theoretic
syntactical interpretation in classic categorial-semantic modular fashion.
To be complete the formulation above still requires the addition of the third
syntactical element, the relative minor. Relative minor semantics show less direct
connections to Tonic Major than do those of the Tonic minor, expressing semantic
antitheses, mapped in the usage suggested below;

E MAJOR
APPEARANCE
YOKING (BONDING)
INTEREST
REUTIONSHIP
E Major (I) E Minor (1)
beauty ugliness
wooing fleeing
attraction repulsion
kin (familiar) stranger (strange)
Cjt minor (vi)
substance
distancing
objectiveness
egotism
On evidence of lexical usage Wagner understands relative minor semantics as a
function Tonic Major scalar identity plus root displacement away (down) from the
tonic. It indexes a lessened or repulsed family resemblance, which may be why (vi)
lexicalizes;7roWe»js, developments, or synthesis generated out of dialectic between
(I) and (i). As a ‘Tonal Householder” it is like an orphan, poor relation, runt of the
litter, distant relative, or problematical interloper. Thus for instance I:vi is G minor
Mime the minion to B b Major Alberich the boss; D minor Freia the unwilling to F
Major Fasolt the ardent; B minor Melot the dirty rat to D Major Tristan his squeaky-
clean friend; B b minor Wotan the criminal to D b Major Wotan the magistrate; F ^
minor Loge the fraud to A Major Loge the solicitor; F minor Briinnhilde kicked out
of Walhall to Ab Briinnhilde Daddy’s Little let-me-pour-you-a-big-hom-of-mead
Darling. The relative minor builds vast coherence out of what at first appear to be
utterly unrelated moments. Thus A minor is Mime’s hare-brained schemes to
Wotan’s C Major Grosse Gedanken and Isolde’s averted glance to the blinding glare
of day because C MAJOR IS LIGHT and LIGHT IS EYE, INTELLIGENCE and Isolde’s
 143

eyes are half-veiled and not all the bulbs are alight in Mime’s pointy head. Note how
LIGHT generates and controls all of this, which is to rephrase the fact that C MAJOR
IS'LIGHT is the system’s core metaphor or Householder in the Tonal Household.
Wagner’s TL grammar exploits this metaphoric multivalence by treating
minor keys as homonyms—lexical units with shared phonetics but different seman
tics. In this case C tt minor is the I:vi of E Major but is also the Ei ofD b (C ) Major,

thus:
Db/Ctt MAJOR
, ZENITH, GREATNESS
Db/Ctt Major (I) Ctt Minor (i)
Authority. Charisma Constrained authority
B b minor (vi)
Tyranny
As confirmed by usage recorded in Appendix I the most typical means by which two
Households are brought into syntactical and semantic relationship is via the pivot
function of the minor keys, for instance this:

E MAJOR (I) rn minor (vi ofl) = CIt Minor (i of I) D b MAJOR (I)

Wagner treats the fact that minor keys syntactically pivot from household to house
hold as a categorical grammar factor: their semantics pivots in kind ^the standard
economy of linguistic means by which two parallel logics cooperate to generate and
rationalize meanings via the entailment axes described above. In Wagner’s scores
such axes routinely generate entire key sequences in linear order, each appearance
controlled by its lexical position in the overall constellation of affinity (The Tonal
Household, the syntax-semantics interface) that emerges as an artifact of real time
usage and that I call the Lexicon. A real and typical example of the E Major relative
minor occurs in Fricka’s attractive magic fantasy (JDas Rheingold, ii). Thus,
H200. [E=power of ornamental attractiveness] (‘Tangte wohl des gold’nen
Tandes gleissend Geschmeid auch Frauen zu schonem Schmuck?’)
#201. [ci=dominatrix] (‘Des Gatten Treu’ ertrotzte die Frau’)
#202. [E=magical jewelry] (‘trUge sie hold den hellen Schmuck’)
#203. [cl=female tyranny over the male] (‘den schimmemd Zwerge
Schmieden rilhrig im Zwange des Reif s’)
#204. [E=feminine cajoling] (‘Gewanne mein Gatte sich wohl das Gold?’)
 144

These five keys are all semantically and syntactically controlled fi-om E MAJOR is
APPEARANCES: Fricka interprets the Nibelung’s ring as an ornament that will render
her irresistibly attractive and thus secure her husband’s faithfulness. The idea of
“irresistible" imports the problematical factor into E Major beauty: beauty is a form
ofpower. This usage syntactically motivates the C}t minor modulations of #207 and
#203. However, the C ft minor semantics of #207 differs from that of #205. The first
indexes the power of the female, the second its entailment, the subordination of the
male. The reason for this interpretation is that we have just eavesdropped as Wotan
has built up his seemingly interminable Db Major fantasy of eternal kingship,
accomplishment, and social supremacy. Its undermining is indicated by thi
mmonzation of its tonic major. In Fricka’s fantasy this is to be accomplished by the
magic of appearances: the E:vi is the magic that will cut her husband down to size.
In Fricka’s world view Cff minor takes on a specific meaning: [ci=dominatrix],
Fncka’s Livia to Wotan’s Augustus; the woman standing behind the man. The entail
ment axis lies thus:

EMajor(I)-+ C(t minor (vi of I) =

C ft Minor (i of I) Implied -*■ D b (I)
Beauty Beauty as powet Diminution ofhusband Husband
(Through power ofbeauty)

This usage has long-range consequences too: in Das Rheingold, iv we shall see not
Fricka but Erda usurp this C ff semantics.
This IS a typical example of the minor key pivot Irom Household to
Household with its concomitant pivoting of semantic’meanings. Once these works
are subjected to linear harmonic analysis bar-by-bar, as here, we can assume a high
degree of confidence that this categorical semanticist-type procedure is driving
Wagner’s emerging tonal language. It is also helpful that unlike natural languages
whose ongins are obscured in the deep past, this is an artificial or art-language with
a clear beginnmg, announced and described by the inventor in advance, and
comprising a finite body of works in which the language is used. We can track the
process of syntactical and semantical dialectic on the most minute level, again
provided only that we have analyzed every key in the Ring in the linear order in
which they occur, according to a standard method that accurately reflects Wagner’s
shared common-practice understanding of key, and that we apply to the result a
 145

st^dard syntax-semantic interface concept. When we have done so we have satisfied

the implied prerequisites for intelligibility as suggested in Opera and Drama, and the
results of our translations become falsifiable public properties.

Minor Key Lexical Entailments: E Minor, Disease, and Bad Magic.

Once this concept is intelligible we can understand that E MAJOR is now free
to generate metaphoric entailments derived from the core metaphor APPEARANCES
and that such entailments intelligibly motivate the usage of the key, in particular,
determining where a key appears in the text. For instance, along the entailment axis
which Fricka has been kind enough to enunciate for us, E Major appears in all sorts
of contexts having to do with the beauty ofGods {U240)\ a marvelous image (§730);
vanitas, luxuriousness, voluptuous courting (§328); a pleasing picture (§2450); a
pleasing picture of narcissistic self-love (§246S); and in general with attractive
oty'ecJs; jewelry, trinkets, baubles; with healthy wooing, states ofbeauty, fascinating
strangers and their fascinating glances, states ofbeing attracted to something (usually
strangely or compellingly), and so on.” Contrarily E minor appears in contexts
having to do with the ugliness ofthings, e.g., e=ugliness proper(§1891); a disparaged
Appearance (§28); aged ugliness (§249); repulsiveness (§24); sickliness (§243; §250;

“Exanqjles ofthe beauty-appearance-light-magic-love constellation in E Major include §92

[E=wooing, winning a wife] (‘Um dich zuniWeib za gewinnen, mein eines Auge setzt’ icb werbend
daran,’); §197 [frivolous magic] (‘Ein Tand ist’s'); §200 [ornamental attractiveness] (‘Tangte wohl
des gold’nen Tandcs gleissend Geschmeid auch Frauen zu schonem Schmuck?’); §202 [magical
jewelry] (‘trflge sie hold den hellen Schmuck’); §204 [feminine cajoling] (‘Gewanne mein Gatte sich
wohl das Gold?’); §240 [appearance (of Gods)] (’neckt mich ein Traum?’); §328 [vanitas,
luxuriousness] {‘Die in Under Liifte Weh’n da oben ihr lebt, lacht, und liebt’); §360 [magic shape-
shifting] (‘He-he! Ihr Klugen! Glaubt ihr mir nun?’); §454 [fascinating female] (‘des Auges Stem
strahlt mich noch an; dutch eine Spalte muss ich’s erspah’n’); §662 [a joyful flash] (‘lustig lacht da
der Blick’); §730 [marvelous image] (‘Ein Wunder will mich gemahnen’); §745 [the Stranger’s
glance] (‘Doch demso stolz strahlte das Auge, wie, Hertliche, ehr dir es strahlt’); §916 [Love-child]
(‘von mir doch empfing sie ein Pfand: der Welt weisestes Weih gebar mir. Btflnnhilde, dich’); §981
[labor of love] (‘Wenn nach Lust ich focht, wie waren sie leicht! ’); §1296 [limitless love] C&eiestet
Liebe’); §J301 [Love (vs. will)] (‘Der deine Liebe’); §1303 [Trae Love] (‘ihm innig vertraut, trotzt’
ichdeinemGebot’); §1311 [Love-drink] (‘trank’st duladiend der Liebe Trank’); §1347[\ove-
greeting] (‘mein Gmss’); §1350 [Bridal Fite] (‘ein brautliches Feuer’); §1353 [Wotan’s Love]
(passim); §1360 [a kiss] (*mit des Lebewohles letztemKuss’); §1364 [Bridal bed] (“Er geleitet sie zart
auf einen niedrigen Mooshiigel zu liegen, Uber den sich eine breitSstige Tanne ausstreckt’); §1372
[bridal fire] (‘Hier bricht die lichte Flacketlohe aus’); §1638 [love fire, palpitations] (‘Das Qtiesein
und Grausen’); etc.
146

#2930; #2948; #3219); a sickly God {#2951; #2953); or impotence (which in the
honor-society context of the Ring world is taken as a species of ugliness) (#649).
Armed with these entailment axes we are in a position to answer meaningful
questions about how Wagner understands the world poetically. For instance, E minor
is Wagner’s lexeme for physical sickness. In locating disease here what is Wagner
telling us about the meaning of physical debilities in the poetic scheme of things?
That physical illness should be a minor mode is self evident; but here again the
specific minor tonic is overdetermined. In Das Rheingold the composer offers a
mythical etiology of disease. It is treated primarily as a monstrosity, a compoimd of
physical ugliness, impotence, and shame, as when Loge descants on the gods’
deformities in Scene ii (Sig. XXVn). To Loge the gods’ infirmities area above all
matters of looking bad and being helpless (#240, #243); thus sickness is the minor
mode of [beauty]; [E(i)=ugliness].“ This is coherent with the moral level character
istic of Norse Saga culture—or for that matter, of Old Testament culture—in which
the ugliness ofdisease (e.g., leprosy) is a visible sign ofmoral inferiority (dishonesty,
cowardice, sin), or in which monsters or dwarfs are ugly because they are bad and all
heroes are fair to behold.*’ The perceived affinity between evil, sickness, and bad
appearance is sufficiently intimate to guide formation of the popular lexicon of dis
ease. Thus referring to the medieval Irish texts of Sex Aetates Mundi, Anna Birgitta
Rooth notes that
The Irish texts show that after the enumeration of supernatural beings
follow abnormal or deformed human beings. In this context of the
origin of evil the concept of monsters and demons extends easily into
that of monsters in the sense of deformed, misshapen people who on
account of sickness differ firom the normal. Hence the transition from
monsters and demons to hypostases of illness or malformation or
defects is also obvious. Cain becomes the father, not only of
monsters, but also of all defective and deformed creatures. This line
of thought turns up once more in the Scandinavian material. Grattan
and Singer have collected material in Anglo-Saxon Magic and
Medicine p. 50ff, which shows that the demons were regarded as the
bringers of sickness. They sent their illnesses which, like arrows.

“[e=illness] carries over into Parsifal and Tristan as well, e.g., Parsifal, Act I, Amfortas’ E
minor “disease” aria and Tristan, Act 1, Isolde: “Von einemKahn, der klein und arm an Irlands Kusten
schwatnm, darinnen krank ein siecher Mann elend im Sterben lag,” etc.
“For this principle in relation to Alberich see, e.g.. Das Rheingold Sig. II, bars 232-331.
 147

struck down men. This appears, after all, from names for diseases
such as Elfshot, Hexenschuss, Alveskudt, Alvabl^st and ‘skott’
j (shots).®
To Wagner as to his mythic sources sickness is an elfish visitation. He is likewise at
one with them in understanding it as a state of transformation administered by the
numinous female, in this case Freia, the guardian of the tree of life and death.®
Sickness is also related to Freia’s Tree with its Golden Apples; the Tree that bestows
youth also withholds it (#253,'#259) and this partakes of [G=Tree (of life)] and
[G=down, nadir] and thereby asserts a TL version ofLakofF s orientational metaphor
SICKNESS IS DOWN.® Thus in this signature narrative Loge predicts that the gods will

drop dead in G minor, a fate that prompts Wotan to immediately decided to descend
to Nibelheim as if to barter one kind of down-and-out for another (#263, #264).
Again, such aetiological lexical usages are intelligible because Wagner con-
stracts them in a linear manner proceeding from the initial signatured core metaphor,
#64, whose signature “signs” the moment when the Rhine Daughters cry out how
beautifiil the dwarf looks in the glow of the gold. This stamps the key with the
lexeme [(positive) APPEARANCE. BEAUTY]. Wagner develops these images in the
earlier #58 (‘Des Goldes Schmuck’ [gold-magic]). Thus, BEAUTY is associated with
MAGIC, specifically MAGIC GOLD. According to the Rhine Daughters it is magical

“Lofa‘ in Scandinavian Mythology, p. 169.

“I e “The character of spiritual transformation is most evident in connection with
intoxicants, poison, and medicine. The feeling that he is transformed when he imbibes them is one of
the deepest experiences of man. It is significant, however, that such a transformation is expenenced
not as corporeal but as spiritual. Sickness and poisoning, drunkenness and cure, are psychic processes
that all mankind relates to an invisible spiritual principle, by whose action the personality is
(ErichNeumann, 77ieGreatA/ol/ier,p.60.)Thuswithrespecttothe“GreatMotherarchetype , The
negative intoxicant and poison—in contrast to medicine—and everything to leads to stupor,
enchantment, helplessness, and dissolution, belong to [the] sphere of seduction by the young witch.
InthenegativemysteriesofdrunkennessandstuporthepersonalityandcomciousnessMe regressiye-
ly dissolved’; poisoned by negative orgiastic sexuality, narcotics, or magic potions, they succumb to
extinction and madness. Here again, ecstacy is produced, but it reduces and dismte^ates the
personality; and for this reason sickness, considered a ‘negative enchantment,’ belongs to this sphere,
as does the pain that is inflicted in order to weaken, rather to as a necessary road to recovery [Ibid.,
p. 74.) Wagner follows this order ofreasoning—and its lexical tonality—throughout Tristan, the Ring,
and Parsifal.
‘"“HEALTH AND LIFE ARE UP; SICKNESS AND DEATH ARE DOWN. He’s at the peak of health.
Lazams rose from the dead. He’s in top shape. As to his health, he’s way up there. He/e« ill. He’s
sinking fast. He came down with the flu. His health is declining. He dropped dead.” (Metaphors We
Live By, p. 15.)
148

because it SHINES, that is, the magic is in its LIGHT. Since the Gold is LIGHT it has
the ability to conjure or alter appearances. The modality of magic is essentially the
modality of appearance; BEAUTY [E Major] is a form of APPEARANCE given by
LIGHT [C Major], Thus E MAJOR IS BEAUTY is dependent on E MAJOR IS
APPEARANCE, which is dependent on LIGHT, which belongs to C Major. In semantic
terms MAGIC derives from the Tonal Households of E Major and C Major.
Wagner associates E minor and E Major with appearance from the beginning,
with how things visually look and how their appearance changes. This is confirmed
throughout the Ring cycle, none more obvious thto the peculiar E minor-major
harmonizations of the magical Tamhelm that changes the appearance of things. A
tonalization of the human fascination with compellingly attractive (or repulsive)
objects, for instance the magical gleam of a woman’s glance or the glitter ofjewels
or the flash of coins. The fascination of such objects is the psychological node
through which Alberich’s E minor ring affects the other characters; simply put, the
ring is a glittering object that fascinates.
Wagner also tells us why it fascinates; it is a sexualized object, a focus for the
sublimation of originally sexual impulses into the general condition of being help
lessly attracted to or losing oneself in the contemplation of an Other. The relevant
keys emerge out of a primitive play of sexual attraction/repulsion—^the mutual at
traction of the sexes and their fascination with each other. Alberich sublimates this
aspect of life into an object that controls other people’s sense of the attractive or the
repulsive. This Is evident in every use of the ring’s power or every claim made by
characters about its power. In no case is the ring described as death ray that can
knock down walls or knock off people’s heads. Instead it is a dial that controls what
people are to be fascinated by or what they are to be repelled by, as the Nibelungs
find out when Alberich waves the ring and they find him so horribly repulsive that
they run away screaming (monster motif), or as Wotan fears when he predicts that the
dwarf will use its power to cause his own heroes to find the Nibelung’s cause more
attractive than his own.
When such scattered lexical entries are gathered together and assigned to their
appropriate key constellation in the Lexicon the thematic coherence of all this be
comes more obvious. Then it is possible to see why E Major tonalizes the Magic Fire
or the Wood Bird’s seductive song, which awakens Siegfned’s fascination with the
 149

unseen E Major sleeping woman. It does so because Wagner is using E MAJOR IS

a ppe a r a n c e is m a g ic as a venue to explore the psychology of human fascination

with attractive objects.

The composer’s concept ofE Major as MAGICAL BEAUTY goes back to Tann-
hduser, in which this psychology is personified under the aspect of the Goddess
Venus. The major difference between this initial exploration and the composer’s
development of E Major psychology in the Ring is that Wagner has dissected his
Love Goddess into her constituent psychological modules and distributed them on
his tonal anatomy table so as to probe the inner workings of the human fascination
with the generically beautiful.
s This is what I mean by “exemplary situation.” E Major is a tonal mbric under
which Wagner has found it convenient and systematically efficient to discuss
Cytherean psychology, the psychology ofthe attractive, and to mix this psychological
trtodule with other modules which he gathers together under the rubrics of the other
eleven major keys and their tonic and relative minors. Examples include the F Major
psychology of grasping, brute desire, holding on, owning, guarding one’s own, or
boveting; or the Db psychology of authority, power, accomplishment, and social
Ascendancy; or the GMajor psychology ofmothering, nurturing, and home-building.
I will discuss other such psychological categories as the need arises but these can be
mapped out by anyone with a psychological bent using the Lexicon as a base of

reference.
I

Household-to-Household Relations. Wagner’s internal Tonal Household

organization is consistent and rational. Lexical meanings depend from the major-key
Householder, who is essentially a core metaphor controlling entailment lines running
from {X'.I} to {X:i} and {2C:vi>, 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</2(5, #7575,#75/7,etc)
or minor (§1378; #1469; #1494; #1499, etc.) whenever no one is watching and to
relegate his own hand-me-down G minor for Siegfried’s use (#1394). Sneaking into
the Nibelung tonic major this way is probably the only way he can feel big and, in
this case, has the added attraction of permitting him to do unto Siegfried what Albe-
rich had done unto him.
Using this syntax/semantics interface formula anyone can work out its
applications through the other eleven Tonal Households to derive points of
intersection between two Households related by the interval of the minor third. This
formula for instance produces the relationship between the semantical variables
Wotan (D b Major) and Alberich (B b Major): ID b :vi = B^:i]. This is why Wotan
avoids B b minor like the plague, a fact that has not escaped the notice of Tuttle.®’
Again, in Die Walkiire, Act II (e.g. #S7 0), the key of Gff minor is the key of
Fricka’s humiliation, shame, and revenge. It is the key in which she turns on Wotan,
becoming his enemy. The logic of this key choice is strictly house-law or kinship-
driven according to the syntax/semantics formula given above. The goddess sees
herself as the rightful occupant of the A b Major Household that lexically means
“cup-bearer,” which is the dominant of Wotan’s D b Major, and thus the “woman

“ Note that the Meistersinger apprentices also comply with this lexical logic.
‘‘^Musical Structures in Wagnerian Opera, Cliapter Seven.
 153

behind the man.” Unfortunately Wotan has given this key to Daddy’s Little Darling,
the illegitimate B Major (Valkyrie) Brilnnhilde, who pours his mead for him and thus
usurps Fricka’s dignity. The Valkyrie thus holds both B Major and Ab Major—as
far as Fricka is concerned, one key too many. Thus Wotan has demoted Fricka from
At Major to {Abii} (Ab minor), a humiliation that enharmonically sharpens her
(A b =G lT>. 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 Briinn-
hilde 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) as-
discussed 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 betweenpemons-
Wagner’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"£ °P“°” have been
a mefllKsSav^tre ” *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 cross-
examination: 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.'*

P- As an additional referential level Wagner saw music itself as

wat cr ; thus
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.

' 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

JUS 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
 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
by the words “An Tiefe des Rheines” and their visual representation. The curtain
II 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-by-
step 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 T-
linguistically 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 three-
flat 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 Father-
Son-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, represent-
ahons 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 \> God-
image 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 (Luther), Kronas, CIRCULATIO)
^ t
3b ORIGIN b b b —* 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 Girdle-
stone’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 cross-
cultural 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 cross-
culturally 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 author-
physician 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 • sensitive, whereby

1795); “Tenderly lamenting.” (Culled &omKey Characteristics, pgS^f

See, e.g.. Lexicon, “c =ETERNAL WOMAN, THWARTED” for exan^les.

"Hayes, pgs. 179-80.

 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 half-
revealed 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 Konversation-
shefte, 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 hero-
harrying 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 (Bar-
barossa, 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 imagi-
nal 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 musico-
logical 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 Beliefs-
Psychoacoustic. 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 Dumpty-
confounding 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 <f hopes for Rhine Daughters Ï, or
Fasolt tf hopes for Freia ¥, shows D Major HOPE to be gender-independent.
 209

that hope; e.g., Wotan to Brünnhilde: “Du folgtest selig der Liebe Macht: folge nun
dem den du lieben musst” (#1321-3). The painful resonances of this usage reveal the
logic of D Major’s connection to B minor ©:vi), which forms the heroic key’s syn
tactical basement. The hope of the heart seeks its object, which becomes its doom.
Through the D Major Freia, Wagner articulates a deep-structured truth about
the Germanic myths. He had specified a Freia—^Hero axis as early as his Nibelung
sketch of 1848, stating that Freia’s Golden Apples (overt SUN images) had made
possible Sieglinde’s impregnation.'^ In this scenario the D Major progenitrix is not
Wotan but Freia, the patron goddess of ardent youth. This is straightforward mythic
reportage: Wagner’s major authority on Germanic mythic structure Jakob Grimm
records that the goddess was uniquely intimate with heroic humanity, going so far as
to embrace heroes in love: “She was married to a man called Odr, not a God, at least
not included among the Aesir, but who left her and whom she, shedding tears, sought
all over the world among alien peoples. Freya’s tears were golden, gold is called after
them, she herself is graifagr, beautiful in weeping.”'^ Her D minor tonality, which
she shares with Siegmund, and her D Major lexeme, which she shares with Siegfiied,
project this close coimection even into Wagner’s final scenario, for instance, when
Freia lends her “hero leader” key to Wotan, thereby sanctioning his adoption of the
D minor title of “War Father.” This too accurately follow Grimm, for “according to
the latest evidence, she appears warlike. She drives to the battlefield on a wagon
drawn by two cats, just as Thor drives with two goats, and shares with Odin in the
slain. She is called suprenKrhead af all Valkyries.”’’
A distinctive poetic “Freia complex” thereby emerges, constellated by D

'^“In the Wälsungen this hero at last shall come to birth: a barren union is fertilised by Wotan
through one ofHolda’s apples, which he gives the wedded pair to eat: twins, Siegmund and Sieglinde.”
(“The Nibelungen Myth as a Sketch for a Drama,” p. 303.)

'’Although the conçoser changed that,scenario for clearly dramatic reasons to make
Siegmund and Sieglinde children of Wotan, nevertheless (considering that the maternal line has to
have come from somewhere) there is nothing in the new scenario to prevent Freia from having partici
pated in the impregnation ofthe Twins ’ umiamed clan progenitor’s unnamed mother. In any event the
two accounts are not necessarily contradictory and such ambiguities ate typical of origin myths
generally (cf. Genesis and John).

'^Jakob Grimm, Germanic Mythology, p. 28. ^

'^Ibid. One may understand these “cats” capable of drawing a wagon and its driver as lions,
which were known by reputation in pagan Germany.
210

Major and comprised at the minimum ofHERO-GOLD-HEART-FELINE-SUN. By what

conceptual paradigm then does this poetic key constellation rationally relate to its
surrounding Tonal Households in the Cirele of Fifths? The link is straightforward:
Græco-Roman zodiac astrology, in which D MAJOR IS LEO, the Lion SI, the solar
hero whose simbeam sword slays the monsters of the world.
How then does this “Leo” poetic constellation cohere with all the other Tonal
Households, when these too are understood in terms of a cosmological sky-map? It
coheres so precisely that, armed with nothing but any popular sun-sign astrology
book and calculating by fifths from D Major (or any other key one chooses) either
dominantward or subdominantward, all the other zodiacal key constellations will
automatically constellate in their proper sequence accompanied by the appropriate
semajitic complexes.Thus anyone with a more than passing knowledge of
Wagner’s libretti (but not necessarily his keys) and a tolerable knowledge of sun-sign
astrology can use this formula to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, which keys
will accrue to which mythic characters.What is more, since the associations that
lead to this conclusion were public properties, this argument applies as well to the
entire common practice understanding of the meanings of keys. The poetic logic of
key characteristics was not specifically Lutheran, Catholic, or even generally Chris
tian but Græco-Roman and astrological. It was fed into the rapidly developing TL
poetic vocabulary of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by way of the rich
classical education and metaphysical paradigms that were part of the cultural
educations of the composers, theorists, and clerics in whose hands this development
had perforce been entrasted. It is “pagan” through and through.
In sum then, expressive shift and other non-lexical theories ignore the public
cultural property aspect of lexical tonality, and because of this D Major’s prior
common p ractice i ntelligibility r emains a c losed b ook. I nstead, r eliance o n t his
approximated non-lexical move becomes an autonomic analytical reflex that jerks

"Technically what constellates is these complexes. One infers from them the background
presence of these virtual intelligible objects (see Chapters Two and Three) as a cosmologist infers the
presence of dark stars by means of their observable gravitational effects.

’’For the record, the Tonal Household—to—zodiacal House/sign correspondences are:

Ek=Pisces R; Bi=Aric5 ‘Y’; E=Taurus Yf; £=Gemini H; G=Cancer SS; D=Leo 4; A=Virgo nt;
E=Libra G; B=Scorpio ITL; F¿/Gb.=Sagittarius Db.=Capricom 'A3:Al>=Aquarius iS. Anyone can
tenqjlate this structure onto the Lexicon, Appendix II below, to show how it reads out in real usage.
 211

without content whenever tapped for explanation.

II. Shifty God vs. “Expressive Shift”

characteristics then provided a basis for Wagner’s more linguistically
sophisticated TL lexemes. Such public cultural properties imposed a rough semantic
unity upon individual style, genre, and period differences, inclining baroque, rococo,
and romantic music toward a common TL vocabulary. The composer picked up not
only individual key characteristics but the classical TL syntax by which these were
organized into prototypical Tonal Households. By Wagner’s day related poetic •
characteristics were distributed across tonic majors, minors, and relative minors in
networks of three tonal centers bound by poetic affinities and affording empirical
reasons for organizing his TL theory accordingly.
Common practice and Wagner’s key relations controlled semantic meanings,
as where the keys in the E b constellation expressed coherent statements about placid
Versus raging waters, as in the Recitative No. 2 from “The Creation, which I
analyze using exactly the same assumptions, format, and procedure that generates the

tabulations of Wagner’s linear TL lexemes that comprise Appendix n.

Ex. Va: Haydn: The Creation, No. 2. “In the beginning” (Récit.)
C minor

iiTirF.ki ..................................... ........................... .........

1 i 1 1 viio7 1 ~~Vno7.,.._ 1 i 1 IVI=IV 1
1 the beginning IGod ere-1 ated the Heav’n and the- [Earth: 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 5 " 6 7

C minor
|i(c)
lIlI(Et)..............
IVIUBbil
1 i=iv |viio7 |iv=i 1
1 v
1 And the
1
____
lEarth was without 11 form ^___u__ 1
and____ Ivoid; 1 and 1 darkness I
8 9 10 11 12 13 14

C minor'
IKc)
|i/III(eb^..........
1 i 1 i IVI I 1 V 1 1 = 111 1
1 was upon the 1 face of the 1 deep. 1 CÄorus; And the 1 Spirit of 1 God moved up- 1
15 16 17 18 19 20
212

C minor
|I(c)..................... ......(=1/1)............
IIIUEk)
1 V 1 i 1 V 1 i 1 iv i liv V 1 V 1
1 on the face of the 1 waters 1 and God 1 said. 1 Let there be I light; 1 and there was 1
21 22 23 24 25 26 27

C minor
|I/i(C)..............................................................................................................................................
1 I 1 I 1 V 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 IV 1
1 light. 1 1 \Uri-. And IGod saw the I tight, that it was 1 good;and I
28 29 30 31 32 33 34

C minor
ni/i(Q......................................................................................................................................................
1 ii 1 V 1 V 1 1 II
1 God divided the 1 light from the 1 darkness 1 II
35 36 37 38

This is a good prototypical model for a typical Wagnerian Tonal Household. Some
peculiarities of this translation need justification. For instance in bar 12 the key
moftientarily dips from E b minor into B b Major only to bounce back into E b minor
again as if nothing had happened. If this were a Schenkerian or even an orthodox
linear harmonic analysis there would be no need for a B b key reading at all. It would
be understood as a transitory viio7W in E b minor. But this is a lexical analysis like
that used to parse the Ring. And if this were Das Rheingold the orthodox reading
would miss the point that nothing has happened or, rather, that Nothing has
happened: Haydn has coordinated a reference to void with the viio7 of B¿: bar 12
is a little spoonful of Nothingness ladled out of the cold porridge of the composer’s
tonalprima materia. The lexical question then is. What can be made ofNothing? The
chord that defines B b stands on one foot, the E b minor-denying octave a l| tone. The
notation above forces us to narrow our thought from the tonality level to the key,
chord, and tone levels like physicists shifting perspective from cosmos to quantum.
In lexicalterms what’s happening has shifted from lexeme to “form-meaning com
posite called lexical unit” from the primary definition in Chapter Four. And whether
considered as quantum or lexical unit Haydn’s VOID contains a strangely potent
variety ofNothingness, for this specific lexical unit for the first time refutes the entire
C minor-Eb Major-Eb minor key constellation that we’ve dwelt in since the
BEGINNING,in effect making CHAOS itselfVOlT>—a negative times a negative equals
a positive.
 213

Even for an alchemist this is a pretty elegant piece of prestidigitation. But

does this chord and “key’’ in fact mean what I am suggesting? For all of it would be
inexpressible and thus nonexistent in an orthodox analysis. Acceptance ofSchenker’s
retroactive reductionism appears to me highly hasty. It is not certain that even rococo
or classical composers understood their own tonal language as Schenker imagined
that they did. We cannot exclude the possibility that even to Haydn, let alone
Wagner, such ephemeral syntactical details as my imputed B b key were composed
into the linear text as semantical moments. If so then Schenker and his American
disciples have much to answer for as musicological obfuscators.
I want to devote this chapter to such key relationships, that is, to Wagner’s
‘Tonal Households,” the category by which he organizes his TL lexemes into similar
and contrasting poetic families. For instance, Loge is a typical tonal householder of
the type predicted in Opera and Drama. Like all the composer’s mythic personalities
Loge lives on two mutually reinforcing planes. There is the Loge of the libretto’s NL
and the Loge who comes to life in the TL of the score. Wagner’s lexical practice
opens the possibility that the music conveys information about the god not stated in
the NL text, and Loge lets us see how this works.
Given such a framework how are we to understand Loge’s complex dramatis
personae! If lexical tonality is a factor in Wagner’s TL discourse concerning Loge,
the most basic fact to ascertain is, does the god have a ‘ lexical key [^Loge]? We
may approach the question with reference to prior theoretical attempts to explain him.
I refer to the theory of the “expressive shift’^-featured in Warren Darcy’s accmmt of
Loge’s and Wotan’s rude interruption of Alberich’s liarahgueiDas Rheingold, scene
iii), specifically the abrupt B b minor—A minor semitone fall that characterizes the
gods’ intrusion into Nibelheim. Darcy accepts the lexical truism that Bb minor is
“associated with Alberich and the Nibelungs” but claims that “an ‘expressive
semitonal descent to [A Major] suggests the dwarfs downfall.”'* Expressive shift
theory interprets B b minor lexically and A minor as a mime-like actor making a
raspberry-like gesture at Bb minor that predicts its demise.” This idea exports a

'“Warren Darcy, Wagner’s Das Rheingold, Tp. 164.

'’Thus in key associatíon theory (of which my development of Wagner’s lexical theory) B b
minor is often associated with Alberich and Nibelungs in all four dramas; A minor however does not
"mean” Alberich’s downfall anywhere but here; strictly speaking the key itself means nothing, only
 214

profound incoherence to Wagner’s tonal language. Keys must be semantic units here
but not there. The question ofhow Wagner expected people to understand where and
why lexicality is irrelevant remains undiscussed and the incoherence imposed on
Wagner’s lexicality is reckoned a small price to pay for the benefit of explaining this
ephemeral semitone drop. Whether expressive theory is worth it depends on whether
it can be generalized more meaningfully than can lexical theory. The probability of
this may be evaluated when B minor is shanghaied into the “expressive” camp too:
B b minor is associated with Alberich’s power over his people, and
the “expressive” semitonal descent to A with his downfall... the rise
to B minor represents an expressive semitonal ascent from B b, as
Alberich summons his remaining strength and pronounces the curse.“
Yet in linear terms—the only terms in which a semitone drop can be expressive and
thus need expressive shift to explain it—B minor does not ascend from B b minor
here but falls from linear antecedent C Major, begging the question why B minor is
not an expressive downward shift relative to C like its predecessor A relative to B b.
No linear expressive moment exists to require explanation: B minor just happens to
be the key locate^, in the abstract, a semitone above B b minor wherever music is
heard (e.g., Schubert’s "Unfinished Symphony”) and since all keys are semitonally
related to four others counting parallel minors all are always fourfold expressive
shifts by definition. Keys are available to act as lexical referents or expressive shifts
of other referents at the analyst’s pleasure: the quintessential arbitrary theory.
The issue thus reverts to whether A Major is lexical and if so, what is its
referent? Darcy invokes a new lexical key, F ((Major, which he feels has something
to do with the non-lexical expressive shift, in Alberich’s and Loge’s contest of wits,
marked by ... diatonicization of the Loge music as it quickly flits
from one tonal level to another, almost as ifthe two protagonists were
disputing over the key in which their duel should be fought.
Ironically, Loge allows Alberich himseif to choose A major an
unfortunate choice for the dwarf; while closely related (through
modal mixture) to Loge’s Ft», the key of A represents a semitone
depression of Alberich’s B b

the fact of the semitone drop itselfis "expressive.”

“76W.,p. 187.

p. 177. Darcy refers here to Fÿ Major not Fit minor.

 215

Yet this description of the lexical F ){ Major and its syntactical relation to the shifty
A also has problems. In linear terms F (t first arises as an artifact of A and not the
other way around,^^ and Fj} Major is inaccessible to A Major via direct modal
borrowing, which can thus have nothing to do with their key relationship. The reason
is simple: their scales are incompatible, as appears here:
SO D
A Major « b ctl Ú
e fit gif a
Fit Major ftl gtt »It b . eft dt fit ....
T SO O
Syntactical incompatibility of A Major and Fj! Major Scales
Since neither the its tonic T, subdominant SD, nor dominant D are present in F}{
Major, A Major cannot “borrow” any key-defining material fi-om it. This is why the
keys are not closely related: F {1 Major disintegrates AMajor.^To move between them
via modal borrowing requires an intermediate step: F tt Major must modulate to F|1
minor, which flattens its ad, d|l, and ed tones to al|, dl|, and eliThis is the
classic indirect key relationship. In Wagner’s terms, they obey different “House
Laws” and to claim close kinship misrepresents the common practice understanding
of direct, indirect, and distant key relations.^
The acid test of whether keys are closely or distantly related is the expressive
use to which such relationships are put in common practice. We can test whether

“See Ex. Vc below, “Endlich Loge!” {#150). ^

“Perhaps Darcy got this from Amold^dtoenfeg (Sinictural Functions ofHarmony), who
used a private metaphoric spatial grid system of his oVn to rouglpand-ready key relationships onto
what he considered to be relative closeness of relationship. Thus,Schoenberg called the tonic
subinediant major (e.g., F |t Major relative to A Major) “indirect but very close” (pgs. 57-8). For a
deconstrùcüon of Schoenberg’s inoperable metaphor system and an argument as to why his claimed
key relationships are roughly inverted from the material facts see my “Spatial Metaphor in
Schoenberg’s Harmonic Theory: A Case of Theoretical Frame Conflict.”

” A crucial fact about Wagner’s TL grammar emerges from this: that differing mode makes
for different Tonal Household. This is important since much Wagner analysis features sloppiness with
respect to identifying mode, which is not surprising Since Wagner often omits the tonic chord while
freely employing modal borrowing for secondary chords. Thus to identify mode often requires tracking
accessory passing scale degrees or by observing a second principle ofWagner’s tonal practice: a pitch
remains in “memory” and thus in force until cancelled by a chromatic alteration. Thus for instance the
d I) left over from a prior appearance of D Major remains in force to identify its successor B minor
even if it does not literally appear within the, conqjass of the new key. Finally, one may often identify
mode by sequential pattern, as in the Loge pattem of b:V-VI // (c¿):V-VI // (d¿): V-VI... below,
where the paired V-VI major chords entail minor, not major, constituting keys.
216

such practice understood these keys to be close or distant relatives. Consider Haydn’s
treatmentoftheCMajor-to-AMajor(equivalenttoAMajor-to-F)t Major)relation
ship in The Creation (No. 2: “In the Beginning” to No. 3 : “A New-Created World.”)
In contrast to Darcy’s and Schoenberg’s unargued declarations of close relationship,
Tovey argues “contrast” and shows exactly how this is expressed:
Without any explanatory modulation the C major gives way to A
major, as (with due explanation) in the first movement of Beet
hoven’s C major Quintet, Op. 29, or as in the G major-E major
schemes of his three Trios, Op. 1, No. 2 and Op. 9, No. 1; or again,
as in the B b-G major schemes of his Trio, Op. 97, and his Sonata,
Op. 106. Some of Haydn’s greatest symphonies, quartets, and trios
show the same or similar key-relations, with the same brilliance of
contrast.
Uriel. “Now vanish before the first conunand. The gloomy
laws of ancient night. And light doth rule the world. Let chaos end,
and order must prevail.”
But suddenly our A major is brought into contrast with the C
minor of Chaos. “So Hell’s black spirits seek the realms below, they
sink to deepest abyss where light cannot come.”
The symphonic balance of keys is restored in favor of A
major, and here is Haydn’s notion of the new created world.^^
Haydn understands the tonic major/submediant major relation to index not closeness
but of separation—so total a break that to invoke the latter immediately after the
former is to announce a literal “new creation” by bedrock key-defining scale-degree
transformation logic. C Major’s transubstantiated tonic c ^ ceases to exist, pulled
upward with subdominantf¡I and dominant g ^ io c tf,fjf, and g Its fifth degree rises
to the A Major leading tone and further upward toward resolution into its new tonic
A. Every definitive element of C Major vanishes into the glorious blaze of its
successor; hence, “new created world.” Modulation from Ç to A places the key of
derivation in the unenviable position òf those,unfprtunate pianistic rivals of Franz
Liszt, ofwhom a wag once wrote that “when Liszt appears, other pianists disappear.”
Nothing syntactically changes between Haydn and Wagner: the latter simply
takes up Haydn’s straightforward grammatical logic and runs wjth it, using it to
define with Euclidean precision the relative degrees of similarity between tonal
Households. Haydn employs hia tonal syntax in the manner of catégorial grammar

“D. F. Tovey, “Haydff. ‘The Creation’,” p. 26, my italics.

 217

theory mentioned in Chapter Two; that is, “each (surface) linguistic expression is
(directly) assigned a model-theoretic interpretation as a function of the meaning of
its parts.” Such model-theoretic interpretations include the assignations of c to
DOWN, SINK, and ABYSS; C-to-A to VANISH; or A to NEWNESS.“
From this it is evident that Fi is irrelevant to the appearance of A Major
where it does. The explanation is instead lexically straightforward: A Major is Loge
on the same grounds that B b is Alberich. The modulation is there because Loge (PÇ)
confronts Alberich (B\>V-Boo! Since both keys are lexical “expressive shift” hasno
theoretical work to do. Darcy does not conclude this because he believes that
[Fi=Loge]. Yet the linear history of A records the lexical associations in detail. The
key is prominent in a passage that Darcy considers otherwise lexical: Freia’s “Vom
Felsen drüben drohte mir Fasolt, mich Holde kam er zu holen’* (fromyon rock Fasolt
threatened to take me away), and Wotan’s continuation, “Lass’ ihn droh’n! Sah st du
nicht Loge?” (Let him threat! Have you seen Loge?). Darcy correctly claims D
Major for Freia and F Major/minor for the giants:
Each key possesses “associative” or symbolic meaning. D b Major is

^*Theproceduie’smtelligibiUtydependsonapragmatic6ameworkwithmwhichFLATTENlNG
IS SINKING and SHARPENING IS RAISING. The question of why this should be necessary is a separate
theoretical issue independent oftonal semanticsper se and is only answerable in terms ofa synesthetic
TL pragmatics. The phenomenon is what Scmton (T^e Aesthetic Understanding, pgs. 80-1) means
when he observes that “If someone heard those sounds as high which we hear as low we might...
wish to deny that he heard the same tones as we do. For him the opening b^ of Rheingold fall slowly
from a great height; for us they rise from theiepths of the universe. Is this not, musically speaking,
the greatest difference imaginable?” The /owness'dffiindamentalbasses is not metaphoric but a matter
of raw perception. This is coherent with the findings of earlyxhild development studies. Marfa,
Hammeal, and Bomstein {Perceiving Similarity and Comprehending Metaphor, pgs. 2-3) describe the
phenomenon in terms of a generalized synesthetic neural pairing between the senses of sight and
heating: "A small portion of the population claims that sensory and perceptual experiences in one
modality assume qualities normally deemed appropriate only to some other moiklity. Often, for these
‘ synesthetic’ individuals, as they are known, sounds take on qualities ofsight, being described not only
as loud or soft, high pitched or low pitched, but also as dark or bright, small or large, solid or stnped,
rounded or angular___Synesthesia carries special interest because there is evidence that it represents
something much more general, perhaps even universal, than an idiosyncrasy peculiar to a small
number of people. Rather than being ’abnoimal,’ synesthetic perception may rest on a universal
undercurrent of cross-modal equivalence.” Among the many pieces of evidence that seemmg
metaphors like "high note” or “bright tiny sleigh bells” ate actually directly perceived synesthetic
neural mappings between sight and hearing is the fact that small children report short-wavelength
pitches as being bright, small, and high and long-wavelength pitches as being dark, big, and low be/ore
they have acquired the linguistic skills to manipulate ordinary metaphors. For further readings on
synesthetic and metaphoric perceptions see Sheldon Wagner anà Ellen Winner, Metaphorical
mapping in Human infants,” and Stella Vosniadou and Andrew Ortony, “The emergence of the literal-
metaphorical-anomalous distinction in young children.”
218

associated with Valhalla ... F minor/Major is the key of the giants

. . . F ÿ symbolizes Loge and his magic fire. Both E minor and D
major are connected with Freia..
These associations duly appear in his analysis, permitting him to correctly claim the
“holen” chord as an augmented sixth misspelled to lexical purpose:
The “correct” spelling of this chord is c-e-g-a}t ; Wagner respells the
alt enharmonically as b b in order to suggest the V7 of F major, the
key of the giants. The preceding chord (m. 931) is viio7W in E; the
bass a(i is also re-spelled as b b
Just so. Yet somehow lexical courage fails at the edge of discovery. An orthodox
linear harmonic analysis of this passage is as follows:^’

Ex. Vb: Das Rheingold, scene ii

E minor
|e(i=v/IV)...........
¡d(iv/IV)'
|F(VWV)
1 viio7 1 VI=V 1 iii7=vii7 1 viio7...... 1....... 2=7 1
\Freia: Vom IFelsen drüben Idrohte mir Fasolt, Imich Hoi — 1 - de käm’ er zu 1
#9S [e=repulsion] #96 [d=Freia threatened] #97 [F=Giant threatening]

E minor
le(v/IV)
|d(iv/IV)
1F(VI/IV)............ .......................... //
|A(I/IV) //©.........
1 A6=V7 1 V7 // . 1 1 V7 1
1 holen. 1 Wotan: Lass’ ihn droh’n! Sah’st du nicht 1 Loee? 1
m [A=LOGE]
Had the associative argument proceeded two more bars it would have discovered
“Sah’sgt du nicht Loge!” in A Major, a lexeme present by the same logic that proves
[d=Freia] and [F=giants]. Yet the assumption that “Logo’s key” is Fÿ Major forces
a confession that it “sometimes sounds as slippery and elusive as the fire god

Wagner’s Das Rheingold., 130.

^‘Ibid., p. 140n.

^*1 wrote this E minor-signatured passage in terms of A Major to show how the A Maj or tonic
controls the other keys more closely than E minor at least for these few bars. For instance, D minor
is inaccessible as a tonic based on the E minor scale, whereas it is the orthodox iv of A Major. In Ex.
Vd, however, thokey is D Major, which permits E piinor easily to control the local background
tonality.
 219

himself’ and that by the end of the episode “has almost completely disintegrated.”’“
To test the need for “disintegration” here is a linear harmonic analysis of Loge’s
opening bars, including those of its tonal preparation:

Ex. Vc: Das Rheingold, Scene ii

A minor
km
1GÍVII)..
1 IV=III 1 III 1 III 1 i IV 1 V 1 1 1
1 1 Wotan: Halt, du IWilder! INichts durch Ge- hvalt! I ver - 1 trage I
ttl46a [a=bad bargain (treachery)]

A minor
|a(i)...... n =A(I)...............
iBbfbin//. . . . . . . .
1 i//ii..... 1 ii |IV I=bII| I 1 I V 1 I 1 viio7 1
IschQtz meines ISpeeres ISchafl; 1 Ispar’ deines Hammers i Heft! I Freia\ Wehe! |
#I46b [B blower, spear, c? ] Iti47 [A=Loge, bargain upheld] {pedal a)

A minor
|A(I)... //..................... :
.....// :
ibfii) :
1 I=V 1 VI 1 iix7 1 iix7 1 // viio 1
1 Wehe! 1 Wotan ver- Hasst mich! Frìcka: Be- Igreif ich dich noch Igrausamer 1
{pedal a}::::;::;;;:;;;:::":"
U148 [d=Freia]

A minor HA Maior '

|A(I).. li ©!!.................................................
|b(ii) :............ ... Il. . . . . . . . . . "
|c|l(iii) II //......... // Í
IdU II f!. . . . . . . // i
led II //. . . . . . . . . . . // >
e ......r‘Jl
|I=VII 1 A6 IIV VI IIV VI I//V VI // V VI 1//V(nt) IWVI 1 VI
IMann? 1 Il 1 II 1 Endlich Loge! 1
(wholetone minor-key sequences controlled from A)
UÌ49 [b=cncmyl #/5<t[A=LOGE)

A Maior
|A(I)................... .............. //
n.....................................................................
1 V IKbli) 1 l(bll) m (ntx4) II 'vi 1 I V____ L
1 1 1 1 Eilstest du so, Iden du geschlosen, den Ischiimmen Handel zu |
(Trills) mSI (FÌ=FLAME, flicker, flash, bustle, activity]
f

^°/óííí.,pgs. 148-9. f
 w

220
A Major
1A(I) ©!!. I
|FK(I/vi)...// i I
lC|t(V/vi) : t l(=c|t=iii/I)..
IF I) (VIT)
|Eb t
|DI>
1 i=mi i//i^=bIII//I=bIII I//I=tlll//I=l. II=VVI&I V............... 1
Ischlichten? 1 liojje: 1 Wie? Welchen 1 Handel Eätt’ ich ee 1
(wholetone sequences controlled from A[©]) #152 [c£(dF)=Walhall uninteresting]

A Mainr
|A(I)
|F|t(I/vi)
IV............... 1 I II II fntx41 1 I vi II V 1
Ischlossen? 1 1 rWohl was mit den IRiesen dort im 1 Rathe du 1
#153 rClt=Wotan’s (not Loge’s) bargain]

A Mainr
|A(I)
lF|t(I/vi)
ICtIfV/vn..................
1 I irvi V 1 I II............. V IVI=I IIV I V 11................. 1
Idane’st ?l In 1 Tiefen und IHöhen treibt mich mein 1 Hans: 1 J__Hausund 1
ni54 [A=LOGE]
A Major
|A(I).....................:
IFlifVn :....................................................................................
1 I V 1 VI=I IIVIIVII V II V I V 1
1 Herd behanet mir 1 nicht. 1 1 Donner und Froh, die 1 denken an Dach und 1
#755 [F=desire, natural wooing]
AMaior IIDb Maior
|A(I) II
|Ctt(Vofvi) 11 = 1
IFIlfVn.................................................................................... IMofiii.
1___Ü____ V 1 I 1 IV I IV II I 1
1 Fach, wollen sie 1 frel’n, ein Haus — 1 muss sie er freu’n. Ein stolzer 1
Db Mainr
|Db(I) :...............................................................................................
Wiii)..... ••'
1 i=iii 1 V 1 etc.
1 Saal, ein starkes 1 Schloss... 1 etc.
ni56 [Db=WalhalI]

Loge’s entrance is prepared via Wagner’s usual lexical moves. Donner’s hammer has
bèen arfested just before impacting against Fafoer’s recalcitrant dominant C (which
despite signature-appears not as tonic but as G:IV), restoring the giant’s threatened
 221

fjf through the agency of the spear’s descending diatonic scale,and continues past
the Ç root to a;V, confirming the signature key as A minor, not C Major. Wotan’s
“Nichts durch Gewalt!” implies the alternative (e.g., [a=treachery], Loge’s country)
via the a;V pedal. This smuggles in Loge’s lexical A by way of its tonic minor.
“Speeres Schaft” gives the B b Major (a: b H) whose associations to Spear-point have
proceeded through Scene ii via the standard [Bb=power (Mars)].” There follows a
nine-bar tonic A-pedal that subsumes Freia’s self-referencing D minor “Wotan
verlässt mich!” within the tonal logic of Loge’s extended V-I confirmatory cadence,
dissonantly persisting beyond the chord change as ifto insist on its proprietary rights.
The humbug’s long-delayed entrance motivates a signature change to three
sharps, not the six required to define F }t Major. In fact, F )1 Major is nowhere to be
found, either before, during, or after. The ensuing F }t major chord is not syntactically
a tonic but the dominant of an orthodox B minor A6—V half cadence justified by
Fricka’s indignant “grausamer Mann!” that again casts Wotan as her enemy per her
earlier B minor “O lachend firevelnder Leichtsinn” and for the same lexieal reason,
-e.g., the equally orthodox [b=enemy]. The texture reduces to three parts, the upper
voices deceptively resolve the b;V to b:VI, freeing ihsfft bass to function as an
implied pedal stabilizing an ensuing chromatic sequence that rises through six keys.
Deceit runs roughshod over every syntactical element. Thus, though the chord
progressions are chromatic and the surface sonorities majorthe syntax is whole-
ione and the implied keys minor—from A;V-I to b:A6-V-VI to c¿: V-VI; d¿: V-VI;
'bit=fii :V-VI: g:V-VI—a tonal stutter^at returns us to A:V, i.e., LOGE, whose lexical
key thereby control this chromatic sequenceTjeforelhe lexical tonality bounces back

^'In the Ring as in the Magic Flute the key of G often stands for the trivial, small, of light
weight (for G in the latter see Chailley, The Magic Flute, Masonic Opera, e.g., p. 188). This usage
says that Donner’s threat is not to be taken seriously, particularly considering that the braggart Q can
not even hold onto its own leading tone here. Still, since in Wagner’s common practice tradition the
sharp |i was specifically durum (hard) while the flat b was molle (soft; see, e.g.. Accidentals in The
Harvard Dictionary ofMusic, pp. 7-8), Wotan’s divestment of Donner s threateningy^ in favor of
fit must have been a great relief to the F Major Fafher. The same scale-degree syntax, incidentally,
explains why a D Major hero can clobber an F minor monster but not the other way around.

“For which see my “The Genealogy of Chaos.”

“Because the initial key is marked as B minor via Fricka’s d only minor keys possess two
unbotrowed major triads a semitone apart, and (via standard syntactical preference rules) unborrowed
chords are more key-definitive than borrowed ones.
222

up to Wotan’s key to trivialize the boss’s real estate deal with enharmonic sarcasm—
Ci for Di, as if to suggest that Wotan LIGHTEN UP.^'* The F }t Major chord that kicks
off Loge’s three-sharp signature thus functions as ab:V intmder obscuring the tme
tonic A. Nonetheless it does not deceive Wotan, whose “Endlich Loge!” reimposes
A Major via A;V, thereby definitively fingering his shifty stooge. When all the
fi-audulent chromatic flurries are stabilized by the dominant pedal implied by his
boss’s bass e and resolved to A as the orchestral voices begin trilling oncff,e l¡, and
a I tones, we too can recognize what Loge would have us miss, that his A tonic in
first inversion has already been achieved two bars before “Eiltest du so”, just as his
lexical A Major was achieved two bars before he handed us his signatured business
card.^^ In other words, the humbug is always just two bars ahead of us.
Granted such syntax Loge’s motif is deceptive on every level (cadence,
surface sonority, background tonalities), which is surely its point. It works, too:
witness the ease with which analysts fail to find the humbug’s lexical tonic, iconized
though it is for all the world to see and harmonically controlled by A minor/Major
for at least twenty bars. The result of the surface (not syntactical) deceptions is to
destabilize tonics and background tonal path by sheer speed and chromaticism while
retaining orthodox functional syntax that never departs from a as a guide tone.
What then is the function of Loge’s fictive F ft Major, which finally obtmdes
at “Eiltest du so ...” nôt as a dominant but as a legitimate key only to collapse back
into A? Wotan’s implied criticism of Loge’s vacuous athleticism and empty haste
shows thiç key to be simply the bright, obscuritanist veneer of mock-purposeful
physical bustle and slippery words that Loge wears over his more humdram A Major

“In another incarnation Loge would appear to have been a grad student instructor of Jacques
Chailley, who wrote regarding the psychological difference between F tt Major and G t Major that “By
the play of key signatures .. .•numerical symbolism involves te symbolism of tonalities. The reflex
is visual and speculative much more often than auditive, as tonalities heard as identical are ençloyed
in different senses according to whether they are written in sharps or in flats... I had the experience
ofgiving students for comment the chorus ofCésar Franck’s Sixtieme Béatitude, which Vincent d’Indy
praised for the ‘scintillating clarity of the key ofF-shaip major’—bpt after I had copied it out in G-flat
mhjor (which is exactly the same thing to the^ear). All of them, without exception, then spoke of the
veiled, inward, slightly grey sweetness*...’’ (The Magic Flute: Masonic Opera, p. 160 & 160n.)

“Any doubt about the tonic of these prestidigitational trills may be eased by comparing them
with the ensuing “Wie? Welchen Handel hätt ich geschlossen?” which tonicizes C)t Major (Loge’s
sarcastic perspective on Wotan’s KlopStock-like D b ponderosity). The joke is that here Loge sets us
up for another brilliänt “I of vi” .splash and then delivers “Walhall” in the same key after all-
dishwater for champagne.
 223

self” Thus BUSTLE IS FLAME. The context in which F Major appears suggests
special meaning for the type of fire the key represents: FLAME, FLICKER, FLASH; that
is to say, FIRE not as consuming ffiction (as BbNibelheim-fires) or wanning and
inspiring (as D Major fires) but as DAZZLING AND BEWILDERING. Put in the concrete
terms Wagner always insists on, F }t denotes not heat or combustion but flame proper,
that is, the appearance of fire.” Since F ÿ often appears with this lexical meaning in
contexts having nothing to do with Loge, we may note the numerous lexemes having
to do with dazzling, flicker-ing, or illusory insight where the Fire God cannot be
understood as the direct cause. Fÿ IS FLAME is a meaning-in-itself and obeys its own
laws whether appropriated by the thief or not.
And here are the “disintegrated” closing bars of the first Loge episode, in
which Darcy correctly perceives the absence of F It Major:
Ex. Vd; Das Rheingold, Scene ii
A Major___________ _________ ____________________ ________ _______________ —
lAft) .. .................................................................................................
lb(H). . . . . . //
IfII (Vi)
I viio
//. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
// I viio
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r- - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¡- - - - - - - - -
I viio I----------------------------------------------------3212---------L-------- —------ ;--------------------

lLo2e:Dutrme! I Wm - In IFrieden lasst mir den IFreund! Nicht ------- |kennt ihr Loge s—]-------------
ni65b [^enemy] #l66ab [£ä.=Loge threatened/A=LOGE, bis “Art” (power)]

A Malor
1A(I)....
1111 etc.
1E(V)
lc¿(iii)
H=IV I_______V______I iHv I V I Vl-lV I V____ 1
L_L_ IReicher Iwiegt seines IRathes IWerth, Izahlter Izögemdihn aus. Ute.
IKunst:
#l67abc: [E{çi:IIIÎ=Wotan, Loge’s dominator (doniinant)])^

F}t Major is absent because Loge’s lexical key is A Major. “Nicht-keimt ihr Loge’s
Kunst” again claims [A=Loge] via A:viio7-V7-I and “reicher wiegt seines Rathes
Werth” the value Wotan places on Loge’s A Major skills, before moving to the
standard A:V, through which Wagner often exits his signature keys. This cadential
segment builds the A Major triad A— cl—E not as scale degrees but as background

“Curiously Darcy identifies Loge’s diatonic A Major without, however, identifying it with
Loge. In his person Loge is as diatonic as twinkle-twinkle little star.

”A parallel from astrological thinking appears in Evangeline Adams: “Sagittarius, Ae last

of the fiery si^, is not so much fire itself as the reflection of fire.” {Astrology: YOur Place in the Sun,
p. 130.)
224

keys: Loge is A Major before, during, and añer.^*

Loge’s A Major/minor Nibelheim performance reconfirms that Wotan’s
surreptitious subordinate is the guardian ofan A Major “Kunst.” Once Loge’s lexeme
is located, the disintegrations of his F }t Major party clothes are only to be expected
as Wotan draws the tonal rope aroimd his henchman’s neck. In their final meeting in
Die Walküre, Act HI, Loge’s erstwhile partner in crime tightens the noose for good:

Ex. Ve: Die Walküre, Act III, Scene iii

D Major________________________________
1P(1) • empty
litt (iii).....©
llg(© ....
II VI=V 1 i 1 iix7 1 V VI 1 V VI 1 V VI IV VI 1
1_________ 1______ \Wot.: 1 Loge hör’! I I lausche hieherl 1 Wie zuerst ich dichl
#1365 [fit=Loge threatened] #1366 [g=Spear’s brute power]

D Maior
lg(iv)...................... . //
|a(v) //©......
IV VI// L V VI IV VI _ 1
Ifand, als feurige 1 Gluth, wie dann einst du mir | schwandest, als schweifende 1
#1367 [a=Loge, primitive slippery fire]
D Maior
|a(v)..// © =A(V)
Ib(vi)//.........t........ ....................: 1
|Ctt(I/viio)
1 V lili 1 iv=iii 1 I (4nt) 1 I V 11 VI
ILohe; wie ich dich Iband,—
Ibann* ich dich IheutMHer- lauf, wabernde \Lohe. i
#1368 [^oath, bond, curse] #1369 [Çi(Db)=Wotan, king] -#1370 [A=LOGE]
D Maior i
|A(V)......................
|ctt(i/viio)
IVW (4nt) 1 I Y__________________ 1 I(pc)V 1..........
I IUIV& 1 & bIlV=III|
1 um - 1 lod’re mir feurig den | Fels! | 1 Loge! 1 Loge! Hie -|
#73770 [£i=Wotan]

^®Here it also establishes the lexically requisite deceptive cadence to C and F to peimit
Fafher’s exasperated “Nichts gezögert! Rasch gezahlt!” and Fasolt’s rectificatiofi to d:V for “Lohn,”
the latest in an innumerable series ofD-based Freia references. With respect to the lexicality of E, the
words are about Loge’s usefulness to Wotan as a servant. E is Loge’s dominant änd anyone who wants
to control him must control this. In this case Wotan controls E from c¿ (The Db.:i—Wotan is acting
“beneath himself’) and earlier through the repeated spear-cadences on the Loge-controlling A:V. We
have seen this before (Chapter One) in connection with Lewis ’ use of the Tristan Prelude as evidence
for the claim that orthodox tonal practices require a “double tonic conçlexes” or “expressive shifts”
to explain isolated dramatic moments. It is in fact a tonal commonplace.
 225

IIE Malor

// . // 11 :
//............ 11.............. :

III IV VI |& I//WI 1|IV=I 1 etc.

I hier! wII1I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UI37Ib [a=Loge, imprisoned]
Loge finds himself compressed into a concentric circle, O: [D=SUN, circular Fire],
lexically connected with Solar Hero Siegfried. D does not appear as a key: Freia’s
former Household awaits a new purchaser. Wotan builds the scale of D Major by
generating tonics that mark each of the Householder’s scale degrees save D and
E__^the latter appears in signature immediately after in token of [E=Bride]. Each has
acquired prior lexical meanings: F}t minor and A minor triangulate to Logo’s A
Major; [g=power (here the Spear)]; B minor, the key of curses and oaths.^’ At this
moment Wotan pronounces his B minor oath (curse) upon Loge. In doing so Wotan
conjures his own D b Major in enharmonic C H Major garb of lightning. At the sound
of his name Loge and his lexical A Major duly appear, only to be transfixed by
Wotan’s Cÿ, this time minor as the humbug’s boss pours on his power, bending
Loge to a circle—an act that minorizes him back to primitive flame-state once and
for all. Wotan heads off all escape thus: IjC ft—a —C jt ||. Like some fabulous wild-
west hero. Marshal Wotan has Quickdraw McLoki surrounded at last.
Loge’s lexeme then is A- We have derived it by squeezing expressive shift
between lexicality and humdrum modulation until it loses independent meaning. Its
appearance as Loge pops down Alberich^himney is only to be expected on lexical
grounds that would be valid even had Alberich'soine^ther key. Since Bb-to-a
(a:IIb—i) is orthodox modulation and all modulation expresses something,
“dxpressive” proves redundant. Its husk collapses to normal TL lexical practice and
with this observation we may turn to more detailed consideration ofLoge’s lexicality
to see what semantic information the TL conveys that the NL does not.
As always Wagner’s Household theory best describes his own syntactical and
semantic practice. Thus Darcy combines Schenkerian and expressive shift notions
whose contact points are never quite spelled out to describe “Fricka’s ‘O lachend

/
“oath” as “curse” see below, next section.
226

frevelnder Leichstsinn!’” as “trigger[ing] an ‘expressive’ rise to V7/B minor/“ Her

ensuing tirade unfolds a B major triad, a large-scale expression ofthe chromatic 5—6
progression. As she continues, however, she ‘undoes’ this progression, leading the
music back to D minor and beyond to G.’"" This shows how difficult it is to get
expressive shift to travel. The justifrcation that it “reflects some dramatic aspect of
the situation,” is quietly dropped and “expressive” rise simply declared, though what
reflection of the dramatic situation it expresses is unexplained, nor the reason that^
having expressed it, Wagner must resort to “inexpressive” Schenkerian procedures
to undo the moment again. Yet the passage is again lexically transparent, as follows:
Ex. Vf: Das Rheingold, Scene ii
P I* .Stajor HA minor

1I viiI vi=iiviii = iv VII...................................................................................... V......................// I

\Fricka: Nur WonneIschafft dir, was mich erschreclct?Plch freut die II Burg, mir hangt es iiml
ttSO [D¿=Walhall] ilSOa rbi>=foreboded trouble]^ M80b [F=greed, Giants]

A minor
WO
IdfivVA
Ul__ V
IFreia! Achtloser, lass’ dich er- I Lohn’s! Die IBurg ist fertie. ver-l
itSOc [d=Freia bartered]
A minor
WO
IBbfbll)

I ÍV i=iv V J__ M J______________ A6=V7_________ I

Ifallen das pfand: ver- Igassest du. was du ver- Igab’st? Wotan: Wohl dünkt mich*s. was sie be-1
ttSI ta=Loge’s bad bargain] *[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 ee- Ibaut: 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 garden-
variety 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 Græco-
Roman 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:
Db
Ab Gb
Pisces )( H 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 bait-
ahd-switches he needs to maintain the disguise.
In syntactical terms Loge presents himself to his victims like this;

The Thief The Mark

Linear surface A Major (■*-•■) F d Major
'» V
Background (Fd Minor)
A:vi, Logo’s basement

The double-arrow symbol 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
Linear surface A Major F |t Minor (A:vi)
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 IV7 I I V 1=111 I
\Wotan-. * I Wo freier Muth Ifivmmt, al- |lein frag' ich nach IKeinen. Doch des I
#99 [e=repulsive wooing] #100 [D=hero] #lOIa [^enemy]

E minor ____________________________________________________
|e(i)
|D(VII)
lb(v).................. //
iflt(ii) //.
|A(1V)______________________________________ -■ __________________________ :............................
I V iv |//viio7 VI I viio7__________ (PQ I VI = IV ^
IFeindes Neid zum | Nutz sich fiigen, | lehrt nur Schlauheit und | List, wie_________

#J0lb [fl=guile] ©»102 [A=LOGE]

Ejninor______________________________________________________________
|A(IV)............................................................................................................................................................................
I V__________(PC) IIV iv I_________ V7________________ I_________ I______________
- I Loge verschlagen sie *| übt. | Derzum Vertrage mir | reith. versprach mir
 233

E minor

j___________ I Ì I etc-
IFreia zu liasen: auf lihn verlass’ ich mich______taun. I etc.
»103 [D=Freia]
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-Mer-
curius, 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 HA Maior
IPKI)....................................... ..=C|t IKI/iii)......................................................................;
lIGbilVI =f|t IKvi) ;.................
II vi7 1 V II I 1 VIV IVIV& IVI I 1 IV=I 1
IILoge: kein IStein wankt im Ge- II stemm. 1________|________1 | Nicht 1
#156 [Db=Walhall]

A Major
|ftt(vi)...............................................................................................................................;
Mi)• ______________ :.............................
I VIV Vl Ibll VLJNyI V I
[massig war ich, wieImancher hier: der llQgt. wer lässig michIschilt. Wot: lArglistig I
#157 ffH=bustle. flash (fraudulent)] #158 [^enemy, traitor]

A Major
|ftt(vi) n....................................................................................................................................
|b(ii)......................
igfi/bii/vn
1 V7 1 V7 1 // viio7 1 V 1 i 1VI=V 1
Iweich’st du mir laus: Irnich zu betgrügen Ihütein ITreuendich 1 wohl! Von 1 allen 1
#159 [f£=Loge threatened]
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) =a(i/l)...............................
|b(ii)
Idfivl..............
1 i . 11 7& 1 bll 1 i=iv 1 ii V 1 V 1
ITross.— 1 Nun 1 red’ und rathe klua! 1 1 da einst die Bauer der Bu f 2 zum 1
#162 [a=Loge’s bad bargain]

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

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

 237

A Major
lAfli.........................
1 iv ii 1 V 1 bll 1 ui i. viioW 1
IDank Freia be- 1 daneen. Idu weisst. nicht landers willitrt’ ich 1 ein. als weil auf 1

A Major
|a(i).............................................. .................//
|b(ii) II...JI
|c|t(iii) n.... //
ld|l(ii/iii) II..JI
|fl|(id/iii) //........//
IgU * n..............................n
iG«iv/iin //.......
1 i 1 A6 1 V VI VN VI &I//&//& 1 IN 1
IPflicht du eelobtest zu • 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 1 i I1VI=V II UI 1=1.11 1
ISorae drauf zu binnen, wie es zu llösen. das 1 hab’ ich ae- Hobt. 1 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L
’■ UI63 lGlt=Freia unredeemable]

A Major
1A(I)
iGH(V/iii).
..........................................................................................
Ifllivn _ :.......................................................
1 I f4n0 II=V viio7 1......... 1 viio7 lviio7 4==ll A6 1
{Doch, dass ich Ifände was nie sich Ifilat. was nie ae- 1 linet— 1 wie 1 Hess’ sich das wohl ae- 1
UI 64a ff"Lose helpless]
AMaior
Itt(vi)....................
ici füll ..............
feU
//
//UcHI..............
(f) //
1 vi i
1 V 1 V 1 V=VI V // IVI V // UI I
Hoben? 1 Fricka: 1 Sieh, welch' Itruavollem Schelm du ae- Itraut! Froh: Lose 1
#l65a rcll=Wotan. made a fool]
AMaior
|ftt(vi)
Icltfiii')..................
L vi=m IV Vi - - 1 V VI 1 etc.
Iheisst du. doch nenn' ich dich ILüae! Donner: Verfluchte Ttohe. dich lösch’ ich 1 aus!
Iti 65b rfH=Loge threatened]

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 gift-
bearers 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 obtains t r ea su r e from ORIGIN via

Perseus Helmet of Invisibility Sea God (Phorcys) Sea Daughters —Nymphs
Winged Sandals
Magic purse of wealth
Siegfried Tamheim of Invisibility River God (Father Rhine) Rhine Daughters-Nixies
and Magical Transport
Magic ring of power
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 maiden-
shape, 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 Hermes-
Mercurius 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 Hermes-
Mercurius 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 three-
sharps [▼]? 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 sulfur-
eleft (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 UP. Thus with respect to the latter C. F. D.
Schubart cites “triumph OVER difficulty, free sigh of relief when hurdles are SUR

MOUNTED; 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

, "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</F ¡t/G b IS UP. Granted

this common practice metaphoric usage, the picture that emerges is a “double-bodied”

Über Tonkunst (1830), quoted in Ibid., p. 267, my metaphor caps.

"Cramer’s Magazin der Musik (1795), quoted in Ibid., p. 266,

‘°Hildegard vn Hohenthal (1795), quoted in Ibid.

“ Versjich einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst (1830), quoted in Ibid., p. 267, my italir.

''^Universal-Lexicon der Tonkunst (1835-36), quoted in Ibid., my metaphor caps.

 247

key occupying a position at or close to the zenith in a musical space in which zenith
is specifically heavenly and its attainment a triumph over or surmounting of hurdles
thrown in the soul’s way as it ascends out of a vale of earthly troubles.
How does this translate in terms of Wagner’s TL Lexicon? We know that
zenith proper is spoken for by [Db.=Walhall, heaven] (#72 etc.) and so our present key
cannot occupy the highest position of all. But we know too that Gb is the highest
point of the earth upon which the actual castle is further raised (#77, ‘Auf Berges
Gipfel') and also that [Sk= RAINBOW BRIDGE] (#507) and [WORLD ASH TREE UPPER
BRANCHES] (ß2516). All these image cohere around the same mythic topography: the
mountain of Walhall is at the same time the crown of the World Ash Tree. Insofar as
Walhall is a mountain-top, G b is its rainbow-entry way. Insofar as it crowns the Tree,
Gb is its supporting upper branches. Either way, G b/Fÿ marks the cartographic axis
of the DOORWAY TO HEAVEN.
The meaning ofFÿ/Gb Major is, again, substantially cartographical. Taken
together, the tonic Db.:I and its two structural braces, the Ab dominant (T)b:V) and
Gb subdominant fPb :I\0 depict one quadrant (3/12) of a cosmological map whose
Cartesian coordinates are marked by keys, thus:
zenith
/\
Aob(i)A
Ab(V) Gb(lV)

downward to earth --
The Quadrant of the Heights of Heaven
Whàt Loge wants can therefore aptly be expressed iq terms ofplace-. Loge wants to
stand at the right hand of God. He wants to enter in through the Gb portal and be
, pcepted into the Company of the Blest (Kellner’s “strange, lofty pride”). To put on
F }t Major is thus to impersonate a lawfiil denizen of Heaven. And this in fact is what
he has struggled to do ever since before he first appears in Das Rheingold, ii: to
scramble to the foot of the G b Rainbow (Schilling’s “peering anxiously across to the
newly-opened realm ofjoy”), OVERCOMING the HURDLES placed before him, until he
voluntarily changes his mind at the moment when his path lies open to him (Miiller’s
“ambiguous vacillation between heaven and earth”).
248

In other words, Loge’s motivations are founded in the common practice

cultural property key characteristics of the object he covets, Ftt/G b Major, which
have to do with aspiring to heaven. The question then árises; what is the nature of the
connection between these keys and deceit! Again, this is a straightforward entailment
of the same scene: Loge sees through the Rainbow to the idea that heaven itself is a
lie. Wagner had been developing this G k association from the beginning. Consider
for instance #279. Here Alberich’s use of the key of G b Major to lexicalize betrügen
or a ‘deceit’ parallels Wotan’s prior use of the enharmonic F Ji minor for the same
purpose (#159), the generic use ofF 11 Major as Loge’s “false key,” and ultimately, the
Scene iv use of G b Major to denote the Rainbow Bridge and its deceitfìilness.
A categorical concept of the key is thus, “Illusion,” as defined for instance by
Webster:
An unreal image presented to the bodily or mental vision;, a deceptive
appearance; a false show; mockery, hallucination. To cheat the eye
with blear illusions - Milton. Hence: anything agreeably fascinating
and charming, enchantment, witchery, glamour. Ye soft illusions, dear
deceits,,mse! (Pope 3). (Physiol.) A sensation originated by some
external object, but so modified as in any way to lead to an erroneous
perception; as when the rolling of a wagon is mistaken for thimder.’“
In the classical and alchemistic context from which Wagner drew many of Loge’s
qualities, the rainbow is associated with the devil, one of this protagonist’s close rela
tions. For instance, the image of Loge standing at the brink of the Rainbow stretching
over the primal WATERS ofthe Rhine is prefigured in its entirety in a passage from the
alchemist Mylius quoted by Jung: “The sulphur shines like the rainbow above the
waters---- the whole property of sulphur and its natural likeness are expressed by the
rainbow.”®“' It is the deceptive solidity of this light-object that both entrances and
deceives. In dreams therefore, the rainbow appears often as an image of self-delusion.
Thus elsewhere Jung quotes á series ofdreams in which the Rainbow Bridge appears :
’“VISUAL IMPRESSION: A rainbow is to be used as a bridge. But one must go under it
and not over it. Whoever goes over it willfall and be killed. Only the gods can walk
rainbow bridges in safety; mere mortals fall and meet their death, fór the rainbow is
only a lovely semblance that spans the sky, and not a highway for human beings with

“Quoted ftom http://www.hyperdictionaiy.com/dictionary/illusion.

“ Phil. Ref., quoted in Mysterium Coniunctìonis, H142.

 249

bodies___We sand on a peak of consciousness, believing in a childish way that the

path leads upward to yet higher peaks beyond. That is the chimerical rainbow bridge,
in order to reach the next peak we must first go down into the land where the paths
begin to divide.”®^
Wagner’s Rainbow Bridge is thus constmcted from two sources; the public
cultural property HEAVENLY HEIGHT imported to G b via the history of key character
istics, and the generic human understanding of rainbow as deceit evidenced for
instance by cross-cultural dream imagery.“ For Loge to covet this position shows
many things; for instance, that he that he is UPPITY, or that he DOESN’T KNOW HIS

PLACE, or he has DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR.

What then can we generalize about Wagner’s linguistic use of tonality on the
basis of our investigations into Loge’s complex music-dramatic persona?
In the first place he is like all Wagner’s protagonists the owner of a lexical key
that functions as a noun fi-om which a host of secondary synonyms are derived.
In the second place, his lexical key, A Major, is not arbitrary buts acts in a
rational relationship with all other lexical keys (D Major, E Major, E b Major, etc.) in
the manner I have outlined. Thus to understand Loge’s lexicality is a crucial step to
understanding the meanings of all the other characters and to mistake his key for some
other (e.g., F )t Major) is to place oneself in the position of a student of Greek tragedy
who knows the dramatis personae but is never quite sure who killed whom.
Third, Wagner’s lexical keys are coordinated with Græco-Roman zodiacal
signs such that what you can say aboufeiieyou can say about the other. In Loge’s case
Loge is to his A Major tonal Household as the planääry Merciuy is to his zodiacal
mansion Virgo, which he rales and in which his power is said to be “exalted” or
overmastering. We will see this phenomenon increasingly in the following chapters;
it is unmistakable in the Ring and even more so in Parsifal.
Fourth, Wagner’s use of lexical keys apparently employs the same kind of
cognitive strategy as that which originally cobbled the zodiacal signs together. By this
I mean that a geomantic spatial grid was templated onto the heavens forming a virtual
circle comprising twelve virtual points imagined as stations, houses, or mansions.

^^Psychotogy and Alchemy, f69-70 and f75.

“Alive and well in the Judy Garland film of Ihe Wizard of Oz (“Somewhere over the
rainbow”) which the continuation shows to have been a deceptive dream (the flim-flam Wizard).
250

Poetic contents were exported to this abstract grid over time such that the “signs”
became virtual bins of poetic imagery. The strategy obeyed the same "this—^is—
like—thaf' logic that Wagner understood as the law of Affinity, and which he used
to sort poetic imagery from the libretti and export it to the keys. This process left such
systematic and powerful traces that it can be objectively studied and quantified in
great detail by anyone possessing requisite musical knowledge and willing to acquire
corresponding literary and astrological knowledge.
Fifth, Wagner’s use of lexical tonality is coherent with both catégorial gram
matical logic and metaphor entailment logic. Indeed this must be so, else the language
would collapse into the arbitrary and unintelligible. The inferences by which the
language remains intelligible construct themselves out of the primary imaginai
materials by the natural process of metaphoric entailment that we have discussed.
They are entirely orthodox artifacts of Wagner’s TL syntax and independently com
plete with geometric precision what can only be hinted at vaguely in the poetry ofthe
ML libretti.
Finally, all this is exactly what Wagner claimed he would do in Opera and
Drama, and, as always, this is just what he proceeded to do.

*1
 CHAPTER SIX
A Short Introduction to Tonal Cartography
“To set the unity of the Drama in the unity of Time and Space, means to set it at
naught; for Time and Space are nothing in themselves, and only become some
thing through their being annulled by something real, by a Human Action and its
Natural Surroundings.”
Richard Wagner

r. Orientational Metaphors and Hnmpty Dnmpty Horoscopes

It is time to discuss what tonal language is capable of saying that natural
language is not, and why. Put succinctly, tonal language can adopt natural language
syntax and yet remain non-redundant to NL because TL discourse takes place within
a virtual intelligible space while NL discourse does not. The simplest TL discourse
makes assertions about the relationship between things that are impossible inNL. Let
me give a simple example of TL spatiality before arguing from the lexical evidence
in detail. Consider the case of Wotan and Alberich. These two figures have no
coherent Saga relationship. But it is necessary to Wagner’s purpose of showing the
deep structured equality between Gemíame Saga and his exemplary Grffîco-Roman
mythic ideal that the god be counterbalanced by a worthy opponent to embody the
cosmic stmggle that Wagner suggests motivates the end of the gods. Thus Alberich
himself must become some kind of god. To be sure, Wagner’s NL moves in this
direction by describing gods as “Lichtalben” and Nibelungs as “Schwarzalben. But
terms for lighted dark elves were common in flie Scandinavian, Icelandic, and even
Irish myths without these connoting the kind of godlikeness necessary to Wagner’s
communicative purposes. The question then becomes, what happens to Wotan and
Alberich when they are named using TL lexemes, e.g., D b Major and B b Major?

'Opera and Drama, p. 349.

’See my “The Genealogy of Chaos.”

’Although Alberich is referred to in the tonic mindr more often than-in the tbnic major, he
remains the head of a B b Major (not minor) Tonal Household. Thus his relationship to Wotan as an
independent power and fellow Householder is via B b Major /Db Major. This is clear from the three
keys id which he typically appears. The Lexicon records twenty key references to Alberich as B b
Major; Bb minnt (27); G minor (11+8=19). (The eight references are all connected with specific
images of Alberich’s lowness and thus may also be referred to the G Major Household via G=NADIR.
252

The shared key of B b minor (Db:vi = Bb.:i) automatically relates the two in a rough
parity of Tonal Household, permitting Wotan to morally lower himself until in his
own relative minor he comes to resemble his Nibelung foe.
Here I refer however to a second grammatical peculiarity of tonal syntax that
kicks in the moment these keys are accepted as lexemes. This is that you cannot name
a thing using a key as a word without also plotting its precise cartographic axis within
a spatialized map of all similar words, the so-called CIRCLE OF FIFTHS.“' For in
common practice theory and usage keys subsist within a pre-ordinate system of key
relations—a virtual Circle, Ç). And within the well-tempered timing system that
makes CIRCLE OF FIFTHS poetically intelligible the d b and b ¿tones, and thus their
* map out at the angular distance of 90°. Thus, to say [BJb.=Alberich;
tonic rootá*
Db.=Wotan] is automatically and additionally to say this:

[Di=Wotan]
h. [Bb=Alberich]

within a O that has been changed by the very act of naming its contents to this:

Db •

What this means with respect to these two Tonal Households is a geometrical
RIGHT ANGLE or SQUARE. This in turn is a public cultural semantic property signify

This compares with brother Mime, at B b Major (23); B b minor ( 10); G minor (31 ); or Nibelungs
generally: B b Major (12); B b minor (23); G minor (10). Subsidiary references to Alberich and Mime
show G Major (2 each), both connected with smallness or triviality; Alberich checks into E b minor
twice; his defeat is mentioned in A minor (Logo’s key).

*Thus Hans T. David (“Mbzartean Modulations,” in Paul Henry Lang, ed., The Creative
World ofMozart, pgs. 58-9): “Lonenzo Penna included in a treatise on thoroughbass examples of a
Circulo, Ò Ruota della Cadenze, a ‘circle or wheel of cadences’ in continuous modulation, both
ascending and descending by fifths. The method was shown by Johann Kuhnau to Johaim David
Heinischen. Heinischen designated the diagram of an inçroved Musical Circle, which contained all
major and minor keys in alternation. This was first published in 1711; and in 1728 Heinischen dis
cussed the harmonic circle at great length, adding various sançles of modulations—trae or deceptive
—through the entire circle of fifths. From then on extensive modulation following the circle of fifths
was a common tool of composition. Philipp Emanuel Bach, a generation later, referred to the ‘well-
known musical circles,’ though adding a warning against the use of all twenty-four keys within the
same piece.”
 253

ing HOSTILITY.’ This piece of folk psychology, SQUARE IS HOSTILITY, functions as

the generative metaphor that makes intelligible such common queries as “What’s
your angle!" or “Knock his block [= ] off!” A human head is never referred to as
a “block” elsewhere than in the context of a hostile phrase. Just by naming Wotan
and Alberich with the TL lexemes that he has Wagner automatically makes addition
al social and specifically emotional claims: These fellows are SQUARED OFF, they
have “taken afighting stance."^
What semantic rules determine the usage, SQUARE IS HOSTILITY? It is in the
first place a classic orientational metaphor and thus participates in a network of
coherent entailments. Common usage renders the public cultural property emotion,
hostility, both cartographic and geomantic by endowing it with this inauspicious
angular meaning. Such geomantic usage follows prior physical body orientation in
social space: to SQUARE OFF is to prepare to ctose to CONJUNCTION—that is, to come
lb blows. This makes biological-social sense: emotion is at least as much public
gesture as private experience, and since people occupy coordinates in physical space
measured by distances and angles, emotional meanings follow suit.’ In any human

®The OED online gives some typical sources of the phrase, ‘To put oneself into a posture of
defence; to assume a boxing attitude”, citing 1820 HOGG Bridal Polmood vi, “He spit upon his hand
and squared'-, 1823 MRS. SHERWOOD Henry Milner (ed. 2) HI. xvi, “Then beginning to square (to use
an expression of Mr. Claydon’s) the enemy took to his heels”; 1861 HUGHES Tom Brown at Oxf. xi,
“Selecting the one most of his own size, he squared and advanced on him.”

‘Merriam-Webster Dictionary online.

’Recognition of the inseparable connection between metaphor and the physical body is one
of the great acconqjlishments of modem metaphor theory. Arnold H. Modell (“Reflections on
^etaphor and Affects” online) summarizes this connection thus: “The concept of metaphor itselfhas
undergone a revolutionary change in that the locus of metaphor is now recognized to be in the mind
and not in language. The .locus of metaphor is thought, not language. AVhat is significant for
psychoanalysis is the growing recognition among investigators that metaphors have their origin in the
body ... There is a privileged connection between affects and metaphor. As feelings are to some
measure beyond our control, translating such feelings into metaphors provides us with some degree
of organization and control.” Again, the reason Wagner treats his TL lexemes in the strict linear way
he does is that he believes music to be the language ofthe emotions (affects) which themselves depend
upon memory, which the composer reified in his pwchological system as an ultimate arbiter of why
poetic images and keys appear where they do: “Affects, metaphor, and memory form a synergistic,
unified system. It has long been recognized that affects and memory are inseparable. For it is only in
the hypothetical caáe of the newborn infant who is yet without experience in the world that we can
even postulate that affects are without memory. But,infant observers believe that shortly after birth
"raw” affects are organized by means of expectable and repeated experiences. Affects are joined to
memory and are represented by means ofwhat Stem(1985) calls a ‘tençoral contour,’ which indicates
that affective experiences cannot be separated from their perceptual context.” Considered
254

gathering, e.g., the comédie humaine ofa reception following a guest lecture, conver
sational pairs will at first almost invariably orient their bodies to each other at rough
90° angles, each facing over the other’s shoulder. An apparently universal socio-
emotional etiquette decrees that this angle must not close to conjunction,* for it
regulates the latent hostility implicit in any situation in which two human beings face
each other at close quarters. To disregard this social body-language constraint is to
face off, an impermissible posture in civil company.
The right-angle is psychically sensitive because precariously established:^
since Jwo people cannot reasonably converse when facing away from each other the
pragmatics of absurdity prevents the angle from widening, e.g., to the open-handed

120° trineX^y, then too, one must not seem to turn one 's back, another hostile act,
this one policed by the 180° opposition (o-o), while hostility is felt to increase when
the 90° square-off angle closes to aface-to-face 0°, which to the human emotional
body signals commencement of either bedding or pummeling.'® Given the practical
inaccessibility of the smarmy trine the best one can manage in the way of white flag
waving is to sidle toward its nerdy sibling, the 60° sextile (4^), which though friendly
enough is relatively lame: this is why to the emotional body professional alliances

psychoanalytically therefore, Wagner’s TL lexemes significantly express reified memory traces of

affect-laden physical gestures. This is the reason that AFFECT is isomorphic with MAP and is thus
CARTOGRAPHIC: die Circle ofFifths maps an ideal human body and projects it, in the manner of Plato’s
Original (circular) Man, onto a cosmological backdrop. The substance of music is the substance of
experience of living within such an ideal and projected body, including in particular the experience
of these affective symbols we are considering as exemplary, e.g., HOSTILITY, HUMILIATION, and
CONTEMPT.

'Under penalty ofdeserving the hostile repudiation, “Get out ofmy face ! ’’ I have on occasion
tried to reorient myself by sly increments of about 10° to face my partner directly. I don’t advise it.
Partners often unconsciously writhe as they surreptitiously try to regain the safety of their defensive
90° angles and on the way home no doubt remark to their spouses about that weirdly nervous, bald-
headed creep.

’As is the minor third, the melodic interval corresponding to tonic roots at 90° angular
separation. In Chapter Five (pgs. 216-6) I have argued what Üiis hostility syntactically entails, using
the example of A Major and F)1 Major: the latter disintegrates the former by destroying its tonic,
dominant, and subdominant. To say “Al F )t ’’ is just shorthand for the same thing.

ThiS'is the meaning of “Selecting the one most of his own size, he squared and advanced
on him”, cited above. It is also why the ritual male body-to-body embrace-and-kiss represents so
extraordinary a gesture of mutual trust. It is also why the square is thought to mediate disputes or to
permit persons to separate amicably, as in “we met on the level and parted on the square,” or “I want
to square my accounts wife him before I leave.”
 255

feel so much more flabby than hostilities, which are comparatively bracing. The
relation of social sextile to social square is an index of implicit trust: one may opt to
risk courting conjunction and thus repudiation by closing one’s 90° to 60° and hoping
for the best. Thus the ratio of sextiles to squares in tonight’s wine-and-cheese recep
tion can be an excellent indicator of who said what to whom and how at yesterday’s
faculty meeting.
The square thus inherits an acute emotional tension implicit not only in
hostility proper but in the difficulty two people incur in maintaining precisely the
angular separation required to reconcile estrangement and aggression. The angle is
thus culturally represented as “difficult” or “hard.” Such folk usage emotion logic has
been deeply inscribed into Western musical nomenclature and iconography since
music writing began; thus with respect to Renaissance hexichord theory, “Thefluidity
or mutability of B/B b may be clearer if wè consider its name ‘b-fa-b-mi’—^that is,
this note may have either a ‘hard’ aspect (shown by a ‘square B,’ the origin of the
natural and sharp signs, and also of the German ‘h’ for B l| ), or a ‘ soft’ aspect (shown
by a ‘rounded B,’ the origin of the flat-sign, [b]). In fact, the square-B sign is
virtually identical to the modem natural sign, and the round-B sign to the modem flat
sign.”' ' The composition of this writing system is cross-modally coherent: hardness
òr sharpness and softness {tactile categories) are imposed upon scalar ascent and
descent {synesthetic or virtual spatial categories) and iconically denoted by circle O
and square {visual categories), all to overdetermine the meaning of acoustical
categories. Squareness signifies ascent, where hardness is cognate not only with the
tactile sensation but with Engl. “hard”=“difficult”. This is another spatialized cate
gory: it is physically harder to go up than to go down. The iconic development ofthis
ieads to the sharp-sign }t, again cognate with the cross, x, a variant of the square
responsible for such baroque usages as Bach’s association E minor to denote the
Christian cross t, the European public cultural property most associated with
everything that is hard, sharp, and difficult. One arrives in such difficulties by
mounting or ascending one’s cross (=accepting life’s difficulties), or, musically,
modulating into the key of the single (1.
Thus cross and square are to 90° ( b.) as lexeme is to lexical unit’, the angle

‘ ' “Hexachords, solmization, and musica ficta,” Medieval Music &Arts Foundation online,
http:// www.medieval.org / emfaq / harmony / hexl .html, my italics and boldface.
256

is the irreducible meaning-unit out of which composite values are composed. Thus
the cognitive background informing the concept of enemies through which Alberich
and Wotan, as heads ofthe warring Tonal Households ofB b and D b, become poetic
pugilists in a RING, O-'^ And what is tme of Alberich and Wotan is true of all B b
and D b -based poetic contents; thus in Wagner’s usage IBb^tvrant and power] and
[Db.=king and social charisma]. Here the SQUARE acts as a marker of syntactical
hostility between the two image-complexes.'^
Since Space and Time have the character of a priori psychological givens
then tp stamp an indelible spatial relationship upon things in the mere act of naming
them has the character of a reifying act (TONAL SPACE IS REAL)—a power
approaching magic that helps explain the Orphic miraculousness with which human
cultoes have typically invested music. The Alberich kWotan ex^ple suggests that
TONAL HOUSEHOLDS are geographically situated in a reified TONAL SPACE that
organizes the semantics of their lexemes’ imaginai contents through public cultural
properties in a geomantic emotional discourse. Such Households thus comprise a
community of interdependent poetic constellations located in a circular universe.
Within this virtual space each relates to all the others according to public cultural
property orientational metaphors that regulate their varying degrees of closeness /
distance, hostility / sympathy, and so on. MELODICINTERVALIS ANGULARDISTANCE
and its geomantic expressive potential arises concurrently with the CIRCLE OFFIFTHS.
In Wagner’s common practice-based linguistic usage then, the virtual
geometric angle, 90°, is generalized as a syntactical artifact of TL lexicality, where
the specific meaningful entailment, x is hostile toy, comprises the well-formed public
property sfmonticai content of an a priori well-formed syntactical expression. The
well-formedness may be understood in the context of catégorial grammar theory:
when keys become consistently lexical, they automatically arrange their poetic
referents via the virtual spatial peculiarities of TL syntax so as to give rise to addi-

'^From this it is a short step to understanding the TL-semantic implications ofthe composer’s
overarching metaphor, Nibelung’s Ring.

'^Additional exançles of the 90° (minor third) hostility: b. g (Alberich v í . Mime); A b.

FlKLoee’s fire vs. heavenly fire); D b. f (Siegfiied vj. Fafiier);^ b. D (curse or Valkyries [death] vs.
hero) and h b. Ab (enemy of heaven); E h. Dk (love vi. authority). Note that the angular (intervallic)
relationship is modified by mode: it makes a difference if D vs. b or D vs. B. The reason is that a
Major-m3-minor relationship coimotes latent synçathy or kinship via the Lvi. I have not to date
conçleted a grammatical study of this difference so cannot generalize the point.
 257

tional, objective, and public semantic entailments. A seamless continuity stretches

between TL lexicality, syntax, and semantics; one thinks of the adage “one man’s
ceiling is another man’s floor.’’ This exemplifies the linguistic theory of an intrinsic
syntax—semantics interface controlled by a backgroimd cognitivepragmatics, where
“pragmatics” denotes the empirical psychological and cultural factors that guide this
language in the direction that it can be empirically shown to have taken.
Alberich and Wotan provide ingress to the interpretation ofCIRCLE OFFIFTHS
as a virtual map of MUSIC IS SPACE. Within this map multiply coherent layers of
meaning template down upon a single unifying cartographic system from which they
are fed into the tonal syntax. This process follows generic metaphoric entailment
systems in being driven from a core metaphor without whose background control the
entailments cannot cohere. In this case the 90° relationship SQUARE IS MINOR THIRD
INTERVAL IS HOSTILITY is incomprehensible unless MUSIC IS SPACE, CIRCLE OF

FIFTHS IS MAP, and MELODIC INTERVAL IS GEOMETRIC ANGLE.

Thus TL statements inscribe legends onto a tonal map in the manner of the
mediæval mappœ mundi as described by Rev. W. L. Bevan and Rev. H. W. Phillott:
A [mediaeval] map was an “estoire” (to borrow the expression used
by the author of the Hereford map), i.e., an illustrated record, apd its
office was more to delineate objects of popular interest than objects
of scientific value. The taste of the age ran in favour of the
marvelous, and the mappa mundi was to a considerable extent
addressed to the illustration of this department of literature. Let any
one compare the Hereford map with the Romance ofKing Alexander,
and he cannot fail to see the close resemblance in the spirit, and even
in the special features, of the two documents. In short, a mediæval
mappa mundi, to be duly appreciated, must to a great extent be
regarded as an illustrated romance.'“
As the reference to the Alexander Romance suggests, the mappa mundi in Hereford
Cathedral and its cartographic cousins amount to a literary sub-genre something like
the modem comic book. Similarly the mediæval romance is a virtual travelogue,
since the marvelous figures depicted therein are always to be found in distant, and
generally Eastern, regions and elimes.
The map that I will describe presently is an orthodox expression of a public
property concept that is widely distributed across world cultures. Tonal structures

"Medicevel Geography, p. xxii.

258

designed as virtual maps encoding spatial and temporal (seasonal) coordinates, or

both, appear all over the world, and the notion that music forms an analog map of
cultural space-time is even overtly theorized within such cultures. For instance Hans
Erhard Lauer cites the astrologically-organized Chinese musical system; .. we
have the tone system of ancient China, the so called ‘Ltl scale’, consisting of a
twelve-fold sequence of notes obtained by successive fifths . .. Since each of the
twelve Lü was assigned a month or a constellation of the zodiac, one must imagine
this scale as circle oftones. During a given month it was only permitted to play music
based on t^e pentatonic scale stemming fi"om the corresponding Lü. In ancient China
the musical system and the organization of the calendar were most intimately
connected, and the introduction ofboth is attributed to one ofthe mythical primordial
mlers, the ‘Yellow Emperor’ Huang-ti.”'^

Summer
V

Fig. 6a: Chinese Lü Tonal System

(Source, Lauer, “Evolution of Music,” p. 186.)
Virtual tonal spatiality inspired Amatzia Bar-Yosef to argue that world musical
systems are consfructed against the cognitive fi'ameworks of their cultural space

'’“The Evolution of Music Through Qianges in Tone-Systems” in Cosmic Music: Musical

Keys to the Interpretation ofReality, pgs. 185-6.
 259

concepts“ while a colleague and I have shown that traditional Korean performance,
rhythmic, and melodic spaces are structurally organized according to the umyang
ohaeng (Yin-Yang and Five Elements) cosmological theory.” In this music a single
structuring map of Sino-Korean cultural space perception organizes and coordinates
pitch, rhythm, and performance spaces and unifies musical production across
shamanistic, folk, court, Conflician, or Buddhistic genre separations, empirically
justifying our perception of a unitary “Korean” music. We call this unifying spatial
map the “Five Element Template” and its elements are coordinated with such musical
elements as pitch name (e.g., nam, “south”), quincunx-controlled performance space
features (e.g., dance steps, processional patterns), rhythmic patterns (quintile and
five-based beat-patterns) and pitch set characteristics (five-tone scale).
So the phenomenon oftone-systems read out as maps is hardly controversial.
The assumption that music analogically represents physical space is common in both
Western and Sino-Korean music. All the procedures and background assumptions
that facilitate the transposition of geographical information into a Korean carto
graphic tonal system are also found in Wagner. The issue is what linguistic evidence
can prove that Wagner’s tonal syntax is generating such a map and if so what type
of map it proves to be.
This is perhaps a good place to summarize the differences between my
approach to tonal virtual cosmological space and those of fellow investigators. The
difference concerns the fundamental question of what it could possibly mean that
music is cosmologically structured. My answer is simple enough: music is structured
this way because its syntax—its set of intelligibility conditions—^are structured
isomorphically with such structures and it accrues semantic content in equally
isomorphic fashion. In other words, alone among such theories mine is a lexical
approach. It assumes that music is a language to a considerable degree parasitic upon
"NL. By “parasitic” I mean that a prior human NL cognition proved apt to being

'‘“Musical Time Organization and Space Concept: A Model ofCross-Cultural Analogy.” The
" insight may be traced to the sociologist Emile Durkheim, who held that human spatial cognition is
mediated by culture. “The space which I know by my senses, of which I am the center, could not be
space in general, which contains all extensions, and where these are coordinated by personal
guide-lines which are common to everybody.” {The Elementary Forms ofReligious Life, p. 441.)

’’Nathan Hesselink and Jonathan C. Petty, “Landscape and Soundscape: Geomantie Spatial
Mapping in Traditional Korean Music.”
260

cobbled onto another and independent human cognition of emotional tones by means
of a human aptitude for organizing impressions by means of grammar. This was
Wagner’s view, and he described music as a cognitive latecomer piggybacking on an
existing NL capability—only saying highly salient things that natural language had
proved incompetent to articulate but which music was tmiquely qualified to say.
Thus over the last several chapters I have described something of the nature
of TL grpunar, shown how Wagner rationalized it to NL grammar, isolated its
distinctive .lexical units of meaning, crudely translated its TL into NL by means of
linear harmonic / semantical analysis, and thereby produced a falsifiable Lexicon that
other investigatprs can now talk about objectively and, if so inclined, further develop
or debunk. This is as far as a lexicographer. The grammatical answer to what it could
even be imagined tp mean that music and mythic cosmology are the same is, that
people talk about botkthe same way and their grammar and lexical content shows
that TL talks as ifmusic were cosmological. Or if you will, that the human emotional
microcosm that emerges when Western music is allowed to speak is, as far as it is
possible to determine, isomorphic with Western cosmological systems by the logic
I have been arguing here.
This is why I’ve taken the tack I have all along. In translating this Lexicon I
have identified much of what Wagner actually used his lexemes to talk about. This
subject turns out to be cosmology or, rather, the human psychic microcosm modeled
on the broadest cultural cosmological concept that remained intelligible to its actual
TL speakers including our composer. A general theme of TL discussion appears to
be human emotional spaces understood as subsets (microcosm) of cosmological
spaces (macrocosm). Even such basic emotions as love and loss are tweaked toward
cosmos via the poetic resonances of their settings.
That cosmos and music are one is no new claim. Joscelyn Godwin documents
the remarkable persistence of music-theoretical efforts to align the seven diatonic
scale degrees with the seven planets, discussing historical zodiacal and planetary-
tonal correspondence schemas of (among others) Pythagoras, Plato, Censorinus and
Theoh of Smyrna, Pliny, Plutarch, Ptolemy, Anatolius, Martianus, Cassio Dio,
Macrobius, Cicero^.^Boethius, Ramis, Nichomachus, Bartolus, Al-Kindl, Ikhwan,
Robert Fludd, Johannes Kepler, Thomas Michael Schmidt, Rodney Collins,
Alexandre Dénéréaz, Rudolf Steiner, Ernest Britt, Hermann Pfrogner, Army von
 261

Lange, Alice A. Bailey, and Madame Blavatsky.'* Remarkably enough, in all that
arcane theorizing not one authority appears to have appealed to empirical poetic and
lexical data to see what real people employ musical language to actually say. Thus
as far as I have been able to determine, I appear to be one of few investigators in the
last 2,400 years (Wagner excluded)—^maybe the only one—^to have made the idea of
music as a language the foundation of the planetary/zodiacal theory and therefore
base my claims on cultural arguments and falsifiable lexical data.
Take my MINOR THIRD EQUALS (astrological) SQUARE EQUALS HOSTILITY
argument. This claims that the minor third fimctions semantically like the astrological
square, defines and delimits the sense in which it is claimed so by cultural linguistic
arguments that relate real NL and TL usage, shows that both languages tell the same
story about this relationship, and offers a coherent orientational logic to explain why.
On the other hand, Johannes Kepler and others have devoted considerable thought
to the same question and have arrived at different results. For instance, “In the early
Mysterium Cosmographicum, besides revealing his intuition of the five solids,
[Kepler] tried to set astrology on a rational and harmonic basis. From empirical evi
dence he believed that the most plausible element of the science was the function of
planetary aspects. Already possessed by a vision of world harmony, he explained
them with analogy with the regular plane figures of geometry and with the con
sonances of music. Omitting the geometrical matter, his observation is basically that
one can regard the zodiacal circle as a length to be divided as one would stop a
monochord string. Comparison of the whole length to the greater portion remaining
will then give the interval corresponding to each aspect. Here are the three primary
divisions:

0-0 Opposition (planets 180° apart)

Ratio of whole circle to half 360 : 180 - 2 ; 1
Interval: Octave

A Trine (planets 120° apart)

Ratio of whole to greater part 360 : 240 = 3:2
Interval: Perfect Fifth

"Harmonies ofHeaven and Earth, pgs. 124-93.

262

Square (planets 90° apart)

Ratio of whole to greater part 360 ; 270 = 4 :3
Interval: Perfect Fourth
Kepler was impressed, as Ptolemy had been before hm, by the fact that these three
most powerful aspects are expressed by the same ratios as the three perfect
consonances of music.”'’
However such mathematicians may have been impressed, it is linguistically
uninteresting if it contradicts falsifiable facts of semantic human usage. It happens
that I am not the first person to determine that the astrological square is not the
perfect fourth but the minor third. Pride of priority appears to belong to Rudolf
Haase, “who more than anyone else today carries on the Keplerian ideal of harmonic
research, (and) saw something unsatisfactory about this system. Perfectly correct
from the quantitative point of view, it falls short in view of the astrological qualities
traditionally assigned to the aspects. To take the most obvious example, the oppo
sition, which here makes a harmonious octave, is actually the most tension-
producing of all aspects. Haase suggests an alternative scheme which assigns 30°, or
one astrological sign, to each semitone. The opposition is now a dissonant tritone, the
unison and octave coincide, the major and minor third fit respectively with the
positive trine and the negative square. Haase also mentions that in recent music even
the semitone and major seventh áre treated as consonant, just as their aspects, the
semisextile and sextile, are valid in astrology. But he does not mention that they are
astrologically far more harmonious than the square, so the correlation remains an
imperfect one___ The difference between these two systems is that the first regards
the Zodiac as a hypothetical monochord string, hence a logarithmic scale, whereas
the second uses the circle to represent a closed system of arithmetically equal
intervals.”“
Where does my approach relate to all this? Kepler and Haase and everyone
in between approached this question as mathematicians or abstract philosophers, and
thus provided mathematical or abstract philosophical surmises without ever looking
at a score to see what language users are actually saying. Yet I remain a mere gram
marian who must earn his keep by analyzing the tedious minutiae of how real people

'^Harmonies ofHeaven and Earth, “Intervals and the Astrological Aspects,” p. 148.

^Ibid., pgs. 140-9.

 263

really talk in TL. Having done so can attest that insofar as cosmological principles
are being talked about in TL in real time (actual scores), the discourse talks minor
third squares and major third trines and vindicates Haase’s conclusion, arrived at
from fundamentally different methods.^'
The Humpty Dumpty theory of language discussed in Chapter Four is never
more evident than in these linguistically spurious horoscopes from Kepler to Haase.
Such speculations remain nonfalsifiable because they perch on philosophical or
mathematical walls and remain unverified by common linguistic usage. The “horo
scope” that I argue here, however, derives from empirical suppositions and this may
account for the near singularity ofthe results. When actual TL discourse is analyzed
by means of the lexically informed catégorial grammar assumptions discussed in
Chapters Two and Three, this horoscopic form may be observed to emerge
spontaneously as a byproduct of lexical discourse that appears at first glance to be
about other things entirely. This falsifiable structure appears by Itself, unaided by
prior conceptual prejudices, as a spontaneous artifact of simple acts ofTL talking. TL
language users are not obliged to intend such an outcome, they are only obliged to
talk grammatically. The outcome appears to pop into existence by magic, as if it were
a gift of angels. The tonal cosmic map exists not in “fact” but in “Lexicon.” Thus,
however one may like or dislike these results, they are based on a mass of lexical
evidence that I offer here for refutation. If my data, arguments, and conclusions
survive debxmking, then we may possess in this Lexicon the first coherent evidence
for the existence of spontaneous, unconscious horoscopy in a cognitive domain not
directly connected to that body ofpublic cultural linguistic properties known as literal
astrological doctrines, buttending to the same results. The psychological significance
of this will be appreciated by those in a position to understand and evaluate such an

outcome.
Still, it remains important to understand the domain, scope, and limitations
'of the methods, arguments, and evidence that I offer with respect to tonal cosmolo
gies. I have no competence to criticize the arcane speculations ofmathematicians and
philosophers. I must instead report how music appears to be actually used by real TL

^'I say “conclusion” butnot “methods”, for straightforward syntactical and semantic evidence
shows that semitones have nothing to do with tonal “signs” (Wagner’s “Tonal Households”), which
lexical analysis shows to be generated instead by fifths.
264

Speakers. It is used as if musicians and audiences were in their bodies, as if those

bodies achieved meaning via normal (e.g., obvious, “non-occult”) physical
orientational metaphors, as ifwe have the cosmos that we do because we have the
kind.«! of bodies we do and as if we obtain the impressions we do from the physical
senses that we really have. Y et when my humdrum paradigm is applied to actual TL
discourse it produces wildly “occult” results. TL syntax and semantics turn out to be
used as i/the astrological opposition is a tritone and the square a minor third and as
if the combination of these astrological intervals, that is, two tritones or four minor
thirds, were semantically correlated with this:

\
This is of course Wagner’s notorious diminished seventh, the omeriest hombre in
Tonetown. We know what Wagner thought this meant because he told us: it is raw
passion and the restless spiritual unquiet that forces something to try being something
else.^^ What is actually said with the diminished seventh is an unquiet discourse of
affective dissatisfaction. What is actually said with the astrological opposition-plus-
square (e.g., the so-called Grand Cross) is an unquiet discourse of affective dissatis
faction. In Wagner’s TL discourse this generic affective restlessness is given object
by the semantics of poetic key constellations or Tonal Households that it impacts. In
the discourse of astrological natal analysis this generic affective restlessness is given
object by the semantics of sun signs or Houses that it impacts. In this and numerous
other respects the semantics of sign and Household are practically isomorphic. Thus
the two discourses, Wagnerian TL and astrological aspect, appear to be talking about
the same poetic inscape or one formed from the same poetic logic, which ultimately
derives from the core orientational metaphors and their entailments streaming straight
from real-time body language in material social contexts. The mutual corresponden
ces are systematic and to my way ofthinking overwhelming. Other investigators will
no doubt say different things. But however they argue, sooner or later they will have

“Thus Cosima’s report: “... he talks about his Parsifal, saying it has not been possible to
avoid a certain restriction of feeling; this does not mean that it is churchlike in tone, he says, indeed
there is even a divine wildness in it, but such affecting embtions as in Tristan or even the Nibelungen
would be entirely out ofplace. ‘You will see—diminished sevenths were just not possible!” (Diaries,
II, entry of April 17, 1879.)
 265

to confront real evidence in the roles ofgrammarians else their arguments will remain
mere nonfalsifiable guesswork.

II. Lexemes of Humiliation, Coordinates of Contempt

■ A consequence of virtual spatialization is the abundance of spatialized
lexemes in Wagner’s XL; that is, keys used to convey various emotional, social, or
narrative realities by means of spatial orientation images. I now want to show how
MUSIC IS SPACE interacts with these other semantic properties to endow certain

lexical groups with an UP-DOWN orientational axis. It is by means of this axis that I
intend to locate the remaining cardinal points in Wagner’s map of MUSIC IS SPACE.
Let us first consider what it entails for a map to chart the topographical
positions HIGH and LOW. In such a case highness and lowness as such are imputed
properties ofboth the map and its charted territories. This underscores an interesting
feature of any map; its logical self-referentiality. Since any such chart is typically
read within the spaee it maps, it is logically an element of its own territory and its
own spatial orientation may assert claims or attitudes about its own cdntents. Maps
maybe designed to be read horizontally, as a military map spread across a war-room
table; or vertically, as a map hung upon a wall. Korean tonal maps prove coherent
with a horizontal orientation, such that their pentatonic pitch sets were conceptually
aligned with geographical cardinal points N, S, E, W, plus CENTER. Movement from
pitch to pitch is imagined as a horizontal broadcasting of whatever cultural meaning
Koreans assign to music in the directions East, West, North, or South from a Center.
Does Wagner’s tonal mappa mundi reflect this or another orientation? The
information that can be applied most directly to the question is lexical, specifically
Wagner’s semantics oíspatialized emotion. The example ofTL-lexicalized SQUARE
NESS IS HOSTILITY suggests that we may find our required compass in the HIGH-LOW
emotions oí contempt and humiliation. The Ring’s libretti are supersaturated with
such imagery. People are raked over eoals ofcontempt, physically humiliated, moral
ly degraded, emotionally pummeled, dragged through various degrees ofmud or dirty
water. They grovel and beg, throw themselves at each other’s feet, whine and lament,
and dream of revenge as they stick it to each other. The Rhine Daughters humiliate
the hapless Alberich, who calls them eels and bony fish, whips his groveling brother
while calling him booby, kicks his Nibelung minions around as he derides them as
lazy bums, and threatens to do the same to the gods. His betters do no better. Wotan
266

can’t concoct insults fast enough to keep pace with the demand and so constantly
repeats himself. He calls the giants idiots, Loge ababbler, Alberich a wretch. Women
receive less verbal abuse but more of the real thing; Freia, Sieglinde, Gutmne, and
Brünnhilde are reduced to trophy brides“ and repay such insults at every opportunity.
Fricka seethes under the humiliations of her philandering spouse, degrades her
Valkyrie step-daughters and even her chariot-drawing rams, and publicly hectors her
husband without regard for his reputation. Hunding orders his wife about like a
servant and degrades his unarmed guest, who cuckolds his erstwhile host while
deriding him for being henpecked by goddesses. The Valkyries mock the gag-ordered
corpses they ferry and Brünnhilde ostentatiously spurns Waltraute as her sister abases
herself before her. Gimther drips in a constant fearful sweat as he awaits impending
humiliation, Loge sneers at everyone himself included, and Hagen’s contempt is
beyond calculation.^^ime makes a career of self-abnegation as he gugs and gambles
humiliating memories that Siegfried takes every pain to replenish when he isn’t
calling Wotan an old fogey. Humiliation actually yields physical symptoms and
diseases: the gods respond to the loss of Freia by disintegrating before our eyes to
Logo’s clinical catalogue of their ever-deepening physical repulsiveness, social
degradation, and emotional humiliation. In some instances to degrade someone is
literally to deliver a death warrant, as Wotan’s degradation ofhis daughter transforms
her from an immortal to a death-doomed human being.
This is not Wagner making up colorful details but simply transcribing the
Saga culture that he took such pains to study and understand. It is par for the course
it^ societies glued together by “heroes”, as William Ian Miller describes:
Heroic society... knows of contempt; it depends upon it. Contempt
is the correlative of shame and humiliation. Contempt is what the
honorable have the right to show for the less honorable; it is a part of
the give and take of the acquisition and maintenance of honor. Fear
of contempt or shame is what fuels the engine of honor. The literat
ures of heroic honor only rarely give us a glimpse of those too mean
to be part of the competition for honor: Thersites and Thorkel suffer
grievously for their contemptuous ridicule of the ethics of honor.
Upward contempt of their sort is dangerous and not tolerable. When
one laughs at one’s superiors one had better make sure it is safely
behind thàr backs unless one has been granted the privilege of the

^’Siegmund is the seeming exception, which is perhaps why he has to threaten to kill his bride
in her sleep.
 267

fool or madman.^''
Wagner’s chronicles of contempt therefore tell us nothing in particular about his
personal attitude but are simply accurate reportage ofthe heroic society he mined for
his Saga surface narrative. Given that EMOTION IS SPACE, however, they tell us two
things. First, Wagner recognizes Miller’s HIGH-LOW formula as constitutive of the
contempt-humiliation emotions, in which upward contempt is felt to be defiance of
the emotional and social gravity that decrees that HUMILIATION IS DOWN. We know
this not least because in the Ring to be humiliated is to be physically lowered on
stage. Sooner or later nearly everyone finds themselves physically cowering or throw
ing themselves prostrate in supplication at various adamantine knees: Mime at
Alberich’s; Alberich’s and Brünnhilde at Wotan’s, the latter not once but twice,
obviously as a rehearsal for her later collapse at Siegfiied’s feet; Wotan at Fricka’s;
Waltraute at Brünnhilde’s; Gunther and Alberich at Hagen’s. Even when alone they
tend to collapse, sprawl, or slump: Mime on Nibelheim’s rocks; Siegmund at
Sieglinde’s hearth; Sieglinde in the woods; Mime behind the anvil; Erda into the
earth and the Noms into Erda.
The second thing that Wagner’s lexicon of spatialized emotion tells us is of
more far-reaching significance. In lexical terms, and relative to the tonal ZENITH
located at Walhall, Wagner’s lexemes for the humiliated and the abject point over
whelmingly in the same topographical direction; straight downward to a tonal point
directly beneath the gods’ feet. Wagner empirically draws a topographical axis be
tween the lexeme coimected with the high, the exalted, and the overmastering, with
a second lexical configuration connected with the low, the abject, and the impotent.
HUMILIATION IS DOWN lexically identifies the spatial point that can only be described

as the NADIR of Wagner’s Circle of Fifths. The Lexicon shows that the key of choice

^The Anatomy ofDisgust, p. 225, my italics. Miller refers to Shakespeare’s scurrilous and
deformed slave in Troilus and Cressida. He ançlifies as follows: “In the Icelandic sagas Thersites
makes a brief appearance in the guise of a poor farmer named Thorkel of Haffatindar. He has the
temerity to refuse to warn the hero of an intending ambush because he finds the feuds of the honor
able vaguely amusing and proposes instead to have firn firom a safe distance watching them kill each
other off... he is killed for his disrespectful sense of humor.” {Ibid., p. 224.) Wagner knew Thersites
in German translation and Thorkel through his conprehensive study of the Sagas. That he was fond
of them both is suggested by the fact that he used the image of a deformed lowlife hoping that heroes
will kill each other off not once but twice: in Siegfried, Act II (Mime’s fond hopes for Siegfiied and
Father) and in Parsifal, Act II (Klingsor’s sarcastic blessing on his minion knights).
268

for the contemptible is overwhelmingly G minor}^ To this key falls the jackal’s
share of lexicalizing all that is lowdown, inferior, berated, abased, abused, abject,
ashamed, weak, infirm, weary, unworthy, exhausted, submissive, defenseless, naked,
humiliated, impotent, and small. It is likewise the key of last resort for those who
sprawl, collapse, or sink down whether literally humiliated or not. It is the key of
dead mothers sprawled on the turf (#599) or nearly dead sons on the hearth (#530).
Thè common motif is NADIR: thus G MAJOR IS DOWN while G MINOR IS DOWN-
AND-OUT.
How are we to explain this overwhelming lexical directionality? Clearly
Wagner is-using TL grammar to plot points on a virtual map whose first cardinal axis
is UP—DOWN. He is moreover using emotion to do so; since squared-offprotagonists
fight and tritohed abjects grovel emotion is directionalized like a weather vane.
Lexical tonality thus keeps track of the emotional configurations of the stage figures
by recording their body language and positions relative to each other’s geomantic
Tonal Households. Wagner is therefore vindicated in alluding to the immense
expressive potential of this technique, in which key relationships unerringly describe
the relations among emotions. The emotions that most obviously pave the way into
this gêômantized inscape, however, are not quite those one might have been led to
expect. The Lexicon shows the most powerful emotional orienting force in the Ring
to be not Love, but the nadir—zenith defining duo of Humiliation and Contempt.
Now pièces of information that we have previously encountered in their
isolation begin to cohere with respect to a core cartographical metaphor. In our case
ofLoge and the Rhine Daughters TRITONE IS 180°, COMPLEMENTARY OPPOSITE. D b
IS ZENITH is similarly a topographical reference and G minor completes the
cartographic meaning of D b IS ZENITH with G MINOR IS NADIR thus:

^’Thus for instance, g=DEGRADATIONS: Wotan’s {#459)\ submission (#J 703\ #17IS); being
dishonored, Fasolt (#489); deepening weakness (#246); deathly exhaustion, weariness (#530; #535;
#1109); shameful abasement (#3392); extremis (#1181); being publicly berated (#56^; shame (of
being conquered by the unworthy) (#1271); defenselessness, nakedness (#2413); inqjotent rage
(#5527); just rage (#2897); inferior handler (#2745); a conterrçtible wretch (#3398); unworthy enemy
(#3369); unworthy ravisher, robber (#3088); a traitor (#3252); traitor beyond puinshment (#3264);
oath-breaker (#3506); a fool (#5504). For g=LOWLlNESS, LOW po in t , Alberich’s (#230); Alberich,
standing below (#9); —, devalued (#29); brought low (#47); lowly (#48); helpless but issuing threats
(#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 (#1957).
 269

ZENITH
T
Db Major

©
G Major/minor/E minor
i
NADIR^^
One key locates the other by complementary opposition, and by this UP-DOWN axis
we may trace its topographical lexical detailing. When Wotan decrees that Hunding’s
spirit is useless in Walhall and tells the Valkyrie to cut him loose to go “where he
belongs”, the lexical phrase tells us where the god thinks he belongs: straight down
to the cosmic nadir point directly beneath his own D b Major feet. This is confirmed
By standard tonal triangulation:
Ex. Via: Die Walküre, Act II, scene I
A Minor ______________________________________________________
Ki).......................: =............
Miiïl=.................................... ....:.................... ...............................................................-------------
I V I_______ _______________IVI III I iv i I V |i=iv I
jI Wotan: Nun zäume dein I Ross, reisige I Maid; bald ent- Ibrennt brünstiger I Streit. I
[a=heroic strife (#759)] [d=War Father, hero-leader (#770)] [a=heroic strife (#77/)]

A Minor_________________________________________________________________
b(i)........................................ •
Id(iv) :
|b(H) :....................................................... H
|g(iv/iv) *//......................... //
|e(v)________________________ _________________________________________
I V__________ li v=iv I V li VI// V7__________ I//V
* I Brünnhilde stürme zum I Streit, dem I WälsutiR kiese sie | Sieg! | Hunding wähle sich, | wem er ge-1
#772 [b=Valkyrie, death-angel, death] #773ab [gte=G=Hunding’s place (nadir)]

A Minor______________ IIB minor

|a(i) :.................................................: II
|d(iv) :.........................................................: : II
|b(ii) : :.......................... l-elc.
lg(vi/iv) : II
kW.... • S-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ii=ii I bll IV7 I i=iv IV_____________________|v=iv I V II
„I hart; nach | Wallhall | taugt er mir | nicht. IDrum rOstiR und Irasch, | Riete zurll Wal. |
#774a [d=War Father] #774b [a=heroic strife] [b=Vallcyrie, death angel]

War Father the leader of striving heroes inherits their death-and-glory D minor as

“E.g., Db=2ENrrH. mountain peak {#72; #334; #2625; #2828); —, ofbliss {#708); —, way
upward to {#2260); mountain apex {#2312); inaccessible (too high falutin) Goddess {#2432); zenith
{#2822); zenith of happiness {#2832); Gutrune, in “heaven” {#3227); C))=zenith {#3125).
270

he goads them toward A minor Sturm und Drang and potential E Major brides, where
B minor death angels may scoop them aloft for their F (t rides to D b Major heaven.
Of all this however Hunding has no share: his measly G minor/E minor is
separated from the general flow of heroic semantics by the unmediated modulations
to and from his sniveling keys and by the sudden piano with which these are set
apart. The two keys G minor and E minor pinpoint the location precisely since in
combination there is no other cartographic point to which the lexical phrase can refer;
e.g., {#773ab) is [{G:i+vi}, G=NADIR]. Another poor unfortunate consigned to the
G minor oubliette is Gutrune, whom Brünnhilde sends toppling from her usurped D b
Major pride of place so fast (#3686 #3687) that the tumble down to G minor
literally kills her with shame.^’ These two lexemes present the Cardinal Axis in its
purest form: the lofty, erect Brünnhilde looming at center stage rear to deliver her
stratospheric D b .Major denunciation to poor “G Minor Girl” abjectly groveling on
the ground beneath. This kind of thing is what spatialized emotion is really all about.

III. A Tonal Mappa Mundi

Wagner thus maps an UP—DOWN axis onto his CIRCLE OF FIFTHS —based
tonal cosmos, using standard TL syntax arid semantics to do so. This kind of fifths-
based constmction empirically confounds with lexical usage cosmological carto
graphies founded on scales or monochords. TL usage itself simply denies their
validity by rendering them incoherent unless cartographic angles are likewise being
hewn by simple tuning-by—fifth. To angle TL lexemes is to angle their associated
semantics accordingly; thus an empirical horoscopic map emerges not as an artifact
of abstract theory but of linguistic usage and pragmatics.
This was probably inevitable fix>m the moment the composer recognized that

^’Yet another public cultural property; thus WilliamIanMiUer(7ftímj7íaíio/i,pgs. 238-9, foot

note 47): “There is a rich sociology of falling. Falling is the stuff of slapstick and entbatrassment...
When we fall on the ice walking down the street in the winter we might say that we suffer humiliation,
but here we are using the word only in the strong sense of acute embarrassment, unless we fall while
engaged in some kind of display of ourselves which supposes poise and self-control. Men or women
who stumble while trying to cut a figure before the opposite sex more than embarrass themselves, they
humiliate themselyes with a fall. A president tumbling out of an airplane humiliates himself, because
presidents are never allowed not to be posing.” Gutrune’s fall is ofthe latter type. Her bathetic brother,
always an object lesson in self-abasement, seeks the moral NADIR somewhat more aggressively,
triangulating like mad to do so, e.g., U3398 [e=abject moral sprawling] (‘Betrüger ich und betrogen! ’)
+ #3399 [g=even more abject moral sprawling] (‘Verräther ich und verrathen! ’)=G MAJOR, NADIR. (For
more of poor, humiliated Gunther see above. Chapter Two, pgs. 59-60.)
 271

his common-practice compositional culture had already Invested the key of D b

Major with topographical attributes of loftiness, height, grandiosity, and the quality
of being above it all. Given rPb=ZENlTHl such a point automatically generates its
own cardinal directions using nothing more exotic than standard dominant timing:
zenith

' (V)Db
/ (V)Ab
/ (V)Eb I
l(V)Bb O
s(V)F Í
s (V)C
' (V)G

Similarly the G Major NADIR generates its own D b Major ZENITH by means of its
own recursive dominant modulations:
zenith

' (V)Di ^
/ (V)Ab F#(V) V
/ (V)Eb t B(V) ^
l(V)Bb O E(V)I
s (V) F ■ I A (V) /
s (V)C D(V) ^
' G(V) --

nadir
Thus, to invest a single tonic with cardinal point status is to generate its opposite by
dominant progression. The tritone 180° axis (the opposition, o-o) is likewise an
artifact of such modulation within a virtual tonal C3RCLE: six such scale degree
transformations generate tonics separated by the greatest possible harmonic and
ANGULAR distances. Since key characteristics have rendered all this semantic, such

virtual angles must become syntactical: TL-linguistic syntax as a linguistic precipit

ate of tuning a fiddle. The autonomic quality of all this is outstanding. No conscious
intention need be made to map or to dabble in astrology. The mapping process
unfolds unconsciously, automatically, as if expressing its own intentions or as if it
were a fact given by “nature” and not by human discourse. Though produced by one’s
own communicative intentions, it appears to happen by itself, to originate in some
other dimension or reality. This is no doubt why Western music found itself
discoursing on a defacto public property horoscopic map without a single composer
having intended to do so. Its collective and unconscious genesis is also no doubt why
something like was always felt to be there, in the background, in the “occult,” even
272

though no one appeared able to locate it in the foreground. Like “lexicon” itself, this
artifact is not a fact given in surface experience but a virtual intelligible object such
as I have described in Chapter Three. It is constituted not by some occult law but as
an intelligibility condition of real TL grammar. Since it exists only in cultural
Lexicon it could not in fact be located until such a Lexicon was posited and analyzed,
as I have done here. Only a lexical method can extract it from its virtual hiding place.
Having been located however, it is not all that difficult to see and to understand—
anyhow I’m betting on it.
In semantic terms, to derive extended key relationships by dominant
modulation within a chromatic circle differs radically from the alternate method of
deriving them via intervallic motion within a scale. Wagner clearly imagines his key
relationships as “timed” via fifths within the Circle of Fifths and not “placed” within
diatonic or chromatic scales. Although on paper it may seem plausible that persons
may jump from here to there in this Circle, as for instance by modulating directly
from D to D b ,more often Wagner imagines his Circle of Fifths from the perspective
of the human protagonists lodged within it. Such beings must slog from here to there
via dominant or subdominant modulation. This is, for example, why the tritone
contains the implication of six dominant moves within it, and why again the
“Heavenly Quadrant” of the Gods, though “above” the earthly plane, is nonetheless
flat with respect to it (Gb. Db. Ab against the earthly GJ., DL Ahi. Heaven is a
long way from earth—via dominant modulation that is.
Owing to the innate spatialization of the emotional universe which TL is
devoted to expressing, an impressive quota of tonal syntax and semantics is devoted
to mapping out by which precise linear pathways along the UP-DOWN
humiliation/contempt axis these people are to musically degrade or uplift each other.
This filters into the aggregate lexicon with great clarity. It is not simply that keys in
themselves are chosen to express contemptuous or humiliated imagery. The contempt
reaches into abstract common practice key relationships, obliging them to quantify
the precise degree to which this or that character has sunk beneath his station or has
crawled back up the social ladder. Thus for instance, dominant and subdominant
progression assumes the aspect of“forward” or “backward” angular motion, in which
{I-4V} syntactically connotes “to progress,” where “forward” signifies “to succeed”
or “to dominate” and the reverse, {IV(iv)^(I)}, “to regress” or “to be subordinated.”
Such syntax is particularly evident in situations where the poetic keywords suggest
 273

continuous travel or motion. Once the cartographic logic of key is established, syn
tactical modulation acquires virtual directional semantics. To modulate is to move
from point A to point N on the CIRCLE OF FIFTHS mappa mundi. Which way you move
depends on the tonal syntax of your Tonal Household relations.
Let us consider more closely the spatial semantics of this most basic of tonal
relationships, the dominantfunction. PROGRESS IS DOMINANCE carries the popular
usage “steal a march” or “get a leg up,” that is, that one may prevail over a rival by
outflanking or outpacing h/her. In the Ring it is often called upon to harmonically
conflrm that this or that person now dominates someone else. To modulate dominant-
ward is to acquire increasing social charisma and power. For Alberich to squat on the
Ek Rhine Daughters’ dominant Bt is to dominate them; and to modulate one
dominant further and stake out the B k Nibelungs’ dominant F is to acquire the title
Lord of the Ring.
Each step from key to key in this social climbing chronicle is modified by the
•key’s lexical entaihnents, which through dominant function constantly redefine what
it means to be dominated. Dominance style changes character from key to key while
the dominance function remains constant. Thus, since [f=greed, grasping, holding
on], the F minor Fafiier dominates the Nibelungs by squatting upon their collective
“soul.”^* Since c IS LIGHT, BRIGHT, INTELLIGENT, the Wanderer and his C Major
Grossen Gedanken confound F minor Fafher and B k minor Alberich by outshining
them. Sieglinde trumps Wotan by giving birth to Siegfiied.^’ The D Major Siegfried
achieves life at the cost of the G Major mother’s; heroes face battles and other trials
in A minor; A Major virgins surrender to love in E Major; the power of love becomes
the power of death in B minor; the dead are ferried upward from B minor to the F }t
Major gate of heaven; they enter in through D k Major and arrive at ZENITH. Heaven
passes in pomp and pride in A k Major and returns to its E k Major matrix at the end
of time (=terminus of the CIRCLE OF FIFTHS). But the dominance motif remains

““The Nibelung Myth as Sketch for a Drama,” p. 302.

^’That is, [C=Great Idea (Grosse Gedanken)] tiuitçed by [G=Mother]; hence, “In the
newborn child, which does not remain what it was in the mother’s womb, one can clearly perceive the
idea; all states of being and becoming are nothing, the idea originating in the mother’s womb is
everything.” (Quoted in Cosima Wagner, Diaries, I, p. 141, August 27,1869). For a discussion of G
Major and maternity see my “Sieglinde’s ‘Long Day’s Journey into Night” and “Sieglinde and the
Moon.”
274

Standard in all cases where a dominant key relationship is emphasized. Dominant

progression is thus a syntactical index of natural forward motion, the succession of
life stages through which people pass as they ascend from the nadir of childhood or
mavimiim smallness in G. This semantic fact conditions how we are to understand
such otherwise purely structural phenomena as tonal sequences of ascending keys.
Though by no means the only poetic use to which Wagner puts the abstract dominant
function, upward social mobility exhausts a great deal of its meaning in the Ring and
evçn in Parsifal.
Though this semantic logic, sequential dominantward or subdominantward
motion^expresses significant, long, or difficult journeys, as in Siegfried, Act I, when
Sieglinde^struggles from Siegmund’s death field to Mime’s cave in a series of weary
dominantward steps fi'om C Major/minor [C=LIGHT; ç=failing] through G minor, D
minor, A minor, E minor, and B minor.^® Scale minority combines with dominant-
ward motion to endow the progression with a cumulative feeling ofexhaustion, while
the B minor terminus shows Sieglinde’s final goal to be [b=enemy’s hearth, death]
(fi'om [D=hearth]):
Ex. VIb: Siegfried, Act I, scene i
C Major
ic®...... (0
|g(v) :............................. .. (v/I)
|d(ii)
1 .1 7 1=4 1 V li 24 3 IV iv VI=bII |V i 1
1 III Mime: |Einst lag wimmernd ein |
#1460 [Ç=UGHT] #1461 [o=dimming light] #1462 [d=labor, distress]
C Major
|c(i)
lg(v)
|d(ii).............V....................... ..(v/v/I)
la(vi) ;.............. (v/v/v/I)
|e(iii)
|6 5 4 3 2 3 4 15=i7 1=4 |V |i243|ii 432 12 ]
|Weib da drausen im wilden |Wald: 1 1 1 zu Höhle half ich ihr |
#1463 [a=Sieglinde] #1464 [e=eastem forest cave]

^°For a conçletesyntactical/semantic analysis of Mime’s nanrative of Sieglinde’s death see

my “Sieglinde’s ‘Long Day’s Journey into Night’.’’ In a nutshell: Sieglinde treads her weary way from
the C Major light of Wotan’s Grossen Gedanken through the process of G minor motherhood to D
minor Heldentum to the E minor eastern forest to collapse in Mime’s B minor death cave.
 275

C Major
|c(i)
|e(iii).... ...(v/v/v/v/I)
|B(v/iii)
1 2=5 V til IV I 1 V 1
1 _ her: 1 am warmen Herd sie zu hüten. I 1 etc.
UI465 [b=enemy’s hearth]
Again, in the radiant final chorus oí Parsifal, the grail knights ascend in spirit from
the D Major of the king’s healing dominantward through A Major, E Major, Cb
Major, G b Major, and D b Major to reach at last the A b Major Sacred Chalice. Here
scale majority combines with dominantward motion to express the feeling of an
upward and not a downward journey. Here are the last 54 bars of Parsifal:
Ex. Vic: Parsifal, Act III, Scene ii
D minor IIAh Maior
|AbC) H........................
1 l|Eb(V)
1 (V) II I II llvirV llViiV L I 1 vi |V=I IV 1 V 1
löffiitet den IlSchrein! I 1 1 1 J______ 1 1 1_______
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ah Maior .
lAb(I)
|Eb(V)...............
|D(bIl/IV) .......//
IDb(IV) //....................
II V I iii 1 ii V |I=bll vi IV 1IV//Ü V 1 I 1 Vi |V=1 V IVii V lii I 1
1- Cborus (Réduction): |
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Ah IIA minor
lAb(l).....1|.
lEb(V) 1|;
ldb(iv) ||(=c|t=iii/I).........................
PS |1(=IV)
lAfbll/I) ||(=I/0
1 V ||1=V 1 III 1 iv |bll=l 1 VÌ 1 V=I 1 vi________ 1_______
1 HSch- listen IHeiles 1 Heiles [Wunder! | 1 Erlô- [sung dem Erlöser! |
1 II 1 1 lEr 16- Isung dem Er- llöser! 1 Er - - 1
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A minor IIAh Malar

|(Ab) ll(=l)
|a(i/l).....: II*
|ES(V) ;.......... ................. II-:
|Cb/B(llVl) 11 :.......
Ph IIHV/IV) :..........
IDb 11(=IV)
1 V=I Ivi ||V=I Ivi |V=1 J_____ vi 1 V=1 V 1
1 lösunR dem Er llöser! II • 1 1 Erö- Isung dem Er - 1 lö------------- 1
26 27 28 29 30 31 32
276

Ab Major
|Ab(I) :.....................................................................

1 V IVI IV II 1 (4 cnU 1 I 1 vi=ii V 11 IV II V 1

1------ Iser! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_______
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Ab Maior

1 V II VIV IV I V 11 VIV 1 V 1 I 1 vi 1 IV 1 IV _i_J____ ^_______

43 \ 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Ab Maior
II
lAbrn.................
1____■ 1..-!- II
53 54'
Nothing has changed in either the syntax or the semantics between Siegfried and
Parsifal. Stric^ TL syntax continues to support strict TL lexicality to the last bar.
Semantically D1^ still means “height,” C Major still means “light;” B minor still
means “plight,” jiist as before. Thus [Di=summit, height] is preserved and looks
back to Amfortas’ prayer to his father in Di. heaven, which is now granting to him
in the form of the heavenly vision on the sopranos’ high Ab(jDb.:V). The key
signature change at bar 19 of the example is to A minor, which organizes the vision
of the grail knights’ wonderment as if from the perspective of [a=purityj; this
association is strengthened by the highly eloquent yet ersatz A minor “chord” (in
reality four chromatic neighbor tones against the held D^:I) that accompanies
Kundry dropping dead to the ground before Parsifal and the Grail. This means that
the tired old tone spirit has at last achieved [a=purity] and thus, peace. Her
“fimctionless” A minor non-chofd.bears comparison with Siegmund’s ersatz D minor
non-chord (Ex. 2.14 and discussion) and means “dead girl dropping.” The defunct
feeling-tone of Kundry’s death chord is generated by straightforward TL syntax: no
tonal path leads into it, no tonal path leads out of it, it is therefore completely isolated
and fhe violent fortissimo that marks it serves to disintegrate its fragile chromatic
neighbor tones into their nonviable elements, immediately re-subsumed into the key
of “zenith” (Kundry subsumed into heaven). Here the moimtain height of D b Major
proves to be but a subdominant rest stop in a massive piagai cadence that modulates
beyond the mountain top to the heavens above it, which Wagner imagines as its
dominant, the Grail key of A b Major.^'

’’To be discussed in the next two Chapters.

 277

SUBDOMINANT (I/i—IV/iv) IS SUBORDINATE. Again, the subdominant does

much work as a tonal holding cell within which socially disenfranchised characters
passively squat and grumble while awaiting their chance to get the modulatoryjump
on someone else, as Hagen broods on his Eb minor stool mentally plotting against
his B b Major half-brother or as the gods congregate in the G Major waiting room for
a chance to modulate within biting distance of Freia’s D Major golden apples. Most
often, to find oneself in one’s own subdominant is to be taken down a peg. The
heroic D Major in particular is vulnerable to such subdominant denigrations, since
this key is likewise the generic NADIR and thus a particularly depressing locale in
which a wannabe hero may find himself (e.g., #830, #832).
Alberich’s Curse carries the keys from B minor subdominantward through E,
A, D, and F minors to Alberich’s own B b minor in token of the charm’s irresistibly
disintegrative regression.^^ For this reason one might almost evaluate the Curse as an
engine to harness subdominant capability of undoing all that fine dominantward
progression, to turn people from the “upward” path and set their footsteps downward
again The cartographic dimension of such syntax lies in the angular effect of such
modulations, which traverses much surface distance within tonal cartographic
territory.

The Cardinal Axis and the "Heavenly Quadrant. ” The semantic content with
which Wagner endows his ZENITH-NADIR tonal lexemes provides a clear answer to
hoW the composer imagined his tonal mappa mundi to be properly displayed. Where
Korean musical maps are only coherent on the assumption that MUSIC IS SPACE is
Spread out horizontally, withN-S-E-W arrayed from a central spoke in the manner of
a roulette wheel, Wagner’s map is clearly meant to be interpreted vertically, as if the
Circle of Fifths were inscribed into the spokes of a wagon-wheel and modulation
represented the turning of such a wheel. Wagner is self-consciously aware that the
Ring is in fact a cosmic map of this ^e. This is evident for instance in the
Wanderer’s query to Erda: “Doch deiner Weisheit dankt’ ich den Rath wohl, wie zu

”Within this generic syntax Wagner finds room for subtle details. Thus Alberich’s
subdominantward slide meaningfully skips over the offensive C IS LIGHT, since Alberich is allergic to
light. Contrarily, the Parsifal final tableau allows the chorus to vocalize “Erlösung dem Erlöser on
every key except Cb, since [b=Klingsor, damnation] and the grail knights are allergic to this tone even
in the Major mode. Thus trumpets must sub for them at this Cb iteration, just as Judas’ place remains
conspicuously unoccupied at the Resurrection table.
278

hemmen ein rollendes Rad?”“ Nothing other than TL discourse is required to secure
these geomantic results: the moment keys become lexemes such entailments are
generated syntactically in the very act of Tl^speaking.
What kind ofmap has emerged already given only this single UP-DOWN axis?
Let me borrow the partial map from Chapter Five that sketched the soimdscape of
Loge’s illegitimate appropriation of an Major celestial fire and fill in what we
now know about these two cardinal points:
zenith
/\
AD 1.(1)A
Ab(V) Fd/Gb(IV)
11
© via tritone
li
Gll(tí4)
nadir
Zenith-to-Nadir Axis
Ibelieve this crude sketch accmately represents the essence ofhow Wagner imagined
these sectors of the Ring’s tonal soundscape. Consider the three “heavenly” keys of
G b Major^—b Major—A b Major, which together define the montane quadrant of
this virtual world. As usual, all that we know about these territories is derived from
the Lexicon, that is, fix)m the poetic usages to which Wagner puts these three
lexemes. By this time we are on firm ground in defining each entry in the Lexicon as
the TL equivalent of a cartographic legend, a tabulation of geographical information
inscribed on a map to explain its symbolism. Though his mythic frame of reference
in the Ring is Norse and classical and not Christian, Wagner’s TL lexemes function
in the manner of mediæval legends. In Parsifal however the same cartographic
technique yields a parallel map that may be called a true tonal-mediæval world map.
The soundscape we are now exploring is therefore both cartographic and
legendary, fragments of information describing regions in imaginai space. The
compound lexemes of adjacent Tonal Households thus cohere to depict not compass
points but topographical quadrants. As described by the appropriate lexical legends
therefore, the quadrant

^^Siegfried, Act HI, #2160-1. This in A minor, COMPLEMENTARY OPPOSITE to the Ei Major
of eternal flowing (rolling); hence, arresting flow.
 279

ùcastle towers
/\
Ad b (I)A
Ab(V) Gb(rv)
heavenly people © ©©® D front door

is collectively depicted as a montane height and, in tune with the simplicity of Wag
ner’s assumptions and methods, the legendary character of these three conjoined
regions is well expressed in the old nursery rhyme: “There is the church, there the
steeple, open the door, and see all the people.” That is:
G b Major. Threshold of Heaven (the door)
Db Major. Heights of Heaven (the steeple)
A b Major. Interior of Heaven (all the people)
These three “heavenly” keys show marked lexical differences under the rubric of a
single imifying image: height. All three keys are lofty, and the imagery of altitude
acts as a unifying bracket identifying these keys as exalted. Apart from the common
images of lofty spaces, mountain heights, clouds covering mountain tops, and the
like, these lexemes also articulate various metaphoric aspects of height: social
charisma, lofty ideals, superior social status, supreme power, high ideals, exalted
vision, and so on. These lexemes also express highhandedness, snobbery, and other
entailments of the core metaphor SOCIAL SUPERIORITY IS HEIGHT.

G b/FfTonal Household. As confirmed by the Lexicon, the fundamental

topographical feature of Gb/F<t lexemes is the space at the highest point of a
mountain slope, just beneath the actual summit.^* This is sufficiently specific and
coherent with the descriptions of Heinse, Gustav Schilling, and others as to confirm
Wagner’s lexical concepts as at least partly public cultural property-based. Thus
when you reach F¿ you are standing at the crest of a mountain: modulate
dominantward to ascend the final short distance (I-+V) to the summit, modulate

’*Thus for instance Gb=HEAVEN'S PORTAL ; WORLD ASH TREE, its spreading branches
(#251Ö); THRONE ofHeaven, foot of(#2947)\ RAINBOWBRIDOEto Walhall (#507); F¿=High heaven’s
clouds (#2976); G b ^t h r e s h o l d o f h e a v e n (#2626); mountainside, heaven’s gate (#2850); heaven’s
doorway, open(#34); heaven, threshold (#724); Summit, entrance to Walhall (#77; #1742); Walhall’s
doorstep (#2941); its Foundation (#2549); Fil=HEAVEN. standing before (#2361); eb=HEAVEN’S
Po r t a l (closed) (#36); f¿=HEAVEN-S po r t a l (#1156); gi=heaven’s gate (#2844). Sometimes the
image of the waiting room or the front stoop is detached from that of height, as in #309, antechamber
ofNibelungs.
280

subdominantward (IV *^I) to return back down the slope of B Major/minor toward
the lowlands of E and A. It is thus a pivotal cartographic point and not a cardinal
one and thus articulates upward and downwardjourneys and specifically those ofthe
messengers of heaven, mostly Brünnhilde when she brings Siegmund news of the
judgment of Wotan or Waltraute when she brings Brünnhilde news of Walhall’s
distress.^’ The key also associates with Loge and his function of guide to the lower
regions, which he is poised to do as he stands on the F¿ slope via his well-trod tonal
path: firom F |t Major to F|t minor thence to A Major and finally A minor.
That this is a dizzyingJieight is indicated by the Gb. Rainbow Bridge which
only gods can use—morteils’ only way upward is via the death and transfiguration
brought about in B Major, which then modulates (carries aloft) the soul by means of
the F }t minor steeds ofthe B'tninor Valkyñes to the Db castle in which in theory they
are to enj oy their everlasting Ab. fevelá. A syntactical entaihnent ofG b IS THRESHOLD
is again that piogress or forward motion is dominantprogression. This is because the
three heaVfenly keys are sequenced accordingly: one must enter the building (I-»^V)
through the door aftd onlywithin the building can you meet (!-► V) its householders.
This synthx helps articulate the pfogreâs'of Wotan’s securing the actual castle,
aôquiring legal title via His strenuous day’s work stealing the Rhinegold for the Giant
bililders. This is suggêsted by the lexical sequence of Wotan’s “Abendlich” aria, as
follows:
#507. [Gb.=Rainbow (entry to Walhall)] (‘Ein Regenbogen-Brücke’)
#508. [Db.=Walhall] (p’assim)
#509. Feb-sunset] (‘Abendlich sfiahlt der Sonne Auge’)
#510. [Gb =glorious light] (‘in prächtiger Gluth prangt glänzend die Burg’)
#511. [Ai.=rhoming shine; a holy day] (‘In des Morgens Scheme muthig er
schimmemdlag sie herrenlos’)
#512. [ab.=span of a fateful day] (‘Von Morgen bis Abend’)

’’Thus, Gb=HEAVENLY MESSENGER[BrännAiWe] (#1027)-, Fi= —, repents (#1099); —,

Good Greeting of (#1041); —, Siegfried’s guardian angel (#257S); -£¿=h e a v e n l y MESSENGER
[Brünnhilde], leading to death,and transformation (#1022; #1024; #lfl40; #1049; #1053; #1069;
#1081¡ #1087; #1091; #1294); —, following after (#1028); joumeyipg with (#1053); —, asjeep,
leading to life and transformation (#2357); F¿=h e a v e n l y MESSENGER [iValtraute] (#2889); f¿=
HEAVENLY MESSENGER [Waltraute] (#2877-, #2927; #2969; #2989-„#2992; #3003); —, departing
(#3006); —, afi-aid (#2918); her report (#2975); —; incomprehensible (#2P7P);‘heavenly meetings
(#2931); a sister Valkyrie (#1169); ¿¿=HEAVEn l y MESSENGER [Brünnhilde] changed decision of
(#1100); e^=[Waltraute], frightened (#2923); heaven’s gate/messenger (#2914).
 281

§513. [f=difficult labour] (‘nicht wonnig ward sie gewonnen! ’)

§514. [ç=night] (‘Es naht die Nacht’)
Here G b Maj or fixes the pivotal terrain of the next-to-highest mountain slope from
which the Rainbow stretches to the zenith of D b Major, and also coimotes “glorious
light”, thereby cohering with Loge’s more flashy F ft Major celestial fires. The Db
summit is surrounded and braced by its neighbor Households Gb.(IV) and Ab.(V).
The latter embraces the entire day of labor required to pay for the castle and therefore
indexes its value: A b Major is the glorious light ofthe holy day ofthe castle, its tonic
minor the wasting ofthat day as its value simultaneously increases and decreases, and
the relative F minor the painful physical and moral effort required to redeem it.’* The
E b minor sunset connotes the foreboded twilight of the gods through its “Omega”
semantics, since consistent dominant modulation fix>m the E b Major “Alpha” (Ref
erential Key I) leads inevitably back to the same point, now wasted to minority by the
life struggles of the preceding World Cycle (the “Rin¿'). This “Omega” usage is
multiply coherent throughout the Ring dramas and fulfills itself in the persons of the
E b minor Noms, whose key points specifically to this “Omega” duty station: other
wise they are A Major lexemes, that is, inhabitants of the Earth Mother’s virgin
womb and witnesses to the Goddess’ female wisdom.”
This legendary region is coherently embellished by reports received from
various other quarters ofthe Ring’s soimdscape. For instance, recalling our old fnend
Loge and his obsession with the Household of F $ Major, the legend [Fit-Heaven’s
door] visualizes what thia Household means to him: It is one end-point of the path
he must take in his duty of messengerbifrveenji^en and earth, hastening up from
his A Major underworld to the doorway of FDb-Heaven! (angled Z just beneath the
turrets or steeple Û), where he must stand and wait like a servant to receive his
marching orders from a detested boss. Loge’s attitude toward this may be intimated

’^ote how F minor (Ab:vi/F:i! semantically pivots to [F=work] and to fAb=heavenlv value].
This connecting fonction between two Households and their core metaphors is a default semantic
usage of the minor keys.

”E.g., A=THEN0RNS (#472: #2157): Wisdom, female (#P75; #2135): Brünnhilde as wise
woman, (#2165): Female Wisdom, thrown away (#2493): a=THE NORNS, powerless (#2]58): ÍÍ.~
standing in need of female wisdom (#2160): a=female wisdom, defonct (#2189): ftt=female wisdom
proven ignorant (#2175). Not insignificantly, as we have seen, Loge rules this Household. This
exaltation of the god of deceit in their own Tonal Household goes far to explain the prevarications,
double entendres, and other evasive strategies that so often render Nomish testimony useless.
282

by the angular relationship <90° = m3 which he must traverse to assume his

distasteful duty station.^® This is the now familiar syntactical SQUARE IS HOSTILITY,
whose TL grammar encodes the feeling-tone appropriate to the situation.
Given Loge-Hermes’ heaven-to-hell messenger service, the humbug’s native
A Major belongs to the womb of the Earth Mother from which it must stretch away
(A:vi) up to [H.=Heaven’s door]—a relationship of lovraess reaching toward
highness.®’ Since like all tone-spirits Loge moves from region to region by
modulation, we may observe how Loge must move to reach his goal: From A Major
to his own relative minor and across the 90° divide h_ to the F it Doorway, which must
darken to its tonic minor as if unwilling to receive him. This is a poetic translation
of the TL lexical and syntactical transformations (=grammar) necessary to express
the direction and style of motion that Loge must adopt in order to reach his goal.

D b MAJOR IS ZENITH -
L Fjt MAJOR/MINOR IS HEAVEN'S DOOR

A MAJORJFIt MINOR IS EARTH'S WOMB

Loge’s route from the underworld to heaven’s door

D l> Major Tonal Household : The core lexeme ID b=ZENiTHl^° marks this as
the main cardinal point on the world’s CIRCLE OF FIFTHS mappa mundi. The
altitudinal conceit is implicit in the core metaphor itself, and this governs its lexical
usage,throughout both the Ring dramas and Farsi^â/. With respect to the other
cardinal points (E, W, NADIR) his lexical ZENITH point is 1 ikewise semantically

’*The emotion ofcondescension sometimes invests the key; thus F II =condescension (#57 ß);
ofthe gods (#2601); Gb^heaven sinking (#3224); heavenly gift (#55 79; U3509); eb=loss ofheavenly
gift {#3510); gods’ beneficiary {#2602).

^'’We only see Hermes/Loge in action in the bowels of the earth whence presumably once
snatched him. In his native habitat then Loge is a tellurian and not a celestial fire.

"Thus, Db=ZENlTH. mountain peak {#72; #334; #2625; #2828); —, ofbliss (#705); —, way
upward to {#2260); a mountain apex {#2312); inaccessible (still too high falutin) Goddess {#2432);
zehith {#2822); zenith of happiness {#2832); Gutrune, in “heaven” {#3227); C¿=zenith {#3125);
Di=WALHALL(#75; #508; #526; #909; #1023; #1262; #1777; #3209); db.= —, threatened (#557);
—, abandoned or rained {#261); —, Faflier’s memory of (#7 740); db=Walhall {#3065; #3054); c¿=
Walhall on the edge {#2545); —, rained {#3002); db=Throne of Heaven, defimct {#2946); distant
heaven {#2874); clt=heaven. defimct {#2980).
 283

privileged by means of the lexicon of supreme value which it typically conveys.'“

Such values include social charisma, supreme authority, superior vision or view,
loftiness of intention, unarguable achievements and success. It is a lexeme oísacred
ness {#2764)\ of holy oaths {U2804\ #340S) or heavenly gift {H350S)-, its minor the
most valued thing (#182) or a world without end (#469). It is a lexeme ior gazing at
heaven (#547) or when minored, of exile from heaven ( #713), or of honor or truth
doubted (#3294). It is where you stand when you make an apostrophe to the Gods
(#3266, #3274) even when these are prayed to but unavailable (#2335) or when
indulging godlike pretensions (#3021). It is the GODS themselves (#883; #1555;
#1968; #2554; #2563; #2744; #3086; #3191; #449 or Wishmaidens (#1037) even
when in decline (#2183) or, finally, gone (#2298). When in minor the gods become
thieves (#345; #3076) or go defimct (#3090; #927).
Such valorization of a single cardinal, point is typical of such charts as the
mediæval mappce mundi. The point is privileged for symbolizing the culture’s highest
value. Typically the valorized point is displayed at the top of the vertically-hanging
map in token of HIGH IS GOOD. HIGHEST IS BEST. In the Hereford mappa mundi this
is Cardinal Point EAST:
The orientation of mediæval maps is peculiar. While modem, map-
drawers place the north at the head of the map, our predecessors in
the middle ages, with few exceptions, placed the east in that position.
Biblical considerations decided them in favour of this arrangement.
The primeval abode of man was in the east: the Terrestrial Paradise
still remained there—an object of the deepest interest to the religious
sentiment of the middle ages. What more natural than that the place
of honour should be assigned to it in the map, particularly as that
accorded with the historical method which forms so prominent
feature in mediæval cartography? The map of the world was intended
to picture forth the fortunes of the human race, and Paradise, as form
ing the starting-point in the stream of time, occupied the head of the
map.”"^
From the mediæval point if view then, Wagner is orthodox in privileging D b IS

^'Indeed its complementary opposite, G, lexicalizes THE TRIVIAL, THE SMALL or Alberich
trivialized (U62; U383); or deposed (U1539); or Wotan overthrown (§860); or humans minions (§830;
§832; §841), imderling (§2672); or in relative minor, enslavement (§922) or Mime as he wishes he
were (§301; §1719); or a conucally trivialized fight (§1141); or Fafher’s teeth mocked (§1942) or
when minor a boaster (§1783) oir in relative minor a braggart (§1324).

*^Mediœval Geography, p. xx.

284

ZENITH with the status of the Cirele of Fifth’s HIGHEST POINT. This fact about the
Ring's world map will also prove important in Parsifal, in which the same coordinate
logic is templated onto an extended metaphysical TL lexicon.

A y Major Tonal Household'. Like G b Major, the A b Major Household index

es loftiness of territory but also the lofty virtues or elite activities of its inhabitants.
Wagner strongly associates Ab Major with the element AIR and the lofty heights
entailed by the atmosphere; thus the key signifies clouds (#1554)', glowing clouds
{112274)', bathing in Fire-Clouds {#2302)', or a goddess ' breath {#2351)', or cloud-
hidden heights {#1554; #2261); or a mountain space {#2788) (when conjoined to this
key the relative minor likewise connotes mountain height, e.g., h^l^heights
{#2510); gÈ_=heights or distant matters {#1612); jump-off point for heaven {#1153).
In Græco-Roman terms this is the Household of the Sky God; thus Wagner’s
usage corresponds with the Iliad: “the broad heaven {ouranos) in the aither and the
clouds’ belongs to Zeus.” {II. 15.192.). Homer’s ouranos is heaven and cloud in the
same sense as is Wagner’s A b Major. In Græco-Roman and modem astrology this
inscape reappears as the air-sign Aquarius the Cup Bearer (i^), ruled by the planet
Uranus ¡ouranos), which is actually the billowing cloudscape of heaven. The “Cup”
borne by the god of this House is undoubtedly the clouds themselves, which are both
the container of waters and the waters that they contain. In the Ring A b becomes the
cloudy aether surroimding the mountain castle, its dramatic veil ofcloud, or even the
celestial bowl itself which acts as a chalice containing the innumerable contents of
the sublunary sphere or pouring them like the cornucopia downward from the
mountaintop onto the broad expanse of the earth. This is the topographical origin of
the affect of loftiness with which this key is invested: Wagner personifies the idea of
a heavertly boon descending to earth from heaven among other places in Brünnhilde’s
“Hielige schied sie aus Walhall.”^^ Again, since emotion is topographized, the Ab
“Legends of Brünnhilde” confirm this as a lexeme with which to feel socially
superior, as when touch-me-not Brünnhilde imagines her exit from Walhall as too.

^’Thus, A b =HEAVENLY VIRTUES: honor, renown {#74; #2606; #2609); virtue {#2636); moral
principles (W^I^Freia, captured (#254); —, captive forever (#465); G¿=—, perhaps unredeemable
(#16f); Sieg&ied, lofty, treasure ofthe world, life ofthe earth (#2‘#52); gl=HEAVENLY v ir t u e s : Freia
begging for rescue (#1196); ab=HEAVENLY VIRTUES: Friclca’s honor avenged (#889); —, soiled:
Wotan’s guilt(#7774); Ab=GODHEAD,passing(#798; #801);revels,gods’ (#336);revelers(#3082);
HEAD, illuminated (#2277)
 285

too holy only to feel the A b- minor reality of her new status dissolve A b Major hoity-
toity to F minor panic.^ Here the standard semantics of the relative minor forces the
poetic object away and downward relative to the Major Tonal Householder. Usage
of the major to connote lofty social status, tonic minor to indicate its demotion, and
the relative minor to show collapse into social ostracism is general. The A b House
thus shows the same I;i:vi correlation among Householder,^’ threatened or
threatening Householder, and Household reject as does its cousin, Alberich and
Mime’s B b Major Household. Thus where the latter’s G minor connotes the lowest
dwarf in dwarfdom, the former’s F minor connotes the high-toned Wish Maiden on
the skids or kicked out of the Old Man’s House.
An interesting conjunctiofi of A¿ and F¿ to denote D b Major Walhall’s two
bracing buttresses occurs in Götterdämmerung, Act HI, at the moment when Brünn
hilde commands the Gibichungs to pile mi^ty logs to raise an heroic funeral pyre.
Lexeme U3695 describes the pile raising heavertward,^’ #3696 their F it bursting into
flame. The earthly pyre corresponds to the heavenly pyre we cannot see but must
imagine and thus stands as the Norse tree Lærâtôr to the World Ash Tree (see below).
Wagner confirms this by using #3695 to conununicate with #2516, fGb=Ash Tree’s
spreading branches] (‘da grossund stark dem Stamm entgrilnte’). Taken in conjunct-

‘^Thus the mini-episode forms an elegant syntactical and lexical phrase: Thus #2427, the
excessively lofty A b Major Wish Maiden (‘Heilig schied sie aus Walhall’; minorizes as she realizes
the reality of her newly menial social standing (#2428, passim + ‘Wehe der Schmach! ’) and collapses
to the suburbs of the relative minor (#2429) as she sees her lofty social status kaput (‘Verwundet hat
mich, der mich erweckt! ’).

‘’Thus, AL is BRÜNNHILDE, Cup-Bearer or Wish-maiden (#2164; #2479; #2480; #3033;

#3040) or Wala-daughter (#2173) or Erda and Wotan’s child (#2166) or heavenly maiden (#2985;
#3151 #3182; #3208; #3210; #3222; #3232; #3340; #3389; #3290; #3513); when being excessively
lofty (#2427) or too inaccessible (#2433) or scomfiil (#3393) or becoming in herself a flood into
which a lover might plunge (#2472). It is her blinding eyes (#2494); her wondrous tone (#2396).
When nnnor it is Gutrune presuming to become an ersatz “heavenly” maiden (#3226) or the heavenly
bride herself (#2845; #3387) or the same degraded (#2842), demoted (#1316; #1349) or her lofty
social status dissolving (#2428) or a Valkyrie in fear (#2915). The relative minor gives us the late
favorite demoted by Fricka (#866) to ex-Cup-Bearer (#1245), exiled from Walhall (#1261), pleading
(#2903) and supplicating (#2960).

‘’E.g., from the E b Rhine bank through the AL slope toward the Db zenith, precisely as in
the semantics of #71 ab: EL AL (765-72) ->Db=ascending from the Rhine to the mountain top. The
funeral pyre sequence follows the earlier sequence (Götterdämmerung, Act II) of #2942, D=heroic
. host/#2943, F=mighty piling labor to #2947, Gb=door of heaven. As an exançle of how carefully
Wagner coordinates his TL and ML semantics, both cases conserve F IS MIGHTY PILING LABOR and D
IS HERO OR HEROES while remaining dramatically relevant in the compositional moment.
286

ion these two keys “finger” the absent-but-not-for-long Walhall thus:

(Db WALHALL(■'Oo)

▲
BUTTRESS Ai (^ ) Ei (;>?) BUTTRESS

Getting ready for the big barbecue

This is Wagner’s standard cartographical semantics: simply by naming objects in the
way he does the composer makes it possible to map the dramatic situation against the
Circle of Fifths as against a projection screen. When arranged cartographically it is
possible to visually see the paths by which Walhall is threatened: fi-om the West by
the waterflood entailed by Ab Major“*^ and by the fire cloud threatened from F}1
Major.^* Both of the Dl. mountain castle’s tonal buttresses have become unstable.
G Major Tonal Household. An important lexical specification of Gb IS
LOFTINESS is #2516, the Noms’ reference to the spreading branches of the World
Ash Tree. Wagner’s usage coheres with both the Rainbow Bridge and the Threshold
of Walhall via the Norse mythic equivalence between the mountain of the gods and
the Tree that upholds the world. In this variant the heavenly castle is actually cradled
at the zenith of the World Tree.^’ Erich Neumann reproduces an eighteenth century
illustration fi-om Finnur Magnusson’s edition of the Elder Edda that supports the
interpretation ofthe Mountain of the Gods as the World Ash Tree. Dumézil notes the
mythic unity of all trees with the cosmological prototype thus: “In addition to
Yggdrasil, a veritable axis mundi that climbs firom the bowels of the earth to the sky,
Nordic mythology recognizes a less pretentious tree named Lærad {ON Lœrâtôr),
which is located entirely in the upper world, specifically near or in the home of Odin.
Most likely this corresponds in mythology either to the village tree or to the tree that
stands at the center of a house (probably as part of the original framework) such as
the oak in the great hall of the Volsimgs. In any case, all of this derives fi-om a central
idea that appears again in the world tree, and it is difficult, perhaps futile, to try to
determine whether this practice produced the myth or vice versa.”^®

"E.g., »3736, »3777.

"E.g., »3696, »3698, or »3772.

“Source,-Erich Neumann, The Great Mother, p. 249.

^Gods ofthe Ancient Northmen, p. 141.

 Fig. 6b: Yggdrasill, the World Tree of the Eddas
From Finnur Magntisson 's edition ofthe Eldar Edda, XVIII century.
The question then becomes, how has Wagner inscribed this Tree into the CIRCLE OF
FIFTHS mappa mundi’s cardinal UP-DOWN axis? Just as the BRANCHES are
represented by G b and its CROWN by D b, the ROOT or BASE of the Tree lexicalized
via the COMPLEMENTARY OPPOSITE G Major, the key of the NADIR. We know from
legends in the Lexicon that this NADIR is both the Household of the Mother and the
ROOT of a TREE.’’ These G Major legends permit us to complete the visualization of

’‘Thus for instance, GMajor is the key of Sieglinde’s ash-tree stem, i.e., #642 [G=Tree, Ash,
stem] (‘auf eine Stelle am Eschenstamme’); #685 [Ç=sword-in-Ash] {‘in der Esche Stamm’); #686
[e=the ash-stem] (‘der aus demStamm’); or it is Siegôied’s LINDEN t r e e (#20P0; #3564) and its lower
288

the Circle of Fifth’s primary axis as the entirety of the World Ash Tree as follows:
crown
/\
ADb(i)A
Ali(v) Gb(rv) upper branches
t
GI1014)
root, bass, stem, lower branches

The World Ash Tree

on the CIRCLE OF FIFTHS mappa mundi

Again, since G MAJOR IS TREE IS SIEGEINDE IS MOTHER, the Hero is bom out of the
root of the maternal Tree. This coheres with world myth, including the Norse, in
which the Tree is associated or even equated with the Mother.

ne West—East B h—E Major Axis: Cardinal Point East.

The ZENITH—NADIR* axis being set at D b Major—G Major leaves only one
orientational question; can we now coherently and consistently fix West and East?
There is one of two possibilities. Either Cardinal Point East is located at E Major, or
it is located at B b Major. The first relevant fact following from this is that these
points cohere with Loge’s Sir John Mandeville-like E Major report^^ of having
traversed the mythic antipodes. Thus E Major is either Cardinal Point East or
Cardinal Point West; either way it represents the end of the world, as follows:

Zenith
Db
Ab F#
Eb B
¡Vest or East B¿ *-> E East or West
F A
C D
G
Nadir

In the event the answer is lexically given. Cardinal Point East is the region bounded

branches {#2093) or stem {#642)-, it is charcoal (tree as fuel) {#¡655)\ hilt, sword {#751): Golden
® (¡^*757); or a tree falling {#1015) or the
woods (W146) or an inferior (from NADIR) fir tree {#2507).

"(#/ 71 ,[E=the ends of the earth], ‘alle Winkel der Welt’)

 289

by E Major/ininor and B minor.“ For instance, from Die Walküre, ArtTTT-

#1201. [b=Eastem forest, dragon] (‘Nach Osten weithin dehnt sich
ein Wald; der Niblungen Hort entführte Father dorthin’)
#1202. [e=dragon hole/magic ring] (‘Wurmes-Gestalt schuf sich der
Wilde: in einer Höhle hütet er Alberich’s Reif!)
#1203. [e=helpless woman] (‘Nicht geheu’r ist’s dor für ein hülflos
Weib’)
#1204. [b=dreaded place] (‘ihn scheut’ der Mächt’ge und meidet den
Ort’)
The Valkyries’ discourse settles on E, a predetermined Cardinal Point. This fixes B
Major one dominantward point North“ of E Major, F}t Major more dominantward
still, and reconfirms Db Major at the zenith. Moving dominantward and leftward
from there we obtain Ab Major, which begins to descend toward Eb Major, and
further for one more fifth to yield B b Major at the Westward Cardinal Point. The
composite cosmic map thus becomes this;
Zenith
Db
WESTERN HEMISPHERE Ab Ftt EASTERN HEMISPHERE
Eb B
West ■<-» E East
F A
C D
G
Nadir
Alberich reports, that E minor is the Eastern Forest in its grimmer aspect,“ as
Siegfried confirms in the minor*“ and reconfirms in the Major, e.g., that in a better
light the Eastern Forest is truly beautiful.*’ We may assume too that Brünnhilde’s E
Major rock lies in the East, wìtìTitS'&M^or Bridal Fire located by the obliging E
Major Forest Bird. Again, when the Noms tell r^of the young god who once came
calling, we are assured that he descended from the East;

“e=THEEASTERNFOREST(W202; #I750\ #2116)-,—,hei\itííaUni884\ #I892\ #I902)\ihe

dragon-hole (.#1202)-, the woods (#1432)-, Mime’s cave therein {#1464)\ Mime’s hearth (U1510)\ e a s t
{#¡645).

*‘We may conveniently describe the ZENITH point as the North point on the basis of its
coherence with contemporary nineteenth century European cartographical maps familiar to Wagner
as reflected in such common property linguistic usages as “up north” and “down south.”

”#7 750 [e=Eastem Forest] (‘In Wald und Nacht’).

^#1432 [e=the woods] (‘in den Wald lauf ich’).

t
’^#1884 [E=Eastem Forest, beautiful] (‘Nun erst gefallt mir der frische Wald’).
290

#2520. [B=descending god] (‘Ein kühner Gott trat zum Trunk an den
Quell’)
#2521. [E=the young Wotan] (motif) .
#2522. [A=feminine Wisdom (alt. Wotan’s Eye)] (‘seiner Augen
Eines’)
From the Nom’s perspective the young God once came down (subdominantward)
from a presmnably prior height (B Ftl D b), treading a path which in that pre-
Curse age was still holy,’® and approached her A Major resting spot, cartographically
opposite to the dismal E b minor rock on which she presently squats. This conserves
the meaning of B/C b as a pivotal key acting as a highway between the two Cardinal
Points of Db and E, which means, from a mountain to a lowland and back. The
Northeastern Quadrant of the Circle of Fifths is thus very well represented in the
Lexicon, according to whose legends it is a busy sector in which messengers, guides,
death angels, and gods travel up and down from the height of heaven to the ends of
the earth.”

Cardinal Point West. E Major thus locates Cardinal Point East. What about
Cardinal Point West? This is occupied by the Bb Major Tonal Household. Such
occupancy coheres with the lexical topography presented in Die Walküre, Act I. In
Siegmund’s narration to Hunding and Sieglinde Cardinal Point West is lexicalized
variously by C Major“, C minor,®' B bMinor,®^ G minor®® and B b Major.®^ The last
three keys together completely define the B b Major Tonal Household, C minor lies
just North of it in the E b Major Household and C Major two points South just West

^‘#2519 rCb^primæval holiness] (‘da sang ich heU'gen Sinn’).

^’Siegmund however claims that the sun sinks behind the mountains in B minor {#669: ‘bis
hinter Bergen sie sank’). Taken literally this would remove B minor to the West. The meaning
however seems to refer to death: for the sun to sink behind B minor mountains is to die and be
transported by B minor Valkyries “behind Wotan’s mountain”, toward Walhall.

™#577; (“wendest von bier du nach West den Schritt, in Höfen reich hausen dort Sippen.”)

‘'#576: (“Hunding heisst der Wirth”)

“#575: (“Durch Wald und Wiese, Haide und Hain”)

“#574: (“nicht kenn’ ich den Weg, den ich kam”)

“#575: (“Dess’ Dach dich deckt, dess’ Haus dich hegt”)

 291

oí the G Major Nadir. Given that ZENITH-NADIR locates an eastern and western
hemisphere of the Circle of Fifths (above), these keys together chart a broad region
centering on B b but including points north and south. It thus roughly mirrors the E
Major/minor -to-B minor territory around Cardinal Point East.

B b Major defines the Cardinal Point in another and unique way, for Wagner
associates C minor with dying Winter and B b with Siegmund’s Spring Song. That
C minor is Winter is evident from the song: WINTER (#702) falls to ruins {U707)-, it
is the frosty winter spell that holds Sieglinde prisoner (#710) as it sends forth its
echoing and frosty tones (#721). This Winter derives not from C Major but from E b
Major, from which chilly maiision the winter-bound Sieglinde sings her longing for
redemption by her newly arrived God of Spring (#709, ‘du bist der Lenz nach dem
ich verlangte’). This uneqmvocally identifies Bb as the dominant of E b Winter, that
is, the SPRING EQUINOX (#707).“
I have already identified E b Major with the Græco-Roman zodiacal sign
Pisces and its dominant B b Major with its successorThese seasonal legends
reconfirm that the coordinates fixed by B b Major correspond to the Spiing Equinox.
Its opposite E Major then corresponds to the Autumn Equinox; the two keys of G
Major and D b fix the Summer Solstice and Winter Solstice respectively.“
Consistent with E MAJOR IS ATTRACTIVE, this Eastern Tonal Household
exerts a fascination on B b Major expressed tonally in the dominantward modulatory
principle that draws Cardinal Point W eastward, and poetically by the magnetic
attractiveness of E Major persons, places, and things. For instance, on the principle
that a Nibelung’s cave is a bit of Nibeheim, Mime sits at home in B b minor
(Siegfried, Vp) brooding on regaining the E minor ring, and Siegfiied stands on B b
y^ajor to sing his song of impending flight with its implied goal ofthe E Major Bride.
Tims Mime’s eastward-pointing E minor finger“ again lets us know that the cave
where is standing is smack on Cardinal Point B b/West (Little Nibelheim) and that

‘’Thereafter it lexicalizes (#7/75); a new cycle (#7P<5); brightness of day (implying

Siegfried’s wooing) {#2445); bb=the fatal look of SPRING (Siegmund),(#772); again, g=the martial
strokes of Spring (#705), or interestingly, of a dread of it {#711).

“See above, Chapter Four, and “The Genealogy of Chaos.”

‘Tor G=SUMMER SOLSTICE see Die Meistersinger, Act II, “Johannestag!”

‘‘#1645, ‘im Ost, am Ende des Wald’s.’

292

he is pointing across the horizontal axis toward Cardinal Point E while Siegfried
anticipates with precognitive pleasure the prospect of the heart palpitations he is
promised in the East.®’ Again, in Götterdämmerung, Act H, when the Gibichungs
look about for the direction of Hagen’s threat, they gaze E minor-ward, that is, to the
East, and are told that B b Gunther is bringing a newly won E Major bride (and her
ring) from that direction.™ Thus as Mime’s B b minor forest cave is located West of
the Dragon Forest (above), so B b Major Gibich Hall is positioned West relative to
Brünnhilde’s Eastern bridal mountain and its E Major Bridal Fire.
lyhat about Hunding’s homestead and its geographical situation? For this we
turn to thCvtonal “house laws” of the Neidings, to whose clan Hunding presumably
belongs or to whom he is closely related. This clan owns the Tonal Homestead of C
minor, which we know to be Winter and thus related to the C minor darkness that
descended upon Ihe E b Major Rhine Daughters following Alberich’s rape of their
gold. Ontogeny recapitulating phytogeny, it is thus rightly associated with rapists and
abductors of women, "pius Hunding’s homestead is in the relative minor suburbs of
E b, just a tad North of Western Cardinal Point B b. What does this tell us about the
direction from which Siegmund’s fled? We know that Siegmund came into the world
in D minor” and that he understands his founding Householder to be his F Major
father ‘Wolfe’.™ Thus Siegmund’s D minority derives not from D Major as D:i but
from F Major as F:vi, from which tonal coordinate he has been fleeing ever since.
The C minor at which he arrives is a relative minor lexical suburb of Eb.:I and not
CÚ: thus we know that Siegmund has fled subdominantward from F:I toward Eb:vi
and not dominantward toward C:i. Here mythical topography coheres with psycho-
Iqgical dynamics: subdominantward motion Is regression, Siegmund is retreating
from life and his modulatory path is a syntactical regression not a !-►¥
progression, as befits a such retreat. Siegmund’s Spring Song marks the moment

“This phrase also presents a typical example of [C=KNOWLEDGE], E.g., #1637

[C=knowledge, wonderful] (‘Sonderlichseltsammuss das sein! ’) and #1638 [E=love fire, palpitations]
(‘Das Griesein und Grausen’). Short combinations of C Major with other keys often indicate
knowledge about or an inquiry about the contents of those keys.

'"‘#3178, fe=peril] (‘Rüstet euch wohl und rastet nicht!’) and #3179 [E=Wife] (‘Ein Weib’)

’‘#5Pf (‘zu zwei kam ich zur Welt.’)

^^#588 (‘Wolfe, der warmein Vater.’)

 293

wlien the would-be hero stops fleeing and turns dominantward again in an effort to
retrace previously lost ground.
By accurately fixing the East-West Cardinal' Axis we can characterize the
Southwest Quadrant from B b to G as the region within which most specifically non
heroic human activities take place. Whether Gibichungs, Neidings, or Wälsungs,
human beings live mostly in the South-West Quadrant, which belongs to those not
touched by Wotan’s divine call to heroic struggle. This commences only in D Minor
and Major, the heart of the South-East Quadrant. When they look Eastward, toward
Ê Major, a more fabulous region opens up of magic, of monsters, of wonders, and
heroic struggle. The East thus possesses a charisma and exoticism not found in the
more humdram and homely West—a detail that will become important when we
come to investigate the valorization of the East in Parsifal. Modulation dominant-
ward from the Nadir of G involves the acquisition of aheroic disposition and abilities
(D Major) and a facing of human struggle and often defeat (A minor) to win a goal
symbolized by a sleeping woman or a magic ring (E Major/minor), which further
draws the heroic explorer into dangerous destiny situations (B minor) having the
character of curse, death, and transformation—^the human being must then either
ascend (F }1 minor) to some high destiny (D b Major) or, like Hunding, hunker down
uncomfortably into G Major or, even worse, minor.

Where is Giant-Land? Unexpectedly perhaps, such fantastical but fun

topographical analyses actually bump against real interpretive questions. For
instance, William O. Cord has recently argued from Saga descriptions ofJotunheim,
that in the eyes of the Northmen,
the Land ofthe Giants lay “to the East,” to the East ofthe home of the
mortals, the “Land of Men,” which in mythical terms was called
Midgard. These same myths also contain numerous tales that tell of
Donner and his frequent travels “to the East”, where he stalked the
giants in their own land... Wagner does not give a compass location
to the Riesenheim of his Ring, that is, he does not state specifically
where the Land of the Giants lies. In his own manner, however, he
acknowledges the ancient belief that this world was located in the
East. This acknowledgment occurs in Die Walküre, when the
composer causes a Valkyrie to state that the giant Fafiier has taken the
294

gold and has fled to a cave that is to the EastP

Cord is quite right about this cultural belief in an eastern Jotimheim. It is coherent
with generic European orientalism such as I discuss next chapter. To the Norse and
Germanic cultures giants are fabulous and the East is Neverland. The relevant
question however is whether Wagner shares this orientation. The TL mappa mundi
that I have suggested offers an objective tool by which to measure Cord’s idea about
an Extern Giant-Land against its own multiple geographical consistencies. Cord
brings Hunding’s testimony to bear on the East—^West axis question; thus, “This
concept that located the Land of the Giants in the East and the Land ofthe Men in the
West is again made a part of the Ring when Hunding informs Siegmund that his
mortal kin and their lands are to be found fVest of his dwelling.”’“' In this same
passage Cord also points out that Mime locates Fafiier’s cave to the east of his own.
What happens when both of these claims are templated against the TL map
that I have described? The first of Cord’s claims is lexically verified via the mass of
data correlating directional imagery with the lexical keys that define the quadrant
centered on B J^Maj or—Cardinal Point West. This is based on Hunding’s first person
testimony and i^ thus reliable. However, Cord’s second inference, that Giant-Land
¡5. in the East because Fafiier Çed eastward with the hoard and ring, encounters a
contradiction. For the Giants and their Tonal Household are unambiguously located
at Tonal Household F Mq/or (whose territory includes F minor and D minor and
whose ramparts are located at the C minor border). We owe this to Loge and Fasolt.
The former.informs us that Giant-Land lies in F minor, i.e., “Wohl an Riesenheim ’s
Mark’...” (#25 7) [f=Giant-Land], while Fasolt himself affirms that Giant-Land lies
behind the towering marches of C minor, its dreary hinterland again in the equally
drearykey ofF minor; thus,(##52) [c=boundaries of Giant-Land] {'AnfRiesenheim 's
ragende Mark’).'Th€ combination of evidence indicates that the Giants modulated
to the dopiinant minor of their home country but as promised did not modulate over
the border.”

Teutonic Mythology ofRickard Wagner’s Ring of the Nibelung, p. 154.

^^Ipid.,p. 155.

’^ere is flirther lexical infonnation on what type of tonal domain Giant-Land is. In
particular the Giants describe themselves taking Freia away forever to the key ofA tMaJor; i.e., {#254)
[M = Captivity (ofFreia)] “Des Gartens Pflegerin ist nun verpfändet”; or again, (#464) [f=Giants fed
 295

The Wanderer’s testimony to Mime’* again marks Giant-Land at cofnpass-

point F minor-»F Major. Thus in tonal-lexical terms, we must admit that though
Father’s dragon-cave definitely lies at c ardiñal point East/E, the same evidence
locates Giant-Land almost directly opposite on the Circle of Fifths. In fleeing fi"om
the murder-scene Fafiier also fled as far fi"om others of his kind as he could go.
There is further lexical evidence that in turning eastward Fafiier has fled not
toward but away fi'om his native land. This may be gleaned fi-om thé chromatic
alteration that afflicts the murderer’s F minor key once he has hunkered into his E
minor forest hiding place. This occurs in Siegfried, Act H, Vorspiel, and in the sub
sequent fight scene. The sleeping dragon’s motif, sounding like a vast slowly beating
heart echoing from the depths of the cavern, is a Giant-motif whose dominant c-g-c
padem has been distorted to c-g b -c, while the awakened dragon confronts Siegfiied

with an f-b It -fpattern. The altered tones are thus g b (=fÿ )/b, the tonicf-defining tones
of B minor. The meaning is lexically straightforward: the Tamhelm’s magic has
obliged the Giant’s tonic i and dominant V chords to stretch toward those OfB minor;
a bulky B minor monster squatting on top of Cardinal Point East/E minor: the “sodi
of the Nibelungs [e=ring] buried under the belly of an idle Worm [b=monster].’’”
Thus though the murderer has attempted to>flee his former identity and hide out in
a monstrous alias. Something of that former identity cannot be so easily jettisoned,
continues to adhere to the criminal even in his new persona.
How can we reconcile this with the notion that Giant-Land lies westward not
eastward? For this we must haveajwychological theory of the motivation of guilt-
ridden murderers. That Fafiier was in 'fact girilt-ri^den for his brother’s death is
evident from the dying Giant’s sorrowful confession to Siégfried'that his homeland
■and former life was located in F minor, which nowat the point ofrepentant death*has

up] (‘Aus dann ist’s! ’) and {#465) [Ab =Freia forever lost/gained] (“nun folgt uns Freia fUr immer!”).
As we know, A b Major means, among other things, heavenly treasure and heavenly cupbearers; thus
Fasolt’s idea that he has won an A b Major Wish-Maiden is entirely plausible. Thus A b here means
a little smidge ofheavdii. Since in grammatical context A b Major appears here as a dependent phrase
of F minor then it also serves to imagine as it were the fanciest room in F minor Giant-Land. One can
imagine the pathetic Giant fondly dreaming of fixing up these sad digs for his high-toned lady.

™I.e., #/546 [f=Giants] (‘Auf der Erde Rücken wuchtet der Riesen Geschlecht: Riesenheim
ist ihr Land') and #/547 [F=Fasolt and Fafiier, rough Giaht-princes] ( ‘Fasolt und Fafher der Rauhen
Fürsten’).

”“The Nibelungen-Myth as Sketch for a Drama.”

296

finally shed its B minor disguise. Cord’s suggestion of an Eastern situation of Giant-
Land depends upon the notion that Fafoer fled from the murder scene toward his own
kin. But Wagner has something more harrowing in mind concerning the devastation
visited upon the soul of this pathetic, victimized villain. In striking his brother to
death, Fafher lost far more than his mere physical self. The murder in effect has
severed all supporting ties with the killer’s own clan, whom he could never again
face, and has exiled him from home, to which he could never hope to return except
in the dying catharsis of a repentant imagination.

IV. The Dodecahedron and Wagner’s “True Earth”

The Circle ofFifths and Platonic Solids. Having described the geographical
quadrants of tl\e Äing-world as revealed in its lexical legends, I would like to relate
the map as a whoje to the cosmos within which it appears to be set. This is possible
because in its most fundamental structural aspects Wagner’s map is conceptually
isomorphic with the major classic cosmological formulae in ways that I will now
describe. As always, my approach is largely though not entirely a lexical one, and is
based on the assumption that the characteristics ofWagner’s Circle emerge out ofthe
manner in whiph TL lexemes actually talk about his own poetic reality. Again, this
approach is no. different from- that by which we deduce how we express our
perceptions of reality by means of our own NL speech.
The virtual spatialization of TL discourse that I have outlined shows the
extent to which the common property lexicon of Western music had come to form
its own virtual environment as it were in the very act of speaking. At first, in the
•period of the chmch modes, this was largely a linear environment based on scale. But
over time, as the concept of key developed and became more systematically
imderstood through iimumerable acts of collective music-making, this linear scale
bent into the virtual intelligible object known as the Circle of Fifths. To say that keys
syntactically relate by means of a virtual circle is to say that their semantical contents
do so as well: since keys carried a semantical component known as key
characteristics, these characteristics were likewise bent with their lexical carriers into
a circle. The Circle of Fifths was thus not merely a syntactical entity but a semantical
one. A catégorial grammar-style syntax-semantics interface ensured that poetic
contents became virtually spatial, which accounts among other things for the
abundance of directional emotions in Wagner’s lexemes.
 297

It is however possible to more precisely describe this virtual intelligible circle

that forms the semantic globe of Wagner’s TL territory, for the composer himself
referred to such a musical map in specifically metaphysical terms. Thus in his essay
“Beethoven” he expressed his belief that “Music does not portray the Ideas inherent
in the world's phenomena, but is itself an Idea of the World, and a comprehensive
one.” He meant this in a far more pragmatic way than his critics have supposed. For
he traces the lineage of his claim back through Schopenhauer, who referred his own
ideas in turn directly to Plato; thus “it is the Ideas of the world and of its essential
phenomena, in the sense ofPlato, that constitute the ‘object’ ofthe fine arts; whereas,
however, the Poet interprets these Ideas to the visual consciousness (dem
anschauenden Bewusstsein) through an employment ofstrictly rationalistic concepts
in a manner quite peculiar to his art, Schopenhauer believes he must recognise in
Music itselfan Idea ofthe world, since he whp^could entirely transláte it into abstract
concepts would have found withal a philosophy to explain the world itself.”’* This
means nothing if not that music is a higher-order Idea that contains within it all other
Special Ideas we can have of the world. But Plato in fact had such an Idea and he
expressed it in Phaedo and again in Timaeus. Peter Kingsley describes this Idea as
follows: “When [Plato] comes to describe the all-important shape ofthe ‘true earth’,
he presents it as an enormous twelve-sided ball: evidently a reference to the
dodecahedron. The special place which he reserves for this figure—^both here [i.e.,
the Phaedo] and in the Timaeus—is one ofthe most obvious signs in either dialogue
of his debt to Pythagoreanism.”™ Kingsley refers to the passage.
Well then, my fiiends, in the first place it is said that the earth, looked
at from above, looks like those spherical balls made up of twelve
pieces of leather; it is multi-colored, and ofthese colors those used by
our painters give us an indication; up there the whole earth has these
colors, but much brighter and purer than these; one part is sea-green
and of marvelous beauty, another is golden, another is white, whiter
than chalk or snow; the earth is composed also of other colors, more
numerous and beautiful than any we have seen.*“
The visible world upon which we stand is thus our experience of a Platonic solid, an

’'“Beethoven,” p. 65.

’’’Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, p. 93.

"Plato, “Phaedo,” llO.b-d and 114.d, in Plato: Complete Works, p. 94.

298
Ideal and circular form related to the “circular” or original man that formed the
prototype for empirical humanity. Yet it is only approximately circular. It is actually
comprised of twelve separate pentagons, each of which is connected to two others at
its vertices such that each vertex establishes groups of three. Here is a picture of such

Fig. 6c: Folded and unfolded dodecahedrons

To ask what this has to do with music is to ask where we have seen this form before.
It is an Ideal variant of the figure we know as the Circle of Fifths, which we have
seen to be the syntactical ordering-principle of virtual TL spatiality. Just as Plato’s
circle-approximating dodecahedron—his Ideal image of the world—is comprised of
twelve pentagons, so Wagner’s common-practice, approximated tonal Circle—an
Ideal image of the Music Dramatic world—is comprised of twelve keys in
^proximated circular array, each of whose stations (Wagner’s Tonal Households)
is separated fixrm its immediate neighbors by intervals of afifih, and each of which

"The archetype ofthis “true earth” was likewise projected outward onto the celestial spheres
as the twelve-fold division of the zodiac, which, since the inscribed estoires of die ecliptic visualizes
the p oetic v ision o f r eality a ctually found h ere o n e arth ( “as a hove s o below”) m ight b etter b e
understood as a poetic visualization of the twelve-fold “true earth’s” own earthly poetic contents
against the screen of the heavens (“as below, so above”).
 299

is joined at its “vertices” to two others, forming groups of three.“

The notion that Plato’s dodecahedron forms abackground virtual intelligible
object related to the fundamental linguistic organization of Western music explains
significant semantic features of the Circle of Fifths. Thus Philip Tagg points to the
asymmetrical manner in which it is universally imagined: “The fact that the circle of
fifths also constitutes a ‘circle of fourths’ but is never referred to as such probably
stems firom the notion’s development in the European classical tradition where
chords constructed on the fifth degree of any scale (V) are understood and referred
to as ‘dominant’, those on the fourth degree (IV) as ‘subdominant’.”“ As to why they
were “dominant”, music theorists in this tradition were steeped in Neoplatonic and
astrological assumptions, in which five (AKA pentagon) not four served to bring their
emerging tonal mappa mundi into alignment with Plato’s dodecahedron and the
Greek zodiac that comprised culturally sanctioned Ideal image of the world.“ And
the public cultural property \xs&ge,fifths, semantically nails Tonal to Platonic Circles.
We may again compare Plato’s attribution of ideal color to the hexagonal
surfaces ofhis virtual intelligible otyecf with Wagner’s synesthetic color descriptions
of another such object, harmony. “The sole idea of Succession in [Palestrina] is
expressed by well nigh nothing but the gentlest fluctuation of one ground-colour,

“We have seen this principle of three-in-one in such prototypical lexicons as Haydn’s The
Creation, “Depiction of Chaos” (Ex. Va), an exançle of why Wagner’s is not a “Hunçty Dunçty”
semantic array but a common practice public linguistic property. It may be described as a “world”
because its TL discomses as if it did in factit-eonstiut^ world.

“Philip Tagg, “Circle ofFifths,” entry for EPMOW, http-/7www.mediamusicstudies.net /tagg/

articles/ epmow/circlSths.html; accessed January 1,2005.
t
”In geomantic-topological terms the additional integer “ 1 " is needed to tie the planar “4" to
the solid “5”, thereby making the Ideal “real.” Korean music also features a close numerological
relationship between the numhers five and twelve in the form of characteristic pitch sets, sibiyul
(twelve-pitch) and oûm (five pitch). For details ofwhat we call the resulting “five-element Tendiate”
see Kadian Hesselink and Jonathan Christian Petty, “Landscape and Soundscape: Geomantie Spatial
Mapping in Korean Traditional Music.” Gary Tomlinson has argued the cônçlex ways in which
Renaissance music theorists attett^ted to operationalize Greek cosmology in real music, for instance
the theoretical divisions between human musical etUbs based on scales änd celestial music based on
individual pitches and intervals between them. “This technical divergence of musical ethics and
cosmology may at first sight seeih trivial. But it bore the momenfi>us inçlication that ethos or ethical
effect was unavailable to individual planets. Assignmg pitches rather than modes to planets, in other
words, dissociated the planets dnd fiieir influences fiom the primary affective structures of human
music. In effect it excluded the musical cosmos fihm direct and specific operative roles in the
psychological effects of sublunar music.” {Music in Renaissance Magic, p. 71.) Tomlinson discusses
the integration of planetary theory with mode or scale in great detáil (p. 7 lÿ).
300

which presents us with the most varied modulations within the range ofits affinity,
without our being able to trace a line in all its changes. As this colour itself does not
appear in Space, we here are given an image almost as timeless as it is spaceless, an
altogether spiritual revelation; and the reason why it moves us so indicibly is that,
more plainly than all other things, it brings to our consciousness the inmost essence
of Religion free from all dogmatic frctions.”” Wagner’s ground (AKA “surface”)
color perceived only by the Ideal eye-that-is-not-an-eye points to the virtual
intelligibility of its object, which he calls a spiritual revelation, for which we might
synonymize, a virtual intelligible Idea.
Th^ keeping to our semantic descriptive framework: just as Wagner’s “Idea
of the World” is nothing other than a virtual TL Circle ofFifihs, so Plato’s “Idea of
the World” is^thing other than his virtual dodecahedron. Nothing else in Wagner
or Plato remotelj^ answer to the description of “true earth” and both answer the
question identically to the limits of our ability to meaningfixlly quantify these
complex virtual structures. This single Idea shared between Wagner and Plato is
“comprehensive” in being an inexpressible background object that both rationalizes
and intelligibile contains the contents of poetic constellations that are expressible.
This is the substantial philosophical background for Wagner’s arguments in
%
“Beethoven,” which Thomas Grey has described as “typically close to tying himself
up in a knot of self-contradiction.”“ Yet as usual Wagner is not talking wooly

•’“Beethoven,” p. 79.

“iVagner’s Musical Prose, p. 98. Elsewhere in “Beethoven” Wagner “was indulging in a

rhetorical game ofping-pong, bouncing between metaphysical constructs and enqiirical cases” {Ibid.,
p. 16). One of Grey’s insights about Wagner’s metaphysics is that “the neo-Schopenhauerian
construction of music as the metaphysical essence of dramatic action leads to the conclusion... that
music is therefore a kind of dramatic content and the principle ‘end’ of the musical dranui (the poetic
text, as motivating factor, could likewise be reconstmed as a means).” {Ibid., p. 40). With the eerie
regularity that we have learned to recognize as a characteristic feature of Wagner Replacement
Studies, the critic has managed to get it just backward^. Since the essence of a content is that it be
perceptibly not virtually intelligible (as “isosceles triangle a ” is a representable content ofthe virtual
iníe//igi6feo6ject‘Ttiangle”,whichcannotberepresented),thenneitherinWagner’smetaphysicsnor
in his usage can irrepresentable music in general serve as any kind of dramatic content of anything
whatever. On the pontrary, as I have argued all along with evidence, in Wagner’s linguistic
metaphysics the ^Essence of music projects a virtual intelligible mappa mundi that cartographically
defines the subordhjate essences of individual poetic contents. They ate in fact “contents” of music
bepauße sinçly to say them in TL autotpatically projects them into the mappa mundi. They ate thus
expressed as contents (dependent variables) of music’s higher-order Essence that cannot be directly
expressed but only projected, as the zodiac and its poetic contents can be projected fiom the “true
earth” that we cannot directly see. This is not an abstract but a falsifiable linguistic claim based upon
 301

mysticism here but real, empirical stuff, in the sense of coming to grips with such
questions as why Plato imagined the pentagonal “faces” of his “true earth” as
characterized by pretematurally bright Ideal colors. Wagner answers Plato with his
appeal to Palestrina’s tone-colors, whose intelligibility he attributes to an “inner”
organ capable of apprehending something correspondingly Ideal which, though it
may not be a literal “color” caimot be anything else. Plato too inserts a disclaimer
about the literalness ofhis dodecahedron with its supernal “facial” colors, thus: “No
sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them, but I think
it is fitting for a man to risk the belief—for the risk is a noble one—that this, or
something like this, is true about our souls and their dwelling places, since the soul
is evidently immortal, and a m an should repeat this to himself as if it were an
incantation, which is why I have prolonged my tale.”*’

TL Lexemes, The Four Elements, and the Zodiacal Signs. Thus the Circle of
Fifths answers to Plato’s dodecahedron, which is a comprehensive Idea of the world
itself that contains all other Ideas within it, in the sense of forming the background
cognitive structure without which these Ideas cannot cohere and relate, but whose
backgroimd activity automatically arranges these content-ideas in proper relationship
in the mere act of talking about them.
Within his tonal dodecahedron Wagner’s lexicon empirically categorizes
tonal Households very substantially by means of elemental imagery of Water, Fire,
Earth, and Air (Light). These elemental associations are, moreover, significantly
correlated with psychological, iconic, and gendered ones, such that Eb. is not only
WATER but HYSTERU, FISHES, and FEMALE while Bi is not only FIRE but ANGER,
WARRIOR [Aries C'Y*); Mars (rf')] and MALE. These two poetic key constellations

correspond precisely with PISCES: WATER, STRONG EMOTION, FISHES, and FEMININE
and ARIES; FIRE, ANGER, MARS (Ruler), MASCULINE. T^e comparable parallels are

equally strong between the F Major Household and Taurus, while they require some
slight adjustments with respect to C Major Household and Gemini; for instance, one

the enqjirical evidence of music’s syntax, semantics, lexicon, and TL-NL cognitive inter&ce. The
sense in which this is so is thus that Wagner’s n^ic communicates and is therefore intelligible entirely
^and only according to these principles.

’^Phaedo, op. cit, p. 97.

302
must accept LIGHT as an elemental synonym for AIR and I can find no powerfiil
gendered images associated with this key or its two minors.** In all cases the
elemental category is comprised not only of overt references to the core element but
to elemental synonyms, as where the Bb. fire associations include not only flames but
thunderbolts, lightning, storm-clouds, sparks, smokes, furnaces, dryness, burning
blood, burning heart, red glowing, and red sunrises. In other words, the Elements
represented by these keys consist ofthe usual CX)RE METAPHORS and their metaphoric
entaihrients, per general metaphor stracture principles.
Given that no TL lexemes literally refer to signs as such, what can it possibly
mean to claim that a is the correlate of a sign, as I claim for instance that Bb. is
a correlate of"Aries and so on? It simply means that the virtual intelligible objects
discussed in Chàpter Three are empirically and meaningfully isomorphic with the
virtual intelligible objects that are zodiacal signs. It means that B b lexemes or poetic
tokens organize themselves around higher-order poetic types, as where lexical
referents lightning, smoke, sparks, and so on, are clearly pulled together by the
generic but unarticulated type, FIRE. Each Tonal Household is comprised of several
such metaphoric entailftient lines. For instance, the Bb.emotional category hostility
is organized around the core image SEPARATION. A highly complex but coherent
stmcture therefore emergès in the Lexicon, comprised of parallel entailment lines
connected to B b like the radial spokes of a wheel or the branches of a tree, so:
^ RULER: (Alberich) unse, images correlating to Mars ... etc.
ARJEIS fy >. Bb FIRE: hissing steam, firebrands, lightnings, sparks... etc.
V HOSTUiiTY: sqjaiation;—, ofcombatants; distancmg, avoidance; splittii^
apart; distance, cold; opposition; hostihty; rejection; loathing and horror;
repulsion; rejection; curt ... etc.

Contained in my claim is therefore the inference that the token lexemes are organized
by higher-order themes in turn organized around a virtual intelligible object, the
‘Tonal Household” of “Bb”, which is itself semantically rationalized by an even
higher-order virtual intelligible objeset or non-representable poetic category, ofwhich
the best possible identification or description is the public cultural property, “ARIES”.

“Both Air and Light arc associated with the zodiacal Gemini by virtue of its procession into
the summer solstice, the season of maximum light. In the Ring the Spring Equinox is signaled by the
modulation E b -»B b (Siegmund’s Spring song) and the'Solstice via C-»G (Die Meistersinger, Act H,
“Johannistag!”), the latter of wdiich is immediately preceded by Walther’s F Major (= May) Spring
song, a further seasonally precise specification.
 303

As usual, the evidence for this—as for all semantic contents—must be

entirely lexical in nature. I am not talking rays or esoteric principles but cognitive
linguistic strategies. The same lexical logic that identifies the key’s semantic contents
identifies the zodiacal sign in terms of its own metaphor entailment lines. To say that
Bk IS ARIES is to say that the key and the sign are virtual intelUgible objects that
organize their associated poetic image families in identical ways. The claim finther
entails that Wagner’s B b Tonal Household coalesced out ofthe field ofpoetic possi
bilities by the same cognitive strategy by which culture coalesced ARIES out of its
collective field of poetic possibilities. B b and ARIES then are two possible poetic
ways of becoming aware or expressing a unitary virtual SPACE.
Here are some of the Lexicon’s more obvious elemental correlates to the
signs Pisces K (Water), Aries ^ (Fire), Taurus "y(Earth), and Gemini II (Air):
Eb IS WATER
(#7; #1682; #2459); —, as retreat from FIRE {#2279); eb.=WATER, ELEMENTAL
; dousing passion with a woman’s love {#2423); E b =DEPTHS:f #2132i: LIQUID =
STRONG EMOTION: storming (#/ 7ff); flood of passion {#2422); emotional frenzy
{#2922); DRINK, good {#2047); free-flowing, pure liquid {#2817); eb=DEPTHS=
abyss, profoimd {#658); LIQUIDS : Spring, of love (#1308); storming assailants
{#629); berzerker raging; c=DEPTHS; a cleft, abyss {#294); —, descent into {#500);
—, of the heart {#674); dissolution, of identity {#2431); —, ripples {#2458);
LIQUIDS, drink-hom {#1264); a drink {#1938); a poison drink {#1707; #2048);
poison foam {#1855; #1951); a sluggish, impure liquid (#2816); Wotan blood-
sacrifice {#3190); blood, of a scapegoat (#3435); storm, nearing {#1193); tears,
flowing wildly (#628; #478); berzerker raging {#660; #1408); need, ultimate
(#752); chaos and confusion (#3265); Brünnhilde, beside herself (#3250).

Bb IS FIRE
(#287); —, primitive, Loge as (#1366); —, burning in the heart (#2112); bleaching
clouds (#503); shooting flames {#2275; #3010); —, brightest fires (#2306);
devouring fire (#2572); red glow of dawn (#2595); Sunrise (#3117) DRYNESS :
thirsty gazing (#2408); complete hedonism (#2477); bb=FIRE. of furnace (#1503);
hungry and licking (#519); -, of death (#753); oppressive mists (#502); hissing
steam (#1717); ever-darkening 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 storm
(coimoting lighming); {#2971) lightning sky, dimming (#2644); DRYNESS:
bb=failing Spring (#2529); g=FiRE: t h u n d e r b o l t , e.g.. Dormer’s hammer
(#505); —, from Wotan’s spear (#2296); a glowing red light {#1131); sparks
{#1711); fiery billows (#2269); thunder and lightning (#2643); Bb=BLOOD.
304
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).

F IS EARTH
(#55; #1534); GROUND, Brünnhilde coming to (#1166); —, War Father coming to
(#1231); —, Waltraute coming to (#2885); f= concrete evidence (#1488); hardness
of adamant (#1683; #1716); F=State of Nature (#3446); Loge as Nature Spirit
(#2559); innocent Eden (#2558); innocence (#3283); innocent wooing (#2839;
#Ì396); F=WORK (#1496; #1556; #2512); -, smithing (#276); forging (#1648;
#2233); the smith himself (#7 704; #1730); laborious piling (#7545; #2943); labor,
of cluldbirth (#1467); FORGING, HEROIC (#1671); —, feminine? (#2512); deeds
(#2621); —, heroic (#2661); f=WORK(#7527; #1987); —, evil (#292); —, difficult
(#575); D^ED, the only important (#1393); drudgery (#1425); harder labor, ofchild
birth (#1468); a worker, caregiver (#1416; #1478); workers (#7 778); hewing down
(#2538); heroic action (#5577); d=WORK (#1989; #2207); F=PHYSICAL STRENGTH
(#1388; #2652; #2733; #3154); physical life experiences (#90); courage (#557;
#1936; *#2501); —, restored (#536); boy, valiant (#1597); independence (#827);
strength (#834); refreshment of body and spirit (#555); physical robustness, ironic
(#244); bodily health (#539); life-strength (#105^; physical agility (#1854);
lustiness (#1924); boastful challenger (#1948); fair-eyed youth (#1966); burning
blood (#2088); physical courage (#2883); physical invulnerability (#3378; #3382);
a fearless follower (#2646); f=PHYSICAL STRENGTWIMPOTENCE (#1482); human
lives (#1095) mastery, over fear (#518); eternal powerlessness (#2268)

ÇISUGHT/AIR
(#49; #185; #390; #706; #905; #1574; #*1757; #*1841; #2300; #2364; #2489;
#2870; #2988; #30¡1; #3472); —, DAY (#2366); —, conquering (#2389); —, the
Eye of Wotan (#2248) (#see also f4 for the "missing eye"); —, disorienting
,(#2089); —, last gleam of (#670); lightening (#77); brightening (#425); —, Son of
(#7/7); _ 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 (#2522; #2557); —, bright or gleaming (#1354; #1357); —, awareness
of (#2576); —, opening (#1363); star (#52); a blaze (#2421); laughter, light, and
day (#2505); twilight (#3032); light, exposure (#3395); brilliant shine (#5445);
herald (#5757); shining gold (#5457); gold shining in the waters (#3488); light, eye,
look, knowledge (#5055); light, the norfli (#2587); sword, light, knowledge (#2584);
witness, testimony (#2639); Eye, divine (#5456); sight (#2767); C/g=light, Sieg
fried’s, wáVering and dissipating (#5465); c=LlGHT, extinguished (#67); —, dim
(#184^\ darkness (#69); blind obedience (#977); gathering clouds (#1175);
darkness, ofterror or madness (#2448); moonli^t (#5075); lightning sky (#2645);
a=LlGHT; palor, of Gods (#241); pale light (#3071); palor (#3537); blanched
 305

blossoms (#672); blanched sister (#2981); light, expiring (#673); glance, recent
(#736); sight (#1862); glaring, ofWotan (#1234); glance, Siegmund’s (#58(1); blind
obedience (#1972); darkness, of terror (#2441); horrible illumination (#2446); of
moonlight, somnambulistic awareness (#3074; #3092); C=AIR, ELEMENT (#427;
#2123; #*2354); slipperiness, elusiveness (#3(1); swiftness ofmotiön(#5'#3); fleeing
on foot (#572); swift flight (#1206); rushing (#2087); an air-stee4 (#2878);
C=joumeys, firom home (#595); c=goumeys, returning home (#596).

As we have seen in the case of Eb MAJOR IS WATER, this tendency was also
present in common practice and thus was a significant public cultural property. But
Wagner systematizes these elemental associations lexically, inscribing elemental
significance into his Tonal Households such that the first four in particular correlate
with the classic Empedoclean elements, which were likewise inscribed into Græco-
Roman zodiac astrology and in the same sequence. Weaker but measurable elemental
resonances are associated with the succee4ing nine keys; thus, for instance the
Element Fire is strongly concentrated at Bb. D, and while the element Earth
is most strongly concentrated at £, A, and Db..®“ Air is strongly represented in E via
the Forest Bird but the key is likewise associated with Fire, as in Briinnhilde’s Bridal
Fire. G Major shows some feeble affinities with water in a small-time way, e.g.,
brooks and rivulets; while B Major appears to have no elemental associations at all.
An important feature of this elemental lexicon is that the composer associates
specific elements with specific emotional states. Element and emotion tend to
correlate. For instance, the B b Household strongly correlates with the Element Fire
and the emotion anger. This is classic Greek philosophical poetics that Kingsley
identifies as characteristic of Pythagorean and Neoplatoiuc as well as Empedoclean
thinking. Thus remarking on Plato’s borrowing of Empedoclean elemental concepts
in the Phaedo Kingsley argues that,
... he associates the river of fire specifically with anger. This is no
coincidence: in Greek as well as many other languages, fire and anger
are intimately related. But what is njost significant about the
relationship in this particular case is that the correspondence between
the Pyriphlegthon [subterranean River of Fire] and the fires of anger
is mentioned explicitly in the literature of Neoplatonism, centuries

*®That is, Bb »Nibelung fires; D=Solar fires; F tl »illusory fires, firelight, rainbows, etc.

’“That is, /"»Giants, earth movers; pastoral Nature and the like; A=the womb of the Earth
Goddess; Db»the mountain-top; basically a big pile of Earth.
306
after Plato. This interpretation of the river of fire, this idea of a meta-
ph3^ical correspondence between the geography of the underworld
and the microcosm of human passions, is assumed nowadays to be a
uniquely Neoplatonic creation—aprime example ofthe way in which
Neôplatonists read their own extravagant theories and subtleties back
into the simple myths ofPlato.... the allegorical interpretation which
is usually viewed as either Neopythagorean or Neoplatonic not only
goes back to Plato himself, but by Plato’s time had already receded
into the background.”
Wagner likewise associates the Element Water with hysteria and berzerker rage by
way of the analogy between this affective constellation and the raging waters that I
have identiiied in Chapter Four as a public key characteristic of Eb and C minor.
This again sdggests that a common practice association was operating between these
emotions, thesè^keys, and their elemental semantics.
I have argüed for the correlation between E b Major and PiscesAVater and B b
and Aries/Fire at length; a few words on the remaining c orrelates F Major and
Taurus/Earth, and C Major and Gemini/Air [Light] will help balance the general
interpretation, for instance, the reason for including WORK under EARTH and
JOURNEYS under AIR/LIGHT. Consider the association F MAJOR IS ELEMENTAL
■EARTH. Wagner establishes the lexical association via EAR.TH IS MASS and fi'om this
is derived F MAJOR IS PHYSICAL MASS, PHYSICAL BODY; from BODY is derived the
attributes of the body, which are, PHYSICAL STRENGTH, APPETITE, and DESIRE. The
body is the instrument of contention and deeds-, thus F MAJOR IS WORK, DEED,
LABOR, WORKER. Again, EARTH is BIG,BULKY (Giants); STRONG, MIGHTY, HEAVY,
WEIGHTY, and thus you find yourself in the F Major constellation when piling up
huge blocks of stone or forging swords. The striking of the hammer on the anvil is
the archetype of ph5^ical work, standing for action-and-reaction, inertia and
resistance, etc. It is not without meaning that it is only here, in F Major, that we ob
serve the actual forging or commandeering ofreal tools and their transformation into
musical instruments, for instance, Siegfiied’sFMajorhomortheNibelheimFMajor
anvils. Thus the strategy of concretizing themes into material objects is the exclusive
possession of tliis Tonal Household.
EARTH IS LABOR has Some unexpected but logical entailments; thus for

^'Ancient Philosophy. Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, pgs.
101-2.
 307

instance, because F MAJOR IS LABOR and since CHILDBIRTH IS (also) LABOR,

therefore [F=child birthing labor] as in ‘Ein Kind trug sie im Schoosse’ {#1467), and,
further, since TONIC MINOR IS DURESS, then [f=even harder childbirthing labor] as
in the immediately ensuing ‘traurig gebar sie’s hier’ {#1468).
Again, ELEMENTAL EARTH IS NATURE, a perception shared by Beethoven
(Symphony #4, ‘Tastorale”), who according to Grove shared Wagner’s conception,
evident in his lexemes, that NATURE IS RUDE STRENGTH. The fact that Wagner also
associates the image of Nature with E b Major via the Great River affords us the
opportunity to take note of two contrasting senses in which “Nature” is experienced
and lexicalized. The distinction between NATURE IS SEA and NATURE IS LAND has
been best expressed perhaps by William Ian Miller:
So why is the sense of infinitude a selling point for the sea, but a
reason to dismiss the plains? Is it because the sea and mountains are
scary in a mighty way, whereas plains, to these sophisticated
appreciators of beauty, are scary only because they are believed to
house boring people? Yes, says Edmxmd Burke, who specifically
addresses the point and claims that the plains are not sublime like the
sea because the plains do not generate terror. Laurence Sterne
suggests that the very commodiousness of a fertile plain can terrorize
only the travel writer, not travelers, because the absence of danger
and risk makes for few good stories: “There is nothing more pleasing
to a traveller—or more terrible to travel-writers, than a large rich
plain.” Sterne, living in the eighteenth century, assumes that the
flatlands are preferable to the scenic route to the extent they make
getting fi-om point A to point B pleasant and easy, with their good
inns and level roads that don’t tax the horses exceedingly. “Pleasant,”
notice is not the adjective one uses to describe the experience of the
sublime. . . . The plains of wheat never seem to overcome the
comfortable story implicit in them ofwell-being, habitability, fertility,
and subdued and defeated nature.’^
Beethoven irj his F Major moods saw Nature in exactly this way: the pleasant place
to get out and stroll about, or loll beside the brook. And this is pretty much the way
Wagner uses his F Major in its “natural” mode. One might say that F Major is what
is left ofNature after the E b Major-ravaging Wotan has had his way with it. It is the
key ofiiutially scary, bull-strong Giants who nevertheless show themselves amenable
to domestication like so many hard-working steers. From this “pastorale” coimection

^FaUng It, pgs. 156 and 157.

308
we likewise get Siegfried as “Nature Boy,” the rustic raised in the woods and
blowing his F Major woodland horn, which stands not only for the strength ofnature
but in particular for the “homed animal” the Bull (compare Hagen’s “sieer-hom” as
emblem of an inferior or castrated bull). In Græco-Roman astrology this meaning is
inscribed as the hom ofthe moon” upraised over the solar disc, thus:"^. The Giants,
too, are bulls in their mde physical strength; this is an astrological association as
well, for Taurus, the Bull, was considered to be the sign of the “rebellious giants.”’^
Wagner specifies the connection between Siegfried and the Giants when, in the
“Nibelung'sketch,” he speaks of the alarm in Giant-land at the prospect of human
heroes eventhally wiping them out and occupying their mytho-ecological niche, that
is, F Major, the Circle of Fifth’s quasi-zodiacal “Second House.””
Of particular relevancfe is the composer’s association of EARTH IS DESIRE,
GREED, GRASPING^ TWs association is present throughout the lexical legends of the

F Major lexicon. It is established by the same this-is-like-that Affinity logic that

prevails throughout his catégorial semantics constraction strategies. The Element
Earth is not only the body but material objects generally; that is, all that is graspable
by the hands. It is thus not only the desire of the body but the objects one may acquire
in satisfaction of desire. In “The Wibelungen” the composer makes this association

”E.g.', /< Midsummer Night ’s Dream, V, i, MOONSHINE; “This lantern doth the homed moon
present,”

”Alan Leo, The Art ofSynthesis, p. 67.

"Musicologists won’t like me for this but anyone really interested in understanding the
empirical semantics of Wagner’s Tonal Households could do no better that to go online and consult
any of the innumerable “teach yourself astrology” websites or actually teach themselves astrology.
Besides giving themselves a second paying occupation as consultants they would understand why,
when all such zodiacal House statements are collated and combined for the twelve major keys, they
pretty duplicate the Lexicoa For instance, here’s one googled up and downloaded at random,
which may be profitably read wifii one eye on Wagner’s F Major Tonal Household: “The Second
House is concerned with what we have in terms ofmaterial possessions and also our ability to use our
special «¡ifitls and talents to bring our possessions to us. It is die House of sustenance and what we must
do to ouipjiysical well being. It can also indicate our self esteem and the value we place not
only on material things but also ourselves.” (htq>:// 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 Major-
based 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 poet-
philosopher 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 lexical-
ized 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 ^ <C Die Walküre

The Ring is yoked at the midpoint by the opposing principles of Love [E] and Strife
[Bbl. They are held apart by Walhall’s D b Major, which regulates the opposing
principles through Wotan’s elemental Oath. Such geomantic emotions force feeling-
tones associated with these warring principles away from each other to congregate
around the Western and Eastern cardinal points respectively. STRIFE is overwhel
mingly represented in B b Major'” e.g., #7, the point at which the Rhine Daughters
fly apart as Alberich appears. On lexical evidence Wagner conceives STRIFE as a
separator fh&i forces or tears entities apart. The key denotes the first SEPARATION
in the lexical history of the Ring world. Thereafter this Tonal Household serves to
lexicalize every variety of separating situation or emotion.'“ The general principle

I.e., STRIFE (#2P3S; #377/);batfle {#2698; #2750; #1026; #20IS); —, Siegmund’s last
{#1493); Siegmund feilen {#2098); martial spirit {#2597); masculine valor {#2651); fiery courage
{#2791); weapoh, Brünnhilde’s {#2649); master of horse {#2647); bb=STRiFE. battle {#3097);
battlefield, Siegmund’s last {#1486); battle, to conquer fear {#517); bondage to fear {#2404); g=
BATTLEFIELD, Siegmund’s last (#7 729); dragon-fight {#3460); ahunt {#3426); hunter’s prey {#3448);
its hiding place {#35Í7); fight, finioiis {#1112); badie {#1118); battling heroes {#1128).
I»
'“Thus, SEPARATION {#790; #1002; #1277; #1860); leaving home {#1498); curt dismissal
{#2232); opposition {#2244); bb=SEPARATION {#999; #2259; #2262; #2280; #2564); —, of
combatants {#637y, distancing, avoidance {#988; #991; #1313); splitting apart {#2536; #2541);
distance, cold {#722); opposition {#226); hostility (#777); rejection {#1012; #1435); loathing and
horror {#996; #1338); repulsion {#1275; #2425); ejection {#1329); curt dismissal {#2235); tyranny,
coercion {#121); resentment {#2251); gradge {#2257); disdain {#2613); denial {#3230); accusations
{#3295); g=SEPARATION {#1878; #2250); hostility, opposition, strife {#123; #2284; #2286; #2703;
#2679; #3170; #3181); defiance {#2892); force, coercion {#625); -, useless {#1060); obsessive or
 313

which the Nibelungs ispear to command is thus the Empedoclean principle of Strife.
Contrarily, Wagner connects LOVE with E Major, which, as I have already
documented, he likewise personifies as Aphrodite or Venus. This again is a precise
Empedoclean fingerprint, for the Sicilian philosopher-mage also associated the
cosmological principle of love with this goddess; thus his description of the world
as it was under Love’s régime, in which “there was no God ofWar, no Battle-din, not
even Zeus, Cronos and Poseidon, but only Aphrodite. She was worshipped with
pious gifts—^painted animals and perfiunes, myrrh and finnkincense, and libations of
honey. The altar did not nm with blood of bulls, for there was no greater pollution
among men than to eat the limbs of animals fi'om whom they had reft the life. All
creatures, animals and birds, were fiiendly toward men, and affection glowed
between them.”’*” Wagner would consider this the unmodulated Household of E
Major and its householder. Dame Venus; a world without Ares would correspond to
a Circle of Fifths without B b. In the ascendancy of Strife however, “The gods that
‘were not yet’ in the perigee of Amity, are all now seated in Olympus, intriguing,
egging men on to wars and demanding bloody sacrifices.”'*” Wotan describes the
same situation to Fricka (#794 [D¿.=divine authority] (‘denn wo kühn Kräfte sich
regen, da rath’ ich offen zum Krieg’).
The Love described in Wagner and Empedocles embraces all species of
coming-closer, of human cooperation, and of the sense of kinship.'*” lliis gives
elemental resonance to the E minor ring, which Wagner calls the “poison that is fatal
to love.” To Wagner it is this power of Love that animates all tonal motion, for
instance, modulation. Consider for instance his anthroposophy oftones in light ofthe
cosmological interplay of Love and Strife. Here is what Wagner says motivates the
tones to change domiciles within the dodecahedron of the Circle of Fifths:

driven wandering (U2J26); defiance (#2167; #2254); rebellion (#2392); rebellious battle (#2169);
“lookbut don’t touch” bond-breaking (■#/2^4); sleep-breaking (#2727; #2129; #2137;
#2151); consciousness-breaking (#2192).

'°*The PreSocratic Philosophers, p. 201.

'“Helle Lambridis, Empedocles, p. 62.

'“And thus E=K1N (#716; #1976); a chosenkinsman (#687); offspring, illegitiinate (#806);
a Love Child (#916); an assemblage of sisters (#1154); —, Forest Bird among his own (#2095);
contrarily e=NOT KIN (#655); KIN, unknown (#1977); —, without, alone (#2096; #2106); —, enemy,
Siegfiied and Wotan as (#2292; #2294).
314

The Key of a melody is that which presents to Feeling its various

included tones in their earliest bond of kinship. The incitement to
widen this narrower bond to a richer, more extended one, is derived
from the Poetic Aim ... the tone which quits the circle of the Key is
a tone already prompted and attracted by that other key, and into the
latter must it therefore pour itself according to the necessary law of
Love. The leading-tone... that urges fr-om one key into another, and
^by this very urgence discloses is kinship with that other key, can only
be taken as prompted by the motive of Love. The motive of Love is
tfiat which drives the ‘subject’ out beyond itself, and compels it to an
alliance with another. ... If we look closer, we shall see that the
selfsame principle is here at work, as that which had bound remoter-
lying stations together in the Stabreim.*®^
Animated tones and poeticized words receive lifelike motivation by a higher force
that the composer describes as the “necessary law ofLove,” through which like seeks
like and thereby aims for a final or even eschatological consonance. LOVE is
fimctionally equivalent to AFFINITY. Its domain is the CIRCLE OF FIFTHS comprised
oftwelve smaller circles (the circles ofthe keys). In the Empedoclean frame too Love
and Affinity*appear identical. The axis between the keys of B b Major and E Major
focuses the Empedoclean principles of Strife and Love respectively. These cardinal
points are policed by opposite principles that stand at the greatest angular and lexical
distances from each other yet secretly cooperate to create a greater whole. The tritone
relationship signals the opposition between characters and the principles they
embody. In terms of his Lexicon this results in the depositing, over time, of polar-
oppositional poetic imagery onto their respective tritona! keys.
The cosmological doctrine articulated by these two principles exerts an
extraordinary reach into the very structure of the Ring, bisecting it precisely at the
halfway point; thus the E Major close ofDie Walküre reaches round the Circle to join
EariHs with the B b minor opening of Siegfried. This is the Empedoclean axis of
Love-Strife as a structural factor in the tonal organization of a four-night long
musical tetralogy. Again it is crociai to observe that here, as always in the Ring, tonal
structure is subservient to doctrinally cosmological, not abstractly tonal, planning. It
is therefore wrong to deduce, for instance, that this E Major—^B b minor axis exists
to satisfy some abstract architectonic plan. On the contrary, it is cosmological
through and through.

Opera and Drama, p. 291.

 PARTH:

Parsifal
Out of the mist of the beginning of our era there looms a pageant of mj^cal ñgures
whose vast, superhuman contours might people the walls and ceilings of another Sistine
Chapel. Their countenances and gestures, the roles in which they are cast, the drama
which they enact, would yield images different from the biblical ones on which the
imagination of the beholder was reared, yet strangely familiar to him and disturbingly
moving. The stage would be the same, the theme as transcending: the creation of the
world, the destiny of man, fall and redemption, t^e first and the last things. But how
much more numerous would be the cast, how much more bizarre the symbolism, how
much more extravagant the emotions!... that transcendental drama before all time,
depicted in the actions and passions of manlike figures, would be of intense human
appeal: divinity tempted, unrest stirred among the blessed Aeons, God’s erring Wisdom,
the Sophia... wandering in the void and darkness of her own making, endlessly
searching, lamenting, suffering, repenting, laboring her passion into matter, her yearning
into soul;... the Soul, trapped and lost in the labyrinth of the world, seeking to escape
and fiightened back by the gatekeepers of the cosmic prison,... a Savior from the Light
beyond venturing into the nether world, illuminating Äe darkness, opaiing a path,
healing fiie divine breach: a tale of li^t and darkness, of knowledge and ignorance, of
serenity and passion, of conceit and pity, on the scale not of man but of eternal beings
that are not exempt fi'om suffering and error. The tale has no Michaelangelo to retell it,
no Dante and no Milton___our art and literature and imich else would be different, had
the gnostic message prevailed.”'

'Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginning of
Christianity, p. xiii.
 CHAPTER SEVEN
“Wondrous Legends He Had Heard”:
The Mediæval Sources of Parsifal
In the morning [of Good Friday], as I set out for church, R, saw me off with the
words “Give your Saviour ray greetings, even if from the very beginning up to
the dean he has caused a lot of confusion.”
—Richard, recorded by Cosima^

I. Wagner’s Contempt for Wolfram

The question of sources is critical to understanding Parsifal and failure to
identify these has caused much mischief. Particularly troublesome is the argument
that Wagnerreliedprimarilyupon Wolfram von Eschenbach’sParr/va/. Thus taking
as fact that the composer depended oh this source for Parsifal and Lohengrin, Ulrich
Müller arrives at the following conclusion;
It is not possible to gain a reliable picture ofthe medieval legends and
romances on thebasis ofWagner’s works. Wagner himself, ofcourse,
claimed that he had, so to speak, distilled and depicted the essential
meaning of each of the medieval tales which form the basis of his
music dramas. But the composer is mistaken here, which is not
unusual, since artists are notoriously unreliable judges of their own
works— With regard to the content of his medieval soinces and the
use to which he puts them, Wagner evolves in the direction of an
increasingly drastic reduction of the source material. Whereas,
initially, the story taken over from the medieval source may even be
expanded in various ways, Wagner later leaves more and more out,
concentrating instead upon individual sections of the action.^
Muller’s assumption of a single source inspires the conclusion that Wagner was
incompetent to explain his own works, evidence being that there is little Wolfram in
Parsifal. But this neglects the awkward fact that the composer himselfheld Wolfram
in contempt and repudiated the notion ofindebtedness to his poem. Cosima recorded
Richard’s cavalier attitude toward Wolfram thus: “The lengthy linking of R.’s work
to W[olfram]’s Parzival he describes as pedantic, saying his text has in fact no
coimection with it; when he read the epic, he first said to himself that nothing could

'Diaries, I, p. 748, April 3, 1874.

’“Wolfimi, Wagner, and the Germans,” in Will Hasty, ed., A Companion to Wolfram's
Parzival, p. 248.
318

be done with it, ‘But a few things stuck in my mind—the Good Friday, the wild
appearance of Condrie. That is all it was.’”^ What sources then did the composer
consider to be more authoritative than Wolfram? In comparing Parzival to the
Nibelungenlied to Wolfram’s detriment Wagner lets us know where these may be
found: “Whoever wrote it [Nibelungenlied] was greater than Wolfram, because he
was inspired by folk poetry and by figures close to the common people.”^ Or again,
“he says he would have been able to write his drama just as well even if Wolfram’s
poem had never existed—from a book of folk tales, like Tannhäuser.
Wagner also tells us why Wolfiam is to be repudiated: Parzival is inauthentic.
Thus “When I declare that Gob-[ineau] has vindicated medieval poetry’s claim to be
regarded as original, R. disputes this and says that it drew very largely on the Orient,
and only the confused ancient heathen traditions were genuine; Wolfram [von
Eschenbach]’s Parzival is not genuine, and that is why it does not make much
impression on one in spite of some very lovely features.”* Parzival's only authentic
sources are oriental details and vernacular writing—or rather, in vernacular writing.
Wagner points to literature that Wolfimn’s courtly culture itself would havé called
illiterati or idiotce, within which such orientalia had always been prominently
featured. Mtiller’s notion that Wagner was wrong about having distilled the essence
of his sources is thus true only if Wagner was also wrong that Wolfram was not his
major source. Clearly he had several sources, among which he ranked Wolfram near
the bottom.' This is unsurprising considering the prior pains he had taken with his
Ring dramas' documented by Magee’ and amounting to a practical knowledge of
almost every work of Saga or S aga interpretation published in German. This resulted
in a critical and comparative approach to poetics and made great demands on the
poet-composer’s scholarship. What is si^rising is that while arguing for a single
source Wagner from whom we may deduce limited self-awareness Müller also argues

’Cosima Wagner, Diaries, II, p. 327, June 20, .1879.

•ibid., I, p. 652, July 2,1873.

'Ibid., II, p. 284, March 28,1879. Richard here was reacting to Schemann’s article, “The
Stage Dedication Festival Play Parsifal' in the Bayreuther Blätter, March 1879.

•ibid., n, p. 595, January 10, 1881.

’Elizabeth Magee, Richard Wagner and the Nibelungs, Oxford, 1990.

 319

that “the thoroughness with which he proceeded is clear fiom the books in his so-
called ‘Dresden library,’ which Wagner first began to assemble in 1842 and which
he was obliged to leave behind in 1849 when he fled Saxony because of his
revolutionary activities ... In addition to a number of modem works, it contains
mainly texts, translations and scholarly works dealing with the literature of classical
antiquity and, more especially, ofthe Middle Ages. The completeness and excellence
of the collection would have been the envy of virtually every philologist of Wagner’s
day.”' This was certainly an overdose of preparation merely to neglect a sole source.
Long after the loss of his beloved library Wagner relied on similar sources,
continuing to conflate images from multiple poetic domains onto a single dramatic
narrative, a procedure he had followed from Das Rheingold and intuitively from the
beginning.’ He made use of the literati poems öfWolfium or Chrétien de Troyes, and
considering the composer’s subject, researches into the lives of the saints or Jesus,
the history of Christianity and the Knights Templar,“ or witchcraft, are unsurprising.
Adolf Friedrich’s Poesis und Kunst der Araber in Spanien und Sizilien or Reinhart
Dozy’s /fw/o/re des Musulmans d'Espagne'^ appear more remarkable until we recall
the references to Arabia in Acts I and II arid such orientalist details in Wolfram as the
Grail bearer’s Arabian dress or Gahmuret’s Moorish dalliance, which he would no
doubt have considered authentic. Wagner wished to support each detail of his own
drama by research into its'historical and cultural significance—an approach we may
contrast with Shakespeare’s fanciful references to the seacoast of Bohemia.

‘“Wolfram, Wagner, and the Germans,” p. 248.

^This technique likewise characterized the mediæval artistic iconography of monsters-, for
instance, Strickland discusses the concept of the “hidden allusion” in medieval art whereby “heretics,
Jews, and other controversial frgures appear in ‘multiple disguises.’ The term has been applied to
manuscript marginalia, where various creative iconographical inventions traditionally flourish, but the
concept is also relevant to medieval imagery on the broadest scale. I suggest however that the allusions
were not really ‘hidden’ or else they would have had no contençorary impact. Still, the term does
connote a key feature of this kind of imagery, which is that it requires knowledge of contemporary
thought about the particular figures portrayed in order for it to be fiilly understood.” {Saracens,
Demons, and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art, p. 97). Wagner extends this technique of
multiple allusions of mediæval artistic figures to include musicalfigures as well, as noted below.

‘“For Friedrich see Cosima’s Diaries, I, pgs. 889 & 1137; for Dozy, Ibid., II, pgs. 20 & 1017.
320

II. “Orientalism” and “Otherness” In Wolfram

Among these details were orientalist elements, whose presence in mediæval
literature Wagner argues was inevitable for historical reasons;
In the multifarious intercourse of the Crusades, the orient and the
occident had interchanged [poetic] Stuffs, and stretched their many-
sidedness to a monstrosity. Whereas in earlier days the Folk included
nothing but the homelike in its myths: now that its understanding of
the homelike had been lost, it sought for recompense in a constant
noveltjj of the outlandish. In its burning hunger, it gulped down
everything foreign and unwonted: its voracious phantasy exhausted
all the possibilities of human imagination,—^to digest them into the
wildest medley of adventures."
When Wagner studies sagas and the vernacular literature of the Folk, he believes he
is experiencing the fragments of some mighty, elided Whole rather than collections
of miscellaneous stories concerning honor, insult, challenge, and revenge. Wagner
posits the existence of a vast background structure of explanatory meaning, now
beyond direct recovery but capable of abstract reconstruction through painstaking
cross-referencing of multiple sources. This is what Müller refers to as “distillation
of the essential meaning” without, however, factoring the multiple sources as
essential to the process that I have called “multiple coherence content construction.”
To describe what we know about the content and to properly interpret what
we have not yet found out we must parse at least five different content categories:
orientalism, orthodox Christianity, alchemy, astrology, and gnosticism {heretical
Christianity). Orientalism is a bracing structure, since all this magical or theological
content is specifically imagined as originating in the East. These may be understood
as types of content but it is also useful to remember that Wagner typically thought not
so much in content terms or even musical terms as in literary terms, which is to say
in genre terms. Since genre and content generally coincide these categories may be
treated as genre categories; for instance, there is an alchemistic literature, a gnostic
litçrature, an ecclesiastical literature, and an asttological literature, and all may be
subsumed into an overarching orientalist category or may be said to possess
orientalist literary tendencies. For instance, we may graph the literary influences on
Parsiföl as if conteiit ähd literary categories were more or less the same, thus:

Opera and Drama, p. 164.

 321

Orientalism

Alchemy Astrology Christianity Gnosticism

alchemistic astrological ecclesiastica] heresiology
tracts, folklore folklore texts gnostic folklore
This is not a scheme for identifying texts according to these preconceived categories,
but a rough-and-ready conceptual aid for recognizing the tradition or genres from
which given motives may be argued to derive or within whose perspective the motive
may be argued to be meaningful. For instance, gnostic, alchemistic, and orthodox
Christian sources all contain Eucharists, and I will give examples in due course. This
means that “eucharist” can be understood in terms of any of these categories with
little need to borrow referential frames from outside genres.'^ So Wagner’s Acts I
and in grail eucharist can be said either to derive or to be arguably meaningful within
any ofthese categories and one might well be h^py imagining Parsifal as doing just
what a Catholic priest does. This would not be ilKSOherent, it would just be wrong.
One needs to know that alchemy and gnosticism also have Eucharists or Eucharist-
analogs in order to get that this Eucharist has features absent in the Christian species
and that these features are neither arbitrary nor specifically idiomatic to Wagner.
On the other hand, gnosticism and astrology contain planetary spirits where
orthodox Christianity and alchemy do not. This notwithstanding the fact that these
genres mention planets (e.g., “lead is Saturn” or “Star of Bethlehem”). Thus should
Saturn should appear in an alchemistic text one must appeal to an astrological frame
to relate him to “lead” and if the Star ofBethlehem appears to Magi one must appeal
outside Christianity to understand Magi or why these fellows happen to be watching
stars. Getting outside geme categories threatens meaning and coherence:, thus

'^I include under the alchemistíc rubric such predecessor and contemporary practices as
talismanic and Hermetic magic. The talismanic-alchemistic axis roughly corresponds to the formula,
“spells and potions.” There is a seamless professional and fìmctional continuity between classical and
early mediæval talismanic practitioners and later (and occasionally university-trained) alchemists.
The fìmctional seamlessness was practical and specifically medical: people most consistently used
both talismans and potions as medicine, to cine their physical ailments or cause physical changes in
themselves or others (e.g., falling in love). The educated apofiiecaty-like alchemistic figure ofthe late
middle ages therefore rode into town on the shoulders of his predecessor taUsmanic magicians, who
were often semiliterate. The connection between file two practices can be easily seen by conçaring
alchemistic woodcut illustrations with earlier talismans: the same kind of visual symbolism operates
lends to both artistic genres their perceived and peculiar grotesqueness. Again, both types of
practitioners fell under the watchftxl eye of the orthodox heresy-hunter, and were thus similarly
“othered” and thereby rendered culturally charismatic. The Hermetic influences on Wolfram’s
Parzival are discussed at length by Henry and Renée Kahane in The Krater and the Grail.
322

nothing one can say about why some monk might be trying to crack lead open in a
lab is likely to be meaningful or coherent unless one resorts to category “alchemy”
in addition to “Christianity” (e.g., Christian alchemist, like Romeo’s Friar Laurence).
This hands-on multiple coherence scheme is also intended to represent pretty
accurately the background structure of how Wagner thought about his Parsifal
material. As can be shown by analyzing the finished Music Drama, he actually
worked outtós materials as if such genre or content categories were real. One reason
Parsifal has bpen little understood is that these categories are real and haven’t been
understood either and the literary motives therefore haven’t been properly placed in
the overall conceptual scheme ofthings. Attempts to understand this material without
such a framework arç, I fear, doomed to likely failures of coherence or meaning.
Unsurprisinglyx|here are no pure categories in either Wolfram or Wagner:
everything is genre mixtijre. Wagner’s own eucharist draws ineaning from both
Christian and gnostic frames. So does Klingsor, who draws from astrology as well
(devil, enemy, antichrist, Scorpio HI,). This is why Wagner’s eucharist and Klingsor
are multiple-coherence figures. No part oftheir meaning formally contradicts any of
their composing genres but all of it is only intelligible in terms of all of them. This
in itself is unremarkable; it is just the final iteration of Wagner’s lifelong project of
demonstrating the “grand concordance of all sterling myths.”
Multiple-coherence was embedded in these sources from the start. Consider
“orientalism.” While elsewhere Wagner considers oriental materials to be Wolfram’s
only claim to authenticity, here he contrasts the otherness ofmediæval folk-materials
with its authentic or homelike Germaimess. The contradiction is less in his formula
than in the notion of “culturally authentic.” Lurking at the legendary core of
Germaimess Wagner discovers an ineradicable foreign residue, one source of the
tension his attitude toward German culture. The composer systematically exploited
this tension'iri his composition: like the Ring, Parsifal takes otherness as the escape
route from the literal, which is above all the trap that Wagner maneuvers to avoid:
Wheré Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the
spirit of religion by recognizing the figurative value of the mythic
symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense,
and revealitigliieir deep and hidden truth through ah ideal present
ation. '^ere the priest stakes everything on the religious allegories
being accepted as matters of fact, the artist Iws no such concern at all
with such a thing, since he freely and openly gives out his work as his
 323

own invention.*^
Crucial to this approach are the notions that Christianity is a myth among others, that
its true language is figurative, and that its misguided literalism has rendered this truth
esoteric. Recalling that Wagner embedded his music theory in psychological theory,
it is hélpfiil to find a parallel psychological structure of thought within which this
seems familiar. Wagner’s agenda was proposed a century later by the school of
Archetypal Psychology, which defines “soul” as innately polytheistic, its nature as
“poetic,” and “soul-making” as “imagining” and “de-literalizing.”''* Wagner’s pre
occupation with the survival of pagan gods into the Christian aeon, exemplified in
Tannhäuser by the coexistence of Vehus and Mary, in Lohengrin by the survival of
Wodan and Freya as vengefiil nature spirits, and by the gnostic and alchemistic
apparitions that pass through the inscape ofParsifal, show the composer’s efforts to
reconfigure the ideal basis of the human religious impulse. Such an enterprise is
encountered only a century after Parsifal in post-Jimgran efforts to
.. . specify and differentiate each [psychic] event, which it can do
against the variegated backgroimd of archetypal configurations, or
what polytheism called Gods, in order to make [psychic] multiplicity
both authentic and precise ... the Gods of psychology are not
believed in, not taken literally, not imagined theologically. Religion
approaches Gods with ritual, prayer, sacrifice, worship, creed... in
archetypal psychology, Gods are imagined. They are approached
through psychological methods of personifying, pathologizing, and
psychologizing. They are formulated ambiguously, as met^hors for
modes of experience and as numinous borderline persons. They are
cosmic perspectives in which the soul participates.’^
From an early twenty-first century perspective therefore, Wagner’s creative thinking
strongly resembles that of a Jungian or post-Jungian psychologist.
Parsifal's finmework of Otherness is orientalism, the tendency ofEuropeans

"“Religion and Art,” p. 213.

'*Thus, “Soul-making is described as imagining, that is, seeing or hearing by means of an

imaging which sees through an event to its image. Imaging means releasing events from their literal
understanding into a mythical appreciation. Soul-making, in this sense, is equated with de-literalizing
- that psychological attitude which suspiciously disallows the naive and given level ofevents in order
to search out their shadowy, metaphorical significance for soul.” (James Hillman, Archetypal
Psychology, p. 27.) For the poetic basis of soul see Ibid., p. 62.

'^Ibid., pgs. 34-5. Embedded quote from James Hillman, Re- Visioning Psychology, p. 169.
324

to construct imaginai worlds identifiable as Asian, Other, and therefore exotic.

Orientalism has been a strategy familiar to European poets since at least the division
of the Roman Empire into West and East.'* One result of this division was that was
originally familiar and domestic became over time, and particularly after the fall of
Rome itself, eastern and exotic. Thereafter the “orient” served as a conventional
rabric for the display of poetic material felt to be obscure, fascinating, and
problematical. The conventioii persists; thus modem psychologists call attention to
deeply unconscious material in “oriental” contexts.” this strategy for displaying the
Other means that “outlandish” material may surprise yet remain subliminally
comfortable, since the convention itself cues the audience to expect the unexpected.
Where the Äing’s 1 exical meanings align with Neoplatoiuc astrology, in
Parsifal Wagner arrives at the cultural heartland of astrological and alchemical
mysticism and continues to represent astrological entities in his lexical tonality by
adding mediaeval mystical imagery to his prior Nibelungen mythic vocabulary.
Where in the earlier drainas the Ab Major Tonal Household lexicalizes WalhalTs
cupbearers general vessels, honeyed mead, or flagons of dregs tossed in Fricka’s
outraged face, in Parsifal it becomes the Cup of the “Redeemer”; or. as the Ring’s D
Major is the sword-swinging youifg hero, so Parsifal’s is the spear-returning saint;
or as the earlier B minor signified Alberich’s curse or Valkyries and their flying
horses, here it becomes Klingsdr’s curse or Kundry and her flying horse.
WágnefTjelieved tkat the oriental materials that Wolfiram had incorporated
were the major source for the Grail legepd. How does this orientalist theory hold up
in the light of modem Arthurian scholarship? It appears least taken for granted by
literary scholars themselves. Loomis for one, though supporting the notion of
Moorish influence upon the cult offin amor, pokes gentle fun at theories of Indian
or other eastern origins of the Grail legend, describing Wagner’s and Tennyson’s
chalice-Grails as “misguided” and Wolfi-am’s depiction of the Grail as a stone as a

“And no doubt even earlier—e.g., the Trojan War, the myth of the Argonauts, etc.

’’The persistence of such ideas may be judged by conçaring Wagner’s “Wibelungen”

account with Jung’s account of a patient’s dream: "...the dreamer goes through a long dark tunnel.
Light is shimmering at thefar end. À treasure is there, and on top ofit the ring with the diamond. It
is said that this ring will lead him on a longJourney to the east." [Jung’s italics.] Jung comments,
“Thé way to the east probably points to the unconscious as an antipode. According to the legend the
Grail-stone comes from thè east and must return there again.” {Psychology and Alchemy, H]|262-3.)
 325

“bewilderment to scholars.”'* Thus where the composer believed that the poet had
failed to come to grips with what he takes to be oriental sources; the scholar holds
similar views about his assumed Celtic sources; “[Wolfram] did not know, it seems,
the meaning of the word grail, and his ignorance was shared not only by other
translators but even by French miniaturists, who depicted the vessel as a chalice or
a covered goblet. He himself mistook the object for a stone; why, no one knows,
though there have been numerous guesses.”” On account of the stone interpretation
Loomis and Wagner consider Wolfram incompetent, though for opposite reasons.
Wolfram’s orientalism consists of more than such decorative details as the
inclusion of Moorish characters or settings. Parzival also contains a demonstrably
orientalist narrative level unremarked by Loomis that caimot be reconciled with
Celtic inspiration. This level comprises an astrological etiology of the Grail King’s
malady drawn from Græco-Roman (zodiacal) and Babylonian (planetary) astral
concepts, and within which background framework the poet’s Grail-stone finds an
orthodox niche. Indeed, merely on the basis of the poet’s transformation scheme,
vessel=stone, Emma Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz found it necessary to attribute
to Wolfiam acquaintance with alchemistic ideas,^“ since the all-important alchemistic
vessel is synonymous with the philosophers-’ stone and both are responsive to the
supercelestial influxes described in Parzival. The planetary coimection is an image
of the macrocosm in the microcosmic heart of man, “the vessel is always One and it
must be roxmd like the vault of heaven so that celestial influences can contribute to
the [alchemist’s] work.”^' This js another indication that Wolfram’s Grail derives
from conflations similar to those descnb^dHjy ^^gnef in “The Wibelungen” to
coimect Hoard and Grail by means of a single utûfied'‘îdeal content.”
That the sources ofthis material were orientalist follows fix)m these consider
ations: the Grail romances were composed between C.E. 1180 and 1230, dates that
Loomis connects with the expansion ofEuropean intellectual life exemplified by the
construction of Notre-Dame, the Rheims and Wells Cathedrals and the choir of

‘“Roger Sherman Loomis, The Grail: From Celtic Myth to Christian Symbol, pgs. 2/& 28/

'^Ibid., pgs. 4-5.

“The Grail Legend, p. 152.

^'Ibid., p. 142.
326

Lincoln in England, and universities at Paris, Bologna, and Oxford. Under such
auspices these eleventh and twelfth centuries centers of new learning a flood of
classical and original texts poured into Western Europe from the Arabic scholarly
communities in Spain, North Afiica, and Palestine. This development was marked
by fundamental changes in curriculum. Tester defines the position of Arab-trans
mitted astrology in the medieval quadrivium or liberal arts curriculum with a
reference to the encyclopedic syllabus drawn by Thierry of Chartres in 1142:

... not only is the “new logic” (the translations of Aristotle’s major
logical works, just arriving in the schools) included, but we find foin
authorities for geometry, including Gerbert d’Aurillac (the late tenth
century Bishop of Rheims and Pope); and Gerland’s book on the
abacus; and Hyginus, Ptolemy and the Arabic writer al-Khwarizmi (of
whos^^name algorithm is a corruption) all mentioned under
Astronotny.“
The Arab-facilitated rediscovery of Aristotle, whose'physics divided material
existence itito superlunary ^d sublimary spheres and in which physical and human
phenomena alike were subject to the laws oftime and change as opposed to the ideal
stasis of Platonic forms, reintroduced Hellenistic astrology into the Western
European elite (if not vernacular) imagination with a significant impact. Thus,
Pagânistft and Christianity had lived together in the fourth and fifth
centuries, offen in the same individual’s life and mind. Paganism only
disappeared by vanishing into Christianity. The antique gods survived
not only in the heavens but as literary figures, and, as both, as art
'forms'... the great philosopher-theologians of the thirteenth century
—^Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus and Gckham were the most impor
tant—^\yere all Aristoteliahs. Aristotle’s ideas on what constituted
scientia, that is, knowledge, were generally accepted in the schools,
and for two hundrdd' years or more Aristotelianism was the
backgiriund philosophy of educated men. And Aristotle... said that
all sublunary change was the result of and dependent upon motions
in Ihe heavens. All ofthis meant that astrology could be and would be
accepted as part of astrologia, hs a science properly belonging to the
Aristotelian scheme of things, so to the whole scientific picture.“
Through its agency the medieval mind engaged ideas ofman’s connection to a living
microcosm and macrocosm; historical evolution within recurring cosmological

“S. Jim Tester, A History of Western Astrology, p. 103.

°Ibid., p. 176.
 327

cycles; the “horoscope of the world;” the changing of ages, the all-importance of
time; and fateful interventions of pagan planetary deities, malefici or benefici, in the
affairs ofthe soul. The astrological, as distinct from alchemistic-talismanic, element
of Parzival thus belongs not to vernacular but to the elite, university-educated, and
Latinate culture including, perhaps strangely, that of the Church itself. In terms of
cultural sources this distinction separates Wolfram’s astrological from his alchemistic
materials, for the former was in general inaccessible to popular culture at the level
of detail that raises them from mere decorations to matters of substance. Thus,
Those who read and assimilated this newly received science,
including astrologia, were mostly churchmen; not priests necessarily,
though many were, but at least in the minor orders. They were clerici,
“clerics”. Our words "clergy” and “clerk” are both derived from this
same Latin word, since in the Middle Ages all clerks were clergy:
“clerical” still preserves both senses. Almost all medieval scholars
were churchmen ... by the time t^ city and cathedral schools had
grown and been formalized and the universities begun in the
thirteenth century, most were secular clergy or belonged to one of the
two new orders of friars, the Franciscans or the Dominicans. So it was
the Church, in a sense, which received and accepted the new science,
including astrology.^“*
Such social facts are relevant to Parzival and Wagner’s Music-Dramatic alternate.
With respect to elite culture we need not guess whether the new universities played
a role in Wolfram’s imaginai geography, since the poet tells us so in the person of
Cundrie, the Grail Messenger. In Book IV we are informed that “the maiden was so
learned that she spoke all languages well, Latin, French, and heathen [i.e., ‘Arabic’
—eds.]. She was versed in dialectic and geometry and even m the science of
astronomy.”^* This tells us that Cundrie is, as it were, a graduate of the modem
university system who has mastered the contents of the liberal arts quadrivium,
perhaps with a minor in Aristotelian rhetoric and logic and a major in heathen
(Arabic) literature, mathematics, and astrology (=astronomy). It is even conceivable
that she studied under Thierry of Chartres. As orientalism personified. Wolfram’s
astrologer-witch provides evidence for the academic source of the astral medicine,
discussed below, which Anfortas’ leeches practice on him to the accompaniment of

^Ibid., p. 175.

^^Parzival, p. 169.
328
his agonized shrieks, and which they could have intelligently discussed with
Dominican medical advisors from the cathedral college just up the street.
A meaningful dialectic between this elite, orientalist “new learning” and
indigenous folk tales was possible because, in returning to Western Europe, this so-
called new philosophy reencountered a residue of pagan folk and fairy tales, beliefs,
and wisdom forged over centuries by a Græco-Roman civilization in which occident
and orient had been politically and culturally whole and the distinction between
notions of“foreign” and “homelike” that Wagner found compelling was more fluidly
drawn. Alchemy, astrology, and gnosticism^* were vindicated by a resurgent, Arab-
transmitted new learning, while this learning was pre-approved by the fact that its
foundations were still alive in the minds ofeager European recipients, many ofwhom
who had already absorbed much of its imagery in the form of the folk tales that they
had heard as it were round the family hearth. At the level of folk culture the “new”
in Hellenistic cosmology was, as Wagner understood, less “Other” than old friend.”

III. Testing Vagner’s Argument via Wolfram’s Magical Oriental

Healing Stone: Elite vs. Idiotae Elements
The elite, imiversity-inculcated sources ofParsifal are relatively easy to trace
since the literati sources of such materials are well known and thus permit us to
compare, say. Wolfram’s university-determined Cundrie with Wagner’s variant,
“Kundry.” Yet the composer criticizes these sources as corrupt, claiming that they
miss the point of the “stuff’ that he considers to be more authentic. He appeals to the
“Folk” as the culturally corrective factor to the inauthentic. But what does he mean
by “Folk”? On the evidence of his libretto treatment the composer relies not on raw
folktales, which being oral in nature are always textually problematical, but upon

“E.g., the Calhars, whose neo-gnostic and heretical culture embraced parts of Italy and
southern France, whose major defensible fortress Montsegur just happened to occupy the very
Pyrenees mountain that Wolfram and Wagner both understood to be the site ofthe Tençlar-like Grail
castle Monsalvat, and who, in 1243-44 were besieged by ten Üiousand French Catholic troops in the
only Church-sponsored “Crusade” ever undertaken against fellow Christians on European soil, with
their survivors burned alive and their rumored and coveted “treasure” mysteriously vanished into thin
air. The Cathars were thus very much in the minds of Wolfram’s courtly and clerical culture during
the period of his writing of Farziva/ (c. 1197-8).

”I have discussed such cultural coherence between Græco-Roman myth, alchemy, folk tales,
and mining cult lore in connection with Wagner’s multiple-coherence constraction ofAlberich (“The
Genealogy of Chaos,” op. cit.). The same principle applies in Parsifal with a gnostic twist.
 329

published texts that he considers to have been drawn from more “authentic” un
published traditions. There is a term for such materials, and in his study of medieval
antisemitism—another culturál property Wagner incorporated imder the imprimatur
of the Folk—^Alan Colin Gow defines it in a way that proves useful to our inquiry:
Historians of ideas still have not addressed the problems posed,
concerning both sources and methodology, by the history of ideas
among the “common people*’, or even among those who, in the
Middle Ages and early sixteenth century, could not read Latin. Such
people (the vast majority) were distinguished from the Latinate
masters of the language of erudition and intellectual endeavom as
idiotae, speakers of an idiom or vernacular language. Also known as
illiterati people ignorant of Latin letters), the common run ofpeople
were defined intellectually by the limits of their idiom and by the type
and “quality” of. reading materials available to them. Yet they
necessarily thought, and therefore had ideas; they believed, so they
must have had beliefs. Whereas in the later Middle Ages and
Reformation era Latinate élites usually could read and write their
vernacular as well, most but certainly not all illiterati were indeed
illiterate. The barrier was porous in both directions, and the non-
Latinate were not necessarily ignorant —^they simply lacked access to
many “original sources”, and réceived certain kinds of information
through the filter of translations, summaries, and, in al likelihood,
oral recounting in the vernacular. This is the sort of “filtered” access
to high theology and natural science which ... most undergraduates
today have to the western textual tradition, despite the best efforts of
translators to bridge the gulf that continues to grow between “now”
and “then.”"*
Tliat Wagner was intrigued by suCfa~materials is evident at every level of the
composer’s compositional practice. Consider simplicity jn terms of the nineteenth
century notion of the natural and, as the composer himself put it, “purely human.”
Music Drama is characterized by theoretical and practical simplicity, tonal
conservatism and rule-boundedness, primitive and discrete imagery, popular and
vernacular sources and the world view expressed in these. This does not mean that
the finished product is itself simpleminded. Theoretical simplicity releases surface
complexity; tonal rule-boundedness achieves seemingly anomalous harmonic effects
by a fanatical consistency of application; simple idiotae ideas are applied with
astounding subtlety. The landscape revealed by taking Wagner in his own terms rubs

‘‘^TheRed Jews: Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age, 1200-1600, p. 17.

330

our faces in a culture wildly different from that imagined from the ivory tower. A
sense offamiliarity accrues to Wagner’s literati sources and strange differences to the
thinking of common people, with which most ofthe academy has had little to do and
thus has not prepared itself to successfully analyze. Such viewpoints have been
derided as “superstitious” as opposed to “religious”, “naive” as opposed to
“philosophical.” These are the views ofthe idiotae, the constituency which has given
us om; household epithet, “idiot.” To clerical academicians the idiot was (and still is,
believemie) a speaker in the vernacular and his idiom exposed the vernacular mind
for what tlie scholar declared it was: unenlightened, uneducated, uninitiated.
How are idiotae elements relevant to Wagner’s grai7? I have already alluded
to Wolfram’s^courtly orientalism and its overt debt to the new university learning.
Wolfram’s “grai(” is not merely a magic stone but an orientai stone. Its oriental
origin is thus inseparable from its occult properties and it turns out that such a
relationship was nonncontroversial in both literati and illiterati circles. Since the
former culture got its information from the universities via what they thought was
new learning, while the latter drew its conclusions from the folk sources Wagner
stressed as authentic, we may conclude that these materials had been available to
ordinary Germans for centuries irrespective of what they taught up on the hill.
This dialectic between orientalist and indigenous folk images may be
observed in the parallel accounts ofhealing stones in Wolfram’s (b. c. 1170) Parzival
(c. 1197-8) and the PAysica(c. 1140) ofHildegard von Bingen (c. 1098-1179). One
of the most significant extant works of mediæval herbology and folk medicine,
Physica depends for its ideas not on clerical erudition but its author’s spontaneous
visions and i little rudimentary education she received from the Abbess Jutta. This
is why references4o philosophical or theological authorities are mostly absent in
Physica and why we are 6n safe ground in understanding the work to be impervious
to newfangled ideas pushed by the avant-garde literati professors.
With this in mind consider the courtly Wolfimn’s image of the Grail as a
precious healing stone inscribed with the' trappings of Araby-and acting in dialectic
with overtly Hellenistic astrological influences.'In her treatise on “stones” and their
healing powers the abbess contends that every precious stone is oriental. Thus,
Precious stones and gems arise in the Orient, in areas where the sun’s
heat is very great. From the hot sun, mountains there have heat as
powerful as fire. The rivers in those areas always boil from the sun’s
 331

great heat. Whence at times an innundation of those rivers bursts

forth and ascends those scorching mountains. The moimtains, burning
with the sun’s heat, are touched by those rivers. Froth, similar to that
produced by hot iron or a hot stone when water is poured over it,
exudes from the places where Ae water touches the frre. This froth
adheres to that place and, in three or four days, hardens into stone.
Once the inundation has ceased and the waters have retimied to the
river bed, the pieces of froth dry up. They dry from the sun’s heat and
take their colours and powers in accordance with the time of day and
the temperature. Drying, and hardeniijg, they become precious stones
and fall onto the sand, just like flaking fish scales . . , And so,
precious stones are bom from fire and water; whence they have fire
and moisture in them.^^
Her orientalism is total. Precious stones must be Oriental because the “Orient” is
another planet where anything can happen—twelfth century science fiction. This is
all irremediably vernacular; thus Hildegard cle^ly borrows her scorching solar blasts
from the classical antipodes, in which an unkhoMi but inhabited counter-Earth is
imagined to be forever separated from the Northern Hemisphere by an equatorial belt
of impassable fire. Yet her antipodal thinking cannot have originated from inform
ation propagated in the universities since the Church had declared belief in the
antipodes to be heretical}'^ It was therefore a piece of traditional folk wisdom left
over from classical times. Hildegard thus retains the ‘Yegion of heat” but imagines
it to be located not South in the direction of heresy but East in the direction of
Paradise and the genetically miraculous—& geographical garbling that also character
izes the popular chronicles of Prester John, discussed below, whose fabulous Chris
tian realm could be easily shifted from India East to Abyssinia South as required, as
well as in the mock-literary “genre” of mediæval mappœ mundi.
Hildegard’s accoimt of healing stones stands out in textmre from discussions
of plants and other healing substances by reason of its elaborated mythic imagery,
which is specifically connected with the Orient as opposed to her descriptions of
local medicaments, which do not merit such poetic charismatics. Entirely innocent
of the university-propagated astrology one finds in Wolfram, it nonetheless betrays
the numinous fingerprint of the orientalist “Other” and, in fact, Hildegard’s fish-

“Hildegard von Bingen, Physica, pgs. 137-8.

“Consider for instance that the existence of the antipodes requires that the Earth be round.
332

scale-encrusted precious fire-stone imagery duly recurs in another university-

independent context, namely, alchemistic discussions of the philosopher‘s stone:
A round and transparent fish of a peculiar sort, without “cortices,” is
described in the Cyranides: the “Cinedian fish” lives in the sea on the
shores of Syria, Palestine, and Libya, is six fingers long, and is a
“pisciculus rotundus.” It has two stofles in its head and another one
in the third vertibra of its tail... This stone is especially potent and
is used as a love-potion. The cinedian stone is practically unknown,
because it is very rare. It is also called “pisianus,” which is interpreted
as “serotinus” (oflate growth or origin) and “tardus” (slow, hesitant).
It pertains to Saturn. “This stone is twin or twofold: the one is opaque
and black, but the other though black is brilliant and shining like a
mirror.” This is the stone which many seek, without finding it: for it
is the di;agon’s stone (dracontius lapis)?'
This alchemistic ^stone-fish haimts oriental seas and is associated with magical
medicaments. It is clearly a variant of the philosopher’s stone, which was permeated
with the poetics of fire and water from the start; for instance “beginning with the
treatises of Democritus and Komarios, which are assigned to the first century A.D.,
alchemy, imtil well into the eighteenth century, was very largely concerned with the
miraculous water, the aqua divina orpermanens, which was extracted from the lapis,
or prima materia, through the torment of the fire.”^^
Wherever they turnup suchmediæval fetishes are permutations oifire, water
(fish), stone, and Orient. Thus in the Rosarium philosophorum “the white stone
appears on the edge of the vessel. Tike Oriental gems, like fish’s eyes.’””
Hildegard’s account ofthe oriental precious stones is thus steeped in alchemistic and
talismanic imagery that she herself did not acknowledge or perhaps recognize as
such. Nor is this surprising, for the magical foimdations of alchemy remained a folk-

’‘C. G. Jung, Aion, 1213. Reference is to Louis Delatte, Textes latins et vieux franc, ais
relatifs aux Cyranides, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège,
fase. 93, Liège, 1942, p. 56. The parallel to Wagner’s Rheingold account ofthe winning of the magical
gold, in which the fire-demon Alberich wreste the prima materia of the Ring from the Rhine
Daughters and the water element, tormenting them by forging it into a wicked ring in the fires of
Nibelheim, is too precise to be accidental, particularly when we recall the forger’s ability to transform
himself into a serpent and hence his Ring into a draconis lapis.

”C. G. Jung, “The Visions ofZosimos,’’f89.

“Quoted in Jung, “Concerning Rebirth,” CW 9, i, 1246«.

 333
phenomenon,’^ and Hildegard, though she could probably have consulted her local
alchemist at need just as we can consult the neighborhood chemist, didn’t need to,
since such images were available secondhand through fairy tales, nursery rhymes,
proverbs, and the like—e.g., through “her mother’s milk.” The accreted efforts of
hundreds of local practitipners affected a slow seepage of Hellenistic ideas through
the local folk cultures of Europe over hundreds of years: the classic local “folk
wisdom” which nevertheless owed its conceptual framework to Oriental sources. The
antiquity of the material helps account for its apparent ubiquity in both folk and elite
poetics, as opposed to astrology, which remained an elite occupation.
This level of mediæval healing imagery provides background for the Grail
poetics that Wagner identified as orientalist, valid, but confused. The stone-fish con
nection appears in many guises throughout Wolfram’s chronicles of the Grail. Thus
Anfortas is known as the “Fisher King” and Parzival first encoimters him in his boat
engaged in his characteristic activity. Ermita Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz
connect this figure with the alchemistic “King of the Sea” {Rex marinus), whose
kingdom parallels the Celtic realm “often thought of as lying under water and ...
known as ‘The Land Beneath the Wave’ ... it is to be found in the rrudst of the
everyday world but concealed by a magic haze, and it only becomes visible under
special conditions and to particular people.”” This kind of experience is the lot of
heathens, whom Wolfram asserts cannot see the Grail. Thus while the Christians
ooo\ and aah ! poor Feirefiz blinks stupidly at nothing until he renounces the worship
ofJupiter and embraces Christ, whereupon the Grail pops into view. This is onlyjust,
since Wolfram has just showri Jupiter up as a planetary demon of the type that has
‘been stomping on poor Anfortas’ wound for years. Be that as it may, mystical fish
and mystical Grail are both stones “which many seek, without finding it.” And as the

"Again, it is hard to classify alchemy in genre terms. Despite the fact that its literature was
written in Latín, I would very much like to call alchemy “vernacular,” since unlike astrology it was not
propagated by elite culture but by common practitioners working in local towns and nibbing shoulders
with the common folk ftom'nhomtheybou^t their vegetables and alchemistic ingredients or acquired
their retorts, shoes, and apprentices. This is why Chaucer (c. 1387) or Ben Johnson (c. 1610) can make
alchemists into figures of fun: they were well-known figures like the eccentric apothecary or chemist
down on Hyde Street. Since these people were consulted all the time about aches, pains, and plagues,
and since their advice was tendered in French, German, or Italian, what they had to say leeched into
popular culture in a way that astrological lore did not.

”r/ie Grail Legend, p. 67.

334

disciples of the fish-symboled Christ were enjoined to become “fishers of people,”

Anfortas inverts the command to become a fisher of God.^*
Wagner claimed to have clarified Wolfi-am’s confusions particularly with
respect to his core mythologem, the Grail and its kingly keeper. The nature of such
clarification is simple: the occultism, that in Wolfi-am is plastered over by courtly
froufi-ou is in Wagner simply spelled out. The specifically alchemistic inspiration for
Wagner’s*King Amfortas is overwhelmingly evident in precise detailing far too
numerous tb even list. Wagner’s Amfortas is a thoroughly alchemistic figure. Here
are a few drops firom the multiple-coherence bucket in which these two figures are
dissolved and intermingled;
• The alchemistic Rex Marinus (cf. “Fisher King”) is to be rescued by a re
deemer animated specifically by pity\ thus, “And though that king of the
philosophers seems dead, yet he lives, and cries out firom the deep: He who
shall deliver me firom the waters and bring me back to-dry land, him will I
bless with riches everlasting. But although that cry is heard by many, yet are
none near at hand to be moved with compassion for the king and seek him.
For who, say they, will plunge into the sea? Who will relieve another’s
danger at the cost of his own.”” (Cf. “Durch Mitleid wissend, der Reine
Tor.”)
• The King lies like,a unicorn (=purity, cf. Parsifal) with a wound in his side
in the lap of the Crowned Maid [virgo redimita] who is also his mother and
with whom he mates in order to be reborn and firom whom pours a
“wonderful balsam” and whose face is adorned with the “precious stone.””
(Cf. Amfortas’ blood-spurting wound, Krmáry’s incest-motif and balsam, the
Grail that fs likewise a stone).
• Again, after innumerable trials and sufferings the king is reincarnated, as
where “Ripley portrays his king as victor, healer of the sick, and redeemer
fiom sin. At the end of the Rosarium there is a picture of the Risen Christ
with the inscription, ‘ After my many sufferings and great martyry. Irise again

“Such inveisions of orthodox meanings are common all fantastical literature, including
Wagner’s, and is particularly characteristic of orientalist conceits, since the “Other” in question is in
maiiy respects imagined as a mirror ofordinary reality, whence it follows that left-right axes are often
as it were flipped for effect.

^’’Symh. Aur. Mensae, p. 380, quoted in Mysterium coniunctionis, 1J465ii.

^‘Psychology and Alchemy, K491; Cf. Wolftam’s stone-Grail.

 335

transfigured, of all blemish fi-ee.’””

• The King lies stricken in a magical bath within which he seeks to be healed
and reborn. The bath is abalsam given by a Venus figure, who also gives him
sexual trouble. {Cf. “Vom Bade kehrt der König heim”, etc.)^
• The King is connected with a virginal nightmare figure who is both a snake-
woman and wild horsewoman {Cf. Kundry); e.g., “We have here the
widespread conception of the anima as horsewoman and nightmare, a real
‘ungodly spirit,’ and at the same time the well-known fairytale motif of the
aging king whose vitality is at an end. As a sous-entendu a magical, life-
renewing marriage with the nymph seems to be planned (somewhat in the
manner of the immortal Merlin’s marriage with his fairy), for in paradise, the
garden of love with the apple-tree, all opposites are united.’*" {Cf. Kundry
“Die wilde Retterin”, her ni^tmares, her serpent-girdle.)
• The King forms a pair with the King’s Son, who incurs multiple woes
through his giving in to the embrace of a woman and also by the devouring
presence of his own father; thus: “The regiüs filius is a rejuvenated form of
the Father-King. The youth is firequently shown with a sword and represents
the spirit, while the father represents the body. In the Rosarium version of the
‘Visio’ the death of the son is the result of his complete disappearance into
the body of Beya during coitus. In another version he is eaten by his own
father... like the Gnostic Nous [he] sinks into the embrace ofphysical nature
(Physis). Death therefore represents the completion ofthe spirit’s descent into
matter.’**^
Next chapter I want to extend these and other mediæval alchemistic
associations toward what I take to be the unitary source of all of them, classical
gnosticism. Meanwhile, considering the complexity of the traditions that contribute
elements to the composite product, Loomis’s puzzlement concerning the source of

*°E.g., “The King in the bath and the connubium with Venus or with the mother are the same
thing; the ‘man encompassed by the woman.’ Sometimes he and sometimes she is hermaphroditic,
because at bottom they are nothing other Üian Mercurius duplex. Venus or the whore corresponds to
the erotic aspect of the lion, who in turn is an attribute of the king.” (Mysterium coniunctionis, H416.)
Amfortas in die bath, Amfortas in the arms of Kundry, Tannhäuser in the Venusburg, Tannhäuser in
the arms of Venus, Tristan slurping the love potion, Tristan in the arms of Isolde, are all variants of
this same alchemistic image.

"Mysterium coniunctionis, fSO.

"Psychology and Alchemy, 1|436.

336
Wolfram’s grail-stone is understandable. It has multiple sources. And Hildegard
shows us that it is uimecessary to assume formal alchemistic influence upon Wolfram
owing to the existence of these abundant vernacular sources available to the poet just
by tallring to folks on the street. Things are somewhat different with respect to the
astrological element in Book XVI, for which Wolfram constructs a secondary poetic
fraipework that surrounds his rather no-personality Grail-stone with a Hellenistic
astrological montage drawn from the contemporary quadrivium but which, like his
folk-elepients, is likewise understood to derive from the “Orient,” i.e., from “Araby.”
A'general point emerges from such considerations. Like Wagner, Wolfram
draws surfàce imagery from a multiple deep structure comprised of orthodox
Christian, Celtic, alchemistic, astroldgical. Oriental, and folk levels to embed his tale
of the magical ^oriental healing stone within a broader poetic coherence while
preserving its “ideal content.” He thus permits himself poetic license to articulate
things that could not be said within the constraints of his own Christian culture, in
token not of a generic love of the outlandish but also—recalling the impending fate
ofthe neo-^bstic Cathars and similar targeted “heretics”—as matters of caution and
common sense. Again, the construction of“multiple coherence,” focused through an
orientalist anrf thus deniable “Otherness.”

IV. Wagner’s Idiotae Sources

When Wagner claims that Parzival is only authentic to the degree that it
shows orientalist features he implies that Parsifal is more authentic because it shows
them off better. Is the composer correct in general terms? How orthodox is his own
orientalism in comparison to that of the middle ages?
Wagner’s own orientalist outlook is most evident in his beliefthat civilization
itself had an Indian origin, and thus that cultural pride of place lay in the fabulous
East. His legendary geography circa 1848 describes the Indian realm of his “Grail
King” variously as “eastwards,” “deep in Asia,” and “in farthest India,” a location
that he like the mediæval geographers specified as the origin of mankind itself. Such
valorization of the East is a essential feature of European mediæval cülture generally
that we have encountered in the mediæval mappa mundi, which “was intended to
picture forth tKe fortunes of the human race, and Paradise, as forming the
 337

starting-point in the stream of time, occupied the head of the map.”^^ Wagner is thus
technically correct in imputing authenticity to a mythic view that takes the Far East
as the valorized origin of mankind. Wagner places this point
at the epoch which most Sagas call the “Sint-Fluth” or Great Deluge,
when oiu earth’s Northern hemisphere was about as much covered by
water as now is the Southern, [and] the largest island of this northern
world-sea would have been the highest mountain-range of Asia, the
so-called Indian Caucasus: upon this island, i.e., these mountains, we
have to seek the cradle of the present Asiatic peoples, as also of those
who wandered forth to Europe. Here is the ancestral seat of all
religions, of every tongue, of all these nations’ Kinghood.^
This gambit serves Wagner’s multiple-coherence program in several ways. It
generalized Wagner’s mythic grail framework via the common not particularly
Christian 1 egend o f t he F lood. H is I ndian C aucasus island i s c aused t hereby t o
function in the manner ofthe island Terrestrial Paradise featured on the extreme East
i^
(top) of most mappa mundi, and which Wagner asserts was still there, in the middle
ages, as the blessed realm in which the mysterious Sight-of-God still reigned.
In Wagner’s frame of reference orientalism perse is primafacie authentic in
an artwork based on mediæval sources. In support Wagner could call upon a lively
tradition in German scholarship represented by J. G. Herder (1744—1803), J. J.
Görres (1776-1848), Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829), and Arthur Schopenhauer.
Wagner read Görres^’ and Schlegel (the first German to btudy Sanskrit on German
soil) and even had coffee with him.'“’ And the composer pursued the Indian thread in
many directions; thus “R’s main pleasure in his books; he showed me Professor
Bachofen’s Tanaquil and said how interesting it was to piursue Oriental traces in
Rome.”^’ As preparations for the composition of Parsifal intensify Richard “talks
continually of India and Indian culture, compared with which we are barbarians, for

‘^Mediæval Geography: An Essay in Iliustration of the Hereford Mappa Mundi, p. xx.

“Richard Wagner, “The Wibelungen” (1848), pgs. 259-60.

‘^Diaries, I, p. 534, entry of September 16, 1872.

‘‘Ibid., I, p. 440, December 17, 1871. For an account of German India studies in the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries see Jean W. Sedlar, India in the Mind of Germany:
Schelling, Schopenhauer, and Their Times, esp. pgs. 1-54.

‘’’Ibid., I, p. 595, February 14, 1873.

338
what relationship do great poetic works such as Faust bear to their own times, and
how can our dogmas be compared with the dogma of reincarnation?”^*
Wagner had held such beliefs with little change for three and a halfdecades.“”
He stated his thesis as early as the “Wibelungen” essay of 1848. The essay’s subtitle,
“World-History as Told in Saga”, and his prefatory note, state that its contents derive
from specific sources that the composer does not bother to name.*® Yet he indirectly
does so in his account of the remarkable news that came to Friedrich Barbarossa:
Wondrous legends had he heard of a lordly country deep in Asia, in
forthest India,—of an ur-divine Priest-King who governed there a
pure and happy people, immortal through the nature of a wonder
working relic called "The Holy Grail.' —Might he there regain the
lost Sight-of-God, now garbled by ambitious priests in Rome
according to their pleasure? The old hero girt him up;... unresisting
he was draw to farthest Asia. There on tempestuous field he broke
the power of the Saracens; unchallenged lay the promised land before
hiîTi; he could not wait for the construction of a flying bridge, but
urged impatient Eastwards,—on horse he plunged into the stream:
none saw him in this life again.*'
The “wondrous legends” known to Barbarossa, which hint at some wonder-working

«/6irf.,II,’p. 115, July 15, 1878.

^’Robert Gutman makes the point of the continuity of ideas between “The Wibelungen”
(1848), “Heldentum” ( 1881 ), and Parsifal. “‘Heldentum’ was built upon an article in Wagner’s Dres
den period, “The Wibelungs," written as a study or the Ring scenario and remarkably anticipating the
later development of his symbolism and racist theorizing. He fiequently brooded over its ideas,
working them into final form in Parsifal and its explanatory essay, ‘Heldentum.’” {Richard Wagner:
Hie Man, His Mind, and His Music, p.42\.)

“Thus,“The’outcome ofthe studies by which Tsought to master my subject I have embodied

in the following work: though its details may contain nothing new to the researcher or student of that
branch of literature, yet their allocation and ençloyment seemed interesting enough to some of my
friends,to justify the printing of this little sketch.” (“The Wibelungen,”, p. 258.) Thus the motifs
(details) that appear are traceable to sources that the composer does not name since he understands
that they are common to a literature with which German scholars and students may be assumed to be
well familiar.

’’“The Wibelungen,” p. 293. Through the motif of direct knowledge the “lost Sight-of-
God,” is gnostic in inspiration. Wagner again cormects this motif of special divine knowledge, the
essay’s organizing tbeme, with India through the claim that “the spiritual ascension of die Hoard into
the Grail was accomplished in the German conscience, and the Grail, at least in the meaning lent it by
German poets, must rank as the Ideal representative or follower of the Nibelungen-Hoard; it, too, had
sprung from Asia, from the ur-home of mankind; God had guided it to men as a paragon of holiness.”
{Ibid., pgs. 293-4.)
 339

talisman in a mysterious temple in India, are sufficiently easy to identify. Friedrich

could not choose but know the primary source, the Historia de Duabus Civitatibus,
since its author, Otto, Bishop ofFreising, was both son of the Austrian Margrave and
Friedrich’s own uncle.” In Book VH, chapter 33, is to be foimd one of the first
known references to the legendary Indo-Christian king Prester John, who .was there
fore something of a literary heirloom in Redbeard’s family circle. Otto’s Historia is
not courtly romance like Wolfram’s Parziva/but an ecclesiastical work. But Wagner
refers not to one but several sources known to Barbarossa. A second and far more
culturally influential source is a vernacular work that Bishop Otto himself would
have imderstood as idiotaeP This is a transparently fabricatedLeiier of Prester John
to various Christian kings and especially to the Emperor Manuel of
Constantinople and the Roman Emperor Friedrich. The chroiucler
Alberic de Trois Fontaines, who was writing between the years 1232
and 1252, recorded its arrival imd^ Ae year 1165.... A few brief
introductory notes foimd in some of Ûie older manuscripts informed
the reader that the Byzantine Emperor Manuel (1143-1180) has
forwarded theLe/ie/-toFriedrichI,Barbarossa(1122-l 190). Thedate
by which it was unquestionably in circulation is usually deduced from
a casual allusion to it by Pope Alexander IE (1159-1181) in his reply
to the “King ofIndia” written in Venice on September 27,1177. TTiis
letter was entrusted to a p^al physician by the name of Philip of
whom nothing has been heard since.’”'*
The Historia and the Letter form the literary core ofthe legends, plural, that Wagner

“For an account of which see C. F. Beckingham, “The Achievements of Prester John,” in

Charles F. Beckingham and Bernard Hamilton, eds., Prester John, the Mongols, and the Ten Lost
Tribes, pgs. 1-22. Beckingham describes Otto’s chronicle as “among the best of medieval historical
works, careful, critical, and philosophical.” {Ibid., pgs. 5-6.)

^’These were tiie folk sources that the conçoser considered authentic. “Popular books can
scarcely be called an innovation of modem times, for in days when printing was still in its infancy,
enterprising publishers were no less eager than now to bring something on the market that would
appeal to a wide circle of readers. The ancient classics and treatises on religion and science were for
the learned and wealthy, who were always a minority. A large section of potential book buyers was
composed of persons with more modest schooling and means. . . . The stress was on brevity,
cheapness, and timeliness. In these respects they could be taken to represent the remotest ancestors
of our less pretentious magazine. Among these pieces of popular literature was a letter purportedly
written by Prester John, King ofIndia, and addressed to the Enqjeror ofRome and the King of France,
his friends.” (Vsevolod Slessarev, Prester John: The Letter and the Legend, pgs. 3-4.)

^Ibid., p. 33. In the event, the mysterious disappearance of this Philip—^the stock fate of
mortal emissaries to Faerie or to other magical places—on a mission from the Holy See to Prester John
became taken throughout Europe as prima facie evidence of the latter’s existence.
340
describes as authentic, vernacular, and orientalist. The Letter swept through Europe
in numerous translations and within a remarkably short time influenced mediaeval
cartography, geographical exploration, navigation, and even political decision
making with respect to European support for the Crusades and diplomatic relations
with Christian and Muslim realms in the Eastern Empire and the Holy Land.
These primary sources inspired a secondary idiotae literature based upon
them, and consisting mostly of popular travelogues such as the Travels of Sir John
Mandeville, and whose fabulous contents were seriously discussed and empirically
investigated, for instance in the geographical accounts of Marco Polo.” These and
others sources contribute their own highly identifiable materials to the tapestry of
Parsi/a/’s libretto in some of the ways that it is now necessary for me to describe.
This rdultiplicity ofsources makes it possible to evaluate Müller’s description
of Wagner’s “idcreasingly drastic reduction of source material.” In fact, selected
details from multiple stories are templated onto a mosaic narrative surface such that
none of the source? is particularly privileged with respect to the others, Wagner’s

garden variety multiple coherence project. Consider these details from Act n.

A. "Klingsor’s” Castle.
Little of Wolfram’s Clinschor survives Wagner’s multiple-coherence oper
ations, and even is interspersed with other mediæval source materials;
• “Clinschor” becomes “Klingsor”;
• he has a magic castle;
• he holds maidens prisoner in his castle;
• he learned magic in Persia;
• he got himself castrated for fooling around vrith another man’s wife;
Of Wolfram’s figure only decorative details survive Wagner’s drastic surgery: a
name, some maidens, a castle, a castration. For meaningful relationship to Parsifal'5

’’Thus with respect to exploration and cartography. “Just as the legend of St. Brandan led to
exploration in the Wptem Ocean, so did the mystery that gathered round Prester John rouse
an interest in respect to CentraLAsia. The first rumour of Prester John dates firom the middle of the
twelfth century, when he was mentioned by file Bishop of Gabala. It is now tolerably well ascertained
that the potentate referred to was the founder of the Kara Khitai empire, whose official title of
Gurkhan may have been so pronounced as to be mistaken for the Greek form of the name John. The
Prester John of the later half of the twelfth century, of whom Rubmquis and Marco Polo speak, was
another Kemait chief, whose proper name was Ung Khan.... The cartographical notices of Prester
John date from the early part of the fourteenth century.” {Mediæval Geography, p. xxvi.)
 341

Klingsor story we must look to the Travels of Sir John Mandeville (c. 1366), a
vernacular text that lifted whole sections finm the popular Letter of Prester John.
Consider the sinister castellan who lives at the edge of Prester John’s blessed realm:
There was dwelling, sometime, a rich man... of subtle deceits. And
he had a full fair castle . . . [and] the fairest garden that any man
might behold . . . And ... the fairest damsels that might be found,
... and the fairest young striplings that men might get, of that same
age .. . And he said they were angels.. . . And that place he dept
Paradise. And when that any good knight, that was hardy and noble,
came to see this royalty, he would lead them into his paradise, and
show him these wonderful things to his disport, and the
marvelous . . . fair damsels . . . And then would he make them to
drink of certain drink, whereof anon they should be drunk. And then
would he say to them, that if they would die for him . . . that after
their death they should come to his paradise; and they should be of
the age of those damsels, and they sbould play with them, and yet be
maidens. And after that yet should" he put them in a fairer paradise,
where that they should see God of nature visibly, in his majesty and
in his bliss ... if they would slay... his enemy... that they should
not dread to do it and for to be slain therefore themselves. For after
their death, he would put them into another paradise, that was an
hundred-fold fairer than any of the together; and there should they
dwell with the most fairest damsels that might be, and play with them
ever-more... thus went many diverse lusty bachelors for to slay great
lords in diverse countries, and were his enemies, and made
themselves to be slain, in hope to have that paradise.^*
Evidently this popular, often translated vernacular tale and not Wolfram’s literati
romance is the source for Wagner’s treatment of Klingsor. Relevant details include:
• an evil lord has a castle at the vicinity of the Earthly Paradise;
• a supematurally attractive garden boasts a bevy of supematurally beautiful,
sexually available young girls and boys;
• the castle groimds are finudulently constracted to resemble Paradise;
• noble knights are dragged, befuddled, ensorceled, and seduced;
• he uses this debauched crew of ex-knights to advance his nefariops ends.
Clearly Wagner relied on Mandeville for the plot and theme structure absent in
Wolfram. "Klingsor” is grafted onto the nameless villain along with Wolfram’s
Persian magic and coloristic castration, Wagner converts the latter to a morality play
detail addressing his Grail theology, the sources of which I will discuss presently.

“TTie Travels ofSir John Mandeville, pgs. 183-4.

342
The unwilling female prisoners are traded in for the castellan’s seductive maidens.

B. The Flower Maidens.

Contra Müller, Wagner is thus multiplying, not reducing, his debt to his
sources. But he is not yet over his borrowing spree. Unlike Mandeville’s seduc-
tresses, Wagner’s are Vw'ragfemaleflowers. Robert Gutman lets us know that “The
Flower Maidens are specters of Wagner’s older female creations, shadows of
Wagneriipi woman’s once effective sensuality, now powerless . . . Not wicked
because thby are not real, weird organisms akin to Odilon Redon’s plants whose
stems culminate in human faces, these creatures are completely illusory.’’”
In fact, they are featured in the pre-courtly German Alexander literature that
the composer hadNstudied since 1839 and was still purchasing as late as 1879. Thus
“In the evening there is a great pile of books, and we glance through all sorts of
things—^J. Grimm’s introduction to his grammar, Mone’s preface to his collection of
German plays, and two scenes from Pfaffe Lamprecht’s Alexander, the rest in the
forest and the conversation with King Occidsatis—^both splendid, the latter very
remarkable; on Alexander’s reply—‘This being has been chosen for us by him who
has the highest power. What he has assigned to us, that we must carry out.”’’* An
account of,the Flower Maidens appears in the Strassburg Alexander:
If you want to learn more about the maidens—from whence they
came and what happened to them—you may well frnd the story
astonishing. After winter was over and everything became green with
the arrival o f summer, elegant flowers began to spring up in the
forest. They were beautiful and gleamed brightly; their red and white
could be seen from afar. Nò flower could be more lovely. They were
round as a ball—so it seemed to us—very large, and the petals were
tightly closed. When they opened up—just think—full-grown
maittFins Stepped out.... They were alive and thought like humans,

^Richard Wagner; The Man, His Mind, and His Music, p. 438.

“Cosüna Wagner, Diaries, I, p. 576, December 26,1872. Again, “In the evening, [read] two
ofbemosthenes's Corinthian speeches and parts ofPfaffe Lançrecht’s poemAlexander.’’ Or, ‘“I must
do something that pleaseth me well,’ [R.] says, quoting from the poem Alexander [of Pfaffe
Lanqnecht].” (Ibid., H, p. 322, June 12, 1879), or “In the evening [R.] reads to us from Jacolliot a
somewhat overdetailed account of the frmeral of a Brahman, a repellent picture of exploited
superstition; after that ‘to restore your spirits,’ the dialogue in Thucydides between the Athenian and
the Melian... This reminds R. of Pfaffe Lamprecht, and he reads aloud his favorite passage between
Candacis and Alexander.” (Ibid., p. 706, August 15,1881.)
 343

they chatted and coaxed as maidens of about twelve do, and they were
truly beautiful. I have never seen such lovely eyes and faces, and their
arms, legs, and feet were as white as ermine. There was not one who
was not well-mannered and charming. Light-hearted and joyful, they
laughed and sang, such sweet voices have never been heard before.
If you can believe it, these maidens always had to be in the shade;
otherwise they could not survive, for those on whom the sun shone
perished.... We made them our wives and were happier than ever
before in our lives.... At the end of [three months and twelve days]
the flowers withered and the beautiful women died.”
Here again it proves impossible to understand Parsifal without factoring in medieval
vernacular sources which, notwithstanding Müller, areauthentically reproduced.
Act n then proves to be a pastiche of details drawn partly from Wolfram but
mostly from at least three vernacular, tales, the Letter of Prester John, Mandeville’s
Travels, and the Ge,xmwci Alexander legends, Wagner’s alterations of original details
serve to systematize his poetic cosmology. Clinschor thus acquires his decorative
castration from an exasperated cuckold, whereas Klingsor self-medicates out of
exasperation at his lack of sexual self control. This alteration has at least three points.
• It brings Klingsor closer to the mediæval talismanic-alchemistic image ofthe
self-wounding scorpion to balance parallel alchemistic details given to
Kundry (red skin, snakeskin girdles) that align her with the serpent, thereby
addressing the references to Scorpio and the malefici that appear in
Wolfram’s astrological aetiology of the Grail King’s malady.“
• Klingsor’s amateur surgery considerably ups the ante for entrance into the
Grail Kingdom via chastity, and thereby tightens the coimection between
Wagner’s Grail religion and the gnostic theology of the St. Thomas sect
poetically articulated in Wagner’s primary sources, the vernacular legends of
Prester John.
• Klingsor’s castration is a recursive iteration of the gnostic division of God;
his self-inflicted wound duplicates, “as above, so below,’’ the split in
Amfortas’ side and the division of the Blood of God between Grail abnd
Spear. It thus lends him something of the creative power of the Deity,
permitting him to act the role of Demiurge in creating his illusory magic

®J. W. Thomas, ed., The StrassburgAlexander and Munich Oswald: Pre-courtly Adventures
ofthe German Middle Ages, 5ZA\ff, pgs. 65-6.

“Discussed below; the relevant TL association is [b=scotpion HI.]. In the Ring B minor has
already been assigned the job of lexicalizing monsters and dangerous animals.
344

kingdom.
Klingsor is thus a typical multiple-coherence structure, comprising elements chosen
from multiple sources on the basis of their mutual coherence within the unity of all
“sterling myths” that Wagner considered it his artistic business to impart on stage.

C. The Grail Castle and the Temple ofSt. Thomas the Apostle
There has been suspicion for years that Wagner’s Erlöser is not, or is not
quite, Jesus. For instance Gutman: “... to use in the temple scenes the still recog
nizable oi^tlmes of the Mass while filling them with an alien content close in spirit
to the séancp was, at the very least, a serious lapse of taste... Though the journey
from crapulertce to the altar is often short, it is nonetheless amazing that Parsifal was
ever considered'a Christian work. ‘IfWagnerwasaChristian, then Liszt was perhaps
a Church Father! ’ Nietzsche cried.”*' Again, David Lewin analyzes Amfortas’ Prayer
to Titurel on the assumption that Parsifal is an heretical text that renders basic tonal
procedures theological or at least occult.“ One of Lewin’s conclusions is that the
opera’s heresy is most evident where a Christian text ought to look most Roman
Catholic (Lutheranism, Wagner’s national religion, is not discussed).“ Once the real
sources ofParsifal are established however, it is a short step to identifying Wagner’s
strange Erlöser and the religious literature that he represents.
What do Wagner’s sources tell us of the identity of Der Erlöser! All legends
concerning Prester John agree on the fact that he presides over the temple of St.
Thomas the Evangelist, who according to legend brought Christianity to India. The
association is literal; Prester John guards the Apostle’s uncorrupted corpse within a

^'Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music, p. 439.

“‘‘Amfortas’ Prayer to Titurel and the Role ofD inParsifal: The Tonal Spaces of the Drama
and the Enharmonic C b /B.” Lewin proceeds from the assumption that Wagner’s heretical intentions
motivate a special technique of “key substitutions’’ throughout this short episode presumably not
generalizable to the rest of the opera. The point of these key substitutions is to musically mirror what
Lewin assumes to be a series of “blasphemous” theological “substitutions”, foremost of which is the
substitution ofTiturel-for-Virgin. Lewin’s argument has been criticized in Marshall Tuttle, Musical
Structures in Wagnerian Opera, pgs. 145-205.

"Lewin argues, for instance, that for Amfortas to pray that Titurel in particular should
intercede for him with the l?.edeemer usurps the function of Maty and thus makes the text heretical,
despite the feet that Titurel is a saint and Roman Catholics daily pray to saints for intercessions, a
practice faithfully reflected in Elgar, Gerontius, Part I.
 345

magic silver vessel in this temple. Before discussing what it means to possess the
dead body of St. Thomas let us consider John’s temple with one eye to Monsalvat:
The city over which [Prester John] ruled... vfas the capital of India
and its name was Hulna.... Through the middle of the city flowed
the river Physon on its course from the earthly paradise. Its waters
were crystal clear and they were füll of gold and precious stones.
Hulna’s population consisted exclusively of Christians among whom
there were no heretics or unbelievers, because such persons came to
their senses or died. A short distance outside the wall was a mountain
with the mother church of St. Thomas on its suimnit. The mountain
was surrounded by a deep lake.“
Prester John’s home town looks much like Monsalvat with its mountain-girt grail
temple and sacred swan-haunted lake. Again, except on religiously sensitive days
Prester John’s Holy ofHolies is as magically inaccessible as is Wagner’s Grail castle:
Nobody was able to approach the church of the Apostle except a
week before and after his feast day when the waters receded and
opened a pass for the pilgrims and sick to enter the sanctuary. Here
in the most sacred place under a richly decorated canopy himg a silver
vessel suspended by silver chains. In the vessel was the uncorrupted
body of the Apostle and in front of it burned a lamp full of balm that
replenished itself.“
Prester John’s Shrine contains a magic vessel itself containing something to do with
God, enlightenment, and salvation, and a most peculiar Eucharist is celebrated there:
On the Saint’s feast day the Patriarch together with his suffragan
bishops let the vessel be lowered and while all were singing solenrn
hymns and prayers they 1 ifted the body with great reverence and
placed it on an armchair. When the time came to administer the Euch
arist die Patriarch placed before St. Thomas a golden plate with the
host. Through God’s dispensation the Apostle took the wafer with his
outstretched right hand, as ifit were alive, and administeréd the wafer
to each one present. If a heretic or unbeliever chanced to come up to
him, he closed and withdrew his hand. The sinner either repented or
died on the spot.“
The multiple conflations by which Wagner constructs his depiction of the Grail

“Prester John, the Letter and the Legend, p. 11.

‘‘^Ibid.

“Ibid.
346

Kingdom are fairly straightforward. The miraculous mountain church of St. Thomas
becomes the "Mount of Salvation.” The river flowing from Paradise into the temple’s
lake becomes the lake of the sacred swans. Wagner substitutes Wolfram’s Good
Friday for St. Thomas’ telltale feast but rejects Wolfram’s Grail stone for John’s
silver vessel, hands over its ever-burning balsam to Kundry, replaces censers with
Wolfram’s bleeding Spear, and assigns its candelabra function to the Grail, which
mysteriously glows. The solemn hymns sung by the faithful at the mystic Eucharist
become Wagner’s ravishing Grail choruses.
Wagner’s borrowings from the Letter extend to magical and thaumaturgical
details. Thus for instance, Klingsor’s magic mirror, in which he divines the approach
of his enemiesi is lifted from the description of the “tower with a magic mirror in
which the intrigues and plots of Prester John’s enemies can be seen.”®’ Kundry’s
balsam is a classic dccult substance featured in mediaeval alchemy; thus Jung records
that “Paracelsus attributes incorruptibility to a special virtue or agent named
‘balsam.’ This was soniething like a natural elixer, by means of which the body was
kept alive or, if dead, incorruptible. By the same logic, a scorpion or venomous snake
necessarily had it in an alexipharmic, i.e., an antidote, otherwise it would die of its
own poison.”®* This is why Prester John carries a stash of it in his temple: to occultly
keep St. Thomas’ corpse fresh and potent. The red-hued, snake-skin-girdled Kundry
too presumably keeps some on hand to avoid poisoning herself when puckering up
for one of her knockout serpent-kisses.
As so often, in his account of Kundry’s balsam Wagner shows himself
sensitive to the cultural meaningofgeographicalspace.Inmediævaltraditionbalsam
is Indian,^ and Prester John’s fabulous Indian realm caught Europe’s attention by
purporting to signal the existence of a powerful Christian empire to the strategic rear
of the hostile Muslim realms against whom Christians were pitted in a series of

p. 37.

““Paracelsus as a Spritual Phenomenon,” ^170.

“Thus speaking of the cartographjri of the Hereford mappa mundi, Bevan and Phillott note
that “With the metrical romance of Alexander, or at least with the tradition on which it was founded,
our author was probably acquainted. In this Alexander is represented as visiting a forest in India, in
ndiich grew trees of wondrous size (cf. Virg. Georg, ii. 123), distilling balsam... further on still he
meets with the trees of the sun and moon, from one of Much, as from an oracle, he learned bis own
destiny.” {Medicsval Geography, pgs. 25-6.)
 347

Crusades. Wagner appears to be aware that removing the ointment from Prester
John/Titurel’s keeping to that of the witch is to remove it from the topography of the
good guys to that of the bad—^that is, from India (fabulous Christian) to Arabia
(fabulous Muslim). Wagner makes that adjustment with the heathen (bad) Kundry’s
comment that if the halsam fails, Arabia (bad) has nothing hetjer to offer.
In working out such magical swaps Wagner had to make certain mortuary
arrangements for his dearly and nearly-departed demi-diviiuties. Thomas’ stay-fresh
corpse is disguised as Titurel and removed from vessel to alcove to accommodate the
Blood of Christ in the new-christened “Grail.” The ghoulish detail of the thauma-
turgically reanimated apostolic stiffraising its dead hand to dispense salvation to the
reverentially traumatized barelymissed the final cut when Wagner mercifully decided
against yanking Titurel’s corpse from its coffin to bless a horrified rather than edified
opera house. As consolation prize the composer retained the morbid detail of the
sinner-snuffing magic vessel, directing poor heatìien Kundry to drop dead before it.
Such exploitation ofthe “Barbarossa” sources extends to the costume design.
He thus describes the pains he and his staff took to get the 1882 Pamyä/production
Grail Knights’ duds neither too haughty nor too humble but just right:
Though our utmost diligence was spent on giving the height of
solemn dignity to the ideal temple of the Grail, whose model could
only be taken from the noblest monuments of Christian architecture,
yet the splendour of this sanctuary of a divinest halidom was by no
means to be extended to the costume of its knights themselves: a
noble templar-like {klosteritterliche) simplicity arrayed their figures
with a picturesque severity, yet human grace. The significance of the
kingship of this brotherhood we sought in the original meaning ofthe
word ‘King’ itself, as head of the race, a race here chosen to protect
the Grail: nothing was to distinguish him from the other knights, save
the mystic import of the lofty office reserved for him alone, and his
sufferings imderstood by none.™
Wagner intended his Grail King to look like an ideal Grand Master of the Knights
Templar—^not the least use to which the composer put his extensive readings on
mediæval culture. Many of these ideas recall those of his 1848 Grail scenario, in
which an instinct of sacral kingship arose in mankind in its prehistoric island home
in Farthest Asia only to be garbled over the course of the centuries, yet is still present

’“‘Tarsifal at BayreuÜi, 1882,” in Religion and Music, p. 309.

348

in the ideal realm of the Indian King.’’ A more direct source of this ritual lowliness
however is the Letter of Prester John, which describes the Indian Potentate’s ideal
humility “YouT Prudence should not wonder why our highness does not want to be
called by a worthier title than priest___It is on account of our humility that we have
chosen to be called by a less important name and title.”’^

Vn. Parsifal, an Operatic Gnostic Tract

Throughout this chapter the term “gnostic” has cropped up as a natural
\
byproduct bf simple descriptions of Wagner’s obvious primary sources, but I have
yet to give a definition. Because of the kind of enterprise it was this is innately hard
to do so. Here is a definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia which is as good as any
and better than sofríe.
A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and
pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before
the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while
borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief
religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be
a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the
■Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being tabe the overcoming
' of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which
return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance
of some God-sent Saviour. However unsatisfactory this definition
may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic
systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover,
would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic

’'Thus Caesar’s “divine descent was grounded on an ut-old Roman saga, according to which
the Romans issued from a primordial race that, coming once from Asia, had settled on the banks of
the Tiber and Amo. The quick of the religious halidom committed to the offspring of this race
indisputably made out for ages the weightiest heritage ofthe Roman nation: in it reposed the force that
bound and knit this active people; the ‘sacra’ in the keeping of the oldest immemorially-allied
patrician familiesi conçelled die heterogeneous masses of plebeians to obedience. Deep awe and
veneration of the holy things„whose sense enjoined a vigorous abstemiousness (as practiced by the
sorely-tried ur-father^make out the oldest, inconceivably effective laws whereby the headstrong folk
was governed; and the 'pontifex maximus’—die unchanging successor of Numa, the moral founder
ofthe Roman State—^was the virtual (spiritual) king ofthe Romans.” (“The Wibelungen,” pgs. 278-9.)

^Prester John, the Letter and the Legend, p. 37.

 349

sects is laboiir lost.”

Once we begin to study the religious literature relevant to Wagner’s primary sources
and apply gnostic definitions to the composer’s characteristic thinking, it becomes
evident why the generic term “mystic” is inadequate to advance our understanding
of what the composer was really trying to say not only in Parsifal but throughout the
final decades of his life. Wagner is explainable as a “gnostic” and not a “mystic”
because his utterances, writings, letters, and operas are saturated with specific gnostic
imagery, themes, mythic types, theological claims and assumptions, plot devices, and
visual aids. Moreover, on the evidence ofcritical incredulity or mockery, the stranger
they appear the more precisely they correspond to the parallel gnostic models.
Consider the social elitism implicit in “Gnostics were ‘people who knew’,
and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose
present and future status was essentially different fixrm that of those who, for
whatever reason, did not know.” On no evidencc-firom the score Gutman constructs
an alternate interpretation of the opera as a racist screed whose elitism is specifically
and narrowly antisemitic: “Monsalvat was Wagner’s paranoiac concept of a small
self-contained elite group, uniquely possessed ofthe truth, obsessed with its ‘purity, ’
and struggling with an outside world it held worthless. Redemption was promised the
hard-pressed knights, but, obviously, the Wagnerian redeemer was not to be foimd
among Jewish craftsmen or lepers. Not by accident did Gumemanz almost
immediately remark upon Parsifal’s noble, highborn appearance. He knew what signs
to read. Racial heredity and strict breeding, not natural selection, formed the new
mechanism of salvation.”’^ On the contrary, Parsifal's elitism is well accounted for

’’^CatholicEncyclopedia online: “Ctoosticism,” accessed January 20,2005. The mild hostility

inplicit in this Catholic wording is part ofthe citation’s value: it gives a feeling ofwhy gnosticism—
and thus Parsifal—are felt to be creepy. The article likewise specifies“gnosis” as “The doctrine of
salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word gnosis ‘knowledge’,
gnostikos, ‘good at knowing’, is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the
predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and
almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience ofmind and will to the
Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is tmrkedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the
salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the
universe and ofmagic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were ‘people who knew’, and
their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status
was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.”
(http://www.newadvenLorg/cathen/06592a.hlm)

"Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music, p. 423.
 1

350

by the gnosticism, with which it shares an idiomatically arcane sense of cognitive

entitlement. Such is their saturation with gnostic imagery that Wagner’s primary
sources cannot be meaningfully described without the term. Having identified these
sources I want to argue firom source to content, which means engaging the degree to
which gnostic characteristics are necessary to understanding this opera.
The relationship between gnosticism and Parsifal is straightforward: the two
are identical. Parsifal is a gnostic tract disguised as an opera To recapitulate the
argument so far; in the “Wibelungen” essay of 1848, which as late as 1882 Wagner
had reaffirmed still to be valid as far as Parsifal is concerned, the composer argues
for the Indian oYigin of a fetish he calls the “Lost Sight-of-God” on the authority of
unnamed “wondrous tales” told to Kaiser Friedrich I Barbarossa. His criticisms of
Woffiam von Eschenbach imply that the poet’s own account of his “Grail” failed to
recognize that the fetish he was talking about and that described to Kaiser Friedrich
were one and the same. Thus W agner corrects Wolfi^ by grafting the poet ’ s “Grail”
onto Friedrich’s fetish, as if they were the same. In fact significant source material
bearing the signature ofthe Red Kaiser’s household answer to Wagner’s description,
and these are the vernacular Letter of Prester John addressed in part to the Kaiser,
and the ecclesiastical Historia deDuabus Civitatìbus ofBarbarossa’s kinsman, Otto,
Bishop of Freising. These sources spawned a vast secondary popular literature
inelnding the Travels 'oi Sir John Mandeville, and influenced the reportage of such
traveldgists as Marco Polo. In addition this body of literature influenced European
geographical and navigational concepts and mapmaking, and changed the course of
European exploration. Wagner was thus correct to assign an unusual level ofcultural
importance to these sources.
As for the fetish itself, Friedrich’s legends describe the wondrous Indian
realm founded by the Apostle Thomas and presided over by the Indian-Christian
Patriarch John, within whose mystic mountain temple Thomas himself has kindly
consented to sit out his post-retirement years as an uncorrupted corpse in John’s
magical silver vessel. People coming in on special liolidays get to see the corpse,

which does magical things that cure their ailments and give them insight into what
God is all about. Evraything in Wagner’s somces revolves around Thomas. It was he
who traveled to India and converted the inhabitants, who founded Prester John’s
magic city, and whose body forms the substance of John’s miraculous healing fetish.
Wagner exports all this Thomas-drenched imagery to Parsifal by multiple
 351

coherence moves no different from those by which he had earlier cobbled together
his Ring. It took him years of research to do this and the question is why he should
bother. The answer has to do with the type of theology that Thomas represents. It has
been called “gnostic,” which signifies a “knower [of God],” and Layton identifies
broad and narrow senses of the term as denoting either any of a number of early
religious sects both alternative-Christian and pagan, or the strictly historical name of
certain ancient Christian sects called gnostikoi. My borrowing of the term to
explain Wagner’s Grail-religion refers first to his attitude of possessing special
personal knowledge of spiritual matters (a psychological category); second, to his
employment of empirically gnostic (in Layton’s broad sense) images, themes, plot
structures, and protagonists in the libretto; and third, to a tonal-lexical transfer of
imagery such that the pagan images oftheiîmg reappear in/*arj(/â/with new gnostic
inflections. Parsifal’s images and plot show the composer to be trafficking in
gnosticism. Thus we are now obliged to determinbfh^ level of engagement at what
Wagner pushes his gnostic agenda and how this affects his lexical tonality.
Carl Jung describes the gnostic fimnework in terms indistinguishable from
the multiple coherence principle, referring to Hippolytus’s beliefthat gnosticism was
a philosophical religion, ". . . which, with the help of Greek philosophy and the
mythologies of the Near and Middle East, together with Christian dogmatics and
Jewish cabalism, made extremely interesting attempts, from the modem point of
view, to synthesize a unitary vision of the world in which the physical and the
mystical aspects played equal parts.”’* Wagner also aimed at such synthesis, which
he called the “grand concordance of all sterling myths.”
Another of Layton’s insigjits pinpoints ^ffhy Parsifal not only is gnostic but
feels gnostic. Generally both opera and gnostic scriptures are the same type ofpoetry.
For all Wagner’s expressed admiration for the ‘T6\k” Parsifal is the composer’s least
folksy text. Instead it is modeled on or independently rediscovers the Hellenistic
notion of poetry in the service of theosophy. For “the gnostic myth is the literary
creation of theological poets—an elaborate theological symbolic poem, and not the
spontaneous product of a tribe or culture. ‘Philosophical myth’ of this kind was

’’Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 5.

’‘ylion.11267.
352

generally fashionable in the second century A.D., following a revival of interest in

Plato’s mythic tale of creation, the Timaeus, in the previous two centuries.”’’ In
consequence of this poetic-philosophical inspiration Layton describes the gnostic
world as a “bizarre” and “breathtaking ... world of fantastic symbols, beautifully
intricate myths, weird heavenly denizens, and extraordinary poetry.”’*
Similar terms have been applied to Parsifal, but not always so laudatory. For
instance, the opera is “a pasticcio of freakish elements—at first glance a seemingly
serene and ample frieze whose figures under closer examination reveal themselves
as grotesques, moving puppet-like before backgroimds realized in a strange discon
tinuous perspective—Parsifal, nonetheless, exhibits the finest grain and subtlest
workmanship of Wagner’s works, reminding one of the exquisite finish to which
Bronzino polished a portrait or Mallarmé a poem.”” Thus the very talisman-like
gnostic features that inspire Layton’s admiration gave Gutman the creeps when
exhibited in Parsifal. Given such primary source details as sweating petitioners
praying that a censorious corpse will drop them salvation biscuits and not dead at the
altar one can hardly fault Gutman his goose bumps, for instance, these:
Wagner enjoyed the trick ofjuxtaposing the seeming and the real. In
Parsifal, with the help of church bells, snippets of the Mass, and the
vocabulary and paraphernalia ofthe Passion, he set forth a religion of
racism under the cover of Christian legend. Parsifal is an enactment
of the Aryan’s pli^t, straggle, and hope for redemption, a drama
characterized not only by the composer’s natively obscure and
elliptical literary style, but also by the indigenous circumlocutions of
allegory, the calculated unrealities of symbolism, and especially, the
sultry corruptions of decadence. The temple scenes are, in a sense.
Black Masses, perverting the symbols ofthe Eucharist and dedicating
them to a siiuster god.*®
Once the sources are clear a different picture emerges. Throughout his critique Gut
man treats Parsifal as a closet antisemitic tract, which understandably adds bite to his
aversion for the work. However, the unsettling feeling tone that he describes is

^The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 12.

^Ibid., p. XVÜ.

^Richard Wagner: The Man. His Mind, and His Music, p. 432.

‘’‘Ibid.
 353

independent of any possible antisemitism, since creepiness is unnecessary and even

rhetorically counterproductive for an antisemitic work—witness Triumph ofthe Will
with its propagandistic packaging of Hitler Jugend as wholesome Boy Scout figures
and similar iimocuous imagery intended not to goblinize the praiseworthy but
normalize the execrable. Thus though one may argue that it is psychologically
meaningful when an artist goes out of his way to select obviously bizarre subject
matter, nevertheless the opera’s manifest weirdness in fact lies less in Wagner’s
personality than in his informed and accurate artistic reflection of the subjective
weirdness actually there in his gnostic soinces.
Gutman’s “Black Masses” are not Wagner’s inventions but straightforward
transpositions of Prester John’s Thomasian Eucharist, in which bizarre figures
recognizably prototypical to the composer’s own cast of characters engage in ritual
activities prototypical to those which the composer presents on stage. The weirdness
ofWagner’s “magic opera” is integral to its inteñdedeffect and the proper fiumework
for processing it is to be found in the gnosticism of its sources. Keeping Gutman’s
“sinister god” in mind let us then turn to these gnostic details and see how they
participate in creating the disquieting impression that lends to Gutman such
‘admirably visceral eloquence.

A. The Visibility and Divisibility of God

Kurt Rudolf describes gnosticism’s fimdamental idea as the presence of a
“spark” which, proceeding firom the divine world, has fallen into the dark world of
birth, death, and cosmic destiny firom which it must be rescued through the agency
ofthat portion of the divine essence which yet remains unimprisoned within the dark
world.*' This is Parsifal’s plot in a nutshell, and it is dependent on several prior
gnostic assumptions that could likewise be lifted straight firom the opera as if they
were plot-motivational gimmicks, for instance;
• The divine principle, essentially a whole, is nonetheless divisible and is in
fact divided in the course of the plot.
• To represent the divisibility of the godhead demands its localization in not
one but two sacred fetishes capable of being separated and reunited.
• The division of the godhead proceeds from light t oward darkness, good

"Kurt Rudolf, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, p. 57.

354

toward evil, knowledge toward ignorance. The reversal ofthis process, called
“Redemption,” is equated with the return of light from darkness and gnosis
from ignorance, and is connected with remembering what has been forgotten.
• The abduction of the divine spark into darkness is equated with the creation
of “the world,” and therefore, this “world” is both evil and an illusion, as
opposed to the godhead which is both good and real.
• The ultimate purpose of gnosis is to lead the soul (the light) out of the world
l(the dark) and back to the sphere of light (Pleroma). Thus gnosis aims above
all to show the light not how to live in the world but how to escape from it.
These gnostic assumptions combine to create Parsifal's plot and numerous details
of its treatment. In addition to their appearances in the Music Drama Wagner
discoursed on most of them to various persons including Cosima and his friends.
They frequently appear in such diverse contexts as the composer’s social critiques,
cultural attitudes, an|i-Catholicism, and antisemitism. Since gnostic sects were
characterized by a philosophical anti-Judaism, the composer’s statements may be
parsedTor gnostic subtexts to determine in exactly what senses Wagner was anti-
Catholic and antisemitic, and I will point to some of these presently.
Wagner’s gnostic concept is evident in what the composer does that Wolfram
does not do: no divisible divine essence whose abduction into darkness causes the
calamities suffered by the kingdom nor any notion that redemption involves an
occultly endowed hero who, having first made his entry into the divine realm, must
then jqumey into a dark realm with the specific purpose of rescuing and fetching
back God or a part of him. Wagner’s contribution to the Grail stories is definitively
gnostic, which why Wagner thought that Wolfiam had failed to engage his material:
the poet’s gnosis was shrouded in darkness.
In some respects most mystçrious correlation between Wagner’s work and its
vernacular sources lies in the crucial relationship between the contents of the magic
vessels as presented in the Letter and inParsifal. The one contains the uncorrupted
corpse ofthe Apoptle Jhomas, the other the Blood ofthe “Redeemer” (Der Erlöser),
whom Wagner takes care not to name, in the libretto at any rate, as Jesus. There are
presumably those vi^ho think they know what the “Blood of God” means and even
what it mean? when such a substance is kept uncorrupted in a cup, but what could it
possibly mean to contain the uncomrpted corpse of an Apostle in a magic silver
vessel? The answer depends on who Thomas “really” is, and of this too there is no
doubt. Thomas is Christ, or, rather, a virtual copy of Christ. We have this on the
 355

authority ofJohn 20:24-29, in which Thomas is called the “Twin.” Thus Paul-Hubert
Poirier remarks that “ it is clear that the Johannine double name is one of the
main sources of the Thomasian apocryphal traditions, all of which portray Thomas
as Christ’s double, or twin, and, consequently as Christ’s privileged spokesperson.”*^
Since the idea that Thomas is Christ’s Poppelgänger is the most consistent
claim in the tradition that bears his name, then to contain his corpse in a vessel is to
contain a physical copy of Christ. As the guardian of this figure Prester John
possesses the physical body of God. Thus by importing a variant of this figure into
his own operatic theology Wagner avails himself of a Savior who possessed the
miraculous qualities of Jesus Christ yet who does not have to be, literally, Jesus
Christ. Both Parsifal and the Letter therefore advance the pult of the mirror-God.
However literally Christ, you can see both corpse of Thomas and blood of
God with your own eyes. Parsifal shares with the Letter a theological fi:amework in
which to see is to believe, which is why Wagner balls his Erlöser the “Lost Sight of
God.” This couldn’t be more appropriate, for the corpse stuck in Çrester John’s vessel
is none other than Doubting Thomas, described by Elaine Pagels: “When [the other
Apostles] tell Thomas about their encoimter with Jesus, he answers in the words that
mark him forever—in John’s characterization —^as Doubting Thomas: ‘Unless I see
the marks of the nails in his hands, and put my fingers in the mark of the nails, and
my hand in his side, I will not believe.’ A week later, the risen Jesus reappears and,
in this climactic scene, John’s Jesus rebukes Thomas for lacking faith and tells him
to believe: ‘Do not be faithless, but believe.’ Finally Thomas, overwhelmed,
capitulates and stammers out the confession, ‘My Lord and my God! ”’*^
Pagels argues that the legend of Doubting Thomas arose in political hostility
between the Cluistian faction centering around John, who believed that Jesus was
divine and that salvation came fixim a source outside the condemned soul, and the

““The Writings Ascribed to Thomas,” in The Nag Hammadi Library Afler Fifly Years:
Proceedings of the 1995 Society ofBiblical Literature Commemoration, p. 296. Again, “The Acts
Thom, developed on the basis of Thomas’s name, a full-fledged twin symbolism, which is absent from
the Gos. Thom. The omnipresence of this symbolism is the main thread of the narrative of the Acts
Thom. There are many instances of a clear identification of Thomas with Jesus, in chap. 11-12,31,39,
54-57. But, more striking than tiiese is the fact that the Acts Thom., as a whole, are built upon a
network of subtle analogies drawn between Jesus and his apostle, to the point that Thomas’s destiny
appears as a mirror image of his Lord and master’s fate.” {Ibid., p. 302).

‘^Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, p. 71.

 1

356

faction living in Odessa where the apocryphal Book of Thomas was compiled, and
who believed that every human soul was a child of God and contained the Imago Dei
within it. The idea of the Thomas faction was, that the God-hnage is infinitely
divisible, such that each soul can contain the entirety of God without loss to any
other. John posthumously won the day through the exertions of his heroic defender
Airiness, whose polemics precipitated at length into what we know as the Catholic
church.'Pagels thus argues that Thomas and John stand as theological pugilists. If
Pagels has her second century Christian political science right then John’s “Doubter”
is a piece of anti-Thomasian propaganda and the Letter of Prester John reads
remarkably like a twelfth-century comeuppance against a fourth century exegetical
coup d'etat. WÈere first we have a fellow named John deriding a fellow named
Thomas for crying'“show me! ’, here we have a fellow named Thomas sitting in the
cup of a fellow namW John and who, promoted to Imago Dei, shows him. This is
too piquant to be accidental, and we are on solid ground in recognizing in the Letter's
anonymous author a covert Thomasian gnostic or gnostics*^ engaged in mischievous
baiting of the papal bear. That Prester John can describe himselfofficiating at masses
that feature a mirror God he can see with his own eyes censers with sarcasm a letter
addressed in part to the pope, who must take his God on faith.
Wagner is at one with his gnostic sources in their anti-Catholicism. The
anti-Roman subtext of the Letter is clear, and it is no accident that a parallel anti
papist mocking tone and technique shows up in Parsifal. Thus Wagner’ s “Lost Sight-
of-God” sleight-of-hand relegates the Bishop of Rome to the role of Antichrist,
whose ambitious priests stalk Europe garbling true religion at will. Such shared anti-
Catholicism is completed by an alternative reading of the nature of Deity. In fact it
was the existence of this alternative reading that motivated the establishment of
Roman Catholicism in the first place, since such Church Fathers as Airiness hated
it as intensely as Hanslick, Nietzsche, or Gutman have hated Parsifal, and for similar
reasons.*’ The Thomasian content ofWagner’s sources is a theology of a containable

”And there were plenty of them arotmd; e.g., the Cathars.

‘’Thus speakidg of thé distinctively gnostic nanative style and why the orthodox Airiness
hated it, Cyril O’Regan cites its “Relative inçenetrability or lack ofpenetrability. By contrast with the
putative sinplicity, pellucidity, and'fixed nature ofthe Bible as canon, for instance, Valentinian texts,
Irenaeus judges, are complex in their organization, obscure in their expression, and evidence of a
commitment to continued production that ndes out ofcourt the closure to textual production necessary
 357

and visible God, and this has even given rise to a notion of “topological theology”
in gnostic studies. Thus Schoedel quotes a passage from Irenaeus that “constantly
jujctaposes gnostic error with orthodox truth; and this characterization of God is one
ofthree that clearly reflect Irenaeus’ own opinion in opposition to gnostic theology”:
You shut up [in numbers, etc.] the Word of God, the Founder and
Framer and Maker of all things', and then again cutting him up
piecemeal into four syllables and flurty elements; and bringing down
the Lord of All who founded the heavens to the number 888, so that
he should be similar to the alphabet; and subdividing the Father, who
contains all things, and is not contained, into a Tetrad . . .” {Adv.
Haer. 1.15.5).*‘
This notion is in opposition to orthodox Christianity, where God is imagined as an
indivisible Trinity or a single indivisible Person. Nor is the gnostic idea that God
“him”self enters into Creation by lending to it “his” own substance permissible in
orthodox Christianity, in which God is rigidly Creator and everything else tinkered
together out of a non-divine Chaos. But it is typical ofgnostic literature including the
books of St. Thomas and t heir successors, including on the evidence Wagner’s
Barbarossa literature and, indeed, the composer himself.” An exam{)le from the

for scripture to be scripture, and to have the kind ofauthority scripture has, or ought to have. For these
reasons, the self-consciously difficult Valentinian texts encourage as well as justify a distinction
between esoteric and exoteric forms of Christianity . . .” [Gnostic Return in Modernity, p. 146.)
O ’Regan ençhasizes Irenaeus’ antipathy toward the “creativity” of gnostic texts, which multiply their
rich networks of allusive poetic associations instead of sticking to basic and relatively invariant
imagery {Ibid., pgs. 146-7). Similarly “A consideration of Wagner’s musical evolution has already
pointed to the nonconceptual tendency gradually gaming in* his work, the motif departing fiom the
relative obviousness ofthe naturalistic and the conventionally allegorical to become, instead, a vague
but rich symbol of inexhaustible intimations. Between Rheingold and Parsifal his style underwent a
change from the explicit to the allusive and evocative. In the Ring he had too often felt the need for
a threefold identification of a concept in text, orchestra, and action, a technique, as Nietzsche
observed, that said a thing again and again until one despaired and then believed. On the other hand,
in Parsifal little is directly named by the mysterious text or elusive motifs, and the audience is left to
divine meanings. Musically and poetically, Wagner was following the path from high romanticism to
impressionism and symbolism.” {Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music, p. 433).

“William R. Schoedel, “‘Topological’ Theology and Gnosticism,” in Essays on the Nag

Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Böhling, p. 91. Schoedel discusses the theology of
“containing, not contained/enclosing, not enclosed” at length.

"Articulated in the Letter as in Parsifal by poetry not argument. Thus the idea that Thomas
is a copy of God means that God himselfhas to enter into Creation for knowledge to be possible. And
since Thomas is copy of God, the fact that he has to remain stuck in Prester John’s tureen to make
things work suggests that God himselfmust enter into the bowl ofthe world to give the stew its “secret
ingredient.” The idea that he then must drag out existence as a corpse further suggests that this no
358

gnostic Tablet of Seth shows what Irenens was talking about; “O you who are non
existent fiem an undivided, thrice-[powerful] One, You are a threefold power! You
are [a] mighty unit from [an] uncontaminated unit! You are a superior unit!... Y6u
have been a cause of multiplicity: And you have found and remained One, while yet
being a cause of multiplicity in order to become divided.”“
From the orthodox pew this all appears decidedly sci-fr, the kind of religion
one might expect from androids or sentient computers. In Thomasian texts the
object(s^of such numerological genuflections is(are?) given a(some?) human
face(s?); thus (and this is presumably God speaking, or his twin, clone, understudy,
savior, or someone) “Suddenly I saw my garment reflected as in a mirror, I perceived
in it my whole self as well. And through it I recognized and saw myself. For, though
we derived from one and the same we were partially divided; and then again we were
one, with a single form. Nay, also the treasurers who had brought the garment 1 saw
as two beings, but there existed a single form in both, one single royal token
consisting of two halves.”“ This points to another cmcial fact about gnosticism: the
need for sudden “Eureka!” moments like the light bulb that explodes in Parsifal’s
ringing skull at the touch of Kundry’s lips and sends him crashing to his penitential
knees. In Wagner as in neo-gnostic alchemy the generator that pumps the current is
compassion: the hero suddenly knows Amfprtas’ suffering but more, suddenly knows
that this suffering is only a front for the suffering of God, who is in the same fix. In
other words, the divided god is reflected in a divided guardian and both project their
composite images onto the mind of a divided meta-savior, whose act of redemption
essentially depends upon his ability to put the whole picture puzzle back together.

B. The Unearthly Virgin and the Renunciation of the World

We need to remind ourselves that Wagner composed Tristan und Isolde when
we contemplate Parsifal, in which highly remunerated prima doimas tiptoe through

bargain for Gqd. Only tbis gnostic concept of God entering into and then getting trapped in the
Creation can tnake sense out of these bizarre ideas. The Letter is the product of audior or authors
acquainted with gnostic ideas, which remained alive in tmderground Europe ftom the fourth century
to die time of the Cathais and into the present day (for which see Gnostic Return in Modernity.)

"“The Second Tablet of Seth, Hymn 3: Praise of the Barbêlô” (lines 121.30-122.1,8-9), in
The Gnostic Scriptures, pgs. 154-5.

"“The Hymn of the Pearl,” 76-80, in Layton, p. 374.

 359

Act in swathed in Taliban-like wrappings and allowed to sing but two words;
“Service, service!” Much has been made ofParsifaPs absolutist sexual absti-nence,
including much fun’“ and even occasional attempts to account for it. Thus Gutman
assumes that “in his final opera Wagner adopted the fierce misogyny of
Schopenhauer, the great Frauenhasser,"^' without pointing out that the period of
Wagner’s most intense engagement with Schopenhauer was that of his most
outrageous operatic orgy (Tristan) or explaining why the composer might wish to
emulate the philosopher’s misogyny just now, after all those years.
Parsifal's misogyny is straightforward lifting of the male-only attitude of
Thomistic theology, which exceeds even Wagner’s female-excluding tendencies.
Thus the Gospel ofThomas asserts(l 14:18-24) that “The female element must make
itself male-. ‘Simon Peter said to them, “Mary should leave us, for females are not
worthy of life.” Jesus said, “See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that
she too might become a living spirit that resebibles you males. For every female
(element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’””” Poirier de-
'scribes the typically Thomasian exploitation of the idea of virginity and purity as a
•way out of attachment to the material world: “... the theme of sexual asceticism be
comes increasingly more pronounced from the Gos. Thom, through the Book Thom.
to the Acts Thom. On the basis of these observations. Turner concludes that ‘these
three works reflect a growing tradition centered on the Apostle Thomas, twin ofJesus
and recipient of his secret words, and which increasingly understands him as a
contender and missionary for the cause of abstinence from all that is worldly, es
pecially sex’.”” The male-only attitude of gnostic texts including the gospels of
Thomas inspired studies of a gnostic “female fault”; for instance, “Logion 15 has
Jesus say, ‘When you see one who was not bom of woman, prostrate yourselves on
your faces and worship him. That one is your Father. ’ Here, Jesus seems to talk about

®E.g., “Does chastity work miraclesl Nietzsche wondered while contençlating the
astounding fact that Parsifal was Lohengrin’s father.” (Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His
Music, p. 435.)

”lbid. For that matter, ^^dly not the fierce misogyny ofBeethoven? (See, e.g., Chapter Four).

’^Quoted in Layton, op. cit., p. 399.

”Paul-Hubert Poirier, “The Writings Ascribed to Thomas,” in The Nag Hammadi Library
After Fifty Years, p. 298.
360

himself. However, his devotees, too, may have the potential to become like him, to
be ‘not bom of woman.’ If being reborn through the spirit includes obtaining a new
set of parents, or a new (male) parent, the disciples may escape the human
condition.”’^ Though it would be hard to prove, the Gospels ofThomas—^theological
literature most implicated in the constmction ofWagner’s primarysources—
appear to articulate this male-only theology most persistently and directly, and it is
no surprise to find it displayed in the opera.

C. "Erlösung dem Erlöser. ”

Wagner expresses the point ofthis plot constmction in the final choms. These
words define characteristics of gnosticism that differentiate it fi'om Christian or other
cults. Rudolf identifies gnostic redemption as that of man and God: “Jesus too was
in need of redemption, that he migjit not be held back by the ‘insight’ (eimoia) of
deficiency in which he had been placed, brought thereto by wisdom (Sophia).’’’^ He
defines the doctrine “The Redeemed Redeemer” as capture of part of a light-giving
divinity by a dark power, who imprisons it until it is redeemed by that portion of its
light which remains firee and returns as a second savior of God himself Redemption
is a “gathering together” of scattered fingments of light.
This idea is quintessentially gnostic, and Layton projects acts and subplots
onto it in the manner oftheatrical drama. Because gnostic ideas were cast in the form
of drama it proved child’s play for Wagner to template the religion wholesale down
onto this own drama. Thus, “running throughout this drama... is a subplot of theft,
loss, and ultimate recovery of the divine.’”* Layton’s gnostic subplots include:
Expansion of divine power... to fill the spiritual universe... Theft
and loss of some of that power into the hands of a nonspiritual being
(laldabaôth) . . . Deception of the thief, leading to transfer of the
power to a part of humanity (the ‘gnostics’) ... Gradual recovery by
the divine of the missing power as gnostic souls are summoned by a
savior and return to god.®’

”Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, Female Fault and Fulfilment in Gnosticism, p. 94.

’^Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, pgs. 121-2.

^The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 13.

^Ibid.
 361

Layton identifies dramatic gestures (theft, pmsuit, recovery, return), protagonists

(God/Grail, laldabaôth/Klingsor,’® the “Savior” of God), and tableaux (gradual
summoning), variants of which recur in Parsifal with all their emotional inflections
and theosophical meanings intact. Again with respect to stagecraft Wagner’s eerie
tableaux—Gutman’s “pasticcio of fi-eakish elements”, in which he rightly felt the
heavy hand of Wagner’s oecumenacy of the occult—additionally and strongly recall
the Græco-Roman and mediæval amulets and talismans whose nightmarish styles
appear to have been purposefully adopted in the curious symbolic woodcuts that
^om so many alchemistic treatises. Anyone familiar with talismanic and alchemistic
iconogr^hy (a few examples ofwhich adorn the next Chapter) may find the resemb
lance ofboth in point of symbolism and the atmosphere of the “Other” to be obvious.
Consider the iconographie tableau of the Indian-gnostic Parsifal making the sign of
the Cross at Klingsor: “Mit diesem Zeichen burnì’ ich deinen Zauber”) as a typical
talismanic image such as those discussed by E. A. Wallace Budge, e,g., the ancient
Indian swastika, which “is one of the oldest known [amulet signs] and was probably
invented by the primitive Aryans. . . . [since it] is found on monuments in the
catacombs, [this makes] it clear that the Christians of the early centuries of our era
used it sometimes as the equivalent of the cross. Or it may be that they knew the
meaning and significance of the swastika, md wished to indicate by its use that they
thought the dead were ‘fortunate’. . . “The home of the swastika seems to be
undoubtedly India ... but what is the meaning? Max Müller thought that the
swästika, with short lines projecting to the right... ‘represented the vernal sun, and
that the sauvastika, with short arms projecting to the left... was the symbol of the
autumnal sun.’ Another view is that the swastika represented Ganesa and the male
principle.”’’ The ideas represented here were commonplace in the nineteenth-century
German scholarship with which Wagner had familiarized himself, and his researches
on early Christianity make it clear that he intended Parsifal’s “cross” as a talismanic
representation of the early form of this symbol, the swästika:

’’The Klingsor—laldabaôth axis is so important that I must defer a separate discussion of it

to the next chapter.

”E. A. Wallace Budge, Amulets and Talismans, p. 332.

362

Fig. 7a: The swästika and variant early cruciform amnietic signs’“®
Although this is hard to prove, the composer’s voluminous and now impossible to
recons'tract readings make it overwhelmingly likely the Aryan fantasies in his
“Wibelungen” extended to an informed knowledge of the earlier Aryan cruciform
images, their meanings, and their talismanic usefulness in banning monstrous cosmic
demons such as thb scorpion-like, self-mutilating Klingsor and his serpentine female
ally. Unsurprisingly then such demonic images also figure prominentlyin specifically
gnostic or gnosis-inspìred popular talismans, for instance ‘The Arch-demon Set or
Typhon-ass-headed. He has four wings, and he holds by its tail a scorpion in each
hand. Above his head is a beetle with outstretched wings. Close to his neck are the
crescent moon and the morning star. This was an amulet against scorpions and other
reptiles.”'“' Budge refers to this figure, reproduced fi-om an earlier source;

Fig. 7b: The Arch-demon Set, holding scorpions

I will discuss the composer’s TL—^lexical treatments of Klingsor and Kundry in

'“Source: reproduced from earlier editions, in Aid., p. 334.

"‘'Ibid., p. 210, referring to the author’s reproduction.

 363

detail next chapter. Here I want merely to suggest the degree to which Parsifal’s
stagecraft is based on talismamc concepts that contribute to the wholeness of his
gnostic ideas. By means of this specifically iconographie style of stagecraft Wagner
impresses his shadowy gnostic figures perhaps most strongly upon the audience and
aligns it with the gnostic inspiration that gave rise to all three visual forms.
Thus the nonspiritual being’s (Klingsor’s) theft ofpart ofdivinity (the spear);
the recovery of the missing godhead (Parsifal’s journey through the wilderness of
error); the gradual return of the scattered knights to the vicinity of the Grail which,
with the healing of the king, and numerous other details that form the substance of

Act in, are all cribbed fi'om the gnostic corpus and endowed by talismanic stagecraft
and alchemistic tonal lexicality with its idiomatic gnostic content. Wagner’s working
of these gnostic elements into a theatrical plot, replete with protagonists, dramatic
motives and reversals, theosophical settings, and tableaux, is what most differentiates
the gnostic fi'om the alchemistic elements in Wagher’s conceptual firamework.
 Ch a pt er Ei g h t
The Gospel of St. Richard
Though [my] paths were those of wandering and illusion, again and again have
they proved the justice of my previous estimate of Art’s relation to our Life. So,
un-misled by any divagation, I return to ideas conceived just thirty years ago,
and openly avow diat later life-experiences have been unable to tone down aught
in their expression.
—Richard Wagner'

I. Wagner’s Gnostic Lexicon

One signal flag that Wagner had reached the estate of a “knower” in his own
mind was the replacement of “intelligible” by “knowledge” as the composer’s
favorite word. Where earher one finds it hard to open a page and not stumble over
“intelligibility,” now in the late 1870s up to the composer’s death the word gives
place to “knowledge,” as in the essays “What Boots this Knowledge?” or “Know
Thyself” Wagner no longer cared about being understood but only about knowing
or, rather, expoimding what he knew whether anyone understood him or not.
What kind of religious person then did Wagner know himself to be? We may
begin by recording what the composer knew he was not, which is, orthodox Roman
Catholic (Lutheranism appears to fall beneath his notice, no doubt because his
outlook was entirely mediasval and thus pre-Luther). He takes pains to distance
himself fi-om the pious Cosima’s Catholicism, speaking instead of her conversion to
his own point of view; thus, “R___ says there has never been a more typical Catholic
than 1 am, and it is a wonder he evSTnaHagofl to convert me.”^ Again, “In the
morning, as I set out for church, R. saw me offwith theWords ‘Give your Saviour my
greetings, even if firom the very beginning up to the dean he has caused a lot of
confusion. Or, “... the second coming of Christ can be hoped for only when [the
theologians] have put an end to their confusions.”^ Wagner alludes to such confusion
often as a foil to his own reUgious clarity, by means of which he intends to expose

'“Shall We Hope?” (1879), p. 115.

^Cosima Wagner, Diaries, II, p. 570, September 26,1879.

^Ibid, I, p. 748, April 3, 1874.

*Ibid., n, p. 121, July 25, 1878.

366

Christianity’s hidden mythic foimdation, a goal requiring special knowledge, to

accomplish. Wagner links the removal of confusion with ritual purification, for
instance,
I am almost afraid that we shall have difficulty in reaching an
understanding with our fiiends and patrons on the future meaning and
significance of the incomparably and sublimely simple and true
redeemer who appears to us in the historically intelligible figure of
Jesus of Nazareth, but who must first be cleansed and redeemed of
the distortion that has been caused by Alexandrine, Judaic and Roman
despotism. Nevertheless, although we are merciless in abandoning the
Church and the priesthood and, indeed, the whole historical
phenomenon of Christianity, our friends must always know that we
do so fçr the sake of that same Christ whom—because of His utter
incomparability and recognizability—we wish to preserve in His total
purity, so that—^like all the other sublime products of man’s artistic
and scientific spirit—^we can take Him with us into those terrible
times which may very well follow the necessary destruction of all that
at present exists.’
Thus orthodox Christianity is an expression ofthe “barbarism” of modem European
culture as when, discussing Renan’s Life ofJesus, Wagner says that “up till now
[Christiaiiity] has only experienced its barbarian epochs.”® To Cosima’s suggestion
that “it was religion that introduced hypocrisy,” Wagner replies “Say rather, the
-isms, Catholicism, Judaism, etc,”’ naming his two favorite bugbears.
The term “gnostic” not yet having become a public cultural property, Richard
and Cosima used a default term to describe der Meister’s knowledge; mystic. And
until we recognize the primary gnostic sources and the cultural background that they
provide, we are left in the company of Thomas Mann, who can only describe the
belief system as—bizarre’.
The cast list for Parsifal—^what a bizarre collection, at bottom! What
an assemblage of extreme and repellent oddities! A sorcerer
emasculated by his own hand; a desperate woman ofsplit personality,
half corrupter, half penitent Mary Magdalene, with cataleptic
transitions between these two states of being; a love-sick high priest.* *

’Letter to Hans von Wolzogen, January 17,1880, mSelectedLetters ofRichard ffagner, pgs.
898-9.

*Diaries, II, p. 94, June 15,1878

’Æirf.,II,p. 117, July 19,1878.

 367

who awaits redemption at the hands of a chaste boy: this boy himself
who brings redemption, this guileless fool, so very different from the
awakened youth who wakes up Brimnhilde, and in his own way an
other case of remote peculiarity*
Mann’s single word of value here is “remote.” And this seemingly bizarre
atmosphere surrounded the composer wherever he went. Consider this siuppet of
domestic musing from Cosima concerning Richard’s predestined place in the
universal mappa mundi: “. . . with Beethoven musical creation became human,
Mozart is the world of animal, vegetable, and mineral, the innocent, naive world,
unknowing both in gladness and sorrow; in the whole panoply Wagner appears as the
revelation, as religion. In this history of creation the venerable Bach appears some
what like the entire planetary system, before it separated itself from the sun.”® A
remote and grotesque confabulation if ever there was one. Yet Cosima’s placement
of Richard on a linear scale from inanimate matter to vegetable states to animals to
spirit and revelation would not surprise Paracelsus, Michael Maier, Robert Fludd, or
a host of other European alchemists. The alchemistic world is one in which stones
are alive, the Mercurial spirit proceeds from this living mineral as the spiritus vegeta-
tivus'^ and this spirit proceeds through animal and human representations until it
congeals into thefilius Philosophorum, the redeeming child of the philosophers or
“of God. The alchemists then imagined the progress of spirit to extend from inanimate
matter through the vegetable, animal, and human to the estate of the children of god.
Thus, speaking ofthe alchemistic motif ofthe wounded king that Wagner was shortly
to transmute into the protagonist Amfortas, Jimg notes that
When we are told that the King is exanimis, inanimate, or that his
land is unfruitfìil, it is equivalent to saying that the hidden state is one

•Thomas Mann, “The Sorrows and Grandeur ofRichard Wagner” (Pro and Contra Wagner,
p. 129.) Again, Alan David Aberbach has written two books on Wagner’s religious ideas and his
mysticism widiout, however, mentioning either “gnosticism” or “alchemy,” which together form the
joint cultural wellspring of systematic European mysticism (Richard Wagner’s Religious Ideas: A
SpiritualJoumey and Richard Wagner; A Mystic in the Making.)

^Diaries, I, p. 121, July 6,1869.1 will discuss the planetary and astrological inçUcations of
such references will be discussed in due course. Such references appear âequently and are often overt,
as in the poet-composer’s designation ofWotan as a “jovial god,” i.e., a variant of the Graeco-Roman
Jupiter. (Letter to August Röckel, January 25,1854, reprinted in Wagner on Music and Drama, op.
cit, p. 292.)

'°C. G. Jung, “The Spirit Mercurius,” ^43.

368

of latency and potentiality. The darkness and depths of the sea

symbolize the unconscious state of an invisible content that is
projected. Inasmuch as such a content belongs to the total personality
and is only apparently severed from its context by projection, there is
always án attraction between conscious mind and projected content.
Generally it takes the form of a fascination. This, in the alchemical
allegory is expressed by the King’s cry for help from the depths of his
unconscious, dissociated state. The conscious mind should respond
to this call: one should operari regi, render service to the King, for
this would not only be wisdom but salvation as well."
This central alchemistic drama of the magical gold or entombed king held captive in
the darkness of matter and crying for redemption by means of the adept’s mystical
interventions\began in gnosticism and wormed its way through mediæval and
renaissance alchemy to bore almost unaltered into Parsifal's poetic infrastructure.
Thus comparative ^alysis ofits libretto shows this level of alchemistic indebtedness
on almost every page. Given the wholesale subsumption of alchemistic thought into
this final Music Drama, Wagner’s notion of his predecessor composers’ embedded
ness in the world ofvegetables and minerals, grotesque as it appears when considered
outside the alchemistic-mystic frame of reference in which he had steeped himself
by years of scholarly reading, may be understood more sympathetically. The poet-
composèr regarded himself as a redeemer of his predecessors’ musical language,
which could be expected to languish in a dead and thus inanimate past unless coupled
with the word of a mysterious god sleeping in the depths of his own Creation."
Thus when Cosima and Richard trafßc in such images they are simply
alchemizing music. Wagner had been doing this for thirty years: for instance the
Rhinegold is a living metal (“Alp von des Goldes Auge”) and thus alchemistic. Even
so, how could such grotesque images, which Cosima had been imbibing from
Richard for years at the breakfast table, have become living elements of their daily
discourse? Their imagery was there to pick up in the folk tales that Wagner always

"C. G. Jung, Psychology and Alchemy, 1436.

'^Consider Wagner’s Rhine-dream from this perspective: the composer himself playing the
role of the sleep&g god dreaming Creatioa The idea that the Creator is then enmeshed in what he has
fashioned finds its expression in the composer’s studied unwillingness to perceive the world through
any other lenses than his literary sources, his personifying tonal syntax as aerie tone-spirits, and his
lifelong insistence that reality was mythic and could only be explained through mythic imagery
(including antisemitism).
 369

claimed were among his primary sources even had the bibliophilie composer never
leafed through any ofthe second-hand alchemistic manuscripts sold for pence at local
book dealers throughout Europe. The very Mercurial material that provided the
mineral and vegetative prima materia for Cosima’s election of Richard to the office
of Son of the Philosophers appears in Grimm's Fairy Tales in the story, “The Spirit
in the Bottle,” in which the spirit that the poor woodcutter finds trapped in the bottle
and firees actually calls himself “the great and mighty Spirit Mercurius.”^^ The same
is true ofgnostic materials, which had never gone out of circulation in Europe despite
the Church’s best (or worst) efforts to eradicate heresy. It was not necessary to be a
kabbalistic specialist to find this material: anyone with a taste for the esoteric and a
moderate love of reading could pick it up any time. Even in the early twentieth
century Jung had no problem amassing the world’s greatest collection of old alche
mistic tracts, in both Latin and the vernacular, for pennies a page fi'om booksellers
grateful to imload such moldering stuff. Sonïe of Jung’s best finds had been sitting
on back shelves since the nud nineteenth century. In that respect nothing had changed
since the days of Hildegard von Bingen. Cosima was converted to Wagner’s admit
tedly original version of alchemy and gnosticism, whose source materials lay ready
to hand. The evidence is in the composer’s unmistakable combinations ofimages and
the coherence of the backgroimd world view which he used them to express. These
contexts included, of course, his Lexical Tonality.
Meanwhile, the composer describes the 1876 Ring as “a mystic web of des
tiny encompassing a world,”'^ and Cosima criticizes Doepler’s costumes for the same
as producing an insufficiently mystical impression.'^ Parsifal is a mystich bedeut
same,^^ its king’s sacred office one of “mystic import,”” its Prelude a “ming
ling ... of mysticism and chivalry.”'* Wagner claimed the right of apostolic success-

”“1116 Sprit Mercurius,” H239. -Many details that Wagner lifted from fairy tales had them
selves already been lifted by their anonymous talesmiths from gnosis and alchemy.

'^“A Retrospect on the Stage-Festivals of 1876,” p. 108.

'^Diaries, I, p. 897, March 6,1876.

'^‘Parsifal at Beyreuth” (1882), p. 303.

'’’Ibid., p. 309.

Diaries, I, p. 897, March 6, 1876.

370
ion from Beethoven and the notion renders this mystical too; thus the latter’s ability
to draw pretematurally evocative effects from “ridiculously insignificant” material
is a “mystical abyss.”” The term again veers alchemy-ward to mediate the com
poser’s receptions ofBeethoven and Goethe; thus “[R.] says he has always sought the
mystical significance of things; for example, in the introduction of [Beethoven’s] A
Major Symphony he always thinks of the passage in Faust: ‘Passing gold buckets to
other, how heavenly powers ascend, descend!”’“ Wagner’s mysticism is con
ditioned by Goethe’s imaginai alchemist and Faust even serves to alchemize the
poet-composer’s discussion of folk elements, as when .. R. had already—in con
nection with a collection of Franconian folk songs—^touched on the theme of what
in behooved uà to do: to listen to Nature from the viewpoint of a culture which has
lost its naïveté. W Homonculus, demanding birth, R. sees as the German spirit,
which must turn firom the scholar’s study to Nature.”^'
The poetic compiex,folk-song-Nature-Homonculus, points behind Goethe to
the shadowy collective figure that Wagner called the Folk, which the composer
thereby subsumes into his alchemical-poetic retort. Thus although his astrological
comment, “If I had more of a philosophical bent I should describe this prototype of
all individuation; the separation of the planets from the sim is the begiiming of all
phenomena”“ provides philosophical imagery eloquent of his mysticism, in the last
resort the composer relied as strongly on pagan, gnostic, and alchemistic motifs
transmitted by rude folk and fairy tales. Similar dialectic between folk and elite
poetics in Wolfium’s Parzival was possible because gnostic and alchemistic material
had been entering elite Germanic culture for centuries in the very stories mined by
Wagner and that tins was what had attracted him to this culture fixim the beginning.
Among his other Parsifal sources Wagner naturally turned to German
mystical literature; thus .. our conversation leads to the mystic Meister Eckhart;
R. begins to read a sermon by him, which fascinates us to the highest degree.
Everything turned inward, the soul silent, so that in it God may speak the hidden

”“011 Poetry and Composition,” p. 145.

^Diaries, I, p. 690, October 26, 1873.

^'Ibid., I, p. 706, December 6, 1873.

^Ibid., I, p. 116, June 28, 1869.

 371

word!”^^ Cosima’s report suggests that what appealed to Richard was the Meister’s
theory of the relation of the soul to God: Soul is a reflection of God, and at the same
time the container and home of God. This is the default Thomasian view, which is
just one of many reasons why it is relevant to read Wagner’s mediæval mysticism as
neo-gnosticism.

II. Pessimism, Gnosticism, Antisemitism

In 1879 Wagner took a retrospective glance at the systematic framework that
he had first put down on paper in 1849 and set his seal of approval on it, confessing
that he had nothing new to say that he had not already said then. The composer thus
signed off on three decades of theorizing as a unified body of thought, including his
“Wibelungen” and “Nibelimgen” essays. Opera and Drama, and his various
statements and claims on his compositional practices, on Music Drama, on his tonal
system, and the art of the future.
In the last chapter I tested the composer’s claims of continuity by treating his
Barbarossa-related literature as what he said they were, the source for the legend
expressed in Parsifal. Wagner’s final Music Drama thus emerges as the theatrical
-realization ofmediæval writings steeped in the heretical resonances ofthe Thomasian
gospels, of the gnostic sects with which modem scholars associate these, and gnostic
theology generally. Since in 1848-9 Wagner was contemplating the meaning of the
gnostic imagery of these sources and since he represents such contemplations as
ongoing, systematic, and cumulative, then we may analyze all of the imagery in
Parsifal in terms of these sects and the mysticism, alchemy, astrology, and folk
magic whose imagery and manners of thought derive fi:om them. What is tme of

“/Wrf., I, p. 690, October 26,1873. Jung’s discussion ofEckhart {Psychological Types, •¡427)
is relevant here; thus, “Eckhart states bluntly that God is dependent on the soul, and that the same time,
that the soul is the birthplace of God... The organ of perception, the sotti, apprehends the contents
of the unconscious, and as the creative function, gives birth to its dynamics in the form of a symbol.
The soul gives birth to images that from the rational staiu^oint of consciousness are assumed to be
worthless. And so they are, in the sense that they cannot immediately be turned to account in the
objective world. The first possibility of making me of them is artistic, if one is in any way gifted in
that direction; a second is philosophical speculation-,'Zl third is quasi-religious, leading to heresy and
the founding of sects; and a fourth way of ençloying the dynamics of these images is to squander it
.in every forni of licentiousness.” Jung’s description of the syndrome of a quasi-religious
philosophically speculative licentiousness-obsessed artistic type defines Wagner remarkably well;
indeed, Jung’s own examples ofthe artistic response ate Spitder, Goethe, and Wagner himself {¡bid.,
11427b ).
372
these sources is true of Parsifal, and to engage the one is to engage the other. This
also sanctions treating his lexical tonality as a imified tonal language employing a
single vocabulary of mythic images drawn directly from these sources, distributed
evenly across Parsifal, the Ring, and Tristan, and intended to express the unity of
world myth.
We meanwhile segue from Wagner’s mediæval, gnosticism-drenched sources
to Parsifal’s gnostic content on our way toward a reckoning with the composer’s
antisemitism, a tragic feature of his thinking that caimot be fully understood outside
these sourcès and the composer’s borrowed religious system. Anti-Judaism is
implicit in all of them including Wolfram, and Wagner the anti-Judaic theosophist
wove it Nortdike into libretto and lexical tonality using the lexicon of religious
esoterica. Thus to get to the heart of the antisemitic convictions requires us to treat
Parsifal as a gnostic gospel—Whence the chapter title.
Antisemitism is above all a moral problem, and a good ingress is through
Wagner’s theory ofgood and evil from the perspective ofhis sources and his gnostic
temper of mind. For instance, as Richard told Co sima, “I do not believe in God, but
in godliness, which is revealed in a Jesus without sin.'^* He has a definition for “sin”
too: it is the Schopenhaurean will to life in opposition to the will to death, which is
righteous. Struggle for life expresses the Will, which is mostly desire and which is
necessarily and irremediably blind and ignorant,“ the Creation which file Will
conjures" itself into being irremediably bad.“ This places virtue at the service of
escape from its confines, but since the world holds the contrary opinion inculcated
by that perennial pair Gog and Magog (Judaism and the religion-garbling priests of
Rome) virtue comes to appear an abeiration and virtuous persons as nut-cases, as

^Diaries, H, p. 367, September 20, 1879.

““Nature wills, but sees not Had she foreseen that Man would some day call forth artificial
light and fire (a vivid instance adduced by Schopenhauer), she would have endowed the poor insects,
and other animals that rush on destruction in our flame, with an instinct safe against that peril.” (“Shall
We Hope?", p. 127.)

““As their Weightiest exercise the Jesuits set the piçils who enter their school the task of
imagining with all their might and main the pains of eternal damnation, and expedite it by the most
ingenious devices. A Paris workman, on the contrary, after ray threatening him with Hell because he
had broken his word, replied; 'O monsieur, ¡’enfer est sur la terre.' Our great Schopenhauer was of
the same opinion, and fotmd our world of life quite strikingly depicted in Dante’s 'Inferno'." (Ibid.,
p.117.)
 373

Wagner specifies in a lugubrious letter to Liszt, written just six years after he
published ‘The Wibelungen”:
We may allow that Christianity is such a contradictory phenomenon
because we know it only through its contamination by narrow-minded
Judaism and through its resultant distortion, whereas modem research
has succeeded in proving that pure, uncontaminated Christianity is ho
more and no less than a branch of that venerable Buddhist religion
which, following Alexander’s Indian campaign, found its way, among
other places, to the shores of the Mediterranean. In early Christianity
we can still see the clear traces of a total denial of the will to live, and
a longing for the end of the world, i.e., the cessation of all life. The
unfortunate part about it, however, is that such profound insights into
the nature of things are vouchsafed only to those individuals who are
totally abnormal in the sense described above, as a result of which
they can be fully understood by them and by them alone; in order to
convey these insights to others, the sublime founders of the world’s
religions must therefore speak in such images as are accessible to
people’s ordinary—^normal—powers of fcomprehension; Whereas
much is distorted in this way (although the Buddha’s teaching relating
to the transmigration of souls almost certainly expresses the truth),
the vulgarity and licentiousness of general egoism that characterizes
normal people means that, in the end, the image is necessarily
distorted to the point of grotesqueness and—^1 feel sorry for the poet
who takes it upon himself to restore this grotesque distortion to its
original form.”
Here, dolefully but correctly predicting that Parsifal should be received by the
orthodox as a travesty, Wagner takes as his model an early form of Christianity,
heretical and abnormal-seeming, historically and thematically associated with the
conquests of Alexander the Great and the religion of India, which is therefore a
syncretistic blending of dominant Eastern philosophy articulated by subordinated
Western imagery. Practitioners ofunorthodox Christianity harbor specia/knowledge,
the possession of that small elite who really get it. All these elements combine in the
mediaeval Barbarossa literature of Préster John and the German Alexander
literature, both ofwhich the composer had already encountered and which, by 1855,
constituted the bulk of his primary source materials.
The only theological system answering to this description is gnosticism, the
definitively world-renoimcing form of Christianity. Wagner was attracted to the

"Letter to Franz Liszt, May 16, 1855, in Selected Letters ofRichard Wagner, pgs. 346-7.
374
element of Schopenhauer’s philosophy in which he could detect comparable Indian
resonance, which the philosopher himself confessed was real and important to the
proper understanding ofhis system. Thus for instance, “I owe what is best in my own
development to the impression made by Kant’s works, the sacred writings of the
Hindus, and Plato.”^* Along with Schopenhauer himself, Wagner mentions these
three philosophical sources most frequently when describing his philosophical

influences.
This then is the gnostic complex of attitudes and ideas that Wagner
understands to be “mystical.” Wa^er considered Schopenhauer to be a gnostic as
well, and th^ composer’s “Christianity” is in some respects a footnote to Arthur,
whose admission into the composer’s fundamental religious concept suggests the
term “philosophical Christianit/’ and comparison with gnosticism’s ongoing
engagement with Plato’s creation myth, the Timaeus. The composer uses philo
sophical terminology to describe theological factors, for instance, “I did not need the
hypothesis o f C hristianity—as L aplace d id n ot n eed t he hypothesis o f G od—to
express the negation of the will in the Wagner’s attraction to gnostic-style
tpap.tiings thus turns on what such heretical writings have in common with Schopen

hauer.
The connection is not obscure: gnosticism is theology’s most significant
expression of cosmic pessimism and the denial of the world. Gnostic world
renunciation is one reason that Catholic descriptions of their beliefs have always
taken the form of criticisms or even attacks: it was seen as amoral, for instance,
“Among the reproaches which Plotinus raises against the Gnostics ... is that they
lack a theory of virtue; and he maintains that it is their contempt of the world that
prevents them from having one . . . The absence of virtue in gnostic teaching is
connected with the anti-cosmic attitude, that is, the denial of any worth to the things

^The World as Will and Representation, p. 417, discussed in Moira Nicholls, “The Influences
ofEastern Thought on Schopenhauer’s Doctrine ofthe Thing-in-Itself,” rnThe Cambridge Companion
to Schopenhauer, p. 179. In her note 44 Nicholls likewise cites Dorofljea W. Dauer, Schopenhauer
as Transmitter ofÊuddhist Ideas, that “while Schopenhauer claims that his own doctrines are
indppi-tidpnt of the influence of Hindu and Buddhist thought, he is probably much more indebted to
them than he realizes.” {Ibid., p. 208.)

^Diaries, H, p. 59, April 7, 1878.

 375

of this world and consequently also to man’s doings in this world.”^“ The Catholic
Encyclopedia links Schopenhauer and von Hartmaim to Gnosticism through their
common philosophical Pessimism thus:
The world is not, as Schopenhauer considered it, the worst possible,
but the best, as is shown by the adaptation of means to ends in the
evolutionary process. Nevertheless it is altogether bad, and had better
not have been. The imconscious of von Hartmaim is involved in the
same self-contradiction as the will of Schopenhauer. It is difficult to
attach any real significance to the conception of consciousness as a
fimction of the imconscious, or to that of purposive action by the
unconscious. Considered simply as a reasoned basis for a doctrine of
Pessimism, von Hartmann's system appears much like a Gnostic
mythology, or such quasi-mystical imagery as that ofJacob Boehme,
representing the pessimistic aspect of the actual world. From this
point of view it may be said that both Schopenhauer and Hartmann
rendered some service by emphasizing the perpetual contrast between
desire and achievement in human affaás, and by calling attention to
the essential fimction of suffering in human life. Schopenhauer and
von Hartmann stand alone as the originators ofmetaphysical systems
of an essentially pessimistic character.^'
But this is only partly true: the philosophical Godfather of both was “St. Thomas”
and his gnostic fellow-travelers, which is why Wagner troubled to gnosticize his
•score. Wagner, gnosticism, and Schopenhauer agree that this world is evil and its
creation the mistake of a deranged and subordinate heavenly entity, which gnostics
called laldabaôth or the Demiurge, Schopenhauer called “the Will,” and which, in
Parsifal, Wagner aligns with Klingsor. This “Creator” is variously depicted as blind
and ignorant (Schopenhauer), blind, ignorant, and crazy (gnosticism), or blind,
ignorant, crazy, and wicked (Wagner). The gnostics also called their Demiurge Yah-
weh, the God ofIsrael, and depicted this god as alternately a demon, fallen angel, just
plain angel, or unspiritual being. In any event the “Creator” was as far firom god as
we fi-om him: God was not a being but, as Wagner argued, an uncreated—and un
creating—godhead.

“Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, pgs. 268-9.

^‘7ieCaiÄo//c£nc)'c/o/7erfiaonline,littp://www.newadventorg/ca1hen/11740b.htm,accessed
March 19,2005.
376
The basis then for Wagner’s attacks on the Jewish God are from this perspect
ive philosophical and reasoned: the composer modeled his theology on that of the
early Church with its strong gnostic resonances. I want to discuss how this philo
sophical anti-Judaism works itself out in Parsifal presently, but first it will be useful
to take a short detour through the other aspect of Wagner’s attitude toward Jews, his
rank antisemitism, which was not reasoned but attitudinal. Such antisemitism is
equally present in Wagner’s sources, and the point of this detour will be to show how
these sources specify Wagner’s antisemitic discourse.

III. Cannibal Jews, Kundry, and Idiotae Literature

“Fôrmer cannibals now trained to be the business-agents of Society.”^^ This
is perhaps Wagner’s most infamous antisemitic image, but it is not his own. These
“caimibal Jews'’ appear in all Wagner’s primary sources, the German Alexander
literature, the Letter of Prester John, and the Travels of Sir John Mandeville. The
Jewish cannibals or their multiple-coherence stand-ins are likewise represented in the
comic-book-like visual legends of mediæval mappce mundi-, the Hereford mappa
mundi features such figures in the guise of the “Issedones” are to be seen in the
“Caspian” quadrant happily gobbling down human arms, legs, and heads.”
The first mention of caimibals living in Caspian region appears in Herodotus,
TTte History, Book IV: ‘There is also a story related in a poem by Ansteas son of
Kaüstrobios, a man of Prokonnesos. This Aristeas, possessed by Phoibos [Apollon],
visited the Issedones; beyond these (he said) live the one-eyed Ariipaspoi, beyond
whom are the Grypes (Grifíins) that guard gold, and beyond these again the
Hyperboreoi, whose territory reaches to the sea. Except for the Hyperboreoi, all these
nations (and first the Arimaspoi) are always at war with their neighbors; the
Issedones were pushed finm their lands by the Arimaspoi, and the Skythians by the
Issedones."” Herodotus describes these latter as caniubals who eat the flesh of their
own parents. A question remains how Jews foimd themselves grafted onto this little
legend. Jocelyn Heilig notes that charges of cannibalism had been leveled against

"Richard Wagner, “Hero-dom and Christìandom,” p. 284.

"Scott D. Westram, The Hereford Map, esp. legends #142, #212, and #306.

"Herodotus, The History, 4.13.1.

 377

Jews since the first century C.E., as recorded by Josephus.” Heilig notes that “this,
the first ritual murder charge against Jews known to history, inaugurated themes that
would be picked up later.”^* They were imported wholesale, for instance, into the
mediæval Alexander legends, which combined such materials as those ofHerodotus
and Josephus with legends of the Ten Lost Tribes to reconfigure the Caspian Isse-
dones as the bestial Gog and Magog, who thereafter obtained the sanction of German
folk belief to run roughshod over its cowering cultural imagination. So powerful in
fact was the legend of the cannibal Jews that, when news reached Germany of the
approach of Genghis Khan and his Mongol armies, it was widely believed that Gog
and Magog had at last burst forth firom their Caspian prison to ravage the world.”
But the cannibal Jews were most strongly present in the very literature
Wagner relied upon for much oîParsifùVs lexical mulch. Andrew Colin Gow quotes
the twelfth century/.«ciVJanws, as follows:
In India is a moimtain called Caápius, after which is named the
Spanish Sea. Between the sea and this mountain, king Alexander
walled up two nations, called Gog and Magog. These people eat
nothing but raw animal and human flesh.’*
The geographical garbling here is entirely typical of mediæval thinking and greatly
contributes to the distinctive atmosphere of unreality and dreamlikeness of its
literature, answering to the modem “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...”
A more detailed description of the cannibal Jews and their relation to Alexander,

^’Thus the Jewish historian describes the story of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who heard from
the mouth of a Greek in the Tençle of Jerusalem that “of the unutterable law of the Jews for the sake
of which he [the Greek] was being fed. The practice was repeated annually at a fixed season. They
would kidnap a Greek foreigner, frtten him up for ayear, and then convey him to a wood, where they
slew him, sacrificed his body with their customary ritual, partook of his flesh, and, while immolating
the Greek, swore an oath of hostility to the Greeks.” (Josephus, Omtra Apionem 2, pp. 94-6, quoted
in Jocelyn HelUg,77ie Holocaust and Antisemitism, p. 136.)

^Ibid.

^^The Red Jews, p. 54-5, etc.

^’(“In India ist ein bere der heizet Caspius, da von heizet daz Speniche mer. zwissent dem mer
unde dem berge, vermurte der kunic Alexander zueiger slaste lût, die hezent Goc unde Magoc. Die
lüte ascent nith wen rowe tier unde menischen fleisch.”) Quoted and translated in Andrew Colin Gow,
The Red Jews, pgs. 303-4.
378

complete with authoritative geographical false-precision, is featured in Lamprecht 's

Alexander, a copy of which Wagner owned and thought highly of:”
Alexander was told that two tribes living in Paran were causing the
world great trouble. Many a brave warrior lay dead, killed by them,
and they did not behave themselves as they ought to. Many were tired
of life: for they [Gog and Magog] were becoming very powerful...
[missing]... They slew women and children without hesitation; Og
an<i Magog are their names. Alexander set out with a migfity army
and conquered them without the prospect of booty and drove them
withojit hesitating into a great moxmtain range that borders the Pigine,
by the Raging Sea, where he walled in that same army [Og and Ma
gog]: he .drove them through a narrow valley, where the path was
narrow, and built a wall iBxjm one moimtain to another, as high as the
mountains themselves, and well-defended with strong ramparts. Then
he marched oh with his aimy.‘'°
This Alexander literature is the source of Wagner’s references to the “Alexandrine
despotism” in his letter to Hans von Wolzogen and the “conquests of Alexander” in
his gloom-and-doom letter to Liszt. This example underscores the composer’s habit
of seldom saying anything that he could not have supported at need with some
authoritative reference, and in fact Gow associates Wagner’s sources with actual
mediæval prosecutions of real Jews for ritual cannibalism.^' And in general the
composer shows a high order of artistic creativity in his use of such materials. For
instance, the Alexander literature provided Jewish-cannibal mulch for the com
poser’s late-life vegetarianism, informing his public speculations that it was Jewish

’’See, e.g., Diaries, I, p. 576, December 26,1872; II, p. 322, June 12,1879; p. 706, August
15,188Í, etc.

Lamprecht 's Alexander, quoted in The Red Jews, pgs. 305-6.

““The identification of tbe Ten Tribes with Gog and Magog provided a new perspective on
an unsavoury episode in the history of medieva} anti-Jewish propaganda, namely the accusation of
ritual cannibalism leveled at Jews—siimlar to charges of a sacred or even liturgical caimibalism
directed at Christians in the second century, Montanists in the fifth, Paulicians in the eighth, the
Bogomils in file eleventh, and those burnt as heretics in Orléans in 1022. These accusations reached
a watershed in the thirteenth century. Gavin Langmuir has examined the first accusation of ritual
cannibalism known to have been aimed at Jews: in 1235 at Fulda. Thirty-four Jews were convicted of
this imaginary crime andVere judicially murdered.... The Fulda accusations of ritual cannibalism
were neither novel, nor spontaneous, nor simply an echo of earlier, similarly ‘chimeric’ charges....
the Ebstorf map of file world depicted the ‘gentes immundas gog et magog’, enclosed by a mountain
range and a great wall, eating human body parts that are spurting blood. The caption states that they
eat human flesh and drink human blood.” {Ibid., pgs. 49-50).
 379

camivorism that enabled them to become the sinister agents of human degeneration
that they are today:
To explain this sorry constitution of all human things our Old-
testament Christian Church reverts to the fall of the earliest pair,
which Jewish tradition derives—^most strange to say by no means
from a forbidden taste of animal flesh, but from that of the fruit of a
tree; whereupon we may conclude the no less striking fact that the
Jewish God found Abel’s fatted lamb more savoury than Cain’s
offering of the produce of the field. From such suspicious evidences
ofthe character ofthe Jewish tribal god we see areligion arise against
whose directly employment for regeneration of the human race we
fancy that a convinced vegetan of nowadays might have serious
complaints to lodge.^^
Here Wagner infers that an ignoramus Hebrew God penalizes vegetarians who obtain
gnosis through right eating, a giant step for mankind that no self-respecting, apo
plectic old Semite demiurge could be expected to a1)ide. Such antisemitic mumblings,
in which the presumed dietary habits of Jews explain a presumed universal human
species decay, led Gutman to describe Wagner as ftmctionally insane. Yet all this
would have seemed perfectly reasonable to the mediæval culture of his sources.^^

"“Religion and Art,” pgs. 241-2.

. *^This antisemitic stuff is all drawn ffom the idiotce sources that Wagner reified as the Folk,
an excellent account of which has been presented by Carlo Ginzburg’s The Cheese and the Worms,
cited in Chapter One. Again, with respect to the conçoser’s ofi-mocked vegetarianism and anti-
vivisectionism and the slightly less-mocked morality-play appearances of slaughtered and solemnly
buried swans and redeitfttion-seeking wild flowers, Jung recounts a significant “last outcropping of
the medieval view ofthe world” in an anecdote fi:om his own youth: “We had at that time a cook fi-om
the Swabian part of the Black Forest, on vhom feel the duty of executing the victims firom the poultry
yard destined for the kitchen. We kept bantams, and bantam cocks are renowned for their singular
quarrelsomeness and maUce. One of these exceeded all others in savagery, and my mother
commissioned the cook to dispatch the malefactor for the Sunday roast. I happened to come in just as
she was bringing back the decapitated cock and saying to my mother, ‘He died like a Christian,
although he was so wicked. He cried out, “Forgive me, forgive me!” before I cut off his head, so now
he’ll go to heaven.’ My mother answered indignantly: ‘AVhat nonsense! Only human beings go to
heaven.’ The cook retorted in astonishment: ‘But of course there’s a chicken heaven for chickens just
as there’s a human heaven for humans. ’ ‘But only people have an immortal soul and a religion, ’ said
my mother, equally astonished. ‘No, that’s not so,’ replied the cook. ‘Animals have souls too, and fiiey
all have their special heaven, dogs, cats, and horses, because when the Saviour of men came down to
earth, the chicken saviour also came to the chickens, and that’s why they must repent of their sins
before they die if they want to go to heaven.’ The theology of our cook is a remnant of that folklore
mentality which saw the drama of redenqition going on at all levels and could therefore discover it
even in the mysterious and inconqirehensible transformations ofmatter.” {Psychology and Alchemy,
T[494-5.) July’s cook’s grandmother undoubtedly served up Richard and Cosima’s lettuce and bean
sprout buffets at the tellingly christened “Wahnfiied.”
380
Kundry, Red Jews, and Other Snakes in the Grass.
To properly assign Wagner’s “cannibal Jews” to these sources likewise
permits us to evaluate Parsi/a/’s alleged but never demonstrated anti-Jewish content
in a way that is both authentic and precise. I would like to use Kimdry as our ingress
to Wagner’s mediaeval detailing in a way that takes full account of the sources from
which Wagner drew most of her characteristics, commencing with the image of
Kundr>\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 late-
thirteenth-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 GUNDRYGGIA is MARS is RED
KUNDRY < is HERODIAS is BLOODY is 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 moon-
sponge 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 ^erpent-
woman 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 Passion-
Play-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 Parsifal
FILIUS [KING’S SON] AMFORTAS
LANCE OF LONGINUS LANCE OF LONGINUS
SNAKE-BODIED MELUSINA SNAKE-piRDLED KUNDRY
CASTLE KEEP GRAIL CASTLE
TEARDROP RETORT THE GRAIL
FOUR TEARDROP RETORTS 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 stark-
raving 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) precisely what Wolfi-am says about Anfortas’ astrological assailant;
that is, “Serpent/Scorpio”;® and,
(lb) precisely what Wagner says about Amfortas’ protagonistic assailant:
that is, “Kundry/Melusina”; and,

(2) The wounding instrument says,

(2a) precisely what Wolfiram says about what wounded Anfortas: that is,
“Ipce”; and,
(2b) précisely what Wagner says about what wounded Amfortas: that is,
“Lance of Longinus”; and,
(3) The wounded object says,
(3a) precisely what Wolfi-am says about Anfortas: that is, “son of the
king”; and,
(3b) 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#
Parzival Parsifal Pandora :± Astroloev
Scorpio Knndpr Melusina -* Scorpio ni.
Image
Image Longinus Lance Longinus I.ance -* Sagittarius
spear
Image Son of King Son of King Son of Philosophers Capricorn
Image Munsalvache Monsalvat Alchemistic Oven -» Aquarius ^
(Grail Stone) (Grail Chalice) (Lapis/Retort)

“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 wisdom-
lexicon 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 serpent-
drink 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 upward-
downward 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 serpent-
based 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. '

Ӯid., 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 fim-
damental 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 mo-
gnosticism?^ 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-in-
Itself,’’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 demi-
divine 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 blood-
red. ... 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 Longinus-
wielding 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 alchemistic-
horoscopic 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, vom Ret- un - ge - lei- let

//£Ì>:i_____________ 7=V7I i 7=V6=1 7=V
_l L.
[st>== death, cursel 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=cup-
bearer] 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 wish-
poetics 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 Wish-
maiden 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 one-

eyed 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 this-
worldliness, 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 creator-
god 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

<■

Ex. 8.6: Amfortas prays for purity to Titurel in heaven.'^’

The term expiation signals Wagner’s most pervasive imposition of Saturn
upon his score: slow music. By this I mean really slow. Much of Parsifal is slow
even for its tempi, slower than words like adagissimo can express. Slow like this:

'^’Note: The —to—D modulation is a standard syntactical usage for “Sun at Zenith” or
the replacement ofsomething bright at noon by something even brighter, e.g., #474 : Twilight of the
Gods #476: —, fear of it #961: Twilight of the Gods, prophecy of.
 435

Ex. 8.7: Parsifal on his penitential knees, eternally cadencing in Cii Minor.
Parsifal’s interminable Cji minor cadence tells ns more about Saturn than any
number of esoteric tracts. It tells us that the Old Man has tottered in to squat down
on the opera s tempi to the degree of virtual fossilization. Parsifal frozen in kneeling
position tells us that “Capricorn rules the knees and this is symbolically true, for only
when the Capricomia subject learns to kneel in all humility and with his knees upon
the rocky mountain top to offer his heart and life to the soul and to human service,
can he be permitted to pass through the doonof initiation and be entrusted with the
secrets of life.”““ The extraordinary emphasis on time (die Zeit) that characterizes
this drama; thus thephrase "die Zeit ist da" is sungbyKlingsor, Gumemanz, Kundry,
and Amfortas; or Klingsor informs Kundry “Meinem Banne wieder verfielst du heut
zur rechten Zeit (Act H). Time mysticism reaches greatest density in the exchange
between Parsifal and Gumemanz: Parsifal-. “Ich schreite kaum, doch wähn ich mich
schon weit.” Gumemanz: “Du siehst, mein Sohn, zum Raum ^ird hier die Zeit.” This
connects to the motif of cyclic return-, thuTthe^Grail’^s prophecy, "Durch Mitleid
wissend, der reine Tor; harre sein, den ich erkor’’ is not fulfilled until Parsifal has
first appeared and then returned, thus completing a cycle which, given the
astrological conceits of its imagery, can best be described as a solar return. Aqilarius
is understood as the “water-bearer” and is Hellenistic astrology’s closest approach
to “Grail bearer,” who in Wagner (as distinct ffom Wolfram) is Titurel (=Wotan/
Saturn) himself.
As Titurel’s tomb Monsalvat is the House of Saturn and the karmic refugee
Wotan-Titurel is thus lord oftwo Saturnian Tonal Households: D b Major (the Ring's
/
---------------------------------------------------- —------------ /

^^^Esoteric Astrologyy Ip. 169. /

436
Walhall) and Ab Major {Parsifal’s Monsalvat). With respect to the latter the
combination of a Saturn rulership over the sign of a chalice unmistakably identifies
the zodiacal sign ofAquarius, the Water-Bearer, known in traditional and mediasval
astrology as the positive House of Saturn.'“’ This coheres with the identification of
the designation of the alchemistic King as the Rex marinus or King of the Sea, for
“Capricomus, Cetus, Delphinus, Eridanus, Hydra, Pisces, andPiscis Australis, all the
watery shapes in the early heavens, with Argo and Crater, are in this neighborhood;
some of whose stars Aratos said ‘are called the Water’; indeed in Euphratean
astronomy this region of the sky was called the Sea and thought to be imder the
control of Aquarius.”'“* Wolflram’s astrological testimony must be factored into our
interpretation of the poet’s depictions of Anfortas as the “Fisher King.”
Wagner thus read the king’s horoscope well and inscribed it into D b Major,
bringing this TL lexeme into poetic association with the ascent of kings, their
deposition, and the advent of their kingly successors. This is simply to say that in
Parsifal as in the Ring Wagner’s primary semantic use of Db is derived fi-om the
virtual semantic object [Db= SATURN, CAPRICORN], which likewise serves as a
specific point of contact between his drama and Parzival. And it is a specifically
astrological nexus. Thus what Wolfram articulates byway ofhis planetary maleficus
Saturn, Wagner articulates by means of this key, which entails for instance that the
composer understood Parsifal’s Act IE Prelude in B b minor to be syntactically not
[Bi:i] but [Db: vil, a^ index of the extreme decay afflicting this Saturnian poetic

“’This is relevant to key-choices since IDb^Walhain and rAb=Monsalvat1 and in Wagner’s

syntax “dominantward” means “forward” or “succeeding.” Db-to-Ab syntax thus articulates two
succeeding visions of “Saturn.” This is an orthodox astrological formula since “Saturn is also the
master of the sign which follows Capricorn—i.e., Aquarius, which means astrologically possible
transformation toward socially positive values, of humanitarianism and universal brotherhood. This
recalls the last stage of the of Saturn: the Golden Age.” The astrological connection between
Saturn and the Grail found in Wol&am is repeated in the poet’s Aristotelian astronomy. Thus “The
constellation immemorially has been represented, even on very early Babylonian stones, as a man, or
boy, pouring water from a bucket or urn, with an appropriate towel in the left hand, the human figure
sometimes being omitted; while the Arabians, who knew of the latter but did not dare to show it
depicted a mule carrying two water-barrels; and again singly a water-bucket. The last was Ulug Beg’s
idea ofit, his original word being rendered by Hyde Situla, die Roman Well-bucket; but Al Bîrühî had
it in his astrological charts Amphora, a Two-handled Wine-jar, that he may havge adopted from
Ausonius the poet of our fourth century. Even Vercingétorix, Caesar’s foe in Gaul, 52 B.C., is said to
have put the similar figure on his stateres with the tide Diota, a Two-eared Jar.” {Star Names, Their
Lore and Meaning, p. 46.) .

'**Star Names, p. 45.

 437
region. In terms of lexical history Wagner derives the [Db.=SATURN] from such
usages as [Db.=Mountain-top, Wotan, king, oldman {senex)]}^ Thus the alchemists
understood Saturn in much the same way as Wagner imderstpod D b : “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.”'^® Thus as the demiurge Wotan first
“bound down the elements with prudent laws”'^' only to be ensnared in turn within
his own laws and creation, which is to say that Saturn is the binding knot that unites
the four elements into a quatemity or cross-form [+] within which Saturn himself
forms the uniting center [•>} and thus hanged and tormented. As the midpoint
between the quatemity of the four elements Saturn depends cracified by the material
world: he is the god cmcified within matter or, in the Græco-Roman framework, the
Titan bound in Tartarus. In Chapter Four discussed the traditional connection of
Kronos with the Sea or rather, with the flowing waves of the Sea which mean the
CIRCULATIO or the flow of Time. Here in Parsifal We encounter its resonances again
in the image of the god locked in a cycle of waiting and shedding tears like oceanic
waters. Once again this opera’s imagery may be traced back in unbroken lineage to
the Empedocles and the Pythagoreans and forward fi?om them through gnosticism and
on into alchemy, as Peter Kingsley describes:
Making the element of water—including, by implication, the waters
of the seas—^the tears of a divinity is a striking idea. Its closest
analogy in early Greek literature is with the Pythagorean saying that
the sea is the tears ofîironos’’: an analogy which is made even closer
by the fact that both Kronos and Persephone were subterranean gods
par excellence. Otherwise, an in some respects even more meaningful
parallel to Empedocles’ idea of all water as the tears of Persephone
is provided by the Gnostic image of “all watery substance” (Tt&aa
evuypos ovaia) as the tears shed by Sophia: a parallel which
assumes additional significance when we bear in mind the extensive
resemblances between Empedocles and Gnostic ideas. The Gnostics
had their fall of the soul into an alien and fiightening world, their

"’Thus {Lexicon): Db.=ZENrm, 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); Gutrune, in “heaven” (#3227)- C H=
zenith (#5/25).

‘’°“The Spirit Mercurius,” H274, quoting Michael Maier.

‘”“The Nibelung Myth as a Sketch for a Drama,” p, 302.

438
lived ideal ofthe magician-liberator, their cosmic mixture, separation
and “roots”, and their mythological traditions of oriental origin.'”
As a crucified god, then, Saturn is a quincunx or, as Wagner once called his Wotan,
a quintessence'^^ and thus [Db= 5 xb = <i], Saturn.”^ This is the source of the
torment that Saturn suffers and inflicts on those who, like Anfortas, fall under his
orb. This is why Saturn is depicted as pierced by a sword.'^^ The composer specifies
this image in sublimated form in Siegfried, Act HI, specifying the Saturn (Wotan)-
piercing sword as Siegfiied’s, that is, Sol’s. This too is alchemy-based; “Saturn...
is the ‘other sun,’ the sol niger of alchemy.”*’*
Wagner acculturâtes the abstract case to Germany via the Barbarossa motif
ofthe old man asleep in the Thuringian Mountains with which Wagner concludes his
“Wibelungen” article;'” BARBAROSSA is to SATURN as RHINE is to WORLD RIVER,
a token of a general cultural type (this kind of relationship is what a transformation
schema means). In “The Wibelungen” Wagner specifically associates the Red Kaiser
with the Arthur-motif since, in Germanic culture, Barbarossa functions like Arthur
as a “once and futiire king.” Jimg and von Franz describes the figure thus:
... these ideas [ofthe old conceptions of the sleeping Kronos-Satum]
are connected . .. with that of an anticipated earthly golden age or
kingdom... this content is expressed by the Germans in the motif of
the “old man asleep in the mountains,” which has been applied to
Barbarossa (in Switzerland to William Tell) and to many other
heroes. As Marin Ninck has shown, this is really nothing less than the
figure of Wotan, which survives in these legends of emperors and

'’^AncientPhilosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition,^. 355.

'“That is, “the quintessence of this constant motion [of day to night, summer to winter, life
to death]” (“The Wibelungen”, p. 275.)

'“I discuss this in detail in “The Genealogy of Chaos: Multiple Coherence in Wagnerian
Music Drama,” pgs. 86-9.

'“C. Q. Jung, “The Visions of Zosimos,” f 110.

/
'^Aion, H307.

'“Wagner likewise projected Barbarossa significance onto his patron King Ludwig H, for
instance, in confessing that “I must needs seek my only conçanion [e.g., Ludwig] on lofty mountain
peaks where no one can find him save he who was ever destined to do so!” (Letter to King Ludwig II
ofBavaria, Hohenschwangau, Bayreuth, February 9,1879, in Selected Letters ofRichard Wagner, p.
887.)
 439
empires. It is Wotan who is waiting to reappear in this world meaning
that the shadow aspect of the suffering Grail King is connected with
a dark heathen god-image that has not been taken into account by the
prevailing attitudes of consciousness.'^*
Wagner reverts to the sleeping god who periodically awakens in his response to the
news of the anticipated 1870 bombardment ofParis—a quote that gives substance to
Fricka’s “Wotan, Gemahl, erwachel" {Das Rheingold, scene ii): “Yesterday R. said,
with regard to the hymns our soldiers sing after their battles: ‘If someone were to ask
me whether there is a God, I should reply: “Can you not hear him? At this moment
in which thousands of human beings are singing to him, God is alive, he is there. To
imagine him as someone watching and calling things good or bad is foolish; he exists
in and of himself, but at certain moments in the life of nations or individuals, he is
there, he awakes.’”'” As Parisians were about like poor Amfortas to discover, the
awakening of Wotan/Satum portends serious trouble, prefigured in his construction
of Walhall in a dream, predestined to go up in flame. It is thus proper to speak of
Capricorn as the sign of the Ragnarök and Db as its key. Similarly Capricorn’s
connection with the world-consuming conflagration is ancient; thus “Berôssôs is
reported by Seneca to have learned firom the old books of Sargon that the world
would be destroyed by a great conflagration when all the planets met in this sign,”'“
and other ancient authorities connected the sign with the “burhing south wind
Auster.”'*' Again apropos the D b Major Wotan in particular, “Capricorn holds in
itself the seed of death and finaity—^the death which takes place finally and
eventually in Pisces... When crys-taUisation has reached a certain degree of density
and so-called ‘hardness’, it is easily shafted und destroyed and man, bom in
Capricorn, then brings about his own destraction.”'®

'^The Grail Legend, pgs. 196-7. Reference is to Martin Ninck, Wodan und germanischer
Schikalsglaube, Jena, 1935, pgs. 133-5.

'^Diaries, I, p. 293, November 8,1870.

'^Star Names, p.l36.

'‘'¡bid.

'^Esoteric Astrology, p. 158. Conçare Wagner to August Röckel, January 25, 1854: “We
must learn to die, and to die in the fullest sense of the word. The fear of the end is the source of all
lovelessness, and this fear is generated only when love itself begins to wane.”
440
In both Wolfram and Wagner then the etiology of Amfortas’ malady impli
cates a state of darkness contained within the “Sight-of-God” that contradicts the
God-image’s overt luminescence. Wagner’s God-image sleeps and wakes like an
opening and closing eye. The image occurs as early as the frrst scene of Das
Rheingold in the “person” ofthe Gold itself described by its guardians as an “Alp von
des Goldés Auge” and thus as a living element), transmutes itself into the one-eyed
Wotan, and ultimately into the waking and sleeping Grail. A cyclic element therefore
clings to this Image wherever it wanders along its predestined course. This element
is Kronos, Time, Saturn, hi the Ring much is made of Wotan’s need to separate
himself from Siegfried (=Sol) and, inParsifal, Act m, a similar process of separation
reaches a crisis in the death of Titurel, which the King Amfortas describes as the
release of an entombed spirit to act as purifrer in the highest heaven.

Parsifal’s other TL lexemes continue to develop core metaphors begun in the

Ring by newer inflections to the old semantic meanings, as follows:

Eb MAJOR As Ak is the Grail, so its dominant Ek is that which issues

from the Grail, or the power of the Grail. This power manifests itself in the “people
of the Grail” or the company of the blessed, whose most characteristic appearance is
that of the CRUSADER.'“ Thus Ek is the key of valiant crusading, e.g., when
Amfortas fares forth to do battle with wizards or when the Esquires mockingly enjoin

Kundry to continue Amfortas’ struggle.

E h Minor. The tonic minor of the CRUSADER is his shadow, the SINNER. E b
Minor is invoked wherever a crusader faces the temptation of sin or succumbs to it.
There are many examples, e.g., the Act I chorus singing to Amfortas about ek

sinners.
C minor. Where ek is the sinner, c is the punishment or torment of sin. It is
the wound, or the act ofwounding, or the threat of a wound. Since this wounding key
is geomantically located at the tritone from [Gk=SPEAR] then this wounding only
occurs when the Spear has been removed to the opposite side of the Circle of Fifths
and to the minor mode. Again, where Ak is the ChaUce C minor is associated with
its Blood, as in “Des Weihgefásses göttlicher Gehalt erglüht mit leuchtender

A good example is Act I, bars 51 lj(f

 441
Gewalt.” Here again, the minor key semantically ties two Major keys together, e.g.,
[Eb.=WATER, liquid, blood] and [Q=UQHT]: C minor is used to denote holy blood
glowing softly.

C MAJOR, 'ill Parsifal lexical depictions oí knowledge are constructed upon

the prior [C=LIGHT] that Wagner had painstakingly constructed throughout the Ring.
The usage is straightforward: C begins as light ofRhinegold, sword, Siegfiied; light
awakening ofRhinegold or Brünnhilde), thence as idea (Wotan’s Grosse Gedanken)
wisdom (the Wanderer). Such equivalences are common psychological clichés that
power discourses ofbenighted heathens and bright young lads. inParsifal [C=LIGHT]
appears as Parsifal’s “schönen Thiereii sitzend kamen glänzende Männer” (Act I),
indicating the passing knights’ brilliantly shining armor, or the bright light glowing
from the top of the Grail sanctuary (“Ein Lichtstrahl senkt sich auf das heilige
Werk”). In the Ring C Major often appears briefly tò tonalize transitory requests for
information or knowledge. Since Parsifal is substantially about knowledge it is not
surprising that this usage continues. For instance, Kundry’s entrance in C Major may
be understood in such terms, since to the Grail knights Kundry is all about telling
them things (“Ha! Kundry dort? Die bringt wohl wicht’ge Rundel"). Again, Wagner
articulates the mercurial serpent-woman’s constant wavering between light and
darkness by such devices as her iimnediate collapse from C Major into B minor.
Again this is lexically standard: Wagner had been employing C and B minor as
“light” and “darkness” respectively since Das Rheingold.
A minor. In addition to lexicalizing knowledge C Major also depicts the
agents ofknowledge, namely, messengers. Since most ofthe messengers in this story
bear evil tidings their persons and performances are named in C.vi. In particular,
Kundry as Grail Messenger is lexicahzed here.

G MAJOR. Wagner carries the lexical meaning G MAJOR IS MOTHER

wholesale from the Ring to Parsifal. Thus if G IS SIEGLINDE there tíien G IS
HERZELEEDE here. This is why Kundry selects the D:iv as the key of choice for
seducing virginal young mama’s boys. Her key choice provides the thematic bond
between her snakeskin touch and Herzeleide since her style of seduction, which
depends on arousing maternal incest wishes in her victims, is traceable back to the
myths of Isis, the murderer and healer of Osiris: “for when the son sleeps with the
442
mother, she kills him with the strbke of a viper (yiperino conatu). This viciousness
recalls the murderous role of Isis, who laid the ‘noble worm’ in the path of the
heavenlyFather.Ra. Isis, however,is also thehealer,for shenot only cured Raofthe
poisoning but put together the dismembered Osiris.”’« Elsewhere (e.g.. Act m) G
Major geomantically locates the NADIR, the world of error, delusion, and
foigetfulness through which Parsifal must wander on his way to the mount of

salvation, located just 180° upward at the Db ZENITH.

G Minor. As in the Ring G:i signifies abject sprawling and every form of
physical qr moral lowness. This is again keyed to G=NADIR. It also sigmfies the
impotent desire to escape from lowness and ascend toward D k Major.
E minor. Again, as m Tristan and the Ring, G:vi signifies disease and
debiUty, as in Abfortas’ Act I aria. That it is a crucial semantic entry is suggested by
the incorporation of this key. along with Ab and C minor, in the paradigmatic Grail
motif that opens the Act 1 Vorspiel. Included in Wagner’s notion of illness is tíie
darkening and wildering of consciousness, as Amfortas struggles in his pam-
maddened delirium to understand what has happened to him and whence his help is
going to come. E minor is thus Amfortas’ darker version of Parsifal’s Act ffl

wandering in darkness and error.

D MAJOR. As in the Ring, the Hero in the “conqueror” sense of Herakles.

Apollo, or Siegfiied. In the “Wibelungen” essay Wagner links this figure (and D
Majorj'with the Sun-God and his opponent (B minor) with the “Dragon of ur-chaotic
Night.” The Græco-Roman zodiacal equivalent is Leo, the Lion, whose fighter-hero
association was retained throughout the mediæval period as well. In both the Ring
and Parisfal D Major thus retains its historical Bach-like meaning of a D Major
Christ triumphant who harrows hell. Compared with its use in the Ring, however, D
Major heroism is much de-emphasized in Parsifal, its major ‘lieroic” use bemg
restricted to the D Major flourishes of triumph that attend Parsifal’s return of the
Sacred Spear to the Grail. Thus where Siegfiied forges a weapon in D, Parsifal
returns a weapon-like fetish in D. The key also serves the Good Friday music, on the
theory that the key of the Redeemer is the key of the redeemed world. Wagner’s
imagery in this scene recall the “Uon lying down with the lamb” iconography of the

'^Mysterium coniunctionis, ^14.

 443

which likewise conserves theD MAJORIS LION image but turns thepredator as it were
vegetarian in the manner of the ‘Tawny Scrawny Lion.”'“ This usage shows a do
mestication of the martial hero-type and his subordination to the higher task of
redemption ofthe human community articulated in its tritone-opposite A b Major, the
Grail key. To get what Wagner was driving at in his tonal metaphysics we may
usefully template a “Body of Christ” concept onto his Circle-of-Fifths mappa mundi
to Christianize the tonal-Platonic dodecahedron “ideal human form,” by noting that
astrologically Leo-D Major has always been associated with the HEART while its
opposite Aquarius-A b Major has always been associated with the BLOOD. D Major
is thus the engine that drives (modulates) the life-giving A b BLOOD OF THE REDEEM
ER through the world.
D minor. As in the Ring, D minor is related either to D Major ©:i) or F
Major (F;vi). In both cases the key cascades down onto Amfortas, who is D minor
in a double sense. As a “fallen hero” he is a failed D Major (D MAJOR IS HERO) and
as a seduced man he is a fallen F Major (via F MAJOR IS DESIRE).

A MAJOR. As in Lohengrin and the Ring, this key retains its peculiar
coimection with purity and virgini^. In Parsifal these images are aligned with
healing and A Major marks the moment when Amfortas’ wound closes. Healing and
health are thus coequal with purification and purity and thus to A MAJOR IS PURITY
we may add A MAJOR IS HEALING. Thus, e.g., “Gesegnet sei dein Leiden, das
Mitleid’s höchste Kraft, imd reinsten Wissens Macht dem zagen Thoren gab!”
A Minor. As intheÄmg, [a(A;i)=virginity threatened], e.g., Kundry’s allergic
reaction to Amfortas’ E Major-soaked gratitude for her balsam (“Nicht Dank!”). The
fact that the king is surreptitiously slipping Venus into his lexical deck here certainly
helps explain the violence of her lexical sneeze.

'"It doesn’t seem right, but this demotion of D Major fiom swotd-swinging superman to
enand boy and spear-bearer for a cup is unmarked by any conçaiable Puff the Magic Dragonish
trivialization of arch-nemesis B minor, which stays as spry, serpentine, and scorpion-like as ever.
Similar asymmetry with respect to the roles ofGood am] Evil shows,up in Bram Stoker’s Dracula and
myriad Hollywood vanqrire, zombie, and exorcism ripoffs, in which monsters are for some reason
issued tourists visas to physically prowl tbrou^ Transylvania or London while Jesus is held at the
border by Immigration. As Wagner no doubt appreciated, the Devil is much more at home on the
planet that gnosticism assures us He created. Hum is God, Which gnosticism assures us he didn’t. Or
maybe ghouls are just better blockbuster draws.
444
F ft minor. Just as A Major is purity and healing, so by the straightrforward
this-is-like-that metaphoric strategy that we have seen all along, its relative minor
Fit is impurity and self-castration, as in Klingsor’s “Ungebändigten Sehnes Pein,
schrecklichster Triebe Höllendrang, den ich zum Todesschweigen mir zwang, lacht
und höhnt er mm laut durch dich, des Teufel’s Braut?” As A Major is the Virgin-key
the relative minor the witchy key, and this particular usage appears at the moment
when Kundiy momentarily gets the psychological upper hand over her B minor
master per the default domination-syntax, F minor=biV. Thus Klingsor’ s impurity
is semantically A:vi and not Fi:i- This contrasts for instance with F(t minor
semantics 'mDie Walküre, Act H, in which the F|1 minor Heavenly Messenger is
semantically Fi^:i not A:vi.

G h MAJOR.^ This key is the angels who descend from heaven bearing the
Grail (Act I, bars SlSff). Modally adjusted (Mu-b) to correspond to their exalted
station, these Gb. angels recapitulate the Ring’s [^=HEAVENLY MESSENGER]
(Waltraute, Brünnhilde, Loge) who tread the pathway to and from the “outer limits
of the musical world”. In all such usages the geomantic property [Gb.=threshold of
heaven] applies. Thus [Gb=holiness1. a condition to be contrasted with the corollary
[b(Gk:iv)=damnation]. The key likewise signifies the Spear itself once it has been
recovered; thus this key visualizes the astrological symbol (í ?, Sagittarius),which
falls on the zodiac precisely where G b falls on the Circle of Fifths.
Fft Minor. This can appear when Kundry wears her messenger hat.
Otherwise, the tonic minor casts doubt on [Gi=holiness], as when Kundry claims
kinship with the holy Cb. beasts only to be doubted by the Esquire.'“

E MAJOR. The noticeable reticence of E Major in Parsifal undoubtedly

accrues to its Venus-associations which, as in Tristan but for the opposite reason,
semantically marginalize the key. Its most beautiful signatured appearance, in Act I,
denotes the sacred swan flying uloft, seeking its mate. This is the only context in
which “mating” is iqjparently allowed to be flaunted in this opera of chastity. Other
appearances are keyed to memories of Kundry’s sexual intercourse with Amfortas,

'"Bars 383-91: the use of Gb:I-i to contradict a claim of [Gb.=holy] appears at the little
exchange. Kundry: “Sind die Thieie hier nicht heüig?” Esquire: Ja, doch ob heilig du, das wissen wir
grad’ noch nicht.”
 445
for instance, the beautiful interactions between [Ei= CRUSADER] and [El=LOVE
GODDESS] commencing with “ein furchtbar schönes Weib” (Act I), in which
Amfortas’ crusading Ei falls to [e¿= SIN], is dissolved into Kundry’s [E1=SEX]
only to be reconstituted (spat out) as the unrecognizable Such usages help
explain the highly ornamented and thus difficult to detect E Major that accompanies
Amfortas’ acceptance of Kundty’s balsam (“Den Balsam nun versuch’ ich noch; Jer
sei aus Dank für deine Treue,” bars 357-9): [E=Goddess ?] indexes the subliminal
memory of their previous intimacy.
E Major also partakes of topographical associations, left over fixim the Ring:
in both Act I and Act m it appears briefly to denote the beginning of Parsifal’s
upward climb to the Db zenith ând it’s Ab Chalice. From the cartographical
discussions in Chapter Six the mappa mundi logic of this will be evident.
EMinor (E:i). This lexeme participates in the composite lexical depiction of
illness by adding the specifically Cytherean element: E minor is the painful (wound
ing) memory of E Major sexual intercourse. This is particularly evident in the E
minor of Amfortas’ Act I aria.

B b MAJOR. Again, the dominating influence that this Household enjoyed

in the Ring by virtue ofits Nibelung associations has decidedly waned here, although
its core semantics still retain fBb=Martial prowess, hostility]. It lexicalizes Parsifal’s
Act I spitting of the E Major sacred swan with his martial (cf) arrow, a typical if
extreme employment of the semantics of the 180° opposition; B b o-o E (“Down
Eros, up Mars!”) here simply means “swan gets plugged.” Contrarily, when Parsifal
breaks his bow, he also breaks the key of B b, which never recovers.

V. Epilogue: The Social Significance of Lexical Tonality

I hope that I have demonstrated the truth of my central argument, which is
that Wagner’s tonality is lexical fi-om beginning to end, and that the logic of its
•structure is entirely, or almost entirely, intelligible in syntactical-semantical terms.
Nor is my argument an arid piece of abstract intellectual virtuosity. For Wagner had

'”Thisisgranmiaticallyaccoinplishedbytheeb,:bn chord(bar422,“furchtbar”),tonicizing
the chord with its own accessories (e¿: bn= ^;I, viio7, viix7,1...) then detonicizing it again by
giving those accessories back to eb. (1= bII, viio7 ...), vdnch has meantime suffered the sexual sea-
change back to a major key that now has wears the enharmonic “Scarlet Letter” (E¿ = enh. Dll').
446
highly significant things to say by means of his tonal discourse—socially significant
claims for instance concerning the future of Judaism in what he took to be the
universal scheme of things. Without wishing to commit the error of anachronism by
joining the faction that clàims Wagner as a contributor to aNazi movement that only
emerged half a century after the composer committed his major thesis to score, I
think t^e comparison between Wagner and Hitler does serve to make an intentionally
limited methodological point. Imagine that Hitler had written Mein Kampf noi in
German but in some arcane occult language not immediately intelligible to people
but capable'of being translated by normal linguistic assumptions. Now further
imagine that ílitler had repeatedly warned us that “if you want to understand me,
look upon me no otherwise than as I am, and in my communications on politics
regard as essential precisely what, in accordance with my general aim and as far as
lies within my powers of exposition, has been put forth in them by myself,” and
further told us exactly according to what principles he had written Mein Kampf,
enjoining us "never to forget that I treat form exclusively as a function of content.”
Finally, imagine “Hitler theorists” dismissing his claims with hilarity and imposing
their own ad hoc structuralist assumptions upon the work, the logic of which
discounted the very possibility that the work had been written to convey semantic
information. But this is no different fl-om the way Wagner has been treated, and we
can only thânk heaven that Wagner was a composer and not a politician.
Thus consider that outside my theoretical fiumewoik—which is, again,
nothing more than Wagner’s own theoretical fi-amework developed with the
harmonic rigor and cultural reach that the composer’s claims require—^nothing of
these insights into Wagner’s comprehensive antisemitic content would be even
expressible, let alone intelligible. All is based on recognition that Wagner’s tonality
constitutes the language that the composer always claimed it was and that it obeys the
default rules ofcommon practice tonal syntax combined with public cultural property
TL lexicon and default TL metaphoric core metaphor entailment-construction.
Nothing whatever changes in these practices between Das Rheingold's first note and
Parsifal’s final chord. Only the surface sonorities increase in complexity and this
precisely because the composer’s syntactical rules have remained in the same state
of simplicity and clarity that he planned in Opera and Drama. Because of this, if one
does not believe in the lexical tonality it will be logically difficult to believe in the
antisemitism that I allege here.
 447
I have engaged alternate theories with the directness and thoroughness that
I have largely on the basis of these considerations. Current Wagner tìieory—^the Four
Theories of the Ragnarök and their constantly mutating ilk—act as so many speed
bumps on the road to understanding both the glorious heights and the harrowing
depths ofthis remarkable man’s true artistic and cultural achievements. The fact that
Wagner used his lexical tonality to say the often pernicious things that he did in no
way subtracts from the brilliance of his theory or the incomparable eloquence of his
TL discourse. I confess that the adrmttedly inadequate linear translations I have
offered in my book only scratch the surface of this eloquence, and it is to be hoped
that my project of understanding Wagner strictly in the terms which the composer
himself set forth, will eventually become the prevailing musicological paradigm.
 APPENDIX la:
Linear Tabulation of Tonai Lexemes in Das Rheingold

Vorspeil und erste Scene: n. E minor [232-331]

In der Tiefe des Rheines 20. [e=a goblin] (‘Alberich klettert mit
koboldartiger Behehendigkeit’,
I. EbMaJor [1-231] 232fi)
la. [E b =q^ATURE, ORIGIN, WATER, 21. [e“woman-chasing] (firom 18)
DREAM (PSYCHE)] (Pre-curtain, 1- 22. [b=physical distress]>(‘Feuchtes
136) Nass füllt mir die Nase’,-239)
lb. [Eb=RHiNE] (‘An Tiefe des 23. [“a curse] (‘verfluchtes Niessen!’,
Rheines,’1-136) 242)
2. [Eb=RHINE DAUGHTERS] (Wolg. 24. [e“repulsiveness] (‘Pruhstend habt
Etc., 131) meines Freiers Pracht! ’
3. [Ab=swinnning] (‘schwimmend’ [magnificence, ironic], 245)
etc., 137) 25. [D“the briefness of a soaring
4. [f=guardmg (as gold), greed, vision?] (in^lied fiom ‘Schwer
desire] (‘Wogl. wacht’st du ward mir, was soleicht du er
allein?’, 145) schwingst,’ (254) and below. No.
5. [c=sleeping,dimming] (‘Goldes 26)
SchlaT,158) 26. [G=[a'fair young girl or lad?]
6. [B b=threat] (‘besser (‘Hiea, du Holder!’, 265)
bewacht...sonst biisst ihr beiden’. 27. [d=woman’s worth devalued] (‘Viel
162) schöner bist du als jene Scheue’,
7. [B b “separation] (‘...fahren ihr 279)
beiden ausenander...’, 166) 28. [Lex.;e“disparaged appearance]
8. [B b=ALBERICH] (166ff) (‘die minder gleisend>und gar zu
9. [g=ALBERlCH lowered, below] glatt,’ 281)
C..einemRlfI..’, 182) 29. [g=Alberich devalued] (‘Pfui! Du
10. [g=Nibelheim’s darkness] haaringel:, höckriger Geck!’ 306)
(‘Nibelheim’s Nacht’, 188)12. 30. [C“?air-likeness] (‘sonst fliess’ ich
11. [f=guarding, holding] (‘hütet das dir fort!’,317)
Gold’, 197) 31. [b'b“(bad) Fisch] (‘Kalter, grätiger
12. [f=Rhine Father] (“Vater warnte’. Fisch!’, 323)
198) 32. [c“eel] (‘so buhle mit Aalen’, 328)
13. [f=watching] (‘Stör’ ich cu’r Spiel,
wenn staunend ich still hier steh’?’. m. Eb Major [332-473]
205) 33. [D b “heaven ?] (F’s voice, 333)
14. [c=spoüsport, dimming of levity] 34. [G b “Standing at the threshold of
(‘mit eunch tollte und neckte’, heaven?] (‘süssen Trost schüfe die
209) Traute dir!, 342)
15. [Cb=*woe; sexual desire] (‘Wie 35. Lex:Bb b(A)=Deceit?]
scheint in Schimmer...’ + woe 36. [gb “heaven’s doorway closes?]
motif, 214) (‘Mir zagt, zuckt und zehrt sich das
16. [e b “Rhine Daughters diminished. Herz’, ironic, 375).
cause of woe] (per No. 15) 37. [D b “heaven?] (‘lacht mir so
17. [B b “dirty old man] (‘Der lüsterne zierliches Lob.’, 377).
Kauz’, 224) 38. [bb “Alberich, ironically praised]
18. [B b=enemy] (‘der Feind’, 223) (‘Seligster Mann!’, 387)
19. [B b “Alberich] (‘die neight sich 39. [e b “cruel nixie] (‘Deinen
herab’, 227) stechenden Blick,’ ironic, 394)
450
40. [B b “Alberich handsome (ironic)]
(‘deinen struppigen Bart, o säh’ ich,
fasst’ ich ihn stets!’, 393)
41. [Cb (chord level)=baseness] (‘Lacht
irh Bösen mich aus?’, 406)
42. rCb=treason] (‘an Ende vom Lied’,
409)
43. v[bb=^lberich devastated] (‘Wehe!
^ehel 0 Schmerz! O Schmerz!’,
412)
44. [e b'flraitorous nixies] (‘Die dritte
so traut, betrog sie mich auch?’,
416)
45. [Eb=RÄinc Daughters triunçhant]
(‘Weiala!’ etc.) 426)
46. pjb “Alberich enraged and chasing]
(passim.)
IV. D Major [474-94]
47. [g=Alberich brought low] (‘Er
strauchelt, stürzt in den Abgnmd’,
480)
V. E b Major [495-509]
48. [g=Alberich lowly] (‘streckt die
geballte Faust nach den Mädchen
hinauf, 506)
VI. C Major [510-646]
49. [C=UGHT]) (‘ein zauberisch
goldenes Licht’, 510)
50. [C=eye] (‘Goldenglanz’, ‘letz
küsst sie sein Auge’, 510)
51. [Oawakening] (‘Die Weckerin
lacht in den Grund’, 522)
52. [C=Star] (‘fliesst sein strahlender
Stern’, 534)
53. [C=^oy] (‘Wache Freund, wache
froh!’, 552)
54. [a=unknown light] (‘Was ist’s ihr
Glatten, das dort so glänzt und
gleisst?’, 572)
55. [F=EARTH?] (‘Wo bist duRauher
deen heim dass vom Rheingold
nicht du gehürt?’, 546)
56. [d,“golden eye] (‘Nicht weiss der
Alp von des Goldes Auge’, 579]
57. [e=a bauble, trihkçt] (‘Euren
Taucher spiele nur taugte das Gold?
Mir gält’ er dann wenig!’, 595)
58. [E=golá-magic] (‘Des Goldes
Schmuck’; 598)
59. [c=renunciation, loss (here of love)]
(‘Nur were den Mitme Macht
entsagt’, 621)
60. [B b “master of the magic] (‘nur
erzielt sich den Zauber’, 626)
61. [e“TÍng-magic] (‘den Zauber’, 627)
62. [G=Alberich trivialized] (‘der
lüsterne Alp’, 636)
63. [e=Sulphur] (‘Ein Schwefelbrand in
der Wogen Schwall’, 643)
vn. E Major [647-58]
64. [E=a beautiful appearance, beauty]
(‘Lieblichster Albe! Lach’st du
nicht auch? In des Goldes Scheine
wie leuchest du schön,’ 649)
vm. C Major [659-75]
65. [e=ring-magic] (‘Der Welt Erbe
gewänn’ ich zu eigen durch dich?’,
671)
66. [b b “Alberich ascendant]
(‘Alberichgelang mit einem letzten
Satze zur Spitze’, 692)
67. [c“extinguished light] (‘Das Licht
lösch ich euch aus’, 698)
68. [e=avenging ring] (‘schmiede den
rächenden Ring’, 703)
69. [c“darkness] (‘Dichte Nacht’, 709)
70. [e“ring] (753 et passim.)
71ab. [C=lightening] (‘welches als eine
immer heiler dämmernde
Beleuchtung dahinter tritt’, 756
passim.)
[Sem.:Eb-»Ab(765-72) -»Db
(773ff)“ ascending from the Rhine
to die mountain top]
Zweite Scene: Freie Gegend auf
Bergeshöhen
IX. Db Major [773-832]
72. [D b “MOUNTAIN TOP, Walhall,
kingship, rulership, authority]
(‘Eine Burg mit blinkenden Zinnen,
die auf einem Felsgipfel im Hinter
gründe steht’, 773)
73. [bb “goddess’s anxiety] (‘Fricka
erschrocken’, 794)
74. [Ab“honor, renown] (‘Ehre,
Macht, Ruhm’, 802)
75. [bb=false pride, god’s] (‘Ttaüme

wonnigem Trug’, 804)
76. [Db'=life’s work] (‘Vollendet das
ewige Werk!’, 813)
77. [Gb=summit, entrance to Walhall]
(‘AufBerges GipfeT, 814)
78. [B b=ptide] ('Prächtig prahlt der
prangende Bau’, 817)
79ab. [F/f=will, motivatiitg power] (‘Wie
im Traum ich ihn trug, wie mein
WUle ihn wies’, 819)
79c. [D b “Walhall] Óstark und schön’,
823)
X. C Major [833-69]
80a. [bb=Walhall’s shadow] (‘Nur
Wonne schañi dir’, 832)
80b. [F=wages] (’, was mich
erschreckt?’, 833)
80c. [d=Freia threatened] (‘mir bang is
um Freia!’, 834)
,81. [a=Loge’s bad bargain] (‘verfallen
das Pfand; veigassest du, was du
vergab’st?’, 838)
82. [*F(chord lcvel)=giants] (‘die dort
die Burg mir gebaut’, 841)
83. [d=Giants subordinated] (‘durch
Vertrag zähmt ich ihr trotzig
Gezücht’, 842)
84. [A=bad bargain] (‘um den Sold
sorge dich nicht,’ 848)
85. [b=sacrilege; lovelessness] (‘0
lachend frevelnder Leichtsinn,
liebeloseseter Frohmuth’, 849)
86. [e=womenfoIk, excluded]
(‘entferntet ihr Männer die
Frauen’, 855)
87. [d=Freia demeaned] (‘Freia mein
holdes Geschwister’, 859)
88. [D=(womanly) worthiness] (‘Was
ist euch Harten doch heilig und
werth’, 861)
XI. F Major [870-918]'
89. [F=desire, ‘wandering eye’] (‘Um
des Gatten Treue besorgt...’, 869)
90. [F=life experiences] (‘Wandel und
Wechsel liebt wer lebt,’ 897)
91. [d=womanly worth demeaned]
(‘Liebe und Weibes Worth’, 906)
92. [E=wooing, winning a wife] (‘Um
dich zum Weib zu gewinnen, mein
eines Auge setzt’ ich werbend
451
daran,’ 908)
93. [d=Freia the good] (‘imd Freia die
gute’, 916)
94. [a=bad bargain renounced, double
treachery] (‘nie sann dies ernstlich
mein Sinn’, 918)'
xn. E minor [919-988]
95. [e “repulsion] (‘in schutzloser
Angst läuft sie nach Hülfe dort
her.’ 925)
96. [F=Fasolt] (‘Vom Felsen drüben
drohte mir Fasolt’, 934)
97. [d=Fasolt wooing] (‘mich Holde
käm er zu holen’, 936)
98. [A=Loge] (‘Sah’st du nicht Loge?’,
940)
99. [D=fleely wielded prowess,
heroism] (‘Wo freier Muth
frommt’, 949)
lOOab. [b/f)t “enemy’s spite] (‘Feindes
Neid’, 953)
101. [A=Loge] l'me Loge’, 956; ‘Der
zum Vertrage ftiir rieth’, 959)
102. [D“Freia] (‘Freia zu lösen’, 961)
103. [e=repulsive wooing] (‘Wo harren
meine Brüder’, 972)
xm. F Major [989-1029]
104. [F“Th e g ia n t s ] (‘Fasolt und
Fafrier...treten auf, 989)
105. [a=tirelessness. Giants’]
(‘Mächt’ger Müh müde nie, stauten
starke Stein’ wir auf, 1003)
106. [B b'=Walhall] (‘Dort stehfs was
wir stemmten’, 1008)
107. [D=Daylight, sunlight, sun]
(‘schimmernd hell bescheinf s der
Tag.’ 1010)
108. [F=Giants] (‘uns zahl’ den Lohn!’,
1013)
109. [C=lmowledge] (‘Nennt Leute, den
Lohn; was dünkt euch zu
bedingen?’ (1016)
110. [A“Loge’s bad bargain]
(‘Bedungep ist was taughlich uns
dünkt’, 1018)
111. [B b=hostility] (‘iSeid ihr bei Trost
mit eurem Vertrag?’, 1027)
112. [g=Wotan lowers himself] (‘Denkt
auf andren Dank:’, 1028)
113. [d“Freia, object of barter] (‘Freia
452
ist mir nicht feil!’, 1029)
XIV. F minor [1030-80]
114. [fKîiants, crossed and
dumbfi’ounded] (’Fasolt steht, in
höchster Bestürzung, eine Weile
sprachlos’, 1030)
115. [bb=villainy](‘Wassagstdu?Ha!
Sinns’t du Verrath?’ 1035)
116. [A=Loge’s bad bargain] (‘Verrath
i am Vertrag? Die dein Speer birgt,
sind sie dir Spiel, (íes berathnen
Punde,s* Runen?’ (1037)
117. [taught] (‘Lichtsohn du’, 1046)
118. [^=Foun(lation (of Wotan’s
power), conçromised] (‘Was du
bist, bist du ninr durch Verträge’,
1052) ^
120. pb=audiority] (‘bedungen ist,
wohl bedacht deine Macht’, 1055)
121. [db=tyranny or coercion] (‘bandest
uns Freie zum Frieden du’, 1060)
122. [F=Giants] (‘all’ deinem Wissen
fluch’ ich’, 1061)
123. [g=4iostility, opposition, strife]
(‘fliehe weit deinen Frieden’, 1064)
124. [Eb=Foundation (of Wotan’s
power), natural] (‘weisst du nicht
offen, etolich und frei Verträgen zu
wahren die Treu’, 1066).
125. [MJiants (stupid)] (‘Ein dummer
Riese’, 1071)
126. ‘|^C=slyness, intelligence,
brightness] (‘Wie schlau filr Emst
du achtest,’ 1077)
XV. F Major [1080-98]
127. [d=liteia] (‘Die liebliche Göttin’,
1080)
128. [D=Freia (as brightness)] (‘licht
und leicht’, 1081)
129. [F=Giants] (‘was taugt euch
Tölpeln irh Reiz?’, 1082)
130. [d=radiänt beauty] (‘Die ihr durch
Schönheit herrschf’, 1084)
131. [d=desire, foolish] (wie thörig
strebt ilÿ, 1089) _
132. [D=woll^’s value] (‘...Weibes
Wonne’, 1094)
133. [F=Giants] (‘Wir Plurrçen’, 1095)
XVI. D Major [1099-1267]
134. [D=Freia (“Giants’ trophy wife)]
(‘Ein Weib zu gewimien’, 1099)
135. [b=hidden purpose] (‘Freia’s Haft
hilft wenig’, 1112)
136. [D=golden apples] (‘Gold’ne
AepfeT, 10Í6)
137. [e b=end of the gods] (‘siech und
Ueichdoch sinkt ihre BlOtfae’,
1124)
138. [A=ravishment, abduction] (‘Ihrer
Mitte drum sei sie entführt!’,
1130)
139. [A(chord level)=Loge] (‘Loge
[D:V] säumt zulang’!, 1234)
140. [F=Qiants determined] (‘Kein
andrer Freia (d=F:6) allein!’,
1236)
141. [d=Freia in peril] (Fafirer und
Fasolt dringen auf Freia, 1239)
142. [D=FROH, heroic flourish] (Froh,
Freia in seine Arme fessend, Í243)
143. [b=^direat] (‘Was soll das Droh’n?’,
1256)
144. [A=Loge’s bad bargain] (‘Kartçf
ides’ten wir nicht, verlangen nur
unsem Lohn’, 1258)
145. [e=Donner’s ‘new bargain’ (ironic)]
(‘Kommt her des Lohnes Last wäg’
ich noit gutem Gewicht’, 1265)
XVn. A minor [1268-88]
146ab. [a/Bb=Loge’s bargain (reluctrmtly
recognized)] (‘Verträge schütz
meines Speeres Schaft’, 1273)
147. [A=Loge’s bargain (reconfirmed)]
(‘Spar’ dines Hammers Heft!’,
1278)
148. [d=Freia (wilting)] (‘Wehe! Wehe!
Wotan verlässt rrrich!’, 1281)
XVra. A Major [1289-1325]
149. [b“enemy] (‘grausartwr Matm?’,
1287)
150. [A“Loge] (‘Endlich Loge! ’, 1293)
151. [F)l=Fire (deceit)] (‘Eiltest du so,
den du gescholssen, den schlimmen
Handel zuschlichten?’, 1297)
152. [c )l “Walhall, unmemorable]
(‘Wie? Welchen Handel hätt’ ich
geschlosen?’, 1303)
153. [C(t(=D b)= Wotan ’s (not ‘Loge's’)
bargain] (‘Wohl was mit den

Riesen dort im Ratfae du dang’st?’,
1308)
154. [A=Loge (his inclinations)] ( ‘In
Tiefe und Höhen treibt mich mein
Hang’, 1313)
155. [F=desire] (‘Donner und Froh, die
denken an Dach und Fach, wollen
sie frein’, 1321)
XK. Db Major [1326-1341]
156. [Db =Walhall, ruletship, kingship]
(‘Ein stolzer Saal, ein starkes
Schloss, danachstand Wotans
Wunsch’, 1326)
XX. A Major [1342-1418]
157. [F)t=incessent activity] (‘Nich
mUssig war ich’, 1348)
158. [b=enemy, betrayal] (‘Arglistig
weich’st du mir aus, mich zu...’,
1351)
159. [f)t=Loge threatene4 deceit]
(‘...betrügen hüte in Treuen dich
wohl!’ 1356)
160. [g=lowest God, outsider] (‘Von
allen Göttern dein einz’ger Freund’,
1359)
161. [d=Loge’s enemies (ref. Freia’s
clan)] (‘nahm ich dich auf in der
übel traiiei)den Tross’, 1363).
162. [a==Loge’s bad bargain] (‘Da einst
die Baher der Burg zum Dank Freia
bedangen, du weisst, nicht anders
wiUigt’ ich ein, als weil auf Bflicht
du gelobtest zo lösen das hehre
Pfend?’, 1374)
163. [G |t = Freia unredeemable] (‘Doch,
dass ich ánde was nie sich fügt,
was nie gelingt’, ^1382)
164. [ftl=Loge at a loss and demeaned]
(‘wie liesß’ sich das wohl
geloben?’, 1394)
165ab. [c)t/ftt=Loge demeaned/ Wotan
made a fool] (‘Sieh, welch’
trugvollem Schelm du getraut!’
‘Loge heisst du....’ etc.j 1398)
166abc. [A/E/c)t=Loge’s art (his value
reañitmed), owned by Wotan] (‘In
Frieden lasst mir den Freund! Nicht
kennt ihr Loge’s Kunst!’, 1408)
453
XXI. À minor [1419-1442]
167. [C=Giañts infortunate (dominant)]
(‘Nicht gezögert! Rasch gezahlt!’,
1419)
168. [d=Freia (Giants’payment)] (‘Lang
währt’s mit dem liolm!’, 1420)
169. [A=Loge] (‘Wo schweiftest du hin
und her?’, 1425)
170. [Eb=storming] (’durch stöbert im
Sturm’, 1430)
171. [E=üie ends of the earth] (‘alle
Winkel der Welt’, 1431)
172. [a=Loge’s bargain] (‘Ersatz für
Freia zu suchen, wie den Riesen
wohl Kfht’, 1432)
173. [c=Lookiiig in vain] (‘Umsonst
sucht’ ich’, 1437)
174. [Eb=Earlh’s circumference] (‘in
der Welten Ring’, 1439)
175. [F=Giants] (inflied by ‘dem
Mann’, 1442)
XXn. D Major [1443-1511]
176. [D=woman’s delight and worth]
(‘Weibes Wonne imd Werth’,
1443)
177. [b=eneniy of women] (‘Nur einen
sah ich, der sagte der Liebe ab’,
1478)
178. [E=magic gold stolen] (‘Des
Rheines klare Kinder klagten mir
ihre Noái’, 1486)
179. [b=enemy of wonKn] (‘Der
Nibelung, Nacht Alberich’, 1490)
180. [A=vain wooing] (‘buhlte
vergebens um der Badenden
Gunst’, 1492)
181. [b=vengeance] (‘da raubte sich
rächend der Dieb’, 1495)
182. [f|t-»c )t=highest value, heaven]
(‘dünkt ihm nun das theuerste
Gut/hehrer als Weibes Huld’, 1497)
183. [c|}=Wotan (object of pleading)]
ÒUm den gleissenden Tand’, 1504)
184. [A=a-thiefl (’an dich, Wotan,
wenden sie sich, dass zu Recht du
zögest den Räuber’, 1508)
XXm. C Major [1512-46]
185. [C>UGHT (inflied)] ‘das Gold dem
Wasser vdeder gebest imd ewig es
bliebe ihr eigen,’ 1512)
454
186. [b=Loge’s promise] (‘Dir’s zu
melden gelobt’ ich den Mädchen’,
1523)
187. [Eb(chotdlevel)=Rhine Daughters]
(inçl. by terminus of Loge motif
1526).
188. [A(=D:V)=Loge] ‘Nun lös’te Loge
sein Wort’, 1527)
189. [e k=Rhine Daughters (l®ft “
lurch)] (‘Thörig hist du, wenn nicht
gar tücÙich! Mich selbst siehst du
in Nodi’, (1530)
190. [e=magical gold] (‘Nicht gönn’ ich
das Gold dem Alben’, 1535)
191. [8=Alberich’s bad blood] (‘viel
Noth schon schuf uns der Niblung’,
1536)
192. [d=CHants threatened] (‘Neue
Neidthat sinnt uns der Niblung’,
1541)
193. Lex:d=Oiants inçotent] (‘doch
schlau entschlQpfie nnsetm Zwange
immer der Zwerg’, 1539)
194. [[a=Giant conqueror] (‘giebt das
Gold ihm Macht’, 1541)
195. [C(chord level)=eidightenmBnt]
(‘Du da, Loge! Sa|’ ohne Lug’,
1545)
XXIV. B minor [1547-64]
196. [b=malicious power] (‘was Grosses
gilt denn to Gold’, 1547)
197. [E“&ivolous magic] (‘Ein Tand
ist’s’, 1551)
198. [e=seriou3 magic] (‘doch ward es
zum runden Reife geschmiedet’,
1556)
XXV. È Major [1565-1603]
199. [B=hidden power of Ring]
(‘Beuterunen berge sein roüier
Glanz’, 1565)
200. [E=power of ornamental
attractivenesl] (‘Tangte wohl des
gold’nen Tandes gleisscnd
Geschmeid auch Frauen zu
schönem Schmuck?’, 1573)
201. [c#=dominatrix] (‘Des Gatten
Treu’ ertrotzte die Frau’, 1577)
202. [E=magical jewelry] (‘trüge sie
hold den hellen Scluiñick’, 1579)
203. [c tl “female tyranny over the male]
(‘den scbimrtiemd Zwerge
schmieden rührig im Zwange des
Reifs’, 1581)
204. [E=feminine cajoling] (‘Gewämie
mein Gatte sich wohl das Gold?’,
1585)
205. [B=magic fascination (of the Ring)]
(1590fif)
206. [b=miagic fascination (of toe Ring)]
(‘Wotan in einem Zustande
wachsender Bezauberugn’, 1592)
207. [f)l=desire to (dominate) Ring]
(‘Des Reifes zu walten...’, 1595)
208. [fÿ “Loge’s information as skill to
(dominate) Ring] (‘Doch wie Loge,
lernt’ ich die Kirnst?’, 1600)
XXVI. B minor [1604-90]
209. [e=tune of magic] (‘Ein
Runenzauber zwingt das Gold zum
Reif, 605)
210. [C=Knowledge; c=ngnorance]
(‘keiner kennt üm’, 1608)
211. [c=renunciation] (‘doch einer übt
ihn leichf, 1609)
212. [b b (chord Ièvel)=Alberich] (e.g.,
‘einer...der sel’ger Lieb’ entsagt’,
1610)
213. [d=inq>otence, heroism undòne]
(‘zu spät auchkäm’st du’, 1614)
214. [a=dominator of a, failed hero]
(‘Zaglos gewann er des 2^uber’s
Macte’, 1617)
215. [d=tmdohe heroes] (‘Zwang uns
allen schüfe der Zwerg’, 1624)
216. [g=Alberich (an unworthy
antagonist)] (‘wOrd’ ihm der Reif
nicht entrissen’, 1627)
217. [A=Loge’s Art (ironic)]
CSpottleicht, olme Kunst, wie im
Kinderspiel!’, 1634).
218. [f=dominate Alberich
(bb=Rheingold toief)] (‘Durch
Raub! Was ein Dieb stahl, das
stielhl’st du dem^ieb’, 1639]
219. [Db=Wotan’s possession] (‘ward
leichter ein Eigen erlangt?’, 1642)
220. ts^Alberich (lowly)] (passim,
1645)
221. [b=dark weapons] (‘Doch mit arger
Wehr wahrt sich Alberich’, 1645)
222. [f)l=shrewdness, cunning] (‘khig

und fein musst du verfahien’, 1648)
223. [b=enemy] (‘zieh’st den Räuber du
zu Recht’, 1649)
224. [=D:’Rhine
Daugbteis’(ironic)/Freia?] (um des
Rheines Töcfatem...flehen sie dich’,
1652) and ‘Des Rheines Töchter?
Was taught mir der Rath?’, 1659)
225. [D/d=debate over Freia’s worth]
(‘Glaub’ mir, merfa als Freia
frommt das gleissende Gold’, 1672)
XXVn. F Major [1691-1788]
226. [B b ^opposition] passim., inferred
from what Fafiier is about to say)
227. [F=Giants advantaged] (‘Hör,
Wotan, der Hanenden Wort!’,
1692)
228. [d=Freia] (‘Freia bleib’ euch in
Frieden’, 1695)
229. [E b=Rhine Daughters (e.g., true
owners of the Ring?)] (‘Seid ihr bei
Sinn?’, 1702)
230. [g=AJberich (e.g., true owner of the
Ring?)] (‘Was nicht ich besitze, soll
ich euch Schamlosen schenken?’,
1704)
231. [d/F=Giants’ ingtotence contrasted
to their dominance] (‘leicht wird
dir’s mit list’ger Gewalt (was im
Neidspiel nie uns gelang); den
Niblungen fest zu feh’n’, 1707)
232. [C b (chord level)=opposition to
Giants] (‘Für eüch müht’ ich mich,,
um den Alben?’, 1712)
233. [a=Freia seized] (‘ergreift piötzhch
Freia’, 1718)
234. [F=Giants giving orders] (‘Bis
Abend, achtet’s wohl!’, 1726)
235. [d=Freia] (‘Freia verfallen’, 1738)
236. [fNjiants tum ugly] (‘für immer
folge sie uns!’, 1741)
237. [f=Riesenheim] (‘Wohl an
Riesenheim’s Mark’, 1776)
238. [Db(key level)=pawned to the
Giants] (‘Was sinnt nun Wotan so
wUd?’ 1782)
XXVm, E minor [1789-1930]
239. [b=datk mists] (‘Trüg mich ein
Nebel?’, 1791)
240. [E=appearance (of Gods)] (‘neckt
455
mich ein Traum?’, 1792)
241. [a^^tiness (of Gods)] (‘Wie bang
imd bleich....’, 1794)
242. [d=bloodles8ness(ofGods)]
(‘...verblüth ihr so bald!’ 1795)
243. [e=sickliness] (‘der Blick eures
Auges verblitzt’, 1800)
244. [F=T>hysical healfti (ironic)]
(‘Frisch, mein Froh!’, 1803)
245. [d=failing heroism] (‘Deiner Hand,
Donner, ersinkt ja der Hammer! ’
1806)
246. [g=deepening weakness] (passim.,
1807)
247. [e b »sickening Goddess] (‘was ist’s
mitFricka?’, 1809)
248. [d|t»sickening God] (‘fi:eut sie sich
wenig ob Wotan’s grämlichem
Grau’, 1811)
249. [E/e»q;>pearance of age] (‘dass
schier zum Greisen ihn schafft?’,
1812)
250. [e=sickness] (‘Wehe! Wehe!’,
1815)
251. [a=sinking] (Mir sinkt die Hand! ’,
1819)
252. [d=heart (ailing)] (‘Mir stockt das
Herz!’, 1821)
253. [G=lost apples] (‘Jetzt fand’ ich’s!
hört, was euch fehlt! Von Freia’s
Frucht genösset ihr heute noch
nicht’, 1826).
254. [Ab=Captivity (ofFreia)]‘Des
Gärtens Pflegerin ist nun
verpfändet’, 1839)
255. 'Ta=Loge] (‘Mich kümmert’s
minder; an mir ja kargte Freia von
je knausernd die köstliche Fmcht’,
1847)
256. [b b »balf-dark spirit] (‘denn halb so
ächt nur bin ich wie, Selige, ihr!’
1852)
257. [d:Freia] (‘Doch ihr setztet alles auf
das jügende Obst’, 1856)
258. [g=enemy] (‘auf euer Leben legten
sie’s [die Riesen] an: nun sorgt, wie
ihr das wahrt!’ (1858)
259. [G»*\tiftiout apples] (passim,
1860)
260. [b b »deprivation of youth] (‘Ohne
dieAepfel’, 1861)
261. [db=Walhall(ruined)](‘altund
456
grau, greis und grämlich’, 1863)
262. [a b =dying gods] (‘welkend zum
Spott aller Welt’, 1865)
263. [g=dead gods] (‘erstirbt der Götter
Stamm’, 1868)
264. [g=Nibelheim] (‘Auf, Loge! hinab
mit mir! NachNibelheim’, 1883)
265. [c=Rhine Daughters] (‘gewinnen
wiU ich das Gold’, 1887)
266. [f=Rhine Daughters’ plea] (‘Die
Rheintöchter riefen dich an’, 1888)
267. p b =Wotan as Judge] (‘so dürfen
Erhörung sie hoffen?’, 1890)
268. [A=Loge] (‘Schweige Schwätzer!’,
1892)
269. [E=Freia’s &eedom] (‘Freia die
Gute, Freja gilt es zu lösen’, 1892)
270. [A=Loge] (‘Wie du befiehlst’,
1894) \ 291.
271. [F=Giants’ route (through the
Rhine)] (‘stell hinab’, 1896)
272. [e=magic ring] (‘erjag’ ich erlösen
des Gold’, 1910)
273. [A=Loge] (passim, 1928-30)
XXDL Bb Major [1931-1944]
274. [Bb=Nibelheim] (passim.)
Dritte Scene. Nihelbeim.
XXX. Bb minor [1947-2139]
275. [b b ^NIBELHEIM] (‘Dritte Scene.
Nibelheim’, 2008)
276. [F=anvil, smithing, work] (‘zur
Stund’ das feine Geschmeid!’,
2020)
277. [F=a work, artifact] (‘Her das
Geschmeid!’, 2037)
278. [fb=Tamhelm] (‘Schau, du
Schelm! Alles geschmiedet und
fertig gefügt’, 2048)
279. [G b =deceit] (‘So wollte der Tropf
schlau mich betrügen?’, 2052)
280. [C=knowing, knowledge] (‘Kenn’
ich dich dummer Dieb?’, 2060)
281. [b=night and darkness] (‘Der Haupt
fügt sich de;.Helm: ob sich der
Zauber auih zeigt? “Nacht und
Nebel, Niemand gleich!’’’, 2065)
282. [b b=Alberich (tyrant)] (‘So fühle
iinchjloch’, 2080)
283. [g=Alberich invisible] (‘Ho-ho!
Ho-ho! Nibelungen all’, neigt euch
nun Alberich!’, 2096)
284. [B b =Alberich (triunçhant)]
285. [ebH^ibelung Lord] (‘der
Nibelungen Herr!’, 2119)
XXXI. Bb Major [2140-2328]
286. [a=Loge] (‘Wotan und Loge lassen
sich aus einer Schlufi von oben
herab’, 2140)
287. [g=Nibelheim] (‘NibeUieimhier’,
2145)
288. [f=smithies, forging] ‘Durch
bleiche Nebel was blitzen dort
feurige Funken?’, 2145)
289. [a=Loge] (‘Hei, Mime!’ etc., 2155).
290. [e=helpless-hopeless] (‘Wir hülfe
mir!’, 2162)
[g=Mime subservient] (‘dem
leiblichen Bruder, der mich in
Bande gelegt’, 2166)
292. [fi=work, labour] (‘Mit arger List
schuf sich Alberich’, 2174)
293. [g=Nibelung host
(subservient)](‘der Nibelungen
nächtges Heer’, 2190; and 293a:
“Sorglose Schmiede, schufen wir
snst wohl Schmuck unsero
Weibern, wonnig Geschmeid’,
2195)
294. [c=cleft,abyss] (‘in Klüfte zu
schlüppen’, 2211)
295. [b b=Nibelung (wicked and
greedy)] (‘Durch des Ringes Gold
erräh seine Gier’, 2217)
296. [d=pile of gold] (‘dem Heem zu
häufen den Hort’, 2232)
297. [g=Mime’s most wretched
bondage] (‘Mich Ärmsten! Ach!
Mich zwanget zum Ärgsten’, 2244)
298. [c=dark, unthought-out insight]
(‘für mich drum hüten wollt’ ich
den Helm’, 2259)
299. [a=dark, unthought-out insight]
(‘vielleicht den Lästigen selbst’,
2264)
300. [e=magic ring] (‘den Ring ihm zu
entreissen’, 2269)
301. [G=Mime (as he wants to be)]
(‘Freien er selber dan ftöhn! ’,
2273)
302. [e=magic] (‘den Zauber, der ihm

entzückt’, 2283)
303. [b b =Alberich (as master of magic)]
(‘der lehrte mich mjn doch leider zu
spät welche List läg' in dem
Helm...’, 2295)
304. [B b=Alberich, master of Mime
[=g]] (‘doch Schwielen dem
Blinden schlug unscliaubar sein
Arm., .das schuf ich mir Dumnœn
schSn zu Dank!’, 2301)
305. [B b =enemy] (‘Doch ä-liegt der
Feind’ 2317)
306. [B b “Nibelungen] (‘der Niblungen
Volk!’, 2328)
XXXn. B b minor [2329-2417]
307. [f=Alberich’s foes] (‘Nehmt euch in
Acht’, 2324)
308. [bb=Alberich] (‘Alberich naht’,
2325)
309. [G b “meeting-place (between Gods
and Nibelungs] (‘Sein’ harren wir
hier’, 2328)
310. [b b “Alberich] (‘Alberich...treibt
mit geschungener Geissei aus der
unteren’, 2332)
311. [Cb“dark enemy] (‘He! Wer ist
dort?’, 2353)
312. [g=Mime] (‘Schwatzest du gar nüt
dem schweifen den Paar?’, 2357).
313. [bb “Alberich (giving orders)]
(‘Fort, du Fauler!’, 2359)
314. [F=the Lord of the Ring] (‘Zitt’re
und zage, gezähmtes Heer! Rasch
gehorscht des Ringes Herrn!’,
2388).
XXXin. A minor [2418-40]
315. [a=Loge, deceit] (‘Von Nibelheim’s
nächt’gem Land vernahmen wir
neue Mär’, 2419)
316. [B=Alberich’s guests (“cnerrties)]
(‘daran uns zu weiden trieb uns
Gäste die Gier’, 2426^
317. [F)t=Loge-fire] (‘...und wärmende
Lohe, wenn Loge irie dir gelacht?’,
2435)
318. [a=Loge] (‘Dir bin ich Vetter, und
war dir Freund: nicht fein drum
dünkt mich dein Dank!’, 2438)
319. [F=Light-elves] (‘Den Lichtalben
lacht jetzt’, 2441)
457
320. [e b “öiend ofNibelung foes] ( ‘Bist
du Falscher ihr Freund’, 2443)
321. :[a“Loge’s lies] (‘Deiner Untren
trau’ ich, nicht deiner Treu’!’,
2448)
XXXIV. A Major [2451-2535]
322. [A=Loge (Alberich’s enemy)]
(‘Doch getrost trotz’ich euch
Allen!’, 2450-1)
323. [D(chord level)=Hoard, Gold]
^Siehst du den Hort?’, 2460)
324. [c)t »joyless Nibelheim] (‘da
fieudlos nibelheim, und nichts für
Schätze hier feü?’, 2483)
325. [c ^.“Walhall (‘shadow’)] (‘Schätze
zu schaffen, und Schätze zu bergen
nützt mir Nibelheim’s Nacht’,
2490)
326. [A=cunning plan], (‘die ganze Welt
gewirm’ ich mit ihin mir zu eigen!’,
2507)
327. [f)l“a cunning plan described]
(‘Wie beginnst du. Gütiger, das?’
2515)
328. [E=vam'toj, luxuriousness, courtly
love] (‘Die in linder Lüfte Weh’n
da oben ihr lebt, lacht, und liebt’,
2522)
329. [D=golden fist] (‘mit gold’ner
Faust’, 2532)
330. [g=Nibelung captor] (‘euch
Göttliche fang’ ich mir alle!’, 2534)
XXXV. C inlnor [2536-71]
331. [g=Nil5elung renouncer of love]
(‘Wie ich der Liebe’, 2542)
332. [c=reirunciation oflove]
(^abgtòagf, 2546)'
333. [Agreed, desire](‘Mit Golde
gekiirt, nach'Gold, nur sollt ihr
noch gieren!’ 2559)
XXXVI. D b Major [2572-2613]
334. [D b“Gods, WalhaU] (‘Auf
wonnigen Höh’n’, 2571)
335. [db=Gods’ underlings](‘den
Schwatzalben’, 2578)
336. fA b=Gods’ revelling] (‘ewigen
Schwelger!’, 2580)
337. [db“Walhall threatened] (‘Habt
Acht!’, 2583)
458
338. [bl>=Alberich (tìbie Ûiteat)] (‘sie
zwingt zur Lust sich der Zwerg’,
2590)
XXXVn. A Major [2614-2822]
339. [b=Alberich’s work] (‘Wen doch
fasste nicht Wunder, erfahrter
^erich’s Werk?’, 2619)
340. [r^=niagnificent cunning] (‘deiner
herrlichen List’, 2628)
341. [D^çightiest man] (‘den
Mächtigsten muss ich dich tühnen’,
2634) \
342. [Ftt=stara] (‘Stem”, 2634)
343. [B b iNibelnng host] (‘der
Niblungen Òeer’, 2654)
344. [f=Lord of thè Nibelungs](‘Einen
Reif röhrtest dirWhn’, 2660).
345. [db=Gods(e.g.,ffl^nanent thieves
of the Ring)] (‘wie rrahrtest du
Weiser dich dann?’, 2676)
346. [C=wisdom] (‘dass sein’ ich
bedOrfte zu Rath und Dienst, um
harten Dank...’, 2688)
347. [a=Loge] (‘...das hörte der Dieb
jetzt gern!’, 2692)
348. [e=Tamhe!m] (‘Den hehlenden
Helm’, 2695)
349. [bb=AIberich] (‘Niemand sieht
mich, weiin er mich sijcht’, 2606)
350. [g=Alberich (small)] (‘So ohne
Sorge bin ich....’)
351. [a=Loge] (‘geborgen dem
BlicI^...vor dir’, 2628-2634)
352. [D=mightiestmantiiunçhing]
(passim, fpllows from No. 341)
353. [Bb=(wonderful) Alberich]
(‘Vieles sah ich’, 2640)
354. [a=Loge] (‘doch solches Wunder
gewahrt’ ich nie’," 2644)
355. [f)t=deceit] (‘Mein’st du, ich lüg
und prahle wie Loge?’, 2656)
356. [gtì=a deceptive shape] (‘nur mach’
vor Staunen mich stumm!’, 2667)
357. [e=Tamhelm] (passim 2668)
358. [gtt=serpent] (‘eine ungeheure
Ries^ehlange’, 2677)
359. [g=AIberich (inside serpent)]
(“Loge stellt sich von Furcht
ergriffen’, 2684)
360. [E=magic] C‘He-he! Ihr Klugen!
Glaubt ihr mir nun?’, 2692)
361. [a=Loge] (‘Mein Zitter’, 2695)
362. [A“Loge] (‘willig glaub’ ich dem
Wunder’, 2704)
363. [b=small creature] (‘kannst du auch
wimiig und klein dih schaffen?’,
2726)
364. [ctl=a toad] (‘wo bang die Kröte
sich birgt’, 2753)
365. [e=magic] (passim., 2759)
366. [g#=a toad] (‘eine Kröte auf sich zu
kreichen, 2763)
367. [A=Loge trmnçhant] (‘Den
Geknebelten,’ 2785)
368. [F=hammers and anvils, labouring]
(passim., 2811)
Vierte Scene. Freie Gegend auf
Bergeshöhen.
XXXVra. C Major [2823-2956]
369. [Ovista point, view] (‘Luge,
Liebster, dort liegt die Welt’, 2897)
370. [A=Loge] (‘ScMndlicher
Schächer!’, 2907)
371. [d=fetters] (‘In Banden liegst du
vor mir’, 2919)
372. [g=Nibelung helpless but
threatening] (‘Soll Rache dir
frommen’, 2928)
373. [D=Gold] (Er zeigt ihm, mit den
Fingern schnalzend, die Art der
Lösung an’, 2937)
374. [g=Alberich helpless] (‘So heischt
was ihr begehrt!’, 2939)
375. [e=magic ring] (‘Doch behalt’ ich
mir nur den Ring’, 2994)
XXXDCBb minor [2957-3027]
376. [b b=Albbrich giving orders]
(‘Alberich berOhrt den Ring’, 2957)
377. [F=Lord of the Ring] (‘Er küsst
seiner Ring’, 2957 etc)
XL. A minor [3028-3153]
378. [a=Loge] (‘nun lass’ mich zieh’n’,
3028)
379. [e=Tamhelm] (‘und das Helm
geschmeid’, 3030)
380. [a=Loge] (‘Verfluchter Dieb!’,
3034)
381. [e=Tamhelm] (‘Der den alten mir
schuf, schafft einen andern’, 3037)
 459
382. [ctt=God-foes] (‘Schlinnnzwar mäcdgsten Herrn’, 3137)
ist’s dem schlauen Feind zu lassen,’ 406. [F Jt “delusions of grandeur] (cont.
3040) 3138)
383. [G=Elf] (‘ hörst du, Alp?’, 3049) 407. [e=illness, sickness?] (‘fiei fahre
384. [Eb=R^ lost] (‘Der Ring?’, 3050) dahin!’, 3152)
385. [e b=Ring lost indeed] (‘musst du
ihn lassen’, 3051) XXXX. B minor [3153-3244]
386. IE=magic Ring] (‘Das Leben, doch 408. [b=curse] (‘Bin ich nun frei?’,
nicht den Ring!’, 3052) 3153)
387. [c=Rhine Daughters] (‘Dein Eigen 409. [fjl“delusion] (‘Wirklich frei?’,
nennst du den Ring?’, 3060) 3156)
388. [E b :Rhine] and, 410. [e=magic ring] (‘Wie durch Fluch
389. [Bb Rhine thief (Nibelung)] er mir gerieth, verflucht sei dieser
(‘Nüchtern sag’, wem entnahmst du Ring!’, 3162)
das Gold’, 3065) 411. [c)t=carewom Wotan] (‘Wer ihn
390. [C=light (of Rhinegold)] (‘Bei des besitzt, den sehre die Sorge...’,
Rheines Töchtern’, 3073) 3175)
391. [a=shanœfiil trickery] 412. [a=envious Loge] (‘...und wer ihn
(‘Schnâbliche Tücke!’, 3078) nicht hat den.’, 3180)
392. [Bb=Nibelimg maligned] (‘Wirfst 413. [e=magic ring] (‘...nage der..’,
du Schächer lUe Schuld mir vor’, 3181)
3081) 414. [f|f “delusional desire?] (‘Jeder
393. [e=magic ring] (‘Wie gern raubtest giere nach seiem Gut, doch
du selbst dem Rheine das Gold’, keiner....’, 3182)
3085) 415. [d=loss of value/guarding in vain]
394. [B b (chord level)=defeated (‘...geniesse mit Nutzen sein! Ohne
Nibelung] (‘der Niblung, ich’, Wucher hüt’ ihn sein Herr,’ 3184)
3093) 416. [f=deadly guardianship] (‘doch den
395. [d=work, result of labour] (‘dess Würger ?ieh’ er ihm zu! ’ 3188)
Werk’, 3097) 417. [Db“Fear-consumed Wotan (f:VI)
396. [a=the tricksters] (‘..so sie fröhlich (‘Dem Tode verfallen fessle den
dir taugen...’, 3105) Feigen die Furcht’, 3190)
397. [bb=Nibelung’s wretchedness] 418. [g=a trembling, wasting
(‘dir frommen mein Fluch?’ 3105) coward](‘so lang’ er lebt sterb’ er
398. [a=ultimate crime] (‘doch an Allem lechzend dáhin’; 3194)
was war, ist und wird, frevelst. 419. [b=LordoftheRing(Cuised)](‘des
Ewiger du entreissest du frech mir Ringes Herr als des Ringes
den Ring!’, 3112) Knecht!’, 3196)
399. [F=Lord of the Ring] (‘Her den 420. [b b “Albejfich’s hand] (‘Bis in
Ring!’, 3119) meiner Hand den geraubten weider
400. [a=thief) (‘Er ergreift Alberich’, ich halte!’, 3199)
3123) 421. [C=growing light] (‘Der dichte
401. [e=magic ring] (‘..Gewalt den Nebelduft...klärt sieh albnählicb
Ring’, 3123-4) auf, 3225 passim)
402. [g=Alberich (stricken)] (‘Ha!’, 422. [b=Alberich’s curse] (‘Lauschtest
3128) du seinem Liebesgruss?’ 3240)
403. [bb “Alberich (crushed)]
(‘Zertrümmert!’, 3130) XXXXI.C Major [3245-97]
404. [F(bb;V)=Alberich’s Lord, Lord of 423. [C=brightening light] (‘Es wird
die Ring] (‘Nun balt’ich, was mich immer heller’, 3245)
eAebt’, 3035) 424. [G=approach of Freia] (‘Freia
405. [D=Mighty Lord] (‘der Mächtigen führen sie her’, 3258)
460
425. [C=tìdmgs] (‘Bring’st du gute
Kunde?’, 3270)
426. [Q=approach of Freia] (‘Aus der
Riesen Haft naht dort die Holde’,
3272)
427. [Oelement Air] (‘Wie liebliche
Luft wieder uns weht, wonnig
Geftthl die Sinne erfüllt!’, 3275)
428^ [C=exuberant delight of youth]
(‘juÉelnde Lust’, 3284)
429. [d=Freia] (‘Lieblichste Schwester’,
3290)
430. [a=sweetest delight] (‘süsseste
Lust!’, 3291)
431. [c=Sfeniale helplessness] (‘Halt!
Nichè'sieberiÛirt!’, 3295)
XXXXn. C Minòr [3298-3486]
432. [c=boundaHes of Giant-Land] (‘Auf
Riesenheim^ragende Mark’,
3300)
433. [f=giants (stem but trustworthy)]
(‘mit treuem Mufti des Vertrages
Pfand pflegten wir,’ 3305)
434. [Eb=Nature] (‘So sehr tnich’s reut,
zurück doch bring’ ich’s’, 3308)
435. [d=Freia] (‘Das Weib zu nrissen,
wisse, gemuthet mich weh’,’ 3320)
436. [ft=Fasolt sorrowing] (‘soll aus dem
Sinn sie mir schwMden,’ 3324)
437. [c=renunciation of wonKn] (‘die
Blähende ganz er verdeck’!’, 3330)
438. [E b=a pole, poles] (‘Gepflanzt sind
die Pfähle’, 3347)
439. [g=mienials (Gods as)] (‘gehäuft
nun füll es den Hort’, ‘EUt mit dem
Werk: widerlich ist mir’s’, 3350)
440. [c=Freia’s shame] (‘Freia’s
Schmach’, ^354)
441. [ft=Fafiiet gloating] (‘Nicht so
liecht’, 3367)
442. [D b=Wotan humiliated by Giants
(chord level)] (‘Tief in der Brust
breent mir (fie Sctìnach!’, 3379)
443. [b b=Fricka’s anxieties proved true]
(‘um Erlösung fleht stumm der
leidende Blick. Böser Mann!’,
3384) / '
444. [f=Faflér greerfy] (‘Noch mehr!,
. 3390)
445. [g=too much humiliation] (‘Kaum
halt’ ich mich’, 3392)
446. [E b =Foundation (of power)]
(‘Friede doch!’, 3401)
447. [D=Freia (beautiful hair)] (‘Noch
schimmert mir Holda’s Haar’,
3409)
448. [g=Tamhehn] (‘Wie? Auch den
Helm?’, 3413)
449. [D b “Gods’ fulfill their promise]
(‘So sind wer denn fertig!’, 3416)
450. [bb “discontent] (‘Seid ihr
zuftieden?’ ‘Freia, die Schöne
schau’ ich nicht mehr’, 3418)
451. [c=renounced object](‘Er tritt nahe
hinzu und späht durch den Hort’,
3425)
452. [Db“goddess-glance] (passim,
3429)
453. [bb“Woe of loss] (‘Weh! Noch
blitzt ihr Blick zu mir her’, 3432)
454. [E“female &scination] (‘des Auges
Stern strahlt mich noch an; durch
eine Spalte muss ich’s erspäh’n’,
3433).
455. [B b “Nibelung treasure] (‘Ihr denn
nicht, ganz schwand uns der Hort?’,
3442)
456. [g“a last smidgen of booty] (‘den
gebt, die Ritze zu füllen!’, 3449)
457. [Db=Wotan’s justice] (‘Lasst euch
rathen! Den Rheintöchtem gehört
dies Gold; ihnen gibt Wotan es
wieder’, 3447)
458. [B b=Wotan’s injustice] (‘Was
schwatzest du da?’, 3451)
459. [g=Wotan demeaning himself]
(‘ohne Bangen wah’r ich’s für
mich’, 3454)
460. [c“Rhine Daughters complaining]
(‘(fie Klagenden’, 3459)
461. [b b “Alberichlikeness] (‘Dein
Versprechen bindet mich nicht’,
3460)
462. [f=Giants protesting] (‘Doch hier
zur Lösung musst du ihn legen’.
3462)
463. [c“Wotan’s Foundation
(collapsing)] (‘Fordert firech was ihr
wollt, alles gewähr’ ich’, 3465)
464. [ft=Giants fed up] (‘Aus dann ist’s!’,
3469)
465. [Ab“Freia forever lost/gained]
(‘nun folgt uns Freia für immer!’,

3473)
466. [D b ■‘-fiWotan fleeing from Giants]
(‘Lasst mich in Ruh’: den Reif geh
ich nicht!’, 3479)
XXXXra. CK Minor [3487-3556]
467. [c K =Erda’s aspect, her appearance]
(‘Aus der Felskluft zur Seite bricht
ein bläulicher Schein in hervor: in
ihm wird plötzlich Eida sitzbar, die
bis zu halber Leibschöhe aus der
Tiefe aufstei^’, 3487)
468. [D=an inescapable, bidden decay]
(‘Rettunglos dunk'lem Verderben
weih’t dich sein Gewinn’, 3497)
469. [c K :world without end] (‘Wie alles
war weiss ich, wie alles wird... der
ew’gen Welt...’, 3503flQ
470. [fK =fhe future] (‘wie alles sein wird
seh’ ich auch’, 3507)
471. [E=ancestress Erda] (‘Urwala,
Erda, mahnt deinen Muh’, 3512)
472. [E=primal ancestress’ virgin womb]
(‘Drei der Töchter, urerschaffne
gebar mein Schoos,’ 3515)
473. [A=The Noms] (‘sagen dir
nächtlich die Nomen’, 3520)
474. [D=the Twilight of the Gods] (‘Ein
düstrer Tag dämmert den Göttern’,
3535)
475. [c )t “ancestress’ prophecy] (‘Ich
warnte dich’, 3549)
476. [D=fear of the Twilight] (‘Soll ich
sorgen und fürchten, dich muss ich
fiwsen’, 3555)
477. [g=fetters of cowardice] (‘...fassen’,
3557)
XXXXIV. E b Major [3557-3621]
478. [e t=rabid one] (‘Was willst du,
Wüthender?’, 3557)
479. [C b “cursed gold, with a flourish]
(‘Hört, ihr Riesen! Zurück, und
harret! Das Gold wird euch
gegeben’, 3562)
480. [b b “Alberichness, last gasp of]
CDarf ich es hoffen?’, etc., 3568)
481. [F b “embracing Love] (‘Zu mir,
Freia! Du bist befieit’, 3584)
482. [E b “losing the Ring] (‘Ihr Riesen,
nehmt euren Ring!’, 3594)
483. [B b “Ring joins the Nibelung
461
hoard] (‘Er wirft den Ring auf den
Hort’, 3596)
484. [E b “Freia returns (from
A b “captivity)] (‘Sie eilt fieudig
auf die Götter zu, die 'abwechselnd
längere 2Ceit in höchster Freuda
liebkosen’, 3602)
485. [ab “brotherly discord] (‘Halt, du
Gieriger!’, 3616)
XXXXV. B minor [3622-78]
486. [e“gold vs. maiden] (‘Mehr an der
Maid als am Gold, lag dir
verliebtem Geck’, 3622)
487. [b=exchanging (woman for gold)]
(‘mit Müh zum Tausch veimoctü’
ich dich Thoren’, 3624)
488. [d“greedy seizing] (‘theil ich den
Hort, billig behalt’ ich die grösste
Hälfte für mich’,,3626)
à89. [g“being dishonoured]
(‘Schändlicher du! Mir diesen
Scbinçf?’ 3628)
490. [d=money-gmbber] (‘Den Hort
lass’ ihn raffen’, 3631)
491. [e“ring] (‘halte du nur auf den
Ring!’, 3632)
492. [b=ring-battle] (‘Fasolt entreisst
Fafiier den Ring’, 3637)
493. [ffl “a death-blow] (‘Er streckt
Fasolt mit einem Streiche zu
Boden’, 3641)
494. [e“cursed ring] (‘Er steckt den Rin
in den Sack’, 3648)
495. [b“Curse] (‘Furchfear nun erfind*
ich des Fluches Kraft!’ 3653)
496. [gK=cursed Giant] (‘deine Feinde,
sieh!’ 3666)
497. [B“Cnise given to another] (‘Men
sich selbst um das Gold, das du
vergab’st’, 3608)
498. [e=cursed ring] (‘Wie doch Bangen
mich bindet!’ 3671)
499. [a“Wotan’s care] (‘Sorg und Furcht
fesseln den Sinn’, 3674)
XXXXVI. C minor [3679-3702)
500. [c=descent to the abyss] (‘zu ihr
muss ich hinab!’, 3679)
501. [Eb“Walhall, in evening] (‘die des
Gebieters gastlich bergend nun
haart?’, 3687)
 T------------------------------------------------------------ T

462

502. Pj b =unpleasant mists] {‘Schwüles das Gold’, 3879)

OedOnst schwebt in der Luñ,’ 523. [Db=divine glory] (‘in der Götter
3696) neuem Glanze son’t euch selig fort
503. [B b=bleaching clouds] (‘Das an!’, 3884)
bleiche Gewölk sammi’ ich’, 3701) 524. [b b=wish for gold’s return] (‘O
leuchte noch in der Tiefe dein
XXXXVn, Bb Major [3703-43] laut’rerTand!’, 3891)
504. [F=Lord of the Clouds] (‘Donner, 525. [g b=felse, dastardly glory] (‘Falsch
dèr Her, ruft euch zu Heer!’, 3711) und feig ist was dort oben sich
505. [g=hannner] (‘Auf des Hammers fteut!’, 3902)
Schwung’, 3715) 526. [Db “Walhall] (passim.)
506. [b b=ever dark^^ning ftiundercloud]
(‘Donner verschwindet völlig in Ettde Das Rheingold
einer immer finsterer sich bellenden
Gewitterwolke’, 3725)

XXXXVra.Db Major [3744-3929]

507. [Gb=Rainböw(enlry to Walhall)]
(‘Ein Regenbogen-Brücke’, 3746)
508. [Db =WalhaU] (passim)
509. [eb=sunsfet] (‘Abentflich strahlt der
Sonne Auge’, 3781)
510. [G b=»glorious light] (‘in prächtiger
Gluth prangt glänzend die Burg’,
3784) /
511. [Ab“morning shine; a holy day]
(‘In des Morgens Scheme muthig er
schiminemdlag sie herrenlos’,
3789)
512. [ab=spanofafetefuldayK‘Von
Morgen bis Abend’, 3797)
5,13. [f=difficult labour] (‘nicht wonnig
ward sie gewonnen!’ 3801)
514. [c=night] (‘Es naht diç Nacht’,
*3807)
515. [Q=a Great Idea] (‘Wie von einem
grossen Gedanken engriffen’, 3813)
516. lpb=Walhall] (‘In Walhall wohne
mit mir’, 3820)
517. [B b “fight for victory over fear]
(‘weim siegend es lebt’, 3835)
518. [F“master of fear] (‘leg’ es den
Sinn dir dar’; 2828)
519. ,[bb “hungry Fire] (‘Zu leckenden
Lohe mich wieder zu wandeln’,
3847)
520. [A b “lost Rhinegold]
* (‘Rheingbld!’, 3860)
521. [Db=Wotan’sjudginent] (‘Wehre
ihrem Geneck’!’, 3874)
522. [e b=Rhiiie Daughters bereft]
(‘Glänzt nicht ttrehr euch Mädchen
 463

APPENDIX Ib:
Linear Tabulation of Tonal Lexemes in Die Walküre

Erster Aufzug du mir ihn zu?’, 285)

547. [C jt =gazing at heaven] (‘indem er
Vorspiel und erste Scene. den Blick mit wachsender Wärme
auf sie heftet’, 291)
I. D minor [1-261]
527. [d=siEGMUND] (Vorsp. und erste in. D minor [293-364]
Scene) 548. [d=unluclqr man] (‘Einen
528. [d=Siegmund] (‘Wess’ Herd... ich Unseligen labtest du’, 311)
rasten’, 142) 549. [A=Good rest and sweet repose
529. [a=Sieglinde] (‘Sieglinde tritt aus O.e., Sieglinde)] (‘Gerastet hab’ ich
derThflre’, 157) und süss geruht’, 317)
530. [g=exhaustion] (‘Müde liegt er’, 550. [d=Siegmund’s journey] (‘wieter
165) wend’ ich den Schritt’, 321)
531. [F=courage] (‘Muthig dttnkt mich 551. [c=Siegmund’s pursuer] (‘Wer
der Mann’, 177) verfolgt dich, dass du schon
532. [a=nurse, nursing] (‘Sie nimmt flieh’st?’ 324)
schnell ein Trinldiorn’, 185) 552. [Dl> “heaven?] (passim, 335)
533. [F=reËreshment] (‘Labung biet’ ich 553. [c=reversal of fortunes] (dir Frau
dem lechzenden Gaiunen’, 190) doch’, 337)
534. [F=sexual desire] (‘Siegmund 554. [d=Siegmund’sjoiuney] (‘fort
trinkt...an ihren Meinen’, 206-222) wend’ ich Filss und Blick’, 339)
535. [g=weariness] (‘Müden’, 224) 555. [arSieglinde’s side] (‘So bleibe
536. [F^estored courage] (‘erfrischt ist hier!’, that is, beside her, 343)
derMuth’, 226) 556. [C=no reveiSal of fortunes] (‘Nicht
537. [B k=delighted si^t] (‘des Sehens bringst du Unheil dahin, wo Unheil
seliger Lust’, 228) im Hause wohnt!’ 344)
538. [d=Siegmund] (‘mir’, 234) 557. [d=Siegmund remains] (‘Siegmund
539. [F=bodily bedfrt] (‘noch fügen des hehlt zurück’, 353)
Liebes Glieder sich fest’, 250)
540. [a=hero’s shield and spear] (‘Schild — IV. D Major [364-80]
und Speer’, 253) 558. ^ P>=Hearth-fire, Siegmund calm]
*^(‘Er4ehnt sich an den Herd’, 365)
541. [e=broken weapons] (‘doch
zerschellten mir Speer und Schild’,
f 256) Zweite Scene.
542. [a=stonn and stress] (’Gewitter
Brunst brach meinen Leib’, 258) V. C minor [381-475]
543. [Oswiftness of motion] (‘doch 559. [d=alarm] (‘Sieglinde fährt
scneller als ich der Meute, schwand plötzlich auf, 381)
die Müdigkeit mir’, 260) 560. [fr=Hunding’s hprse] (‘der sein Ross
544. [e=darfcening senses] (‘sank auf die aussen zu Stalle führt’, 383)
Lider mir Nacht’, 263) 561. [c=HUNDlNG] (‘Hundjng’, 387)
562. [Ek=Hunding’slook](‘Hunding
n. A Major [262-92] wendet sich mit einem ernst
545. [A=SŒGIJNDE, lady sun] (‘die fragenden Blick an Sieglinde’, 593)
Sonne lacht mir nun neu’, 267) 563. [Ak=female cup-be^er] (‘Du
546. [f)t=mutual drinking, approaching labtest ihn?’ ‘Den Glaumen letz’t
heavenly intimacy] (‘Schmecktest ich ihm; gastlich sorgt’ ich sein!’
‘Dach und Trank dank’ ich ihr’.
464
400)
564. [g=betating] (‘willst du dein Weib
dnim schelten?’, 404)
565. [eb=propriety offered] (‘Heilig ist
mein Herd’, 408)
566. [c=propriety required] (‘heilig sei
dir mein Haus’ 410)
567. [c=Hunding] (motif, 412)
568. [E k “hospitality] (‘Rüst uns
Märniem to Mahl!’, 415)
569. fb k “dragon-glance] (‘Der
gldssende Wurm glänzt auch ihm
aus dem Auge'', 429)
570. [a=conpealed surprise] (‘Er birgt
sein BeTB;emden’, 431)
571. [f=Siegmünd’s fleeing pathway]
(‘Weit her,^traun’ kamst du des
Weg’s’,435K
572. [C“fleeing on foot] (‘ein Ross nicht
ritt’, 435)
573. [bk“wildcountry] (‘Durch Wald
und Wiese, Haide und Hain’, 440)
574. [g=unknown country] (‘nicht kenn’
ich den Weg, den ich kam’, 442)
575. [Bk“Hunding’shouse] (‘Dess’
Dach dich deckt, dess’ Haus dich
hegt’, 446)
576. [c=Hunding] (‘...Hunding heisst der
Wirth’, 448)
577. [C=TheWest]*(‘wendes't von hier
du nach West den Schritt, in Höfen
reich hausen dort Sippen’, 450)
578. [c=Hunding’s Honour] (‘die
Hunding’s Ehre behüten’, 453)
579. [F“Siegmund’s name] (‘wird sein
Name nun mir gnannt’, 437)
580. [a=Sieglinde’s glance]
(‘Sieglinde... hefted i¿ Auge’, 468)
581. [F“intense synçathy] (‘mit
auffallender Theilnahme und
Spannung auf diesen’, 469)
582. [B k“suspicion] (‘Trägs’t du Sorge
mir zu vertrau’n’,471)
583. [g“Sieglinde] (‘der Frau hier’, 472)
584. [d=Siegmund] (‘Gast, wer du bist’,
475)
VI. G minor [476-564]
585. [c“not Friedmund] (‘Friedmund
darf ich nicht heissen’, 482)
586. [B k“Frohwalt] (‘Frohwalt möcht
ich wohl sein’, 484)
587. [g“Wehwalt] (‘doch Wehwalt’,
487)
588. [F=Wolfe] (‘Wolfe, der war mein
Vater’, 490)
589. [d“Siegmund and Sieglinde’s birth]
(‘zu swei kam ich nur Welt’, 491)
590. [Bk“twins, two] (‘eineZwillings
Schwester und ich’, 492)
591. [g“mother] (‘Früh schwanden mir
Mutter und Maid’, 494)
592. [c“little knowing] (‘kaum hab’ ich’,
497)
593. [g=little known mother] (‘je sie
gekannt’, 497)
594. [F“father, warlike and strong]
(‘Wehrlich vmd stark war Wolfe,
der Feinde wuchsen ihm viel’, 499)
595. [C=joumeys fi'om home, hunting]
(‘Zum Jagend zog mit dem Jungen
der Alte’,.501)
596. [c=retuming home from journey]
(‘von Hetze und Hars einst kehrten
wir heim,’ 503)
597. [g=nest, laid low] (‘da lag das
Wollsnest leer’, 504)
598. [d“Siegmund’s house] (‘Zu Schutt
gebrannt der prangende Saal’, 507)
599. [g=mother’s stricken corpse]
(‘erschlagen der Mutter mutbiger
Leib’, 511)
600. [d“vanished sister] (‘verschwunden
in Gluthen der Schwester Spur’,
512)
601. [f=wild boy] (‘lange Jahre lebte der
Junge mit Wolfe im wilden Wald’,
521)
602. [B k “warfare; a pair of wolves]
(‘doch mufhig werte das Wofspaar
sich’, 524)
603. [g=Wölfings, with threatening
inflection] (‘den als Wölfii^
mancher wohl kennt’, 528)
604. [d“Siegmund] (‘Wehwalt der
Wölfing’, 563)
VIL A minor [565-650]
605. [a=dark tidings] (‘Mich dünkt, von
dem wehrlichen Paar vernahm ich,
dunkle Sage’, 565)
606. [*C=brighter tidings] (‘Doch weiter
künde’, 568)
607. [e“tidings of Sieglinde’s &tfaer]

(‘wo wilt dein Veter jutzt?’, 570)
608. [a=storm and stress] (‘stellten die
Neidinge an’, 574)
609. [B b *=foes, slain] (‘der Jäger viele
fielen den Wölfen’, 574)
610. [a=Wolfe, missing and sought]
(‘Doch ward ich vom Vater
versprengt’, 578)
611. [a=fether, lost] (‘den Vater fend ich
nicht’, 585)
612. [C=society, longing for] (‘mich
drängt’ es zu Männern imd Frauen’,
590)
613. [a=society, rejecting] (‘immer doch
war ich geächtet’, 598)
614. [C=the right idea] (‘Was rechtes je
ichrieth’, 601)
615. [B b=*wickedness](‘was schlimm
immer mir schein’, 603)
616. [F==happiness] ‘gehrt’ ich nach
Worme’, 608)
617. [a=woe] (‘weckt’ ich nur Weh’,
610)
618. [g=Wehwalt] (‘drum musst’ich
mich Wehwalt nennen’, 611)
619. [a=palhway, woefiil] (‘des Wehes
waltet ich nur’, 615)
620. [d=Siegmund] (‘Er sieht zu
Sieglinde auf, 616)
Vin. C Minor [621-858]
621. [c=Siegnnmd’s Nom] (‘nicht liebte
dich die Norn’, 625)
622. [c=Hunding] (‘Felge nur ferchten
den der wafferdos einsam fährt’,
632)
623. [C=tidings] (‘Kfinde noch, Gast,
wie du im Kattgrf zuletzt die Waffe
verlor’st?’ 632)
624. [c=sorrowing woman] (‘Ein
trauriges Kind’, 638)
625. [g=force, coercion] (‘Wider den
Zwang ich zum Schutz’, 642)
626. [D=Siegmund, Hero] (‘der Dränger
Tross traf ich im Kampf, 644)
627. [g=sinking low, being laid low]
(‘dem Sieger sank der Feind’i 645)
628. [c=wildly flowing tears, grief] (‘mit
wildem Thränen Flutb’, 654)
629. [e b =storming assaitots] (‘Der
Erschlag’nen Sippen stürmten
daher’, 662)
465
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. C Major [858-996]
649. [e=ing)otence] (‘Siegmund allein.
Es ist vollständig Naeht geworden’,
858)
466

650. [a=T)roniised sword (=ftaudulent verlischt’, 980)

sword)] (‘Ein Schwert’, 874) 673. [e=darkening shadows] (‘nächtiges
651. [f^Wolfing] (‘Ein Schwert verhiess Dunkel deckt mir das Auge’, 982)
mir der Vater’, 880) 674. [c=depths, abyss (of heart)] (‘tief in
652. [e=need] (‘Noth’, 883) des Busens Berge’, 988)
653. [g=prisoner] (‘raste ich hier’, 890)
654. [F=sexual desire] (‘entzückend X, G Major [997-1031]
Bangen, 895) 675. [G=Sieglinde] (‘Siegl. In weissem
655, [g=a seized heart] (‘zehrt mein Gewände’, 997)
Herz’, 897) 676. [e=Sieglinde] (‘Ich bins’, 1002)
656. [a=Sieglinde] (‘Zu der mich nun 677. [C=Sword] (‘Eine Waffe’, 1010)
Sehnsucht zeiht’, 898) 678. [e=an unwooed haggled-for bride]
657. [ç=magic, sweet] (‘die mit süssem (‘zur Hochzeit geladen: er freite ein
Zauber mich sehtt’, 901) Weib das ungefragt Schächer ihm
658. [eb^rofoimd abyss] (‘Wälse!’, schenkten zur Frau’, 1024)
908) V
659. [f=Wäts^] (‘Wälse!’, 909) XI. E Major [1032-62]
660. [c=benserker rage] (‘was wOthend 679. [E=A Stranger] (‘ein Fremder trat
das Herz’, 9^15) da herein’, 1031)
661. [C=GLOW, of-Sword] (‘der 680. [C)t“Stranger’s eye] (‘doch des
auisprUhendenGIuth’, 917) andern Strahl’, 1039)
662. [E=a joyfiil flash] (‘lustig lacht da 681. [f|t “human fear of Stranger]
der Blick’, 929) (‘Angst schuf es allen’, 1042)
663. [G=a blooming maiden] (‘der Blick 682. [G)t “Stranger’s kin] (‘mir allein’.
der blühenden Frau’, 939) 1046)
664. [e=a departed maiden’s sensed 683. [f|t=stranger’s eye] (‘weckte das
presence] (‘den dort haftend sie Auge’, 1048)
hinter sich Hess’, 943) 684. [E=tears and comfort mingled]
665. [g=darkening shadow] (‘Nächtiges (‘Thränen und Trost zugleich’,
Dunkel’,950) 1053)
666. [c=gleam of woman’s eye]
(‘Blickes Strahl’, 954) xn. G Major [1063-1162]
667. [G=wamiäi and day] (‘Wärme 685. [C=sword-in-Ash] (‘in der Esche
gewann ich imd Tagi, 956) Stamm’, 1062)
668. [C=blissful glance] (‘wonniger 686. [e“the ash-stem] (‘der aus dem
Glanz’, 964) Starmn’, 1040)
669a. [b=sinking and darkening (=dealh)] 687. [E=the chosen one] (‘der aus dem
(‘bis hinter Bergen sic sank’, 965) Starmn es zög’, 1070)
669b. [e=love (fading, darkening)] 688. [e=the others (not kin)] (‘Der
(passim, 966) Männer Alle’, 1072)
670. [C=UGHT, last glràm] (‘noch 689. [E=The Stranger recognized
einmal da sie shied’, 971) (“kin)] (‘Da wusst’ ich wer der
671a. [e=love (evening of)] (‘traf mich war’, 1082)
Abends ihr Schein’, 974) 690. ■[D=Hero] (‘O find ich ihn heut’.
671b. [b=darkness (death)] (‘selbst 1105)
det...^ 691. [G“Sieglinde] (‘käm’ er aus
671c. [a=old ñght] (‘selbst der alten Fremden zur ärmsten Frau’, 1106)
Esche Stamm...’, 976) 692. [a“Sieglinde’s bitter pain] (‘was je
671d. [O^UGHt ] (‘...erglänzte in gold’ner ich gelitten’, 1108)
Gluth’, 978) 693. [b=Sieglinde’s shame] (‘Schmach’,
672ab. [e-»a=blanched blossoms] (‘da 1114)
bleicht die Blüthe, das Licht 694. [D=SiegUde’s sweet vengeance]

(‘süsseste Rache’, 1117)
695. [a=Sieglinde’s purity, virginity]
(‘Eijagt hält’ ich was je ich verlor’,
1120)
696. [G^motherhood (speculative)]
(‘war mir gewonnen fänd’ ich den
heiligen Freund’, 1123)
697. [g=motherhood] (‘Dich, selige
Frau’, 1130)
698. [D/G=foreordained Hero] (‘dem
Waffe und Weib he stimmt!’, 1136)
699. [e=Wedding Oath] (der Eid’, 1140)
700. [G=the gloiy of Sieglinde’s beating
heart] (‘halt’ ich dich Hehre
unfangen’, fühl’ ich dein
schlagendes Herz!’, 1159)
Xm. B b Major [1163-1262]
701. [B b =the Spring equinox]
(‘Winterstürme wichen dem
Wonnemond’, 1183)
702. [c=winter and storm] (‘Winter und
Sturm’, 1205)
703. [g=Spring’s martial strokes] (‘wohl
musste den tapfem Streichen’,
1207)
704. [F=desire’s embrace] (‘Zu seiner
Schwester schwang er sich her; die
Liebe lockte den Lenz’, 1215)
705. [e=hidden love] (‘m uns’rem Busen
barg sie sich tief, 1223)
706. [C=UOHT] (‘nun lacht sie selig dem
Licht’, 1229)
707. [c=ruined winter] (‘zertrümmert
liegt was je sie getrermt’, 1234)
708. [Db=zenith of bliss, heaven]
(‘vereint sind Liebe und Lenz’,
1237)
709. [E b =female longing for Spring]
(‘du bist der Lenz nach dem ich
verlangte’, 1246)»
710. [c=fiosty winter-time] (‘in frostigen
Winters Frist’,‘1250)
711. [g=dread of Spring] (‘Dich grflsste
mein Herz nüt heiligem Grau’n’,
1253)
712. [b b =Siegnnmd’s fatal look] (‘als
dein Blick zuerst mir erblüte’,
1259)
713. [db=exile] (‘Fremdes nur sah ich
von je’, 1262)
467
XIV. A Major [1263-81]
714. [fjt“Strangers, not km] (‘freundlos
war mir das Nahe’, 1264)
715. [c tt =far off unknown things] (‘als
hätt’ ich nie es gekaimt’, 1266)
716. [E=love (kin)] (‘Doch dich kannt
ich deut lieh und klar’, 1270)
717. [A=Sieglinde’s secret heart] (‘warst
du mein Eigen; was im Büsen im
barg’, 1275)
718. [B=Sieglinde’s being] (‘was ich
bin’, 1281)
XV. Db Major [1282-1316]
719. [A b =a holy day] (‘hell wie der
Tag’, 1282)
720. [Db“self-knowledge] (‘taucht’ es
mir auf, 1284)
721. [c=echoing winter tones] (‘wie
tönender Schall schlug’s an mein
Ohr, als in frostig’, 1286)
722. [bb=cold distance] (‘Fremde’,
1291)
723. [D b “Vision of Salvation] (‘erst ich
den Freund ersah.’ 1292)
724. [G b=threshhold of heaven] (‘O
süsseste Wonne!’, 1297)
725. [G b “holy radiance] (‘den hehren
Schein’, 1309)
XVI. Eb Major [1317-29]
726. [Eb=Sieglinde’s radiance] (‘Im
Lenzesmond leuchtest du heil’,
1317)
727. [g=snare] (‘was nuch berückt’,
1327)
xvn. C Major [1330-1443]
728. [Oknowing through seeing]
(‘errath’ ich nun ieicht derm wonnig
weidet mein Blick’, 1330)
729. [C=twisting blood-veins in tenerle]
(‘Wie dir die Stirn so offen steht,
der Adern Geäst in den Schläfen
sich schlingt!’, 1337)
730. [E“marvelous image] (‘Ein Wunder
will mich gemahnen’, 1346)
731. [C=numinous image] (‘frnBach
erblickt’ ich mein eigen Bild’,
1360)
732. [F=sexual desire] (‘Du bist das Bild
das ich in mir barg’, 1375)
468
733. [d=Siegmund, memory of] (‘mich
dünkt, ihren Klang hört ich als
Kind’, 1383)
734. [C=sudden insight] (‘Doch nein! ’
1385)
735. [F=desire] (‘O lieblichste Laute’,
1393)
736. [a=recent glance] (‘Deines Auges
Gluth erglänzte mir schon’, 1400)
737. [E=The Stranger] (‘so blickte der
Gries’, 1404)
738. [.^=The Stranger’s child] (‘An dem
Blipk erkannt’ ihn sein Kind’,
1412)
739. [D =The Stranger’s Name] (‘schon
wollt’ ic]i beim Namen ihn nennen’,
1415)
740. [g=Wehwalt] (‘Wehwalt heisst du
flirwahr?‘ 1^9)
741. [a=Sieglinde] (iseit du mich liebst’,
1422)
742. [D=heroic success] (‘nun wait’ ich
der hehrsten Wonnen!’ 1424)
743. [c=not Friedmund] (‘Und
Friedmund darfst du &oh dich nicht
nennen?’, 1428)
744. [F/d=Wolfe] (‘Doch nanntest du
Wolfe den Vater?’ 1435)
745. [E=the Stranger’s glance] (‘Doch
dem so stolz strahlte das Auge, wie.
Herrliche, hehr dir es strahlt’, 1438)
746. [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
Stahl!’ 1503)
756. [fÿ »rBvelation] (‘Zeig’ deiner
Schärfe schneidenden Zahn!’ 1505)
(•an isolated and fimctionless
chord)
757. [g=tree-stem] (‘zumir!’1510)
758. [C=Sword] passim., 1513)
759. [a=Wälsung, esp. Sieglinde]
(‘Siegmund der Wälsung siehst du,
Weib!’ 1520)
760. [B=Wedding-sword] (Als
Breutgabe bringt et diess Schwert’,
1526)
761. [G=Sieglinde] ‘So freit er sich die
seligste Frau’, 1527)
762. [a=foeman’s house] (‘dem
Feindeshaus’, 1531)
763. [e=escape] (führt er dich so’, 1533)
764. [B=far county in spring] (‘Fern von
hier folge mir nun, fort in des
Lenzes lachendes Haus’, 1536)
765. [G=laying with the woman] (‘wenn
Siegmund dir liebend erlag!’, 1547)
766. [D=Siegmund] (‘Bist du
Siegmund’, 1553)
767. [G=Sieglinde] (‘Sieglinde bin ich’,
1557)
768. [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)

XX. B minor [1690-1750]
776. [bíB=Valkyrie, death angel] (‘Ho-
jo-to-ho!’ 1690)
777. [d=War Father, Lot Chooser] (‘Dir
rath’ ich, Vater, rüste dich selbst’,
1713)
778. [a=Fricka] (‘Fricka naht, deine
Frau’, 1716)
779. [e=ranis, whipped] (‘im Wagen mit
dem Widder gespann’, 1717)
780. [a=storm and strife] (‘zornig fährt
sie zum Zank’,1722)
781. [Odelight] (‘In solchem Strausse
streit’ ich nicht gern*, 1726)
782. [a==human strife] (‘muthiger
Männer Schlacht’, 1726)
783. [b=Valkyrie, deadi angel] (‘Ho-jo-
to-ho!’, 1729)
784. [d=War Father, Lot Chooser]
(passim., 746)
XXI. C minor [1751-1869]
785. [c=Fricka’s demand] (‘Wo in
Bergen du dich birgst’, 1763)
786. [C=tidings] (‘Was Fricka kümmert,
künde sie frei’, 1771)
787. [b b=vengeance] (‘Ich vernahm
Hunding’s Noth, um Rache’, 1772)
788. [c=wedlock’s guardian] (‘der Ehe
Hüterin hörte ihn’, 1779)
789. [El>=Eros, Oneness] (‘Was so
schlimmes schuf das Paar das
liebend einte der Lenz?’ 1787)
790. [B b “Logos, Separation] (“wer
büsst mir der Minne Macht?’ 1792)
791. [f=*stupid] (‘Wie friörig und taub
du dich seilst’, 1795)
792. [e b “profaned wedlock] (‘der Ehe
heUigenEid’, 1799)
793. [b b=unholiness] (‘Unheilig acht’
ich den Eid, der Unliebepde eint’,
1799)
794. [D b “divine authority] (‘denn wo
kühn Kräfte sich regen, da rath’ ich
offen zum Krieg’, 1809)
795. [bb=suprcme condemnation] (‘dass
Blutscande entblüht dem Bund
eines Zwilligspaar’s!’ 1818)
796. [B b =new C5«:le, innovation] (‘Heut
hast du’s erlebt!’ 1831)
797. [Eb=Bond] (‘Siegmund’s und
Sieglinde’s Bund’, 1848)
469
798. [a b “Godhead passing] (‘So ist es
denn aus mit den ewigen Götter’,
1851)
799. [d b “Wotah’s bidden thought] (‘traf
ich den Sinn?’, 1857)
800. [e t> “brökenhonds?] (‘Nichts gilt
dir & Hehren heilige Sippe!’,
I860)'
801. [a b“passing of godhead] (‘Hin
wirfst du Alles was einst du
geachtet’, 1864)
802. [d b “Wotan’s bond-breaking self]
(‘die selbst du gebunden’, 1867)
803. [D*“Wotan’s lost grip] (‘lösest
lachend des Himmels Haft’, 1869)
XXn. GH minor [1870-1948]
804. [g“capriciousness, freakishness]
(‘dass nach Lust und Laune nur
walte’, 1872)
803. [b=outrageous, inçious]
(‘frevelnde’, 18?4)
806. [E“illegitimate offspring] (‘deiner
Untreue zuchtlose’, 1876)
807. [g|t=FRICKA, Scorned Wife] (‘O
was klag’ ich lun Ehe und Eid’,
1880)
808. [.c H “Wotan] (‘du selbst sie
versehrt’, 1883)
809. [B“concupiscence, sickening
jeering] (‘lugte lüstern dein
Blick...und höhnend kränktest mein
Hetz’, 1890)
810. [g tt “FRICKA, saddened in spirit]
(‘Trauern den Sinnes musst Ich’s
ertragen’, 1897)
811. [cH “Wotan, shaming her] (‘zogst
du zur Schlacht’, 1899)
812. [d|l“those bad girls] (‘mit dem
schlimmen Mädchen’, 1900)
813. [g)l“FRICKA] (‘denn dein Weib
noch scheutest du so’, 1904)
814. [E=Wotan’s regard] (‘dass der
Walküren Scb^’, 1905)
815. [A“Wish-Bridé; Spiritual-Bride]
(‘Brünnhilde selbst, deines
Wunsches Braut’, 1906)
816. [FH “submissive condescension]
(‘in Gehorsam’, 1909)
817. [Ö“Valkyries] (‘der Herrin du
gabst’, 1910)
818. [0=new names/Wälse] (‘da dir
470
neue Namen gefielen’, 1912)
819. [ci “Wotan, shamed] (‘da zu
neidrigster Schmach du dich
neigtest’, 1917)
820. [Gi=cúp, Fricka’s runneth over]
(‘So führ’ es denn aus’, 1929)
821. [ci=POURER, Wotan as] (‘Fülle das
Maas!’, 1932)
822. [g)t=FRICKA, shamed] (‘less’
auch zertreten! ’,1935)
823. [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
Göttergesetz’, 1958)
828. [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)
829. [deep, cozening meanings] (‘Mit
tiefem Sinne, willst du mich
tauschen’, 1971)
830. [G=minions] (‘was Hehres sollten
Helden je wirken, das ihren Göttern
wäre verwehrt, deren Gunst in
ihnen nur wirkt’, 1974)
831. [D=heros’ courage] (‘Ihres eig’nen
Mufhes achtest du nicht?’ 1980)
832. [G=minions] (‘Wer hauchte
Menschen ihn ein?’ 1981)
833. [a=dull-witted sight] (‘Wer hellte
den Blöden den Blick?’ 1983)
834. [F=strenglh] (‘In deinem Schutz
scheinen sie stark’, 1984)
835. [d=heroes, struggling] (‘durch
deinen Stachel streben sie auf,
1986)
836. [a=agitation, storm and strife] (‘du
reizest sie einzig’, 1987)
837. [e=deed, heroic (e.g., winning
ring)] (‘die so mir Ew’gen du
rühmst’, 1988)
838. [a=new cunning] (‘Mit neuer List’,
1989)
839. [b=deadWälsui^] (‘diesen
Wälsung gewinnst du dir nicht’,
1992)
840. [d=Siegmund, like father like son]
(‘in ihm treff ich nur dich’, 1993)
841. [G=minion] (‘denn durch dich
trotzt er allein’, 1995)
842. [a=heroic afflictions] (‘In wildem
leiden erwuchs er sich selbst’,
1996)
843. [g=double-cross] (‘Nimm ihm das
Schvrert, das du ihm geschenkt’,
2004)
844. [*C=Great Idea, sword] (‘Das
Schwert?’ 2006)
845. [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

verlangst du?’ 2080)
861. [d=Siegmund] (‘Er geh’seines
Weg’s’, 2087)
862. [g=Siegmund unprotected] (‘Doch
du schütze ihm nicht’, 2089)
863. [c=Hunding] (‘wenn zur Schlacht
ihn der Rächer ruft!’ 2091)
864. [d b =Wotan wiggling] (‘Ich schütze
ihn nicht’, 2094)
865. [B b b(=A)=Liar] (‘Sieh’ mir ihn’s
Auge; sinne nicht Trag’, 2095)
866. [f=VaIkyrie] (‘die Walküre wend’
auch von ihm!’, 2098)
867. [g b =delusion of fireedom] (‘Die
Walküre walte...’, 2101)
868. [*D=hetoine] (‘...fiel.’, 2104)
869. [g=minion] (‘Nicht doch: deinen
Willen vollbringt sie allein;’ 2104)
870. [c=pursuer, Siegmund’s] (‘verbiete
ihr Siegmund’s Sieg!’ 2105)
871. [*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. [E b =eternal Goddess] (‘Deiner
ewgen Gattin’, 2140)
882. [c=etemal Goddess shattKd] (‘Von
Menschen verlacht, verlustig der
Macht’, 2145)
883. [D b=gods] (‘gingen wir Götter zu’.
471
2147)
884. [Gb=gods demoted] (‘Grund!’,
2148)
885. [e b=Goddess’ rights and honor]
(‘mein Recht...meiner Ehre’, 2150-
56)
886. [Eb=Goddess triumphant] (‘Fricka
schreitet dem Hintergründe’, 2164)
887. [c=bad news] (‘lass’ ihn dir
künden’, 2174)
888. [E b =Fricka’s judgment] (‘wie das
Loos er gekiesst’, 2176)
889. [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)
899. [A=Wotap’s Will] (‘Zu Wotan’s
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. Ab Major [2286-2302]
901. [ab =aspiration for power]
(‘verlangte nach Macht mein
472
Muth’, 2293)
902. [*E b =the world] (gewann ich mir
die Welt’, 2294)
903. [*Fb(E)=love] (‘Von der Liebe
doch mocht’ ich nicht lassen’,
2301)
XXXm. C Major [2303-12]
904. [b=Alberich’s Curse] (‘Den Nacht
gebar, der bange Nibelung Alberich
br^ch ihren Bund; er fluchte der
Lieb’ und gewann durch den
Fluch’, 2303)
905. [C=LIGHT, brightness] (‘Rheines
glänzendes Gold’, 2306)
906. [c=measureless might] (‘und mit
ihm maasslose Macht’, 2307)
907. [a=cunning deceit (aka Loge)]
(‘Den Ring, de^er schuf, entriss
ich ihm listig’, 23M)
908. [A=bad bargain, LÒge’s] (‘mit ihm
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<hild] (‘von mir doch
ençfing sie ein Pfand: der Welt
weisestes Weib gebar nrir,
Brünnhilde, dich’, 2332)
917. [b=Valkyries] (‘durch euch
Walküren’, 2342)
918. [e=Wala-fear] (‘die Wala zu
fürchten,’ 2344)
919. [b=battle-strength/enemy’] (‘Dass
stark zum S|reit uns fSnde der
Feind’, 2348)
920. [D=heroes] (‘liess ich euch Helden
mir schaffen’, 2350)
921. [g=slaves] (‘die herrisch wir sonst
in Gessetzen hielten’, 2352)
922. [e=enslavement] (‘die Mäimer,
denen den Muth wir gewehrt, die
durch trüber Verträge trügende
Bande’, 2356)
923. [f(i=blind obedience, delusional
worship] (‘zu blindem Gehorsam
wir uns gebunden’, 2357)
924. [b=storm and strife, divine] (‘die
solltet zu äturm und Streit
925. [f((=divine goad] (‘ ihr nun
stacheln ihre Kraft reizen zu
rauhem Krieg’, 2361)
926. [A=hosts of heroes] (‘dass kühner
Kän^fer Schaaren ich sammle in
Walhall’s Saal!’ 2365)
927. [c)l=gods, failing] (‘Was macht dir
nun Sorge, da nie wir gesäumt?’
2372)
928. [e=magic threat] (‘Ein Andres ist’s:
achte es wohl, wess’ mich die Wala
gewarnt!' 2377)
XXXV. A minor [2379-2386]
929. [a=Alberich’s army] (‘Durch
Alberichs Heer droht uns das
Ende’, 2379)
930. [e=Alberich’s grudge] (‘mit
neidischem Orim’, 2380)
931. [g=Nibelung] (grollt mir der
Nflrlung’, 2382)
932. [d=heros, problematical] (‘doch
scheu’ ich nun nicht seine löchtigen
Schaaren, meine Helden...’ 2383)
933. [C=victory] (‘schüfen mir Sieg’,
2384)
934. [c=winning Ring again] (‘Nur wenn
je den Ring zurück er gewäime’,
2386)
935. [a=defeat] (‘dann wäre Walhall
verloren’, 2388)
936. [e=magic ring] (‘er allein nützte
neidisch des Ringes Runen zu aller
Edlen endlosen’, 2391)
937. [b=heroes, perverted] (‘der Helden
Mudi entwendet’ er mir, die
Kühnen selber zwäng er zum
Kançf, 2392)
938. [e=magic ring] (‘mir ihrer Kraft
bekriegte er mich’, 2394)
939. [c|l=Wotan, fearful] (‘Sorgend

sann ich nun selbst,' 2396)
940. [b=enemy] (‘Der Riesen einer,
denen ich einst mit verfluchtem
Gold den Fleiss vergalt’, Fafiier
hütet den Hort, um den er den
BmdergefäUt’,2397)
941. [a=theft] (‘Ihm müsst' ich den Reif
entringen, den selbst als Zoll ich
ihm zahlte', 2402)
942. [a=Wotan’s bad bargains] (‘Doch
mit dem ich vertrug...der durch
Verträge ich Herr’, 2404-2411)
943. [g=hero] (‘Nur einer könnte, was
ich nicht darf, 2418)
946. [a=stmggle] (‘Der, entgegen dem
Gott, für mich föchte, den
freundlichen Feind’, 2436)
947. [a==slaves] (‘Knechte erknet’ ich
mir nur’, 2464)
948. [d=Siegmund] (‘Siegmund?’ 2469)
949. [C=Sword] (‘schütz ihn nun einzig
das Schwert’, 2477)
950. [*gb=self-deception] (‘Wie wollt’
ich listig selbst mich belüngen’,
2480)
951. [e b =Fricka’s will] (‘Ihrem Willen’,
2386)
XXXVI. C minor [2387-2602]
952. [b b =Alberich] (‘Der Fluch, den ich
floh, nicht flieht er nun mich’,
2497)
953. [Move object] (‘Was ich hebe,
muss ich verlassen, morden wen
je’, 2502)
954. [d b =Wotan] (‘ich minne’, 2508)
955. [b=treason] (‘vertrathen, wer mir
traut’, 2512)
956. [C=sword] (2519)
957. [c=fading ponç] (‘Fahre denn hin
herrische i^chf, 2523)
958. [a=finished work] (‘Auf geb’ ich
mein Werk; nur Eines will ich
noch: das Ende’, 2534)
959. [E b=the ending] (‘Das Ende!’,
2541)
960. [e b =Nibelung’s son] (‘wemi der
Liebe finstrer Feind zürnend zeugt
einen’, 2552)
961. [d=Son] (‘Sohn, der Selgen Ende
säumt dann nicht’, 2556)
962. [B b =Alberich wooing] (‘Vom
473
Niblung jüngst vernahm ich die
Mähr’, dass ein Weib der Zwerg
bewältigt, dess’ Gunst Gold ihm
erzwang; des Hasses Fhicht hegt
963. [c=Hagen’s mother] (‘eine Frau;
des Neides Kraft kreiss’t ihr im
Schooss’, 2566)
964. [d=son, Nibelung’s wonderful]
(‘das Wunder gelang dem
Liebelosen; doch’, 2569)
965. [c=Wotan’s irrçotence] (‘doch der
in Lieb’ ich freite, den Freien,
erlang’ ich mir nicht’, 2572)
966. [e=Wotan’s legacy] (‘Was tief mich
ekelt, dir geb’ ich’s zum Erbe:’,
2579)
967. [f=worthless prize] (‘der Gottheit
nichtigen Glanz:’, 2581)
968. [c=wasted patrimony, Gods’]
(‘zernage ihn gierig dein Neid!’,
2585)
969. [c=Fricka’s will] (‘Fromm streite
für Fricka; hüte ilu Eh’ und Eid!
Was sie erkor, das kiese auch ich:
was fromrrrte mir eigher Wille?’,
2592)
XXXVn. A iidnor [2603-2762]
970. [d=Siegmund] (‘Du liebst
Siegmund’, 2605)
971. [c=Fricka’s decree] (‘Fällen sollst
du Siegmund’, 2610)
972. [C=sword] (‘ein Siegschwert
schwingt Siegmund’, 2621)
973. [B b “dangerous foe] (‘schwerlich
fallt er dir feig!’, 2625)
974. [d=Siegmnnd] (‘gegen ihn zwingt
mich’, 2630)
975. [a=Brüimhilde’s defiance]
(‘nimmef dein zweispältig Wort! ’
2633)
976. [g=minion] (‘Ha, Freche du!
Frevelst du mir? Wer bist du’,
2635)
977. [c=blind obedience] (‘als meines
Willens blind wählende Kür?’
2638)
978. [a=Wotan’s wrath] (‘Kennst du,
Kind, meinen Zorn?’ 2650)
979. [*d=Siegmund] (‘Siegmund’, 2677)
980. [a=failure, of Siegmund] (falle!’
474
2678)
981. [E=labor of love] (‘Wenn nach Lust
ich focht, wie waren sie leicht!’,
2719)
982. [d=base fight] (‘Zm böser Schlacht’,
2724)
983. [e=dirty work] (‘schleich’ ich heut’
so bang’, 2726)
984. [d=Siegniund] (‘Weh! Mein
Wälsung!’ 2734)
985. [a=Siegmund’s defeat] (‘dich
treulos die Treue verlassen!’2738)
No. XXXVra. F minor [2763-2955]
986. [f=Sieglinde’s hysteria] (‘Sieglinde
schrèitet hastig voraus’, 2772)
987. [Eb=rbst] (‘Raste nun hier’, 2785)
988. [Bb=diátmcing] (‘Weiter! Weiter’,
2787) \ bis du Siegrmmd?’ 2970)
989. [Al>=remaiiimg] (‘Verweile,
süssestes Weib!’, 2796)
990. [Db=heaven] (‘Aus Wonne
Entzücken’, 2799)
991. [B b=distancing] (‘jagtest du fort
kaum folgt’ ich der wilden Flucht’,
2804)
992. [ehrest] (‘Ruhe nun aus’, 2819)
993. [A b=rema!ning] (‘Sieh dein Bruder
hält seine Braut’, 2826)
994. [Ohusband] (‘Siegmund ist dir
GeseU!’ 2833)'
995. [D b=heavenly raptare] (‘von der
süssesten Wonne heiligster Weihe,
die ganz ihr Siim und Seele
durchdrang’, 2886)
996. [b b=loathing and horror] (‘Grauen
und Schätzer’, 2896)
996. [c=hateful dishonor] (‘ob
grässlichster Schande, musste mit’.
2898).
998. [fi=scream] (‘Schreck die
Schmähliche fassen’, die je dem
Manne gehorcht, und ohne Mitme
sie hielt!’, 2900)
999. [bb=separation] (Lass’ die
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. [b b=shame] (‘Schande bring ich
dem Bruder’, 2923)
1004. [f=rescuer] (‘Schmach dem
Seienden Freund!’ 2926)
1005. [b b=shame, payback] (‘Was je
Schande dir schuf, 2930)
1006. [c=Hunding’s blood=vengeance]
(‘das büsst nun des Frevlers Blut! ’
2933)
1007. [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
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)

Vierte Scene.
XXXXn. Fj» minor [3058-3069]
1021. [e=darkening shadows (containing
•d=Siegmund)] (3058)
1022. [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, soul-
guide] (“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)
475
XXXXVn.Db Major [3161-72]
1037. [Db»Wish Maidens] (‘Wunsch-
mädschen 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, soul-
guide] (‘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

1057. [b=death-glance] (‘noch machte L. Ftt minor [3310-68]

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 1089.
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)
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)
1081. [fll“heavenly messenger] (‘So
wenig achtest du ewige Wonne?’
3312)
1082. [b=merciless angel] (‘filhlose
Maid!’ 3332)
1083. [e“lovelessness] (‘nur von
Wallhall’s spröden Wonnen sprich
du wahrlich mir nicht! ’3339)
1084. [a=heroic need] (‘Ich sehe die
Notti’, 3345)
1085. [d=heroic heart] (‘die das Herz dir
zernagt’, 3346)
1086. [b=heroic grief] (‘ich fühle des
Helden heiligen Harm’ 3347)
1087. [f|l “heavenly messenger] (passim.
3349)
1088. [G=wife] (‘Siegmund, befiel mir
dein Weib’, 3351)
[b“sheild-maiden] (‘mein Schute
umfange sití'fest!’ 3352)
1090. [c“pure one (soll die Reine leben
berüttmen’, 3357)
1091. [ftt“heavenly messenger] (‘befiehl
mir dein Weib’, 3364)
1092. [a=failed sword] (‘dies Schwert’,
3368)
LI. A minor [3369-84]
1093. [a“two-faced sword] (‘flrommt es
nicht gegen den Feind’, 3373)
1094. [c=two-faced sworä] (‘so fi:omm’
es den wider den Freund’, 3374)
1095. [fi=two huthan lives] (‘Leben lachen
dir hier:’, 3377)
1096. [fjt “death-blow] (‘nimm sie.
Nottiun^, neidlicher Stahl!’ 3379)
1097. [g=death-blow] (‘nimm sie mit
einem Streich!’ 3381)
LH. F# minor [3385-3459]
1098. [cj) “changed decision] (‘Höre mein
Wort!’ 3386)
1099. [F(t “Siegmund lives] (‘und
Siegmund leben mit ihr!’, 3394)
1100. [d(t “Changed decree]
(‘Beschlossen lat’s;’, 3397)
1101. [A“Siegmund victorious] (‘schafïï
ich Segen und Sieg!’, 3403)
1102. [e=enemy’s call] (‘Hörst du den
Ruf?’ 3407)
1103. [a“(false) trusty blade] (‘Traue dem
 477
Schwert’, 3410) swchon nach uns’, 3527)
1104. [C=(false) trusty blade] (‘und 1123. [bb=thunder clouds] (‘schwarze
schwing’ es getrost:’, 3411) Gewitterwolken’ 35M)
1105. [F=weapon] (‘treu hält dir die 1124. [g=Wehwalt] (‘Wehwalt!
Wehr’, 3412) Wehwalt!’ 3543)
1106. [C=(false) protection] (‘wie die
Walküre treu dich schütz!’ 3415) LVn. C Major [3563-74]
1107. [a”battlefield] (‘Auf der Walstatt 1125. [d=armed hero] (‘Droh’st du mit
seh’ ich dich wieder!’, 3421-53) Frauen,’ 3564)
1108. [e=magic sleep] (‘Siegmund neigt 1126. [a=sword ih tree] (‘Derm sieh’:
sich wieder über Sieglinde, den deines Hauses heimischem Stamm’,
Athem lauschend: ‘Zauberfest 3566)
bezähmt ein Schlaf, 3457) 1127. [Oconqueting sword] (‘entzog ich
zaglos das Schwert’, 3568)
Lin. A minor [3460-71] 1128. [g=battling héros] (‘Haltet ein, ihr
1109. [g=dealhlike exhaustion] (‘Schmerz Männer: mordet erst mich!’ 3572)
und Harm’, 3462)
1110. [c=unconscious] (‘Da die Walküre LVin. B minor [3575-82]
zu mir trat’, 3465) 1129. n^Valkyrie] (‘Triff’ ihn,
1111. [E b=wondrous sleep] (‘schuf sie Siegmund! Traue dem Schwert!’
ihr den wonnigen Trost?’ 3466) 3578)
1112. [g =furious fight] ‘Sollte die 1130. [D=Hero] (passim, 3582)
grimmige Wal nicht schrecken ein
gramvolles Weib’? (3470) LDL C Major [3583-92]
1131. glowing red light] (‘ein
LIV. Bb Major [3472-84] glöüiend röthlicher Schein durch
1113. [B b=Spring] (‘Traum’, 3482) das Gewölk aus’, 3583)
1132. [c=broken sword] (‘Siegmund’s
LV. A minor [3485-3509] Schwert zerspringvt an dem
1114. [g=battle] (‘bid die Schlacht vorgehaltenen Speere’, 3585)
gekânçft’, 3487) 1133. [e=broken magic] (‘Siegmund
1115. [D=Peace] (‘und Friede dich stürzt todt zu Boden’, 3588)
erfireu’!’ 3490)
1116. [E=kiss] (‘Er legt sie sanfi auf den LX. D minor [3593-3662]
Steinsitz, und küsst ihr zum 1134. [d=Siegmund fallen] (‘Mit
Abschied die Stime’ 3492) Siegn^d’s Fall’, 3593)
1117. [a=farewell] (passim)
1118. [g=battlel-call] (veminunt
Hunding’s Honuuf, 3498)
Dritter Aufzug.
1119. [OSword] (‘Nothung zahlt’ ihm LXI. B minor [3663-3719]
den Zoll!’, 3502) 1135. [b=Valk^es] (passim, 3663)

LVI.Bb Major [3510-62] LXn. B Major [3720-39]

1120. [g/bb=daik storm cloud] (‘sogleich 1136. [B=Valkyries] (passim, 3720)
in finstrem Gewittergewölk, aus
welchen als bald WettêrÎeuchten
LXra. B minor [3740-80]
aufblitzt’, 3510)
i 137. [e=rest, grazing] (‘Zu Ortlinde’s
1121. [bb “vulnerability] (‘Kehrte der
Stute stell’ deinen Hengst’, 3741)
Vater nun heim!’ 3529)
1138. [Drhero] (‘Wer hängt dir im
T122. [a=dark vapors, licking flames]
Sattel?’ ‘Sinholt derHegeling!’
(‘Schwarze Dânçfe schwüles
3744)
Gedünst’, feurige Lohe leckt 1139. [b=enemies] (‘Führ deinen
478
Brauimen fort von der Grauen;
Ortlinde’s Mähre trägt Wittig, den
Inning!’ 3746)
1140. [f)t=horses] (‘Als Feinde nur sah’
ich Sintolt und Wittig!’ 3749)
1141. [G=cottdc fight] (‘Heiaha!Die Stute
stösst mir der Hengst!’ 3751)
1142. [f(t =horses] (‘Der Recken Zwist
entzweit noch die Rosse!’ 3755)
1143. [D=h^es (e.g., “woric”)] (‘Arbeit
gab’s!t3766)
LXIV. B Major [3781-99]
1144. [B=Valk^es] (passim)
LXV. B minor [3800-75]
1145. [b=Valkyries] (jiassim, 3800)
1146. [G=woods] (‘in dèn Tann rufend’.
zu Rast und Weid!’ 3822)
1148. [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)
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

Streich!’, 3988)
1181. [g=extiemis] (‘Bethöite Schwester’,
3992)
1182. [g==darkness] (‘Nächtig’,.4003)
1183. [d=War Father, hunter] (‘Wüttend
steuert hieher der Sturm’, 4005)
1184. [g=neighing horse] (‘Wild wiehert
Walvater’s Ross!’, 4008)
1185. [bk=fiightful danger] (‘Schrecklich
schnaubt es daher!’, 4010)
1186. [d=War Father] (passim, 4018)
1187. [c )l =heaven denied] (‘Nicht sehre
dich Sorge um mich’,
1188. [d=death (of Siegmund and
Sieglinde)] (‘einzig taught mir der
Tod’, 4047)
1189. [Oawakening, seeing] (‘Ein
Wälsung wächst dir’, 4075)
LXX. G Major [4076-4221]
1190. [e=womb] ( im Schoos’, 4076)
1191. [b=rescuing angel] (‘Rette mich
Kühne!’, 4079)
1192. [d=unbom child] (‘Rette mein
Kind!’, 4082)
1193. [c=nearing storm] (‘Der Sturm
kommt heran!’, 4087)
1194. [d=danger] (‘Flieh’, wer ihn
furchtet!’, 4089)
1195. [b=Valkyries] (‘der Walküren
keine wag’ ihren Schutz!’, 4093)
1196. [g)t=pleading mother] (‘Rette die
Mutter’, 4096)
1197. [E=point of decision] (‘Brüimhilde
mid lebhaften Entschluss hebt
Sieghnde äuf, 4097)
1198. [E=fleeing woman] (‘So fliehe den
eilig und fliehe allein!’, 4100)
1199. [e=female sacrifice] (‘Ich bleibe
zurück, beite mich Wotan’s Rache’,
4102)
1200. [G=Sieglinde, mother] (‘v^^hrend
du seinem Rasen entrinnst’, 4107)
1201. [b=Eastem forest, dragon] (‘Nach
Osten weithin dehnt sich ein Wald:
der Niblungen Hoh entführte
Fafiier dotdnn’, 4113)
1202. [e=dtagon hole/magic ring]
(‘Wurmes-Gestalt schuf sich der
Wilde: in einer Höhle hütet er
Alberich’s Reif! ’4118)
1203. [e^helpless woman] (‘Nicht
479
geheu’r ist’s dor für ein hülflos
Weib’, 4122)
1204. [b=dreaded place] (‘ihn schent’ der
Mächt’ge und meidet den Ort’,
4127)
1205. [b/d=War-Father, pursuer] (‘hör’
seines Nahen’s Gebraus!’, 4131)
1206. [C=swifl flight] (‘Fort derm eile’,
4135)
1207. [e=diíBcult flight] (‘Muthigen
Trotzes ertrag’ alle Müh’n’, 4139)
1208. [a=hunger and thirst] (‘Hunger und
Durst’, 4143)
1209. [Ogreatest hero] (‘den hehrsten
Helden’, 4156)
1210. [Eb=Great Wther] (‘o Weib, hn
sehirmenden Schoos!’ 4161)
12J1. [b=breas^late] (‘Sie zieht die
Stücken von Siegmund’s Schwert
imter ihrem Panzer hervor, und
überreicht sie Sieglinde’, 4165)
1212. [OSword’s strong fiagmets] (‘die
starken Schwertes Stücken’, 4171)
1213. [d=Siegmund] (‘seines Vaters
Walstatt’, 4173)
1214. [G=death-field] (‘entführt ich sie
glücklich’, 4175)
1215. [C/c=new-forged sword] (‘der
neugefügt das Schwert einst
schwingt’^ 4178)
1216. [0=Siegfiied] (‘Siegfiied eerffeu’
sich des Sieg’s’, 4187)
1217. [G=Sieglinde’s Wonder] (‘O
hehrstes Wunder!’ 4195)
1218. [D=^iegfiied, Sieglinde’s reward]
(‘meines Dankes Lohn lache dir
einst!’, 4211)
1219. [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. [d=War Father] (‘Wotan’s
Stimme’, 4228)
1225. [g=Britanhilde] (‘Steh’
Britanhilde’, 4231)
1226. [c=approaching god] (‘Den Fels
erreichten Ross und Reiter!’, 4232)
1227. [d=War Father] (‘Rache
entbrennt!’, 4236)
1228. [e=female extremis] (‘Ach
Schwestern helft! Mir schwankt das
Herz!’, 4238)
1229. [b=destruction] (‘Sein Zorn
zerschellt mich, weim euer Schutz
ihn nicht zähmt’, 4240)
1230. [bk=^bel-sheltering] (‘Hieher,
VerloVne! Lass’ dich nicht seh’n,
schmieg| dich m uns! ’, 4243)
1231. [f=Wotaitcoming to earth] (‘Weh!
Wüthend schwingt sich Wotan vom
Ross’, 4254) ^
Zweite Scene.
1232. [bb=Wotan enraged (‘Wotan tritt
in höchster zorniger Aufgeregtheit
aus dem Taijn auf, 4263)
1233. [c=approaching god] (‘und schreitet
vor der Gnçpe der Walküren auf
der Hohe,’
1234. [a=glaring god] (‘nach BrOnnhilde
spähend, heftig einher’, 4266)
1235. [d=War Father] (‘Wo ist
Brümihilde, wo die Verbrecherin?’,
4270)
1236. [a=upstarts] (‘Hütet euch. Freche!’,
4286)
1237. [c=weak-hearted women] (‘Weich
herziges Weibergezüdht!’, 4309)
LXXn. G minor [4310-81],
1238. [D t=paternal source] (‘So matten
Muth gewannt ihr von mir?’, 4311)
1239. [c=women] (‘Erzog ich euch kühn,
zum Kattçfe zu zieh’n, schuf ich
die Herzen euch hart und scharf,
dass ihn Wilden
1240. [f=whining] (‘nun weint und greint,
weim me|n órimm eine Treulose
straft?’, 4318)
1241. [g=crime] (So wisst du. Winselnde,
was die verbrach, um die eunc
Zagen die Zähre entbrermt’, 4324)
1242. [a=wish-bride] (‘keine wie sie
wusste den Quell rtMines,Willens!’,
4335)
1243. [b=Brünnhilde’s seif] (‘Sie selbst
war meines Wimsches schaffender
Schoss’, 4340)
1244. [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)

1261. [f=Brünnhilde rejected] (‘Walküre
bist du gewesen, nun sei fortan, was
so du noch bist!’ 4436)
1262. [D b=Walhall] (‘nicht führst du
mehr Sieger in meinen Saal’, 4455)
1263. [g=heavenly meal] (‘bei der Götter
trautem Midile’, 4460)
1264. [c=drink-hom] (‘das Trinkhom
nicht reich’st du traulich mir mehr’,
4464)
1265. [Eb=mouth, kiss] (‘nichtkos’ich
dir mehr den kindischen Mund’,
4469)
1266. [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)
481
1277. [b b=separation] (‘Wer von euch
wagte bei ihr zu weilen’, 4578)
1278. [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
Leid’, 4805)
1298. [d=Siegnnmd] (...zu geü’gem
Beben mir trrf’, 4818)
1299. [b=Valkyiie] (‘Scheu \md staunend
stand ich in Scham’, 4821)
1300. [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. [bb “Separation, avoidance] (‘von
mir sagtest du dich los. Dich muss
ich meiden’, 4904)
1314. ■ [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)

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. [C*“awakener] (‘Denn Einer’,
5197)
1352. [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)
483
1355. [G=child’s kiss] (‘wenn Kaiqjfes
lust ein Kuss dir lohnte’,' 5232)
1356. [D*=heroes] (‘Helden’, 5235)
1357. [C=gleaming eyesj (‘dieser Augen
strahlendes Paar dits oft im Sturm
mir geglänzt’, 5236)
1358. [a=hopelessness] (‘weim Hof&ungs
sehnen das Herz’, 5240)
1359. [b=bewüdering fear] (‘webendem
Bangen’, 5243)
1360. [E=a kiss] (‘mit des Lebewohles
letztem Kuss’, 5246)
1361. [F=closing eyes] (‘nntss es
scheidend sich schliessen’, 5254)
1362. [e=separation] (‘Denn so kehrt der
Gott sich dir ab’, 5257)
1363. [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. [E=bridal fee] (‘Hier bricht die
lichte Flackerlohe aus’, 5321)
1373. [A=Loge, inlassable] (‘Wer
meines Speeres Spitze fürchtet
durch schreite das Feuer nie!’,
484

5340)
1374. [E=bridal fire] (passim)

Ende Z>i'e fValkUre

 485

APPENDIXIc:
Linear Tabulation of Tonpl Lexeme» in

Erster Aufzug. 1397. [B=bear] (‘Was taught mir der

Vorspiel und erste Scene Bär’? 267)
1398. [C=sword] (‘Dort liegt die Waffe’,
I. Bb minor [1-250] 275)
1375. [b b =Nibeluags] (passim, vsp.) 1399. [bb=Nibelung] (‘So fährst du heute
1376. [f=swprd fragments] (motif, 115) nochheü!’, 278)
1377. [a=cunning(7)] (passim, 123) 1400. [C=conç)anionship] (‘Nach
1378. [bb=Mime] (‘Müh’ohne Zweck!’, bess'rem Gesellen sucht’ ich’, 291)
139) 1401. [D=a wordiy friend] (‘ein guter
1379. [f=giants] (‘Riesen Fäusten’, 143) Freund’, 302)
1380. [g=4>oy] (‘schmähliche Knabe’, 1402. [b=bear] (‘Aus dem Busche kam
147) ein Bär’, 310)
1381. [f=swonl fragments] (‘Es giebt ein 1403. [D=a worthy friend] (‘doch bessre
Schwert’, 155) fänd’ ich wohl noch!’, 315)
1382. [b b=smith skills] (‘könnt ich die 1404. [a=scoundrel] (‘dich, Schelm’, 320)
starken Stücken schweissen, die 1405. [c=sword] (‘Das Schwert prüfend’,
meine Kunst nicht zu kitten weiss!’, 334)
166) 1406. [g=trivial toy] (‘Den schwachen
1383. [Db=reward (power)] (‘meiner Schifi nennst du ein Schwert?’,
Schmach erlangt’ ich da Lohn!’, 341)
176)
1384. [ab=dragon] (motif, 183) m. G minor [344-512]
1385. [f=Fafiier] (‘Fafiier der wilde 1407. [g=unworthy people] (‘Da hast du
Wurm’, 187) die Stücken, schänlicher Ständer!’,
1386. [eb=monstrous bulk] (‘mit des 344)
fruchtbaren Leibes Wucht’, 197) 1408. [c=berzerker raging] (‘Nun tob’st
1387. [bb=Nibelung hoard] (‘der du vWeder wie toll’, 420)
Niblungen Hort hütet er dort’, 201) 1409. [g=hadboy] (‘Mach’ ich dem
1388. [f=physical strength/Fafirer] bösen Buben nicht aUes gleich zu
best’,4Ì9)
(‘Siegfried’s kindischer Krafr’
erläge wohl Fafiier’s Leib’, 209) Ç b=good boy] (‘Willst du denn
1389. [c=the one sword] (‘Ein Schwert me^edei^^’, 448)
nur taught zu der That’, 216) 1411. [D=best boyJ'(‘Dem sollst du willig
1390. [D=conquering hero] (‘wenn gehorchen, der je sich wohl dir
Siegfried schrend ihn schwingt’, erwies’, 456)
220) 1412. [d=not so good boy] (‘Das willst du
1392. [bb=smith] (‘Und ich kann’s nicht wieder nicht hören!‘, 467)
schweissen Nothung das Schwert! ’, 1413. [F=hunger] (‘Doch speisen magst
226) du wohl!’, 480)
1393. [f=the only important deed] (‘zu 1414. [d=broth] (‘versuchtest du gern den
der einzigen Tliat!’, 244) Sud?’, 486)
1394. [g=young man] (‘der Knabe es 1415. [a^lop] (‘Deinen Sudel sauf
heischt’, 246) allein’, 499)
1395. [b b=smith] (‘schmied’ ich ihm
nicht!’, 250) IV. F minor [513-80]
1416. [f=caregiver, worker] (‘Als
n. G Major [251-343] zullendes Kind zog ich dich auf.
1396. [G=Siegfiied] (‘Hoi-ho! ’251) 513)
486
1417. [D b=niaster?] (‘wie du erwuchsest
wartet’ ich dein’, 529)
1418. [bb=servant?] (‘dein Lager schuf
ich, dass leicht du schliefst’, 532)
1419. [Ab=toys] (‘Dir schmiedet’ ich
Tand und ein tönend Hom’, 537)
1420. [g=happy smithing] (‘müht’ ich
mich flx)h’, 543)
1421. [el>=cunning counsel] (‘mit klugem
Rathe rieth ich dir klug’, 543)
1422. [Cb=shining wisdom] (‘mit lichtem
Wissen lehrt’ ich dich Witz’,
1423. [bt>=bondage] (‘Sits’ ich daheim in
Fleiss und Schweiss’, 553)
1424. [D b=freedom] (‘nach Herzenslust
schweifst du umher’, 556)
1425. [fNlrudgeiy](‘fUrdichnurin
Plage, in Pein nur fUr dich verzehr’
ich mich alter armer Zwerg!’, 560)
V. D minor [581-763]
1426. [B b =Mime, nice] (‘Vierles lehrtest
du, Mime’, 581)
1427. [d=Siegfiied] (‘doch was du am
liebsten mich lehrtest, zu lernen
gelang mir nie: wie ich dich leiden
könnt’,588)
1428. [g=Mime, nasty] (‘beim Genick’
möcht’ ich dep Nicker packen, den
Garaus geben den garst’gen
Zwicker!’, 652)
1429. [d=Siegfried] (‘so lernt’ ich, Mime,
dich leiden’, 562) ^
1430. [C=smart guy] (‘Bist du nun weise’,
667)
1431. [a*=ignorance](‘so hilf mir wissen’,
670)
1432. [e=Üie woods] (‘in den Wald lauf
ich’, 675)
1433. [C=smart guy] (‘Bist du klug, so
thu’ mir’s kund’, 704)
1434. [d=Siegfried’s1ieart] (‘wie lieb ich
am Herzen dir lieg’, 711 )
1435. [b b =rejection] (‘Mime fährt
ziuOck, imd setz sich wieder
abseits, Siegfried gegendber’, 719)
1436. [g=young ones, infants]
(‘Jammernd verlangen Junge’, 734)
1437. [a=parents’ nest] (‘nach ihren Alten
Nesf, 736)
1438. [B b *=Mime] (passim., 744, 758)
VI. D Major [764-839]
1439. [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)
Vn. G minor [840-934]
1449. [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)
Vin. C minor [935-60]
1458. [c=knowledge] (‘Was zu wissen
dich geizt’, 938)
1459. [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. [e=cave] (‘zur Höhle half ich ihr seh’n!’, 1072)
her’, 970) 1488. [f=eyes (“tangible evidence)] (‘dir
1465. [b=cave hearfh] (‘am warmen Herd glaub’ ich nur mit dem Aug’, 1082)
sie zu hüten', 971) 1489. [Eb=evidence](‘welch’ Zeichen
1466. [Ftl=fire] (passim) zeugt für dich?’, 1085)
1467. [F i) =%hildbirthing labor] (‘Ein 1490. [b b=Mime] (passim, motif 1087)
Kind trug sie im Schoosse’, 975) 1491. [C*=sword] (motif, 1094)
1468. [f=harder childbirthing labor] 1492. [f=trouble, room and board] (‘für
(‘traurig gebar sie’s hier’, 977) Mühe, Kost und Pflege’, 1102)
1469. [e b =childbirth] (‘sie wand sich hin 1493. [B b=last battlefield] (‘als im
und her’, 979) letzten Kan^f er erlag’, 1113)
1470. [d b=trauma] (‘ich half so gut ich 1494. [b b “Mime, smith] (‘Auf! Eile dich,
könnt’: gross war die Noth!’ 980) Mime!’, 1123)
1471. [C b=dying] (passim, 982) 1495. [c=Sword] (‘den Trümmern allein
1472. [b=deatìi] (passim, 983) trau’ ich’ was zu!’, 1140)
1473. [D=Sieg&ied] (‘doch Sieg&ied, der 1496. [f=work] (‘Find’ ich dich faul
genas’, 982) füg’st du sie schlecht’, 1148)
1474. [b=death] (‘so starb meine Mutter 1497. [D=Swoj:d, winning] (‘die Waffe
an mir?’, 984) gewinn’ ich noch heut’!’, 1167)

X. F minor [995-1070] Xn. Bb Major [1173-1245]

1475. [G b =rescuer] (‘Meinem Schutz 1498. [B b “Separation, leaving home]
über gab sie dich’, 998) (‘Aus dem Wald fort in die Welt
1476. [Cb=Mime’s shelter] (‘ich schenkt’ zieh’n: nimmer kehr’ ich zurück!’,
ihn gern dem Kind', 1000) 1180)
1477. [B b b(=A)=loving care] (‘Was hat
sich Mime gemüht! Was g^b sich Xin. Bb minor [1246-79]
der gute für Noth!’, 1005) 1499. [bb“Mime] (‘Nun sitz ich da’,
1478. [f=caregiver, worker] (‘Als 1244)
zullendes Kind zog ich dich auf, 1500. [*D b“helper] (‘Wie helf ich mir
1009) jetz?’, 1254)
1479. [C b=rejection] (‘Mich dünkt, dess’ 1501. [f=Fafiier] (‘Fafiier’s Nest?’, 1261)
gedachtest du schon!’ 1012) 1502. [c b“spite] (‘des tückischen
1480. [Eb=origin] (‘Jetz’ sag!’, 1015) Stahl’s?’, 1263)
1481. [Cb=deaäi](‘Sohiessmichdie---- ^ 1503. pj b=fumace fire] (‘Ofens Gluth’,
Mutter, möcht’ ich dich heissen: als J265)
“Siegöied” würdest du’,.1017) 1504. [dP*4>ringing together] (‘glüht mir
1482. [f=physical strength] (‘stark und die ächten’, 1267)
schön’, 1020) 1505. [a b “heavenly skül] (‘keines
1483. [C b “evasion] (‘Entfiel er mir Zt^ergen Hammer zwingt mir die
wohl? Doch halt!’, 1039) harten’, 1269)
1484. [b b=Siegmund] (‘wie hiess mein 1506. [g b=Nibelung envy (of high
Vater?’, 1049) things)] (‘des Niblungen Neid’,
1485. [c=mnknown origin] (‘Den hab’ ich 1273)
nie geseh’n!’, 1051) 1507. [ab“Nibelung need and sweat]
1486. [b b ^jattlefield] (‘Erschlangen sei (‘NothundSchweiss’, 1276)
er’, 1055) 1508. [b b “Nibelung impotence] (‘nietet
mir Nothung nicht’, 1279)
XI. Eb Major [1071-1172]
1487. [c=sword (=T>roof)] (‘Soll ich der
Kunde glauben, hast du mir nicht
gelogen, so lasst mich Zeichen
488
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. C minor [1362-84]
1524. [c=spear] (tnotif, 1362)
1525. [eb=head](mein Haupt’, 1366)
1526. [Db=Wotan] (passim, 1371)
1527. [c=head] (mein Kopf, 1374)
1528. [F=questions, honést] (‘was dir
fföinmt’, 1381)
1529. [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
weapons] (‘drei der Fragen stell’
ich mir frei!’, 1402)
1533. [b=wicked cogitation] (‘Mime,
sammelt sich zum Nachdenken’,
1407)
XVn. E minor [1404-54]
1534. [F=earth’s back] (‘der Erde
Rücken’, 1412)
1535. [B b ■*-+e=West-East axis] (‘die Welt
durch wander’st du weit’, 1414)
1536. [B b =Nibelungs] (‘ln der Erde
Tiefe tagen die Nibelungen’, 1427)
1537. [c=dark elves] (‘Schwarzalben sind
sie’, 1430)
1538. [B b *=Alberich] (‘Schwarz-
Alberich’, 1432)
1539. [G=former Nibelung-lord] (‘hütet’
als Herrscher sie einst!’, 1433)
1540. [e=magic ring] (‘Eines
Zauberringes zwingende Kraft
1541. [b=power of ring] (‘zähmt’ihm das
fleissige Volk’, 1438)
1542. [C*=loveliness] (‘reicher Schätze’,
1440)
1543. [F=laborious piling] (‘häuften sie
ihm’, 1444)
1544. [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 Giant-
princes] (‘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)

XIX C Major [1498-1514]
1552. [f)t=three (insincere) questions]
(‘Mime ganz entrükt und
nacbsínnend’, 1498]
1553. [C=knowledge] (‘Viel Wanderer
veisst du mir’, 1504)
XX Db Major [1515-78]
1554. [Ab=cloud-hidden heights] (‘Auf
woUdgen'Höh’n’, 1515)
1555a. [Db=<îods] (‘wohnen die Götter’,
1518)
1555b. [Bb“Commander, host] (“Wotan
waltet der Schaar’, 1527)
1556ab. [F/f=work, heroic deed (and
tragic)] (‘Aus der Welt-Esche
weihlichstem Aste schuf er sich
einen Schaft’, 1531)
1557. [c=Nature, World Tree, wounded]
(‘dorrt der‘stamm’, 1537)
1558. [Db =Wotan, king] (‘mit seiner
Spitze sperrt Wotan die Welt’,
1541)
1559. [e b “Nature, World Tree,
domesticated] (‘Ißilger Verträge
Treue Runen schnitt in den Schaft
et ein. Den fiaft der Welt hält in
der Haná’)
1560a. [f=grasping, holding] (‘den
Wotan’s Faust’, 1546)
1560b. [c=the Spear] (‘imspanntt
1560c. [bb=Nibelungs] (‘derNiblungen
Heer’, 1561)
1561. [Db“authority, Wotan’s] (‘der
Riesen Gezücht zähmte sein Rath’~
1563)
1562. [Db“supreme lord] (‘Herrn’, 1576)
XXI. F minor [1579-91]
1563. [f=questions, honest] (‘Nun rede,
weiser Zwerg! Wusst’ ich der
Fragen Rath?’, 1579)
1564. [C=wisdom] fBehalte mein Haiqjt
ich frei?’, 1Í83)
XXn. C Major [1592-1625]
1565. [B b “Nibelung, Mime] (‘Was zu
wissen‘dir...’, 1592)
1566. [Oknowledge] (‘...frommt, solltest
du fragen’, ^593)
1567. [a“half-wit] ('Dass du nun nicht
weisst, was dir fronmit’, 1601)
489
1568. [Eb“custom] (‘dess’fass ich jetzt
deines als Pfand’, 1604)
1569. [f(t “Minœ’s hand (“his three
insincere questions)] (‘gab ich in
deind Hand’, 1612)
1570. [fNjuestions, honest] (‘drei der
Fragen nicht leicht’, 1621)
1571. [c=wits (dull)] (‘D’rum frische dir,
Mime, den Muir, 1624)
xxm. F minor [1626-48]
1572a. [f “Earth’s surface; not-Nibelheim]
(‘Lang’ schon ihied ich mein
Heimathland’, 1630)
1572b. [b b “Mime, a Nibelung] (“lang’
schon shied ich’, 1633)
1572c. [f=childbirth, labor] (‘aus der
Mutterschooss’, 1634)
1573. [D b “Wotan] (‘Mir leuchtete
Wotan’s Auge’, 1635)
1574. [C“eye] (‘zur Höhle lugt’er
herdin’, 1637) ‘
1575. [D b *“Wotan] (‘vor ihm’, 1639)
1576. [C=wits] (‘magert mein
Mutterwitz’, 1640) (+
Lex:*G“Mother)
1577. [f=questions, honest] (‘frage denn
zu!’, 1644)
XXIV. C Major [1649-1767]
1578. [a-d“Wälsungs, heroic clan]
(‘Welches ist das Geschlecht’,
1658)
1579. [B b “enemies] (‘dem Wotan
schlifflfrisich zeigte’, 1660)
158Ö. “^e=love] (‘und das doch das
Liebste’, 1664)
1581. [d=hero-clans] (‘Wenig hört’ ich
von Heldensippen’, 1669)
1582. [F=question, honest] (‘der Frage
doch’, 1669)
1583. [a=Wälsmgs] (‘Die Wälsungen
sind das Wunschges^chlect’, 1672)
1584. [C=Siegmund,*Sieglinde, Siegfried]
(‘Siegmund und Sieglind...
Siegfried’, 1678)
1585. [a=Wälsungs] (‘Wälsimgen-spross’,
1686)
1586. [F=question, honest] (‘Wie doch
genau das Geschlecht du mir
nennst!’, 1694)
1587. [ab“murder] ¿assim, 1702)
490
1588. [e b=dragon] (‘Fafcem soll er ihm
ßllen’, 1708)
1589. [f=Lord of the Ring] (‘dass den
Ring er erränge...des Hortes
Herrscher sein’, 1710)
1590. [C*=sword, dra^on-slaying]
(‘Welches Schwert muss Sieglriend
nun schwingen’, 1715)
1591. [f=Fafiier] (‘taug’ es zu Fafner’s
Tod?’, 1718)
1592. [C*=sword, dragon-slaying] (‘ ein
neidliches Schwert’, 1722, passim
) 1613.
1593. [Eb=ash Stern] (‘Esche Stamm’,
1726)
1594. [C=sword]_(‘Siegraund, der Köhne,
konnt’s allein’, 1737)
1595. [c=sword, broken] (‘an Wotan’s
Speer«s zersprang’, 1742)
1596. [C*=sword, Wqtan’s] (‘Wotan’s
Schwert’, 1751)
1597. [F=valipt boy] (‘ein kühnes
1598. [f=stupid boy] (‘dummes Kind’,
1753)
1599. [f=Fafiier] (‘den Wtrnn versehrt’.
1758)
XXV. D minor [1768-95]
1600. [C=genius] (‘wer käm dir an
Klugheit gleich?’, 1772).
1601. [d=heroJ (‘den kindischen Helden’,
1777)
1602. [g=Mime] (‘du weiser Waffen-
schnteid’, 1785)
1603. [B=Mime confounded] (‘wer wird
aus den starken Stüken Nothung
das Schwert, wohl schweissen?’.
1789)
XXVI, B b minor [1796-1845]
1604. [F=sword fragments] (‘Die
Säcken!’, 1797)
1605. [bb=Mime, thief] (‘Verfluchter
Stahl! Dass ich dich gestohlen! ’,
1806)
1606. [F/f=adamanVfailed hammer] (‘Mir
bleibt er hart, ich kann ihn nicht
hämmern’, 1816)
1607. [gbHntellectual defeat] (‘Der
weiseste Schmeid weiss sich nicht
Radi! Wçr schweisst nun das
Schwert’, 1824)
1608. [ab “defeat of skill] (‘schafT ich es
nicht?’, 1838)
1609. [bb“defeatedNibelung] (‘Das
Wunder wie soll ich’s’, 1841)
XXVn. C Major [1846-1941]
1610. [A=Three Questions] (‘Dreimal
solltest du flagen’, 1846)
1611. [g=Mime’s mercy] (‘Dreimal stand
ich dir fiel’, 1849)
1612. [gjl ““distant matters] (‘doch
eitlen’, 1851)
[a=empty knowledge] (‘Femen
forschtest du’, 1852)
1614. [g=Mime’s doorstep] (‘doch was
zunächst dir sich fand, fast dir
nützt’, 1854)
1615. [OSword, as The Problem] (motif
+ ‘nun ich’s errathe’, 1858)
1616. [a“a half-witted head] (‘gewonnen
hab’ ich das witzige Haupt!’, 1862)
1617. [f=Faflier] (‘Jetzt, Fafner’s kühner
Bezwinger, 1866)
1618. [g“Mime, doomed] (‘hör.
verfall’ner Zwerg! ’, 1868)
1619. [C=The Answer] (‘“Nur wer das
Fürchten nie erfuhr, schmiedet
Nothung neu’’, 1871)
1620. [f)t “forfeited head] (‘Verfallen
lass’ ich es dem’, 1883)
1621. [D*“Siegflied] (‘dem’, 1885)
1622. [A=Three Questions] (‘der das
Fürchten nicht gelernt!’, 1886)
Dritte Scene.
1623. [d)t “dragon] (motif, 1896)
1624. [c“dragon] (‘Fafeer! Fafher!’,
1938)
XXVm. Bb Major [1942-2068]
1625. [B b“Mime, idler] ‘Hethi! Du
Fauler!’, 1944)
1626. [Osword, tefoiging] (‘schmiedet
Nothung neu’, ,1989)
1627. [fl=work] (‘Zu weise ward ich für
solches Wprk!’, 199'7)
1628. [D*=Siegfiied] (‘4en’, 2015)
1629. [g=Mime] (‘Sind mir das Flausen?
Willst du piir fljeh’n?’, 2019)
1630. [B b“Mime, Ôie lovable] (‘Liebe zu
mir sollt’ er lernen’, 2031)

1631. [g=sinking] (‘versank ich in
Sinnen’, 2043)
XXIX. D minor [2069-91]
1632. [e=mother] (‘Deiner Mutter’, 2073)
1633. [C=counsel] (‘Rath’, 2074)
1634. [f=ignorance] (‘Ist’s eine Kunst,
was kenn’ ich sied nicht?’, 2087)
XXX. E minor [2092-2144]
1635. [G=feai] (‘Heraus! Was ist’s mit
dem Fürchten?’, 2090)
1636. [e=feai] (‘das Fürchten blieb dir
nochfreind’, 2133)
1637. [C=knowledge, wonderful]
(‘Sonderlich seltsam naiss das
sein!’, 2138)
XXXI. E Major [2145-8]
1638. [E=love fire, palpitations] (‘Das
Griesein und Grausen’, 2146)
1639. [F tl “glowing] (‘das Glüthen’,
2148)
XXXn. C Major [2149-50]
1640. [C=buming and fainting] (‘Hitzen
und Schwinden’, 2149)
XXXm. E minor [2151-89]
1641. [E=love longing] (‘sehnend
verlangt mich der Lust!’ 2155)
1642. [C=meditating] (‘sinnend fand ich
es aus’, 2164)
1643. [F/Mragon] (‘Ich weiss einen
schlimmen Wurm’, 2167)
1644. [F=Neidhöle] (‘Neidhöle wird es
genannt’, 2178)
1645. [e=East] (‘im Ost, am Ende des
' Wald’s’, 2180)
1646. [F=Neidhöle] C^ei Neidhöle liegt
sie ganz nah’, 2183)
XXXIV. D minor [2190-2253]
1647. [D=heroic action] (‘dann fort in die
Welt!’, 2189)
1648. [F=forging] (‘Schaffe das Schwert,
in der Welt will ich es schwingen’,
2195)
1649. [B b “Mime’s extremity] (‘O
Noth!’, 2203)
1650. [e=magic] (‘den zähen Zauber
bezwingt keines Zwergen Krafi’,
491
2115)
1651. [d=fearless hero] (‘Wér das
Fürchten rucht kennt der find’ wohl
eher die Kunst’, 2230)
1652. [g=Mime, bungler] (‘dass er ein
Stünçer sollt’ er gesteh’n’, 2242)
XXXV. G Major [2254-2419]
1653. [Osword] (‘Des Vaters Stahl fügt
sich wohl mir: ich selbst schweisse
das Schwert’, 2256)
1654. [g=Mime, failed teacher] (‘Hättest
du fleissig die Kunst gepflegt, jetz
käm’ dir’s wahrlich zu gut’, 2271)
1655. [G=charcoal (dead tree)] (‘Er hat
eine grosse Menge Kohlen auf dem
herd aufgehäuft’, 2294)
1656. [D=Siegfiied, hero] (‘was entzwei
ist, zwing’ ich mir so’, 2324)
1657. [E l>=inçotence, Nibelung] (‘Hier
hilft kein lUuger’, 2335)
1658. [E=magic?] (‘Nun ward ich so alt
wie Höl’ und Wald, und hab’ rucht
so was geseh’n!’, 2355)
1659. [d=heroic fearlessness] (‘das lem’
ich wohl; furchtlos’, 2372)
1660. [a=heroic stmggle and success]
(‘fegt er’s zu ganz’, 2374)
1661. [C=Wanderer] (‘Der Wand’rer
wusst’ es gut’, 2377)
1662. [b b =Mime] (‘Wie berg’ ich nun
mein banges Haupt?’, 2381)
1663. [f=Fafiier] (‘lehrt’ ihm rucht Fafiier
die Furcht!’, 2385)
^ V664. [g=Mimé’s woe] (‘Doch weh’ mir
' Armen’, 2391)
1665. [f“törd of the Ring] (‘Wie erräng’
ich mir*den Ring?’, 2396)
1666. [e“tnagic ring] (‘Verfluchte
Klermne’, + rrxrtif, 2398)
1667. [b=ring trap(=curse)] (‘Da klebt’
ich fest, fäid ich nicht klugen Rath,
wie den Furchtlosen selbst ich
bezwäng’, 2401)
1668. [Bb“Mime] (‘Hei Mime!
Geschwind!’, 2409)
1669. [c“sword] (‘Nothung nermt sich das
neidliche Schwert’, 2413)
1670. [g*-a*=mother] (‘deine Mutter’,
2418)
492
XXXVI. D minor [2420-2568]
1671. [d=lieroic forging] (passim, 2420ff)
1672. [b b =Mime] (‘das seh’ ich nun
deutlich voraus’, 2508)
1673. [e=magic ring] (‘Hort und Ring
erringt er im Harst’, 2511)
1674. [a=cunning’ (‘wie erwerb’ ich mir
ded Gewinn?’, 2519)
1675. [e=magic ring] (‘gewiim’ich
beides’, 2520)
1676. [b=dragon-fi¿ht] (‘Rang er sich
müd’ mit dem Wurm’, 2528)
1677. [a=flowers and herbage] (‘von der
Müh’ erlab’ ihn ein Trunk; aus
wüiz’gen SïHen, die, ich
gesammelt, brau’ ich den Trank für
ihm’, 2532)
1678. [E b t=sleep] (‘weing Tropfen nur
braucht er zu trinken sinnlos sinkt
er in Schlaf, 2540)
1679. [C=sword] (‘Mit der eig’nen
Waffe’ + motif, 2548)
1680. [a=half-wit] (‘Hei Weiser
Wanderer! Dürfet ich dich dumm?’,
2559)
XXXVn. D Major [2569-77]
1681. [D=HERO (via Sword)] (‘Bald
schwing’ dich als mein Schwert!’,
2569)
XXXVm. D minor [2578-96]
1682. [Eb=water] (‘In das Wasser floos
ein Feuerfluss’, 2578)
1683. [F=solidity, earth] (‘in des Wassers
Fluth fliesst er idcht mehr’, 2589)
1684. [Db/db=hardness] (‘Starrwarder
und steif, 2593)
XXXIX. D Major [2597-2626]
1685. [D=hot blood] (‘heiseses Blut’,
2598)
1686. [B b=Mime, booby] (‘Was schafft
der Tölpel dort mit den Topf?
Brerm’ ich her Stahl, brau’st du
dort Sudel?’ 2623)
XXXX. D minor [2627-50]
1687. [B b =Mime, demoted] (‘Zu
Schaiiden kam sein Schmied’,
2631)
1688. [d=Hero, teacher] (‘den Lehrer sein
Knabe lehrt’, 2634)
1689. [Bb=Mime, cook] (‘Mit der Kunst
nun ist’s beim’ Alten aus, als
Koch’, 2637)
1690. [D=Hero, master] (‘dient er dem
Kind’, 2640)
1691. [a=cunning] (‘aus Eiern braut’ der
Alte ihm Sud’, 2646)
XXXXI. 0 Major [2651-81]
1692. [b=Mime, enemy] (‘Mime, der
Künstler lernt jetzt kochen’, 2654)
1693. [C=swords] (‘Seine Schwerter all
hab’ ich zerschmissen’, 2661)
1694. [f=Fafiier] (‘Das Fürchten zu lernen
will er, 2669)
1695. [g=Mime, guide] (‘...mich führen’,
2672)
1696. [c=distant teacher] (‘ein Ferner soll
es mich lehren’, 2673)
1697. [a=half-wit] ( ‘was am besten er
katm, mir bringt er’s nich bei’,
2678)
XXXXH. F Major [2682-2771]
1698. [F=hatrimer/phallus] (‘Schmeide,
mein Hammer, ein hartes
Schwert!’, ^689)
1699. Lex:g=blood] (‘Einst färbte Blut
dein falbes Blau’, 2695)
1700. [d=blade] (‘sein rothes Riessein
rothete dich’, 2697)
1701. [a=ironic coldness] (‘kalt lachtest
du da das warme lecktest du kühl’,
2699)
1702. [c=blushing] (‘Nun hat die Gluth
dich rolh geglOth’, 2706)
1703. [g=submission] (‘deine weiche
Härte dem Hammer weicht; zornig
sprühst du mir Funkeri’, 2710)
1704. [F=the smith himself] (‘dass ich
dich Spröden gezähmt’, 2712)
1705. [C=sword] (motif, 2717)
1706. [f=Faflier, dwarfs foe] (‘Fa&er zu
fäUen’, 2720)
1707. [Bb=Mime, the giant’s foe] (‘der
Zwerge Feind’, 2721)
1708. [c=poison] (‘ich,braut’ ein
Tmggetränk,’, 2722)
1709. [C=resolution] (‘Siegflied zu
fangen, demFafiier fiel’, 2724)
1710. [F=harmner] (‘Schmeide, mein
 Hammer, ein hartes Schwert!
2738)
1711. [g=sparks] (‘Der frohen Funken
wie freu’ ich mich’, 2744)
1712. [d=anger] (‘es ziert den Kühnen des
Zornes Kraft’, 2746)
1713. [a=ironic laughter] (‘lustig lach’st
du mich an, stellst du augh grim
dich und gram! ’, 2748)
1714. [c=seduction] (‘Durch Gluth und
Hammer glückt’ es mir’, 2755)
1715. [g=submission] (‘mit starken
Schlängen streckt’ ich dich; nun
schwinde die rothe Scham’, 2757)
1716. [F=adamant] (‘werde kalt und hart,
wie du kannst’, 2760)
1717. [g=hissing steam] (‘Er lacht bei
dem Gezische laut auf, 2768)
XXXXm. Fjt minor [2772-2809]
1718. [fjt =cunning coming to fiuition]
(‘Den der Bmder schuf, den
schimmerden Reif, 2775)
1719. [G=Mime] (‘Ihn hab’ ich
gewonnen, ich walte sein!’, 2782)
1720. [b=Alberich, Mime’s enemy]
(‘Alberich selbst, der einst mich
band’, 2793)
1721. [A=cunning triunçhant]
(‘gehorchen soll mir alles Herr’,
2799)
XXXXIV. D minor [2810-88]
1722. [Ab=minions] (‘wie wird er
geehrt!’, 2809) ' '
1723. [a=inflation] (‘Vor meinemNicken
neigt sich die Welt; vor meinem
Zorne zittert sie hin!’, 2819)
1724. [d=sword] (‘Nothung!’, 2826)
1725. [F=hilt] (‘Jetzt haftest du wieder im
Heft!’, 2837)
1726. [aHnflation] (‘Dann wahrlich müht
sich Mime nicht mehr’, 2841)
1727. [d=sword] (‘War’st du entzwei, ich
zwang dich zu ganz’, 2845)
1728. [C=indestructible sword] (‘kein
Schlag soll nun dich mehr
zerschlagen’, 2851)
1729. [g=battlefield, last] (‘Dem
sterbenden Vater zersprang der
Stahl’, 2864)
1730. [F=living son, smith] (‘der lebende
Sohn’, 2866)
1731. [Osword] (‘schuf ihn neu’, 2869)
1732. [C=light] (‘nun lacht ihm sein
heller Schein’, 2873)
1733. [F=sword-edge] (‘seine Schärfe
schneidet ihm hart’, 2879)
1734. [a=inflation] (‘Mime, der Kühne,
Mime ist König, Fürst der Alben,
Walter des All’s!’, 2882)
XXXXV. D Major [2889-2973]
1735. [D=Sword] (‘Nothung! Neidliches
Schwert!’, 2889)
1736. [A=cunning triunçhant] (‘Hei!
Mime, wie glückte dir das!’, 2916)
1737. [b=villains] (‘Zeige den Schächern
nun deinen Schein! ’,2919)
1738. [D=sword] (‘So schneidet
Siegfried’s Schwert!’, 2939)
Zweiter Aufzug.
Vorspiel und erste Scene.
XXXXVL F minor [2974-3027]
1739. [f=Fafiier] ¿assim. Giant motif,
2974ft)
1740. [db=Walhall, Fafiier’s memory of]
(passim, 2993)
1741. [B b b=Loge’s bargain] (passim,
2998)
1742. [G b =moimtain peak, foundation of
Walhall] (passim, 2999)
1743. [c=renunciation of love for the
magical ring] (passim, 3005-3011)
1744. J^Freia, exchanged for ring]
(passim, 3012-16)
1745. [ft“Fafiier] (passim, 3016-17)
1746. [e b =an abyss, sleep, the
[imconscious] (passim, 3017-25)
XXXXVn. B minor [3038-57]
1747. [e?=magic ting] (passim, motif,
3028-32)
1748. [b=Curse] (passim, motif, 3032)
XXXXVra. F minor [3058-77]
1749. [f=Lord of the Ring, Fafiiet]
(passim, 3065) •
XXXXIX. B minor [3078-3139]
1750. [e=Eastem Forest] (‘In Wald und
Nacht’, 3078)
494
1751. [a=watching] (‘vor Neidhöhl halt’
ich Wacht’, 3079)
1752. [d=eye] (‘müh’voll lugt mein Aug’,
3084)
1753. [b=death-day] (‘Banger Tag, heb’st
du schon auf?’, 3089)
1754. [D=light] (‘Welcher Glanz glitzert
dor auf?’, 3098)
1755. [f#=steed] (‘es rennt wie ein
leuchtendes Ross’, 3105)
1756. [b=dragon-slayer] (‘Naht schon des
Wunnes Würger? Ist’s schon der
Fafherfällt?’,3112)
1757. [C*=Light] (‘Das Licht erlischt’,
3122)
1758. [b=Night] (‘Nacht ist’s wieder’,
3129)
L. F minor [3140-3230]
1759. [c=Wanderer by night] (‘Zur
Neidhöle fuhr ich bei Nacht’, 3141)
1760. [b b ’^Alberich] (‘Wen gewahr ich
im Dunkel dort?’, 3143)
1761. [DbfWotan] Alberich erkennt
den Wanderer,’ 3145)
1762. [f=Neidhöle] (‘Du selbst lässt dich
hier seh’n? Was willst du hier!
Fort, aus dem Weg!’, 3147)
1763. [0=Wanderer] (‘schamloser Dieb!’,
3151)
1764. [g*=Alberich] (‘Schwaizalberich’,
3152)
1765. [f=guarding, Fafiier, Neidhöle]
(‘Hütest du Fafner’s Haus?’,
3154)
1766. [C=Wanderer, traitor] (‘du
Frecher’, 3163)
1767. [Db =Wotan] (‘wer wehrte mir
Wand’rer’s Fsirt’?, 3169)
1768. [F=stupidity] (‘Wür ich dir zu Leib’
doch noch dumm, 3174)
1769. [C=Wanderer] (‘wie damals’,
4175)
1770. [d=gnllible fool] (‘wie leicht
gerieth’ es’, 3178)
1771. [f=stupid victim] ([den Ring mir
nochnoals zu rauben?’, 3179)
1772. [g=Alberich, wised up] (‘Hab
Acht!’, 3181)
1773. [E/e b=Wotan’s bad treaties] (‘doch
wo du schwach bist, blieb mir auch
nicht verschwiegen’ ,3184)
1774. [ab=Wotan’s guilt] (‘mit meined
Schätzen zahltest du Schulden’,
3187)
1775. [fb •=Ring] (‘Schätzen’, 3187)
1776. [fN3iants] (‘mein Ring zuhlte der
Riesen Müh’, 3189)
1777. [Db“Walhall] (‘deine Burg’,
3191)
1778. [f=workers] (‘dir gebaut’, 3193)
1779. [e b “treaties, runes] (‘Was mit den
Trotz’gen einst du vertragen, dess’
Runen wahrt noch heut’ deines
Speeres herrischer Schaft’, 3194)
1780. [D*=destruction, of Wotan] (“in
deiner Hand der herrische Stab’,
3210)
1781. [f=Alberich’s master] (‘Durch
Vertrages Treue-Runen band er
dich Bösen mir nicht’, 3215)
1782. [c=Spear’s might] (‘dich beugt’ er
mir durch seine Kraft; zum Krieg
drum wahr’ ich ihn wohl’, 3223)
1783. [g=a boaster] (‘Wie stark du dräu’st
in trotziger...’, 3228)
1784. [D=Hero] (‘Stärke’, 3230)
U. A minor [3231-4]
1785. [a=dismay] (‘und wie dir’s im
Busen doch bangt! ’,3230)
1786. [F*=Fafiter] (‘des Hortes Hüter’,
3236)
LH. E minor [3234-52]
1787. [E=magical ring] (‘wer wird ihn
becrbçn? Wird der neidliche Hort
dem Nib’lungen wieder gehören?’,
3239)
1788. [a=dismay] (‘Das sehrt dich mit
ew’ger Sorge!’, 3244)
1789. [d=possessor] (‘Denn, fass’ ich ihn
, wieder einst in der Faust’, 3248)
LHI. F ndnor [3253-62]
1790. [f=stupid Giants] (‘anders als
dumme Riesen üb’ ich des Ringes
Kraft’,'3250) ^
1791. [D b *=Wotan] (‘dann zitt’re’,
3256)
1792. [D*=Heroes] (‘der Helden ewiger
Hüter!’, 3256)

LIV. B minor [3263-9]
1793. [B=Hella] (‘mit Hella’s Heer, der
Welt walte dann ich’, 3261)
LV. F Major [3270-98]
1794. [bb=Alberich’s plans] (‘Deinen
Sinn kenn’ ich wohl, doch sorgt er
mich nicht’, 3269)
1795. [F=Lord of the Ring] (‘Des Ringes
waltet, wer ihn gewinnt’, 3275)
1796. [c fl =Wotan, ohscuritanist] (‘Wie
dunkel sprichst du’, 3280)
1797. [D*=Hero] (‘An Heldensöhne’,
3285)
1798. [F=Human household] (‘die traut
deinem Blute entblüflt’t?’, 3287)
1799. [Q b=plotting?] (‘der klug die
Frucht dir pflücke’, 3291)
1800. [c=forbidden fruit] (‘die du nicht
brechen darfst?’, 3293)
LVI. C Major [3299-3320]
1801. [a=Wanderer] (‘Mit mir nicht’,
3298)
1802. [e=ring-haggling] (‘had’re mit
Mime’, 3?01)
1803. [G=boy] (‘Einen Knaben’, 3303)
1804. [C“Wanderer] (‘Nicht weiss der
von mir’, 3307)
1805. [b=dark plots] (‘der Nib’lung nützt
ihn für sich. D’rum sag’ ich dir.
Gesell, thue frei wie dir’s frommt!’,
3308)
1806. [C=curiosity] (‘Alberich macht ein
Gebärde heftiger Neugierde’, 3313)
1807. [e=magic ring] (‘Höre mich wohl
sei auf der Hut! Nicht kennt der
Knabe den Ring’, 3315)
LVH, F Major [3321-79]
1808. [d=grasping hand] (‘Deine Hand
hieltest du vom Hort?’, 3321)
1809. [D-Hero] (‘Wen ich liebe lass’ich
für sich gewähren’, 3325)
1810. [F=Lord of Oneself] (‘er steh’ oder
fall’, sein Herr ist er’, 3329)
1811. [D*(g:V)=Herò] (‘Helden nur
können mir frommen’, 3331)
1812. [b b=Nibelungs] (‘Mit Mime räng’
ich’, 3335)
1813. [ffLord of the Ring] (‘allein um
den Ring?’, 3336)
495
1814. [d=covetousness] (‘Ausser dir
begehrt er einsig das Gold’, 3337)
1815. [g=Alberich, failure] (‘Und
dennoch gewänn’ ich ihn nicht?’,
3339)
1816. [g=Nibehmgs] (‘Ein Heide naht,
den Hort zu befiei’n; zwei
Nibelungen geizen das Gold’,
3341)
1817. [f=Fafiier] (‘Fafiier fäUt’, 3346)
1818. [F=Fafher] (‘der den Ring
bewacht’, 3347)
1819. [f=Lord of the Ring] (‘wer ihn rafft,
hat ihn gewo^a Willst du noch
mehr? Dort liegt der’, 3349)
1820. [d=Fafiier, hi's impending death]
(‘Wimm Wam’st du ihn vor dem
Tod, willig wohl liess’ er den
Tand’, 3352)
1821. [b=mortal danger] (‘Fafiner! Father!
Erwache, Wurm!’, 3361)
1822. [Bb=Alberich] (‘Was beginnt der
Wilde? Gömit er mir’s wirklich?’,
3369)
1823. [g=Alberich] (‘Wer stört mir den
Schlaf?’, 3375)
LVm. C Major [3380-91]
1824. [c ft =Wotan] (‘der Höhle
zugewandt’, 3380)
1825. [fft =attençted bargain] (‘er lohnt
dir’s mit dem Leben, lohnst du das
Leben ihm’, 3381)
1826. [d=guarded gold] (‘mit dem Horte
_ den du hütest?’, 3384)
1827. [g=Al^rich] (‘Was v^l er?’, 3390)
LIX. F minor [3392-3433]
1828. [b b =Alberich, threatening]
(‘Wache, Faôier! Wache, du
Wurm! Ein starkêr Heide naht, dich
heil’gen will er besteh’n’, 3392)
1829. [0=Wanderer, sword] (‘Kühn ist
des Kindes Kraft, scharf schneidet
sein Schwert’ + sword motif, 3400)
1830. [f=covetousness] (‘Dengol’nen
Reif geizt er allein’, 3403)
1831. [e*=magic ring] (‘ReiF, 3404)
1832. [c=sleep (‘Lasst mich schlaffen’,
3421)
1833. [b=scheme, blow] (‘Nun Alberich!
Das schlug fehl’, 3428)
496
1834. [al>=rogue] (‘Doch schilt mich
nicht mehr Schelm!’, 3430)
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)
LXI. F Major [3446-62]
1837. [c=Wanderer, departing] (‘Er
verschwindet schnell im Walde’,
3452)
1838. [b=Öirse] (‘ihr leichtsinges
lustgieriges Göttergelichter’, 3460)
LXn. C Major [3463-71]
1839. [ Euch seh’ ich noch Alle
vergeh’n!’,)
1840. [f=^tching, guarding] (‘So lang’
das Gold am Lichte glänzt, hält ein
Wissender Wacht’, 3469)
1841. [C*=light] (‘Lichte’, 3470)
LXm. F minor [3472-93]
1842. [c=light, dim] (‘Morgendämme
rung’, 3479)
Zweite Scene.
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)
1852. [6=swallowing] (‘mit Haut auf
einen Happ, verschlingt der
Schlimme dich wohl’, 3544)
1853. [d=heroic resistance] (‘Gut ist’s,
den Schlund ihm zu schliessen’,
3547)
1854. [F=physical agility] (‘dmm bief ich
mich nicht dem Gebiss’, 3549)
1855. [c=T5oison foam] (‘Giftig giesst sich
ein Geifer ihm aus’, 3550)
1856. [ft=salivating] (‘wen mit Speichers
Schweiss er bespei’t,’ 3552)
1857. [d=hero] (‘dem schwinden wohl
Fleisch und Gebein’, 3554)
1858. [c=poison foam] (‘Dass des
GeHer’s Gift’, 3555)
1859. [d=hero] (‘mich nicht sehre’, 3556)
1860. [B b “Separation] (‘weich’ ich zur
Seite dem Wurm’, 3557)
1861. [bb=aserpent-tail](‘Ein
Schlangenschweif schlägt sich ihm
auf: wen er damit umschlingt’,
3558)
1862. [a=sight] (‘Vor des Schweifes
Schwang mich zu wahren, half ich
den Argen im Aug’, 3563)
1863. [F=Fafiier’s heart] (‘Doch heise
mich das: hat der Wurm ein Herz’,
3567)
1864. [d=hero] (‘Noüiung stoss’ ich dem
Stolsen in’s Hetz!’, 3577)
1865. [g=Mime] (‘Hei! Du Alter!’, 3582)
1866. [a=no learning] (‘das Fürchten
lern’ ich hier nicht’, 3588)
1867. [e=fear, sexual] (motif, 3597)
1868. [d=Siegflied] (‘den dank’st du’,
3605)
1869. [Bb=Mime, best face] (‘gedenk’st,
wie Mime dich liebt’, 3610)
1870. [d=Siegfiied, angry] (‘Du sollst
mich nicht lieben! Sagt’ ich’s dir
nicht?’, 3612)
1871. [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)
1872. [g“cave] (‘aus der Höhle wältz er
sich her’, 3638)
1873. [Bb=path to stream] (‘am Brunnen
sichzu trilnken’, 3643)
1874. [c=spring, dangerous] (‘Mime,

weil’st du am Quell’, 3646)
1875. [d=hero] (‘dahin lass’ ich den
Wunn wohl geh’n’, 3647)
1876. [g=Müne] (‘Nothung stoss’ ich ihm
erst in die Nieren, wenn dich selbst
dort mit’ weg gesofifen’, 3649)
1877. [Eb=spring] (‘amQuell’, 3657)
1878. [g=separation] (‘und komm’ nie
mehr zu mir! ’,3658)
1879. [B b =Mime’s drink] (‘wirst du mir
wohl nicht wehren?’, 3664)
1880. [c=counsel. Mime’s] (‘Rufe mich
auch, darb‘st du des Rathes’, 3667)
1881. [d=Siegfiied, angry] (‘Siegfried
erhebt sich’, 3672)
1882. [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)
497
1895. [c)t “heavenly vision]
(‘schimmernde Augen?’, 3752)
LXVm. G Major [3756-98]
1896. [e=painfiil childbirth] (‘Da bang sie
mich geboren’, 3760)
1897. [b=death] (‘Sterben die Menschen
mütter’ 3766)
1898. [C=seeing] (‘Ach, möchf ich Sohn
meine Mutter sehen!’, 3775)
1899. [D=hero-son] (cadence, 3781)
1900. [G=Sieglinde, Mother] (‘Meine
Mutter, ein Menschenweib!’, 3783)
1901. [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. [E=Forest Bird] (‘Er schweigt’,
3869)
1917. [F=pipe (=hom) call] (passim,
3872)
1918. [A=pipe] (‘Das tönt nicht recht’ auf
dem Rohre tangt die wonnige
Wiese mir nicht’, 3883)
1919. [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. [C“leamtag] (‘Doch dir fahr’ ich
zu Leibe, lehrst du das Fürchten
mich nicht’, 3996)
1938. [c=drink] (‘Ha! Trinken wellt’ ich’,
3998)
1939. [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)

1958. [D=sword] (‘Nothung tiäugt du im
Herzen’, 4065)
1959. [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
499
noch’ weise ja scheinst du Wilder
im Sterben’, 4125)
1977. [e=unknown household] (’rath’es
nach meinen Namen’, 4130)
1978. [C=information] (‘Siegöied bin ich
genannt’, 4132)
1979. [d=Siegfried] (‘So leite mich derm
min lebendes Sword!’, 4140)
1980. [C*=Sword] (motif, 4143)
1981. [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. [F=Giants] (‘Wo hast du den Ring?
Dir Zagem entrissen ihm Riesen’,
4233)
1996. [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 Tam-
hehn’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. [C=lopking, pondering] (‘Was ihr
mir nützt, weiss ich nicht’, 4323)
2018. [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. [E=Forest Bird] (‘Hei! Sieg&ied!’,
4350)
2020. [A/f)t=thinking] (‘Er sinnt’, 4364)
2021. [g jt /B=enemy, hidden counsel]
(‘Weilte woU hier ein weiser
Wand’rer, schweifte lanher,
beschwatzte das Kind mit list’ger
Runen Rath?’, 4369)
2022. [A=cunning] C<he listige Schlinge
leg’ ich jetzt aus’, 4376)
LXXXK. B minor [4378-4476]
2023. [b=flattering enemy] (‘Er tritt näher
an Siegfried heran, »md
bewilldommnet diesen mit
schmeicheinden Gebärden’, 4378)
2024. [D=Sieg^ed] (‘Siegfried!’, 4391)
2025. [G*=hloflier/fear] (‘hast du das
FOithten gelernt?’, 4394)
2026. [c it “teacher (of fear)] (‘Den Lehrer
fand ich noch nicht!’, 4397)
2027. [b“drago^ death] (‘Doch den
Schlang'enwurm’, 4400)
2028. [D“Siegfried] (‘So gramm und
tückisch er war, sein Töd grämt
mich doch schier’, 4407)
2029. [g=Mime, arrant scouncfrel] (‘da
viel üblere Sclächer unerschlagen

noch leben’, 4410)
2030. [b=flattery] (‘Nun sachte!’, 4419)
2031. [D=Siegfried] (‘zum ew’gen Schlaf
schliess' ich dir die Augen bald’,
4422)
2032. [b=enemy] (‘jetzt will ich nur noch
dieÆeute dir abgewinnen’, 4429)
2033. [A=trickery] (‘zu bethören bist du
ja leicht’, 4434)
2034. [b=murder] (‘So sinn’st du auf
meinen Schaden?’, 4437)
2035. [G=Siegfiied, hated by Mime]
(‘Dich und deine Aft hasst’ ich
immer von Heizen’, 4444)
2036. [E=fondness] (‘aus Liebe’, 4447)
2037. [C=adoption] (‘erzog ich dich
Lästigen nicht’, 4449)
2038. [F*=Fafeer] (‘dem Horte in
Fafner’s Hut’, 4452)
2039. [a=cunning] (‘dem Golde galt
meine Müh’, 4453)
2040. [D=Siegfiied] (‘Giebst du mir das
gutwillig nun nicht’, 4456)
2041. [e=foster-son] (‘Siegfried mein
Sohn’, 4457)
2042. [b=murder] (‘das siehst du wohl
selbst’, 4460)
2043. [D=Siegfiied] (‘dein Leben’, 4462)
2044. [B b **=Nibelung] (motif, 4465)
2045. [b=murder] (‘doch auch mein
Leben’, 4471)
LXXXX. G minor [4477-4501]
2046. [g=Mime](motif, 4477)
2047. [E b =drink, good] (‘dich zu
erquicken mit queckem Trank’,
4485)
2048. [c=drink, problematical] (‘säumt’
ich sorgender nicht’, 4487)
2049. [B b=Mime, beneficial] (‘als dein
Schwert du dir branntest, braut’ ich
den Sud’, 4489)
2050. [d=Siegfiied, endangered] (‘trink’st
du nun den’, 4492)
2Q51. [a“cunning] (‘genwinn’ ich dein
trautest Schwert, und mit ihm Hehn
und Hort!’, 4493)
2052. [d=Siegfiied] (‘So willst du mein
Schwert, und was ich
erschwungen’, 4498)
501
LXXXXI. B minor [4502-4636]
2053. [b=enemy,’ treacherous] (‘Ring Und
beute mir rauben?’, 4502)
2054. [a=a liar] (‘Die grösste Mühe geh’
ich mir doch, mein heimliches
Sinnen heuchelnd zu bergen, 4508)
2055. [d=Siegfiied, stupid] (‘dìi
dummmer Bube’, 4512)
2056. [a=misunderstanding] (‘deutest
Alles doch falsch!’, 4514)
2057. [d=Siegfiied, stupid] (‘Höre!’,
4519)
2058. [g=Mime] (‘was Mime meint. Hier
nimm, und trinke dir Labung’,
4520)
2059. [d=Siegflied, stubborn] (‘mein
Tr^ labte dich oft’, 4524)
2060. [b=^nemy] (‘was ich dir bot,
erbosf,’ 4529)
2061. [D=Siegfiied] (‘auch nahmst du
doch immer’, 4531)
2062. [B=poison] (‘Einen guten Trank
hätt’ ich gern’, 4534)
2063. [F=intoxication] (‘In Nacht und
Nebel sinken die Sinne dir bald’,
4541)
2064. [f(t=witlessness] (‘ohne Wach’ und
Wissen stracks streck’st du die
Glieder’, 4543)
2065. [g=Mime] (‘hätt’ ich selbst auch
den Rmg’, 4554)
2066. [b=murder] (‘Im Schlafe willst du
mich morden?’, 4566)
2067. [d=Siegfiied, hated] (‘Ich will dem
Kind’, 4573)
2068. [a=cunning] (‘darf ich doch nicht
rasten’, 4585)
2069. [B b “Alberich] (‘wie käm’ ich
sonst anders zur Beute, da
Alberich auch’, 4586)
2070. [a=cunning] (‘nach ihr lugt?’,
4589)
2071. [g=Mime] (‘nun mein Wälsung’,
4597)
2072. [a=Wolf-son] (‘Wolfsohn du?’,
4597)
2073. [b=murder] (‘Sauf, und würg’,
' 4600)
2074. [d=Siegfiied, threatened] (‘dich zu
todt!’,4601)
2075. [D=Sword, threatening] (‘Schmeck’
du mein Schwert’, 4605)
502
2076. [g=Minie, murdered] (‘ek’liger
Schwätzer!’, 4606)
2077. [b=Alberich’s Curse] (‘dazu dürft’
ich ihn schmieden’, 4616)
2078. [a=cunning] (‘Mit zäher List
erzieltest du’, 4632)
2079. [b=coipse] (‘jetzt magst du des
wonnigen walten!’, 4634)
LXXXXn. C Major [4637-52]
2080. [b b =Nibelung] (‘Einen guten
Wächter geb’ ich dir auch: dass er
vor'Dieben dich deckt’, 4637
2081. [f=Fkfeer] (‘Er wälzt mit gross
Austrengung den Leichnam des
Wunnes^i4641)
2082. [c=watchet] (‘vor den Eingang der
Höhle, so dass er diesen ganz damit
vorstopft’, 4645)
LXXXXm. B minor [4^3-4670]
2083. [b=dragon, dark and dead] (‘Da
lieg’ auch du, dunkler Wurm!’,
4653)
2084. [e=magical ring] (‘Den gleissenden
Hort’ + ring motif^ 4656)
2085. [b=enemy] (‘mit dembeuterflhrigen
Feind: so fandet Beide ihr nun
Ruh’, 4660)
LXXXXIV. C Major [4671-86]
2086. [d=Siegôied, exhausted] (‘Heiss
ward mir von der harten Last’,
'4672)
2087. [C=rushing] (‘Braussend jagt
mein’, 4676)
2088. [F=buming blood] (‘brünst’ges
Blut!’, 4676)
2089. [C=Ught, disorienting] (‘aus
lichtem Blau blickt ihr Aug’ auf
den Scheitel steil mir herab’, 4681)
LXXXXV. G Major [4687-4761]
2090. [G=Linden] (‘Linde Kühlung
eikies’ ichunter der Linde’, 4686)
2091. [A=Forest Bird, relaxed] (‘Noch
einmal, Uebes Vöglein’, 4695)
2092. [d=Siegflied>(‘da wir so lang’
lästig gestört, lauscht’ ich geme
dienen Sange’, 4698)
2093. [G=tree branches] (‘auf dem
Zweige seh’ ich wohhg dich
wiegen, zwitschernd umschwiiren
dich’, 4701)
2094. [a=siblings] (‘Brüder und
Schwestern’, 4705)
2095. [E=kin, Forest Bird among his
own] (‘lustig und lieb’, 4707)
2096. [:e=without kin, alone] (‘Doch ich
bin so allein’, 4710)
2097. [d=Siegftied, only child] (‘hab’
nich Brader noch Schwester’,
4712)
2098. [B b "fallen father] (‘mein Vater
fiel’, 4717)
2099. [g=Mime] (‘Mein eins’ger Gesell’,
4721)
2100. [b=enemy] (‘Güte zwang uns nie zu
Liebe’, 4724)
2101. [F)i=wicked cunning] (‘listige
Schlingen’, 4727)
2102. [b=murder] (‘nun musst’ ich ihn gar
erschlagen!’, 4728)
2103. [e=Forest Bird, with duress]
(‘Freundliches Vöglein, dich ftage
ich nun’, 4734)
2104. [A=true companion] (‘Gönnstest du
mir wohl ein gut Gesell?’, 4742)
2105. [a=vain looking] (‘Willst du mir
das rechte rathen? Ich lockte so
oft’, 4749)
2106. [e=alonness] (‘und erloost’ es mir
nie’, 4751)
LXXXXVI. E Major [4762-77]
2107. [E=Forest Bird] (‘Hei! Siegfiied’,
4766)
2108. [E=Magic Fire] (‘Feuer umbrennt
ihren Saal’, 4771)
2109. [E=Mating] (‘Brünnhilde wäre
dann sein’, 4776)-
LXXXXVn. E minor [4778-90]
2110. [e=love longing] (‘O holder Sang’,
4778)
2111. [b=buming fire] (‘Wie brennt sein
Sinn mir sehnend die Brust!’, 4780)
2112. [Bb=buming fire] (‘Wie zückt es
heftig, zündend mein Herz’, 4782)
2113. [D=4ieart, Siegfiied’s] (‘Was jagt
mir so jach durch Heiz und
Sinne?’, 4785)
 «
503
LXXXXVm. E Major [4791-4888] 2137. [g=Erda below] (‘erwache!’, 5005)
2114. [E=Love, Mystery of] (‘Lustig im
Leid sing’ ich von Liebe’, 4794) C. C Major [5009-29]
2115. [b=upward journey] (‘Fort jagt 2138. [Ctt=Erda above] (‘Erda sehr
mich’s jauchzend von hinen’, 4806) allmählich aus der Tiefe auf, 5012)
2116. [E=Eastem Forest] (‘fort aus dem 2139. [E/e=magic] (‘kräftig reizt der
Wald’, 4808) Zauber’, 5020)
2117. [F(l=fell] (‘auf den Fels!’, 4809) 2140. [C(t=Erda awake] (‘Ichbin
2118. [:E=Magic Fire] (‘werd’ ich das erwacht’, 5023)
Feuer durch brechen?’, 4813) 2141. [c))=feniale wisdom] (‘wissendum’,
2119. [Oawakening] (‘Katm ich 5025)
erwecken die Braut?’, 4816) 2142. [Eb=sleep] (‘Schlaf, 5026)
2120. [E=sleeping Bride] (motif, 4819) 2143. [eb=slun*er] (‘Schlummer’, 5028)
2121. [b=Siegftied] (‘Der dumme Knab’,
der das Fürchten nicht kennt, mein CI. G minor [5030-77]
Vöglein, der bin ja ich!’, 4830) 2144. [c=Wanderer, awakener] (‘Der
2122. [b=fear] (‘nun brenn’ ich vor Lust, Weckrufer bin ich’, 5032)
es von Brünnhild’ zu wissen! ’, . 2145. [C=awakening] (‘was fester Schlaf
4847) verschliesst’, 5038)
2123. [C=air] (‘Der Vogel flattert auf, 2146. [G=wise woman] (‘Kundiger giebt
kreist übet Siegfried, und fliegt ihm es keine als dich, bekannt ist dir’,
zögernd voran’, 4854) 5048)
2124. [C=flight] (‘So wird mir der Weg 2147. [E b =depths] (‘was die Tiefe birgt’,
gewiesen: wohin du flatterst’, 4856) 5051)
2125. [E=Bride] (‘folg’ ich dir nach! ’, 2148. [E=life] (‘wo Wesen sind, wehet
4858) dein A¿em’, 5055)
2149. [C=brains, fliought] (‘wo Hirne
Dritter Aufzug sinnen, haftet dein Sinn’, 5060)
2150. [Ab=Wala] (‘Alles sagt man, sei
LXXXXIX. G minor [4889-5008] dir bekannt’,
2126. [g=wandering] (passim, 4889) 2151. [g=mde awakening] (‘weck’ ich
2127. [g=tude awakening] (‘Wache dich aus dem Schlaf, 5072)
Wala!’, 4960)
2128. [Ab=Wala] (‘Wala, erwach’!’, LCn. C Major [5078-85]
4964) 2152. [Oconsciousness](passim, motif)
2129. [g=deep sleep] (‘Aus langem Schlaf 2153. [c=sleep, (E b *)=dream] (‘Mein
weck’ ich dich schlutmnemde auT, Schlaf ist Träumen’, 5078)
4966) 2154. [Ab =brooding] (‘Mein Träumen
2130. [g=Erda] (‘Erda! Erda! ’, 4978) Sinnen’, 5080)
2131. [Eb=Etemal Woman] (‘Ewiges 2155. [E=Female wisdom] (‘Mein Sinnen
Weib!’, 4480) Walten des Wissen’s’, 5083)
2132. [Eb=pltimate depths, unconscious]
(‘Aus heimischer Tiefe tauche zur cm. E Major [5086-94]
Höh’!’, 4983) 2156. [c)t=ropeofdestiny] (‘sie weben
2133. [A=Wake Song] (‘Dein Wecklied das Seil’, 5089)
sing’ ich’, 4985) 2157. [A=Noms] (‘was fräg’st du nicht
2134. [Eb=depths] (‘das du erwachest’, die Nomen’, 5092)
4988)
2135. [A=female wisdom] (‘aus CIV. E minor [5095-5105]
sinnendem Schlafe weck’ ich dich 2158. [a=Noms, powerless] (‘Im Zwange
auf, 4989) der Welf, 5095)
2136. [Ab=Wala] (‘du Wala!’, 5004) 2159. [e=magical ring] (motif +‘weben
504
die Nomen, sie könen Nichts
wenden noch wandeln’, 5096)
2160. [ftl =suppliant, learner] (‘Doch
deiner Weisheit dankt’ ich den Radi
wohl’, 5100)
2161. [a=rolling Wheel] (‘wie zu hemmen
ein rollendes Rad?’, 5102)
CV. Eb Major [5106-22]
2162. [eb “darkened dreams]
(‘Männerthaten umdämmem mir
denMuth;, 5108)
2163. [Eb “Eternal Feminine, taken]
(‘mich Wissende selbst bezwang
ein Waltendereinst’, 5110)
2164. [Ab=WishMaiden] (‘der Helden
Wal hiess fUr sich er sie küren’,
5119)
CVI. C Major [5123-33]
2165. [A=wise woman] (‘Kühn ist sie und
weise auch’, 5125)
2166. [ab=Erda and Wotan’s child]
(‘Erda und Wotan’s Kind’, 5132)
CVn. G minor [5134-5287]
2167. [g=Br0nnhilde, rebel] (‘Sie trotzte
dem Stürme-bezwinger’, 5138)
2168. [d=War-Father] (‘was den Lenker
der Schlacht zu tìtun verlangte’,
5143)
2169. [g=Brünnhilde, rebel] (‘Btünnhdde
in brennender Schlacht’ ,5150)
2170. [e=magic sleep, yielding to love]
(‘erwachen wird die Weiblicher
nur’, 5158)
2171. [F=a husband] (‘um einen Mann zu
minnen als Weib’, 5162)
2172. [C=awakening] (‘Wirr wird mir....
kreis’t die Welt!’, 5169)
2173. [Ab»=Erda’s Daughter] (‘Wala
Kind’, 5175)
2174. [E=Magic Sleep] (‘büsst in Banden
Schlafs’, 5176)
2175. [ftl=sleep, ignorant] (‘als die
wissende Mutter schlief?’, 5178)
2176. [ab=Wotan, unjust judge] (‘Der die
Rechte wahrt, der die Eide hütet’,
2177. [f=Wotan, unjust punisher]
(‘wehret dem Recht’, 5190)
2178. [c=falsehood] (‘Meineid’, 5193)
2179. [eb“sleep, eternal] (‘Schlaf
verschliesse mein Wissen!’, 5197)
2180. [Ab=Moäier, Wotan’s] (‘Dich
Mutter lass’ ich lucht zieh’n’, 5199)
2181. [e=fear] (‘Urwissend stachest du
einst der Sorge Stachel’, 5204)
2182. [c=heart, Wotan’s] (‘in Wotan’s
wagendes Hetz’, 5206)
2183. [Db=Gods, declining] (‘vor
schmachvoll feindlichem Ende’,
5209)
2184. [e=fear] (‘dass Bangen band seinen
Muth’, 5212)
2185. [C=Wanderer] (motif + ‘Bist du der
Welt weiseste Weib’, 5215)
2186. [a b “fear] (‘wie besiegt die Sorge
der Gott?’, 5219)
2187. [eb=<jod, defunct] (‘Du bist nicht,
was du dich nenn’st!’, 5221)
2188. [Eb=sleep] (‘zu störender Wala
Schlaf?’, 5225)
2189. [a=Goddess, defunct] (‘Du bist
tucht, was du dich wähn’st’, 5227)
2190. [E b=Goddess, waning] (‘dein
Wissen verweht vor meinen
WUlen’, 5233)
2191. [c“final knowledge] (‘Dir
Unweisen ruf ich’s in’s Ohr’,
5239)
2192. [g=sleep, return to] (‘dass sorglos
ewig du mm schläfst’, 5241)
2193. [Ab“Wotan, Self-destroyer]
(‘fteudig fürre frei ich nun aus’,
5258)
2194. [b b “grudge, Nibelung’s] (‘des
Niblungen Neid schon die Welt’,
5266)
2195. [Eb“Wotan’s Inheritance, the
World] (‘dem herrlichsten Wälsung
weis’ ich mein Erbe nun an , 5268)
2196. [E b=chosen one, successor] (‘Der
vor mir erkoren’, 5274)
2197. [d=Siegfried] (‘doch nie mich
gekaimt’, 5275)
2198. [Bb“daiingboy (also, Wotan’s
enemy] (‘ein kühnester Knabe’,
5276)
2199. [F=Lord of the Ring] (‘bar meines
Rathes, errang des Niblungen
Ring’, 5277)
2200. [C=purity] (‘Liebesfroh, ledig des
Neides erlatunt an dem Edlen
Alberich’s Fluch’, 5282)

CVra. G Major [5288-5361]
2201. [a=Curse] (‘Fluch’, 5288)
2202. [Ofearlessness(=supreme
wisdom)] (‘denn fremd bleibt ihm
die Furcht’, 5289)
2203. [C-»b=waking (to doom)]
(‘Btünnhild’ weckt sich hold der
Held’, 5293)
2204. [G=Child of Wisdom] (‘wirkt dein
wissendes Kind’, 5297)
2205. [D=Hero’s Deed] (‘erlösende
Weltenthat’, 5299)
2206. [c=dream of doom] (‘träumend
erschau’ mein Ende’, 5307)
2207. [d=work] (‘Was Jene auch wirken’,
5309)
2208. [G=Ever Young] (‘Dem ewig
Jungen weicht in Wonne der Gott’,
5313)
2209. [e=Mother of Fear] (‘Urraütter
furcht, Ursorge!’, 5318)
2210. [Ab =fmagic cavem] (‘Der
Wanderer ist dicht an die Höhle’,
5327)
2211. [b b =encmy] (‘Dort seh’ ich
Siegfried liä’n’, 5333)
2212. [B=supreme challenge]
2213. [d=Siegfried] (passim, 5350)
2214. [b=tenninns, Wood Bird’s] (‘Mein
Vöglein schwebte mir fort!’, 5354)
2215. [a=^isappearance, Wood Bird’s]
(‘nun schwand es fern mir davon!’,
5360)
CDC C Major [5362-5438]
2216. [C=independent inquiry] (‘Am
besten find’ ich mir selbst nun den
Berg’, 5361-
2217. [a=Wood Bird’s path] (‘wohin
mein Führer mich wies’, 5364)
2218. [C=wandering inquiry] (‘dahin
wand’r Ich jetzt fort’, 5366)
2219. [d=Siegfried] (‘Wohin Knabe’,
5369)
2220. [E b "fateful wisdom] (‘heisst dich
dein Weg?’, 5372)
2221. [E=Love Fire] (‘Einen Felsen such’
ich, von Feuer ist der umwabert’,
5377)
2222. [A^maiden] (‘dort schläfr ein
Weib, das ich wecken will’, 5379)
2223. [E b =Woman, longing for] (‘Wer,
505
nach der Frau dich zu sehnen?’,
5387)
CX. E b Major [5388-5438]
2224. [B b =dragon fight] (‘Dm wirke das
Blut eines wilden Warm’s, der
mir vor Neidhöl’ erblasste’, 5399)
2225. [Eb=magic understanding] (‘da
verstand ich der Vöglein Gestimm’,
5404)
2226. [B b =Mime] (‘Mich führte Mime,
ein falscher Zwerg’, 5411)
2227. [e b =dragon] (‘reizte der Wurm
mich selbst’, 5416)
2228. [E b =origins, päst] (‘Wer schuf das
Schwert so scharf und hart’, 5419)
2229. [d=Siegfried] (‘Das schwelst’ ich
mir selbst’, 5423)
2230. [B b=Mime] (‘da’s der Schmied
nicht konnte’, 5424)
2231. [Eb=past, origins] (‘Doch, wer
schuf die starken Stücken, daraus
das' Schwert du dir geschweisst?’,
5428)
2232. [B b=curt dismissal] (‘Was weiss
ich davon?’, 5432)
2233. [F=forging ] (‘schuf ich das
Schwert nrir nicht neu’, 5436)
CXI. C Major [5439-50]
2234. [B=obstruction] (‘Was lacht’st du
mich aus? Alter Frager!’, 5441)
2235. [b b=curt Adismissal] (‘so halte
dein Maul!’, 5449)
2236. [C=Wanderer] (passim, 5450)
CXn. Eb Major [5451-93]
2237. [A b=01d Man] (‘Geduld, du
Knabe! Dünk’ ich dich alt, so sollst
du Achtung mir hieten’, 5451)
2238. [c=mockery] (‘Das wär nicht übel’,
5456)
2239. [B b =Mime] (‘ein Alter swtets im
Wege den hab’ ich nun fort gefegt’,
5458)
2240. [f=obstinacy] (‘Stemm’st du dort
länger steif dich mir entgegen, sieh’
dich vor, sag’ ich, dass du’, 5462)
2241. [Bb=Mime] (‘wie Mime nicht
fähr’st!’, 5464)
2242. [C=investigating] (‘Er tritt noch
näher an den Wanderer hinan’.
506
5467)
2243. [OWanderer] (‘Wie sieh’st du
denn aus? Was hast du gar für ‘nen
grossen Hut?’, 5469)
2244. [B b“Opposition] (‘Das ist so
Wand’rer’s Weise,' wenn dem Wind
entgegen ar geht’, 5475)
2245. [C b=one-eyedness] (‘doch darunter
fehlt dir ein Auge?’, 5480)
2246. [eb “blindness] (‘Mach’ dichjelz
\fort, sonst könntest du leicht das
and’re auch noch verlieren’, 5485)
2247. [è b “mystic wisdom] (‘Ich seh’,
mein Solfli, wo du nichts weisst’.
5487X
CXm. C Majoi-[5494-5509]
2248. [C=eye, sight, consciousness] (‘Mit
dem Auge, du als and’res mir fehlt.
erblickst du selber das eine, das mir
zum Sehen verbleib’, 5493)
2249. [d=Siegfried’s path] (‘zeig’ mir den
Weg’, 5509)
CXIV. G minor [5310-51]
2250. [^separation] (‘deines Weges
ziehe dann du’, 5510)
2251. [b b “resentment] (motif, 5514)
2252. [c=ignorance] (‘Kenntest du mich.
kühner Spross’, 5518)
2253. [d“Sieg&ied] (‘Dir swo vertraut’.
5524)
2254. [g“scomful defiance] (‘dein
Dräuen’, 5527)
2255. [C“bright clan] (‘deine lichte Art’,
5529)
2256. [e“p’arental displeasure] (‘mein
zürnender Griinm’, 5532)
2257. [b b “gradge] (‘Heut’ nicht wecke
mir Neid’, 5540)
2258. [c=extinction] (‘er vernichtete dich
und mich!’, 5541)
2259. [b b “Separation] (‘Wich’ von der
Stelle’, 5543)
2260. [Db “upward path, mountain
height] (‘führt es zur schlafenden
Frau’, 5547)
2261. [Ab“cloudyiieights](‘sowieses
mein Vögfein, das hiáí erst’, 5549)
2262. [b b=fleeing] (flüchtig entfloh’,
5550)
cxv. Eb Major [5552-79]
2263. [d=Raven-lord] (‘Der Herrn der
Raben errieth es hier’, 5554)
2264. [e b=Spfar] (motif + ‘weh’ ihm,
helen sie’s ein!’, 5558)
2265. [F b *(E)=Wood bird path,
terminated] (‘Den Weg, den es
zeigte’, 5560)
2266. [b b“enenty] (Wer bist du denn,
dass du mit wehren willst?’ ‘Fürcht,
den Felsen’s Hüter!’, 5563)
2267. [e b“law] (‘meine Macht die
schlafende Maid: wer sie er weckte,
wer sie gewänne’, 5566)
2268. [f=etemal powerlessness]
(‘Machtlos macht er mich ewig’,
5572)
2269. [g“fiety billows] (‘glühende Lohe
umleckt den Fels’, 5578)
CXVI. A mlnör [5580-2]
2270. [a“Bride] (‘wer ¿e Braut begehrt,
breimt entgegen die Brunst’, 5580)
cxvn. B minor [5583-8]
2271. [b=Valkyrie] (motif, ttuncated,
5583)
2272. [f)t“height] (‘Blick’ nach der Höh’,
5584)
2273. [F)t“Firelight] (‘Erlug’st du das
Licht?’, 5586)
CXVin. C Major [5589-5654]
2274. [Ab=glowing clouds] (‘Sengende
Wolken es schwillt die Qluth’,
3589)
2275. [P b “Shooting fires] (‘wabernde
Uhe’, 3593)
2276. [F“sea of flame] (‘Ein Lichtmeer’,
5594)
2277. [A b “illuminated head]
(‘umleuchtet dein Haupt’, 5596)
2278. [d=Sieg&ied, to be devoured by
fire] (‘bald ftisst und zehrt dich
zündendes Feuer’, 5598)
2279. [Eb=retreat fi:om fire] (‘Zurück,
den rasendes Kind!’, 5599)
2280. [bb “Separation] (‘Zurück, du
Prahler’, 5600)
2281. [B=sexual fire] (motif + ‘Dort wo
die Brünste breimen’, 5602)
2282. [F)t=Brünnhilde’s fell] (‘zu
 507
Biünnhilde muss ich dahin!’ 5603) CXX. C Major [5690-5707]
2283. [C=The Wanderer] (‘Er schreitet, 2307. [E=sleeping Bride] (motif, 5690)
der Wanderer stellt sich ihm
entgegen’, 5604) Dritte Scene
2284. [g=opposition] (‘so sperre mein
Speer dir den Weg! ’, 5606) CXXI. D Major [5708-28]
2285. [c=spear] (motif, 5608) 2308. [D=Siegfiied as Sunrise]
2286. [g=opposition] (‘Noch hält meine
(‘Siegfiied gelangt von Aussen
Hand der Herrschaft Haft’, 5609) herauf den felsigen Saum der
2287. [a=iormer sword] (‘das Schwert,
Höhe’, 5715)
das du schwing’st’, 5611)
2288. [b=broken sword] (‘zerschlug CXXn. E Major [5730-57]
einst’, 5612) 2309. [E=sleeping Bride] (motif, 5730)
2289. [c(l=Spear-shaft] (‘deiser Schaft’, 2310. [D=Siegfiied] (‘Selige Öde auf
5613)
sonniger Höh’!’, 5741)
2290. [d=Siegftied, sword] (‘noch einmal 2311. [F (t =a lofty height] (‘er steight
denn zerspring’ es am ew’gen
vollende ganz herauf, 5744)
Speer!’, 5613) 2312. [Db=apex] (‘und betrachtet, auf
2291. [B=enemy] (‘Meines Vater’s
einem Felsenstein’, 5746)
Feind’, 5416) 23Î3. [F)t=lofty scene] (‘des hinteran
j2292. [e=ldnsmen] (‘find’ ich dich hier?’,
Abbanges stehend, mit
5618)
2293. [C=^e Wanderer] (‘Herrlich zur Verwunderung die Scene’, 5748)
2314. [B=Valkyrie woods] (‘Er blickt zur
Rache’, 5620)
Seite in den Tann’, 5751)
2294. [b=enemy spear] (‘Schwing’ deinen
Speer’, 5622) CXXm. E minor [5758-75]
2295. [’*C=Sword] (‘in Stücken spalt’ ihn
2315. [e=magic sleep] (‘Was ruht dort
mein Schwert!’, 5623)
schlummernd im schattigen Tann?
2296. [g=thunderbolt] (‘ein Blitzstrahl’,
Ein Ross ist’s, rastend in tiefem
5626) Schlaf, 5757)
2297. [c=Wotan’s end] 2316. [Oawareness, brighmess] (‘als er
2298. [*DI>=Gods, disappearing (‘Zieh’
noch aus eiiuger Entfeipung’, 5763)
hin!’, 5632) 2317. [b=Valkyrie] (‘Was strahlt mir dort
2299. [ak=Wotan’s departure] (‘Er
entgegen?’, 5764)
verschwindet plötzlich in völliger 2318. [E=Bridal Fire] (‘Blendet trrir noch
Finstemiss’, 5635) die Lohe den Blick?’, 5766)
2300. [C=Light] (‘Ha! Wonnige Gluth!’, 2319. [a=Bride’s armor] (‘Helle Waffen?,
5642)
5768)
2301. [Db=shining upward path]
2320. [D=Siegfiied] (‘Er hebt den Schild
(‘Strahlend nun offen steht mir die
ab’, 5769)
Strasse’, 5645) 2321. [G=dangerous woman] (‘Ha! In
2302. [A b =bathing, in Fire] (‘Im Feuer Waffen ein Mann?’, 5771)
mich baden! ’, 5647) 2322. [C=seeing, sight] (‘Wie mahnt mich
2303. [A^Bride] (‘Im Feuer zu finden die
worme’, 5773)
Braut!’, 5649)
CXXIV. E Major [5776-96]
CXIX. F Major [5655-89]
2323. [gtl=helmet] (‘Das hehre Haupt
2304. [F=hom] (‘Jetz lock’ ich ein liebes
drückt wohl den Helm?’, 5776)
Gesell!’, 5653) 2324. [F|(=jiair] (‘langes lockiges Haar
2305. [a=Wälsungs] (motif, 5661)
bricht hervor’, 5780)
2306. [B b “brightest flames] (‘Hellstes 2325. [b=serrsual shock] (‘Siegfiied
Leuchten der Flammen’, 5672)
erschrickt’, 5782)
508
2326. [E=attractìveness] (‘Er veibleibt im
Anblick versunken’, 5783)
2327. [E=Venus] (‘Schimmernde Wolken
säumen in Wellen den hellen
Himmels See; leuchtender Sonne
lachendes Bild strahlt durch das
Wogengewölk!’, 5783)
2328. [a=breast plate] (‘brech’ ich die
engende Brünne’, 5793)
CXXV. A minor [5797-5810]
2329. [F=sword, phallic] (‘Komm’ mein
Schwert! Schneide das Eisen!’,
5797)
2330. [a*=breast plate, cut] (passim, 5802)
2331. [d=Siegfiried] (passim, 5803)
2332. [e=sexuaT fear] (‘Das ist kein
Mann!’, 5810)
CXXVI. E Major [58lVS6]
2333. [ftl=gynophobia] (‘Brendender
Zauber zückt'mir in’s Herz’, 5811)
2334. [b=senses, fainting] (‘mir schwankt
und schwindelt der Sinn’, 5819)
2335. [c)i=helper, absent] (‘Wen ruf ich
zum Heil, dass er mir helfe?’, 5825)
2336. [G=MoÜier] (‘Mutter! Mutter!
Gedenke mein!’, 5828)
2337. [a=awakening, in doubt] (‘Wie
weck’ ich die Maid’, 5840)
2338. [b=dangerous eyes] (‘Wagt’ es
mein Trotz?’, 5847)
2339. [E=woman’s blinding gaze]
OErtrOg’ ich das licht?’, 5849)
2340. [^ear] (‘Mir schwebt und
schwankt und schwirrt es umher!’,
5851)
CXXVn. Ab Major [5857-68]
2341. [Ab=trembling heart] (‘Sehrendes
Sehnen zehrt meine Sinne, am
zagenden Herzen zittert die Hand! ’,
5859)
2342. [ab=suspected coward] (‘Was ist
mir Feigen?’, 5865)
CXXVra.-C Major [5869-74]
2343. [d=Sieglinde’s child] (‘Dein
müthiges Kiad!’, 5870)
2344. [E=magic sleep] (‘Im Schlafe liegt
eine Frau, 5872)
CXXDÍ. E minor [5875-5900]
2345. [E=fear] (‘die hat ihn das Fürchten
gelehrt!’, 5878)
2346. [d=Sieg&ied, feariiil and uncertain]
(‘Wie end’ ich die Furcht?’, 5883)
2347. [b=Siegfried, himself sexually
tmawakened] (‘Dass ich selbst
erwache,‘,
2348. [D=Hero] (‘muss die Maid ich
erwecken’, 5886)
2349. [F=mouth, kissable] (‘Süss erebt
mir ihr blühender Mund’, 5898)
CXXX C Major [5901-28]
2350. [F=a desirable wife] (motif + ‘Wie
mild erzitternd mich Zagen
erreizt!’, 5902)
2351. [Ab =breath, goddess’s] (‘Ach!
Dieses Athem’s’, 5908)
2352. [E b =female atmosphere]
(‘...wonnig warmes Gedüft’, 5909)
2353. [e=magic sleep] (‘Erwache!’, 5912)
2354. [C*=awakening] (‘Erwache!’,
5913)
2355. [c=sleep, persistent] (‘Heiliges
Weib!’, 5914)
2356. [e=tnagic sleep] (‘Sie hört nrich
nicht’, 5918)
2357. [f)t=heavenly messenger] (motif+
‘So sang’ ich mir Leben aus
süssesten Lippen’, 5920)
2358. [e b “unconsciousness, abyss,
sinking, dying] (‘Sollt’ ich auch
sterbend vergeh’n!’, 5926)
CXXXI. F Major [5929-40]
2359. [F=Kiss] (‘seine'Lippen auf ihren
Mund’, 5937)
CXXXH. E minor [5941-50]
2360. [e=magical spell, dissolving] (‘B.
schlägt die Augen auf, 5941)
2361. [F (t “heaven, standing before] (‘S.
fährt auf und bleibt vor ihn stehen’,
5943)
2362. [Oawakening] (‘B. Richtet sich
langsam zum Sitzen auf, 5945)
2363. [e=magical speU, last gasp]
(passim, 5947)
CXXXm. C Major [5951-6045]
2364. [C=light] (passim, 5951)

2365. [e=magical spell, last gäsp]
(passim, 5972)
2366. [C=sunligjit, day] (‘Heil dii, Sonne!
Heil dir, Licht!’, 5972)
2367. PE/e=magical spell] (‘Lang war
mein Schlaf, 5986)
2368. [g(t=unknown tero] (‘wer ist der
Held’, 5989)
2369. [a=struggle to awaken] (‘Durch das
Feuer drang ich, das den Fels
umbrann’, 5994)
2370. [b=Valkyrie] (‘ich erbrach dir en
festen Hehn’, 5996)
2371. [E=awakener/love] (‘Sieg&ied bin
ich, der dich erweckt’,’ 5998)
2372. [A=Biave New World] (‘Heü euch,
Götter! Heil dir, Welt!’, 6001)
2373. [C=awakening] (‘Zu end’ ist nun
mein Schlaf, 6008)
2374. [Q=Mother] (‘O Heil der Mutter,
die mich gebar!’, 6015)
2375. [C=awakening] (‘erwachen dürft’
ich nur dir!’, 6025)
2376. [C=laughter] (‘Seligemlacht!’,
6026)
2377. [C=waker, of life] (‘Wecker des
Lebens, siegendes Licht’, 6039)
CXXXrV. Eb Major [6046-53]
2378. [G b=Siegfried’s Guardian Angel]
(‘O wüsstest du, Lust de r Welt, wie
ich dich je geliebt!’, 6046)
2379. [E b =pre-natal love] (‘Du warst
mein Sinnen, mein Sorgen du! ’,
6051)
CXXXV. E Major [6054-63]
2380. [B=Valkyrie, life angel] (‘Dich
Zarten nährt’ ich, noch eh’ du
gezegt, noch eh’ du geboren, barg
dich mein Schild’, 6054)
CXXXVL G Major [6064-80]
2381. [e=Mother, dead] (‘So starb nich
meine Mutter? Schlief die minnige
nur?’, 6064)
2382. [G=Mother, Sieglinde] (‘Du
wonniges Kind! Deine Mutter’,.
6069)
2383. [d=Hero, son, sad] (‘ kehrt dir nicht
wieder’, 6071)
2384. [B b=Self, hero’s other] (‘Du selbst
509
bin ich’, 6074)
2385. [D=hero, lover] (‘du mich Selige
lieb’sf, 6075)
2386. [G=goddess, lover] (‘Was du nicht
weisst, weiss ich für dich’, 6078)
CXXXVn. C Major [6081-6126]
2387. [Owisdom] (‘doch wissend bin ich
nur’, 6126)
2388. [F=love, Siegfried’s] (‘weil ich dich
liebe!’, 6083)
2389. [C=Light, conquering] (‘Siegendes
Licht!’, 6087)
2390. [a=Great Idea, Wotan’s, through a
glass darkly] (‘denn mir allein
erdOnkte Wotan’s Gedanke’,
6092)
2391. [e=love, suffering for] (‘für den ich
focht, känqjfte und stritt’, 6100)
2392. [g=rebellion] (‘für den ich trotzte
dem, der ihn dachte’, 6102)
2393. [e=iriagic sleep] (‘Strafe mich
band’, 6107)
2394. [A=Wish Bride, Siegfried’s] (‘weil
ich nicht ihn dachte, und nur
enqtfand!’, 6111)
2395. [C=Great Idea] (‘war er nur Liebe
zu dir!’, 6122)
CXXXVra. Eb Major [6127-6210)
2396. [A b=a wondrous tone] (‘Wie
Wunder tönt, was wenig du
sing’sf, 6127)
2397. [G b =dark meanings] (‘doch dunkel
dünkt mich der Sinn’, 5129)
2398. [F b=a goddess’s attractive eyes]
CDeines Auges Leuchten’, 6131)
2399. [D b =a divine shining] (‘seh’ ich
Uchf, 6133)
2400. [Gb=a goddess’breath] (6135)
2401. [E b =a goddess’ sweet song]
(‘deiner Stimme Singen hör ich
süss’, 6136)
2402. [c=inconq)rehension] (‘doch was du
singend mir sagst, staunend
versteh’ ich’s nicht’, 6140)
2403. [f=distant matters] (‘Nicht kann ich
das Feme sinnig erfassen, wenn alle
Sinne dich nur sehen und fühlen’,
6145)
2404. [b b =bondage to fear] (‘Mit banger
Furcht fesselst du mich’, 6151)
510
2405. [e k =fetters] (‘birg meinen Muflí
mir nicht mehr!’, 6159)
2406. [F=grazing steed] (‘Dort seh’ ich
Grane, nœin selig Ross’, 6170)
2407. [G b=awakened steed] (‘Mit mir hat
ihn Siegfried erweckt’, 6174)
2408. [B b =fliirsty gazing] (‘Auf
wonnigem Munde weidet mein
Auge’, 6179)
2409. [A b=goddess’s lips as chalice,
from nhich to drink kisses (in
brünstigem Durst doch brennen die
Lippen’, 6182)
2410. [í=weapons, discarded] (‘B. Deutet
ihnfmit der Hand nach ihren
Waáenj die sie gewahrt’, 6188)
2411. [g=shield, hero-shielding] (‘Dort
seh’ ich àm Schild, der Helden
schirmte’, 6192)
2412. [a=helmet, inaiden-shlelding]
(‘Dort seh’ ich den Helm, der das
Haupt mir barg’, 6197)
2413. [g=defenselessness, n^cedness] (’es
schirmt, er birgt mich nicht mehr’,
6199)
2414. [E b=maiden, blessed] (‘Eine selige
Maid’, 6202)
2415. [Bb=disabledheart] (‘Versehrte
mein Herz’, 6203)
2416. [Gb=head-wounds] (‘Wunden dem
Haupte’, 6205)
2417. [Db=head, Siegfried’s] (‘schlug
mir ein Weib’, 6206)
2418. [bb=shield and helmet (none)]
(‘ich kam ohne Schild und Helm! ’,
6207)
CXXXIX. C Major [6211-27]
2419. [a=breast-plate] (‘Ich sehe der
Brünne prangenden Stahl: ein
scharfes Schwert schnitt sie
entzwei’, 6209)
2420. [e=defenseless maiden] (‘Ich bin
ohne Schutz imd Schirm, ohne
Trutz ein trauriges Weib!’, 6219)
2421. [C=Fire] (‘nun brach die Lohe mir
in die Brust’, 6226)
/
CXXXX. Eb Major [¿228-6345]
2422. [E b “flood of passion] (‘Es braust
mein Blut in blühender Brunst’,
6228)
2423. [e b=Maiden, waterlike and fire-
quenching] (‘Jetzt lösche den
Brand!’, 6238)
2424. [G b=Fire, raging] (‘Schweige die
schäumende Wuth! ’, 6240)
2425. [bb=repulsion, separation] (‘B.
Springt auf, wehrt ihm mit höchster
Kraft der Angst, und entflieht nach
der anderen Seite’, 6242)
2426. [g=unworthy approach] (‘Kein Gott
nahte mir je!’, 6243)
2427. [Ab “Wish Maiden, excessively
lofty] (‘Heilig schied sie aus
Walhall’, 6250)
2428. [a b “her lofty social status
dissolving] (passim + ‘Wehe der
Schmach!’, 6255)
2429. [f=her lofty social status kaput]
(‘Verwunàet hat mich, der nüch
erweckt!’, 6262)
2430. [a=breast plate] (‘Er erbrach mir
Brünne’, 6264)
2431. '[c=dissolution of identity] (‘Brltan-
hilde bin ich nicht mehr!’, 6269)
2432. [D b “inaccessible (still too high
falutin) Maiden] (‘Noch bist du mir
die träumende Máid’, 6275)
2433. [ab“Still too withdrawn]
(‘Brünnhilde’s Schlaf brach ich
6279)
noch nicht’,
2434. [D“Siegfried] (‘sei mir ein Weib!’,
6284)
2435. [a“vertigo] (‘Mir schwirren die
Sinne’, 6288)
2436. [c=wisdom, loss of] (‘mein Wissen
schvreigt’, 6290)
2437. [C“WisdonL..] ÓSang’st du mir
rücht, dein Wissen sei das’, 6297)
2438. [F=...through Love] (‘Leuchten der
Liebe zu mir?’, 6301)
2439. [f=blindness] (‘Trauriges Dxmkel
trübt meinen Blick. Mein Auge
dämmert, mein Licht verlischt’,
6306)
2440. [c=darkness, fear of] (‘Aus Nebel
rmd Grau’n windet sich wülthend
ein Angst gewirr’, 6317)
2441. [a“terror] (‘Schrecken’, 6322)
2442. [b“outri¿it sexual parue] (‘und
bäumt sich ençor!’, 6324)
2443. [c=eyes, covered] (‘B. Birgt heftig
die Augen mit den Händen’, 6326)

2444. [C b =eyes, uncovered (looking
sexuality in the face)] (‘S. In dem
er ihr sanñ die Hände von den
Augen löst’, + ‘Nacht umfängt
gebund’ne Augen’, 6330)
2445. [B b “brightness of Day]
(‘sonnenhell leuchtet der Tag’,
6342)
CXXXXI. A minor [6346-6362]
2446. [a=hoirible illumination]
(‘Sonnenhell leuchtet’, 6346)
2447. [ftt=shamefiil sexual exposure]
(‘der Tag meiner Schmach! ’, 6348)
2448. [D=Sieg6ied] (‘O Siegfiiedl’,
6353)
2449. [e=fear] (‘Sieh’ meine Angst!’,
6356)
CXXXXn. E Major [6363-70]
2450. [E=a pleasing picture] (‘ein
anmuthiges Bild’, 6363)
CXXXXin. E minor [6371-6427]
2451. [e=guardiaii angel] (‘Ewig war ich,
ewig bin ich, ewig in süss sehender
Wonne, ewig zu deinem'Heil!’,
6371)
2452. [A b =Sieg6ied] (‘O Siegfiied,
Herrlicher! Hort der Welt! Leben
der Erde, lachender Held!’, 6382)
2453. [A=virginity, and the desire to keep
it] (‘Lass, ach, lass’! Lasse von mir!
Nahe mir nicht mit der’, 6390)
2454. [F=phallic, penetrating intentions]
(wüthendenNähe’, 6398)
2455. [g=ruinous conquering power]
(‘zwinge mich nicht mit dem
brechenden Zwang, zertrümm’re
die Traute dir nicht!’, 6399)
2456. [D=Sieg&ied’s fece] (‘Sah’st du
deinBüd’, 6407)
2457. [G=stream] (‘im klaren Bach?’,
6408)
2458. [c=ripples] (‘Rührtest zur Woge’,
6411)
2459. [Eb=Water] (‘das Wasser du auf,
zerflösse die’, 6414)
2460. [d=Siegfried’s face, marred] (‘klare
Fläche des Bach’s’, 6416)
2461. [g=Siegfried’s image, distorted]
(‘deinBüd’, 6417)
511
2462. [fjt“Wavering, dissipating image]
(‘säh’st du nicht meU; nur der
Welle schwankend Gewog’!’,
6418)
2463. [C/c=light, dispersed] (passim,
6422)
2464. [g=”look but don’t touch”] (‘So
berühre mich nicht,’, 6423)
2465. [c=woman, bothered] (‘trübe mich
nicht!’, 6425)
CXXXXIV. E Major [6428-49]
2466. [E=bright, happy image of
narcissistic self-love] (‘Weig licht,
lacht du selig dann aus mir dir
entgegen, froh und! ’, 6430)
2467. [C=Hero of Light] (‘heiter ein
Held’, 6437)
2468. [d=Siegfried, appropriate object for
self-love] (‘liebe dich’, 6442)
S69. [e=mating, called off] (‘und lasse
von mir: vernichte dein Eigen
nicht!’, 6444)
CXXXXV. C Major [6450-6]
2470. [a=love, imrequited] (‘Dich lieb
ich: o liebtest mich du!’, 6450)
2471. [f=oneself as a lost possession]
(‘Nicht hab’ ich mehr mich: oh!
Hätte ich! Dich!’, 6454)
CXXXXVI. Ab Major [6457-79]
2472. JA b=Brüimhüde, a glorious flood
into wËich to plunge] (‘Dich! Ein
herrlich Gewässä' wogt vor mir,
mit allen Sinnen seh’ ich nur sie,
die wonnig wogende Welle’, 6457
2473. [b b “firebrand in the water’s surge]
(‘sengende Giudi in der Fluth zu
kühlen, ich selbst, wie ich bin,’
6474)
2474. [c“stream] (‘spring in den Bach’,
MIT)
CXXXXVn. A Major [6480-4]
2475. [A=blissful penetration] (‘oh dass
seines Wogen mich selig
verschlängen, mein Sehnen
schwänd’ ich in der Fluth!’ 6478)
CXXXXVra. F Major [6485-6501]
2476. [F=awakeping, sexual] (‘Erwache,
512
Brünnhilde! Wachen du Maid!’,
6487)
2477. [Bb=abandoninent to hedonism]
(‘Lache und Lebe, süseste Lust!’,
6494)
2478. [d=Sieg&ied] (‘Sei mein!’, 6497)
2479. [A b =BiOnnhilde] (‘Sei mein! Sei
mein!’, 6498)
CXXXXIX. Ab Major [6502-19]
2480. [Ab =Brünnhilde] (‘O Sieg&ied!
Dein war ich von je!’, 6507)
2481. [Cb =etemal love] (‘Dein werd’ ich
ewig sein!’, 6516)
CL.E minor [6520-31]
2482. [B=promised love] (‘Was du sein
wirst\6520)
2483. [EHmmediate love] (‘sei es mir
heut’!’, 6521)
2484. [G=breast-to-breast] (‘Fasst dich
mein Arm, umschling ich dich fest;
schlägt meine Brust brünstig’,
6524)
2485. [d=hero, passionate] (‘die deine,
zünden die Blicke, die Athem sich’,
6527)
2486. [b=sexual kiss] (‘Ang’ in Auge,
Mund an Mund!’, 6528)
2496. [D b =buming] (‘entbrermst du mir
nicht?’, 6565)
2497. [d=Fire] (‘das wilde Feuer fühlest
du es nicht?’, 6570)
CLU. B minor [6572-6602]
2498. [B=scjcual fear] (‘Fürchtest du,
Siegfried, fürchtest du nicht das
wild wüthende Weib?’, 6572)
2499. [bisexual frenzy] (‘Wie des
Bluthes Ströme sich zünden, wie
der Blicke Strahlen sich zehnen,’
6577)
2500. [a=heart, returning] (‘kehrt mir
zurück mein kühner Muth’, 6581)
2501. [F*=courage] (‘Muth’, 6582)
2502. [E=fear, forgotten] (‘und das
Fürchten’, 6586)
2503. [b=fear just learned] (‘das
Fürchten, das du mich kaum
gelehrt’, 6588)
2504. [B=Valkyiie] (motif, 6596)
CLin. C Major [6603-79]
2505. [C=light, laughter, day] (‘Lachend
will ich erblinden’, & passim]
Ende Siegfried

CLL C Major [6532-6571]

2487. [C=forever love] (‘Darm bist du
mir, was bang du mir war’st und
wirst!’, 6532)
2488. [g=godlikeness gone] (‘Göttliche
Ruhe rast mir in Wogen’, 6543)
2489. [C=Light] (‘keuschestes Licht
lodert ’, 6545)
2490. [d=fire] (‘in Gluthen’, 6546)
2491. [A=heavenly feminine wisdom,
thrown away] (‘himnalisches
Wissen stürmt mir dahin’, 6548)
2492. [B b =beloved enemy] (‘Siehst du
mich nicht?’, 6558)
2493. [d=lover as stand-in for the dragon]
(dragon motif + ‘Wie mein Blick
dich verzehrt’, 6560)
2494. [Ab=a little flash of blinding
godhead] (‘erblindest du nicht?’,
6562)
2495. [D=Siegfiied] (’Wie mein Arm
dich presst’, 6564)
 513

APPENDIX Id:
Linear Tabulation of Tonal Lexemes in Götterdämmerung

Erster Aufzug. 2522. [A=feminine Wisdom (alt. Wotan’s

Vorspiel und erste Scene.
Vorspeil.
I. El> minor [1-63]
2506. [CI>=Awakening, noctunial/Nom
1] (motif, 1)
2507. [g=Rope of Fate/Nom 2] (motif,
18) (alt, inferioi tree, ñi tree)
2508. [e k=the Eternal Goddess, in
decline7/Nom 3] (21)
2509. [ck-*Gb »Light,
nocturaal/firelight] (‘Was Licht
leuchtet dort?’, 29)
2510. [A b/f=mountain height] (‘Dämmert
der Tag schon áuf? Loge’s Herr
lodert feuiigum den Fels’, 30)
2511. [e b »divine female spinning] (‘Was
spiimen und...’,
2512. [F=doing, working?] (‘singen wir
nicht?’, 36)
2513. [eb=infetior tree (pine)] (‘Während
sie ein goldenes Seil von sich löst,
und mit dem einen Ende es an einen
Ast der Tanne kaflpñ’, 41)
2514. [E b=World Ash Tree, former]
Òsinge’, 47)
2515. [eb»World Ash Tree] (‘ander
Weltesche wob ich einst’, 50)
2516. [Gb »Ash Tree’s spreading
branches] (‘da gross und stark dem
Stamm entgrünte’, 52)
2517. [Bb»Ash Tree’s surrounding
primaeval woods] (‘weiblicher
Aeste Wald’, 54)
2518. [e b»the primaeval Spring of
Wisdom] (‘Im kühlen Schatten
rauscht ein Quell’, 56)
2519. [Cb»primasval holiness] (‘da sang
ich heil’gen Sinn’, 60)
n. E Major [64-75]
2520. [B=descending god] (‘Ein kühner
Gott trat zum Trunk an den Quell’,
65)
2521. [E»the young Wotan] (motif, 68)
Eye)] (‘seiner Augen Eines’, 68)
2523. [c t »supreme power] (‘zahlt’ er’,
70)
2524. [E=price of wisdom] (‘als ewigen
Zoll’, 71)
2525. [A=World Ash Tree’s branch or
power] (‘Von der Weltesche brach
da Wotan’, 73)
m. C Major [76-80]
2526. [d»the Tree-Breaker] (‘einen Ast’,
76)
2527. [c=Wotan’s Spear] (‘eines Speeres
Schaft entschnitt der Starke dem
Stamm’, 76)
IV. Eb minor [81-108]
2528. [e b »World Ash Tree, sickening]
(‘In langer Zeiten Lauf zehrte die
Wunde den Wald’, 81)
2529. [b b=&iling Spring] (‘traurig
versiegte des Quelles Trank’, 93)
2530. [e b »¿oddess ’s darkening spirit]
(‘trüben Sinnes ward mein Gesang’,
97)
2531. [b b=goddess’s foreboding]
(passim, 100)
2532. [C b »knowledge, past (alt., First
Nom?] (‘singe, Schwester’, 105)
V. C ninor [109-53]
2533. [c=Wotan’s Spear] (‘Treu
heratfa’ner Verträger Runen schnitt
Wotan in des Speeres Schaft’, 110)
2534. [Db»sigjreme power] (‘denheilt er
als Haft der Welt’, 116)
2535. [*d=Hero] (‘Ein kühner *HeId’,
121)
2536. [b b »Splitting apart] (‘zerhieb im
Kanqife den Speer; in Trümmer
sprang der Verträge heiliger’, 122)
2537. [c=Spear] (‘Haft’, 128)
2538. [f=hèwing down] (‘Da hiess
Wotan’, 129)
2539. [g»miruons] (‘Walhall’s Helden
der Weltesche’, 132)
2540. [c=World Tree’s corpse] (‘welkes
514
Geäst nrit’, 134) XI. C Major [203-12]
2541. [g=splitting apart] (‘dem Stamm in 2560. [f)t=Loge, domesticated] (‘Weisst
Stücke’, 136) du, was aus ihm ward?’, 204)
2542. [c=sacred Spring, defunct] (‘ewig 2561. [b=dangerous enemy] (‘Durch des
versiegte der Quell', 140) Speeres Zauber zähmte ihn...’, 207)
2543. [e b=goddess, clinging by a thread] 2562. [c=Spear] (‘Wotaa...’, 211)
(‘Fess’le ich heut’ an den scharfen
Fels das Seil’, 145) xn. Bb Major [213-24]
2544. [C=tidings, present (alt, Second 2563. [D b=Gods] (‘Käthe raunt’ er dem
Nom?)] (‘Singe, Schwester, dir Gott’, 213)
werf ich’s zu’, 147) 2564. [bb“Separation] (‘An des Schaftes
Runen, ftei sich zu rathen, nagte
VI. A minor [154-8] zehrend sein Zahn’, 212)
2545. [c )l=WaIhall on the edge] (‘Es ragt 2565. [c“Spear] (‘da, mit des Speeres
die Burg von Riesen gebaut’, 153) zwingender’, 217)
2546. [e=heavenly concourse] (‘mit der
Götter und Helden heiliger Sippe’, xm. A minor [225-42]
157) 2566. [a“Loge’s slippery fire] (‘bannte
ihn Wotan’, 225)
VII. C minor [159-64] 2567. [Eb“bondsman] (‘Brünnhilde’s
2547. [c=the End] (‘Wotan im Saal’, 159) Fels zu umbrennen’, 229)
2548. [Ei>=World Ash Tree] (‘Qehau’ner 2568. [A=Loge] (motif, passim, 232)
Scheite hohe Schicht’, 161) 2569. [C)t/ctl=Wotan] (‘Weisst du was
2549. [Gb “Foundation of Walhall] (‘ragt aus ihm wird?’, 235)
zu Häuf rings um die Halle’, 162) 2570. [E“Wotan’s magic] (‘Des
zerschlag’nen Speeres stechende
vm. C Major [165-89] Splitter’, 238)
2550. [e=dead wood] (‘Die Weltesche 2571. [g=wounding blow] (‘taucht’ einst
war diess einst!’, 165) Wotan dem Brünstigen tief in
2551. [C“brightness] (‘Brennt das Holz die...’, 240)
heilig brünstig und heil’, 169)
2552. [B=desttoying enemy] (‘sengt die XIV. B b Major [243-75]
Ghith’, 173) 2572. [B b “devouring fire]
2553. [E=magic fire] (‘sehrend den (‘Brusfczehrender Brand zündet da
gtenzenden Saal’, 174) auf; den wirft der Gott in der’, 242)
2554. [Ctl=Gods...] (‘der ewigen 2573. [eb“World Ash Tree] (’Welteche
Götter...’ 176) zu Häuf geschichtete Scheite’,
2555. [D/d=ending] (‘Ende/dämmert ewig 245)
da auf, 178) 2574. [G=Nom 2 (“spinning)]
2556. [B=North] (‘von Norden wieder (‘Schwindet, Schwestern, das
werf ich’s dir nach’, 185) Seü!’, 255)
2575. [Eb“Nom 1 (“ni^t)] (‘Die Nacht
DC. Eb minor [190-7] weicht’, 259)
2557. [Eb=Nom Sisters] (‘Spinne, . 2576. [Cb“blindness] (‘des Seiles Fänden
Schwester, und singe!’, 190) find ich nicht mehr’, 263)

X. F Major [198-202] XV. Eb Major [265-76]

2558. [F=innocetit Eden] (‘nicht hell
erachf ich das heilig Alte’, 198)
2559. [F=Loge as Nature Spirit] (‘da
Loge einst entbrannte in lichter
Gluth’, 200)
2577. [eb “Eternal Goddess, distressed]
(‘Ein wüstes Gesicht wirrt mir
wOthend den Sinn’, 265)
2578. [Bb“Alberich, thief] (‘Das
Rheingold raubte Alberich’, 269)

2579. [A b =rock; end of rope] (‘Das
Steines Schärfe schnitt in das...’,
271)
2580. [B b=Alberich] (‘...Seil, nicht fest
spannt mehr der Fäden’, 271)
2581. [e b ^Eternal Goddess, defunct]
(‘Gespinst; verwirrt ist das
Geweb’rAus Noth und Neid ragt
mir des Nibelungen...’, 273)
XVI. C Major [277-84]
2582. [a=vengeance] (‘...Ring:ein
rächender Fluch nagt— ’, 277)
2583. [e=magic ring] (motif + ‘meiner
Fäden Geflecht’, 279)
2584. [C=Sword, Light, knowledge]
(motif + ‘Weisst du was daraus
wird?’, 280)
2585. [a=Light, knowledge, hazy] (‘Zu
locker das Seil, mir langt es nicht’,
281)
2586. [F=Siegfried] (motif + ‘Soll ich
nach Norden...’, 283)
2587. [OLight, the North] (‘...neigen das
Ende, straffer sei es gestreckt!’,
284)
XVn. E minor [285-317]
2588. [e=magic ring] (‘gestreckt!’, 285)
2589. [b=Curse] (motff + ‘Zu End’
ewiges Wissen!’, 291)
2590. [G=Nadir, Nom 1] (‘Hinab!’, 296)
2591. [E b “Eternal Goddess, Nom 2]
(‘Zur Mutter!’, 298)
2592. [d=Sun] (‘Sie verschwinden’, 300)
2593. [b=Dajireak (also “Horror,
Grauen”). 304)
2594. [Fjt“Loge’s firelight, fading]
(immer schwächeres Leuchten das
Fererschelnes aus der Tiefe’, 312)
xvra. Hb Major [318-36]
2595. [B b =red glow of dawn]
(‘Wachsende Morgenröthe, 318)
XK. Eb Major [337-433]
2596. [E b “sunrise, Siegfried and
Brünnhilde] (motives +
‘Sonnenaufgang, Siegfried und
Brünnhilde treten auf dem
Steingemache auf, 347)
2597. [B b=martial spirit] (Valkyrie motif.
515
transferred with armor to S., 361) •
2598i [E b “bonds of love] (‘Zuneuen
Thaten, theurer Heide, we liebt’
ich dich, Hess’ ich dich nicht?’,
362)
2599. [G/e=solicitude (‘maternal’)] (Ein
einzig Sorgen lässt mich säumen’,
370)
2600. [B b “bride-winning] (‘dass dir zu
wenig mein Werth gewann’, 375)
2601. [Gb=Gods’condescension] (‘Was
Götter mich weisen’, 381)
2602. [e b “gods’ beneficiary] (‘gab ich
dir’, 383)
2603. [F b “holy runes] (‘heiliger Runen’,
385)
2604. [g b /G b “heavenly wisdom, treasure
of] (‘reichen Hort’, 387)
2605. [E b “female strength] (‘doch
meiner Stärke’, 389)
2606. [A b “heavenly virtue] (‘magdlichen
Stamm’, 391)
2607. [b b=masculine thiefr “Seducer]
(‘nahm mir der Held’, 393)
2608. [E b “feminine victim, seduced]
(‘dem ich nun mich neige’, 395)
2609. [A b “heavenly virtue] (‘Des
Wissens bar,’ 398),
2610. [Eb=feminine will] (‘doch des
Wunsches voll’, 401)
2611. [Fb “love] (‘an Liebe reich’, 404)
2612. [e b “diminished female] (‘doch
ledig der Kraft’, 406)
2613. [bb“disdain](‘mäg’stdudieArme
nicht verachten’, 409)
2614. [Eb“all-giving woman] (‘die dir
nur gönnen, nicht geben mehr
kann’, 412)
2615. [Eb=Wonder-woman]
ÒWunderfrau’, 420)
2616. [Ab“over-abundant giving] (‘als
ich zu wahren weiss’, 421)
2617. [Eb=Wonder-woman] (‘Nicht
zürne, wenn dein Lehren mich .
unbelehret Hess’, 425)
2618. [Cb“VaIkyrie] (‘dass mir
Brünnhilde...’, 432)
XX. C Major [434-56]
2619. [E“Love] (‘...lebt’, 434)
2620. [Oleaming, remembering]
CBrünnhilde’s zu gedenken!’, 437)
2621. [F=deeds] (‘gedenke deiner 2640. [e“ring] (‘Voll Entzücken den Ring
Thaten’, 448) sich ansteckend’, 518)
2622. [A=Love-Fire, remembered] 2641. [G“Brünnhilde’s hand] (‘Ihn geiz’
(‘geden’ des wilden Feuers', das ich als einziges Gut! ’,519)
fìircMos du durch schrittest’, 450) 2642. [e=once-Valkyrie steed] (‘Ging sein
Lauf mit mir einst kühn durch die
XXI. Bb Major [457-68] Lüfte’, 528)
2623. [B b “wooing] (‘Brtlnnhilde zu 2643. [g=thunder and lightning] (‘über
gewinden’, 459) blitzen dem Wettern’, 535)
2624. [c=shimber] (‘die im tiefem Schlaf 2644. [b b “lightning sky, dimming]
du fandest’, 464) (‘nicht mehr schwingt es’, 527)
2645. [c=lightning sky, lost] (..muthig des
XXn. E b Major [469-77] Weg’s’, 529)
2625. [D b =gods, mountain-top] 2646. [F“fearless follower] (‘durch wohin
(‘Brännhilde...’, 469) du ihn führ’st, sei es durh’s Feuer,
2626. [Gb=threshold of heaven] (’...zu grauenlos folg dir Grane’, 540)
erwecken’, 471) 2647. [B b=master of horse] (‘Du hüt’ ihn
2627. [E b “oaths, bonds] (‘Gedenk der wohl’ es hört dein Wort’, 548)
Eide, die uns einen’, 473) 2648. [A“Brünnhilde’s memory] (‘O
bringe Grane oft Brüimhilde’s
XXm. C Major [478-83] Gross!’, 552)
2628. [D=fldelity, trath, eternity] (‘der
Treue, dir wir tragen, gedenk’ der XXVI. Bb Major [559-74]
Liebe der wir...’, 477) 2649. [Bb“weapon,Brünnhilde’s
2629. [c=memory, weak] (‘...leben’, 482) (‘Durch deine Tugend allein...nich
Siegftied acht’ ich mich mehr, ich
XXIV. Eb Major [484-94] bin nur Brünnhilde’s Arm’, 559)
2630. [E b “BrOnnhilde, eternal feminine]
(‘Brünnhilde brennt dann ewig...’, XXVn. Eb Major [575-648]
484) 2650. [Eb=Wonder-woman] (‘O wäre
2631. [Cb=Valkyrie, also “death”] (‘...dir Brünnhilde deine Seele!’, 576)
in der Brust’, 488) 2651. [B b “masculine valor] (‘Durch sie
entbreimt...’, 579)
XXV. C Major [495-558] 2652. [F=masculine strength] (‘mein
2632. [B=BrOnidülde, mountain-woman] Muth’, 581)
(‘Lass’ ich. Liebste, dich hier in der 2653. [d=Hero, masculine and feminine]
Lohe heiliger...’, 495) (‘So wär’st du Siegftied und
2633. [E=Love-Fire] (‘...Hut’, 498) Brünnhilde?’, 582)
2634. [e=magical ring] (’zum Tausche 2654. [G b -D b =mountain-top] (‘Wo ich
deiner Runen reich’ ich dir dieser bin bergen sich Beide’, 585)
Ring’, 498) 2655. [e b=Etemal Female, deserted] (‘So
2635. [g=Nibelungs] (by inçlication, verödet mein Felsensaal?’, 589)
503) 2656. [E b 5=Etemal Feminine, fulfilled
2636. [A b/g)) “virtue] (‘Was der Thaten (bonded)] (‘Vereint fasst er uns
je ich schuf, dess’ Tugend schliesst zwei!’, 591)
er ein’, 503) 2657. [B b=the gods’ enemies
2637. [B=dragon] (‘Ich erschlug einen (successors)] (‘Hehre Geschlechter!
wilden Wurm’, 508) Weidet eu’r Aug’ an den
2638. [e“ring/Love] (‘Nun wahre du’, weihvollen Paar!’, 602)
513) 2658. [Ab=heavenly treasure] (‘Getrennt,
2639. [C=Witness, testimony] (‘also wer will uns scheiden?’, 607)
Weihe gmss meiner Treu! ’,515) 2659. [E b “ultimate oneness, absolute

bondedness] ('Gescheiden, trennt
es sich nie!’, 612)
XXVra. A Major [649-69]
2660. [A=Siegfried’s Rhine Journey]
(‘Siegfried xnit dem Rosse hinger
demFelsenvorspronge ab-n^rts
verschwunden’, 649)
XXIX. F Major [670-786]
2661. [F=heroic deeds)] (Man hört
Siegfried’s Horn aus der Tiefe’,
670)
XXX. A Major [787-710]
2662. [A Major=Rhine bank] (motif, 787)
XXXI. El. Major [711-878]
2663. [E k=Rhine] (motif, 711)
2664. [e b =Rhine Daughters, sorrowing]
(motif, 868)
XXXH.C Major [879-92]
2665. [e=Rhinegold] (motif, 880)
2666. [c=Rhinegold raped] (motif, 883)
2667. [e/b=Alberich’s power] (motifs,
885)
Erste Auf^g, Erste Scene.
XXXm. B minor [893-950]
2668a. [b=the Curse (topographized)]
(motifs, 893)
2668b. [D=hero] (cont.)
2669a. [F |t=glitz, glamor] (‘Nun hör,
Hagen’, 895)
2670. [b=shadow hero] (sitz’ ich henlich
am Rhein’, 896)
2671. [D=Hero] (‘Gunther zu Gibichs
Ruhm?’, 903)
2672. [G=underling] (‘Dich acht
genaimten acht’ ich zu neide’, 907)
2673. [c=dark knowledge] (‘die
beid’uns’, 910)
2674. [B b =Gibichung brothers] (‘Brüder
gebar’, 911)
2675. [g=mother, grim] (‘Frau Grimhild’,
912)
2676. [a=tidings, obscure] (‘lies micbs
bogreifen’, 913)
2677. [D=hero] (‘Dich neide ich, rucht
neide mich du’, 915)
517
2678. [O=wisdom] (‘Weisheit ward dir
allein’, 920)
2679. [g=strife] (‘Halb-brüder Zwist
bezwang sich nie besser’, 923)
2680. [b=Hagen’s wisdom] (‘Deinem
Rath nur red’ ich Lob, frag’ ich
dich nach meinem Ruhm’, 926)
2681. [G=subordinate councilor] (‘denn
hohe Güter weiss ich,’ 938)
2682. [D=hero] (‘die ddr Gibichung noch
nicht gewann’, 940)
2683. [d=inconçlete hero] (‘In
sommerlich reifer’, 944)
2684. [e=wedding, not happening] (‘dich
Gunther, unbeweibt, dich, Gutrun,
ohne Mann’, 947)
XXXIV. C Major [950-2]
2685. [C=mcditation] (‘Gunther und
Gutrue sind inachweigennes
Sinnen verloren’, 950)
XXXV. Eb Major [953-9]
2686. [Eb=Womankind] (‘Wen räthst du
niut zu frein, dass unsrem...’, 953)
2687. [Cb=cunningplot] (‘...Ruhmes
fromm?’ 958)
XXXVI. B minor [960-82]
2688. [F -Btünnhilde’s mountain] (‘Ein
Weib weiss ich, das herrlichste der
Welt’, 962)
2689. [B=VaIkyrie] (‘darf Brünnhilde’s
Freier sein’, 973)
2690. [d=failed heroism] (‘Einem
Stärk’ren noch, ist’s nin bestimmt’,
979)
2691. [oidings] (‘Wer ist’, 981)
XXXVH. A nünor [983-97]
2692. [a=Wälungs] (‘Siegfried, der
Wälsungen Spross, der ist der
stärkste Held’, 983)
2693. [F=“nature boy”] (‘Siegmund und
Sieglinde zeugten den ächtesten
Sohn:Der im Walde mächtig
erwuchs’, 990)
2694. [G b =Hagen’s fair-seeming council]
(‘den wünsch ich Gutrun’ zum
Mann’, 997)
 518
XXXVm. Ek Major [998-1007]
2695. [Gk=femiiiiue self-eñaccment]
(nwtif + "Gutnme schüchtern
beginnend’, 998)
2696. [E k “feminine self-assertion]
(‘...dass als herrlichter Held er
genannt?’, 1004)
XXXK. Bk Major [1008-21]
2697. [b=dtagon, Neidhöle] (‘Vor
Neidhöle den Niblungenhort
bewachte ein riesiger Wurm’,
1008]
2698. [B k “battle] (‘Sieg&ied schyloss
ihm den freislichen Schlund,
erschlug ihn mit seigendem
Schwert’, 1012)
XXXX- B Major [1022-33]
2699. [B=Nibelung Hoard] (‘Vom
Nibhmenhort vernahm ich, er bringt
den neidlichsten Schatz?’, 1022)
2700. [g (t “Hoard-master] (‘Wer wohl ihn
zu nützen wusst, den neigte sich
wahrlich die Welt’, 1025)
XXXXI. B minor [1034-39]
2701. [E“magical ring] (‘Knecht sind die
Nibelungen ihn’, 1034)
2702. [b=curse effect] (‘Keinem Andren
wiche die Brunst’, 1039)
XXXXn. G minor [1040-63]
2703. [g=strife] (‘Was week’s! du Zweifel
und Zwist?’, 1041)
2704. [c=hidden intelligence]
(‘Hagen...einen Wink fest’, 1050)
2705. [E“Tamhelm] (motif, 1052)
2706. [c=forgetfulness] (motif, 1054)
2707. [0=<3utrune] (‘Brächte Siegftid die
Braut dir heim’, 1056)
2708. [d=Sieg&ied] (‘wär’ dann nicht
Brünnhilde Dein?’, 1058)
2709. [Bk=óuntìter, Gibichungs]
(‘Gunther wendet sich wieder
zweifelnd und unmuthig ab’, 1059)]
2710. [c=forgetfiilness] (‘Ihn zv^ge bald
deine Bitte’, 1063)
XXXXni.Ek Major [1064-75]
2711. [Ek=4jonds](!...bändihnGutrun’
zuvor’, 1065)
F
2712. [Ck“taunter] (‘Du SpOtter’,böser
Hagen!’, 1067)
2713. [Ek“female binding] (‘Was sollt
ich Siegfried binden?’, 1070)
XXXXIV. F Major [1076-84]
2714. [F=desite, satisfied] (‘Ist er der
herrlichste Held der 'Welt, der Erde
holdeste Frauen fiiedeten lägst ihn
schon’, 1073)
2715. [B k=Nibelungs] (‘Gedenk’ des
Trankes im Schrein’, 1083)
XXXXV. C Major [1085-1100]
2716. [b=mntrustworfiiiness] (‘vertraue
mir’, 1085)
2717. [E=love magic] (‘...der firn
gewann:Den Helden dess’ du
verlang’st’, 1086)
2718. [a=magical binding] (‘bindet er
liebend an dich’, 1090)
2719. [Ek=normalbinding] (‘Träte nun
Siegfiied ein’, 1094)
2720. [a=magicel binding] (‘genöss er des
würzigen Trank’s’, 1097)
2721. [E=magic] (‘Tamhelm’motif+
‘dass vor dir ein Weib er ersah’,
1101)
2722. [b“evil magic] (‘dass je ein Weib
ihm genah’t, vergessen müss’t er
dess’ ganz’, 1103)
2723. [a=shady advice] (‘wie dünkt euch
Hagen’s Rafii?’, 1111)
2724. [D=heroic relief] (‘G. Lebhaft
auffahrend’, 1116)
2725. [B k=Alberich] (‘Gebriesen sei
Grimhild, die uns den Bruder uns
es gab!’, 1117)
2726. [D=Siegfried] (‘Möcht’ ich....’,
1122)
2727. [G=<jutrune] (‘...Siegfried jeder
seh’n!’, 1123)
2728. [b=Curse] (motif + ‘Wie fänden ihn
wir auf?’, 1126)
XXXXVI, C Major [1133-43]
2729. [E k “circle of the world] (‘Jagt er
auf Thaten wonnig umher, zum
engen Tann wird ihm die Welt’,
1135)
2730. [B=Gibich’s house] (‘auch zu
Gibich’s Strand an den Rhein’,

1139)
xxxxvn. F Major [1144-1208]
2731. [F=Siegfiied’s hom, “nature boy”]
(motif, 1144)
2732. [a=a boat] (‘In einem Nachen Held
und Ross!*, 1162)
2733. [F=physicîd strength] (‘Ein
gemächlicher Schlag, wie vom
müssiger Hand treibt Jacht den
Kahn wider den Stroimso rütiger
Hand in des Ruder’s Schwung
lOhmt sich nur der, der den Wurm
erschlug’, 1182)
XXXXVm. Bb Major [1209-23]
2734. [B b=Son of Gibich] (‘Zu Gibich’s
starkem Sohne.’ ‘Zu seiner Halle
entbiet’ ich dich’, 1208)
2735. [Cb=enemy (Hagen)]‘Hieher!’,
1218)
XXXXIX. E minor [1224-35]
2736. [e=magic ring] (motif + ‘Heil! ’,
1225)
2737. [b=Alberich’s Curse] (motif + ‘Alle
sind in gegenseitiger stummer
Betrachtung gefesselt’, 1230)
L. B minor [1236-42]
2738. [b-D=Siegflied] (motif + ‘Wer ist
Gibich’s Sohn?’, 1236)
2739. [b-D=Gundier] (‘Günther ich, den
du such’st’, 1240)
LI.Bb Major [1243-1331]
2740. [dKjunther, diminished hero]
(‘Dich hört’ ich rOhmen weit am
Rhein’, 1242)
2741. [B b=Gibichimg, battle] (‘nun ficht
mit mir, oder sei mein Freund! ’,
1244)
2742. [e=cursed ring] (motif + ‘Du riefst
mich Siegfiied’, 1256)
2743. [B bÆ b-Alberich] (‘...sah’st du
mich schon?’, ‘Ich kannte dich nur
an deiner Kraft’, 1257)
2744. [D b=the gods] (‘von edlerer Zucht
am Zaume ein Ross’, 1269)
2745. [g=inferior handler] (‘Hagen führt
das Ross’, 1272)
2746. [B b =Gibichung Hall] (‘Begrüsse
519
firoh, o Held, die Halle meines
Vater’s’, 1283)
2747. [D=Siegfiied] (‘das achte nun dein
Eigen’, 1289)
2748. [B b =Gü)ichungs] (‘Mich selbst
geb’ ich zum Mann’, 1294)
2749. [d^Siegmund] (‘Nicht I^d noch
Leute biete ich, noch Vater’s Haus
und Hof, 1299)
2750. [g=Nibelungish smithing] (‘Nur ein
Schwert hab’ ich’, 1308)
2751. [bb=Nibelungs] (‘Doch des
Nibhmgen hortes nennt die Märe
dich Heim?’, 1314)
2752. [f=Fafiier] (‘In einer Höhle liess’
ich’s liegen, wo ein Wurm es einst
bewacht’, 1322)
2753. [c=dark tidings] (‘Und nichts
entnahm’st du ihm?’, 1326)
2754. [g=Nibeiimg artifact] (‘Diess
Gewirk, unkund seiner Kraft’,
1328)
LH. B minor [1332-48]
2755. [b=Nibelungs’ devilish cunning]
(‘Der Tamhelm kenn’ ich, der
Niblungen künnstUches Werk’,
1331)
2756. [g(t/E/g)t=Tamhehn] (‘er taught,
bedeckt er dein Hatipt, dir zu
tauschen jede Gestalt; verlangt
dich’s an fernsten Ort, er entführt
flugs dich dahin’, 1334)
2757. [e=magic ring] (‘Sonst nichts
entnabm’st du dem Hort?’, ‘Einen
Ring’, 1342)
2758. [E=love-bride] (‘Den hüten ein
hehres Weib’, 1345)
Lm.Bb Major [1349-55]
2759. [Bb=Ounther] (‘Nicht, Siegfried,
sollst du mir tauschen’, 1347)
UV.GMajor[l256-72]
2760. [Gb=Gutrune] (‘Gutrune tritt
heraus’, 1356)
2761. [c=°contençlation] (‘Er hält das
Hom gedankenvoll vor sich hin’,
1372)
LV.Eb Major [1373-87]
2762. [Eb=Brünnhilde, wonder-woman]
520
(‘Vergäss ich Alles was du mir
gab'st von einer Lehre lass’ ich
doch nie’, 1374)
2763. [f=drinlcing vessel] (context, 1378)
2764. [Db=sacredness] (context, 1379)
2765. [A b =drinking vessel] (‘den ersten
Trunk zu treuer Mhme, Brfinnhilde,
bring ich dir!’, 1379)
LVI. G Major [1388-1402]
2766. [b=ensorceling] (‘Er reicht das
Trinkhom an Gutrune zurück’,
1388)
2767. [C=sight] (‘Die so mit dem Blitz
den Blick du mir seng’st, was
senk’st du dein auge vor mir?’,
1394)
2768. [G=Gutrune] (‘Gutrune schlägt
erröthend das Auge zu ihm auf,
1401)
LVn.Eb Major [1403-17]
2769. [e b =inferior female lover] (‘Ha
schönstes Weib!’, 1403)
2770. [a=fatal question] (‘Gunther, wie
heisst deine Schwester?’, 1414)
LVin. G Major [1418-90]
2771. [G=Gufrune] (‘Gutrune’, 1419)
2772. [D=Siegftied] (‘Deinem Bruder bot
ich mich zum Mann’, 1429)
2773. [G=Gutrune] (‘der Stolze schlug
nlich aus; 1432)
2774. [a=rejected suit] (‘trüg’st du wie er
mir Übermuth’, 1433)
2775. [E=courtship, marriage](‘böt ich
mich dir zum Bund!’, 1436)
2776. [G=Gutrune] (‘Gutrune Irifll
unwillkürlich auf Hagen’s Bück’,
1438)
2777. [g=unworthiness] (‘sie neigt
demütbig das Haupt, und mit einer
Gebärde, als fühle sie sich seiner
nicht wert, verlässt sie wankenden
Schrittes die Halle’, 1448)
2778. [b b “Nibelung] (curse motif+
‘bükt wie festgezaubert Gutrune
nach’, 1453)
2779. [C=tidings] (‘Hast du Günther, ein
Weib?’, 1456)
2780. [a=virgin] (‘Nicht freif ich noch,
1458]
2781. [b^VaUcyrie] (‘und einer Frau soll
ich mich schwerlich freu’n auf
Eine...’, 1459)
2782. [D=hero’s heart] (‘setzt’ ich den
Sinn’, 1461)
2783. [b=Valkyrie, unattainable] (‘die
kein RaÜi mir je gewinnt..’, 1463)
2784. [D=conquering hero] (‘Was wär’
dir versagt, steh’ ich zu dir?’, 1466)
2785. [B=Valkyrie] (‘Auf Felsen hoch
ihr Sitz’, 1470)
2786. [B b =malc conqueror] (‘Nvu: wer
durch das Feuer bricltf, 1477)
2787. [b=Valkyrie] (‘darf Brünn-hilde’s
Freier sein’, 1477)
2788. [A b “moiuitain space] (‘Nun darf
ich den Fels nicht erklimmen’,
1482)
2789. [a=heroic hopelessness] (‘das Feuer
verglimmt mir nie!)
LDCBb Major [1491-1526]
2790. [B b =mania] (‘übermuthiger
Lustigkeit’, 1492)
2791. [B b=fiety courage] (‘Ich fürchte
kein Feuer, für dich fr eit’ ich die
Frau; denn dein Mann bin ich, und
mein Muth ist dein’, 1496)
2792. [D=Siegfiied] (‘gewinn’ ich mir
Gntrun’ zum Weib’, 1503)
2793. [B b “Violent wooer] (‘Brüimhilde
bring’ ich dir’, 1511)
2794. [g“Nibelung cunning] (‘Wie willst
du sie täuschen?’ ‘Durch des
Tamhelm’s Trug tausch’ ich mir...’,
1514)
2795. [b/E“Tamhehn] (‘...deine Gestalt’,
‘So stelle Eide zum Schwur!’,
1519)
2796. [Bb “blood brodierhood]
ÖBlutbrüderschaft schwöre ein
Eid!’, 1523)
LX. B minor [1527-36]
2797. [e=cursed ring] (motif + ‘Hagen
fOUt ein Trinkhom’, 1527)
2798. [b=cutting weapon] (‘Seigfried und
Günther hin, welches sich mit ihren
Schwertern die Arme ritzen’, 1532]
LXI. Bb Major [1537-1679]
2799. [Bb=blood] (‘Trinkhom’s halten’.

1537)
2800. [bb=lifeblood](‘Blöhenden
Lebens’, 1552)
2801. [Db“godlike brother’s blood]
(‘...labendes Blut häufelt ich in den
Trank’, 1554)
2802. [b b “goblinlike brodier’s blood]
(‘BrüderbrUnstig muthig gemischt’,
1559)
2803. [B b=ilood] (‘Treue trink’ ich dem
Freund!’, 1567)
2804. [D b =holy oath] (‘Blutbrüder-schaft
heut!’, 1575)
2805. [a=bond-breaking] (‘Bricht ein
Bmder den BundiTrügt den
Treuen...’, 1580)
2806. [D=heroic friend] (‘...Freund’,
1588)
2807. [Ojustice] (‘was in Tropfen heut’
hold wir tranken’, 1589)
2808. [c“streams] (‘in Strahlen ström es
dahin’, 1593)
2809. [b=traitor] (‘fromme Söhne dem
Freund!’, 1598)
2810. [e=cuTsed ring] (motif, 1602)
2811. [Bb“blood brotherhood] (‘So bief
ich den Bund!’, 1609)
2812. [bb=Nibelung separation] (‘Hagen
zerschlägt mit seinem Schwerte das
Horn in zwei Stücken’, 1678)
2813. [Bb=blood-brotherhood] (‘Gunther
und Siegfried reichen sich die
Hände’, 1625)
2814. [Cb“Hagen] (‘Was nahm’st du am
Eide nicht Theil?’, 1632)
2815. [a=bond-breaker] (‘Mein Blut
verdürb’ euch den Trank’, 1640)
2816. [c=sluggish, injure liquid] (‘nicht
fliesst mir’s ächt, 1644)
2817. [E b “free-flowing, pure liquid]
(‘...und edel wie euch’, 1646)
2818. [b b “Nibelung] (nwtif + ‘störrisch
und kalt stockt’s in mir’, 1649)
2819. [eb=a cold-blooded creature]
(‘nicht will’s die Wange mir
röthemdrum bleib’ ich fern, vom
feurigen Bund’, 1652)
2820. [B b “violent wooing] (‘Frisch auf
die Fahrt!’, 1665)
2821. [G b “mountainside] (‘schnell führt
es zum Felsen’, 1671)
2822. [Db“zenith] (context, 1674)
521
2823. [b=dark schemes] (‘Er tritt näher zu
Gunther und bedeutet diesen’,
1675)
2824. [E=Tamhelm] (motif + ‘Eine Nacht
am Ufer harr’st du im Nachen’,
1679)
2825. [g“violent wooing] (‘die Frau
fähr’st du dann heim’, 1684)
2826. [b“nefarious labors] (‘Um die
Rückkehr ist’s mir jach’, 1692)
2827. [B b=Gibich Hall] (‘Du Hagen!
Bewache die Halle!’, 1697)
2828. [Db“mountaintop] (‘Woiihi eilen
die Schnellen?’, 1718)
2829. [c“setting sail] (‘Zu Schiff!’, 1721)
2830. [D=Siegfried] (‘Brünnhild’ zu
frei’n.’ ‘Siegfried?’, 1724)
2831. [B b “violent wooing] (‘Sieh’, wie’s
ihn trieb’, 1729)
2832. [Db “zenith of happiness]
(‘Siegfried mein!’, 1737)
2833. [Ab=Siegfiied as prize] (‘Sie geht
lebhaft erregt in ihr Gemach
ztnück’, 1739)
2834. [Eb“Rhine] (‘Siegfried hat das
Ruder erfasst, und treibt jetzt mit
dessen Schlägen den Nachen
stromabwärts’, 1744)
2835“. [Bb “Gunther] (context, 1720)
2836. [F=Siegfrièd] (context, 1757)
2837. [e b “threshhold of Gibich’s Hall]
(‘Hagen sitzt mit dem Rücken an
den. Pfosten der Halle gelehnt,
bewegungslos’,' 1760)
2838. [F b/C b *](‘Hier sitz’ ich zur
Wacht, vt^e den Hof, 1763)
2839. [F=natural wooing] (‘Gibich’s
Sohne wehet der Winà, auf Werben
fahrt er dahin’, 1772)
2840. [e b=Hagen, waiting] (per #2837,
1776)
LXn. E minor [1780-6]
2841. [e“mag{cal ring, master of
Siegfried] (motif + ‘Ihm führt das
Steuer ein starker Held, Gefahr ihm
will er besteh’n,’ 1780)
LXra. Bb Major [1787-1863]
2842. [a b “heavenly bride degraded]
(passing context, 1787)
2843. [b b “Nibelungs] (‘Die eig’ne
522
Braut’, 1788) 2870. [C=light] (context, 1906)
2844. [g l>=heaven’s gate] (‘ihm bringt’,
1789) Dritte Scene
2845. [a b=heavenly bride] (‘er zum
Rhein’, 1780) 2871. [e=roagic ring] (‘Die Felsenhöhe
2846. [fb=magical ring] (‘mir aber bringt wie im Vorspiel. Brünnhilde sitzt
er den Ring!’, 1792) am Eingänge des Steingemaches in
2847. [e b =Hagen, waiting] (per Nos. stumnoen Sinnen Siegfried’s Ring
2837 & 2840,1793) betractend’, 1908)
2848. [Cb“invisible enemy] (‘Dir fteien
Söhne’, 1801) LXVI.Eb Major [1916-27]
2849. [D*=heroes(=g;V)] (‘frohe 2872. [E b =B., wonder-woman] (B. sitzt’,
Gesellen’, 1803) 1916)
2850. [G b “mountainside, heaven’s 2873. [Ab=transport to heaven] (‘Von
gate](‘segelt nur lustig dahin’, wonnigen Erinnerungen ergriffen,
1805) bedeckt sie den Ring mit ihren
2851. [G=nadir] (‘dünkt er euch neidrig’, Küssen’, 1916)
1807) 2874. [db=distant heaven] (‘Ferner
2852. [e b =NibeIung-son] (‘ihr dient ihm Donner lässt sich vernehmen, sie
doch, des Niblungen Sohn’, 1808) blickt auf und lauscht’, 1919)
2875. [G b =transport to heaven, weaker]
Scene Transition (‘Sie wendet sich wieder zu dem
2853. [e=miagical ring, Siegfiied Ring’, 1923)
controlled by] (motif, 1832)
2854. [g=Nibelung plots] (motif, 1834) LXVn. B minor [1928-81]
2855. [a b “dieavenly treasure, targetted] 2876. [b=Valkyrie lightning] (’1929)
(passim, 1842) 2877. [f)t=heavenly messenger
2856. [b=Curse, secret enemy (Hagen)] (Waltraute)] (‘Alt gewohntes
(passim, 1843) Geräusch raunt meinem Ohr die
2857. [a=?] (1845) Feme’, 1937)
2858. [C=?] (1850) 2878. [0=an “air-steed”] (‘Ein Luftross
2859. [Eb=?] (1853) jagt im Laufe daher’, 1944)
2860. [Cb“?] (1760) 2879. [a=flying cloud-steed] (‘auf der
Wolke fährt es wetternd zum Fels’,
LXIV. B minor [1864-84] 1947)
2861. [B=Brünnhilde’s love] (motif, 2880. [G=a sister] (‘Waltraute’s Stimme’,
1864) ‘Schwester!’, 1953)
2862. [b=Cinse] (nKJtif, 1874) 2881. [a/0=sleeping/awakening]
2863. [B=Brünnhilde’s iove] (motif (‘Schläfst [a] oder wach’st [C]
1877) du?’, 1957)
2864. [e=magic ring] (motif, 1879) 2882. [D=Valkyrie, joyously received]
(‘Waltraute’s Ruf, so wonnig mir
LXV. C Major [1885-1915] kund!’, 1960)
2865. [C=awakening] (context, 2883. [F=courage] (‘Schwing’st dich
reminiscence, 1885) kühn zu mir her?’, 1964)
2866. [a=sexual awakening] (motif, 2884. [e/g=precipice] (‘Sie eilt nach dem
context, 1890) Felsrande’, 1968)
2867. [b“curse, on sexual love] (context, 2885. [F=Waltraute coming to ground]
motif, 1895) ÒDort im Tann dir noch vertraut
2868. [é^magic rii^] (context, 1899) steige vom Ross und stell’ den
2869. [b“curse, on sexual love] (context, Renner zur Rast’, 1970)
1900) 2886. [b=Valkyrie äiunder] (‘Sie stümt in

den Tan n, von wo ein starkes
Geräusch, gleich einem
Gewitterschlage, sich vernehmen
lässt’, 1976)
LXVin. E b Major [1982-2031]
2887. [c=Brünnhilde] (‘Kommst du zu
mir?’, 1985)
2888. [e b =Brünnhilde] (‘Bist du so kühn,
mag’st ohne Grauen Brflmihilde’
beiten Grauss?’, 1986)
2889. [F))=Heavenly Messenger] (‘Einzig
dir nm galt meine Eil’!’, 1991)
2890. [e b=Brünnhilde] (‘So wagtest du,
BrOnnhilde’ zu Lieb, Walvater’s
Bann zu brechen?’, 1994)
2891. [C=tidings](‘0 sag’!, 2000)
2892. [g=defiance] (‘wär’ wider mich
Wotan’s Sinn erweicht?’, 2001)
2893. [c^BrOnnhilde’s idea] (‘Als dem
Gott entgegen’, 2005)
2894. [E b = Brüimhilde’s protection] (‘
Siegmund ich schützte’, 2007)
2895. [c= Brünnhilde’s &ilure] (‘fehlend
ich weiss es’, 2009)
2896. [E b =Wotan’s fiilfiUed Wish]
(‘erfüllt’ ich doch seinen Wunsch’,
2010)
2897. [g=rage] (‘Dass sein Zorn sich
verzogen, weiss ich auch’, 2013)
2898. [B=Brünnhilde’s sentence] (‘Denn
verschloss er nuch gleich ', 2016)
2899. [E b =Magic Sleep] (‘in Schlaf,
2017)
2900. [F=unale, husband] (‘fesselt’ er
mich auf den Fels, wies er dem
Mann’, 2019)
2901. [B b ==male conqueror] (‘mich zur
Magd, der am Weg mich fand’,
2021)
2902. [C=awakening] (‘und erweckt’,
2023)
2903. [f=pleading Wish Maiden] (‘meiner
bangen Bitte doch gab er’, 2025)
2904. [E b=Wish Maiden, successful]
(‘...Gunst’, 2028)
2905. [A=Loge] (‘mit zehrendem // Feuer
umgab er den Fels, dem Zagen zu
wehren den...’, 2029)
LXIX. B Major [2032-47]
2906. [B=Wotan’s cinse] (‘So zur
523
Seligsten schuf mich die Strafe’,
2036)
2907. [b=Siegfried, Hero] (‘der
herrlichste Held gbwann mich zum
Weib!’, 2043)
LXX. £b Major [2048-84]
2908. [E b “Eternal Gdddess’ fool’s
paradise] (‘In seiner Liebe laucbf
und lach’ ich heut’ auf, 2048)
2909. [c=Etemal Goddess’ paradise
haying] (‘Lockte dich Schwester
mein Loos?’, 2063)
2910. [a=virgin] (‘An meiner Wonne
wiUst du dich weiden’, 2067)
2911. [b=ValkyrieS, cursed heroes]
(‘Theilen den Taumel,’, 2071)
2912. [d=feiled heroes] (‘der dich Tliörin
erfasst?’, 2072)
2913. [b(cb)=VaIkyrie] (‘Ein And’res
bewog mich in Angsf, 2074)
2914. [e b=ifeaven’s gate/messenger] (‘zu
brechen Wotan’s gebot’, 2075)
2915. [ab“Valkyrie in fear] (‘Angst und
Furcht...’, 2082)
2916. [b=Valkryie in fear] (‘..fesseln dich
Arme?’, 2083)
LXXI. F|t minor [2085-2100]
2917. [ctl“Wotan defunct] (‘So verzieh
■der Strenge noch nicht?’, 2086)
2918. [f)l “Waltraute, Heavenly
Messenger, ahaid] (‘Du zagst vor
des Strafenden Zorn?’, 2089)
2919. [gtt“Waftraute unafraid] (‘E>ürft’
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
2107)
2925. [b=AJiberich’s Curse] ('mit den
ewigen Götter?’, 2108)
2926. [C=tidings] (‘Höre mit Sinn’, 2111)
2927. [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’,
2121)
2933. [c)t=Wotan defimct] (‘Walvater’,
2123)
2934. [f#=restless wandering] (‘Einsam
zu Ross, ohne Ruh’ noch Rast,
durchst reift er als...’, 2125)
2935. [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.

schloss das Auge’, 2215)
2964. [Al>=retumtoRiver](‘undwieim
Traume raunt’er das Wort’, 2219)
2965. [E t =Rhine Daughters] (des tiefen
Rheines Töchtern gäbe....’, 2222)
2966. [eb=Ring-in-Rhine] (‘...den Ring
sie wieder’, 2225)
2967. [db=God, defunct] (‘...zurück, von
des Fluches Last’, 2225)
2968. [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)
525
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)
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=<3unther/Nibelung lord] (‘Wer
ist der Mann, der das
vermochte,was den Stärksten nur
best immt..’, 2524)
3020. [A jl (B b )=Gunther/Nibelung lord]
(‘Ein Heide der dich zähmt
bezwingt...’, 2535)
3021. [C |t “ godlike pretensions]
(‘...Gewalt dich nur’, 2538)
3022. [g=a Nibelung] (‘Ein Unhold’,
2539)
3023. [d]t“an eagle] (‘Ein Aar kam
geflogen, mich zu zerfleischen!’,
2544)
3024. [E“Tamhelm] (motif + ‘Stammst
du von Menschen?’, 2554)
3025. [b“Hella] (‘Kommst du von Hella’s
nächtlichem Herr?’, 2556)
3026. [G“Gibichungs] (‘Ein Gibichung
bin ich’, 2556)
3027. [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]
3030. [fÿ “heavenly judgment] (‘zu Hohn
und Jammer’, 2575)
3031. [c|l“Wotan, judge] (jag’st du mich
hin!’, 2576)
LXXXXTV. C Major [2588-96]
3032. [C“twilight] (‘Die Nacht bricht an’,
2590)
LXXXXV. Eb Major [2597-2603]
3033. [Ab“Wish Maiden] (‘Blefc’ fern!’,
2597)
3034. [b b “Nibeltmg lord] (‘Fürchte dies
Zeichen!’, 2600)
3035. [c=Wonder-Woman resisting rape]
(‘Zur Schande...’, 2604)
•LXXXXVI. C Major [2604-42]
3036. [d“failed hero] (‘du mich nicht so
lang’, der Ring mich’, 2605)
3037. [e=magical ring] (‘ schütz’, 2609)
3038. [*B b“Nibelung rapist]
(‘Mannesrecht gebe er’, 2612)
3039. [•e=ring] (‘Gunthendurch den Ring
 527
sei ihm...’, 2613) 3061. [E=Love] (‘Die Treue wahrend
3040. [A b =Wish Maiden] (‘Zurück! dem Bruder’, 2707)
2515) 3062. [C“Sword] (motif + ‘treune mich’,
3041. [Bb=Nibelung rapist, robber, 2712)
attacking] (‘duRäuber!’, 2517) 3063. [b“The Shadow] (‘von seiner
3042. [c=Etemal Goddess, defending] Braut!’, 2714)
^Frevelnder Dieb! Er&eche dich
nicht mir zu nah’n!’ 2619) Zweite Aufzug.
3043. [D=Sieg&ied] (‘Stärker als Stahl...’,
2622) Vorspiel und erste Scene.
3044. [G=Gutrune] (motif + ‘mach mich
der Ring’, 2623) C. Bb minor [2733-62]
3064. [bb=Nibelungs, Alberich] (context,
3045. [C=celebration (e.g., wedding)]
2733)
(passing, 2624)
3065. [db=Walhaü]
3046. [fÿ =lofty height] (‘nie raub’st du
3066. [bb “Nibelung, Alberich]
ihn mir!’, 2625)
3067. [ft=desire, watching]
3047. [e b “Eternal Goddess, victim]
3068. [e b “wounded goddess]
(‘Von dir ihn zu lösen lehrst du 3069. [g b “descending fium Ùght]
mich...’, 2630)
3048. [bb “Eternal Rapist, in action]
CI. B b Major [2763-93]
(‘...nun!’, 2632)
3049. [e=magic ring] (context, 2634) 3070. [b=The Shadow] (context, 2762)
3071. [a=pale light] (context, 2764)
3072. [F=watching, guarding] (context,
LXXXXVn. E b Major [2643-56]
2766)
3050. [c“Goddess raped] (‘Beide ringen
3073. [c=moonlight] (‘Hier tritt der Mond
heftig mit einander’, 2643)
plötzlich hervor und wirft ein
3051. [e b “Goddess taped] (‘Et fasst sie
grelles Licht auf Hagen und seine
bei der Hand und entzieht ihrem
nächste Umgebung’, 2771)
Finger den Ring’, 2652)
3074. [a“tnoonlight, sleep-awareness]
(‘Schläfst du, Hagen, mein Solm?’,
LXXXXVra. C Major [2657-71]
2774)
3052. [e=fondness] (motif, 2658)
3075. [F“watching] (‘Du schläfst und
3053. [OLight, eye, look, knowledge]
hörst mich nicht’, 2777)
(‘streift ihr Blick bewusstlos die
3076. [db=gods] (‘den Ruh’ und Schlaf
Augen Siegflied’s’, 2659)
verrieth?’,2778)
3054. [ftl “fading light, eye, look,
3077. [b b “Alberich] (‘Ich höre dich,
knowledge] (context, motif, 2660)
schlimmer Albe:was hast du meinen
3055. [b“Shadow] (motif context, 2662)
Schlaf zu sagen?’, 2782)
3078. [a=Grimhild’] (‘Gemahnt sei der
LXXXXIX. B minor [2672-2732]
Macht, der du gebietest, bist du so
3056. [b=hatred, fixity, monomania {The
muthig, wie die h|utter dich mir
Shadow)] (motif + ‘Britonhilde
gebar!’, 2788)
starrt ohnmächtig vor sich hin’,
2675)
3057. [a=female defenselessness] (‘Was Cn. B b minor [2794-2809]
3079. [e b “Hagen] (‘Gab mir die
könntest du wehren,’, 2679)
Mutter...’, 2793)
3058. [c )i “Brünnhilde defunct] (‘elendes
3080. [G b=courage] (‘...Muth, 2796)
Weib’, 2681)
3081. [eb=Hagen] (‘...dass deiner List sie
3059. [b“the Shadow]
erlag’, 2798)
3060. [B=the Shadow denied; Denial]
3082. [a b“revelers] (‘ft-eue mich nie! ’
(‘Nun Nothung zeuge du, dass ich
‘Hagen, mein Sohn! Hasse die
in Züchten warb’, 2700)
Frohen!’, 2806)
528
era. Bk Major [2810-72]
3083. [a=Alberich, defeated] (‘Mich
Lustficeien, Leidbclasteten, liebst du
so wie du sollst', 2809)
3084. [A=craftìness] (‘Bist du kräftig’,
2812)
3085. [a=daik undermining war] (‘die wir
bekän^fen mit nächtigem Krieg’,
2813)
3086. [*D k =gods] (‘schon gieb ihnen
Noth unser Neid’, 2814)
3087. [c=rape of Ring] (‘Der einst den
Ring mir entriss’, 2816)
3088. [g=unworthy ravisher, robber] (‘der
wüthigen Räuber’, 2818)
3089. [c=Sword, broken Spear] (motif+
‘an die Wälsung verlor er Macht
und Gewalt’, 2822)
3090. [d k =gods, deflmet] (‘mit der Götter
Sippe in Angst ersieht er sein
Ende’, 2823)
3091. [c=end, Onwga] (‘Nicht ihn fürcht’
ich mehr” fallen muss er mit
Allen!’, 2825)
3092. [a=sleep-awareness] (‘Schläfst du.
Hageil, mein Sohn?’, 2829)
3093. [ek=Hagen] (‘Der EwigenMacht
wer erbte sie?’, 2832)
3094. [b k =Alberich] (‘Ich—und du! Wir
erben die Welt’, 2837)
3095. [c=Omega] (‘Wotan’s Speer
zerspellte der Wälsung’, 2842)
3096. [f=Fafiier] (‘der Fafiier, der Wurm’,
2843)
3097. [b k =batüe] (‘in Kan^fe gefflllt,
und kidisch den Reif sich errang’,
2845)
3098. [G k =master of the Curse]
(‘Walhall und Nibelheim neigen
sich ihm. An dem furchtlosen
Helden erlahmt selbst mein Fluch’,
2848)
3099. [B k=power, might] (‘zu nicht nützt
er die neidlichste Macht’, 2854)
3100. [g=T)ower, frittered away]
(‘Lachend i« liebender Brunnst
brennt er lebend dahin’, 2854)
3101. [ek=Hagen] (‘Dm zu verderben
taugt uns mm einzig! Schläft’st du
Hagen mein Sohn?’, 1857)
3102. [g=power, frittered away] (‘Zu
seiner Verderben dient er mir
schon’, 2862)
CIV. D Major [2873-81]
3103. [D=Rhine Dau^ters] (‘rieth es ihm
je, des Rheines Töchtern, die in
Wasser’s Tiefen einst mich
bethöret’, 2871)
3104. [e=^nagic ring] (‘zurück zu geben
den Ring’, 2875)
3105. [cj}=magic ring lost] (‘verloren
ging mir das Gold, keine List
erlangte es je’, 2876)
3106. [e=ring-winner] (‘Drum ohne
Zögern ziel auf den Reif! Dich
Zaglosen zeugt ich mir ja;, 2879)
CV.Bk Major [2882-94]
3107. [Bk=Nibehmg] (‘das wider Helden
hart du mir hieltest. Zwar stark
nicht genug, den Wurm zu
besteh’n’, 2882)
3108. [f=Fafrier] (‘was allein dem
Wälsung bestimmt’, 2886)
3109. [Bk“deadly hatred] (‘zuzähem
Hass’ doch erzog ich...’, 2888)
3110. [ek=Hagen] (‘...Hagen der soll
mich nun rächert, den Ring
gewirmen’, 2889)
3111. [Bk=Alberich] (‘dem Wälsung und
Wotan zum Hohn!’, 2891)
3112. [f=Lord of the Ring] (‘Schwörst du
mir’s, Hagen, mein Sohn?’, 2893)
CVI. B k minor [2895-2918]
3113. [ek=Hagen] (‘Den Ring soll ich
haben; harre in Ruh’!’, 2895)
3114. [c==Oath (Spear)] (context, 2901 )
3115. [bk/ek=Alberichràagen] (‘Mir
selbst schwör’ ich’s; schweige die
Sorge’, 2902)
3116. [bk “Alberich] (‘Sei treu, hagen,
mein Sohn! Trauter Heide! Sei treu!
Seitreu! Treu!’, 2906)
Zweite Scene.
CVn.Bk Major [2919-59]
3117. [Bk“Sunrise] (‘Von hieran fäiiit
sich der Rhein von immer stärker
erglühenden Morgenroth’, 2938)
3118. [e k=Hagen] (‘Hagen macht eine
zuckunde Bewegung’, 2950)
 529
CVm. E minor [2960-7] hat es V erschont?’ ‘Mich freute die
3119. [e=Tanihelin] (motif, 2960) schwebende Brunst’, 3028)
3120. [g ü=Tamhelm] (motif, 2965) 3140. [b=The Shadow] (‘Heilt Brüimhilde
dich für G\mthei?‘, 3030)
CIX. F Major [2968-89] 3141. [e=magic] (‘Ihm glich'ich auf das
3121. [F=Sieg&ied, nature boy] (‘Hoiho! Haander Tamhelm wirkte das, wie
Hagen!’, 2969) Hagen tüchtig es wies’, 3033)
3122. [d=Siegfried] (cont, -2970) 3142. [g=Tavishment, force (inferior)]
3123. [F=Siegfried] (’Hei! Siegfiied! ’, (‘So zwang’st du das kühne Weib?’
2974) ‘Sie wich Gunther’s Kraft’,3038)
3124. [D=Hero] (‘Geschwinder Heide!’, 3143. [d=Hero, diminished] (‘Und
2977) vermählte sie sich dir?’, ‘Ihrem
3125. [C # =zenith] (‘Vom Brünnhilde’s Mann gehorchte BrOnnhild’, 3042)
Stein!’, 2981) 3144. [G=Gutrune] (‘Bei Gulrune weilte
3126. [F=nature boy] (‘so schnell war Siegfried’, 3051)
meine Fahrt’, 2984) 3145. [a=chastity] (‘Doch zur Seite war
3127. [d=diminished hero] (‘Langsamer ihmBrüntihilde?’, 3053)
folgt mir ein Paar’, 2985) 3146. [B=splitting apart] (‘Zwischen Ost
3128. [Bk =boat-on-Rhine] (‘zu Schiff und West der Nord:’, 3055)
gelangt das her!’, 2988) 3147. [e=love diminished] (‘so nah’ war
Brünnhild’ ihm fern’, 3062)
CX. B minor [2990-3005] 3148. [F tl “mountainside] (‘Wie ençfling
3129. [b=Shadow] (‘So zwang’st du Gunther...’, 3064)
Brünnhilde?’, ‘Wacht Gutrune?’, 3149. [b=riescending frrom mountainside]
2989) (‘...sie nun von dir?’, 3065)
3130. [D=Hero] (‘Gutrune! Komm’ 3150. [e=Bridal Fire, fading] (‘Durch des
heraus! Siegfried ist da’, 2992) Feuer’s verlöschende Lohe’, 3066)
3131. [B=Shadow, looking good] 3151. [Ak=heavenly maiden] (‘im
CGutrune tritt ihm aus der Halle Frühnebel vorn Felsen folgte sie
entgegen’, 3000) mir zu Thal’, 306*9)
3152. [E/e=Tamhelm magic] (motif+
CXI. G Major [3006-3143] ‘dem Strande nah’, flugs die Stelle
3132. [e=Gutrune ] (‘Freia grüsse dich’, tauschte Grmther mit mir’, 3071)
3007) 3153. [ak=Tartihelm magic] (‘durch des
3133. [C=public acclaim] (‘zu aller Geschmeides Tugend wünscht’ ich
Frauen Ehre!’, 3009) mich schnell hierher’, 3075)
3134. [e=Gutrune, object of marriage] 3154. [F'^tural strength] (‘Ein starker
(‘zum Weib gewann ich dich heut! ’, Wind’, 3079)
3013) 3155. [A=wedding pair, approachirig]
3135. [g=Gutrune, insecure] (‘So folgt (‘D’rum rüstet jetzt den Ençfang’,
Brünnhilde meinem Bruder?’, 3082)
3016) 3156. [G“Gutrune] (‘Wie fasst mich
3136. [Ek=Btünnhilde, Wonder Woman] Furcht vor dir!’, 3088)
(‘Leicht ward die Frau ihm gefr:eit’, 3157. [C=herald] (‘So sagt dem Boten
3019) Dank!’3093)
3137. [e=Bridal Fire] (.‘Sengte das Feuer 3158. [D=Heroes] (‘Du Hagen, minig
ihn nicht?’ ‘Ihn hätt’ es auch nicht rufe die Mannen nach Gibichschof
versehrt’, 3021) zur Hochzeit! ’, 3099)
3138. [G=Gutrune] (‘doch ich 3159. [G=Wojnen] (‘Frohe Frauen ruf
durchschritt es für ihn, da dich ich ich zum Fest’, 3105)
wollt’ erwerben’, 3025) 3160. [D=Hero] (‘Rastest du, schlimmer
3139. [D=Hero, Siegffied] (‘Doch dich Held?’, 3113)
530
3161. [G=Gutrune] (‘Dir zu helfen, ruh’
ich aus', 3114)
3162. [b=^e Shadow] (‘Hagen’,
etc:context, 3117)
3163. [e=Gibichungs in peril] (‘Stíerhom;
‘Hoiho!’, 3122)
3164. [c=woe] (‘Wehe! Wehe!’, 3133)
CXn. C Major [3144-69]
3165. [e=Gibichungs in peril] (motif+
‘Gute Waffen! Starke Waffen!’,
3145)
3166. [c=Omega] (motif + ‘Noth ist da!’,
3150)
3167. [*D=Hero] (motif, 3156)
3168. [e=peril (ring)] (‘Hoiho’, etc.,
3160)
CXni. El. Major [3170-2336]
3169. [c=Gibichung Vassais] (‘Auf
verschiedenen Pfaden stümKn in
Hast und Eile gewaffiiete Mannen
heibai’, 3169)
3170. [g=War, steife] (‘Was tos’t das
Horn?’, 3170)
3171. [BI>=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. E i Major [3249-3314]
3181. [g=strife] (‘Drohet ihm Noth?’,
3250)
3182. [A b=cup-bearer, heavenly maiden]
(‘Ein ffeisliches Weib fOhret er
heim’, 3256)
3183. [g=enemies] (‘Ihm folgen der
Magen’, 3260)
3184. [c=vassals] (“Ihm folgen der
• Magen’, 3265)
3185. [Bk =QunÖJer] (‘Einsam fährt
enkeiner folgt’, 3269)
3186. [bk=Gunther in^jerilled] (‘So
bestand er die Noth?’, 3275)
3187. [C=Siegfried] (‘Siegfried der Held,
de schuf ihm Heil!’, 3288)
3188. [c=Vassals] (‘Was soll ihm das
Heer nun noch helfen?’, 3295)
3189. [D k =Wotan] (‘Starke Stiere sollt
ihr schlachten’, 3297)
3190. [c=Wotan blood- samifrce] (‘am
Weihstein fliesse Wotan ihr Bhit’,
3305)
3191. [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. E k Major [3424-88]
3199. [Ek=Gunther’s Bride] (‘Empfangt

Gunther’s Braut’, 3426)
3200. [Cb=Brünhhilde] (‘BrSnnhilde
nah’t dort mit ihm’, 3431)
3201. [G b=mountain height] (‘Er deutet
die Mannen nach dem Rheine hin’,
3434)
3202. [e b=Hagen] (motif + ’traf sie ein
Leid rasch seid zur Rache!’, 3459)
3203. [B b=Gunther*] (‘Heil!’, 3462)
3204. [D=Heroes*] (‘Heil!’, 3464)
3205. [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)
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
531
Biünnhilden’s Blick?’, 3573)
3223. [D b “heaven] (passing, 3574)
3224. [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)
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
532
Recht’, 3534)
3245. [e=magic ring] (‘ford’re ziffttck das
Pfand!’ ‘Den Ring?’, 3636)
3246. [c=ignorance] (‘Ich gab ihm
keinenidoch, kenn’st du zugh gut?’,
3637)
3247. [bl>=Guntherataloss](‘Wo
bärgest du den Ring, den du von
mir...’, 3639)
3248. [a=a thief] (‘...erbeutet?’, 3641)
3249. [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,
himmlischen Lenker! ’, 3703)
3267. [ab=dark council] (‘Rauntet ihr
diess in eiuemRath?’, 3712)
3268. [d=unequalled anguish] (‘Lehrt ihm
mich Leiden, wie keiner sie litt?’,
3717)
3269. [ftnmequalled shame] (‘Schuft ihr
mir Schmach, tvie nie sie
geschmerzt?’, 3722)
3270. [0=information](‘Radietnun’,
3728)
3271. [g=of revenge] (‘Rache wie nie sie
geras’t!’, 3729)
3272. [a b =cosmic rage] (‘Zünder mir
Zorn, wie noch nie er gezähmt!’,
3733)
3273. [F=broken heart] (‘Heisset
Brünnhild’ ihr Hetz zu zerbrechen’,
3739)
3274. [D b =apostrophe to Gods,
conclusion] (‘den zu zertrümmern’,
3744)
3275. [c=Brünnhilde, supplicant] (‘der sei
betrog!’, 3747)
3276. [Bb=Gunther] (‘Brünnhild’,
Gemahlin! Mäss’ge dich!’, 3750)
3277. [E b=Brünnhilde] (‘Weich’ fern,
Verträther! Selbst-verrath’nerl’,
3753)
3278. [c=Brünnhilde in action] (context,
3757)
3279. [bb=actual husband] (‘nicht ihm,
dem Manne dort bin ich vermählt’,
3763)
3280. [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)

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. [bb “Günther shamed]
(‘Geschändet wär ich, Schimhlich
bewahrt, gäb’st du die Rede nich
ihr zurück!’, 3836)
3294. [d b “honor, truth doubted]
(‘Treulos Siegfried, sannest du
Trug?’, 3842)
3295. [bb “accusations] (‘Bezeuge, dass
Jene falsch dich zeih’t! ’, 3845)
3296. [c“dcfense] (‘Reinige dich, bist du
im Recht!’, 3848)
3297. [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)
533
3303. [a“oalh] (motif, 3876)
3304. [e“Siegfried’s oath] (‘Helle Wehr,
heilige WaQfe!’,3880)
3305. [C/c=Siegfried’s oath] (‘Hilf
meinem ewigen Eide! Bei den
Speeres Spitze’, 3885)
3306. [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
Donner!’, 3950)
3325. [B=Shadow ascendant] (‘zu
schweien die wüthende Schmach!’,
3956)
3326. [e=wife, subordinate] (‘Gunther!
Wehr’ deinem Weibe das schamlos
Schande dir lOgt. GSnn’t ihr’, 3958)
3327. [g=iinpotent rage] (‘Weil’ und
Ruh’, der wilden’, 3964)
3328. [F)i=mountain woman]
(‘Felsenflau, dass ihre fleche Wuth
sieh lege’, 3966)
3329. [e=kobold] (‘die eines Unhold’s
arger List’, 3969)
3330. [b=The Slädow] (‘wider uns Alle
erragt!’, 3971)
3331. [D=Heros] (‘Dir Mannen, kehret
euch ab!’, 3972)
3332. [a=Women] (‘lasst das
Weibergeseif!’, 3974)
3333. [D=Men] (‘Als...’, 3976)
3334. [b/e=cowaids] (‘Zage weichen wir
gern’, 3977)
3335. [G=Scolds triumphant] (‘gilt es mit
Zungen dem Streit’, 3978)
3336. [b=The Shadow] (‘Er tritt dicht zu
Gunther.” ‘Glaub’, 3980)
3337. [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<;ib. Munter, ihr Mann!
Folgt mir Zinn’, 3996)
CXXXV. C Major [4000-35]
3341. [C=Wedding Feast] (‘Mahl! Froh
zur Hochzeit helfet’, 4000)
3342. [E b =Ladies in Waiting] (‘ihr
Frauen! Wonnige Lust lache nun
auf!’, 4003)
3343. [G=Gutnme] (‘In Hof und Hain,
heiter vor Allen sollt ihr heute mich
sehn. Wen die Minne’, 4006)
3344. [C=Joy] (‘flout, meinem flohen
Muthe diu’es der Glückliche
gleich!’, 4016)
CXXXVI. Eb Major [4036-43]
3345. [E b=Gutrune in Brünnhilde’s
place] (motif + ‘B. blickt Siegfiied
und Gutrune noch eine Zeitlang
schmerzlich nach’, 4036)
3346. [C b =The Shadow] (4042)
cxxxvn. C Major [4044-53]
3347. [E/e=Love] (4044)
3348. [Eb=Noms] (motif, 4050)
CXXXVra. E b Major [4054-79]
3349. [A b =heavenly maiden] (4054)
3350. [e b =goddess alone] (4058)
3351. [a b “heavenly maiden dueatened;
ENEMY] (4062)
3352. [b=THE SHADOW] (4068)
3353. [e=kobold] (context, 4070)
3354. [c=an unknown enemy] (‘Welches
Unhold’s List liegt hier verholen?’,
4073)
CXXXIX. F Major [4080-4101]
3355. [cit=unknown wizard] (‘Welches
Zauberer’s Rath regte diess auf?’,
4080)
3356. [Eb=former wonder-woman] (‘Wo
ist nun mein Wissen gegen diess
Wirrsal?’, 4086)
3357. [f=?] (‘Wo sind meine Runen gegen
diess Räthsel?’, 4089)
3358. [g=?] (‘Ach Jammer! ’ Jammer! ’,
4092)
3359. [F=wisdom given away] (‘All’ mein
Wissen’, 4097)
3360. [C=Wisdom] (‘wiess ich ihm’,
4100)
CXXXX.Bb Major [4102-70]
3361. [E b=bonds] (‘In seiner Macht hält
er die Magd’, 4105)
3362. [f=prize] (‘in seiner Banden hält er
die Beute’, )
3363. [g=] (‘die, jammernd ob ihrer
Schmach, jauchzend der Reiche
verschenid!’, 4107)
3364. [ftl=‘Wer bietet mir enemy sword]
(‘nun das Schwert, mit dem ich die
Bande zerschnitt?’, 4119)

3365. [d=inferior hero] (‘Vertraue mir,
betrog’ne Frau!’, 4125)
3366. [b^THE SHADOW] (‘Wer dich
verrieth, das räche ich’. An wem?’
4128)
3367. [a=hero-batÜe] (‘An Siegfiiedl An
Siegfried? Du?’, 4132)
3368. [D=Hero] (‘Ein einz’ger Blick
seines blitzenden Auges, das selbst
durch die Lügengestalt leuchtend
strahlte zu mir’, 4136)
3369. [g=unworthy enemy] (‘deinen
besten Math machte er bangen’,
4141)
3370. [C+=oalh] (‘Doch meinem Speeie
spart ihn sein Meineid?’ ‘Eid und
Meineid, müssige Acht!’, ‘Nach
Stärk’rem späh’, deiner Speer zu
waffijen’, 4143)
3371. [d=strengfli, Siegfried] (‘willst du
den Stärken besteh’n!’, 4151)
3372. [a=cunning] (‘Wohl kenn’ ich...’,
4153)
3373. [d=strength, Siegfried’s]
(‘Siegfried’s siegende Kraft, wie
schwer im Kan^f er zu filien’,
4153)
3374. [a=cunning] (‘d’rum raune nun du’,
4156)
3375. [b=shadow council] (‘mir guten
Rath’, 4157)
3376. [At=heavenly assistance] (‘wie
doch der Recke mir wich?’, 4158)
3377. [D b=heavenly law] (‘O, Undank!
Schänlichster Lohn!’, 4159)
3378. [F=invulnerability] (‘Nicht eine
Kunst war mirbekannt, die zum
Heil hicht half sienem Leib’,’
3379. [G b =heavenly gift] (‘Unwissend
zähmt’ ihn mein Zauber—’, 4168)
CXXXM. C Major [4171-4212]
3380. [A=magicarmor](‘spiel’, 4171)
3381. [e=magic charm] (‘das ihn vor
Wunden nun gewahrt’, 4173)
3382. [D=Siegfiied invulnerable] (‘So
kann keiner Wehr ihm schaden?’,
1337)
3383. [c=Siegfried’s back] (‘Im Kanqrfe
nichtdoch, träft du im Rücken
ihn!’, 4178)
3384. [A=Siegfried’s ftont] (‘Niemals,
535
das wusst’ ich, wich’ er dem
3385. [Cb=enemy] (‘Feind’, 4185)
3386. [C=sword] (‘nie reichter fliehend
ihm den Rübken;’, 4189)
3387. [Ah =heavenly maiden] (‘an ihm
d’rum spart’ ich dèn Segen’, 4192)
3388. [e=Ha^n’s spear] (‘Und dort trifft
ihn mein Speer! AuJf, Gunther, edler
Gibichung!’, 4196)
3389. [Ab=heavenly maiden] (‘Hier steht
dein starkes Weft»’, 4202)
3390. [A=virgin and available] (‘was
häng’st du <lort in Harm?’, 4204)
3391. [d=failed ñero] (‘O Schmach! O
Schande! 4208)
cxxxxn. D minor [4213-39]
3392. [g=shameful abasement] (‘dem
jamnKtvollsten Manne!’,‘In
Schande liegst du;läugn’ ich das?’,
4214)
3393. [Ab=heavénly maiden, scornful]
(‘O feiger Mann!
3394. [f=bad friend] (‘Falscher Genoss!’,
4221)
3395. [C=light, èxposure] (‘Hinter dem
Helden hehltest du dich, 4222)
3396. [F=gain, prize] (‘dass Preise des
Ruhmes er dir er ränge!’, 4224)
3397. [d=failed hero] (‘Tief wohl saii
das fheifte Geschlecht, dass solche
Z^gen gezengt! ’, 4226)
3398. [e=abject moral sprawling]
(‘Betrüger ich und betrogen!’,
4232)
3399. [G/g=liADlR ofabject moral
sprawling] (‘Verräther ich und
verralhen!’, 4235)
3400ab. [e/a=abject moral sprawling]
(‘2^tmalmt mir das Mark!
^brecht nnr-die Brust!’, 4238)
CXXXXm. C Major [4240-60]
3401. [b=The Shadow] (‘Hilf Hagen! Hilf
méiner Ehre!’, 4242)
3402 [e=dead mother] (‘Hilf deiner
Mütter, die dich zuch ja gebar!’,
4244)
3403. [g=heio’s fall] (‘Dir hilft kein Hirn,
dir hilft keine Hand dir hilft nur
Siegfried’s Tod!’, 4249)
3404. [b b =blood brotherhood] (‘Nur der
536
söhnt deine Schmach!’, 4261)
CXXXXrV. Bb Major [4261-71]
3405. [Db=oath] (‘Blutbrüderschaft
schwuren wir uns!’, 4264)
3406. [b b “broken blood] (‘Des Bundes
Bruch’, 4269)
CXXXXV. C Major [4272-93]
3407. [b=death] (‘sühne nun Blut! ’, 4272)
3408. [f)l=insincere question?] (‘Brach er
den Bund?’, 4274)
3409. [b=treason] (‘Da er dich verrieth! ’,
4276)
3410. [D=Siegfiied] (‘Venieth er mich?’,
4278)
3411. [b=treason] (‘Dich verrieih er’,
4280)
3412. [B=Valkyrie] (‘imd mich verriethet
ihr Alle!’, 4282)
3413. [C)t(=D b)=Justice] (‘Wär ich
gerecht’, 4285)
3414. [G b “dispensation fixtm above]
(‘alles Blut der Welt büsste mir
nich eure’, 4287)
3415. [bb=guilt] (‘Schuld!’, 4290)
3416. [e=scapegoat] (‘Doch des Einen
Tod’, 4291)
CXXXXVI. Eb Major [4294-4302]
3417. [D b “divine judgment] (‘taugt mir
für Alle’, 4294)
3418. [bb=divine victim] (‘Siegftied falle
zur’, 4297)
3419. [eb=universal sin] (‘Sühne für sich
und euch!’, 4297)
CXXXXVn. B minor [4303-12]
3420. [b=curse] (‘Er falle dir zum Heil!
Ungeheu’re Macht wir dir,
gewinn’st von ihm du den Ring,
de^ der Tod ihm wohl nur
entreiss’t’, 4301)
3421. [e=magical ring] (‘Brünnhilde’s
King?’, )
3422. [b=cursed ring] (‘Des Nibelungen’,
4311)
cxxxxvni. E b Major [4313-27]
3423. [bb“Nibelungs] (‘Reif,’, 4313)
3424. [D b “Judgment] (‘So wär’ es
Siegfiied’s Ende!’, 4315)
3425. [b b “Nibelungs] (‘Uns Allen
ftommt sein Tod’, 4318)
3426. [Abrheavenly maiden?] (‘Doch
Gutrune, ach!’, 4322)
3427. [b b “Nibelungs] (‘Der ich ihn’,
4324)
3428. [G b“dootway, standing before
heaven] (‘gönnte! Straften den
Gatten wir so, wie bestünden wir
vor ihr, 4325)
CXXXXIX. C Major [4328-67]
3429. [a=false insight, bad call] (‘Was
rieih’ mir nœin Wissen? Was
wiesen mich Runen? Im hilflosen
Elend achtet mir’s hell:’, 4328)
3430. [G=GUTRUNE] (‘Guttune’, 4336)
3431. [C=absolute certainty] (‘heisst’,
4336)
3432. [E b “Eternal Feminine, Eternal
Rival] (‘der Zauber’, 4338)
3433. [g=Qutrune, lowdown] (‘der den
Gatten’, 4340)
3434. [E b “Eternal Feminine] (‘mir
entrückt’, 4342)
3435. [c b “cuise] (‘Angst treffe sie! ’,
4343)
3436. [d/D=Siegfried, a dead duck]
(‘Muss sein Tod sie betrüben,
verhehlt sei ihr die That’, 4344)
3437. [g=Nibelung, treachery] (‘Auf
immtres Jagen ziehen wir morgen;
der Edle braust uns voran’, 4348)
3438. [e“hidden monster, fallen hero]
(‘ein Eber bracht’ ihn da un’ ‘So
soll es sein!’ Siegftied, fallen]
(‘Siegftied...’, 4353)
3439. [g=hero’s fall] (‘falle! “So soll es
seimSiegftied...’, 4357)
3440. [f)t=purging] (‘falle!’‘Sühn’ er die
Schmach, die er mir schuf!’, 4360)
3441. [G=hero’s fall] (‘Sterb’ er dahin,
der strahlende...’ 4362)
3442. [d“faUen hero] (‘Held, 4364)
3443. [e b=Hoard] (‘Mein ist der Hort”,
4365)
3444. [f=grasping, holding] (“mir muss er
gehören”, 4366)
CL. Eb Major [4368-4405]
3445. [fb(e)“tnagical ring] (‘mit seinem
Bhit’/’d’rum sei der Reif, 4373)

3446. [c=blood] (‘büss’er die Schuld!,
4376)
3447. [C=Eye, divine] (‘Allrauner
rächender Gott!’, 4381)
3448. [e 1> =deposed Nibelung]
(‘Albenvater, gefall’ner Fürst’,
4381)
3449. [C=Knower, divine]
(‘Schwurwissender’, 4384)
3450. [e b =guardian of night, Alberich as]
(‘Nachlhüter, Nibelungenherr’,
4385)
3451. [f=Lord of the Ring] (‘Weise von
Neuem der Nibelungen Schaar, dir
zu gehorchen, des Reifes Herrn!’,
4397)
CLL C Major [4406-4440]
3452. [C=public festivity] (continuation,
4406 etc.)
Dritter Aufzug
Vorspiel und erste Scene.
cm. F Major [4441-4615]
3453. [F= Sieg&ied, Nature Boy, the
Rhine Daughters] (motifs, cont.,
4441)
3454. [f=darkness] (‘Nacht liegt’, 4517)
3455. [Ab=Waters] (‘in der Tiefe’, 4518)
3456. [C=brilliant shine] (‘da heil und
hehr des Vaters Gold noch in ihr
glänzte. Rheingold, klares
Gold’,4523)
3457. [F=Nature] (cont., 4524 etc.)
3458. [d=Siegftied, diminished hero]
(‘Ein Albe ñihrte mich err’, 4604)
3459. [g=Siegfiied’s prey] (‘He Schelm! ’,
4607)
3460. [bb=alair] (‘In welchem Berge
barg’st du so schnell mir das
Wild?’, 4609)
CLin. Ab Major [4616-31]
3461. [Ab=RhineDau^ters]
(‘Siegfiied!’, 4617)
3462. [E b =Rhine] (cont, 4627)
3463. [Ab=Rhine Daughters]
(‘Entzücktet ihr zu euch den
zottigen Gesellen, der mir
verschwand?’, 4629)
537
CLIV. D Major [4632-40]
3464. [E-ntHrriage] (‘Ist’s euer Friedei,
euch lustigen...’, 4631)
3465. [D=Siegfried] (‘Frauen lass’ ich ihn
gern’, 4633)
3466. [G=hero-udieedling] (‘Sieg&ied,
was giebst du uns’, 4639)
3467. [e=magic ring] (motif, 4645)
3468. [C=shining gold] (motif, 4647)
3469. [a%ing’s, glitter] (‘Ein goldner Ring
glänzt dir am Finger’, 4648)
3470. [Eb=Rhine Daughters] (‘dem gieb’
uns!’, 4650)
3471. [g=dragbn-fight] (‘Einen
Riesenwurm erschlug ich um den
Reif, 4652)
CLV. D Major [4658-68]
3472. [A=hero mocked] (‘Bist du so
karg?, 4659)
3473. [G=hero teased] (‘So geizig heim
Kauf?’,‘4660) )
3474. [b=hero chided] (‘Freigebig
solltest..’, 4662)
3475. [e=women] (‘Frauen en du sein!’,
46Ö)
3476. [b^colding wife] (‘Verzehrt’ ich
an eun mehr Gut daSs’ zürnte mich
woÛ mein Weib’, 4665)
CLVI. F Major [4669-4711]
3477. [bb=violent wife (comic)] (‘Sie ist
wohl schlinnn?’ ‘Sie* schlägt dich
wohl?’ ‘Ihre Hatid fühlt schon der
Held!’,46è9)
3478. [E b =Rhine Daughters] (‘Nun lacht
nur lustig zu! In Härm lass’ ich
euch dochrdenn giert ihr nach
dem...’, 4674)
3479. [A b =Rhirie Daughters refused]
(‘Ring euch Nickern geb’ ich ihn
nie!’, 4679)
3480. [F=Siegfiied, Nature Boy] (‘So
schön’, 4685) (‘Siegfiied steigt
tiefer in den Grund hinab’, 4)
3481. [bb=bad mockery] (‘Was leid'ich
doch das karge Lob?’, 4703)
CLVn. A Major [4712-16]
3482. [A=call to Rhine Maidens] (‘Hey!
He he! Ihr munfiren
Wassetminnen!’, 4712)
538
CLVni. C Major [4717-24]
3483. [C=Light] (‘Ich schenk’ euch den
Ring’, 4715)
3484. [e=magic ring] (‘Behalt’ ihn Held
und wahr’ ihn wohl’, 4721)
CLK. Fjt minor [4725-33]
3485. [fÿ “Curse, freedom from] (‘bis du
das Unheil er das in dem Ring du
heg’st, froh fUhl’st du dich, befrei’n
wir dich von dem Fluch’, 4724)
CLX. C Major [4734-46]
3486. [a=magic ring on finger] (‘S. steckt
gelassen den Ring wieder an seinen
Finger’, 4734)
3487. [C=knowledge] (‘So singet, was ihr
wiss’t’, 4735)
3488. [a=knowledge] (cont., 4739)
CLXI. F minor [4747-54]
3489. [fr=Lord of the Ring, doomed]
(‘Schlimmes wissen wir dir’, 4747)
3490. [b b “Nibelungs] (‘Zu deinem
Unheil wahr’st du den Ring’, 4748)
3491. [e b “Rhingold] (‘Aus des Rheines
Gold is der...’, 4750)
3492. [e=*magic ring] (‘Ring geglüht’,
4752)
3493. [e b “Rhinegold’s forging] (‘der
ihnb listig geschmiedet und
schmächlich verlor....’, 4753)
CLXn. B minor [4755-62]
3494. [b=Alberich’s Curse] (‘der
verfluchte ihn’, 4755)
3495. [e=magic ring] (motif + ‘in fernster
Zeit zu zeugenb den Tod dem der
ihn trüg’, 4755)
3496. [b=death-curse] (‘Wie den Wurm
du fälltest, so ^st du, und heute
noch’, 4759)
CLXra. C Major [4763-72]
3497. [0=knowledge, fatal] (‘so heisen
wir’s dir’, 4763)
3498. [e=magic ring] (‘tauschest den Ring
du ims nicht,’, 4767)
3499. [C=Light in the darlmess] (‘im
tiefen Rhein ihn zu...’, 4769)
CLXIV. F Major [4773-7]
3500. [F=Curse, antidote] (‘...bergen. Nur
seine FluÓi sühnet den Fluch, 4773)
CLXV. Ab Major [4778-4831]
3501. [A b “Rhine Daughters, opposed]
(‘Ihr listigen Frauen, lass’t das
sein!’, 4783)
3502. [E b “Rhine Daughters] (‘Traut’ ich
kaum euren Schmeicheln, euer
Drohen schreckt mich...’, 4786)
3503. [d=Siegfiied, diminished hero]
(‘nñch noch minder!’ 4788)
3504. [a=call] (“Siegfried!’, 4789)
3505. [e=call] (‘Siegfried!’, 4791)
3506. [f=call] (‘Wir weisen dich wahr’,
4793)
3507. [eb=Nomfate] (‘Weiche dem
Fluch! Umflochten nächtlich
webende Nomen in des Urgesetzes
SeU!’, 4796)
CLXVI. Eb Major [4803-41]
3508. [c=Wotan’s Spear] (‘Mein Schwert
zerscbwang einen Speer’, 4804)
3509. [f=inçossible deed] (‘des
Urgesetzes ewiges Seil, flochten sie
wilde...’, 4807)
3510. [d=diminished hero] (‘...Flüche
hinein’, 4812)
3511. [Cb=Curse + Noms] (‘Nothung
zerhaut es den Nomen!’, 4814)
3512. [eb “precognitive knowledge]
(‘Wohl warnte mich einst vor dem
Fluch ein Wurm, doch das Fürchten
lehrt’ er mich nicht’, 4818)
3513. [e=magic ring] (‘Der Welt Erbe
gewänne’, 4824)
3514. [b“curse] (‘mir ein Ring’, 4825)
3515. [G b=fieely given ring] (‘fflr der
Minne Gunst miss ich ihn gern’,
4826)
3516. [f=Lord of the Ring] (‘Doch
bedroht ihr mir Lebven und Leib,
fasste er nich eines Fingers Werth,
den Reif entringt ihr mir nicht.
Derm Leben und Leib seht...',
4830)
CLXVn. F Major [4842-4965]
3517. [g=fool] (‘Kommt Schwestern!
Schwindet dem Thoren!’, 4842)

3518. [d—blind, foolish hero] (*So weise
und stade verwähnt sich der Held
als gebunden und blind er doch
ist!’, 4847)
3519. [g=oath-breaker] (‘Eide schwär er
und achtet sie nicht!’, 4854)
3520. [a= non-understanding] (‘Runen
weiss er und räfl» sie nicht!’, 4860)
3521. [D k= heavenly gift] (‘Ein hehrstes
Gut ward ihm gegönnt’, 4865)
3522. [G b= heavenly dispensation] (‘Ein
hehrstes Gut ward ihm gegönnt’,
4867)
3523. [el>=lost gift] (‘dass er’s
verworfen’, 4869)
3524. [b b=Nibelung ring] (‘nur dem Ring
den zum Tod ihm taugt den Reif
nur will et sich wahren!’, 4871)
3525. [D k=heaven] (‘Ein Stollen Weib
wird noch heut’ dich Argen
beerben’, 4876)
3526. [A b^heavenly woman] (‘sie beut
uns bess’res Gehör’, 4880)
3527. [F=Nature=water +Iand
(Nixies/Siegfiied)] (‘Im wasser wie
am Lande’, 4895)
3528. [b=Curse](‘Hoi-ho!’, 4933)
3529. [F=Siegftied, Nature Boy] (motif,
4941)
3530. [g=hiding place] (‘Finden wir
endlich wohin du flogest?’, 4958)
3531. [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)
539
3538. [C=tidings] (‘Du beutelos?’ ‘Auf
Waldjagd zog ich aus’, 5003)
3539. [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. [A=thirst] (‘Mich dürstet! ’, 5022)
3543. [A=forest birds, remembered] (‘Ich
hörte sagen, Siegvfiied, der
Vögel...’, 5025)
3544. p>=Sieg&ied] (‘Sanges spräche’,
5026)
3545. [G=tnvial matter (bird q>eech)]
Cverstündest du wohl’, 5027)
3546. [Oinquiry] (‘so wäre das wahr?’,
5028)
3547. [e=even more trivial matter] (‘Seit
lange acht’ ich des Lailens nicht
mehr’, 5029)
3548. [a=drink hom]‘ (‘Er fasst das
Trinkhom und wendet sieh damit
zu Gunther’, 5031)
3549. [D=Siegfiied, Hero-brother]
(‘Trink’, Gunflier, trink:dein Bruder
bringt es dir!’, 5036)
3550. [a=pallid] (‘Du mischtest matt und
bleich’, 5039)
3551. [e=danger of murder] (‘dein Blut
allein darin!’, 5043)
3552. [b/D=Siegfiied, Hero] (‘So misch’
cs mit dem, 5046)
3553. [A=a mixed drink] (‘Er giesst aus
Gunther’s Horn in das seinige, so
dass dieses überläuft’, 5049)
3554. [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
 feurigen Fels ich traf, 5240)
3592. [A=penetration] (‘die Lohe
durch...’, 5243)
3593. [B b =phallic penetration / fire]
(‘...schritt icl^ und fend’, 5245)
3594. [F=reward] (‘zum Lohn’, 424'^
3595. [e b =sleep] (‘schlafend*, 5251)
3596. [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. [D=Siegfried] (cont, 5345)
3614. [Db “Siegfried’s surrender]
(‘Düsses Vergehen’, 5346)
3615. [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)
Dritte Scene.
3628. [b b “Alberich] (Love
motif:Alberich as poisoner of love,
5419)
3629. [e=cursed ring] (Curse motif, 5423)
3630. [c=funeral] (5425)
3631. [G=<jutrune] (‘Gutrune tritt aus
ihrem Gemache in die Halle
hinaus’, 5427)
3632.. [C=questioning] (‘War das sein
Horn?’, 5430)
3633ab [g + e=Gutrune let down ] (‘Nein!’,
5432)
CLXXXIX. C Major [5432-46]
3634. [c=evil dreams] (Schlimme Traüme
störten mir den Schlaf, 5436)
3635. [d=Siegfried, fallen hero] (motif,
5438)
3636. [e=miagical ring (poison to love)]
(‘Lachen Brünnhilde’s weckte mich
auf,5442)
3637. [b=Curse, murder] (‘Wer war das
Weib, das ich...’, 5445)
542
CLXXXX. C minor [5447-59]
3638. [Db=gods] (‘sah?’, 5447)
3639. [bb=Alberich] (‘Britanhilde!
BrQimhilde! Bist du wach?’, 5452)
CLXXXXL C Major [5460-94]
3640. [a=dim li¿it] (‘So war es sie, die
ich zum Rheine schreiten sah?’,
5460)
3641. [C=%t>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. [c=woman bereit] (‘O Hülfe!
Hülfe! Wehe!’, 5531)
3661. [d=Siegfiied, fallen hero] (‘Wehe!
Sie haben Siegfried...’, 5534)
3662. [a b “tnurder] (‘erschlagen! ’,5537)
3663. [c“nasty revelation] (‘Er ist der
verfluchte Eber, der diesen Edlen
zerfleischt’, 5540)
3664. [b=murder] (‘Ich Hagen schlug ihn
zutodf, 1559)
3665. [c=false oath] (,‘Meinem Speer
warer gespart bei dem er Meineid
sprach’, 5562)
3666. [e b “sacred bonds] (‘Heiliges
beuterechf, 5573)
3667. [ab=murder ] (‘hab’ ich mir nun
errungen’, 5575)
3668. [e=magical ring] (‘Drum fordr’ ich
hier diesen Ring!’, 5578)
3669. [g==Gunther crossed (separation)]
(‘Zumck!, 5581)
3670. [c“ravaging (the ring)] (‘Was mir
verfiel sollst nimmer du
ençfehn’n!’, 5583)
3671. [e=magical ring] (motif, 5584)
3672. [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,

des höchsten Helden weidi,’ 5624)
3682. [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=<3utrune, put in her place] (‘eh’
Siegfried je dich ersah!’, 5648)
CXXXXXV. C Major [5651-82]
3688. [c=^ison] (‘Verfluchter Hagen!
Das du das Gift mir riethest’, 5651)
3689. [d=Siegfiied, husband] (‘das lin
den Gatten entrückt! Ach,
Jammer!’, 5654)
3690. [C=understanding, eye-opener]
(‘Wie jäh’ mm weiss ich’s,’ 5656)
3691. [G=Gutnme] (‘Sie Ijatt sich voll
scheu von Siegfried abgewendet,
und beugt sich nun ersterben über
Gunther’s Leiche’, etc. 5662)
3692. [b=Hagen] (‘Hagén steht, trotzig
auf Speer und Schild gelehnt in
finsteres Sinnen versunken’, 5667)
3693. [D=Siegfried, Hero] (‘in den
Anblick Siegfried’s’, 5673)
3694. [F=mighty labor] (‘Starke Scheite
schichtet mir dort’, 5677)
3695. [Ab“risingpile] (‘amRande des
Rhein’s zum Häuf!’, 5680)
CLXXX^. FKmlnor [5683-91]
3696. [Fÿ=Fire] (‘Hoch ipid hell lod’re
die Gluth’, 5683)
3697. [D=Siegfried] (‘,die’den edlen Leib
des helúesten Helden’, 5684)
3698. [F|t=Fire] (‘verzehrt’, 5688)
3699. [b=Valkyrie steed] (‘Sein Ross
führet daher’, 5690)
CLXXXXVn. Eb Mhjor [5692-5708]
3700. [Eb“Brünnhilde, eternal ferrirnine]
(‘dass rrrit mir dem Recken es
folge’, 5693)
543
3701. [ab“deafli] (‘derm des Helden
heiligste Ehre zi; flreilen verlangt
mein eigen« Leib’, 5693)
CLXXXXVm. C Major [5709-48]
3702. [Ou g h t ] (‘Wie Sorme lauter
strahlt mir sein Licht’, 5709)
3703. [a=purity / betrayal] (‘der Reinste
war er, der mich vetrerfli!’, 5716)
3704. [e=wcdlock betrayed] (‘Die Gattin
trügend’, 5717)
3705. [C=fiiendship] (‘treu dem
Freunde’, 5719)
3706. [a=celibacy] (‘vor der eig’nen
Trauten’, 5720)
3707. [F“desire] (‘einzig ihm theuer’,
5721)
3708. [Osword] (‘schied er sich durch
sein Schwert’, 5723)
3709. [a=pure traitor] (‘Ächter als er
schwär Keiner Eide’, 5725)
3710. [d=Siegfiied] ( ‘treuer als er hielt
Keiner Verträge’, 5727)
3711. [Eb/g“eterrralcoiq)le] (‘lautrer als
er’, 5729)
3712. [C=truth] (‘liebte kein And’ier’,
5731)
3713. [f=oaths, bonds] (‘Und doch, alle
Eide’, 5733)
3714. [b b“oafli-betrayer] (‘alle Verträge’,
5753)
3715. [g“bond-breaker] (‘die treuestes
Liebe trog Keiner wie Er! ’, 5735)
3716. [c=fetal knowlege] (‘Wiss’t ihr, wie
das ward?’, 5740)
CLXXXXDL A Major [5749-65]
3717. [f(t=heavenly message] (‘Oh ihr,’
5749)
3718. [A“purity] (‘der Eide ewige Hüter,
5754)
3719. [a“purity defiled] (‘Lenkt euren
Blick auf mein blühendes Leid’,
5756)
3720. [c ÿ “Heaven’s disgrace] (‘ersbaut
eum ewige Schuld!’, 5757)
3721. [e“sin] (passim, 5759)
3722. [a“cong>laint] (‘Meine Klage hör’,
5760)
3723. [f(l “heroic deed] (‘Durch seine
tapferste...’, 5764)
544
CC. E b Major [5766-76]
3724. [a b =Wotan’s will] (‘That, dir so
tauglich erwûncht,’ 5767)
3725. [b b =condenmation] (‘weihtest du',
5769)
3726. [db=condenmed god] (‘den, der sie
gewirkt’, 5770)
3727. [e b =doom] (‘dem Fluche dem du)
3728. [f=payment] (‘verflielesf, 5773)
3729. [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. A b Major [5795-5819]
3736. [ab=path to Walhall] (‘heim’,
5795)
3737. [D b =Wotan] (motif; Ruhe, ruhe, du
Gott!’, 5800)
3738. [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
lauter bewahrt das lichte Gold,’,
5846)
3746. [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. Ab Major [5563-81]
3752. [D b “Walhall] (‘weiset Loge nach
Walhall! Denn der Götter’, 5863)
3753. [Eb=Omega] (‘Ende dämmert auf,
5869)
3754. [fr=grasping and hurling a torch]
(‘So werf ich den Brand in
Walhall’s prangende’, 5873)
3755. [Db“WalhaU] (‘Burg’, 5878)
3756. [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. [E=Lady Love] (‘Siegfried’, 5902)
3763. [B“Lord (dominant) of Lady Love]
(‘mein seliger Held’, 5903)
3764. [D=Siegfried] (‘Dem Freunde zu
folgen wie herst du freudig?’,
5904)
3765. [E=Love-Light] (‘Lockt dich zu
 545

ihm, die lachende Lohe? Fühl’

meine Bnisst auch, wie sie
entbrennt’, 5908)
3766. [A=virgin, pure] (‘helles Feuer das
Herz mir erfasst’, 5913)
3767. [B=consummation] (‘ihn zu
umschlingen, umschlossen von ihm,
in mächtigster Mimte’, 5917)
3768. [cjt=sexual union] (‘vermähltihn
zu sein!’ 5921)
3769. [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. D Major [5929-40]

3772. [F )) =fire] (‘Soglich prasselt der
Brand hoch auf, so dass das Feuer
den ganzen Raum vor der Halle’,
5929)
3773. [D,Eb, Eli, F] (passim, 5955)
3774. [A=purifying flames] (passim,
5937)
3775. [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 , “Wonder-
woman” (2615,2617, 2630,2650,2762,
2872,3277 ); —, erstwhile wonder-
woman (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);—, weak-
hearted 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); free-
flowing, 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)

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
í
I
549
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); —, I
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
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

(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);
551
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); oath-
breaker (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 oath-
breaker (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
F“THE GIANTS (*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

(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)
553
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 money-
gnibber (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)
d=FORGING IMPLEMENTS : 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=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
C=THE WANDERER (UGHT) (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)
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,

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
555
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); duU-
wittedness (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

(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
G=Na d ir (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. 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
557
(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 storm-
controller (2168); —, Lord of the Ravens
(2263)
D=A friend worthy of a hero (1401,1403);
the best boy (1411); d=not-so-good boy

(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
D=g o l d e n a ppl e s (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
559
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); water-
birds (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

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); ring-
in-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
561
(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); love-
bride 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=helpless-
hopelessness (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);

—, master of Sieg&ied 284,2853, cursed
ring (2742,2797,2810); cause of sin
(3721); tilings of doom (3735); ring-
winner 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);
563
—, 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); death-
curse (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); curse-
inheriting 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)

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); sword-
splinters (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);
565
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,

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); —,
567
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 Wish-
maiden (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); junç-
off 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
A b=BATHING, in Fire-Clouds (2302)
Ab=AIR, ELEMENT: CLOUD (1554); —,
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)
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
Ab “VESSELS: drink-horn (640); f=night-
drink(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)
 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 tone-
stuffs,—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 mode-
constituting 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-of-
feeling; 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 detective-
story-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 ready-
to-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, Sechter-
like, 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 key-
constituting 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 scale-
degree 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.

 . 581

Ex. 1: Alberich, waiting...

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 Anti-
Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Louisville and
London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. i
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. I
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. i
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.

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-metaphorical-
anomalous 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 Foerster-
Nietzsche; 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 literature, 377,417, useful to antisemitic
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
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 conjunction, 253
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«</Three, 184;
see C minor
Chun (hexagram), 185
Chomsky, Noam, 42,90
chords; augmented, 54ff; diminished
seventl^ 264; as affecting emotion, 254«;
ersatz, 75/ 79
Cicora, Marcy C., 26/
circle of fifths, 40,67, 68,115,158,174«,
210, 230,231,242,243,252, 397; as
cartographic map, 254«, 256,257,268,
270, 273,274,277,282,283,286#
290/ 296 passim, 305,310/ 397,401,
438; up-down axis, 270; zenith, 269;
nadir, 268/ and dodecahedron, 296
passim: ond scale, 272, and zodiac, 38«
“circle of fourths”, 298
circulatio, 172, 174«
Circus, Roman, 174
conqiarison, 92,100
con^lex, feeling-toned, 94
Conscious, 94
Cone, Edward T., 111
contenait, in heroic society, 267
Cook, Nicholas, 76
culture, 1.33,34,43, 125, 180,271; and
astrology, 243,303; Cathar, 329«;
Christian, 336,430; courtly, 318,382«;
èrqrunged fiom Schbnkerism, 781; and
'E b Major, 202 & passim: <md feelings,
104; and gendering, 188; 192,193,195,
199# Oeimanic, 323,437; Grasco-
Roman, 183,234; idiotce, 42,43/ 329;
Indian, Wafer’s fascination with, 338#
language-speaking, 105, 163,171;
Latinate and popular, 328,330,332«;
and lexicon, 155# & passim: mediaeval,
348,377; modcan, barbarism of, 364,
368; änd musical mapping, 257# Norse
Saga, 147,266,294; Old Testament,
147; and space perception, 259,259«,
283
cultural linguistic properties, 120,121
í>
culture hero, 173, 176/ 181,198
Cupid, 37n
Cybele, 244n
D end rhyme, 110
Dactyls, 244n
Dalbaus, Cari, 1,31
Darcy, Warren, 27,213 passim
Debussy, Claude, Pelleas and Melisande,
167
Democritus, 332
Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People, 195
delta (A), as “woman”, mouth of river, 183,
185,241,244; andTricolor, 196
Demiurge, 373, 377; and Klingsor, 344; and
alchemy, 393; as God of the Jews, 344
diminished seventh, see chords
directional toiuility, 17/
dodecahedron, 297ff', 298n
dominant function (V), as DEVELOPMENT,
129,298
Donington, Robert, 145
double-tonic complex, 2Sff
Dozy, Reinhart, 317
dragon, 172, l§3n, 197n, 206,208,254n,
436; dragon’s head, 395; dragon forest,
292,306, cursed, 308; dragon fight,
309n, 384; dragon-hole, cave, 289n; 295;
dragon stone, 329; slain, 308; “dtagon-
worT, 381; and Satan, 381; as Jew, 385;
as Mercurius, 392; as evil god, 394;
pertaining to Saturn, 425n
Durkheim, Emile, 259n
í‘
E Fisher King, 333,425,434; as Rex Marinus,
EARTH Element, and the physical body, 306
East, 340; Barbarossa lurged toward, 173,
I 338; Giant-Land in, 293; mamelons, 257,
294,320, 33^, in Korean music, 265;
\ valorized in mediæval culture, 283„283,
f 320; eastern Mediterranean, and mining
cults, 244n; eastern philosophy, 371; and
orientalism, 324, in European dreams,
324r , and Grail, 325, and Earthly
Paradise, 331; see also mappa mundi,
Wagner’s
Eberhardt,G.F., 170,193
Echidna, 387
ecliptic, 174
Edda, Prose, 229
.[
603
Edem, gnostic, 2S5ff, 411
Elgar, Edward, Dream of Gerontius, 170
emotion, spatialized, 265,267,^270
Empedocles, 307^ 310
Eschenbach, Wolflam von, 315 passim, 318
passim-, Parzival, 316,320,323/ 326,
337,338^ 341/ 344,349, 353; stone in,
327/331,333
Essence, of chaos, feminine, 183; divine,
354/ Parsifal and Kundry as, 389;‘of
dramatic action, 301n; ofErqrression,
92ff-, of triune goddess, music, 41,77n, i
108, 301«; of Nibelungeh Hoard, 308; of
religion, 300; of TL mappa mundi, 278;
of Wagnet’s mediæval sources, 318
estoire, and moppte mundi, 257
Expression, 93,108
e^^ressive shift theory, 203 passim; 2i3ff, i
227
F
Faflier, 139,220,221«, 223«, 256«, 267«,
273,282«, 283«, 289,293; his cave, 294, I
295,296,306«; ««dFasolt, 295«;
cursed, 308
false precision, 48 & 48«
Fasolt,'268«, 294,295« I
Feeling, 93 t
Ii
feeling-toned coipplex, 94,180
filius Philosophorum, 365,387, Fig. 8a,
388,413,414,426,430
FIRE, element, 230; tellurian and celestial,
229/
I
«
333"
fishes, 189«; in Cathar myth, 193«; and
Christ, 333; Cinedian, 331/ 429;
goddesses, and Virgin, 243«; House of,
412; in Hildegard von Bingen, 330/
Mahler, 179; and mother archetype,
197«; in mediæval magic stone imagery,
332; orientalism and, 332 passim
Five-Element Tendiate, 259
flat-sign (b), as SINKING, 217«
Flosshilde, 241
Foreboding, 27/
Forest Bird, 120,290,305,314«
forms, Platonic, 93
Forte, Alan, 41
Franck, César, Sixtième Béatitude, 222«
604
Freia, 204/; ‘Troia complex”, 209; her
GOLDEN APPLES, 207; Valkyries’ leader,
209
Friedrich, Adolf, 317
G 329/ 415; alchemistic motifs, 388, 390;
Gaea, 235
galante, 189/
Galeazzi, Grancesco, 197n
Garin, Eugenio, 230n
Gathy, August, 171
Gemini II, 210n, 230
geomancy, geomantic space, 68,253,278,
299n, 311,312,439,440,442;
geomantic discourse of emotions, 256,
311/
Genghis Khan, 375
Giants, 234n, 280; as Taurus, bulls, 305;
Giant-Land, 293 passim, 296
Gibichungs, 285; in West, 292,293
gift-giving, 238/, 240
Gilbert, Steven E., 78
Gluck, W. F., Ipkegenia in Taurus, 121
gnosticism, 37n, 175n, 179n, 320,321,322,
323, 329, 335, 338«, 344,349 passim,
361 passim, 364,397,400; and alchemy,
368,390«; and anti-Judaism, 369
passim, 4Q6ff, 409ff, 427«; and Christian
culture, 428; divisibility of God, 352
passim, 394; euchaiist, 426; and folk-
motifi, 415; grotesqueness of, 414;
literary style, 356«; persistence of, 365;
and mysticism, 370; and pessimism,
yi2ff, and philosophy, 374; sin vs.
ignorance, 429; and “topological
theology”, 358; ««</Wagner’s sources,
364,429
gnostics, 349«, criticized by Plotnius, 372;
criticized the God of Israel, 410; beliefs
in Satan, 411; “knowers” and elitists,
350; and St. Thomas, 357; mythological
dramas of, 362
Goethe, Johann, 368
Gönes J. J., 335
Gow, Andrew Collin, 36
Graces, Three, 187/, Fig. 5c, 240
Grail, motif, 84, 84«, 86,176; romances,
321,323,331,333, 379,384,438; Grail
Eucharist, 319; Grail Bearer, Wolfram’s,
317,422/ Graft Castle, 327«, 342ff, 345,
390,404, as realm of “the fethers," 397;
see also Monsalvat; Graft King, 324,
334,342, 381,411,414,425,433; Grail
Knights. 82,267«, 275/ 346,435,
allergic to B Major, 277«; Grail
Messenger, 328; Grail-stone, 324«, 326,
and Aquarius, 392,420,423,426; and
Kundry, 394; theology, 342,355, 362,
396; and Lance of Longinus, 397, Ex.
8.3, Ex. 8.4,400,439; in “Die
Wibelungen”, 337; and Barbarossa, 338;
and Prester John, 379; and St. Thomas
the Apostle, 351; and serpents, 386; as
“wish of Paradise”, 425; Time motif,
428,433,436
Grand Cross, 264
Grey, Thomas, 21/ 300,586
Grimm, Jakob, 209,229
Grossen Gedanken, Wotan’s, 124,127, 144,
273,273«, 274«, 437; see also C Major
Gundryggia, 378, 382, 382«, 384
Gunther, 58#, 110#; Ex. 2.8, Ex. 3.2; 114,
266267; and Mass, 60; his Hall, 423;
Vassals, 58
Gutman, Robert W., 350, 353,407
Gutrune, 266,270,270«, 285«
gynephobia, 190
H
Haase, Rudolf, 262
Hagen, 114,129,266,267,277,292, 307
Handel, G. F., Deborah, 182,197«; Israel in
Egypt, 121; Jeptha, 193; Samson, 121
Haydn, Joseph, 121; The Creation (Die
Schöpfung), 121,204, 211, Ex. Va (211),
216; Depiction of Chaos, 181
Heinischen, Johann David, 252«
Heinzei Johan Jakob, 170,184
Helen of Troy, 240
Hermes, 227 passim; as love god, 240; as
thiefr 234; and Loge, 232,234, 234«;
and nynçh triad, 238/ treaties, 235/ and
Wotan, 235
hero, female, 195
Herodotus, 374
Herder J. G., 335
Herodias, 378-83,385
heroic culture, 234
Hereford map, see mappa mundi
Herzeleide, 26,399,439,
hexachord theory, 255

u
4 high-low axis, 265/
Hillman, James, 573
Hinduism, and Schopenhauer, 370,370n,
407
Holst, Gtistav, The Planets, 188
Homer, 8n, 34n, 37; —, Iliad, 240
Homeric Hynms to Hermes, 234
homonyms, TL, 11, 144,150,580
horn, 17,177,178,306,307; homed animal,
307; steer-horn, bull, 307; unicorn's, 383
as moon, 307n; drink-hom, 422
horoscopy, tonal, 260ff
hostility, see square
Households, Tonal, 23n, 60n, 98, 118,124,
129, 134,144, 150/, 153, 155,202,205,
, 210n, 213 passim, 263n, 264, 268, 273,
278,298, 301, 302,305,310, 312,325;
of A Major, 203^^, of A b Major, 284-6;
ofB Major, 154,385n, 412n; ofBb
Major, 154,251«, 290, 303,444, —, and
Db,172«, 252,256; ofCMajor, 126; of
D Major, 201ff; of Db Major, 282-4; of
Eb Major, \16ff, of E Major, 120,140jf,
149,291,313; of F Major, 292, 294,
306; of Gb/Ftt Major, 279-82; ofG
Major, 286-8; of Saturn, 419,434; and
popular astrology, 308«
humiliation and contenait, 265 passim', as
up-down axis, 268
HimçtyDunçty language, 157
Hunding, 129, 207,266,269/ 290,292,
293,294,423, 572
hysteria, and Neptune, 193«; a«dEb key
constellation, 181 passim, 301, and
berzerker rage, 306; and C minor, 187;
a«d misogyny, 193
I K
laldabadlh, 361,401; and demiurge, 371; as
God of Israel, 408; as Will and “Id”,
409; and Saturn, 409,425
IChing, 185
idiotae, 235«, 308«, 318, 339,340, 211n
illiterati, 318,330
India, 325, 331, 336,337.337«, 338,338«,
339«, 348,350,351,369/ 373,405«,
409; Alexander in, 371; n«d balsam, 347,
347; and Schopenhauer, 372; and Red
Jews, 375
intelligibility, 2,27,77; —, background,
91#; 135,—, linguistic, 50,90, 91,93,
f Exs. 1.1—7.5; as GAZE, open, 34; as
I
I
605
108,116# 118,119;—, rules, 2;
Wagner obsessed with, 31; —, musical,
53,55.62«, 67, 88, 98; 89,217,246,
252,253,272; and catégorial grammar,
52,128; and cosmological concept, 260;
and Feeling, 92, 103, 191; and Mythos,
104; and Phantasy, 103,103«; and
poetic experience, 166; and public
cultural properties, 176,187,204; and
tonal lexemes, 91,92,99,123, 140#
146,148, 155, 156, 158, 159,171,201;
Schenker, 81, 84
intentional object, 158
interval, as angular distance, 256
intervals; perfect fifth, 262,297; perfect
fomth, 262; major third, 67,81, 84«,
231; minor third, 81, 83, 153,254«,
256«, 261,262,263,264; augmented
fourth (tritone), 242,262,264,268,271,
272,278, 314,439
Irenaeus, St, 358, 358«, 410,410«
irony. Romantic, 26/
Isolde. 24, 144, 147«, 334«
Issedones, 374, 389
J
Jackendoff, Ray, 47
Jesus, hero, 206
Jove, 234,235, see Zeus
Judaism, and gnosticism, 349«; anti-
Judaism, see antisemitism
Jung, Carl Gustav, 94. 104, 161,172«,148,
180,324, 348, 365
Jung, Emma, 326, 333
Der Jüngere Titurel, romance, 377
Kant Emmaimel, 407
Kara Khitai entire, 338«
Kellner, C. G., 246/
Kepler, Jobaimes, Mysterium Cosmographi-
cum, 261
key characteristics, 159, 165, andTL
lexemes, 211
keys, 2, 52; background, 60; constellations,
176,210; lexical, 96; feeling tones of,
170; modularity of, 170
keys, as individual lexemes;
C Major, 21, 125/ as AIR, as EYE. 34#
606
INTELUGENCE, 126^ 144,273; as
JOY, 125,306; as KNOWING, 129,
193; as UGHT, 4,14, Exs. J.I-I.5,
100,107,108,120 passim, 122, 123,
125,148,149,150,204,207,274,
277,306; —, in Handel, 182; in
Haydn, 181; as SWORD, 23,127 as
WAKING; as WANDERER, 126;lexical
specifications of, 122n, 122j^ 126,
128,138,301;
C minor, as CHAOS, 182, 185, 193; as
ignorance and confusion, 193; and
pathos, 194; and revolution, 195j^,
and Hunding, 207; “C minor mood”
in Beethoven, 190^
Dk Major, as Capricorn, 436; as HOUSE
OF SATURN, 172n, 427 passim, 433;
as kingship, 145; as oath, 312; or
Walhall, 217/ 227, 311,421; as
Wotan, 130, 144,153, 154,204,225,
251,251n; as z e n it h , altitude, apex,
height, 14,158,269,270,271,275,
278,279,281,282, 288, 310,399,
and Amfortas, 434
C)l minor, 144; and Amfortas, 81ff, and
Saturn, 435
D Major, as FIRE, warm and inspiring,
223, Circular, 206; as Freia, 217,
226n; as GOLDEN APPLES, 207; as
HEART, 206,208; as HERO, 207; as
HOPE, 208; as Leo, 210; as SUN,
205,207,210,225
D minor, as Freia diminished, 226n
E b Major, as CULTURE HERO, 176; as
NATURE, PEACE, 186; OS PISCES,
fishes, 210, 291,306; as RHINE, 163,
285n; as ORIGIN, WATER, DREAM,
PSYCHE, 37,159; as Alpha, 281, as
Rhine Daughters, 242,244,292; as
waters, 167,211,303 passim, 421,
437; and chaos-complex, 182; and
TRINITY, 171; Queen Juno, 181,184;
tranquility of, 187; and Venus, 184,
187/ 240; and stars, 200; in linear
harmonic analysis, 71 ; and tonal
triangulation, 135; and galante/
rococo, 190,195; feminized, 190,
301; and A Major, 242j^, and B b
(dominant), 273; and end of tins,
274; and flowing, 278n; transitional
key, 289; and winter, 291 ; and
Hunding, 292; and Spring Equinox,
302n; and hysteria, 306
Eb minor, as CHAOS, 212; as Noms, 19,
290, as Nature in decline, 130; and
Götterdämmerung opening analysis,
62 passim; Ex. 2.10, 66, 66n, 68/ and
tomi triangulation, 130,134;
transitioml key, 23 In; and Alberich,
252n; and B b (dominant), 277; and
sunset, 280,281
E Major, 59, 168n; as Bride, 225,270;
os Aphrodite, “i2f, 150,273; and
LOVE, a Cardinal Point East, 288/
289n; and A Major, 129; Torn!
Household, 140#, and a ppe a r a n c e s ,
141,143; and attractiveness, 39, 145,
146; and tmgic, 147n, 150;andBb,
60n; C Major, 149; and fascimtion,
150
E minor, as cross, 255; and NADIR, 269;
Cardinal Point East, 296; and Eastern
Forest, 274n, 290,295; and ring, 292,
314; ugliness, 143; disease, 143
passim
F Major, as desire and greed, 306, lexical
specifications of, 306n; as EARTH
Element, 37,303; as Giants, 217,
302n; as Nature (earthy), 305; as
Taurus, 299, 300, lexical correlates
of, 300,303,305
F minor, as Giants, 295n; as Giant-Land,
294,295n
F)l Major, as glamor, 222; as FIRE,
flame, flicker, flash, 223,230; as
height, 246,247; and rainbow, 248/
path begtween heaven and earth, 246;
outer limits of musical world, 245/j
F ft minor, as impurity, 438
G Major, as m o t h e r , t r e e , m o o n , 207,
273n, 288,288n; 399,439, as NADIR,
37, 239,291; and Freia’s (D Major)
apples, 277; and water, 305; Tonal
HousehoU, 286#
G minor, as NADIR, 269# 293; and
contenqit, 228 passim, 285; and
Nibelungs, 25 In; difflcult
motherhood, 274n
Ab Major, as Cup-Bearer, 325/ 424 as
Vessel, 167,388,422,422n, 423m
442; as Aquarius, 400; Tomi
Household, 420; house of Saturn,
428# 435; public cultural properties
of, 421; Wagner’s central lexeme.

425
Ab minor, 285; ani/Titurel, 42^
A Major, as VKGINrrY, 203 passim, 242,
243, 245,273,437; as virgin purity,
128,438; and “Lohengrin conçlex”,
203; as LOGE, 218, Èxs. 5b,c,d,ef,
223,225
A minor, 278; or‘armor, breastplate, 128;
as GAZE, averted, 34; as UGHT, dim,
7; as thief, 5,5«; as virginity, 24,
137, 138, 139; as pinity, 276; as
treachery, 221; and expressive shift,
213; anrf Loge, 221,222,225,227,
228«, 237, 238«, 252«, virginity and
inçurity combined, 243; Sturm und
Drang, 270,273,293; Kundiy’s
“death chord”, 276; ignorance, 424
B b Major, as Alberich/Nibelungs, 130,
139, 143,151,153,216/ 241,251,
251«, 252«, 285; as Aries, 210«, 291,
299,300,303,306; as Cardinal Point
West, 288JK 292,294; as FIRE, 223,
302, i03ff, 305«, and dnger, 301, and
hostility, 302; as Gunther /
Gibichungs, 60«, 114,233«, 277; as
Mars (power), 60«, 152,221; as
e STRIFE, Empedoclean, 311/^314,
lexical correlates of, 300; and tonal
triangulation, 60«; and Spring Song,
79, eqiráox, 189«, 291, 302«;
I
masculinized, 183; dominant of Eb
women, 197«, 273; in linear harmotuc
analysis, 212; and Db (square), 251,
256,403; Winter, dominant of 291;
in Parsifal, 440^
B b minor, as Alberich/Nibelungs, 214,
130, 134/, \5\ff, 227, 231, 233«,
234«, 273; as Spring, fetal, 291«, as
Wotan’s shadow, 144,228, 311; and
Ï expressive shift theory, 213jf; os
Capricorn (via Db), 426,434
B Major, 154,154«, 210«, 280,289,
290,305,393,396,397
B minor, as enemy, 221; as dragon, 411
key relations, direct vs. indirect, 215; I-VI as
indirect, 2\5ff
Í
King of the Sea, see Rex marinus
Edopstock, F. G., 158
Knecht, Justin Heinrich, 170
Komarios, 332
Koran, 44
Korean music, 259,265,277,299«
607
Kronos, see Saturn
Kuhnau, Johannes, 252«
Kundry, 28,276,325,334/ 334«, 344,346,
347f 359,374 passim, 378; waiting for
Redeemer, 428,437; her motif, 396, Ex.
8.1; as ‘Tcnower”, 437os Mars, 382,
382«,; as a Red Jew figure, 379 passim;
as seipent-Scorpio, 384 passim, 392/
Fig. 8c, 397; as nynçh and melusine,
387 passim, 391; cursing and cursed,
390; demonic and gnostic, 394; her
multiple-coherence functions, 403; and
reincarnation, 405,406«; as servant, 423;
and incest motif, 438, mocking Klingsor,
440
Kuretes, 244«
Kyfthäuser (mountains), 171
Kyllenios, 37«
L
Laerad (tree), 258
Lakoff, George, 123
Lançrecht, Pfeife, Alexander, 342,342«,
343«, 376, 380
Landowska, Wanda, \6Sff
Lao-Tze, 186
Laplace, Pierre-Simon, 407
Lauer, Hans Erhard, 258
Lehrs, Saimiel, 377
Leo ¿1, IWff, 210«; see sun
Lerdahl, Fred, 56«
Lewis, Christopher, 29ff
lexemes, TL, 91,124; core, 124; andkey
characteristics, 165; spatialized, 265
passim
Lexical Tonality, 1,2, 17,24,44, 62, 68.79,
80, 92,96,98,110, 111, 114,128,135,
141,164, 210,213,221,225«, 227,268,
325,352,370,390,403#, 412,429;
makes antisemitism intelligible, 441#
lexical unit, definition of, 156
lexicality, 1,3
lexicon, 1; tonal, 98,155; definition of, 156;
and culture, 204
Liberty, goddess, 196#, Statue, 195; and
CHAOS, 196
UGHT, 273,274; a«d WATER, 193«;
synonym for a ir , 299, 303; see also C
Major
linear harmonic analysis, 164
Lindsay, Jack, 238
i
608
Loge, 203 passim; 213 passim; and
Alberich, 2\^ff; andHeitnes, 211ff
Logi (Norse fire god), 229
Lohengrin, 358n; “Lohengrin conçlex”, 203
Loki (gods’ conçanion), 229
Lord Chesterfield, 190
Love, Ençedoolean, 3100“, necessary law of,
314
LÜ tonal system, 258
M 403n; semantics of, 9, 106, 270,273,
Mahler, Gustav, “Resurrection” Synçhony,
179
Mandeville, Sir John, Travels, 44, 207n,
340,341fr, 351,374
mappa mundi, medñevaL 158,265,270
passim; as “esothe”, 257, CIRCLE OF
FIFTHS as, 273, in, 294,297,298,308;
Hereford, 283,387n, 334n
mappa mundi, Wagner’s TL; East, Cardinal
Point far, 288 passim 295,312; eastern
forest in, 274n, eastern hemisphere in,
289, fescinating, 291/ 293; Quadrants in,
; West, Cardinal Point in, and Bridal
Fire, 292, in Parsifal, 293; east
(E)—^west (B b) axis, 293,294
Marco Polo, 340, 340«, 351
Mark, King, 86,205
Mars, 60n, 118,119,174n, 221,301,302;
flKdKundry, 382,384, 387; and Red
Jews, 390,396,403,405,413,416,441
McCreless, Patrick, 17/, 23,28,61ff, 69/
Medusa, 385
Melot, 144
melusines, lilff
Memory, 100,101,102,103,125; cultural,
104; and linear harmonic analysis, 215n;
and metaphor, 125,253
Mendelssohn, Felix, Elijah, 168
Merciny (Mercmius), 37n, 229
metaphor, 118; conduit, 104; core, 118,119,
entailments, 116ÍL 118,123/;
orientational, 251; and thought, affect,
memory, 253n
metonymy, 96,118
Mime, 10,108, Ex. 1.3, Ex. 3.1,109,137,
138,139,144; humiliated, 266,274,289,
289n, 291,292,294,295; minion, 143,
256n, 283n, 285,426; and Loge, 228n,
and mother, 151; house-laws, ISXff;
Thorkel and Thersites, 267n, thief, 234,
inhospitable, 235; lexicality, 252n
mines, 244
misogyny, 193, 194,360
mode, minor as MAJOR MODE WEAKENED,
205; semantics of, 124
modulation, 12j^ 13n, 17,20,22,98,203;
and cadence, 107; circular, 252n, 2'^!/,
Ill; and dramatic motivation, 88,115,
217,225, 313; and emotion, 99ff, 110;
and genus ()t / b), 423; iaParsifal,
281,302n, 432n; spatial, 282,293; —,
Wagner on, 300; Wagner’s minute scale
of, 77, 83, 87,98,403
Monsalvat, 329n, 350, 388,390,392,403,
405n, 423,433n; built on the ruins of
Judaism, 406; and House of Saturn, 420,
433; and Tençle 'of Apostle Thomas,
345; and WalhaU, 421
Montsegur, Catiiar fortress of, 329n, 405n
mother, 108,114,127, 139,150; —, and
NADIR, 151,152
mother-son incest, 439,440
Mozart, W. F., Figaro, 193; Jupiter
Synçihony (C), 122; The Magic Flute,
31n, 121,169,199; Piano Concertos, K.
467 (Q, 122; K. 482 (Eb). 184, 186; —,
C Major in, 37n
Müller, W. C„ 170, 246
MUSIC IS SPACE, 257
Mythos, 104
N
Narmour, Eugene, 78n
Nattiez, Jean-Jacques, 572
Nebular Hypothesis, 198/
Neoplatonism, 305
Neptune, 193n
Newcomb, Anthony, 41
Newman, Ernest, 26
Nibelungenlied, conqiared with Parzival,
316
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 344,357,358n, 360n
Noms, 55ff, 67,71/
nynçhs, 245, 335,388; nyiiph triads, 23&ff,
240; and melusines, 387
o
oath, “skill at,” 236; mtiversal, ilOff
opposition 0-0,254

orient, 329 passim-, and precious stones, 329
passim, 336
orientalism, 318, 319,320 passim, 321,322,
324jg^, 328; and folk sources, 330passim,
336,339; ant/Wagner’s thinking, 337
Orpheus, 180/
Osiris, 178/
Otto, Bishop of Freising, Historia de
Duäbus Civitatibus, ì36f, 7ßln, 349
Ovid, Metamorphoses, 235
P 252,282,283«, 284,285, 285«, 292. See
Pachelbel, Johann, 51-4, 81, 83
Pandora, 240
Paracelsus, 347,365,388
Paris, Judgment of, 238/
perfect fifth, see intervals
perfect fourth, see intervals
phantasmagoria, 32
Penna, Lorenzo, 252n
Perseus, 240 '
Philemon and Baucis, 234/
Phorcys, 240
Pisces K , 188/ 183,193n, 230,303/
exaltado of Venus, 188/
Plato, 254n, 260,298,302,303; Phaedo,
298n, trae earth of, 297; Platonic solids,
296 passim, and Circle of Fifths, 299;
Idea ofthe World, 299#
Poetic Aim, 96
Prester John, 44,331,379,394; Letter, 339,
339n, 340n, 341,344,349, 371, 374;
and Parsifal, 342# and St. Thomas the
Apostle, 345# ?48, 351,354/ 357
propositions, background, 122, 163, 164
public cultural properties, 163,205
purity, of unicorn, 332,381, Ex. 5.6;
obsession with, 348; and St'Thomas,
358; of Christ, 362; and Jews, 379;
impurity, Klingsor, Kundry and, 379,
382; and the Grail Bearer,'423; and
Saturn, 427; andfilius Philosophórum,
428
Pythagoreans, 185,260,298
I Q
t quintessence. Db/Saturn as, 434
609
R
rainbow, 248; bridge, 249; as deceit,/249
Rebel, Jean-Ferey, Elemens, 121
Red Jews, 378 passim, 379, 380,381; and
Grail literature, 379; and malefici, 382,
403
Reddy, Michael J., 105
relative minor, 7, 8, 12, 14, 113, 123,125,
126,128,129,140# 143, 148,151, 152,
166,181«, 190,193n,201,211,225«,
tonic minor
Repanse de Schoye (Grail Bearer), 425
reptiles, 381,383«, 384,386, 383«
Rex Marinus, 333,433
reincarnation, 383; Cathar sources for, 403«,
and TL semantics, 403
tight angle, see square
ring, magical, 240, 289
revolution, as CHAOS, 190/
Rhine, 163; Father Rhine, 240
Ribock, J. J. H, 192
Riesenheim, see Giant-Land
rivers, 244
robbeiy, see theft and robbery
Rosarium philosophorum, 332, 334
rules, 45#; constitutive, 49, 60; preference,
56
S
Sagittarius 210«, 230, Fig. 8b, 392,396,
397
Satan, as serpent, 206,386
Saturn, 171 171«, 172«, 175,175«, 322,
332,335«, 392«, 403, maléficas, 382;
««(/Kronos, 175,235«; ««(/lead, 321;
and Yahweh, 403; anti-Ju(tom and, 405
passim, 410 passim
scale, scale degree alterations, 60, 83
Scandella, Domenico “Meno'cchio”, 43
Schenker, Heinrich, 19,61# 76/
Schilling, Gustav, 193,246, 247
^chlegel Friedrich, 335
Schoenberg, Arnold, 40; Fundamentals of
Harmony, 40,215
Schopenhauer Arthur, 7,27,93,135, 199«,
297,300«, 337,370,370«, 372# 372«;
misogyny ofi 360; and Hinduism, 409;
and gnosticism, 411
Scbubart, C. F. D., 169
J
610
Schubert, Franz, Songs; Op. 80, No. 3,168; snake, see reptiles
“On the Lake,” 168; Op. 59, No. 8,168; snake-bite, 440
Op. 96, No. 1,201; Op. 98, No. 1, 200 Sophia, 392
Schumann, Robert, Songs: Frauenliebe und son, 335,407,439; —, king’s, 388,429; —,
Leben, No. 2, No. 3,200; Op. 25, No. 2, of chaos, 409«. See also filius
No. 25,200; Op. 35, No. 1, 168; No. 9, SPACE, 104; interplanetary, 199
200; No. 6,179n, Op. 98a, No. 5, 168; Space and Time, 96
Op. 90, No. 6,201; No. 7,201; Op. 101, spear, Wotan’s, 301, 307; syntax of 130#
No. 4,200; Rhenish Synçhony in E b, see abo Wotan
163n Spring Song, 293
Schraeder, J. A., 170 Spurgeon, Carolyn, 94
Schweitzer, Albert, 169, 171 square , 252# as hostility, 253, 255,261,
Scorpio tn., 210n, 322,344,382, Ex. 8.1, 265; as minor third, 257
391/ 397,413,427; in Wolfram, 383/ Stabreim, 106
scorpion-motif, 385 Strauss, Richard, Abo Sprach Zarathustra,
Scruton, Roger, 45^ 48n, 50«, 51,217n 121
Searle, John, 49, Ä), 61 Strife, Ençedoclean, 310# 312«, 313; and
semantics, tonal, 52 Love, 314
serpents and snakes, 197«, 332,344,380, Sturluson, Snorri, Skábkaparmál, 229
381 passim-, serpent-girdle, 335; serpent- structure, cognitive, 104; semantic, 104;
kiss, 347; serpent-woman, 385,393, syntactical, 91
395,412,439 subdominant function, 167, 210,215,216;
sextile ♦, 254 as precursor, 207,298; as regression,
Shakespeare, William, 94; All's Well Thai 208
Ends Well, 117; Antony and Cleopatra, sulfur, 24# 245«, and rainbow, 248
96«, 118; Hamlet, 96n; Henry V.2,95n; sun, 162,186,205-10; a«d Bonaparte, 173,
Julius Caesar, 96«; Lucrece, 95; Merry 174,174«
Wives of Windsor, 117; Troilus and sun-god, 206; Siegfhed as, 206
Cressida, 95 sun-tree, 207«
Siegfried, 24, Ex. 2.4, Ex. 4.1,56, 58, 86, surface, sonorous, 52
120,124«, 127,128, 139, 151,172, 205, Swain, Joseph P., 90«
266,280«, 284«, 289,291«, 292,296, sword, 139,172, 174«; see also C Major, D
301,302, 303,421; his house-laws, ,Major
\5lff-, as culture-hero, 169passim, 173, synesthesia, 217«
175,176#, 181,197,429; and synonyms, TL, 124
Brünnhilde, 183,196,423; «nd Freia,
209,225; and Giants, 308; and Mime, T
267; and Sieglinde, 207,208,273, 287«;
and Wotan, 313; dragon-fight, 206, Tacitus, 229,234
256«, 295-, as “free Hero,” 233; as tamhelm, 238
“Nature Boy,” 305; as Sol, 435; and Tarot, 185
Perseus, 240 Taurus 'If, 210«, 299
Sieglinde, 5, 8«, 37,37n, 137, 151,205, Telchines, 244«
207,209,20?«, 243,266, 267, 273, Templar, Knights, 317, 346
273«, 274,274«, 287«, 288,290,291, dieft, 234; and robbery, 234
399,423,439,572; —, and Mime, 150 theories, “Four Theories of the Ragnarök,”
Siegmund, 5,8«, 37«, 75# 84,120, 204 16
passim, 266«, 267,274,276,280,290«, Thersites, 267
291,292^94,302«, 305, 312«, ;—, Thomas, Apostle, 342, 367; Tenqjle of,
andMercurius, 37« 343# 392; and misogyny, 358,359,397;
Simitiere, Eugene de, 195 and pessimism, 371; and Prester John,
Smith, Leland, 53 349, 352; Scriptures, 349,356; ‘Twin”

of Christ, 353,354jK 354n, 357«, 358
Thoricel, 267
three, number, and Chaos, 184
Titurel, 80, 172, 345, 345«, 347,348,397,
413,414,415,416, Ex. 8.6,433; —, as
Wotan, 405,427,429; —, and Saturn,
426,427,428,430,438; —, as
antisemitic code, 405
Titurel, Der Jüngere, i79
Titus, 406,408
tonic minor, 8, 8«, 12,125,140,141,151,
152,193«, 221,281,282, 285; and
Alberich, 251«; and duress, 305
topological theology, 356; see also
gnosticism
topological theology, 358
Tovey, Donald F., 51
tree, 288»; Freia’s, 148; Lærâtdr, 285; root
of, 153, 172«; Sun-and-Moon, 207,
207«; upper branches of, 247,279«
Tree, World Ash, see Yggdrasil
triangulation, 60«; tonal syntax of, 127^
269
trine a, 254,261,262,263
trickster, 232
Tricolor, 196
tritone, 242 .
Trinity, 169,170, 171,175, 181; female,
188; andE\> Prelude and Fugue (Bach),
169«)
'li
Turba philosophorum, 309
'
u “content”, 300«; onJ TL lexical
umyang ohaeng, 259
Unconscious, 35,93,94,102«, 103«; body
language, 254«; horoscopy, in music
analysis, 263; justification ofi 161«;
alchemistic CHAOS, 193«, linguistic
understanding, 53jf, oriental contents in
European dreams, 324; tonal mapping,
271; poetically reified, 161; unconscious
audience response, 156; in Meister
Eckhart, 369«; imconsciousness, C minor
and, 126; El> and, 160«; as WATER, 161,
î 441, and Wagner’s sources, 370,371,
366; C. G. Cams’ imagé of, 162; and the
dead, 178«; and public cultural linguistic
í properties, 183; and triadic divinities,
185; disturbances in, 192; von
Hartmann’s, 373; dynamics of the Wish,
424
Ung Khan, 338«
611
uroboros, 185
V
Vaughan Williams, Ralph, A Sea Symphony,
168, 199; Sir John in Love, 188
Vedas, 407
Venus, goddess, 187, 188/, armata, 196;
birth, 189«; Birth of Venus, 187;
exaltado, 189; and artists, 196; and
Graces, 188; and key characteristics,
193«; and Goddess Liberty, 196; and
peace, 188; a«<f Pisces, \%9',pugnax,
196; unfolded, 188,240; planet, 189;
exaltation of, 189«. See also E b Major.
Verdi, Giuseppe, A Masked Ball, 200
vernacular literature, 36
virgin, awakening, 129; virgin birth, 406;
virgin womb. Earth Mofiier’s, 281,
ni^tmarish, 334; unearthly, 360/; and
unicorns, 383; and serpent, 393,394; in
alchemy, 397; virgin boys, 438
Virgin Mary, 394; Titurel as substitute, 343
virtual intelligible object, 9\ff, 93,94,96,
101; and Aquarius, 423; a«d Aries, 302/
and Circle of Fifths, 296,297; cognitive
stmctures, 14^ an^.core metaphors,
105,124,135; and dodecahedron, 299;
and Ençedoclean Spairos, 311 ; and
lexicon, 272; and Platonic Ideas, 136,
300; and psychological archetypes, 163;
and space, 251,302; relation to
coherence, 3§7
Virgo, 210«, 242,243«, and Mercury, 254;
as Earth Mother, 230
Vishnu, 407
w
Wagner, Richard, anti-Judaism and
antisemitism, 36,364, 369 passim, 377,
407; “Dresden library,” 319; and gnostic
maimer of thinking, 355,370,408,427,
374,427; attitude toward science, 199;
toward Indian philosophy, 407; toward
Catholicism, 361/ toward “creator
gods”, 409; toward Lutheranism^ 361; on
“Alexandrine, Judaic, and Roman
despotism”, 364
612
Music Dramas Y
Das Rheingold, Prelude, 165
Die Meistersinger, 122,193 Yahweh, 373,407,409-12,416,425,426-8
Lohengrin, 315, 321 Yggdrasil, 130,134,286, 310, Fig. 6b, see
Siegfried, 62,207,208, Ex. VIb, 309, also World Ash Tree
312
Tannhäuser, 321 z
Tristan und Isolde, Vorspiel, 21ff
zodiac, 37«, 188,189«, 193«, 210,210«,
Prose Works, quoted 230,258,260# 291,298«, 299, 300«,
The Art-Work ofthe Future, 98, 102^; 301,302, 302«, 303,305,308, 325,326,
A Communication to My Friends, 164«; 390,421, 425,434,440,442
“Beetìioven’s ‘Heroic’ Synçhony,” 177; Zosimos, 392«, 411
Letters, to von Zigesar, 156«; to Röckel,
154n; Judaism in Music, 406; Mein
Leben, 160; “Music Applied to the
Drama”, 4, 88^; “On Conducting,"
186; “On Modulation,” 115; Opera
and Drama, 29,32,35,92,97,99,
100,101, 102,103, 103«, lll;.“The
Wibelungen,” 172, 173, 205«;
“Zukunftsmusik”, 25,203
WalhaU, 107
Wälsungen, 209«
WATERS, Element, 240; and EARTH, 240;
daughters of, 240
Weikert, Henri, 170
West, Cardinal Point, 291 ; see also mappa
mundi
■ White, David A., 130
Winterbourne, Anthony, 378/ 382
woman, is society and chaos, 195
Wotan, 43,43«, 88/, 130,145,148, 149, Ex.
3.1, 3.3,422; anti-Judaic element of,
405j^, 423; his brilliant mimi, 137; his
dominant, 154; his eye, 108; his head,
135; his judgment, 280; his oath, 309;
criminal and magistrate, 144; master and
spy, 108«; young, 290; and Alberich,
25 Iff, 256/ 308,403; and B b Major,
227«, and Barbarossa, 171; and
BrOnnhilde, 422; and Freia, 204/ 205«,
209, 213,217; and Kundry, 394; and
Loge, 221#; 224/ 241,248; and Fricka,
154«, 421/ o«d Nature, 130,134,305;
and Siegfried, 437; as Jove, 365«, as
Mercury, 234# as Saturn, 172«, 426,
433# 436; as Titurel, 405/ 416,426/
428,433; as Wunse, 151«, 153,204/
233,266# 269, 273,293,300,310,424;
as Zeus, 235, see also Spear
Dr. Jonathan Christian Petty receivèu
h is Ph.D. from Mellen University and
his B.A. in music from the University
of California, Berkeley. He has pub
lished articles on opera, Korean
music, and music theon’. His musical
compositions include “Five Elements”
for woodwind quintet, “Magnificat”
for chamber orchestra, soloists, and
chorus, and “Rabindra Sangeet” for
orchestra. He is an Administrator at
the Universityty of California,, .........
---------------- Berke-
ley’s Center for Korean Studies and
Director of Music at Shepherd of the