Bruennhilde: Wotan's/Siegfried's unconscious Part B-3

General Discussion about Wagner and The Ring of the Nibelung

Moderators: alberich00, Justin Jeffrey

Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:03 am

Bruennhilde: Wotan's/Siegfried's unconscious Part B-3

Post by alberich00 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:50 am

“Fortunately, despite his servitude to theology, Luther found, outside of religion or theology, antidotes to the power of sin, hell, the devil or, what amounts to the same thing, the divine wrath. In a Latin letter to L. Senfel he writes that music, too, gives man what otherwise only theology can bestow, namely, a tranquil and serene mind, that the Devil, the author of all cares and emotional disturbances, takes flight at the sound of music as he does at the word of theology.” [321F-LER: p. 291]

[P. 294] “ … the first definition of ‘god,’ derived from practice, from life, is simply that a god is what man requires for his existence, and specifically for his physical existence, which is the foundation of his spiritual existence, so that a god is a physical being; or in subjective terms: man’s first god is need, and specifically physical need … . (…)
[P. 295] … the first and oldest God, the God before and behind the ethical and spiritual God is the physical God … . (…) This makes it clear that the abstract concept ‘being’ has flesh and blood, truth and reality, only in nature and that consequently, just as being precedes wisdom and goodness, so the physical God precedes the spiritual and the ethical God … .” [322F-LER: p. 294-295]

“ … faith and love are exact opposites.” [323F-LER: p. 298]

“ … to say that morality is based, or must be based, on religion is merely to say that morality must be based on egoism, self-love, and the striving for happiness, that otherwise it has no foundation. The only difference between Judaism and Christianity is that in Judaism morality is based on the love of temporal, earthly life, and in Christianity on the love of eternal, heavenly life. If it is not generally recognized that egoism alone is the secret of faith as distinct from love, the secret of religion as distinct from ethics, it is only because religious egoism does not have the appearance of egoism; in religion man affirms his self in the form of self-abnegation … .” [324F-LER: p. 300]

“ … in reality states, even Christian states, are built not on the power of religion, though they have used it too (i.e., credulity, man’s weak point) as a means to their ends, but on the power of bayonets and other instruments of torture. In reality men act out of entirely different motives than their religious imagination leads them to suppose.” [325F-LER: p. 302]

[P. 302] “But whence comes this weakness of faith? From the fact that the power of belief is nothing other than the power of imagination, and that reality is an infinitely greater power, directly opposed to the imagination. (…) [P. 303] … as even the greatest heroes of faith have confessed, it flies in the face of sensory evidence, natural feeling, and man’s innate tendency to disbelief. How, indeed, can anything built on constraint, on the forcible repression of a sound inclination, anything exposed at every moment to the mind’s doubts and the contradictions of experience, provide a firm and secure foundation?” [326F-LER: p. 302-303]

“Believers and atheists are agreed in seeking the useful and in shunning the harmful. (…) … the true difference between religion and atheism is the difference between infinite egoism and finite egoism.” [329F-LER: p. 307]

[P. 310] “The object of religion is nature, which operates independently of man and which he distinguishes from himself. But this nature is more than the phenomena of the outside world; it also includes man’s inner nature, which operates independently of his knowledge and his will. This statement brings us to our most crucial point, the true seat and source of religion. The ultimate secret of religion is the relationship between the conscious and unconscious, the [ P. 311] voluntary and involuntary in one and the same individual.” [331F-LER: p. 310-311]

“Man with his ego or consciousness stands at the brink of a bottomless abyss; that abyss is his own unconscious being, which seems alien to him and inspires him with a feeling which expresses itself in words of wonderment such as: What am I? Where have I come from? To what end? And this feeling that I am nothing without a not-I which is distinct from me yet intimately related to me, something other, which is at the same time my own being, is the religious feeling. (…) The elements, then, of the I or man, of the real man, are consciousness, feeling, voluntary movement – voluntary movement, I say, because involuntary movement is outside the sphere of the I, in the realm of the divine not-I … .
(…) I feel a desire to write poetry, I can satisfy it only by voluntary activity, but the underlying impulse is not-I … .” [333F-LER: p. 311]

[Footnote:] … a man can go so far as to disclaim all credit; for ultimately my feeling, my consciousness, my very being result from premises which are situated outside the I, which are the work of nature or of God. Indeed, the deeper man looks within, the more the distinction between nature and man or I vanishes, the plainer it becomes to him that he is only consciously unconscious, a not-I that is an I. That is why man is the deepest and most complex of all beings. But man cannot understand or endure his own depth, and for that reason he splits his being into an I without a not-I, which he calls God and a not-I without an I, which he calls nature.” [334F-LER: p. 313]

[P. 316] “ … the true man … says: the earth will give me fruit if I give it what is appropriate to its nature; it does not will to give, nor must it give – ‘must’ implies reluctance and coercion – no, it will give only if I for my part have fulfilled all the conditions under which it can give, or rather produce; for nature gives me nothing, I myself must take everything, at least everything that is not already a part of me – and moreover I [P. 317] must take it by extreme violence. With intelligent egoism we forbid murder and theft among ourselves, but toward other beings, toward nature, we are all murderers and thieves.
(…) To whom then does it really belong? To the one who takes it. Is it not sufficient that I live by murder and theft – should I in addition thank the gods?” [336F-LER: p. 316-317]

“ … the Godhead consists as it were of two components, one originating in man’s imagination, the other in nature. ‘You must pray,’ says the one component, the god differentiated from nature. ‘You must work,’ says the other, the god who is not differentiated from nature and merely expresses the essence of nature. For nature is a worker bee, while the gods are drones.” [337F-LER: p. 317]

[P. 320] “Human ignorance is bottomless, and the human imagination knows no bounds; deprived of its foundations by ignorance and of its limits by the imagination, the power of nature becomes divine omnipotence. (…)
(…) In short, an object considered as subject, the essence of nature differentiated from nature and seen as a human being, the essence of man differentiated from man and seen as a not-human being - this is the essence of divinity and religion, [P. 321] the secret of mysticism and speculation, this is the great thauma, the wonder of all wonders, which fills men with the profoundest amazement and rapture.” [338F-LER: p. 320-321]
[Footnote:] It goes without saying that this fusion of man and nature into a single being, who is termed the supreme being precisely because he is the summit of the imagination, is involuntary. And ‘the instinct for religion or divinity’ owes its name and existence to the involuntary character of this fusion.” [340F-LER: p. 321]

[P. 321] “The God of the Koran and the Old Testament is still filled with the sap of nature, still wet and cold from the cosmic ocean whence He sprang, whereas the God of Christian monotheism is a withered, dried-out God in whom all traces of His origin in nature is effaced; there He stands like a creation out of [P. 322] nothing; on pain of the rod He even forbids the inevitable question: ‘What did God do before He created the world?’ or more correctly: What was He before nature? In other words, He makes a secret of His physical origin, hiding it behind a metaphysical abstraction.” [341F-LER: p. 321-322]

“Man is a practical, not a theoretical being, he is motivated not by ethereal imagination but by hungry, painful reality.” [343F-LER: p. 324]

“The brain is the parliament of the universe, in which the generic concept represents the infinitely many individuals for whom the brain has not room enough. But precisely because the generic concept is the representative of individuals, and because when we hear the word ‘individuals,’ we think only of specific individuals, it strikes us as perfectly natural and reasonable - especially if our minds are full of generic concepts and we have become estranged from the perception of reality – to derive the particular from the universal, that is, the real from the abstract, existing things from thought, and nature from God.” [346F-LER: p. 335]

“Is what is universal to the Christian not individual to a Mohammedan or Hindu? Was what our pious forefathers regarded as the ‘Word of God’ not long ago recognized to be the word of man? (…) What in this time and place passes as ‘individual caprice’ is taken in another time and place for universal law. And what here and now is a subjective, heretical opinion becomes tomorrow or elsewhere a sacred article of faith.” [350F-LER: p. 352]

[Footnote:] … thought takes the discreteness of reality for a continuum, the infinitely many events of life as one identical event. Knowledge of the essential, ineffaceable difference between thought and life (or reality) is the beginning of wisdom in thought and life.” [351F-LER: p. 353]

[P. 79] “… grand, passionate, and lasting emotions, dominating all our feelings and ideas for months and often half a year, these drive the musician to those vaster, more intense conceptions to which we owe, among others, the origin of a Sinfonia Eroica. These greater moods, as deep suffering of soul or potent exaltation, may date from outer causes, for we all are men and our fate is ruled by outward circumstances; but when they force the musician to production, these greater moods have already turned to music [P. 80] in him, so that at the moment of creative inspiration it is no longer the outer event that governs the composer, but the musical sensation which it has begotten in him.” [355W-{10/41} A Happy Evening: PW Vol. VII, p. 79-80]

[P.179] {FEUER} {Pre-SCHOP} “It is terrifying, and makes one dizzy, to gaze into the awful caverns of the human heart. For the poet it is impossible to render in words all that passes at the bottom of this stanchless fount, which responds in turn to the breath of God and of the Devil; he may speak to you of hate, of love, of fanaticism and frenzy; he will set before your eyes the outward acts engendered on the surface of those depths: but never can he take you down into them, unveil them to your look. It is reserved for Music alone, to reveal the primal elements of this marvellous nature; in her mysterious charm our soul is shown this great, unutterable secret.” [356W-{2-4/42} Halevy and La Reine De Chypre: PW Vol. VIII, p. 179]

[P. 129] {FEUER} The symbolic meaning of the tale [Lohengrin] I can best sum up as follows: contact between a metaphysical phenomenon and human nature, and the [P. 130] impossibility that such contact will last. The moral would be: the good Lord would do better to spare us His revelations since He is not permitted to annul the laws of nature: nature – in this case human nature – is bound to take her revenge and destroy the revelation. This seems to me to be the meaning of most of those wonderful legends which are not the work of priests. What happened to Semele in the case of Zeus? [361W-{5/30/46}Letter to Hermann Franck: SLRW, p. 129-130]

[P. 134] {FEUER} “Do not underestimate the power of reflection; the unconsciously created work of art belongs to periods remote from our own: the work of art of the most advanced period of culture can be produced only by a process of conscious creation. The Christian poetry of the Middles Ages, for ex., was immediate & unconscious: but no fully authentic work of art was produced at that time, -- that was something reserved for Goethe in our own age of objectivity. Only the most fertile human nature can effect this wondrous combination between the power of the reflective intellect, on the one hand, & the fecundity of the more direct creative power on the other.” [363W-{1/1/47}Letter to Eduard Hanslick: SLRW, p. 134]

[P. 263] {FEUER} Here we find Siegfried as the winner of the Nibelung’s Hoard and with it might unmeasurable. This Hoard, and the might in it residing, becomes the immovable centre round which all further shaping of the saga now revolves: the whole strife and struggle is aimed at this Hoard of the Nibelungen, as the epitome of earthly power, and he who owns it, who governs by it, either is or becomes a Nibelung. [364W-{6-8/48} The Wibelungen – Revised summer of 1849: PW Vol. VII, p. 263]

[P. 266] {FEUER} “Religion and Saga are the pregnant products of the people’s insight into the nature of things and men. From of old the Folk has had the inimitable faculty of seizing its own essence according to the Generic idea, and plainly reproducing it in plastic personification. The Gods and Heroes of its religion and saga are the concrete personalities in which the Spirit of the Folk portrays its essence to itself: however sharp the individuality of these personages, their content (Inhalt) is of most universal, wide-embracing type, and therefore lends these shapes a strangely lasting lease [P. 267] of life.” [365W-{6-8/48} The Wibelungen – Revised summer of 1849: PW Vol. VII, p. 266-267]

[P. 275] {FEUER} “The quintessence of this constant motion, thus of Life, at last in ‘Wuotan’ (Zeus) found expression as the chiefest God, the Father and Pervader of the All. 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 nowise an historically older god, but sprang into existence from man’s later, higher consciousness of self; consequently he is more abstract than the older Nature-god, whilst the latter is more corporeal and, so to phrase it, more personally inborn in man.” [368W-{6-8/48} The Wibelungen – Revised summer of 1849: PW Vol. VII, p. 275]

[P. 276] {FEUER} “When Light vanquished Darkness, when Siegfried slew the Nibelungen-dragon, he further won as victor’s spoil the Nibelungen-hoard it guarded. But the possession of this Hoard – whose properties increase his might beyond all measure, since he thereby rules the Nibelungen – is also reason of his death: for the dragon’s heir now plots to win it back. This heir despatches him by stealth, as night the day, and drags him down into the gloomy realm of Death: Siegfried thus becomes himself a Nibelung.” [369W-{6-8/48} The Wibelungen – Revised summer of 1849: PW Vol. VII, p. 276]

[P. 276] {FEUER} “Though doomed to death by acquisition of the Hoard, each sequent generation strives to seize it: its inmost necessity 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 itself with all its splendour, which in joyous shining of the Sun at dawn of day we recognise as our possession to enjoy, when Night, that held its ghostly, gloomy dragon’s wings spread fearsomely above the world’s rich stores, has finally been routed.” [370W-{6-8/48} The Wibelungen – Revised summer of 1849: PW Vol. VII, p. 276]

[P. 276] {FEUER} “So that Hoard included in itself the means of gaining and insuring mastery, as also the one Talisman of Rule: the hero-god who won it first, and thus became a Nibelung partly through his power and partly through his death, left as heirloom to his race the active [P. 277] right to claim the Hoard: to avenge the slain and keep or win the Hoard afresh … .” [371W-{6-8/48} The Wibelungen – Revised summer of 1849: PW Vol. VII, p. 276-277]

[P. 287] {FEUER} “The abstract Highest God of the Germans, Wuotan, did not really need to yield place to the God of the Christians; rather could he be completely identified with him: merely the physical trappings with which the various stems had clothed him in accordance with their idiosyncrasy, their dwelling-place and climate, were to be stripped off; the universal attributes ascribed to him, for the rest, completely answered those allotted to the Christian’s God. (…)
But that one native Stem-god, from whom the races all immediately derived their earthly being, was certainly the last to be given up; for in him was found the striking likeness to Christ himself, the Son of God, that he too died, was mourned and avenged, -- as we still avenge Christ on the Jews of to-day.” (…)

[P. 289] {FEUER} “In the German Folk survives the oldest lawful race of Kings in all the world: it issues from a son of God, called by his nearest kinsmen Siegfried, but Christ by the remaining nations of the earth … .” [372W-{6-8/48} The Wibelungen – Revised summer of 1849: PW Vol. VII, p. 287; p. 289]

[P. 293] {FEUER} … the legend went that once the Keeper of the Grail had really brought the holy relic to the Occident; great wonders had he here performed: in the Netherlands, the Nibelungen’s ancient seat, a Knight of the Grail had appeared, but vanished when asked forbidden tidings of his origin; -- then was the Grail conducted back by its old guardian to the distant morning-land; -- in a castle on a lofty mount in India it now was kept once more.
{FEUER} In truth the legend of the Holy Grail, significantly enough, makes its entry on the world at the very time when the Kaiserhood attained its more ideal direction, and the Nibelung’s Hoard accordingly was losing more and more in material worth, to yield to a higher spiritual content. The spiritual ascension of the Hoard into the Grail was accomplished in the German conscience, and [P. 294] 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 paragon of holiness.” [373W-{6-8/48} The Wibelungen – Revised summer of 1849: PW Vol. VII, p. 293-294]

[P. 301] {FEUER} The race of Giants, boastful, violent, ur-begotten, is troubled in its savage ease: their monstrous strength, their simple mother-wit, no longer are a match for Alberich’s crafty plans of conquest: alarmed they see the Nibelungen forging wondrous weapons, that one day in the hands of human heroes shall cause the Giants’ downfall. [375W-{6-8/48} The Nibelungen Myth: PW Vol. VII, p. 301]

[P. 302] {FEUER} From the depths of Nibelheim the conscience of their guilt cries up to them: for the bondage of the Nibelungen is not broken; merely the lordship has been reft from Alberich, and not for any higher end, but the soul, the freedom of the Nibelungen lies buried uselessly beneath the belly of an idle Worm: Alberich thus has justice in his plaints against the Gods. [376W-{6-8/48} The Nibelungen Myth: PW Vol. VII, p. 302]

[P. 302] {FEUER} Wotan himself, however, cannot undo the wrong without committing yet another: only a free Will, independent of the Gods themselves, and able to assume and expiate itself the burden of all guilt, can loose the spell; and in Man the Gods perceive the faculty of such free-will. In Man they therefore seek to plant their own divinity, to raise his strength so high that, in full knowledge of that strength, he may rid him of the Gods’ protection, to do of his free will what his own mind [P. 303] inspires. So the Gods bring up Man for this high destiny, to be the canceller of their own guilt; and their aim would be attained even if in this human creation they should perforce annul themselves, that is, must part with their immediate influence through freedom of man’s conscience. [377W-{6-8/48} The Nibelungen Myth: PW Vol. VII, p. 302-303]

[P. 304] {FEUER} … he [Siegfried] marries her [Bruennhilde] with Alberich’s ring, which he places on her finger. When the longing spurs him to new deeds, she gives him lessons in her secret lore, warns him of the dangers of deceit and treachery: they swear each other vows, and Siegfried speeds forth. [378W-{6-8/48} The Nibelungen Myth: PW Vol. VII, p. 304]

[P. 305] {FEUER} “… Siegfried for the first and only time exerts his power as Ruler of the Nibelungen, by putting on the Tarnhelm and thereby taking Gunther’s form and look; thus masked, he passes through the flames to Bruennhild. Already robbed by Siegfried of her maidhood, she has lost alike her superhuman strength, and all her runecraft she has made away to Siegfried – who does not use it … .” [379W-{6-8/48} The Nibelungen Myth: PW Vol. VII, p. 305]

[P. 310] {FEUER} “Bruennhild: ‘Thou forward hero, how thou held’st me banned! All my rune-lore I bewrayed to thee, a mortal, and so went widowed of my wisdom; thou usedst it not, though trustedst in thyself alone: but now that thou must yield it up through death, my knowledge comes to me again, and this Ring’s runes I rede. The ur-law’s runes, too, know I now, the Norns’ old saying! Hear then, ye mighty Gods, your guilt is quit: thank him, the hero, who took your guilt upon him! ‘ “ [380W-{6-8/48} The Nibelungen Myth: PW Vol. VII, p. 310]

[P. 16] {FEUER} “The Walkueren (drawing nearer and nearer, as the stage grows darker):
Bruennhild! Bruennhild! Long-lost sister!
Gav’st thou away thy godlike might?
To Siegfried, who gain’d me, I’ve lent it.
The Walkueren:
Gav’st thou away, too, thy holiest lore,’
the runes that once Wotan had taught thee?
I taught them to Siegfried, whom love I.
The Walkueren (still closer):
Bruennhild! Bruennhild! Long-lost sister!
Ev’ry craven now can bend thee,
to cowards an easy booty! –
O burnt but the fire anew round the fell,
from shame the fenceless bride to shelter!
Wotan! All-giver! Ward off the worst!” [382W-{10-11/48} Siegfried’s Death: PW Vol. VIII, p. 16]

[P. 50] {FEUER} “Bruennhilde:
Thou overbearing hero,
How thou heldest me banned!
Of all my wisdom must I go lacking,
For all my knowledge to thee had I lent:
What from me thou took’st, thou usedst not, --
To thy mettlesome mood thou trustedst alone!
But now thou’rt gone, hast given it free,
To my lore cometh back,
The runes of the Ring unravel.
The Norn’s old saying know I now too,
Their meaning can unriddle:
The boldest of men’s most mighty of deeds
Through my knowledge it gaineth its blessing.” [385W-{10-11/48}
Siegfried’s Death: PW Vol. VIII, p. 50]
Post Reply