"Another _Parsifal_ ought to be written from the angle of Klingsor, who was
an enlightened Arabian, physician, scientist and probably Aristotelian....
The Knights, and Wagner with them, call him a wizard, which was a crude
mediæval way of 'slanging' any man who preferred knowledge to
superstition."
This remarkable utterance by the musical critic of _The Daily Mail_ in the
issue of February 25th has created a sensation in the political world fully
equal to that caused by the announcement of Mr. ASQUITH'S return for
Paisley. Scientific and artistic circles have also been deeply moved.
Sir PHILIP SASSOON, Mr. LLOYD GEORGE'S new secretary, interviewed by our
representative, said that the tribute to his chief was all the more welcome
considering its source. His only criticism was that, instead of calling the
charge of wizardry a "crude mediæval" mode of invective, he should prefer
to style it an ultra-modern application of the art of obloquy.
Sir OLIVER LODGE, in a wireless message from New York, entirely approved of
_The Daily Mail's_ reading of KLINGSOR'S character. He was clearly a
scientist and a spiritualist of remarkable attainments. The defection of
_Kundry_ to the side of the Knights was a sad instance--but not without
modern parallels--of the unrelenting pressure exerted on weak women by the
zealots of orthodoxy.
Mr. A.B. WALKLEY said that he had long suspected KLINGSOR of being a
crypto-Aristotelian, but the arguments of the writer in _The Daily Mail_
had converted his suspicion to a certainty. He proposed to deal with the
matter more fully in an imaginary dialogue between KLINGSOR and Sir OSWALD
STOLL (who was a devout follower of HERBERT SPENCER) which would shortly
appear in _The Times_.
Mr. DEVANT professed himself delighted with the vindication of KLINGSOR,
who was undoubtedly, like ROGER BACON, a first-rate conjurer, far in
advance of his time, and with limited resources was yet capable of
producing illusions which would not have disgraced the stage of St.
George's Hall.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY excused himself from pronouncing a definite
opinion on the subject, but pointed out that it would doubtless come within
the purview of the inquiry into Spiritualism undertaken by high clerical
authority.
Mr. JACOB EPSTEIN made the gratifying announcement that he was engaged on a
colossal statue of Mr. LLOYD GEORGE in the character of the modern
_Merlin_. His treatment might not commend itself to the leaders of
Nonconformity in Wales, but his own artistic conscience was clear, and he
felt he could count on the benevolent sympathy of the Northcliffe Press.
The Editor of _The Times_ strongly demurred to the statement that KLINGSOR
was an Arabian. The great authority on KLINGSOR was the anonymous
thirteenth-century epic poem on _Lohengrin_, the father of _Parsifal_, and
he had no doubt (1) that the author was either a Czecho-Slovak or a
Yugo-Slav; (2) that KLINGSOR, as the etymology suggested, was of the latter
race. In these circumstances the attempt to establish an affinity between
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE and KLINGSOR was nothing short of an outrage, which might
have disastrous results on our relations with the new States of Central
Europe.
Mr. J. MAYNARD KEYNES observed that the characterisation of Mr. LLOYD
GEORGE, implicit in the defence of KLINGSOR made by the musical critic of
_The Daily Mail_, indirectly confirmed his own impressions. It was true
that the PREMIER did not physically resemble an Arab sheikh, and his
knowledge of medicine, science or philosophy, to say nothing of geography,
was decidedly jejune, but the sad case of President WILSON made it all too
clear that he was capable of exerting a hypnotic influence on his
colleagues. Mr. KEYNES did not think Mr. LLOYD GEORGE was an Aristotelian;
he preferred to consider him an unconscious Pragmatist. This view he
proposed to develop in his forthcoming volume on the Subliminal Conscience
of Nonconformity.
* * * * *