"ART AND REVOLUTION"
"Behold Mercury, and his docile handmaid, Modern
Art!"--WAGNER
The period of Wagner's life which we have now reached was one of much
complication and of important results. With the decision to abandon
the subject of Barbarossa he made another, namely that the story
of the Nibelungen Lied and its original material as found in the
Volsunga Saga would provide excellent material for a music drama. His
conception was first formulated in an article entitled "The Nibelung
Myth as Sketch for a Drama" (Ellis's translation, Vol. VII.). This
was followed by the first form of the text of the drama, "Siegfried's
Tod," a translation of which will be found in Mr. Ellis's eighth
volume. Wagner's first thought was to tell the entire story of the
death of Siegfried and the causes leading to it in one opera, but he
was not long in discovering that this was impossible. In June, 1849,
he wrote to Franz Liszt, with whom he had begun a correspondence[19]
in 1841 (though it did not become continuous till 1845) in these
words: "Meanwhile I shall employ my time in setting to music my
latest German drama, 'The Death of Siegfried.' Within half a year
I shall send you the opera completed." In 1851 in a long letter to
Liszt he explained how he had found it impossible to condense the
whole story into one drama, and afterward even into two, and thus how
the work had stretched itself into four separate dramas.
[Footnote 19: "Correspondence of Wagner and Liszt," edited by Francis
Hueffer, 2 vols., London, 1888.]
At the time of the writing of the original form of the book Wagner
also conceived some of the germs of the music, and in this, too,
lay the seed of a new and wonderful development of his genius.
His "Lohengrin" marked a wide departure from the style of his
"Tannhäuser," but in the dramas based on the Siegfried legend he
went much further. He felt in the beginning that he would be forced
to do so, and in the fall of 1850 he wrote to Liszt: "Between the
musical execution of my 'Lohengrin' and that of my 'Siegfried' there
lies for me a stormy, but I feel convinced, a fruitful world."
The correspondence between Wagner and Liszt had grown into warmth
when the latter undertook the preparation of "Tannhäuser" for
production at Weimar, where he was the ruling power in music. No
one who desires to be intimately acquainted with the life of Wagner
should omit reading this correspondence, which throws more light on
the artistic and personal character of the two men than anything
else in existence. It is highly creditable to Liszt that he early
recognised the full force of the genius of Wagner and bowed to him as
a superior. On the other hand Wagner, who was hopelessly improvident
and always in the depths of monetary difficulties, came to lean on
Liszt as a friend in all needs.
It is possible that through the influence of Liszt Wagner might
have gained wide recognition throughout Germany much sooner than he
did, but his own sympathy with the revolutionary ideas of the time
led him into direct conflict with authority in Saxony and drove him
into exile. The story of Wagner's connection with the revolutionary
movements of 1848 and 1849 has had several versions, and it has been
the subject of acrid dispute between Wagner's devotees and those who
are only candid friends. The story of the Saxon uprising need not
be repeated here in detail. Suffice it to say that the impetus of
the French revolution of 1848 moved the people of Saxony to demand
of their king a constitution, a free press, trial by jury, national
armies, and representation. The king refused to accede to the
demands. A second time through a deputation Leipsic people demanded
what they regarded as their rights and threatened to attack Dresden,
if these were not conceded. The king adopted conciliatory measures,
which served to allay the excitement for a time, but the people soon
saw that under the surface oppression was gaining headway.
Wagner and his friend and assistant, August Roeckel, the latter an
enthusiastic republican, became members of a society known as the
"Fatherland Union," an organisation devoted to the furtherance of
reform measures, but not in favour of direct disloyalty to the king.
Before this society on June 16 Wagner read a paper entitled "What is
the Relation of our Efforts to the Monarchy?" Wagner had previously
drawn up for the government a plan for the reorganisation of the
Dresden Theatre. In that paper he proposed that the changes in the
existing arrangements be made so that the theatre would be brought
into closer relations with the higher artistic life of the people.
It was at this period, too, that he wrote "Art and Revolution," in
which he still further demonstrated that he saw a connection between
political and artistic reform, or rather that he believed the latter
impossible under the restrictions of extant governmental control. He
aimed at a sort of republican representation in art, a plan by which
the literary and artistic elements of the community might have voices
in the direction of the theatre. He saw no way of bringing this about
except by a change in the nature of the government.
Therefore in this paper read before the Vaterlandsverein he demanded
general suffrage, abolition of the standing army and the aristocracy,
and the conversion of Saxony into a republic. His loyalty to the
king was shown by his proposal that he should himself proclaim
the republic and remain in office at its head. This speech was
published and it caused a good deal of unfavourable comment. Yet it
was not taken very seriously, for Wagner was warned that a Court
Conductor should not indulge in such talk; he wrote a long letter of
extenuation to Lüttichau, the Intendant; asked for a brief leave of
absence, and obtained it. And that would have been the end of the
matter in all probability, had not open insurrection broken out.
It was in regard to the acts of Wagner in the days of turmoil in May,
1849, that the acrid dispute before mentioned raged in 1892. This
dispute was caused chiefly by the statements of Ferdinand Praeger
in "Wagner as I Knew Him." Among other things Praeger said, "During
the first few of his eleven years of exile his talk was incessantly
about the outbreak, and the active aid he rendered at the time,
and of his services to the cause by speech and by pen prior to the
1849 May days; and yet in after life, in his talk with me, who held
documentary evidence, under his own hand, of his participation, he
in petulant tones sought either to minimise the part he played or
to explain it away altogether. This change of front I first noticed
about 1864 at Munich." With this as his text Praeger set out to show
that Wagner was a red-handed revolutionary, and that he fought on the
barricades in the streets of Dresden.
It was my fortune to read these assertions of Praeger's before they
were published. The manuscript of his book was placed in my hands by
his publishers in 1892 to be prepared for the press. The author was
dead and no changes could be made in his work. It seemed to me at
the time that Praeger had written incautiously of this whole matter,
and that at any rate he might fairly have represented Wagner as
desirous in after years to bury the memories of an unwise exhibition
of his republican tendencies. But of Praeger's honesty I never had a
doubt, nor had I any reason to suppose that he was not well informed
(through his intimate friendship with Roeckel) of Wagner's actions
in the May days of 1849. Pohl, Glasenapp, and Tappert had said but
little in regard to the matter, and, as I was not editing, but merely
supervising the printing of the book, it would not have been open to
me to write so much as a foot-note of warning to the reader to take
Praeger's statements with a grain of salt, even if I had been fully
informed of the real facts in the case.
But Wagner was not without a champion. Mr. W. Ashton Ellis, editor of
"The Meister," and translator of the prose works, published in 1892 a
complete answer to Praeger under the title of "1849: a Vindication."
In this he showed that Praeger had formed a theory as to Wagner's
part in the revolution and had wrested the facts to make them appear
as evidence. He also proved that some of the acts attributed to
Wagner were those of a young journeyman baker of the same name. The
real facts of the case, as I have sifted them from the conflicting
testimony, appear to be these:
Wagner's mind was filled with a conviction that freedom and the
honesty of art went hand in hand. His reformatory ideas embraced not
only the stage, but its relations to governmental control, through
which its artistic character must be touched and guided. The stage
could never be brought to represent the spirit of the people till
the government was. All around him he saw the relics of feudalism,
and the innate hostility of these to that freedom of art and public
to which he looked forward made him a republican at heart. His paper
read before the Fatherland Union was, as we have seen, a plea for
free government and representation by the people, but it was filled
with a spirit of loyalty to the reigning king.
When the revolutionary movement took shape Wagner, as Mr. Ellis
notes, did not hesitate between the dictates of his conscience
and the preservation of court favour. He became, as he afterward
confessed in a letter to Liszt, openly active in the movement. But
the stories of his firing a musket from the barricades and setting
fire to public buildings are pure fabrications. Praeger's narrative
of his revolutionary activity is misleading, and Mr. Ellis's pamphlet
has quite demolished it. Wagner assisted in getting men and stores
into Dresden, and he probably carried a musket while engaged in this
work. At the Town Hall he publicly embraced one of the revolutionary
leaders after the latter had made a speech. On May 1, 1849, the king
dissolved the Saxon diet, and the people went to arms. The insurgents
were victorious in the beginning, but Prussian troops arrived 36
hours later, and the revolutionaries were put to flight. Wagner
escaped from Dresden and hurried to Weimar, where he took refuge
under the wing of Liszt, then actively preparing "Tannhäuser" for
performance.
Mr. Praeger says: "Future biographers can no longer ignobly treat
the patriotism of Wagner by striving to whitewash or gloss over the
part he played during these sad days." It is the hope of the present
biographer that he will not be accused of any attempt to conceal
the truth in regard to this matter, especially as he has not been
able to discover in it anything discreditable to Wagner. His action
was injudicious, it was impulsive, it was shortsighted; but it was
honest. If in after years Wagner saw that the regeneration of the
theatre might be accomplished without the overthrow of extant forms
of government, and if at the same time he wished ardently to return
to his native land, it was not at all surprising that he expressed
sorrow for his actions. It was quite natural indeed that in April,
1856, he wrote to Liszt:
"In regard to that riot and its sequels, I am willing
to confess that I now consider myself to have been in
the wrong at that time, and carried away by my passions,
although I am conscious of not having committed any crime
that would properly come before the courts, so that it
would be difficult for me to confess to any such."
Disheartened as Wagner was at the inartistic conditions surrounding
the theatre at Dresden, it was not astonishing that he rejoiced in
the excuse for flight, and that he hastened to Weimar with a jubilant
spirit. That Liszt was glad to receive him thus unexpectedly goes
without saying. It was this meeting which perfected the understanding
between these two remarkable men, and which cemented indissolubly
the friendship hitherto dependent on their letters for its support.
They came to know one another intimately, and from that time onward
Liszt was the main prop of Wagner. As Mr. Finck well summarises it in
his life of Wagner: "A few letters had passed between the two, and
they had met several times, but it was not until this occasion that
their hearts were really opened towards each other, and the beginning
was made of a friendship unequalled in cordiality and importance in
the history of art, and without the existence of which the world
would in all probability have never seen the better half of Wagner's
music dramas. It was Liszt who helped him with funds when he would
otherwise have been compelled to stop composing and earn his bread
like the commonest day labourer; Liszt who sustained him with his
approval when all the critical world was against him; Liszt who
brought out his operas when all other conductors ignored them; Liszt
who wrote letters, private and journalistic, about his friend's works
and aims, besides three long and enthusiastic essays on 'Tannhäuser,'
'Lohengrin,' and the 'Dutchman,' which were printed in German and
French, and with the Weimar performances of these operas, gave the
first impulse to 'the Wagner movement.'"
Of the greatest importance to Wagner was Liszt's understanding of his
artistic aims. Wagner said that when he saw Liszt conduct a rehearsal
of "Tannhäuser," he recognised a second self in the achievement.
Discouraged as he had been on leaving Dresden, his spirits now rose
again, and he would undoubtedly have settled down in Weimar to pursue
his artistic labours under the protection of Liszt, had not news come
that he was wanted by the police. A warrant was issued for him as a
politically dangerous person and his description was published. As
soon as this news was received, Wagner, acting on Liszt's advice,
fled.
So hasty was his departure that, as we learn from a letter of Liszt
to Carl Reinecke, he left Weimar on the very day of a performance of
"Tannhäuser," which he, therefore, did not witness. This was in the
latter part of May. He went directly to Zurich, where he remained a
few days and obtained a passport for France. He wrote from Zurich to
a Weimar friend, O.L.B. Wolff, that Liszt would soon receive a bundle
of scores from Minna, his wife.
"The score of my 'Lohengrin,'" he wrote, "I beg him to
examine leisurely. It is my latest, ripest work. No artist
has seen it yet, and of none have I therefore been able to
ascertain what impression it may produce. Now I am anxious
to hear what Liszt has to say about it."
From this same letter we learn that Minna had been left in the city
from which Wagner had fled. He says:
"That wonderful man must also look after my poor wife. I
am particularly anxious to get her out of Saxony, and
especially out of that d----d Dresden."
It is necessary only to say that while Liszt at first had doubts
of the public success of "Lohengrin," owing to what he called its
"superideal character," he immediately recognised its artistic
greatness, and was the first to bring it before the public.
In Zurich Wagner contemplated the stern necessity of doing something
toward the support of himself and wife, and he saw in the production
of an opera in Paris his only hope. Accordingly he set out for the
French capital. Liszt had already written to Belloni, an influential
person in the musical circles of Paris:
"In the first place, we want to create a success for a
grand, heroic, enchanting musical work, the score of which
was completed a year ago. Perhaps this could be done in
London. Chorley, for instance, might be very helpful to
him in this undertaking. If Wagner next winter could go to
Paris backed up by this success, the doors of the Opéra
would stand open to him, no matter with what he might
knock."
Wagner had a consultation with Belloni in Paris, and was convinced
that nothing could be done with his extant works. He decided that he
must spend a year and a half in the preparation of a new work, and
for that purpose he must live in seclusion with his wife. He tells
Liszt in a long letter that he has decided on Zurich, and begs Liszt
to make arrangements for an income for him from his works so that he
can live to write more. He says that he is fit for nothing but to
write operas; he must create some genuine art work or perish. He has
arranged to send from Zurich to Belloni a sketch of a work for Paris,
and Belloni is to get a French version made. Meanwhile Wagner will be
working on the "Death of Siegfried." And so, after this brief and
futile visit to Paris in June, 1849, we find him back at Zurich early
in July. And now it became his fixed idea to get his wife out of
Dresden and settled down in some sort of a home in Zurich. But he had
no means. Once more, then, he appealed to the unfailing friend Liszt.
He tells the great pianist that he has no further resources, and says:
"You, therefore, I implore by all that is dear to you to
raise and collect as much as you possibly can, and send it,
not to me, but to my wife, so that she may have enough to
get away and join me with the assurance of being able to
live with me free from care for some time at least. Dearest
friend, you care for my welfare, my soul, my art. Once
more restore to me my art! I do not cling to a home, but I
cling to this poor, good, faithful woman, to whom as yet I
have caused nothing but grief, who is of a careful, serious
disposition, without enthusiasm, and who feels herself
chained forever to such a reckless devil as myself."
These words go far toward revealing the true nature of the relations
of Wagner and Minna. They also do credit to his justice, but at the
same time show how completely unsettled he was at this period. Liszt
hastened to reply in a letter beginning: "In answer to your letter I
have remitted one hundred thalers to your wife at Dresden. This sum
has been handed to me by an admirer of 'Tannhäuser,' whom you do not
know and who has especially asked me not to name him to you."[20]
[Footnote 20: In his residence at Zurich, Wagner was also pecuniarily
aided by Wilhelm Baumgartner, a music teacher, Jacob Sulzer, a local
office holder, Mme. Laussot, and Frau Julie Ritter, whose son Carl
was associated with Wagner's musical activities in the Swiss city.
Frau Ritter placed a permanent fund to Wagner's credit. Others who
aided him will be incidentally mentioned.]
In due time Minna arrived in Zurich only to begin to combat her
husband's artistic inclinations. He was eager to write "The Death
of Siegfried." She urged him to abandon his unprofitable ideals,
and to write for Paris the sort of opera that Paris would like. For
Minna was ashamed of living on the charity of friends, and for that
we cannot blame her. Nor can we even yet bring ourselves quite into
agreement with Wagner in the belief that the world ought to take
care of him while he was creating his immortal works. Yet there was
something large and genial in the conception. The man felt the power
that was in him, and he refused to stifle it in order that he might
discharge the simple duties of a plain citizen and support himself
and his family at the sacrifice of his future, and the future of his
art.
It was to this struggle between himself and his own desires on the
one hand and his wife and Liszt on the other that his inactivity in
musical production for a long period was due. His whole mind was in a
state of unrest. Yet the period of his exile proved in the end to be
the most fruitful of his life, and in Zurich the name of Wagner was
made immortal.