[Da n s n u ca s que lco n que , so it priv, so it public, l eta t dex a m en n es a ura it tre videm m e n t que proviso ire , com m e i n diqu a n t la situ a tio nd

esprit qui precede et prepa re un e dec isio n fin a le , vers Ia quelle te n dsa n s cesse n otre i n tel l ige n ce , lors m em e que l le ren on ce a da n cien sprm cipes pour s en form er de n ouvea ux . A . Com te, P/zz

'

los opfi ie

Pos z'

lz'

ve, 462 x756 15m m ]

EVER s ince the fi rst performa nce of Ta m i / m us e?

a t D resden in 1 84 5 , the poet a n d composer

R icha rd W a gner, ha s been the best-a bused

m a n in Europe . Competent a n d i ncompetent

crit ics,

fighting under every m a nner of fla g ,h a ve a ssa ulted the music ia n ofthe future or

b roke n'

a l a nce in h is honour. The A lm a n a c/z

aes D eufs c/zevz Mus z

'

verez

m for 1 869 gives a

surpris ingly ex tens ive l i s t of books,pa m phlets

,

a n d a rticles , put forth by Germa ns on the

defensive s ide a lone . As fa r a s Germ a ny is

concerned,where every one ca n procure a n d

rea d the ma ster

s own ex posi t ions of h is views,

i t would seem a bsurd th a t so much i nk a n d

p a per should be wa sted but in Engl a nd , where

a genu ine curios i ty ha s only of l a te a risen , con

cern ing the aesthetic problems mooted by

W a gner a n d his d isc iples , i t m a y be well to

ma ke a n a ttempt a t eluc ida ting them .

There a re three fa cts , I bel ieve , to which

nea rly a ll the pen-a n d- ink qu a rrels concern ing

W a gner ca n be tra ced . F irst, tha t he publ i shed

h is cri tic isms a n d a b stra ct theories a t a t ime

when his la ter works of a rt, by which a lone

these theories could receive thei r sa nction,were

l i t tl e known,a n d but ra rely a n d ina dequa tely

performed ; secondly, tha t the socia l a n d pol itical

h eres ies,which he propounded by w a y of clea r

ing the a ir a n d finding free-brea th ing spa ce for

h is a rtistic idea l s , frightened people ; a n d, l a stly,tha t he now a n d then thought fi t to point h is

mora l by a ttacking l iving men of repute

Meyerbeer,for insta nce in a most sava ge a n d

merciless m a nner.

Any one who ha s watched the spiri tua l

ca reer of a n a rtis t of genius , l iving or dead , will

ha ve observed th a t h is theoretica l convictions

concern ing his a rt throughout h is l ife a re a sort

of running comment upon his a rt ist ic produc

tions . There c a n be no grea ter mista ke th a n

to suppose th a t Wa gner ha s written h is musica l

dra m a s in a ccorda nce wi th a n y preconceived

a rtis t i c theories more or less eccentri c . He

ha s,l ike a ll men of strong crea t ive impulse

,

trodden the long,dim p a th from more or less

i nstinct ive produc t ion to a complete ma stery of

means a n d ends . H is theories and h is pra ctice

grew together,a n d, i f a nything, the former are

a result of the l a tter. W a gner i s a poet first

a n d foremost,a n d h is ca se differs from tha t of

h is predecessors only in a smuch a s he ga ve to

the world a more el a bora te a n d minute account

of the menta l fermenta tion which preceded a n d

a ccompanied his works ; and tha t he ha s don e

th is ought to enti tle h im to the tha nks of a ll

men who know a poet to be someth ing different

from a mere funnel through which the gods

po ur bea utiful thought . He possesses,i n com

mon with Goethe , the very ra re gift of becoming

perfectly conscious of a ll h is menta l evolutions,

a n d of being a ble to give a cool a n d complete

a ccount , a n outs ider

s view a s i t were,even of

h is pa ss ions . This m a kes him so formida ble

a s a poet a n d wri ter. He spea ks a lwa ys a t

first h a nd , ta lks of noth ing but wh a t he ha s

himself seen or fel t,a n d holds h is subj ects

with a n intense a n d pa ss ion a te gra sp . Here

is no fi l tra tion of other men

s idea s , no

pouring of other mens though ts from phia l to

phi a l . I t w a s the confl ict between h is strong

a rtistic desires a n d the only existing mea ns of

rea l is ing them which for a t ime tormented a n d

pa ra lyzed him , a n d then perforce drove him to

4

cri t ic ism . He fel t h i s way through a maz e of

theoretica l specul a tion on the musica l sta ge,a n d

i ts elements,m im e tics , music a n d poetry, out of

which he ca me forth,after a protra cted and

l a borious sea rch,with h is s ight strengthened in

more wa ys tha n one,and his a rtistic powers

increa sed a hundredfold .

About the importa nce of a ccurate crit ica l

ins ight to a modern a rtist there ca n sca rcely

be two opin ions . I quote Cha rles B a udelai re,Tous les gra nds poetes deviennent n a turel le

ment fa ta l ement cri tiques . j e plains les poetes

que gu ide le seul instinct ; je les crois in com

ple ts ; il sera i t prodigieux qu

un cri t ique devint

poete , e t il est imposs ible qu

un poete n e con

tienne pa s un cri t ique . Mr. M a tthew Arnold ,too

,often prea ches on the sa me text . I n his

luminous essa y on Tfie Fzm ei iom of Criticis m

a t t/ze Pres ezzf Tim e he points out the immense

ma rk m a de by Goethe,not only upon Germa n

but upon Europea n thought, contra sts i t wi th the

compa ra tively tra celess a pp a ri tion of Byron on

the Engl ish horizon , a n d shows tha t Goethe ha s

such weight a s a poet,not beca use his productive

power w a s grea ter, but beca use h is cri tica l

exertions and those of h is contempora ries ga ve

him a stronger a n d surer, foo thold . Among

l iving men one could not find a better i l lustra tion

of th is tha n Wa gner. H is principa l theoretica l

books were publ ished between 1 849 a n d 1 85 2 ,when he was ba nished from Germa ny

,a n d ha d

no hope wh a tever of seeing one of his new

dramas embodied on the sta ge . They ra i sed a

p a per w a r, in comparison to wh ich the P a ris i a n

squ a bble in the last century between the

Gla e is ls and Pieeim'

s ts a ppears as one of frogs

and mice . I ngenious crit ics , kill ing two birds

with one stone, contra sted h i s theories with his

ea rlier opera s , pointed out plentiful co n tra dic

tions,and proved both to be the outcome of a

confused and extra va gant hea d . Some a sserted

th a t he w a s a mere e/za rla la n , who invented

theories as a cloa k to cover h is mus ica l impo

tence ; others tha t he w a s a musica l gen ius led

a stra y by meta phys ica l will 0 wisps ; a th ird

set,by fa r the nois ies t

,held h im up to publ i c

loa th ing a s a furious m a dman,who would tea r

down a ll existing art fa brics,a n d pl a nt himself o n

the ru ins a god of the future . I n one respect ,a n d in one only they were una nimous ; th a t a

stra i t-wa is tcoa t would benefi t h im grea tly.

S ince 1 8 70, when D er fliegei zcle H olla i zaer

w a s produced at D rury La ne,there ha ve been

with us many indica tions of a rea ction in Wa g

6

ners fa vour. Nevertheless , i t wou l d seem tha t

a s ye t we h a ve not quite got rid of the old

s tereotype cries here ch a rl a ta n , there genius

which h a ve so l ong embittered pa rty stri fe . Of

the two a ppel la t ives , neither is much to my

ta ste ; yet i f one must ta ke a side a n d the

questions in volved a re too importa nt for a n ya rt ist to rem a in neu tra l J unhesi ta tingly choose

the l a tter.

I would l imi t the designa tion gen ius to

that art isti c power which withdraws from the

tutorsh ip of existing institutions and reign ing

dogma s ; refuses to support crumbl ing and fall

i ng artist ic forms ; strikes out new paths for

i tself, a n d breathes new l ife into them . As

Walt Whitman ha s i t (Preface to Leaves of

The clea rest express ion is tha t wh ich

finds no sphere worthy of i tself,and ma kes

one .

I t appears excess ively superficial to judge

that we ha ve fathomed any special a rtisti c power

if we cal l i t gen ius , a n d i t i s absurd to suppose

that Nature throws the precious gift about a

fi za eere, so th a t i t often rea ches the wrong man .Tha t wh ich d istingu ishes an a rt i st i c tempera

ment i s in the first instance l i ttle beyond an

inborn read ines s and aptitude to rece ive and

retain impress ions . An i ii a rtis tie person,a

Pa ilis ti n e of any land or time , can be described

as one who meets a ll impress ions from without

with an inwa rd reserve , that helps h im to see

h is surround ings only in relation to h imself,and

never h imself in relation to these surround ings ;one w ho , in Mr. Arnold

s phrase,i s rea dy to

bel ieve that the donkey was invented so that he

might have asss milk for breakfast, and who , i n

cours e of development, attains the subl ime

height of being able to calculate the exa ct

number of s ixpences , and the exact amount of

admiration from brother P/z ilis li i i es,which h is

reserve is l ikely to bring. On the other ha nd,

an artisti c character will