But he felt his vocation. Listen to what he says of those early days.
“Whilst I was finishing my great Tragedy I for the first time became
acquainted with Beethoven’s music at the concerts of the Gewandhaus at
Leipzig; its impression upon me was all-powerful; with Mozart, too, I
made friends, especially through his _Requiem_. Beethoven’s incidental
music for _Egmont_ inspired me so that for nothing in the world would I
let my finished Tragedy leave the stocks until it should be furnished
with similar music. Without a moment’s hesitation I felt confident that
I could myself write this all-important music, but still thought well
first to furnish myself with a few chief rules of thorough-bass. In order
to achieve this as far as possible, I obtained a week’s loan of Logier’s
‘Methode des General-basses,’ and worked at it zealously. But the study
did not bear fruit so quickly as I had thought. Its difficulties charmed
and riveted me; I determined to become a musician.” And this, remember,
was a boy of sixteen. Icarus himself, harnessing the horses of the Sun,
was not more audacious. But Wagner was not to share the fate of Icarus.
I remember how once when a lady consulted Lord Leighton about her boy,
who showed a great talent for painting, his answer was: “Let him have the
education of a gentleman in the first place, then, if he should still
have an inclination for art, let him specialize.” The story of Wagner
shows the wisdom of those words. His biographer tells us how greatly
Wagner profited by his classical education, and he points out what an
untold advantage this gave him over the other great musical writers, such
as Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck. Had Mozart, for instance, as he suggests,
been kept at school instead of being trotted out as an infant phenomenon
at Courts and in the palaces of great nobles, would he have allied the
genius of his music to such piteous libretti as those with which he had
to be satisfied? Is it not possible that in him, as in Wagner, the poet
might have been united with the composer?
In Wagner, as we have seen, the poet came first, then the musician: the
education of the gentleman was the dominant influence. During his school
and college life he showed such a predilection for language that his
masters thought that he would become a great philological professor. They
missed the point that it was language in the singular, not in the plural,
that fascinated him: he had not the gift of tongues, nor did he take any
special interest in comparative philology, but the power of expression,
the poet’s power, inspired his music, in the same way that his music
gave birth to his poetry. The two wedded made him unique. Without his
classical education, which opened out to him Homer, Æschylus, Sophocles,
and drove him to learn English in order that he might enjoy Shakespeare
untranslated, the two could never have grown to the noble stature which
they assumed; possibly they might never have been born.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account