TWO PATHS IN THE SEARCH FOR LOVE

Richard Wagner and Hector Berlioz, two giants of 19th century romanticism have each composed a superb tribute to LOVE, Wagner’s opera Tristan and Isolde and Berlioz’s Dramatic Symphony Romeo and Juliette. Wagner’s opus is based on a myth from the pagan past whilst Berlioz’s symphony has it’s inspiration in Shakespeare’s famous drama. The choice of text indicate differences of attitude and understanding which had been filtered through the personal experiences of each man’s private life.

But before commenting on the respective compositions it would help to define the meaning of this generic word which to a certain extent defies an exact definition.

In English and in many other languages LOVE is synonymous with other words which indicate shades or  degrees of intense feeling , or are substitutes for the generic word. So we have LOVE referring to desire, feeling,affection,sympathy,liking, LOVE directed to members of the opposite sex, babies, children,mother, father, maternity, paternity,country,art, craft, occupation,nature,food, sport etc.etc.We MAKE LOVE, we FEEL LOVE, we do something WITH LOVE.And then there is TOUGH LOVE or TENDER LOVE .It is easy to get confused as to the exact meaning of the word which is probably just as well seeing that our  emotional responses can vary ,according to age,situation,culture,disposition and gender.

The concept of romantic love, free choice as opposed to regulation by family or society, has been around for a very long time. It is on a par with the issue of free will and determinism, one of those chicken or egg questions which tend to be two sides of the one coin, connected but different. As the Nobel Prize winner for literature , Isaac Bachevis Singer said,” Of course I believe in free will,I have no choice.”

In the Bible ( incorrectly known as the OLD Testament ) there is a description of the marriage of Isaac to Rebecca. Here is the quote.” He married her, she became his wife, he loved her.” Note the sequence. He married her- the legal union , she became his wife- the physical union, he loved her- the emotional union. The exercise of free choice had  not been an issue . That was the  conservative ideal but of course the sequence has often been turned on it’s head or parts of it ignored.

In the Broadway hit musical “ Fiddler on the Roof” there is an exchange between TEVYE- the quintessentially traditional Jewish husband and father, and his wife GOLDA.

He asks her “Do you love me?”To a modern audience this sounds banal. ( The  musical was served up with dollops of sentimentality .In the book on which the musical is based this exchange does not take place .) The situation which makes TEVYE ask the question is as follows. One of his daughters wants to marry a young man of her own choosing- not the man her parents have chosen for her.The father confronts the daughter and when questioned by him she says “I love him”. He neither understands nor approves but before putting his foot down and asserting his authority( which he sees also as his parental obligation) and not wanting to alienate the daughter he loves , he asks his wife”Do YOU love ME ?” She looks at him as if he has gone mad.What is this foolish talk of love ?Theirs had been an arranged marriage at an early age. Here they were in middle age, have had several children,  leading a hardscrabble life. They had lived together , caring for each other without complaint . Wasn’t  that sufficient proof of the solidity of their marriage , much more durable than a relationship based on the amorphous and airy fairy concept of romantic love? She concedes that maybe there was love involved but was that SO important ?

But together with these two examples of the traditional we have this Biblical era quote from “The Song of Songs”.

“ Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm, for love is as strong as death, as unyielding as the grave. “

So strongly romantic , in words a Shelley or a Byron would have been proud to have been written . Notice the reference to death which is  not to be understood in the same  way Wagner thought about it in the “Liebestodt” from  Tristan and Isolde.

Here are some lines from “To his coy mistress” a superb poem by Andrew Marvell, 17th century English poet.

“ The grave is a fine and private place but I think none do there embrace.”

Sort of naughtily witty but  realistically down to Earth. I doubt that Wagner ever read it and even if he had done so he would have dismissed it as totally incompatible with his ideology. His  big idea – on which the plot of  Tristan and Isolde is based,  is that the World’s ills can be cured through Great Love- universal and unconditional. However, Wagner reserved this love for select groups and people and as there was only so much of it to distribute , Jews, the French , and the many competitors he hated had  to be excluded  .    It is generally accepted that money and love make the World go round but according to Wagner there was too much emphasis on the money and not enough on the love. It was Wagner’s self appointed mission to be a cultural and societal revolutionary , and to support his  efforts in this direction he needed lots of- you guessed it-  MONEY. He had expensive tastes and often had to flee a city  leaving behind him some  furious creditors .Wagner  respected other people’s money  as long as it was understood that the money donated was a gift and  he had no intention of ever paying it back .He would also on occasion “borrow”his beneficiary’s wife .He  believed all this was

within his rights.Art and the artist were above politics or morality- an attitude which is still with us today.

In the 16th,17th and 18th centuries competent musicians could expect to be on the payroll of the Church, Court or  Aristocracy. They had security , a place in society , but little freedom. In  the 19th century that all changed. The creative artist had freedom but at the cost of having to scrape a living as best as he/she could. No  longer being a valued  member of society, the creative artist felt that his/her efforts were not appreciated. What was the point of having something to say if no-one was listening .Could this have been the root 

cause, psychologically speaking, of a highly gifted composer such as Wagner thumbing his nose at society and living by his own rules in an as  outrageous a manner as possible, seeing himself as a prophet coming to tell the world  a truth so great , that like the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century, nothing was to be allowed to stand in the way of it’s realisation. Indeed he saw himself as writing the “ music of the future”, the artistic path to be followed as if were a new religion or a totalitarian creed.

The “Liebestodt” from the opera Tristan and Isolde is a masterpiece, an overwhelming depiction of  sexual desire, almost x rated. But it is also a piece of  propaganda for a totally unrealistic and dangerous view of love- of a love complete,  a love which excludes society, children, age,change,a love which cannot exist in this world. And what is perhaps even more unrealistic: this extraordinary love is NOT the product of the attraction of two personalities but the result of them having drunk a LOVE POTION. Is Wagner saying that love is  a drug ?Is this story more a meeting of mindless bodies than the union of heart and personality?

In the Andrew Marvell poem previously quoted  there is another verse which totally contradicts the mentality which is part of Wagner’s obsession. Here it is.

“ But at my back I always hear time’s chariot hurrying near

   And yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternity.”

What then have been the results of Wagner’s “ music of the future.” This volcanic maelstrom of sensuality has given birth to- not another Liebestodt- a Lovedeath , but it’s opposite- the death of love. His musical language ,  brilliant in it’s depiction of the  subject has given birth – 50 years later , to ATONALITY- a system ideally suited to the tortured romanticism of the 2nd Viennese school, beloved of the Avantgarde – hated by everyone else.

There is no doubt that the Liebestodt is  musically intoxicating but is it nourishing? This  adulterous sex obsessed pair of druggies had no children but had engendered some degenerate artistic “children”. Death becomes the solution to an impossible situation. Wagner’s glorious music has seduced us into believing an irrational and somewhat decadent story of a hopeless, sterile love which could only exist in his imagination.

Let  us now see how Berlioz treats the love of two  adolescents in his Dramatic Symphony Romeo and Juliette. The story of Shakespeare’s play represented for him an  ideal of love  which had escaped him in life . Arturo Toscanini said that the Love Scene from this Symphony was the loveliest music in the World.

Hyperbole- perhaps! But I myself remember being ravished and enchanted when I heard this music for the first time . It is not as well known as Tristan and in the 30 years that I was in the MSO I can’t recall it having been performed more than once. It is a world away from Wagner’s frenzied eroticism . In “Romeo” what we hear is the idealistic ardour of young love . In Tristan we can’t be sure of what exactly attracted the two lovers.  Was it simply that they had been drugged and didn’t know what they were doing ? In “Romeo” it is quite clear that these two youngsters like each other as much as they love each other. Their personalities are clearly defined whereas in Tristan all we know about the lovers  as people is that Tristan is a knight and Isolde is betrothed to King Mark. That the Romeo story ends tragically is not the fault of the young  lovers. They have not chosen death as the sublimation of an insatiable desire but are trapped in the murderous feud of their families. Had it not been for that they could have lived out their lives in love and happiness, have had children etc.etc. A life without trauma or emotional baggage , unremarkable but satisfying.

Wagner had heard Berlioz’s Symphony 20 years before he composed Tristan and had been impressed . He  sent Berlioz a congratulatory letter in which he expressed his admiration and even paid him the compliment of copying ( stealing ) some phrases from the “Romeo alone” scene of the Symphony for use in the “Liebestodt” of his opera.

 Berlioz had responded to seeing the Shakespearean play by marrying the actress playing Juliette. Such a mad irrational

 reaction ,imagination and idealism overriding reality, so typical of Romanticism in general. After two unhappy marriages and the death of his son , Berlioz seeks out “Estelle” ,who had been the object of his infatuation when he was a youth  living with his parents.  He goes to see her. She is by now an elderly widow , a grandmother, and she politely tells her ardent suitor that they can be no more than friends. He continues to write to her and even leaves her some money in his will. All his life he had looked for the great tender love which lived in his imagination . Berlioz considered the “ Love Scene” from Romeo his finest creation. I think it corresponded to what he felt in his soul and it exquisitely depicts his identification with what he imagined the young lovers must have been feeling . He had kept that feeling in his heart and it inspired one of his  greatest creations.

And perhaps it is here that we can surmise why the Berlioz is not as well known as the Wagner. Middle aged audiences are confronted with a memory of their youth- from a time when they were young and when the blood, the brain and the heart ran hot. Hearing  the Wagner they perhaps react with a spasm of wishful thinking- after all Tristan and Isolde are closer to them in age than are Romeo and Juliette . How can one relive  those young feelings and emotions which inevitably weaken with age. It is also a problem for the performers.Having listened to many performances  of the Berlioz  I have rarely heard it performed with the delicacy and ardour it needs.

Wagner and Berlioz have given us the two sides of the emotional coin- heart and brain- body and soul- the dream and the reality.We don’t have to choose but maybe the choice is made for us whether we like it or not.