Interviewer : Manfred Haedler | Walter Rosier
Mr. Kupfer, you have staged Wagner's works from Der fliegende Hollander to Parsifal. Where do you think Die Meistersinger fits into Wagner's oeuvre?
The great political and philosophical dimension, which the Ring opens up, is portrayed on a very individual level in Tristan. The destruction of people by people themselves takes shape in Tristan through lies, untruths, and social convention. By contrast, in the miraculous work of Die Meistersinger one finds these problems overcome. This is especially the case in the wonderful figure of Hans Sachs who is truly a democratic personality. After an intense internal struggle he comes to the realization that in order for people to live together successfully, reason and the renunciation which is associated with it are a vital necessity. In this sense, Die Meistersinger is the most utopian and optimistic of Wagner's works, where, in contrast to the pessimistic endings of all his other works, the possibility is shown of how people actually could live democratically with one another if they take responsibility by renouncing the idea that self-realization must be achieved at all costs.
It is common knowledge that in the past Die Meistersinger was often and repeatedly used and misused not only for purposes of specific representation, but also that performances especially before 1945 were laden with a markedly nationalistic accent. What is your position concerning the nationalistic element, and Sachs's formulation of "Was deutsch und echt" (what is German and true) in the final speech?
The possibility for misuse and falsification is contained throughout Wagner's oeuvre. The contradictions of the nineteenth century, all of which Wagner synthesizes and takes to the extreme, also render his work open for misuse. It is well known that the final speech, complete with its national overemphasis, is essentially Cosima's fault. Originally, Wagner did not want to write it quite like that. Immediately after the Nazi period, these words caused a shiver to run up our spine. But today we can also perceive them differently. What has now become of "German and true" and of German culture in general, given the shadow of Americanization, makes the work explosive in an entirely new way, without us having to read it nationalistically. As we struggle today for a united Europe, it is constantly stressed that the particularity of each nation should not be lost. Whenever I pass by a McDonalds, whenever I turn on the TV in the evenings and immediately switch it off because of a program that follows an American model, whenever I hear the disregard of the German language (why do we never say "Kinder" anymore, but instead "kids"?), Hans Sachs's words seem like music to my ears. We should not see them as being nationalistic, but rather as a wake-up call. One can also explain this in terms of the period when Die Meistersinger was conceived and written: an appeal to respect the best traditions that every nation possesses. In this case, one does not even need to overemphasize the word "deutsch" (German). Wagner never uses the word alone, but always supplements it with the term "echt" (true). This entails something positive, which goes to the heart of Die Meistersinger. The point here is the balance between good traditions and the development of new ones, while simultaneously rejecting bad traditions. Neither the anarchic-new, however inspired, nor the time-honored but sterile tradition have much of a future. Hans Sachs mediates between the two, and the solution to the problem lies only in the dialectic tension between them. This way of looking at it rules out the possibility of any nationalistic or even fascistic interpretation. We must finally stop apologizing for Die Meistersinger. I will mount every barricade to defend this work against the non-culture (Unkultur) which confronts us today.
Beside to the connection to Tristan do you also see one between Die Meistersinger and Tannhäuser? After all, the work was originally conceived by Wagner as a sort of satyr of the "Sangerkrieg auf dem Wartburg" (song contest on the Wartburg). Did something remain from this conception?
Well, most certainly both works have something to do with one another. Both are dramas about the artist. At the center of Tannhäuser stands the artist who finds himself torn between opportunism and anarchism. By contrast, Die Meistersinger offers a rational solution not found in Tannhäuser. Tannhäuser ends tragically with the death and canonization of the artist, who only in death becomes subject to misuse for the existing staid society. In Die Meistersinger, on the other hand, Hans Sachs educates a young genius who learns to understand that there are rules in art, rules that the artist must learn to master and that can be gleaned only from the great masters of the past, but without getting stuck in one's ways. It is surely Sachs's great achievement that, while he recognizes Stolzing's contravention of the rules, he understands that alternative paths are also possible. In addition, Sachs makes it clear to Stolzing that, if he wants to succeed in life, he must also behave according to rational principles in terms of mundane existence, in love, and in marriage.
How does Stolzing's future actually look?
Stolzing has the best teacher in the world, and I hope that he understands something of what he has learned. Most likely he will still break free, but at the same time he will find the middle way which leads to mastery if he still wants to create art.
Will he become a more significant Mastersinger than Hans Sachs?
I would say that he has already surpassed Hans Sachs in many respects. Sachs's great problem consists not only in the human renunciation of his love for Evchen, but he realizes in the Fliedermonolog that Stolzing towers over him: "Dem Vogel, der heut' sang, dem war der Schnabel hold gewachsen.... Es klang so alt, and war doch so neu, Wie Vogelgesang im sußen Mai!" (A lovely beak has grown on the bird who sang today.... It sounded so old yet was so new, like birdsong in sweet May!) It is here that Sachs bids farewell to the knowledge that he is the greatest. He comes to the realization that he is a mere artisan poet, and recognizes that Stolzing is a genius. It is a sign of his greatness that he does not let it tear him apart, like some rabid wolf, but instead helps the young man.
How old is Sachs?
Mid-forties, at most. He needs to be old enough for Eva to conceivably be his daughter, but young enough so that it is entirely possible for him to be a suitable partner for her; he is still in the full bloom of life and sexually potent, and there is a strong mutual attraction between them. But he notices the spontaneous connection between Eva and Stolzing. He could destroy it, but through tremendous self-restraint, he helps the young couple. One should think only of the end of the scene in the shoemaker's home (Act III, scene 4), when Sachs explodes on the verge of a nervous breakdown. For me, Sachs is a character who fights unflinchingly. One should just follow the sequence in Act I from the way he meets Stolzing, how he declares himself to Stolzing in the Song School (Singschule), how initially he, too, is consternated and astonished but nevertheless makes an effort to grasp the novelty which confronts him. For me, Sachs is a strong man who is in conflict with himself, but who finds the path to humanity.
One of the many clichés of "Meistersinger" interpretation is the idea that Beckmesser is a ridiculous character, or even that he is a caricature of a Jew, a "Jew in the brambles" ("Jude im Dorn") taken freely from Grimm's fairy tale.
One must not isolate Beckmesser from the rest of society. He is the town clerk and, as Wolfgang Wagner explained to me, is thus also the highest police authority. The whole point of the story is that it is he of all people who causes the nighttime scandal on the streets in Act II. It is also important to understand that he is a serious candidate to become Pogner's son-in-law, and that Pogner indeed favors him. Beckmesser is admittedly not wealthy, but enjoys prestige in the city. He is an intellectual, and is certainly a genuine authority when it comes to the rules of the Mastersinger-Tabulatur. But he is not creative and has no imagination. This person, who is not talented but who has taught himself the whole rule-business, finds himself in a situation which makes him go mad. What happens with the courtship song on the fair grounds (Festwiese) is frightening and borders on insanity. After all, those are images of death he comes up with - it is not only absurd, it is shocking. He is a petit bourgeois intellectual, pedantic, narrowminded, precise, but not stupid. He is by all means able to get Sachs unhinged in the Song School. Nevertheless, one should not ignore the fact that Wagner used this figure to get revenge on the Viennese critic Eduard Hanslick. In many places one almost cannot avoid degrading Beckmesser. Master Wagner also poured out all his venom on him in the composition.
In Act I, Pogner clearly favors Beckmesser as Evchen's suitor. In Act II, he seeks a conversation with Hans Sachs. Does he perhaps hope for Sachs to become his son-in-law?
No, the reason lies much deeper. Pogner is intellectually somewhat limited, but is rich and loves art. He has now come up with the most immoral idea in the world by offering his daughter Eva as the prize in a singing competition, to the greater glory or so he thinks of himself, Nürnberg, and art. But he has his doubts nevertheless: he says, "War's nicht vielleicht nur Eitelkeit?" (Was it perhaps not just vanity?). Step by step, Pogner falls apart and degenerates into total confusion. Sachs has a special role in this process. Still, Pogner at least agrees that Eva's vote should decide the issue. But she may take none other to be her husband; it must be a Mastersinger. Pogner now discovers that he has set a bomb which explodes in his hands. This is why he wants to talk to Sachs, but he shies away from it because they had had an argument about the whole matter in Act I, and Sachs had tried to make the immorality of his intentions clear to him.
How does Evchen behave in the face of her imposed subordination within the patriarchy? What should one think of a sentence like: "Ein artig Kind gefragt nur spricht!" (A well-behaved child only speaks when spoken to!)
This is pure hypocrisy. She is an unabashed hussy of course "hussy" is expressing it too negatively. She is a thoroughly healthy woman, full of vitality. The way she behaves towards Stolzing in the church "Euch oder keinen!" (You or no one at all!) -she literally flings herself at him and is prepared to break with every convention. She also does not really understand what the whole hullabaloo is with the Mastersingers. If a guy is good looking and attracts her sexually, and if she loves him, then he must surely be a Mastersinger. And then there is her relationship to Sachs! This snake of a woman! The way she lures him out of his hesitation, until she finds out what she wants to know: how her knight had made out at the song trial - this bears all the markings of infinite brazenness.
The historical Nurnberg and Wagner's rendition of it are not identical. What is the Nurnberg one sees in Wagner's Die Meistersinger?
It's something we find the world over. This conflict is after all not just a conflict about art, but also a social conflict, a conflict between young and old, between the generations, between inspiration and tradition. Nürnberg is wherever this conflict takes place. Such a conflict could be played out as much in small town America of today as in Munich or Berlin. Actually, this conflict is latently present always and everywhere.
Can the confrontation between Stolzing and the Mastersinger guild be simply reduced to the antagonism between avant-garde and convention? The rules of the guild are clearly derided by Wagner. Does Stolzing actually get off scot-free? Phrased differently, why does Sachs who after all reveals a thoroughly critical attitude to the formalism of the Tabulatur nevertheless conclude by singing the praises of German art and, with that, clearly also the praises of the art of his fellow guild members?
Stolzing's creations, especially in Act I, are thoroughly amateurish. He is talented, but if one examines the rhymes in his trial song "Fanget an!" (Let it begin!), one ascertains that, while inspired, it is also pubescent. Sachs makes wicked fun of him in his home when he says to Stolzing: "Eu'r Lied, das hat ihnen (nämlich den Meistern) bang gemacht; and das mit Recht" (Your song made them [meaning the Masters] anxious; and rightly so), because the song from front to back really makes no sense. Stolzing is the typical Storm and Stress daredevil, but as yet he is unable to accomplish anything. He must learn to control himself, to organize his thoughts and to bring them into proper form so that they are effective. Sachs continually points out to Stolzing that form and content must be in synch. Stolzing has yet to comprehend all of this. When people are accepted to an art academy, though they must have talent, they aren't immediately declared to be geniuses, rather they must learn something at the hands of a master. The danger in Act I is to make the Masters seem ridiculous and degrade them, which then makes Stolzing seem correct from the very beginning. On the contrary, one should show that his artistic claims may be well founded, but that it is equally justified for the Masters to contest him.
Aren't there also very personal interests involved in the case of Beckmesser?
Of course, he wants to eliminate his rival. But he is no falsifier, rather everything that he marks as a mistake is one that Stolzing clearly makes. Only Sachs thinks further ahead by realizing that while the song was not conceived according to the rules, it is perhaps necessary to reconsider the rules. Beckmesser is simply unable to grasp this step. He would still not be able to do so, even if there were no personal interests involved.
We must finally stop apologizing for Die Meistersinger !
Absolutely true. The Bayreuth Meistersinger staged by B- Kosky was an extremely sad adventure. After crying, I pondered all that was ridiculous. Yet another example of Katharina Wagner's goal to shock in a politically correct manner, yet without 'renewing' culture in any way shape or form (reference to this year's Ring, 2022) - renewing as Wagner himself calls for in, yes, his Die Meistersunger.