/lit/ - Literature

no internet

>>17487535
Talent mogs all

>>17487535
Wagner has one of the best understandings of Shakespeare.

>To the French, as representatives of modern civilisation, Shakespeare, considered seriously, to this day is a monstrosity; and even to the Germans he has remained a subject of constantly renewed investigation, with so little [142] positive result that the most conflicting views and statements are forever cropping up again. Thus has this most bewildering of dramatists—already set down by some as an utterly irresponsible and untamed genius, without one trace of artistic culture—quite recently been credited again with the most systematic tendence of the didactic poet. Goethe, after introducing him in "Wilhelm Meister" as an "admirable writer," kept returning to the problem with increasing caution, and finally decided that here the higher tendence was to be sought, not in the poet, but in the embodied characters he brought before us in immediate action. Yet the closer these figures were inspected, the greater riddle became the artist's method: though the main plan of a piece was easy to perceive, and it was impossible to mistake the consequent development of its plot, for the most part pre-existing in the source selected, yet the marvellous "accidentiæ" in its working out, as also in the bearing of its dramatis personae, were inexplicable on any hypothesis of deliberate artistic scheming. Here we found such drastic individuality, that it often seemed like unaccountable caprice, whose sense we never really fathomed till we closed the book and saw the living drama move before our eyes; then stood before us life's own image, mirrored with resistless truth to nature, and filled us with the lofty terror of a ghostly vision.

>What little we know of his life makes answer with outspoken naïvety: he was a play-actor and manager, who wrote for himself and his troop these pieces that in after days amazed and poignantly perplexed our greatest poets; pieces that for the most part would not so much as have come down to us, had the unpretending prompt-books of the Globe Theatre not been rescued from oblivion in the nick of time by the printing-press. Lope de Vega, scarcely less a wonder, wrote his pieces from one day to the next in immediate contact with his actors and the [143] stage; beside Corneille and Racine, the poets of façon, there stands the actor Molière, in whom alone production was alive; and midst his tragedy sublime stood Æschylus, the leader of its chorus.—Not to the Poet, but to the Dramatist must we look, for light upon the Drama's nature; and he stands no nearer to the poet proper than to the mime himself, from whose heart of hearts he must issue if as poet he means to "hold the mirror up to Nature."

CONT

>>17487588
>Thus undoubtedly the essence of Dramatic art, as against the Poet's method, at first seems totally irrational; it is not to be seized, without a complete reversal of the beholder's nature. In what this reversal must consist, however, should not be hard to indicate if we recall the natural process in the beginnings of all Art, as plainly shewn to us in improvisation. The poet, mapping out a plan of action for the improvising mime, would stand in much the same relation to him as the author of an operatic text to the musician; his work can claim as yet no atom of artistic value; but this it will gain in the very fullest measure if the poet makes the improvising spirit of the mime his own, and develops his plan entirely in character with that improvisation, so that the mime now enters with all his individuality into the poet's higher reason. This involves, to be sure, a complete transformation of the poetic artwork itself, of which we might form an idea if we imagined the impromptu of some great musician noted down. We have it on the authority of competent witnesses, that nothing could compare with the effect produced by Beethoven when he improvised at length upon the pianoforte to his friends; nor, even in view of the master's greatest works, need we deem excessive the lament that precisely these inventions were not fixed in writing, if we reflect that far inferior musicians, whose penwork was always stiff and stilted, have quite amazed us in their 'free fantasias' by a wholly unsuspected and often very fertile talent for invention.—At anyrate we believe we shall really expedite the solution of an extremely difficult problem, if we define the Shakespearian Drama as [144] a fixed mimetic improvisation of the highest poetic worth. For this explains at once each wondrous accidental in the bearing and discourse of characters alive to but one purpose, to be at this moment all that they are meant to seem to us to be, and to whom accordingly no word can come that lies outside this conjured nature; so that it would be positively laughable to us, upon closer consideration, if one of these figures were suddenly to pose as poet. This last is silent, and remains for us a riddle, such as Shakespeare. But his work is the only veritable Drama; and what that implies, as work of Art, is shewn by our rating its author the profoundest poet of all time.—

END.

>>17487572
This.

>>17487535
the GOAT

>>17487588
>>17487592
Brilliant. Thanks for sharing this

>>17488302
Welcome anon, if you'd like to read more of it here's the lecture:

http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagdest.htm

>>17487588
>>17487592
>>17488302
I don’t get it

>>17489475
What don't you get about it, anon?

>>17489730
What’s a ‘fixed mimetic improvisation‘ and how does it explain Shakespeare’s characters?

>>17489753
Bruh just reread it. It's all there.

>>17487535
>wrote about 40 plays in under 30 years, most of them masterpieces

1. ONLY APPROXIMATELY SEVENTEEN OF THEM ARE CERTAINLY AUTHORED BY HIM.

2. THEY ARE MEDIOCRE, NOT «MASTERPIECES».


>collaborated on many others
>also poetry

AND?


>extremely well read

«EXTREMELY»?


>and was an actor

MORE LIKE A RECITER IN COSTUME.


>would have rehearsed in the morning, performed in the day, and wrote late into the night by candlelight

AND?


>also involved in the business and running of his company
>and also had his side businesses

SURELY HE DID NOT ADMINISTER HIS ENTERPRISES ALONE.

By being a genius. His IQ was probably in the 200s.

>>17490524
You don't understand it, do you?

>>17487567
this but unironically

>>17490893
>>MORE LIKE A RECITER IN COSTUME.
ok dummy

>>17490893
This is the worst tripfag of them all, even (somehow) worse than butterfly.

>>17490893
Plus all the privilege