I would have to say that Peter Konwitschny's ideas and productions, or what I know and have seen of them, seem to consist of pretentious posturing which has more to do with PK projecting his own ego than either Wagner's conceptions or any coherent politics. Nor would I care to attend any production of Wagner by Jonathan Miller. Nor, though, do I agree that what "the Left" object to in Wagner is his "concept of heroism". As Ollie says, is there even one character in any of Wagner's works who is straightforwardly "heroic"? I'd go further than that to say that the characters as such interest me only in terms of being "emanations" of something more elemental, a kind of musical/poetic evolution (in the sense of "unfolding") of which the characters form a surface level. This is the most progressive and for me engaging aspect, in both musical and political terms, of Wagner's work I think.

What "the Left" object to is the way that Wagner's music and ideas seem to have much in common with (specifically) Adolf Hitler's political vision (it's well documented that he was the only real Wagner enthusiast among the upper echelons of the party), and this is of course a complex issue which has been argued over voluminously for decades and which will continue to be argued over for many more. Nobody apart from a small hysterical minority blames Wagner for "the gas chambers and the Anschluss". Personally, as a socialist, I feel that these matters need to be acknowledged and as far as possible understood, but at the same time that if they are allowed to poison one's mind irrationally against the possibility of appreciating what is beautiful, profound and inspiring about Wagner's work, in a sense the Nazis have won Wagner for themselves and their ugly purposes.

Returning to Parsifal, though, I'm very grateful for this thread and I certainly intend to immerse myself in the work as soon as possible (a but late for tonight I think).

Add some scare quotes around 'wisdom', and I think one has a reasonable collection of attributes of misogyny there.

I'd agree with much of what Ian says - moreover, Wagner's political beliefs, such as they were, were incoherent and often bore the imprint of the latest intellectual fashion.  But turn to the works themsevles, and I think the position is, as ever, more complex and ambiguous than that - it seems to me that in both the Ring and Parsifal, Wagner quite explicitly rejects the return to nature; things have to move on (yes, the Rhinemaidens get their gold back, but the music tells us that everything has changed - no comforting, womb-like E flat arpeggios here).  That Wagner's work was appropriated by the blood and soil crowd suggests to me that they had fundamentally misunderstood what was going on here. 

The libretto with my CDs says in the final stage direction:

"Kundry slowly sinks lifeless to the ground in front of Parsifal, her eyes uplifted to him."

as far as my German can make out the adverb lifeless is not in the original:

"Kundry sinkt, mit dem Blicke zu ihm auf, langsam vor Parsifal entseelt zu Boden."

I would be grateful for elucidation by any teutophone.  It make a difference.

Listening to it again yesterday I was struck how rapid the final action is by Wagnerian standards.  Parsifal enters, heals Amfortas, and goes up to the Grail, curtain.  What happens to Kundry does not appear to be clear.

Thank, ollie.  So the only good woman is a dead woman.  I was afraid so.  Mind you Isolde, Brunnhilde and Senta all die on the final curtain, but in a rather more active manner.


Thank you for all your comments.  Despite the plethora of Christian imagery, there is something off-beam about the religious stuff in the work.   It is certainly not "about God" as Ian suggested.  I liked pw's theory, but for me the most compelling music is the first Grail scene.

What is the significance of the spear?  It does not figure in mainline Christian devotion.  Is it a replacement for the cross, as it would be inappropriate to talk about that?  OK, so its a phallic symbol, but how is it working?

What is the significance of the final scene taking place on Good Friday, the one day in the year in catholic tradition when the mass cannot be celebrated?

I think you might be missing the woods for the trees, Don B.

As for the perceived 'mysogeny' - why do I get the feeling that some people are intent upon finding what they're looking for?

Sorry to be dense.  Perhaps my piety prevents me acknowledging something obvious to you lot.

sk - as for the alleged misogyny  - really it is for a woman to say if she is offended or uncomfortable with it, not a load of men.  But I wouldn't be surprised.

Male chastity is not necessarily misogynistic, I would have thought.  I can well imagine many women being only too glad if straight men knew when to shut up.

Kundry is set (reluctantly) to seduce Parsifal, and once he resists her, she seems to be totally turned on by him, gazing up adoringly as she sinks lifeless to the ground.  How does that differ from Isolde?

(Only just seen Richard's comments.)