“Wagner’s original conception constantly appears beneath the surface of the story, and has been meticulously spelled out by Paul Heise, who assumes that individual characters, objects and actions represent other, more general features of the human condition - motives, interests and processes which are of broadly cosmic or political significance. Sometimes this allegorical interpretation seems plausible, at other times less so. In a truly allegorical work of art the allegorical meaning is embodied in the primary action and characters. That is to say, it becomes part of what you respond to, in responding to the primary story. Thus both Heise and Nattiez tell us that, in the union of Siegfried and Brünnhilde, the first represents poetry and the second music. But do we hear things in that way? Are we responding to Siegfried as the voice of poetry, when he starts away from the sleeping Brünnhilde whose armour he has opened? Do we hear Brünnhilde’s declaration of love as the voice of music, as well as the voice of an individual woman awoken by her lover? It seems to me that this particular ‘allegory’ adds nothing to our experience of the drama, and is more like an academic curiosity, inspired, of course, by Wagner’s own theory of the art-work of the future, but for all that not much more than a theory that lies dormant alongside the work of art without becoming a part of it. A character can mean something other than himself only when the meaning enhances his presence in the drama and gives a richer content to his motivation.”[P. 187-188]
As I stated in my Prologue, had my allegorical reading of the Ring been self-evident, there’d be no need for my allegorical study. What I’ve disclosed is a level of meaning linked inextricably not only with a fresh reading of virtually all of the conceptual content of the Ring's libretto but especially with numerous otherwise often mysterious passages from the libretto which have formerly defied analysis, and also based on the most far-reaching cross-references contained in Wagner’s employment of his web of musical motifs of foreboding and reminiscence in relation to the libretto, of which audiences for the most part have remained unconscious since the Ring’s premiere in 1876, and which therefore had to be unearthed through careful research over a period of many years. Assuming I’ve discovered a level of meaning in Wagner’s Ring which is objectively part of it and isn’t merely being falsely imputed to it by me, and which presumably wasn’t only a key but forgotten source of his inspiration but also explains significant aspects of the plot and characterization, specific passages in the libretto, and numerous instances of Wagner’s employment of musical motifs to enhance his drama’s meaning, which had previously gone unremarked or defied understanding, the question Scruton poses is, to what extent is the audience’s aesthetic response to the Ring as described in my analysis either a conscious, conceptual response to this level of meaning, or at least an emotional response? Or does it even engage us at the emotional level? The answer to this last question is that it does engage us emotionally because it clearly engaged Wagner emotionally, being an original impetus to his artistic creation. Through his words and music Wagner’s subjective emotional response to his original sources of inspiration becomes our response, since the Ring we experience today in performance is at least an indirect or mediated transcript of his original sources of inspiration. A large proportion of Wagner’s libretto and music is bound up inextricably with the allegorical elements I’ve discovered there. Those otherwise mysterious or seemingly inexplicable musico-dramatic passages to which I've drawn attention when most other commentators haven't, are there for a reason, and become part of our aesthetic experience even if we don’t consciously contemplate their cause.
