BENJAMIN BRITTEN – MYFANWY PIPER – DEATH IN VENICE – 1973 – LIBRETTO
If you just read the libretto
without considering the music, hence without listening to the music, you have a
very clear vision of this particular adaptation. It is in the text written if
not composed in that libretto particularly faithful to Thomas Mann. So the main
character, Gustav von Aschenbach is the eye through which we see, seize and
deem the situation, what is happening in Germany
first and then in Venice.
Aschenbach is thus telling us the story he is witnessing. It is always his
point of view that is expressed and what happens around him is seen through his
eyes. He remains on the side, on the shoulder of the road, distant and yet
close, physically distant and unable to enter the situation he is watching, and at the same time this
situation is entirely captured through Gustav von Aschenbach’s mind and consciousness
via long introspective and speculative monologues. Gustav von Aschenbach hardly
speaks to anyone apart from short questions, remarks or exclamations. No real
discussion.
The whole story is the story of a
rite of passage from Germany
to Venice, from the hotel to the city, from life
to death, from ancient Greece
to modern world, from reality to mind, from the real world to imagination. And
in fact this imagination is haunted by what he has done and achieved in his
life and what he is going to leave behind and to whom he is going to leave it,
hence his heritage.
He is haunted by Ancient Greece.
There are numerous direct references to Greek mythology: Apollo, Ganymede,
Hyacinth, Dionysus, Zephyr, and so many others. He is a classicist and as such
has devised a theory of beauty based on distance, hence the absence of
feelings, sentiments, passions, and yet this cult of beauty is a passion, even
for him since he states at the beginning: “now passion itself has left me.” He
has thus devised a passion for beauty that has lost or has been deprived of its
emotional and sentimental dimension, as he says only once and in passing though
not flippantly because his wife and his daughter are gone, meaning dead.
The Greek line calls upon Eros
first, then Apollo, Hyacinth, Zephyr, Ganymede, all having to do with the love
of a God Zeus or Apollo for a young man Ganymede or Hyacinth killed by
jealousy, from Hera or Zephyr, and turned into something eternal, the
constellation Aquarius, or eternally regenerating by its own means, the flower
hyacinth, by their respective gods that were loving them and were marginally
their lovers since the Greek could not think of love without physical
intercourse, even and maybe especially pedophile both gay (Socrates) and
heterosexual (Venus and Adonis). The parallel with Gustav von Aschenbach is the
attraction he feels for the young teenager Tadzio (at the most 15 since Thomas
Mann describes him has not having hairs in the armpits) who he would like to
endow with his own creativity to propel him into some celestial glory.
This becomes clear when he evokes
Socrates and Phaedrus when Socrates is going to drink the hemlock he has been
sentenced to. It shows the older man does not want any physical intercourse
with the younger man, but some mental exchange, communion, transfer so that
Phaedrus can continue Socrates’ tradition, and he sure did but via Plato and
his Phaedo and other dialogue or Phaedrus the play. Actually Gustav von
Aschenbach is a writer in this adaptation like in the original and as such is
writing, and in a way reading for us what he is writing, which is a description
of and comment on what he witnesses and desires.
His dilemma is that his lifelong
construction is coming to a point and a situation where and when it seems to be
crumbling if not collapsing. His construction was a reduction of Eros to a
mental shift from thought to reality along the following line: thought –
feeling – mind – beauty – nature – ecstatic moment – genius – contemplation –
reality, all coming true in the word meaning the use of words, but also a
direct reference to God’s creative word, since he himself is a literary creator.
This comes to grips with Tadzio and his real name Gustav von Aschenbach assumes
to be Thaddeus which is mysterious as for its meaning. We can think that
/thad-/ is one root and /-deus/ is another. The second is a nominative Latin noun
referring to god and the first one seems to be connected to various roots in
various languages boiling down to the verb praise, which would make the name to
mean “praised by God, praised of God, God praising or God praised, always with
the direct connection of God to the boy, God being the one who is praising, in
this case the boy. You perfectly see the parallel with Ganymede and Hyacinth
who were “loved” hence “praised” by their Gods Zeus and Apollo.
Gustav von Aschenbach is in the
same way haunted by death, Socrates’ death, death lurking in Venice in the form of cholera, his own death
he feels creeping up into him. He is dying, he will soon die, he actually dies
on stage. If we might see some erotic dimension in the reference to Eros, we
have to clearly understand that Gustav von Aschenbach blocked all occasions and
all moments of desire he actually came to and never established communication
or contact with the boy or with his mother. At best some eyes that locked onto some
other eyes and that is probably a phantasm in Gustav von Aschenbach’s mind. He
probably misunderstood the child’s curiosity or vague interest or even concern for
that old man on the beach writing in his book. The smile of a child that age
does not mean anything erotic, just plainly surprise, interest, curiosity or
whatever along that line. When Gustav von Aschenbach finally comes to the
conclusion that he loves him at the end of the first act, it is not what some
would like to understand:
“Ah! Don’t smile like that!
No one should be smiled at like
that.
(realizing the truth at last)
I – love you.”
That truth is love not the desire
for any physical intercourse. At least not the one some may think of who cannot
see love is not hormonal but first of all mental, and at that level the
attraction is for what is identical, similar to you, with whom you can share an
existential vista in life and achieve some similar goal: here the similar goal
is beauty: the ideal mental beauty Gustav von Aschenbach has created and
devised in his writing career and the beauty this boy embodies in real flesh,
but a beauty that remains a mental set of proportions and forms. At the
beginning of the second act he will come back to this phrase and will discard
it:
“. . . the hackneyed words ‘I love
you’. . . This ‘I love you’ must be accepted; ridiculous and sacred too and no,
not dishonorable, even in these circumstances.”
Ridiculous for an old man to love
a boy of course: what does he expect from that improbable meeting? But sacred
too since the old writer loves his ideal of beauty realized in the proportions
and forms of this boy, hence some divine connection between an ideal and a
reality. And in no way dishonorable since it has nothing to do with voluptuous
pleasures that would ne pedophile and thus despicable. And then he goes to the
barber’s shop for the first time where he is not going to have himself made up
for the boy, like an old teasing boy-tempting gigolo, but in fact he is going
through some symbolical embalming. He is preparing himself not for the meeting
with the boy that will never happen but for the meeting with death that is
bound to come, that is coming, that is already here.
And yet he comes to a very
selfish and self-centered position when he finally knows some epidemic is going
around in Venice
and express his resolution about the Polish family, hence Tadzio:
“They must receive no hint.
They must not be told.
They must not leave.”
And that’s the fundamental point.
The boy has to stay because he has a part to play in the old man’s death and
that part is clear at the end, the very end. He is the psychopomp, in Greek mythology a guide of souls to
the place of the dead, of Gustav von Aschenbach. He is the one who takes
him from the world of the living to the world of the dead. He is the one who is
making him cross the Styx to deliver him in Hadesn
he is Dante’s guide to hell, Virgil. He is the one who can best bring Gustav
von Aschenbach’s life to its end and introduce him to his posterity. He is the
best relay to that posterity. And yet it is vain in Gustav von Aschenbach’s
mind because he has transmitted nothing to the boy, he has not even spoken one
word to him. But he thinks; the boy is more or less following his intentions,
sentiments, postures, etc., as if there were some mental extra-sensorial
communication. But that is an illusion and we can consider it as pure nostalgia
of an old man for the time when he was a boy the age of Tadzio.
This adaptation is a long song
and cult to death seen as a closure and as a loss, but we have to wonder if the
bigger loss is on the side of the dying or on the side of the living. The tale
here tries to imply the loss is on both sides though it can only be mental,
abstract, and yet the younger survivor is taking along into his own life the
feeling and maybe emotion he felt when he locked his eyes onto Gustav von
Aschenbach’s eyes and smiled. He will forever remember that moment of flippant
emotion.
When you have read the libretto
like that, you can then wonder what Britten is going to do with it and the
music he is going to add to every single word, particularly when one actor is
going to be constantly present along with Gustav von Aschenbach because he is
The traveler who announces at the beginning there is going to be a passage from
here to there; the Elderly Fog who is passing from Trieste to Venice on the
boat and who is passing with a band of young boys going to Venice to meet the
girls; the Old Gondolier who will pass him from the harbor to the Lido against
his will and disappear before he could pay for the ride; the Hotel Manager who
is passing him from the entrance to his room and from his room to the beach
through his window he opens, and from the hotel to the outside world on
departure day; the Leader of the Players who is passing everyone from their
rich surrounding to his sorry and squalid songs from the bleak world outside;
the Hotel Barber who will embalm him in the second act into a fake renewed
person or perambulating body at the most, passing him from the old living
person he was, maybe still is, to a younger looking vain already dead
perambulating corpse; and finally Dionysus, the son of Zeus and Semele who was
killed by Hera, Zeus’ wife, and yet Zeus managed to save the young embryo of
Dionysus by embedding him in his thigh to incubate till birth them parted.
This Dionysus appears to Gustav
von Aschenbach in his dream as the opponent and contender of Apollo. Against
Apollo’s trinity of “beauty, reason, form” that founds Gustav von Aschenbach’s
belief in non-erotic and de-carnalized beauty based on mental reason and abstract
form, Dionysus defends a more sensitive, emotional, passionate, sense-based
life:
“Receive the stranger god. . .”
“Do not turn away from life. . .
“
“Do not refuse the mysteries. . .
“
“He who denies the god, denies
his nature. . . “
“Come! Beat on the drums. . . “
“Stumble in the reeling dance. .
. “
“Goad the beasts with garlanded
staves,
Seize their horns,
Ride into the throng.
Behold the sacrifice. . . “
“Taste it, taste the sacrifice.
Join the worshippers;
Embrace, laugh, cry;
To honor the god.
I am he!”
This Dionysus in Gustave von
Aschenbach’s dream defeats Apollo and yet the dreamer when he wakes up is not
able to enter the dance of love, of pleasure, of bliss, of physical enjoyment.
He will remain with Apollo and his de-carnalized conception of love as beauty
and not orgasm. Gustav von Aschenbach did not have a wet dream in his sleep in spite
of Dionysus. In fact he never got his feet wet because he never went to the sea
and he only crossed water pieces of any size with a ship, a gondola or a
bridge, never feet first in the water.
We can regret this character’s
impotence or frigidity but he is not in anyway trying to seduce the boy, which
would make him a pedophile; not trying to make the boy seduce him since he
never encouraged any contact by being unable to establish even the beginning of
such contact.
He is a writer who is conscious
at the end of his life, that he leaves behind no one and maybe nothing that
could perpetuate his creativity. Thomas Mann like Benjamin Britten left this
world with no one to continue their work. At best their works have been
collected and are still published or performed but in no way continued though
we could say many writers and composers owes something, maybe a lot, to Thomas Mann or Benjamin Britten. So
after all it is for Mann and Britten some sad nostalgia for youth at the time
when they bare passing to the other side with the help of a psychopomp vision
of a young teenager who looks beautiful to them in their old age.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 1:40 PM