No 4 -- March 1976 Edited by Michael Walters
THE MAGIC OF "THE SORCERER"
[Copies of a draft of this article were sent some considerable time ago to Derrick McClure, Selwyn Tillett and John Wolfson. Their comments, though interesting, were not, I considered, sufficient for me to alter the text to any great extent before printing it. I would be interested in readers' comments.]
The various literary and operatic sources from which the plot of The Sorcerer derives are too well known to require stressing (e.g. L'Elisir d’Amore, Midsummer Night's Dream, Der Freischutz) I am not aware, however, that the element of magic, pseudo-religion and middle-eastern philosophy has ever been properly explored. It seems fairly obvious that the use of the name Ahrimanes for the Devil was primarily to avoid the taboo on the use of the name (it may have been illegal at that time to portray him on stage, I am not sure). But why did Gilbert select that name (which cannot have been all that well known) in preference to Hades or even Old Nick? Ahriman (or Ahrimanes, as Gilbert chooses to call him) is the evil being of Zoroastrianism, the necessary negative part of the dual principle which teaches that good and evil are inseparable, since it is only by recognising the existence of evil that good can be recognised as good. If there were no evil, all things would be the same and the term "Good" would have no meaning. The Chinese philosopher Lao-tse expressed the same idea as to the inseparability of opposing qualities. The story of the alternating Gods of good and evil can also be found in the Egyptian myth of Osiris and Set, and in the Greek Myth of Persephone and Dis etc., and presumably all began with the necessary alternation of the seasons. Zoroaster, however, carried the myth one stage further and suggested that, far from only tolerating evil, it should in fact be actively embraced, and that thereby good would come of it - a similar idea, in fact, to the fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast. Admirable though this theory may be, it is potentially dangerous for in it are the beginnings of the elements of demon-worship and black magic, the exploiting of evil, not necessarily for good ends.
It is interesting that both these elements are present in the plot of The Sorcerer. Alexis embraces evil (i.e., the love philtre) for the purposes of achieving a good end - and the philtre, though apparently its effects are initially evil, has in the end a good effect. Wells is the Sorcerer who has attempted to exploit evil and magic for evil (i.e., commercial) ends (was this Gilbert's comment on the evil of the money-digging habits of the Victorians?), and he is punished, whereas Alexis survives. In the present version of the opera the means of Alexis's delivery from the powers of darkness seems a trifle vague, and almost co-incidental, but an earlier unperformed version contains a scene, which Gilbert was obliged to cut, which made it only too clear that Alexis's escape by however means it was achieved, was no accident and must have been dictated by his guardian angel. In this deleted scene, which was placed in the middle of Act 2, Wells conjures up Ahriman* himself, who sternly tells the repentant and frightened Wells that his time is running out and soon he must deliver either Alexis or himself into the everlasting fire in return for the lifting of the spell. In this context Wells's closing dialogue and recit. immediately have very much more point and seem much less casual and inconsequential than they first appear. The question that immediately springs to mind is why the scene was cut. The undertones of Faust are obvious, though Gilbert did write a version of that story as Gretchen. The elements of devil-worship in the plot of the opera which new appear quite mild and of little more importance than the demon-king in pantomime, would be heavily underlined by the addition of this scene, and might have made the true meaning of the Sorcerer plot as a veiled comment on magic and the occult have seemed too blatantly obvious. There had been a revival of interest in this school of thought in the nineteenth century, and Gilbert may possibly have known something about it, but if so, and how much, is something we shall probably never be able to ascertain. MICHAEL WALTERS
[*It is clear from Gilbert's correspondence (q.v. Reginald Allen’s "First Night G & S") that Mrs Howard Paul was intended to portray Ahriman(es). Since it is immediately after Lady Sangazure's "family vault" duet with Wells, this would have necessitated a very quick change for the poor lady, which could be another reason for the cutting of the scene. It may also explain the "es" on Ahriman's name, which, so far as I know occurs nowhere but in Gilbert, in other words it is simply a feminine ending. Was Gilbert of the opinion that the tempter is a woman?].
Web page created 16 February 1999