Classical Music Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hitler and Wagner

64K views 513 replies 51 participants last post by  mmsbls 
#1 · (Edited)
I found this film fascinating. I don't know whether anyone has posted it before but here it is.
This German documentary by Michael Kloft was originally broadcast in 2002. It explores the complex relationship between National Socialism and the work of Richard Wagner, Hitler's favourite composer. It also examines the personal contacts between Hitler and the Wagner family at the time.

 
#70 ·
Wagner was indeed an early member of the Nazi Party, joining in 1922. He was given the honorary rank of Obersturmbannführer in the SS in 1937, although of course he never actually served. He was said to have been quite vain about his uniform, showing it off to friends on many occasions.

When he travelled to Berlin he always wore his uniform at dinners hosted by Goering, Goebbels, and others, and of course on those rare occasions when he dined with Hitler.

Wagner died in 1943 after a brief illness. On his deathbed, he called for his SS uniform to be laid out beside him. A thunderstorm arose in the afternoon. After a particularly loud peal of thunder, Wagner suddenly sat bolt upright, shook his fist at the heavens, and for the last time loudly reviled the Jews and Mendelssohn in particular. Then he collapsed back onto his pillows and closed his eyes, and the spirit passed from his body. He was 130 years old, the oldest living human being known at that time. His uniform has never been found.

Details of Wagner’s later life can be found in any good biography, of which there appear to be none currently.
 
#85 ·
Fact: Hitler loved peaches and strawberries. Should everyone stop eating peaches and strawberries now?

My Rabbi (no, I am not Jewish, I just think everyone should have a Rabbi in their life) is a big fan of Wagner's music. He also had family murdered in the holocaust. It is well known that Peter Stuyvesant was anti-semitic, but he has no desire in removing his statue from downtown Manhattan. He acknowledges his great contribution to the forming of Manhattan and surrounding areas. He is also very hesitant on judging yesterday's people with today's moral standards.

We humans are a mixed bag. We have our positives and negatives. If we actually knew all the thoughts, ideas, and actions of every artist, politician, author, etc that we like, enjoy, or even love, almost every one of us would be very disappointed. I can't stand the views of just about every actor, musician, and artist alive today (and many who have past), but I don't let that get in the way of my enjoyment of their work (98% of the time). Otherwise, I'd have to write off almost all art in my life, and I'm not about to do that.

We are a complicated animal but great work is great work. Even if the person producing it is a $h!t.

V
 
#86 · (Edited)
'Hitler was one of a million youths infatuated with Wagner at the turn of the last century.'

Where on earth did this guy get that number from? That number of young people infatuated with a composer? i.e. listening to his operas, attending performances? I very much doubt it, especially before the days of mass communication and recording.

Mind you, however many there were, it's a pity about the one!
 
#88 ·
You're being too literal. That's a well-known observation that Wagner had a lot of young admirers, Mahler and Schoenberg among them.
 
#90 · (Edited)
After the Holocaust and WWII, the sensitivity has increased dramatically.
Now there is a new emphasis on Judeo-Christian morals (The Law), feminism, etc.
Hollywood's new TV show "Living Biblically" (note that The Bible is used by the Judeo-Christian religions) should be revealing of something along these lines.
Wagner is like Bill Cosby, castigated for old infractions which were the norm, now seen in the new moral light of this new, progressive society we live in.
Now, it's a propaganda war. It's very important how people view Wagner, and Bill Cosby.

"Star" with the Barbra Streisand avatar, is not "prejudiced" but is simply a representative of this new morality, whose tentacles stretch far into the past, as well as monitoring our present situation. Rewriting history, "her story," de-geniusing geniuses like Wagner, is all part of it, and fits neatly with feminism and Judeo-Christian law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barbebleu
#94 ·
Is a balanced, accurate view of history congruous with the "new morality?" Let me smoke a cigar and ponder this...
 
#95 ·
I'm going to leave this here. Do you know who are promoting homosexuality, feminism, wars in the Middle East, mass exodus of immigrants to Europe as refugees (and not precisely for humanitarian reasons), control of world banking? By the way, I love Wagner's music.
 
#101 ·
It would be interesting to hear the opinions of any Jewish members who have direct experience of living under the Nazis, in terms of how far they felt exposed to Hitler's musical tastes in their everyday lives, and/or how the genres of music they might favoured were repressed in some way. I realise, of course, that it's now such a very long time ago that there probably aren't any members who could do so, in which case any reliable second hand accounts would have to suffice.
 
#102 ·
My Aunt died a few weeks ago. She was in her 90s and wouldn't have had a clue how post on an Internet Forum. I think she was too busy during the war trying to find a discarded potato peel here and there to supplement her Camp Diet to contemplate the qualities of the Camp Orchestra playing the Overture to Die Meistersinger on her arrival.
From a Cultural Perspective, the Nazis perverted everything they touched. I remember being in Salzburg a few years ago and there was a museum exhibit on how they had a Festival in the thirties whose aim was to show that Mozart was a proto Nazi. It was so ridiculous that even the Party Faithful mocked it
 
#104 ·
The perplexing thing is how and why the case of Wagner stands apart as by far the most controversial. As Holocaustmusic.org puts it, "Perhaps no other musician is as closely linked with Nazism as is Wagner, and no composer's music is as tainted with the ideological associations of the Third Reich." But why is this? Was Wagner's the only music appropriated by the Nazis? Obviously not. In fact, as Frederic Spotts has pointed out, Wagner was more of a personal passion for Hitler than representative of the National Socialist Party as a whole. In fact, apparently Hitler was not even particularly fond of Beethoven, while most of the party leaders had no taste for Wagner. This made for a rather awkward state of affairs, as Beethoven is a powerful cultural figure and ideological symbol who was invoked by the Nazis, and Rosenberg in particular claimed the composer as an Aryan hero, stating his music as an elixir that would contribute to the nation's renewal. However, because of Hitler's lack of enthusiasm for Beethoven's music, his attendance at performances of his symphonies was usually confined to official events. Meanwhile Hitler subjected others to performances of Wagner at party rallies, which resulted in many snoring their way through the operas. "So if Hitler had his Wagner, the Party had its Beethoven. When Hitler 'entertained' on state occasions, Wagner was performed; when the party 'entertained' on party occasions Beethoven was played." And performed he was, more often than any other symphonic composer. Yet Beethoven's music isn't tainted or associated with the Nazis in nearly the same way as Wagner's. Indeed, even musicians who took up positions in the antisemitic state, who served in Nazi musical organizations or agreed to commissions for new works don't seem to cause such heated debates or come in for as much criticism as Wagner. It can't be simply be that Wagner was Hitler's favorite composer. Hitler also loved the music of Puccini, Verdi, Bruckner, and Lehár, and none of these composers have associations with Hitler or Nazism, nor do any of Hitler's favorite artists, architects, or dramatists.

I suppose it's just some kind of amalgam of a bunch of factors; Hitler's love of his music, the fact that Wagner was an acknowledged antisemite, and a German, and therefore he has become a kind of cultural symbol of fascism and antisemitism. So I think as Alex Ross rightly points out, as such some people just have a very visceral, emotional response to what he and his music "represents". Obviously I can't and would never dream of trying to tell someone for whom Wagner's music has negative connotations or associations that they can't feel that way. It wouldn't do any good anyways. That kind of gut reaction isn't something anyone can argue away, just like poor Zofia Posmysz can't stop being reminded of her time in the concentration camp when she hears an waltz by Johann Strauss. At the same time, I don't see the point in hammering away at the associations between Wagner and Hitler, at bringing them or his antisemitism into every discussion of Wagner's operas, or at trying to force others to view his music and drama through the prism of antisemitism. If his music can bring nourishment to someone's life, if his operas can entertain and excite passion in them, why should that be spoiled by other's interpretations and associations? Should everyone who enjoys his works and is either uninhibited or blissfully unaware of his cultural appropriation by the National Socialists be made to feel guilty for that?
 
#106 · (Edited)
I suppose it's just some kind of amalgam of a bunch of factors; Hitler's love of his music, the fact that Wagner was an acknowledged antisemite, and a German, and therefore he has become a kind of cultural symbol of fascism and antisemitism. So I think as Alex Ross rightly points out, as such some people just have a very visceral, emotional response to what he and his music "represents". Obviously I can't and would never dream of trying to tell someone for whom Wagner's music has negative connotations or associations that they can't feel that way. It wouldn't do any good anyways. That kind of gut reaction isn't something anyone can argue away, just like poor Zofia Posmysz can't stop being reminded of her time in the concentration camp when she hears an waltz by Johann Strauss. At the same time, I don't see the point in hammering away at the associations between Wagner and Hitler, at bringing them or his antisemitism into every discussion of Wagner's operas, or at trying to force others to view his music and drama through the prism of antisemitism. If his music can bring nourishment to someone's life, if his operas can entertain and excite passion in them, why should that be spoiled by other's interpretations and associations? Should everyone who enjoys his works and is either uninhibited or blissfully unaware of his cultural appropriation by the National Socialists be made to feel guilty for that?
You have missed out a few points. First that Hitler made Bayreuth a shrine, making it indelibly associated with Nazism afterwards, especially as he was welcomed with open arms by the Wagner family. Whether Wagner would have welcomed this is another matter but we know he usually welcomed people who looked on him with adoration. He also welcomed people who would finance his operas, such as King Ludwig.
The other thing is the nature of the operas which many see to be of a somewhat fascist nature, particularly the Ring which the hero would not have been out of place in the Hitler youth, in some people's opinion. I know Wagnerians will strenuously deny this, but it is a factor which many commentators observe.Arthur Rackham's illustrations make the point.
The other fact is why shouldn't people look at the operas through the prism of anti-semitism as it was an integral part of the composer's philosophy? As someone has said, 'the grit that produced the oyster.'
The other point is when people appear to think there its only one opinion allowed on Wagner. I cannot understand this crusading spirit about an opera composer or indeed any composer. It's music. Let each enjoy it as they choose and have an opinion on it. For Wagner - by his nature - that opinion will be complicated. He might even have wanted it that way!
 
#110 ·
To steal unashamedly from the legend that was Bill Shankly - Opera is not a matter of life or death, it's more important than that!:lol:
 
#120 ·
Hate each other? I think it should be the mark of music lovers and mature people that we can agree to disagree and still get on. I have friends who discuss history and other subjects with me and we get into right old arguments. Then we have a drink and laugh with each other. Still friends!
 
#129 · (Edited)
As Bernard Williams has pointed out, scholars like Millington and Gutman conceive the problem as something akin to uncovering a hidden scandal, and as such they attempt to figure out the ways Wagner's views have infiltrated the operas. However, even if they are correct despite their lack of evidence, and Wagner did intend certain characters to represent Jewish stereotypes, then the question becomes: so what? No one is seriously worried that listening to or watching one of Wagner's operas will stir up up antisemitic feelings or indoctrinate anyone, are they? The fact is these works are still important to us, they are powerful and interesting, and they still touch and impress us despite the alleged antisemitic messages.

As Williams says, the only purpose it serves is "to reconcile these writers' admiration for them with their bad conscience about his attitudes, but at a painless and superficial level. They have externalized the problem, moving it from where it truly belongs."

A few traces of antisemitsm in the dramas does not prove that antisemitism was an integral part of their formation. If the works were thoroughly polluted by antisemitism and were nothing but nasty, hate-filled vehicles to indoctrinate everyone with Wagner's antisemtic views, they wouldn't even be worth debating or worrying about. Gutman suggests that we care only because of Wagner's genius as a composer and the greatness of the music, but these are music dramas we are talking about. Wagner took unprecedented steps to unite the two, and people still genuinely respond to and are moved by what the operas express.
 
#131 · (Edited)
As Bernard Williams has pointed out, scholars like Millington and Gutman conceive the problem as something akin to uncovering a hidden scandal, and as such they attempt to figure out the ways Wagner's views have infiltrated the operas. However, even if they are correct despite their lack of evidence, and Wagner did intend certain characters to represent Jewish stereotypes, then the question becomes: so what? No one is worried that listening to or watching one of Wagner's operas will stir up up antisemitic emotions or indoctrinate anyone, are they? The fact is these works still important to us, they are powerful and interesting, and they still touch and impress us despite the alleged antisemitic messages.

As Williams says, the only purpose it serves is "to reconcile these writers' admiration for them with their bad conscience about his attitudes, but at a painless and superficial level. They have externalized the problem, moving it from where it truly belongs."

A few traces of antisemitsm in the work does not prove that antisemitism was an integral part of their formation. If the works are thoroughly polluted by antisemitism, then once again the question is why does anyone care about them? If they were nasty, hate-filled vehicles to indoctrinate everyone with Wagner's antisemtic views, they wouldn't even be worth debating or worrying about. Gutman suggests that we care only because of Wagner's genius as a composer and the greatness of the music, but these are music dramas we are talking about. Wagner took unprecedented steps to unite the two, and people still genuinely respond to and are moved by what the operas express.
Well said. I'm glad that someone else here is acquainted with Gutman, whose undisguised agenda inevitably undermined his scholarly integrity.

As far as I can determine, there is only one reference in a Wagner opera to anything remotely Jewish, and that's where Kundry says that in a previous incarnation she laughed at Christ on the cross, an action also attributed to the mythical Wandering Jew. Given that Kundry is otherwise not given any "Jewish" traits and is ultimately a sympathetic character for all her ambiguous strangeness, it would be hard to find an anti-semitic message here, unless it's that Judaism must yield to Christianity. Curiously, though, a closer understanding of Parsifal would find in the failing, authoritarian regime of the patriarch Titurel a better parallel to the legalistic religion of the Old Testament, and in its redemption and reform by the Compassionate One a symbol of a higher morality based on spiritual enlightenment rather than law. This is certainly a more fertile and interesting perspective than Gutman's crude, post-Nazi theory of the Grail order's "Aryan pure-bloodedness," but it also has the surprising consequence of making Titurel the "Jewish" element in the work.

It goes to show the unwisdom of looking at the complex, resonant art of Wagner through a narrowly ideological lens.
 
#132 · (Edited)
Wasn’t Wagner supposed to be a real master at Music Drama? At mating texts and music? And he wrote his own librettos?
Isn’t it a bit unreasonable to suppose that in writing these librettos, that he was completely uninformed by the sum of his life experiences? That his Passions in Life, Love, his likes, his disislikes....his prejudices...played NO ROLE in informing the subsequent content? That he put himself into a Zen State, cleaned his kopf of all prior brain activity?I know that Wagner was a remarkable individual, but I find that to be a Herculean achievement.
I also find that those that find such meaning and Art in his librettos can feel free to consider the rest of his literary output as unworthy of consideration, particularly when his writings detract from his God like status and show him to be filled with imperfections, like the rest of we mere mortals.
I think that viewed himself as a Renaissance Man, not only skilled as a Composer, but also as a Dramatist, and (in his view) as a Philosopher. I think he would view this latter day compartmentalion—skilled Composer yes we approve, bigoted and scatter brained Philosopher, no we reject—with disdain.
It’s more reasonable to say that we honor him for his Genius and we regret the other stuff. It is also reasonable to not have to feel guilty for enjoying his Art. If the scum of the Third Reich appropriated Wagner as one of their own, it doesn’t mean that subsequent Generations have to accept that appropriation, or feel guilty that it occurred.
 
#135 ·
Darn, Tristan and the Dutchman are Jewiish. How terrible.:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodduck
#137 · (Edited)
Don't forget Fafner, the greedy capitalist beast who does nothing but sit on his golden hoard, and the forest bird, that little chattering yenta! "Oy, Siegfried, bubbula! Listen to your forest bird! I know a nice zaftig meydl who a real mensch would walk through fire to marry!"

But seriously...

It might serve as an interesting corrective to Barry Millington's superficial analyses to point out the more profound ways in which certain ideas related to (if not necessarily representative of) Jewishness and Judaism can be found in Wagner's work. What's interesting is that these do not manifest a simple-minded "anti-semitism," which is not surprising in that Wagner's thoughts on Jewishness were more than mere simple-minded prejudices (as a fair reading of his famous tract should demonstrate). For example, a familiar figure in European folklore was that of the Wandering Jew; Wagner knew that legend well, and his Flying Dutchman evokes it. Of course the Dutchman is a sympathetic character and, in his search for redeeming love, also obviously represents Wagner himself, which makes for a most curious equation! It's been asked whether Wagner might have thought he was part Jewish; he may have suspected that his real father was his mother's second husband Ludwig Geyer, who Wagner may have suspected of being Jewish (although I believe it's generally thought that he wasn't).

Another example of a "Wandering Jew" is Wotan, who lusted after wealth and power, ruled by force of law engraved on his spear (like the Law of Yawheh engraved on stone tablets), and became a Wanderer awaiting his redemption. He may represent Judaism and its law-based moral code, which would be supplanted by the intuitive, love-based morality of Brunnhilde. Titurel in Parsifal reincarnates Wotan's legalistic authoritarianism, and like Wotan must die to make way for Parsifal, who enacts a moral revolution akin to Brunnhilde's, but one which actually puts into practice the implications of her empathetic nature.

With Wotan and Titurel, as with the Dutchman, the thing that must strike us, perhaps with surprise, is that these characters are not portrayed as evil. None of them is the "villain of the piece," and none of them exhibits stereotypical "semitic" traits; they are, rather, complex, ambivalent, and noble despite their crimes. This makes it rather hard to understand the possible presence of these associations in Wagner's mind, and their serious philosophical and psychological meaning, in terms of "anti-semitism." Recall that it was Hermann Levi who tried to reassure his rabbi father that Wagner's criticism of what he called "Jewishness" in art was not "petty" and sprang from "the noblest of motives." We may consider that a bit of over-generous rationalizing necessary to a man who worked closely with Wagner (although that closeness may also be reason to respect Levi's judgment), but it does point up the fact that Wagner's thoughts on culture - art, politics and religion (Christianity as well as Judaism) - were not superficial. And if they did find their way into Wagner's art, they are likely to have done so in ways more profound and humanly significant than Millington's attribution of "popular Jewish stereotypes" to Nuremberg's town clerk, or to a nasty dwarf living in a cave, would suggest.

Wagner, in his art, is concerned with archetypes, not stereotypes. If some are eager to find the latter in his philosophically and psychologically rich musical dramas, they prove only that their minds are smaller than his.
 
#166 · (Edited)
On the basis of what I have read in this thread and elsewhere, I am very doubtful that Wagner used any of his operas as a vehicle for promoting his anti-Semitic views.

The so-called "evidence" that I have seen, and read about elsewhere, e.g. concerning the character Beckmesser, is circumstantial and partial. It is no more convincing than, for example, the suggestion that the inclusion of, say, the character Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice makes that author anti-Semitic and bent on turning the play into some kind of anti-Semitic statement.

It stretches one's imagination way too far to believe that Wagner would have gone to all the trouble he did in writing his operas merely or manly as a way of insulting Jewish people. The whole idea of it seems to be quite ridiculous to me.

The "evidence" regarding the alleged malign themes and characterisations in the music dramas is consistent with any number of alternative theories, including that they were inspired more by wider philosophical dispositions rather than anything as specific as anti-Semitism. For example, Wagner was particularly attracted towards Schopenhauer's philosophy, which is why he dabbled in Buddhism late in life. He was also attracted to some elements of Nietzsche's views. Suffice to say that it's not implausible that some aspects of these views may have been the basis of certain themes running through his music. On the other hand, it's just as likely that whilst Wagner may have been attracted to some aspects of these philosophical viewpoints none of them influenced his actual musical writings.

Not only is there a lack of any clear evidence that Wagner actually did use his operas to portray Jewish people as a whole in a negative manner, but I am not aware that there is any evidence from any of his non-musical writings that he intended to use his music as a vehicle to promote his anti-Semitism. The wole argument lacks in, legal parlance, both a mens rea (i.e. evidence of intent) and actus reus (evidence of effect), and therefore fails.

 
#167 · (Edited)
On the basis of what I have read in this thread and elsewhere, I am very doubtful that Wagner used any of his operas as a vehicle for promoting his anti-Semitic views.

The so-called "evidence" that I have seen, and read about elsewhere, e.g. concerning the character Beckmesser, is circumstantial and partial. It is no more convincing than, for example, the suggestion that the inclusion of, say, the character Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice makes that author anti-Semitic and bent on turning the play into some kind of anti-Semitic statement.

It stretches one's imagination way too far to believe that Wagner would have gone to all the trouble he did in writing his operas merely or manly as a way of insulting Jewish people. The whole idea of it seems to be quite ridiculous to me.

The "evidence" regarding the alleged malign themes and characterisations in the music dramas is consistent with any number of alternative theories, including that they were inspired more by wider philosophical dispositions rather than anything as specific as anti-Semitism. For example, Wagner was particularly attracted towards Schopenhauer's philosophy, which is why he dabbled in Buddhism late in life. He was also attracted to some elements of Nietzsche's views. Suffice to say that it's not implausible that some aspects of these views may have been the basis of certain themes running through his music. On the other hand, it's just as likely that whilst Wagner may have been attracted to some aspects of these philosophical viewpoints none of them influenced his actual musical writings.

Not only is there a lack of any clear evidence that Wagner actually did use his operas to portray Jewish people as a whole in a negative manner, but I am not aware that there is any evidence from any of his non-musical writings that he intended to use his music as a vehicle to promote his anti-Semitism. The wole argument lacks in, legal parlance, both a mens rea (i.e. evidence of intent) and actus reus (evidence of effect), and therefore fails.

the problem is that you have completely missed the argument. No-one here is saying that he used them for 'anti-Semitic propaganda'. No-one is saying it's the one and only reason he wrote his operas. Like a good many others you are missing the point here. Just that his personal philosophy - like the rest of his philosophies - came out in his portrayal of the characters. This should not surprise us as it is a very common trait among authors. As to Schopenhauer, philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, and Schopenhauer all cited the Jews as a scapegoat for the presence of heteronomy in their society. Though Wagner's ideas have some discontinuities with these philosophers, he was able to draw upon them to feed his robust anti-Semitism. Hence it should not be surprising if Schopenhauer is included anti-semitism might be too.
 
G
#194 · (Edited)
Please accept my apologies in advance if I've missed the post that is the exception to this, but there seems be some kind of consensual acknowledgement that anti-semitic attitudes were common at the time, therefore unremarkable, and that we shouldn't judge such attitudes (or the holders of such attitudes) from a modern perspective.

This should surely be challenged. There is evidence that across Europe (not everywhere, but here and there on the continent), Jewish immigrant communities were increasingly tolerated, and some Jewish figures achieving considerable influence. Whilst the extent of persecution and prejudice on the one hand, and tolerance and acceptance on the other varied from one country to another, it would be wrong to conclude that anti-semitism was universally tolerated. My knowledge of 19th C history is patchy, but even a short amount of research into the experience of Jews in the period finds examples of individuals in the UK reaching high office and having considerable influence, and in Germany, legislation in some states giving Jews equality. This seems to me sufficient to suggest that there was a contemporary distaste for anti-semitism.
 
#196 ·
Please accept my apologies in advnace if I've missed the post that is the exception to this, but there seems be some kind of consensual acknowledgement that anti-semitic attitudes were common at the the time, therefore unremarkable, and that we shouldn't judge such attitudes (or the holders of such attitudes) from a modern perspective.

This should surely be challenged. There is evidence that across Europe (not everywhere, but here and there on the continent), Jewish immigrant communities were increasingly tolerated, and some Jewish figures achieving considerable influence. Whilst the extent of persecution and prejudice on the one hand, and tolerance and acceptance on the other varied from one country to another, it would be wrong to conclude that anti-semitism was universally tolerated. My knowledge of 19th C history is patchy, but even a short amount of research into the experience of Jews in the period finds examples of individuals in the UK reaching high office and having considerable influence, and in Germany, legislation in some states giving Jews equality. This seems to me sufficient to suggest that there was a contemporary distaste for anti-semitism.
Fine, but then why aren't we talking about Vincent D'Indy or numerous other anti-semitic composers or other artists of the 19th and early 20th centuries? I think the reason is, they weren't glorified by Hitler.
 
#200 · (Edited)
In 1863 Ernest Renan published Vie de Jésus which quickly became the biggest bestseller of the 19th century. Renan is the person who coined the concepts of 'Semitic' and 'Aryan', that were the godfathers of the concept of 'anti-Semitic' (Antisemitismus), that became popular from 1879 onward and replaced the term 'Judenhass'. Renan's Vie de Jésus does classify Jesus as an Aryan and not as a Jew. Renan's Jesus has blond hair and blue eyes. Now does the discussion here focus almost exclusively on the concept of antisemitism, but Hitler was proud of being an Aryan and Hitler's Jesus belonged to the same league. Just out of curiosity I would like to know whether Richard Wagner ever used the concept 'Aryan'. Is Parsifal designated as an Aryan? The trick is to exclude Jews from the Aryan club and to hail Jesus as the great Aryan chief.
 
#201 ·
In 1863 Ernest Renan published Vie de Jésus which quickly became the biggest bestseller of the 19th century. Renan is the person who coined the concepts of 'Semitic' and 'Aryan', that were the godfathers of the concept of 'anti-Semitic' (Antisemitismus), that became popular from 1879 onward and replaced the term 'Judenhass'. Renan's Vie de Jésus does classify Jesus as an Aryan and not as a Jew. Renan's Jesus has blond hair and blue eyes. Now does the discussion here focus almost exclusively on the concept of antisemitism, but Hitler was proud of being an Aryan and Hitler's Jesus belonged to the same league. Just out of curiosity I would like to know whether Richard Wagner ever used the concept 'Aryan'. Is Parsifal designated as an Aryan? The trick is to exclude Jews from the Aryan club and to hail Jesus as the great Aryan chief.
To establish a chronology: Wagner died in 1883. Parsifal was completed musically in 1882, but the libretto was finished in 1877, and the work had been conceived 20 years before that. Wagner was acquainted with Renan, but I'm unaware that he accepted Renan's classification of Jesus as non-semitic. He never referred to race with reference to Parsifal, and never described the character as "Aryan." The attribution of racial meanings to the opera Parsifal by various commentators (most notoriously Robert Gutman in his 1968 study of the composer) is based on a mistake of chronology, in that Wagner didn't begin to discuss racial theory with Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau until the 1880s, when the opera was already written.
 
#212 ·
Just to get the focus right: Hitler was obsessed with Judenrein and many Christian theologians in the course of the 19th century turned Jesus into an ultimately Judenrein ideal that fitted faultlessly into their virulent anti-Jewish ideology. From this perspective one may even welcome it, when Wagner's operas do not happen to be Judenrein. When Wagner does happen to include a Jewish personage / caricature in his operas, this may also be interpreted as a protest against the Judenrein movement that hysterically got Germany into its totalitarian grips.
 
#213 · (Edited)
We don't all speak German, Txllxt. Judenrein, for those who don't, means "cleansed of the Jews."

I don't understand your talking about Wagner's operas "happening" or "not happening" to "be Judenrein," or about "when" they "happen to include a Jewish personage/caricature." When do they do that, exactly? Which ones do you think happen to, or not? How would including Jewish caricatures be interpreted as a protest against Judenrein? What do you mean by "even welcoming" the absence of such caricatures? All this seems oddly detached from any real acquaintance with the operas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top