Christopher Webber [[log in to unmask]] replies to Satoshi Akima:
>>To see 'race' theory in Wagner one has to adopt as perverse an
>>interpretation of him as Hitler imposed upon Wagner, and thus ends up
>>conceding to Hitler that he was right in interpreting Wagner in such a way.
>
>Satoshi Akima surely can't be unaware of Wagner's writings, in particular
>"Jewry in Music", where he reasons (if that's the right word) that the Jew
>must be eliminated from German life.
First of all let me point out that Mr. Akima was talking about racetheory
in Wagners WORKS, not in Wagner. And thats a big difference. Thats at
least what I read.
"Ueber das Judentum in der Musik" is the most aggressive antisemitic
writing from Wagner. It is foul of course, but what I plead is that we can
UNDERSTAND Wagner even if we feel we cannot always DEFEND him. We do right
in trying to understand Wagner, as he had a great demand for being
understood by his environment (think of Lohengrin). In general I think
also it is more productive to try understand than condemn.
Wagner wrote this script after his discomfiture in Paris. Wagner had come
to Paris with high hopes and full of dreams, wasn't this the city where
other misunderstood composers had done their fortune? I am sure most people
some time in their lives get to know what disillusion and discomfiture
feels like, and this can cause us to do foul things...as I said this is
not an attempt to defend Wagenrs antisemitic writings, just an attmept to
understand it. But back in Paris Wagner got problems. At first the staff
of the grandee opera wasn't interested at all, but thanks to some friends
(there you see, Wagner did have friends, strange isn't it?) had contacts so
the opera eventually accepted tannhaeuser, with the consdition that Wagner
made some signifuigant changes and added a balletnumber in the 2. Akt.
Wagner refused. He very seldom compromised with the art, but this time he
made an exception and he and the operastaff agreed that the only thing he
had to do was this ballet, but Wagner insisted that a ballet wouldn't fit
in the second akt, and he put in the ballet in the first akt. The reason
there should be a ballet was that a large part of the Jockeyclub demanded
it. Many of the members in the Jockeyclub had their girlfriends among the
balletdancers, and that was what they wanted, they had no serious interest
in Opera per se. The Jockeyclub however, thought that the whole opera was
to long to attend whole, so they arrived at the start of the second akt at
the premiere. When they got to know that they had missed the ballet number
which was in the first act, they started screaming and shouting, booing
and making noises and trowing rotten eggs, everything to destroy the
performance. They succeeded very well. The Parisoperas orchestra was
ranked as the finest in the world at this time, but the musicians thought
Wagners music was garbage, and they didn't take it seriously, and played
thereafter, so the only thing the critics with Berlioz bearing their flag,
was to sink the already damaged ship. There was no second performance.
After this of course Wagnwer was angry and disappointed, and he
wanted revenge. Wagners typical way of taking revenge was to talk shit
and bark. But whom should he bark on? The worlds finest musicans, the
Parisoperaorchestra? He would hardly have come an inch away with that as
they had this reputation. The Paris Audience? Either hardly. He was an
artist, and he needed the public for selfacknowledgeing if not other. But
he attacked the Jews, for "Freudian" reasons that I mentioned in my earlier
post, which Mr. Webber obviously didn't had time to read.
>There's nothing perverse in facing the plain truth that Hitler had no
>need to twist Wagner's writings to serve his own ends.
No, because he did like You: He only picked out what fit his own ideas,
what he wanted to think, and ignored the things that didn't. Again I refer
to my previous post. I could add that also Gustav Mahler aped Wagners
habits and read his writings passionately in the bed before sleeping for
many years. Are You going to claim that he was an antisemit too?
>Such attempts at whitewashing do Wagner no more good than Satoshi Akima's
>refusal to admit elements of anti-semitism in his Hero's portrayal of
>Alberich;
I think it is the attempt throw these rotten rutabagas on Wagner that
does nobody any good. Mr. Webber obviously didn't read my previous
post with the bad ear example, which is not a rather heavy arguing. But
there are some alludings to Alberich the Jew, if you like. At a place in
"Siegfried", the hero describe Mimes eyes...Mime is described as having
dripping eyes; and while that might mean that he has a cold, or that he is
crying in self-pity and the attempt to win Siegfried's sympathy, it _might,
perhaps_ also mean that he has poor eyesight. And there were a saying in
the 19th century that semits had bad eyesight too. Or listen to the music
when Alberich walkes, so clumsy he sounds! And of course Semits have
bigger feet than Aryans, and therefore they cannot walk normally.
But, this babystuff besides; Alberich is interesting as he could well be
a selfportrait by Wagner, and there is an interesting paralell to Parsifal,
which in the same regard could be a selfportrait. Notice how Parsifal has
matured compared with Alberich....
>or the intense homosexual strands in "Tristan and Isolde", Wagner's sop
>for the infatuated Ludwig of Bavaria - let alone in "Parsifal".
Wagners interest in Homosexuality has drawn my interest. The writings
that dabbled with Wagner and homosexuality, appeared after the WWII
(particulary I am thinking of Robert Gutmans Richard Wagner: The Man,
His Mind and His Music" from the 60:ies), and was fruits of a society
with intolerance towards homosexuals, and the arguing goes that Wagners
works were bad because there were alludings to homosexuality in them, and
that is bad etc.
However in more modern writings, the talk about homosexuality has
mysteriously disappeared. The reason is that the pro-homosexual contents
now can be seen as something good and progressive thing, and many people
have decided that there cannot be good things in Wagner just because the
man had bad nerves. The Wagnerhaters seem completely incapable of seeing
Wagners good work on behalf of the gaycommunity, in a time where peple were
very picking about such things.
The works where homosexual content possibly can be found are "Parsifal"
(Klingsor and the Graalknights) and "Tristan und Isolde" (Tristan, Marke
and Melot). Leaving aside Gutman, it might be possible to argue that
Klingsor castrated himself out of homosexual guilt. That reading would
have to be based on his line "Ha! Er ist schoen, der Knabe!", when he sees
Parsifal for the first time... So long as your praemisse is that any male
who notes or remarks upon beauty in another male must be gay, which is
itself perhaps a rather homophobic idea...
However, Klingsor addresses that line to Kundry, who he is about to force
into her role as seductress, to try to "distract" Parsifal. The scene
shows that this is much against her will; Klingsor, with that line, is
haunting Kundry, saying, "Hah! At least you'll enjoy your work". So you
could read Klingsor as a psychologically messed up self-loathing victim
of anti-homosexual prejudice. Or you could read him as an anti-gay
stereotype, though he doesn't really conform to anti-gay stereotypes that
I'm aware of; he's not effeminate, for example. Or you could read him as
a heterosexual-by-default character who tried to repress his sexual
feelings not by calming and disciplining them in the manner, presumably, of
the other Grail Knights, but by self-castration; he therefore showed he was
unable to achieve the mental disciplines required for Grail service. (The
Grail community does not, it seems to me, reject sexuality in itself.) Then
Klingsor's rejection makes him even more bitter and twisted. I suspect
that last reading is closest to what Wagner had in mind.
After all then, you can agree that the alludings to homosexuality are very
blurred, small, and no clear evidence here of course. In "Tristan und
Isolde" the whole arguing lies on one single letter. In Akt 1 of "Tristan
und Isolde", Isolde says:
"Ich pflag des Wunden / I tended the wounded man
dass den Heilgesunden / So that, restored to health,
raechen schluege der Mann, / He should be struck down in vengeance by the man
der Isolde ihm abgewann." / Who won Isolde from him.
For that last line I've given the usual English translation of that line.
But the usual English translation quietly corrects one letter of the Wagner
text; "ihm" to "ihn". With "ihm" that last line could be read, "Who won
him from Isolde."
Of course printing mistakes has apperaed in other Wagenrs works not to
forget. As far as I know there is no written source that clearly verifys
an "n" or an "m". So, it's a "could be"...
I call upon our Germanborn listmember Walther Meyer to verify that the
translations are correct. I speak German very well myself, fast perfekt,
but it is not my first language, whereas I could do mistakes.
>(Note: "elements" and "strands". They are of course not the whole
>story.)
I wholeheartedly agree. Wagners texts have often "double bottoms", and can
be interpreted in many ways. The music sometimes clear things up,
sometimes just allow new perspectives.
>Of course, much of the vitriol squirted at atonal and dodecaphonic music by
>the Nazis was anti-semitically inspired; hideously ironic, when Wagner was
>largely responsible for loosening if not rending the tonal garment in the
>first place.
They barked on Kurt Weill too, and much of his music (not all) is neither
atonal nor dodecaphonic nor Jewish.
But one can ask as Patricia Potter does in her dissertation "Did Himmler
like Georgian Chant?", if people who are capable of murdering others
coldbloodly are capable of understanding yet even enjoy artistic beauty.
For those inetrested the article ois located at:
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/modernism-modernity/2.3potter.html
There is a funny (If one is allowed to laugh where one should cry!)
story that according to Paul Moor might be true. In the 30:ies Nazi's of
Germany culturecampaign, they were about to erase everything that had with
nonaryan and Jewish to do, and in this project the police head in Leipzig
got the order from above to remove one of the citys statues of composers;
Mendelsohn's, who stood there lookig on the Leipzigcitizens beside some
other composers as well. The policechief sent out two hoodlums to remove
Mendelssohn. When arriving they phoned back and asked thier chief: "How
do we know which of them is Mendelsson?". The reply was: "Er..um..take
the one who looks most Jewish". And so Rickard Wagners statue was removed
from Leipzigs city.
Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]
|