Over the past-few months I have been reading all the postings in the
Travels with a Dog thread.  I have been reading a book called the" Wagner
Compendium" by Barry Millington and have recently run across a section
which I think is most appropriat ein response to many people's harsh views
toward Wagner.  The section is entitled:

   WAGNER AS SCAPEGOAT

   Wagner stands accused of egoism, overweening ambition, opportunism,
   deceit, spite, jealousy, arrogance, philandering, profligacy and
   racism.  A formiddalbe catalogue, and there is truth in every item.
   A casual reading of either Cosima Wagner's Diaries or of Wagner's
   own letters will abundantly confirm such flaws in his character.
   But it will also reveal a set of more admirable traits, whch in any
   other case would have gone considerably further to redeem the flaws.
   There are countless examples, too, of Wagner's generosity, kindness,
   gentleness and sensitivity, while the tired cliches about his supposed
   profligacy and philandering, for example, bear all to little relation
   to either the facts or the historical context.

   What appears to have happened is that all the negative traits
   associated with Romantic artists in general have been projected on
   to Wagner and, moreover, been magnified out of all proportion.  Just
   as Wagner himself inflated everything he touched -- grand opera, the
   orchestra, nationalism -- so he attracts, in turn, a degress of
   opprobrium scarcely justified by his faults.  A classic case of the
   scapegoat phenomenon.

   There is no question of trying to cover over the flaws in the way
   that the Bayreuth Circle and its associated hagigraphers did in the
   past.  Rather it is a matter of recognizing the unwisdom of expecting
   moral stature to be commensurate with creative genius.  Indeed, one
   can go further and say that exceptionally creative ability almost
   inevitably entails a degree of self-centerdness, of naked ambition,
   of intolerance, and artists not encouraged to flaunt them.  In
   the 19th century, however, the aura of the heroic figure of the
   genius-artist encompassed precisely such characteristics as these:
   personal peccadilloes could be condoned, even accepted as part of
   the package.

   There is alos a more pointed aspect of the scapegoat phenomenon.
   Many of the character flaws with which the negative image of Wagner
   is invested -- deceit, greed, opportunism, spite -- are so common as
   to be universal.  When we criticize Wagner for giging alternative
   version of the same event to different people -- even perhaps in a
   pair of letters bearing the same date -- we woudl do well to be more
   aware of our own propensity for such behaviour.  When we accuse Wagner
   of sharp practice in his financial dealings or of insensitivity in
   his sexual conduct, we might first stop to consider whether our own
   track record in these spheres entitles us to cast the first stong.

   It is, of course, the ultimate irony that Wagner, who endowed a whole
   race, the Jews, with a negative image of unmitigated trenchancy,
   should himself be cast in the role of scapegoat.  There may even be
   thought to be some justice in the fact.  Nevertheless, historical
   truth is ill served by the desire for revenge.

Jordan Schweigel (gladly in Wagner's defense)