It
is impossible to overstate the importance of Richard Wagner as an influence in
this world—both musically and historically. The most perfect description of
Wagner is this, “So he goes through life, luxuriant, petulant, egoistic,
improvident, in everything extreme, roaring, shrieking, weeping, laughing,
never doubting himself, never doubting that whoever opposed him, or did not do
all for him that he expected, was a monster of iniquity—Wagner contra mundum, he always right, the world always wrong.”[1] This description comes
from Ernest Newman’s book Wagner as Man
and Artist, a book which contains both helpful descriptions of Wagner’s
persona and a healthy amount of bias presented as fact—the standard response
when it comes to Wagner. Nicholas Vazsonyi, another one of many authors who
have written about Wagner, confirms that, “By necessity, everyone is compelled
to create his or her own particular Wagner, a Wagner who then becomes an object
to become defended or attacked relentlessly.”[2] The historical magnitude
of Wagner’s influence, as well as the sheer amount of controversy which
persists to this day, makes him the perfect specimen to examine for the
following query—what can we learn by examining the responses to a controversial
composer like Wagner? In particular, the response to Wagner in Nazi Germany and
Israel will be considered—responses which will initially appear contrary, yet
exhibit disturbing similarities. After critically evaluating the rationale
behind these societal responses to Wagner, I will suggest a more sensible
response to controversial composers looking forward.
Understanding Wagner. It
is imperative to first establish Wagner: considering the content of his works,
observing how those works were historically influential, and taking into
account the reality that Wagner’s writings were often contradicted by his own
actions.
Wagner
was a genius, but it is important to recognize that his brilliance was limited
to the realm of musical composition. He was not a great writer or philosopher.
Believing otherwise, Wagner left behind a long trail of letters, stories, and
essays. His writings are by no means brilliant, but they do bring his own
thoughts and character into clarity. Some musicologists say that these musings
should not be taken seriously, and that sensible musicians do not take these
writings into consideration.[3]
From a post-Holocaust perspective, of course it seems obvious that these were
merely hateful documents that should have been ignored. However, within
historical context, these musings were dangerously relevant. These works
contributed to the growing animosity towards the Jews, and called the German
people to action to revive the German spirit. Many Germans who encountered
these works were stirred by his passionate language and agreed with his
sentiments. This included Adolf Hitler. As Michael Haas explains, “… Hitler was
able to quote, almost word for word, much of Wagner’s musings as being the
foundation of his own political ideas. Indeed, Wagner was cited by Hitler as
his favorite ‘political’ writer.”[4]
It is indeed suiting that a madman like Hitler would be so enamored with the
political writings of the outrageous, misguided, and inconsistent Wagner.
In
Wagner’s eyes, passion and innovation are essential elements of the German
spirit. Wagner also observed that Jews are neither passionate nor innovative.
In his essay, “Judaism in Music,” Wagner describes Jews as sub-human, so
aesthetically displeasing and emotionally cold that they are utterly incapable
of artistic expression. Even the sound of a Jew speaking is so displeasing to
the ear and so lacking in passion that it is simply impossible for him to make
beautiful music. Because of this, Jewish composers are not creators, but merely
imitators of the great German composers who preceded them. Two of Wagner strongest
assertions in this essay are that, “Song is, after all, speech heightened by
passion: music is the language of passion,” and, “A form which is not subject
to continual renewal must disintegrate.”[5]
Thus, the inherent defects of being a Jew make composition of German music
impossible. It is an important clarification that “German” in this context does
not correlate directly with our modern understanding of the word today—“German”
simply meaning anyone born in Germany. In the time of Wagner and the Nazis,
“German” had very little to do with whether or not one was actually born in
Germany.[6]
Despite Wagner’s condemnation of the Jews for mimicking great German composers,
and his insistence that constant innovation is vital, Wagner also demands that
Germans respect the ways of the old. In his essay, “What is German?” Wagner
contrarily states, “The German is conservative: his treasure bears the stamp of
past ages. He hoards the old, and knows how to use it.”[7]
Wagner provides this definition of what it is to be German, yet he thinks it is
an embarrassing display of incompetence when the Jewish composers evoke the
great composers of the past. Wagner’s idea of hoarding the old seems dissonant
with his usual claims that clinging to the ways of the past is lazy and
conceited, that change must occur constantly in order to further the excellence
of what it is to be German.[8]
This is just one of many inconsistencies found within the prolific writings of
Wagner.
The
most terrifying idea found within “What is German?” is the notion that, “In the
realm of aesthetics and philosophical criticism it may be clearly demonstrated,
that it was predestined for the German spirit to assimilate the foreign….”[9]
In the years following his death, Germany did attempt to eliminate the foreign,
the Jews. Though Wagner himself was actually very inconsistent in the
application of such prejudices, frequently preferring to work with Jewish
musicians, Adolf Hitler would not be guilty of the same inconsistencies.
Clearly,
Wagner’s writings were paramount within his own time and through the reign of
the Third Reich. Long-term, however, Wagner is considered more influential as a
composer of music than as a political writer. While the anti-Semitism present
in his written works is undeniable, musicologists heatedly debate whether or
not Wagner’s anti-Semitism is actually observable in his musical work. Ernest
Newman insists that it is not. According to Newman, “And like the true
dramatist, Wagner has no moral prejudices; for the time being he puts himself
into the skin of each of his characters and looks at the world solely through
his eyes. Nowhere is the author to be detected in the work…,”[10]
additionally claiming that, “Had he not left us voluminous prose works and
letters, indeed, we should never have suspected the hundredth part of the
portentous meanings that he and his disciples have read into his operatic
libretti.”[11]
But, as I have mentioned, it is worth wondering whether his view on the
composer is more or less romanticized. Throughout the novel, Newman uses doting
language to describe Wagner and made bold and inflammatory claims such as: “His
was the last truly great mind to find expression in music,” and that the
musical mind of Wagner was greater than that of Claude Debussy and Richard
Strauss combined.[12]
This is unlikely to ever be proven in such a way that deems a dramatic
proclamation like this appropriate, which gives legitimate reason to doubt
Newman’s ability to present Wagner as an artist in an unbiased way. This is
true of both musicologists and societies—they will overlook the sins of their
most adored composers in order to preserve the purity of great art, while
saving themselves from a guilty conscience of enjoying potentially
politically-tainted works.
Musicologists
like Newman ignore the facts present in Wagner’s writings: Wagner saw
aesthetics and the German spirit as one in the same. By Wagner’s own logic, his
music—the epitome of passion and innovation—must be political. As James
Treadwell aptly observes, “The ‘German spirit’ is the spirit of the aesthetic,
of art. … Needless to say, this provides the theoretical ground for Wagner’s
consistent assertions that the political revival of the German spirit can only
happen in the form of a regeneration of German art. Equally obviously, Wagner
has his own art in mind.”[13] Though Treadwell is arguably closer to
reality than Newman, neither position should be taken as the whole truth. It is
useless to say that Wagner’s works were entirely free from politics, yet it
would be an overreaction to say that Wagner’s works were entirely for political
purposes. Though it is possible to make arguments for Wagner’s music, political
or pure, there is no way to prove either one entirely true or false. It is more
than likely that his compositions were devised with a combination of political
undertones and pure creative imagination. Bearing this in mind, the idea that
music may have the ability to transcend its own composer should be considered
as well—especially when deciding in modern times whether or not his music
should still be performed, studied, and enjoyed.
Now that a foundation of understanding Wagner
has been established, the validity of each societies’ responses can be
evaluated. Though Israel and Germany fell on opposite sides of the spectrum
when it comes to the treatment of Wagner, ironically, they demonstrate
terrifying similarities. Indeed, both societies displayed an alarming lack of
critical thought when it came to the facts of Wagner and his works, and each
society possessed the deeper motivation of rallying nationalistic feelings.
Misuse of Wagner in Nazi Germany. As
previously mentioned, Wagner was an essential element to the story of Hitler’s
rise to power, and thus, to Nazi Germany. Upon experiencing a performance of
Wagner’s Rienzi, Hitler was quoted as
saying: “In that hour, it all began.” As Hans Rudolf Vaget astutely observes:
“More likely, what began was the elaboration of a particular fantasy triggered
by Wagner's Rienzi, namely, of becoming the leader of the Germans and restoring
Germany's greatness, just as Rienzi, the last tribune in medieval Rome, had
attempted to do for the Romans. Tellingly, in the aftermath of his Rienzi
experience, Hitler declared, "I want to become a people's tribune."
The significance of this youthful experience of the fifteen-year-old Hitler at
the Linz Landestheater can hardly be exaggerated.”[14] The
impact of this opera, combined with the implications of Wagner’s writings, and
the obvious outcomes of Hitler’s actions inspired by them, demonstrate that
Hitler’s obsession with Wagner was anything but inconsequential.
Attempts
to eliminate Jewish musicians begun quickly after Hitler assumed power. Jewish
conductors and musicians were instructed not to conduct or perform in public for
public safety reasons. Of course, this was just a temporary fix until they
could be eliminate entirely, which happened successfully in 1933, when the
Nazis issued the law for the Restoration of Tenure for the Civil Service. This
cost almost every Jewish musician his or her job. Classifying exactly who was
and was not a Jew was difficult. Unsurprisingly, if the lines were especially
blurred, it was considerably more difficult to be considered Aryan than a Jew. When
a composer was labeled Jewish, he would have done well to flee to another
country. Those who were unable to do so were likely to suffer and die in a
concentration camp. Composers, as well as other artists, were targeted because
the Nazis saw the removal of “Degenerate Art” as imperative. Degenerate music,
much of which was Jewish, was deemed harmful to Germans. The emphasis of German
revival through art—or removal of the wrong kind of art, in this case—can be
traced back to Wagner. Degenerate music was an utterly nonsensical concept. The
spectrum of music defined as Degenerate, anything from jazz to modernism, was
so broad that it was impossible to identify exactly which aspects of this music
was markedly un-German.[15]
But such a demonstration of attempted assimilation echoes back to the writings
of Wagner, who was not entirely wrong in his assertion that the Jewish
composers were imitators. Though Wagner was writing before the rise of the
Third Reich, the atmosphere which came to full fruition under the reign of the
Third Reich confirms that these “mimicking” composers’ concerns were valid. It was
a crime to compose music which could be construed as anything but “German.” This
was such a vital standard that Nazis even mistakenly cancelled some non-Jewish
works, fearing them to be Jewish.
What
is misunderstood by many, including Israel, which will be discussed in-depth
later, is the fact that the Nazis sought to become associated with Wagner—not
the other way around. Though Wagner’s most adamant critics speak as though he
was the Nazis’ greatest supporter, Wagner was dead before the Nazis even rose
to power, but the connection between the two is continually played up. Of
course, Wagner’s greatest similarity with the Nazis was his anti-Semitism.
However, as previously mentioned, Wagner’s actions were inconsistent with his
anti-Semitic writings. Wagner often willingly worked with Jewish musicians. If
he truly thought the Jews were incapable of accomplishing anything
aesthetically beautiful, why entrust his works—which he valued above all else—to
Jewish musicians? It would be difficult to convince me that, had Wagner and the
Nazis existed at the same time, he would have subscribed to them for any legitimate
reason other than their obsession with his music. Even with their admiration of
his music, being such a boisterous and opinionated man, he may very well have
renounced them publicly for misinterpreting his ideals. It is almost comical that the Nazis chose
Wagner as their musical and ideological emblem, because Wagner did not simply
advocate for the assimilation of society. His operatic works clearly
demonstrated that he advocated for the complete destruction of society, in
order for a new, more perfect society to arise. Interestingly, when considering
the implications of Wagner’s musical works, the apparently sinless hero of a
Wagnerian opera is often is revealed as having “…lied, sinned, or become
corrupt, and are punished by a bitter end.” [16] Considering
the fact that Hitler modeled himself after the typical hero found within
Wagner’s operas, this is one connection that is actually quite
harmonious—though unfortunate for the Nazis.
The
use of Wagner by the Nazis was absurd. The entire Nazi regime misread the
deeper meaning to Wagner’s works and politicized him, despite the inconsistency
in Wagner’s own anti-Semitism, in an attempt to achieve a reality different
than what Wagner actually wanted. More than anything, Wagner did not hate the
Jews—Wagner simply hated anything that was not as good as him. As aptly
observed by Eduard Hanslick, one of Wagner’s contemporaries, “… a Jew happens
to be any- and everyone who doesn’t choose to worship at the shrine of Richard
Wagner.”[17]
More than anything, Wagner was a dramatic, hateful, narcissist. He should have
never been taken seriously for his political writings in the first place.
Israel’s Emotional Rather than
Rational Response. The connection which was created between
the Nazis and Wagner, gave Israel reason to place a ban on performances of
Wagner. But was it a good reason? Some people, including musicologists like
Richard Taruskin, think so, insisting that there is no reason to subject a
group of innocent listeners to music that brings back painful memories when all
they want is to enjoy a performance.[18]
This suggestion of sensitivity, though well-meaning on Taruskin’s part, is
misguided. The actions of Israel must be viewed critically—if we are to hold
Nazi Germany accountable for acts of censorship, we must also hold Israel
accountable for censorship. It is foolish to dismiss the actions of Israel as
an act of emotional self-defense from the horrors of the Third Reich—especially
because what initially appeared to be an act of self-defense soon escalated
into an attack on German art, dangerously similar to the German’s attack on
Jewish “degenerate” art. As Na’ama Sheffi explains in the book The Ring of Myths: “The main tendency in
the translation sphere at that time was a very calculated, ostentatious
discrimination in favor of writers whose works the Nazis sought to
eliminate—Jews and other opponents of the Nazi regime—and a complete disregard
of literature admired by the Third Reich.”[19] I
do not suggest that providing extra support to Jewish works is not a noble
cause. In fact, today, the OREL Foundation exists to continue the performances
of composers oppressed by the Third Reich.
The OREL Foundation states the following on their website: “By keeping
alive their music and that of other victims of totalitarianism, we deny those past
regimes a posthumous victory. The revival of this music can serve as a reminder
for us to resist any contemporary or future impulse to define artistic
standards on the basis of racist, political, sectarian or exclusionary
ideologies.”[20]
Certainly, I do not object to Israel’s attempt to increase the momentum of dead
works. But if they are stifling the works of other artists in the process, they
are being counterproductive. By suppressing art of any kind—German or not—the
Israelis are furthering the work of groups like the Nazis, and counteracting
the work of organizations like the OREL Foundation. What organization is going
to come along to revive the works of Germans in Israel someday? The fact is,
given enough time, any act of censorship will appear morally wrong. For this
reason, societies must fight misguided impulses to eliminate painful works of
art, and make decisions independent of emotions stemming from hurt national
pride.
Isreal’s
ban on Wagner and suppression of German art demonstrates another danger that
goes hand-in-hand with censorship—lack of critical thought. Sheffi explains,
“The main argument against these composers’ music, and the one that kept
recurring for several decades, was the absolute impossibility of accepting
anyone who had served the Satanic regime that had cut short the lives of
millions of Jews.”[21] This of course appealed
to the moral outrage of the people, and it seemed somewhat valid—as long as no
one reflected upon reality. When considered rationally rather than emotionally,
it is clearly an enormous overreaction to think that Wagner served the Nazis. Obviously,
Wagner and the Nazis did not exist at the same time and it is deceitful to act
as though they did. However, the false image of Wagner as the spirit of the
Nazis gave the Israelis something to unite under—their collective, somewhat
misinformed, hatred of Wagner. Over the years, this response became less of a
retaliation to the horrors of the Holocaust and more of a code of conduct. A
cultural norm blindly accepted by the people. Again, this echoes the actions of
the Nazis.
An Alternate Response. Observable
through the case of Wagner, even if composers may have certain intentions in
mind while composing music, the he or she has no control over whether or not
the audience receives the intended message or acts on it in a certain way.
Music is so powerful that no one, not even the composer, can control or predict
the repercussions of the existence and performance of that work.
Though music can be dangerous, the greater
danger is not knowing—allowing governments to control which ideas are suitable
for the public. If we allow anyone to dictate our thoughts for us, we a bound
to fall into the stupor of Nazi Germany of Israel—blindly accepting what has
become standard because we can no longer have access to other ideas we could
use to question it. Let the people decide for themselves what music best
represents their spirit based on what they choose to patronize. Let orchestras
increase their virtuosity by playing the works of genius composers.[22]
Let people realize that they are offended—that they should be wary of dangerous
and racist ideas still in existence. Yes, music is dangerous. Letting the
influence of passionate works run amok in the ears and hearts of the people can
have grave consequences, as in the case of Hitler. But alternately, it can
inspire people to do truly great things and help people recover from tragedy
and expose existing issues. The ideal response is this: for every one of us to
decide for ourselves which music is hateful, and which music will represent our
spirit and values.
Bibliography
Adorno, Theodor. In
Search of Wagner. Translated by Rodney Livingstone. New York: Verso, 2005.
Boehm, Mike. “Researcher’s mission to show Nazis’ silencing
of music during Holocaust.” Los Angeles
Times. August 23, 2014, accessed January 25, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-ca-holocaust-composers-20140824-story.html#page=1.
Conlon, James. “Recovering a Musical Heritage: The
Music Suppressed by the Third Reich,” The
OREL Foundation, 2007. Accessed January 25, 2015. http://orelfoundation.org/index.php/journal/journalArticle/recovering_a_musical_heritage_the_music_suppressed_by_the_third_reich/.
Haas, Michael.
Forbidden Music The Jewish Composers Banned by the Nazis. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2013.
Levi, Erik. Music
in the Third Reich. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.
Newman, Ernest. Wagner
as Man and Artist. New York: Vintage Books, 1960.
Potter, Pamela. “Defining “Degenerate Music” in Nazi
Germany.” The OREL Foundation. Accessed February 14, 2015. http://orelfoundation.org/index.php/journal/journalArticle/defining_8220degenerate_music8221_in_nazi_germany/.
Sheffi, Na’ama. The
Ring of Myths The Israelis, Wagner and the Nazis. Translated by Martha
Grenzeback. Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2001.
Taruskin, Richard. “The Danger of Music and the Case
for Control.” From The Danger of Music
and Other Anti-Utopian Essays. Berkeley: University of California Press,
2009.
Treadwell, James. Interpreting
Wagner. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Vaget, Hans Rudolf. “Wagnerian Self-Fashioning: The
Case of Adolf Hitler.” New German
Critique 101, 2007.
Vazsonyi, Nicholas. Wagner’s Meistersinger Performance, History, Representation.
Rochester: The University of Rochester Press, 2003.
Wagner, Richard. “Judaism in Music.” Translated by
Charles Osborne. In Richard Wagner
Stories and Essays. La Salle: Open Court, 1991.
Wagner, Richard.“What is
German?” Translated by Charles Osborne. In Richard
Wagner Stories and Essays. La Salle: Open Court, 1991.
Weiner, Marc A. Richard
Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1997.
[1] Ernest Newman, Wagner as Man and Artist (New York:
Vintage Books 1960), 175.
[2] Nicholas Vazsonyi, Wagner’s Meistersinger Performance, History,
Representation (Rochester: University of Rochester Press 2002), 4.
[3] Newman, 323.
[4] Michael Haas, Forbidden Music The Jewish Composers Banned by the Nazis (New
Haven: Yale University Press 2013), 40.
[5] Richard Wagner, “Judaism in
Music,” trans. Charles Osborne (La Salle: Open Court), 27-29, 32.
[6] Haas, 11.
[7] Richard Wagner, “What is German?,”
trans. Charles Osborne (La Salle: Open Court 1991), 49.
[8] Ibid., 53.
[9] Ibid., 44.
[10] Newman, 361.
[11] Ibid., 321.
[12] Ibid., 363.
[13] James Treadwell, Interpreting Wagner (New Haven: Yale
University Press 2003), 194.
[14] Hans Rudolf Vaget, “Wagnerian
Self-Fashioning: The Case of Adolf Hitler,” New
German Critique 101 (2007).
[15] Pamela Potter, “Defining
“Degenerate Music” in Nazi Germany,” The
OREL Foundation, accessed February 14, 2015, http://orelfoundation.org/index.php/journal/journalArticle/defining_8220degenerate_music8221_in_nazi_germany/.
[16]Na’ama Sheffi, “The Ring of Myths
The Israelis, Wagner and the Nazis,” trans. Martha Grenzeback (Portland: Sussex
Academic Press 2001), vii, 34, 13, 36-37.
[17] Haas, 39.
[18] Richard Taruskin, “The Danger of
Music and the Case for Control,” in The
Danger of Music and Other Anti-Utopian Essays (Berkeley: University of
California Press 2009), 171.
[19] Sheffi, 2.
[20] James Conlon, “Recovering a
Musical Heritage: The Music Suppressed by the Third Reich,” The OREL Foundation, 2007, accessed
January 25, 2015, http://orelfoundation.org/index.php/journal/journalArticle/recovering_a_musical_heritage_the_music_suppressed_by_the_third_reich/.
[22] Sheffi, vii.
No comments:
Post a Comment