Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination (Texts and Contexts, Vol 12)

Rating:
Summary: Bigoted view of Wagner's music
Review: The book's thesis is that Wagner's "good" characters, especially in the "Ring" and "Meistersinger" are all Aryans, while his bad characters are all Jews. This ignores the fact that the "Ring" depicts a struggle between love and the will to power, in which both gods and Nibelungs value power over love, and are morally equivalent. The gods are not "good", nor the Nibelungs "evil". And Wagner is on the side of love, not power. (The Nazis came to realise the gulf between their views and Wagner's, banning performances of both the "Ring" and "Parsifal" throughout the Third Reich, because they contained pacifist and anti-militarist messages. Hitler's admiration for Wagner has been much exaggerated; there's some evidence that he preferred Bruckner.)

Weiner's basic misunderstanding of Wagner's ideas suggests limited acquaintance of, or understanding of, the texts he's attacking. And his arguments are of a standard you'd expect to find in alien abduction books, not scholarly texts.

For example, on page 90 he argues that his "Aryan" characters are associated with noble animals, including the "magic, superior dragon". On page 91 he remembers that Alberich*, who Weiner thinks is an antisemitic caricature, is associated with dragons because he once turned himself into one. So only a page later Weiner calls dragons ignoble "inferior" animals, because that suits his argument. Similarly, "ravens" are noble and therefore Aryan, according to Weiner, when they are associated with Wotan; but he forgets that in "Meistersinger" Walther compares Beckmesser to a raven. If Weiner's "rule" about animals is correct, then Walther is labelling Beckmesser as Aryan. But Weiner's "rules" are the intellectual equivalent of paper tissues; you use them once and then throw them away. (*As early as 1907 George Bernard Shaw pointed out, correctly, that Alberich is a Nibelung, one of an exploited people who work hard in mines and factories; he represents the working class. 19th century antisemites didn't think that Jews were exploited manual labourers. The Nibelungs aren't Jews.)

Weiner consistently makes up rules, then discards them after one use. For example, a rule for spotting "Jewish" characters, says Weiner, is that they have poor eyesight. Mime, in "Siegfried", is described by Siegfried as having dripping eyes. I read that as Mime crying to try to win Siegfried's sympathy, but yes, he _might_ have poor eyesight. But Wotan appears in "Siegfried", in disguise, and meets Mime and Alberich (supposedly "Jewish") and Erda (supposedly "Aryan"). Mime takes a while to recognise Wotan, as does Erda; but sharp-eyed Alberich penetrates the disguise immediately. Logically that should make Mime and Erda (an earth goddess and former lover of Wotan) Jewish, and Alberich Aryan; but Weiner won't apply his "rule" when it doesn't suit him.

Moving to "Meistersinger", Weiner's now forgotten the rule completely, because in Act II Eva disguises herself as her maid Magdalena. Walther, a hero, is fooled until she gets close; Beckmesser is likewise fooled. So is Eva's father Pogner. Sharp-eyed David sees through the disguise immediately. So are they all Jews except David? No, because Weiner's rules apply only when he wants them to. He concludes that only Beckmesser is Jewish. (Beckmesser is the Marker, one of the most respected positions in the Mastersingers, not an outsider from a ghetto. He is the Town Clerk of 16th Century Nuremberg, which is not a town that appointed Jewish Town Clerks. And he is the favoured suitor to win the hand of a rich Christian merchant's daughter, before Walther comes along, without race or religion being an issue. Beckmesser, respected citizen and eligible bachelor - if a little old - is not a Jewish caricature or character, on perfectly clear and unambiguous factual grounds.)

But Weiner's not interested in facts. Two more examples. Jewish characters, says Weiner, sing high. So does that make the heroes Walther, Siegfried and half the Valkyries Jewish? No: only Mime, and, oddly, the baritones Beckmesser and Alberich, who aren't higher than Wotan. And he "forgets" to mention Hagen, Klingsor and Kundry, because though he wants to claim them as Jewish, they sing low. Another Weiner "rule"? Jews sing coloratura, while Aryans sing straight. The rule "proves" Beckmesser is Jewish: he sings coloratura. But so does Brunnhilde in "Siegfried", so is she Jewish too? No, Weiner doesn't apply the "rule" then. And so on.

He also claims, falsely, that these incoherent "rules" of Weiner's were understood in Wagner's day. Since they aren't rules at all, they weren't, of course. He brings forward no evidence to support this claim. And yet there are ample records of contemporary reviews of Wagner's operas, which show that, contrary to Weiner's claim, it never occured to Wagner's contemporaries that his operas contain secret antisemitic messages. I suspect Weiner knows that, because he must have looked through when trying to find something he could quote to support his case; and the silence there is eloquent.

In short this is a silly book, intellectually startling, but not in a good way. It's interesting in the way very bad films are interesting, and a must for bad-argument fans, but it's profoundly dishonest and unreliable as a guide to Wagner.

This is not to say that Wagner was not antisemitic; of course he was (Jacob Katz's "Wagner: The Dark Side of Genius" is a far better book that exposes and condemns Wagner's antisemitism). It is only to say that Wagner had the artistic judgement to keep his cranky and bigoted side out of works that he wanted to have some claim to universality. He was a shoddy human being but a supreme artist.

Laon

Rating:
Summary: Not entirely untrue, but...
Review: The most naked flaw of the book is that its rather simple themes are described in graduate school vocabulary of the most indulgent kind. Often, complex ideas require complex language. But here, there is little complexity beyond word choice. For example, instead of 'walk' Weiner consistently chooses 'perambulate'. Is MW's tongue in his cheek? Is he punishing us for all his years of educational drudgery? Is he (un)consciously emulating Wagner's steriotype of Jewish intellectuals being little more than stuffed shirts spouting flashy, showy, yet ultimately shallow knowledge? Other examples:

perambulatory peregrination

topoi, gustatory, mephitic

(he uses vouchafe at least 4 times!)

A big diction (my penis may be small but I have a huge diction...) is an asset, but MW continually trips over it. Obsfucation, like sloppy handwriting, is an aid to the inept--it forces the confused reader to assume that the writer has made some sort of profound point when in fact there is little beyond the vocabulary. But this style is endemic to academia, and it contributes to no one 'in the real world' taking academics seriously. More odiously, an anti-semite could take such an observation, combine it with the disproportionate representation of Jews in the academy vis a vis general population, and conclude that MW's book is evidence of the deleterious effect of Jewish thinking on higher education [pretentious word choice deliberate]. In this light, MW's book becomes fodder for high-brow anti-semites--and I assume that this was not his point. But again, this is a style problem, and there are much worse examples out there, I just can't think of one right now.

The content is simple. But even more simple than MW realizes. In the 19th c. Jews were often associated with 'bad' or evil attributes. So much so, that if one were to make an opera with an evil character, then the attributes of that character could be construed as Jewish. Furthermore, there any fool can find anti-semitism in a Wagner opera, particularly if one looks for it. But that is the beauty of Wagner. There is such a degree of complexity to his work, so many levels of interpretation, that one can find a myriad of meanings. I believe MW is on to something. But it is not profound, it is overdone, and it misses much more profound and meaningful levels of interpretation. The book would make a nice thesis, especially if it was shortened to about 100pp. But the book oversimplifies Wagner's operas, and it has the potential to ruin a reader's couriosity in Wagnerian opera, especially if that reader is sensitive and Jewish. And if you want to hate Wagner as a person, which I do, or if you think you like him, read 'Köhler's Nietsche and Wagner, A Lesson in Subjugation'. Here is a book that gives you more than you thought possible. And if you want some high-brow-dirt on Wagner or Nietzsche, its here.

Rating:
Summary: Not entirely untrue, but...
Review: The most naked flaw of the book is that its rather simple themes are described in graduate school vocabulary of the most indulgent kind. Often, complex ideas require complex language. But here, there is little complexity beyond word choice. For example, instead of 'walk' Weiner consistently chooses 'perambulate'. Is MW's tongue in his cheek? Is he punishing us for all his years of educational drudgery? Is he (un)consciously emulating Wagner's steriotype of Jewish intellectuals being little more than stuffed shirts spouting flashy, showy, yet ultimately shallow knowledge? Other examples:

perambulatory peregrination

topoi, gustatory, mephitic

(he uses vouchafe at least 4 times!)

A big diction (my penis may be small but I have a huge diction...) is an asset, but MW continually trips over it. Obsfucation, like sloppy handwriting, is an aid to the inept--it forces the confused reader to assume that the writer has made some sort of profound point when in fact there is little beyond the vocabulary. But this style is endemic to academia, and it contributes to no one 'in the real world' taking academics seriously. More odiously, an anti-semite could take such an observation, combine it with the disproportionate representation of Jews in the academy vis a vis general population, and conclude that MW's book is evidence of the deleterious effect of Jewish thinking on higher education [pretentious word choice deliberate]. In this light, MW's book becomes fodder for high-brow anti-semites--and I assume that this was not his point. But again, this is a style problem, and there are much worse examples out there, I just can't think of one right now.

The content is simple. But even more simple than MW realizes. In the 19th c. Jews were often associated with 'bad' or evil attributes. So much so, that if one were to make an opera with an evil character, then the attributes of that character could be construed as Jewish. Furthermore, there any fool can find anti-semitism in a Wagner opera, particularly if one looks for it. But that is the beauty of Wagner. There is such a degree of complexity to his work, so many levels of interpretation, that one can find a myriad of meanings. I believe MW is on to something. But it is not profound, it is overdone, and it misses much more profound and meaningful levels of interpretation. The book would make a nice thesis, especially if it was shortened to about 100pp. But the book oversimplifies Wagner's operas, and it has the potential to ruin a reader's couriosity in Wagnerian opera, especially if that reader is sensitive and Jewish. And if you want to hate Wagner as a person, which I do, or if you think you like him, read 'Köhler's Nietsche and Wagner, A Lesson in Subjugation'. Here is a book that gives you more than you thought possible. And if you want some high-brow-dirt on Wagner or Nietzsche, its here.

Rating:
Summary: Keew da Vagnah!
Review: The title of this review is perhaps appropriate, as only one with the approximate intelligence of Elmer Fudd would give any merit to this convoluted, highly questionable stab at serious scholarship. And no, I'm not a hopeless Wagnerian who tailgates at the elitist festival at Bayreuth or who owns 50 different copies of Die Feen on CD. Wagner's anti-Semitism was real enough, but this book goes so far over the deep end that in the end it actually comes close to redeeming the accused (to a certain extent).

While not as obviously venomous as Paul Lawrence Rose's Wagner: Race, Revolution & Redemption, RW & the Anti-Semitic Imagination is just as questionable. Weiner's thesis is that all of the unpleasant characters in Wagner's later operas, with their appearance, smells & voices, are clandestine Jews. Weiner uses such airtight evidence as using another composer's (Mussorgsky) alleged anti-Semitic work to prove that Wagner was doing the same. I hope Mr. Weiner is never my attorney.

One of Weiner's favorite examples in trying to prove his thesis is The Ring's Alberich. Alberich is short, ugly, greedy, manipulative, and cruel to his own race. According to Weiner, this is proof positive that this character is a metaphor for Jewish people. Well....the Nibelungen, the race that Alberich enslaves with the ring & is a member of, were peaceful & not portayed by Wagner in a bad light before Alberich used the nasty little trinket. I suppose it never occurred to Weiner that the Nibelungen were depicted as dwarves in the saga centuries before Wagner even set the tale to music. Of the Nibelungen, only Alberich, Mime, and Hagen are shown as ruthless. The rest are downtrodden. Incidentally, Alberich is the only major character to survive the whole Ring cycle. If Wagner had truly genocidal feelings towards this metaphor, surely he would have had Wotan spear him in Rheingold.

Secondly, Weiner claims that Wagner had Hegelian notions of "the East" being a place of degeneracy and fear, while "the West" was enlightened. However, anyone who knows even a little about Wagner knows that Schopenhauer was a much bigger influence on his thinking than Hegel ever was. What were those statues of Buddha doing at Wahnfried? Why exactly did Wagner become a vegetarian? What is the entire premise of Tristan und Isolde? It was Schopenhauer's love of Eastern thought (primarily Buddhism) that motivated Wagner to formulate such things. Buddhist resignation, rather than any Teutonic drive to conquer, is at the heart of Wagner's later masterpieces.

If you want some good books that deal specifically with Wagner's anti-Semitism, I suggest Ring of Myths and/or The Darker Side of Genius. Unfortunately, both of these books are a little over Elmer's head.

Rating:
Summary: A dishonest analysis!
Review: Wagner may have acquired anti-semetic feelings but this "analysis" is ridiculous and contrived. It is hardly an unbiased scholarly work.This is the kind of stuff that keeps racism boiling!

Rating:
Summary: Bigoted view of Wagner's music
Review: Wagner's art is too profound and rich to be viewed as Marc Weiner desperately tries to convince us it should, ie, a tool of hate propaganda. Taking Weiner too serioulsly would only impoverish our experience of Wagner's operas. Weiner is so bigoted that he can only see hate in every note of Wagner's operas. Do not let it diminish the rich experience there is in Wagner's works awating for those who want to really explore them.