Saul Friedländer on Richard Wagner

Sorry for the long silence but I have been a touch distracted by life. One substantial blog entry a month is the best I can do, but I seem to have skipped a month. It gives me time to think through and research what I have written to ensure what you read is of high quality. As usual I've been spending weeks thinking things over, although sometimes it takes me longer than that. I then write my draft and after a while I decide it is acceptable enough to publish. I then spend the next two weeks editing it every day, horrified by the deficiencies—stylistic, grammatical as well as plain old spelling errors. Proofreading and editing is, by my own confession, my greatest weakness. I am also my own greatest critic, which drives a desire to constantly re-edit things.

After you publish anything, you come across new facts and information. That is inevitable. The advantage of internet publication is that you can go back and correct things. Things are less fixed in black-and-white as they are with traditional publishing. On the other hand you can be tempted to make endless edits, even to the detriment of a piece. In my planned edit of the previous publication I am discussing this month, I think it is both necessary and justified. In this case, I really had to think long and hard over whether I should publish the conclusions of my research. In the end, I've decided that honesty is the best policy, and this would be the best way forward. This month's post is really a discussion related my intended editorial changes to the old chestnut on Joachim Köhler's book Wagner's Hitler, which has become the most widely read of all posts on this blog. This reflects the length of this post, the depth of research it involved, and the amount of time devoted to writing it. For all of that, I am constantly astonished to discover what seems an endless stream of deficiencies.

I think readers will find my planned edits to this thread uncomfortable. Fanatical critics will throw their hands up and say "there I told you that Wagner caused WWII and the Holocaust." Some will prefer that I played the role of defence lawyer to Köhler's prosecutor, even to the point of distortion for rhetorical effect. Yet a lawyer I am not, and nor do I wish to be considered some sort of Wagner apologist. I only write on Wagner because much of the nonsense out in traditional print media leaves me utterly exasperated. Not, though, because I consider myself a "Wagnerian." I would just as soon label myself a Schoenbergian, a Webernian, or if that moniker had not already been taken, a Boulezian. I feel compelled to unveil a grander, and ultimately more truthful, hidden narrative that gets buried amid all of the hysteria that erupts whenever Wagner's name is even so much as mentioned. It is a story that simply had to be told.

So this month's post will be about complete honesty. It will be about telling the full narrative, and not a lawyer's exaggerated and one-side apologia for the sake of Wagnerianism. That, however, is something that will ultimately be a strength, not a weakness. Let no fool claim that anyone who criticises Joachim Köhler is merely some deluded Wagner "apologist" in frank denial of the "obvious."

What, you might be asking, are the edits that will be so controversial? The answer is that there are two of these. Although seemingly small, they have ramifications that need to be openly discussed. The first of these involves a quotation I found in Hindenburg's autobiography. The second of these is the more important—from Saul Friedländer.

1. Hindenburg Quotation

NSDAP election poster, 1933
Despite all the political differences between Adolf Hitler and President Paul von Hindenburg, Hindenburg was revered by NSDAP members, and Nazi propaganda claimed the "Hero of Tannenberg" for themselves. For the 1933 election, the NSDAP advertised with the portraits of both politicians to increase Hitler's reputation in German nationalist-conservative circles. The quote is from the poem "Spring Greeting to the Fatherland" by poet Max von Schenkendorfstraße (1783-1817), and reads: "Never shall the Empire [Reich] be destroyed if you remain united and patriotic"

The following comes from Paul Hindenburg's autobiography Aus meinem Leben p403, 1920. In discussing the collapse of the German armed forces during the First World War, Hindenburg does invoke the metaphor of Siegfried being felled by Hagen.

My Farewell 

We were at the end! 

Like Siegfried under the treacherous spear of the wrathful Hagen, our weary front crumpled; vainly they tried to drink from the dried out fount of inner force. Our task now was to save the life of the remaining forces of our army for the later construction of the fatherland. The present was lost. So there only remained hope for the future.

Mein Abschied 

Wir waren am Ende! 

Wie Siegfried unter dem hinterlistigen Speerwurf des grimmen Hagen, so stürzte unsere ermattete Front; vergebens hatte sie versucht, aus dem versiegenden Quell der heimatlichen Kraft neues Leben zu trinken. Unsere Aufgabe war es nunmehr, das Dasein der übriggebliebenen Kräfte unseres Heeres für den spätem Aufbau des Vaterlandes zu retten. Die Gegenwart war verloren. So blieb nur die Hoffnung auf die Zukunft.

Polemicists will see in this definitive proof for Köhler's claims that the Dolchstoßlegende has Wagnerian roots and that the "stab in the back" can thus only have originated as a reference to the way Siegfried is stabbed in the back by Hagen.

There are a number of problems with such a claim. Firstly, the stab in the back metaphor predates Hindenburg's book. It does not originate from Hindenburg, who is merely speaking metaphorically with a literary allusion. I have two sources for the origins of the Stab-in-the-Back Legend (Dolchstoßlegende).  The first of these is the Deutsche Tageszeitung, 1918. According to Press and Politics in the Weimar Republic it first reported mid-December 1918, where it was attributed to an unspecified "British general." Another, German source states that it originated in the Neuen Zürcher Zeitung 17th December, 1918 where it was stated as coming from a British general Sir Frederick Maurice (Lars Broder Keil: Deutsche Legenden: vom "Dolchstoss" und anderen Mythen der Geschichte). Secondly, Hindenburg might have been part of the political centre right, but he was never so extreme to have been a Nazi supporter, and held Hitler in contempt. It is simply nonsense to say that because Hindenburg spoke metaphorically in evoking Siegfried's death in Götterdämmerung that the Stab-in-the-Back Legend originated from the National Socialists with an originally Wagnerian meaning—let alone to ascribe the origins to Adolf Hitler.

I have also recently shown readers the following cartoon from the Völkischer Beobachter, the official mouthpiece of the National Socialist Party in which the "stab in the back" is given a Shakespearean twist:

"The French Shylock in the Ruhr region"

On the basis of this, it could just as easily be concluded that the "stab-in-the-back" metaphor had Shakespearean origins. So, who "caused" WWII and the Holocaust—Shakespeare or Wagner?



2. Cosima Diary Quotation

The great Holocaust historian Saul Friedländer

Now, with that little quotation from Hindenburg out of the way, we will move on to a critique of Saul Friedländer's account of Richard Wagner as published in his book The Years of Persecution (1998)—volume one of Saul Friedländer's classic two volume study of the Holocaust. Friedländer states here that:

The Germanic hero Siegfried kills the repulsive Nibelung dwarf Mime, whom Wagner himself identifies, according to Cosima Wagner's diaries, as a "Jüdling." (Chapter on Redemptive Anti-Semitism III)

What Cosima states in her diary on Tuesday 3rd of May, 1881 is that:

Erster Akt Siegfried, Mime »ein Jüdchen«, sagt R., aber vortrefflich... 

First Act Siegfried, Mime "a little Jew" says R., but magnificent...

Friedländer gets the quotation slightly wrong as Cosima writes "Jüdchen" rather than "Jüdling."

It is understandable that Joachim Köhler chooses to omit any quotation of this passage. The reason is that the -chen ending forms the diminutive and tends to imply a humorous affectionateness, one that is further emphasised by the word "vortrefflich" (magnificent) that follows.

I imagine a few readers will be throwing their hands in the air saying that this proves Wagner caused WWII and the Holocaust. However, Shylock is Jewish too. Does that mean that all villains in Shakespeare must now be interpreted as being Jewish? Does that mean that all of Shakespeare is to be interpreted as cryptic proto-Nazi propaganda in which Shakespeare gives artistic expression to Martin Luther's call to deal "hellfire" to the Jews, one where Shakespearean drama leads straight to the "hellfire" of the crematoria of Auschwitz? Indeed, the greater question is whether Köhler's affirmation of the Nazi interpretation of the entire history of great Western art as a prophetic premonition leading up to the "grand artistic vision" that is National Socialism has now been fully substantiated.

Nor should it be forgotten that the Cosima diaries were only published in the 1970's. Of course, Köhler would doubtless claim that these sorts of things were an open secret amongst the Bayreuth inner circle well before then. However, what evidence does he have for this beyond his usual rampant speculation? None whatsoever.

What this quotation from the Cosima diaries actually shows is that Wagner's attitude to the Jews was complex and ambivalent. Nor is there anything to suggest that all the Nibelungs were considered Jewish, since Wagner is also quoted as saying in the Cosima diaries on 17th November, 1882:

Early in the day we went through the old hosts of the Nibelung by Richard from the viewpoint of the races: the gods the whites, the dwarfs the yellows (Mongols), the blacks the Ethiopians, Loge the mixed bloods.

In der Frühe heute gingen wir die Gestalten des Richards des Nibelungen durch vom Gesichtspunkt der Rassen aus, die Götter, die weiß, die Zwerge, die Gelben (Mongolen), die Schwarzen die Äthiopier; Loge der métis.

This really does exclude any possibility of any simplistic and unilateral interpretation of The Ring as a conflict between so-called "Aryans" and Jews. Also note the terms "vom Gesichtspunkt" (seen from the viewpoint). In other words, there are many such Gesichtspunkte, viewpoints, or interpretations. Simplistic unilateral and reductionist interpretations like those of Köhler just will not suffice, neither here nor in Shakespeare.

The other thing is that Friedländer's book predates his highly scathing and critical response to Joachim Köhler's book found in Richard Wagner im Dritten Reich. Friedländer goes on in the same chapter of The Years of Persecution:

All in all the relation between Siegfried and Mime, overloaded with the most telling symbolism, was probably meant as a fierce anti-Semitic allegory of the relation between German and Jew—and of the ultimate fate of the Jew. Even the Master's jokes, like his "wish" that all Jews be burned at a performance of Lessing's Nathan the Wise, expressed the underlying intensity of his exterminatory fantasies. And yet, Wagner's ideas about the Jews remained inconsistent, and the number of Jews in his entourage, from the pianists Carl Tausig and Josef Rubinstein to the conductor Hermann Levi and the impresario Angelo Neumann, is well known. Indeed, Wagner's behavior toward Levi was often overtly sadistic, and Rubinstein was a notoriously self-hating Jew. Yet these Jews belonged to the maestro's close entourage, and, more significant, Wagner gave Neumann considerable leeway regarding the handling of contracts and performances of his works: No consistently fanatical anti-Semite would have allowed such a massive compromise.

Interpretations of Wagner's demands on his conductor as being "sadistic" are not supported by any specific examples. What does "sadistic" mean? Did Wagner whip and chain Levi? Toscanini was often extreme in the old-fashioned bullying authoritarian approach to his musicians, yet nobody calls him "sadistic." There are film directors who are notorious for being overbearing and demanding, yet never does this lead to accusations of "sadism", let alone to accusations of genocide. Furthermore, on what does Friedländer base his claim that "the relation between Siegfried and Mime, overloaded with the most telling symbolism, was probably meant as a fierce anti-Semitic allegory of the relation between German and Jew—and of the ultimate fate of the Jew"? He gives us no bibliographic citation to justify this. When you consider how much historians—to their immense credit—dislike this sort of speculation, based on an alarming paucity of supportive evidence, it is surprising that Friedländer of all people should continue to indulge in it. Nor should it be forgotten that the story of the Nibelungenlied predates Wagner by many centuries. Wagner did not create this legend of dwarves, giants and gods.

Friedländer also makes the following assertion in the same book:

That Wagner's anti-Semitism was a constant and growing obsession after the 1851 publication of his Das Judentum in der Musik (Judaism in Music) is unquestionable.

However, he once again gives us no bibliographic citations to actually chase up in order to either confirm or deny this assertion. The closest thing to anything backing up his claim is the claim that this view of Wagner is "unquestionable". In academia that carries about as much weight as making the statement that the moon is made of cheese on the grounds that this fact is "unquestionable." Particularly where emotive controversy has been swirling around a subject for decades, meticulously detailed supportive citations from quality sources become absolutely crucial. Merely stating things are "just so" is unacceptable. While there is little doubt that Friedländer's standard-setting writings on the subject of Wagner are about as immensely authoritative as it gets, even here there are short-falls in academic quality. It seems that, as usual, upon the mere mention of Wagner's name, even the finest scholars get instantly reduced to making statements having the logical format to the effect that the moon is "unquestionably" made of cheese and that pigs "unquestionably" fly. Sadly, that seems to be the Wagner effect, where even the finest academics—and Saul Friedländeris one the greats of our time—are instantly reduced making the most remarkably ill disciplined statements at the mere mention of his name. It appears that Wagner studies seem destined to remain eternally cursed by this phenomenon for some time to come. In the meanwhile, Friedländer is to be commended for having written some of the most thoughtful and intelligent things on Wagner, of a level of academic quality that puts musicologists to complete and utter shame. Nonetheless, the question is why it must be that musicologist have fallen so short in demonstrating an ability to discuss Wagnerian musicological issues in a way that encompasses history, politics, social thought and philosophy in the manner of Theodor Adorno?—Although Adorno too falls victim to the Wagner effects as he too is reduced to ranting. Why do musicologist have to wait for a historian without any musicology background to write on their behalf? Unfortunately, this highlights an enormous deficiency in the education of musicologists.

Yet for all of Friedländer's virtue it must still be asked why nobody discusses Karl Marx's hostile outbursts about the Jews in the same way as is common practice with Wagner, where it is universally asserted that Marx "unquestionably" caused WWII and the Holocaust. The objection will come that Hitler did not like Marx's music, because Marx did not compose. Does that mean that if the socialist thinker, Karl Marx, had been a composer and that Hitler had liked his music, that Marx would have been responsible for WWII and the Holocaust? Ironically, Karl Marx (1897 – 1985) was the name of a composer who was a National Socialist supporter and who did write music for them. After all, the fact that Hitler liked an artist (he liked Beethoven and Shakespeare) seems universally accepted as sufficient proof that this same artist liked by Hitler helped cause WWII and the Holocaust. Hitler also liked Mahler's Wagner interpretation. Perhaps Mahler caused WWII and the Holocaust? Hitler also liked Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Obviously that means that Disney caused WWII and the Holocaust. Doubtless Köhler would have us believe that the seven dwarves were "unquestionably" Jewish like the Nibelungs based on the fact that Hitler liked the Disney movie.

Another oft quoted part of the Cosima diaries also requires some commentary. Friedländer writes in the same book:

Even the Master's jokes, like his "wish" that all Jews be burned at a performance of Lessing's Nathan the Wise, expressed the underlying intensity of his exterminatory fantasies.

Lessing's play is one where he pleads for mutual tolerance between Christians, Muslims and Jews. Wagner's comments can, and should, equally be regarded as a statement of hostility towards Islam. At other times, Wagner is equally hostile towards Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In fact, Wagner is universally hostile towards what he seems as conservative religious dogmatic orthodoxy, which he regarded as being a form of authoritarianism. At many points, the escalating hostility of Wagner's attitude towards the Jews is coupled to that toward Roman Catholicism. Yet nobody makes the statement that Wagner wanted the systematic physical extermination of all Catholics. Indeed, Cosima was born and raised Catholic, just as many of his closest musical associates were assimilated Jews. In the end, Wagner's willingness to employ assimilated Jews, even entrusting the premier of Parsifal to Hermann Levi, demonstrates that he was willing to accept born Jews and Catholics as long as they stopped being pious orthodox religious types who unquestioningly submitted to the voice of dogmatic religious authority. The consistent twisting of Wagner's view so as to make it appear to align with National Socialist radical anti-Semitism, cannot but appear today to be a dubious attempt by right-wing religious conservatives to discredit Wagner. The use of Wagner's music as an occasional sound-track to Nazi propaganda is surely as irrelevant to an understanding to Wagner as the use of Beethoven and Shakespeare by the Nazi propaganda machine is irrelevant to a proper understanding of Beethoven or Shakespeare.