Talk:Richard Wagner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Wagner article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Richard Wagner is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


[edit] Early life, Dresden

First of all, "In 1822, at age 11, Richard was enrolled in the Kreuzschule, Dresden" is false because Wagner would have been 8 or 9 in 1822 (born May 22, 1813). I would edit it, but I'm not certain whether it should read "In 1822, at age 8...", "In 1822, at age 9...", or "In 1824, at age 11...". Furthermore, I read on this website that he moved to Dresden at age seven, but I don't have anything to confirm if this is correct. Anyone have some more reliable sources?

I have corrected and edited this section so as to deal with these queries. --Smerus 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayreuth circle

An article (or non-article) exists entitled Bayreuth circle. I have posted it for deletion. Do please take a look - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bayreuth_Circle - and vote (I hope for deletion, but against if you feel you have to!!). --Smerus 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over terms

I suppose this request would call for some fairly drastic (albeit necessary) reconsiderations on a number of Wikipedia articles (perhaps most importantly, its relationship to categorization), but I must strenuously oppose the affixation of the term "opera" to Wagner's music dramas. Indeed, there is an acute difference between the contemporaneously prevailing trends in Italian and French styles of opera and those of Wagner's music dramas (also, several of Richard Strauss' works), so much that it rather stifles comparison. Placing the music dramas of the Ring Cycle under the category of "Operas" is not only a misconstruction of its artistic integrity, but also a false predicate. The distinction is not nearly so arbitrary as one might think, and it is not singularly standard to respect the categoric designations of, take for instance, Gustav Mahler's Eighth Symphony (which adheres to a scarcely traditional symphonic structure) as "symphony" and deny Wagner's discrimination between opera and music drama. The abandonment of this intelligible boundary between opera and music drama bodes ill for the categorization of mid-20th Century musicals as well. I would be hesitant to advance any re-categorisation without the mutual devotion from those competent on the subject, so I will wait before editng the relevant articles. A.G. Pinkwater 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is an general encyclopaedia, rather than a debating forum for musicologists or those interested in Wagner's theory of drama. Whilst the general reader certianly needs to made aware of the debate opera/music drama, people in general (and many of those who enjoy Wagner's music) think of Wagner's works as operas and it would be confusing and perhaps detrimental to 'detach' them from the category of opera unless you can demonstrate wide-scale support for such a move. Why not, for example, create an article Music drama in which you can cover Wagner's ideas on this issue, and link it to other relevant WP articles?

Smerus 08:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of my European friends tell me that they still play "Wagner's Operas" in their home countries, including Germany. 198.86.16.123 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist ?

Wasn't Wagner a Marxist Socialist in his younger days? Can anyone confirm that? --Donnald 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He was never a Marxist - Marx himself was little-known at the time. He was associated with Michael Bakunin and with the general Left-Hegelian thinking of the era, which often mixed socialist with semi-mystical nationalist ideas. Paul B 01:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So apart from his anti-semitic views , was Wagner ever right-wing? --Donnald 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

His politics probably shifted to a more conservative line after reading Schopenhauer, because S. attributes the problems of life not to changeable social conditions but to unchangeable metaphysical ones. The failures of the the 1848 revolutions probably had some effect too, since they had that effect on an awful lot of people. Wagner also appears to have gone for a more nationalistic line around the time of the Franco-Prussian War, but to be fair, having one's own country win a war tends to have that effect on people. The sense that the left had failed to achieve unification in 1848, but the right delivered it in the 1870s was widely shared.--Agent Cooper 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche

"his pacifism and anti-Semitism, and with Wagner's uncritical followers. In Der Fall Wagner ("The Case of Wagner", 1888) and Nietzsche Contra Wagner ("Nietzsche vs. Wagner", 1889), he conceded the power of Wagner's music but condemned Wagner as decadent and corrupt, even criticizing his earlier adulatory views of the composer."

This is not literally wrong, but for the reference to pacifism, for which I can find no supporting reference and which doesn't tally with my knowledge of Nietzsche. But the whole passage is seriously misleading--the first sentence suggests that Nietzsche was primarily concerned with Wagner's followers, whereas all the evidence suggests that he was earliest concerned with Wagner's personality, which he was coming to regard as histrionic and inauthentic. Second, it is misleading to suggest that he conceded the power of Wagner's music when a great deal of his late writing on Wagner is concerned with understanding what is wrong with the music qua music; there is nothing much "conceded" in these critical discussions other than the danger of its seductiveness. I know of three places where Nietzsche says something positive about Wagner's music in his late (post 1876, the date of "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth") writings (1) in Beyond Good and Evil he praises the overture to Meistersinger, (2) there's a passage, I don't recall the location but could find it, where he says that Wagner wants to make grand music but that his real gift is as a "miniaturist" and depictor of sad moods [I think this is in NCW, which begins with positive comments], and a letter in which he says that musically, Parsifal is the best thing Wagner has done.

Nietzsche objected to Wagner's lack of rhythm, his histrionic aesthetic, his overbearing personality and inauthenticity, his antisemitism, his nationalism, his reactionary appropriation of Christianity in Parsifal, and much else besides. Whether these objections are fair is not my or Wikipedia's concern, but it is worth noting that in the Wagner secondary literature, it is common to distort the character of Nietzsche's objections the better to minimize them, and making the lead objection to Wagner his "pacifism" (something I don't think he ever discusses, and something that is often thought to be praiseworthy, thus playing the tar someone by alluding to a connection to Germal imperialism game in reverse) while tagging on the end that Nietzsche seems not to have had a problem with Wagner's music of course, who could? is to completely misrepresent the relationship between these two unusual men. Nietzsche's personal objection to Wagner was that he couldn't bear to stand in his shadow. Nietzsche's main public objection to Wagner was that his music was bad and bad for us in the same way that opiate addiction was--it dulled our pain without solving our problems.--Agent Cooper 16:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche grew disgusted with what Wagner's music represented to him, but still conceded that Wagner was a masterful musician. He wrote of Wagner, "His last work is in this respect his greatest masterpiece. In the art of seduction, Parsifal will always retain its rank, as the stroke of genius in seduction... I admire this work, I wish I had produced it myself; failing that, I understand it." He also writes that Wagner is the most "eloquent prophet of the soul" of modernity and that "I understand perfectly when a musician says today: 'I hate Wagner, but I can no longer endure any other music.'"[1] I wouldn't say Nietzsche was questioning Wagner's talent as a musician so much as attacking what he stood for and what he had done to music.Shield2 10:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He also called Wagner a "genious" in Beyond Good and Evil

"With all profound and comprehensive men of this century the real overall direction in the mysterious work of their souls has been to prepare the way to this new synthesis and to anticipate, as an experiment, the Europe of the future. Only in their foregrounds or in their weaker hours, as in old age, did they belong to the 'fatherland.”' They were only taking a rest from themselves when they became 'patriots.'

I’m thinking of men like Napoleon, Goethe, Beethoven, Stendhal, Heinrich Heine, Schopenhauer. Don’t get angry with me if I also count Richard Wagner among them. About him people should not let themselves be seduced by his own misunderstandings—geniuses of his kind rarely have the right to understandthemselves. Even less, of course, by the uncivilized noise with which people these days in France close themselves off from and resist Richard Wagner. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the late French Romanticism of the forties and Richard Wagner belong together in the closest and most inner relation. "[2]Shield2 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merkel & Wagner

Angela Merkel is a big Wagner fan. She seems to disassociate Wagner's anti-semitism from his so-called music. Is this possible, were one to understand the connection between classical art and science? and then the link between degenerate music and degenerate beliefs? please write me a note, should you comment here, that I come check this out. --Ibykus prometheus 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"So-called music"? What else do you call it? The claim that there is a link between "degnerate music and degenerate beliefs" makes you sound like the Nazi here. Paul B 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gobineau and the Grail

I've not looked at this article in a couple of months, but this section on the influence of Gobineau on Wagner has been added which is poorly written, very sweeping in its statements and backs them up only with secondary or even tertiary sources.

  • "The influence of Gobineau in Wagner's mature period, even extending esoterically into his art-work, is very strong." - well personally I don't see any influence on Wagner's operas at all, probably because he wrote the stories for most of them well before he ever met or read Gobineau.
  • ""On the Womanly in the Human Race" (1883), a recently composed essay found in Wagner's papers after his death" - a recently composed essay?
  • The reference to Waite's book does not consititue a reliable source for what Wagner actually thought. You would in any case have to ask why (if the Grail knights are the Supreme Race) are the Grail knights not the ones who find the Holy Spear? Why do they waste their time in meaningless ritual, waiting for miracles? The opera shows clearly that the person who can win the Spear is an outsider whose prime virtue is that of compassion. I have to say that I think this section should be removed until something better (ie. more accurate) can be written.--Dogbertd 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-ordered article

I've changed the order of items in the article. I thought that, as this is an encyclopedia article and not a polemic, it would be more appropriate to focus on his life and works before plunging the article into the murky depths of Wagnerian controversy: Antisemitism, Racism, Religion and the like. I hope this is OK. --Dogbertd 09:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dogbertd, I will assume you had good intentions, but what you have taken out rather irresponsibly is actually truthful and creditable information. The section should remain as it was with slight modifications. The relationship between Wagner and Gobineau and Gobineau's influence on Wagner's philosophy should be honestly and forthrightly presented, not whitewashed or prettified to fit modern tastes--this is poor scholarship. Wagner more agreed with Gobineau's main lines of thought than disagreed--this is simply a fact. Wagner also responded to Gobineau intellectually in more than two essays--see his Introduction to a work of Count Gobineau's (1881), where Wagner indicates explicitly his agreement with Gobineau's main line of contention:

http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wlpr0155.htm

"We, on the contrary, can but be grateful to that work of one of the shrewdest of ethnologists for an explanation why our truly lofty minds stand lonelier every day, and—perhaps in consequence—grow ever rarer; so that we can imagine the greatest artists and poets surrounded by a world to which they have naught to say."

This prose work and its contents you have *very questionably* removed from the article. It is also FLATLY UNTRUE Wagner was not particularly supportive of Gobineau in his essays--this statement reeks of unbalanced propaganda. Have you actually personally read these essays in question? Wagner agrees in all the essentials with Gobineau; he only disputes minor points. So, I merely propose that this section should be ruthlessly honest, scholarly, less nervous and quibblingly defensive from a modern perspective, and incorporate more of the previously supplied and unreasonably edited out information.

  • Hi! Please rearrange the article as you see fit, however I would remind you that Wikipedia requires verification (see Wikipedia: verification) of material in its articles: it's not sufficient for you to assert that "Wagner more agreed with Gobineau's main lines of thought than disagreed--this is simply a fact" - you must show that it is a fact (in actuality you must show that others believe it to be a fact, since original research is not permitted in Wikipedia). I have tried to put Gobineau's influence into context: he stayed with Wagner only the once (for 5 weeks in 1881), Cosima's Diaries and Wagner's own "Mein Leben" do not suggest that Gobineau was important to Wagner prior to this event. As Wagner had written the libretto and the score for the first two acts of Parsifal by this time, one cannot argue that Parsifal was influenced by Gobineau. Cosima Wagner's diaries do certainly record the details of conversations where they disagreed,and I have added this to the article. In addition you say that "It is also FLATLY UNTRUE Wagner was not particularly supportive of Gobineau in his essays" - please back this statement up with verifiable information. I agree that Wagner speaks warmly of M. Gobineau in his introduction, but the quote you use does not in any way suggest that he agreed strongly with the Count's notion of Aryan races being superior, although I think that Wagner accepted the idea that the people of the world could be grouped into the black, white and yellow (an idea which did not originate with Gobineau). I removed a lot of stuff which was more about Hitler than Wagner, material that I considered to be very biased (see Wikipedia:NPOV) and have tried to replace it with more modest, neutral text - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a polemic. Please add more if you think that you can back up your claims, but let's not blow this out of proportion: Gobineau only really came into Wagner's life 2 years before Wagner died, and after he composed all his major works. I guess it would also be nice if you would identify yourself. --Dogbertd 12:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added some more references to the article (thanks for the link to the originals, BTW) and re-inserted some notes on Wagner's "Introduction to a work of Count Gobineau". I still think this section is much too big and over-emphasises something that did not influence Wagner's stage works. --Dogbertd 08:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dogbert, your honesty and good will is appreciated. Unbalanced polemicism in the article has been largely avoided. Now that the articles by Wagner dealing with Gobineau are nicely listed and linked to, people will have the chance to impartially study his words for themselves. The issues of 1) the presence of an anti-modernist, 'organic' ethnic nationalist ideology of ethnocultural purity and renaissance in Wagner's art (Gobineau need not even be an influence--such ideologies were widespread--yet Gobineau's Inequality of the Human Races was published in 1853--Wagner need not meet him Gobineau personally to imbibe his ideas) and 2) Wagner's ideological and cultural influence over the young absorbent mind of Hitler and his incipient movement remain to be dealt with at a high objective level.

--The recent supplementations make the article very close to perfect, with an admirable standard of impartial scholarship.

[edit] Hitler?

"Hitler's admiration for Wagner could not have been returned because Wagner died six years before Hitler was born (on April 20, 1889). The political philosopher Leo Strauss has written about the absurdity of feeling that one should dislike something just because Hitler liked it (or vice versa) — what he called the Reductio ad Hitlerum."

For some reason this was in there, all but the first sentence is irrelevant but I really don't have enough time to go in there and delete it. It's somewhere around the end, sorry if I'm kinda vague about where it is.

-User:Jim Bart (sorry I'm not signed in)


[edit] Clear meaning

Smerus altered the discussion of Judaism in Music with the following edit summary " I don't think the original text of Wagner is in fact 'clear' as to his meaning - that is why there has been controversy; I hope this rewrite is aporpriately NPOV". I don't have any problem with the rewrite itself, but I think we should be clear about what is and isn't clear. It's difficult to see any ambiguity about what Wagner means in the last two paras of his article, even despite his horribly turgid prose. He says quite explicitly that Jews should follow the example of Börne. Since Börne converted to Christianity, but did not kill himself, it's difficult to see how anyone can interpret this to suggest that "self-anihilation" could possibly imply that Jews should somehow literally murder themselves. No-one would ever have interpreted his comments this way were it not for a tendency to seek prefigurations of the Final Solution a la Goldhagen. However, the fact that Wagner was not telling Jews to literally commit suicide does not make Judaism in Music some sort of unimpeachable liberal text. It's full of gratuitous vulgar insults and derogatory remarks about Judaism, along with more evasive sub-Hegelian comments equating Judaism with alienation and moral corruption. We don't have to pretend that someone is proposing the Holocaust to convict him of anti-Semitic abuse. Paul B 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is impossible to know what Wagner really meant, but I agree that a Holocaust is not implied in his article Judaism in Music. It is significant that he ends the article with the example of Börne and that he finishes with the exhortation to Jews that they suffer the fate of Ahasuerus - the Wandering Jew. The only way for Ahasuerus to achieve redemption and release from his curse is by accepting Christianity (ie. by converting, as Börne did). My opinion is that this is why Wagner re-published this article later on in his life, when he was very preoccupied with redemption of mankind and proposed a kind of buddhist Christianity as the route to salvation. Personally I think these sections are too big and unwieldy for the main article, and would like to see them spun out into a separate article where the endless bunfights about what Wagner really thought could be kept separate from the very concrete stuff about his musical achievements.--Dogbertd 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original inspiration

No mention of Wilhelmine Schröder-Dervient? In his autobiography My life, Wagner stated that he decided to became a musician after seeing Schröder-Dervient perform in theatre. Coral reef 6.11.2006.

Millington doubts that the performance of Fidelio by S-D (which Wagner claimed was a huge inspiration) ever happened, and thinks that Wagner made this event up retrospectively. Though he certainly saw her a lot, later in life, and she gave importance performances of his works which helped his career. Allansteel 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time that W had presented a fantasised version of his past to the reader of Mein Leben (and who was it written for? - that greatest fantasist of all, Ludwig.) I think Millington's argument is that W did not see Mme Schroder-Devrient in Fidelio, but that it must have been some other opera he saw her in. Nevetheless Coral Reef has a point - it would be worth including Mme S-D and her influence - which was real, regardless of the exact circumstances - in the article.--Dogbertd 08:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, agreed. Millington thinks that Wagner used a supposed performance of Fidelio to help his "heir to Beethoven" image. So I just meant that as usual you have to be careful about Wagner's claims for his inspiration, etc., but S-D was certainly very significant in his career, so worth including. Allansteel 12:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Article?

This article is now becoming quite large and for a general reader includes much material that is quite detailed and probably of little interest, particularly in the Controversies section. Someone who finds the Richard Wagner article may well want to know something about the man and his works, but is probably not really going to want the minutiae of his thinking on racial degeneration, for example. I propose splitting out the controversies section and having a more condensed controversy section in the main article with a redirect. I've begun work on a new article Wagner Controversies, and provided there isn't a huge chorus of disapproval, will redirect those interested in Wagnerian disagreements to this new article.--Dogbertd 09:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion of his Antisemitism should remain as it is an important part of his reputation. As for the Aryanism section, I agree it's rather marginal. Paul B 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that these issues are removed completely from the main article, simply condensed.--Dogbertd 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies section

It is ludicriously repetitive to have a long section on "Wagner controversies" and then an entire other article on the subject not much longer than the original. Somewhat ungracefully, I'm afraid, I've deleted the "controversies" portion of this article, replacing them with a brief mention of the issue and a link to the other page. A paragraph on Wagner's well-known antisemitism could feasibly be included here with a brief mention of other controversies and a link to the other article, but anything more than that is probably over-kill, especially since compared to the truly disturbing nature of Wagner's antisemitic views questions like the orthodoxy of his religious beliefs seem to be quite unrelated and secondary, truly sharing in common little beyond the fact that both are controversial. Also, if such a paragraph were to be written, it should probably come before the final legacy portion of the article, which functions as an obvious conclusion. (68.198.181.134 08:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

I agree, but your edits have already been reverted (not by me). Would other editors of Richard Wagner agree to a more condensed form of the Controversies section (ie a paragraph at most)? Personally I don't think the religious views bit adds much and the parts on antisemitism, racism and nazism are now much more fully explored in the Wagner Controversies article. Wagner's antisemitism is already mentioned in Richard Wagner, and links are provided to both Judaism in Music and the Wagner Controversies article, so it's not as if anyone is trying to whitewash this aspect of his personality.--Dogbertd 11:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Dogbertd's proposal sounds OK to me --Smerus 10:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There short be a shortish section on his ideas. Perhaps "Controversies" is not the best title, since not all of his ideas are controversial. Since he wrote the texts of his operas as well as the music, their meaning is importrant. After all, numerous books have been written interpreting their significance, symbolism etc. His religio-philosophical ideas are therefore important. Paul B 11:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. A change of title in this section might encourage more input. I don't even like the title of the Wagner Controversies article, even though i started it! There still needs to be some description of Wagner's ambivalent position on the unification of Germany, his dislike of Bismark, vegetarianism, anti-vivisectionism etc. I also think theree should be a separate article on his contributions to conducting, stagecraft, theatre design and so on.--Dogbertd 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Composers on Germanic Mythology

What other composers (before, during or after) Wagner's lifetime romanticised and glorified the Germanic myths? The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authentic Music of Wagner

Is their a composer/orchestra most respected for performing Wager music and on CD? I have read that the best is Sir Simon Rattle as he "led the first-ever modern performance of Wagner's Ring cycle, featuring the instruments the piece was written for." [3]. Can you get his Wagner stuff? Is their anyone else respected for their performance of Wagners music that can be found on CD? The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 09:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest you look at the Wikipedia pages for the individual Wagner operas? These almost always have a section on recordings, and this will give you some idea of the great Wagner conductors (I think it would be impossible to say that there is a "best".) Rattle has not recorded any Wagner AFAIK, but he has performed Parsifal and Rheingold, the latter, as you say, was done with instruments representative of the sound Wagner might have heard. A similar approach was taken by Roger Norrington who issued a CD on EMI of Wagner played using the period style.--Dogbertd 10:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE PUT THE AUTHOR ON THE PAGE!!! it would make things a lot easier for kids like me to do citation for a project if we had the author in it. I can't put the author in it because I have no idea who did this wonderful article, but can someone out there please use some common sense and just put the author on the page? (User: marlena P.)February 5, 2007)

If you mean the Wagner article, then it is written by hundreds of people from all over the world. For specific parts of the article citations are given. If they are not then Wikipedia is the source. Robert C Prenic 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of "Judentum"

I strongly feel that the German word "Judentum" should generally be translated in to "Judaism," as is traditional, and not into "Jewry." The truth is that the word generally refers in German to Judaism as a whole, not just to the "Jewry" with its much more restricted sense in English, which I believe is quite misleading. The proposition that "Judaismus" is the German word for "Judaism" not "Judentum" must be some error or a ludicrous attempt at being PC - the word is in comparison almost never used and may not have even existed during Wagner's lifetime for all I know - and you can take as proof of this the fact that the wikipedia article on Judaism in German is titled "Judentum" not "Judaismus." Furthermore, if the word "Judaismus" is used at all it refers very specifically to the religious practices of the Jewish people, which is certainly NOT what Wagner was concerned with. All the translators of Das Judentum in der Musik into English have used the word "Judaism" not "Jewry," and while some PC-ifying maniac has desperately re-tranlated even the link to that translation according to his own whims, I propose that this was both unnecessary and misleading and that all such translations should be reverted. (Eeesh 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

  • Unfortunately you are quite incorrect. The German word for Judaism is indeed 'Judaismus'- see any dictionary - (I have just consulted the Collins dictionary, but others will tell you the same). You actually make the relevant point, that 'Judaismus' refers to the practice of Judaism, which is not dealt with at all in Wagner's essay. 'Judentum' (Jewdom/Jewry) - menaning the Jewish people collectively - however also carried in the 19th century the secondary meaning of 'Jewishness/commercialism/haggling' - and was thus used by Karl Marx amongst others. That was also the intention of Wagner. The translation normally reprinted is that by W. Ashton Ellis, the first translator, whose mistake is thus perpetuated. The more recent translation by Charles Osborne uses 'Jewry'. There is nothing 'PC' about this - it is a matter of academic consensus and accuracy. I think even you must concede that, whatever 'Judaismus' may mean in German, 'Judaism' in English means Jewish practice - and that is far removed from Wagner's essay. It is simply not the right word in the circumstances. --Smerus 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Excuse me but I speak German, and I can tell you that just about any normal person (and I've checked in dictionaries too just to make sure; several smaller ones don't even have the word "Judaismus") would translate the English word "Judaism" into German as "Judentum" rather than "Judaismus," and this was absolutely the case in the 19th century when Wagner was writing. In other words, the word has a very broad meaning in German as it can refer to the religion of the Jewish people, the Jewish people collectively, their real or imagined traits, etc; the English word "Jewry" is far less common in English (not to mention, far less commonly used to translate the title of Wagner's essay), and has a much more restrictive sense than the German in that it really only refers to the Jewish people collectively, merely one of the several senses suggested by the German word, and not really the sense of Wagner's meaning (he would have said "Die Juden in der Musik"). Perhaps a better alternative translation would actually be, ludicrous though it may sound, "Jewishness in Music," but I strongly feel that the more common translation of "Judaism in Music" remains the best one for the purposes of this site, since it is far more common, broader, and doesn't in any way distort the broad sense of Wagner's meaning, and is thus less likely to lead readers astray.

I'll have to apologize if this post was repetitive but I honestly found much of yours to be slightly incoherent. You claim that translating "Judentum" as "Judaism" is a point-blank a mistake; I assure you that it is not, and is in fact, in the great majority of cases, the preferable translation of the word into English. I can't really cite a better source on this issue than the German wikipedia article "Judentum," which begins by stating clearly, "Unter Judentum versteht man die Gesamtheit aus Kultur, Geschichte, Religion und Tradition des sich selbst als Volk Israel (he. am jisrael, bnei jisrael) bezeichnenden jüdischen Volkes. Mit dem Begriff können auch gezielt die jüdische Religion oder, als Gruppe, die sowohl ein Volk als auch eine Glaubensgemeinschaft darstellenden Juden (he. jehudim) angesprochen werden," and goes on to once again call "Das Judentum" a major world religion, etc. etc.. One would never claim that the word "jewry" refers to the culture, history, and religious beliefs of the Jewish people, or to claim that "Jewry" is a world religion. (Eeesh 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

OK let's start again. Whatever 'Judentum' and 'Judaismus' means in German, 'Judaism' in English means the religious practices of the Jews - and as I speak English I offer my authority for that. But if you don't accept my authority, look up the Oxford English Dictionary (1991) (ISBN 0198612206); 'the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews'. Wagner's essay is not about the religious practices of the Jews - it is about 'Judentum' which in 19th century German carried the double meaning of 'Jews in general' and 'cheap haggling'. Whether or not it carried any meaning about religious practice is in fact irrelevant. The question is, what is the most appropriate translation for 'Judentum' into English in these circumstances. We have three alternatives before us: 'Jewry', your suggestion of 'Jewishness', and Ellis's 'Judaism'. Of these three, the one alternative that does not encompass both 'Jews in general' and 'haggling' (Wagner's implicit pun) is 'Judaism'. Therefore - out it goes, whatever your - or my - dictionaries say. I agree with you that 'Jewishness' would also be acceptable, but as there is nothing to choose between it and 'Jewry' (except perhaps the snappiness of the latter), then let it stay. After all, who forbids it? By the way, amongst those who do claim (in contrast to your assertion that it is never claimed) that the word 'jewry' refers both to the Jewish religion and to 'the Jews collectively', is the Oxford English Dictionary (look it up). I would rest my case if I weren't somehow convinced that you would return to the attack. Regards, --Smerus 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, I may speak German as well but I am a native speaker of English. Simply put, I see three reasons at the moment why the word "Judaism" is preferable to "Jewry": 1. "Judaism" has a broader meaning in English and thus is closer to the German word "Judentum" and makes for a better translation. Let's assume that Wikipedia is, in general, a good source for standard English usage; you'll notice that if you search for "Judaism" the article encompasses not only religion, but a good deal of information about the cultural practices and history of the Jewish people; it is, again, the article to which the German article "Judentum" is linked. In contrast, if you search for "Jewry" you're linked to a far more limited discussion of Jewish population. It is absolutely clear to me which English word comes closer to approximating the German; the only shortcoming is that the German "Judentum" is in fact even broader in its implications than the English word "Judaism," and thus even farther away from the very limited English word "Jewry," which suggests an idea of the Jewish people as a collective, and would lead English-speakers to believe that the German article is titled something like "Jews in Music;" no one is going to be mislead to think that in "Judaism in Music" Wagner is talking about Jewish religious practices in music - they will of course understand the broader implications of the word and realize that he is attacking not only Jews in music, but Jewish cultural practices, conceptions of "Jewishness" in music, and so on and so forth. 2. "Judaism in Music" is far more commonly used as the English title of Wagner's essay, and since, as discussed above, there is no inherent advantage to the translation of "Jewry," it will be far more convenient for English speakers to maintain the standard convention, rather than complicate things unnecessarily (and misleadingly, see above). 3. "Judaism" is simply a far more commonly word in English than "Jewry" (as is, again, the German "Judentum" rather than "Judaismus") - isn't it a bit affected to pretend that the simpler word is somehow "inferior" in this case? What is particularly annoying and hypocritical is that it is, in my opinion, clearly NOT the "inferior" word. As further evidence of all of this, I cite the fact that the THIRD internet page that comes up under a search for "Jewry" on google is about YOUR thesis. Are you really in a position to consider this issue disinterestedly? (Eeesh 12:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

I must admit I've never been happy with the clumsy "Jewry in Music". "Jewry" is a very uncommon word in modern English. I don't think the phrase "Judaism in Music" would lead anyone to understand that Wagner was talking about religious beliefs in music (whatever that would be). However, the notion that "Jewishness" in this context means more than just Jews is important, so I suggest that it be changed to "Jewishness in Music". Paul B 12:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Eeesh, you may be happy to "assume that Wikipedia is, in general, a good source for standard English usage"; I would prefer to rely upon the authority of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which is unequivocal, and which I quote in full:
1. The profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religion of the Jews, with a belief in one God and a basis in Mosaic and rabbinical teachings. LME.
Conservative Judaism: see CONSERVATIVE adjective. Liberal Judaism: see LIBERAL adjective.
2. Adoption of Jewish practices on the part of Christians; a practice or cast of thought associated with Jews. M17.
3. Hist. = JEWRY 2. Also, in official documents, the revenue derived by the Crown from Jews; the treasury which received this money. M19.
• Judaist noun a person who follows Jewish practice or ritual; esp. (in Ecclesiastical History) a Jewish Christian of the apostolic age: M19.
• Juda"istic adjective of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Judaists M19.
As for "no one is going to be mislead to think that in "Judaism in Music" Wagner is talking about Jewish religious practices in music", it is not the reader 's job to indulge in detective work to decipher what, other than its strict definition, may be implied by the title; it is the translator's job to use words which serve to make the meaning clear. I am not persuaded by your argument that native English speakers should redefine their understanding of an English word to mean what you would like it to mean, in order to preserve a bad translation.

--Stephen Burnett 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I could offer another way forward here? On the basis of the Wikipedia principle of Verifiability perhaps we should use a translation which can be verified. While many older works on Wagner use "Judaism", I notice that Millington in the Wagner Compendium has "Jewishness", which personally I think is a good compromise.--Dogbertd 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot object.--Smerus 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-grade article

I've asked for a regrading of this article. Currently we languish with a B-grade, and I think the work that's been done recently makes it better than that. If not, I'd like to have some clear pointers for ways to improve it.--Dogbertd 09:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Who did you ask to grade it? It's been rated B by Wikiproject Germany and Wikiproject Biography, but I don't see that we have been rated by Wikiproject Opera. Or should we put in for all of them. I think the article is very good and would like more pointers as well.Jvbishop 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I asked Wikiproject Germany. Perhaps we should also ask Opera. I was really hoping for some independent input into what needs to be improved, since I can't find who previously rated it and why it got a "B". As you say, I think this is now a good, well-balanced piece worthy of an "A", but if others don't then I'd like to understand why.--Dogbertd 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I put in a request at the Wikiproject Opera so hopefull we can get some feedback from them. Jvbishop 13:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's see. Opera project review :) Well, this is certainly better than B: I'd rank it an A-grade. I'm not going to be pedantic and say you should put this through WP:GA review: for longer articles, such as this, that just doesn't work. If the plan is for further improvement, I'd go straight for WP:FA.

Some more specific comments: most of the necessary content is there, but the referencing needs to be more thorough. We could do with some more inline citations: compare the amount here to the far greater number at Agrippina (opera), or Orfeo ed Euridice, or W.S. Gilbert, or Concerto delle donne. As a general rule of thumb one inline citation per paragraph works well, as does the citation - with page numbers, of course - of opinions or more controversial material. I also think that some more discussion of the origins of Wagner's operatic aesthetics would be better. At some stage this could do with a copy-edit to fix up any wonky prose. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is useful. Hope this helps. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(Opera project review 2) I agree with Moreschi that this is A-grade. In addition to his comments above, I think a few more illustrations might benefit the look of the article. I'd also suggest removing the infobox. There is a strong consensus developing that they trivialize. (Also isn't the flag of Saxony a modern one? Perhaps Dogbertd would know?) Best regards. - Kleinzach 08:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ta very much. This gives us some concrete suggestions for improving the article.--Dogbertd 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to get rid of the References section and either add the things listed there to further reading of add them to the notes section as citations. Having both sections makes it feel cluttered. We should also make sure that all of the notes are standardized. I took care of the further reading like this already. Jvbishop 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy crap his neckbeard is EPIC.

Add some information on that neckbeard to the article! Xizer 04:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that any primary sources have really picked up on the neckbeard, hence there is nothing that we could use to verify anything we might add to this article. On a more serious note, Wagner's sybaritism (and claims by Gutman and others of cross-dressing) might be worth mentioning if the article were not already rather large (unlike Wagner).--Dogbertd 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard E. Wagner, the economist

I just added a page for the economist Richard E. Wagner. Obviously far fewer people will come looking for his entry, but I wanted to mention it because I don't know the applicable Wikipedia protocol with regard to disambiguation in such a circumstance, i.e., whether or not the present "Wagner" disambiguation comment is sufficient or if an additional or different notation or a specific "Richard Wagner" disambiguation should be set up. Thoughts? Jjb 06:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi! You've added Richard E. Wagner to the Wagner disambiguation page. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't think you need to do any more than this.--Dogbertd 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Small Change

I believe that this quote... "The marriage to Cosima lasted to the end of Wagner's life. They had another daughter, named Eva, and a son named Siegfried."

...implies that Eva and Siegfried were born after Richard and Cosima's marriage. Should a change be made?

[edit] Infobox

This is just a note to explain that I have deleted the Musical Artist infobox as these are no longer being used for composers following exhaustive discussion on both the Compopsers Project and the Opera Project (see Composers page 6.1 and Opera Project 16). Best regards. --Kleinzach 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish friends and colleagues

I'm not registered and I'm no expert on Wagner, so I've opted to leave a comment rather than make the edit myself. But don't you think that last sentence ought to be removed from the "Antisemitism" section? Every bigot I've ever met is forced to work alongside the very people they disparage; just because they lack the strength of their convictions to actually remove themselves from inclusive society doesn't mean that this sort of apology/rationalization has any place. Wagner's writings speak for themselves; the old "but some of my best friends are Jewish/black/gay/etc." schtick doesn't hold water, and never has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.89.61.7 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

There are two separate issues here: the facts, and the conclusions which one draws from them. If the facts are that Wagner continued to have Jewish friends and acquaintances, then the article should say so; to remove the statement would seem to me to be a form of censorship, done in order to remove an uncomfortable inconsistency of character. This does not in any way exonerate Wagner for his writings, which are, as you point out, well known. One may of course interpret the facts in many ways, but if the facts are suppressed the reader is denied that opportunity. --Stephen Burnett 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Stephen Burnett - moreover, I have amended the sentence to include the words 'and supporters', to make it clear that this was indeed the case. (Hermann Levi, Joseph Rubinstein, Heinrich Porges, etc., listed under the Millington reference given in the WP article). This is not an 'excuse' for Wagner - just points up the paradox. --Smerus 09:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It's one of the enduring and interesting paradoxes of Wagner's life that he had Jewish supporters and friends - even after "Jewishness in Music" and even in the face of his openly expressed hostility (he seems to have been very nasty to poor Levi over Parsifal). Nevertheless these are facts, and supported in this article by verification (see WP:VER). The article does not, however, make any claim that Wagner said, or thought, that "some of my best friends are Jews", so this schtick, far from not holding water, doesn't even apply here.--Dogbertd 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influence of Realism on Wagner

I have learned in my music history class that Richard Wagner was influenced by the literary movement called realism, like Puccini. My source is the textbook, Music: The Art of Listening, Sixth Edition, by Jean Ferris. Page 265 has the reference. I'm not sure about the new seventh edition. Does anyone have an opinion on where this would properly go in the article? — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My limited understanding of Realism - or Verismo as Puccini might have called it is that it - far from influencing Wagner - actually derives from his work. See the Wikipedia entry on Verismo for more details. It might be worth mentioning this as part of Wagner's influence - I'll try to add something when I can find a verification.--Dogbertd 12:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps I should correct my course. One of the tests asked a question about that, and the answer (multiple-choice) was that a major literary movement that influenced Wagner was Realism. I might look up more about this little tidbit. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 15:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atonality

The use of this term in the introductory paragraph is highly questionable, in my opinion, and should be removed. Wagner's supreme "achievement" in the area of harmonic writing was not to abolish tonality, ala Schoenberg, but to introduce a style of composition that is marked by constantly shifting tonal centers. In works such as Tristan und Isolde, the music is usually without a conclusive cadence on the tonic ("interrupted cadence"), giving an unsettled feeling to the harmonic movement. Thus, it would be incorrect to call Wagner's later music "atonal"--it is always rooted in some kind of impiied tonality, however ambiguous and constantly moving it may be. Cbrodersen 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could amend it to something more appropriate? I agree that atonality is incorrect: dissonance, yes, but as you point out this is nothing like the lack of tonal centre that you find in the Second Viennese school. As a musician you're better placed than me to make this edit. Thanks! --Dogbertd 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I heartily agree. There is too much loose rubbish stated about Wagner abolishing tonality, or that his music at least is atonal. There is a superb book by Marshall Tuttle called "Musical structures in Wagnerian opera" which demonstrates in great detail how Wagner still worked within standard tonality, and that even all of his late music can still be understood with proper analysis based on standard tonality (though it's of course extremely advanced!). Allansteel 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I took it out, and agree, of course. "Atonality" is not the right word for Wagnerian chromaticism. Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, folks, for making the change! Cbrodersen 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liszt and Wagner after the marriage of Richard and Cosima

I removed the claim that Liszt didn't speak to Wagner for years to come after that marriage. In Cosima's diaries, it's clearly shown that that was not the case. Wagner visited Liszt with Cosima in 1872, for example, more than once (abridged edition page 148). Wagner also corresponded with Liszt even earlier than that, after the marriage. Cosima's diaries show that Wagner's and Liszt's relationship was warm and affectionate throughout the former's remaining life (at least from 1872 onward). 88.148.201.133 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wagner's stepfather

Richard Wagner's stepfather was Ludwig Meyer, not Geyer, you silly sods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.163.33 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, once again the silly sods take the day. According to Groves, and Deathridge's biography, it's Geyer. Do the serious sods have some other, more reliable source? --Ravpapa 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, Nietzsche's remark about a vulture being almost an eagle, only works with Geyer. Now Freddy N was a silly sod. --Peter cohen 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

hey..this guy is boring...im only doing a project on him because its a grade and i have to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.21.247 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Boring? Depends on your definition, of course, but let's see: he made bombs in the revolution of 1849, associated with a famous anarchist, narrowly escaped arrest and went on the lam for 12 years; he spent vast amounts of other people's money and on one occasion had to "do a runner" to escape his debtors - involving a midnight flit over a guarded border crossing and then getting illegal passage on a ship which got caught up in a storm; he had affairs with other men's wives and got one of them pregnant not once but twice while she was still married to the other guy; he became the kept composer of a prince of Germany who lavished yet more money on Wagner; his operas celebrate sex, death and love; oh, and by the way, he was one of the greatest musical geniuses of western art. Boring? Depends on your definition. --Dogbertd (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism

I can see that this article has an active talk page and is probably watched by many, so I'll mention that I have added Category:Antisemitism to this article. Please understand that the presence of this category is not meant to pass final judgment on whether or to what degree Wagner was a true or confirmed antisemite. It's used on pages on which antisemitism is significantly discussed, including many bios of opponents of antisemitism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have issues with the category in general being attached to people's names because it could have all sorts of WP:BLP consequences due to the intention of the category not beign transparent without following the link. But as RW is both dead and the author of anti-Semitic literature, that is not a problem here.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I can appreciate the desire for diligence in lexicography, but I have reservations about the use of modern terms to describe historical events and figures. So saying, "antisemitism" seems to be rather specific, so there should be no great problem with a section title of that name. One should be careful, however, not to overuse terms that have taken on more detailed and specific definitions, to maintain the clarity and objectivity that is required of an encyclopaedic entry, i.e. "humanism," "tolerance," etc.(Peaky beaky (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Parsifal written for Bayreuth's opening, but was not actually the one that opened it

There is either a contradiction or lack of explaining in these sentences, I think:

The Festspielhaus finally opened in August 1876 with the premiere of the Ring cycle and has continued to be the site of the Bayreuth Festival ever since.
Wagner completed Parsifal in January 1882, and a second Bayreuth Festival was held for the new opera.
Wagner's final opera, Parsifal, which was written especially for the opening of Wagner's Festspielhaus in Bayreuth and which is described in the score as a "Bühnenweihfestspiel" (festival play for the consecration of the stage), is a contemplative work based on the Christian legend of the Holy Grail.90.190.225.121 (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know how we let that one survive for so long. I've changed opening to accoustics.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism and anti-Semitism

I have edited out a para which rather contentiously links W's vegetarianism with his Jew-hatred, and replaced it with a separate section on vegetarianism and his article against vivisection. The deleted sentences cite modern German references which claim that W. condemned shechita as part of 'Jewish evil'. I am not aware of any primary source which enables such an assertion. If anyone knows of such, then of course I repent my edit.--Smerus (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any direct references to shechita, but in Herodom and Christianity there is a bizarre sentence that states: "It certainly may be right to charge this purblind dulness of our public spirit to a vitiation of our blood — not only by departure from the natural food of man, but above all by the tainting of the hero-blood of noblest races with that of former cannibals now trained to be the business-agents of Society — provided one does not overlook the further fact, that no blaze of orders can hide the withered heart whose halting beat bewrays its issue from a union pledged without the seal of love, be it never so consanguineous." This is characteristally gnomic, rendered even more so by Ellis's translation, but I think the assumption is that the "former cannibals" are Jews, linked to some strange antisemitic claim about Jewish pre-history. I think the claim was that temple sacrifice was a vestige of earlier human sacrifices, which presumably was then linked to cannibalism, but I really can't recall where I read that now. So it seems that he is saying that not only have the 'hero' races weakened themselves by eating meat, they have also made matters worse by mixing with ex-cannibals! Some concept of racial degeneration is being invoked which links meat-eating with cannibalism, but it's all so bizarre, it's difficult to fully decipher. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this - very interesting but as you point out inconclusive. I have raised the whole issue here so as to solicit further opinions, in the light of a further edit by User:Polentario.Smerus (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, again my first edit and the included sources:

Wagner was in his late years a devout vegetarian and one of the celebrities to lead the Animal Protection Movement in Germany. He saw Shechita (kosher slaughtering) and vivisection as expressing both 'Jewish Evil' [1] and fought a long but at his lifetime not successfull battle for a stricter regulation instead Germany then very animal-testing friendly [2] law.

  • Smerus, as you are a multilingual person and have a good command of german, I suggets you have a look on

[4]Tierliebe Menschenfeinde Hitlers Zuneigung zu seiner Schäferhündin "Blondi" ist legendär. Dass strenger Tierschutz und Verachtung für Menschen für die Nazis ohne weiteres zusammengingen, beweist die Geschichte des „Reichstierschutzgesetzes“ von 1933. Helene Heise, Spiegel Online 19.9.2007 Tatsächlich war die Tierliebe der Nazis mitnichten nur propagandistische Inszenierung. Teile der Tierschutzbewegung - wie auch der Naturschutzbewegung - bezogen sich auf ganz ähnliche ideologische Grundlagen wie die Nationalsozialisten. Beide etwa beriefen sich auf die Vorstellungen des Komponisten Richard Wagner (1813-1883), der in Naturverbundenheit und Tierliebe eine besondere Charaktereigenschaft der "nordischen Rasse" sah. Der Künstler, ein überzeugter Vegetarier wie nach ihm Hitler, wetterte gegen den Fleischverzehr - für ihn eine Vermischung von Rasse und Blut, durch welche die nordisch-germanischen Reinheit verschmutzt werde. Der Tierversuch war für Wagner Inbegriff "des Bösen und Jüdischen". Solch verquastes Mischmasch aus völkischen „Blut und Boden“-Denken, Rassenideologie, Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit und Antisemitismus vertraten keineswegs nur Nationalsozialisten, auch Tierschützern der Zeit war es nicht fremd.

[5] IDB Münster • Ber. Inst. Didaktik Biologie Suppl.2 (2002), 167-184 167, Tierschutz und Nationalsozialismus Die Entstehung und die Auswirkungen des nationalsozialistischen Reichstierschutzgesetzes von 1933 Daniel Jütte

I will have a look in the library tomorrow and check wether i can find some of the old Tierschutz publications of Wagner BR to provide original sources --Polentario (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But unfortunately neither of these references cite clearly where (if anywhere) Wagner specifically condemned shechita, (which is what your edit claimed). If there is no source (as opposed to the opinion or conjecture of later writers) it shouldn't go into Wikipedia as a fact - and depending on the integrity of those later writers, it might or moight not belong in WP if clearly labelled as an opinion. Incidentally, 'Inbegriff "des Bösen und Jüdischen" ' which is attributed without giving any source in the above citation, means I think (for I am only slightly multi-lingual, if that) characteristic of the wicked and the Jewish, not quite the same, in English, as expressing [..] Jewish evil.--Smerus (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I read it too. And though it's in quotes, it's not clear where it comes from. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, first the Spiegel article does mention a connection between Wagner, Shechicta and animal testing. I had translated Jewish (and) evil, wicked sounds more appropriate. But its an indirect, not an original source. I however think the track should be checked. Leon Poliakov (about antisemitism) is quoted with "Der besondere Wesenszug, der bei Wagner mit dem Hass gegen die Juden Hand in Hand zu gehen scheint, ist also die Liebe zu den Tieren.", so that wagners antisemitism had to do with animals (meat) / vergetarianism and purity. As an original Wagnerian source, the second part of Religion und Kunst is mentioned and Erkenne Dich selbst of 1881, one of the most inflammatory texts shoudl be checked. Let me have a look and come back. Thnx btw for your thorough reading. Its not standard anymmore here. --Polentario (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, some results:

First I went through Wagners Gesammelte Schriften und Dichtungen, Volume 10, Steiger 1976, a faksimile of the 1888 edition printed by Fritsch in Leipzig. The most signifikant reads were "Religion und Kunst" of 1880 and an open letter to Ernst von Weber, 1879, author of a pathetic anti animal testing essay called "Die Folterkammern der Wissenschaft" (Torture Chambers of Science). Erkenne Dich selbst is similar to Das Judentum in der Musik clearly antisemitic but not specific about animals, as far as I could understand. Wagner recalls in the letter as well an alleged nordic / germanic tradition wehre hunting and eating animals was necessary in cold climates but the hunter offered a part of the animal to the gods as a suitable tradition. He contraposts it with an alleged victory of the old testimony, which introduced cruelty and calculation ("Das alte Testament hat obsiegt und aus dem reißenden ist das rechnende Raubtier geworden", in the letter).


Wagner is a master of omitting, elapse and pretext. E.g. he does not state "the Jews are anti animal" nor does he mention Shechita but denounces any religion, that uses the first book of Moses as base is not very suitable for any pity towards animals and talks about bloody abattoirs and Abrahams blood offers. He denounces as well his own, christian heritage, in so far it is based on the old testimony. He mentions in one paragraph that animal testers should be kicked out of the nation and in the next paragraph (in the open letter, page 209) states that a recent attack against an animal testing research laboratory in Leipzig was not a socialist anti property act but most probably an ethical one. Sounds quite familiar!

All in all, I think its OK modify the entry in so far, that Wagner in his late years contributed to the antisemitic stance of the then Tierschutz (Animal protection) movement.

A source for this antisemitic stance, which is still ongoing in some respect is to be found in Hanna Rheinz, Kabbala der Tiere, Tierrechte im Judentum, in Tierrechte, eine interdiszinplinäre Herausforderung, Hrsg IATE, Heidelberg 2007, S. 234-252 and in [[6]], a german Website about jewish animal protection, done by Hanna Rheinz, a german Jew as well. According her, Antijudaismus and Antisemitism in 19th century Germany already had developed a certain dynamics with regard to animal protection. The german Animal Protection movement has contraposted a germanic love for animals agains alleged cruelty and hostility of Jewdom and modern medicine. Still and again today, animal protecion would be a difficult topic for German jews, since the jewish community connects Tierschutz with nationalsozialist discrimination against shechita and the german Tierschutz would encounter jewish initiatives with sceptism (bramanic and (red) indian sources are much more fashionable) and more or less hiddden ansemitic prejudice still today. --Polentario (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't accept this in the way you state it. We agree that Wagner wrote an essay supporting animal rights, in which he did not however mention either Jews or shechita. You then state that the man he supported was against shechita for anti-Semitic reasons. This may or may not be true, but it does not in any way amount to Wagner being in favour of animal rights because was anti-Jewish, and does not justify associating his animal rights views with his anti-Semitism in any way. Nor does it justify any lengthy discourse on the topic in this article, which I am therefore once more editing down. I suggest that if you are interested in it you write a new article in Wikipedia about the German animal rights movement. With best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - thats not in line with the sources. Wagner clearly used used antisemitic points to support the animal movement, which was definitely antisemitic. My wording is already a compromise. He didnt mention Shechita as close. You seem to have a good library back home, just have a look on the sources. --Polentario (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If there is a subsection on RW's vegetarianism, is it worth mentioning that before he became veggie, he talked Nietzsche out of it? Also does anyone have a source which places Gurnemanz's complaint about Parsifal's shooting of the swan (du koennste morden hier im heilige Wald) to RW's vegetarianism.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a good section on W and vegetarianism at Monsalvalt: [[7]] although I'm not sure that this can be cited as a primary reference, but it will point you in the right direction for references. I had always thought W's interest in vegetarianism stemmed from his reading of Schopenhauer (compassion, etc) - I don't think that he was himself a practising vegetarian.--Dogbertd (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dogbert on the Schopenhauer issue. Be informed, that Schopenhauers vegetarian stance is antisemitic respectively anti old testimony christianity as well. Just Wagner being outspoken pro moderation / temperance, pro animal welfare (and the Tierschutz, animal protection organizations) and pro vegetarism doesnt mean he was practicing it, maybe except his last years. (Personal POV: His previous lifestyle, his early friendship with fur loving Ludwig II, his hang for Nietzsche no compromise Übermensch philosophy and his own Sword and Sorcery Opera librettos do not at all mirror this moderationa and Temperance - but thats very much in line with later life style contenders, from Kerrys SUV till Al Gores electricity bill and airflight tickets)

I have done another change and hope to find consent with that. I would agree to to downsize or archive this discussion then. There is an Article about Animal Welfare and the Nazis in the english wikipedia already, I will do some extension about Wagners treehugging phase there, but I prefferred to have it discussed with the Wagner experts first. --Polentario (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got it wrong re Wagner and Nietzsche. Nietzsche was the younger man and the influence flowed the other way. The Übermensch stuff really took off in Also Sprach Zarathustra by which time N had split from W and in fact he satirised him in the book.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

e: first youre right - wasn't it so that Wagner was a Übermenscn example for nietzsche? - I assume that Wagner preaching about modesty is a sort of oxymoron with regard to his personal behavior and insofar in line with Nietzsche. --Polentario (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on two counts here. You state that Schopenhauer was antisemitic - have a look at Schopenhauer and you'll see that he may have been anti-Judaic but that he was not a racist in the way that Wagner was. Secondly Wagner was never a model of Nietzsche's Ubermensch: N. was well aware that Wagner was human, all too human.--Dogbertd (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)