An
interesting article appeared in last Saturday’s Independent, a travel piece by
Adrian Mourby about Bayreuth to tie in with the opening week of the Festival
there. The piece is evidently aimed at readers who don’t have tickets (“You
don't get inside the auditorium without a ticket to the festival – and
obtaining one can take years of lobbying”), so they would probably we well
advised to postpone their trips until September if they want any hope of
finding a hotel. The headline is a bit of a curiosity, “access all arias”, but
was no doubt cooked up by a travel subeditor in blissful ignorance of how
irrelevant the concept of an aria is to Wagner’s mature work.
More
interesting though are the efforts Mourby makes to distance the composer and
his festival from the most problematic of its 20th-century patrons.
The relationship between Wagner and Hitler is complex, to say the least, and
however anachronistic it may seem, both bear some responsibility for the
perception of shared ideology that has come down to us. You wouldn’t know that
from this article though, which goes out of its way to avoid the problem
altogether.
Mourby
writes: “Although Hitler preferred Franz Lehár's operettas, he recognised
Wagner as a useful tool in the redefinition of German identity.” The idea that
Hitler preferred Lehár to Wagner has been floating around for a few years; I
first read of it, coincidentally, in an article in the same newspaper. I’m not
going to question the validity of the claim, except to say that it is a real
gift for Wagner apologists. Lehár’s stock couldn’t be lower these days, so few
are likely to complain when he starts taking the flak-by-association deflected
from Wagner. And even if Wagner was not Hitler’s favourite composer, he was
almost certainly his second favourite, inspiring much Nazi ideology and taking
a far more central role in the project than that of a “useful tool”.
Further
on we read “Many people dislike Wagner by association because his
daughter-in-law supported Hitler.” Again that’s true, but it’s not the whole
story. The support was mutual to say the very least. And the complicity of the
entire Festival in the Nazi project is something we should not ignore. That’s a
complicated business, not least because the Bayreuth archives for this period
still remain sealed, but it deserves a little more attention, or at least
acknowledgement, than it receives here.
Finally,
Mourby completes his tour at Wahnfried, where he writes, “For a left-wing
revolutionary on the run in 1848, Wagner became adept at cosying up to the ruling
classes.” A left-wing revolutionary? Mourby evidently did not take Adorno with
him for his holiday reading. But you don’t have to be an adherent of the
Frankfurt School to take issue with the idea that Wagner’s involvement in the
1848 uprisings was in support of ‘left-wing’ causes. This being Wagner, a whole
book exists on this very subject, Wagner:
Race and Revolution by Paul Lawrence Rose. The concept of revolution, Rose
argues, as a progressive liberal or left-wing phenomenon is the result of a
wholly modern prejudice. He goes on to point out that this deliberate
misunderstanding has been continuously exploited in the rehabilitation of
Wagner since 1945.
Of
course, this is only a travel piece, so there is no point in going too deep
into the ideology here. Mourby no doubt has a brief to make Bayreuth sound like
an attractive holiday destination while allaying any fears from potential
visitors that their trip will be mistaken for a neo-Nazi pilgrimage.
Don’t
worry, it won’t. And when you get to the Festspielhaus, you’ll find the
management there in a similar state of denial. But that doesn’t mean these
issues are going to go away any time soon.