Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 6

Anti-Semitism and Nazi appropriation revisited
This section is fairly well thought out, listing several direct sources of Wagner's anti-Semitic beliefs and writings. However, the last paragraph begins ''That said, it is difficult to criticise someone for the views someone later in history had upon them. Hitler's admiration for Wagner was not returned, considering that Wagner died six years and two months before Hitler was even born''.

I have an issue with this. It may not have occurred to the author that one reason Wagner is disliked in Israel could be based on his anti-Semitism, as evidenced by his writings. Nazis, when they looked up to Wagner, did not have to invent much. Wagner is taken to have suggested that Jews were disgusting in their voices, in their mannerisms, and such like. It should follow that converting a Jew to Christianity would still leave said Jew with the same voice and movements. Nazis had no difficulty in changing history to suit their own retelling of it. Wagner was a favorite of theirs, and whatever character flaws they thought he had were likely made up for by his extensive hate-filled writings.

In addition, had I been a survivor of the death camps of a country who extolled Wagnerian music, I would take offense at it, just as I would take offense at a swastika being displayed. The original may be older than Nazism, but has become forever tainted by it. In sports, we retire numbers of players who were especially great, even if someone else wore the number previously. In life, we should retire those things which were especially evil, regardless of their origins.

egthegreat


 * Let me just add, Hitler was probably the only Nazi who looked up to Wagner (one could find a handful of other Party-functionaries who did, a few)— Wagner's music was long out of style & public appetites then, as now, particularly among impressionable young people, were for other tastes like jazz, and tangos, and popular music of the 1930s. Secondly, as has always been the case and particularly today, most of the greatest Wagnerian performers are Jewish.  nobs 05:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this section of the article is far too long compared to the rest of the article. Wagner's principle influence was as a composer, and his anti-semitic pamphlets would have had little impact. In fact, those beliefs were fairly common in his time, and so his anti-semitic views would not have been that unusual. I think Hitler's affinity for Wagnerian operas unfairly taint the composer as a proto-Nazi, which he clearly was not. If this section could be condensed, I think it would help the overall balance of the article. However, I am not sufficiently expert in these matters to undertake the task myself. Dtaw2001 02:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. I think it is important to make due note of Wagner's anti-Semitic beliefs, but how can it be justifiable to make the section which discusses the appropriation of Wanger's music by the Nazis almost the same length as that which provides an overview of his operatic works, and even longer than the section discussing Wagner's non-anti-Semitic-related legacy (which is undoubtedly massive)! My central concern here is that, insofar as this Wikipedia article is meant to be providing informaton on Wagner for musically-related purposes (as Wagner was, above all else, a composer), the article seems disproportionately politicised. Again, I do not advocate a historical 'whitewash' by any means, but I think much of the information in this particular section would be better suited in an article discussing the various literary sources which were used to inspire and inform the ideologies of both fin-de-siecle nationalist movements and some years later the NSDAP. I don't have any major objections to what is written in the section, nor do I wish to ignite a huge Wagner-Racism-Anti-Semitism debate, but to the casual observer the balance of the article does seem rather odd.      ~Matt


 * My own two-cents worth on the subject: I agree with Matt and Dtaw2001 above. Wagner's anti-semitism certainly shouldn't be white-washed or ignored, but it shouldn't overshadow a discussion of his music either. The section is currently far too long. Maybe a sentence or two on Wagner's anti-semitism, a sentence on Nazi appropriation, and a sentence on his music being banned in Israel would suffice. Rizzleboffin 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Rizzleboffin that Wagner's antisemitism shouldn't be white-washed or ignored, and that it shouldn't overshadow the discussion of his music. I strongly disagree however, that a brief mention is sufficient, especially in light of how completely associated Wagner is with naziism in the US at least. Perhaps the solution to the undue weight problem is to spin it off to a new article. That said, I have slapped a NPOV-sect stub on the section because it has some particularly strong pontification instead of neutral presentation and third-party analysis. What made me finally go with the tag instead of attempting a rewrite of the entire section (which would take hours to properly sort out and source), was finding this discussion... I came here when I got so disgusted by this paragraph, that I just had to see whether anyone had bothered to comment on it...
 * It is not reasonable to criticise Wagner solely on the basis of views expressed about him by a later generation: 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. This would entail, for example, despising vegetarianism just because Hitler practiced it.

My objections are numerous. First off, it is not the place of WP to say what is or is not reasonable. Wagner's culpability or contribution to German antisemitism or hypothetical admiration he might have had for Hitler had they been contemporaries is pointless. Hitler chose Wagner because of Wagner's strongly-stated views--Hitler didn't misattribute them to Wagner, Wagner made his views quite clear on numerous occasions. The bit about Leo Strauss is fine, because it's not pontification by WP editors. (viz. WP:NOR) The sentence on vegetarianism, however, has no place here, not only because Hitler's vegetarianism is far from an accepted "fact" (while his admiration of Wagner is well documented), not because it's a false analogy (one should despise antisemitism because Hitler practiced it, would be more accurate, as would "one should despise Uma Pemmaraju because Hitler was a vegetarian [sic]"), but because it's a blatant violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I could have slapped fact tags all over the section, but multiple [citation needed] tags in every sentence goes a little bit beyond "obnoxious"... I don't want to fix the section up if everyone wants to just reduce it to a couple of sentences, but if the decision is made to spin it off to something like Perception of Wagner as an anti-Semite or whatever, let me know and I'll put a few hours into cleaning it up properly. Tom e rtalk 02:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Two issues here:
 * 1) I don't see there is any decision or consensus to 'spin this section off'. There is already an article Das Judenthum in der Musik which analyses W's essay in detail. This section places W's attitudes to Jews in a wider context. Wagner is a big subject, and if the sections on his operas and other legacy are not large enough by comparison with this (and I personally agree with you on that), then make them bigger, not this smaller! But determining the relative importance of different issues in W's life and how much space they should take up is also a POV consideration. for better or worse, probably more people know about W's anti-Jewish sentiments than know about his music, and the former may be a bigger reason for consulting WP on Wagner than the latter.
 * 2)I have dealt with the specific POV issue ("it is not reasonable") by simply removing the offending sentence. The rest of the paragraph I think stands OK--Smerus 07:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have also now shortened the section by making the paragraph about Wagner's religion, rather misplaced here, into a separate section. It would be a good idea if someone could exapnd this to deal with Wagner's attitude to philosophy as well......--Smerus 08:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Intending no offence at all; but I truly find this section redundant. Anti-semitism is a 1940+ creation, the concept didn't exist in a labelled form prior. Anti-anything was a viable political stance and if one didn't randomly bitch and moan in social cliques about some group or rather they would not suit the scene of the social clique in question in the era in question. Whilst editors seem to enjoy in depth discussion in hindsight of political philosophies, we should not truly write off or rail against historical figures based on their views that were perfectly acceptable in society at their time. This does not justify nor make the matter right, however it outlines a general limitation on how in depth we should go with such matters.

One thing that comes to mind is the 'list of white supremacists' article that was ditched due to the fact that pre-1950's the concept of 'white supremacist' didn't exist, it was a well touted and accepted doctrine (or 'truth') that 'whites' were 'supreme' and above all other ethnicities. This, we know, has changed, however we can't go listing every single person who lived pre-1950 as 'white supremacists' nor in depth on their white supremacy nature. It's all too redundant, as I said, I believe hindsight should apply to their in situ socio-cultural extensions only and not be used as a soliloquy into a political stanse. Jachin 13:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The term anti-semitism does not date from 1940+, but was invented by Wilhelm Marr in the 1870s, which is within Wagner's lifetime, though admittedly towards the end of it. Still, the idea had been forming throughout the nineteenth century as a result of the growth of ethno-linguistic and racial theory on the one hand and skepticism towards the Bible on the other. It's true that the term is also often used for anti-Jewish attitudes before that, attitudes that were not based on racial and ethno-linguistic theory, but on Christian condemnation of "Christ killers". But in practice pre-racialist attitudes simply mereged with the new theories. Wagner was a significant figure in the development of these ideas, not because he actually contributed much to anti-semitic theory, but because his views were known, he was a major cultural figure, and his work attracted German nationalists. Paul B 13:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation of "Das Judenthum in der Musik"
1. You translate the Title of Wagner's Book "Das Judenthum in der Musik" as "Judaism in Music". This is misleading.

The word "Judenthum" (modern german: Judentum) could refer to either religio or natio. In this case the second meaning is clearly intended. Your translation "Judaism in Music" carries the sense of 'Jewish religious elements in Music'. In contrast, Wagner was referring to Jewish cultural elements in music, i.e. some collection of characteristics Wagner believed to have identified as commonly applied by Jewish performers, conductors, composers, etc.

An alternative translation to convey this meaning might be 'Jewish Elements in Music'. That title, however, still misses the faint note of derision inherent in the German title. To capture this element as well my final suggestion would be "Jewishness in Music".


 * [The above message was posted by anon IP 84.167.219.160 @ 03:26 (UTC) on 11 Jun 2005]

I disagree. "Judaism in Music" is a far more commonly found translation than "Jewry in Music," which seems to me in any case to be hardly an improvement. I'm for restoring the original title. (68.198.181.134 08:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Judaeism in Music is wrong, as above - he meant it in the context of Jewish cultural elements and not religion - Jewry in Music is more appropriate but I do not like that. What can be done? The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 07:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Native speaker here... The only translation of Judent(h)um is Judaism; -tum is a suffix corresponding to English -ery, -hood, -dom; however it is archaic and obsolete, in New High German it is only found in established terms such as Christentum (Christianity), Rittertum (Chivalry) or Wachstum (growth). Jewishness is Jüdischkeit. It might very well be that he used the term Judaism meaning utter Jewishness but that doesn't change anything about the meaning of the term in German.84.167.240.127 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. We need to stick to facts about which translations are in common use, not opinions about which best express Wagner's intent. Hence I am removing the unprovable assertion that "Jewishness in Music" is a "better" translation. Lfh 08:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the other thread on this page which some time ago compromised on 'Jewishness' - which is not original research, but is used by the noted Wagner scholar Barry Millington in his authoritative 'Wagner Compendium'. See also here. I am therefore reverting the edit you have made.--Smerus 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was under the impression there was still some debate about this, but I don't want to revert it again if there definitely is a consensus so I'll leave this issue alone now! Lfh 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation of "Wahnfried"
2. Further down you translate the name of Wagner's house in Bayreuth (Wahnfried) as "Freedom from Illusions". This is badly amiss. 'Fried' refers to peace, not freedom; and 'Wahn' has various relations. One thinks first of 'Wahnsinn = madness' then of 'Wahnvorstellungen = illusions'.

Coming up with a better translation is harder than uncovering the fault. Understood in context, the name conveys Wagner's expression of relief (it could also be sour grapes!) at having escaped the sycophancy and intrigues of the Ludwig's court in Munich for the remote backwater of Bayreuth. A modern day comparison would be an powerful politician leaving Washington, or a much sought after entertainer departing from Los Angeles to live in Montana.

You can get that idea across by translating "Wahnfried" as "Peace from Hypocracy and Clamour" or, if you don't object to the faint touch of englishness, I'd prefer "Away from All That".


 * [The above message was posted by anon IP 84.167.219.160 @ 03:26 (UTC) on 11 Jun 2005]



I've read the villa's complete inscription is:


 * Hier wo mein Wähnen
 * Frieden fand
 * WAHNFRIED
 * sei dieses Haus
 * von mir bennant

which would roughly translate to:


 * Here where my delusions/madnesses
 * have found peace
 * WAHNFRIED
 * be this house
 * by me named

And I've read the word "Wahn" should be compared to the Hans Sachs opening monologue of The Mastersingers of Nuremberg, Act III:


 * Wahn! Wahn! überall Wahn! Wohin ich forschend blick in Stadt- und Weltchronik, den Grund mir aufzufinden, warun gar bis aufs Blut die Leut' sich quälen und schinden in unnütz toller Wut!

that is:


 * Madness! Madness! Everywhere madness! ...

or less flat and literal:


 * Illusion! Delusion! Madness everywhere! ...

Actually, I was looking into that for the Richard Wahnfried article – on my side, I'm going to translate:


 * Wahnfried ("Peace from delusion and/or madness", in German)

One thing amuses me: the stereotypical French name for a villa is "Mon Repos", that is "My Rest" or "My Peace". Is there a similar stereotypical English name? "Wahnfried" seems like an exalted Romantic, or a pompously grandiose, version of it ;-)

&larr;#6 talk 07:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: Last food for thought: when you're a 60+ year-old man, the villa is peace from the madness and insanity of the previous life; and once dead and buried into its garden, the inscription becomes an epitaph and the villa is peace from the delusions and vanity of life at all ;-)

&larr;#6 talk 07:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed your comments very much. In English I've usually seen "Wanderers Rest".  The meaning of "wahn" meaning "madness" is on the mark.  Daphne Warner's book from a few years ago has an entire chapter on this.  Also, it relates to the theory of Wagner's semitic origins.  One doesn't here so much about "wandering Jews" today since the creation of modern Isreal, but the meaning of the word "wahn" has a Yiddish origin, relating to the madness of Isreal's rebellion in the wilderness and that generation being cursed to wonder 40 years in the desert.  The theme of a curse, followed by a wondering, is prevelent in Dutchman, Ring of the Nibelugen,  Parsifal, and other works.  Thanks again. Nobs01 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Nobs, for your kind remarks about my submission (above) regarding translation of 'Wahnfried'.

- We agree that Wahnfried means peace from madness, but who's madness? Extrapolating from Wagner's recent experiences, I thought it might be the madness of political machinations (seen from Wagner's, ie the loser's, point of view). Hence my whimsical suggestions. Your poem citation shows that Wagner was referring to himself, in which case I'd tip for the colloquial interpretion 'aggravation' instead of 'mental illness'. In which case, 'Wahnfried' could be simply translated as 'Retreat'.

- I am unable to identify a Yiddish origin for 'Wahn'. My Duden's Herkunftswörterbuch (Etymological dictionary) shows 'Wahn' to have very old German origins. Until fairly recently, 'Wahn' meant 'hope' or 'opinion' and is etymologically related to english 'win' (I doubt Wagner intended a double meaning). My (slim) Yiddish and Rotwelsch dictionary doesn't show 'Wahn'. Neither does it appear in my Hebrew dictionary. If 'Wahn' does occur in Yiddish, it is likely to be the result of German -> Yiddish and not the other way around. Further, 'Wahn' is a an everyday german word, so the idea that the name 'Wahnfried' has (anti-)semitic overtones seems tenuous.

[Note to Nobs: judging by your remark, I have hope that this discussion holds interest for you, as they do for me. However, some of the discussion may be on the edge of drifting off topic. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I wonder whether there could be a way I could address you at a private Nob Wikipedia page?]


 * If you click on my name that will take you to my talk page & feel free to make an entry at the bottom. By semitic origins, I was referring to the long standing rumor that Wagner himself was Jewish.  Historian Will Durant flatly says so, as do others.  Meyerbeer, when he met him, thought Wagner to be Jewish.  Personally I think Wagner himself thought so.  And I draw that from numerous contexts from his works. Virtually all of them have a pattern of a curse, followed by wondering, and ultimately redemption.  And this is drawn from Christian Dispensationalism.  The entire bible is a story of the curse (fall of Adam), followed by a "wandering" (Isreal in the wilderness), or the madness of being lost in ones sin, to finally redemption through Christ (Christian conversion).  Wagner, it appears, may have been a Jew who was a closet Christian, and his rejection of Judaism was mirrored by the treatment Messianic Jews get from thier own community.  Just a theory perhaps.  But I think there may be much to it.Nobs01 02:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow! Fascinating, and if you feel its drifting off-topic i'd as soon have you keep it here labelled as "==Off-Topic: the Mind of Wagner==", and hope that any wet-blanket who moves it elsewhere leaves a lk here saying where!
 * --Jerzy·t 21:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it should be clear to anyone familiar with Wagner. After the extensive discussion on Wagner's anti-Semitism (still being debated by knowledgeable people above), I am reintroducing the idea that Wagner was himself Jewish (supported by historian Will Durant, and making a distinction between pre-1948 anti-Semitism and post-1948 anti-Semitism, in otherwords, the idea is different today than what is was in Wagner's day, especially toward Jews who embraced Christianity). Than I am also reintroducing the idea, supported by Friedrich Nietzsche, that Wagner in his old age, fully embraced Christian doctrine (despite all his sins, and without an outward display, essentially the same doctrines Holy Rollers embrace). Christian doctrine is evident as being uppermost in his mind throughout all his works. None of this is new; any serious student of Wagner is familiar with all of it. Yet this article, the 4 archive pages, and this talk page there is little mention of it. Instead, we have much the same discussion prevelent in most English language articles about Wagner. Another thing lacking is the Bayreuth Festival page, which has virtually nothing about the current controvesy going on in Bayreuth over successorship. One would presume, there should be some reference to it here also. Thanks. Nobs01 22:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In a culture saturated in Christian doctrine, many emotionally charged works would suffer some degree of impoverishment by their authors' forswearing Christian images. (Note the Walden Two passage where the secularist B.F. Skinner-mouthpiece character is described in a Christ-on-the-Cross posture!) Parsifal can also be read as pushing what Christians call central to Christianity into positions subordinate to other elements, as Islam does in its use of Judeo-Christian material; Kundry's recitation of all her names breaks down any dichotomy between paganism and Parsifal's Christianity-derived elements.
 * The role of Bayreuth and other Wagneria in the Third Reich (where cleansing true Aryan paganism of its Christian accretions seems to have been an agenda) makes Wagner-as-Christian far from the slam-dunk you are suggesting, so be careful to thoroughly NPoV what you add in this regard.
 * --Jerzy·t 18:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea the Parsifal expresses a "Pentecostalist" Christianity seems to me to be rather unlikely. Wagner was deep into racialism and religious-synchretism when it was written, ideas that were commonplace among the European intelligensia at the time. Don't forget he was planning an opera about the Buddha at the same time! He also tried to prove the the name "Parsifal" derived from "Parsi" (i.e. Persian - meaning 'Aryan'). I don't think this means that he wanted to cleanse Aryan paganism of Christianity (as some Nazis did), but rather, as Jerzy suggests, that he wanted to show that Christianity was consistent with the concepts of renunciation and purification central to the major Aryan (Indo-European) religions - Zoroastrianism, Vedicism and Buddhism. This involved marginalising more distinctively Christian concepts.


 * As for the suggestion that Wagner was actually Jewish - there's no evidence for that, and Will Durant is not a Wagner scholar. There is however some reason to think that Wagner may have been highly sensitised to the suggestion that he was Jewish because of doubts about his parenthood. I've indicated that in some additions to the text. Paul B 14:58, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

Wagner the German Jewish composer
The wagner scholar Robert Gutman, gave evidence in his 600 pages treatise on Richard Wagner, showing most conclusively that Wagner was Jewish, Robert W. Gutman, Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind and His Music (1968). In fact the treatise of Robert Gutman gives a photograph of a document of a Leipzig Synagogue which registered wagner into the synagogue as a boy under the name "Richard Geyer". Moreover the paternity of wagner, which apperas controversial, as gutman pointed out is because the nazis tried successfully to cover up a lot of these documents. However Wagner's jewishness is no longer controversial in terms of certainty. But it is controversial in terms of implications. For nationalistic germans it is unconceivable that the most monumental german was jewish and for Jews it is terribly hard to accept that the foundations of nazism were laid by a Jew.

Wagner himself was not confused about his paternity, but tried his best to conceal it. However, on the front cover of the first publication of his autobiography Mein Leben he showed the picture of an eagle, which he described to close associates including the later adversary Nietzsche as representing "geyer". geyer like adler was common german Jewish surname and stood for eagle like the surname adler.

Besides wagner himself had confided about his jewishness through his father geyer, to nietzsche and his wife cosima wagner. But cosima wagner tried her best to conceal it even after wagner's death. However nietzsche wrote about wagner's knowledge about his own jewishness. Robin klein 09:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Geyer (geier) means "vulture" in German, not "eagle". Secondly, Gutman's speculations were disproved by German researchers in the 1970s. John Chancellor's Wagner biography summarises their findings: "He [Geyer] could claim the same sturdy descent as the Wagners. His pedigree also went back to the middle of the seventeenth century and his forefathers were also, for the most part, organists in small Thuringian towns and villages". Even if Geyer had been Jewish, Judaism is passed through the female line, so afaik Wagner would not have been accepted into a synagogue, unless perhaps his mother converted, for which there would be ample evidence that is nowhere to be found. Paul B 11:05 20 June 2005 (UTC)


 * True, Jewishness is inherited through the mother, or rather it is matrilineal. But it does not mean that the jewish community does not accept a person into the synagogue if he is not a first degree jew (or the direct offspring of a jewish mother). Infact according to rabbinical laws a person is jewish until the seventh degree. or in other words, till the seventh descendant of the last jewish mother in the lineage. Richard Wagner for that matter was / is considered as fourth or fifth degree Jewish. Robin klein 12:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not what it says here Who is a Jew? nor on the sites they reference. Anyway, as I say, there is no evidence at all that Geyer was Jewish or part-Jewish. That's not to say Wagner didn't think he might have been. There's reason to believe he may well have thought so. Paul B 12:30, 20 June 2005 (UTC)


 * There is evidence that Geyer was Jewish, the geyer family including Richard Geyer a.k.a Richard Wagner was listed in a leipzig synagogue. Robin klein 12:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Robin all I can say is that I can find no reference anywhere in any book on Wagner (or even website) to these records in a Leipzig synagogue. Do you have a source for it? It seems very unlikely. Even writers who have claimed that Geyer was of Jewish descent do not say he was a practicing Jew. Wagner was baptised and confirmed without any indication that his family had at any point practiced Judaism. However, I did make a mistake when I said Gutman's speculations were disproved. It seems that it was others who had speculated. Gutman's "600 page treatise" says no such thing. This is what he wrote: "research has so far failed to produce a single demonstrably Jewish ancestor on the Geyer family tree." Likewise, Hans Gal's later biography says "there is no documentary proof whatsoever for Nietszche's surmise that Geyer was of Jewish origin". R. Taylor's biography states, "For the record, let us observe that there is not a single Jew to be found among Geyer's ancestors." Paul B 16:45, 20 June 2005 (utc)

I had seen a picture of the document of richard geyer registered in a synagogue. which I have been talking about. I read gutman over 12 years ago. I think I saw the document in that book. If not in that book then I dont know remember which else. But I stand to lose as I cannot remember the exact book. Though my best bet is gutman. please check it. I am not able to access the same library that I read gutman several years ago. Yes in fact I was shocked and surprised to see the document because it should lay to rest all wagner controversy at least regarding his parentage. But since I cannot produce the exact page number I should say clear that I stand to lose this conversation, in earnest. Robin klein 17:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Brief comment: this article seems to draw heavily on Gutman's book (which is very, very good). Keep in mind, there are ten's of thousands of other also good sources. Also a credit to the editors of this article is, that much of the writing by authors who really know nothing of Wagner's works, yet purport to know "facts", has been kept to a minimum. Nobs01 17:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Geyer wasn't Wagner's biological father; his mother remarried the man Geyer after her husband (Richard Wagner's biological father) died, which was when Richard was very very young. --gikar, 4-13-06

Question: Anybody know if there is a German or English language link to Wagner's tract on Vivisectionism, given the current wiki debate going on at that page?Nobs01 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Here it is in English Paul B 10:50 21 June 2005 (UTC)

What are some of the best biographies on Wager? Also, wasn't Conrad Glasenapp the 'offical' Wagner biographer of the time? The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)