The original article of 1850

The first version of the article appeared in the NZM under the pseudonym of K. Freigedank (``K. Freethought''). In an April 1851 letter to Franz Liszt, Wagner gave the excuse that he used a pseudonym ``to prevent the question being dragged down by the Jews to a purely personal level''.

At the time Wagner was living in exile in Zurich, on the run after his role in the 1849 revolution in Dresden. His article followed a series of essays in the NZM by his disciple Uhlig, attacking the music of Meyerbeer’s opera Le prophète. Wagner was particularly enraged by the success of Le prophète in Paris, all the more so because he had earlier been a slavish admirer of Meyerbeer, who had given him financial support and used his influence to get Wagner’s early opera Rienzi, his first real success, staged in Dresden in 1841.

Wagner was also emboldened by the death of Mendelssohn in 1847, the popularity of whose conservative style he felt was cramping the potential of German music. Although Wagner had shown virtually no sign of anti-Jewish prejudice previously (despite the claims of Rose in his book ``Wagner, Race and Revolution'' (1992), and others) , he was determined to build on Uhlig’s articles and prepare a broadside that would attack his artistic enemies, embedded in what he took to be a populist Judaeophobic context.

Translations from the work given below are from W. Ashton Ellis’s 1894 version, which gives some idea of the author’s verbosity.

Wagner claims that the work was written to:

explain to ourselves the involuntary repellence possessed for us by the nature and personality of the Jews, so as to vindicate that instinctive dislike which we plainly recognise as stronger and more overpowering than our conscious zeal to rid ourselves thereof.

Wagner holds that Jews are unable to speak European languages properly and that Jewish speech took the character of an ``intolerably jumbled blabber'', a ``creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle'', incapable of expressing true passion. This, he says, debars them from any possibility of creating song or music. He also states:

Although the peculiarities of the Jewish mode of speaking and singing come out the most glaringly in the commoner class of Jew, who has remained faithful to his fathers' stock, and though the cultured son of Jewry takes untold pains to strip them off, nevertheless they shew an impertinent obstinacy in cleaving to him.

There is little novelty in these ideas, which are largely lifted from the theories of language and speech of the French Philosophes of the 18th century.

The music produced by composers such as Mendelssohn, whom Wagner damns with faint praise, is ``sweet and tinkling without depth''. Meyerbeer, who was still alive at the time of publication, is attacked savagely for his music (and for the fact that audiences enjoy it) but without being expressly named.

The essay is riddled with the aggressiveness typical of many Judaeophobic publications of the previous few centuries. However Wagner did introduce one striking new image, which was to be taken up after him by many later anti-Semitic authors:

So long as the separate art of music had a real organic life-need in it […] there was nowhere to be found a Jewish composer...Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of lodgement in it—yet merely to destroy it. Then, indeed, that body’s flesh dissolves into a swarming colony of insect life: but who in looking on that body’s self, would hold it still for living?

``Only those artists who abandoned their Jewish roots—were that possible—could at all express themselves artistically,'' claims Wagner. In this context, he gives some convoluted near-endorsements of Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Börne, stating that the former became a poet only because German culture had become inauthentic. It could thus be represented by a Jew, who understood from his very nature its cultural inauthenticity, but who also excoriated its corruption. In this, he was the ``conscience of Judaism'', just as Judaism is ``the evil conscience of our modern civilisation''. Wagner then goes on to refer to Börne, a Jewish writer and journalist who converted to Christianity. He tells Jews to follow his example, recommending that they follow Börne by helping to ``redeem'' German culture by abandoning Judaism.

Without once looking back, take ye your part in this regenerative work of deliverance through self-annulment; then are we one and un-dissevered! But bethink ye, that only one thing can redeem you from your curse; the redemption of Ahasuerus — Going under!

In the original version of 1850, instead of the word ``self-annulment'', Wagner used the words ``the bloody struggle of self-annihilation'' - displaying a rather more aggressive approach which was perhaps too blatant for the more widely-known figure he had become by 1868.