pro and contra wagner 229for Social Research which set themselves the task of not remaining in
fruitless indignation in relation to National Socialism, but of standing
up to it by comprehending it’ (Adorno 1997 : 13 , 504 ). When the imme-
diate dangers of Western European nationalism recede after the War,
Adorno gives more emphasis to those aspects of Wagner’s works that
had been relatively neglected in theEssay.Wehave seen one reason for
Wagner’s relationship to National Socialism in the ‘Judaism’ essay, but
the essay was only significant because its author was a major cultural
influence for other reasons. The connections between the power of
Wagner’s music, and his political and moral failings are therefore the
decisive issue, and Adorno’s responses to Wagner need to be seen in
this light.
It is because Wagner’s music dramas reveal so much about the best
and worst of modernity that they give rise to such extremes of praise
and opprobrium, from claims that his vision is profoundly religious
(Scruton 2003 onTristan), to the idea that it is a major factor in the
development of the very substance of Nazism (K ̈ohler 2000 ). Given
such disparities, what criteria enable an adequate judgement to be made
on Wagner’s significance? One thing seems clear: there is no point in
killing the messenger. It is too easy to project onto Wagner negative
feelings and judgements about aspects of modernity which his work
reveals, but in many cases cannot be said to encourage or promote.
His work is often unsettling, yet at the same time compelling, and one
must respond adequately to both aspects, which are inseparable anyway.
Nietzsche gets it right inThe Case of Wagnerwhen he says: ‘Modernity
speaks itsmost intimatelanguage through Wagner: it does not hide what
is good about itself nor what is evil, it has unlearned all shame at itself.
And conversely: one has almost made an assessment of the value of
modernity if one is clear in oneself about good and evil in Wagner’
(Nietzsche 2000 : 2 , 904 ).
Adorno’s later text,The Actuality of Wagner( 1965 ), which in cer-
tain respects contradicts his earlier assessment, specifies one root of
Wagner’s capacity to disturb and compel, namely his ambivalent rela-
tionship to myth. As we have seen, Adorno regards myth as the expres-
sion of the idea of a world of the ‘ever-same’, which blocks ways of
transforming an unjust reality:
One can object in any number of ways to Wagnerian mythology, unmask
it as sham mythology, accuse it of a Romanticism of false beards and bulls-
eye window panes. Yet theRingin particular sustains against all moderate,