History As Identity Politics: the Case of Mid-Nineteenth-Century Germany *
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
History As Identity Politics: The Case of Mid-Nineteenth-Century Germany * Karl Kügle Most historians—and musicologists—will probably agree that the concepts of ‘history’ in general, and of ‘music history’ in particular, as we understand them today, are the result of seismic epistemological shifts that took place mostly during the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. Concerning ‘music history,’ one might further agree that the dominant, Austro-Germanic master narrative of ‘music history’ that fills our introductory music text books only reached a point of crystallization during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, suggesting a somewhat more fluid situation in preceding decades.1 ‘History’ and other late eighteenth and nineteenth-century constructions have undergone manifold and substantial critiques since the 1960s and 1970s; most significantly for the following discussion, post- structuralism pointed to the nexus between discourse and power.2 If we apply this premise to the discourse of ‘music history,’ the question of the relations between the origins of music history in nineteenth-century Germany, and the contingent political interests, needs to be reconsidered. Musicology, probably due to its intimate connection with these very issues, has been slow in tackling the question, notwithstanding the fact that a considerable body of research on ‘historicism’ and ‘canon formation’ is currently available. If interest in ‘historicism’ was first voiced by German scholars around Walter Wiora, most prominently among them, Carl * Earlier versions of this paper were read at the International Conference on Nineteenth-Century Music, Royal Holloway, University of London, 2000, at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society (Toronto, Canada, 2–5 November 2000), and at the 24th National Conference of the Musicological Society of Australia (University of Melbourne, 18–22 April 2001). I am grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for a Habilitationsstipendium (1996–98) and to the University of Hong Kong for a Research Initiation Grant (1998–2000) enabling me to conduct the research for this article in the context of a larger book project on The ‘Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung’ (Leipzig, 1863–1882): Music, Identity and Politics in a German Music Journal of the Nineteenth Century (forthcoming). 1 For a detailed exploration supporting this view, see my forthcoming monograph on The ‘Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung’ (Leipzig, 1863–1882). 2 See, as the starting point for much of what follows, Michel Foucault, Les mots et les choses: une archéologie des sciences humaines (Paris: Gallimard, 1966). For an application of these ideas to, for example, the area of justice, see Michel Foucault, Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison (Paris: Gallimard, 1975). For a fundamental critique of historiographical writing, with special emphasis on the nineteenth century, see Hayden White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1973); see also Hayden White, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987). 96 Context 22 (Spring 2001) Dahlhaus, more recently, relations between power and discourse have been a major area of concern for Anglo-Saxon and North American musicologists.3 Despite all this activity, it remains a fact that almost all research in the area tends to focus on the early nineteenth century (up to 1848/9), or the late decades of the nineteenth century (from ca. 1880 onward); perhaps subconsciously emulating the structure of the symphonic canon, the ‘barren’ years (to paraphrase Dahlhaus’s now sufficiently challenged claim)4 from around 1850 to 1880 continue to attract relatively little attention. They seem to me, however, to sit at a crucial juncture in the evolution of the modern notion of ‘music history.’ In the following, I propose to trace a few previously unacknowledged links between writing music history, ideology, and politics in the German-speaking lands during the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s. I hope to show that the decisive move from a ‘Romantic’ pre-1848 view of music history toward the prevailing ‘modernist’ one was first made in the early 1850s by a small and select elite, and I aim to elucidate a few of the political and ideological premises that underlie this seemingly autonomous discursive shift in the approach to history at large, and the history of music in particular. Defining Historicism Before launching into the details of such an inquiry, it may be useful to pause for a moment to reflect on the changing definitions and resulting meanings of the terms ‘history’ and ‘historicism,’ and their respective implications, as far as they apply to the nineteenth century and, in particular, the German-speaking parts of Central Europe.5 Unlike in previous centuries, ‘history,’ since the Enlightenment, increasingly came to be conceived as a full and verifiable reconstruction of the past, to be achieved (as much as possible) by the tools of critical scholarship, as opposed to a narrative, conditioned by the selective and whimsical qualities of individual and collective memory. The result of this epistemological shift was not only a transformed, ‘historicist’ awareness of the world, now seen as the changeable product of historical processes as borne out by the documentary record, but also a relativised notion of the future, usually framed within the two opposing metanarratives of progress or decay. Such a notion of history begets a revised sense of awareness, whose consequences for music history I intend to spell out below, as well as the politically subversive quality of the new historicism when used as a revisionist tool by a politicised middle class. 3 See, for example., Walter Salmen, ed., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Musikanschauung im 19. Jahrhundert, Studien zur Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts 1 (Regensburg: Bosse, 1965); Heinz Becker, ed., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Musikkritik, Studien zur Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts 5 (Regensburg: Bosse, 1965); Carl Dahlhaus, ‘Historismus und Tradition,’ Zum 70. Geburtstag von Joseph Müller-Blattau, Saarbrücker Studien zur Musikwissenschaft 1, ed. Christoph-Hellmut Mahling (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1966) 46–58; Walter Wiora, ed., Die Ausbreitung des Historismus über die Musik, Studien zur Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts 14 (Regensburg: Bosse, 1969); Carl Dahlhaus, ‘Traditionszerfall im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,’ Studien zur Tradition in der Musik: Kurt von Fischer zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht and Max Lütolf (Munich: Katzbichler, 1973) 177–90; Carl Dahlhaus, Grundlagen der Musikgeschichte, Musik-Taschen-Bücher Theoretica 15 (Cologne: H. Gerig, 1977). For examples of the discussion among Anglo-Saxon and North American musicologists, see, for example, Joseph Kerman, ‘A Few Canonic Variations,’ Critical Inquiry 10 (1983): 107–26; Katherine Bergeron and Philip V. Bohlman, eds, Disciplining Music: Musicology and its Canons (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992); Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music (Oxford: Oxford UP 1992), Marcia J. Citron, Gender and the Musical Canon (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993), to name but a few. 4 See Carl Dahlhaus, Die Musik des 19. Jahrhunderts, Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft 6 (Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlags-Gesellschaft Athenaion, 1980) 220. 5 For the following, see Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866: Bürgerwelt und starker Staat (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1983) 498–500. History as Identity Politics 97 Competing Views of (Music) History, up to ca. 1850 Turning now to the specific development of music historiography since the eighteenth century, three major epistemological stages may be distinguished.6 The first one may be called the ‘encyclopedic’ one: a brainchild of the Enlightenment, it perceives history as a sequence of events from Antiquity to the present which the historiographer attempts to record with the greatest possible accuracy and completeness. In order to do so, techniques of antiquarian scholarship are used (that is, source materials from the past are consulted and interpreted according to the prevailing epistemological system). The resulting data are then systematised and classified in a linear, progressive scheme. The present day and its music are seen as the best result yet of a continuous evolution towards ever greater perfection. A prime example of this approach is Charles Burney’s General History of Music (London, 1776-1789), which ends with the conclusion that no music really worth hearing was produced until the present day, that is, the late 1700s, and ‘that mankind was delighted with bad music before good was heard.’ A later Continental representative of this technique of knowledge production is Raphael Georg Kiesewetter’s Geschichte der europäisch-abendländischen oder unsrer heutigen Musik (Leipzig, 1834), which in turn perceived the period from 1800 to the 1830s— dubbed by Kiesewetter the ‘epoch of Beethoven and Rossini (1800-1832)’—as the crowning achievement of music history.7 A second stage of historical consciousness I refer to as the ‘Romantic view.’ Unlike encyclopedic accounts, which perceived music of the past as either ‘barbarous relics,’ or a precursor at best to the contemporaneous relative perfection of the art, the ‘Romantic’ view, in a fundamental reversal, elevated older music to the embodiment of artistic perfection, consequently re-interpreting the music of the present as a product