BukofzerBaroque

8/6/2019 BukofzerBaroque

1/6

The Baroque in Music History STOR Manfred F. BukofzerThe Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 14, No.2, Second Special Issue onBaroque Style in Various Arts. (Dec., 1955), pp. 152-156.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8529%28195512%2914%3A2%3CI52%3ATBIMH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism is currently published by The American Society for Aesthetics.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR' s Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/aboutiterms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless youhave obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, andyou may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www .jstor .org/journals/tasfa.html.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen orprinted page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive ofscholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www .jstor.org/Wed Mar 15 18:08:47 2006
http://www.jstor.org/aboutiterms.html.mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.jstor.org/aboutiterms.html.


2/6

THE BAROQUE IN MUSIC HISTORYMANFRED F. BUKOFZER

The history of music is the main business of the musicologist. He is thereforeessentially a historian and as such he must apply the criteria, and submit to thediscipline, of any historical research. However, the restrictions of a very spe-cialized subject like that of music create also special problems that call for newand specific methods. To the historian of music the data of general history arecertainly indispensable, but they are at the same time an auxiliary field whichdoes not stand in the center of his interest. Thus the musicologist's interest ingeneral history can be called "eccentric" in the strict sense of the word. Itisprecisely this off-center position which may prove to be valuable to the generalhistorian because it shows how general problems of history may be modified bythe conditions of a limited field.The term "baroque" is a case in point. That its use is controversial I need notassure you here. Nor need I go into the tortuous history of the meaning of theterm. As generally known it was originally a derogatory epithet without anyspecific historical connotation. This usage does not interest us here. Rather arewe concerned with the baroque as a term for a historical epoch. Itwas first soused in the history of architecture and was then extended by the Swiss art his-torian Wolffiin to cover a period in the history of all visual arts. This period isusually said to last from the late sixteenth century to approximately the middleof the eighteenth century. As a period term the baroque lost its derogatory flavorand negative evaluation and became a non-evaluating term which merely desig-nates or classifies a period. At this stage it was taken over into musicology mainlythrough the efforts of Curt Sachs, the well-known musicologist, who-and thiscircumstance is significant in this connection-began his academic career origi-nally not in the field of musicology but in that of art history.Now it has been argued that any term evolved in one art cannot for that veryreason be applied properly in another. Indeed, all such borrowings, if done too

literally, have their dangers. But to object to them on grounds of a preconceivedtheory is not an argument but a prejudice. The only way to test the validity of aterm is by using it. Nor does it follow that musicology when it borrows a periodclassification must necessarily agree also with other ideas of WolfHin, for exam-ple with his peculiar and, in my opinion, outdated theories about the mechanicsof historical development. Musicology was interested mainly in Wolfflin's ap-proach to the baroque and his definition of it as a period. He showed that whathad been regarded in the past as a decadent aftermath of the renaissance wasactually a period in its own right which should be understood and judged only byits own standards, not by those of other periods. This point has been confirmedby subsequent studies in the field of music history. Wolfflin's conclusion had This paper and those by Helmut Hatzfeld , John Rupert Martin, and Wolfgang Stechow,

printed in this issue, were presented as a symposium at the annual convention of the Amer-ican Historical Association held in New York City, in December, 1954.

152


3/6

THE BAROQUE IN MUSIC HISTORY 153also methodological interest because he arrived at it by means of a new and moreobjective method of stylistic analysis. The principle of stylistic analysis is not byany means W6lfHin's personal invention, but he applied it more rigorously thanhis predecessors and firmly established an essential relation between the stylisticand the historical approach.In the discussion of the baroque in music many issues arise, but they can besummed up in two fundamental questions: 1) Is the baroque era a period in itsown right? 2) If it is, does the term "baroque" serve a useful function? It shouldbe noted that the first question has in itself nothing to do with the term, becauseone may concede the existence of the period but at the same time reject its nameas inappropriate. Yet the question as to the existence of the period is actuallythe crucial one. Periods, the units of music history, are identified by musicalstyles. In other words, the baroque era is that period which coincides with therise and decline of the baroque style. Now it is a fact that the period extendingroughly from 1600 to 1750 has been treated in nearly all modern histories ofmusic as a special unit even before the term baroque was applied to it or hadbecome an issue. There may be a few scholars who deny the existence of thatparticular period and possibly of any period (the latter point is not always madeclear), but on the whole there is agreement that the answer to the first questionmust be given in the affirmative.Itis my thesis that period divisions in music history must be made on thebasis of period styles. A close examination of the works of art of the baroque

period discloses that they have certain characteristic features in common. Stylecan, indeed it must be, defined in terms of such observable features as a signifi-'cant group of traits, or a meaningful configuration of criteria. The accent lieshere on the word "configuration" because it is the special combination of stylisticelements which makes each style unique, and consequently also each stylisticera. Style is a generalization or, if you wish, abstraction,-the formulation of"typical features" which are arrived at by means of analyses of many individualpieces of music. Evidently, each piece is different though they will all supportthe generalization.The method just described cannot cover all the individual features whichmake the composition unique and which are the subject of special analysis. Inthe same way, an anatomical description of a face can only stress the typical anddoes not permit us to recognize an individual. However, stylistic analysis canbe carried also to the individual level, for example if the works of one composerare examined; but we are concerned here with the features characterizing a largerunit, that of an era, which are by definition more general.Now it has been argued that certain stylistic traits are found in the music ofmore than one era and that therefore stylistic periods do not or cannot exist.

Itis indeed a truism that similar features may be found in different styles sincein music, as in any medium of art, there is only a limited number of possibilities.However, it is not the single, isolated stylistic element that counts in periodstyle, but its integration into a meaningful whole with other features.The value of period style can be seen immediately when it is used as a tool ofhistorical research. Itis as useful as any generalization of historical types, such


4/6

154 MANFRED F. BUKOFZERas feudalism or capitalism. Itpermits us to determine the origin and date of com-positions of which we have no other information. A well-trained musicologist isable to place music in its historical context merely on the basis of stylistic analy-sis. From my own experience I can cite the instance of an English manuscriptof the fifteenth century, the dating of which has become a cau se c ele br e in mu-sicology.The musical baroque then is only a period style like any other. It is of courseimpossible to describe it here even in outline. I have done that in a book ofnearly 500 pages, and the description is far from being complete. In the title ofmy book M usic in the Baroque Era the term "baroque" denotes no more (and noless) than the inner stylistic unity of the period. Itwould be wrong to look for"baroque qualities" in music as though they were a mysterious chemical sub-

stance. Baroque designates the era more conveniently than saying "the musicof that period which extends from the late sixteenth century to the middle ofthe eighteenth century." The term is in itself no more descriptive than, say,"Gothic" (which for a time was practically synonymous with baroque) or, forthat matter, "medieval." All these designations of periods offer the same advan-tage as any other generalized historical term. Strictly chronological labels, suchas "the seventeenth century," would be too narrow, and seemingly precise labelssuch as "the Elizabethan madrigal" are misleading because the madrigalistsflourished also in the reign of James 1. We would have to speak then of theElizabethan and Jacobean madrigal and thus break up a stylistic unit for entirelyextraneous political reasons. We can now answer our second question by sayingthat baroque as a term for a period does serve a useful function.Itmust be stressed that baroque style should not be thought of as somethingstatic or absolutely inflexible. It exists in ma.ny variants, modifications, and indi-vidualized forms which are the result of national peculiarities, social stratifica-tion, functions (dance music, church music), and individuals. All of these givethe period style its concrete richness. Itis a dynamic entity with an internal de-velopment of its own. This internal development explains the difference betweenMonteverdi and Bach, who mark the beginning and the end of the baroqueperiod. The music of these two masters is different enough to suggest to thecasual observer that the concept of a period style might just as well be aban-doned. However, a comparison on a higher level, namely the comparison of theharoque style as a whole with that of the preceding and subsequent eras, makesclear that eras differ much more fundamentally than do composers of the earlyand late baroque. Each era is characterized by a. new configuration of stylisticelements; Monteverdi and Bach represent only modifications of the same con-figuration. How two eras can be compared on the level here suggested I havedemonstrated in the first chapter of my book in which renaissance and baroqueare compared strictly in technical terms by means of a rigorous analysis of the

observable stylistic facts.So far we have spoken of the inner unity of the baroque period in a limited andstrictly musical sense. But it can be understood also in a more general sense as anera in the history of civilization. We touch here on the interrelations betweenmusic, the visual arts and other aspects of civilization. Itis no secret that the


5/6

THE BAROQUE IN MUSIC HISTORY 1 5 5

correlations purporting to prove the point have often been singularly vague andambiguous. Cultural analogies which seize on superficially similar features, orwhich operate solely with metaphors and similes do not establish a definite rela-tionship. The inner unity of an epoch or what has been called the "spirit of thetime" is of course also an abstraction or generalization of concrete cultural phe-nomena. The assumption that everything in the period is "typically baroque"cannot be accepted as an axiom. Each individual case must be examined on itsown merits. Every period knows undercurrents of opposed forces in the socialas well as in the cultural sphere which do not conform to "the spirit." There areinternal contradictions, survivals of the former era and anticipations of the fol-lowing which must be recognized as such. They merely prove the truism thatno cultural unit is ever absolutely unified.Essential relations between music and other fields can be established only ifeach field is examined first by itself. By stylistic analysis which penetrates thelast detail one can abstract from the concrete and observable musical style gen-eral principles of organization that reveal characteristic mental attitudes andideas. If a stylistic analysis of baroque painting, carried out independently, ar-rives at the same generalizations and attitudes, we are entitled to speak of agenuine, essential correlation. Itcan easily be demonstrated that the baroquecourt opera is unthinkable without the socialmilieu ofabsolutism. This is plainlya matter of the sociology of the baroque. No musical knowledge is required toobserve such sociological interdependence. But matters become more complexwhen mental attitudes which do not lie at the surface are compared. The purposeof genuine correlations is not to show the "identity" of music and painting, butto disclose how the same attitude may manifest itself in two entirely differentmedia. Correlations are a method of inferring the inner unity of an era which isdemonstrable only by means of an indirect, inductive process which extractsvalid generalizations in each field separately, and then in a secondstep comparesand correlates. Itgoes without saying that such parallels do not give us newmusical facts about the music; rather do they add to our knowledge and increaseour understanding not only of music as a cultural force but of the epoch as awhole.If I were asked to state in what myMusic in the Baroque Era differs from otherstudies on the same topic I would make two points:1) Itadopts the stylistic approach consistently and radically at the expense

of biographical and other detail. The reason for this radicalism is my thesis thatthe inner unity of a musical period manifests itself in musical style and that itcan be understood historically only in terms of stylistic development.2) Itextends the history of style into the realm of the history of ideas. Theideas underlying musical style can be inferred only indirectly by a factual stylis-tic analysis that takes music apart as a mechanic does a motor. Only an analysisthat is at once historical and technological is able to show how the history ofstyles partakes in the history of ideas. If I can claim any originality of methodit is to have given the history of ideas a solid foundation in the history ofmusicalstyle. Any attempt to jump from the musical notes directly to cultural parallelswithout the intermediary of stylistic analysis leads to irrelevant results and loose


6/6

1 5 6 HELMUT HATZFELD

analogies of which there are only too many examples. However, bad applicationsof a relatively new method do not disprove the value and validity of its principle.I have profited greatly even in my specialized research from the findings of thehistory of ideas and cultural history. Itis generally agreed today that historydoes not exhaust itself in wars, treaties, rulers and constitutions as some historybooks still seem to imply. It deals with human beings prompted not only bypolitical forces and economic pressure, but also by ideas which may no longerbe our own ideas. Only this wider concept makes of history-be it the historyof music or that of civilization-a truly humanistic discipline.

THE BAROQUE FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THELITERARY HISTORIANHELMUT HATZFELD

1. Problem. The literary historian who makes use of the term "baroque" is notsupposed to establish a general style epoch but rather to contribute material tothe establishment of an epoch style. Basing his judgment on certain literary fea-tures which appear, prevail and vanish, and which he may combine with featuresfrom other domains of civilization, the stylistician qua historian then will beenabled to decide on the limits of a period which, if the material envisaged shouldwarrant it, may be called Baroque. The term, however, is in any case alreadywell entrenched and could hardly be replaced. The literary historian has notinvented the term but uses it for methodological purposes, in analogy to thehistorian of art. The analogy seems mandatory because literary science dealingprimarily with literary art is bound to aim at a formal category not at a psy-chology, philosophy or theology of history of the Baroque. Since converselyhowever, the formal Baroque is anchored in statable historical events as exteriorpreconditions for its coming into being, the literary historian must necessarilyreject the phenomenological "eternal" Baroque concept of Eugenio d'Ors andwill begin his investigation with the first symptoms of a historical Baroque styleto proceed from these to each of its subsequent phases. Thus he will be drawninto the problem of epoch and generation as they appear in his own limited field.2. Method. In this effort he has been most successful when acting as a com-paratist and not as a historian of a single national literature since different coun-tries vie for the honor or reject the alleged dishonor of being called baroque. Ithink of the pride of the Spaniards and the Germans in possessing-as they

believe-a baroque literature as an achievement, and the fear which still prevailsamong the Italians and the French that they might have been affected by astyle type which they would rather consider a disgrace. Itought to be under-stood from these national-critical preoccupations that the Baroque in literature

Documents

BukofzerBaroque