THE primary basis of study for this essay is the writings of two Mendelssohn scholars; “Mendelssohn and the rise of musical historicism” by James Garratt and “Mendelssohn and Judaism” by Michael P. Steinberg, both published in the The Cambridge Companion to Mendelssohn (2004). As is evident from the titles of both essays, these treatises explore two of the most controversial issues in Mendelssohn studies; firstly, the composer’s adulation (some have called it emulation) of the music of Bach, and secondly, Mendelssohn’s self-identification with his Jewish heritage. Some interesting insights are gained into Mendelssohn’s character and his music by approaching him from these contrasting (but not so unassociated) perspectives.
The notion of historicism in Mendelssohn’s music owes much of its present prominence to progressive muso-philosophical (if you will) thinking since the late nineteenth century. It is well documented how Mendelssohn’s posterity was almost obliterated by the writings of Richard Wagner in 1850, yet I believe it was Wagner’s (and others) radical ideas about originality in music and the “music of the future” which did more to focus negative criticism on historicism in Mendelssohn’s music. As in so many anti-Semitic discourses from the late nineteenth centruy, virtues of the individual in question are reconstructed as faults or weaknesses. Michael Steinberg highlights this in his discussion of William Little’s writings on the rejection of Mendelssohn’s candidacy for the directorship of the Singakademie in 1833 (p. 36). Historicism in Mendelssohn’s music has and still is depicted as a negative. Yet as James Garratt points out, Mendelssohn could well be considered “the first composer of modernity: the first musician to wrestle with the dilemma of being dispossessed of a lingua franca”. Mendelssohn’s choice to look backwards for inspiration to the more recent achievements of Bach, as opposed to ancient Greek art, was an innovative, even highly “original” solution to this dilemma. Critiquing Mendelssohn with the outlook that every artist has the responsibility to be an iconoclast is irrational and aids us little in understanding (and appreciating) the merits of his music.
Felix Mendelssohn was as prone to the same influences from his cultural environment as anyone would be in their formative years. Mendelssohn was well read in the writings of Hegel and Schlegel, and considered Goethe a friend and mentor. Garratt highlights how Schlegel’s philosophical ideas on art in particular are evident in Mendelssohn’s work. His doctrine of complete immersion and penetration in the art of the masters of the Enlightenment as a means of progress towards “truly modern art for the modern age” is an idea Mendelssohn evidently shared. Goethe too perceived the merits of artistic historicism, even if he did not openly advocate it, appraising the artwork of the Brotherhood of St. Luke in contending “this is the first time in the history of art that significant talents have shaped themselves backwards, by returning into the mother’s womb in order to initiate a new artistic epoch”. However, there were more immediate cultural influences which gave rise to historicism in Mendelssohn’s music, for example, lingering Jewish mental attitudes in his household during his childhood.
Judaism is a traditionalist religion in principle. It premises that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition, human reason being incapable of attaining it. Thus, traditionalism and historicism share a key tenet. Although Felix Mendelssohn was brought up in the Christian faith, there is much evidence that elements of a traditionalist Jewish mentality endured in the traits of his father and were likely passed on. This is evident in Steinberg’s mention of Mendelssohn’s disparaging remarks concerning the frivolity of the recent New Year’s celebrations in a letter from January 1831. Here he cites Eric Werner’s “perceptive reading of the Jewish subtext” in Mendelssohn’s description of the days around the turning of the year as “real days of atonement” and the latter’s setting of poetry by Goethe relating to holding onto old customs to conclude the cantata “Erste Walpurgisnacht” (1831). Consequently, I believe that a traditionalistic trait was superimposed onto Felix Mendelssohn’s character in his formative years, a hangover from a bygone generation, but one which affected his compositional approach nonetheless. This trait may very well have been aroused in Felix by Abraham Mendelssohn’s “evolving” religious stance, that is, the latter’s belief in assimilation into German Protestantism as the way forward for German Jews. Abraham was acutely aware of the antiquarianism of Judaism and did not see it as the most appropriate faith in which to give his children the most modern upbringing. Steinberg argues for the case that Mendelssohn did not self-identify as a Jew. He cites Jeffrey Sposato’s findings that Eric Werner in fact manufactured the idea Mendelssohn’s self-identification of his Jewish heritage. Nevertheless, this strongly urged assimilation may have kindled a sense of loss of identity in Felix, and intensified his yearning for a connection with history. Subconsciously at least, Felix acted on this yearning creatively in using Bach’s music as a model for his own composition.
Certain traits of Mendelssohn’s character are discernable in the two articles under discussion. Mendelssohn’s enthusiasm for music and amicability are evident in Mendelssohn’s acclamation of Justus Thibaut for enabling him to appreciate old Italian music, while even Mendelssohn’s teacher Carl Zelter regarded Thibaut’s antiquarianism as one-sided. Naivety and nonchalance are apparent in his responses to criticisms of his music (regarding similarities with Bach’s): “If it has similarity to Seb. Bach, again, I cannot do anything about it…” (p. 66). These words give clues to Mendelssohn’s gentle, non-confrontational demeanor. From Garratt’s account of Mendelssohn’s childhood it is evident that the boy was typically unreflective, as is characteristic of most children. He assimilated the musical styles he was exposed to and engaged with them through compositional responses. However, Garratt’s claim of Mendelssohn’s early compositional output as constituting the “forging of a means of expression from generic models” overestimates the intentions of Mendelssohn as a child in my opinion. If we are to bestow any normality on the childhood Mendelssohn, rather than considering these early compositional achievements as attempts to express himself, I simply think the precocious child wished to “show off” his ability to compose in the only style which he knew and thus please his responsive teacher. It was only later in life that Mendelssohn developed a more intellectual outlook to his style of musical expression. In any case, it is clear that Mendelssohn was in touch with the social trends of his time. Mendelssohn’s own conviction that his revival performance of Bach’s St. Matthew Passsion in 1829 required drastic cuts in order to be reclaimed for a modern audience shows he was aware of contemporary musical tastes. In many ways, Mendelssohn embodied certain aspects of German society in the early nineteenth century – and the Mendelssohn family history can be considered a microcosm of German-Jewish social developments. Historicism had permeated all forms of art, Garratt cites painting and architechture as two examples. I would agree with Garratt in his conclusion that Mendelssohn is often used as an emblem of a broader artistic issue in early nineteenth century art, and add that perhaps Mendelssohn is even judged as an emblem of broader social and cultural problems in Germany during this period.
Besides the influences previously mentioned, I believe that Carl Zelter was the most considerable influence on Felix Mendelssohn’s compositional style. It is crucial not to underestimate the key role this teacher had in determining Mendelssohn’s creative output. Given Mendelssohn’s aforementioned amiable nature (a virtue surely), it is legitimate to surmise that he followed his mentor’s teachings quite faithfully and enthusiastically. Zelter worshipped Bach, once stating “for fifty years I have venerated Bachian genius” (p. 61) and so this reverence was transferred to Mendelssohn who later stated that “everything is gathered together” (p. 62) in the music of Bach. Zelter’s distinction between the “grand, serious church style””, the theatrical style, and the chamber style evidently led Mendelssohn to possess a similar concept of genre. Mendelssohn’s composition of String Sinfonia’s further substantiate his inherited veneration of Bach. Ergo, the converse is true of the premise stated above; that is, Mendelssohn’s amiable nature is evident in his faithful following of Zelter’s teachings. By all accounts, Zelter was not the most liberally-minded music teacher. It is important to recognize the effect his domineering approach to music appreciation may have had on the childhood Mendelssohn. There is little evidence to suggest that Zelter nourished originality per se in the composer, or that it was his prime objective in schooling the child in composition. It is quite possible this may have suppressed or even irrevocably paralyzed the “revolutionary” attribute in Mendelssohn’s character. Or perhaps he simply chose to find subtler means to express it, which go unnoticed by the unscrupulous or apathetic listener.
Several references to Mendelssohn’s compositional approach offer us insight into how the organized his work. The veneration of past masters (historicism) is also evident in his organizational practices. Late Beethoven is clearly used as a creative model in Mendelssohn’s choice to compose his Piano Sonata in E major and String Quartet in A minor together, representing the former as a vital part of modern German culture. Wulf Konold argues that Mendelssohn’s Fugue in A major from the Sieben Charakterstücke testifies that Bach’s music represented “a living yardstick against which Mendelssohn measured his achievements. Mendelssohn’s evolutionary philosophy was based on mastering the forms that surrounded him in his youth, as his early quasi-liturgical pieces illustrate.
I generally deem allegorical connections to be something which journalists (or people in general) have an inherent inclination to superimpose on artistic artifacts, perhaps to represent them in a more digestible form. Despite my reservations, Steinberg makes a convincing argument for allegory in Mendelssohn’s oratorio St. Paul (1836). Steinberg highlights parallels between Felix and Abraham Mendelssohn’s socio-religious discourses (Abraham’s Hegelian philosophy of assimilation as historical development and maturation of spiritual life), the musical “discourses” of Sebastian Bach and Felix Mendelssohn, and St. Paul and God’s theological discourses. This may indeed suggest that Mendelssohn was far more subtle in his means of musical expression than he is generally understood to be.
There is no doubt that Felix Mendelssohn’s social and economic circumstances were more than favourable, particularly during his childhood. As a result of this, he was given the very best educational opportunities to best prepare him for a successful artistic career. Of course, he also had the inherent predisposition and natural talent to fulfill the vocation chosen for him by his father. Some may claim he was “spoilt”, others that he was simply fortunate. The result of Mendelssohn’s upbringing and education was a man who bequeathed to us a catalogue of significant artistic achievements (many masterpieces) which are certainly worthy of our study as well as appreciation. If a spoilt, precocious child can amount to this, it would be wise to consider Felix Mendelssohn’s life course as a paradigm for fulfilling one’s true potential.
Postscript
As a result of reading the two articles, I was struck by the similarities between the lives and music of Mendelssohn and Mozart. Both composers had anything but conventional childhoods; both were prodigious, “spoilt” with an excellent musical education in their respective ways, and could be said to have missed out on the innocence and simplicity of childhood. It is remarkable that the words “youthful” and “playful” should arise so often in descriptions of the music of both composers. Both composers are also highly melodically inventive in their compositional approach. This to me suggests that there may have been a therapeutic element to their composition, an unconscious attempt to deal with the anxiety of having missed out on the innocence of childhood. Furthermore, both composers had complicated relationships with their stern-handed (even overbearing) fathers which also likely affected their approach to composition. Exploration of these issues may prove worthwhile in further understanding both characters.
Bibliography
- Lorraine Byrne, MU323 Course Notes: Early Mendelssohn, NUIM 2007.
- Michael P. Steinberg, Mendelssohn and Judaism from The Cambridge Companion to Mendelssohn, gen. ed. Peter Mercer-Taylor, Cambridge University Press 2004.
- James Garratt, Mendelssohn and the rise of musical historicism from The Cambridge Companion to Mendelsssohn, gen. ed. Peter Mercer-Taylor, Cambridge University Press 2004.
- By this I am referring to Wagner’s 1850 essay Das Judentum in der Musik.
- A group of German painters, led by Friedrich Overbeck and Franz Pforr, who settled in Rome in 1809.
- Oxford English Dictionary definition.
- Eric Werner: Mendelssohn: A New Image of the Composer and his Age (1963, German edition 1980).
- Jeffrey Sposato: “Creative Writings: The [Self-] Identification of Mendelssohn as Jew” published in The Music Quaterly (1998).
- Justus Thibaut: Über Reinheit der Tonkunst (On Purity in Music, 1824)
