No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Of ‘Psychological Music’, Ciphers and Daguerreotypes: Joseph Joachim’s Abendglocken Op. 5 No. 2 (1853)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2015
Abstract
If as a performer and Brahms’s close collaborator Joachim promoted the music of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, a process relatively unsympathetic to programme music of the Neudeutsche Schule, as a composer Joachim’s works do not display such an aesthetic stance. His own music, which he dubbed ‘psychological’, was intended to ‘detect and save’, that is faithfully to perceive and record his emotions. As part of this process, Joachim’s Abendglocken, the second of the Drei Stücke, Op. 5, for violin and piano (1853), betrays a striking use of ciphers, taking Robert Schumann’s musical word games to a heightened level and using notational signs such as double bars as framing devices that suggest an intriguing link to the daguerreotypes of early photography.
‘Psychological music’ describes a compositional approach Joachim pursued in the 1850s, when positivism began clashing with the existing idealist philosophy, as demonstrated in the emergence of empirical psychology from philosophy and metaphysics. Enrolled in philosophy at Göttingen University in 1853, Joachim would have encountered psychology from a pre-empirical, phenomenological perspective, which may have initiated his ‘psychological music’. The dedicatee of Abendglocken and the constant subject of his thoughts – and arguably of his music – was Gisela von Arnim (1827–1889), daughter of Bettina von Arnim, with whom he was romantically involved and whose encrypted name – G♯–E–A – provides a valuable key to understanding Abendglocken in particular, and Joachim’s psychological music in general. This article considers the autobiographical, philosophical and cultural influences on Joachim to interpret ‘psychological music’ as it played out in Abendglocken.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press 2015
References
1 Tovey, Donald F., ‘Joseph Joachim: Hungarian Violin Concerto’, in Essays in Musical Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936): 106–114Google Scholar.
2 Borchard, Beatrix takes Tovey’s lead in her book Stimme und Geige: Amalie und Joseph Joachim (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2005)Google Scholar and in her article ‘Ein später Davidsbund: Zum Scheitern von Joachims Konzept einer psychologischen Musik’, in Schumann Forschungen 7. ‘Neue Bahnen’. Robert Schumann und seine musikalischen Zeitgenossen, ed. Bernhard R. Appel (Mainz: Schott, 2002): 205–18, here 209.
3 Joachim, Johannes and Moser, Andreas, eds, Briefe von und an Joseph Joachim, 3 vols (Berlin: Bard, 1911–13): I: 95Google Scholar, letter from Joachim to Herman Grimm of October 1853 [my translation, as are all English translations in this article, unless specified otherwise]. Hereinafter Joachim Briefwechsel.
4 Joachim’s letters first mention Tovey in 1901. See Joachim Briefwechsel, III: 499.
5 The word psychology (from Gr. psȳchḗ, ‘soul, life, breath’) goes back to Aristotle. In 1896, Wundt gave two historical definitions of psychology as it had been understood before 1879, when under his influence it became an empirical discipline. First, as the ‘science of the soul’, psychology considered psychic processes as ‘phenomena, from which could be drawn the essence of a metaphysical soul substance that lay at their foundation’. According to the other definition, psychology was the ‘science of inner experience’; here, psychic events belonged to a particular type of experience that involved self-reflection, or, in contrast to external sensory perception, the ‘inner sense’. Wundt, Wilhelm, Grundriss der Psychologie, 1st ed. (Leipzig, 1896; Altenmünster: Jazzybee Verlag, 2012): 7Google Scholar. In the 1850s a significant shift occurred from understanding psyche as ‘soul’, influenced primarily by anthropology, philosophy and literature, toward emphasizing the ‘materialistic’, physiological, neurological, and anatomic aspects, thus connecting the mind with ‘the material realm’. See Wagner, Rudolph, Physiologische Briefe 1851–1852 (Göttingen: Klatt, 1997)Google Scholar, cited in Pohl, Richard, Akustische Briefe für Musiker und Musikfreunde. Eine populäre Darstellung der Musik als Naturwissenschaft in Beziehung zur Tonkunst (Leipzig: Bruno Hinze, 1853): 5–6Google Scholar.
6 See Joachim, Johannes, Joseph Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 1852–1859 (Göttingen, 1911)Google Scholar, hereinafter Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim; also, the unpublished letters of Gisela von Arnim to Joseph Joachim are kept at the Freies Deutsches Hochstift, Frankfurt. See, for a recent study about the intimate letters between Joachim and Gisela von Arnim, Eshbach’s article ‘Verehrter Freund! Liebes Kind! Liebster Jo! Mein einzig Licht. – Intimate Letters in Brahms’s Freundeskreis’, Die Tonkunst 2/2 (April, 2008): 178–93.
7 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 16.
8 Leistra-Jones, Karen, ‘Virtue and Virtuosity: Brahms, the Concerto, and the Politics of Performance in the Late-Nineteenth Century’ (PhD diss., Yale University, 2011): 81–82Google Scholar, 125, 146.
9 Leistra-Jones, ‘Virtue and Virtuosity’, 133. Leistra-Jones cites Fuller-Maitland, Alexander, Joseph Joachim (New York: J. Lane, 1905): 8Google Scholar.
10 Moser, Andreas, ed., Briefwechsel Johannes Brahms-Joseph Joachim, 2 vols (Berlin: Deutsche Brahms-Gesellschaft, 1908): I: 47Google Scholar, letter of 27 June 1854.
11 Borchard, , ‘Ein später Davidsbund’, 207Google Scholar.
12 Hinrichsen, Hans-Joachim, ‘Musikalische Interpretation und antisemitisches Rezeptionsparadox: Joseph Joachim – Richard Wagner – Hans von Bülow’, in Musikwelten – Lebenswelten: Jüdische Identitätssuche in der deutschen Musikkultur, ed. Beatrix Borchard and Heidy Zimmermann (Wien: Böhlau, 2009): 181–191Google Scholar, here 181.
13 Lydia Goehr has pointed out to me that since the founding of empirical psychology, there has been a shift in what is understood as emotion. Joachim and his contemporaries presumably understood emotion in a strictly phenomenological sense. In contemporary psychology phenomenological aspects are thought of as crucial aspects but not the only aspects of emotion. Joachim uses the terms ‘Stimmung’ and ‘Empfindung’ to describe his moods. Although ‘Empfindung’ has also been used as perceiving tones or colours (Hanslick, , Vom Musikalisch-Schönen, 2nd ed. (1854; reprint, Leipzig: Rudolph Weigel, 1865): 4Google Scholar: ‘Empfindung ist das Wahrnehmen einer bestimmten Sinnesqualität: eines Tons, einer Farbe, Gefühl das Bewußtwerden einer Förderung oder Hemmung unseres Seelenzustandes, also eines Wohlseins oder Missbehagens’), Joachim makes clear that for him ‘Empfindung’ has more to do with what Hanslick defines as ‘Gefühl’: ‘Du kamst, und führtest mich … wieder dem warmen Hauch der Empfindung zu – was sag ich Empfindung – Begeisterung! Ach auch das ist nur ein Wort – und nicht Leben, warmaufblühendes, nie vergehendes, wie ich es in mir fühle, wie ich damit Dir angehöre, Du magst mein werden oder nicht – Du einzig Liebe auf Erden’, Joachim, Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 2, letter of 27 November 1853.
14 See my dissertation, ‘Psychologische Musik, Joseph Joachim, and the Search for a New Music Aesthetic in the 1850s’ (PhD diss., Duke University, 2014), which views psychological music as the body of works written during the years of his close relationship with Gisela von Arnim, from 1852 to 1859.
15 Eshbach, Robert, ‘Der Geigerkönig: Joseph Joachim as Performer’, Die Tonkunst 1/3 (2007): 205–217Google Scholar.
16 See Borchard, ‘Ein später Davidsbund’.
17 Joachim, Joseph, Drei Stücke für Violine und Klavier, Op. 5: Lindenrauschen, Abendglocken and Ballade, dedicated to Gisela von Arnim (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1855)Google Scholar; Joachim’s autograph is preserved in the Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Joachim Nachlass, MS 25.
18 Already on 8 June 1853, Joachim reports to his brother Heinrich: ‘hereby I report to you, that I have settled, since a few days, in Göttingen [where I intend to stay] for months or more. It has been my wish for a long time to attend a University’, letter MS 1991.2.53.6, Brahms Institute Lübeck.
19 Contrary to Hugh Macdonald’s assumption, in Music in 1853: The Biography of a Year (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012): 71, Joachim did not study with Theodor Waitz, professor of philosophy at Marburg University, but with the historian Georg Waitz and the philosopher Heinrich Ritter. See the Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen (1780–1948, Universität Göttingen), Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum, http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/en/dms/loader/toc/?PPN=PPN654655340 (accessed 16 January 2014).
20 Joachim Briefwechsel, III: 500–501, letter to Woldemar Voigt of 10 July 1901.
21 See fn. 24.
22 Besides the class with Ritter he signed up for lectures with Carl Oesterley (art history) and Georg Waitz (German history).
23 Heinrich Ritter, as well as most professors in this department (including Herbart until 1841), not only published on philosophy, psychology, metaphysics and logic but also taught the whole range of courses alternating each semester. See the Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen (1780–1948, Universität Göttingen). Furthermore, the relationship between metaphysics and psychology was described succinctly by Herbart, who, based on the ancient thinkers, proposed that: ‘[Psychology] is the first among the three parts of applied metaphysics’ (Friedrich Herbart, Johann. Johann Friedrich Herbart's sämmtliche Werke, Vol. 5: Schriften zur Psychologie, ed. G. Hartenstein (Leipzig: Verlag von Leopold Voss, 1850): xiGoogle Scholar). And lastly, clarifying the title of his book, Herbart’s foreword states: ‘Perhaps it is not redundant to note that the designation Psychologie, gegründet auf Metaphysik, Erfahrung und Mathematik easily evokes misunderstandings. Psychology is merely based on experience and metaphysics’. Although Herbart presumably meant that mathematics was the ‘ambiguous’ part of his book’s title – an early attempt, which aimed to provide a scientific framework by explaining psychological processes with the help of mathematic formulas – for our purpose it is important that ‘psychology’ was, nevertheless, ‘only’ ‘based’ on metaphysics. Ibid., xi.
24 These ‘psychology’ courses discussed anthropology from a post-Kantian point of view, including the classification of human emotions, desires, feelings and affects, and also theories and classifications about the psychological differences between men and women and between cultures, races and genders. See, for example, Kant’s, ImmanuelAnthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798)Google Scholar, which was based on his lectures on anthropology delivered at Königsberg for 25 years preceding its publication.
25 According to the Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ‘the word Willkür [arbitrariness], which denotes etymologically the choice of the will (from küren, to choose) is more often also used in philosophical parlance as synonymous with freedom, in that the self-conscious or rational human Willkür is opposed to the blind instinct of beasts. By contrast, in common usage Willkür denotes the assertion of one’s will purely according to one’s wish or pleasure, mood or caprice’. Scheidler, Karl Hermann, ‘Freiheit’, Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. J. G. Gruber (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1849): 16Google Scholar.
26 Ritter also published Psychologische Abhandlung (Psychological Essay) (Kiel: Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1840).
27 Ritter, Heinrich, System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Verlag der Dieterich’schen Buchhandlung, 1856): 99Google Scholar.
28 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 99–104Google Scholar.
29 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 99–104Google Scholar.
30 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 99Google Scholar.
31 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 104Google Scholar.
32 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 102Google Scholar.
33 ‘Zufälligkeit’ (‘randomness’) should not be confused with ‘freedom’; while ‘randomness originates only from external circumstances, freedom arises from the thing itself’. Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 103Google Scholar.
34 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 103Google Scholar.
35 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 105–106Google Scholar.
36 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 105Google Scholar.
37 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 134–135Google Scholar.
38 Ritter, , System der Logik und der Metaphysik, vol. 2, 101Google Scholar.
39 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 97, letter of 23 April 1856.
40 See Hugh Rice, ‘Fatalism’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/fatalism/).
41 Scheidler, ‘Freiheit’, 22.
42 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 24–5, letter of 14 February 1854.
43 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 95, letter from Joachim to Herman Grimm of October 1853.
44 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 47, letter to Woldemar Bargiel, 7 April 1853.
45 Passages about the need to listen to his ‘Stimmung’ frequently occur in his letters. One month after finishing Abendglocken he wrote to Gisela that composers, like poets, had to seek and express the ‘inner tone of their soul’. See Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 8, letter of 3–4 December 1853. Furthermore, Joachim revealed that when capturing his feelings became difficult, for whatever reason, his ‘Stimmung was disturbed’, as was his composition, evident from a letter of December 1853: ‘Yesterday I began an overture, and I will try to finish it soon. If one’s mood were not always disturbed by a thousand things’; see ibid., 5–6: the same letter. And, similarly, Joachim reported, after having read Hölderlin’s Hyperion in 1854, ‘that the themes of the symphony sprang up from the mood that arose in me from [reading]’; see ibid., 29, letter of April 1854.
46 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 195, letter from Joachim to Gisela von Arnim, 1 June 1854.
47 Moser, Andreas, Joseph Joachim: Ein Lebensbild. 1856–1907 (Berlin: Verlag der Deutschen Brahms Gesellschaft, 1910): 179Google Scholar.
48 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 17; Joachim, Joseph, Letters from and to Joseph Joachim, ed. and trans. Nora Bickley (London: Macmillan and Co., 1914)Google Scholar, letter to Schumann on 29 November 1853, 41.
49 Joachim, , Letters from and to Joseph Joachim, 38Google Scholar.
50 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 108–9.
51 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 108–9.
52 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 108–9.
53 Daverio, John, Crossing Paths (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): 76; 100–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Musgrave, Michael, The Life of Schumann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011): 156Google Scholar. See also Constantin Floros on Brahms and his circle, Johannes Brahms. “Frei aber einsam: Ein Leben für eine poetische Musik” (Hamburg: Arche Verlag, 1997).
54 Borchard mentions that the origin of Joachim’s motto F–A–E is unclear. See her Stimme und Geige, 135).
55 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 108–9.
56 Joachim Briefwechsel, I: 108–9. The G♯–E–A cipher is also prominent in other compositions of Joachim: the Variationen über ein eigenes Thema for viola and piano, Op. 10 (1854); the short Andante written for Gisela on her birthday, on 30 August 1854, titled ‘Still und bewegt’ (see Joachim’s comments on this piece in his letter of 14 September 1854); the Notturno for violin, Op. 12 (1858, published 1874); the Overture ‘In memoriam Heinrich von Kleist’, Op. 13 (in the winds); the Violin Concerto in G minor, Op. 3 (1851–52, published 1854); the ‘Hungarian’ Violin Concerto, Op. 11; and, in transposed ways, in the Violin Concerto in G major, No. 3 (first performed 1864, and revised before 1889). The Notturno, which also includes the cipher F–A–E, was dedicated many years later to Gabriele Wendheim, Joachim’s later student. The strong emphasis on G♯–E–A (highlighted with espressivo etc.) suggests that Gisela was the dedicatee, at least in spirit. The ciphers in the Violin Concerti, Op. 3 and 11, were pointed out in Andreas Meyer’s article ‘Zum Violinkonzert in einem Satz’, in Anklaenge 2008. Joseph Joachim (1831–1907): Europäischer Bürger, Komponist, Virtuose, ed. Michele Calella and Christian Glanz (Vienna: Mille Tre, 2008): 115–37, here 133–5.
57 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 5, letter written during the night of 3–4 December, 1853.
58 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 1–2, letter written during the night of 6–7 December, 1852.
59 Gisela’s reaction to Abendglocken is recorded. In 1856 she wrote in a letter to Eduard Mörike: ‘… three pieces by Joseph Joachim … are my pride, as they are dedicated to me, and I like them so much. You love music, yes, naturally – and know musicians. Give them the pieces and let them play them, – but, if I may ask, don’t judge them after the first hearing, for if I am for music that one immediately understands or feels, there are nevertheless things, that certainly first require the advance effect of an already familiar musical character‚ and therefore are pleasing only at a [later] point when their master will be known through lighter things and will have emerged [as a composer]. So with these pieces we must hear them a second or third time to feel their original, independent nature not yet familiar to us; then we will like them more and more… I like very much the sounds of the bells, as they blur together in the festive evening and finally clash together. O that is splendid, as if heaven itself were storming because of their strong pulling’. Mey, Eva, Ich gleiche einem Stern um Mitternacht (Stuttgart: Hirzel Verlag, 2004): 95Google Scholar, original MS at the Deutsches Literatur Archiv, Marbach, #2951.
60 Weitzmann, Carl, Der Uebermaessige Dreiklang (Berlin: Verlag der Trautweinschen Buch- und Musikalienhandlung, J. Guttentag, 1853): 13–15Google Scholar.
61 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 35, letter of 29 April 1854.
62 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 19, letter of 11 January 1854.
63 Between 1853 and 1855 Joachim wrote three, Overture to Hamlet, Op. 4, Overture to Demetrius, Op. 6, and Overture to Henry IV, Op. 7, all of which make use of such ‘trapped’ motives.
64 This passage of alternating thirds and sixths is written in an unidiomatic, highly virtuosic style, as if for the piano. Such writing occurs in the Violin Concerto in G major as well, and underscores that considerations of technical execution were not a priority in Joachim’s compositional decisions. Perhaps Schumann’s Toccata Op. 7 served the composer as a model for this passage.
65 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 51, letter of the summer 1854.
66 Brodbeck, David, ‘The Brahms–Joachim Counterpoint Exchange: or, Robert, Clara, and “the Best Harmony between Jos. and Joh”’, in Brahms Studies 1, ed. David Brodbeck (Lincoln, NE, 1994): 30–80Google Scholar, esp. 35–6, 45.
67 Kaminsky, Peter, ‘Principles of Formal Structure in Schumann’s Early Piano Cycles’, Music Theory Spectrum 11/2 (1989): 207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 225.
68 Kaminsky, , ‘Principles of Formal Structure’, 208Google Scholar.
69 Ostwald, Peter, ‘Florestan, Eusebius, Clara, and Schumann’s Right Hand’, 19 th -Century Music 4 (1980–81): 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 20.
70 Ostwald, , ‘Florestan, Eusebius, Clara, and Schumann’s Right Hand’, 213Google Scholar.
71 Ostwald, , ‘Florestan, Eusebius, Clara, and Schumann’s Right Hand’, 211Google Scholar.
72 Borchard, , Stimme und Geige: Amalie und Joseph Joachim, 116Google Scholar; Floros, Constantin, ‘Schumanns musikalische Poetik’, in Musik-Konzepte. Sonderband Robert Schumann, edited by Heinz Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehn (Munich: Edition Text und Kritik, 1981): 90–104Google Scholar, especially 93, 99; Michael Musgrave writes that Schumann was reticent about publicly discussing his music: ‘Any artificial instigation of public opinion by the artist himself is an abomination to me. Whatever is strong will make its own way’. See The Life of Schumann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011): 92.
73 Daverio, John, Crossing Paths (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, letter from Schumann to Ignaz Moscheles, 23 August 1837; Schumanns Briefe (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1904), 92.
74 Todd, R. Larry, ‘On Quotation in Schumann’s Music’, in Schumann and his World, edited by R. Larry Todd (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994): 80–112Google Scholar, esp. 81–9.
75 John Daverio and Eric Sams, ‘Schumann, Robert’, Grove Music Online in Oxford Music Online (accessed 25 October 2012).
76 Kramer, Lawrence, ‘A New Self: Schumann at 40’, The Musical Times 148 (2007): 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 9.
77 Cooper, Barry, ‘Beethoven and the Double Bar’, Music and Letters 88 (2007): 458–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 460.
78 Cooper, , ‘Beethoven and the Double Bar’, 461Google Scholar.
79 Cooper, , ‘Beethoven and the Double Bar’, 461Google Scholar.
80 Joachims Briefe an Gisela von Arnim, 17, letter after Christmas 1853.
81 Joel Snyder, et al., ‘Photography’, Encyclopedia of Aesthetics in Oxford Art Online (accessed 26 November 2012).
82 Grant B. Romer, ‘Daguerre, Louis’, Grove Art Online in Oxford Art Online (accessed 17 November 2012).
83 Ward, J.P., et al., ‘Photography’, Grove Art Online in Oxford Art Online (accessed 20 November 2012)Google Scholar.
84 Pinson, Stephen C., Speculating Daguerre (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2012): 11Google Scholar.
85 Leonhardt, Nic, Piktoral-Dramaturgie: Visuelle Kultur und Theater im 19. Jahrhundert (1869–1899) (Bielefeld: Transcript – Verlag für Kommunikation, Kultur und soziale Praxis, 2007): 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
86 Brettel, Richard, Modern Art 1851–1929: Capitalism and Representation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999): 46Google Scholar (my italics).
87 J.P. Ward, et al., ‘Photography’, Grove Art Online.
88 Brettel, Modern Art 1851–1929, 46. One obvious indicator of the daguerreotype’s right–left reversal was men’s clothing, often shown with buttons featured on the left side of garments while in reality they were on the right (closing left over right). While objects such as musical instruments were often physically reversed so that they appeared correctly on the daguerreotype, this adjustment would have been impracticable for clothing.
89 Joel Snyder, et al., ‘Photography’, Encyclopedia of Aesthetics.
90 Brettel, , Modern Art 1851–1929, 46Google Scholar.
91 Brettel, , Modern Art 1851–1929, 46Google Scholar.
92 The daguerreotype of Gisela mentioned in the 1853 letter is inaccessible. This image is photographed from a daguerreotype printed in Eva Mey, Ich gleiche einem Stern um Mitternacht, 121. The daguerreotype of Joachim is printed in Borchard, Stimme und Geige: Amalie und Joseph Joachim, CD accompanying the book.
93 Holub, Robert C., Reflections on Realism: Paradox, Norm, and Ideology in Nineteenth-Century German Prose (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1991): 14Google Scholar.
94 Karnes, Kevin, Music, Criticism, and the Challenge of History: Shaping Modern Musical Thought in Late Nineteenth Century Vienna (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008): 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar cites Bujić, Bojan, ed., Music in European Thought, 1851–1912, Cambridge Readings in the Literature of Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988): 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95 Barger, M. Susan and White, William B., The Daguerreotype (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), 38; 201Google Scholar.
96 Ward, et al, ‘Photography’, Grove Art Online.
97 Karnes, , Music, Criticism, and the Challenged of History, 1–4Google Scholar.
98 Karnes, Music, Criticism, and the Challenged of History, 1–4. Karnes cites Pinkard, Terry, German Philosophy, 1760–1860: The Legacy of Idealism (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002): 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
99 Karnes, , Music, Criticism, and the Challenged of History, 3–6Google Scholar.
100 Karnes, , Music, Criticism, and the Challenge of History, 9Google Scholar.
101 NZfM 14 (31 March 1854), Vol. 40.
102 Borchard, Stimme und Geige, 119.
103 Eshbach, , Der Geigerkönig Joseph Joachim as Performer, 10Google Scholar.
104 Daverio, , Crossing Paths, 100Google Scholar.
105 In preparing this article I have been greatly helped by R. Larry Todd and two anonymous reviewers for this journal.