music and class structure in boston.pdf

7/27/2019 music and class structure in boston.pdf

1/44

Music and Class Structure in Antebellum BostonAuthor(s): Michael BroylesSource: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp.451-493Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/831646 .

Accessed: 18/10/2011 08:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Press andAmerican Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toJournal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amusochttp://www.jstor.org/stable/831646?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/831646?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amusochttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/44

Music and Class Structure InAntebellum BostonBYMICHAEL BROYLES*

HE PRESENCE OF A FUNDAMENTAL DUALITY in American musicalculture has been one of the central and at the same time moreperplexing aspectsof American musical history. This duality has beendefined in variousways, and its nature, persistence, and especially itsdesirability have been debated.' Yet its origins have never beencarefully examined.The existence of a duality is not unusual. A high culture-lowculture distinction has existed for centuries in Western music. Nor-

mally the distinction was political and economic: court music differedfrom the music of the marketplace, cathedralmusic differed from themusic of the parish church, and aristocraticopera differed from folkplay. By the late nineteenth-century the distinction had becomeethical in America, although with political, specifically class, over-tones. High culture stood at the apex of a pyramid of cultural typesbecause it was morally pure and edifying, and as a result certainliterary and artistic products were viewed with a sacred reverence.Paul DiMaggio described this tendency as the "sacralizationof art,"and Lawrence Levine, who later explored its historical background

*Research for this study was undertakenpartly with a National Endowment forthe Humanities Fellowship and partly as a Research Associate at the AmericanAntiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts. I wish to thank both the NEH andthe AAS for their support.' Beyond the ubiquitous but notoriously imprecise terms classical and popularmusic, the most common current characterization of the duality distinguishesbetween a "cultivated" and a "vernacular" radition. H. Wiley Hitchcock, althoughnot the first to use those terms, has providedthe most well-known definitions in Musicin the UnitedStates: A HistoricalIntroduction(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,1969),44. CharlesHamm, Music ntheNew World New York:W. W. Norton, 1983),171-72, viewed the duality as "adichotomy between the literate and the nonliterate,between music in written traditionand that in oraltradition. Gilbert Chase, althoughless specific in his definitions, distinguished a folk traditionand the "genteeltradition"as two of the principal sources of American musical life. See America'sMusic, rom thePilgrimsto thePresent New York:McGraw-Hill, 1966), xix, 17-18, 164-66. Each ofthe three writers voices concern about the effects that this duality has had uponAmerican musical developments.


3/44

452 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYmore fully, called it the "sacralizationof culture." According to bothLevine and DiMaggio the tendency was scarcely in evidence until thesecond half of the nineteenth century, adating that I dispute. I believethat it can be found much earlier in the nineteenth century.2Although the concept of music as a moral force is at least as old asPlato, there is little evidence that music was generally or widelyaccepted in America other than as entertainment throughout theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This is especially true of secularmusic. A duality did not exist in secular music because the concept ofhigh culture did not extend to music. Thus the crucial historical issueregarding differentiation between the cultivated and vernacular wasthe establishment of the premise of the cultivated tradition itself. Andsince the symphony orchestra more than any other institution came torepresent high culture in most American cities, the emergence of thecultivated tradition was closely linked to the acceptanceof instrumen-tal music as more than entertainment.The establishment of the cultivated traditionin America occurredin three stages in the early nineteenth century. Each stage of theprocess involved a shift in the perception of the potential of music,and in each stage important leadership came from Boston. The firstand third stages are well-known. In the first, Presbyterian-Congrega-tional hymodic reformers argued the ability of music to create adevotional atmospherein church. Their argumentestablished the ideathat music could enrich, but it was limited to church music. In thethird stage, transcendental writers, extolling the virtues of abstractmusic, applied to instrumental, especially symphonic, music the samereligious-oriented rhetoric that the Presbyterian-Congregation re-formers had used when describing church music.3

2 Paul DiMaggio, "Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston:The Creationof an OrganizationalBase for High Culture in America,"and "CulturalEntrepreneurship in Nineteenth-century Boston, Part II: the Classification andFraming of American Art," Media, Culture and Society4 (1982): 33-50, 303-22.Lawrence Levine, Highbrow,Lowbrow:TheEmergencef CulturalHierarchyn America(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).3 In his 1841 Harvard Musical Association LectureJohn S. Dwight defined sacredmusic as "elevating, purifying, love and faith-inspiring."Dwight, however, was notreferring to church music, for to Dwight "music s all sacred"(Dwight's italics).Absolute instrumentalmusic representedthe highest type of sacredmusic, because itexisted purely on its own terms, uncorrupted by language. Dwight illustrated thispoint with Beethoven's instrumentalmusic: "Arenot, for instance, some of the adagiomovements, scattteredthrough the instrumentalworks of Beethoven, almost the veryessence of prayer?-not formal prayer, I grant, but earnest, deep, unspeakable


4/44

MUSIC AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN ANTEBELLUM BOSTON 453What has escaped notice is a second stage, in which members ofthe upper class sought to use music as a means of creatinga republican

vision of American society. Although the effort ultimately failed as apolitical stratagem, the process itself had important historical conse-quences: it convinced broad segments of the upper class to supportpublic musical activity for the first time, and it represented the firstconsidered attempt to place instrumental music in the center ofAmerican cultural life. It also created a set of paradoxesfor which theonly solution was the subversion of the republican vision.In this study I will concentrateon this second stage, and will arguethat the polarizationof American music into cultivated and vernaculartraditions was a direct outgrowth of the subversion of republicanvision. Although I do not wish to suggest that it alone created thepolarization, it is an important factor that must be considered in anyattempt to explain the presence of a cultural duality in nineteenth-century America. Furthermore, it was articulated most thoroughly inantebellum Boston, where it was closely associated with class struc-ture.

Until the 1830s the socioeconomic elite were for the most partmusically illiterate and thus played only a minor role in the musicallife of Boston. What musical proficiency existed in late federal Bostoncame largely via the singing schools, which were middle classorganizationsmost often connected with a congregationalchurch. InBoston class was stratified along religious lines, with congregationalchurches being overwhelmingly middle class. The socioeconomic elitewere either Unitarian or Episcopalian, mostly the former. Amateurmusical performance was considered inappropriateamong the upperclass. When Samuel A. Eliot, Mayor of Boston from 1837-39 andPresident of the Boston Academy of Music after 1835, participatedinthe King's Chapel Choir, he had to sufferthe strong disapprovalof hisbrother-in-law, George Ticknor, and when Eliot brought the choir tohis house to rehearseTicknor found it reprehensible.Secular instrumental music in a concert setting, music to whichthe upper class would latergravitate, received an indifferentreceptionin Boston priorto 1840. There were few concerts. From 1809 to 181 I,

aspiration?Is not his music pervaded by such prayer?""Address, Delivered beforethe Harvard Musical Association, August 25, 1841," TheMusicalMagazine3 (1841):263-64.


5/44

454 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYfor instance, only five public secular concerts, other than outdoorsummer offerings, were advertised in the newspapers.4 John RoweParker, writing in 1820, not only corroboratedthe lack of interest insecular concerts, but attributed the cause principally to the public'smusical ignorance:

Is therenot somereason o doubt whetherwe arealive to refinedmusic.That thisdoubt s notaltogether nfounded,maybeprovedby appealingto the successof several oncertsof Instrumentalmusicwhich havebeenofferedthe public;not one of the individualshas been substantiallybenefited by the exercise of those talents. . . . Regular concerts haveneversucceededwell, in thismetropolis,andalthough hereexistsothercausesof failure,beside the wantof knowledgeof music,yet this last isclearlythe reasonwhy patronages so sparinglybestowedupon profes-sors.5Between i8oo and 1825 the two most important musical organi-zations in Boston were the PhiloharmonicSociety and the Handel andHaydn Society.' Both were amateur performing ensembles, and

both, as we will see, suffered from insufficientpublic support. Beyondthat the two were radicallydifferent:The Philoharmonic Society wasformed for performance of instrumental music. It was an informalgathering of professionals and amateursand at least in its early daysexisted mainly for the private reading of orchestral music. TheHandel and Haydn Society was formed to furtherthe cause of sacredvocal music. It was formally organized from the start and had as itsprincipal goal the public performanceof large vocal compositions.

4The nature of these concerts varied. On 23 September 1809 a Mr. Websterperformed an "Entertainment, consisting of Dialogue and Songs-called the Song-ster's Jubilee." On 27 April I809, Catherine Graupner had a benefit at the BostonTheatre, in which Gottlieb Graupner probably performed. On 26 December I8o0James Hewitt presented a "MusicalEntertainment,"which consisted of songs and aglee by "two gentlemen amateurs" and instrumental trios and solo violin pieces.Hewitt gave a similar concert 8 January 1811. On 9 October 181ii, a Mr. Chambersgave a concert, advertising it as the only opportunity that the Boston public wouldhave to hear him. Chambers had an orchestraled by James Hewitt, which played anOverture by Haydn (probably a movement from a symphony), the Overture toLodoiskaby Kreutzer, and the Andante from the Surprise Symphony of Haydn.Accounts are taken from the ColumbianCentinel.5 Euterpeiad,or Musical Intelligencer.Devotedto the GeneralDifusion of MusicalInformation ndBellesLettres,20 May i820.6 The PhiloharmonicSociety was sometimes called the PhilharmonicSociety, thePhilo-Harmonic Society, or the Phil Harmonic Society. The society itself useddifferent spellings on various documents or announcements.


6/44

MUSIC AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN ANTEBELLUM BOSTON 455In 1837 FrancisJ. Grund observed that the choir of the Handeland Haydn Society consisted mostly of mechanics.' Writing many

years later, John S. Dwight described the membership in the earlypartof the century as "mechanics, tradesmen, marketmen,etc."8Bothmen may have been influenced by their own preconceptions. Grundwas from Germany where singing societies frequently were working-class organizations. Dwight was a native of New England, but hisimpressionof the workingclass was mostly an idealized one connectedwith Fourierism and his participationin the Brook Farm experimentin the 1840s. Dwight himself was considered a lofty, dreamy, etherealindividual, not always in touch with the world about him,9 and hemoved mostly in Unitarian and literary circles, among the elite; hewas, for instance, the only person related to the music professionadmitted into the elite Saturday Club.While the Handel and Haydn Society did have some members ofthe working class in it, it was predominantly a middle class organi-zation in its early years.'o Table I lists those occupations that can bedetermined of the original members of the Handel and HaydnSociety:"According to H. Earle Johnson a blacksmith, housewright, andbricklayer all tried out but were discharged. A shipwright, house-wright, and a soapboilerwere admitted but soon resigned.'' Johnsonlisted no source for this information, and it is not known whether he

7 Francis J. Grund, The Americans n TheirMoral, Social, and PoliticalRelations(Boston, 1837; reprint, New York:Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968), 84.8 John S. Dwight, "The History of Music in Boston," in TheMemorialHistoryofBoston,ed. Justin Winsor (Boston:James R. Osgood, 1881), vol. 4, 419.9 Walter L. Fertig, "John Sullivan Dwight: Transcendentalist and LiteraryAmateur of Music," Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, 1952, 73-74, 140.,o Charles C. Perkins andJohn S. Dwight, HistoryoftheHandelandHaydnSociety,of BostonMassachusetts,rom theFoundationof theSociety hroughts Seventh-fifth eason:1815-1890 (Boston: A Mudge and Sons, 1883-1898), vol. i, Appendix, pp. 22-96),gives a complete list of members and officersof the Handel and Haydn Society, basedupon the Secretary'srecordsof the society. Book One of the secretary'srecords, from1815 to 1819, has disappeared,makingcorroborationimpossible. The other books arenow in the Boston Public Library. The Act of Incorporation s published in H. EarleJohnson, Musical nterludesnBoston, 795-1830o(New York, I943;reprint, New York:AMS Press, i967), 145-46." The information in Table I is taken from The BostonDirectory(Boston: E.Cotton, i8 6). According to Dorothea Spear no directory was issued in I815;Bibliography fAmericanDirectoriesthrough 86o (Worcester,MA: American Antiquar-ian Society, 1961), 48."2 ohnson, Hallelujah,Amen! TheStory of theHandelandHaydnSocietyof Boston,introduction by RichardCrawford(Boston, 1965;reprint, New York: Da Capo Press,1981), 34. Johnson provides a list of occupations of original members that variessomewhat from Table i but in general corroborates it.


7/44

456 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYTABLE I

Occupations of the Original Members of the Handel and Haydn Society

Occupation NumberMerchant 8Attorney 2Bank cashier 2Clerk 2Music 2Schoolmaster 2Shopkeeper 2Taior 2ApothecaryBlacksmithBuilding trades IPrinterWharfinger Ihad access to the original records no longer extant. Book One of thesecretary'srecords, from 1815 to 1819, has disappearedsince Perkinsand Dwight wrote their history in the i88os. Furthermore,we knowneither when nor why the dischargesand resignationsoccurred. Sincethe one requirement for membership into the Handel and HaydnSociety was a good voice, an inability to read music did not precludeadmission. Unanimous approvalof the Board of Directors, however,was required. Whatever the official reasons, the general patterns oforiginal membership, new admissions, discharges, and resignationssuggest that members of the working class were not especiallywelcome.

Less is known about the membership of the PhiloharmonicSociety, but the close ties between it and the Handel and HaydnSociety suggest a class similarity. The Handel and Haydn Societywas conceived at a meeting of the PhiloharmonicSociety, and the twohad many members in common.'3 The two organizationsfrequentlycollaborated, with the Philoharmonic Society forming the nucleus ofthe orchestra for the Handel and Haydn Society concerts. '4

'3 When the Philoharmonic Society was incorporated in 1819, five of the sixpersons listed as directors were members of the Handel and Haydn Society.'4 The origins of the PhiloharmonicSociety are not clear. Earlierscholars datedits inception ca. 1809-o; Dwight, "History of Music in Boston," vol. 4; Oscar G.Sonneck, Early Concert-Lifen America(73i-i80oo) (Leipzig, 1907; reprint, NewYork: Da Capo, 1978), 309; Johnson, MusicalInterludes, 21. More recent thoughtplaces its beginnings between 1797, when Gottlieb Graupner arrivedin Boston, and1799, when an announcementof a meeting appearedin the ColumbianCentinel;Daniel


8/44

MUSIC AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN ANTEBELLUM BOSTON 457At first the PhiloharmonicSociety was a private group. Accordingto Dwight it was "simply a social meeting,"of "Mr. Graupnerand his

little knot of musical friends, mostly amateurs," who "practicedHaydn's symphonies, etc. for their own enjoyment." Thus it is notsurprising that its public profile was low. Until 1818 the Philohar-monic Society did not present any concertsperseunder its own name,although it participated in public musical presentations. The societysponsored "rehearsals,"which were open to members, many of whomjoined as listeners. The distinction between rehearsalsand concertswas thus a subtle one. The society also appeared in benefit concertsfor individuals or with the Handel and Haydn Society, sometimeswith, sometimes without the Society's presence being acknowledged.Most of the early programsof the Handel and Haydn Society do notmention the orchestra. Its formation varied from year to year, butusually the Handel and Haydn Society negotiated with individualplayers or a leader like Gottlieb Graupner or Louis Ostinelli, whowould provide the orchestra. Since the Philoharmonic Society con-sisted of most of the instrumentalists in Boston,'s5 that the twoorchestras in largemeasure had the same players does not necessarilyimply institutional sponsorship.The Philoharmonic Society sponsored or participated in benefitconcerts more openly. On 24 June i815 a Mr. Lefolle announced aconcert of vocal and instrumental music in the ColumbianCentinel,including a Mozartovertureas well as a sinfonia and a finaleby Pleyelplayed by a full orchestra.The PhiloharmonicSociety orchestraitselfwas not mentioned, but the concert was announced for "the Hall inPond Street, occupied by the Philoharmonic Society." Advancedsales were sufficient that Lefolle decided to give a second concert.This time he advertised that the concert would take place "underthePatronageof the Philoharmonic Society."'6In 1819 the PhiloharmonicSociety adopteda more public posture.Prior to that time the only notices about the society in the newspa-pers, beyond bookkeeping items like reminders of dues or of lostitems, were brief announcements of the meetings. But beginning inJanuary 1819 the society published moredetailedadvertisementsof itsrehearsals. In that month The BostonIntelligencer nd Morningand

Layman, "The Philoharmonic Society: Newcomers and the Nucleus of Boston'sOrchestralTradition," unpublished paperreadat the Annual Meeting of the SonneckSociety, Danville, KY, April, 1988.'5 Euterpeiad, 7 October 1821.'6 ColumbianCentinel,24 June 1815.


9/44

458 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYEveningAdvertiserreported that Pythian Hall, where the Philohar-monic Society held their meetings, had been newly renovated, andthat several public concerts would be given.'7 The society began toadvertise specific programsin the papers, and members were encour-aged to bring their friends to hear them. The opening concert of theseason, on 2 January 1819, was listed as follows:

Rice'ssecondgrandConcerto,'8 llowed o be thegreatestpiecethathasyet been composedfor the Piano Forte, will be amongthe perfor-mances-Gillineck'sQueenof Prussia'sWaltzwith variations-Severalsongs-Choruses from Haydn's Creation-Quartette, violin by Mr.Ostinelli-Symphonies, but a full Orchestra, tc.'9Even though this announcement resembles more nearly an adver-tisement for a public concert than for a private meeting of a society,the concerts were not open to the public. The same announcementstated that members could bring their friends each Saturday, as theby-laws provided. Membership was by ballot, and members paid anannual fee of ten dollars.20 Most members almost certainly joined toattend the concert as listeners rather than performers, but they stillhad to join. The report of the BostonIntelligencerbout the move intoPythian Hall and the presentation of public concerts also explicitlystated that "admissioncan only be obtained through the members, asno public sale of Tickets will be allowed."2'Attendance at these events was sufficiently strong that limitationshad to be set. On 30 January 1819, the "StandingCommittee" of the

society published a set of regulations on who could attend. Thecommittee first congratulated the members "on the increase andunprecedented popularityof the Society" and then limited attendanceto members and two guests. 2 In 1821 the Philoharmonic Societymoved to a large new hall, the Pantheon. The hall was almost alwaysfull, even though admission was restricted.23

'7 TheBostonIntelligencerndMorningandEveningAdvertiser,19January 1919.'8 Probably Ferdinand Ries, Concerto pour le Pianoforte, Op. 42 (Leipzig: A.Kiuhnel, [1812]).'9 ColumbianCentinel,2 January 1819.2, ColumbianCentinel,2 January 1819.21 7 heBoston ntelligencer,19January, 1819.22 ColumbianCentinel,30 January 1819.23 Euterpeiad, 7 October 1821. According to this issue, the Pantheon was 72 by22 feet, commodious, well-lit, and "suitable to the objects contemplated by thePhiloharmonic Society."


10/44

MUSICAND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 459In addition to its stepped-up advertising, anotherindication of thechanges in status of the Philoharmonic Society to a more public

organizationwas its filing for incorporation,which was granted by thelegislature on 19 June 1819. In the act of incorporation GottliebGraupner, Thomas Smith Webb, William Coffin, Jr., Matthew S.Parker,John Dodd, and Bryant P. Tilden were named as directors,with Graupner specifically authorized to call the first meeting. Thepurpose of the society was listed as "extending and enlarging andimproving the style of performance of vocal and instrumental mu-sic."24The public success of the Philoharmonic Society was short-lived.The last season for which there is recordedpublic concert activity was1825-26. A notice on I January 1825 announced that a concert wouldtakeplace that evening. On 26 November 1825the Society announcedan intention to present a full complement of concerts for the 1825-26season. Details were not given, except that they would begin at seveno'clock on concert evenings, traditionally the second and fourthSaturdays, at the Pantheon. Whether the concerts actuallyoccurred is

uncertain, but the nature of the announcement does suggest that the1824-25 season was not terminated prematurely. After 1826 anoccasional notice in the newspaper of a meeting confirms that thePhiloharmonic Society still existed as a private body. Layman con-cluded that it may have continued to meet until Graupner'sdeath in1836.25According to one of its founders, George Cushing, the Handel andHaydn Society originated in informal discussions at meetings of thePhiloharmonic Society, where concern was expressed about the lowstate of sacred music in Boston.26 From those discussions a publicmeeting was called of all who were interested in the subject. Choralorganizations responded positively, and the Handel and HaydnSociety was at first considered a general association of the variouschurch singing societies.27 It had two goals: public performance of

24 Johnson prints part of the Act of Incorporation;Musical nterludes,145-25 Layman, "The Philoharmonic Society."26 George Cushing, letter to Rev. Luther Farnham, December I871, quoted inPerkins and Dwight, Historyof theHandelandHaydnSociety,37.7 BostonDailyAdvertiser, April 1815. When the Handel and Haydn Society wasincorporated n February I816, the Act of Incorporationsupported the church musicfunction of the society. It stated that the society was established "forthe purpose ofextending the knowledge and improving the style of performanceof Church Music."The Act of Incorporationis quoted in TheLyreI (1825): 141-44, and in Perkins andDwight, Historyof theHandelandHaydnSociety,Appendix, p. i.


11/44

460 JOURNALOF THE AMERICANMUSICOLOGICALOCIETYlarge vocal works and the improvement of church music.'8 A formalconstitution had been adopted and signed by forty-four members bythe end of April I815, rehearsalsbegan in May, and the first concertwas presented on Christmas evening. The chorus numbered approx-imately one hundred, and the audience almost a thousand. Suchattendance, in a city of 38,248, indicates broad public support.'29It is difficult to know whether the Handel and Haydn Societyflourished because the climate in Boston was right for it or because ofluck. The New England singing schools and church choirs hadcreated an interest in sacredvocal music and spread some knowledgeof singing. The level of activity was higher in Boston than in NewYork, where a similar Handel and Haydn Society was founded in1816 but survived for only seven years.30Samuel Dyer acknowledgedthe superior singing ability of the Bostonians in 1825, when he wroteto John R. Parkeron behalf of the PhilharmonicSociety of New York(not the later Philharmonic) to request that some singers come fromBoston to assist in a concert. The concert was to include Beethoven's"Hallelujah,Handel's Worthys theLamb,and Haydn's, TheHeavensareTelling."3'Dyer admitted that "few New Yorkers are equal to thetask"and indicated in the letter that he would include travelexpensesfor any singers.32In spite of the warm reception the Handel and Haydn Society ofBoston received, it was able to weather some difficult financial timesonly by good fortune. According to the secretary'sminutes, it was inserious financial trouble between 1819 and 1822. At that time itsponsored the publication of Lowell Mason's anthology, TheBostonHandel and Haydn SocietyCollectionof ChurchMusic.33Lowell Masonwas then an obscure bank teller in Savannah,and there was no reasonto expect much from the publication. Yet between 1824 and 1831profits on book sales alone netted the society between $600 and $I oo

28 ColumbianCentinel,29 April 1815.29 The population estimate is taken fromJesse Chickering,A StatisticalViewofthePopulationof Massachusetts,rom 1765 to 184o (Boston: Charles C. Little and JamesBrown, I846), 12.30Vera Lawrence describes the New York Handel and Haydn Society in Strongon Music: TheNew YorkMusicScene n theDays of GeorgeTempleton trong, 1836-1875(New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), xxxv-xxxvi.3' Beethoven, "Hallelujah to the Father," from Christon the Mount of Olives;Handel, "Worthy is the Lamb that was Slain," from Messiah;and Haydn, "TheHeavens are Telling," from TheCreation.32 This letter is quoted in Johnson, "The John Rowe ParkerLetters," TheMusicalQuarterly62 (1976): 84.33Boston: Richardsonand Lord, 1822.


12/44

MUSICAND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 46 Iper year.34 By the late nineteenth century the Handel and HaydnSociety had become a venerable organization, connected with highculture, and it is still active today. Without the windfall of Mason'spublication it might well have suffered the fate of the PhiloharmonicSociety.In addition to the Philoharmonic Society and the Handel andHaydn Society several other attempts were made to present seriousinstrumental music to the Boston public prior to 1830. The ApolloSociety was founded in i824, flourishedonly briefly, and then quietlyexpired. Beyond advertisementsin the newspapers, little is known ofit. On 3 November 1824 the society announced that their concertswould take place during the winter season on the second Tuesday ofeach month at Concert Hall, beginning on 9 November. There is nofurther mention of the society in the newspapers during that seasonexcept for the final concert, which was postponed to Thursdayevening because Concert Hall was not available.On 20 May 1825 theApollo Society gave a benefit concert to augment their musicallibrary. They planned a full i825-26 season, increasing their regularconcerts from one to two a month. As with the PhiloharmonicSociety, however, there is no indication that these actually continuedthroughout the winter months.The Apollo Society existed into the 1826-27 season, although itsponsored no known concerts. On 25 January i826 the societyassisted in a concert of Mr. Willis of Westpoint, who played the "KentBugle, Common Trumpet, Double Flageolet, and an instrument ofhis own invention called the vox humana." On 18 March 1826 theyassisted in a concert of vocal and instrumentalmusic by Miss Ayling.The society's final recorded appearancewas on 30 December 1826,when they assisted in Mr. Williamson's concert. In the latter twoconcerts they provided a full orchestra.35

34 According to the Records of the Society, the precise amounts were: 1824,$601.9o; 1826, $964.28; 1827, $8oo (estimate); 1828, $820; 1829, $i,ooo (estimate);1830, $i,ooo (estimate); 1831,$1,166.67. The figuresare from the Treasurer'sannualreport at the Board of Directors meeting, and the estimates are those recordedby theTreasurer.35 Positive identification of Ayling and Williamson is not possible. Williamsonmay have been David Williamson, a Covent Garden singer who was engaged by theBoston Haymarket Theatre in 1796. In 1825 the same Mr. Williamson appeared asDon Giovanni in the "BurlesqueOpera, called Don Giovanni"(ColumbianCentinel,27April i825). Informationon David Williamsonis from George O. Seilhamen, Historyof the AmericanTheatre New York, I888-91; reprint, New York: Benjamin Blom,1968), vol. 3, 346, 355, 359-


13/44

462 JOURNALOF THE AMERICANMUSICOLOGICALOCIETYBoth the Apollo Society and the Philoharmonic Society probablysuffered from their mutual rivalry. Their advertisements as well as

those of various benefit concerts held during the year suggest thatlittle cooperation existed between members of the two organizations.Gottlieb Graupner continued to head the Philoharmonic Society, ashe had done since its inception. James Hewitt, Lewis Ostinelli, AsaWarren, and A. P. Heinrich were involved with the Apollo Society,although it is not clear who, if anyone, directed it. Warren acted assecretary. The May 1825 benefit prominently featured Heinrich andboth Mr. and Mrs. Ostinelli, with Hewitt's music store the center ofticket distribution. Graupner'smusic store did not sell tickets for theApollo Society, and Hewitt did not do so either for the PhiloharmonicSociety or for Graupner'sbenefit. When Heinrich gave a benefiton 19March 1825, Hewitt played the orchestral accompaniment for aclarinet solo by James Kendall. Graupneris not listed on the program,and apparently Heinrich could not assemble an orchestra. Graupnerwas able to present an orchestra for his benefit on 30 April 1825, butnone of the musicians associated with the Apollo Society appearedonthe program.One of the least successful, although historically most revealingattempts to form a concert society in Boston occurredin 1826. On 15May a group of nine prominent citizens circulateda printed letter tovarious persons in Boston.36 The circular reported a recent meetingthat had been called to consider instituting a "Society for thepromotion of a taste for Music and the encouragementof the progressof this Science in this city." According to the circular the objectives ofthe proposed society were "to promote the cultivation of the Scienceof Music, to afford means and present encouragementfor the exhibi-tion of musical talent, and to advance the growth and diffusion of anenlightenedaste in this department of the Fine Arts."Some of the terms in the circular are familiar from the Presbyte-rian-Congregationalreformers. The writers speak of progress, Sci-ence (with a capital S), taste, and cultivation. Other words, likeenlightened and fine arts, reveal a different bent, suggesting the

36 "Circular" "Promotionof a Taste for Music"added in pencil] (Boston:Duttonand Wentworth), dated 15 May I826. Two copies are in the Boston Public Library.One is addressed to Walter Channing, and one to Professor[Andrews] Norton. Theletter is signed by W. [William]Sullivan, W. [WilliamHickling] Prescott, J. Josiah]Quincy, J. C. [John Collins] Warren, P. T. [PatrickTracy] Jackson, N. [Nathen]Appleton, I. [Israel]Thorndike, Jr., H. G. [Harrison Gray] Otis, W. H. [WilliamHavard] Eliot. A handwritten note in Norton's copy of the letter states that WilliamH. Eliot wrote it.


14/44

MUSICAND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 463practice of art for art's sake. Art is neither tied to a broaderpropagandistic goal, nor viewed within the service of a specificreligious objective. Pleasure and enrichment were ends in themselves.Much of the circular consists of a justificationof the formation ofsuch a society. The specific aim was to promote public concerts ofmusic. The signers acknowledged that those to whom it was ad-dressed had never patronized the arts extensively, and that "thepresent period is particularlyunfavorablefor the collection of fundsfor the support of any new Institution."37They criticized Bostonparticularlyand the country overall for the sorry state of the arts andfound that for its population Boston was "singularly deficient inpublic amusements." The theater in particularlackedquality, largelybecause the wealthy classes did not support it. More generally thecircular acknowledged that a taste for music and the arts was rare inBoston society.This lack of taste, however, was itself a principal argument forsuch a society. The signersof the circularstressed that a taste for goodmusic, not being innate, had to be cultivated. But they despaired ofthe difficulty of doing so if models of the finest of the art were notavailable. Beyond this, they stressed that the cultivation of tasterequired discipline and training and specifically recommended theintroduction of music classes for youth as existed in Germany; theyfound that these would be not only aesthetically but also morallybeneficial. Throughout the circularthe signers emphasized the moraland social benefits of art music. Quoting Voltaire, "L'amusement estun des premiers besoins de l'homme," they argued that amusementshould be innocent and that "it be not below the dignity of a rationalcreature." Since amusements will exist in society, one better payattention to them. They dismissed curtly those who did not:

To personswho think public amusementsaltogetherundeserving hepatronage ndthe interestof thosewhoseexample s constantly xercis-ing a powerfulinfluencein society, the subscribersdo not addresssthemselves.They conceivepublic amusementsindispensablen largesocieties,andthey thinkit no triflingserviceto good morals,to aid inrendering hoseattractivewhichareperfectly nnocent,which areof anature o polishthe manners,whichare not peculiar o any sex or age,andthe enjoymentof whichleavesno regretbehind.In order to implement this goal, the circular proposed that eachmember of the society contribute one hundred dollars, which would37The Atheneum had opened Boston's first art gallery that same year. Raisingfunds proved a problem.


15/44

464 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYmake him a life-subscriber. It suggested that a minimum of tenthousand dollars would be necessary to fund such a society. Inaddition to sponsoring concerts, the society would establish a fund forprofessors of music, who might become associates by entering theirnames. The professorswould be compensatedfor their servicesand inthe event of their death their families would be entitled to compen-sation (at a rate that was left unspecified).Both the signers of the circular and the known recipients repre-sented a different class and a different outlook from the founders andsupportersof the Handel and Haydn Society. Without exception theywere from the socioeconomic elite of Boston: many had ties toHarvardand to Unitarianism;none was a member of the Handel andHaydn Society, and as far as can be determined, none was a supporterof evangelicalreligion. Nine of the eleven were sufficientlyprominenteither in their own professions or in politics to be listed in theDictionaryofAmericanBiography.8The signers' attempt to found a society bespeaks a European,aristocratic attitude, since the society essentially would have dupli-cated the academies prevalent in many European towns and cities inthe eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In Europe the acade-mies formed a link between the private concerts of the more wealthyeighteenth-century aristocracy and the public concerts of the nine-teenth century. While admitting members from both the aristocracyand the upper middle class, the academies did not represent a breakwith aristocratictradition. The middle class sought participationas ameans of emulating and identifying with the aristocracy, and theacademies allowed them to do that in an importantand highly visiblecultural activity.39The signers of the circular were well aware of the Europeanmodel. They compared the theater in America to that in Europe,where in many countries it was state supported and in London it waspatronized by the wealthy. They envisioned their role as that of

38 Allen Johnson, et al, Dictionaryof AmericanBiography,20 vols. (New York,1928-37; reprint, i i vols., New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963). IsraelThorndike, Jr., and William H. Eliot are not included in the Dictionary. IsraelThorndike, Sr., made a fortune in the shipping business and served in the statelegislature from 1788-1814. His mansion was a social and political center in Boston.William H. Eliot graduatedfrom HarvardCollege in 1815and died suddenly in 1829while running for mayor.39 For a discussion of the role of the Academy in eighteenth-century Europe seeMichael Broyles, "Ensemble Music Moves out of the Private House: Haydn toBeethoven," in TheOrchestra: riginsandTransformations,d. Joan Peyser (New York:Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986), 97-122.


16/44

MUSICAND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 465patron and themselves as part of a class whose obligation it was toimprove the taste of the rest of the community. They disavowed beingin any sense musical amateurs, thus disassociating themselves frommost other musical groups in Boston. They made it clear that theywere patrons, no more nor less:

We do notassume he characterf AmateursnMusic,becausewe woulddo something or its encouragement,nymorethanwe claimto be menof Science,whenwe subscribe o a ScientificLibrary,or shouldpretendto be Connoisseursn Painting, f we were to associateorthe purposeofforminga PublicGallery.We wish it to be distinctlyunderstood, hatourobject s to promotea taste,of which we do not profess o havemorethanothersin the community.There is no record of the outcome of this proposal, which suggeststhat it failed. As it was, the proposal may have been too ambitious,and the city may not have been ready for it. To raise ten thousanddollars at one hundred dollars per head required one hundredsubscribers, and no musical activity in Boston had demonstrated any

ability to draw that type of support from those members of thecommunity capable of making such a contribution. The Handel andHaydn Society, for instance, had a membership of between two andthree hundred in 1826, and during the I820s drew between a hundredand two hundred outsiders per concert.40 Most members of theHandel and Haydn Society's audience were almost certainly friendsof performers. Even if some of the founders intended to contributemore that the suggested one hundred dollars, the project neverthelessdemanded relatively broad-based support, and the proposal wasaimed at a segment of society that had until then shown little interestin supporting musical activities.Other events in the I82os and 30s confirm this lack of support forsecularconcert music. In 1827 the Tremont Theater opened, with thelargest orchestra that Boston had seen.4' Louis Ostinelli, considered

40 Perkins's chronological membership list of the Handel and Haydn Societyreaches no. 311 by the end of 1826. This list is cumulative since 1815, but does notindicate termination of membership (Perkins and Dwight, Historyof theHandelandHaydnSociety,Appendix, pp. 22-28). Given normal drop-outs, it is virtually certainthat the membership did not exceed 300. The secretary'sRecords of the Handel andHaydn Society prior to i8 19 have disappearedsince Perkins'sresearch. Attendanceat the concerts is determined from the concert receipts reported in the treasurer'srecords. Members were allowed a certain number of free tickets, that varying fromyear to year. Concert tickets were sold for one dollar.4' William Clapp stated that the orchestra consisted of twenty-eight players; ARecordof theBostonStage(Boston, 1853;reprint, New York:Greenwood Press, 1969),


17/44

466 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYthe premier violinist in Boston, was hired to direct it. He was quicklyreplaced, however, because his standards were too high. Referringtothe change in leadership, an article in the BostonDaily Transcriptsuggested why this happened:

We now havethe gratificationf occasionallyhearing ntelligiblemusic;somethinghatcomesdownto the levelofourunderstanding,ndcreatespleasant mpressionswithoutany wild anderraticattemptsat astonish-ment. The theater s a placeofpopularmusement, ndthefirstthingtobe remembered y the leaderof the Orchestra, s, that he doesnotplayto an assembly of musical dilettanti. . . . That was the great fault withOstinelli;he was ambitiousand erred in judgement;his objectseemedless to please the publicthan to please himself.The consequence was thatmany praised, whilst few listened to his music. . . . The public requiressomething amiliar;omethingnational n character;omething xciting;something that all can feel, and in the beautiesof which all canparticipate.42The anonymous writer of this article was clearly awareof a dualityin his musical culture. His definition of that duality, between musicfor the cognoscenti (the dilettante, or the musicianhimself), and musicfor the people, was not that different from conceptualizations of thelate nineteenth century, but his attitude was that he disapprovedof amusician who was too ambitious, who was more interested in his artthan in entertaining the public. He defined popular music as some-thing accessible, something familiar, and dismissed originality as"wild and erratic attempts at astonishment." The idealistic aspect istotally absent: there is no suggestion that music, at least for thetheater, should have any moral obligation beyond providing pleasurefor the listeners.In another attempt to interest the public in secular music severalmusicians formed the Musical ProfessionalSociety in I831. The mostprominent of the founders were Charles Zeuner, George JamesWebb, and Gottlieb Graupner; Graupner was the first conductor.The Musical Professional Society differed from earlier groups in itspurpose. An article in the AmericanTravellerstated that its mission

265. A programof the Handel and Haydn Society for 28 January I829 for the firsttime listed the orchestra;"Programsof the Handel and Haydn Society," Scrapbookin the Allen A. Brown Collection of the Boston Public Library. The Secretary'srecords of the society indicate that it contracted to use the Tremont TheatreOrchestra for that concert. Twenty-four players are listed. Several programsin 183Ilisted the orchestra, and some indicated that it was the Tremont Theatre Orchestra.None of the programs listed more than twenty-four players.42 BostonDaily EveningTranscript,29 September i830o.


18/44

MUSIC AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN ANTEBELLUM BOSTON 467was to "diffuse a more general taste for Music of a secular charac-ter."43The Musical Professional Society not only explicitly stressedsecular music but attempted to give it a new status, viewing it assomething more than entertainment. The statement closed with thehope that the society could be a "sourceof gratificationto the friendsof musical improvement."The Society gave its first concert on 27 April I831 and its secondand last on I June of the same year. The June concert was to be thefirst of a series of ten, but there is no record of the others having takenplace. Neither is there any record of why they did not; like thePhiloharmonic Society and the Apollo Society, public activity simplyceased. The collapse of the Musical Professional Society's concertseries may have indicated the failure of their objective but did notsignal the end of the society. In a highly symbolic move, it turned tothe publication of collections of psalmody, sponsoring Zeuner'sAmericanHarp in I832 and issuing The AncientLyre the followingyear.44Through I832 every attempt to establish secular music of a highquality in Boston on an ongoing basis had failed. The most successfulorganizationthat attempted to do so, the PhiloharmonicSociety, wasable to sustain its more public activity for only five years, and eventhen its concerts were not fully open. In each case the cause of failureseems to have been a lack of interest by the public. Although we knowlittle of what happened to some of these groups, audience supportclearly was not forthcoming. The reason Ostinelli was displaced isclear: secular music was still conceived within the framework ofentertainment. Music that suggested more, music that challenged, ormusic that necessitated cultivation, was unacceptable. The publicmight allow its taste in Psalmody to be improved, but would havenone of it in regard to secular music.Beginning in the mid-i83os a fundamental shift in musical atti-tudes occurred in Boston as the socioeconomic elite began to assumeleadership of music. This change is seen most dramatically in theevolution of the Boston Academy of Music. It was founded in 1833 for

43 "Musical Professional Society," AmericanTraveller,22 April I831.44 CharlesZeuner, arr. and composer, TheAmericanHarp:Beinga CollectionofNewand OriginalChurchMusic,under he Controlof theMusicalProfessionalociety n Boston(Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Co., I832); idem, TheAncientLyre,a Collectionof Old,New andOriginalChurchMusic,under heApprobationftheProfessionalMusicalSocietynBoston Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1833).


19/44

468 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYthe furtheranceof urban, evangelical, sacredmusic,45 but by the earlyI84os it had become the principal purveyor of instrumentalmusic. Ithad virtually dissolved its chorus, and its orchestra, consistingprimarilyof professionals, was recognizedas the best in the city. TheBoston Academy Orchestra introduced much of the classical litera-ture, including the Beethoven symphonies, to local audiences. It wasthe first symphony orchestra in Boston to receive public acceptance,itself evidence of an important shift in musical taste.The change at the Boston Academy occurredin I835, the year thatSamuel Atkins Eliot replacedJacob Abbott as president. Eliot had anentirely different backgroundand outlook from most members of theAcademy. The son of a wealthy Boston merchant, he graduatedfromHarvard College in 1817 and Harvard Divinity School in 1820, butdeclined ordination. His father's death in I820 left him a considerablefortune, and he lived in Europe from 1823 to 1826. His marriagetoMary Lyman, the daughter of another wealthy merchant, in 1826,further increased his wealth. He was related by blood or marriagetomany prominent families in Boston. Though Eliot lived in the socialinsularity of Beacon Hill, he was one of the few members of thesocioeconomic elite interested in music.46 A Unitarian, he was activein the West Church Choir.Eliot held several importantpolitical positions during his lifetime.He was on the Massachusetts General Court and served as analderman when his brother-in-lawTheodore Lyman was mayor. Hewas a member of the Boston School Committee in the early 183os. Hewas elected Mayor of Boston for three consecutive terms, 1837-39.He served as Treasurerof Harvard from 1842-53 and as President ofthe Prison Discipline Society. He served briefly in Congress, inI850-51, declining reelection. Daniel Webster described him as "theimpersonationof Boston;ever-intelligent, ever-patriotic,ever-gloriousBoston."47 In 1846 Eliot's net worth was listed at $3oo,ooo, an

45 FirstAnnualReport f theBostonAcademy fMusic Boston:Isaac R. Butts, 1833),7.46 Mary E. Guild stresses the social homogeneity and conformity of Beacon Hilllife and her father's interest in music; "Samuel Atkins and Mary Eliot: A MemorySketch by Their Oldest Daughter," Samuel Atkins Eliot Papers, HarvardUniversityArchives: 4-7, 27.47 The quotation is from Dictionaryof AmericanBiography,vol. 6, 81-82. Othermaterial is from the Dictionaryand Walter Graeme Eliot, A Sketch f theEliotFamily(New York: Press of Livingston Middleditch, 1887), 50-51.


20/44

MUSIC AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN ANTEBELLUM BOSTON 469exceptionally large sum for the time.48We do not know precisely how Eliot came to be elected Presidentof the Boston Academy, but the immediate effects suggest why hedesired the position. Eliot brought with him a new agenda for theAcademy and wasted no time in implementing it: in his first year hehired J. A. Keller as instrumental professor, formed an orchestrathrough an alliance with the Amateur Society, who supplied theinstrumentalists, and sought to have a larger organ installed. In thesecond year he hired Henry Schmidt as "Leaderof the Orchestra."49In 1835, Eliot's firstyear, the Academy renovated the defunct FederalStreet Theater into a concert hall, the Odeon. Such a projectrequiredmoney, specifically $4,000, accordingto an account book of subscrib-ers.50$2, 3oo were raised by contributionsof $Ioo each, two of whichwere from businesses, and another $565 by smaller contributionsranging from $Io to $50. It is not clear where the remaining moneycame from.The Odeon project succeeded because it was backed by thesocioeconomic elite. Fifteen of the twenty-three hundred-dollar sub-scribers to the Odeon project were listed on the tax records of I847,which were published. Table 2 indicates their net worth.5' At a timewhen $ioo,ooo was considered a significant fortune, this list repre-sents an extraordinaryconcentrationof wealth. By way of comparisonI have included three of the wealthiest musicians in Boston, LowellMason, George J. Webb, and ShadrachPearce, a bassoonist.Eliot had entree to the socio-economic elite community in a waythat no other member of the Academy did. The elite class had notpreviously supported either the Boston Academy of Music or theHandel and Haydn Society. Only a single hundred-dollarsubscriberother than Eliot, Charles Stoddard, was a member of the Boston

48 "OurFirstMen:"A Calendar f Wealth,FashionandGentility;Containing ListofThosePersonsTaxed in the City of Boston,CrediblyReportedo be WorthOneHundredThousand ollars,withBiographical oticesofthePrincipalPersonsBoston:D. H. ElaandCo., I846), 21.49 Schmidt, who came to the United States in 1836, had been highly recom-mended by J. A. Keller, who probably heard him in New York;letter toJ. A. Kellerfrom Samuel A. Eliot, 14July, 1836, in "Letterbook, 1825-1842," Eliot Papers.50 "Academy of Musick and Boston Theater," small manuscript booklet in theAllen A. Brown Collection of the Boston Public Library.5' One of the names on the treasurer's ist is illegible. The informationfor Table2 is taken from List of Persons,Copartnerships,nd Corporationswho were TaxedTwenty-FiveDollarsand Upward,in the City of Boston,in the Year1847, SpecifyingheAmountoftheTax andRealandPersonalEstate,conformablyo an OrderoftheCityCouncil.City Document No. 12 (Boston:Jh. H. Eastburn, 1848).


21/44

470 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYTABLE 2

Net Worth of Hundred-dollar Donors to the Boston Academy of MusicMeasured in 1847REAL ESTATE PERSONAL ESTATEDONORS [VALUE] [VALUE]

Appleton, Nathan $ 93,000 $275,000Appleton, Samuel 176,000 225,000Appleton, William I53,000 200,000Eliot, Samuel 62,000 i00,000Fiske, Benjamin 64,600Jackson, Patrick T. 21,000 20,000Lawrence, Abbott 599,400 250,000Lawrence, Amos 189,500 129,000Lawrence, Stone & Slade 75,000Parker,Johanthan 35,000 8,000Shattuck, George C. 162,200 175,000Stoddard, Charles 10o,ooo o,oooTappan, John 109,000 60,oooWarren,John C. 128,900 18o,oooWaterston & Pray 96,000 75,000Williams, John D. 663,800 100,000MUSICIANSMason, Lowell 16,ooo 25,000Pearce, Shadrach S. 3,600 2,000Webb, George J. 4,000 i,500Academy of Music, and not one was ever a member of the Handel andHaydn Society. In contrast, nine members of the Boston Academy ofMusic were members of the Handel and Haydn Society.52 TheHandel and Haydn Society had enrolled 369 members by i835,which in a town of 75,000 not noted for its interest in music,represented a relatively significant percentage of the musically-ori-ented population.The list of subscribers of the Odeon projectalso providesa furtherclue to why Eliot became interested in the Academy. Three of thetwenty-one individual subscribers of the Odeon project were signersof the 1826 circular. Two others (Eliot and Samuel Appleton) wereimmediate family members of the signers, and Eliot's brother hadwritten the circular. Eliot may have consideredthe Academy a way toaccomplish the goals of the circular, for in retrospect it became ablueprint for Eliot's tenure as President of the Boston Academy ofMusic. The Academy became a concert institution, and emphasis

52 Members of both Handel and Haydn Society and the Boston Academy in 1835were Joseph Brown, Abel W. Bruce, Jonas Chickering, L. S. Cragen, Bela Hunting,Lowell Mason, George Pollock, George James Webb, and Increase S. Withington.


22/44

MUSIC AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN ANTEBELLUM BOSTON 47 Ishifted to secular instrumental music. The moral aims of the circularwere upheld, the educational goals of the circular were fulfilled, andeven the role of the subscribers, that of benefactorswith no interest inmusic making even as amateurs, was maintained. The Boston Acad-emy of Music became a practicalrealizationof the Boston upper classview of musical activity.Both the 1826 circular and the Boston Academy of Music em-braced one principle that the Unitarian socioeconomic elite andmiddle-class evangelicals held in common: a recognition of the valueof education. The educational focus of the Academy had probablyattracted Eliot to it originally. Eliot had been an active supporter ofeducation since the early I83os, when he served as Chairmanof theBoston School Committee. From his position there and later asMayor, as well as during his tenure as President of the BostonAcademy of Music, he probably had as much to do with music beingadopted in the public schools as Lowell Mason did.The papers of the Boston Academy trace the resulting change inemphasis in some detail. Each annual report of the Academy beginswith a lengthy statement both summarizing the previous year andexplaining the purpose and goals for the forthcoming one. From 1835on, these reportswere written by Eliot. Before 1835 they stressed thesacred music mission of the Academy, but beginning in 1835, Eliotgradually but inexorably disassociated the Academy from sacredmusic, until in 1838 he could virtually ignore it.53 By 1845 he wasattempting to rewrite history:

The end andobjectof ourcorporatebeingwas to spread he knowledgeandthe love ofmusicasfastandasfarwe could. It was notlimited o anyparticular epartment,nor by any thing but the boundsof the scienceandthe artthemselves.54

I have briefly summarized a series of complex developments andmaneuvering at the Boston Academy of Music in order to present a

53 In the SixthAnnualReportof the BostonAcademyBoston: Perkins, Marvin, andCo., I838) Eliot discussed the educationalmission of the Academy. He observed thatthe Academy had "morejust and noble views" than to amuse, principally to build ataste for public exhibitions, which "mustbe the slow growth of years." Nowhere didhe refer to church music.54 Reportof theGovernmentoftheBostonAcademy fMusicfor theYears1845 and 1846(Boston: T.R. Marvin, 1846), 4.


23/44

472 JOURNALOF THE AMERICANMUSICOLOGICALOCIETYmore fundamental question: what was Eliot attempting to accomplishthrough his efforts at the Academy, and what effect did his activitieshave upon the evolution of American musical attitudes?Eliot was not only a successful organizer and leader, but also animportant propagandist for a specific vision of music in AmericanLife. In the 183os and 4os Eliot wrote extensively about music. Hispublications include his lengthy essays in the annual reports of theBoston Academy, his lecture given at the Boston Academy in I835,55and two lengthy articles that he wrote for the NorthAmericanReview.This material has never been examined as a unit, possibly because allof the writings were anonymous, although the authorshipof most hasbeen known. Eliot has been virtually ignoredas an intellectual force inAmerican music.Two of Eliot's most importantstatements appearedanonymouslyin The North AmericanReview. His personal papers confirm hisauthorshipof the two NorthAmericanReviewarticles,s"as they containhandwritten manuscriptsof each of the articles. There aresome minordifferencesin wording and they show sufficientevidence of revisiontomake it reasonablycertain Eliot had not simply copied them from theReview. Furthermore, a short biographical statement that accompa-nied the gift of the papers to Harvard states that Eliot wrote them.The firstarticleappearedinJuly 1836, as a review of the first threeannual reports of the Boston Academy of Music.57 In it Eliot dealtwith the question of cultivation and taste. He placed himself squarelywithin the cultivated tradition, arguingthat music must be cultivatedand that its cultivation was just beginning to occur in this country:

The taste of the public, too, cannot be forced;but must be carriedgradually ndeasilyalong o thehighestbranches f theart,or it will fallback again to the rude and unformedstate from which it is justemerging.58Eliot advanced two principal theses in this article. The first wasthat musical taste is universal, not culturally bound:

55 Samuel A Eliot, Addressbeforehe BostonAcademy f Music on the Openingof theOdeon,August5, 1835 (Boston: Perkins, Marvin, and Co., 1835).56 Samuel Atkins Eliot Papers, Harvard University Archives.57 i"I. First Annual Reportof the Boston Academy of Music. 1833 .. . 2. SecondAnnual Report. 1834... 3. Third Annual Report. 1835 .. ."NorthAmericanReview43 (1836): 53-85.58 Eliot, "First Annual Report, Boston Academy," 53.


24/44

MUSICAND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 473It is a mistake o suppose hat thereis a particular tyle of musicwhichis adaptedto a particularperiodof the world. Music is a universallanguage, nd what s ablepowerfullyo affectonegeneration f menwillnot fail to affectanother. .. Palestrina ad the meritand the gloryofpointingout the truepath n which musicshouldwalk,the truemodeinwhich she mustproducehereffects;andfromhisdayto thepresent herehas been but one schoolof goodmusic. Dividedand subdividedas theschoolshavenominallybeen,correct aste is one andindivisible; ndallmustbeconductedby herguidance,ortheycease o be schoolsof music,anddegeneratento academies f uproar.59In order to demonstrate that the practice of music is universal,Eliot set out to trace its history. After several lengthy observationsregardingancient and medieval music, he arrived at Palestrina,whomhe called the founder of the modern school of good taste. Eliot wasfervent on this point: he considered Palestrina"the best composer, notonly of his own, but of all preceding time. . . . He must continue tobe regarded as the successful reformer of a barbarousera, and thefather and founder of a better school, which, fromthat day to this, has

been considered as the school of true taste."6oEliot's second principalpoint was that taste is progressive. He sawmusical taste increasing at an acceleratingrate since Palestrina, andacknowledged that since each age has greater resources than theprevious one, "succeedingtimes will go on improving."6' Like manyof his time, the concept of progress was fundamental to his theories.Eliot thought that musical progress reached a pinnacle withHandel, Haydn, and Mozart. He discussed each composer at somelength, in laudatoryterms. He called Handel'sMessiah one of the bestmusical productions extant . . . [belonging] to the highest class ofcompositions.'"62With Haydn and Mozart, Eliot abandoned himselfto effusions of unrestrainedpraise. The adjectivesand phrasespile up:sublime, extraordinary, incredible, delightful, astonishing, pure,refined, boundless genius, vivid pictures, solemn grace, dignity ofexpression. He used these terms to describe Haydn alone, for in hiseyes Mozart surpassed the capabilities of language itself. Admittingthat the moderation necessary to give weight to language makes itdifficult to speakof Mozart, Eliot nevertheless tried. Mozartbeguiles,enchants, captivates, excites. His works display wonderful beauty,sweetness, inexpressible charm, sublimity, noble harmony, grace and

59 Eliot, "First Annual Report, Boston Academy," 75.6o Eliot, "First Annual Report, Boston Academy," 75.6, Eliot, "First Annual Report, Boston Academy," 76-78.62 Eliot, "First Annual Report, Boston Academy," 79.


25/44

474 JOURNALOF THE AMERICANMUSICOLOGICALOCIETYdelicacy. His genius was such that "one almost despairs of eitherdoing justice to his memory, or making others sensible of hispreeminent power." Finally Eliot assertedthat Mozart'scompositions"form a striking climax to the musical history of the last century."Mozartcombined all of the best qualities of both Handel and Haydn,so that,

"Theforce of naturecouldno furthergo;To makea third,she joinedthe othertwo."63After such paeans, one anticipateswith fascination and trepidationhow Eliot would describe Beethoven. He is mentioned only once, ina paragraph about Rossini, in one-third of one sentence that alsoincluded an appraisal of both Rossini and Weber: "Beethoven hasshown us a wonderful scientific skill, and a dark imagination,lightened occasionally by a soft half which shines the brighter bycontrast.'64 Eliot clearly had a Pantheon or canon of composers, intowhich Palestrina, Handel, Haydn, and Mozart had been admitted.

Beethoven was yet outside, somewhere below Rossini and on a parwith Weber.Eliot was not pleased with the state of music in America, which tohim had no history and "scarcelyan existence here," America havingno instrumental composers and only a few who compose songs andanthems. Eliot found the future hopeful, however. The country wasyoung and vigorous and rapidly increasing in wealth. Recent devel-opments in particularboded well: the change in style in church musicwas a beginning; the formation of the Boston Handel and HaydnSociety was "the dawn of the spirit of improvement";the establish-ment of the Boston Academy was furtherproof of a greaterinterest inmusic.In closing Eliot looked at Germany. How was it possible, heasked, that five of the six composers that he mentioned near the endof the article (Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, andRossini) were German? (Eliot did not distinguish between Germanand Austrian composers.) How could a nation "with a languagealmost as unmusical as ours" have produced so many greatmusicians?The answer lay in education. Germany universally taught the rudi-ments of music to children. The equivalent in this country would be"the most important means of eliciting the now dormant taste and

63 Eliot, "First Annual Report, Boston Academy," 81-83.64 Eliot, "First Annual Report, Boston Academy," 83.


26/44

MUSIC AND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 475talent of our country." Eliot thus reiterated precisely one of theprincipal themes of the 1826 circular.

In his second article in the NorthAmericanReview65he politicalaspect was more focused. Eliot wrote of revolution. He began byclaiming that "a great revolution in the musical character of theAmerican people has begun, and is, we trust, to go forward, like otherrevolutions, till its ultimate object be attained." Later he claimed thatthe Boston Academy of music was one of the causes of the revolution.Eliot was overtly Platonic in this article. To him music wasuniversal, affecting everyone, a powerful instrument when so put touse. He quoted Plato as follows: "Let me make the people's ballads,and I care not who makes their laws." To prove his point, Eliot citedthree modern examples:the French Revolution, in which popularairsprovided an additional impetus; the national anthem "God Save theKing," whose positive effect had helped save the English monarchy,and the most recent American election, won by William HenryHarrison over Martin van Buren. Eliot was probably referringto thesong "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too," but he unfortunately offered nofurther specifics on any of the three.66To Eliot the effects of music were deeper than a temporaryarousalof passions. Music has a "permanenteffect . . . upon the nationalcharacter." Eliot argued that music, more than any other activity,addressed man's whole nature, his physical, intellectual, and moralaspects. To substantiate his claim Eliot listed the positive effects ofmusic, many of which echo the 1837 report of the Boston SchoolCommittee that recommended the insertion of music into the publicschools.67

65 "i. Annual Reports of the Boston Academy of Music ... 2. Address on theOpening of the Odeon .. .3. Report to the School Commitee of Boston .. .4. TheMusical Magazine, conducted by H. T. Hach. . ." North American Review 52 (I 841):320-38.66 Eliot, "Annual Reports, Address," 320-22. The song was written by Alex-ander Coffman Ross, a jeweler from Zanesville, Ohio, who set it to the tune "LittlePig's Tail." According to Vera Browdsky Lawrence, it "becamethe theme song of themost singing campaign in American history"; Musicfor Patriots, Politicians, andPresidents:Harmonies nd Discordsof the First HundredYears New York: MacMillan,1975), 269.67 Music soothes the ferocity in humans and excites "kind and gentle feelings"without weakening "strengthor character." It promotes social interaction. It encour-ages precise thinking. It teaches discipline and the necessity of order and authority.Its study through singing enhances elocutionary abilities and promotes physical wellbeing through the exercise of the lungs. The Committee Report was published in the


27/44

476 JOURNALOF THE AMERICANMUSICOLOGICALOCIETYEliot straddled the position between an elitist and a populist. Hedid not deny that music provides pleasure, and he admitted that it

may do so at all levels of musical sophistication. Eliot recognized thatthose who prefer the songs of Henry Russell to those of John Braham,or Billings's anthems to Mozart'sRequiem equally share the pleasuresof music. He further realized that music other than the mostcultivated could not only give pleasure and arouse passion, but couldalso be a potent cultural force.Eliot believed that music could be spread throughout the popula-tion, and the importance he attached to music in the public schoolsreflects his populist views about universal musical education. Hebelieved that music should be "theproperty of the whole people" andthat with this development "the taste of all will likewise be cultivat-ed."68He was not ready to abandon the pantheon, however. He stillbelieved in taste, progress, cultivation, and a musical hierarchy. Hejustified his position by observing that children may enjoy thepleasuresof music every step along the way, but as they become morecultivated they prefer more sophisticated music.

Eliot did not want to exclude the people. He still sharedthe earlyrepublican dream of a unified society. He believed that the youngpeople would "mould the character of this democracy," and thatmusical education, with its focus on song, could be a potent tool toeffect that end. Eliot, however, wanted to bringthe people to his level:rather than broadening his concept of taste to include music favoredby other segments of society, he wished to change the taste of othersto conform to his. He persisted in the notion that some types of musicwere superior to others, as well as in the firm belief that throughproper exposure and cultivation the population at large would arriveat the same musical preferences as Eliot and others of the cultivatedclass. Whatever the value of firesidemelody, music remained to Eliotfundamentally "abstract," "one of the fine arts," and "the greathandmaiden of civilization."69Although Eliot's democratizingviews and his elitism seem contra-dictory, they were entirely consistent within the frameworkof earlyfederal political views held by some members of the upper classes.

BostonMusicalGazette,28 November and 26 December i838. It is reprinted in CarolPemberton, "Lowell Mason: His Life and Work" (Ph.D. diss., University ofMinnesota, i97 ), 517-24-68 Eliot is quoting T. Kemper Davis, one of the three members of the subcom-mittee of the Boston School Committee that presented the report recommending theadoption of music in the public schools. Pemberton, "Lowell Mason," 1 i4.69 Eliot, "Annual Reports, Address," 337.


28/44

MUSICAND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 477Though these views formed the basis for Whig republicanism, whichsurvived in variousforms well into the i840s, they were conservative,almost anachronisticfor the nineteenth century, reflectingthe thoughtof the colonial aristocracymore than the newer socioeconomic elite.Writers in the early nineteenth century distinguished between thosetwo class groups among the wealthy, and the distinction is importantfor understanding Eliot. In 1823 Adam Hodgson identified one classthat consisted of the old RevolutionaryWar heroes, "who hold a sortof patent of nobility, undisputed by the bitterest enemies to aristoc-racy." Many of this class were educated in Englandand resembled theEnglish gentleman "of the old school." This class was very limited andabout to die out. The second class included the leading politicians, thewealthier merchants, the more prominent lawyers, and generally themore respectable members of the professions.7' Tocqueville recog-nized that the older aristocracyhad been swept away by the industrialrevolution, and when he met CharlesCarroll, the last surviving signerof the Declaration of Independence, he realized Carrollrepresentedanalmost extinct type. Tocqueville considered him "the exact counter-part of the European gentleman."''The socioeconomic elite of the nineteenth century differed fromthe colonial aristocracy in one profound way: many members of thecolonial aristocracybelieved deeply in republicanvalues;many mem-bers of the socioeconomic elite did not. The theoretical basis of earlyfederal republicanism was an egalitariansociety, at least in terms ofopportunity. Artificial, as opposed to natural, distinctions betweenindividuals were to be opposed, and talent alone would determineone's position in the social hierarchy. Equality of opportunity meanta relatively homogeneous society, and though few, if any, wished toabolish the existence of a social hierarchy, a flagrantdisplay of wealthor social pretension was regarded as incompatible with republicanprinciples.72The organic model, which had transformed the conceptualizationof both art and science in the eighteenth century, was applied to the

70Adam Hodgson, RemarksDuring aJourneyThroughNorthAmerica n the Years8t19, 182o and 1821 (New York, 1823; reprint, Westport, CT: Negro UniversitiesPress, I970), 82-84.7' Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyn America, rans. Henry Reeve, ed. John T.Morgan and John J. Ingalls (New York: Colonial Press, 1899), vol. 2, 238. StowPersons discusses the significance of Tocqueville's comments about Carroll in TheDeclineof Gentility(New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1973), 20.72 Gordon S. Wood, TheCreationoftheAmericanRepublic, 776-1787 (Chapel Hill:University of North CarolinaPress, 1969), 70-73-


29/44

478 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYbody politic as well. As an organism all members of the communitywere linked to each other, the actions of one affecting all others. Thestate was "one moral whole," in which individual interests wouldyield to the public good. Under such circumstances a homogeneoussociety was the inevitable outcome. Hierarchy would exist, but acommonalty of social purpose would insure rule by the public. Forthe colonial gentry this meant governmentby consensus. Those at thetop of the hierarchy were best able to govern, as their position in thehierarchy validated, and they expected the rest of society to agree.73The Republican ideal was purely an ideal. Already by 1776republicanism "possessed a decidedly reactionary tone," and manymembers of the colonial gentry were beginning to have doubts thatthe majority were "the safest Guardians both of public Good andprivate rights."74By the early nineteenth century the colonial hierar-chy was in disarray, as American society, itself, had changed. Thenew socioeconomic elite were politically antidemocratic, sociallyinsular, and at times pretentious about their wealth. When HarrietMartineau traveled to the United States in 1834-35 she pointedlydistinguished the "realaristocracyof the country"from the socioeco-nomic elite. The real or natural aristocracycould as easily be found"in fishing-boats, in stores, in colleges chambers, and behind theplough," as in "ball-roomsand bank-parlours."The socioeconomicelite were only vulgar. She found their ostentation and affectationodious. Her greatest contempt was reserved for their anti-democraticattitudes and aristocraticpretensions. In her visit to Boston she evenheard some members of the elite class openly advocatea monarchy. Itis not surprising that she called Boston "as aristocratic, vain, andvulgar a city . . . as anywhere in the world."75Eliot's efforts at the Boston Academy representthe last response ofa dying social order. Eliot was motivated throughout his career byearly Federal Whig republicanism, and even though he workedclosely with Lowell Mason his goals were quite different. Eliot saw hismusical revolution as an effort to extend the gentry consensus bybringing the masses into the fold of the eighteenth-century hierarchythrough a common shared culture. He believed equally strongly in

73 Wood, TheCreationof theAmericanRepublic,59, 53.74James Madison, quoted in Wood, TheCreationof theAmericanRepublic, 10.75Harriet Martineau, Societyin America,ed. Seymour Martin Lipset (GardenCity, NY: Doubleday, 1962), 260. Thomas Hamilton also noted the aristocraticleanings of members of the older wealthier families of Boston in MenandManners nAmerica(Edinburgh, I833; reprint, 2 vols. in i, New York: Augustus M. Kelley,1968), vol. I, 249-


30/44

MUSICAND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 479progress, education, and the preference of the many for cultivatedmusic once given the opportunity, as in a shared social hierarchy ofwhich orchestral music provided a prime metaphor.If there was any doubt that Eliot maintained the Whig ideal of aunified society, and that he related this social goal to music, hedispelled them in I86o in an article for Dwight'sJournal of Musicentitled "Music and Politics."76At the time Eliot was sixty-two yearsold and had not been active in musical organizationssince the BostonAcademy of Music folded in I847. Eliot drew several parallelsbetween musical and political activity, the most important being thateach person had a specific part to play and must be willing to play hisassigned part. Not everyone could be a leader, and individual flightsof fancy must be subordinated to the needs of the overall ensemble:

Music is the only artwhich,requiringhe concertedactionof numbers,in differentspheres,canexemplifyandenforce hatprinciple forderandsubordination f one thing to another,and of one man to another,withoutwhichharmony,whether n musicor politics,cannotexist. It isa lesson not unimportant,urely,to youngAmerica o learn,thatthereare ruleswhich mustbe obeyed.In regard to how an individual determined his part Eliot's viewshad changed little since his days at the Boston Academy, when heconceptualized an institution in which the elite, rather than themusicians involved, made decisions: "every man must be willing totake the place for which nature has fitted him, and for which others,rather than he himself, think him qualified."Eliot not only envisagedan ideal orderin which every man had hisplace, but one in which every man would, in the interest of goodharmony, accept the place assigned. Who determined the places wasto Eliot almost self-evident:those few chosen leaders, who acted in theinterest of the common good. If every man was content to play hisassigned part, this would create no problem, but for a man not toaccept his role in the hierarchywas to Eliot an egregious blunder:"thefate of him who neglects the part and the place in life for which he isfitted, for one to which he is not adapted, is failure complete andirreparable."77In his discussion of changes in American society by I840 RobertWiebe distinguished two directions. The more radicalone led to the

76 Dwight'sJournal of Music 18 (i86o): 344-46. The article is signed "E.," butEliot's papers indicate that he wrote it.77 Eliot, "Music and Politics," 345.


31/44

480 JOURNALOF THE AMERICANMUSICOLOGICALOCIETYrevolution in choices and a more individualist society. This directionappealed to the middle class and significantly affected the nature ofAmerican evangelicalism. Lowell Mason belonged to that movement.In his effortson behalf of music education, Masonhad been motivatedby the pressing religious needs brought about by the newly emergentsociety. Mason was an evangelical, and to him music had a moralpurpose that transcended the artistic.78Concurrently a more conser-vative track sought to maintain the hierarchy by extending itsprivileges to deserving citizens.79 Social stability was to be coupledwith expanding opportunity. The traditionalists still believed that theintegrity of the union required a homogeneous society held togetherwith similar cultural institutions. Eliot belonged to those traditional-ists.Eliot was nearly unique among the descendents of the colonialgentry in that he recognized the potential of music to do more thanentertain. Few of his peers were even interested in the art, and thosethat were saw it as little more than a frill. Even Jefferson, whoadmitted that music was "thefavoritepassionof my soul," consideredit essentially an "enjoyment."Only the Presbyterian-Congregationalreformers had earliergrasped the significanceof the power of music.They had backedinto that: if the wrong kind of music could wipe outthe minister's most solemn efforts to create the proper atmosphere ata church service, the right kind could also enhance that atmosphere.Their concerns were thus more religious than aesthetic.Eliot considered the symphony orchestra the cornerstone of themusical pantheon he wished to build. As we noted earlier he beganlaying plans for the establishment of an orchestra almost from themoment of his installation as President of the Boston Academy, andby I838 he could announce publicly its formation. Yet Eliot chose hisvehicle badly, for of all institutions the symphony orchestraappearedmost incompatible with the democratic impulses of the age. Thispoint was not lost on early devotees of the medium, who saw in it atroubling conundrum.In I84o an anonymous article that began as a review of Stendhal'sLife of Haydn but consisted mostly of a discussion of national music

7" Lowell Mason to his son William, i2 April 1845, "Lowell Mason Papers, MSS33,"John HerickJacksonMusic Libraryat Yale University. He and William differedsharply on this point: William Mason, Memoriesof a MusicalLife(New York, 9o01;reprint, New York: Da Capo Press, 1970), io and 25.79Robert Wiebe, The Opening of AmericanSociety From the Adoption of theConstitutiono the Eve of Disunion New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), 129.


32/44

MUSICAND CLASS STRUCTURE N ANTEBELLUMBOSTON 48 Iappeared in the NorthAmericanReview.8o It was partially reprinted inthe TheMusicalMagazineunder the title "Prospects for a NationalMusic in America."8' A handwritten note in one copy of the NorthAmerican Review attributes the article to Henry R. Cleveland.8,Cleveland was a graduate of Harvard, an attorney, a respectedorganist, a writer and translator in several fields, and well-knownenough for his musical interests that he was asked to give the 1840lecture before the Harvard Musical Association. He had published alengthy article on music in NewEnglandMagazinen 1835 and a reviewof Gardiner's Musicof Naturein New YorkReviewin 1837.83 He wasknown to the NorthAmericanRevieweditor, who the year before hadprinted a review of Cleveland's translation of Sallust'sHistoriesof theConspiracy f Catilineand theJugurthineWar.84 We cannot be certain,but Cleveland was probably the author of the I84ONorthAmericanReviewarticle.After admitting that America had no nationalmusic, because "wehave nothing like national taste," Cleveland then considered thepossibility of a national music arising in America. And herein lay thedilemma: any national music arising in America must be congruentwith the democratic spirit of the country.

It mayseema strangeassertion, hat anart,which haseverbeenrearedand fosteredby wealthand aristocracy, an find a genialsoil in thisrepublic.Music, it will be said, is peculiarlyat war with the spiritofdemocracy.Thereis not a moreabsolutemonarch n the earththantheleader of an orchestra.The moment his divineright is disputed,theempirefalls to destruction.Formusicians, n the practiceof theirart,therecan be none but an absoluteautocracy,a puredespotism.8sIn addition, Cleveland observed, an orchestra is an expensivepursuit, better suited to aristocratic state support than the publiccitizens in a democracy. Music, "tobecome national, must be received

8o "The Life of Haydn, in a Series of Letters written at Vienna; followed by theLife of Mozart, with Observations on Metastasio, and on the Present State of Musicin Franceand Italy. Translated from the French of L. A. C. Bombet, with Notes byWilliam Gardiner. . ." NorthAmericanReview50 (1840): 1-19.8' MusicalMagazine2 (1840): 17-22.82 Copy at Cornell University. I wish to thank William Austin for pointing thisout to me.83 "The Origin and Progress of Music," New EnglandMagazine9 (1835): 58-65,Io6-17; "GardinerMusic of Nature (Boston:J. H. Wilkins and R. B. Carter, 1837),"New YorkReview3 (1837): 157-97.84 NorthAmericanReview,April, 1839.85 Cleveland, "Life of Haydn," 14.


33/44

482 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETYby the people at large." For this reason Cleveland dismissed opera,which to Cleveland appealed to the wealthy class and could not besustained by the wealthy even in New York. Yet Cleveland could notadmit that national music could come from a simpler, more popularoriented, folk-relatedstyle. He was concerned that music in Americawould only gratify "avulgar and depravedtaste," a phrase that couldhave easily come from a Psalmodic reformer. His solution was toelevate the taste of the people: "Music must be made popular, not bydebasing the art, but by elevating the people."86It is thus not surprising that Cleveland strongly supported theefforts of the Boston Academy of Music. He articulatedwith consid-erable precision the republican point of view: "The efforts of theAcademy are calculated in the best possible manner to prepare theway for national music among us. Its object is to render musicpopular; to plant the art among the people; to make it a universalresource for elegant enjoyment." Cleveland also shared Eliot's beliefin the importance of educating children in music.87Cleveland was not alone in his awareness of the problem that anorchestra posed. Theodore Hach, in his MusicalMagazine,confessedthat music was still in its infancy in America, and that "ourrepublicanspirit, which revolts at any kind of personalrestraint,can but ill brookthe necessary discipline which the practiceof the artrequiresof us.""88Neither Cleveland nor Hach, however, provided specific recommen-dations as to the resolution of the paradox.The same point about the paradoxof a democraticsociety and elitemusical institutions was echoed in another magazine, The MusicalCabinet,which was edited by George J. Webb and T. B. Haywood.Webb was probably the most versatilemusician in Boston in the I830osand 40s. Identified primarily with psalmody in the I83os, as anorganist, compiler of sacred anthologies, and professor at the BostonAcademy, he made the transition to symphonic music in the I84os,becoming the conductor of the Musical Fund Society orchestra. Evenearlier, however, Webb had not limited his activities to sacredmusic:he was one of the founders of the Musical Professional Society in1832. Little is known of T. B. Haywood, except that he wasassociated with Hach in editing the MusicalMagazineand had lecturedat the Handel and Haydn Society on "The Musical Profession."

86 Cleveland, "Life of Haydn," 14-16.87 Cleveland, "Life of Haydn," 17-18.88 MusicalMagazine2 (I840): 365-66.


34/44

MUSIC AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN ANTEBELLUM BOSTON 483The MusicalCabinetpublished an expanded version of Haywood'slectures, which were delivered before the Teachers' Class of the

Boston Handel and Haydn Society in August 1841.89 In it Haywoodconceded that the visual arts belong to the elite: "Painting andsculpture areexpensive in their individualencouragement."Haywoodsought to stake out music, however, for the "middling class." Heconsidered music to be preeminently social, and, in a country wherethe middle class comprise the bulk of the population, urged that itmust have that middle class support. Haywood opposed elitistinstitutions that do not cater to the people:Her [music's] ppeal,therefore, s to the people;not to the rich, nortoinstitutionsgot up and endowedwith the aristocracyf wealth. If suchinstitutionsarise at all, they can only flourish n proportion s they arethepeople'snstitutions,n thesamemanner s ourcommongovernmentis the people'sgovernment.90Haywood's class structure va

music and class structure in boston.pdf

Documents