Saint-Saens’s Views on Music and Musicians Scott Fruehwald International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Dec., 1984), pp. 159-174. ble URL: bttp//links jstor.org/sici?sici=0351-5796%28 1984 12%2915%3A2"3C 159%3AS VOMAMS3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 Intemational Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music is currently published by Croatian Musicological Society ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of htp:/wwww stor org/about/terms.html. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contaet the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hp: www jstor-org/journalseroat. html Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, JSTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org. hupswwwjstororg/ Mon Nov 13 10:06:58 2006SS. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 16 (19,2, 155-104 159 SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS ON MUSIC AND MUSICIANS, SCOTT FRUEHWALD 120 Kenilworth Pl., BROOKLYN, Ee N.Y. 11210, U.S.A. Original Selentifie Paper Prispjelo: 15. kolovoza 1984 Recelved: August 15, 1984 Prihvaéeno: 25. rujna 1084. Accepted: September 25, 1984 ‘The life of Camille Saint-Saéns extended from the beginnings of ro- manticism in the 1830s to the neoclassicism of the 1920s, encompassing @ period of extreme change in all aspects of human existence. Saint-Saéns's critical, writings evince his views on the radical changes that were taking place during his lifetime and give perceptive opinions of composers from the sixteenth to the twentieth century. His writings are especially signifi- cant because, not only was Saint-Saéns one of the most important French ‘composers of the nineteenth century, he was also one of the most learned men of his time, with interests in literature, philosophy, and science. In addition, he was intimately connected with many of the great composers of his day — Berlioz, Gounod, Liszt, Bizet, Fauré, Tchaikovsky, and Ros- sini — as well as important non-musicians, such as Hugo and Ingres. His critical writings embrace @ wide-range of subjects, including aesthetics, organology, musicology, opinions on his contemporaries, comments on his own music, and even philosophy and science.' This paper will examine those writings that concern music, attempt to place his ideas in the con- text of nineteenth-century thought, and show how his ideas are mirrored in his own music. Aesthetics and General Views on Music Saint-Saéns viewed art as a special entity that responds to a certain sense, which is peculiar to human beings. Rather than calling it the »aes- thetic senses, he preferred »sense of style«, because esthetic sense sig- * Saint-Saéns's writings, which originally appeared in a widevariety of sources, fare contained in the following: Harmonie et Mélodie (Paris 1885); Problomes et my” teres (Paris 1894); Ecole bulssonniore (Paris 1913); Au courant de la vie (Paris 1914); and Germanophilie (Paris 1916). Many of the essays contained in these books have ‘been translated into English in Outspoken Bssays on Music, trans. Fred Rothwell (London 1922) and Musical Memories, trans. Edwin Gile Rich (reprint, New York 1968). All quotations from the French have been translated by the present author.160 '. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 15 (10,2, 18-176 nifies a sense of the beautiful and what is esthetic is not necessarily beau- tiful.e? Saint-Saéns considered music »a means of putting this sense in vibration. Saint-Saéns aesthetics were strongly influenced by the »Art for Art's Sakes movement, his most important aesthetic essay being named after it The major tenet of this school of thought is that art need not be mor- alistic, didactic, or utilitarian, but can exist purely for its own sake. On this subject, Saint-Saéns declared Just as morality has no function to be artistic, so art has nothing to do with morality. Both have their own functions, and each is useful in its own way. The final aim of morality is morality, of art, art, and nothing else.There are myths in history and history in myths. Mythology is merely the old form of history. Every myth is rooted in truth.«" He went on to say that history contained a great deal that was not true. This was partially because almost every writer when producing his- indy had insisted that the love of gain had composer's preference for theatrical forms. ‘Musical Memories, p. 25. © Musical Memories, p81 1 Musteal Memortes, pp. 62-63. reat deal to do with a‘8. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASN 16 196, 2, 159-174 163 torical works was »impelled to do so by a preconceived idea, by a general ‘eonception, or a system he wants to establish.~'!® It was also because words were put into a historical person's mouth that he never said: »What about the long drawn out conversations in books and on the stage that are attributed to historical persons? What about the actions attributed to them, which need not be true but only seem to be so? ‘The supernatural element is the only thing lacking to make such works mythological in every way.e! In concluding his discussion of historical versus mythological opera he averred: »Musicians should, as a matter of fact, be allowed to choose both the subjects and the motives for their operas according to their tempera~ ments and their feelings. Much youthful talent is lost today because the young composers believe that they must obey set rules instead of their own inspiration, All great artists, the illustrious Richard more than any other, mocked the critics. Saint-Saéns employed both historical and mythological subjects in his operas, and he also used Japanese subject matter in his opera comique La princesse jaune (1872) and, of course, a biblical story in Samson et Dalila (1877), Views of the Early History of Music and Composers of the Past Although Saint-Saéns knew of Greek music and Gregorian chant, he considered music as conceived of by his own day to have begun »with the first attempts at harmony in the Middle Ages,«** and he believed that it took composers several centuries to perfect that art of harmony, so that modern music really began with the sixteenth century. He called the other type of music primary music, which arose with humanity itself and consisted of melody and rhythm, and the modern type of music secondary music, which began when the clement of harmony was added. ‘This division, of ‘course, corresponds to the division between monophonic and polyphonic music. Despite this view, Saint-Saéns did discuss early music. His observa- tions on early music are closely connected with his aesthetics. He pro- claimed that »Art came into being on the day that man, instead of solely being concerned with the utility of an object he made, concerned himself with its form, and made up his mind that this form should satisfy ‘S Musical Memories, p. 74 Musical Memortes, p. 67 ® Musical Memories, pp. 14-15; but see below his views on twentieth-century 31 Musical Memories, p. 220.164 S. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 16 me, 2, 188-116 ‘a need peculiar to human nature, a mysterious need to which the name of ‘aesthetic sense’ has been given.«!? Concerning the invention of music, he wrote, »Primitive men, the higher they rose in the animal seale of evolution, doubtless modulated their savage cries and discovered. ... singing!<”" ‘These ideas are in marked ‘opposition to Saint-Saéns's contemporary D'Indy, who claimed that music had religious origins. Because there was a heated controversy concerning sacred music, it ig not surprising that Saint-Saéns expressed his views on the attempt to revive Gregorian chant.” He seemed very sceptical about returning to the use of plainchant because of the problems in correctly deciphering its notation, Moreover, he found chant overly repetitious and thought it sounded especially boring in the modern way of singing chant in a heavy manner. Believing that his own time had lost the key to this ancient art, Saint-Saéns compared chant to a dead language. Furthermore, he vehe- mently rejected any attempt to limit music performed in modern church- es to just chant or, for that matter, to any restricted repertoire. This, view reflects his interest in music of all types. One wonders whether Saint-Saéns would have been so inimical to Gregorian chant, if he had heard it performed properly. ‘The earliest music that Saint-Saéns expressed real sympathy for was that of the sixteenth century. As we have seen above, he regarded it as the perfection of form, Nevertheless, he noticed many problems with mod- ern performances of Renaissance music. He thought that the music of the sixteenth century was not a dead language, but one that was dying be- cause the traditions had been lost, each person interpreting it in his own way. Moreover, he also believed that the music of the period was not particularly religious, but only sounded that way because it came from the distant past. Saint-Saéns thought that a new era in music had begun with the in- vention of the dominant seventh chord, which most people credited to Monteverdi, but which existed already in Palestrina, He claimed that ex- pression came into existence with this chord and that it was the source of all modern harmony. However, he did not believe that the introduction of the dominant seventh destroyed the old rules, but instead added to tradition. Saint-Saéns strongly championed the music of the great composers of the past, including Charpentier, Rameau, Bach, Gluck, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, both by frequent performances of their music and by his writings. Being’a French nationalist, Saint-Saéns was among the first to recognize the significance of his countryman Rameau, considering % Outspoken Essays, v3 Outspoken Essays, p. 1x. % Most of Saint-Sadns's views on sacred music are contained in the chapter on sacred music in Boole bulssonniore.‘5. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 15 (108, 2, 159-114 165 him one of the greatest composers of the eighteenth century. He equated his importance with that of Bach, but perceptively realized that the two composers excelled in different ways: »Not the he possesses Bach's supreme elegance and wonderful fecun- dity of production, for his style is uneven and gauche, and occasional- ly disconcerting: nevertheless, the gaucherie and inaccuracy are not the work of an unskilled artist. .. His superiority is along other lines, e. g, in his genius for dramatic effect, and a profundity of knowledge which has enabled him to work out a musical system and to make surprising discoveries in the realms of harmony. He holds supreme sway in the theater just as Bach does in the church. «2 He discussed the obstacles in resurrecting Rameau’s stage works, writ- ing that the difficulties lay not with the composer, performers, or the public but with problems inherent in French music of the time. Among these obstacles was the rise in pitch that had taken place since Rameau’s day, a phenomenon that had occurred only in France. This rise in pitch made many of the roles difficult or impossible to sing, a problem that also affected the French operas of Gluck. Equally important was the lack of knowledge of the performance of ornaments, but Saint-Saéns asserted that this could be easily corrected by examining the practices of the time as contained in treatises, such as the one by Leopold Mozart. He concluded by saying that the obstacles were not insuperable, and that he expected that Rameau’s music would eventually be acclaimed by the mas- ses, While one must admire Saint-Saéns's enthusiasm for an important composer from the past, his nationalism did cause him to overestimate Rameau’s potential on modern audiences. Like many nineteenth-century composers, Saint-Saéns loved Bach. Because the complete works had just been published (1851-99), Saint-Sa- &ns could survey the entirety of Bach’s compositional gifts. Concerning this, he remarked, »We thought we had known Sebastian Bach, but now we learned how to really know him. We found in him a writer of unusual versatility and a great poet. His Wohltemperiertes Klavier had given us only a hint of all this. The beauties of this famous work needed exposition, for, in the absence of definite instructions, opinions differed. In the can- tatas the meaning of the words serves as an indication and through the analogy between the forms of expression, it is easy to see pretty clearly what the author intended in his Klavier pieces..% Saint-Saéns regarded Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven as a musical trinity comparable to the French dramatic trinity of Corneille, Racine, and Moliére. Of these three, Saint-Saéns spent more time discussing Haydn, because he believed that this composer's works had been unjustly % Outspoken Essays, pp. 80—00. % Musical Memories, pp. 149—150,166 ‘S. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, ASM 18 1809, 2, 198-14 neglected except for two or three symphonies.” In fact, Saint-Saéns was one of the first nineteenth-century composers to recognize Haydn's true significance. He attached especial Importance to the sonatas, to the ora~ torio The Seasons, and to the Last Seven Words of Christ, works that even today are not valued as highly as they should be. Concerning Haydn, he declared, »No musician was ever more prolific or showed a greater wealth of imagination. When we examine this mine of jewels, we are astonished to find at every step a gem, which we would have attributed to the invention of some modern or other.«2 Saint-Saéns’s interest in the past was reflected in his studies of cor- rect performance practices. Above all, Saint-Saéns wanted old music per- formed the way it was written without any modernizations. He condem- ned any bastardizations of music whether it was recomposing Gluck to bring it up to modern standards or adding dynamic markings that contra~ dict the inherent character of the music. Saint-Saéns realized that music in the past had been written under different conditions and for different purposes and that even the instruments themselves had changed: the early piano had a lighter touch and the harpsichord required a completely dif- ferent approach from the modern piano. Although he believed that per- formers should be permitted a certain amount of freedom to make ad- ditions, Saint-Saéns would allow no editorial changes to be made on the printed music. He cited editions by famous teachers, such as Marmontel, Le Coupley, and Czerny, who published editions containing their own directions and even criticized D'Indy for including non-authentic expres- sion marks in the examples in his Cours de composition musicale. Rather than using such editions, he preferred those like the edition of the Bach- Gesellschaft that were based on a composer's manuscripts. Views on Contemporary Music In his writings, Saint-Saéns discussed many of his contemporaries. While reading these essays, one discovers that he had catholic tastes, lik- ing something in almost all the composers he mentioned, but that he was also not afraid to criticize any aspect of a composer, even a composer he dearly loved. He is not taken in by a name, and if he thinks that a com- position is bad, he will say so, as he does with certain pieces by the great- est composers, such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin. Saint-Saéns's at- titude toward criticism appears clearly ina passage in which he was de- fending Meyerbeer: % While Mozart and Beethoven remained popular throughout the nineteenth ‘century, the number of performances of works by Haydn declined radically after the first quarter of the century. "Musical Memories, p. 110.S. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 18 (196), 2150-1 167 I could cite many works in which all composers are praised without qualification, and Meyerbeer, alone, is accused of numerous faults. However, others have faults, too, and as I have said elsewhere, but it will stand repeating, it is not the absence of defects but the presence of merits which makes works and men great. It is not always well to be without blemish. 4 too regular face or a too pure voice lacks expres- Saint-Saéns deemed Berlioz the most important French composer from the first half of the nineteenth century, an opinion we still hold today. Despite his love of his friend’s music, he frequently criticized cer~ tain aspects of Berlioz’s works. For example, in the Damnation of Faust, he liked the music but criticized the poem, while in the Requiem, he de- tected jerky passages without rhyme or reason, which he attributed to the influence of Berlioz’s teacher, Le Sueur.%” On the other hand, he de- fended Berlioz from the harsh criticism of some of Saint-Saéns’s contem- poraries, realizing that many of the things that the public didn’t like in Berlioz’s music was because it was written in a period with different val- ues and aesthetics ~The reading of the score of Berlioz's Requiem makes it appear sin- gularly old-fashion, but this is true of most romantic drama, which, Tike the Requiem, show up better in actual performance. It is easy to rail at the vehemence of the Romanticist, but it is not so easy to equal the effect of Hernani, Lucréce Borgia, and the Symphonie fantastique on the public. For with all their faults these works had a marvelous ‘effect. The truth is that the vehemence was sincere and not artifical.«"! Saint-Saéns summarized his view of Berlioz by declaring, The word genius tells the whole story, Berlioz wrote badly. He mal- treated voices and sometimes permitted himself the strangest freaks. Nevertheless, he is one of the commanding figures of musical art. His {great works remind us of the Alps with their forests, glaciers, sunlight, Waterfalls, and chasms. There are people who do not like the Alps. So much the worse for them.« One must admit that it would be difficult to find a more perceptive view of Berlioz than the above, especially considering when it was written, Unlike many of his younger contemporaries, Saint-Saéns admired the operas of Meyerbeer, as one can sce from the quote used earlier. What, he liked in Meyerbeer was exactly what Robert Schumann disliked — the blending of French, German, and Italian styles, a blend that brought a unique originality to Meyerbeer’s music. Moreover, Saint-Saéns viewed % Musical Memories, p. 220 ® This probably refers to Le Sueur's attempts to revive Greek music in his works, i Musical Memories, pp. 121132. % Musical Memories, pp. 142143.168 5, FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 15 (186), 2, 168-104 Meyerbeer as an innovator in many compositional techniques, including the use of a short distinctive prelude instead of a long, involved overture, a foretaste of the leitmotif technique, harmonic experiments, and new instrumental colors, especially his use of the English horn and the bass clarinet. As is usual with Saint-Saéns, he also discerned the defects in Meyerbeer’s music, including an indifference to prosody, a mistreatment of the voices, and an overuse of the bassoon, But concerning these faults he reiterated that it is not the defects but the positive aspects that make a composer's music distinctive. In summing up Meyerbeer, he declared that he was more of a musician than an artist, in contrast to Gluck and Berlioz who were greater as artists than musicians: As a result, he often used the most refined and learned means to achieve a very ordinary artistic result. But there is no reason that he should be brought to task for results that they [the critics] do not even remark in the works of so many others.«® It should be noted, however, that modern critics tend to agree with Schu- mann’s view of Meyerbeer, while recognizing his importance in the devel- opment of French opera. Saint-Saéns regarded Gounod as one of the most important compos- ers of his time, praising both his operas and his oratorios. In his oratorios, he observed a drawing away from old forms, a search for realism in the expression of the text in music, and a belief in simplicity of style, traits also found in the oratorios of Liszt.** In his operas, he viewed Gounod as a creator: »Only in part are Marguerite, Juliette, and Mireille the offspring of Goethe, Shakespeare, and Mistral, the musician as well as the poet gives birth to children of his own, creations less complete, it may be, though nearer to the masses and possessed of that gift of ubiquity which it is the nature of music to bestow." In all Gounod’s works, Saint-Saéns discerned a simplicity, which he be- lieved was the highest consumation of art and which is not possible for most composers. Of course, Saint-Saéns probably liked this simplicity be- cause it is a characteristic found in much of his own music. It may be surprising that Saint-Saéns liked Massenet's operas so much considering that they were not close friends and that Massenet's operas achieved a success that Saint-Saéns’s operas hadn't. Unlike many of Mas- senet's critics, Saint-Saéns did not believe that Massenet pandered to the public in order to obtain success but that he and the public had the same tastes. Although he realized that Massenet was not a revolutionary, he asserted that a composer did not have to be a revolutionary to be great. Moreover, Saint-Saéns countered the criticism that Massenet was not pro- © Musical Memories, p. 226 % Musical Memories, p. 128. 5 Outspoken Estays, D. 184,‘8. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 15 1900, 2, 151-174 169 found by saying that he did not have to be profound, that art is vast, hav- ing a place for artists of all kinds. On this subject, he declared that Mas- senet, had charm, attraction and a passionateness that was feverish rather than deep. His melody was wavering and uncertain, oftentimes more a recitative than melody properly so called and it was entirely his own. It lacks structure and style. Yet how can one resist when he hears Manon at the feet of Des Grieux in the sacristy of Saint-Sulpice, or help being stirred to the depths by such outpourings of love?. Saint-Saéns contrasted Massenet to other modern composers in that he was able »to combine modernism with respect for tradition, and he did this at a time when all he had to do was to trample tradition under foot and be proclaimed a genius.«® This blending of the modern with a respect for the past, along with Massenet's innate Frenchness, may be the reason he liked his music so much. In summing up his view of Massenet, Saint- -Saéns emphasized his originality: »Massenet had many imitators; he never imitated anyone.<® Saint-Saéns disagreed with the commonly held opinion that Franck ‘was one of the greatest composers of all time. While he admitted that he did like many of his works and remarked that he had helped get many of Franck’s compositions their first performances, Saint-Saéns wanted to see his music appreciated at its true value. He said of Franck that he was more a musician than an artist: he was not a poet. In his works wwe do not find that latent warmth, that irresistible charm which makes us forget everything and transports us into unknown and supernal realms. The sense of the picturesque is absent from them.« He pointed out the faults in Franck’s music, such as abrupt modulations and poorly constructed forms. In addition, he believed that his religious music took the wrong approach calling »to mind the austerities of the clois- ter rather than the perfumed splendors of the sanctuary." This last state- ment, of course, is not a just criticism of Franck, but shows that Saint- ~Saéns held a different view of what religious music should be. For Saint-Saéns, the operettas of Offenbach offered an element that was lacking in most contemporary music — gaiety: »Our contemporaneous composers forget that Mozart, Beethoven, and Sebastian Bach knew how to laugh at, times. They distrust all gaiety and declare it unesthetic. As the good publie cannot resign itself to getting along without gaiety, it goes to operetta and turns naturally to Offenbach who created it and furnished an inexhaustible supply.«*t % Musical Memories, p. 215. & Musteal Memories, p 2.7 & Musical Memories, p. 219. ® Outspoken Essays, p48. ® Outspoken Essays, p. 49. Musteal Memories, 9-253,170 ‘S. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 16 (ish), 2 182-106 In addition to his genius for the comic, Saint-Saéns praised Offenbach for his abundance of melody and his occasional harmonic innovations, such as the use of the dominant eleventh chord without preparation. On the other hand, he thought that Offenbach was often lacking in taste and used bad prosody, which had incorrectly been considered original. However, he declared that »Leaving aside the bad prosody and minor defects in taste, we have left a work which shows a wealth of invention, melody, and sparkling fancy comparable to Grétry’s.«‘? Saint-Saéns's favorable view of Offenbach again demonstrates his openness to most kinds of music, even genres that were regarded as less serious by his contemporaries. Saint- =Saéns also liked other composers of “light operas, including Auber and Grétry. Of his non-French contemporaries, Saint-Saéns seemed to have liked Liszt the best, even appreciating some of his well-known works, such ‘as the Missa Solemnis and the oratorio Saint Elizabeth. Again, Saint“Saéns recognized Liszt's weaknesses: »Like Haydn and Mozart, like most too prolific artists, Liset has written things that are unnecessary, the purest taste does not always govern his style. The same may be said of many great artists and poets.“ Among the reasons that Saint-Saéns wrote about Liszt was that he thought that his works were not appreciated as much as they should have been, a situation that still exists today. Clearly discerning the innovative in Liszt, Saint-Saéns was upset that most critics thought of it merely as »pianist’s music.« He stressed Liszt's importance in developing the symphonic poem, his innovations in piano technique, and his authentic performances of classical composers. Above all, he pro- bably admired Liszt, because like Massenet and Saint-Saéns himself, Liszt combined innovation with a respect for the past, Therefore, it is not sur- prising that Liszt exerted a strong influence on Saint-Saéns's music, espe- cially in his treatment of harmony and approach to form, balancing Saint- ~Saéns's neoclassical bent. Of all Saint-Saéns's contemporaries, Richard Wagner exterted the strongest influence on the musical world, even in Paris. Saint-Saéns’s opin- ion of Wagner resembled that of his younger colleague, Debussy, some- times strongly liking certain aspects of Wagner, sometimes rejecting other aspects, although not with the love-hate obsession that Debussy often evinced. In general, Saint-Saéns objected to the length and dullness con- tained in a great deal of Wagner's music. For example, he liked Brun- hilde’s awakening, but found that it was not sufficient »compensation for the long, dull passage that preceded it.« On the other hand, he liked all of Das Rheingold and at least three-quarters of Tristan, He also admired the colossal power of Gotterdimmerung and Parsifal, but had no taste for © Musical Memories, p. 255 9 Outspoken Essays, p. 80 \\ Harmonte et Melodie, p. vil.8. PRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASN 15 10), 2, 169-174 m1 the »style alambiqué« (refined style) of these operas. Moreover, he con- sidered both operas badly balanced, although he did appreciate Siegfried’s funeral and the second tableau of Parsifal. Much of what Saint-Saéns disliked in Wagner is connected with the drama. Although he considered Lohengrin a perfect drama, Saint-Saéns thought that Wagner had tumed away from what a drama should be in his, later operas, declaring that »Wagner has suppressed the drama and has replaced it with a bizarre phraseology.«* He admitted that the meaning of the so-called philosophy had escaped him completely and that he dis- agreed with Wagner's aesthetics. He also confessed that part of the prob- Jem was that he didn’t understand German drama in general, that it was inimical to his French temperament. Above all, Saint-Saéns objected to the Wagnerian cult. He believed that Wagner was a genius, but that he could not be imitated. In summing up his feelings on Wagner he said, »I admire profoundly the works of Richard Wagner, in spite of their bizarreness. They are superior and powerful and that suffices for me. But I have never been, I am not, and I will never be of a Wagnerian religion.\0 This view is very similar to the one he held of Franck, Views on »Modern Musicw Saint-Saéns's openness to most kinds of music did not extend into the twentieth century. Like Berlioz on Wagner and Liszt, Saint-Saéns was unable to understand the music of his most advanced contemporaries. He viewed music, as well as art in general, as disintegrating into a period of anarchy. Although he believed in freedom from strict rules, he also claim- ed that there were limits beyond which one could go. He was especially critical of polytonality: »We pile tonality upon tonality under the pretext that people can get accustomed to anything.«‘7 He thought that modern composers had erred in their quest for novelty and originality: Above all, let the young avoid all straining after originality. Allow your personal contribution to musie to express itself naturally. By eagerly desiring to be original, the result is likely to be a blend of folly and bizarrerie.«"* In addition, he seemed pessimistic about the future of music: »There seems to be no reason why they should linger on the way to untrammeled freedom or restrict themselves within a scale. The boundless empire of sound is at their disposal and let them profit by it. © Harmonte et Mélodie, p. x. © Harmonie et Mélodie, pp. xxx-xxx1 © Musical Memories, p. 170 © Outspoken Essoye, p. 177.172 5. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 15 (lH), 2, 150-116 ‘That is what dogs do when they bay at the moon, cats when they meow, and the birds when they sing.«! Saint-Saéns's view of twentieth-century music is, of course, contra- dictory to a great deal of what he says in other places. His desire for free- dom from strict rules, as seen in many of the preceding quotes, broke down when the freedom produced a kind of music he didn’t like. However, ‘one must forgive his intolerance of twentieth-century music by remember- ing that he was a child of the nineteenth century and that most writers throughout history have failed to understand the newest music of their times. Evaluation Saint-Saéns's critical writings, unlike those of most of his contempo- raries, display an anti-romantic orientation, favoring form over emotion, imitation over imagination, and craftmanship over sensation. Carl Dablhaus has pointed out that music in the second half of the nineteenth century was a romantic art in an unromantic age, an age that stressed positivism, realism, and the spirit of science.” Saint-Saéns’s opinions are, in many ways, closer to intellectual thought outside of music than in his own field, although many of his ideas go back to the eighteenth century. The probable reason for both these facts is that Saint-Saéns was well read in fields out- side of music, was in close contact with the great thinkers of his day, and had the mind of a scientist. Saint-Saéns’s emphasis on form instead of emotion was shared by the Viennese critic Eduard Hanslick, but they de- rived their aesthetics from different sources: Sains-Saéns, as we have seen, from French literary and philosophical thought and Hanslick from the aesthetics of J. F. Herbart. Unlike writers such as Wagner who were constantly vacilating in their opinions, Saint-Saéns’s writings evince surprisingly little change of opinion over the years. He was accused of switching his view of the music ‘of Wagner, but he defended himself by saying that it was not he but the situation that had changed. When Wagner needed support Saint-Saéns supported him; when the Wagnerian cult developed, Saint-Saéns attacked its pernicious influence on French music. Notably, in both types of essays, his general view of Wagner remained the same. The most striking aspect of Saint-Saéns's writings is that he is usual- ly capable of seeing all sides of an argument, as we observed in his discus- sion of historical versus mythological opera. His approach to critical think- ing is vividly illustrated by his comments on the debate between Pouchet and Pasteur over the theory of »spontaneous generation.« On this subject, he wrote, © Musical Memories, p. 96. Carl DAHLHAUS, »Neo-Romanticism.« 19th-Century Music 3 (1970), pp. 97105.5. FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 16 4), 2.188174 173 1 was constantly being asked ‘Are you for Pouchet or Pasteur?” and my invariable response was ‘I shall be for the one who proves he is right.’ I was unwilling to admit that any such question could be solved a priori in accordance with any preconceived ideas, although I must confess that among my friends I found no one of the same opinion. Also striking in Saint-Saéns's essays is that he usually admits his preju- dices, as he does in his writings on Wagner, a trait that is rare in a critic. Saint-Saéns's catholic tastes were somewhat unusual for his day: he esteemed many composers who were out of favor. While it is true that he did have his blind spots — music before the sixteenth cen- tury and the new music of his late life — his interests were much wider than most of his contemporaries. His discussions of other musicians reveal a discerning critic who was able to penetrate to the essence of a com- poser’s style. He saw both the good and bad in most composers, and be- lieved that a composer should be judged on his merits, not his faults. Most of his general opinions, such as making a trinity of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven or recognizing Berlioz’s true significance, are still held today, although one must regard his views on twentieth-century music as some what ridiculous, and he has rated such composers as Rameau, Meyerbeer, and Gounod too highly, probably because they were French. However, his negative opinions on Gregorian chant and other early music must be forgiven on the grounds that he probably never heard it performed prop- erly. Saint-Saéns’s scholarly writing style differs markedly from many oth- er nineteenth-century composer-critics, such as Berlioz or Schumann, who assumed a literary style in their criticism. Saint-Saéns's prose is lu cid and, for the most part, logically organized, often revealing his scientif- ie training. Although usually containing more information than the writ ings of Berlioz and Schumann, his writings lack their flair for colorful language, and are generally devoid of humor. The greatest flaw in his essays is that he frequently digresses from the main subject, discussing, for example, his opinions on twentieth-century composers and corrupt edi- tions of old music in the middle of his essay on the ideas of D'Indy. How- ever, these digressions are often very interesting and highly informative. Saint-Saéns’s writings reveal a great deal about this important com- poser and how he viewed his art. They also help us better understand his music and those of his contemporaries. Saint-Saéns's writings on music can be best summarized in his own words: »In art, as in everything, ex- ‘tremes meet, and there are all kinds of taste.«®? 8 Musical Memories, p. 8 5 Musteal Memories, p. 170.174 ‘5, FRUEHWALD, SAINT-SAENS'S VIEWS, IRASM 15 (10,2, 159-174 Satetak SAINT-SAENSOVI POGLEDI NA GLAZBU I GLAZBENIKE Saint-Saénsove pisane kritike iznose na vidjelo njegove poglede na radikalne promjene koje su se zbivale za vrijeme njegova dugog zivota | odaju njegovu spo- Sobnost shvaéanja Kompozitora od 16. do 19. stoljeéa. Njegovi su napisi posebna zna- ajni jer ne samo da Je Saint-Saéns blo jedan od najvaznijih francuskih kompozitora 10, stoljeéa nego je bio i jedan od najuéenijih Yjudi svojega doba ofitavajuél zanima- nje za znanost, knjizevnost i filozofiju, Njegove pisane kritike obuhvaéaju firok krug Dredmeta ukijuéujuél estetiku, organologiju, muzikologiju, mitijenja o viastitim su- ‘vremenicima, komentare o viastito} glazbl, pa €ak | filozofiju i znanost. Ovaj Slanak Davi se onim napisima koji se tiéu glazbe, u njemu se pokufava smjestiti njegove ideje u Kontekst misli 19. stoljeéa 1 pokazati kako se njegove ideje ogledavaju u nje- ove} Vlastito} glazbl