As to daily news, there is no dearth of that commodity.  This
passenger is reported to have lost fourteen pounds at Vingt-et-un
in the saloon yesterday; and that passenger drinks his bottle of
champagne every day, and how he does it (being only a clerk),
nobody knows.  The head engineer has distinctly said that there
never was such times – meaning weather – and four good hands are
ill, and have given in, dead beat.  Several berths are full of
water, and all the cabins are leaky.  The ship’s cook, secretly
swigging damaged whiskey, has been found drunk; and has been played
upon by the fire-engine until quite sober.  All the stewards have
fallen down-stairs at various dinner-times, and go about with
plasters in various places.  The baker is ill, and so is the
pastry-cook.  A new man, horribly indisposed, has been required to
fill the place of the latter officer; and has been propped and
jammed up with empty casks in a little house upon deck, and
commanded to roll out pie-crust, which he protests (being highly
bilious) it is death to him to look at.  News!  A dozen murders on
shore would lack the interest of these slight incidents at sea.

Dickens, making a rough passage to America in 1842. The propped-up pastry cook I’m sure was so, almost as if they were expecting the writer whose books are full of such stretchers. I’m enjoying American Notes partly for these bits, for the sudden flash of that wild imagination.

But mostly, Dickens here is the journalist and Victorian ‘improver’, and too well informed about how much at home needed improving to patronise the New World.  In Boston, he diligently tours prisons, asylums and orphanages. In an institution for the blind he comes across Laura Bridgman, blind, deaf and dumb, who was taught to read and write by the extraordinary Dr Robert Howe.  She was, says Wikipedia,’ the first deaf-blind American child to gain a significant education in the English language’. Dickens gives us Howe’s own touching description of their work.

It’s not all blue-book, however. When he goes to hear a famous preacher address a congregation of sailors the novelist wakes up and begins to take notes.

‘Who are these – who are they – who are these fellows? where do
they come from?  Where are they going to? – Come from!  What’s the
answer?’ – leaning out of the pulpit, and pointing downward with
his right hand:  ‘From below!’ – starting back again, and looking
at the sailors before him:  ‘From below, my brethren.  From under
the hatches of sin, battened down above you by the evil one.
That’s where you came from!’ – a walk up and down the pulpit:  ‘and
where are you going’ – stopping abruptly:  ‘where are you going?
Aloft!’ – very softly, and pointing upward:  ‘Aloft!’ – louder:
‘aloft!’ – louder still:  ‘That’s where you are going – with a fair
wind, – all taut and trim, steering direct for Heaven in its glory,
where there are no storms or foul weather, and where the wicked
cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest.’

Did he take notes? Perhaps the years of Hansard reporting refined an already wonderful memory. Writing does that.

The book is not short of time’s ironies:

In all the public establishments of America, the utmost courtesy
prevails.  Most of our Departments are susceptible of considerable
improvement in this respect, but the Custom-house above all others
would do well to take example from the United States.

So far I’m enjoying this a lot more than the last book-length account I read by a visitor to the US. This was Bernard-Henri Lévy’s American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville. I read it as it came out in The Atlantic with disbelief (that someone had paid big money for this crap) and envy (of the expense account). It was fatal to the book even to think about Toqueville, let alone to re-open Democracy in America. Garrison Keillor’s review in the NYT seemed to me dead-on, substance as well as tone – the patroniser patronised into the ground. But intellectuals in America lined up to piss on Keillor. Their burden was that the NYT had given this Important Book to a middlebrow writer.  The newly-Americanised Christopher Hitchens called him ‘a vulgar jerk’.  OK. My book on America will be called The US: 400 Years of the Cultural Cringe.

 

Moving of the earth brings fears and harms
Men reckon what it did and meant

They did in Donne’s time and in Voltaire’s and in Kleist’s (The Earthquake in Chile). Candide is a response to the Lisbon earthquake of 1755. Such events used to challenge people to make sense of them.

Am I right to think that apart from moral brutes  (“God’s judgment!”)  we don’t?   We do what we can, of course: Chile had better building codes than Haiti, and more money to build, and these things saved lives.

We have an answer to Why? (platelets) but no control and scant capacity to predict. Perhaps we now accept something like the ancient belief in blind fortune.

 

Grandeur and a bunch of associated qualities (magnanimity, for example) are tricky to deal with nowadays. The Grand Canyon is probably OK, Mount Everest, that sort of thing. But artefacts of human grandeur such as Louis XIV’s Versailles are, rather insistently, reminders of human misery. We can enjoy then as Architecture only by a forced abstraction.

The grand music of Louis XIV’s time -that deliberate, sustained trumpet-and-drum stuff -  fares better because of the much weaker link between music and empirical meanings. Only flint-eyed materialists find nothing but court propaganda in Lully; for most people, the stately processions and rituals invoked by the music might as well take place in Ruritania.
But of course to listen to a Te Deum on the radio while doing the gardening is something less than the experience of those who crowded the church to welcome home Louis from one of his homicidal trips abroad.

Is there such a thing as authentic, guilt-free grandeur in music? I hope so. I’m not contemplating  a Hymn to Social Inclusiveness, or an Ode to the Health Care Reform Bill.

Here’s the last minute or so of Carl Nielsen’s Symphony #4. Out of context, it just sounds like lots and lots of E major, too much maybe.

NielsenIViv

In context, that’s grand, I reckon.

Formally, Nielsen’s symphony can be summed up as the process of getting from D minor to E major the hard way. Here’s how it begins.

NielsenIVi

Throughout the work, the music arouses those feeling-states of stress, confusion, agitation and states of calm, assurance and clarity. (And lots of other less determinate states of feeling, but let’s keep it manageable.) It places these passages in a a drama of overcoming. E major is worked towards, fallen away from, briefly established, more firmly established and finally speaks unequivocally to close the symphony. A completely abstract and arbitrary structure of key centres becomes a physical, emotional and intellectual experience.

Whereas the music of Lully’s time was designed to impress the listener with the might and dignity of the king and his court (by extension, the glory of France) this symphonic grandeur invites every listener to go on the journey, work through the struggle and to exult in the feeling of achievement. In that sense, it is a document of democracy. Behind Nielsen of course stands Beethoven. The “Inextinguishable” bears a family resemblance to Beethoven’s Fifth, Brahms’s First and all the other 19th century works that progress from stormy minor-key first movements to triumphant endings. But I seem to find a particular satisfaction in the works written late in the symphonic tradition, In Mahler, Sibelius, Nielsen, Magnard – even Elgar.

 

Social history would be enriched by the experience of music. How did it feel at the time? Music provides, if not a way of knowing how it felt, at least some clues.

In November 1945 at the close of that terrible war, Prokofiev’s Cinderella premiered at the Bolshoi. During the war there had been some easing in the regimentation of art, but in this score Prokofiev stuck with the neo-classicism that had got him through thus far. At the end of Act 1, the ball scene, there is a waltz for the prince and Cinderella. For the Russian audience, the key references for a romantic waltz in a ballet would be Tchaikovsky – the Waltz of the Flowers, the waltz from Sleeping Beauty.


.

Good stuff. But as the YouTube comments show, a long way from lush.

By 1945 the joint efforts of Prokofiev and Shostakovitch had established ‘wrong-note classicism’ as a Soviet establishment style. But in a piece like this, I’d argue, the style reverts to its 1920s origins and once again becomes satirical. In the context of the ballet as a whole there’s a further layer: Cinderella’s music when alone and dreaming is far more gratifying. But now here she is in the arms of power and the milk has curdled. Sneaky.

And yet . . . Perhaps these sour memories were as much romance as people could take.

Theme Tweaker by Unreal