Cross-disciplinary borrowing occurred in
music theory during the 17th and 18th centuries but
particularly in the 17th century. This is not surprising considering
the emphasis on trends in the arts discussed by many not only theorists of the
time but also prominent scholars in other disciplines. One such group that
discussed trends in the arts on a regular basis was the Florentine Camerata. During
the 17th century, “the arts had difficulty in not aspiring to the
condition of music.”[1] In
many people’s opinions, “Neo-classical art theory, the last flowering of
Renaissance humanism, was bound to be destroyed. It could only flourish when
reason was admitted as the final source and test of human works.”[2]
The groundwork of Neo-classical art was an assumed identity of truth and
beauty, all verifiable by the instruments of reason: “articulate language and
mathematics.”[3]
Cross-disciplinary borrowing during this period repaired many issues in the
arts.
One example of this is found in the
doctrine of the affections. This theory of musical aesthetics was widely accepted by late Baroque theorists and composers that embraced
the proposition that music is capable of arousing a variety of specific
emotions within the listener. At the center of the doctrine was the belief
that, by making use of the proper standard musical procedure or device, the
composer could create a piece of music capable of producing a particular
involuntary emotional response in his audience. According
to one version of the theory there are three pairs of opposing emotions that
make six affects: love/hate, joy/sorrow, wonder/desire. Other authorities also
mention sadness, anger, and jealousy. The belief in the doctrine of the
affections permeated music theory during the 17th century, which
reveals theorists going beyond the discipline of music and literally aiming
toward a particular affect.
Even theorists such as
Joachim Burmeister reveal cross-disciplinary borrowing in their writings. Burmeister
focuses heavily on poetics and text, again moving beyond the sole discipline of
music to another area such as poetry. In his writing, Musical Poetics, he focuses specifically on “the alignment of the text”[4]
among other elements.
These
cross-disciplinary borrowings indeed present new ways of looking at and
thinking about music. Changes in how one considers music was a reflection of
changes in the arts in general. Groups such as the Florentine Camerata aided in
bringing about this change. The shift from mode to keys became very apparent as
well as a subtle focus on monody. Theorist, Joel Lester, speaks much of the
shift between modes and keys, particularly related to German theory in the 17th
– 18th centuries. “Johann Lippius, in several works published at the
end of the first decade of the 17th century, for the first time
presented a unified harmonic conception of music, in which the triad was the
basis of counterpoint as well as of the modes.”[5]
This shift from modes to keys was one of many, which represented a change in
thinking brought about by borrowing among disciplines.
These
cross-disciplinary borrowings indeed stem from the desire of music theorists to
give music a firm conceptual basis. Music theory became an area of study in its
own right rather than simply a subcategory of mathematics. Although this shift
began prior to the 17th century, it was during this time that this
shift was codified. With the collation of this shift, cross-disciplinary
borrowing became not only possibly but also more apparent and available.
[1] Dean T. Mace, “Marin Mersenne on
Language and Music,” Journal of Music
Theory, Vol. 14, No. 1: 2.
[2] Ibid., 3-4.
[3] Ibid., 4.
[4] Joachim Burmeister, trans.
Benito V. Rivera, Musical Poetics
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press), 153.
[5] Joel Lester, Between Modes and Keys: German Theory
1592-1802 (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press), 21.
