« Connected by the ties of blood »: Musical Scales in the Quest for the Russian/Asian Identity

Par Adalyat Issiyeva
Publication en ligne le 03 juillet 2013

Table des matières

Article au format PDF

« Connected by the ties of blood »: Musical Scales in the Quest for the Russian/Asian Identity (version PDF) (application/pdf – 1,5M)

Introduction

1After a humiliating defeat in the Crimean War (1853-56) the tsarist government temporarily withheld its activity in the Balkans and the Middle East and decided to strengthen its presence in Central Asia1. In the late 1860s and early 1870s the Bukharean, Kokanese, and Khiva khanates, Russia’s southern neighbours, became coveted objects of imperial attention and by the end of the 1870s most of this Central Asian territory was under a different type of Russian control. Out of the three large Central Asian khanates, one (Kokand) had been entirely absorbed and the other two (Bukhara and Khiva) survived as truncated Russian protectorates. Only a few of the Turkmen tribes, living on the northern borders of Iran, and free from incursions by centralized powers, remained immune to Russian influence, but for less than a decade. Irritated by British economic-political interests growing beyond the northern borders of Iran, and troubled by the weakened position of Russia in the Turkmen steppes, occasioned by the Russo-Turkish War (1877-8), the Russians first crushed the nomads of the desert north of Persia and then annexed the entire Merv oasis (1884)2.

2Conquering the land entailed another, probably much more important and decisive task – that of conquering the hearts and minds of the subjugated peoples3.Both Russian and Soviet, as well as Western scholars, have pointed out that the pattern of Russia’s colonial policy was different from that of Western Europe. Nineteenth-century Russian scholarly discourse on inorodtsy often reveals a humane, even generous, attitude towards indigenous peoples,urging them to improve their daily living conditions4. Few distinctions were made between natives and Russians in everyday life: many poor Russian peasants worked for rich native landowners. In Russia, such power relationships were not considered to undermine colonial politics5. This particular situationarose due to a set of special instructions issued by the 1865 Steppe Commission, which recognized the Turkestan native peoples as « rural dwellers » of the empire, thereby granting them equality with the emancipated Russian rural population6. With the establishment of the colony, certain rights of the Turkestan peoples were preserved: freedom of religious observance, customary and written practices in all marriages, properties and family affairs, freedom from physical punishment, and freedom from conscription7.

3The favourable policies towards the Asian local population were a result of Russia’s century-long history of interaction with oriental « others » living either in geographical proximity with Russians or within Russian borders. Unlike European colonies, Russia’s others did not live across vast oceans; they rather shared a common land and history with the Russians, which resulted in the incorporation of a number of Asian linguistic and cultural features into Russian identity. Many members of the non-Russian elite were readily absorbed into Russian nobility8. As a consequence, Russia’s colonization of its immediate neighbours did not cause a clear-cut mental/geographical/cultural separation between the imperialistic West and the subjugated East9. For this reason, in the eyes of the WesternEuropean community, even at the end of the nineteenth century, Russia was still viewedas « Asiatic ». In The Heart of Asia published in 1899, two prominent English orientalists, Francis Skrine and Edward Ross, expressed a common European view of Russians as people internally connected to Asians with « ties of blood ». Skrine and Ross believed that Russia’s success in its « civilizing mission » in the East was facilitated by the Russian system’s distinct contrast with the English judicial and executive system of administration and by « latent and unconscious sympathy » between the conquerors and conquered10. Russians were able to rebuild and control the region because this mutual sympathy « rendered the task of government easy and assured its stability11 ». Interestingly enough, at the end of their book Skrine and Ross underline a few features that they believed were fundamental to the Russian nation. These include a strong « Oriental strain », low standards of comfort, and social etiquette with a « tinge of barbarism12 ». Similarly, authors writing from the perspective of Russian Eurasianist ideology positioned Asian « Turanian » (that is nomadic, and, hence, « barbarian ») roots as vital in the formation of the Russian nation13.

4The writings of the Western scholars as well as Russian Eurasianists raise many questions. To begin, how did some Russians come to embrace the Asian identity so passionately at the beginning of the twentieth century? Next, what historical/cultural/musical elements did Russian writers choose to represent their national identity? Furthermore, was the scholarly study of subject peoples different in Russia than in other imperialistic nations? As Jann Pasler has pointed out, late-nineteenth-century French discourse on exotic scales and instruments seemed to be connected to the colonial discourse of evolution, racial difference, and European superiority14. How did Russian music writers negotiate the elements of their not-quite-European and, as some argued, not-quite-Asian identity? Did Russian music writers talk about racial difference/similarity in the music of Russian and newly conquered/acquired Asian people?

5In this paper, I will follow up Russian discussions about the provenance of Russian music and consider theoretical treatises that claim a link between Russian and Asian or Aryan cultures on the basis of the analysis of musical scales15. In my analysis of Russian late-nineteenth-century works on the provenance of Russian folk music I develop Pasler’s argument and suggest that the myth of Russian musical identity closely affiliated with the Asian or Aryan not only helped to defend Russia’s place in Europe and feed its national pride. « Finding » Russian Asian or Aryan cultural heritage served to the Empire’s expansionist ends in Central Asia at the end of the nineteenth century and validated the colonial actions in the Far East at the beginning of the twentieth century.

1. Asianism and Russian identity

6To understand why and how Russian musicians created and promoted myths about Russian-Asian cultural connections, it is important to address theideology of two interrelated intellectual currents that shaped late-nineteenth-century Russian self-identity and musical literature. The first is Aryanism and the second is the « Easterners » or « Asianists » movement (called Vostochniki). According to Marlene Laruelle, in the Russian context, Aryanism arose in the mid-nineteenth century as a reaction by Russian intellectuals against German and French ideas about Russia’s affiliation with the « Turanian » (nomadic) world. Nineteenth-century Russian thinkers used the connection to Scythians, Russia’s eastern neighbours who originated from Central Asia, to prove Russia’s Aryan historical and cultural legacy. Paradoxically, the proximity of Asia inspired the Russians to imagine they were more European than the West itself. Unlike German and French writers, who defined Aryanism as racial category, Russians considered Aryanism in the cultural-linguistic terms. As Marlene Laruelle argues, Russians did not develop racial or anti-Semitic ideas of western-European Aryanism and never denied the essential equality of man16. Although, as Nathaniel Knight points out, Russian Aryanism « was not a political or intellectual movement in any conventional sense », and none of the Russian music theorists identified themselves as Aryanists, the idea of Russia’s musical affiliation with Aryan race was seriously considered and for few decades dominated theoretical discussions about the scale structure17.

7The followers of Asianism also claimed Russia’s Aryan legacy, but they possessed a more Asiatic vision of Russian identity18. Although the idea about Asian identity had been pronounced in Russian literature earlier in the century, the Asianist current appeared after the 1878 Congress of Berlin, which humiliated Russia by disavowing its victory over the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War. Many disappointed Russians (including the followers of the Slavophile movement) turned their heads towards the East and declared that the future of Russia lay in Asia. Some Asianists argued that Russia had to expand into the cradle of the Aryan race in the steppes and mountains of Asia to liberate the remnant Aryan tribes from « Turanians » – « the barbaric and eternally decadent » Asian Islamic and Turkic peoples19. Furthermore, Russia imagined it had a moral obligation to freethe Aryan Buddhist peoples living in Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, and Tibet from Western and Chinese oppression20. Russians’ conviction of ethnic and cultural proximity with Aryans strengthened the belief in Russia’s legitimate advance in the East, interpreted, as Laruelle puts it, « as the simple reunifying of different peoples destined to live under the same banner21 ». As one of the leading Asianists, Prince Esper Ukhtomskii wrote: « We are only tightening the bonds between us and that which in reality was always ours22 ». Russian liberation discourse about this originally Aryan land was interwoven with a messianic discourse about the « White Tsar » whose arrival was supposedly awaited by several million men in Asia23. Thus, both the Aryan and Asianist currents, besides nurturing Russian nationalistic sentiments and fantasies of a direct relationship with the East, provided ideological justification for Russia’s imperial advances in Central Asia and the Far East.

2. Myth of Russia’s connection to the Aryan world

8Russianmusic-theoretical treatises were deeply influenced by the ideological orientations of Aryanism and Asianism. Although not overtly political, they reinforced the myth of Russia’s connection to the Aryan world and indeed held significant political implications. One of the earliest pronouncements of Russia’s indebtedness to its Aryan roots was made in 1795 by Matthieu Guthrie. In the preface of his Dissertations sur les antiquités de Russie, Guthrie refers to William Jones’ « discovery » that the common root of all European languages and cultures (including the Greek) was Indo-European: « le berceau de toutes les nations européennes » was the Iranian empire24. In spite of Guthrie’s claims with respect to the Russian debt to Iranian culture, as mediated via the Greeks, he does not make any effort to prove or provide documentary attestation for his statements25. Instead, Guthrie exhaustively compares Russian and Greek mythologies, analyzing their respective rites, ceremonies, games, weddings, meals, traditional dances, cultural artefacts, and musical instruments.

9Throughout the nineteenth century, many Russian writers developed the idea of Russian affiliation to the Aryan race26. Rudolph Westphal’s article « O russkoi narodnoi pesne » was one of the influential writings that asserted Russia’s Aryan inheritance on the basis of the analysis of Russian folksong27 ». The author claimed that Russians preserved the ancient Aryan cultural foundations with « such integrity and authenticity » that « in the eyes of science » they have to be respected most among all the contemporary Aryan nations28. To prove his statement Westphal turns his attention to linguistics, customs and folksongs and claims that the Russian system of conjugation, and its forms of family and social life (the lack of private land or property), as well as the lyrics associated with wedding ceremonies and funerals, whether directly or indirectly mediated (through the Greeks), derive from Aryan roots. The urge to place Russians into the Aryan narrative was so strong that Westphal did not notice some obvious flaws in his argument. As Marina Frolova-Walker points out, Westphal used the same methods and evidence to prove Russian culture’s simultaneous Hellenic and Persian provenance29.

10Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the idea that Russian culture has an Asian or Aryan provenance appealed to many Russians of different social milieu. Doctor Vasilii Florinskii, Prince Ukhtomskii, historians Vasilii Kliuchevskii and Sergei Platonov, the essayists and writers Nikolai Danilevskii, Fiodor Dostoevsky and many other representatives of the Russian intellectual elite were attracted to Aryanism or Asianism. Many late nineteenth-century Russian scholars, such as Andrei Snesarev, Mikhail Veniukov, and Piotr Semionov-Tian’shanskii, believed the European attitude towards the East to be more racist because Europeans avoided intermingling with the natives (e.g. British colonizers in India). Russians, on the other hand, freely mingled with Asians30. Such an attitude towards race relations might explain why some Russian fin-de-siècle sources on Russian and Asian cultures assumed the equality or sometimes even superiority of Asian culture31.

3. Petr Petrovich Sokal’skii and Russian folk music

11Petr Petrovich Sokal’skii was one of the first to claim and attempt to prove that Russian folk music was an « independent stem grown from a common root : this is the Asian cradle of humanity, whose other stem led to Southern Europe (Greece and Rome)32 ». Sokal’skii’s work tracing the affinities between Russian and Asian folk music was first published in an article in Muzykal’noe obozrenie in 1886, and then as a monograph one year after his death33. The idea that certain Russian and Asian/oriental tunes were similar was pronounced well before the fin de siècle in a few Russian sources. For instance, Alexander Christianowitsch in his Esquisse Historique de la musique arabe noted similarities between an Arabic tune from Nouba Grib and a Russian folksong known in the nineteenth-century as « Slava » and used in Russian opera to represent Russian tsardom34. Also, Alexander Rittikh, in his study of the people of the Kazan’ region, traced the « astounding similarities » between Russian and Tatar folksongs35. However, Sokal’skii was the first to construct a theoretical concept to prove this statement.

12Without going into a detailed account of Sokal’skii’s speculations on how music had developed in ancient times, I will outline the passages in which he discusses when and how Russian folk music became a subject of Asian influence. According to Sokal’skii’s theory, the Asian influence occurred in two stages. In the first stage, the ancient « Chinese » or pentatonic scale (c-d-f-g-a) was transmitted to Europe via the migration of various peoples from Asia36. This scale, according to Sokal’skii, should not be considered the legacy of a « yellow race, » as Alexander Serov had earlier maintained, since it could also be found in old Russian songs, either in its entire form or at least in part37. To support his statement Sokal’skii provided a number of examples supposedly with a pentatonic structure, which he found in Russian folk song collections38.His theory would have worked if he had been consistent in his analytical approach. However, he completely disregarded passing tones, claiming these « inessential notes » that break the pentatonic structure could have been the result of the « incorrect notation of a tune39 ». One striking example from Balakirev’s collection (N. 31) is a case in point (see Example 1). According to Sokal’skii, the song’s scale (c-d-f-g-a, with c as a tonic) lacks the third and the seventh (e and b), although the seventhis still « touched » but « only slightly, as a passing note, without which the melody can do [oboitis’]40 ».

Example 1

13The second stage of Asian influence on Russian folk music, according to Sokal’skii, occurred during the time of the Crusades, when European music still relied on the Church mode system and showed little inclination towards leading tones, whereas the music of eastern peoples regularly included chromaticism and leading notes as part of a melody’s ornamentation41. Expanding on Helmholtz’s argument that Eastern music influenced European music at the time of the Crusades, Sokal’skii claimed that ornamentation in Russian (or Little Russian) songs, especially those involving a leading note, invariably had eastern origins : unlike the European leading note (resolved in the first scale degree), the Russian (Little Russian) leading note has « Asian » characteristics (notably, it is used for expressionand therefore resolves to notes other than the first scale degree). These musical traits, Sokal’skii believed, came to the Russians from their oriental (mostly Persian) neighbours, who also brought a number of musical instruments and performance practices with them42. The South Russian bandura, a plucked string instrument, for example, derived from the Persian-Arabic tanbur. The Arabic ‘rebab’ came to Europe in the twelfth century under the name of ‘rebec’ and was the ancestor to our violin43 ». Russian « gusli » were also developed, « if not from the Jewish ‘komval’, then from the ancient Persian ‘kanun’ with 75 catguts44 ».

14Sokal’skii’s readiness to embrace an Oriental, rather than Western, musical identity is truly striking: near the end of his book on Russian folk music he suggests the presence of Arabic-Persian modes in Little Russian folksongs. Because Little Russian tunes did not fit into any Greek or European modal system, Sokal’skii claimed they were based on the Persian-Arabic mode of Zirafkand45. Examples 99, 100, 122, 123, and 124 cited from Rubets’ and Iosif Artemovskii-Gulag’s collections, according to Sokal’skii, are all based on the scale c-d-e^b-f-g-a^b-a-b-c (or its transposed version) and use the leading note (b) as a means of expression since it is not resolved into the first degree and exists alongside its natural version (b^b)46. Just like in the Persian-Arabic scale Zirafkand, claims Sokal’skii, here two modes (major and minor) are mixed, as if there is a major third in the upper tetrachord (g-b), while the lower tetrachord consists of a minor third (c-e^b) (see Example 2)47.

Example 2

15In the following example, Sokal’skii cites a Little Russian tune from Lisenko’s collection with two augmented seconds (e-f-g#-a-b-c-d#-e with a as a tonic) known in the West as the gypsy scale. Even though he does not identify the song’s scale as the Arabic mode of Nawá Athar (or Hijāz Kār’, if e is a tonic), he characterizes the tune as being ornamented with « oriental chromaticism48 ».

Example 3

16Thus, Sokal’skii claims that the chromatization of diatonic notes in south-Russian music is used for the « intensification of a tune’s expression », revealing a number of characteristics intrinsic to the music of the « Asian orient » : « special tension », « clarification of a minor mode by introducing a major third to the dominant », « softening the entry into the tonic with a leading note », and the « intensification of lyrical feeling » with the use of two leading notes (to the tonic and the dominant), resulting in a scale with two augmented seconds49. Near the end of his book Sokal’skii came to a conclusion that was echoed in a number of other theoretical treatises published at the end of the nineteenth century:

« South-Russian melodies are very close in their melodic profile [sklad] and share intervals with Serbian, Bulgarian, and Moravian melodies. In general, they show an affinity to the melodies of South-Slavic peoples, suggesting their common provenance with Persian Aryan roots […] going back to ancient times when individual differences between Aryan tribes, to which both the Persians and Slavs belong, were not so apparent50. »

17In sum, Sokal’skii suggests south-Russian music is more « Asianized » than « Europeanized » since it is « tinged, chromaticized [okrasilas’, okhramatizirovalas’], something that did not happen with Western-European music from introducing the system of the leading note51 ». The influence of Asian culture, Sokal’skii believed, did not end with music and musical instruments, but extended to the objects of everyday life: ornaments sewn on clothes, headwear, hairstyles, oriental robes, and kaftans52.

4. Famintsyn and Russian melody

18Three years after the publication of Sokal’skii’s article, in 1889, Alexander Famintsyn published his famous book Drevniaia Indo-Kitaiskaia gamma v Azii i Evrope [Ancient Hindu-Chinese Scales in Asia and Europe]53. Following Sokal’skii, Famintsyn claimed the pentatonic scale was « the most ancient formation of the general Aryan musical system » and, as such, it was common to the Mongolian as well as the Aryan peoples. After analyzing 137 folk melodies from all the continents identified in his German, French, and Eastern European sources, Famintsyn concluded that the pentatonic scale originated in Central Asia during « prehistoric » times, and was preserved from the influence of Roman Catholic civilization only in the remote regions of Northwest Europe, Asia, and Russia54.

19In order to establish the ancientness of Russian culture and trace its affinities to Aryan culture, Famintsyn strives to find a pentatonic structure in every Russian melody. He « discovers » ninety tunes based on the five-tone major scale in the Pal’chikov collection of Russian melodies, which consists of 124 transcriptions55. However, Famintsyn’s analysis is inconsistent. Like Sokal’skii, he often deliberately ignores passing or neighbouring tones and argues songs lacking a pentatonic structure are the result of a corrupted or incorrectly transcribed melody56. Consider, for instance, Example 4 – a Russian song « Eko serdtse » from Pal’chikov’s collection. Famintsyn cites two different variants of this song (variant 1 is on the upper staff and variant 2 is on the lower staff). The author indicates notes that do not belong to a sol-la-si-re-mi scale with an « X ». The « O » designates all of the places where the f#, which does not belong to the pentatonic collection, is avoided57.

Example 4

20It is difficult to understand why Famintsyn insists on the pentatonic structure of variant two of the song. In his example, the notes that do not belong to the pentatonic scale take up approximately 10% of the tune. Just as in any diatonic tune, the notes that do not belong to a tonic triad are repeated less often. A few pages later, Famintsyn explains how to grasp the pentatonic character of a melody that does not seem pentatonic at first glance. He writes one should « discard from a melody any notes that do not belong to this [pentatonic] scale », and, if the melody still « maintains its essential character, then the existence of the [pentatonic] scale, hidden at first glance, becomes evident58 ». Thus, Famintsyn’s theory reveals his preconceived notion about the scale structure of the Russian folksong. For Famintsyn, all methods of analysis (including the cutting of « useless » notes) are appropriate so far as they confirm his theory.

21In order to « prove » the original pentatonic structure of a tune, Famintsyn sometimes compares two variants of the same song from different collections and argues that the version that follows the pentatonic structure is the original one. For instance, Famintsyn considers two versions of the song « Malen’kii mal’chishechka, » one from Pal’chikov’s collection and another from Abramychev’s. He claims that the folksongs collected by Pal’chikov in Ufa province, in Nikolaevskii village, which is situated far from the main musical centres, preserved the ancient scale in all of its « integrity ». Abramychev transcribed another variant of the same tune from Viatka province, which Famintsyn considers derivative and corrupted since it diverges from the pentatonic structure. Thus, Famintsyn suggests that a pentatonic structure can « serve as a criterion for the identification of a greater or lesser antiquity or for the purity of a tune59 ».

22Needless to say, Famintsyn’s methodology shapes his view of the lineage of Russian song and allows him to find a great number of « pentatonic » examples in other collections of Russian folksongs. For instance, in analyzing Rimsky-Korsakov’s collection of Russian songs, first published in 1877, the theorist suggests a number of corrections that, according to his system, would « recover the flow of a tune » and create « greater smoothness and uniformity ». Songs nos. 71, 88, 92, 97, and 99 from Rimsky-Korsakov’s collection would « gain in swing of melody » [v razmakhe melodii], if someone would introduce a « total order » [polnyi poriadok] in their structure60, while other songs (nos. 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94, 97, and 99) would gain « quite an archaic character » [vpolne arkhaicheskii kharakter]61. It is difficult to imagine how Famintsyn would « correct » tunes in Rimsky-Korsakov’s collection, since the author does not cite a single example from it. How, for instance, would Famintsyn correct tune no. 77 (see example 5 below), in which all notes, except for the 1^st and 5^th scale degrees, appear an equal number of times ? Or how would he bring « total order » to tune no. 76 (see example 6 below), if it sounds perfectly diatonic62 ?

Example 5

Example 6

23It is remarkable that in his discussion of the musical examples derived from Russian Asians, Famintsyn does not use any negative or pejorative adjectives. This contrasts with his approach to the music of northern aboriginal peoples, or indigenous Australians, in which he often resorts to adjectives such as « wild » and « semi-cultural », and describes their music as « monotonous », « feeble », and « most elementary63 ». This probably reflects the Russians’ positive attitude towards the Kyrgyz people, who, by the end of the nineteenth-century, had been civilized (hence, were not savage). The Kyrgyz people received an education in Russia (hence, they could not be deemed backward)64. Furthermore, because the Kyrgyz and other nomadic Central Asian peoples had been a part of the Russian empire for a long time, calling them « savage » or « uncivilized » would imply that Russia’s « civilizing » mission failed. Thus, Famintsyn, like Russians in general, embraced Asian culture as an integral part of Russia’s identity as a whole.

24Although both Sokal’skii and Famintsyn attempt to prove the same point – that Asian music had an influence on Russian music – their works differ in several key respects. First, Famintsyn disagrees with Sokal’skii’s belief that the leading note came from its southern and eastern Russian neighbours, claiming rather that it was introduced to Russian melody via the European music tradition65. Second, Famintsyn rejects Sokal’skii’s hypothesis regarding the development of music in phases, and proposes yet another theory of musical scale development, also in three stages: 1) « the most ancient stratum » of the general-Aryan musical five-tone system; 2) the newer stratum of the seven-tone system derived from Gregorian chant; and 3) the newest stratum of major-minor music. Third, unlike Sokal’skii, who prefers to stay away from comparative musicology and does not refer to any specific sources of Asian music, Famintsyn appeals to all the sources of musical material that were commonly available during his time, indiscriminately gathering resources from all over the world and presenting cultures from geographically remote areas. For example, just 15 pages into Chapter 5, describing the «5-tone scale in [the music of the] Mongols, » Famintsyn manages to discuss the modal structure of music in China, Japan, Malay, Siberia, the Urals, the Caspian Sea, and even Papua New Guinea66. Throughout the book, alongside examples culled from Central Asian music, Famintsyn also provides « pentatonic » examples from South Asian, Irish, Scottish, Finnish, Moravian, Slovakian, Swiss, Mongol, Chinese, Japanese, Malayan, Greek, Polish, Lithuanian, Breton, Serbian, and Czech traditions (albeit listed in Famintsyn’s chosen order)67. At this point, he painstakingly telescopes the enormous complexity of the Asian and non-Asian music traditions into a formal discussion on the modal structure of certain tunes, which confirms, in Famintsyn’s eyes, his reductive and tendentious theory. Famintsyn’s attitude toward the sources he used to produce his text, considered the only authoritative sources for his entire knowledge of Asian culture, facilitated his perception of Asians as members of a single race rather than as a collection of different nations. Furthermore, his musical examples are linked to each other, ostensibly through scientifically proven axioms (and yet invariably aimed to fit the evidence to the desired conclusion). Likewise, his speculations about this extraordinary body of music, which he had never actually experienced aurally, firmly places Famintsyn’s Hindu-Chinese book within the category of fiction.

25Nonetheless, because of Famintsyn’s equally reductionist treatment of Asian, Russian, or indeed, any other European musical examples, it would be unfair to blame him for promoting an Orientalist attitude. His approach to music as an abstract subject is consistent with his chosen preference for diagrammatic analysis, and as such, was intended to work for all peoples and nations. Thus he cannot be accused of creating undue stereotypes about Asian cultures in particular. In fact, Famintsyn’s writing and his approach to music analysis resembles that of early German comparative musicology, one of four subdivisions of systematic musicology, according to Guido Adler’s 1885 definition of music science68. In his book, Famintsyn adopts the methods of comparative musicology, articulated in Adler’s celebrated article of 1885 – « comparing of tonal products, in particular the folksongs of various peoples, countries and territories, with an ethnographic purpose in mind, grouping and ordering these according to the variety of [differences] in their characteristics69 ». Famintsyn’s work also shares two key concerns of comparative musicology: « first, a concern with the origins of musical features »; and second, a belief that such « origins may be revealed through the study of tones, scales and intervals70 ». Similar to early studies in comparative musicology, Famintsyn’s research appears to be an « armchair » study of the second-hand material collected and published primarily by amateur ethnographers, and then analyzed under « laboratory-type conditions71 ».

26Another important element of comparative musicology infiltrates Hindu-Chinese Scale. It is a hidden ideological message that emerged in most comparative musicological studies of this period – the sense of superiority over indigenous cultures. In chapter two, devoted to the discussion of « how the scales of folk tunes come into being and become established », Famintsyn draws a clear line between the music of « primitive », « semi-cultural », or « savage » peoples and the music of presumably more culturally « advanced » peoples. Those who stand on the lowest level of development could only create music with a small range, a limited number of notes in a scale, which resulted in melodic monotony, repetitiveness, and « poorness (limited range) of the intervals used in a tune72 ». Famintsyn’s statements about the link between the number of notes used in a scale and a people’s cultural development, in fact, is similar to François-Joseph Fétis’ theory that the musical aptitude of people can be judged by the number of notes used in their scales. Like Fétis, one of the most influencial nineteenth-century music critics, Famintsyn believed that musical systems can shed light on racial or ethnic origins of music: he connected particular scales with certain peoples or even races73. The difference was only in the details of their statements: Famintsyn connected the pentatonic scale to the Aryan musical system, while Fétis believed that the pentatonic scale was used exclusively by members of the « yellow race ». Peoples belonging to the Aryan race, according to Fétis, preferred scales with microtones, since the « nervous sensibility of ancient Aryans […] needed a multitude of intonations [...] and a great quantity of nuances to express the passionate movements of the soul74 ».

27Among the examples used to characterize music of semi-cultural or savage peoples, Famintsyn includes melodies transcribed from peoples living in the Friendly Islands (now Tonga)and the Caribbean, as well as from « Australian savages » and the « Eskimo75 ». Conversely, Russians are positioned on the other side of thecontinuum of cultural development.This is because Russians created arepertoire of « drawn-out tunes » [protiazhnaia pesnia], which assumed a more developed melodic and structural form that reflected the « endless wide open space and mirror-like surface of our fields and steppes, the ‘wide expanse’ of our strong rivers76 ». The last statement about Russian song being influenced by a particular environment reveals Famintsyn’s connection with another important school of thought (particularly that of German tradition) – ethnology77.

28Famintsyn acknowledges his interest in ethnology in his Preface by enthusiastically citing one of the leading figures of the Berlin school of ethnography – Rudolf Virchow78. Liberal in politics and anti-Darwinian in biology, Virchow believed in the sameness of all human individuals and their capacity to « realize a potential for intellectual development79 ». Virchow argued that the physical differences among peoples and their distinguished cultural character was a result of the specific climates in which they lived. Famintsyn too believed that Russian song reflected the natural environment associated with open space, assuming that if Russians resided in a different land, their song would have had a different character80. Another of Virchow’s ideas, that « all European people that have Aryan roots, came here from the orient », also runs throughout Famintsyn’s book81.

29Besides some obvious references to ethnology and comparative musicology, Famintsyn’s work draws on another important theoretical framework developed within the Berlin school of ethnology – diffusionism. German diffusionists believed that civilisation and cultural traits were diffused from a limited number of cultural areas, Kulturkreise, rather than being invented independently of one another. The main goal of diffusionists was to uncover the history of mankind through the comparison of traits from different areas and trace their spread. The basic assumption that societies developed due to constant migration and environmental adaptation resulted in diffusionists’ treatment of the history of mankind as one unit. They had no objection to attributing similar cultural traits in order to connect people of geographically distant regions82. It is not difficult to see that Famintsyn’s main preoccupation (tracing the spread of the Aryan scale) as well as his treatment of geographically remote cultures and their music systems, based on the assumption that they come from one source, resembles the diffusionists’ approach to cultures. In short, Famintsyn made an error common to all extreme diffusionists : he mistook analogy for homologous features83.

30One last observation about the similarities between Famintsyn’s work and diffusionism seems in order. Although later diffusionist theory was affected by the imperialist attitude of European racial superiority, these later colonialist influences, as Woodruff Smith points out, « were not, for the most part, very significant for basic diffusionist theory84 ». Similarly, although Famintsyn’s writing was influenced by the attitude of Russian cultural superiority, it is not, for the most part, the most significant thesis that he proposed. Famintsyn’s approach to Asian music culture reflects rather a general Russian attitude towards Asia as a part of Russian Empire with its all-embracing musical and ethnic identity.

5. Viacheslav Petr’s theory

31Sokal’skii’s and Famintsyn’s ideas about proving that Russian music has Aryan roots with the analogy of the musical scale system became popular at the end of the nineteenth century in Russia85. Their books were mentioned in all major articles on music theory of the period, includingViacheslav Petr’s highly theoretical work « About the Melodic System of Aryan Song » [O melodicheskom sklade ariiskoi pesni] published in Russian Musical Newspaper in 189786.Although Petr’s theory differed in details about how the most ancient scale was formed and developed, its basic premise – the supremacy of (Little) Russian music and its direct connection to Aryan music – becomes clear with the analysis of musical examples provided by Petr in his Annex. Like Sokal’skii and Famintsyn, Petr believed that the origin of European and Russian scales was in Aryan music culture87. However, unlike both Russian theorists, Petr claimed that the system of scales had gradually developed from a simple dichord to a trichord and tetrachord. Thus, according to Petr’s theory, the number of notes used within an octave could define the ancientness of the scale: the fewer the notes, the more ancient the scale. The musical features that Famintsyn would consider more « primitive » in Petr’s theory turned out to be more ancient, closest to the source, « primordial ».

32According to Petr, the first phase of the development of Aryan music involved only two notes of a tetrachord (c and f). Peter calls this « most ancient epoch of Aryan peoples » the « epoch of a dichord88 ». In his Appendix, which consists of more than two hundred examples, Petr presents only five tunes based on a dichord or harmonic tetrachord (two dichords joined together – c-f-g-c) : one Russian wedding melody from Pal’chikov’s collection (no.79), two tunes from the Little Russian melodies in Kolberg’s collection (nos. 95 and 328), and two songs from the Lettish collection by Iur’ian (nos. 1 and 2). From Petr’s citations of Russian, Little Russian, and Lettish songs as examples of the first and most ancient phase of the development of Aryan music, it is not difficult to see that the author assumed that the Russians stood in a direct line of transmission from an Aryan source.

33Petr’s work was truly inspired by Famintsyn’s Hindu-Chinese Scale; he reiterated many ideas that Famintsyn explored one decade earlier. First, Petr’s main preoccupation – finding commonalities in musical elements used by peoples whom he believed belonged to the Aryan group – corresponds to Famintsyn’s concern of finding the roots of Russian song in the music of the Aryan race. Second, both claimed that Russian folksong was less corrupted by the Western music system and, thus, closer to the original Aryan source. Third, the methodology of both writers resembles that of ethnology, diffusionism, and comparative musicology. In his preface Petr claimed that, using an « archaeologico-musical position », he would like to provide a « new proof » about the ancestral home of the Aryan peoples and « to recover the prototype of Aryan song89 ». This proof would be in line with discoveries in comparative linguistics, which found that the united Aryan ancestors lived in Asia, on the south slope of the Himalayan Mountains90. Such references to archaeology and comparative linguistics (or comparative studies in general) reveal that his work is built on the methodological pillars of ethnology. Furthermore, similar to Famintsyn, Petr claims that the modern system of music (something that Famintsyn refers as « Western » and Petr calls « our major-minor music ») « forced out the ancient folk song and replaced it with operatic arias, art-songs, and chansonnettes (or cabaret songs)91 ». As a result, the examples of tunes unspoiled by the modern system can be found only in remote regions, mountains, forests, steppes, and presumably among the Russians92. And finally, Petr’s and Famintsyn’s theoretical studies were based on speculations about the origins of the Aryan musical system which lead the authors to far-reaching conclusions about Russian music and a cultural legacy with Aryan roots. Despite their grandiose claims, neither of the authors experienced direct contact with the Asian music culture93.

6. Conclusion

34The analysis of Russian music theoretical treatises reveals that at the end of the nineteenth century there was widespread agreement that Asian culture was very influential in Russia, although opinions were divided as to its line of development. The three music historians that I have just discussed argued that most of the examples of modern European « art music » deviated significantly from its Aryan roots and did not preserve the most original and ancient Aryan musical system. Russian folksong, however, was not corrupted by « high art » (that is, music based on the Roman Catholic major-minor system) and preserved its pure Aryan foundation. All three Russian theorists seem to be especially proud that Russian folksong did not submit to the influence of the Western musical system94. Thus, the main idea of Western-European Aryanism – the idea of « racial purity » – was transformed in Russian discourse into the idea of cultural/musical purity, which supposedly could be traced in the structure of Russian folk melody.

35The myth about the preservation of the origins of Russian folksong could have been fostered for political reasons. Despite Russia’s decisive victory in the 1877-8 Russo-Turkish War, the Congress of Berlin (1878) undermined Russia’s reputation in the international arena. Russians were profoundly dissatisfied with how the major European powers divided the map of Eastern Europe, and this resulted in growing tensions between Russia and three other European countries – Great Britain, Germany, and Austro-Hungary. In this context, resistance against the Western powers might have appealed particularly to Russian readers. On the one hand, discourse about the destructive impact of Western « artificial music » helped Russians to give vent to resentment and general indignation caused by the Congress of Berlin (as if everything from the West is destructive for Russia). Russian folksong’s ability to resist the influences of the Western musical system and preserve its original Aryan characteristics could have been interpreted as evidence of Russia’s political potency and resistance against the West. On the other hand, the myth about Russia’s stronger affiliation to the Aryans helped Russians to establish their proximity with Buddhist world, which, in turn, facilitated Russia’s justification of further colonial advances into the East. Adding an Asian or Aryan element into the Russian identity seemed to offer Russians more advantages than disadvantages.While Russian theoretical treatises were not overtly political, in fact they nurtured nationalistic sentiment and had profound political resonance. They inspired fantasies of greatness in the Russian nation – fantasies that in 1904 brought Russia into a disastrous war with Japan95.

Bibliographie

Notes

Pour citer ce document

Quelques mots à propos de :  Adalyat Issiyeva