In fact, this disagreement about the nature of Brahm's religious views reminds me of a similar debate about another well-known figure, George Washington. The conventional view among most historians these days is that Washington was not a Christian but a deist (someone who believes in a God who created the universe but subsequently has been uninvolved in human affairs). Nevertheless, as I understand it, for many years after Washington's death, it was assumed that he was an orthodox Christian. Some continue to make that argument. I am no expert on this question, but based on my admittedly limited reading on the subject, it seems to depsnd on how one interprets the evidence. Fundamentally, though, like in the case of Brahms, the problem is that Washington never made any absolutely unambiguous declaration of his beliefs, as in his time it was not always the case that public figures would do so. Moreover, like Brahms, in some ways, Washington was a rather private man. Hence, barring the emergence of some as yet undiscovered document in the case of either man, it is likely we will never know for sure in this life.
I mention in my self-introduction that I have an interest in (Western) classical music. However, this post is not so much about music but about the life of a musician, namely, the composer Johannes Brahms. Recently, I have been reading Jan Swafford's Johannes Brahms: A Biography. Overall, I've enjoyed reading this book, even if after about two month's of reading I'm only at page 188 out of 636 pages! Nevertheless, skipping ahead in the book a little, I noticed that the author asserts on page 317 that Brahms was a "humanist and an agnostic." This view of Brahms' religious views rather conflicts what another author I've read had to say on this subject. In his book Spiritual Lives of the Great Composers, Patrick Kavanaugh writes, on page 144, that Brahms was "a believer but a somewhat unorthodox one." Needless to say, there is rather a contradiction here. I am not an expert on Brahms' life, so I am not clear who is right on this issue, but such a stark difference in perspectives is striking. It is tempting to think that the two authors' views are reflective of their own beliefs. From his book, it is quite clear that Kavanaugh is a Christian. Regarding Swafford's personal religious beliefs, I am ignorant, but I notice that he refers to John 3:16 as "dogma," a word which seems, in contemporary usage to be a rather derogatory in meaning. Thus, I suspect Swafford does not share Kavanaugh's beliefs. Perhaps both men are seeing their subject through the prism of their own beliefs and emphasize those things that seem to support their respective positions. For example, Kavanaugh stresses Brahms' love for and knowledge of the Bible, while Swafford points out that Brahms consciously avoided direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in his celebrated choral work Ein Deutsches Requiem (A German Requiem) and defended that decision in a letter to an acquaintance. On the other hand, the truth may be that no one is really certain about Brahms' faith or the lack thereof. As I understand it, Brahms was a rather private man; indeed, Swafford acknowledges that he kept his convictions "close to his chest" (p. 318).
In fact, this disagreement about the nature of Brahm's religious views reminds me of a similar debate about another well-known figure, George Washington. The conventional view among most historians these days is that Washington was not a Christian but a deist (someone who believes in a God who created the universe but subsequently has been uninvolved in human affairs). Nevertheless, as I understand it, for many years after Washington's death, it was assumed that he was an orthodox Christian. Some continue to make that argument. I am no expert on this question, but based on my admittedly limited reading on the subject, it seems to depsnd on how one interprets the evidence. Fundamentally, though, like in the case of Brahms, the problem is that Washington never made any absolutely unambiguous declaration of his beliefs, as in his time it was not always the case that public figures would do so. Moreover, like Brahms, in some ways, Washington was a rather private man. Hence, barring the emergence of some as yet undiscovered document in the case of either man, it is likely we will never know for sure in this life.
4 Comments
Angelo Niklis
1/28/2019 05:36:27 pm
Interesting. Thanks.
Reply
Leon
12/13/2021 12:51:37 pm
Brahms requiem most perplexing in view of the text and his comments BUT to proclaim athiesm in mid 1800s very hard to do !
Reply
philip
2/15/2022 06:03:12 pm
@anastastia –
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorStephen W. Hoyle currently teaches classes in Language Arts and Latin at a private school in the Washington, DC area. Previously, he taught English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) at universities in the United States and China. He received a bachelor's degree in international relations from the University of Virginia and a master's degree in linguistics from George Mason University. In addition to China, he has lived in Belgium and Taiwan, and traveled extensively in Europe. His interests include language (having studied French, Latin, modern Mandarin Chinese, classical Chinese, Japanese, and koine Greek), education, philosophy and Christian theology, literature (mainly poetry), history, and classical music. He is married to an immigrant from China and has a daughter who is a college student. Archives
April 2024
Categories |