See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321936745

Franz Liszt amongst the degenerates: On the vagaries of being a musical

genius, c. 1890– c. 1935

Chapter · December 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 51

1 author:

Alan Davison
University of Technology Sydney
15 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Musicalization of Art View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alan Davison on 20 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ANALECTALISZTIANAIV

LISZT）SLEGACIES

FRANZL∬ZT∫TUDIE∫∫BRIE∫＃15
 ◆ ㍉∴∴“ ，′一夕′ 整之魚暮’ 雫く荻登場？ 、−∴ふ ．→′mt色 彩 轡繭麗容病棟胃弱 「「「：エー，軸購  ヽ．＊）′′ ノ′′法 ノ、綬圏弱酸 ィ〕・ili・iノー ．ルエペ■i産金鮭缶＆・、手 塚残難題黙’  ／綴 麗竪警醒溺霧  jT′′ノ′  総桧瀦秘′′‘ノイー′’’急 一一／ ′′′重く「 関田地盤錐’ ’”溺露媛 憲一≡重義毒蕊寵∴罷∴∴ 年 ∵∴∴

∵∴∵ 麦 積， 懇 が ＼▲ ∵ ヽ∵ ∵ 言、 餃 子 慾幾 ’∴ ． 掠， ′， 綴 、激怒 穎閏霜藤瀦綴 、一i∴ 、ノ′ ー畿・ 薫蒸獲㌢遮音畷素 子： ／窮， ㌢ ′ ；浴’ ，、額臨謹話縫 う’ ：えヽ ．闇麗 圏 園 ”報饗 翳’ ㌻㍉÷〔∴墨子∴ ∵一∵∴ 義∴ ∴ ・．ノ瀦騨釜′、＊ 離京∴1°享葦 護疑惑緩畿紫繁饗発議霧綬繋懇遽驚繁慈護霊薬議 襲醜態曇÷∴遥饗発議鬱態離愁烹壷 粥閉園醗∴ ∴ ，簸ろ獄戦 ノ緩・，‘＋土器薫 溝一重一 i9最1−m ′へ まミ 熊激” ∴千 絵 ∴ ’、∴ ： ′ヽ ∴∵ヽ∴ 調臨終∴毒 物：ノ’、 豹意終 懇 ＼∴ 彩約諾

蔦 綱S影 I i ．鍾 勇紹′ ∵∴ ｛ヽ．  子． 雑言続報晶 窒格勝率、、綴′ ∵∴ ∴ く 網駿凋隊 ∴、∴∵∴ ∴：∴ ゑヽ 綴’′ 瀦駿雑 然謹紡 績饗 ィ、r湾： ．幾緩 蕩 彩 ∴∴∴ 言 網隊組駿 子 泌 ∴ ＼寸〇〇十 あお欝だノ ノブ 十 、日， 瀦綾 子∵ ”’彰 子 考′劣 ，瀦 慾撥 ；ノ ＼＼

務 多 額9彰題意給 電∵ ∴ ′ ．霧 」○ヾ 綴懇 ’ノ※、 第 7ヽ4 読、1°∵ i ） ′撥綴， ∴ ∴ 日面彩 ‘） 緩、 ∵1 0 ㌧ 慈 筆法 ∵∴ 羨． 潔 ◆ノ 労 組隊 ∵雪子 努．「 子 守； ′ ま ； ∴ 治 ま′ 子 子 ∵∴ ∴ プ1’ ．＊ 緩 離 ∴ 察 ∴ 約 1 ∴ ）’／ ◆ ∴ ！∴ ノヽ′ ・． 綴 畿 ′）ノJ i、 幾 ′｝ 詳録 ∵・ ・′彩ノ緩 駁調音談論 訪嬉S麟綾 子∴ 運電機、髪 ∵∴ ヶノ網擬 声、綴 ∵∴ ′ 《 言霊 、畿綴 閑職 ノ訪 ノ′ 関撥 ÷∴ 綴灘職績轢 ∵ 田園麗鬱綴詮 議讃縁懸 ∵∴ こ 繕′、′ 登※， 駕、生 酪‘’ 窄Sg勝 子∴ ； ｛ノ瑳 ●′ ｛ ÷∴、 、 ＼∴、 「、∴ ＼＊i＼ 、 つ．、′ ′； 子ら∴＼了 、龍三名．， ′”緩′ 郷＝′

、禽                                                  紹瀦

∴     誌             hr ∴一
∴：∴∴     ∴ ∴∴：   ／熟議     無名 ′盗8g、生 「 ∵ ∴∵   ∴ ∴∴．∴∴鱒二∴

∴一         子∵言語圏溺     ∴一   ㌧∴  ∴ ∴∴￣ ∴「∴
∴∴ 轡′霊撃三靂発驚・薫蒸擬態発露髭籍題繋  ∴∴∴ ’′絞、次 鴻 鵠ノ・ゞ〆 て． ・′絡※電離惹誓 ∴∴∴  露語寓語畢与靖∴

∵∴∴蓋：∴∴ 一∴r「∴∴幌  ∴∴∴「− ー‥−1−−−− 蘭・饗 瞳頭重覇重量∵監轟望∴

FrontlSPleCe
ALisztvitrine：．thecomposerinstainedglass

ProVidedbyOphraYerushalfrh，WhoacknowledgeshatmeonglnSOfthisimageare
unhown．
 ANALECTALISZTIANAIV

LISZT）SLEGACIES

Ba∫edonp￠e”pn∫entedattbeIntermtiom／Li∫＊Coがreme
be〟atCarhto〝UniuタTi幼Ottam，Camh；
28−31］〝ク2011

EditedbyJamesDeavineandMichaelSa鮒e

FRANZLI∫ZT∫TUDIE∫∫BRIE∫＃15

PENDRAGONPRESS
HILLSDALE，NEWYORK
 OtherTitlesintheFranzLisztStudiesSeries
No．1 LisztCaro函e，andthe脇ticanDocumentsbyGabrieleErasmiandAlan
Walker．

LisztinGermary1840−1845byMichaelSa珊e・

mesymphonicPoemsQfFJanzLisztbyKeithT・Johns・

LivingW脇Liszt：航mtheDia，yqfCarlLachmundanAmericanPupilqf
Liszt，1882−1881byAlanWalker・

No．5 An。l。。l。Liszti。n。L・LisztandHjsWbrld−Proieedingsqfmehternational

LisztCorかenceatVirginiaPo陸ChnicInstintleandStateUniversiO，20−

23M功1993，editedbyMichaelSa珊e・

No．6 An。l。。t。Liszti。n。加持wLightonLisztandHis晩sicEssty′SinHonorqf

AlanWdlker，editedbyMichaelSa鮒eandJamesDeaville・

No．7 WdgnerinRehearsaL1875−1876：meDiariesd’Richard勅cke，tranSlated
byGeorgeR・Fricke；editedbyJamesDeaville・

No．8 FJanzLisztandAgnesStreet−KlindWorth，ACorrepondince：1854−1886，

translatedandedited byPaulinePocknell・

No．9 AnalectaLisztianamLisztandtheBirthQfMbLhrnEurqpe・editedby
MichaelSa珊eandRossanaDalmonte・

No．10 LisztL。tt。rSintheLibratyqfCongress，tranSlatedandeditedbyMichael

No．11 prqpheticTj′unPetS：Homage，WorshbandCelebrationintheWndBand

晩sicQfF＋anzLisztandRichardWt柳erbyKeithKinder・

No．12 meDr。m。ticSyr卿hory・15suesandみplorationsfomBerlioztoLisztby

No．13 Liszt：AChorusqfVbices，editedbyMichaelSa珊e，JohnC・Tibbetts，and

ClaireMcKinney．

No．14Correpondenceq／丑anzLisztandtheComtesseMdriedAgoulL
translatedandeditedbyMichaelShort・

AnalectaLisztianaIy：Liszt−SLegacies：ACollectionQfEssays／editedbyJames

DeavilleandMictaelSa珊e“
xviii，399pagescm・一一（FranzLisztStudiesSeries；15）
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandillustrations・

ISBN978−1−57647−169−2
Liszt，Franz，1811−1886−−Criticismandinterpretation・2・Music一一19thcentury一一

Historyandcriticism・I・Deaville，JamesAndrew，1954−editorofcompilation・II・

sa珊e，Michael，1946−editorofcompilation・
ML410．L7L72014
780．92−−dc23
 CONTENTS

Illustrations，Plates，Tables，andMusicalExamples…………………‥ Vn

JamesDeavilleandMichaelSafne，‘‘Liszt’sLegacies：AnIntroduction” Xm

LisztlsLegacies

SiglaUsedThroughoutthisVolume…………………………………・2

LisatandNineteentれem切yNatiomlTraditiQ研

DanaGooley，バLiszt，Improvisation，andtheIdeaofItalyの・

ShayLoya，‘‘Liszt，sV訪unk∫Legacyandthe

ParadoxesofHungarianMusicD……‥………‥・……… ……‥ 17

Li∫詐andNineteentb−mt〟yRe優io糾Tradition∫

NicolasDufdel，召ReligiousWorkshopandGregorianChant：

TheJanusLiszt，OrHowtoMakeNewwiththeOld”‥ 43

AndrewHarlnger，召LisztandLamartineの………………………… 72

Li∫率tPia諒訪L悠a壷∫
KennethHamilton，‘召NachpersOnhchenErinnerungen，：

Liszt，sLong−IgnoredLegacytohisStudentsの‥… 92

JonathanKregor，‘‘Liszt’sLegaciesofTranscripdon’’……………・118

JamesDeavme，‘‘WantingtheRealThing？Liszt’sTranscriptions
andtheIssueofAuthenticlty” 147

Li∫詐tWeinarL懲a訪∫
171
JoanneCormac，‘‘0￠heuf，TheOperaLisztNeverWrote”

ErikaQuinn，‘‘RethinkingthePohticsofMusicinthe

1850sand1860S”

DanielOrtuno−Sttihring，‘‘Liszt，sHeirs：TheHistoryofthe

New−German−Schoolafter1861”
Vl Cbnlent［

Li∫率tLqgacie∫a∫Perrona砂andPrQgrCJJiueCo率pO∫er

AlanDavison，召LisztAmongtheDegenerates‥Onthe

VagariesofBeingaMusicalGenius，C・1890−C・1935” 236

MichaelSa組e，‘‘America，Liszt，andthePeriodicalPress：

Anecdotes，Reminiscences，andT坊Eluみ1883−1953”………‥ 259

JamesWright，‘‘Schoenberg’sLiszt：‘GreaterthananArtist：
AProphet！’” 280

Li∫率与Mediated，R轡0naJi望みand∫ocia〟詐dLqgacie∫

ComehaSzab6−Knotik，‘‘From‘DeutschOsterreich’toPop／ularity：

CelebratlngLisztathisBirthplace，1936−2011”……‥……‥・ 300

JohnTibbetts，‘‘Liszt：ALifeinFilm”……………………………・313

EmileWennekes，召FromDissendonandDisinfectionto

ContestableJuryDecisions：ABird’sEyeViewofthe
DutchLisztReceptlOn”・・…………・・…

Hon−LunYang，‘‘LisztinSocialistChinaの

Li∫詐与Dotme初aひし悠a諦∫
PaulBertagnolh，召Liszt，sPrometheanCompositions：ARich

DocumentaryLegacyの…………・・…………………………‥ 367

W皿amWright，‘‘CarlCzernyandLiszt，sEarlyEuropeanTours：

1823−1825and1826の 389

EvangeliaMitsopoulou，‘‘TwoUnpublishedLetters五〇m

BuonaventuraGenellitoFranzLisztD ‥……‥‥… 397

OphraYerushalmi，‘‘APianistTumedFilmMaker：

L毎年Dan‘・em妨Debが……………………………………・405
 LisztamongtheDegenerates：

OntheVagariesofbeingaMusicalGenius，
C．1890−C．1935

ALANDAVISON

‘‘Pathologicauy平aking，”wroteJohnFergusonNesbitin1891，‘‘music

is as fkala gift toltS POSSeSSOraS the fkulty k）rPOetryOrletters；the

biographiesofauthegreatestmusiciansbeingamiserablechronicleofthe
ravagesofnerve−disorder・”lNesbitwaswrltlngatatimewhentheideaof

geniusasak）rmOfdegeneracyhadrisentoadominantifnotuncontested

positioninbothinteⅡectualandpopulardiscourse・Themusicalgeniuswas
oftenslngledoutあrspecialattendonby‘‘degeneristsDsuchasNesbitand

CesareLombroso，WiththerealorimaglnedcharactersandphysICalnawsof

Mozart，Gluck，Beethoven，Schumann，and Wagner receivlng frequent

mendon．FranzLiszt，however，WaSarareratherthan丘equent丘gureinthese

works，andtheveryunstablestatusofhisascensiontogeniusisreveamgln

itself．IamconvincedthatLiszt，sreputationintheもurorEvedecadesafter

hisdeathwas slgni魚cantlyinnuencedbydominantviewsonthenatureof

geniusanddegeneracy・

ByをamlngLiszt，sposthumousreputationwi血nchanglngde血itionsof

geniustwoslgni魚cantpuzzlesinLisztianhistorlOgraPhyarek）regrOundedand
anexplanationofthemmadeviable・First・Whatwerethereasonsbehindthe

rapiddemiseofLiszt，sreputationafterhisdeathandwellintothetwentieth

century？Second，What hes behind the widespreadinnuence of Emest

Newman，smuchmahgnedbiographyT協ManL在所A∫tu勿ttbeT垂れme少

ta∫oulDl楊dAgain∫tmeU（1934）？Inbothcases，dominantviewsonthe
nature of genius−andits supposedlinks to degeneracy−Were Critical

innuences，andwehavenotentirelybeenabletoridourselvesofthevesdges

Ofthislegacy・

FromapproximatelythemiddleofthenineteenthcenturylntOtheearly
decadesofthetwentieth，geniuswaswidelyassociatedwithphysICaldegen−

lJohnFergusonNesbit，meIn∫an匂IyGenii′∫andtbcGenem／I〝equabgケHumnFda／砂

Pb高hgha妙Co〝・idbnd（London：Ward＆Downey，1891），163・
しわやAmot響heD轡nen7te∫ 237

eracy（evidentthroughsdgmata）andatavism，．Onlytobereplacedbyan

emerglngand“modern”understandingofgenluSin terms ofneurosis or

pathology，aViewthathascontinuedalmostunabatedup to thepresent・2
HugelyinnuentialworksbyBenedict−AugusdnMorel，Lombroso，Nesbit，Max

Nordauandothersspumedmanyk）llowersandinhtators，andwhiletheovert

obsessionwithdegeneracyprobablypeakeddurlngthe1890S，theinnuenceof

theconceptenduredk）rSOmetimeafmr・3Whilerootedmostimmediatelyln

Romantic nodons ofthe‘‘mad genius，D theidea ofthe artistic geniusin

pardcularchangeddramadcauylnthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury・
when，ln W皿am Greenslade，s plquant descrlPt10n，‘‘the revered Romandc

五gurewasdisplacedbythepost−Romanticdeviant・D4Withthisshifl，SOme

musicianscameoutwell−inthesenseofbeingsickenough・Othersdidnot・

Liszt，s posthumous relationship to views ongenius durlng the early

twendethcenturywasproblemadc，andthismayhavehadaslgnificantimpact

onhisreceptlOnandirrespectiveofthefam址arltyWithhismusicatthetime・

Withthedechneinthedegeneristtheoriesafter1930，he五guresmoreregularly

inhteraturethatreferstogenius・Evenwithin血snewparadigmofgenius，his

reputationsuffered・SituatlngLisztandgeniusinrelationtoeachotheris

di鮪cult，aSbothheandtheconceptwerenuidandcontested・Althoughthere

are multiple threads to his posthumous recept10n，Ishallconcentrate on

parallelnotionsofLisztas‘‘healthy／unhealthyDintheageofdegeneracy・What
あIlowsisnotastudyofwhatamusicalgeniusれbutratherhowithasbeen

de血edintwentieth−CenturyargumentSandpreconcept10nSrelatlngtOgenius

andcreativlty・Geniuswasnotandis not，Ofcourse・aneutralconcept−

embedding asit has throughout thelate nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries，ideasdrawn五〇mevolutionarytheory，biologlCaldeterrrhlhsm，the

2See，ゐrexample：JudithSchlesinger，“CreadveMythconceptions囲：ACloserLookandthe

Evidencek）rthe‘MadGenius，Hypothesis，”Pッdo匂IdAe∫tbed亙C舶du砂andtbeAm’3，nO・2

（2009）：62−72；GeorgeBecker，“’rheAssociationofCreativityandPsychopathology‥ItsCultural−
HistoricalOrigins，”ChduigRe∫eanりoma／13，nO・1（2001）：45−53；andJarkkoJalava，“The

ModemDegenerate：Nineteenth一ccnturyDegenerationTheoryandModemPsychopathy

Research，”脇00′dPO′do匂′16，nO・3（2006）：416−432・
3Forsomewide−ranglngStudiesondegeneration，SeetWOSlgniAcantmonographsthatconsider

itasama10rphenomenon：W皿amGreenslade，D轡mado〝，αbm，andtbeNoue［1880−1940

（Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，1994）；andDanielPick励筋tD轡neradon：ABurpean
DtJ・OI初81848＋1918（Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，1989）・

4Greenslade，123．
238 AhnDalんon

emerglngEeldofpsychiatry，andintelhgence testing，mixedwithaesthetic

notions，theRomanticcanon，andamurkysoupofracismandeugenics・

GeniusandPhyslOgnOmy：LavaterianandLombrOSianPositions

Itiseasytoover−generalizeand−Simp坤theviewsandcounter−Views

regardinggenius，buttwopositions・Otherwiseinbroadoppositionto one

another，muStbeconsidered・Thesemaybeidentifiedasthe‘‘Lavaterian”and

the‘‘Lombrosian・”Advocates ofbothposidons behevedthatphysICaland

mentalattributes were hnked．While the fbrmer saw theidealartist−genius

manifestinidealphysICaltbrm，however，thelatterviewedartisticgeniusas

fundamentauyatavistic一一W；hichistosay，degenerate〃Lombrosians，1nOther

words，heldthatgeniuswasastlgmaOrCurSe・Lavaterians，Ontheotherhand，

heldthatgeniuswasablessmgandthatindividualgeniuseswerehealthyln
mindandbody・

ThehteraryhistorianJohnPlewshas arguedthatLavater’s systemof

phys10gnOmyWaSCentraltothefbrmationoftheidealartist毎ureinGerman
魚ctiondurlngthenineteenthcentury，lnthat

theidealrepresentadonofmanormanlinessconvergedwithmeideal
五gureoftheartistorintellectual：theycomplementoneanotherinsucha

wayhatthephysICalpotencyofonesupportsthesymb01icauthontyof
theotherandviceversa・Unfbrtunately，thisconvergence一心emanly

standardofgenius−alsohadaninhibidveeffectonthereceptlOn，

selection，andrecognlt10nOfthosestrivlngtObecomeardsts，and血s

lastedwellintothetwentiethcentury・5

AlthoughphyslOgnOmyanditssistersystemphrenologydechnedinscientmc
statusweubefbrethetwentiethcentury，theyremainedmuchlongerinpopular

CurrenCy・6

5JohnPlews，“PhysiognomyandtheArtistCommunityinEduardM6rike’sMakrNbhen，”in

Pb′履〝0秒inP旬ik：Laua初子IhpadonBuやeanabm，ed・MehsaPercivalandGraemeTytler

（Cranbury，NJ：AssociatedUniversityPresses，2005），125・
6RichardGrayhasarguedthatphysiognomywasresuscitateddurlngthe1930S，aSitused

empiricalevidencerelatingtothebodyratherthantheFreudiannewishpsychicapproach・See

Gray，AboutFm：Gcm〝P々ydqgnomicm0懲hlfmLauaかhAuJlAuJ夜（Detroit：WayneState

UniversityPress，2004）・
 239
畠やAmo懲妨D轡ne7線∫

I皿strationl：JulesPh叫pe，Fm等L塙IithogfaPh（1844）

滋滋 撥踏務、、’、漉幾ノ ∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴ ∴ 、ヽ，名僕  売

、ヽ 茄 ヽ 菱綴鰐    症；ノ    ￣ヽ′ヽ   議 ′，綴撥窓裏、 “∵∴

′，然ノ、    ∴ 縮翳 緩 務− 、↑：′ヽ 怒

駄∴∴∴∴」∴∴∴∴∴ふ ∴
％   磯鶏捻       ※騒讃     、。く／

詰 ◆ 密殺繁華 慾′ 撥軽綴園曝鰯醸醒醒醒   ま； ヽ子、′ヽ 、、衷享紫、 ）′

、∴i−＼−ヽ  滝、． く、  ∴‥＼∴ ヽ： ヽ′ お：．（ 総 ノンヽ裏 ノ←子、′ヽ

；∵∴∴ ← 、∴i∴“∴ 認  諒ヽ （、′i 醗一機′い…′、、′欝懸漆  鎚，撥、滋諸．′軽 ∴∴：∴、 ∴−∵ メ′ノ ′ ＼∴∴、

∴∴  弱鄭撫・〈 翳緩濫盤園田欝、ン綬 顔閲酪綴 穀 下総 緩 駿 シ、 ヾ∴ 言上 …懇 親 ナ ノ ∴＼÷

瀦 ヽ∴ 湯 晋撥、誌′ 、言、∴i、 ∴∴、∴ ・、渠 瀦綴務緩畿瀦鬱  瀦 緩ま ’薫 総 懸

盆 ／ヽ ヽ ∴一 ∵∴∵∴∴ 妻待暮ノン ノく営ノゞ 綴滋窪 ／ヽ（ ．遼ミノ′・ ㌶諒謙、浅薄 、、ノ※、、

義戦 名 筆                  、緩

拳ヽ ゝ

：蔦盗 浸多 1． 着′ 淑 ヽ 曾 ′、ノ ＼お∴ 後 j 饗灘 ′ 彩 、．撥撥 ・、 ′’、綴綴 ‡添 緩′ 畿 将ノ 儀 き′滞 ）、 ←′′ノヽ、

綴 ヽ∴ 畿 総 務 綴 澄 子 i′ 慾 − 菜 食 接 ● 乏 綴撥題 ．瀦；’ 、総 統 ／′綴 、緩懸 一 番， 畿− ｛蕩淵幾 繊鰯鰭灘 、，綴，、緩 くfrへ′ ヽ￥ 窒i 《彰 緩瀦鰯 ・′・鬱饗瀦

訟簿 濡 〉緩グ 緩議 ∴辛 ゝべ 撥※ ∵ ∵ ノ 没 書鵜 沼 ∴ ＼ 態 凝議 畿 尭∴ 蟹務 ‘鬱′1／鰯 ∴∴㌫：∴ ∴一言高子    γく

緩 ＼ 翁−． ∵ 綴緻密− 鰯綬 讃緩 総 i i 1 −−● ‘ヾぎ 甜 ∴：一∵言∴＼ 翳，撥‘磯顕彰務 緩緩く懇総・務

ヽノ 努： ； 子、’蕊浩 子 減繕  ′′ヽノ ∴∴．〕∴∴∴∴ 顔鰯翻綴  縫食 鰯、“綴猿轡 ，（、｝ 言i＼−、 お、

移籍然諾 献言 ヽノ 熊∴∴∴「」∴∴∴∴∴∴ ∴∴：∴：註∴∴ 撥闘綴鍵鬱一一翳  のヽ  撥瀦駿鰯駿頴瀦溺撥 ノ幾照勝滋 顕繋轡嬢額縁、， ∴∴∴ ＿∵∴∴．∴雪や

＼ ◆ 謎 態 美津 ′鴛 「、 ∴ ノ ‘笠：ヽ1∩，、 ′畿

ヽヽ ノ

綴 滋 霧 畿 iシ
 AあnDa諒mn
240

Illustrati。n2：SamuelWells，∫eyenM〟揚妨fiomNe”P々y∫iWony・‥（1867），
528．

宣二つ

‥＿髭努ま評議靂ミ ず言i

藍潮懸縄繭馴「i．“懸 lt；iIニ 蓮◎浩一瀦翻麗  蒔垂垂垂肇聖餐 一i∴÷’●

，、叩∴ ￣二 ∴ J∴： 9㌧一言， 1．㌧ し！i＝ ．ニー幸二 1雪． ∴∴∴ ∴：え．／ 二∵子 、∴￣∴∴ 十二 ∴〕子 i＿， 一一一i二 王＿l ヂ ∴∴ 二言÷ ∴∴ 亘 ÷r

、∴′￣

中辛持二三 一〇＼￣￣・

，・悪霊「湖上饗 場躍蓬′ 凝議鰯 jI 諒 ∴∵：子 、÷∴ ∵∴∴ 麗筆 騒 ∴子 ．二・i‘’ ㍉廿 ∴÷∴ ゞ￣÷ ￣守一￣i 一・

壷 ＿強 さ 輩 二一号 ∴． ∵∵ ∴÷

手口−、 ！ 出  i   ミミ ∴● 箋 沖擁 ヽl 〃〃●■“●∴言− −ー−＿∴・ −”〇°−−∴∴∴ ノ壬 ン：当、’ ￣￣、〇一∵ 二・l ∴∴ 翻 ∴∴ ∴・●∴ ∴∴￣￣ ∴−ii−∵ 十二・∴∴ 〟：．1ニー ；￣1、− ÷∴「 −． −

∴三三三三∴言．∴三  賞 番 う     ニー ∵」′i工 〝一名：・− ∴ 「

∵二i㌧・ ∴∴

ー￣￣−       疫”−      ！， 寒：    鼻‥一室爵∴ ー（了 ．＿エ ∴∴ ∴÷ ∴∴

I 覿 ミ翼   “‘麗麗熱．千㌦離議題露 ∴一 ∵∴∴ 亨 ∴言 上＿

覿雲嚢騒 ヽ一三シーl−．  書〃⊇  ′i 獲醒蕊’．懸 ト￣ ．曇 りヽ￣計 善事∴．醒 ・ゝ∴∴u

ヽ ・ 〝．章一＼r シ・

∴、 ∴一〇・・  一一＿ 一〇一

蓼摘醒ヾ・‘一撃、、i麗醗韻’”畷饗 ￣Ir ヽ∴ヽ．  ∴：ヽ ∴」 ・：一

∴〕∴           ／∴／∴ 手 i二1㌢￣ 葦諾

’≡−＿ 饗牡土∵当歳TZ・   ・・・一、−詰
親王、・iOEL三SOHN ＿，ij−1−享 ヾ了』．7  −ヽ二
，仁             一−iミ恥一・三 ∴‥一年 一iiIヽ∴
一一一一一一一一 ′・ −                                 じ＝一°二二°￣；言∴ ＝i一し言

雫−〒続 出㌧二三三三≡≡三三董一 ￣「＿」￣￣
・，言年 ∴∵∴ ／1：71・
LtやAmo懲妨D轡neIan∫ 241

Formuchofthenineteenthcentury，Liszt，simagewascongruentwith

thephsylOgnOmicaⅡyidealmusician−ardst・7Thewidespreadapproprlationof

hisimagebyartistsk）rhistoricalandallegoricalscenesspeaksoftheappealof

hisfkeinparticular・ThereareseveralreferencesthatexphcitlylinkLiszt，s

appearancetophys10gnOmyOrPhrenology・AsachildwhenvisltlngLondon，

fbrexample，LisztwasexaminedbythefamousphrenologlStDevⅢe・8In1840，

theBdmingbamJoumaldescribedhimas“avelygOOd−lookingyoungman，Pale，

thin，andintellectual；Witha血efbrehead，gOOdnose，andwellcutmouth；nOt

alittleresembhngtheportraitsofBonaparte，Whenacaptainofar皿ery・Heis

plainly，1nhisdepartment，amanOfgreatgeniusandorlglnahty・”9

Withinthecontextofphys10gnOmic−PhrenologlCalthought，Lisztcame

topersoni亙anidealtype，andhadtheadvantageofapronouncedbumplnthe

areawhere‘‘tune”waslocated・He蘭糾edmanyoftheexpectationsofthe

physlOgnOmicauy driven view of the musician・aS theゐuowlng detailed

description ofhis appearance by the artist RudolfLehmann（1819−1905）

indicates：

Hismostmobilefacewasfulloflife・Inhisyouthslimanddelicate，his

appearancewaselegantandprepossesslng・Inthefbrehead，Whichwasof

mediumheight，thetemplebones，WherethephrenologlStSPlacethe

bumpofmusic，fbrmedridgesexcept10nallyprominentandsharply

de血ed・Hisgreyeyes，naturallyveryshortsighted・WereOVerShadowedby

bushyeyebrowsandofamostbenev0lentexpression・Hisnosewasthin，

ratherlong，andaquiline，W血verymobilenostrils・Thinlipswithstrongly

7ReferencestothehscinadonofphysIOgnOmistsandphrenologlStSWithLiszt，sfacehavebeen

discussedbythepresentauthorasAlanDavison・‘‘FranzLisztandthePhysiognomicIdealin

theNineteenthCentury，”MuJiti〝A′t・InumadonalJouma伊rMu諦honqgTP砂30，nOS・1−2（2005）：

107−118；andbyPaumePotkneⅡin‘‘LeLisztdesPhrenologues‥OuLiszt，Castle，laComtesse

etlaPrincesse，”Ofdna10rBon：Rcu〟eintemdonahdih／dhm・jcak∫18（2002），169−183・More

broadly，theuseofLiszt，sfaceinhistorical／auegoricalportraitsisdiscussedbyPockneuin
‘‘ClandestinePortraits：LisztintheArtofIIisAge，”inN而 LLgtonLiやandH存Mu・諦∴E∬qy∫in

HonorqfAhn脇侮r165初Birib勿′，ed・MichaelSameandJamesDeaville（Stuyvesant，NY：

PendragonPress，1997），123−66；andbyImreKovまcsin‘‘ThePortraitofLisztasanAⅡegoryof

theArtistinArySchefftr，sT協cMqgt，”∫tudhMu・icohgica49，nOS・1−2（2008）：9日04・

8See“LudwigReustab，sBiographicalSketchofLiszt，”inFmI一元♯andA諒ImTM（Princeton・

NJ：PrincetonUniversityPress，2006），350・

9Bimi懲bamJomal（1840）・QuotedinAdrianW皿ams，PortmityL毎年砂Hih∫CVandHiJ

Conte砕On房e∫（Oxk）rd：Clarendon，1990），148・Foraninsightfuldiscussionoftheparauelsdrawn

betweenLisztandNapoleon，SeeDanaGooley，‘‘Warhorses‥Liszt，Weber，S‘Kozertstdck・，and

theCultofNapoleon，”19m−am切0／M〟Jjt24，nO・1（2000）：62−88・
242 AhmDatんon

markedcomersgavecharactertohisratherlargemouth・Hischinwas

squareandwelldeveloped，hisfkeclean−Shaven・Theash−brownhair，

combedupandbackwardsをomthetemples…fdlinsm00thsoEt

streaks，andwaswomratherlong・10

Liszt，sgeneralphyslqueandoverallfkialstructurewasclosetothatassociated

with mentaltemperament・His mouth，Which was qulte Wide，WaS nOt

sensuous，however，andthusindicatedtheabihtyto feelemotions strongly

withoutthembeingoftheanimaltype・Photographsandahfemaskshowthat

theproportionsofhis玩ewereindeednicelybalancedinmanyrespectsfiom

thestandpolntOfphyslOgnOmy・

In their descrlPtlOnS OfLiszt，SeVeralcontemporariesindicated that

phrenology or physlOgnOmy WaS a COnSCious preoccupadon−although

preconceptlOnS Ofwhat he∫btmMlook hke were not always completely

conhrmed・GeorgeSand，inalettertoLisztthatalsodiscussesLavater，Clearly

sawLisztasanidealtypewhenshewrote：‘‘You，mydearFranz・muStbeone

ofthose perfected，quaSi−angelic beings・Your physlOgnOmy，COmPlexion，

imaglnation，andgeniusdisclosethosecapabimeswithwhichheavenendows

itselectedones・”llLisztremaineda丘gureofinterestもrphyslOgnOmistsand

phrenologlStSdurlnghis蛙time，eSPeCiauywhenhewasyounger・In1839he
sat fbrthe fdmousItahan sculptorLorenzo Bartohni（1777−1850）・Ofthis

occasionLiszthimselfwrote‥‘‘Heputtrustinsomebumporotherthathe

discoveredonmyfbrehead，andtookalikingtotheangleofmyfke・D12This

clearlysuggeststhatBartohniwasconcernedwiththephrenologyofLiszt，s

countenance．AyoungandoverawedCharlesHane（1819−1895）wrotein1836‥
‘‘Hisaspectistrulyremarkable・Heistallandverythin，hisfacevelySmalland

pale，hisk）reheadremarkablyhighandbeautiful”13

ManyvisualdepICtionsofLisztnotonlyemphasizehisidealfeatures，but

gofurtherbyshowlnghimwithanexaggeratedlyhighorbroad如ehead・The
majorltyOfthesedepICtionsareatthe“lower”endoftheartisticscale，but

nonethelessreceivedwidecirculation・AprlntedportraitofLisztffom1844by

JulesPhihppe（itselfbasedonanearherportrait）isag00dex竺Ple・Ph叫pe’s

portraitshowsLiszt，sfkeinthree−quarterView，thusemphasIZlngtheshghtly
aqu山nenose（seeIllustrationl）・TheLiszt／Phihppek）reheadisalteredintwo

10RudolfLehmann，AnAn短ttReminircemqondon：Smith，Elder，＆Co・，1894），260−261・

llLAJ，212・

12Wimams，109．

13Ibid．，84．
しみやAmo懲初D轡neIah∫ 243

ways，however・First，theanglethatitrecedes丘omtheverticalisreduced，

improvlngtheoveraⅡfacialangle・Second，theverticallengthisincreased・

makingltShghtlylongerthanthenose・Themouthislesswidethanin睦，

withwen−PrOPOrtionedhps・Thechinisprominentbutlessbroadlaterally・The

sumtotaloftheseelementsmakesLiszt，sfdcemorere魚ned，mOreintellectual，

and more sensitive．Excessive召feminizationDis avoided through the strong

chin，eyebrows，andnose・PhilippeportrayedLisztasanexcenentimageofthe
‘‘mentaltemperament，”thetypICalsensitiveandintellectualartisttype・Other

artistsprotrayedLiszt，snoseasmorere血ed，thatis，Shghtlylessbroadatthe

tlP，SuggeStlngS皿greaterlevelsofsensitivltyandre血ement・14

Atits extreme，Liszt，s reputation fbrphyslOgnOmic perfectionled to

blatantexaggerationsofhisimageintheverytextsespouslngPhyslOgnOmic
inteIPretations：aPOlntIhavediscussedatlengthelsewhere・15Considerthe

phrenologistSamuelWells，sNe”Pb′fiqgno勿Or∫薮∫〆Chamderof1867（see
Illustradon2）・16Wells’siuustradonshowsseven魚mousmusi享Sandplaces

Lisztatthebottom，butnonethelessamonggreatcompanylnCludingBach，

Handel，Haydn，Mozart，and Beethoven・Liszt，s presence hereis perhaps

pardallyaccountedk）rbytheexaggeratedandphyslgnOmically在improvedの
appearancethatmakeshimanidealtype，andtheheightofhisfbreheadhas

beenslgniAcantlyenlargedovermoreaccurateaccounts・Inotherwords，Liszt

is among the musically great atleastin part because he possessed the

PhyslOgnOmyOfamusicalgenius・

Our suspICionis reinあrced by the way Liszt，simplausibleimageis

describedwithbarelycontainedenthusiasmbyWells‥

Observethelengthoftheface・Hiswouldpassfbrathree−StOrybrain，

includingahighorderofinsdnct，reaSOn・anddevotion・Therewas

cleamess，OPenneSS，andfkedom，Withsympathyovernowlng，andan

evidentlyhighlyculdvatedbrain・Hecouldhavedevelopedintoa血st−Class

14SeetheillustrationbyCarlGonzenbachfiom1843，basedonadrawlngbyW皿elmvon

Kaulbach．ReprintedinEmstBurger，FmZL碕ACbrmidyH諒Lgband丁場cfinPiciun∫and

Domen生trans．StewartSpencer，k・reWOrdbyA距edBrendel（Princeton，NJ：Princeton

UniversityPress，1989），149・

15Davison，107−118．

1°SamuelWells，Niu／PbJj讐nOfy，OT）∫を〝∫taamdeTia∫Man狗tedtbrv衡bTt￠emCnla〝d

Bxtema／Fbmらa〝dBpedd砂i〝tbe‘Hma〝Fd〝Diuim’’NewYork‥FowlerandWeus・1867）・
244 AhnDabんon

sch01ar，andhavebecomeeitherastatesmanoradivine・Buthechosethe

departmentofmusic，andbecamedistinguished・17

WellswasalsotheeditoroftheAmricmPbmo棲めlJoumaLandinthe

September1868issue he devoted alongsectionto Liszt，developlnghis

readingofthemusician，scharacteruslnganengraVedportraitaftera‘artedb

ui毒tebyMulnier（1866）・WellsdescribedLiszt’scountenanceas

indicativeofunusualtemperamentalintenslty・Thesharp・nerVOuSftatmes

are，tObesure，alittlemodiaedbytheirassociationwiththebroadcheek−

bonesandstrongJaWOftheHungarianphyslque，buttheextremedelicacy

oforganizadonandthe血enessofthebrainquahtyaremarked・Heisin

thehighestrespectsensidveandsusceptibletotheinHuencesoffeehng
andemotion・Thehighandamplefbreheaddenotesintellectual

discernment；thecapacioust。P−headexhibitsm。ralandre暗。uSStrength；

theside−head，SOfarasitcanbeenseen，Showsadeepsenseofthe

beaudfulandawfL克andthesocialtendencies，aPParently，arebynomeans

deacient．Ifthegreatbreadth。fthefbrehead言ust。Verthesuperciliary

ridge，eVincesanything，ltCertainlyshowsTuneverylarge・anddeveloped

backwardsandupwardConstrucdvenessandIdeahty・

SpirituahtylSWellmarkedbythebroadarchofhetop−head・This

organhasdoubtlessexercisedamostpotentinnuenceonhishfe，−an

inHuenceseemlnglyantagonistictothegreatlonglngSOfhisambidous
musicalhftandidealnature；andbyitmaybeexplainedmanyofhis

extraordinaryacts・18

ThisidealizedimageofLisztalsohadtwentieth−CenturyCurrenCy，andwe血d

similarimagesnourishedinpopularizingbiographiesbyJamesHunekerand
RupertHughes・19WellsandthephrenologlStSOfthenineteenthcenturywere

notthelasttoofferaprecisereadingofLiszt，sfke・basedonphys10gnOmic

PreCePtS・

WhilephyslOgnOmyandphrenologydeclinedtothestatusofapseudo−

sciencewellb誼）re the twentieth century，theirremnants can beもundin

popularcultureandinthenewmanifestationsof‘‘fkereading・DTheApril
1921issue of T協P￠uhr∫dCme Monl砂carries a three−quarter Page

advertisementboldlyposedthischallenge：〟DoYouKnowthisMan？CanYou

17Wells，八五秒Pb′履no砂，筋∫をn∫tCha／ad的531・

18Weus，AmeIilmPhmo佃わlh〟mal48，nO・3（1868）：88−89・

↑9SeeJamesHuneker，Fm Lh詳録ewYork：C・Scribner’sSons，1911）；andRupertHughes，

Loue．42秒∬〆tbeGmlMu・idan∫，VOl・2（Boston，Mass・：L・C・Page，1903）・
 245
しんやAmo懲妨D轡nemle∫

ReadHisCharacter？”20Betweenthesetwoquestionsappearedphotographsof

thelifemaskofnoneotherthanLiszt，‘‘the fdmousHungariancomposer・D

ThepleCegOeSOntOOfferanaccountofLiszt，scharacterbasedupona

readingofhisfkialftaturesbyacertainL・HamiltonMcCormick，theself−

proclaimedexpertandauthorofanew700−pagebookentitledのamtmh勤21

McCormick，s mighty tome（a copy ofwhichwould be sent out on

requestatnoinitialcharge）wasa．refdshioningofphysiognomicaland

phrenologlCaltheoriesfromtheprev10uSCentuy・Ontheonehand，these
outmodedsystemswereby192lfhngesciences，yetthefundamentalideaof

readingcharacterbyphysICalappearancereceivedanenormousboostlatein
the nineteenth centuly through the combined，if at times conⅢctmg，

interrelationshipbetweendevelopmentsintheoriesofdegeneracy，eugenics，

evolution，andgenius・This revitahzationofphyslOgnOmylSeVidencedby

CharlesKasselwritinginP￠uhr∫demeMonl砂丘om1911‥

Sincetheuprise囲ofthethe。ryOfev。Iutionwithitsemphasisuponthe

physICaltokensofkinshipbetweenmanandtheanimals，me01dscience
ofphyslOgnOmy，Whichft）rmedafdvoritestudyoftheancients，andto

whichthegreatAristotlehimselfdevotedsixweigI岬Chapters，hascome

fbrthfiomitshidingamidstthediscardedsupersdtionsofthepast・22

McCormick，s Cbar親房nhgl′differs五〇mearherworks such asWells’sNew

PbNiqgnofylnthatitclearlycaterstotheexpectationもrphotographicaccuracy

inreadingcharacterfiomappearance・Heretheauthoruseshftmasksto

invoke‘‘scienti丘cDrlgOrOnbehalfofhiscause：

Liszt，sisastrongfaceofadmirablepr。P。rd。nS，eXCePtthejaws，Which

aret00PrOnOunCed・Thebreadthofthelowerfkemanifests

perseverance，WimInessandfbrce・Whilethe細Ilipsrevealsentimentand

pathosasexhibitedinhismusicalinterpretadons・HislargeRomannose
displaysenergyandaggressivepowersonecessarytotheproductionof
musicofagrandandclassicdescrlPtlOn・

Hisprominentperceptives的andbr。adhreheadreferto

inidative，Orlglnahty，individuality，POWerOfcomparison，quickpercept10n

andconstrucdvetalent．Hiswell−balancedpro創esuggestsre血ementin

207協P￠〟hr∫訪nteMo〝砂99，nO・4（1921）：13・

2lL．HammonMcCormick，aaradc′Vhg）′：A〝Bxad∫dcmeBmb′aa倦Pb′dqgnomPbmo匂′…

（Chicago‥RandMcNally，1920）・
22CharlesKassel，“PhysiognomyandGenius，”meP￠uhr∫訪mMontbb′78，nO・2（1911）：158・
246 AknDa紘ron

execudonandanardstictemperament，Whichtraitsincombination

PrOducedarenownedmusician・23

BythetimeMcCormickwasperpetuatlngSuChanachronisticfkereadinga
decadelater，theviewofgeniusbeinghnkedtophysICalatavismhadbeenlong

circulated．

Itisd舶cultto血daslnglepolntOfrefdenceintheviewsofthose

argulngfbrgeniusasdegenerative・AsDanielPickexplains・degeneration買was

a shifting term produced，innected，re血ed，and re−COnStitutedin the

movements between human sciences，Actionalnarratives and socio−POlitical

commentaries・ItisnotpossibletotraceittooneideologlCalconclusion，OrtO

locateitsidenti血cadonwith a slngle pohticalmessage・の24However，unltlng

degenerists was animportantinterestin socialevolution，mOrbidity，and

perversionthatarosedurlngthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury，Where
degeneration moved ffom召its place as occasionalsub−Current Ofwider

phnosophiesandpohticaloreconorrhctheories…tObecomethecentreofa
scien的candmedicalinvesdgation，DwithincreaslngaPPealstoevolutionary

theorytolegltlmateitself・25Greensladeobservesthat召itwasonlylnthemid−

nineteenth centurythattheideas ofgenius，particularlythe artisdcgenius，

becamegraduallymedicalized・”26

CesareLombroso，sMany“Genht∫（1889；1891Enghshversion）wasthe

centerpleCefbrthedegenerists，anditsargumentsweretoberegurgltatedft）r

manyyears・27Lombrosomakesfegularreftrencetom亨Cin．general（inthe

contextofitspurportedhnkstolnSanitnandmusicianslnPartlCular，although

Lisztisabsent・Lombrosonotesthat‘‘geniusisoftenhereditary，eSPeCiallyln

themusicalartwhichhlmishessolargeacontlngenttOinsanlty・，，Hisviewthat

musicishnkedtoinsamtylSbasedinthe fundamentallyemotiveandnon−

representadonalnatureoftheart（rootinghisideasinRomanticism）・Infact，

Lombrosostatesthat

whatcouldbemorenaturalthanhat，lntheconditionsinwhichthe

emotionsaremostenergetlC，andsoをequentlyatavistlC，aSinthecasein

insanlty，thesetendenciesshouldbereproducedonalargerscale？

23McCormick，624．

24Pick，7．

25Ibid．，20．

26Grcenslade，123．

27CesareLombroso，脇Ma〝ケGc〝h”（London：WalterScott，1891）・
しんやAmo′響妨D轡nem初 247

This，t00，eXPlainswhysomanymorbidmenofgeniusshouldbe

musicians：Mozart，Schumann，Beethoven，Donizetti，Perg01ese，Fenicla，

Ricci，Rocchi，Rousseau，Handel，Dussek，Ho飽nann，Gluck，Petrella・

Musicalcreationisthemostsubjectivemaniftstationofthought，theone

mostindmatelyconnectedwiththeaffecdveemotions・andhavlngless

relationtotheexternalworldthananyother，Whichcausesittostand

moreinneedofthefarventbutexhaustlngemOtionsofinsplradon・28

Nesbit，sIn∫an砂〆Genht∫（1891）devotesawholechaptertomusicians

and artists，and−fbuowlngOn from Galton，s thesis ofinheritance−Shows

howentire generations have suffered the scourge ofgenius・Apparentlyat

opposite ends ofhumanintellect，召genius andinsanltyare，in reahty，but

differentphasesofamorbidsusceptibihtyofiorawantofbalancein，the

cerebro−SPlnalsystem・Thisconclusionisarrivedat丘omacloseexamination

ofthelives ofallthe greatest men whose personaland fdmily historylS

authendcallyknown・”29

MusiciansdiscussedbyNesbitincludeBach，Handel，Mozart，Beethoven，

Mendelssohn，Donizettl，Schumann，Wagner，Gluck，Paganinl，Weber，

Schubert，Bemni，Chopln，and Berhoz・Agaln Lisztis absentをOm this

pantheonofsickgeniuses・OfMozart，however・Nesbitwritesthathis‘‘head
wastoolargeft）rhisbody，Whichwasofstuntedgrowth・Towardsthecloseof

his蛙heindulgedin‘convivialexcesses，，丘equentlngthesocletyOflowand

unprlnCipled persons，・”30Mendelssohn receives aworse summary，fbr‘‘no

famHycouldpresentmoredistresslngCOnditionsofnerve−disorder・‥Where

defbrmides，blindness，aPOPlexy，ParalysIS，andepHepsyareゐundinunbroken

SequenCe・乃3l

WagneristhesubjectofsustainedattackbyNordauinhisあmousand

highlyinHuentialtreatiseD轡nemlion（1895）・Itisinthis contextthatLiszt

makesoneofhisrareappearancesindegeneracyhterature−athoughhegets

Offratherlightly：

lWagner，S］mostenthusiasticdiscipleanddeftnderwasFranzLiszt…・He
WaSarauthor（hisworks，鍋ngsixthickv01umes・haveanhon？Ⅲable

placelnthehterature。fgraph。manicans），C。mP。Ser，erOtOmanlaCand

28Ibid，208．

29Nesbit，XV．

301bid．，167．

311bid．，198．
248 AhmDatんon

mystic，allinanincomparablylowerdegreethanWagner，Whomhe

surpassedonlyinapr0時ouslydevel。PedtalentfbrplanOfbrte−Playlng・32

“Graphomaniac”reftrstosomeonewithanobsessiveneedtowriteandself−

promotethroughpubhshing・（Ifonlythattaghadstuck，itmighthavesaved
twendeth−CenturyLisztscholarsalotoftimeargulngOVertheauthorshipof

hisessays．）NordaudoesnotfbcusonLiszt’sphysicalappearance，butrather

onwhatwouldinthek）llowlngdecadesbeconsideredaneurosis・Assuch，

Nordau，spsychologlCalcrltlqueisaprecursortolaterdevelopments・

The‘‘economictheoryDofgeniusisapparentinseveralwrltlngS五〇m

thelate nineteenthcentury，nOtablythose ofLombroso and his k）Howers・

Consider Warren Babcock，Who wrotein TheJoumltNen′Ou∫andMemuI

D九・ea∫eOf1895that‘‘theuniversalphysiologlCallawassertlngthatexcessin

developmentofonepartoftheeconomylSCOunteraCtedbydeaciencyln
anotheriswellillustratedinthegenius…‥Shortnessofstatureisalsorecorded

ofthemajorltyOfmodernmenofgreattalents・”33

BabcockgoesontociteMozartandBeethovenastwomusicalexamples
ofsuchdepletioninphysICalattributes：Shortnessanddeahess・Thegeniusis

notbornas such，WritesBabcock，butis fromthe鉦stinstanceprlmarilya

degenerate：‘‘Physicallyheisthevictimofanumberofembryonal囲vicesof

development，Whichinlaterhfebecomewellmarkedandcharacteristicandare

knownasphysICalsdgmata・Mentallyheinheritspervertedinstinctsandan

exuberantand fdtileinteⅡectuahty・”34Babcocknotes thatthe sure slgn Of

degeneracylnboththecriminalandthegeniusisthat‘‘theheadpresentsthe

greatestdeviationsfromthenormalandismarkedlyasymmetrical，Dandthe
ears are often misshapen・35As a typICaldegenerist，Babcock bcuses on

physICalslgnS：the sdgmata，Ofdegenerative genius・Liszt，S血e features，

丘equentlyreinfbrcedviatheiconography，areObviouslyfar−remOVedをom

thesetypes・

BabcockalsonotesprecocltylSatyPICauyftatureofgeniusesandcites
Meyerbeer，Mendelssohn，Mozart，andBeethoven，WhHeRossiniandSchu−

32MaxNordau，D轡nCmdonqncoln‥UniversityofNebraskaPress，1993［1895］），205・Nordau

wroteatgreaterlengthonLisztinanessay‘‘FranzLisztunddieFrauenDpublishedin

A〟tge”dbbeParれrBn擁Q・eipzig：E・Hoppe，1887）：172−87・

33WarrenBabcock，‘‘OntheMorbidHeredityandPredispositiontoInsanltyOftheManof

Genius，”meJouma／fNmOu∫andMenlalDtJ・ea∫e20，nO・12（December1895）：76“7・

34Ibid，753．

35Ibid．，765−66．
L高率Amo懲妨D怨ieneIa初 249

manngetaspecialmentionasmelanchohcs・HeconcludeswithaclariEcation

ofthedifferencebetweendegenerationandneurosis：

FromthetbregolngStudyltWillbeseenthatgenius，inthemajorlty

ofcases，isadegenerativepsychosisuponwhichisoftenengrafted

afunctionalneurosisandavarletyOfphysICalsdgmatawhichp01nt
towardsareversionoftype・Thedifferencebetweenadegeneration

andaneurosisisthatthefbrmerisareversionもrmandthelattera

PerVerSionofthenormaltype・36

Whileargumentsaboutgenius，degeneracy，andinheritancecondnuedto

appearin‘‘serious”hterature，POPulardiscoursefiomtheperiodcontained

responseseitherinfavoroforagalnStthesamearguments・ThatLombroso，s

ideasmadeitintomorepopularmusicalcultureisexemp止血edbyaneditorial

inthepopularAmericanmagazineT協Eluh・Pubhshedin1898：

Wewondersometimesattheeccentricitiesofgreatmusicians，andthe

fiequencywithwhichtheyglVeeVidenceofmentalaberration・Manyof

thegreatcomposershavebeenthoughtpaItiallyinsane；andalmostany

onewhohasvisitedvariouspartsofthiscountrywillrecallsmalltowns
wherethemostaccomplishedvi01inist，Planist，OrOthermusicianwasa

personqulteatSeauP。nanySubjectexceptthatnearesthisheart・37

CaroISherman，sarticleintheAugust1910issueofT協Etudbactuallypays

homagetoLombrosospeci丘cally・

Thatgeniusandinsanl中arealliedhasbeenalong−aCCePtedfdctamong

scientists・BylnSanlVOfthekindrepresentedinthecasesoffimous

musiciansthereadershouldnotpalntaPICtureOfthekindsofmental
disordersthatoneordinarily魚ndsintheinsaneasylumsofourcountry・

TheinsanltyOfthegeniusismanifestedintheveryevidenttendenciesto
thinkandactinawaycontralytOtheconvendonslaiddownbythe

greaterbodyofmenandwomen・38

Shermangoesontoclaimthat‘‘nomanhasinvestlgatedthis subjectwith

morethoroughnessormoredetailthanhas CesareLombroso，the魚mous

ItalianphysICian，ahenistandphilosopher・D

36Ibid．，767．

37Editorial，TmEtud315，nO・7（1898）：195・

38“PeculiaritiesoftheGeniusofFamousMusicians，”T初Btl／d328，nO・8（1910）：519・
 AhmDau有on
250

GeniusasHealthyandGeniusasNeurotic
Theviewthatdegeneracyandgeniuswereinextricablylinkedwasnot
universal．AttacksonLombrosoandhis k）llowerswerevlgOrOuS，andmany

commentators argued もr genius as essentiauy healthy・Critics cited

Lombroso，Sselectiveuseofsubjectsandorer一cmphasisontheirfaults（ifthey

evenexisted）．HavelockEms，fbrexample，lnhismighty∫物tB肱rhGenhl∫

（1904），devotesconsiderablespaceto“pathology，”butcan血dnoevidenceof
higherratesofinsanltyamOnggeniuses・39

Inthelaternineteenthcenturythecounterattackwas spearheadedby

popuhstbiographiesofwritersandartists・Thesepubhcationsstressedthe
everyday，“nOrmal”andpositivefketsoftheirsubjects，lives，and‘‘redeemed

artists五〇mbohemiananddegeneratestereotypes・”40Theslgni血canceofthis

kindofbiographylnrelationtomusicianshasyettobestudied，butthereisa

clearparauelbetweenartistsandmusiciansasfhaspopuhstbiographiesare
concemed，aSWellasintheiconographythatappearswiththismaterial・

Beyond simply quesdonlng Lombroso，s methods and the supposed

connectionbetweengeniusandinsanlty，however，CriticsarguedthatphysICal

good−healthwas acmaⅡy a necessarycondition k）rgenius・James Rogers，

wridngin1913inP￠uhr∫deme，arguedk）raPOSitivecorrelationbetween

physICalandmentalwell−being，nOtlngthat‘‘onecannotdistlnguishaもOl
fiomaphHosopherbyeitherhisappearancel04physique…”41Rogers’sviews

were backed up and extendedln the fbuowlng yearin a prolonged

counterattackonNesbit，sdiscussionofmusiciansbyW皿amWallaceinl協
Mu諒励a勿れ0庖n∫anlPme∬e∫（1914）：

Inmoderndmesthereisablameworthytendencytoseekfbrabnormal−

itiesinthementalandphysICalcondidonofmenwhoareengagedin
ardsticvocations，andattemptshavebeenmadetoascribethefkultJTfbr

creativew。rktosome召taint．”Theresulthasbeenahostof

nhsconceptlOnSandinaccuracies，SPreadabroadbymenwh00nlyt00

plainlyhaveshownthemselvesunqua舶edfbrtheirtask・Fart00muCh
lgnOrantattentionhasbeenglVentOthecomposer−spsycho−Physi010glCal

orpsychopathicstates，anditseemsrighttoexposemanyerroneous

39HavelockEuis，A∫tuLか〆B融・bGeniu∫（London：IIurst＆Blackett，1904）・177−203・

4°JulieCodeu，“SeriahzedArtists−Biographies‥ACultureIndustかnLateVictorianBritain・”

Boo属Hれッ3（2000）：99・
41JamesRogers，‘‘TheIntellectualandthePhysicalLife：’P￠ukr∫dcmMonl砂82（1913）：65・
L高率Amo′啓尿D轡neIa初 251

impressionswhichalreadyhavegalnedwidespreadcmenCy，andmaynow

bet00deeplyr00tedtobewh011yeradicated・42

McCormick，WhoseのamdmhgT′WeeValuatedearher，alsot00ktimeto

discussgenius，andhisand−Lombrosostanceisunambiguous・Althoughhe

agreedthatgeniuswasinherited，OPPOrtunitywascentral，andthegeniustype

was糾edwithpositivequahties：

Thepsych010glCalattributesofhegeniuscannotbelisted，fbrwitheach

individualtheyvaryaccordingtothedirecdoninwhichabilitydisplays
itself・Afewbasicqua輯cadons，however，areallbutinvariablypresent・

suchasambidon，keenperception，PerSeVeranCe，energy，decisi。n四〇f

character，Or均nalityandloveoftruth・Butfewgeniusespossessallthese

attributes，buttoallbelongsaselecdonofthem・43

Writersofpopulartextsonmusiciansalsoshowedtheirawarenessofcurrent
argumentsaboutgenius・In1900Huneker，inhis Ch￠in：TheManandmr
Mufk，WentSOfarastoslngleoutLombroso‥‘‘ThereisafashionluStnOWin

cridcismt00Ver−aCCentuatethephysICalandmoralweaknessesoftheartist・

Lombrosostartedthefdshion，Nordaucarriedittoitslogicalabsurdity・，，44

Conceptuahzationsofgeniuswouldbegreatlyeffectedwiththeriseof
intelligencetestlnglntheearlyyearsofthetwendethcentury・Theconsequence

wasthatgeniuscouldbeunderstoodsimplyasmentalaculty・Amassiveand

nowもmous studyatStanもrdUniversltyもrmedthebasisofaslgni丘cant

studybyCatharineCox，EarクMenhllThitrtThmIhndedGenhJfe∫（1926）・45

Thedevelopmentofintelhgencetestlngals。madegeniusthesubjecttosuch

apparentlyobjectivescrutlny，andhistoricalandbiographicalrecordswereused

tofeCOnStruCt‘‘IQ”匝emgence望dent）scoresfbrhundredsofputadve

genluSeS，includingnumerousmusICians・Liszt，however，lSnOtOneOfthem・
despltehisprecoclty；themusicianshstedbyCoxareMozart，Mendelssohn，

Weber，andWagner・

Eventhoughgeniuscouldnowbeimaglnedasfieeofsickness，thiss皿

did notplease somewriters・InhisLihfkJoumyJtOtbeHom∫ttbeGmt

Mufiddn∫（1928），ElbertHubbarddismissedtheideaofLiszt’sinheritedgenius：

42W皿amWauace，mcM〟Jil助m砂ItfOTg〝∫andPnce∬C∫Q・Ondon：MacMiuan，1914），160・

43McCormack，550．

44Huneker，α￠in：meMamndmrMu・jC（NewYork‥Cosimo，2005P900］），111・

45CatharineCox，BargMc〝hdHm沈子TmcHu〝dhdGe〝hNC∫（Stank）rd：Stank）rdUniversity

Press，1926）・
252 AあnDatんon

“Thatword‘genius，ismuchbandied，andoftenusedwithoutwarrant；buは）r

those誓beingswholeapfbmthebrainofJove，肌armed，itistheonly
appellat10n・No血espuntheoriesofpedagogics四〇rhereditycanaccount
fbrthemarveloustalentofFranzLiszt−hewasonesentfromGod・D46

In the1920s and1930S，SOme Writers avoided the hk between

degeneracyandgeniusper∫e，butemphasizedtheconnectionbetweenthe

exertionsofgeniusandmentalfragmty・Freudobvious即aidgroundworkhere，

evenfbrthosewhodidnotspeci丘callyfbllowhisschool・HerethebeglnnlngS

ofthemodernviewofgenius，Creativlty，andmanicdepressioncanbeseento

takeshape．Repeatedrefdencesaremadetothegenius’S‘‘sensitiviザand
“血e balance．”Hubert Norman，ゐr example，Wrmng on‘‘Genius and

InsanltiT，”describedthek）rmeraS‘‘aproductofthebraininastateofunstable

equihbrium・”47Itisnot，hegoeson・thatonecausestheother，butratherthat

geniusismuchmorehkelytoleadtoinsanlty‥lnSamtybeingtheprlCe
whichnatureexactsin血sinstancek）rValuablebutdelicately−COnStruCted

g担S・Thegenius，becauseofhisorganizadon・isanintractablepersonwho
isapttoplaceanunduestrainuponhisresourcesandwhohastopaythe

Penaltyfbrdoingso・48

Someyearslater，in1930，PaulWittyandHarveyLehmanendorsedthe

psychoanalytlCViewofgeniusasunstableandneurotic，argulngagalnStCox
that“theeccentricltyOfgeniusisnotamyth・ThepsychologlCalanalysesof

characterpolnttOtheconclusionthatpsychopathicorneurotictendenciesare
frequentifnotinvariablecorrelatestogenius・乃49Theyreink）rCetheirpolntby

agalnreftrrlngtOinstabmtyandsensitivlty：

Thegeniusisoftenneurallyunstable・Heisextremelysensidveand

responsivetosdmuli・Hehasahighermetab01icratethanthatofnomal

persons；hecanreleaseanddirectmorenervousenergythanthey；he
therefbrepossessesgreaterdrive・Heisadelicatelyadjusted，marVellously

complexorganism・Hence，heisingreaterdangeroffunctionaldisorders

thanthenormalperson・Thegeniusisunstable・Oftenneurotic・heis

characterisdcallyandalmostinvariablyeccentric・50

46LittkJo〟mり′∫htbcHome∫ttbcGnatMu・idd〝∫（Cleveland：World，1928），187・

47HubertNorman，“GeniusandInsaniq：，Pntecd御〆tbcRの′al∫odeegケMc‘脇e16（1923）：37・

48Ibid，37．

49PaulWittyandHarveyLehman，〟NervousInstabHtyandGenius：SomeConmcting

Opinions，”Joma／ケAbnomalPり′do匂′，24（1930）：495・

50Ibid，495and496．
しんやAmo懲heD轡nemle∫ 253

TheGeniusMusicianasNeufOtic：EnterFranzLiszt

Whiletheproandantidegeneracycampsargued，thepositionofthe

artisticgenius，includingthemusician，emergedasaratherspecialtype，liable

tobecategorizedasoversensitiveanddehcateevenbynon−degenerists・Even

thoughFrancisGalton，Lbrexample，isflequentlycitedasbeingopposedto

thehnkbetweengeniusanddegeneracy（oranytbrmofmness），heoffers．a

CaVeatWhenitcomestomusicians：“The亨egularityof［m「Sicians’］hvesIS

commonly extreme；the union of a palnStaking disposldon with the

temperamentrequlSiteもragoodmusicianisasrareasinpoets，andthe

distractionsincidenttothepubhchftofagreatperfbrmerarevastlygreater・”51

Eventhestaunchanti−degeneristWallace−LWmedenylnghnkbetween

degeneracyandgeniusinmusicians−SeemStOtakeatentativesteptowards

explainlng the behavior ofLiszt，s hfe，and toward hnking the musician，S

“mentalandphysICaltensionDinherentinhisacdvities：

Inthecaseofthemusician，mentalandphysICaltensionisbroughttoan

extreme，andthecombinationoffhcultiesfbrthestudyandperfbrmance

ofalargecomposition，SuChasaconcerto，isextremelycomplex・Apart

をomthemuscularexertionandthetrainlnglnVOIved，thesheerthought

thathastobeconcentratedintothree−quarterSOfanhourintheplaylngOf

itisboundtoproduceareacdonwhichmanyaudiencesfbrgetwhenthey
thoughtlesslyinsistuponapreposterousnumberofrecallsandan
encore…・Takingthisstrainintoaccount，WeCannOtWOnderthatheseeks

diversionanddistracdonwhichinmanylnStanCeSaSSumeafbrmas
vi01entastheexerdondemandedbyhiswork・ThusitwasthatLisztand

Rubinstein，OutSidetheirpublicperfbrmancesandpublicstudies・ledsuch

strenuouslives，PaCkedfullofinterestandexcitement・Resttomemmeant

mentalsdmulusinanotherfbrm・Thephysi0logyandpsych010gyofthe

PrOCeSSintheircasesareobvious・D52

Likewise，HenryHarperHart，inhis1934essayon‘‘TheUnhapplneSSOf

Genius，”arguedingeneralagalnStdegeneracy，POlntlngOutthatmanygeniuses

werehappy，Well−adjusted，and success蘭intheirownday・Hartmendons

Lisztashavlnggalned‘‘widecontemporaryappreciation，D53beinglong−hved

5↑FrancisGalton，He′etuaO／Geniu∫．・A〝Inquio′in10itfLmaan Cbn∫equemJ（1−JOndon：Macmillan，

1869），237・

52Wallace，195−96．

53HenryIhperHart，‘‘TheUnhappinessofGenius，”Joumald“NcrりOu∫クMcndDtJ“etm80

（1934）：557・
254 AhZnDat高on

andalsohappilymarried［∫4！Hediscussesthesupposedhnkbetweengenius

andmorbidity，describingthemajorltyOfgeniusesascontentandsuccessfuL

Nevertheless，lnhisconclusionsHartincludestwopertinentpolntS・血stthat
‘‘geniusHthoughoftenassociatedwithmentalandphysicalillhealthHis

notdependentthereuponfbritsexpressionの；andsecondthat召thetypeof

geniusisimportantinregardtohapplneSS，themusicians，POetandwriter
beingless harmoni。uSly adjusted to hfe than the scientist，Palnter Or

statesman．乃54

We血dasimilaremphasisonthedehcacyofmusical／artisticgeniusin

Emest Newman，s earherwrltlngS On LisztinI協Mu∫inlT揚e∫，Where he

describesthecomposer，searlyyearsintheあIlowlngtermS：‘‘In1827Liszt，s

father died，and the boy，s mother fdlto his sole care・He thus grew to

manhoodwithoutanyrealcontrolorguidance，inabrilliantsocletythatwas

fullofintellectualandotherperils fbranardstso sensitiveanddelicately−

balancedashe．男55

In19347協ManLtやapPeared・56RatherthantbcuslngOnthebook
itselLIwishto highhghtareview丘omthe k）uowlngyearbytheHterary

scholar，Wagnerenthusiast，tranSlator，andsometimecriticElbertLenrow・57

Lenrownotes approvmglythat‘‘oncemoreMr・Newmanhasproduceda

stimulatlngandinmanywaysapenetratlnganalysISOfthehumansideofa
musicalgenius・男58Then，ln

thelastchapterandaPostlude，theauthorattemptstosumuphis

subject，scharacterandpers。nality・Thesepages，t。getherwiththerunnlng

commentswhichandcIPatethemthroughouttheearlierchapters・

Consdtutethemostimportantpsych010glCalcontributionofthisstudy・

Mr・NewmanrepeatedlyemphasizesthedualismofLiszt，snature−a

dualismwhichmadeitimpossibleft）rhimevertochoosedecisively

betweenhisdesiretoescapeffomtheworldandhislonglngfbrits

glitterlngPrlZeS‥・・

54Ibid，571．

55ErnestNewman，“FranzLiszt．0ctober22，1811−July31，1886，’’meMuJial／T揚e∫52，nO・

824（1911）：633・
56Newman，脇Ma〝L高評AStud〆tbe77をtomタグa∫ou／DiuiLhd4gain∫t加択London：

Casseu，1934）・

57LenrowwashmmarwithNewman，sstudyofWagnerasweu，havlngreViewedit，andhe

translatedandprovidedcriticalcommentaryk）rmCktte∬tRjdarm口V蜜ncrhAnto〝PuJineM

（NewYork：Knopf，1932）・
58ElbertLenrOW，reView，JoumalケNc′UOu∫dMmdDi∫Ca∫e82，nO・6（1935）：693・
L高率Amo′響妨D轡neIm初 255

In血sconnictbetweenasplradonandperfbmance・aSViewedby

Mr・Newman，laythetremendousinnertragedyofLiszt・59

The reviewitselfis unexceptlOnalinmanyways：rathereven−handed，and

LenrownotesthatNewmanwillbeopentochargeofbias・Whatisslgniacant

isthefbrum：theJoumaltNenノOu∫＆MenhalDtrea∫e・Newman’sdebunking

biographywasinterestlngもrthereadersofthelOumal，becauseinsightsinto

mental蛙were expected to be revealed through the examination ofan

individual，S蛙．Moreover，thetacitassumptlOnthatgeniuses suchasLiszt

struggledwithinnerturmonwasclearlytakenfbrgranted，aSOtherliterature

fiomthetimesuggests・PerhapsNewman，sbiographywasassuccessfuland

innuentialasitwas（atleastin thepopulardomain）becauseitoffered a

convinclngmOdelofLisztasnewparadigmofgenius，albeitafa血edone・

Newman，semphasisonLiszt，S‘‘dualnatureの触edemerglngandincreaslngly

dominantideasaboutgenius，andalsohadtheadvantageofaccountlngfbr

Liszt，sunevenoutputandchallenglngWOrks・

Itisinterestlngthatafterthe early1930s Lisztmakes more notable

appearancesinspeciahsthteratureongenius・This，IfteLmarksatrendin

Liszt，s afterhfe，Where shifting conceptuahzations ofgenius and creadvlty

coalesce・Thereisanemphasisonbiographicalinsights，andlessattentionis

paidtomerephysICalappearanceintheLavatariansense・Forexample，Lisztis
oneofthreemusiciansdiscussedin1931inanarticlebyC・Mac魚eCampbell

entitled‘‘PsychologyandBiography・乃60ForCampbell，Liszt，sapparentmental

disturbance，his‘‘Romantics叫Orのasateenager−broughtonbythwarted

love−andhiseventualemergencefromitwerelinkedtohiscreadveoutput・

Inlater specialisttextsLisztbeglnS tO aPPearinesteemed company・

ConsiderLewis01berg，sl943psychoanalytlCarticleaboutDante’sCbme少

ThepICtureOfgeniusisanunhappyoneandfewmenofgreatinsplration
havefunctionedinsocletylnaCOmPletelyaveragefashion・VanGogh・

Liszt，Nijinsky，Heine，Balzac，Beethoven，Michelangelo，Newton，

Schumann，Rembrandt，Schopenhauer，Nietszcheandcountlessothers

bear。utthecontentionofDr．WilhelmStekelwh00nCeremarkedthat

neurosiswasthegoddesswhobestowedupontheardstthepowerof
expresslngWhathefdt・61

59Ibid，695−96．

60C．Mac丘eCampbell，“PsychologyandBiography，”AmritmjomaltPッdidtO′87（1931）：861・

61LewisOlberg，‘‘TheDivineComedyofDante，”Pg′tboanqbhlRcciew30（1943）：33・
256 AhmDatんon

Laters叫Lisztmade somenotable appearancesinthepsychologlCaland

psychiatrichterature・TheseincludeWalterBowerman’sShldhfinGenhl∫（1947），
whereLisztisnamedamong280thergenius‘‘musicalcomposers”62；Fred

Barlow，SMenhClpro鞍∫…（1952），Where“Liszt（1811−1886）”isidentiEedas
‘・thesonofahmousmusician，Playedinpubhcwhenonly9yearsofageの63；

and Charles Edward Gray，S‘‘A Measurement of Creativltyin Western

Civilization”（1966），WhichcitesLisztasa“class6”orsecond−highest−CategOry

genius・64

Newman，s biographymarked，Ibeheve，a tumlngPOlntintheLiszt

receptlOn，如itreattachedLiszttoaRomantictropecurrentinhisown

lifdime：thatofthecontradictory，COn皿cted，anddual−naturedgenius−Virtuoso・

CatherineEllissummarizesLiszt，sdividedselfastheywereperceiveddurlng

theheydayofhistourlngfdme：

Lisztdidindeedcontainwi血nhimselfallofthecontradictoryextremes

thathelpedde亙convenientcateg。rizati。n：theartistwhoimmersed

himselfinBeethoven，splanOmuSicinthecompanyoffhendswasalsothe

showmandeterminednottobeoutdonebyaplanisticrivalsuchas
SidsmundThalberg；themanwhopnzedre輯ousdev。tionandattached

himselftotheAbbeLamennaiswasatthesametimeengaglnglna
spectaculaでadulterousreladonshiplnWhichhewasals00Penlyunfhth叫

theHungariannationalistwhosetsuchst。rebythejewelledsw。rdof

honorpresentedtohiminPestin1840wasanon−Hungarian−SPeaking

cosmop01itanwhosharedmostofhislifebetweenParisandWeimar；he

anonymousandunrecognlZedWandererofthelate1830swasalsothe
mostfetedofalltravellingvirtuosi・65

LikehisheroByron，then，Lisztpossessedcontradictionsinabundance・and

likethepoethetoohashadanunstablehistory・However，Lisztwasnever

golngtObethe‘‘Byron”ofmusIC，aSlongasdegeneracyremainedacore
ingredientin the如mulation of genius・Despite many parallels（some

constructedbyhimselD，thehistoryofhisgeniuslackedwhatthepoethad−

defbrmlty・Liszt，unhke Byron・neVerhad theprerequlSite on beingboth

62WalterGregoryBowerman，∫tudie∫l〝Ge〝iuJ（Oxk）rd：PhilosophicalLibrary，1947）・308・

63FredBarlow，Menh3／p70優ic∫：A〟CnquiO′intolbefum妨∫yaTitbmdcalde叫andm訪alp70嬢icJi

fm初mem夜朽pmd硯訪謝り〝a〝Me妨毒物numm∫eXa￠ん〆’燭7tni′響’’〟偽寂m∫ah
menlahmqgil（NewYork：PhilosophicalLibrary，1952），132・

64CharlesEdwardGray，“AMeasurementofCreahvityinWestemCivmzation，DAmrim

Anlb′￠0夜中68，nO・6（December，1966）：1384−1−417・
65CatherineEms，‘‘Liszt‥TheRomanticArtist，”inCCL，5−6・
しんやAmot響初D轡neI物∫ 257

‘‘disabled andideahzed・”66As Steven Zanlputit：召Any close reading of

Byron，s biography reveals examples ofexaggerated contradiction・a Agure

simultaneouslydisabledandideahzed，theproductofanerathatsaw‘genius，

asaquahtythatwassimilarlyexceptlOnalandtainted−theoneaconditionof

the other．”67Liszt had one of two necessary conditions of genius，the

contradictorycharacter・Helackedtheother‥defbrmty・

Liszt remained the Lavaterianideal of a creative artist．Hisimage，

whetherpalnted，engraVed，OrSCulpted，WaSfiomtheearliestdaysthatofa

genius，and this continuedinto the twentieth century・To血s extent，

iconographicalsources perpetuate a parallelyet contradictory vision ofa
musician−aSでeniusintheageofdegeneracy・WhileLiszt，SphyslOgnOmySuited

artistsandpopuhstaccounts，hehimselfwasincompatiblewiththedominant

viewofgeniusrequlrlngSOmefbrmofstlgmata・

The“muld−VOicedness”ofLiszt，aSJamesDeavnlehastermedit，me竺S

thathisafter脆wasnevergolngtObeasimplehnearprogressionfbllowlng

thecontlngenCeSOfhistory・Indeed，DeaviHearguesthat：

Liszt，sinherentambigutyandheterogeneltylnSOmanyaSPeCtSOfhis

yorkandliftmadehimparticularlyvulnerabletosuch抽dcized］
lnterPretationsanduses，Wherebywecouldsaythatthemusicallandscape

ofthetwentiethcentLHyislitteredwith‘‘Liszts，DeachpurportlngtObethe
‘‘authendc”LisztandyetparticIPatlnglnthemostvahedcultmalwork・68

Partofthis‘‘culturalwork”relatestogenius，andthishighlycontestedconcept

wasthebattlegroundk）rmanySCholarlyandpopulardebates；SuChwasthe

investmentofthosewithp01ntStOPrOVe・WhiletheseemlngPrO脆rationof
‘‘LisztsDtowhichDeavillerefersnhghtat血stthoughtseemfiustratlng，the

dangerofiden的ingaslngleLiszt−aS−geniusispossiblydeleteriousratherthan

merelyvexlng・Thechallengeof飢tingLisztintoaneatboxmayrenectthe

povertyofcommonwisdomregardingmusicalgeIhus，anditmaywellbe
incumbentuponscholarstorethinktheirconceptualtooIs fbrdeamgwith
bothgeniusandLiszt，ratherthanattemptlngtOSatisqtheconstraintsthose

tooIshaveimposeduponthem・Thecurrententhusiasmfbrhnkinggeniusto

neurosisstiudoesnotprovidetherightenvironmentfbrtheconstructionof
Liszt−aS−genius・Solongasourattachmenttotheoriesofgeniusthathnkitto

66StevenZani，‘‘Clubfbot，CaulandControversy：ByronBiographyandtheFoundationof

Genius，”me号ymJouma／32，nO・10une，2004）：35・

67Ibid．

68Deaville，‘‘LisztandtheTwendethCentury，”inCCL，32・
 258 AhnDat高on

Sometbrmofdegeneracyorneurosispersists，OurCOnStruCtionofLisztwillbe

tbund wantlngin comparison to the many more obviously andincon−

trovertiblydisturbedmusiciansinhistory・Lisztmaycontinuetoもnvictimto

Ourgeniusromance・69

UnMr砂〆小汚〝互的n函裾ha嬢）

69Igratehlllyacknowledgethefaedbackofttredbydelegatesatthe〟Liszt，sLegaciesD

Symposiumaftertheoralversionofthischapterwaspresented，andalsothankstoJames

DeavilleandMichaelSa的ek）rtheireditorialexpertise・MichaelSa鮒ealsohelpedwithsources・

AspecialnoteofappreciationgoestoChffEisenk）rarOuSlngmylntereStinthegenius−aS−

degeneratetopIC・

View publication stats