The Orthodox Lutheranism of Mattheson and Bach

Abstract

The Orthodox Lutheranism of Mattheson and Bach Joyce Irwin In Bach George anarticle and Stauffer Johann onJohann contrasts Mattheson: Sebastian thesocial Bach's andintellectual attraction to orientation bigcity life, of GeorgeStauffer contrasts thesocialandintellectual orientation of Bach andJohann Mattheson: Mattheson hadthe urbanity ofabig-city sophisticate; Bachhadthe limitations of a provincial Thuringian church organist. When Mattheson neededintellectual sustenance, he readVoltaire and Lessing; whenBach turned to literature, he openedhisCalov Bible.1 While manycontrastsmaybe drawnbetweenthe two men, the implication that Mattheson's religious orientation differed significandy fromthatofBach needsto be corrected. Quite apartfromthefact that Voltaire and Lessing are poor choices for examples of Mattheson's Enlightenment reading, theamount ofdirect evidence we haveforMattheson's Bible-reading isincomparably greater thanthat for Bach. Nor is thereany clear theologicaldifference in their approach to the Bible. As Dietrich Bartel concluded in his introduction to the reprint of Mattheson'sthreeOrchestre works, Matthesondedicatedhimself to theedification ofmusiclovers,"all thewhileremaining trueto hisorthodoxLutheran beliefthatallbe done to thegreater glory ofGod."2 As forBach,there is,I believe, a scholarly consensusthathewas an orthodoxLutheran, notwithstanding somepositiveinfluences of George Stauffer, "Bach and the Lure ofthe Big City" inRaymond Erickson, ed., The Worlds of Johann Sebastian Bach (New York: Amadeus Press, 2009), 263. 2Johann Mattheson, Diedrei Orchestre-Schriften (1713; reprint edition: Laaber: LaaberVerlag , 2002), I,xlix. 70 LUTHERANISM OF MATTHESONAND BACH 71 Pietist writings on histhinking andhissetting ofsomepietistic texts. Recentarticles byRolandChiaandJohannes Wallmann3 arrive atthis sameconclusion, though Wallmann's article isquitespecific toBach's timeinMühlhausen.In my1993book,Neither Voice nor Heart Alone, I tooclassified Bachwithin theLutheran orthodox camp.Atthesame timeI raiseddoubts about attempts to creditBach withreligious motivation exceedingthatof his contemporaries. My plea to stop labelingBach a theologian metwithoppositionfromRobinLeaver, who,in an articlein thisjournalentided"JohannSebastianBach: Theological Musician and Musical Theologian,"4 inaccurately characterized me as havingdismissedBach as a "mere musician without theological competence."5My point was, rather,that musicians, howeverknowledgeable inmatters oftheology, hadmore in commonwithothermusiciansthanwiththeologians, and to blur thedistinctions istolose sight oftheprofessional identity thatshaped their viewpoints and eventheir theological perspectives. To restatemypositionsuccincdy: I regardBach as a musician committed to theLutheranchurchand knowledgeable in theology andBible.Whatweknowabouthisknowledge oftheology andBible, however, does not givecause to elevatehimin thatrespectabove otherchurch musicians ofthetime. Johann Mattheson had farmore tosayand,I believe, greater knowledge oftheology andtheBiblethan did Bach. Still,I would not identify Matthesonas a theologian.I believe thatchurchmusiciansof the eighteenth centuryhad an increased consciousnessoftheir identity as musicians as comparedto pastorsand theologiansas evidencedby disputesabout decisionmaking prerogatives inmatters ofchurch musicandbythemusicians' perceptionthat clergydid not value music sufficiendy.6 Also, 3Roland Chia, "Re-reading Bachas a Lutheran Theologian," Dialog: Л Journal of Theology, Fall, 2008(47:3), 261-270; Johannes Wallmann, "Neues Licht auf dieZeit Johann Sebastian Bachsin Mühlhausen. Zu denAnfängen desPietismus in Thüringen," Pietismus und Neuheit 35(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 46-114. 4 BACH:The Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute ,31/1 (2000), 17-33. 5Leaver, op. dt., 32,repeated inRobin A.Leaver, Tuther' sLiturgical Music: Principles and Implications (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Co.,2007), 291. 6John Butt finds inBach avery strong self-identification asmusician: "Hisdedication tohis office asmusician wasclearly more striking than that ofvirtually any musician before him. . . . Music became notjust the central practice offaith butacquired 72 Bach musicians shareda frame of reference thatincludedmusicphilosophiesthatwerenotspecific toLutherans buthadbeenincorporated intoLutheranism. The controversybetween Johannes Büttstedtand Johann Matthesoncan serveto elucidatethiscomment. The debate,which beganwithButts tedt'sbook,Ut,mi, sol, re, fa,la,tota musica etHarmonia Alterna, OderNeu-eröffnetes, altes ,wahres, einziges undewiges Fundamentum Musices1 (where Büttstedt tookissuewithsomestatements Mattheson had made in his firstmajor treatise, Das Neu-Eröjfnete Orchestre )8 escalatedwithMattheson'ssubsequentresponsein Das Beschützte Orchestre .9Theirdebateis usuallypresented as a conflict betweena musical conservative (Büttstedt) and a musical progressive (Mattheson).Such labels,however,maybe misleadingwithouta deeperunderstanding ofthetwopositions. Büttstedt belongedtothe school of thoughtthatconsideredmusic a mathematical science grounded innumbers andproportions inherent withGod andtothe world.Relying on Werckmeister, Büttstedt sawGod as theUnityor theUnisonfrom whichall consonancesand dissonancesflow.10 As thetideofhisworkindicated, he regarded harmony as theold,true, only, andeternal foundation ofmusic, nota system devisedbyhuman beings, and certainly notsomething thatmight changeaccording to differences in taste.In heaven,he claimsin his conclusion, we will makemusicwiththe same tones thatare used herein theworld (whichGuido labeled as ut,re,mi, fa, sol,la). How, he asks,do we knowthis?Because the excellenceof musicin heavencannotgo againstreasonor ratio.11 something ofthe works-based ethos...