During the reign of Frederick the Great, around the year 1752, how literate would he and his subjects be? How literate would the lower classes be?

by Chipilowski

I am a baroque flute player studying a treatise written by Johann Joachim Quantz titled "On Playing the Flute" (English translation). The book was originally written in German, in 1752. Quantz was a court musician in the court of Frederick II, or Frederick the Great. King in Prussia. In an attempt to create context and enhance my understanding of this time period, who would have been able to read and understand this book? Was formal training in literacy limited to nobility? Was formal training in music limited to nobility?

Not only does this flesh out my understand of this writing but it also will inform me on whether or not musicians of that time period learned aurally (By ear, preferring to memorize music) or by sight reading (By vision, preferring to read sheet music), or a combination of both, depending on the circumstances.

In modern times, in the classical music community, at least in the United States, memorization is not a universal requirement in schooling. Vocalists, many string players, and most keyboard players will be required to perform recitals from memory. In contrast, orchestral instrument students are not met with this requirement.

In the performance of this music, on instruments that are replications of instruments from that time period (My flute is a Boxwood Carlo Palanca copy, made by Martin Wenner. From about 1740), the topic of memorization is one that comes up from time to time. Did people do it then? Would performers of that period be MORE INCLINED to do it? Is it just a performance practice that began in the 19th century with the advent of concert halls? Should instrumentalists make memorization a priority? As with modern performance practice, there is a divide on this topic.

Thank you for your time!

nilhaus

By 1717, children were required to attend school in Prussia until the age of 13. These schools weren't quite as time consuming and comprehensive as modern schools. Children often only attended one or two times a week for a few hours, and sometimes only in the summer. Most of the studies focused on the Bible. Attendance rates were rather high, and by 1800 were close to 100%, though among the poorest of peasants perhaps 40% could sign their name.

There was a strong incentive to be literate in Prussia during this time as it was required to be literate in words and math for many bureaucratic jobs or to join a guild. The church also required a person be literate before their confirmation. During the 18th century at least one member of a family would be able to read at least select passages from the Bible and read from a book of hymns so as to lead the family through ceremony.

Frederick I had undertaken a mass literacy drive during his lifetime and oversaw the building of over 900 schools in East Prussia by the late 1730's. Schools were also established for the children of soldiers, and later a focus was placed on educating unschooled adults in night school or on Sundays to fit in work schedules. Quality of schools was largely the same from peasant to middle-class thanks to a combination of gradual standardization and general disinterest from students. Only upper-class elites tended to hire private tutors.

The literacy drives didn't have a huge immediate impact on Prussian's lives. Instead of reciting memorized passages or songs they were now reading them from a book, but it was important in transitioning Prussian traditions from an oral society to a written one.

I can't comment on the practice of musicians.

Sources:

R.F. Arnove. National Literacy Campaigns: Historical and Comparative Perspectives

James Brophy. Popular Culture and the Public Sphere in the Rhineland, 1800-1850.

origamitiger

The Quantz text is quite a good read, I remember studying that in a woodwind history class. /u/nilhaus gives a great explanation of the literacy rates among the lower classes in these times, so perhaps I'll try to complement him by answering the musical questions.

First I'll point out that by the time of Frederick the Great, music conservatories would have been common in Italy and southern Austria, and while not as popular in other areas, they wouldn't have been exactly rare. However, this doesn't mean that all musicians would have learned their crafts in this way. a large number of musicians would have still learnt privately, in many cases actin almost as apprentices.

Musicians of this day would have had to be able to read music, if they wanted to lad any of the well paying gigs. Even given the less complicated harmonic progressions of the day, it would have been a considerable feat to learn the music of Haydn or Montverdi by ear, and in reality, would have been impossible. Even if you could pick out the harmony and the melody, how is one supposed to learn their instruments part by ear, especially for instruments which were only played by a single individual? Any dramatic variation in the piece would be impossible if you had to first wait for someone else to play it first.

As for memorization, I'm sure quite a number of piano players would have memorized pieces in a similar fashion to today. Something interesting to keep in mind is the use of improvisation in the music of this period, particularly on the organ. Often, when given a simple theme, master composers/pianists could play for quite a while, inventing variations on the theme and accompaniment. Beethoven and Mozart are both well known for this, but they weren't unique in this regard.

erus

Focusing on the musical aspect...

Was formal training in music limited to nobility?

What we now consider formal training is different from what you could expect back then. However, looking at the famous composers of the time we see they were not members of the nobility, had formal musical training and many taught at some point in their life. You find a lot of famous people studying with other famous musicians.

How did it work? Well, some people were learning the family business. Really, there were whole families in the music business. They started taking lessons with their relatives, and then some would take lessons with the best teachers their family could find/afford. Private lessons, that is what most famous musicians had. It was a craft that was learned in a master-apprentice system, there were not too many "schools" in the modern sense.

The Italian conservatories started as hospices where people were trained to be musicians so they could make an honest living (there were other career paths). Music was starting to be considered an Art in our modern sense.

In the 18th century, conservatories started to look more like a school, but were closer to a vocational than a university (see Naples schools in that century). The royalty from different countries sponsored music schools in the 18th century onwards.

musicians of that time period learned aurally (By ear, preferring to memorize music) or by sight reading (By vision, preferring to read sheet music), or a combination of both, depending on the circumstances.

I know of no professional musician from that time who we could consider musically illiterate. If there was such cases, their options would be limited. You needed to be musically literate to play in an orchestra or play chamber music (people needed to pick up new music quickly). You really needed to know your stuff if you were after the good jobs (kapellmeister, maestro di cappella, etc.). It would be difficult to make a living out of selling your music in print if you can't write it. I don't see that working for professional musicians of the "concert" type.

What we (usually) learn NOW in conservatories and other formal settings comes from the 18th and 19th century. Formal training back then was a little different.

You learned how to read music (pretty similar to what we do now, but there were some differences), you learned counterpoint (again, some differences), you learned figured bass and you composed chorals but harmony was still becoming popular and was not a de facto standard (Bach was not into that Frenchie's ideas, his sons' generation still grew up without harmony being the main path to composition). They didn't learn the normal functional approach we have now (that comes from around the middle of the 19th century, and wasn't completely finished until almost the 20th). You learned how to improvise. Really, there was no way to avoid that.

Baroque and early Classical music require you to add your own ornaments, variations and cadenzze, you had to be creative. You needed to create new music or at least do something with existing one, they were not into this museum classical musician thing we have now. You are a virtuoso hot shot? Well, improvise for us! All the famous composers, instrument players and singers of that time were able to improvise. Their whole education was directed towards that, unlike most modern examples in the classical world where you are taught to analyze and then work in stuff for a while. Of course, most people were not capable of improvising something close to Bach's Musical Offering (that's why Bach was considered a super musician back then, if not universally known), but they were able to make music on the spot.

memorization is not a universal requirement in schooling

Yeah, the craze about memorization apparently started in the 19th century. People did use their memory, though. Imagine you are going to play your new piano concerto... You were also conducting the orchestra, of course you had a lot of that music in your memory! I think Opera singers needed to know their parts, too.

You would read in most settings, people were not expected to play everything from memory. And remember, reading didn't mean you were not going to need to improvise.

Some of the most famous books from that period that you might want to read after Quantz: