Musicology The Key Concepts

Routledge Key Guides 2nd Edition

David Beard
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/musicology-the-key-concepts-routledge-key-guides-2
nd-edition-david-beard/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Globalization The Key Concepts Thomas Hylland Eriksen

https://textbookfull.com/product/globalization-the-key-concepts-
thomas-hylland-eriksen/

Cinema Studies The Key Concepts 5th Edition Susan

Hayward

https://textbookfull.com/product/cinema-studies-the-key-
concepts-5th-edition-susan-hayward/

Animal Studies The Key Concepts 1st Edition Matthew R.

Calarco

https://textbookfull.com/product/animal-studies-the-key-
concepts-1st-edition-matthew-r-calarco/

The Marx Revival Key Concepts And New Interpretations

Marcello Musto

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-marx-revival-key-concepts-
and-new-interpretations-marcello-musto/
The Routledge Course in Business Korean 1st Edition
Young-Key Kim-Renaud

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-routledge-course-in-
business-korean-1st-edition-young-key-kim-renaud/

Understanding Intercultural Interaction: An Analysis of

Key Concepts Frank Fitzpatrick

https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-intercultural-
interaction-an-analysis-of-key-concepts-frank-fitzpatrick/

Mastering managerial accounting: key concepts through

problem sets First Edition Denison

https://textbookfull.com/product/mastering-managerial-accounting-
key-concepts-through-problem-sets-first-edition-denison/

Key Concepts and Issues in Nursing Ethics 1st Edition

P. Anne Scott

https://textbookfull.com/product/key-concepts-and-issues-in-
nursing-ethics-1st-edition-p-anne-scott/

The Routledge Handbook of Reenactment Studies Key Terms

in the Field 1st Edition Vanessa Agnew (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-
reenactment-studies-key-terms-in-the-field-1st-edition-vanessa-
agnew-editor/
Musicology

Now in an updated second edition, Musicology: The Key Concepts is a concise A–Z refer-
ence guide to the terms and concepts associated with contemporary musicology. This edi-
tion contains significant revision to the original edition and includes twenty new entries:

•• Autobiography
•• Cold War
•• Conflict (music and conflict)
•• Consciousness
•• Creativity
•• Decadence
•• Disability
•• Ecomusicology
•• Emotion
•• Ethics (music and ethics)
•• Film music
•• Form
•• Gesture
•• Lateness (late works/late style)
•• Listening
•• 9/11
•• Politics (music and politics)
•• Popular musicology
•• Sound/soundscape/sound studies
•• Stance

With all entries updated, and suggestions for further reading throughout, this text is
an essential resource for all students of music, musicology, and wider performance-
related humanities disciplines.

David Beard is Senior Lecturer in Music at Cardiff University, UK. He has pub-
lished widely in peer-reviewed journals, including Cambridge Opera Journal, Music
Analysis, and Twentieth-Century Music, and is the author of Harrison Birtwistle’s Operas
and Music Theatre (2012). He co-edited Harrison Birtwistle Studies (2015) and has con-
tributed chapters to Ancient Drama in Music for the Modern Stage (2010) and Peter
Maxwell Davies Studies (2009). He sits on the editorial board of the journal Music &
Letters.

Kenneth Gloag is Professor of Music at Cardiff University, UK. His publications

include books on Tippett’s A Child of Our Time (1999) and Nicolas Maw’s Odyssey
(2008). He is the author of Postmodernism in Music (2012), and has co-edited and con-
tributed chapters to Peter Maxwell Davies Studies (2009), The Cambridge Companion to
Michael Tippett (2013), and Harrison Birtwistle Studies (2015). He was inaugural reviews
editor of the journal Twentieth-Century Music (2004–12).
Also available from Routledge

Blues
The Basics
Dick Weissman

Music Business
The Key Concepts
Richard Strasser

Popular Music Culture

The Key Concepts
Roy Shuker

World Music
The Basics
Richard Nidel
Musicology
The Key Concepts
Second Edition

David Beard and

Kenneth Gloag
Second edition published 2016
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
The right of David Beard and Kenneth Gloag to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published 2005
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Beard, David, 1971- author.
Musicology : the key concepts / David Beard and Kenneth Gloag. —
2nd edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Musicology. I. Gloag, Kenneth, author. II. Title.
ML3797.B35 2016
780.72—dc23
2015027777

ISBN: 978-0-415-67967-1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-415-67968-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-64746-3 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
Contents

List of key concepts vi

Acknowledgements viii
Note on the text ix
Preface to the second edition x
Introduction xi

KEY CONCEPTS 1

Bibliography 262
Name index 337
Subject index 348
List of key concepts

absolute ecomusicology
aesthetics emotion
alterity Enlightenment
analysis ethics (music and ethics)
authenticity ethnicity
autobiography
autonomy feminism
avant-garde film music
form
biography (life and work) formalism
body
gay musicology
canon gender
class genius
Cold War genre
conflict (music and conflict) gesture
consciousness globalization
cover version
creativity hermeneutics
critical musicology historical musicology
critical theory historicism
criticism historiography
cultural studies hybridity
culture
culture industry identity
ideology
decadence influence
deconstruction interpretation
diegetic/nondiegetic intertextuality
disability
discourse jazz
 List of key concepts vii
landscape post-structuralism
language psychology
lateness (late works/late style)
listening race
reception
Marxism recording
meaning Renaissance
metaphor Romanticism
modernism
semiotics
narrative sketch
nationalism sound/soundscape/sound studies
new musicology stance
9/11 structuralism
style
organicism subject position
Orientalism subjectivity
sublime
periodization
place theory
politics (music and politics) tradition
popular music
popular musicology value
positivism
postcolonial/postcolonialism work
postmodernism
Acknowledgements

The idea for the original version of this book emerged through our expe-
rience of teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students in music at
Cardiff University, and we would like to thank all who helped produce
the positive atmosphere within which both the original and this revised
version were developed.
Several colleagues at Cardiff University provided valuable support and
advice for the undertaking and completion of this new, revised edition.
In particular we would like to thank Sarah Hill, Keith Chapin, Peter
Sedgwick and Charles Wilson for their input. We would also like to
thank the School of Music at Cardiff University for providing financial
support, and Alicia Stark for her assistance with the bibliography and
index.
Finally, this book would not have been possible without the support
and patience of family and friends, in particular Danijela Špirić-Beard,
the editorial staff at Routledge, especially Constance Ditzel, Genevieve
Aoki, Aurora Montgomery, Sophie Thomson and Iram Satti, and our
copyeditor Judith Forshaw.
Note on the text

The aim of this book is to make available a range of ideas for further
consideration and discussion. We have therefore attempted as far as pos-
sible to use modern editions of texts that the reader is most likely to have
access to. In some cases this takes the form of anthologies and transla-
tions. For example, when we refer to Kant’s Critique of Judgement, we
base our references on the extracts translated and published by le Huray
and Day in their superb collection entitled Music and Aesthetics in the
Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries (le Huray and Day 1981), which
is more likely to be available in a music library than is Kant’s complete
text. We hope that this will form a first point of contact with specific
concepts and contexts, providing a pathway towards complete texts and
related concepts. Using this book as a point of entry means that it does
not constitute a primary text as such; rather, its purpose is to direct, and
we expect that students will follow these directions – to ideas, texts,
music – and in doing so they will engage with the relevant sources and
not become dependent on our work or on the examples and interpreta-
tions that we provide.
Bibliographical references are given throughout using the author–date
system. However, where we make passing reference to a year of publica-
tion without the author’s name in parentheses, this is intended to give
only a historical location and not to form part of the reference system.
Dates of historical figures, such as composers and philosophers, are given
in the name index, and cross-references are indicated in bold.
Preface to the second edition

Since the original edition of this book was published in 2005, we have
been encouraged by the response we have received from many colleagues
in many universities, colleges and conservatoires who have highlighted
their use of the book in the teaching of music and musicology. It has
become a regular presence on student reading lists and it has had a wider
reach than perhaps we originally anticipated. The decision to under-
take the preparation of a new, significantly revised edition was not based
on any perceived need to respond to a seismic shift in musicology as a
discipline or to a new wave of stylistic changes in music. Indeed, since
the impact of the new musicology in the 1980s and 1990s, musicology
seems to have been moving through periods of ongoing evolution within
which new ideas, concepts and contexts have emerged and have added
to the understanding of musicology as a diverse discipline and of music
as a plural subject, but it has not been marked by rupture – nor, indeed,
by new ideological conflicts and tensions. However, there has been a
significant increase in the quantity of published work – a reflection in
part of the increasing demands of academic life – and the range of music
and related issues that are being explored in print.
This new version of Musicology: The Key Concepts has been formulated
to reflect these subtle changes through the addition of new concepts,
our engagement with literature published since 2005, and the revisiting
of work from before that point in time. New concepts include, among
others, Cold War, conflict, consciousness, disability, ecomusicol-
ogy, emotion, listening, 9/11, sound and stance. In addition, the
inclusion of form and film music, for example, emerge from our own
critical reflections on the first edition. All concepts that were explored in
the original version have been revisited and revised, in some cases exten-
sively, in others less so, and we have added new recommended reading
throughout.
Introduction

Music/Musicology
Music and musicology are both separate and related constructs. Music
as a practical activity has its own history, but musicology, as a process of
study, inquiry and reflection, while it forms its own context and employs
distinct concepts, is clearly dependent upon and reflective of music as its
subject. Clearly there are problems in distinguishing between concept
and context. We can conceptualize style, for example, as a set of issues
that surround the use of this term in musical discourse, and we can dis-
cuss the use of style as a subject and parameter of musicological inquiry.
But this may ultimately be a different exercise from the writing of a
detailed history of a specific style or stylistic period (see periodization),
such as the Classical or Baroque style, an exercise that would involve a
specific context. However, the process of inquiry may require the appli-
cation of various different concepts. From this perspective, our selec-
tion of concepts is a reflection of a certain practice; in effect, it provides
keywords in musicology. These concepts can now be conceived of as
forming part of the contemporary musicologist’s toolbox. Music has a
long history, while musicology has, by comparison, enjoyed a relatively
short lifespan. Yet one could argue that musicology, which can broadly
be defined as thinking about music, as reflected through reading about
it, listening to it and writing about it, is already present within the acts
of composing and performing music. Music is an art form and context
that has always invited theoretical speculation and critical reflection,
and we can presume that composers, for example, have always thought
about their own creative processes and that these processes are somehow
informed by the study and experience of other, already existing music.
However, such reflection and interaction may be seen as stopping short
of a properly conceived musicology that could be understood to stand
outside the creative process in order to provide a clearer perspective upon
xii Introduction
that process, its end product in the form of a musical work, and, just as
significantly, the social and cultural contexts within which the process
and product could be situated and interpreted. This broad conception
of musicology contrasts with the narrower focus of specific aspects of
musicological activity. Although earlier figures such as Forkel and Fétis
outlined programmes of what could be considered an early musicology,
it was Austrian musicologist Guido Adler who provided the first descrip-
tion of, and effectively a prescription for, musicology. In an article enti-
tled ‘Umfang, Methode und Ziel der Musikwissenschaft’ (‘The Scope,
Method and Aim of Musicology’), published in 1885 in the first issue of
Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft (Adler 1885; see also Bujić 1988,
348–55), Adler outlined a separation between the historical and system-
atic dimensions of music, with the rigour of the exercise reflected in the
term Musikwissenschaft (science of music). He repeated this model in his
Methode der Musikgesichte, published in 1919. For Adler, the historical
field consisted of the organization of music history into epochs, periods
and nations. In contrast, the systematic field was to consist of the inter-
nal properties and characteristics of music such as harmony and tonality.
Clearly, a great deal of musicological activity after Adler could be seen
to reflect this division, with the study of music history often reflecting
large-scale categorization (see historiography) and the construction of
a canon of the Western tradition of classical music, while the systematic
field could be viewed as anticipating the development of music analysis
and the emergence of specific theories of harmony, tonality and form
(see theory). However, what is most revealing about Adler’s project
in general is its quasi-scientific nature, with the claim of the system-
atic reflecting the rationalizing and positivistic (see positivism) impulses
and the search for objectivity common to a number of musicological
contexts.
However one responds to Adler’s division, the study of music remains
a set of distinct areas, many of which might be significantly different from
any other while also potentially informing each other. This difference
is further extended in this book through the inclusion of areas such as
ethnomusicology (see ethnicity), jazz and popular music studies, with
musicology now understood as an all-embracing term for the study of
music that respects the ‘whole musical field’ (Middleton 1990, 7), a pro-
ject that is different from more traditional models of musicology, which
previously sought to exclude such music and ideas from its domain. In
this book we have taken the broad perspective, reflecting the diversity of
our own musical experiences and interests, which we think also reflects
the contemporary situation of both music and musicology. Therefore,
references to jazz, or to different aspects of popular music, for example,
 Introduction xiii
sit easily alongside our interests in aspects of the Western art music tradi-
tion. We see no contradiction, or tension, between an interest in and an
ability to write about a wide range of different music from different con-
texts. However, although we see musicology as potentially embracing all
music, this does not lead to uniformity and the negation of difference.
If embracing musical difference is important, so too is the recognition
of an intellectual diversity; just as we listen to and reflect on a wide
range of different music, our interpretations are informed by an interest
in the work of many different scholars, some from within musicology –
including, for example, Abbate, Dahlhaus, Kerman, Kramer, McClary,
Solie, Taruskin and Whittall – and others, such as Barthes, Derrida and
Foucault, who come from other intellectual disciplines and whose work
has added new perspectives for musicology.
Our understanding of musicology as a diverse, plural discipline leads
inevitably to the conclusion that there is no defining, overarching narra-
tive, no all-encompassing story within which the details can be enclosed.
Rather, there are parts, as perhaps reflected in the series of concepts out-
lined in this book; they may intersect, they may at times collide, but they
are not necessarily all small parts of the same large story. And yet there is
also, we hope, an underlying consistency as defined by the actual con-
cepts identified as relevant. Many concepts, such as post-structuralism
and postmodernism, for example, both of which arrived relatively late
in musicology in comparison with other disciplines, have a relevance and
explanatory force for many different musical and musicological contexts.
A possible historical narrative for musicology could suggest that a
point of origin could be situated within the reflections upon the nature,
content and function of music that existed in the distant past of ancient
Greece and the theories of Plato and the poetics of Aristotle (see Barker
1989). Later, but still distant, writings on music took the form of medi-
eval and Renaissance treatises and polemics. The Enlightenment
of the eighteenth century witnessed the rationalization of knowledge
and consequently further enhanced the position and status of music
within an intellectual discourse. The Enlightenment also gave birth to
the emergence of a new historical consciousness that would further
develop during the nineteenth century. The eighteenth century also
brought into focus the philosophical inquiry into the nature of music in
the shape of the aesthetics of music. Historicism and aestheticism (see
aesthetics) became central characteristics of the nineteenth century
and the defining Romanticism of that time. Romanticism reflected
the literary, linguistic dimensions of musical experience (see language),
which were simultaneously heightened and subverted by the impact of
modernism in the early twentieth century, with the rationalization of
xiv Introduction
modernity providing a context for the systematic study of music in the
form of musicology.
The above, intentionally simplistic, synopsis is persuasive and accurate
in terms of a chronology and the main developments, yet it also has its
problems. Most obviously it is lacking in detail, but equally problematic
is the suggestion of a linear, goal-orientated narrative, an onward pro-
gression and development through time, with one phase connecting to
the next with a remarkable degree of continuity and inevitability, lead-
ing towards Adler’s musicology and then the contexts and concept of
modernism, suggesting a historical narrative that is ripe for deconstruc-
tion. In other words, it tells a certain history that is informative but that
also simplifies, effectively ignoring the detours and disruptions, without
specificity, misinterpreting the ruptures and ripples, and replacing dif-
ference with similarity. Paradoxically, it now demands a more complex
perspective, one that can explode the reductive simplicity and explore
the hitherto hidden fragments.
Musicology has undergone dramatic changes since the 1980s. When
we were writing the first edition of this book we became highly aware
of a ‘before and after’ effect, in which a certain shift in musicological
discourse became a recurrent feature. Then we tried, as we still do, to
avoid this as a model and perhaps also to avoid the temptation to over-
interpret or overdramatize this situation. Nevertheless, the essential fact is
that what constitutes musicology now is very different from how it might
have looked in the 1960s or 1970s. It is also important to reflect upon
the fact that these shifts occur in parallel with the broadening of those
musical repertories that are seen as being available for musicology. But
what came before and what came after? What is the dividing line, and is
it real or imaginary?
In 1980, American musicologist Joseph Kerman published an article
entitled ‘How We Got into Analysis, and How to Get Out’ (Kerman
1994). Without doing a systematic musicological search, we guess that
this is probably one of the most commonly cited texts in this book:
it appears in relation to concepts such as analysis, new musicology
and post-structuralism, among others, and it is clearly a polemical state-
ment that has enjoyed a wide range of responses and reactions. In 1985,
Kerman published a book with the title Contemplating Music in America
and Musicology in Britain (Kerman 1985); in this, he outlines the divi-
sions of musicology and presents a critique of what he perceives as the
formalism and positivism that had come to define musicology. In the
article, Kerman charted the problems of analysis, its ideological nature
(see ideology) and consequently the relationship between analysis and
organicism as a ‘ruling ideology’ (Kerman 1994, 15). Kerman’s critique
 Introduction xv
is a persuasive one, highlighting the a priori assumptions that music
analysis can easily make about the unity of a musical work. However,
for some, it may just as easily raise other problems. Kerman’s plea for a
more ‘humane’ form of criticism may be rather vague, and his discus-
sion of Schumann’s ‘Aus meinen Tränen spriessen’ from the song cycle
Dichterliebe (1840) might just be the type of programmatic description
that many musicologists will remain suspicious of. However, this article
and the book that followed did make an impact, and much of the writing
that comes after Kerman, some of which has been described as forming a
new musicology, often acknowledges the power of Kerman’s arguments.
So, do Kerman’s polemics provide the dividing line between an old and
a new musicology? With reference to Kerman’s Musicology, Nicholas
Cook and Mark Everist, in the preface to a collection of essays called
Rethinking Music, suggest that a ‘before Kerman/after Kerman paradigm’
may be a myth, yet, ‘as myths go, this is quite a helpful one’ (Cook and
Everist 1999, viii). We would agree with this view. For some, musi-
cology after Kerman may be marked by a sense of loss, a nostalgia for
musicology past, while, for others, the current state of the discipline is
better for the critical reflection inspired by Kerman. It also provides a ref-
erence point, a moment against which departures can be measured. But,
if musicology looks different to how it was in, say, the 1960s and 1970s,
the pattern since the impact of the new musicology is one of develop-
ments and transformations rather than ruptures and rejections, with many
of the concerns of the new musicology now well established as part of an
intellectual mainstream, a fact that is recognized by Lawrence Kramer in
his reference to the first edition of this book (see Kramer 2011, 63–4).
Over several decades now (‘after Kerman’), musicology has become
more critical and less positivistic, more concerned with interpreta-
tions and less with facts (see interpretation). It has also become more
interdisciplinary as the boundaries between different types of music are
partially erased and the search for new critical models pushes way beyond
the limits of a traditional musicology. For some, this is something to be
resisted (see Williams 2004), but, from our own vantage point, whenever
and wherever this book is being read ‘now’ is a good time to try to be a
musicologist, with a seemingly endless range of music to study and the
challenge of developing and extending our vision and vocabulary pro-
viding a great stimulus and motivation for current and future research.
We think this book will help.

Further reading: Bowman 1998; Christensen 2002; Dell’Antonio 2004; Downes

2014a; Fulcher 2011; Korsyn 2003; Shuker 1998; Stevens 1980; Taruskin 2005a;
Williams 2001
This Page is Intentionally Left Blank
MUSICOLOGY

The Key Concepts

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank
 Absolute 3
ABSOLUTE

The conceptualization of an absolute music emerged during the

Romanticism of the nineteenth century and was first articulated in
the writings of philosophers such as Herder and critics such as E.T.A.
Hoffmann (see criticism). Paradoxically, however, it was given musi-
cal and philosophical representation in the writings of Richard Wagner,
who coined the term in the context of a programme note for his own
performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in 1846. In this text, abso-
lute music is defined as that which Beethoven leaves behind through the
introduction of voice and word in the final movement of the symphony:

With the beginning of this finale Beethoven’s music takes on a more

distinctly speaking character: it leaves behind the character of pure
instrumental music such as had been maintained throughout the first
three movements, the realm of infinite and indistinct expression.
The further progress of this musical poem strives toward a resolu-
tion, a resolution that can only be articulated by human speech. We
must admire how the master has prepared the entrance of language
and the human voice as something both anticipated and necessary by
means of the shattering recitative of the double basses when, nearly
transgressing the boundaries of absolute music, this recitative engages
the other instruments with its powerfully emotional discourse, press-
ing for some resolution, and finally issuing in a lyrical theme.
(Grey 2009, 486; see also Dahlhaus 1989a, 18)

Wagner’s interpretation of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony focuses on

those moments and issues, the introduction of voice and text, that project
a profound distance from the expectations of the symphony as a genre,
and the description of the ‘musical poem’ repositions Beethoven as an
anticipation of Wagner’s own synthesis of music and drama.
For Wagner, absolute music became an object of criticism, with his
own ideas and music, which sought to embrace the widest possible musi-
cal and extra-musical world, looking in a diametrically opposed direction.
However, while Wagner’s account of absolute music results in a negative
definition, the term becomes more routinely attached to purely instru-
mental music that can be claimed to exist without reference to anything
beyond itself and was often seen as the opposite of programme music, or
music with a descriptive content, such as the symphonic poems of Liszt
which were heavily influenced by Wagner (see influence). It there-
fore featured in the polemics of the Viennese critic Eduard Hanslick
(see aesthetics, criticism, meaning), who attacked the extra-musical
4 Absolute
dimensions of Wagner’s work and, through the understanding of a pure,
absolute music, led to the claim of an aesthetic autonomy and a for-
malist account of music (see formalism). However, Hanslick himself
does not directly invoke absolute music as a term or concept, which
leads Sanna Pederson, writing from a current historical perspective, to
claim that it is a ‘myth that Hanslick championed the term’ (Pederson
2009, 262). Pederson also seeks to draw a distinction between a history
of the term absolute music as opposed to a concept of it, and describes
Dahlhaus’s highly influential account of absolute music as a twentieth-
century construction (see Dahlhaus 1989a). However, in response to
Pederson’s interpretation, it is clear that there is often a distance between
the construction of terminology, the naming of a concept, and the prac-
tices to which it relates, and Dahlhaus’s account is one reflection of that
recursive pattern (see Kynt 2012).
A discourse of absolute music was an active force in the nineteenth
century even if it was not yet named as such. For example, E.T.A.
Hoffmann’s writings on Beethoven had raised the importance of instru-
mental music and located it within the context of Romanticism. In his
famous review of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (1807–8), Hoffmann
declares:

When music is spoken of as an independent art the term can properly

apply only to instrumental music, which scorns all aid, all admixture
of other arts, and gives pure expression to its own peculiar artistic
nature. It is the most romantic of all arts – one might almost say the
only one that is purely romantic.
(Charlton 1989, 236)

This suggestion of an ‘independent art’, by implication an absolute music,

elevates instrumental music and ascribes a high aesthetic value through
the formation of a canon of great works, processes that were most clearly
defined through the context of the symphony (see genre). As well as
the romantic critical discourse of Hoffmann, several philosophers also
articulated ideas that came very close to what would become known
as an idea of absolute music. For example, Hegel, the highly influential
German Idealist philosopher and contemporary of Beethoven, described
a ‘self-sufficient music’ that became ‘purely musical’ through eschewing
and eradicating the ‘alien element’ of language as defined by poetry (in
le Huray and Day 1981, 351). If Hegel’s version of an absolute music
is essentially defined by an absence, in this case language, for support-
ers of an absolute music these absences became a source of strength. As
Dahlhaus states:
 Aesthetics 5
The idea of ‘absolute music’ – as we may henceforth call independent
instrumental music, even though the term did not arise for another
half-century – consists of the conviction that instrumental music
purely and clearly expresses the true nature of music by its very lack
of concept, object, and purpose. Not its existence, but what it stands
for, is decisive. Instrumental music, as ‘pure structure,’ represents itself.
(Dahlhaus 1989a, 7)

In other words, music was seen to achieve a certain purity around its
lack of a fixed concept or function, a claim that echoes the ‘art for
art’s sake’ ethos of the period. For Dahlhaus, this absolute music now
became paradigmatic: ‘the idea of absolute music – gradually and against
resistance – became the [a]esthetic paradigm of German musical cul-
ture in the nineteenth century’ (ibid., 9). The establishment of this para-
digm posed problems for the reception of other genres, such as the lied,
which depended upon a text for its nature and identity. The debates
generated around the claim towards an absolute music also cast a shadow
over modernism during the twentieth century through its own utopian
aspirations towards an aesthetic purity and autonomy and it has been
subject to different critical interpretations (see McClary 1993b).

Further reading: Bonds 2006; Chua 1999; Dahlhaus 1983a, 1989b; Gooley 2011;
Grey 1995, 2014; Grimes, Donovan and Marx 2013; Hefling 2004; Hoeckner
2002

AESTHETICS

Aesthetics is a general term that was coined to describe philosophical

reflection on the arts, including music. The aesthetics of music, there-
fore, asks some fundamental questions about the subject, such as: what is
its nature? What does music mean? Individual positions and beliefs can be
described as aesthetic. It is also associated with ideology in that specific
sets of beliefs situate specific aesthetic responses and interpretations (see,
for example, Marxism) and can also dictate the nature of the questions
asked of music.
While the philosophical scrutiny of music has a long history, begin-
ning with Plato and Aristotle (see Barker 1989), the origin of the term
is generally associated with Baumgarten, who used it in his Meditationes
philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus of 1735 (le Huray and
Day 1981, 214; Baumgarten 1954). Baumgarten was concerned with
the distinction between knowledge and perception and their respective
6 Aesthetics
faculties, superior and lower: ‘Things known, then, are those known by
the superior faculty; they come within the ambit of logic. Things perceived
come within the ambit of the science of perception and are the object
of the lower faculty. These may be termed aesthetic’ (le Huray and Day
1981, 214). On this account, aesthetics is concerned with perception,
how we see art, read literature and listen to music. All these acts require
us to interpret what we see, read and hear; therefore it is possible to
understand aesthetics in relation to interpretation (see hermeneutics).
Baumgarten’s distinction between things known and things perceived
also relates to the opposition between rationalism and empiricism
(between what we know and what we experience) that was a recurring
feature of the period (see Enlightenment).
One of the foundational texts of aesthetics is the Critique of Judgement
(Kritik der Urteilskraft, 1790; see Kant 1987) by Immanuel Kant, the lead-
ing German philosopher of the period. It is therefore logical that his
ideas have been given a certain prominence. Much of Kant’s thought
emerges through the tension between empiricism and rationalism, with
his distinctive contribution being the forging of a synthesis between these
two large-scale poles. In the critique, Kant is concerned with how an
aesthetic quality such as beauty may be both perceived and rationalized.
Musicologist Wayne Bowman, in his book Philosophical Perspectives on
Music (Bowman 1998), provides a neat summary:

Kant explores the distinctive characteristics and grounds for judg-

ments of beauty from four perspectives, or four ‘moments’: their
quality, their quantity, their relation, and their modality. The qual-
ity of aesthetic judgments is, he says, disinterested. Their quantity is,
though conceptless, universal. Their relation is purposive (while strictly
speaking, purposeless). And their modality is exemplary.
(ibid., 77)

What does it mean to describe a judgement as disinterested? For Kant,

we need a certain sense of detachment, an aesthetic purity, which leads us
to avoid the temptation of seeking to prove or establish a predetermined
outcome. If, for example, we approach a painting with the expectation
that it is beautiful, then it is likely that the expectation will be fulfilled.
But this is not an aesthetic judgement. Rather, if we are disinterested
then we are more likely to allow ourselves to achieve a truer percep-
tion of whether the art work is beautiful or not. However, in order for
it to be a judgement, it has to be grounded in something more than
mere personal preference. For some, this disinterestedness, by implica-
tion a detachment, leads not only to a certain aesthetic purity but also to
 Aesthetics 7
disengagement with the real world and the reality of art works (see abso-
lute music, autonomy, formalism). It could also ignore the contexts,
circumstances and beliefs that may conspire to influence our perception.
Kant’s reference to the universal provides a step from individual per-
ception to a more general, collective understanding. In other words, if we
perceive the art work to be beautiful, others should be able to experience
the same qualities. This universality shifts the act of judgement away from
a pure subjectivity, and this distinguishes Kant’s view from Baumgarten’s
‘lower faculty’. Kant also raises the question of the purpose of the art work,
the third of the four perspectives summarized by Bowman, and it is this
perspective that looks towards formalism. For Kant, aesthetic judgements
are grounded in the work itself, its patterns, structures and what he defines
as its ‘formal finality’. In other words, how the work is recognized as a
complete entity, a unified object, reflects a process of judgement. Finally,
Bowman refers to a modality that is exemplary. The aesthetic judgement
defines a condition that is set as an example; it becomes a model for others,
a view that looks towards the establishment of a condition of value (see
canon). This summary of Kant’s thought outlines a series of issues that
recur throughout the history of aesthetics.
Kant was also concerned with the comparison of different art forms,
including music, and considered their relative aesthetic merits:

As far as charm and stimulation go, I should place after poetry that
art which comes closer to it than any of the other arts of eloquence
and which can thus very naturally be combined with it: music. For
although it communicates by means of mere sensations without con-
cepts, and therefore does not, like poetry, leave anything to reflect
on, it nevertheless moves us in more ways and with greater intensity
than poetry does, even if its effect is more transient.
(le Huray and Day 1981, 221)

For Kant, music, in comparison with poetry, moves us with great inten-
sity, but it is essentially transient in nature; therefore, as music passes
through time, its mode of communication is such that it can only sug-
gest (‘mere sensations’) without articulating recognizable concepts. This
can be conceived as music’s weakness, its inability to articulate precise
meaning. However, it is equally possible to counter this interpretation
with an alternative perspective that grasps music’s suggestiveness and
ambiguity as virtues, not flaws, and that opens music up to a rich and
expansive range of interpretative possibilities.
G.W.F. Hegel, a later, highly influential German philosopher, also
reflected upon the nature of music and used comparison with other arts
8 Aesthetics
as a discursive strategy. For Hegel, in contrast to Kant, music’s transience
is, in the words of Bowman, ‘not the impediment Kant believed . . . but
an invaluable instrument of self-realization’ (Bowman 1998, 104). Hegel
saw the process of aesthetic judgement differently from Kant. For Hegel,
art works could also portray beauty as an intrinsic, objective quality.
Music, and the arts in general, also assumed wider significance within
Hegel’s philosophy, serving ‘the deepest interests of humanity, and
the most comprehensive truths of the mind. It is in works of art that
nations have deposited the profoundest intuitions and ideas of their
hearts’ (ibid., 97).
Throughout the nineteenth century, the philosophical reflection on
music intensified, as did the aestheticization of music. Nietzsche and
Schopenhauer, both post-Hegelian German philosophers of the period,
captured, in different ways, the heightened subjectivity and intensi-
fication of meaning evident in the music of their time. For example,
in his Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Idea) of
1819 (Schopenhauer 1995), Schopenhauer saw music as an art of great
significance, that which comes nearest to representing his philosophical
concept of the Will:

It [music] stands quite apart from all the others. In it, we do not
perceive an imitation or a copy of some idea of the things that exist
in the world. Even so, it is such a great and eminently splendid art,
it creates such a powerful reaction in man’s inmost depths, it is so
thoroughly and profoundly understood by him as a uniquely uni-
versal language, even exceeding in clarity that of the phenomenal
world itself.
(le Huray and Day 1981, 324)

The debates about the nature and significance of music continued

throughout the twentieth century and, under the impact of modern-
ism, intensified. The emergence of a critical theory also had implica-
tions for the aesthetic understanding of music.
In the 1990s, the new musicology, through its critique of a formalist
understanding of music, further extended the discussions around issues
and perspectives that can be defined as aesthetic. For example, the work
of Lawrence Kramer has revisited the recurring aesthetic question of the
meaning of music, or what music means. His book Musical Meaning:
Toward a Critical History (Kramer 2002) revisits this debate but gives it
a contemporary dimension. The range of music covered in this book
is also of significance: it includes the Marx Brothers, John Coltrane and
Shostakovich as well as the expected starting point of nineteenth-century
 Alterity 9
Romanticism. This diversity of musical repertoire provides a challenge
for any contemporary aesthetics of music. Is it possible to construct strat-
egies of interpretation that can find common ground across a wide range
of musical contexts? Or do different types of music pose different ques-
tions that demand different aesthetic responses?

See also: genius, language, postmodernism, sublime

Further reading: Adorno 1997; Bowie 1993, 2002; Cook 2001; Dahlhaus 1982;
Downes 2014a; Hamilton 2007; Hegel 1993; Kivy 2002; Kramer 2011; Lippman
1992; Scruton 1999

AGENCY see narrative, subjectivity

ALTERITY

Alterity refers to difference or otherness and is often used interchange-

ably with these terms. However, its origins lie in a shift of focus in cul-
tural studies away from the philosophical sense of self established by the
seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes – who based
his understanding of the other always in relation to the self – towards
a cultural and historical approach that focuses more specific attention
on understanding the Other in its own right. As this sentence shows, a
shift in emphasis is often illustrated by the use of the capitalized form of
the term: for example, this form is used by the psychoanalytical theorist
Jacques Lacan following his interest in desire and the work of G.W.F.
Hegel (see identity). In cultural studies, alterity is related to greater con-
cern for differences of race, ethnicity, gender and class. In postco-
lonial studies (see postcolonial/postcolonialism), for example, the
concept of the subaltern was adopted from Italian Marxist cultural critic
Antonio Gramsci (see Gramsci 1971). The subaltern group is one that is
defined by its difference from a ruling elite; in the context of postcolonial
theory, subalterns are non-ruling indigenous societies and their cultures.
In cultural terms, alterity concerns those sections of post-Renais-
sance European society that are forbidden but desired: women, exotics,
bohemians, primitives and peasants, for example. In this context, the use
of minuets followed by waltzes in Classical period concert music may be
understood as ‘enabling the rational bourgeois to deal with the disturb-
ing fascination of the degenerate aristocracy on the one hand, the earthy
peasantry on the other’ (Middleton 2000a, 63). By extension, sonata
10 Alterity
form (see analysis) was conducive to depicting difference, the second
theme routinely being described as ‘feminine’ in contrast to the ‘mascu-
line’ first theme (see gender). Key schemes could also reflect difference:
famously, Mozart carefully considered his choice of key when depicting
the rage of the Turkish character Osmin in Die Entführung aus dem Serail
(1785–6) (Kivy 1988).
The discipline that perhaps most obviously pertains to alterity, at
least from a Western perspective, is ethnomusicology (see ethnicity).
However, Philip Bohlman has outlined how, through the 1950s, ethno-
musicology began to shift away from considering non-Western music as
Other towards a new perspective that:

insisted that the hermeneutic [see hermeneutics] potential of a

music must lie in that music’s uniqueness, in its bearing no relation
whatsoever to any other music, least of all to Western music. . . . A
canonic reversal therefore occurred, in which the true music of the
Other was Western art music. . . . This was less a matter of rebel-
ling against the canon of Western art music than of turning to the
rather more numerous and more enticing canons of non-Western
music.
(Bohlman 1992, 121)

This quotation points to the fact that recognition of difference and the
exclusion of others is central to the construction of musical canons. At
the time, Bohlman observed that the discipline of musicology ‘covers up
the racism, colonialism, and sexism that underlie many of the singular
canons of the West. . . . Canons formed from “Great Men” and “Great
Music” forged virtually unassailable categories of self and Other, one to
discipline and reduce to singularity, the other to belittle and impugn’
(ibid., 198). Since these comments were made, musicology has gone
some way to redress these oversights, although there is more work to
be done, in particular on the questions of colonialism and imperialism
(although see Zon 2007; Irving 2010; Beckles Willson 2013; Ghuman
2014; Bloechl 2015; Pasler 2015; Sykes, J. 2015).
Popular music has also been associated with difference within both
Western art music and musicology. The British musicologist Richard
Middleton has highlighted this point by developing Paul Gilroy’s concept
of the ‘Black Atlantic’– that is, the concept of a diasporic black Other
and its dialectical role in the development of modernism. Middleton
extends this idea to one of the ‘Low Atlantic’, which juxtaposes popu-
lar against elite and considers how, within that, ‘low’ and black relate
to each other. Middleton proposes two approaches to alterity in music.
 Alterity 11
One, illustrated by Wagner’s setting of Nordic myths, is assimilation,
bringing difference into a stylistically integrated musical language (see
style). The other is resistance and projection, where the Other ‘is exter-
nalized in a sphere of apparent social difference’:

It is this strategy which explains the attractions of the many thousands

of ‘peasant dances’, ‘Volkslieder’, ‘bohemian rhapsodies’, ‘Scottish’
or ‘Slavic’ character pieces, ‘plantation melodies’, and so forth which
throng the nineteenth-century repertory . . . the aim of both assim-
ilation and projection strategies is to manage the threat posed by
potentially infinite difference to the authority of the bourgeois self,
by reducing such difference to a stable hierarchy.
(Middleton 2000a, 62)

Middleton goes on to note how in Mozart’s opera Die Zauberflöte

(1791), the high characters are balanced by a range of low oth-
ers: ‘women; blacks, in the persons of the “moorish” Monostatos
and the slaves; and plebeians, in the form of the comic birdcatcher,
Papageno’ (ibid., 64). Throughout the opera, a hierarchy of social
groups and individuals is established, although the work also illus-
trates the humanizing desire of the Enlightenment, its aspirations
and its limits. Middleton also explores Duke Ellington’s cultivation
of a ‘jungle style’ in jazz, which ‘coupled an exotic appeal to cap-
tivated whites . . . [with] an urban-jungle subculturalism, rooted in
black popular tastes but routed toward the hip, hybrid modernistic
art of bebop’ (ibid., 73). Bernard Gendron has further explored ways
in which discourses (see discourse) concerning alterity have helped
to construct avant-garde expressions in jazz and popular music
(Gendron 2002), while ethnomusicologist Richard Jankowsky has
highlighted the association of diaspora and difference in the practice
of stambeli, a healing trance music created by descendants of sub-
Saharan slaves brought to Tunisia (Jankowsky 2010).
Consideration of the significance of categories of difference in
Western music initially arose in the work of new musicologists (see
new musicology). Some of these scholars examined ways in which
nineteenth-century composers marked areas of their music as structurally
different through tonal, expressive or thematic means. American feminist
musicologist Ruth Solie suggests that the important question for musi-
cologists is: ‘How do social life and culture construct the differences that
all of us understand and enact in daily life?’ (Solie 1993, 10). One exam-
ple of this line of thought is Susan McClary’s consideration of narrative
agendas in Brahms’s Third Symphony (1883). McClary refers to ‘Other’
12 Alterity
keys that register dissonances, that ‘stand in the way of unitary identity’
and must ‘finally be subdued for the sake of narrative closure’ (McClary
1993b, 330). McClary associates the increased use of dissonant keys dur-
ing the nineteenth century with ‘the prevalent anti-authoritarianism of
Romanticism’ (ibid., 334), and she summarizes the piece as a whole
as ‘a document that speaks of heroism, adventure, conflict, conquest,
the constitution of the self, the threat of the Other, and late nineteenth-
century pessimism’ (ibid., 343). Other scholars have isolated moments
in works that suggest alterity through the sound of a single pitch, such
as the strangled double bass harmonics that accompany Jochanaan’s off-
stage beheading in Richard Strauss’s opera Salome (Abbate 1993), or the
discomfiting non-tempered ‘D’ played by the natural horn in the Prelude
of Britten’s Serenade (Gopinath 2013a).
In some instances, alterity is implied through differences in style
or musical language, or an artist’s reception. This has led to various
scholars asking if composers such as Handel and Schubert were gay (see
Thomas 2006; McClary 2006a; see also gay musicology). To some
extent, it is de rigueur for composers to feel removed from society or
to claim autonomy from other artists, styles and trends (see Wilson
2004). Yet an internal sense of difference may be motivated by more
specific factors, such as sexuality and other markers of identity. Philip
Brett, for example, has produced much invaluable work that follows
from Benjamin Britten’s lifelong sense of alienation (Brett 1993); émi-
gré composers, too, will inevitably experience a sense of difference (see
Gál 2014). Peter Franklin has explored the exceptional dynamics of Los
Angeles around 1940, when the city was home to émigré composers as
diverse as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Rachmaninov and Korngold (Franklin
2000). This study reveals a fascinating mix of pre-war European musical
values (see value) as they were enacted and related to a foreign setting,
and the sense of difference felt by Korngold as a composer of film music
(see also place).
All composers and musicians who have felt themselves to be at the
periphery of musical practice may seek to destabilize the barriers sur-
rounding them – a point that applies as much to women composers in
the twentieth century as it does to Hispanic musicians in New York.
This sense of alterity may even extend to composers now perceived to be
at the centre, who, at times in their own lives, considered themselves to
lie outside it, such as Wagner, Elgar and Mahler. Importantly, ideas about
what is central or peripheral will change throughout history.

Further reading: Bauer 2008; Bloechl, Lowe and Kallberg 2015; Born and Hes-
mondhalgh 2000; Garnham 2011; McClary 1992; Schwarz 2006; Street 2000
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Ecribellatae, 385
Ectatosticta davidi, 393
Ectinosoma, 62
Edriophthalmata, 112, 121
Eggs, of Phyllopoda, 32;
of Cladocera, 44;
of Copepoda, 59, 62, 66, 67, 71, 74;
of Branchiura, 77;
of Syncarida, 114;
of Peracarida, 123;
of Hoplocarida, 141;
of Eucarida, 144;
of Trilobites, 238;
of Limulus, 275;
of Pedipalpi, 309;
of Spiders, 358;
of Solifugae, 424;
of Pseudoscorpions, 434;
of Phalangidea, 442;
of Acarina, 456;
of Tardigrada, 478;
of Pentastomida, 493;
of Pycnogons, 520
Ehrenberg, on systematic position of Tardigrada, 483
Eleleis crinita, 396
Ellipsocephalus, 224, 235, 247;
E. hoffi, 248
Embolobranchiata, 258, 259, 297 f.
Emmerich, on facial suture of Trinucleus, 226
Encephaloides, 193;
E. armstrongi, 192, 193;
habitat, 205
Encrinuridae, 251
Encrinurus, 227, 235, 251
Endeis didactyla, 534;
E. gracilis, 539;
E. spinosus, 541
Endite, 9, 10
Endopodite, 9, 10;
of Trilobites, 237
Endosternite, 257, 305, 330
Endostoma, of Eurypterus, 287
Engaeus, 157;
E. fossor, distribution, 213
Enoplectenus, 418
Enterocola, 67;
E. fulgens, 67
Entomostraca, defined, 6;
diagnosis, 18;
of littoral zone, 197;
fresh-water, of southern hemisphere, 216
Entoniscidae, 130, 134
Enyo, 400
Enyoidae, 399
Eoscorpius, 298
Epeira, 409;
E. angulata, 315, 409;
E. basilica, 350, 351;
web of, 351;
E. bifurcata, 359;
E. caudata, 359;
E. cornuta, 409;
E. cucurbitina, 372, 409;
E. diademata, 335, 340, 343, 345, 359, 366, 380, 409;
anatomy, 332;
 cocoon, 358;
silk, 360;
spinnerets, 325;
E. labyrinthea, 350;
E. madagascarensis, 360;
E. mauritia, 349;
E. pyramidata, 409;
E. quadrata, 366, 409;
E. triaranea, 350;
E. umbratica, 409
Epeiridae, 376, 377, 406
Epeirinae, 408
Ephippium, 48
Epiblemum, 420
Epicarida, 129;
sex in, 105
Epicaridian, larva of Epicarida, 130
Epicoxite, of Eurypterus, 287
Epidanus, 449
Epigyne, 319, 333, 378
Epipharynx, 459
Epipodite, 9, 10
Episininae, 402
Episinus truncatus, 403
Epistome, of Eurypterida, 291;
of Pseudoscorpions, 431, 436;
of Phalangidea, 443
Erber, 355, 356
Eremobates, 429
Eremobatinae, 429
Eresidae, 398
Eresus cinnaberinus, 398
Eriauchenus, 411
Erichthoidina, larva of Stomatopod, 143
Ericthus, larva of Stomatopod, 143
Erigone, 405
Erigoninae, 404
Eriophyes, 465;
E. ribis, 455, 465;
E. tiliae, 465
Eriophyidae, 464
Eriphia, 191;
E. spinifrons, 191
Erlanger, von, on development and position of Tardigrada, 483
Ero, 411;
E. furcata, 366, 411;
cocoon, 358;
E. tuberculata, 412
Eryonidae, 158;
habitat, 204
Eryonidea, 157
Erythraeinae, 473
Estheria, 21, 22, 23, 36;
E. gubernator and E. macgillivrayi, habitat, 33;
E. tetraceros, 36
Eucarida, 114, 144 f.
Euchaeta norwegica, 58
Eucopepoda, 57 f.
Eucopia australis, 119
Eucopiidae, 113, 114, 118
Eudendrium, Pycnogons on, 520
Eudorella, 121
Eukoenenia, 423;
E. augusta, 423;
E. florenciae, 423;
E. grassii, 423
Eulimnadia, 36;
E. mauritani, 36;
E. texana, 36
Euloma, 230
Eumalacostraca, 112 f.
Eupagurinae, 180
Eupagurus, 180;
E. bernhardus, commensalism, 172;
distribution, 199;
E. excavatus, parasitic castration of, 101;
E. longicarpus, metamorphosis, 179;
E. prideauxii, commensalism, 172;
E. pubescens, distribution, 199
Euphausia pellucida, 145, 146
Euphausiacea, 144
Euphausiidae, 113, 114, 144;
larval history, 145;
eyes, 150
Eupodes, 471
Euproöps, 278
Eurycare, 232, 247
Eurycercus, 53;
alimentary canal, 42;
E. lamellatus, habitat, 207
Eurycide, 505, 533;
E. hispida, 506, 507, 533
Eurycididae, 533
Eurydium, 485
Euryopis, 404
Eurypelma, 389;
E. hentzii, 361, 370
Euryplax, 195
Eurypterida, 258, 278, 283 f.
Eurypteridae, 290 f.
Eurypterus, 283 f., 290, 291, 292;
E. fischeri, 284, 286, 289
Eurytemora, 59;
E. affinis, habitat, 206
Eusarcus, 283, 291
Euscorpiinae, 308
Euscorpius, 298, 308;
E. carpathicus, 299
Eusimonia, 429
Euterpe acutifrons, 61, 61;
distribution, 203
Euthycoelus, 389
Evadne, 54;
young, 47
Excretory system (including Renal organs), in Crustacea, 12;
in Arachnids, 257;
in Limulus, 270;
in Tardigrada, 481;
in Pentastomida, 491
Exner, on mosaic vision, 148
Exopodite, 9, 10;
of Trilobites, 237
Eyes, compound, of Crustacea, 146, 147;
physiology of, 148;
 of deep-sea Crustacea, 149;
connexion with phosphorescent organs, 151;
regeneration of, 6;
of Trilobites, 227 f., 228;
of Limulus, 271;
of Eurypterida, 285;
of Scorpions, 301;
of Pedipalpi, 309;
of Spiders, 315, 334; of Solifugae, 426;
of Pseudoscorpions, 431;
of Phalangidea, 442;
of Acarina, 458;
of Pycnogons, 517

Fabre, on habits of Spiders, 298 f.;

of Tarantula, 361 f.;
on Wasp v. Spider, 368 f.
Facet, of Trilobites, 235
Facial suture, 225 f., 232
Falanga, 424
False articulations, 444
False-scorpions, 430
Fecenia, 399
Filistata, 391;
F. capitata, 392;
F. testacea, 392
Filistatidae, 319, 336, 391
Finger-keel, 303
Fixed cheek, 225, 226, 227
Flabellifera, 124 f.
Flabellum, 270
Flacourt, 363
Flagellum, in Solifugae, 426, 428;
in Pseudoscorpions, 433
Forbes, 374
Ford, S. W., on development of Trilobites, 238
Forel, on Lake of Geneva, 206
Formicina, 405
Formicinae, 405
Formicinoides brasiliana, 318
Fragilia, 535
Free cheek, 225, 226, 227
Fresh-water, Crustacea, 205 f.;
Spiders, 357
Furcilia (Metazoaea), larva of Euphausia, 145
Fusulae, 325, 335

Galathea, 169, 170;

G. intermedia, Pleurocrypta parasitic on, 133;
G. strigosa, 170;
gut of, 15
Galatheidae, 169
Galatheidea, 169
Galea, 433, 436
Galena, 412
Galeodes, 429, 527;
nervous system, 428;
chelicera, 429;
G. arabs, 425;
G. araneoides, 425
Galeodidae, 428
Gall-mites, 455, 464
Gamasidae, 470
Gamasinae, 470
Gamasus, 460, 461, 463, 470;
G. coleoptratorum, 470;
G. crassipes, 470;
G. terribilis, 461
Gammaridae, 138
Gammarus, 137, 138;
of Lake Baikal, 212;
of Australia, 216;
G. locusta, 138, 138;
G. pulex, 138
Gampsonyx, 115, 118
Garstang, on respiration of crabs, 186 n.
Garypinae, 436, 437
Garypus, 431, 436, 437, 438;
chelicera, 432;
G. littoralis, 430
Gaskell, 270, 277, 334
Gasteracantha, 410;
G. minax, 410
Gasteracanthinae, 317, 409
Gastrodelphys, 73
Gastrolith, of Lobster, 155
Gaubert, 525 n.
Gebia littoralis, 167
Gecarcinidae, 196
Gecarcinus, 194, 195, 196
Gegenbaur, 523
Gelanor, 411, 412
Gelasimus, 194, 196;
habitat, 198;
distribution, 210;
G. annulipes, 194
Genal angle, 225
Gené, 461
Genital operculum, of Eurypterida, 288, 289, 291
Genysa, 388
Gerardia, Laura parasitic on, 93
Geryon, 195
Giardella callianassae, 73
Gibocellidae, 448
Gibocellum sudeticum, 447
Giesbrecht, on Copepoda, 57;
on phosphorescence, 59
Gigantostraca, 258, 283 f.
Gill-book, 270
Glabella, 223
Glabella-furrows, 223
Glands, of Tardigrada, 481;
of Pentastomida, 490, 491;
of Pycnogons, 511;
coxal, of Arachnids, 257, 270, 337;
green, of Malacostraca, 110;
poison-, of Arachnids, 337, 360;
spinning, of Spiders, 335;
of Pseudoscorpions, 434
Glaucothoe, larva of Eupagurus, 179, 180
Gluvia, 429
Glycyphagus, 466;
G. palmifer, 466;
 G. plumiger, 466
Glyphocrangon, 164;
G. spinulosa, 158, 164
Glyphocrangonidae, 164
Glyptoscorpius, 283, 291, 294
Gmelina, 138
Gmogala scarabaeus, 394
Gnamptorhynchus, 533
Gnaphosa, 397
Gnathia maxillaris, 124;
life-history of 125
Gnathiidae, 124
Gnathobase, 10, 264
Gnathophausia, 119, 256 n.;
maxillipede of, 10
Gnathostomata, 56
Gnosippus, 429
Goldsmith, 362
Gonads, = reproductive organs, q.v.
Gonodactylus, 143;
G. chiragra, 143
Gonoplacidae, 195
Gonoplax, 195;
G. rhomboides, 195
Gonyleptidae, 442, 448, 449
Goodsir, Harry, 535, 540
Gordius, parasitic in Spiders, 368
Gossamer, 342
Graells, 364
Graeophonus, 309
Graff, von, on position of Tardigrada, 483
Grapsidae, 193, 195;
habitat, 198, 201
Graptoleberis, 53
Grassi, 422
Green gland, 110 (= antennary gland, q.v.)
Gregarious Spiders, 340
Grenacher, 517
Griffithides, 251
Gruvel, on Cirripedia, 80, 86
Guérin-Méneville, 439
Gurney, on Copepoda, 62;
on Brachyuran metamorphosis, 181 n.
Gyas, 450
Gylippus, 429
Gymnolepas, 89
Gymnomera, 38, 54
Gymnoplea, 57

Hadrotarsidae, 394
Hadrotarsus babirusa, 394
Haeckel, on plankton, 203
Haemaphysalis, 469
Haematodocha, 322
Haemocera, 64;
H. danae, life-history, 64, 65
Haemocoel, 5, 11
Hahnia, 325, 416
Hahniinae, 416
Halacaridae, 472
Halocypridae, 108
Halosoma, 539
Hannonia typica, 533
Hansen, on Choniostomatidae, 76;
on Cirripede Nauplii, 94;
on classification of Malacostraca, 113
Hansen and Sörensen, 422, 439, 443, 448
Hapalogaster, 181;
H. cavicauda, 178
Hapalogasterinae, 181
Harpactes hombergii, 395
Harpacticidae, 61, 62;
habitat, 206
Harpedidae, 245
Harpes, 225, 226, 230, 231, 234, 246;
H. ungula, 248;
H. vittatus, eyes, 228
Harporhynchus, 53
Harvest-bugs, 454, 473
Harvestmen, 440, = Phalangidea, q.v.
Harvest-spiders, 440, = Phalangidea, q.v.
Harvesters, 440, = Phalangidea, q.v.
Hasarius falcatus, 421
Haustellata, 501 n.
Haustoriidae, 137
Haustorius arenarius, 137
Hay, on name Lydella, 486 n.
Heart, of Phyllopoda, 29;
of Cladocera, 43;
of Nebalia, 112;
of Syncarida, 115;
of Peracarida, 118;
of Isopoda, 122;
of Danalia, 132;
of Amphipoda, 136;
of Squilla, 142;
of Eucarida, 144;
of Limulus, 268;
of Scorpions, 305;
of Pedipalpi, 311;
of Spiders, 331;
of Solifugae, 427;
of Pseudoscorpions, 434;
of Phalangidea, 445;
of Acarina, 460;
of Pycnogons, 516
Heart-water, 470
Hedley, on home of cocoa-nut, 174
Heligmonerus, 388
Heller, 455
Hemeteles fasciatus, 367;
H. formosus, 367
Hemiaspis, 278;
H. limuloides, 278
Hemioniscidae, 130
Hemiscorpion lepturus, 307
Hemiscorpioninae, 306, 307
Henking, 447, 460
Hentz, 367
Herbst, on regeneration of eye, 6 n.
Hermacha, 388
Hermaphroditism, 15;
caused by parasite, 101, 102;
partial and temporary, 102;
normal, 105;
in Cymothoidae, 126;
in Isopoda Epicarida, 129;
in Entoniscidae, 135;
in Caprella, 140
Hermippus, 317, 399;
H. loricatus, 400
Hermit-crab, 167, 171;
commensalism, 172;
reacquisition of symmetry, 173;
regeneration of limbs, 156
Hermit-lobster, 167
Herrick, on the Lobster, 154
Hersilia (Araneae), 401;
H. caudata, 400
Hersiliidae (Araneae), 326, 400
Hersiliidae (Copepoda), 73
Hersiliola, 401
Heterarthrandria, 58
Heterocarpus alphonsi (Pandalidae), phosphorescence, 151
Heterochaeta papilligera, 60
Heterocope, 59
Heterogammarus, 138
Heterometrus, 307
Heterophrynus, 313
Heteropoda venatoria, 414
Heterostigmata, 471
Heterotanais, 123
Hexameridae, 91
Hexathele, 390
Hexisopodidae, 429
Hexisopus, 429, 429
Hexura, 391
Hippa, 171;
H. emerita, distribution, 202
Hippidae, 171
Hippidea, 170;
habitat, 198
Hippolyte, 164;
distribution, 200;
H. varians, 164
Hippolytidae, 164;
distribution, 199
Hodge, George, 523, 540
Hodgson, 508
Hoek, on Cirripedia, 80;
on Pycnogons, 505, 512, 513
Holm, G., on Agnostus, 225;
on Eurypterus, 285 n.
Holmia, 236, 242, 247;
H. kjerulfi, 242, 246
Holochroal eye, 228
Holopediidae, 51
Holopedium, 38, 51
Homalonotus, 222, 249;
H. delphinocephalus, 223
Homarus, 154;
habitat, 200;
excretory
glands, 13;
H. americanus, 154;
H. vulgaris, 154
Homoeoscelis, 76
Homola, 184;
distribution, 205
Homolidae, 184
Homolodromia, 184;
H. paradoxa, resemblance to Nephropsidae, 184
Hood, of Phalangidea, 442, 452
Hoplocarida, 114, 141
Hoploderma, 468;
H. magnum, 467
Hoplophora, 468
Horse-foot crab, = Limulus, q.v.
Hoyle, on classification of Pentastomids, 495
Hughmilleria, 283, 290, 292
Humboldt, on Porocephalus, 488 n.
Hutton, 424
Huttonia, 398
Hyale, 139
Hyalella, 137, 139;
distribution, 211, 217
Hyalomma, 469
Hyas, 192, 193;
 distribution, 200
Hyctia nivoyi, 421
Hydrachnidae, 472
Hydractinia, Pycnogons on, 523
Hydrallmania, Pycnogons on, 524
Hymenocaris, 112
Hymenodora, 163
Hymenosoma, 193;
distribution, 200
Hymenosomatidae, 193
Hyperina, 140
Hypochilidae, 393
Hypochilus, 336, 393;
H. thorelli, 393
Hypoctonus, 312
Hypoparia, 243
Hypopus, 463
Hypostome, of Trilobites, 233, 237;
of Bronteus, 233;
of Acarina, 469
Hyptiotes, 349, 411;
H. cavatus, snare, 350;
H. paradoxus, 350, 411

Iasus, 165, 167;

distribution, 200
Ibacus, 167
Ibla, 88;
I. cumingii, 88;
I. quadrivalvis, 88, 89
Ichneumon flies, and Spiders, 367
Icius, 421;
I. mitratus, 382
Idiops, 388
Idothea, habitat, 211
Idotheidae, 127
Ihle, J. E. W., 526 n.
Ilia, 188;
I. nucleus, 188;
respiration, 187
Illaenus, 229, 231, 235, 249;
I. dalmanni, 248
Ilyocryptus, 40, 53
Inachus, 192, 193;
I. mauritanicus, Sacculina parasitic on, 97 f.;
parasitic castration in, 101;
temporary hermaphroditism of, 103;
Danalia and Sacculina parasitic on, 131
Integument, of Pycnogons, 518
Irregular Spider-snares, 351
Ischnocolus, 389
Ischnothele dumicola, 390
Ischnurinae, 306, 307
Ischnurus ochropus, 307
Ischnyothyreus, 394
Ischyropsalidae, 451
Ischyropsalis, 444, 451
Isokerandria, 69 f.
Isometrus europaeus, 306
Isopoda, 121 f., 242
Ixodes, 469;
I. ricinus, 469
Ixodidae, 469
Ixodoidea, 455, 462, 468

Janulus, 403
Jaworowski, on vestigial antennae in a Spider, 263
Johnston, George, 540
Jumping-Spiders, 419

Karshia, 429
Karshiinae, 429
Katipo, 363, 403
King-crab, =Limulus, q.v.
Kingsley, on Trilobites, 239, 243 n.;
on breeding habits of Limulus, 271
Kishinouye, on Limulus, 274, 275
Klebs, on the frequency of human Pentastomids, 494
Knight Errant, 540
Koch, C., 397 n.
Koch, L., 397 n.
Kochlorine, 92;
K. hamata, 93
Koenenia, 422, 527, 528;
K. mirabilis, 423
Koltzoff, 15
König, 524