JOHAN HELMICH ROMAN (1694-1758) is one of the most important figures in the history of Swedish music. His lifetime embraced the first decades of peace that followed the death of Charles XII and the decline of Sweden as a great power. Roman's contribution to the musical life of this period is not confined to his work as a composer but extends over a wide field of activity, for he was Kapellmeister to the court and was responsible for the inauguration of regular public concerts in Stockholm, at which he introduced to the Swedish public the work of many of the most important composers of his time (including Handel). He did much to vindicate the use of Swedish in the setting of sacred texts and exercised a decisive influence on the development of an independent Swedish tradition of vocal writing both in the sphere of sacred and secular music. He was an accomplished executant, the violin and the oboe being his principal instruments, although he is said to have played many others besides, and his output in the field of instrumental music is comprehensive, ranging from works for a large orchestral ensemble to compositions for solo violin.
Roman's significance did not escape posterity in his own country and many eighteenth century writers and chroniclers testify to the importance of the role which he played in Swedish musical life. Foremost amongst these was A. M. Sahlstedt, who published a memoir (Äreminne) devoted to Roman as early as 1767, while later Roman acquired the reputation and title of "The Father of Swedish Music". In his Historisk Afhandling om Musik och Instrumenter (An Historical Treatise on Music and Instruments) , published in 1773, A. A-son Hülphers writes of him as Musices Sacrae in Svecia instaurator et restaurator . Roman's music featured prominently in concerts right down to the 1780s and received special attention from the literary circle known as Utile Dulci . The nineteenth century witnessed a declining interest in the music of Roman and his contemporaries and his name is seldom encountered in concert programmes. However during the century the surviving manuscripts and other papers of the composer were in the safe hands of the Stockholm Royal Academy of Music, one of whose librarians, Fr. Cronhamn, issued a paper on him in 1885. Scarcely twenty years elapsed before certain works of Roman began to make their appearance in new editions.
The most important study of Roman and his music that has appeared up to now is, however, Patrik Vretblad's monograph. Johan Helmich Roman (1694-1758) Svenska musikens fader (2 vols.) which was published in 1914. The study contains a biographical section as well as a compilation of works and themes. Both before and after its publication Mr. Vretblad also edited for publication a number of Roman's works. With the general resurgence of interest in eighteenth-century music that marked the ensuing decades, the art of Roman enjoyed a renaissance which culminated in the celebrations attending the 250th anniversary of his birth in 1944. This saw the publication of two papers, the first by Vretblad was published as an independent pamphlet, the second, a perceptive study by Professor Carl-Allan Moberg, appeared in the Svensk Tidskrift för Musikforskning (The Swedish Review of Musicology).
A number of works, both vocal and instrumental, made their appearance in print at about this time and some of the latter were also made available in commercial recordings.
During the last few years our knowledge of various aspects of Roman's life and work has been enriched by the researches of Mr. Åke Vretblad, the son of the afore-mentioned scholar. Some of these have been published as articles in the Svensk Tidskrift för Musikforskning. Mr. Stig Walin in
his dissertation Beiträge zur Geschichte der schwedischen Sinfonik (1941) has dealt with the sinfonias and has also contributed a valuable analytical study of the twelve flute sonatas of 1727, in which many interesting problems of style are brought to light.
But the picture of Roman's work with which scholars, editors and laymen alike have been acquainted up to now, does not differ in its essentials from that which emerges from Patrik Vretblad's important pioneer monograph. According to Vretblad, Roman's output can be classified under the following heads;
1. Occasional music, i.e. instrumental and choral compositions (such as orchestral suites and cantatas) written for ceremonial occasions such as the birthdays of King Fredrik I and Queen Ulrica Eleonora, and comprising also some large choral works given at the funeral of Fredrik I and at the coronation of Adolf Fredrik and Lovisa Ulrika in 1751.
2. Instrumental music comprising twenty-one sinfonias, two Sinfonie per la chiesa, five overtures, five suites, two concerti grossi , five concertos for violin, one for oboe d'amore, eighteen trio-sonatas, the twelve flute sonatas, a number of independent movements collected under the title Diverse , several keyboard works and finally twenty-three works to which Vretblad has given the inscription Musik für violin (viola) .
3. Choral and Vocal Compositions. These include a setting of the Swedish Mass (Kyrie and Gloria) and three of the Jubilate (Psalm 100), Dixit (Psalm 110) and a cantata, '0 Gud vi lofve Dig' (Te Deum) , sixteen sacred pieces (amongst them, Beati omnes , and several settings of texts from the Psalter), eighty-two Andliga sånger (Sacred Songs) with basso continuo (the texts are mostly drawn from the Psalms), a number of other cantatas with Italian texts, and about fifty solo songs with basso continuo accompaniment, settings of poems by Swedish writers from the first half of the eighteenth century (including F. Bonde, O. Dalin, J. Frese, A. D. Leenberg, H. Ch. Nordenflycht and U. Rudenschiöld.)
In 1727 Roman published his twelve Sonate a flavto traverso, violino e cembalo in Stockholm. At a later date, probably at about 1740, it seems that he planned the publication of some works for solo violin (Assaggi a Violino solo). A draft of two pages for this edition has come down to us but the project never seems to have reached publication. The remainder of Roman's surviving compositions is only available in manuscript form, and although several are in the composer's own hand the bulk of them survives in that of copyists. Only in a small number of cases has Roman himself inscribed his manuscripts: nevertheless, we find his name on almost every MS, others having attributed them to him, in several cases many years after his death. In some cases Roman's name has been crossed out and then restored later on. A further source of bewilderment is to be found in the haphazard nomenclature of the works.
The source material is in other words, in a state of considerable confusion. This confusion reigns above all in the Roman collection of the Royal Academy of Music, Stockholm, by far the largest and most important source, where there is an abundance of discrepancies; as late as the 1920s the formidable task of binding the whole collection was undertaken with the deplorable result that the MSS were arranged in what is, at best, an arbitrary fashion.
In connection with the commemoration of 1944 the discovery was made that a concerto grosso hitherto attributed to Roman (and inscribed as such) and belonging to the Roman collection of the Royal Academy of Music, was in actual fact an orchestral version of two movements from a violin sonata of Geminiani. This discovery focused public attention on the unsatisfactory state of the sources and in an article entitled Vad är Roman hos Roman? (The Authentic in Roman) and published in the April 1945 number of Musikvärlden (The Musical World) Mr. Åke Lellky, an official of the library staff, brought the problem to general notice.
Although his book constitutes the only comprehensive study of Roman's work, Vretblad had not subjected the sources to a sufficiently thorough or critical scrutiny for his work to lay claim to definitiveness. Moreover Vretblad was only acquainted with a certain proportion of the surviving source material; thus the present attitude to Roman's work has naturally been governed by feelings of uncertainty. Perhaps there are more works hitherto attributed to Roman that are in fact the work of others?
Roman's work offers many interesting problems to the student of comparative musicology through his position between the declining years of the baroque and the yet unstabilised and expanding means of expression that were accompanying the emancipation of the bourgeoisie. The historical significance of Roman's music in the development of the art in Sweden ensures it a prominent place in any critical study and much of it through its intrinsic artistry and consummate musicianship deserves to take its place in the repertory of the concert and the gramophone. But neither stylistic studies of Roman's work nor its general dissemination by means of public performance can be undertaken on a large scale until a careful and thorough examination of the sources has been made.
PART I
Chapter I: His life
JOHAN HELMICH ROMAN was born in Stockholm on the 26th of October, 1694. Some of his parental forefathers had lived in Finland, but the family itself was Swedish. His mother was of German origin. The father was born and grew up in Sweden and from 1683 until 1720 served as a member of the court orchestra. Johan Helmich evinced an early interest in and talent for music and it appears that his gifts were developed enough for him to perform at the court as a violinist at the tender age of seven. In 1711, i.e. at the age of sixteen, he received a permanent appointment as a member of the court orchestra.
While Charles XII was engaged on his continental adventures in Bender, he was occupied with much administrative correspondence with Stockholm and in one of his letters he confirms in his own hand that the young musician, Roman, was permitted to spend some years abroad "to perfect himself in the art of music" and that during this period he would continue to receive his salary from the court. This dates from 1712 and was such an unusual occurrence in the career of a Swedish musician of this time that it may serve to indicate the great hopes that court circles cherished in Roman's talent.
However this promise proved to be an empty one: the country was racked with war and pestilence and Sweden's collapse as a great power imposed strains on the country's exchequer so that money for Roman's journey was not forthcoming. Nearly four years were to elapse before Roman commenced his travels either at the end Of 1715 or early in the following year. Altogether Roman was away from Sweden for five years (1716 until May 1721) and he spent this period in England.
According to Sahlstedt, Roman studied during this time both under Handel and Pepusch, but in all probability he studied only with the latter. From the same source we hear that Roman was for some time engaged at the court of the Duke of Newcastle (Thomas Pelham-Holles), but it has not been possible to find any evidence from Swedish or English sources in support of such a contention. We have thus already encountered one of the major difficulties in the study of Roman's life, that is, the acute lack of reliable source material from which we could form a living or detailed picture of Roman as a person. Very few of Roman's letters for example, survive to give us any convincing portrait of the man.
One thing however is certain: that Roman during his time in London came in contact with many of the most active English and Italian composers and that these played a great part in the formulation of his mature style. The most significant of these influences is naturally enough, Handel. It appears too, that his visit to England affected him in ways other than musical since he acquired there, a practical, rationalist and up-to-date attitude to life that remained with him during his mature life.
On his return home, Roman found Sweden in the throes of radical changes. The country after the death of Charles XII was no longer a great power. An era of peace had opened and there was an upsurge of musical activity that had hitherto lain dormant. Roman had already been appointed vice-Kapellmeister to the court in 1721, and embarked with youthful zeal on the task of fertilising the musical "waste-lands", as he put it. During the years following his appointment he wrote a good deal of occasional music for the ceremonies attending the court of the new sovereigns, King. Fredrik I and Queen Ulrica Eleonora.
On the 23rd of January 1727, Roman was appointed Kapellmeister and was thus afforded greater scope for his initiative. He at once set about improving the standards of the court orchestra itself, instituted regular orchestral rehearsals and imported a considerable quantity of foreign orchestral music. For a time-as long as means permitted-he arranged concerts by the court orchestra in the Storkyrkan (Stockholm Cathedral), and at the beginning of the thirties he began the organisation of public concerts in the Riddarhuset (the House of the Nobility) together with his younger colleague, Per Brant. In this way contemporary music was disseminated outside the restricted circles of the court and the church and found a responsive public in the bourgeoisie . This factor also broadened the scope of Roman's own compositions in widening the public to which his music was addressed.
In 1730, Roman entered into his first marriage with Eva Emerentia Björk, a widow of one Roswall, a magistrate living at Degerhof in the province of Östergötland. The marriage was blessed by three children before his wife's death in 1734.
In the early autumn of 1735, Roman embarked on his second journey abroad which took him first to England, and then in 1736 by way of Paris to Italy, where he spent the autumn in Naples and Rome. His return journey began in the January of the following year and was made via Bologna, Venice, Dresden and possibly Vienna, Munich, Augsburg and Berlin; a journey which occupied six months, his arrival in Sweden being made sometime during June 1737. During this journey he naturally absorbed an abundance of diverse musical impressions and was brought into contact with the latest stylistic developments on the continent. He bought a large amount of music and seems to have met several of the most distinguished of his contemporaries, amongst them Tartini, and according to Sahlstedt maintained a correspondence with many of them. However none of these letters have come down to us.
One of the reasons why Roman undertook this journey (1735-37) was due to increasing deafness, which prompted him to take the waters at Ischia. From about the age of forty onwards, this deafness troubled him and seems to have increased with the years. One must also presume that in the course of time Roman was compelled to give up his work as an instrumentalist on this count.
In 1740, Roman was elected to membership of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which had been founded the previous year, and the election must have been motivated by the thought that he was the most obvious and suitable candidate to represent "musical science". From papers dating from the year 1747 it can be seen that Roman strove energetically to obtain the academy's recognition of the suitability of the Swedish tongue for musical setting, especially in sacred contexts.
Roman's second marriage with the young daughter of one Captain Baumgart from Småland, Maria Elisabeth by name, took place in 1738 and before her death in June 1740 at the age of only twenty-three, his wife had borne him four children. Her husband was now left to take care of five young children. Almost the whole of the remainder of Roman's life was taken up with troubles of one sort or another, not least amongst them being domestic and health. It appears also that he encountered jealousy and intrigue against him in the Swedish capital's music circles, and illness, as well as his heavy domestic responsibilities concerning the upbringing of his children, did not make it easier for him to combat rivalry with that energy which had distinguished his earlier years.
From about 1741, the year of Queen Ulrica Eleonora's death, Roman seems to have been more and more inclined to absent himself several months every year in order to spend more time with his late wife's family at Ryningsnäs, Småland. At the end of 1743, he sold the stone house "Noae Arck" at Södermalm, Stockholm, where he had been living since 1732, and this would indicate that he was already contemplating a permanent withdrawal from the musical life of the capital. The first half of 1744 he does not appear to have attended court although he must have travelled to Stockholm for the summer and autumn, for in the August of this year, his Drottningholmsmusik was performed at the wedding celebrations of Crown Prince Adolf Fredrik of Hesse and Frederick the Great's sister, Lovisa Ulrica.
The following year (1745) Roman moved to Haraldsmåla, an estate not far from the Baltic coast and a few miles to the north of Kalmar. (The estate was part of his father-in-law's property and was gradually made over to Roman's children by his second marriage.) In November of the same year, Roman was appointed as intendent to the court (a position which corresponds to the English, Master of the King's Musick) , and which he held until his death. Roman did not however lose contact with Stockholm music, since he spent at least a part of the summer of 1746 at the home of count Adam Horn, a member of the Cabinet, and in 1747 he directed a number of important concerts in Stockholm including his own realisation of Leo's Dixit. Roman spent the following three years (1748-50) in the wilds of Haraldsmåla, returning to Stockholm in the autumn of 1751 for the funeral of King Fredrik I and the coronation of his successors, Adolf Fredrik and Lovisa Ulrica. He left Stockholm later the following year, presumably in the early summer and passed the remainder of his days at Haraldsmåla, where amongst other things, he worked on translating various foreign treatises on music to Swedish.
Concerning his death, there are a number of conflicting records. An examination of these and an analysis of the church records concerning the death (cf. Plate I, fig. 2) has established however that he did not die as was previously thought, in October 758. His death took place in November and the most likely date is in fact the 20th, although the 19th is also possible.
Chapter II: His musical environment
A comprehensive examination of the growth of Roman's musical personality in the light of those influences to which he was subjected lies outside the scope of this volume, and, at any rate, such a study would presuppose conditions in respect of the sources, that are not in fact fulfilled.
However, from the same sources that have concerned us in the first chapter and from some of the sources dealt with in Part 11 of this book, emerges a clear and, at times, detailed impression of those composers, works and treatises with which Roman was acquainted. This fact at once enables us to gain a more substantial picture of his musical personality and furthermore throws light on those paths which further research should pursue.
Those sources which concern us here, are the following:-
1. A complete catalogue of the library that formed part of Roman's possessions at the death of his
first wife in 1734 (the catalogue is part of a general inventory made then).
2. Copies made in Roman's own hand of works by other composers.
3. Sketches and thematic catalogues of the works of other composers, also in Roman's own hand.
4. The accounts in the court archives concerning the purchase of music and parts for the court orchestra during the period 1727-1752.
These four points can be further supplemented by certain facts concerning the performances of foreign works in Stockholm during Roman's lifetime (amongst which the names of C. F. Hurlebusch and F. Chelleri should be noted).
As many scholars have already pointed out, Roman's debt to English and Italian music is great, but the sources outlined under figures 1-4 make it equally obvious that he was also well acquainted with and interested in German music and particularly North German musical life. Amongst other things, Roman must have come into contact with the new ideas of rationalistic thought that Johann Mattheson in Hamburg had propounded in many of his works. Furthermore, Roman must have been deeply impressed by the so-called Lully school, which during his formative years at the beginning of the eighteenth century figured prominently in the repertoire of the court orchestra, and which influenced the work of Anders von Düben (then Kappellmeister ) to a large extent. Although in his maturity Roman seems to have evinced little interest in or indebtedness to French music, there remains internal evidence to indicate that in his youth and formative years he came under the spell of the rhythmic and formal elegance of the French. This influence can be traced in his expressive vocabulary even when French music has ceased to exercise any immediate influence. However, it is nevertheless true that the major influence to which Roman was subjected was that of Handel and Italian music.
Before deafness and declining health overtook him, Roman must have certainly followed musical developments in the leading continental countries with the keenest interest. His zeal in procuring . I circles abroad must excite our admiration, and thanks to his skill in languages, he managed to acquire a vast knowledge of the latest developments in musical thinking and a broadness of culture exceptional for a Swedish musician of those days. One of his pupils confirms in a letter from the 1770s that he had rarely encountered one whose abilities could be so skilfully mobilised in the imitation not only of the greater masters of the time, but in writing music in the styles of the different national schools.
Chapter III : The historical background of the sources
In this chapter we are primarily concerned with rendering some account of the sources and their provenance, and clearing the way for the critical examination of the sources that the present condition of the MSS renders necessary.
The main emphasis must naturally be placed on the Roman collection that is in the possession of the Royal Academy of Music, Stockholm, a source that is referred to throughout this book as MAB:Ro . The Royal Academy was founded in 1771 and as early as the year afterwards, the foundations had already been laid for a growing library, by means of donations of books and music.
By reference to the older inventories and catalogues of the library, it can be shown that the first important collection of Roman's MSS belonged to the literary society known as Utile Dulci (founded 1766) and that this formed the core of the Academy's collection of Roman manuscripts. The date of the actual transfer of MSS from the society to the custody of the Academy library is not certain, but it must have taken place some time after 1795 and before 1806-08. The Utile Dulci collection was not preserved in its original entity, but was classified along the lines followed at the time, and the collection split up accordingly.
We are able to identify these manuscripts owing to a small stamp in the form of the society's arms, a lyre set in a vertical oval. (The appearance of this has been indicated throughout Chapter V:, which is a description of the sources, by the abbreviation U.D.+).) A by no means unimportant part of MAB:Ro that falls into this classification has been copied or annotated by Johan Gustaf Psilanderhielm, a member of the Utile Dulci and a secretary to the House of the Nobility. His contributions are indicated in the description of the sources by the contraction H/N 11.
During the last decade of the eighteenth century, the Royal Academy of Music's library was enriched by further donations of Roman MSS, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, 1806-8, Per Frigel, then secretary to the Academy, compiled an impressive catalogue of the collection alongside that which he undertook of the library as a whole. Frigel made several notes of classification in the MSS, some of them correct, others misleading or directly inaccurate. (In the description of the sources, Frigel's handwriting is denoted by the contraction H 12.)
The Academy's acquisition of the Utile Dulci collection may be regarded as the first important step in the building up of their Roman library. The second step can be dated 1858, that is exactly a hundred years after Roman's death, when Anders Holmberg, the organist of Kalmar cathedral, donated a rather comprehensive collection of Roman MSS to the library. This donation is of considerable significance in that it is almost exclusively composed of Roman's own autographs.
In connection with this important part of the collection, it is pertinent to raise a problem still unsolved. In practically all the MSS which make up the Holmberg donation there appears Roman's name and footnotes added by another whose hand is not encountered elsewhere in MAB:Ro (the handwriting in question is marked H 14 in Chapter V:.) The handwriting is not that of Holmberg and, in spite of thorough research, attempts to identify it have not yet met with any success. On this point, however, it has been possible to show direct links between Holmberg and descendants of Roman (in the first place, Roman's grandson Carl Ulric) and all would seem to point to the fact that the collection was amongst the personal effects left behind by Roman on his decease. Holmberg presumably came into possession of the MSS sometime between 1827 and 1848.
The most important donation to reach the Academy during the latter half of the nineteenth century comprised two volumes of Sacred Songs, the so-called Husandakt, which were given to the library in 1890 by J. Fr. Törnwall, then the director of music at Linköping.
At the beginning of this century, from about 1910 onwards, Patrik Vretblad embarked on research for his study of the composer. In his monograph from 1914 ("VrR") which we have discussed earlier,, he systematised and numbered all those works ascribed to Roman, that he encountered in MA-B (the Royal Academy of Music, Library), KB (the Royal Library, Stockholm), MM (the Museum of Musical Instruments) and UUB (the Library of Uppsala University). The collection's present numbering and classification dates from the twenties and was the work of Mr. Gunnar Jeanson (d.1939), whose views coincide in the main with those of Vretblad, but he has his own numbering of MSS (running consecutively from 1 to 102, some of them embracing 3-5 volumes) which is not to be found in VrR. It is in this condition that the collection is now to be found; about a hundred or so beautifully bound volumes together with a smaller number of miscellaneous MSS in fascicles, and a few bound volumes dating from earlier times.
The rest of Chapter III: is devoted to a short description of the remaining sources. There are few sources in Stockholm apart from MAB:Ro; the Uppsala University Library is a somewhat richer source of material. The funeral and coronation music from 1751 are amongst the MSS there, written by copyists under the supervision of Roman himself and occasionally even corrected by him.
From 1727 to 1744 the director of music for t he University of Uppsala was H. Chr. Engelhardt and although Roman's relations with him in particular, and with the musical life of the university in general, are not known, there must have been some contact between them. At any rate, Engelhardt had the foresight to preserve copies of a number of Roman works, and these are to be found amongst the MSS at present lodged in the library of the University of Lund (LUB). There are more Roman MSS in the Kraus and Wenster collections of Lund University Library, both Kraus and Wenster having been actively engaged in the musical life of Lund.
Skara läroverk owns a considerable library of eighteenth-century music which includes a number of MSS that were sent to the school by music-loving patrons at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. Amongst them are a few Roman MSS.
In 1948, it was discovered that a large collection of eighteenth-century MSS belonging to the Alströmers, an influential eighteenth-century family, were intact at Östads chalet in Västergötland. The collection which was deposited in 1949 at the Royal Academy Library, is one of the largest and most interesting private collections of eighteenth-century music in all Sweden. Patrik Alströmer (1733-1804) studied in Stockholm from 1748 to 1752 and evinced a warm interest in music, playing a leading role in the foundation of the Royal Academy of Music. Some important MSS of Roman's work are included in the Alströmer collection.
Finally there is a collection of trio sonatas preserved at Turku (Åbo) Academy, Finland, which bears a dedication in Roman's own hand to C. Ekeblad, an advisor to the court. In 1749 Roman sent a large collection of music to Turku Academy, but either there were none of his own works amongst the MSS or, alternatively, they were destroyed by fire in 1827.
PART II: THE SOURCES
Chapter IV : Method
This chapter outlines those principles on which the material embodied in Chapter V: (The Description of the Sources) has been classified. In the Description of the Sources we have listed all those sources encountered, which contain instrumental works that in some way or other have been connected with Roman's name. Furthermore independent orchestral items from the choral works such as overtures, have also been included.
The list of works comprises first and foremost all completed works but also embraces works that survive in an incomplete or fragmentary condition, i.e. where one or more parts-but not all-are no individual part is complete and the proportions of the work as a whole, a matter of conjecture. The primary motive for the inclusion of incomplete and fragmentary MSS is that many of Roman's own autograph sketches are to be found amongst them (particularly in fascicle 97 of MAB:Ro) containing alterations and revisions by Roman himself that give us a guarantee of authenticity. These form an important put of the basic material for the stylistic analyses.
In the classification of the instrumental music, we have grouped together works according to the medium employed or more correctly the number of real parts that survive in the MS.
A. Works written in more than three real parts . For these the numbers 1-99 have been reserved (numbers are indicated throughout in thick type).
B. Works employing three real parts such as trio sonatas, and to which we have assigned numbers 100~199.
C. Works in two real parts (numbers from 201).
D. Works whose notation calls for only a single stave (numbers from 301).
To a further group (E) we have assigned compositions whose openings we can quote, but other fragments surviving from works whose opening or ending is missing (called innerfragment in the Swedish text) have not been included unless they can be identified as being part of a work found elsewhere in the catalogue of works.
The Description of the Sources gives information both concerning the work itself and its source. The former comprises data on the title of the work, the number and description of its movements, the medium and, (by the sign =) if the movement occurs elsewhere in any shape or form in works attributed to Roman. Such information concerning the sources as is relevant in the consideration of authenticity is included, but small variations between MSS drawn from different sources and which involve minute details of notation, are not dealt with: these are felt to be more within the province of a critical edition of Roman's works than a catalogue of works. However we have not hesitated to give such details when questions of a stylistic nature are involved. Further data concerning the sources such as MSS sizes, number of pages etc. is given in those instances where the necessity arises.
As a rule however each source description comprises information concerning the score, parts, composer's indications, titles of works and other notes in the source. In addition information is supplied concerning the handwriting and musical calligraphy in all MSS in MAB:Ro on those lines laid down in Handstilar och notpikturer i Kungl. Musikaliska akademiens Roman-samling (Handwriting and Musical Calligraphy in the Roman collection of the Swedish Royal Academy of Music) by Ruben Danielson and the present author (Uppsala 1955) which is indicated by the contraction Be&DaHN; unfortunately it has not proved possible to extend so detailed an examination to the whole of the source material, but the researches embrace by far and away the most important part of it. Moreover certain sources apart from MAB:Ro can be identified as the work of copyists classified in Be&DaHN.;
During the studies on these MSS considerable research has been expended on the technical characteristics of the paper and particularly on watermarks. Our knowledge of the abundant variety of eighteenth-century watermarks is somewhat scanty in spite of the extensive research of Churchill, Heawood and others, and this part of our study has not led to the results desired. The watermark has notwithstanding proved a great source of help in classifying, combining or separating MSS and. has also served as a means of arriving at approximate dates for hitherto undated Roman autographs. In the Description of the Sources however we have only included cursory information concerning watermarks in Roman autographs.
Chapter V : Description of the Sources
The material enumerated in this chapter is for the most part given without commentary so that a clear distinction shall be observed between the purely factual part of the research and the conclusions (which follow in the succeeding chapters) to be drawn from them.
Thus the chapter calls for no further words of explanation, but in order to ease the labours of the reader unfamiliar with the Swedish language, there follows a short glossary of the most common and important terms and abbreviations encountered.
besättning = setting
Chapter VI : Problems of Medium and Titles
The incomplete or contradictory evidence of the sources concerning the instrumental resources called for and the titles of works have made it necessary to supplement the Description of the Sources by a short discussion of both these points.
In the section devoted to the instrumental medium detailed divergences between different sources (such as the possible addition of an oboe or some other instrument) are discussed by way of introduction and with great brevity. We have instead devoted our main attention to those works or groups of works where the source material throws inadequate light on the problem of the basic medium, i.e. whether a certain work is written for orchestral or chamber ensembles, for solo instrument with basso continuo or for the keyboard, etc.
Even after making due allowance for the great freedom concerning such matters that prevailed in Roman's time, certain principles can be drawn up and by following them it can be shown that several classifications of medium in VrR and MAB:Ro are not correct.
From these we can deduce the fact that those works in the sources that are written in three-stave notation with violin-, viola- and bass-clefs, some of which have been earlier classified as trio-sonatas, are in fact orchestral works. This is the case with works numbered 102-104; that 103 is an orchestral composition has been proved by the discovery of a previously unknown MS (6a) and the same must apply to the other two works. A trio sonata (105) on the other hand, calls for violin, cello and basso continuo. It is interesting to note that we can tell from the cello part to work No. 122 (the only part which survives) that the work must have been written for the same combination as 105.
Many of the compositions written in two-stave notation have been incorrectly classified as keyboardmusic. It has been necessary here to discuss each work independently. The analyses demonstrate that only one of the sonatas 215-224, namely 215, is written for clavier, all the others being intended for a solo instrument (normally violin) and basso continuo. The movements comprising works numbered 225-236 (these bear no titles in Roman's autograph MSS) are all keyboard pieces, although there are few keyboard idioms in the writing and in spite of the fact that several of the movements in 226-228 are identical with movements in orchestral works.
The most important MSS (surviving in Per Brant's hand) with works written on one stave are a bewildering source of confusion, since violin-, mezzo-soprano-, viola-, and bass-clefs are all employed, though violin-clefs are preponderant. This group of pieces has previously been classified as "Music for violin (viola)"; the possibility of these pieces also being intended for a tenor gamba has also been discussed. In actual fact these works are all for solo violin (with no accompanying continuo), the changing clefs being employed for reasons of practical notation so as to avoid the use of too many ledger-lines. The parts employing the bass-clef are to be read an octave higher and all the others as they are written.
In the question of the titles of works the arbitrary contemporary usage gives us scanty support since at this time, from about 1720 to 1750, composers were experimenting with many transitional forms in the field of instrumental and orchestral composition, so that no stable vocabulary exists as far as titles are concerned. The handwriting in the most important part of the source material has been subjected to careful study and it has been possible to separate those titles added by later hands from those originating with Roman. Roman's own choice follows almost without exception, Italian usage.
Where Roman himself has indicated the title of a work, this is used to the exclusion of all other alternatives, and moreover, Roman usage is followed as a rule in all other contexts, where it can give us a basis to work from. In the second place, those titles given by Per Brant and other of his contemporaries that we know by name, are followed. Where several alternatives can be found in the sources, all of which are, from the point of view of source criticism, equally authentic, that one is selected which best conforms to present-day musicological terminology. If a work has no title indicated and does not adhere to any recognisable category (i.e. incomplete works and sketches) it is designated as either satsföljd (sequence of movements) or sats (movement) as the case may be. Titles not found in the sources are put in square brackets.
Chapter VII: Critical Study of the Sources
The critical examination of the sources has first and foremost been directed towards determining the authenticity or otherwise of a work. The first and most important task has been to determine which instrumental works can be guaranteed to be genuine Roman. This group has provided the basis for the stylistic analyses contained in part III and is marked in the Swedish text by the designation grupp Ä (Äkta = genuine).
All the remaining works where doubts exists as to their authenticity are grouped according to the likelihood of their authenticity on a type of sliding-scale of probability, exclusively based on source researches. The decisive factors in this are many and different and cannot be summarised by a simple formula common to all.
1. Roman's autograph (which on account of the presence of many copies and extracts from the
works of other unnamed composers, does not give any absolute guarantee of authenticity).
2. The appearance of the same movement or another version of it, in several different works
ascribed to Roman.
3. The insertion of Roman's name on MSS, by hands whose identity has been established and whose names are known.
4. The relationship between different sources containing several works attributed to Roman, of which one or more survive in more than one source.
5. Works composed for special occasions (court ceremonies, etc.), where only a restricted number of composers could come into question.
6. Affinity between works belonging to the same grouping and type.With regard to these and similar factors, we have formulated a grouping which corresponds as far as possible with the evidence found in the sources. The subtle shades in the scale of probable authenticity have been ironed out into six basic groups besides A, from strong (1) to weak (6) evidence in favour of the work being genuine Roman. The numbers in themselves ought to make it sufficiently clear to the reader, how great a degree of probability is involved in each individual case. The following survey of the groups however will give some indication of how the above-mentioned evidence is treated.
Group 1 comprises works where several sources combine to indicate strong evidence for authenticity. Amongst this group we have included all works for which two of the following three conditions apply: Roman's autograph, attribution to Roman by Per Brant, and the identity of a movement with one belonging to group A. (Generally the reliability of works in this group rests on such solid foundations in the sources that we only need to confirm authenticity on stylistic grounds.)
Group 2 Comprises works, where there is at least one clear and positive indication of genuineness. Here for example, Per Brant's evidence concerning the attribution of works takes a prominent place, and included here are works in MSS that are not in themselves wholly reliable examples of Roman's autograph but possess positive indication of authenticity from another source.
Group 3 comprises all other works that have in the first place, been encountered in Roman's autograph.
Group 4-6 embrace works for which there is no Roman autographs to be found, and for which the source material offers little, debatable, or no evidence for authenticity.
Group 4 includes a number of works, for which there is more reliable evidence than for those in Group 6. Group 5 is confined to a number of special cases, namely those works where one or more attributions to Roman have been crossed out, or where Roman's name and that of another composer is to be found in conflicting sources.
Group 6 is made up of the remainder of the MSS, where there is little or no evidence for authenticity, and MSS which in spite of having no attribution to Roman have been included in MAB:Ro.
In the commentary to every individual work in these six categories, we have included notes on the reliability of the different sources involved, on the order of the movements and titles of the works, and if not dealt with in chapter VI, details of what instruments were intended.
PART III: STYLE
Chapter VIII : The Critical Method and Aims of the Stylistic Analyses
The outcome of the critical study of the sources (described in Part II) has been the classification of all the instrumental music attributed to Roman according to those factors in the sources indicating the likelihood of authenticity. The next step is to supplement this by an analysis of the style, and this chapter is concerned with discussing the main principles on which these analyses have been conducted.
The common denominator to be found in many different conceptions of the word, 'style' however varied these may be, lies in the presence of certain well-defined characteristics common to several works by one composer or a group or school of composers. Where the question of the style of this period is concerned, the eighteenth-century has been pretty thoroughly studied and its stylistic idioms have become familiar terrain. To undertake an examination of Roman's music with the purpose of determining his position in relation to the stylistic trends of his period is both vitally important to our understanding of him and a fascinating study in itself. But to try, however by means of such studies in comparative style to form conclusions concerning the authenticity of that group of works attributed to Roman, would be a hazardous undertaking. Comparison of style plays an undoubted role in such research but only within certain well-defined limits, and it is from a study of those works whose authenticity is not in doubt (i.e. group A) that we must proceed in order to gain some idea of those characteristics of style that distinguish Roman's output. Our primary object then is to try and define Roman's musical personality and characterise the chief elements in his individual style. To speak of a composer's individual style often implies something of an aesthetic evaluation so overladen has the term become. One cannot proceed from the assumption that Roman has a distinctive personal style (that is possibly a conclusion that might be drawn at the end of our researches) for he wrote at a time when composition was highly stylised and the language disciplined so that there was little room for the expression of a subjective personality. The concept of "personstil" (individual style) is in the context of this study substituted with the sum total of demonstrable stylistic characteristics as well as the relationship between them, within a certain composer's output. With this definition we can avoid any suggestion of aesthetic evaluation that the 20th-century might imply from its concept of individual style.
One might object that individual characteristics might well be submerged on occasion by the idiomatic vocabulary of the time. This difficulty must not be underestimated and makes its presence felt in compositions that are strongly bound by convention and movements of small dimension (such as minuets). But even the most convention-ridden means (such as cadential formulae) can very often be the object of distinctive personal use. When an individual composer exploits a mannerism or cliché of style, it becomes in other words, an integrated part of his musical thinking and can be an important element in his stylistic vocabulary.
One other difficulty is that the composer can undergo further development so that these demonstrable characteristics have only a limited validity, confined to a certain part of his output. At certain times during this development he may be so deeply indebted to certain models that even the most reliable stylistic analyses prove fruitless. It can be stated here that Roman's stylistic vocabulary did not undergo such radical changes that necessitate further subdivisions of group A, but it should be noted that many types of compositions differ from each other stylistically, and in certain contexts this has made necessary sub-classifications of another kind.
This cursory account of the principal arguments on this issue, concerns itself mainly with two important points. First, if there can be said to exist certain characteristics of style that can be called dominant or primary in the sense that they appear constantly throughout the different periods and different types of composition found in Roman's output. Secondly, if such characteristics do not in fact lie at a less accessible and more deeply imbedded level of consciousness in the composer's musical thinking and if this is the case, how are these characteristics best demonstrated.
Both of these questions are of course, intimately bound up with each other. In the so-called persontypologi (Analysis of Personality Types) which was founded by J. and 0. Rutz and which was adopted for musical purposes by Gustav Becking and Wemer Danckert amongst others, an important attempt is made to differentiate between and describe a number of basic human types, which were observed from both the point of view of physical condition and from the point of view of certain expressive outlets including the artistic. It is simple to demonstrate the metaphysical weaknesses of this doctrine, but the existence of the qualitative differences which have been assigned the name "Personalkonstanten" (constant characteristics of personality) cannot be denied. And without doubt, Becking in his study of rhythm has laid his finger on one of the most vital factors to which attention can be drawn if one wishes to arrive at an assessment of a composer's personal style: as the basic dimension of music is time, its rhythmic character assumes primary importance. The rhythmic structure of a piece is of course not solely the product of time-relationships, but is also affected by melodic and harmonic factors. In the constant characteristics of musical personality rhythm however plays a dominant role.
The question is then, if these features of individuality are demonstrable in the musical notation. The notation of a work is not the same thing as the work itself. However, it serves as a point of departure for all knowledge of that work. What we can say with immediate and often relatively sure accuracy are such things as the pitch and time-relationships of the notes. But for the more refined and subtle characteristics of a work with which we are concerned here (discussed in chapter IX), there seem to be no means of notation, and the question arises whether observation of such characteristics is solely the product of a more or less subjective interpretation of indications in the score. If this is the case, it is not possible to verify them empirically.
It is the view of the present author however, that all those statements are capable of empirical verification that can be demonstrated through certain defined relationships found between various elements in the score. For the purposes of this research, other non-empirically verifiable factors are not relevant. (note 1)
The complicated relations that arise are very often difficult to classify with our present inadequate methods of musicological analysis, but for practical purposes it has proved necessary to observe the
usual classifications (melody, harmony, rhythm). However we have striven to draw attention to the relationships between them and have, furthermore, widened the scope of our analytical method where necessary.
1. The present author avoids the use of analytical terms implying a static concept of the art. Elsewhere the unaltered score provides our point of departure with the exception of time-signatures and bar-lines which were very irregular during the baroque.
2. As the primary aim has been to undertake studies concerning the authenticity of a number of works, we have drawn upon a number of stylistic characteristics which are particularly suitable for use as criteria of Roman's authorship. This means amongst other things that characteristics which could be of great interest from the point of view of the development of form may take second place in the system of characteristics indicating authenticity, while less important details assume greater significance as criteria. The analytical accounts by no means claim to be complete in every aspect.
3. The present author has also avoided the use of purely statistical methods of research. These are only suitable on those occasions where stylistic characteristics recur in identical musical contexts and perform identical functions, and this is more often the exception than the rule. Moreover the classification of works according to the evidence in the sources indicating authenticity, would further complicate such a course.
4. Superficial differences or resemblances apart, there are certain processes of thought that appear in many varying forms throughout a composer's output. The stylistic characteristics that can be used as criteria of authenticity thus take the form of a common denominator of several individual artistic processes.
5. The primarily phenomenological considerations which have occupied us in the stylistic analyses, have also made it desirable to avoid in so far as is possible such terms that have misleading connotations such as sonata form, primitive sonata form, subsiduary theme etc. One of the methods employed is the tabulation of the "functional characteristics of style" by groups of music examples, where every quotation represents a variant of the same basic type.
In order to facilitate the description of rhythmic and formal characteristics we have adopted the term formtakt = the bar corresponding with the real structural beat as opposed to the often arbitrary notation of bars found in the score. The former is indicated by the abbreviation t,, while the latter is indicated by t,, only t being used when they coincide.
In the treatment of melodic style, we have not undertaken the systemisation of melodic types, but have instead chosen a number of particularly typical and recurring melodic patterns.
Where harmonic analyses are concerned, we have followed for the sake of convenience those principles laid down in Harmonilära (Theory of Harmony) by Sven E. Svensson and Carl-Allan Moberg, Stockholm 1933. The larger formal structures are indicated as a rule by the simplest abbreviation possible, f.i. capital letters. These are supplemented by other abbreviations (in small type) according to function involved. Taking the methods of Wilhelm Fischer and Stig Walin as a point of departure, we have worked out a system to describe processes of continuation ("Fortspinnung") in the shortest way possible. Here we have only space to give a short glossary of some of the more important of these.
i = that part performing an initial function
Chapter IX: Stylistic Criteria of Authenticity
The critical study of compositions in the classification group A can only be dealt with here in the most cursory fashion.
In connection with what has already been said about the importance of rhythmic characteristics, the first part of the chapter is devoted to a discussion of some of the main rhythmic figures. Through analyses of a number of music examples and comparison with movements by Handel, we have been able to arrive at some conclusions about the basic rhythmic character of Roman's music, which amongst other things can be recognised by the small degree of differentiation between the main points of metrical stress, but which none the less possesses considerable variety in the spacing of rhythmic tension and relaxation within the bar. (note 2)
The basic rhythmic character to be found in Roman's music does not reveal itself until studied in conjunction with such contributory factors as the harmonic and melodic elements. Roman shows a strong predilection towards rhythmic patterns analogous to the feminine ending and to formulating his patterns in two-bar phrases. Generally speaking formal development is carried on essentially by means of the fusion or mere addition of small rhythmic groups within the framework of the regularly recurring basic pulse, which proceeds uninterrupted while the rhythmic patterns re-group themselves. However, it is important to note that Roman seldom stoops to the rather mechanical types of rhythmic repetition lavishly used by the composers of "style galant".
These traits are of no mean significance in Roman's style and can amongst other things help to explain why certain stylistic devices are particularly common in his music, while others are strikingly infrequent.
By the side of the general rhythmic characteristics we have noted some smaller details of his rhythmic vocabulary, amongst them being Roman's choice of dance rhythms, the dotted rhythm of the French overture and other similar rhythmic techniques such as Lombardic rhythms and syncopes.
Roman's melodic style is marked as a rule by a distinctive and individual line. It is very seldom that he resorts to empty passage-work and equally seldom that he builds his thematic material on triadic foundations or the immediate repetition of a motive. Other general characteristics are clearly impregnated with instrumental idioms, and sharply defined rhythms are often encountered; there is an evident harnessing of thematic material to the figured bass (and this applies even to fugal subjects or movements calling for considerable imitation of parts) and a large incidence of melodic ideas falling in pitch. The flowing and emotive vocal style of the Italians with its wide tessitura and broad outlines finds little place in Roman's music apart from a number of runs. Certain sketches show moreover that the melodic contour in the slow movements is less often the product of a spontaneous lyrical outburst than the outcome of diligent revision.
One thing that emerges from Roman's rhythmic and melodic methods of thinking is the proliferation of motivic ideas to be found in a movement. Very often every phrase possesses some melodic significance even if the phrase forms part of some humble passage-work.
As far as harmony is concerned the study occupies itself with material that is not very likely to throw light on the problem of authenticity, except when harmony and harmonic rhythm are regarded as an integrated part of the musical entity. Where Roman was moving in a primarily homophonic medium it can be shown that he had early acquired a thorough and scholarly technique and a finely developed taste. Moreover the bass lines are throughout of the highest quality, being well-shaped and varied. In this respect he differs from many of his prolific contemporaries and .bears comparison in this respect with such masters as Geminiani and Handel. But Roman had not however any highly developed feeling for polyphonic writing. The contrapuntal textures in his overtures and trio-sonatas are nearly all firmly bound to the basso continuo, and are mostly semi-polyphonic in conception.
With reference to harmonic criteria of authenticity we have paid special attention to the function performed by certain chords and characteristic dissonances, as well as other harmonic procedures which Roman uses particularly often or in a distinctive manner. Furthermore we have studied Roman's choice of cadential fonnulae at whole closes with a view to observing his individual usage in relation to established convention.
A study of the main shifts of tonality gives in itself little foundation on which to base any considerations of authenticity but it does throw some interesting light on the relations between basic forms. Neither can a short account of the types of movements composing an individual work within the group of works classified as authentic be called upon in determining problems of authenticity. It is of greater value to study the individual movement I s structure and even more the formal structure of the independent formal subdivisions within the movement itself. Where the formal structure of the independent movements are concerned, Roman shows - in spite of the indebtedness he displays to the conventions of his time - a considerable power of variety; amongst other things he employs different types of transition forms between larger binary and ternary types, and seems to be equally lacking in conventional restraint when it comes to inserting new motives within larger frameworks. Occasionally such a motive or group of motives can acquire the position, function and character of a subsiduary theme if we are to use the terminology of the later sonata-form. But his attitude to form is all too varied for us to pin his formal devices down to any hard and fast blueprint. Behind this formal variety we can discern something of a desire to experiment and one can deduce from this fact that works outside group Ä might be expected to show signs of this. In distinct contrast to the varying formal outlay of the movement as a whole, the smaller parts of the movement are designed on a more consistent pattern. Passage-work is built up along characteristic lines-simple and double sequences, repetition of certain bars, etc.-all these appear in accordance with definite and regular processes of thought. In combination with our observations of rhythmic character, melodic features and harmonic processes of thought (particularly the bass line), these formal devices can give criteria of authenticity.
Chapter X: The Authenticity of Attributed Works
This chapter comprises critical examinations and analyses of the style of those instrumental works outside the group guaranteed authentic (group A) that were classified in Chapter VII: into six groups, graded according to the likelihood of their authenticity. This is undertaken in the light of what has emerged from the study of the style of the authentic works (in the proceeding chapter).
Every conclusion has been drawn after carefully weighing the evidence of both sources and style, and as every decision is based on a proliferation of source and internal factors, it is not possible to formulate a simple conunensurate table giving degrees of probable authenticity, as we were able to do when only source material was involved. Instead the author has chosen to divide the compositions into four different groups as follows:
1. Works evincing strong stylistic evidence for authenticity and where there are no serious grounds to bring its authenticity into suspicion. Probably Genuine (Sannolikt äkta) .
2. Works for which the stylistic evidence is less favourable than group i, but where nevertheless it can be assumed that they could have been composed by Roman. Where stylistic evidence is slender, the source material often offers compensating grounds for this belief. Uncertain; Roman? (Osäkra).
3. Works showing certain stylistic features in common with those of group A, but where these are not adequate in either number or importance for us to consider them as strong evidence. Alternatively such stylistic indications as may exist, may well appear in conjunction with equally strong stylistic evidence in favour of non-authenticity. As a rule reliable information in the sources concerning authorship is missing. Dubious (Dubiösa) .
4. Works evincing no (or little) stylistic evidence for authenticity and more for believing them to be the works of others. Probably not genuine (Sannolikt icke äkta).
The evidence of the stylistic analyses as a rule has had to be summarised in the greatest brevity although certain selected details are given where necessary. Greater attention has been devoted in the text to those works which have offered the greatest difficulties on the ground of contradictory or inadequate evidence together with a number of works that show some particular aspect of Roman as a composer.
Furthermore we have throughout attempted to establish the titles of works, the medium for which they were written and the order of the movements.
Our conclusions have been summarised in the catalogue. In the thematic catalogue at the back of the book all works in group A, and all those for which there is good reason for believing authentic are included as well as those whose authenticity is uncertain, the latter being marked by an asterisk (*) before the title. Compositions are grouped according to the medium and type of work, and within every group are arranged according to tonality.
There are two appendices (Tillägg I, Tillägg II) where the dubious and probably not genuine works have been consigned.
Chapter XI: Considerations of Chronology
The chronological data which are given in this chapter is in the nature of a summary of such information as has come to light during the main researches. The task of ascertaining the approximate date of individual compositions (or groups of compositions) is as hazardous as it is absorbing, for there are greater difficulties in dealing with instrumental music than there would be in vocal music. The difficulties are also greater when one is dealing with MSS material rather than print, so that it is only natural that a large number of the dates that are suggested here should be very approximate and others highly uncertain.
The most important point from which to commence this undertaking, is that group of instrumental works whose exact date is established . Any endeavour to fix approximate dates of composition for the rest of the instrumental music has followed several paths, but first and foremost the source and stylistic factors summarised below in the following six points.
1. The chronological grouping of Roman's autographs in Be&DaHN.;
2. Other calligraphical evidence in the MSS that could give some indication of date.
3. Watermarks and other data concerning the material quality of the paper.
4. The identity of certain movements of different works and the appearance of different versions of the same movement.
5. Stylistic characteristics. In connection with the descriptions of the works guaranteed authentic (group A) in Chapter IX: we have made certain observations concerning the appearance of different stylistic devices at various times in Romans output.
6. The different categories of works in relation to certain established data concerning Romans life.
These have, in short, led us to form the following conclusions.
The earliest dated composition whose authenticity is established is the cantata Festa musicale from the year 1725. We know very little about Roman's activities as a composer before this date, and strangely enough there is no surviving document to prove that he gave any evidence of his creative abilities before his journey to England (1716-21). One is, moreover, compelled for the time being, to regard the last half of the 1720s as the first main period in Roman's work.
During this time he composed several Occasional works of the cantata type, besides the twelve flute sonatas of 1727 and the Golovin-musik of 1728. All evidence seems to point to the fact that Roman composed the bulk of his music of the French overture type at about this time. To this period belongs works numbered 39 which must have been written before 1727-28, together with Nos. 37, 38, 43 and probably the sonatas 219 and 221. The Suite 8 also appears to have been written at the latest c. 1730.
At the beginning Of the 1730s, Roman and Per Brant inaugurated their series of public concerts in Stockholm. At this time Roman should have been well occupied in an executant capacity, and apart from this there is good reason for believing (from both source and stylistic evidence) that the bulk of his solo concertos (for violin and oboe) were composed during this time, i.e. before rather than after the second journey he made abroad 1735-37, when his hearing began to fail him. All the concertos it would seem, belong to the 1730s, certainly nos. 48 and 50 (especially the latter) which could be earlier than the others.
It appears too, as if the bulk of Roman's overture-suites were written before rather than after the period C. 1740. The so-called Sjukmans Musiquen (The Music of an Ailing Man) (7) seems to have been written before the second journey abroad, possibly as early as 1727/28. The suites 4 and 5 can also be ascribed to the same period. 6 presumably saw the light of day before Buschenfeldt's death in 1740, but there is no good reason for supposing it to be an early work and it may well have been written in the last half of the 1730s. The B flat major suite 102 is difficult to date: it is very probably earlier than Nos 4/5, 7 and 8 rather than later, although it is possible that it dates from the same -;ear as 6 or a little before it. The suite in E major (3) has been ascribed to the 1730s: it is possible that it was written before the journey abroad (1735-37). The D major suite 2 1/2 can well be contemporaneous with the Drottningholmsmusik, i.e. c. 1744.
As far as Roman's works for solo violin are concerned we know that the independent movement 343 dates from 1730 and that Roman planned in 1740 to publish a collection called Assaggi . The independent movements, particularly those between 328 and 348, can with some certainty be assigned to (the first half of?) the 1730s.
Roman's Assaggi to judge from the presence of movements found elsewhere in the corpus of his work, belongs to a period other than that of the late 20s and early 30s. If 1740 can be regarded as the date when the bulk of the Assaggi were complete, however one must regard the whole Of the 30s as a possible period of composition.
There is much to support the view that Roman in common with many of his contemporaries gradually eschewed the French overture and those categories of forms associated with it in favour of the Neapolitan sinfonia (with or without the addition of dance movements). When one considers how far the composers of this time were accustomed to resort to greatly differing stylistic devices and forms according to their ends, one should not draw too definite a conclusion in this question. However the view is supported by considerable evidence both source and stylistic, and it is noteworthy that both of the sinfonias that are dated belong to the year 1746(-47?).
However it is even more striking that no single instrumental work comes from a date later than this. Generally speaking there is no reliable evidence whatever to indicate that Roman wrote any instrumental music during the 50s, although it is probable that a number of his so-called andliga sånger (sacred songs) were composed at this late period; but this is by no means proved beyond question.
When Roman left Stockholm in the late spring or early summer of 1752, not to return to the Swedish capital, there no longer remained any direct incentive for him to compose larger orchestral works, and the year 1746 for the sinfonias 10 and 15, together with both the movements 10 '/2, MUST be regarded as a relatively late date for the sinfonias as a whole, rather than as a middle point. (It is likely that Roman during the later part of the 1740s devoted himself first and foremost to church music, and it can be stated with reasonable certainty that his realisation of Leo's Dixit dates from this time, and in all probability so does his Swedish Mass, c. 1748-52?.)
With a view both to source and stylistic factors, the conclusion can be drawn that a large number of the sinfonias seem to have been written during or around the decade following his return from his second journey abroad, i.e. 1737-47. Those few indications that can be given concerning the order of the sinfonias themselves are however given with strong reservations.
Passing from the sinfonias we must turn our attention to the keyboard music 225-236. In a quite unique fashion, keyboard versions of movements dating from many widely differing periods (amongst them compositions whose dates are established as 728 and 1746 respectively) are to be found together here. None of the undated and original suites can be from an early period, on the contrary all of them must have been written after c. 1736 and indeed, there are many reasons for concluding that the occasionally daring harmonic experiments that are to be found in them, stem from a relatively late period, perhaps during his time at Haraldsmåla.
No category of works offers so much resistance to chronological classification as the trio sonatas, for none bear any exact date and the dedication of the Turku (Åbo) collection to C. Ekeblad (c. 1752) gives so wide a field as to be of no practical value. The striking affinity between 106:4 and Handel's Op. 2:VI:4 Of 1733 (cf. music example 29 b) is hardly a matter of coincidence and give us some straw to clutch. It can moreover be stated that none of the autographs is older than c. 1727-28, but also, that some of the sonatas employ immature ideas, which would date them earlier than the others (1 15, 117 and also possibly the sonatas for violin, cello and continuo, 105 and 122.) For the remaining trio sonatas one must rest content for the time being, with the little that can be stated with certainty, namely that they probably stretch over a considerable part of Roman's active career (from C. 1727-28, scarcely before) and that the uttermost limits which one can give approximately seem to be the year of publication of Handel's Op. 2 (i.e. 1733) and the dedication to Ekeblad (1752).
Chapter XII: The Man and his Work
Unfortunately no portrait of Roman has come down to posterity, so that the most concrete evidence we have concerning his appearance, is to be found in Sahlstedt's Äreminne (1767) where we find that Roman was "of medium stature, and ample in body: he had eyes of bright lustre and a fairness of countenance that revealed the devoteness and propriety of spirit that his bosom enshrined". Sahlstedt adds that he was "of glad and merry disposition in company: a right noble Lord to his family, an honourable citizen and friend".
Further on we learn that Roman was an especially modest individual: "he could not sing the praises of his own person, much less seek the praises of others". In spite of the many setbacks and difficulties that he encountered, he seems to have preserved his balance: "The world is always constant; Roman also was of constant temper so that no stroke of Fate could disturb his disposition."
This description of Roman's appearance and personal character conforms well to that picture that we have of him from other sources. And we could also suggest some idea of the basic traits of his personality by using the term cycloid from the psychological vocabulary of E. Kretschmer. The description quoted above undoubtedly suggests a pyknic physique and we find many instances of predominantly "cyclothymic" reactions to environment, although there are of course details that do not conform with this analysis. (note 3) There are also many interesting parallels between this psychological portrait of Roman and his art.
Roman's striking eagerness for knowledge, his receptivity and his versatility conform altogether to this picture. He was a good linguist and was well read in the humanistic fields of knowledge, being keenly interested in history. In this connection it is of interest to mention the extensive compilation, called Något om Rom (Notes on Rome) which is preserved in MS at Kalmar and which serves admirably to demonstrate his careful and detailed descriptions of reality.
Roman's modesty and even temper as well as his directness and his practical initiative are qualities which taken in conjunction with his keen descriptive insight, would seem to indicate an objectivity which one does not encounter so frequently in the artist. He evinces indeed, certain tendencies towards rationalism, which one is inclined to connect with his youthful years in England, but which must also have had their roots in his own character. One has only to glance at his handwriting to see its clarity and simplicity; characteristics that strike one as singularly modem and above all, indicative of an unmistakable objectivity.
If Sahlstedt was correct in his description of Roman as always being of phlegmatic temperament, it was certainly not so considered a judgement to write that "no stroke of Fate could disturb his disposition".
His trials certainly left their trace on him. Between the years of the "Swedish virtuoso" of the 1710s and the lonely retired Kapellmeister of Haraldsmåla forty years later, there had intervened a life of many bitter experiences. When the young Roman came home from England in 1721, he was full of vitality and radiant with creative energy, as well as a little virtuosic self-esteem that soon disappeared. Less than twenty years later he wrote how intrigue and conspiracy in connection with a concert at the Riddarhuset had contributed to the "severe attack of illness which still is with me".
Roman was hardly what one would call in everyday speech, "temperamental". But with his live intelligence and his rationalistic attitude to life, he was a person of considerable depths of feeling. Behind the unending energy there was more will-power than sheer abundance of vitality, and this surge of practical energy might, in part, be a sort of compensation for the gentleness and unassertiveness of his personal character, good-hearted and easily influenced.
Roman's instrumental work comprises only one part, though the most abstract, of his output.
However it is already possible to say that its position in the whole corpus of his work is not subordinate to that of the vocal music.
Those works discussed in this thesis do not give a picture of his music in its entirety, but they are so numerous and varied in style that they can be said to give the reader a good picture of Roman's technique and style. Although there are many devices bound by the conventions of the time, these works serve in many ways to give a faithful reflection of Roman's personality.
The concluding list of works show that Roman occupied himself with practically all the most important categories of orchestral and chamber-music forms then current. Some of these were written with defined purposes or ends in view but many others were composed without being commissioned. The style and expressive vocabulary varies considerably between the different types of composition. The trio sonatas with their quasi-contrapuntal texture throughout, differ strongly from the solo violin works, the inventive polythematic sinfonias differ from the more conventional overtures. Many of these differences seem however to be less the product of a stylistic development, than due to powers of adaptability to the medium or form in question. That Roman possessed these powers of adaptability can be taken as evidence of his technical capability and wide degree of culture. And we have already quoted a letter written in 1772 by one of his pupils which testifies to his knowledge of the national schools of composition in Europe as well as his ability to irritate their style.
It is no matter for surprise then that one recognises many stylistic characteristics and mannerisms of his contemporaries abroad. With striking ease, he has made many Italian or Italianate stylistic devices his own, and does not hesitate to resort to borrowing certain details without making many alterations. However quite often they are subjected to a process of assimilation and mostly used in contexts carrying the stamp of Roman's own personality.
Whether Roman began to compose at an early age or not, the fact remains that he was in his thirties writing music that was in every way up-to-date, employing a thoroughly homophonic technique, and his year of birth gave him a place amongst contemporary composers that throws interesting light on his stylistic position. The older generation included Ariosti, Pepusch, G. B. Bononcini, Albinoni, Geminiani, and Croft, while those who were older but by only a few years, include Vivaldi, Telemann, Handel, Domenico Scarlatti, Marcello and Porpora. Those who were of approximately the same age number amongst their midst such names as Leonardo Vinci, Tartini, G. Sammartini, Leo, Locatelli, Greene, Quantz and Hasse while G. B. Sammartini, the brothers Graun, Galuppi, Pergolesi, William Boyce and C. P. E. Bach were amongst his juniors.
From an aesthetic standpoint one must concede that the instrumental music of Roman is somewhat uneven in quality. Not only does the quality vary from work to work, but very often there is considerable unevenness in one and the same movement. Sometimes a work may begin with a theme of great beauty and contain many other ideas of high quality, while in other places during the course of the movement, the contour is broken by feeble developments that do much to detract from the effect of the work as a whole. In his best works however, he can fully withstand comparison with such contemporary composers as Geminiani, Locatelli, Tartini and Telemann.
Negative characteristics, i.e. the absence of certain qualities, as well as the positive, can contribute to our picture of Roman as individual, and both combine to give his music an individual flavour.
His moderation and his common-sense attitude to life colour his music, and we might add a propos a remark of Sahlstedt's, that his music mostly gives expression to feelings of friendship and affection rather than love, sorrow rather than despair. It is seldom impassioned or imbued with the deepest pathos, seldom monumental or brilliant, but at the same time, it is never superficial or empty. Roman "had no disposition towards theatre and comic music". Instead he strove to achieve a uniform technical competence, concerning himself with detail, and eschewing any cheap effects. One cannot but admire the flowing melodic invention which is so shapely and individual. Serious ideas but without any hint of pretentiousness, graceful melodic patterns but without the precocity so often encountered in the period, themes tinged with melancholy but devoid of any trace of sentimentality, a simplicity almost to the point of austerity and occasionally even naiveté, these are the most conspicuous elements of his melodic style. Thorough craftsmanship leaves its stamp on his harmony and the bass-line, where he carefully avoids the use of mechanical or cheap musical procedures. His choice of chords, passage-work and modulations along with his treatment of the instrumental medium, always displays thoughtful and cultivated judgement and the finest taste: he also permits himself some harmonic astringencies and other surprises which rarely sound contrived.
In Roman's works there are in Sahlstedt's words, "fine and pleasing" details and no "unnecessary display". On the other hand one must confess that the structure of some of Roman's works leaves something to be desired. One encounters in his music a surprisingly large variety of formal structures. It would be mistaken to interpret this as the product of intellectual speculation, since his is too spontaneous and uncalculated an attitude towards composing, but at the same time there can be little doubt that the formal designs in his music are more the product of conscious deliberation than of instinctive feeling for form and the structure of a work as a whole. The presence of self-critical powers when details are at stake is not always an indication of similar abilities when larger units are concerned. Also the proliferation of ideas can now and then lead to a lack of fulfilment in the structural evolutions and to unexpected pauses and cadences. However, this technique partly seems to be the product of a corresponding emotional content, where pauses or reiterated cadences are felt to be expressive of a gentle, introspective mood. Earlier we have also demonstrated that formal structure in Roman's music is very intimately connected with what we have called the basic rhythmic characteristics. One can argue, therefore, that many of the characteristics in his music, which appear to be the product of general stylistic trends during a period of transition, are just as attributable to elements in his own personality.
In certain of Roman's works one is reminded of definite models. But in many other compositions and in several independent movements, he has endeavoured to concentrate his ideas within welldesigned moulds, where the phrase lengths are well-balanced and spacious, where rhythmic impulses follow on each other naturally and the flow of ideas is subject to masterly control. Such works and movements are to be found as early as the collection of flute sonatas (1727), in the solo violin music, occasionally in the trio sonatas, but more often in the orchestral music, particularly the sinfonias. Roman's Assaggi are generally speaking remarkable as a striking contribution to the limited repertoire of the solo violin in the first-half of the eighteenth century. Both from an aesthetic and a historical point of view however, the sinfonias deserve to take pride of place in his output.
Johan Helmich Roman's instrumental music is in many ways deeply indebted to the general stylistic trends of the period ranging from c. 1710 to c. 1750, but at the same time he can be said to give expression to some of the best aspects of the cultural atmosphere prevalent in the first era of peace (Frihetstiden) following the decline of Sweden as a great power, where the charms and elegance of the rococo are still fused with the artlessness of the bourgeoisie and the growth of rationalism is still in the debt of the austere simplicity and objectivity of the Era of Charles XII. Last and not least, we have the impression of a thoroughly human, deeply honest, versatile and modest artist, and a composer of great worth.
Notes
1. It should be noted that there is an important group comprising stylistic characteristics where more than one interpretation is valid. However, the concept of ambiguity as developed by W. Empson has not been utilised to such an extent in a musical context as to permit us to employ it here.
2. The present author has in another context (articles on rhythm and metre, Rytm and Takt, in Sohlmans musiklexikon , vol. 4, Sthlm 1952) emphasised that every differentiation of stress in a more or less extensive group of bars is not a product of the regular metre itself, but of the interplay of metre and rhythm. Furthermore the methods of analysing such differentiations developed by H. Riernann are rejected as too doctrine and narrow. The opposite view, held by Th. Wiehmayer and recently reinforced by I. Ipolyi, also seems to be restricted. Our opinion is, that both explanations are valid only in so far as each of them describes one single aspect of rhythm. For linguistical reasons we generally conceive rhythm as uncomplex, but the question is whether it should not be regarded as a product of the polarity of antagonistic forces, rather like the centrifugal-centripetal forces of dynamics. Anyhow, by such a solution we get a simple explanation of the fact that the unstressed parts of a bar possess the strongest rhythmical tension, and vice versa.
bestämming, -ar = attribution
bl. (blad) = Page, -s
förekomm|a, -er = appear, -a
H (handstil) = handwriting
hdskr. (handskrift) = manuscript
inb. (inbunden) = bound
innehåll|a, -er = contain, -s
klav, -er = clef, -s
källa, -or = source, -es
N (notpiktur, -er) = musical calligraphy
nanm = name, -s
namnteckning = signature
omslag = cover
påskr. (påskrift, -er) = superscription, -s
part. (partitur) = scorle, -es
samling, -ar = collection, -s
sats, -er = movement, -s
saknas = is missing
skiss, -er = sketch, -es
stm. stmr (stämma, stämmor) = part, -s
stmgrp (stämgrupp, -er) = group, -s, of parts
titelblad=title-page
tonslättare = composer
t. (takt, -er) = bar, -s
tvärformat = oblong
Vm (vattenmilrke, -n) = watermark, -s
k = that part performing a cadential function
j1 ,j2 etc. = those parts in between i and k and more or less independent of them
ek = emphatic reiteration of k
I = immediate reiteration of a motive, a bar or a group of bars
m = transposition (e.g. a fourth or fifth up- or downwards) of a motive etc.
n = sequence (usually diatonic)
o = sequence of oblique motion (W. Fischer: "Intervallsequenz"), i.e. where one part remains
stationary at the same pitch. The first number put into parentheses after such a letter denotes the number of reiterations, model included. The second denotes the number of bars corresponding to the real structural beat ("formtakt") of the model. The index number denotes the interval at which the sequence etc. rises ( +) or falls (-).
