Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:33:22.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sarah Hibberd and Miranda Stanyon, eds, Music and the Sonorous Sublime in European Culture, 1680–1880 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020). xvi + 305 pp. $99.99

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2021

Joshua A. Waggener
Joshua A. Waggener*
Affiliation:
Wake Forest, North Carolina [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Nineteenth-Century Music Review , Volume 19 , Special Issue 1: Music, Medical Science and the Body/Retrospect Opera: Reviving Britain's Nineteenth-Century Operatic Past , April 2022 , pp. 182 - 185
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Aspden addresses Wye J. Allanbrook's scepticism regarding Handel and the eighteenth-century sublime directly, identifying it as ‘based on a very partial, Germano-centric reading of the literature’ (p. 67, with reference to Allanbrook, , ‘Is the Sublime a Musical Topos?’, Eighteenth-Century Music 7/2 (2010), 263–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

2 Stanyon (a scholar of eighteenth-century literary culture) admits that ‘this chapter has perhaps played fast and loose with harmony’ (p. 199). She suggests a range of possible ways that ‘harmony’ could relate to the sublime, beginning with Longinus (p. 178) and ending with an exploration of the ‘confounding semantic range’ of the word (pp. 195–99).