History
-

In an effort to infuse Asian studies in the social studies and literature curricula, the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), in cooperation with the National Consortium for Teaching About Asia (NCTA), is offering a professional development opportunity at Stanford University.

This all day workshop will focus on teaching about religion in China and Japan and the influence of Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Participants will hear from top China and Japan scholars, engage in China and Japan related curriculum, and network with other local teachers.  This is the fourth seminar in a four part series.

Encina Basement Conf. Room, Encina Hall
616 Serra Street
Stanford, CA 94305

Seminars
-

In an effort to infuse Asian studies in the social studies and literature curricula, the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), in cooperation with the National Consortium for Teaching About Asia (NCTA), is offering a professional development opportunity at Stanford University.

This all day workshop will focus on teaching about ancient China and the Silk Road. Participants will hear from top China scholars, engage in China related curriculum, and network with other local teachers.  This is the second seminar in a four part series.

Encia Basement Conf. Room, Encina Hall
616 Serra Street
Stanford, Ca 94305

Seminars
-

In an effort to infuse Asian studies in the social studies and literature curricula, the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), in cooperation with the National Consortium for Teaching About Asia (NCTA), is offering a professional development opportunity at Stanford University.

This all day workshop will focus on teaching about China's dynasties. Participants will hear from top China scholars, engage in China related curriculum, and network with other local teachers.  This is the first seminar in a four part series.

Encina Basement Conf. Room, Encina Hall
616 Serra Street
Stanford, CA 94305

-

In an effort to infuse Asian studies in the social studies and literature curricula, the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), in cooperation with the National Consortium for Teaching About Asia (NCTA), is offering a professional development opportunity at Stanford University.

This all day workshop will focus on teaching about issues Asian American face in contemporary society. This is the fourth workshop in a four part series.

Encina Basement Conf. Room, Encina Hall
616 Serra Street
Stanford, CA 94305

Seminars
-

In an effort to infuse Asian studies in the social studies and literature curricula, the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), in cooperation with the National Consortium for Teaching About Asia (NCTA), is offering a professional development opportunity at Stanford University.

This all day workshop will focus on teaching about Korea in the social studies classroom. Participants will hear from top Korea scholars, engage in Korea related curriculum, and network with other local teachers.  This is the third workshop in a four part series.

Encina Basement Conf. Room, Encina Hall
616 serra Street 
Stanford, CA 94305

Seminars
-

In an effort to infuse Asian studies in the social studies and literature curricula, the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), in cooperation with the National Consortium for Teaching About Asia (NCTA), is offering a professional development opportunity at Stanford University.

This all day workshop will focus on teaching about contemporary China in the social studies classroom. Participants will hear from top China scholars, engage in China related curriculum, and network with other local teachers.  This is the first workshop in a four part series.

During the course of the day, participants will learn about the challenges China faces, including their geopolitical, cultural, military, and economic significance. 

 

Encina Hall, Ground Floor Conf. Room
616 Serra Street
Stanford, CA 94305

Seminars
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Appeared in Stanford Report, December 8, 2014.

German studies professor Adrian Daub examines the social mores of 19th-century Europe through a study of "four-handed monsters" - when the hands of two layers intermingled on the same piano.  It was a phenomenon that both fascinated and repelled.  

In 19th-century Europe – long before LPs, CDs or mp3s – there were only two ways to listen to, say, the latest Beethoven symphony: either you were lucky enough to hear it performed at the local concert hall, or you played it at home yourself.

Not with a full orchestra, of course, but in a piano transcription, an arrangement that compressed symphonic violins, oboes and tubas onto a single keyboard score. And, to really mimic the range of a whole orchestra, amateurs played "four-handed," with two pianists sitting side-by-side.

These close-contact duets took off among the nascent middle class. Historian Edward Cone dubbed the players "four-handed monsters," both for the style's raging popularity and for its scandalous stigma.

"Piano four hands represented a safe space in which touching and nearness were permitted or even desired – something that was unusual at the time," said Adrian Daub, associate professor of German studies and affiliated faculty of The Europe Center at Stanford

Daub takes Cone's descriptor as the title of his new book exploring this largely forgotten phenomenon, Four-Handed Monsters: Four-Hand Piano Playing and Nineteenth-Century Culture.

Four-hand playing "bridged the divide between serious musicians and total amateurs," Daub said.

"This was a welcome vehicle for the greatest composers of the 19th century and at the same time it was the much-maligned party game – the equivalent of Twister – for the 'philistine' bourgeois."

Using a range of musical and literary sources, Daub's study is the first to examine the cultural valences of this strikingly intimate tradition.

Drawing from novels, memoirs and letters, Daub's survey reveals, for instance, how 19th-century anxieties surrounding creativity, industrialization, sex, virtue and politics were exercised through the act of four-hand piano playing.

Daub's previous research projects, one on Richard Wagner and sexuality, and another on the metaphysics of marriage in the 19th century, put him in a unique position to examine the phenomenon of four-hand playing and how "the dangers and the utopian promises it seemed to make … tell us much about the 19th century."

As Daub put it, "it's almost incredible how much people were able to read into what to modern eyes seems a pretty harmless pursuit." Whether this was a fear of moral dissoluteness or a "promise of a better way of engaging with the other sex or other people more generally," four-hand playing "was asked to do a lot, far more than comparable modes of performance."

Heather Hadlock, associate professor of music at Stanford, sees Daub's study as an important contribution to music scholarship. "Until recently, transcriptions and arrangements were dismissed as having little artistic value or historical significance," Hadlock said.

Daub's study, however, is the first step toward rectifying this oversight, revealing how four-hand piano duets in the 19th century resounded far beyond the parlor.

Romantic undertones

As pianos became increasingly affordable over the course of the century, more and more middle-class families made the instrument a centerpiece of domestic life. While solo piano playing never went out of style, the increased musical range and social interaction offered by four-hand playing caught on.

"Four-hand arrangements became the standard vehicle for the private, or semi-private, consumption of music of all kinds," said Daub. "Symphonies, operas, chamber music, dance music and so on, from trivial waltzes to apocalyptic Mahler symphonies."

"The collaboration of four hands across the whole range of the modern piano allowed two players to reproduce virtually any repertoire within the privacy of the home," said Stanford music Professor Thomas Grey.

Well-versed in both music and literature, Daub amassed a staggering number of allusions to four-hand playing from 19th-century sources. He also collected references from four-hand practitioners and mined digital databases.

From William Thackeray to Charles Dickens to Thomas Mann, four-hand playing makes appearances in famous novels of the period.

Even the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote on – and composed – four-hand pieces, saying that they "may be taken as a divining rod for a good marriage."

Cumulatively, Daub said, these "short, often banal episodes are transformed into fleeting glimpses of a larger phenomenon, which in itself was too quotidian and ubiquitous to merit discussion in its own day."

In large part, Daub said, the popularity of the activity was driven by the romantic undertones of four-hand playing.

Daub quotes the composer Robert Schumann, for instance, who reported, "a four-hand piece allows us reveries together with our beloved, provided she plays the piano."

"Togetherness on the keyboard was to become a symbol for togetherness in marriage," Daub said.

Forced intimacy

Four-hand playing, though, also had a dark side: the erotic possibilities created when fingers touched, bodies sidled and harmony was made.

Composers, well aware of the situation, took advantage of the forced intimacy by crafting pieces that caused the hands to overlap and interlock, generating as much contact as possible.

Daub quotes novelist William Thackeray, who wrote of a "pretty little duet à quatre mains, where the hands cross over, and hop up and down the keys, and the heads get so close, so close. Oh, duets. Oh, regrets."

At the same time, literary treatments of four-hand playing projected notions of propriety and virtue. Daub cites a telling passage in Dickens's David Copperfield to comment on how four-hand piano playing reflected such social mores.

The novel's eponymous narrator, watching a recital by two young women, begins to rethink his opinion of one's moral standing:

"The innocent beauty of her face was not as innocent to me as it had been; I mistrusted the natural grace and charm of her manner; and when I looked at Agnes by her side, and thought how good and true Agnes was, suspicions arose within me that it was an ill-assorted friendship."

In Daub's reading, the narrator's shifting perceptions of his beloved is mediated by watching her play four-hand piano, the music laying bare her "true" character.

Four-hand playing also emerged as a potent political symbol because of the collaboration and unity inherent in the practice.

Music scholar Hans Moldenhauer, writing in 1950 after having been exiled from Nazi Germany, looked back at four-hand playing wistfully: "Dictatorial practices have no place in [four-hand] pianism."

Daub comments on the writer's "clear sense that four-hand piano playing doesn't allow for a Führer principle." For Moldenhauer, there was something beautifully communal about the four-hand "republic."

But by the time Moldenhauer extolled its virtues, the practice was quickly losing popularity. The practice continues today (all of the Stanford scholars quoted in this article are four-hand players), but people no longer attach as much interest to it.

Still, Daub, who has attended a number of four-hand concerts, says that seeing two people at one keyboard "instills a surprising sense of intimacy."

"What other mode of performance has the onlooker asking themselves: 'Should I be watching this?'"

Nate Sloan is a doctoral candidate in musicology and writes about the humanities at Stanford.

Media Contact

Corrie Goldman, director of humanities communication: (650) 724-8156, corrieg@stanford.edu

Dan Stober, Stanford News Service: (650) 721-6965, dstober@stanford.edu

Hero Image
14625 monsters banner
All News button
1

On March 29, 1945 the first Soviet troops crossed the Austrian border. On April 13, after fighting involving heavy losses, Vienna was liberated by the Red Army. The efforts of a resistance group within the Wehrmacht to avoid combat and surrender the city were betrayed and failed.

In building up the new, postwar Austria, the provisional Austrian government, installed by the Soviets, faced a dilemma: on the one hand the Moscow Declaration of November 1943 offered the opportunity to avoid the accusation of shared responsibility in Nazi crimes, even though Austria had been an integral part of the German Reich since the “Anschluss” in March 1938. The Moscow Declaration formula that, after the war, Austria would be dealt as the “first victim of Hitlerite aggression” offered a more than welcome way to avoid the threatened punishment. On the other hand, the obvious fact could not be denied that Austrians – as well as other Germans – had served in the Wehrmacht.

The Austrian Declaration of Independence, proclaimed on April 27, 1945, tried to explain this fact in claiming that the Austrians had been forced by Nazi suppression to fight in a war no Austrian had ever wanted, against peoples towards whom no Austrian felt any resentment.

In the immediate postwar period, this interpretation was underlined through several governmental projects, particularly the official Rot-Weiß-Rot-Buch (Red-White-Red-Book, 1946) that aimed to prove the significance of Austrian resistance to the Nazi regime – Wehrmacht soldiers were amongst those honored as patriotic resistance fighters, having been murdered for opposing the regime’s military orders.

But this narrative was to change within a short period in time. The Cold War and the re-integration of former members of the Nazi Party reframed the politics of history. This did not affect the official theory of Austria as the “first victim” but this argument was used mainly for official representations, especially to the “Ausland”. In Austrian internal discourse, clear indicators of a re-definition can be observed as early as 1948 as concerned attitudes to the Wehrmacht soldiers. In war memorials, commemoration ceremonies etc. the fallen soldiers – in 1945 defined as victims of infamous Nazi war policy - were now honored as heroes defending their homeland against the enemies from the “East”.

1945’s victim theory is of course the founding myth (more critically referred to as the foundational “historical lie”) of the Second Republic of Austria. But it is only one part of the specific Austrian postwar myth. Rather, Austrian memory is characterized by the tension between the official victim theory – Austria as the first victim of Nazi Germany in 1938 – and a widespread, populist counter-narrative: Austrians as heroic defenders of Heimat and as military and civilian victims of the Allied war against Nazi Germany. In this populist or popular second victim theory, the darkest moment of Austrian history was not in 1938, but in 1945, when Austria was occupied by the Allies, above all by the “Russian barbarians”. Obviously “Liberation” was not a term appropriate to this perspective.

These contradictory narratives caused several public conflicts, mostly triggered by the erection of new war memorials and commemoration ceremonies for the fallen, especially in the decade after the State Treaty (1955) when it was no longer necessary to take the Allied Military Occupation Forces into consideration.

In the 1980s, with the break with the European postwar myths also came the unmasking of the official victim theory, triggered by the debate on President Kurt Waldheim’s role as a Wehrmacht officer in the Balkan theater of war (1986). The official standpoint, declared by Chancellor Franz Vranitzky in 1991, now acknowledged the “co-responsibility” of the Austrians for the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes.

But surprisingly, the culture of commemoration for the fallen soldiers of the Wehrmacht remained largely untouched, despite the intensity of the "memory wars" at the end of the 20th century. Only in 2012 was Austria at last confronted with its long overlooked blind spot in coming to terms with the Nazi past. Beyond all ethical or moral arguments and the historical fact that the Wehrmacht had participated in War Crimes and played a major role in the Holocaust, honoring Wehrmacht soldiers for defending the “homeland” against the Allied Military Forces, which liberated Austria from the Nazi terror regime, is anachronistic and inappropriate, not at least taking the commitment of the Austrian Bundesheer in European military co-operation into consideration. Ironically, the starting point for the break with this outdated postwar tradition was a hidden Nazi document discovered in 2012 at the very center of official commemoration: the sculpture of the Fallen Soldier in the Austrian national Heroes Monument on Vienna’s Heroes square.

But despite overcoming of the last und today yet hardly comprehensible remains of the postwar strategies of national, social and individual reconstruction, the question still remains: How should Austrian society commemorate its Wehrmacht soldiers – the fallen and the surviving, a generation which is now passing away? As victims? As perpetrators? This affects not only national representation but also family memory. Honoring the millions of soldiers of the Allied Forces who died for the liberation of Europe – and Austria – will be in the focus of this year‘s 70th anniversary of the end of WW II. But how to commemorate the ambivalent role of the Red Army in Austria (and other countries) – commemorating and honoring the death toll of Russian soldiers who died in the Eastern and Central European theaters of war, whilst also remembering the suffering of raped women?

In 2014, the centenary of WW I resulted in an harmonious scene in which a European family of nations had learned their lessons from history. Predictably in the commemoration year 2015, the picture will be far more complex and ambivalent – especially in view of the different experiences of democratic and communist EU countries after 1945, the conflicts with Russia in Ukraine and Crimea and, not least, the role of the Great Patriotic War in today’s Russian nationalist politics of history. The commemoration year 2015 seems to become an exciting event: one can observe how new world orders – and new tensions – will be negotiated in the field of cultural memory.

Image

 

Heidemarie Uhl is a Fulbright-Botstiber Visiting Professor, a consulting professor at The Europe Center and visiting associate professor with the Department of History.  She is a Senior Researcher at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and teaches at the University of Vienna. Professor Uhl has held guest professorships at Hebrew University Jerusalem (Israel), University of Strasbourg (France) and Andrassy University Budapest (Hungary). She has published books and articles on the memory of the Holocaust in Austria and Europe and is currently co-directing a project on the persecution, expulsion and annihilation of Viennese Jews 1938-1945.

Professor Uhl's recent research interest focuses on the political, social, cultural and intellectual framework in which the Holocaust became the universal watershed event for a common memory of Western civilization at the end of the 20th century. What are the pre-conditions for this change in paradigm? Which transformations in narrative and in representation - from historiography to Memorial Museums and popular movie productions - were necessary for the acknowledgment of the Holocaust as the negative point of reference for the values and norms of western societies? And what are the new challenges Holocaust memory is confronted with in today’s multi-polar post-Cold War era?

Professor Uhl taught the history course "The Holocaust in Recent Memory: Conficts - Commemorations - Challenges" during the fall quarter, 2014.

 

Co-sponsored by the Department of History.

Lane History Corner, Room 307

Lane History Corner
450 Serra Mall, Bldg. 200

0
Consulting Professor at The Europe Center, 2014-2015
heidemarie20uhl2011.jpg PhD

Heidemarie Uhl is a Fulbright-Botstiber Visiting Professor, a consulting professor at The Europe Center and visiting associate professor with the Department of History.  She is a Senior Researcher at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and teaches at the University of Vienna. Professor Uhl has held guest professorships at Hebrew University Jerusalem (Israel), University of Strasbourg (France) and Andrassy University Budapest (Hungary). She has published books and articles on the memory of the Holocaust in Austria and Europe and is currently co-directing a project on the persecution, expulsion and annihilation of Viennese Jews 1938-1945.

Professor Uhl's recent research interest focuses on the political, social, cultural and intellectual framework in which the Holocaust became the universal watershed event for a common memory of Western civilization at the end of the 20th century. What are the pre-conditions for this change in paradigm? Which transformations in narrative and in representation - from historiography to Memorial Museums and popular movie productions - were necessary for the acknowledgment of the Holocaust as the negative point of reference for the values and norms of western societies? And what are the new challenges Holocaust memory is confronted with in today’s multi-polar post-Cold War era?

Professor Uhl is teaching the history course "The Holocaust in Recent Memory: Conficts - Commemorations - Challenges" this Fall 2014.

 

Senior Researcher Speaker Austrian Academy of Sciences
Lectures

This lecture is the first in a new series co-sponsored by The Europe Center and the Stanford Archaeology Center on how modern Europe has been shaped by the concepts, materials and ideology of its past inhabitants.

This first speaker highlights both the ecological and socio-political ramifications of conquest.  Based on work undertaken in Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Dr. Aleksander Pluskowski discusses the way that relationships created during one of the most dynamic epochs of European history, the period of crusading, have left a profound legacy for modern Europe.  The process of crusading resulted in massively modified landscapes and catalyzed population reconfiguration at the frontiers of Europe, during the period of Christian expansion.  The archaeo-historical backdrop to these events is presented, along with a discussion of how Europe and the relationship Europe has with non-Christian societies, was permanently altered.

Aleksander Pluskowski's research focuses on frontier societies, colonization and ecological diversity in medieval Europe.  He is primarily concerned with the nuanced relationships between ecology and culture, moving towards a complete integration of environmental and social archaeology, history and art history.  His ultimate aim is to further a holistic understanding of this formative period of European society, contributing to the management of cultural and ecological heritage today.  His other interests include cult praxis in the past and the construction of religious identities.

"How Conquest Transformed Northern Europe"
Download pdf

Building 500
488 Escondido Mall
Terman Labs

Aleksander Pluskowski Lecturer in Archaeology Speaker University of Reading, United Kingdom
Lectures

Department of History
Stanford University
Stanford, CA  94305-2024
 

(650) 723-1884 (650) 725-0597
0
Senior Lecturer in History
Senior Fellow of the WSD HANDA Center for Human Rights and International Justice
k_jolluck_webpage_photo.jpg PhD

Katherine R. Jolluck is Senior Lecturer and Coordinator of the Public History/Public Service Track in the Department of History at Stanford University.  She is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for Human Rights and International Justice.  She has also taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Naval Post-Graduate School in Monterey.  A specialist on the history of twentieth-century Eastern Europe and Russia, she focuses on the topics of women and war, women in communist societies, nationalism, the Soviet Gulag, and human trafficking. Her books include: Exile and Identity: Polish Women in the Soviet Union during WWII, and Gulag Voices: Oral Histories of Soviet Incarceration and Exile (with Jehanne M Gheith). She has also written articles on Poland in World War II, antisemitism, and human trafficking in Europe.  Jolluck serves on the Faculty Steering Committee of the Haas Center for Public Service, offers service-learning courses, and is active in the Bay Area anti-trafficking community.  She is a Steering Committee member of No Traffick Ahead, a multi-county, multi-disciplinary workgroup dedicated to combating human trafficking in all forms.

 

Affiliated Senior Lecturer at The Europe Center
Affiliated Senior Lecturer at the Program on Human Rights
CV
Subscribe to History