JAVS Spring 2013

doned the project, Berlioz turned to Chrétien urhan to play the solo viola part. urhan premiered the work and performed Harold in Italy for many years with Berlioz conducting. A violinist in the Paris Opéra Orchestra, urhan was known as a fine viola player and a devout Catholic. He did not have a rep utation as a stellar player or virtuoso but was a solid performer. 14 Several composers at the time, including Giacomo Meyerbeer and Rodolphe Kreutzer, com posed special viola and viola d’amore solos in their operas for him to play. 15 It was said that “urhan’s persona as a performer was closely linked with the solo viola’s characterization as Harold.” 16 The violist championed Berlioz’s work and, as the final part of the discussion will show, embodied the ideal persona for the character of the piece. Berlioz thought highly of urhan’s manner of playing Harold saying he “always gave to that diffi cult part such melancholy poesy, such sweet color, such religious reverie.” 17 Closely associated with who is playing the solo part are additional performance practice issues that con cern style. For a historically informed performance, the accounts of how Chrétien urhan played, and more specifically, the fact that Berlioz approved of his manner of playing Harold in Italy , should be considered and should influence the broad stylistic practices of the viola solo. Critics always described urhan as the “veritable Harold” and the “Byron of the orchestra.” 18 It was also noted that his well known dual personifications of religious piety and viola “unvirtuosity” “melded into a unified perform ance persona” in his performances of Harold . 19

urhan’s style and Berlioz’s choice of the viola as the musical embodiment of the wanderer Harold direct ly correspond to the cultural identity of the viola and viola players of the nineteenth century. As Kawabata states, “The very idea of the viola’s voice in 1830s Parisian musical culture carried an aura of inconspicuous, understated individuality.” 20 Since Berlioz chose this misunderstood instrument to rep resent his antithetical hero, the style of performance should reflect both the literary character and the instrument’s own isolated character. In addition to the accounts that Berlioz preferred urhan’s melancholy and unvirtuosic style for his anti-hero, there is ample evidence in the score to support this idea of style. Besides Berlioz’s use of the non-concerto genre, the general lack of passagework for the viola makes an unvirtuosic style of perform ance essential. The usual expectations for a concerto are that the soloist is the virtuoso and the hero, ven erated by the audience. 21 Harold in Italy does not meet those expectations. The work is not a virtuoso showpiece for the viola, but it is a generic innova tion by Berlioz used to highlight the instrument’s beautiful and characteristic melancholy sound. Both Berlioz’s choice of the viola and the literary reference to Byron’s character support the stylistic choice of the performer to exploit the distinctive voice of the viola as well as the isolated nature of Harold.

Editions with Piano

Harold in Italy owed at least some of its success dur ing the nineteenth century to Franz Liszt, who sup ported his colleague not only with his essay of 1855,

Example 1. Hector Berlioz, Harold in Italy (Liszt transcription), movt. III, mm. 1–31 (viola part).

J OuRNAL OF THE AMERICAN VIOLA SOCIETy 28