Henry Lee Higginson and the Gifts of the Amateur
As to the ‘Eroica,’ I had meant to tell you how I felt about it, but it opens the flood-gates, and I can’t. The wail of grief, and then the sympathy which should comfort the sufferer. The wonderful funeral dirge, so solemn, so full, so deep, so splendid, and always with courage and comfort. The delightful march home from the grave in the scherzo, the wild Hungarian, almost gypsy in tone,and then the climax of the melody, where the gates of Heaven open, and we see the angels singing and reaching their hands to us with perfect welcome. No words are of any avail, and never does that passage of entire relief and joy come to me without tears. I wait for it through life, and hear it, and wonder.
–Henry Lee Higginson, from a letter to a friend
Henry Lee Higginson is one of my great heroes. He is most remembered for his founding of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, but he contributed a great many other things to the civic life of Boston, including a large playing field (Soldier’s Field, for all you HBS grads) and a community center (Harvard Union) for college students, and several Civil War memorials.
Early in his life, he would have seemed an unlikely philanthropist–he broke rather severely with his high-society Boston lineage, and went to Europe to study music. The depth of his lifelong feeling for music is evident in the passage above about Beethoven’s Third Symphony. When he decided to pursue music as a course of study, he wrote, in a letter to his parents:
I know not how one finds that he has a talent for any one thing without trying: but everyone has a particular faculty for something, everyone has a decided turn and talent for a particular branch, and it is his duty to try to find this out, and to turn to it. If one may trust what he hears within himself, in his own heart, and be sure that it is right, I should say that my talent was for music, and that, if I studied it properly and persevered, I could bring out something worth having, worthy of a life thus spent, worthy of a man, worthy of my mother and of you….
His study of music, though, was cut short by neuralgia in his arm, and by the treatment for it, which consisted chiefly of bloodletting. He returned to Boston in 1860, and his attempts at finding a job were interrupted by the outbreak of the Civil War. He had a successful career as an officer, but was wounded and felt very deeply the loss of many friends. After the war, he failed at several business ventures before finally resigning himself to joining his father’s company and discovering, somewhat to his horror, that he was very, very good at making money.
In describing the path his love for music had taken, he wrote (late in life):
Sixty years ago I wished to be a musician, and therefore went to Vienna, where I studied two years and a half diligently, learned of music, something about musicians, and one other thing–that I had no talent for music. I heard there and in other European cities the best orchestras, and much wished that our own country should have such fine orchestras.
For many years I had hard work to earn my living and support my wife…. All these years I watched the musical conditions in Boston, hoping to make them better. I believed that an orchestra of excellent musicians under one head and devoted to a single purpose could produce fine results, and wished for the ability to support such an undertaking; for I saw that it was impossible to give music at fair prices and make the Orchestra pay expenses.
He therefore founded the orchestra himself, giving an enormous sum of money himself, and committing to supporting the orchestra on an ongoing basis until it could be established as a cultural institution that commanded support from other benefactors. It is no exaggeration to say that the BSO (and all the other symphony orchestras that followed in the US) exist because of his contribution. His determination to recreate the great orchestral music of Europe in an American setting has blessed the lives of generations of musicians and listeners, and the model for private patronage that he established has allowed American cultural institutions to thrive despite the lack of government patronage on the scale that European institutions enjoy.
At the end of the BSO’s first (wildly successful) season, Higginson was invited to the podium. He said that the concerts had been “a great joy, not only because of the music, but chiefly because of the refreshment and enjoyment of the multitude of people unknown to me, who, leading gray lives, have needed this sunshine.”
(You can read a pretty good brief biography of Higginson here, and I would highly recommend it–he is eloquent on many subjects).
For me, there are a couple of important lessons for would-be artists or lovers of art in Higginson’s story. First, that it’s important to be honest about where one’s talents lie. I feel particularly drawn to Higginson because, like him, I have a great love, but relatively little talent, for music. There’s a strong egalitarian strain in American culture that tries to tell all kids that they can be anything they want to be. The truth is, of course, that we come with varied gifts, and sometimes our desires and our abilities will be mismatched–this is one of the great pains of mortality, but like many of those pains, it is potentially redemptive. It seems to me that Higginson’s honesty about his musical talent and his determination to continue enjoying music are a wonderful counterexample to the image of Salieri from _Amadeus_, the frustrated artist consumed by bitterness at his inadequacy. Higginson shows us a better way.
It seems to me that Higginson’s life also teaches us the power of the amateur, the lover, of the arts. We live in an era when the practice of the humanities tends towards specialization and professionalization–one needs an MFA or a Ph.D. in violin performance, or a post-graduate certificate in sculpture to feel that she is entitled to make art. The long tradition of amateur cultural production in the church–dramas, oratorical contests, dance festivals–has almost completely disappeared. We should not, however, lose sight of the theological imperative (and I really mean that!) to be engaged in whatever creative pursuits we are able to be, at whatever level we can. If our potential is truly as limitless as our doctrine teaches us it is, then we have no time to be discouraged by the imperfection of our mortal abilities–we must get on with the eternal project of creation.
Finally, I love Higginson’s devotion to “the multitude of people unknown to [him],” and his determination to bring sunshine into gray lives. It’s a generous, altruistic motive for making art that we should be careful to keep in mind and heart as we work.









November 6th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Amen, Kristine (says the amateur of most all his pursuits).
November 6th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
As for me, I started with scarcely a modicum of talent. I knew how to string words together, but I couldn’t actually write until I had, in fact, earned an M.F.A. and Ph.D. I didn’t earn those degrees to show that I was worthy to write, I earned them because I actually had to spend six years of my life devoted solely to learning my craft.
It embarrasses me me sometimes just how much work I had to do to figure out what comes naturally to some people. I feel like a quadraplegic deciding he wants to become an acrobat. But hey, throw that swinging bar to me.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I meant to add “not that there’s anything wrong with that” after the bit about the Ph.D. and M.F.A.
It’s entirely possible that my paean to amateurs is merely cover for my own degree envy, to say nothing of coveting actual talent. Seriously.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Kristine, I love this:
“If our potential is truly as limitless as our doctrine teaches us it is, then we have no time to be discouraged by the imperfection of our mortal abilities–we must get on with the eternal project of creation.”
As an amateur writer/fiddler who morphed into a student of writing who morphed into an (I guess?) actual writer (it’s still hard for me to say, “I’m a writer . . .” but that’s a whole other post) and who is now a teacher of creative writing, I’ve come to the conclusion that becoming a successful writer is a peculiar mix of a number of qualities: talent, willingness to learn, willingness to fail, doggedness, chutzpah.
A certain measure of talent must be there, of course. Stephen’s protests notwithstanding, six years of school isn’t going to be of much use to a person who doesn’t possess the raw elementals. But I’m also one who benefited greatly from going to school. I probably had more of a “talent” for learning how to write than I did for writing itself, if that makes any sense. I think I’m pretty strong in the willingness to learn category and the chutzpah category (and both have served me well so far); fair to middlin’ in the rest.
I know a number of writers (or students of writing) who are incredibly naturally talented . . . but they are terrible learners, or lack the requisite chutzpah, or have insufficiently thick skin, or give up too quickly. I guess the point is that we too often think the talent itself is the whole ball of wax–either you’re a genius or you’re not–but in my experience it’s a lot more complicated than that.
So see? You have no excuse now. Write!!
November 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
If our potential is truly as limitless as our doctrine teaches us it is, then we have no time to be discouraged by the imperfection of our mortal abilities–we must get on with the eternal project of creation.
As I finish up final edits on my memoir, this is exactly what I need to hear. Thank you, Kristine.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am
This quote is definitely going up on my wall:
I love it! Brilliant.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:17 am
I want to add one more vote for this as the slogan for the next year:
“If our potential is truly as limitless as our doctrine teaches us it is, then we have no time to be discouraged by the imperfection of our mortal abilities–we must get on with the eternal project of creation.”
I also love the paradoxical relationship of specific gifts and unlimited potential that you hint at. Your post really resonated with me because, in a way, I guess I have an almost opposite problem. Wow. There’s a non-committal sentence for you. I’m being honest and trying to be humble when I say that I’ve never tried anything that hasn’t brought me the response, “you have a natural talent for this.” I’ve heard that about everything from music to writing to film-making to process planning (machine shop style) and drafting, to name a few. Maybe it’s because I’ve tried a lot of things over my relatively few years, but one result of this at times annoyingly good feedback has been a lack of direction. I don’t know what I’m made for, because I seem to be able to do anything. That must sound terribly arrogant, but I’ve had much struggle with finding my course in life as a result of it. I don’t mean it badly. Plus, I’m always being told in Priesthood blessings and Gospel conversations that it doesn’t really matter what I do as long as it brings me closer to God. Again, it’s nice to hear in a way, but leaves me an awful lot of decision making to do on my own.
If I had to take a stab at it, I would say that if I have a talent to speak of, it is for learning new things – a talent for comprehension and application. This talent only takes me so far, but it gives me a lot of amateur success. The real struggle comes in bringing my work to the next level because, while it can be nice to always be hearing, “you have a lot of talent,” talent is nothing more than potential, or “raw elementals” as Angela aptly puts it. It’s one thing to put the materials out on the table. It’s another to make of them a masterpiece.
September 26th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
No great opera plot can be rational, for people do not sing when they are feeling sane.