Article Review: Maynard Solomon

Review: Maynard Solomon, “Taboo and Biographical Information: Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert”


Maynard Solomon, who doubles as a record producer and musicologist, carefully and pointedly argues that the concept of the taboo has greatly influenced biographical discovery. Societal taboos, Solomon argues, have blinded historians for hundreds of years; because historians would prefer not to think poorly of their heroes, they subconsciously blind themselves from the truth.

Mr. Maynard Solomon himself

Solomon makes his argument skillfully, with a style and cohesion that is clearly marked by his writing and musicological experience. He begins with his examples, which serve as the exciting historical meat of the essay. This makes good rhetorical sense—to talk about and clearly make his argument in regards to the influence of taboos on the study of history, he must present his evidence. Luckily for him, his evidence is interesting and worthy of good storytelling: by clever artifice and craft, he links his examples into a compelling narrative, which strongly supports his argument.


Most of his examples deal with sexual or marital issues, which makes good sense, given the general aversion—or, at least, the general aversion of the last several hundred years—to the public discourse of things of a sexual nature. While it may seem somewhat odd now that a historian, who is, naturally, quite desirous of new discoveries, would have disregarded any information. But, for many years, those things were considered taboo and unfavorable. It was only in the 20th century, and, really, only in the last 20 years that such information has come to light. And only in the last ten that such a trend has been noticed.


I like his organization throughout the essay. The logic is easy to follow and the essay is presented in a way that feels honest. He discusses and reinforces the theoretical elements of his argument and then, cunningly, reworks his examples. The effect reinforces the reader’s comprehension and strengthens Solomon’s interpretation of the evidence.


At the very end of his essay, however, I feel he falters. He begins the fifth and final section of his essay by discussing the human tendency to hide sensitive pieces of knowledge from potential biographers. He claims that “to accept the premise that certain subjects are off-limits to scholarly investigation is to invoke the ultimate taboo—on knowledge itself.” His point is, however, unsupported by the quickly following quote from 17th century philosopher Spinoza. Indeed, at this, the climax of his essay, he falls flat on his face. I see no basis for this assumption; it is not clear to me that there is any taboo on knowledge itself. Rather, it seems to me that there are simply, as Solomon says himself, “certain subjects off-limits to scholarly investigation.” Through and through, the essay is a quality exploration of the process of accumulation of historical and biographical information. It is intriguing to think that a significant aspect of our understanding of the past is affected by the way that we understand the present. Additionally, his examples are concrete and easily discernable, giving his essay a logical and rhetorical force.