Re-examining Edvard Grieg’s Relationship with Music Theory

What exactly did Edvard Grieg think about music theory? During his time at the Leipzig Conservatory, his curriculum revolved around two central pillars: piano performance and the study of music theory, specifically harmony and counterpoint. It has long been known that in his later years, Grieg frequently complained that his conservatory education had taught him almost nothing useful. For nearly a century, however, Grieg scholars have argued that the composer vastly underestimated the value of those studies — even claiming that he lied about his Leipzig experience.

While the theoretical training Grieg received at the conservatory has received considerable attention in academic literature, far less has been written about his broader engagement with music theory. This article represents a first attempt at examining Grieg’s wider relationship with the discipline. The work draws on a detailed study of Grieg’s theory exercises completed in 2018, which itself built on earlier foundational contributions by Dag Schjelderup-Ebbe (1964) and several articles by Patrick Dinslage from the 1990s and early 2000s. Rather than rehashing the Leipzig story, this discussion aims to complement existing scholarship by adding different perspectives: an overview of the theory books in Grieg’s personal library, a sampling of his own remarks on theoretical matters, and an exploration of his connections with notable contemporaneous music theorists.

Music theory books in Grieg’s collection

Over the course of his life, Grieg amassed a substantial library of scores and books. After Nina Grieg sold Troldhaugen in 1919, the collection was donated to the city’s public library. Grieg’s 1906 will had specified that these materials should be made available to the general public, and for many decades the books were lent out freely. This long period of public access makes them tricky as primary sources: pencil markings found in the theory books may belong to Grieg or to any borrower from the twentieth century. What we can be sure of, however, is which volumes originally belonged to him.

The table below catalogues the music-theory books from Grieg’s library. Inscriptions on the covers, as recorded by the library, provide clues about their provenance. Several books — those by Goodrich, Locher, Saint-Paul, Södling, and Woolhouse — were gifts from their authors. Letters from Georg Capellen to Grieg confirm that his book was also a gift. Given that Grieg and the theorist Ebenezer Prout were acquainted (as discussed later), it is reasonable to assume Prout’s books arrived the same way. In contrast, the volumes by Gassner, Marx, and Richter bear only Grieg’s name, suggesting he bought them himself. He acquired the Gassner and Marx titles while still a student in Leipzig, while the book by his former theory teacher, Ernst Friedrich Richter, was published a full decade after Grieg had graduated — making his decision to obtain a Richter counterpoint textbook many years later quite intriguing.

Grieg also owned Moritz Hauptmann’s magnum opus, given to him by “Kirchners” (likely Hermann Theodor Kirchner) in the same year he began studying counterpoint with Hauptmann at the Conservatory. Hector Berlioz’s treatise on instrumentation was another personal purchase; Grieg’s diary records buying the older of the two editions in his library from a Berlin bookseller on 8 May 1866. Other volumes entered his collection through inheritance — for example, a book from the older composer Halfdan Kjerulf (by Muth-Rasmussen) and one from his brother John (by Riehl).

• Berlioz, Hector – Instrumentationslehre: Ein vollständiges Lehrbuch
• Berlioz, Hector; Strauss, R. – Intrumentationslehre – Ergänzt und revidiert [inscription unclear]
• Capellen, Georg – Die Freiheit oder Unfreiheit der Töne und Intervalle als Kriterium der Stimmführung; nebst einem Anhang: Grieg-Analysen …
• Chop, Max (M. Charles) – Zeitgenössische Tondichter: Studien und Skizzen
• Gassner, Ferdinand Simon – Universal-Lexikon der Tonkunst (inscribed “Edvard Grieg. Leipzig 1858”)
• Goodrich, Alfred John – Complete Musical Analysis (inscribed “To Edvard Grieg, with profound regards of A. J. Goodrich. – Box 976, Chicago, Ill.”)
• Hauptmann, Moritz – Die Natur der Harmonik und der Metrik (inscribed “Edvard Grieg, Leipzig 1861. Fra Kirchners”)
• Locher, Carl – Erklärung der Orgel-Register und ihrer Klangfarben (verbatim gift inscription from Locher to Grieg, dated 2 July 1901)
• Marx, Adolf Bernhard – Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, 4th part, 3rd ed. (inscribed “Edvard Grieg, Leipzig 1861”)
• Muth-Rasmussen, Paul Diderich – Theoretisk-praktik musikalsk Grammatik (inscribed “Halfdan Kjerulf, 1841”)
• Prout, Ebenezer – Nine volumes: Harmony (1889), Counterpoint (1890), Double Counterpoint and Canon (1891), Fugue (1891), Fugal Analyses (1892), Musical Form (1893), Additional Exercises to “Harmony” (1890), Applied Forms (1895).
• Richter, Ernst Friedrich – Lehrbuch des einfachen und doppelten Contrapunkts (inscribed “Edvard Grieg”)
• Riehl, Wilhelm Heinrich – Musikalische Charakterköpfe (inscribed “John Grieg”)
• Saint-Paul, Charles Ducup de – Les Gammes – Note I … (inscribed to “Monsieur E. Grieg”, dated 12 March 1907)
• Spencer, Herbert – Musikkens vorden og virken (translation)
• Södling, Carl Erik – Tonologi (inscribed “Edv. Grieg Christiania af Förf.”)
• Woolhouse, Wesley – Treatise on Musical Intervals, Temperament, and the Elementary Principles of Music (inscribed with author’s best regards and “admiration of his musical genius”)

Theoretical remarks in Grieg’s own writings

One well-known example of Grieg engaging with a theoretical question appears in a 1901 letter to composer Johan Halvorsen. Halvorsen was transcribing Norwegian fiddle tunes for Grieg, learning them from master fiddler Knut Dahle in Kristiania (now Oslo). Noticing that G sharp appeared almost invariably at the start of pieces in D major, Halvorsen asked about this curiosity. Grieg wrote back with characteristic intensity:

“This ‘strange’ thing that you point out regarding G sharp in D major was what made me go wild and crazy in the year 1871. I naturally at once stole it in my ‘Pictures from Folk-life’ [Op. 19]. This is something for the researcher. The augmented fourth can also be heard in the songs of the farmer. It is the relics of some old scale. But which one?”

A hasty reader might conclude that Grieg simply did not know about the Lydian mode — but this seems unlikely. As noted, Grieg owned Richter’s counterpoint textbook, which includes a section on the “so-called church modes.” Even if Richter had not covered modal theory during Grieg’s lessons in Leipzig, the mature Grieg could easily have read about them in that very book. Furthermore, the church modes were widely discussed in Norwegian music-theory textbooks and dictionaries circulating in the late nineteenth century; even teacher trainees and general music enthusiasts would have encountered them. Perhaps Grieg had genuinely forgotten, or perhaps he felt that the sound of Norwegian folk music involved something conceptually distinct from the church modes. The Lydian mode in traditional ecclesiastical music often sounds softer, resembling the later Ionian mode because the sharpened fourth is usually handled gently. In much Norwegian folk music, by contrast, the tritone is strikingly pronounced — a difference Grieg may have felt needed a label of its own.

Another revealing theoretical comment comes from a letter Grieg wrote to Julius Röntgen on 21 January 1906. Grieg expresses bafflement that Röntgen could enjoy the music of Max Reger, which Grieg finds excessively polyphonic to the point of indigestibility. He then makes a remark that clarifies his views on the relation between homophony and polyphony — and by extension, between harmony and counterpoint:

“I have always considered polyphony to be a means, not an end. That is the case with the great masters. There, the relationship between polyphony and homophony is that of the most beautiful harmony. That is my ideal, and it will always remain so.”

This connects directly with the much-cited letter to Henry T. Finck, where Grieg stresses the importance of linearity — especially chromatic voice leading — for what he calls his harmonic “dreamworld.” For Grieg, counterpoint mattered not as an end in itself but as a vehicle for the harmonic language he was perfecting. This perspective is particularly interesting given that his conservatory training in Leipzig concentrated heavily on contrapuntal exercises.

Still earlier in his career, Grieg worked as a teacher. There is ample evidence that he gave lessons not only in piano but also in harmony. In 1867, he co-founded a short-lived music academy in Christiania with Otto Winter-Hjelm, where both founders taught harmony. An article signed by both men, published in the newspaper Morgenbladet in December 1866, emphasizes that harmony courses were a cornerstone of music education. Even after the academy dissolved, Grieg ran a private advertisement in autumn 1875 offering lessons in piano as well as music theory subjects such as harmony.

Prout was one of Great Britain’s most prominent music theorists in the nineteenth century. He was deeply fond of Norway, visited the country frequently, and even learned to write Norwegian. Besides teaching music theory and composing, Prout served as a music critic. In August 1874, he published an article on Grieg’s compositions. At that time, many of Grieg’s works were difficult to obtain in Britain. Consequently, Prout limited his commentary to five pieces: Humoresker Op. 6, Piano Sonata in E minor Op. 7, Violin Sonata in F major Op. 8, Violin Sonata in G major Op. 13, and Piano Concerto in A minor Op. 16. Nonetheless, he maintained that these works amply demonstrated Grieg’s abilities, meriting the label of genius. Prout began the article by stating his premise: “Modern composers may be divided into two classes – those whose style is founded more or less directly on some one or more of their predecessors and those who have a distinct individuality of their own.” To be considered a genius by Prout’s criteria, one must belong to the latter group. After discussing the compositions, Prout delivered his verdict:

> We have a very high opinion of Grieg as a composer. He is a man of very great originality of idea, and of sufficient acquirements to be able to use his ideas to the best advantage. That he deserves the title of “genius” there can be little doubt; at the same time, it should be distinctly understood that he is not, if one may use the expression, a musical cosmos like Beethoven or Mozart. His genius is rather of a nature which moves within a somewhat limited circle.

This reveals Prout’s early respect for Grieg’s music, even though he—like many others—underscores that Grieg operated within a more “limited” sphere than the great symphonic composers. Grieg would later visit and perform in Britain multiple times. As Lionel Carley notes, Grieg met many musicians on these trips, citing Prout as an example. Prout attempted to visit Grieg at Troldhaugen during several of his Norwegian trips, though this proved more challenging than expected.

Given this connection, it seems quite possible—indeed, highly likely—that the books by Prout in Grieg’s library were gifts from the author. Turning to German music theorists, one naturally looks to Leipzig. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Leipzig Conservatory was regarded as one of Europe’s foremost institutions for higher music education. Although it faced criticism from many, including Grieg, the Leipzig model exerted enormous influence on music education developments across Europe and beyond. Consequently, the writings of Leipzig music theorists also became vastly influential, particularly Richter’s harmony textbook and its numerous translations. This work disseminated Gottfried Weber’s Roman numeral analysis and established it as the standard system for harmonic analysis worldwide.

Grieg attended Richter’s classes throughout his enrollment at the Conservatory. Alongside the diploma and teacher testimonies, the Grieg Archives hold greetings from both Richter and Hauptmann in Grieg’s student album from Leipzig—each containing a puzzle canon for the student to solve. Still, Grieg appears not to have maintained contact with his theory teachers after leaving Leipzig in 1862.

The most prominent German music theorist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Hugo Riemann, was also connected to the Leipzig tradition. Like Grieg before him, Riemann studied at the Leipzig Conservatory and later taught at the University of Leipzig. Whether they met remains unclear, but we know Riemann’s opinion of Grieg’s music. In Riemann’s Musiklexikon, he regrets that Grieg limited himself to national characteristics akin to a “local dialect” rather than composing in the (implicitly German) “musical world language.” This does not imply that Riemann lacked admiration for Grieg and his works. In his account of nineteenth-century music, Riemann declares that Grieg is “without doubt the most important of the Scandinavian composers after Gade.” His comparison of Grieg’s second opus—a collection of songs set to German poetry—with some of Schubert’s finest is also frequently cited in the Grieg literature, although often with some reservation about Riemann’s hyperbolic praise of these songs.

According to Arthur M. Abell, the Leipzig music theorist Salomon Jadassohn shared Riemann’s opinion of Grieg’s music. He supposedly accused Grieg of being “caged” by writing in a national rather than international (i.e., German) idiom. In a 1907 interview with Abell, Grieg allegedly defended himself against this criticism from Jadassohn. Many Grieg researchers and experts on other composers Abell purported to interview have questioned the credibility of this source. It might well be that the interview never took place at all. Thus, Abell may have staged a discussion of nationality, casting Grieg as a progressive composer from the European periphery while portraying Jadassohn as a conservative German theorist. Given the uncertainties surrounding this source, we cannot rely on it; it probably reveals more about Abell’s views of Grieg and Jadassohn than about their actual perspectives on each other.

One of Riemann’s fiercest theoretical critics—especially concerning his reliance on harmonic dualism—was Georg Capellen. Capellen championed harmonic monism, favoring major over minor and granting the dominant ninth chord the status of a Naturklang. Relevant to our discussion, he published analyses of the first four volumes of Grieg’s Lyric Pieces to support his theories. That Capellen held Grieg’s music in very high regard is evident from his justification for using it as his case study:

> Grieg is recognised far beyond his native country as one of the few masters who have enriched music with new means of harmonic and melodic expression, and created an admirable home-art distinguished by poetic feeling and the charm of many moods (Stimmungsreiz). For this reason the study of his “Lyrical Pieces” for piano, in particular, cannot be too highly commended to music lovers, were it only to make it clear to them that the one-sided, narrow theoretical rules, as usually taught, too often fail in face of this lovely art, without its losing thereby any of its charm.

Capellen also asked Grieg in letters what he thought of these analyses. However, I have not been able to determine whether Grieg’s response exists or if he replied to Capellen at all.

Another prominent German music academic, Hermann Kretzschmar—often called the founder of musical hermeneutics—held Grieg’s works in high regard. For instance, he claimed that “Grieg is one of today’s richest and most peculiar virtuosos of harmony” and wrote approvingly about Grieg’s String Quartet in G minor Op. 27 in 1884, a work that had earlier faced harsh criticism from German reviewers. Grieg and Kretzschmar knew each other. Kretzschmar later edited an edition of Grieg’s complete Lyric Pieces for C. F. Peters in 1902, and Grieg dedicated his Slåtter Op. 72 to him the following year. In a 1902 letter to his publisher, Grieg states that Kretzschmar’s preface to that edition demonstrates a deep understanding of his work. Considering the dedication of Slåtter, he argued that Kretzschmar would appreciate the value of the pieces. In his preface to Slåtter, Grieg famously wrote that his “object in arranging the music for the piano was to raise these works of the people to an artistic level.” He further claimed that all modifications could “easily be found, on comparing my arrangement with the original, written down by Johan Halvorsen, in a manner reliable even for research-work, and published by the same firm [Peters].” Thus, besides being one of Grieg’s most musically progressive works, Slåtter also constituted a contribution to contemporary music research. Peters’s director, Henri Hinrichsen, was quite reluctant to publish Halvorsen’s transcriptions, but Grieg pushed the project through. This at least shows that Grieg was not wholly unsympathetic to musical scholarship.