The Life of Ludwig van Beethoven, Volume III
by Alexander Wheelock Thayer · English · Gutenberg #43593 · 1,082,156 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Life of Ludwig van Beethoven, Volume III
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Life of Ludwig van Beethoven, Volume III
Author: Alexander Wheelock Thayer
Translator: Henry Edward Krehbiel
Release date: August 29, 2013 [eBook #43593]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43593
Credits: Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries and Google Print.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LIFE OF LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN, VOLUME III ***
Transcriber's Note
Bold text is indicated by ~tildes~, and italics by _underscores_.
THE LIFE OF LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN
VOLUME III
[Illustration]
[Illustration: BEETHOVEN in 1814
Engraved by Blasius Höfel
After a crayon sketch by Louis Latronne]
The Life of
Ludwig van Beethoven
_By_ Alexander Wheelock Thayer
Edited, revised and amended from the original
English manuscript and the German editions
of Hermann Deiters and Hugo Riemann, concluded,
and all the documents newly translated
By
Henry Edward Krehbiel
Volume III
Published by
The Beethoven Association
New York
_SECOND PRINTING_
Copyright, 1921,
By Henry Edward Krehbiel
From the press of G. Schirmer, Inc., New York
Printed in the U. S. A.
Contents of Volume III
PAGE
CHAPTER I. The Year 1819--Guardianship of Beethoven’s
Nephew Karl--Mother and Uncle in a Legal Struggle--The
Lad’s Education--Conversation Books--A Wedding
Song--In Travail with the Mass in D--The
Commission for an Oratorio from the Gesellschaft
der Musikfreunde--Visits from Zelter and Friedrich
Schneider--Creative Work of the Year 1
CHAPTER II. End of the Litigation over the Guardianship of
the Nephew--A Costly Victory--E. T. A. Hoffmann--An
Analytical Programme--Beethoven’s Financial Troubles--Adagios
and English Hymn-Tunes--Stieler’s
Portrait--Arrested as a Vagrant--Negotiations for the
Mass in D begun with Simrock--The Last Pianoforte
Sonatas--Compositions of the Years 1820 and 1821 24
CHAPTER III. The Year 1822--The Mass in D--Beethoven
and His Publishers--Simrock--Schlesinger--C. F.
Peters--Phantom Masses--Johann van Beethoven:
His Appearance and Character--Becomes His Brother’s
Agent--Meetings with Rochlitz and Rossini--Franz
Schubert--“The Consecration of the House”--Revival
of “Fidelio”--Madame Schroeder-Devrient--The
Bagatelles--A Commission from America 51
CHAPTER IV. The Year 1823--The Roman Ritual and
the Mass in D--Subscriptions Asked from Royal
Courts--Incidents of the Appeal--Goethe and Cherubini
Enlisted as Agents--A Medal from the King of
France--Further Negotiations with Publishers and
Societies--Operatic Projects--Consideration of Grillparzer’s
“Melusine”--The Diabelli Variations--Summer
Visitors--An Englishman’s Story--Weber and Julius
Benedict--Ries and the Ninth Symphony--Franz Liszt
and Beethoven’s Kiss 89
CHAPTER V. The Year 1824--The Symphony in D
Minor--Its Technical History--The Choral Finale
and Schiller’s “Ode to Joy”--First Performance of the
Work and Portions of the Mass--An Address to
Beethoven--Laborious and Protracted Preparations
for the Concert--A Financial Failure--Beethoven’s
False Accusations against Friends and Helpers Drive
Them from the Dinner-Table 144
CHAPTER VI. Incidents and Labors of the Year 1824--A
Truce with the Hated Sister-in-Law--The Gesellschaft
der Musikfreunde’s Oratorio--Bernard’s Libretto--The
Society Forgives Beethoven His Debt and
Elects Him an Honorary Member--Book of “The
Victory of the Cross”--Summer Sojourn at Penzing
Interrupted by Curious Visitors--The London Philharmonic
Society Receives the Symphony in D
Minor--Further Negotiations for the Mass--New
Publishers--Probst--Schott and Sons--A Visitor from
London--Beethoven’s Opinion of His Predecessors--The
Quartet in E-flat, Op. 127--Trip to England Determined
Upon 170
CHAPTER VII. The Year 1825. The Invitation from the
Philharmonic Society of London--The Ninth Symphony
Performed at Aix-la-Chapelle--Mass and Symphony
Delivered to Schott and Sons--Unpleasant Results of an
Attempted Joke on Haslinger--Beethoven and a
Copyist--The String Quartet in E-flat Taken Away
from Schuppanzigh after a First Performance--Karl
Holz--Beethoven Authorizes Him to Write the History
of His Life--Early Biographers--Visits of Rellstab, Kuhlau,
Smart and Others--Sir George Smart’s Recollections--
Dedication of the Mass in D--Stephan von
Breuning--Wegeler asks Beethoven to Defend the Honor
of His Mother--The Quartets in A Minor and B-flat 186
CHAPTER VIII. A Year of Sickness and Sorrow--The
Last String Quartets--Wolfmayer Commissions a
“Requiem” and Pays in Advance--Many Works _in
petto_--Controversy with Prince Galitzin and His
Son--The Fugue in the B-flat Quartet--“Muss es
sein?”--Dedication of the Ninth Symphony--The King
of Prussia and His Gift of a Dubious Diamond--Abbé
Stadler--Beethoven Defends Mozart’s “Requiem”--Friedrich
Wieck--Beethoven Goes to His Brother’s
Summer Home--Life at Gneixendorf--Relations with
His Brother’s Family--Young Oxen Thrown into a Panic
Fear--The Quartet in F and a New Finale for the
Quartet in B-flat--The Year 1826--Beethoven’s Last
Compositions 218
CHAPTER IX. Karl van Beethoven--A Wayward Ward
and an Unwise Guardian--Beethoven and his Graceless
Nephew--An Ill-advised Foster-father--A Profligate
Youth--Effect of the Guardianship on Beethoven’s
Character--An Unsuccessful Attempt at Self-destruction--
Karl is Made a Soldier 247
CHAPTER X. The Last Days at Gneixendorf--A Brother’s
Warning--Beethoven and His Kinspeople--The Fateful
Journey to Vienna--The Fatal Illness--The Physicians
and Their Treatment--The Nephew Exonerated
from a Slanderous Accusation--Schindler’s Disingenuousness--
Dr. Malfatti Forgets a Resentment Harbored
for more than a Decade--Beethoven and Handel’s
Scores--A Gift of 100 Pounds Sterling from the London
Philharmonic Society--Eventual Disposition of the
Money--Metronome Marks for the Ninth Symphony--Death
and Burial of Beethoven--His Estate 267
GENERAL INDEX 315
INDEX TO COMPOSITIONS 344
Chapter I
The Contest for the Guardianship of Nephew Karl--The Conversation
Books--A Wedding Song--In Travail with the Mass--The Year 1819.
The key-note for much that must occupy us in a survey of the year 1819
is sounded by A New Year’s Greeting to Archduke Rudolph. Beethoven
invokes all manner of blessings on the head of his pupil and patron
and, begging a continuance of gracious benevolences for himself, sets
forth a picture of his unhappy plight.
A terrible occurrence has recently taken place in my family affairs
which for a time robbed me of all my reasoning powers; and to this
must be charged the circumstance that I have not called upon Y.
R. H. in person nor made mention of the masterly Variations of my
highly honored and exalted pupil, the favorite of the Muses. I do
not dare to express either by word of mouth or in writing my thanks
for the surprise and favor with which I have been honored, inasmuch
as I occupy _much too humble_ a position, nor dare I, much as I
would like and ardently as I long to do so, _requite like with
like_.
A little boy of eleven years runs away from his uncle to his indulgent
mother whom he, for months at a time, has not been allowed to see,
although both live within the same city limits. What else could be
expected than that this should now and then occur? What should be
thought of the child’s heart if it did not? And when it did, who but
Beethoven would have felt more than a passing disturbance of his
equanimity at an offense so natural under the circumstances? But to
him it was a “terrible occurrence” which for a space robbed him of his
reason. No one of ordinary sensibilities can read the story without
strong feelings of compassion for him--not that the boy’s freak was
in any sense in itself a grievous misfortune, but because the uncle’s
sufferings occasioned by it were so real and intense.
There is no reason to doubt the mother’s assertion that she sent
the child back through the intervention of the police, for this was
clearly her best policy, more especially because she and her advisers
found in the incident a wished-for occasion to renew her petition to
have her son admitted into the R. I. Convict. It was this petition,
enforced by Hotschevar’s long paper and its accompanying documents,
which had led to the question of Beethoven’s right to have his case
tried by the tribunal of the nobility, and the negative decision which
transferred the whole matter to the City Magistracy. At this point a
few official data are wanting, and the suspension of Beethoven from the
guardianship of his nephew can only be stated as having been determined
by the magistrates immediately after the beginning of the new year,
and that, in consequence of this, the boy was for a few weeks with his
mother. On January 10, Fanny Giannatasio writes in her diary: “What
Müller tells me about Beethoven pains me deeply. The wicked woman has
finally succeeded in triumphing over him. He has been removed from
the guardianship[1] and the wicked son returns to the source of his
wickedness. I can imagine Beethoven’s grief. It is said that since
yesterday he has been entirely alone and eats apart from the others. He
ought to know that Karl is glad to be with his mother; it would ease
the pain of the separation.”
[Sidenote: BEETHOVEN’S APPEAL TO THE MAGISTRACY]
On January 7 the magistrates summoned Beethoven (who still lived in
the Gärtnergasse), the boy, the mother, Hotschevar and the curator,
Dr. Schönauer, to appear before them on January 11. Of what action was
taken that day there is no record, but Hotschevar’s attack brought
out a vigorous defense in the shape of a letter sent by Beethoven
to the Magistracy,[2] in which he maintained the superiority of the
educational plan which he was pursuing over that which had been
proposed by the mother, proclaimed the magnanimity and virtuousness of
all his acts and discharged a broadside of accusation and insinuation
against Madame van Beethoven and the priest who had come to her help.
We can make room for only a few passages:
His exceptional capacity, and partly also his peculiarities,
call for exceptional measures; and I never did a more beneficial
or magnanimous act than when I took my nephew to myself and
personally assumed charge of his education. Seeing that (according
to Plutarch) a Philip did not think it beneath his dignity to
direct the education of his son Alexander and give him the great
Aristotle for a teacher because he did not consider the ordinary
teachers suitable, and a Laudon looked after the education of
his son _himself_, why should not such beautiful and sublime
examples be followed by others? Already during his lifetime his
father entrusted my nephew to me and I confess that I feel myself
better fitted than anybody else _to incite my nephew to virtue and
industry by my own example_.
Had the mother been able to subdue her wicked disposition and
permitted my plans to take their quiet development a very favorable
result would have followed; but when a _mother of this sort_ seeks
to involve her child in the secrets of her own vulgar and evil
surroundings, and in his tender years (a plague for children!!!)
leads aim astray to deception, to bribery of my servants, to
_untruthfulness_, by _laughing at him_ when he tells the truth,
yes, even _giving him money_ to awaken in him lusts and desires
which are harmful, tells him that things are trifles which _in me
and others would be accounted_ grave faults, the already difficult
task becomes more difficult and dangerous.
Gifts of fortune may be acquired; morality must be _implanted_
early, particularly when a child has had the misfortune to suck
in such _mother’s milk_, was in her care for several years, was
put to thoroughly bad uses, even had to help _deceive_ his father.
Furthermore he will _inherit from me_ and even now I could leave
him enough to _keep him from want_ while continuing his studies
until he should receive an appointment. We need only _quiet and no
more interference_ from the mother, and the beautiful goal which I
have set will be attained.
Ought I now to reply to the intrigues of a Mr. Courtscrivener
Hotschowa [Hotschevar] against me, or to the _priest of Mödling_,
who is despised by his congregation, who is suspected of being
guilty of _illicit intercourse_, who lays his pupils military
fashion on a form to be thrashed and could not forgive me because I
kept watch on him and would not permit my nephew to be caned like a
_brute_--ought I? No; the association of these men with Madame van
Beethoven _bears witness_ against them both, and _only such_ could
make _common cause_ with Madame van Beethoven _against me_.
Beethoven accompanied this address with a private letter presumably to
Dr. Tschiska (or Tschischka), an official of the Magistracy, in which
he said:
I am not a guardian from self-interest, but I want to rear a new
monument to myself in my nephew. I do not need my nephew, but he
needs me. Gossip, calumny, are beneath the dignity of a man who is
raising himself up! What is to be done when they even touch the
laundry!?!? I might be very sensitive, but the just man must be
able to endure injustice without departing an iota from the right.
In this sense I shall endure every trial, nothing shall shake
my resolution. A great responsibility would be incurred were my
nephew to be wholly withdrawn from me; moral and even political
consequences would follow to him. I commend him to you and appeal
to your heart for his welfare. My actions must commend me for his
sake, not mine.
We do not know the particulars, but for the present Beethoven retained
the right to look after the further education of the boy; the right, at
least, was not judicially taken away from him or given to another. He
did not send him again to a public school, but engaged a private tutor
under whose care he continued his studies in an institute conducted by
Joseph Kudlich, of whom he spoke in great praise. Besides the ordinary
subjects, he received instruction in French, drawing and music; his
religious training was entrusted to a priest. This state of affairs
lasted till the end of March, when he announced a desire to resign the
guardianship--persuaded to take this step, it is fair to presume, by
the magistrates who, in the end, would have been obliged to remove him.
Karl was living with his mother at the time. According to the court
records, Beethoven left the matter of education “entirely to Kudlich,”
with whom (if a passage in one of the Conversation Books is read
correctly) he seems also to have lived temporarily, and it was given
to him to propose the name of a guardian, either in place of himself
or as an associate. He consulted earnestly with his friends as to what
was to be done with the boy and who should be his guardian, and those
friends were sorely tried by his constitutional indecision. In these
consultations, the project of sending the boy away from Vienna, and
the name of Sailer, were mooted.[3] “What must be done,” Bernard says,
“is to select as guardian a man who has your entire confidence both as
respects morality and pedagogical skill, and with whom you may always
remain on friendly terms concerning the affair. Since Kudlich has more
influence on Karl than Giannatasio, it is my opinion that you seek no
further for someone who would meet every requirement.--It would merely
be very troublesome for you.” Beethoven seems to be in doubt; he had a
preference for his friend the magisterial Councillor Tuscher, and the
project of sending him to Sailer in Landshut appealed to him. Bernard
says again: “If you want peace of mind I think it wise that you name a
guardian as you were willing to do yesterday. But if it is possible to
send the boy to Sailer at Landshut,[4] it would, of course, be better
still, since then you could feel assured that he was in the best of
hands. Even if you have Tuscher as co-guardian, your case will not be
bettered, inasmuch as all cares will still rest on you. Perhaps Tuscher
and Kudlich might jointly assume the guardianship--this might be very
advantageous. All the same, everything will remain as heretofore, even
if you send him away he will remain with Kudlich until a change has
been made. So long as you are guardian and Karl remains here, you will
not only have all the cares as heretofore, but also be compelled to
fight the mother and all her intrigues. Have Karl sent for the present
again to Kudlich, meanwhile the matter may be straightened out.”[5]
[Sidenote: A NEW GUARDIAN FOR KARL APPOINTED]
Beethoven seems to have expressed a doubt as to Tuscher’s willingness
to serve as guardian. Bernard continues: “Perhaps he might be more
easily persuaded if a co-guardian like Kudlich were appointed.--It is
not necessary to settle everything by to-morrow. If we go to Omeyer
to-morrow morning, then to Tuscher and Kudlich, we can come to an
understanding as to what will be the best thing to do.” Tuscher, if
we are correct in recognizing his handwriting, permitted himself to
be persuaded, though a bit under protest; he foresaw difficulties.
The Magistracy at the suggestion of Beethoven thereupon appointed
the Magisterial Councillor Matthias von Tuscher guardian of the boy
on March 26. He was commanded to place his ward, then “living with
his mother, Johanna van Beethoven,” in another place for bringing
up and education under proper care, and submit his opinion touching
the proposition of the mother and Hotschevar that he be entered in a
public institute of learning before the expiration of the second school
semester, that Beethoven contribute to the cost and that the share of
the mother’s pension and the interest on the money deposited for the
boy be applied to this end. Tuscher was decidedly of the opinion that
the boy must be sent away for a time and was agreed with the plan of
placing him with Prof. Sailer in Landshut after it had been broached to
him. For this the consent of the Magistracy and the police authorities
and a passport were necessary. In the opinion of one of Beethoven’s
advisers (Bach) Tuscher was to be informed of the plan only after the
passport had been obtained, but before the mother, who had already
found “a channel,” could take steps to communicate with Tuscher.
Beethoven applied to the city authorities for a passport for two years
for his ward. On April 23, the authorities asked of the Magistracy
if there were any objections to the proposed step. The Magistracy
objected to the boy’s being sent into a foreign country, but asked
Tuscher if he were not willing to withdraw his application and name an
institute in Austria. Tuscher declined and set forth the great hopes
which he placed in the training to be had of a man like Sailer, who,
“because of his reverence for the talents of the composer, Beethoven,
was especially bound to him,” and hence would bestow upon his charge
the strictest oversight and care, which was of great importance in the
case of a boy who was “extremely cunning and an adept in every sort of
craftiness.” In replying to the municipal authorities the Magistracy
(on May 7) conceded the necessity of withdrawing the boy from his
mother’s influence, but thought it unnecessary to send him out of the
country on this account, against which the mother had protested and the
curator of the ward, Dr. Schönauer, had declared himself. The passport
was therefore refused. Beethoven had taken a step which seems to have
been made to prevent the widow from securing help for her plans from
a source higher than any that had yet been invoked and to enlist that
higher power in his own behalf. He appealed to Archduke Rudolph to use
his influence with Archduke Ludwig, the youngest brother of Emperor
Franz I, to aid him in his project of sending his nephew far away from
the mother’s influence. In the letter written to the Archduke[6] he
states that it had been his intention to petition Archduke Ludwig in
the premises, but there had thitherto appeared to be no occasion for
so doing for the reason that all the authorities who had jurisdiction
in the matter were convinced of the advisability of the step, viz.:
the Police, the Supervisory Guardianship Court and the guardian. He
had heard, however, that the mother intended to seek an audience of
Archduke Ludwig to prevent the execution of his plan. Convinced that
she would stop at nothing in the way of calumination, he expressed the
hope that his reputation for morality would suffice as a refutation of
her slanders, and that Archduke Rudolph would bear testimony in his
behalf.
The plan to send the nephew out of the country had been frustrated
and had to be abandoned. His mind being filled with artistic projects
of the greatest magnitude, Beethoven was desirous to pass the summer
months again in Mödling, and after the experiences of the preceding
year nothing could be hoped for his nephew in that quarter. He came
to a realization of the advantages which Giannatasio’s institute had
offered and in a letter to Giannatasio asked him again to take the lad
till other arrangements had been made. The Giannatasio family were
fearful lest such a proceeding might work harm to their institution,
and on June 17 visited Beethoven at Mödling to tell him that his wishes
could not be complied with. “Grievously as it pained us,” Fanny writes
in her diary, “to refuse Beethoven anything, I am yet so convinced of
the necessity of the step and that it could do us no good, but on the
contrary harm, that I prefer to have it so.” Thereupon the lad was
sent to the institute of Joseph Blöchlinger. Claudius Artaria, who was
one of the teachers there (1821-1824), recalled in later years that
Karl was one of the older scholars, “naturally talented, but somewhat
conceited because he was the nephew of Beethoven.” He also saw the
mother there a few times, but remembered nothing in particular in
connection with her visits. The lad appears to have prospered during
the early part of his stay at this school. In December, 1819, an
unknown hand writes in a Conversation Book:
A great deal has been gained in that the boy has again become
orderly in his public studies. Plöchlinger [_sic_] moreover, though
not exactly brilliant, seems to be good--the public school system
acts as a restraint on him.--Your nephew looks well; handsome
eyes--charm, a speaking physiognomy, and excellent bearing. I would
continue his education for only two years more.--He is always
present, and thus she can do him no harm. But he is agreed that she
spoils the boy.--When you have acquired the sole guardianship, then
do you decide and he will obey.--Your views are admirable but not
always reconcilable with this wretched world.--Would that everybody
might understand and appreciate your love for your nephew.
[Sidenote: TUSCHER RELIEVED OF THE GUARDIANSHIP]
Tuscher, a member of the Magistracy, was compelled to recognize that
his colleagues were wholly under the influence of Madame van Beethoven
and Hotschevar, and that he could do no service to his friend or his
friend’s ward; on July 5, he applied to be relieved of the guardianship
which, he said, had become “in every respect burdensome and vexatious,”
on the ground that “the multiplicity of official duties as well as
various other considerations would not permit him longer to administer
the office.” Beethoven took this action in very bad part, and Tuscher
shared the fate of many others of being for a space an object of the
composer’s critical ill will. Beethoven now served notice on the
Magistracy that he would resume the guardianship under the testamentary
appointment and that he had placed his ward in Blöchlinger’s
institution. On July 15 he writes to Archduke Rudolph, lamenting that
confusion still reigns in his domestic affairs, no hope or comfort is
in sight, all his structures are blown away, as if by the wind. “The
present proprietor of the institute in which I have placed my nephew,
a pupil of Pestalozzi, is of the opinion that it will be difficult
to achieve a desirable outcome in the boy’s training--and also that
there could be nothing more profitable to my nephew than absence from
the country.” In a letter of September 14 to Blöchlinger he writes:
“_Only the following individuals have free access to my nephew, Mr. v.
Bernard, Mr. v. Oliva, Mr. v. Piuk, Recording Secretary.... My nephew
is not to go out of the house without my written permission_--from
which it is plain what course is to be followed toward the mother--I
insist that in this respect _strict obedience_ be given to what the
authorities and I have ordained.”
It is not known whether the Magistracy was immediately informed
of the new steps which Beethoven had taken, or whether Madame van
Beethoven made a presentment of some sort on the subject. Be that as
it may, as chief guardian it determined if possible to put an end
to the continual friction and undertook an investigation of all the
educational experiments which had been made, arriving at the conclusion
that the boy had been “subject to the whims of Beethoven and had been
tossed back and forth like a ball from one educational institution to
another.” For this reason it decreed, on September 17, that Tuscher’s
request be granted, but that the guardianship should not again be
entrusted to Beethoven but to the mother, the natural guardian under
the law, with a capable and honest man as co-guardian. To this office
Leopold Nussböck, municipal Sequestrator, was appointed. Beethoven
protested against the action in a letter which the Magistracy received
on October 31.[7] Having been absent from the city at the time, “on
a matter of business,” he had made no objection to the appointment
of Herr Nussböck as guardian of his nephew, but returning with the
intention of remaining in Vienna he wished to resume the guardianship,
as this was essential to the welfare of the boy, the mother having
neither the will nor the strength to look after his training. He was
the more insistent on a resumption of this duty since he had learned
that owing to lack of money the boy was to be removed from the
institution which he had selected for him, and he charged that the
mother wished to take her son to her home so that she might be able
to expend his income, including the half of her pension which she was
obliged to devote to his education, upon herself. He asked that the
intermediary guardianship be taken from Nussböck and be restored to
him without delay. About the same time (October 23) he wrote at great
length to Dr. Bach, who had now become his lawyer.[8] From this it
appears that Madame van Beethoven had addressed another communication
to the Magistrates’ Court, in which she apparently said or intimated
that Beethoven would, in consequence of the elevation of the Archduke
to the Archbishopric, be obliged to spend the greater part of his time
in Olmütz, and had renewed her attacks upon his moral character. “His
Imperial Highness, Eminence and Cardinal” would unhesitatingly bear
witness to his morality, and, as to the twaddle about Olmütz, the
Archduke would probably spend not more than six weeks of the year there.
[Sidenote: BEETHOVEN INSISTS ON SOLE GUARDIANSHIP]
The chief points are that I be recognized at once as sole guardian,
I will accept no co-guardian, that the mother be excluded from
intercourse with her son in the _Institute_ because in view of
her _immorality_ there cannot be enough watchmen there and she
confuses the teacher by her false statements and lies. She also
has led her son to tell shameful lies and make charges _against
me_, and accuses me herself of having given him too much or too
little; but that the claims of humanity may not be overlooked, she
may see her son occasionally at my home in the presence of his
teachers and other excellent men.... It is my opinion that you
should insist stoutly and irrevocably that I be _sole_ guardian
and that this unnatural mother shall see her son only at _my
house_; my well known humanity and culture are a guarantee that
my treatment of her will be no less generous than that given to
her son. Moreover, I think that all this should be done quickly
and that if possible we ought to get the Appellate Court to assume
the superior guardianship, as I want my nephew to be placed in a
higher category; neither he nor I belong to the Magistracy under
whose guardianship are only innkeepers, shoemakers and tailors. As
regards his present maintenance, it shall be cared for as long as
I live. For the future he has 7,000 florins _W.W._ of which his
mother has the usufruct during life; also 2,000 fl. (or a little
more since I have reinvested it), the interest on which belongs to
_him_, and 4,000 florins in silver of _mine_ are lying in the bank;
as he is to inherit all my property this belongs to his capital.
You will observe that while because of his _great talent_ (to which
the Honorable Magistracy is indifferent) he will not be able at
once to support himself, there is already a superfluity in case of
my death.
In a postscript he accuses the mother of wishing to gain possession of
her son in order to enjoy all of her pension. In view of this he had
taken counsel as to whether or not he should let her keep the money and
make it good from his own pocket. He had been advised not to do so,
however, because she would make bad use of the money. “I have decided,
therefore, to set aside the sum in time. You see again how foolishly
the Magistracy is acting in trying to tear my son wholly from me, since
when she dies the boy will lose this share of the pension and would get
along _very poorly_ without my aid.” A few days later Beethoven wrote
to Dr. Bach again, this time to suggest that legal steps be taken to
attach the widow’s pension, he having a suspicion that she was trying
to evade payment of her son’s share because she had permitted nine
months to pass without drawing the pension from the exchequer.
The Magistracy disposed of Beethoven’s protest and application on
November 4, by curtly referring him to the disposition made of his
petition of September 17. Beethoven asked for a reconsideration of the
matter, but without avail, and the only recourse remaining to him was
the appeal to the higher court which had already been suggested to Dr.
Bach. The story of that appeal belongs to the year 1820. Meanwhile
the association of Councillor Peters with him in the guardianship had
been broached and was the subject of discussion with his friends. In
December Bernard writes in a Conversation Book:
The Magistracy has till now only made a minute of the proceedings
and will now hold a session to arrive at a decision. It is already
decided that you shall have the chief guardianship, but a 2d is
to be associated with you. As no objection can be made to Peters,
there will be no difficulty. The matter will be ordered according
to your wishes and I will take care of Mr. Blöchlinger. The mother
will not be admitted to the institute unless you are present, 4
times a year is enough--nor the guardian either?--The Magistracy
has compromised itself nicely.
Bach seems to have advised that the mother be accepted as co-guardian.
He writes: “As co-guardian she will have no authority, only the
honor of being associated in the guardianship. She will be a mere
figurehead.” Whether the conversations noted at the time referred to
the case on appeal or to the application still pending before the
Magistracy, or some to the one, some to the other, it is impossible to
determine. The record of the refusal of the Magistracy has not been
procured, but the decree of the Appellate Court gives December 20 as
its date.
[Sidenote: SCHINDLER AND THE CONVERSATION BOOKS]
Frequent citations from the so-called “Conversation Books” made
in the course of the narrative touching the later phases of the
controversy over the guardianship call for some remarks upon this new
source of information opened in this year. In the “Niederrheinische
Musikzeitung,” No. 28 of 1854, Schindler wrote:
Beethoven’s hearing had already become too weak for oral
conversation, even with the help of an ear-trumpet, in 1818,
and recourse had now to be had to writing. Only in the case of
intercourse with Archduke Rudolph, and here because of his gentle
voice, the smallest of the ear-trumpets remained of service for
several years more.
That he was able, partly by the ear and partly by the eye, to judge of
the correctness of the performance of his music, Schindler states in
the same article--a fact also known from many other sources; this was
the case even to his last year. When, after the death of Beethoven,
such of his manuscripts and papers as were thought to be salable
were set apart, there remained in the hands of von Breuning a lot of
letters, documents and Conversation Books. The estimated value in the
inventory of the manuscripts and the price obtained for them at the
auction sale, indicate how utterly worthless from a pecuniary point
of view that other collection was thought to be; as, however, they
might be of use to some future biographer, it was well to have them
preserved, and doubtless a small gratification to Schindler for his
great sacrifices and very valuable services to Beethoven in these last
months, the only one which he as guardian to the absent nephew could
make; so Breuning gave them to him. The Conversation Books, counting
in as such those which were really nothing but a sheet or two of paper
loosely folded, were only about 400 in number, or less than fifty per
annum for the last eight and a half years of Beethoven’s life--that
being the period which they cover. Schindler, who spoke on this as on
so many other topics frankly and without reserve, said that he long
preserved the books and papers intact, but not finding any person
but himself who placed any value upon them, their weight and bulk
had led him in the course of his long unsettled life by degrees to
destroy those which he deemed to be of little or no importance. The
remainder were, in 1845, transferred to the Royal Library in Berlin,
and, in 1855, when they were examined for this work, numbered 138. It
was but natural that those preserved are such as place Schindler’s
relation to the master in the strongest light and those deemed by him
essential to the full understanding of the more important events of
Beethoven’s last years. Most of them bear evidence of the deep interest
with which Schindler, while they remained in his possession, lived
over the past in them. In many cases he appended the names of the
principal writers; so that one soon learns to distinguish their hands
without difficulty; and occasionally he enriched them with valuable
annotations.[9] The larger of them--ordinary blank note-books--are
only of a size and thickness fitted to be carried in the coat-pocket.
It is obvious, therefore, on a moment’s reflection, that at a single
sitting with a few friends in an inn or coffee-house, the pages must
have filled rapidly as the book passed from hand to hand and one or
another wrote question or reply, remark or statement, a bit of news
or a piece of advice. A few such conversations, one sees, would fill
a book, all the sooner as there is no thought of economizing space
and each new sentence is usually also a new paragraph. It strikes
one, therefore, that the whole 400 could have contained but a small
portion of the conversations of the period they covered. This was so.
At home a slate or any loose scraps of paper were commonly used, thus
saving a heavy item of expense; moreover, many who conversed with
Beethoven would only write upon the slate in order to obliterate it
immediately, that nothing should remain exposed to the eyes of others.
The books, therefore, were for the most part for use when the composer
was away from home, although there were occasions when, it being
desirable to preserve what was written, they were also used there.
Hence, the collection in Berlin can be viewed as little more than
scattered specimens of the conversations of the master’s friends and
companions, most unequally distributed as to time. For months together
there is nothing or hardly anything; and then again a few days will
fill many scores of leaves. In a few instances Beethoven has himself
written--that is, when in some public place he did not trust his voice;
and memoranda of divers kinds, even of musical ideas from his pen, are
not infrequent. One is surprised to find so few distinguished names in
literature, science and art--Grillparzer’s forms an exception and he
appears only in the later years; as for the rest, they are for the most
part of local Vienna celebrities.
There is no source of information for the biography of Beethoven
which at first sight appears so rich and productive and yet, to the
conscientious writer, proves so provokingly defective and requires such
extreme caution in its use as these Conversation Books. The oldest of
them belongs to the time before us (1819) and was evidently preserved
by Schindler on account of the protracted conversations on the topic of
the nephew. We have already made several citations from it and shall
have frequent occasion to have recourse to it in the progress of this
narrative. The period in which it was used is approximately fixed by a
reference to a concert given by the violinist Franz Clement, at which
he played an introduction and variations on a theme by Beethoven.
This concert took place on April 4, 1819.[10] The last conversations
in the book took place about the time of Beethoven’s removal to
Mödling--shortly before and after.
This explanatory digression may serve as a modulation to more cheerful
themes than that which has occupied us of late.
[Sidenote: MUSICAL SURPRISE AT A WEDDING]
Though Karl was no longer a member of the Giannatasio household or
pupil of the institute, and though there were, in consequence, fewer
meetings between Beethoven and his self-sacrificing friends, their
relations remained pleasant, and early in 1819 Beethoven found occasion
to supplement his verbal protestations of gratitude with a deed. Nanni,
the younger daughter of Giannatasio, was married on February 6, 1819,
to Leopold Schmerling. When the young couple returned to the house
after the ceremony they were greeted by a wedding hymn for tenor solo,
men’s voices and pianoforte accompaniment. The performers were hidden
in a corner of the room. When they had finished they stepped forth from
their place of concealment. Beethoven was among them and he handed the
manuscript of the music which he had written to words of Prof. Stein,
who occupied a chair of philosophy at the University and was also tutor
in the imperial household,[11] to the bride.
Beethoven made a single appearance as conductor in this year. It was on
January 17 at a concert given for the benefit of the Widows and Orphans
of the Juridical Faculty of the University. The orchestra was largely
composed of amateurs and the programme began with the overture to
“Prometheus” and ended with the Seventh Symphony. Among the listeners
was P. D. A. Atterbom, the Swedish poet, who wrote a sympathetic
account of it.
In the midst of the worries occasioned by the guardianship, Beethoven
was elected Honorary Member of the Philharmonic Society of Laibach,
an institution which had been founded in 1702 and revived, after
repeated interruptions, in 1816. The project of giving him the
distinction had been broached in the councils of the society in 1808,
but Anton Schmith, a physician in Vienna, whose opinion had been
asked, had advised against it, saying: “Beethoven is as freakish as
he is unserviceable.” Eleven years later the men of Laibach had more
knowledge or better counsel, and they sent him a diploma on March
15 through von Tuscher. Acknowledging the honor on May 4, Beethoven
stated that as a mark of appreciation he was sending, also through
the magistrate, an “unpublished” composition and would hold himself
in readiness to serve the society should it ever need him. There is
no direct evidence as to what composition he had in mind; but in the
archives of the Laibach society there is a manuscript copy of the Sixth
Symphony. It is not an autograph except as to its title, Beethoven
having written “Sinfonia pastorale” on the cover in red crayon, and
corrections in lead pencil in the music.[12]
The time for Beethoven’s annual summer flitting had come. Mödling was
chosen again for the country sojourn and Beethoven arrived there on May
12, taking lodgings as before in the Hafner house in the Hauptstrasse.
He had, evidently, brought a housekeeper with him and now engaged a
housemaid. The former endured two months.[13] Karl was placed under
the tuition of Blöchlinger on June 22. Beethoven, as letters to the
Archduke dated July 15 and August 31[14] show, was not in the best of
health, but was hard at work on the mass, with an excursion now and
then into the symphony (Ninth). Schindler presents us with a pathetic,
impressive, almost terrifying picture of the state to which his labors
lifted him (Ed. of 1860, I, 270):
[Sidenote: IN A FRENZY OF COMPOSITION]
Towards the end of August, accompanied by the musician Johann
Horsalka still living in Vienna, I arrived at the master’s home in
Mödling. It was 4 o’clock in the afternoon. As soon as we entered
we learned that in the morning both servants had gone away, and
that there had been a quarrel after midnight which had disturbed
all the neighbors, because as a consequence of a long vigil both
had gone to sleep and the food which had been prepared had become
unpalatable. In the living-room, behind a locked door, we heard
the master singing parts of the fugue in the _Credo_--singing,
howling, stamping. After we had been listening a long time to this
almost awful scene, and were about to go away, the door opened and
Beethoven stood before us with distorted features, calculated to
excite fear. He looked as if he had been in mortal combat with the
whole host of contrapuntists, his everlasting enemies. His first
utterances were confused, as if he had been disagreeably surprised
at our having overheard him. Then he reached the day’s happenings
and with obvious restraint he remarked: “Pretty doings, these!
(_Saubere Wirthschaft_.) Everybody has run away and I haven’t
had anything to eat since yesternoon!” I tried to calm him and
helped him to make his toilet. My companion hurried on in advance
to the restaurant of the bathing establishment to have something
made ready for the famished master. Then he complained about the
wretched state of his domestic affairs, but here, for reasons
already stated, there was nothing to be done. Never, it may be
said, did so great an artwork as is the _Missa Solemnis_ see its
creation under more adverse circumstances.[15]
The fact that Beethoven received an advance payment on a commission
for an oratorio which he undertook to write for the Gesellschaft der
Musikfreunde has been mentioned. The sum was 400 florins. It was on
August 18. Four days later there was a meeting of the society at which
Landgrave von Fürstenberg reported[16] that on the written application
of Prince von Odescalchi, representing the President, Beethoven had
replied that he had long been desirous to compose a work which would
reflect honor on the society and that he would do his best to expedite
it. That seems to have been the end of the matter for the time being.
There was also during the Mödling sojourn a continuation of the
negotiations with Thomson. A Mr. Smith visited Beethoven bearing a
letter from the Scotch publisher which called out a playful rejoinder
in which Beethoven sought to turn an easy play upon German words into
French. Thomson suggested that the introductions and accompaniments
to the Scotch songs be made easier (“lighter,” in the German idiom);
they would be so, Beethoven replied, if the compensation were made more
difficult (“heavier” would have been his word had he been permitted to
use the German equivalent). As it is, Beethoven’s humor becomes rather
ponderous, as see the letter which was written in French by Beethoven
apparently without assistance:
_Vienne le 25me Maj, 1819._
_Mon cher Ami!_
_Vous ecrivés toujours facile très--je m’accomode tout mon
possible, mais--mais--mais--l’honorare pourroit pourtant être
plus difficile, ou plus-tôt pesante!!!!! Votre ami Mosieur Smith
m’a fait grand plaisir a cause de sa visite chez moi--en Hâte,
je vous assure, que je serais toujours avec plaisir a votres
services--comme j’ai a present votre Addresse par Mr. Smith, je
serai bientôt en Etat de vous écrire plus ample--l’honorare pour un
Théme avec variations j’ai fixé, dans ma derniere letter à vous par
Messieurs le Friess, a moien dix ducats en or, C’est, je vous jure
malgre cela seulement par complaisance pour vous, puisque je n’ais
pas besoin, de me méler avec de telles petites choses, mais il
faut toujours pourtant perdre du temps avec de telles bagatelles,
et l’honneur ne permit pas, de dire a quelqu’un, ce qu’on en
gagne,--je vous souhaite toujours le bon gout pour la vrai Musique
et si vous cries facile--je crierai difficile pour facile!!!!_
Thomson indorsed on this letter: “25 May, 1819. Beethoven. Some
pleasantry on my repeated requests to make his Symphs and accompgnts.
to our National Airs Easy, sent by Mr. John Smith of Glasg.” Another
British commission was offered him about the same time. There are
two entries in a Conversation Book, apparently in the handwriting of
Schindler:
The Englishman brought me your letter yesterday and evening
before last I received another one for you through Fries. Another
commission was brought by the other Englishman, the friend of
Smith. A Mr. Donaldson in Edinburgh wants to know if you will not
write a Trio for 3 pianofortes and in the style of your Quintet in
E-flat. He wants to announce it as his property--The remuneration
which you demand is to be paid to you in any way you may
select--All the parts of the Trio must be obbligato. If you do not,
write to Donaldson in Edinburgh direct. These Englishmen speak of
nothing else than their wish to have you come to England--they give
assurance that if you come for a single winter to England, Scotland
and Ireland, you will earn so much that you can live the rest of
your life on the interest.
And again:
The gentleman is going to write to
Donaldson--Edinburgh--to-day--the answer can be here in 4 weeks and
the gentleman can be here that long. Tell him how much you want,
when it might be finished and how you want the payment made. He
is very desirous to have a composition from you and there is no
possibility of its being left on your hands--Moreover it is a great
work. If you get 40 ducats for the Sonata he can doubtless pay 100.
By that time the answer may be here from Edinburgh.
Great Britain’s monetary reward, had Beethoven accepted all its
invitations, would no doubt have been all that the friend of “Mr.
Donaldson of Edinburgh” stated and in proportion would have been the
appreciation which Beethoven would have found at the hands of the
English professional musicians, amateurs and musical laity.
Pathetic and diverting are the incidents which Karl Friedrich
Zelter relates in letters to Goethe of his attempts to form a
closer acquaintance with Beethoven. Zelter came to Vienna in July.
He says that he wanted to call upon Beethoven, but he was in the
country--nobody knew where. This in his first letter which mentions the
subject. On August 16 he writes:
It is said that he is intolerably _maussade_. Some say that he is a
lunatic. It is easy to talk. God forgive us all our sins! The poor
man is reported as being totally deaf. Now I know what it means to
see all this digital manipulation around me while my fingers are
becoming useless one after the other. Lately Beethoven went into an
eating-house; he sat himself down to a table and lost himself in
thought. After an hour he calls the waiter. “What do I owe?” “The
gentleman has not eaten anything yet” “What shall I bring?” “Bring
anything you please, but let me alone!”
[Sidenote: MEETING BETWEEN BEETHOVEN AND ZELTER]
Zelter stays in Vienna from July to September, but sees nothing of
Beethoven. Then, on September 12, he sets out with Steiner to visit
the master at Mödling. On the road they meet Beethoven, who is on his
way to the city. Leaving their carriages they embrace each other, but
conversation with a deaf man not being practicable on the highway
they separate after agreeing to meet at Steiner’s at 4 o’clock in the
afternoon. Zelter was moved almost to tears. After a hurried meal he
and Steiner hastened back to Vienna. Let him relate the rest:
After eating we drove back to Vienna at once. Full as a badger
and tired as a dog I lie down and sleep away the time, sleep so
soundly that not a thing enters my mind. Then I go to the theatre
and when I see Beethoven there I feel as if I had been struck by
lightning. The same thing happens to him at sight of me, and this
is not the place for explanations with a deaf man. Now comes the
point: In spite of the things of which Beethoven is accused justly
or unjustly, he enjoys a popular respect such as is bestowed only
upon the most excellent. Steiner had given it out that Beethoven
would appear in his little office, which will hold only six or
eight persons, for the first time in person at 4 o’clock, and
invited guests so generously that in a room crowded to the street,
half a hundred brilliant people waited in vain. I did not get an
explanation till next day, when I received a letter from Beethoven
in which he begged my pardon, for he, like me, had passed the time
set for the meeting in blissful sleep.
Zelter’s letter calls for a slight rectification. It was not the
next day but four days later that Beethoven wrote him the letter of
explanation, and Zelter’s statement that Beethoven had overslept
himself as he had done was pure assumption--unless he learned it from
another source. Beethoven wrote:
Highly respected Sir:
It is my fault that you were lately besmeared (_angeschmiert_,
that is, deceived, cheated) as we say here, by me. Unforeseen
circumstances robbed me of the pleasure of passing a few lovely and
enjoyable hours, which would have been profitable to art, with you.
I hear that you are already leaving Vienna day after to-morrow. My
country life, to which I am forced by my poor health, is, however,
not as beneficial as usual to me this year. It may be that I shall
come in again day after to-morrow and if you are not already gone
in the afternoon I hope to tell you by word of mouth with true
cordiality how much I esteem you and desire your friendship (to be
near to you).
The autograph of this letter contains what appears to be either a
transcript or a draft of a letter which Zelter either sent or planned
to send to Beethoven. In view of the fact that it shows a different
feeling towards the great composer than that formerly entertained by
the teacher of Mendelssohn, it is given here:
To see once more, face to face, in this life the man who brings
joy and edification to so many good people, among whom I of course
am glad to count myself--this was the purpose, worthy friend, for
which I wished to visit you at Mödlingen. You met me, and my aim
was at least not wholly frustrated, for I saw your face. I know of
the infirmity which burdens you and you have my sympathy, for I
am similarly afflicted. On the day after to-morrow I go from here
to resume my labors, but I shall never cease to hold you in high
respect and to love you.
[Sidenote: A COMPOSITION BY ARCHDUKE RUDOLPH]
Friedrich Schneider, of Dessau, visited Vienna in the fall of the year
and caused a sensation by his organ-playing. He reported that Beethoven
had received him graciously and that he, in turn, had heard the master
play the pianoforte, his improvisation being the most marvellous thing
he had ever listened to. In August, Johann van Beethoven bought an
estate near Gneixendorf. This brought the brothers together in Vienna
during the winter. Johann was the “landowner” of a familiar story, and
Beethoven, the “brain owner,” seemed at this time disposed to emulate
him. At least he read advertisements of houses for sale in Mödling
before the day set for the sale and advised him in the premises. In
the same letter[17] he advises Steiner to publish a set of variations
composed by the Archduke. “I have mentioned your name in the matter,
inasmuch as I do not believe that you will lose anything by the
transaction, and it is always honorable to print something by such a
_Principe Professore_.” The variations were on a theme composed by
Beethoven and given to his imperial pupil as a lesson, and had called
out the obsequious remarks which may be read in the New Year’s letter
to the Archduke. His remark to Steiner is explained by the fact that on
August 31 he had written to the Archduke as follows:
As regards the masterly variations of Y. I. H. I think they might
be published under the following title, namely:
Theme, or Task
set by L. v. Beeth.
forty times varied
and dedicated to his teacher
by the Most Serene Author.
There are so many requests for them, and eventually this honorable
work will reach the public in garbled copies. Y. I. H. will
yourself not be able to avoid presenting copies here and there;
therefore, in the name of God, among the many consecrations which
Y. I. H. is receiving and of which the world is being informed, let
the consecration of Apollo (or the Christian Cäcilia) also be made
known. True, Y. I. H. may accuse me of vanity; but I can assure you
that although this dedication is precious to me and I am really
proud of it, this is not at all my aim. 3 publishers have appealed
for it, Artaria, Steiner and a third whose name does not occur
to me. To which of the first two shall the Variations be given?
On this point I await the commands of Y. I. H. Both of them have
offered to print the variations at _their own cost_. The question
now is whether Y. I. H. is _satisfied with the title_? To the
question whether or not the variations ought to be published, Y. I.
H. ought to close your eyes; if it is done, Y. I. H. may call it a
misfortune; but _the world will think the contrary_.
Steiner printed the archducal work in the seventh number of his
“Musical Museum” under a slightly changed title, viz.: “Theme
(_Aufgabe_) composed by Ludwig van Beethoven, varied forty times and
dedicated to the author by his pupil R[udolph], A[rch-]D[uke].”[18]
Other evidences of Beethoven’s interest in Archduke Rudolph’s studies
in composition are to be noted about this time. On July 29 he wrote
to his pupil from Mödling, sending him three poems and asking him
to select one for composition, encouraging him in these words: “The
Austrians now know already that the spirit of Apollo has newly awakened
in the Imperial family. From all quarters I receive requests for
something. The proprietor of the _Modezeitung_ will appeal to Y. I. H.
in writing. I hope I _shall not be accused of bribery--at Court and not
a courtier_, what possibilities??!!!” In this letter, however, there
are words of vaster import, as showing Beethoven’s attitude towards
musical evolution. We quote:
... but _freedom_, _progress_, is the aim in the world of art as
in the whole great universe, and even if we moderns are not so far
advanced in sound technique (_Festigkeit_) as our _forefathers_,
refinement in manners has opened many things to us. My exalted
pupil in music, already a fellow-contestant for the laurel of fame,
must not subject himself to the accusation of _onesidedness_,--_et
iterum venturus judicare vivos et mortuos_.[19]
[Sidenote: A PAINTER’S PRESENCE FORGOTTEN]
A number of incidents in Beethoven’s life may now be passed in hurried
chronological review: On October 1, he was made an honorary member of
the Mercantile Association (_Kaufmännischer Verein_) in Vienna. In the
fall Ferdinand Schimon (1797-1852), who was musician and opera-singer
as well as painter, painted the portrait which afterward came into
the possession of Schindler, and was engraved by Eduard Eichers for
Schindler’s biography.[20] Schimon had obtained permission through
Schindler to set up his easel in the chamber adjoining Beethoven’s
workroom, the composer having resolutely refused a sitting because he
was busy on the _Credo_ of the mass. From this point of vantage he made
his studies and had finished them all but the eyes--the most striking
feature in the portrait. Out of this dilemma Beethoven unconsciously
helped him. He had evidently been impressed with the discretion, or
independence, of the young artist who came without a “good morning” and
went without a “good evening,” and invited him to coffee. Thus Schimon
had ample opportunity to supply the one deficiency in his sketches.
At the end of October, Beethoven returned to Vienna from Mödling,
taking lodging this time at No. 16 Josephstädter Glacis, opposite the
Auersberg Palace and near the Blöchlinger Institute where Karl was
studying. The guardianship matter soon occupied his attention; spells
of indisposition tormented him; and financial distress so threatened
him that he attempted to negotiate a loan from the banker Hennickstein,
and borrowed 750 florins from Steiner.[21] Countess Erdödy was in
Vienna at the end of the year and he sent her a note on December 19,
promising to visit her soon and scratching down a musical phrase which
he afterwards erased to make of it the New Year canon: “Glück, Glück
zum neuen Jahr.”
It is remarkable that Beethoven, under the circumstances which have
been set forth in this chapter, could continue his labors on the Mass
which were his principal occupation during the year; it was but another
proof of the absorbing possession which the composition of a great work
took of him when once fairly begun. So diligently did he apply himself
that he had hopes not only of finishing it in time for the installation
of the Archduke as Archbishop of Olmütz, but wrote to Ries on November
10 that he had already nearly completed it and would like to know what
could be done with it in London. To Schindler, however, in expressing
a doubt that he would have it done in time for the ceremonial, he said
that every movement had taken on larger dimensions than had originally
been contemplated. Schindler says also that when the day came, not
one of the movements was finished in the eyes of the composer; yet he
alleges that Beethoven brought the completed _Credo_ with him when
he came back to Vienna from Mödling. There is this to be added to
these statements: A pocket sketchbook used in 1820 (it is now in the
Beethoven House at Bonn) shows some sketches for the _Credo_; and
there are memoranda for the same movement in a Conversation Book used
near the close of the year. That the _Gloria_ had received its final
shape is a fair deduction from a Conversation Book of the same period.
Bernard (presumably) writes:
It was decided yesterday that you give a concert either on
Christmas or some other day. Count Stadion will give the use of the
room, and Schick, Czerny and Janitschek will care for the rest. The
programme is to include a symphony, the _Gloria_ from your mass,
the new Sonata played by you and a grand final chorus. All your
works. 4,000 florins are guaranteed. Only one movement of the mass
is to be performed.
The project is mentioned again by another friend, and Beethoven
remarks: “It is too late for Christmas, but it might be possible in
Lent.” That he worked occasionally on the Ninth Symphony, especially
in the early part of the year, has already been said. Thomson’s
commissions occupied some of his time, as well as a project to
extend his labors on folksongs into a wider field. The second set of
Variations on folksong themes which was published as Op. 107 in 1820,
must be assigned, at least in part, to this year. He also, as Schindler
tells us, composed a set of waltzes for a band of seven men who played
at an inn in the valley of the Brühl near Mödling, and wrote out the
parts for the different instruments. These waltzes have disappeared;
Schindler tried in vain to find them a few years later. The canon
“Glück zum neuen Jahr” was composed for Countess Erdödy on the last day
of December, if A. Fuchs, who says that he copied it from the original
manuscript, is correct. He also wrote a canon for Steiner in the
summer, as appears from a conversation recorded in a book of March 20,
1820. An unidentified hand writes:
Last summer you sent a _canon infinitus a due_ to Steiner from
Mödling
[Illustration]
Nobody has solved it, but I have solved it. The second voice enters
on the second:
[Illustration:
it is infinite.
Go to the devil[22]
God protect you
was the text.
]
On September 21 he wrote a canon to the words “Glaube und hoffe”
for the younger Schlesinger, afterwards publisher in Paris, who
was a visitor in Vienna from Berlin at the time, as Beethoven’s
inscription on the autograph shows.[23]
[Sidenote: PUBLICATIONS OF THE YEAR 1819]
The publications of the year 1819 were (1) Two Sonatas for Pianoforte
and Violoncello, Op. 102, dedicated to Countess Erdödy, by Artaria in
Vienna (they had already been published by Simrock); (2) The Quintet
in C minor, Op. 104, arranged from the Trio, Op. 1, No. 3; (3) Themes
and Variations on Motives from Folksongs, for Pianoforte and Flute or
Violin, Op. 105, by Artaria; Pianoforte Sonata in B-flat, Op. 106,
dedicated to Archduke Rudolph, by Artaria.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] He had not been removed, but only temporarily suspended; he
retained the supervision of the boy’s education and at a later period
voluntarily resigned the guardianship for a time.
[2] See Kalischer-Shedlock, Vol. II. p. 124 _et seq._ The letter was
dated erroneously February 1, 1818, instead of 1819.
[3] These citations are from the Conversation Books.
[4] Landshut University. It was afterward removed to Munich.
[5] As a matter of fact the boy was with Kudlich after this and
remained there until Beethoven went to Mödling. At the time of this
consultation he was with his mother. Kudlich was instructed not to
permit any communication between him and his mother.
[6] It is undated, but to judge by its contents and the sequence of
events was written in May. See Kalischer-Shedlock, Vol. II, p. 134.
[7] Kalischer-Shedlock, Vol. II, p. 149.
[8] Kalischer-Shedlock, Vol. II, p. 145.
[9] That he was not always scrupulous in preserving their integrity
when they offered evidence in contradiction of his printed statements
is the conviction of this editor for reasons which will appear later.
[10] Apparently in reply to a question put by Beethoven an unidentified
hand writes: “Poor stuff,--empty--totally ineffective--your theme was
in bad hands; with much monotony he made 15 or 20 variations and put
a cadenza (_fermate_) in every one, you may imagine what we had to
endure--he has fallen off greatly and looks too old to entertain with
his acrobatics on the violin.”
Thayer’s industry in the gathering and ordering of material for this
biography, let it be remarked here in grateful tribute, is illustrated
in the fact that he made practically a complete transcript of the
Conversation Books, laboriously deciphering the frequently hieroglyphic
scrawls, and compiled a mass of supplementary material for the purpose
of fixing the chronological order of the conversations. The dates of
all concerts and other public events alluded to were established by the
examination of newspapers and other contemporaneous records and the
utility of the biographical material greatly enhanced.
[11] Madame Pessiak-Schmerling, a daughter of Nanni, recounted this
incident twice in the letters to Thayer. Madame Pessiak possessed a
copy of the song. Her mother had jealously preserved the original,
but, together with Beethoven’s letters to Giannatasio, it was stolen.
In 1861 Thayer found song and letters among the autographs owned by
William Witt of the firm of Ewer and Co. in London, and obtained copies
of them, but Thayer’s copy of the song was not found by this Editor
among the posthumous papers of the author when he examined them in
order to set aside the needful material for the completion of this
biography. The music of Miss Nanni’s hymeneal ode was forty years later
put to a right royal use. Transposed from C to A major it was published
for the first time by Ewer and Co. as a setting to English words on
the occasion of the marriage of Victoria, eldest daughter of Queen
Victoria, to Frederick William of Prussia (afterwards Emperor Frederick
III) on January 25, 1858. The title of this publication, which is now
out of print, was “The Wedding Song, written and by gracious permission
dedicated to Her Royal Highness Victoria, Princess Royal, on her
Wedding Day, by John Oxenford. The music composed by L. van Beethoven.
Posthumous Work.” The inscription on the original manuscript, according
to Thayer, was “Am 14ten Jenner 1819--für F. v. Giannatasio de Rio von
L. v. Beethoven.”
At the Editor’s request Mr. J. S. Shedlock, in 1912, kindly made an
investigation and reported that so far as could be learned from the
public records the song had no place in the wedding ceremonies in 1858.
Messrs. Novello and Co. most courteously brought forth the old plates
from their vaults and had a “pull” of them made for this Editor’s use.
The music can not be said to have any other than a curious interest. A
single stanza will suffice to disclose the quality of Mr. Oxenford’s
hymeneal ode:
“Hail, Royal Pair, by love united;
With ev’ry earthly blessing crown’d;
A people lifts its voice delighted,
And distant nations hear the sound.
All hearts are now with gladness swelling,
All tongues are now of rapture telling,
A day of heartfelt joy is found!”
[12] Dr. F. Keesbacher, who published a history of the Laibach
Philharmonic Society in 1862, thought that this was the composition
sent by Beethoven; but the “Pastoral” Symphony had been published
nearly ten years before--by Breitkopf and Härtel in May, 1809.
[13] On the blank leaves of an Almanac for 1819, such as used to be
bound in those useful household publications for the reception of
memoranda, Beethoven notes: “Came to Mödling, May 12.!!! _Miser sum
pauper_....” “On May 14 the housemaid in Mr. came, to receive 6 florins
a month.... On 29th May Dr. Hasenöhrl made his 3rd visit to K. Tuesday
on the 22nd of June my nephew entered the institute of Mr. Blöchlinger
at monthly payments in advance of 75 florins _W. W._ Began to take the
baths here regularly (?) on 28th Monday, for the first (?) time daily.”
Schindler adds: “On July 20 gave notice to the housekeeper.”
[14] Kalischer-Shedlock, Vol. II. pp. 138 and 139.
[15] In his draft for this chapter Thayer wrote: “In the hope of
obtaining further particulars Horsalka’s attention was directed to
this passage in the copy now before the writer. The result is written
on the margin in Herr Luib’s hand: ‘Horsalka knows nothing of this’.
This incident is doubtless true, but that Horsalka should not have
remembered it if he was present, is incredible. Schindler’s queer
memory has again proved treacherous in regard to his companion.”
[16] So Pohl, who wrote a history of the “Gesellschaft,” informed
Thayer in a note.
[17] Kalischer-Shedlock, II, p. 144.
[18] The theme was the melody written for a song beginning “O Hoffnung,
du stählst die Herzen, vertreibst die Schmerzen,” from Tiedge’s
“Urania.” Nohl, without giving an authority, quotes an inscription on
the autograph as follows: “Composed in the spring of 1818 by L. v.
Beethoven _in doloribus_ for H. Imp. Highness the Archduke Rudolph.”
Thayer knows nothing about such an inscription, but it does not look
like an invention. In one of the Conversation Books somebody (Dr.
Deiters opines it was Peters) writes: “Fräulein Spitzenberger played
the 40 variations by the Archduke for me yesterday. I know nothing
about it, but it seems to me that they were pretty extensively
corrected by you. The critics insist on the same thing.” We do not
know what reply Beethoven made and it is a matter of small moment. The
same comment has been called out by many a royal composition since;
it was Brahms who said: “Never criticize the composition of a Royal
Highness;--you do not know who may have written it!” In justice to
Archduke Rudolph, however, it deserves to be mentioned that a set of
variations on a melody from Rossini’s “Zelmira” composed by him shows
pencil corrections in the hand of Beethoven and they are few and
trifling.
[19] There is a vagueness in this passage, and especially in the words
which precede it, which has exercised the minds of Köchel, Nohl and
Deiters; but it is the opinion of the English Editor that the meaning
has been reproduced in the above translation. As the reader may,
however, wish to form his own opinion in the matter, which is certainly
most interesting, the context is given in the original and what might
be described as an expository rendering into English: _Ich war in
Wien, um aus der Bibliothek I. K. H. das mir Tauglichste auszusuchen.
Die Hauptabsicht ist das geschwinde Treffen und mit der bessern
Kunst-Vereinigung, wobei aber practische Absichten Ausnahmen machen,
wofür die Alten zwar doppelt dienen, indem meistens reeller Kunstwerth
(Genie hat doch nur der deutsche Händel und Seb. Bach gehabt) allein
Freiheit, etc._, that is: “I was in Vienna to seek out some things best
suited to my purpose. What is chiefly needed is a quick recognition of
the essential coupled with a better union of the arts [i. e., poetry
and music] in respect of which practical considerations sometimes
compel an exception, as we may learn in a twofold way from the old
composers, where we find chiefly stress laid upon the artistically
valuable (among them only the German Handel and Seb. Bach had genius)
but freedom, etc.” Beethoven, presumably, was following the injunction
noted in the _Tagebuch_ and, for the purposes of the work which then
engrossed him, was consulting authorities on ecclesiastical music.
That his mind was full of his Mass is indicated by the somewhat
irrelevant quotation from the text of the _Credo_. Was he not essaying
a union between the technical perfection of the old masters and a more
truthful, or literal, illustration of the missal text, wherefor freedom
was necessary?
[20] The picture is now preserved among the rest of the relics which
Schindler deposited in Berlin.
[21] See Kalischer-Shedlock, II, p. 151.
[22] “Hol Euch der Teufel! B’hüt Euch Gott!”
[23] Marx published it for the first time in _facsimile_ in the
appendix of Vol. II of his biography of Beethoven. In the Collected
Works it appears on page 275, Series 25.
Chapter II
The Years 1820 and 1821--End of the Guardianship Litigation--A
Costly Victory--E. T. A. Hoffmann--Financial Troubles--Adagios and
English Hymn-tunes--Arrested as a Vagrant--Negotiations for the
Mass in D--The Last Pianoforte Sonatas.
[Sidenote: DEPARTURE OF OLD FRIENDS]
Almost involuntarily, in passing in review the incidents of the year
whose story has just been told and projecting a glance into the
near future, the question arises: Where, in these moments of doubt,
ill-health, trial, vexation of spirit and torment of body were the
old friends of Beethoven who in the earlier years had stood by him
faithfully and lovingly? Where was Stephan von Breuning? Alas! he
seems to have been an early sacrifice to Beethoven’s obstinate course
in respect of his nephew. Schindler says that he had advised against
the adoption of the boy and thus wounded Beethoven in his most
sensitive part. The temporary estrangement began in 1817. Some others
of the old friends may have been rebuffed in like manner; some, like
the faithful seneschal, Zmeskall, were ill; some were absent from
Vienna--Count Brunswick, Schuppanzigh; some were dead; in some the
flames of friendship may have died down because there was so little
in Beethoven’s public life to challenge their sympathy and support.
Count Lichnowsky has dropped out of the narrative and does not appear
for some years. What had happened to the ardent friend of the youthful
days, Count Waldstein? There is no answer. Once a Conversation Book
awakens curiosity and a hope. Somebody warns Beethoven in a public
place not to speak so loud, as everybody is listening. “Count Waldstein
is sitting near; where does he live?” Beethoven’s answer is unrecorded
and thus passes the only opportunity which the known material offers
from which might have been learned what caused the death of that
beautiful friendship. Bernard, Schindler, Oliva, Peters and Bach were
near to him, and the last was of incalculable value to him in his
great trial. But could they replace those who were gone?
Beethoven was become a lonely man--an enforced seeker of solitude. No
doubt many who would have been glad to give him their friendship were
deterred by the wide-spread reports of his suspicious, unapproachable,
almost repellant nature. But a miracle happens. Driven in upon
himself by the forces which seem to have been arrayed against
him, introspection opens wider and wider to him the doors of that
imagination which in its creative function, as Ruskin tells us, is “an
eminent beholder of things when and where they are not; a seer that is,
in the prophetic sense, calling the things that are not as though they
were; and for ever delighting to dwell on that which is not tangibly
present.” Now he proclaims a new evangel, illustrates a higher union of
beauty and truthfulness of expression, exalts art till it enters the
realm of religion.
In the _Tagebuch_ there stands a bold inscription written in February
of the year 1820: “The moral law in us, and the starry sky above
us--Kant.”[24] This and two other citations, the first of which
Beethoven surely culled from some book, also deserve to be set down
here as mottoes applicable to the creative work which occupied his mind
during the year and thereafter:
’Tis said that art is long and life is fleeting:--
Nay; life is long and brief the span of art!
If e’er her breath vouchsafes with gods a meeting,
A moment’s favor ’tis of which we’ve had a part.
The world is a king and desires flattery in return for favor; but
true art is perverse and will not submit to the mould of flattery.
Famous artists always labor under an embarrassment;--therefore,
first works are the best, though they may have sprung from dark
ground.
We can only record the fact that Beethoven began the year 1820, as
he had begun its immediate predecessor, by sending a New Year’s
greeting to the august pupil who was now almost continually in his
mind--Archduke Rudolph, soon to be Archbishop and Cardinal[25]--before
taking up the story of the incubus which oppressed the composer’s
mind, the clog which impeded his creative activities during much of
the year--the legal proceedings concerning the guardianship of nephew
Karl. Fortunately for the tinge of these pages the end is not distant.
Two applications made by Beethoven to the Court of Magistrates had been
denied and he now asked for a review of these decisions by the Court
of Appeals. The action of the Magistracy had grievously pained him, so
he informed the superior tribunal, and not only had his rights been
set aside, but no regard had been shown for the welfare of his nephew.
Against this he now sought relief, and he set forth his grievances: (1)
He was testamentary appointee and the _Landrecht_ had confirmed him and
excluded the mother; circumstances compelling his absence from Vienna,
he had arranged that Herr Nussböck should be appointed guardian _ad
interim_; back permanently in the city, his nephew’s welfare required
that he resume the guardianship; (2) The higher education which his
nephew’s talents demanded neither the mother nor Nussböck could
direct--the former because she was a woman and had conducted herself in
a manner which had led the _Landrecht_ to exclude her, Nussböck because
he was too much occupied with his duties as Municipal Sequestrator and,
having been no more than a paper-maker, he did not possess the insight
and judgment essential to the scientific education of the ward. (3)
Having no child of his own, his hopes were set on the boy, who was
unusually talented, yet he had been told that he had been held back
a year in his studies and that owing to a lack of funds he was to be
taken from the institution in which he had been placed and given in the
care of his mother; by her mismanagement the boy would be sacrificed,
it being the aim of the mother to expend his share of the pension
money on herself. He had declared to the Magistracy his willingness
to defray the costs at the institute and also to engage other masters
for the boy. Being “somewhat hard of hearing” communication with
him was difficult and therefore he had asked that a co-guardian
be appointed in the person of Herr Peters, Prince Lobkowitzsian
Councillor, whose knowledge and moral character would assure such a
training and education as were justified by the boy’s capacity. “I know
of no more sacred duty than the care and education of a child,” he
observes. He would offer no objection to the mother’s having a “sort of
joint-guardianship,” but its duties and privileges should be limited to
her visiting him and learning what plans were making for his education;
to permit more would be to compass the ruin of the boy.[26]
[Sidenote: AN APPEAL TO A HIGHER COURT]
This petition was filed on January 7, 1820; three days later the
Appellate Court commanded the Magistracy to file a report of the
proceedings had before it, together with all minutes and documents. The
Magistracy complied on February 5, citing its decision of September 17,
1819, and defending its action on the grounds that (a) Beethoven, owing
to his deafness and his hatred of the mother of the ward, was incapable
of acting as guardian; (b) the guardianship belonged to the mother by
right of law; (c) the commission of an act of infidelity against her
husband in 1811, for which she had suffered punishment, was no longer a
bar; (d) none of the alleged “injurious disturbances and interferences”
had been definitely set forth or proven:
If under injurious disturbances we are to understand that the
mother is desirous to see her child once every 14 days or 4 weeks,
or to convince herself about the wear and cleanliness of his
clothing, or to learn of his conduct toward his teachers, these can
appear injurious only in the eyes of the appellant; the rest of the
world, however, would find it amiss in a mother if she made inquiry
concerning her child only once a fortnight or month.
Answering the second charge, the magistrates urged that the appellant
seemed to ask of the mother and other guardian that they themselves
educate the boy in the sciences. For this not even the appellant was
fitted, at least he had not demonstrated such a fitness; he had left
the preparation for the higher studies to others and this the mother
and guardian could also do, having, indeed, a better plan, which was to
send the boy to the R. I. Convict, where he would surely make better
progress at smaller expense. _Ad tertium_, the failure of the boy to
advance in his classes could not be laid to the mother or guardian, but
must be charged against the appellant, who had taken the boy away from
his studies for the university after two months, kept him at home three
months, and sent him to another institution of learning at the end of
June; naturally enough he lost a school year.
The Court of Appeals demanded a more explicit report, which the
Magistracy filed on February 28, taking advantage of the opportunity to
review the proceedings had before the _Landrecht_ from the beginning,
and to make severe strictures on the conduct of Beethoven in filing
an exhibit (F) with his petition in support of which no evidence was
offered, though because of it the _Landrecht_ was asked to exclude the
mother from the guardianship which belonged to her under the law. Again
we quote:
This exclusion can have nothing for its foundation except the
misdemeanor of which the mother was guilty in 1811, for all the
rest contained in appellant’s exhibit F is unproven chatter to
which the _Landrecht_ could give no consideration, but which gives
speaking proof of how passionately and inimically the appellant
has always acted, and still acts, towards the mother, how little
he recks of tearing open wounds that were healed, since after
having endured punishment she stood rehabilitated; and yet he
reproaches her with a transgression for which she had atoned years
before, which had been pardoned by the injured husband himself who
petitioned for leniency in her sentence and who had declared her
capable and fit for the guardianship of his son in his last will
and testament, directing that the son be not taken away from his
mother. Regardless of this the appellant last year, certainly not
in the interest of the boy’s welfare, inasmuch as we have excellent
educational institutions here, but only to pain the mother, to
tear the heart out of her bosom, attempted to send him out of the
country to Landshut. Fortunately the government authorities, acting
on information derived from this court, frustrated the plan by
refusing a passport.
[Sidenote: DEPRAVITY OF KARL’S MOTHER]
Let us try now to take a dispassionate view of the case as thus far
presented in the pleadings and documents. Not only the law of nature
but the laws of the land justified the mother in asserting her right
to look after the physical well-being of her child and seeking to
enforce it. Dr. Bach seems to have impressed that fact upon Beethoven,
wherefore he declares his willingness in the bill of appeal to
associate her with himself in the guardianship to that extent. That the
Magistrates displayed unusual, not to say unjudicial zeal in her behalf
while defending their own course is indubitable; but we are in no
position to judge of the propriety of their course, which seems to have
been in harmony with the judicial procedure of the place and period,
least of all to condemn them, so long as it was permitted them so to
do, for having made a stout resistance when their acts were impugned
in the appeal to the higher court. The “Exhibit F,” filed in the
proceedings before the _Landrecht_, has not been found and its contents
can only be guessed at from the allusions to it in the documents.
Obviously it contained aspersions on the moral character of Madame van
Beethoven, and it may have been, nay, probably was, true that they were
unsupported by evidence and therefore undeserving of consideration in
a court either of law or equity. Perhaps they were not susceptible of
legal proof. It has been thought that Beethoven felt some hesitancy in
flaunting evidence of his sister-in-law’s infamy in the face of the
world,[27] but he certainly showed no disposition to spare her in his
letters, nor did he hesitate to accuse her of unmentionable things
by innuendo. In a Conversation Book of this year (1820) he writes of
her that she was “born for intrigue, accomplished in deceit, mistress
of all the arts of dissimulation.” On the other hand, it is singular
that the Magistrates in their final effort to justify their course
have nothing to say about the present moral standing of the woman
whose legal and natural rights they claimed to be upholding. Were they
in ignorance of what we now know, namely, that her conduct had not
only been reprehensible in 1811 (though condoned by her husband) but
continued so after her husband’s death? Schindler says that she gave
birth to a child while the case was pending, and that is confirmed by
a statement of Nephew Karl’s widow,[28] that in her old age Madame van
Beethoven lived in Baden with this illegitimate daughter, who was also
a dissolute woman.
But there are many anomalous things to the studious mind in the
proceedings which we are reporting, which differ greatly from anything
which could happen in a court of chancery or probate in Great Britain
or America to-day. It is certainly repugnant to our present legal
ethics that having filed a petition to reverse the action of one
court Beethoven should not only have written private letters to a
judge of the court of review, pleading his case on personal grounds,
but that his counsel should have advised him to visit members of the
higher court to present arguments in his behalf. But, no doubt, this
was consistent with the customs of Austria a century ago; and it is
what happened. Beethoven writes to Karl Winter, an _Appellationsrat_,
and his lawyer tells him to engage him and one of his colleagues,
Schmerling, in conversation on the subject. Perhaps Winter himself
questioned the propriety of the proceeding, for in a Conversation Book
somebody, who had evidently acted as messenger in the delivery of
the letter, writes: “I gave it to Herr v. Winter; he kept me waiting
and then said that he could give no answer, nor involve himself in a
correspondence.” The letter in question was written on March 6. In it
Beethoven says that he had prepared a memorial which he would place in
his hands in a few days. From the outline given it is plain that the
memorial contained a review of the case since the death of Beethoven’s
brother. It had been prepared, said Beethoven, “believing that I
owed it to myself to expose the falsity of the many slanders which
have been uttered against me and to lay bare the intrigues of Madame
van Beethoven against me to the injury of her own child, as also to
place in its proper light the conduct of the Magistrates’ Court.” He
charges that the Magistrates had summoned the widow and her son to a
hearing without his knowledge and, as his nephew had told him, he had
been urged and led on by his mother to make false accusations against
him. He had also forwarded a document which proved the wavering and
partisan conduct of the Magistrates. He repeats the charge about his
nephew’s failure to advance in his studies and adds that the boy had
had a hemorrhage which, had he not been on hand, might almost have cost
him his life. These things were not attributable to Herr Tuscher for
the reason that the Magistrates had given him too little support and
he could not proceed with sufficient energy--this the writer could do
in his capacity of uncle, guardian and defrayer of expenses. He asks
that if it becomes necessary he and his nephew be examined, cites his
expenditures to keep the boy two years in an educational institution,
saying that he had received nothing from the widow in nearly fourteen
months but would continue to pay the cost unselfishly in the future,
and had set apart 4,000 florins which was on deposit in bank and was to
go to his nephew on his death. Moreover, he had expectations from his
relations with the Archbishop of Olmütz, etc.
The case was prepared shrewdly, carefully and most discreetly by Dr.
Bach, who seems to have exerted an admirable influence on Beethoven
at this crisis. The nature of his advice may be learned from the
communication of Bernard in one of the recorded conversations. Bernard
is writing, and evidently giving the result of a consultation with
Dr. Bach. The Court of Appeals would ask another report from the
Magistrates and on its receipt would adjudge the case. Nussböck,
who Dr. Bach said was willing, should voluntarily retire from the
guardianship. Beethoven was asked as to the appointment of Tuscher;
had he resigned permanently or only temporarily in favor of Tuscher,
the better to accomplish the nephew’s removal from his mother? In what
manner had Tuscher abdicated, and had the Magistracy informed Beethoven
of the fact? It was necessary, said the adviser, to proceed with
moderation in all things so as to avoid the appearance of malice, and
the mother should not be assailed if it was at all avoidable, stress
being laid only on the fact that as a woman she ought not to have the
direction of the education of a boy of Karl’s age, not having the
requisite fitness. It would also be necessary for him, in case he were
asked, to state his readiness to defray the cost of the boy’s education
in the future and this, if the worst came to the worst, might be
followed by a threat to withdraw wholly from his care. Reproaches might
be made against him concerning the period when he had the boy with him,
the priests having taken to meddling in the matter, and it would be
well in the future not to take the boy to public eating-houses where he
would be observed and scandal fomented.
[Sidenote: APPOINTMENT OF A JOINT GUARDIANSHIP]
Bach seems to have advised Beethoven to visit two of the judges, Winter
and Schmerling, and himself had an interview with the boy, who told his
uncle what the advocate had questioned him about. For the nonce Karl
was on his good behavior. Blöchlinger reported favorably on his studies
to Bernard, and in a Conversation Book the boy apologized to his
uncle for some statements derogatory to him which he had made to the
Magistrates. “She promised me so many things,” he said, “that I could
not resist her; I am sorry that I was so weak at the time and beg your
forgiveness; I will not again permit myself to be led astray. I did not
know what results might follow when I told the Magistrates what I did;
but if there is another examination I will retract all the falsehoods
I uttered.” The magisterial commission which followed on March 29, had
plainly been held at the instance of the Appellate Court. Beethoven
was solemnly admonished, and in answer to questions declared: (1) that
he still demanded the guardianship of his nephew under the will and
would not relinquish his claim; (2) that he requested the appointment
of Councillor Peters as associate guardian; (3) that he demanded that
Madame van Beethoven be excluded from the guardianship as she had been
by the _Landrecht_, and (4) he reiterated his readiness to provide
financially for the care of his ward; he would accept an associate
guardian, but not a sole guardian, as he was convinced that no guardian
would care for his nephew as well as he. In insisting on a renewed
declaration on these points it is likely that the Court of Appeals
had some hope that Beethoven might voluntarily renounce or modify
his claims or the Magistrates recede from their attitude. Neither
contingency occurred, however, and on April 8 the reviewing court
issued its decree in Beethoven’s favor, he and Peters being appointed
joint guardians (_gemeinschaftliche Vormünde_), the mother and Nussböck
being deposed. The widow now played her last card:--she appealed to
the Emperor, who upheld the Court of Appeals. There was nothing for
the Magistracy to do except to notify the result of the appeals to
Beethoven, Madame van Beethoven, Peters and Nussböck. This was done on
July 24.
Beethoven had won at last. But at what a cost to himself, his art,
the world! What time, what labor, what energy had he not taken away
from his artistic creations! What had he not expended in the way of
peace of mind, of friendship, of physical comfort, of wear of brain
and nerve-force, for the privilege of keeping the boy to himself,
of watching unmolested over his physical welfare and directing his
intellectual and moral training unhindered! Surely such sacrifices,
inspired, as we know they were, by a transcendent sense of duty and
profoundest love, merited the rich reward of which he had dreamed--the
devotion of one who ought to have been all that a son could be, the
happiness of seeing the object of his love grow into a brilliant man
and a useful citizen. Was it vouchsafed him? Let us not in the midst
of his present happiness look too far into the future. Now his joy is
unbounded. He breaks into a jubilation when, in conveying the news
to Pinterics--that Pinterics who had sung the bass in “Ta, ta, ta,”
in honor of Mälzel: “Dr. Bach was my representative in this affair
and this Brook (_Bach_) was joined by the sea, lightning, thunder, a
tempest, and the magisterial brigantine suffered complete shipwreck!”
Schindler says that “his happiness over the triumph which he had
won over wickedness and trickery, but also because of the supposed
salvation from physical danger of his talented nephew, was so great
that he worked but little or not at all all summer--though this was
perhaps more apparent than real, the sketchbooks disclosing from now on
only empty pages.” A wise qualification, for though the sketchbooks may
have been empty, there is evidence enough elsewhere of hard work. Yet
the Mass was not finished, and for this unfortunate circumstance the
guardianship trial was no doubt largely to blame. To this subject we
shall return presently.
Of Peters, who was appointed joint guardian with Beethoven of the
nephew, little is known beyond what we learn from Beethoven and
Peters’s contributions to the Conversation Books. He was a tutor in
the house of Prince Lobkowitz and had been on terms of friendship with
Beethoven since 1816; his appointment by the court is a confirmation
of Beethoven’s tribute to him as a man of intellectual parts and of
good moral character. His wife had a good voice and was a great admirer
of Beethoven, who presented her with a copy of the song cycle “An die
ferne Geliebte.” A letter, once in the possession of John Ella in
London, which may be of earlier date than 1821, to which year it is,
however, most naturally assigned in view of the allusion to the “state
burden” (the nephew), runs as follows:
How are you? Are you well or ill? How is your wife? Permit me to
sing something for you:
[Illustration: Canon (Lively)
Saint Peter was a rock! St.]
[Illustration: Canon (Drawn out and dragged)
Bernardus was a Saint? Ber-]
How are your young princes? Will you be at home this afternoon at 5
o’clock? Perhaps I’ll visit you together with my _state_ burden.
[Sidenote: BAD CONDUCT OF NEPHEW KARL]
Nephew Karl remained at Blöchlinger’s institute and continued to cause
worry and anxiety to his uncle. Reports concerning his conduct and
studies were variable from different persons and at different times.
Blöchlinger complained that he needed constant supervision: “Had we
not always been strict with him, he would not be where he is now.”
A cleric declares that he was at heart not a bad child but had been
harmed by bad examples. “Karl has little feeling and in spite of the
knowledge for which he is praised he has no reasoning powers,” writes
an unidentified person in the Conversation Book, surely not to the
satisfaction of the uncle who was always setting forth his nephew’s
exceptional talent. In June somebody else (this time it may have
been Oliva) feels constrained to write: “The boy lies every time he
opens his mouth.” The “terrible occurrence” which had almost crushed
Beethoven in December, 1818, repeats itself, fortunately without such
dire results to the too sympathetic uncle: In June, instead of coming
to an oral examination, Karl ran away to his mother. Madame Blöchlinger
had to take a coach and servant and bring him back to the school; and
to get him away from Madame van Beethoven, who was disposed to keep
him in concealment, had to promise to see to it that he should not
be punished for his naughtiness. Now Blöchlinger, who says that the
presence of Madame van Beethoven “poisons the air,” wants the woman
excluded from his house and asks for a power of attorney to call in
the help of the police every time that Karl shall go to his mother,
whom he calls a “notorious strumpet,” of whose presence in his house
he must needs be ashamed. All this was told to Beethoven by Bernard,
who had learned it from Blöchlinger. Beethoven went for advice to Bach,
who told his client that it was impracticable to get a judicial writ
against the mother enjoining her from meeting her son, and impossible
to prevent secret meetings and secret correspondence. The practical
solution of the problem was to have Blöchlinger refuse to admit the
woman to his institute and compel her to see Karl at his uncle’s home.
This would serve the purpose to some extent, as the mother did not like
to meet her brother-in-law.
The enthronization of Beethoven’s imperial pupil as Archbishop of
Olmütz took place on March 20. The Mass which was to have been the
composer’s tribute was still unfinished. The reader knows why, or at
least has been provided with an opportunity to form an opinion as to
the reason. It may have been for the purpose of offering an explanation
to the new dignitary of the church, that Beethoven sought an audience
as he states in a letter of April 3. The Archducal Archbishop had gone
to Olmütz and Beethoven wants to know his plans for the immediate
future. He had heard that H. I. H. was to return to Vienna in May,
but also that he intended to be absent for a year and a half. If so,
Beethoven deplores that he has made plans for himself which are unwise.
He begs H. I. H. not to give credence to the false reports concerning
himself (Beethoven) which might reach his ears: “If Y. I. H. calls me
one of your most treasured objects, I can honestly say that Y. I. H.
is to me one of the most treasured objects in the universe. Although
I am no courtier, I believe that Y. I. H. has learned to know me well
enough to know that no cold interest, but a sincere affection, has
always attached me to yourself and inspired me; and I might well say
that Blondel was found long ago, and if no Richard is to be found in
the world for me, God will be my Richard.” He has evidently concerned
himself about the music at the court in Olmütz: “It appears to me that
my idea to maintain a quartet will certainly be the best thing to do.
If there are already productions on a large scale in Olmütz, something
admirable might arise in Moravia through a quartet.” He advises
his pupil, in case it is his purpose to return in May, to keep his
compositions till then so as to play them first to him; but if his stay
is to be longer, he will receive the compositions with the greatest
pleasure and seek to guide H. I. H. “to the highest peaks of Parnassus.”
[Sidenote: A PUNNING CANON ON HOFMANN]
A reference to himself as one who was at court yet not a courtier had
been made by Beethoven in an earlier letter. This play on words seems
to have been much in his head about this time and it is small wonder
that when an opportunity offered for the employment of the pun in a
canon it should have been embraced; in fact, it looks as if possibly he
had strained for the occasion, unless it should appear from evidence
yet to be found that “One who was named Hoffmann,” in Beethoven’s
words, was, as was long believed, the redoubtable E. T. A. Hoffmann,
who had surely deserved the tribute contained in a canon which
Beethoven wrote at this time. In the Conversation Book used in March,
1820, a strange hand writes: “In the _Phantasie-Stücke_ by Hoffmann,
you are often spoken of. Hoffmann was musical director in Bamberg; he
is now Government Councillor. Operas of his composition are performed
in Berlin.” Beethoven remarks, in writing: “Hofmann du bist kein
_Hofmann_.” Later in a conversation held at table, these words occur
twice: “Hŏfmānn ÷ sei ja kein Hōfmănn--nein ÷ ÷ ÷ ich heisse Hŏfmānn
und bin kein Hōfmănn.” These words are preceded by a measure of music,
the beginning of the canon in question. Did Beethoven thus honor the
fantastic poet, musician, novelist, essayist, singer, scene-painter and
theatrical manager who had shown such keen critical appreciation of
his symphonies? It was long a pleasure to believe so and natural, too,
until Nottebohm came with his iconoclastic evidence to the contrary.
On March 23 Beethoven had written a letter to Hoffmann, expressing his
gratification at having won the good opinion of a man gifted with such
excellent attributes as Hoffmann possessed. Had he written the canon
at this time he would surely have enclosed it in this letter and then,
since it was preserved among Hoffmann’s papers, it would have been
found and given to the world with the letter. But Beethoven kept the
canon in his mind or had a copy of it, and printed it in 1825, when B.
Schott’s Sons in Mayence asked him for a contribution to their musical
journal “Cäcilia,” which had been founded a year before. Now comes
Nottebohm with his evidence in the case. A man named Gross was once
the owner of the autograph and his son told Nottebohm that it had been
written in the Matschaker Hof, a tavern at which Beethoven was dining
at the time, and referred to a church musician named Vincenz Hoffmann,
as the informant remembered the name. Nottebohm looked through the
official lists of musicians in Vienna in the first decades of the
century; he did not find a Vincenz, but did find a Joachim Hoffmann who
might have been an acquaintance of Beethoven’s; and so he set him down
as the recipient of the composer’s tribute.[29]
In the summer of 1820, Beethoven went to Mödling again, but he did not
take the lodgings in the Harfner house for the very sufficient reason
that the proprietor had served notice on him in 1819, that he could
not have it longer on account of the noisy disturbances which had
taken place there. He took a house instead in the Babenbergerstrasse
and paid twelve florins extra for the use of a balcony which commanded
a view which was essential to his happiness. He takes the baths and
receives a visit from his nephew, who probably stays with him during
his school vacation; at any rate, the boy does not return to Vienna
until October 5, on which day the Giannatasios, making an excursion
to Mödling, meet him with Karl driving to town. There is at this time
considerable talk in the Conversation Book of publishing a complete
edition of Beethoven’s works. Bernard, probably, tells him that Steiner
is already counting on it and Schindler, who is enthusiastic over the
project, gives it as his opinion that arrangements must be made with
a Vienna publisher so as to avoid voluminous correspondence. Somebody
remarks: “Eckstein will so arrange it that you will always get all
the profits and will also publish your future works as your property.
He thinks that every fourth or fifth piece should be a new one.” The
plan appealed strongly to Beethoven, but nothing came of it at the
time, though we shall hear of it later. It was the discussion of it,
probably, by his friends which brought out a letter from Beethoven to
Haslinger, “best of Adjutants,” asking him to decide a bet. Beethoven
had wagered 10 florins that it was not true that the Steiners had
been obliged to pay Artaria 2000 florins damages for having published
Mozart’s works, which were reprinted universally.
Towards the end of October, Beethoven returned to Vienna and took
lodgings at No. 244 Hauptstrasse in the Landstrasse, “the large house
of the Augustinians” beside the church. There he was visited by Dr.
W. Chr. Müller of Bremen, a philologist and musical amateur who had
long admired Beethoven and, with the help of his “Family Concerts,”
established in 1782, had created such a cult for Beethoven’s music as
existed in no city in Germany in the second decade of the nineteenth
century--according to Schindler. Müller’s daughter Elise played the
sonatas exceptionally well and was largely instrumental with her father
in creating this cult. Müller was making an Italian tour, visited
Vienna in October and November and published an account of his meetings
with Beethoven in the “Allg. Musik. Zeit.” in 1827. In this he tells
of Beethoven’s freedom of speech at public eating-houses, where he
would criticize the Austrian government, the morals of the aristocracy,
the police, etc., without stint. The police paid no attention to his
utterances, either because they looked upon him as a harmless fantastic
or had an overwhelming respect for his artistic genius. “Hence,” says
Dr. Müller, “his opinion that nowhere was speech freer than in Vienna;
but his ideal of a political constitution was the English one.” It was
through Dr. Müller that we know somewhat of Beethoven’s views on the
subject of analytical programmes. Among the zealous promoters of the
Beethoven cult in Bremen, was a young poet named Dr. Karl Iken, editor
of the “Bremer Zeitung,” who, inspired by the _Familien-Concerte_,
conceived the idea of helping the public to an understanding of
Beethoven’s music by writing programmatic expositions of the symphonies
for perusal before the concerts. Some of his lucubrations were sent
to Beethoven by Dr. Müller, and aroused the composer’s ire. Schindler
found four of these “programmes” among Beethoven’s papers, and he gave
the world a specimen. In the Seventh Symphony, Dr. Iken professed to
see a political revolution.
[Sidenote: “PROGRAMME” FOR THE SEVENTH SYMPHONY]
The sign of revolt is given; there is a rushing and running about
of the multitude; an innocent man, or party, is surrounded,
overpowered after a struggle and haled before a legal tribunal.
Innocency weeps; the judge pronounces a harsh sentence; sympathetic
voices mingle in laments and denunciations--they are those of
widows and orphans; in the second part of the first movement the
parties have become equal in numbers and the magistrates are now
scarcely able to quiet the wild tumult. The uprising is suppressed,
but the people are not quieted; hope smiles cheeringly and suddenly
the voice of the people pronounces the decision in harmonious
agreement.... But now, in the last movement, the classes and the
masses mix in a variegated picture of unrestrained revelry. The
quality still speak aloofly in the wind-instruments,--strange
bacchantic madness in related chords--pauses, now here, now
there--now on a sunny hill, anon on flowery meadow where in merry
May all the jubilating children of nature vie with each other with
joyful voices--float past the fancy.
It is scarcely to be wondered at that such balderdash disgusted and
even enraged Beethoven. In the fall of 1819, he dictated a letter
to Müller--it has, unfortunately been lost--in which he protested
energetically against such interpretations of his music. He pointed
out, says Schindler, who wrote the letter for him, the errors to
which such writings would inevitably give rise. If expositions
were necessary, they should be confined to characterization of the
composition in general terms, which could easily and correctly be done
by any educated musician.
Beethoven’s complaints concerning his financial condition were chronic
and did not cease even in periods where extraordinary receipts make
them difficult to understand. That the lamentations in his letters
during the two years which we have in review were well-founded,
however, is no doubt true. With so engrossing a work as the “Missa
solemnis” on hand there could not have been much time for such
potboilers as he mentions and the other sources of revenue were not
many. From the records which are at hand, we know something about a
few of his monetary transactions. On October 26, 1820, he collected
300 florins on account, apparently, from Artaria and Co., through his
old friend Oliva. Shortly after his return to Vienna from the country,
he asks the same firm, from which he had borrowed 750 florins,[30] for
a further loan of 150 to save himself the necessity of selling one
of his bank shares. These shares, it will be remembered in partial
extenuation or at least explanation of some of his actions which are
scarcely compatible with his protestations of his unswerving honesty
in business transactions, had been set apart by him as his nephew’s
legacy and he clung to them as to a sacred pledge. He promises to repay
Artaria in three months and meanwhile to send him a composition in one,
two or more movements, without honorarium. An incident which shows
him in an unamiable light is connected with his financial relations
with the publisher Steiner. On December 29, 1820, Steiner wrote him a
letter which did not see the public eye until published in the “Neue
Freie Presse” newspaper of Vienna on August 17, 1900. Steiner had sent
Beethoven a dun, or at least a statement of account, and Beethoven had,
evidently, been both rude and unreasonable in his reply. We quote from
Steiner:
[Sidenote: INDEBTEDNESS TO STEINER]
I cannot rest content with your remarks concerning the account
sent you; for the cash money loaned you I have charged you only 6%
interest, while for the money which you deposited with me I paid
you 8% promptly in advance and also repaid the capital promptly.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (_Was also
dem Einen recht ist, muss dem Andern billig sein_). I am not in a
position to lend money without interest. As a friend I came to your
help in need, I trusted your word of honor and believe that I have
not been importunate, nor have I plagued you in any way; wherefore
I must solemnly protest against your upbraidings. If you recall
that my loan to you was made in part 5 years ago, you will yourself
confess that I am not an urgent creditor. I would spare you even
now and wait patiently if I were not on my honor in need of cash
for my business. If I were less convinced that you are really in a
position to give me relief and able to keep your _word of honor_
I would, difficult as it would be for me, right gladly remain
patient a while longer; but when I remember that I myself returned
to you 4,000 florins, conventional coin, or 10,000 florins, Vienna
Standard, as capital 17 months ago and at your request did not
deduct the amount due me, it is doubly painful to me now to be
embarrassed because of my good will and my trust in your word of
honor. Every man knows best where the shoe pinches and I am in this
case; wherefore I conjure you again not to leave me in the lurch
and to find means to liquidate my account as soon as possible.
As for the rest I beg you to accept from me the compliments of the
season together with the request that you continue to give me your
favor and friendship. It will rejoice me if you keep your word
and honor me soon with a visit; it rejoices me more that you have
happily withstood your illness and are again restored to health.
God preserve you long in health, contentment and enjoyment, this is
the wish of your wholly devoted
S. A. Steiner.
The letter contains pencil memoranda by Beethoven. He has evidently
added together the various sums which he owes Steiner and they amount
to 2420 florins W. W. He remarks that 1300 florins was received
“probably” in 1816 or 1817; 750 florins “perhaps” in 1819; 300
florins “are debts which I assumed for Madame van Beethoven and
can be chargeable for only a few years; the 70 florins may have
been for myself in 1819. Payment may be made of 1200 florins a year
in semi-annual payments.” A further memorandum on the cover notes
Steiner’s willingness to accept payments on April 15 and October
15, 1821. The settlements seem to have been made. On April 1, 1821,
Beethoven collected 600 florins from the estate of Kinsky, being
one-half of the annuity for the year September 1820 to September 1821.
He also persuaded his friend Franz Brentano to advance him money on
the amount for which he sold the “Missa Solemnis” to Simrock in Bonn,
though he did not give him the Mass for publication in the end. But
this is a matter which can be better discussed in connection with the
incidents in the history of the compositions which fall within the
present period.
The beginning of the year 1821 found him still at his home in the
suburb Landstrasse, and, it would seem, working as hard as his health
permitted. When he went to the country for the summer he went to
Unterdöbling and thence, after September, to Baden to take a cure
prescribed by his physician, Dr. Staudenheimer. In Baden he lived
in the Rathshausgasse. He had suffered from rheumatism during the
preceding winter and now became a victim of jaundice, for which, no
doubt, he was sent to Baden, though he had gotten rid of the disease
to some extent at least by the end of August. The cure prescribed by
Staudenheimer was more severe than he could endure and, as he writes
to Franz Brentano on November 12, 1821, he had to “flee to Vienna,”
where he was more comfortable. The attack of jaundice may have been an
_arant-courier_ of the disease of the liver which brought him to the
grave six years later. He expresses a fear in a letter to the Archduke
(July 18, 1821) that it might prevent him for a long time from waiting
upon his pupil. There is the usual monetary complaint in the letter,
which concludes with: “God who knows my heart and how sacredly I
fulfill all the duties commanded by humanity, God and nature will some
day free me from this affliction.”
In 1820 the voice of an old English admirer reaches him with a request
which must have seemed strange to him. William Gardiner, as has been
told in the chapter in the first volume of this work devoted to the
compositions of the Bonn period, was one of the first proclaimers of
Beethoven’s evangel in England. He had now compiled and composed a sort
of _pasticcio_, an oratorio entitled “Judah,” piecing the work out
with original compositions where he had failed to find music written
by others which he could use. In his book “Music and Friends” (III,
377) he relates that he had hoped to get an original composition for
“Judah” in the shape of an appropriate overture, and to this end had
written a letter to Beethoven and forwarded it to Vienna through Baron
Neumann of the Austrian Embassy, who, on receiving it, had remarked
that it was doubtful if an answer would be received, as Beethoven held
no communication with the world. Gardiner’s letter was as follows:
To Louis van Beethoven.
Dear Sir:
At the house of Lady Bowater in Leicestershire in 1796, I met with
your Trio in E-flat (for Violin, Viola and Bass). Its originality
and beauty gave me inexpressible delight; indeed it was a new
sense to me. Ever since I have anxiously endeavoured to procure
your compositions as much so as the war could permit. Allow me
to present to you the first volume of my “Sacred Melodies” which
contain your divine Adagios appropriated to the British church. I
am now engaged upon a work entitled “The Oratorio of Judah” giving
a history of that peculiar people from the Jewish scriptures. The
object of this letter is to express a hope that I may induce you to
compose an Overture for this work upon which you can bring all the
force of your sublime imagination (if it please you) in the key of
D minor. For this service my friend Mr. Clementi will accept your
draft upon him for one hundred guineas.
I have the honour to be, dear Sir,
Your faithful servant
William Gardiner.
There is no date, but as “Judah” was criticized in “The Musical Review”
in 1821, it is presumable that the letter was written in 1820. Gardiner
deplores the fact that he received no reply from Beethoven, although
the Empress had thanked him for a copy of the “Sacred Melodies” which
he had sent to her. Evidently he did not realize that Beethoven was not
the man to feel complimented by having his “divine Adagios” turned into
hymn-tunes. An occurrence which may have cost Beethoven a pang was the
loss of his faithful helper Oliva, who took his passport in December,
1820, and went to St. Petersburg, where he settled as a teacher of
languages.
[Sidenote: A PORTRAIT PAINTED BY STIELER]
Another of the portraits of Beethoven which have been made familiar
by reproductions was painted in 1820, though begun in 1819. Joseph
Stieler, who enjoyed wide reputation as a portrait painter, had
come to Vienna from Munich to paint the portrait of Emperor Franz
in the latter year. He remained till some time in 1820 and made the
acquaintance of Beethoven through a letter of introduction probably
given to him by Brentano. Beethoven took a liking to him and gave
him some sittings--three, according to the testimony of the painter
himself, thus disproving Schindler’s statement that “sitting after
sitting was granted and never a complaint uttered.” On the contrary,
the Conversation Book presents the artist as pleading for a little
more time; and because Beethoven refused to sit longer, Stieler had to
exercise his imagination or memory in painting the hands. In fact, the
painting never received the finishing touches but remained, as those
who have seen it testify, “sketchy.” In March Stieler writes in the
Conversation Book: “Have you written to Frankfort that I have begun
your portrait?--You must determine the destination of the picture.
I say that I am painting it for myself.” In April Stieler asks the
question: “In what key is your mass? I want to write on the sheet:
(Mass in--)” Beethoven writes the answer: “_Missa solemnis in D_,” and
Stieler: “After it has been exhibited I shall send it to Brentano--I
thank you thousands and thousands of times for so much patience.”
Beethoven’s friends refer frequently to the picture in their written
conversations with Beethoven. One says: “That you have been painted _en
face_ is the result of more extended study of your physiognomy. This
view shows your spirit much better than a profile.” Schindler writes
that he prefers the portrait by Schimon: “There is more character
in it--all agree on that--You were very well two years ago; now you
are always ailing.” J. Czerny writes: “We were just talking about
your portrait. Oliva thinks you are well hit off.” The artist visits
Beethoven again at Mödling in July and writes: “Before the exhibition
I shall paint your portrait again, but full life-size. Your head makes
an excellent effect full face, and it was so appropriate because Haydn
was on one side and Mozart on the other.” Stieler dated the canvass
“1819,” but this can only refer to the time when it was begun. It
remained for a while in the possession of the family of the painter,
then passed through several hands by purchase until it reached those of
Countess Sauerma in Berlin, in whose possession it was when Frimmel
and Kalischer inspected it for purposes of description. Schindler says
it reproduces Beethoven’s characteristic expression faithfully and that
it met with approval, though fault was found with the pose. Beethoven’s
contemporaries were not used to see him with his head bowed down as
Stieler represents him; on the contrary, he carried his head high
even when suffering physical pain. A lithographic reproduction of the
portrait was made by Fr. Dürck and published by Artaria in 1826.
In April, 1860, the author[31] had a conversation with Horzalka in
which the latter spoke very highly of Schindler and his disinterested
fidelity to Beethoven. Horzalka also said that in 1820 or 1821, as near
as he could recollect, the wife of a Major Baumgarten took boy boarders
in a house then standing where the Musikverein’s hall now stands in
Vienna. Her sister, Baroness Born, lived with her. Frau Baumgarten had
a son who studied at Blöchlinger’s Institute, and Beethoven’s nephew
was amongst her boarders. One evening Horzalka called there and found
only the Baroness Born at home. Soon another caller came and stayed to
tea. It was Beethoven. Among other topics, Mozart came on the tapis and
the Baroness asked Beethoven, in writing of course, which of Mozart’s
operas he thought most of. “Die Zauberflöte,” said Beethoven and,
suddenly clasping his hands and throwing up his eyes exclaimed, “Oh,
Mozart!” As Horzalka had, as was the custom, always considered “Don
Giovanni” the greatest of Mozart’s operas, this opinion by Beethoven
made a very deep impression upon him. Beethoven invited the Baroness to
come to his lodgings and have a look at his Broadwood pianoforte.
[Sidenote: ARRESTED AS A VAGRANT]
In 1820 Professor Höfel, who lived at Salzburg in the last years of his
life and who engraved the Latronne portrait of Beethoven for Artaria,
was appointed to a professorship of drawing in Wiener Neustadt. A year
or two afterward, as he said,[32] he was one evening with Eisner and
other colleagues in the garden of the tavern “Zum Schleifen,” a little
way out of town. The Commissioner of Police was a member of the party.
It was autumn and already dark when a constable came and said to the
Commissioner: “Mr. Commissioner, we have arrested somebody who will
give us no peace. He keeps on yelling that he is Beethoven; but he’s
a ragamuffin, has no hat, an old coat, etc.--nothing by which he can
be identified.” (_Herr Commissär, wir haben Jemand arretirt, welcher
uns kein’ Ruh gibt. Er schreit immer dass er Beethoven sei. Er ist
aber ein Lump, hat kein’ Hut, alter Rock, etc., kein Aufweis wer er
ist, etc._) The Commissioner ordered that the man be kept under arrest
until morning, “then we will examine him and learn who he is.” Next
morning the company was very anxious to know how the affair turned
out, and the Commissioner said that about 11 o’clock at night he was
waked by a policeman with the information that the prisoner would
give them no peace and had demanded that Herzog, Musical Director in
Wiener Neustadt, be called to identify him. So the Commissioner got up,
dressed, went out and waked up Herzog, and in the middle of the night
went with him to the watchhouse. Herzog, as soon as he cast eyes on
the man exclaimed, “That _is_ Beethoven!” He took him home with him,
gave him his best room, etc. Next day came the burgomaster, making all
manner of apologies. As it proved, Beethoven had got up early in the
morning, and, slipping on a miserable old coat and, without a hat, had
gone out to walk a little. He got upon the towpath of the canal and
kept on and on; seems to have lost his direction, for, with nothing to
eat, he had continued on until he brought up at the canal-basin at the
Ungerthor. Here, not knowing where he was, he was seen looking in at
the windows of the houses, and as he looked so like a beggar the people
had called a constable who arrested him. Upon his arrest the composer
said, “I am Beethoven.” “Of course, why not?” (_Warum nicht gar?_)
said the policeman; “You’re a tramp: Beethoven doesn’t look so.” (_Ein
Lump sind Sie; so sieht der Beethoven nicht aus._) Herzog gave him
some decent clothes and the burgomaster sent him back to Baden, where
he was then living, in the magisterial state-coach. This simple story
is the foundation for the fine narrative related as a fact in Vienna
that Beethoven had got into this scrape following troops from Vienna
who had a sham battle near Wiener Neustadt, and taking notes for his
“Wellington’s Victory”--which whole story thus goes to the wall.
A letter written from Baden on September 10, 1821, to Tobias Haslinger
accompanying a canon[33] on the words “O Tobias _dominus_ Haslinger,
O, O!” deserves to be given here to show that Beethoven’s high spirits
could at times dominate him in spite of his general misery.
Very best fellow!
Yesterday, in the carriage on the way to Vienna, I was overcome by
sleep, naturally enough, since (because of my early rising here)
I had never slept well. While thus slumbering I dreamed that I
had made a long journey--to no less distant a country than Syria,
no less than India, back again, no less than Arabia, finally I
reached Jerusalem; the Holy City aroused in me thoughts of Holy
Writ and small wonder that the man Tobias now occurred to me, and
how natural that our little Tobias should enter my mind and the
_pertobiasser_, and now during my dream journey the following canon
came to me: “O Tobias _dominus_ Haslinger, O, O!” But scarcely
awakened, away went the canon and nothing of it would come back
to my memory. But when, next day, I was on my way hither in the
same conveyance (that of a poor Austrian musician) and continued
the dream journey of the day before, now awake, behold, according
to the laws of association of ideas, the same canon occurred to
me again; now fully awake I held it fast, as erst Menelaus held
Proteus, only allowing it to change itself into 3 voices.
Farewell. Presently I shall send you something on Steiner to show
you that he has no stony (_steinernes_) heart. Farewell, very best
of fellows, we ever wish that you will always belie your name of
publisher (_Verleger_) and never become embarrassed (_verlegen_)
but remain a publisher (_Verleger_) never at a loss (_verlegen_)
either in receiving or paying--Sing the epistles of St. Paul every
day, go to pater Werner,[34] who will show you the little book by
which you may go to heaven in a jiffy. You see my anxiety for your
soul’s salvation; and I remain with the greatest pleasure from
everlasting to everlasting,
Your most faithful debtor
Beethoven.
[Sidenote: NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE MASS IN D]
And now as to the creative work of the two years. Paramount attention
must be given to the Mass in D, which, though long in hand and destined
for a function in which Beethoven and his Imperial Archepiscopal pupil
were profoundly concerned, was yet incomplete when the time for that
function arrived. Archduke Rudolph was installed as Archbishop of
Olmütz on March 20, 1820. Exactly what condition the Mass was in at
that time we have no means of knowing; it was, however, in a sufficient
state of forwardness to enable Beethoven to begin negotiations for its
publication. On March 18 he wrote to Simrock:
As regards the mass, I have pondered the matter carefully and might
give it to you for the honorarium of 100 Louis d’ors which you
offered me, provided you agree to a few conditions which I shall
propose and which I think, will not be found burdensome by you. We
have gone through the plan for publication here and believe that
with a few modifications it can be put into effect very soon, which
is very necessary; wherefore I shall make haste to inform you of
the necessary changes soon.
This would seem to indicate that the work had been practically
completed, and that this view obtained amongst Beethoven’s friends we
know from the evidence of the Conversation Books. In the summer at
Mödling he was frequently asked if it was finished and when it would
be performed. Some hurried sketches belonging to the _Credo_ are found
amongst the remarks of his friends, and also sketches for the _Agnus
Dei_. Schindler asks him in August: “Is the _Benedictus_ written out in
score? Are those sketches for the _Agnus_?” Rudolph had communicated
to him his intention to spend a part of the summer in Mödling.
Beethoven writes to him on August 3 and September 2, making apologies
for apparent neglect in not waiting upon him (he had no carriage the
first time, was in ill-health the second), but says not a word about
the mass. Some of the remarks in the Conversation Book are vague as to
the composition referred to, but many are plain enough to show that
Beethoven had informed his friends and advisers of the negotiations
with Simrock. Surprise is expressed at Simrock’s delay. Beethoven is
advised to write to him and also to Brentano in Frankfort, who had
been authorized to collect the honorarium. In April somebody writes:
“Have you written to Simrock that he _must not_ publish the mass at
once, as you want first to send it or hand it to the Archduke?” Again:
“If you send the _Recepisse_ of the stage-coach he will certainly send
you the money _at once_.” And later: “It would be quicker to give the
music to the stage-coach and send Brentano the receipt--at the same
time informing Simrock that Brentano had been assured of its despatch;
then Brentano can send you the money at once without waiting to receive
the music.” In April again: “But he has not yet replied to your last
offer of the mass? I mean Simrock--200 ducats could help you out
greatly--Because of _your circumstances_. You must not delay writing to
Simrock or Brentano. Brentano can send you the money _at once_--or at
least very soon.” “I am surprised that Simrock has not answered yet.”
Meanwhile Simrock answers. “Leave Simrock’s letter with me,” says the
mentor, “I’ll answer it and give you the letter this afternoon--if you
are satisfied with it you will sign it and I will post it to-morrow.
There must be no delay.” “He says the mass can be used only by
Catholics, which is not true.” “He is paying too little rather than too
much with 200 ducats.”
It is obvious that some difficulty had arisen between Beethoven and
Simrock. What that difficulty was is explained in a letter from
Simrock to Brentano dated November 12, 1820. It was a misunderstanding
concerning the price of the “new grand musical mass” which the
composer wished to sell for 100 Louis d’ors. The publisher had agreed
to the price, understanding Louis d’ors to mean what the term meant
in Bonn, Leipsic and throughout Germany, namely, the equivalent of
Friedrichs d’ors, pistoles. In order to avoid unpleasantness after the
reception of the mass he had explained this clearly to Beethoven and in
a letter, dated September 23, had repeated that by Louis d’ors he meant
Friedrichs d’ors; he was not in a position to give more. He would hold
the sum in readiness against the receipt of the mass, which Beethoven
had promised to provide with German as well as Latin words. He was also
under the impression that he had asked a speedy decision, as he did
not want to keep his money tied up in Frankfort. Hearing nothing for
four weeks he had quit counting on the mass and made other use of his
money. Learning, however, from Brentano’s letter of November 8th that
Beethoven had agreed to let him have the mass, he now finds himself in
the embarrassment of not having the gold Louis d’ors on hand, but as
Brentano had said nothing on the subject he would in the meantime try
to secure the coin, unless Brentano were willing to take the equivalent
in florins at the rate of 9.36. He asked to be informed of the arrival
of the music so that he might instruct Heinrich Verhuven to receive it
on paying the sum mentioned.
Simrock waited four weeks before abandoning hope that Beethoven would
send the mass; it was ten weeks and more before Beethoven answered
Simrock’s letter. Then he sent his reply to Brentano enclosed in a
letter dated November 28. The letter has not been found, or at least
not made public; but the letter to Brentano[35] makes it plain that
Beethoven had acceded to Simrock’s offer and agreed to take pistoles
for Louis d’ors. He says:
Your kindness permits me to hope that you will not refuse to have
the enclosure sent to Simrock, inasmuch as in it my views are set
forth concerning the whole matter. Nothing remains now except to
take what he offers, namely the 100 pistoles and as much more as
you, an expert in the business, can get for me by the rate of
exchange. I am convinced of your kind disposition in this regard.
I am very hard-pressed just now, but such things are to be told
_last of all to a publisher_; it is, thank God, not my fault, but
my sacrifices for others, chiefly, too, for the weak Cardinal who
led me into this morass and does not know how to help himself. As
soon as the translation is finished I shall trouble you again by
sending you the mass, and I pray you give a little attention then
to securing what you can for me from the Jewish[36] publisher.
Thus matters stand with the Mass at the end of 1820, and thus they
seem to have remained throughout the next year. Simrock always was to
be but never was blest with the score. On July 18, 1821, Beethoven
promises to put the work into the Archduke’s hands “while here”--i. e.,
at Unterdöbling; he leaves the reasons for the delay to the imagination
of his patron: “the details might prove anything but pleasant to Y. I.
H.” In November he thinks again of Simrock and on the 12th writes to
Brentano:
The mass might have been sent before this, but had to be _carefully
looked through_, for the publishers in other countries do not get
along well with my manuscript, as I know from experience, and a
copy for the engraver must be examined note by note. Moreover,
I could not come because of illness, the more since despite
everything I have been compelled to make a considerable number
of potboilers (as unfortunately I must call them). I think I am
justified in making an attempt to get Simrock to reckon the Louis
d’ors at a higher rate, inasmuch as several applications have been
made from other quarters, concerning which I shall write you soon.
As for the rest, do not question my honesty; frequently I think of
nothing except that your kind advance may soon be repaid.
[Sidenote: LOAN ADVANCED ON THE MASS]
It seems a fair inference from the concluding remark, together with
the advice of his friend or friends in the Conversation Book of the
previous summer concerning a collection through Brentano as soon as the
mass had been handed over to the stage-coach, that Beethoven had got an
advance from Brentano on the money which was awaiting the arrival of
the work in Frankfort. The following letter to Brentano strengthens the
inference:
Vienna, December 20, 1821.
Noble man!
I am awaiting another letter respecting the mass, which I shall
send you to give you an insight into the whole affair. In any event
the entire honorarium will be paid to you whereupon you will please
deduct the amount of my indebtedness to you, my gratitude to you
will always be unbounded. I was so presumptuous as without asking
to dedicate a composition of mine to your daughter Maxe, please
accept the deed as a mark of my continual devotion to you and your
entire family--do not misinterpret the dedication as prompted by
interest or as a recompense--this would pain me greatly. There are
nobler motives to which such things may be ascribed if reasons must
be found. The new year is about to enter, may it fulfil all your
wishes and daily increase your happiness as the father of a family
in your children. I embrace you cordially and beg you to present
my compliments to your excellent, only and glorious Toni.
Yours, etc.
I have received from here and elsewhere offers of 200 ducats in
gold for the mass. I think I can get 100 florins W. W. more. On
this point I am waiting for a letter which I will send you at once,
the matter might then be presented to Simrock, who will certainly
not expect me to lose so much. Till then please be patient and do
not think that you have acted magnanimously towards an unworthy man.
[Sidenote: THREE SONATAS AT A BREATH]
Brentano informed Simrock of the situation; but the subject is now
carried over into the next year and must be left for the nonce, while
we take up the history of some other compositions. The last three
pianoforte sonatas, Op. 109, 110 and 111, belong to this period.
Also the Bagatelles Op. 119, Nos. 7 to 11 inclusive. Their story
is known. Friedrich Starcke, Chapelmaster of an Austrian regiment
of infantry, had undertaken the publication of a pianoforte method
which he called the “Wiener Pianoforteschule.” Part III of the work,
which appeared early in 1821, contained these five Bagatelles under
the title “Trifles” (_Kleinigkeiten_). Above them Starcke printed:
“A contribution from the great composer to the publisher.” They must
have been asked for in 1820. Somewhere about February of that year an
unidentified hand writes in the Conversation Book: “Starcke wants a
little music-piece by you for the second part of his _Klavierschule_,
for which he has contributions from the leading composers besides short
notices.... We must give him something. Notwithstanding his great
deserts in music and literature he is extremely modest, industrious
and humble.... He understands the art of compiling well. There are now
weaklings everywhere even among the strong.” To this appeal Beethoven
yielded. He wrote the five Bagatelles, sketches for which are found
amongst some for the Sonata in E major (Op. 109) and the _Benedictus_
of the mass. No. 6 is also sketched among studies for the _Credo_. No
doubt these little pieces were some of the “potboilers” (_Brodarbeit_)
referred to in the letter to Brentano; also some folksong arrangements;
and it may even be, that Beethoven included also the three great
sonatas. Schindler relates that when Beethoven heard that it was
bruited about that he had written himself out, his invention was
exhausted, and that he had taken up Scottish melodies like Haydn in
his old age, he seemed amused and said: “Wait a while, you’ll soon
learn differently.” Schindler then adds: “Late in the Fall (1820),
returned from his summer sojourn in Mödling, where like a bee he had
been engaged busily in gathering ideas, he sat himself down to his
table and wrote out the three sonatas Op. 109, 110, 111 ‘in a single
breath,’ as he expressed it in a letter to Count Brunswick in order to
quiet the apprehension of his friends touching his mental condition.”
Schindler was dubious about the “single breath” and, indeed, there was
a considerable lapse of time between the writing of the first of the
three sonatas and the last two. The Sonata in E belongs unquestionably
to the year 1820. The first theme is found in the Conversation Book of
April, and the work was sketched before he began the _Benedictus_ of
the mass and while he was at work on this movement, the _Credo_, the
_Agnus Dei_ and the Bagatelles for Starcke. Before the end of the year
Archduke Rudolph received the manuscript for his collection. It was
dedicated to Maximiliane Brentano,[37] and published in November, 1821,
by Schlesinger in Berlin.
Beethoven has himself left data concerning the other two sonatas. On
the autograph of that in A-flat major, Op. 110, he wrote the date
“December 25, 1821.” Sketches for it follow sketches for the _Agnus
Dei_ of the mass, which were begun in 1820.[38] It was published
by Schlesinger in Berlin and Paris in 1822. There is evidence in a
memorandum to Schindler found among the latter’s papers, and also in a
letter to Schlesinger of 1823, that Beethoven intended to dedicate both
of the last two sonatas to Madame Brentano. “Ries-nichts” (“nothing
to Ries”), says the memorandum, significantly. Ideas utilized in the
C minor Sonata, Op. 111, are found amongst those for Op. 110 and
particularly among some for the _Agnus Dei_. The autograph bears the
date January 13, 1822,[39] and it is plain that most of the work was
done in 1821. It was published by Schlesinger in April, 1823, after
Beethoven had offered it to Peters of Leipsic. Corrections for these
three sonatas occupied a great deal of time; the engraving of the
French edition of the C minor was so faulty that Beethoven demanded
proof copies three times; twice his call was granted, the third time
it was refused.[40] This Sonata, Op. 111, was dedicated to Archduke
Rudolph. Beethoven had left the matter to Schlesinger, but he afterward
made a suggestion as to his wishes, for in a letter to the Archduke
on June 1, 1823, he writes: “Y. I. H. seemed to find pleasure in
the Sonata in C minor, and therefore I feel that it would not be
presumptuous if I were to surprise you with its dedication.”
There are few other compositions of these two years to ask attention,
the Canons and five Bagatelles having been mentioned. There is a song,
“Abendlied unter dem gestirnten Himmel,” words by Heinrich Göbel, the
original manuscript of which bears date March 4, 1820, and which was
published as a supplement to the “Modenzeitung” on March 28, 1820,
with a dedication to Dr. Braunhofer.[41] The twenty-five Scotch Songs,
Op. 108, were published in 1821 by Schlesinger. The performances of
Beethoven’s works in Vienna in 1820 and 1821 are quickly summed up. The
Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde performed the “Eroica” on February 20,
the C minor on April 9 and the F major on November 19. The Overture
in C, Op. 115, was played at a concert for the benefit of Widows and
Orphans on April 16, 1820. In the _Concerts spirituels_, conducted
by F. X. Gebauer in the season 1820-21, the Symphonies in C minor,
A major, and F major, and the Oratorio “Christus am Ölberg,” were
performed. Leopoldine Blahetka, a young woman of 18 who was creating
something of a furore by her pianoforte playing at the time, played the
Concerto in B-flat on April 3, having studied it with J. Czerny.
FOOTNOTES:
[24] “Two things fill the soul with ever new and increasing wonder
and reverence the oftener the mind dwells upon them--the starry sky
above me and the moral law within me.”--Kant’s “Criticism of Practical
Reason.”
[25] The greeting was in the form of a four-part canon beginning with
a short homophonic chorus, the words: “Seiner Kaiserlichen Hoheit! Dem
Erzherzog Rudolph! Dem geistlichen Fürsten! Alles Gute, alles Schöne!”
The autograph is preserved by the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in
Vienna. B. and H. Ges. Aus. Series XXIII, page 187.
[26] The reader who desires to read the documents in full is referred
to the German edition of this biography for the decrees and minutes
of the courts and to the Kalischer-Shedlock collection of letters for
Beethoven’s pleadings.
[27] 11 Dr. Deiters remarks on this point: “No doubt Beethoven had
hoped to attain his ends by general statements and thus spare himself
the shame and humiliation which would have followed had he presented
the truth, even in disguise, touching the lewdness and shameless life
of his own sister-in-law; and her legal advisers and the members of the
Magisterial Court knew how to turn this fact to their own advantage.”
[28] Made to Thayer.
[29] Here, as in several other cases, in which opinions only and
not definitely ascertained facts are concerned, the present Editor
is inclined to attach as much importance to Thayer’s judgment as
to that of his critics and revisers. Thayer’s working copy of his
“Chronologisches Verzeichniss,” which contains annotations of a
much later date than Nottebohm’s publication in the “Thematisches
Verzeichniss” which he edited for Breitkopf and Härtel, pays no
attention to Nottebohm’s conclusion.
[30] See the letter in the Kalischer-Shedlock Coll. II, 178.
[31] Thayer.
[32] This anecdote is recorded in Thayer’s note-book as a memorandum of
a conversation had with Höfel on June 23, 1860.
[33] For the music the reader is referred to Series XXIII of the
Complete Edition of Beethoven’s works published by Breitkopf and Härtel.
[34] The dramatic poet Zacharias Werner, who had become a convert
to Roman Catholicism and, now an ordained priest, was preaching to
great crowds of Viennese. The puns on the German word _Verleger_ and
_verlegen_ are untranslatable.
[35] The letter is preserved in the Beethoven House at Bonn. It was
first published in the “Vossische Zeitung” by Dr. Kalischer on July 26,
1903. See Kalischer-Shedlock, II, 177.
[36] Dr. Kalischer refers the remark about the “Jewish publisher”
to Schlesinger in Berlin; but this may be a mistake. In a later
correspondence with Peters, who suggests the term, Schlesinger is thus
referred to; but there is nothing to indicate that when correspondence
between Schlesinger and Beethoven had scarcely begun, Brentano was
called on to come to the rescue. Beethoven may mean a fling at Simrock
for his action in the matter of the Louis d’ors.
[37] See the letter to Franz Brentano of December 20, 1821, and the
note to his daughter dated December 6, 1821. (Kalischer-Shedlock, II,
189.)
[38] See Nottebohm, “Zweit. Beeth.,” pp. 465 and 471.
[39] Beethoven wrote, as if absentmindedly, “Ludwig Ludwig am 13ten
Jenner 1822.”
[40] It is noteworthy, as shown by Nottebohm (“Zweit. Beeth.,” pp.
467, 468) that the first theme of the first movement of the C minor
Sonata was originally intended for a third movement in a “second
sonata” which (Op. 109 being finished) can only have been the one in C
minor. It would seem as if the use of the theme in the first movement
did not occur to the composer until after he had conceived the theme
of the variations. But the theme had figured twenty years before in a
sketchbook used when the Sonata in A major, Op. 30, was in hand. Its
key then was F-sharp minor, and it may have been intended for Op. 30.
[41] Published also, together with three other songs--“Geheimniss,”
“Resignation” and “So oder so”--by Sauer and Leidesdorf as Op. 113 in
1821 or 1822. Beethoven presented a copy of it to Fanny Giannatasio on
April 19, 1820.
Chapter III
The Year 1822--The _Missa Solemnis_--Beethoven and His
Publishers--Brother Johann--Meetings with Rochlitz and
Rossini--Overture: “The Consecration of the House”--A Revival
of “Fidelio”--Madame Schroeder-Devrient--The “Bagatelles”--A
Commission from America.
It is now desirable to disregard the strict chronological sequence of
incident and dispose, so far as is possible, of the history of the
great Mass in D prior to the adoption of a new plan by which Beethoven
hoped to make it a source of extraordinary revenue. So far as it
affects Beethoven’s character as a man not always scrupulous in his
observance of business obligations, the story does not need to extend
beyond the year 1822. Careful readers of this biography can easily
recall a number of lapses from high ideals of candor and justice in his
treatment of his friends and of a nice sense of honor and honesty in
his dealings with his publishers; but at no time have these blemishes
been so numerous or so patent as they are in his negotiations for the
publication of the _Missa Solemnis_--a circumstance which is thrown
into a particularly strong light by the frequency and vehemence of
his protestations of moral rectitude in the letters which have risen
like ghosts to accuse him, and by the strange paradox that the period
is one in which his artistic thoughts and imagination dwelt in the
highest regions to which they ever soared. He was never louder in his
protestations of business morality than when he was promising the
mass to four or more publishers practically at the same time, and
giving it to none of them; never more apparently frank than when he
was making ignoble use of a gentleman, whom he himself described as
one of the best friends on earth, as an intermediary between himself
and another friend to whom he was bound by business ties and childhood
associations which challenged confidence; never more obsequious (for
even this word must now be used in describing his attitude towards
Franz Brentano) than after he had secured a loan from that friend in
the nature of an advance on a contract which he never carried out;
never more apparently sincere than when he told one publisher (after
he had promised the mass to another) that he should be particularly
sorry if he were unable to give the mass into his hands; never more
forcefully and indignantly honest in appearance than when he informed
still another publisher that the second had importuned him for the
mass (“bombarded” was the word), but that he had never even deigned
to answer his letters. But even this is far from compassing the
indictment; the counts are not even complete when it is added that in
a letter he states that the publisher whom he had told it would have
been a source of sorrow not to favor had never even been contemplated
amongst those who might receive the mass; that he permitted the friend
to whom he first promised the score to tie up some of his capital for
a year and more so that “good Beethoven” should not have to wait a day
for his money; that after promising the mass to the third publisher he
sought to create the impression that it was not the _Missa Solemnis_
that had been bargained for, but one of two masses which he had in hand.
It is not only proper, but a duty, to give all possible weight to
the circumstances which can be, ought to be, must indeed be pleaded
in extenuation of his conduct; but the facts can not be obscured or
ignored without distorting the picture of the man Beethoven as this
biography has consistently striven from the beginning to present it.
For English and American readers, moreover, the shock of surprise will
be lessened by a recollection of Beethoven’s first transactions in
London, which more than five years before had called out the advice
of the English publishers to Neate for God’s sake not to buy anything
of Beethoven! As for the rest it is right to remember that at this
time many of the sources of Beethoven’s income had dried up. He was no
longer able to offer his publishers symphonies in pairs, or sonatas and
chamber compositions in groups. He produced laboriously and, in the
case of compositions which were dear to his heart, with infinite and
untiring care and insatiable desire for perfection. Engrossed in such
works, he gave no thought to pecuniary reward; but, rudely disturbed
by material demands, he sought the first means at hand to supply
the need. Hence his resurrection of works composed and laid aside
years before; his acceptance of commissions which he was never able
to perform; his promise of speedy delivery of works scarcely begun;
his acceptance of advances on contracts which he could not fulfil;
his strange confidence (this we feel we are justified in assuming)
in his ability to bring forth works of magnitude in time to keep his
obligations even when the works which he had in mind had already been
there for years; his ill-health which brought with it loss of creative
vitality, of fecundity in ideas and facility in execution in inverse
ratio to the growth of his artistic ideals; the obsession of his whole
being by his idolatrous love for his nephew and the mental distress and
monetary sacrifice which his self-assumed obligation entailed and which
compelled him to become the debtor of his publishers lest he encroach
upon the emoluments of the Vienna Congress which he had solemnly
consecrated to his foster-son. Let all these things be remembered when
the story of his shortcomings is told.[42]
And now let the story of the Mass be resumed from the point where it
was dropped in the preceding chapter; with it will be found statements
bearing on a few other more or less inconsequential compositions.
[Sidenote: REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT TOWARDS SIMROCK]
On May 13, 1822, Simrock reminds Beethoven that a year has passed
since he promised to deliver the score into his hands by the end of
April. Since October 25, 1820, he (Simrock) had kept 100 Louis d’ors
on deposit in Frankfort so that there would be no delay in the payment
of the remuneration. On March 19, Beethoven had written that he had
been sick abed for six weeks and was not yet entirely well. He had told
the publisher to rest easy in his mind, that being the sole purpose
of the letter. The publisher had gone to the autumn fair of 1821 and
to the Easter fair of 1822 and asked Brentano for the mass; but been
told that it had not been received. He begs for a few words on the
subject. It would seem as if Simrock had preserved his temper very
well. The letter brings another evidence of his unchanged good will, He
had resolved at an earlier period to publish the six symphonies which
were in his catalogue in a new edition, but had not done so because it
would not pay. Now, he said, he wanted to rear a monument to his worthy
old friend and had brought out the scores in a style which he hoped
the composer would deem worthy. What Beethoven said in reply to this
letter is not known, his answer not having been given to the world;
it can be surmised, however, from the recital given to Brentano in a
letter from Beethoven dated May 19. He had been troubled by “gout in
the chest” for four months, he says, and able to do but little work;
nevertheless the Mass would be in Frankfort by the end of the next
month, that is, by the end of June, 1822. There was another reason for
the delay. Cardinal Rudolph, strongly disposed in favor of his music at
all times, did not want the Mass published so early and had returned
to the composer the score and parts only three days before. Here we
have a very significant statement. What may be called the official copy
of the Mass in D was formally presented to Archduke Rudolph on March
19, 1823; here, ten months earlier, he speaks of a score and parts
which the Archduke had returned to him three days before. The Mass,
therefore, must have had what, for the time being (Beethoven never
considered it finished so long as it was in his hands), was looked upon
as a definitive shape at the time when Beethoven promised to send it to
Brentano for Simrock. The Archduke returned it, as Beethoven says, so
that the publication might not be hindered. How long it had been in the
hands of the Archduke no one can tell. Now, said Beethoven to Brentano,
the score will be copied again, carefully examined, which would take
some time owing to his ill health, but it would be in Frankfort at the
end of June “at the latest,” by which time Simrock must be ready to
make payment. He had received better offers from Vienna and elsewhere,
but had rejected all of them because he had given his word to Simrock
and would abide by the agreement even if he lost money, trusting to
make his losses good by other sales to Simrock who, moreover, might
be disposed to make a contract for the Complete Edition. Brentano
communicated with Simrock at once and received a letter from the
publisher on May 29 expressing regret that sickness had been partly
responsible for the delay. He had been expecting the Mass every day for
more than a year, during which time the money had lain with Heinrich
Verhuven because he did not want Beethoven to wait a single day for it.
Thus on May 19, Beethoven tells Brentano that he will keep the faith
with Simrock even at a sacrifice. On March 1, however, he had written
to Schlesinger in Berlin:
In regard to my health, things are better. As to the Mass I beg
of you to get everything, everything (_Alles, alles_, in Jahn’s
transcript) in readiness as other publishers have asked for it and
many approaches have been made to me, especially from here, but I
resolved long ago that it should not be published here, as the
matter is a very important one for me. For the present I ask of
you only that you signify to me whether you accept my last offer
of the Mass together with the two songs; as regards the payment of
the honorarium, it may wait for more than four weeks. I must insist
upon an early answer, chiefly because two other publishers who want
to have it in their catalogues have been waiting for a definite
answer from me for a considerable time. Farewell, and write to me
at once; it would grieve me very much if _I could not give you just
this particular work_.
[Sidenote: THE MASS SOLD TO SCHLESINGER]
Schlesinger, as we learn from a letter dated July 2, 1822, had received
letters from Beethoven under date of April 9, May 29 and June (he
mistakenly says May 1). He answers the three at once, excusing his
delay on the ground that he had attended the fair in Leipsic, where he
fell ill, and had remained under the weather for several weeks after
his return to Berlin. Meanwhile business had accumulated. He accepts
Beethoven’s terms for the mass and the two songs:
Everything is in order about the Mass; pray send it and the two
songs as soon as possible and draw on me at fourteen days’ sight
for 650 R. T. I will honor the draft at once and pay it. I have no
opportunity to make payment to you through Vienna. Although several
music dealers there are extensively in my debt I cannot count on
prompt payment from any of them. These gentlemen have two very ugly
traits: 1), they do not respect property rights and 2), it is with
difficulty that they are brought to pay their accounts. The book
dealers are much sounder.
By a coincidence Schlesinger’s son, who had established himself in
business in Paris, wrote to Beethoven on the same day and asked him
if a third movement of the Pianoforte Sonata in C minor (Op. 111),
which he was publishing, had not been forgotten at the copyists. He,
like his father a little later, evidently suspected that they had not
received as much music, measured in detached movements, as they had
paid for; they missed a rondo finale! The incident may have amused,
or (which is more likely) even angered Beethoven; but it can scarcely
account for the fact that Beethoven resolved about this time to have
nothing more to do with Schlesinger _père_. On July 26 he writes to
Peters of Leipsic, with whom he has now entered into negotiations and
to whom he has offered the Mass, “In no event will Schlesinger ever
get anything more from me; he has played me a Jewish trick, but aside
from that he is not among those who might have received the Mass.”
When Beethoven was conducting the negotiations with Schott and Sons in
Mayence which resulted in the firm’s getting the work, he recurred to
the Schlesingers in a letter of January 22, 1824, and said: “Neither
is Schlesinger to be trusted, for he takes where he can. Both _père
et fils_ bombarded me for the mass, but I did not deign to answer
either of them, since after thinking them over I had cast them out long
before.” Beethoven’s threats were frequently mere _brutum fulmen_; the
Schlesingers, _père et fils_, remained his friends to the end and got
two of the last Quartets.
Both Simrock and Schlesinger are now waiting for Beethoven to send
them the Mass and the fee is waiting for the composer at Frankfort.
Meanwhile negotiations have been taken up with a newcomer in the field,
who, however, is but trying to renew an association which had begun
more than 29 years earlier. Before entering upon this phase of the
history of the Mass it seems well to dispose finally of the Simrock
incident.[43] On August 22, 1822, Simrock wrote to Beethoven again.
Beethoven’s answer followed on September 13 and, as it contains more
than a mere implication why he refused to abide by his contract (a
point that has been a matter more or less of speculation from the time
when the negotiations ceased till now), it is given in full here:
[Sidenote: AN APPEAL TO SIMROCK’S GENEROSITY]
Baden, September 13, 1822.
My dear and valued Simrock:
You will receive this letter from Baden, where I am taking the
baths, as my illness which has lasted a year and a half is not yet
ended. Much as I should like to write to you about many things I
must yet be brief and only reply to your last of August 22nd. As
regards the Mass you know that at an earlier date I wrote you that
a larger honorarium had been offered me. I would not be so sordid
as to haggle with you for a hundred or few more florins; but my
poor health and many other unpleasant circumstances compel me to
insist upon it. The minimum that at least four publishers have
offered me for the mass is 1000 florins Convention Coin at the
rate of twenty, or counting the florin at 3 Austrian florins C. C.
Much as I shall regret if we must part just because of this work,
I know that your generosity (_Biederherzigkeit_) will not allow me
to lose money on this work, which is perhaps the greatest that I
have composed. You know that I am not boastful and that I do not
like to show the letters of others or even quote from them; if it
were not so I might submit proofs from far and near. But I very
much wish to have the matter about the Mass settled as soon as
possible, for I have had to endure plots of all sorts on account
of it. It would be agreeable if you would let me know as soon as
possible if you will pay me this honorarium. If you will, you need
only deposit the difference with Brentano, whereupon I will at once
send you a well corrected score of the Mass which will suffice
you for the engraving. I hope my dear Simrock, whom I consider the
richest of all these publishers, will not permit his old friend to
go elsewhere for the sake of a few hundred florins. Concerning all
other matters I will write you soon; I shall remain here till the
beginning of October. I shall receive all letters which you may
write, safely as I did your last, only I beg you to write soon.
Farewell, greet the family cordially for me; as soon as I can I
will write to them myself.
Cordially your old friend,
Beethoven.
This letter can scarcely be called ingenuous by the most zealous
of Beethoven’s defenders. Aside from the fact that he had closed
the contract, had received an advance on the sum deposited and told
Brentano that he would keep his promise even at a sacrifice to himself,
the 1000 florins which he now asks Simrock to pay was not the minimum
sum which other publishers had offered but the maximum sum which he had
asked and all of them had agreed to pay--which, indeed, B. Schott and
Sons did pay a year and a half later. Under the circumstances it is
scarcely to be wondered at if the appeal to Simrock’s generosity fell
on stony soil; but we do not know that it did. The letter was evidently
answered by Simrock, who, despairing of ever getting the Mass, may
have suggested that he would accept other works in lieu of it, for on
March 10, 1823, Beethoven writes again saying (as he had said to Peters
in November, 1822) that he should surely receive a mass, for he had
written two and was only undecided which one to send. He asked Simrock
to be patient till Easter, when he would send one of them to Brentano.
He intended also to write a mass for the Emperor. As to other works, he
offered the overture to “The Consecration of the House,” the music to
“The Ruins of Athens,” the overture to “King Stephen,” some songs and
“Kleinigkeiten” for the pianoforte. Only for the new overture did he
fix a price (50 ducats), but he added: “You will surely receive one of
these two grand masses which are already composed; only be patient till
after Easter, by which time I shall have decided which to send.” This
is the last letter between Beethoven and Simrock which has been found.
It leaves the composer promising _a_ mass instead of delivering _the_
Mass, and that promise unfulfilled;--of a necessity, for the work,
though described as “already composed,” was never written.
In 1814 C. F. Peters had purchased the Bureau de Musique founded in
1798 by Hoffmeister and Kühnel, publishers of a number of Beethoven’s
compositions, including the First Symphony, between 1800 and 1805. On
May 18, 1822, Peters addressed a letter to Beethoven in which he said
that he had long wished to publish some of his compositions but had
refrained from applying to him because he did not wish to offend the
Viennese publishers; seeing now, however, that he was going outside
with his compositions and giving them “even to the Jew Schlesinger,”
he would no longer give heed to such considerations. He had spoken to
Steiner on the subject at the last fair, who had offered no objections,
had, indeed, said that he would be glad if he (Peters) got the works
instead of Schlesinger, and had offered his services as mediary
between him and Beethoven, and asked for a list of compositions which
he wanted. Thereupon he had given Steiner such a list: symphonies,
pianoforte quartets and trios, pianoforte solos “among which there
might be small pieces,” songs, etc.--anything, in short, which
Beethoven should send him would be welcome, for he wanted honor, not
profit, from the association. Beethoven replied on June 5:
Although I met Steiner several days ago and asked him jocularly
what he had brought for me from Leipsic, he did not mention _your
commission_, even in a _syllable_, nor _you_, but earnestly pleaded
with me to assure him that _I would give him and him alone all my
present and future works_ and this _contract-wise_; I declined.
This trait suffices to show you why I often prefer foreign
publishers to local; I love straightforwardness and uprightness
and am of the opinion that the artist ought not to be belittled,
for alas! glittering as is the external aspect of fame, he is not
permitted to be Jupiter’s guest on Olympus every day; too often
and too repulsively the vulgar many drag him down from the pure
ethereal heights.
He now opened his budget of wares: the largest work was a Mass--many
had striven for it, “100 weighty Louis d’ors” had been offered for it,
but he had demanded at least 1,000 florins Convention Coin, for which
sum he would also prepare the pianoforte score; variations on a waltz
(“there are many”) for pianoforte--30 ducats in gold; a comic air with
orchestra on Goethe’s “Mit Mädeln sich vertragen,” and another air of
the same genre, 16 ducats each;[44] several rather extended songs with
pianoforte accompaniment, among them a little Italian cantata with
recitative,[45] 12 ducats each; there were also recitatives to some of
the German songs; 8 ducats each for songs; an elegy for four voices
and string quartet accompaniment,[46] 24 ducats; a chorus of Dervishes
with full orchestra, 20 ducats; a march for orchestra written for the
tragedy “Tarpeia,” with arrangement for pianoforte, 12 ducats; Romance
for violin solo and orchestra,[47] 15 ducats; Grand Trio for 2 oboi and
1 English horn,[48] which might be transcribed for other instruments,
30 ducats; four military marches with percussion (“Turkish music”)
prices on application; bagatelles, or trifles for pianoforte, prices on
application.
The copy of the letter as printed contains the words here: “All
these works are ready,” but they are wanting in the original draft.
Beethoven now goes on with a list of compositions which Peters “might
have soon”; a sonata for pianoforte solo,[49] 40 ducats; a string
quartet, 50 ducats. More than anything else, however, he was desirous
to have a complete edition of his works, as he wished to look after the
publication in his lifetime. He had received a number of applications,
but could not, or would not, meet all the conditions. With some
necessary help he thought such an edition of his works might be brought
out in two years, possibly in one-and-a-half; a new work was to be
added to each class, “to the Variations a new set of variations, to
the Sonatas a new sonata,” etc., “and for all these together I ask
10,000 florins Convention Coin.” He deplores the fact that he is no
business man; he wishes that matters were different than they are, but
he is forced to act as he does by competition, and begs that secrecy be
observed touching the negotiations, to guard against trouble with other
publishers.
He was not kept waiting for an answer;--Peters’ reply is dated June
15. He regrets to hear of Steiner’s duplicity, but his conduct may
have been harmless in intention and caused by his weakness. The works
which he wanted and of which he had given a list to Steiner were a
quartet for strings, a trio of the same kind, a concert overture
for full orchestra, songs and some small solos for pianoforte “such
as capriccios, divertissements,” etc. Then he takes up Beethoven’s
detailed offer of compositions:
[Sidenote: THE MASS SOLD TO PETERS]
The most admirable amongst them is your Grand Mass, which you offer
me together with the pianoforte score for one thousand florins
C. C. and to the acceptance of which at the price I confess my
readiness.... Between honest men (_offenen Männern_) like us there
is no need of a contract; but if you want one send it to me and
I will return it _signed_. If not, please state to me in writing
that I am to receive the Mass in question together with the
pianoforte score for 1000 florins in 20-florin pieces, and indicate
when I am to receive it and that it is to be my _sole property for
ever_. I want the first so that I may look upon this transaction
as _concluded_, and the time I want to know so that I can arrange
about the publication. If I were a rich man I would pay you very
differently for this Mass, for I opine that it is something right
excellent, especially because it was composed for an occasion;
but for me 1000 florins for a Mass is a large expenditure and the
entire transaction, on my word, is undertaken only in order to show
myself to you and the world as a publisher who does something for
art. I must ask another consideration, namely, that _nobody_ learn
how much I have paid for the Mass--at least not for some time; I am
not a man of large means, but must worry and drudge; nevertheless
I pay artists as well as I can and in general better than other
publishers.
For the present, Peters adds, he does not want to publish larger vocal
works by Beethoven nor the Mass singly but along with other works, to
show the Viennese publishers that there is a contract between him and
Beethoven which obliges the latter to send him compositions. To that
end he asks for some songs, a few bagatelles for pianoforte solo, the
four military marches; he would be glad to take also the new string
quartet, but 50 ducats is beyond his means. Beethoven is at liberty to
tell Steiner that he had applied to Beethoven with his knowledge and
consent. Beethoven’s answer (incorrectly dated July instead of June 26)
says:
[Sidenote: SALE OF THE MASS TO PETERS CONFIRMED]
I write you now only that I give you the Mass together with the
pianoforte score for the sum of 1000 florins, C. C. in 20-florin
pieces. You will in all likelihood receive the score in copy by
the end of July--perhaps a few days earlier or later. As I am
always busy and have been ailing for five months and works must
be carefully examined, if they go to a distance this always is
a slower matter with me. In no event will _Schlesinger_ ever
get anything more from me; he has played me a Jewish trick, but
aside from that he is not among those who might have received the
Mass. The competition for my works is very strong at present for
which I thank the Almighty, for I have also already lost much.
Moreover, I am the foster-father of the child of my brother, who
died destitute. As this boy at the age of 15 years shows so much
aptitude for the sciences, his studies and support cost much money
now and he must be provided for in the future, we being neither
Indians nor Iroquois who, as is notorious, leave everything in the
hands of God, and a pauper’s is a wretched lot. I keep silence
concerning everything between us _by preference_ and beg you to be
silent about the present connection with me. I will let you know
when it is time to speak, which is not at all necessary now....
I assure you on my honor, which I hold highest after God, that I
never asked Steiner to receive orders for me. It has always been my
chief principle never to appeal to a publisher, not out of pride
but because I have wanted to see how extended is the province which
my fame has reached.... As for the songs, I have already spoken.
I think that an honorarium of 40 ducats is not _too much_ for the
3 songs and 4 marches. You can write to me on the subject. As soon
as the Mass is ready I will let you know and ask you to remit the
honorarium to a house here and I will deliver the work as soon as
I have received it. I will take care to be present at the delivery
to the post and that the freight charge shall not be too great. I
should like soon to be made acquainted with your plan concerning
the complete edition which is so close to my heart.
Peters answers this letter on July 3. He is willing to pay 40 ducats
for the songs and marches and to remit part of the honorarium in
advance. Beethoven’s complaint about his financial affairs distresses
him and he would like to help him. “It is wrong that a man like you
is obliged to think about money matters. The great ones of the earth
should long ago have placed you in a position free from care, so that
you would no longer have to live on art but only for art.” Before this
letter was received Beethoven had written a second and supplementary
reply to the letter of June 13; it is dated July 6. He had reread
his letter and discovered that Peters wanted some of the bagatelles
and a quartet for strings. For the former, “among which are some of
_considerable length_--they might be published separately under the
title ‘Kleinigkeiten’ (Trifles) No. 1, 2, etc.”--he asked 8 ducats
each. The quartet was not fully completed, work on it having been
interrupted. Here it was difficult to lower the prices, as such works
were the most highly paid for--he might almost say, to the shame of
the general taste, which in art frequently falls below that of private
taste. “I have written you everything concerning the Mass, and that
is settled.” On July 12, Peters writes that he does not know how
long the bagatelles are and so can not tell whether they are to be
printed separately or together; but he asks that a number be sent to
him together with word as to how many of such small pieces Beethoven
has on hand, as he might take them all. As for songs he would prefer
to have some in the style of “Adelaide” or “Schloss Markenstein.”
The honorarium for the compositions which were to be sent now would
amount to 200 or 300 florins in pieces of 20, but as he could not
determine the exact amount he asked Beethoven to collect the amount
from Meiss (Meisl) Brothers, bankers, on exhibition of receipt and
bill of shipment. It was all the same to him whether he collected the
money now or later; it was waiting and at Beethoven’s disposal. In this
manner, so convenient for Beethoven, he would make all his payments for
manuscripts purchased. On August 3 Beethoven writes:
I have not made up my mind as to the selection of songs and
_Kleinigkeiten_, but everything will be delivered by August 13. I
await your advices in the matter and will make no use of your bill
of exchange. As soon as I know that the honorarium for the Mass and
the other works is here all these things can be delivered by the
15th.
Peters was prompt in his remittance of the money which was to be
subject to Beethoven’s order; Beethoven, though less prompt in getting
it, was yet ahead of his delivery of the manuscripts for which the
money was to pay. Singularly enough, the incident which provides for
us knowledge of the time when the money was received by Peters’s agent
served as evidence in Beethoven’s excuse for drawing the money without
keeping his part of the agreement. On July 25, about a fortnight after
the date of Peters’s letter of advice, Piringer, associate conductor of
the _Concerts spirituels_, who was on terms of intimacy with Beethoven,
wrote him as follows:
_Domine Generalissimo!_
_Victoria_ in Döbling--fresh troops are advancing! The wholesalers,
Meisl Bros, here in the Rauhensteingasse, their own house, 2nd
storey, have received advices from Hrn. Peters in Leipsic to pay
several hundred florins to Herrn Ludwig van Beethoven. I hasten on
Degen’s pinions[50] to convey this report to _Illustrissimo_ at
once. To-day is the first sad day in the Viennese calendar, because
yesterday was the last day of the Italian opera.
This letter Beethoven sent to Peters from Baden on September 13 in
evidence of his presumption that Piringer, who was a daily caller at
the Steiner establishment, had gossipped about the relations between
him and Peters. He was sorry that Peters had sent the money so early,
but fearing talk he had collected the money. He would send all the
little things soon. He had been pressed by the Cardinal, who had come
to Baden on the 15th and on whom he had to attend several times a week;
and work had been forced upon him by the opening of the Josephstadt
Theatre; also he wanted to write new trios to some of the marches and
revise other works, but illness and too much other employment had
prevented. “You see from this at least that I am not an author for the
sake of money.... You will recall that I begged you to keep everything
away from Steiner. Why? That I will reveal to you in time. I hope that
God will protect me against the wiles of this wicked man Steiner.” On
November 22, Beethoven writes again: he had been expecting reproaches
for his negligence but though he had delivered nothing he had received
the honorarium. It looked wrong (“offensive” is his word), but he was
sure that all would be set right could they but be together a few
minutes. All the music intended for Peters had been laid aside except
the songs, the selection of which had not yet been made; as a reward
for waiting, Peters should receive one more than the stipulated number.
He could deliver more than the four bagatelles agreed on, as he had
nine or ten extra ones on hand.
[Sidenote: “A MASS” NOT “THE MASS” FOR PETERS]
Now there enters a new element into the story of the Mass; let
Beethoven introduce it in his own words: “This is the state of affairs
with regard to the Mass: I completed one long ago, but another is
not yet finished. There will always be gossip about me, and you must
have been misled about it. I do not know which of the two you will
receive.” The gossip against which Beethoven warned Peters, it is safe
to assume, related to the compositions which the latter had purchased
but not received; in great likelihood rumors about the Mass had
reached Leipsic. Peters was in communication with Steiner and others;
and that he knew that the mass had been planned for the installation
of Archduke Rudolph as Archbishop of Olmütz he had indicated when he
expressed the belief that it was something “right excellent” because
it had been composed for an occasion. The mass which Beethoven had
agreed to deliver by the end of July could therefore have been none
other than the Mass in D. It is deserving of mention, however, that
there is evidence that Beethoven was thinking of more than one mass
at the time--in fact, that he had thoughts of three. In a sketchbook
of the period is found a memorandum: “The _Kyrie_ in the second mass
with wind-instruments and organ only”;[51] and in another place there
are six measures of a theme for a _Dona nobis_ with the superscription
“Mass in C-sharp minor.” To this _Dona_ there is still another
reference or two of a later date; but that is all. It is likely that
the second mass was intended for the Emperor, as we shall see later;
Beethoven himself says that he had thoughts of a third.
Peters is getting importunate, and on December 20 Beethoven writes to
him that nothing intended for him is entirely ready; there had been
delays in copying and sending, but he had no time to explain. The songs
and marches would be sent “next week” and there would be six bagatelles
instead of four, and he asks that payment be made for the extra two on
receipt. He had so many applications for his works that he could not
attend to them all: “Were it not that my income brings in nothing[52] I
should compose only grand symphonies, church music or at the outside
quartets in addition.” Of smaller works Peters might have variations
for two oboes and English horn on a theme from “Don Giovanni”--_Da
ci la mano_ wrote Beethoven, meaning _Là ci darem la mano_--and a
Gratulatory Minuet;[53] he would like Peters’ opinion about the
complete edition. In a letter with the double date February 15 and 18,
1823, Peters is informed that three songs,[54] six bagatelles, one
march and a tattoo had been sent on the preceding Saturday--the tattoo
in place of one of the promised marches:
You will pardon the delay I believe, if you could see into my heart
you would not accuse me of intentional wrongdoing. To-day I give
the lacking two tattoos and the fourth grand march to the post. I
thought it best to send three tattoos and a march instead of four
marches, although the former can be used as marches. Regimental
chapelmasters can best judge how to use such things and moreover
pianoforte arrangements of them might be made. My conduct as an
artist you may judge from the songs; one has an accompaniment for
two clarinets, one horn, violas and violoncellos and can be sung to
these instruments alone or with the pianoforte without them. The
second song is with accompaniment for two clarinets, two horns and
two bassoons, and can also be sung to them alone or with pianoforte
accompaniment alone. Both songs have choruses and the third is a
quite extended arietta with pianoforte alone. I hope you are now
reassured. I should be sorry if these delays were attributed to my
fault or desire. I shall soon write to you about the Mass, as the
decision which you are to have will presently be made.
“Some time” before March 10, 1823, Beethoven repaid the loan of 300
florins to Brentano, sending the money through Geimüller. In his letter
of thanks on that date he encloses a letter to Simrock, unsealed
evidently, and says to his friend, “You see from it the state of things
concerning the Mass.” What that state was as it presented itself to the
mind of Beethoven we have as yet no means of knowing; but we know that
Peters was still kept in a state of expectation, for on March 20, 1823,
Beethoven writes:
As regards the Mass I will also send you a document which I beg
you to sign, for in any event the time is approaching when you
will receive one or the other. Besides yourself there are two
other men who also desire each a mass. I am resolved to write
at least three--the first is entirely finished, the second _not
yet_, the third not even begun; but in view of them I must have an
understanding so that I may be secured in any case. You may have
the Mass whenever you pay 1000 C. C.
[Sidenote: THREE PURCHASERS FAIL TO GET THE MASS]
So far as Peters is concerned the matter must be dropped for a space;
he published none of the works sent to him, did not receive the Mass,
and, refusing to take a quartet in return for the 360 florins which
Beethoven collected in advance, placing the blame on him, got the money
back from Beethoven some time after November, 1825. Peters did not
get the Mass; nor did Simrock; nor did Schlesinger; nor did Probst,
another Leipsic publisher with whom Beethoven carried on negotiations
for it and the Ninth Symphony, as will appear later; nor did Artaria,
Beethoven’s old publisher who, in all likelihood, was one of the “two
other men” of whom Beethoven wrote in the letter last quoted. On August
23, 1822, Artaria received a letter which, as it seems to stand alone
so far as the Mass is concerned, may well be printed in full:
Being just now overwhelmed with work, I can only say briefly that I
have always returned your favors whenever possible. As regards the
Mass I have been offered 1000 florins, C. C. for it. The state of
my affairs do not permit me to take a smaller honorarium from you.
All that I can do is to _give you the preference_. Rest assured
that I do not _take a heller more from you than_ has been _offered
me by others_. I could prove this to you in writing. You may think
this over but I beg of you to send me an answer by _to-morrow noon_
as to-morrow is postday and my decision is expected in other places.
I will make a proposition to you concerning the 150 florins C. C.
which I owe you, but the sum must not be deducted now, as I am in
urgent need of the 1000 florins. In addition I beg of you to keep
everything secret about the Mass.
It must long ago have been observed by the studious reader of these
pages that a great deal of illuminative material in the life-story
of Beethoven is found in the correspondence between the composer and
his publishers; but these letters in the later years of his life, and
especially in the period with which we are now concerned, were but
sorry guides to the state of forwardness in which compositions found
themselves at any stated time. Frequently they offer for publication
works which, so far as they had been fixed on paper at all, existed
only in the form of detached sketches; also some which, so far as we
know, existed only in the plans or purposes of the composer of which
the letters themselves are the only surviving records. It seems also
to be a fair deduction from them that Beethoven’s attitude towards
his publishers with reference to them depended to a considerable
extent on his temporary financial condition, and sometimes they are
an index of that consecration to high artistic ideals of which he
remains an unapproached exemplar. The Mass in D is almost always
ready for delivery when he is in financial extremities; but when he
has helped himself with loans or the collection of advances, or
the sale of old manuscripts or potboilers, his insatiable desire to
revise, amend and improve his great work takes possession of him, and
the vast amount of rewriting and recopying thus entailed pushes its
ultimate completion into the future and precipitates another period
of distress. He borrowed money from Brentano on the strength of the
deposit which Simrock had made in Frankfort; collected the honorarium
which Peters had advanced on the purchase of long undelivered songs,
bagatelles and marches; postponed the evil day of liquidation with
Steiner; finally borrowed money from his brother Johann, and to secure
the debt practically hypothecated to him all the manuscripts which
lay finished and unfinished in his desk by placing their sale in his
hands, subject to his instructions and advice. This circumstance brings
Johann van Beethoven back significantly into this history and invites
an inquiry into his character and his conduct with reference to his
famous brother. That, contemptible as his character may have been,
he has yet been maligned and his conduct towards Beethoven falsified
by Schindler and the romance writers who have accepted Schindler’s
misrepresentations and embellished them with the products of their own
unscrupulous imaginations, is scarcely open to doubt.
Something of the earlier history of Johann van Beethoven has been
told in the chapters of this biography which deal with the incidents
of the years 1808 and 1812. The brother, whose association with a
woman obnoxious to him because of her frivolousness and moral laxity
Beethoven sought to prevent by police methods and thereby only
precipitated a marriage, had grown rich enough in the interim to buy
some farm property near Gneixendorf and to make his winter residence
in Vienna. There we find him in the spring of 1822 living in the house
of his brother-in-law, a baker named Obermayer, at the intersection of
Koth- and Pfarrgassen. Thenceforward for a number of years, because of
his relationship to his famous brother, his idiosyncrasies, habits and
public behavior (and to a smaller number, the conduct of his wife), he
became a conspicuous and rather comical figure in Vienna. Gerhard von
Breuning described him thus:[55]
His hair was blackish-brown; hat well brushed; clothing clean
but suggesting that of a man who wishes to be elegantly clad on
Sundays; somewhat old-fashioned and uncouth, an effect which was
caused by his bone-structure, which was angular and unlovely. His
waist was rather small; no sign of embonpoint; shoulders broad; if
my memory serves me rightly, his shoulders were a trifle uneven,
or it may have been his angular figure which made him look
unsymmetrical; his clothing generally consisted of a blue frockcoat
with brass buttons, white necktie, light trousers (I think corn
color), loose linen-thread gloves, the fingers too long so that
they folded at the ends or stuck out loosely. His hands were broad
and bony. He was not exactly tall of stature, but much taller than
Ludwig. His nose was large and rather long, the position of his
eyes, crooked, the effect being as if he squinted a little with one
eye. The mouth was crooked, one corner drawn upwards giving him
the expression of a mocking smile. In his garb he affected to be
a well-to-do elegant, but the role did not suit his angular, bony
figure. He did not in the least resemble his brother Ludwig.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF JOHANN VAN BEETHOVEN]
Breuning also says in his book “Aus dem Schwarzspanierhause,” that
he was sometimes seen driving in the Prater with two or four horses
in an old-fashioned phaeton, either handling the reins himself or
lolling carelessly in the seat with two gallooned servants on the box.
Beethoven’s friends used to ridicule his brother to his face. In a
Conversation Book of 1822-23 Count Moritz Lichnowsky writes: “Everybody
thinks him a fool; we call him only the Chevalier--all the world says
of him that his only merit is that he bears your name.” No doubt there
was something, even a good deal, of the parvenu in Johann’s character.
He had neither the intellectual nor moral poise to fit him for the
place which he thought he was entitled to fill by virtue of his wealth
and his relationship to one of the most famous men of his age. Nor
could he command respect from a social point of view. How far from
above reproach his wife was, Beethoven showed by his unjustifiable
conduct when he sought to have her ejected from Linz in order to
separate her from his brother. That conduct Ludwig’s letters, soon to
be quoted, show had been condoned by him, but a memorandum found among
Schindler’s papers discloses that her conduct in Vienna was such that
Beethoven again thought of invoking the police.[56]
[Sidenote: A DEFENSE OF THE OLDER BROTHER]
That Johann van Beethoven was fond of money is indicated in his remarks
in the Conversation Books, when his advice to his brother is always
dictated by financial considerations and, no doubt, by the thoughts of
profits in which he hoped to share. But what would you? For what other
purposes had Beethoven asked him in to his councils? Surely not to get
his views on the artistic value of his work. He defers in his letters
to his brother’s superior business sagacity--that is all. It does not
anywhere appear that Johann ever attempted to overreach him or lead
him to financial injury. No doubt Beethoven in his fits of anger said
many things about him which put him in a bad light before his friends;
but did he not do the same thing in their own cases? Did Schindler
escape calumny? The better evidence is that offered by the letters
which show that Beethoven had confidence in his brother’s honesty and
judgment, invited his help, and was solicitous lest he suffer loss
from his efforts. If Johann lacked appreciation of his brother’s real
significance in art, he was proud of the world’s appreciation of him,
and if he could not have high regard for that high moral attitude in
the matter which had brought condemnation on his sister-in-law and
wife, he at least showed magnanimity in not trying to do his brother
injury and being always ready to help him when he could. It is very
likely that he was not at all musical and that his affectation of
appreciation of his brother’s works made him a fair subject for
ridicule. But surely there was little moral obliquity in that. In a
conversation in 1824 the nephew relates that his uncle had been present
at a chamber concert. Beethoven wants to know what he was doing there,
and the nephew replies: “He wants to acquire taste; he is continually
crying _bravo_.” So also Holz relates, in 1826, that Johann had
certainly heard the Quartet in E-flat major ten times, yet when it was
played in that year he said he was hearing it for the first time.[57]
Beethoven needed Johann’s help; he had a good opinion of his business
ability, and it is possible that he had learned something of tolerance
from the trials and tribulations which his quarrels with his other
sister-in-law had brought him. It is certain that after a separation
of nine years from his brother he was not merely desirous but eager
for a perfect reconciliation and a closer union. Johann offers his
help, but it is Beethoven who expresses the wish that the two may
live together, it is Beethoven who asks his brother to come to him
and help him negotiate the sale of his compositions. Johann no doubt
conducted some negotiations without his brother’s knowledge, but not
without authority; and so far as the Mass is concerned it is put into
the brother’s hands only after Johann has lent Beethoven 200 florins
and the Mass has been promised not only to Peters but to Simrock before
him. No doubt Johann exceeded his authority; at least, something had
come to the ears of Count Moritz Lichnowsky, probably from Beethoven
himself, which made him say in the conversation already cited, “You
ought to forbid him doing business or carrying on correspondence
without your signature. Perhaps he has already closed a contract in
your name”; but would it not have been better for Beethoven’s present
reputation for business honesty--if we must distinguish between the
ethics of the counting-house and those of the rest of the world--if he
had closed and kept the contracts which he had made when he called his
brother to help him with his correspondence? Schindler accuses Johann
of having persuaded Beethoven to take unfit lodgings; but Beethoven
expressly exonerates him from blame. He reproaches Johann for not
having provided his brother with money to pay his debts or offering his
security for them; but Johann lent him 200 florins before he went to
Baden and probably did not see why he should burden his own business
enterprises in order to enable Beethoven to keep the bank shares intact
for the nephew. He was willing to be helpful, however, and repeatedly
offered his brother a house on his estate, and in 1824 tried to
persuade him to take one rent free; but Beethoven’s antipathy to his
sister-in-law would not let him accept.
Exactly when Beethoven went to Oberdöbling in the summer of 1822
is not known, but he was there in July, and an endorsement on the
Simrock letter of May 13 would seem to indicate that he was there in
that month. His lodgings were in No. 135 Alleegasse. In the spring or
early summer he writes to Johann begging him, instead of driving in
the Prater, to come to him with his wife and step-daughter. His whole
desire is for the good which would inevitably follow a union. He had
made inquiries about lodgings and found that it would not be necessary
to pay much more than at Oberdöbling, and that, without sacrifice of
any pleasure, much money might be saved for both. He says:
I have nothing against your wife; I only wish that she might
realize how much you might benefit from being with me and that all
the miserable trifles of this life ought to cause no disturbances.
Peace, peace be with us. God grant that the most natural tie
between brothers be not unnaturally broken. At the best my life
may not be of long duration. I say again that I have nothing
against your wife, although her behavior towards me has struck me
as strange several times of late; besides, I have been ailing for
three and a half months and extremely sensitive and irritable. But
away with everything which does not _promote the object_, which is,
that I and my good Karl lead a regular life which is so necessary
to me.
[Sidenote: BEETHOVEN ASKS JOHANN’S HELP]
Here there is no mention of business matters and hence it may be
assumed that the letter dates from an early period in the reunion of
the brothers. But business considerations prompt a letter of July 26 in
which he tells Johann that his physician had ordered him to go to Baden
to take thirty baths and that he would make the journey on August 6 or
7. Meanwhile he would like to have his brother come to him and give him
his help and then accompany him to Baden and remain there a week. He
was engaged, he said, upon corrections of the Mass for which Peters was
to give him 1000 florins. Peters had also agreed to take some smaller
works and had sent 300 florins, but he had not yet accepted the money.
Breitkopf and Härtel had also sent the Saxon _Chargé d’Affaires_ to him
to talk about new works and inquiries had come from Paris and Diabelli
in Vienna. Publishers were now struggling for his works: “What an
_unfortunate fortunate_ am I!!!--this Berliner has also turned up--if
my health would return I might yet _feather my nest_ (_auf einen grünen
Zweig kommen_).”
The Archduke-Cardinal is here. I go to him twice a week. Though
there is nothing to be expected from him in the way of magnanimity
or money, I am on such a good and confidential footing with him
that it would be extremely painful not to show him some agreeable
attention; moreover, I do not think that his apparent niggardliness
is his fault.
In the same letter he says he might have had the 1000 florins from
Peters in advance but did not want to take them. He did not want to
“expose” himself, and he therefore asked his brother for a loan,
so that his trip to Baden might not be delayed. There was no risk
involved, as he would return the 200 florins in September with thanks.
“As a merchant you are a good counsellor,” are some of his words. The
Steiners are also crowding him into a corner and trying to force him
into a written agreement to let them have all his compositions
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/43593