Beethoven Again--The Young Organist--A First Visit
to Vienna--Death of Beethoven’s Mother--Sympathetic
Acquaintances--Dr. Wegeler’s “Notizen”--Some Questions of
Chronology.
Schindler records--and on such points his testimony is good--that he
had heard Beethoven attribute the marvellous development of Mozart’s
genius in great measure to the “consistent instruction of his father,”
thus implying his sense of the disadvantages under which he himself
labored from the want of regular and systematic musical training
through the period of his childhood and youth.[32] It is, however, by
no means certain that had Ludwig van Beethoven been the son of Leopold
Mozart, he would ever have acquired that facility of expression which
enabled Wolfgang Mozart to fill up the richest and most varied scores
almost as rapidly as his pen could move, and so as hardly to need
correction--as if the development of musical idea was to him a work of
mere routine, or perhaps, better to say, of instinct. _Poeta nascitur,
non fit_, not only in respect to his thoughts but to his power of
clothing them in language. Many a man of profoundest ideas can never
by any amount of study and practice acquire the art of conveying them
in a lucid and elegant manner. On the other hand there are those whose
thoughts never rise above the ordinary level, but whose essays are
very models of style. Handel said of the elder Telemann, that he could
compose in eight parts as easily as he (Handel) could write a letter;
and Handel’s own facility in composition was something astonishing.
Beethoven, on the contrary, as his original scores prove, earned his
bread by the sweat of his brow. But no amount of native genius can
compensate for the want of thorough training. If, therefore, it be true
that nature had in some degree limited his powers of expressing his
musical as well as his intellectual ideas, so much greater was the need
that, at the age which he had now reached, he should have opportunity
to prosecute uninterruptedly a more profound and systematic course of
study. Hence, the death of Maximilian Friedrich, which must have seemed
to the Beethovens at first a sad calamity, proved in the end a blessing
in disguise; for while it did not deprive the boy of the pecuniary
benefits of the position to which he had just been appointed, it gave
him two or three years of comparative leisure, uninterrupted save by
his share of the organist’s duties, for his studies, which there is
every reason to suppose he continued under the guidance of his firm
friend Neefe.
These three years were a period of theatrical inactivity in Bonn.
For the carnival season of 1785, the Elector engaged Böhm and his
company, then playing alternately at Cologne, Aix-la-Chapelle and
Düsseldorf. This troupe during its short season may have furnished
the young organist with valuable matter for reflection, for in the
list of newly studied pieces, from October 1783 to the same month
1785--thus including the engagement in Bonn--are Gluck’s “Alceste”
and “Orpheus,” four operas of Salieri (the “Armida” among them),
Sarti’s “Fra due Litiganti” and “L’Incognito” in German translation,
Holzbauer’s “Günther von Schwarzburg” and five of Paisiello’s operas.
These were, says the report in the “Theater-Kalender” (1786), “in
addition to the old and familiar French operettas, ‘Zémire et Azor,’
‘Sylvain,’ ‘Lucile,’ ‘Der Prächtige,’ ‘Der Hausfreund,’ etc., etc.”
The three serious Vienna operas, “Alceste,” “Orpheus” and “Armida,”
in such broad contrast to the general character of the stock pieces
of the Rhenish companies, point directly to Maximilian and the Bonn
season. The elector of Hesse-Cassel, being then in funds by the sale
of his subjects to George III for the American Revolutionary War just
closed, supported a large French theatrical company, complete in the
three branches of spoken and musical drama and ballet. Max Franz, upon
his return from Vienna in November, 1785, spent a few days in Cassel,
and, upon the death of the Elector and the dismissal of the actors, a
part of this company was engaged to play in Bonn during January and
February, 1786. The performances were thrice a week, Monday, Wednesday
and Saturday, and, with but two or three exceptions, consisted of a
comedy, followed by a light opera or operetta. The list contains eight
of Grétry’s compositions, three by Desaides, two by Philidor, and one
each by Sacchini, Champein, Pergolesi, Gossec, Frizieri, Monsigny and
Schwarzendorf (called Martini)--all of light and pleasing character,
and enjoying then a wide popularity not only in France but throughout
the Continent.
Meantime Grossmann had left Frankfort and with Klos, previously a
manager in Hamburg, had formed a new company for the Cologne, Bonn and
Düsseldorf stages. This troupe gave the Carnival performances in 1787,
confining them, so far as appears, to the old round of familiar pieces.
Each of these companies had its own music director. With Böhm was
Mayer, composer of the “Irrlicht” and several ballets; with the French
company Jean Baptiste Rochefort was “music-master”; and Grossmann
had recently engaged Burgmüller, of the Bellomo company, composer of
incidental music for “Macbeth.” Hence, during these years, Neefe’s
public duties extended no farther than his service as organist, for
Lucchesi and Reicha relieved him from all the responsibilities of the
church and concert-room.
That the organ service was at this time in part performed by the
assistant organist is a matter of course; there is also an anecdote,
related by Wegeler on the authority of Franz Ries, which proves it. On
Tuesday, Friday and Saturday of Holy Week, portions of the Lamentations
of Jeremiah were included in the chapel service, recited by a single
voice, accompanied on the pianoforte (the organ being interdicted) to
the familiar Gregorian chant tune.
THE BOY ORGANIST CONFOUNDS A SINGER
On one occasion, in the week ending March 27, 1785, the vocalist was
Ferdinand Heller, too good a musician to be easily disconcerted, the
accompanist Ludwig van Beethoven, now in his fifteenth year. While the
singer delivered the long passages of the Latin text to the reciting
note the accompanist might indulge his fancy, restricted only by the
solemnity fitted to the service. Wegeler relates that Beethoven
asked the singer, who sat with unusual firmness in the tonal
saddle, if he would permit him to throw him out, and utilized
the somewhat too readily granted permission to introduce so wide
an excursion in the accompaniment while persistently striking
the reciting note with his little finger, that the singer got so
bewildered that he could not find the closing cadence. Father
Ries, the first violinist, then Music Director of the Electoral
Chapel, still living, tells with details how Chapelmaster
Lucchesi, who was present, was astonished by Beethoven’s playing.
In his first access of rage Heller entered a complaint against
Beethoven with the Elector, who commanded a simpler accompaniment,
although the spirited and occasionally waggish young prince was
amused at the occurrence. Schindler adds that Beethoven in his
last years remembered the circumstance, and said that the Elector
had “reprimanded him very graciously and forbidden such clever
tricks in the future.”
The date is easily determined: In Holy Week, 1784, neither Maximilian
nor Lucchesi was in Bonn; in 1786 Beethoven’s skill would no longer
have astonished the chapelmaster. Of the other characteristic anecdotes
related of Beethoven’s youth there is not one which belongs to this
period (May, 1784-April, 1787), although some have been attributed to
it by previous writers.
Nothing is to be added to the record already made except that, on
the authority of Stephan von Breuning, the youth was once a pupil of
Franz Ries on the violin, which must have been at this time; that,
according to Wegeler, his composition of the song “Wenn Jemand eine
Reise thut”[33] fell in this period, and that he wrote three pianoforte
quartets, the original manuscript of which bore the following title:
“Trois Quatuors pour Clavecin, violino, viola e basso. 1785. Composé
par (de L.) Louis van Beethoven, âgé 13 ans.”[34] The reader will
remark and understand the discrepancy here between the date and the
author’s age. Were these quartets intended for publication and for
dedication to Max Franz, as the sonatas had been for Max Friedrich?
During their author’s life they never saw the light, but their
principal themes, even an entire movement, became parts of future
works. They were published in 1832 by Artaria and appear as Nos. 75 and
77, Series 10, in the Complete Works.
One family event is recorded in the parish register of St.
Remigius--the baptism of Maria Margaretha Josepha, daughter of Johann
van Beethoven, on May 5, 1786.
There is a letter from Bonn, dated April 8, 1787, in “Cramer’s
Magazine” (II, 1385), which contains a passing allusion to Beethoven.
It affords another glimpse of the musical life there:
Our residence city is becoming more and more attractive for
music-lovers through the gracious patronage of our beloved
Elector. He has a large collection of the most beautiful music
and is expending much every day to augment it. It is to him,
too, that we owe the privilege of hearing often virtuosi on
various instruments. Good singers come seldom. The love of music
is increasing greatly among the inhabitants. The pianoforte is
especially liked; there are here several _Hammerclaviere_ by Stein
of Augsburg, and other correspondingly good instruments.... The
youthful Baron v. Gudenau plays the pianoforte right bravely, and
besides young Beethoven, the children of the chapelmaster deserve
to be mentioned because of their admirable and precociously
developed talent. All of the sons of Herr v. Mastiaux play the
clavier well, as you already know from earlier letters of mine.
“This young genius deserves support to enable him to travel,” wrote
Neefe in 1783. In the springtime of 1787 the young “genius” was at
length enabled to travel. Whence or how he obtained the means to
defray the expenses of his journey, whether aided by the Elector or
some other Mæcenas, or dependent upon the small savings from his
salary and--hardly possible--from the savings from his music lessons
painfully and carefully hoarded for the purpose, does not appear. The
series of papers at Düsseldorf is at this point broken; so that not
even the petition for leave of absence has been discovered. The few
indications bearing on this point are that he had no farther aid from
the Elector than the continued payment of his salary. What is certain
is that the youth, now sixteen, but passing for a year or two younger,
visited Vienna, where he received a few lessons from Mozart (Ries, in
“Notizen,” page 86); that his stay was short, and that on his way home
he was forced to borrow some money in Augsburg.
When he made the journey is equally doubtful. Schindler was told by
some old acquaintances of Beethoven “that on the visit two persons only
were deeply impressed upon the lifelong memory of the youth of sixteen
years: the Emperor Joseph and Mozart.” If the young artist really had
an interview with the Emperor it must have occurred before the 11th
of April, or after the 30th of June, for those were the days which
began and ended Joseph’s absence from Vienna upon his famous tour to
the Crimea with the Russian Empress Catharine; if before that absence,
then Beethoven was at least three months in the Austrian capital and
had left Bonn before the date of Neefe’s letter to “Cramer’s Magazine”;
in which case how could the writer in speaking of his young colleague
have omitted all mention of the fact? How, too, could so important a
circumstance have been unknown to or forgotten by Dr. Wegeler and have
found no place in his “Notizen,” which moreover, were prepared under
the eyes of both Franz Ries and Madame von Breuning? It will soon be
seen that Beethoven was again in Bonn before July 17--a date which
admits the bare possibility of the reported meeting with Joseph after
his return from Russia.
If an opinion, which, indeed, is little more than a conjecture, may
be hazarded in relation with this visit, it is this: that if at any
time the missing archives of Maximilian’s court should come to light
it will be found that not until after the busy week for organists
and chapelmusicians ending with Easter was leave of absence granted
to Beethoven; and that, too, with no farther pecuniary aid from the
Elector than possibly a quarter or two of his salary in advance. In
1787, Easter Monday fell upon the 9th of April, the day after the date
of Neefe’s letter. Making due allowance of time for the necessary
preparations for so important a journey, as in those days it was from
Bonn to Vienna, it may be reasonably conjectured that some time in May
the youth reached the latter city.
Let another conjecture find place here: it is that Johann van Beethoven
had not yet abandoned the hope of deriving pecuniary profit from the
precocity of his son’s genius; that he still expected the boy, after
replacing his hard organ-style of playing by one more suited to the
character of the pianoforte, to make his dream of a wonder-child in
some degree a reality. Hence--at what fearful cost to the father in his
poverty we know not--Ludwig is sent to the most admirable pianist, the
best teacher then living, Mozart.
BEETHOVEN’S INTRODUCTION TO MOZART
But enough of conjecture. The oft-repeated anecdote of Beethoven’s
introduction to Mozart is stripped by Prof. Jahn of Seyfried’s
superlatives and related in these terms:
Beethoven, who as a youth of great promise came to Vienna in
1786 (?)[35], but was obliged to return to Bonn after a brief
sojourn, was taken to Mozart and at that musician’s request played
something for him which he, taking it for granted that it was a
show-piece prepared for the occasion, praised in a rather cool
manner. Beethoven observing this, begged Mozart to give him a
theme for improvization. He always played admirably when excited
and now he was inspired, too, by the presence of the master whom
he reverenced greatly; he played in such a style that Mozart,
whose attention and interest grew more and more, finally went
silently to some friends who were sitting in an adjoining room,
and said, vivaciously, “Keep your eyes on him; some day he will
give the world something to talk about.”
Ries (“Notizen,” p. 86) merely says: “During his visit to Vienna he
received some instruction from Mozart, but the latter, as Beethoven
lamented, never played for him.” Contrary to the conjecture above
mentioned as to Johann van Beethoven’s object in sending his son to
Vienna, it seems, from the connection in which Ries introduces this
remark, that the instruction given by Mozart to the youth was confined
to composition. The lessons given were few--a fact which accounts for
the circumstance that no member of Mozart’s family in after years,
when Beethoven had become world-renowned, has spoken of them.
If it be considered that poor Mozart lost his beloved father on May 28,
1787, and that his mind was then fully occupied with his new operatic
subject, “Don Giovanni,” it will not be thought strange that he did
not exhibit his powers as a pianist to a youth just beginning with
him a course of study in composition, especially as the pupil, in his
eyes, was a little, undersized boy of 14--as there is every reason to
believe. That pupil’s power of handling a theme, since Mozart probably
knew nothing of his five years’ practice at the organ and in the
theatre, may well have surprised him; but in execution as a pianist he
probably stood far, far below the master when at the same age, below
the little Hummel (at that very time an inmate of Mozart’s family),
and certainly below Cesarius Scheidl (forgotten name!) aged ten, who
had played a pianoforte concerto between the parts of an oratorio no
longer ago than the preceding 22nd of December in the grand concert of
the “Society of Musicians.” Had not Beethoven’s visit been so abruptly,
unexpectedly and sorrowfully brought to an end, he would, doubtless,
have had nothing to regret on the score of his master’s playing.
In some written talks to Beethoven in the years of his deafness, still
preserved, are found two allusions at least made by his nephew to this
personal acquaintance with Mozart. In the first case the words are
these: “You knew Mozart; where did you see him?” In the other, two or
three years later: “Was Mozart a good pianoforte player? It was then
still in its infancy.” Of course Beethoven’s replies are wanting; and
herewith is exhausted all that, during the researches for this work,
has been found relating to his first visit in Vienna. The Vienna
newspapers of the time contained notices of the “wonder-children”
Hummel and Scheidl, but none whatever of Beethoven.
ACQUAINTANCES IN AUGSBURG
That the youth in passing through Augsburg must have become acquainted
with the pianoforte-maker Stein and his family is self-evident. There
is something in a conversation-book which seems to prove this, and
also to add evidence to the falsification of his age. It is this: in
the spring of 1824 Andreas Streicher and his wife--the same Stein’s
“Mädl”--whose appearance at the pianoforte when a child of eight
and a half years is so piquantly described by Mozart, called upon
Beethoven on their way from Vienna into the country. A few sentences
of the conversation, written in the hand of the composer’s nephew,
are preserved. The topic for a time is the packing of movables and
Beethoven’s removal into country lodgings for the summer; and at
length they come upon the instruments manufactured by Streicher; after
which Carl writes: “Frau von Streicher says that she is delighted that
at 14 years of age you saw the instruments made by her father and
now see those of her son.” True, it may be said that this refers to
Beethoven’s knowledge of the Stein “Hammerclaviere” then in Bonn; but
to any one thoroughly conversant with the subject these words are, like
Iago’s “trifles light as air,” confirmation strong of the other view.
His introduction to the family of the advocate Dr. Schaden in Augsburg,
is certain. Reichardt was in that city in 1790 and wrote of Frau
Nanette von Schaden as being of all the women he knew, those of Paris
not excepted, far and away the greatest pianoforte player, not excelled
perhaps, by any virtuoso in skill and certainty; also a singer with
much expression and excellent declamation--“in every respect an amiable
and interesting woman.” The earliest discovered letter of Beethoven
to Schaden, and dated Bonn, September 15, 1787, proves the friendship
of the Schadens for him and fully explains the causes of his sudden
departure from Vienna and the abrupt termination of his studies with
Mozart.
I can easily imagine what you must think of me, and I can not deny
that you have good grounds for an unfavorable opinion. I shall
not, however, attempt to justify myself, until I have explained
to you the reasons why I hope my apologies will be accepted. I
must tell you that from the time I left Augsburg my cheerfulness
as well as my health began to decline; the nearer I came to my
native city the more frequent were the letters from my father
urging me to travel with all possible speed, as my mother was
not in a favorable state of health. I therefore hurried forward
as fast as I could, although myself far from well. My longing
once more to see my dying mother overcame every obstacle and
assisted me in surmounting the greatest difficulties. I found my
mother still alive but in the most deplorable state; her disease
was consumption, and about seven weeks ago, after much pain and
suffering, she died. She was such a kind, loving mother to me,
and my best friend. Ah, who was happier than I when I could still
utter the sweet name, mother, and it was heard? And to whom can
I now speak it? Only to the silent image resembling her evoked
by the power of the imagination. I have passed very few pleasant
hours since my arrival here, having during the whole time been
suffering from asthma, which may, I fear, eventually develop into
consumption; to this is added melancholy--almost as great an evil
as my malady itself. Imagine yourself in my place, and then I
shall hope to receive your forgiveness for my long silence. You
showed me extreme kindness and friendship by lending me three
Carolins in Augsburg, but I must entreat your indulgence for a
time. My journey cost me a great deal, and I have not the smallest
hopes of earning anything here. Fate is not propitious to me in
Bonn.
Pardon my detaining you so long with my chatter; it was necessary
for my justification.
I do entreat you not to deprive me of your valuable friendship;
nothing do I wish so much as in some degree to become worthy of
your regard.
I am, with the highest respect
Your most obedient servant and friend,
L. v. Beethoven,
Court Organist to the Elector of Cologne.[36]
DEATH OF BEETHOVEN’S MOTHER
The Bonn “Intelligenzblatt” supplies a pendant to this sad
letter:--“1787, July 17. Died, Maria Magdalena Koverich (_sic_), named
van Beethoven, aged 49 years.”[37] When Ferdinand Ries, some thirteen
years later, presented his father’s letter of introduction to Beethoven
in Vienna, the latter “read the letter through” and said: “I cannot
answer your father just now; but do you write to him that I have not
forgotten how my mother died. He will be satisfied with that.” “Later,”
adds Ries, “I learned that, the family being greatly in need, my father
had been helpful to him on this occasion in every way.”
A petition of Johann van Beethoven, offered before the death of his
wife, describing his pitiable condition and asking aid from the
Elector, has not been discovered; but the substance of it is found in a
volume of “Geheime Staats-Protocolle” for 1787 in form following:
July 24, 1787
Your Elec. Highness has taken possession of this petition.
Court Musician makes obedient representation that he has got into
a very unfortunate state because of the long-continued sickness of
his wife and has already been compelled to sell a portion of his
effects and pawn others and that he no longer knows what to do for
his sick wife and many children. He prays for the benefaction of
an advance of 100 rthlr. on his salary.
No record is found in the Düsseldorf archives of any grant of aid
to the distressed family; hence, so far as now appears, the only
successful appeal for assistance was made to Franz Ries, then a young
man of 32 years, who generously aided in “every way” his unfortunate
colleague. Where then was the Breuning family? Where Graf Waldstein?
To these questions the reply is that Beethoven was still unknown to
them--a reply which involves the utter rejection of the chronology
adopted by Dr. Wegeler, in his “Notizen,” of that part of the
composer’s life. This mistake, if indeed it prove to be such, is one
which has been adopted without hesitation by all who have written upon
the subject. The reader here, for the first time, finds Wegeler’s
account of Beethoven’s higher intellectual development and his
introduction into a more refined social circle placed after, instead of
before, the visit to Vienna; and his introduction to the Breunings and
Waldstein dated at the time when the youth was developing into the man,
and not at a point upon the confines of childhood and youth.
This demands some explanation.
DR. WEGELER’S CHRONOLOGY CORRECTED
The history of Beethoven’s Bonn life would be so sadly imperfect
without the “Notizen” of Dr. Wegeler, which bear in every line such
an impress of perfect candor and honesty, that they can be read only
with feelings of gratefullest remembrance of their author and with
fullest confidence in their authenticity. But no more in his case than
in others can the reminiscences of an aged man be taken as conclusive
evidence in regard to facts and occurrences of years long since past,
when opposed to contemporary records, or involving confusion of dates.
Some slight lapse of memory, misapprehension, or unlucky adoption of
another’s mistake, may lead astray and be the abundant source of error.
Still, it is only with great diffidence and extreme caution that one
can undertake to correct an original authority so trustworthy as Dr.
Wegeler. Such corrections must be made, however; for only by this can
many a difficulty be removed. An error in the Doctor’s chronology might
easily be occasioned by the long accepted false date of Beethoven’s
birth, insensibly influencing his recollections; and certainly when Dr.
Wegeler, Madame von Breuning and Franz Ries, all alike venerable in
years as in character, sit together discussing in 1837-8 occurrences
of 1785-8, with nothing to aid their memories or control their
reminiscences but an old Court Calendar or two, they may well to
some extent have confounded times and seasons in the vague and misty
distance of so many years; the more easily because the error is one
of but two or three years at most. Bearing upon the point in question
is the fact that Frau Karth--who distinctly remembers the death of
Madame van Beethoven--has no recollections of the young Breunings and
Waldstein until after that event.
Some words of Dr. Wegeler in an unprinted letter to Beethoven (1825):
“inasmuch as the house of my mother-in-law was more your domicile than
your own, especially after you lost your noble mother,” seem to favor
the usually accepted chronology: but if Beethoven was thus almost a
member of the Breuning family as early as 1785 or 1786, how can the
tone of the letter to Dr. Schaden be explained? Or how account for the
fact, that, when he reached Bonn again and found his mother dying,
and his father “in a very unfortunate state” and “compelled to sell
a portion of his effects and pawn others and knew not what to do,”
it was to Franz Ries he turned for aid? The good Doctor is certainly
mistaken as to the time when Beethoven found Mæcenases in the Elector
and Waldstein; why not equally so in relation to the Breuning family?
If, now, his own account of his intimacy with the young musician--given
in the preface to the “Notizen”--be examined, it will be found to
strengthen what has just been said: “Born in Bonn in 1765, I became
acquainted in 1782 with the twelve years old lad, who, however, was
already known as an author, and lived in most intimate association
with him uninterruptedly until September, 1787” (and still he could
forget that friend’s absence in Vienna only a few months before),
“when, to finish my medical studies, I visited the Vienna schools
and institutions. After my return in October, 1789, we continued to
live together in an equally cordial association until Beethoven’s
later departure for Vienna towards the close of 1792, whither I also
emigrated in October, 1794.”
For more than two years, then, and just at this period, Dr. Wegeler was
not in Bonn. Let still another circumstance be noted: Nothing has been
discovered, either in the “Notizen” or elsewhere, which necessarily
implies that Wegeler himself intimately knew the Breunings until after
his return from Vienna in 1789; moreover, in those days, when the
distinctions of rank were so strongly marked, it is, to say the least,
exceedingly improbable, that the son of an immigrant Alsatian shoemaker
should have obtained entrée upon the supposed terms of intimacy in a
household in which the oldest child was some six years younger than
himself, and which belonged to the highest social, if not titled rank,
until he by the force of his talents, culture, and high character, had
risen to its level. That, after so rising, the obscurity of his birth
was forgotten and the only daughter became his wife, is alike honorable
to both parties. It is unnecessary to pursue the point farther; the
reader, having his attention drawn to it, will observe for himself the
many less prominent, but strongly corroborating circumstances of the
narrative, which confirm the chronology adopted in it. At all events
it must stand until new and decisive facts against it be found.[38]
A YEAR OF SADNESS AND GLOOM
“My journey cost me a great deal, and I have not the smallest hope
of earning anything here. Fate is not propitious to me in Bonn.” In
poverty, ill, melancholy, despondent, motherless, ashamed of and
depressed by his father’s ever increasing moral infirmity, the boy,
prematurely old from the circumstances in which he had been placed
since his eleventh year, had yet to bear another “sling and arrow of
outrageous fortune.” The little sister, now a year and a half old--but
here is the notice from the “Intelligenzblatt”:--“Died, November 25,
Margareth, daughter of the Court Musician Johann van Beethoven, aged
one year.” And so faded the last hope that the passionate tenderness
of Beethoven’s nature might find scope in the purest of all relations
between the sexes--that of brother and sister.
Thus, in sadness and gloom, Beethoven’s seventeenth year ended.
FOOTNOTES:
[32] Czerny also related that Beethoven had spoken to him of the harsh
treatment and insufficient instruction received from his father. “But,”
he added, “I had talent for music.” From a note by Otto Jahn. Also see
Cock’s “Musical Miscellany.”
[33] “Urian’s Reise um die Welt.” Op. 52, No. 1, published in 1805.
[34] The manuscript formerly owned by Artaria is now (1907) in the
possession of Dr. E. Prieger in Bonn. The figure indicating the
composer’s age was first written “14” and then changed.
[35] In the first edition of Jahn’s “Mozart” the date is given as
here. In later editions it was corrected in accordance with Thayer’s
suggestion to 1787.
[36] Lady Wallace’s translation, amended. The letter is preserved in
the Beethoven-Haus Museum in Bonn.
[37] The age of Beethoven’s mother at the time of her death is here
incorrectly given. It should be 40.
[38] Thayer’s correction of Dr. Wegeler’s account of Beethoven’s first
acquaintance with the family von Breuning was sharply criticized by a
grandson of Wegeler in an article published in the _Coblenzer Zeitung_
of May 20, 1890. Thayer preserved Karl Wegeler’s article in the library
copy of his biography, and had he lived to revise his work he would
undoubtedly either have corrected his assertions or confirmed them.
According to Dr. Wegeler (this is the younger Wegeler’s argument,
in brief), Beethoven had been introduced to the von Breuning family
at least as early as 1785, and in that circle had already met Count
Waldstein, who had aided him in securing his first salary as Court
Organist. The “Notizen” do not fix the dates, though they imply that
the occurrences took place before 1785. As to the statement of the
Widow Karth, Wegeler urges that the testimony of a child five years old
could have no weight as against that of persons of mature age, and that
an acquaintance might well exist without intercourse in the Beethoven
dwelling. The letter to Dr. Schaden, the product of a melancholy mood,
does not preclude the possibility that Beethoven had received help
from another source, especially since great care had to be exercised
in extending succor to him lest his sensibilities be hurt. Certain
it is that Wegeler, who did not go to Vienna till 1787, had been a
faithful friend and helper in the period of Beethoven’s destitution,
as was proved by a thitherto unpublished letter of Beethoven to
Wegeler, in which the former expressly stated that the latter had known
him, Beethoven, almost since childhood. If the von Breuning family
were really not on hand at the time of Beethoven’s trouble, the fact
might be explained by their annual sojourn in the country, which was
generally of considerable duration. Thayer’s assumption that Wegeler
himself did not get intimately acquainted with the von Breunings until
after his return from Vienna (in 1789) is at variance with the family
recollections, which presented him as a young student (therefore before
1787) and with him Beethoven at the time when they became visitors at
the house. Weakness of memory on the part of a man so intellectually
fresh and vigorous as Dr. Wegeler was in 1838 (he died ten years
later) was not to be assumed; least of all can Dr. Wegeler have erred
concerning the beginning of his acquaintance with the family from
which he got his wife. Finally, the intimate terms of friendship which
existed between Beethoven and Eleonore von Breuning could be fully
explained only on the theory of a childhood acquaintance.
In the first edition of Thayer’s biography (1866) Dr. Deiters printed
the text bearing on this question as it is given above without note or
comment. In the revised edition of Volume I (1901), he reproduced the
original text in the body of the page but appended a footnote in which,
while asserting that an authority like Thayer ought not to be opposed
except “with great diffidence and extreme caution” (to use Thayer’s
words referring to Dr. Wegeler), he nevertheless upheld the contention
of Dr. Wegeler’s grandson. He says: “The definite assertion of Wegeler
that he made the acquaintance of Beethoven as early as 1782, which
is supported by Beethoven’s own words, ‘you knew me almost since my
childhood,’ is not to be shaken. As little can it be questioned that
Wegeler had been introduced in the Breuning house as a student before
his departure for Vienna (according to Gerhard von Breuning before his
acquaintance with Beethoven began); here Dr. Wegeler could not have
made an error. Concerning his bringing Beethoven to the house he gives
no date; the year 1785 is not mentioned in the “Notizen.” On page 45,
however, it is stated that Stephan von Breuning “lived in closest
affiliation with him (Beethoven) from his tenth year till his death.”
Stephan was born August 17, 1774 (_Vide_ “Aus dem Schwarzspanierhause,”
page 6); this would indicate the year 1784. Wegeler’s remark,
“especially after you lost your noble mother,” makes it clear as day
that a close friendship existed before the death of Beethoven’s mother.”