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.