The Years 1820 and 1821--End of the Guardianship Litigation--A
Costly Victory--E. T. A. Hoffmann--Financial Troubles--Adagios and
English Hymn-tunes--Arrested as a Vagrant--Negotiations for the
Mass in D--The Last Pianoforte Sonatas.
[Sidenote: DEPARTURE OF OLD FRIENDS]
Almost involuntarily, in passing in review the incidents of the year
whose story has just been told and projecting a glance into the
near future, the question arises: Where, in these moments of doubt,
ill-health, trial, vexation of spirit and torment of body were the
old friends of Beethoven who in the earlier years had stood by him
faithfully and lovingly? Where was Stephan von Breuning? Alas! he
seems to have been an early sacrifice to Beethoven’s obstinate course
in respect of his nephew. Schindler says that he had advised against
the adoption of the boy and thus wounded Beethoven in his most
sensitive part. The temporary estrangement began in 1817. Some others
of the old friends may have been rebuffed in like manner; some, like
the faithful seneschal, Zmeskall, were ill; some were absent from
Vienna--Count Brunswick, Schuppanzigh; some were dead; in some the
flames of friendship may have died down because there was so little
in Beethoven’s public life to challenge their sympathy and support.
Count Lichnowsky has dropped out of the narrative and does not appear
for some years. What had happened to the ardent friend of the youthful
days, Count Waldstein? There is no answer. Once a Conversation Book
awakens curiosity and a hope. Somebody warns Beethoven in a public
place not to speak so loud, as everybody is listening. “Count Waldstein
is sitting near; where does he live?” Beethoven’s answer is unrecorded
and thus passes the only opportunity which the known material offers
from which might have been learned what caused the death of that
beautiful friendship. Bernard, Schindler, Oliva, Peters and Bach were
near to him, and the last was of incalculable value to him in his
great trial. But could they replace those who were gone?
Beethoven was become a lonely man--an enforced seeker of solitude. No
doubt many who would have been glad to give him their friendship were
deterred by the wide-spread reports of his suspicious, unapproachable,
almost repellant nature. But a miracle happens. Driven in upon
himself by the forces which seem to have been arrayed against
him, introspection opens wider and wider to him the doors of that
imagination which in its creative function, as Ruskin tells us, is “an
eminent beholder of things when and where they are not; a seer that is,
in the prophetic sense, calling the things that are not as though they
were; and for ever delighting to dwell on that which is not tangibly
present.” Now he proclaims a new evangel, illustrates a higher union of
beauty and truthfulness of expression, exalts art till it enters the
realm of religion.
In the _Tagebuch_ there stands a bold inscription written in February
of the year 1820: “The moral law in us, and the starry sky above
us--Kant.”[24] This and two other citations, the first of which
Beethoven surely culled from some book, also deserve to be set down
here as mottoes applicable to the creative work which occupied his mind
during the year and thereafter:
’Tis said that art is long and life is fleeting:--
Nay; life is long and brief the span of art!
If e’er her breath vouchsafes with gods a meeting,
A moment’s favor ’tis of which we’ve had a part.
The world is a king and desires flattery in return for favor; but
true art is perverse and will not submit to the mould of flattery.
Famous artists always labor under an embarrassment;--therefore,
first works are the best, though they may have sprung from dark
ground.
We can only record the fact that Beethoven began the year 1820, as
he had begun its immediate predecessor, by sending a New Year’s
greeting to the august pupil who was now almost continually in his
mind--Archduke Rudolph, soon to be Archbishop and Cardinal[25]--before
taking up the story of the incubus which oppressed the composer’s
mind, the clog which impeded his creative activities during much of
the year--the legal proceedings concerning the guardianship of nephew
Karl. Fortunately for the tinge of these pages the end is not distant.
Two applications made by Beethoven to the Court of Magistrates had been
denied and he now asked for a review of these decisions by the Court
of Appeals. The action of the Magistracy had grievously pained him, so
he informed the superior tribunal, and not only had his rights been
set aside, but no regard had been shown for the welfare of his nephew.
Against this he now sought relief, and he set forth his grievances: (1)
He was testamentary appointee and the _Landrecht_ had confirmed him and
excluded the mother; circumstances compelling his absence from Vienna,
he had arranged that Herr Nussböck should be appointed guardian _ad
interim_; back permanently in the city, his nephew’s welfare required
that he resume the guardianship; (2) The higher education which his
nephew’s talents demanded neither the mother nor Nussböck could
direct--the former because she was a woman and had conducted herself in
a manner which had led the _Landrecht_ to exclude her, Nussböck because
he was too much occupied with his duties as Municipal Sequestrator and,
having been no more than a paper-maker, he did not possess the insight
and judgment essential to the scientific education of the ward. (3)
Having no child of his own, his hopes were set on the boy, who was
unusually talented, yet he had been told that he had been held back
a year in his studies and that owing to a lack of funds he was to be
taken from the institution in which he had been placed and given in the
care of his mother; by her mismanagement the boy would be sacrificed,
it being the aim of the mother to expend his share of the pension
money on herself. He had declared to the Magistracy his willingness
to defray the costs at the institute and also to engage other masters
for the boy. Being “somewhat hard of hearing” communication with
him was difficult and therefore he had asked that a co-guardian
be appointed in the person of Herr Peters, Prince Lobkowitzsian
Councillor, whose knowledge and moral character would assure such a
training and education as were justified by the boy’s capacity. “I know
of no more sacred duty than the care and education of a child,” he
observes. He would offer no objection to the mother’s having a “sort of
joint-guardianship,” but its duties and privileges should be limited to
her visiting him and learning what plans were making for his education;
to permit more would be to compass the ruin of the boy.[26]
[Sidenote: AN APPEAL TO A HIGHER COURT]
This petition was filed on January 7, 1820; three days later the
Appellate Court commanded the Magistracy to file a report of the
proceedings had before it, together with all minutes and documents. The
Magistracy complied on February 5, citing its decision of September 17,
1819, and defending its action on the grounds that (a) Beethoven, owing
to his deafness and his hatred of the mother of the ward, was incapable
of acting as guardian; (b) the guardianship belonged to the mother by
right of law; (c) the commission of an act of infidelity against her
husband in 1811, for which she had suffered punishment, was no longer a
bar; (d) none of the alleged “injurious disturbances and interferences”
had been definitely set forth or proven:
If under injurious disturbances we are to understand that the
mother is desirous to see her child once every 14 days or 4 weeks,
or to convince herself about the wear and cleanliness of his
clothing, or to learn of his conduct toward his teachers, these can
appear injurious only in the eyes of the appellant; the rest of the
world, however, would find it amiss in a mother if she made inquiry
concerning her child only once a fortnight or month.
Answering the second charge, the magistrates urged that the appellant
seemed to ask of the mother and other guardian that they themselves
educate the boy in the sciences. For this not even the appellant was
fitted, at least he had not demonstrated such a fitness; he had left
the preparation for the higher studies to others and this the mother
and guardian could also do, having, indeed, a better plan, which was to
send the boy to the R. I. Convict, where he would surely make better
progress at smaller expense. _Ad tertium_, the failure of the boy to
advance in his classes could not be laid to the mother or guardian, but
must be charged against the appellant, who had taken the boy away from
his studies for the university after two months, kept him at home three
months, and sent him to another institution of learning at the end of
June; naturally enough he lost a school year.
The Court of Appeals demanded a more explicit report, which the
Magistracy filed on February 28, taking advantage of the opportunity to
review the proceedings had before the _Landrecht_ from the beginning,
and to make severe strictures on the conduct of Beethoven in filing
an exhibit (F) with his petition in support of which no evidence was
offered, though because of it the _Landrecht_ was asked to exclude the
mother from the guardianship which belonged to her under the law. Again
we quote:
This exclusion can have nothing for its foundation except the
misdemeanor of which the mother was guilty in 1811, for all the
rest contained in appellant’s exhibit F is unproven chatter to
which the _Landrecht_ could give no consideration, but which gives
speaking proof of how passionately and inimically the appellant
has always acted, and still acts, towards the mother, how little
he recks of tearing open wounds that were healed, since after
having endured punishment she stood rehabilitated; and yet he
reproaches her with a transgression for which she had atoned years
before, which had been pardoned by the injured husband himself who
petitioned for leniency in her sentence and who had declared her
capable and fit for the guardianship of his son in his last will
and testament, directing that the son be not taken away from his
mother. Regardless of this the appellant last year, certainly not
in the interest of the boy’s welfare, inasmuch as we have excellent
educational institutions here, but only to pain the mother, to
tear the heart out of her bosom, attempted to send him out of the
country to Landshut. Fortunately the government authorities, acting
on information derived from this court, frustrated the plan by
refusing a passport.
[Sidenote: DEPRAVITY OF KARL’S MOTHER]
Let us try now to take a dispassionate view of the case as thus far
presented in the pleadings and documents. Not only the law of nature
but the laws of the land justified the mother in asserting her right
to look after the physical well-being of her child and seeking to
enforce it. Dr. Bach seems to have impressed that fact upon Beethoven,
wherefore he declares his willingness in the bill of appeal to
associate her with himself in the guardianship to that extent. That the
Magistrates displayed unusual, not to say unjudicial zeal in her behalf
while defending their own course is indubitable; but we are in no
position to judge of the propriety of their course, which seems to have
been in harmony with the judicial procedure of the place and period,
least of all to condemn them, so long as it was permitted them so to
do, for having made a stout resistance when their acts were impugned
in the appeal to the higher court. The “Exhibit F,” filed in the
proceedings before the _Landrecht_, has not been found and its contents
can only be guessed at from the allusions to it in the documents.
Obviously it contained aspersions on the moral character of Madame van
Beethoven, and it may have been, nay, probably was, true that they were
unsupported by evidence and therefore undeserving of consideration in
a court either of law or equity. Perhaps they were not susceptible of
legal proof. It has been thought that Beethoven felt some hesitancy in
flaunting evidence of his sister-in-law’s infamy in the face of the
world,[27] but he certainly showed no disposition to spare her in his
letters, nor did he hesitate to accuse her of unmentionable things
by innuendo. In a Conversation Book of this year (1820) he writes of
her that she was “born for intrigue, accomplished in deceit, mistress
of all the arts of dissimulation.” On the other hand, it is singular
that the Magistrates in their final effort to justify their course
have nothing to say about the present moral standing of the woman
whose legal and natural rights they claimed to be upholding. Were they
in ignorance of what we now know, namely, that her conduct had not
only been reprehensible in 1811 (though condoned by her husband) but
continued so after her husband’s death? Schindler says that she gave
birth to a child while the case was pending, and that is confirmed by
a statement of Nephew Karl’s widow,[28] that in her old age Madame van
Beethoven lived in Baden with this illegitimate daughter, who was also
a dissolute woman.
But there are many anomalous things to the studious mind in the
proceedings which we are reporting, which differ greatly from anything
which could happen in a court of chancery or probate in Great Britain
or America to-day. It is certainly repugnant to our present legal
ethics that having filed a petition to reverse the action of one
court Beethoven should not only have written private letters to a
judge of the court of review, pleading his case on personal grounds,
but that his counsel should have advised him to visit members of the
higher court to present arguments in his behalf. But, no doubt, this
was consistent with the customs of Austria a century ago; and it is
what happened. Beethoven writes to Karl Winter, an _Appellationsrat_,
and his lawyer tells him to engage him and one of his colleagues,
Schmerling, in conversation on the subject. Perhaps Winter himself
questioned the propriety of the proceeding, for in a Conversation Book
somebody, who had evidently acted as messenger in the delivery of
the letter, writes: “I gave it to Herr v. Winter; he kept me waiting
and then said that he could give no answer, nor involve himself in a
correspondence.” The letter in question was written on March 6. In it
Beethoven says that he had prepared a memorial which he would place in
his hands in a few days. From the outline given it is plain that the
memorial contained a review of the case since the death of Beethoven’s
brother. It had been prepared, said Beethoven, “believing that I
owed it to myself to expose the falsity of the many slanders which
have been uttered against me and to lay bare the intrigues of Madame
van Beethoven against me to the injury of her own child, as also to
place in its proper light the conduct of the Magistrates’ Court.” He
charges that the Magistrates had summoned the widow and her son to a
hearing without his knowledge and, as his nephew had told him, he had
been urged and led on by his mother to make false accusations against
him. He had also forwarded a document which proved the wavering and
partisan conduct of the Magistrates. He repeats the charge about his
nephew’s failure to advance in his studies and adds that the boy had
had a hemorrhage which, had he not been on hand, might almost have cost
him his life. These things were not attributable to Herr Tuscher for
the reason that the Magistrates had given him too little support and
he could not proceed with sufficient energy--this the writer could do
in his capacity of uncle, guardian and defrayer of expenses. He asks
that if it becomes necessary he and his nephew be examined, cites his
expenditures to keep the boy two years in an educational institution,
saying that he had received nothing from the widow in nearly fourteen
months but would continue to pay the cost unselfishly in the future,
and had set apart 4,000 florins which was on deposit in bank and was to
go to his nephew on his death. Moreover, he had expectations from his
relations with the Archbishop of Olmütz, etc.
The case was prepared shrewdly, carefully and most discreetly by Dr.
Bach, who seems to have exerted an admirable influence on Beethoven
at this crisis. The nature of his advice may be learned from the
communication of Bernard in one of the recorded conversations. Bernard
is writing, and evidently giving the result of a consultation with
Dr. Bach. The Court of Appeals would ask another report from the
Magistrates and on its receipt would adjudge the case. Nussböck,
who Dr. Bach said was willing, should voluntarily retire from the
guardianship. Beethoven was asked as to the appointment of Tuscher;
had he resigned permanently or only temporarily in favor of Tuscher,
the better to accomplish the nephew’s removal from his mother? In what
manner had Tuscher abdicated, and had the Magistracy informed Beethoven
of the fact? It was necessary, said the adviser, to proceed with
moderation in all things so as to avoid the appearance of malice, and
the mother should not be assailed if it was at all avoidable, stress
being laid only on the fact that as a woman she ought not to have the
direction of the education of a boy of Karl’s age, not having the
requisite fitness. It would also be necessary for him, in case he were
asked, to state his readiness to defray the cost of the boy’s education
in the future and this, if the worst came to the worst, might be
followed by a threat to withdraw wholly from his care. Reproaches might
be made against him concerning the period when he had the boy with him,
the priests having taken to meddling in the matter, and it would be
well in the future not to take the boy to public eating-houses where he
would be observed and scandal fomented.
[Sidenote: APPOINTMENT OF A JOINT GUARDIANSHIP]
Bach seems to have advised Beethoven to visit two of the judges, Winter
and Schmerling, and himself had an interview with the boy, who told his
uncle what the advocate had questioned him about. For the nonce Karl
was on his good behavior. Blöchlinger reported favorably on his studies
to Bernard, and in a Conversation Book the boy apologized to his
uncle for some statements derogatory to him which he had made to the
Magistrates. “She promised me so many things,” he said, “that I could
not resist her; I am sorry that I was so weak at the time and beg your
forgiveness; I will not again permit myself to be led astray. I did not
know what results might follow when I told the Magistrates what I did;
but if there is another examination I will retract all the falsehoods
I uttered.” The magisterial commission which followed on March 29, had
plainly been held at the instance of the Appellate Court. Beethoven
was solemnly admonished, and in answer to questions declared: (1) that
he still demanded the guardianship of his nephew under the will and
would not relinquish his claim; (2) that he requested the appointment
of Councillor Peters as associate guardian; (3) that he demanded that
Madame van Beethoven be excluded from the guardianship as she had been
by the _Landrecht_, and (4) he reiterated his readiness to provide
financially for the care of his ward; he would accept an associate
guardian, but not a sole guardian, as he was convinced that no guardian
would care for his nephew as well as he. In insisting on a renewed
declaration on these points it is likely that the Court of Appeals
had some hope that Beethoven might voluntarily renounce or modify
his claims or the Magistrates recede from their attitude. Neither
contingency occurred, however, and on April 8 the reviewing court
issued its decree in Beethoven’s favor, he and Peters being appointed
joint guardians (_gemeinschaftliche Vormünde_), the mother and Nussböck
being deposed. The widow now played her last card:--she appealed to
the Emperor, who upheld the Court of Appeals. There was nothing for
the Magistracy to do except to notify the result of the appeals to
Beethoven, Madame van Beethoven, Peters and Nussböck. This was done on
July 24.
Beethoven had won at last. But at what a cost to himself, his art,
the world! What time, what labor, what energy had he not taken away
from his artistic creations! What had he not expended in the way of
peace of mind, of friendship, of physical comfort, of wear of brain
and nerve-force, for the privilege of keeping the boy to himself,
of watching unmolested over his physical welfare and directing his
intellectual and moral training unhindered! Surely such sacrifices,
inspired, as we know they were, by a transcendent sense of duty and
profoundest love, merited the rich reward of which he had dreamed--the
devotion of one who ought to have been all that a son could be, the
happiness of seeing the object of his love grow into a brilliant man
and a useful citizen. Was it vouchsafed him? Let us not in the midst
of his present happiness look too far into the future. Now his joy is
unbounded. He breaks into a jubilation when, in conveying the news
to Pinterics--that Pinterics who had sung the bass in “Ta, ta, ta,”
in honor of Mälzel: “Dr. Bach was my representative in this affair
and this Brook (_Bach_) was joined by the sea, lightning, thunder, a
tempest, and the magisterial brigantine suffered complete shipwreck!”
Schindler says that “his happiness over the triumph which he had
won over wickedness and trickery, but also because of the supposed
salvation from physical danger of his talented nephew, was so great
that he worked but little or not at all all summer--though this was
perhaps more apparent than real, the sketchbooks disclosing from now on
only empty pages.” A wise qualification, for though the sketchbooks may
have been empty, there is evidence enough elsewhere of hard work. Yet
the Mass was not finished, and for this unfortunate circumstance the
guardianship trial was no doubt largely to blame. To this subject we
shall return presently.
Of Peters, who was appointed joint guardian with Beethoven of the
nephew, little is known beyond what we learn from Beethoven and
Peters’s contributions to the Conversation Books. He was a tutor in
the house of Prince Lobkowitz and had been on terms of friendship with
Beethoven since 1816; his appointment by the court is a confirmation
of Beethoven’s tribute to him as a man of intellectual parts and of
good moral character. His wife had a good voice and was a great admirer
of Beethoven, who presented her with a copy of the song cycle “An die
ferne Geliebte.” A letter, once in the possession of John Ella in
London, which may be of earlier date than 1821, to which year it is,
however, most naturally assigned in view of the allusion to the “state
burden” (the nephew), runs as follows:
How are you? Are you well or ill? How is your wife? Permit me to
sing something for you:
[Illustration: Canon (Lively)
Saint Peter was a rock! St.]
[Illustration: Canon (Drawn out and dragged)
Bernardus was a Saint? Ber-]
How are your young princes? Will you be at home this afternoon at 5
o’clock? Perhaps I’ll visit you together with my _state_ burden.
[Sidenote: BAD CONDUCT OF NEPHEW KARL]
Nephew Karl remained at Blöchlinger’s institute and continued to cause
worry and anxiety to his uncle. Reports concerning his conduct and
studies were variable from different persons and at different times.
Blöchlinger complained that he needed constant supervision: “Had we
not always been strict with him, he would not be where he is now.”
A cleric declares that he was at heart not a bad child but had been
harmed by bad examples. “Karl has little feeling and in spite of the
knowledge for which he is praised he has no reasoning powers,” writes
an unidentified person in the Conversation Book, surely not to the
satisfaction of the uncle who was always setting forth his nephew’s
exceptional talent. In June somebody else (this time it may have
been Oliva) feels constrained to write: “The boy lies every time he
opens his mouth.” The “terrible occurrence” which had almost crushed
Beethoven in December, 1818, repeats itself, fortunately without such
dire results to the too sympathetic uncle: In June, instead of coming
to an oral examination, Karl ran away to his mother. Madame Blöchlinger
had to take a coach and servant and bring him back to the school; and
to get him away from Madame van Beethoven, who was disposed to keep
him in concealment, had to promise to see to it that he should not
be punished for his naughtiness. Now Blöchlinger, who says that the
presence of Madame van Beethoven “poisons the air,” wants the woman
excluded from his house and asks for a power of attorney to call in
the help of the police every time that Karl shall go to his mother,
whom he calls a “notorious strumpet,” of whose presence in his house
he must needs be ashamed. All this was told to Beethoven by Bernard,
who had learned it from Blöchlinger. Beethoven went for advice to Bach,
who told his client that it was impracticable to get a judicial writ
against the mother enjoining her from meeting her son, and impossible
to prevent secret meetings and secret correspondence. The practical
solution of the problem was to have Blöchlinger refuse to admit the
woman to his institute and compel her to see Karl at his uncle’s home.
This would serve the purpose to some extent, as the mother did not like
to meet her brother-in-law.
The enthronization of Beethoven’s imperial pupil as Archbishop of
Olmütz took place on March 20. The Mass which was to have been the
composer’s tribute was still unfinished. The reader knows why, or at
least has been provided with an opportunity to form an opinion as to
the reason. It may have been for the purpose of offering an explanation
to the new dignitary of the church, that Beethoven sought an audience
as he states in a letter of April 3. The Archducal Archbishop had gone
to Olmütz and Beethoven wants to know his plans for the immediate
future. He had heard that H. I. H. was to return to Vienna in May,
but also that he intended to be absent for a year and a half. If so,
Beethoven deplores that he has made plans for himself which are unwise.
He begs H. I. H. not to give credence to the false reports concerning
himself (Beethoven) which might reach his ears: “If Y. I. H. calls me
one of your most treasured objects, I can honestly say that Y. I. H.
is to me one of the most treasured objects in the universe. Although
I am no courtier, I believe that Y. I. H. has learned to know me well
enough to know that no cold interest, but a sincere affection, has
always attached me to yourself and inspired me; and I might well say
that Blondel was found long ago, and if no Richard is to be found in
the world for me, God will be my Richard.” He has evidently concerned
himself about the music at the court in Olmütz: “It appears to me that
my idea to maintain a quartet will certainly be the best thing to do.
If there are already productions on a large scale in Olmütz, something
admirable might arise in Moravia through a quartet.” He advises
his pupil, in case it is his purpose to return in May, to keep his
compositions till then so as to play them first to him; but if his stay
is to be longer, he will receive the compositions with the greatest
pleasure and seek to guide H. I. H. “to the highest peaks of Parnassus.”
[Sidenote: A PUNNING CANON ON HOFMANN]
A reference to himself as one who was at court yet not a courtier had
been made by Beethoven in an earlier letter. This play on words seems
to have been much in his head about this time and it is small wonder
that when an opportunity offered for the employment of the pun in a
canon it should have been embraced; in fact, it looks as if possibly he
had strained for the occasion, unless it should appear from evidence
yet to be found that “One who was named Hoffmann,” in Beethoven’s
words, was, as was long believed, the redoubtable E. T. A. Hoffmann,
who had surely deserved the tribute contained in a canon which
Beethoven wrote at this time. In the Conversation Book used in March,
1820, a strange hand writes: “In the _Phantasie-Stücke_ by Hoffmann,
you are often spoken of. Hoffmann was musical director in Bamberg; he
is now Government Councillor. Operas of his composition are performed
in Berlin.” Beethoven remarks, in writing: “Hofmann du bist kein
_Hofmann_.” Later in a conversation held at table, these words occur
twice: “Hŏfmānn ÷ sei ja kein Hōfmănn--nein ÷ ÷ ÷ ich heisse Hŏfmānn
und bin kein Hōfmănn.” These words are preceded by a measure of music,
the beginning of the canon in question. Did Beethoven thus honor the
fantastic poet, musician, novelist, essayist, singer, scene-painter and
theatrical manager who had shown such keen critical appreciation of
his symphonies? It was long a pleasure to believe so and natural, too,
until Nottebohm came with his iconoclastic evidence to the contrary.
On March 23 Beethoven had written a letter to Hoffmann, expressing his
gratification at having won the good opinion of a man gifted with such
excellent attributes as Hoffmann possessed. Had he written the canon
at this time he would surely have enclosed it in this letter and then,
since it was preserved among Hoffmann’s papers, it would have been
found and given to the world with the letter. But Beethoven kept the
canon in his mind or had a copy of it, and printed it in 1825, when B.
Schott’s Sons in Mayence asked him for a contribution to their musical
journal “Cäcilia,” which had been founded a year before. Now comes
Nottebohm with his evidence in the case. A man named Gross was once
the owner of the autograph and his son told Nottebohm that it had been
written in the Matschaker Hof, a tavern at which Beethoven was dining
at the time, and referred to a church musician named Vincenz Hoffmann,
as the informant remembered the name. Nottebohm looked through the
official lists of musicians in Vienna in the first decades of the
century; he did not find a Vincenz, but did find a Joachim Hoffmann who
might have been an acquaintance of Beethoven’s; and so he set him down
as the recipient of the composer’s tribute.[29]
In the summer of 1820, Beethoven went to Mödling again, but he did not
take the lodgings in the Harfner house for the very sufficient reason
that the proprietor had served notice on him in 1819, that he could
not have it longer on account of the noisy disturbances which had
taken place there. He took a house instead in the Babenbergerstrasse
and paid twelve florins extra for the use of a balcony which commanded
a view which was essential to his happiness. He takes the baths and
receives a visit from his nephew, who probably stays with him during
his school vacation; at any rate, the boy does not return to Vienna
until October 5, on which day the Giannatasios, making an excursion
to Mödling, meet him with Karl driving to town. There is at this time
considerable talk in the Conversation Book of publishing a complete
edition of Beethoven’s works. Bernard, probably, tells him that Steiner
is already counting on it and Schindler, who is enthusiastic over the
project, gives it as his opinion that arrangements must be made with
a Vienna publisher so as to avoid voluminous correspondence. Somebody
remarks: “Eckstein will so arrange it that you will always get all
the profits and will also publish your future works as your property.
He thinks that every fourth or fifth piece should be a new one.” The
plan appealed strongly to Beethoven, but nothing came of it at the
time, though we shall hear of it later. It was the discussion of it,
probably, by his friends which brought out a letter from Beethoven to
Haslinger, “best of Adjutants,” asking him to decide a bet. Beethoven
had wagered 10 florins that it was not true that the Steiners had
been obliged to pay Artaria 2000 florins damages for having published
Mozart’s works, which were reprinted universally.
Towards the end of October, Beethoven returned to Vienna and took
lodgings at No. 244 Hauptstrasse in the Landstrasse, “the large house
of the Augustinians” beside the church. There he was visited by Dr.
W. Chr. Müller of Bremen, a philologist and musical amateur who had
long admired Beethoven and, with the help of his “Family Concerts,”
established in 1782, had created such a cult for Beethoven’s music as
existed in no city in Germany in the second decade of the nineteenth
century--according to Schindler. Müller’s daughter Elise played the
sonatas exceptionally well and was largely instrumental with her father
in creating this cult. Müller was making an Italian tour, visited
Vienna in October and November and published an account of his meetings
with Beethoven in the “Allg. Musik. Zeit.” in 1827. In this he tells
of Beethoven’s freedom of speech at public eating-houses, where he
would criticize the Austrian government, the morals of the aristocracy,
the police, etc., without stint. The police paid no attention to his
utterances, either because they looked upon him as a harmless fantastic
or had an overwhelming respect for his artistic genius. “Hence,” says
Dr. Müller, “his opinion that nowhere was speech freer than in Vienna;
but his ideal of a political constitution was the English one.” It was
through Dr. Müller that we know somewhat of Beethoven’s views on the
subject of analytical programmes. Among the zealous promoters of the
Beethoven cult in Bremen, was a young poet named Dr. Karl Iken, editor
of the “Bremer Zeitung,” who, inspired by the _Familien-Concerte_,
conceived the idea of helping the public to an understanding of
Beethoven’s music by writing programmatic expositions of the symphonies
for perusal before the concerts. Some of his lucubrations were sent
to Beethoven by Dr. Müller, and aroused the composer’s ire. Schindler
found four of these “programmes” among Beethoven’s papers, and he gave
the world a specimen. In the Seventh Symphony, Dr. Iken professed to
see a political revolution.
[Sidenote: “PROGRAMME” FOR THE SEVENTH SYMPHONY]
The sign of revolt is given; there is a rushing and running about
of the multitude; an innocent man, or party, is surrounded,
overpowered after a struggle and haled before a legal tribunal.
Innocency weeps; the judge pronounces a harsh sentence; sympathetic
voices mingle in laments and denunciations--they are those of
widows and orphans; in the second part of the first movement the
parties have become equal in numbers and the magistrates are now
scarcely able to quiet the wild tumult. The uprising is suppressed,
but the people are not quieted; hope smiles cheeringly and suddenly
the voice of the people pronounces the decision in harmonious
agreement.... But now, in the last movement, the classes and the
masses mix in a variegated picture of unrestrained revelry. The
quality still speak aloofly in the wind-instruments,--strange
bacchantic madness in related chords--pauses, now here, now
there--now on a sunny hill, anon on flowery meadow where in merry
May all the jubilating children of nature vie with each other with
joyful voices--float past the fancy.
It is scarcely to be wondered at that such balderdash disgusted and
even enraged Beethoven. In the fall of 1819, he dictated a letter
to Müller--it has, unfortunately been lost--in which he protested
energetically against such interpretations of his music. He pointed
out, says Schindler, who wrote the letter for him, the errors to
which such writings would inevitably give rise. If expositions
were necessary, they should be confined to characterization of the
composition in general terms, which could easily and correctly be done
by any educated musician.
Beethoven’s complaints concerning his financial condition were chronic
and did not cease even in periods where extraordinary receipts make
them difficult to understand. That the lamentations in his letters
during the two years which we have in review were well-founded,
however, is no doubt true. With so engrossing a work as the “Missa
solemnis” on hand there could not have been much time for such
potboilers as he mentions and the other sources of revenue were not
many. From the records which are at hand, we know something about a
few of his monetary transactions. On October 26, 1820, he collected
300 florins on account, apparently, from Artaria and Co., through his
old friend Oliva. Shortly after his return to Vienna from the country,
he asks the same firm, from which he had borrowed 750 florins,[30] for
a further loan of 150 to save himself the necessity of selling one
of his bank shares. These shares, it will be remembered in partial
extenuation or at least explanation of some of his actions which are
scarcely compatible with his protestations of his unswerving honesty
in business transactions, had been set apart by him as his nephew’s
legacy and he clung to them as to a sacred pledge. He promises to repay
Artaria in three months and meanwhile to send him a composition in one,
two or more movements, without honorarium. An incident which shows
him in an unamiable light is connected with his financial relations
with the publisher Steiner. On December 29, 1820, Steiner wrote him a
letter which did not see the public eye until published in the “Neue
Freie Presse” newspaper of Vienna on August 17, 1900. Steiner had sent
Beethoven a dun, or at least a statement of account, and Beethoven had,
evidently, been both rude and unreasonable in his reply. We quote from
Steiner:
[Sidenote: INDEBTEDNESS TO STEINER]
I cannot rest content with your remarks concerning the account
sent you; for the cash money loaned you I have charged you only 6%
interest, while for the money which you deposited with me I paid
you 8% promptly in advance and also repaid the capital promptly.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (_Was also
dem Einen recht ist, muss dem Andern billig sein_). I am not in a
position to lend money without interest. As a friend I came to your
help in need, I trusted your word of honor and believe that I have
not been importunate, nor have I plagued you in any way; wherefore
I must solemnly protest against your upbraidings. If you recall
that my loan to you was made in part 5 years ago, you will yourself
confess that I am not an urgent creditor. I would spare you even
now and wait patiently if I were not on my honor in need of cash
for my business. If I were less convinced that you are really in a
position to give me relief and able to keep your _word of honor_
I would, difficult as it would be for me, right gladly remain
patient a while longer; but when I remember that I myself returned
to you 4,000 florins, conventional coin, or 10,000 florins, Vienna
Standard, as capital 17 months ago and at your request did not
deduct the amount due me, it is doubly painful to me now to be
embarrassed because of my good will and my trust in your word of
honor. Every man knows best where the shoe pinches and I am in this
case; wherefore I conjure you again not to leave me in the lurch
and to find means to liquidate my account as soon as possible.
As for the rest I beg you to accept from me the compliments of the
season together with the request that you continue to give me your
favor and friendship. It will rejoice me if you keep your word
and honor me soon with a visit; it rejoices me more that you have
happily withstood your illness and are again restored to health.
God preserve you long in health, contentment and enjoyment, this is
the wish of your wholly devoted
S. A. Steiner.
The letter contains pencil memoranda by Beethoven. He has evidently
added together the various sums which he owes Steiner and they amount
to 2420 florins W. W. He remarks that 1300 florins was received
“probably” in 1816 or 1817; 750 florins “perhaps” in 1819; 300
florins “are debts which I assumed for Madame van Beethoven and
can be chargeable for only a few years; the 70 florins may have
been for myself in 1819. Payment may be made of 1200 florins a year
in semi-annual payments.” A further memorandum on the cover notes
Steiner’s willingness to accept payments on April 15 and October
15, 1821. The settlements seem to have been made. On April 1, 1821,
Beethoven collected 600 florins from the estate of Kinsky, being
one-half of the annuity for the year September 1820 to September 1821.
He also persuaded his friend Franz Brentano to advance him money on
the amount for which he sold the “Missa Solemnis” to Simrock in Bonn,
though he did not give him the Mass for publication in the end. But
this is a matter which can be better discussed in connection with the
incidents in the history of the compositions which fall within the
present period.
The beginning of the year 1821 found him still at his home in the
suburb Landstrasse, and, it would seem, working as hard as his health
permitted. When he went to the country for the summer he went to
Unterdöbling and thence, after September, to Baden to take a cure
prescribed by his physician, Dr. Staudenheimer. In Baden he lived
in the Rathshausgasse. He had suffered from rheumatism during the
preceding winter and now became a victim of jaundice, for which, no
doubt, he was sent to Baden, though he had gotten rid of the disease
to some extent at least by the end of August. The cure prescribed by
Staudenheimer was more severe than he could endure and, as he writes
to Franz Brentano on November 12, 1821, he had to “flee to Vienna,”
where he was more comfortable. The attack of jaundice may have been an
_arant-courier_ of the disease of the liver which brought him to the
grave six years later. He expresses a fear in a letter to the Archduke
(July 18, 1821) that it might prevent him for a long time from waiting
upon his pupil. There is the usual monetary complaint in the letter,
which concludes with: “God who knows my heart and how sacredly I
fulfill all the duties commanded by humanity, God and nature will some
day free me from this affliction.”
In 1820 the voice of an old English admirer reaches him with a request
which must have seemed strange to him. William Gardiner, as has been
told in the chapter in the first volume of this work devoted to the
compositions of the Bonn period, was one of the first proclaimers of
Beethoven’s evangel in England. He had now compiled and composed a sort
of _pasticcio_, an oratorio entitled “Judah,” piecing the work out
with original compositions where he had failed to find music written
by others which he could use. In his book “Music and Friends” (III,
377) he relates that he had hoped to get an original composition for
“Judah” in the shape of an appropriate overture, and to this end had
written a letter to Beethoven and forwarded it to Vienna through Baron
Neumann of the Austrian Embassy, who, on receiving it, had remarked
that it was doubtful if an answer would be received, as Beethoven held
no communication with the world. Gardiner’s letter was as follows:
To Louis van Beethoven.
Dear Sir:
At the house of Lady Bowater in Leicestershire in 1796, I met with
your Trio in E-flat (for Violin, Viola and Bass). Its originality
and beauty gave me inexpressible delight; indeed it was a new
sense to me. Ever since I have anxiously endeavoured to procure
your compositions as much so as the war could permit. Allow me
to present to you the first volume of my “Sacred Melodies” which
contain your divine Adagios appropriated to the British church. I
am now engaged upon a work entitled “The Oratorio of Judah” giving
a history of that peculiar people from the Jewish scriptures. The
object of this letter is to express a hope that I may induce you to
compose an Overture for this work upon which you can bring all the
force of your sublime imagination (if it please you) in the key of
D minor. For this service my friend Mr. Clementi will accept your
draft upon him for one hundred guineas.
I have the honour to be, dear Sir,
Your faithful servant
William Gardiner.
There is no date, but as “Judah” was criticized in “The Musical Review”
in 1821, it is presumable that the letter was written in 1820. Gardiner
deplores the fact that he received no reply from Beethoven, although
the Empress had thanked him for a copy of the “Sacred Melodies” which
he had sent to her. Evidently he did not realize that Beethoven was not
the man to feel complimented by having his “divine Adagios” turned into
hymn-tunes. An occurrence which may have cost Beethoven a pang was the
loss of his faithful helper Oliva, who took his passport in December,
1820, and went to St. Petersburg, where he settled as a teacher of
languages.
[Sidenote: A PORTRAIT PAINTED BY STIELER]
Another of the portraits of Beethoven which have been made familiar
by reproductions was painted in 1820, though begun in 1819. Joseph
Stieler, who enjoyed wide reputation as a portrait painter, had
come to Vienna from Munich to paint the portrait of Emperor Franz
in the latter year. He remained till some time in 1820 and made the
acquaintance of Beethoven through a letter of introduction probably
given to him by Brentano. Beethoven took a liking to him and gave
him some sittings--three, according to the testimony of the painter
himself, thus disproving Schindler’s statement that “sitting after
sitting was granted and never a complaint uttered.” On the contrary,
the Conversation Book presents the artist as pleading for a little
more time; and because Beethoven refused to sit longer, Stieler had to
exercise his imagination or memory in painting the hands. In fact, the
painting never received the finishing touches but remained, as those
who have seen it testify, “sketchy.” In March Stieler writes in the
Conversation Book: “Have you written to Frankfort that I have begun
your portrait?--You must determine the destination of the picture.
I say that I am painting it for myself.” In April Stieler asks the
question: “In what key is your mass? I want to write on the sheet:
(Mass in--)” Beethoven writes the answer: “_Missa solemnis in D_,” and
Stieler: “After it has been exhibited I shall send it to Brentano--I
thank you thousands and thousands of times for so much patience.”
Beethoven’s friends refer frequently to the picture in their written
conversations with Beethoven. One says: “That you have been painted _en
face_ is the result of more extended study of your physiognomy. This
view shows your spirit much better than a profile.” Schindler writes
that he prefers the portrait by Schimon: “There is more character
in it--all agree on that--You were very well two years ago; now you
are always ailing.” J. Czerny writes: “We were just talking about
your portrait. Oliva thinks you are well hit off.” The artist visits
Beethoven again at Mödling in July and writes: “Before the exhibition
I shall paint your portrait again, but full life-size. Your head makes
an excellent effect full face, and it was so appropriate because Haydn
was on one side and Mozart on the other.” Stieler dated the canvass
“1819,” but this can only refer to the time when it was begun. It
remained for a while in the possession of the family of the painter,
then passed through several hands by purchase until it reached those of
Countess Sauerma in Berlin, in whose possession it was when Frimmel
and Kalischer inspected it for purposes of description. Schindler says
it reproduces Beethoven’s characteristic expression faithfully and that
it met with approval, though fault was found with the pose. Beethoven’s
contemporaries were not used to see him with his head bowed down as
Stieler represents him; on the contrary, he carried his head high
even when suffering physical pain. A lithographic reproduction of the
portrait was made by Fr. Dürck and published by Artaria in 1826.
In April, 1860, the author[31] had a conversation with Horzalka in
which the latter spoke very highly of Schindler and his disinterested
fidelity to Beethoven. Horzalka also said that in 1820 or 1821, as near
as he could recollect, the wife of a Major Baumgarten took boy boarders
in a house then standing where the Musikverein’s hall now stands in
Vienna. Her sister, Baroness Born, lived with her. Frau Baumgarten had
a son who studied at Blöchlinger’s Institute, and Beethoven’s nephew
was amongst her boarders. One evening Horzalka called there and found
only the Baroness Born at home. Soon another caller came and stayed to
tea. It was Beethoven. Among other topics, Mozart came on the tapis and
the Baroness asked Beethoven, in writing of course, which of Mozart’s
operas he thought most of. “Die Zauberflöte,” said Beethoven and,
suddenly clasping his hands and throwing up his eyes exclaimed, “Oh,
Mozart!” As Horzalka had, as was the custom, always considered “Don
Giovanni” the greatest of Mozart’s operas, this opinion by Beethoven
made a very deep impression upon him. Beethoven invited the Baroness to
come to his lodgings and have a look at his Broadwood pianoforte.
[Sidenote: ARRESTED AS A VAGRANT]
In 1820 Professor Höfel, who lived at Salzburg in the last years of his
life and who engraved the Latronne portrait of Beethoven for Artaria,
was appointed to a professorship of drawing in Wiener Neustadt. A year
or two afterward, as he said,[32] he was one evening with Eisner and
other colleagues in the garden of the tavern “Zum Schleifen,” a little
way out of town. The Commissioner of Police was a member of the party.
It was autumn and already dark when a constable came and said to the
Commissioner: “Mr. Commissioner, we have arrested somebody who will
give us no peace. He keeps on yelling that he is Beethoven; but he’s
a ragamuffin, has no hat, an old coat, etc.--nothing by which he can
be identified.” (_Herr Commissär, wir haben Jemand arretirt, welcher
uns kein’ Ruh gibt. Er schreit immer dass er Beethoven sei. Er ist
aber ein Lump, hat kein’ Hut, alter Rock, etc., kein Aufweis wer er
ist, etc._) The Commissioner ordered that the man be kept under arrest
until morning, “then we will examine him and learn who he is.” Next
morning the company was very anxious to know how the affair turned
out, and the Commissioner said that about 11 o’clock at night he was
waked by a policeman with the information that the prisoner would
give them no peace and had demanded that Herzog, Musical Director in
Wiener Neustadt, be called to identify him. So the Commissioner got up,
dressed, went out and waked up Herzog, and in the middle of the night
went with him to the watchhouse. Herzog, as soon as he cast eyes on
the man exclaimed, “That _is_ Beethoven!” He took him home with him,
gave him his best room, etc. Next day came the burgomaster, making all
manner of apologies. As it proved, Beethoven had got up early in the
morning, and, slipping on a miserable old coat and, without a hat, had
gone out to walk a little. He got upon the towpath of the canal and
kept on and on; seems to have lost his direction, for, with nothing to
eat, he had continued on until he brought up at the canal-basin at the
Ungerthor. Here, not knowing where he was, he was seen looking in at
the windows of the houses, and as he looked so like a beggar the people
had called a constable who arrested him. Upon his arrest the composer
said, “I am Beethoven.” “Of course, why not?” (_Warum nicht gar?_)
said the policeman; “You’re a tramp: Beethoven doesn’t look so.” (_Ein
Lump sind Sie; so sieht der Beethoven nicht aus._) Herzog gave him
some decent clothes and the burgomaster sent him back to Baden, where
he was then living, in the magisterial state-coach. This simple story
is the foundation for the fine narrative related as a fact in Vienna
that Beethoven had got into this scrape following troops from Vienna
who had a sham battle near Wiener Neustadt, and taking notes for his
“Wellington’s Victory”--which whole story thus goes to the wall.
A letter written from Baden on September 10, 1821, to Tobias Haslinger
accompanying a canon[33] on the words “O Tobias _dominus_ Haslinger,
O, O!” deserves to be given here to show that Beethoven’s high spirits
could at times dominate him in spite of his general misery.
Very best fellow!
Yesterday, in the carriage on the way to Vienna, I was overcome by
sleep, naturally enough, since (because of my early rising here)
I had never slept well. While thus slumbering I dreamed that I
had made a long journey--to no less distant a country than Syria,
no less than India, back again, no less than Arabia, finally I
reached Jerusalem; the Holy City aroused in me thoughts of Holy
Writ and small wonder that the man Tobias now occurred to me, and
how natural that our little Tobias should enter my mind and the
_pertobiasser_, and now during my dream journey the following canon
came to me: “O Tobias _dominus_ Haslinger, O, O!” But scarcely
awakened, away went the canon and nothing of it would come back
to my memory. But when, next day, I was on my way hither in the
same conveyance (that of a poor Austrian musician) and continued
the dream journey of the day before, now awake, behold, according
to the laws of association of ideas, the same canon occurred to
me again; now fully awake I held it fast, as erst Menelaus held
Proteus, only allowing it to change itself into 3 voices.
Farewell. Presently I shall send you something on Steiner to show
you that he has no stony (_steinernes_) heart. Farewell, very best
of fellows, we ever wish that you will always belie your name of
publisher (_Verleger_) and never become embarrassed (_verlegen_)
but remain a publisher (_Verleger_) never at a loss (_verlegen_)
either in receiving or paying--Sing the epistles of St. Paul every
day, go to pater Werner,[34] who will show you the little book by
which you may go to heaven in a jiffy. You see my anxiety for your
soul’s salvation; and I remain with the greatest pleasure from
everlasting to everlasting,
Your most faithful debtor
Beethoven.
[Sidenote: NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE MASS IN D]
And now as to the creative work of the two years. Paramount attention
must be given to the Mass in D, which, though long in hand and destined
for a function in which Beethoven and his Imperial Archepiscopal pupil
were profoundly concerned, was yet incomplete when the time for that
function arrived. Archduke Rudolph was installed as Archbishop of
Olmütz on March 20, 1820. Exactly what condition the Mass was in at
that time we have no means of knowing; it was, however, in a sufficient
state of forwardness to enable Beethoven to begin negotiations for its
publication. On March 18 he wrote to Simrock:
As regards the mass, I have pondered the matter carefully and might
give it to you for the honorarium of 100 Louis d’ors which you
offered me, provided you agree to a few conditions which I shall
propose and which I think, will not be found burdensome by you. We
have gone through the plan for publication here and believe that
with a few modifications it can be put into effect very soon, which
is very necessary; wherefore I shall make haste to inform you of
the necessary changes soon.
This would seem to indicate that the work had been practically
completed, and that this view obtained amongst Beethoven’s friends we
know from the evidence of the Conversation Books. In the summer at
Mödling he was frequently asked if it was finished and when it would
be performed. Some hurried sketches belonging to the _Credo_ are found
amongst the remarks of his friends, and also sketches for the _Agnus
Dei_. Schindler asks him in August: “Is the _Benedictus_ written out in
score? Are those sketches for the _Agnus_?” Rudolph had communicated
to him his intention to spend a part of the summer in Mödling.
Beethoven writes to him on August 3 and September 2, making apologies
for apparent neglect in not waiting upon him (he had no carriage the
first time, was in ill-health the second), but says not a word about
the mass. Some of the remarks in the Conversation Book are vague as to
the composition referred to, but many are plain enough to show that
Beethoven had informed his friends and advisers of the negotiations
with Simrock. Surprise is expressed at Simrock’s delay. Beethoven is
advised to write to him and also to Brentano in Frankfort, who had
been authorized to collect the honorarium. In April somebody writes:
“Have you written to Simrock that he _must not_ publish the mass at
once, as you want first to send it or hand it to the Archduke?” Again:
“If you send the _Recepisse_ of the stage-coach he will certainly send
you the money _at once_.” And later: “It would be quicker to give the
music to the stage-coach and send Brentano the receipt--at the same
time informing Simrock that Brentano had been assured of its despatch;
then Brentano can send you the money at once without waiting to receive
the music.” In April again: “But he has not yet replied to your last
offer of the mass? I mean Simrock--200 ducats could help you out
greatly--Because of _your circumstances_. You must not delay writing to
Simrock or Brentano. Brentano can send you the money _at once_--or at
least very soon.” “I am surprised that Simrock has not answered yet.”
Meanwhile Simrock answers. “Leave Simrock’s letter with me,” says the
mentor, “I’ll answer it and give you the letter this afternoon--if you
are satisfied with it you will sign it and I will post it to-morrow.
There must be no delay.” “He says the mass can be used only by
Catholics, which is not true.” “He is paying too little rather than too
much with 200 ducats.”
It is obvious that some difficulty had arisen between Beethoven and
Simrock. What that difficulty was is explained in a letter from
Simrock to Brentano dated November 12, 1820. It was a misunderstanding
concerning the price of the “new grand musical mass” which the
composer wished to sell for 100 Louis d’ors. The publisher had agreed
to the price, understanding Louis d’ors to mean what the term meant
in Bonn, Leipsic and throughout Germany, namely, the equivalent of
Friedrichs d’ors, pistoles. In order to avoid unpleasantness after the
reception of the mass he had explained this clearly to Beethoven and in
a letter, dated September 23, had repeated that by Louis d’ors he meant
Friedrichs d’ors; he was not in a position to give more. He would hold
the sum in readiness against the receipt of the mass, which Beethoven
had promised to provide with German as well as Latin words. He was also
under the impression that he had asked a speedy decision, as he did
not want to keep his money tied up in Frankfort. Hearing nothing for
four weeks he had quit counting on the mass and made other use of his
money. Learning, however, from Brentano’s letter of November 8th that
Beethoven had agreed to let him have the mass, he now finds himself in
the embarrassment of not having the gold Louis d’ors on hand, but as
Brentano had said nothing on the subject he would in the meantime try
to secure the coin, unless Brentano were willing to take the equivalent
in florins at the rate of 9.36. He asked to be informed of the arrival
of the music so that he might instruct Heinrich Verhuven to receive it
on paying the sum mentioned.
Simrock waited four weeks before abandoning hope that Beethoven would
send the mass; it was ten weeks and more before Beethoven answered
Simrock’s letter. Then he sent his reply to Brentano enclosed in a
letter dated November 28. The letter has not been found, or at least
not made public; but the letter to Brentano[35] makes it plain that
Beethoven had acceded to Simrock’s offer and agreed to take pistoles
for Louis d’ors. He says:
Your kindness permits me to hope that you will not refuse to have
the enclosure sent to Simrock, inasmuch as in it my views are set
forth concerning the whole matter. Nothing remains now except to
take what he offers, namely the 100 pistoles and as much more as
you, an expert in the business, can get for me by the rate of
exchange. I am convinced of your kind disposition in this regard.
I am very hard-pressed just now, but such things are to be told
_last of all to a publisher_; it is, thank God, not my fault, but
my sacrifices for others, chiefly, too, for the weak Cardinal who
led me into this morass and does not know how to help himself. As
soon as the translation is finished I shall trouble you again by
sending you the mass, and I pray you give a little attention then
to securing what you can for me from the Jewish[36] publisher.
Thus matters stand with the Mass at the end of 1820, and thus they
seem to have remained throughout the next year. Simrock always was to
be but never was blest with the score. On July 18, 1821, Beethoven
promises to put the work into the Archduke’s hands “while here”--i. e.,
at Unterdöbling; he leaves the reasons for the delay to the imagination
of his patron: “the details might prove anything but pleasant to Y. I.
H.” In November he thinks again of Simrock and on the 12th writes to
Brentano:
The mass might have been sent before this, but had to be _carefully
looked through_, for the publishers in other countries do not get
along well with my manuscript, as I know from experience, and a
copy for the engraver must be examined note by note. Moreover,
I could not come because of illness, the more since despite
everything I have been compelled to make a considerable number
of potboilers (as unfortunately I must call them). I think I am
justified in making an attempt to get Simrock to reckon the Louis
d’ors at a higher rate, inasmuch as several applications have been
made from other quarters, concerning which I shall write you soon.
As for the rest, do not question my honesty; frequently I think of
nothing except that your kind advance may soon be repaid.
[Sidenote: LOAN ADVANCED ON THE MASS]
It seems a fair inference from the concluding remark, together with
the advice of his friend or friends in the Conversation Book of the
previous summer concerning a collection through Brentano as soon as the
mass had been handed over to the stage-coach, that Beethoven had got an
advance from Brentano on the money which was awaiting the arrival of
the work in Frankfort. The following letter to Brentano strengthens the
inference:
Vienna, December 20, 1821.
Noble man!
I am awaiting another letter respecting the mass, which I shall
send you to give you an insight into the whole affair. In any event
the entire honorarium will be paid to you whereupon you will please
deduct the amount of my indebtedness to you, my gratitude to you
will always be unbounded. I was so presumptuous as without asking
to dedicate a composition of mine to your daughter Maxe, please
accept the deed as a mark of my continual devotion to you and your
entire family--do not misinterpret the dedication as prompted by
interest or as a recompense--this would pain me greatly. There are
nobler motives to which such things may be ascribed if reasons must
be found. The new year is about to enter, may it fulfil all your
wishes and daily increase your happiness as the father of a family
in your children. I embrace you cordially and beg you to present
my compliments to your excellent, only and glorious Toni.
Yours, etc.
I have received from here and elsewhere offers of 200 ducats in
gold for the mass. I think I can get 100 florins W. W. more. On
this point I am waiting for a letter which I will send you at once,
the matter might then be presented to Simrock, who will certainly
not expect me to lose so much. Till then please be patient and do
not think that you have acted magnanimously towards an unworthy man.
[Sidenote: THREE SONATAS AT A BREATH]
Brentano informed Simrock of the situation; but the subject is now
carried over into the next year and must be left for the nonce, while
we take up the history of some other compositions. The last three
pianoforte sonatas, Op. 109, 110 and 111, belong to this period.
Also the Bagatelles Op. 119, Nos. 7 to 11 inclusive. Their story
is known. Friedrich Starcke, Chapelmaster of an Austrian regiment
of infantry, had undertaken the publication of a pianoforte method
which he called the “Wiener Pianoforteschule.” Part III of the work,
which appeared early in 1821, contained these five Bagatelles under
the title “Trifles” (_Kleinigkeiten_). Above them Starcke printed:
“A contribution from the great composer to the publisher.” They must
have been asked for in 1820. Somewhere about February of that year an
unidentified hand writes in the Conversation Book: “Starcke wants a
little music-piece by you for the second part of his _Klavierschule_,
for which he has contributions from the leading composers besides short
notices.... We must give him something. Notwithstanding his great
deserts in music and literature he is extremely modest, industrious
and humble.... He understands the art of compiling well. There are now
weaklings everywhere even among the strong.” To this appeal Beethoven
yielded. He wrote the five Bagatelles, sketches for which are found
amongst some for the Sonata in E major (Op. 109) and the _Benedictus_
of the mass. No. 6 is also sketched among studies for the _Credo_. No
doubt these little pieces were some of the “potboilers” (_Brodarbeit_)
referred to in the letter to Brentano; also some folksong arrangements;
and it may even be, that Beethoven included also the three great
sonatas. Schindler relates that when Beethoven heard that it was
bruited about that he had written himself out, his invention was
exhausted, and that he had taken up Scottish melodies like Haydn in
his old age, he seemed amused and said: “Wait a while, you’ll soon
learn differently.” Schindler then adds: “Late in the Fall (1820),
returned from his summer sojourn in Mödling, where like a bee he had
been engaged busily in gathering ideas, he sat himself down to his
table and wrote out the three sonatas Op. 109, 110, 111 ‘in a single
breath,’ as he expressed it in a letter to Count Brunswick in order to
quiet the apprehension of his friends touching his mental condition.”
Schindler was dubious about the “single breath” and, indeed, there was
a considerable lapse of time between the writing of the first of the
three sonatas and the last two. The Sonata in E belongs unquestionably
to the year 1820. The first theme is found in the Conversation Book of
April, and the work was sketched before he began the _Benedictus_ of
the mass and while he was at work on this movement, the _Credo_, the
_Agnus Dei_ and the Bagatelles for Starcke. Before the end of the year
Archduke Rudolph received the manuscript for his collection. It was
dedicated to Maximiliane Brentano,[37] and published in November, 1821,
by Schlesinger in Berlin.
Beethoven has himself left data concerning the other two sonatas. On
the autograph of that in A-flat major, Op. 110, he wrote the date
“December 25, 1821.” Sketches for it follow sketches for the _Agnus
Dei_ of the mass, which were begun in 1820.[38] It was published
by Schlesinger in Berlin and Paris in 1822. There is evidence in a
memorandum to Schindler found among the latter’s papers, and also in a
letter to Schlesinger of 1823, that Beethoven intended to dedicate both
of the last two sonatas to Madame Brentano. “Ries-nichts” (“nothing
to Ries”), says the memorandum, significantly. Ideas utilized in the
C minor Sonata, Op. 111, are found amongst those for Op. 110 and
particularly among some for the _Agnus Dei_. The autograph bears the
date January 13, 1822,[39] and it is plain that most of the work was
done in 1821. It was published by Schlesinger in April, 1823, after
Beethoven had offered it to Peters of Leipsic. Corrections for these
three sonatas occupied a great deal of time; the engraving of the
French edition of the C minor was so faulty that Beethoven demanded
proof copies three times; twice his call was granted, the third time
it was refused.[40] This Sonata, Op. 111, was dedicated to Archduke
Rudolph. Beethoven had left the matter to Schlesinger, but he afterward
made a suggestion as to his wishes, for in a letter to the Archduke
on June 1, 1823, he writes: “Y. I. H. seemed to find pleasure in
the Sonata in C minor, and therefore I feel that it would not be
presumptuous if I were to surprise you with its dedication.”
There are few other compositions of these two years to ask attention,
the Canons and five Bagatelles having been mentioned. There is a song,
“Abendlied unter dem gestirnten Himmel,” words by Heinrich Göbel, the
original manuscript of which bears date March 4, 1820, and which was
published as a supplement to the “Modenzeitung” on March 28, 1820,
with a dedication to Dr. Braunhofer.[41] The twenty-five Scotch Songs,
Op. 108, were published in 1821 by Schlesinger. The performances of
Beethoven’s works in Vienna in 1820 and 1821 are quickly summed up. The
Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde performed the “Eroica” on February 20,
the C minor on April 9 and the F major on November 19. The Overture
in C, Op. 115, was played at a concert for the benefit of Widows and
Orphans on April 16, 1820. In the _Concerts spirituels_, conducted
by F. X. Gebauer in the season 1820-21, the Symphonies in C minor,
A major, and F major, and the Oratorio “Christus am Ölberg,” were
performed. Leopoldine Blahetka, a young woman of 18 who was creating
something of a furore by her pianoforte playing at the time, played the
Concerto in B-flat on April 3, having studied it with J. Czerny.
FOOTNOTES:
[24] “Two things fill the soul with ever new and increasing wonder
and reverence the oftener the mind dwells upon them--the starry sky
above me and the moral law within me.”--Kant’s “Criticism of Practical
Reason.”
[25] The greeting was in the form of a four-part canon beginning with
a short homophonic chorus, the words: “Seiner Kaiserlichen Hoheit! Dem
Erzherzog Rudolph! Dem geistlichen Fürsten! Alles Gute, alles Schöne!”
The autograph is preserved by the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in
Vienna. B. and H. Ges. Aus. Series XXIII, page 187.
[26] The reader who desires to read the documents in full is referred
to the German edition of this biography for the decrees and minutes
of the courts and to the Kalischer-Shedlock collection of letters for
Beethoven’s pleadings.
[27] 11 Dr. Deiters remarks on this point: “No doubt Beethoven had
hoped to attain his ends by general statements and thus spare himself
the shame and humiliation which would have followed had he presented
the truth, even in disguise, touching the lewdness and shameless life
of his own sister-in-law; and her legal advisers and the members of the
Magisterial Court knew how to turn this fact to their own advantage.”
[28] Made to Thayer.
[29] Here, as in several other cases, in which opinions only and
not definitely ascertained facts are concerned, the present Editor
is inclined to attach as much importance to Thayer’s judgment as
to that of his critics and revisers. Thayer’s working copy of his
“Chronologisches Verzeichniss,” which contains annotations of a
much later date than Nottebohm’s publication in the “Thematisches
Verzeichniss” which he edited for Breitkopf and Härtel, pays no
attention to Nottebohm’s conclusion.
[30] See the letter in the Kalischer-Shedlock Coll. II, 178.
[31] Thayer.
[32] This anecdote is recorded in Thayer’s note-book as a memorandum of
a conversation had with Höfel on June 23, 1860.
[33] For the music the reader is referred to Series XXIII of the
Complete Edition of Beethoven’s works published by Breitkopf and Härtel.
[34] The dramatic poet Zacharias Werner, who had become a convert
to Roman Catholicism and, now an ordained priest, was preaching to
great crowds of Viennese. The puns on the German word _Verleger_ and
_verlegen_ are untranslatable.
[35] The letter is preserved in the Beethoven House at Bonn. It was
first published in the “Vossische Zeitung” by Dr. Kalischer on July 26,
1903. See Kalischer-Shedlock, II, 177.
[36] Dr. Kalischer refers the remark about the “Jewish publisher”
to Schlesinger in Berlin; but this may be a mistake. In a later
correspondence with Peters, who suggests the term, Schlesinger is thus
referred to; but there is nothing to indicate that when correspondence
between Schlesinger and Beethoven had scarcely begun, Brentano was
called on to come to the rescue. Beethoven may mean a fling at Simrock
for his action in the matter of the Louis d’ors.
[37] See the letter to Franz Brentano of December 20, 1821, and the
note to his daughter dated December 6, 1821. (Kalischer-Shedlock, II,
189.)
[38] See Nottebohm, “Zweit. Beeth.,” pp. 465 and 471.
[39] Beethoven wrote, as if absentmindedly, “Ludwig Ludwig am 13ten
Jenner 1822.”
[40] It is noteworthy, as shown by Nottebohm (“Zweit. Beeth.,” pp.
467, 468) that the first theme of the first movement of the C minor
Sonata was originally intended for a third movement in a “second
sonata” which (Op. 109 being finished) can only have been the one in C
minor. It would seem as if the use of the theme in the first movement
did not occur to the composer until after he had conceived the theme
of the variations. But the theme had figured twenty years before in a
sketchbook used when the Sonata in A major, Op. 30, was in hand. Its
key then was F-sharp minor, and it may have been intended for Op. 30.
[41] Published also, together with three other songs--“Geheimniss,”
“Resignation” and “So oder so”--by Sauer and Leidesdorf as Op. 113 in
1821 or 1822. Beethoven presented a copy of it to Fanny Giannatasio on
April 19, 1820.