The Solemn Mass in D--A Royal Subscription--More Negotiations with
England--Opera Projects--Grillparzer’s “Melusine”--The Diabelli
Variations--Summer Visitors--An Englishman’s Account--Weber and
Julius Benedict--Ries and the Ninth Symphony--Franz Liszt and
Beethoven’s Kiss--The Year 1823.
When the year 1823 opens, the Mass in D is supposedly finished and
negotiations for its publication have been carried on in a manner the
contemplation of which must affect even the casual reader grievously.
The work had been originally intended for the functions attending the
installation of Archduke Rudolph as Archbishop of Olmütz--not merely
as a personal tribute to the imperial, archepiscopal pupil, but for
actual performance at the ceremony of inthronization--a fact which
ought to be borne in mind during its study, for it throws light upon
Beethoven’s attitude towards the Catholic Church (at least so far as
that church’s rubrics are concerned) as well as towards religion in
general and art as its handmaiden and mistress. Archduke Rudolph had
been chosen Cardinal on April 24, 1819, and Archbishop on June 4 of
the same year; he was installed as head of the see of Olmütz on March
20, 1820; but the fact of his selection for the dignities was known in
Vienna amongst his friends as early as the middle of 1818. When the
story of the year 1823 opens, therefore, Beethoven’s plan is nearly
five years old and Archduke Rudolph has been archbishop nearly a year.
We first hear of the Mass this year in a letter dated February 27, when
Beethoven apologizes to his august pupil for not having waited upon
him. He had delayed his visit, he said, because he wanted to send him a
copy of the Mass; but this had been held back by corrections and other
circumstances. Accompanying the letter were the copies of the overture
to “The Consecration of the House” and the “Gratulatory Minuet.”
Finally, on March 19, 1823, on the very eve of the first anniversary of
the installation, Beethoven placed a manuscript copy of the Mass in
the Archduke’s hands. In the catalogue of the Rudolphinian Collection,
now preserved by the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna, it is
entered thus: “_Missa Solemnis_. Partitur. MS. This beautifully written
MS. was delivered by the composer himself on March 19, 1823.”
The plan to write the Mass for the installation ceremonies seems to
have been original with Beethoven; it was not suggested by the Archduke
or any of his friends, so far as has ever been learned. He began work
upon it at once, for Schindler says he saw the beginning of the score
in the fall of 1818. Nottebohm’s study of all the sketches which
have been discovered (save a number now preserved in the Beethoven
House in Bonn which do not add materially to our knowledge) led him
to conclusions which may be summed up as follows: The movements were
taken up in the order in which the various portions of the text appear
in the Roman missal, but work was prosecuted on several movements
simultaneously. The _Kyrie_ was begun at the earliest in the middle
of 1818, i. e., shortly after the fact of the Archduke’s appointment
became known; the _Gloria_ was completely sketched by the end of 1819,
the _Credo_ in 1820; the entire Mass was complete in sketch-form in
the beginning of 1822. While sketching the Mass Beethoven composed the
Pianoforte Sonatas, Op. 109, 110 and 111, the Variations, Op. 107, No.
8, and several other small pieces, including the canons “O, Tobias,”
“Gehabt euch wohl,” “Tugend ist kein leerer Name,” and “Gedenkt heute
an Baden.” But with the elaboration of the sketches the Mass was not
really finished, for subsequently Beethoven undertook many changes.
The _Allegro molto_ which enters in the _Credo_ at the words _et
ascendit_ is shorter in the autograph than in the printed edition. At
the entrance of the words _et iterum_ and _cujus regni_ the autograph
is in each case two measures shorter than in the printed score. In the
autograph, and also in the copy which Beethoven gave to the Archduke,
the trombones do not enter till the words _judicare vivos et mortuos_.
There are no trombones in the _Gloria_. The trombone passage which
now appears just before the entrance of the chorus on _judicare_ was
formerly set for the horns. After the words _et mortuos_ the trombones
are silent till the end of the _Credo_ in the autograph; they enter
again in the beginning of the _Sanctus_, but are silent at the next
_Allegro_. They occur in the _Benedictus_, but are wanting in the
_Agnus Dei_. From the nature of these supplementary alterations it is
to be concluded that considerable time must have elapsed before they
could all be made and the Mass be given the shape in which we know it.
Holding to the date on which the copy was delivered to the Archduke
(March 19, 1823), the earliest date at which the Mass can have received
its definitive shape must be set down as the middle of 1823. Beethoven,
therefore, devoted about five years to its composition. He made so many
changes in the tympani part of the _Agnus Dei_ that he wore a hole in
the very thick paper, his aim being, apparently, by means of a vague
rhythm to suggest the distance of the disturbers of the peace. That
he was sincere in his purpose to provide a mass for the installation
ceremonies is to be found, outside of Schindler’s statement, in a
letter to the Archduke written in 1819, in which he says:
The day on which a high mass of my composition is performed at the
ceremony for Y. I. H. will be to me the most beautiful in my life
and God will enlighten me so that my poor powers may contribute to
the glory of this solemn day.
[Sidenote: BEETHOVEN AND RELIGION]
Something was said, in the conclusion of the chapter of this biography
devoted to a review of the incidents of the years 1807 to 1809,
concerning the views Beethoven entertained on the subject of religion
and dogmatic and sectarian Christianity. His attitude towards the Roman
Catholic Church becomes an almost necessary subject of contemplation in
a study of the Solemn Mass in D; but it is one into which the personal
equation of the student must perforce largely enter. The obedient
churchman of a Roman Catholic country will attach both less and more
importance, than one brought up in a Protestant land, to the fact that
he admonished his nephew when a lad to say his prayers and said them
with him (as the boy testified in the guardianship proceedings), that
he himself at least once led him to the door of the confessional,[68]
that he consented to the summoning of a priest when _in extremis_
and that he seemed to derive comfort and edification from the sacred
function. It is not necessary, however, to go very deeply into a
critical study of the Mass in order to say that while the composition
shows respect for traditions in some portions and while it is possible
to become eloquent without going beyond the demonstration contained
in the music itself, in describing the overwhelming puissance of
his proclamation of the fatherhood of God and belief in Him as the
Creator of all things visible and invisible, the most obvious fact
which confronts the analytical student is that Beethoven approached
the missal text chiefly with the imagination and the emotions of an
artist, and that its poetical, not to say dramatic elements were those
which he was most eager to delineate.[69] One proof of this is found in
what may be called the technical history of the Mass, and is therefore
pertinent here. It was scarcely necessary for Beethoven to do so, but
he has nevertheless given us an explanation of his singular treatment
of the prayer for peace. Among the sketches for the movement is found
the remark: “_dona nobis pacem_ darstellend den _innern_ und äussern
Frieden” (“delineating internal and external peace”), and in agreement
with this he superscribes the first _Allegro vivace_ in the autograph
with the same words. In the later copy this phrase is changed to
“Prayer for internal and external peace,” thus showing an appreciation
of the fact that the words alone contain the allusion to peace which in
its external aspect is disturbed by the sounds of war suggested by the
instruments. The petition for peace is emphasized by the threatening
tones of military instruments accompanying the agonizing appeal for
mercy sent up by the voices. The device is purely dramatic and it was
not an entirely novel conceit of Beethoven’s. When the French invaded
Styria in 1796, Haydn wrote a mass “In tempore belli” in which a soft
drum-roll entered immediately after the words “Agnus Dei” and was
gradually reinforced by trumpets and other wind-instruments “as if the
enemy were heard approaching in the distance.”
Whence came the plan of postponing the publication of the mass for
a period in order to sell manuscript copies of it by subscription
to the sovereigns of Europe does not appear. Beethoven had it under
consideration at the beginning of 1823, for the year was only a week
old when he sent his brother Johann with a letter to Griesinger of the
Saxon Legation asking him to give advice on the subject to the bearer
of the letter, apologizing for not coming in person on the ground
of indisposition. Whether or not Griesinger came to his assistance
we do not know, but within a fortnight work on the project had been
energetically begun. Schindler was now called upon to write, fetch
and carry as steadily and industriously as if he were, in fact, what
he described himself to be--a private secretary. Among his papers in
Berlin are found many billets and loose memoranda bearing on the
subject, without date, but grouped as to periods by Schindler himself
and provided with occasional glosses touching their contents. Beethoven
took so much of his time in requisition, indeed, that he offered to
pay him 50 florins after the collection of one of the subscription
fees, but Schindler records that he never received them nor would he
have accepted them. He was, as he informed the world for many years
afterward on his visiting card, “L’Ami de Beethoven,” and his very
considerable and entirely unselfish labors were “works of friendship”
for which he wanted no remuneration; but he was very naturally rejoiced
when Beethoven presented him with several autograph scores, and we
have seen how, after the death of Beethoven, Breuning gave him many
papers which seemed valueless then but are looked upon as invaluable
now. Moreover, he disposed of his Beethoven _memorabilia_ to the
Royal Library of Berlin for an annuity of 400 thalers--all of which,
however, does not detract from the disinterestedness of his labors for
Beethoven, alive, suffering and so frequently helpless.
[Sidenote: ROYAL SUBSCRIPTIONS INVITED]
The invitations to the courts were issued in part before the end of
January. A letter to Schindler, evidently written in that month, asks
him to draw out a memorandum of courts from an almanac in which the
foreign embassies stationed at Vienna were listed. The invitations were
posted on the following dates: to the courts at Baden, Wurtemburg,
Bavaria and Saxony on January 23; “to the other ambassadors” (as
Beethoven notes) on January 26; to Weimar on February 4; to Mecklenburg
and Hesse-Darmstadt on February 5; to Berlin, Copenhagen, Hesse-Cassel
and Nassau on February 6; to Tuscany on February 17, and to Paris on
March 1. The invitation to the court at Hesse-Cassel had been written
on January 23, but it was not sent because, as Schindler says, “it had
been found that nothing was to be got from the little courts.” The
letter came back to Beethoven and its preservation puts in our hands
the formula which, no doubt was followed in all the formal addresses.
We therefore give it here:
The undersigned cherishes the wish to send his latest work, which
he regards as the most successful of his intellectual products, to
the Most Exalted Court of Cassel.
It is a grand solemn mass for 4 solo voices with choruses and
complete grand orchestra in score, which can also be used as a
grand oratorio.
He therefore begs the High Embassy of His Royal Highness, the
Elector of Hesse-Cassel, to be pleased to procure for him the
necessary permission of your Exalted Court.
Inasmuch, however, as the copying of the score will entail a
considerable expense the author does not think it excessive if he
fixes an honorarium at 50 ducats in gold. The work in question,
moreover, will not be published for the present.
Vienna, 23 January, 1823.
Ludwig van Beethoven.
Only the signature was in Beethoven’s handwriting. It is not known
how many of these invitations were issued; Schindler’s account goes
only to the subscriptions received and even here it is not entirely
accurate. There were ten acceptances. The first came from the King of
Prussia. Prince Hatzfeld acted in the matter for Berlin and Beethoven
also invoked the aid of Zelter. Court Councillor Wernhard, Director
of the Chancellary of the Embassy at Vienna, brought the report to
Beethoven and asked him if he would not prefer a royal order to the 50
ducats. Without hesitation, Beethoven replied “50 ducats,” and after
Wernhard had gone he indulged in sarcastic comments on the pursuit
of decorations by various contemporaries--“which in his opinion were
gained at the cost of the sanctity of art.” Beethoven received the
money, but the score was not delivered, owing, no doubt, to delay in
the copying, and in July Prince Hatzfeld feels compelled to remind the
composer of his remissness. Prince Radziwill in Berlin also subscribed,
but he did not receive his copy till more than a year later. On June
28, 1824, a representative of the Prince politely informed Beethoven
that he had sent a cheque for 50 ducats to him with a request for a
receipt and a copy of the score, but had received neither. On July
3, Schindler informed Beethoven that Hatzfeld had earnestly inquired
whether he was now going to receive the Mass. He was being so pestered
about the matter from Berlin that it was becoming burdensome. He
asked that Beethoven write to the Prince without delay, telling him
when he should receive the Mass, so that he might show it in his
own justification in Berlin. Schindler says the fault lay with the
copyists; in every copy many pages had to be rewritten.
Much to Beethoven’s vexation and impatience the Saxon court was
very tardy in its reply, or rather in subscribing, for at first the
invitation was declined; but Beethoven was not thus to be put off by a
court with which his imperial pupil was closely connected. He called
in the help of Archduke Rudolph, to whom on July 1, 1823, he wrote a
letter. He complains in this letter of pain in the eyes from which he
has been suffering for a week. He was forced to make sparing use of
them and therefore had not been able to look through some variations
composed by the Archduke, but had been obliged to leave the task to
another. He continues:
[Sidenote: AN ARCHDUKE ASKED TO BE SOLICITOR]
In regard to the Mass which Y. I. H. wished to see made more
generally useful: the continuously poor state of my health for
several years, more especially the heavy debts which I have
incurred and the fact that I had to forgo the visit to England
which I was invited to make, compelled me to think of means for
bettering my condition. For this the Mass seemed suitable. I was
advised to offer it to several courts. Hard as it was for me to
do this I nevertheless did not think that I ought to subject
myself to reproach by not doing it. I therefore invited several
courts to subscribe for the Mass, fixed the fee at 50 ducats, as
it was thought that would not be too much and, if a number of
subscribers were found, also not unprofitable. Thus far, indeed,
the subscription does me honor, their Royal Majesties of France and
Prussia having accepted. I also a few days ago received a letter
from my friend Prince Gallitzin [_sic_] in St. Petersburg, in which
this truly amiable prince informs me that His Imperial Majesty
of Russia had accepted and I should soon hear the details from
the Imperial Russian embassy here. In spite of all this, however,
though others have also become subscribers I do not get as much as
I would as fee from a publisher, only I have the advantage that
the work remains _mine_. The costs of copying are large and will
be increased by the new pieces[70] which are to be added, which I
shall send to Y. I. H. as soon as I have finished them. Perhaps Y.
I. H. will not find it burdensome graciously to ask H. R. H. the
Grand Duke of Tuscany to take a copy of the Mass. The invitation
was sent some time ago to the Grand Duke of Tuscany through the
agent v. Odelgha, and O. solemnly assures me that the invitation
will surely be accepted, but I am not entirely confident, since
it was several months ago and no answer has been received. The
matter having been undertaken, it is only natural that as much as
possible should have been done to attain the desired result. It
was hard for me to understand this, still harder for me to tell Y.
I. H. of it or permit you to notice it, but “_Necessity knows no
law_.” But I thank Him above the stars[71] that I am beginning to
use my eyes again. I am now writing a new symphony for England,
for the Philharmonic Society, and hope to have it completely done
in a fortnight. I can not yet strain my eyes for a long period,
wherefore I beg Y. I. H. graciously to be patient in regard to Y.
I. H.’s variations which seem to me charming but need carefully to
be looked through by me. Continue Y. I. H. to practice the custom
of briefly jotting down your ideas at the pianoforte; for this a
little table alongside the pianoforte will be necessary. By this
means the fancy will not only be strengthened but one learns to
fix at once the most remote ideas. It is also necessary to write
without the pianoforte, and sometimes to develop a simple chorale
melody now with simple, and anon with varied figurations in
counterpoint and this will cause no headache to Y. I. H. but rather
a great pleasure at finding yourself absorbed in the art. Gradually
there comes the capacity to represent just that only which we wish
to feel, an essential need in the case of men of noble mould. My
eyes command me to stop, etc.
This letter was written in Vienna, but from Hetzendorf he sent a
postscript in which he said:
If convenient, will Y. I. H. graciously recommend the Mass to
Prince Anton in Dresden, so that His Royal Majesty of Saxony may
be induced to subscribe to the Mass, which will surely happen if
Y. I. H. shows the slightest interest in the matter. As soon as
I have been informed that you have shown me this favor, I shall
at once address myself to the Director General of the Theatre and
Music there, who is in charge of such matters, and send him the
invitation to subscribe for the King of Saxony which, however, I
do not wish to do. My opera “Fidelio” was performed with great
success in Dresden at the festivities in honor of the visit of the
King of Bavaria, all their Majesties being present. I heard of
this from the above-mentioned Director General, who asked me for
the score through Weber and afterwards made me a handsome present
in return. Y. I. H. will pardon me for inconveniencing you by such
requests but Y. I. H. knows how little importunate I am as a rule;
but if there should be the least thing unpleasant to you in the
affair you will understand as a matter of course that I am none
the less convinced of your magnanimity and graciousness. It is not
greed, not the desire for speculation, which I have always avoided,
but need which compels me to do everything possible to extricate
myself from this position. In order not to be too harshly judged,
it is perhaps best to be frank. Because of my continual illness,
which prevented me from writing as much as usual, I am burdened
with a debt of 2300 florins C. M. which can be liquidated only by
extraordinary exertions. If these subscriptions help matters, for
which there are the best of hopes, I shall be able to get a firm
foothold again through my compositions. Meanwhile, may Y. I. H. be
pleased to receive my frankness not ungraciously. If ever I should
be charged with not being as active as formerly, I should keep
silent as I always have done. As regards the recommendations I am
nevertheless convinced that Y. I. H. will always be glad to do good
_whenever possible_ and will make no exception in my case.
Beethoven’s impatience with the Saxon Court was so great that some
time before his hopes had been reanimated, probably by the application
for his opera, he had said in a note to Schindler: “Nothing from
Dresden. Wait till the end of the month then an advocate in Dresden.”
These words led Schindler to the singular conclusion that Beethoven
had thoughts of compelling the King of Saxony to reach a decision by
judicial means. Obviously, all that Beethoven meant by “advocate” was a
pleader, an intercessor. He could have contemplated legal measures only
if he had sent a copy of the Mass to the King with the invitation, and
this we know he did not do from a letter written by Archduke Rudolph,
which says, that the King of Saxony had not received a score by July
31. Archduke Rudolph became the advocate through his brother-in-law
Prince Anton, brother to the King, and so did the Director General v.
Könneritz, to whom Beethoven wrote on July 17 and again on July 25. In
the first letter he promises to send the invitation to the King and
in the next he does so. This must have been a second invitation, for
Beethoven tells v. Könneritz that the original one had been declined. A
paragraph from each letter deserves reproduction.
I know that you will scarcely think of me as among those who
write simply for vulgar gain, but when do not circumstances
sometimes compel a man to act contrary to his habits of thought and
principles!! My Cardinal is a good-hearted prince, but he lacks
means.
Up to now, in spite of all external glory, I have scarcely received
for the work what I would have been paid by a publisher, the costs
of copying having been so great. My friends conceived the idea of
thus circulating the Mass, for I, thank God, am a _layman_ in all
speculations. Besides, there is no citizen of our country who has
not suffered loss, and so have I. Were it not for my sickness of
years’ standing, I should have received enough from foreign lands
to live a care-free life, caring only for art. Judge me kindly and
not unfavorably, I live for my art alone and to fulfil my duties as
a man, but alas! that this can not always be done without the help
of the _subterrestrial powers_.
[Sidenote: SUBSCRIPTIONS BY REGAL COURTS]
These last efforts were successful; King Friedrich August subscribed
for the Mass, and on July 31 Archduke Rudolph wrote to his
music-master: “My brother-in-law Prince Anton has already written to me
that the King of Saxony is expecting your beautiful Mass.” On September
12, Prince Anton wrote to Beethoven that he had no doubt his royal
brother would grant his wish, especially as he had spoken to him on the
subject in the name of his brother-in-law, the Cardinal. The money must
have arrived soon afterward and Beethoven set Schindler’s mind at ease
by writing to him:
In order that evil report may not longer injure the poor Dresdeners
too much, I inform you that the money reached me to-day, with all
marks of respect.
According to Fürstenau the manuscript copy of the Mass is still in the
private music collection of the King of Saxony in Dresden.
The Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt was appealed to directly under date
of February 5, the letter, probably following the formula and signed
by Beethoven, being forwarded through the Hessian ambassador, Baron
von Türckheim, a cultured art connoisseur and subsequently Intendant
of the Grand Ducal Theatre in Darmstadt. Louis Schlösser was in Vienna
at the time, and Baron von Türckheim, knowing that he wanted to make
Beethoven’s acquaintance, gave him the opportunity by asking him
to carry the information that the invitation had been accepted, to
Beethoven, handing him the dispatch with the Grand Ducal seal affixed
for that purpose. Schlösser went to Beethoven, “No. 60 Kothgasse, first
storey, door to the left,” and has left us a description of the visit,
which must have been made in April or early in May, 1823. Beethoven
read the document with great joy and said to Schlösser:
Such words as I have read do good. Your Grand Duke speaks not only
like a princely Mæcenas but like a thorough musical connoisseur of
comprehensive knowledge. It is not alone the acceptance of my work
which rejoices me but the estimation which in general he places
upon my works.
[Sidenote: A VAIN APPEAL TO GOETHE]
No success was met with at the cultivated Court of Weimar, though here
Beethoven invoked the assistance of no less a dignitary than Goethe.
His letter to the poet is still preserved in the Grand Ducal archives
and is worthy of being given in full:
Vienna, February 8th, 1823.
Your Excellency!
Still living as I have lived from my youthful years in your
immortal, never-aging works, and never forgetting the happy
hours spent in your company, it nevertheless happens that I must
recall myself to your recollection--I hope that you received the
dedication to Your Excellency of “Meeresstille und glückliche
Fahrt” composed by me. Because of their contrast they seemed to me
adapted for music in which the same quality appears; how gladly
would I know whether I have fittingly united my harmonies with
yours; advice too, which would be accepted as very truth, would be
extremely welcome to me, for I love the latter above all things
and it shall never be said of me _veritas odium parit_. It is very
possible that a number of your poems which must ever remain unique,
set to music by me, will soon be published, among them “Rastlose
Liebe.” How highly would I value some general observations from
you on the composition or setting to music of your poems! Now a
request to Y. E. I have composed a Grand Mass which, however, I
do not want to publish at present, but which is to be sent to the
principal courts. The honorarium for the same is 50 ducats only. I
have addressed myself in the matter to the Grand Ducal Weimarian
Embassy, which has accepted the appeal to His Serene Highness and
promised to deliver it. The Mass can also be used as an oratorio
and who does not know that the benevolent societies are suffering
from the lack of such things. My request consists in this, that
Y. E. call the attention of His Serene Highness, the Grand Duke,
to this matter so that His Highness may subscribe for the Mass.
The Grand Ducal Weimarian Embassy gave me to understand that it
would be very beneficial if the Grand Duke could be induced to
regard the matter favorably in advance. I have written much but
accumulated scarcely anything, and now I am no longer alone but
have for more than six years been father to a son of my deceased
brother, a promising youth in his sixteenth year, wholly devoted to
science and already at home in the rich shafts of Hellenism; but in
these countries such things cost a great deal and, in the case of
young students, not only the present but also the future must be
borne in mind, and as much as I formerly kept my thoughts directed
aloft I must now extend my glances _downwards_. My income is all
outgo--the condition of my health for years has not permitted
that I make artistic journeys nor seize upon the many things which
yield money!?--If my health should be completely restored I might
expect other and better things. Y. E. must not think that it is
because I am asking a favor that I have dedicated the “Meeresstille
und glückliche Fahrt” to you--this was already done in May, 1822,
and this method of making the Mass known was not thought of till a
few weeks ago. The respect, love and esteem which I have cherished
for the only and immortal Goethe since the days of my youth have
remained with me. Things like this are not easily put into words,
especially by a bungler like myself, who has always been bent only
on making tones his own, but a singular feeling impels me always to
tell you this, inasmuch as I live in your works. I know that you
will not refuse to help an artist who feels only too keenly how far
mere _monetary reward_ is from _her_ (art) now that he is compelled
by _need_ and constrained to work and labor _because of others for
others_. The good is always plain to us and therefore I know that
Y. E. will not deny my request.
A few words from you would fill me with happiness.
I remain, Your Excellency, with the sincerest and most unbounded
respect,
Beethoven.
According to Schindler, who surely was in a position to know, no answer
to this letter was ever received; nor did the Grand Duke subscribe.
That the invitation reached its destination may safely be assumed from
Beethoven’s remark about the interest displayed in the plan at the
embassy; but the document is not to be found in the archives. Goethe’s
indifference, if he was indifferent in the premises, may be explained
on a number of grounds. If he ever was thoroughly appreciative of
Beethoven’s music, it was only later in life. He was in the prime
of life with fixed tastes in music as well as the other arts before
Beethoven came with his new evangel. Reichardt, Zelter and men of their
stamp produced the music which was most to his liking. It is true that
in July, 1812, he wrote a letter in which he said that he had never
seen a more self-contained, energetic and sincere artist than Beethoven
and that he could well understand why he appeared singular in the eyes
of the world; but it is doubtful if he ever felt any real attachment
to the man, and not altogether impossible, if the Teplitz stories are
true, that he resented the bad manners of which Beethoven is said to
have been guilty. But a long time had elapsed since the two great men
came together in 1812.
Bavaria’s story is a short one. In a Conversation Book towards the
close of May, Schindler writes: “A negative answer has come from
Bavaria.” To the King of Naples, Beethoven sent a French copy of the
letter of invitation practically identical with the formula, and also
to the King of France.[72] In the latter case Cherubini was asked to be
the advocate. The draft of Beethoven’s letter to him is still preserved
among the Schindler papers in Berlin:
Highly respected Sir!
It is with great pleasure that I embrace the opportunity to
approach you in writing; in spirit I am with you often enough,
inasmuch as I value your works more than all others written for
the stage, though the beautiful world of art must deplore the fact
that for a considerable period no new theatrical work of yours
of large dimensions has appeared, at least not in our Germany;
high as your other works are esteemed by true connoisseurs, it is
yet a veritable loss to art not to possess a new product of your
great mind. True art remains imperishable and the genuine artist
feels sincere pleasure in real and great products of genius, and
so I, too, am enraptured whenever I hear a new work of yours and
feel as great an interest in it as in my own works.--In brief, I
honor and love you--If it were not for my continual ill health and
I could see you in Paris, with what extraordinary delight would
I discuss art matters with you?! I must add that to every artist
and art-lover I always speak of you with _Enthusiasm_, otherwise
you might (_illegible word_) believe, since I am about to ask a
favor of you, that this was merely an introduction to the subject.
I hope, however, that you will not attribute such lowmindedness,
so contemptible an action, to me. My request consists in this,
etc.[73] That in this, etc. I know that if you will advise His
Majesty to take the Mass, he will surely do so. My situation _ma
critique demande que je ne fixe seulement come ordinaire mes
pensées aux ciel aux contraire, il faut les fixer en bas pour les
necessites de la vie_. Whatever may be the fate of my request to
you, I shall always love and honor you _et vous resteres toujours
celui de mes contemporains, que je l’estime le plus si vous me
voulez faire une_ [sic] _estréme plaisir, c’etoit si m’ecrireess
quelque lignes, ce que me soulagera bien--l’art unie touta_ [sic]
_le monde_ and how much more true artists, _et peut etres vous me
dignes aussi, de me mettre_ also to be counted amongst this number,
_avec la plus haute
estime
votre ami
e serviteur
Beeth._
[Sidenote: A MEDAL FROM THE KING OF FRANCE]
The letter was despatched on March 15. Cherubini did not receive it,
and as late as 1841 expressed his great regret at the miscarriage
which, however, worked no harm to the enterprise. King Louis XVIII
not only subscribed for the Mass but within less than a year sent
Beethoven a gold medal weighing twenty-one Louis d’ors, showing on
the obverse side the bust of the King and on the reverse, within a
wreath, the inscription: _Donnée par le Roi à Monsieur Beethoven_. Duke
d’Achâts, First Chamberlain of the King, accompanied the gift with the
following letter:
_Je m’empresse de vous prévenir, Monsieur, que le Roi a accueillé
avec bonté l’hommage de la Partition de Votre Messe en Musique et
m’a chargé de vous faire parvenir une medaille d’or à son effigie.
Je me félicite d’avoir à vous transmettre le témoinage de la
satisfaction de Sa Majesté et je saisis cette occasion de vous
offrir l’assurance de ma considération distinguée._
_Le Premier Gentilhomme
de la Chambre du Roi_
Aux Tuileries ce 20 Février 1824. Le duc d’Achâts.
“This was a distinction,” says Schindler, “than which one more
significant never fell to the lot of the artist during his life”; but
the biographer certainly is in error when he intimates that the medal
was given in payment of the subscription price. Beethoven informed
Archduke Rudolph that the King had accepted the invitation in his
letter of June 1, 1823; the medal was received early in 1824, over
eight months later. Beethoven’s needs and the reply which he gave the
messenger from Prussia when he offered a decoration instead of the 50
ducats, indicate plainly enough how he felt as to the remuneration.
Moreover, in a billet which he sent to Schindler instructing him
to call upon von Obreskow of the Russian Embassy to tell him how
to pay the subscription of the Czar, Beethoven says: “let him know
incidentally, when opportunity offers, that France simply sent the
money to you.” Evidently King Louis XVIII paid the money in the regular
way and sent the medal as a special mark of distinction.
No subscription was received from the King of Naples. The negotiations
with the Grand Duke of Tuscany were more successful, though they
dragged on into the next year. They were a subject of discussion
in the Conversation Book in which Count Lichnowsky, Brother Johann
and Nephew Karl took part. From remarks there recorded it appears
that an appeal was also made to Ex-Empress Maria Louisa, Duchess of
Parma. Here the agent was Odelga and there was a plan to interest
Countess Neuberg. Count Lichnowsky seems to have suggested the name
of Maria Louisa and offered to write to Count Neuberg, whom he knew,
on the subject. It looks also as if the case of the Grand Duke of
Tuscany had been exceptional, in that the Mass had been forwarded
before the subscription had been received; this at least might be
the interpretation of a remark noted by Karl: “I shall go to Odelga
on Sunday. We must get to work, or they will keep the Mass and send
nothing.”
Schindler says that Beethoven sent a carefully written letter to the
King of Sweden to accompany the invitation; but nothing came of it. The
King of Denmark subscribed, but as we hear nothing of the particulars,
it is most likely that everything went smoothly in his case.
Prince Galitzin was asked to make a plea to the Russian Court and
reported in a letter to Beethoven, dated June 2, that the invitation
had been accepted and the official notification would follow in due
course through the Russian Embassy. The money came soon afterwards. On
July 9, Schindler writes in a jocular vein, using a metaphor which had
already done service in Beethoven’s correspondence:
I take pleasure in reporting to you herewith, that by command of
the Emperor of all the Russias, 50 horsemen in armor are arrived
here as a Russian contingent to do battle under you for the
Fatherland. The leader of these choice troops is a Russian Court
Councillor. Herr Stein, pianoforte maker, has been commissioned
by him to quarter them on you. _Rien de nouveau chez nos voisins
jusqu’ici._
_Fidelissimus Papageno._[74]
The director of the business affairs of the Russian Embassy, von
Obreskow, had made inquiry as to how the fee was to be paid. Beethoven
wrote to Schindler to tell Obreskow to pay the bearer on delivery of a
receipt; to say (if it became opportune) that the King of France had
done so; and admonished him always to remember that such personages
represented “Majesty itself”; also to “say nothing about the Mass
not being finished, which is not true, for the new pieces are only
additions.” Impatience at the non-delivery of the Mass at the expected
time must have been expressed by the Russian Embassy, for in a note
which Schindler dates “in the winter of 1824,” Beethoven says:
Mr. v. Schindler:
Here the _Paquett_ for the Russian Embassy, please look after it at
once, moreover say that I shall soon visit him in person, inasmuch
as it hurts me that lack of confidence has been felt in me and I
thank God I am in a position to prove that I do not deserve it in
any way nor will my honor permit it.[75]
[Sidenote: PRINCE GALITZIN’S SUBSCRIPTION]
Prince Galitzin, who had already expressed his delight in the new work
and who had also been invited to subscribe, suggested that the Mass
be published by popular subscription at four or five ducats, as there
were not many amateurs who could afford to pay 50 ducats for a written
copy. “All that I can do,” the Prince writes in conclusion, “is to beg
you to put me down among your subscribers and to send me a copy as soon
as possible so that I may produce it at a concert for the benefit of
the widows of musicians which takes place annually near Christmas.”
Plainly, this was a subscription in the existing category; there was no
other, and Beethoven, in view of the invitation to the courts, could
not at once entertain the subject of a popular subscription for a
printed edition. Galitzin also accedes to a request which had obviously
been made to him when the invitation was extended, that the 50 ducats
already deposited in Vienna by him for a quartet be applied to the
account of the Mass. He writes on September 23 (October 3): “I have
just received your letter of the 17th and hasten to answer that I have
instructed the house of Henikstein to pay you immediately the 50 ducats
which I fancied had long ago been placed at your disposal.” The bankers
Henikstein sent the Prince Beethoven’s receipt for the 50 ducats “which
we paid to him on the order and account of Your Highness as fee for
the Mass which we have forwarded through the High State Chancellary.”
The score was in the hands of Prince Galitzin on November 29, but the
performance which he had projected did not take place until April 6,
1824. It was the first performance of the Mass anywhere, and Galitzin
wrote an enthusiastic account of it to Beethoven under date of April
8.[76]
A special invitation to subscribe to the Mass was not extended to the
Austrian court for reasons which, no doubt, were understood between
Beethoven and Archduke Rudolph and which may have been connected with
efforts which were making at the time to secure a court appointment
for the composer. At the request of Artaria, however, an invitation
was sent to Prince Paul Esterhazy. Beethoven had little confidence in
the successful outcome of the appeal, probably with a recollection in
his mind of the Prince’s attitude toward him on the occasion of the
production of the Mass in C in 1807, to which he seems to refer in a
letter to Schindler dated June 1:[77]
/# You will kindly again make inquiry of (_illegible_) for a
report. I doubt if it will be favorable for I do not expect a good
opinion from him, at least not to judge by earlier times! I think
that such matters can only be successfully presented to him by
women.
Beethoven’s suspicious nature had other food. On the outside of this
letter he wrote:
N. B. So far as I can remember there was nothing said in the
invitation to Prince Esterhazy about the Mass being distributed
only in manuscript. What mischief may not result from this. I
suspect that the purpose of Herr Artaria in suggesting that the
Mass be offered to the Prince gratis was to enable him to steal a
work of mine for the third time.
Beethoven’s lack of faith in the enterprise was justified; Esterhazy
did not subscribe.
No invitation was sent to the English court, probably because Beethoven
cherished a grudge in that quarter; but subscriptions were asked
of two large singing societies--the Singakademie of Berlin and the
Cäcilien-Verein of Frankfort. Zelter was director of the Singakademie,
and to him Beethoven wrote on February 8 as follows, after the
introductory compliments and reflections:
I wrote a Grand Mass, which might also be performed as an oratorio
(for the benefit of the poor, as is the good custom that has been
introduced) but did not want to publish it in print in the ordinary
way, but to give it to the principal courts only. The fee amounts
to 50 ducats. Except the copies subscribed for, none will be
issued, so that the Mass is practically only a manuscript.
He informs Zelter that an appeal has been sent to the King of Prussia
and that he has asked the intercession in its behalf of Prince
Radziwill. He then continues:
I ask of you that you do what you can in the matter. A work of
this kind might also be of service to the Singakademie, for there
is little wanting to make it practicable for voices alone; but the
more doubled and multiplied the latter in combination with the
instruments, the more effective it would be. It might also be in
place as an oratorio, such as is in demand for the Societies for
Poverty. More or less ill for several years and therefore not in
the most brilliant situation, I had recourse to this means. I have
written much but accumulated almost 0. Disposed to send my glances
aloft--but man is compelled for his own and for others’ sake to
direct them downwards; but this too is a part of man’s destiny.
[Sidenote: ZELTER AND THE SOLEMN MASS]
The letter will be seen, on comparison with that written on the same
day to Goethe, to be either a draft for the latter in part or an echo
of it. There is the same pun on “geschrieben” and “erschrieben,” the
same lament about having to keep his eyes on the ground while desirous
to keep them fixed on higher things, the same reference to the value
of the Mass for concert purposes in behalf of charity. As this last
point is one which would naturally occur to the writer in addressing a
musician and not at all naturally in an appeal to a poet, it is safe
to say that the Zelter letter was written first. It is an unpleasant
duty to call attention to a very significant difference between this
letter and the invitation issued to the courts as well as the letter
to Goethe. In the latter he distinctly says that the Mass will not be
published in the ordinary way “for the present,” thus reserving the
privilege of printing it at a future time. To Zelter, and presumably
to the Frankfort society, he plainly intimates that there is to be no
publication in the ordinary way at all. It is not a violent presumption
that Zelter may have observed this discrepancy, which was of vital
moment to his society, and that this may have caused the termination of
the negotiations, which began auspiciously enough in a letter written
by Zelter on February 22 in reply to Beethoven’s. In this letter he
said he was ready to purchase the Mass for the Singakademie at his own
risk, provided Beethoven would adapt it to the use of the society--that
is, arrange it for performance practically without instruments--a
proceeding, he explained, which would make it practicable for all
similar concert institutions. To this letter Beethoven replied on March
25:
I have carefully considered your suggestion for the Singakademie.
If it should ever appear in print I will send you a copy without
pay. It is true that it might almost be performed _a la capella_,
but to this end the whole would have to be arranged. Perhaps you
have the patience to do this. Besides, there is already a movement
in it which is entirely _a la capella_ and I am inclined to call
this style the only true church style. I thank you for your
readiness. From such an artist as you are, _with honor_, I would
never accept anything. I honor you and desire only an opportunity
to prove this to you in deed.
There the matter ended, so far as is known. The negotiations with
the Frankfort society were more successful. On May 19, 1823, J. N.
Schelble, director, wrote saying:
The hope of receiving a new composition from you, great master,
inspires all the members and reinvigorates their musical zeal. I
therefore request you as soon as it is convenient to you to forward
a copy of your Mass to me.
There were, therefore, as appears from this account and the list of
names sent in November, 1825, to the publishers of the Mass, ten
subscribers, namely: the Czar of Russia, the Kings of Prussia, Saxony,
France and Denmark, the Grand Dukes of Tuscany and Hesse-Darmstadt,
Princes Galitzin and Radziwill and the Cäcilia Society of Frankfort.
Beethoven’s receipts, 500 ducats (£250 or about $1200), were very
materially reduced, how much we can not say, by the costs of copying.
In this work his principal helper was a professional copyist named
Schlemmer, who could best decipher his manuscript. But Schlemmer
was sickly and died before the year was over; his successor was
named Rampel, and seems to have caused Beethoven a great deal of
annoyance; he probably was made to bear a great deal of the blame for
the tardiness of the work, for which, also, the composer’s frequent
alterations were in part responsible. One of the numerous letters to
Schindler from this period throws a little light on this subject:
Samothracian L----l.[78]
How about the trombone part. It is certain that the youngster still
has it, as he did not return it when he brought back the _Gloria_.
There was so much to do in looking over the wretched scribbling
that to carry back the trombone part was forgotten. If necessary,
I shall come to Vienna about the police matter. Here, for Rampel,
is first the theme of the _Var._ which is to be copied for me on
a separate sheet--then he is to copy the rest to _Var._ 13 or to
the end of _Var._ 12, and so an end of this. Get from Schlemmer
what remains of the _Kyrie_:--show him the postscript and herewith
_satis_.--for such _Hauptl----ls_ there is nothing more to be done.
Farewell--attend to everything--I am obliged to bind up my eyes
at night and must be very sparing in my use of them. Otherwise,
Smettana writes, I shall write but few more notes. To Wocher,
whom I shall visit myself as soon as I come to town, my prettiest
compliments and has he yet sent away the _Var._?
[Sidenote: NEGOTIATIONS WITH DIABELLI]
Beethoven’s thoughts in connection with the Mass were not all engrossed
during 1823 with the finishing touches on the composition and the
subscription; he was still thinking of the publication of the work.
His thoughts went to London, as a letter to Ries shows. The Mass
also came up in his dealings with Diabelli in Vienna. There were,
probably, other negotiations, of which we are not advised. An agreement
had been reached with Diabelli concerning the Variations, Op. 120
(on the Diabelli waltz theme), and the Mass had also been mentioned.
Whatever the nature of the negotiations may have been, Diabelli now
seems to have been insisting on conditions which Beethoven could not
accept without breach of contract with his subscribers or revoking the
subscriptions. In March Diabelli called Schindler into his shop and
had a talk with him which is detailed in a Conversation Book. It is
Schindler who is speaking:
Diabelli called me in to-day while I was passing and said to
me that he would take the Mass and publish it in two months by
subscription. He guarantees you the 1000 florins, as he says he has
already told you. You can have as many copies as you want--Diabelli
only asks of you that you let him know your decision within a
few days, then he will have work begun at once and promises that
everything shall be ready by the end of May. You, however, will not
have any further care in the matter. I think the proposition a very
good one, the more, because the work will be printed at once.
Beethoven appears to have doubts or scruples on the score of the
invitations sent to the sovereigns.
It will make no difference to the most exalted courts if printed
copies are put out. Do you want the 1000 florins in cash at once
or later?--he assures me that they will be guaranteed to you; the
business now is that you come to an understanding.
It appears, now, that Diabelli wants to publish the three supplementary
pieces also; but Beethoven still hesitates:
It would be best if you were to persuade Diabelli to print the
work at once, but wait a few months with the publication by
subscription. Then you will not be compromised in the matter, nor
he either.
Later (there has plainly been another consultation between Schindler
and Diabelli):
Diabelli agrees to wait until the tardy answers have been received
before opening the subscription. But he is not willing to wait a
whole year.
And in April:
Are you agreed? The only question is whether you give Diab. the
privilege of announcing the subscription a month before he pays. It
is his wish not to put the Mass in hand until he has paid. About
Diabelli then--do you want to leave the matter to me or consider
the publication by yourself? Diabelli wants the Mass by July 1 in
order to have it ready by the St. Michael Fair.
Later, August 1 and September 1 are mentioned. Beethoven was firm in
his determination to keep faith with his subscribers. He writes to
Schindler: “There are only two courses as regards the Mass, namely,
that the publisher delay the publication a year and a day; or, if
not, we can not accept a subscription.” Later he writes: “Nothing is
to be changed in the Diabelli contract except that _the time_ when he
is to receive the Mass from me be left undetermined.” The contract in
question which was thus to be amended concerned the Variations, but
presumably the Mass also. Beethoven writes:
From my little book I see that you have doubts in the matter of the
Mass and Diab., wherefore, I beg you to come soon, for in that case
we will not give him the Var. either, as my brother knows somebody
who wants to take them both. We are therefore in a position to talk
to him.
Either this disagreement or some other in a matter in which Schindler
acted as Beethoven’s agent brought out a letter from the latter to
the former in which he expresses a belief that the business, “so
disagreeable to you,” might be brought to a conclusion soon: “moreover
I was not, unfortunately, entirely wrong in not wholly trusting Diab.”
Schindler, in a gloss on this note, says that the disagreeable business
concerned the Mass. Diabelli had made plans which were not only
harmful to the work but humiliating as well to Beethoven. Schindler
pointed this out and Diabelli became violent and declared that since
the contract was as good as closed he would summon Schindler before a
court of law if it were not kept. “But,” says Schindler, “the threat
did no good; he had to take back the document.” The numerous notes to
Schindler about this period are undated and the times at which they
were written have been only approximately fixed by Schindler; there
is also some vagueness touching the time and order of the written
conversations, but the evidence thus far presented, together with a
significant remark in a billet to Schindler, to the effect that he
had thought of a project which would “act like a pistol-shot on this
fellow,” would seem to justify the assumption that Beethoven had
entered into the same kind of obligation with Diabelli as he had with
Simrock and Peters so far as the Mass was concerned, and that before
the execution of a formal contract, which seems to have been considered
necessary in this case, which was to include the Variations on the
Diabelli Waltz theme, Beethoven had embarked on his enterprise with
the sovereigns, which made the speedy publication of the Mass in the
ordinary way impossible with honor; further, that a threat to withhold
the Variations had been used to bring the irate publisher to terms. In
the April Conversation Book Schindler says: “Won’t Diabelli make wry
faces when your brother demands the document back almost as soon as he
has received it!”
[Sidenote: DUBIOUS ASPECT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS]
To the commercialized mind of to-day it is possible that the picture
which has just been presented here of a superlatively great artist
hawking his creations in the courts of Europe, appealing to his friends
and patrons among the great to act as his go-betweens, railing against
the tardy and permitting those who were prompt in payment to wait
unconscionable periods for their property, may seem to present as
little of the aspect of debasement of genius and its products as it
did at a time when great musicians were menials in the households of
the highborn, and thrift could only follow fawning. But Beethoven had
done much to exalt art and emancipate the artist, and what would have
caused little comment in the case of his predecessors amongst court
musicians was scarcely venial in him who preached a new ethic as well
as artistic evangel. And so, to minds untainted by trade and attuned
to a love of moral as well as æsthetic beauty, the spectacle which
Beethoven presents in 1823 must be quite as saddening as that disclosed
by his dealings with the publishers in the years immediately preceding.
A greater measure of commiseration goes out to him now, however,
because of the evidence that the new phase cost him greater qualms
of conscience and that the exigencies which impelled him were more
pressing. His physical ailments were increasing; his deafness had put a
stop to his appearances in public as an artist; his eyes were troubling
him; there was no lessening of his concern about his ward, but an
increase in the cost of his maintenance; his income was continually
dwindling because of his lessening productivity, notwithstanding that
the fees which he could command for new works (and even the remnants
of his youthful activity) had reached dimensions of which he had
never dreamed in the heyday of his powers; he felt the oppressive
burden of his debts more and more as his unreasoning love for his
foster-son prompted him to make provision against the future. The royal
subscription was, no doubt, a welcome scheme which, if not suggested by
his advisers, was certainly encouraged by them; but it must have cost
his proud soul no little humiliation to have his application rejected
after he had so deeply bent “the pregnant hinges of the knee.” The
publishers gave him less concern. They were his natural enemies and he
theirs--“hellhounds who licked and gnawed his brains,” as he expressed
it in a letter to Holz in 1825; yet he knew that he would need them,
and he knew also that as soon as he went to them, and the mass appeared
in print, the manuscript copies which he had sold would be all but
worthless. But this may have troubled him little, as he, in all
likelihood, shared Schindler’s conviction that there was no permanency
of interest in the work on the part of the crowned heads and that they
would not be troubled by the appearance of the work in print. Patronage
of art is part of the obligation which rests upon royalty, and it
would have been little less than a crime to withhold the Mass from
the public; but what of the exclusiveness of right which was implied,
if not expressed, in the letter to Zelter and presumably also in that
to the Cæcilia Society of Frankfort? He had informed the kings, who
might not even deign to glance at the Mass, that he had no “present”
intention to print the work, leaving them to gather that he would do so
later; but he plainly gives Zelter to understand that it is to remain
a manuscript. Here, too, the advice of his friends, who could see his
need but did not feel the moral responsibility which he may, or ought
to, have felt, must have been persuasive and also comforting.[79] The
world has too long enjoyed the great work to distress itself about the
circumstances of its creation and publication; but the historian and
moralist may yet as deeply deplore them as pity the conditions which
compelled the composer to yield to them.
[Sidenote: DEALINGS WITH THE LONDON PHILHARMONIC]
Preliminary to the narrative of the other varied incidents of the year
1823, let us set down a brief mention of the fact that on January 20
Beethoven wrote a little piece for voice and pianoforte in the album
of Countess Wimpfen, _née_ Eskeles, on the words of Goethe: “Der edle
Mensch sei hülfreich und gut,” [_sic_] which was published in facsimile
in the “Allgemeine Wiener Musikzeitung” on November 23, 1843. Having
traversed the year in our search for material relating to the Mass
in D, the next most significant subject is that which concerned the
Symphony in D minor, on which he worked industriously and which had
been the subject of correspondence between himself and Ries (in London)
for some time before the year opened. On April 6, 1822, Beethoven had
inquired of his old pupil: “What would the Philharmonic Society be
likely to offer me for a symphony?” Ries, evidently, laid the matter
before the directors of the society who, at a meeting on November 10,
“resolved to offer Beethoven fifty pounds for a MS. symphony.”[80] Ries
conveyed the information to Beethoven in a letter dated November 15
and in a reply dated December 20, Beethoven, although he protested that
the remuneration was not to be compared with what other nations might
give, accepted the offer, adding:
I would write _gratis_ for the first artists of Europe, if I were
not still poor Beethoven. If I were in London, what would I not
write for the Philharmonic Society! For Beethoven can write, God be
thanked, though he can do nothing else in this world. If God gives
me back my health, which has at least improved somewhat, I shall
yet be able to comply with all the requests which have come from
all parts of Europe, and even from North America, and I might yet
feather my nest.
A glimpse into the occupations, cares and perplexities which beset
Beethoven at this period is given by the first letter in the series
written in the new year--on February 5, which Ries, in his “Notizen,”
gives only in part:
I have no further news to give you about the _Sinfonie_ but
meanwhile you may confidently count on it. Since I have made the
acquaintance here of a very amiable and cultivated man, who holds
an appointment in our imperial embassy at London, he will undertake
later to forward the Symphony to you in London, so that _it will
soon be in London_. Were I not so poor that I am obliged to live by
my pen I would accept nothing at all from the Ph. Society; as it is
I must wait until the fee for the Sinfonie is deposited here. But
to give you an evidence of my affection for and confidence in the
society I have already delivered the new Overture referred to in my
last letter, to the gentleman of the Imperial society.[81] As he is
to start from here for London in a few days he will deliver it to
you in person in London. Goldschmidt will no doubt know where you
live; if not, please tell him, so that this accommodating gentleman
will not be obliged long to hunt you. I leave to the Society all
the arrangements about the Overture which, like the Symphony, it
can keep for 18 months. Not until after the lapse of that time
shall I publish it. And now another request: my brother here, who
keeps his carriage, wanted a lift from me and so, without asking
me, he offered the Overture in question to a publisher in London
named Bosey [Boosey]. Let him wait, and tell him that at present
it is impossible to say whether he can have the Overture or not;
I will write to him myself. It all depends on the Philharmonic
Society; say to him please that my brother made a mistake in the
matter of the Overture; as to the other works which he wrote about,
he may have them. My brother _bought them_ of me in order to
traffic with them, as I observe. _O frater!_ I beg of you to write
to me as soon as possible after you have received the Overture,
whether the Philharmonic Society will take it, for otherwise I
shall publish it soon.
I have heard nothing of your _Sinfonie_ dedicated to me. If I did
not look upon the _Dedicat_ as a sort of challenge for which I
might give you _Revanche_ I should long ago have dedicated some
work to you. As it is, I have always thought that I must first
see your work. How willingly would I show you my gratitude in
some manner. I am deeply your debtor for so many proofs of your
affection and for favors. If my health is improved by a bath-cure
which I am to take in the coming summer I will kiss your wife in
London in 1824.
What justification Beethoven had, or imagined he had, for imputing a
dishonorable act to his brother, cannot be said; it is noteworthy,
however, that he does not even mention him in a letter written twenty
days later which reiterates much that had already been set forth,
and offers to send the Symphony at once on receiving word from Ries
accompanied by a draft. He also intends to send six Bagatelles and
asks Ries to traffic, as best he can, with them and two sonatas. Had
he received a dedication from Ries, he says, he would at once have
inscribed the Overture to him. Not long afterward Beethoven wrote
again to Ries. The letter, which has been preserved only in part, is
printed with a few omissions and changes in the “Notizen” (p. 154).
Its significant remark about the new Symphony is that it is to bear a
dedication to Ries; its most valuable contribution, however, refers
to the Mass in D and the explanation which it offers of the fact that
Beethoven sent no invitation to the English court to subscribe for
that work. “In addition to these hardships,” Beethoven writes, “I have
many debts to pay, for which reason it would be agreeable to me if you
have disposed of the Mass to send me also the check for it, for by
that time the copy for London will have been made. There need be no
scruples because of the few _souverains_ who are to get copies of it.
If a local publisher made no objections, there ought to be still fewer
in London; moreover, I bind myself in writing that not a note of it
shall appear either in print or otherwise.” The poor Archduke-Cardinal
comes in for his customary drubbing, the special complaint now being
that Beethoven is obliged to draw his “wretched salary” with the aid of
a stamp. The letter was placed for delivery in the hands of the amiable
gentleman of the Austrian Embassy whose name we now learn to be Bauer
and who was also the bearer of an address to King George IV[82] which
Ries was to ask Bauer to read, after which the latter was to see to its
delivery into the royal hands and if possible get in return at least
a “butcher’s knife or a tortoise”; a printed copy of the “Battle of
Vittoria” was to accompany it. The character of the address to the king
can be guessed at from the following draft for an earlier letter which
was found amongst Schindler’s papers:
[Sidenote: AN APPEAL TO THE KING OF ENGLAND]
In thus presuming, herewith, to submit my most obedient prayer to
Your Majesty, I venture at the same time to supplement it with a
second.
Already in the year 1823, the undersigned took the liberty, at
the frequent requests of several Englishmen then living here, to
send his composition entitled “Wellington’s Battle and Victory at
Vittoria” which no one possessed at that time (to Your Majesty).
The then Imperial Russian Ambassador, Prince Rasoumowsky, undertook
to send the work to Your Majesty by a courier.
For many years the undersigned cherished the sweet wish that Your
Majesty would graciously make known the receipt of his work to him;
but he has not yet been able to boast of this happiness, and had
to content himself with a brief notice from Mr. Ries, his former
worthy pupil, who reported that Y. M. had been pleased graciously
to deliver the work to the then Musical Director, Mr. Salomon
and Mr. Smart for public performance in Drury Lane Theatre. This
appears also from the English journals, which added, as did Mr.
Ries, that the work had been received with extraordinary favor
not only in London but elsewhere. Inasmuch as it was extremely
humiliating to the undersigned to learn all this from indirect
sources, Y. M. will surely pardon his sensitiveness and graciously
permit him to observe that he spared neither time nor cost to lay
this work before your exalted person in the most proper manner in
order to provide a pleasure for Y. M.
From this the undersigned concludes, that it may have been
improperly submitted to Y. M. and inasmuch as the most obedient
petition which is now submitted, enables him again to approach Y.
M., he takes the privilege of handing to Y. M. accompanying printed
copy of the Battle of Vittoria in score, which has been set aside
for this purpose ever since 1815 and which has been retained so
long because of the uncertainty felt by the undersigned concerning
the matter.
Convinced of the lofty wisdom and graciousness which Y. M. has
hitherto shown toward art and artists to their appreciation and
good fortune, the undersigned flatters himself that Your Majesty
will graciously condescend to take all this in consideration and
grant his most humble petition.
[_Convaincu de la haute sagesse dont Votre Majesté a toujours su
apprecier l’art ainsi que de la haute faveur qu’elle accordé a
l’artiste le soussigné se flatte que Votre Majesté prendra l’un
et l’autre en consideration et vaudra en grace condescendre a sa
tres-humble demande._]
_a Vienne le 24 fevrier._
There are other letters to Ries which must be considered later. They
do not bear out Schindler’s contention that an estrangement had taken
place between former master and pupil, but were it not that Beethoven’s
utterances on that point were chronic when negotiating sales of his
works it might be said that they show that his burden of debt rested
with peculiar grievousness upon him at this time. That it did trouble
him more than ordinarily is otherwise evidenced. In April Schindler
writes: “Don’t think night and day about your debts. When you are
well again you’ll pay them without feeling it.” Steiner, who may have
thought that consideration was no longer incumbent on him, now that
Beethoven was offering his works to other publishers, pressed him
for the money which he had loaned him and threatened to sue him for
800 florins. Beethoven presented a counter-claim and demanded that
Steiner publish a number of compositions which he had purchased but had
not issued. The debt to Brentano also distressed him. He had as yet
received nothing from the royal subscribers to the _Missa Solemnis_. He
appealed to his brother Johann to go security for him, but he refused.
Then he consulted Dr. Bach, who advised him to dispose of one of the
seven shares of bank stock which he had purchased after his stroke of
fortune at the time of the Congress of Vienna. Schindler was called on
to act as fiscal agent in what must have seemed a complicated matter to
Beethoven, since at another time he had wanted to hypothecate a share
and, on getting it out of its hiding-place, learned that all he had to
do to get the money he needed was to cut off a coupon and collect it.
Now he writes to Schindler:
Do not forget the B. A. (bank share); it is highly necessary. I
should not like to be sued for nothing and less than nothing. The
conduct of my brother is worthy of him. The tailor is coming to-day
and I hope to turn him away without unpleasantness.
Another note to the same:
Try to find some philanthropist who will make me a loan on a bank
share, so that, first, I need not put too severe a strain on the
generosity of my only (the word is indistinct) friend v. B. and may
not myself get in need because of the withholding of this money due
to the beautiful arrangement made by my dear brother!
On a separate scrap of paper is written: “It must not appear that the
money is needed.” The date of this note is fixed by the circumstance
that it is the one in which Beethoven asks Schindler to draw up a list
of courts to which the invitations to subscribe to the Mass were to be
sent. In still another note he refers to bank shares which evidently
were to be hypothecated. It was while in this distressful state
concerning his debts that he took the first steps toward making his
nephew his legal heir. On March 6, 1823, he wrote to Bach:
Death might come unannounced and give no time to make a legal
will; therefore I hereby attest with my own hand that I declare my
nephew Karl van Beethoven to be my universal heir and that after
my death everything without exception _which can be called my
property shall belong to him_. I appoint you to be his curator, and
if there should be no testament after this you are also authorized
and requested to find a guardian for my beloved nephew--to the
exclusion of my brother Johann van Beethoven--and secure his
appointment according to law. I declare this writing to be valid
for all time as being my last will before my death. I embrace you
with all my heart.
The words excluding Johann from the guardianship were written on the
third page of the document and on the first there was this addition:
“NB. In the way of capital there are 7 shares of bank stock; whatever
else is found in cash is like the bank shares to be his.” Shortly
before his death he reiterated this bequest with modifications entailed
by changed conditions.
The origin of a canon which Beethoven improvised at the coffee-house
“Zur goldenen Birne” on February 20 to the words “Bester Herr Graf, Sie
sind ein Schaf” is said by Schindler to have been a discussion between
the composer and Count Lichnowsky concerning a contract with Steiner.
Obviously, Beethoven and his adviser had disagreed.
[Sidenote: SEEKS APPOINTMENT AS COURT COMPOSER]
In November 1822, Anton Tayber, Imperial Court Composer, died.
Beethoven applied for the appointment as his successor and Counts
Lichnowsky and Dietrichstein entered the lists for him. Beethoven made
a personal appeal to Dietrichstein, who was the “Court Music-Count”
who, on February 23, 1823, disclosed the plan which had been conceived
to promote Beethoven’s interests with the Emperor in a letter to
Lichnowsky:
It would have been my duty long ago to reply to good Beethoven,
since he came to me so trustfully. But after I had spoken with
you I decided to break silence only after I had received definite
information on the subject in question. I can now tell you
positively that the post held by the deceased Tayber--who was not
Chamber but Court Composer--is not to be filled again. I do not
want to write to Beethoven because I do not like to disappoint a
man whom I so sincerely respect, and therefore I beg of you when
occasion offers to let him know the fact and then to inform me when
and where I may meet him, as I have forgotten where he lives.
I am also sending you herewith the score of a mass by Reutter
which Beethoven wished to see. It is true that H. M. the Emperor
is fond of this style, but Beethoven, if he writes a mass, need
not adhere to it. Let him follow the bent of his great genius and
have a care only that the mass be not too long or too difficult
to perform;--that it be a _tutti_ mass and have only short
soprano and alto solos in the voices (for which I have two fine
singing-boys)--but no tenor, bass or organ solos. If he wishes he
may introduce a violin, oboe or clarinet solo.
His Majesty likes to have fugues well worked out but not too long;
the _Sanctus_ and _Osanna_ as short as possible, in order not to
delay the transubstantiation, and--if I may add something on my
own account--the _Dona nobis pacem_ connected with the _Agnus Dei_
without marked interruption, and soft. In two masses by Handel
(arranged from his anthems), two by Naumann and Abbé Stadler, this
makes a particularly beautiful effect. These in brief, as results
of my experience, are the things which are to be considered and
I should congratulate myself, the court and art if our great
Beethoven were soon to take the work in hand.
On March 10 Dietrichstein sent Beethoven three texts for graduals and
a like number for offertories from which to choose words to be used
in the mass to be composed for the emperor. On the count’s letter
Beethoven wrote the memorandum: “Treat the gradual as a symphony with
song--does it follow the _Gloria_?” Here we have some light on the
subject which came up for thought during the account of Beethoven’s
negotiations with publishers for the Mass in D. It would seem to
appear that Beethoven was much pleased with the interest manifested
in his application by Count Dietrichstein, and looked with auspicious
eye upon the latter’s plan to put him into the Emperor’s good books.
There can scarcely be a doubt but that he gave considerable thought
to the proposed mass even while still at work on the Mass in D. He
conceived the plan of accompanying the _Kyrie_ with wind-instruments
and organ only in a “new mass,” as he designates it, and sketches for
a _Dona nobis pacem_ which have been found “for the mass in C-sharp
minor” point to a treatment which may be said to be in harmony, so
far as can be seen, with Count Dietrichstein’s suggestions. On one
occasion he writes to Peters that he had not made up his mind which
mass he should have, and on another that he had three masses, two
other publishers having asked for such works. He tells Schindler that
reports that the Mass in D was not finished were to be denied because
they were not true, the unfinished numbers being additions. So also
he writes to the Archduke. These additions were to be a gradual, an
offertory, and a setting of the hymn _Tantum ergo sacramentum_, and it
is a fair presumption, since appropriate texts for the first two were
sent to Beethoven by Count Dietrichstein, that they were contemplated
in connection with the mass for the emperor and that possibly after
the abandonment of that project they were associated with the Mass in
D. Nothing is known of the music which Beethoven had in mind for these
additional numbers, but many sketches are lost and there is no knowing
how much music which was never written out Beethoven carried in his
head.[83]
Beethoven spoke of the “second” mass to others besides the publishers.
Nothing came of it, however. He decided to postpone work on the mass
for the Emperor, pleading the pressure of other obligations in the
letters of thanks which he sent to Counts Lichnowsky and Dietrichstein.
They and Archduke Rudolph were greatly disappointed and, if Schindler
is to be believed, the Archduke and Lichnowsky rebuked him.[84]
[Sidenote: CONSIDERATION OF OPERATIC SUBJECTS]
In this period, too, the alluring vision of a new opera presented
itself, haunted the minds of Beethoven and his friends for a space
and then disappeared in the limbo of unexecuted projects. “Fidelio”
had been revived on November 3, 1822, at the Kärnthnerthor Theatre.
Its success was so great that the management of the theatre offered
a commission to Beethoven for a new opera. Beethoven viewed the
proposition favorably and his friends hailed it with enthusiasm,
especially Count Moritz Lichnowsky. Beethoven’s love for classic
literature led him to express a desire for a libretto based on some
story of the antique world. He was told that such stories were all
worn threadbare. In the Conversation Books we see what suggestions
were offered by others: a text by Schlegel; Voltaire’s tragedies;
Schiller’s “Fiesco.” Local poets and would-be poets were willing to
throw themselves into the breach. Friedrich August Kanne, editor of
the musical journal published by Steiner and Co., wrote a libretto
which Beethoven sent to Schindler with a note saying that except for
the fact that the first act was rather lukewarm it was so admirably
written that it really did not require the collaboration of “one of the
first composers,” adding, “I do not want to say that it is just the
most suitable thing for me, but if I can rid myself of obligations to
which I am bound, who knows what might--or will--happen!” Lichnowsky
tells Beethoven in February that he is determined to see Grillparzer,
with whom he evidently wants to talk about an opera-book on “Macbeth”
or “Romeo and Juliet.” Brother Johann brings Beethoven a proposition
from Johann Sporchil, historian and publicist, and Sporchil, receiving
encouragement, submitted a work act by act to the composer, who wrote
comments on the manuscripts but never did more.[85] Lichnowsky hears
of an opera on “Alfred the Great,” said to be very beautiful and full
of spectacular pomp. He will bring it to the composer in a few days.
The Count has also written to Grillparzer, and Beethoven, recalling
that he is an old acquaintance, resolves to visit him. Lichnowsky’s
suggestion bore fruit of a kind. Grillparzer has left us an account
of his attempt to collaborate with Beethoven on an opera in his
“Erinnerungen an Beethoven.”[86] The request for a libretto, he says,
came to him through Count Dietrichstein and was somewhat embarrassing
to him because of his unfamiliarity with the lyric drama and his doubts
touching Beethoven’s ability, after his later works, to compose an
opera. Finally, however, he decided to make the attempt, and submitted
a subject to Beethoven’s friends and then to Beethoven himself. It
was a semi-diabolical story drawn from Bohemian legendary history,
entitled “Dragomira.” It met with Beethoven’s approval and he agreed to
write it, but afterward changed his mind and took up the fairy tale of
Melusina. Of the manner in which he treated this subject Grillparzer
says:
[Sidenote: GRILLPARZER AND HIS “MELUSINA”]