The Symphony in D Minor--Its Technical History--Schiller’s “Ode to
Joy”--An Address to Beethoven--The Concerts of 1824--Laborious and
Protracted Preparations--Production of the Symphony and Mass in
D--Financial Failure--Negotiations with Publishers Resumed.
The Symphony in D minor, familiarly known the world over as the
“Ninth,” and also as the “Choral” Symphony in England and America,
was completed in February, 1824. The conclusion of the work upon it,
Schindler says, had a cheering effect upon Beethoven’s spirits. He
no longer grudged himself occasional recreation and was again seen
strolling through the streets of Vienna, gazing into the shop-windows
through eyeglasses which dangled at the end of a black ribbon, and,
after a long interregnum, greeting friends and acquaintances as they
passed. The history of the work is far more interesting than that of
any of his compositions, with the possible exception of the Mass in
D. Nottebohm has painstakingly extracted from the sketchbooks all the
evidence which they afford, touching the origin and development of the
work, and presented it in a chapter of his “Zweite Beethoveniana”;[106]
and his conclusions have been adopted in the presentation of facts
which follow.
[Sidenote: GROWTH OF THE CHORAL SYMPHONY]
Thoughts of a symphony to succeed the Symphonies in A and F major (Nos.
7 and 8), were in the composer’s mind while he was making sketches for
those two works in 1812; but the memoranda there found tell us only
in what key the new symphony was to be; they are mere verbal notes:
“2nd Sinfonie, D minor” and “Sinfonie in D minor--3rd Sinfonie.” A
fugue-theme, identical, so far as the first three measures go, with
that of the Scherzo of the Ninth Symphony, presented itself to him
and was imprisoned in his note-book in 1815, being recorded among the
sketches for the Sonata for Pianoforte and Violoncello in D, Op. 102,
No. 2.[107] There is another sketch with a note[108] to show that
Beethoven was thinking of a new symphony at the time; but the sketch
cannot be associated with the Ninth Symphony, the composition of which
really began when the beginning of the first movement was sketched. Of
this fragments are found on loose leaves belonging to the year 1817.
By the end of that year and the beginning of 1818 (presumably from
September to May) extended sketches of the movement were made. The
principal subject is definitively fixed, but the subsidiary material
is still missing. The fugue-theme of 1817 is assigned to the third
movement. There is no suggestion of the use of Schiller’s “Ode to Joy,”
but a plain intimation of an instrumental finale. In 1818 a plan is
outlined for the introduction of voices into the slow movement of a
symphony which is to follow the “Sinfonie in D.” It is as follows:
_Adagio Cantique._
Pious song in a symphony in the ancient modes--Lord God we praise
Thee--alleluia--either alone or as introduction to a fugue. The
whole 2nd sinfonie might be characterized in this manner in which
case the vocal parts would enter in the last movement or already
in the Adagio. The violins, etc., of the orchestra to be increased
tenfold in the last movement. Or the Adagio might be repeated in
some manner in the last movement, in which case the vocal parts
would enter gradually--in the text of the Adagio Greek myth,
_Cantique Ecclesiastique_--in the Allegro feast of Bachus [_sic_].
It will be recalled that in 1822 Beethoven told Rochlitz that he had
two symphonies in his mind which were to differ from each other. One
difference at least is indicated here by the purpose to use voices in
a movement to be written in the old modes. His well-known love for
classic subjects, no doubt, prompted the thought of the “pious orgies”
of a Pagan festival. Schiller’s hymn is still absent from his mind.
These sketches were all sidewise excursions undertaken while Beethoven
was chiefly occupied with the composition of the Pianoforte Sonata, Op.
106. What progress, if any, was made with the Symphony during the next
four years can not well be determined. The work was interrupted by
the composition of other works, notably the Mass in D, the last three
Pianoforte Sonatas and the overture and chorus for “The Consecration of
the House.” It was not until the Mass and the Josephstadt Theatre music
were finished in the sketches that he gave his attention largely to the
Symphony. In the sketches of 1822, there are evidences of considerable
progress on the first movement, little if any on the Scherzo (designed
to take third place in the scheme of movements), the fugue-themes of
1815 and 1817 appearing in them almost unchanged. There is no hint as
yet of the slow movement, but among the sketches appears the beginning
of the melody of the “Ode to Joy” with the underlying words, assigned
as a Finale. The thought of using the ode for a concluding movement had
presented itself, but only tentatively, not as a fixed determination.
Following this sketch, but of another date (to judge by the handwriting
and the contents), comes a memorandum indicating that the symphony in
mind was to consist of four movements--the first (no doubt, though it
is not mentioned) being the present first, the second in 2-4 time, the
third (presumably) in 6-8, while the fourth was to be built on the
fugal theme of 1817 and to be “well fugued.” The next recognizable
sketch is for a Presto in 2-4 designated as a second movement and this
is followed by the beginning of the first movement preceded by four
measures in triple time marked “_Alla Autrichien_.” A third sketch is
marked as belonging to a “_Sinfonie allemand_.” It is a new melody to
the words beginning Schiller’s ode to be used in a chorus; and again
the accompanying memorandum reads: “_Sinfonie allemand_,” but now with
this addition: “either with variations after which the chorus _Freude
schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium_ enters or without variations.
End of the Sinfonie with Turkish music and vocal chorus.” It is
possible that the melody had an earlier origin than that which appears
first in the sketches and was eventually used. The last relevant sketch
in the book of 1822 is a sort of thematic index to the symphony as it
now lay planned in Beethoven’s purpose:
[Illustration]
The second movement was to be a fugued Scherzo with the theme of 1815,
the fourth the Presto in 2-4 time which first appeared in this year,
the fifth the “Ode to Joy.” In the midst of these sketches appears
the significant remark: “Or perhaps instead of a new symphony, a new
overture on _Bach_, well fugued with 3----.”[109]
[Sidenote: TWO SYMPHONIES IN CONTEMPLATION]
The conclusions to be drawn from the sketches thus far are that, as
was the case in 1812 when the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies were
brought forth as a pair, Beethoven was again contemplating the almost
simultaneous production of two symphonies. He did not adhere to the
project long, so far as we can know from the written records, and
the remark about the substitution of an overture on B-a-c-h probably
marks the time when he began seriously to consider the advisability
of abandoning what would then have been the Tenth Symphony. With the
exception of a portion of the first movement, the Ninth Symphony was
still in a chaotic state. Taken in connection with negotiations which
had been concluded with the Philharmonic Society of London, it may be
assumed, however, that the present Symphony in D minor was associated
in Beethoven’s mind with the English commission, and that the second,
which he had thoughts of abandoning in favor of the overture, was to
have been a “Sinfonie allemand.” For a time, at least, Beethoven is
not likely to have contemplated a choral movement with German words in
connection with the symphony for the London Philharmonic Society: this
was to have an instrumental finale. The linguistic objection would be
invalid in the case of the German symphony, however, and to this was
now assigned the contemplated setting of Schiller’s poem.
Work now proceeded with little interruption (except that occasioned
by the composition of the Variations, Op. 120), and most of the first
half of 1823 was devoted to the first movement, which was nearly
complete in sketch-form before anything of the other movements appeared
beyond the themes which have already been cited. When the foundation
of the work is firmly laid we have the familiar phenomenon of work
upon two or three movements simultaneously. In a general way it may
be asserted that the year 1823 saw the birth of the Symphony, though
work was carried over into 1824. The second movement was complete in
the sketches before the third--this was about August; the third before
the fourth--about the middle of October. The second theme of the slow
movement was perfected before the sketches for the first movement were
finished. In a Conversation Book used in the fall of the year 1823
the nephew writes: “I am glad that you have brought in the beautiful
andante.” The principal theme of the movement appears to have been
conceived between May and July, 1823, but it had to submit to much
alteration before it acquired the lovely contours which we now admire.
This was the case, too, with the simple folksong-like tune of the
Finale.
[Sidenote: INTRODUCING THE ODE TO JOY]
Sketches for the Finale show that Beethoven had made considerable
progress with the setting of Schiller’s ode before he decided to
incorporate it with the Symphony. In June or July, 1823, he wrote down
a melody in D minor which he designated “_Finale instromentale_,” and
which, transposed into another key and slightly altered, was eventually
used in the finale of the Quartet in A minor, Op. 132. That it was
intended for the Finale of the symphony is proved by the fact that it
is surrounded with sketches for the Symphony in D minor and Beethoven
recurred to it twice before the end of the year; there was no thought
of the quartet at the time.
When he began work on the Finale, Beethoven took up the choral
part with the instrumental variations first and then attacked the
instrumental introduction with the recitatives. The present “Joy”
melody, as noted in the fall of 1822, was preceded by a different one
conceived later, if the sketches are taken as a guide. After adoption
the tune, especially its second period, underwent many transformations
before its definitive form was established. Among the musical sketches
occur several verbal memoranda containing hints which were carried out
in part, for instance: “Turkish music in _Wer das nie gekonnt stehle_”;
in sketches for the _Allegro alla marcia_: “Turkish music--first
_pianissimo_--a few sounds _pianissimo_--a few rests--then the full
strength”; a third: “On _Welt Sternenzelt forte_ trombone blasts”; a
fourth (in studies for the final chorus): “the height of the voices
to be more by instruments” (which may be interpreted to mean that
Beethoven realized that he was carrying the voices into dangerous
altitudes and intended to give them instrumental support). Other
sketches indicate that Beethoven intended for a considerable time to
write an instrumental introduction with new themes for the Finale. For
this prelude there are a number of sketches of different kinds, some
of them conceived while sketches for the first movement were still in
hand. Before July, 1823, there are no hints of a combined vocal and
instrumental bridge from the Adagio to the setting of the “Ode to Joy.”
After that month there are evidences that he had conceived the idea
of introducing the “Joy” melody played upon wind-instruments with a
prelude in the recitative style, a reminiscence of the first movement
and premonitory suggestions of the fundamental melody. This was the
first step towards the eventual shape of the finale. The lacking
element was the verbal link which should connect the instrumental
movements with the choral conclusion. The sketches bear out Schindler’s
remark: “When he reached the development of the fourth movement there
began a struggle such as is seldom seen. The object was to find a
proper manner of introducing Schiller’s ode. One day entering the
room he exclaimed ‘I have it! I have it!’ With that he showed me the
sketchbook bearing the words, ‘Let us sing the song of the immortal
Schiller _Freude_.’”
By grouping a number of sketches it is now possible to make a graphic
representation of the ideas which passed through Beethoven’s mind
while seeking a way to bridge the chasm between instrumental and vocal
utterance by means of the formula of recitative. The sketches are in
parts illegible, in parts so obscure that Nottebohm and Deiters differ
in their readings; regard has been had for both in the following
version: Over a portion of an instrumental recitative (_a_) occur the
words: “_Nein diese ... erinnern an unsere Verzweifl._” (No, these ...
remind (us) of our despair); other sketches follow in the order here
indicated:
[Illustration:(a)]
[Illustration:
Heute ist ein feierlicher Tag
(To-day is a solemn day)
meine Fru (Freunde?) dieser sei gefeiert
my fri (friends?) let it be celebrated
durch mit Gesang und [Tanz? Scherz?]
with song and [Dance? Play?]
]
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
O nein dieses nicht etwas
O no not this something
ist es was ich fordere
anderes gefällig
sondern nur etwas heiterer
but only a little merrier
auch dieses nicht ist nur Possen
or (“besser”)
etwas schöneres und bessers
nor this either it is but sport
(or no better)
auch dieses es ist zu zärtl zärtl
(nor this it is too tender tender)
etwas aufgewecktes[?] muss man suchen
(for something animated we must seek)
ich werde sehn dass ich selbst euch etwas
(I shall see to it that I myself intone something
vorsinge alsdann stimmt nur nach
then do you sing after me)
Dieses ist es Ha es ist nun gefunden Ich
This it is Ha now it is found I
selbst werde vorsingen Freude schöner
myself will intone it
Ha dieses ist es Es ist nun gefunden
Ha this it is it now is discovered
Freu- - -
]
[Illustration: meilleur]
Later comes the memorandum which Beethoven showed Schindler (“_I asst
uns das Lied des unsterblichen Schillers singen, Freude, etc._”) and
then:
[Illustration:
_Bass_ nicht diese Töne fröhlichere
_Voce_ Freude! Freude
(“not these tones, more joyful ones”)
]
The entire Symphony was finished in sketch-form at the end of 1823 and
written out in score in February, 1824. Omitting from consideration the
theme of the second movement, noted in 1815 and again in 1817 (probably
with an entirely different purpose in mind), the time which elapsed
between the beginning of the first movement (1817-1818) and the time of
completion was about six and a half years. Within this period, however,
there were extended interruptions caused by other works. Serious and
continuous labor on the Symphony was not taken up until after the
completion of the _Missa solemnis_; it began in 1822, occupied the
greater part of 1823 and ended in the early part of 1824. Beethoven,
therefore, worked on the Symphony a little more than a year.
[Sidenote: INSTRUMENTAL AND VOCAL PARTS UNITED]
Those who cherish the fantastic notion that the Symphony was conceived
_ab initio_ as a celebration of joy, and therefore feel obliged to go
back to Beethoven’s first design to compose music for Schiller’s ode,
have a large territory for the play of their fancy. Beethoven formed
the plan of setting the ode while still living in Bonn in 1793. It
is heard of again in a sketchbook of 1798, where there is a melodic
phrase adapted to the words, “Muss ein lieber Vater wohnen.” Amongst
sketches for the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies (say in 1811) there
crops up a melody for the beginning of the hymn, and possibly a little
later (1812) a more extended sketch amongst material used in the
Overture, Op. 115, into which he appears at one time to have thought
of introducing portions of it. All these sketches, of course, preceded
the melody of 1812, conceived for use in a “_Sinfonie allemand_.”
When Beethoven first took up the ode for setting it was to become a
“durchkomponirtes Lied,” i. e., each stanza was to have an illustrative
setting; when he planned to incorporate it in an overture he proposed
to use only selected portions of the poem, for he accompanies the
melodic sketch with the note: “Disjointed fragments like Princes
are beggars, etc., not the whole”; and a little later: “disjointed
fragments from Schiller’s _Freude_ connected into a whole.”[110]
The questions which have been raised by the choral finale are many
and have occupied the minds of musicians, professional and amateur,
ever since the great symphony was first given to the world. In 1852
Carl Czerny told Otto Jahn that Beethoven had thought, after the
performance, of composing a new finale without vocal parts for the
work. Schindler[111] saw the note in Jahn’s papers and wrote in the
margin: “That is not true”; but it must be remembered that there was a
cessation of the great intimacy between Beethoven and Schindler which
began not long after the Symphony had been produced, and lasted almost
till Beethoven was on his deathbed. Schindler can not have been present
at all of the meetings between Beethoven and his friends at which the
Symphony was discussed. Nevertheless he is upheld, in a measure, by the
fact (to which Nottebohm directed attention) that Beethoven, if he made
the remark, either did not mean it to be taken seriously or afterwards
changed his mind; for after keeping the manuscript in his hands six
months he sent it to the publisher as we have it. Seyfried, writing
in “Cäcilia” (Vol. IX, p. 236), faults Beethoven for not having taken
the advice of well-meaning friends and written a new finale as he did
for the Quartet in B-flat, Op. 130. Even if one of the well-meaning
friends was Seyfried himself, the statement has value as evidence that
Beethoven was not as convinced as Czerny’s story would have it appear
that the choral finale was a mistake. Sonnleithner, in a letter to the
editor of the “Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung” in 1864, confirmed
Jahn’s statement by saying that Czerny had repeatedly related as an
unimpeachable fact that some time after the first performance of the
Symphony Beethoven, in a circle of his most intimate friends, had
expressed himself positively to the effect that he perceived that he
had made a mistake (_Misgriff_) in the last movement and intended to
reject it and write an instrumental piece in its stead, for which he
already had an idea in his head. What that idea was the reader knows.
That Beethoven may have had scruples touching the appropriateness
of the choral finale, is comprehensible enough in view of the fact
that the original plan of the Symphony contemplated an instrumental
close and that Beethoven labored so hard to establish arbitrarily an
organic union between the ode and the first three movements; but it is
not likely that he gave long thought to the project of writing a new
finale. He had witnessed the extraordinary demonstration of delight
with which the whole work had been received and he may have found it
as easy as some of his commentators to believe that his device for
presenting the choral finale as the logical and poetically just outcome
of the preceding movements had been successful despite its obvious
artificiality.
[Sidenote: PREPARING FOR THE FIRST PERFORMANCE]
For the chief facts in the story of the first performance of the D
minor Symphony in Vienna we are largely dependent on Schindler, who
was not only a witness of it but also an active agent. Beethoven was
thoroughly out of sympathy with the musical taste of Vienna, which had
been diverted from German ideals by the superficial charm of Rossini’s
melodies. He wanted much to produce his symphony, but despaired of
receiving adequate support or recognition from his home public. His
friends offered him encouragement, but his fear and suspicion that
his music was no longer understood by the Viennese and he no longer
admired, had grown into a deep-rooted conviction. The project of a
concert at which the Mass in D should be performed had been mooted
months before. One day Sontag visited him and asked, “When are you
going to give your concert?” We have a record of her speeches only;
what Beethoven said must be supplied from the reader’s fancy. It is
plain enough that instead of answering the question he expressed a
doubt as to a successful financial outcome. “You give the concert,”
said the singer, “and I will guarantee that the house will be full.”
Still a moody suspicion, which the lady thinks it her right to rebuke:
“You have too little confidence in yourself. Has not the homage of the
whole world given you a little more pride? Who speaks of opposition?
Will you not learn to believe that everybody is longing to worship
you again in new works? O obstinacy!” This was in January. Beethoven
had inquired of Count Brühl in Berlin whether or not a performance of
the new Mass and Symphony might be given in that city, and Brühl had
favored the plan. When news of this fact became known in Vienna, a
number of Beethoven’s friends addressed him in the following memorial:
[Sidenote: AN ADDRESS TO THE COMPOSER]
To Herrn Ludwig van Beethoven.
Out of the wide circle of reverent admirers surrounding your genius
in this your second native city, there approach you to-day a small
number of the disciples and lovers of art to give expression to
long-felt wishes, timidly to prefer a long-suppressed request.
But as the number of spokesmen bears but a small proportion to the
many who joyfully acknowledge your worth and what you have grown
to be to the present as well as the future, so the wishes and
requests are by no means restricted to the number of those who are
like-minded with themselves and who, in the name of all to whom
art and the realization of their ideals are something more than
means and objects of pastime, assert that their wish is also the
wish of an unnumbered multitude, their request is echoed loudly or
in silence by every one whose bosom is animated by a sense of the
divine in music.
It is the wish of those of our countrymen who reverence art to
which we desire more especially to give expression; for though
Beethoven’s name and creations belong to all contemporaneous
humanity and every country which opens a susceptible bosom to art,
it is Austria which is best entitled to claim him as her own. Among
her inhabitants appreciation for the great and immortal works which
Mozart and Haydn created for all time within the lap of their home
still lives, and they are conscious with joyous pride that the
sacred triad in which these names and yours glow as the symbol of
the highest within the spiritual realm of tones, sprang from the
soil of their fatherland. All the more painful must it have been
for you to feel that a foreign power has invaded this royal citadel
of the noblest, that above the mounds of the dead and around the
dwelling-place of the only survivor of the band, phantoms are
leading the dance who can boast of no kinship with the princely
spirits of those royal houses; that shallowness is abusing the name
and insignia of art, and unworthy dalliance with sacred things is
beclouding and dissipating appreciation for the pure and eternally
beautiful.
For this reason they feel a greater and livelier sense than
ever before that the great need of the present moment is a new
impulse directed by a powerful hand, a new advent of the ruler in
his domain. It is this need which leads them to you to-day, and
following are the petitions which they lay before you in behalf of
all to whom these wishes are dear, and in the name of native art.
Do not withhold longer from the popular enjoyment, do not keep
longer from the oppressed sense of that which is great and perfect,
a performance of the latest masterworks of your hand. We know that
a grand sacred composition has been associated with that first one
in which you have immortalized the emotions of a soul, penetrated
and transfigured by the power of faith and superterrestrial light.
We know that a new flower glows in the garland of your glorious,
still unequalled symphonies. For years, ever since the thunders
of the Victory at Vittoria ceased to reverberate, we have waited
and hoped to see you distribute new gifts from the fulness of your
riches to the circle of your friends. Do not longer disappoint the
general expectations! Heighten the effect of your newest creations
by the joy of becoming first acquainted with them through you!
Do not allow these, your latest offspring, some day to appear,
perhaps, as foreigners in their place of birth, introduced,
perhaps, by persons to whom you and your mind are strange! Appear
soon among your friends, your admirers, your venerators! This is
our nearest and first prayer.
Other claims on your genius have been made public. The desires
expressed and offers made to you more than a year ago by the
management of our Court Opera and the Society of Austrian Friends
of Music had too long been the unuttered wish of all admirers of
art, and your name stimulated the hopes and expectations of too
many not to obtain the quickest and widest publicity, not to awaken
the most general interest. Poetry has done her share in giving
support to these lovely hopes and wishes. Worthy material from the
hand of a valued poet waits to be charmed into life by your fancy.
Do not let that intimate call to so noble an aim be made in vain.
Do not delay longer to lead us back to those departed days when the
song of Polyhymnia moved powerfully and delighted the initiates in
art and the hearts of the multitude!
Need we tell you with what regret your retirement from public life
has filled us? Need we assure you that at a time when all glances
were hopefully turned towards you, all perceived with sorrow that
_the one_ man whom all of us are compelled to acknowledge as
foremost among living men in his domain, looked on in silence as
foreign art took possession of German soil, the seat of honor of
the German muse, while German works gave pleasure only by echoing
the favorite tunes of foreigners and, where the most excellent had
lived and labored, a second childhood of taste threatens to follow
the Golden Age of Art?
You alone are able to insure a decisive victory to the efforts of
the best amongst us. From you the native Art Society and the German
Opera expect new blossoms, rejuvenated life and a new sovereignty
of the true and beautiful over the dominion to which the prevalent
spirit of fashion wishes to subject even the eternal laws of art.
Bid us hope that the wishes of all who have listened to the sound
of your harmonies will soon be fulfilled! This is our most urgent
second prayer.
May the year which we have begun not come to an end without
rejoicing us with the fruits of our petition and may the coming
Spring when it witnesses the unfolding of one of our longed-for
gifts become a twofold blooming-time for us and all the world of
art!
Vienna, February, 1824.
This address was signed by thirty of Beethoven’s friends and admirers,
among them being Prince Lichnowsky, Count Dietrichstein, Count
Lichnowsky, Abbé Stadler, Count Palfy, Count Fries, Dr. Sonnleithner,
and the publishers Diabelli, Artaria, Leidesdorf and Steiner and Co.
The most active agent in securing signatures was Count Lichnowsky.
It was published in Bäuerle’s “Theater-Zeitung” and also in Kanne’s
journal. This publication, and gossip to the effect that he had
prompted both writing and printing, annoyed Beethoven greatly. He gave
vent to his rage in a remark which he himself wrote in a Conversation
Book: “Now that the thing has taken this turn I can no longer find
joy in it. The atrocity of attributing such an act to me sickens me
with the whole business and I am scarcely able to address even a few
words to men of such intellectual prominence. Not a single critic can
boast of having received a letter from me. I have never----” there
his outburst breaks off; he did not finish the sentence in writing.
Schindler tried to ease his mind! “Your fears are groundless,” he
wrote; “your honor has not been compromised--let that suffice you;
nobody will accuse you of having been directly concerned in it.” Court
Secretary von Felsburg and J. N. Bihler, a tutor in the imperial
household, waited upon Beethoven one afternoon to present the address,
and talk over its suggestions. Beethoven said he wanted to read it
when alone. Later Schindler went to him and found him with the letter
in his hand. He was manifestly moved by its expressions and handed it
to Schindler to read while he went to the window and gazed out for
quite a while. Then he returned to Schindler, said briefly: “It is
very beautiful!--it rejoices me greatly!” and when Schindler also had
expressed his delight added: “Let us go out for a walk.” During the
walk he remained sunk in thought.
[Sidenote: A CONSPIRACY OF FRIENDS]
The object had in view by the designers of the memorial was
accomplished;--Beethoven was lifted out of his despondent mood and
inspired with new determination. By March Schindler had been informed
that the concert would be given in Vienna. He lauded Beethoven’s
decision and begged him not to distress himself with vain imaginings
about the outcome--everything would go gloriously and everybody
would esteem it an honor to participate. Expressions of satisfaction
poured in on the composer from all quarters, and also offers of help.
Beethoven’s friends gathered together and discussed the details in the
liveliest fashion--the time, the place, the programme, the choir and
orchestra, who should sing the solos, the price of seats, the number
of rehearsals. The concert-season was drawing to a close and delay was
hazardous; but delay there was, for Beethoven was vacillating, full
of doubtings and suspicions, and there was a too great multiplicity
of counsellors. Schindler was kept extremely busy; Lichnowsky and
Schuppanzigh bestirred themselves mightily; Brother Johann came to
the fore with advice and suggestions, especially about the business
administration; Nephew Karl, much to Schindler’s dissatisfaction,
not only ran errands but volunteered his opinion on many topics. A
page from a Conversation Book will disclose how the consultations
with Beethoven were carried on--for Beethoven’s consent to every step
had to be obtained, which was a pity. In the following excerpt it is
Schuppanzigh who is speaking to the composer, whom he, as was his wont,
addresses in the third person--as was fitting to the dignity of “Mylord
Falstaff.”
How about the concert? It is getting late--Lent will not last much
longer. He ought to give three movements [the mass is meant, of
course].--Under no circumstances a piano piece. There are no piano
players here. He will need Buringer [Piringer] to provide the best
_dilettante_, Sonnleithner to look after the singers, and Plachetka
[Blahetka] for the announcements and bills--Young Sonnleithner has
all the amateur singers under his thumb. It would be a good idea
for him [Beethoven] to pay a visit to Duport _to talk to him once
more about me_.
The significance of the concluding remark will appear later. At another
time Karl is reporting progress:
Piringer has said that he would undertake the appointment of
the instrumentalists, Sonnleithner the chorus, Schuppanzigh the
orchestra, Blahetka the announcements, tickets, etc. So everything
is looked after. You can give two concerts.... When will you have
it announced? Schuppanzigh is coming to-morrow.... Blahetka offered
to stamp the tickets, etc., but I think that all such matters ought
to be [entrusted] to your brother. It would be safer.... Piringer
has enough to do with the choruses. Piringer is a very capable man
but not the man that Schuppanzigh is; in any event it would be
unjust to disregard S., as he has taken so much pains and spurred
on the others.
At first it was agreed that the place should be the
Theater-an-der-Wien. Count Palfy, who had signed the memorial, was
willing to provide the theatre and all the forces, vocal as well as
instrumental, for 1200 florins, let Beethoven have as many rehearsals
as he desired and fix the prices of admission. But a difficulty
presented itself at once. At the Theater-an-der-Wien Seyfried was
chapelmaster and Clement leader of the orchestra. Beethoven wanted
Umlauf to be general conductor of the concert and Schuppanzigh leader
of the orchestra. Count Palfy was willing to sacrifice Seyfried, but
not Clement--at least, he asked that if Clement was to be displaced it
be done with as little injury to his feelings as possible. He therefore
suggested that Beethoven write a letter of explanation to Clement,
which he felt sure would solve the difficulty. Meanwhile Schindler had
begun negotiations with Duport, director of the Kärnthnerthor Theatre.
Duport was favorably inclined towards the enterprise and also towards
Schuppanzigh; but troublesome questions of another kind were now
precipitated--questions about prices of admission, the solo singers
and the number of rehearsals. On all these points Beethoven was so
irresolute that the project seemed likely to fall by the wayside; in
which crisis the leading spirits thought themselves entitled to resort
to a stratagem to give stability to the wavering mind of Beethoven.
In at least one instance the Conversation Book record was given the
appearance of a formal journal of proceedings. It was now planned that
Lichnowsky, Schindler and Schuppanzigh should simultaneously call upon
Beethoven as if by accident, turn the conversation on the points on
which it was necessary for Beethoven to reach a decision and that his
utterances should then be put into writing and he be asked, half in
jest, half in earnest, to affix his signature to the document. The ruse
succeeded for the nonce, but the result would eventually have been
woeful had Beethoven been less irresolute. After the conspirators had
gone away Beethoven saw through the trick which had been played on him
and, scenting treachery as was his wont, decided off-hand to abandon
the concert. He issued his pronunciamento to the three friends in this
characteristic fashion:
To Count Moritz Lichnowsky. I despise treachery. Do not visit me
again. No concert.
To Herrn Schuppanzigh. Let him not visit me more. I shall give no
concert.
To Schindler. I request you not to come again until I send for you.
No concert.
The three friends refused to take umbrage at Beethoven’s rudeness; the
notes were not accompanied by a silken rope; they gave him time to get
over his wrath and suspicion and then went on with the preparations
for the concert. In the Conversation Book there appears a record of a
consultation which may fairly be set down as that of the meeting at
which Beethoven’s helpers employed their stratagem.[112] Schindler
opens a page formally thus:
Protocol of March 2.
Present:
Mr. L. van Beethoven, a _musikus_.
Mr. Count v. Lichnowsky, an amateur.
Mr. Schindler, a fiddler.
Not yet present to-day:
Mr. Schuppanzigh, a fiddler representing Mylord Fallstaff.
[Sidenote: LOOKING AFTER DETAILS]
At this consultation Schindler reports an offer from Palfy to furnish
the Theater-an-der-Wien, orchestra, lights, etc., _appertinentia_
for 1000 florins, provided a second or third concert be given. At a
moderate charge for admission (which would be necessary) he says the
receipts would be 4000 florins, which would yield a profit of 2000
florins at the first concert and about 3000 at the second, when there
would be no copying charges. The prices would not be so high as at the
Ridotto Room. If Duport were to charge only 300 florins, there would
still be a further charge of 300 florins for building the platform
and no end of vexation and labor. Palfy wanted only his expenses.
Would Beethoven authorize him (Schindler) and Lichnowsky to complete
arrangements with Palfy? He need not be paid, and it would be possible
to withdraw from the arrangement at any time. Haste was necessary,
for a supervisor must be appointed--Umlauf or somebody else--so that
rehearsals might begin. If Schuppanzigh were given too much to do and
anything went ill the conductor would lay the blame on insufficient
study. From the record of a subsequent consultation (in March) the
following excerpts are made:
_Lichnowsky_: It is right that the orchestra be doubled, but
superfluous to engage more than are necessary; after Schuppanzigh
and Umlauf know what is at their service at the Wiedener Theatre we
can tell what is needed.
_Schindler_: Lichnowsky says that a smaller orchestra is
more effective at the Theater-an-der-Wien than a large
one in the Ridotto Room. You need not take all at the
Theater-an-der-Wien--none at all if you do not need them,--that is
the arrangement with Palfy.
_Lichnowsky_: Unnecessary expenses must be avoided.
_Schindler_: You will not have to pay the forces at the
Theater-an-der-Wien at all--so that may be deducted. The days of
performance if agreeable to you would be the 22nd or 23rd or 24th
of this month.
_Lichnowsky_: You will make money, and more if you give a second
concert, when it will not be necessary that all the pieces be new;
you will have the same symphony and two other missal movements.
_Schindler_: The prices of admission will be considerably modified
at 2 florins for the parterre, 2 florins for the gallery and 15
florins for the seats.--You ought not to seek difficulties where
there are none; if the worst comes to the worst, everything will be
settled--The question is not whether there are more difficulties at
the theatre or the Ridotto Room--I shall see Schuppanzigh to-day
noon; but before then Lichnowsky will go to Palfy tentatively to
report your decision.
The conversation continued (probably the next day):
_Schindler_: Schuppanzigh is greatly pleased that you have come
to an understanding with Palfy. He will make use of the entire
orchestra of the theatre. He is coming to the Ridotto Room to-day,
as he hopes to find you there. The choruses at the theatre are
also good; Schuppanzigh says that the women’s choir of the society
is not of the best because they are all young girls; which is
true.--The Baron took the tempo just once again as fast, therefore
your advice was highly important; not until the second time did it
go well.--Besides, the women’s choir is thoroughly bad. Falstaff
was also convinced and is now glad that nothing but the men’s choir
will be needed. The solo voices are much too weak for the room and
too--young.--The soprano singer is sixteen years old at the most.
Palfy is sending you word that he will send you his offer, which
you know, and the promise which he made, to-morrow in writing.--You
are choosing the lesser of two evils.--Twenty to twenty-four
for each part in the chorus are already on hand.--Of the twelve
violins for each part we to-day selected the six best, who are to
be arranged in rank and file.--The only wish that Palfy has, as
he admitted to Lichnowsky to-day, is that Klement be handled as
gently as possible so that his feelings may not be hurt. For this
reason we all request you to write a billet to Klement and tell
the truth as it is. But as there is no question but that he will
come to the second concert, I suggest that the direction be then
given to him.--Schuppanzigh is agreed to this. And as Piringer of
the Theater-an-der-Wien pretends that as a high R. I. official he
cannot take part, Klement might take first place among the second
violins at the first concert and Schuppanzigh at the second.--Palfy
does not at all want that you shall take Klement, but only that you
shall take the trouble to write him a billet and tell him about
the matter. He will certainly be agreeable.--He [Schuppanzigh] has
become much quieter and more _commode_ since he was in Russia--his
paunch is already beginning to embarrass him. Böhm will play first
violin, Piringer will not play at the An-der-Wien, which is all one
to Schuppanzigh.
[Sidenote: COMPOSITION OF THE PERFORMING FORCE]
But matters were not so easily arranged with Clement as Schindler had
imagined. He did not want to be deprived of the honor of playing at the
concert, the orchestra of the Theater-an-der-Wien sided with him and
declared that it would not play under Schuppanzigh. Schindler appealed
to Count Palfy, who knew that though you can lead a horse to water
you cannot make him drink. He said that he could command the men to
play under Schuppanzigh, but he did not want to be answerable for the
mischief which would result. Schindler advised Beethoven that if Palfy
stood by Clement the contract for the Kärnthnerthor Theatre be closed
with Duport. Up to late in April it was as good as settled that the
concert would be given at the Theater-an-der-Wien, though Beethoven’s
fatal indecision left the point uncertain. With negotiations pending
with both theatres the Ridotto Room came up for consideration, and
finally (it would seem as a consequence of advice by the Steiner
firm), also a fourth _locale_. This was the Landständischer Saal, a
small room in which the _Concerts Spirituels_ took place. Lichnowsky,
when he heard that Beethoven was considering such a step, hurried to
him with representations that if the hall were taken there would be
trouble with Palfy and he himself humiliated and embarrassed, since he
had come to an agreement with the manager in his name. He as well as
Schindler was sorely tried by the new turn of affairs and represented
to Beethoven that the room was too small, holding only 500 persons, and
that the court would not go there. But Nephew Karl favored the hall
because its choice would avoid the difficulties (_Sauerei_) incident
to the selection of either of the theatres. Lichnowsky and Schindler
did not seek to hide their displeasure from Beethoven because of his
willingness to take the advice of others (meaning, no doubt, Brother
Johann, Nephew Karl and Steiner), in preference to theirs, but at
length circumstances compelled him to abandon all other plans and
agree to take the Kärnthnerthor Theatre. He considered the noon hour as
the time for the concert, but Johann told him that an evening concert
was worth 1500 florins more than one given in the daytime; he clung
to the Landständischer Saal, but Schindler told him that on the day
which had been fixed upon there was to be a concert at the Ridotto
Room in which Sontag, Unger and the Italian singers would take part.
“The girls” would therefore be unavailable for his concert and the
court would, of course, go to the fashionable place and affair. As
late as April 21, it was publicly announced that the concert would
be given in the Theater-an-der-Wien, but at length Beethoven made up
his mind, and Schindler was empowered to close with Duport for the
Kärnthnerthor Theatre. Palfy yielded to the composer’s wishes, but
regretfully, saying that he would rather lose 1000 florins than the
honor of having the concert in his house. It would seem as if it was
the cabal in the orchestra against Schuppanzigh which ended Beethoven’s
irresolution. Beethoven now decided to take the Court theatre for 400
florins, chorus and orchestra being included as well as the lighting,
with the privilege of a repetition on the same terms in seven or eight
days. In the letter which Beethoven sent to Duport, were named Sontag,
Unger and Preisinger (bass) as solo singers, Umlauf and Schuppanzigh
as leaders, the orchestra and chorus were to be augmented from the
amateur forces of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. There were to be
24 violins, 10 violas, 12 contrabasses and violoncellos, and the number
of wind-instruments was to be doubled, for which reason room would have
to be provided for the orchestra on the stage. Duport was requested to
fix the date not later than May 3rd or 4th and was informed that the
reason why the agreement with Count Palfy had been cancelled was that
the Theater-an-der-Wien was lacking in capable solo singers and that
Palfy wanted Clement to lead the orchestra, whereas Beethoven had long
before selected Schuppanzigh for the post. With a change of date to May
7 this arrangement was formally confirmed.
But many details remained to be settled, the most vexatious to
Beethoven being the prices of admission. Beethoven wanted an advance
on the regular tariff. Duport appealed to the Minister of Police, but
permission to raise the prices was refused. In the selection of solo
singers Therese Grünbaum had been considered, but she was eventually
set aside in favor of Henrietta Sontag, for whom Beethoven had a
personal admiration (he could not know much, if anything, about her
voice and art). She and Unger, who had a sincere love for Beethoven’s
music, were the composer’s “pretty witches” and had been invited by
him to dinner. Jäger had been suggested for the tenor part, but Anton
Haitzinger was chosen because, in a spirit of professional courtesy,
Jäger refused to take a part away from a Kärnthnerthor singer. Forti
and Preisinger were rival candidates for the solo bass parts. The
latter was considered the more musical of the two and better fitted
for Beethoven’s music, and was therefore selected. He took part in
the rehearsals, and for him Beethoven made a change in the music of
the recitative in the Symphony (Schindler gives it in his biography);
but at the last the _tessitura_ of the part was found to be too high
for him and Preisinger had to withdraw. It was impossible under the
circumstances now to appeal to Forti, and the part was entrusted to
Seipelt of the company at the Theater-an-der-Wien.
It was originally intended that the programme should consist of the
new Overture (Op. 124), the Mass in D and the new Symphony; but
realizing that this would make the concert unduly long Beethoven first
decided to omit the _Gloria_ of the mass, and after the rehearsals
had already begun he curtailed the list still more by eliding the
_Sanctus_. The large amount of copying involved was done by a staff
of men some of whom worked, apparently, under the supervision of the
widow of Schlemmer, Beethoven’s favorite copyist who had died the year
before. The composer angrily rejected Haslinger’s suggestion that
the chorus parts be engraved, but consented to have them duplicated
by lithographic process. The church authorities were opposed to the
performance of missal music in a theatre and the censor therefore
withheld his approval of the programme. So, in April, at the suggestion
of Schindler, Beethoven wrote a letter to the censor, Sartorius, in
which he pleaded for his consent to the performance on the ground that
he was giving the concert by request, had involved himself in costs
by reason of the copying, there was no time in which to produce other
novelties, and if consent were refused he would be compelled to abandon
the concert and all his expenditures would have been in vain. The three
ecclesiastical pieces which were to be performed were to be listed on
the programme as hymns. The letter failed of its mission; not until an
appeal was made to Count Sedlnitzky, the Police President, through the
agency of Count Lichnowsky, was the performance sanctioned.
[Sidenote: THE COMPOSER AND HONORARY TITLES]
One further detail of the preparations, as disclosed by a discussion
in Beethoven’s ministerial cabinet, is too interesting to be omitted.
The time is come when bills must be posted in front of the theatre.
Schindler is the first speaker:
Master! Listen! I have something to say, so follow me: How shall
the placard be worded (it must be printed to-day); shall I put in
Member of the Royal Academy at Stockholm and Amsterdam? Tell me
briefly. What a tremendous title!!
_Schuppanzigh_: I am not in favor of it. Beethoven is dictator and
president of all the academies in the world and sensible people
will look upon this title as vanity on his part.
_Schindler_: My lord is not wrong. At any rate it will be made
public by the last notices in the newspapers. The name of
Beethoven shines brightest without affix of any kind and when most
unassuming; all the world knows who and what you are. It will do
your posterity no good.--Who knows what a later time will bring
forth.... I must go now to get the bill ready for to-morrow. It is
half-past 5.
This was, no doubt, another case in which it was thought judicious to
get Beethoven’s consent beyond equivocation. There is record of another
conversation on the subject. Schindler speaks again:
Well then, it shall appear on the bill to-morrow, Member of the
Royal Academies of Stockholm and Amsterdam. Nothing more; that
sounds best.--Then it ought to read of Arts and Sciences.--But when
one says Roy. Acad. the _epitheton_ Arts and Sciences is understood.
In neither of these consultations, which took place two days before
the concert, is there any indication that Beethoven objected to the
use of the title; on the contrary, he seems to have desired to make
it more explicit by the inclusion of the words “Arts and Sciences.”
But Schindler relates that when Bernard, in preparing an announcement
for the public press, added to Beethoven’s name: “Honorary Member of
the Academies of Arts and Sciences at Stockholm and Amsterdam and also
Honorary Citizen of the R. I. Capital and Residential City Vienna,”
he rebuked the editor severely, not wanting to have such “silly and
ridiculous playthings” figure in the announcement. As a matter of fact,
all titles were omitted in the affiches of the two concerts, though
Otto Jahn found one for the second meeting in the Fuchs Collection
which contained them. It would seem that after one had been thus
printed it was after all rejected by Beethoven.
The rehearsals were now in progress. Dirzka was making good headway
with the choruses and was satisfied; Schuppanzigh was holding
rehearsals for the strings in the rehearsal-room of the Ridotto;
the solo singers were studying under the supervision of Beethoven,
sometimes in his lodgings, Umlauf assisting. Accustomed to Rossini’s
music, the principal singers found it difficult to assimilate the
Beethovenian manner, especially as it is exemplified in the concluding
movement of the symphony. They pleaded with the composer for changes
which would lighten their labors, but he was adamant. Unger called
him a “tyrant over all the vocal organs” to his face, but when he
still refused to grant her petitions she turned to Sontag and said:
“Well, then we must go on torturing ourselves in the name of God!” The
choirmaster requested that the passage in the fugue of the _Credo_
where the sopranos enter on B-flat _in alt_ be altered, because none
of the singers could reach the note; but though Umlauf reinforced that
argument, a refusal was the only reply. In only one alteration did
Beethoven acquiesce;--he changed the concluding passage of the bass
recitative, because Preisinger could not sing the high F-sharp; but
Preisinger did not sing at all at the concert. The consequences of his
obduracy were not realized by Beethoven at the concert, for though he
stood among the performers and indicated the tempo at the beginning of
each movement he could not hear the music except with his mental ear.
The obvious thing happened;--the singers who could not reach the high
tones simply omitted them. Duport had allowed two full rehearsals.
There was to have been a third, but it was prevented by a rehearsal for
a ballet. At the final meeting on May 6, Beethoven was “dissolved in
devotion and emotion” at the performance of the _Kyrie_, and after the
Symphony stationed himself at the door and embraced all the amateurs
who had taken part.[113] The official announcement of the concert read
as follows:
GRAND
MUSICAL CONCERT
by
MR. L. VAN BEETHOVEN
which will take place
To-morrow, May 7, 1824
in the R. I. Court Theatre beside the Kärnthnerthor.
The musical pieces to be performed are the latest works of Mr.
Ludwig van Beethoven.
First: A Grand Overture.
Second: Three Grand Hymns with Solo and Chorus Voices.
Third: A Grand Symphony with Solo and Chorus Voices entering in the
finale on Schiller’s Ode to Joy.
The solos will be performed by the Demoiselles Sonntag and Unger
and the Messrs. Haizinger and Seipelt. Mr. Schuppanzigh has
undertaken the direction of the orchestra, Mr. Chapelmaster Umlauf
the direction of the whole and the Music Society the augmentation
of the chorus and orchestra as a favor.
Mr. Ludwig van Beethoven will himself participate in the general
direction.
Prices of admission as usual.
Beginning at 7 o’clock in the evening.
[Sidenote: INCIDENTS OF THE PERFORMANCE]
The overture was that to “The Consecration of the House.” Duport had
a hand in the drafting of the announcement and wanted to include in
it the statement that Beethoven would conduct with Umlauf. Schindler
in reporting the fact to Beethoven added: “I did not know what to
reply and so it was omitted this time. You _could_ surely conduct the
overture alone. It would put too severe a strain upon your ears and for
that reason I would not advise you to conduct the whole.”
The theatre was crowded in every part except the imperial box; that
was empty. Beethoven had gone in person, accompanied by Schindler, to
invite the Imperial Family, and some of its members promised to attend;
but the Emperor and Empress had left Vienna a few days before and
Archduke Rudolph, who had naturally displayed interest in the affair,
was in Olmütz. But we hear of several of Beethoven’s present and
former friends seated in various parts of the house;--poor, bedridden
Zmeskall was carried to his seat in a sedan chair. Some of the
foremost musicians of Vienna were in the band--Mayseder, Böhm, Jansa,
Linke, etc. The performance was far from perfect. There was lack of a
homogeneous power, a paucity of nuance, a poor distribution of lights
and shades. Nevertheless, strange as the music must have sounded to the
audience, the impression which it made was profound and the applause
which it elicited enthusiastic to a degree. At one point in the
Scherzo, presumably at the startling entry of the tympani at the _ritmo
di tre battute_, the listeners could scarcely restrain themselves, and
it seemed as if a repetition then and there would be insisted upon. To
this Beethoven, no doubt engrossed by the music which he was following
in his mind, was oblivious. Either after the Scherzo or at the end
of the Symphony,[114] while Beethoven was still gazing at his score,
Fräulein Unger, whose happiness can be imagined, plucked him by the
sleeve and directed his attention to the clapping hands and waving hats
and handkerchiefs. Then he turned to the audience and bowed.
After the concert Beethoven’s friends, as was natural, came together to
exchange comments and felicitate him. From Schindler Beethoven received
a report which is preserved in the Conversation Book. It gives us a
glimpse of his own joy and the composer’s happy pride in having been
more enthusiastically greeted than the court:
Never in my life did I hear such frenetic and yet cordial
applause. Once the second movement of the Symphony was completely
interrupted by applause--and there was a demand for a repetition.
The reception was more than imperial--for the people burst out
in a storm 4 times. At the last there were cries of Vivat!--The
wind-instruments did very bravely--not the slightest disturbance
could be heard.--When the parterre broke out in applauding cries
the 5th time the Police Commissioner yelled Silence!--The court
only 3 successive times but Beethoven 5 times.--My triumph is now
attained; for now I can speak from my heart. Yesterday I still
feared secretly that the Mass would be prohibited because I heard
that the Archbishop had protested against it. After all I was right
in at first not saying anything to the Police Commissioner. By God,
it would have happened!--He surely never has been in the Court
Theatre. Well, _Pax tecum_!
Joseph Hüttenbrenner went with Schindler when he escorted the composer
to his lodgings. At this point there appears to be something like a
flight of the imagination in Schindler’s narrative. Arrived at home
Schindler hands Beethoven the box-office report. He takes it, gives
it a glance and falls in a swoon. The two friends raise him from
the floor and carry him to a sofa, where he lies without uttering a
word until far into the night. Then they observe that he has fallen
asleep, and depart. Next morning Beethoven is found on the sofa,
still in his concert-clothes. Schindler should have taken a glance at
the Conversation Books before writing this dramatic story. There he
would have found a record of his own words which shows that he came
to Beethoven on the day after the concert and asked him to send his
nephew to meet him in the afternoon at the box-office of the theatre
where the accounts were to be settled. He did not know what the
receipts were even then, for he remarks to Beethoven, “In Paris and
London the concert would certainly have yielded from 12 to 15 thousand
florins; here it may be as many hundreds.” And then he goes on: “After
yesterday you must now too plainly see that you are trampling upon
your own interests by remaining longer within these walls. In short, I
have no words to express my feelings at the wrong which you are doing
yourself.... Have you recovered from yesterday’s exertions?”
[Sidenote: FRIENDS ACCUSED OF DISHONESTY]
The financial results of the concert fell far short of Beethoven’s
expectations. The gross receipts were 2200 florins in the depreciated
Vienna money, of which only 420 florins remained after paying the cost
of administration and copying; and against this pitiful sum some petty
expenses were still chargeable. Beethoven was not only disappointed; he
was chagrined and thrown into a fuming ill-humor. He invited Schindler,
Umlauf and Schuppanzigh to dine with him at the restaurant “Zum wilden
Mann” in the Prater. The composer came with his nephew; “his brow was
clouded, his words were cold, peevish, captious,” says Schindler. He
had ordered an “opulent” meal, but no sooner had the party sat down to
the table than the “explosion which was imminent” came. In plainest
terms he burst out with the charge that the management and Schindler
had cheated him. Umlauf and Schuppanzigh tried to convince him that
that was impossible, as every penny had passed through the hands of the
two theatre cashiers, whose accounts tallied, and that though it was
contrary to custom, his nephew had acted in behalf of his brother as
comptroller. Beethoven persisted in his accusation, saying that he had
his information from an entirely credible source. Thereupon Schindler
and Umlauf abruptly left the room. Schuppanzigh remained behind just
long enough to get a few stripes on his broad back and then joined
his companions in misery. Together they finished their meal at a
restaurant in the Leopoldstadt.[115] Schindler, after a disquisition
on Beethoven’s habit of estranging his friends by insulting them and
then winning them back by the frankness of his confessions and the
sincerity of his contrition, says that after the composer’s return
from Baden in November, he approached him in this winning mood, “and
the entire occurrence was at once drowned in the waters of Lethe.” But
Schindler was not only in error as to the time of the incident--he
says it was after the second concert--he also seems to have forgotten
that he received a letter which on its face shows that he had written
to Beethoven defending himself against the charges made. Beethoven’s
letter was as follows:
I did not accuse you of any wrongdoing in connection with the
concert; but unwisdom and arbitrary actions spoiled much. Besides
I have a certain fear lest some great misfortune shall some time
happen to me through you. Clogged drains often open suddenly, and
that day in the Prater I thought you were offensive in several
things. Moreover there are many times when I would rather try to
repay the services which you perform for me with a little gift than
with a _meal_, for I admit that I am often too greatly disturbed.
If you do not see a pleasant face you say at once: “Bad weather
again to-day”; for being commonplace yourself how can you help
misunderstanding that which is not commonplace?
In short I love my independence too much. There will be no lack
of opportunities to invite you, but it is impossible to do so
continually, inasmuch as thereby all my affairs are disarranged.
Duport has consented to next Tuesday for the concert. For the
Landständischen Saal, which I might have had for to-morrow, he
again refuses to let me have the singers. He has also again
referred me to the police; therefore please go there with the bill
and learn if there is any objection to the second time. I would
never have accepted the favors done me gratis and will not. As for
friendship that is a difficult thing in your case. In no event
would I like to entrust my welfare to you since you lack judgment
and act arbitrarily, and I learned some time ago to know you from a
side which is not to your credit; and so did others. I must confess
that the purity of my character does not permit me to recompense
mere favors with friendship, although I am ready willingly to serve
your welfare.
B----n.
[Sidenote: FINANCIAL FAILURE REPEATED]
A second concert had been contemplated from the outset, or at least
since the opening of negotiations with Palfy. Schindler says that
Duport offered to pay all expenses and guarantee 500 florins Convention
Coin (1200 florins Vienna Standard) with the understanding that the
profits should be divided equally between Beethoven and the exchequer
of the theatre. But he wanted a change made in the programme. To this
change, obviously designed as a concession to the popular taste,
Beethoven seems to have given his consent. The concert took place
on Sunday, May 23rd, at midday--half-past 12 o’clock. Of the missal
hymns only one, the _Kyrie_, was performed; between the overture and
it Beethoven’s trio, “Tremate, empj, tremate,” was sung by Madame
Dardanelli and Signori Donzelli and Botticelli. The original solo
singers sang in the _Kyrie_ and the Symphony, which numbers were
separated by Rossini’s “Di tanti palpiti” in a transposed key sung by
the tenor David “almost throughout in a falsetto voice.” Schindler says
that Sontag also sang her favorite _aria di bravura_ by Mercadante, but
of this number there is no mention on the _affiche_. The delightful
weather lured the people into the open air, the house was not half full
and there was, in consequence, a deficit of 800 florins. Nor was the
popular demonstration of enthusiasm over the music so great as at the
first concert, and Beethoven, who had not favored the repetition, was
so disheartened that he was with difficulty persuaded to accept the
500 florins which Duport had guaranteed to him. He was also vexed to
find his old trio announced as a novelty (it was composed more than
twenty years before and had been performed in 1814), and so was Tobias
Haslinger, who had bought but had not published it. Moreover, Haslinger
had been overlooked in the distribution of complimentary tickets.
Beethoven had to apologize to him for the oversight, which he protested
was due to an inadvertence, and also to explain that the announcement
of the trio as a new work was of Duport’s doing, not his.
FOOTNOTES:
[106] Page 157 _et seq._
[107] There are several stories touching the origin of the fugue-theme
of the Scherzo of the D minor symphony, which may be given for what
they are worth. Czerny says that the theme occurred to Beethoven while
listening to the twittering of sparrows in a garden. Holz told Jahn
that one evening Beethoven was seated in the forest at Schönbrunn and
in the gloaming fancied he saw all about him a multitude of gnomes
popping in and out of their hiding-places; and this stirred his fancy
to the invention of the theme. Another story has it that it flashed
into his mind with a sudden outbursting glitter of lights after he had
long been seated in the dark.
[108] “Sinfonie at the beginning only 4 voices, 2 viol. viola, basso,
amongst them forte with other voices and if possible bring in all the
other instruments one by one and gradually.”
[109] Nottebohm fills the hiatus with “Trombones? Subjects?”
[110] “Abgerissene Sätze wie Fürsten sind Bettler u. s. w.” The phrase
is probably a record of Beethoven’s imperfect recollection of the line
“_Bettler_ werden Fürstenbrüder,” which appeared in an early version
of Schiller’s poem where now we read “_Alle Menschen werden Brüder_.”
The thought lies near that it was the early form of the poem, when
it was still an “Ode to Freedom” (not “to Joy”), which first aroused
enthusiastic admiration for it in Beethoven’s mind. In a Conversation
Book of 1824 Bernard says to Beethoven: “In your text it reads,”
followed by the observation, “All this is due here to the direction
of the aristocracy”--which may or may not have connection with a
conversation in which politics was playing a part.
[111] So Thayer remarks.
[112] For this assumption the present editor is alone responsible.
Thayer, who says nothing on the subject, corrects Schindler’s date to
March 20, for no obvious reason.
[113] The statement about the _Kyrie_ was made by Holz to Jahn; that
about the Symphony, by Fuchs.
[114] The incident is variously related. Schindler and Fräulein Unger
(the latter of whom told it to George Grove in London in 1869) say
that it took place at the end of the concert. Thalberg, the pianist,
who was present, says that it was after the Scherzo. A note amongst
Thayer’s papers reads: “November 23, 1860. I saw Thalberg in Paris.
He told me as follows: He was present at Beethoven’s concert in the
Kärnthnerthor Theatre 1824. Beethoven was dressed in black dress-coat,
white neckerchief, and waistcoat, black satin small-clothes, black silk
stockings, shoes with buckles. He saw after the Scherzo of the 9th
symphony, how B. stood turning over the leaves of his score utterly
deaf to the immense applause, and Unger pulled him by the sleeve and
then pointed to the audience when he turned and bowed. Umlauf told the
choir and orchestra to pay no attention whatever to Beethoven’s beating
of the time but all to watch him. Conradin Kreutzer was at the P. F.”
Did Thalberg describe Beethoven’s dress correctly? Evidently not. In
a conversation just before the concert Schindler, who is to call for
Beethoven, tells him to make himself ready. “We will take everything
with us now; also take your green coat, which you can put on when you
conduct. The theatre will be dark and no one will notice it.... O,
great master, you do not own a black frock coat! The green one will
have to do; in a few days the black one will be ready.”
[115] It is more than likely that Beethoven’s “credible” informant was
his brother Johann. He was jealous of Schindler’s participation in the
composer’s business affairs and probably took advantage of a favorable
opportunity to strengthen Beethoven’s chronic suspicion and growing
distrust of what the composer himself looked upon as Schindler’s
officiousness. In the Conversation Book used at the meeting after the
concert, Karl tells his uncle: “Schindler knows from an ear-witness
that your brother said in the presence of several persons that he was
only waiting for the concert to be over before driving S. out of the
house.”