Incidents and Labors of 1824--Bernard’s Oratorio--Visitors at
Baden--New Publishers--A Visitor from London--Beethoven’s Opinion
of his Predecessors--The Quartet in E-flat, Op. 127.
At the end of the chapter preceding the last, which recorded the doings
of the year 1823, Beethoven was left in his lodgings in the Ungargasse,
occupied with work upon the Ninth Symphony, which was approaching
completion, oppressed with anxiety concerning his health and worried
about his brother’s domestic affairs. As the story of his life is
resumed with the year 1824, there has been no serious change in his
physical condition, but complaints of ill health are frequent in his
communications with his friends. His eyes continue to trouble him till
late in March; Schindler cautions him not to rub them, as that might
increase the inflammation; Karl suggests buying a shade to protect them
from the glare of the light; and when Count Brunswick wants to take him
along with him to Hungary, Schindler advises him to take the trip, as
it might be beneficial for his eyes.
[Sidenote: KIND INTEREST IN KARL’S MOTHER]
For a moment we have a glimpse at the gentler side of the composer’s
nature in a letter which he sends when the year is about a week old
to the widow of his brother, the wicked mother of his adopted son,
in lieu of the New Year’s call which they had been prevented by work
from making. He should have come to wish her happiness for the year,
he says, had he been able: “but I know that, nevertheless, you expect
nothing but the best of good wishes for your welfare from me as well
as Karl.” She had complained of being in need, and he says he would
gladly have helped her, but had himself too many expenditures, debts
and delayed receipts to prove his willingness at the moment; but he
would now give it to her “in writing” that thenceforth she might retain
the portion of her pension which had been set apart for her son. If,
in the future, he could give her money to better her condition, he
would willingly do so; moreover, he had long before assumed the debt
of 280 florins and 20 kreutzers which she owed Steiner. Manifestly a
truce had been established between the woman and her brother-in-law,
and in the absence of any evidence that she was in any way concerned
in an escapade of Karl’s later in the year, it would appear that she
never violated it; it was not the woman whom Beethoven hated, but the
youth whom he loved, who brought grief and an almost broken heart into
his last days. Nevertheless, there is more than passive contentment
exhibited in this letter; there is also an active magnanimity which
finds even warmer expression in a letter which he seems to have written
at an earlier date to his friend Bernard. Bernard[116] had been helpful
to Beethoven in drawing up the memorial to the court in the matter of
the guardianship and was among the friends whom Beethoven consulted
about Karl’s education and bringing up. To him Beethoven writes:
I beg of you before the day is over to make inquiries about F. v.
B. [Frau van Beethoven] and if it is possible, to have her assured
through her physician that from this month on _so long as I shall
live_ she shall have the enjoyment of the whole of her pension,
and I will see to it that if I die first, Karl shall not need the
half of her pension. It was, moreover, always my intention to
permit her to keep the whole of her pension so soon as Karl left
the Institute, but as her illness and need are so great she must be
helped at once. God has never deserted me in this heavy task and I
shall continue to trust in Him. If possible I beg of you to send
me information yet to-day and I will see to it that my _tenacious
brother also makes a contribution_ to her.
The nephew was now attending the philological lectures at the
university and living in the winter and spring months with his uncle.
He had left Blöchlinger’s Institute in August 1823 and matriculated
at the university. He was active in the service of Beethoven, doing
work as his amanuensis, carrying messages, making purchases, and so
on; in fact, Beethoven seems to have taken up more of his time than
was good for his studies. He loved him tenderly and was unceasingly
thoughtful of his welfare; but the jealousy of his affection led him
to exercise a strictness of discipline over him which could not fail
to become irksome to a growing stripling. He left him little liberty,
and, yielding to a disposition prone to passion, he not seldom treated
him with great severity. The youth appears in the Conversation Books as
lively, clever and shrewd, and Beethoven, proud of his natural gifts
of mind, was indulgent of his comments on others, permitting him
apparently to speak lightly and discourteously of the men upon whose
help and counsel he was obliged to depend. The result of Beethoven’s
extremes of harsh rebuke and loving admonition, of violent accusation
and tender solicitude, was to encourage him in his innate bent for
disingenuousness and deception, and he continued the course which he
had begun as a boy of repeating words of disparagement touching those
against whom his uncle levelled his criticisms, and of reporting, no
doubt with embellishments of his own invention, the speeches which told
of the popular admiration in which the great composer was held. By
this species of flattery he played upon the weakness of his uncle and
actually obtained an influence over him in the course of time which he
exploited to his own advantage in various directions. He was naturally
inclined to indolence and self-indulgence, and it is not strange that
Beethoven’s self-sacrifice in his behalf never awakened in him any deep
sense of gratitude, while his unreasonable and ill-considered severity
aroused a spirit of rebellion in him which grew with his advance
towards adolescence. Beethoven never seems to have realized that he had
outgrown the period when he could be treated as a child, and it was a
child’s submission which he asked of him.
Grillparzer’s opera-book was a frequent subject of conversation between
Beethoven and his friends in the early months of 1824, but petitions
and advice were alike unfruitful. He did not go to work upon it nor
yet upon a composition which presented a more urgent obligation. This
was the oratorio which he had agreed to write for the Gesellschaft
der Musikfreunde and on which he had received an advance of money in
1819. Here the fatal procrastination, though it may have been agreeable
to Beethoven, was not altogether his fault. Bernard began the book,
but seems to have put it aside after a few weeks. In April, 1820, he
tells Beethoven in a Conversation Book, “I must finish the oratorio
completely this month so that it may be handed to you in Mödling.” In
August, possibly, somebody writes: “I have put it seriously to _Sanctus
Bernardus_ that it is high time that it be done; that Hauschka was
urging a completion. He will finish it this month, _id est_ in 5 days,
and see you this evening at Camehl’s.... When I told Bernard that
Hauschka had come to you about it he was embarrassed and--it seems to
me that he is throwing the blame on you. He does not want to show his
poetical impotency.”
[Sidenote: GROWING IMPATIENCE ABOUT AN ORATORIO]
For four years after giving the commission, the Gesellschaft der
Musikfreunde waited before it put any signs of impatience on record.
Towards the close of October, 1823, Bernard gave a copy of the text
of the oratorio, which was entitled “Der Sieg des Kreutzes” (“The
Victory of the Cross”), to Beethoven and also one to Sonnleithner for
the society. After waiting nearly three months, the directorate of the
society at a meeting held on January 9, 1824, took action, the nature
of which was notified to both Beethoven and Bernard. The latter was
informed that as the society had left the choice of the text which
he was to compose to Beethoven, it could not say whether or not the
society would make use of the poem which he had sent until Beethoven
had set it to music, and the censor had given it his sanction. He was
also asked to coöperate with the society in stimulating Beethoven to
finish the work “so long expected by the musical world.” Beethoven
was told that the choice of a book for the oratorio which the society
had commissioned him to write four years before had been left to him;
that it had been informed that Bernard had undertaken to write it;
that its inquiries as to when the music would be completed had always
been answered by the statement that the poem had not been received.
Not presuming to ask a composer of his eminence to outline the plan
of a musical composition before he had become familiar with the work
as a whole and had satisfied himself touching its plan and execution,
the society, therefore, had thitherto always directed its inquiries to
Bernard, who had delivered the book in October. In view of the fact
that the society could not use the text until it had been set and he
(Beethoven) had repeatedly expressed his intention to write a work
of the kind and confirmed the receipt of earnest money paid at his
request, the society asked him explicitly to say whether or not he
intended to compose Bernard’s poem, and, if so, when the work might be
expected.
Beethoven answered the letter at great length. He said that he had not
asked Bernard to write the text but had been told that the society had
commissioned him to do so; Bernard being the editor of a newspaper it
was impossible for him to consult him often; moreover, consultations
of this character would be long drawn out and personally disagreeable,
as Bernard had written nothing for music except “Libussa,” which had
not been performed at the time, but which he had known since 1809 and
which had required many alterations; he was compelled to be somewhat
skeptical about the collaboration and have the book before him in its
entirety. He had once received a portion of the book, but Bernard, to
the best of his recollection, had said that it would have to be changed
and he had given it back to him. At last he had received the whole
text at the time that the society received it, but other obligations
which illness had retarded had had to be fulfilled, since, as the
society probably knew, he was compelled to live from his compositions.
Many changes, some of which he had indicated to Bernard, would have to
be made in the book. He would finish his suggestions and consult with
Bernard, for,
though I find the material good and the poem has a value, it cannot
remain _as it is_. The poet and I wrote “Christus am Ölberg” in
14 days, but that poet was musical and had written several things
for music and I could consult with him at any moment. Let us leave
out of consideration _the value_ of poems of this sort; we all
know what allowances are to be made--the merit lies in the middle.
So far as I am concerned I would rather set Homer, Klopstock,
Schiller to music; if they offer difficulties to be overcome _these
immortal poets_ at least deserve it. As soon as I am through with
making changes in the oratorio with Bernard I shall have the honor
to inform you of the fact and at the same time let the society
know when it may with certainty count upon it. That is all that I
can say about it at present. Respecting the 400 florins, Vienna
standard, sent to me _without demand_ I would have sent them back
long ago had I been able to foresee that the matter would last
much longer than I had imagined; it was grievous to me not to
be able to express myself on the subject. Concerning it I had a
notion, in order to provide at least the interest on the sum, to
unite with the society in a concert; but neither Herr Schindler
nor my brother was authorized to say anything on the subject, and
it was farthest from my thoughts that it should be done _in such a
manner_. Please inform Herrn von Sonnleithner of this. I also thank
the society heartily for the offer of the platform and its aid
which it proffered me and in time I shall make use of them. I shall
be glad to hear whether the society wishes to make use of my works
after my concert, among which is a new symphony. The Grand Mass is
really rather in the oratorio style and particularly adapted to the
society. I shall be especially pleased if my unselfishness and also
my zealous desire to serve the society in whose benevolent deeds in
behalf of art I always take the greatest interest, are recognized.
It is interesting to note in connection with this letter that Beethoven
resents the statement that he had asked for the money given as an
earnest; that he was unwilling to assume responsibility for the
selection of Bernard as his collaborator (though Bernard was among his
friends and advisors and he had expressed satisfaction with his choice
when he accepted the commission, only insisting that the poet be paid
by the society); that he gave at least moderate approval to the book as
a whole but insisted on some alterations which were essential; that he
had been contemplating co-operation with the society in a concert, and
that he had received an offer of assistance from it in a concert which
he was to give. The letter was written on January 23, some time before
the receipt of the memorial which was the first official step toward
the great concerts of May 7 and 23. There is evidence of a kindly
feeling between the society and him, and, indeed, that feeling was
never interrupted, though the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde never got
the oratorio nor received back the money advanced on its commission.
The society afterward elected him to honorary membership.
[Sidenote: CONTRADICTORY ADVICE AS TO BERNARD’S BOOK]
Beethoven was frequently urged to set to work on the music of “The
Victory of the Cross”; but he was also advised not to compose it.
Archduke Rudolph accepted the dedication of the poem and wrote to
Beethoven telling him of the fact and expressing a wish that he would
set it to music. But Schikh said to him: “If I were Beethoven I would
never compose the extremely tiresome text of this oratorio.” Beethoven
had expressed satisfaction with the subject and the quality of the
lines; he discussed changes which he wished to have made with Bernard
after he had had time to consider the work as a whole; he promised
Hauschka in September that he would compose it as soon as he returned
to the city, and asked him to pay Bernard his fee; but he never set
seriously to work upon it, though at the end of the letter to Hauschka
(which bears date September 23, 1824) he reiterated his promise so that
he might, with mock solemnity, attest it by affixing his hand and seal.
The book of “The Victory of the Cross” was based upon the ancient story
of the apparition of the cross and the legend “_In hoc signo vinces_”
to Constantine the Great. _Constantine_ has crossed the Alps into Italy
and lies encamped confronting his enemy _Maxentius_ before Rome. His
daughter _Julia_, who is represented as wife to _Maxentius_, attempts
to avert the battle, but the vision strengthens _Constantine’s_
resolve. _Julia_ hears the angelic canticles which accompany the
apparition and is converted to the true faith, persisting in it to
martyrdom, to which she is condemned by her husband. _Maxentius_ also
hears the voices, but his augurs (allegorical figures representing
_Hate_ and _Discord_) interpret them to his advantage, whereas similar
figures (_Faith_, _Hope_ and _Charity_) inspire the Christian army.
Pious canticles on the one hand, harsh songs on the other, precede the
battle, the progress of which is related by a solo voice. _Constantine_
promises to raise the cross on the forum in Rome; the victory is won
and celebrated with Christian hymns, “Hosanna!” and “Glory to God!”
Beethoven’s copy of the libretto has been preserved, and in it there
are indications that he made some heroic excisions. He permitted
_Faith_, _Hope_ and _Charity_ to remain, but banished _Hate_ and
_Discord_. It is pretty plain that Beethoven found nothing inspiring in
the work. Holz told Jahn that he said to him, “How could I get up any
enthusiasm about it?” Schindler says that Beethoven’s failure to set
the book caused a rupture of the friendship which existed between him
and Bernard. The directors of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde dropped
the matter, neither importuning Beethoven more nor taking any steps to
recover the money paid on account.
One outcome of the concerts of May was the appearance of a new
portrait of Beethoven. It was a lithographic reproduction of a crayon
drawing made by Stephen Decker and was printed as a supplement to the
“Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung” edited by F. A. Kanne, on June 6,
1824. In this and two subsequent numbers of the journal (June 9 and 16)
Kanne reviewed the concerts with discriminating appreciation, ending
with an enthusiastic encomium of the composer. In 1827 Steinmüller made
a plate of Decker’s drawing for Artaria. Schindler and Frimmel agree
in saying that the well-known portrait by Kriehuber is an imitation of
Decker’s drawing, which was made, as Kanne’s journal stated, “a few
days after his great concert in May, 1824.”[117]
During the preparations for the concerts, thought was also given to
the usual summer sojourn, and various places--Grinzing, Heiligenstadt,
Penzing, Breitensee, Hietzing, Hetzendorf--were canvassed in
consultation with Beethoven by his friends. His brother had again
offered him a home on his estate and it was expected that Count
Brunswick would come for the concert and take Beethoven back with him
to Hungary. In all of the excursions which were made in the vicinity
of Schönbrunn in search of a summer home, Schindler accompanied the
composer to see, to advise, to negotiate. The choice fell upon Penzing,
where an apartment was found in the first storey of the house numbered
43 belonging to a tailor in Vienna named Johann Hörr, who was rejoiced
to have so distinguished a tenant. Beethoven took it for the summer
beginning on May 1, for a rental of 180 florins, C. M. The receipt is
in existence, with a characteristic memorial of Beethoven’s violent
and abrupt change of mind concerning men and things. The lodgings were
in all things adapted to his needs and Beethoven, entirely satisfied,
moved into them soon after the second concert. An old couple lived in
the parterre, but otherwise he was the only tenant of the house. But
the house lay close to a foot-bridge over the little stream called
the Wien Fluss and people crossing it frequently stopped to gaze
into his rooms. He could have saved himself the annoyance by drawing
the curtains, but instead he flew into a rage, quarrelled with his
landlord, against whom he recorded his anger by scrawling the epithet
“Schurke” (rogue, wretch, scoundrel, etc.) under his name on the
receipt, and removing to Baden (Gutenbrunn). He had been in the house
six weeks; in Baden he staid from about the 1st of August till some
time in November; and thus was again paying rent for three lodgings at
the same time.
[Sidenote: TWO NEW OFFERS OF THE MASS IN D]
[Sidenote: Schott and Sons Buy the Mass]
The matter of the subscriptions for the Mass being disposed of (except
so far as the deliveries of some of the scores was concerned), and
the Symphony completed, Beethoven now had time, while getting ready
for their performance, to think also of their publication. As he had
promised to deliver the Mass to Simrock long before, so also he had
contracted to give exclusive possession of the Symphony for eighteen
months to the Philharmonic Society of London, in March, 1823. It was
eleven months after that date that the score was finished and thirteen
months before it was placed in the hands of the Philharmonic Society’s
agent in Vienna. Hogarth in his history of the Philharmonic Society is
only technically correct when he says that it was not “received” by the
society until “after it had been performed at Vienna.” It was handed
to Ries’s representative on April 26 or 27, 1824; the first concert
took place on May 7th. When Beethoven took up the matter of publication
again he ignored Simrock, Peters, Schlesinger and the Vienna publishers
and turned to Schott and Sons of Mayence and H. A. Probst of Leipsic.
Schott and Sons had sent him their journal “Cäcilia” with the request
that he recommend a correspondent in the Austrian capital, and also
send them some compositions for publication. He answered on March 10,
1824, that he would gladly serve the paper if it were not that he
felt it to be a higher and more natural calling to manifest himself
through his musical compositions; but he had instigated a search for
a fit man to act as Viennese reviewer. Of his compositions he offered
“a new Grand Mass with solo and chorus and full orchestra” which he
considered his “greatest work,” and a new Grand Symphony with a finale
in the style of his Pianoforte Fantasia with chorus “but on a much
larger scale”; also a new quartet for strings.[118] The fees demanded
were 1000 florins C. M. for the Mass, 600 florins for the Symphony and
50 ducats for the Quartet. “This business only to oblige you.” On the
same day he wrote to H. A. Probst offering the Mass and Symphony at
the same prices but stipulating that the latter should not be published
before July, 1825, though, to recompense the publisher for the delay,
he would let him have the pianoforte arrangement _gratis_. Only a
portion of this letter has been preserved, but the contents of the lost
fragment can be gathered from Probst’s answer under date March 22, in
which he promises to deposit at once with Joseph Loydl and Co. 100
imperial ducats to Beethoven’s account, to be paid over on delivery of
three songs with pianoforte accompaniment (two of them to have parts
for other instruments, the third to be an arietta), six bagatelles
for pianoforte solo, and a grand overture with pianoforte arrangement
for 2 and 4 hands. What these works were may easily be guessed. After
this business had been arranged to the satisfaction of both parties,
Probst said, he would communicate his decision respecting the Mass.
Beethoven wrote, probably on July 3, explaining his delay on the score
that the compositions “had just been finished” but were now ready for
delivery at any moment to Herrn Glöggl, to whom he requested that the
money be sent. On August 9, Probst informed Beethoven that the 100
ducats had already been sent to Loydl and Co., in Vienna. A letter
written by Beethoven on the same day has been lost, but a portion of
its contents can be deduced from Probst’s reply a week later--August
16. The Leipsic publisher admitted that his action in depositing the
money to be delivered in exchange for the manuscripts had been due
to reports which had reached him touching difficulties which another
publisher had had with the composer. In purchasing manuscripts without
examination he was departing from his established rule of action and
he trusted to the admiration which he felt for the composer’s genius
that the latter had set apart works of excellence for him. He would
gladly have published the Symphony, but was deterred by the danger of
piracy which was peculiarly great in Austria. He promised a speedy and
handsome publication of the works purchased. A memorandum by Beethoven
indicates that he answered this letter, but the nature of his reply
is not known. It is to be presumed that he withdrew his offer of the
Symphony. The correspondence with Probst ended and the negotiations,
which had again reached the point of a deposit of the fee against the
delivery of the manuscripts, came to nothing; Schott and Sons secured
not only the Mass, Symphony and Quartet, but the smaller pieces also.
The firm accepted the offer of the Quartet at once, but asked either a
reduction of the fees for the Symphony and Mass, or permission to pay
the money in installments at intervals of six months. Subsequently the
firm offered to provide a guaranty for the deferred payments and to
consider any proposition which Beethoven had to make. The two letters,
dated respectively March 24 and April 10, remaining unanswered,
Schott and Sons again wrote on April 19 and still again on April 27;
introducing with the former letter Christian Rummel, Chapelmaster of
the Duke of Nassau, and asking a contribution to “Cäcilia” in the
latter. In the midst of his preparations for the concert, Beethoven
replied and repeated his offer of the Mass and Symphony, but held the
matter of the Quartet in abeyance. He asked that payment for the other
works be made by bills drawn on a Vienna bank payable 600 florins in
one month, 500 florins in two months and 600 florins in four months.
On July 3 he also conceded the Quartet, which he promised to deliver
inside of six weeks. With this the business was concluded and, as an
undated letter of Beethoven’s shows, much to his gratification; the
business methods of Schott and Sons were extremely satisfactory to him.
But the year came to an end, and the Mayence publishers were still
waiting for their manuscripts, while Beethoven was kept busy writing
explanations in answer to their questions and requests. On September 17
Beethoven says he will attend to the copying of the works as soon as he
has returned to Vienna, and send the Quartet by the middle of October;
in November he is obliged to give two lessons a day to Archduke Rudolph
and has no time to look after the matter; on December 5 the works are
most certainly to be delivered to Fries and Co. within the current
week; on December 17 it will be another week before the works can be
delivered--the Archduke has but gone and he must look through the copy
of the score several times--and he begs his correspondents not to
think ill of him, for he had “never done anything wrong,” intimating
that a certain publisher in Vienna was trying to seduce him from the
Mayence firm and to that end was seeking to make them suspicious,
etc.; meanwhile he offers for publication the overture which had been
performed at his concert, six bagatelles and three songs in behalf of
his brother to whom they belong, the price 130 ducats in gold. These
were the works which Probst had agreed to purchase for 100 ducats and
the money for which had been sent to Vienna. Schott agreed to buy them
for 130 ducats and Beethoven wrote to his brother in Gneixendorf on
December 24: “I inform you that Mayence will give 130 ducats in gold
for your works: if Herr Probst will not pay as much, give them to
Mayence, who will at once send you a cheque; these are really honest,
not mean, business men.” Johann promptly put himself in communication
with Schott and Sons and graciously confirmed the sale of the works at
130 florins, “out of respect” for his brother.
Peters, who had been informed of the state of affairs concerning the
Mass, evidently sent a complaint, or protest, to Beethoven, for on
December 12, 1824, the latter informs the publisher that the case
has been closed by his promise of the work to another publisher. He
(Peters) should have received a quartet had the publishers who took
the Mass not made the Quartet a condition of his acceptance. But he
should surely have another quartet soon, or he was ready to make him
a proposition for a larger work, in which case the sum which had been
paid might be deducted from the new fee. Let Peters but be patient and
he should be completely satisfied. Then follows this rebuke:
You did wrong to _yourself_ and _to me_, and you are still doing
the latter in, as I hear, accusing me of having sent you _inferior_
works. Did you not yourself ask for songs and bagatelles? Afterward
it occurred to you that the fee was too large and that a larger
work might have been had for it. That you showed yourself to be a
poor judge of art in this is proved by the fact that several of
these works have been and will be published, and such a thing never
happened to me before.[119] As soon as I can I will liquidate my
indebtedness to you, and meanwhile I remain, etc.
In September of this year the interest of Beethoven’s old friend
Andreas Streicher, whose wife was a visitor at Baden, seems to have
been awakened in a marked degree, and he gave himself to the devising
of plans to ameliorate the composer’s financial position. He revived
the project for a complete edition of the compositions which, as he
outlines it, he thinks might yield a profit of 10,000 florins, good
money; proposes six high-class subscription concerts in the approaching
winter, which, with 600 subscribers, would yield 4,800 florins; finally
he suggests that manuscript copies of the Mass in D with pianoforte
or organ accompaniment be sold to a number of singing societies.
Though this project had in a measure been attempted in the case of
the Singverein of Berlin and achieved in that of the Cäcilienverein
of Frankfort, Beethoven seems to have authorized Streicher to make an
effort in the direction proposed, for two copies of a letter evidently
written to be communicated to singing societies or representative
members have been found. In the letter Beethoven suggests that owing to
the cost of copying, etc., the price be 50 ducats--just as much as he
had asked of his royal subscribers for the full orchestral score. None
of the projects came to execution, though the first, which lay close
to Beethoven’s heart, came up for attention at a later date.
[Sidenote: PRAISE FOR ENGLAND AND THE ENGLISH]
Towards the end of September, Johann Stumpff, a native of Thuringia but
a resident of London, was among the visitors at Baden who were admitted
to intimate association with Beethoven. This was another Stumpff, not
the one who came to Vienna in 1818 with a letter from Thomas Broadwood,
and who tuned the new English pianoforte. He was a manufacturer of
harps and an enthusiastic admirer of Beethoven’s music. Anticipating
a meeting with the composer, he had provided himself with a letter of
introduction to Haslinger, whose help to that end he asked. He had
also gotten a letter from Streicher, whose acquaintance he had made
in London. He accomplished his end and wrote a long and enthusiastic
account of his intercourse with Beethoven at Baden, whither Haslinger
had accompanied him on his first visit.[120] He was received by
Beethoven with extraordinary cordiality. The composer accepted an
invitation to dinner, entertained his host at dinner in return, played
for him on his Broadwood pianoforte (after Stein, at Stumpff’s request,
had restored its ruins), and at parting gave him a print of one of
his portraits and promised to alight at his house if ever he came to
London. Much of his conversation, which Stumpff records, is devoted to
a condemnation of the frivolity and bad musical taste of the Viennese,
and excessive laudation of everything English. “Beethoven,” Stumpff
remarks, “had an exaggerated opinion of London and its highly cultured
inhabitants,” and he quotes Beethoven as saying: “England stands high
in culture. In London everybody knows something and knows it well; but
the man of Vienna can only talk of eating and drinking, and sings and
pounds away at music of little significance or of his own making.” He
spoke a great deal about sending his nephew to London to make a man of
him, asked questions about the cost of living there and, in short, gave
proof that an English visit was filling a large part of his thoughts.
The incidents of the conclusion of the dinner which he gave to Stumpff
may be told in the latter’s words:
Beethoven now produced the small bottle. It contained the precious
wine of Tokay with which he filled the two glasses to the brim.
“Now, my good German-Englishman, to your good health.” We drained
the glasses, then, extending his hand, “A good journey to you
and to a meeting again in London.” I beckoned to him to fill
the glasses again and hurriedly wrote in his notebook: “Now
for a pledge to the welfare of the greatest living composer,
Beethoven.”--I arose from my chair, he followed my example, emptied
his glass and seizing my hand said: “To-day I am just what I am
and what I ought to be,--all unbuttoned.” And now he unbosomed
himself on the subject of music which had been degraded and made a
plaything of vulgar and impudent passions. “True music,” he said,
“found little recognition in this age of Rossini and his consorts.”
Thereupon I took up the pencil and wrote in very distinct letters:
“Whom do you consider the greatest composer that ever lived?”
“Handel,” was his instantaneous reply; “to him I bow the knee,” and
he bent one knee to the floor.
“Mozart,” I wrote.
“Mozart,” he continued, “is good and admirable.”
“Yes,” wrote I, “who was able to glorify even Handel with his
additional accompaniments to ‘The Messiah’.”
“It would have lived without them,” was his answer.
I continued writing. “Seb. Bach.”
“Why is he dead?”
I answered immediately “He will return to life again.”
“Yes, if he is studied, and for that there is now no time.”
I took the liberty of writing: “As you yourself, a peerless artist
in the art of music, exalt the merits of Handel so highly above
all, you must certainly own the scores of his principal works.”
“I? How should I, a poor devil, have gotten them? Yes, the scores
of ‘The Messiah’ and ‘Alexander’s Feast’ went through my hands.”
If it is possible for a blind man to help a cripple, and the two
attain an end which would be impossible to either one unaided, why
might not in the present case a similar result be effected by a
similar coöperation? At that moment I made a secret vow: Beethoven,
you shall have the works for which your heart is longing if they
are anywhere to be found.
Stumpff relates that Beethoven’s brother, who came into the room during
his visit, seemed glad to greet him and begged him most amiably to call
on him, as he desired to talk with him about a number of things. In
saying farewell Beethoven accompanied him to the door and said: “That
is my brother--have nothing to do with him--he is not an honest man.
You will hear me accused of many wrong actions of which he has been
guilty.” Stumpff returned to London on December 6. He fulfilled his vow
touching the gift of Handel’s works two years later.
On November 17, 1824, as the autograph attests, Beethoven wrote a
four-part canon on the words “Schwenke dich ohne Schwänke,” which he
sent to Schott and Sons for publication in the “Cäcilia,” where it
appeared in April, 1825. There the title is “Canon on one who was
called Schwenke.” The person whose name has thus been perpetuated
was Carl Schwenke, son of Christian Friedrich Gottlieb Schwenke,
Director of Church Music and Cantor at the Johanneum in Hamburg. Of the
acquaintanceship between Beethoven and him, the canon is the only relic.
In the latter part of the summer Beethoven accepted a commission from
Diabelli for “a Sonata in F for pianoforte, four hands.” The project
seems to have originated with the publisher, who asked for such a
composition and specified the key in a letter dated August 7, 1824.
Beethoven waited a fortnight before replying and then agreed to compose
the work for a fee of 80 ducats in gold, although a sonata for four
hands was not in his line. He mentioned the composition and the fee
which he was to receive for it in the draft for a letter to Schlesinger
next year, but never wrote the work; nor have any certain traces of it
been found in the sketchbooks.
[Sidenote: The Quartet in E-flat, Op. 127]
There is only one other work which calls for attention as having
largely occupied Beethoven’s mind this year. It is the Quartet for
Strings in E-flat, Op. 127. When Beethoven in January, 1823, accepted
the invitation of Prince Galitzin to write three quartets for him, he
had for some time been contemplating a return to the field which he had
cultivated so successfully but had permitted to lie fallow after the
completion of the quartet in F minor, Op. 95, in October, 1810. He had
held out a promise for speedy delivery of a quartet to Peters on June
5, 1822, but Peters declined the work in his next letter. Galitzin sent
the stipulated fee of 50 ducats promptly to his bankers in Vienna, but
subsequently yielded to Beethoven’s request and permitted the money
to be applied to his subscription for the Mass. On March 10, 1824,
Beethoven offered “a new quartet” to Schott and Sons for 50 ducats
and the publishers promptly notified their acceptance of the offer to
him. Neate was informed by a letter dated March 19 that the Quartet
was finished; but, as usual, the word was used in a Pickwickian sense.
The correspondence with Schott and Sons sings the same tune with
respect to the Quartet that it does regarding Mass and Symphony. On
May 20 Beethoven cannot positively promise it; on July 3 he is sure
that the publishers will receive it in six weeks; on September 17 the
time of delivery is postponed to the middle of October; in November to
the beginning of December; and on December 17 he says there is still
something to be written on it. All the works which Schott and Sons have
bought are to be delivered at one time, yet when they receive the Mass
and Symphony on January 16, 1825, the Quartet is withheld but promised
in another week, and, after a month has passed, in still another
week. The Quartet is performed for the first time by Schuppanzigh on
March 6, 1825. At last Beethoven writes to Schott and Sons on May 7,
1825: “You will have received the Quartet by this time--it is the one
promised to you.” In March, 1826, its publication is announced in the
“Cäcilia.” The autograph of the first movement is dated “1824” and no
doubt the bulk of the work upon it was done in the latter part of the
year, though it must have existed at least in a fragmentary form in
Beethoven’s head when he wrote to Neate in March that it was finished.
At the close of the year Beethoven’s nephew Karl is still pursuing
his philological studies at the university and living with his uncle.
During the summer his holidays are spent in the country with Beethoven,
to whom he is the cause of no little anxiety, especially when towards
the end of the year he repeats his youthful escapade of running away
from home. Beethoven, thinking of his foster-child’s welfare and
apparently made ill at ease by symptoms which made him apprehend that
he was likely to die suddenly of an apoplectic stroke (“like my good
grandfather, whom I resemble,” he wrote), sent a letter to Dr. Bach
on August 1, begging him to draw up a formal will and reiterating his
intention to make his nephew inheritor of all his property. He also
directed: “As it is customary to make a bequest to relatives even if
they are in no wise related,” that his French pianoforte be given to
his brother. “As regards Steiner, let him be content with the assurance
that he shall be paid in full by the end of September--for if anything
comes of the Mayence business it will not be before then and the first
600 florins must go to two of the noblest of mankind who, when I was
almost helpless, most kindly and disinterestedly came to my assistance
with this sum.” No doubt the Brentanos were meant; Steiner had
evidently been dunning him for the old debt.
About the beginning of November, Beethoven returned again to Vienna,
where he took up a new residence--probably at No. 969 Johannesgasse, a
house owned by a family named Kletschka. He did not remain there long,
however, as the other tenants complained of his pianoforte playing
and the disturbance caused by his quarrels with his nephew and the
housekeeper. He received notice to quit and removed, presumably, to
apartments in the second storey of a house in the Krügerstrasse, now
known as No. 13.
[Sidenote: AN ENGLISH VISIT AGAIN CONTEMPLATED]
Thoughts of a visit to England had been revived early in the year by
a letter from Neate and, while the plans of the concert were making,
it had been determined, so far as it was possible to do so, that
the visit should be undertaken in the fall and that Schindler should
accompany him. This is the key to Schindler’s forceful observation
after the financial fiasco of the concert. A second letter bearing on
the subject was written by Neate on December 20. Consideration of it
belongs in the next chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[116] Beethoven’s letters to Bernard were published by Alexander
Hajdecki in the February number, 1909, of “Nord und Süd”; Hajdecki
found the letters in the hands of a niece of one of Bernard’s daughters
to whom he had bequeathed them. They are not included in the Kalischer
or Prelinger collections.
[117] Frimmel, however, placing faith in a tradition to that effect,
says that the Decker drawing was made in the fall of 1825 in the
Schwarzspanier House. The print issued by the “Allgemeine Musikalische
Zeitung” could not be found by Dr. Deiters; but Thayer, (who spells
the name of the artist “Daker,”) saw one in the hands of Prof.
Spatzenegger, a son-in-law of the artist, in Salzburg.
[118] This could only have been the Quartet in E-flat, which, however,
was far from finished.
[119] Only the Bagatelles, Op. 119, had been published when this was
written.
[120] Stumpff’s manuscript, which also covered the principal incidents
of a trip through Germany, after his death came into the possession of
his surviving partner, T. Martin, who permitted Thayer to transcribe
all of it relating to Beethoven. Many of his observations parallel
those made by Reichardt, Rochlitz, Schultz and other visitors, and
their repetition here would add nothing to the story of Beethoven’s
life and manners; besides, the account is too long to be inserted in
full. The reader who wishes to read all of it is referred to the German
edition of Thayer’s biography. Vol. V, page 122 _et seq._