Of my own volition I had composed a Battle Symphony for Mälzel

for his Panharmonica without pay. After he had had it for a while

he brought me the score, the engraving of which he had already

begun--[Beethoven probably meant that Mälzel had begun the preparation

of the cylinder--H.E.K.] and wanted it arranged for full orchestra. I

had previously formed the idea of a Battle (Music) which, however, was

not applicable to his Panharmonica. We agreed to perform this work and

others of mine in a concert for the benefit of the soldiers. Meanwhile

I got into the most terrible financial embarrassment. Deserted by the

whole world here in Vienna, in expectation of a bill of exchange, etc.,

Mälzel offered me 50 ducats in gold. I took them and told him that I

would give them back to him here, or would let him take the work with

him to London in case I did not go with him--in which latter case I

would refer him to an English publisher who would pay him these 50

ducats. The Academies were now given. In the meantime Mälzel’s plan and

character were developed. Without my consent he printed on the placards

that it was his property. Incensed at this he had to have these torn

down. Now he printed: “Out of friendship for his journey to London”;

to this I consented, because I thought that I was still at liberty to

fix the conditions on which I would let him have the work. I remember

that I quarrelled violently with him while the notices were printing,

but the too short time--I was still writing on the work. In the heat

of my inspiration, immersed in my work, I scarcely thought of Mälzel.

Immediately after the first Academy in the University Hall, I was

told on all hands by trustworthy persons that Mälzel was spreading it

broadcast that he had loaned me 400 ducats in gold. I thereupon had the

following printed in the newspaper, but the newspaper writers did not

print it as Mälzel is befriended with all of them. Immediately after

the first Academy I gave back to Mälzel his 50 ducats, telling him

that having learned his character here, I would never travel with him,

righteously enraged because he had printed on the placards, without

my consent, that all the arrangements for the Academy were badly

made and his bad patriotic character showed itself in the following

expressions--I [~unprintable~]--if only they will say in London that

the public here paid 10 florins; not for the wounded but for this did

I do this--and also that I would not let him have the work for London

except on conditions concerning which I would let him know. He now

asserted that it was a gift of friendship and had this expression

printed in the newspaper without asking me about it in the least.

Inasmuch as Mälzel is a coarse fellow, entirely without education, or

culture, it may easily be imagined how he conducted himself toward

me during this period and increased my anger more and more. And who

would force a gift of friendship upon such a fellow? I was now offered

an opportunity to send the work to the Prince Regent. It was now

impossible to ~give him the work unconditionally~. He then came to you

and made proposals. He was told on what day to come for his answer; but

he did not come, went away and performed the work in Munich. How did

he get it? ~Theft~ was impossible--Herr Mälzel had a few of the parts

at home for a few days and from these he had the whole put together by

some musical handicraftsman, and with this he is now trading around

in the world. Herr Mälzel promised me hearing machines. To encourage

him I composed the Victory Symphony for his Panharmonica. His machines

were finally finished, but were useless for me. For this small trouble

Herr Mälzel thinks that after I had set the ~Victory Symphony~ for

grand orchestra and ~composed the Battle for it~, I ought to have him

the ~sole owner~ of this work. Now, assuming that I really felt under

some obligation for the hearing machines, it is cancelled by the fact

that he made at least 500 florins convention coin, out of the Battle

stolen from me or compiled in a mutilated manner. He has therefore paid

himself. He had the audacity to say here that he had the Battle; indeed

he showed it in writing to several persons--but I did not believe it,

and I was right, inasmuch as the whole was ~not compiled by me~ but by

~another~. Moreover, the honor which he credits to himself alone might

be a reward. ~I was not mentioned at all by the Court War Council~, and

yet everything in the two academies was of my composition. If, as he

said, Herr Mälzel delayed his journey to London because of the Battle,

it was merely a hoax. Herr Mälzel remained until he had finished his

patchwork (?), the first attempts not being successful.

Beethoven, m. p.

II.

EXPLANATION AND APPEAL TO THE MUSICIANS OF LONDON BY LUDWIG VAN

BEETHOVEN

Herr Mälzel, who is at present in London, on his way thither performed

~my Victory Symphony and Wellington’s Battle at Vittoria~ in Munich,

and, according to report, will also give concert performances of it

in London as he was also willing to do in Frankfort. This leads me

publicly to declare: that I never under any circumstances yielded or

gave these works to Herr Mälzel, that nobody possesses a copy of them,

and that the only one which I gave out was sent to his Royal Highness,

the Prince Regent of England.

The performance of these works on the part of Herrn Mälzel, therefore,

is a fraud on the public, inasmuch as according to this explanation

he is not in possession of them, or if he is in possession of them an

infringement on my rights, as he has obtained them in an illegal manner.

But even in the latter case the public will be deceived, for that which

Herr Mälzel will give them to hear under the title: ~Wellington’s

Battle at Vittoria and Victory Symphony~, must obviously be a spurious

or mutilated work, since he never received anything of these works from

me except a single part for a few days.

This suspicion becomes certainty when I add the assurance of musicians

of this city whose names I am empowered to mention in case of

necessity, that Herr Mälzel said to them on leaving Vienna that he was

in possession of the work and showed them parts of it, which, however,

as I have already proved, could be nothing else than mutilated and

spurious parts.

Whether Herr Mälzel is capable of doing me such an injury?--is answered

by the circumstance that he had himself announced as the ~sole

undertaker~ of my two concerts given here in Vienna for the benefit

of the soldiers wounded in the war, at which only works of mine were

performed, in the public prints, without an allusion to my name.

I therefore call upon the musical artists of London not to suffer such

an injury to me, their colleague, by a performance arranged by Herrn

Mälzel of the Battle of Vittoria and the Victory Symphony, and to

prevent such an imposition on the London public in the manner set forth.

Vienna, July 25, 1814.

III.

CERTIFICATE

We, the undersigned, certify in the interest of truth and can vouch

under oath if necessary: that there were several conferences between

Herrn Louis van Beethoven and the Court Mechanician, Herrn Mälzel of

this city, at the house of the undersigned. Dr. Carl v. Adlersburg,

the which had for their subject the musical composition called: “The

Battle of Vittoria” and the visit to England; at these, Herr Mälzel

made several propositions to Herrn van Beethoven to secure the work

aforementioned, or at least the right of first performance for himself.

But as Herr Mälzel did not appear at the last meeting arranged for,

nothing came of the matter, the propositions made to the former not

having been accepted by him.

Vienna, October 20, 1814.

Joh. Freiherr v. Pasqualati,

[L. S.]

~K. K. priv. Grosshändler~.

Carl Edler von Adlersburg,

~Hof-und Gerichts-Advocat~

[L. S.]

~K. K. Öffentlicher Notar~.

The so-called “Deposition” is, says Thayer, in truth, nothing more

than an ex-parte statement prepared for the use of his lawyer by a

very angry man, in whom a tendency to suspicion and jealousy had

strengthened with advancing years and with the increase of an incurable

infirmity. Mälzel’s contra-statement to his lawyer is lost. He had no

young disciple planning with zeal to preserve it and give it, with his

version of the story, to posterity.

[Sidenote: THE MERITS OF MÄLZEL’S CASE]

No one, who is ignorant of Schindler’s honestly meant, but partisan

representations, or who, knowing them, can disabuse his mind of

any prejudgment thence arising, can read Beethoven’s statement

without misgivings; all the more, if the facts proved by Moscheles

and Stein--tacitly admitted, though utterly suppressed, in the

document--are known to him. Nor will he be convinced by all the force

of the harsh language of denunciation, that Mälzel did not act honestly

and in good faith, when he called the “Victory” his property.

There is nothing in the first part of the statement that requires

comment; though in passing it may be observed, that the pathos of

“deserted by the whole world here in Vienna” would be increased if one

could forget the Archduke, the Brentanos, the Streichers, Breitkopf and

Härtel, Zmeskall, and others. It must be borne in mind (in Beethoven’s

favor) that the paper was written several months after the events of

which it speaks; that it was drawn up at a time when its writer was

excessively busy; that it bears all the marks of haste and want of

reflection; that it was obviously intended for his lawyer’s eye alone;

that there is evident confusion of memory as to times and events; and

that--be it repeated--it is the ~ex-parte~ statement of an angry man.

Take the “400 ducats in gold”; here Beethoven’s memory must have played

him false, certainly as to the time, probably as to the substance of

what he heard from the “trustworthy persons.” Mälzel could have had no

possible motive to utter so glaring a falsehood; but every motive not

to do so. A few weeks later, he might and very probably did assert,

that the damages to him arising from the sacrifice of the “Victory” as

a piece for his Panharmonicon, from the expense of his prolonged stay

in Vienna, from the loss of the holiday season in Munich, from the

time, study and labor spent in experiments on Beethoven’s ear-trumpets,

and from his exclusion from all share in these profitable concerts,

which he alone had made possible--that these damages were not less

than 400 ducats. Nor does such an estimate appear to be a gross

exaggeration. “I therefore had the following printed in the newspaper,”

continues Beethoven. If the passage which follows be what he desired

to have printed, the reasons why the editors refused are sufficiently

obvious; if they had cherished no regard for Mälzel and had believed

him in the wrong, they must have suppressed such a communication for

Beethoven’s own sake.

The character of Mälzel--drawn in a few dark lines by his opponent--has

no bearing on the real point at issue; it may, however, be observed

as remarkable, that Beethoven alone made the discovery, and this not

until--after some years of close intimacy and friendship--he had

quarrelled with him. There are not many, who having so sagaciously

planted and seen the harvest gathered in by another--who, smarting

under the disappointment, and irritated by the loss of so much time,

pains and labor--would sit down quietly, exhibit Job’s patience, and

refrain from all expressions of feeling not suited to a lady’s boudoir;

nor is it to be supposed that Mälzel acted this Christian part; but

then Beethoven was hardly the man to cast the first stone at the sinner.

The sudden resolution to send the “Wellington’s Victory” to the Prince

Regent of England, was obviously part and parcel of the proceedings

against Mälzel, the object being to defeat there any production of the

work by him. Beethoven himself was the only loser by it. The prince

never said “thank you” for it.

In the argument against the correctness of Mälzel’s copy of the work,

Beethoven is, to say the least, unfortunate. His opponent may have had,

from ~him~, only single parts (in the second paper it stands “a single

part”!); but the circumstances were such that Mälzel could have had no

difficulty in obtaining temporary use of most if not all the parts,

and there were plenty of “musical handicraftsmen” amply capable, after

so many rehearsals and public performances, of producing a copy in the

main correct.

It is painful to one who loves and reveres the memory of Beethoven,

to peruse the closing passages of this document; it is, fortunately,

not necessary to comment upon their character. It was not necessary

for Beethoven to speak of Mälzel’s share in the composition of the

work, in the first of these papers; the opposing lawyer would attend

to that; but was it just and ingenuous to suppress it entirely in the

appeal to the London musicians? Schindler asserts that this appeal

prevented Mälzel from producing it. It ~could~ have had no such effect.

The simple truth is, that in those days for a stranger like Mälzel to

undertake orchestral concerts in London would have been madness. The

new Philharmonic Society, composed of all the best resident musicians,

had hardly achieved an assured existence.

The third paper is testimony to a single fact and is so impartially

drawn, so skilfully worded, as not to afford a point for or against

either of the parties. Schindler closes his history of the affair

thus: “The legal proceedings in Vienna were without result, however,

the defendant being far away and his representatives knowing how to

protract the case unduly, whereby the plaintiff was subjected to

considerable expense and ever new annoyances. For this reason our

master refrained from prosecuting the case further, since meanwhile

the facts had become widely known and had frightened the false friend

from making new attempts. The court costs were divided evenly by the

litigants. Mälzel never returned to Vienna, but at a later period

appealed in a letter to the friend whom he had swindled when he thought

that he needed his recommendation for the metronome. This letter, dated

Paris, April 19, 1818, is here. In it he represents to Beethoven that

he was at work for him upon a hearing machine for use in conducting; he

even invites him to accompany him on a journey to England. The master

expressed his satisfaction with the metronome to the mechanician; but

he never heard more concerning the machines.”

Now Schindler’s own account of the first two occasions when he spoke

with Beethoven, copied into the text, partly with a view to this, shows

that he could have no personal knowledge of the Mälzel affair, except

its issue; and an examination of his pages proves further, that his

account of it is but a paraphrase of Beethoven’s statement. His own

words, written in a Conversation Book, demonstrate that the greater

portion of the above citation is nonsense; for those words inform us

that Mälzel returned to Vienna in the autumn of 1817; that, then and

there, peace was made between the parties, and the old friendship

restored; and that thereupon they passed a jovial evening together in

the “Kamehl,” where Schindler himself sang soprano in the “Ta, ta, ta,”

canon to the bass of Mälzel! What is the historic value of a narrative

so made up and ending with such an astounding lapse of memory?

Mälzel spent his last years mostly in Philadelphia and other American

cities. A few men of advanced years are still living there, unless

recently passed away--(Thayer is writing in the eighth decade of the

nineteenth century)--who retain an affectionate and respectful memory

of him as a gentleman and man of culture; they will rejoice in this, at

the least, partial vindication of their old friend. Candor and justice

compel the painful admission that Beethoven’s course with Mälzel

is a blot--one of the few--upon his character, which no amount of

misrepresentation of the facts can wholly efface; whoever can convince

himself that the composer’s conduct was legally and technically just

and right, must still feel that it was neither noble nor generous.

Mälzel died suddenly on July 21, 1838, on an American brig, while on a

voyage between the United States and the West Indies.

[124] ~Eselshaut~--“Ass’s Skin.”--A fairy play of that name with music

by Hummel was performed on March 10, 1814, in the Theater-an-der-Wien.

[125] Dr. Leopold Sonnleithner, in the “Recensionen” of Vienna

(1861. p. 592), corrects a mistake in an obituary notice of

Chapelmaster Gläser with the remark: “I can very well remember that

the opera (‘Fidelio’) was rehearsed and conducted by Josef Weigl.”

Dr. Sonnleithner’s authority is justly so decisive in all matters

pertaining to the musical annals of Vienna, and even the slightest

errors are so very rare in his writings, that if one occurs it must be

corrected upon unimpeachable authority, to prevent its passing into

history. Now, in the manuscript text-book above cited, is written

below the list of properties: “Herr Umlauf, conducts”; and near the

end of the manuscript overture to “Fidelio” stands in Beethoven’s

hand: “Indicate to Umlauf where the trombones enter.” Treitschke is

thus so fully confirmed as to leave no doubt that in this instance Dr.

Sonnleithner’s memory played him false.

[126] Beethoven’s play on words cannot be reproduced in translation.

[127] He had forgotten, evidently, that he no longer lived in the

fourth storey.

[128] It should be 1808.

[129] Probably on account of his deafness; for Moscheles adds: “I had

seen Artaria speaking close to his ear.”

[130] Can there be any doubt now that Beethoven took Bettina to one of

the rehearsals?

[131] In August Schmidt’s “Musikalisches Taschenbuch, Orpheus,” for

1841.

[132] Judging from the internal evidence this letter is of date, July

10. On Saturday, July 2, “Coriolan” was given, and Beethoven may well

have been present. The note was written on a Sunday. July 10 was a

Sunday.

[133] Seyfried had long been accustomed to write for four horns.

Speaking of his own compositions in 1806, he says: “Moreover I wrote

... for my excellent horn-players several ~divertimenti~ for four

~obbligati~ French horns.”

[134] Dr. Riemann opines that the confusion of opinion concerning

the air sprang from the erroneous statement of the reporter of the

“Allg. Mus. Zeitung” that the new air of the benefit performance

was accompanied by four horns; and that the error was pardonable,

inasmuch as the three horns actually used are supplemented by a fourth

~obbligato~ part for the bassoon. Nottebohm (“Zweite Beethoveniana,”

pp. 302-306), is of the opinion that Beethoven did not compose the

scena anew for the benefit performance of 1814. But what shall we say

to Beethoven’s announcement: “For this performance two new pieces have

been added”?

[135] Another untranslatable play on words: “Diese ~Einnahme~ ist wohl

mehr eine ~Ausnahme~,” etc.

[136] June 23rd, 1860, in Salzburg.

[137] Received July 4, 1859. The venerable man was then eighty-seven

years of age.

[138] The letters written by Beethoven to Dr. Kanka, Archduke Rudolph

and Baron Pasqualati, relative to this subject, are printed in full

in the German editions of this biography: Appendix VIII to Vol. III

in the first edition, Appendix III to Vol. III in the second. As they

contribute nothing to the facts in the controversy with Prince Kinsky’s

heirs, the English Editor felt himself justified in omitting them here

with this direction to the curious student where they may be found.

[139] See the Laybach Circular of May, 1821.

[140] See Nottebohm’s “Beethoveniana,” Chap. XIV.

[141] Since this was written, Herr Nottebohm has kindly communicated

a supplementary article on this overture containing portions of newly

discovered sketches with the remark by Beethoven: “Overture for any

occasion--or for concert use” and closing thus: “The last sketches

were written about March, 1815.” “This seems a contradiction of the

date given at the beginning of the autograph (October 1, 1814). This

contradiction can be explained. Beethoven evidently noted the date

when he began writing out the score, but interrupted the work (because

the overture was not performed on the name-day of the Emperor?) and

did not take it up again until several months had passed, when the

sketches and hints for passages which occur later may have originated.”

Certainly this is possible; but the different dates assigned to the

Petter sketchbook (1809 in this work, 1812 in the “Beethoveniana”)

necessarily lead to an irreconcilable divergence of opinion. A studious

reconsideration of the subject ends in the conviction that the historic

evidence, as it now stands, renders unnecessary any alterations in the

text.

[142] Meyerbeer.

[143] That Beethoven transcribed the march in the Sonata, Op. 26, for

orchestra is confirmed by the following letter of Chapelmaster Ad.

Müller (~père~) written to the author in answer to a note of inquiry:

“Highly respected Sir!

“To your valued letter I have to make reply as follows: I certainly

have in my autograph collection the ~autograph of the orchestral

score~ of the funeral march contained in the great Sonata for

Pianoforte, Op. 26: The score consists of six sheets and twelve

pages--~written throughout in Beethoven’s hand~. On the 1st, 8th

and 12th pages there are marginal notes for the copyist.

“The piece is orchestrated for 2 flutes, 2 clarinets in C, 2 horns

in D, 2 horns in E, to which are added four staves for instruments

which are not named, probably for trumpets and trombones. [To judge

by the setting rather for the string quartet.]

“I received this score of the celebrated master from the art and

music dealer Tobias Haslinger in the year 1829-30 with the remark,

here faithfully reported, that he gave me the manuscript with

pleasure as a souvenir, inasmuch as he would by no means ~print~ or

~publish~ the composition in ~this form~. This score therefore is

~unique~! The piece is in B minor....

“Your ever ready

“Adolph Müller.”

Together with the other music to “Leonore Prohaska” the march is

printed in the Complete Edition of Breitkopf and Härtel, Series 25, No.

272.

[144] The circumstances connected with the last postponement of this

concert and the onerous conditions which Count Palffy sought to

impose upon Beethoven are interestingly told by Dr. Frimmel in his

“Beethoven-Studien, Vol. II,” p. 41 ~et seq.~

Chapter XV

The Year 1815--New Opera Projects--Beethoven Before Crowned

Heads--End of the Kinsky Trouble--Death of Karl van Beethoven--The

Nephew--Dealings with England.

Beethoven might well have adopted Kotzebue’s title: “The most

Remarkable Year of my Life” and written his own history for 1814, in

glowing and triumphant language; but now the theme modulates into

a soberer key. “Then there is the matter of a new opera,” says a

letter to the Archduke early in December. The “Sammler” of the 17th

explains the allusion: “It is with great pleasure that we inform the

music-loving public that Herr van Beethoven has contracted to compose

an opera. The poem is by Herrn Treitschke and bears the title: ‘Romulus

and Remus.’” The notice was based upon this note to Treitschke:

I will compose Romulus and shall begin in a few days, I will come

to you in person, first ~once~ then ~several times~ so that we may

discuss the whole matter with each other.

Now here was a promising operatic project; but before six weeks had

passed came the “Allg. Mus. Zeitung” bringing Johann Fuss’s musical

“Review of the month of December,” wherein among the items of Vienna

news was a notice that “Hr. Fuss had composed an opera in three acts

entitled ‘Romulus and Remus’ for the Theater-an-der-Wien”! And this was

so; portions of it were afterwards sung by a musical society of which

Dr. L. Sonnleithner was a member, and in Pressburg it was put upon

the stage at a later date;--but it never came to performance in the

theatres of Vienna, perhaps in consequence of measures adopted after

the following letter to Treitschke:

I thought I could expedite the matter by sending Hrn. v.

Schreyvogel a copy of this letter--but no.

You see this Fuss can attack me in all the newspapers, unless I

can produce some written evidence ~against him~, or you--or the

director of the theatre undertake to make a settlement with him.

On the other hand the business of my contract for the opera is not

concluded.

I beg of you to write me an answer especially as regards Fuss’s

letter; the matter would be easily decided in the court of ~art~,

but this is not the case, which, much as we should like to, we must

consider.

The matter was so arranged with Fuss as to leave the text in

Beethoven’s hands; but how, and on what terms, is not known.

[Sidenote: A POLONAISE FOR THE EMPRESS OF RUSSIA]

Among the sketches to “Der glorreiche Augenblick” appears the theme of

the Polonaise for Pianoforte, Op. 89, the story of which is as follows:

In a conversation with Beethoven one day, in the time of the Congress,

Bertolini suggested to him that, as polonaises were then so much in

vogue, he should compose one and dedicate it to the Empress of Russia;

for, perhaps, thereby he might also obtain some acknowledgment from

Emperor Alexander for the dedication to him of the Violin Sonatas, Op.

30,--for none had ever been made. As usual, Beethoven at first scorned

dictation, but at length thought better of the proposal, sat down to

the pianoforte, improvised various themes and requested Bertolini

to choose one; which he did. When it was completed, they waited

upon Walkonski, to seek through him permission to make the proposed

dedication, which was granted. At the appointed time Beethoven was

admitted to an audience with the Empress and presented the Polonaise,

for which he received a present of 50 ducats. On this occasion he was

asked, if he had ever received anything from the Czar? As he had not, a

hundred ducats was added for the Sonatas.[145]

It was about this time (precisely when the painter could not remember

when speaking of it in 1861), that Beethoven sat again to his friend

Mähler, who wished to add his portrait to his gallery of musicians.

This was the picture which, after the death of the artist, was

purchased by Prof. Karajan. Another portrait of Beethoven was painted

by Mähler for Gleichenstein. On the 25th of January, a grand festival

took place in the Burg on the occasion of the Russian Empress’s

birthday, which in part consisted of a concert in the Rittersaal. The

last piece on the programme was the canon in “Fidelio”: “Mir ist so

wunderbar,” and by a whimsical stroke of fortune Beethoven himself

appeared, and, to the audience of emperors and empresses, kings and

queens, with their ministers and retinues, played for the last time in

public! Wild, who dates the concert a month too soon, gives an account

of it in which, after telling of his own success with “Adelaide,” he

says:

It would be as untruthful as absurd were I to deny that my vanity

was flattered by the distinction which the gathered celebrities

bestowed upon me; but this performance of “Adelaide” had one result

which was infinitely more gratifying to my artistic nature; it

was the cause of my coming into closer contact with the greatest

musical genius of all time, Beethoven. The master, rejoiced at

my choice of his song, hunted me up and offered to accompany me.

Satisfied with my singing he told me that he would orchestrate the

song. He did not do this, but wrote for me the cantata “An die

Hoffnung” (words by Tiedge) with pianoforte accompaniment, which,

he playing for me, I sang at a matinée before a select audience.

By far the most important event in Beethoven’s history during these

months, was the final settlement, by compromise, of the annuity affair

with the Kinsky heirs, on the 18th of January. So soon as the legal

formalities could be ended and communicated to Beethoven, he issued in

autograph a power of attorney to Baron Josef von Pasqualati in Prague

to collect the money due, and act for him in all things necessary. On

March 26th, Pasqualati acknowledged the receipt of 2479 florins W. W.

as payment on the annuity in full up to the end of March, 1815. In

this instance “W. W.” (~Wiener Währung~) meant notes of redemption,

since the bank-notes had been retired from circulation in 1812. The

compromise decree arrived at through the ministration of Dr. Kanka

fixed the original annuity of 1800 florins at 1200 florins, beginning

on November 3d, 1812. There was therefore due to Beethoven, for from

November 3d to the end of March, 1815, 2890 florins, from which was

deducted 411 florins, as the equivalent of the 60 ducats paid to

Beethoven by Prince Kinsky in October, 1812, leaving 2479 florins as

aforesaid. The decision in the case with Lobkowitz also soon followed.

According to the judgment of the Court, entered on April 19, 1815, the

future annual payments were fixed at 700 florins (the equivalent of 280

fl. conventional coin, silver), and the 2508 fl. arrears were ordered

paid in notes of redemption within two months. Payments were made

accordingly and (as Dr. v. Köchel reported in a private note to the

author), from 1811 up to his death, Beethoven received on the annuity

contract the following sums every year:

From Archduke Rudolph 1500 fl.

From Prince Kinsky 1200

From Prince Lobkowitz 700

----

Total 3400 fl.

This sum, 3400 fl. in notes of redemption, was the equivalent of

1360 fl. Con. M., silver, or 952 Prussian thalers.

[Sidenote: LOBKOWITZ’S GENEROUS AND HONORABLE CONDUCT]

Notwithstanding that Prince Lobkowitz’s financial affairs had been

satisfactorily ordered, his return to Vienna was delayed until the

Spring of 1815, one reason being that (as he states in a letter to

Archduke Rudolph, dated Prague, December 29, 1814) an opinion prevailed

in the Austrian capital that his presence would be “unseemly.” In this

letter he gives expression to his feelings toward Beethoven as follows:

Although I have reason to be anything but satisfied with the

behavior of Beethoven toward me, I am nevertheless rejoiced, as

a passionate lover of music, that his assuredly great works are

beginning to be appreciated. I heard “Fidelio” here[146] and

barring the book, I was extraordinarily pleased with the music,

except the two finales, which I do not like very much. I think the

music extremely effective and worthy of the man who composed it.

Is this not nobly said?

Consider these facts: Lobkowitz was now deprived of the control of his

revenues; those revenues, in so far as they were based upon contracts,

were subject to the ~Finanz-Patent~ of 1811; the curators of his

estates were also bound by it; and the General Court (~Landrecht~)

had no power arbitrarily to set it aside. What that tribunal could

and did do was, by its assent and decree, to give binding force to

such agreement between the parties in principal, as had obtained the

sanction of the curators, with, probably, the consent of the principal

creditors of the Prince. It follows then that the concession of

Beethoven’s full demand of 700 fl. in notes of redemption ~could~ have

been obtained only through the good will and active intervention of

Lobkowitz himself, using his personal influence with the other parties

concerned. Schindler incidentally confirms this.

Will the reader here pause a moment and think what impression the

aspersions on Lobkowitz’s character in Beethoven’s letters have left

upon his mind? Have they not begotten a prejudice so strengthened by

“damnable iteration” that it is now hardly possible to overcome it,

and believe it unfounded? Lobkowitz, young, generous to prodigality,

rendered careless by the very magnitude of his possessions, had, in the

lapse of some twenty years, so squandered his enormous resources, as

to fall into temporary embarrassments, which threw the responsibility

of meeting his pecuniary engagements upon others, who were bound by

the nature of their office to pay none but strictly legal claims.

Thus Beethoven became a loser in part of what was originally no debt,

but a gift--or rather would have been so, but for the interference of

Lobkowitz.

We have here another warning of the great caution to be exercised when

using private correspondence for purposes of biography. In writing of

Beethoven this is especially necessary, because so large a proportion

of it consists of confidential notes and communications containing

the ebullitions of splenetic moments, and not seldom hasty charges

and mistaken accusations, such as he gladly withdrew on learning the

truth. To accept all this without question is preposterous; to use it

as authentic historic matter without scrupulous examination, is to do

great injustice to the dead.

The proof is ample, that Beethoven was already fully convinced of the

entire innocence of both Prince Kinsky and Prince Lobkowitz of all

desire to escape any really just demands upon them: yet, probably,

until the greater part of our present Beethoven literature has sunk

into oblivion, the memory of those noble and generous personages will

be made to suffer on the authority of Beethoven’s hasty expressions.

A letter written in English, probably by his friend Häring, who had

been much in England, and signed by Beethoven, marks the progress of

his business with Thomson:

Address.

Mr. George Thomson, merchant in the musical line.

Edingbourgh, Scottland.

Sir,

Many concerns have prevented my answers to your favors, to which

I reply only in part. All your songs with the exception of a few

are ready to be forwarded. I mean those to which I was to write

the accompaniments, for with respect to the 6 Canzonettes, which

I am to ~compose~ I own that the honorary you offered is totally

inadequate. Circumstances here are much altered and taxes have been

so much raised after the English fashion that my share for 1814

was near 60£s. besides an original good air,--and what you also

wish--an Overture, are perhaps the most difficult undertakings in

musical compositions. I therefore beg to state that my honorary

for 6 songs or airs must be 35£ or seventy impl. Ducats--and for

an Overture 20£ or 50 impl. Ducats. You will please to assign the

payment here as usual, and you may depend that I shall do you

justice. No artiste of talent and merit will find my pretentions

extravagant.

Concerning the overture you will please to indicate in your reply

whether you wish to have it composed for an easy or more difficult

execution. I expect your immediate answer having several orders to

attend, and I shall in a little time write more copiously in reply

to your favors already received. I beg you to thank the author for

the very ingenious and flattering verses, which obtained by your

means. Allow me to subscribe myself

Sir,

your very obedt. & humble servt.

Ludwig van Beethoven.

Vienna, Feb. 7 [?], 1815.

[Sidenote: “THE MOUNT OF OLIVES” IN LONDON]

This naturally turns our attention to Beethoven’s English affairs.

“Christus am Ölberg” (“The Mount of Olives,” as the oratorio is called

in England and America) had been given for the first time in England on

February 25, 1814, by Sir George Smart, who in 1861, in conversation

with the author at his house (the one in which Weber died), related the

circumstances of this production and of “Wellington’s Victory,” which

was a consequence of the success of the oratorio, substantially as

follows:

In the winter of 1812-1813, Smart undertook the Lenten oratorio season

at Drury Lane Theatre, introducing at the first concert, January 30,

1813, Handel’s “Messiah” with Mozart’s additional accompaniments, but

not noting this fact upon the programme. The audience was delighted

with the new effects and Mozart’s name appeared on the next programme.

During this season Smart heard the “Christus am Ölberg” spoken of.

Desiring to find some novelty the next season and Beethoven having

already a great name, he offered £50 to anyone who would procure

him the score of that work published by Breitkopf and Härtel--an

exceedingly difficult thing to get at that time, when Napoleon had

almost hermetically sealed the Continent against England. The next

winter (1813-14) Jack Morris, keeper of a tavern or eating-house of the

better sort, a man who had free entry behind the scenes of the theatre

and was continually there, came to Smart and put the score of the

oratorio into his hands, to his (Smart’s) great astonishment.

“Well,” said Smart, “I’ll give you the £50.”

“No,” was the reply, “I’ll take only two guineas, for that’s what I

paid for it.”

“How did you get it?” asked Smart.

“A friend of mine who is a King’s Messenger bought it for me in

Leipsic.”

The only acknowledgment that Morris would take, beside the two guineas,

was that Smart should accept an invitation from him to be present at a

pugilistic exhibition and at the supper afterwards. The score bears the

date of reception, January 7, 1814.

Now to bring it out.

Samuel J. Arnold translated the text, putting all the characters into

the third person, so as not to shock English feelings of reverence

by producing Christ and the Apostles on the stage, and Smart adapted

the translation to the music. It was rehearsed at his house (“in this

room,” said he), and very ill received by amateurs present, who told

Smart, he was mad to produce such a thing! On February 25th, the first

part of the programme of the “Oratorio,” a sacred concert, at Drury

Lane Theatre, was selections from the “Messiah” in which Catalani sang;

Part II, “The Mount of Olives,” solos by Mrs. Dickens, Mrs. Bland, Mr.

Pyne and Mr. Bellamy; Part III, Musical selections. Parts I and II also

closed with selections from “Paradise Lost” read by Miss Smith. The

tenth, and last, performance was on May 28th.

Subsequently, Kramer, master of the Prince Regent’s band, told Smart

that the Prince had the score of a Battle Symphony by Beethoven,

and he was welcome to the use of it, if he desired to produce it.

Smart, encouraged by the success of the “Christus,” was delighted,

notwithstanding the musicians called the work a piece of musical

quackery. On examining it, Sir George saw that it would never do

with his audience to end with the fugue on “God save the King,” and

consulted with Ferdinand Ries as to what kind of close to make. Ries

added to the score a short passage of modulation, which led from the

fugue into the plain, simple tune. The work was copied, rehearsed,

and produced on the 10th of February, 1815, as Part II of a Drury

Lane “Oratorio”--the word being used then for a sacred concert, like

“Akademie” in Vienna for a secular one. As the orchestra ended Ries’

passage of modulation, the hymn was taken up and sung by the principal

solo singers, and the full chorus. The audience used also to join in

and make the old theatre ring again. The success was immense; it was

performed several seasons, and Smart cleared £1000 by it.[147]

There is a sketchbook in the Mendelssohn collection, which shows in

part what compositions employed Beethoven’s thoughts about this time.

It contains sketches to marches; for a “Symphony in B minor”; a “Sonata

’cello pastorale”; a chorus, “Meeresstille”; a song, “Merkenstein.”

This confirms a statement of Czerny’s: “On ‘Merkenstein,’ Beethoven

composed two little songs, both, I think, for almanacs.” The one

published by Steiner and Co., however, does not appear to have come

out in that manner. The date of these sketches is fixed by a memorandum

of Beethoven’s on the seventh leaf, of Smart’s production in London of

“Wellington’s Victory”: “In Drurylane Theatre on February 10th, and

repeated by general request on the 13th, ‘Wiener Zeitung’ of March

2d.” This led to inquiry, and Sir George Smart’s name, as leader of

the Lenten concerts in London, became known to Beethoven, who engaged

his friend Häring, who knew Smart intimately, to write the following

English letter in his behalf:

[Sidenote: COMPOSITIONS OFFERED TO ENGLAND]

To Sir George Smart,

Great Portland St., London.

My Dear Sir George:

I see by the papers that you have brought forth in the theatre

Beethoven’s battle and that it was received with considerable

applause. I was very happy to find that your partiality to Mr. B’s

compositions is not diminished and therefore I take the liberty

in his name to thank you for the assistance you afforded in the

performance of that uncommon piece of music. He has arranged

it for the pianoforte, but having offered the original to his

R. H. the Prince Regent, he durst not sell that arrangement to

any Editor, until he knew the Prince’s pleasure, not only with

respect to the dedication, but in general. Having waited so many

months without receiving the least acknowledgment, he begged

me to apply to you for advice. His idea is to dispose of this

arrangement and of several other original compositions to an

Editor in London--or perhaps to several united--if they would

make a handsome offer--they would besides engage to let him know

the day of the appearance for sale of the respective pieces, in

order that the Editor here, may not publish one copy before the

day to be mentioned. At the end of this letter follows the list

of such compositions, with the price, which the Author expects. I

am persuaded, Sir George, you will exert yourself to benefit this

great genius. He talks continually of going to England, but I am

afraid that his deafness, seemingly increasing, does not allow him

the execution of this favorite idea.

You are informed without doubt that his opera “Fidelio” has had the

most brilliant success here, but the execution is so difficult,

that it could not suit any of the English houses.

I submit here his list with the prices. None of the following

pieces has been published, but No. 2, 4 and 9 have been performed

with the greatest applause.

1. Serious Quartett for 2 violins, tenor and bass 40 guineas.

2. Battle of Vittoria--Score 70 guineas.

3. Battle of Vittoria arranged for the pianoforte 30 guineas.

4. A Grand Symphony--Score 70 guineas.

5. A Grand Symphony arranged for the pianoforte 30 guineas.

6. A Symphony--Key F--Score 40 guineas.

7. A Symphony, arranged 20 guineas.

8. Grand Trio for the pianoforte, violin and violoncello 40 guineas.

9. Three Overtures for a full Orchestra each 30 guineas.

10. The Three Arrangements each 15 guineas.

11. A Grand Sonata for the pianoforte and violin 25 guineas.

The above is the produce of four years labor.

Our friend Neate has not yet made his appearance here--nor is it at

all known where he is roving about. We--I mean mostly amateurs--are

now rehearsing Händel’s “Messiah”--I am to be leader of the 2d

violins; there will be this time 144 violins--first and second

altogether, and the singers and remainder in proportion. I have

been so unfortunate, as not to receive a single line or answer

from England since my stay in Vienna, which is near three months;

this discourages me very much from writing, for I have dispatched

immediately after my arrival several letters and have been

continuing to send letters, but all in vain. Amongst those to whom

I wrote about two months ago, is our friend Disi--pray if you meet

him and his very respectable family [give them] my best regards. I

have passed so many happy hours in his house, it would be highly

ungrateful for me to forget such an amiable family.

Beethoven happening to call on me just now, he wishes to address a

few lines to you [which you will] find at the bottom of this.... My

direction is “Monsieur Jean de Häring, No. 298 Kohlmarkt, Vienna.”

Poor B. is very anxious to hear something of the English editors,

as he hardly can keep those of this city from him, who tease him

for his works.

Häring now writes the following for Beethoven to sign:

Give me leave to thank you for the trouble you have taken several

times as I understand, in taking my works under your protection, by

which I don’t doubt all justice has been done. I hope you will not

find it indiscreet if I solicit you to answer Mr. Häring’s letter

as soon as possible. I should feel myself highly flattered if you

would express your wishes, that I may meet them, in which you will

always find me ready, as an acknowledgment for the favors you have

heaped upon my children.

Yours gratefully,

Ludwig van Beethoven.

Vienna 16. March, 1815.

And now I shall beg, my dear Sir George, not to take this long

letter amiss and to believe that I am always with the greatest

regard,

Your most humble and obedient servant,

John Häring.

Vienna 19. March, 1815.

The works enumerated in this letter, taking them in the same order,

are Op. 95, 91, 92, 93, 97, 113, 115, 117 and 96. Häring was evidently

ignorant that all of Beethoven’s new works were even then sold,

except for England. Steiner had purchased them. The precise terms of

the contract between the composer and this publisher are not known;

for, although the transaction was too important to have been left to

a mere parole agreement, no written instrument has been discovered.

Jahn had no copy of any; and Nottebohm writes (November 19, 1875): “I

was yesterday in the comptoir of Haslinger, but there nothing is to

be found.” The earliest reference to the business yet discovered is

a letter to Steiner, from which it is to be inferred that Karl van

Beethoven was in some manner interested--perhaps as arranger, under his

brother’s inspection, of the editions for pianoforte of the orchestral

works:

Vienna, February 1, 1815.

Most Wellborn Lieutenant-General!

I have received to-day your letter to my brother and am satisfied

with it but must beg of you to pay also the ~cost of the pianoforte

arrangements~ in addition, as I am obliged to pay for ~everything~

in the world and ~more dearly than others~ it would be a hardship

for me; besides I don’t believe that you can complain about the

honorarium of 250 ducats--but neither do I want to complain,

therefore arrange for the transcriptions yourself, but all must

be revised by me and if necessary improved, I hope that you are

satisfied with this.

In addition to this you might ~give my brother the collected

pianoforte works of Clementi~, ~Mozart~, ~Haidn~, he needs

them for ~his little son~, do this my dearest Steiner, and be

not stone,[148] as stony as your name is--farewell excellent

Lieutenant-General, I am always.

Yours truly,

General-in-Chief,

Ludwig van Beethoven.

[Sidenote: WORKS SOLD TO STEINER]

The works purchased by Steiner are named in a list sent by Nottebohm

with the letter above cited. It is the copy of an unsigned memorandum,

evidently proceeding from Beethoven, which, except the omission of the

works mentioned in the Häring letter, runs thus:

NOTE

Concerning the following original musical compositions, composed by

the undersigned, and surrendered as property to the licensed art

dealer H. S. A. Steiner.

1st. Score of the opera Fidelio.

2d. Score of the cantata Der glorreiche Augenblick.

3d. Score of a quartet for 2 violins, viola and basso.

4th. Score of a grand Terzet to be sung with pianoforte arrangement.

5th. Score of the Battle of Vittoria with pianoforte arrangement.

6th. Pianoforte arrangement and score of a Symphony in F.

7th. Pianoforte arrangement and score of a Symphony in A major.

8th. Grand Trio for pianoforte, violin and basso in score.

9th. Grand Sonata for pianoforte and violin in score.

10th. Score of a Grand Overture in E-flat major.

11th. Score of a Grand Overture in C major.

12th. Score of a Grand Overture in G major.

13th. 12 English songs with pianoforte accompaniment and German

text.[149]

For all of these works which H. Steiner may use as his property in

all places except England, I have been wholly recompensed.

Vienna, April 29, 1815.

Whatever may have been the proposed interest of Karl van Beethoven in

the contract, his failing health soon prevented him from performing

any labor under it. The correspondence with Steiner and Co. indicates

that the task of arranging the orchestral works for the pianoforte was

performed by Haslinger and Anton Diabelli, with occasional assistance

from Carl Czerny, under Beethoven’s superintendence.

Diabelli, born near Salzburg in 1781, had now been for some years one

of the more prolific composers of light and pleasing music, and one

of the best and most popular teachers in Vienna. He was much employed

by Steiner and Co., as copyist and corrector, and in this capacity

enjoyed much of Beethoven’s confidence, who also heartily liked him as

a man. In the composer’s comical military staff, he was the “General

Profoss,” and in the correspondence his name becomes “Diabolus”--for

Beethoven could never resist the temptation to a play upon words. About

the 1st of April Beethoven received a package which proved to be an

opera text by Rudolph von Berge, sent to him with a letter by his old

friend Amenda from Courland. While this letter was under way Beethoven

received a visit from a friend of Amenda’s who, on his departure from

Vienna, carried with him a letter in which he said:

You are 1000 times in my mind with your patriarchial

simplicity--unfortunately for my good or that of others, fate

denies my wishes in this respect, I can say that I live almost

alone in this greatest city of Germany since I must live almost in

estrangement from all persons whom I love or could love--on what

kind of footing is music with you? Have you ever heard any of my

great works there? Great say I--compared with the works of the

Highest, everything is small!

[Sidenote: SKETCHES FOR A “BACCHUS” OPERA]

The opera book sent by Amenda was entitled, “‘Bacchus,’ Grand Lyric

Opera in Three Acts.” The libretto was preserved among Schindler’s

papers in the Royal Library in Berlin. It seems likely that Beethoven

gave some thought to the opera and experimented with some themes. There

are interesting notes on a work with a classical subject, the words

apparently the beginning of an invocation to Pan, in a sketchbook of

1815, which Nottebohm describes in his “Zweite Beethoveniana” (p. 329

~et seq.~) without saying whether they belong to Treitschke’s “Romulus”

or von Berge’s “Bacchus.” Dr. Riemann assumes without hesitation that

the sketches were made for “Bacchus” and sees a premonition of Wagner’s

methods in the following:

[Illustration: bountiful

~bountiful Pan

not quite so characteristic, it must be evolved out of the B. M.

[150] where the dance only intermittently~

]

[Illustration: Corni]

~Throughout the opera probably dissonances, unresolved or very

differently, as our refined music cannot be thought of in

connection with those barbarous times.~

On the approach of warm weather the Erdödys removed for the summer to

Jedlersee, never to return to the Schottenbastei; and as Lichnowsky

was dead, Beethoven had no inducement longer to remain in that

vicinity and therefore departed from the Mölkerbastei--also never

to return. The new lodging was in the third storey of a house then

belonging to Count Lamberti, in the Sailerstätte, with a double number

1055, 1056, near which he had lived a dozen years before, having the

same sunny aspect and the glorious view across the Glacis from the

Karlkirche and the Belvidere Gardens, away across the Danube to the

blue Carpathian mountains in the distance. In this house, about the

first of June, Häring introduced to Beethoven the very fine English

pianist and enthusiastic musician Charles Neate, who after five

months’ study with Winter in Munich had come to Vienna in the hope of

obtaining instruction from the great symphonist. To his application,

Beethoven replied in substance: “I cannot teach, but I will give you an

introduction to my master, Förster” (which he did by letter), “and you

may bring your compositions to me for my inspection, and I will examine

and remark upon them.” In consequence of this permission Neate saw

him almost daily. Beethoven spent a part of this summer in Baden, and

Neate took a room very near him. There the composer was in the habit of

working all the forenoon, dining early at twelve or one o’clock, and,

towards evening, walking with Neate--sometimes up the Helenen-Thal,

oftener through the fields. Neate, in the course of his long life--he

was nearly eighty when he related these things to the author[151]--had

never met a man who so enjoyed nature; he took intense delight in

flowers, in the clouds, in everything--“nature was like food to him,

he seemed really to live in it.” Walking in the fields, he would sit

down on any green bank that offered a good seat, and give his thoughts

free course. He was then full of the idea of going to England, but

the death of his brother and adoption of his nephew put an end to the

project. Neate remembered the boy as a very beautiful, intelligent

lad. Beethoven, at that time, and as Neate knew him, was charmingly

good-tempered to those whom he liked--but his dislikes were so strong,

that to avoid speaking to persons to whom he was not well affected, he

would actually increase his pace in the street to a run. At this time,

his dark complexion was very ruddy and extremely animated. His abundant

hair was in an admirable disorder. He was always laughing, when in good

humor, which he for the most part was, as Neate saw him.

One day Neate spoke to him about the popularity of his Sonatas,

Trios, etc., in England and added that his Septet was very much

admired:--“That’s damned stuff” (or “a damned thing”), said Beethoven,

“I wish it were burned!” or words to this effect, to Neate’s great

discomfiture. Another time, walking in the fields near Baden, Neate

spoke of the “Pastoral Symphony” and of Beethoven’s power of painting

pictures in music. Beethoven said: “I have always a picture in my mind,

when I am composing, and work up to it.”

Neate conversed with him in German and had no difficulty in making him

understand, when speaking into his left ear. He brought to Beethoven

an order from the Philharmonic Society of London--obtained by the

exertions of Ries--for three concert overtures, of which we shall hear

more hereafter.[152]

The destruction of Rasoumowsky’s palace suspended his quartets, and

Linke, the violoncellist, passed the summer with the Erdödys at

Jedlersee. This gave the impulse to Beethoven to write the principal

works of this year: the two Sonatas for Pianoforte and Violoncello,

Op. 102. The first bears his date: “Towards the end of July”; the

second: “Beginning of August.” While he was employed upon them,

Treitschke called upon him for a closing chorus, “Es ist vollbracht,”

to a little dramatic piece similar to the “Gute Nachricht,” entitled

“Die Ehrenpforten,” and prepared to celebrate the second capitulation

of Paris. It was performed July 15, 16 and 23; and, on the occasion of

the Emperor’s nameday, was revived “with appropriate changes” October

3rd and 4th; but (according to the theatre bills) with the chorus

“Germania” substituted for “Es ist vollbracht.”

[Sidenote: OTTO JAHN’S RECOVERY OF LETTERS]

This was the last year of Beethoven’s personal intercourse with the

Erdödys, a very interesting memorial of which, namely, a series of

notes and letters, has been preserved and made public by the coolness

and decision of Otto Jahn. Being in Munich in 1852, or about that time,

he learned that this correspondence was in the hands--if our memory

serve--of the widow Brauchle, and obtained permission to read it in

the presence of the possessor. Suddenly starting up he exclaimed (in

effect): “I will copy this at the hotel,” and before the lady, in her

amazement and perplexity, could refuse or prevent, he was away, and

made the only copy known to be in existence, except transcripts made

from it.[153] Several of these papers are only Beethoven’s apologies

for not coming to Jedlersee “to-day” or “to-morrow”--but all are

interesting in the glimpse which they give of the affectionate intimacy

which they show as existing between Beethoven and the family.

A letter to Brauchle is important from a biographical point of view. It

reads:

I had scarcely returned before I found my brother making

lamentable inquiries about the horses--please do me the favor to

go to Enzersdorf about the horses, take horses at my expense in

Jedlersee, I’ll gladly recompense you. His sickness (my brother’s)

is accompanied by a sort of unrest--let us be of help where we can,

I am ~obliged to act thus and not otherwise~! I await a speedy

fulfillment of my wishes and a friendly answer on the subject

from you--do not spare expenses I’ll willingly bear them. It is

not worth while to let anyone suffer for the sake of a few dirty

florins.

Neate and the Erdödys have carried us forward quite out of the strict

order of time, to which we now return, beginning with letters to our

old Bonn and London acquaintance, Johann Peter Salomon and others:

Vienna, June 1, 1815.

My respected countryman!

I have long hoped for the fulfillment of a wish to see you in

person in London, to hear you, but the wish has always been

frustrated by manifold hindrances--and for the reason that I am

not in a position to do so I hope you will not deny my request

which is that you speak with some publisher there, and offer him

the following works for me: a Grand Trio for pianoforte, violin

and violoncello (80 ducats). Sonata for pianoforte and violin (60

ducats). Grand Symphony in A (one of my most excellent), smaller

Symphony in F.--Quartet for 2 violins, viola and violoncello in

F minor.--Grand Opera in score, 30 ducats--Cantata with choruses

and solo voices 30 ducats. Score of the Battle of Vittoria on

Wellington’s victory, 80 ducats as also the pianoforte arrangement

(if it has not, as I am assured already been published)--I have set

down the honorarium of a few works which I think fair for England,

but leave it to you in the case of these as well as the others, to

do what you think best as to my pay. I hear, indeed, that Kramer

is also a publisher[154] but my pupil Ries wrote me recently that

he ~had publicly expressed himself against my compositions~, I

hope for no other reason than ~the good of art~, wherefore I have

no objection to offer, but if Kramer wants any of these injurious

works of art, he is just as agreeable to me as any other publisher.

I only reserve to myself the privilege of also giving the same

works to my local publisher so that the works will appear only in

London and Vienna and simultaneously.

Perhaps you may be able to point out to me in what manner I may

get from the Prince Regent at least the copyist’s charges for the

Battle Symphony on Wellington’s Victory at the battle of Vittoria,

which I gave him, for I have long ago abandoned all hope of ever

getting anything more, I was not even vouchsafed an answer as to

whether I might dedicate the work to the Prince Regent when I

publish it, I hear even that the work has already been published

in London in pianoforte arrangement, what a fate for an author!!!

While the newspapers are full of reports concerning the success

of this work as performed at the Drury Lane Theatre, the author

is unable to show even a friendly line touching it, not even the

expense of copying, besides all this, the loss of all profit, for

if it is true that the pianoforte arrangement is already published,

no German publisher will take it, it is probable that the

pianoforte arrangement will soon appear in a reprint by a German

publisher and I will lose honor and honorarium.

Your well-known noble character bids me hope that you will take

an interest in the matter and show yourself active in my service;

the wretched paper money of our country has already been reduced

to the fifth part of its value, I was treated according to the

scale, but after much urging the full standard with a considerable

loss, but we have again reached a point where the currency is

worth much less than one-fifth and I am confronted for the second

time with the prospect that my salary will be reduced to ~nothing~

without recourse of any kind. My only earnings now come from my

compositions, if I could count on their sale in England it would be

very advantageous to me.

Count on my boundless gratitude, I hope for a speedy, a very speedy

answer from you.

Some time about October 15th, Beethoven returned to Vienna. And now

another bitter parting: The Erdödys, accompanied by Brauchle, Sperl and

Linke, departed to Croatia never to return.

[Sidenote: BIRCHALL BECOMES BEETHOVEN’S PUBLISHER]

The letters to Smart, Salomon and Ries were not in vain; through

their efforts, especially Salomon’s, Mr. Robert Birchall, Music

Publisher of No. 133 New Bond St., was induced to purchase four of the

works enumerated by Häring, viz: the pianoforte arrangements of the

“Wellington’s Victory,” Op. 91, and Symphony in A, Op. 92; the Trio

in B-flat, Op. 97, and the Sonata for Pianoforte and Violin, Op. 96,

for “the sum of one hundred and thirty-five gold Dutch ducats--value

in English currency, sixty-five pounds.” The correspondence between

the composer and publisher as presented by Mr. Birchall’s successors

begins with a paper in extraordinary English which has hitherto passed

as a note received from Vienna, but which, it is obvious, is nothing

but the effort of some resident German to interpret the contents of the

following letter from Beethoven:[155]

Vienna, October 28th, 1815.

Well-born Sir!

I inform you that the Battle and Victory Symphony on Wellington’s

Victory in pianoforte arrangement was dispatched to London several

days ago to the house of Thomas Coutts, in London, whence you may

fetch it. I beg you to be speedy as possible in printing it and

~inform me of the day~ when you purpose publishing it so that I may

give timely notice of the fact to the publisher here--such great

hurry is not necessary with the 3 works which follow and which

you will receive soon and in the case of which ~I shall take the

liberty~ to fix the day:--Mr. Salomon will have the goodness to

explain to you more clearly why there is this greater haste in the

matter of the Battle and Victory Symphony.

Awaiting a very speedy answer regarding ~the day of publication~ of

the work which you have received.

I remain your obedient servant,

Ludwig van Beethoven.

[Sidenote: A DYING BROTHER’S INJUNCTION]

We now reach one of the most important and at the same time most

melancholy events in Beethoven’s life--an event which exerted the

profoundest influence on the rest of his life--the death of his brother

Karl. We introduce it with that brother’s last will and testament:

Certain that all men must die and feeling that I am near this goal,

but in the full possession of my understanding, I have freely and

voluntarily deemed it good to make these, my last dispositions.

1. I commend my soul to the mercy of God, but my body to the earth

from which it came and desire that it be buried in the simplest

manner in accordance with the rites of Christian Catholicism.

2. Immediately after my death, four holy masses are to be said, to

which end I set apart 4 florins.

3. My heirs general are commanded to pay the pious legacies

according to law.

4. As my wife at our marriage brought me and paid over 2000 fl.

in B. bonds, for which I gave no receipt, I acknowledge receipt

of these 2000 fl. in B. bonds and desire that these 2000 fl. in

B. bonds as also the deposit be rectified in accordance with the

existing marriage contract.

5. I appoint my brother Ludwig van Beethoven guardian. Inasmuch

as this, my deeply beloved brother has often aided me with true

brotherly love in the most magnanimous and noblest manner, I ask,

in full confidence and trust in his noble heart, that he shall

bestow the love and friendship which he often showed me, upon my

son Karl, and do all that is possible to promote the intellectual

training and further welfare of my son. I know that he will not

deny me this, my request.

6. Convinced of the uprightness of Hrn. Dr. Schönauer, Appellate

and Court Advocate, I appoint him Curator for probate, as also for

my son Karl with the understanding that he be consulted in all

matters concerning the property of my son.

7. The appointment of heirs being the essential matter in a

testament, I appoint my beloved wife Johanna, born Reiss, and my

son Karl, heirs general to all my property in equal portions after

the deduction of my existing debts and the above bequests.

8. The wagon, horse, goat, peacocks and the plants growing in

vessels in the garden are the property of my wife, since these

objects were all purchased with money from the legacy received from

her grandfather.

In witness whereof, I have not only signed this, my last will with

my own hand, but to aid in its execution have also called in three

witnesses.

Thus done, Vienna, November 14, 1815.

Karl van Beethoven,

m. p.

Carl Gaber, m. p.

House owner, Breitenfeld No. 9.

Benedikt Gaber, m. p.

House owner, Breitenfeld No. 25.

Johann Naumann, m. p.

House No. 5, Breitenfeld.

(“This testament was delivered under seal to the R. I. L. Austrian

General Court, by the Karl Scheffer Solicitor Dr. Schönauer, on

November 17, 1815, etc.”)

CODICIL TO MY WILL

Having learned that my brother, Hr Ludwig van Beethoven, desires

after my death to take wholly to himself my son Karl, and wholly to

withdraw him from the supervision and training of his mother, and

inasmuch as the best of harmony does not exist between my brother

and my wife, I have found it necessary to add to my will that I

by no means desire that my son be taken away from his mother, but

that he shall always and so long as his future career permits

remain with his mother, to which end the guardianship of him is

to be exercised by her as well as my brother. Only by unity can

the object which I had in view in appointing my brother guardian

of my son, be attained, wherefore, for the welfare of my child,

I recommend ~compliance~ to my wife and more ~moderation~ to my

brother.

God permit them to be harmonious for the sake of my child’s

welfare. This is the last wish of the dying husband and brother.

Vienna, November 14, 1815.

Karl van Beethoven

m. p.

We, the undersigned, certify in consonance with truth that Karl van

Beethoven declared in our presence that he had read the statement

on the opposite page and that the same is in accordance with his

will, finally we certify that he signed it with his own hand in our

presence and requested us to witness the act.

Thus done on November 14, 1815.

Carl Gaber, m. p.

Benedikt Gaber, m. p.

Johann Neumann, m. p.

(“This codicil was delivered under seal to the R. I. L. Austrian

General Court by the Karl Scheffer Solicitor Dr. Schönauer, on Nov.

17, 1815, etc.”)

On November 20, 1815, the “Wiener Zeitung” printed the announcement:

“Died on November 16, Hr. Karl van Beethoven, Cashier in the R. I.

Bank and Chief Treasury, aged 38 years,[156] of consumption.” And so

in his own house died the brother Karl whose last moments came with a

suddenness which aroused his brother’s suspicions that the end had been

hastened by poison! Nor would he be satisfied upon the matter until his

friend Bertolini had made a ~post mortem~ examination “whereby the

lack of foundation for the suspicion was proved.”

A few weeks before his death, Karl had applied for leave of absence

from his office on the score of his feeble condition; but his petition

was harshly refused in a document on which Beethoven afterwards wrote:

“This miserable financial product caused the death of my brother.” In

fact, however, it made probably little difference; his was evidently

one of those common cases of phthisis, where the patient, except to

the experienced eye, shows no signs of immediate danger; who at the

last moments finds himself free from pain and blessed with a buoyancy

of spirit that gives him vain hopes of prolonged life. It is the last

flickering of the flame, as the skillful physician well knows.

As above noted, Karl van Beethoven’s will was deposited with the proper

authorities on the 17th, and “the R. I. L. Austrian Landrecht (General

Court) on November 22, 1815, appointed the widow of the deceased,

Johanna van Beethoven, guardian, the brother of the deceased, Ludwig

van Beethoven, associate guardian of the minor son Karl.” And so, for

the present, we will leave the matter.[157]

And Breuning? Why during these years and especially in this time

of sorrow does his name nowhere meet us? His son answers the

question in that extremely interesting little volume “Aus dem

Schwarzspanierhause.”[158]

Jacob Rösgen, an employee in the office of the Minister of War in which

Breuning was a Secretary, had learned certain facts, or suspicions, in

relation to Karl van Beethoven’s integrity, which he thought should be

communicated to Ludwig as a warning “not to have anything to do with

him in financial matters.” To this end he, having obtained Breuning’s

word of honor not to make known the source of the information, imparted

to him the whole matter. “Breuning faithfully performed the task which

he had assumed; but Ludwig, in his tireless endeavor to better his

brother, hastened to take him to task for his conduct and charge him

with the acts which had been reported to him; he went so far, when

pressed by his brother for the source of his information, as to mention

the name of his friend Steffen. Kaspar (Karl) then appealed directly

to my father and asked the name of the author of the ‘denunciation,’

and when my father resolutely declined to give the name (Rösgen) Kaspar

indulged himself in abuse to such an extent that he left insulting

letters addressed to him and unsealed with the portier of the Ministry

of War. My father, angered and pained at this impertinence and Ludwig’s

breach of confidence, read the latter a sharp lecture which ended

with the declaration that because of such unreliability it would be

impossible longer to hold association with him.”[159] It will be long

before we meet Breuning again.

There is a striking incongruity between Beethoven’s pleas of poverty in

his letters to correspondents in England at this period and the facts

drawn from official and other authentic sources. Let us tarry a moment

on this point.

[Sidenote: A PERIOD OF PROSPERITY]

He was now, at the end of 1815, in the regular receipt of his annuity,

3400 florins in notes of redemption; in March and April the arrears,

4987 florins in such notes, had been paid him; the profits of his

concerts since January 1, 1814, with presents from crowned heads and

others were, if we may trust Schindler, who appears to speak from

accurate knowledge, sufficient in amount to purchase somewhat later the

seven bank-shares, which at his death, “according to the price current

on the day of his death,” had a value in convention-coin of 7441

florins; Neate had paid him 75 guineas; for the works sold to Steiner

and Co. he had “been wholly compensated”; in March (1816) he received

from Mr. Birchall 65 pounds sterling; and there were payments to him

from Thomson and others, the aggregate of which cannot be determined.

This incongruity is not essentially diminished either by his

taxes--sixty pounds for 1814, he tells Thomson--nor by the 10,000

florins W. W. expended for the benefit of his brother, whether the

“Wiener Währung” in the letter to Ries be understood as the old

five for one, or the new in notes of redemption; for this fraternal

charity extended back over a series of years. In this letter to Ries,

the reader will observe also a remarkable instance of its writer’s

occasional great carelessness of statement, where he speaks of his

“entire loss of salary” for several years; for the Archduke’s share

had throughout been punctually paid; not to mention again the receipt

of what had for a time been withheld of the Kinsky and Lobkowitz

subscriptions. The omission of these facts in this and other letters,

imparted to Ries an utterly false impression; and on their publication

in 1838, to the public also. Hence the general belief that Beethoven

was now in very straitened circumstances, and that Karl’s widow and

child had been left in abject poverty; the truth as to them being this:

that the property left them produced an annual income, which with the

widow’s pension amounted at this time to above 1500 florins. From the

day that Beethoven assumed the office of guardian and took possession

of the child, he had a valid claim upon the mother for a part of the

costs of maintaining him--a claim soon made good by legal process. If

he afterward elected to suffer in his own finances rather than press

his sister-in-law, this is no justification of the heedless statements

in some of his letters now--a truth to be held in mind. And now the

letter to Ferdinand Ries:

Wednesday, November 22, Vienna, 1815.

Dear R!

I hasten to write you that I to-day sent the pianoforte arrangement

of the Symphony in A by post to the house of Thomas Coutts and Co.,

as the Court is not here, couriers go not at all or seldom, and

this besides is the safest way. The Symphony should appear toward

the end of March, I will fix the day, it has occupied too much time

for me to make the term shorter,--more time may be taken with the

Trio and the Sonata for violin, and both will be in London in a

few weeks--I urgently beg of you, dear Ries! to make this matter

your concern and to see that I get the money; it will cost a great

deal before everything gets there and I need it--I had to lose 600

fl. annually of my salary, at the time of the bank-notes it was

nothing then came the notes of redemption and because of them I

lost the 600 fl. with several years of vexation and entire loss of

salary--now we have reached a point where the notes of redemption

are worse than the bank-notes were before; I pay 1000 fl. for

house-rent; figure to yourself of the misery caused by paper money.

My poor unfortunate brother has just died; he had a bad wife, I may

say he had consumption for several years, and to make life easier

for him I gave what I may estimate at 10,000 fl. W. W. True, that

is nothing for an Englishman, but very much for a poor German, or

rather Austrian. The poor man had changed greatly in the last few

years and I can say that I sincerely lament him, and I am now glad

that I can now say to myself that I neglected nothing in respect

of care for him. Tell Mr. Birchall to repay Mr. Salomon and you

the cost of postage for your letters to me and mine to you; he may

deduct it from the sum which he is to pay me, I want those who

labor for me to suffer as little as possible.

Wellington’s Victory at the Battle of Vittoria, this is also the

title on the pianoforte arrangement, must have reached Th. Coutts

and Co. long ago. Mr. Birchall need not pay the honorarium until

he has received all the works, make haste so that I may know the

day when Mr. Birchall will publish the pianoforte arrangement. For

to-day, no more except the warmest commendation of my affairs to

you; I am always at your service in all respects. Farewell, Dear R!

On the same day he wrote to Birchall:

Vienna, November 22, 1815.

Enclosed you are receiving the pianoforte arrangement of

the Symphony in A. The pianoforte arrangement of the Symph.

Wellington’s Victory at the Battle of Vittoria was dispatched 4

weeks ago by the business messenger, Hrn. Neumann, to Messrs.

Coutts and Co., and therefore must long ago have been in your hands.

You will receive also the Trio and Sonata in a fortnight in

exchange for which you will please pay to Messrs. Thomas Coutts and

Co. the sum of 130 gold ducats. I beg of you to make haste with the

publication of these musical compositions and to inform me of the

day of publication of the Wellington Symphony, so that I may make

my arrangements here accordingly. With great respect I remain,

Yours truly,

Ludwig van Beethoven, m. p.

The Trio and Sonata, however, were not forwarded until the 3d of the

next February--a decidedly long “fortnight.”

In those days £65 was no small sum for the mere right of republication

in England of these pianoforte works and arrangements, and Ries richly

merited these words of his old master: “And now my heartiest thanks,

dear Ries, for all the kindness you have shown to me, and particularly

for the corrections. Heaven bless you and make your progress even

greater, in which I take a cordial interest.”

[Sidenote: BECOMES AN HONORARY CITIZEN OF VIENNA]

About the first of December, “a magisterial deputation solemnly

delivered” into the hands of Beethoven a certificate conferring upon

him the citizenship of Vienna in acknowledgment of his benevolent

services in behalf of St. Mark’s Hospital. Ries, writing on September

29th for Salomon, who had broken his right shoulder in a fall from

his horse, informs Beethoven that at that date the three overtures

purchased by Neate for the Philharmonic Society had not reached London.

Beethoven, in December, repeats this to Neate, who was still in Vienna,

adding, in substance, his readiness to make any desired written

agreement about these things in England. Salomon’s misfortune occurred

in August; he lingered only until the 25th of November. No higher

proof of his reputation in England can be given than the fact that the

remains of this Bonn violinist rest near those of Handel in Westminster

Abbey.

Schindler somewhere censures the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde for

its long delay in making Beethoven an honorary member. It did what

was better. Hardly was it organized, when its directors turned their

attention to him; and, in the second year of its legal existence,

proposed to him through Zmeskall to compose an oratorio for its use. On

the 22d of December, Count Appony reported: “that Hr. L. v. Beethoven,

through Hrn. v. Zmeskall, had declared his readiness to deliver a large

work to the society and that the Board of Management were awaiting his

conditions.” It was but the course of common propriety--of ordinary

delicacy--to leave him free of all obligation to the society until this

matter of business should be settled; indeed, that Streicher was one of

the principal founders and most influential members of the society is

a sufficient pledge, that no disrespect for, nor indifference to, his

great merits, had aught to do with the delay, which Schindler blames.

We shall find that, so soon as it was certain that Beethoven could

not live to fulfill his engagement, the society sent him its honorary

diploma. Could it well do this before?

Of noteworthy new friends and acquaintances may be mentioned here

Peters, tutor of the young Princes Lobkowitz, and Carl Joseph Bernard,

a young literateur and poet--the reviser of Weissenbach’s poem--a

great admirer of Beethoven’s music, soon to be appointed Editor of the

official “Wiener Zeitung.” He is the “Bernardus non Sanctus” of the

Conversation Books; and the two are the friends whom Beethoven set to

music in the text:

Sanct Petrus war ein Fels!

Bernardus war ein Sanct??[160]

Another was Anton Halm, “in whose fresh military nature Master Ludwig

took delight,” says Schindler. He was a native of Styria, and now but

twenty-six years of age. After some years’ service against Napoleon,

he had resigned (1812) his lieutenancy in the 44th Regiment. He was a

pianoforte player of very respectable rank, and even before entering

the army had appeared in public in Beethoven’s C minor Trio, Op. 1, and

the C major Pianoforte Concerto, Op. 15. He had now been three years in

Hungary, living during the third with his friend, Brunswick, who gave

him a letter to Beethoven upon his departure for Vienna, whither he had

come to be tutor in a Greek family named Gyike. “Halm once brought a

sonata of his own composition to him,” says Czerny, “and when Beethoven

pointed out a few errors, Halm retorted that he (B.) had also permitted

himself many violations of the rules, Beethoven answered: ‘I may do it,

but not you.’”

[Sidenote: GROWING INTERCOURSE WITH SCHINDLER]

Young Schindler’s acquaintance with Beethoven had now advanced a step:

Toward the end of February, 1815 (Schindler writes), I accepted an

invitation to become tutor at Brünn. Scarcely arrived there, I was

summoned before the police officials. I was questioned as to my

relations with some of the tumultuaries of the Vienna University

as also certain Italians in whose company I had often been seen

in Vienna. As my identification papers, especially the statement

concerning the different lectures which I had attended, were not

in good order, the latter really faulty--through no fault of

mine--I was detained, notwithstanding that a government officer of

high standing offered to become my bondsman. After several weeks

of correspondence back and forth it was learned that I was not a

propagandist and was to be set at liberty. But a whole year of my

academic career was lost.

Again returned to Vienna, I was invited by one of Beethoven’s

intimate acquaintances to come to an appointed place, as the master

wanted to hear the story of the Brünn happening from my own lips.

During the relation, Beethoven manifested such sympathetic interest

in my disagreeable experiences that I could not refrain from tears.

He invited me to come often to the same place and at the same hour,

4 o’clock in the afternoon, where he was to be found nearly every

day--reading the newspapers. A handgrasp said still more. The place

was a somewhat remote room in the beer-house “Zum Rosenstock” in

the Ballgässchen. I was there right often and came to know the

place as a quasi-crypt of a number of Josephites of the first

water, to whom our master presented no discordant note, for his

republican creed had already received a considerable blow through a

more intimate acquaintance with the English Constitution. A captain

of the Emperor’s bodyguard and Herr Pinterics, widely known in

musical Vienna, who played an important rôle in the life of Franz

Schubert, were the closest companions of the master and, in the

exchange of political views, his seconds actively and passively.

From this place I soon began to accompany him on his walks.

But Schindler’s intimacy with Beethoven was not yet such as to save

him from errors when writing of this time. Thus he gravely assures

us that a concert which took place on the 25th of December “provided

the impulse which led the Magistracy of Vienna to elect our master to

honorary citizenship.” And yet the “solemn delivery” of the diploma is

already an item of news in the Vienna newspapers of December 15. This

concert, in the large Ridotto room, conducted by Beethoven was for the

benefit of the ~Bürgerspitalfond~ (Citizens’ Hospital Fund) and the

works performed were “an entirely new overture” (that in C, known as

the “Namensfeier”); “a new chorus on Goethe’s poem ‘Die Meeresstille’”;

“Christus am Ölberg.” Between the cantata and the oratorio, Franz

Stauffer, “the twelve-year-old son of a citizen of Vienna,” played a

“Rondo brillant” by Hummel.

The compositions which are known or, on good grounds, are supposed to

belong to the year 1815 are:

1. “15 Scottish Songs, in the month of May,” arranged for Thomson;

but they are not all Scottish.

2. Chorus: “Es ist vollbracht”; for Treitschke’s “Ehrenpforte.”

3. Two Sonatas for Pianoforte and Violoncello; C major and D major,

Op. 102; in July and August.

4. Chorus with orchestra: “Meeresstille und glückliche Fahrt”; text

by Goethe; Op. 112.

5. Song: “Das Geheimniss”; text by Weissenberg.

6. Song: “An die Hoffnung”; text by Tiedge; Op. 94 (probably

finished).

7. Canons: “Das Reden,” “Das Schweigen” and “Glück zum neuen

Jahre.”[161]

The ascertained publications of the year are:

1. Polonaise, in C major, Op. 89; published by Mechetti, in March.

2. Sonata for Pianoforte, E minor, Op. 90; by Steiner, in June.

3. Song: “Des Kriegers Abschied,” text by C. L. Reissig; by

Mechetti, in June.

4. Chorus: “Es ist vollbracht,” pianoforte arrangement; by Steiner

in July.

FOOTNOTES:

[145] In Jahn’s notices these sums are doubled. This audience is

doubtless the one referred to by Schindler, as being proposed by the

Empress, or perhaps was a consequence of that one.

[146] “Fidelio” had its first performance in Prague on November 21,

1814. Liebich was the director of the theatre, and C. M. von Weber

chapelmaster.

[147] it was Smart, who also made Beethoven’s Mass in C known in

England. On April 3rd, 1816, the “Kyrie” as a “First Hymn” with an

English text by Arnold, was on the programme; March 17, 1817, the

“Second Hymn,” and at last the complete work.

[148] German: Stein = English: stone.

[149] No. 3, Op. 90; No. 4, “Tremate, empj, tremate,” Op. 116; No.

8, Op. 97; No. 9, Op. 96; No. 10, “King Stephen,” Op. 117; No. 11,

“Namensfeier,” Op. 115; No. 12, “Ruins of Athens,” Op. 113.

[150] Dr. Riemann interprets Beethoven’s “B. M.” as standing for

“Bacchus Motive.”

[151] The conversations with Neate took place in January, 1861. The

writer was indebted to the late Henry F. Chorley, for the pecuniary

means of making his very valuable researches in England, and one of the

bitter consequences of the unavoidable delay in writing this work, is,

that Chorley can never read it.--A. W. T.

[152] It is sufficient to say here, that instead of composing new ones

as expected, he gave Neate the overtures to “King Stephen,” the “Ruins

of Athens” and the so-called “Namensfeier,” and received for them 75

guineas.

[153] Jahn related this incident to the writer, with much humor, in

the Autumn of 1860. In 1867, he allowed Dr. Alfred Schöne to edit the

correspondence for publication by Breitkopf and Härtel.

[154] J. B. Cramer was associated with John Addison under the style of

Cramer and Co.

[155] Mr. Birchall’s successor was C. Lonsdale, who had been his

principal assistant and who had conducted the correspondence with

Beethoven; and the business is at this writing in the hands of

Mr. Lonsdale’s son Robert. From both these gentlemen, the author

received great kindness and valuable aid in his English researches.

The letter in the text was not in their possession, but has since

been communicated to this work by Mr. S. Ganz. This excepted, the

correspondence may be read in the “Jahrbücher für Musikalische

Wissenschaft,” 1^{ten} Band, by Breitkopf and Härtel. 1863.

As our reading of the English paper mentioned in the text differs from

that in the “Jahrbücher” it is here subjoined.

“Mr. Beethoven send word to Mr. Birchall that it is severall days past

that he has sent for London, Wellington’s Battel Simphonie and that Mr.

B. may send for it at Thomas Coutts. Mr. Beethoven wish Mr. Bl. would

make ingrave the sayd Simphonie so soon as possible and send him word

in time the day it will be published, that he may prevent in time the

publisher at Vienna.

“To regard the 3 Sonatas which Mr. B. shall receive afterwards there is

not wanted such a gt. hurry and Mr. B[eethoven] will take the liberty

to fixe the day when the are to be published. Mr. B[eethoven] sayd tha

Mr. Solomon has a good many tings to say concerning the Simphonie in

(?) Mr. B[eethoven] wish for an answer so soon as possible concerning

the days of publication.”

The letter here queried, does not belong to the English Alphabet, but

the “Battle and Victory Symphony” is meant.

[156] This was an error, as Karl was baptized on April 8, 1774.

[157] A letter, preserved in the Beethoven House Museum at Bonn

(Kalischer, “Sämmtliche Briefe” II, 310), to Madame Antonie von

Brentano mentions that Karl had been pensioned, but this may have

been written after an application had been made and before it had

been refused. The letter says: “Among the individuals (whose number

is infinite) who are suffering, is my brother who was obliged to have

himself pensioned because of his ill health, conditions are very hard

just now, I do all that is possible, but that is not much.” He then

offers Brentano a pipe-bowl belonging to his brother, who thinks that

it might be sold for 10 louis d’or, remarking: “he needs a great deal,

is obliged to keep a horse and carriage in order to live (for he is as

desirous to keep his life as I am willing to lose mine).”

[158] “Aus dem Schwarzspanierhause,” by Dr. Gerhard von Breuning.

Vienna, Rosner, 1874. Dr. Breuning prints the note of reconciliation

(which has appeared in this work) as subsequent to this affair. We are

unable to agree with him.

[159] Dr. Gerhard von Breuning places this incident in 1804, Thayer in

1815. The cause of the quarrel which was followed by a reconciliation

in 1804, has been explained.

[160] Saint Peter was a rock! Bernardus was a Saint!

[161] Nottebohm’s study of the sketchbooks used by Beethoven in 1815

(See “Zweit. Beeth.,” pp. 314-20) discloses that he worked upon

sketches for works which were never finished--a Symphony in B minor,

Pianoforte Concerto in D, and several Fugues, besides experimenting

with the opera “Bacchus.” There are also sketches for compositions

written in 1816, such as the song-cycle “An die ferne Geliebte” and the

Sonata, Op. 101.

Chapter XVI

The Year 1816--Guardianship of the Nephew--Giannatasio del

Rio--Beethoven’s Works in London--Birchall and Neate--New

Distinctions.

Compared with the years immediately preceding, the year 1816 is

comparatively barren of large incidents in the life of Beethoven; its

recorded history, therefore, is to be found to a still larger extent

than before in the composer’s extended correspondence together with

explanatory annotations. Some of the letters, especially those written

to his English friends, are likely to make a somewhat melancholy, and

to that extent erroneous, impression. The real record of the writer

finds expression in the letters which he wrote to Steiner and Co. and

Zmeskall. These are bubbling over with playfulness and jocularity,

proving that the writer was generally in a cheerful humor and in this

year was anything but the melancholy Beethoven of the romance writers.

He seems to have endured the rapid and disquieting increase in his

malady, an inevitable consequence of the exertions and excitement

attending the rehearsing and conducting of so many large concerts,

with surprising patience and resignation. And why not? His pecuniary

affairs were in good condition, notwithstanding his lamentations to

Ries and others; he had won his lawsuit with his brother’s widow, and

his artistic ambition must have found complete satisfaction in the

great fame which he had won. A letter concerning a new operatic project

first invites attention. The eight rôles which Madame Milder had

played in the past summer in Berlin, had given such keen delight that

she had been reëngaged for a second and much longer series. Domestic

troubles and sorrows, in which her husband, the jeweler Hauptmann,

appears to have been entirely the guilty party and which embittered

all her future life, rendered her utterly unable for the present to

appear upon the stage; and “because of illness and weakness” it was

not until several weeks after her return from the baths at Pyrmont

that she could begin the new engagement on October 3d. Meantime

“Fidelio” had been put upon the boards and “given for the first time

on October 11th with great success.” “This opera,” said the Berlin

“Dramaturgisches Wochenblatt” in its notice of the event, “bears within

itself the seeds of a dramatico-musical reformation and will hasten the

end of the bastard music.” And yet on this evening, the ~Leonore~ was

Mad. Schultze--Schuppanzigh’s sister-in-law. When, three days after,

Mad. Milder took the part, its greatness was for the first time fully

appreciated; and of the twenty-four evenings to which her engagement

extended, this greatest representative then living of Gluck’s grandest

inspirations devoted eleven to “Fidelio.” This triumph of his opera in

Berlin, drew from the composer a letter (dated January 6, 1816) full of

expressions of gratitude and enthusiastic appreciation of the singer’s

talents, and giving voice too, to a rekindled dramatic ambition. He

says:

If you were to beg Baron de la Motte Fouqué--in my name--to

invent a grand opera subject which would at the same time be

adapted to you, you would do a great service to me and the German

stage. I should like, moreover, to compose it exclusively for the

Berlin stage as I shall never bring about another opera for the

parsimonious management here.

The next letter relates to the oratorio for the Gesellschaft der

Musikfreunde:

My dear Zmeskall!

With dread I observe for the first time to-day that I have not yet

answered the application of the Gesellschaft der Musif. of the

Austrian capital for an oratorio.

The death of my brother two months ago, the guardianship of my

nephew which thereby devolved upon me, together with many other

unpleasant circumstances and occurrences are the cause of my tardy

writing. Meanwhile the poem by H. von Seyfried is already begun and

I shall also soon set the same to music. That the commission is

highly honorable, I scarcely need tell you; that is self-evident

and I shall try to execute it as worthily as my small powers will

allow.

As regards the artistic means to be employed in the performance

I shall be considerate, but do not wish not to be allowed to

depart from those already introduced. I hope that I have made

myself understood in this matter. As they insist upon knowing what

honorarium I ask, I inquire in turn whether the Society thinks

400 ducats in gold agreeable for such a work. I again beg pardon

of the society for the tardiness of my answer; meanwhile, you my

dear friend have at least reported by word of mouth my readiness

to compose the work, before this, which sets my mind measurably at

ease--My dear Z.

Your B.

The next selections require the preliminary statement of certain

facts. Beethoven’s dissatisfaction at the appointment (on November

22d) of his sister-in-law as the guardian of her son--now nine years

old--was expressed in an appeal to the Upper Austrian ~Landrecht~

on the 28th, to transfer the guardianship to himself. Next day, the

29th, that tribunal ordered the petitioner and Dr. Schönauer to appear

before it in this matter on December 2d at 10 o’clock a. m. At that

time the subject was deferred to the same hour on the 13th. Beethoven

then appeared and declared that he could produce “weighty reasons

why the widow should be entirely excluded from the guardianship.”

Whereupon, on the 15th, it was ordered that he produce those grounds

within three days, “failing which, the preparation of the guardianship

decree to the widow would be proceeded with without further delay.”

The same day Beethoven signed a petition to the City Magistrates for

an official certificate concerning the “condemnation of his (Karl’s)

mother, Johanna van Beethoven, on an investigation for infidelity.” The

magistrate answered him on the same day through their secretary that

they could not legally grant him a copy of the judgment against her,

but would communicate the “necessary disclosures” to the tribunal. This

was done on the 21st. Then came the Christmas holidays, and no further

action was taken until the 9th of January, when a decision was rendered

in Beethoven’s favor, and he was ordered to appear on the 19th to take

the “vows for the performance of his duties.” He complied, and on the

outside of this order is written:

To-day appeared Ludwig van Beethoven as the legally appointed

guardian of his nephew Carl and vowed with solemn handgrasp before

the assembled council to perform his duties.

[Sidenote: THE NEPHEW TAKEN FROM HIS MOTHER]

This document also empowered the new guardian to take possession of the

boy, who of course was still with his mother. But what to do with him?

Beethoven could not take him into his own lodging; a child of that age

needs a woman’s care and tenderness.

A certain Cajetan Giannatasio del Rio was at that time proprietor and

manager of a private school in the city for boys, which enjoyed a high

and deserved reputation. His family consisted of his wife and two

highly accomplished daughters, young women of fine talents, of much

musical taste and culture, and--especially the eldest--enthusiasts for

Beethoven’s music. The composer, accompanied by Bernard and the boy,

visited and inspected the school, and was so much pleased with it and

the family, that he determined to withdraw his nephew from the public

school, and place him there as pupil and boarder. On February 1st, he

wrote to Giannatasio:

With sincere pleasure I inform you that at last on to-morrow I

shall bring to you the precious pledge that has been intrusted to

me. Moreover I beg of you again under no circumstances to permit

the mother to exercise any influence, now or when she may see him,

all this I will talk over with you to-morrow. You may impress this

also on your servants, for ~mine~ in another matter was ~bribed~

by her! More by word of mouth though silence would be preferable

to me--but for the sake of your future citizen of the world, this

melancholy communication is necessary.

[In Karl’s hand]: I am very glad to come to you, and am your Carl

van Beethoven.

The next day, February 2, the boy was taken from his mother. The

intolerable annoyance caused by her appearing in person or sending a

messenger daily to take him from the school, drew from Giannatasio on

the 11th a written application to the guardian for “a formal authority

in a few lines for refusing without further ado to permit her to fetch

her son.” In his reply, Beethoven writes: “as regards the mother I

request that on the plea that he is busy you do not admit her to him

at all.” He then consulted Joseph Edler von Schmerling, a member

of the ~Landrecht~, upon the measures proper for him to adopt, and

communicated that gentleman’s advice to Giannatasio by letter, on the

morning of the 15th. The same day, taking Bernard with him, he went

to the school, and there meeting Giannatasio, the three prepared a

formal petition to the ~Landrecht~, praying that tribunal to grant the

guardian plenary authority to exclude the widow and her agents from all

or any direct communication with the boy. This was signed by Beethoven

and immediately presented. On the 20th, the ~Landrecht~ granted,

essentially, this petition; but its decree contained this proviso: that

the mother might still visit her son “in his leisure hours, without

disturbing the course of his education or the domestic arrangements, in

the company of a person to be appointed by the guardian or the director

of the educational institution.” Armed with this authority, Giannatasio

on March 8th informed in writing “Madame Jeannette de Beethoven,

Vorstadt, Alsergasse, No. 121,” that she has in future “to apply solely

to the uncle as to whether, how and when” she can see her son. And thus

this wretched business again for the present rested. In these days

belongs a letter by Beethoven to Giannatasio:

The Queen of Night surprised us yesterday and also delivered a

veritable anathema against you; she showed her usual impertinence

and malice against me and set me back for a moment and I almost

believed that what she said was right, but when I reached home

later I received the result of the decision of the L. R. which

turns out to be just what was desired and I communicate the most

necessary point, although you will probably receive a ~copy of it~

towards evening....

Neate was now gone to London. On his departure Beethoven wrote in his

album two canons entitled “Das Schweigen” (Silence) and “Das Reden”

(Speech), adding with the date, “January 24, 1816,” the words:

My dear English compatriot in ~silence~ and in ~speech~ remember

your sincere friend

Ludwig van Beethoven.

[Sidenote: THE LONDON PHILHARMONIC BUYS OVERTURES]

The document concerning the sale of the three overtures to the

Philharmonic Society which Beethoven promised to give Neate (which

Moscheles printed in his paraphrase of Schindler’s biography in

translation, as if it had been written in English and not altogether

correctly)[162] ran as follows:

In the month of July, 1816 [~sic~] Mr. Neate in the name of the

Philharmonic Society in London, received from me 3 overtures and

paid me for the same an honorarium of 75 guineas in consideration

of which I bind myself not to permit them to be published in

parts[163] anywhere, though the right is reserved by me to perform

them wherever I please as well as to publish them in pianoforte

arrangement though not before Mr. Neate shall have written to me

that they have been performed in London. Moreover, Mr. Neate has

assured me that he will kindly take it upon himself (to assure me)

that the Philharmonic Society will give me permission after a lapse

of one or two years to publish the 3 overtures in score and parts,

inasmuch as I can do this only with their consent, with which I

present my compliments to the P. S.

Vienna, February 5, 1816. Ludwig van Beethoven.

The three overtures had already been sold to Steiner, but were not

published till six years later. The works entrusted to him, as

remembered by Mr. Neate forty-five years afterwards, were: 1. A copy

of the Violin Concerto, Op. 61, with a transcription of the solo for

Pianoforte on the same pages, which Beethoven said he himself had

arranged and was effective; 2. The two Sonatas for Pianoforte and

Violoncello, Op. 102, with a dedication to Neate; 3. The Seventh

Symphony in score; 4. “Fidelio” in score; and 5. The String Quartet

in F minor, Op. 95--all in manuscript. There is some reason to think

that besides these works Neate also took a copy of “Der glorreiche

Augenblick.” On January 20, Beethoven wrote the following letter to

Ries in London:[164]

Vienna, January 20, 1816.

My dear Ries:

I see from your letter of January 18, that you have safely received

the two things--as no couriers are going, the post is safest, but

it costs a great deal, I will send you the bill for what I have

paid here for copying and postage soon, it is very little for an

Englishman but all the more for a poor Austrian musician!

See that Mr. B.[165] recompenses me for this, since he has the

compositions for England very cheaply. Neate, who has been about to

go every moment, but always remains, will bring the overtures with

him, I have always communicated to him the injunctions touching

them given by you and our deceased S.[166]--the symphony will be

dedicated to the Empress of Russia. The pianoforte arrangement of

the Symphony in A must not be published before the month of June,

the publisher cannot be earlier--tell this at once to B. my dear

good R.

The Sonata with violin, which will go from here by the next post,

may also be published in London in the month of May--but the Trio

later. (It will also arrive by the next post) I will fix the date

myself later.

And now my heartiest thanks dear Ries, for all the kindness you

have shown to me and particularly for the corrections. Heaven bless

you and make your progress ever greater in which I take a cordial

interest--commend me to your ~wife~.

It is necessary here to state certain facts, both to explain the

failure of Mr. Neate to sell any of these works to the London

publishers, and to render some of the letters to come intelligible.

[Sidenote: THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY DISAPPOINTED]

The Philharmonic Society was an association of the first musicians

of London and its vicinity, and no city on earth could at that time

present such an array of great names. Here are a few of them taken

alphabetically from its roll: Atwood, Ayrton, Bridgetower, Clementi,

Cramer, Carnaby, Dragonetti, Horsley, Lindley, Mazzinghi, Mori, Naldi,

Novello, Ries, Shield, Smart, Spagnoletti, Viotti, Watts, S. Webbe,

Yanewicz. Imagine the disappointment of these men, fresh from the

performance of the C minor Symphony, when they played through the

overtures to “The Ruins of Athens” and “King Stephen,” which, however

interesting to a Hungarian audience as introductions to a patriotic

prologue and epilogue in the theatre, possess none of those great

qualities expected from Beethoven and demanded in a concert overture!

Nor was the “Namensfeier” thought worthy of its author. Ries speaks

thus of this matter:

After I had with much trouble persuaded the Philharmonic Society

to permit me to order three overtures from him, which should

remain its property, he sent me three, not one of which, in view

of Beethoven’s great name and the character of these concerts,

could be performed, because expectation was tense and more than

the ordinary was asked of Beethoven. A few years later he published

all three and the Society did not think it worth while to complain.

Amongst them was the overture to “The Ruins of Athens,” which I

consider unworthy of him.

But when it became known that neither of the three--Op. 115 possibly

excepted--was new, and that not one of them had been composed to meet

the Society’s order, is it surprising that this act of Beethoven’s was

deemed unworthy of him, disrespectful, nay, an insult to the Society,

and resented accordingly?

Another matter was personal with Mr. Birchall. That publisher, having

at last (early in February) received the last of the works purchased

by him, immediately deposited with Coutts and Co. the sum agreed upon,

to the composer’s credit, and forwarded the following “Declaration” to

Vienna for signature, leaving the day of the month blank--as it still

remains--to be inserted when signed:

Received ... March, 1816, of Mr. Robert Birchall--Music Seller,

133 New Bond Street, London--the sum of One Hundred and thirty

Gold Dutch Ducats, value in English Currency Sixty-five Pounds,

for all my Copyright and Interest, present and future, vested or

contingent, or otherwise within the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Ireland in the four following Compositions or Pieces of Music

composed or arranged by me, viz.:

1st. A Grand Battle Sinfonia, descriptive of the Battle and Victory

at Vittoria, adapted for the Pianoforte and dedicated to his Royal

Highness, the Prince Regent--40 Ducats.

2nd. A Grand Symphony in the Key of A, adapted to the Pianoforte

and dedicated to

3rd. A Grand Trio for the Pianoforte, Violon and Violoncello in the

Key of B.

4th. A Sonata for the Pianoforte with an Accompaniment for the

Violin in the Key of G, dedicated to

And, in consideration of such payment I hereby for myself, my

Executors and Administrators promise and engage to execute a proper

Assignment thereof to him, his Executors and Administrators or

Assignees at his or their Request and Costs, as he or they shall

direct. And I likewise promise and engage as above, that none of

the above shall be published in any foreign Country, before the

time and day fixed and agreed on for such Publication between R.

Birchall and myself shall arrive.

Instead of ~this~ document, so indispensable for his security, the

publisher received a new demand from Beethoven!--one for five pounds

additional, as per memorandum:

Copying 1.10.0

Postage to Amsterdam 1. 0.0

Trio 2.10.0

------

£5.0.0

The very unfavorable impression which this proceeding made upon the

mind of Mr. Birchall may readily be conceived. These £5 are the 10

ducats mentioned in the following letter, portions of which were

suppressed when printed by Ries:

Vienna, May 8, 1816.

My answer comes somewhat tardily; but I was ill, had much to do

and it was impossible for me to answer you sooner; now only the

most necessary things--not a ~Heller~ of the 10 ducats in gold

has as yet arrived, and I am already beginning to believe, that

the Englishmen, too, are only magnanimous in foreign lands; so

also with the Prince Regent from whom I have not even received the

copyist’s fees for my Battle sent to him, not even written or oral

thanks;[167] Fries here deducted 6 fl. Convention money. On the

receipt of the money from Birchall, besides 15 fl. Convention money

for postage, tell B. this--and see that you yourself get the draft

for the 10 ducats, otherwise it will go like the first time--what

you tell me about Neate’s undertaking ~would be desirable for

me~. I need it, my salary amounts to 3400 florins in paper, I pay

1100 house-rent, my servant and his wife nearly 900 fl. Calculate

what remains. Moreover, I have got to care wholly for my little

nephew. He is till now still in the Institute; this costs me close

to 1100 fl. and is poor besides, so that I must establish myself

in decent housekeeping so that I can have him with me. How much

one must earn in order to live here; and yet there is never an end

for--for--for--you know it already. As to the dedications another

time. A few orders besides the concert would also be welcome from

the Philharmonic Society--besides my dear pupil Ries ought to

sit down and dedicate something good to me to which the ~master

would also~ respond and repay kind with kind. How shall I send you

my portrait! I hope too, to have news from Neate, ~urge him on

a bit~, be assured of my sincere interest in your futures. Urge

Neate on to ~work and composition~. All things lovely to your wife.

Unfortunately I have none. I found only one, whom I shall doubtless

never possess; but am not a woman hater on that account.

Your true friend,

Beethoven.

[Sidenote: UNGROUNDED SUSPICION OF NEATE]

Immediately upon the receipt of this letter, Ries spoke with Mr.

Birchall, who next day (March 15), deposited the £5 with Coutts and

Co.; but month after month passed and still the “Declaration” with

Beethoven’s signature did not arrive. Of the justice, propriety,

delicacy of this new demand, nothing need be said; its historical

importance is due entirely to the very unfavorable effect which it and

the correspondence relating to it produced upon the minds of the London

publishers. Mr. Neate was in some degree prepared for the coldness with

which those gentlemen received his proposals in Beethoven’s behalf, by

a letter written to him after the trial of the overtures. One sentence

in it he remembered word for word: “For God’s sake, don’t buy anything

of Beethoven!” But he was not prepared for the utter refusal in all

quarters to listen to him. He besought Mr. Birchall to purchase the

overtures. The reply was: “I would not print them, if you would give me

them gratis.”

As to the score of the Symphony in A (the Seventh), it was folly

to expect that the Philharmonic Society would pay a large sum for

the manuscript of a work already (March 6) advertised in Vienna for

subscription at the price of twenty-five florins.

It is another instance of Beethoven’s unlucky tendency to suspect the

conduct and motives of others, that seeing in a newspaper a notice of

the production of one of his Symphonies by the Philharmonic Society, he

at once assumed that it was the Seventh and that Neate had given the

use of his manuscript!

Under such circumstances Neate ~could~ do nothing for Beethoven; nor

could he well disclose the true causes of his failure; so the composer

characteristically assumed that he ~would~ do nothing, and, as will

be seen, gave vent to his wrath in terms equally bitter and unjust.

The letters selected pertaining to these transactions are reserved for

their places in chronological order.

Linke’s departure with the Erdödys to Croatia was noted in the last

chapter; he returned to Vienna in the Autumn in season to enable

Schuppanzigh to begin his winter season of quartets in November. They

were given in the hall of the hotel “Zum Römischen Kaiser,” and had now

ended. So, too, had ended the engagement of Schuppanzigh, Weiss and

Linke with Rasoumowsky. The destruction of his palace, the approach

of old age, and failing sight, induced him now to dismiss them with

suitable pensions from his service. Schuppanzigh went to Russia; Linke

returned to the Erdödys and Weiss remained in Vienna. Before their

departure the first two gave each a farewell concert. Schuppanzigh’s

took place in the palace of Count Deym, the programme being made up

entirely of Beethoven’s works, viz: Quartet C major, Op. 59; Quintet

for Wind-instruments and Pianoforte, Op. 16, Carl Czerny, pianist;

and the Septet, Op. 20. Beethoven “entered at the beginning of the

quartet” and shared in the deafening applause of the crowded audience.

Czerny relates: “When I played the Quintet with Wind-instruments at

Schuppanzigh’s concert, I allowed myself in my youthful frivolity,

many changes--increasing the difficulty of passages, using the higher

octaves, etc. Beethoven very properly and severely upbraided me for it

in the presence of Schuppanzigh, Linke and the other players. The next

day I received from him the following letter, which I copy exactly from

the original lying before me”: