1855.
[Sidenote: _THE LONDON PHILHARMONIC._]
The story of the invitation of Richard Wagner, the then dreaded
iconoclast of music, to London, to conduct the concerts of the
conservative Philharmonic Society, is both curious and interesting, in
the history of the tonal art. Costa, the previous conductor, had
resigned. The pressing question was, who could succeed so popular a man?
The names of many German notabilities were proposed, and as soon
dismissed. In England there was Sterndale Bennett, but he had quarrelled
with the directors; the field was therefore open. It was then that the
appointment of Wagner was suggested and agreed to. The circumstances
were as follows. Prosper Sainton, the eminent violinist, was both leader
of the orchestra of the Philharmonic, and one of the seven directors of
the society. He was and is[8] an intimate friend of mine, and to him I
proposed Richard Wagner. At that time Sainton was living with Charles
Lüders, a dear, lovable German musician, with whom he had travelled on
concert tours throughout Europe. From the time the two men met in
Russia, they lived together for twenty-five years, until the marriage of
Sainton with Miss Dolby, since which time Lüders was a daily visitor at
his friend’s house, Sainton administering always to his comfort, and
tending him on his death-bed, in the summer of 1884. Lüders and I were
heart and soul, and catching my enthusiasm he pressed Sainton so warmly,
that the name of Wagner was at once proposed. Richard Wagner was then
but a myth to the average English musician. However, as Sainton was a
general favourite with his colleagues, and was, further, held in high
esteem on account of his artistic perception, I was requested, through
his influence, to appear before the directors. I had then been a
resident in the metropolis for twenty-one years; I attended at a
directors’ meeting in Hanover Square, and stated my views.
Up to the present time, I have never been able to discover how it was
that seven sedate gentlemen could have been so influenced by my red-hot
enthusiasm as to have been led to offer the appointment to Richard
Wagner. I found that they either knew very little of him or nothing at
all, nor did I know him personally; I was but the reflection of August
Roeckel; as a composer, however, I had become so wholly his partisan as
to regard him the genius of the age. The crusade in favour of Richard
Wagner, upon which I then entered with so much fervour, will be best
understood by an article contributed by me at the time to the “New York
Musical Gazette,”[9] parts of which I think it advisable to reproduce
here, even at the expense of repeating an incident or two. The article
was summarized in the London musical papers, and immediately a shower of
virulent abuse fell upon me which, however, at no period affected in the
slightest my ardour for Wagner’s cause.
[Sidenote: _AN EDITOR AGITATED._]
The musical public of London is in a state of excitement which
cannot be described. Costa, the autocrat of London conductors, is
just now writing an oratorio, and no longer cares for what he would
have sacrificed anything for before he got possession of it,
namely, the conductorship of the Old Philharmonic; and whom to have
in his place, has for some time sorely puzzled the directors of the
said society. No Englishman would do, that is certain, for the
orchestra adores Costa; and besides, it belongs to Covent Garden,
where Costa reigns supreme (and where he really does wonders; being
musical conductor and stage manager; looking after the _mise en
scène_ and everything else with remarkable intelligence). Whom to
seek for, the government knew not. They made overtures to Berlioz,
but he had already signed an engagement with the New Philharmonic,
their presumptuous and hated rival. Things looked serious,
appalling, to the Old Philharmonic; they were in danger of losing
many subscribers, and a strong tide was setting in against them. At
last, seeing themselves on the verge of dissolution, and the New
Philharmonic ready to act as pall-bearers, they resolved upon a
risk-all, life-or-death remedy, and Richard Wagner was engaged!
Yes; this red republican of music is to preside over the Old
Philharmonic of London, the most classical, orthodox, and exclusive
society on this globe.
Mr. Anderson, the conductor of the queen’s private band, and acting
director of the Old Philharmonic, was despatched as minister
plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary to Zurich, where Wagner is
staying, to open negotiations and conclude arrangements, and
happily succeeded in his mission. Wagner agreed to give up certain
previously made conditions (some correspondence had taken place on
the subject), which required a second conductor for the vocal part
of the concerts, and unlimited rehearsals. In regard to pecuniary
considerations, Wagner rather astonished the entire John Bull; he
coolly told Mr. Anderson that he was too much occupied to give that
point much thought, and only desired to know at what time he
(Wagner) would be wanted in London. The society has requested
Wagner to have some of his works performed here. He, however, has
written nothing for concerts on former occasions; he has arranged a
suite of morceaux from each of his three operas, and these give a
public, unacquainted with his works, some idea of his
peculiarities.
To see Wagner and Berlioz, the two most ultra red republicans
existing in music, occupying the two most prominent positions in
the musical world of this classical, staid, sober, proper,
exclusive, conservative London, is an unmitigatedly “stunning”
fact. We are now ready for anything, and nothing more can astonish
us. Some of our real old cast-iron conservatives will never recover
from this shock--among others, the editor of the London “Musical
World.” This estimable gentleman is in a truly deplorable state,
whereby his friends are caused much concern. The engagement of
Wagner seems to have affected his brain, and from the most amiable
of men and truthful of critics, he has changed to the--well, see
his journal. He lavishes abuse, in language no less violent than
vehement, upon Wagner and all who will not condemn “poor Richard”
without hearing him. Wagner once wrote an article, “Das Judenthum
in der Musik” (“Judaism in Music”), in which he conclusively proves
that a Jew is not a Christian, and neither looks nor “feels,” nor
talks nor moves like one, and consequently does not compose like a
Christian; and in that same article, which is written with
exceeding cleverness, Wagner makes a severe onslaught upon
Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer, on Judaistic grounds. The editor of the
London “Musical World,” considering himself one of Mendelssohn’s
heirs, and Mendelssohn having (so it is said) hated Wagner, _ergo_,
must the enraged editor also hate him? He certainly seems to do so,
“con molto gusto.”
* * * * *
Wagner is at Zurich, quietly industrious, and does not even know or
care about the hue and cry concerning him, which is raised by a set
of idlers, who wish to identify themselves with something new and
great; being nothing themselves, nor likely ever to be anything.
It having been decided that the directors were to make proposals to
Richard Wagner, I wrote to him detailing the events that had occurred,
and stating that he might expect at any moment to receive a
communication from the society. He did hear almost immediately, and on
the 8th January, 1855, he wrote to me from Zurich.
[Sidenote: _HE ACCEPTS THE POSITION._]
I enter into correspondence with you, my dear Praeger, as with an
old friend. My heartiest thanks are due to you, my ardent champion
in a strange land and among a conservative people. Your first
espousal of my cause, ten years ago, when August[10] read to me a
vigorous article, from some English journal,[11] by you on the
“Tannhäuser” performance at Dresden, and the several evidences you
have given subsequently of a devotion to my efforts, induce me to
unhesitatingly throw the burden of somewhat wearisome arrangements
upon your shoulders, as papa Roeckel[12] urges me in a letter which
I inclose.
I must tell you that before concluding arrangements with the
directors of the Philharmonic, I imposed two conditions: first, an
under conductor; secondly, the engagement of the orchestra for
several rehearsals for each concert. You may imagine how enchanted
I am at the promised break of this irritating exile, and with what
joy I look forward to an engagement wherein my views might find
adequate expression; but frankly, I should not care to undertake a
journey all the way to London only to find my freedom of action
restricted, my energies cramped by a directorate that might refuse
what I deem the imperatively necessary number of rehearsals;
therefore, am I willing to agree with what papa Roeckel advises, if
it meets, too, with your support, viz. to forego the engagement of
a second conductor. In such an event, I would beg of you to talk
over, in my name, this affair with Mr. Hogarth,[13] and so far to
arrange that only the question of honorarium be left open for
settlement, for which I would then ask your friendly counsel.
Altogether, what specially decides me to come to London, is the
certainty of your help in the matter, for, being totally incapable
to do that which may be necessary there, I shall be compelled in
many more respects to have recourse to your decision. If you will
venture to burden yourself with me, then tell me in friendship, and
take your chance how you fare with me. My position forces me to
wish again to undertake something desirable, but in how far that is
possible, without lending myself to anything unworthy, I have to
find out.
Be not angry with me that I have thus bluntly cast myself upon you.
If you receive my entreaty, then act in my name as you consider
good. Heartily shall I be glad of such an opportunity of becoming
more intimate with you.
With best greeting to you, yours heartily,
RICHARD WAGNER.
ZURICH, 8th January, 1855.
P.S. Hogarth’s letter I received twelve days ago, and I answered
immediately, but up till to-day I have had no reply, most likely
for the reason which papa Roeckel surmises.
The inclosure to Wagner’s letter was a long epistle from papa Roeckel,
advising him to accept the Philharmonic engagement as a means of
introducing some of Wagner’s own works to a London public in a worthy
manner, the orchestra of the Philharmonic having acquired a continental
reputation. Wagner had respect for the opinion of old Mr. Roeckel,
taking counsel with him immediately the Philharmonic conductorship was
proposed to him.
[Sidenote: _HIS WORKS NOT WELCOMED._]
The next letter is dated--
ZURICH, 18th January, 1855.
Hearty thanks, dear Praeger. You show yourself in your letter
exactly as I expected, and that gives me great courage for London.
You no doubt know that I have given my word to Mr. Anderson. He was
anxious to telegraph it at once to London in order to have the
advertisement printed. I received your letter after Mr. Anderson
had left. I was glad to find from you that you had been informed
officially of my having accepted the engagement. What I think of
this engagement I cannot briefly explain to you. I feel positive,
however, that I make a sacrifice. I felt that either I must
renounce the public and all relations with it once and for all, and
turn my back upon it, or else, if but the slightest hope were yet
within me, I must accept the hand which is now held out to me. I
have repeatedly experienced, however, that where I was most
sanguine I have ever been most positively in error; and although I
have again and again felt this, yet I have been induced by this
offer to make a last attempt, and as such I look upon the whole
transaction. That the directors of the Philharmonic have no idea
whom they have engaged, I am perfectly sure; but they will soon
discover. They might have been more generous, for if these
gentlemen intentionally go abroad to find a celebrity, they ought
to have been inclined to spend a little extra. As to the question
of emolument, I answered Mr. Anderson with tolerable indifference.
They seem to attach great importance to the performance of my
works. You no doubt are aware that I have never written anything
for concert performances, and only on special occasions have I
arranged characteristic movements from my three last operas, and
even those which might perhaps give a concerted impression would
occupy a whole concert. By these means I have been enabled to give
to a public unacquainted with the peculiarities of my music an
intelligent first impression. I might have wished to have begun
with such a concert in London, but as this would entail somewhat
heavy expenses at first starting, the concert might be repeated. Do
you think this is practicable, or do you think I, myself, could
undertake it as an enterprise? In which case I would keep back my
compositions from the Philharmonic. I surmise, however, that such a
speculation would encounter insurmountable difficulties in London,
and therefore I shall be obliged after all to give detached
selections in the concerts of the Philharmonic, whereby my meaning
will be considerably weakened. If you think it worth while to give
me an answer on this point, I beg of you to tell me whether I
should have the parts of my compositions copied out here (Zurich),
or whether I should only bring the scores, or, perhaps, should I
previously send them to you so that they might be copied in London.
Of course you can only inform me as to this after an official
interview with the directors of the Philharmonic. In any case the
choral sections would have to be translated. As regards my lodgings
and London diet, Mr. Anderson mumbled something that this could be
arranged to be free for me. I was, however, so preoccupied that I
did not pay much attention to it. Have I, after all, correctly
understood? He spoke, I think, of a pleasant residence near
Regent’s Park which could be procured for me. Would you have the
amiability, when opportunity presents itself, to question Mr.
Anderson on this point? If they could provide me such a pretty,
friendly, and quiet lodging, with a good piano, from the 1st
March, it would suit me well, for I would then save you trouble,
and it would free me from all anxiety on that score, especially
about my supposed daintiness. Now I presume I shall soon have
something more to say about this. Meanwhile, I pity you beforehand
on account of my acquaintanceship, and for the trouble I shall be
to you. May heaven help that I shall have something good and noble
to offer you.
Yours,
RICHARD WAGNER.
On reading this letter, admiration for the fearless courage of Wagner
grows upon one. A whole concert devoted to his own works! He little knew
with whom he was dealing. Wagner’s temper was quick, and I feared to
irritate him by conveying the certain refusal of the directors, but it
had to be done. It was a difficult and delicate matter to prevent
friction between Richard Wagner, possessed with the exalted notion of
his mission, on the one hand, and the steady-going time-serving
directors on the other. I saw Mr. Anderson. Timorous of the leap in the
dark he and his colleagues had made in engaging Wagner, they feared
hazarding the reputation of their concerts by the devotion of a whole
evening to Wagner’s works, but a compromise--that some selections should
be given--was readily effected. The conveyance of this news to Wagner
brought from him the following letter:--
My best thanks to you for so amiably taking such trouble. That you
sounded the directors of the Philharmonic as to the question
whether they would fill up a whole evening with selections from
those of my operas which I have arranged specially for concert
performances, although fully authorized to do so, produced a
somewhat disagreeable effect upon me. Heaven knows how strange it
is to me that I should force myself upon any body, and originally,
I only wished your opinion whether I had any chance to have one
concert set apart for my works, for in such case I should have held
back the various selections. I had a similar intimation from
Hogarth, to whom I briefly answered that I would conduct the
classical works only, and that if the directors later on wished to
perform any of my compositions, they might tell me so, when I
should select such as I deemed most appropriate, for which
contingency I should bring the orchestral parts with me, some of
which, no doubt, would require additional copies, the expense of
which, in London, could not be of much account. I am quite
satisfied with this arrangement, and the people will learn to know
me there. On the whole, I have really no special plan for my London
expedition, except to essay what can be done with a celebrated
orchestra, and further, a little change for me is desirable, but
under no circumstances can London even be a home for me. As you
open your hospitable doors to me, I shall avail myself of your
kindness, and if you will let me stay until I have found a suitable
apartment, I shall be grateful to you, and shall heartily beg
pardon of your amiable wife for my intrusion. I shall be in London
in the first days of March. I sincerely repeat to you that I have
no great expectations, for really I do not count any more upon
anything in this world. But I shall be delighted to gain your
closer friendship. The English language I do not know, and I am
totally without gift for modern languages, and at present am averse
to learn any on account of the strain on my memory. I must help
myself through with French. Now for mutual personal acquaintance,
Yours very faithfully,
RICHARD WAGNER.
ZURICH, 1st February, 1855.
[Sidenote: _HE STARTS FOR LONDON._]
The following incident, as showing the enmity towards Wagner prior to
his landing on these shores, should be noted. It was after receiving the
previous letter that I met James Davison, the editor of the London
“Musical World,” and also musical critic of the “Times,” at the house of
Leopold de Meyer, the pianist. We had hitherto been on terms of
friendship. The power of this gentleman was enormous. He told me, “I
have read some of Richard Wagner’s literary works; in his books he is a
god, but as long as I hold the sceptre of musical criticism, I’ll not
let him have any chance here.” He did his utmost. With what result is
matter of history.
The next letter from Wagner is dated Zurich, 12th February. In it he
speaks of “wishing for some quiet room, free from annoying visitors,
where no one but yourself, knowing of my existence, will come to pester
me while scoring part of my tetralogy. Your house I will gladly make as
my own, but as a number of strangers are likely to call, I hope to
escape them in solitude of unknown regions. You must not think this
strange, as I isolate myself at home the whole morning, and do not
permit a soul to come near me when at work, unless it be ‘Peps.’ You
will remember, too, when I did something similar to this at Dresden, and
left the world to go into retirement with August Roeckel.”
A few days after he left Zurich for London, his next letter being
dated--
PARIS, 2d March, 1855.
I am on the road to you. I expect to leave here Sunday morning
early, and shall accordingly arrive in London in the evening,
probably somewhat late. If, therefore, without further notice, I
must be so unceremonious with you, the friend, whom, alas, I am not
yet personally acquainted with, as to tumble right into the house,
then must I beg of you to expect me on Sunday night. Trusting that
I shall not ill-use your friendly hospitality, if only for this
night, for I suppose we shall succeed in trying to find on Monday
morning an agreeable lodging, in which I might at once install
myself, for from the many exertions, I fear I shall come very
fatigued to you. I do not doubt that you will have the kindness to
inform Hogarth that, dating from Monday morning early, I shall be
at the disposition of the directors of the Philharmonic. In so
doing I keep my promise to be in London a week before the first
concert. With the entreaty to best excuse me to your wife, and in
hearty joy of your personal acquaintanceship,
I am yours very faithful,
RICHARD WAGNER.
Wagner arrived at midnight precisely on Sunday, the fifth of March.
[Sidenote: _HIS HAT WOULD NOT DO._]
If I had not already acquired through the graphic letters of August
Roeckel an insight into the peculiarities of Richard Wagner’s habits of
thought, power of grasping profound questions of mental speculation,
whilst relieving the severity of serious discourse by the intermingling
of jocular ebulitions of fancy, I was soon to have a fair specimen of
these wondrous qualities. One of the many points in which we found
ourselves at home, was the habit of citing phrases from Schiller or
Goethe, as applicable to our subjects of discussion, as often ironically
as seriously. To these we added an almost interminable dictionary of
quotations from the plays and operas of the early part of the century.
These mental links were, in the course of a long and intimate
friendship, augmented by references to striking qualities, defects, or
oddities, our circle of acquaintances forming a means of communication
between us which might not inaptly be likened to mental shorthand.
Nothing could have exceeded the hilarity, when, upon showing him, at an
advanced hour, to his bedroom, he enthusiastically said, “August was
right; we shall understand each other thoroughly!” I felt in an exalted
position, and dreamed that, like Spontini, I had received a new
decoration from some potentate which delighted me, but the pleasant
dream soon turned to nightmare, when I could find no room on my coat to
place the newly acquired bauble. The next morning I found the
signification of the dream. Exalted positions have their duties as well
as their pleasures, and it became my duty to acquaint Wagner that a
so-called “Necker” hat (_i.e._ a slouched one) was not becoming for the
conductor of so conservative a society as the Philharmonic, and that it
was necessary that he should provide himself with a tall hat, indeed,
such headgear as would efface all remembrance of the social class to
which his soft felt hat was judicially assigned, for, be it known, in
some parts of Germany the soft slouched felt hat had been interdicted by
police order as being the emblem of revolutionary principles. I think it
was on the strength of the accuracy of this last statement that Wagner
gave way, and I at once followed up the success by taking the composer
of “Tannhäuser” to the best West End hatter, where, after an onslaught
on the sons of Britannia and their manias, we succeeded in fitting a hat
on that wondrous head of the great thinker. I could not help
sarcastically joking Wagner on his compulsory leave-taking with the
“revolutionary” hat for four months,--the time he was to sojourn amongst
us,--by citing from Schiller’s “Fiesco” the passage about the fall of
the hero’s cloak into the water, upon which Verina pushes him after it
with the sinister words, “When the purple falls, the duke must follow.”
As to Richard Wagner’s democratic principles, I observed that the
solitude of exile had considerably modified them. This I noticed to my
surprise and no less pain, for, when I anxiously inquired after our poor
friend, August Roeckel, he shrugged his shoulders and said, “Perhaps he
tries to revolutionize the prison warders, for the ‘Wuhlers’”
(uprooters, a name of the period) “are never at rest in their
self-elected role of reformers!” I, who knew the unambitious,
self-sacrificing nature of the poor prisoner, felt a pang of
disappointment at Wagner’s remark, and had often to suffer the same when
the year 1849 was mentioned.
[Sidenote: _A DIFFICULT INTERVIEW._]
We drove from the hatmaker straight to the city to inquire after a box
containing the compositions Wagner had been requested to bring over with
him. The box had arrived, and then we continued our peregrination back
to the West, alighting at Nottingham Place, the residence of Mr.
Anderson. The old gentleman possessed all the suave, gentle manner of
the courtier, and all went well during the preliminary conversation
about the projected programme, until Mr. Anderson mentioned a prize
symphony of Lachner as one of the intended works to be performed. Wagner
sprang from his seat, as if shot from a gun, exclaiming loudly and
angrily, “Have I therefore left my quiet seclusion in Switzerland to
cross the sea to conduct a prize symphony by Lachner? no; never! If that
be a condition of the bargain I at once reject it, and will return. What
brought me away was the eagerness to head a far-famed orchestra and to
perform worthily the works of the great masters, but no Kapellmeister
music; and that of a ‘Lachner,’ bah!” Mr. Anderson sat aghast in his
chair, looking with bewildered surprise on this unexpected outbreak of
passion, delivered with extraordinary volubility and heat by Wagner,
partly in French and partly in German. I interposed a more
tranquillizing report of the harangue and succeeded in assuring Mr.
Anderson that the matter might be arranged by striking out the “prize”
composition, to which he directly most urbanely acceded. Wagner, who did
not fail to perceive the startling effect his derisive attack on the
proposed work had produced on poor Mr. Anderson, whose knowledge of the
French language was fairly efficient in an Andante movement, but quite
incapable of following such a _presto agitato_ as the Wagner speech had
assumed, begged me to explain the dubious position of prize compositions
in all cases, and certainly no less in the case of the Lachner
composition, and Wagner himself laughingly turned the conversation into
a more general and quiet channel. After thus having tranquillized the
storm, the interview ended more agreeably than the startling episode had
promised. I, however, then clearly foresaw the many difficulties likely
to occur during the conductorship of a man of Wagner’s Vesuvius-like
temper, and the sequel amply proved that I had not been unduly
prejudiced in this respect. Yet in all his bursts of excitability, a
sudden veering round was always to be expected, should it chance that
the angry poet-musician perceived any ludicrous feature in the
controversy, when he would turn to that as a means of subduing his
ebullition of temper, and falling into a jocular vein, would plainly
show he was conscious of having exceeded the bounds of moderation. I was
glad that we had passed the Rubicon of our difficulties for the present,
for I was fully aware that whatever difficulties might arise with regard
to Wagner’s relation to the other directors, they would be easily
overcome by Mr. Anderson’s support, for it was he who unquestionably
ruled the “Camarilla,” or secret Spanish council, as Wagner styled the
“seven,” when any work proposed by them for performance met with
disapproval. I never could well understand how the Lachner episode
became known, but it is certain that it did, for the German opposition
journals, and there were many, made great capital out of the refusal of
Wagner to conduct a prize symphony.
[Sidenote: _HIS CHILDLIKE JOLLITY._]
Our next visit was an unclouded one. We went to call on Sainton, who was
as refined a soloist as he was an intelligent and energetic orchestral
leader. His jovial temperament, Gasconic fun (born at Toulouse), his
good and frank nature, pleased Wagner at once. Charles Lüders, a German
musician, “le frère intime” of Sainton, formed the oddest contrast to
his friend’s character. Quiet, reflective, and somewhat old-fashioned,
he nevertheless became an ardent admirer of Wagner’s music, and proved
that “extremes meet,” for in his compositions, and they are many, known
in Germany and in France, the good Lüders tenaciously clung to the
traditions of a past period. We soon identified him in gentle fun with
the “contrapuntista.” Notwithstanding the marked contrast of the
quartette, Wagner, Sainton, Lüders, and myself, we harmonized remarkably
well, and many were our pleasant, convivial meetings during the time of
Wagner’s stay in London. As Sainton had always been very intimate with
Costa, and was his recognized deputy in his absence, he accompanied us
on the first visit to the Neapolitan conductor, Wagner expressing a wish
to make Costa’s acquaintance. This was the only visit of etiquette
Wagner paid. He sternly refused to pay any more, no matter to whom, and
I gladly desisted from advocating any, though he suffered severely in
consequence from a press which stigmatized him as proud and unsociable.
We went home to dine. What a pleasant impression did the master give us
of his childlike jollity. Full of fun, he exhibited his remarkable power
of imitation. He was a born actor, and it was impossible not to
recognize immediately who was the individual caricatured, for Wagner’s
power of observation led him at all times to notice the most minute
characteristics of all whom he encountered. A repast in his society
might well be described as a “feast of reason and flow of soul,” for,
mixed in odd ways, were the most solid remarks of deep, logical
intuition, with the sprightliest, frolicsome humour. Wagner ate very
quickly, and I soon had occasion to notice the fatal consequences of
such unwise procedure, for although a moderate eater, he did not fail to
suffer severely from such a pernicious practice. This first day afforded
a side-light upon the master’s peculiarities. Never having been used to
the society of children, he was plainly awkward in his treatment of
them, which we did not fail to perceive whenever my little boy was
brought in to say “good-night.”
As soon as we had discovered a fitting apartment at Portland Place,
Regent’s Park, within a few minutes’ walk of my house, the first thing
he wanted was an easel for his work, so that he might stand up to score.
No sooner was that desire satisfied than he insisted on an eider-down
quilt for his bed. Both these satisfied desires are illustrative of
Wagner. He knew not self-denial. It was sufficient that he wished, that
his wish should be gratified. When he arrived in London his means were
limited, but nevertheless the satisfaction of the desires was what he
ever adhered to.
He had not been here a day before his determined character was made
strikingly apparent to me. In the matter of crossing a crowded
thoroughfare his intrepidity bordered close upon the reckless. He would
go straight across a road; safe on the other side, he was almost boyish
in his laugh at the nervousness of others. But this was Wagner. It was
this deliberate attacking everything that made him what he was;
timorousness was not in his character; dauntless fearlessness, perhaps
not under proper control, naturally gave birth to an iconoclast, who
struck with vigour at all opposition, heedless of destroying the penates
worshipped by others.
[Sidenote: _HIS FIRST LONDON CONCERT._]
The rehearsal and the introduction of the band of the Philharmonic was a
nervous moment for me. I knew the spirit of opposition had found its way
among a few members of the orchestra; indeed, it numbered one at least,
who felt himself displaced by Wagner’s appointment. However, Wagner
came. He addressed the band in a brotherly manner, as co-workers for the
glory of art; made an apt reference to their idol, his predecessor, and
secured the good-will at once of the majority. I say advisedly the
majority only, because they had not long set to work when he was gently
admonished by some that “they had not been in the habit of taking this
movement so slowly, and that, perhaps, the next had been taken a trifle
too fast.” Wagner was diplomatic; his words were conciliatory, but, for
all that, he went on his way, and would have the _tempi_ according to
his will. At the end he was applauded heartily, and henceforth the band
apparently followed implicitly his directions.
The first concert took place on the 12th March; the programme was as
follows:--
Symphony Hadyn.
Operatic terzetto (vocal) Mozart.
Violin Concerto Spohr.
Scena (“Ocean, Thou Mighty Monster”) Weber.
Overture (“The Isle of Fingal”) Mendelssohn.
The “Eroica” Beethoven.
Duet (“O My Father”) Marschner.
Overture (“Zauberflöte”) Mozart.
The effect of the concert will be best understood by the following
notice, which I contributed at the time for the “New York Musical
Gazette”:--
The eagerly looked for event has taken place. Costa’s bâton, so
lately swayed with such majestical and even tyrannical ardour, this
self-same bâton was taken on Monday last (12th March) by Richard
Wagner. The audience rose almost _en masse_ to see the man first,
and whispers ran from one to another: “He is a small man, but what
a beautiful and intelligent forehead he has!” Haydn’s symphony, No.
7 (grand) began the concert, and opened the eyes of the audience to
a state of things hitherto unknown, as regards conducting. Wagner
does not beat in the old-fashioned, automato-metronomic manner. He
leaves off beating at times--then resumes again--to lead the
orchestra up to a climax, or to let them soften down to a
_pianissimo_, as if a thousand invisible threads tied them to his
bâton. His is the beau ideal of conducting. He treats the orchestra
like the instrument on which he pours forth his soul-inspired
strains. Haydn’s well-known symphony seemed a new work through his
inexpressibly intelligent and poetical conception. Beethoven’s
“Eroica,” the first movement of which used to be taken always with
narcotic slowness by previous conductors, and in return the funeral
march always much too fast, so as to rob it of all the magnificent
_gran’dolore_; the scherzo, which always came out clumsily and
heavily; and the finale, which never was understood.--Beethoven’s
“Eroica” may be said to have been heard for the first time here,
and produced a wonderful effect. As if to beat the Mendelssohnian
hypercritics on their own field, Wagner gave a reading of
Mendelssohn’s “Isle of Fingal” that would have delighted the
composer himself, and even the overture of “Die Zauberflöte”
(“Magic Flute”) was invested with something not noticed before. Let
it be well understood that Wagner takes no liberties with the works
of the great masters; but his poetico-musical genius gives him, as
it were, a second sight into their hidden treasures; his worship
for them and his intense study are amply proved by his conducting
them all without the score, and the musicians of the orchestra, so
lately bound to Costa’s reign at Covent Garden, and prejudiced to a
degree against the new man, who had been so much abused before he
came, and judged before he was heard (by those who are not capable
of judging him when they do hear him!)--this very orchestra already
adores Wagner, who, notwithstanding his republican politics, is
decidedly a despot with the orchestra. In short, Wagner has
conquered, and an important influence on musical progress may be
predicted for him. The next concert will bring us the “Ninth
Symphony” and a selection of “Lohengrin,” which the directors would
insist on, notwithstanding the refusal of the composer. The “Times”
abuses Wagner and revenges the neglected English conductors; mixes
up his music with the Revolution, 1848, and falsely states that he
hates Mozart, Beethoven, etc., etc., and furthermore asserts, just
as falsely, that he wrote his books in defence of his operas; but
is so virulent against the man, and says so little about his
conducting, that it strikes us the article must have been written
some years ago, as an answer to “Judaism in Music.” The “Morning
Post” agrees perfectly with us as to Wagner being the conductor of
whom musicians have dreamed, when they sought for perfection,
hitherto unbelieved.
[Sidenote: _SUPPER AFTER THE CONCERT._]
After the first concert, we went by arrangement to spend a few hours at
his rooms. Dear me, what an evening of excitement that was! There were
Wagner, Sainton, Lüders, Klindworth (whom I had introduced to Wagner as
a pupil of Liszt), myself and wife. Animal spirits ran high. Wagner was
in ecstasies. The concert had been a marked success artistically, and
Richard Wagner’s reception flattering. On arriving at his rooms, he
found it necessary to change his dress from “top to toe.” He had
perspired so freely from excitement that his collar was as though it had
that moment been dipped into a basin of water. So while he went to
change his attire and don a somewhat handsome dressing-robe made by
Minna, Sainton prepared a mayonnaise for the lobster, and Lüders rum
punch made after a Danish method, and one particularly appreciated by
Wagner, who, indeed, loved everything unusual of that description.
Wagner had chosen the lobster salad, I should mention, because crab fish
were either not to be got at all in Germany, or were very expensive.
When he returned he put himself at the piano. His memory was excellent,
and innumerable “bits” or references of the most varied description were
rattled off in a sprightly manner; but more excellent was his running
commentary of observations as to the intention of the composer. These
observations showed the thinker and discerning critic, and in themselves
were of value in helping others to comprehend the meaning of the music.
What he said has mostly found its way into print; indeed, it may be
affirmed that the greater part of his literary productions was only the
transcription of what he uttered incessantly in ordinary conversation.
Then, too, he sang; and what singing it was! It was, as I told him then,
just like the barking of a big Newfoundland dog. He laughed heartily,
but kept on nevertheless. He cared not. Yet though his “singing” was
but howling, he sang with his whole heart, and held you, as it were,
spellbound. There was the real musician. He felt what he was doing. He
was earnest, and that was, and is, the cause of his greatness. Then when
we sat at supper he was in his liveliest mood. Richard Wagner a German?
Why, he behaved then with all that uncontrolled expansion of the
Frenchman. But this is only another instance of those contradictions in
Wagner’s life. His volubility at the table knew no bounds. Anecdotes and
reminiscences of his early life poured forth with a freshness, a vigour,
and sparkling vivacity just like some mountain cataract leaping
impetuously forward. He spoke with evident pleasure of his reception by
the audience; praised the orchestra, remarking how faithfully they had
borne in mind and reproduced the impressions he had sought to give them
at the rehearsal. On this point he was only regretful that the
inspiration, the divination, the artistic electricity, as it were, which
is in the air among German or French executants, should be wanting here;
or, as he phrased it, “Ils jouent parfaitement, mais le feu sacré leur
manque.”
[Sidenote: _CONDUCTING WEBER’S MUSIC._]
Then followed his abuse of fashion. White kid gloves on the hands of a
conductor he scoffed at. “Who can do anything fettered with these
things?” he pettishly insisted; and it was only after considerable
pressure, and pointing out the aristocratic antecedents of the
Philharmonic and the class of its supporters, that he had consented to
wear a pair just to walk up the steps of the orchestra on first
appearing, to be taken off immediately he got to his desk. That evening,
at Wagner’s request, we drank with much acclamation eternal
“brotherhood,” henceforth to “tutoyer” each other, and broke up our
high-spirited meeting at two in the morning.
But the second concert, 26th March, 1855, the programme was after
Wagner’s own heart. It was, perhaps, the _one_ of the whole eight which
delighted him the most, embracing as it did the overture to “Der
Freischütz,” the prelude and a selection from “Lohengrin,” and
Beethoven’s “Ninth Symphony.” It was the first time any of Wagner’s
music was to be performed in England, and Wagner was anxious. But the
rehearsal was reassuring. At first the orchestra could not understand
the _pianissimo_ required in the opening of the “Lohengrin” prelude; and
then the crescendos and diminuendos which Wagner insisted upon having
surprised the executants. They turned inquiringly to each other,
seemingly annoyed at his fastidiousness. But the conductor knew what he
wanted and would have it. Then came the overture to “Der Freischütz.”
Now this was exceedingly popular in England, and it was thought nothing
could be altered in the mode of rendering it. Traditions, however, of
the “adored idol,” Weber, were strong in Wagner, and he took it in the
composer’s way; the result was, that at the concert the applause was so
boisterous, and the demands of the audience so emphatic, that a
repetition was at once given. That the overture was repeated will show
how insistent were the audience, for Wagner then, as afterwards, was
decidedly opposed to encores; however, upon this occasion there was no
way of avoiding the repeat. Though, as I have said, the overture was
extremely popular, yet the reading was so new and striking, the phrasing
and _nuances_ marked with such decision, that the people were startled,
and expressed their appreciation heartily.
The reception of the “Lohengrin” selection, too, was unmistakably
favourable. The delicately fragile orchestration of the sweetly melodic
prelude, followed by the bright and attractive rhythmical phrases of the
bridal chorus, caused a bewildered, pleased surprise among the audience,
who had expected something totally different. The “music of the future
was noise and fury,” so said the leading English musical journal, and
this authority counted for something; but the “Lohengrin” prelude was
very inaccurately described, if that had been included, and Wagner felt
pleased and contented at the impression which the first performance of
any of his music had created in this country.