The Testimony of Mother and Son
Carl van Bethoven [sic] age 12 years, student in the 3rd Latin class, was examined:Had he received good testimonials?“Eminent” in Latin, “1st class” in other studies.Why had he left his uncle?Because his mother had told him she would send him to a public school and he did not think he would make progress under private instruction.How did his uncle treat him?Well.Where had he been of late?He had been in hiding at his mother’s.Where would he rather live—at his mother’s or his uncle’s?He would like to live at his uncle’s if he but had a companion, as his uncle was hard of hearing and he could not talk with him.Had he been prompted by his mother to leave his uncle?No.When did he leave him?Eight days ago.How could he say that he could not succeed under private instruction when he had made such good progress?This had been the case since he had studied in public; before that he had received 2nd class in mathematics and had not made it up.Had his mother commanded him to return to his uncle?She had wanted to take him back to him herself, but he had resisted because he feared maltreatment.Had his uncle maltreated him?He had punished him, but only when he deserved it; he had been maltreated only once, and that after his return, when his uncle threatened to throttle him.How long had he been with his mother?Two days.Who had given him instruction in religion?The same teacher who taught him other subjects, formerly the priest at Mödling, who was not kindly disposed towards him because he did not behave himself in the street and babbled (or talked) in school.Had he indulged in disrespectful remarks about his mother?Yes; and in the presence of his uncle, whom he thought he would please in that way and who had agreed with him.Was he often alone?When his uncle was not at home he was left wholly alone.Had his uncle admonished him to pray?Yes; he prayed with him every morning and evening.Johanna van Beethoven examined:How did her son come to her from the house of his guardian?He had come to her in the evening for fear of punishment and because he did not like to live with his uncle.Had she advised him to return to his uncle?Yes; but her son did not want to do so because he feared maltreatment.It looked as if she had concealed her son?She had written to her brother-in-law that she would send her son back to him, but she had not seen him for a long time and was therefore glad to have him with her for awhile, and for this reason she had not sent him back at once.Had she been forbidden to see her son?Her wish to do so had been frustrated by telling her of different places where she might see him, but when she went to the places he was not there.Had her son been taken from her by the police?She had herself taken him to the police at 4 o’clock.How did she learn of the plan to send her son out of the country?Giannatasio had disclosed the project to the police.Did she consider that her son had been well treated at his uncle’s?She thought it unsuitable for the reasons given in her former application. She wished to say in particular that v. Beethoven had only one servant and that one could not rely on servants; he was deaf and could not converse with his ward; there was nobody to look after the wants of her son satisfactorily; his cleanliness was neglected and supervision of his clothing and washing; persons who had brought him clean linen had been turned back by his guardian.What prospects had she for caring for her son?She had previously had the assurance of Count von Dietrichstein that her son would be accepted at the Convict; she had not been to him since because her application [to the Court] had been rejected.In whose presence had her son spoken disrespectfully of her?She had not herself heard him do so, nor could she mention the names of persons who had heard him.From what source would she meet the deficiency in her income which would have to be applied to the support of her son?She had no fortune herself but the Hofconcipist Hotschevar would defray the expenses.Was her husband of noble birth?So the brothers had said; the documentary proof of nobility was said to be in the possession of the oldest brother, the composer. At the legal hearing on the death of her husband, proofs of nobility had been demanded; she herself had no document bearing on the subject.
Carl van Bethoven [sic] age 12 years, student in the 3rd Latin class, was examined:
Had he received good testimonials?
“Eminent” in Latin, “1st class” in other studies.
Why had he left his uncle?
Because his mother had told him she would send him to a public school and he did not think he would make progress under private instruction.
How did his uncle treat him?
Well.
Where had he been of late?
He had been in hiding at his mother’s.
Where would he rather live—at his mother’s or his uncle’s?
He would like to live at his uncle’s if he but had a companion, as his uncle was hard of hearing and he could not talk with him.
Had he been prompted by his mother to leave his uncle?
No.
When did he leave him?
Eight days ago.
How could he say that he could not succeed under private instruction when he had made such good progress?
This had been the case since he had studied in public; before that he had received 2nd class in mathematics and had not made it up.
Had his mother commanded him to return to his uncle?
She had wanted to take him back to him herself, but he had resisted because he feared maltreatment.
Had his uncle maltreated him?
He had punished him, but only when he deserved it; he had been maltreated only once, and that after his return, when his uncle threatened to throttle him.
How long had he been with his mother?
Two days.
Who had given him instruction in religion?
The same teacher who taught him other subjects, formerly the priest at Mödling, who was not kindly disposed towards him because he did not behave himself in the street and babbled (or talked) in school.
Had he indulged in disrespectful remarks about his mother?
Yes; and in the presence of his uncle, whom he thought he would please in that way and who had agreed with him.
Was he often alone?
When his uncle was not at home he was left wholly alone.
Had his uncle admonished him to pray?
Yes; he prayed with him every morning and evening.
Johanna van Beethoven examined:
How did her son come to her from the house of his guardian?
He had come to her in the evening for fear of punishment and because he did not like to live with his uncle.
Had she advised him to return to his uncle?
Yes; but her son did not want to do so because he feared maltreatment.
It looked as if she had concealed her son?
She had written to her brother-in-law that she would send her son back to him, but she had not seen him for a long time and was therefore glad to have him with her for awhile, and for this reason she had not sent him back at once.
Had she been forbidden to see her son?
Her wish to do so had been frustrated by telling her of different places where she might see him, but when she went to the places he was not there.
Had her son been taken from her by the police?
She had herself taken him to the police at 4 o’clock.
How did she learn of the plan to send her son out of the country?
Giannatasio had disclosed the project to the police.
Did she consider that her son had been well treated at his uncle’s?
She thought it unsuitable for the reasons given in her former application. She wished to say in particular that v. Beethoven had only one servant and that one could not rely on servants; he was deaf and could not converse with his ward; there was nobody to look after the wants of her son satisfactorily; his cleanliness was neglected and supervision of his clothing and washing; persons who had brought him clean linen had been turned back by his guardian.
What prospects had she for caring for her son?
She had previously had the assurance of Count von Dietrichstein that her son would be accepted at the Convict; she had not been to him since because her application [to the Court] had been rejected.
In whose presence had her son spoken disrespectfully of her?
She had not herself heard him do so, nor could she mention the names of persons who had heard him.
From what source would she meet the deficiency in her income which would have to be applied to the support of her son?
She had no fortune herself but the Hofconcipist Hotschevar would defray the expenses.
Was her husband of noble birth?
So the brothers had said; the documentary proof of nobility was said to be in the possession of the oldest brother, the composer. At the legal hearing on the death of her husband, proofs of nobility had been demanded; she herself had no document bearing on the subject.
Beethoven not of Noble Birth
The testimony of the widow, like that of her son, was taken before Beethoven had been examined and the answer to the final question, no doubt, raised a doubt in the mind of the court touching its jurisdiction; hence the question concerning his birth put to Beethoven. His answer that “van” was a Dutch predicate not confined to the nobility and that he had no proof of noble birth, is all that the minutes of the court show bearing on this question. Itled to theLandrecht’ssending the proceedings to the Vienna Magistracy on December 18; this action cut Beethoven to the quick, but the record as here produced also gives a blow, perhaps a fatal one, to one of the pretty romances to which a statement of Schindler’s gave currency. The world knows the story: Doubt having arisen in the mind of the court touching Beethoven’s nobility, he was called upon to produce documentary proof. “At the appointed time he appeared before the tribunal in person and exclaimed: ‘My nobility is here and here,’ pointing to his head and his heart.” But the court would not accept the proof. It is a pity to lose the story, but it must be relegated to the limbo of fiction unless it shall appear that Beethoven made the remark and the clerk refused to record it; and who shall now prove this? Schindler’s insinuation that the reference of the case to the Magistracy had been planned as a move by the widow’s advocate to get the case into a more pliant tribunal is made questionable by the circumstances that it was she who insisted upon the noble birth of the Beethovens and Beethoven who gave the claim a quietus by his straightforward and incontestable answer. It remains a mystery, if she spoke the truth when she said that proof of nobility had been demanded at the probate of the will of her husband, how the case ever got into theLandrecht. As a matter of fact, it deserves to be mentioned, however, that, as later events showed, the lower court espoused the cause of Madame van Beethoven with something like the zeal of an advocate.
Schindler’s comments on the effect of the reference of the case to the Civic Magistrates demand a moment’s attention. Schindler says:
The transfer of the case to the Magistracy was felt as an overwhelming blow by Beethoven. It would be difficult to maintain that Beethoven attached importance to appearing in the public eye as of noble birth, his origin as well as family conditions being well known—especially the latter by reason of the humble social position of his brothers. But it is certain that he laid great weight upon having his lawsuit adjudicated by the exceptional upper court, partly because as a matter of fact there was in that tribunal a better appreciation of his importance, partly because the lower court had an unfavorable reputation which could not inspire in him a hope for the desired outcome.[191]But nevertheless it may be saidas sure that neither his genius nor his works of art would have given him the privileged position which he occupied in the circles of the nobility had there not been a presumption that he was an equal. This was variously demonstrated as soon as the occurrence in the aristocratic court became known to the public. Not in the middle classes, but in the upper, the little word “van” had exercised a palpable charm. It is a settled fact that after the incident in the Lower AustrianLandrechtthe great city of Vienna became too small for our aggrieved master, and had he not been restrained by his sense of duty which was placed upon him by his brother’s will, the projected journey to England would have been undertaken and his sojourn there perhaps become permanent.
The transfer of the case to the Magistracy was felt as an overwhelming blow by Beethoven. It would be difficult to maintain that Beethoven attached importance to appearing in the public eye as of noble birth, his origin as well as family conditions being well known—especially the latter by reason of the humble social position of his brothers. But it is certain that he laid great weight upon having his lawsuit adjudicated by the exceptional upper court, partly because as a matter of fact there was in that tribunal a better appreciation of his importance, partly because the lower court had an unfavorable reputation which could not inspire in him a hope for the desired outcome.[191]But nevertheless it may be saidas sure that neither his genius nor his works of art would have given him the privileged position which he occupied in the circles of the nobility had there not been a presumption that he was an equal. This was variously demonstrated as soon as the occurrence in the aristocratic court became known to the public. Not in the middle classes, but in the upper, the little word “van” had exercised a palpable charm. It is a settled fact that after the incident in the Lower AustrianLandrechtthe great city of Vienna became too small for our aggrieved master, and had he not been restrained by his sense of duty which was placed upon him by his brother’s will, the projected journey to England would have been undertaken and his sojourn there perhaps become permanent.
It is also certain that Schindler was not as well informed as he ought to have been in the premises and that his memory often left him in the lurch, as we have frequently seen already and shall see again. Not exact knowledge but an amiable bias in favor of his hero speaks out of his recital. It is scarcely conceivable that Beethoven should have cherished the thought that possibly he was of noble birth or that he seriously encouraged such a belief among his exalted friends.
The nephew’s stay at Giannatasio’s was not of long duration and the signs of an imminent disruption of a beautiful and profitable friendship soon showed themselves, though for the nonce amiable relations between Beethoven and the Giannatasio family were continued. Yet Fanny saw her lovely illusions melting away. It had been agreed that Karl should not associate with the other pupils at the institute. Willing, perhaps desirous at first, that such an arrangement should be made, it seems that Beethoven felt hisamour proprehurt by it as soon as the first fit of resentment against the lad gave way before one of his tender moods; now there ensued one of the old fits of moroseness, dissatisfaction and suspicion. He wrote to Giannatasio that Karl’s room should be better heated—that he had never had frostbitten hands and feet when living with him;[192]moreover, too much importance was being attached to his act, and the consequences to the delinquent were being carried too far. In her diary under date December 14, Fanny deplores that Beethoven’s moodiness, and weakness for the lad, had taken possession of him again and induced him to believe “the liar” rather than his tried friends; she concludes with the lamentation that it will never be possible to gain Beethoven’s entire confidence; she has grievous forebodings as to the outcome.
Work upon Three Masterpieces
Let the rest of the year’s history be devoted to Beethoven’s creative work. Considering the revival of interest and desire on the part of the composer, the net result, measured by finished products, was not as large as might have been expected. Two explanations for this circumstances may be offered: the first lies in his domestic miseries and the frame of mind in which they kept him for long stretches at a time—that is obvious; the second may be read in his compositions. He was growing more and more prone to reflection, to moody speculation; his mental processes, if not slower than before, were more protracted, and also more profound, and they were occupied with works of tremendous magnitude. The year produced sketches and partial developments of the Sonata in B-flat, the Symphony in D minor and the great Mass in D. The Sonata, so two sketchbooks carefully analyzed by Nottebohm show, was begun in 1817, and occupied much of the composer’s time during the summer of 1818, notes showing that he worked upon it in his walks about Mödling and in the Brühl valley. Notes of an announcement of a sale of carriages and of a house for rent, taken from a Vienna newspaper (probably in some inn), show that his thoughts were on the London visit and another of his frequent changes of residence. In April the Sonata was so far advanced that he could write to Archduke Rudolph that on his name-day (April 17) he had written out the first two movements in a fair copy, but this does not necessarily mean that the pieces had received their definitive shape. Among the sketches for the last movement there is an outline for a pianoforte piece in B-flat which, according to an inscription upon the autograph, was composed on the afternoon of August 14.[193]Plainly he was already at work on the finale before the end of 1818, and there is no reason for questioning Schindler’s correctness when he says that the Sonata was finished late in the fall when he took up the “Missa Solemnis.” Czerny played it in Beethoven’s presence in the spring of 1819, and it was in London ready for the engraver in April of that year.
Nottebohm, believing that the letter in which Beethoven informed the Archduke that he had written out the first two movements on his name-day could not refer to April 17, 1818, placed both incident and letter in the year following.[194]But, ashas been said, it does not at all follow from Beethoven’s remark that the two movements were in a finished state;[195]the reference may have gone only to the first elaboration of the sketches. The “latest happening” to the Archduke was, probably, his elevation to the archbishopric of Olmütz, which occurred on June 4, 1819; but this was merely the formal execution of a purpose which had long been known in anticipation. Nottebohm’s contention for the name-day of 1819, is untenable for the reason that on April 17 of that year the Sonata had been so long in London that, as Ries says, it was already engraved when he received a note dated April 16, 1819, giving metronomic indications for all the movements and prefixing theAdagiowith its present first measure.[196]This note must have been preceded by the one erroneously dated April 30; erroneously, because it promises the metronome marks; and this letter again by a still earlier one, mentioning the Sonata as ready for publication. This letter, which Ries does not even mention, is as follows:[197]
Dear Ries:I am just recovering from a severe attack and am going into the country—I wish you would try to dispose of the following 2 works, a grand solo sonata for pianoforte and a pianoforte sonata which I have myself arranged for 2 violins, 2 violas, 1 violoncello, to a publisher in London. It ought to be easy for you to get 50 ducats in gold for the two works, the publisher would only have to announce at what time he intended to publish the two works and I could publish them here at the same time, which would yield me more than if I published them here only. I might also publish a new Trio for pianoforte, violin and violoncello, if you were to find a publisher for it.[198]I have never done anything unlawful and you can take up this matter in London without injury to your honor or mine. The publisher on receiving the works is to inform me when he intends to publish them and then they shall appear here. Pardon me if I am giving you trouble; my condition is such that I amobliged to turn everywhere to make a pitiful livelihood—Potter says that Chaphell in Bond Street is one of the best publishers; I leave everything to you only begging you to answer as soon as possible so that the works may not lie idle on my hands. I beg of Neate not to make known the many works of mine which he carried with him until I myself come to London which I hope surely to do next winter—I must unless I wish to become a beggar here. Say all things beautiful to the Phil. Society—I shall soon write you about various things and beg you again to answer soon. As ever your true friendBeethoven.Many lovely greetings to your lovely wife.N. B. If you can get more, all the better. It ought to be possible!!!
Dear Ries:
I am just recovering from a severe attack and am going into the country—I wish you would try to dispose of the following 2 works, a grand solo sonata for pianoforte and a pianoforte sonata which I have myself arranged for 2 violins, 2 violas, 1 violoncello, to a publisher in London. It ought to be easy for you to get 50 ducats in gold for the two works, the publisher would only have to announce at what time he intended to publish the two works and I could publish them here at the same time, which would yield me more than if I published them here only. I might also publish a new Trio for pianoforte, violin and violoncello, if you were to find a publisher for it.[198]I have never done anything unlawful and you can take up this matter in London without injury to your honor or mine. The publisher on receiving the works is to inform me when he intends to publish them and then they shall appear here. Pardon me if I am giving you trouble; my condition is such that I amobliged to turn everywhere to make a pitiful livelihood—Potter says that Chaphell in Bond Street is one of the best publishers; I leave everything to you only begging you to answer as soon as possible so that the works may not lie idle on my hands. I beg of Neate not to make known the many works of mine which he carried with him until I myself come to London which I hope surely to do next winter—I must unless I wish to become a beggar here. Say all things beautiful to the Phil. Society—I shall soon write you about various things and beg you again to answer soon. As ever your true friend
Beethoven.
Many lovely greetings to your lovely wife.
N. B. If you can get more, all the better. It ought to be possible!!!
Beethoven Defends Some Overtures
The letters printed in the “Notizen” ought to be read in connection with this; we give the first and refer the reader to Ries, or the collections, for the others:
Vienna, 30 April (March). 1819.My dear Ries:It is only now that I can answer your last of December 18th. Your sympathy does me good. At present it is impossible for me to come to London owing to a net of circumstances in which I am involved; but God will help me surely to get to London next winter when I shall also bring the new symphonies with me. I am expecting soon to get the text for a new oratorio which I am writing for the Musical Society here and which may serve us also in London. Do everything for me that you can; for I need it. Commissions from the Philharmonic Society would have been very welcome; the reports which Neate sent me about the near failure of the three overtures were vexing to me; each one of them not only pleased here each in its way but those in E-flat and C major made a great impression. The fate of these compositions with the p. S. is incomprehensible to me. You will have before now received the arranged quintet and the sonata. See to it that both works especially the quintet, are engraved at once. More leisure may be taken with the sonata but I should like to have it published inside of two months, or three at the latest. Your earlier letter referred to I did not receive; wherefore I had no hesitation in selling both works here—but that is only for Germany. Moreover it will be three months also before the sonata will appear here; but make haste with the Quintet. So soon as the draft for the money is received here I will send a writing for the publisher as proprietor of these works in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, etc.You shall receive the tempos for the sonata according to Mälzel’s metronome by the next post. De Smidt, Courier of Prince Esterhazy, has taken the Quintet and Sonata with him. At the next opportunity you will also receive my portrait, since I hear that you really want it.Farewell, keep me in your affections.Your friend,Beethoven.Say all beautiful things to your beautiful wife for me!!!!!
Vienna, 30 April (March). 1819.
My dear Ries:
It is only now that I can answer your last of December 18th. Your sympathy does me good. At present it is impossible for me to come to London owing to a net of circumstances in which I am involved; but God will help me surely to get to London next winter when I shall also bring the new symphonies with me. I am expecting soon to get the text for a new oratorio which I am writing for the Musical Society here and which may serve us also in London. Do everything for me that you can; for I need it. Commissions from the Philharmonic Society would have been very welcome; the reports which Neate sent me about the near failure of the three overtures were vexing to me; each one of them not only pleased here each in its way but those in E-flat and C major made a great impression. The fate of these compositions with the p. S. is incomprehensible to me. You will have before now received the arranged quintet and the sonata. See to it that both works especially the quintet, are engraved at once. More leisure may be taken with the sonata but I should like to have it published inside of two months, or three at the latest. Your earlier letter referred to I did not receive; wherefore I had no hesitation in selling both works here—but that is only for Germany. Moreover it will be three months also before the sonata will appear here; but make haste with the Quintet. So soon as the draft for the money is received here I will send a writing for the publisher as proprietor of these works in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, etc.
You shall receive the tempos for the sonata according to Mälzel’s metronome by the next post. De Smidt, Courier of Prince Esterhazy, has taken the Quintet and Sonata with him. At the next opportunity you will also receive my portrait, since I hear that you really want it.
Farewell, keep me in your affections.
Your friend,Beethoven.
Say all beautiful things to your beautiful wife for me!!!!!
The Sonata was sold to Artaria in Vienna for 100 ducats. The publisher sent the proofs to Beethoven on July 24, and announced it as “marking a new period in Beethoven’s pianoforte works” in the “Wiener Zeitung” of September 15, 1819. It appeared under the title: “Grosse Sonate für das Hammerklavier Seiner Kais. Königl. Hoheit und Eminenz, dem Durchlauchtigsten Hochwürdigsten Herrn Erzherzog Rudolph von Österreich Cardinal und Erzbischoff von Olmütz, etc., etc., etc., in tiefster Ehrfurcht gewidmet von Ludwig van Beethoven, Op. 106.” Soon after its publication (on October 1st), Beethoven in a jocose letter asked for six copies of the Sonata and six of the Variations on Scottish Songs. Beethoven informed Ries of the publication in a letter printed in the “Notizen” and wanted to send him a copy to aid him in correcting the English edition, which was not ready. The Sonata Op. 106 was, therefore, the chief product of the year 1818. Beethoven told Czerny that it was to be his greatest; and so it is, not only in its dimensions but also in its contents. “The Sonata was composed under distressful circumstances,” said Beethoven in a letter to Ries (April 19, 1819), “for it is hard to write almost for the sake of bread alone, and to this pass I have come.”
Simultaneously with the Sonata, Beethoven was at work on the Ninth Symphony during a large portion of the year, but these labors were suspended when his mind became engrossed with the great Mass which was to be a tribute to his pupil, Archduke Rudolph, about to be invested with eminent ecclesiastical dignities. Not alone the Ninth Symphony, a Tenth also was before his fancy, but with neither of them had Schiller’s “Ode to Joy” been brought into association, though the employment of the human voice in one or the other was already under consideration. Schindler records that he saw a beginning made on the score of the Mass in D “late in the fall of 1818”; how far he had proceeded in the work by the end of the year cannot be determined from the sketches which have been discovered up to the present time. It is safe to assume, however, that theKyriewas fully sketched and fixed in outline, and, as he worked pretty continuously on theCredothroughout 1819, it seems likely that theGloriahad also been begun in the year immediately preceding. Notes in theTagebuchand sketchbooks which, to judge by their context, were written during the summer sojourn in Mödling show the trend of Beethoven’s thoughts on religious subjects and may be naturally associated with the Mass. Thus (in theTagebuch):
In order to write true church music ... look through all the monastic church chorals and also the strophes in the most correct translations and perfect prosody in all Christian-Catholic psalms and hymns generally.Sacrifice again all the pettinesses of social life to your art. O God above all things! For it is an eternal providence which directs omnisciently the good and evil fortunes of human men.Short is the life of man, and whoso bearsA cruel heart, devising cruel things,On him men call down evil from the godsWhile living, and pursue him, when he dies.With cruel scoffs. But whoso is of generous heartAnd harbors generous aims, his guests proclaimHis praises far and wide to all mankind,And numberless are they who call him good.—Homer.Tranquilly will I submit myself to all vicissitudes and place my sole confidence in Thy unalterable goodness, O God! My soul shall rejoice in Thy immutable servant. Be my rock, my light, forever my trust!
In order to write true church music ... look through all the monastic church chorals and also the strophes in the most correct translations and perfect prosody in all Christian-Catholic psalms and hymns generally.
Sacrifice again all the pettinesses of social life to your art. O God above all things! For it is an eternal providence which directs omnisciently the good and evil fortunes of human men.
Short is the life of man, and whoso bearsA cruel heart, devising cruel things,On him men call down evil from the godsWhile living, and pursue him, when he dies.With cruel scoffs. But whoso is of generous heartAnd harbors generous aims, his guests proclaimHis praises far and wide to all mankind,And numberless are they who call him good.—Homer.
Short is the life of man, and whoso bearsA cruel heart, devising cruel things,On him men call down evil from the godsWhile living, and pursue him, when he dies.With cruel scoffs. But whoso is of generous heartAnd harbors generous aims, his guests proclaimHis praises far and wide to all mankind,And numberless are they who call him good.—Homer.
Short is the life of man, and whoso bearsA cruel heart, devising cruel things,On him men call down evil from the godsWhile living, and pursue him, when he dies.With cruel scoffs. But whoso is of generous heartAnd harbors generous aims, his guests proclaimHis praises far and wide to all mankind,And numberless are they who call him good.
—Homer.
Tranquilly will I submit myself to all vicissitudes and place my sole confidence in Thy unalterable goodness, O God! My soul shall rejoice in Thy immutable servant. Be my rock, my light, forever my trust!
Among the sketches for the Sonata in B-flat are memoranda of vocal pieces which came into his mind during his wanderings in the environs of Mödling. Goethe’s “Haidenröslein,” to which his mind several times turned, occupied him again. His spiritual exaltation finds expression in fragments which he notes as “written while walking in the evening between and on the mountains,” among them this:
Gott allein ist unser Herr. Er allein(God alone is God our Lord. He alone)
Gott allein ist unser Herr. Er allein(God alone is God our Lord. He alone)
Great Works and Potboilers
The remark made in the letter to Hauschka that he was compelled to do a lot of scribbling (or “smearing,” as he expressed it) for the sake of money in order to procure leisure for great works may be explained by the fact that he was engaged upon the arrangement of folksongs for Thomson, which were published in Thomson’s Vol. VI, as well, possibly, as those contained in the subsequent octavo edition of 1822-24. The pianoforte piece in B-flat, published by Schlesinger in Berlin under the title “Dernière pensée musicale,” of which mention has already been made, was no doubt a potboiler. With the folksongs must be associated the Variations for Pianoforte alone, or Pianoforte and Flute (or Violin), which he wrote in this and the following year and which were published as Op. 105 and 107. The suggestion had come from Birchall; but Beethoven’s demands for an honorarium was thought too large by the English publisher, and though Beethoven modified them, nothing came of the project at the time. On February 21, 1818, Beethoven offered Thomson twelve “overtures” (in the sense of introductions, or preludes, no doubt) for 140 ducats, and twelve Themes and Variations for 100 ducats, both lots for 224 ducats. The Themes and Variations were accepted and published by Thomson. Beethoven composed sixteen Themes and Variations on folksong material in all; six of them were published by Artaria in Vienna (Op. 105) and the other ten by Simrock in Bonn (Op. 107).
Little is to be added to what has been said about the works published in 1818. Thomson’s Vol. V, the settings for which had been made earlier, was published on June 1, Thomson’s announcement in the preface reading: “On the first of June, 1818, was published by George Thomson, Nr. 3, Royal Exchange, Edinburgh, and by T. Preston, 97 Strand, London, the fifth Volume of Select Scottish Melodies with Symphonies and Accompaniments to each Melody for the Pianoforte, Violin and Violoncello, composed by Haydn and Beethoven.” Four of the settings are by Haydn; the rest by Beethoven. The song “Resignation” was published on March 31, as supplement of the Vienna “Modezeitung.”
End of Volume II